The Nahua NewsletterWith support from the Department of Anthropology
Indiana University-Purdue University Fort Wayne
Alan R. Sandstrom, Editor
A Publication of the Indiana University
Center for Latin American and Caribbean Studies
February 1995, Number 19
The Nahua Newsletter
With support from the Department
of Anthropology
Indiana University-Purdue University Fort Wayne
Alan R.
Sandstrom, Editor
A Publication of the Indiana
University
Center for Latin American
and Caribbean Studies
Welcome to the latest issue of the Nahua Newsletter, your window onto the world of scholarship on the culture, history, and language of Nahuatl-speaking peoples. In this issue controversy strikes as Doren Slade and Hugo Nutini react to James Dow's review of Slade's book, Making the World Safe for Existence: Celebration of the Saints among the Sierra Nahuat of Chignautla, Mexico, which appeared in NN #18 last November. The editor has been in contact with Dow who agreed to write a response to Slade and Nutini for inclusion in the next issue. The disagreements are over matters that will be of interest to readers. At stake is the role of science in cultural analyses, the nature of ethnography and ethnographic description and explanation, the role of ideology in social life, and other important points of debate.
Also in this issue are news items, announcements, book reviews, a list of used books offered by Quabbin Books, and a directory update. The editor urges all readers to take a few minutes and send along any news, requests for information or cooperation, project updates, suggestions or opinions to the address below. The newsletter is an excellent way to inform other professionals and students about your interests and activities. Please accept this invitation to join the international invisible college of Nahua specialists and Mesoamericanists. If your communication is longer than a few lines, please send it on a 3.5-inch disk saved in WordPerfect or as an ASCII/DOS text file.
Despite the generous contributions of NN readers and the small grant we received from the Indiana University Office of International Programs, our finances remain uncertain. The recent postal increase hit us hard and seriously depleted our reserves. If you find the NN to be of use and you have not contributed recently, please consider doing so now. The NN is a lean and mean operation. There is no administrative overhead, and all funds received are used to underwrite printing and mailing costs. The editor continues to search for permanent sources of income but at this point we rely totally on the generosity of readers. Please mail checks made out to the Nahua Newsletter to:
Alan R. Sandstrom Nahua Newsletter Department of Anthropology Indiana-Purdue University Fort Wayne 2101 Coliseum Blvd. East Fort Wayne, Indiana 46805
Good luck to everyone, and we will see you again in the fall.
(1) The Midwest Mesoamericanists will be holding their annual meeting on March 24-25, 1995, at Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana. The meeting will be held in the new Liberal Arts and Education Building on Purdue's main campus. Festivities include a Friday night reception and a Saturday night event held at the Fowler Mansion, home of the Tippecanoe County Historical Association.
This is an excellent meeting that covers all areas of research relating to Mesoamerica. It is attended by many of the top professionals in the field and yet is small enough to have an intimate feel. Don't miss this opportunity to get to meet some of the movers in Mesoamerican studies.
For information on the program and lodging, please contact Richard Blanton, Department of Sociology and Anthropology, 1365 Stone Hall, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana 47907-1365. Office phone (317) 494-4681, department phone (317) 494-4672.
(2) Another meeting announcement:
LAILA/ALILA
12th International Symposium on
Latin American Indian Literatures
16-18 June 1995
Excursions to Teotihuacán, Cacaxtla, Tlaxcala, and museums
in Mexico City
19-23 June 1995
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
Mexico City
Topics: Papers presented will be from the
perspective of anthropology, art, astronomy, architecture, bibliography,
codices, history, ethnohistory, indigenista literature, linguistics,
literary studies, medicine, religion, rock art, etc.
Lodging: The most convenient hotels to U.N.A.M., their addresses,
and phone numbers are: (1) Royal Pedregal, Periférico
Sur 4363, Colonia Jardines en la Montaña, 726-903; (2)
Radisson, Colonia Parque del Pedregal, 606-4211; (3) Benidorm,
Avenida Cuauhtemoc y San Luis Potosí, 584-9899; (4) California,
Eje Central y Cuauhtemoc; (5) Lisboa, Avenida Cuauhtemoc, 574-7088;
and (6) Real del Sur, Avenida División del Norte esq.
con Calz. Tlapan, El Reloj, 678-1133. Present rates range from
about U.S. $43.00 to U.S. $113.00 for a single room; doubles
start at U.S. $46.00. Prices may not include IVA (15%) and are
subject to change.
For information, contact Monica Barnes, Program Chair, 377 Rector Place, Apt. 11J, New York, NY 10280.
(3) And another:
American Society for Ethnohistory
1995 Annual Meeting
Call for Papers/Notice of Meeting Dates
Radisson Plaza Hotel at Kalamazoo Center
Kalamazoo, Michigan
2-5 November 1995
Papers, Organized Sessions, Special Events, and Speakers that treat any world area are encouraged. Abstracts of 50-100 words on appropriate submission forms and preregistration fees of $45 (nonmembers), $35 (members), $15 (students/retired) are due by June 2, 1995.
Write for submission forms and return to ASE 1995 Meeting Chair, Dr. Donald L. Fixico, Department of History, Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, MI 49008-5020. Phone: (616) 387-4629, FAX: (616) 387-3999.
Limited travel funds will be available on a competitive basis for students presenting papers. More detailed abstracts will be required. Write to the Meeting Chair for application forms and further details.
(4) The Foundation for the Advancement of Mesoamerican Studies, Inc. announces a Foundation Grant Competition available for studies concerning ancient Mesoamerica. Awards normally range between $1,000 and $5,000 ($10,000 is the maximum amount awarded). Applications are welcome from scholars in such fields as anthropology, archaeology, art history, history, humanities, linguistics, and social sciences. Deadlines are September 30 and April 30.
To receive a brochure detailing policies and requisite qualifications, write to: Sandra Noble Bardsley, FAMSI, 268 South Suncoast Boulevard, Crystal River, FL 34429-5498. Phone: (904) 795 5990 or (904) 795-7721, FAX (904) 795-1970. E-mail to "sandynoble@aol.com".
(5) Cristián Alvarez Martínez of the Universidad Iberoamericana wrote to say that he read a paper at the I Foro Estudiantil de Intercambio Academico held at the Universidad Iberoamericana in November, 1994. The title of his presentation was "Algunas Implicaciones Sociales de la Estructura Barrial en San Esteban Tizatlan, Tlaxcala." If you are interested, please contact the author for a copy, at 403 E. Bradshaw Lane, Palm Springs, CA 92262.
(6) Terry Stocker has written from South Korea:
Hyundai Apartment 102-1203
Daeho-dong
Haju City, South Korea
Nahua Newsletter,
For some time, I contemplated moving to Asia in order to better understand "global archaeology." I had been eyeing Korea because it has a documented case for the invention of a writing system (the Hangul alphabet was invented in 1446). And Korea is known for its shamanism. An opportunity presented itself I couldn't pass up. The most rural area of Southern Korea, Chollanam-do, decided to "import" ten native speakers to "converse" with English teachers and middle-school students. It is an anthropologists's dream. My wife and I have our friends (informants) discuss their lives. The animal imagery (tigers and pigs, etc.) of the older (30 and up) people's dreams has helped me much better understand what I read in Sahagún. Modernization has taken animal imagery from the younger people. The mountain of each village has a tiger spirit to protect it. Color symbolism is alive with the old people.
This area is also an archaeological wonderland. One tid-bit: in the early 1300s, a Chinese ship sank along the coast of Chollanam-do. It had a carrying capacity of 200 tons, and it was carrying 27 tons of coins. Over 200 complete ceramic vessels were recovered. That boat provisioned for exploration could have gone to the New World and back three times!
What I like best about my living situtation is walking through the old sections of Naju and seeing architectural layouts like those I helped excavate in Tula. There are house compounds with one large social room and sleeping areas around it for the extended family. Of course, with the "epistemological biasing" of the Missouri Project, the large rooms were simply called individual peasant houses. "We" were in search of peasants (see Tula of the Toltecs). I have presented a different interpretation of those elite architectural units in both my dissertation and "Who were the Toltecs and What Did They Do?" presented at the 13th International Congress (Mexico City), which will be published next year. The variation of construction within the compounds is also astounding -- there are complete stone walls right beside wattle-and-daub.
At the 3rd World Congress, I am slated to give a paper, "The Aztec 260 Day Count is not a Calendar: It is an Augery Table." The 260 day count did funtion in conjunction with the solar calendar to mark certain periods of time, but its primary function was as an augury table and this is documented in Sahagún's The Soothsayers. This paper is one of the scientific foundations for my book A Walk Through an Aztec Dream, which I think will be out in 1996.
(7) Here follows a list of books available from Quabbin Books, P.O. Box 14, New Salem, MA 01355. For more information on their books in anthropology and archaeology, all offered in regularly issued catalogues, see the November 1994 issue of the NN.
CUTTER, CHARLES R. The Protector de Indios in Colonial New Mexico, 1659-1821. U. of New Mexico Pr., 1986. 129 pp., 6 illus. Cond. exc. 14.00.
FOSTER, GEORGE M. Empire's Children: The People of Tzintzuntzan. Smithsonian Inst. of Soc. Anthro., Publ. 6, 1948. 297 pp., 16 plates. Paperbound. Cover detached, waterstains on borders of plates. Cond. good. (o.p.) 12.00.
FRIEDLANDER, JUDITH. Being Indian in Hueyapan: A Study of Forced Identity in Contemporary Mexico. St. Martin's Pr., 1975. 205 pp., photos. Cond. exc. 14.00.
FROMM, ERICH & MICHAEL MACCOBY. Social Character in a Mexican Village. Prentice-Hall, 1970. 303 pp. Cond. v.g. (o.p.) 16.00.
GREENBERG, JAMES. Santiago's Sword: Chatino Peasant Religion and Economics. U. of Calif. Pr., 1981. 227 pp. Cond. exc. (i.p. 30.00) 16.50.
HAWKINS, JOHN. Inverse Images: The Meaning of Culture, Ethnicity and Family in Postcolonial Guatemala. U. of New Mexico Pr., 1984. 470 pp., 26 photos. (pb) Cond. exc. (o.p.) 11.00.
LEWIS, OSCAR. Life in a Mexican Village: Tepoztlan Restudied. U. of llinois Pr., 1951. 512 pp., 62 illus. Cond. good. (o.p.) 15.50.
MARTIN, CHERYL. Rural Society in Colonial Morelos. U. of New Mexico Pr., 1985. 255 pp. Cond. exc. (i.p. 27.50) 15.00.
RUBEL, ARTHUR J. et al. Susto, a Folk Illness. U. of California Pr., 1984. 186 pp., 12 photos. Cond. exc. (i.p. 37.50) 15.50.
SHERIDAN, THOMAS E. Where the Dove Calls: The Political Ecology of a Peasant Corporate Community in Northwestern Mexico. U. of Arizona Pr., 1988. 237 pp., 17 photos. Cond. exc. (i.p. 30.00) 16.00.
SPICER, EDWARD H. Potam: A Yaqui Village in Sonora. Amer. Anth. Assoc. Memoir 77, 1954. 220 pp., 4 plates, 11 figs. Paperbound. Cond. v.g. 11.50.
STEWARD, JULIAN H., ed. Contemporary Change
in Traditional Societies. Vol. III: Mexican and Peruvian Communities.
U. of Illinois Pr., 1967. 302 pp. Cond. v.g. 16.00.
TAYLOR, WILLIAM B. Landlord and Peasant in Colonial Oaxaca. Stanford
U. Pr., 1872. 287 pp., 3 plates, 7 maps. Cond. exc. (i.p. 32.50)
16.00.
VELEZ-IBANEZ, CARLOS. Rituals of Marginality: Politics, Process, and Culture Change in Central Urban Mexico, 1969-1974. U. of California Pr., 1983. 296 pp. Cond. exc. (i.p. 45.00) 15.00.
For new readers of the NN, the editor would like to restate our policy to review a limited number of important books on the history, cultures, and languages of Peru.
Pampa Grande and the Mochica Culture. By Izumi Shimada. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1994. Pp. xv+328. $60.00 (cloth). ISBN 0 292-77674-8.
Moche culture has fascinated and titillated anthropologists and others for a century with its massive monumental architecture, occasionally sumptuous burials and sexually explicit pottery. Izumi Shimada's Pampa Grande and the Mochica Culture is a landmark volume on Moche culture that represents the culmination of 20 years of research by the author. The book is a must-read for any Andeanist, and it provides valuable data and theoretical arguments for anyone interested in high civilization research, as in Mesoamerica.
There are two components to the book -- an authoritative evaluation of Moche culture, and a description of Shimada's excavations at the late Moche site of Pampa Grande. The book is notable for several reasons. Shimada's excavations at Pampa Grande are a major archaeological achievement in and of themselves. Moche is one of the more renowned and popular aspects of Peruvian prehistory, and Shimada provides an invaluable analysis of this enigmatic culture. Shimada's methods and careful evaluation of archaeological data represent the best of Peruvian high civilization research. Finally, Shimada brings contemporary theories of state formation and collapse to bear on the problem of the Moche, and so his work serves as a model for anthropologists concerned with these phenomena.
Moche culture occurred along the north coast of Peru between roughly A.D. 1 to A.D. 700. Moche sites contain monumental architecture, a distinctive art style primarily exhibited on pots, possibly stratified social organization, organized craft production, and predatory expansion. This phenomenon experiences a nascence, a florescence, and a collapse, and may provide valuable comparative data to the Mesoamerican researcher.
The book begins with a detailed history of research on the Moche. The first chapter provides the reader with knowledge of what data exist, under what conditions they were gathered, and what research yet needs to be done in order to answer our questions about the Moche. This is followed by a description of the geographical and environmental setting of Moche on the North Coast of Peru, indispensable information for Shimada's later constructions of the Moche past and interpretations of Moche society. The next three chapters provide an analysis of the origin and development of Moche culture. Shimada is careful to present all alternative theories of Moche development, and fairly provides evaluations of competing theories. In nearly all cases, Shimada finds that despite a century of research, we still lack the data necessary to evaluate fully competing theories of Moche society. All the same, he provides his own cautious evaluations, and properly notes what future research needs to be done to resolve the various controversies surrounding Moche culture.
The status of Moche as a state is one example of Shimada's cautious evaluation of competing theories. Some researchers have argued that Moche at its florescence was a state. Others have argued that Moche consisted of competing chiefdoms whose elite shared religious icons. Shimada evaluates these competing hypotheses by looking both at the extant data and the methods of interpreting the data. He notes that samples are terribly biased in favor of grave goods looted or excavated from burials in monuments, the archaeological dating of Moche sites is imprecise, and assumptions about the uniformity of Moche art styles are overstated. This makes any evaluation of hypotheses difficult. He also notes that much of the analysis of the Moche phenomenon is based on the untested assumption that iconography equals polity.
Moche sites are largely identified by shared icons and art styles found for the most part on pottery. Shimada very correctly points out that the connection between art and politics, while sensible, is an untested assumption. He should be praised for his honest and insightful cautions about the widespread use of this assumption, an assumption that underlies much of high civilization research anywhere in the world. Although self-critical, Shimada does not allow these problems to cripple his research, and he proceeds with a careful analysis and so provides us with the best possible interpretations of Moche culture to date.
One of Shimada's important theoretical contributions is his analysis of Moche expansion along the coast of Peru as a form of horizontality. Horizontality is an extension of the theoretical notion of verticality, important to many analyses of Andean society. Verticality is a phenomenon whereby Andean polities extend their control over the production of environmental zones that correspond to varied altitudes in the Andes. Shimada argues that the Moche sought the same type of control over production along the Peruvian coast. This is an intriguing idea that could explain the expansion of the Moche phenomenon along the coast, and it is an idea that is potentially testable.
The last half of the book details the excavations of the major late Moche site of Pampa Grande. This site is notable for both being a large Moche site that exhibits urban and state-like features (large monumental architecture, internal differentiation, craft production, administrative architecture), and for exhibiting the collapse of the Moche phenomenon. Shimada considers all forms of data, architecture, settlement patterns, artifact analysis, faunal analysis, floral analysis, and iconography in his interpretation of the significance of Pampa Grande in Moche culture. He reviews different interpretations of Pampa Grande, and provides his own interpretation that Pampa Grande was certainly an urban center and possibly a city-state that emerged in response primarily to climatic stress. He also explains the sudden collapse of Moche as the result of a revolt against the burdensome bureaucracy that emerged to organize production during times of stress, but was no longer needed once the agricultural crisis was solved (p. 261).
Pampa Grande provides very well preserved remains that exhibit craft production in cotton textiles, chicha beer, and pottery. Pampa Grande also provides clear evidence of a sudden, violent collapse in the burning of elite structures while non-elite structures appear unmolested. Obviously, these data could be important for comparative purposes for Mesoamerican researchers considering similar collapses.
Shimada's interpretations of the archaeological data from Pampa Grande share the same appropriate cautions of his interpretations of earlier Moche archaeology. His research is also notable for the careful use of ethnohistorical documentation on Andean social forms and his use of ethnoarchaeological research on modern pottery making, chicha production, and cotton processing in northern Peru. The ethnographic record of the Andes provides a wealth of information on Andean technologies that can aid archaeological interpretations, and Shimada incorporates this information in his research to enrich his archaeological interpretations.
In conclusion, Izumi Shimada's Pampa Grande and Mochica Culture will certainly become a standard source in Peruvian archaeology. He masterfully reviews and synthesizes previous research, provides a wealth of new data on Pampa Grande, and offers contemporary interpretations of the rise and fall of Moche culture. The book is clearly written, well organized, and has abundant line drawings and maps that illustrate the archaeological patterns and rich artistic tradition of the Moche. This is essential reading for any Andean archaeologist, and it provides obvious parallels to the rise and fall of archaeological cultures in Mesoamerica and elsewhere. Also, his careful regard for the strengths and weaknesses of the archaeological record, and his judicious use of ethnohistorical and ethnoarchaeological data should serve as a model for archaeological interpretation.
Lawrence A. Kuznar
Indiana-Purdue University Fort Wayne
This science fiction novel takes place in the year 2045, one hundred years following the atomic bomb attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki and sometime after a major world conflagration called Armageddon. The world is a very different place in 2045. The United States has become a third-world power, Africa is economically developed, and the current world center of commerce and culture is Mexico. The name of the capital city has been changed to Tenochtitlan, D.F. and it has been largely rebuilt in a neo-Aztec architectural style. In the Zocalo looms an enormous reconstruction of the main pyramid at Tenochtitlan that serves as a focal point for the revival of Aztec culture and power.
The protagonist of the story is a poet and songwriter named Xólotl Zapata who is famous for writing a hit song called "Mundo Nenatzin" and a popular comic book called "Teoguerrillas." Xólotl lives in a world in which cultural organizations vie with one another for domination. The Neliyacme are one such violent gang whose members dress in the garb of ancient Aztecs and who want to purge Mexican society of all foreign influences. They proudly display scars on their chests to show that they have made the trip to Guadalajara where their hearts were removed and replaced with artificial ones. The Neliyacme compete with other less extreme Aztec nativist groups and do battle with various organizations that combine Aztec elements with Japanese or Korean cultural features, for example. There are also rival groups that advocate a return to Spanish Catholicism. The language of the day is Españahuatl, the greatest hit song is "Huitzilopochtli, Eat My Heart," and it is the rage in Mexico to have blond-haired, gringa maids. Everybody remarks about the maids' cute accents as they struggle to pronounce the Españahuatl words.
Xólotl Zapata is marked for death by the Neliyacme who believe that "Teoguerrillas" is a disguised criticism of their attempt to reestablish Aztec urcivilzation. Xólotl is also involved in a mysterious group called the STVN (Surrealist Terrorist Voodoo Network) that was founded to critique the status quo but whose members now take the rabble-rousing work of the organization too seriously. This organization becomes involved with the bizarre research of a South African scientist named Ingrid Moeketsi who has developed a virus that causes people to become religious true believers. The plot twists and turns, bouncing between the horrors of a police state with high-tech weaponry and eavesdropping equipment and the feverish hallucinations that the protagonist endures as he is captured first by one enemy then another. Throughout the text Españahuatl words are used indiscriminately, lending an air of unreality to the entire story. The book is an example of what might be called Latin American sci-fi magico-realism.
Those who enjoy science fiction will probably find pleasure in this book, particularly if they have an interest in the Nahuatl language and Aztec culture. I found the book entertaining and clever in the complexities of its plot. While it is not a profound book, it deals with a topic of interest for all Mesoamericanists -- the process of syncretism. How and why do cultures blend to form something new? Throughout the tale the mysterious word TICMOTRASPASARHUILILIS appears spraypainted on walls throughout Tenochtitlan, D.F. The graffito is an example of the blending of two languages, and like the resolution of the involuted plot, its meaning is not revealed to the reader until the very end.
Many thanks to John Carlson for donating a copy of High Aztec to the NN for review.
Alan R. Sandstrom
Indiana-Purdue University Fort Wayne
Following are two responses to James Dow's review of Doren Slade's recent book. Professor Dow will respond to these critical rebuttals in the next NN. The editor encourages debate on issues of general interest to readers but reserves the right to eliminate comments of a personal nature that do not serve to forward scholarly discussion.
James Dow's review in November's Nahua Newsletter of my recent book, Making the World Safe for Existence: Celebration of the Saints among the Sierra Nahuat of Chignautla, Mexico (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1992) mystified me. Judging from the tone and content of Dow's review, I should be banished from the realm of anthropology forever. Dow's statements about my book read more like the craft of spin doctors than one anthropologist reviewing the work of another. My 24 years of ongoing fieldwork in this community clearly stated in the preface of my book is replaced by Dow with: "After twenty years of experience as a psychoanalyst, the author went over her tapes of her early field interviews..." (p. 10). From the beginning, Dow seems worried that his armor of objectivity will be revealed to be the illusion it is. Standing within the fort of scientific morality he brandishes terms like "theorizing correctly," "objectivity," "scientific knowledge," "empirical," "replicable" (see p. 12), as if to ward off the menace of "non-science" he sees in my work. Thus, from outside the gates barred against all who dare to interpret as a means of explanation, lest they destroy the scientific bases of knowledge, I respond to Dow's review, fully aware that Dow would relegate my book to the level of story telling (see Dow's note in Dec. 1994 Anthropology Newsletter v. 35, #12). If Dow fears the subjectivist hordes knocking at the gate, and wishes to mount a counterattack to preserve all that he holds as "truth," then he should say so. That is, if Dow sees the postmodern bogeyman under the bed, then he should engage it, and I would join him, but he cannot kill postmodernism by making me his straw man.
In his review, Dow does not invite discussion of ideas in a tailored and scholarly fashion that should follow from the significant differences in our conceptual perspectives regarding the nature of cargo systems. Nor does Dow address my systematic explanations as to the nature of the system I observed in Chignautla. What does Dow think of my statement clearly stated on p. 1 of my book: "...I have taken a stance that assumes a close functional relationship between the structuring of individual experience and the patterning of social conduct. This approach rests on the premise that the ideological system of a people that structures social institutions and the core assumptions that structure the experience of the individual are inseparable epistemologically...." Instead, Dow chastises me with barely concealed hostility in his screed regarding my professional status as both an anthropologist and a psychoanalyst. This tactic is transparent. To quote D.H. Fischer (Historians' Fallacies: Toward a Logic of Historical Thought. New York: Harper, 1970): "The fallacy of argument ad hominem occurs in many different forms, all of which serve to shift attention from the argument to the arguer. Among its more common varieties are, first, the abusive ad hominem, which directly denounces an opponent... A second variety of argument ad hominem is circumstantial. It consists in a suggestion that an opponent's argument is merely a reflection of his interest... Third, there are associative ad hominem arguments, which attempt to undercut an opponent by reference to the company he [sic] keeps..." (pp. 290-91).
Dow misrepresents my book from the very first paragraph. He presents my methodology as that of pure induction/qua inference. Like most anthropologists of the 20th century, I move back and forth between induction and deduction. My Introduction includes a complex schema outlining the relationship between ideology and consciously held beliefs. I quote Chignautecos throughout the book so that their beliefs about their existence are made obvious to the reader. Inexplicably, Dow concludes: "She observes the 'attitudes' of cargo holders. From these she induces the cultural meaning of the rituals" (p. 10). Dow insistently ascribes my understanding to "...intellectual imagination and not any objective fact" (p. 11). He continues this line of reasoning by stating that I felt compelled to "...wax eloquently about the deeper meaning of the ritual symbolism that she has teased out of the 'unconscious' aspects of the participants 'experience,' which she feels she can comprehend with her methodology." On p. 12, Dow states that "The author concludes that successful ritual sponsors avoid vanity, arrogance, deviousness and greed (p. 56)." This is difficult to reconcile with my actual text on p. 56: "Chignautecos believe that successful ritual sponsors avoid vanity, arrogance, deviousness and greed, for at no time is anyone exempt from these injunctions. Obeying the men of the church becomes obeying the will of the saints, even though all individuals do not equally comply with such dictates." Unlike Dow, I differentiate my conclusions from those made by Chignautecos. I am also perplexed by Dow's point on p. 12: "It seems odd that one trained in psychoanalysis would ignore the possible denial of such emotions actually existing at the unconscious level." Apparently, Dow needs neither training in psychoanalysis nor a trip to Chignautla to be convinced that vanity, arrogance, deviousness and greed lurk in the Chignauteco unconscious. Nevertheless, nowhere in my book do I suggest that I have access to the unconscious of the ethnographic "Other." This is Dow's persistent error in his reading of my book, an error so profound that it invalidates his entire criticism. Had he taken the trouble to pay attention to what I actually wrote, he might have been more able to comprehend my methodology.
Furthermore, Dow dispenses with ideas that dispute previously held ethnographic "truths." He calls me to task for challenging the sacred cow of "prestige": "The author goes so far as to say that the desire for prestige is not a motivating factor in sponsoring cargos" (p. 12). Dow correctly reports that authority, respect, sacrifice and the value of sponsorships are interrelated aspects of this cargo system but apparently he believes these characteristics to be the same thing (p. 12): "...cargo service generates respect (respeto), but [Slade] insists that this is quite different than prestige (p. 82)." My book is dedicated to understanding these complex issues and it would have been interesting if Dow cared to discuss divergent interpretations of such matters. Instead, he defends the idea of prestige at the cost of logic, confusing human intention with the effect of human activity. Interpreting motivation through the lens of consequences constitutes intellectual sleight of hand. Dow makes a concerted effort to demonstrate that I have complete disregard for "real data" essential in the conduct of science. Dow states that I am "...less interested in the real consequences, such as economic ones, of the rituals" (p. 9). Since when are ritualistic, social and ideational consequences "less real" than economic ones? Dow also writes: "For example, the reader can also see that the Chignautla cargo system is a means for legitimizing wealth differences in the community in spite of the author's contention that it is a means of `sacralizing interdependence.'" (p. 11). Both may be true, but only in Dow's dichotomized universe of either/or is it true that the legitimation of differences of wealth makes the concomitant sacralization of interdependence unlikely or impossible.
In an effort to create an impression upon the reader that my argument has no logical stability, Dow juxtaposes incomplete ethnographic descriptions that bear no relation to each other. This is clear in the last paragraph of the review on p. 10. Unrelated floating facts are woven together so that the coherence of my presentation of relevant ethnographic material, carefully positioned in relation to my theory, appears nonexistent. Dow then feels free to call into question the veracity of the ethnographic data. For example, p. 1 of my preface states the ethnographic present as 1972. Why then does Dow write on the bottom of p. 10: "Changes are were [sic] taking place in the town during the ethnographic present, which we can assume was during the primary period of field work in 1970." More significantly, Dow writes: "...one wonders how the author knows that the following occurred during the Mexican Revolution" (p. 10). These data were gathered from informants who lived through the Revolution and created the basis for short-range, local, historical reconstruction as part of my chapter on the contextual framework for Chignautla's cult of the saints. Nowhere in my book do I present myself as an ethnohistorian. And further, Dow represents my discussion of economics and kinship as "minor descriptions" (p. 10) when, in fact, economics are substantially treated in a 30-page chapter, and kinship and compadrazgo are discussed and described in great detail in a 29-page chapter devoted especially to these topics.
Throughout the review, Dow pointedly ignores significant elements of my structural analysis by presenting only the data that would lead the reader toward agreement with his conclusions (see paragraphs 3, 5, 6, p. 10). On the one hand, he uses carefully selected words to create the impression that I have been deceptive and, on the other, appears to blame me for not having written the book that he would have me write, preparing the reader to believe the distortions he creates. Compare this statement taken from my conclusion: "These ideological elements are the major sacralizing vehicles that sustain unconsciously held assumptions about the natural order of things and what may be expected to follow from venerative acts" (p. 203) with Dow's rendition "...unconsciously held assumptions follow from venerative acts..." (p. 11). Dow cites contradictions as a defect in my work. I hope they are not as interesting as those in his review. He argues on p. 11 that the position of the mayordomos in the system is inexplicably contradictory. This is inaccurate. I clearly state: "Several cargos have overlapping duties, which gives them a combined role in the system's operation" (p. 59). Dow also writes, "When the author infers meaning from the behavior, she makes it clear that this is an analytical effort..." (p. 11). In the next paragraph he writes: "Unfortunately, the ethnographic facts emerge in a stream of consciousness rather than in a highly organized fashion." And finally, Dow's choice of phrases such as "philosophical ramblings" (p. 12) and "somewhat groundless system of abstract terminology" (p. 11) to name a few, use condescension as a vehicle of invalidation.
I will end with these thoughts. Dow's intention to discredit my book could possibly succeed if my book were not read. He strives to be the gatekeeper of scientific rigor, but is instead reminiscent of the SS officer, choosing who should pass to the left and who should pass to the right. In the final analysis, my book is of value to me because it emerged from my experience. And this is true for everyone. But, if my efforts also contribute to anyone else's struggle to comprehend the complexity of human nature then I have made a contribution. We should not be so easily lead into believing in intellectual altruism; that is, science purely for the sake of science. Neither should we fall prey to equating the study of subjectivity with indifference to science, nor should we equate objectivity with scientific perfection. In doing so, we do a disservice to the vitality of anthropology.
Doren L. Slade
New York, New York
James Dow's review of Doren Slade's book Making the World Safe for Existence in the November issue of the Nahua Newsletter is inadequate and biased and demands a firm response. Dow's review caused me to reflect on what constitutes an adequate, intellectually informative, and fair assessment of a scholar's work. One basic problem with Dow's review is that he does not regard Slade as a peer because she is now a practicing psychoanalyst. In disregard of Slade's many years of field experience, Dow refuses to grant that Slade is a trained anthropologist, imputes to Slade things she does not say, grossly misinterprets statements actually made in the book and attacks Slade as if she were a postmodernist, thereby implicitly crediting himself with combatting the virus that has recently infested anthropology. That Slade is not a postmodernist is clear from reading the book. However, even if she were, Dow is not the man to point out the fallacies and ultimate futility of postmodernism. His implied conception of science is outmoded, basically that of a 19th-century rank positivist. Since I have been informed that Slade will answer Dow's imputations herself, I shall dispense, therefore, with the details of Dow's charges and address two points -- Dow's implied view of science, and what a scholarly review requires.
Despite his good intentions in proclaiming the benefits of the scientific method and upholding scientific anthropology against encroaching nonscientific, humanistic elements, Dow remains wedded to a bygone conception of science -- like Boas, a prisoner of empirical facts. Boas' constraining empiricism is understandable given the fact that, as a scholar trained in the physical sciences, he imposed such strict verification requirements upon social facts that it became impossible for him to do much more than merely describe them (Nutini 1970:1166). But that this epistemological stance should still be guiding scientific anthropology nearing the end of the century, as exhibited by Dow, is inexcusable. Nagel (1961:447-546) pointed out more than three decades ago that the basic paradigm of science has changed since the onset of the 20th century. Granting the theoretical and methodological unity of science, but also very much aware that an enormous distance separates physics and anthropology regarding fundamental attributes (replication, operationalization, verification, and explanation), one supposes that most anthropologists (certainly those who regard anthropology as a science) would have transcended the old paradigm. Hempel (1962) and Nagel (1961) have rightly criticized the social sciences (anthropology included) for not adopting a strategy that is more consonant with the canons that have guided the conduct of physical science in the 20th century. In their view, this neglect has been largely responsible for the lack of explanatory dimensions exhibited by the social sciences.
Briefly, what are the main postulates of contemporary science that bear on the practice of anthropology? (1) Science is concerned exclusively with process (method) and not with substance. (2) Science assumes that there is "primitive" and "derivative" knowledge and, in order to accommodate the inductive and deductive elements always involved in a conceptual system, it is the duty of the scientist to establish an order of priorities between an axiomatic set and its implications. (3) Science involves the "bifurcation of nature" into the "postulated-but-not-sensed" and the "immediately sensed," or between formal constructs and empirical reality; it should be the main concern of the scientist to develop the transformation rules that mediate between the analytical properties of formal constructs and the empirical reality of facts.
Whatever else it may be, anthropology is primarily a science. But with the constraining differences between the physical and social sciences, how are these postulates to be implemented in anthropology? First, once facts have been gathered and observed as objectively as possible and without any theoretical bias and described in relation to themselves and their context, the inductive part of the anthropological process takes a back seat to the deductive mechanism that will explain the ensemble under consideration. In other words, remaining at the level of social facts will provide only partial generalizations not amenable to replication. The lesson of this injunction is that ethnographic facts are the necessary but not the sufficient conditions for generating explanations.
Second, the notion of different levels of knowledge (metalanguages) is of fundamental importance in the conduct of science; without it, it is operationally impossible to bridge the gap between facts and theory. The difference between primitive social facts (the language level) and derivative generalizations (the metalanguage) forces the anthropologist to pinpoint the junctures between inductive and deductive elements that generate explanations. Facts never speak for themselves; they speak only through the constructs they engender (Nutini 1971).
Third, the bifurcation of nature, as specified above, has never been part of the tradition of the social sciences, and Nagel (1961:504-509) rightly points out that this is the main reason why social science explanations have been unable to go beyond statistical generalizations. He charges anthropologists and sociologists with an unwarranted adherence to 19th-century positivistic principles in the correlation of social facts and, more significantly, with failure to apply the appropriate logical and epistemological strategies in order to arrive at explanations that transcend the statistical mode of generalization. Perhaps in anthropology we cannot achieve the formulation of deductive-nomological explanations, but thinking in terms of the bifurcation of nature rather than adhering to the notion that theories emerge at the empirical level, is certainly more fruitful in the search for explanations and the formulation of those elusive "social laws" of Radcliffe-Brown. Rank empiricism will at best result in detailed description, but it will never advance anthropology to a mature stage of conceptualization (Nutini 1968).
Dow's characterization of Slade's book is evidence of how unaware rank empiricists are about the nature and intent of science. With a defender of scientific anthropology like Dow, who needs the attacks of fuzzy, solipsistic postmodernists to send the science of man on its way to oblivion? Dow's review, so full of descriptive and analytical non sequiturs, reminds me of essays written by naive undergraduates who have discovered the great promise of science. When it comes to scientific inference (from empirical facts to analytical statements), Dow does not realize that castigating Slade for inferring the propitiatory and sacred-contractual functions of the mayordomía system from the observed behavior of Chignautecos is the same as when, say, Cancian infers the redistributive and prestige functions of the cargo system from the behavior of Zinacantecos. Worse, Dow is unaware that this is a standard procedure of modern science.
I agree with Dow that the starting point of good science is a solid empirical base. He fails to realize, however, that theories and explanations do not emerge at the level of the object language but in the metalanguage (Nutini 1970). This may be why he characterizes Slade's work as philosophical symbolism. Slade's analysis of the cargo system and her conception of Chignauteco religion, however symbolically misguided Dow has chosen to characterize them, are more useful constructs toward understanding, and to some extent explaining, Mesoamerican Indian-Mestizo religious behavior and action than the flat and narrow empiricism that Dow implies. Constrained by what he regards as the only possible scientific inference out of perceived facts, Dow does not allow for the possibility that there is no contradiction between the propitiatory and sacred-contractual and the redistributive and prestige functions of the cargo system. This is a mistake that leaves unexplained a significant chunk of religious behavior, and thereby detracts from appreciating one of the most diagnostic elements in the transformation from Indian to Mestizo culture and society. My many years of work in the Tlaxcala-Pueblan Valley, the Sierra de Puebla, and the Córdoba-Orizaba area convinces me that as individuals and communities move toward integration into the national culture, one of the most diagnostic Indexes of change is the decrease in propitiatory elements and the increase in prestige elements associated with the cargo system. This is concomitantly reflected in the compadrazgo and kinship systems. Such examples illustrate the analytical poverty of rank empiricism.
Dow's mischief also warrants some brief remarks on what constitutes a scholarly review. The following guidelines have served me well in reviewing more than 40 publications in national and international journals:
(1) Above all, book reviews should not be the medium through which intellectual disagreement is expressed and (usually not) resolved. Most anthropology journals and newsletters have forums, like the Nahua Newsletter, that allow ample opportunity for discussion and heated debate. To further one's own interests and viewpoints in book reviews, at the expense of accurately reporting the authors' intentions, is unfair not only to authors but to potential readers who are dissuaded from a personal examination that might have benefitted them.
(2) A book review should never be used to further one's own intellectual agenda, particularly when one is totally opposed to the theoretical or methodological position of the author. I, for example, would not accept to review a postmodern book because I know that I could hardly be fair to the author. Striving for balance and impartiality is the essence of book reviewing.
(3) It is easy and a pleasure to write a review about a book one likes, but when one must be critical one must be especially careful to do so honestly, neither motivated by self-serving reasons, nor by what one thinks the book should have included or how it should have been written. The best way that I have found to solve this dilemma is to explicitly state my position, so that the reader may judge the content and nature of the book more impartially. In most journals this guideline is not easy to implement, given the limitations of space. Nonetheless, a reviewer should find a way to convey his biases or proclivities so that they may not detract from giving a fair account of the book.
These guidelines are often difficult to implement, given the intense competition that characterizes academic life, but we can curb our more aggressive inclinations. A little consideration, courtesy, and kindness -even generosity -- in writing book reviews is fairer to all concerned and better for the profession.
Finally, I confess that what ultimately prompted me to comment on his review of Slade's book is Dow's niggardliness. Without an ounce of decency and in the name of a high-minded defense of science, Dow assails the work of a fellow scholar. As the recipient of one of the nastiest and least fair reviews (Gudeman 1981) that I have read in my 35-year career as an anthropologist, I felt compelled to respond to Dow's callous treatment of Slade, just as Barry L. Isaac (1882) did for me.
Hugo G. Nutini
University of Pittsburgh
References
Gudeman, Stephen. 1981. Review of Ritual Kinship: The Structure and Historical Development of the Compadrazgo System in Rural Tlaxcala by Hugo G. Nutini and Betty Bell. Man N.S. 16:715. Hempel, Carl G. 1962. Fundamentals in Concept Formation in Empirical Science. Chicago, University of Chicago Press. Barry L. Isaac. 1982. "The Mesoamerican Context of Ritual Kinship." Man N.S. 17:555-57.
Nagel, Ernest. 1961. The Structure of Science. New York, Harcourt Brace. Nutini, Hugo G. 1968. "On the Concepts of Epistemological Order and Coordinative Definitions." In Bijdragen tot de Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde 124(1):1-21. __________. 1970. "Lévi-Strauss' Conception of Science." In Echanges et Communications: Mélanges Offerts a Claude Lévi-Strauss a l'Occasion de son 60eme Anniversaire. Jean Pouillon and Pierre Maranda, eds. The Hague: Mouton. __________. 1971. "Science and Ideology." In Bijdragen Tot de Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde 127(1):1-14.
The illustrations appearing throughout this issue were taken from Memory, Myth, and Time in Mexico: From the Aztecs to Independence. By Enrique Florescano. Translated by Albert G. Bork with the assistance of Kathryn R. Bork. Austin: Univ. of Texas Press, 1994. Pp. ix+282. ISBN 0 292-72485-3.
New Addresses:
Elizabeth H. Boone
Dept. of Art History
Tulane University
New Orleans, LA 70118
Brent Berlin
Dept. of Anthropology
University of Georgia
Athens, GA 30602
Geoffrey G. McCafferty
Department of Anthropology
Brown University
Providence, RI 02912
Gordon Whittaker
Institut Fur Volkerkunde
Theaterplatz 15
D-37073 Gottingen GERMANY
New Subscribers:
Samantha Birk
Fort Wayne Museum of Art
311 E. Main St.
Fort Wayne, IN 46802
Douglas E. Bradley
Snite Museum of Art
University of Notre Dame
Notre Dame, IN 46556
Raymond Hall
Indiana University
F118 Banta
Bloomington, IN 47406
David Oberstar
Dept. of Modern Foreign Languages
Indiana-Purdue University
2101 Coliseum Blvd. East
Fort Wayne, IN 46805
Guilhem Olivier
90 Rue Haxo
75015 Paris FRANCE
Eric Roulet
17 Résidence Aristide Briand
78700 Conflans, Sainte Honorine PARIS
Susan Sandstrom
2028 E. Pratt St.
Baltimore, MD 21231
W.G. van der Wolf-van Dalen
Andriesplein 2
NL 5671 VS Nuenen NETHERLANDS
Last updated: 11/29/2007