by Dr. Ray Miles
McNeese State University
In times past, when researching and writing about American Indians, one of the great mistakes made by historians was limiting their research materials to the kinds customarily used by those in the profession. After thoroughly scouring libraries, archives, and manuscript repositories, historians would use the traditional primary and secondary sources: monographs, diaries, government documents, newspapers, personal papers, etc. The problem that stemmed from this technique was that Indian people rarely left these kinds of resources. Historically speaking, tribes lacked written languages and Indian people did not leave written records such as those noted above. The key ramification of this is that history, as traditionally written, rarely accounted for an Indian perspective. Historians made little effort to understand Indian motivations or account for cultural or religious differences. The result portrayed Indian people as one-dimensional, reactionary, unknowable, and intractable. Since their ways appeared inscrutable, historians focused on the side they could document: the non-Indian side! No wonder Alphonso Ortiz, a San Juan Tewa Indian and anthropologist, wrote that, AConventional history is so at odds with the facts that Indians often simply ignore it…History is so distorted it is irrelevant.@
The practice or technique of Aethnohistory@ allows the historian to broaden and enrich the writing of Indian history by making use of documentation from other disciplines. Practitioners make use of anthropology, ethnology, oral traditions, language, archaeology, even things such as music and art, as avenues by which to understand more fully Indian people. Incorporating these non-traditional
tools into writing history enriches the text by portraying Indians as sentient, multi-dimensional, people whose interactions with Indians and non-Indians can be seen from completely different perspectives. Thus ethnohistory can help deepen our understanding of history by revealing the Indian side of the story.
Now, let=s look at a practical example of how ethnohistory can change historical interpretations. The following excerpts all relate a story familiar in the early colonial history of Louisiana. Note that all three versions have basically the same “facts.” But in answering the question “why?” the first two simply begin with the assumption that the Natchez Indians were at fault, thus the French were justified in retaliation. The third excerpt, however, incorporates knowledge of Natchez culture to explain Natchez motives. Note the differences in tone, verbs and adjectives used, and placement of blame.
Excerpt from Ross Phares, Cavalier in the Wilderness: The Story of the Explorer and
Trader Louis Juchereau de St. Denis. Baton Rouge: LSU Press, 1952. pages 195-96.
The governor [Cadillac] summoned Bienville to him and informed him that some Frenchmen had been murdered by the Natchez. He directed Bienville to take fifteen soldiers and nineteen able-bodied men to punish the Natchez and build a fort in their territory…Bienville was a man of great pride and, despite his many faults, was no coward. He accepted the governor’s challenge and set out to the Natchez nation to make the best of his assignment. He built a stockade below the Natchez nation and sent word to the tribesmen that he had come to establish a trading post. After a time a delegation of the Natchez, including three principal chiefs, called at the fort for a [meeting]. [Bienville] told them that he knew of the murder of the five Frenchmen by their tribesmen. He had come to demand the delivery of the men who had murdered the Frenchmen.
Excerpt from Jonathan Daniels, The Devil’s Backbone: The Story of the Natchez Trace. (orig. pub. 1962) New Orleans: Pelican, 1987. pages 12-13.
This great sun-bronzed Bienville was one of the nine Le Moyne brothers, whose father in Canada had been ennobled for his services to France…It was in [1715] that Cadillac [Governor of Louisiana] sent Bienville to reduce the Natchez Indians to obedience to the crown of France. [Bienville] had an aptitude for learning the Indian languages and conciliating the tribesmen. Still, this time he knew that he had antagonism behind him, watching for any weakness. So when the Natchez Indians killed four Frenchmen and ransacked a depot of supplies, he retaliated with swift stratagem and severity. He had only 49 men against the whole Natchez Nation. Still, undaunted and shrewd as he was brave, he captured by trick the Great Sun of the tribe. He forced the chief to deliver the leaders of the raid. They were promptly put to death.
Excerpt from Daniel H. Usner, Jr., Indians, Settlers, & Slaves in a frontier Exchange Economy. Chapel Hill: Univ. of North Carolina Press, 1992. pages 28-29.
In the fall of 1715, Natchez leaders were insulted by Antoine de La Mothe Cadillac, the disreputable founder of Detroit and governor of Louisiana…when on a downriver voyage he refused to stop and smoke their calumet. Interpreting this negligence as a sign of hostility, a Natchez war party assassinated four traders and pillaged ten thousand livres worth of merchandise from the…company’s local warehouse. In the following spring Bienville led a small army of thirty-five men upriver to the Indian town of Tunica. There he negotiated with a group of Natchez leaders, took some of them hostage, and demanded the heads of persons responsible for the deaths.
The final passage makes clear the first offense occurred when the French failed to observe the protocol of the calumet. This was a grievous diplomatic faux pas that had deadly consequences. Omitting this cultural fact from the first two passages leaves the reader with the impression that the Natchez just randomly killed the Frenchmen, thereby making the Natchez seem capricious, ignorant, and hostile. However, including the fact at least provides some rationale for the actions. The third passage reveals the Natchez are actively defending their honor and Usner=s use of the verb Aassassinated@ when describing their action makes the political / diplomatic motivation apparent. Indeed, when viewed in this way, the French response of kidnapping and killing of the Natchez now seems capricious and aggressive.
As these passages demonstrate, a reliance on traditional research methods and resources in the writing of history can certainly lead to bias and misunderstanding. Incorporating ethnohistory techniques can improve our understanding of IndianBnon-Indian relations and give us a more accurate view of our shared past. The simple example given here is just one chosen from the vast literature on Indian history or history that relates to them. Imagine the work to be done in rethinking and rewriting our past. Ethnohistory can be one of the tools we use as we take up the challenge suggested by Ortiz and we strive to make our history relevant.