| Abstract: | The history presented by the Ömie in the pre-Independence research appears fundamentally different from the history presented by the Ömie in more recent research. The basis for considering these two renditions as analytically equivalent is examined. It is proposed that the justification lies not so much in the content of the two representations as in the negotiations of the terms of the ethnographic encounter which elicited them. It is proposed that these renditions of history are actually the terms of the relationship between the researcher and the informants negotiated in the course of their interaction on two separate occasions. |
