196 AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST [82, 19801

king: among the Dan, the oppressor is an uncar- ing parent.

Paulme’s approach is sensible and relates clearly to ethnographic realities. I would ques- tion only her tendency to treat societies and the concerns of their members as homogeneous. For instance, would the misogyny in tales such as “The Devouring Mother” emerge in versions told by women? Paulme seems to assume that all tales are told by and for men. But social rela- tions may be “felt” in different ways by different parties.

Tone: A Linguistic Survey. Victoria A . Fromkin, ed. New York: Academic Press, 1978. vii + 292 pp. $24.00/E9.75 (cloth).

C. A. Creider University of Western Ontario

The study of tone has received much atten- tion in recent years. Some of the best of such work has come from California, and Fromkin’s volume is part of this tradition. An important aspect of this new work is the interaction be- tween experimental phoneticians and phonol- ogists. Papers by Ohala, Gandour, and Hom- bert all deal with aspects of the phonetics of tone. Ohala’s paper on the production of tone presents evidence showing the incorrectness of Lieberman’s claim that pitch variation is principally determined by subglottal pressure rather than by the laryngeal muscles. Ohala also deals briefly with the explanation of downdrift where he hypothesizes that it is not automatic but purposeful. A similar claim was made earlier by Sarles. Gandour’s paper on the per- ception of tone covers pitch-discrimination

studies, categorical perception of tone, and reports on a multidimensional scaling analysis of tone perception. Hombert deals with inter- actions between segment types and tone and presents summaries of a number of his new studies in this area.

The remaining six papers in the volume treat tonal phonology. As a group they have in com- mon the utilization of data from many lan- guages in a search for universal aspects of tonal phonology that does not lose sight of the com- plexity of individual (language) variation. Mc- Cawley argues that the dichotomy between pitch-accent and tone languages breaks down when confronted with variation among system types. Anderson’s discussion of tone features (a model specimen of a genuinely critical review study) concludes that contour tones should be analyzed as sequences of level tones, but leaves undecided the selection of features to be used in classifying level tones. Leben develops the auto- segmental framework of Goldsmith to show the independence of tones from segments (or syl- lables). Schuh discusses types of tonal process, and Hyman surveys types of tone change. Hyman notes that downstepped tones come into ex- istence as contour tones simplify, and not from downdrift. Li and Thompson emphasize the scantiness of data on the acquisition of tone.

This useful volume merits only a few criti- cisms. Work done on distinguishing pitch- accent and tonal systems in an autosegmental framework could have been considered. Mary Clark‘s dynamic-tone theory could have been included. Coverage of African and Asian languages is good, but tone languages of South America, North America (except for Mexico), and New Guinea are not well covered. Future work should seek to incorporate data from those language areas.

Archaeology

Explanation of Prehistoric Change. James N. Hill, ed. A School of American Research Book. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1977. xiv + 356 pp. $20.00 (cloth).

concern of archaeologists. Soon after systems thinking achieved wide circulation in the books New Perspectives in Archeology and Analytical Archaeotogy, there was a flurry of interest in statistical and indeterminant models to reex- plain prehistory. Within this climate of experi- mentation, a seminar on explanation of prehis- toric organizational change was convened in 1970 under the sponsorship of the School of

James A. Brown Northwestern University

Systems theory has been a relatively recent

ARCHAEOLOGY 197

American Research. This book reports in a well- organized manner that seminar’s contribution to the understanding of the usefulness of systems thinking to archaeology. Unfortunately, the long delay in publication greatly lessens the potential contribution of thts book. If pub- lication had been more timely, the shortcomings of systems theory for explanation would have been more apparent sooner. ‘There is little ex- planation here, although that fact has been art- fully dodged. Nonetheless, this book is an im- portant contribution to archaeology on other counts.

In the introduction, Hill explains that the seminar was held to explore the methods and theories explaining change in sociocultural systems. More precisely, the rocus was on how systems theory could be used to describe and ex- plain prehistoric change. To accomplish those goals, the subject of system stability required equal consideration, and the scope of explana- tion had to be broadened to include historic and contemporary systems as well. An important consideration of the seminar was how to solve the problem of overcoming the antichange posture of systems thinking dominated by “equilibrium” models (p. 102‘).

The main portion of the book is devoted to the contributions brought to the seminar. Each of the seven papers that were circulated before- hand is published in revised form. The first two, by Fred Plog and James Hill, review the prob- lem of explanation in general. Plog argues that four dimensions are common to all acceptable explanations of system change: population, energy, differentiation, and integration. Hill compares three well-known .system models of Miller, Buckley, and Maruyama and concludes that none are suited to modeling sociocultural change. Hill proposes an alternative. The re- maining formal papers are devoted to specific problems of explanation. Arthur Saxe’s paper concerns the system destabilizing forces leading to state formation in historic Hawaii. Richard Ford explains social evolution in the prehistoric midwestern U.S. in terms of ecosystem evolution and energy flows. Michael Glassow argues that changes in the spatial organization of south- western dwellings during Basketmaker 111 times reflect systemic change. Henry Wright reviews explanations for the origin of the state and con- cludes that four types exist: managerial, inter- nal conflict, external conflict, and synthetic. The strengths of the last type are exposited by

his own research in southwestern Iran. William Sanders describes the evolution of the state and urbanism in the valley of Teotihuacan as ecological succession. Next are three chapters that emerged from the seminar itself. A paper by Plog presents key points respecting the utility of simulation for archaeological explanation. A chapter of edited discussion follows that nicely captures the intellectual concerns of the seminar. Saxe’s study occupies a key role in structuring the seminar. He was one of the few that tackled explanation. He concluded that change had to be exogenous. Concluding the book is a chapter of commentary, by Melvin Perlman, that focuses on the topics of explana- tion and stability and change.

Within the diversity of theoretical and sub- stantive perspectives presented are some latent issues that have since assumed greater impor- tance than systems theory itself. Systems theory was not completely digested by the participants. As Hill admits (p. 14), most participants (in- cluding himself) leaned toward a prime-mover position in explanation that Perlman (p. 321) notes is philosophically at odds with tendency explanations. Ecosystem modeling is clearly more comfortable to others. An immersion in problem solving that leads to creative theory building is not greatly in evidence, with the notable exceptions of Glassow and Wright (especially the latter). On the substantive side, the overall scholarship of the contributions is high; two of the high points are Hill’s compari- son of the major social system models and Wright’s synopses of origin of the state theories.

Although many of the substantive contribu- tions have been superseded by work published since the seminar, this volume fulfills an impor- tant role in documenting the role that systems thinking has had in American archaeology. For archaeology today the heritage of systems theory lies less with explanation than in a body of con- cepts, distinctions, and interrelations. The cur- rent posture is actually anticipated by Hill (pp. 102-103) and is even foreshadowed by the per- sistent tendency of many seminar participants to look toward one variable as more important than others in the explanation of a substantive problem. Although there are few adherents of prime-mover explanations today, the satisfac- tion gained from determinate explanations is now sought in “middle-range’’ theory. In this respect the science of archaeology has greatly matured since the seminar of 1970.