{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.026680896478121666, 'fraction_numerical': 0.017075773745997867, 'mean_word_length': 5.559440559440559, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Reading William Bittle and Charles Brant: On Ethnographic Representations of “Contemporary” Plains Apache

Abstract This article analyzes the writings of William Bittle and Charles Brant concerning “contemporary” Plains Apaches in the 1960s. Specifically, it examines how Bittle (1962) argues for agency among the Plains Apache through his discussion of the Manatidie dance and how Brant (1969) denies agency to the Plains Apache through his introduction to Jim Whitewolf’s life-story. For Brant (1964), the Plains Apache were “disintegrating.” For Bittle, the Plains Apache were creatively responding to outside forces. Ultimately, the lens by which Brant and Bittle approached Plains Apaches was due to their length of research and to their continued or lack of continued contact with Plains Apaches. Their intellectual heritages may have predisposed them to adopt different perspectives concerning Plains Apache agency and creativity.