Recently, social anthropologists have become critical, once more, of the neglect of history by their colleagues, particularly those who have engaged in studies of peoples belonging to one or other of the Great Traditions. Presumably, no one would deny the significance of historical research for any of the disciplines represented in our society. Without history, the various countries, communities and social systems of the Middle East would become little more than a bewildering mosaic of disparate types, a storehouse of examples of different kinds of economies, political organizations, kinship structures, cult groups and so on. What gives the Middle East its unity, despite the diversity in its parts, is that contemporary institutions are not only the products of human responses to particular local conditions, but also responses to the history of human relations between its parts. Agreement in according this order of precedence, in our studies, to history is one thing; how to use history is quite another, and about which Evans-Pritchard, perhaps more than any other social anthropologist since the war, was conscious, when urging the need to take cognizance of history in the analysis of contemporary institutions. He did more than content himself with advocacy. Instead of bawling abuse at his contemporaries, he set about writing a history of the development of 'The Sanusi Order', isolating some eight fundamental processes at work in this development; and in doing this he sought, by way of example, to give an exposition of what he thought to be the manner in which history should be used. Later, in a public lecture (called 'Anthropology and History', and republished in Essays in Social Anthropology, 1962) at the University of Manchester, he gave his views on the different uses to which several kinds of history could be put. After castigating social anthropologists for turning away from history--and perhaps I should say that the suffering of severe castigation is an occupational hazard in social anthropology--he turns to some of the consequences of this breach with history. The first consequence is the uncritical use of documentary sources, and he notes, rightly, that while famous figures of the past were 'remorseless' in their attacks on the theories of their colleagues in the subject, they accepted with almost bland uncriticality the data on which their own theories were based, a habit which has been with us until the present. This structure is to be taken all the more seriously as comparison, with the very considerable increase in specific studies, gathers momentum. For, as I understand Evans-Pritchard's remarks, anthropological monographs are documents, much as are the documents handled by historians, and should be subject to the same techniques of criticism. The second consequence of this breach with history is that insufficient attention has been given to the reconstruction of social institutions from the historical records of people or the verbal histories preserved by peoples themselves. On the surface, at least, these are two distinctively different kinds of history. Among people not schooled to literacy, history, it might be thought, is no more than some kind of collective folk memory. Different issues, one might
Read full abstract