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

Learn More →

Wartime Japanese Anthropology in Asia and the Pacific (review)

Wartime Japanese Anthropology in Asia and the Pacific (review) book and media reviews 487 historic documents to help study what to be “more critical” archaeology changed and when. Rainbird implies than the work that went before. But, that many use oral histories uncriti- I have not yet read his cited articles, cally, reconstruct the culture at Euro- which may be more detailed, so it pean contact uncritically (unaware would be unfair to present an opinion of quality differences in historical here. I do think he needs to be more sources), and extend the contact pat- cautious in critiquing the views of tern back in time, implying that cul- other workers with whom he dis- ture was the same for centuries before agrees. this. Actually, most archaeologists in Despite my concerns with his these multiyear studies have spent a review of the island histories of great deal of time looking at recorded Chuuk, Pohnpei, and Kosrae, I believe oral histories and historical data and that Rainbird has done a very nice job are well aware of data problems. Also, of presenting the Micronesian archae- most have constructed models of past ological data. The book reflects a con- times that are not simple extensions siderable amount of work and is http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png The Contemporary Pacific University of Hawai'I Press

Wartime Japanese Anthropology in Asia and the Pacific (review)

The Contemporary Pacific , Volume 17 (2) – Jul 29, 2005

Loading next page...
 
/lp/university-of-hawai-i-press/wartime-japanese-anthropology-in-asia-and-the-pacific-review-O4MRWlTNxB
Publisher
University of Hawai'I Press
Copyright
Copyright © 2005 University of Hawai'i Press.
ISSN
1527-9464

Abstract

book and media reviews 487 historic documents to help study what to be “more critical” archaeology changed and when. Rainbird implies than the work that went before. But, that many use oral histories uncriti- I have not yet read his cited articles, cally, reconstruct the culture at Euro- which may be more detailed, so it pean contact uncritically (unaware would be unfair to present an opinion of quality differences in historical here. I do think he needs to be more sources), and extend the contact pat- cautious in critiquing the views of tern back in time, implying that cul- other workers with whom he dis- ture was the same for centuries before agrees. this. Actually, most archaeologists in Despite my concerns with his these multiyear studies have spent a review of the island histories of great deal of time looking at recorded Chuuk, Pohnpei, and Kosrae, I believe oral histories and historical data and that Rainbird has done a very nice job are well aware of data problems. Also, of presenting the Micronesian archae- most have constructed models of past ological data. The book reflects a con- times that are not simple extensions siderable amount of work and is

Journal

The Contemporary PacificUniversity of Hawai'I Press

Published: Jul 29, 2005

There are no references for this article.