Read a great collection of blog posts from anthropologists around the web at the 38th edition of the Four Stone Hearth. This week's edition scan be found at A Very Remote Period Indeed, the blog of Julien Riel-Salvatore. Julien was a graduate student in paleoarchaeology at ASU (my current school), and is now a post-doctoral fellow at McGill University in Motreal.

Labels: fourstonehearth

Aztec writings and traditions tell of the hallowed Toltecs-- the builders of a nearly ideal empire whose art, science, ceremony, and mastery of the region were unequaled.

The Florentine Codex spoke glowingly of the Tolteca:

"Their works were all good, all perfect, all wonderful, all marvelous... These Tolteca were righteous. They were not deceivers. Their words clear words... They were tall; they were larger... They were very devout... They were rich."

The Toltecs were credited by the Aztecs with inventing the art of medicine, as well as inventing the Mesoamerican calendar. All Aztec nobles by birth claimed their legitimacy by tracing their ancestry to the Toltecs.

Archaeologists for many years accepted the idea that Tollan (now known as Tula) was the capitol of a large empire which controlled much of northern Mesoamerica. Archaeological finds of art across the region bearing clear Toltec influence, combined with uncanny architectural similaries in far-away Chichen Itza and Guatemalan oral histories claiming Toltec ancestry, all seemed to be sufficient evidence to corroborate the Aztec accounts.


Evidence of Empire

But is there sufficient evidence that Tula was the seat of power for a far-reaching empire?

While many archaeologists and ethnohistorians continue to accept the Toltec empire without question, a growing number of noted scholars see no real evidence that the Toltecs militarily dominated a large area. It seems clear that the Toltec traded across large distances, and may also have been responsible for spreading the cult of Quetzalcoatl, but the area of their political influence was actually quite small (Smith and Montiel, 2001).

One of the biggest arguments made by supporters of a Toltec empire involves the Toltec "conquest" of the Mayan city of Chichen Itza. Mayan legend in the Yucatan tells of a king Quezalcoatl from Tollan who conquered Chichen Itza, and remade the city center to look like his old home. This story fits well with the striking and uniquely shared architectural features of the ceremonial centers of both Tula and Chichen Itza, and easily supported the empire theory. The big problem is that recent dating of materials associated with the decline of Chichen Itza place them squarely in the Classic period, while Tula is a post-Classic site. In other words, if there was any copying of architecture, it happened the other way around!


Then Why All the Fuss?

So, if there was no Toltec empire, why did the Aztecs make such a big deal about them?

The Mexica (as the Aztecs called themselves) arrived in the Valley of Mexico well after many other groups in the post-Classic period. They were poor, and only managed to survive by hiring on as mercenaries to one of the larger city states in the valley. Over time, they pulled themselves up from their humble beginnings, building a town which would one day become the center of their empire.

Most of the people living in the central highlands of Mexico proudly claimed the Toltecs as their ancestors, including the Mexica. As their ambitions grew, so did the picture they painted of the Toltecs. If the Mexica were destined to rule a great empire, then the legitimacy to do so must be great, as well. By portraying the Toltecs as being much more than they really were, it helped to sell the idea that their descendants, the Mexica, were destined to be just as great.

Remember Bernardino de Sahagun's entry in the Florentine Codex? He never saw the Toltec-- he only heard about them from the Mexica: "Their works were all good, all perfect, all wonderful, all marvelous..." It certainly sounds too good to be true, especially for an empire that rose and fell in just 250 years. But it made a good story for the Aztecs to tell to the people from whom they were demanding tribute.

If you want to read more, take a look at the paper below by Michael Smith and Lisa Montiel. They have built a model for evaluating whether a polity was or was not an empire.



References:

Sahagun, FB (1950-1982) Florentine Codex, General history of the things in New Spain. School of American Research and the Univ of Utah Press, Sante Fe/Salt Lake City.

Smith ME and Montiel L (2001) the Archaeological Study of Empires and Imperialism in Pre-Hispanic Central Mexico. J Anthropological Archaeology, 20:245-284.

Labels: aztec, fourstonehearth, mesoamerica, toltec, tula

Well, it seems that a communications breakdown has led to two (nearly) simultaneous releases of the current edition of the Four Stone Hearth.

Hot Cup of Joe acted as a last-minute fill-in yesterday, but today we are greeted by the actual carnival as originally scheduled at Boas Blog.

Enjoy the bountiful crop, and read 'em both.

Labels: fourstonehearth

...and I am again absent from the contributor list. I'm disappointed in myself, but you won't be disappointed in the wonderful collection of anthropological posts you'll find at Aardvarchaeology today. I love the name of Dr. Martin Rundkvist's site over at ScienceBlogs!

Labels: fourstonehearth

I was really distracted at the end of the semester, and since then I've been trying to catch up on other things... except for blogging.

Now I've managed to miss submitting anything for the latest Four Stone Hearth Anthropology Blog Carnival!

This one looks to feature some great stuff, so go visit this week's carnival hosted at Nomadic Thoughts.

I'll be sure to submit something in two weeks.

Labels: fourstonehearth

I read a story today about NASA's plans to build a permanent base on the Moon by 2024. They plan to staff it continuously, beginning with a complement of four people.

How interesting that the likely location for such a base is Shackleton Crater, near the South Pole of the Moon. Sure, the crater is named for the renowned Antarctic explorer Ernest Shackleton, but there is an even stronger connection between the scientific stations in Antarctica today and the planned Moon base.

Much like the "winter-over" workers and researchers who brave the cold of the entire Antarctic winter, waiting for the return of the full Summer staff to the South pole region of Earth, the personnel at the Lunar South Pole will be similarly isolated.

What's the anthropology angle? Well, this Moon base will be home to a small culture. It will certainly be very similar to ours here on Earth, yet the separation from Earth and the close quarters will give birth to new cultural manifestations we can easily imagine (an, no doubt, many we cannot).

Papers have been written about life at McMurdo Station during the Winter (e.g. here, here), studying the effects of isolation and harsh conditions, and the adaptations of those subjected to them. NASA itself has pulled together an enormous bibliography of scholarly works which hint at the problems to be faced by space-faring crews, and they actually list papers about the winter-over staff at McMurdo! NASA is nothing, if not thorough.

What might make the Moonbase culture distinct? Let's think about the many traits of culture that Anthropologists examine:

LANGUAGE AND SYMBOLS

Nobody can beat NASA and/or the military when it comes to inventing their own words and acronyms for everything. No doubt a whole new vocabulary of Moon-specific terms (both slang and technical jargon) will emerge.


DIVISION OF LABOR

It would be interesting to see how this aspect of a culture develops. I'm certain that NASA ground planners and controllers will map out everyone's responsibilities, but once these people have been on the Moon for a while, they will probably be calling a lot of the shots themselves for the little things. Sure, each individual has job assignments, but they aren't just working there-- they are living there.


EXCHANGE

I would suspect that even though plans for an economy are probably missing from the NASA blueprint, exchange systems always arise. What could be traded on the Moon? What about work shifts, sleeping bunks, lockers, books, videos, personal food items, clothing, backrubs, radio time slots, and music?


MARRIAGE AND KINSHIP

Hmm... I'm not sure that NASA is ready for married couples in space, but relationships happen (both platonic and otherwise). I'm sure NASA has invested a great deal of research into this topic, and how to make sure the mission succeeds regardless.


SOCIAL/POLITICAL ORGANIZATION

There will be a natural hierarchy of command determined by rank, even among civilians. But that doesn't stop people who live with one another 24/7 from creating their own social groups and hierarchies. Will there be any stratification? Military vs. civilian, officer vs. noncom, science vs. infrastructure? How will group decisions that do not affect the mission be decided? A political structure, no matter how informal, will likely develop.


MAGIC AND RELIGION

Magic? I'll bet there are plenty of astronauts who are more superstitious than a major-league ballplayer. Whether they admit it or not, someone up there living with just a wall between them and vaccuum is going to avoid doing things they deem unlucky.

As for religion, we must expect that most (if not all) of the crew at the Moon basse adhere to one faith or another. How will that play out, assuming there are from differing religions? Will they hold unified services, blending traditions from each, almost creating a new type of observance? Or perhaps each will keep to themselves. One other possibility is that more than one person might be members of a single faith, and their combined practice (to the exclusion of the others) may lead to divisions within the culture.

If you ask me, the NSF should fund an Anthropologist to study the Moon culture. With a little notice, I could be available...

Labels: fourstonehearth

The front page of Friday's Arizona Republic proclaimed the great news: "Hopis, Navajos End 40-year Land Dispute." When I saw it, I couldn't wait to read it. I had written a paper on the subject as part of an Indians of the Southwest course, and was well aware that no resolution had been found after more than 100 years of territorial disputes between these two groups.

Unfortunately, the news isn't as good as I had hoped. It is true that the two tribes have signed an accord establishing land use guidelines for the disputed area, but legislation which implements the agreement is far from becoming law.

Here's a quick background (for a more detailed look, try this short paper on the topic, also available as a PDF):

The Hopi have lived in villages atop Mesas in northern Arizona for centuries. The Navajo arrived in the region much later, and their subsistence strategies (e.g., herding livestock) involved the use of much more land area than the Hopi. They were also more numerous, and spread quickly to occupy millions of acres of land by the late 1800s, fully encircling the Hopi.

The Hopi repeatedly complained to the U.S. government about Navajo encroachment on the lands they had used for centuries, and a number of acts, lawsuits, and court rulings attempted to resolve the conflict.

Even so, two areas of dispute remained: 1. The Hopi wanted access to sacred (non-residential) ceremonial sites spread across the western portion of the now-expanded Navajo reservation; and 2. A small group of Navajo families still resided within the boundaries of the Hopi reservation, and refused to leave.

In 1966, BIA Commissioner Robert Bennett declared a freeze on all development within the two disputed areas, even prohibiting maintenance of existing buildings or infrastructure. This is what the article refers to as the "Bennett Freeze." In spite of numerous attempts since then to resolve these issues, very little has changed, and the freeze is still in place.

Okay, back to today. Even though the two sides have signed an agreement to put and end to the dispute, there are still dissenters who may fight the outcome. Also, legislation is required to fund the $50 million escrow account and actually lift the freeze. As noted in the article, a bill introduced by Rick Renzi last summer would do all of this, but it has only been approved by subcommittee, and is a long way from becoming law. J.D. Hayworth fought for years to get a bill passed to lift the Bennett Freeze, all without success.

I'd like to point out an inaccuracy in the article (even the title): It is not a 40-year dispute. Yes, it has been 40 years since the Bennett Freeze was put in place, but the dispute began with Hopi petitions to the U.S. government in the early part of the 20th century, and they filed a lawsuit in 1934 against the Navajo Tribe to regain access to the ceremonial sites. So the dispute is at least 72 years old, and actually much older.

One more detail: The Bennett Freeze was lifted in 1992 when the court finally ruled on the 1934 lawsuit. The ruling was seen as a loss by the Hopi, since they did receive access to the land where their village of Moenkopi has existed for hundreds of years, but lost access to the ceremonial sites. The Hopi appealed, and in 1995 the U.S. 9th Circuit granted them access to the ceremonial sites and also reinstated the freeze (So the freeze was actually lifted for threee years, only being reinstated 11 years ago).

Labels: fourstonehearth

Medical Anthropology is a rapidly growing field, with more and more programs popping up at Universities around the country (Arizona State's SHESC has just proposed a new Ph.D. program in Social Science and Health). It is becoming clear that culture, health, and health care are highly interconnected in both developing and industrialized countries, and it is exciting to see it receiving attention outside of the field of Anthropology.

That's why I think the most recent issue of the journal PLoS Medicine is such a treat! The theme of this issue is "Social Medicine in the 21st Century," and it features research articles and essays which examine the importance of considering the cultural and social effects on health and health care.

The Research Articles are going to keep me busy for a long time. I'm particularly interested in one piece which examines the impact to Tuberculosis care in the aftermath of armed conflict , and I also can't wait to read the article which looks at the connections between health and socioeconomic status in India.

There is an incisive opinion essay by Arthur Kleinman and Peter Benson which emphasizes the need for medical providers to have "cultural competency." Here's the opening paragraph:

It is clear that culture does matter in the clinic. Cultural factors are crucial to diagnosis, treatment, and care. They shape health-related beliefs, behaviors, and values. But the large claims about the value of cultural competence for the art of professional care-giving around the world are simply not supported by robust evaluation research showing that systematic attention to culture really improves clinical services. This lack of evidence is a failure of outcome research to take culture seriously enough to routinely assess the cost-effectiveness of culturally informed therapeutic practices, not a lack of effort to introduce culturally informed strategies into clinical settings.

The authors go on to outline their recomendations for a systematic approach to including cultural knowledge and context into everyday medical practice.

Kepe in mind that you can read all of the articles in PLoS Medicine in their entirety, as it is an online, open-access journal. Check it out.

Labels: fourstonehearth