BOOK REVIEWS

Early Metallurgy, Trade and Urban Centres in Thailand and Southeast Asia. Ian Glo­ver, Pornchai Suchitta, and John Villiers, eds. Bangkok: White Lotus. 231 pp.

Reviewed by CHARLES HIGHAM, University of Otago

During the early 1980s, the British Acad­emy maintained a Research School inSoutheast Asia, first in Singapore and from1984 in Bangkok. Under the direction ofMilton Osborne and then John Villiers, itprovided a research base for British andoccasionally Commonwealth scholars bymaintaining a modest library and physicalpresence, and provided small grants for re­search. After a move from Singapore toBangkok, it was decided to hold a confer­ence linked with the official opening of thenew home. The meeting, held both inBangkok and Nakhon Pathom, was wellattended and attracted a number of newand interesting papers. This book contains13 of the 24 contributions and representsboth an ave and a vale to the School, for itwas soon to be closed.

In the introduction, Ian Glover describeshow the conference was designed to revisitissues raised at a colloquy held in Londonin 1973, later published in a major book,Early South-East Asia (Smith and Watson1979). Although the 13 surviving papersdo not cohere thematically, the book as awhole is a useful and welcome addition tothe limited literature on the topics covered.

Bayard's contribution has the commend­able aim of examining the data used tounderpin interpretations and explanationsof the prehistoric record with particularreference to Thailand. It is, for example,alarming to find that such a simple statisticas the estimated area of prehistoric Ban

Asian Persptctivt1, Vol. 33, no. 2, © 1994 by University of

Hawai'i Press,

Chiang varies from not over 5 ha (Highamand Kijngam 1984) to 50 ha (White 1982).In an age when population numbers andsite size provide basic information for so­cial interpretations, this divergence is notacceptable, and exaggeration has alreadyprovided some dreadful errors of interpre­tation by the unwary (MacDonald 1980).Bayard has for long been a sceptic ofattempts to understand Thai prehistorythrough the application of general models.In his paper, he eschews such terms asautonomous village or chiefdom, termsthat in my view open the area to compar­ative analysis with better-documented re­gions. He advocates such terms as Ban andMuang. Would he wish to substitute Viet­namese, Khmer, or Mon terms in otherparts of Southeast Asia? He also finds littleto commend my use of a prestige good ex­change model in trying to understand whatvariables operated in prehistoric SoutheastAsia. Here again, our paths diverge, forwhere I find it stimulating to take interpre­tative scenarios (models is not a word ad­vocated by Bayard) and see if they work inour region, Bayard feels that the materialmust be considered without the advantageofa comparative approach. This does not im­ply that Bayard's contribution has little merit.Like everything he writes, it is fair, stimulat­ing, and must be considered carefully.

Chu-mei Ho presents a brief reviewof her fieldwork in the Lopburi Region.At once, we find terminological problemscompared with the previous paper, forwhere Bayard prefers the anodyne termsGeneral Period A or B, she uses the terms

ASIAN PERSPECTIVES

"Early Metal Age" and "High Metal Age."Why can't we use terms like Neolithic andBronze Age? Ho has undertaken some veryuseful research in central Thailand, and it isparticularly helpful to read her thoughts onthe distribution of moated sites, a key fac­tor in understanding growing social com­plexity in central Thailand.

Pigott, Natapintu, and Theetiparivatraconsider aspects of the copper miningcomplex at Phu Lon, on the southernbank of the Mekong River. It is refreshingto find them considering social aspects ofthe site, such as seasonality of copper min­ing. But a word of caution is also necessaryon the old chestnut, chronology. They re­fer to the bronze spear from early periodBan Chiang as dating to 2000 B.C. and tothe inception of copper working at PhuLon to the early second millennium B.C.

with a reference to a 1988 publication byNatapintu for the supporting radiocarbondates. The radiocarbon dates for successivecontexts at Phu Lon at 2 sigma are 1750­1425 B.C. (basal), 1000-420 B.C., and790-275 B.C. This suggests to me a datein the middle of the second millennium,although one date for a particular contextis of little value.

For anyone interested in metal workingin early Southeast Asia, Bronson's contri­bution is essential reading. Carefully re­searched and well illustrated with usefuldistribution maps, the paper covers dis­tribution, extractive technology, and ex­change of metals and is rich in ethno­graphic analogies and insights into a hostof relevant variables. It also comprises al­most a quarter of the entire book.

Suchitta's article that follows is a usefuladdition to our knowledge of iron work­ing in central Thailand, confirming be­yond reasonable doubt that late prehistoricand early historic iron technology involveda bloomery furnace. It thus stands in sharpcontrast to the Chinese casting tradition.Vallibhotama then considers the settlementforms in which such iron forging played akey technical role. He has an unsurpassedexperience of field archaeology in this re­gion, and brings all his knowledge to bearon the distribution of the earlier moatedsites in central Thailand.

33(2) . FALL 1994

One of the most impressive aspects ofthe conference was the number of Thaiarchaeologists who contributed papers anddiscussion. Saraya has contributed a not­able study of the site of Sri Thep and theshadowy polity known as Sri Chanasa;Veeraprasert has brought together someuseful information on the remarkable siteof Khlong Thom, with its rich assemblageof beads; and Indrawooth describes amu­lets in the context of exchange contacts be­tween India and Southeast Asia.

Watson's excavations at Khok Charoenwere among the earliest undertaken by for­eign workers in Thailand. Intrigued by thewidespread distribution of pottery decor­ated with impressed bands, he explores therelationships in prehistory between variousparts of Southeast Asia. This particular dec­orative technique has assumed considerablesignificance of late as a widespread markerof the probable intrusion of agriculturalistsfrom the upper Yangzi Valley who spokeone of a number of proto Austro-Asiaticlanguages, and Watson's sharp eye for de­tail represents an early recognition of thesesimilarities.

With this paper, we leave the mainlandand explore through three further contri­butions, aspects of the pre- and early his­tory of the islands. It is always a pleasureto follow Solheim's grand designs and far­flung contacts forged by his Nusantaotraders, even if his ideas have attracted fewfollowers. I, for one, wonder why it tooksuch a long time for bronzes to reachIsland Southeast Asia if his exchange con­tacts were so early and intensive. More pro­saic, and certainly better founded in fact, isWisseman-Christie's consideration of earlyJavanese trade, and the proceedings endwith Henson's account of the discovery andanalysis of jar burials in the Philippines.

This book is a pot-pourri of papers. Thereader can pick and choose, and few willnot find something of interest. If the aro­ma is not as fresh as it was in the after­math of the meeting, that is no fault ofthe editors, who must be commended ontheir grit and determination to do justiceto an occasion recalled in a final page ofphotographs that show some nostalgicflashbacks. Donn Bayard is seen with Chin

BOOK REVIEWS

You-di, the grand old man who did somuch to help aspiring youngfarang archae­ologists in the early days, and Pisit Char­oenwongsa, his spiritual descendant, wholikewise has smoothed the way for a gen­eration of eager prehistorians.

MACDoNALD, W. K.

1980 Some Implications of Societal Variability:Organizational Variability at Non NokTha, Thai/and, Ph.D. diss. Universityof Michigan, Ann Arbor.

SMITH, R. B., AND W. WATSON, EDS.

1979 Ear/y South-East Asia. Oxford: Ox­ford University Press.

REFERENCES

HIGHAM, C.F.W., AND A. KIJNGAM

1984 Prehistoric Investigations inThailand. Oxford: BARtiona! Series 231).

Northeast(Intema-

WHITE, J.1982 Ban Chiang: The Discovery of a Lost

Bronze Age. Philadelphia: UniversityMuseum, University of Pennsylvania.

History oj Civilizations oj Central Asia, Vol. I, The Dawn oj Civilization: EarliestTimes to 700 B.C. A. H. Dani, and V. M. Masson, eds. Paris: UNESCO Publish­ing, 1992. 535 pp.

Reviewed by JOHN W. OLSEN, Department ofAnthropology, University of Arizona

This book represents the landmark firstvolume of a projected six-volume seriescovering the entire spectrum of centralAsian prehistory and history from the Pa­laeolithic to the present. Conceived in 1976as a component of UNESCO's ongoingHistory of Civilizations of Central AsiaProject, this first volume to be released in­cludes contributions by 23 authors, fromAfghanistan, China, England, Hungary, In­dia, Iran, Italy, Mongolia, Pakistan, Russia,Tajikistan, the United States, and Uzbeki­stan.

According to the editors, the text is in­tended to address the inadequate represen­tation of Central Asia in the historicalcurricula of universities and secondary edu­cational institutions by providing reliableencyclopedic coverage of the region'smyriad cultural traditions and complex ar­chaeological record.

Although the book successfully accom­plishes this general goal, many of the spe­cific arguments underlying its general con­clusions suffer from the unfortunate andlargely uncontrollable history of its publi-

Asian Ptrsputives, VoL 33, no. 2, © 1994 by Universiry of

Hawai'i Press.

cation. The final text was accepted byUNESCO for publication in 1987, thusarchaeological discoveries and revised in­terpretations that emerged during the inor­dinately long 5-year period that the bookwas in production do not appear in thetext. In addition, it was during this periodthat the U.S.S.R. experienced its final dis­solution, and many local scholars in thenewly independent states of Central Asiahad not yet had the opportunity to ex­press their own views on the variousculture histories of Central Asia withoutthe dubious benefit of Soviet guidance.(The terms "Soviet Central Asia," "SovietUnion," and "U.S.S.R." appear through­out the text, although the editors pointout that subsequent volumes will reflectthe changes that have affected the regIOnover the past three years.)

These events, unfortunately, haveyielded a book that was, in part, signifi­cantly out of date before its release in termsof the basic archaeological data from whichrather specific conclusions are often drawn.Statements such as, "No remains of LowerPalaeolithic sites ... are so far known [inCentral Asia]" (p. 21) and "Cultural relicsof [the Palaeolithic] period have not yet

366 ASIAN PERSPECTIVES . 33(2) . FALL 1994

been found in the Xinjiang Uighur Auton­omous Region [China]" (p. 107) are nowknown to be incorrect, but only on the ba­sis of data forthcoming since 1987. Clearly,neither the editors nor individual authorscan legitimately be taken to task for thisproblem; it merely demonstrates one nega­tive consequence of the long productionschedules that are so often a feature of textsgenerated by large international committees.

The book's 20 chapters cover a geo­graphical territory bounded roughly by30° to 50° north latitude and 50° to 110°east longitude, a broad definition of "Cen­tral Asia," which the editors in their intro­duction, and L. I. Miroshnikov in his ex­cellent appendix, persuasively point outincorporates traditional topographically de­rived definitions with a recognition of thefact that central Asia is not a precisely de­limited cultural province.

The editors have forged interesting in­ternational alliances to produce archaeo­logical syntheses that exist in no othertext: Ranov, Dorj, and Lu on the LowerPalaeolithic (Chapter 2); Derevyanko andLu on the Upper Palaeolithic (Chapter 4);Derevyanko and Dorj on the Neolithic ofnorthern central Asia (Chapter 8); andTosi, Malek Shahmirzadi, and Joyenda onthe Bronze Age in Iran and Afghanistan(Chapter 9) are cases in point.

Fully competent authors were selectedto describe the archaeological sequences oftheir own geographical bailiwicks, and abalance successfully has been struck be­tween the presentation of basic data andtheir interpretation. My only qualm withsuch interpretations, and it is a rather sub­stantial qualm, is that they often seemto replicate what now seem rather anach­ronistic reconstructions of the past. Thestatement made in reference to physicalvariability discernable within central Asianpopulations that, "In southern Tajikistanthere was the same degree of gracility as inKara-depe and Geoksiur. Thus, the estab­lishment of the gracile varieties occurredmore intensely in Mghanistan and alongthe Amu Darya than in Turkmenistan andsouth Tajikistan" (p. 25, emphasis added)smacks of the sort of racial classification

that human biologists have shunned forthe past generation in the West.

The notions that "... Central AsianLower Palaeolithic groups of fossil mancame together and lived within the sameframework of the laws of general develop­ment as governed the same stage of anthro­pogeny in many parts of the Old World"(p. 62, emphasis added) and" ... one thingmay confidently be said: the ascent of con­temporary man, once the primeval andearly stages were past, was a single processthroughout all the continents of the globe" (p.63, emphasis added) hark back to a periodof Soviet-influenced anthropology that wasalready becoming less and less influentialbefore the collapse of the U.S.S.R. in1991 (Dolukhanov 1993).

The book's Chinese contributors persistin using the term "culture" while neglect­ing to provide a coherent definition of theword. What is one to make of statementssuch as, "The remains of the Kayue cul­ture are often superimposed on the Ma­jiayao or Qijia cultures" (p. 329)? Thisparticular confusion is compounded by theeditors' assertion in their concluding re­marks that Central Asia is best thought ofas "... one geographical, historical andcultural unit, covering its prehistoric andprotohistoric periods" (p. 473). This con­clusion struck me as especially odd becausemy long-held belief that Central Asia is mostaccurately characterized by the fluidity of itsgeographical and cultural borders and bynearly continuous openness to interactionwith its neighbors had been, I thought, am­ply borne out by the data and conclusionspresented by the book's many authors!

Indeed, of the book's more than 500pages, I find only the editors' concludingremarks, fortunately limited to only threepages (pp. 473-475), truly disappointing,because it is here that Dani and Massonfail to exercise their opportunity to drawtogether the complex threads of their au­thors' contributions. Instead, they havefallen back upon the hollow verbiage ofa bygone era that adds nothing to thebook's otherwise remarkable achievement.Cases in point: the editors conclude, " ...in the Neolithic period, man took a great

BOOK REVIEWS

step in his march towards civilization," andthey define human development as " ...the long and tedious process of man's en­deavour for better living conditions inwhich the whole of humanity has partici­pated with a sharing of knowledge andskills-a historical process reflecting com­plex dialectics and not all smooth sailing,but with periods of crisis, interruption andeconomic and cultural changes" (p. 474).

Dani and Masson are to be congratulatedfor wrestling a polyglot text through thetender mercies of professional translators.Descriptions of postglacial foragers as"Neolithic predators" and references to"dynamic husbandry" (= pastoral nomad­ism?) and "polycentral archaeological in­vestigations" (?) aside, the text is not seri­ously flawed by linguistic problems.

The contributions of Dani and Masson'sedited work far outweigh its problems,and, with adequate prior explanation ofthe recent historical context in which thebook's conclusions were drawn, studentsshould be able to employ the text's monu­mental synthetic contributions withoutbeing unduly perplexed by its quaint So­viet overtones. One hopes that theseanachronisms will be exorcised from fu­ture volumes in the series.

REFERENCES

DOlUKHANOV, P. M.1993 Archaeology in the ex-USSR: Post­

Perestroyka problems. Antiquity 67:150-156.

The Tasaday Controversy: Assessing the Evidence. Thomas N. Headland, ed. Amer­ican Anthropological Association Scholarly Series, Special Publication No. 28.Washington, D.C.: American Anthropological Association, 1992. 255 pp.

Reviewed by MARCUS B. GRIFFIN, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Although the Tasaday controversy remainsunresolved, reading this book gives anunderstanding of the passionate view­points, level of scholarly inquiry, and lackof data that has plagued the debate. Al­though an American Anthropological As­sociation Scholarly Series publication, theessays were written simply enough for apublic audience. This is important, consid­ering that the Tasaday stories captivatedand were perpetuated by public interestand imagination. The authors are to becommended for their clear prose.

There are 18 contributors to the volumerepresenting the "Skeptics," the "Suppor­ters," "New Perspectives on Old Data,""Comments from Outside Scientists," plus

Asian Perspectivls, Vol. 33, no. 2, © 1994 by Univt:rsity ofH:awa,i'j Press.

a preface, introduction, and conclusionby Thomas N. Headland. The commentsfrom scientists not previously involved inthe Tasaday controversy put the debate ina discussion larger than simply "are the Ta­saday a hoax or not." Perhaps, however,fewer contributors in the latter sectionsmight have avoided unnecessary redun­dancy.

Disagreement over the exact nature ofthe Tasaday controversy is clearly illu­strated in this book. Unfortunately, Head­land does not give this disagreementenough attention in his introduction orconclusion. He suggests a working hypoth­esis in the book, as he did for the AAAsymposium for which the chapters wereoriginally written:

A small band of people known asTasaday lived in caves in the south-

368 ASIAN PERSPECTIVES . 33 (2) . FALL 1994

em Philippines following a stone­tool-using foraging mode of subsis­tence, without iron, eating onlywild foods, and having no contactwith agricultural peoples (p. 15).

Although this is reasonable and is an at­tempt to keep discussions at a scholarlylevel, few authors actually stick to the hy­pothesis.

Following Headland's introduction, Ger­ald Berreman immediately accuses the"hoax busters" of switching from the Tasa­day-as-Stone-Age-people to a less contro­versial and more defendable position thatthe Tasaday are "real" people deservingrespect. Unfortunately, his sometimes vis­ceral prose prevents him from clearly dem­onstrating this switch. For example, on thequestion of linguistics, he talks past CarolMalony by pitting the authority of Sum­mer Institute of Linguistics (SIL) linguistClay Johnston against her. Berreman essen­tially says that Malony was too caught upin the Tasaday sensation to notice thatwhat they were speaking was nothingmore than Cotabato Manobo, the lan­guage of a neighboring agricultural peo­ple. He does not address the issue that theTasaday dialect lacked any agriculturalwords and the relevance Malony andothers claim this has for calculating the in­terrelatedness of Tasaday and CotabatoManobo. What Berreman does very well,however, is to raise significant questionsabout peculiarities in the actions of theTasaday and the field conditions in whichscientists were allowed to work.

Perhaps the least constructive chapter inthe book is that by Oswald Iten, theanthropology-trained Swiss journalist tofirst claim the Tasaday a hoax in 1986. Forexample, he suggests that Fathers SeanMcDonagh and Rex Mansmann of thePassionate Fathers of the Santa Cruz Mis­sion changed their minds from Tasaday­as-hoax to Tasaday-as-a-separate-ethnic­group to obtain a US $750,000 USAIDgrant. Iten offers only opinion and littledata to support his argument. He seems toplace himself above earlier researchers bysuggesting that if they had walked into

the area (as he did) instead of flying in byhelicopter they would have seen that theTasaday were simply Cotabato Manobowearing leaves.

The most persuasive argument set forthby those who consider the Tasaday a hoaxis by Levita Duhaylungsod and DavidC. Hyndman. They analyze the politicaleconomy of the region, rural developmentinterests, and the actions of the Office forSouthern Cultural Communities. Theirs isa well-documented essay demonstratinghow the Presidential Assistant for MinorityAffairs (PANAMIN) director Manuel Eliz­alde could have created the hoax and whyhe should want to. They also explain how"Tasaday" may have been related to othersin the area.

Scientists and commentators on bothsides of the debate called for additionalfieldwork to be done and rigorous dataanalysis. Amelia Rogel-Rara and Emma­nuel S. Nabayra do just this in their chap­ter, "The Genealogical Evidence." Theylayout their central questions surroundingwho is who in the area and explain theirresearch methodology. They returned tothe field to collect extensive pedigrees of20 "full-blooded Tasaday" adults and 20adult non-Tasaday who lived at the cavesas spouses. Through their analysis theydemonstrate that Zeus A. Salazar's widelydivergent genealogical data were taintedby informant inaccuracy. If we are ever tounderstand what happened in the early1970s, let alone who the Tasaday are orwere, more work such as Rogel-Rara'sand Nabayra's is necessary.

Chapters by Carol Malony, Richard E.Elkins, and Lawrence A. Reid explore lin­guistic data and conclude that Tasadayspeech is a separate but related dialect ofCotabato Manobo. Each supports the Tasa­day as a separate people. Linguistic contro­versy, such as that encouraged by Berre­man, has focused on what defines alanguage from a dialect and what dialectsindicate about the intensity of social inter­action or separation. Clay E. Johnston ex­plores the Tasaday language as well andconcludes that Tasaday and Cotabato Man-

BOOK REVIEWS

obo are about 90 percent the same, withsignificant and unusual differences betweenthe two.

Jesus T. Peralta, currently Director IV ofthe National Museum of the Philippinesand one of the few Filipino scientists al­lowed to visit the Tasaday, provides an in­sightful look at the role of the NationalMuseum in the Tasaday issue. He reflectson his early field experiences, the contro­versial stone tools, and his 1986 visit tothe Tasaday after the hoax sensation. Un­like other contributors to this volume, heoffers an explanation for why the Tasadaymay have wanted to wear leaves in 1986.

The implication ... was that the Ta­saday were putting on the leaves forthe benefit of outsiders who hadcome to see and photograph them,having been conditioned to this inthe past.... It appeared rather to bea spontaneous attempt to maintainan appearance because of the eco­nomic benefits that it brought (p.162).

Peralta concludes that Manobo and Tasa­day interaction will intensify even more inthe near future, resulting in linguistic andcultural convergence of the two, leavingthe Tasaday "as only so much ethno­graphic data" (p. 164).

Part IV, Comments from Outside Scien­tists, places the Tasaday controversy in aperspective larger than a simple "are theyor aren't they a hoax?" opposition. Ri­chard B. Lee locates the Tasaday in termsof three discourses: the Tasaday them­selves, the Tasaday and Philippine reality,and the Tasaday and the West. AlthoughLee takes the position that the Tasaday arenot a Stone Age relic isolated from outsidecontact for hundreds of years, he cautionsagainst casting them aside as a hoax.

We must not let the Tasaday case beused as a vehicle either for delegiti­mating anthropological studies ofhunters and gatherers, or as a vehiclefor delegitimating the foragers them­selves, by calling into question theircultural autonomy or claims to au-

thenticity-and by implication theirrights to survival as cultural entities(p. 171).

John Bodley and Leslie E. Sponsel pro­vide insightful essays on the debate and in­digenous people and also the role the Tasa­day have played in anthropological thoughtand inquiry. William A. Longacre makesan important and often overlooked pointin his chapter, "Cave Archaeology: A Pos­sible Solution to the Tasaday Problem."The scientists who originally conducted re­search on the Tasaday were highly trainedand equally experienced. As Longacre says,"Frank Lynch and Robert Fox were solidlytrained social anthropologists with exten­sive field experience in the Philippines"(p. 195). Although not mentioned, Dou­glas Yen and Jesus T. Peralta were by nomeans amateurs nor ignorant of Philippinepolitics and intrigue. One must questionthe likelihood that Fox, Lynch, and Per­alta could have been fooled by Elizaldeand Manobo actors. In the end, Longa­cre's call for archaeological analysis of theTasaday caves is a very good suggestion.

Headland provides a useful and compre­hensive conclusion and exhibits his usualfine attention to detail. He states what hasbecome clear: the controversy is notsettled, but the differences of argumenthave been clarified. However, because thisbook should be targeted to a popular aswell as academic audience, it is unfortu­nate that the reader is forced to piece to­gether that scientists who worked with theTasaday in the early 1970s were not, infact, heralding the Tasaday as a pristine,isolated, Stone Age people. Berremanrightfully points out that journalists andmovie stars far outnumbered scientists. Noauthor clearly separates the media-basedagenda of journalists and photographers onthe one hand and the serious scholars col­lecting empirical data to figure out whothe Tasaday really were on the other hand(Longacre comes closest). In any case, theTasaday are no longer the people theywere in the 1970s.

This book is a must-read for those inter-

37° ASIAN PERSPECTIVES . 33(2) . FALL 1994

ested in the debate. Now that the variousviewpoints have been brought together inone volume, perhaps we should shift our

anthropological gaze toward the Tasaday'sfuture rather than try to reinvent their past.

Lang Rongrien Rockshelter: A Pleistocene, Early Holocene Archaeological Site fromKrabi, Southwestern Thailand. Douglas D. Anderson. University Museum Mono­graph 71. Philadelphia: University Museum Publications, 1990.

Reviewed by DAVID J. WELCH, International ArchaeologicalResearch Institute, Inc., Honolulu, Hawai'i

In 1983 and 1984-1985 Douglas Andersondirected two seasons of archaeological ex­cavations at Lang Rongrien Rockshelter, asite on the Malay Peninsula in southwest­ern Thailand. Originally undertaken togather data on Hoabinhian hunter-gather­ers in this portion of the peninsula, the ex­cavations uncovered three cultural levelsunderlying the Hoabinhian levels. Thesecontained tool assemblages that are quitedistinct from the Hoabinhian, dominatedby flake rather than core tools. Four radio­carbon dates on charcoal from hearths inthe upper two of these levels ranged from27,000 to 38,000 B.P. As presented in thisreport, the deposits provide well-datedand probably the most reliable and best­documented evidence of Late Pleistocenehuman occupation in mainland SoutheastAsia. These excavations must be regardedas among the most important and informa­tive investigations of Pleistocene and earlyHolocene human adaptation in SoutheastAsia.

The rockshelter is located on the westcoast of the peninsula in the Krabi Rivervalley, about 12 km inland from the coast.The shelter, situated on the side of a towerkarst, is fairly large, with a floor space ofapproximately 450 m2. Although a sectionhad been disturbed by farmers gatheringorganic-rich soil for their fields, large areasfree from modem disturbance remained

AsidtJ PUSpUtiVll, Vol. 33, no. 2, © 1994 by Univeniry of

H3wai'j Press.

available for excavations. Fortunately, thedisturbance failed to extend below a thicklayer of roof fall that sealed the earliest cul­tural deposits. By excavating through theroof fall in the disturbed section, a substan­tial area of these earliest levels was exposedduring the second field season, while leav­ing the intact upper deposits elsewhere inthe shelter untouched.

The excavations were carried out care­fully, yielding a long stratigraphic recordof use and reuse of the shelter during thepast 40,000 years. The upper levels weredisturbed not only by recent activities butby burials placed in the shelter by late pre­historic populations. Ground stone axesand adzes and Neolithic pottery of typescommonly found on the Malay Peninsuladating to approximately the second millen­nium B.C. were found in association withthe burials. Two strata composing the mid­dle levels of the deposit contained typicalHoabinhian artifacts associated with radio­carbon dates ranging between 9700 and7500 years B.P. Sealed beneath the 1-m­thick layer of limestone rock fall werethree strata containing hearths, artifacts,bone, and charcoal. Although presenting amajor obstacle to the excavators and re­quiring a week of laborious effort to exca­vate through, the roof fall effectively sealedthose lower levels from later disturbance.Dates from the upper layer ranged be­tween 27,000 and 32,000 B.P.; a singledate of 37,000 B.P. was obtained from themiddle layer.

BOOK REVIEWS 371

In addition to presenting a full report onthe excavations and analyses of the recov­ered cultural materials, including detaileddescriptions of the artifacts recovered dur­ing the excavations, Anderson also in­cludes extensive comparative and interpre­tive material. After discussing the locationof the site in Chapter I, history of the ex­cavations in Chapter II, and the strati­graphic sequence and radiocarbon dates inChapter III, he places the prehistoric occu­pations within the context of likely pastenvironments and environmental changesin Chapter IV. He argues the importancenot only of the direct effects of Late Pleis­tocene and Early Holocene sea levelchanges on available land areas, but also ofthe ways in which these changes and otherfactors may have altered the SoutheastAsian climate during that span of time.Chapter V, although entitled "Descriptionof the Archaeological Materials," is muchmore than that. In discussing the Hoabinh­ian levels and artifacts, Anderson includes acomparative review of Hoabinhian assem­blages from elsewhere in Southeast Asiaand his conclusions on how the Lang Ron­grien assemblage fits in with these others.A similar comparative analysis is carriedout for both the Neolithic and Late Pleis­tocene materials. He concludes the reportwith suggested revisions of the SoutheastAsian Late Pleistocene-Early Holocenecultural sequence.

This book is thus more than a site re­port. Its strength lies in the wide-rangingcomparisons Anderson makes, his efforts tosynthesize Hoabinhian and Late Pleisto­cene materials from Southeast Asia, andhis placement of these materials within thecontext of environmental change duringthe periods the shelter was used. Andersonpresents two main arguments. First, he sug­gests that the Southeast Asian environmenthas been subject to more climatic changeduring the Late Pleistocene and EarlyHolocene than is generally recognized.Second, he argues that these changes arereflected in changes in the material cultureof those groups that inhabited SoutheastAsia during those periods. In his suggested

revlSlon of the Late Pleistocene-EarlyHolocene cultural sequence, he argues thatthe Hoabinhian cannot be seen simply asa continuation of an earlier Pleistocenecore tool chopper-chopping tool tradi­tion. The Hoabinhian should be consid­ered a distinct terminal Pleistocene-EarlyHolocene industry, one whose origin anddevelopment is related to the environmen­tal changes of that period. This Hoabinhiantool industry is quite distinctive from flaketool traditions that appear to be dominantin the Late Pleistocene, as documented atLang Rongrien and at several other sitesin Island Southeast Asia.

Errors in the text are minimal. My majorcriticisms concern the omission of a fewitems that I think would have strength­ened the report. Chapter II discusses theconduct of the excavations, but fails topresent any discussion of the initial objec­tives of the excavation, of why this partic­ular rockshelter was selected for excavationbeyond the recognition of it as an impor­tant site, or of the site's relationship toother sites in the survey area. Althoughthe descriptions of the artifactual materialare thorough, the information on the non­artifactual data is limited. An appendixcontains a count of the identifiable faunalremains found in the Hoabinhian layersand Table 2 provides a general indicationof the abundance of marine resourcesfound in different layers; however, a quan­titative and more detailed presentation ofthe faunal remains, especially from thelower levels, would have been welcome.Given Anderson's emphasis on the impor­tance of understanding the environmentalcontext of the rockshelter occupations,this lack of emphasis on the nonartifactualmaterials is surprising.

Although I was disappointed in theseomissions, what the book does contain isimportant and valuable. Anderson presentshis data and arguments concisely, but con­vincingly. The nature of the excavationsand the context of the excavated materialsis clear; the artifact descriptions are thor­ough. The excavations and artifacts arewell illustrated by a large number of fig-

372 ASIAN PERSPECTIVES . 33 (2) . FALL 1994

ures. I found almost nothing in the textthat I would wish to see illustrated thatwas not included either as a photographor as a line drawing. The greatest value ofthe book lies in Anderson's efforts to use

his data and the comparative data fromelsewhere in Southeast Asia to suggest theneed for rethinking traditional views ofPleistocene and Early Holocene traditionsin Southeast Asia.

Pottery Function: A Use-Alteration Perspective. James M. Skibo. InterdisciplinaryContributions to Archaeology. New York and London: Plenum Press, 1992.250 pp., hard cover, figures, tables, appendices, references, index.

Reviewed by TERRY L. HUNT, University of Hawaiii, Manoa

Ethnoarchaeology is often described as thestudy of human behavior and material cul­ture in the present to make inferencesabout the past. Its ultimate goal has beento bring greater certainty to behavioralor organizational reconstructions drawnfrom archaeological phenomena. Over theyears, ethnoarchaeologists have made someprogress in delineating what can and can­not be known with greater certainty.With the work of Binford and Schiffer,for example, archaeologists have come toappreciate that definitive behavioral-mate­rial culture correlations remain elusive.Many studies in ethnoarchaeology, andthe closely related approach of experimen­tal archaeology, have moved away from asearch for simple behavior-material correla­tions. Instead, researchers have focused ontwo approaches. The first examines pat­terns of social and economic organizationand their potential archaeological manifes­tations. The second approach, broadly ar­chaeometric in practice, analyzes the phys­ical and chemical dimensions of materialculture to make inferences about the past.Certainty is achieved through the unifor­mitarian principles of the natural sciences,rather than the problematic applications ofethnographic analogy. In this book on pot­tery function, Skibo largely adopts the sec­ond, archaeometric, approach using an eth­nographic collection. His work illustratesthe strengths of experimental and archaeo-

Asian PersptclillfS. Vol. 33, no. 2, © 1994 by University of

Hawai'i Press.

metric research in ethnoarchaeology.In his introduction, Skibo points out

that unlike stone tools, pottery has notbeen systematically studied for use-altera­tion. Understanding functional dimensionsof ceramic variability will prove significantin explanations ofchange, particularly wheretechnology and performance requirementsinteract. In contrast to earlier work bySkibo and his colleagues, other (nontech­nological) questions of pottery functionseem to be only vaguely linked to a goalof ethnographic reconstruction.

In chapters 2 and 3, Skibo provides hisrationale for ethnoarchaeology and experi­mental archaeology in constructing infer­ences about the past. In this discussion,Skibo argues that material-behavioral cor­relates deduced from ethnoarchaeologyand experimental work are not analogic.However, the low-level principles sug­gested by the case study given seem to bea collection of empirical generalizationsabout cooking performance and particularethnographic observations that could beapplied only in analogic fashion to archae­ological interpretation.

In Chapter 3 Skibo outlines pottery usestudies in archaeology. He makes the use­ful distinction between intended and ac­tual function. Analysis of actual function,in contrast to what a particular form mightbe good for (intended function), is possiblethrough use-alteration study of mechanicaland chemical additions and deletions-thefocus of Skibo's work.

Skibo's research is innovative. He exam-

BOOK REVIEWS 373

ined nearly 200 vessels collected and docu­mented for their use as part of the KalingaEthnoarchaeological Project on Luzon Is­land in the Philippines. Skibo links obser­vations of village pottery use activity (welldocumented and illustrated) with physicaland chemical alterations of the vessels. Inthe laboratory, Skibo also performed ex­periments to clarify, as needed, the rela­tion of pottery use and resulting altera­tions. Skibo outlines a model for ceramicalteration, suggesting that nonuse altera­tions (e.g., in depositional context) can bedistinguished from use alterations.

Skibo's analyses focus on three dimen­sions: residues of absorbed fatty acids inpottery (compared to those in severalfoods); patterns ofsurface attrition from use;and carbon deposition from the charring offood (interior) and soot deposition (exterior).

Through analysis of fatty acid residues,Skibo is able to discriminate vegetable/meat from rice cooking pots. More spe­cific determinations were not possible, butthis will vary in each case. Skibo tests theapplicability of fatty acid residue analysis(i.e., preservation) to archaeological pot­tery by excavating sherds from a deposi­tional context in Kalinga. Skibo describestwo decompositional processes (oxidationand hydrolysis) that rendered fatty acididentifications impossible. Advances in fattyacid analysis and unusual depositional con­texts for preservation may allow wider ap­plications in archaeological research.

The analysis of ceramic surface attritionthrough use revealed wear, in the form ofpits, scratches, polish, thermal spalls, andpedestaled temper grains. These featurescould be linked to the ethnographicallyobserved patterns of use. In particular, veg­etable/meat cooking pots had interior pat­terns of attrition from regular stirring ofthe contents. Rice cooking pots did notshow the same kind of attrition. Applyingsuch generalizations about wear has prom­ise in archaeological cases, especially whenrestricted to the mechanics of attrition.However, where other variables (e.g., iden­tifiable residues) may be unknown, defini­tive links to behavior remain problematic.

Finally, Skibo studied carbon deposits, as

charred food and soot, in the Kalinga potsand in experiments. His analyses show thatpatterns of carbon deposition on potterysurfaces record factors such as heat source,intensity, presence of moisture, and kindsof foods cooked.

In sum, through ethnoarchaeological andexperimental research, Skibo documents ac­tual pottery use and the alterations pro­duced. He provides, in the final chapter, asummary of use-alteration traces and com­ponents related to pottery use activities.From this information archaeologists couldsee broad differences in pottery use-altera­tions resulting from cooking, cleaning, andstorage.

As Skibo points out, this study is the firstcomprehensive investigation of potteryuse-alteration. Significantly, Skibo suggeststhat use-alteration case studies of prehis­toric pottery assemblages are now needed.Such studies of archaeological pottery mayhighlight an unresolved problem. In ethno­archaeological and experimental context,we know the processes that can accountfor the patterns we observe. The material­behavioral correlates can be linked in aninvestigative strategy of confirmation. In ar­chaeological cases, however, we may find itmore difficult to go from patterns of altera­tion to a straightforward reconstruction ofuse. In short, problems of equifinality arise.

Skibo's study is excellent. Archaeologistsinterested in pottery should read it care­fully. The research is rigorous and wellconceived. But, despite its clear strengths,it is diffIcult to see many direct applica­tions to archaeological problems. In somecases it will be possible to link the physicaland chemical properties identified with useto the processes (including behavior) thatproduced them. However, it remains un­clear what role such information mightplay in archaeological explanations. Whatif we were to know, with complete cer­tainty, that ancient pots of a particularassemblage were used to cook vegetables/meat? This information gains meaning, orrelevance, only in a larger theoretical con­text. Otherwise, particular bits of infor­mation about the past remain little morethan paleoethnographic description in a

374 ASIAN PERSPECTIVES . 33(2) . FALL 1994

theoretical void. This issue does not dimin­ish the value of Skibo's work in ethno­archaeology. Instead, it raises critical, as

yet unresolved, methodological issues forthe discipline of archaeology as a whole.

Old Javanese Gold. John Miksic. Singapore: Ideation, 1990. 126 pp., 128 colorplates, 9 b/w plates, map, appendices, bibliography, hard cover.

Reviewed by WILHELM G. SOLHEIM II, University oj Hawai'i, Manoa

This can best be described as a serious cof­fee-table book. It is 8.5 by 11 in., (1.6 x28 cm) of heavy art paper. It is impressivewith its many color pictures of the gold ar­tifacts and for the obvious, extensive re­search by the author in published sources.

This is primarily a catalog of the HunterThompson Collection of gold artifacts.This is a marvelous collection, virtually un­known before an exhibit on Javanese goldby the National Museum of Singapore in1987 (p. 14), for which a catalog was pub­lished by John Miksic (1988). Nothing ismentioned about the collection itself, itspermanent location, or its collector.

The book has four chapters, the first "AHistory of the Art of Ancient JavaneseGold" (pp. 14-27). Concerning earlierpublications on Javanese gold, Miksic re­marks that very little has been publishedon this subject, the one example being abook by Stutterheim (1937), which waswritten in Dutch and has long been out ofprint (p. 23). He goes on to say that theonly collection that surpasses this collec­tion is that of the Museum Nasional of In­donesia, Jakarta, which has never beenfully studied or published.

The second chapter is titled "Goldin Early Javanese Culture: HistoricalSources" (pp. 28-39). Chapter 3 is "Ar­chaeological Discoveries of Gold in South­east Asia" (pp. 40-52). Here he considersthe techniques of recovering gold and itsuses in Java. For those interested, I add afew references he missed: Fox (1970: colorplate 1-B a-c), Francisco (1963), Guthe(1934), Heine-Geldern (1974: 806-809),Legarda (1978), Malleret (1961; 1962

ASJIJn PUSptll;ves, Vol. 33, no. 2, © 1994 by Universiry ofHawai'j Press.

"Premiere Partie L'Orfevrerie et la Mon­naie d'Argent," 3-126, PIs. 1-43; 1963:114-115; 1967), and Solheim (1964: pI.28a-m; 1981: 66-72). This is not meantto be faint praise; Miksic has really locatedmany obscure sources.

The main body of the book is the Cata­logue (pp. 53-126). He divides the artifactsinto four groups, based on age. These areas follows: "Preclassic (roughly until A.D.200), Protoclassic (again roughly dating fromthe period A.D. 200-A.D. 650), Early Classic(corresponding to the period of central Jav­anese civilization, between the late seventhand early tenth centuries); and Late Classic(associated with east Javanese civilization,between the early tenth and late fifteenthcenturies). "

The Preclassic, or late prehistoric, piecesare all of sheet gold used in burials as avariety of face coverings. The Protoclassichas primarily a variety of ear ornamentsfor pierced ears plus a few beads andchains. The Early Classic pieces becomemore complex and are strong on fingerrings, both with and without set jewels,but very complex ear ornaments continueto be popular. There also are a few sim­ple, but beautiful, pendants, and morecomplex pendants. One group of, to me,unusual objects are what Miksic calls "birdrings" (pp. 84-87). These have either ajewel or gold ball, usually attached to aring base by four claws. The ring bases arenot explained, but to me it does not appearthat they were meant to be worn on afinger or toe. There is a variety of otherobjects, including bracelets, spouts and lidsfor kendis, urns, and small statues, primar­ily Buddhist, ornaments for clothing, andnecklaces or headdresses. There are not asmany Late Classic pieces, but they are im-

BOOK REVIEWS 375

pressive, including very ornate earrings andparts of kris handles.

The Appendix (pp. 120-121) presents"Gold items listed under accessions in theAnnual Reports of the Batavian Societyfor Arts and Sciences 1930-1942."

Each plate contains one to as many as 15pieces. They are described in the text witha single number for each plate and no labelfor the individual pieces. The plates are notnumbered and at times it is difficult tomatch the text description with the objectdescribed. This lack of labels on the platesenhances the appearance of the plates, butat times the struggle to equate the descrip­tion with the object being described be­comes a bit frustrating.

I noticed that on p. 64, second column,paragraph three, both references (Malleret1962 and Villegas 1983) are not includedin the Bibliography (pp. 122-126).

Fifteen years ago little attention was paidto beads, but the last few years there hasbeen a considerable scientific focus onbeads, where and how they were made,providing valuable data for working outinternational and local trade patterns. Thesame should apply to gold and all forms ofjewelry. Let us hope that Miksic's finebook will lead the way.

REFERENCES

Fox, R. B.1970 The Tabon Caves. Manila: National

Museum.

FRANCISCO, J. R.1963 The golden image of Agusan: A new

identification. Asian Studies 1.

GUTHE, C. E.1934 Gold decorated teeth from the Phil­

ippine Islands. Papers of the MichiganAcademy of Science, Arts and Letters20:7-22.

HBINE-GELDERN, R.1974 American metallurgy and the Old

World, in Early Chinese Art and ItsPossible InjluelUe in the Pacific Basin:787-822, ed. N. Barnard. Taipei:Authorized Taiwan Edition.

LEGARDA, A. G.

1978 Pre-Hispanic gold in the Philippines.Arts of Asia September-October: 91­97.

MALLERET, L.1961 Les dodecaedres d'or du site d'Oc­

Eo. Artibus Asiae 24(3-4): 343-350.1963 Pierres gravees et cachets de divers

pays pu Sud-Est de I'Asie. Bulletinde l'Ecole Franfaise d'Extreme Orient51(1): 117-124.

1967 Polyedres antiques et modernes en oret en bronze. Journal Asiatique 255(3­4) : 423-430.

MIKSIC, J.1988 Small Finds: Ancient Javanese Gold.

Singapore: National Museum.

SOLHEIM, W. G. II1964 The Archaeology of Central Philippines:

A Study Chiefly of the Iron Age andIts Relationships. Manila: Bureau ofPrinting.

1981 Philippine prehistory, in The Peopleand Art of the Philippines: 16-83, G.Casal, R. T. Jose, Jr., E. S. Casino,G. R. Ellis, and W. G. Solheim II.Los Angeles: Museum of CulturalHistory, University of California,Los Angeles.

STUTTERHEIM, W. F.

1937 De oudheden-collectievan z.h. Mang­koenagoro VII te Soerakarta. Djawa,Extra Nummer.

Jurnal Arkeologi Malaysia. New journal first published 1988 by the Ikatan AhliArkeologi Malaysia. Selangor, Malaysia: Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia.

Reviewed by WILHELM G. SOLHEIM II, University of Hawai'i, Manoa

A new archaeological society, with its ownjournal, has been established in Malaysia.The Ikatan Ahli Arkeologi Malaysia (IAAM)(Association of Malaysian Archaeologists[AMA)) was established in late 1986 and

Al;dn PtrsptltivtJ. Vol. 33, no. 2, © 1994 by Univenity of

Hawaj'i Pre~.

the first volume of its journal, Jurnal Arkeo­logi Malaysia, appeared in 1988. I havelooked at the first three volumes.

The first volume has all articles in Malay.Because probably the primary purpose ofthe Association, and its journal, is to popu­larize archaeology in Malaysia and bring

ASIAN PERSPECTIVES . 33(2) . FALL I994

more young people into the field, it is log­ical to publish in Malay. For those of uswho, unfortunately, are not able to readMalay it presents a disadvantage. It is im­portant for all archaeologists interested inthe archaeology of Southeast Asia to knowthe research going on in Malaysia and itsresults. Except for the Indonesians, veryfew of these, outside of those specializingin the archaeology of Malaysia, are able toread Malay. It would be very helpful tohave abstracts of each article in English.The second volume has four of the eightarticles in English and the third volumefour of eleven.

The subject matter covered in these vol­umes is varied. To illustrate this I list thenames and authors of the articles in Eng­lish. From Volume 2 (1989): Kamaruddinbin Hassan, "Palynological study of sam­ples from the archaeological site at KotaTampan, Perak, Peninsular Malaysia" (pp.9-17); M. J. Aitken, "Two scientific tech­niques relevant to the dating of ceramics:thermoluminescence and archaeomagnet­ism" (pp. 18-24); Adi Haji Taha, "Ar­chaeological, prehistoric, protohistoric andhistoric study of the Tembeling Valley, Pa­hang West Malaysia" (pp. 47-69); and NikHassan Shuhaimi Nik Abd, Rahman, andOthman Yatim, "Takuapa revisited: Acommentary on Alastair Lamb's pre-Ma-

lacca entrepot in the Malay Peninsula"(pp. 93-99). Volume 3 (1990): Tan TeongHing and Abdul Rahim Hj. Samsudin,"Gem and rock artifacts at Pulau Kelum­pang, Perak" (pp. 15-24); G.W.H. Davi­son, "Shell remains from the protohistoricsettlement at Pulau Kelumpang, Perak"(pp. 25-38); Angel P. Bautista and Zulki­£Ii Jaafar, "Introduction to the measure­ments of human skeletons from archaeo­logical sites" (pp. 72-110); and Adi HajiTaha and Zulkifli Jaafar, "A preliminaryreport on archaeological research and ex­cavation at Gua Kelawar, Sungai Siput,Perak" (pp. 111-124).

The format, printing, and line drawingsare first class. The plates, and there aremany of them, are of variable quality,with stone artifacts and earthenware sherdsoften printed too dark to make out details.It is, however, a commendable production,and the plates will no doubt improve.

Each volume lists the members of theAssociation. It started with 47, and by thethird volume there were 114 members,the great majority of them from KualaLumpur. We hope it will continue toexpand. For further information write to:Ikatan Ahii Arkeologi Malaysia, d/a ]aba­tan Sejarah, Universiti Kebangsaan Malay­sia, 43600 Bangi, Selangor Darul Ehsan,Malaysia (FAX [603] 8256484).

A New Introduction to Classical Chinese. Raymond Dawson. New York: OxfordUniversity Press, 1985. Hard cover, v + 161 pages.

Reviewed by STUART H. SARGENT, University of Maryland at College Park

I approach this book, not as a linguist, noras a specialist in the texts from which ittakes its material (the Mencius, Chan-kuoTz'e, Mo-tzu, Chuang-Izu, Han Fei-tzu,and Shih-chI), but as one who has beenteaching Classical Chinese for several yearsin American universities. Although HaroldShadick's A First Course in Literary Chinese(Ithaca, 1968) has served my purposes

Asian Persptlfilles. Vol. 33, no. 2. © 1994 by University of

Hawai'j Press.

well, I find Dawson's new text stimulatingand full of possibilities.

Potential users of Dawson's book willwant to know what kind of audience he isaddressing. To judge by his Introduction,which includes a section on the writingof characters and the counting of strokes,Dawson assumes no knowledge of Chi­nese on the part of the student. He ex­pects his reader to have a fairly sophisti­cated sense of English, however, and thenuances of translation he discusses from

BOOK REVIEWS 377

time to time may require considerable ex­plication by the teacher. We shall see, infact, several aspects of this book that callfor supplementary input from a goodteacher. For example, the first seven selec­tions for reading are from the Mencius,which is to my mind a rather formidablechallenge to the neophyte. The studentnew to Classical Chinese may feel quite atsea in these selections, where the issueunder discussion often appears rather tri­fling, or the argument seems to wander inaimless circles. A teacher with some insightinto the rhetoric and philosophy of Men­cius is needed to imbue these selectionswith significance and interest.

Given the proper classroom situation,however, the book has much to recom­mend it. The excellent physical produc­tion (print, page size, paper quality) makesfor clarity; and as a slim, single-volumetextbook, it is convenient to port and per­use-much more so than Shadick. The or­ganization of the text, which I shall outlinenext, is also thoughtfully planned.

Following the Introduction is a guide tothe pronunciation of Wade-Giles and Pin­yin, both of which are used in the Vo­cabulary in the back of the book. (Notethat British English is the reference point:we are told that "e" is to be read like the"ir" in "sir"!) There are those who wouldobject to the decision to use modern Man­darin readings for words written so longago, but because Classical Chinese is still aliving language, I am not bothered by theanachronism. Nevertheless, when a charac­ter representing a phonetic fusion of twowords is pointed out in the notes, itwould be appropriate to introduce thearchaic pronunciations to show how thefusion works, and Dawson's failure to doso is disappointing.

A "Key to the Radicals of All the Char­acters Which Occur in Passage A" follows,as an aid to the novice who must learn torecognize radicals to be able to use the Vo­cabulary. Then come the Text Passages, Athrough Q. Each column of text is num­bered, from the first column of A (1)through the last column of Q (251), andeach horizontal register is lettered a

through z, giving each character in the 17passages a unique number-letter designa­tion on the grid. This facilitates referenceto a single character (e.g., 73n) or a stringof characters (e.g., 73nu).

Notes on Text Passages A-E come next,with each comment indexed to a word orstring in the texts through the number­letter code. The important function wordsand constructions are explained as theycome up in the reading, with emphasis onthe clues one uses in recognizing the partsof speech of the words and on reflectingthe proper nuances in translation.

A "Grammatical Survey I" precedes therest of the notes. If it has not been appar­ent to the reader already, the reasoning be­hind the selection of texts becomes evidenthere: Passages A-E contain a very highconcentration of the important functionwords, auxiliary verbs, and pronouns; 17of these, used repeatedly, make up 32 per­cent of the characters in those five passages.The first Grammatical Survey is devoted tothese words and their various functions,largely bringing together for review andeasy reference observations that have beenmade in the preceding notes.

The student is now ready to move intothe final group of text passages, and theNotes resume. This time, they are not asexhaustive as the previous group, presum­ably because the students are able to figureout more for themselves. (There are severalplaces, however, where I feel Dawson haspassed over in silence a word or phrasethat still requires explication: 134b; 179st;186g; 211jn; 214ab; 225y; and 235mq.)The reading passages increase somewhat innarrative interest, although the ones thatare excerpted from longer narratives seemnaturally unsatisfyingly incomplete.

A "Grammatical Survey II" followingthe last batch of text notes briefly reviewsthe new interrogatives, auxiliary verbs,etc., that were not encountered in TextsA-E and then turns to four special topics.The first is a series of rules or strategies bywhich one may identify the case, or part ofspeech, of a given word in context. Thesecond topic is a survey of reasons fordepartures from what is supposed to be

ASIAN PERSPECTIVES . 33(2) . FALL 1994

normal word order in a sentence. Thenvarious topics under the rubrics of Timeand Number are explored. In general, thisGrammatical Survey, though falling farshort of being a systematic and completeoutline of the language, is a valuable refer­ence.

Translations of Passages A-E come next,serving as an appendix to be consulted bystudents in the first stages of the book.

The final component of Dawson's text­book is the Vocabulary, arranged by the214 radicals. The conciseness of the entriesand the clarity of the layout make it easy toconsult. In cases where amplification isneeded, one is referred to the proper placein the notes; otherwise, however, there isno way to locate a word in the texts tocheck on its usage in context.

Dawson's is a tightly controlled learningprogram. Through careful selection oftexts, he has kept his vocabulary to justover 900 characters (less than half of Sha­dick's) while covering the basic grammarand essential function words of the lan­guage. It is especially remarkable that thiscould be achieved through authentic, real­world texts (Shadick's first six chapters arerewritten or manufactured passages for thegraded introduction of the grammar). Whatis regrettable is that students may finish thebook with a good linguistic foundation butwithout the satisfaction of having readsome of the more significant or famouspassages in the source texts (nor will theyknow anything about the authorship andnature of those texts, unless their teacherhas supplied the information). Everythingwritten after the second century B.C. isignored; when Dawson states withoutqualification that "dates are normally ex­pressed as the name of the ruler followed bythe number of the years of his reign" (p.104; emphasis mine), it is as ifhe never an­ticipated that his reader might want to goon and work in the next 2000 years ofClassical Chinese texts.

Perhaps that is the price to be paid forlimiting the bulk of the volume. A desirefor slimness may also explain the lack ofillustrative examples in places where theymight have helped clarify a point. Refer-

ences to the Text Passages are often suffi­cient, but frequently it would have beenpedagogically wise to have several sen­tences (in Chinese, with translations) juxta­posed to establish a paradigm or to showtransformations (e.g., note 4b) and con­trasting structures (e.g., notes 3z, 126e,and 195v1961).

It is to be supposed that the classroomteacher will be the one to fill out the dis­cussion with such examples. The teacherwill also have to come up with exercises,for Dawson provides none.

I should like to turn now from generalobservations to comments on a few of thespecific points in the notes and Grammati­cal Surveys that raised questions in mymind.

I wonder whether 1:) is really ever anoun (ls; 51qr; p. 66), although it is some­times glossed that way. Would not a de­leted ~Ji explain these constructions moreefficiently? (This is one of several cases inwhich I felt that, although Dawson's inter­pretation may be correct, there are otherpossibilities that should have been ac­knowledged.) Another observation on thisword: Dawson is quite aware that 1:) often"contains" the resumed object :L (23£h;44q; 229j); I think this fact could havebeen profitably taken into account in thediscussion of liT j;) at 15pq.

In sentences where "normal" word or­der is altered to prepose a phrase, Dawsonbelieves emphasis is being placed on thepreposed element (7ef; p. 67; 1831) or onboth it and an adverbial phrase at the endof the sentence (15el; p. 104). I suggestthat this phenomenon, like the pa-con­struction in Modem Chinese, has a differ­ent explanation that has not been fullyarticulated. Perhaps these so-called disloca­tions are mandated by a need to clear spaceafter the verb for those "adverbial phrases"that must be attached to the verb and arethe crucial parts of the sentence. If onemust speak of "emphasis," I think it tendsto be on what comes after the preposedelement, not on that element itself.

The discussion of mat 12dj mentionsmany "meanings" ("to," "towards,""from," etc.) that are really translations

BOOK REVIEWS 379

suitable to different contexts in English.My own bias is toward reading first andtranslating later, and so I would have pre­ferred giving the student a root meaning(such as "with respect to") or a basic func­tion for the word at the outset and thensuggesting these derived translations at ap­propriate points afterward.

Dawson is sometimes curiously unableto see that a word is functioning as a verb.In note 231, he points out that in ~1t,hsien is "verbal"; yet in 17pr, he fails torecognize that m131t exhibits the sameconstruction. Perhaps his reliance on famil­iar English terminology has caused him tomistake the stative verbs as adjectives andthus label them "non-verbals." Similarly,the second wang in .:E~~.:E is correctlyidentified as a verb norninalized by the pre­ceding chih, but then he goes one step fur­ther and classifies it as a noun (p. 103). Thiscould confuse many a student.

This textbook handles the special func­tions of the final particles ill and ~ in ver­bal sentences very well, explaining that theformer is associated with judgments andcontinuing states, the latter with momen­tary events. (I would speak in terms ofstatic and dynamic situations, but we areclearly talking about the same thing.)Although I am impressed with the astuteobservations he makes about their usages

(notes 6a; 25hi; 37x; 51 w52d; 58g; 60g;Ills; etc.), I feel Dawson is somewhat toorigid in referring all occurrences of i backto a single rule, as when he states that itsuse in commands is explained by the ex­pectation of "once-and-for-all obedience"(p. 67). There are so many uses of thisparticle (many not encountered in thisbook), that a more careful articulation ofits nuances is called for.

There are a very few misprints in theNew Introduction to Classical Chinese. Atnote 35de, ~ is an error for ~~; at note121p, fp is an error for tf;. In the Text Pas­sages, the punctuation at 121p should bemoved up to 121k, and there should bepunctuation at 1311. On the same page, Isuspect that there should be punctuationat 124v, 124z, 126u, and 126y.

I have tried to indicate some of thestrong and weak points of this book. Thefinal proof of a language textbook, ofcourse, is in its actual use in the classroom,and I have not had time to put it to thattest as yet (though some of my studentshave discovered it in the library and reportfavorable impressions). At this point, I canbest sum up by saying that Dawson's workis an excellent guide for the presentation ofseveral complex topics. Despite its limita­tions, it merits consideration for courseadoption.