Hostname: page-component-55f67697df-4ks9w Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-05-14T16:56:34.841Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Quality of Tribute Cloth: The Place of Evidence in Archaeological Argument

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Elizabeth M. Brumfiel
Elizabeth M. Brumfiel*
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology and Sociology, Albion College, Albion, MI 49224
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper continues the discussion of objectivity, subjectivity, and the place of evidence in archaeological argument begun by Wylie (1992a), Little (1994), and Fotiadis (1994). First, it describes my expectations concerning Indian women’s resistance to tribute cloth extraction in Aztec and colonial Mexico. Then, it explains how I tested my expectations against several bodies of archaeological data. Finally, it analyzes how I did and did not alter my initial beliefs in the face of a gap between the expected and the actual data. This study supports earlier conclusions by Trigger (1989) and Wylie (1992b) that data are somewhat independent of the archaeologists who collect them and that data have some impact on the larger edifice of assumptions that archaeologists bring to their research.

Este artículo continúa la discusión sobre la objectividad, la subjectividad, y elpapel de los datos en la argumentación arqueológica empezada por Wylie (1992a), Little (1994), y Fotiadis (1994). Primero, describo mis expectativas sobre la resistencia de las mujeres indígenas contra la expropiación tributaria de mantas en el México azteca y colonial. Entonces, explico la manera en que contrasté mis expectativas con algunos conjuntos de datos arqueológicos. Luego, analizo cómo mis hipótesis initiales se modificaron o se mantuvieran gracias a la diferencia entre los datos esperadosy los datos obtenidos. Este estudio apoya las conclusiones anteriores de Trigger (1989) y Wylie (1992b) que los datos son independientes hasta cierto punto de los arqueólogos que los recogen y que los datos tienen cierta influencia sobre la estructura de presupuestos que los arqueólogos traen a sus investigaciones.

Type
Articles
Information
American Antiquity , Volume 61 , Issue 3 , July 1996 , pp. 453 - 462
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for American Archaeology 1996

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

References Cited

Anawalt, P. R. 1981 Indian Clothing Before Cortes : Mesoamerican Costumes from the Codices. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman.Google Scholar
Anawalt, P. R. 1991 Prehistoric Textiles. Princeton University Press, Princeton. New Jersey.Google Scholar
Binford, L. R. 1968a Archaeological Perspectives. In New Perspectives in Archeology, edited by Binford, S. R. and Binford, L.R. pp. 5–32. Aldine, Chicago.Google Scholar
Binford, L. R. 1968b Some Comments on Historical Versus Processual Archaeology. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 24 : 267–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borah, W., and Cook, S. F. 1958 Price Trends of Some Basic Commodities in Central Mexico, 1531-1570. Ibero-Americana 40.Google Scholar
Brumfiel, E. M. 1976 Specialization and Exchange at the Late Postclassic (Aztec) Community ofHuexotla, Mexico. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor.Google Scholar
Brumfiel, E. M. 1991a Tribute and Commerce in Imperial Cities : The Case of Xaltocan, Mexico. In Early State Economics, edited by M, H. J.. Claessen and P. van de Velde, pp. 177–198. Political and Legal Anthropology Vol. 8. Transaction, New Brunswick, New Jersey.Google Scholar
Brumfiel, E. M. 1991b Weaving and Cooking : Women's Production in Aztec Mexico. In Engendering Archaeology : Women and Prehistory, edited by Gero, J. M. and Conkey, M.W. pp.224-51. Basil Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar
Brumfiel, E. M. 1996 Figurines and the Aztec State : Testing the Effectiveness of Ideological Domination. In Gender in Archaeology : Research in Gender and Practice, edited by Wright, R. P., pp. 143–166. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
Calnek, E. E. 1975 Organization de los sistemas de abastecimiento urbano de alimentos : El caso de Tenochtitlan. In Las Ciudades de America Latina y sus Areas de Influencia a Traves de la Historia, edited by Hardoy, J. and Schaedel, R., pp.41-60. Ediciones A.I.A.R, Buenos Aires.Google Scholar
Carrasco, P. 1966 Documentos Sobre el Rango de Tecuhtli en los Nahuas Tramontanos. Tlalocan 5 : 133–160.Google Scholar
Charlton, T. H. 1972 Post-Conquest Developments in the Teotihuacdn Valley, Mexico : I. Excavations. Report No. 5. Office of State Archaeologist, Iowa City.Google Scholar
Conkey, M. W., and Spector, J. D. 1984 Archaeology and the Study of Gender. Advances in Archeological Method and Theory 7 : 1–38.Google Scholar
Costin, C, Earle, T., Owen, B., and Russell, G. 1989 The Impact of Inca Conquest on Local Technology in the Upper Mantaro Valley, Peru. In What's New? A Closer Look at the Process of Innovation, edited by van der Leeuw, S. E. and Torrence, R., pp. 107–139. Unwin Hyman, London.Google Scholar
de Sahagun, B. 1950-1969[1577] Florentine Codex : General History of the Things of New Spain, 11 vols. Translated by Anderson, A. and Dibble, C.. School of American Research and the University of Utah Press, Santa Fe and Salt Lake City.Google Scholar
de Zorita, A. 1963[ 1565] Life and Labor in Ancient Mexico. Translated by Keen, B.. Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, New Jersey.Google Scholar
de Zorita, A. 1967[1581] Historia de las Indias de Nueva Espana. 2 vols. Porrua, Mexico.Google Scholar
de Zorita, A. 1971 [1570, 1579] Book of the Gods and Rites and the Ancient Calendar. Translated by Horcasitas, F. and Heyden, D.. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman.Google Scholar
Fotiadis, M. 1994 What Is Archaeology's “Mitigated Objectivism” Mitigated By? Comments on Wylie. American Antiquity 59 : 545–555.Google Scholar
Fritz, J. M., and Plog, F. T. 1970 The Nature of Archaeological Explanation. American Antiquity 35 : 405–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gero, J. M. and Conkey, M. W. (editors) 1991 Engendering Archaeology : Women and Prehistory. Basil Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar
Gero, J. M., Lacey, D., and Blakey, M. (editors) 1983 The Sociopolitics of Archaeology. Research Report No. 23. Department of Anthropology, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Gibson, C. 1964 The Aztecs Under Spanish Rule. Stanford University Press, Stanford, California.Google Scholar
Haskett, R. 1991 Indigenous Rulers : An Ethnohistory of Town Government in Colonial Cuernavaca. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.Google Scholar
Hodder, I. 1982 Symbols in Action. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Hodder, I. 1984 Archaeology in 1984. Antiquity 58 : 25–32.Google Scholar
Hodder, I. 1986 Reading the Past. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Keller, E. F. 1982 Feminism and Science. Signs 7 : 589–602.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. 1962 The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
Little, B. J. 1994 Consider the Hermaphroditic Mind : Comment on “The Interplay of Evidential Constraints and Political Interests : Recent Archaeological Research on Gender.” American Antiquity 59 : 539–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lockhart, J. 1992 The Nahuas After the Conquest. Stanford University Press, Stanford, California.Google Scholar
McCafferty, S. D., and McCafferty, G. G. 1991 Mexican Spinning and Weaving as Female Gender Identity in Post-Classic Mexico. In Textile Traditions of Mesoamerica and the Andes : An Anthology, edited by Schevill, M. B., Berlo, J. C., and Dwyer, E. B., pp. 19^16. Garland, New York.Google Scholar
McCafferty, S. D., and McCafferty, G. G. 1993 Textile Production in Postclassic Cholula. Paper presented at the 13th International Congress of Anthropological and Ethnological Sciences, Mexico City.Google Scholar
McGuire, R. H. 1992 Archaeology and the First Americans. American Anthropologist 94 : 816–836.Google Scholar
Mayer, R. E. 1983 Thinking, Problem Solving, Cognition. Freeman, New York.Google Scholar
Nelson, S. M., and Kehoe, A. B. (editors) 1990 Powers of Observation : Alternative Views in Archaeology. Archaeological Papers 2. American Anthropological Association, Washington, D.C. Google Scholar
Parsons, J. R. 1976 The Role of Chinamapa Agriculture in the Food Supply of Aztec Tenochtitlan. In Culture and Continuity, edited by Cleland, C., pp.233-262. Academic, New York.Google Scholar
Parsons, J. R. and Parsons, M. H. 1990 Maguey Utilization in Highland Central Mexico. Anthropological Papers No. 82. University of Michigan Museum of Anthropology, Ann Arbor.Google Scholar
Parsons, M. H. 1972 Spindle Whorls from the Teotihuacan Valley, Mexico. In Miscellaneous Studies in Mexican Prehistory, edited by Spence, M. W., Parsons, J. R., and Parsons, M. H., pp.45-80. Anthropological Papers No. 45. University of Michigan Museum of Anthropology, Ann Arbor.Google Scholar
Patterson, T. C. 1986 The Last Sixty Years : Towards a Social History of Americanist Archeology in the United States. American Anthropologist 88 : 7–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riley, G. M. 1973 Fernando Cortes and the Marquesado in Morelos, 1522-1547. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.Google Scholar
Sahlins, M. 1985 Islands of History. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
Scott, J. C. 1985 The Weapons of the Weak : Everyday Forms of Peasant Resistance. Yale University Press, New Haven, Connecticut.Google Scholar
Shanks, M., and Tilley, C. 1987 Re-Constructing Archaeology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Slocum, S. 1975 Woman the Gatherer : Male Bias in Anthropology. In Toward an Anthropology of Women, edited by Reiter, R., pp. 36–50. Monthly Review Press, New York.Google Scholar
Smith, M. E. 1992 Archaeological Research at Aztec-Period Rural Sites in Morelos, Mexico, vol. 1. (Investigaciones Arqueologicas en Sitios Rurales de la Epoca Azteca en Morelos, tomo 1.) Memoirs in Latin American Archaeology No. 4. Department of Anthropology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh.Google Scholar
Smith, M. E., and Heath-Smith, C. 1994 Rural Economy in Late Postclassic Morelos. In Economies and Polities in the Aztec Realm, edited by Hodge, M. G. and Smith, M.E. pp.349–376. Studies on Culture and Society No. 6. Institute for Mesoamerican Studies, State University of New York, Albany.Google Scholar
Smith, M. E. and Hirth, K. G. 1988 The Development of Prehispanic Cotton-Spinning Technology in Western Morelos, Mexico. Journal of Field Archaeology 15 : 349–358.Google Scholar
Sullivan, T D. 1981 Tlazolteotl-Ixcuina : The Great Spinner and Weaver. In The Art and Iconography of Late Post-Classic Central Mexico, edited by Boone, E. H., pp.7-35. Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, D.C. Google Scholar
Trigger, B. G. 1980 Archaeology and the Image of the American Indian. American Antiquity 45 : 662–676.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trigger, B. G. 1989 Hyperrelativism, Responsibility, and the Social Sciences. Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology 26 : 776–797.Google Scholar
Villanueva, M. A. 1985 From Calpixqui to Corregidor : Appropriation of Women's Cotton Textile Production in Early Colonial Mexico. Latin American Perspectives 12 : 17–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watson, P. J., LeBlanc, S. A., and Redman, C. L. 1971 Explanation in Archaeology. Columbia University Press, New York.Google Scholar
Wiltfang, D. A. 1975 Aztec and Postconquest Spindle Whorls of the Teotihuacan Valley, Mexico : Markers of Technological Change. Unpublished Master's thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Iowa, Iowa City.Google Scholar
Wylie, A. 1992a The Interplay of Evidential Constraints and Political Interests : Recent Archaeological Research on Gender. American Antiquity 57 : 15–35.Google Scholar
Wylie, A. 1992b On “Heavily Decomposing Red Herrings“ : Scientific Method in Archaeology and the Ladening of Evidence with Theory. In Metaarchaeology, edited by Embree, L., pp.269–288. Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science 147. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, Holland.Google Scholar
Wylie, A. 1994 On “Capturing Facts Alive in the Past” (or Present) : Response to Fotiadis and to Little. American Antiquity 59 : 556–560.Google Scholar
Wylie, A. 1996 The Constitution of Archaeological Evidence : Gender Politics and Science. In The Disunity of Science, edited by Galison, P. and Stump, P., pp. 311–343. Stanford University Press, Palo Alto, California.Google Scholar