The American Society for Ethnohistory

Ethnohistory: The Unfinished Edifice

Author(s): Bruce G. Trigger
Source: Ethnohistory, Vol. 33, No. 3 (Summer, 1986), pp. 253-267
Published by: Duke University Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/481814 .
Accessed: 21/06/2014 07:20

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
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 and The American Society for Ethnohistory are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,
preserve and extend access to Ethnohistory.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 185.44.79.160 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 07:20:13 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Ethnohistory:The UnfinishedEdifice

Bruce G. Trigger,McGill University

Abstract.The developmentof ethnohistoryis examinedin the context of Euroamerican

society. Its principal accomplishment to date has been to reveal the biases that have
distorted Euroamericanviews of native people from the sixteenth century until the
present. In recent years, ethnohistory has benefited from historical studies of how
EuropeansperceivednativeAmericansand from advancesin paleodemographyand the
analysisof oral traditions.Furtherassistancecan be expected from the developmentof
comparativeethnology and more importantly from ethnosemantics.Despite these ad-
vances, only as the marginalizationof nativeAmericansin modernsociety is overcome
can Euroamericanethnohistorians advance beyond critiques of their own society to
realizetheir statedgoal of studying nativeAmericanhistory.

In this presidential address I wish to discuss certain general problems relating to

where ethnohistory stands today and the direction in which it is, or should be,
moving. One of the ironies of our discipline is that, although we claim to study
native American history, scarcely any of us are native Americans. Among the
related issues that I want to consider is whether studying Amerindian history
has yet become our primary concern. I will seek more broadly to demonstrate
how an improved understanding of our professed subject matter is reciprocally
linked to changes in our comprehension of ourselves and the society in which
we live.
In the 1970s some of the first examinations of this relationship, particu-
larly one by Nancy Lurie (I972), pained and outraged many anthropologists.
The idea that current interests seriously influence historical interpretations re-
mains ideologically suspect in many quarters. Yet I believe that this proposition
explains better than any other what has happened to ethnohistory and ethnohis-
torians over the years. I will argue that the future development of our discipline
requires us to accept the consequences that follow from this sort of analysis.

This paper was deliveredas the presidentialaddressat the 1985 annual conferenceof
the AmericanSociety for Ethnohistory,Chicago, Illinois, Saturday,November 9.
Ethnohistory 33:3 (SummerI986). Copyright ? by the AmericanSociety for Ethno-
history. ccc ooI4-I80o/86/$I.50.

This content downloaded from 185.44.79.160 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 07:20:13 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
254 Trigger

My talk is autobiographicalin spirit if not in form. I offer no criticisms

that I would not apply to my own work past or present. I now realize that I
began my studies of ethnohistoryas the result of a shallow romanticismthat
caused me to view the Hurons of the seventeenthcenturymerelyas one exotic
aspect of Canadianhistory that an anthropologistmight study. My investiga-
tion of Huron history has become first and foremost a struggle to overcome
what I slowly recognized were intellectuallyindefensibleviews about native
peoples and an accompanying moral insensitivity about Europeanconduct
toward them (Trigger I960, 1971, I976, I985). I also realized that the roots of
these deficiencieslie deep in the historyand practiceof anthropologyand more
generallyin Euroamericanculture. Hence the rethinkingof these issues neces-
sarilyhas social and political implications.

Historical Portrayalsof Native Peoples

For anthropologists, the most far-reachingconsequenceof the Spanish dis-

coveryof the New World was the inventionof the AmericanIndian. Millions
of individuals who belonged to hundredsof groups that bore names such as
HotinQhsy' ni, Anissina'pe', Dine'e, and ?a'siwi were assignedto a single
largerentitythat was not awareof its own existenceand was mistakenlynamed
after a people who lived half a world away. In the tenth edition of his Systema
Naturae, which appearedin 1758-59, the Swedish biologist Carl von Linne,
with his era'stypical total indifferenceto the distinctionbetween culturaland
biological traits,definedthe varietyHomo sapiensamericanusas follows: red-
dish, choleric, erect; hair black, straight, and thick; nostrils wide; face harsh;
beardscanty;obstinate,merry,and free;paintshimself with redlines;regulated
by customs (Slotkin 1965: I77). If the Indians' rule of custom was inferior to
the Europeanrule of law, it was no worse than the rule of opinions, which
Linnaeusascribedto Asiatics, and better than the rule of caprice, which was
said to characterizeAfricans.Linnaeus'classificationclearlyreflectedpopular
views about the ranksoccupiedby differentbranchesof the humanfamily in a
hierarchicaland all-embracingscale of nature.
Recent studies have made it abundantlyclear that from the beginning
contact between Europeansand native Americanswas colored by preconcep-
tions on both sides. Europeanexplorersapproachedthe firstnativepeoples they
encounteredwith expectationsderivedfrom classical traditionsand medieval
superstitionsconcerningwhat sortsof peoples lived in the remotecornersof the
world: monsters,savages,cannibals,or the remnantsof a Golden Age (Dicka-
son 1984). While physicalmonstrositiesprovedto be in short supply,the other
preconceptionscontinuedto shapeinterpretationsof nativepeoples. Inevitably,
however,self-interest influencedhow Europeansconstruednativepeoples far
morepowerfullythan did preconceptions.Dependingon circumstances,favor-
able as well as unfavorabletraitswere emphasized.Advocatesof colonization
often describednative peoples as skillful, intelligent, hardworking,and trac-

This content downloaded from 185.44.79.160 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 07:20:13 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Ethnohistory:The UnfinishedEdifice z55

table (Vaughan I982: 927-29). To win financial support for their missions,
the Jesuits stressedthe rationalityand generosityof groupsthey hoped to con-
vert. Yet they added that these same natives languishedin profound religious
ignoranceand even described them as the abject slaves of the devil (Trigger
1976: 467-70). Evenin the most nuancedEuropeanaccounts,the depictionof
nativepeoples was distortedby preconceptionsand self-interest.
As a consequenceof ever more ambitiousEuropeanprojectsto seize pos-
session of American lands, native people were representedincreasingly as
savages,irredeemablybellicose, and the inveterateenemiesof civilization.The
Spanish conquests of Mexico and Peru were portrayedin contemporaryac-
counts as crusades to rescue native people from ignoranceand sin; the con-
querorsarguedthatservitudein this world was a reasonablepricefor the natives
to pay for the salvationof their souls. Puritanclergymenproclaimedthat God
had cursedthe Indiansof New Englandand thus it was fitting for his elect to
enslave or destroy them. Beginning in the eighteenth century, native people
were increasinglyviewed as biologically inferior to Europeansand therefore
unable to adapt to civilized ways; a position that receivedits ultimate impri-
maturof scientificrespectabilityfrom Darwinianevolutionism(Vaughan1982:
942). Biologicalinterpretations,it should be observed,did not excludereligious
ones, since in many instances the biological inferiorityof native peoples was
interpretedas evidenceof divine favorfor Europeans(Hinsley 1981: IOI). The
writings of FrancisParkman,and of many less influentialhistoriansand an-
thropologists,invokedboth scienceand religionto justifyEuropeanaggression
against native peoples by demonstratingthat the latter were victims of their
own irremediableshortcomings (Jennings1985). In this fashion, Euroameri-
cans in effect declared themselves to be innocent of the sufferingsthat their
actionsinflictedon these peoples.

The Asymmetriesof Contact

Exceptin some of the earliestencountersand in areaswhere for a long time few

Europeanspenetrated,contactsbetweenEuropeansand nativeAmericanswere
soon characterizedby markedand pervasiveinequality,which was exacerbated
by Europeanethnocentrism. In addition to their differing susceptibilityto a
large number of Europeandiseases, the technological gap between the two
groups is frequentlyconsideredas crucial in determiningtheir asymmetrical
relations.Yet differencesin social and political organizationwere scarcelyless
important. The native societies of North America were small-scale units
characterizedby considerableinternal equality, self-reliance,and individual
consentas a prerequisitefor the implementationof publicpolicy. These proper-
ties encouragedfactionalismand made it relativelydifficultfor a nativesociety
to pursuenarrowlydefinedgoals over long periodsof time. Europeansocieties
were much largerand werecharacterizedby a morecomplex division of labor,
as well as by a hierarchicalform of social and politicalorganization.This made

This content downloaded from 185.44.79.160 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 07:20:13 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
z56 Trigger

it possiblefor the stateand for individualentrepreneursto coordinatethe efforts

of large numbersof people for specific long-term tasks. Thus, when conflicts
developed over land and other resources, the way of life that native North
Americansunderstoodand valued put them at an organizationalas well as a
technologicaldisadvantagein competingwith Europeans.The religiousbeliefs
of Europeancolonistswerealso advantageousfor them. Unlikenativereligions,
which emphasizedthe relationshipbetween humanbeings and a naturalworld
infused with supernaturalpower, the Europeanone stressedindividualitybut
also validated a hierarchyof obedience to husband, father, magistrate,king,
and God. As the product of profoundly inegalitariansocieties, Christianity
reinforcedthe hierarchicalsocial organizationthat made possible long-term,
centrallydirectedprojectsthat aimedto masterspecificobjectives.While Euro-
peans viewed missionaryactivitiesas altruisticbehaviorthat sought to benefit
nativepeople, theircovert functionwas to inculcatethe senseof subordination
that was requiredto integratenativepeoples into the lowerechelonsof colonial
society. Even in Mesoamericaand Peru, where kingdoms had flourishedfor
over two millennia,a more segmentarysocial organizationand corresponding
religiousbeliefs (CarrascoI98z) left the indigenoussocietiesexposed to Euro-
pean dominationno less than did their rudimentarymilitarytechnology.

The Developmentof Ethnohistory

Those of us who are anthropologistslike to take pride in the role that our
disciplinehas played in counteractingprejudiceand ethnocentrism.FranzBoas
discreditedracism within anthropologyand fought it in North Americanso-
ciety. Through their advocacyof culturalrelativism,he and his followersalso
persuadedmany Euroamericansto see reason,beauty,and moral values in the
traditionalnativeculturesof North Americaratherthanviewing them as illus-
trationsof a primitivestage in humanevolution (Benedict1934). Yet Boasian
anthropologywas not as different from the evolutionaryanthropologyit re-
placed as its advocatesclaimed. Boasian anthropologistscontinuedto believe
that native cultures had been largely static in prehistorictimes and that such
changes as had occurredwere largely the result of external influences (Sapir
I9I6). They were also convinced that native cultureswere disintegratingas a
resultof Europeancontact;hencethe primaryaim of ethnologistswas to record
these cultures as thoroughly as possible before they disappearedcompletely.
Prior to the 1930S the Boasians' understandingof what was happening to
contemporarynativepeoples fell farshort of that of a few evolutionaryanthro-
pologists, most notablyJames Mooney (Hinsley I981: zo7-zo8). This is not
surprising.Boasian anthropologyhad its roots in nineteenth-centuryGerman
romanticismand as such it had little inclination to consider the realities of
the present.
The study of acculturationdeveloped in the I930S as the result of an
increasinginterest in the role that anthropology might play in formulating

This content downloaded from 185.44.79.160 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 07:20:13 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Ethnohistory:The UnfinishedEdifice z57

more effective policies to administernative peoples. This interest in turn re-

spondedto a growing awarenessthat nativepeoples and theircultureswerenot
disappearing,as anthropologistshad believed they would. For the first time
anthropologistsbegan to study systematicallythe changesthat had takenplace
in nativelife since earliestEuropeancontact, in the hope that useful generaliza-
tions about the natureof culturalchange would emergefrom these historical
studies (Redfield, Linton, and Herskovits 1936). In keepingwith the idealist
Boasian view of culture, these earliest studies tended to view tribes as homo-
geneous and thus differentiatedlittle between the individual and the group
(Linton I940).
After WorldWarII a growing numberof ethnologistsbecameinvolvedin
researchrelatingto nativeland claims and termination.Many of theseethnolo-
gists were challenged to acquire the skills requiredto do archivalresearchin
orderto deal with issues that wereof vital concernto nativepeople. Hence they
became increasinglyaware of the complexity of the factors that had altered
native life since the arrivalof the Europeans.They also realized that within
tribal groupingsthese changes had affected men and women; young and old;
chiefs, shamans,and ordinarypeople; and variousclan groupsdifferently.As a
result of this recognition,the study of acculturationwas transformedinto eth-
nohistory (SpicerI962). While ethnohistoryhas acquiredan interdisciplinary
character,it has also, as a new branchof anthropologythat claims to be con-
cernedwith how nativepeoples havechangedsince Europeancontact, markedly
alteredthe olderdiscipline.Ethnohistorianshavebegunto documentand try to
explain the many alterationsthat have occurredin particularnative cultures
since Europeancontact. Togetherwith prehistoricarchaeology,which sincethe
i96os, under the impact of culturalecology and settlement patternanalysis,
has recognizedthe extent of internalchanges in nativeculturesprior to Euro-
pean discovery,ethnohistoryhas rejectedthe assumptionthat normalor healthy
native cultures were static. By documentingthe variousways in which native
peoples have altered as well as maintainedtheir ways of life in response to
rapidlychangingconditions, ethnohistorianshave also refutedthe established
belief that the only changes that haveoccurredin nativeculturessince earliest
Europeancontact havebeen ones of culturaldisintegration.Only in the post-
Boasianerahaveanthropologistsbegun to understandthe dynamismand crea-
tivity of native peoples as well as the extent of the problems that Europeans
consciously and unconsciously created for them. Through ethnohistorical
studies of culturalchange, the mythsthat werecreatedto mask the exploitative
aspects of Europeanrelationswith nativepeoples are being exposed for what
they areand hencearebeingremovedfrom the armoryof assumptionsthat have
guided the interpretationof anthropologicaldata.
Ethnohistorianshave become more proficient in recognizingthe biases
that must be taken into account if historical documents are to serve as use-
ful sources of informationabout what has happenedto native peoples. Like
more traditionalhistorians,ethnohistoriansarenow preparedto considerwho

This content downloaded from 185.44.79.160 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 07:20:13 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Trigger

authoredeach document and for what purpose. Independentaccounts of the

same event are systematicallycompared in the hope that this will result in a
more roundedand objectiveunderstandingof what happened.This technique
can be especiallyproductivewhen the recordsof rivalEuropeaninterestgroups
and nations can be examined. In addition ethnohistorianshave pioneeredthe
use of more recent ethnographicdata to reveal biases and inaccuraciesin the
historical recordand to make possible the interpretationof nativebehaviorin
the absenceof any independentdocumentationof native viewpoints (Trigger
1976: I- z6). Growingfacilityin this sort of researchhas revealedthe spurious
natureof some Europeansources, that nativepeople are unlikelyto havedone
things that are attributedto them in some documents, and that they acted as
they did for reasonsother than contemporaryEuropeansthought. Analysesof
this sort indicate that native people were independentactors on the stage of
history to a much greaterextent than most Europeanchroniclerswere awarein
the seventeenthand eighteenthcenturies.This understandingnot only broadens
the scope of North Americanhistorybut also revealsthe biasesand limitations
of traditional interpretationsof colonial history. The classic case of this is
FrancisJennings' (1975) startling, and in certain circles far from welcome,
revisionof the acceptedaccountof the political behaviorof Puritancolonistsin
seventeenth-centuryNew England. This work has pointed the way to a series
of similar,if lessspectacular,revisioniststudies (Trigger1985). Ethnohistorians
haveyet to convincemanyprofessionalhistoriansthat studiesof Euroamerican
history that ignore nativeactivitiesare unlikelyto providean accurateaccount
of what Euroamericansweredoing. Yettherearepromisingsignsthathistorians
are increasinglyawareof the importanceof this, especiallyfor earliercolonial
and frontierhistory. The fact that ethnohistoryis demonstrablyessential for
understandingEuropeanbehaviormeans that in the future it must inevitably
come to play a vital role in the generalstudy of Americanhistory.

New Horizons

Ethnohistoryhas reciprocallybenefitedfrom convergentdevelopmentsin the

study of Europeanand Euroamericanintellectual history. In recent decades
there has been an explosion of publicationsthat examineshow native Ameri-
cans wereperceivedby Europeanscholarsand by Europeancolonistsin various
parts of the New World (Pearce 1965; Berkhofer 1978; Drinnon 1980). These
studies are of particularimportanceto anthropologistsbecausethey revealin
detail the cultural stereotypes,biases, and precedentsthat shaped the under-
standingthat Europeanshad of the nativepeoples with whom they interacted.
Some of these studies areof limited value becausetheir authorsdid not famili-
arize themselves adequatelywith the nature of the native cultures being de-
scribedand this in turn limited theirperceptionof the mannerin which ethno-
centrismcoloredEuropeanviews of nativepeoples. The most ambitiousstudies

This content downloaded from 185.44.79.160 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 07:20:13 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Ethnohistory:The UnfinishedEdifice z59

have sought to determinehow Europeanand native cultures accommodated

intellectuallyas well as behaviorallyto a growing reciprocalawarenessof each
other (Todorov 1982; Delage 1985). These studies help ethnohistoriansto
judge more accuratelythe biases that coloredEuropeandescriptionsand inter-
pretationsof nativepeoples as well as to understandthe motives that led Euro-
pean colonists to behaveas they did.
Probablynothing has done more to alter our sense of the importanceof
ethnohistoryand its relationshipto other disciplines than has our improved
understandingof changes in native Americanpopulation size since the Euro-
pean discoveryof the New World. Forthis understandingwe owe a greatdebt
of gratitudeto colleagues, such as Henry Dobyns (1966), whose researchhas
overturnedtraditional views. It is now clear that the very low estimates of
aboriginal population by James Mooney (1928) and A. L. Kroeber (I939)
resulted from lack of historicalperspectivein their use of demographicdata.
Their population estimates were based on informationthat in many cases was
collectedlong afterpandemicshad killed off largenumbersof people. What is
still not clear, and cannot be determinedaccuratelyby using generalformulas,
is when theseepidemicsbegan in differentpartsof North America,at what rate
the reduction of specific populations occurred, and what percentageof the
aboriginalpopulation was destroyed.Historical documentationalone is insuf-
ficient to delineatethis processsince Europeandiseasesappearto haveafflicted
many regionsprior to the earliestEuropeanrecords.It also appearslikely that
in at least some regions,such as the southeasternUnitedStates,massivedeclines
in population broughtabout majorchanges in social organizationprior to the
earliestEuropeandescriptionsof most of the peoples who lived there (Wright
I98I). If ethnohistoriansare to take account of all of the social as well as
demographicchangesfollowing Europeancontact, they must rely increasingly
upon archaeologicaldata to document what native cultures were like imme-
diately prior to the Spanishdiscoveryof North America,as well as the earliest
changesthat werebroughtabout by indirectand laterby directcontactbetween
Europeansand native peoples (Trigger1981; Ramenofsky I98z). Unfortu-
nately, despitethe lip servicethat has been paid to a direct historicalapproach
in which archaeologistsand ethnologists work together, until recently most
North American archaeologistshad simply assumed that ethnologists could
tell them what native cultures were like in late prehistorictimes. Becauseof
this, they devoted most of their efforts to studyingearlierphases of American
prehistory.The recentaccelerateddevelopmentof protohistoricas well as his-
toric archaeologysuggests that this situationis changingrapidly (Wilcox and
Masse I98I).
NeverthelessAmericanarchaeologistsand ethnologistsmust striveharder
to developthe mutualunderstandingand cooperationthat arerequiredto inves-
tigatein detail the earliestimpact of Europeandiscoveryupon the New World.
They must also overcomea certaindegreeof mutualantipathythat has resulted

This content downloaded from 185.44.79.160 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 07:20:13 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
z6o Trigger

in part from a faulty understandingof the relationshipbetween these two

disciplines. Archaeologyis not merely a deficient or denaturedcopy of eth-
nology, as many ethnologists have assumed it to be, but a complementary
disciplinethat is capable of providing informationabout culturalchangethat
ethnology cannot (TriggerI984). This informationis vital for setting ethno-
graphicdescriptionsin a historical context and hence clarifyingtheir signifi-
cance. Becauseof this it is essential that North Americanethnohistorianspay
much more attentionto archaeologicaldata than they havedone in the past. In
particular,if they are to understandthe significanceof early Europeancontact
for the nativepeoples of North America,ethnohistoriansmust add a vigorous
archaeologicaldimension to their discipline,and those who havebeen trained
in ethnology or history must equip themselvesto evaluatearchaeologicaldata
and becomeaccustomedto incorporatingarchaeologicalfindingsinto theirsyn-
theses (Trigger1983). One model for suchcooperationis providedin Australia,
where archaeologistsas well as ethnologistsregularlyengagein ethnohistorical
researchand appearto communicatewith each other without unduedifficulty
(McBryde 1979). No Australian anthropologist questions the relevanceof
archaeologicaldata for ethnohistoricalresearch.
It is now generallyaccepted that major demographicdecline and more
recent recoveryhave been important factors shaping relationsbetween Euro-
pean newcomersand nativeAmericans.Yet, while it is clearthat in many areas
catastrophiclosses of population altered native social organizationand eco-
nomic behavioras well as making it more difficult for native people to resist
Europeanexpansion, sweepingclaims about the impact of these epidemicson
nativemoraleand religiousbeliefs remainto be documented(Krech1981; Klor
de Alva I982). At least some of these claims are reminiscent of the naive
culturalevolutionarybeliefs of the nineteenthcentury and the convictionsof
Europeanculturalsuperiorityin still earliertimes, particularlyin theirassump-
tion that native religionswere not strong enough to cope with the social and
psychologicaldisruptioncreatedby the onslaught of Europeandiseases (Mc-
Neill 1976: I83-I84; Martin 1978). There is also the dangerthat paying too
much attention to the effects of epidemics may encourageethnohistoriansto
minimize once again the role played by conscious European actions in dis-
ruptingthe lives and circumscribingthe freedomsof nativepeoples. The ethi-
cal neutralityof the microbeoffers a temptationto distort the past that could
prove to be no less misleadingthan was the smug Europeanethnocentrismof
earliertimes.
The study of oral traditionshas always been recognizedas an integral,
although often minor, part of ethnohistory. Mesoamerican ethnohistorians
haveutilizedthese traditionsalong with paintedcodices to study prehistoryas
well as the period of the Spanishconquest from a nativepoint of view and as a
result of doing so have learnedmuch about the natureand function of these
traditions (Carmack I97I). They have also compared and synthesized oral

This content downloaded from 185.44.79.160 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 07:20:13 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Ethnohistory:The UnfinishedEdifice z6I

traditions and archaeologicaldata (CarrascoI98z; Hodge I984). In North

Americagrowingemphasishas been placed in recentyearson the recordingof
oral traditions,partlyas a meansof encouragingnativepeople to expresstheir
own views of the past (Preston I975). Yet no major work has analyzed the
nature of oral traditions since Jan Vansina'sOral Traditions(I965). Using
African data, he demonstratedhow in relativelycomplex societies oral tra-
ditions conserveknowledge that is useful for validating rival claims to land
and offices and how, given sufficient data, the historical truth of competing
accountsof the past can be assessed.
Ethnohistorianslack any comparablestudy of the role played by oral
traditionsin the relativelyegalitariansocietiesof North America.It is generally
believedthat suchsocietieshad little motivationto conserveaccurateknowledge
of the past over long periods of time for its own sake. What pass as historical
traditionsare often mythical chartersvalidating current social relationsand
these appearlikelyto alteras social circumstanceschange.Hence in all societies
oral traditionsmust first be studied in termsof their relationshipto the social
situationin which they were recorded.In some cases it has been demonstrated,
by comparison with historical documents, that even in egalitariansocieties
accurateinformationhas been preservedover long periodsof time (Eid 1979).
Despite these examples, I am not optimistic that much can be learnedabout
historicaleventsfrom oral traditionsalone,especiallyfor small-scaleegalitarian
societies. I am convinced,however,that North Americanethnohistorianscould
profitablycomplement theircollectionof data by more intensiveinvestigations
of the historicalsignificanceof oral traditions.
Comparativeethnology, which mainly sought to account in diffusionist
terms for modern distributionsof cultural traits, was one of the mainstaysof
Boasian efforts to reconstructculture history (Sapir I916). It experienceda
majordeclinein the 1930Sas advancesin prehistoricarchaeologyprovidednew
and more reliable methods for investigatingprehistory.Yet many aspects of
cultureare not amenableto archaeologicalstudy, although their previoushis-
tory may be inferredto varying degrees from the controlled comparison of
modernethnographicdata. The most rigorousstudies of this sort seek to trace
linguistic relationshipsand to reconstructprotolanguagesin the absence of
historicaldocumentation(Siebert1967). Fromthe semanticcontent of proto-
languages ethnologists have attemptedto delineatevarious aspects of prehis-
toric cultures (Dyen and Aberle I974). At presentlittle that is exciting appears
to be happeningin this field, which in any case tends to be of greaterinterestto
prehistoric archaeologiststhan to ethnohistorians. Of major importance to
ethnohistoryare FredEggan's(1966: 15-44) pioneeringstudies of changesin
native kinship systems since Europeancontact. Finally, Claude Levi-Strauss's
(1981) comparativeanalyses of New World mythology have revealedwidely
sharedpatternsthat are of majorculture-historicalsignificance.More detailed
investigationsthat look for broad patternsof beliefs sharedby historicallyre-

This content downloaded from 185.44.79.160 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 07:20:13 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
z6z Trigger

latedpeoples mayelucidateproblemsthat areof specificinterestto ethnohisto-

rians. These include how native peoples may have interpretedthe first Euro-
peans and Europeangoods that they encountered(Hamell 198z). So little is
known about this aspect of first meetings for specific native groups that a
broadlycomparativeapproachanchoredin widely sharednativeconceptsseems
to offer the best hope of learning more. To do that effectively,however,the
study of comparativeethnology, no less than that of oral traditions,must be
subjectedto a rigoroustheoreticalcritique.
An approachthat remainsalmost wholly unexploitedby ethnohistorians
is that of ethnosemantics.Ethnologistsagreethat if a cultureis to be thoroughly
understood,a complete masteryof its languageis essential. When ethnohisto-
rians attempt to reconstructcultures that have been historicallydocumented
by Europeans,such linguistic knowledge may be even more vital. Frequently,
however, contemporarylinguistic documentationis either wholly lacking or
veryfragmentary.In these cases, familiaritywith a modernversionof the native
language, or even a cognate one, can help the ethnologist to understandthe
categoriesin terms of which native people perceivedand interactedwith the
world. Almost everythingthat is currentlyknown about traditional Huron
cultureis derivedfrom descriptionsthat were written by Frenchvisitorsin the
seventeenthand eighteenthcenturies(Tooker1964; Trigger1969; Heidenreich
197I). Yet a vast amount of detailedinformationabout the Huron languageis
availablein manuscriptgrammars,dictionaries,and translationsof Christian
religioustexts that werecomposedat the sametime and only now arebeginning
to be studied in detail. Greaterfamiliaritywith this materialnot only will assist
ethnohistoriansin understandingwritten descriptionsof the Hurons more
completely but already is revealingsignificant informationabout aspects of
theirtraditionalcultureand about culturalchangethat arenot touchedupon in
the writingsof Sagard,Champlain,and the Jesuit missionaries(Steckley1978,
I98z, 1985). The study of Huron culture,far from being completed, has only
begun to make use of the availabledocumentation.Furtherprogresswill de-
pend, however, on linguistic talents that are currentlyin short supply. Even
when assessing European documents in which no native words appear, a
knowledge of the nativeusagesthat were involvedin transmittinginformation
may clarify meaningsin a mannerthat outstripsin importanceany contextual
analysisof the documents(Black-Rogers1985). The incorporationof semantic
researchinto ethnohistorybased primarilyon Europeandocuments is almost
certainlythe most promisingas well as the most technicallydemandingnew
field of study.

Prospectsfor Objectivity
It is evident thatethnohistoryis underpressureto becomea morebroadlybased
discipline.Understandinghistoricaldocumentsrequiresdata and techniquesof

This content downloaded from 185.44.79.160 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 07:20:13 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Ethnohistory:The UnfinishedEdifice z63

analysisthat only professionalarchaeologists,demographers,and linguistscan

provide. The more that thesescholarscan be persuadedto become interestedin
ethnohistoricalproblems,the moresuccessfulethnohistorywill be. Yet to pro-
duce good synthesesand to answermajorhistoricalproblems,everyethnohis-
torianmust be able to appreciatewhat kinds of informationthese fieldshaveto
offer, how theirdata areprocessed,and how theirfindingscan be incorporated
into broaderhistoricalinterpretations.It is only by becomingmore holistically
anthropological,that is,by incorporatingthe informationthat archaeology,lin-
guistics, and comparativeethnology as well as historical documents and oral
traditionscan provide, that ethnohistorianscan continueto carryforwardtheir
project of elucidatingnative history since Europeancontact. The same argu-
ments apply to the study of the prehistoricphasesof nativehistory,for which
archaeologicaldata must be supplementedby other sources of information
(Trigger1968).
Yet will the acquisitionof a more diverseand richly articulateddatabase
makeethnohistorya moreobjectivedisciplinein the sensethat the sameconclu-
sions will emerge whenevera particularcorpus of data is analyzed logically?
The answeris almost certainlyno. Can we imaginea nativeAmericanethnohis-
torian interpretinga particularevent in preciselythe same manneras a Euro-
americanone? This is no more likely than a Japanesehistorian describinga
majorevent of WorldWarII in the same termsas an Americanone, a Marxist
and a conservativehistoriananalyzingthe ParisCommunewith similarresults,
or a historian who hates his children appraisingthe behavior of Herod the
Great towards his sons in the same fashion as one who is on generallygood
terms with his family. Among such differingviewpoints thereis no monopoly
on truth. Japanese historians may interpretthe history of their country dif-
ferentlyfrom the way Americansview it, but studying their own history does
not mean that their interpretationsof that history are necessarilymore correct
than those of other people. In studying complex historical situations,truth is
well servedby diversity.Multiple viewpoints and sensibilitiesmaylead to better
understandingsof a situation than can result from a narrowerapproach.Be-
causeof this, responsibleethnohistorianscan neveragreethatparticularpeoples
should have exclusive rights to control the study of their own past, as some
spokespeoplefor nativegroupshaveclaimed in recentyears (Langford1983).
Yet we havelearnedenough as non-nativepeople studyingnativehistory
to recognize that certain themes characterizethat history. In particular, in-
equality has been a pervasivecharacteristicof most relationsbetween native
peoples and Europeans. Indians have resisted Europeandomination, often
tenaciously and heroically,but they have also succumbedto it and most of
the changesin theirway of life since Europeancolonizationhavebeen responses
to a loss of power. This is a very different interpretationof what has hap-
pened from that offeredby most evolutionaryanthropologistsin the nineteenth
century.Nevertheless,it accordsnot only with a differentsocial ethos in Euro-

This content downloaded from 185.44.79.160 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 07:20:13 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
z64 Trigger

americansociety but also with abundantnew dataconcerningboth Euroameri-

cans and native peoples. Viewing history from this perspectiveraisesfunda-
mental questions about relationsbetween native peoples and Europeansnot
only in the past but also at the presenttime (Wolf I98z).

Conclusions

We mayconcludethat to dateethnohistoryhas mainlybeen valuablefor what it

has told Euroamericansabout themselves.The effort to understandnativehis-
tory has led us slowly, often unwittingly, and sometimes resentfullyto strip
away the explanations that our forefathersused to disguise self-interestas al-
truism and ruthlessopportunism as the workings of providence.For the first
time we are able to begin to distinguishsystematicallybetween the mannerin
which previous generationsof Euroamericanstreated native peoples and the
false consciousnessthat accompaniedtheir actions and colored the historical
recordthat they produced.All of this hasprovidednew insightsinto the history
of Euroamericansocietywhich areno less importantthanwhat we havelearned
about how contacts with Euroamericansreshapednative life. In the past four
hundredyears Euroamericanscholars have traveleda full circle, or rathera
spiral, in their study of native Americans, from deliberatemisrepresentation
and parochialself-deceptionabout theirsociety'streatmentof nativepeoplesto
a much clearerand more objectiveknowledge of the Euroamericangoals and
interests that shaped the past. Understandingwhat previous generationsof
Euroamericansthought and did is not without relevancefor the present.On the
contrary,it tells us much that we did not know about our heritageand our own
behavior.This knowledgeforgesan indissolublebond betweenthe studyof the
past and our own actions. How we as individualethnohistorianscommunicate
this knowledge to our fellow citizens and respondto it in our lives and profes-
sional conduct is a measureof the kind of people that we are. Many Euro-
americanethnohistorianshavecontributedsubstantiallyand laudablyto help-
ing native people to securejustice and enhancetheir freedom. Only as native
people areincreasinglysuccessfulin this strugglecan ethnohistoriansturnfrom
writinghistoriesthat, whetherthey will it to be so or not, arebasicallycritiques
of their own society and begin to realize their stated goal of studying native
American history. Although the use of ethnosemantic and other analytical
techniquesmaypermitethnohistoriansto view the past moreeffectivelyfroma
native point of view, their alienation from the people they study can neverbe
properlyovercomeuntil Euroamericansand nativepeople ceaseto be alienated
from each other in modernNorth America.

References

Benedict,Ruth
1934 Patternsof Culture. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

This content downloaded from 185.44.79.160 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 07:20:13 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Ethnohistory:The UnfinishedEdifice z65

Berkhofer,Robert F., Jr.

1978 The White Man's Indian:Imagesof the AmericanIndian from Columbus
to the Present. New York:Alfred A. Knopf.
Black-Rogers,Mary
1985 Varietiesof 'Starving':Semanticsand Survivalin the SubarcticFurTrade,
I750-I850. Paper read at the fifth North American Fur Trade Confer-
ence, Montreal, May 29-June 2.
Carmack,R. M.
1971 Ethnographyand Ethnohistory:Their Application in Middle American
Studies. Ethnohistory18: Iz7-I45.
Carrasco,David
1982 Quetzalcoatl and the Irony of Empire. Chicago: Universityof Chicago
Press.
Delage, Denys
1985 Le pays renverse:Amerindiens et europeens en Amerique du nord-est,
I600-1664. Montreal: Boreal Express.
Dickason, Olive P.
I984 The Myth of the Savageand the Beginningsof FrenchColonialism in the
Americas.Edmonton:Universityof AlbertaPress.
Dobyns, Henry F.
1966 Estimating Aboriginal Population: An Appraisal of Techniques with
a New Hemispheric Estimate. Current Anthropology 7: 395-4I6,
425-445.
Drinnon, Richard
1980 Facing West: The Metaphysics of Indian-Hating and Empire Building.
Minneapolis:Universityof Minnesota Press.
Dyen, I. and D. F. Aberle
1974 Lexical Reconstruction:The Case of the Proto-AthapaskanKinship Sys-
tem. Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.
Eggan, F. R.
I966 The AmericanIndian. London:Weidenfeldand Nicolson.
Eid, L. V.
1979 The Ojibwa-Iroquois War: The War the Five Nations Did Not Win.
Ethnohistoryz6: 297-324.
Hamell, George
1982 Tradingin Beads:The Magic of Beads.Albany:New YorkStateMuseum.
Mimeographed.
Heidenreich,ConradE.
1971 Huronia: A History and Geographyof the Huron Indians, I6oo-i65o.
Toronto: McClelland and Stewart.
Hinsley, C. M., Jr.
1981 Savagesand Scientists:The SmithsonianInstitutionand the Development
of AmericanAnthropology,1846-19Io. Washington:SmithsonianInsti-
tution Press.
Hodge, Mary G.
1984 Aztec City-States. Ann Arbor: Museum of Anthropology, Universityof
Michigan, Memoir i8.
Jennings,Francis
1975 The Invasionof America:Indians,Colonialism,and the Cant of Conquest.
Chapel Hill: Universityof North CarolinaPress.
1985 Francis Parkman: A Brahmin among Untouchables. The William and
Mary Quarterly 4z: 305-3z8.

This content downloaded from 185.44.79.160 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 07:20:13 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
z66 Trigger

Klor de Alva, J. Jorge

1982 SpiritualConflict and Accommodationin New Spain:Towarda Typology
of Aztec Responses to Christianity.In The Inca and Aztec States, 1400-
i8oo. George A. Collier, et al., eds. pp. 345-366. New York:Academic
Press.
Krech,Shepard,III, ed.
I98I Indians, Animals, and the FurTrade.Athens:Universityof GeorgiaPress.
Kroeber,A. L.
1939 Culturaland NaturalAreasof Native North America.Berkeley:University
of CaliforniaPress.
Langford,R. J.
I983 Our Heritage, YourPlayground.AustralianArchaeologyi6: 1-6.
Levi-Strauss,Claude
1981 The Naked Man. New York:Harperand Row.
Linton, Ralph, ed.
I940 Acculturationin Seven American Indian Tribes. New York: Appleton-
Century.
Lurie, Nancy 0.
1972 Menominee Termination:Reservationto Colony. Human Organization
31: 257-z70.
McBryde,Isabel
1979 Ethnohistoryin an AustralianContext: IndependentDiscipline or Con-
venient Data Quarry?Aboriginal History 3: 128-15I.
McNeill, W. H.
1976 Plagues and Peoples. GardenCity, NJ:Anchor Books.
Martin, Calvin
1978 Keepersof the Game: Indian-Animal Relationshipsand the Fur Trade.
Berkeleyand Los Angeles:Universityof CaliforniaPress.
Mooney, James
1928 The Aboriginal Populationof AmericaNorth of Mexico. J. R. Swanson,
ed. Washington:SmithsonianMiscellaneousCollections80(7).
Pearce,R. H.
1965 Savagismand Civilization:A Study of the Indianand the AmericanMind.
Baltimore:Johns Hopkins UniversityPress.
Preston, RichardJ.
I975 Cree Narrative: Expressing the Personal Meaning of Events. Ottawa:
National Museum of Man, CanadianEthnologyService,MercurySeries,
Paper 30.
Ramenofsky,Ann F.
1982 The Archaeologyof Population Collapse: Native American Response to
the Introductionof Infectious Disease. Ph.D. dissertation,Departmentof
Anthropology,Universityof Washington,Seattle.
Redfield, Robert, Ralph Linton, and M. J. Herskovits
1936 Outline for the Study of Acculturation. American Anthropologist 38:
149-5z2.
Sapir, Edward
I916 Time Perspective in Aboriginal American Culture. Ottawa: Canada,
Departmentof Mines, Memoir 90.
Siebert, F. T., Jr.
1967 The Original Home of the Proto-AlgonquianPeople. Ottawa: National
Museum of Canada, Bulletin 2I4: I3-47.

This content downloaded from 185.44.79.160 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 07:20:13 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Ethnohistory:The UnfinishedEdifice z67

Slotkin, J. S.
I965 Readings in EarlyAnthropology.New York:Viking FundPublicationsin
Anthropology40.
Spicer,EdwardH.
1962 Cycles of Conquest. Tucson:Universityof Arizona Press.
Steckley,John
1978 The Soul Concepts of the Huron. M.A. thesis, Memorial Universityof
Newfoundland.
198z The Clans and Phratriesof the Huron. Ontario Archaeology37: 29-34.
1985 A Tale of Two Peoples. Arch Notes, Newsletter of the Ontario Archaeo-
logical Society 85-4: 9-15.
Todorov, Tzvetan
1982 La conquetede l'Amerique:la questionde l'autre.Paris:Seuil.
Tooker, Elisabeth
1964 An Ethnographyof the Huron Indians, 1615-I649. Washington:Bureau
of AmericanEthnology,Bulletin 190.
Trigger,BruceG.
I960 The Destructionof Huronia:A Study in Economicand CulturalChange,
1609-165o. Toronto:Transactionsof the Royal CanadianInstitute33(I):
14-45.
1968 Beyond History: The Methods of Prehistory.New York:Holt, Rinehart
and Winston.
I969 The Huron: Farmers of the North. New York: Holt, Rinehart and
Winston.
1971 Champlain Judged by his Indian Policy: A Different View of Early
CanadianHistory. Anthropologica13: 85-II4.
1976 The Children of Aataentsic: A History of the Huron People to i660. z
vols. Montreal: McGill-Queen's UniversityPress.
1981 Archaeologyand the EthnographicPresent. Anthropologicaz3: 3-I7.
1983 American Archaeologyas Native History: A Review Essay.The William
and Mary Quarterly40: 413-45z.
1984 Archaeologyat the Crossroads:What's New? Annual Review of Anthro-
pology I3: z75-300.
1985 Natives and Newcomers: Canada's'Heroic Age' Reconsidered.Montreal:
McGill-Queen's UniversityPress.
Vansina,Jan
1965 Oral Tradition:A Study in Historical Methodology. Chicago:Aldine.
Vaughan,A. T.
198z From White Man to Red Skin: ChangingAnglo-AmericanPerceptionsof
the AmericanIndian. AmericanHistorical Review 87: 9I7-953.
Wilcox, David, and W. BruceMasse, eds.
I98I The ProtohistoricPeriod in the North AmericanSouthwest, A.D. I450-
1700. Tempe:Arizona State University,AnthropologicalPapersz4.
Wolf, Eric
1982 Europeand the People Without History. Berkeley:Universityof California
Press.
Wright,J. L., Jr.
1981 The Only Land They Knew: The TragicStory of the AmericanIndiansin
the Old South. New York:FreePress.

This content downloaded from 185.44.79.160 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 07:20:13 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions