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. 862-877
Published by: Wiley on behalf of the American Anthropological Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4496525
Accessed: 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 support@jstor.org.

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

http://www.jstor.org

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

ELIZABETH M. BRUMFIEL

U1

Presidential Address

Cloth,

Gender,

Continuity, and
Change:
in Anthropology
Fabricating Unity

ABSTRACT Inthisarticle,Icomparebackstrap-loom
weavinginthreeculturalcontexts:the ancientMaya,the ancientAztecs,and20thcenturyMesoamerica.Althoughcontinuitiesare present,importantdifferencesexist in the ways that weavingwas situatedhistorically.
Amongthe ClassicMaya,weavingdefinedclass;in Aztec Mexico,weavingdefinedgender;and in 20th-centuryMesoamerica,weaving
definedethnicity.A comparisonof these casessuggeststhat historicalstudyis a usefultool for botharchaeologistsand ethnographers.It
promotesrecognitionof the diversityof practiceand beliefinancientsocieties.Ithelpsto definethe scope of contemporary
ethnographic
It
combats
cultural
essentialism
and
into
our
It
accounts. enables us to acknowledgeboth the richheritageof
study.
injectsagency
and
the
of
fact
culture
historical
indigenouspeoples
change.Comparative
studyprovidesa strongrationalefor the continuedassociation
of archaeologyand culturalanthropologyas partsof a wideranthropological
whole. [Keywords:
historicalanthropology,ethnographic
women's
work]
analogy,Mesoamerica,cloth,

HREEIMAGES
of indigenousMesoamerican
women

weaving on backstrap-loomsprovide the focus of this

discussion (see Figure1). The first is a ceramic figurine from
the LateClassicMaya site of Jaina, between 1,100 and 1,300
years old. The second is an illustration from the Aztec FlorentineCodex,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 archaeologistsor cultural
anthropologists. For archaeologists, the danger is "presentism," 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; Trigger1981; Upham
1987; Wobst 1978; Wylie 1985; Yoffee 1993). For cultural

anthropologists, the danger is twofold: first, counting certain 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 Roseberryand Jay O'Brienobserve, 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 conservative and "cold" (Chance 1996; Ohnuki-Tierney2001;
Stahl 2001; Trigger1981). Applied to Western culture, presentism 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

Vol. 108, Issue4, pp. 862-877, ISSN0002-7294, electronicISSN1548-1433. C 2006 by the AmericanAnthropological
AMERICAN
ANTHROPOLOGIST,
of California
Association.All rightsreserved.Pleasedirectall requestsfor permissionto photocopyor reproducearticlecontentthroughthe University
Press'sRightsand Permissions
website,at http://www.ucpress.edu/journals/rights.htm.
This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Sun, 08 Mar 2015 02:02:57 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

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
(Appadurai1996; 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 backstraploom 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 variableplace of weaving, a salient
form of human labor, in definitions of moral economies
and figuredworlds, clearly indicate that the women in our
three focal images are engaged in three quite different affairs.Butbecause of these contrasts, each of these situations
informs the others and provides essential aid in understanding how each system worked. Comparativehistorical study
unites and strengthens the work of both archaeologistsand
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

Formativeperiod, 1000-800 B.C.E.Fragmentsof 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 BarbaraStarkand 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 demonstrated by representations of elaborate robes on women of
high rankon Maya stelae, whose elite status is confirmed by
the associated inscriptions (Morris1985b). 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, carriedout in
elite households to affirmtheir noble standing, as described
by TakeshiInomata (2001).
On Maya stelae, elite women frequently appear presenting tied bundles of cloth to royal males (see Figure2);
RosemaryJoyce (1992) suggests that this cloth was one of
the contributions made by elite women to elite ritualperformances. Although archaeologists rarely encounter ancient
cloth in the hot, humid Maya lowlands, a several fragments
have been recoveredfrom ritualcontexts such as burialsand
offerings in caves and cenotes (Brady 1995; Carlsen 1986,
1987; Lothrop 1992; Morehartet al. 2004; Rueet al. 1989).2
The ritualuses of bundling and wrappingwith cloth are discussed in an article by Julia Kappelmanand Kent Reilly (in
press).
The designs on the robes on Maya stelae, vases, and
figurines suggest labor-intensive techniques of cloth production. Curvilineardesigns on women's garments suggest
embroideryor 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 repertoireof decorative techniques
included painting, gauze weave, and brocade (Carlsen1986,
1987).
The organization of textile production can be reconstructed from the distribution of artifacts such as ceramic
spindle whorls (for spinning thread), bone needles (for
sewing garments, adding fringeto selvages, or embroidering
cloth), and bone picks (for brocading). These tools are not
evenly distributedamong all ClassicMayahouseholds; they
tend to be associated with elite residences. For example,
at the site of Copan, spinning and weaving tools are concentrated 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 (BeaudryCorbett and McCafferty2002). 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 Classic Maya culture, but it was not the exclusive work of
women.

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

864

AmericanAnthropologist * Vol.108,No.4 * December2006

fo

:
:
.
:
::ji ':::.:::-::
: -?..:..:
:i
::. :.. ....: :.: ::?

? ::.

. .. .....i.:

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

....

?mr

All

.....(

)1

W(
777)

6L

FIGURE1. Three images of indigenous Mesoamericanwomen weaving on backstraplooms. A: Jaina figurine. (Photograph ?Justin Kerr,
File Number K2833)B:Aztec weaver, SahagOn,1961, Bk. 10, Ch. 1. (Courtesyof the School of AmericanResearchand the Universityof Utah)
C:LuisaHernandez,Samayacweaver. (Photograph by CarlosLopez;courtesy of the Museo lxchel del TrajeIndigena de Guatemala)

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

Brumfiel * PresidentialAddress 865

olo

.....,...C

:"~~
dl:

:.

i:

..

?.)'

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

IWIP
40P

%Now

Hi

FIGURE2. LadyGreat Skullpresents a tied bundle of cloth to her royal husband, RulerBirdJaguar,rulerof Yaxchilan.(Drawing,Yaxchilan,
Lintel 1, from Corpusof MayaHieroglyphic
Inscriptions,Vol. 3, Part 1, Yaxchilan,reproducedcourtesy of the Presidentand Fellowsof Harvard
College)

WEAVINGIN 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; DurTin1967:155, 290,
1971:122; Sahaguin1979a:97, 122).
Starket 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

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

866

AmericanAnthropologist * Vol.108,No.4 * December2006

?=3C

.~?C
L~i

~r~gig

b bonebrocade
pick
clay disk
eds spindle
whorl
needle/pin
n bone
of anrfacms
e quanity
of eachtype

[i

shown by the
55is
artifat

8
..

number preceding the

code.

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

FIGURE3. The distributionof weaving tools at Copan,Group9N8 Patios A-F and H. (Drawing from Hendon 1997:43;reprinted by
permissionof the Universityof PennsylvaniaPress)

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
supportthemselves 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 Postclassiccommoners (Brumfiel2005; Smith and
Heath-Smith 1994). Not only were these spindle whorls
more numerous, they were also elaborately decorated (McCaffertyand McCafferty1991). 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 creativeindividuals
who augmented the flow of tonalli through their households enabling them to prosper.3 Sun and flower motifs
also appearon serving bowls at Xaltocan, underscoring the
connection between spinning and weaving, feasting, and

household well-being. In EarlyPostclassicXaltocan, 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-fiberthread 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 fibersthat were acquiredfrom people living elsewhere
(Brumfiel2005). Similarly,a high frequency of large spindle
whorls but a low frequency of basalt scrapersat the Aztec
palace at Cihuatecpan suggests that palace workers might
have spun fiberspaid as tribute by surroundingcommoners
(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
(CabreraCortes 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" (Sahaguin 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 distinguished class among the Classic Maya, weaving in Aztec
society was a strong markerof gender.
However, cultural identification of women with cloth
production seems not to have reconciled women to their
fates as producersof large quantities of tribute cloth under
the Aztec Empire. At Xaltocan, the alienation of women
from tribute cloth production is suggested by the popularity of plain small spindle whorls, used to spin cotton
for tribute cloth and market sale, during the Aztec period

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

Address 867
Brumfiel * Presidential
Youth[tdpubti]

Youth atptchth]
Two mantas

Wife of the marriedyouth

Marriedyouth

Youth

[t8PelpcI

A handfulof perfumes

Youth[telpucbti]

Youth[telpachbti]
S

copperaxe
Tamales,
whichis bread Cookedchicken'

[which)
leader
Telpacdtli,youth

bowlfor
Gourdwcacao

rans

drinking

Se.,ivned

warrior

IS'eaoned

warrior

Seasoned

warrior

FIGURE4. A young man celebrates his marriage by distributingcloth, food, and smoking pipes to his mates from the young men's house,
CodexMendoza68r. (Reprintedfrom Berdanand Anawalt 1992[vol. 3]:143)

X..:X

4::: '4'i,<
44'i
:,:,:,::,:

i i

i;i!i

;:
!..: :.
7::::i!!:1
::.:.::-::.,:Z
:.':;I;I: :: :.::::!:+

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

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

:; ::
"d

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

; . :

'':

X4
_

__i

--

()~
.:!

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

~~~~~~~~~I'
i!i!~~ii
!~~iii!ii!i!l~

I
9' : !!iii:ii:!!ii
7 !!;:
8 14'
.......... !-.-::/
'
~:
::!L:;;.
!:
::
,: ;:::<:i'::.::''
'*?'.! ::':,:.:
,iiii:.
. .:ii::.:::i!:!

iiiiii

i!!i!ii!~iii!iii~

44w

X,,

FIGURE5. Postclassicspindle whorl with sun motif, suggesting efforts to endow thread and cloth with tonalli, Xaltocan, Mexico.(Author's
photo)

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

868

AmericanAnthropologist * Vol.108,No.4 * December2006

(Brumfiel2001). This might even mark an act of resistance,

an effort to withhold tonalli from tribute cloth intended for
imperial coffers. Ceramicspindle whorls disappearedall together during the colonial era (McCaffertyand McCafferty
1991:32). Spinning continued, but with less durable, more
makeshift spindle whorls such as the wood or metal spindle whorls made from jartops used by the Wixaritaritoday
(Schaefer2002:40).
Thus, cloth production was first a source of income for
weavers in PostclassicMesoamerica,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.
Mesoamericancloth production may constitute an example
of what Timothy Pauketat(2000) has called "the tragedy of
the commoners." Having become more energetic and expert cloth producers to advance their own ends, commoners could then be required to produce cloth for appropriation 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).
MESOAMERICA
WEAVINGIN 20TH-CENTURY
If weaving among the Classic Maya defined class and
weaving in Aztec Mexico defined gender, then weaving in
20th-century Mesoamericadefined 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-Mayapolitical 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. Contemporary 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, backstraploom 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 Grijalva1999:45-46; Stephen 1991b:107-108;
Urquiola Permisin 2004). And this is also true of most
cotton skirtsworn by indigenous women in highland Chiapas and Guatemala today (Altman and West 1992; Morris
1991:406-408; Osborne 1935:86). With the completion
of the Pan-AmericanHighway 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 generation and thus perpetuating Mayan culture (Hendrickson
1995:130-132; Warren1993:46).
In other areas of Mexico, the spread of factory-made
cloth was paced by the development of railroadsthat carried
raw cotton to the textile mills with and distributedfinished
cloth to consumers (Keremitsis1987). Since the mid-19th
century, indigenous groups such as the Wixarika,Huastecs,
Nahuas, Totonacs, Otomies, and YucatecMayas have used
factory-madecloth to make both men's and women's clothing (Sayer1985:110). 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 (Anawaltand
Berdan 1994; Cook 1993:68; Greenfield2004:25, 118; Pefia
1998; Sayer 1985:159-160, 167-179; Schaefer 2002). The
repertoireof embroidereddesigns 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; Greenfield2004:18; Stephen 1991a:386). This reduces the time needed for cloth production by two-thirds
to three-quarters(Berlo 1991:451), making it possible for
weaversto devote more time to the actual weaving process.6
Thus, the spread of factory-producedthread to indigenous

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

Brumfiel * Presidential
Address 869
weaving communities has sparked a renaissance in timeconsuming brocade techniques. Whereas for a lack of time
and money, many women wore undecorated huipils or simple European-styleblouses at the end of the 19th century
(Altman and West 1992:139; Morris 1986:55), the introduction of factory-producedthread permitted the reintroduction 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;
Ehlers1993; Greenfield2004:2; Morris1986, 1991; Schaefer
2002; Stephen 1991a). Similarly,the use of factory cloth for
most items of clothing by the Wixarikaenables women to
devote more energy to weaving the bands and bags that
they continue to make for themselves (Schaefer2002:22).
The Pan-AmericanHighway brought an influx of European and North Americanvisitors 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 muchneeded 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, fertilizer, and pesticides under policies of liberal reform;and the
falling prices of maize since NAFTA(Crummett 1998; Eber
and Rosenbaum 1993; Greenfield2004:17-18; Morris1991;
Nash 1993; Rosenbaum 1993:100, 124). Touristincome was
particularlyimportant for Maya who were unable to practice subsistence agricultureduring the early 1980s because
of the intense political violence directed against Maya communities by the Guatemalangovernment (Verrilloand 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 instituted 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; Waterbury1989). 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; Waterbury1989; Wood 2000).
The income derived from tourist crafts has drawn more
women into weaving and has raisedhousehold incomes. In
some cases, income from weaving has given women greater
independence and enabled them to resist unhappy marriages (Nash 1993:141; Rosenbaum 1993:100). However,
because of structurallimits on the scale of women-owned
enterprises,income from tourist craftsdoes not always alter
the position of women within the economic and political
structuresof their communities (Ehlers 1993:xxxv-xxxviii;
Waterbury1989:261-65).
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
exacerbatedby men's change from farmwork to wage work.
Whereas previously men had few outlets for their corn
beyond meeting the subsistence needs of their families,
monetary wages are often regardedas discretionaryincome
that can be used to support male business ventures or
provide their own enjoyment (Ehlers 2000:xxxiii-xxxix;
Schaefer2002:256; cf. Waterbury1989:261-265). The drain
on women's incomes is even greaterwhen men are absent
from the household either because of labor migration
(Crummett 1998) or because they have been killed in political violence (Verrilloand 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 "chronically overburdened"mothers of young children relied on
other women in the community for spinning and weaving
(Devereaux 1987:103). The female potters of Amatenango
purchasedwoven garments from the women of Venustiano
Carranza,which they then embroidered in the distinctive
fashion of their community (Sayer1985:160). And as early
as 1935, women in the Guatemalantown of Panajachelwere
primarilyvegetable growers,not weavers;women in only 63
of the 133 families knew how to weave (Tax1953:152). Similarly,in the 1950s, only 22 of 73 women in SanJose Caben,
Guatemala,were weavers (Ehlers2000:41). 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 universal occupation for women in colonial Mexico. Weaving
for family consumption may have been common in Chiapas precisely because the commercial economy was stagnant 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

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

870

AmericanAnthropologist * Vol.108,No.4 * December2006

:w

FIGURE6. RosalinaTuyuc,Guatemalan Memberof Parliament.(Photograph @A. M. Gross/via)

"sitting like a woman." Men also participatein 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 (Granberg1970).
In Santo Tomis 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 (Asturiasde Barrios1985; Hendrickson 1995; Otzoy 1996; Pancake 1991; see Figure 6). Since

the 1980s, educated Mayas in Guatemala have worked to

build a cross-classmovement of Maya professionals, farmers, laborers, and shopkeepers. They seek greater tolerance
for Mayan language and culture, increased political representation, and a decrease of economic disparities within
Guatemala(Fischerand Brown 1996; Warren1998). Women
leadersin the pan-Mayamovement often do not weave and
embroider because their pursuit of formal education deprived 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).

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

Address 871
Brumfiel * Presidential
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 backstraploom 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 brocadesfor modern Maya hoping to sell to tourists, and eye-popping color
combinations for hard-pressedindigenous people in need of
cosmic energy. Backstraploom 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
Mesoamericanculture must be situated in specific historical
and regional contexts. Analyses that indiscriminately combine the evidence from tenth-century Maya stelae, Bishop
Landa's account of the Yucatec Maya, Sahagfin's descriptions of the Aztecs, and the ethnography of contemporary
highland Chiapasareless 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 archaeologicalcases will enable us to recognize a greater diversity of practice and belief in ancient
societies, and this diversitywill enrich archaeologicalmodel
building and hypothesis testing (Stahl 1993).8
Comparativehistorical studies are also valuable for cultural anthropologists. Sally FalkMoore (2005) has recently
observed that anthropologists make use of several different
kinds of comparison, each producing its particulartype 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 alwaysyield 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.
Forexample, 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
separatedand performed by individuals in different households or communities. Expanding my frame of reference
was a very slow process, but the differencesamong 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 crosscultural presentation of cloth and cloth making, only my
emersion in historical comparison made their generalizations meaningful to me.
Saussurianlinguists have observedfor 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 paradigmaticproperties. I suggest that in
comparative historical study cultural continuity provides
the common element that makes definition-via-contrastextremely 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-Portilla1993:
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 "naturalcauses" (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

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

872

AmericanAnthropologist * Vol.108,No.4 * December2006

Mesoamerican people and the circumstances that shape

these different but related meanings.9
MarshallSahlins notes that cultural orders"revealtheir
properties by the way they respond to diverse circumstances," and he advocates a "historicalethnography" 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 Western 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-Tierney2001; Stahl 2001).
In addition to aiding anthropological research,comparative historical study effectively communicates several important points about culture to nonanthropologists. Firstof
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 Yanagisako 2005:5), but I believe that historical comparison can
do things that cross-culturalcomparison cannot. Although
cross-culturalcomparison demonstrates the contingency of
specific practices and beliefs from one place to another, in
the absence of time depth cross-culturalcomparison 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
culturalcontinuity, such as backstrap-loomweaving, can be
shown to change as people face shifting arraysof 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 description of "precontactculture," it is possible to maintain
the fiction that non-Western cultures are static (Stahl2001).
But this becomes untenable in a historical study that examines differences as well as continuities. The fact of change
negates the presumption of passive "culturaldupes," especially when culture change is related to conditions that influenced it.
Finally, by refusing to privilege any particularhistorical 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. Contemporaryindigenous 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 adaptive ways (Erikson1999). 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 describedby Jonathan Friedman(1992),
EdwardFischer (1999), and KayWarren(1998).
This excursion into backstrap-loom weaving underscores the basic similarity of ethnography and
archaeology-and the importance of each for the other.
Culturalanthropology and archaeology areboth 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.
ELIZABETHM. BRUMFIELDepartment

of Anthropology,

Northwestern University, Evanston, IL 60208-1310

NOTES
Acknowledgments.I ruthlessly inflicted earlierdraftsof this article
on a great many friends and family members. I am very grateful
to them all for their generous suggestions and insights: Don Brenneis, Vince Brumfiel, Geoff Brumfiel, Micaela di Leonardo, Cynthia Robin, Helen Schwartzman,Alisse Waterston,and MaryWeismantel. Mariade LourdesGallardograciously 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
draftsof this articlewere presented at the Complexity Conference,
Northern Arizona University, and the Department of Anthropology, University of Wisconsin. Membersof both audiences offered
extremely helpful comments and criticisms, as did Peggy Nelson
and two anonymous AA reviewers.
1. See Ohnuki-Tierney(2001) for furtherdiscussion of the ahistorical move in anthropology.
2. In addition, a cloth-ceramic laminate was used for ceremonial
masks and headdresses(Beaubien2004).
3. Hodder (1986:110) argues that Ilchamus women decorate their
calabashesto emphasize milk and children as areasof practicalfemale control.
4. Rega (2000) suggests using burial goods to determine the age at
which children were engendered.

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

Brumfiel * PresidentialAddress 873

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 tortillas by hand, also enables women to devote much more time to
weaving (Bauer1990).
7. Pate (2004:75) makes a similar point for models of gender in
prehistoricEasternNorth America.
8. Such analyses would be furtherenriched by examining regional
variation in ancient cultures, particularlywith an eye to "uneven
development," the shifting problems and possibilities that people
face by virtue of their differinglocations in particularworld systems
(Roseberry1989:216). In the case of ancient Mesoamerica,the study
of regional variation in textile production would rely on the work
of BarbaraAnn Hall (1997) and BarbaraStarkand colleagues (1998)
for Veracruz,OraliaCabreraCortes (2001) for ClassicTeotihuacan,
Stacie King (2003) for PostclassicOaxaca, and Joy Lothrop (1992)
for Chich6n Itza.
9. Also in Mesoamerica,Starkand Chance (in press)find that comparative historical study renders "more intelligible" the fluid relationships of ethnicity, state, and class.

REFERENCES
CITED
Altman, PatriciaB., and Caroline D. West
1992 Threadsof Identity: Maya Costume of the 1960s in Highland Guatemala.Los Angeles:FowlerMuseum of CulturalHistory.
Anawalt, PatriciaRieff
1979 The Ramificationsof TreadleLoom Introduction in 16th
Century Mexico. In Looms and Their Products:Irene Emery
Roundtableon Museum Textiles. 1977 Proceedings. I. Emery
and P. Fiske, eds. Pp. 170-187. Washington, DC: Textile
Museum.
Anawalt, PatriciaRieff,and FrancesF.Berdan
1994 Mexican Textiles. National Geographic Society Research
and Exploration10:342-353.
Anderson, Benedict
1983 Imagined Communities. London: Verso.
Annis, Sheldon
1987 God and Production in a GuatemalanTown. Austin: University of TexasPress.
Appadurai,Arjun
1996 Modernityat Large:CulturalDimensions 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:AltaMiraPress.
2006 Mending the Past:Ix Chel and the Invention of a Modern
Pop Goddess. Antiquity 80:25-37.
Asturiasde Barrios,Linda
1985 Comalapa:El traje y su significado (Comalapa:Dress and
its meaning). GuatemalaCity: Museo Ixchel.
Bauer,ArnoldJ.
1990 Millers and Grinders:Technology and Household Economy in Meso-America.AgriculturalHistory 64:1-17.
Beaubien, HarrietF.
2004 CeramicLaminates:Introduction to the CraftTechnology
behind Aguateca'sMask.SASBulletin 27(4):11-13.
Beaudry-Corbett,Marilyn, and SharisseMcCafferty
2002 Spindle Whorls:Household Specializationat Ceren. In Ancient Maya Women. T. Ardren,ed. Pp. 52-67. Walnut Creek,
CA:AltaMiraPress.
Bell, Ellen E.
2002 Engenderinga Dynasty: A RoyalWoman in the Margarita
Tomb, Copan. In Ancient MayaWomen. T. Ardren,ed. Pp. 89104. Walnut Creek,CA:AltaMiraPress.
Berdan,FrancesF.
1975 Trade,Tributeand Marketin the Aztec Empire.Ann Arbor:
UMI ResearchPress.

1987 Cotton in Aztec Mexico: Production, Distribution,

and Uses. Mexican Studies/Estudios Mexicanos 3:235262.
Berdan,FrancesF.,and PatriciaRieffAnawalt
1992 The Codex Mendoza. 4 vols. Berkeley:University of California Press.
Berlo,Janet Catherine
1991 Beyond Bricolage:Women and AestheticStrategiesin 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 TexasPress.
Brady,James E.
1995 A Reassessmentof the Chronology and Function of Gordon's Cave #3, Copan, Honduras. Ancient Mesoamerica6:938.
Broda,Johanna
1976 Losestamentos en el ceremonialMexicana(Estatesin Mexican ceremony). In Estratificaci6nSocialen la MesoamericaPrehispinica (Socialstratificationin prehispanicMesoamerica).P.
Carrasco,J. Brodaet al., eds. Pp. 37-66. Mexico City: Instituto
Nacional de Antropologia e Historia.
Brumfiel,ElizabethM.
1991 Weaving and Cooking: Women's Production in Aztec
Mexico. In EngenderingArchaeology: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 Archaeological 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 Production and Power in Xaltocan. E. M. Brumfiel, ed. Pp.
350-368. Mexico City: Instituto Nacional de Antropologia e
Historia.
Butler,Judith
1990 GenderTrouble:Feminism and the Subversionof Identity.
London: Routledge.
1993 Bodies That Matter: On the Discursive Limits of "Sex."
London: Routledge.
CabreraCortes, M. Oralia
2001 Textile Production at Teotihuacan, Mexico. M.A. thesis, 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:IIJornadasInternacionalesSobreTextilesPrecolombinos
(Acts:II international workshops on Precolumbiantextiles). V.
Solanilla Demestre,ed. Pp. 9-25. Barcelona:Departmentd'Art,
UniversitatAutdnoma de Barcelona.
Carlsen, RobertS.
1986 Analysisof the EarlyClassicPeriodTextileRemains-Tomb
19, Rio Azul, Guatemala. In Rio Azul ReportsNumber 2, The
1984 Season. R. E. W. Adams, ed. Pp. 122-155. San Antonio:
Center for ArchaeologicalResearch,University of Texasat San
Antonio.
1987 Analysis of the EarlyClassic Period Textile Remains from
Tomb 23, Rio Azul, Guatemala.In Rio Azul ReportsNumber 3,
The 1985 Season. R. E. W. Adams, ed. Pp. 152-160. San Antonio: Center for ArchaeologicalResearch,Universityof Texasat
San Antonio.
1993 Discontinuous Warps:Textile Productionand Ethnicity in
Contemporary Highland Guatemala. In Crafts in the World
Market.J. Nash, ed. Pp. 198-222. Albany: State University of
New YorkPress.
Caso, Alfonso
1958 The Aztecs:People of the Sun. L. Dunham, trans.Norman:
University of Oklahoma Press.
Chance, John K.
1996 Mesoamerica'sEthnographic Past. Ethnohistory 43:379403.
Chase, Diane Z., and Arlen F.Chase
1998 The ArchitecturalContext of Caches, Burials,and Other
Ritual Activities for the Classic Period Maya (as Reflected at
Caracol, Belize). In Function and Meaning in Classic Maya

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

874

AmericanAnthropologist * Vol.108,No.4 * December2006

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

Dumbarton Oaks.
Conkey, MargaretW., with SarahH. Williams
1991 OriginalNarratives.In Gender at the Crossroadsof Knowledge. M. di Leonardo,ed. Pp. 102-139. Berkeley:Universityof
CaliforniaPress.
Cook, Scott
1993 Craft Commodity Production, MarketDiversity, and DifferentialRewardsin Mexican CapitalismToday.In Craftsin the
WorldMarket.J. Nash, ed. Pp. 59-83. Albany:State University
of New YorkPress.
Crummett, Mariade los Angeles
1998 Clasey g6nero en los procesos de cambio en una d6cadade
austeridad.Hogares ruralesdel municipio de Calvillo, Aguascalientes (Class and gender in the processes of change in a
decade of austerity: Rural households of the municipio of
Calvillo, Aguascalientes).In Estrategiasfemeninas ante la pobreza:El trabajo domiciliario en la elaboraci6n de prendas de
vestir (Femininestrategiesin the face of poverty:Home work in
the fashioning of articlesof clothing). F.PefiaSaint 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 Zinacantan. In Dealing with Inequality.M. Strathern,ed. Pp. 89111. Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity Press.
di Leonardo,Micaela
1984 The Varieties of Ethnic Experience: Kinship, Class, and
Gender among California Italian-Americans.Ithaca, NY:Cornell University Press.
Duran, Diego
1967 Historia de las Indias de Nueva Espafia(Historyof the Indies 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 BrendaRosenbaum
1993 "That We May Serve beneath Your Hands and Feet":
Women Weavers in Highland Chiapas, Mexico. In Crafts in
the WorldMarket.J. Nash, ed. Pp. 154-179. Albany:State University of New YorkPress.
Ehlers,TracyBachrach
1993 Belts, Business,and Bloomingdales:An AlternativeModel
for Guatemalan Artisan Development. In Craftsin the World
Market.J. Nash, ed. Pp. 180-196. Albany: State University of
New YorkPress.
2000 Silent Looms: Women and Production in a
Guatemalan Town. Rev. edition. Austin: University of Texas
Press.
Erikson,PatriciaP.
1999. A-Whaling We Will Go. Cultural Anthropology 14:556583.
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 PostclassicCraftProduction in Morelos, Mexico: The Cotton Thread Industry in the Provinces. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Pittsburgh.
Fischer,EdwardF.
1999 Cultural Logic and Maya Identity. CurrentAnthropology
40:473-499.
Fischer,EdwardF.,and R. McKennaBrown, eds.
1996 Maya CulturalActivism in Guatemala.Austin: University
of Texas Press.
Freeman,Leslie G., Jr.
1968 A Theoretical Frameworkfor InterpretingArchaeological
Materials.In Man the Hunter.R. B. Lee and I. DeVore,eds. Pp.
262-267. Chicago: Aldine.

Friedman,Jonathan
1992 The Pastin the Future:Historyand the Politics of Identity.
AmericanAnthropologist 94(4):837-859.
Furst,Jill L.
1995 The Natural History of the Soul in Ancient Mexico. New
Haven, CT:YaleUniversity Press.
Gailey, Christine W.
1987 Kinship to Kingship: Gender Hierarchyand State Formation in the Tongan Islands. Austin:University of TexasPress.
GarciaCanclini, Nestor
1993 TransformingModernity: Popular Culture in Mexico. L.
Lozano, trans. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Geertz, Clifford
1976 "Fromthe Native's Point of View":On the Nature of Anthropological Understanding. In Approachesto Symbolic Anthropology. K. Basso and H. Selby, eds. Pp. 221-237. Albuquerque:University of New Mexico Press.
Gero,Joan
1985 Socio-Politics and the Woman-at-Home Ideology. American Antiquity 50:342-350.
Gosner, Kevin
1997 Women, Rebellion,and the MoralEconomy of Maya Peasants in Colonial Mexico. In Indian Women of EarlyMexico. S.
Schroeder,S. Wood, and R. Haskett,eds. Pp. 217-230. Norman:
University of Oklahoma Press.
Gould, RichardS.
1980 Living Archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Graham,Ian, and Ericvon Euw
1977 Corpus of Maya Hieroglyphic Inscriptions, vol. 3, part 1:
Yaxchilan.Cambridge,MA:Peabody Museum of Archaeology
and Ethnology, HarvardUniversity.
Granberg,WilberJ.
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,PatriciaMarks
2004 Weaving GenerationsTogether:Evolving Creativityin the
Maya of Chiapas. Santa Fe:School of AmericanResearch.
Guzman, Eulalia
1938 Un manuscritode la colecci6n Boturinique tratade los antiguos sefioresde Teotihuacan(Amanuscriptfrom the Boturini
collection that deals with the ancient rulers of Teotihuacan).
Ethnos 3:89-103.
Hall, BarbaraAnn
1997 Spindle Whorls and Cotton Production at Middle Classic
Matacapanand in the Gulf Lowlands.In Olmec to Aztec:Settlement Patterns in the Ancient Gulf Lowlands, B. Starkand
P. Arnold III, eds. Pp. 115-135. Tucson: University of Arizona
Press.
Halperin,ChristinaT.
In press ClassicMayaTextileProduction:Insights from Motul de
SanJos6, Pet6n,Guatemala.SpecialIssueof Ancient Mesoamerica.
Hamann, Byron
2002 The Social Life of Pre-Sunrise Things: Indigenous
Mesoamerican Archaeology. Current Anthropology 43:351382.
Hannerz, Ulf
1992 CulturalComplexity:Studiesin the Social Organizationof
Meaning. New York:Columbia University Press.
Hayashida,FrancesM.
N.d. Chicha Histories:PrehispanicChicha Productionin the Andes 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-PeriodMaya 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.

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

Brumfiel * Presidential
Address 875
Hendrickson,Carol
1995 Weaving Identities: Construction of Dress and Self in a
Highland GuatemalaTown. Austin:University of TexasPress.
Herzfeld,Michael
2001 Anthropology. Oxford:Blackwell.
Hill, Jane H.
1992 The FlowerWorldof Old Uto-Aztecan.Journal of Anthropological Research48:117-144.
Hill, RobertM., II
1989 Social Organization by Decree in Colonial Highland
Guatemala.Ethnohistory 36:170-198.
Hobsbawm, EricJ., and TerenceRanger,eds.
1983 The Invention of Tradition. Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity Press.
Hodder,Ian
1986 Readingthe Past.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.
Inomata, Takeshi
2001 The Power and Ideology of Artistic Creation: Elite Craft
Specialists in Classic Maya Society. Current Anthropology
42:321-349.
Johnson, IrmgardWeitlander
1954 Chiptic Cave Textilesfrom Chiapas,Mexico. Journalde la
Societe des Americanistes(n.s.) XLIII:137-147.
Johnson, IrmgardWeitlander,and Jose Luis FrancoC.
1967 Un huipilli precolombino de Chilapa, Guerrero.La decoraci6n del huipilli de Chilapa, Gro. (A Precolumbian huipil
from Chilapa, Guerrero:The decoration of the huipil from Chilapa, Guerrero).RevistaMexicana de Estudios Antropol6gicos
(Mexican Review of Anthropological Studies) XXI:149189.
Jopling, Carol F.
1977 Yalalag Weaving: Its Aesthetic, Technological and Economic Nexus. In MaterialCulture,H. Lechtmanand R.Merrill,
eds. Pp. 211-236. St. Paul:West.
Joyce, RosemaryA.
1992 Images of Gender and Labor Organization in Classic Maya Society. In Exploring Gender through Archaeology. C. Claassen, ed. Pp. 63-70. Madison, WI: Prehistory
Press.
1996 The Construction of Genderin ClassicMayaMonuments.
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 SacredBindings of the Cosmos: RitualActs of Bundling
and Wrapping in Ancient Mesoamerica.Special Issue of Ancient Mesoamerica.
Kellogg,Susan
1997 From Parallel and Equivalent to Separate but Unequal:
Tenochca Mexico Women, 1500-1700. In Indian Women of
EarlyMexico. 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, 18701910. New York:Garland.
King, Stacie M.
2003 SocialPracticesand SocialOrganizationin Ancient Coastal
Oaxacan Households. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of California,Berkeley.
Klein, Cecelia F.
1982 Woven Heaven, TangledEarth:A Weaver'sParadigmof the
Mesoamerican Cosmos. In Ethnoastronomy and Archaeoastronomy in the AmericanTropics.Annals, no. 385. A. F.Aveni
and G. Urton, eds. Pp. 1-35. New York:New YorkAcademy of
Sciences.
Landa,MariaElena, EduardoParey6n,AlejandroHuerta,Emma E.
Herrera,RosaLorenaRomin, MarthaGuajardo,Josefina Cruz,
SaraAltamirano,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 Ancient Mexico. In South and Meso-AmericanNative Spirituality.
G. Gossen and M. Le6n-Portilla,eds. Pp. 41-64. New York:
Crossroad.

L6pezAustin, Alfredo
1988 The Human Body and Ideology. T. Ortiz de Montellano
and B. Ortizde Montellano, trans. Salt LakeCity: Universityof
Utah Press.
Lothrop,Joy M.
1992 Textiles.In Artifactsfrom the Cenote of Sacrifice,Chichen
Itza,Yucatan.Memoirsof the PeabodyMuseumof 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). ArqueologiaMexicana 3(17):17-25.
McCafferty,ShrisseD., and GeoffreyG. McCafferty
1991 Spinning and Weaving as FemaleGender Identity in PostClassic Mexico. In Textile Traditionsof Mesoamericaand the
Andes. M. B. Schevill, J. C. Berlo, and E. B. Dwyer, eds. Pp.
19-44. Austin:University of TexasPress.
McGee, R.Jon
1990 Life, Ritual, and Religion among the Lacandon Maya.
Belmont, CA:Wadsworth.
Mifio Grijalva,Manuel
1999 JProtoindustriacolonial? (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,ElColegio de Michoacin, ElColegio de Mexico, Instituto
de InvestigacionesHist6ricas,UniversidadNacionalAut6noma
de Mexico.
Monaghan, John
1995 The Covenants with Earthand Rain:Exchange, Sacrifice,
and Revelation in Mixtec Sociality.Norman:University of Oklahoma Press.
2000 Theology and History in the Study of MesoamericanReligions. In Supplement to the Handbook of Middle American
Indians, vol. 6. J. Monaghan, ed. Pp. 24-49. Austin:University
of TexasPress.
Moore, Sally Falk
1987 Explaining the Present: Theoretical Dilemmas in Processual Ethnography. American Ethnologist 14(4):727736.
2005 Comparisons:Possibleand Impossible.Annual Reviewsin
Anthropology 34:1-11.
Morehart,ChristopherT.,Jaime J. Awe, MichaelJ. 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,WalterF.
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 MayaTime Warps.Archaeology39(3):53-59.
1991 The Marketingof MayaTextilesin Highland Chiapas,Mexico. In TextileTraditionsof Mesoamericaand the Andes. M. B.
Schevill,J. C. Berlo,and E. B. Dwyer, eds. Pp. 403-433. Austin:
University of TexasPress.
Myerhoff, Barbara,and Jay Ruby
1982 Introduction. In A Crackin the Mirror:Reflexive Perspectives in Anthropology.J. Ruby,ed. Pp. 1-35. Philadelphia:University of Pennsylvania Press.
Nash, June
1993 MayaHousehold Productionin the WorldMarket:The Potters of Amatenango del Valle, Chiapas,Mexico. In Craftsin the
WorldMarket.J. Nash, ed. Pp. 126-153. Albany:State University of New YorkPress.
Ohnuki-Tierney,Emiko
2001 Historicization of the Culture Concept. History and Anthropology 12:213-254.
Osborne, Lilly deJongh
1935 Guatemala Textiles. Middle American ResearchSeries, 6.
New Orleans, LA:Tulane University.
Otzoy, Irma
1996 Maya Clothing and Identity.In MayaCulturalActivismin

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

876

AmericanAnthropologist * Vol.108,No.4 * December2006

Guatemala. E. F. Fischer and R. M. Brown, eds. Pp. 141-155.

Austin: University of TexasPress.
Pancake,CherriM.
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 TexasPress.
Parsons,Elsie Clews
1936 Mitla:Town of the Souls. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Pate, Laura
2004 The Use and Abuse of EthnographicAnalogies in the Interpretations of Gender Systems at Cahokia. In Ungendering Civilization. K. A. Pyburn, ed. Pp. 71-93. New York:
Routledge.
Pauketat,Timothy R.
2000 The Tragedyof the Commoners. In Agency in Archaeology. 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. Rosaldo and L. Lamphere,eds. Pp. 281-299. Stanford:Stanford
University Press.
Pefia, Florencia
1998 Bordando en la ciudad. Mujeresmayas en el sector informal de la industria del vestido en YucatTin(Embroideringin
the city: Maya women in the informal sector of the clothing
industry in Yucatan).In Estrategiasfemeninas ante la pobreza:
El trabajo domiciliario en la elaboraci6n de prendas de vestir
(Feminine strategiesin the face of poverty: Home work in the
fashioning of articlesof clothing). F.PefiaSaint 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. Mexico City: Instituto Mexicano Indigenista.
Rabinow,Paul
1977 Reflectionson Fieldworkin Morocco. Berkeley:University
of CaliforniaPress.
Rega,Elizabeth
2000 The Gendering of Children in the EBA Cemetery at
Mokrin.In Genderand MaterialCulturein ArchaeologicalPerspective. M. Donald and L. Hurcombe,eds. Pp. 238-249. New
York:St. Martin'sPress.
Robin, Cynthia
1999 Towardsan Archaeologyof EverydayLife:MayaFarmersof
Chan N6ohol and Dos Chombitos Cik'in, Belize. Ann Arbor:
UMI ResearchPress.
2002 Gender and Maya Farming:Chan N6ohol, Belize. In Ancient Maya Women. T. Ardren,ed. Pp. 12-30. Walnut Creek,
CA:AltaMiraPress.
2006 Gender, Farming, and Long-TermChange: Maya Historical 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
Pastin Anthropology and History.J. O'Brienand W. Roseberry,
eds. Pp. 1-18. Berkeley:University of CaliforniaPress.
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 MesoamericanStudies.
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 Archaeology 16:395-404.
Sahagin, Bernardinode
1959 Florentine Codex, Book 9-The Merchants. A. J. O. Anderson and C. E. Dibble, trans. Santa Fe: School of American
ResearchPress.

1961 FlorentineCodex, Book 10-The People. A.J. O. Anderson

and C. E. Dibble, trans. Santa Fe:School of AmericanResearch
Press.
1969 Florentine Codex, Book 6-Rhetoric and Moral Philosophy. A.J. O. Andersonand C. E. Dibble, trans. Santa Fe:School
of AmericanResearchPress.
1979a FlorentineCodex, Book4-The Soothsayersand Book 5The Omens. A. J. O. Anderson and C. E. Dibble, trans. Santa
Fe:School of AmericanResearchPress.
1979b Florentine Codex, Book 8-Kings and Lords.A. J. O. Anderson and C. E. Dibble, trans. Santa Fe: School of American
ResearchPress.
1981 Florentine Codex, Book 2-The Ceremonies. A. J. O. Anderson and C. E. Dibble, trans. Santa Fe: School of American
ResearchPress.
Sahlins, Marshall
1993 Goodbye to TristesTropes:Ethnographyin 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 TexasPress.
Schaefer,Stacy B.
2002 To Think with a Good Heart:WixarikaWomen, Weavers,
and Shamans. Salt LakeCity: University of Utah Press.
Schele, Linda, and Mary Ellen Miller
1986 The Blood of Kings.New York:George Braziller.
Segal, Daniel A., and SylviaJ. Yanagisako
2005 Introduction. In Unwrapping the Sacred Bundle: Reflections on the Disciplining of Anthropology.Daniel A. Segaland
SylviaJ. Yanagisako,eds. Pp. 1-23. Durham, NC: Duke University 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 RuralEconomy in Late PostclassicMorelos. In Economies
and Polities in the Aztec Realm,M. G. Hodge and M. E. Smith,
eds. Pp. 349-3 76. Albany:StateUniversityof New York,Albany
Institute for MesoamericanStudies.
Sousa, LisaMary
1987 Women and Crime in Colonial Oaxaca. In Indian
Women of EarlyMexico. S. Schroeder,S. Wood, and R. Haskett, eds. Pp. 199-214. Norman: University of Oklahoma
Press.
Stahl, Anne B.
1993 Concepts of Time and Approaches to Analogical Reasoning in HistoricalPerspective.American Antiquity 58:235260.
2001 Making History in Banda: Anthropological Visions of
Africa'sPast. Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity 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. Taggartand E. Umberger,authors. Salt Lake City:
Utah University Press.
Stark,Barbara,Lynette Hiller,and Michael A. Ohnersorgen
1998 People with Cloth: MesoamericanEconomic Change from
the Perspective of Cotton in South-Central Veracruz.Latin
AmericanAntiquity 9:1-30.
Stephen, Lynn
1991a Export Markets and Their Effects on Indigenous Craft
Production:The Case of Weaversof Teotitlin del Valle, Mexico. In TextileTraditionsof Mesoamericaand the Andes. M. B.
Schevill,J. C. Berlo,and E. B. Dwyer,eds. Pp. 381-402. Austin:
University of TexasPress.
1991b ZapotecWomen. Austin: University of TexasPress.
2005 Women'sWeavingCooperativesin Oaxaca.Critiqueof Anthropology 25:253-278.
Sullivan, Thelma D.
1982 Tlazolteotl-Ixcuina:The GreatSpinnerand Weaver.In The

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

Brumfiel * PresidentialAddress 877

Artand Iconographyof LatePost-ClassicCentralMexico. E. H.
Boone, ed. Pp. 7-35. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks.
Tax, Sol
1953 Penny Capitalism:A GuatemalanIndian Economy.Smithsonian Institute of Social Anthropology, 16. Washington, DC:
Smithsonian Institute Press.
Tedlock,Barbara,and Dennis Tedlock
1985 Text and Textile:Languageand Technology in the Artsof
the Quiche Maya.Journalof AnthropologicalResearch41:121146.
Trigger,BruceG.
1981 Archaeologyand the EthnographicPresent.Anthropologica 23:3-17.
Upham, S.
1987 The Tyranny of Ethnographic Analogy in Southwestern
Archaeology.In Coasts, Plains, and Deserts:Essaysin Honor of
Reynold J. Ruppe. Anthropological ResearchPapers,38. S. W.
Gaines, ed. Pp. 265-279. Tempe:ArizonaState University.
Urquiola Permisan,Jose Ignacio
2004 Los textiles bajo el mestizaje tecnol6gico (Textiles under
mestizo technology). In Mestizajestecnol6gicos y cambios culturales en Mexico (Technologicalmixing and cultural change
in Mexico). E. Florescanoand V. GarciaAcosta, eds. Pp. 201259. Mexico City: Centro de Investigaciones y Estudios Superiores n AntropologiaSocial.
Vaillant, George C.
1930 Excavations at Zacatenco. Anthropological Papers, no.
322, pt. 1. New York:AmericanMuseum of Natural History.
van den Berghe,PierreL.
1994 The Quest for the Other:Ethnic Tourismin San Crist6bal,
Mexico. Seattle:University of Washington Press.
Verrillo,Erica,and Duncan MacLeanEarle
1993 The Guatemalan Refugee Crafts Project:Artisan Production in Times of Crisis. In Crafts in the World Market. J.
Nash, ed. Pp. 224-245. Albany: State University of New York
Press.
VAzquezdel 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 Chiapas. Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversity Press.
Warren,KayB.
1993 InterpretingLaViolencia 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-MayaActivism in Guatemala.Princeton:Princeton University Press.
Watanabe,John M.
1992 Maya Saints and Souls in a Changing World.Austin: University of Texas Press.
Waterbury,Ronald
1989 Embroideryfor Tourists:A ContemporaryPutting-OutSystem 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.
Weinerand J. Scheider,eds. Pp. 1-29. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.
Welsh, W. B. M.
1988 An Analysis of Classic Lowland Maya Burials.British Archaeological Reports,InternationalSeries,409. Oxford:British
ArchaeologicalReports.
Wilhoit, Jennifer, and TaraTidwell Cullen
2005 By a Thread:The Benefits and Challenges of Being a Fair
TradeCrafter.CulturalSurvivalQuarterly29(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 EthnographicRecord in Archaeology.American Antiquity 43:303-309.
Wolf, EricR.
1982 Europeand the People without History.Berkeley:University of CaliforniaPress.
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:Multisited ZapotecWeaversin the Eraof LateCapitalism.Ethnology
39:133-148.
Wylie, Alison
1985 The Reactionagainst Analogy.Advancesin Archaeological
Method and Theory 8:63-111.
Yoffee,Norman
1993 Too Many Chiefs? (Or,SafeTextsfor the '90s). In Archaeological Theory:Who Setsthe Agenda?N. Yoffeeand A. Sherratt,
eds. Pp. 60-78. Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity Press.

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