Among the earliest mentioning of ‘ethnohistory’ is in the archaeology literature at the beginning of the twentieth century. Here the term refers to a method to reconstruct past cultures by extracting information from historical documents. Surely many archaeologists in different settings did, and still do, consult historical sources to better interpret archaeological data and generate more convincing analyses of archaeological cultures. It is important to note here that studies of Colonial Period sources and the histories of indigenous people were an integral part of the development of archaeology in many Latin American countries, such as Mexico where research on the Pre-Columbian past was bolstered by written descriptions of the Aztecs and Maya. In Mexico and Guatemala, for instance, ethnohistory, archaeology, and ethnography come together for the study of national history, heritage, and contemporary society.
While it may be tempting to suggest that the origins of ethnohistory as a field of study was within archaeology in the Americas, it in fact was pursued simultaneously by historians, archaeologists, linguists, and anthropologists, who put their research into further historic light. A perusal of the journal Ethnohistory demonstrates the multidisciplinary origins of this field. The volumes from the first few years of this journal contained articles by historians, anthropologists, and archaeologists who covered their field of study and its importance for ethnohistory, and vice versa. Toward the end of the twentieth century, however, more historians and fewer anthropologists and archaeologists wrote for the journal. Comparatively little archaeology is found there today and when archaeologists publish in the journal they treat the historic record and its implications for archaeology, but they often do not include archaeological data.
The plural disciplinary nature of ethnohistoric research continues to the present, although some researchers point out that many ethnographies would benefit from ethnohistory. Similar suggestions or criticisms have not been leveled at archaeologists as a whole, except for colleagues who are seen as ‘ahistori-cal’ or who lack historical analogies or comparative data in their work. Their research is often shallow in time depth and frequently needs historical information for stronger behavioral reconstructions. These archaeologists have also ignored historic processes of culture change since they concentrate on single periods and advocate for cross-cultural behavioral ‘laws’. Or they have merely not included an ethnohistoric component to their research even if written sources are available.
From the origins of archaeology to recent intellectual shifts in archaeological thought, ethnohistory has played a key role in the reconstruction of past societies. Although the genesis and growth of ethnohis-tory itself are rooted in culture contact and culture change studies in American archaeology, history is also strongly wedded to classical archaeology in Europe, as with the study of Greece and Rome, and European and US historical archaeology, such as excavations at Monticello in the eastern US and in nineteenth century Irish farmsteads.
It was also instrumental in the development of the global cultural-historical approach in archaeology during the first half of the twentieth century. Historical knowledge was central to culture-historical archaeology at this time since the study of material culture, ethnicity, and their historical connections to particular societies were the main goals of archaeological research. Thus, archaeologists sought to identify the archaeological remains of known societies, like the Hopi and Navajo people of the Southwest US. Nationalism and progress in expanding nation states around the world were also frequent topics touched upon in the cultural-historical approach, as in Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia, and the study of documents was necessary to learn more about past ethnic groups and their archaeological sites within the boundaries of these states. Hence, the understanding of the political extension of and material culture of the Aztecs of Mexico depended on the j oint employment of ethnohistory and archaeology (see Political Complexity, Rise of).
Ethnohistory was not viewed as a vital enterprise within the Processual approach or the New Archaeology which was generally concerned with comparative cross-cultural studies in understanding the past. Although culture change over time and ethnographic analogies are part of the processual archaeology (see Processual Archaeology), the use of history was minimized, however, since it was seen as culture-specific, non-recurring, and noncomparative in nature.
Ethnohistory nonetheless is deemed useful in post-processual or contextual archaeology (see Postproces-sual Archaeology). In this archaeological paradigm it is recognized that long-term cultural continuities may exist and can be manifested in archaeological, historical, and ethnographic contexts. It is also recognized here that meanings and functions of ancient material culture can be discerned by analyzing the historic past through documents of different periods. Furthermore, human actions and agency are often the focus of historical research and this perspective can help explain archaeological patterns and the artifactual evidence. For instance, the complex symbolism and women’s labor in ancient Maya civilization can be viewed in historical accounts of Maya textile weaving. This information has been applied to the interpretation of classic Maya elites and textile production as seen on stone monuments and archaeological ceramics. Historic meanings and cultural transformations are targeted for understanding individual symbolic systems and art, particular social groups or economic classes, and specific human behavior and beliefs in postproces-sual research.
Again, what is termed ‘historical archaeology’ traditionally is thought of as the archaeology of Europeans during the Colonial and post-Independence Periods. Yet the concentration of ethnohistoric research, or the investigation of indigenous societies and culture change following colonization, can be placed within the rubric of historical archaeology. This is due to the fact that there are many documents related to indigenous cultures and not just Europeans or Africans. Conversely, ethnohistorians do cover Old World peoples in their research and not just indigenous cultures. Moreover, ethnohistory and historical archaeology both use documents and material culture for the examination of past cultures and lifeways. Thus, historical archaeology encompasses the historical and material analysis of the ‘modern world,’ whether it is European or not. The subdiscipline of historical archaeology (see Historical Archaeology: As a Discipline) is also attracting attention around the world and its practitioners incorporate historical information directly in their research more so than other archaeologists.
Ethnohistory is gaining greater importance in archaeology at the present as a research tool or guide for conducting research on the ancient past. Archaeologists are continuously relying on ethnohis-tory to create analogies for reconstructing past behaviors from the material record (namely, using the so-called see middle-range theory), especially if there is a historical connection between the archaeological and documented cultures or if there are no ethnographic societies from which to draw analogies. In many academic departments or research programs around the world, especially in Europe, archaeology is closely aligned with history and researchers are using both to investigate specific cultures or local ethnic groups and how they changed or remained the same over time. Even ethnohistorians are now employing archaeological studies and data in their research and publications. Ethnohistory is a uniting force in the study of culture: it brings prehistory, history, and ethnography together in complex and necessary ways. As one scholar put it: the wall between history and archaeology and its practitioners is tumbling down.
World History
