Craft specialization, gender, and personhood among the postconquest Maya of Yucatan, Mexico

Craft Specialization, Gender\ and Personhood among the Post-conquest Maya of Yucatan, Mexico John E. Clark and Stephen D. Houston Brigham Young University ABSTRACT The early ethnohistoric sources from Yucatan contain a wealth of information concerning Maya artisans, their craft activities, and the special goods they produced. We examine the principal sources for information on the sexual division of labor, engendered craft activities, and the influence of crafts and related domestic arts on Maya perceptions of self. Lexical data from the dictionary sources demonstrate a clear gender complementarity in the organization of work and craft activities. Detailed observations of native practices by early Spanish clerics further suggest that mastery of the basic domestic arts was critical in Maya self perceptions of full personhood. INTRODUCTION The ethnohistoric survey of post-conquest, lowland Maya crafts presented here is motivated by divergent epistemological and epigraphic concerns with earlier lowland Maya peoples. Our diverse interests converge, however, on a pair of related questions best addressed from written sources: (1) Who were the ancient Maya artisans? and (2) what significance did craft activity have in Maya society? In particular, we are interested in issues of gender and personhood. How were lowland Maya crafts divided along gender lines? Was the practice and apprenticeship of crafts related to one's construction and conception of self? Just over 1000 years ago, Maya elite, male artisans began to sign their names to commissioned polychrome vases (see Reents-Budet, this volume) and to carved stone monuments (Stuart 1989). But the multitude of artisans plying more pedestrian tasks remain faceless, and many elaborate crafts have likewise left little physical evidence beyond pictorial representations (of textiles, ceramics, and featherwork). However, for the conquest period, we have a variety of documentary sources to help identify these unheralded artisans and their crafts. The data on Maya specialists from the principal Yucatec sources were briefly summarized decades ago by Roys (1943 [reprinted 1972]) in his masterful study of the Maya of Colonial Yucatan. We have returned to these same sources with different questions and concerns in mind. First, we have systematically extracted the native terms for the various craft specialists, their activities, and their products from the Vienna and Motul dictionaries and have re-examined the etymology of these native terms for possible clues concerning the organization and significance of craft activity. This organized corpus of economic terms may prove useful to epigraphers working with Classic Maya inscriptions (ca. AD 250-900). Second, we have searched the dictionary entries for information on the organization of crafts and native views concerning gendered activities. Part of this concern is with information on economic transactions and transfers of craft goods from producers to consumers. Finally, a principal interest was to search for evidence of the relation of craft activities to local notions of personhood — what it meant to be a contributing adult in Maya society. Evidence from the primary ethnohistoric sources allows us to address each of these issues to 32 John E. Clark and Stephen D. Houston The sources considered here came into existence for multiple reasons and by complex paths of compilation. Generally, the intent was to advance what Mannheim (1991:77-78) describes as "soft assimilation," the gradual and patient introduction of New World peoples to Old World religion and culture through the medium of indigenous languages. Dictionaries and grammars made such assimilation possible by offering clerics a short-cut to linguistic understanding. A friar who devoted years to learning Yucatec could efficiently transmit this knowledge to his brethren through systematized linguistic documents, many based on Latin or Castilian models (Houston n.d.). This work contrasted with the "hard assimilationists," who focused on the rapid imposition of Spanish, and the more extreme "antiassimilationists," who promoted social, racial, and THE ETHNOHISTORIC SOURCES linguistic segregation between Europeans and Native Americans. Segregationalists believed that no With the notable exception of the Basin of good would come of ladinos (mixed bloods) and Mexico, the region of early Colonial Mexico with their "impudent" use of Spanish— better to mainthe greatest variety of detailed ethnohistoric sources tain a clear congruence between the way people concerning conquered indigenous peoples is the looked and the language they spoke (Farriss 1984:111; northern part of the Yucatan peninsula. These sources Houston n.d.). In this way, they clashed with the earprovide a wide range of rich information on an- lier views of Viceroy Mendoza of New Spain, who cient Maya artisans, their technologies, and the prod- went so far as to urge that all Spanish children in his ucts of their skill. These include the Motul and Vienna dominion be taught native speech (Gimeno Gomez dictionaries compiled in the 16th century in north- 1970:199). ern Yucatan, Landa's Relation de las Cosas de Yucatan Inspired by humanist sentiment in Europe, the (Tozzer 1941), the Rflaciones de Yucatan, and Roys's "soft assimilationists" attempted at first to penetrate (1972) previous synthesis of these sources. linguistic barriers that prevented indigenous peoples Use and interpretation of information from from receiving the gospel. Some theorists, such as early Colonial sources raises numerous issues that Jose de Acosta (1962:374), affirmed that this was are relevant here. Who wrote the documents in ques- the will of God. Through widespread "imperial lantion, and why? How accurate, complete, and com- guages," such as Nahuatl and Quechua, divine proviprehensive is the information? What are the biases dence offered the means to spread Christian verities involved in the documents? How was the informa- among Native Americans. On a personal level, many tion in the dictionaries collected, and why? Who were friars wished to devise artes because this work acthe informants, and what were their biases? What corded with their self-image as apostles in the New use was made of this information during the time it World (Grass 1965:57). The struggle to understand was collected? In the following analysis we have tried indigenous speech was likened to the harnessing of to be sensitive to these fundamental issues of textual disorderly, even diabolical forces of nature (Houston n.d.). interpretation. Another goal was at once political and spiriAs noted, our principal sources are two early tual. By rendering Native American speech into Latin Colonial dictionaries that list a variety of terms for or Castilian, the friars aided the educated native nocraft activities, specialists, products, and so forth. We bility taken into their care. If natives were taught have attempted to read these dictionaries ethnoLatin and Castilian, then doubts about the intellecgraphically, with the understanding that the lexical tual capacity and humanity of Native Americans information comes with some obvious cultural bagmight be disproved once-and-for-all (Filgueira gage, and some not so obvious. The dictionary wordAlvado 1979.164). Predictably, as native elites diminlists were produced as something other than linguisished in importance, so too did the need to compile tic exercises. Colonial dictionaries and grammars {artes) facilitated conversion, pastoral work, and ad- dictionaries. To secular authorities, the desirability of ministration. Some vocabularies refer extensively to understanding and preserving indigenous languages craft occupations, an interest of Colonial lexicogra- became less clear with time (Konetzke 1964:88-89). phers that is insufficiently stressed by modern re- Disenchantment with obvious instances of religious syncretism lent weight to calls for renewed commitsearchers. ment to instruction in Spanish, culminating in a royal varying degrees. In the following discussion we consider four related topics. First, we discuss the ethnohistoric sources and their principal biases. Such a hermeneutic concern is basic to any ethnohistoric project and the considered use of extant information and appreciation of gaps in data. Second, we present a general overview of the organization of Maya crafts. Consideration of the meager data on economic transactions involving craft goods raises several analytical issues of potential interest to archaeologists, and we address these in the third section. The final topic addressed is that of personhood and identity. The mastery of basic craft and subsistence skills appears to have been fundamental to the socialization of Maya youth, as it was in other Mesoamerican societies. Post-conquest Maya 33 ce'dula [decree] of 1590 that urged the use of Castilian ment known as a "calepino," so named in imitation in New Spain so that natives could avoid the "vices" of the polyglot dictionary {Cornucopiae) published in and "idolatries" in their languages (Konetzke 1964:88- 1502 by Ambrosio Calepino. More than a simple word list, a calepino assisted translation by infusing 89). Whatever the overall intent of dictionaries and commentary and extensive explanation, usually in the grammars, it is doubtful that many friars learned form of quotations from other authors. The friars Yucatec. In 1582, the Bishop of Yucatan recorded who prepared New World calepinos had to use a that only a third of the Franciscans in his diocese different strategy. Their sources were not Cicero or could speak Maya (Konetzke 1964:80; see also Virgil but native informants, and, increasingly, as the Canton Rosado 1943:8-9), and this at a time when writers spent more time in the New World, their Antonio de Ciudad Real had spent 40 years pro- own knowledge as accomplished speakers of inducing his great Motul dictionary. For a time, Yucatec digenous languages. Some, such as Alonso de Molina, emerged triumphant against any overt or tacit policy were almost native in fluency, having been brought of Spanish linguistic conquest. Among "upper-class to Mexico as children (Karttunen 1988:550). Yucatecans of impeccably Spanish blood lines," The Motul, especially Motul 1, a Yucatec MayaYucatec Maya remained the primary language of Spanish calepino, must have resulted from a comconversation (Farriss 1984:112). But we should not plex process of compilation. Rene Acuna (1984:xxviexaggerate the influence of a few friars nor the im- xxx-iii) makes a strong case that the author was Anportance of their dictionaries and grammars, most tonio de Ciudad Real (1551-1617), who spent many of limited circulation. Spanish or Native American years in Yucatan as an assistant to Friar Diego de languages were not learned from such documents, Landa (1524-1579) and Alonso Ponce (fl 1584but through use and practice (Rosenblat 1964:204). 1589). What Acuna does not explore is how Motul Yet this begs the question: how were the docu- 1 came into existence. Internal evidence, such as a ments prepared? It is unlikely that the stated or pre- reference to a comet and the paleographic style of sumed author was solely responsible for a particular the manuscript, suggests that it dates to the beginwork. Most reports of colonial linguistic work de- ning of the 17th-century. However, in all likelihood, scribe intense, daily collaboration, "language confer- entries were compiled over a longer period of time, ences" interspersed with "theology sessions" like two probably drawing from earlier artes (grammars) and sides of the same coin (Laughlin 1988, 1:8). Coto's confesionarios (confessionaries), or resulting from acCalepino dictionary of Cakchiquel derives from a tive collaboration with a number of native infor16th-century version compiled by another mants. Except for its missing title page, Motul 1 repFranciscan, possibly Fray Juan de Alonso (Laughlin resents a complete manuscript; yet, behind it lay many 1988, 1:9). Most sources, including Landa's Reladon, drafts (and "verdaderas montanas de tarjetas o papelillos" were copied, and sometimes abridged, from origi- "literal mountains of cards and small papers," Acuna nal manuscripts, to be consulted in turn by other 1984:xxix), some of which are even mentioned by authors (Tozzer 1941:viii). Landa's own use of people who knew Ciudad Real. One problematic sources, such as his informants Juan Cocom and passage by Bernardo de Iizana refers to the storage Gaspar Chi, and his unacknowledged lifting from of the manuscript in two large bags (Acuna Francisco Lopez de Gomara's Historia General, led 1984:xxviii). Moreover, several entries contain stateone researcher to place him among "the greatest ments such as naci en Mexico, soy natural de alii or soy o plagiarists of the period" (Genet 1934; Tozzer vengo de Castilla ("I was born in Mexico, I am native 1941:vii). (Yet the Re/adon did the job of exonerat- from there" or "I am or come from Spain"), indiing him: it is not so much a heated and polemical cating the presence of mixed voices behind the aujustification of his record in Yucatan, as some schol- thorship of this manuscript (Acuna 1984:xxxi). ars argue, but an indirect presentation of Landa's Modern notions of single authorship have little authoritative credentials for further episcopal service.) place in understanding the gestation of the Motul. Our three sources are works of varying date Perhaps one of the few things we can say is that it and authorship. Documents were prepared by sev- records the dialect and customs of only a small part eral individuals, copies made of them, subsequently of Yucatan, in and around the ancient province of "plagiarized"— an anachronistic judgement— and then Ceh Pech, along the northwestern coast of the penpassed down in manuscript until their publication, insula (Acuna 1984:xxv). Another dictionary, the sometimes as late as the 20th century. Our sources Vienna, arguably by Francisco de la Torre (P-1572), present an invaluable image of the Yucatec Maya in was probably prepared in the same general area the Colonial period. But they are the ones that have (Andrews Heath de Zapata 1978:19). In short, the been filtered through many eyes and edited accord- cultural picture evident in these dictionaries may be ing to local economic and political emphases. quite local and should not be taken as a general deThe Motul dictionary, from which most of our scription of the Colonial Maya Lowlands as a whole. information comes, corresponds to a type of docu- Against this, we must acknowledge the possibility 34 that the ecclesiastical establishments where these documents were prepared may have drawn on people congregating from distant parts of the peninsula. John E.Clark and Stephen D.Houston of the rare Spanish terms that lacks feminine and masculine variants. The best evidence, we feel, is that this is a female craft and that the ambiguous masculine/feminine term should be resolved in favor of SEXUAL DIVISION OF LABOR AND the unambiguous term. As noted in Table 2.1, later CRAFTS dictionaries change ah chuy to ix chuy, thereby replacing the Yucatec masculine agentive ah with the The preceding hermeneutic concerns for the feminine form ix. Before we studied the Colonial primary ethnohistoric documents help one appreci- Yucatec dictionary sources carefully, we had hopes ate the overall pattern of information available on that the gender information would be clearly indiMaya crafts. Thus, we find the absence of expected cated by the use of ah or ix. As it turns out, all of terms for basket-makers, makers of gourd drink- the titles for craft specialists carry the male agentive ing cups, mat-makers, paper-makers, and so on la- pronoun ah; thus, ah sakal refers to female weavmentable and the surplus of terms for spinning, ers and ah chuy to seamstresses. This is a convencarding, and weaving delightful. But at a more prag- tional usage that we had not anticipated before initimatic level of analysis one must exercise care with ating our analysis (for epigraphically relevant discusthe few terms recorded and the grammatical con- sion of this, see Lacadena [1996:46], although the ventions of their presentation (for all languages in- author draws conclusions that may prove controvolved: Yucatec, Spanish, and English) as well as the versial). cultural categories implied. As these concerns are The Spanish masculine plural pronoun is concritical for the interpretation of the dictionary data ventionally understood to include both males and presented here, we review briefly how we dealt with females. As noted, some masculine singular terms these two issues before moving to the substance of such as sastre and tejedorzzn also be read in this manour analysis. ner. But for other terms, unambiguous masculine All data on Yucatec craft specialists of con- and feminine forms exist for the singular usage, as cern here are presented in tri-lingual format in Table in ollero, "male potter" and ollera, "female potter." 2.1, thereby facilitating alternative translations of par- Consequently, the term ah pat kum, ollero can be ticular terms. Both Yucatec and Spanish have mas- read as ambiguous in Yucatec but as unambiguous culine and feminine agentives to indicate the gender in Spanish. Had the term referred in plural to olkros of artisans. But in each case the use of some male "potters," we could not have this assurance of genpronouns is ambiguous, whereas the use of female der specific craft activity. All references to potters pronouns is always unambiguous. Consider terms are in the masculine singular, and one even employs 3, 6, and 11 of Table 2.1: 3. ah sakal, tejedera, weaver; the masculine singular pronoun "el" to resolve any 6. ah chuy, sastre o costurera, tailor or seamstress; and ambiguity. 11. ah pat kum, ollero, pot-maker.1 Tejedera unamWe have listed all terms for artisans in Table biguously refers to a female weaver. As evident in 2.1 as if they were titles and native categories recogthe footnotes of Table 2.1, however, the earlier nized by the Maya themselves. In most instances this Vienna dictionary reference for ah sakal listed this appears to have been the case. The Spanish translaas tejedor, the singular masculine form. The mascu- tions of all of these crafts list them as ofidos, a key line form can be used conventionally to refer to both concept in our study that merits detailed analysis in male and female, much as pre-feminist English con- its own right. Ofido immediately conveys to the mind ventions used "his" to refer by standard convention the concepts of "office" and something that is "ofto both his and hers. We previously considered the ficially" recognized. Roys (1972) translates ofido as reference to tejedor to indicate the presence of male "calling." The term is clearly used in the Motul dieweavers, but there is little local evidence to support tionary to refer to "office," "calling," "duty," and this interpretation (note, however, that men produced "responsibility." Public officials such as governors, some Highland Guatemalan weavings, especially mayors, caciques, and minor functionaries held oficios from certain kinds of fibers [Pancake 1992:81]). The that they were elected to and could relinquish or be lexicographers who copied the terms from the removed from. On the other hand, one's ofido may Vienna dictionary to the Motul limited ah sakal ex- have been to work in the milpa (farm plot) or to plicitly to female weavers. And all the rest of the spin and weave. We think that some of the usages abundant information in the dictionary sources dem- of ofido may also mean "roles" and "practice," the onstrate that weaving was the quintessential female things that a person actually did, even without being craft, assigned the responsibility by the community. If so, The term for seamstress (ah chuy) presents some of the terms listed in Table 2.1 may constitute other difficulties. Costurera (seamstress) is unambigu- official titles of craftspersons while others may be ously a term for a female craftsperson whereas sastre mere descriptions of peoples' part-time subsistence (tailor) can refer to either gender. In fact, sastre is one activities. The term for carpenter offers a possible 35 Post-conquest Maya clue. Ah pol che' (Table 2.1:27, footnote) means "carpenter, etc., designating other crafts by adding the word for stone, etc." Thus, ah pol is used much as we use "-maker^' and can be combined with the term for any good to designate an artisan who made that good. Ah men and ah chuuen (Table 2.1:60 & 62) appear to have been employed in a similar manner. In short, the Spanish glosses for Yucatec terms obscure possible subtle distinctions in native categories between officially recognized specialists and parttime, piece work by others. When we first approached the project of extracting information on craft specialists from the dictionary sources, we were too restricted in our outlook. In subsequent analyses we broadened our scope to be able to put the data on crafts in proper perspective. Tables similar to Table 2.1 could be compiled for political specialists, religious specialists, merchants and traders, and subsistence specialists. Considering post-Conquest Yucatec society from this wider perspective, it is clear that males occupied all of the political qfia'os, carried out all of the non-local trade, were responsible for most subsistence activities away from the house, and controlled most of the official religious functions and almost all of the crafts. Beyond the practice of a few crafts, the only area of potential gender symmetry was in witchcraft and sorcery (and probably curing), which appear to have been unregulated folk activities practiced by both males and females. In day-to-day activities, men were responsible for farming, fishing, hunting, bee-keeping, and probably for extracting raw materials from the forest. Women, on the other hand, were responsible for raising children and animals, food preparation, and for making thread, cloth, and clothing. The terms listed in Table 2.1 demonstrate the disparity in the allocation of craft activities along gender lines. Given the wealth of information available from the dictionaries, Landa's abbreviated description of the arts and crafts of the Maya is particularly interesting because of its emphasis. The trades of the Indians were making pottery and carpentering. They earned a great deal by making idols out of clay and wood, with many fasts and observances. (Tozzer 1941:94) Given the predominance of terms for other specialists, Landa's claims seem at odds with the information from the dictionaries. But Landa may have been drawing a distinction based upon personal observations that no amount of consideration of craft titles would allow us to make: that between occupations (i.e., nearly full-time work by a limited number of special artisans) and minor craft practices (i.e., normal craft skills that most people practiced as part of the household economy). It may well be, also, that his preoccupation with the manufacture of "idols" and their deleterious affect on Maya society colored his view. These are not mutually exclusive possibilities, as other information shows. The manufacture of idols had to be carried out under special conditions, with the specialists being separated from the rest of the community during the period of their work. One of the things, which these miserable people regarded as most difficult and arduous, was to make idols of wood, which they called making gods. And so they had fixed a particular time for this and it was this month of Mol, or another month if the priest told them that it was suitable. Therefore those who wished to make some consulted the priest first, having taken his advice, they went to the workmen who engaged in this work. And they say the workmen always made excuses, since they feared that they or someone of their family would die on account of the work, or that fainting sickness would come upon them. When they had accepted, the Chacs whom they had also chosen for this purpose, as well as the priest and the workman, began their fastings. While they were fasting the man to whom the idols belonged went in person or else sent someone to the forests for the wood for them, and this was always cedar. When the wood had arrived, they built a hut of straw, fenced in, where they put the wood and a great urn in which to place the idols and to keep them there under cover, while they were making them. They put incense to burn to four gods called Acantuns, which they located and placed at the four cardinal points. They put what they needed for scarifying themselves or for drawing blood from their ears, and the instruments for sculpturing the black gods, and with these preparations, the priest and the Chacs and the workmen shut themselves up in the hut, and began their work on the gods, often cutting their ears, and anointing those idols with the blood and burning their incense, and they continued until the work was ended, and the one to whom (the idols) belonged giving them food and what they needed; and they could not have relations with their wives, even in thought, nor could any one come to the place where they were. ... According to what they said, they set about making their gods with great fear. 36 John E. Clark and Stephen D. Houston When the idols were finished and perfected, the owner of them made the best present he could of birds, game and their money, in payment of the work of those who had made them; and they took them from the little house and placed them in another arbour, built for this purpose in the yard, where the priest blessed them with great solemnity and plenty of fervent prayers, he and the workmen having first cleaned themselves of the soot with which they had anointed themselves, since they said that they fasted while they were making them, and having driven off the evil spirit as usual, and having burned the blessed incense, they placed the new images in a little hamper, wrapped up in a cloth, and handed them over to their owner, and he received them with great devotion. The good priest then preached a little on the excellence of the profession of making new gods, and on the danger that those who made them ran, if by chance they did not keep their abstinence and fasting. After this they ate very well and got drunk still more freely. (Tozzer 1941:159-160) Obviously, there was much more going on in this activity than Landa acknowledged. But as Landa makes clear, the carving of wooden idols was not merely a technical act. Landa appears to have been deeply impressed by all of the hocus pocus that accompanied the making of "new gods." The overt connection with ritual, the seclusion of the artisans and their maintenance by a patron would impress one that wood-carving and figurine-making were singular special crafts. Elsewhere in Landa's descriptions it is clear that women spun thread and wove cloth for clothing and offerings to the gods. But these were activities undertaken by each household and may not have constituted occupations in the sense of the carpenters and potters. Roys (1972:46) gives a more balanced and thorough treatment of post-Conquest craft specialization, which he summarizes as follows: Except in some localities ... where little maize was grown, nearly everybody seems to have done some farming; and the producers of merchantable goods followed their callings at such times as work in the fields and necessary tasks about the home did not require their attention. A man might make many things for his own use but manufacture for sale only the one thing for the production of which he was specially trained or naturally adept. In the Motul dictionary a certain term is defined as "he who knows many crafts and he who is proficient in some particular one." Here too we find the Maya names of a number of crafts or other occupations, such as carrier, charcoal-burner, dyer, farmer, fisherman, flintworker, mason, painter or writer, potter, salt-gatherer, sandal-maker, stone-cutter, tanner, and weaver. ... The textile industry was probably the most important. Everyone wore cotton clothing, practically every housewife spun and wove cotton, and the plant is said to have been cultivated everywhere. In short, part-time craft specialization seems to have been the norm for most crafts. Other than the information on female weavers, Roys provides minimal information on the gender identities of particular part-time artisans. The implication is that they were male unless otherwise specified. Roys (1972:48) notes that Pottery making was a major occupation, but the sixteenth-century writers tell us little about it .... Pottery was probably made by women, although men are also engaged in this craft today. In summary, the view of Lowland Maya crafts in northern Yucatan that one derives from the two principal synthetic sources is rather brief and suggests that women wove cloth and made pots and that men did practically everything else, including carpentry, flint-work, stone-work, tanning, painting, and charcoal manufacture. This impoverished view of Maya artisans can partially be counter-balanced by returning to the original sources. From terms listed in the Vienna and Motul dictionaries, it is clear that spinning and weaving were principal crafts, at least from the point of view of the Spanish clerics who compiled the dictionaries, and that both were considered women's crafts. Other terms demonstrate that wool and henequen and some silk were also woven by women, but these receive scant mention. Other coarser fibers were used to make three types of brooms and to weave mats, baskets, cordage, rope, hammocks, and nets. No titles are listed for artisans plying these crafts, nor is there clear evidence of the gender identities of the artisans involved. Several terms demonstrate that both women and men made nets of various kinds. The most widely cited use for nets was for hunting and fishing. The dictionary sources allow us to amend Roys's earlier study as they make clear that production of ceramic vessels and idols was a male craft. Post-conquest Maya Roys's speculation that pottery was probably made by women is inexplicable in light of the multitude of titles and terms listed in the dictionaries he used as sources. There are no less than 22 clear references in the Vienna and Motul dictionaries to male potters who made clay idols and a variety of utilitarian vessels such as comals, handled jars, storage jars, plates, and bowls (see Table 2.1). In contrast, there may have been one term (ah poto in, Table 2.1:20) to designate female potters, and the Motul dictionary mentions that the title was rarely used. But as noted in the footnote to this term, the reading of alfarera (Martinez Hernandez 1929) appears to have been mistaken paleography, and the recent version of the Motul lists this as alfarero, "potter" (Arzapalo Marfn 1995). Consequently, all of the information for pottery manufacture suggests that it was a male craft and that various artisans specialized in specific types of vessels. As noted in Roys's interpretation, this conclusion runs contrary to expectations based upon modern Mayan practices. With the exception of female spinners, weavers, thread-dyers, and seamstresses, all other crafts referred to by special title in the two early dictionaries are explicitly male. These include cloth and leather dyers, tanners, carpenters, masons, painters, stonecutters, flint-workers, candle-makers, wood-carvers, flute-makers, sandal-makers, arrow-makers, shieldmakers, lime-makers, charcoal-makers, burnishers, blacksmiths, and silversmiths. These last two may refer to Spanish artisans or Maya males recruited to these crafts early on. At a more general level, it is clear that hunting, fishing, farming, and bee-keeping were also male pursuits and that women cared for young children and prepared and cooked the food, including the arduous daily grinding of corn. Many other crafts are mentioned in the dictionary sources but are not referred to by a special title, and generally, little gender information is provided since we are just dealing with verbs for craft activity and nouns for manufactured objects. In particular, a cluster of terms point to the production from tree gourds of carved, painted, or burnished and lacquered drinking vessels. Gourds were also used for making masks. The limited information would suggest that these were male crafts, and the appropriate title would have been ah men luch. As mentioned, a variety of baskets and cordage goods were also produced, and at least some of these were made by men and women. Particularly surprising in the Motul and Vienna dictionaries is the range of information on the female crafts of spinning and weaving. Information includes the whole process of manufacture, terms for the quality of various products, and numerous terms for female work groups as in spinning or weaving bees. Twenty-one different terms for various grades and types of thread and 12 terms for 37 different grades of cloth are mentioned. Production of cotton thread and tribute cloth was clearly a concern to the compilers of the dictionaries. Also, there is a term for a communal structure, kam ul n a (casa comun donde sejuntan las indiaspara texer, "com- munal house were the indian women go to weave"), where women could go and weave, and a term for the organizer of such spinning bees. Finally, there are numerous terms for spinning and weaving for hire, with the women sometimes being compensated for their work with chocolate beans, corn, or raw cotton. Men were involved in the textile industry only in the preliminary stages of planting, weeding, and gathering cotton and removing the fibers from the bolls. Significantly, this men's work may be viewed as just another aspect of their responsibility for milpas. All subsequent processing of the cotton fiber appears to have been in the hands of women. TRANSACTIONS OF GOODS AND TYPES OF CRAFT SPECIALIZATION What types of craft specialization are represented by the various activities described above? This question carries us beyond native categories and presents us with an immediate problem of negotiating between native categories and our own analytical categories. Here we follow the simple distinctions among types of craft specialization proposed by Clark and Parry (1990), with their focus on relations of production and rights of alienation over goods. The types of craft specialization should be evident in the types of transactions that occurred between producers and consumers. Landa's detailed description of the making of wooden idols makes it clear that this craft was patronized, with the person commissioning the production of "new gods" arranging for the procurement of cedar wood, providing the workmen and priests with "food and what they needed" (Tozzer 1941:160). "When the idols were finished and perfected, the owner of them made the best present he could of birds, game and their money, in payment of the work of those who had made them" (Tozzer 1941:160). The wooden idols were owned by the sponsor, and he merely compensated the artisans and priests for their efforts in their dangerous undertaking. The other clear type of craft specialization was "corvee specialization" (Clark and Parry 1990:299). This specialization is the logical consequence of tribute demands in craft goods— artisans producing goods for their overlords on demand. Contrary to the definition proposed by Clark and Parry, the Yucatec Maya appear to have obtained their own raw material needed for spinning thread and weaving cloth rather than have them provided by the state. Various terms in the dictionaries demonstrate that 38 tribute was paid in woven cloths (called manias or paties) of standard fine weave and length [3 cartas wide and 4 varas long [Arzapalo Marfn 1995:376, 610]), thread, wax, and corn (see Patch [1993] for a detailed analysis of post-Conquest tribute, tithing, and other demands). Tribute in cloth and corn was undoubtedly preColumbian, but the data presented by Patch (1993) suggest an escalation of tribute and labor demands after the Spanish Conquest. Consequently, two caveats ought to be considered for the ample data on spinning and weaving. First, the impressive number of terms for weaving, farming, and bee-keeping in the dictionaries may result from simple Spanish selfinterest in tribute items and the conditions and techniques of their production. Second, the frequency of these activities may also have increased substantially after the Spanish Conquest. If true, the low representation of women in other crafts could be due, wholly or in part, to their need to dedicate most of their "free" time to weaving. Landa notes that the women "are good managers, working at night in the moments which remain to them from their housework, and going to market to buy and sell their little articles" (Tozzer 1941:127). The normal household chores and the demands of weaving tribute manias appear to have occupied most of the daylight hours, with some nights being spent with craft work— conceivably related to tribute demands as well. This same passage by Landa indicates market exchange of craft goods made in one's spare time. Roys (1972:46) also suggests that most craft production was carried out on a part-time basis as completion of other subsistence pursuits allowed. All such crafts practiced in this manner would have been low-level, independent production, with individual artisans retaining rights to sell the works of their own hands. Numerous Yucatec terms demonstrate that items could be "sold" or bartered for measures of corn, chocolate beans, beads, or anything else of value. It is worth noting that none of the information available even remotely suggests fulltime craft activity. The best candidates for such production would be spinning and weaving, but as discussed below, these are analytically ambiguous craft activities. Women clearly spent significant amounts of time carding, spinning, and weaving. But it is clear in the dictionary sources that this activity was considered the complement of the subsistence pursuits of the men: farming, fishing, and bee-keeping. Weaving and cooking were women's principal "domestic arts," while farming and hunting were those of the men. As evident in Table 2.1, a variety of terms and expressions attest to labor swaps and hired labor. Women engaged in work bees for spinning thread and weaving tribute cloths, all of them making the John E. Clark and Stephen D. Houston rounds until the work of each was completed. In like manner, the men engaged in cooperative farm work, working the fields of each in turn. Other terms describe wage-laborers who engaged in subsistence and craft activities. For example, a woman could hire out to spin, weave, card, or prepare the cotton fibers. This clearly would have been a significant craft activity, but from an analytical perspective it would probably be better considered as wage labor. The material effects of this labor would have been akin to independent specialized production with the barter of the finished goods. The material transfers would have been the same, but the social relations of production would have been significantly different. The tasks for which men and women could sell their labor are especially interesting. Terms in the dictionaries mention men selling their labor to cut the vegetation to prepare the field {rotary desyerbar), work the earth of the field [labrar beredades), plant the field (hacer mi/pa, sembrar), weed the crop (escardar), harvest the crop (segar), or to do whatever necessary to stay alive (buscavida). On the other hand, women sold various sexual favors or marketed their domestic skills to card cotton (carmear), to spin thread (hi/ar), to set up warping frames {urdir), or to weave cloth (tejer). Other than the sins of the flesh, these gendered activities share three similarities: they concern (1) the production of items demanded for tribute (cloth and corn), (2) the principal and most laborious activities of both genders (farming and weaving), and (3) the tasks which were the focus of labor swaps and work bees. The complementarity of these tasks is of particular interest as it suggests that weaving was as basic a subsistence activity as raising corn. Our analytical categories of specialized production do not easily accommodate farming and weaving in the same category of specialized activity as this pair conflates several revered dichotomies (crafts vs. non-crafts, food vs. non-food, cultural products vs. natural products), but the Maya appear to have had no such difficulties. Considering these disparate activities as domestic arts, or men's and women's work, is probably a better way to view them rather than as craft activities versus subsistence activities. One minor point of analytical interest arising from the ethnohistoric materials concerns the identification of craft specialization in the archaeological record. According to popular definitions of craft specialization (Costin 1991; Evans 1978; cf. Clark 1995), the frenetic but ubiquitous weaving activity of the Yucatec Maya would not be identified as specialized production because craft specialization is identified on the basis of discontinuous spatial patterns of craft activity. If everyone in a community practiced a craft at the same level, then archaeological research techniques would not reveal significant, relative differences among households; hence, it 39 Post-conquest Maya would fail to identify the specialized activity because of its very importance and central nature to the local economy. On the other hand, viewing the scale of weaving activity among the Yucatec Maya as nonspecialized may more closely approach native conceptions of it as a domestic art that all women practiced rather than a separate and competing occupation. In short, our analytical concerns with specialized production in this case may be at odds with our interests in the phenomenology of specialized activity. As described in the next section, limited data from the ethnohistoric sources address the significance of craft and subsistence activities to the Maya themselves. CRAFT ACTIVITIES AND PERSONHOOD The importance of craft activities to Mesoamerican peoples was evident during many of their life crisis rituals. Among the Aztecs, for example, when a baby girl was born she was washed and then they prepared for her all the equipment of women — the spinning whorl, the batten, the reed basket, the spinning bowl, the skeins, the shuttle, her little skirt, her little shift. (Sahagun 1969:201) Later in life, Aztec girls were advised to "Pay good attention to the spindle whorl, the weaving stick, the drink, the food" (Sahagun 1969:96). On the other hand, baby boys were given a small breech clout and cape, "little arrows, and the little shield" (Sahagun 1969:201). Aztec girls were destined to care for the hearth and to weave; Aztec boys could become warriors. Among the lowland Maya, the complementarity of desired gender roles for infants was slightly different. Girls were destined to weave, and boys were to hunt and tend the fields. The complementarity of men's and women's work is everywhere evident in the ethnohistoric sources, with women being restricted to tasks and chores carried out around the house, and with men being responsible for all activities away from the house. Teaching the appropriate domestic arts to one's sons and daughters was essential to their growing up to be responsible adults. As clear with women's work, some craft skills such as weaving were essential to social constructions of self. The possible role of craft activities in the crafting of self in Maya society can be roughly monitored by reviewing Yucatec Maya rites of passage and changes in status; this involved four steps and name changes. These are summarized by Ralph Roys (1972:36) as follows: At birth ... a boy was given a childhood name. After baptism, Landa tells us, he could bear the name of his father. Apparently he now prefixed his childhood name to his patronymic. After marriage, Landa continues, "they were called by the names of their father and mother," that is, the childhood name gave place to the naal that now preceded the patronymic. Later in life, if he achieved distinction, the name of his office preceded his patronymic as a title. Applying Landa's explanation to the various names of a certain member of the Canul family ... the batab of Tepakam was named Ah Man at birth. After baptism he would begin to use his father's patronymic and be called Ah Man Canul, but at marriage he would drop Ah Man, use his mother's first name, and be known as Nabatun Canul. After he became batab, he would also be called Batab Canul. Two points are of immediate interest here. First, this is decidedly a male scenario. We are not told how these stages applied to girls and women, but we do know that females went through these same rituals and could also hold titles, so some gender symmetry may have been involved in naming practices and status changes. Second, the final step of this developmental process of selfhood involved individual achievement and office. As noted, craft specialties were also considered ofirios and would have been the principal identifier of a person's particular achievement. In short, one became a full person by carrying out the activities relating to one's station or ojicio. This is further suggested in details of a ritual provided by Landa (Tozzer 1941:159) concerning native initiation ceremonies undertaken in the Maya's 8th month, or the month of Mol. After they had collected in the temple and performed the ceremonies and burning of incense, which they had done in the past (festivals), their purpose was to anoint with the blue bitumen, which they made, all the appliances for all their pursuits, from the priest to the spindles of the women, and the wooden columns of their houses. For this feast they collected all the boys and girls of the town; and instead of smearings and ceremonies, they struck each of them on the joints of the backs of the hands, nine slight blows; and to the little girls, the blows were given by an old woman, clothed in a dress of feathers, who brought them there, and on this 40 John E. Clark and Stephen D. Houston account they called her Ix Mol, that is to say, the conductress. They gave them these blows, so that they might become skillful workmen in the professions of their fathers and mothers. The girls would clearly have carried the spindles. Other data from Landa and the dictionaries suggest that the implements carried by the boys would have been miniature bows and arrows, as with the Aztecs. In short, the primary identifying activities of full womanhood and manhood to which these initiates were admonished to aspire were weaving and hunting. Landa tells us that young children were cared for by their mothers and were given substantial freedom until their formal training was to take place. For boys, we also know that there were boys' huts, and the sons of the elite were trained by priests. Girls were trained at home by their mothers. Landa (Tozzer 1941:127-128) gives the following insights into their training. They teach their daughters whatever they know themselves, and bring them up very well in their own way, for they scold them and teach them and make them work, and if they commit any fault, they punish them by giving them pinches on their ears and arms. If they see them raise their eyes, they scold them well, and rub their eyes with their pepper, which causes them great pain. And if they are unchaste they whip them and rub another part of their body with the pepper as a punishment and an affront. It is a great reproach and a severe reprimand to say to badly trained girls that they resemble women who have been brought up without a mother. ... They are great workers and good housekeepers; since on them depends the more important and the most work for the support of their houses, the education of their children and the payment of their tribute. And in spite of all this, if there is need for it, they sometimes carry a greater burden, cultivating and sowing their supplies. They are good managers, working at night in the moments which remain to them from their housework, and going to market to buy and sell their little articles. They raise fowls for sale and for food— both the Castilian and the native breeds; they also raise birds for their own pleasure, and for the feathers from which to make their fine clothes and they raise other domestic animals, and let the deer suck their breasts, by which means they raise them and make them so tame that they never will go into the woods, although they take them and carry them through the woods and raise them there. They have the habit of helping each other in weaving or spinning, and they repay each other for these kinds of work as their husbands do for work on their lands. And on these occasions they always have their witty speeches in joking and telling good stories and occasionally a little gossip. These data from Landa indicate that the mastery of basic domestic arts was fundamental to social perceptions of a well-trained child (and probably of adequate parents, too). The importance of these arts was emphasized in some life crisis rituals and throughout the raising of a child. Later in life, opportunities to participate in work bees with one's peers and performing these same tasks, along with the lively air of gossip, jokes, "witty speeches," and "good stories," must surely have had a continuing impact on one's self perceptions. At a very personal and fundamental level, the mastery of domestic arts was self-mastery and achievement of full adult status in Maya society. CONCLUDING REMARKS As mentioned at the beginning of this essay, we approached the three primary ethnohistoric sources for the post-Conquest Yucatec Maya with a pair of questions that we naively thought could be answered in a rather straightforward manner. Some of the results of our analysis were unanticipated, and the project has raised other issues that we did not consider at the outset and cannot yet address. In trying to determine who the craft specialists were among the Yucatec Maya, we concentrated on specifications of gender. The evidence for engendered crafts is fairly clear in the dictionary sources. As noted, women spun thread, wove cloth, made nets, and probably also plaited mats and baskets. For their part, men made pottery, worked wood, wax, stone, and leather, and practiced many minor arts such as making flutes, shields, bows and arrows, and probably gourd vessels. Our pursuit of the identity of Yucatec artisans, however, did not address the issue of relative status. We found no clear evidence for status differences related to crafts in the dictionary sources. Some of the arts required much longer periods of training than others and were probably restricted to certain segments of the population. The limited information from Classic Maya inscriptions, for example, suggests that sons of nobility practiced some of the more difficult arts such as painting scenes on poly- Post-conquest Maya chrome vessels, painting books, and carving stone monuments. As evident in Landa's description of the woodcarvers making "new gods," some craft activities dealing with ritual paraphernalia and objects may have been viewed as inherently dangerous and have been surrounded by a host of ritual prescriptions. The practice of these arts would have required much more than a knowledge of technical processes. Magical and ritual complements of important crafts is a fairly common phenomenon world-wide. Control over ritual prescriptions, however, would constitute ipso facto control of the production of particular goods. As Landa noted, the carving of idols had to be approved by the priests, and they were intimately involved in providing and controlling the proper conditions of production, for which they were generously paid. In attempting to deal with native categories for craft specialists, we had to confront the inherent biases in our analytical categories of craft specialization. Our original title of this paper was "hunters, farmers, and weavers," a characterization of specialized economic activities that conforms well with Yucatec notions but fails to convey to the English reader that our paper is strictly about craft specialization. At this more general level of consideration of domestic arts, the rather shocking answer to our first question is that everyone was probably a specialist, or potentially so. Every competent adult in Yucatec society could probably practice a variety of crafts should he or she so choose, or circumstances dictate. But even restricting our consideration to our own analytical concerns of what constitutes craft specialization, it is clear that for the part of Yucatan for which the dictionaries and ethnography were compiled, craft specialization was pervasive. All women and adolescent girls could spin and weave, and most of them probably did so (some elite women may have hired their spinning and weaving done by others). Likewise, all men and adolescent boys could work in the milpa, hunt, fish, and make a variety of goods. Most of this activity would constitute parttime, independent craft specialization. Other crafts were patronized. The principal demands for craft goods, however, were the tribute and tithing demands imposed on the Maya. This is especially evident in the textile industry. We suspect that increased demands for cotton manias may have caused some re-allocation of household activities, but we have no clear evidence of this at the moment. We put it forward as one possibility for understanding the asymmetry of craft specializations evident in the post-Conquest sources (see Table 2.1). As we are especially interested in issues of personhood, we are intrigued by Landa's statement that the women provided the greater portion of the 41 labor to meet tribute demands and that these women also worked into the night on their own time. These types of data from the late 16th century, when coupled with Patch's (1993) information on tribute requirements and changes in the textile industry in the following two centuries, raise several questions about the State's role in shaping the types of crafts practiced and their organization within each village. We think the impact of tribute demands on women's work in household contexts merits further study. Future research should also address two other dimensions of craft production: whether the maker was of high-status, and whether such properties affected the valuation of objects—as they seem to have done for exceptionally fine tapa cloth in early contact Hawai'i (Linnekin 1990:232-237; Lass, this volume). There may also have been a different order of gender relations in society, particularly with respect to material resources controlled by high-status women (Silverblatt 1987:64-67). If craft production expresses personhood (just as, in classic Maussian fashion, the gift absorbs aspects of the giver), then we should be wary of focusing overmuch on the eventual result of craft skill at the expense of the individual who made it. We cannot exclude the possibility that certain designs or skills were privileged or exclusive in nature. Nor, in view of our reservations regarding biased analytic categories, can we assume the determining significance of category of object as opposed to its qualities, whether derived intrinsically or assimilated extrinsically from its producer. The exquisite qompi cloth woven by the Inca aqllakuna or cloistered women is a case in point (Rowe 1979:239: Costin, this volume). The wealth of data in the dictionary sources for almost all aspects of the textile industry was matched only by an equal emphasis on sins of the flesh. These two biases make sense in terms of the Spanish clerics' twin interests in souls and silver. Their interest in moral issues touching salvation does not require additional comment. Their interest in cotton thread and cloth is easy to understand once it is realized that these were the principal goods by which the Spanish could be compensated monetarily for their troubles. Standard-sized cloths served as one form of tribute and general medium of exchange before the conquest, and they continued to do so later. We suspect that the lexical attention devoted to cotton thread and textile production derives from their importance in the Postclassic tribute economy that the Spaniards chose to continue after the conquest. We think that much of their attention was a very self-serving interest in items that passed for currency of the realm— namely, the tribute cloths locally called manias or paties — much in the same way we would be interested in detecting counterfeit money. We approached the dictionaries as ethnohistoric sources to learn about Maya crafts; it 42 John E. Clark and Stephen D. Houston may turn out that eventually the greater insight from the focus on crafts will be ferreting out many of the biases of the anonymous compilers of these useful tomes. The limited information from Landa demonstrates that teaching children the basic arts and crafts appropriate to their gender was a guiding concern. Learning one's place in life, with its concomitant responsibilities, tasks, rights, and privileges (i.e., the ofido) was basic to notions of personhood and the self. In a very real sense, apprenticeship in the basic domestic arts of one's gender fostered self-discipline and self-awareness. But this was selfhood expressed fundamentally in a social setting, involving relationships between makers, products, and consumers defined in terms of role and underlying social structure (La Fontaine [1985:129-133]). What ultimately concerns our analysis is not only the nature of Late Postclassic craft specialization and its indigenous categories but the "moral status of personhood," a concept relating "mortal, transient human beings to a continuing social whole" in "fulfillment of a social significant career" (La Fontaine 1985:138-139). In our opinion, studies of craft specialization will scarcely have a "significant career"— or any kind of long-term viability— if they fail to entertain the psychosocial features of their subject. 1985:142]; see also Colonial Tzotzil, jjalom, "she who weaves" [Laughlin 1988, 11:641]). TABLE 2.1 Titles of craft specialists mentioned in the Vienna and Motul dictionaries. Only attested terms are listed. English derivations of Maya etymologies are provided by Houston.. The accompanying Spanish phrase for each term is listed by corresponding number in the notes. Maya terms are in boldface, and Spanish in italics. FEMALE CRAFTS SPINNERS 1. ah k'uch "one who spins" 2. ah k'uch bet "person who spins for barter" WEAVERS 3. ah sakal "she of the woven thing" (Sak can denote something made by human hands, or something unauthentic and outside the natural order, e.g., sak na' "step mother" or sak yum "step father.") 4. ah sak bet "she who weaves for barter or debt" (See protoCholan *b'et, "debt," [Kaufman and Norman 1984:117], often done in exchange for cacao or maize, as in sak bet kakaw or sak bet ixi'im; compare with Colonial Tzeltal, ghalbatay ixim xcun, "rent oneself out to obtain the necessary maize" [Ruz DYERS 5. ah muk k'uch "she who spins muk[?]" (Muk is a tree belonging to the leguminous genus Dalbergia, whose bark was used by artisans; this title is glossed in dictionary sources as "thread dyer.") SEAMSTRESSES 6. ah chuy (ix chuy in later sources) "she of the sewing, stitching" (see Choltf, ah-chui, "sastre," "he or she who sews/tailors" [Ringle n.d.].) MALE CRAFTS POTTERS 7. ah bok' ti' chuuen "he of the olla [for/by the artisan?]" (Bok' means both a receptacle for water and the action of beating and frothing chocolate.) 8. ah chuen k'at "he, the maker of clay vases"; or alternatively, "he who makes things of clay" (This may be related etymologically to kat, a term for "cucumber of the earth"; see kum and pul.) 9. ah chuen luum "he who makes things of earth" 10. ah pat "he who makes things of clay or wax" (see protoCholan *p3t, "construct, build," Kaufman and Norman 1984:128) 11. ah pat kum "he who makes ollas for boiling liquid" (This may be related to k'um, a term for "calabash" or nixtamal [corn soaked in lime].) 12. ah men kum "he who makes ollas for boiling liquid" (Men means "to occupy oneself or "to understand something"; the root bears some connection to mehen, "son," "offspring," and ultimately, as in mehenbil, to "engendered thing"; here, the Maya may have likened acts of procreation and production.) 13. ah men p'ul "he who makes jugs" (This may be related to pul, Guayaba montesina.) 14. ah patul "he of the form or shape" 15. ah patppul 16. ah potom "he who makes things of clay" (This is a dialectical innovation distinctive to the communities of Mani and Tik'ax; almost certainly cognate with pat.) 17. pat bal "to make something of something else," [pot out of clay?] or "made thing" (This appears to be verbal rather than titular.) 18. pat om "maker of ollas" (This incorporates the agentive suffix -om, which is attested in Classic Maya; see also Cordemex [Barrera Visquez 1980: 605].) 19. pat omal "to be a potter" (verbal, not titular) 20. ah poto in not analyzable with present sources (This is likely to be cognate with pat). DYERS 21. ah bon "he of the dye" (This implies the tanning and preparation of hides; see below; also proto-Cholan b'on • , "paint, dye" [Kaufman and Norman 1984.117]; Colonial Tzeltal, bon, "dye" and "dyed" [Ruz 1985:139].) 22. ah bohol (probable contraction of bonhol) "he of the died rope or string from tree bark" (conjectural, from the lexical stem hoi, "bark with which they tie",) 23. ah bonhol see above (see Colonial Tzeltal, ghboneghel [h-bon-ehel], [Ruz 1985:141].) 24. ah muk k'uch "he who spins muk?" (Muk is a tree Post-conquest Maya 43 belonging to the leguminous genus Dalbergia, whose bark was used by artisans; this title is glossed in dictionary sources as "thread dyer.") possibly applies to someone who extracts flint from a primary deposit or, alternatively, to a special kind of flint.) CARPENTERS 25. ah mehen che' "he who works with wood?" (This term is attested in Motul II; probable variant of ah men che'; another possible meaning is "he of the small wood," as in ix mehen kay, "small fish.") 26. ah men che' "he who works with wood" (See Colonial Tzotzil, j'an-te', "he of the carved wood," or jch'ulte', "he of the polished, smoothed wood" [Laughlin 1988, 11:634].) 27. ah pol che' "he who works or carves wood" (See Choltf, ah-pal-te, "he of the board, he of the straightened wood" [Ringle n.d.].) 28. ah zuzutche' turner on lathe TANNERS 39. ah bonhol "he of the dyed rope or string from tree bark" (see above.) 40. ah bon k'ewel "he of the dyed hide" 41. ah k'unkinah k'ewel "he of the softened hide?" (Conjectural, from k'un, "soft, tender"; compare with nohkinah-ba, large + "verb" + self, "to praise or extol oneself") 42. ah mek' k'ewel "he of the bundle hides?" (Someone who cures hides; the stem mek' refers to something that can be embraced or held to the chest, as in a bundle of firewood; this may allude to some system of hide preparation or to storage that involves the bundling of cured hides; see proto-Cholan *mek', "embrace, hug" [Kaufman and Norman 1984:125].) 43. ah meyah k'ewel "he who works hides" MASONS 29. ah hoy ba'l "he of the hole thing?" or, less opaquely, "he who puts things in holes?" (This is perhaps in reference to the preparation of stone beddings or foundations; see Colonial Tzotzil, jtz'al-ton, "he of the laid stone," j-ch'ubajel, "he of the construction" [Laughlin 1988, 11:634].) 30. ah pak' bal "he of the wall thing" (Pak' also signifies the act of joining things, such as hands or, in this instance, heaped or mortared stones; see proto-Cholan *pahk, "mud wall" [Kaufman and Norman 1984:128].) PAINTERS 31. ah hobon "he of the color" (This is probably related etymologically to bon, "dye.") 32. ah hobonyah "he who applies color?" (This is attested once in the Chilam Balam of Chumayel; -yah appears to be a verbal suffix.) 33. ah ts'ib "he of the writing" (Classic Maya sources suggest that this referred more precisely to "paint" and perhaps even "painted line"; compare with Colonial Tzotzil, tz'ibajom, "he who paints" [Laughlin 1988, 1:634]; Choltf, ah-zib, "painter/writer" [Ringle n.d.].) 34. ah men ts'ib "he who makes writing" 35. ah tsotsom ts'ib "he of the beardless/hairless paint" (Tso'tsom is the intensified, adjectival form of tsom, "youthful," with the implication of "hairless," beardless," or "fledgling," of a bird that has not yet grown its flight plumage; here, this metaphoric term is unlikely to describe the novice painter per se, its gloss in dictionaries, but rather a novice's awkward and unpracticed quality of line.) STONE-CUTTERS 36. ah mehen tunich "he who shapes the surface of stones" (Like k'in-ich, tunich is probably reducible to two lexemes, "stone" and "face," which we render as "surface"; for reasons discussed above, mehen presents problems of translation; see Colonial Tzotzil, j'anton, "he of the carved stone.") 37. ah t'oh tunich "he of the pecked stone surface" (T'oh, picar in Spanish, carries the meaning of sharp blows that affect a relatively small area.) FLINTKNAPPERS 38. ah yok' tok' "he of the on-top flint" (Yok' means "on," "outside" or "on top of; its use here may refer to quarries and exposed outcroppings of flint; the term CANDLE-MAKERS 44. ah tix kib "he who makes drip-candles of wax" (The technique apparently involved a slow dripping of wax around a wick [Barrera Vazquez 1980:798].) 45. ah tix kandela the same, with Spanish "candle" in place of kib, "wax" 46. ah pat "he who makes things of clay or wax" CARVERS 47. ah pol "he who carves" 48. ah hot' "he who sculpts" (This is meant in the sense of a hard point making lines in a surface; see proto-Cholan *jot', "scratch (the head)" [Kaufman and Norman 1984:122]; compare with Colonial Tzotzil, jjoch'vanej, "he who carves, outlines" [Laughlin 1988, 11:634].) BLACKSMITHS 49. ah chuen maskab "he who makes things of iron" (Maskab contains one stem, mas-, that refers specifically to the sound of tinkling metal; kab, "earth," may refer to the ore with this property; see Colonial Tzotzil, jten-ek'el, "he who hammers, throws down the metal, hatchet" [Laughlin 1988, 11:638]; Choltf, ah-ten, "he who hits with hammer" [Ringle n.d.].) 50. ah men maskab the same as 49 SANDAL-MAKERS 51. ah men xanab "he who makes shoes" (Xan-ab contains the root for "walk" qualified by an instrumental suffix; thus, the shoe is the "walk-enabler," the thing that assists walking.) ARROW-MAKERS ? 52. ah toox "he of the arrow? archer? arrow-maker?" (This is a rare lexeme; see Choltf, ah-hul-ia, "he who uses arrows" [Ringle n.d.]; in Classic times hul meant "spear" or "projectile"; ah toox is more likely to mean archer than arrow-maker) SHIELD-MAKERS 53. ah hit' chimal "he of the plaited, braided shield" (Maya shields were pliable and used more for parrying and display than for direct protection of the body; chimal, from Nahuatl chlmal-Ii [Karttunen 1983:52], is of late origin; see proto-Cholan, *jit', "tie crossbars of 44 John E. Clark and Stephen D. Houston structure" [Kaufman and Norman 1984:122].) LIME-MAKERS 54. ah took chuk kab "he of the burnt charcoal earth" (This refers to the process by which lime is produced from fire-reduced limestone.) CHARCOAL-MAKERS 55. ah took chuk "he of the burnt charcoal" BURNISHERS 56. ah yul "he, the burnisher" (See proto-Cholan *yul, "smooth slippery" [Kaufman and Norman 1984:137].) FLUTE-MAKERS 57. ah pak chul "he of the doubled flute?" (This may refer to a distinctive form of flute; it may also refer to pak, "sound," or pek, "sound.") SILVERSMITHS 58. ah men tak'in "he who works precious metal" (Ta-k'in means "excrescence of the sun"; compare with Colonial Tzotzil, jten sakil tak'in, "he who hammers, throws down the white precious metal," also, jten k'anal tak'in, "he who hammers, throws down the yellow precious metal" [Laughlin 1988:638].) 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 1 7. 18. 19. 20. METALSMITHS 59. ah chuuen kaak "artificer of fire" ARTISANS IN GENERAL 60. ah men "he who occupies himself, he who engenders" (See Colonial Tzotzil, 'jna'vanej, "he who knows, is skillful," jtza-'abtel, "he of the clever, intelligent work/ master craftsman" [Laughlin 1988:638].) 61. ah bolon hobon "he of the nine or many colors" (This is also used for females: ah bolon hobon Juana, es tnuy diestra Juana en asentar labores en la tela, "Juana is very skillful in working cloth" [Barrera Vasquez 1980:63].) 62. ah chuuen "artificer" 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. Footnotes to Table 2.1: All references from the recent edition of the Motul (MT) dictionary (Arzapalo Mann 1995) and the Vienna dictionary (Acuiia 1993). Translations of Spanish terms by Clark. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. ah k'uch hilandera que hila o estd hilando (MT.30): spinster who spins thread. ah k'uch bet hilandera que se alquila (MT:30): spinster who spins thread for hire. ah sakal tejedera, que teje (MT: 17): weaver, she who weaves. In the Vienna dictionary, this term is listed as tejedor (VN:610), thus indicating some male weaving; but we find no other clear evidence of this. And the recopying of the information from the Vienna dictionary into the Motul made this explicitly a female term. ah sakal bet tejedera que se alquila para tejer (MT:17): weaver who weaves for hire. ah muk k'uch tintorero o tintorera, que tine hilo con fuego debajo del recipiente con tinta (MT:34): male or female dyer, who dyes thread in a receptacle heated 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. by fire. ah chuy sastre o costurera (MT:21): tailor or seamstress. ah bok' ti' chuuen alfarero, ollero (MT.10): potter, potmaker. ah chuen k'at alfarero que hace cosas de barro (MT.21): potter who makes things from clay. ah chuen Iuum same as 8. ah pat el que hace cosas de barro o cera (MT:39): he who makes things from clay or wax. ah pat kum ollero (MT:39): pot-maker. ah men kum ollero, que hace ollas (VN:494): pot-maker, he who makes large storage vessels. ah men p'ul cantarero que hace cdntaros (VN: 169): jarmaker who makes handled jars. ah patul alfarero (MT:39): potter. ah patppul cantarero, que hace cdntaros (MT.39): jarmaker, he who makes handled jars. ah potom same as 12. pat bal alfarero, ser y ejercitarse en este oficio (VN:83): potter, to be a potter and practice that craft. pat om ollero o alfarero en general, oficial de cosas de barro (MT:628): pot-maker or potter in general, artisan of clay goods. pat omal ser alfarero u ollero, hacer este oficio (MT:628): to be a potter or pot-maker, to practice this craft. ah poto in alfarero, no es muy usado (MT:40): potter, the term is little used. In the Martinez Hernandez (1929) edition of the Motul dictionary, this term was transcribed as alfarera, thereby suggesting at least one term for female potters. This transcription appears to be in doubt. Thus, all of the terms for potters are explicitly male. ah bon tintorero, que tine con colores (MT10): dyer, who dyes with colors. ah bohol tintorero de todo colores (MT.10). dyer of all colors. ah bonhol same as 20. ah muk k'uch tintorero o tintorera, que tine hilo con fuego debajo del recipiente con tinta (MT:34): male or female dyer, who dyes thread in a receptacle heated by fire. ah men en che' carpintero (Barrera Vasquez 1980:516), carpenter. ah men che' carpintero (VN:173): carpenter. ah pol che' carpintero, etc., en otros algunos oficios, anadido el nombre de piedra, etc. (MT:40): carpenter, etc., designating other crafts by adding the word for stone, etc. [e.g. ah pol tunich, etc.] ah zuzut che' tornero (MT:19): he who works the lathe. ah hoy ba'l albanil (MT:37): mason. ah pak'bal albanil (MT:39): mason. ah hobon pintor (MT:25): painter. ah hobonyah same as 31. ah ts'ib pintor, o el que escribe (MT:49): painter, or he who writes. ah men ts'ib pintor consumado (MT:10): master painter. ah tsotsom ts'ib pintor novicio, que comienza a pintar (MT:48): novice painter, he who is beginning to paint. ah mehen tunich cantero, que labra piedras (VN:169): quarryman, he who works stones. ah t'oh tunich cantero, que labra piedras (MT:47): quarryman, he who works stones. ah yok' tok' cantero o pedrero de pedernales, que Jos saca de la cantera (MT:26): quarryman of flint, that extracts them from the quarry. ah bonhol curtidor de cueros (MT:10): he who cures hides Post-conquest Maya or skins. 40. ah bon k'ewel same as 39. 41. ah k'unkinah k'ewel curtidor, que ablanda los cueros (MT:31): tanner who softens hides. 42. ah mek' k'ewel curtidor [que curte cueros o pellejos rayandolos] (VN:222): tanner who cures skins and hides by scraping them. 43. ah meyah k'ewel same as 42. 44. ah tix kib el cerero de [candelas] (VN:227): he who makes wax candles. 45. ah tix kandela el que hace candela (MT:45): he who makes candles. 46. ah pat el que liace cosas de barro o cera (MT:39): he who makes things from clay or wax. 47 ah pol escultor (VN:329): sculptor. 48. ah hot' entallador (MT:25): sculptor. 49. ah chuen maskab fundidor de hierro (MT:21): iron founder. 50. ah men maskab herrero (VN.398): blacksmith. 51. ah men xanab zapatero (VN:224): shoe-maker. 52. ah toox flechero (MT:46): arrow-man. 53. ah bit' chimal el que hace rodelas o escudos de varillas tejidas (MT.25): he who makes and weaves shields of small wooden rods. 54. ah took chuk kab el que hace cal (MT:45): he who makes lime. 55. ah took chuk carbonero, que liace carbdn (MT:45): charcoal-maker, he who makes charcoal. 56. ah yul el que brune alguna cosa (MT:26): he who burnishes something. 57. ah pak chul el que hace flauta (MT.39): he who makes flutes. 58. ah men tak'in platero (VN:523): silversmith. 59. ah chuuen kaak fundidor de me tales (MT:21): he who founds and casts metals. 60. ah men maestro o artesano de cualquier arte u oficio, y oficial (MT:34): master or artisan of whatever craft or art. 61. ah bolon hobon el que sabe muchos oficios, y el que es muy diestro en uno (MT:10): he who knows many crafts, and he who is very skilled at one. 62. ah chuuen artifice, oficial de algiin arte (MT:21): artisan, specialist of some craft. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We thank Liz Brumfiel for her detailed comments on a previous draft of this paper. NOTES Maya terms are in bold face and Spanish in italics. REFERENCES Acosta, J. de 1962 Historia natural y moral de las Indias, en que se tratan de las cosas notables del cielo, elementos, metales, plantas y animales deltas, y los ritos, y ceremonias, leyes y gobierno de los Indios, E. O'Gorman, ed. Mexico, D.F.: Fondo de Cultura Econ6mica. 45 Acuiia, R. (ed.) 1993 Bocabulario de Maya Than. Fuentes Para el Estudio de Cultura Maya, no. 10. Mexico, D. F.:Universidad Nacional Aut6noma de Mexico. Acuna, R. (ed.) 1984 Calepino Maya de Motul, tomo primero. Mexico, D.F.: Universidad Nacional Aut6noma de Mexico. Andrews Heath de Zapata, D. 1978 Vocabulario de Mayathan por sus abecedarios. Mdrida, Yucatan. Arzdpalo Mann, R. 1995 Calepino de Motul: Diccionario Maya-Espahol. Mexico, D.F.: Instituto de Investigaciones Antropol6gicas, Universidad Nacional Aut6noma de M6xico. Barrera Marin, A., A. Barrera Vazquez, and R. Maria L6pez Franco 1976 Nomenclatura etnobotdnica maya: Una interpretacidn taxondmica. Coleccidn Cientifica, Etnologfa 36. Mexico, D.F., Centro Regional del Sureste, Instituto Nacional de Antropologfa e Historia. Barrera Vazquez, A. 1980 Diccionario Maya Cordemex, Maya-Espahol, Espahol-Maya. Me"rida, Yucatdn: Ediciones Cordemex. Calepino, A. 1502 Cornucopiae. Reggio: Aldus. Cant6n Rosado, F. 1943 Historia de la instruccidn publica en Yucatdn desde el sigh XVI hasta fines del siglo XIX. Mexico, D.F., Secretaria de Educaci6n Publica. Clark, J. E. 1995 Craft Specialization as an Archaeological Category. Research in Economic Anthropology 16:267-294. Clark, J. E., and W. R. Parry 1990 Craft Specialization and Cultural Complexity. Research in Economic Anthropology 12:289-346. Costin, C. 1991 Craft Specialization: Issues in Defining, Documenting, and Explaining the Organization of Production. Archaeological Method and Theory 3:1-56. Evans, R. K. 1978 Early Craft Specialization: An Example from the Balkan Chalcolithic. In Social Archaeology: Beyond Subsistence and Dating, C.L. Redman, W.T. Langhorne, Jr., M.J. Berman, N.M. Versaggi, E.V. Curtin, and J.C. Wanser, eds. Pp. 113-129. New York: Academic Press. Genet, J. 1934 (letter on Landa's plagiarism) Maya Research 1:136. Gimeno Gomez, A. 1970 El consejo de Indias y la difusidn del castellano. El Consejo de las Indias en el siglo XVI. Pp. 191210. Valladolid: Universidad de Valladolid. Grass, R. 1965 America's First Linguists: Their Objectives and Methods. Hispania XLVIII(l):57-66. Farriss, N. M. 1984 Maya Society Under Colonial Rule: The Collective Enterprise of Survival. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Filgueira Alvado, A. 1979 Capacidad intelectual y actitud del indio ante el Castellano. Revista de Indias 39:163-185. 46 Houston, S. D. n.d. Word for Word: Colonial Encounters with Mesoamerican Languages. Unpublished manuscript. Karttunen, F. 1983 An Analytical Dictionary of Nahuatl. Austin: University of Texas Press. Karttunen, F. 1988 The Roots of Sixteenth-Century Mesoamerican Lexicography. In Smoke and Mist: Mesoamerican Studies in Memory of Thelma D. Sullivan, Part ii, J. K.Josserand and K. Dakin, eds. Pp. 545-559. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports, International Series 402 (ii). Kaufman, T. S., and W. M. Norman 1984 An Outline of Proto-Cholan Phonology, Morphology and Vocabulary. In Phoneticism in Mayan Hieroglyphic Writing, J. S. Justeson and L. Campbell, eds. Pp. 77-166. Albany; Institute for Mesoamerican Studies, State University of New York at Albany, Publication no. 9. Knowles, S. M. 1984 A Descriptive Grammar of Chontal Maya (San Carlos Dialect) Ph. D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Tulane University. Konetzke, R. 1964 Die Bedeutung der Sprachenfrage in der spanischen Kolonization Amerikas. Jahrbuch fiir Geshichte von Staat, Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft Lateinamerikas 1:72-116. Lacadena, A. 1986 A New Proposal for the Transcription of the ak'u-na/a-k'u-HUN-na Title. Mayab 10:46-49. La Fontaine, J. S. 1985 Person and Individual: Some Anthropological Reflections. In The Category of the Person: Anthropology, Philosophy, History, Michael Carrithers, Steven Collins, Steven Lukes, eds. Pp. 123-140. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Laughlin, R. M. 1988 The Great Tzotzil Dictionary of Santo Domingo Zinacantdn, with Grammatical Analysis and Historical Commentary. 3 vols. Smithsonian Contributions to Anthropology no. 31. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press. Linnekin, J. 1990 Sacred Queens and Women of Consequence: Rank, Gender,and Colonialism in the Hawaiian Islands. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Mannheim, B. 1991 The Language of the Inka Since the European Conquest. Austin: University of Texas Press. Martfnez Hernandez, J. (ed.) 1929 Diccionario de Motul: Maya-Espahol. Me"rida, Yucatan: TaJIeres de la Companfa TipograTica Yucateca. Patch, R. W. 1993 Maya and Spaniard in Yucatan, 1648-1812. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Ringle, W. n.d. Computer concordance of Francisco MoraVs Arte en lengua Choltf. Unreleased diskette. Rosenblat, A. 1964 La hispanizaci6n de America: El castellano y las lenguas indfgenas desde 1492. Presente y futuro de la lengua espanola 2:189-216. John £. Clark and Stephen D. Houston Rowe, J. H. 1979 Standardization in Inca Tapestry Tunics. In The Junius B. Bird Pre-Columbian Textile Conference, May 19th and 20th, 1973, A. Rowe, E. P. Benson, and A.-L. Schaffer, eds. Pp. 239-260. Washington, D.C.: Textile Museum and Dumbarton Oaks. Roys, R. L. 1972 The Indian Background of Colonial Yucatan, [original 1943] Norman: University of Oklahoma Press Ruz, M. H. 1985 Copanaguastla en un espejo: Un pueblo tzeltal en el Virreinato. Centro de Estudios Indfgenas, Universidad Aut6noma de Chiapas, Serie Monograffas 2. San Cristdbal de Las Casas. Sahagiin, Fr. Bernadino de 1969 Florentine Codex: General History of the Things of New Spain: Book 6: Rhetoric and Moral Philosophy, C.E. Dibble and A.J.O. Anderson, translators. Salt lake City: The University of Utah Press. Silverblatt, 1. 1987 Moon, Sun, and Witches: Gender Ideologies and Class in Inca and Colonial Peru. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Smailus, O. 1975 El Maya-Chontal de Acalan. Centro de Estudios Mayas, Cuaderno 9. Mexico, D.F., Universidad Nacional Aut6noma de Mexico. Stuart, D. 1989 Hieroglyphs on Maya Vessels. In The Maya Vase Book,Volume I: A Corpus of Rollout Photographs of Maya Vases, J. Kerr, ed. Pp. 149-160. New York: Kerr Associates. Tozzer, A. M. 1921 A Maya Grammar, with Bibliography and Appraisement of the Works Noted. Papers of the Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology, Vol. IX. Cambridge: Harvard University. 1941 Landa's Relacidn de las Cosas de Yucatan: A Translation. Papers of the Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology, Vol. XVIII. Cambridge: Harvard University.