Barber and Berdan Part IPosted: January 27, 2011
I thought tracking the definition of “ethnohistory” in the journal Ethnohistory was clever. I was curious so I found the most up-to-date definition at their web page. Here it is:
The journal of the American Society for Ethnohistory
Ethnohistory reflects the wide range of current scholarship inspired by anthropological and historical approaches to the human condition. Of particular interest are those analyses and interpretations that seek to make evident the experience, organization, and identities of indigenous, diasporic, and minority peoples that otherwise elude the histories and anthropologies of nations, states, and colonial empires. The journal publishes work from the disciplines of geography, literature, sociology, and archaeology, as well as anthropology and history. It welcomes theoretical and cross-cultural discussion of ethnohistorical materials and recognizes the wide range of academic disciplines.
Clearly this definition follows the trend of “expanding” its categorical borders. From “primitives and peasantries” to “non-industrial peoples” to “ethnic peoples” to “cultures and societies in all areas of the world” to “indigenous, diasporic, and minority peoples” (current).
What does the evolution of these terms and their usages suggest about broader historiographical trends from the 50s to now?
Do you think that Barber and Berdan’s definition (page 12) is too broad when contrasted to the definition that appears on Ethnohistory website today?
Barber and Berdan’s analysis focuses on North American (heavily anthropological) ethnohistory. What can we say about parallel (or prior) developments of “ethnohistory” in other nations/regions?