the anthropology of dance - j,nya peterson royce (book reviews)

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,



... 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.



- 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).



- 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



- 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



- 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.



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).

#

the anthropology of dance - j,nya peterson royce (book reviews)

Documents