Page 4
 
  As I relate Momaday's work to historiography, I am left to ponder this question: does
Momaday's work qualify as a "history?" For the traditionalist, perhaps not. After all, there is
no over-riding thesis, nor is there even a formal bibliography. Furthermore, Momaday does
not always disclose the sources for his "historical" accounts (a source of particular irritation
for this reader -- one that could have easily been rectified). On the other hand, Momaday
did not intend for his work to be published by the American Historical Association. His is
not an example of history as"science," but rather, history as "art."
  While I can see the structure of Momaday's book serving as a proto-type for a more in
depth study, I believe that his work can stand upright on its own merit (even in historical
circles). In poetic fashion, he provided "sound bites" from the past (perhaps enough to
entice a general audience to probe deeper into the subject, thus leading them back to a
more scholarly approach).
 
- thomas visscher