342
BOOK REVIEWS
form a coherent and readable entity, since they only contain information of a very specialized nature, and constitute only snippets from the enormous archaeological literature of even the 1930's and 1940's. Four of the seven articles deal with Szechuan province, which Cheng wrongly described in 1947 as “fundamentally a marginal area [whose culture] has never been a product of an independent development." Another article treats Tang dynasty tombs in Fukien, while the remaining two of the pre-1950 period concern monuments of the Hopei-Honan-Shantung area, and cannon of the Opium War.
As the author notes in the Introduction, these and many similar studies are scattered in various learned journals. One may thus entertain serious doubts about the claim of the publishers that “it is worth gathering some of the more important [of Cheng's archaeological writings] together for reference." For whose reference? The few interested scholars can easily obtain copies of the original publications, whereas the general reader would have little interest in reading 40-year-old site reports and field surveys, concluded by out-dated interpretations. Regardless of Cheng's occasionally enjoyable style, as in the anecdotal archaeological tour of the three provinces, the reader will not gain even a partial overview of Chinese archaeology from these articles.
Many of the same considerations apply to Cheng's essay on archaeology in Sarawak. Although more recent (1969), it does not give a current or balanced view of Sarawak's past. One assumes that Cheng himself approves of including Sarawak in a volume on “Chinese archaeology," since he views the area as the extreme southern frontier of the Han empire—a notion which is highly debatable, to say the least. In support of this line Cheng in this article takes "Chinese relics" automatically to indicate "Chinese activities”, relates Sarawak's Iron Age to the Chinese invention of iron metallurgy in the Shang dynasty (the date should actually be Late Chou, and it may have been a borrowed idea rather than an “invention”), describes a flat stone with two perforations as "an import from the mainland”, and suggests that the custom of boat burials in cliff caves was spread by "southern Chinese" throughout southeast Asia. Suffice it to say that the chapter on Sarawak, though containing interesting tidbits of information, is cast in a strong sinocentric perspective.
342
BOOK REVIEWS
form a coherent and readable entity, since they only contain information of a very specialized nature, and constitute only snippets from the enormous archaeological literature of even the 1930's and 1940's. Four of the seven articles deal with Szechuan province, which Cheng wrongly described in 1947 as “fundamen- tally a marginal area [whose culture] has never been a product of an independent development." Another article treats Tang dynasty tombs in Fukien, while the remaining two of the pre-1950 period concern monuments of the Hopei-Honan-Shantung area, and cannon of the Opium War.
+
As the author notes in the Introduction, these and many similar studies are scattered in various learned journals. One may thus entertain serious doubts about the claim of the publishers that “it is worth gathering some of the more important [of Cheng's archaeological writings] together for reference." For whose reference? The few interested scholars can easily obtain copies of the original publications, whereas the general reader would have little interest in reading 40-year-old site reports and field surveys, concluded by out-dated interpretations. Regardless of Cheng's occasionally enjoyable style, as in the anecdotal archaeo- logical tour of the three provinces, the reader will not gain even a partial over-view of Chinese archaeology from these articles.
Many of the same considerations apply to Cheng's essay on archaeology in Sarawak. Although more recent (1969), it does not give a current or balanced view of Sarawak's past. One assumes that Cheng himself approves of including Sarawak in a volume on “Chinese archaeology," since he views the area as the extreme southern frontier of the Han empire-a notion which is highly debatable, to say the least. In support of this line Cheng in this article takes "Chinese relics" automatically to indicate "Chinese activities”, relates Sarawak's Iron Age to the Chinese invention of iron metallurgy in the Shang dynasty (the date should actually be Late Chou, and it may have been a borrowed idea rather than an “invention”), describes a flat stone with two perforations as "an import from the mainland”, and suggests that the custom of boat burials in cliff caves was spread by "southern Chinese" throughout southeast Asia, Suffice it to say that the chapter on Sarawak, though containing interesting tidbits of information, is cast in a strong sinocentric perspective.
i
:
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.