Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Hunter-Gatherers of the North Pacific Rim (review)

Hunter-Gatherers of the North Pacific Rim (review) book reviews can illustrate, systematic analysis of archaeological data would have contributed, for example, to a better understanding of the varied aspects and levels of interregional interactions that are, after all, at the core of this book. It could have benefited not only from the incorporation of more archaeologically derived data but also from a more systematic application of anthropologic models. While the introduction on the book cover present it as a ``study of state formation in East Asia,'' the actual sociopolitical processes of state formation are not addressed by the book. More reference to anthropologically oriented archaeological research, such as, for example, the work of Gina Barnes (Barnes 1986), could have helped Holcombe further distinguish his model from the traditional Sinocentric paradigm and deepen his analysis of the important processes addressed by the book. Applying such anthropological theory could also elucidate the discussion on interregional interactions by incorporating ideas about human motivations and machinations. One component of the book, its maps-- or, rather, the lack of thereof--deserves harsh criticism. The three small and highly schematic maps are unfit for any serious work, let alone a book such as The Genesis of East Asia, for which geography is http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Asian Perspectives University of Hawai'I Press

Hunter-Gatherers of the North Pacific Rim (review)

Asian Perspectives , Volume 44 (2) – Nov 21, 2005

Loading next page...
 
/lp/university-of-hawai-i-press/hunter-gatherers-of-the-north-pacific-rim-review-iI3hYgkY0J
Publisher
University of Hawai'I Press
Copyright
Copyright © 2005 University of Hawai'i Press.
ISSN
1535-8283
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

book reviews can illustrate, systematic analysis of archaeological data would have contributed, for example, to a better understanding of the varied aspects and levels of interregional interactions that are, after all, at the core of this book. It could have benefited not only from the incorporation of more archaeologically derived data but also from a more systematic application of anthropologic models. While the introduction on the book cover present it as a ``study of state formation in East Asia,'' the actual sociopolitical processes of state formation are not addressed by the book. More reference to anthropologically oriented archaeological research, such as, for example, the work of Gina Barnes (Barnes 1986), could have helped Holcombe further distinguish his model from the traditional Sinocentric paradigm and deepen his analysis of the important processes addressed by the book. Applying such anthropological theory could also elucidate the discussion on interregional interactions by incorporating ideas about human motivations and machinations. One component of the book, its maps-- or, rather, the lack of thereof--deserves harsh criticism. The three small and highly schematic maps are unfit for any serious work, let alone a book such as The Genesis of East Asia, for which geography is

Journal

Asian PerspectivesUniversity of Hawai'I Press

Published: Nov 21, 2005

There are no references for this article.