8 14 American Anthropologist [70, 19681 tion and deserve emphasis. With a ratio of one shrine for every two houses, the area excavated is, as Mellaart notes (p. 71), not a normal residential area but probably a priestly and ritual center within the town.

Throughout these main chapters and else- where, an imaginative interpretation of sexual, fertility symbolism of the shrines, their decora- tion, and their contents is constructed, With comparative references stretched to the Upper Paleolithic of France and Germany on one hand and to classical Crete, Mycenae, and Phoenicia on the other. Although there are many different specific aspects of this interpre- tation, it revolves around the supposed existence of two gods, a “great Goddess and her son and paramour” (p. 201), and their involvement in fertility, death and rebirth, hunting magic, and protective rites. Correlative with this interpre- tation, Mellaart develops the idea that women were socially dominant at Catal Hiiyiik (pp. 60, 185, 202) and were probably in control of the religious rituals (p. 202).

Short chapters provide brief summaries of the main features of the architecture, the lay- out of the town, and burial customs and grave goods. A chapter on crafts and trade skims over the rich material goods uncovered by the excavations. The last chapter on the people and their economy quickly shows that an im- portant and varied agricultural activity supple- mented considerable hunting and sheep and goat herding as the subsistence base for the large population at this town.

As a general book for the public Cataf Hiiyiik seems to dwell rather excessively on the de- scriptive detail of shrines, wall paintings, and figurines. The result, even with the often very fine color plates and excellent perspective draw- ings of the shrines, is frequently quite tedious reading.

Yet, for professionals who were excited and intrigued by the prompt preliminary reports in Analofian Studies, this new book does not pro- vide the awaited systematic analysis or presen- tation of the full data from this site. We are again tantalized by passing references to difEer- ential distributions of features, caches, and types of artifacts within the site or between dif- ferent shrines (e.g., pp. 60, 79, Chap. IX on differential treatment and accompaniments of male and female burials in and outside of shrines, pp. 62-63 on different contents of storerooms, p. 78 on different offerings in var- ious shrines, etc.), but we are deprived of the full substantive data to check and interpret these probable patterns.

Further, the logiceused in many of the com- parative interpretations of the data seems far from the normal analogical reasoning charac-

teristic of the use of historical or ethnographi- cal parallels in interpreting archeological mate- rials. The interpretation. of the symbolic signifi- cance of the structures, paintings, or items in the shrines, and the development of the idea of female dominance in social organization are cases in point.

Instead of analytically determining struc- tural patterns in the data and demonstrating the generic similarity of the data and observed patterns to known historical or ethnographic instances, intuitive jumps are made item by item and case by case to a subjective interpre- tation of these items’ and occurrences’ signifi- cance. These individual interpretations are then summarized into generalities about symbolic or social patterns. We thus find, for example, that “The woman’s bed never changed place, nor did the arrangement of the kitchen, but the man’s bed did. The sociological implications to be drawn from this are fairly obvious” (p. 60) , that “The proud adolescent figure [stone figurine] . . . seems characteristic of the confi- dence, pride and virility of the male at Catal Hiiyiik, still a figure to be reckoned with, and not yet entirely subservient to the wiles of women, as at Hacilar” (p. 185, caption), and that “Moreover, in the new economy a greater number of tasks were undertaken by women, a pattern that has not changed in Anatolian villages to this day, and this probably accounts for her social pre-eminence” (p. 202). These examples indicate, to this reviewer at least, a simple subjective reaction t o certain facts in the archeological data and not a reasoned use of analogy to draw an inference about a pat- tern of social organization. To draw attention to this kind of criticism of

a work directed toward the general public seems perhaps more important than for a professional publication, since it is through our general works that the public not only Sees the material that has been found but also forms its opinion of the rigor, reasonableness, and valid- ity of our contributions to understanding man’s past.

Archeology on the Island of Mo’orea, French Polynesia. ROGER c. GREEN. KAYE GREEN, ROY A. RAPPAPORT, ANN RAPPAPORT, and JANET M. DAVIDSON. (Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of Natural History, Volume 51, Part 2.) New York: The Amer- ican Museum of Natural History, 1967. 120 pp., 21 text figures, literature cited, 8 plates, 13 tables. $4.00 (paper).

Reviewed by DOUGLAS OSBORNE California State College at Long Beach

The fieldwork for this paper extended inter-

Book Reviews 815

mittently from 1960 into 1962. Writing was largely done in 1963 but was updated and the summary and conclusion rewritten, apparently in 1965. Seven archeological essays, four of them describing sites and excavations and archi- tectural finds in an inland (’Opunohu) valley and on the coast; a discussion of the artifacts and of a midden test; and the Summary and Conclusions form the chapters of this report. All were written by the several authors, singly or in combination. The report is clearly written although differences in the writing quality, from paper to paper, vary the pace of reading. Maps and ground plans are excellent except for the lack of contour lines.

Time, or presumably funds to set larger crews to work (and these are often the same thing), prevented as complete work at several of the sites as would have been appropriate. Nevertheless, a large amount was accomplished. The study penetrated only recent aspects of the occupation of the island-or at least I assume that there are older ones. It was not set up to find evidences of earliest migrants but rather to illuminate the old questions of a major differ- ence between coastal and inland Marae, to study house types, and to uncover evidence in- dicating areas of population development. Evi- dences from the architectural remains are, I am sure, properly interpreted as describing centers of social and ceremonial life, and thus of local past elites and power.

Green postulates, and the digging supports this, that there can be no major cultural differ- entiation between coastal and inland peoples on these small islands. Zones of occupation in- cluded both coast and the arable inland parts of the valley where most of the food was grown. Radiocarbon dates in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries are as far as the work on Mo’orea penetrated the past.

Green, in his Summary, examines the history of people, power, and settlement on the island and, using a direct-historical method, was able to relate the local developments to population and power. He points out that the origin of larger structures on the coasts is likely to be re- lated to an overlay of political control resulting from conquest and thus leads to considerations pertinent to other than the in situ cultural de- velopment on the island itself. Inland occupa- tional sites of the largely later period, seven- teenth to early nineteenth century, were gen- erally in better condition than many of those of the coast. Along the latter, somewhat better earlier material appears to exist for the thir- teenth century. This difference is no doubt a result of recent and modern activity.

Artifacts found were distressingly few, and most of those were fragmented. Yet, working

with them, a good case is made for two worth- while comments: (1) that the museum collec- tions from the early contact periods in the Soci- ety Islands cannot be depended upon to reflect the material culture. No bone fishing gear was found, yet apparently it is not uncommon in the museum collections from the area; (2) that the artifacts cannot have formed the basis of late Maori (Classic or Fleet) material culture of the same kinds.

This is a good report, founded on good, in- telligent fieldwork. I have few complaints. The midden study, excellent in its listing of bone and shell, gives little or nothing about food habits. There is a lack of soil description or analysis that could give a reader a feel for the kind of soils in which the excavators worked. Soil chemistry, pollen possibilities, variances in plant cover are not discussed at all. Very possi- bly they need not be and this report may not be the place for such things. I hope that more detail will develop as further work is reported.

Another thing, I found the paper implicit rather than explicit. It was difficult to pin it down, mentally. This is no doubt an aspect of a report on beginning work in any area. All in all I hope that this fine intensive work in the Soci- ety group will go on, and I expect great things from it.

The Archaeology of the Palau Islands: A n Intensive Study. DOUGLAS OSBORNE. (Bernice P. Bishop Museum, Bulletin 230.) Honolulu, Hawaii: Bishop Museum Press, 1966. xi, 497 pp., appendix, bibliography, 121 figures (1 foldout), frontispiece (in color), 142 tables. $14.00 (paper).

Reviewed by LEON SINDER Long Island University, Brooklyn

Pacific archeology, particularly on the main- land but having echoes in “island work,” has often been of two types: either intended as a vindication of previously held historical “truisms” or containing only dry citations of long lists of typological characteristics of mate- rial culture. In the former, the basically anti- quarian character of the research has made in- teresting but, in essence, valueless reading; while in the latter, the significant work has faded in the light of the dryness of the presen- tation. Dr. Osborne has brilliantly sidestepped the traps to be found in either of these two ap- proaches and has written a fascinating, exhaus- tively researched, and profusely documented (via diagrams and photographs) work of ar- cheologically scientific art.

Field archeology, as a meaningful tool in the general anthropological quest of 6lling in human history within time and space, has often