Trigger B. 1982. Ethnohistory.. Problems and Prospects

Ethnohistory: Problems and Prospects
Author(s): Bruce G. Trigger

Source: Ethnohistory, Vol. 29, No. 1 (Winter, 1982), pp. 1-19
Published by: Duke University Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/481006
Accessed: 19-04-2016 14:10 UTC
REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/481006?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted
digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. 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
This content downloaded from 190.98.232.126 on Tue, 19 Apr 2016 14:10:54 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
ETHNOHISTORY 29(1): 1-19 (1982) TRIGGER
ETHNOHISTORY: PROBLEMS AND PROSPECTS
Bruce G. Trigger McGill University
Abstract
A general review is provided of the current state of ethnohistorical research in

North America. The development of ethnohistory is correlated with a growing
awareness that understanding change is essential if ethnological and prehistoric
archaeological data are to be interpreted in an acceptable manner. There is also
increasing awareness of the interdependence of all three approaches and that under-
standing Native American history is essential for understanding colonial history.
There is also growing consensus that the findings of ethnohistorical, ethnological,
and archaeological research must be interpreted in an historical context that is pro-
vided by a holistic Native American history. Because of their experience with inter-
disciplinary research, enthnohistorians have an important role to play in coordinat-
ing the findings of these various approaches in an integrated historical framework.
The Scope of Ethnohistory
Ethnohistory flourishes today in North America as never before. The

volume of publications steadily increases and their quality appears to be
improving. There is growing public interest in ethnohistory and increasing
appreciation of its achievements within other social science disciplines. The
accomplishments of North American ethnohistorians are being hailed as mod-
els to be emulated by researchers in Australia (McBryde 1979) and Africa
(McCall 1981). It is perhaps a time to celebrate. Yet it may be a better time to
review the current state of ethnohistorical research in order to ensure that suc-
cess does not encourage complacency and lead us to perpetuate current short-
comings. This requires a critical review of conventional solutions to old prob-
lems and an effort to identify new difficulties. This is the course we intend to
follow in this article.
It is necessary, at the beginning, to clarify the spirit in which various critical
and even adverse comments will be made about the work of previous genera-
tions of social scientists, and in particular about anthropologists. It is generally
acknowledged that the study of human behavior is inevitably influenced to
some degree by the differing opinions about urgent social issues that are held
by succeeding generations. These influences infiltrate the social sciences not
directly but rather through the highly diverse personalities of individual schol-
ars. They also have to modify bodies of theory that have already had a long
and complicated history. Given the complexity of the factors that influence the
development of academic disciplines, we must take care not to attribute false
motives to the work of social scientists in the past. It is all too easy to sneer at
the idea that such anthropologists were the "Indians' best friend" or even to
demonstrate that their work was far more ethnocentric and therefore they
themselves less enlightened than was formerly believed. It is much more diffi-
cult, however, to demonstrate that the attitudes of these anthropologists
towards native peoples were not essentially benevolent or that their primary
aim in studying these cultures was personal economic gain.
2 BRUCE G. TRIGGER
Franz Boas and his students vigorously opposed popular ideas concerning
the biological inferiority of native peoples as well as the evolutionary view that
one culture could be judged as being superior or inferior to another (Harris
1968: 250-289). These anthropologists recorded, as best they knew how, tradi-
tional cultures that were rapidly vanishing and that no one else was willing or
adequately trained to record. By so doing, they alone systematically preserved
information that native people as well as anthropologists now value highly.
Some anthropologists also sought to draw public attention to unjust treatment
of native groups and to secure better treatment for them. While these activities
may now be construed as patronizing and probably had few immediately tang-
ible results, they must be recognized as the actions of individual Euroameri-
cans who were far more favorably disposed towards native peoples than were
typical Whites of that period. While we must be prepared to acknowledge the
errors and shortcomings that were inherent in earlier phases of anthropological
thought, it ill behooves us to disparage or attribute false motives to previous
generations of anthropologists.
Most of the early general discussions of ethnohistory were concerned with
defining its general goals and methodology and the extent of its subject matter
(Lurie 1961; Fenton 1966; Sturtevant 1966). The journal Ethnohistory,
founded in 1954, has published more articles of this sort than have similar
journals in any other field known to me. This may be an indication of the
special problems that were involved in defining a convincing role for ethnohis-
tory within the social sciences. It may also indicate some of what may be
called the ideological problems that confronted its early development. It was
debated whether ethnohistory was a separate discipline, a branch of anthro-
pology or of history, a technique for analyzing particular kinds of data, or
merely a convenient data quarry for other disciplines (McBryde 1979; 147). In
the same vein, it was queried whether ethnohistory was related more closely to
anthropology or to history or was a sort of bridge or no-man's land between
these two disciplines. It was also discussed whether the ethnographic recon-
struction of early historic cultures, or what has been called historical ethnog-
raphy, and the study of native culture change since the time of European con-
tact constituted two distinct branches of ethnohistory, as most ethnohistorians
accepted, or only the latter activity could be regarded as ethnohistory in the
strict sense. None of these problems has ever been definitively resolved. There
merely seems to be a tacit agreement that ethnohistory uses documentary evi-
dence and oral traditions to study changes in non-literate societies from about
the time of earliest European contact. While these unresolved debates consti-
tute milestones in the early development of ethnohistory, I will attempt to
demonstrate that these questions have become increasingly irrelevant as eth-
nohistory has come to play a more mature role within the context of the social
sciences.
Anthropology and History
Twenty years ago, Nancy Lurie (1961: 79) observed that ethnohistory "is not
a new method or area of investigation...it is as old as ethnology itself." She
Ethnohistory: Problems and Prospects 3
explained, however, that by this she meant that already in the last century use
was being made of documentary evidence to help interpret ethnographic or
archaeological data. Later, she pointed out that ethnohistory, in the sense of a
self-conscious study of change among native peoples or even a critical aware-
ness of the problems involved in using historical data for ethnographic pur-
poses, was a recent development. Insofar as most ethnohistorians would now
classify only the latter activities as constituting ethnohistory, it must be consid-
ered a relatively new phenomenon.
It is also noteworthy that ethnohistory flourishes as a specific scholarly
activity in North America, Australia, and the Pacific region, but not in
Europe. There its closest equivalent is the very different study of folklore. The
latter discipline, which also studies Euroamerican folk culture, examines pre-
industrial traditions as they are preserved in modern rural customs, oral tradi-
tions, songs, dances, and material culture (Trigger 1978a: 17; McBryde 1979:
135). Ethnohistory, by contrast, has developed as the study of change among
indigenous peoples, as opposed to history, which studies the activities of Euro-
peans both before and after they settled elsewhere throughout the world. This
distinction can be rationalized as a methodological one. The techniques that
are required to study the history and non-literate groups are different from
those needed to study more complex societies that have abundantly docu-
mented their own past. In this perspective, the distinction between history and
ethnohistory runs essentially parallel to the evolutionary distinction between
so-called primitive societies and civilizations. Significant social and ideological
implications are therefore inherent in the distinction between history and eth-
nohistory, both in North America and elsewhere.
Ethnohistory was not part of anthropology as the latter discipline developed
in the United States in the 19th century, primarily as the study of the Ameri-
can Indian. Instead, anthropology was seen as made up of four branches.
These sought to study the traditional cultures of Native Americans, their pre-
history, physical variations, and languages. No provision was made for study-
ing the changes in native life that had resulted from European contact. These
changes were generally viewed as part of a process of cultural disintegration
that would end either in the physical extinction of the native inhabitants of
Canada and the United States or with the total assimilation of the few who
survived into the dominant European culture. Anthropologists tended to view
these sorts of changes mainly as an obstacle to reconstructing what native cul-
tures had been like before they had been altered by European contact. It was
generally assumed that prior to such contact these cultures had been relatively
stable and unchanging. Even prehistoric archaeology, which was the one
branch of traditional American anthropology that might have been expected to
develop an historical perspective, generally viewed native cultures as static.
Regional variation in these cultures in prehistoric times was believed to be
essentially similar to what could be observed ethnographically. The more
obvious changes in the archaeological record were attributed to ethnic move-
ments that had carried static cultures from one region to another (Trigger
1980a).
The dichotomy between history and anthropology thus became a distinction
between a discipline that sought to chronicle the progress and dynamism of
4 BRUCE G. TRIGGER
peoples and cultures that were of European origin and another that sought to
study the static and inferior cultures of Native Americans and ultimately of
native peoples elsewhere. The original constitution of anthropology thus
reflected the expansionist and racist ideology of a society that in the latter half
of the 19th century was completing the conquest of Native Americans that had
begun in Virginia and New England 250 year earlier. Historians must equally
note that the traditional distinction between their discipline and anthropology
continues to reflect the view that the study of Euroamericans is signficantly
different from that of Native Americans.
The Growth of Ethnohistory
It is perhaps indicative of how little importance anthropologists attached to

the study of Native American history until recent decades that when A.G. Bai-
ley (1937) published what was probably the first major North American eth-
nohistorical study, The Conflict of European and Eastern Algonkian Cultures,
1504-1700, this book went unreviewed in the American Anthropologist. As a
graduate student in history at the University of Toronto, Bailey had been
inspired to begin this study by the work that the economist Harold Innis had
done on the history of the Canadian fur trade. He was also encouraged in his
research by the anthropologist T.F. Mcllwrath (Bailey 1977). Unfortunately,
while innovative, Bailey did not publish his work at the right time or in the
right place for it to have exerted the influence that it should have had on the
development of an historical study of indigenous people.
An awareness of the importance of understanding native cultures subsequent
to European contact gradually developed within American anthropology in the
context of studies of acculturation. The original goal of these studies in retro-
spect was a patronizing one. Anthropologists sought to learn more about how
native cultures had responded to different forms of European domination so
that they might help government agencies to formulate more effective and also
more humane policies for dealing with native peoples. As a result of these stud-
ies, some anthropologists became aware of the need to understand native cul-
tures in an historical perspective and concluded that native history was a sub-
ject worthy of study in its own right. Works such as Robert Redfield, Ralph
Linton and M.J. Herskovits' (1936) "Outline for the Study of Acculturation,"
Linton's (1940) Acculturation in Seven American Indian Tribes, and Edward
Spicer's monumental Cycles of Conquest (1962) and his Perspectives in Ameri-
can Indian Cultural Change (1961) were milestones in the development of stud-
ies of acculturation into what by the 1950s had widely come to be called eth-
nohistory. Ethnohistorical research was intensified and a stronger emphasis
placed on the use of archival materials as a result of anthropologists becoming
involved in providing evidence for land claims litigation. In the course of this
research, many of these anthropologists also learned to work alongside and in
many cases for native people.
At first, ethnohistorical research was carried out almost exclusively by eth-
nologists, who attempted to familiarize themselves as best they could with the
techniques of historiography. This was by no means an easy adjustment. Most
EthnohistorY: Problems and Prospects 5
ethnologists had been trained as fieldworkers and therefore were not accus-
tomed to the work habits of library and archival research. Many of them were
inclined to believe that written records documented mainly the lies and misun-
derstandings of the past. They feared that by drawing away from fieldwork
they might be allowing themselves to fall prey to false and inadequate evi-
dence. To counteract this, they argued that ethnohistorians had to remain
practising ethnographers. Other, more trusting, ethnologists tended to treat
written sources as they would a native informant and to analyze historical
documents as if they were their own fieldnotes. While such approaches pro-
duced many of the more distinctive and valuable features of ethnohistorical
analysis, they were frequently accompanied by a naivete about historical
methodology that offended professional historians. All too often, however,
these same historians treated the written records at their disposal as if they
constituted the total corpus of information about the past. For a long time,
North American ethnohistory remained what the Australian ethnohistorian
Isabel McBryde (1979: 129-130) seems to believe it still to be: "part of the
wider study of cultural anthropology, with a theoretical base and aims which
are clearly anthropological."
Recently, however, more ethnohistorical research has been done by scholars
whose primary training has been in history. A handful of economic historians,
primarily ones interested in the fur trade and missionary work, have also made
significant contributions (Hunt 1940; Rotstein 1972), as have a growing
number of human geographers (Heidenreich 1971; Ray 1974). These scholars
have brought new skills and fresh theoretical perspectives to the study of
Native American history, thereby helping to produce studies of greater diver-
sity and richness than existed previously. They have also created problems of
integration and definition for ethnohistorical research that will have to be con-
sidered later.
In recent years, Native American history has also been recognized as a field
of study that is of more than limited and esoteric interest. There is a flourshing
market for popular and semi-popular works dealing with native history and an
increasing and much needed incorporation of ethnohistorical research and eth-
nohistorical perspectives into studies dealing primarily with Euroamerican
themes. In Canada, this is strikingly evident in the extensive coverage given to
native people in works such as Pierre Berton's (1978) The Wild Frontier and,
in particular, in the manner that his treatment of the 17th century Jesuit priest
and martyr, Isaac Jogues, has been influenced by recent ethnohistorical
research on the Huron Indians. It is highly gratifying to find ethnohistorical
conclusions being popularized in this manner. I also doubt that anything
approximating Berton's sober treatment of Jogues would have been deemed
acceptable in a popular work published in Canada even a couple of decades
ago (D. Smith 1974; Vincent and Arcand 1979). It is even more extraordinary
to find a Eurocanadian historian such as Ramsey Cook (1980) publicly criticiz-
ing Berton's treatment of native peoples in the latter's most recent book on the
War of 1812. Although Berton credits the Shawnee leader, Tecumseh, with
playing as important a role as did Major-General Isaac Brock in the defence of
Upper Canada, Cook objects that he treats native people in too traditional a
manner: too little is said about their society, they are portrayed as too brutal
6 BRUCE G. TRIGGER
and bloodthirsty, and Berton seems uncomfortable with the revivalist religion
of Tecumseh's brother. This is far removed from the racial slurs that certain
eminent historians were directing against Native Canadians as late as the 1960s
(Lanctot 1963: 30; Morton 1963: 60-61). When popularizers and historians
who are primarily concerned with Euroamerican culture interact in this
manner, we may conclude that ethnohistorical research currently enjoys impor-
tance that is out of proportion to the number of ethnohistorians.
Pitfalls of Ethnohistorical Method
It would be flattering to attribute this burgeoning interest in ethnohistory to

the good work that has been done by ethnohistorians. Yet most of it clearly
results from native people creating a new awareness of themselves among
Euroamericans. Until recently, it was widely believed that native people would
soon vanish; hence any interest in them was regarded as a kind of antiquarian-
ism. Since the 1920s, however, the native population of North America has
begun to increase ever more rapidly; thereby compelling a new interest in
native people among White policy makers and the general public. In recent
decades, native people have also become increasingly active politically, while
native artists have won widespread recognition. These activities by native peo-
ple are what have created a growing interest in ethnohistory and other aspects
of native studies. Some of these activities also pose difficulties for ethnohistor-
ical research. The latter result both from deep-rooted religious convictions and
from the use of historical evidence, or what passes as historical evidence, for
political purposes. Native spokesmen have suggested that Euroamericans are
incapable of understanding native history from the inside and are therefore
unable to produce work that is not flawed and superficial, if not overtly biased
and derogatory.
Some native people object that Euroamerican ethnohistorical interpretations
of native history are offensive insofar as they contradict the traditional views
that native people hold, or have held, of their past. For these people, the claim
that Native Americans reached the New World by crossing the Bering Strait is
incompatible with the belief that the ancestors of the Onondaga and Seneca
sprang from holes in the ground at Nundaweo. There have long been similar
disagreements among Euroamericans between those who accept the interpreta-
tions of the past advanced by scientific disciplines and those who espouse the
beliefs of fundamentalist Christian sects. I do not believe, however, that
respect for religious freedom or ethnic sensibilities should be extended to the
point where it requires the suppression of scientific research. Nor do I believe
that respect for traditional cultures should exclude a scientific study of Native
American history. This does not mean that tact and good manners should be
abandoned. For example, ethnohistorians and ethnologists should be prepared
to cooperate with native groups, more or less on the latter's own terms, in
recording their legends and religious beliefs, if such collaboration is requested.
Where traditional native concepts about the past are fundamentally different
from Euroamerican ones, it may be necessary to differentiate sharply between
the study of such beliefs and conventional ethnohistorical research. The Seneca
Ethnohistorv: Problems and Prospects 7
anthropologist A.C. Parker (1916: 480-481) has pointed out that the traditional
views of his people were fundamentally ahistorical. The Iroquois viewed their
history as a series of "cultural revolutions," each of which was connected with
the actions of heros, such as Dekanawideh or Handsome Lake and "the people
of each period systematically forgot the history of the preceding periods."
Within each period, the inheritance of names along with particular offices
ensured a maximum sense of continuity. Thus each of the "revolutions" consti-
tuted a mythical charter and a guide to the social, political, and moral order in
which they lived. In other native cultures, what we would regard as the past is
interpreted as being a continuously active supernatural dimension interacting
with the present. Both views tend to preclude the notion of narrative history as
we understand it (McBryde 1979: 137). In some of these societies an interest in
such history must be interpreted as evidence of acculturation. The challenge to
ethnohistorians is to combine a respectful study of traditional native views of
history and causality with what we regard as more conventional historical or
ethnohistorical investigations. The study of oral traditions may play a signifi-
cant role in bridging the gap between these two approaches.
It would seem, however, that the majority of native activists subscribe to the
same views about ethnohistorical methodology as do Euroamerican historians.
They argue that native people should write their own history as a means of
controlling their own destiny. Like other partisans, they seek to use historical
data to establish images of the past that help to promote their political pro-
grams. They claim, no doubt often believing it to be so, that interpretations of
native history and customs that they hold to be unflattering result from mis-
leading Euroamerican prejudices and attempt to demonstrate the falsity of
these views. Examples of such behaviour include denials that particular native
groups ever tortured captives or abandoned aged and infirm members. On the
other hand, when traditional Euroamerican claims are held to be more favora-
ble, efforts are made to reinforce and intensify these stereotypes. This has been
so especially with the widely-held belief that all Native American cultures Were
atuned to respect and preserve their environments, a view that has made
Native Americans appear to be forerunners of the modern ecology movement.
Such behavior is an understandable reaction against unjust treatment by
Euroamerican historians, such as a certain Jesuit biographer, who, although he
was thoroughly familiar with the ethnographic literature, only a few decades
ago chose to describe the Huron of the 17th century as "animalized savages"
wallowing in a "sewer of sexual filth" (Talbot 1956: 67). Yet this revisionist
history and ethnography almost inevitably portrays Native Americans of the
past and present in conformity with romantic Euroamerican stereotypes of
what acceptable native behavior ought to be like. Hence, aspects of that past
are fiercely denied, which, if they were understood in an adequate cultural con-
text, would prove to have been neither irrational nor immoral. This approach
to historiography fails to free native history from Euroamerican influence
because it is unable to overcome the sense of shame that White culture has
imposed upon Native Americans by persuading many of them to accept its
classification of their traditional life-styles as being primitive. Native Ameri-
cans have not yet succeeded in producing a truly decolonized version of their
own history. This alone puts them in a poor position to criticize Euroamerican
8 BRUCE G. TRIGGER
ethnohistorians. While the recruitment of native people into ethnohistorical

research is highly desirable, as a general principle no scientific or moral argu-
ments can be advanced for restricting the study of history to members of the
ethnic group being investigated. On the contrary, American or German history
is greatly enriched precisely because British, Russian, French, and Italian, as
well as American or German historians study it.
Yet native activists have rightly concluded that there is a receptive audience
for such revisionist history amongst a guilt-ridden Euroamerican public. These
people are prone to be critical of almost every aspect of their traditional cul-
ture and political life. It has also been suggested that they curiously seek to
avoid personal responsibility for the present condition of native peoples by
blackening the treatment of them by previous generations of White settlers
(McBryde 1979: 138). Currently, very little apologetic literature is being pro-
duced that seeks to refute claims that native people were mistreated by Whites
or even to set such treatment into some mitigating historical context. Such
literature as there is tends to be mild and balanced in tone. One example of
history of the latter sort is Rowe's (1977) examination of relations between
Beothuks and White settlers in Newfoundland.
I do not seek to deny that there are many misunderstandings about Native
American history and culture that require correction. There are also many
thoroughly shameful aspects of the treatment of native peoples that the Euro-
american public ought to be better informed about if the historical background
of relations between native people and Whites is to be usefully understood. Yet
the temptation to twist the findings of ethnohistorical research to suit the aims
of political movements or to satisfy a taste for revisionist history can only be
indulged at the expense of valid historical interpretation. Public wrongs cannot
be stoned or excused merely by rewriting history, even when this is done accur-
ately and conscientiously. Even less can they be atoned by abandoning scien-
tific standards in historical studies. If professional historians allow a past-as-
wished-for to subvert their endeavor to understand the past as it really was,
they will fail to provide a valid, and hence a useful, guide to understanding
past relations between Euroamericans and native people. In the longrun, such
behavior must discredit ethnohistory (McBryde 1979: 138).
Allowing standards to be undermined in this way also permits ethnohistor-
ians, or would-be ethnohistorians, to offer as serious pieces of research specu-
lative, and often revisionist, exercises, in which the evidence is selected to sup-
port their favorite theories rather than used to test them. In recent years, far
too many papers have been published in which anthropologists who are not
well trained in ethnohistorical methods have advanced arguments based on
limited knowledge of the relevant literature, which more careful research has
demonstrated to be invalid (cf. Richards 1967 and Trigger 1978b; W. Smith
1970, 1973 and Trigger 1976: 418-421). Yet such papers continue to be
accepted by refereed journals. Worse still, books are being published by repu-
table presses that seem to be based on an unwarranted selection of evidence. I
am thinking of Calvin Martin's (1978) ingenious but unconvincing Keepers of
the Game which has been subjected in print to an extensive critique by a panel
of ethnohistorians (Krech 1981), and of W. Aren's (1979) The Man-Eating
Myth, a work that purports to demonstrate that no culture has ever sanctioned
cannibalism. Some of the more revisionist demographic studies, which attempt

to demonstrate that prehistoric and early historic populations were vastly
larger than earlier estimates suggested, are based upon such thin evidence and
so poorly tested against ecological and other sources of information about
what numbers could or could not have been sustained in a given area that they
cannot be taken seriously (e.g., Miller 1976). Because of the vast amount of
historical documentation relevant to any one topic and the time required to
master it, in the absence of rigorous controls, either historical or ethnohistori-
cal research can quickly degenerate into fantasy. The same social pressures
that create an interest in ethnohistory also impose upon ethnohistorians a col-
lective moral responsibility for such rigor. Without it, short term gains in pop-
ularity will be followed by professional and public contempt. The recent survey
paper by Axtell and Sturtevant (1980) about whether scalping was an aborigi-
nal custom or one introduced into North America by Europeans is an impres-
sive effort to instill a fresh sense of precisely that sort of responsibility into
ethnohistory.
There is no simple touchstone for truth in ethnohistory. The biases and sub-
tle influences that shape current interpretations of the historical record are less
evident to us than are those which we see have shaped the work of past gener-
ations of anthropologists, but there is no reason to believe they are any less
compelling. The main checks on the quality of ethnohistorical research are
methodological. The most important of these are the techniques shared by all
historians and which ethnohistorians have borrowed from them. These relate
to the evaluation of sources and understanding their biases. They also ensure
that interpretations are tested against a sufficiently comprehensive corpus of
data and that evidence that does not support an interpretation is taken into
account no less than that which does. In The Children of Aataentsic I
observed that "ethnohistory is. ... impossible without a command of the tech-
niques of historiography, as these have been developed by generations of prac-
tising historians. Lacking sufficient knowledge of these techniques, an ethno-
historian will remain a dilettante, however well-trained he may be in
anthropology" (Trigger 1976: 17). To the degree that all professional ethnohis-
torians accept this stricture, Gregory Dening (1966: 23) is correct when he
states that they "pursue the same ends by the same methods as historians."
Yet I do not agree with Dening when he adds that "ethnohistory is only his-
tory writ polysyllabically." For it is precisely in terms of methodology that
ethnohistory is different from history. Studying the history of non-literate peo-
ples relying mainly upon written materials produced by an alien creature is dif-
ferent from writing the history of a literate people who have abundantly doc-
umented their own activities. Admittedly, it may not be so different from
trying to understand the history of illiterate peasantries or working classes in
Europe using documentation produced almost exclusively by the state, the
clergy, and the upper classes. Yet, in dealing with native people, there is the
additional challenge of studying wholly alien cultures. Ethnohistorians require
not only all the skills of a good conventional historian but also a sound
knowledge of ethnology, if they are to be able to evaluate sources and inter-
pret them with reasonable understanding of the perceptions and motivations of
the native people involved. Such knowledge can be derived from a broad com-
10 BRUCE G. TRIGGER
parative knowledge of the nature of tribal or band society, from an extensive

understanding of traditional Native American cultures, or from ethnographic
studies of the culture involved or of closely related cultures at later and more
fully documented periods. Especially because of serious gaps in information,
knowledge derived from all three sources is often used concurrently. To
acquire an understanding of the perceptions and motivations of native peoples,
which are often poorly understood and vaguely recorded in our primary
sources, it is instructive to compare accounts of specific situations that were
written by members of different groups of traders, missionaries, and other
Whites, especially groups that had conflicting motives for interacting with
native peoples. Such individuals often recorded their dealings with various
native groups and some of the comments that the latter made about rival
European groups in such a way as to permit the native peoples' vaguely
recorded motives to be inferred by cross-checking these accounts one against
the other.
The ethnohistorical analysis of documentary evidence covering long periods
of time is often much more difficult than the analysis of a relatively brief
interval. This is because the content and quality of documentary evidence con-
cerning ethnohistorical topics tend to vary far more radically than do the
source materials dealing with Euroamerican history (for Australia, cf.
McBryde 1979: 142-144). Ethnohistorians also habitually rely more than con-
ventional historians do upon oral traditions and other sources of data, such as
archaeology, historical linguistics, physical anthropology, and comparative
ethnology, to supplement the written record. Furthermore, it is not enough
simply to have a respectable knowledge of historical and anthropological data
and methodology. Ethnohistorians must master the art of using these two
approaches in an integrated fashion. It seems appropriate to call this art,
which in principle ought to amount to more than the sum of its component
parts, an ethnohistorical methodology.
Native American History
Yet, if ethnohistorians must employ a broader range of methods than do

professional historians, both groups pursue the same immediate goal. This goal
is to explain specific historical events and the processes of cultural change that
have transformed individual cultures. In its most concrete manifestations this
produces what has been called "significant narrative," an account of a specific
series of events that nevertheless involves interpretative judgments concerning
what events should be included, their significance and interrelationships
(Walsh 1967: 32). What ethnohistorians differ about is the degree to which
such narrative history should be regarded as an end in itself or as a basis for
trying to formulate broader generalizations about cultural organization and
change. Some ethnohistorians, mainly those who come from an anthropologi-
cal background, lay considerable stress upon generalizations of this sort as
being the ultimate goal of ethnohistorical research (Hickerson 1970: 7); others
do not (Trigger 1976: 21). Fewer ethnohistorians who have been trained in his-
tory seem to regard this as a major issue. Either view of the ultimate goal of
ethnohistorical research suggests, however, that while ethnohistory can legiti-

mately serve as the name of a methodology, it is ethnocentric to use it to
designate a discipline. References to ethnohistory as a discipline may someday
appear as patronizing and misguided as the title of the old Zeitschrift fur
Kolonialsprachen does today. Just as the title and contents of that once presti-
gious journal imply that the languages of so-called primitive peoples differ
substantially from those of civilized nations, so a discipline, as opposed to a
methodology, of ethnohistory suggest that the history of non-literate peoples is
qualitatively different from that of literate ones. If we are to irradicate the
biases that produced the distinction between anthropology and history in the
19th century, we should stop speaking about ethnohistory as a body of knowl-
edge and instead speak of Native American history or more specifically of Iro-
quois history, Abenaki history, or Navajo history, just as we speak of Russian,
Chinese, or British history.
Much of the written documentation on which native history is based is a
product of European colonization. On that basis, it may be argued that native
history is primarily an extension of colonial history, and a vital part of it if
colonial history is to be understood properly. It can even be argued that, in
most cases, it is impossible to write histories of native groups that are substan-
tially independent of White colonial history. One of the reasons that I wrote
The Children of Aataentsic was to demonstrate that it was possible to produce
a history of a specific native group in which external events are treated only
insofar as they affected that group and its members. I believe that I succeeded
in doing this. I was clearly troubled, however, by how much easier it was to
secure information about the motives and understandings of Europeans than
about those of the Hurons with whom they interacted (Trigger 1975). I also
regard an understanding of Native American history as vital for understanding
European colonial history. I will state what I regard as being the proper rela-
tionship between these two later.
Ethnohistory and Archaeology
In the 19th century, as we have already noted, native cultures were generally
viewed as having been static prior to European contact. This was interpreted
either racially as evidence of a lack of creative intellect among native peoples,
or alternatively as evidence that these cultures were so perfectly adjusted to
their environments albeit at a low level of production, that further change was
unnecessary. Change following European contact was interpreted as a process
of cultural disintegration or assimilation that had calamitously befallen native
peoples. It was assumed that archaeological evidence substantiated this view.
The evidence appeared to suggest that the cultures that had been discovered at
the time of European contact had endured essentially unchanged over many
centuries. Such changes as were observed in any region generally were attrib-
uted to migrations of peoples rather than to internal changes. Only in the first
half of the 20th century was trait diffusion gradually assigned a major role in
bringing about change in prehistoric times. Even then, the most important stim-
uli were generally seen as coming from Mesoamerica or East Asia rather
12 BRUCE G. TRIGGER
than resulting from cultural creativity among the native peoples of North
America. It is only since the 1960s that due attention has been paid to the
innovative and adaptive capacities of individual prehistoric cultures (Trigger
1980a). A more realistic understanding of the creativity of Native Americans in
prehistoric times may be the most important substantive accomplishment of
the New Archaeology so far.
It is now clear that indigenous cultures did not begin to change as a result
of the arrival of the first Europeans. On the contrary, change has been charac-
teristic of native cultures in all parts of the western hemisphere from man's
first arrival there over 20,000 years ago. It is vital to understand not only the
ethnography of indigenous societies at the time of European contact but also
how these societies were evolving internally and responding to changes in other
native societies if we are to understand their initial reactions to European con-
tact (Lurie 1959: 37). To do this, the findings of prehistoric archaeology must
be treated as an integral part of Native American history, which must begin,
not as ethnohistory conventionally does, at or slightly before European con-
tact, but with the penetration of the first native people into the western hemi-
sphere. Treating the study of prehistory as an integral part of native history
also helps to free the latter of some of the ethnocentric bias that inevitably
results from having to rely too heavily upon Euroamerican documentary
sources. This does not imply that the distinction between prehistoric archaeol-
ogy and ethnohistory as different methodologies for studying the past should
disappear. Instead, it implies that the findings of both are equally relevant for
studying native history. It creates the same relationship between prehistoric
archaeology and ethnohistory as has existed between history and prehistory in
Europe since the 1880s. This is a very different view from the currently popu-
lar one of American prehistory as a branch of anthropology that has no rela-
tionship to history. It also implies the need for closer mutual connections
between prehistoric archaeology and ethnohistory than have been recognized
in the past. While ethnohistorians have made some use of archaeological data
to supplement what they know or can infer from written sources concerning
cultures and events in late prehistoric or early historic times, most of them
have maintained a closer relationship to ethnology than to archaeology.
Ethnology and Archaeology
During the 19th century, ethnologists shared with archaeologists the belief
that the various traditional cultures that had first been described soon after
European contact had been stable for a long time. Although these cultures
were acknowledged to be in varying states of disintegration as a result of
European contact, ethnographers sought to use aged informants' memories and
historical data to reconstruct what they had originally been like. Reconstruc-
tions of this sort were normally written in the present tense and were treated
by ethnologists as if they existed in an atemporal framework; the so-called
ethnographic present. These descriptions of native cultures were viewed as a
data base for generalizing about variations in cultural types and in human
behavior.
It is now clear, however, as a result of numerous archaeological and ethno-

historical studies, that the vast majority of native cultures in North America
had been dramatically altered prior to the recording of the earliest European
descriptions of them. This point, although not a new observation, was amply
documented for eastern North America during the editing of the Northeast
Volume of the Handbook of North American Indians (Sturtevant and Trigger
1978). What ethnologists and ethnohistorians once imagined were descriptions
of cultures substantially unchanged as a result of European contact are now
known to have been cultures at various, often undetermined stages of accultu-
ration. Ethnohistorical studies have shown that acculturation substantially
altered significant aspects of economic behavior, social organization, and reli-
gious beliefs and practices (Brasser 1971). It is also clear that the precise
nature of these changes cannot be inferred from general ethnological princi-
ples. For the same reason, it is impossible to determine a priori precisely what
native cultures were like prior to being altered either directly or indirectly by
European contact. This suggests that the study of native cultures prior to such
contact is primarily an archaeological rather than an ethnographic problem
(Trigger n.d.a., n.d.b.). Because of this, archaeology has a more vital role to
play within an anthropological context than the New Archaeology has so far
claimed for it.
This is a difficult conclusion for ethnologists to accept, since it requires them
to acknowledge that ethnographic data do not have a privileged position with
respect to other types as a source of information about human behavior.
Insofar as ethnologists require knowledge of pristine cultures, either for mak-
ing cross-cultural comparions or as a base line for measuring changes brought
about by European contact, it forces them to rely upon the findings of a disci-
pline that they have traditionally viewed as being merely a consumer of the
findings of other disciplines. Ethnologists have tended to minimize the value of
archaeological data because they provide information about a much narrower
range of behavior than ethnographers can observe amongst living peoples. In
particular, archaeology informs us about what people have made and used
rather than about what they have said and done. Yet, in spite of their limita-
tions, archaeological data can provide significant amounts of information
about many crucial aspects of human behavior. These include demography,
patterns of settlement and residence, trade, political organization, and ritual
behavior, as well as material culture. They also document actual patterns of
behavior rather than ideal ones, such as can be reconstructed from informants'
memories and the generalizations of 17th century European observers.
The failure of ethnologists to view ethnographic data in a proper historical
context calls into question many of the findings of cross-cultural research. In a
magnificant study of Crow kinship systems in the southeastern United States,
Fred Eggan (1966: 15-44) demonstrated that much of the variation in these
systems reflected the varying states of acculturation of different tribal groups.
This factor may also increase the appearance of randomness in other cross-
cultural studies, such as the extensive comparative investigations of Native
American cultures by H.E. Driver and W.C. Massey (1957). They claim that
functional correlations between factors such as subsistence economies and
social organization can account only to a limited degree for actual trait distri-
14 BRUCE G. TRIGGER
butions. Had their comparisons been based on data describing cultures prior
to White contact, it seems possible that stronger functional correlations might
have been obtained.
Yet Native American cultures were changing in prehistoric times, even if
they were not suffering the dramatic dislocations that were to afflict them as a
result of Euroamerican exploitation and expansion. Moreover, some of these
changes resulted from ethnic migrations and the diffusion of traits from one
group to another. There were not wholly different in kind from some changes
brought about as a result of European contact. Descriptions of cultures,
whether they pertain to prehistoric or historic times and whether they are
based on data acquired by ethnographic fieldwork, ethnohistorical reconstruc-
tions, or archaeological studies, can only be understood and evaluated prop-
erly if they are studied in their own particular historical context. Lack of con-
trol over the historical dimension not only deprives anthropologists of an
awareness of developmental regularities but also exaggerates the appearance of
synchronic structural variation and random correlations of features. Taking
account of the historical dimension permits a better understanding of the his-
tory of specific societies and of the dynamics of cultural change, and hence of
the various regularities that characterize human behavior. This approach oblit-
erates not only the distinctions among studies based on archaeological, ethno-
historical, and ethnological data but also the distinction between ethnology and
social history. An analogous covergence between social anthropology and
social history is strikingly evident in the United Kingdom, in the work of schol-
ars such as Alan Macfarlane (1970).
This weakening of traditional barriers separating archaeology, ethnology,
and history suggest the truth of Frederic W. Maitland's dictum that eventually
anthropology must become history or it will become nothing. This dictum is
only true, however, as it applies to what may be called scientific history. It is
widely believed, for example, that the laws of political company that are used
to explain behavior in industrialized societies are not particularly useful for
explaining the economies of societies that are characterized by a different
mode of production, such as early civilizations or tribal societies. The same
may apply to most, if not all, aspects of human behavior. If this is so, all
social science data in due course must be understood in an historical frame-
work. This framework specifies the context within which all explanations of
human behavior, past and present, have significance. It does this by specifying
the types of societies to which each generalization may or may not apply.
Scientific history transcends in importance all of the other social sciences by
specifying the applicability and relevance of their various theories (Trigger
n.d.d.).
Ethnohistory and Colonial History
When I began The Children of Aataentsic I assumed that the related history
of European colonization was sufficiently well understood that it would not be
significantly affected by my study of native history. At that time, I believe,
most ethnohistorians regarded their work as an extension of historical research
into new fields rather than as investigations that would significantly alter our
understanding of Euroamerican history. Today it is increasingly being realized
that many activities of Euroamerican settlers cannot be understood adequately
without a sound understanding of native history. Francis Jennings (1975) was
puzzled by seeming anomalies in understanding the behavior and motives of
the native peoples of New England that were posed by traditional accounts of
the colonial history of that region in the 17th century. This led him to realize
that historians had erroneously accepted at face value the contemporary
accounts of European colonists concerning their relations with native peoples
and neighboring colonies. This, in turn, revealed that much of the early history
of New England was based on documents that were more biased and self-
serving than hitherto had been suspected. My work on the Huron showed that
the poorly documented European traders and their workmen had played a far
more important role in the early development of New France than had the
Recollects, Jesuits, and Champlain, although the latter's activities had been
advertised in numerous self-serving publications. Without the trading relation-
ships that these middle and working class groups had established with native
peoples, missionary work and colonization would have been impossible
(Trigger 1980b, n.d.c.). In both of these studies, an understanding of the deal-
ings of Europeans with one another has had to be revised in the light of an
expanded knowledge of Native American history. The price of ignoring native
history has been not simply a one-sided understanding of relations between
native people and Europeans. In some cases it has resulted in serious misun-
derstandings of the internal dynamics of European colonization.
An Eclectic Approach
We have already noted that an increasing amount of ethnohistorical research

is being done by scholars who have been recruited from history rather than
from anthropology. While all ethnohistorians recognize the need to possess
information and analytical skills derived from both disciplines, there is often
much friction between them. Working with committees to supervise ethnohis-
torical projects, I have been disappointed to observe the stubborn and intran-
sigent manner in which elementary disciplinary prejudices manifest themselves.
The stereotyped bookworm and field worker appear to have little affection for
each other's habits. Sometimes this tension is made clear in print, as, for
example, in Francis Jennings' (1979) review of Volume 15 of the Handbook of
North American Indians. It was implied that this volume would have been
considerably improved, both technically and in terms of content, had scholars
trained as professional historians been allowed more to take charge of it.
There is, however, a brighter side to this problem. Gregory Dening (1966:
23-27) points out that in New Zealand historians complain that historical
sources are often misused by those who employ them for anthropological pur-
poses and that, because ethnohistorians are either historians who are also ama-
teur anthropologists or anthropologists who are also amateur historians, they
are "the object of suspicion of anthropologists and historians alike." Relations
do not seem to be that dichotomized in North America and are probably im-
16 BRUCE G. TRIGGER
proving. Moreover, at least some of the tension is no longer a reflection of

narrow disciplinary loyalties but an indication of what Isabel McBryde (1979:
137) calls "a sophisticated interdisciplinary awareness." Ethnohistorians should
take careful stock of their diverse skills and orientations and learn to capitalize
upon these. This can partly be done through well planned team work. We
should also encourage a more synthetic approach by providing the next gener-
ation of students with a broader training in ethnohistorical methodology.
Conventional history, ethnohistory, ethnology, and archaeology each have
developed distinct techniques for collecting and analyzing data about human
behavior. Each approach requires specialized skills and training. Yet, whether
these data are studied within an ecological, historical materialist, cultural
materialist, or idealist framework, they must also be viewed in an historical
context. The history of the native people of North America began over 20,000
years ago and ends with the present. Studying that history requires informa-
tion provided by prehistoric archaeologists, ethnohistorians, Euroamerican his-
tory specialists, specialists in oral tradition, historical linguists, physical
anthropologists, comparative ethnologists, and those skilled in any other
approaches capable of augmenting our understanding of past human behavior.
This is a broader range of analytical skills than is empoyed by most ethnohis-
torians. Yet the study of Native American history requires that the findings of
these disparate fields be carefully integrated if the past is to be well under-
stood. In general, ethnohistorians have more experience than have other social
scientists in producing syntheses of this sort.
What does this signify institutionally? Should ethnohistory remain a metho-
dology shared by historians, anthropologists, and, to a lesser degree, by geo-
graphers and economists or should it seek to be recognized as a separate disci-
pline among the social sciences? And, if it seeks recognition as a separate
discipline, should it continue mainly to study changes in Native American cul-
tures since European contact or should it seek also to include the study of cul-
tural change in prehistoric times? We have already argued that from a substan-
tive, rather than a methodological, point of view the distinction between
pre-and post-contact Native American history is artificial and misleading. It is
also true that an historical interpretation of archaeological data would be dif-
ferent in many respects from the generalizing or nomothetic one currently
espoused by most American archaeologists (Trigger 1980). Yet such a broad
definition of ethnohistory would create almost insurmountable interdisciplinary
problems. Finally, how would such a discipline be differentiated from an
interdisciplinary study of Native American history?
My own view is that Native American history should be regarded as a valid
interdisciplinary field that in its totality requires substantial contributions from
prehistoric archaeologists, ethnohistorians, and ethnologists. At the same time,
its status should be viewed as equivalent to American, British, or Russian his-
tory. It is to be hoped that in the future more students will be instructed in the
broad range of skills necessary for such interdisciplinary studies, whether these
be the ones needed to study the full range of native history or the narrower
range covered by ethnohistorical techniques. Yet it does not seem appropriate
that ethnohistory should seek to become an independent discipline, any more
than Russian or French history should aspire to do so. Continuing contacts
Ethnohistorv: Problems and Prospects 17
with the broader disciplines of history and anthropology (including prehistoric

archaeology) are vital for both methodological and substantive reasons.
Anthropologists and archaeologists engaged in the study of native history and
culture benefit substantially from the broad comparative perspectives of their
disciplines, as well as from findings relating specifically to the native peoples of
North America. Historians benefit in similar ways from a knowledge of devel-
opments in history, both worldwide and with respect to Euroamerican society.
A fruitful exchange of information is best guaranteed by having many ethno-
historians and Native American historians remain in departments of anthro-
pology, prehistoric archaeology, and history. On the other hand, if a reasona-
ble number find positions in interdisciplinary native history or native studies
programs, this would help different aspects of native history. It is diverse
strategies of this kind, rather than unpromising efforts to alter the traditional
structure of the social sciences, that will allow the study of native history to be
pursued most effectively and efficiently. As a methodology, ethnohistory has
an important role to play both in the study of native history and within the
social sciences generally.
References
Arens, W.
1979 The Man-Eating Myth: Anthropology and Anthropophagy. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Axtell, James and W. C. Sturtevant
1980 The Unkindest Cut, or Who Invented Scalping? The William and Mary Quar-
terly 37:451-472.
Bailey, A. G.
1937 The Conflict of European and Eastern Algonkian Cultures, 1504-1700. Saint
John: New Brunswick Museum.
1977 Retrospective Thoughts of an Ethnohistorian. The Canadian Historical Associ-
ation, Historical Papers, 1977:15-29.
Berton, Pierre
1978 The Wild Frontier. Toronto: McClelland and Stewart.
Brasser, T. J. C.
1971 Group Identification along a Moving Frontier. Verhandlungen des XXXVIIII
Internationalen Amerikanistenkongresses. Munich, Volume 2, pp. 261-265.
Cook, Ramsey
1980 Berton's War of 1812. The Gazette (Montreal), August 30, p. 34.
Dening, Gregory
1966 Ethnohistory in Polynesia: The Value of Ethnohistorical Evidence. Journal of
Pacific History 1:23-42.
Driver, H. E. and W. C. Massey
1957 Comparative Studies of North American Indians. Transactions of the American
Philosophical Society 47:165-456.
Eggan, F. R.
1966 The American Indian: Perspectives for the Study of Social Change. London:
Weidenfeld and Nicolson.
Fenton, W. N.
1966 Field Work, Museum Studies, and Ethnohistorical Research. Ethnohistory
13:71-85.
Harris, Marvin
1968 The Rise of Anthropological Theory. New York: Crowell.
18 BRUCE G. TRIGGER
Heidenreich, C. E.
1971 Huronia: A History and Geography of the Huron Indians, 1600-1650. Toronto:
McClelland and Stewart.
Hickerson, Harold
1970 The Chippewa and their Neighbors: A Study in Ethnohistory. New York: Holt,
Rinehart and Winston.
Hunt, G. T.
1940 The Wars of the Iroquois: A Study in Intertribal Trade Relations. Madison:
University of Wisconsin Press.
Jennings, Francis
1975 The Invasion of America: Indians, Colonialism, and the Cant of Conquest.
Chapel Hill: University of North Caroline Press.
1979 Anthropological Foundations for American Indian History. Reviews in Ameri-
can History 7:486-493.
Krech III, Shepard, Ed.
1981 Indians, Animals and the Fur Trade: A Critique of Keepers of the Game.
Athens: The University of Georgia Press.
Lanctot, Gustave
1963 A History of Canada, Volume I. Toronto: Clarke, Irwin.
Linton, Ralph
1940 Acculturation in Seven American Indian Tribes. New York: Appleton-Century.
Lurie, N. 0.
1959 Indian Cultural Adjustment to European Civilization. In Seventeenth-Century
America. J. M. Smith Ed., Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
1961 Ethnohistory: An Ethnological Point of View. Ethnohistory 8:78-92.
McBryde, Isabel
1979 Ethnohistory in an Australian Context: Independent Discipline or Convenient
Data Quarry? Aboriginal History 3:128-151.
McCall, Daniel
1980 Review of P. Curtin et al. African History. American Anthropologist
82:662-663.
Macfarlane, Alan
1970 Witchcraft in Tudor and Stuart England. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Martin, Calvin
1978 Keepers of the Game: Indian-Animal Relationships and the Fur Trade. Berke-
ley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Miller, V. P.
1976 Aboriginal Micmac Population: A Review of the Evidence. Ethnohistory
23:117-127.
Morton, W. L.
1963 The Kingdom of Canada. Toronto: McClelland and Steward.
Parker, A. C.
1916 The Origin of the Iroquois as Suggested by their Archaeology. American
Anthropologist 18:479-507.
Ray, A. J.
1974 Indians in the Fur Trade. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Redfield, R., R. Linton and M. J. Herskovits
1936 Outline for the Study of Acculturation. American Anthropologist 39:149-152.
Richards, Cara
1967 Huron and Iroquois Residence Patterns 1600-1650. In Iroquois Culture, His-
tory, and Prehistory. E. Tooker Ed., Albany: The University of the State of
New York, pp. 51-56.
Rotstein, Abraham
1972 Trade and Politics: An Institutional Approach. Western Canadian Journal of
Anthropology 3(1): 1-28.
Rowe, F. W.
1977 Extinction: The Beothuks of Newfoundland. Toronto: McGraw-Hill.
Ethnohistory: Problems and Prospects .19
Smith, Donald
1974 Le Sauvage: The Native People in Quebec: Historical Writing on the Heroic
Period (1534-1663) of New France. Ottawa: National Museum of Man, Mer-
cury Series.
Smith, W. M.
1970 A Re-appraisal of the Huron Kinship System. Anthropologica 12:191-206.
1973 The Fur Trade and the Frontier: A Study of an Inter-Cultural Alliance.
Anthropologica 15:21-35.
Spicer, E. H., Ed.
1961 Perspectives in American Indian Cultural Change. Chicago: University of Chi-
cago Press.
1962 Cycles of Conquest. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.
Sturtevant, W. C.
1966 Anthropology, History, and Ethnohistory. Ethnohistory 13: 1-51.
Sturtevant, W. C. (General Editor) and B. G. Trigger (Volume Editor)
1978 Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 15, The Northeast. Washing-
ton: Smithsonian Institution.
Talbot, F. X.
1965 Saint Among the Hurons. Garden City: Image Books.
Trigger, B. G.
1962 Trade and Tribal Warfare on the St. Lawrence in the Sixteenth Century. Eth-
nohistory 9:240-256.
1975 Brecht and Ethnohistory. Ethnohistory 22:51-56.
1976 The Children of Aataentsic: A History of the Huron People to 1660. 2 vol-
umes. Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press.
1978a Ethnohistory and Archaeology. Ontario Archaeology, no. 30:17-24.
1978b Iroquoian Matriliny. Pennsylvania Archaeologist 48(1-2):55-65.
1980a Archaeology and the Image of the American Indian. American Antiquity
45:662-676.
1980b Colonizers and Natives: Toward a More Objective History of New France.
Report of the Fifteenth International Congress of Historical Sciences, Vol.
2:279-287. Bucharest.
n.d.a. Archaeology and the Ethnographic Present. Anthropologica (in press).
n.d.b. Response of Native Peoples to European Contact. Proceedings of the Interna-
tional Symposium on Early European Settlement and Exploitation in Atlantic
Canada, Memorial University of Newfoundland (in press).
n.d.c. Indian and White History. Two Worlds or One? Festschrift (in press).
n.d.d. Archeaology as Historical Science. Paper prepared for the Primer Encuentro de
Antropologia Americana, Mexico City, November 9-14, 1980.
Vincent, Sylvie and B. Arcand
1979 L' image de l'Am6rindien dans les manuels scolaires du Quebec. Montreal:
Hurtubise.
Walsh, W. H.
1967 An Introduction to the Philosophy of History. London: Hutchinson.

Trigger B. 1982. Ethnohistory.. Problems and Prospects

Încărcat de

Informații document

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Trigger B. 1982. Ethnohistory.. Problems and Prospects

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Ethnohistory: Problems and Prospects

Author(s): Bruce G. Trigger

ETHNOHISTORY: PROBLEMS AND PROSPECTS

Bruce G. Trigger McGill University

A general review is provided of the current state of ethnohistorical research in

The Scope of Ethnohistory

Ethnohistory flourishes today in North America as never before. The

Anthropology and History

The Growth of Ethnohistory

It is perhaps indicative of how little importance anthropologists attached to

Pitfalls of Ethnohistorical Method

It would be flattering to attribute this burgeoning interest in ethnohistory to

ethnohistorians. While the recruitment of native people into ethnohistorical

cannibalism. Some of the more revisionist demographic studies, which attempt

parative knowledge of the nature of tribal or band society, from an extensive

Native American History

Yet, if ethnohistorians must employ a broader range of methods than do

ethnohistorical research suggests, however, that while ethnohistory can legiti-

Ethnohistory and Archaeology

Ethnology and Archaeology

It is now clear, however, as a result of numerous archaeological and ethno-

Ethnohistory and Colonial History

We have already noted that an increasing amount of ethnohistorical research

proving. Moreover, at least some of the tension is no longer a reflection of

with the broader disciplines of history and anthropology (including prehistoric

S-ar putea să vă placă și