Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/481006?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms
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 is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Ethnohistory
This content downloaded from 190.98.232.126 on Tue, 19 Apr 2016 14:10:54 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
ETHNOHISTORY 29(1): 1-19 (1982) TRIGGER
Abstract
This content downloaded from 190.98.232.126 on Tue, 19 Apr 2016 14:10:54 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
2 BRUCE G. TRIGGER
Franz Boas and his students vigorously opposed popular ideas concerning
the biological inferiority of native peoples as well as the evolutionary view that
one culture could be judged as being superior or inferior to another (Harris
1968: 250-289). These anthropologists recorded, as best they knew how, tradi-
tional cultures that were rapidly vanishing and that no one else was willing or
adequately trained to record. By so doing, they alone systematically preserved
information that native people as well as anthropologists now value highly.
Some anthropologists also sought to draw public attention to unjust treatment
of native groups and to secure better treatment for them. While these activities
may now be construed as patronizing and probably had few immediately tang-
ible results, they must be recognized as the actions of individual Euroameri-
cans who were far more favorably disposed towards native peoples than were
typical Whites of that period. While we must be prepared to acknowledge the
errors and shortcomings that were inherent in earlier phases of anthropological
thought, it ill behooves us to disparage or attribute false motives to previous
generations of anthropologists.
Most of the early general discussions of ethnohistory were concerned with
defining its general goals and methodology and the extent of its subject matter
(Lurie 1961; Fenton 1966; Sturtevant 1966). The journal Ethnohistory,
founded in 1954, has published more articles of this sort than have similar
journals in any other field known to me. This may be an indication of the
special problems that were involved in defining a convincing role for ethnohis-
tory within the social sciences. It may also indicate some of what may be
called the ideological problems that confronted its early development. It was
debated whether ethnohistory was a separate discipline, a branch of anthro-
pology or of history, a technique for analyzing particular kinds of data, or
merely a convenient data quarry for other disciplines (McBryde 1979; 147). In
the same vein, it was queried whether ethnohistory was related more closely to
anthropology or to history or was a sort of bridge or no-man's land between
these two disciplines. It was also discussed whether the ethnographic recon-
struction of early historic cultures, or what has been called historical ethnog-
raphy, and the study of native culture change since the time of European con-
tact constituted two distinct branches of ethnohistory, as most ethnohistorians
accepted, or only the latter activity could be regarded as ethnohistory in the
strict sense. None of these problems has ever been definitively resolved. There
merely seems to be a tacit agreement that ethnohistory uses documentary evi-
dence and oral traditions to study changes in non-literate societies from about
the time of earliest European contact. While these unresolved debates consti-
tute milestones in the early development of ethnohistory, I will attempt to
demonstrate that these questions have become increasingly irrelevant as eth-
nohistory has come to play a more mature role within the context of the social
sciences.
Twenty years ago, Nancy Lurie (1961: 79) observed that ethnohistory "is not
a new method or area of investigation...it is as old as ethnology itself." She
This content downloaded from 190.98.232.126 on Tue, 19 Apr 2016 14:10:54 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Ethnohistory: Problems and Prospects 3
explained, however, that by this she meant that already in the last century use
was being made of documentary evidence to help interpret ethnographic or
archaeological data. Later, she pointed out that ethnohistory, in the sense of a
self-conscious study of change among native peoples or even a critical aware-
ness of the problems involved in using historical data for ethnographic pur-
poses, was a recent development. Insofar as most ethnohistorians would now
classify only the latter activities as constituting ethnohistory, it must be consid-
ered a relatively new phenomenon.
It is also noteworthy that ethnohistory flourishes as a specific scholarly
activity in North America, Australia, and the Pacific region, but not in
Europe. There its closest equivalent is the very different study of folklore. The
latter discipline, which also studies Euroamerican folk culture, examines pre-
industrial traditions as they are preserved in modern rural customs, oral tradi-
tions, songs, dances, and material culture (Trigger 1978a: 17; McBryde 1979:
135). Ethnohistory, by contrast, has developed as the study of change among
indigenous peoples, as opposed to history, which studies the activities of Euro-
peans both before and after they settled elsewhere throughout the world. This
distinction can be rationalized as a methodological one. The techniques that
are required to study the history and non-literate groups are different from
those needed to study more complex societies that have abundantly docu-
mented their own past. In this perspective, the distinction between history and
ethnohistory runs essentially parallel to the evolutionary distinction between
so-called primitive societies and civilizations. Significant social and ideological
implications are therefore inherent in the distinction between history and eth-
nohistory, both in North America and elsewhere.
Ethnohistory was not part of anthropology as the latter discipline developed
in the United States in the 19th century, primarily as the study of the Ameri-
can Indian. Instead, anthropology was seen as made up of four branches.
These sought to study the traditional cultures of Native Americans, their pre-
history, physical variations, and languages. No provision was made for study-
ing the changes in native life that had resulted from European contact. These
changes were generally viewed as part of a process of cultural disintegration
that would end either in the physical extinction of the native inhabitants of
Canada and the United States or with the total assimilation of the few who
survived into the dominant European culture. Anthropologists tended to view
these sorts of changes mainly as an obstacle to reconstructing what native cul-
tures had been like before they had been altered by European contact. It was
generally assumed that prior to such contact these cultures had been relatively
stable and unchanging. Even prehistoric archaeology, which was the one
branch of traditional American anthropology that might have been expected to
develop an historical perspective, generally viewed native cultures as static.
Regional variation in these cultures in prehistoric times was believed to be
essentially similar to what could be observed ethnographically. The more
obvious changes in the archaeological record were attributed to ethnic move-
ments that had carried static cultures from one region to another (Trigger
1980a).
The dichotomy between history and anthropology thus became a distinction
between a discipline that sought to chronicle the progress and dynamism of
This content downloaded from 190.98.232.126 on Tue, 19 Apr 2016 14:10:54 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
4 BRUCE G. TRIGGER
peoples and cultures that were of European origin and another that sought to
study the static and inferior cultures of Native Americans and ultimately of
native peoples elsewhere. The original constitution of anthropology thus
reflected the expansionist and racist ideology of a society that in the latter half
of the 19th century was completing the conquest of Native Americans that had
begun in Virginia and New England 250 year earlier. Historians must equally
note that the traditional distinction between their discipline and anthropology
continues to reflect the view that the study of Euroamericans is signficantly
different from that of Native Americans.
This content downloaded from 190.98.232.126 on Tue, 19 Apr 2016 14:10:54 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
EthnohistorY: Problems and Prospects 5
ethnologists had been trained as fieldworkers and therefore were not accus-
tomed to the work habits of library and archival research. Many of them were
inclined to believe that written records documented mainly the lies and misun-
derstandings of the past. They feared that by drawing away from fieldwork
they might be allowing themselves to fall prey to false and inadequate evi-
dence. To counteract this, they argued that ethnohistorians had to remain
practising ethnographers. Other, more trusting, ethnologists tended to treat
written sources as they would a native informant and to analyze historical
documents as if they were their own fieldnotes. While such approaches pro-
duced many of the more distinctive and valuable features of ethnohistorical
analysis, they were frequently accompanied by a naivete about historical
methodology that offended professional historians. All too often, however,
these same historians treated the written records at their disposal as if they
constituted the total corpus of information about the past. For a long time,
North American ethnohistory remained what the Australian ethnohistorian
Isabel McBryde (1979: 129-130) seems to believe it still to be: "part of the
wider study of cultural anthropology, with a theoretical base and aims which
are clearly anthropological."
Recently, however, more ethnohistorical research has been done by scholars
whose primary training has been in history. A handful of economic historians,
primarily ones interested in the fur trade and missionary work, have also made
significant contributions (Hunt 1940; Rotstein 1972), as have a growing
number of human geographers (Heidenreich 1971; Ray 1974). These scholars
have brought new skills and fresh theoretical perspectives to the study of
Native American history, thereby helping to produce studies of greater diver-
sity and richness than existed previously. They have also created problems of
integration and definition for ethnohistorical research that will have to be con-
sidered later.
In recent years, Native American history has also been recognized as a field
of study that is of more than limited and esoteric interest. There is a flourshing
market for popular and semi-popular works dealing with native history and an
increasing and much needed incorporation of ethnohistorical research and eth-
nohistorical perspectives into studies dealing primarily with Euroamerican
themes. In Canada, this is strikingly evident in the extensive coverage given to
native people in works such as Pierre Berton's (1978) The Wild Frontier and,
in particular, in the manner that his treatment of the 17th century Jesuit priest
and martyr, Isaac Jogues, has been influenced by recent ethnohistorical
research on the Huron Indians. It is highly gratifying to find ethnohistorical
conclusions being popularized in this manner. I also doubt that anything
approximating Berton's sober treatment of Jogues would have been deemed
acceptable in a popular work published in Canada even a couple of decades
ago (D. Smith 1974; Vincent and Arcand 1979). It is even more extraordinary
to find a Eurocanadian historian such as Ramsey Cook (1980) publicly criticiz-
ing Berton's treatment of native peoples in the latter's most recent book on the
War of 1812. Although Berton credits the Shawnee leader, Tecumseh, with
playing as important a role as did Major-General Isaac Brock in the defence of
Upper Canada, Cook objects that he treats native people in too traditional a
manner: too little is said about their society, they are portrayed as too brutal
This content downloaded from 190.98.232.126 on Tue, 19 Apr 2016 14:10:54 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
6 BRUCE G. TRIGGER
and bloodthirsty, and Berton seems uncomfortable with the revivalist religion
of Tecumseh's brother. This is far removed from the racial slurs that certain
eminent historians were directing against Native Canadians as late as the 1960s
(Lanctot 1963: 30; Morton 1963: 60-61). When popularizers and historians
who are primarily concerned with Euroamerican culture interact in this
manner, we may conclude that ethnohistorical research currently enjoys impor-
tance that is out of proportion to the number of ethnohistorians.
This content downloaded from 190.98.232.126 on Tue, 19 Apr 2016 14:10:54 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Ethnohistorv: Problems and Prospects 7
anthropologist A.C. Parker (1916: 480-481) has pointed out that the traditional
views of his people were fundamentally ahistorical. The Iroquois viewed their
history as a series of "cultural revolutions," each of which was connected with
the actions of heros, such as Dekanawideh or Handsome Lake and "the people
of each period systematically forgot the history of the preceding periods."
Within each period, the inheritance of names along with particular offices
ensured a maximum sense of continuity. Thus each of the "revolutions" consti-
tuted a mythical charter and a guide to the social, political, and moral order in
which they lived. In other native cultures, what we would regard as the past is
interpreted as being a continuously active supernatural dimension interacting
with the present. Both views tend to preclude the notion of narrative history as
we understand it (McBryde 1979: 137). In some of these societies an interest in
such history must be interpreted as evidence of acculturation. The challenge to
ethnohistorians is to combine a respectful study of traditional native views of
history and causality with what we regard as more conventional historical or
ethnohistorical investigations. The study of oral traditions may play a signifi-
cant role in bridging the gap between these two approaches.
It would seem, however, that the majority of native activists subscribe to the
same views about ethnohistorical methodology as do Euroamerican historians.
They argue that native people should write their own history as a means of
controlling their own destiny. Like other partisans, they seek to use historical
data to establish images of the past that help to promote their political pro-
grams. They claim, no doubt often believing it to be so, that interpretations of
native history and customs that they hold to be unflattering result from mis-
leading Euroamerican prejudices and attempt to demonstrate the falsity of
these views. Examples of such behaviour include denials that particular native
groups ever tortured captives or abandoned aged and infirm members. On the
other hand, when traditional Euroamerican claims are held to be more favora-
ble, efforts are made to reinforce and intensify these stereotypes. This has been
so especially with the widely-held belief that all Native American cultures Were
atuned to respect and preserve their environments, a view that has made
Native Americans appear to be forerunners of the modern ecology movement.
Such behavior is an understandable reaction against unjust treatment by
Euroamerican historians, such as a certain Jesuit biographer, who, although he
was thoroughly familiar with the ethnographic literature, only a few decades
ago chose to describe the Huron of the 17th century as "animalized savages"
wallowing in a "sewer of sexual filth" (Talbot 1956: 67). Yet this revisionist
history and ethnography almost inevitably portrays Native Americans of the
past and present in conformity with romantic Euroamerican stereotypes of
what acceptable native behavior ought to be like. Hence, aspects of that past
are fiercely denied, which, if they were understood in an adequate cultural con-
text, would prove to have been neither irrational nor immoral. This approach
to historiography fails to free native history from Euroamerican influence
because it is unable to overcome the sense of shame that White culture has
imposed upon Native Americans by persuading many of them to accept its
classification of their traditional life-styles as being primitive. Native Ameri-
cans have not yet succeeded in producing a truly decolonized version of their
own history. This alone puts them in a poor position to criticize Euroamerican
This content downloaded from 190.98.232.126 on Tue, 19 Apr 2016 14:10:54 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
8 BRUCE G. TRIGGER
This content downloaded from 190.98.232.126 on Tue, 19 Apr 2016 14:10:54 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Ethnohistory: Problems and Prospects 9
This content downloaded from 190.98.232.126 on Tue, 19 Apr 2016 14:10:54 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
10 BRUCE G. TRIGGER
This content downloaded from 190.98.232.126 on Tue, 19 Apr 2016 14:10:54 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Ethnohistory: Problems and Prospects 11
In the 19th century, as we have already noted, native cultures were generally
viewed as having been static prior to European contact. This was interpreted
either racially as evidence of a lack of creative intellect among native peoples,
or alternatively as evidence that these cultures were so perfectly adjusted to
their environments albeit at a low level of production, that further change was
unnecessary. Change following European contact was interpreted as a process
of cultural disintegration or assimilation that had calamitously befallen native
peoples. It was assumed that archaeological evidence substantiated this view.
The evidence appeared to suggest that the cultures that had been discovered at
the time of European contact had endured essentially unchanged over many
centuries. Such changes as were observed in any region generally were attrib-
uted to migrations of peoples rather than to internal changes. Only in the first
half of the 20th century was trait diffusion gradually assigned a major role in
bringing about change in prehistoric times. Even then, the most important stim-
uli were generally seen as coming from Mesoamerica or East Asia rather
This content downloaded from 190.98.232.126 on Tue, 19 Apr 2016 14:10:54 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
12 BRUCE G. TRIGGER
than resulting from cultural creativity among the native peoples of North
America. It is only since the 1960s that due attention has been paid to the
innovative and adaptive capacities of individual prehistoric cultures (Trigger
1980a). A more realistic understanding of the creativity of Native Americans in
prehistoric times may be the most important substantive accomplishment of
the New Archaeology so far.
It is now clear that indigenous cultures did not begin to change as a result
of the arrival of the first Europeans. On the contrary, change has been charac-
teristic of native cultures in all parts of the western hemisphere from man's
first arrival there over 20,000 years ago. It is vital to understand not only the
ethnography of indigenous societies at the time of European contact but also
how these societies were evolving internally and responding to changes in other
native societies if we are to understand their initial reactions to European con-
tact (Lurie 1959: 37). To do this, the findings of prehistoric archaeology must
be treated as an integral part of Native American history, which must begin,
not as ethnohistory conventionally does, at or slightly before European con-
tact, but with the penetration of the first native people into the western hemi-
sphere. Treating the study of prehistory as an integral part of native history
also helps to free the latter of some of the ethnocentric bias that inevitably
results from having to rely too heavily upon Euroamerican documentary
sources. This does not imply that the distinction between prehistoric archaeol-
ogy and ethnohistory as different methodologies for studying the past should
disappear. Instead, it implies that the findings of both are equally relevant for
studying native history. It creates the same relationship between prehistoric
archaeology and ethnohistory as has existed between history and prehistory in
Europe since the 1880s. This is a very different view from the currently popu-
lar one of American prehistory as a branch of anthropology that has no rela-
tionship to history. It also implies the need for closer mutual connections
between prehistoric archaeology and ethnohistory than have been recognized
in the past. While ethnohistorians have made some use of archaeological data
to supplement what they know or can infer from written sources concerning
cultures and events in late prehistoric or early historic times, most of them
have maintained a closer relationship to ethnology than to archaeology.
During the 19th century, ethnologists shared with archaeologists the belief
that the various traditional cultures that had first been described soon after
European contact had been stable for a long time. Although these cultures
were acknowledged to be in varying states of disintegration as a result of
European contact, ethnographers sought to use aged informants' memories and
historical data to reconstruct what they had originally been like. Reconstruc-
tions of this sort were normally written in the present tense and were treated
by ethnologists as if they existed in an atemporal framework; the so-called
ethnographic present. These descriptions of native cultures were viewed as a
data base for generalizing about variations in cultural types and in human
behavior.
This content downloaded from 190.98.232.126 on Tue, 19 Apr 2016 14:10:54 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Ethnohistory: Problems and Prospects 13
This content downloaded from 190.98.232.126 on Tue, 19 Apr 2016 14:10:54 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
14 BRUCE G. TRIGGER
butions. Had their comparisons been based on data describing cultures prior
to White contact, it seems possible that stronger functional correlations might
have been obtained.
Yet Native American cultures were changing in prehistoric times, even if
they were not suffering the dramatic dislocations that were to afflict them as a
result of Euroamerican exploitation and expansion. Moreover, some of these
changes resulted from ethnic migrations and the diffusion of traits from one
group to another. There were not wholly different in kind from some changes
brought about as a result of European contact. Descriptions of cultures,
whether they pertain to prehistoric or historic times and whether they are
based on data acquired by ethnographic fieldwork, ethnohistorical reconstruc-
tions, or archaeological studies, can only be understood and evaluated prop-
erly if they are studied in their own particular historical context. Lack of con-
trol over the historical dimension not only deprives anthropologists of an
awareness of developmental regularities but also exaggerates the appearance of
synchronic structural variation and random correlations of features. Taking
account of the historical dimension permits a better understanding of the his-
tory of specific societies and of the dynamics of cultural change, and hence of
the various regularities that characterize human behavior. This approach oblit-
erates not only the distinctions among studies based on archaeological, ethno-
historical, and ethnological data but also the distinction between ethnology and
social history. An analogous covergence between social anthropology and
social history is strikingly evident in the United Kingdom, in the work of schol-
ars such as Alan Macfarlane (1970).
This weakening of traditional barriers separating archaeology, ethnology,
and history suggest the truth of Frederic W. Maitland's dictum that eventually
anthropology must become history or it will become nothing. This dictum is
only true, however, as it applies to what may be called scientific history. It is
widely believed, for example, that the laws of political company that are used
to explain behavior in industrialized societies are not particularly useful for
explaining the economies of societies that are characterized by a different
mode of production, such as early civilizations or tribal societies. The same
may apply to most, if not all, aspects of human behavior. If this is so, all
social science data in due course must be understood in an historical frame-
work. This framework specifies the context within which all explanations of
human behavior, past and present, have significance. It does this by specifying
the types of societies to which each generalization may or may not apply.
Scientific history transcends in importance all of the other social sciences by
specifying the applicability and relevance of their various theories (Trigger
n.d.d.).
When I began The Children of Aataentsic I assumed that the related history
of European colonization was sufficiently well understood that it would not be
significantly affected by my study of native history. At that time, I believe,
most ethnohistorians regarded their work as an extension of historical research
This content downloaded from 190.98.232.126 on Tue, 19 Apr 2016 14:10:54 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Ethnohistory: Problems and Prospects 15
into new fields rather than as investigations that would significantly alter our
understanding of Euroamerican history. Today it is increasingly being realized
that many activities of Euroamerican settlers cannot be understood adequately
without a sound understanding of native history. Francis Jennings (1975) was
puzzled by seeming anomalies in understanding the behavior and motives of
the native peoples of New England that were posed by traditional accounts of
the colonial history of that region in the 17th century. This led him to realize
that historians had erroneously accepted at face value the contemporary
accounts of European colonists concerning their relations with native peoples
and neighboring colonies. This, in turn, revealed that much of the early history
of New England was based on documents that were more biased and self-
serving than hitherto had been suspected. My work on the Huron showed that
the poorly documented European traders and their workmen had played a far
more important role in the early development of New France than had the
Recollects, Jesuits, and Champlain, although the latter's activities had been
advertised in numerous self-serving publications. Without the trading relation-
ships that these middle and working class groups had established with native
peoples, missionary work and colonization would have been impossible
(Trigger 1980b, n.d.c.). In both of these studies, an understanding of the deal-
ings of Europeans with one another has had to be revised in the light of an
expanded knowledge of Native American history. The price of ignoring native
history has been not simply a one-sided understanding of relations between
native people and Europeans. In some cases it has resulted in serious misun-
derstandings of the internal dynamics of European colonization.
An Eclectic Approach
This content downloaded from 190.98.232.126 on Tue, 19 Apr 2016 14:10:54 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
16 BRUCE G. TRIGGER
This content downloaded from 190.98.232.126 on Tue, 19 Apr 2016 14:10:54 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Ethnohistorv: Problems and Prospects 17
References
Arens, W.
1979 The Man-Eating Myth: Anthropology and Anthropophagy. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Axtell, James and W. C. Sturtevant
1980 The Unkindest Cut, or Who Invented Scalping? The William and Mary Quar-
terly 37:451-472.
Bailey, A. G.
1937 The Conflict of European and Eastern Algonkian Cultures, 1504-1700. Saint
John: New Brunswick Museum.
1977 Retrospective Thoughts of an Ethnohistorian. The Canadian Historical Associ-
ation, Historical Papers, 1977:15-29.
Berton, Pierre
1978 The Wild Frontier. Toronto: McClelland and Stewart.
Brasser, T. J. C.
1971 Group Identification along a Moving Frontier. Verhandlungen des XXXVIIII
Internationalen Amerikanistenkongresses. Munich, Volume 2, pp. 261-265.
Cook, Ramsey
1980 Berton's War of 1812. The Gazette (Montreal), August 30, p. 34.
Dening, Gregory
1966 Ethnohistory in Polynesia: The Value of Ethnohistorical Evidence. Journal of
Pacific History 1:23-42.
Driver, H. E. and W. C. Massey
1957 Comparative Studies of North American Indians. Transactions of the American
Philosophical Society 47:165-456.
Eggan, F. R.
1966 The American Indian: Perspectives for the Study of Social Change. London:
Weidenfeld and Nicolson.
Fenton, W. N.
1966 Field Work, Museum Studies, and Ethnohistorical Research. Ethnohistory
13:71-85.
Harris, Marvin
1968 The Rise of Anthropological Theory. New York: Crowell.
This content downloaded from 190.98.232.126 on Tue, 19 Apr 2016 14:10:54 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
18 BRUCE G. TRIGGER
Heidenreich, C. E.
1971 Huronia: A History and Geography of the Huron Indians, 1600-1650. Toronto:
McClelland and Stewart.
Hickerson, Harold
1970 The Chippewa and their Neighbors: A Study in Ethnohistory. New York: Holt,
Rinehart and Winston.
Hunt, G. T.
1940 The Wars of the Iroquois: A Study in Intertribal Trade Relations. Madison:
University of Wisconsin Press.
Jennings, Francis
1975 The Invasion of America: Indians, Colonialism, and the Cant of Conquest.
Chapel Hill: University of North Caroline Press.
1979 Anthropological Foundations for American Indian History. Reviews in Ameri-
can History 7:486-493.
Krech III, Shepard, Ed.
1981 Indians, Animals and the Fur Trade: A Critique of Keepers of the Game.
Athens: The University of Georgia Press.
Lanctot, Gustave
1963 A History of Canada, Volume I. Toronto: Clarke, Irwin.
Linton, Ralph
1940 Acculturation in Seven American Indian Tribes. New York: Appleton-Century.
Lurie, N. 0.
1959 Indian Cultural Adjustment to European Civilization. In Seventeenth-Century
America. J. M. Smith Ed., Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
1961 Ethnohistory: An Ethnological Point of View. Ethnohistory 8:78-92.
McBryde, Isabel
1979 Ethnohistory in an Australian Context: Independent Discipline or Convenient
Data Quarry? Aboriginal History 3:128-151.
McCall, Daniel
1980 Review of P. Curtin et al. African History. American Anthropologist
82:662-663.
Macfarlane, Alan
1970 Witchcraft in Tudor and Stuart England. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Martin, Calvin
1978 Keepers of the Game: Indian-Animal Relationships and the Fur Trade. Berke-
ley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Miller, V. P.
1976 Aboriginal Micmac Population: A Review of the Evidence. Ethnohistory
23:117-127.
Morton, W. L.
1963 The Kingdom of Canada. Toronto: McClelland and Steward.
Parker, A. C.
1916 The Origin of the Iroquois as Suggested by their Archaeology. American
Anthropologist 18:479-507.
Ray, A. J.
1974 Indians in the Fur Trade. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Redfield, R., R. Linton and M. J. Herskovits
1936 Outline for the Study of Acculturation. American Anthropologist 39:149-152.
Richards, Cara
1967 Huron and Iroquois Residence Patterns 1600-1650. In Iroquois Culture, His-
tory, and Prehistory. E. Tooker Ed., Albany: The University of the State of
New York, pp. 51-56.
Rotstein, Abraham
1972 Trade and Politics: An Institutional Approach. Western Canadian Journal of
Anthropology 3(1): 1-28.
Rowe, F. W.
1977 Extinction: The Beothuks of Newfoundland. Toronto: McGraw-Hill.
This content downloaded from 190.98.232.126 on Tue, 19 Apr 2016 14:10:54 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Ethnohistory: Problems and Prospects .19
Smith, Donald
1974 Le Sauvage: The Native People in Quebec: Historical Writing on the Heroic
Period (1534-1663) of New France. Ottawa: National Museum of Man, Mer-
cury Series.
Smith, W. M.
1970 A Re-appraisal of the Huron Kinship System. Anthropologica 12:191-206.
1973 The Fur Trade and the Frontier: A Study of an Inter-Cultural Alliance.
Anthropologica 15:21-35.
Spicer, E. H., Ed.
1961 Perspectives in American Indian Cultural Change. Chicago: University of Chi-
cago Press.
1962 Cycles of Conquest. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.
Sturtevant, W. C.
1966 Anthropology, History, and Ethnohistory. Ethnohistory 13: 1-51.
Sturtevant, W. C. (General Editor) and B. G. Trigger (Volume Editor)
1978 Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 15, The Northeast. Washing-
ton: Smithsonian Institution.
Talbot, F. X.
1965 Saint Among the Hurons. Garden City: Image Books.
Trigger, B. G.
1962 Trade and Tribal Warfare on the St. Lawrence in the Sixteenth Century. Eth-
nohistory 9:240-256.
1975 Brecht and Ethnohistory. Ethnohistory 22:51-56.
1976 The Children of Aataentsic: A History of the Huron People to 1660. 2 vol-
umes. Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press.
1978a Ethnohistory and Archaeology. Ontario Archaeology, no. 30:17-24.
1978b Iroquoian Matriliny. Pennsylvania Archaeologist 48(1-2):55-65.
1980a Archaeology and the Image of the American Indian. American Antiquity
45:662-676.
1980b Colonizers and Natives: Toward a More Objective History of New France.
Report of the Fifteenth International Congress of Historical Sciences, Vol.
2:279-287. Bucharest.
n.d.a. Archaeology and the Ethnographic Present. Anthropologica (in press).
n.d.b. Response of Native Peoples to European Contact. Proceedings of the Interna-
tional Symposium on Early European Settlement and Exploitation in Atlantic
Canada, Memorial University of Newfoundland (in press).
n.d.c. Indian and White History. Two Worlds or One? Festschrift (in press).
n.d.d. Archeaology as Historical Science. Paper prepared for the Primer Encuentro de
Antropologia Americana, Mexico City, November 9-14, 1980.
Vincent, Sylvie and B. Arcand
1979 L' image de l'Am6rindien dans les manuels scolaires du Quebec. Montreal:
Hurtubise.
Walsh, W. H.
1967 An Introduction to the Philosophy of History. London: Hutchinson.
This content downloaded from 190.98.232.126 on Tue, 19 Apr 2016 14:10:54 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms