TIME PERSPECTIVE IN ETENOGRAPEY1
John Howland Rowo
Thero is loss agreement than one might expect among anthropologists
regarding the importance of timo relationships in thoir data, and it may
be well to begin this discussion of time perspectivo in ethnography at
a level of definition where we can oxpect rathor general agrooment, with
the statement that human beings and human behavior exist only in time.
In a study of any aspect of humn culture, then, timo is a factor which
is always present. This fact does not necossarily make it imperative for
us to take a time factor into account in such a study, howevor. If the
culture we are studying is not changing in time, then the time factor
is constant and it can be ignored. If the culture is changing, it becomes
very difficult to justify ignoring this fact in any description or analy-
sis of it. For anyone undertaking ethnographic field work, thon, it be-
comes very important to decide whother the culture to be studiod is chang-
ing or is not changing. Even if wo pick a base dato in the past and say
that wo want to describo, not the culturo of today but that of 1895, wo
need to know whethor the culture was changing in 1895 or not.
The problem is more complicated still, from the field worker' s point
of view, for he is studying tho culture of nen and womon of varying ages
whose behavior is conditioned at loast in part by provious exporiencos
back to the tine of thoir birth. If any changos have taken placo in tho
culture within tho lifotino of the peoplo living at the time to which
the description rofors, these changos will be part of their immoediate ex-
porionce and must be recorded as part of tho background of their behavior.
It is probably safo to say that the ethnographer neods to know whothor
any change has taken place in the culture he is studying in a period of
60 to 80 years iLmodiatoly preceding the date of the description, because,
if any change did occur within this period, it is directly relevant to
his problem of description.
If my reasoning so far is sound, wo have grounds for oxpecting that
any thoughtful ethnographor would concern himself with tho question of
whother or not the culturo he studies has changed in the imodiate past
and that he would includo some remarks on it in his report. Logically,
such remarks might take ono of three forms. The ethnographer might say
that he had investigatod the mattor and concluded that there had boon no
change within the rolovant period so that he felt safe in ignoring this
factor. Or, he might say that he had tried to make such an invostigation
and boon unablo to socure the data needed in spito of conscientious efforts.
Finally, becauso he had investigated and had found that changes occurrod,
he might simply include a discussion of such changes as they fitted into
his descriptive data. I am, of course, speaking of studios which aro
primarily descriptive rather than of monographs devoted oxplicitly to
problems of culture change. In recent years a few monographs have appeared
embodying an approximation to the third alternative treatment of the prob-
len suggested above, but even in the best of such reports the reader does
55
not got the inpression that the ethnographer was giving systoeatic atten-
tion to the recording of recent changes as part of his general investiga-
tion. It is not hard to find reports in which not oven the possibility
of change Is mentioned., There are also statenents in sone of our theore-
tical literature to the effect that knowledge of changes is not relevant
to studies of cultural function. What is going on in anthropology?
One of the things that is going on is that many anthropologists operate
at least part of the tine on the unstated and usually unconscious assunp-
tion that cultures other than our own, and small rural comunities even
in our own culture?, do not change at all or change so infrequently and so
slowly that the problon of change can safely be ignored when a time-span
as short as 80 years is being considered. The fact that lack of short-
term change is being assumed rather than determined by investigation is
worth emphasizing; I know of no case where evidence for lack of change
is discussed. The assumption of the short-term changelessness of other
people's culturos goes back, of course, to the theories of cultural evo-
lution curront in the lato ninetoenth century; it provided the logical
basis for the famous "comparative method" in which the world's cultures
were to be arrangod in a series according to their degroe of sinilarity
to our own and used to reconstruct earlier stages in the development of
our culture for which written records aro lacking. It was only possible
to explain the European Palaeolithic by l9th century Tasmanian culture
by assuming that there had been no change in Tasmanian culture sinco the
end of the Pleistocone, to give an extremn example.
It is not the purpose of this paper to undertake a goneral criticism
of evolutionary theory. It is portinont, however, to ask whother we have
grounds for assuming that any culture has not changed over any period of
80 years for the purposes of planning a job of ethnographic field work,
whatever our beliefs about long-range cultural procosses may be. Most
othnographers get into their notes only those things which they soe or
ask about, and it could happen, and probably has happened, that investi-
gators who assumo that there, has been no rocent change in the culture they
are studying record none and are confirmed in their beliefs in cases wherc
fairly substantial changes have, in fact, occurred. On the other hand,
an othno6grapher who accepts the possibility that therc might have been
recent changes and looks for thea, is in an excellent position to find
out if they have occurred or not.
The developnent of an intorest in studies of diffusion in the early
part of the prosent century produced no sudden abandonnont of the assump-
tion that cultures other than our own change little. The retention of
this particular ovolutionary prenisc led the diffusionists to concontrato
on discussion of changos which were relatively rcmote in time, while their
ethnographios renained timoless. The outstanding statenent of American
diffusion thoory is, of course, Edward Sapir' s "Time perspective in abo-
riginal Anerican culturet", published in 1916.  This work occupies 74 pages
in the 1949 edition, exactly throe of which are devoted to methods, such
as docunontary evidonce and native testimony, which might be expectod to
yield data on rocent changes. In the commonts on documentary evidonco,
56
tho emphasis is on the use of historical records over 100 years old; in
those on native testimony, it is on legends and traditions of tho rela-
tively remote past. I have an improssion that Sapir would have admitted
rather readily the possibility that recent changes might havo occurrod
in a given North American Indian culture, if he had been askod in so many
words; the fact remains that in practice ho ignorod it.
The influenco of the same assumption that cultures other than ours
change slowly or not at all can be traced in the acculturation study move-
ment which has been so influential in American anthropology since the early
thirties. Although the pioneers in this novement woro notivated in part
by dissatisfaction with the tineless atmosphere of many othnographies,
they were primarily intorested in one particular type of change, that re-
sulting from the influence of one culture on another, and tended to ignore
internal innovations. Furthermoro, in practice, most acculturation studios
have been concorned with the inpact of our own culture on some other un-
der such conditions of pressure that the influence was heavily in one di-
rection. It has been easy for devotees of acculturation to qualify tho
old assumption only slightly, acting as though they assumod that cultures
other than our own changed slowly or not at all except under pressure from
us, when they changed rapidly in the direction of assimilation. Whatever
the theory, anthropologists have always shown a strong tendency to ignore
the problem of recent chango in culture in their practice of ethnographic
fiold work, the one situation in which evidence for or against such change
could be rather easily collected.
There is nothing particularly difficult or evon unfamiliar about the
basic nothods that an ethnographer needs to apply in the study of recent
change; some of then have been used for special purposes in ethnographic
work for the past fifty years, and the rest were developed in accultura-
tion studies. All that is needed is a little ingenuity about combining
them and extending their application, and there is no roason why such
..ingenuity should not be forthcoming as soon as fiold workers recognize
the importance of the problem. Some suggestions, stemming in part fron
my own experiences studying the Andean Indian coLunity of Guamb{a in
Colombia, may help to clarify this point.
The problem, essentially, is to reconstruct as nuch as possiblo of
the cultural history of the community studied in the period remembered
by the members of it who are living at the time the study is made. The
cultural history of earlier periods is, of course, an interesting and
important subject for investigation, but it is loss imediately relevant
to the problem of description and the available ovidence is likely to
be more limited.
The reconstruction of rocont cultural history is likely to be most
successful when the ethnographor is studying a functioning comunity and
describing it as of the dato of his study. Under these circumstances,
the investigator can depond entirely on the tostimony of his informants
if written rocords are lacking, or conbine his intorview data with anything
:ho can glean from written sources if the latter exist. The key to the
57
procedure is to colloct nueorous dotailod biographies and porsonal remi-
niscences, with special attention to the informant's oxperiences with any
cultural changes that have taken place; much valuable descriptive inforl2a-
tion should result from such biographies in addition to the historical
testimony they furnish. Reminiscences by informants of key figures recont-
ly dead are also important, and all this biographical information can
be kept in order if systematic genealogical records are being secured at
the same tine. Another important line of investigation is tho history
of individual objects or particular institutions. In taking notes on build-
ings, for example, it may well be possible to determine the age, circum-
stances of construction, history of repairs, and changos in use by ques-
tioning the occupants or other informants who know saaething about it.
This sort of investigation will ofton lead to information about changes
in architectural style that would otherwise have escapod the ethnographer's
notice. Smaller objocts, such as textiles, utensils, weapons, and boats
can be treated the sa   way.  In suggesting a study of tho history of
institutions, I am thinking of the possible importance of historical data
about schools, public offices, associations, poriodical cereonnies, markets
or stores, local industries, dances, and many other similar mattors.
There is no reason why the ethnographer should foel that all he can
get in this way is a myth about the past, that particular distortion of it
which his informants have developed. By asking specific questions, follow-
ing many different linos of investigation, and working with a number of
informants of differont backgrounds, the ethnographer should have an ex-
cellent chance of reconstructing what actually did happen as well.
It should even be possible to build up a fairly detailed chronology.
If the people studied do not keep a count of years, the genealogical no-
thod can be made to yield a close approximtion of ono, with sone special
attention to its chronological aspects such as the intervals betwoon births.
For example, in a large family with parents still at middle age there may
well be married older children while the youngost is still suckling.
By questioning about nonths elapsed betwoon the births and the stage of
development roached by the noxt older child when a new one was born it
should be possible to determine the approximate intervals and give a rough
birth date for each child. The interval between marriage and the birth
of the first child will give the date of marriage. Several such genealo-
gical chronologies taken down for neighboring or rolated families can
be cross-checked by asking a mother which noighbor's child was born Just
before hers, and so forth, and by such comparisons the dates for each
separate chart can be made more prcise. All notable evonts in the familyl s
experience such as marriages, deaths, serious illnesses, strokes of good
or bad fortune, moving of residence, etc., should be related to the basic
birth series chronology. Events of public importance such as wars, fa-
nines, epidemics, floods, storms, oclipses, droughts, chan6os of authori-
ty, and rare ceremonies can be used as keys to cross-chock genealogies
from families that have little direct contact with one another. With pa-
tience and care a chronology built up in this way can be brought to a
point where any event which an informant can recall as associated with any
other event can be datod at least to the year for some time into the past.
58
For almost a century now it has been rather difficult to find a com-
munity for which there were literally no written records for the recent
past. Even whore the members of the comunity do not write themselves,
they have some contacts with missionaries, traders, travellers, soldiers,
or administrators who do. Usually only a small part of the available writ-
ten rocords are of any real use to the ethnographor, but that small part
may yield priceless information, especially if checked against the testi-
nony of informants. The ethnographer must expect to have to do his own
searching in this material, for his chances of finding a trained historian
who is willing to work on then aro practically non-existent. The techniques
are not especially difficult and have been mastered by many students of
acculturation.
Documents which may be of interest may be found in formally organized
archives, or they may be in privato hands. Any local institution, such
as a school, store, court, or place of worship, may have a file of oor-
rospondence and other records; it is especially inportant to detormine
whether any systematic records of births, marriagos and deaths are being
kept. Private individuals may have diaries, old letters, accounts, and
legal papers which are well worth exanining. One of my Indian informants
in Guanb{a showed me an account of the exponditures at an old funeral
which suggested a number of important questions about changos in funeral
practice.
I have not found that a decision to collect data on recent cultural
history adds substantially to the task of fiold work. Historical question-
ing cannot be separated from descriptive questioning, and the practice
of following historical leads nearly always turns up additional descrip-
tive information that would otherwise have beon missed.
Two cases from my own experience in Guambifa will furnish an appropri-
ate conclusion to these remarks about tho importance of recording data on
rocent history in ethnographic field work. The first is in the field
of costume. Nearly all women in Guanbfa and some of the men wear an ola-
borate and unusually shaped hat which does not fit the head but rests on
top of it, whore it is hold in place by a chin cord. This hat is wide
and flat and is made by sewing a flat braid into a spiral. Tho hat is
entirely unlike any headgear known to have been usod by any other people,
Indian or white, that the Guambfans might have cone into contact with,
and it was natural to assumo, as anthropologists often do assumo in such
cases, that the hat was an old aboriginal trait handed down fron the tino
of the Spanish conquest. A little questioning, howevor, revealed that
many of the older people could remember when this type of hat was not used,
and they described to ne two successive earlier styles of hat, one of
which survives to the present as a part of the special wedding costume.
Both the earlier types of hat have obvious European prototypes. In this
particular case I was unable to find out anything about the circumstances
under which the present hat style was invented, but thero seeos little
doubt that it was a local invention and one that cannot be attributed to
thne influence of the doninant whites.
59
The second case involvos potatoes. One of the oarliest historical
reforences to potato cultivation describes it for a district not far from
Guanbfa to the south, and it seens highly probable that the potato was
a staple in Guambfa at the tine of the Spanish conquest as it is today.
When a visiting botanist started asking me questions about potato varieties,
I discovered that my descriptive notes on the subject were not adequate
and started to catalog the varieties now being cultivated. My best inforn-
ant mentioned that one of the varieties ho was describing had been brought
recently from a neighboring valley, and it occurred to me to ask questions
about the history of the other varieties as well.  It turned out that all
seven of the varieties now being cultivated had been introduced through
native initiative within the last twenty years and that the circumstances
of each introduction were reasonably well known to my informant. I was
also told about two older varieties, bolieved to be extinct, which were
remonbered from earlier years, and one newer variety which had been tried
but failed to catch on. Since this experience, I havo been wondering how
often studento of native agriculture in this henisphere have assumed that
the present distribution of some American plant will tell them where it
was used in the sixteenth century. Knowledgo of the experimentation with
new varieties which has gone on recontly in Guanbi*a has also affected
my estimate of my informants' attitudo toward farming in general.   I doubt
if thero is anything unique about the situation I found in Guanbfa.
60
ENDNOTE
1. Read before the Annual Mooting of the Western States Branch of
the American Anthropological Association, Stanford University, Decomber,
1952.