Book Reviews Hawaiian Archaeology; Trails: From Steppingstones to Kerbstones. Russell A. Apple. Honolulu: Bishop Museum Special Publication No. 53, 1965. ix, 73 pp., 37 figs., 53-item bibliog., paper, U.S. $3.00. Reviewed by T. STELL NEWMAN, University of Hawaii Native trails form a subject area often overlooked A-prehistoric to 1819; Type B-1820 to 1840 by students of Polynesian prehistory. Apple notes in (including HAB"); Type C-1841 to 1918; and Type his volume that information on trails, their uses, D-1919 to the present. This is the only tedious por­ types, construction, and the role they played in the tion in an otherwise lively volume rich in Hawaiian local culture received only passing notice in earlyac­ folklore. counts of Hawaii. An ancillary dating method might have been used As a result, Apple not only found it necessary to do that perhaps could set the scope for additional re­ extensive field surveys but also to search carefully the search. Dating could be based on trails obliterated by early literature for scattered references to Hawaiian dated lava flows. Thus, one could say with certainty trails. that trails so covered were built prior to the flow date; Four basic trail types were delineated by the author trails built over the flow would be subsequent to the that he labelled A, B, C, and D. Type A trails he found flow date. to be simple footpaths that closely followed the coast­ Dated lava flows are to be found throughout the line. They were the earliest type. Type B trails were island of Hawaii except for the Kohala, Hamakua, wider than A trails and were built in much straighter and Hilo districts. I would suggest checking trails lines that tended to be inland of Type A footpaths. at the 1750 flow near Kaimu Beach (Puna), the 1801 In addition, Type B trails were constructed with flows at Kaupulehu and Keahole Point (North Kona), kerbs tones lining each side. An intermediate type the 1840 flow near Honolulu (Puna), the 1859 flow labelled AB was made by the addition of kerbs tones to southwest of Puako (North Kona), the 1868 and 1887 existing Type A trails. Apple correlates the change flows between Pohue Bay and South Point (Ka'u), in trail types to the changing socioeconomic condi­ and the 1919 and 1926 flows slightly north of Milolii tions after Caucasian contact, especially to the in­ (South Kona). troduction of the horse, which prompted the incor­ My only criticism of the monograph would be (I) poration of kerbstones. Type C trails were still horse the rather dull documentation of how many shovels paths with guiding kerbstones, but were wide enough were purchased by whom and when to illustrate road to allow simultaneous use by two horses. This trail maintenance and inferential datings, and (2) the type was also straighter than the other two discussed broadness of the title when the scope is only the island and tended to bypass many coastal settlements, hav­ ofHawaii, and the main emphasis upon the Honaunau ing been built still further inland. Type D trails were area. modifications of Type C trails made by widening and These criticisms, however, do not significantly realigning the trails for wheeled vehicles. detract from Apple's contribution of time, scholarly Because of the scattered references to trails, Apple research, skilled analysis, and colorful writing style is forced to produce extensive documentation for his to the reader's greater appreciation of Hawaiian dates marking the beginning of each trail type: Type prehistory. AP: x, 1967 L Asian Perspectives, x, 1967 The Iron Age in India. N. R. Banerjee. Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal. 264 pp., 23 figs., 6 tables, Rs. 35.00. Reviewed by c. c. LAMBERG-KARLOVSKY, Harvard University This book contains in summary form a great wealth ceptable. The numerous ceramic parallels between of information on the cultural phases of painted Sialk B, Persian Village I, Ziwiyeh, as well as the sixth grayware and the succeeding black polished ceramics century, parallels for Sialk iron bits with those from of northern India; the cairn-burials of the Irano­ the Kuban, Dnieper, and Kelermes (dated to 600- Pakistan borderlands; the megaliths of south India; 575 B.C.) strongly suggest a terminal date for Sialk and other less well-known chalcolithic cultures of B in the middle of the seventh century. The re­ western India and the northern Deccan. The post­ duction of this date substantially alters the connec­ Harappan cultures of the northwest of the Indo­ tions seen by the author during this period. Following Pakistan subcontinent, i.e. Jhukar, Jhangar, Cemetery De Cardi, Banerjee equates the Londo ware ofBalu­ H, Londo ware, the Banasian culture, Trihni ware, chistan with the pottery characteristic of Sialk VIB. etc. are also given full summaries. Review of the It is necessary to point out the high level of conjec­ above cultures are undertaken for the expressed view ture in many ofthe author's statements, not only when of illuminating two main points: (I) the date of he is dealing with archaeological data but also with introduction and cultural associations of the earliest literary evidences. Thus, literary evidence on Prad­ iron users in India and (2) the date and identity of the yota is derived mostly from the accounts in the first Aryans in India. It is most unlikely that in a book Puranas and Buddhist literature. The author equips that attempts to summarize both the archaeological Pradyota with steel weapons, believing a superior and relevant literary evidences for this critical period, weapon must have been responsible for his many ca. 1200-200 B.C., that any single reviewer would successes against enemies; later in the text, however, agree with the many theories and hypotheses put he equips these same enemies with steel weapons. forward by the author. Few scholars would disagree This inherent contradiction is lost in making his with the author's disclaimer of the Harappan civiliza­ point that steel was quite well known by the sixth tion as the handiwork of Aryans. The suggestion of century B.C. Evidence for the existence of steel in lowering the date of Harappan decline to 1200 B.C., the sixth century from direct literary texts or archaeo­ initially suggested by Fairservis and reviewed here logy is conspicuously absent. The author's uses of by Banerjee, is wholly unacceptable. The author literary sources are not always convincing, but they follows the date of 2500-1500 B.C. for the duration are highly suggestive. of the Indus civilization. Recent archaeological work, Banerjee convincingly argues for the identification supported by radiocarbon dating, suggests a span of of the Aryans as the bearers of the painted grayware 2300-1750 B.C. for the Harappan culture. tradition. The earliest iron in India is found associated The author suggests that the defeat of the Hittites with painted grayware. The painted grayware cannot, (in whom he unconvincingly finds the development of however, be derived from outside India; it appears a Rigvedic way oflife) by the Thraco-Phrygians, ca. to have an indigenous development. The author 1190 B.C., set "in motion a colossal exodus of Indo­ resolves this problem by having the incoming Aryans European people in all directions." In support of adopt painted grayware from the makers of the Shahi this daring hypothesis, the author cites the material Tump cometery, who with other unnamed tribal remains of cultures involved in this movement that groups shared in the Aryan invasion of India-a are either comparable or of connected time scale, most unsatisfactory chain of events. The author also i.e. Sialk VA and VIB, Luristan, and Hissar IIIC. attempts to place the "ochre-colored pottery" into The material remains of these cultures are, however, proper context and is appropriately cautious in relat­ neither comparable nor of a connected time scale. ing it to the Ganges copper "hoards." The megalithic Hissar I1IC precedes Sialk VA by almost half a builders of south India are plausibly viewed as Dravi­ millennium and the material content of Sialk VA and dians. Banerjee's summary of the views of many Sialk VIB-typologically distinct from each other­ scholars on megalithism painted grayware, the advent are introduced by a gap in the sequence at Sialk. The of iron in the Near East, copper hoards and the Ary­ author's attempt to compare the Giyan I graves, ans, a.s well as the up-to-date review of all archaeolo­ termed "Luristan type," with those of Cemetery gical sites bearing on the Iron Age of India make this B at Sialk ignores the fact that they are separated an important book for reference and future research. chronologically by approximately four hundred Unfortunately, the author's own views are often con­ years. The author's high date for Sialk B, ca. 1200- fused by contradictions in the text. His ready willing­ 1000 B.C., is important in upholding the general ness to compare typologically similar objects separat­ thesis of Aryan relations between India and Iran at ed in time and space allows for some confusion and this time. This early date is, however, totally unac- misleading interpretations, and the more than neces- BOOK REVIEWS sary errors of fact necessitate that the book be used agrees or disagrees with Banerjee's many views, with appropriate caution. This book points to the he will carry away a great deal in the reading of this need for more extensive horizontal excavation and book that is new, original, and worthwhile. problem oriented research. Whether the reader Pervobytnoe proshloe V' etnama [The primitive past ofVietnamJ. P.I. Boriskovskii. "Nauka," Moscow-Leningrad, 1966.