A Ethnohistory 43:3, Pettipas, Katherine: Severing the Ties That Bind: Government Repression ‘of indigenous Religious Ceremonies on the Prairies ‘Adrian Tanner. 533 Clark, Blue: Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock: Treaty Rights and Indian Law atthe ‘End of the Nineteenth Century David C. Williams 535 Giglio, Virginia: Southern Cheyenne Women’s Songs Catherine Price 540 Vigil, Ralph H., Frances W. Kaye, and John R. Wunder, eds. Spain and ‘he Plains: Myths and Realities of Spanish Exploration and Settlement on the Great Plains Margaret Connell Szasz_ 54x Kelley, Klara Bonsack, and Harcis Francis: Navajo Sacred Places ‘Miranda Warburton 543 Erickson, Winston P.: Sharing the Desert: The Tohono O'odham in History Bernard L. Fontana 545 . Sheridan, Thomas E.: Arizona: A History Bernard L. Fontana 547 Peers, Laura L.: The Ojibwa of Western Canada, x780 to 1870 Helen Hornbeck Tamer 548 ; Dauerhaues, Nora Marks, and Richard Davenhauer, eds.: Haa Kusteeyi, ‘Our Culture: Tlingit Life Stories Lydia Black $50 Rice, Don Stephen, ed.: Latin American Horizons: A Symposium at ‘Dumbarton Oaks, xith and x2th October 1986 Helen Perlstein Pollard 552 Coe, Sophie D.: America’s First Cuisines Susan Schroeder 555 McAnany, Patricia A.: Living with the Ancestors: Kinship and Kingship in Ancient Maya Society Robert M. Carmack 557 Lutz, Christopher H.: Santiago de Guatemala, 1541-1773: City, Caste, ‘and the Colonial Experience Kevin Gosner 558 Lagos, Maria L.: Autonomy and Power: The Dynamics of Class and Culture in Rural Bolivia Linda J. Seligmann 560 [..< Ae Mesoamerica’s Ethnographic Past John K. Chance, Arizona State University Wh 43 Mumdac 3 ish ne hes Suomerae It is a great honor to have served as your president during the past year. The greatest challenge the president faces, I discovered, is this address. Ir is an occasion that calls for candid reflection on what one has done as an ethnohistorian and on what one hopes to do in ‘the future. I am a Mesoamericanist, and I will stay close to my roots in these remarks. But I also wish to address some larger issues that concern us all as students of the past. Among the elements at the core of ethnohistorical method and theory, none are more important than questions of sociocultural chang .con- tinuity. Whether a particular soctety, commuriy, oF structure is perceived Zo exist in a changing or continuing conte cal question. Buri is just as obviously question} forall social research is based on highly selective evidience aid assumptions about what js important and how sociocultural systems work. These broad epistemo- logical issues apply to everything that anthropologists and historians do, and they lie especially close to the heart of ethnohistorical inquiry. Since its appearance as a recognized specialty in North America in the carly years of the twentieth century, ethnohistory has always relied heavily tn “Comparisons arose ine” (Parts S 845 403) These Coabarsons are based bore sesmapron that egulariies exis in social and cultural con- figurations and that, given certain basic similarities between two different time periods, inferences can be made fror the more fully known to the less Fully known. The more fully know is often ethnographic. shough it Systane agus Te wal backward, using what is already known about a later time to fil in Ethnohistory 4333 (summer 1996). Copyright © by the American Society for Ethno- history. ce 00r4-1801/96/S1.50.380 Jobn K. Chance the gaps and interpret the ambiguities for an earlier time. William Fen- ton (952, 1957, 3966), who dubbed thi ecique “operon” rated ‘That “the essence of the ethnohist jethod is distilled from concepts arrived at in working with the cultures of living societies in the field” (Fen- ton 1966: 75). This approach to ethnohistory was born in early attempts by ethnologists to pur doc data at the service of archaeology, ex- tending historical knowledge back to earlier times. It became knowiras the "diet RROHCAT approach,” sill an important part ofthe archaeolo- gist’ oT Kt, and saber influenced a generation of anthropological ethnohistorians (Steward 1942; Trigger r99r). ‘As ethnohistory has matured into an interdisciplinary field of study, upstreaming has met with a mixed reception. While it has gone largely un- SEistoned in anthropological circles ene recently, many historians ve “Eee been comforeabtewt it. The more empirical mnded prefer not toray Too Tar Wom their documentary evidence (Cline 2972: 15). Othe 1 suspect, Tee ill'at ease with ipstreaming’s Assumption of uniformitart~ “fits We have long known that oe Tncined To Toca oT Gilgural continuity, while historians are apt to be more interested in change. ‘The'reasons for this are cOmiplex and need not detain us here, But most would agree that these differing stances toward the past form part of the professional training provided by each discipline. Indeed, anthropologists and historians often work with different conceptions of what history is. ‘As Susan Kellogg (x99r: 422) puts it, “Anthropologists often use history t0 tnderstand emergent social or cultural formations, while historians tend to be preoccupied with the pastness of the past.” Here I wish to address primarily the anthropological side of the issue, and I will argue that anthro- pologists,t00, should concern themselves with the pastness ofthe past. ‘At times a handmaiden to ethnography, at others an adjunct to archae- ology, ethnohistory as practiced in North American anthropology depart- ‘ments has had a hard time standing on ts own. As Jennifer Brown (2992: ___ 117) told us a few years ago, ethnohistorians do indeed “reside in a variety > of closets.” Anthropologists who do ethnohistory may work at Tt-part- tine, retaining their principal allegiance to either archaeology or culural snthropology. Full-time ethnohistorians usually lean one way or the other, backward or forward in ie, ellectng dilerenees in thie ier and we ;- A member of the latter species, I was trained as a cultural anthro- Sologist and continue to work and teach as one. Yet paradoxically, I often find that the ethnohistory I do is more popular among my archaeologist colleagues and students than among my fellow cultural anthropologists. This betwixt-and-betweenness reinforces the ethnohistorical predilection for upiieaming and making compares acrosE Me; Her Wir the as ‘Mesoamerica’s Ethnographic Past ser chaeological past or with the ethnographic present. Indeed, not only may dhe cthachisteriac' research BERERE tom Paling such comparisons, but his or her ability to publish in the major anthropology journals and to find and hold an academic job may depend on it. ‘With these considerations in mind, I wish to explore the relationship between ethnohistory and ethnography in Mesoamerica, using some of my ‘own work as grist for the mill. Ethnohistory as concept and practice is well established in Mesoamerican studies, and ethnography likewise has a long and distinguished tradition. A look at what each has contril ited to the other should be instructive. Ethnohistory and Ethnography in Mesoamerica Few areas of the world offer such zich possibilities for the ethnohistorian as Mesoamerica, where history has always Toomed large. The great indige- ‘nous civilizations had historical preoccupations of their own, frequently recording them on stone, in paintings, and in codices. The Spanish con- juest of the sixteenth century opened a new historical era and has served wer since as a benchmark of sociocultural change and continuity. Writ- ten historical sources bearing on Indian cultures are relatively abundant. “Though few pre-Conquest codices survive, the post-Conquest sources in- clude a wide variety of accounts by native and nonnative authors, written in Spanish and in indigenous languages (using the Latin alphabet). For- tunately for the ethnohistorian, colonial Spaniards and Indians were very legally minded and lef us rich corpus of civil and ecclesiastical documents that open diverse windows on indigenous cultures. In large part because of the richness of these sources, ethnohistory as practiced in Mesoamerica has concentrated mostly on the study of pre- ‘Columbian and early-colonial cultures of the fifteenth and sixteenth cen- taries (bee Nicholsin-7575; Spores 198). While an increasing number of practitioners, myself included, are concerned with Indian societies of the late colony, this is still, it seems, a minority interest, especially among SRabropologises. The postcolonial’ icant ewes ted zescarched. The emphasis on earliee periods, wine salutary in some re- century ethnography. To a large degree; the two fields have Gone their “separate ways, ethnohistorians most often taking the pre-Hispanic cultures as their touchstone. : {cits inception, ethnography in Mesoamerica seemingly had litle ws for history: Manuel Gauuio’s (1922) comprehensive undertaking a¢ Teor huacan excepted, the work of most early ethnographers reflected North =f 3a Jobn K. Chance ‘American conventions of the time. Historical questions were often posed, though their answers were sought in the present. Thus Elsie Clews Par- sons (2936) spent much of her time in Mitla, Oaxaca, trying to distinguish Indian from Spanish cultural traits. Robert Redfield (1930, 19.41) estab- lished the community-study method and a Toncérn_svithlong-term pro- cesses of change in the guise of his well-knowy(folk-urbaf! continuum, Yet he paid surprisingly little attention to history>preferting to infer cul- fal processes from the juxtaposition of communities in the present. A frecent reviewer of Redfield’s correspondence with So! Tax on the prob- lems of fieldwork in the late x9308 notes that “their perspective [Redfield’s and Tax’s] is so synchronic that they appear to believe that the Indians ‘of the 19308 arose in an autochthonous fashion parallel to, but outside of, history” (Diskin r995: 166, commenting on Rubinstein 1991). Parsons and rere early exponents of two kinds of diachronic research interests that would remain influential in Mesoamerican ethnog- raphy Until the mid-1950s and that still have a lingering presence today. The first, exemplified by Parsons, focuses on cultural content and its tem- poral existence. It seeks to understand coleal phenomena inal their singularity and assumes that particular traits persist through time basically unchanged. Though research designs have shifed considerably since Par. ‘sons’s time, the historical derivation of cultural elements in Mesoamerican Indian communities continues to provoke discussion. For example, eth- nographers have debated the antiquity of d 3 a socioterritorial unit and have argued about its links to pre-Comquest indigenous forms (Redfield 1930: 69-82; Lewis 1951: 19-26; Ingham 1971; de la Pefia 1981: 43-44; Nutini x96z; Hunt and Nash 1967: 260). Ethnohistory enters the picture here, and we have surely learned something about the role of bat- rios in colonial Indian communities (Carrasco 196ra, 1964; Lockhart 1992: 573 Chance 1996). Yet the ethnohistorical and ethnographic studies on this, topic remain largely separate and distinct, carried 0 erent scholars with different agendas, The topic therefore remain obscure,’dynsensus on the basic issues is lacking, and we have yet to sort out ThewatiGus “aspects,” “functions,” and “principles” attributed to these social units? ‘There is also an obvious danger here. As we all know by now, tracing. the histories of traits or trait s does not automatically lead tO His- ‘onal ni his, It may do so, with a carefully crafted research design and aTitde luck, as long.as the researcher can supply enough historical context for the periods under study. But it may also promoté antiquarianism, which does litleto advance ether athropology of Nstory. VEE THOUGH We ought To know better, the simplistic question of whether particular traits are of I [indigenous or European origin fontinues o bedevil Mesoamerican stdies. 4 ‘Mesoamerica’s Ethnographic Past 383 e should all heed James Lockhart’s (r992: 5) dictum that “absolutely un- altered survival and totat displacement are equally rare in the history of cultural contact in central Mexico.” ‘The second type of diachronic research uses cultural particulars to for- rule bial define process demi 0 ave compara cane jeigned to deal with change rather than with persistence, this approach attempts to understand (or explain) cultural elements by placing them in bisa syne cnn. Red's Gas) sty ofthe foleurbancon- cinta Yucatan is a classic example, as are the numerous @culturation siudieBof the x940s and x950s (sce Beals 1967). In retrospect, many of ese studies appear unilluminating and historically naive. As Eric Wolf F986: 526) has pointed out: “Anthropologists ofthe time [the mid-950s] tended to shortcircuit four centuries of history, to draw a direct line from the pre-Columbian past to the Indian present. At best, they acknowledged he successive modifications of Indian culture as the outcomes of succes- sve phases of gcungation, without inking des o& proceed standing of economic and politicat history.” The acculturation studies were Found wanting because their focus (their “context”) was at once too nar- row, in that it trained attention on the “differential acceptance or rejection of cultural forms” (ibid.: 325), and too broad, in that it sought to gener- alize about “culture contact” while ignoring many of the social, political, and economic structures through which these cultural forms passed. Such studies paid lip service to history but remained rooted in the ethnographic method, and most did litte to bring ethnography and ethnohistory closer together? [Not until the late 950s did Mesoamerican ethnographers begin to chietly te work d 4955,195753959)-Like the acculturation theo- rists before him, Wot-Was interested in the comparative study of culrural change, and he shared the ethnographers’ concern with the local peasant community. His contribution was to demolish the wall that had divided history and anthropology and to show how rmowtem Indian communities could be seen as outcomes of history, rather tharras timeless isTarids of cul- tural survival oFax products of superficially defined stages of acculturation. ‘Wolf's most enduring gift to Mesoamerican ethnography is undoubtedly his model of the closed corpgrate peasant community, along with his ab- aaebing synthesis Peace tony Som af He Making Earth 2959). ‘ils Mewamecean ethnogzaphere rapidly adored Wol's point of view dh peasant societies (see also Wolf 1966), tori- cal erudition. Ethnography continued to be fundamentally a_synchronic rele that understanding long erm proces of charge required coming to grips wit teed K Different factors sparked their awareness,384 Jobn K, Chance ‘exercise, even if the initial chapter on “historical background” had now been upgratted? Furthermore, rmgst ethnogiaphers with an interest 1 Ris- toy Were content to rely on the works of their historian colleagues, much like Wolf himself, and rarely contemplated doing their own ethnohistorical ‘esearch. The gap between ethnohistory and ethnography had narrowed, but it was far from closed. Ethnohistorians continued to concentrate on. fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, ethnogeaphers on the twentieth. Wolf hhad made everyone more aware of the importance of what had happened in between, but ethnographers still felt that historical research was not part of their job description. Tt should come as no surprise that Mesoamerican ethnogeaphers, like thie counterparts elsewhere, were slow so capt historia. documents Historical data that throw light on ethnographic questions are often not available in published form but must be laboriously in poorly ofgamized archives. Such research can be timé-consumingyand several eth- nographers fave told me personally that they lack the patience and the temperament (not to mention the training) for it, confirming an observa- tion made by Alfred Kroeber long, ago that “ethnologists have gone to the field by choice to escape the drudgery of the library” (quoted in Fenton 3957:3)* “While it was slow in coming, the collapse of the notion of the atem- sal ethnographic present finally dd arrive. Mesoamerican ethnographers ‘studied peasants, and the kind of political-economic analysis sketched by ‘Wolf in the x950s was steadily gaining ground. By the 29708 the analytic focus was less on the local community and more on the penetration of the state and the workings of the capitalist world system. This interest in political economy heightened ethnographers’ historical consciousness, and by the early r980s works based on the conjunction of archival and ethno- graphic research had become more common. Not all ofthese studies were of political economy, to be sure, but they all sought to deal at first hand with local and regional historical processes sase-them to interpret ethno- sgraphic-data. Among the best are Rutint's\t538) work on compadrazgo (godparenthood) and religious syhcretism-in- Tlaxcala (see also Nutini and Bell x980), Schryer’s (1980, 1990) study of class conflict in nosth- era Hi mnis's (1987) analysis of intervillage conflict in Oaxaca, and WasserstrOprs (2983) regional ethnohistory of the Chiapas highlands. Three’ ig studies use locumesitstolink twentieth-century cultures with earlier periods. Wactoria Reifler Bricks}’s (x981) The Indian Christ, the Indian King, a masterfal-work-or-Maya ethnic conflicts, con- vincingly shows how ancient indigenous notions of time and society con- tinue to influence events in the present in a way that does not deny their ‘Mesoamerica's Ethnographic Past 38s historicity. Robert M. Hil the history of the Maya barrio andscomm aon Sacapulas, in highland Guatemala (see also Hill 1992)-* (Monagh: st 1995) Cove- nants with Earth and Rain, a study of Santiago-Nuyoo"i the Mixteca Alta of Oaxaca, is arguably the most historically sophisticated ethnog- raphy to appear in Mesoamerican studies. Drawing heavily on archival research and oral histories, as well as on his own participant observation, ‘Monaghan brings the past, present, and emergent future together into a seamless whole. It is difficult to generalize about these diverse studies. They address swidely varying topics and are written from different theoretical perspec- ves. Each, however, attempts to gvercome the dichesamin.iacbrnic ethnographic analysis: pasticularistic derivation of cultural content versus coriparative study of broad processes. Each of these studies effectively uses istory to illuminate both the particular and the general, both structure and process. Collectively, these works show how far historically conscious ethnography has come since the 19508. Yet if ethnographers age now doing more ethnobjstory, the reyerse fohn Monagi}n (1987) skillfully trace SP docs not seenrfo be tyne. Researchers who identify themselves primarily a8 ethnohistorians sometimes use ethiiographic data and models, but they are lessTacimed to carry out systematic ethnographic research of their (qun./ Mesoamerican ethnohistory remains overwhelmingly devoted 10 pre- Fiispaniic and early-colonial societies. Ethnohistorians have had much to say about the ancient Nahuas, Mixtecs, Zapotecs, Mayas, and so forth, and they have addressed the impact of Spanish colonialism, but they have hhad relatively little to say about more recent historical concerns central to many ethnographic studies. "This lack of integration of the two fields has meant that some of Meso- american ethnograpiy’s most cherished strical concepts have not re- ‘ceived the résearch attention they deserve. Over the years an “ethnograp! ast” has been fashioned to meet the needs of an ethnographic present. Pee MR etieoh iociussvicupoine, this past seehis excessively schematic and more than a bit idealized. It is not an implausible past, but iis based ‘om ideas and hypotheses constructed at a distance, often on the basis of see- ‘ondary and tertiary sources and by extrapolation from ethnographic data, This is not necessarily bad; many sound hypotheses and research propos- als have been devised in this manner. But hypotheses an lg work best as starting points for inquiry, as points of entry fok upstream}, The PROT Ta Fa Bl en at ro Tew Mesoamerica Tino sPIeTE i willing to submit to the “drudgery” of archival work that upstreaming normally requtes, and too few ethnohistorians have been Terese ETOWER CO lend386 Jobn K, Chance them a hand. In fashioning an ethnogeaphic past, we have frequently gone Lupstreaming with too small a paddle, or with none at all. I now turn to a few examples. ‘The Mesoamerican Ethnographic Past ‘Two models have served for decades as comerstones of Mesoamerican ethnography: the cargo system, or civl-religious hierarchy, and the closed corporate peasant community. My aim is not to question the models them- selves but to suggest how they need to be modified when tested through ethnohistorical research, Most ethnographers and ethnohistorians who have used these ideas—in Mesoamerican anthropology that includes just about all of us—have done very little to investigate their historical and processual dimensions. Fortunately, this has begun to change. “Lite Civit Religious Hierarchy ‘A key component of the Mesoamerican peasant community as envisaged by anthropologists has been the ladder of ranked, municipal offices known. as the civil-religious hierarchy, or cargo system. This institution originated as an ethnographic concept, but with significant historical implications. In its classic form, the civil officers govern the community and articulate it «with external political figures, while the holders of the religious cargos tend. to the worship of the local saints. Alternating between civil and religious posts, adult males (as represent of households) assume ever more prestigious offices during their lives. Those who make it to the top or near the top are called on to make large financial sacrifices to sponsor religious fiestas. For over fifty years the civil-religious hierarchy has held a com- manding position in Mesoamerican ethnography. Countless descriptions of offices and duties and nearly as many functional and symbolic analyses of the system have been produced (for reviews see Cancian 1967; DeWalt 1975; Chance 1990)! ‘A number of important historical questions surround this institution. ‘The offices themselves, their names, and the cultural conceptions of hier- archy, municipal government, and religious ceremony constitute a rich blend of indigenous and Spanish elements. The inevitable question of ori- gins has been much debated: is the cargo system pre-Hispanic, or is it a product of colonialism or of the postcolonial era? There has been much speculation, especially among Mayanists, about the presence of cargo sys- tems in pre-Conquest times (¢.g., Coe 1963; Vogt 1966; Rathje 19703 Price 1974; Henderson 1981). Most scholars, however, egard it gs a colonial creation, 2 peculiar fusion of Indvarrand European traditions forged in a ‘Mesoamerica’s Ethnographic Past 387 ‘crucible of political and religious domination. Wolf (2957), for example, adopted it as the “leveling mechanism” that uaifies the closed corporate veling mech: TEE hr to say, however, that the history of the civil-religious hier- archy has attracted much theorizing but little direct research. Ethnogra- phers have tefided to take for granted that it was born in the colonial period and persisted relatively unchanged (in peripheral areas) until the twentieth century. In this view, ancient Mesoamerican notions of social mobility and ceremonial sponsorship were fused with Spanish concepts of municipal {government and religious worship, all of which coalesced into the system known to twentieth-century ethnographers.” ‘Yet we still have much to Jearn about when, how, and why this post~ ‘Conquest coalescence came about. My research suggests that the basic structure of the cargo system emerged significant than previously thought (Chance and Taylor 1985; Chance x989; Rus and Wasserstrom 1980). William Taylor and I have argued that the practice of individual ‘sponsorship of fiestas, while it may have been important in pre-Hispanic Nahua culture (and in sixteenth-century Cholula [Carrasco 1990: 317]), was more the exception than the rule during much of the colonial period, when celebrations of the saints were commonly financed by religious cofra- dias or confraternities, a practice more in line with Spanish custom. In our ‘view, the individual sponsorship encountered by twentieth-century ethnog- raphers stems less FronTaCient Mesoamerican culture than from changes in the late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries: expropriations of cofra- ia proper 4 f communal support of religious fiestas by Spanish and Mexican officials. While some of the sys- eai's CuTearal creme ve indigenous roots, similar practices may have different meanings in different historical contexts, Accordingly, we downplay continuity in the cargo system and emphasize major structural changes traceable to late-colonial Bourbon economic and administrative reforms and to early independence attacks on community sovereignty, such as the reform laws of the 1850s. Thus we argue that the twenteth-century form of this institution cannot easily be extrapolated (upstreamed?) to = pre-Hispanic of early.coldnial mes. Iisa product oF much more recent history.” TT the Closed Corporate Community “Another venerable concept with historical implications that has emerged from Mesoamerican studies isthe model of the closed corporate peasant community. Eric WolPs model is now forty years old, anda fall analysis ofits impact on peasant studies would require a separate history." Wolf388 Job K. Chance enthusiast the closed community is “corporate, self-sufficient, introverted, partcularized, encysted,” vl it couenerpet “noncorporate at the ‘community level, relatively dependent on Targer economic systems, socially extroverted, culturally open—a type of social system whose bounds are blurred and whose boundary-maintaining mechanisms are weak” (Skinner 1971: 270). In Wolf's formulation, the closed community appeared in the Context of colonial capitalism as ¢ means SF defense against conquest and direct political interference; the open community came later and was fun- damentally a consequence of peasant market integration through the cul- tivation of cash tops. WolF (586: az) has outlied the major concerns that he sought to address with this model: “(x) to understand the orga- nizational framework of communities as outcomes and determinants of historical processes; (2) to visualize these processes as intimately connected with changes in the wider economic and political fields and (3) to under- stand cultural structures as growing out of these involvements over time rather than in terms of culture content.” ‘While the model is a general one, it has been applied most often to Mesoamerica. In the upstreaming tradition, Wolf (959: 214~32) accounts for the closed nature and stringent social boundaries of some more fully Known twentieth-century communities by locating their origins inthe less fully known colonial seventeenth century, New Spain’s “century of de- pression.” The closed corporate community asserts itself when “the larger society disintegrates into an arena of gladiatorial combat and people aban- don their exposed positions in industry and commerce to seek security in the rural area” (Wolf 960: 3). According to Wolf, this is what happened in seventeenth-century Mexico after the intial energy of the Spanish conquest had dissipated and many external contacts had been abandoned. During this time of economic decline and population resettlement, Indian commu- nities began to compete for resources with Spanish haciendas. Wolf posits broadly analogous scenarios that favor closure following independence and revolution, respectively, during the early nineteenth and twentieth cen- turies in Mexico. In contrast, Communal boundaries can be expected to Jopen up to outside forces, and frequently to disintegrate altogether, in more stable and prosperous times, when the “society is politicaly secure ‘and opens its windows on the world in economic expansion and widening trade” (ibid.). Wolf singles our the eighteenth century (the more prosperous years following the Bourbon reforms are crucial), the period of economic expansion under Porfirio Diaz in the late nineteenth century, and the mid- ‘twentieth century, when anthropologists carried out various community ,, ethnographies } According to this powerful historical theory, peasant communities | \ postulated a continuum framed by two ideal types: in the words of one ‘Mesoamerica’s Ethnographic Past 389 J cal and economic forces. The processual implications are considerable, yet {[ Wolf himself never pursued them systematically after 1960; he was seem- ingly content to let others test his ideas through ethnohistorical research on specific communities. Thirty-five years later, however, very few have done 50, Cancian (r992: 25) refers to the model to study changes in Zinacan- tan, Chiapas, in the late twentieth century, and Skinner (197) considers it 4n the ancient Chinese context. But most applications of the closed-open ‘ypology have been ceri cs sng it ASE ore an achecklist for describing ethnographic observations. “The closed end of the continuum has received the most attention in Mesoamerican studies, because it applies most directly to the Indian ex- perience, Desi Wolfs suggestion that community closure shuld be seen as a variable process in tine, the tendency Bas been To take it as a change- ee Scop ef eal and cla ecto ‘As Carol Smith (1990: 20) OlSETES, using Te concept of closure in this way “tends to reify colonial institutions within Indian communities, without giving due consideration to the transformation of those institutions through history.” Preoccupied with pre-Hispanic societies, ethnohistorians have had re- rarkably lil to say about the historical abi EHEC corpora mttet‘THe Tew who have thought about the issue, however, have encoun- tered some problems of fit. Mayanists criticize the model for mistaking 4 some autochthonous institutions as colonial creations (Farris 1984: 382; Hill and Monaghan 1987: xviii); for ignoring important community sub- units, stich as the chinamit and molab (Hill and Monaghan 1987: xvili-xixs atch-1993: 65);and for assigning origins to the seventeenth century (Fasriss i 11984: 382). The issue of timing and periodization is especially important in light of Wolf's theory of the conditions promoting closure of community, boundaries. Hill (r992:-r55) argues that sixteenth- and seventeenth-century ‘Cakchiquel fSwns in highland Guatemala “were artificial creations, the by- products of the Spanish congeegaci6n [resettlement] program, under whicl numbers of previously autonomous parcialidades were resettled together | forcibly.” The Cakchiquel closed corporate community, in Hills view,+ emerged only in the late eighteenth century, in response to population growth, increased competition for land, and changes in Spanish law, all of which made the town itself, the pueblo, the most important landholding, entity (ibid.: 156). (The Cakchiquel case is only one instance, and we might view it as a re- jional variant in the history of community formation. Bue there are larger ‘sues at stake, and they go right to the heart of the typology: what factors yromote the closure and opening of community boundaries? Cakchiquel ‘communities seem to have closed at a time when Wolf would have them wax and wane, close and open, as they react and adapt to larger politi —_—390 Job K. Chance jopen up. Economic expansion and widening trade may well have char- {acterized the Cakchiquel region in the late eighteenth century, yet they <| were canceled out, in Hills analysis, by powerful incentives for closure that ‘Wolf failed to consider: population growth and changes in colonial Indian olicies. aw “Though it does not directly address the closed-open model, Taylor's research on Indian communities in Oaxaca’s Mixteca Alta and in Nahua central Mexico in the late eighteenth century points in the same direction. Taylor documents the strengthening of corporate community identity de- spite the ongoing commercialization of the economy. He makes the impor- tant point that in the Mixteca and other parts of Oaxaca, such as the Sierra Zapoteca, the production of cochineal dyestuff and cotton textiles meant that “peasants were integrated into expanding matkets without losing their control over the means of production or experiencing much change in village life” (Taylor 1979: ax; see also Chance 1986, 1989). To be sure, there were significant regional differences between the Mixteca and cen- ‘tral Mexico; communities in the latter area were more market-integrated, $ (== ‘and proletarian in outlook. Yet Taylor (2979: 158) sees these as é liferences of degree, not kind, and argues that the “ideology of the village as an autonomous, self-perpetuating society” remained powerful in both -gions (see also Lockhart 1982). Finally, colonial Mesoamerican Indian communities differed from the closed corporate modal in social stratification and hierarchy. The origi- nal model postulated an egalitarian village citizenry founded on a “cult of a rh a sacaieed forthe common goed. eis BEEN Clear, however, as Wolf (2986) himself observes, that both historical and contemporary doe Stouts SB significant variation in wealth, political power, and social status (se€also Sterin1983; Chance 1994; PerRins 1993} trrcotonial Mesoamerica, indigenous elites persisted in many head towns well into the nineteenth century; while not always wealthy, they often dominated local politics and represented the community to Spanish outsiders (Chance in press). Stern (x98: 37) argues that although colonial- ism injected new class forces into Indian villages, the resulting tensions pro- vvoked a “struggle for solidarity” and the rise of closed corporate commu- nity structures: “Peasants exerted day-to-day pressure on their wealthier and more acculturated counterparts to demonstrate their loyalties to the people to whom they ‘belonged.’ ” Flogencia Mallon (r995:11~12) proposes the concept of;'communal hegemony’,<0 account forthe differentiated and Hesarchigal neture of commanal Socal and political relations, She singles out kinship and generational authority as central features of this hegemony 2a nbtebeh Sbniey Mowat and Peruvian communis, Mesoamerica’s Ethnographic Past yor ‘While { find Stern's and Mallon’s work helpful, my own research on the (formerly) Nahua town of Santiago Tecali, Puebla, inthe late-colonial period suggests that class lines were more important than community boundaries (Chance in pré%sJ- Communal institutions were weak in Tecali both before and after'the Conquest; a number of indigenous elite land- owning families, referred to as caciques, constituted the undisputed hege- ‘monic group of the town. For them, loyalty to one’s class, ethnic group, or kin, rather than community, remained fundamental, The town lacked 2 strong tradition of communal landholding, and Indian commoners re- mained politically disenfranchised and dependent on the caciques for theit livelihood. Thus the closed corporate model does not fit Tecali wells nor does the open model, since the town produced no significant cash crop, though petty commodity production increased in the second half of the fitch cnr. Tcl subject hamlets, howerer the struggle for land and municipal independence promoted an egalitarian, communal soli- | darity that more nearly approximated the closed corporate model. The case jot “Tecali suggests that there was more diversity in colonial community @ (,stucture than we have been wilting 10 feeDenie. “The historical trajectories behind ehis particular ethnographic con- struct were indeed varied and complex, as Wolf (2986: 326) now recognizes. Pere the accumulating ethnohistorical evidence from such disparate regions as Yucatén, highland Guatemala, the Mixteca Alta, and central [Mexico points to increased community closure in the late eighteenth cen~ \ tury. This weakens Wolfs hypothesis of corporate community origins in | “the seventeenth century and calls into question the basis of the closed- ‘open typology. Following Hill's (2992) lead, 1 suggest that the genesis of the closed corporate community lies less in seventeenth-century decline | and competition for land between Indian communities and haciendas than in the competitive relations that emerged among the Indian communities | ‘themselves in the late eighteenth century, when the effects of population |} growth began to be felt. The periodization of the model, the conditions promoting closure and openness, and the relationship between colonial and present-day structures all need to be reexamined, Above all, we need intensive ethnohistorical studies ofthe internal structure of particular com- $ | | ‘munities from the sixteenth through the nineteenth centuries, especially of ‘The Anthropological Invention of Tradition those towns for which ethnographic descriptions exist.” By taking history for granted, by failing to examine the historical content and assumptions of our ethnographic models (no matter how well thosei Jokn K, Chance models may serve us in the field), anthropologists run the risk of inventing their own historical traditions (Hobsbawm and Ranger 1983). We run the risk of becoming trapped in an ethnographic past of our own making. If “Taylor and I are correct, the structure of the civil-religious hierarchy owes more to the nineteenth century than to the colonial period. Similarly, it seems that closed corporate communities first appeared, in some places, ‘amid the growth and expansion of the late eighteenth century, not during the somnolent years before then. The message is simple: we need to put ‘ore emphasis and spend more of our research time on historical context and TAKE pains not to rely Our theoretical model, lest they TAKE OT tives iL Stitt oto: Br ging short shi to story, we may atibue a greet antiquity to beliefs and practices thant they in fact possess.” This Tong- standing problem stems from the assumption that change is gradual and tha soctalsystems are relatively constant over long ped ae fainter 991: 59), which brings us back to the problematic notion of upstreaming. Inan early statement of the methodology, Fenton (2957: 22) notes that upstreaming “must be used with caution because it contains a built-in fal- lacy which historians will recognize as the doctrine of uniformitarianism, which infers past from present.” As anthropology in the 1990s becomes increasingly historicized and process-oriented, uniformitarianism, it seems tony bcos ge inp es day rues wo be ‘more cautious than ever. [emay pose fewer problems in archaeology, where early success with the direct netorcal approach was asource oF igpiration, to North American ethnohistorians, The :r time frames and the" task of making inferences from must often be content with a m¢ than is found in ethnography of ef ren many details of daily life and even the presence or absence of short-term changes are unknowif cor unknowable, the assumption of cultural continuity contained in the di- rect historical approach can be a productive working hypothesis (though re of course, in all cases; see Baerreis 1961; Brose 1971; Wobst 1978). he closer the researcher gets to uma sabes and the share he Dud af stad, the less tenable the-aggumption of continuity is likely to PE A paral exception mig be found: enduring ethnic enclaves, com- “mon among North American Indians, where cultural consciousness and resistance-to assimilation are great. Yet even there historical study may show that boundary maintenance and receptivity to change fluctuate over time, much as peasant communities open.or close as conditions change. “The cases discussed above and suamySEHEs ip the “invention-of-tradition” literature (e.g, OBrien and 991 suggest that a mpore skeptical stance toward cultural conth ified. 8 Rabew os Mesoamerica’s Ethnographic Past 393 Structure and Process ‘The a priori assumption of cultural continuity contains some of the same defects as the notion of the timeless ethnographic present, now largely discredited, As Sally Falk Moore (1987: 727) trenchantly puts it, “The structural-functional assumption that a society is best studied as if it were a system replicating itself has long been abandoned.” In her view, the eth- nographer should assume the normality not of continuity but of “change- theme nae in-the-m “How does one study “ch: the-making”? Moore (ibid.) advo- a history and Hat Weal ges equal weight to maintenance ad change. "EXhnographers should focus on practice and evens, not on systems or structures, and they should strive in their fieldwork to identify “appropri- ate diagnostic events” (bid: 750). Knowledge of past storys germane ee __E conjecture about the future. The ethnographer must develop a sense of which aspects of the present will be durable and which will disappear. Ifthe diagnostic events point toward continuity, this should not be understood as the normal state of things; rather, “sameness being repeated is seen as the product of effort” (ibid.: 727). On the other hand, if events point toward change, this should be dealt with processually, as itis made, rather than as a shift from some received order or system to a new one. ‘Moore's pro +h can also be applied to ethnohistory. In some ways, the ethnohistorian’s task is easier, since he or she is more likely to control a longer time span and thus to be in a better position to identify those “diagnostic events.” On the ather hand, the documentary eghnahisto- tian, Tke the archaeologist, does not have the ethnographer's Iaxury of ating his or her own data andynust learn to accept this limitation.3In ‘any case, what Moore says about proses Consonanr with mach current social theory, with it individual agency rather than on systems and nc1986). ‘A kindred critique of how placing too much faith in structure can derail historical and anthropological analysis is implicit in William Rose- berry and Jay O°Brien’s (1951: 2) observations on “oppositional models”: Comparative and historical understanding in general is often em- bedded in a variety of oppositional models taken to represent past and present, Whether expressed in terms of primitive versus civilized, traditional versus modern, folk versus urban, natural economy versus market economy, community versus contract, underdeveloped versus ——Jobn K. Chance developed, or other polar pars, such models represent deduetive con: tracts intended to present historical change as a transition from one abstract pole to the other. The pole representing the past is often based ‘on naturalistic assumptions. Historical analysis then proceeds by sort ing the mixed clements of any concrete reality into those left over from the past and those belonging to the emergent future. “The danger is that, “rather than reconstructing social, political, and cul- tural changes in the past, this exercise produces a pseudohistorical process immanent in the categories themselves and derived from implicit evolu- tionist assumptions” (ibid. see also Comaroft and Comaroff 1992: 4)- Roseberry and O'Brien's solution is similar to Moore’s (1987) thinking on ethnography: social forms such as gender, ethnicity, household, and com, unity must be taken not as fixed units, or “history's point of departure,” ‘at as “changing results of social and political processes” operating in par- ‘eular social Relgs- There can be no primordial historical points of depar- = (such as tribal, traditional, oF precapitalist structures) but only “his- ‘aric results” that lead to other results (Roseberry and O"Brien 1991: 19). “These critiques of structural and systematic excesses in anthropologi- cal and historical writing apply to much of the literature on Mesoamerican Community and cargo systems discussed above. The notions of the civil- feligious hierarchy and closed’ and open communities are built up after Oppositional models inherent in their very names. Beyond this, much ink tes been spilled in identifying the proper historical points of departure: is institution X fundamentally pre-Hispanic or post-Conquest, colonial ‘or postcolonial, early colonial or late colonial? In some usages these are {questions of peviodization, while in others they are elaborated into whole ‘Tejocultural systems, full ledged oppositional models. In much ethnohis- ‘torical discourse especially, the years immediately prior to Spanish contact Seawe ava Tataralized benchmark, and the task then is to reconstruct the _DRE" MIFETOUS CUMS oF, alternatively, its fall from grace as Furopean + Bramination proceeds. We have been far too concerned with sorting out { She Indian from the Spanish, the colonial from the contemporary, and less | Concerned than we should be with the proceses of istorical change. We _ Nave been far too preoccupied with the structure of communities and cargo systems and have paid 300 little atention to cheic formation “However, striving to avoid the pitfalls inherent in ideal-type opposi- sional models will not by itself solve all our historiographical problems. ‘The ethnohistorian still faces the task of periodization, whether the project concerns the past of a specific people or more general historical pro- esses in a larger context (Lennihan 1991: 109). But are historical periods Mesoamerica’s Echnographic Past 395 really all that different from oppositional models? One might say that a types designed for comparative purposes, whereas historical periods are constructed more inductively and apply onl othe seciety understudy Yeti is easy to thnk of “mega periods” in Mesoamei, such as “pr Conquest” and Yolonal that assume the status of deal ol if wee them, whether by design or by default. My point is thatthe difference be- tween historical periods and theoretical models is fuzzy. The necessity of periodization means that dealing in some fashion with a sequence of struc tures may well be unavoidable, even in the mos process-oriented analyses Moore's (1987: 729) suggestion that we develop processual perspectives by aviding sheds of "ected orders” haar hen changed ignores the lamental necessity of determining historical baselines. Tconeur with Nancy Farriss, who suggests that the uneasy relation- between process and structure is something that we must eam Rive L with; Faris (1984: 405) asks, “How does one reconcile the linear, dynamic “approach of history with the systemic, holistic approach of anthropoloy | Fractiealy, how docs one depict a strdctue in motion? Would doing so be much diffrent, afterall, from an avowedly processual attempt to portray event-based “change-inthe-making”? “There is an inherent methodologi- il pole in cobiing the to, probly ot ae a lation, Neither structure no i leche tothe tien yer arly of hears necessary eles some di tortion ofthe other. Given the impossibility of achieving a perfect ‘movin picture; one can only hope that historians will ind the tempo too slow and anthropologists find it too fast—in equal measure” (ibid: 406). Conclusion Despite their methodological differences, I have always regarded ethnog raphy and ethnohstory as alternative paths to the same end pert IMBGH oF these tro methodologies ia challenge, yet we al wand aa from their integration, whether we choose to call the result “ethnohistory” or something else. Just as it is no longer possible to fall back on the meta- phor of the ethnographic present, the problematic temporal assumptions ‘of what I have called the ethnographic past should also be avoided. The invention of tradition may well be a cultural universal; classes, govern- rents, communities, and interest groups of all kinds inyoke versions of the ‘past to make the present meaningful and legitimate, Scholars are io more [Eimune to this Prctice thar atone dle, bur Ells to us ethnohisor-sys Jobn K. Chance ‘ans to question, probe, and document tradition to the best of our abilities. Ethnohistory can strengthen the ethnographic enterprise, but it also has the power to upset long-established ethnographic vertis. As an ethnographer Eolleague once told me, “Ethnohistory can be dangerous!” I took that as a compliment. Notes ‘This article was delivered as the presidential address at the x995 Annual Meeting of the American Society for Ethnohistory, Kalamazoo, Michigan, 4 November. + Ethnobisory's role in history departments may be diferent, though nor is simile a Hl ta Monaghan (3987) study ofthe persistence ofthe Quiché- Cakchiquel Span Saclay, Guatemala, is 4 sgieant exception It deals withthe carer cep of be community's history and is a are instanceof collaboration fctween sr thaohistorian and an ethnographer. 45 RaNEE Sxeepton isthe work of Gonzo Aguire Bein (1946, 1953, 1957 ieee Rioreally minded anthropologist who has contributed to ethno FEC h edition tole and ethnography in nearly equal mease 1 bee togeapers dene the srchives, hey sometimes become divoriented MEd dealt oslo historical dat to their main ethnographic concerns. TERME east ewo Mesoamerican ethnograpers wio carried out extensive pkgal researc: bat aver used te data in ther published work, 45 te Mlenico, Aguirre Beltin’s (1956) pioneering study of blac, community poets eri an erly example ofthe integeation of archival and ethno- graphic research «fal ewok on Memosenango, osemaly sho promo be tn important contribution, +7 Carma (in press ina noted exception. 4 ne are of cours, numerous local snd regional variants ofthe system that fannot be dscorsed here 9 Caras’ (eséab historical recostrution fr Naha central Mexico was for Gecades vitally the only ethnohistrial weatment. zo Wile Caraco(aggor 319-20) agrees thatthe cargo system acquired its cas Se alilou foo the nineteenth ceatry, be argues that allowing for ae reyetarason) the indigenos, re-Conquest roots ofthe laser of ae eet individual sponsorship "were converted ito the foundation of the Peeetytem described by modern enography” (ibid: 324). Thovgh we are eB greene on the dat, Taylor and {sues the changing politcal and dae esnexts tat brought cla practices into new stuctral erange- eon fe Carraco places more emphasis on the practices themselves, But “rea wats sn divergent aetings or periods may have ferent significance and segs Focusing foo much on eatral content may lead ws to miss impor Tia Sodteaualdiferences- Thos individual sponsorship of ceremonies in ay, tae ute cenriey Cholula and tveneth-cery Zincantan may appeas tobe iiMence of the “same pracce” and hence evidence of cultural contiuiy. But seratard them ay such overlooks the fact that individual sponsorship was less “Mesoamerica’s Ethnographie Past 397 ee Sore regi fen et chet SET and cent einem em ng ey teeta Fe ice nace ese slic ey vw ecole contin ofeulfural elements, iigin is lanery Gf cinntgioes agers wc cera mee ‘se fissile. The gland May towne paral che Banal xse) ae especialy pertien. eee oa rr artemis in Community a5 te ame of ester or sty aloes ea age sang unobserved nd enya Howe, Dakin seo doncrves thas community studies remain a staple of Mesoamerican et ral “ 1» Reka) fire dtcechuer om Megat ee et ee zones based on contrasting of regional market integratic a He suggests thar history the Ceeol espera comannty hes pedicel ee eral ares with dnd markting estes, where peasants have tie con ite cnet ind poncin ate 1x3 Wasserstrom's (1983) ethnohistory of the Chiapas hi sie izations about Maya culture made by few ofthe ees stoic ‘minded ethnographers who have worked in the region. d Seimei ep i hs 415 Hill (1989:170) has expressed similar sentiments regarding Maya ethnohistory. References ‘AgireBlién, Gonzalo 94S 1a poblaion negra de México, 1 oblastn negra de México, 19-rbo. Mexico Ci Fuente Ca- 1933 Formas de gobierno indigens. Mexico Ci 1957 El proces de aculturaci. Mexico Ci n eats cr o38 Gils Ebon nog d un peta negro: Mesco iy: Foo de 1967 Regiones de refugio. Mexico City: Instituto lk, Reg Fug City: ‘Nacional Indigenista, 1961. The Ethnohistorie Approac ae storie Approach and Archaeology. Ethnohistory 8: 49-77. 1967 Acculturation. In Handbook of Middle American Indians. Vol. 6, Social Anthropology. M. Nash, ed. Pp. 449~68. Austin: University of Texas + Imprenta Universitaria Inivesidad Nacional Aut6-ry Jobn K. Chance Bloch, Mare LB. Bos5 The Historian's Crafe, Peter Ptnam, trans. New York: Knopf. Bricker, Victoria Rifler Sa The indian Christ the Indian King: The Histsial Substrate of Maya ‘Myth and Ritual, Austin: University of Texas Press. Brose, David S. ' Sout The Direct Historic Approach to Michigan Archaeology. Ethnohistory Her si-6. Brown, Jennifer SH. | soot Ethnohistorians; Strange Bedfellows, Kindred Spirits. Ethnohistory 38: 333. Bunzel, Ruth pst Chichicastenango: A Guatemalan Village. Seattle: University of Wash- ington Press Cancian, Frank 1967 Political and Religions Organization. In Handbook of Middle Ameri fan Indians, Vol. 6, Social Anchropology. M. Nash, ed. Pp. 283-98. ‘Austin: University of Texas Press. 1992 The Decline of Community in Zinacantan: Economy, Public Life, and Socal Stratification, 1960-1987. Stanford, ca: Stanford Unive Sity Pres. Ccamack, Rober M. impress Rebels of Highland Guatemala: The Quiché-Mayas of Momoste- nango. Norman University of Oklahoma Press. Carrasco, Pedro Tena’ El bacco y la reglacin del matrimonio en un pueblo del vale ‘México en el sigo XVL Revista Mexicana de Estudios Antropolégicos 37: 7-26 agéib The Civi-Religious Hieraschy in Mesoamerican Communities: Pre- Spanish Background and Colonial Development. American Anchro- logit 63 483-97. 964 Fay ratte of Ssteenh-Cenzary Teporln, In Proges and Fat tern i Culture: Essays in Honor of Julian FL. Steward. Robert A. Man- nets ed; Pp. 185-210. Chicago: Aldine 1990 Sobre el origen histérico de la jrarqufa politco-ceremonial de tas comunidades indigenes, In Histoca, antropologa polities: Homenaje «nna! Palerm, Modesto Suérez, ed. Vols, pp. 306-26. Mexico City: ‘Nianea Editorial Mexicana 1994 Personal communication, xx November. hanes, John 1986" Colonial Ethnohistory of Oaxaca. In Supplement to the Handbook: fof Middle American Indians. Vol. 4, Ronald Spores, ed. Pp. x65-89. ‘Austin University of Texas Press, 1989 Conquest ofthe Siera: Spaniards and Indians in Colonial Osxaca ‘Nocinans University of Oklahoma Press. 1990 Changes in Twenseth-Century Cargo Systems. In Class, Politics, and Popular Religion in Mexico and Central America. Lynn Stephen and James Dow, eds. Pp. 27-42- Washington, Dc: Society for Latin Ameri- ‘an Anthropology; American Anthropological Assocation. Mesoamerica’s Ethnographic Past 399 1994 Indian Elites in Late Colonial Mesoamerica, In Caignes and Theic eal Ven Honore Ronald Spor pee Masa Jui rancis Zen, es, Pp. 45-65. Anthropological Papers, No. 85. Ann [Arbors Universiyof Michigan, Museum of Ancopoogy. 1996 ° ‘The Batros of Colocial Teel Patronage, Kinship, and Tetorial Re 1095 acne in a Central Mexican Community. Esology 352) 307-13 in press ‘The Catigues of Tcl; Case aad Eth Ident tn Late Colonial Mexico. Hispanic American Historical Review Chace, Join Ky and Wiliam B. Tayloe 1985 Cafts and Cars: An Historical Perspective onthe Mesoamerican Grit Religious Hierarchy. American Ednologi rs -26 Cline, Howard F "D2 Inroducton: Reflections on Ethnohistory. In Handbook of Middle ‘meican Indians, Vol sa, Gude to Ethnohistoicl Sources. HF ies eds Pp 5-36. Austin University of Texas Pres Coe, Michas 7365 A Model of Ancient Community Structure in the Maya Lowlands. [° Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 23: 97-104 omarof Joh, and Joan Comarat 'ig92_ Ethnography and the Historical Imaginatioa. Boulder, co: Westview. serch, Guleone “ 1981 A Legacy of Promises: Agriculture, Politics, and Ritual in the Morelos Highlands of Mexico, Austin: University of Texas Press. Dennis, Philip A. 2987, Intecillage Conflict in Oaxaca. New Brunswick, sity Press. DeWal, Billie R. 1975" Changes in the Cargo Systems of Mesoamerica. Anthropological Quar- werly 48: 87-105, Diskin, Merin . 1995 Aropoogcal Fieldwork in Mesoamerie: Foss onthe Field Latin smerican Research Review 30: 163-75. Fabian, Johannes ee 1983 Time and the Other: How Anthropology Makes Its Object. New York Columbia Univesity Press, Farriss, Nancy M. 1984 Maya Society under Colonial Rule: The Collective Enterprise’of Sur- vival. Princeton, wy: Princeton University Press. Fenton, William N. 1952 The Training of Historical Ethnologists in America. American Anthro- ppologise 54: 328-39. 3957 American Indian and White Relations to x830: Needs and Opportuni- ties for Study. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. 1966 Field Work, Muscum Studies, and Ethnohistorical Research. Ethno- history 13: 71-85. Gamio, Manuel 1922 La poblacién del valle de Teotihuac de Edvcacién Pablica uigers Univer 3 vols. Mexico City: SecretariaJohn K, Chance “Henderson, job S. Tor The World of the Ancient Maya. thaca wv: Cornell University Pres. Hill, Robert M, IL gs Social Organization by Decree in Colonial Highland Guatemala, Fchno- history 36:170-98. i992 Colontal Cakchiquels: Highland Maya Adaptations to Spanish Raule, $00-3700, Fore Worth, x: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich Bil Robert M, land John Monaghan T3ay Gontnuities in Highland Maya Social Organization: Ethnohistory in Secapulas, Guatemala, Philadelphia: Univesity of Pennsylvania Press. ‘Hobsbawm, Eric, and Terence Ranger, ds. 198), he Invention of Tradition, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ‘ant, M. Eva, and June Nash 9G? Local and Territorial Units. Ix Handbook of Middle American Indi fans, Vol. 6, Social Anthropology. M. Nash, ed. Pp. 253-82. Anstin: University of Texas Pres. Ingham, John M. Same and Space in Ancient Mexico: The Symbolic Dimensions of Clan- ship. Man 6: 615-29. Kellogg, Susan Tae stories for Anthropology: Ten Years of Historical Research and Write dng by Anthropologists, 2980-1990. Social Science History 25: 417-5- Leoniban, Louse D. yor” Custom and Wage Conflict: Problems of Periodization and Chronology $f Northern Nigerian Labor History. ln Golden Ages, Dark Ages: mag ining the Pase sm Anthopology and History. Jay O'Brien and William Roceberry, eds. Pp. 107-25. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. Lewis, Oscar Tost. Life in a Mexican Village: Tepoatn Restudied. Urbana: University of Iilinois Press. te view Sel and History in Some Valley of Mexico T “ofa Views of Corporate story in Some Valley of Mexico Towns: Vea SSrentelh and Eighteenth Ceneries, fn The Inca and Aztec Sates, 1400-1800: Anthropology and History. George A. Collie, Re- ato, Rosaido, and Joh D. Wirth, eds. Pp. 367-93. New York: Aca- demic agg The Nahuas after the Conquest: A Social and Cultural History of the Indians of Central Mexico, Sixteenth through Eighteenth Centuries. Stanford, ca: Stanford University Press. Mallon, Florencia E. soos" Peasant and Nation: The Making of Postcolonial Mexico and Peru. Berkeley and Los Angeles: Univesity of California Press Monaghan, John Soa enae ie Covenants with Earth and Rain: Exchange, Sacrifice, and Revela- tion in Mixtec Socialiry. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, Mooce, Sally Falk Boe, Explaining the Present: Theoreical Dilemmas in Processual Ethnogra- phy. American Eshnologst 4: 727-36. ‘Mesoamerica’s Ethnographic Past 4or Nicholson, H.. “O75” Midle American Benohswry: An Overview n Handbook of Mile American Ce Vol 15, Guide to Ethnohistorical Sources. H. F. nee. Fp 87303. Astin: Univesity of Teas Press Nutini, Hugo G. 2 : Ib6r Cian Organization n a Nahua! Speaking Vilage inthe Sate of Tae cai Met Aneta “Anthropelogist 63 62°78 1988 To Sanonin Ruri Taweals' A Shere. Expressive and Symbolic uso of te Ca ofthe Bed. Pct, Pescaon Univer ee Ne Hoge Ged Bay Bl "580 | Riual Kinship Vols, The Seuctre and Hisorial Development of the Compa Ser in Raa Tac. Psion, Painctton Niveaty Peas oe Toor Gallen Age, Dsl ge aging the Pas in Anevopology and His ve nt etsy ad Lo ngs: ‘University of California Pres 3991 Re-creating Peasant Economy in Southern Peru. In Golden Ages, Dark Aga nagning the Ps Ahopoogy ad History Tay O'Brien aie Willan Reseberys ede Pp B.106” Berke la University of California Pres.” edt Parson Ee Cs {O96 Miley Town ofthe Souls and other Zapoteco-Speaking Pueblos of ‘Oaxaca, Mexico. Chicago: University of Chicago Pres: dame Patch, Robert W. Saree eens 1993 Maya and Spaniard in Yocstan, 1648-181. Sanford c4 Stanford Uni- very Pres, Peskin, Stephen M 7994) Commaiiy, Land, and Clas in Central Mexico: A Review of Fthno- en eileen Gest eas Gana ee Po cee Bee ae cee eae net SE ere eee Rathje, William L. eh ie! ee ee and Tentative patheses. Worl eS eee ig, eon ge Af it hap ae Ties ‘Joy OTBren “sor,” Introduction. Golden Ages, Dac Ages: Imagining the Pasta An thropology and History, Jay O'Brien and Willarn Roseberry, eds. Pp. s-18. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.402 Jobn K. Chance Rubinstein, Robert A., ed. "1991 Fieldwork: The Correspondence of Robert Redfield and Sol Tax. Boul- der, co: Westview. Rass, Jan, and Robert Wasserstrom, “1980. Civil-Religious Hierarchies in Central Chiapas: A Critical Perspective. American Ethnologist 7: 466-78. Schryer, Frans J. 2980 ‘The Rancheros of Pisaflores: The History of a Peasant Bourgeoisie in ‘Twentieth-Century Mexico. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. 1990 Ethnicity and Class Conflict in Rural Mexico. Princeton, n Princeton University Press. Skinner, G. William 2971 Chinese Peasants and the Closed Community: An Open and Shut Case. ‘Comparative Studies in Society and History 13: 270-81. Smith, Carol A. "1990 Introduction: Social Relations in Guatemala over Time and Space. In Guatemalan Indians and the State, 540 60.1988. Carol A. Smith, ed. Pp. ‘r-go. Austin: University of Texas Press. Spores, Ronald, ed. 1986 Supplement o the Handbook of Middle American Indians. Vol. 4, Ethnohistory. Austin: University of Texas Press. Stern, Seve J 1983, The Struggle for Solidarity: Class, Culture, and Community in High- land indian Ameries, Radical History Review 27: 21-45 Steward, lian H, “p42 The Direct Historical Approach to Archaeology. American Antiuity 7337-43 Taylor, William 8. ‘579 Drinking, Homicide, and Rebellion in Colonial Mexican Villages, tan- ford, ex Stanford University Pres. “Trigger, Bruce G Sor Dstingoished Lecture in Archeology: Constraint and Freedom—A New Synthesis for Archeologial Explanation. American Anthropolo- Bist 93° S51-69. Vincent Joan 986 System and Proces, 1974-1985. Annual Review of Anthropology 35: 93-9 Vogt, Evon Z 1565 Some Implications of Zinacanén Socal Structure fr the Stady ofthe Ancient Maya. fr Ancient Mesoamerica Selected Readings. John A. Graham, comp. Pp.176-88 Plo Alo, cx: Peek Wosley, Charles 54) The Socal and Religious Life of Guatemalan Village. American An- Shopslogal Asonation Mannie No. 7- Mess, te American ‘Anthropological Association ‘Wassestom, Robert 1983 Clas and Society in Central Chiapas. Berkeley and Los Angeles: Uni- versity of California Pres. : ‘Mesoamerica’s Ethnographic Past 493 ‘Watanabe, John 1g92” Maya Saints and Souls in a Changing World. Austin: University of “Texas Press. ‘Wobst, H. Martin 1978 The Archaeo-Ethnology of Hunter-Gatherers; or, The Tyranny of the Foot, ere EtmOe Phe Recordin Archaology. American Antiquity 4: 33-9. Piet so Sah a Cs Mean andCoel yg Ree a Est