Abstract
The North-American anthropologist Marshall Sahlins is famous for his dialogue with History. Paradoxically, between the decades of 1950 and 1980, this dialogue was marked by the absence of historians. But how was this possible? How could Sahlins have maintained this dialogue with History for so long with absent historians? Our hypothesis is that this became feasible thanks to a historiographical myth that was present in his texts: the myth of the “conventional historian”. In order to test this hypothesis, we will work with writings by Sahlins and other anthropologists. We will try, with these writings, to chart his dialogue with History and reconstitute its context of development. We will also use the concept of “historiographical myth” by historian Sérgio da Mata. Our conclusion is that Sahlins historiographical myth was sustained by the absence of historians and vice-versa - something that left its mark in the dialogue between him and History.