Preface:
The two ethnographies assigned in this class are about the same community or people (The Western Apache) written some years apart by the same
anthropologist (Keith Basso). These ethnographies by the same author and ostensibly about the same people are radically different from one another. While
some of this can be simply a factor of changing styles of ethnographic writing in Anthropology from the 1960s to the 1980s, it also likely shows evidence of
Basso’s evolving theoretical framework. This presents an interesting question regarding the nature of ethnographic inquiry more broadly construed because
it was written by the same author of the same group. Is one more authoritative than the other? Does he contradict or correct earlier omissions or errors? Do
differences between the two ethnographies represent ad locum changes? Ethnographies as artifacts of anthropological inquiry are necessarily synchronic
even if the fieldwork was extensively diachronically oriented by the very nature of being a written document, which is an obstacle to fuller understanding. By
examining how Basso discussed certain topics, we may gain not only a better understanding of the Western Apache but of the nature of ethnographic
research, itself.
Additional Info:
While there are some fine sources on the Western Apache, there is not a ton of peer-reviewed material out there compared to groups like the !Kung
(Ju/hoansi) San or even the Lakota or Navajo. With that in mind, we are broadening the ethnographic literature to include other Apache groups like the
Jicarilla, Lipan, Mescalero, Plains Apache, and San Carlos Apache in addition to the Western Apache. While there are some minor (but not necessarily trivial)
differences between these groups (such as the topographies and resources available), there is still much in common. Therefore, this paper will allow you to
expand your research to include these groups as well.