Ethnographic research almost by definition focuses on the small-scale；in anthropology such research takes the classical form of “participant observation，” whereby long-term fieldwork through socially intimate interaction as between the researcher and his or her objects of research hopefully provides knowledge and understanding unobtainable through other means. Given such circumstances of scholarship，to speak of “historical anthropology” as a research strategy might seem to be an oxymoron：reliance upon documents or other products of the past，even within a limited field setting providing physical and oral historical context，cannot capture the rich ethnographic detail required for the totalizing，“thick” cultural description and analysis that are the goals of ethnographic endeavor. This said，there remains the obvious fact that ethnography，being restricted to the present，leaves beyond its purview the cultural and social dimensions of much of the human experience. It is also true that by its very nature historical anthropology as a research technique is highly dependent upon data availability. In ethnography，the people are there and the real issue（other than the competence of the researcher）is whether they are accessible. In historical anthropology，researching the past requires ample and detailed documentation within and with reference to the chosen field setting. The field site must be both accessible and worth getting to in respect of the data available there.