Editor's Note

The following five papers, presented as a panel on March 22,1964, at the Sixteenth Annual Meeting of the Association for Asian Studies in Washington, D. C., are reproduced here at slightly greater length than in their original versions. The panel was organized by G. W. Skinner with the prior understanding that these somewhat longer versions would be prepared for publication in the Journal. The papers were, however, written independently of one another and have not been modified as a result of the discussion. It is clear that several of them use the term Sinology somewhat differently, but that in balance there is more agreement among the authors than might ideally have been planned in order to stimulate the kind of discussion and exchange which a panel implies. There was, however, vigorous discussion from the floor, of which the comments by Benjamin Schwartz, printed immediately following the papers in this issue, are a sample. We will publish in the November issue comments from two others, who will be able to base their remarks on the present printed papers. Others who may wish to send in comments for publication are invited to address them to the Editor.

It is a well known fact that the friendly foreign policy of the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom in 1860 was a failure. It is also known that this failure was largely due to the non-cooperation of the British and French authorities in China. However, it is not so well known how the policy was introduced, how anxiously the Taipings were seeking the friendship of Western powers at one time, how the failure of this friendly foreign policy took place, and how it affected the leadership of the Taiping regime.

The Sino-Indian boundary dispute provides an interesting test case to determine the willingness of mainland China, a revolutionary regime, to argue its position within the framework of traditional international law. Judging by Peking's official rationale for its claims in that dispute, one must conclude that its leaders demonstrated an awareness of the law's uses and limitations, and a willingness to rely upon it as an important support for its position. Thus, though the issue was viewed as a political question, Peking chose to argue that the correct answers to it should rest upon such legal or quasilegal considerations as: (1) the boundary had never been delimited through a process recognized by international law and (2) Chinese claims to contested territory were based upon historical evidence such as administrative control and official records. At the same time, China's diplomate skillfully interspersed nonlegal theses, e.g., that India was seeking to gain by the imperialist activities of the British, and underlined all of their propositions with a show of military strength on her southern frontier.

This work is another of Douglas Barrett's important contributions to the study of South Indian art. Dealing with temple construction and stone sculpture created during the period ca. A.D. 866–1014, this book appears to have been produced as a companion volume to the author's Early Cōla Bronzes (Bombay, 1965). However, the broader scope of Early Cōla Architecture and Sculpture provides an even greater wealth of opinion and information which supplies opportunities for endless conjecture and debate.