Ethnohistory: what is it and what does this discipline investigate?

History, as much as it tries to, is not a discipline detached from the context nor from the characteristics of the individual who studies it.

This is why there are many who consider that history, especially when dealing with non-Western cultures, has not been able to study them, leaving aside the European vision.

Ethnohistory has tried to correct this Eurocentric vision of the historical events of other cultures, trying to perceive the cultural reality of the ethnic group under study and seeing how they have perceived their own history. Let's take a closer look at what exactly this field of knowledge consists of.

• Related article: "Anthropology: what is it and what is the history of this scientific discipline"

What is ethnohistory?

The term ethnohistory has a somewhat imprecise definition. The most accepted definition, and which is closest to the name that has been given to this field of knowledge, is that it is the branch that arises from history and anthropology.

This one aims the study of the original communities of a certain region from their own point of view

, and how they perceived contact with other ethnic groups, whether in the context of invasion or trade.

Despite the fact that this is the most accepted and basic definition for the term, there are many alternatives given for the word 'ethnohistory'. The fullest definition, offered by Erminie Wheeler-Voegelin, a pioneer in the field, is that it is the study of the identities, locations, contacts, movements, customs and habits, cultural traditions and population itself of an ethnic group.

This definition has been the most widely used when studying communities that either no longer exist or have lost a significant percentage of its original territory, with indigenous communities playing an important role in the interest of ethnohistorians Mesoamericans.

According to Paul Radin in 1933, it is not possible to accurately describe any culture without address in the most precise and close way how the people who belonged to that same group saw the world culture.

Seymour-Smith, in 1986, defines it as the union between the disciplines of history and anthropology, taking a closer view of how those who made it up perceived their own culture, taking into account especially aspects such as both local and popular history, and trying to escape from how the more classes describe it. dominant. Ethnohistory can be understood as the study of how people make a representation of their own history.

Gene Weltfish considers that ethnohistory is about the discipline that is in charge of the study of ethnic groups throughout the time they lived, from the present until the earliest moment of which there is evidence of their existence, based on the interpretation of the written documents in which they are made reference. Special emphasis is placed on aspects such as the way in which they buried their deceased, proper names, testimonies from survivors...

Whatever the closest definition to what ethnohistorians really think and do, the truth is that it must be taken into account that this field of knowledge, which has not yet been agreed on whether it is a branch of history and anthropology, an independent discipline, a method or a process, arose as a criticism of the traditional vision of history when addressing less favored ethnic groups.

Although ethnohistory emerged during the 20th century, although it was founded at a time when biologicist racism and many prejudices were being demolished, It sought to combat the paternalistic and supremacist vision that continued to exist among many academics when it came to addressing the history of indigenous peoples. American people. As a discipline, history continued to have a very Eurocentric view when it came to understanding historical events from non-white, non-Western cultures.

The ethnohistorical proposal is based on the need to try to understand the history of a culture from its own vision, understanding the interpretation made by the members of the ethnic group in question.

Thus, using the Cherokee, Iroquois or Sioux Indians as an example, the aim was to understand how they experienced the conquest of the West and the expansion of the United States. As is well known, there are many racist views of this event, showing white settlers as heroes while the indigenous people, from whom the land was taken away, being presented as the authentic enemies. Ethnohistory aims to change this vision, and be more empathetic with the natives.

Historical background

Although there is evidence that the term ethnohistory appeared at the end of the 19th century and Paul Radin, in 1933, tried to give it a definition, the first big step towards the formation and establishment of the discipline comes from the hands of the anthropologist Erminie Wheeler-Voegelin in 1954. In that year, Wheeler-Voegelin published the first newsletter of the Ohio Valley Historic Indian Conference, which, over the years, would become the magazine ethnohistory, specialized in, as its name suggests, ethnohistory.

The emergence of this field is due to the work carried out by anthropologists following the Indian Claims Commission of 1946. This commission was established to clarify which transactions, during the years of US expansion, had been fair. When the country was still young, white settlers bought land from the Indians, and many of these land sales were, in essence, scams by the settlers on the Indians.

In order for the tribes that claimed to have been defrauded to be entitled to some type of compensation, it was necessary for them to be able to prove that they had occupied a certain territory. This is where anthropologists played an important role, studying both in the library archives and in the civil registry and in the culture itself that claimed its part. This is what is considered the beginning of what would later become ethnohistory.

Over time, ethnohistory has not only studied indigenous groups originating in what is now the United States and Canada. Research has also been carried out on what Mesoamerican civilizations, indigenous Polynesians, African tribes were like and what rights they have.

• You may be interested in: "What is Cultural Psychology?"

Methodology

Although not even ethnohistorians themselves have agreed on whether ethnohistory is really a discipline, a branch of history and the anthropology, a method or a process carried out during the study of the historical events of a certain culture, what can be said is that as a 'method' they have in common that they take into account how those who are members of a certain culture have lived through historical events.

As we have already been commenting, history has traditionally followed a vision characterized by giving greater weight to the opinion of Western historians than those who come from other cultures and have experienced those events first hand historical.

Ethnohistorians use the legal record, especially library material and laws, as well as physical evidence such as monuments, architectural elements and everyday objects to know how a certain culture lived and demonstrate that they actually lived in the place studied. The testimonies of those who have managed to survive in the event that there has been an extermination or a drastic reduction of the population are also taken into account.

Bibliographic references:

• Adams, R. no. (1962) "Ethnohistoric research methods: Some Latin American features." Anthropological Linguistics 9,179-205.
• Bernal, I. (1966). "Archeology and written sources.". 34th International Congress of Americanists. Minutes p. 219–25.
• Carrasco, P. (1964). "Ethnohistory in Mesoamerica." 36th International Congress of Americanists. Act 2, 109-10.
• Fenton, W. no. (1952) "The training of historical ethnologists in America." American Anthropologist 54 328-39.
• Gunnerson, J. h. "A survey of ethnohistoric sources." Kroeber Anthr. Soc. Papers 1958, 49-65.
• Sturtevant, W.C. (1966) "Anthropology, history, and ethnohistory." Ethnohistory 13 1-51.
• Vogelin, E.W. (1954) "An ethnohistorian's viewpoint" The Bulletin of the Ohio Valley historic Indian conference, 1, 166-171.