TAV MONT) D. FOGELSON elusive quest for value-free" objectivity, or even that they frequently betray a bias sympathetic to the native peoples whose history they describe. I merely mean to emphasize that the native interpretation of critical events and signifi-cant historical personages are un-or underrepresented in ethnohistorical research. This statement should evoke no surprise, since most ethnohistorians regard documents as their primary data, and documents are still conventionally, if not pragmatically, defined as printed or manuscript materials, almost always produced by non-native recorders. William Sturtevant's admonitions to broaden our conception of documents to include not only maps and pictorial evidence, but also cultural artifacts and fresh field notes, have gone unheeded and unnoticed.? Thus, ethnohistory has come to denote in practice, if not in theory, the historical study of particular non-Western peopleS, SOmetimes also including distinctive ethnio or religious groups within Western society; for such Studies a native perspective may be deemed desirable but is not considered essential. Taken seriously, such an operational definition tends to blur possible distinc-tions between history and ethnohistory. At the most inoffensive level of con-trast, history becomes the macro-discipline of which ethnohistory would constitute a legitimate subdiscipline. At a more invidious level, history emerges as the diachronic study of aspects of Western society as viewed, presumably, by Western scholarship, whereas ethnohistory becomes the history of non-Western peoples written from a Western perspective. If my intentionally tortuous logic be followed, an interesting possibility presents itself here: namely, that the study of Western history by non-Westerners from a non-Western perspective could conceivably be regarded as a variety of ethnohistory. However, not wishing. to strain credulity at this stage of the argument, let me express more directly the point that I've been deviously trying to develop. Blatantly stated, the point is that most ethnohistory as presently pursued is congenitally, if not unavoidably, ethnocentric.

It was with these mental reverberations bouncing around in my head that I once suggested the term ethno-ethnohistory to designate ethnohistory written from a native point of view, What I envisioned was a kind of anthropological ethnohistory in which a centra role would be given to intensive fieldwork, con-trol of the native language, use of a mative time perspective, and work with native documents. These native documents would either be those already ex-tant, as in the case of Cherokee, or even purposefully collected, as Paul Radin so strenuously advocated when, in comparing his Winnebago work with the ro-search of other members of the so-called" American Historical School of Eth-