Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
×
Home

Ethnohistory's Ethnohistory: Creating a Discipline from the Ground Up

  • Michael E. Harkin
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.

Copyright
References
Hide All
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.
Cohn, Bernard S. (1980) “History and anthropology: The state of play.Comparative Studies in Society and History 22: 198221.
Culhane, Dara (1988) The Pleasure of the Crown: Anthropology, Law, and the First Nations. Vancouver, BC: Talon.
Eggan, Fred (1937) “Historical changes in the Choctaw kinship system.American Anthropologist, n.s., 39: 3452.
Evans-Pritchard, E. E. (1962) Social Anthropology and Other Essays. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
Fenton, William (1949) “Collecting material for a political history of the Six Nations.Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 93: 233–38.
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: 6789.
Geertz, Clifford (1995) After the Fact: Two Countries, Four Decades, One Anthropologist. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Geertz, Clifford (2002) “An inconstant profession: The anthropological life in interesting times.Annual Review of Anthropology 31: 119.
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: 93106.
Harkin, Michael E. (2009) “Structuralism and history,” in Wiseman, Boris (ed.) The Cambridge Companion to Lévi-Strauss. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 3958.
Indian Claims Commission (ICC) (n.d.) Decisions, vol. 1. Digitized version at Oklahoma State University Library, digital.library.okstate.edu/icc/v01/v01toc.html.
Kambouchner, Denis (2009) “Lévi-Strauss and the question of humanism,” in Wiseman, Boris (ed.) The Cambridge Companion to Lévi-Strauss. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 138.
Kan, Sergei A., and Strong, Pauline Turner, eds. (2006) New Perspectives on Native North America: Cultures, Histories, and Representations. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
Krech, Shepard III (1991) “The state of ethnohistory.Annual Reviews in Anthropology 20: 345–75.
Krech, Shepard III (n.d.) “Thinking big and thinking small: Ethnohistory in the 1970s.” Unpublished manuscript.
Kroeber, A. L. (1935) “History and science in anthropology.American Anthropologist, n.s., 37: 539–69.
Leacock, Eleanor (1954) The Montagnais “Hunting Territory” and the Fur Trade. Washington, DC: American Anthropological Association.
Leacock, Eleanor (1961) “Symposium on the concept of ethnohistory: Comment.Ethnohistory 8: 5661.
Leacock, Eleanor (1994) Labrador Winter: The Ethnographic Journals of William Duncan Strong, 1927–1928. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.
Lewis, Herbert (2001) “Boas, Darwin, science, and anthropology.Current Anthropology 42: 381406.
Lurie, Nancy Oestreich (1955) “Problems, opportunities, and recommendations.Ethnohistory 2: 357–75.
Lurie, Nancy Oestreich (1956) “A reply to ‘The land claims cases: Anthropologists in conflict.’Ethnohistory 3: 256–79.
Lurie, Nancy Oestreich (1961a) “Ethnohistory: An ethnological point of view.Ethnohistory 8: 7892.
Lurie, Nancy Oestreich (1961b) “The voice of the American Indian: Report on the American Indian Chicago Conference.Current Anthropology 2: 478500.
Manners, Robert (1956) “The land claims cases: Anthropologists in conflict.Ethnohistory 3: 7281.
Manners, Robert (1957) “Tribe and tribal boundaries: The Walapai.Ethnohistory 4: 126.
McMillen, Christian (2007) Making Indian Law: The Hualapai Land Case and the Birth of Ethnohistory. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Mooney, James (1975) Historical Sketch of the Cherokee. Chicago: Aldine.
Mooney, James (1991) Ghost-Dance Religion and the Sioux Outbreak of 1890. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
Murphy, Robert F., ed. (1976) Selected Papers from the American Anthropologist, 1946–1970. Washington, DC: American Anthropological Association.
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.
Pinkoski, Marc (2008) “Julian Steward, American anthropology, and colonialism.Histories of Anthropology Annual 4: 172204.
Pym, Barbara (1986) An Academic Question. London: Macmillan.
Rodabaugh, James H. (1961) “American Indian ethnohistorical materials in Ohio.Ethnohistory 8: 242–55.
Rosen, Lawrence (1977) “The anthropologist as expert witness.American Anthropologist, n.s., 79: 55578.
Shoemaker, Nancy (2002) “Introduction,” in Shoemaker, Nancy (ed.) Clearing a Path: Theorizing the Past in Native American Studies. London: Routledge: viixiii.
Solecki, Ralph, and Wagley, Charles (1963) “William Duncan Strong, 1899–1962.American Anthropologist, n.s., 65: 1102–11.
Steward, Julian H. (1972) Theory of Culture Change: The Methodology of Multilinear Evolution. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
Stocking, George W., ed. (1976) Selected Papers from the American Anthropologist, 1921–1945. Washington, DC: American Anthropological Association.
Stone, Lawrence (1981) The Past and the Present. New York: Routledge.
Tanner, Helen Hornbeck (1991) “Erminie Wheeler-Voegelin (1903–1988), founder of the American Society for Ethnohistory.Ethnohistory 38: 5872.
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: 178200.
Tax, Sol (1952) “Action anthropology.American Indigena 12: 103–9.
Vayda, Andrew P. (1961) “Maori prisoners and slaves in the nineteenth century.Ethnohistory 8: 144–55.
Washburn, Wilcomb (1961) “Ethnohistory: History ‘in the round.’Ethnohistory 8: 3148.
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: 5064.
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: 7898.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Social Science History
  • ISSN: 0145-5532
  • EISSN: 1527-8034
  • URL: /core/journals/social-science-history
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed