INTRODUCTION

THE CULTURAL HiSTOBY of Northern Asia holds much of interest for the student of culture process and human adaptation. The variety of often rigorous environments, the presence or absence of geographic barriers affecting movement and diffusion, the impingement of contrasting ethnic and cultural forces from east and west—to name only a few of the factors involved—make this an area of rime concern to anthropology. Developments here, also, may shed important Eght on historical problems of Eastern Europe, Central Asia, the Far East, and even the New World. In fact, the prehistory of Northern Asia is attracting growing interest among American archaeologists and anthropologists owing to its sig- nificance for basic research, including that into the question of the origins of the indigenous populations and cultures of the New World, a major interest of long standing in American anthropology. The seemingly isolated Western Hemisphere provides a laboratory situation for the testing of many basic theoretical assump- tions regarding human behavior, "human nature," and cultural evolution. Deter- mination of the nature and extent of Old World influence on the Americas is vital to the solution of such problems. Since a considerable if not preponderant part of this influence must be attributed to Northern Asia, its identification and evalua- tion depends primarily on the fullest possible knowledge of the prehistory of this part of the world. The present volume was conceived as a contribution to provide information on the archaeology and also on the Pleistocene geomorphology of Northern Asia, since the latter is indispensable to an understanding of the earlier phases of human history here. The past thirty years have seen a commendable amount of data collection and research in both fields. Much still remains to be done, but this part of the world is no longer the proverbial "blank spot" of popular imagina- tion. The dearth of information in the Western World is primarily a product of the language barrier, and is thus more apparent than real. From the growing Russian literature, the Advisory Committee of this series has selected for publica- tion here eighteen papers of permanent value or major interest not available else- where, which appeared in Soviet sources during the years 1948-63. As it stands, the volume is primarily directed at the specialist with some knowledge of the area. For those persons approaching the subject for the first time, or with only a limited acquaintance, the following works will provide general orientation and aid in placing the papers in proper perspective. The outstanding work in English is Henry N. Michael's "The Neolithic Age in eastern Siberia" (Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, vol. 48, part 2, 1958). A briefer but important treatment of western Siberia is Demitri B. Shimkin's "Western Siberian archaeology, an interpretative summary" (Selected Papers of the Fifth International Congress of Anthropological and Ethnological Sciences, Philadelphia, 1960, pp. 648-661). For northeastern China, the most comprehensive treatment will be found in Kwang-chih Chang's The Archaeology of Anicent China (Yale University Press, 1963). Marija Gimbutas's "The pre- history of Eastern Europe, Part I" ( Bulletin of the American School of Prehistoric x Introduction Research, no. 20, 1956) and "Middle Ural sites and the chronology of northern Eurasia" (Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, vol. 24, 1958, pp. 120-157) con- tain much that is relevant to Siberian problems. Other general treatments include Chester S. Chard's "An outline of the prehistory of Siberia. Part I. The pre-metal periods" (Southwestern Journal of Anthropology, vol. 14, no. 1, 1958, pp. 1-33), "The Neolithic in Northern Asia: A culture area approach" (Anthropologica, n.s., vol. 2, no. 2, 1960, pp. 240-248), and "Soviet scholarship on the prehistory of Asiatic Russia" (Slavic Review, vol. 22, no, 3,1963, pp. 538-546). The following more-specialized discussions focus on particular regions or topics: CHARD, CHESTER S. Chronology and culture succession in the Northern Kuriles. American Antiquity, vol. 21, no. 3, 1956, pp. 287-292. Observations on the Lena Neolithic. Asian Perspectives, vol. 1,1957, pp. 183—198. Mesolithic sites in Siberia. Asian Perspectives, vol. 2, no. 1, 1958, pp. 118-127. Organic tempering in Northeast Asia and Alaska. American Antiquity, vol. 24, no. 2, 1958, pp. 193-194. Routes to Bering Strait. American Antiquity, vol. 26, no. 2, 1960, pp. 283-285. The Old World roots: Review and speculations. Anthropological Papers of the University of Alaska, vol. 10, no. 2, 1963, pp. 115-121. Check-stamped pottery in prehistoric Eurasia. In A Pedro Bosch-Gimpera en el septuagésimo aniversario de su nacimiento, Mexico, 1963, pp. 95—101. GAUL, [AMES. Observations on the Bronze Age in the Yenisei Valley, Siberia. Papers of the Peabody Museum, vol. 20, Cambridge, 1943, pp. 149-186. JETTMAR, KARL. The Karasuk culture and its southeastern affinities. Bulletin, Museum of Far Eastern Antiquities, no. 22, Stockholm, 1950, pp. 83-126. The Altai before the Turks. Bulletin, Museum of Far Eastern Antiquities, no. 23, Stockholm, 1951, pp. 135-223. Movius, HALLAM L., JR. Late Pleistocene (4th glacial) conditions and Palaeolithic settlement in Soviet Central Asia and Western Siberia. Actes du IV Congrès Inter- national du Quaternaire, 1955. QuiMHY, GEORGE I. The prehistory of Kamchatka. American Antiquity, vol. 12, no. 3, 1947, pp. 173-179. TOLSTOY, PAUL. Some Amerasian pottery traits in North Asian prehistory. American Antiquity, vol. 19, no. 1, 1953, pp. 25-39. The archaeology of the Lena basin and its New World relationships. American Antiquity, vol. 23, no. 4, 1958, pp. 397-418; vol. 24, no. 1, 1958, pp. 63-81. YOSHIZAKI, MASAKAZU. Prehistoric culture in southern Sakhalin. Arctic Anthropology, vol. 1, no. 2, 1963, pp. 131-158. Malta, the subject of the first archaeological report in the present volume, is the type site for the early stage of the Siberian Palaeolithic; there are no indu- bitable sites of comparable age with the exception of the Ust-Kanskaya Cave in the Altay, which is thought to represent a still earlier time. Current estimates place the age of Malta at 15,000-20,000 years, which seems not unreasonable in the light of the radiocarbon date from the later site of Afontova Cora II. The initial work at Malta was carried out intermittently between 1928 and 1937; the reports which appeared are not readily accessible for the most part. The present paper deals with the new excavations carried out in 1956-57 by one of the original investigators, M. M. Gerasimov, a famous figure in Soviet science well known for his reconstructions of the features of early human skulls. It is important because the author seems to have no plans for publishing a more definite report on this key site, and because his views and interpretations differ in important respects from his earlier ones. It has been the general view that the early stage Introduction xi of the Siberian Palaeolithic displayed definite western elements, which disappear in the subsequent "classic" Siberian Palaeolithic, the roots of which are now traced to Mongolia ( cf. "Northeast Asia," Asian Perspectives, vol. 8, no. 1, 1964 ). Gerasimov here plays down the western aspect, denying, for example, the pres- ence of true burins and real prismatic cores. The paper is of particular interest for its description of Palaeolithic dwellings with clear division into men's and women's sides, and differing structures for summer and winter use. The discovery of actual hafted tools is also noteworthy. Those who, like the present writer, have been privileged to examine the materials recovered can only regret that a fuller report will not be forthcoming. The only other sources on the 1956-57 excava- tions are to be found in Kratkiye soobshcheniya Instituía arkheologii, no. 82, 1961, pp. 128-134, and Asian Perspectives, vol. 5, no. 1, 1962, pp. 118-119. The author of the next three papers, Academician A. P. Okladnikov, is a tower- ing figure in Siberian archaeology who has devoted a lifetime to pioneering investigations in the eastern half of the area and is responsible for the bulk of our information. His report on the Lena valley is still the only work on the Palaeolithic of this important region, describing in detail all possible occurrences, based on his own observations. It is important to bear in mind that the later stages of the Siberian Palaeolithic are clearly postglacial, and it is here that the Lena sites would seem to belong, with the possible exception of Chastinskaya. All are merely temporary campsites with scanty remains. The basis for assigning them to the Palaeolithic is mainly typological, plus in some cases a geological- stratigraphic situation comparable to that of the late Palaeolithic finds on the Angara and Yenisey rivers. Judging by the evidence presented, man was a late- comer in the Lena valley and did not penetrate north of Yakutsk until fairly recent times. Okladnikov's summary and interpretation of the available data on the Yenisey Neolithic is also the only source on an important region. The Yenisey served both as a major frontier and also as a channel of communication through the heartland of Siberia. Information on the Neolithic stage here is drawn mainly from scattered finds, typologically dated; these are described and discussed, and their signif- icance examined. A few sites are referred to but never described. Cultural paral- lels and possible imports from the Baykal region, most apparent in the earlier stages, provide a basis for cross-dating. Some links are also seen with the Afan- asyevo culture of the steppe and with western Siberia and even the Urals. Ofcladnikov believes there is evidence indicating the arrival of Uralian tribes from the west towards the close of the Neolithic—most probably the ancestral Samoyedic stock. In general, he sees the area east of the Yenisey as the domain of the Mongoloid Altaic peoples in prehistoric times, and the area to the west as the territory of the Caucasoid Uralians. The region of the Amur headwaters was a crossroads of cultural influences moving from the Amur basin to the Baykal area and from Mongolia to Yakutia. It is also the possible homeland of the Altaic peoples, where the historic territories of Tungus, Turk, and Mongol meet. Despite its potential importance, the region is almost unknown archaeologically. Hence the significance of Shilka Cave, a prehistoric habitation site excavated in 1952 and 1954, and assigned on typo- logical grounds to the Eneolithic or initial Bronze Age, and possibly overlying a somewhat earlier burial. The thin cultural deposit, probably the result of repeated occupations, is treated as a unit. ( The burial context had been disturbed previously.) The bulk of the report consists of a detailed description of all the artifacts with comparative remarks. Cultural parallels are seen primarily with xii Introduction Trans-Baykal, less with the Lena and Angara valleys, and, to some extent with Manchuria—but very few with the Pacific coast or the Amur valley. The report concludes with an extended discussion of prehistoric cultures in the surrounding regions. V. Ye. Larichev, a former student of Okladnikov and now his closest collab- orator, is one of the very few Soviet archaeologists who reads Chinese and controls the Chinese sources. He has interested himself particularly in the pre- history of Manchuria, or "Northeastern China" (Tungpei) as it is called now- adays. The two papers in the present volume reflect his research on this area. The first is an analysis of the Neolithic and Bronze Age of Manchuria based on the published sources in all languages. He sees three culture areas represented during the Neolithic: the loess area (Yangshao culture), the eastern Chinese plain (Lungshan culture), and the Manchurian Neolithic proper. It should be pointed out that the data for resolving the then-obscure relationship between the Yangshao and Lungshan were not available at the time the paper was written. It has now been demonstrated that Yangshao and Lungshan represent the two major temporal stages of the Chinese Neolithic, embracing all of northern China (see Kwang-chih Chang, The Archaeology of Ancient China, referred to above). The Manchurian Neolithic itself Larichev subdivides into four regional com- plexes: (1) Jehol-Liaoning, the truly indigenous Manchurian culture, agricul- tural, revealing close ties with northern Korea and the southern Maritime Ter- ritory of Siberia; despite Yangshao parallels, this is a distinctive culture. (2) The completely different Lin-hsia region, which is culturally simply the eastern exten- sion of Mongolia. (3) The Ang-ang-hsi-Nonni-Sungari region, culturally a south- ern extension of Trans-Baykal. (4) The lower Sungari, which belongs culturally with the lower Amur and the interior portion of the Maritime Territory. According to Larichev the essential feature of the Manchurian Neolithic is its mosaic nature —the result of its intermediate position relative to a number of quite distinctive adjacent culture areas. The Bronze Age, on the contrary, is characterized by cul- tural uniformity over the entire area with the exception of the eastern mountain tribes, and by the northward penetration of Manchurian-Chinese culture for the first time towards the Baykal region. Larichev believes that this "slab grave" culture, as it is commonly labelled, grew out of the indigenous Jehol-Liaoning Neolithic, borrowing bronze metallurgy from the Shang civilization. The sites indicate sedentary life and a mixed farming-stock-breeding economy. These "barbarian" tribes of the steppe had far-flung trade connections to the west and links with the contemporary dolmen culture of Korea and the Shell Mound culture of the Maritime Territory. Larichev hypothesizes that this ethnic conti- nuum represents the ancestors of the Tungus-Manchu. His second paper describes an important group of Neolithic sites near Tsitsihar, based partly on obscure Manchurian reports and Chinese sources, but primarily on unpublished recent Soviet collections from two of the previously known sites. The Tsitsihar sites are important not only for the abundance of finds, but also because these were recovered in situ, whereas most other Manchurian and Mon- golian Neolithic sites occur as surface finds devoid of context. For the sake of completeness, a detailed description is given of the total assemblage of artifacts from all sources. Larichev concludes that from the standpoint of the stone and bone industry, the area represents the easternmost outpost of Siberian-Mongolian culture, with which it shares a similar environment. Yet in ceramics, in particular, many southeastern analogies can be discerned. The result is a unique regional Introduction xiii culture with a hunting-gathering base, forming the connecting link between China and Siberia. G. I. Andreyev specializes in the prehistory of the Maritime Territory of Siberia and has been responsible for a considerable part of the recent fieldwork in that area as field director of a section of the Far Eastern Expedition headed by A. P. Okladnikov. The purpose of his paper is to propose a chronological division of the Shell Mound culture of the Vladivostok area, to trace its historical develop- ment, and to clarify its economic basis. The significance of the paper lies in the fact that Andreyev presents a counterview in several respects to the picture set forth by Okladnikov in his authoritative Distant Past of the Maritime Territory, an English translation of which will soon appear in the present series. Andreyev sees two closely related temporal stages in the Shell Mound culture, and points out the inshore, shallow-water nature of the economy (which Okladnikov had considered a truly maritime one), supplemented by the breeding of pigs, and perhaps of dogs also, for food. Andreyev sees no clear evidence of cultivation either. ( The most recent estimates by Okladnikov place the Shell Mound culture in the llth-9th centuries B.C., based on cross-dating and extrapolation from the few radiocarbon dates for this part of Siberia. ) S. I. Rudenko is one of the most distinguished senior archaeologists in the Soviet Union, best known for his work in the Altay region (Pazyryk frozen tombs ) and as author of the first volume in the present translation series ( "The Ancient Culture of the Bering Sea and the Eskimo Problem"). His survey of Kamchatka represents a painstaking synthesis of all available information as of 1947—unstudied collections in local museums as well as all published and un- published reports. Rudenko himself did no fieldwork in the area. Although the author readily admits that his data are inadequate to establish a relative chrono- logy of the known sites, the paper has remained the definitive work on Kamchatka prehistory down to the summer of 1964, when the results of N. N. Dikov's impor- tant new excavations were announced, and is still useful for its detailed discus- sion of artifact types and house remains. Early ethnographic sources are drawn on to amplify the archaeological picture. It should be noted that Rudenko repeats Jochelson's identification of llth century Japanese coins in the Kurile Lake site, which has since been shown to be erroneous (see American Antiquity, vol. 21, no. 3, 1956, pp. 287-292). Kamchatka prehistory has taken on a new dimension with Dikov's report (Arctic Anthropology, vol. 3, no. 1, 1965) of his excavations at Ushki on the Kamchatka river, one of the most important sites yet discovered in northeastern Asia, where four successive occupations are represented, sep- arated by layers of volcanic ash. The lowest level, classified as "Mesolithic," dis- plays parallels with the famous preceramic Shirataki site in Hokkaido and has a radiocarbon date of 10,675 years B.P. This is overlain by a core-and-blade com- plex with burins considered to be typologically "preceramic Neolithic," and ascribed on the basis of palynological data to the postglacial climatic optimum. The succeeding full Neolithic is especially noteworthy for the first indubitable labrets to be found in situ in northeastern Asia, and the very large communal pit dwellings. The topmost level at Ushki is a fishing settlement that could be ascribed to the ancestral Kamchadal. The archaeological section of the present volume concludes with a collection of brief preliminary announcements on the 1956-1960 excavations in the Uelen cemetery on the Siberian shore of Bering Strait. These more ephemeral contri- butions are included owing to the importance and interest of the finds and the xiv Introduction fact that the appearance of a definitive report may be delayed by the unfortunate death of the senior investigator, M. G. Levin. Levin, who was Deputy Director of the Institute of Ethnography, Academy of Sciences of the U.S.S.R., was the leading Soviet authority on the Eskimo problem, and Uelen represents his last major fieldwork. (For an obituary of this distinguished scholar by Henry N. Michael, see American Antiquity, vol. 29, no. 4, 1964, pp. 480-483; one of Levin's major works, "Ethnic Origins of the Peoples of Northeastern Asia," was published as no. 3 of the present series.) The Uelen cemetery, discovered in 1955, is certainly one of the major sites of prehistoric Eskimo culture, and in the rich and spec- tacular nature of the finds it is unsurpassed. The majority of the 76 burials opened are assigned to the Okvik-Old Bering Sea phase; the remaining few to Birnirk or Punuk. Perhaps the most important aspect of the finds is the first Eskimo cranial series from this oldest phase ( 70 individuals from Uelen and 16 additional from the Ekven cemetery), which proved to resemble the modern eastern Eskimo, thus demonstrating the antiquity of this "classic" type and also providing further substantiation of W. S. Laughlin's hypothesis that the western Eskimo, owing to their large population, have undergone progressive brachycephalization over the course of time, while the original Eskimo type has survived only in the small, isolated communities of the eastern Arctic. The Uelen cemetery also yielded the earliest known iron artifact (a graver) from the Bering Straits area, demonstrating trade contacts with areas where iron was in use—most likely either the lower Lena or the western coast of the Sea of Okhotsk. The spectacular nature of the art finds will be apparent from a glance at the illustrations. It should be noted that the blood group data which Levin mentions having collected among the native population—the first from this part of Asia—have been pub- lished in English in Arctic Anthropology, vol. 1, no. 1, 1962, pp. 87-92 (the M and MN columns of Table 4 have been transposed ). It should also be noted that an English translation of Arutyunov, Levin, and Sergeyev's "Ancient burials of the Chukchi peninsula" has previously appeared in Arctic Anthropology, vol. 2, no. 1, 1964. Another translation is included in the present volume for the sake of completeness in the coverage of Uelen. This paper also gives a preliminary account of a new burial site, the Ekven cemetery, of similar age. Further work at Ekven is anticipated, with just as interesting results. The five papers on geomorphology are from a 1956 symposium on "The Ice Age in the European Section of the U.S.S.R. and in Siberia," and were selected as being of special interest for the early human history of Northern Asia. Popov presents some new material and a generalized Pleistocene history of the lower Ob and the northern part of the West Siberian Plain. He advances as a major thesis that a large area of this northern part was inundated by the sea, the trans- gression following the maximum glaciation (see also the paper by Movius cited above). Voskresenskiy describes the land forms, Pleistocene deposits, and environ- mental history of the upper Angara river basin—an area of special interest for the earliest human occupation of Siberia—relating these to archaeological data. Grichuk presents paleobotanical data for the Angara basin in Pleistocene times based on recent pollen studies, and discusses the vegetation history of the region. Chebo- tareva, Kuprina, and Khoreva characterize the Pleistocene deposits of the Yakutsk- Vilyuy depression; and Vaskovskiy outlines the Pleistocene history of a large portion of northeastern Siberia, hitherto little known, based on his own recent fieldwork. Three glacial and two interglacial stages are identified and described. The reader who wishes to supplement the coverage provided in this volume Introduction xv is directed to the following published English translations of Russian papers dealing with aspects of the archaeology of Northern Asia: ABRAMOVA, Z. A. Krasnyy Yar—A New Palaeolithic Site on the Angara. Arctic Anthro- pology, vol. 3, no. 1, 1965. ANDREYEV, G. I. and ANDREYEVA, ZH. V. 1959 Field work of the Coastal Section of the Far Eastern Expedition in the Maritime Territory. Arctic Anthropology, vol. 3, no. 1, 1965. DIKOV, N. N. Archaeological materials from the Chukchi peninsula. American Antiquity, vol. 28, no. 4, 1963, pp. 529-536. The Stone Age of Kamchatka and Chukotka in the light of the latest archaeo- logical data. Arctic Anthropology, vol. 3, no. 1, 1965. DIKOVA, T. M. New data on the characteristics of the Kanchalan site. Arctic Anthro- pology, vol. 3, no. 1, 1965. FORMOZOV, A. A. Microlithic sites in the Asiatic USSR. American Antiquity, vol. 27, no. 1, 1961, pp. 82-92. LARICHEV, V. E. Neolithic settlements in Cis-Baykal (1957-59 excavations). Arctic Anthropolgy, vol. 1, no. 1, 1962, pp. 93-95. On the Microlithic character of Neolithic cultures in Central Asia, Trans-Baykal and Manchuria. American Antiquity, vol. 27, no. 3, 1962, pp. 315-322. Neolithic settlements on the lower reaches of the Ussuri river. Arctic Anthro- pology, vol. 3, no. 1, 1965. LEVIN, M. G. Ethnic origins of the peoples of Northeastern Asia. Anthropology of the North: Translations from Russian Sources, no. 3, Toronto, 1963. MEDVEDEV, G. I. The place of the culture of Verkholenskaya Gora in the archaeological sequence of the Baykal region. American Antiquity, vol. 29, no. 4, 1964, pp. 461-466. OKLADNIKOV, A. P. Ancient cultures and cultural and ethnic relations on the Pacific Coast of North Asia. Proceedings of the 32nd International Congress of Ameri- canists, Copenhagen, 1958, pp. 545—556. Ancient cultures in the continental part of North-East Asia. Actas del XXXIII Congreso Internacional de Americanistas, Tomo II, San José, 1959, pp. 72-80. Archaeology of the Soviet Arctic. Acta Árctica, Fase. XII, Copenhagen, 1960, pp. 35-45. A note on the Lake Elgytkhyn finds. American Antiquity, vol. 26, no. 1, 1960, pp. 97-98. The Palaeolithic of Trans-Baykal. American Antiquity, vol. 26, no. 4, 1961, pp. 486-497. Palaeolithic sites in Trans-Baykal. Asian Perspectives, vol. 4, 1961, pp. 156-182. The temperate zone of Continental Asia. In Courses Toward Urban Life (Viking Fund Publication No. 32), 1962, pp. 267-287. The introduction of iron in the Soviet Arctic and Far East. Folk, vol. 5, Copen- hagen, 1963, pp. 249-255. The history of fishery in North Asia. Folk, vol. 5, Copenhagen, 1963, pp. 256-258. Ancient population of Siberia and its culture. In M. G. Levin and L. P. Potapov (editors), The Peoples of Siberia, Chicago, 1964, pp. 13-98. An ancient settlement on Pkhusun Bay. Arctic Anthropology, vol. 3, no. 1, 1965. OKLADNIKOV, A. P. and NEKRASOV, I. A. New traces of an inland Neolithic culture in the Chukotsk (Chukchi) peninsula. American Antiquity, vol. 25, no. 2, 1959, pp. 247-256. • Ancient settlements in the valley of the Main river, Chukchi peninsula. American Antiquity, vol. 27, no. 4, 1962, pp. 546-556. RUDENKO, S. I. The ancient culture of the Bering Sea and the Eskimo problem. Anthro- pology of the North: Translations from Russian Sources, Toronto, 1961. xvi Introduction The Ust-Kanskaya Paleolithic cave site, Siberia. American Antiquity, vol. 27, no. 2, 1961, pp. 203-215. SEMENOV, A. V. The ancient culture of the Koryak district. Arctic Anthropology, vol. 3, no. 1, 1965. VASILEVSKH, R. S. Ancient Koryak culture. American Antiquity, vol. 30, no. 1, 1964, pp. 19-24.

Other Russian reports are summarixed in the following:

American Antiquity, vol. 17, no. 3, 1952, pp. 261-262; vol. 20, no. 3, 1955, pp. 283-284; vol. 21, no. 4, 1956, pp. 405-409; vol. 22, no. 3, 1957, pp. 304-305. Anthropological Papers of the University of Alaska, vol. 8, no. 2, 1960, pp. 119-130; vol. 9, no. 1, 1960, pp. 1-10; vol. 10, no. 1, 1961, pp. 73-76. Arctic Anthropology, vol. 1, no. 1, 1962, pp. 84-86. Asian Perspectives, vol. 5, no. 1, 1962, pp. 118-126. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology, vol. 11, no. 2, 1955, pp. 150-177.

Additional English-language sources on the archaeology of Northern Asia in- clude abstracts of Russian reports in the "Arctic" section of the annual Abstracts of New World Archaeology (published by the Society for American Archaeology, 1530 P Street, N.W., Washington 5, D.C. ) ; brief abstracts of Russian publications on both archaeology and geomorphology in the various volumes of the Arctic Bibliography (published by the U.S. Government Printing Office); complete annotated bibliographies on the archaeology of eastern Siberia and Mongolia, with notices of recent fieldwork, appearing annually in the "Northeast Asia" sec- tion of Asian Perspectives (Bulletin of the Far Eastern Prehistory Association, c/o Department of Anthropology, University of Hawaii, Honolulu, Hawaii); and the COWA Surveys and Bibliographies for Northern Asia (published by the Council for Old World Archaeology, 11 Divinity Avenue, Cambridge 38, Mass.) which provide selective coverage at intervals of a few years. Asian Perspectives, in particular, regularly notes all new translations in English or other Western languages. CHESTER S. CHARD

University of Wisconsin, Madison October 1964