Can Ethnohistory Help the Ethnomusiciologist?

A problem in ethnomusicology that defies solution is that of influence--was the music we are studying influenced by outsiders? If the music changed because of replacement, acculturation, or attrition, how did it change, and how much did it change? In order to find a beginning point for the music, we sometimes have to start with historical documents written before the first recordings (but not the first songs) were made. The ethnohistorical approach can be useful in finding the starting point. Definitions of ethnohistory vary according to the source consulted. Axtell's consensual observation in his review essay, "The Ethnohistory of Early America:' is that "ethnohistory is not a separate discipline (or even subdiscipline), but rather a hybrid method, process, or approach applicable to a variety of historical problems. It can make no claims to special techniques independent of history, and it has no theory independent of other theories in cultural anthropology. It is an exacting but flexible approach to the problems of cultural process and change, problems that are shared by the complementary disciplines of history and anthropology:'l Washburn has seen ethnohistory a "process and a method, not as a rigid discipline with fixed borders and strict entrance requirements." Reciprocal cultural relations are emphasized by most ethno-historians, as opposed to the frequent treatment by historians of conquered or "primitive" peoples as merely actors on a stage constructed by the conqueror or colonist. Axtell continues arguing that "By emphasizing that each culture must be understood in its own terms . . . we must not only see the ethnocentric biases in each culture but understand the reasons for them: