Rambling Thoughts on Mixtecs of Colonial Oaxaca

         The goal of Terraciano’s monograph is to examine history of the Ñudzahui primarily through the native-language documents written by members of the Ñudzahui nobility and then study the impact of the Spanish and colonialism. Terraciano combines these sources with linguistic, textual, and visual techniques and Spanish colonial sources to analyze change and continuity in the region’s sociopolitical structure, religious practices, gender dynamics, land tenure, and self-ascription as Ñudzahui.

        Like Farriss and Spalding, Terraciano illustrates how colonial control of the Ñudzahui, who were divided into multiple kingdoms united by interdynastic marriages to connect yuhuitayu, came to rely on local patterns of sociopolitical system that gradually changed. The Ñudzahui nobility acted on behalf of their own interests while also representing their communities through reciprocal obligations or religious festivals. Their religious traditions persisted in the veneration of Catholic saints, their images, and All Saints’ Day. In addition to change and continuity in religion, gender roles also shifted from the preconquest patterns of acceptance of women rulers to the colonial practice of privileging males in these interdynastic marriages in cabildos instituted by the colonial state. Systems of land tenure also changed as Ñudzahui elites leased it to Spaniards, increasingly bought and sold land, donated it to religious institutions, or corporate landholding in the form of Catholic confraternities developed.

            While explaining all the aforementioned processes, the significance of and level of detail Terraciano uncovers from Ñudzahui testaments, inventories, letters, and church-related sources provides, as the author asserts, a new lens with view to view the construction of Ñudzahui identity in light of similar studies of the Yucatec Maya or Nahua. Native-language sources as used by the author are by nature limited by their origins with the nobility of the ethnolinguistic group, but it raises important questions on ethnogenesis within colonial Mexican indigenous populations, particularly in ways that may differ from the Nahua and Yucatec Maya examples Terraciano alludes to for comparable examples in Mesoamerica.

            A particularly effective aspect of Terraciano’s history lies in the innovative methods employed to interpret visual sources, particularly codices and lienzos. Admitting that the visual sources examined were not intended to explain the entirety of Ñudzahui cosmology to outsiders, he nonetheless interprets visual evidence through religious symbolism and stylistic patterns to detect social values and the impact of colonialism. For instance, the importance of the reed mat with two seated figures, male and female, with multiple pairs arranged vertically to represent genealogical ties, becomes part of the author’s argument about the role of these earlier pictorial writings in recording origins of dynasties, as well as the importance of women. Gestures of the hand, size and dressing styles of depicted forms, and even the appearance of European-style doors in images of palaces also pertain to social relations.

Styles of dress, like the adoption by men of the Ñudzahui to European clothes instead of the previous loincloth, likewise assist in the monograph’s chronology of Spanish and European influences. By the end of the 16^th century, when writing in the Roman alphabet became the dominant method, pictorial writing motifs recur in church-related documents that probably demonstrate continuity and change in Ñudzahui Christianity. The best example of this is depiction of Christ and the Virgin Mary across from each other in heaven with gestures and gender pairing reminiscent of pictorial drawings of noble married couples as mother or father.

       On the other hand, one potential limitation or conceptual problem arose for the end of the colonial period. Terraciano situates his conclusions in opposition to Farriss’s, arguing that the late colonial period did not assert itself as a “second conquest” for Ñudzahui communities. One cannot help but wonder if non-native language records could have shed light on the ways Bourbon reforms or the increase in Spanish leasing of land and non-native dominance of trade and merchant activity undermined Ñudzahui nobility or economic autonomy in other ways, even if the region did not attract a significant number of Spaniards or obrajes. Was inequality within Ñudzahui communities exacerbated by 18^th century changes of non-native control of trade and the subordinate incorporation of the group into a money economy? Were relations with mestizos or people of African descent similar for both Ñudzahui nobility and commoners by the late colonial period? Native-language sources may not answer these questions or will leave lacunae.

Colonial Maya of the Yucatan

Another short assignment for a class...

Nancy Farriss’s Maya Society Under Colonial Rule: The Collective Enterprise of Survival endeavors to elucidate the process of colonization in the Yucatan from the perspective of the Maya themselves. Using traditional historical sources in addition to fieldwork, archaeological resources, and ethnographic writings, the author is able to formulate certain arguments on Maya social organization before conquest and clarify patterns of continuity and change in the social order during colonialism. The bulk of Farriss’s argument revolves around the notions of reciprocity and social bonds within fragmented polities that were rooted in extended family kinship and elites who presided over military and religious rituals as a source of legitimacy. Because of the lack of exportable resources and unattractive climate, Spanish colonial intrusion into the Yucatan was less devastating, incomplete, and the Spanish relied on the batabs and other Maya elites to enforce tribute and labor drafts to the small non-Indian population, gradually incorporating aspects of Maya preconquest social bonds into the colonial state and the Mayanized Christianity.

This aforementioned process left the Maya, though still unequal and exploited in colonial Yucatan, in a better position to preserve or retain past social and religious patterns with some degree of autonomy through the republicas de indios or the ever-present option of flight beyond the colonial frontier. According to Farriss, until the Bourbon reforms and liberal notions in the late 1700s and 19th century led to the growth of haciendas and changes in colonial governance that undermined adaptive strategies of Maya elites, Maya groups were able to retain access to land, continue certain forms of social bonds that made local Indian elites important in their communities, and avoid some of the harsher fates of Amerindian populations in other regions of Spanish America by remaining numerically superior. In short, the Maya were able to remain mobile corporate groups without being closed to colonial society. 

One particular problem in Farriss’s analysis is the problematic use of the ethnographic present to make assertions about the preconquest or colonial present. For example, Farriss cites a conversation with a 20th century Maya farmer who chooses not to send his child to school because his son will remain an “Indian.” This is supposed to match the Maya patterns of the colonial era of rarely escaping the stigmata of caste, an argument buttressed by the Spanish policy of not incorporating Maya nobility into colonial elite. However, if Farriss is also correct about the number of Maya who became mestizos and pardos without necessarily possessing racial mixture, does it not illustrate Maya escaping the caste category of Indian? Furthermore, as criados and naborías, “Indians” could escape some forms of caste tribute by entering a legal limbo category that also entailed socializing with mestizos, pardos, and some Spanish, even if they continued milpa agriculture on their own land or as tenants on haciendas. 

Moreover, the example of the Lacandon as an “unconquered” Maya group who exemplify certain Maya preconquest social norms in a smaller scale through patrilineal kinship are another potentially problematic use of the ethnographic present. If the Lacandon are descendants of Mayas who fled to unpacified frontiers and the bush to escape Spanish colonial rule, and, as Farriss asserts, their forms of social bonds have changed due to adaptation and flight, how reliable are they as possible models of past Maya conventions? Likewise, the Chilam Balam documents, cited as insightful ways into how the conquest-era Maya elite perceived themselves in their new role in society through a Christianized Maya cosmology and mythology, may not be useful for understanding preconquest social patterns, especially if the Maya elite’s origin during postconquest period were within the Mexican auxiliary forces during the conquest or former displaced elites or lineages. The larger question of broader Mesoamerican social patterns also raises questions as to what constitutes “Maya” in a fragmented and diverse region like the Yucatan.