Book Reviews 515

Chapters in the text include “Problems of in the mountain provinces in Northern

Determining Origin,” “Techniques,” “Orna- Luzon developed in situ through the pro-
mentation,” “The Importance of the Fur cesses of postmigration adjustments to dif-
Trade for the Indians of Canada,” and ferent ecological conditions and varying his-
“Culture Areas.” torical circumstances. His hypothesis follows
At a cost of about $2.50, I would cer- those that have been advanced by Eggan,
tainly recommend this catalog as a good Scott, and Keesing.
value in a picture book. Anyone interested Dozier distinguishes three primary pat-
in early collected examples of American In- terns of subsistence among the present-day
dian crafts will find the specimens illustrated populations in the mountain provinces: (1)
fascinating from the standpoint of both based on root crops and rice grown in inun-
quality and quantity, but a degree of caution dated fields, (2) based on rice grown in wet
should be exercised in accepting the tribal fields as well as some grown in swiddens,
attributions as fact. and ( 3 ) based on rice primarily grown in
swiddens as well as in recently introduced
Mountain Arbiters: The Changing Life of a pond fields. Dozier observes the first of these
Philippine Hill People. EDWARD P. patterns in the Bontoc area, the second in
DOZIER. Tucson: The University of Ari- “southern Kalinga,” and the third in “north-
zona Press, 1966. xx + 299 pp., 4 figures, ern Kalinga.” In his field research
frontispiece, 37 photographs, 5 maps, 4 (1959/60), Dozier focused on the last two
population tables, 4 appendices, bibliog- contrasting subsistence regions and extended
raphy, index. $10.00 (cloth). his own local findings by comparing them
with observations or accounts of other cul-
Reviewed by MICHIKO TAKAKItures in the mountain provinces and also in
Yale University lowland areas. As a result, he suggests a
The Kalinga have been known to the number of cultural correlates of “wet rice”
world almost exclusively through Roy vis-A-vis “dry rice” cultivation. Wet rice cul-
Franklin Barton‘s book, The Kalingas: Their tivation leads to the emergence of descent
Institutions and Custom Law. Consequently, groups, which in turn leads to a relative
they are often cited as a case of a territo- complexity of sociocultural organization; ri-
rially organized society exemplifying “pro- tuals occur in association with the commu-
gressive principles from which the state nity or with the cultivation of rice; religious
rises.” It is highly beneficial that Dozier con- beliefs center around the existence of ances-
clusively casts aside this mythological image tral spirits. Dozier concludes, however, that
of the people in Kalinga by showing that a “while social and cultural expressions are
territorial unit is at the same time an endog- closely associated with the ecological setting,
amous unit. historical and modern influences constantly
In this book Dozier’s primary objectives modify their form and content” (p. 251).
are, first, “to describe as fully as possible the As Dozier notes, his field research was, of
social and cultural characteristics of the Ka- necessity, restricted. His steady residence
linga” and, second, to compare two subcul- outside of Baguio was limited to one month
tures in Kalinga characterized by different each in Lubuagan and Alingag, selected re-
“ecological settings.” He moves into areas spectively from his “southern” and “north-
outside of Barton’s concentration and ap- ern” Kalinga. For data collection, he had to
proaches relevant local cultures from a dif- rely on English. Despite these handicaps,
ferent perspective. He also attempts to place Dozier succeeded in obtaining a large
Kalinga ethnography in a broader compara- amount of information on a wide range of
tive perspective. topics. Jules DeRaedt’s paper, “Religious
In comparing two subcultures in Kalinga, Representations in Northern Luzon”
Dozier works with the hypothesis that there ( 1964), had already hinted, more realisti-
was ‘‘an original, fairly uniform population cally than Barton’s monograph, at the cul-
in the mountains derived primarily from tural complexities in Kalinga. Nevertheless,
lowland areas in post-Spanish times” (p. its scope was restricted to religious systems.
242) and that differences among the peoples On the other hand, Dozier’s book opens the
516 American Anthropologist
door to ethnographic reality on a much
more extensive scale. However, many unre-
solved ambiguities remain.
Some of the relevant difficulties that I
faced during almost four years (July 1964-
April 1968) of ethnographic research in
Uma and Butbut (both located in Dozier’s
southern Kalinga region) may be worth
making explicit: (1) Because of the lack of
sharp subcultural boundaries, generalizations
concerning the Kalinga are extremely diffi-
cult. (2) Much information of ethnographic
importance is “guarded” by those who share
common vested interests and vigorously pro-
tected by them against leakage to those out-
side a closed circuit. On the other hand,
there is a body of ethnographic information
quite accessible-verbally and observation-
ally-to everyone. A note-taking outsider is
often even too willingly assisted in obtaining
this latter type of cultural data. ( 3 ) Local
populations in Kalinga explicitly maintain
normative models of their cultural relations.
As LBvi-Strauss has observed, ethnography
can be especially difficult in cultures with
prevalent “conscious models.” (4) These
difficulties remain almost insurmountable
without some control of the local language.
In Uma, a region of over 1,000 in popula-
tion, I found only a dozen adult males who
communicated well in English, and in But-
but, a village of about 400 inhabitants, no
adults rooted in the tradition of their local
culture can speak English.
There are other problems related to the
comparative approach used in this book.
Delineating units compared. Dozier classi-
fies the populations in Kalinga into three:
“the Northern Kalinga,” “the Southern Ka-
linga,” and “the Eastern Kalinga.” Quoting
both Schadenberg (1887) and Vanover-
bergh (1929) as precedents for the north-
ern-southern division, Dozier describes sev-
eral differences in cultural practice and in
environment. But he does not state what
specific spatial distributions these differences
occupy, by what criteria all or any of these
differences support his classification, or,
most importantly, how relevant his typology
is to the intended comparisons. In the ab-
sence of abrupt discontinuities in the areaf
expansion of gradual cultural variations,
multiple alternatives are possible in delineat-
[71, 19691
ing subcultural units for heuristic purposes.
If primary subsistence patterns are the only
criterion for their delineation, then the
boundary between the north and the south
will run north of that Dozier has drawn. By
not clarifying his criteria for delineating the
subcultural units, Dozier neglects the evalua-
tion of cultural variation within each unit.
He also fails to establish the validity of the
selection of particular cultural features for
the purpose of making inductive statements
about the differences between the compared
units.
This ambiguity in delineating subcultural
units necessarily raises a question of repre-
sentativeness of the sample sites focused on
in his field investigation, such as Lubuagan
for “southern Kalinga.” Dozier states in the
introduction of this book, “Unless otherwise
indicated, references to the Southern Ka-
linga are specifically to the Lubuagan re-
gion” (p. 3 ) . He observed the three “aristo-
cratic-like family lines” in Lubuagan, which
he regards as evidence from “southern Ka-
linga” for the emergence of descent groups in
support of his argument for probable causal
relationships between the wet-field rice culti-
vation and the growing emphasis on descent
groups, status structure, and eventually class
structure. I observed no sign of emerging
aristocratic class or corporate descent
groups either in Butbut or in Tulgao, re-
gions south of Lubuagan where rice cultiva-
tion in inundated fields was established at an
earlier period.
Structural relations within a unit. Because
of a lack of information, Dozier was not
able to clarify internal structural relations
for each of the subcultures compared. The
published ethnography of the Kalinga prior
to his research provides little data essential
to the kind of comparative inquiry posed in
this study. The time at his disposal for his
own field investigation was too restricted for
him to fill all the gaps. Dozier’s attempt to
provide a single phonologically congruent
orthography to record terms and texts in
two different dialects, in the absence of pho-
nemic analyses for each of these dialects,
succinctly exemplifies the difficulties of ef-
fectively comparing two systems without
first analyzing the structural relations within
each.
 Book Reviews
For example, Dozier compares kinship or-
ganization in the two areas in Kalinga and
argues that a narrower circle of personal
kindred develops with wet-field rice cultiva-
tion and the increase in population density.
He does not demonstrate, however, what re-
lationships occur in each subculture among
these three: wet-rice cultivation, population
increase, and the effective range of personal
kindred. Neither does he attempt to discuss
the relationships between these three and
other factors such as production structures.
Dozier also notes that marriage with second
cousins is, as a rule, prohibited in the south
(p. 6 8 ) , whereas in the north-where he
finds a wider kinship circle-second-cousin
marriage is freely condoned (p. 245). He
does not pursue this interesting observation
by examining structural relationships be-
tween the range of the personal kindred and
the extent of kindred-based marriage prohi-
bitions.
With reference to the hypothesized emer-
gence of bilateral descent groups as a result
of wet-field rice cultivation, Dozier argues
that rice cultivation in inundated fields re-
sults in private ownership of “permanent
rice fields” and in “inheritable status,” which
provide the bases for corporate descent
groups. However, there does not appear to
be sufficient confirmation that these causal
relationships exist throughout the “wet-rice”
south. Moreover, in the north there are also
privately owned Chinese trade items of out-
standing cultural value. Dozier considers
these to change hands too frequently to con-
stitute “inheritable property” comparable to
inundated rice fields. He does not demon-
strate why private ownership of these fields
has different consequences for social organi-
zation from those of other kinds of prop-
erty. Dozier’s potentially important hypothe-
sis needs to be substantiated by further in-
quiry into divergent forms of valued prop-
erty.
Procedures. Another problem that im-
pedes Dozier’s study is the general lack in
anthropology of better methods and tech-
niques for this kind of comparative analysis.
Discussions by L6vi-Straws, Leach, and
others in the past decades have contributed
to the crystallization of the problems in-
volved, but no convincing demonstrations
517
have yet shown how these methodological
considerations work in dealing with ethno-
logical problems on a significant scale. Satis-
factory criteria have yet to be set forth for
effectively evaluating the adequacy of eth-
nography and productive synthesis in ethnol-
om.
Finally, I would like to stress the need for
relevant quantitative data showing the rela-
tion of particular cultural components
within a larger complex. For example, we
could better assess explicit cultural corre-
lates of the two contrasting patterns of rice
cultivation in Kalinga, if we first had, for
each of the subcultures, quantitative com-
parisons between inundated and shifting
fields for the following: (1) ratios between
population and areas cultivated within an
agricultural cycle, (2) seasonal yields of rice
per person, ( 3 ) approximation of labor
input per given yield, (4)land available for
future utilization for rice cultivation, and
( 5 ) amount of labor input into the prepara-
tion of rice fields and yields from those
fields. These comparisons could then be in-
terpreted in relation to other sets of quanti-
tative data: (1) demographic data with the
rates of population increase/ decrease, (2)
ratio of labor expended on rice cultivation
to the total labor expenditure on productive
and nonproductive activities, ( 3 ) percentage
of rice and other kinds of food in the total
diet of an average member of the local pop-
ulation over given periods of time, and (4)
ratio of labor input for rice cultivation to
that of each set of other major productive
activities. Dozier’s discussion on accultura-
tion phenomena would also be more infor-
mative regarding current cultural processes
in Kalinga if substantiated by such data as:
the changing rates at which “head-taking”
or traditional acts of vengeance take place;
the ratio between those conflict situations
handled by the traditional mechanism and
those handled by government agencies; and
the estimated percentage of individuals mov-
ing in and out of the regional boundaries to
the total population.
In sum, I consider this book important
for a number of reasons: (1) It suggests
challenging problems of theoretical interest
for further investigation, not only in Kalinga
and in neighboring regions but also in other
518 American Anthropologist
areas. (2) The methodological difficulties
revealed urge that greater efforts be made in
ethnographic investigations of particular
local cultures so as to permit productive
comparative studies and solutions of ethno-
logical problems. ( 3 ) The materials pre-
sented and their tentative analysis advance
the ethnographic knowledge of peoples in
Kalinga while they also bring important
problems into focus. Dozier recognizes that
“a year was too brief a time to do full jus-
tice to the analysis of the many intriguing
and challenging problems that emerged.” He
explains further that “rather than have these
problems molding in my notes, I decided to
include them in this study. Some of these
problems I hope to investigate with further
research; others may simply serve as leads
for other investigators” (x).
Every piece of work is like a rock in the
terraced field walls so familiar in lands such
as Kalinga-walls built of rocks of all sizes,
shapes, and hardness. Each rock added to
the wall makes its contribution to the ulti-
mate goal. In such a way Dozier has made a
useful contribution. Since the publication of
his book, additional studies have been made
of the people in Kalinga. For example, Al-
bert Somebang Bacdayan’s doctoral thesis
(1967) is a result of his research in Lubua-
gan (November 1964-March 1966). It fo-
cuses on the basic operations of the “peace
pact” institution, its origin, and its role in
the current acculturative processes of the
local cultures. Another thesis is currently
being prepared by DeRaedt, who has con-
ducted field research in northern Kalinga
(July 1964-December 1966). Other studies
may follow and help to solve some of the
questions posed, but unanswered, in Dozier’s
book, which will remain an important
marker of one epoch in Kalinga ethnogra-
phy, as well as in the ethnology of Northern
Luzon.
References Cited
BACDAYAN, ALBERTSOMEBANO
1967 The peace pact systems of the Kalingas
in the modern world. Ph.D. dissertation,
Cornell University.
BARTON, R. FRANKLIN
1949 The Kalingas: Their institution and
custom law. Chicago: University of Chica-
go Press.
[71, 19691
DERAEDT, JULES
1964 Religious representations in Northern
Luzon. Saint Louis Quarterly 2(3) :245-
348. Baguio City, Philippines, Saint Louis
University. (Reprinted as Philippine Studies
Program Research Series 4, Department of
Anthropology, University of Chicago,
1964.)
SCHADENBERG, ALEX
1887 Contributions to the knowledge of the
Banao people and of the Guinanes, Gran
Cordillera Central, Island of Luzon, Philip-
pines. Transactions of the Berlin Anthro-
pological Society. Translated by the Uni-
versity of Chicago Philippines Studies
Center.
VANOVERBERGK, MORICE
1929 Dress and adornment in the Mountain
Province of Luzon, Philippine Islands. Pub-
lications of the Catholic Anthropological
Conference l(5) :181-242.
The Curse of Souw: Principles of Daribi
Clan Definition and Alliance in New
Guinea. ROY WAGNER.Foreword by
David M. Schneider. Chicago & London:
The University of Chicago Press, 1967.
xxviii f 279 pp., 31 figures, 12 plates
(1 frontispiece), 5 maps, 5 tables, 2 a p
pendices, bibliography, index. $1 1S O , 82s
(cloth).
Reviewed by MARIEDE LEPERVANCHE
University of Sydney
The Daribi live in small local groups of
60-80 persons on the edge of the Eastern
Highlands of New Guinea. They are shifting
cultivators and number about 3,000. Land is
plentiful and the pattern of settlement en-
tails frequent moving and dispersal of peo-
ple. There is no prescriptive marriage rule,
nor are there fixed alignments between kin
or between local groups. Disease and acci-
dents (warfare?) account for many deaths,
but in disputes numbers count.
Wagner is concerned with the underlying
principles of Daribi social structure. He re-
jects African models and concepts like de-
scent and filiation. Instead, he chooses unit
definition and interrelationship as his focus,
and in eliciting those principles that order
and generate the elements of Daribi society
he looks to their symbol system for guid-
ance. He does not support his analysis with
detailed empirical material as, for example,
Langness (1964) did for the Korofeigu. He