Anthropology in and of Pacific Islands has numerous stories to tell and presents us with no end of surprises. The first is the very early presence of native anthropologists, like Sir Peter Buck and Sir Apirana Ngata, whose biographical profile we trace and whose ability to engage in dialogue and contrast with the main anthropological schools of their time is investigated. The second is the fact that the emergence of a small but significant new generation of native anthropologists from the 1960s onwards led to the adoption of narrative writing styles, which were considered more suitable for communicating with Pacific populations and in keeping with the aim of decolonising knowledge. Rather than anthropology as a discipline, these authors opposed the non-fiction style and jargon of the Western academy, which was considered to be permeated with a colonial spirit. A further surprise is that the word “anthropology” was and still is regarded as a colonial legacy. The ethnographic method, classic genealogies of anthropological authors, anthropological themes and debates are well present in the Pacific Islands: From a substantive point of view, cultural and social anthropology has had a major impact on the Pacific, but anthropological topics are often categorised under Native, Cultural, Pacific studies or Sociology, while “anthropology” sounds like a politically incorrect term. Lastly, if we look at the developments that have taken place in recent years, the relationship between insiders and outsiders emerges as a focal point of the debate: Pacific scholars prefer, in the more radical positions, the politically engaged action of the indigenous anthropologist or collaborative forms of research to the Malinowskian solitude of the outside ethnographer.