No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Seven Tribes in Central Africa
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 21 August 2012
Extract
In her review of Seven Tribes of British Centra Africa in Africa, xxii. 1 Mrs. Douglas praises the individual essays but criticizes their appearance in a single volume. We do not consider it appropriate for writers to reply to criticism which is levied on the basis of general knowledge and of the internal evidence of a book—indeed, we would ourselves accept the criticism which Mrs. Douglas, with others, has made that the editors should not have shirked the task of providing a general introduction to add to the significance of joint publication of the seven essays. But we consider it legitimate to protest when Mrs. Douglas's criticism is based on inadequate and inaccurate statements about the internal affairs of the Rhodes-Livingstone Institute, especially as she puts this incorrect information in the form of questions.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © International African Institute 1952
References
page 271 note 1 Edited by M. Gluckman and E. Colson. Oxford University Press, for Rhodes-Livingstone Institute, 1951.
page 271 note 2 Though Mr. Cunnison was only out of the field for a few months, he published a preliminary report on the Luapula peoples as a cyclostyled Commmication ofthe Rhodes-Livingstone Institute to make available data akin to those provided in Seven Tribes of British Central Africa.
page 272 note 1 In fairness to Mrs. Douglas we must admit that the Nyakyusa lie just outside the area, though the related Ngonde ate within it.
page 273 note 1 See Gluckman, M., ‘Seven-Year Research Plan of the Rhodes-Livingstone Institute for Social Studies in British Central Africa’, Human Problems in British Central Africa, iv (December 1945).Google Scholar The Luapula Lunda were selected early, but it was impossible to find a fieldworker to go there when field-workers went to Tonga, Ngoni, Yao, and Shona.
page 273 note 2 By Professor Schapera in a semi-public discussion of the two books just quoted, cited in Professor Firth's reply to Professor Murdock's, criticism of ‘British Social Anthropology’, American Anthropologist (October-December 1951).Google Scholar