Ethnohistory

Ethnohistory is a field of study that emerged after WWII, which focused at first on native and non-Western peoples, from anthropological and historical viewpoints. Despite the fact that ethnohistory did not become an academic discipline until the mid-twentieth century, for centuries scholars, such as the ancient Greek historian Herodotus, who lived in the 5th century B.C., or the North African scholar Ibn Khaldun, who lived in the 14th century, were ethnohistorians. Russel J. Barber and Frances F. Berdan, in their book The Emperor’s Mirror: Understanding Culture through Primary Sources (1998), define this discipline “as an interdisciplinary field that studies past human behavior and is characterized by a primary reliance on documents, the use of input from other sources when available, a methodology that incorporates historiography and cultural relativism and a focus on cultural interaction.”

In summary, ethnohistory is what ethnohistorians do. But who are ethnohistorians? Barber and Berdan argue that most ethnohistorians have been trained either in anthropology or history. However, more and more ethnohistorians are coming from interdisciplinary programs. One factor that encouraged the growth of ethnohistory in the second half of the 20th century was the waning of Functionalism. Functionalists such as Bronislaw Malinowski and A. R. Radcliffe Brown focused on synchronic studies and for a number of years carried out an antihistorical tradition.

Shepard Krech III in his article “The State of Ethnohistory” argues that in recent years history and anthropology have interpenetrated each other. People such as American anthropologists Marshall Sahlins and Renato Rosaldo have used historical records to demonstrate anthropological perspectives. At the end of his essay Krech III asks if we indeed need this new discipline called ethnohistory. For him, ethnohistory is just one type of hyphenated history. He defines ethnohistory as “anthropology with a time dimension or history informed by anthropological concepts.” For Krech III “both anthropological history and historical anthropology substitute well for ethnohistory without stigma or illogic, and one’s training in anthropology should not prevent one from writing anthropological history (or plain history for that matter), just as a training in history should not preclude production of a historical anthropology.”

Independent of the name researchers adopt, be it ethnohistory or historical anthropology, they should always be aware that research, above all, should enhance knowledge. Thus, a well-formed plan is necessary. Barber and Burden point out the importance of reading the literature prior to conducting the research because it will guide the researcher through the process of designing the research. They explain that a research design (proposal) is like a map. It serves to guide the researcher.

In summary, Barber and Berdan present a well structured introduction of enthnohistory as an academic discipline. While Barber and Berdan guide us through the development of enthnohistory and the processes of formulating research topics and designs and give us insights into archives, Krech III, tries to show that the boundaries that separate anthropology from history, and enthnohistory from history, were more clearly in the past than they are today. For him, a well-trained scholar can venture from anthropology into history and vice-versa. I, personally, think that an anthropologist should not disregard the history of a community or peoples that he or she is studying. Even though anthropologist will always carry with pride the research strategy of participant observation, originated in field work of social anthropologists, especially Bronislaw Malinowski, incorporating history will most likely give a more accurate view of the peoples or cultural aspects studied. The same goes for historians. If the take a moment to understand the tools anthropologists use while doing research, they will most likely benefit from using them in their research. I believe that ethnohistory as a discipline emerged to bring scholars from different backgrounds, especially anthropologists and historian, together and share the tools of their trade. It is by adopting each other’s tools that we are better able to describe and analyze our object of study.
Neda Bezerra.