Upload
vengador
View
215
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
8/19/2019 The Anthropology of Dance - J,Nya Peterson Royce (Book Reviews)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-anthropology-of-dance-jnya-peterson-royce-book-reviews 1/7
J,nya
Peterson
Royce. The Anthropology of
Dance.
Bloomington, Indiana:
Indiana
University
Press. 1977.
238pp.
This
book
represents
the f i r s t general introduction to
the
study of dance
from
an
anthropological
perspective.
(Roderyk
Lange s
earl ier
book The
Nature
of Dance i s
by comparison,
an idiQsyncratic expression of the author s views and
hardly a broad-based
introduction.)
Ms. Royce
has
drawn upon her experience as a
dancer, an
anthropologist, and
a
f ie ld
worker among the
Zapotec Indians
of
southern Mexico to
produce
a comprehensive
and highly readable
book.
The
time
for
such
work
is certainly r ight . Although
anthropologists havd
long recognised dancing to be a fundamental and ubiquitous feature of human
social l i fe
i t
has nevertheless
suffered
from a relat ive lack of rigorous doc
umentati Jn and analysis. In
the past twenty-five
years or
so, and part icularly
in
the
, last few, the increase, in general academic
and
anthropological
interest
in
dance
has resul ted in
numerous
art icles and
theses, and
the
odd book
here
and
there.
A
general
introduction, presenting
in
an
orderly
fashion
the
various
ideas
and
approaches which anthropologists have brought to the study of dance,
has
been sorely lacking.
Royce
presents
a
broad
review of the l i terature within a well-organised out
l ine of some of the main theoretical issues involved in the anthropological
study
of dance.
I t is
not clear
to
wha t type
of
audience she is
addressing herself;
however, i t would appear from her fair ly
basic explanations
of anthropological
assumptions and theoretical frameworks
that
she aims her efforts toward laymen
(or perhaps dance schola.J. s
within other disciplines) who
may be
unfamiliar with
the methods of
a n t h ~ o p o l o g y
The
discussions
of
some
of
these basic
issues, for
instance
the
problem
of defining and
classifying
social phenomena, are quite
clear,
i l lus trat ing,
but
not
belabouring,
certain theoretical
pi t fa l ls .
Experienced anthropologists may well find these
sections
elementary, but they
provide a solid foundation for the
consideration
of
more specialized issues.
Royce manages
to
give a
lucid
mix of theoretical
discussion
and
concrete examples,
so
that the reader
need
not feel
that
he or she
is being
led
too
astray from
the actual social activi ty
of
dancing as i t
occurs
among various peoples.
The book is particularly
strung
on
the
methods and history
of
dance
research,
including the history of techniques of recording and
notating
dance. Like
others
currently
writing
on the
anthropology
of dance
(for
instance,
Orid
Williams or
Judith
LYIIDe
Halma)
she
agrees that the
system notation developed
by Rudolf
Laban - Labanotation - is the most subtle and
accurate
means of recording dances;
unlike the
others,
however,
she
raises
doubts about
the
practicali ty
of
such
a
highly refined tool
to
anthropologists in the
f ield.
The
point
is
well
taken,
especially since she follows
i t
up with suggestions
toward
the development of: a
personal pra0tical
method
for recording dances
in
the
f ield.
This sort
of method
would be
advantageuus
.oot only to anthropologists whose primary
interest
i s the
study dance Jr kinesics, but even more to those for
whom
dance
or
movement
may be
a : Iecondary
interest
and
who are unwilling
to
master the
rather
time
consuming
techniques
of Labanotation.
Although Royce is to
be
cornmended
for
her
cooprehensive outline of tIle
various
theoretical
issues
which
confront the anthropologist
interested in dance,
her presentation of them nonetheleac
can
be
faulted in
certain
respects.
In the
chapter
entit led Symbol
and
Stylet ,
for
example,
her
use
of
the
term symbol
is
somewhat
misleading, since
i t
is usually
employed
within
the f ie ld of dance
research to refer
to the representation
by
movements or gestures of more abstract
levels of
feeling
or meaning. Royce, on the other hand,
uses
the word to make
the
argument that dance
constitutes an ident i ty
marker (156) by which a group
represents i t se l f
in contradistinction
to
other groups. Ultimately , she
claims,
8/19/2019 The Anthropology of Dance - J,Nya Peterson Royce (Book Reviews)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-anthropology-of-dance-jnya-peterson-royce-book-reviews 2/7
... 201 -
'what we
can say i s
that dance
is
a
p o w e r ~ u l , ~ r e q u e n t l y
adopted symbol
of the
way people ~ e e l about themselves'
(163).
Dance is thus an important part o ~ a
complex
of ~ e a t u r e s
which she
calls
a
s ty le ,
by which a group
of
people
characterises or identifies i t s e l ~ (Royce rejects the
usefulness
the word
.
t radi t ion
as
implying
tOG
sta t ic a
situation,
whereas
the
expression' style '
can
encompass more flexibly the
~ l o w of time
and
events.) In this
case she
is
. making
an
unfortunate
s i m p l i ~ i c a t i o n
a number of complex
issues by reverting
to
an
apparently ~ u n c t i o n a l i s t predilection.
Other
problems
crop
up as a result of the author's functionalist
bias.
Her
characterisation of dance as a symbol, for example, leads her to differentiate
between dances
used
as
syrribO l<s
Of identi ty
and
dances used ~ o r
recreation
(163).
Not only i s
th is distinction unsupported
(and, I
think,
unsupportable),
but
also
i t is
doubtful that one
can
meaningfully speak
of
dance as being used' at
al l .
A second problem in
the
author's approach
concerns her
rather vague
notion of
style: she tends to gloss over the interesting question of the partic\llar
relations between a
people's
dances and
their
other habitual ,movAments. She
mentions
this issue in passing, but nowhere does she ci te Mauss article
T e c ~ n i q u e s of
t re B o ~ ,
s t i l l
one
of the
most
provocative anthropological
dis
cussions
of
movements and
gestures.
Curiously,
in
the l ight her functionalist
bias
r
Royc,e,
in her
description theoretical
positions
in anthropological
research
in dance,
i s cautious
about
recommending a ~ u n c t i o n a l i ~ t a ~ p r o a c h and
q u i c ~ to Doint out i t s l imitations.
The ~ i n a l
section the
book
is
de oted
to
a
consideration of future
directions
in
the anthropological'St;'jld:y
of dance,
and here
the functionalist /
structuralist
dicnotomy
occupies
a
key position
in
her
assessoent: just
as
lhhis basic dlchotomy
has
underlain previous
research,
so i t will determine
the
nature
o future research' (177). I f ind this troubling. While she may be
correct
in
perceiving
this
dichotomy
to
be
a
guiding
force
in dance
studies
in
the past,
i t is questionable to
what
extent this i s r e ~ l e c t e d or influential in
present studies.
Even
more debatable i s
the
degree
to which i t will or
should
determine the course future
studies
Part of Royce's problem may
be
that in
seizing
upon the fupctionalist/
structuralist
Jichotomy as a means of
distinguishing approaches
to
t h e , s t u ~
of
danc\3,
she
ha3 made al:
uni'ortunate
clloice of terminology. The distinction
she
wishes
to establish
i s
that
between approaches
which
concern t h ~
forms
of
dances
and which stress
the treat:'1ent
of these
dances
as self-containeil
entit ies
( s t ruc tura l i s t ) and
approaches
which consider
dances primarily as
they exist in
relat ion
to the cultures of which they are a
part
( ' functionalis t ' ) . This dis
t inction
does
not need
the
use of
the
terms
which
the
author
ha:::
chosen,
and
they
have'the mucldying effect of invoking vast areas of theoretical debate
in
the
discipline.
These
categories
also
need
not be portrayed as being
m u t u a l ~
exclusive - a
consequence of Royce s
dividing the discussion
of
future
directions
in
dence studies
in to
'The Morphology
of
Dance
and 'The
Meaning of Dance'. Themost serious
con
sequence of this division is that the whole
theoretical
problem of the relation
ship
between the forms
and the
meanings
of dances i s lef t
unexplored.
Another
unfortunate effect of
this treatment
is to relegate her consideration
of
creativity
in dance to
the
realo of
form,
as i f
creativity and
the meanings
of dances were unrelated iss'J.es. Her notion of creativity in dance is further
restricted
by
her tendency
to
t rea t
i t
as
an
individual
phenomenon, and
not
particularlJ as a social one. I would argue
that
an anthropological
approach
to
studies of the
arts
must
wrestle
with the
issue
of whether,
or
how, creativity
is
a social phenomenon.
8/19/2019 The Anthropology of Dance - J,Nya Peterson Royce (Book Reviews)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-anthropology-of-dance-jnya-peterson-royce-book-reviews 3/7
- 202 -
~ c h reservations GS I have
about the
presentation
of
theoretical
issues
in
this book do not diminish seriously i t s
importance
as a
contribution
to the fie+d
of
anthropological studies
of dance.
In
any introductory survey of a discipline
there
are
bound
to be diff icul t ies in dealing with areas of theoretical dis
agreement,
and
:£he
A n t h r E 9 l o ~ o f
Dance i s no
exoept:ion.
Royce
may
be commended
for not shying away from controversial
issues, although
she
could
perhaps have
been more careful to have kept her own functionalist bias in check, and she
could
have gone somewhat more deeply into her evaluation of various approaches. Her
anthropological background information,
her
historical material, and her
general
organisation and style s t i l l
make
this book
an excellent point of departure
for
anyone interested
in
what
anthropologists have
to
say about dance.
Paula
Schlinger.
John
Blacking (Ed.). The Anthr<?Eolo6.l of the
Body. A.S.L.
Monograph 15.
London: Academic Press.
1977.
x i i 42b:Pp.
£8.80.
A.S.A. Monograph 15 provides an ini t iat ion into
the
bewildering varitj;y of
issues concerning the social
aspects
of
the
human
body.
Since
the
volume
simply
furnishes a
record of the A.S.A.
conference on
the
anthropology of the body and
i s
not
constructed aruund
a close-knit
set of
selected themes i t
is
exempt
from
certain
types of textual criticism; yet one wonders
to
what
extent
a compendium
i s possible in such m
intractable
area of research.
For the most part , the
contributors
shoo
l i t t l e
concern
with
the question
of
whether an
anthropology of the body
can
stand as a
legitimate f ie ld
of
analysis.
They seem
jJleased simply
to get on with
their respective
researches;
and while some contributors seem able to define the inherent theoretical
diff icul t ies more
successfully
than others, the
book
as
a whole
gains
i t s
continuity
from
the
reflections of each anthropologist on
his or
her
special
interest .
Thus
whereas some
writers t reat the human body as a
source
of natural
resemblances,
others consider the physical
boqy without
primary Beference
to
these categorical difficulties. . While i t
is
disturbing that one c an so
easily
distinguish b.etween anthropologists who crit icize assumptions and those who
confidently build upon them, The AnthroEl:)loeil,. of
the
BOSlsucceeds in suggesting
novel
ideas
and analyt:: cal
techniques,
as well
as in
discussing the problem of
the cOffL. Ilensurabili ty of
various
cultural notions of the self . I t not only makes
fascinating
reading, .
but is an
indey
of possible turning
points in
anthropological
theory.
The
study
of
certain
conditions
of
being
human can
function
as
a means
by
which one
may
diagnose
problems
in
many other
f ields of concern. The anthropology
of the
body is an
especially
frui tful example of +his; the
essays in
this
volume
use
the theme as a
vehicle for discussing
taxonomy,
categorizing,
metaphysics cultural as well
as purely
physiological problems
raised
by
our
consciousness of our bodies.
ne is
tempted, in fact , to
suggest
that the con
tributions
ere linked.
by
a common recognition of the obvious, namely that man s
quest
for
knowledge i s always affected by his awareness of himself,
that,
among
those
things which
puzzle him, his awareness
of himself
is primary,
and
that
those
things which preoccupy him most in the external world [ re considered by
him
with
reference to his own physical presence. l s Ellen puts i t in The
Semiotics of
the
Body :
the
very fact that human beings perceive and
think anthropocentrically
in relat ion
to the non-human
universe, together
with the
demonstrable
elaboration
of
human
anatomical
classificat ion
compared
with
that
of
other animals,
suggests
that , generally
speaking,
the human body is
phe primary model in both an evolutionary and
logico-operational
sense (353).
8/19/2019 The Anthropology of Dance - J,Nya Peterson Royce (Book Reviews)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-anthropology-of-dance-jnya-peterson-royce-book-reviews 4/7
- 203 -
As one might
anticipate,
sever l authors
show an in teres t
in
alternative
methods
of charting physical
movement. From
the Beneshs resear,ch
on movement
notation (whose
theatrical
applications
have been widely recognized) to Lange's
work
on
the
anthropology of
dance
or
Baily's lengthy contribution on movement
patterns
involved
in
playing
l ~ g h a n
str ing
instruments,
we
find:
evidence
for
a
concern
with
the re la t iv i t ies
of
physical relationships
through body movement.
(See
also Schlinger's review of The Anthr0Rol()g;y.:
of D a ~ c e ,
p . 2 0 ~
of this
issue.) Whether these relat ivi t ies are explicable by what Hanna, in To Dance
i s
u m a ~ ,
calls
psychobiological factors, or whether they provide us solely
with culturally-derived
means of
organizing
physical
experience, the idea
that
alter,native
methods
of
organizing
movement might
yield qualitatively different
informational
modes
appears as
a
dominant hypothesir i not
an
9verriding
conviction.
other
contributors
examine ways
in
which
various classif ications
of
the
human body can
serve
to mediate
or i l lus t ra te
features
of social
relations:
there i s ,
for
instance, Sutherland's analysis of pollution concelts among
gypsies
or
Strathern's study
in
New
Guinea of
the
curious
notion
whereby shame
may be
described
as
being
'on
the skin ' .
The
to ta l i ty of social l i fe
i t se l f
may be inscribed in the
body
as
a
symbol. Thus,
Dogon
society is
meant
to be
l ike 'a
human
body; t may be reduced or analyzed
in terms
of
my
body;
a Dogon
ShDUia
be able to increase his understanding of
i t
as
he increases
his
under
standing
·)f himself. That the body
may
become i t s
own
interpretative device
benomes
p a r ~ d o x i c a l insofar as analogies always refer to things
which
are
simultaneously alike
yet
different. In
The
J u ~ . t h r o p o l o ~ y of theB
04 ;Y
this
paradox
of
self-reference would
bear
most directly upon
Pollmint
s quest to define
what t i s th t
a culture
- -
even our
own ' scientif ic1 culture signified
in
classifying particular
physical
condition as diseased.
The i ~ e a that in
their descriptions
of relationships,
classif ications
can
mediate
complex
symbqlic systems and
certain
features
of
social relat ions
is reinforced by several
n o t e w o r ~ h y
anthropological
contributions in this volume. That
~ h e
anthropology
of
the body
may
function
as
a
vehicle
for
discussing
a
plethora' of issues
which
are
common to a l l variet ies
of ahthrbpological analysis is hot just
a comment
on
t4e diverse nature of
that ~ n t h r o p o l o g y ;
i t
also shows the ~ a y in which
those issues, as
different
approaches
to experience, can a w a k e n ~ u s to possibil i t ies
and,
in
genera:: , to human poten
t i a l i t i e s .
.
David
Napier.
J.Ko
Dover.
Greek
Homosexuality.
London:
Duckworth.
1978.
2 ~ 4 p p . £15.00
The existence of some f orm
of
homosexual practice among the
ancient
Greeks
has
always been COIDID n
knowledge and
has often aroused interest , both
scholarly
and ar:lateur. TyPically.,
however ,
the questions asked about i t
nave
been both
morally loaded and empirically simplist ic: were
the ancient Greeks really
homosexual
(or just
good
friends; or, enter Plato, merely i n d u l ~ i n g in
a
hYrerbolic idiom to
exp:cess
the marriage o:f true
male
minds)?; ;i:f
so, how
many
of
them?
(surelY not
the
man in the agora
or
the
stalwart
peasa*t?
more
l ike ly
just the r ich and the aris tocrat ic , since
wealth
leads
tQ
decadence and
decadence
to
degradation);
and could
homosexuality
have been g ~ n e r a l l y accepted
(or merely
tolerated
on the
fringe, i t s evidentiaJ
prevalence unfortunately
re:flecting the tastes of pornographers,
poets,
philosophers,
and
other
such
marginal
but notably expressive
individuals)?
The
answers to these
questions
tended to be
vague.
We should
remember
tha t strong :feelings were
not
averse to
a
l i t t l e imprecision. At
a time when
our
own traditions
s t i l l
saw in Greece
the
origins
of that Civil ization
which
8/19/2019 The Anthropology of Dance - J,Nya Peterson Royce (Book Reviews)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-anthropology-of-dance-jnya-peterson-royce-book-reviews 5/7
- 204 -
i t
was their
duty
to
perpetuate,
rumours
of
a
perverted past
could
create
some
unease
( thei r
detailed examination
even more). More importantly,
the
ancient
evidence i t se l f seemed disturbingly contradictoryo Whenever the
Sokratic
circle extolled love , i t
was homsexual
~ r o s that
was
praised; Jet Sokrates,
or
at
lea t
Plato,
forbade
itf:>
consUl 1'Ilation. Comedy,
philosphy,
history,
the casual asides
of
law-court
speeches and, most
explicit ly, the
ar t i s t ic
representations of vase-painting, make i t clear that homosexual
affa i rs
(and
male
prosti tution)
were commonplace; yet
these
practices were ,
frequently
reviled and the
man who ' sold ' his
body
forfeited
cit izenship.
Even though
Aristophanes' sturdy
heroes could
lust
after boye. as
well
as
gir ls ,
effeminates
were lampooned
in
a manner
which
would
have
done a rugby
club
proud.
Clearly the simple empirical questions
- - how
many? who? and
were
they
really?
- - wil l
not
suffice.
I reorientat ion i s required
to confront the
question
of exactly
what
constituted 'homosexuality' in the ancient
Greek
context
- -
and
this
we
now
possess
in
J.K.
Dover's
new
book.
Let i t be
s t r e s s e d ~ however,
that
Greek_Homosexualilz,
l ike
Sir
Kenneth's earl ier Greek Popular Moralit;z, remains very much
an
empirical work
- - a meticulous
compilation
and analysis of al l
the
available evidence in
the
best t radi t ion of Bri t i sh classical scholarship.
For
some this wil l I 18ke i t
a
less than
easy book to
read, for
generalizations
follow
on
exhaustive
presentation
of the
data;
but i t gives us
for the f i r s t time, and in
a manner
which will require
no
further addition of information, an unshakable
foundation
of fact .
Out of
t:lat
body of
fact the
required
reorientation grows.
There can be lJ.J doubt that ,
due allowance
being made for individual
variation
and p r e ~ e r e n c e homosexuality - -
physical
homosexuality, anal,
inter-crural , and manual - - was a deeply entrenched part of Greek
culture,
and that , from
a
s t r i c t ~ y
physical
point
of
view,
young
men
and
girls
were
equally the objects of
male
sexual desire
• What remains complex
is
the
cultural
response to that recugnized desire and
the
constraints
which Greek society
bui l t round itE
fulfilment.
T ~ o u g h as the
o0jects
of
male
desire, boys and gir ls could be classi f ied
together, the
opposit:'on
between masculinity and
femininity remained
intact .
No confusion
was
made between
' homosexuality' and
'effeminancyt.
The
f i r s t
was permissible,
the
second most
certainly
not. Yet i f 'homosexual'
did
not
equal
(effeminate',
the 'passive ' partner in
a homosexual relationship
came
close
to
being placed in
a
'female' si tuat ion
- -
close
indeed ,to
being
subordinated.
Hence a
socially
required
display
of
reluctcnce
on
his part .
Hence
also
a
question of re la t ive age.
No
man played simultaneously the
' act ive '
and
' ,passive'
role
with another.
"
younger man
submitted
hiElself,
but
not wi thcut difficulty, to an older man,
,his superior
and perhaps his
mentor.
n older man who continued
to
play the 'female' role
was
disgraced.
And the
younger man,
we
should
note,
was supposed
to
derive
no
pleasure from
the sexual act . To
do
sc
would have been
effeminate. His masculinity
was
preserved by the austere denial of physical enjoyment. IT he admicted
pleasure
or
i
he instigated
the
relationship,
he demeaned himself
as
a pro
s t i tu te
did. Indeed
the
prost i tute
who sold
his body was the
' s lave' both
of his
sexuality and
of
the
person who had, bought him. He
was a
man
who
had
los t his
freedom
and,
like
a
slave
or
l ike
a woman, he was
therefore
excluded
from
the
body
poli t ic .
In
a society, then, where homosexual desire was
as freely admitted
heterosexual desire
(a t
least for the ' act ive '
partner), but
where
r igid
social
and
moral constraints s t i l l operated, the
evidence
can
appear
con
fusing for those who would assume a i m p t i s ~ i . c 8 . l 1 Y - · t h a t . ~ i f ( ) : n o m 6 s e x t t a l l t i w s
8/19/2019 The Anthropology of Dance - J,Nya Peterson Royce (Book Reviews)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-anthropology-of-dance-jnya-peterson-royce-book-reviews 6/7
- 205 -
prevalent
then
Greece was Sodom and Gomorrah. Greek civi l izat ion was
firmlY
committed to a masculine' ideal e, n ideal which stressed physical prowess,
rat ional self '-control, self '-denial and endurance, a.nd
which
a l l to readi ly
defined the
anti theses of these as f ~ m i n i n e r
• What men
admired,even in the
context
of
a consummated
homosexual
erot ic
re la t ionship ,
were s t i ~ l 'men' .
Roger Just .
BOOKS RECEIVED
AI-Shahi,.A.
and
Moore,
F.C.T
Argyle,
J .
and
Preston-Whyte,
E. (Bds.).
Azanja,
V.
Benton, T
Collins , H.B. e t al .
Douglas, 11.
Foner, N.
~ a n d l e r
J.S.
and
Lange, F.W.
Hoebel, E.A.
L ~ v i - s t r a u s s C.
~ u b b o c k , J
Machery, P.
McNeill, i .H. and Adams,
R.S. (Eds.) .
Wisdom from the Nile: a Collection
o:f Folk
S t o r f 8 ~ m Northern and C e n t ; a r ~ S u a . a n .
Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1978. Fxii, i5 b pp.
£10.00
•.
Social
System
and
T r a d i t i o n ~ ~
S o ~ t h e r n
f:.frica: Essays in Honour o
Eileen
Krige.
Oxford:
Oxford
Univ. Press. 1978.xxi,
251 pp. £7.50.
1 l . r i s t o c r a ~ s F ~ c i n g C h a n g e : the Fulbe in
Guinea..t. Nie;eria, andGameroon. London:
Univ.
of
Chicago Press. 1978. xv, 293
pp.
£13.30.
~ h i l ~ s ~ r y ~ J c a l Foundations of the Three
Sociolosies.
London:
RKP. 1978. 256
pp.
£2.jO
(paper).
The Far North: ;>000 Years of lmerican Eskimo
and Indian J'rt.
Bloomington,
Ind. :
Indiana Univ
Press. 1978. xix, 289 pp. £15.75
(cloth) ,
£10.50 (paper).
Im£lici t Hear.-ng,s. London: RlW.
1978.
348
pp.
£2.95 (paper • •
J9.maican
Farewell: Jamaican MiEE,ants
in
London. London:
RKP. 1979. ii 262 pp. £6.95.
Plantation Slaverx. in
Barbados. London:
Harvard Univ. Pres
s .
1978.
xH.i
368
pp
.
£14.00.
The P l a i n ~ IndiansGi Cri ; 2 . . e ~ B i b l i o { f £ a p h ; z .
Bloomington,
Ind. :
Indiana Univ. Press.
1978.
x, 75pp. £2.80 (paper).
Myth
and
Meaning. London: Rf\P.
1978.
7Opp. £1.50 (paper) .
The Origi,n of
Civilisati '2E;.
London:
Univ.
of
Chicago Press. 1978. lxv, 378pp •
l T h . ~ 2 Z " o f
J . j . t e r ~
~ r 2 . d u c t i o n .
London:
RKP.
1978.
xi ,
326pp.
£8.25.
~ l M ~ g r a i i o n : patterns __ n a . P ~ l J c i e s .
Bloomington,
Ind. :
Indiana Univ.
Press.
1978.
xvi i i ,
442pp. £22.50.
8/19/2019 The Anthropology of Dance - J,Nya Peterson Royce (Book Reviews)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-anthropology-of-dance-jnya-peterson-royce-book-reviews 7/7
Melody, M.E.
Minor, M and Minor,
N.
Nett l ,
B. (Ed.).
Parry;
J.P.
Pitseolak, P. and Eber, D.
Prucha, FoP.
Ricoeur,
Po
Steward,
J .H.
Wood,
B.A.
- 206 -
The
A p a c h e ~ _ l _
Q:tiAll.cal
Bibliography.
Bloomington,
Ind.:
Indiana Univ. Press
•
. 1978.
x, 86pp.
£2.80
(paper)
The
American Indian Craft
Book. London:
uni.;. -
of
Nebraska
Press. 19r8.-416pp.
£3.45 (pa.per).
, isht Urban
M ~ s i c a l
Cultures. T,ondon:
Univ.
of l l ino is Press.
1978.
32Opp.
Caste
and
~ n s h i p in Kangra. London:
RKP. 1978.
xvi , 353pp. £12.50.
P £ 0J2 1eFrom
_Our. Side:
1,n s k ~ _ m o
Life
:i
Words and Phq£o&£,aphs. Bloomington, Ind. :
Indiana Univ.
Press.
1978.
159pp. £12.60
(cloth)"
£9.10
(paper).
y n i ~ ~ a t e s
I n d i ~ n p o l ~ S l
A Crit ica1
B i 1 : > 1 i o 8 : r : ~ ~ Bloomington, Ind.:
Indiana
Univ. Press.
1978.
x , 54pp. £2.80 (paper).
The Rule
o f
Metaph2 ,.
London: RKP 1978.
392pp.
£9.50 •
. .volut_ion2nd
Ecolo&: _Essa;zs on
Social
Trans:Bormation. London:
Univ.
of Chicago
Press. 1978. -406pp. (paper).
Human
Evolution.
London: Chapman
and
Hall .
1978.SOP£.
£1.75 (paper).
#