Symposium on the Concept of Ethnohistory - Comment

Author(s): Charles A. Valentine

Source: Ethnohistory, Vol. 8, No. 3 (Summer, 1961), pp. 271-280
Published by: Duke University Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/480648
Accessed: 24/06/2009 16:10

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=duke.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the
scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that
promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Duke University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Ethnohistory.

http://www.jstor.org
 SYMPOSIUM ON THE CONCEPT OF ETHNOHISTORY
COMMENT

By Charles A. Valentine

University of Pittsburgh

The following comments are made from the point of view

of an ethnologist with some experience in applying ethnohistorical
methods to studies of culture contact and acculturation. It
therefore seems
appropriate that this discussion should be ad-
dressed for the most part to the stimulating papers by Wilcomb
Washburn and Nancy Lurie, with less attention to the equally
interesting contributions by Richard Dorson and David Baerreis.
Early in his analysis1 Washburn quotes with approval the
definition of ethnohistory which is included in the description of
subject matter and scope that appears on the inside front cover
of this journal. He treats this description as a reflection of
the assertion that

we can be ethnologists through the medium of the his-

torical record, even in the absence of living specimens
[and] we can study tribes long since departed through
the written record left by their conquerors.2

This statement by Washburn points to an issue which is

significant for the development of ethnohistorical methods.
Many anthropologists would find it difficult to accept the idea
that adequate ethnological analysis can be carried out on the
basis of historical documents alone.The ethnologist would be
likely to feel that direct investigation in the form of ethnographic
field research is a most important ingredient in any modern
ethnological study.

271
272 Ethnohistory

This anthropological orientation is not manifest only in the

context of certain "antihistorical" trends within anthropology
which Washburn later mentions and which will be discussed
below. What is expressed here as an ethnologist's position is
directly reflected in an early definition of "the ethnohistorical
method" as "a welding of ethnographic and historical materials"
set forth by Melville J. Herskovits, a historically oriented
student of acculturation. 3 most
anthropological A recent ex-
pression of the same viewpoint is contained in the importance
assigned to alternating between archival research and field
investigation by Lurie in her contribution to the present sym-
4
posium.
From an anthropological point of view, the incompleteness
and the biases of most historical records are too great to allow
an acceptable ethnological analysis based only on written doc-
uments. Thus while Washburn's emphasis on the "meaning"
of events5 seems most welcome and appropriate to an anthro-
pologist, it would appear from the anthropological viewpoint
that the full meaning of an event, including its cultural context,
can seldom be ascertained from documentary sources alone.
It must be admitted that this
is a very sweeping criticism
and one which can be applied by logical extension to any con-
struction of cultural history from written or archaeological
sources. Indeed, not a little historical
ethnology carried out
by anthropologists in the past is open to similar objections, and
field ethnography itself can hardly claim that its data are never
blemished by bias or omission. Moreover, it is surely not
reasonable to exclude any of these categories of information
from ethnohistorical studies merely because one class of
sources is inadequate by itself.
On the contrary, the specific contribution of ethnohistory
should be a methodology which combines various different forms
Concept of Ethnohistory - Comment 273

of evidence in the study of a wide range of problems. Ethno-

history certainly should not be reduced or confined to the neces-
sarily limited ethnological studies which can be made
strictly
from documents. Presumably, the great utility of documentary
evidence for ethnology can be taken for granted by now. A prime
function of ethnohistory, however, should be to reveal the limi-
tations of such purely
documentary materials and to devise
methods for overcoming these limitations.
One way in which these goals can be approached is for
ethnohistorians to concentrate on systematically integrating
and cross-checking historical and ethnographic data on existing
societies and from the period within living memory. There is
no intention to suggest here that investigations of the more
distant past should be abandoned. The point to be emphasized
is that interdisciplinary research into more recent and short-
term sequences may well constitute the most distinctive poten-
tiality and the most fruitful approach which ethnohistory has to
offer. &
As has already been indicated, this view is quite consistent
with Washburn's emphasis on the importance of understanding
the relevant cultural contexts, including value orientations, on
each side of any confrontation between previously separate
societies. Within this context, it is enlightening to employ an
integrated combination of ethnographic and historiographic
ap-
proaches not only to the two or more cultures which are in
contact but also to the emergent colonial system, conquest state,
or other form of contact society, as such.
Such a combined approach also
embodies conceptual and
theoretical possibilities which may be of interest to historian
and anthropologist alike. On this basis it becomes possible to
conceptualize the larger social system of contact as a single
social field through the application of such conceptual constructs
274 Ethnohistory

as the plural society or caste stratification. t From this point

of view one can only agree wholeheartedly with, and perhaps
appreciate more fully some implications of, Washburn's im-
portant suggestion that

it will be precisely in the field of the relationship be-

tween European and non-European societies that the
greatest utility of the ethnohistorical aprroach will
be found. a

Closely related to these considerations is the existence of

non-historical or ahistorical approaches in anthropology to
which both Washburn and Lurie refer. Washburn's emphasis
on "the unpopularity of the historical approach in anthropology"9
tells only one side of the story. Lurie's reference to the op-
position between functionalism and historicalism is a more
balanced representation of anthropological method and theory.
Various kinds of historical approaches have had a lengthy
career in anthropology, particularly in the United States. 1
The expression of such interests
in the archaeological sphere
is exemplified by Baerreis' paper in the present symposium.
Similar preoccupations are common in many other anthropological
contexts as well. It remains true, nevertheless, that there is
a long-standing tension within anthropological thought between
the descriptive, particularizing approach commonly identified
with history on the one hand, and the more abstract, generaliz-
ing orientation of scientific purposes on the other.11 This op-
position between contrasting approaches to man is of course
represented in many fields other than anthropology, and the
discipline of history itself is by no means entirely immune to
this conflict.
The specific relevance of these wider issues to the present
discussion lies in the contention which can be made that ethno-
history offers a particularly promising approach for resolving
Concept of Ethnohistory - Comment 275

the dichotomy between history and science. This is especially

true of that kind of ethnohistorical method which is a thorough-
going integration of historiography with ethnography. Such a
methodology provides a unique combination of resources for
discovering the events, chronological sequences, and particular
cultural contexts of history. At the same time, this sort of
approach also offers a sound empirical basis and a conceptual
frame of reference for scientific inferences or generalizations
about culture change. For example, the basis can be found in
such an approach for developing a concept like that of cultural
crisis into a comparative and interpretive conceptual tool for
either scientific or historical purposes.l1
The division between historicalism and functionalism already
referred to has been dealt with by David Bidney in terms which
are specifically relevant to the interests of the ethnohistorian.
Bidney argues that an "ethnohistorical functionalism" offers a
fruitful resolution of the opposition between "non-scientific
historicalism" and "anti-historical functionalism. "13 This
argument is significant in terms of the broader methodological
and theoretical implications of ethnohistory to which practicing
ethnohistorians seem to have given but little systematic attention
in the past.
In addition to its anti-historicism, anthropology is also
taken to task by Washburn for being "too little aware of the
less tangible elements of a culture, its 'esprit,' for example. "14
Again, this is a fair characterization of only part of anthrogpology.
Much anthropological research and writing in recent years has
been concerned with such matters as ethos, values, world view,
and national character. 15 Indeed,
the contribution by Dorson in
the present group of papers is a striking example of how folklore
can be treated, by anthropologists or others, as a reflection
of culturally patterned beliefs, attitudes, and values.
276 Ethnohistory

Nevertheless, it does seem to be true that most anthropolo-

gical work in these areas has not been historically oriented.
Within this context there has been, with some notable exceptions,
little attention given to problems of social and cultural change,
the historical roots of the "less tangible elements" of culture,
or the development of such elements through time. Washburn's
call for greater historical consciousness in the investigation
of such problems should therefore be welcomed. Again, a
systematically integrated ethnohistorical methodology appears
to be a particularly appropriate approach to achieving this goal.
Thus, for example, in a recent study of culture change in
Melanesia, local oral tradition provided much evidence as to
the indigenous people's conceptions of their own past and of the
acculturation process they had been going through. Careful
comparison with material in European documents was necessary
to evaluate the objective reliability of such native traditions.
Once this was done, however, oral history became a most
important source of information on the subjective aspects of
local contact history. 1 As Dorson's similar
paper indicates,
techniques can be applied fruitfully in many cultural contexts,
including those of various submerged segments of the folk in
literate societies.
A related methodological problem to which Lurie gives
considerable attention is that of assessing and evaluating
documentary sources.17 In this connection, it seems in order
to address a plea to historians for cooperation in helping
anthropologists train themselves in the techniques of historio-
graphy. I can testify to the sense of methodological insecurity
felt by an anthropologist trying to carry out an ethnohistorical
study with less than maximum sophistication in historiographic
technique.
Concept of Ethnohistory - Comment 277

In the course of the Melanesian study already referred to,

the need to employ ethnohistorical techniques became clear,
and I had to make myself into an amateur historiographer. The
use of documents was obviously of great importance in this
study. There can be little question, however, that this use of
documents would have been more effective if the investigator
had possessed greater methodological sophistication. It there-
fore seems pertinent to suggest that training in historiography
be made more easily available to students being trained in an-
thropology and that these students be made more aware of the
utility of such historiographic skills.
A final point of great importance is made by Lurie when
she states her belief that in ethnohistory "the most productive
technique rests in the opportunity to go back and forth from field
to library. "18 My own experience leads me to agree emphatically.
In the Melanesian work previously alluded to, my first field trip
was followed by extensive research in documents relating to the
same area. It was then possible to return to the field station
and check the documentary data against both old and new field
materials.
Only thus did it become possible to achieve the close
intregration of historical and ethnographic evidence which, it
has been argued here, represents the greatest potentiality of
ethnohistory. Taking these considerations into account, a final
suggestion may be offered for the deliberation of ethnohistorians.
It is proposed that systematically planned alternation between
field work and archival research be treated as a methodological
model for one important kind of ethnohistorical investigation.

Notes

1. Washburn, Ethnohistory: History "In the Round," p. 31.

278 Ethnohistory

2. Idem.

3. Herskovits, Man and His Works, p. 526.

4. Lurie, Ethnohistory: An Ethnological Point of View,

p. 87.

5. Washburn, Ethnohistory: History "In the Round, " pp.

33-34. Washburn devotes much of his paper to the development
of this idea.

6. For documented support of this point see Valentine,

Uses of Ethnohistory in an Acculturation Study. Cf. Schmaier,
Conrad Richter's The Light in the Forest.

7. Valentine, Uses of Ethnohistory in an Acculturation

Study, pp. 13-14.

8. Washburn, Ethnohistory: History "In the Round, " p. 42.

9. Ibid., p. 39.

10. See, e.g., Steward, Evolution and Process; Strong,

Historical Approach in Anthropology; Rouse, The Strategy of
Culture History. Cf. quotation from Steward in the conclusion
of the paper by Baerreis, The Ethnohistoric Approach and Archaeo-
logy, p. 70.

11. Redfield, Relations of Anthropology to the Social Sciences

and to the Humanities. Cf. Bidney, Culture History, the Hu-
manities, and Natural Science.

12. Valentine, Uses of Ethnohistory in an Acculturation

Study, pp. 14-15. Cf. Bidney, The Concept of Cultural Crisis.

13. Bidney, Culture History, the Humanities, and Natural

Science, pp. 274 ff.

14. Washburn, Ethnohistory: History "In the Round," pp.

40-41.
Concept of Ethnohistory - Comment 279

15. See, e.g., Bidney, The Concept of Value in Modern

Anthropology; Northrop, Cultural Values; Mead, National
Character; Hallowell, Culturel, Personality, and Society.

16. Valentine, Uses of Ethnohistory in an Acculturation

Study.

17. See, e.g., Lurie, Ethnohistory: An Ethnological Point

of View, pp. 83-84.

18. Ibid., p. 87.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bidney, David, Culture History, the Humanities, and Natural

Science (in Bidney, David, Theoretical Anthropology, pp.
250-285. New York, 1953)

? The Concept of Cultural Crisis (in Bidney, David,

Theoretical Anthropology, pp. 345-365. New York, 1953)

, The Concept of Value in Modern Anthropology

(in Kroeber, Alfred L., ed., Anthropology Today, pp. 682-
699. Chicago, 1953)

Hallowell, A. Irving, Culture, Personality, and Society (in

Kroeber, Alfred L., ed., Anthropology Today, pp. 597-
620. Chicago, 1953)

Herskovits, Melville J., Man and His Works (New York, 1948)

Mead, Margaret, National Character (in Kroeber, Alfred L.,

ed., Anthropology Today, pp. 642-667. Chicago, 1953)

Northrop, F. S. C., Cultural Values (in Kroeber, Alfred L., ed.,

Anthropology Today, pp. 668-681. Chicago, 1953)

Redfield, Robert, Relation of Anthropology to the Social Sciences

and to the Humanities (in Kroeber, Alfred L., ed., Anthro-
pology Today, pp. 728-738. Chicago, 1953)
280 Ethnohistory

Rouse, Irving, The Strategy of Culture History (in Kroeber,

Alfred L., ed., Anthropology Today, pp. 57-76. Chicago,
1953)

Schmaier, Maurice D., Conrad Richter's The Light in the

Forest: an Ethnohistorical Approach to Fiction (ETHNO-
HISTORY, vol. 7, pp. 327-398, 1960)

Steward, Julian H., Evolution and Process (in Kroeber,

Alfred L., ed., Anthropology Today, pp. 313-326. Chicago,
1953)

Strong, William Duncan, Historical Approach in Anthropology

(in Kroeber, Alfred L., ed., Anthropology Today, pp.
386-397. Chicago, 1953)

Valentine, C. A., Uses of Ethnohistory in an Acculturation

Study (ETHNOHISTORY, vol. 7, pp. 1-27, 1960)