C.A. Willis and the “Cult of Deng: “A Falsification of the Ethnographic Record

The ethnographic record of Africa, on which anthropologists and historicans rely, is drawn from accounts of widely varying quality written by observers of varying ability. It is frequently distorted, and while we often suspect distortion in specific accounts, we are not always able to pinpoint how that distortion occurred or on what sources it was based. For this reason any use of the ethnographic record must include some form of source criticism if the modern researcher is to have any hope of assessing the quality of the ethnography, or even of discovering just what the record records.“We knew that truth is to be had,” wrote Collingwood, “not by swallowing what our authorities tell us, but by criticizing it,” and modern anthropologists apply this principle in their theoretical reassessments of the classic ethnographies of their predecessors. Many reinterpretations of the works of such anthropologists as Sir Edward Evans-Pritchard have drawn on other sources in the ethnographic record to make their criticisms. But in general anthropologists have found it easier to confine themselves to examining intellectual influences on scholarly works by tracing the genealogy of academic theories, than to investigate what shaped the thoughts and observations of non-academics. The works of soldiers and administrators, for instance, have not always been analyzed as rigorously as the works they are used to criticize. An essential element of source criticism is therefore often missing.