Reviewed by Jenice P. Stewart The University of Missouri-Columbia
Anthropologist Donald E. Brown does an exceptional job of convincing the reader that the quality of historiography is affected by the patterns of social stratification within literate societies. Social stratification implies more than one social class within a society and refers to an individual’s “social placement fate” within a society. Social stratification may be dependent upon genealogy (cast system) or individual capability (open system). In a cast society, a person is inhibited from uttering the truth about the upper echelon, therefore the account or historical writing is usually tainted ideology (ahistory) to the upper strata. In an open society, the historian has the freedom of speech to write objectively on his findings. Thus, open stratified literate societies have potential for a more sound historiography than closed or cast literate societies. Brown studies three time periods, Ancient, Medieval, and Renaissance, and four geo-graphic areas, Asis, Near East, Greece, and Rome.
Donald E. Brown’s story is convincing because he applies the “scientific” research method to develop and test his hypoth-esis. The “scientific” method includes defining a “problem” and resultant hypothesis, systematic tests of hypothesis, and con-trolling for external and internal validity [Kerlinger, 1973; Abdel-khalik and Ajinkya, 1979]. The “problem” defined by Brown is why are some literate societies full of “quality” (objective) historical recordings while others are not? For example, late dynastic Egyptians were a literate society with little recorded history. The tools were available for Egyptians to record sound history and additionally their literate neighbors,
Mesopotamian and Hebrews, maintained crude historical rec-ords. Yet the Egyptians were not recording their history, that is, they had given little or not merit to historiography. Florentines of the early Renaissance were also literate, but they provided quality and abundant historical writings.
Brown proceeds to investigate scientifically why some liter-ate societies appreciated and wrote objective history and others did not. His initial society of investigation was the Brunei’s, located in northwest Borneo, Malay. Brown finds Brunei history minimal, with stereotyped renderings of individuals. Upon investigation of a common event, the British gave a more concrete rendering of the individual than the Brunei. Brown then rationalizes that the Brunei are avoiding candid comments about the higher echelon of society because objective writings were not tolerated in Malay society. In essence, the Brunei, of a cast society, were thought-controlled and therefore limited in their renderings of the upper strata. In contrast, the British, of an open society, were free to give their objective rendition of any strata of society. After making these observations about the Brunei and British, Brown develops and empirically tests the
following hypotheses:
Ho: There is no difference in the quality of historical writing between literate open stratified and cast stratified societies.
Ha: No hereditarily stratified society would have de-veloped sound historiography [p. 5].
Abdel-khalik and Ajinkya (1979) state that defining a re-search problem includes delineation of the scope of the study. Brown, in defining the problem and resultant hypotheses, dis-cusses the scope of his research. Brown investigates literate societies only, although he has no reason to speculate that his hypothesis does not apply to oral history, too. However, apply-ing Brown’s hypotheses to oral history represents another study.
Brown, a native Westerner, is the sole researcher of this study. Interpretations of his findings are from a Westerner’s viewpoint, therefore his interpretations may not be sound but based upon observations that resemble those of Westerners. Brown minimizes this limitation by using objectively developed judgment (e.g., for seven months Brown researched London and Brunei public records and spent fifteen months in Brunei gathering oral and written history). In many instances, Brown finds that his interpretations are similar to those of non-
Brown proceeds to test his hypotheses by establishing characteristics of open and cast societies, systematically apply-ing these criteria to other societies, and comparing their respec-tive quality of historical recordings. A closed or cast society is where rank is determined by genealogy. The upper echelon usually represents the royalty which can only be acquired through physical birth into the royal family. In an open society, rank is acquired through achievement or merit. In characterizing a social strata system, emphasis is placed on the ideaology (controlled thought imposed by the higher echelon) reflected in the historian’s writings, laws, and practices over long periods of time. Brown thus develops objective criteria, with the assistance of scholar M. G. Smith, in determining the social stratification of a community. This systematic means of objectively classifying societies enhances the internal validity of the study.
Brown then systematizes the testing of his hypotheses by defining “patterns of historiography,” that is, what is classified as good (based on objective accounts of the past) and bad historical renditions (myths). Sound history (historiography) maximizes its objective content, relies on primary sources whenever possible, and minimizes its subjective content. Historiography is based on the authenticity, validity, and truth of the event communicated, and on the effectiveness with which the knowledge is communicated. Ultimately, sound history is based on Brown’s subjective assessments. However, he uses Hexter’s [1968, p. 384] “reality” rules and Brown looks
for precise orientation in space and time, accurate chronology, the ability to detect anachronism, access to trustworthy sources, critical procedures for evaluating sources, an adequate psychology, logical coherence, the exclusion of physical impossibilities, and a minimal resort to the supernatural [p. 12].
Historiography includes two criticisms that are peculiar to historical research: internal and external criticism. External criticism refers to the authenticity of the data source and internal criticism refers to “the content of the source or docu-ment and its meaning” [Kerlinger, 1973, p. 702].
Brown minimizes internal criticism (seeking “the true meaning and value of the content of sources of data” [Kerlinger, 1973]) by recording patterns associated with open and closed stratified societies. For example, Brown notes a society’s degree of individualism, conception of human nature (uniform vs. nonuniform), extent of biographical writings, realism of portraiture, extent of uniformity in education, humanistic-secular orientation, extent of interest in natural and social science, and elaboration of divination. These traits tend to accompany open stratification and are not present in closed stratified societies. The consistency of these patterns being found or absent in open or closed societies provide strong evidence that Brown’s interpretations did not distort the truth. Rather, Brown’s interpretations were found to be consistent with the historical facts. As stated earlier, Brown examined many testimonies and written documents of a common account for consistency, which minimizes external criticism.
Finally, Brown applies his tests to not only one set of closed and open stratified societies but to three closed (cast) societies, Java, Bali, and Malaya (including the Brunei), and to three open stratified societies, Burmese (Burma), Vietnamese, and Macas-sarese (Makassar/Bugis). These additional comparisons enhance the generalizability (external validity) of his findings across similar societies and adds more validity to his results when compared with competing hypotheses.
Unlike external validity, internal validity is more difficult to control in historical research. When in the field collecting data, the historian cannot manipulate his/her independent vari-ables. Thus, Brown has to provide evidence on why his independent variables (social stratification type: open or closed) has an effect on quality of historiography rather than some other independent variable. Other independent variables that are supported as “determinants of ahistory” include agriculture, religion, economic conditions, literacy, and political decentralization. After Brown investigates these independent variables in the societies he studies, he concludes that while these alternative variables “explain some variation, they explain relatively little of it” and do not always apply across societies [p. 307]. Brown further provides many examples of the failure of alternative variables to explain the quality of historiography of societies [see pp. 307-315].
Brown’s scientific approach to conducting research provides a valuable guide to those who desire to do historical research. For historical seminars, this book would be useful in illustrating use of the scientific approach in developing empirical historical research studies. This book should be read by all who are interested in accounting historiography because Brown uses scientific research methods to provide convincing and powerful evidence that open stratified societies spur good and sound historiography and closed stratified societies are associated with ahistory. Brown also provides an interesting, entertaining, and intellectual walk through non-Western cul-tures.
REFERENCES
Abdel-Khalik, A. R. and Ajinkya, B. B., Empirical Research in Accounting: A Methodological Viewpoint (American Accounting Association, 1979).
Kerlinger, F. N., Foundations of Behavioral Research (Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1973).
