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

Ethnohistory attempts to understand the ways in which ethnic minorities have lived and thought.

History, as much as it tries to try to do so, 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 known how to study them leaving aside the European vision.

Ethnohistory has tried to correct this Eurocentric view of the historical events of other cultures, and has 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 exactly what this field of knowledge consists of.

What is ethnohistory?

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

Its objective is to the study of the original communities of a given region from their own point of view, and how they perceived the contactThe purpose of anthropology is to study the native communities of a given region from their own point of view, and how they perceived contact with other ethnic groups, whether in the context of invasion or trade.

Although this is the most accepted and basic definition for the term, there are more than a few alternatives given for the word 'ethnohistory'. The most comprehensive 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 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 their original territory, with Mesoamerican indigenous communities playing an important role in the interest of ethnohistorians.

According to Paul Radin in 1933, it is not possible to accurately describe any culture without approaching it as accurately and closely as possible to how the people who belonged to that same culture saw the world.

Seymour-Smith, in 1986, defines it as the union between the disciplines of history and anthropology, taking a closer look at the world as a whole.The approach is closer to how the people of that culture perceived their own culture, especially taking into account aspects such as local and popular history, and trying to avoid the way it was described by the more dominant classes. Ethnohistory can be understood as the study of how people make a representation of their own history.

Gene Weltfish considers ethnohistory to be the discipline that deals with the study of ethnic groups throughout the time they lived, from the present to the earliest recorded time of their existence, based on the interpretation of written documents in which they are referred to. Special emphasis is placed on aspects such as the way in which they buried their dead, proper names, survivors' testimonies...

Whichever definition is closer to what ethnohistorians really think and do, the fact is that it must be taken into account that this field of knowledge, which has not yet agreed on whether it is a branch of history and anthropology, an independent discipline, a method or a process, emerged as a critique of the traditional view of history when dealing with disadvantaged ethnic groups..

Ethnohistory, which emerged during the twentieth century, although founded at a time when Biological racism and many prejudices were being overturned, sought to combat the paternalistic and supremacist view that still existed among many scholars when dealing with the history of Native Americans. As a discipline, history still had a very Eurocentric view when it came to understanding the historical events of non-Western and non-White 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 visions of this event, showing the white settlers as heroes while the Indians, whose land was taken from them, were presented as the real enemies. Ethnohistory aims to change this vision, and to 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 major step towards the formation and establishment of the discipline came at 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 evolve into the journal Ethnohistoryspecializing in, as its name suggests, ethnohistory.

The emergence of this field is due to the work carried out by anthropologists as a result of the Indian Claims Commission of 1946. This commission was established to clarify what transactions, during the years of U.S. expansion, had been fair .. When the country was still young, white settlers bought land from Indians, and many of these land purchases were, in essence, settler swindles of the Indians.

In order for the tribes claiming to have been swindled to be entitled to some form 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 in the library archives as well as in the civil registry and in the culture itself that claimed its share.. This is what is considered the beginning of what would later become ethnohistory.

Over time, ethnohistory has not only studied the indigenous groups native to what is now the United States and Canada. Research has also been conducted on what Mesoamerican civilizations, Polynesian Indians, African tribes were like and what rights they have.

Methodology

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

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

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

Bibliographical references:

• Adams, R. N. (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. Proceedings pp. 219-25.
• Carrasco, P. (1964). "Ethnohistory in Mesoamerica." 36th International Congress of Americanists. Acta 2, 109-10.
• Fenton, W. N. (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.