Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T03:16:31.713Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Ethnohistory's Ethnohistory

Creating a Discipline from the Ground Up

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 January 2016

Michael E. Harkin
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article examines the first decades of the field of ethnohistory as it developed in the United States. It participated in the general rapprochement between history and anthropology of mid-twentieth-century social science. However, unlike parallel developments in Europe and in other research areas, ethnohistory specifically arose out of the study of American Indian communities in the era of the Indian Claims Commission. Thus ethnohistory developed from a pragmatic rather than a theoretical orientation, with practitioners testifying both in favor of and against claims. Methodology was flexible, with both documentary sources and ethnographic methods employed to the degree that each was feasible. One way that ethnohistory was innovative was the degree to which women played prominent roles in its development. By the end of the first decade, the field was becoming broader and more willing to engage both theoretical and ethical issues raised by the foundational work. In particular, the geographic scope began to reach well beyond North America, especially to Latin America, where archival resources and the opportunities for ethnographic research were plentiful, but also to areas such as Melanesia, where recent European contact allowed researchers to observe the early postcontact period directly and to address the associated theoretical questions with greater authority. Ethnohistory is thus an important example of a field of study that grew organically without an overarching figure or conscious plan but that nevertheless came to engage central issues in cultural and historical analysis.

Type
Articles
Information
Social Science History , Volume 34 , Issue 2 , Summer 2010 , pp. 113 - 128
Copyright
Copyright © Social Science History Association 2010 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Buckley, Thomas (1996) “‘The little history of pitiful events’: The epistemological and moral contexts of Kroeber's Californian ethnology,” in Stocking, George (ed.) Volksgeist as Method and Ethic: Essays on Boasian Ethnography and the German Anthropological Tradition. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press: 257–97.Google Scholar
Cohn, Bernard S. (1980) “History and anthropology: The state of play.” Comparative Studies in Society and History 22: 198–221.Google Scholar
Culhane, Dara (1988) The Pleasure of the Crown: Anthropology, Law, and the First Nations. Vancouver, BC: Talon.Google Scholar
Eggan, Fred (1937) “Historical changes in the Choctaw kinship system.” American Anthropologist, n.s., 39: 34–52.Google Scholar
Evans-Pritchard, E. E. (1962) Social Anthropology and Other Essays. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.Google Scholar
Fenton, William (1949) “Collecting material for a political history of the Six Nations.” Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 93: 233–38.Google Scholar
Fogelson, Raymond (1985) “Night thoughts on Native American social history,” in Occasional Papers in Curriculum, no. 3. Chicago: D’Arcy McNickle Center for the History of the American Indian, Newberry Library: 67–89.Google Scholar
Geertz, Clifford (1995) After the Fact: Two Countries, Four Decades, One Anthropologist. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Geertz, Clifford (2002) “An inconstant profession: The anthropological life in interesting times.” Annual Review of Anthropology 31: 1–19.Google Scholar
Harkin, Michael E. (2002) “(Dis)pleasures of the text: Boasian anthropology on the Northwest Coast,” in Krupnik, Igor and Fitzhugh, William (eds.) Gateways: Exploring the Legacy of the Jesup North Pacific Expedition, 1897–1902. Washington, DC: Arctic Studies Center, Smithsonian Institution: 93–106.Google Scholar
Harkin, Michael E. (2009) “Structuralism and history,” in Wiseman, Boris (ed.) The Cambridge Companion to Lévi-Strauss. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 39–58.Google Scholar
Indian Claims Commission (ICC) (n.d.) Decisions, vol. 1. Digitized version at Oklahoma State University Library, digital.library.okstate.edu/icc/v01/v01toc.html.Google Scholar
Kambouchner, Denis (2009) “Lévi-Strauss and the question of humanism,” in Wiseman, Boris (ed.) The Cambridge Companion to Lévi-Strauss. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 1–38.Google Scholar
Kan, Sergei A., and Strong, Pauline Turner, eds. (2006) New Perspectives on Native North America: Cultures, Histories, and Representations. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar
Krech, Shepard III (1991) “The state of ethnohistory.” Annual Reviews in Anthropology 20: 345–75.Google Scholar
Krech, Shepard III (n.d.) “Thinking big and thinking small: Ethnohistory in the 1970s.” Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
Kroeber, A. L. (1935) “History and science in anthropology.” American Anthropologist, n.s., 37: 539–69.Google Scholar
Leacock, Eleanor (1954) The Montagnais “Hunting Territory” and the Fur Trade. Washington, DC: American Anthropological Association.Google Scholar
Leacock, Eleanor (1961) “Symposium on the concept of ethnohistory: Comment.” Ethnohistory 8: 56–61.Google Scholar
Leacock, Eleanor (1994) Labrador Winter: The Ethnographic Journals of William Duncan Strong, 1927–1928. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.Google Scholar
Lewis, Herbert (2001) “Boas, Darwin, science, and anthropology.” Current Anthropology 42: 381–406.Google Scholar
Lurie, Nancy Oestreich (1955) “Problems, opportunities, and recommendations.” Ethnohistory 2: 357–75.Google Scholar
Lurie, Nancy Oestreich (1956) “A reply to ‘The land claims cases: Anthropologists in conflict.’” Ethnohistory 3: 256–79.Google Scholar
Lurie, Nancy Oestreich (1961a) “Ethnohistory: An ethnological point of view.” Ethnohistory 8: 78–92.Google Scholar
Lurie, Nancy Oestreich (1961b) “The voice of the American Indian: Report on the American Indian Chicago Conference.” Current Anthropology 2: 478–500.Google Scholar
Manners, Robert (1956) “The land claims cases: Anthropologists in conflict.” Ethnohistory 3: 72–81.Google Scholar
Manners, Robert (1957) “Tribe and tribal boundaries: The Walapai.” Ethnohistory 4: 1–26.Google Scholar
McMillen, Christian (2007) Making Indian Law: The Hualapai Land Case and the Birth of Ethnohistory. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Mooney, James (1975) Historical Sketch of the Cherokee. Chicago: Aldine.Google Scholar
Mooney, James (1991) Ghost-Dance Religion and the Sioux Outbreak of 1890. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar
Murphy, Robert F., ed. (1976) Selected Papers from the American Anthropologist, 1946–1970. Washington, DC: American Anthropological Association.Google Scholar
Nash, Philleo (1988) “Twentieth-century United States government agencies,” in Washburn, Wilcomb (ed.) The Handbook of North American Indians. Vol. 4, History of Indian-White Relations. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press: 264–75.Google Scholar
Pinkoski, Marc (2008) “Julian Steward, American anthropology, and colonialism.” Histories of Anthropology Annual 4: 172–204.Google Scholar
Pym, Barbara (1986) An Academic Question. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Rodabaugh, James H. (1961) “American Indian ethnohistorical materials in Ohio.” Ethnohistory 8: 242–55.Google Scholar
Rosen, Lawrence (1977) “The anthropologist as expert witness.” American Anthropologist, n.s., 79: 555–78.Google Scholar
Shoemaker, Nancy (2002) “Introduction,” in Shoemaker, Nancy (ed.) Clearing a Path: Theorizing the Past in Native American Studies. London: Routledge: vii–xiii.Google Scholar
Solecki, Ralph, and Wagley, Charles (1963) “William Duncan Strong, 1899–1962.” American Anthropologist, n.s., 65: 1102–11.Google Scholar
Steward, Julian H. (1972) Theory of Culture Change: The Methodology of Multilinear Evolution. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Stocking, George W., ed. (1976) Selected Papers from the American Anthropologist, 1921–1945. Washington, DC: American Anthropological Association.Google Scholar
Stone, Lawrence (1981) The Past and the Present. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Tanner, Helen Hornbeck (1991) “Erminie Wheeler-Voegelin (1903–1988), founder of the American Society for Ethnohistory.” Ethnohistory 38: 58–72.Google Scholar
Tanner, Helen Hornbeck (2007) “In the arena: An expert witness view of the Indian Claims Commission,” in Cobb, Daniel M. and Fowler, Loretta (eds.) Beyond Red Power: American Indian Politics and Activism since 1900. Santa Fe, NM: School for Advanced Research: 178–200.Google Scholar
Tax, Sol (1952) “Action anthropology.” American Indigena 12: 103–9.Google Scholar
Vayda, Andrew P. (1961) “Maori prisoners and slaves in the nineteenth century.” Ethnohistory 8: 144–55.Google Scholar
Washburn, Wilcomb (1961) “Ethnohistory: History ‘in the round.’” Ethnohistory 8: 31–48.Google Scholar
Washburn, Wilcomb (1985) “Ethical perspectives in North American ethnology,” in June, Helm (ed.) Social Contexts of American Ethnology, 1840–1984. Washington, DC: American Anthropological Association: 50–64.Google Scholar
Yanagisako, Sylvia (2005) “Flexible disciplinarity: Beyond the Americanist tradition,” in Segal, Daniel A. and Yanagisako, Sylvia (eds.) Unwrapping the Sacred Bundle: Reflections on the Disciplining of Anthropology. Durham, NC: Duke University Press: 78–98.Google Scholar