Linking Anthropology and History in

Textiles and Clothing Research:

The Ethnohistorical Method
Rachel K. Pannabecker

Abstract

Ethnohistory is an interdisciplinary method combining anthropological and historical approaches. The

ethnohistorical method is introduced and its application to the study of textiles and clothing is demonstrated
through examples of cross-cultural research. Two controversies regarding the interdisciplinary nature of
ethnohistory are investigated and analyzed in relation to textiles and clothing research. An interdisciplinary
method, such as ethnohistory, can foster linkages among textiles and clothing scholars and stimulate research
that crosses disciplinary boundaries.

Clarification of the subject matter of textiles and clothing

has emerged as an issue in discussions on the future of the
field among members of the Association of College
Professors of Textiles and Clothing (ACPTC). In these
discussions the boundaries engendered by the base
disciplines underlying the study of textiles and clothing have
been recognized as contributing to the fragmentation of the
field. The identification of linkages in theory, method, and
practice has been suggested as a way to counteract this
fragmentation (see &dquo;Focus on Linkages,&dquo; 1988; Kaiser,
1988).
As a step toward developing a sense of coherence within
the field, the ACPTC Subject Matter Clarification
Committee encouraged the identification and analysis of
multi-methodological approaches that emerge from subject
matter connections (&dquo;Focus on Linkages,&dquo; 1988). Ethno-
history is an interdisciplinary method linking anthropology
and history which has been reported to be useful in textiles
and clothing studies (Pannabecker, 1986a; Welters, 1987).
Thus, the dynamics of interdisciplinary linkages can be
explored through an examination of the ethnohistorical
method. In this paper I will consider the following questions:
(a) What is ethnohistory; (b) how can the ethnohistorical
method expand and strengthen studies on the cultural
aspects of textiles and clothing; (c) what controversies arise
from the interdisciplinary foundation of ethnohistory; and
(d) what are the implications of those controversies for
textiles and clothing researchers who employ the ethno-
historical method?
Author’s Address: Kauffman Museum, North Newton, KS 67117.
Acknowledgment: The author thanks Dr. Lois E. Dickey for academic
guidance and editorial advice.
Downloaded from ctr.sagepub.com at SIMON FRASER LIBRARY on June 13, 2015
14
An Introduction to Ethnohistory
Ethnohistory is a neologism of the 20th century, created
toidentify interdisciplinary research relating to &dquo;the past of
cultures and societies...emphasizing the use of documentary
and field materials, and historiographic and anthropological
approaches&dquo; (Ethnohistory, 1986, title page). According to
Cohn (1968), the term ethnohistory was used sporadically
in the early 20th century and became current in the 1940s.
However, the definition of the concept remained under
discussion for several more decades. Ethnohistory could be
conceived of as a discipline separate from both anthropology
and history (Fenton, 1962; Washburn, 1961), a hybrid
(Fenton, 1962), a subdiscipline of either anthropology or
history (Leacock, 1961), or &dquo;a process and a method&dquo;
(Washburn, 1961, p. 45; see Herskovits, 1950, p. 526, for
an early formulation of ethnohistory as a method). In
contrast to interdisciplinary studies such as social
psychology, the debate concerning the conceptualization of
ethnohistory was resolved with the general acceptance of
Washburn’s position that ethnohistory is a method
(Carmack, 1972). In ethnohistory, historical problems are
approached from either anthropological or historical
perspectives, and the ethnohistorical method becomes the
interdisciplinary tie.
As a method, ethnohistory links source materials and
methods of assessment from both anthropology and history.
John Ewers, an anthropologist from the Smithsonian
Institution, provided a diagram of the variety and
complementarity of ethnohistorical resources (Ewers, 1961,
p. 267). In Ewers’s model, library and museum studies
provide writings (primary sources), maps and pictures, and
artifacts. Field studies produce information on ethnology
(used here in the sense of data on the characteristics of a
culture or its folkways), folklore (oral history), language
(linguistic studies), and data from site explorations
(archaeology).
The heterogeneity of source materials has been widely
accepted as appropriate to ethnohistory (Axtell, 1981;
Carmack, 1972; Cohn, 1968; Euler, 1972; Fenton, 1962,
1966; Hudson, 1973; Sturtevant, 1966; Washburn, 1961).
This diversity of materials provides balance and enables
systematic cross-checking of the evidence to avoid the
acceptance of biased or erroneous data. Anthropological
and historical resources come together in ethnohistory to
produce full-rounded research, a term popularized by
historian Wilcomb Washburn (1961). (For an in-depth
review of the development of ethnohistory, see Panna-
becker, 1986b, pp. 39-53.)
The Ethnohistorical Method in Cultural Studies of
Textiles and Clothing
Scholars from the fields of anthropology, art history,
history, and textiles and clothing have conducted research
on the cultural aspects of textiles and clothing. While these
cultural studies utilize methods from their respective
disciplines, they can be grouped according to their
approaches to the subject of textiles and clothing:
1. Artifact-centered studies which focus on the descrip-
tion of specific textile and clothing items (materials and
processes, shapes, decorative motifs) or on the
development of style typologies;
2. Studies of the artifact in its cultural context which
provide synchronic analyses of textiles and clothing in
relation to elements of culture (such as status
differentiation, religious expression, technology, and
trade);
3. Diachronic analyses which examine the artifact in
terms of continuities and changes in the cultural
context.
The ethnohistorical method can be applied to all three
approaches, as shown in five examples cited below.
As a research method which emphasizes heterogeneous
sources of information, ethnohistory can prompt the
examination of data sources not usually considered in textile
. and clothing research. For example, 18th-century vocabu-
lary lists of trade merchandise showing native American
terms for European-produced silk ribbon provided evidence
of the incorporation of ribbon into the cultures of North
American woodland Indians (Pannabecker, 1986b, p. 216).
Linguistic evidence as well as folklore are underutilized
sources of information which can assist in investigating the
cultural aspects of textiles and clothing, regardless of the
approach.
In artifact studies the multiple sources of the ethnohistor-
ical method can counterbalance the absence of information
common in these studies. Thompson (1972) established a
typology of features for the shirt of the Kutchin people (a
North American sub-arctic tribe) through a comparison of
Downloaded from ctr.sagepub.com at SIMON FRASER LIBRARY on June 13, 2015
historical and ethnographic sources with museum artifacts.
The ethnohistorical approach aided Thompson in constructing
criteria for dating Kutchin shirts and in distinguishing
Kutchin styles from those of other Athapaskan peoples,
despite the lack of information on provenance for many
shirts found in museum collections.
The integration of anthropological and historical ap-
proaches in ethnohistory is also relevant to studies of the
cultural dimensions of textiles and clothing. By framing a
study in the past, a researcher can reconsider assumptions
regarding the cultural context and meaning of textile and
clothing artifacts. Steiner (1985) studied archival docu-
ments in conjunction with samples of West African-
produced and European-produced cloth to investigate late
19th and 20th-century textile commerce between the two
regions. Through the ethnohistorical study of this cloth
trade, Steiner revealed greater appreciation by colonial
producers for West African aesthetic preferences than had
been postulated.
Furthermore, the ethnohistorical method provides a base
for examining change in the cultural aspects of textiles and
clothing. Welters (1987) included both field and documen-
tary research in her study of women’s traditional dress in the
Argolida-Corinthia region of Greece. Information on
garments from museum collections, travelers’ accounts, and
19th-century paintings complemented data gathered in tape-
recorded interviews of elderly women from the region.
According to Welters, the ethnohistorical method was
important in providing data for analyzing the meaning of
costume within a peasant society and for documenting the
transition from folk dress to fashionable dress. The inclusion
of historical analysis thus supports cultural research that
extends beyond the concept of the ethnographic present.
Studies examining acculturation (culture contact and
change) in relation to textiles and clothing can also benefit
from the ethnohistorical method. Miller (1979) combined
documentary and photographic sources with a study of
museum artifacts to analyze the clothing of Wisconsin
Potawatomi Indians in terms of (a) change in artifact
complexity and function, (b) contact with other culture
groups, and (c) the development of pan-Indian costume. In
Miller’s study, the multiple sources encouraged through the
ethnohistorical approach provided contextual information
on gender roles and contact communities and their changes
across time. Therefore, Miller’s analysis and interpretation
of the clothing artifacts went beyond artifact description to
include culture change as exemplified by the clothing items.
The utility of the ethnohistorical approach is demon-
strated by its application in studies of textile and clothing
artifacts, in studies exploring the cultural contexts of textiles
and clothing, and in studies investigating changes in those
cultural systems. The wider foundation of reference
materials provided by ethnohistory inherently lends validity
to the descriptions of textile and clothing items. However,
the importance of going beyond description has been voiced
by textiles and clothing scholars. Jasper and Roach-Higgins
(1985) indicated the necessity for interpretive analyses in
the study of historic costume. Feather and Sibley (1979)
called for further inquiry into the change process resulting
from culture contact that affects textiles and clothing. The
15
 ethnohistorical method alone is not sufficient to guide the
textiles and clothing researcher beyond concentrating on
physical descriptions, typologies, or the chronological
progression of styles. However, the full-rounded data
regarding the social, religious, economic, and technological
contexts integrated with the historical dimension through
ethnohistory provide a foundation for the analysis and
interpretation of the cultural aspects of textiles and clothing.
The Controversies of an Interdisciplinary Method
Despite the advantages of the methods of two
linking
discipline, interdisciplinary endeavors are often the target
of controversy (see Stryker, 1977, on sociological social
psychology vs. psychological social psychology). The
ethnohistorical method is no exception. In order to under-
stand how such controversy affected ethnohistory, I
examined the literature on the development and status of the
ethnohistorical method. Two basic controversies recur: (a)
the incompatibility of history and anthropology and (b) the
necessity for dual competency in historical and anthropo-
logical methods.
Anthropology and History in Opposition
Implicit assumptions about the boundaries of the fields of
anthropology and history lead some scholars to emphasize
the differences between the two disciplines. Based on a
review and synthesis of the literature (Adams, 1981; Axtell,
1981; Carmack, 1972; Cohn, 1968; Hickerson, 1970; Levi-
Strauss, 1983; Spores, 1978; Sturtevant, 1966; Trigger,
1982; Valentine, 1961; Washburn, 1961), I classified
comments on the opposition of anthropology and history in
three categories: subject, method, and epistemology.’
Subject. Cultural anthropology has traditionally focused
on &dquo;primitive&dquo; or &dquo;exotic&dquo; humans, whereas history has
studied &dquo;civilized&dquo; humans. In general, cultural anthropol-
ogy has emphasized the comparative study of cultures in
contrast to history, which has emphasized the study of
unique events and central characters. In practice, therefore,
cultural anthropology has been the study of customs, beliefs,
and daily life of a people, whereas history has been the study
of nobility or elites, with special concentration on political
history, or the accounts of war and peace.
Method. Cultural anthropology has required the fieldwork
method, which uses the technique of participant observation
and the gathering of data from informants or resource
persons. In contrast, historical research has been library- and
archives-based, and the primary source material has been
the written document. These differences in methods can be
summarized as producing research with different end results.
Cultural anthropology has produced a synchronic study of
the ethnographic present (the culture at one point in time),
whereas history has produced a diachronic study, that is, a
work with a chronological focus or sequential emphasis.
Epistemology. Epistemology is the study of the nature,
methods, and limits of knowledge. In articles on ethno-
history, the goal of cultural anthropology is stated as
analysis with nomothetic objectives, that is, with a concern
for synthesis and the intent to establish universal or general
Downloaded from ctr.sagepub.com at SIMON FRASER LIBRARY on June 13, 2015
16
laws. In comparison, history is referred to as being the
production of a descriptive narrative with ideographic
objectives, that is, with the intent to establish the unique or
particular nature of temporal events. Furthermore, within
cultural anthropology, an objective or value-free stance has
been preferred, whereas in history, ethical judgments about
human action have traditionally been permitted. (This
debate is further complicated by ongoing controversies re-
garding the humanistic or scientific foundation of history and
anthropology. For an explication of this tangential issue in
ethnohistory, see Pannabecker, 1986b, pp. 46-47.)
In summary, implicit assumptions regarding the bound-
aries of anthropology and history have resulted in
perceptions of oppositions in subject, method, and
epistemology. Thus, some scholars have doubted the feasi-
bility of interdisciplinary research, particularly the under-
taking of ethnohistory. If the conceptualizations of the two
disciplines are incompatible, then their union as a method
can be considered to be impossible. However, ethnohistor-
ians have argued that while the methods of anthropology and
history are different they are complementary. Thus, the
ethnohistorical method can be seen as a resolution to
traditional boundaries (Valentine, 1961). Recent ethnohis-
torical publications have tended to de-emphasize discipli-
nary differences in favor of a rapprochement (Cohn, 1981 ).
Dual Competency in Methods
While the controversy regarding the incompatibility of
anthropology and history concerns abstract conceptualiza-
tions, its impact is felt on a practical level. Disciplinary
boundaries may result in scholars being inadequately pre-
pared to conduct ethnohistorical research. Historians have
been reproached for misusing anthropological concepts and
imposing notions of cause and effect (Adams, 1981; Snow,
1981). Conversely, anthropologists have been accused of
being insufficiently critical of historical sources (Snow,
1981; Sturtevant, 1966) or of relying on translations and
secondary sources rather than seeking original historical
documents (Henige, 1986). Therefore, dual competency in
the two disciplines and their methods has been presented as
a major challenge for ethnohistorians (Hudson, 1973;
Trigger, 1982).
Beyond dual training in methods, ethnohistorians have
considered personal experience in cross-cultural fieldwork
to be invaluable in terms of conceptualizing and conducting
ethnohistorical research. The fieldwork experience enables
the researcher to understand the dynamics of culture in order
to recognize and assess biased or inaccurate historical
records (Carmack, 1972; Cohn, 1968). This requirement of
’The categorization of history and anthropology as dichotomous is an
issue which appeared frequently in the conceptual literature on ethno-
history over a 25-year period. These oppositions are rhetorical reduc-
tions of two complex disciplines. Many historians have studied the
subject matter here allocated to cultural anthropology and who have
striven for objectivity in their research. Likewise, there are cultural
anthropologists who have utilized archival sources and whose
epistemological intent has been description. Thus, while perceptions of
differences between the two disciplines continue to be the focus of
controversy, individual scholars have frequently crossed the discipli-
nary boundaries. It is also interesting to note that researchers from other
subfields of anthropology, such as archaeology, have not been as vocal
about disciplinary boundaries.
 ethnographic fieldwork was perceived as a barrier by some
historians. A recognition of the abundance and availability
of ethnographic data collected by trained investigators has
led to the position that personal experience in the field is not
imperative (Lurie, 196 1).2 However, the decision to forego
fieldwork requires the historian to demonstrate competency
in anthropological materials and methods.
Implications for Textiles and Clothing Researchers
A thorough understanding of the controversies sur-
rounding the interdisciplinary nature of the ethnohistorical
method should assist textiles and clothing researchers to
respond to disciplinary polemics and to prepare for the
demands of interdisciplinary research. Implicit assumptions
about subject, method, and epistemology affect the develop-
ment and organization of research. In order to avoid the bar-
riers engendered by traditional disciplinary boundaries,
textiles and clothing researchers must clarify the approach
and perspective of their ethnohistorical studies. Further-
more, knowledge of the controversy regarding disciplinary
oppositions will assist textiles and clothing researchers to
understand the resistance to ethnohistory that is exhibited by
some anthropologists and historians.
The polemics arising from disciplinary boundaries will
not, however, provide a barrier to textiles and clothing
researchers. While a textiles and clothing scholar often
identifies with a base discipline, the multi-disciplinary
training common to most textile and clothing graduate pro-
grams should allow for openness to the linkage of these two
disciplines. Therefore, textiles and clothing scholars should
not fear problems reported to be inherent to the method, such
as identity loss (Hudson, 1973; Lurie, 1961) or disciplinary
jealousy (Pargellis, 1957).
Awareness of the pitfalls of incompetency in methods will
assist textiles and clothing researchers to confront the
requirements of conducting an ethnohistorical study.
Clearly, the textiles and clothing scholar must be prepared to
obtain competencies in both anthropological and historical
methods as required by the interdisciplinary nature of
ethnohistory. Only through dual competency can the textiles
and clothing researcher locate and appropriately use
ethnohistorical source materials.
Finally, the choice to use the ethnohistorical method by
textiles and clothing researchers can be a means of
circumventing the fieldwork barrier to conducting studies on
the cultural aspects of textiles and clothing (Pannabecker,
1986a). Thus ethnohistory joins other alternatives being
pursued by researchers who investigate the cultural dimen-
,
sions of textiles and clothing, such as using comparative
ethnographic data (see Balkwell, 1986) and examining the
relation of dress to ethnicity (see Forney & Rabolt, 1986).
Problems and Caveats
There are difficulties in using the ethnohistorical method
beyond the controversies generated by its interdisciplinary
foundation. The multiplicity of reference materials does not
Downloaded from ctr.sagepub.com at SIMON FRASER LIBRARY on June 13, 2015
guarantee adequate sources of information for textiles and
clothing studies. The interpretation of historical documents
is often limited by insufficient description regarding
women’s work or items of material culture, both of which
affect research on textiles and clothing. Primary records and
ethnographic data must be assessed for the presence of bias,
error, and omissions. Research on cultures outside North
America may require travel to consult colonial records or
manuscript materials or may require the ability to read a
foreign language (although these pose fewer barriers than the
travel and language requirements of ethnographic fieldwork).
As in fieldwork, the ethnohistorical researcher must
recognize his or her cultural stereotypes and biases (see
Trigger, 1986). It may take a more conscious effort to deal
with personal ethnocentrism while seated at a microfilm
reader than when one is a researcher-guest in another
culture.
Conclusion
The ACPTC Subject Matter Clarification Committee has
called for the identification of interconnections in textiles
and clothing based on commonalities in the field. The
linkage of anthropology and history in ethnohistory is based
on the complementarity - of methods rather than on
commonalities. As such, the ethnohistorical method has
redefined what constitutes appropriate source materials and
methods of assessment for the fields of anthropology and
history and therefore has stimulated collaboration among
anthropologists and historians. Yet the linkage of the two
disciplines has also contributed to the increased specializa-
tion of research through the creation of a separate
professional organization (the American Society for
Ethnohistory) and a specialized journal (Ethnohistory).
The examination of the ethnohistorical method reinforces
critical points for discussing the future of the field of textiles
and clothing: (a) Implicit assumptions arising from training
in a root discipline may interfere with the development of
alternate conceptualizations for the field; (b) interdiscipli-
nary approaches to textiles and clothing research require a
commitment to obtaining competency in new concepts,
materials, and methods; and (c) while interdisciplinary
linkages promote collaboration, they may also result in
increased fragmentation through the creation of another
specialized focus attractive to only a limited group of
researchers. Ethnohistory is not broad enough to bring
coherence to the entire field of textiles and clothing study. How-
ever, the ethnohistorical method does link anthropological and
Some readers may question the vailidity of using another researcher’s
2
ethnographic data in place of personally gathered information. Three
factors are critical to understanding this situation: the declining
opportunities for fieldwork, the abundance of ethnographic material,
and the underutilization of this information (Diamond, 1974; Fenton,
1962). The use of published and unpublished field data, regardless of
who generated the information, has therefore been encouraged by both
Diamond and Fenton. While personal experience in the field may be a
crucial advantage in one’s ability to manage cultural data (Carmack,
1972), the absence of that experience can be compensated for by the
application of techniques of source criticism to the ethnographic data,
which is then treated as a primary source.
17
historical approaches, both of which are used in textiles and
clothing research. Thus, the ethnohistorical method can serve
as a point of interaction and cooperation for textiles and
clothing scholars.
References
Adams, J.W. (1981). Consensus, community, and exotism.
Journal of Interdisciplinary History, 12, 253-265.
Axtell, J.L. (1981). The European and the Indian: Essays
in the ethnohistory of colonial North America. New
York: Oxford University Press.
Balkwell, C. (1986). On peacocks and peahens: A cross-
cultural investigation of the effects of economic develop-
ment on sex differences in dress. Clothing and Textiles
Research Journal, 4 (2), 30-36.
Carmack, R.M. (1972). Ethnohistory: A review of its devel-
opment, definitions, methods, and aims. In B.J. Siegel
, Annual review of anthropology (pp. 227-246).
(Ed.)
Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews.
Cohn, B.S. (1968). Ethnohistory. In D.L. Sills (Ed.), Inter
- Lakes Indians: The material of acculturation (Doctoral
national encyclopedia of the social sciences (Vol. 6, pp.
440-448). [New York]: Macmillan.
Cohn, B.S. (1981). Toward a rapprochement. Journal of
Interdisciplinary History, 12, 227-252.
Diamond, S. (1974). The myth of structuralism. In I. Rossi
(Ed.), The unconscious in culture (pp. 292-335). New
York: E.P. Dutton.
Ethnohistory. (1986). 33(2), title page.
Euler, RC. (1972). Ethnohistory in the United States.
Ethnohistory, 19, 201-207.
Ewers, J.C. (1961). Symposium on the concept of ethnohis-
tory—Comment. Ethnohistory, 8, 262-270.
Feather, B.L., & Sibley, L.R (1979). Overlooked pages of
North American clothing history. Dress, 5, 63-73.
Fenton, W.N. (1962). Ethnohistory and its problems.
Ethnohistory, 9, 1-23.
Fenton, W.N. (1966). Field work, museum studies, and
ethnohistorical research. Ethnohistory, 13, 71-85.
Focus on linkages in our subject matter. (1988). ACPTC
Newsletter, 10(3), 6-7.
Forney, J.C., Rabolt, N.J. (1986). Ethnic identity: Its
& Museums of Canada.
relationship to ethnic and contemporary dress. Clothing
and Textiles Research Journal, 4(2), 1-8.
Henige, D. (1986). Primary source by primary source? On
the role of epidemics in New World depopulation. Ethno-
history, 33, 293-312.
Herskovits, M.J. (1950). Man and his works: The science
of cultural anthropology. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
Hickerson, H. (1970). The Chippewa and their neighbors:
. New York: Holt, Rinehart and
A study in ethnohistory
Winston.
Hudson, C. (1973). The historical approach in anthropology.
In J.J. Honigmann (Ed.), Handbook of social and cul-
tural anthropology (pp. 111-141 ). Chicago: Rand
McNally.
Downloaded from ctr.sagepub.com at SIMON FRASER LIBRARY on June 13, 2015
18
Jasper, C.R., & Roach-Higgins, M.E. (1985). What is
history of costume? [Abstract]. ACPTC Proceedings:
Combined Central, Eastern, and Western Regional
Meetings, 1981, pp. 104-105.
Kaiser, S. (1988). Subject Matter Clarification Committee
continues focus. ACPTC Newsletter, (3),
10 3.
Leacock, E. (1961). Symposium on the concept of ethno-
history—Comment. Ethnohistory, 8, 256-261.
Levi-Strauss, C. (1983). Histoire et ethnologie. Annales,
38, 1217-1231.
Lurie, N.O. (1961). Ethnohistory: An ethnological point of
view. Ethnohistory, 8, 78-92.
Miller, M.T. (1979). Sexual differentiation and accultura-
tion in Potawatomi costume. In J.M. Cordwell & RA.
Schwarz (Eds.), The fabrics of culture (pp. 313-330).
The Hague: Mouton.
Pannabecker, RK. (1986a). Ethnohistory: A method for
studying the cultural aspects of textiles and clothing
[Abstract]. ACPTC Proceedings: National Meeting,
1986, p. 91.
Pannabecker, R.K. (1986b). Ribbonwork of the Great
dissertation, The Ohio State University, 1986). Disser-
tation Abstracts International, 47, 961A-962A.
Pargellis, S. (1957). The problem of American Indian his-
tory. Ethnohistory, 4, 113-124.
Snow, D.R. (1981). "Keepers of the game" and the nature
of explanation. In S. Krech III (Ed.), Indians, animals,
and the fur t rade (pp. 59-71). Athens: University of
Georgia Press.
Spores, R (1978). Ethnohistory in middle age: An assess-
ment and a call for action. Ethnohistory, 25, 199-205.
Steiner, C.B. (1985). Another image of Africa: Toward an
ethnohistory of European cloth marketed in West Africa,
1873-1960. Ethnohistory, 32, 91-110.
Stryker, S. (1977). Developments in "two social psycholo-
gies" : Toward an appreciation of mutual relevance.
Sociometry, 40, 145-160.
Sturtevant, W.C. (1966). Anthropology, history, and ethno-
history. Ethnohistory, 13, 1-51.
Thompson, J. (1972). Preliminary study of traditional
Kutchin clothing in museums. Ottawa: National
Trigger, B.G. (1982). Ethnohistory: Problems and pros-
pects. Ethnohistory, 29, 1-19.
Trigger, B.G. (1986). Ethnohistory: The unfinished edifice.
Ethnohistory, 33, 253-267.
Valentine, C.A. (1961). A symposium on the concept of
ethnohistory—Comment. Ethnohistory, 8, 271-280.
Washburn, W.E. (1961). Ethnohistory: History "in the
round." Ethnohistory, 8, 31-48.
Welters, L. (1987). A study of women’s traditional dress
using the ethnohistorical method [Abstract]. ACPTC
Proceedings: Combined Central, Eastern, and Western
Regional Meetings, 1987, p. 87.