PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
May 3, 2026Annales Histoire Sciences Sociales0 citations

Native American History, or the End of Anthropology? (Review Article)

View Full Paper
GHGilles HavardCentre National de la Recherche Scientifique

Key Points

  • This article reviews two books on Native North American history and critiques the treatment of Native agency and rationale.
  • Review of 'Indigenous Continent' by Pekka Hämäläinen and 'The Rediscovery of America' by Ned Blackhawk.
  • Analysis of the authors' perspectives on Native agency and historical scholarship.
  • Discussion of the implications for the interplay between history and anthropology.
  • Hämäläinen emphasizes colonial variety, while Blackhawk focuses on Native agency, highlighting contrasting historical visions.
  • Both authors reject anthropological approaches that oversimplify Native cultures, but their terminologies risk erasing cultural differences.
  • The article advocates for a collaborative approach between history and anthropology to enrich understanding.

Abstract

Focusing on two books that seek to renew the study of Native North American history, Indigenous Continent: The Epic Contest for North America by Pekka Hämäläinen (2022), and The Rediscovery of America: Native Peoples and the Unmaking of U.S. History by Ned Blackhawk (2023), this review article offers an opportunity to survey the current state of the field. Both authors raise two of the major questions that animate the scholarship: that of Native Americans’ agency, widely acknowledged and accepted by the historical community, and that of their rationale for action, for which contrasting visions divide historians. Here, I consider the extent to which Blackhawk’s and Hämäläinen’s emphasis on Native agency may in fact have the effect of obscuring reflection on those logics. Although Hämäläinen, unlike Blackhawk, insists on the risks of teleology and strives to highlight the variety of modes of colonial intrusion, the two historians are united in their renouncement of a form of anthropology that once sought to render the cultural integrity of Native Americans. The analytical lexicon they propose (for example, the term “empire”) sometimes leads to an erasure of cultural difference and a distortion of history. This article therefore argues for a renewed complementarity between history and anthropology.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Gilles Havard (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/69f6e6478071d4f1bdfc6e11https://doi.org/10.1017/ahss.2026.10156
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper