Renzo S. Aroni Sulca
New York University, United States1
This essay explores oral history historiography from an Indigenous perspective, i.e., the distinctive ways Indigenous peoples connect with and understand their worlds. It underscores the vital role of orality and storytelling in producing and transmitting knowledge, culture, and traditions—essential tools that empower Indigenous communities to survive, preserve their identity, and resist colonization, dispossession, and assimilation. To explain how oral history became central to my work, I’ll begin with my own story, one rooted in the Andean highlands and shaped by conflict, memory, and resistance.
My journey with oral history began in my early twenties while studying history at the Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos in Lima, Peru’s capital city. Unbeknownst to me at the time, I was already immersed in the practice of oral history, conducting recorded interviews in Quechua, the most widely spoken Indigenous language family in the Americas, my native language, with survivors and relatives of wartime victims from the highland mountains of Ayacucho, the region where I grew up. This region was the epicenter of Peru’s internal armed conflict between the Maoist Shining Path guerrilla group and the Peruvian state from 1980 to 2000. My goal was to preserve their memories and firsthand accounts of guerrilla warfare using tape recorders, ensuring that these testimonies could be referenced and researched in the future.
My interest in eyewitness accounts began through my human rights activism and advocacy following the conflict, which resulted in at least 69,280 deaths, primarily among poor, rural Quechua-speaking Indigenous peasants. Their relatives endured immense suffering, and their communities were often devastated, as documented in the 2003 report by Peru’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission2. Growing up amidst this conflict in Ayacucho’s small Indigenous peasant community of San Juan Mirata, I witnessed gruesome human rights abuses. I became one of the half a million internally displaced refugees in one of Lima’s poorest shantytowns called Manchay amid the dry, dusty desert valley. This experience shaped both my personal and academic life. It taught me to listen deeply and connect with people from different backgrounds. That’s how I became an oral history practitioner.
While my early work came from lived experience and community knowledge, academic training later introduced me to the formal field of oral history. This helped me see how my practice fit within broader scholarly debates. As I pursued higher education within the Western theories, methods, and historiographies, I came to understand oral history as an interdisciplinary field that requires both methodological and ethical practices. According to the Oral History Association (OHA), “Oral history is a field of study and a method of gathering, preserving, and interpreting the voices and memories of people, communities, and participants in past events.” The OHA highlights that the field is both ancient and modern, stating, “Oral history is the oldest form of historical inquiry, predating the written word, and one of the most modern, initiated with tape recorders in the 1940s and now utilizing 21st-century digital technologies.” (https://oralhistory.org/about/do-oral-history/)
To better understand oral history’s place in the discipline of history, it’s helpful to trace how Western historians have treated storytelling, from ancient times to modern academic institutions. Notably, foundational figures of Western historiography, like Herodotus and Thucydides, relied on oral traditions and eyewitness accounts due to the scarcity of written texts. Even during the Middle Ages, storytelling was essential for knowledge production and transmission, especially in rural communities. In the 19th century, however, history became a professional discipline that emphasized objectivity and relied more on written sources. Leopold von Ranke was instrumental in this change, focusing on political, religious, and military events and figures within a chronological framework known as historicism. By the 20th century, historians from the French Annales school, especially Fernand Braudel, began examining social and economic structures, expanding historical perspectives beyond Ranke’s historicism. After World War II, American historians revitalized oral history by using personal testimonies and tape recorders to create narratives of wartime experiences. A significant development occurred in 1948 when Allan Nevins founded Columbia University’s Oral History Research Office, contributing to the establishment of oral history as a formal discipline in American academia. In 1966, the Oral History Association was founded in 1966 to support those dedicated to oral history. By the 1970s, universities began creating oral history centers, including the UTEP Institute of Oral History, established in 1972 to preserve stories from the US-Mexico borderlands.
Then, during the vibrant 1960s, another major change occurred: historians began to uncover the stories of everyday people, particularly those in the working class, women, and marginalized groups who had often been overlooked by traditional historiography. British Marxist historian E.P. Thompson was a pioneer of this shift, advocating for social history and a “history from below” approach. His remarkable work on the formative consciousness of the English working class during the Industrial Revolution emphasized the significance of everyday experiences and the voices of ordinary people, challenging elite narratives (Thompson 1966).
Thompson’s contributions inspired a new generation of oral historians, reinforcing the value of these previously neglected perspectives. Alessandro Portelli, a prominent Italian oral historian, shares a focus similar to that of Thompson by examining the experiences of the working class. Portelli examines the narratives of workers engaged in industrial conflicts in Harlan County, United States, and Terni, Italy. His influential book, The Death of Luigi Trastulli and Other Stories, has significantly transformed the field of oral history (Portelli 1991).
Instead of concentrating on factual accuracy, Portelli delves into the meaning, subjectivity, narrative, and memory associated with historical events. Portelli argues that oral history goes beyond recounting events; it examines the complexities of collective memory, exploring why individuals remember experiences in particular ways and how they understand their past events. Elizabeth Jelin, an Argentine scholar in memory studies, supports this perspective by asserting that memory is a selective and evolving process influenced by both individual and group interests, as well as power dynamics (Jelin 2003). Both, Portelli and Jelin contribute to debates about history and memory, agreeing that history allows us to rectify memory by historicizing it and understanding its subjective nature rather than relying solely on objectivity. Their works are important references for oral history and memory studies. Portelli’s approach to oral history was influenced by his background in literature and folk music, which allows him to view oral histories not merely as fragmented memories, but as narratives that possess specific structures and meanings. My graduate training in anthropology, ethnomusicology, and history—with a focus on Native American and Indigenous Studies—gained in both Mexico and the United States, has similarly informed my interdisciplinary approach of oral history, particularly from an Indigenous perspective. I approach Indigenous studies through a hemispheric lens by examining the work of scholars who employ Indigenous research methodologies. In the following discussion, I will highlight two key examples of Indigenous oral history scholarship, starting with the Andes and then moving to Zealandia.
In the Andes, the city of La Paz, Bolivia, became an important center for Indigenous oral history with the creation of the Taller de Historia Oral Andina, or THOA, in 1983. This workshop was founded by a group of professors and students committed to recovering and telling Indigenous histories. Their goal was to challenge colonial ways of doing research, promote Indigenous knowledge systems, and empower communities through storytelling and activism. THOA’s work grew alongside the resurgence of Indigenous political movements in Bolivia, especially the Katarista and Indianista movements, inspired by 18th-century leader Túpac Katari, which called for a return to Indigenous identity and self-determination.
One of THOA’s most influential figures was Silvia Rivera Cusicanqui, an oral historian and longtime professor at the Universidad Mayor de San Andrés in La Paz. She helped shape the direction of the workshop by mentoring Aymara students who had recently migrated from rural areas. She encouraged them on a decolonization journey to reconnect with their communities, learn from their elders, and reclaim their Indigenous identities through oral history. This work included collecting stories, sharing them back with their communities, and building new models of education grounded in Indigenous memory and historical consciousness (Dawn 2020). Rivera Cusicanqui goes beyond the “coloniality of power” paradigm, which examines the lasting impacts of European colonial structures on Indigenous identities. She advocates for decolonizing practices that empower Indigenous peoples to reclaim their identities and confront colonial legacies, including “internal colonialism” and “mestizaje” (racial mixing) (Rivera Cusicanqui 2020, 57-58).
A key concept in her thinking is ch’ixi, an Aymara word, that describes the coexistence of opposites (Rivera Cusicanqui 2023, 144-145). For example, Indigenous and European ways of life do not blend into something new. Instead, they exist side by side, sometimes in tension, but without canceling each other out. This juxtaposition leads to a “logic of the included third,” suggesting that rather than limiting oneself to two opposing viewpoints, one can uncover a new and nuanced identity. (Rivera Cusicanqui 2010, 64-65). For example, just as mixing black and white produces grey, these contrasting elements can create deeper and innovative understandings. Rivera Cusicanqui uses this idea to challenge superficial concepts of multiculturalism and hybridity, which often paint Indigenous identity in romantic or oversimplified ways rather than addressing structural inequalities. Instead, she argues for a deeper kind of coexistence that resists colonial structures and supports Indigenous sovereignty. These ideas have profoundly influenced THOA’s mission to decolonize minds and challenge official narratives regarding Indigenous peoples.
THOA’s methodology incorporates Indigenous frameworks, founded on agreements between interviewers and interviewees, and embody the Quechua principle of ayni, which signifies reciprocity (“I give you, you give me”) (Criales y Condorero 2016). This fosters trust and enhances communication in the languages of the interviewees. Conversely, many Bolivian historians rely solely on archives and don’t speak Aymara or Quechua, missing vital oral accounts. By conducting interviews in Indigenous languages, THOA promotes identity and helps recover suppressed histories. Their work also embodies what Rivera Cusicanqui designates as investigación-acción, a collaborative methodology intended to generate knowledge and promote transformative actions (Rivera Cusicanqui 1987).
Following this approach, THOA members interviewed community members, primarily elders, to communally reflect and gather histories, traditions, life stories, and myths, which were then compared with archival records. The narratives are transcribed in their original languages and translated into Spanish, thus forming a manuscript. Their efforts emphasize Indigenous resistance and leadership, particularly that of Aymara leader Santos Marka T’ula, who advocated for land reclamation and Indigenous identity in the early 20th century. (THOA 1989). Through ayni, they revitalized and returned these narratives, employing innovative methods such as radio programs, telenovelas, and film screenings (Dangl 2019).
In the neighboring Peruvian Andes, anthropologist Zoila Mendoza practices a similar approach. Her latest work, Qoyllur Rit’i: Crónica de una peregrinación cusqueña (Qoyllur Rit’i: Chronicle of a Cuzco Pilgrimage), based on her 2015 documentary, documents an annual pilgrimage through oral history and sensory experience (Mendoza 2015). It showcases the ayni practice by returning collected oral histories and traditions to the community. Produced bilingually in Spanish and Quechua with the Pomacanchi community, the book focuses on ritual, music, and movement, what she calls kinesthesia, as key to Indigenous Andean knowledge transmission through visual, auditory, and bodily movements (Mendoza 2021, 52). Mendoza argues that Andean oral tradition reflects a cyclical (not circular) concept of time, which allows space for change and adaptation, as there is always space for new elements introduced throughout history (Mendoza 2021, 26). For Quechua and Aymara peoples, as Rivera Cusicanqui, Mendoza and other authors have indicated, the past is in front of them and the future is behind (Rivera Cusicanqui 2023, 84-91). The past is something visible that shapes the present, while the future is unknown. This sharply contrasts with Western ideas of linear, progressive time.
Too often, Indigenous oral traditions are dismissed as folklore or myth, associated with prehistoric and uncivilized societies in popular discourse and Western academia. Māori oral historian Nephia Mahuika observes that these perspectives were mainly relegated to anthropological and folkloric studies aimed at Western audiences, usually produced by non-Indigenous scholars who distinguish tradition from oral history as if they were separate fields. As a result, Indigenous oral histories are viewed as false, unreliable, or merely imaginative tales of the so-called “other.” This viewpoint often ignores and fails to recognize the Indigenous oral histories, knowledge, ethics, and protocols that are essential to Indigenous communities (Mahuika 2019, 16-18).
Conversely, Mahuika, reflecting the views of his Ngāti Porou tribe, a Māori community in New Zealand, argues that oral traditions are valid and living historical accounts as well as sources of Indigenous historical knowledge and cultural practices. Indigenous oral traditions are vital for producing and transmitting oral histories for Indigenous peoples, expressed in their own terms and shared through various forms, gatherings, and practices while adapting and evolving over time. “For Ngāti Porou,” Mahuika states, “oral history is expressed in various ways through speakers who interweave memories, songs, proverbs, and stories that present our oral history explicitly in our language. They consist of sayings, metaphors, and chants, many of which have been, and are still used to drive home important ideas about how we transmit knowledge verbally, visually, and spiritually, in personal and collective ways” (Mahuika 2019, 166-167). For Mahuika, Indigenous oral history as a dynamic and living process, not merely a collection of past stories, but a continual creation and transmission of Indigenous knowledge systems, political views, cultural identities, and native languages. It counters dominant colonial narratives and historical records while shaping Indigenous peoples’ interactions with Western practices and ideas by validating their knowledge systems and worldviews. These counternarratives constitute an “ongoing decolonial struggle, reclamation, and liberation” (Mahuika 2019, 4).
Expanding this argument further, Mahuika challenges traditional oral history approaches by advocating for Indigenous communities to create their own oral histories from within, rather than allowing external researchers or historians to construct them. This approach aims to empower Indigenous peoples to reclaim their narratives and reshape their own understandings of history. Mahuika’s empowering approach resonates deeply with THOA’s commitment to enabling Indigenous communities to assert ownership over their historical narratives. These methodologies developed by Indigenous scholars and for Indigenous peoples reflect their unique worldviews and knowledge systems (Smith 2021).
More specifically, Mahuika’s scholarship challenges conventional oral history approaches based on structured interviews, life narratives, and an interpretive mode of analyzing stories through analog or digital recordings. Instead, he advocates for a community-led approach, discouraging dependence on external researchers who often misconstrue Indigenous perspectives and knowledge systems. An Indigenous perspective on oral history values community knowledge and viewpoints within their frameworks, protocols, and ethics. These protocols, anchored in Indigenous worldviews, reposition, translate, and make relevant any approach that seeks to represent native oral histories. This empowers Indigenous peoples to reclaim their narratives and reshape their historical understanding.
In this light, traditional methods, such as interviews and participant observations, reinforce researcher interpretations instead of empowering Indigenous communities. Mahuika states, “Although the oral history interview method is designed to capture the voices of narrators, it is not so much the practice that is emancipatory and enabling, but the interpretive analysis researchers assign to it.” He adds, “The participant observation approach facilitates an opportunity to hear, see, and experience oral traditions and histories in action, yet is not a method renowned for its empowerment of the researched” (Mahuika 2019, 136). From this angle, he aligns with oral historian Paul Thompson, who contends, “Historical information need not be taken away from the community for interpretation and presentation by the professional historian. Through oral history the community can, and should, be given the confidence to write its own history” (Mahuika 2019, 136).
Finally, reflecting on his interview experiences, Mahuika explains that an Indigenous oral history approach requires multisensory engagement with the surroundings to fully grasp the context in which an interview takes place, particularly when working within an Indigenous worldview. Indigenous knowledge is often embedded in practices, relationships, and the environment itself, rather than solely in verbal explanations. He then highlights the importance of perceiving the environment through sight, sound, taste, and even the nuances of voices, as these elements aid in understanding a person’s subjectivity within their knowledge systems. For instance, Mahuika conducts interviews by incorporating activities such as walking, singing, eating, drinking, and engaging in rituals (Mahuika 2019, 124-125). This method aligns with Zoila Mendonza’s concept of Andean sensory learning and knowledge sharing, which combines auditory, visual, and kinesthetic experiences in a holistic manner. Unlike traditional Western models that emphasize written or spoken language, the methods of Mahuika and Mendoza involve actively embodying knowledge through participation in ceremonies, rituals, and daily activities within Indigenous contexts.
I began this essay by recounting my personal experience with oral history. In tracing its historiography, I’ve come to see a significant shift, transitioning from ‘history from below’ to ‘history from within’. While continuing to focus on the experiences and perspectives of ordinary people holds value today, the goal now must be to reclaim history within Indigenous communities, rooted in their knowledge systems and worldviews. The idea of “giving voice to the voiceless,” while well-meaning, can sound paternalistic. It risks ignoring the agency, resistance, and empowerment already present in Indigenous communities. What is most needed now, as highlighted by oral historians in this essay, is to empower Indigenous peoples to tell their own stories from their viewpoints, directly dismantling colonial narratives. Rivera Cusicanqui and Mahuika assert that Indigenous oral history serves as a decolonizing practice and a form of emancipation that questions the very field of history, coloniality, and its enduring impacts. While these scholars do not dismiss written sources, they emphasize orality and storytelling, reclaiming oral traditions as credible historical narratives alongside archival sources, and integrating Indigenous knowledge systems. As a result, Indigenous oral history enables communities to reclaim their oral traditions as valid knowledge practices and to confront colonized interpretations of their past and present.
1 This text was prepared as part of the Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú EDGES team while I was a professor at that university. I am currently an Assistant Professor in Indigenous Studies at the New York University.
2 The Truth Commission was created in 2001 during the transitional government of Valentin Paniagua after the fall of Alberto Fujimori’s authoritarian regime (1990-2000) and delivered its final report in August 2003. For more details, see the Reporte final at https://www.cverdad.org.pe/ifinal/. Accessed on February 25, 2025.
Bibliography
Criales, Lucila y Cristóbal Condoreno. 2016. “Breve Reseña del Taller de Historia Oral Andina (THOA)”. Fuentes, Revista de la Biblioteca y Archivo Histórica de la Asamblea Legislativa Plurinacional, 10, 43: 57-66.
Dangl, Benjamin. 2019. The Five Hundred Year Rebellion: Indigenous Movements and the Decolonization of History in Bolivia. Chico: AK Press.
Jelin, Elizabeth. 2003. State Repression and the Labors of Memory. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Mahuika, Nēpia. 2019. Rethinking Oral History and Tradition: An Indigenous Perspective. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Portelli, Alessandro Portelli. 1991. The Death of Luigi Trastulli and Other Stories. New York: State University of New York Press.
Mahuika, Nēpia. 2019. Rethinking Oral History and Tradition: An Indigenous Perspective. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Mendoza, Zoila. 2021. Qoyllur Rit’i: Crónica de una peregrinación cusqueña. Lima: La Siniestra Ensayos.
Mendoza, Zoila. 2015. “Exploring the Andean Sensory Model: Knowledge, Memory and the Experience of Pilgrimage”. En Ritual, Performance and the Senses, ed. Jon P. Mitchell and Michael Bull, 137-152. New York: Bloomsbury.
Mendoza, Zoila, dir. 2015. The Pilgrimage to the Sanctuary of the Lord of Qoyllur Rit’i: The Walk Experience. Berkeley: Berkeley Media. DVD, 44 min.
Oral History Association. “Oral History: Defined”. Revisado el 5 de marzo, 2025. https://oralhistory.org/about/do-oral-history/
Rivera Cusicanqui, Silvia. 1987. “El potencial epistemológico y teórico de la historia oral: de la lógica instrumental a la descolonización de la historia”. En Temas Sociales 11, IDIS/UMSA: 49-64.
Rivera Cusicanqui, Silvia. 2020. Ch’ixinakax utxiwa: On Practices and Discourses of Decolonization. Medford: Polity Press.
Rivera Cusicanqui, Silvia. 2023. Un mundo ch’ixi es posible. Ensayos desde un presente en crisis. La Paz: Piedra Rota.
Sinclair, Sara Sinclair, ed. 2020. How We Go Home: Voices from Indigenous North America. Chicago: Haymarket Books.
Smith, Linda Tuhiwai. 2021. Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples. London: Zed Books.
Taller de Historia Oral Andina (THOA). 1989. El indio Santos Marka T’ula. Cacique principal de los ayllus de Qallapa y apoderado general de las comunidades originarias de la república. La Paz: THOA – Universidad Mayor de San Andrés (UMSA).
Thompson, E.P. 1966. The Making of the English Working Class. New York: Vintage Books.
Thompson, Paul. 2000 [1978]. The Voice of Oral History. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2000
Tuck Eve y K. Wayne Yang. 2012. “Decolonization is not a metaphor”. Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education & Society 1, 1: 1-40.