Cloth, Gender, Continuity, And Change

Wiley and American Anthropological Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toAmerican Anthropologist.

http://www.jstor.org

Cloth, Gender, Continuity, and Change: Fabricating Unity in Anthropology Author(s): Elizabeth M. Brumfiel Source: American Anthropologist, New Series, Vol. 108, No. 4 (Dec., 2006), pp. 862-877Published by: on behalf of the Wiley American Anthropological AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4496525Accessed: 08-03-2015 02:02 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/ info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Sun, 08 Mar 2015 02:02:57 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

U1 ELIZABETH M. BRUMFIEL

Presidential Address

Cloth, Gender, Continuity, and Change: Fabricating Unity in Anthropology

ABSTRACT In this article, I compare backstrap-loom weaving in three cultural contexts: the ancient Maya, the ancient Aztecs, and 20th- century Mesoamerica. Although continuities are present, important differences exist in the ways that weaving was situated historically. Among the Classic Maya, weaving defined class; in Aztec Mexico, weaving defined gender; and in 20th-century Mesoamerica, weaving defined ethnicity. A comparison of these cases suggests that historical study is a useful tool for both archaeologists and ethnographers. It promotes recognition of the diversity of practice and belief in ancient societies. It helps to define the scope of contemporary ethnographic study. It combats cultural essentialism and injects agency into our accounts. It enables us to acknowledge both the rich heritage of indigenous peoples and the fact of culture change. Comparative historical study provides a strong rationale for the continued association of archaeology and cultural anthropology as parts of a wider anthropological whole. [Keywords: historical anthropology, ethnographic analogy, Mesoamerica, cloth, women's work]

T HREE IMAGES of indigenous Mesoamerican women weaving on backstrap-looms provide the focus of this discussion (see Figure 1). The first is a ceramic figurine from the Late Classic Maya site of Jaina, between 1,100 and 1,300 years old. The second is an illustration from the Aztec Flo- rentine Codex, composed shortly after the Spanish Conquest 500 years ago. And the third is a photograph of Dofia Luisa HernAndez, of Samayac, Guatemala, taken in 1992. At first glance, these three images suggest striking continuity in women's work as weavers in Mesoamerica. The similarity of this work might suggest a continuity of women's activities, social roles, and subjectivity across a millennium of Mesoamerican history.

But are these women engaged in a single, uniform activity? Elements of continuity are obviously present, but these similarities can mask differences-differences that we ignore at our peril, whether we are archaeologists or cultural anthropologists. For archaeologists, the danger is "presen- tism," a form of ethnocentric thinking that projects contemporary views and practices into the past. Using limited points of similarity between the past and present to justify the projection of entire constellations of ethnographic data backward into antiquity easily distorts our understanding of how ancient societies actually operated (Freeman 1968; Gould 1980; Robin 2002; Stahl 1993; Trigger 1981; Upham 1987; Wobst 1978; Wylie 1985; Yoffee 1993). For cultural

anthropologists, the danger is twofold: first, counting cer- tain practices or perspectives as "traditional" without engaging in historical research (Ardren 2006; Chance 1996; Hayashida n.d.), and second, accepting the persistence of "traditional" practices or perspectives as unproblematic. As William Roseberry and Jay O'Brien observe, to assume that cultural ideas or practices are passively inherited from the past is "to miss precisely those features that make [traditional] cultural expressions important aspects of people's current lives" (1991:1).

Both the telescoping of the past into the present and the present into the past erase cultural change. Applied to non-Western people, confounding the past and the present reinforces the illusion that non-Western cultures are con- servative and "cold" (Chance 1996; Ohnuki-Tierney 2001; Stahl 2001; Trigger 1981). Applied to Western culture, pre- sentism essentializes and naturalizes contemporary social practices and supplies an ideological argument for resisting change (Conkey with Williams 1991; Gero 1985).

Recognizing the perils of time travel, some archaeologists and cultural anthropologists have abandoned all comparisons of the past and the present. Archaeologists have argued that interpretations of past cultures should be limited to the material record that archaeologists recover (although I doubt that this is actually possible). Some cultural anthropologists have been ready to dismiss any

AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST, Vol. 108, Issue 4, pp. 862-877, ISSN 0002-7294, electronic ISSN 1548-1433. C 2006 by the American Anthropological Association. All rights reserved. Please direct all requests for permission to photocopy or reproduce article content through the University of California Press's Rights and Permissions website, at http://www.ucpress.edu/journals/rights.htm.


Brumfiel * Presidential Address 863

concern with actual historical events, with the rationale that the past is never really knowable (Herzfeld 2001:55). And on this basis, among others, both archaeologists and cultural anthropologists have argued for the abandonment of multifield anthropology: Let archaeologists and cultural anthropologists pursue their interests in free-standing, separate departments, they say. Multifield anthropology has been labeled an anachronism, a residue of Boasian theory, now made obsolete by our current awareness of the contemporary processes through which culture is forged: the invention of tradition (Hobsbawm and Ranger 1983), the imagining of communities (Anderson 1983), globalization (Appadurai 1996; Hannerz 1992; Wolf 1982), and the daily negotiation of gender, class, and ethnicity (Butler 1990, 1993; di Leonardo 1984; De Genova 2005).1

But I believe that comparative historical study is advantageous for both archaeologists and cultural anthropologists. In the presence of continuities such as backstrap- loom weaving, much can be learned from the careful comparison of differences in the way that weaving has been situated in various historical contexts. The contrasting modes of weaving, labor investment, textile allocation, and social capital acquired by individuals participating in the textile industry, and the variable place of weaving, a salient form of human labor, in definitions of moral economies and figured worlds, clearly indicate that the women in our three focal images are engaged in three quite different af- fairs. But because of these contrasts, each of these situations informs the others and provides essential aid in understanding how each system worked. Comparative historical study unites and strengthens the work of both archaeologists and cultural anthropologists; thus, it provides an important rationale for the continued association of archaeology and cultural anthropology as parts of a wider anthropological whole.

WEAVING IN CLASSIC MESOAMERICA The earliest weaving in Mesoamerica dates to the Middle Formative period, 1000-800 B.C.E. Fragments of cloth from this period have been recovered from highland Mexico (Vaillant 1930:38), and cloth garments are depicted on stone monuments from La Venta, where they are worn in conjunction with towering feather headdresses. These monuments suggest to Barbara Stark and colleagues (1998) that cloth was a prestige good in early Mesoamerica, which differentiated elite individuals from those of lesser rank.

The continued importance of cloth as a prestige good during the Classic Maya period (C.E. 250-900) is demon- strated by representations of elaborate robes on women of high rank on Maya stelae, whose elite status is confirmed by the associated inscriptions (Morris 1985b). The elite nature of cloth production is suggested by the Jaina figurine; the large ear flares, chunky necklace, and decorated cuffs worn by the Jaina weaver mark her as elite (see Figure la). Such accessories are worn by high-ranking women appearing on

Maya stelae, and they are almost identical to the accessories worn by a female scribe figurine, also from Jaina. The similarity of the Jaina weaver and the Jaina scribe suggests that both weaving and writing were skilled crafts, carried out in elite households to affirm their noble standing, as described by Takeshi Inomata (2001).

On Maya stelae, elite women frequently appear pre- senting tied bundles of cloth to royal males (see Figure 2); Rosemary Joyce (1992) suggests that this cloth was one of the contributions made by elite women to elite ritual performances. Although archaeologists rarely encounter ancient cloth in the hot, humid Maya lowlands, a several fragments have been recovered from ritual contexts such as burials and offerings in caves and cenotes (Brady 1995; Carlsen 1986, 1987; Lothrop 1992; Morehart et al. 2004; Rue et al. 1989).2 The ritual uses of bundling and wrapping with cloth are dis- cussed in an article by Julia Kappelman and Kent Reilly (in press).

The designs on the robes on Maya stelae, vases, and figurines suggest labor-intensive techniques of cloth production. Curvilinear designs on women's garments suggest embroidery or painting. Geometric designs might represent brocading, with rhomboid designs being popular in Classic times, as they are now (Joyce 1996; Morris 1985a, 1985b; Tedlock and Tedlock 1985). Textile remains from Maya burials suggest that the repertoire of decorative techniques included painting, gauze weave, and brocade (Carlsen 1986, 1987).

The organization of textile production can be recon- structed from the distribution of artifacts such as ceramic spindle whorls (for spinning thread), bone needles (for sewing garments, adding fringe to selvages, or embroidering cloth), and bone picks (for brocading). These tools are not evenly distributed among all Classic Maya households; they tend to be associated with elite residences. For example, at the site of Copan, spinning and weaving tools are con- centrated in some, but not all, high-status households (see Figure 3; Hendon 1997). At Motul de San Jose, spinning tools were most common in the highest-status households and least common in the lowest-status households (Halperin in press). At the Maya village of Ceren, weaving tools were most numerous in the house that was closely associated with organizing ritual performances (Beaudry- Corbett and McCafferty 2002). At the commoner community of Chan Nbohol, Belize, stone and ceramic spindle whorls were neither common nor ubiquitous, and bone needles and weaving picks were all together absent (Robin 1999:272).

Finally, weaving tools are present in high-status tombs containing women at Yaxuna, Copan, and Caracol (Ardren 2002:83; Bell 2002:97; Chase and Chase 1998) and containing men at Tikal and Altun Ha (Welsh 1988:284, 297). Male burials with weaving tools exhibit no other signs of gender bending or gender ambiguity. Thus, cloth production appears to have been a high-status craft in Clas- sic Maya culture, but it was not the exclusive work of women.


864 American Anthropologist * Vol. 108, No. 4 * December 2006

? ::. . .. .....i.:

i :i ::ji

: :::-:: :

-?..:..: ':::. ::. :.. ....: : .

:.: :: :

? ::" ?: * ::.::

?ii

fo .

....

?mr .....( All )1

6L W( 777)

FIGURE 1. Three images of indigenous Mesoamerican women weaving on backstrap looms. A: Jaina figurine. (Photograph ?Justin Kerr, File Number K2833) B: Aztec weaver, SahagOn, 1961, Bk. 10, Ch. 1. (Courtesy of the School of American Research and the University of Utah) C: Luisa Hernandez, Samayac weaver. (Photograph by Carlos Lopez; courtesy of the Museo lxchel del Traje Indigena de Guatemala)



.....,...C olo

IWIP

:"~~ ~

i: .. ?.)'

dl: ~ ~

:. ,"

... '..::i:. , :,.~':??~

Hi 1

40P %Now

FIGURE 2. Lady Great Skull presents a tied bundle of cloth to her royal husband, Ruler Bird Jaguar, ruler of Yaxchilan. (Drawing, Yaxchilan, Lintel 1, from Corpus of Maya Hieroglyphic Inscriptions, Vol. 3, Part 1, Yaxchilan, reproduced courtesy of the President and Fellows of Harvard College)

WEAVING IN POSTCLASSIC MESOAMERICA Seven centuries later, at the height of the Aztec Empire, cloth circulated much more widely. Cloth was an important market commodity and an item of tribute (Berdan 1987; Brumfiel 1991; Smith 2003). Working from Aztec tribute lists, Frances Berdan (1987:239) calculates that almost 250,000 pieces of clothing were paid in tribute to the Aztec Empire; this cloth was redistributed to ritual and administrative personnel, craft specialists, warriors, and other faithful servants of the state in exchange for

their services (Berdan 1975:126-129; Broda 1976:41-42). Sixteenth-century chronicles of Aztec culture record that both commoners and nobles used cloth to negotiate social status: Even in commoner households, life crises such as birth, marriage, and death were marked by distributions of food and cloth (see Figure 4; DurTin 1967:155, 290, 1971:122; Sahaguin 1979a:97, 122).

Stark et al. (1998) suggest that the disruption of elite exchange at the end of the Classic period encouraged merchants to take over the task of cloth distribution in



b bone brocade pick d clay disk n bone needle/pin e s spindle whorl e quanity of anrfacms of each type

[i 55is shown by the number preceding the artifat code. 8 ..

Patios are desigated by ltters, e.g. A.

.~? ? =3C L~i C ~r~gig

FIGURE 3. The distribution of weaving tools at Copan, Group 9N- 8 Patios A-F and H. (Drawing from Hendon 1997:43; reprinted by permission of the University of Pennsylvania Press)

Mesoamerica. As commercial activity increased, cloth was transformed from an inalienable good into a commodity. In the anonymity of the market system, cloth produced by commoners could be passed off as the same product as cloth produced by elites. Market exchange would have encouraged commoner women to engage in cloth production to support themselves and their families through spinning and weaving, as they did on the eve of Spanish conquest (e.g., Durin 1971:233).

The expanded volume of cloth production is reflected in greater numbers of spindle whorls, especially in the houses of Postclassic commoners (Brumfiel 2005; Smith and Heath-Smith 1994). Not only were these spindle whorls more numerous, they were also elaborately decorated (Mc- Cafferty and McCafferty 1991). At Xaltocan, sun and flower motifs suggest efforts to endow thread and cloth with tonalli, a light-heat-energy source that is synonymous with divine energy and the heat of life (see Figure 5; Furst 1995:66; Hill 1992; L6pez Austin 1988:204-205; Sandstrom 1991:246-247). These decorated spindle whorls would have called attention to women's standing as creative individuals who augmented the flow of tonalli through their households enabling them to prosper.3 Sun and flower motifs also appear on serving bowls at Xaltocan, underscoring the connection between spinning and weaving, feasting, and

household well-being. In Early Postclassic Xaltocan, spindle whorls and needles begin to appear in some infant burials and women's graves, suggesting that spinning had become an important symbol of female gender identity, and that this identity was assigned at birth.4

The expanded volume of cloth production gave rise to a somewhat more complex division of labor. For example, the presence of large spindle whorls at Xaltocan indicates that maguey-fiber thread was being spun. But the absence of basalt scrapers (used to separate the fiber from the flesh of maguey leaves) suggests that the people of Xaltocan spun fibers that were acquired from people living elsewhere (Brumfiel 2005). Similarly, a high frequency of large spindle whorls but a low frequency of basalt scrapers at the Aztec palace at Cihuatecpan suggests that palace workers might have spun fibers paid as tribute by surrounding commoners (Evans 2005). High frequencies of copper needles at the village of Copilco, Morelos, suggest that this community specialized in some aspect of textile production: embroidering, sewing garments, or finishing cloth selvages with fringe (Cabrera Cortes 2002:17; Fauman-Fichman 1999; Lothrop 1992:46). The expanded volume of cloth production also affected methods of cloth decoration. Whereas the Classic Maya textiles were produced with much labor invested in gauze weaves, brocade, and embroidery, Postclassic textiles were more likely to be painted (Johnson 1954; Johnson and Franco 1967; Landa 1988; Lothrop 1992; Mastache 1996; Vazquez del Mercado 2000). Painting was a quick way of covering woven surfaces with complex symbols. Elite women still produced some labor-intensive textiles, but they did so by embroidering rather than brocading (Sahaguin 1959:88; 1969:96; 1979b:49). Elite women may have chosen to embroider because they were decorating already woven tribute cloth. Thus, weaving and cloth decoration emerged as separate steps in textile production, performed by different classes.

Weaving in Aztec Mexico was a strongly gendered activity. Newborn baby girls were presented with the symbols of womanhood: "the spinning whorl, the batten, the reed basket [for unspun cotton], the spinning bowls, the skeins, the shuttle, her little skirt, her little blouse" (Sa- haguin 1969:201). And as we have seen, a woman's weaving equipment was placed with her when she died (Sahagiin 1981:138). Spinning and weaving served as metaphors for women's experiences with pregnancy and childbirth, and female deities were depicted with spinning and weaving tools (Klein 1982; Sullivan 1982; McCafferty and McCafferty 1991). Although weaving may have distin- guished class among the Classic Maya, weaving in Aztec society was a strong marker of gender.

However, cultural identification of women with cloth production seems not to have reconciled women to their fates as producers of large quantities of tribute cloth under the Aztec Empire. At Xaltocan, the alienation of women from tribute cloth production is suggested by the popu- larity of plain small spindle whorls, used to spin cotton for tribute cloth and market sale, during the Aztec period



Youth [tdpubti] Youth atptchth ] Two mantas Wife of the married youth

Married youth

Youth [t8PelpcI

Youth [telpucbti] A handful of perfumes Youth [telpachbti]

S Tamales, copper axe which is bread Cooked chicken'

Telpacdtli, [which)

rans youth leader

Gourdw bowl for drinking cacao

Se.,ivned warrior IS'eaoned warrior w Seasoned warrior y

FIGURE 4. A young man celebrates his marriage by distributing cloth, food, and smoking pipes to his mates from the young men's house, Codex Mendoza 68r. (Reprinted from Berdan and Anawalt 1992[vol. 3]:143)

X..:X

X4

44w

X,,

4::: '4'i,< :,:,:,::,: 44'i i i i;i!i 7::::i!!:1 ::

.:.::-:: .,:Z ;:

:.':;I;I : :: :. :: ::!:+ ! ..: :. .`:... . ;;``;.`. :.; . `. .`

.`::. :::;::: ; . : '': :

: ; :.: :: :: !i:!.:i~i "d l;;:i;: ::i:: i::::::!! ,: !i:;::;i'!:: i:i.; :i:.:.:: i: >.:-i,:;.:-.. .: ::,

% :::

..:. : " :;: " ;< .i: ::::i::, :.:+,:;,,:::;:: ..: ;::. i;:: :: : ::: :;;:: :~i: 7 ::i::;! !!::!:~i!! !i' ':i.. ::>i;'. i;;:::i':':g ::: i, ';:i :!!T ~

_

__i 7 8 9 I ()~

.: ! !! : iZ: ::::::: ::i;.i : i:.::;!:::::: : :: :!.!:.!: :i.:~i ..........

'*?'.! !-. -::/ ::' :,:.: !!;: ::! L:;;. ,: 14 ' ;:::


(Brumfiel 2001). This might even mark an act of resistance, an effort to withhold tonalli from tribute cloth intended for imperial coffers. Ceramic spindle whorls disappeared all together during the colonial era (McCafferty and McCafferty 1991:32). Spinning continued, but with less durable, more makeshift spindle whorls such as the wood or metal spindle whorls made from jar tops used by the Wixaritari today (Schaefer 2002:40).

Thus, cloth production was first a source of income for weavers in Postclassic Mesoamerica, but later an instrument of their oppression. Only after cloth production skills were widely diffused through commoner production of cloth for market sale did levies of cloth tribute become possible. Mesoamerican cloth production may constitute an example of what Timothy Pauketat (2000) has called "the tragedy of the commoners." Having become more energetic and ex- pert cloth producers to advance their own ends, commoners could then be required to produce cloth for appropria- tion by others. In assessing tribute, the state allocated some forms of tribute to men and others to women (e.g., Guzmin 1938). The result was the exploitation of both women and men, with increasingly rigid gender distinctions between them (see Gailey 1987).

WEAVING IN 20TH-CENTURY MESOAMERICA If weaving among the Classic Maya defined class and weaving in Aztec Mexico defined gender, then weaving in 20th-century Mesoamerica defined ethnicity. Weaving and ethnicity have been deployed in three different ways, often simultaneously. First, weaving has been used to acknowledge social obligations among members of indigenous families and communities. Second, weaving has been used to promote craft sales and tourism to outsiders. And third, weaving has provided a visible emblem for the emerging pan-Maya political movement.

Distinctive community styles of clothing were not a feature of prehispanic culture; they appeared during the colonial period, as early as 1759 (Hill 1989:183), possibly as a means of claiming access to community lands as populations grew and resource competition intensified. In the 20th century, the particular clothing styles produced by local weavers enabled adults to signify their community membership and, more importantly, their willingness to participate in community forms of reciprocity (Pozas Arciniega 1977; Sandstrom 1991:142; Watanabe 1992). Reciprocal exchanges between community members provided access to land, extra labor, credit, and physical and social safety and thus promoted household well-being (Devereaux 1987; Watanabe 1992). In addition, weaving had ideological implications at the household level. Con- temporary Maya households are rooted in an ideology of mutual obligation and exchange between spouses: "The man plants corn and brings firewood.., the woman prepares the food and weaves clothing" (Rosenbaum 1993:74, see also Altman and West 1992:26; Devereaux 1987:93; Paul 1974).s Thus, the presentation of weaving tools to a

baby girl shortly after birth anticipates her willingness to sustain reciprocal relationships at both the household and community levels (Paul 1974:284; Rosenbaum 1993:75; Vogt 1969:181).

Despite the ideal division of labor, however, women have never met all of their families' needs for textiles, nor have all women woven. Since Spanish Conquest, backstrap- loom weaving has coexisted with other forms of textile production. For example, many of the woolen blankets and sarapes used in indigenous communities have been woven on floor looms by nonhousehold members (Anawalt 1979; Mifio Grijalva 1999:45-46; Stephen 1991b:107-108; Urquiola Permisin 2004). And this is also true of most cotton skirts worn by indigenous women in highland Chi- apas and Guatemala today (Altman and West 1992; Morris 1991:406-408; Osborne 1935:86). With the completion of the Pan-American Highway in the 1950s, factory-made cloth and clothing became available, and in many places this brought to an end the household production of men's clothing. By the 1960s, men wore factory-made clothing in all but 16 Guatemalan communities-as opposed to the 200 communities where women's clothing was still locally produced and worn (Altman and West 1992:51; Greenfield 2004:117; Hendrickson 1995:119). Men cite lower cost, greater comfort, and avoidance of Ladino harassment as reasons for wearing factory-made clothing (Hendrickson 1995:118-119; Watanabe 1992:235). Women, meanwhile, continue to wear indigenous styles of clothing to symbolize their work of bearing and enculturating the next genera- tion and thus perpetuating Mayan culture (Hendrickson 1995:130-132; Warren 1993:46).

In other areas of Mexico, the spread of factory-made cloth was paced by the development of railroads that carried raw cotton to the textile mills with and distributed finished cloth to consumers (Keremitsis 1987). Since the mid-19th century, indigenous groups such as the Wixarika, Huastecs, Nahuas, Totonacs, Otomies, and Yucatec Mayas have used factory-made cloth to make both men's and women's clothing (Sayer 1985:110). In these communities, clothing from factory-made cloth is transformed into distinctive indigenous dress through extensive embroidery, sometimes by hand and sometimes using a sewing machine (Anawalt and Berdan 1994; Cook 1993:68; Greenfield 2004:25, 118; Pefia 1998; Sayer 1985:159-160, 167-179; Schaefer 2002). The repertoire of embroidered designs has been enriched by designs copied from imported Chinese brocaded ribbons and pattern books purchased in Mexico City (Altman and West 1992:108; Greenfield 2004:153; Jopling 1977:224). As in the case of the Aztecs, embroidery enriches already woven cloth.

For clothing still made on a backstrap loom, weavers now rely on commercially spun and dyed yarn (Berlo 1991:450; Greenfield 2004:18; Stephen 1991a:386). This re- duces the time needed for cloth production by two-thirds to three-quarters (Berlo 1991:451), making it possible for weavers to devote more time to the actual weaving process.6 Thus, the spread of factory-produced thread to indigenous



weaving communities has sparked a renaissance in time- consuming brocade techniques. Whereas for a lack of time and money, many women wore undecorated huipils or simple European-style blouses at the end of the 19th century (Altman and West 1992:139; Morris 1986:55), the introduction of factory-produced thread permitted the reintro- duction of brocades, a technique highly valued by Western tourists and foreign buyers who constitute a growing market for indigenous textiles (Annis 1987; Altman and West 1992:11; Carlsen 1993:201; Eber and Rosenbaum 1993; Ehlers 1993; Greenfield 2004:2; Morris 1986, 1991; Schaefer 2002; Stephen 1991a). Similarly, the use of factory cloth for most items of clothing by the Wixarika enables women to devote more energy to weaving the bands and bags that they continue to make for themselves (Schaefer 2002:22).

The Pan-American Highway brought an influx of Euro- pean and North American visitors to Mesoamerica, attracted to the beauty and apparent simple authenticity of Indian life (Garcia Canclini 1993; Morris 1991; van den Berghe 1994). The sale of textiles to outsiders has provided much- needed cash to communities whose farm income has been eroded by population growth in the absence of meaningful land reform; the increased cost of commercial seed, fertil- izer, and pesticides under policies of liberal reform; and the falling prices of maize since NAFTA (Crummett 1998; Eber and Rosenbaum 1993; Greenfield 2004:17-18; Morris 1991; Nash 1993; Rosenbaum 1993:100, 124). Tourist income was particularly important for Maya who were unable to practice subsistence agriculture during the early 1980s because of the intense political violence directed against Maya communities by the Guatemalan government (Verrillo and Earle 1993).

Because many tourists prefer low price to high quality, indigenous weavers have begun to produce new items for this market, such as the small napkins now made in Zinacantan (Greenfield 2004:18). Weavers have also insti- tuted a two-tiered production system that includes a large number of quickly produced, lower-quality textiles and a small number of more painstaking, higher-quality items (Jopling 1977; Morris 1991; Waterbury 1989). As the market for indigenous weaving and embroidery has grown, so has middleman control of product design and marketing, so that these sometimes constitute separate steps in the production process (Cook 1993; Crummett 1998; Ehlers 1993; Stephen 1991b; Waterbury 1989; Wood 2000). The income derived from tourist crafts has drawn more women into weaving and has raised household incomes. In some cases, income from weaving has given women greater independence and enabled them to resist unhappy mar- riages (Nash 1993:141; Rosenbaum 1993:100). However, because of structural limits on the scale of women-owned enterprises, income from tourist crafts does not always alter the position of women within the economic and political structures of their communities (Ehlers 1993:xxxv-xxxviii; Waterbury 1989:261-65).

Women are prevented from accumulating capital and expanding their investments because their income from

craft production is continually funneled off to support their households. The drain on women's incomes has been exacerbated by men's change from farm work to wage work. Whereas previously men had few outlets for their corn beyond meeting the subsistence needs of their families, monetary wages are often regarded as discretionary income that can be used to support male business ventures or provide their own enjoyment (Ehlers 2000:xxxiii-xxxix; Schaefer 2002:256; cf. Waterbury 1989:261-265). The drain on women's incomes is even greater when men are absent from the household either because of labor migration (Crummett 1998) or because they have been killed in political violence (Verrillo and Earle 1993; Wilhoit and Cullen 2005). By the 1990s, women's marketing cooperatives had begun to restructure some of the gender relations that limited women weavers (Stephen 2005).

At no time in the 20th century did all indigenous Mesoamerican women weave. In Zinacantan, the "chron- ically overburdened" mothers of young children relied on other women in the community for spinning and weaving (Devereaux 1987:103). The female potters of Amatenango purchased woven garments from the women of Venustiano Carranza, which they then embroidered in the distinctive fashion of their community (Sayer 1985:160). And as early as 1935, women in the Guatemalan town of Panajachel were primarily vegetable growers, not weavers; women in only 63 of the 133 families knew how to weave (Tax 1953:152). Sim- ilarly, in the 1950s, only 22 of 73 women in San Jose Caben, Guatemala, were weavers (Ehlers 2000:41). The members of families in which women did not weave purchased their clothing from women who did, and this was considered acceptable.

It seems, then, that women who were engaged in other forms of income-producing activity often purchased clothing rather than making it. Given that substantial numbers of women were engaged in income-producing activities such as wage work in colonial obrajes (workshops) and the making and selling of pulque (fermented maguey sap) throughout the colonial period (Sousa 1997:211; Urquiola 2004:242; Wood 1997:181) and that almost half of all of the Indian women in Mexico City listed an occupation in 1811 (Kellogg 1997:138), weaving was probably not a uni- versal occupation for women in colonial Mexico. Weaving for family consumption may have been common in Chi- apas precisely because the commercial economy was stag- nant during the colonial period (Gosner 1997:225) and few income-earning activities existed outside the home.

Weavers have not always been women. In Mitla, Oaxaca, men used backstrap looms to weave both belts and cloth for women's skirts (Parsons 1936:43). In Santo Tomis Jalieza, Oaxaca, 56 percent of all backstrap-loom weavers were men who produced textiles for the tourist market (Cook 1993:68). In San Antonio Aguas Calientes, Guatemala, five to ten percent of the men know how to weave. Sheldon Annis (1987:170) found that it was perfectly acceptable for a man to weave on a backstrap loom, but only when sitting in a chair, as opposed to



:w

FIGURE 6. Rosalina Tuyuc, Guatemalan Member of Parliament. (Photograph @A. M. Gross/via)

"sitting like a woman." Men also participate in other stages of textile production. In Chamula, Mexico, both boys and girls fluff and card wool (Rosenbaum 1993:43), and in the Mezquital Valley men are drop spinners (Granberg 1970). In Santo Tom is Chichicastenango and Santa Maria de Jesuis, Guatemala, men embroider the blouses that women weave for themselves (Altman and West 1992:160, 166, 169). Both the women who do not weave and the men who do help us to understand that the statement "the man plants corn and brings firewood.., the woman prepares the food and weaves clothing" is an ideological mandate for reciprocal social relations in indigenous communities; it does not describe a rigidly gendered division of labor.

Native dress provides the Maya with a way of asserting their indigenous rights (Asturias de Barrios 1985; Hendrick- son 1995; Otzoy 1996; Pancake 1991; see Figure 6). Since

the 1980s, educated Mayas in Guatemala have worked to build a cross-class movement of Maya professionals, farmers, laborers, and shopkeepers. They seek greater tolerance for Mayan language and culture, increased political repre- sentation, and a decrease of economic disparities within Guatemala (Fischer and Brown 1996; Warren 1998). Women leaders in the pan-Maya movement often do not weave and embroider because their pursuit of formal education de- prived them of the opportunity to learn to weave at home (Hendrickson 1995:108). These leaders wear indigenous clothing that they themselves have not made to express pride in their Maya identity and to distinguish themselves from Ladino "others" (Hendrickson 1995:197; Otzoy 1996). Activists often wear pieces of clothing from towns other than their communities of origin as an expression of the pan-Maya solidarity that the movement hopes to achieve (Otzoy 1996:153).



CONCLUSION

I suggest, then, that Aztec weavers, ancient Maya weavers, and contemporary Maya weavers engaged in quite different activities. Who they were, what they wove, why they wove, and how they felt about it were different in each case. Clearly, the backstrap loom is a low-capital means of producing an array of cultural products to fit a variety of circumstances: labor-intensive gauze weaves for elite Maya women affirming their social status, plain weaves for Aztec commoners making tribute cloth, showy brocades for modern Maya hoping to sell to tourists, and eye-popping color combinations for hard-pressed indigenous people in need of cosmic energy. Backstrap loom weaving is flexible in terms of both inputs and outputs, and this is why it has endured through two millennia of Mesoamerican history. It would be a disservice to regard this flexible technology and the weavers who deploy it as engaging in a single, unchanging, and uniform practice. It is only an apparent paradox that the cultural elements that persist the longest are those with the greatest history of change. On reflection, it is hard to see how it could be otherwise.

These clear differences in textile production support Cynthia Robin's (2002, 2006) position that all accounts of Mesoamerican culture must be situated in specific historical and regional contexts. Analyses that indiscriminately com- bine the evidence from tenth-century Maya stelae, Bishop Landa's account of the Yucatec Maya, Sahagfin's descrip- tions of the Aztecs, and the ethnography of contemporary highland Chiapas are less valuable than those that delineate four different models by comparing and contrasting these separate times and places.7 The systematic comparison of similarities and especially differences among well-known ethnographic and archaeological cases will enable us to rec- ognize a greater diversity of practice and belief in ancient societies, and this diversity will enrich archaeological model building and hypothesis testing (Stahl 1993).8

Comparative historical studies are also valuable for cultural anthropologists. Sally Falk Moore (2005) has recently observed that anthropologists make use of several different kinds of comparison, each producing its particular type of understanding. I would argue that comparative historical study provides a useful heuristic device during the research process and generates urgently needed dynamic accounts of society and culture for public consumption.

Comparative historical study can help to define the proper scope of cultural analysis. Moore (1987) argues that it is the ethnographer's task to report on events and perspectives from the field and to contextualize these events and perspectives within wider processes. Anthropologists bring two assets to this task. One is our status as outsiders, which causes us to inquire about things that local people take for granted: As many have argued, contrasting ourselves to "others" is the bedrock of ethnographic fieldwork (Geertz 1976; Myerhoff and Ruby 1982; Rabinow 1977). Our second asset is our training in theory, which suggests linkages between the local and the global. However,

synchronic ethnography does not always yield full accounts of native domains of thought and action to us as outsiders, and theory does not always unambiguously establish the interplay between local events and wider contexts. In these situations, comparative historical study is a useful tool: The nuanced differences in a series of historically related cases under evolving social conditions strengthens our ability to grasp the subject of our study in a culturally appropriate way and to understand how and why it has responded as it has to evolving social conditions.

For example, my initial efforts to study backstrap-loom weaving were limited by my own narrow definition of the subject. Like the average Western tourist, I focused on brocades but ignored embroidery and painting (because they occurred after the weaving process). I focused on backstrap-loom production but ignored the reciprocal relations between backstrap-loom production, foot-loom production, and factory-made thread and cloth (because they were not "indigenous"). I analyzed weaving as household production but ignored how production steps could be separated and performed by individuals in different households or communities. Expanding my frame of reference was a very slow process, but the differences among my cases eventually broadened my inquiry. Comparison enabled me to define the properties unique to each case and to suggest the political-economic circumstances that had shaped the methods and meaning of textile production. Although many of my conclusions were anticipated and enriched by Annette Weiner and Jane Schneider's (1989) very fine cross- cultural presentation of cloth and cloth making, only my emersion in historical comparison made their generaliza- tions meaningful to me.

Saussurian linguists have observed for a century that we understand what a thing is by deciding what it is not. But this works best when the elements being compared share some underlying paradigmatic properties. I suggest that in comparative historical study cultural continuity provides the common element that makes definition-via-contrast extremely fruitful.

This discussion has focused on backstrap-loom weaving, but comparative historical study can be applied to any other domain of cultural belief and practice-for example, sacrifice. Mesoamerican people have long presumed that the gods demand blood sacrifice in compensation for their role in creating and sustaining human life (Graulich 1997:113-114; Hamann 2002:355-357; Le6n-Portilla 1993: 42-44; Monaghan 2000:37-39). But at different times, Mesoamerican people have judged this demand to be adequately met with blood-letting from one's own body (Schele and Miller 1986:175-207), the blood of enemy warriors (Caso 1958:93), the blood of turkeys and chickens (Sandstrom 1991:287), red annatto dye (McGee 1990:46), or the death of humans from "natural causes" (Monaghan 1995:252). Surely, a comparison of the ways in which sacrifice has been carried out in different historical contexts would broaden and enrich our understanding of the meanings of sacrifice and blood to ancient and modern



Mesoamerican people and the circumstances that shape these different but related meanings.9

Marshall Sahlins notes that cultural orders "reveal their properties by the way they respond to diverse circumstances," and he advocates a "historical ethnography" that extends over "say, a couple of centuries" (1993:25). Sahlins's historical ambitions must be limited by his text-dependent research-otherwise, why not pursue cultural institutions into prehistory to see how they operated in circumstances other than those that accompanied the penetration of West- ern capital and the colonial encounter? Studies with a deep (pre)historic perspective often amend the conclusions of anthropologists who limit their studies to the modern era (Ohnuki-Tierney 2001; Stahl 2001).

In addition to aiding anthropological research, comparative historical study effectively communicates several important points about culture to nonanthropologists. First of all, comparative historical study demonstrates the contingency of human beliefs and practices, a fundamental goal of anthropology. This goal can also be achieved by means of wide-ranging cross-cultural comparisons (Segal and Yana- gisako 2005:5), but I believe that historical comparison can do things that cross-cultural comparison cannot. Although cross-cultural comparison demonstrates the contingency of specific practices and beliefs from one place to another, in the absence of time depth cross-cultural comparison runs the risk of essentializing the cultures under examination: The Chinese become "dog-eaters" and the French become "horse-eaters." In contrast, historical comparison demonstrates the contingency of culture by showing how practices and beliefs have differed over time under changing historical circumstances. Even clear examples of long-term cultural continuity, such as backstrap-loom weaving, can be shown to change as people face shifting arrays of problems and possibilities.

This historical tracing of cultural practices and beliefs also lends agency to anthropological accounts. Within a synchronic frame of analysis, for example, a baseline de- scription of "precontact culture," it is possible to maintain the fiction that non-Western cultures are static (Stahl 2001). But this becomes untenable in a historical study that exam- ines differences as well as continuities. The fact of change negates the presumption of passive "cultural dupes," especially when culture change is related to conditions that in- fluenced it.

Finally, by refusing to privilege any particular historical epoch, comparative historical study enables archaeologists and cultural anthropologists to acknowledge both the rich cultural heritage of indigenous peoples and the fact of culture change, without challenging the authenticity of descendant communities. Contemporary indigenous cultures can be recognized as the outcome of the efforts by indigenous people to survive as socially and culturally distinctive communities, aided by their unique heritages, which they, like their ancestors, have deployed in flexible and adap- tive ways (Erikson 1999). Such an approach enables anthropologists to validate descendant communities' identities in

the modern world and thus ease the tensions that can develop between anthropologists and politically engaged indigenous people, as described by Jonathan Friedman (1992), Edward Fischer (1999), and Kay Warren (1998).

This excursion into backstrap-loom weaving un- derscores the basic similarity of ethnography and archaeology-and the importance of each for the other. Cultural anthropology and archaeology are both essentially comparative ventures. Both develop understandings of a cultural situation by comparing it to other cases that are defined as relevant. Both postulate the articulation of some variables with others, and these are theoretical acts, acts of imagination, cultural reconstructions. So if, as Michael Herzfeld (2001:55) argues, we can never really know the past, so we can never really know the present. To understand, both archaeologists and cultural anthropologists employ comparative cases and analogical thinking. We work from similarities and differences. And we are dependent on each other to achieve the fullest, richest understanding of people, society, and culture.

I believe that comparisons of the past and the present are among the most useful in anthropology because they help us to define the scope of our investigations, they demonstrate the contingency of culture, they demonstrate agency, and they highlight the cultural heritage of indigenous peoples in nonessentializing ways. Understanding historical change, it turns out, is vitally important for archaeologists and cultural anthropologists. To rephrase Gordon Willey and Philip Phillips (1958:2), archaeology and cultural anthropology are one, or they are-well, not nothing but certainly less comprehensive and coherent as separate fields than they are as complementary parts of a wider whole.

ELIZABETH M. BRUMFIEL Department of Anthropology, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL 60208-1310

NOTES Acknowledgments. I ruthlessly inflicted earlier drafts of this article on a great many friends and family members. I am very grateful to them all for their generous suggestions and insights: Don Bren- neis, Vince Brumfiel, Geoff Brumfiel, Micaela di Leonardo, Cyn- thia Robin, Helen Schwartzman, Alisse Waterston, and Mary Weis- mantel. Maria de Lourdes Gallardo graciously took time from her busy schedule at the Museo del Templo Mayor in Mexico City to help me to understand the complexities of Aztec weaving. Earlier drafts of this article were presented at the Complexity Conference, Northern Arizona University, and the Department of Anthropol- ogy, University of Wisconsin. Members of both audiences offered extremely helpful comments and criticisms, as did Peggy Nelson and two anonymous AA reviewers.

1. See Ohnuki-Tierney (2001) for further discussion of the ahistor- ical move in anthropology. 2. In addition, a cloth-ceramic laminate was used for ceremonial masks and headdresses (Beaubien 2004). 3. Hodder (1986:110) argues that Ilchamus women decorate their calabashes to emphasize milk and children as areas of practical female control. 4. Rega (2000) suggests using burial goods to determine the age at which children were engendered.



5. This resembles the structure of Mixtec household relations, which are based on the willingness of household members to provide each other with food and clothing, the necessities of a healthy life (Monaghan 1995:36). 6. The use of nixtamal mills and tortilla factories, which eliminates the time-consuming processes of grinding corn and cooking tor- tillas by hand, also enables women to devote much more time to weaving (Bauer 1990). 7. Pate (2004:75) makes a similar point for models of gender in prehistoric Eastern North America. 8. Such analyses would be further enriched by examining regional variation in ancient cultures, particularly with an eye to "uneven development," the shifting problems and possibilities that people face by virtue of their differing locations in particular world systems (Roseberry 1989:216). In the case of ancient Mesoamerica, the study of regional variation in textile production would rely on the work of Barbara Ann Hall (1997) and Barbara Stark and colleagues (1998) for Veracruz, Oralia Cabrera Cortes (2001) for Classic Teotihuacan, Stacie King (2003) for Postclassic Oaxaca, and Joy Lothrop (1992) for Chich6n Itza. 9. Also in Mesoamerica, Stark and Chance (in press) find that comparative historical study renders "more intelligible" the fluid relationships of ethnicity, state, and class.

REFERENCES CITED Altman, Patricia B., and Caroline D. West

1992 Threads of Identity: Maya Costume of the 1960s in High- land Guatemala. Los Angeles: Fowler Museum of Cultural His- tory.

Anawalt, Patricia Rieff 1979 The Ramifications of Treadle Loom Introduction in 16th

Century Mexico. In Looms and Their Products: Irene Emery Roundtable on Museum Textiles. 1977 Proceedings. I. Emery and P. Fiske, eds. Pp. 170-187. Washington, DC: Textile Museum.

Anawalt, Patricia Rieff, and Frances F. Berdan 1994 Mexican Textiles. National Geographic Society Research

and Exploration 10:342-353. Anderson, Benedict

1983 Imagined Communities. London: Verso. Annis, Sheldon

1987 God and Production in a Guatemalan Town. Austin: Uni- versity of Texas Press.

Appadurai, Arjun 1996 Modernity at Large: Cultural Dimensions of Globalization.

Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Ardren, Traci

2002 Death Became Her: Images of Female Power from Yaxuna Burials. In Ancient Maya Women. T. Ardren, ed. Pp. 68-88. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.

2006 Mending the Past: Ix Chel and the Invention of a Modern Pop Goddess. Antiquity 80:25-37.

Asturias de Barrios, Linda 1985 Comalapa: El traje y su significado (Comalapa: Dress and

its meaning). Guatemala City: Museo Ixchel. Bauer, Arnold J.

1990 Millers and Grinders: Technology and Household Econ- omy in Meso-America. Agricultural History 64:1-17.

Beaubien, Harriet F. 2004 Ceramic Laminates: Introduction to the Craft Technology

behind Aguateca's Mask. SAS Bulletin 27(4):11-13. Beaudry-Corbett, Marilyn, and Sharisse McCafferty

2002 Spindle Whorls: Household Specialization at Ceren. In An- cient Maya Women. T. Ardren, ed. Pp. 52-67. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.

Bell, Ellen E. 2002 Engendering a Dynasty: A Royal Woman in the Margarita

Tomb, Copan. In Ancient Maya Women. T. Ardren, ed. Pp. 89- 104. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.

Berdan, Frances F. 1975 Trade, Tribute and Market in the Aztec Empire. Ann Arbor:

UMI Research Press.

1987 Cotton in Aztec Mexico: Production, Distribution, and Uses. Mexican Studies/Estudios Mexicanos 3:235- 262.

Berdan, Frances F., and Patricia Rieff Anawalt 1992 The Codex Mendoza. 4 vols. Berkeley: University of Cali-

fornia Press. Berlo, Janet Catherine

1991 Beyond Bricolage: Women and Aesthetic Strategies in Latin American Textiles. In Textile Traditions of Mesoamerica and the Andes. M. B. Schevill, J. C. Berlo, and E. B. Dwyer, eds. Pp. 437-479. Austin: University of Texas Press.

Brady, James E. 1995 A Reassessment of the Chronology and Function of Gor-

don's Cave #3, Copan, Honduras. Ancient Mesoamerica 6:9- 38.

Broda, Johanna 1976 Los estamentos en el ceremonial Mexicana (Estates in Mex-

ican ceremony). In Estratificaci6n Social en la Mesoamerica Pre- hispinica (Social stratification in prehispanic Mesoamerica). P. Carrasco, J. Broda et al., eds. Pp. 37-66. Mexico City: Instituto Nacional de Antropologia e Historia.

Brumfiel, Elizabeth M. 1991 Weaving and Cooking: Women's Production in Aztec

Mexico. In Engendering Archaeology: Women and Prehistory. J. M. Gero and M. W. Conkey, eds. Pp. 224-251. London: Basil Blackwell.

2001 Asking about Aztec Gender: The Historical and Ar- chaeological Evidence. In Recovering Gender in Prehispanic Mesoamerica. C. F. Klein, ed. Pp. 57-84. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks.

2005 Conclusions: Production and Power in Xaltocan. In Pro- duction and Power in Xaltocan. E. M. Brumfiel, ed. Pp. 350-368. Mexico City: Instituto Nacional de Antropologia e Historia.

Butler, Judith 1990 Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity.

London: Routledge. 1993 Bodies That Matter: On the Discursive Limits of "Sex."

London: Routledge. Cabrera Cortes, M. Oralia

2001 Textile Production at Teotihuacan, Mexico. M.A. the- sis, Department of Anthropology, Arizona State University, Tempe.

2002 Haciendo tela en la Ciudad de los Dioses: La producci6n de textiles en Teotihuacan, Mexico (Making cloth in the city of the gods: Textile production in Teotihuacan, Mexico). In Actas: IIJornadas Internacionales Sobre Textiles Precolombinos (Acts: II international workshops on Precolumbian textiles). V. Solanilla Demestre, ed. Pp. 9-25. Barcelona: Department d'Art, Universitat Autdnoma de Barcelona.

Carlsen, Robert S. 1986 Analysis of the Early Classic Period Textile Remains-Tomb

19, Rio Azul, Guatemala. In Rio Azul Reports Number 2, The 1984 Season. R. E. W. Adams, ed. Pp. 122-155. San Antonio: Center for Archaeological Research, University of Texas at San Antonio.

1987 Analysis of the Early Classic Period Textile Remains from Tomb 23, Rio Azul, Guatemala. In Rio Azul Reports Number 3, The 1985 Season. R. E. W. Adams, ed. Pp. 152-160. San Anto- nio: Center for Archaeological Research, University of Texas at San Antonio.

1993 Discontinuous Warps: Textile Production and Ethnicity in Contemporary Highland Guatemala. In Crafts in the World Market. J. Nash, ed. Pp. 198-222. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Caso, Alfonso 1958 The Aztecs: People of the Sun. L. Dunham, trans. Norman:

University of Oklahoma Press. Chance, John K.

1996 Mesoamerica's Ethnographic Past. Ethnohistory 43:379- 403.

Chase, Diane Z., and Arlen F. Chase 1998 The Architectural Context of Caches, Burials, and Other

Ritual Activities for the Classic Period Maya (as Reflected at Caracol, Belize). In Function and Meaning in Classic Maya



Architecture, S. D. Houston, ed. Pp. 299-332. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks.

Conkey, Margaret W., with Sarah H. Williams 1991 Original Narratives. In Gender at the Crossroads of Know-

ledge. M. di Leonardo, ed. Pp. 102-139. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Cook, Scott 1993 Craft Commodity Production, Market Diversity, and Dif-

ferential Rewards in Mexican Capitalism Today. In Crafts in the World Market. J. Nash, ed. Pp. 59-83. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Crummett, Maria de los Angeles 1998 Clase y g6nero en los procesos de cambio en una d6cada de

austeridad. Hogares rurales del municipio de Calvillo, Aguas- calientes (Class and gender in the processes of change in a decade of austerity: Rural households of the municipio of Calvillo, Aguascalientes). In Estrategias femeninas ante la pobreza: El trabajo domiciliario en la elaboraci6n de prendas de vestir (Feminine strategies in the face of poverty: Home work in the fashioning of articles of clothing). F. Pefia Saint Martin, ed. Pp. 153-172. Mexico City: Instituto Nacional de Antropologia e Historia.

De Genova, Nicholas 2005 Working the Boundaries: Race, Space, and "Illegality" in

Mexican Chicago. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Devereaux, Leslie

1987 Gender Difference and the Relations of Inequality in Zi- nacantan. In Dealing with Inequality. M. Strathern, ed. Pp. 89- 111. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

di Leonardo, Micaela 1984 The Varieties of Ethnic Experience: Kinship, Class, and

Gender among California Italian-Americans. Ithaca, NY: Cor- nell University Press.

Duran, Diego 1967 Historia de las Indias de Nueva Espafia (History of the In-

dies of New Spain), vol. 2. Mexico City: Porruia. 1971 Book of the Gods and Rites and the Ancient Calendar.

F. Horcasitas and D. Heyden, trans. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.

Eber, Christine, and Brenda Rosenbaum 1993 "That We May Serve beneath Your Hands and Feet":

Women Weavers in Highland Chiapas, Mexico. In Crafts in the World Market. J. Nash, ed. Pp. 154-179. Albany: State Uni- versity of New York Press.

Ehlers, Tracy Bachrach 1993 Belts, Business, and Bloomingdales: An Alternative Model

for Guatemalan Artisan Development. In Crafts in the World Market. J. Nash, ed. Pp. 180-196. Albany: State University of New York Press.

2000 Silent Looms: Women and Production in a Guatemalan Town. Rev. edition. Austin: University of Texas Press.

Erikson, Patricia P. 1999. A-Whaling We Will Go. Cultural Anthropology 14:556-

583. Evans, Susan Toby

2005 Men, Women, and Maguey: The Household Division of Labor among Aztec Farmers. In Settlement, Subsistence, and Social Complexity: Essays Honoring the Legacy of Jeffrey R. Parsons. R. E. Blanton, ed. Pp. 198-228. Los Angeles: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology.

Fauman-Fichman, Ruth 1999 Postclassic Craft Production in Morelos, Mexico: The Cot-

ton Thread Industry in the Provinces. Ph.D. dissertation, De- partment of Anthropology, University of Pittsburgh.

Fischer, Edward F. 1999 Cultural Logic and Maya Identity. Current Anthropology

40:473-499. Fischer, Edward F., and R. McKenna Brown, eds.

1996 Maya Cultural Activism in Guatemala. Austin: University of Texas Press.

Freeman, Leslie G., Jr. 1968 A Theoretical Framework for Interpreting Archaeological

Materials. In Man the Hunter. R. B. Lee and I. DeVore, eds. Pp. 262-267. Chicago: Aldine.

Friedman, Jonathan 1992 The Past in the Future: History and the Politics of Identity.

American Anthropologist 94(4):837-859. Furst, Jill L.

1995 The Natural History of the Soul in Ancient Mexico. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Gailey, Christine W. 1987 Kinship to Kingship: Gender Hierarchy and State Forma-

tion in the Tongan Islands. Austin: University of Texas Press. Garcia Canclini, Nestor

1993 Transforming Modernity: Popular Culture in Mexico. L. Lozano, trans. Austin: University of Texas Press.

Geertz, Clifford 1976 "From the Native's Point of View": On the Nature of An-

thropological Understanding. In Approaches to Symbolic An- thropology. K. Basso and H. Selby, eds. Pp. 221-237. Albu- querque: University of New Mexico Press.

Gero, Joan 1985 Socio-Politics and the Woman-at-Home Ideology. Ameri-

can Antiquity 50:342-350. Gosner, Kevin

1997 Women, Rebellion, and the Moral Economy of Maya Peas- ants in Colonial Mexico. In Indian Women of Early Mexico. S. Schroeder, S. Wood, and R. Haskett, eds. Pp. 217-230. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.

Gould, Richard S. 1980 Living Archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press. Graham, Ian, and Eric von Euw

1977 Corpus of Maya Hieroglyphic Inscriptions, vol. 3, part 1: Yaxchilan. Cambridge, MA: Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University.

Granberg, Wilber J. 1970 People of the Maguey: The Otomi Indians of Mexico. New

York: Praeger. Graulich, Michel

1997 Myths of Ancient Mexico. B. Ortiz de Montellano and T. Ortiz de Montellano, trans. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.

Greenfield, Patricia Marks 2004 Weaving Generations Together: Evolving Creativity in the

Maya of Chiapas. Santa Fe: School of American Research. Guzman, Eulalia

1938 Un manuscrito de la colecci6n Boturini que trata de los an- tiguos sefiores de Teotihuacan (A manuscript from the Boturini collection that deals with the ancient rulers of Teotihuacan). Ethnos 3:89-103.

Hall, Barbara Ann 1997 Spindle Whorls and Cotton Production at Middle Classic

Matacapan and in the Gulf Lowlands. In Olmec to Aztec: Set- tlement Patterns in the Ancient Gulf Lowlands, B. Stark and P. Arnold III, eds. Pp. 115-135. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.

Halperin, Christina T. In press Classic Maya Textile Production: Insights from Motul de

San Jos6, Pet6n, Guatemala. Special Issue of Ancient Mesoamer- ica.

Hamann, Byron 2002 The Social Life of Pre-Sunrise Things: Indigenous

Mesoamerican Archaeology. Current Anthropology 43:351- 382.

Hannerz, Ulf 1992 Cultural Complexity: Studies in the Social Organization of

Meaning. New York: Columbia University Press. Hayashida, Frances M.

N.d. Chicha Histories: Prehispanic Chicha Production in the An- des and the Use of Ethnographic and Historical Analogues. Unpublished MS, Department of Anthropology, University of Missouri.

Hendon, Julia A. 1997 Women's Work, Women's Space, and Women's Status

among the Classic-Period Maya Elite of the Copan Valley, Honduras. In Women in Prehistory. C. Claassen and R. A. Joyce, eds. Pp. 33-46. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.



Hendrickson, Carol 1995 Weaving Identities: Construction of Dress and Self in a

Highland Guatemala Town. Austin: University of Texas Press. Herzfeld, Michael

2001 Anthropology. Oxford: Blackwell. Hill, Jane H.

1992 The Flower World of Old Uto-Aztecan. Journal of Anthro- pological Research 48:117-144.

Hill, Robert M., II 1989 Social Organization by Decree in Colonial Highland

Guatemala. Ethnohistory 36:170-198. Hobsbawm, Eric J., and Terence Ranger, eds.

1983 The Invention of Tradition. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni- versity Press.

Hodder, Ian 1986 Reading the Past. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Inomata, Takeshi 2001 The Power and Ideology of Artistic Creation: Elite Craft

Specialists in Classic Maya Society. Current Anthropology 42:321-349.

Johnson, Irmgard Weitlander 1954 Chiptic Cave Textiles from Chiapas, Mexico. Journal de la

Societe des Americanistes (n.s.) XLIII:137-147. Johnson, Irmgard Weitlander, and Jose Luis Franco C.

1967 Un huipilli precolombino de Chilapa, Guerrero. La dec- oraci6n del huipilli de Chilapa, Gro. (A Precolumbian huipil from Chilapa, Guerrero: The decoration of the huipil from Chi- lapa, Guerrero). Revista Mexicana de Estudios Antropol6gicos (Mexican Review of Anthropological Studies) XXI:149- 189.

Jopling, Carol F. 1977 Yalalag Weaving: Its Aesthetic, Technological and Eco-

nomic Nexus. In Material Culture, H. Lechtman and R. Merrill, eds. Pp. 211-236. St. Paul: West.

Joyce, Rosemary A. 1992 Images of Gender and Labor Organization in Clas-

sic Maya Society. In Exploring Gender through Archaeol- ogy. C. Claassen, ed. Pp. 63-70. Madison, WI: Prehistory Press.

1996 The Construction of Gender in Classic Maya Monuments. In Gender and Archaeology. R. P. Wright, ed. Pp. 167-195. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Kappelman, Julia Guernsey, and F. Kent Reilly III, eds. In press Sacred Bindings of the Cosmos: Ritual Acts of Bundling

and Wrapping in Ancient Mesoamerica. Special Issue of An- cient Mesoamerica.

Kellogg, Susan 1997 From Parallel and Equivalent to Separate but Unequal:

Tenochca Mexico Women, 1500-1700. In Indian Women of Early Mexico. S. Schroeder, S. Wood, and R. Haskett, eds. Pp. 123-143. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.

Keremitsis, Dawn 1987 The Cotton Textile Industry in Porfiriato, Mexico, 1870-

1910. New York: Garland. King, Stacie M.

2003 Social Practices and Social Organization in Ancient Coastal Oaxacan Households. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of An- thropology, University of California, Berkeley.

Klein, Cecelia F. 1982 Woven Heaven, Tangled Earth: A Weaver's Paradigm of the

Mesoamerican Cosmos. In Ethnoastronomy and Archaeoas- tronomy in the American Tropics. Annals, no. 385. A. F. Aveni and G. Urton, eds. Pp. 1-35. New York: New York Academy of Sciences.

Landa, Maria Elena, Eduardo Parey6n, Alejandro Huerta, Emma E. Herrera, Rosa Lorena Romin, Martha Guajardo, Josefina Cruz, Sara Altamirano, and Eva Rodriguez

1988 La Garrafa: Cuevas de la Garrafa, Chiapas (Garrafa: The caves of Garrafa, Chiapas). Puebla: Gobierno del estado de Puebla, Centro INAH, Puebla.

Le6n-Portilla, Miguel 1993 Those Made Worthy by Divine Sacrifice: The Faith of An-

cient Mexico. In South and Meso-American Native Spirituality. G. Gossen and M. Le6n-Portilla, eds. Pp. 41-64. New York: Crossroad.

L6pez Austin, Alfredo 1988 The Human Body and Ideology. T. Ortiz de Montellano

and B. Ortiz de Montellano, trans. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.

Lothrop, Joy M. 1992 Textiles. In Artifacts from the Cenote of Sacrifice, Chichen

Itza, Yucatan. Memoirs of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology 10(3). C. C. Coggins, ed. Pp. 33-90. Cambridge, MA: Peabody Museum Press.

Mastache, Alba Guadalupe 1996 El tejido en el Mexico antiguo (Weaving in Ancient

Mexico). Arqueologia Mexicana 3(17):17-25. McCafferty, Shrisse D., and Geoffrey G. McCafferty

1991 Spinning and Weaving as Female Gender Identity in Post- Classic Mexico. In Textile Traditions of Mesoamerica and the Andes. M. B. Schevill, J. C. Berlo, and E. B. Dwyer, eds. Pp. 19-44. Austin: University of Texas Press.

McGee, R. Jon 1990 Life, Ritual, and Religion among the Lacandon Maya.

Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Mifio Grijalva, Manuel

1999 JProtoindustria colonial? (Colonial proto-industry?). In La Industria Textil en Mexico (The textile industry in Mexico). A. G6mez-Galvarriato, ed. Pp. 31-52. Mexico City: Instituto Mora, El Colegio de Michoacin, El Colegio de Mexico, Instituto de Investigaciones Hist6ricas, Universidad Nacional Aut6noma de Mexico.

Monaghan, John 1995 The Covenants with Earth and Rain: Exchange, Sacrifice,

and Revelation in Mixtec Sociality. Norman: University of Ok- lahoma Press.

2000 Theology and History in the Study of Mesoamerican Re- ligions. In Supplement to the Handbook of Middle American Indians, vol. 6. J. Monaghan, ed. Pp. 24-49. Austin: University of Texas Press.

Moore, Sally Falk 1987 Explaining the Present: Theoretical Dilemmas in Pro-

cessual Ethnography. American Ethnologist 14(4):727- 736.

2005 Comparisons: Possible and Impossible. Annual Reviews in Anthropology 34:1-11.

Morehart, Christopher T., Jaime J. Awe, Michael J. Mirro, Vanessa A. Owen, and Christophe G. Helmke

2004 Ancient Textile Remains from Barton Creek Cave, Cayo District, Belize. Mexic6n XXVI(3):50-56.

Morris, Walter F. 1985a Flowers, Saints, and Toads: Ancient and Modern Maya

Textile Design Symbolism. National Geographic Research 1(1):63-79.

1985b Warped Glyphs: A Reading of Maya Textiles. In Fourth Palenque Round Table, 1980. E. P. Benson, ed. Pp. 317-323. San Francisco: Pre-Columbian Art Research Institute.

1986 Maya Time Warps. Archaeology 39(3):53-59. 1991 The Marketing of Maya Textiles in Highland Chiapas, Mex-

ico. In Textile Traditions of Mesoamerica and the Andes. M. B. Schevill, J. C. Berlo, and E. B. Dwyer, eds. Pp. 403-433. Austin: University of Texas Press.

Myerhoff, Barbara, and Jay Ruby 1982 Introduction. In A Crack in the Mirror: Reflexive Perspec-

tives in Anthropology. J. Ruby, ed. Pp. 1-35. Philadelphia: Uni- versity of Pennsylvania Press.

Nash, June 1993 Maya Household Production in the World Market: The Pot-

ters of Amatenango del Valle, Chiapas, Mexico. In Crafts in the World Market. J. Nash, ed. Pp. 126-153. Albany: State Univer- sity of New York Press.

Ohnuki-Tierney, Emiko 2001 Historicization of the Culture Concept. History and An-

thropology 12:213-254. Osborne, Lilly deJongh

1935 Guatemala Textiles. Middle American Research Series, 6. New Orleans, LA: Tulane University.

Otzoy, Irma 1996 Maya Clothing and Identity. In Maya Cultural Activism in



Guatemala. E. F. Fischer and R. M. Brown, eds. Pp. 141-155. Austin: University of Texas Press.

Pancake, Cherri M. 1991 Communicative Imagery in Guatemalan Indian Dress.

In Textile Traditions of Mesoamerica and the Andes. M. B. Schevill, J. C. Berlo, and E. B. Dwyer, eds. Pp. 45-62. Austin: University of Texas Press.

Parsons, Elsie Clews 1936 Mitla: Town of the Souls. Chicago: University of Chicago

Press. Pate, Laura

2004 The Use and Abuse of Ethnographic Analogies in the In- terpretations of Gender Systems at Cahokia. In Ungender- ing Civilization. K. A. Pyburn, ed. Pp. 71-93. New York: Routledge.

Pauketat, Timothy R. 2000 The Tragedy of the Commoners. In Agency in Archaeol-

ogy. M. A. Dobres and J. Robb, eds. Pp. 113-129. New York: Routledge.

Paul, Lois 1974 The Mastery of Work and the Mystery of Sex in a

Guatemalan Village. In Women, Culture, and Society. M. Ro- saldo and L. Lamphere, eds. Pp. 281-299. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Pefia, Florencia 1998 Bordando en la ciudad. Mujeres mayas en el sector infor-

mal de la industria del vestido en YucatTin (Embroidering in the city: Maya women in the informal sector of the clothing industry in Yucatan). In Estrategias femeninas ante la pobreza: El trabajo domiciliario en la elaboraci6n de prendas de vestir (Feminine strategies in the face of poverty: Home work in the fashioning of articles of clothing). F. Pefia Saint Martin, ed. Pp. 173-188. Mexico City: Instituto Nacional de Antropologia e Historia.

Pozas Arciniega, Ricardo 1977 Chamula: Un pueblo indio de los altos de Chiapas

(Chamula: An Indian town in Highland Chiapas). 2 vols. Mex- ico City: Instituto Mexicano Indigenista.

Rabinow, Paul 1977 Reflections on Fieldwork in Morocco. Berkeley: University

of California Press. Rega, Elizabeth

2000 The Gendering of Children in the EBA Cemetery at Mokrin. In Gender and Material Culture in Archaeological Per- spective. M. Donald and L. Hurcombe, eds. Pp. 238-249. New York: St. Martin's Press.

Robin, Cynthia 1999 Towards an Archaeology of Everyday Life: Maya Farmers of

Chan N6ohol and Dos Chombitos Cik'in, Belize. Ann Arbor: UMI Research Press. 2002 Gender and Maya Farming: Chan N6ohol, Belize. In An-

cient Maya Women. T. Ardren, ed. Pp. 12-30. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.

2006 Gender, Farming, and Long-Term Change: Maya Histor- ical and Archaeological Perspectives. Current Anthropology 47:409-433.

Roseberry, William 1989 Anthropologies and Histories. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers

University Press. Roseberry, William, and Jay O'Brien

1991 Introduction. In Golden Ages, Dark Ages: Imagining the Past in Anthropology and History. J. O'Brien and W. Roseberry, eds. Pp. 1-18. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Rosenbaum, Brenda 1993 With Our Heads Bowed: The Dynamics of Gender in a

Maya Community. Albany: State University of New York at Albany, Institute for Mesoamerican Studies.

Rue, David, Ann-Corinne Freter, and Diane A. Ballinger 1989 The Caverns of Copan Revisited: Preclassic Sites in the

Sesemil River Valley, Copan, Honduras. Journal of Field Ar- chaeology 16:395-404.

Sahagin, Bernardino de 1959 Florentine Codex, Book 9-The Merchants. A. J. O. An-

derson and C. E. Dibble, trans. Santa Fe: School of American Research Press.

1961 Florentine Codex, Book 10-The People. A. J. O. Anderson and C. E. Dibble, trans. Santa Fe: School of American Research Press.

1969 Florentine Codex, Book 6-Rhetoric and Moral Philoso- phy. A. J. O. Anderson and C. E. Dibble, trans. Santa Fe: School of American Research Press.

1979a Florentine Codex, Book 4-The Soothsayers and Book 5- The Omens. A. J. O. Anderson and C. E. Dibble, trans. Santa Fe: School of American Research Press.

1979b Florentine Codex, Book 8-Kings and Lords. A. J. O. An- derson and C. E. Dibble, trans. Santa Fe: School of American Research Press.

1981 Florentine Codex, Book 2-The Ceremonies. A. J. O. An- derson and C. E. Dibble, trans. Santa Fe: School of American Research Press.

Sahlins, Marshall 1993 Goodbye to Tristes Tropes: Ethnography in the Context of

Modern World History. Journal of Modern History 65:1-25. Sandstrom, Alan R.

1991 Corn Is Our Blood: Culture and Ethnic Identity in a Contemporary Aztec Indian Village. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.

Sayer, Chloi 1985 Costumes of Mexico. Austin: University of Texas Press.

Schaefer, Stacy B. 2002 To Think with a Good Heart: Wixarika Women, Weavers,

and Shamans. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press. Schele, Linda, and Mary Ellen Miller

1986 The Blood of Kings. New York: George Braziller. Segal, Daniel A., and Sylvia J. Yanagisako

2005 Introduction. In Unwrapping the Sacred Bundle: Reflec- tions on the Disciplining of Anthropology. Daniel A. Segal and Sylvia J. Yanagisako, eds. Pp. 1-23. Durham, NC: Duke Univer- sity Press.

Smith, Michael E. 2003 Key Commodities. In The Postclassic Mesoamerican

World. M. E. Smith and F. F. Berdan, eds. Pp. 96-108. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.

Smith, Michael E., and Cynthia Heath-Smith 1994 Rural Economy in Late Postclassic Morelos. In Economies

and Polities in the Aztec Realm, M. G. Hodge and M. E. Smith, eds. Pp. 349-3 76. Albany: State University of New York, Albany Institute for Mesoamerican Studies.

Sousa, Lisa Mary 1987 Women and Crime in Colonial Oaxaca. In Indian

Women of Early Mexico. S. Schroeder, S. Wood, and R. Has- kett, eds. Pp. 199-214. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.

Stahl, Anne B. 1993 Concepts of Time and Approaches to Analogical Rea-

soning in Historical Perspective. American Antiquity 58:235- 260.

2001 Making History in Banda: Anthropological Visions of Africa's Past. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Stark, Barbara, and John K. Chance In press Diachronic and Multi-Disciplinary Perspectives on

Mesoamerican Ethnicity. In Ethnic Identity in Indigenous Mesoamerica. F. F. Berdan, J. K. Chance, A. R. Sandstrom, B. L. Stark, J. Taggart and E. Umberger, authors. Salt Lake City: Utah University Press.

Stark, Barbara, Lynette Hiller, and Michael A. Ohnersorgen 1998 People with Cloth: Mesoamerican Economic Change from

the Perspective of Cotton in South-Central Veracruz. Latin American Antiquity 9:1-30.

Stephen, Lynn 1991a Export Markets and Their Effects on Indigenous Craft

Production: The Case of Weavers of Teotitlin del Valle, Mex- ico. In Textile Traditions of Mesoamerica and the Andes. M. B. Schevill, J. C. Berlo, and E. B. Dwyer, eds. Pp. 381-402. Austin: University of Texas Press.

1991b Zapotec Women. Austin: University of Texas Press. 2005 Women's Weaving Cooperatives in Oaxaca. Critique of An-

thropology 25:253-278. Sullivan, Thelma D.

1982 Tlazolteotl-Ixcuina: The Great Spinner and Weaver. In The



Art and Iconography of Late Post-Classic Central Mexico. E. H. Boone, ed. Pp. 7-35. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks.

Tax, Sol 1953 Penny Capitalism: A Guatemalan Indian Economy. Smith-

sonian Institute of Social Anthropology, 16. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institute Press.

Tedlock, Barbara, and Dennis Tedlock 1985 Text and Textile: Language and Technology in the Arts of

the Quiche Maya. Journal of Anthropological Research 41:121- 146.

Trigger, Bruce G. 1981 Archaeology and the Ethnographic Present. Anthropolog-

ica 23:3-17. Upham, S.

1987 The Tyranny of Ethnographic Analogy in Southwestern Archaeology. In Coasts, Plains, and Deserts: Essays in Honor of Reynold J. Ruppe. Anthropological Research Papers, 38. S. W. Gaines, ed. Pp. 265-279. Tempe: Arizona State University.

Urquiola Permisan, Jose Ignacio 2004 Los textiles bajo el mestizaje tecnol6gico (Textiles under

mestizo technology). In Mestizajes tecnol6gicos y cambios cul- turales en Mexico (Technological mixing and cultural change in Mexico). E. Florescano and V. Garcia Acosta, eds. Pp. 201- 259. Mexico City: Centro de Investigaciones y Estudios Supe- riores n Antropologia Social.

Vaillant, George C. 1930 Excavations at Zacatenco. Anthropological Papers, no.

322, pt. 1. New York: American Museum of Natural History. van den Berghe, Pierre L.

1994 The Quest for the Other: Ethnic Tourism in San Crist6bal, Mexico. Seattle: University of Washington Press.

Verrillo, Erica, and Duncan MacLean Earle 1993 The Guatemalan Refugee Crafts Project: Artisan Produc-

tion in Times of Crisis. In Crafts in the World Market. J. Nash, ed. Pp. 224-245. Albany: State University of New York Press.

VAzquez del Mercado, Ximena 2000 Textiles mexicas de algod6n (Mexican cotton textiles).

In Casos de conservaci6n y restauraci6n en el Museo del Templo Mayor (Cases of conservation and restoration in the museum of the great temple). M. E. Marin Benito, ed. Pp. 73-112. Mexico City: Instituto Nacional de Anthroplogia e Historia.

Vogt, Evon Z. 1969 Zinacantan: A Maya Community in the Highlands of Chi-

apas. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Warren, Kay B.

1993 Interpreting La Violencia in Guatemala: Shapes of Mayan Silence and Resistance. In The Violence within: Cultural and

Political Oppositions in Divided Nations. K. B. Warren, ed. Pp. 25-56. Boulder: Westview.

1998 Indigenous Movements and Their Critics: Pan-Maya Ac- tivism in Guatemala. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Watanabe, John M. 1992 Maya Saints and Souls in a Changing World. Austin: Uni-

versity of Texas Press. Waterbury, Ronald

1989 Embroidery for Tourists: A Contemporary Putting-Out Sys- tem in Oaxaca, Mexico. In Cloth and Human Experience. A. B. Weiner and J. Schneider, eds. Pp. 243-271. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.

Weiner, Annette B., and Jane Schneider 1989 Introduction. In Cloth and Human Experience. A. B.

Weiner and J. Scheider, eds. Pp. 1-29. Washington, DC: Smith- sonian Institution Press.

Welsh, W. B. M. 1988 An Analysis of Classic Lowland Maya Burials. British Ar-

chaeological Reports, International Series, 409. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports.

Wilhoit, Jennifer, and Tara Tidwell Cullen 2005 By a Thread: The Benefits and Challenges of Being a Fair

Trade Crafter. Cultural Survival Quarterly 29(3):34-38. Willey, Gordon R., and Philip Phillips

1958 Method and Theory in American Archaeology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Wobst, Martin 1978 The Archaeo-Ethnology of Hunter-Gatherers and the

Tyranny of the Ethnographic Record in Archaeology. Ameri- can Antiquity 43:303-309.

Wolf, Eric R. 1982 Europe and the People without History. Berkeley: Univer-

sity of California Press. Wood, Stephanie

1997 Matters of Life at Death: Nahuatl Testaments of Rural Women, 1589-1801. In Indian Women of Early Mexico. S. Schroeder, S. Wood, and R. Haskett, eds. Pp. 165-182. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.

Wood, W. Warner 2000 Flexible Production, Households, and Fieldwork: Multi-

sited Zapotec Weavers in the Era of Late Capitalism. Ethnology 39:133-148.

Wylie, Alison 1985 The Reaction against Analogy. Advances in Archaeological

Method and Theory 8:63-111. Yoffee, Norman

1993 Too Many Chiefs? (Or, Safe Texts for the '90s). In Archaeo- logical Theory: Who Sets the Agenda? N. Yoffee and A. Sherratt, eds. Pp. 60-78. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.


Article Contentsp. [862]p. 863p. 864p. 865p. 866p. 867p. 868p. 869p. 870p. 871p. 872p. 873p. 874p. 875p. 876p. 877

Issue Table of ContentsAmerican Anthropologist, New Series, Vol. 108, No. 4 (Dec., 2006), pp. 637-954Volume Information [pp. 941-954]Front MatterIn Focus: The Impact of the Hurricanes of 2005 on New Orleans and the Gulf Coast of the United StatesIntroduction to "The Impact of the Hurricanes of 2005 on New Orleans and the Gulf Coast of the United States" [pp. 637-642]A Preliminary Assessment of Social and Economic Impacts Associated with Hurricane Katrina [pp. 643-670]Coastal Exploitation, Land Loss, and Hurricanes: A Recipe for Disaster [pp. 671-691]Louisiana's Oysters, America's Wetlands, and the Storms of 2005 [pp. 692-705]Finding a Place for the Commonplace: Hurricane Katrina, Communities, and Preservation Law [pp. 706-718]The Taphonomy of Disaster and the (Re)Formation of New Orleans [pp. 719-730]Vulnerability and Place: Flat Land and Uneven Risk in New Orleans [pp. 731-734]Why Katrina's Victims Aren't Refugees: Musings on a "Dirty" Word [pp. 735-743]Putting the Ninth Ward on the Map: Race, Place, and Transformation in Desire, New Orleans [pp. 744-764]Declaration of Taking Twice: The Fazendeville Community of the Lower Ninth Ward [pp. 765-780]Wade in the Water: Personal Reflections on a Storm, a People, and a National Park [pp. 781-798]Bearing Witness: Assumptions, Realities, and the Otherizing of Katrina [pp. 799-813]

Research ArticlesWhence Collective Rituals? A Cultural Selection Model of Ritualized Behavior [pp. 814-827]The Gilded Age and Working-Class Industrial Communities [pp. 828-841]Re/Making La Negrita: Culture as an Aesthetic System in Costa Rica [pp. 842-853]

Research ReportsThe Role of Remarriage in a Microevolutionary Process: Considerations from a 19th-Century Italian Community [pp. 854-861]

Presidential AddressCloth, Gender, Continuity, and Change: Fabricating Unity in Anthropology [pp. 862-877]

Visual AnthropologyReportsReview: untitled [pp. 878-880]

Book ReviewReview: untitled [pp. 881-882]

Book ReviewsReview: untitled [pp. 883-884]Review: untitled [p. 884]Review: untitled [pp. 884-885]Review: untitled [pp. 885-886]Review: untitled [pp. 886-887]Review: untitled [pp. 887-888]Review: untitled [pp. 888-889]Review: untitled [pp. 889-890]Review: untitled [pp. 890-891]Review: untitled [pp. 891-892]Review: untitled [pp. 892-893]Review: untitled [pp. 893-894]Review: untitled [p. 894]Review: untitled [pp. 894-895]Review: untitled [pp. 895-896]Review: untitled [pp. 896-897]Review: untitled [pp. 897-898]Review: untitled [pp. 898-899]Review: untitled [pp. 899-900]Review: untitled [pp. 900-901]Review: untitled [p. 901]Review: untitled [pp. 901-902]Review: untitled [pp. 902-903]Review: untitled [pp. 903-904]Review: untitled [pp. 904-906]Review: untitled [pp. 906-907]Review: untitled [pp. 908-909]Review: untitled [pp. 909-910]Review: untitled [pp. 910-911]Review: untitled [pp. 911-912]Review: untitled [pp. 912-913]Review: untitled [pp. 913-914]Review: untitled [pp. 914-915]Review: untitled [pp. 915-916]Review: untitled [pp. 916-917]Review: untitled [p. 917]Review: untitled [pp. 917-918]Review: untitled [pp. 918-919]Review: untitled [pp. 919-920]Review: untitled [pp. 920-921]Review: untitled [p. 921]Review: untitled [p. 922]Review: untitled [pp. 922-923]Review: untitled [pp. 923-924]Review: untitled [pp. 924-925]Review: untitled [pp. 925-926]Review: untitled [p. 926]Review: untitled [p. 927]Review: untitled [pp. 927-928]Review: untitled [pp. 928-929]

CommentariesCommentary on Bernhard Streck's review of From Racism to Genocide [p. 930]Rejoinder to Gretchen Schaffts's Commentary [p. 931]

ObituariesVine Deloria Jr. (1933-2005) [pp. 932-935]William White Howells (1908-2005) [pp. 935-938]Frank B. Livingstone (1928-2005) [pp. 938-940]

Back Matter

Documents

Cloth, Gender, Continuity, And Change