Take a photo of a barcode or cover
A review by krista7
Savage Harvest: A Tale of Cannibals, Colonialism, and Michael Rockefeller's Tragic Quest for Primitive Art by Carl Hoffman
3.0
"Savage Harvest" starts out by answering the central question of the book--how the author believes Michael Rockefeller died. It then reverses itself to create two narrative tracts, 1.) the history of the Asmat leading up to the fateful Rockefeller episode, and 2.) the author's modern experiences in the area.
On the one hand, the author's argument is very credible. He explains a society in which head-hunting, like the art Rockefeller, had context; denying the headhunting and cannibalism, he suggests, did not address the context in which those practices formed. This context explains both what happened to Rockefeller and why the Asmat never came forward to talk about this afterwards. On these grounds, the author is very believable. He is also very persuasive when he discusses his sources.
On the other hand, the author comes off as simply too confident, to the point of being stagily so. He wants to find out where/how Rockefeller died in order to let his spirit move on, as if Rockeller's memory is the property of this author. He talks about the richness of his experience with the Asmat, and while it does seem tense, a total of four months spent there is not quite the impression he gives. (To be clear: He does state that length of time in the book.) He exclaims that he finds it unthinkable that the Rockefellers never bothered to go to Asmat (after an initial trip there). That issue of confidence is a problem for moments like this, because it leads the author to overlook or dismiss alternative scenarios. For example, perhaps the Rockefellers never went back to Asmat because they felt it would not be useful; they knew their family member was dead and pursuing a grim theory without any tangible evidence may have been seen as damaging to their need for closure.
Finally, I'm not convinced how much new evidence was found in this investigation, other than the Dutch archival paperwork cited by the author.
Overall: It was a good book, but I'm not convinced it was a great one.
On the one hand, the author's argument is very credible. He explains a society in which head-hunting, like the art Rockefeller, had context; denying the headhunting and cannibalism, he suggests, did not address the context in which those practices formed. This context explains both what happened to Rockefeller and why the Asmat never came forward to talk about this afterwards. On these grounds, the author is very believable. He is also very persuasive when he discusses his sources.
On the other hand, the author comes off as simply too confident, to the point of being stagily so. He wants to find out where/how Rockefeller died in order to let his spirit move on, as if Rockeller's memory is the property of this author. He talks about the richness of his experience with the Asmat, and while it does seem tense, a total of four months spent there is not quite the impression he gives. (To be clear: He does state that length of time in the book.) He exclaims that he finds it unthinkable that the Rockefellers never bothered to go to Asmat (after an initial trip there). That issue of confidence is a problem for moments like this, because it leads the author to overlook or dismiss alternative scenarios. For example, perhaps the Rockefellers never went back to Asmat because they felt it would not be useful; they knew their family member was dead and pursuing a grim theory without any tangible evidence may have been seen as damaging to their need for closure.
Finally, I'm not convinced how much new evidence was found in this investigation, other than the Dutch archival paperwork cited by the author.
Overall: It was a good book, but I'm not convinced it was a great one.