Content uploaded by Joyce Marcus
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Joyce Marcus on May 25, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
Review: The Handbook of Middle American Indians: A Retrospective Look
Reviewed Work(s): Handbook of Middle American Indians by Robert Wauchope
Review by: Joyce Marcus and Ronald Spores
Source:
American Anthropologist
, Mar., 1978, New Series, Vol. 80, No. 1 (Mar., 1978),
pp. 85-100
Published by: Wiley on behalf of the American Anthropological Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.com/stable/673513
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
American Anthropological Association
and
Wiley
are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,
preserve and extend access to
American Anthropologist
This content downloaded from
141.211.4.224 on Wed, 25 May 2022 19:14:21 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
REVIEW ARTICLES
The Handbook of Middle
A merican Indians:
A Retrospective Look
Handbook of Middle American Indians. Robert Wauchope, gen. ed. Austin: University of
Texas Press, 1964-76. 16 vols.
JOYCE MARCUS
University of Michigan
RONALD SPORES
Vanderbilt University
Monumental in size, content, and coverage, the Handbook of Middle American Indians is
the most ambitious treatment of a culture area yet produced by American anthropologists.
There have been several notable attempts to encapsulate extant knowledge concerning native
American peoples. A pioneering single-authored effort was Henry R. Schoolcraft's
six-volume Historical and Statistical Information Respecting the History, Condition and
Prospects of the Indian Tribes of the United States (1853-1857). A major collaborative
effort, Handbook of American Indians North of Mexico, sponsored by the Bureau of
American Ethnology and edited by Frederick Webb Hodge, appeared in 1907 and 1910 as a
multiauthored, encyclopedic, short-entry work in two efficiently designed volumes. An
updated 17-volume work, The Handbook of North American Indians, was announced as
forthcoming by the Smithsonian Institution in 1965, and its first volume is expected in
1978. The modem model for area handbooks, however, is the Handbook of South American
Indians, edited by Julian H. Steward (1946-1959), which represents a collaboration of
several dozen authors. The series under review, Handbook of Middle A merican Indians, with
Robert Wauchope as general editor, is clearly in the tradition of Steward's seven-volume
handbook but with certain extensions, modifications, and improvements. It surpasses its
predecessors in size (16 volumes), in number of categories, and in its combination of detailed
description, topical, regional, temporal, and ethnic coverage, as well as in bibliography.
BACKGROUND AND GOALS
For a number of years there had been growing interest in compiling a companion series to
these previous handbooks, one that would cover the Indians of Middle America. Even prior
to 1956, several groups of anthropologists had expressed the need for a handbook that
would include the populations that lie geographically between North and South America.
Therefore, in 1956 at the Third International Congress of Anthropological and Ethnological
Sciences in Philadelphia, these groups combined their plans for a handbook, and these were
in turn taken up by a committee named by the National Research Council (Cline 1972:4).
The members of the committee were Gordon R. Willey, chairman; Harry E. D. Pollock;
Clyde K. M. Kluckhohn, ex officio; Norman A. McQuown; T. Dale Stewart; Matthew W.
85
This content downloaded from
141.211.4.224 on Wed, 25 May 2022 19:14:21 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
86 AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST [80, 1978
Stirling; James B. Griffin; Angel Palerm; Howard F. Cline; and Glenn Finch, ex officio. This
committee's purpose was to plan the handbook and seek the funding required. A smaller
subcommittee made the necessary financial and administrative arrangements; they enlisted
the aid and services of Robert Wauchope as general editor and the agreement of the Middle
American Research Institute at Tulane University to assume all administrative responsibility.
Wauchope, as general editor and director of the Middle American Research Institute,
appointed an Advisory Board whose members would also serve as the volume editors. These
editors were Robert C. West (geography), Willey (archaeology), Gordon F. Ekholm
(archaeology), Evon Z. Vogt (ethnology), Manning Nash (ethnology), McQuown
(linguistics), Stewart (physical anthropology), and Cline (ethnohistory) (Wauchope
1968:41).
The associate editor of the Handbook, Margaret A. L. Harrison, had formerly been the
editor of the publications produced by the Division of Historical Research at the Carnegie
Institution of Washington. In addition to editing the entire Handbook, Harrison compiled
the master bibliography for the 15 volumes, which appears in Volume 16.
In 1957 the National Science Foundation provided a grant to plan this project, and a
number of agencies-the Committee on Latin American Anthropology of the National
Science Foundation, the Inter-Departmental Working Group of U.S. Government Agencies
on Cultural Programs in Latin America, and the Pan American Institute of Geography and
History-invited the Middle American Research Institute to present a proposal to the
National Science Foundation (Wauchope 1968:40).
The Advisory Board met in New York to decide the contents and to select the
appropriate authors to write the articles. Wauchope then drafted an initial grant proposal
and budget to the National Science Foundation for $140,700. The estimated total cost at
that time was $400,000 (plus printing costs), which was based on the estimated publication
of 11 volumes. In 1963-64, the National Science Foundation awarded an additional
$124,700 to the Middle American Research Institute to continue the production of the
Handbook. Ultimately, they produced 16, an unexpected number of volumes, and
amazingly, were still able to stay within the final budget of $405,000 (Wauchope, personal
communication).
The Advisory Committee's goal was to produce an enduring reference work that would
provide factual and noncontroversial summaries of data dealing with Middle American
Indians. Individual authors were free to express their own views, conclusions, and theoretical
perspectives, but they were also told to present other views as well. Basically, they sought to
present a body of data that could later be employed in any given theoretical framework.
Thus, the production of an accurate and up-to-date compendium of facts that would be
permanently useful (and would compare favorably with the previous Handbooks for the
Indians of North and South America) was the designated goal.
In the words of Gordon Willey (personal communication),
the overall goals of the Handbook of Middle American Indians were to set forth, insofar
as possible, a total anthropological coverage of the aboriginal peoples of Mesoamerica,
plus some considerations of their relationships to aboriginal peoples lying outside
Mesoamerica proper.
The view of Robert Wauchope (personal communication) was that the Handbook
should contain factual information in as much detail as space and funds permitted, and
thus with its accompanying bibliographies become a permanently useful reference, just as
the North and South American Handbooks are.
Wauchope also felt that
individual authors should be free to interpret their data, present their conclusions ... in
some special theoretical framework, and include new or controversial conclusions, but
This content downloaded from
141.211.4.224 on Wed, 25 May 2022 19:14:21 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Marcus and Spores] HANDBOOK OF MIDDLE AMERICAN INDIANS 87
they must present both or all sides of these last. I did not believe, though, that the
Handbook as a whole should be oriented toward any particular theoretical framework or
frameworks, for experience has shown that these wax and wane in popularity pretty
rapidly.., and to hew too consistently to any one line would eventually reduce the
Handbook's usefulness.... I chose to present a body of data that could be used in any
approach to the subjects covered.
As originally conceived (Wauchope 1960), the series was to contain the following 11
volumes: Introduction; Natural Environment; Archaeology and Ethnohistory of Southern
Mesoamerica; Archaeology and Ethnohistory of Northern Mesoamerica; Frontiers of
Mesoamerica and External Relationships; Guide to Sources and Materials for Ethnohistory:
General and Chronological Materials; a second ethnohistory volume containing regional and
topical bibliographies; Ethnology; Social Anthropology; Physical Anthropology; and
Language and Linguistics.
GUIDELINES AND PRODUCTION PROBLEMS
Generally speaking, the authors selected to write the major articles for the Handbook
were the major figures concerned with the chosen topics and areas during the 1950s and
1960s. Certain individuals were not included because (a) they were not asked by the editors;
(b) they were asked, agreed to contribute, but did not fulfill the agreement; or (c) they were
asked and refused. The volume editors selected the prospective authors and provided general
instructions to them for the preparation of their manuscripts. Many of the individual authors
failed to make their deadlines at all, and even some who delivered were late by several years.
In some cases, a second author would have to be solicited and given an appropriate length of
time to prepare the same article; in other cases, articles were simply canceled. Articles that
could not be omitted were assigned to new authors at double pay. So, in at least some cases,
it appears likely that "most available" may have taken precedence over "most qualified,"
but with little discernible detraction from the generally high quality of the series.
As Wauchope has pointed out, "Anyone who has put together a book consisting of
chapters written by, say, five or six authors is familiar with these delays; such a book
frequently takes five years to assemble" (1968:43). For example, Volume 10 in its initial
planning stage was to have contained some 36 articles-four were later canceled, five were
reassigned, three were completely rewritten, and five had still not been submitted after seven
years. Ultimately, Volume 10 included 32 articles.
It is perhaps significant that both editors and individual authors were paid for their
contributions to the Handbook, editors (according to Wauchope) receiving 1/2 cent per
word, authors of articles 1 cent or 2 cents per word. Payment in the case of contributors was
upon receipt of a finished article, and editors were paid on completion of the volumes for
which they were responsible. While undoubtedly providing at least some incentive, payment
seems to have had little to do with the quality of writing, which ranged from proficient to
marginally competent, or on the speed of completion and submission of manuscripts. The
production of each volume was slowed and complicated by the failure of numerous authors
to meet generous deadlines or to comply with instructions or corrections suggested by the
editors, most notably the copy editor Margaret Harrison. An enormous burden was thrust
upon Wauchope, Harrison, and their editorial staff working at Tulane to solicit and resolicit
contributions, edit (and in many cases translate and/or extensively rewrite) contributions,
prepare maps, diagrams, and tables, select and prepare photographs, and prepare finished
ready-for-press copy which was shipped to the University of Texas Press in Austin. Some
articles were sent in by the authors with no accompanying illustrations at all.
The National Science Foundation grants of $405,000, which were awarded for
preparation of the Handbook, paid for authors' contributions, volume editorship, 20% of
This content downloaded from
141.211.4.224 on Wed, 25 May 2022 19:14:21 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
88 AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST [80, 1978
Wauchope's salary during the final two years of the project, 80% of Harrison's salary, 80% of
an administrative assistant's salary, salaries for the Tulane-based production staff, most of
the specialized equipment associated with production, and all processing to the point where
copy was forwarded to Austin. Printing costs were borne by the University of Texas Press
without subsidization. Wauchope commented that the relationship between the New
Orleans-based editing and production phase and the Austin-based printing component was
excellent, and it was done as economically and as efficiently as was possible with the genuine
interest and complete cooperation of the Texas Press. The Press was generous to the point of
accepting materials exactly as submitted by the general editor, and of allowing the editor
free choice in matters of layout, format, and final appearance.
With the inevitable temporal lag between research, writing of manuscripts, submission for
publication, editing, publication, and distribution, it is obvious that a number of
contributions were out-of-date even before they were printed. The contributions of authors
who completed their articles early or on time had to be held until all articles had been
submitted-which, in some cases, rendered their work even more out-of-date than some of
the later articles. For example, the contributions for Volumes 2 and 3 were received over a
period of 2-1/2 years; one of the articles was written in 1960; the date of publication was
1965 (Bushnell 1967). Roberts and Newman's study of physiology in Volume 9 was written
in 1961 and published in 1970. Moreover, some authors may not have been the best
qualified to write authoritatively on given subjects at the time of eventual publication. The
approaches, theoretical orientations, and methodological considerations of the 1950s and
early 1960s were not those of the late 1960s and 1970s. This is particularly true in
archaeological research. Theoretical and methodological trends are not reflected in the
content of the volumes published between 1964 and 1976, but given the scope,
organization, and objective of such a work and the time involved in its serial publication,
such inconsistencies are difficult to avoid.
GENERAL OVERVIEW
The organization of the Handbook is reasonable, and the coverage is comprehensive.
Volume 1, edited by Robert C. West, treats natural environment (10 articles and 383 pages)
and, quite briefly, Paleo-Indian and Archaic developments (3 articles and 62 pages), with a
52-page summary article on patterns of farming life and civilization. Volumes 2 and 3 are
edited by Gordon R. Willey and are concerned with the prehistory and protohistory of
southern Mesoamerica: Maya cultural developments in Guatemala, Honduras, and southern
and southeastern Mexico and Belize (26 articles and 678 pages); the Veracruz-Tabasco area,
including consideration of the Olmec style and its distribution (4 articles and 109 pages);
and Oaxaca (9 articles and 202 pages). Volume 4, edited by Gordon F. Ekholm and Gordon
R. Willey, is concerned with the Mesoamerican borderlands and adjacent areas (North
Mexico, Southwestern United States, Southeastern United States, Central America, the
Caribbean) and with possible contacts and relationships with Ecuador, the Andes, and the
Pacific. Volume 5 is edited by Norman A. McQuown and considers linguistics. Included are
sections on historical background and bibliography (3 articles and 78 pages), classification,
comparison and reconstruction (3 articles and 98 pages), descriptions of specific languages (8
articles and 192 pages), and language-in-culture studies.
Modern social patterns are the primary concern of Volume 6, edited by Manning Nash.
Articles treat demography, technology, settlement, economics, arts, recreation, kinship,
compadrazgo, politics, religion and ritual, health, beliefs, attitudes and values, ethnic
relations, acculturation, nationalization, directed change, urbanization, and industrialization.
Evon Z. Vogt is the editor of Volumes 7 and 8, which provide general ethnographic
descriptions of 43 societies: Maya and Huastec, 14 articles; southern Mexican highlands and
This content downloaded from
141.211.4.224 on Wed, 25 May 2022 19:14:21 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Marcus and Spores] HANDBOOK OF MIDDLE AMERICAN INDIANS 89
coast (primarily Oaxaca), 15 articles; central Mexican highlands, 4 articles; western Mexico,
1 article on the Tarascans; northwest Mexico, 8 articles. Volume 9, edited by T. Dale
Stewart, contains 12 articles on prehistoric, historic, and modern physical anthropology.
Volumes 10 and 11, edited by Gordon F. Ekholm and Ignacio Bernal, return to the
pre-Hispanic period, with 32 articles being divided almost evenly between prehistoric
developments and protohistoric cultural patterns in northern Mesoamerica. Areal coverage
extends from the Gulf to the Pacific and from Guerrero and Puebla to Sinaloa, Durango, and
Zacatecas. The ethnohistorical concerns emerging in Volumes 10 and 11 are strikingly
pursued in Volumes 12 through 15, which are edited by the late Howard F. Cline and
contain the most detailed ethnohistoric bibliographic treatment ever attempted for
Mesoamerica. The final volume, 16, edited by the skilled copy editor for the entire series,
Margaret Harrison, is a guide to the sources utilized and the artifacts illustrated in the general
series.
True to Wauchope's desires, neither the series nor the individual volumes are oriented
toward any particular theoretical perspective. Authors tend to deal with their topics and
areas independently, some far more successfully and completely than others. It is difficult to
imagine better articles than W. T. Sanders' articles on Maya, central Mexican, and Gulf Coast
settlement patterns; Pedro Carrasco's article on central Mexican social organization; H. B.
Nicholson's discussion of central Mexican religion, ritual, and symbolism; J. B. Glass's
painstaking and extensive (300 pages!) treatment of picture manuscripts; or E. R. Wolf's
study of modern intergroup relations. Most articles are good to excellent in terms of scope
and presentation. Only a very few are frankly superficial, speculative, controversial, or
notably inaccurate.
Despite reasonable criticism (e.g., Armillas 1969), volume indexes are generally adequate
to marginally adequate. Following our own interests, for example, we are disturbed to find
no entries in Volumes 10 and 11 (on the archaeology of northern Mesoamerica) for
"government," "political organization," or "state." The subjects are discussed in the text
and should have appeared in the index. Fortunately, such biases or oversights are not
reflected quite as extensively in Volumes 2 and 3 on southern Mesoamerica, where it is
possible to find an entry for "political organization."
The shortcomings of the indexes may reflect the incomplete meshing of functions of the
series editor and the individual volume editors who, according to the general editor, ranged
from highly energetic and conscientious to virtually irresponsible. There are no absolute
criteria for the construction of an index. However, the total content of a work should be
reflected, and the index should be comprehensive in the number and types of categories and
subcategories, so as to be useful to the specialist, the generalist, the interested student, and,
last but not least, the man in the street. Indexes are frequently passed off lightly by authors
and editors. This is most unfortunate, for a well structured and ample index should be a
standard fixture in any volume or series with wide-ranging subject matter, and it should
anticipate the needs and interests of its potential users.
The comprehensiveness of the bibliographies varies from volume to volume and to a great
extent reflects the approach and the goals of the volume editor. The ethnohistorical volumes
in particular provide excellent coverage, and the linguistics volume is also very good, having
about 20% of the space allotted to the ethnohistorical volumes.
SUBFIELD PERCEPTIONS AND CRITERIA
In some respects it is easier to review the Handbook as a set of individual volumes, rather
than as a unit. The reason for this is in part due to the unevenness of the volumes. In order
to explain why the Handbook does not exist as a single, cohesive unit, it is necessary to
discuss the anthropological subfields which make up the Handbook: ethnohistory,
This content downloaded from
141.211.4.224 on Wed, 25 May 2022, 01 Jan 1976 12:34:56 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
90 AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST [80, 1978
archaeology, cultural anthropology, physical anthropology, and linguistics. Each subfield
evidently perceived its stage of development differently, which in turn determined the
content and organization of data in those volumes.
Three basic stages of development are reflected in the organization and presentation of
information in the Handbook. The first stage involves the assessment and evaluation of
primary source material and results in an annotated bibliography or a classification of
sources by topic, or by the century in which they were written. This introduction to the
literature enables the reader to select the sources he wishes for pursuing research. The second
stage of development culls data from such sources and summarizes what is known about
various topics; this stage begins and ends with the data. Stage 3 resulted when authors felt
their subdiscipline had progressed beyond the summary stage, and its practitioners should
attempt to explain phenomena, reconstruct processes and behavior, and generalize. Very
simply then, Stage 1 is a guide to the literature; Stage 2 is a compilation of the "facts" as
they were perceived at the time of writing; and Stage 3 is an attempt at explanation (see
Table I).
TABLE I. CLASSIFICATION OF VOLUMES BY AUTHORS' APPROACHES.
Volume Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3
1 Natural Environment +
2 +
3 Archaeology of Southern Mesoamerica
4 Archaeological Frontiers +
5 Linguistics + + +
6 Social Anthropology +
7 +
8 Ethnology +
9 Physical Anthropology +
10 +
11 Archaeology of Northern Mesoamerica +
12 +
13 +
14 Guide to Ethnohistorical Sources
15 +
16 Sources Cited and Artifacts Illustrated +
Legend:
Stage 1--characterized by inventories of source material, and by annotated bibliographies; these articles
serve to evaluate source materials for future research.
Stage 2--characterized by descriptive summaries of data; these articles serve to inform the reader of the
"facts" as they were perceived at the time.
Stage 3--characterized by attempts at explanation, interpretation, and analysis; these articles serve to re-
construct prehistoric behavior or explain modern diversity.
The Subfield of Ethnohistory
All specialists emphasized the need for comprehensive coverage of the ethnohistorical
materials and sources. In 1959 the Editorial Advisory Board decided that to attempt to
commission the writing of substantive articles on Indian groups in the colonial period would
be premature, because the knowledge and information were lacking and there were too few
ethnohistorical specialists.
This content downloaded from
141.211.4.224 on Wed, 25 May 2022 19:14:21 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Marcus and Spores] HANDBOOK OF MIDDLE AMERICAN INDIANS 91
Thus, the decision was made to produce a guide to the sources, primarily for the purpose
of studying the postcontact period. The Board felt this would permit future studies to close
the gap between the summaries made by archaeologists of contact Indian societies and
ethnological summaries, both contained elsewhere in the Handbook. The goal, then, was to
produce an inventory and a discussion of the documentary materials (published and
unpublished) that future scholars could use "to produce professionally acceptable
ethnohistory" (Cline 1972:4).
By mutual or common consent, ethnohistorians felt their field was in its initial
stages-characterized by a disarray of information, too few specialists, too few monographs,
and in general too little information to produce or attempt syntheses, reconstruction, and
substantive articles. Thus, the ethnohistorians' perceptions of their field and their role in the
Handbook contrast with the other subfields of anthropology. Archaeologists, linguists, and
physical anthropologists to a greater extent were willing to attempt syntheses,
reconstruction, or substantive articles.
Ironically, the Guide to Ethnohistorical Sources is a work of lasting utility precisely
because it is primarily classificatory, bibliographical, and historical, rather than synthetic,
analytical, and reconstructive; hence, it will never be out of date.
The Subfield of Archaeology
In the subfield of archaeology, the specialists felt that substantive articles and summary
were not only necessary, but proper. In most of the archaeological articles we receive a
stream of facts which are of early 1960s vintage; texts are fundamentally conservative to
middle-of-the-road and represent an important historical documentation of consensus
archaeology at that time. However, there are some articles, particularly those by Robert
Chadwick, that strike out in new or different directions which do not represent or reflect
consensus archaeology, nor do they serve primarily as summaries of previous work. The
uninformed reader may not be aware how speculative or controversial some of these
statements are, nor is he presented with opposing points of view. Therefore, there is some
degree of unevenness within the archaeological volumes, reflecting the interests,
personalities, and positions of the authors on several important points. Only those who are
aware of an author's other articles and long-term interests are in a position to evaluate the
statements made in several articles.
As a contrast to the ethnohistorians, who felt that it was premature to provide historical
summaries and therefore concentrated their efforts on where to direct the reader to get the
data, the archaeologists focused their attention on the data. Something approaching a
compromise between these two positions would have been very valuable. Archaeology
students and nonspecialists would appreciate having an evaluation of the source material and
a guide to all site reports. For instance, in addition to knowing what was found in a given
region, readers need to know which are the best site reports, who worked where, whose
reports are hopelessly out of date, whose more or less reliable. In other words, there is no
comprehensive guide to the archaeological data as there is for the ethnohistorical data.
The Subfield of Social-Cultural Anthropology
Social-cultural anthropology has been divided into Social Anthropology (Volume 6) and
Ethnology (Volumes 7 and 8). The goals of the volumes are as different as their names. The
Social Anthropology volume's editor, Manning Nash, directed the authors to be "synthetic,
comparative, and topical. These three directives govern the organization of the individual
contributions and the volume as a whole" (Nash 1967:3). Thus Nash's volume notes
regularities and varieties in Middle America by making sets of comparisons among groups.
This content downloaded from
141.211.4.224 on Wed, 25 May 2022 19:14:21 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
92 AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST [80, 1978
Although the goals were to generalize and to explain similarities and differences, most of the
articles provide few explanations, partly because they are ahistorical.
The Ethnology volumes, with Vogt as editor, discuss traditional topics, from kinship
terms to material culture. The results are descriptive summaries, and as such the two volumes
are similar in outlook and approach to the archaeological volumes. The Ethnology papers
reflect the various viewpoints of those ethnologists who felt they were ready to summarize
the facts village by village, and there is very little generalization.
The subfield of social-cultural anthropology is the only one that reflects such a schism
between its specialists in their perception of what the volumes should contain; therefore, we
are provided with two volumes that supply specifics and one volume that attempts to
generalize and explain.
The Subfield of Physical Anthropology
The physical anthropologists agreed that they wanted to present descriptive and factual
summaries covering traditional categories and topics, and they decided to emphasize modern
populations since there were more data to be included. The physical anthropologists'
perception of their field was very similar to that of the archaeologists: they felt that not
enough was known to provide much analysis or reconstruction, particularly of prehistoric
populations.
The Subfield of Linguistics
This is a volume of great balance, and it is evident that the linguists felt equal weight
should be given to Stage 1, an evaluation of the source material and the literature; to Stage
2, descriptive summaries; and to Stage 3, reconstructions, interpretations, and explanation.
No other subfield recognized that within its discipline, different stages of knowledge should
be reflected. For the student, the layman, the specialist, the generalist, and the linguist, this
volume has something to offer. Like the ethnohistorical volumes, the linguistics volume
offers us an inventory, evaluation, and classification of the source materials. Like the
archaeology and physical anthropology volumes, it offers us descriptive summaries, but in
this case they represent linguistic representatives of seven structurally different families of
Middle American languages. Finally, we are presented with evolutionary explanations and
attempts at reconstruction of protolanguages, with models to be applied and tested.
REVIEWS OF INDIVIDUAL VOLUMES
Over half the articles in Volume 1 provide raw environmental data that bear on the
geology, climate, and biogeography of Mesoamerica. Unfortunately, most zoologists,
botanists, geologists, climatologists, and geographers were unable or unwilling to relate their
data to man. More cultural geographers should have been involved, and archaeologists with
special knowledge of the fauna and flora used in ancient Mexico should have been asked to
participate. In fact, the footnotes inserted by West were an explicit attempt to relate the
technical data to man and his activities, to regional adaptation, and to cultural diversity.
For example, in L. C. Stuart's article on the "Fauna of Middle America" we find out
more about bats, fish, lizards, and harvest mice than we do about animals of economic and
commercial importance to native cultures such as white-tailed deer, cottontail rabbits,
jaguars, and quetzals. Although Volume 1 is an invaluable source of data, it falls
considerably short of showing the nature of the interaction between man and his
environment. For that type of analysis in Mesoamerica, we have to go to other sources,
which unfortunately cover smaller areas within Mexico.
This content downloaded from
141.211.4.224 on Wed, 25 May 2022 19:14:21 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Marcus and Spores] HANDBOOK OF MIDDLE AMERICAN INDIANS 93
Earlier reviewers (Flannery 1965, Hester 1966, Meggers 1965, Scott 1965, Thompson
1966, Woodbury 1965) also criticized articles in Volume 1 for this failure to successfully
relate natural environment to man and culture; for the failure of the volume and general
editors to update the concluding articles on cultural development and agriculture beyond
1960; and for a failure to adequately meet the needs of the specialist, the general
anthropologist, or the layman.
Despite these reservations, the volume was universally hailed as a highly valued reference
work. The publication of the volumes by R. S. MacNeish and his associates on the Tehuacin
project has since resolved many of the problems raised by the reviewers.
Each of the articles in Volumes 2 and 3, Archaeology of Southern Mesoamerica, exists as
an informative and independent study, but few contain comparative statements which relate
to the other articles in the volume. Articles are grouped into volumes on the basis of
geographical proximity. No comparisons are made between regions or with other volumes,
e.g., ethnology vs. archaeology. This would be valuable information if the reader wants
answers to questions such as: Is there a set of characteristics that are shared by the Zapotec
and Mixtec on the one hand and not shared by the Maya on the other hand? Are there
certain similarities or differences that can be deduced about the nature of the Indians of
Southern Mesoamerica (Volumes 2 and 3) as compared to the Indians of Northern
Mesoamerica (Volumes 10 and 11)?
The lack of comparisons and syntheses of regions is disappointing; each volume could
have had an article that attempted to generalize from some of the specific substantive data
prepared by the individual authors. Also, although it is obvious that some regions are better
known than others, it seems somewhat uneven to devote two articles to the figurines of the
Guatemalan Highlands (one for the Pre-Classic and the other for the Classic and Post-Classic)
when there are no articles covering the figurines of most other regions.
For research purposes, the primary value of some of the articles is their bibliographies,
which can be used by students writing research papers. Several authors have left us with
leads for future research, such as noting that figurines are very abundant in one phase and
then disappear in the next, or that the style of the architecture changes abruptly. These
observations require further elaboration and explanation. We want to know if the changes in
architecture, in figurines, and in burial practices all co-occurred; this task is made somewhat
more difficult at the present time because each class of objects is treated by a different
author in a different article. This division of topics and regions creates artificial units of
analysis. Surely there are relationships among the various traditional classes of objects
(figurines, burials, architecture, hieroglyphic writing, objects of jade, caches, etc.) which
were not explored, and which in turn are difficult for the reader to investigate.
Volumes 2 and 3 were criticized by previous reviewers for the inconsistent internal
structure and analytical unevenness of the papers, long delays between writing and
publication of articles, lack of adequate definitions and cross-references, and factual
contradictions within and between articles. "Within a few years," remarks Pedro Armillas
(1969:1198), the volumes "will be relegated to the same shelves as Seler's Gesammelte
Abhandlungen und so weiter-a place of honor, but dusty. The specialist looking for
substantive retrospective data always will prefer to use the unsynthesized original reports,
and the nonspecialist will need updated summaries. Alas, this is the curse that befalls
encyclopedic works in any rapidly evolving discipline."
Volume 4 deals with the borderlands of Mesoamerica, relations with areas to the north
and south, relations with the Caribbean, and possible trans-Pacific contacts. Although the
collection appears relatively complete in terms of significant problems and descriptive
treatment of relatable areas, it has been criticized for "a failure to distribute responsibilities
to insure proper coverage, and to set the monographic descriptions of the culture areas and
subareas in proper perspective," for failure to deal with relations between sedentary and
This content downloaded from
141.211.4.224 on Wed, 25 May 2022 19:14:21 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
94 AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST [80, 1978
nomadic peoples in the north, for failure to consider the concept of frontiers of civilization
and for failure to contrast frontier situations in the north (sedentary vs. nomadic societies)
and the south, where "a gentle cultural gradient prevailed between the Mayas and their
neighbors to the southeast (Armillas 1969:1200,1201).
The treatment of trans-Pacific contacts is simply a reiteration of well known views, pro
and con, previously expressed by Robert Heine-Geldern and Philip Phillips. When viewed in
the context of the entire Handbook, the volume provides a relatively adequate consideration
of the evidence, or interpretation of the evidence, available in the 1950s and 1960s. What is
regrettable is that research in the areas of concern of Volume 4 has lain dormant, or nearly
so, for many years, and little more of substance can be added to what has been said in this
1966 publication.
Linguistics is covered quite impressively in Volume 5. The volume begins with an
unusually brief history of linguistic studies conducted between the 16th century and 1960,
with only the very minimum of commentary on earlier works, the barest mention of
20th-century works, and no meaningful analysis of any of the materials. For an editor's
introduction, this is perhaps one of the most unsatisfactory articles in the series.
There are relatively complete inventories of descriptive and classificatory materials,
followed by Swadesh's famous lexicostatistic classification. The latter has become one of the
most widely cited, if not most widely accepted, of the contributions to the Handbook. Next
appear refreshingly methodological-analytical treatments of systemic comparison and
reconstruction by Robert Longacre and environmental correlational studies by Sarah
Gudschinsky. These are followed by linguistic descriptions of Nahuatl, Yucatec Maya,
Quiche, Popoluca, Zapotec, Mazatec, Pame, and Chontal. The volume ends with a
far-too-brief article on language-in-culture by Miguel Le6n-Portilla.
Volume 5 is as comprehensive as could be expected in a work limited to one volume in a
general series. Linguistics is perhaps the best volume of the series in terms of its excellent
plan and balance between substantive-descriptive and theoretical-methodological-analytical
contributions. It is stimulating to contemplate that in light of vigorous ongoing research by
such groups as the Summer Institute of Linguistics, CISINA, and INAH, massive substantive
and analytical additions could be made to such a volume today.
One of the items which makes the linguistics volume durable is the annotated
bibliographies. The framework of many linguists relies heavily on lexicostatistics and
glottochronology, which aptly lend themselves to general and developmental comparisons.
The general and evolutionary aspects are already built into many of the articles, but except
for Ralph Beals's article in Volume 7, the glottochronological reconstructions exist
independently of the archaeological work included in Volumes 2 and 3. Such an
evolutionary approach to prehistory would have been an asset to the archaeology volumes,
which are very traditional.
Volume 6, Social Anthropology, emphasizes a comparative topical approach to modern
populations, agriculture, art, technology, recreation, kinship, politics, ritual, psychology,
culture change, urbanism, modernization, social networks, and intergroup relations.
Although a few articles are too general (political and religious organization), inadequate (the
1950 Mexican census as the primary base for a 1970 article on demography!), confusing
(both compadrazgo and compadrinazgo?), or out of date even when written, the majority of
articles were current when printed and continue to be useful and indicative of most of the
important recent trends in anthropological theory.
Articles on pottery and basketry, laquerware, textiles and costume, drama, dance and
music, narrative folklore, and the fiesta cycle, while important, tend to take time and
attention away from discussions of social institutions and processes and might better have
been placed in the ethnographic volumes described below.
One disappointing aspect of the volume is its lack of consistent historical perspective.
This content downloaded from
141.211.4.224 on Wed, 25 May 2022 19:14:21 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Marcus and Spores] HANDBOOK OF MIDDLE AMERICAN INDIANS 95
Only Madsen (religious syncretism), R. N. Adams (nationalism), and Beals (acculturation)
pay meaningful attention to the colonial period, the 19th century, and the first half of the
20th century. These were highly significant times wherein lie the roots of modern native life.
Many of the more dynamic aspects of culture could have been observed through ample
available documentation. These crucial times and considerations have been ignored by the
planners, editors, and contributors to the Handbook and consequently have been swallowed
up in the chasm of indifference existing among experts on prehistory, ethnology, and
ethnohistory.
Volumes 7 and 8, Ethnology, should perhaps have been entitled "'Ethnography" (Nutini
1972), in that the overwhelming majority of articles are ethnographic descriptions rather
than comparative studies. Regional introductions, however, are more ethnological in
content. While the descriptions follow a prescribed outline provided by Vogt, they vary
substantially in length (4 to 49 pages) and in quality from very poor (at least five
ethnographic summaries are inadequate, i.e., overly brief and/or lacking in substantive
content) to very good. In general, descriptions are adequate, despite an overwhelming
tendency to concentrate on single villages rather than regional clusters and networks.
Articles on the Midwest Highland Maya, Tzotzil, Tzeltal, Totonac, and Tarascans are actually
quite good. The Maya area is emphasized at the expense of central Mexico; this may reflect
the interests and network of colleagues of the editor, or it may indicate the relative
ethnographic abundance of data for those areas. One previous reviewer (Nutini 1972)
believes that greater variation exists among Nahua-speaking communities of central Mexico
(at least three articles could have been written) than exists among the Maya, and that the
variations should have been reflected in the content of the two volumes. The same reviewer
pointed out that most ethnographic descriptions are adequate on subsistence, technology,
and economy but quite inadequate on social organization and religion, and that this is one of
the most serious shortcomings of Ethnology. The two volumes do indeed reflect a strong
techno-economic or techno-environmental bias, and, as a result, coverage of social and
political organization, ideology, and personality does suffer. Much of the unevenness of
Ethnology is undoubtedly attributable to the time lag in the writing of the various
contributions coupled with the unevenness in data and expertise.
Despite its shortcomings, Ethnology is a more or less adequate compendium of
ethnographic data which could be quite valuable in the teaching of a course in ethnology of
Middle America, but by no means could it be used alone. Further, as Nutini (1972:174)
indicates, "although we have a fairly good knowledge of the common cultural denominator
of the area, we know little or nothing about a variety of important ethnologic problems."
Ethnology, then, is consistent with the rest of the Handbook in its solid descriptive content
and in its lack of concern for explicit methodological or theoretical matters.
Physical anthropology is treated in Volume 9 with uneven success. There are articles on
the history of physical anthropology, osteology and osteopathology, anthropometry,
distribution of blood groups (potentially the most important of the articles), physiological
studies, skin, hair, and eyes, adaptation, pathology, and psychobiometry. The articles
describe research conducted up to the middle 1960s, but with some articles written in the
early 1960s. Only 4 of the 11 articles in this volume deal with prehistoric populations. One
article of particular value to the archaeologist is that by Santiago Genoves, entitled
"Anthropometry of Late Historic Human Remains"; it provides measurements and
comparisons of some 50 skeletal populations.
This volume is a ready source of data, but it unfortunately contains little in the way of
interpretation (Hanna 1970). Articles provide detailed data but give no summaries or
discussions of the implications of studies which have been completed. The volume is
seriously lacking in synthesis but will continue to be regarded as quite useful as a source
book until better collections and syntheses appear.
This content downloaded from
141.211.4.224 on Wed, 25 May 2022 19:14:21 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
96 AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST [80, 1978
Volumes 10 and 11 deal with the archaeology of northern Mesoamerica. The two volumes
are complementary to Volumes 2 and 3 on the prehistory of southern Mesoamerica. The
first volume is topical and deals with central Mexican settlement patterns, architecture,
sculpture, painting, pottery and minor arts, utilitarian artifacts, basketry and textiles,
writing, social organization, religion, philosophy, and literature. Surprisingly, there is no
synthetic article on political organization, the topic apparently having been treated to the
satisfaction of the editors by an amply documented (but rather disappointingly
nonanalytical, and nonprocessual) article on the structure of the Aztec empire.
Volume 11 turns to a more regional-historical approach with an ethnohistorical account
of Central Mexico, and an anti-establishment treatment of pre-Aztec history of Central
Mexico. Also included is a highly variable group of regionally focused archaeological and
ethnohistoric syntheses on Veracruz and the Gulf Coast, the Tamaulipas Sierra, the Huasteca
(actually an ethnohistoriographic account), Guerrero, West Mexico, Michoacan, Sinaloa, and
the northern frontier (Zacatecas and Durango).
The illustrations (most of the photos and illustrations in this and most other volumes
were selected by the general editor rather than the volume editors or the individual
contributors) are as fine as any produced anywhere in the series (foldouts in J. C. Kelley's
treatment of the northern frontier must be singled out for special mention), but, as discussed
below, the index is somewhat below par.
What should prove to be one of the more controversial articles in the Handbook is Robert
Chadwick's "Native Pre-Aztec History of Central Mexico." The uninformed student will be
at a distinct disadvantage if he begins here; there are few articles that represent
anti-establishment positions in the Handbook, but this is certainly one of them! Here is one
place where opposing or consensus views should have been more adequately presented.
Those articles which venture to provide comprehensive interpretations are based primarily
on ethnohistory. We naturally have fuller coverage of the Aztecs, because we have the most
material for them. However, too often this leads to the assumption that other peoples in
Mexico are just like the Aztecs. Also, intensive coverage of the Aztec period sometimes tends
to obscure the evolution of complex society in the Valley of Mexico before the Aztec
period.
The Guide to Ethnohistorical Sources is composed of Volumes 12 through 15. Editor
Howard Cline wrote ten articles (one in collaboration with L. N. d'Olwer and H. B.
Nicholson) and co-editor John Glass authored nine articles (one in collaboration with
Charles Gibson). The output of the two editors constitutes well over half of the content of
the four volumes, and quite obviously the Guide reflects their particular interests and
perspectives.
While the Guide received generally highly favorable comment from earlier reviewers
(Carrasco 1973, Brumfiel 1976, Feldman 1976) several negative criticisms can be made: (1)
there is a decided bias in favor of the Central Mexican zone, with relatively little attention
paid to the Maya area; (2) the series deals almost entirely with the Colonial period, there
being practically no consideration of sources relating to post-Independence 19th century and
recent periods; (3) the Guide is directed almost exclusively to formal chronicles (Relaciones
geogrcificas and the works of Spanish and Indian chroniclers and 19th-century historians),
published documents, and pictographic manuscripts, while masses of less formalized and
unpublished archival documentation and organization of and procedures for working in the
repositories (e.g., Archivo General de la Naci6n, Mexico, and Archivo General de Indias,
Seville) are virtually ignored; (4) there are no substantive articles on Middle American
ethnohistory; and (5) except for brief articles by Cline and Nicholson, there is precious little
concern for ethnohistoric methodology. Considering the great length of the Guide-some
1,661 pages-and the generosity of the general editor in allotting such abundant space and
funds to presentation of ethnohistorical materials (both here and throughout the
This content downloaded from
141.211.4.224 on Wed, 25 May 2022 19:14:21 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Marcus and Spores] HANDBOOK OF MIDDLE AMERICA'N INDIANS 97
Handbook), one questions the advisability of allowing the level of editorial autonomy and
the merits of the allocation of space. Perhaps we can gain insight from Cline's general
introduction to the Guide. As concerns the lack of substantive articles of the type written by
John Rowe and George Kubler on Post-Classic and Colonial Inca culture in the Handbook of
South American Indians, Cline remarks that "such absence is purposeful, the result of an
early and important policy decision concerning what these volumes should contain"
(1972:3).
While the original advisory committee for the Handbook was agreed on the
indispensability of ethnohistory in the series,
... the Editorial Advisory Board decided in 1959 that to attempt to commission the
writing or substantive articles on Indian groups of Middle America in the colonial period
(like the Kubler one mentioned above) would be premature, given the thin monographic
base, the disarray and lack of knowledge about necessary sources, the reduced number of
trained ethnohistorical specialists, and conflicting views about the scope and nature of
ethnohistory.
Hence the present Volume Editor was broadly charged with producing a guide to the
sources, primarily for study of the post-Contact period. .... In short, the volumes allotted
to ethnohistory were, by common consent, precluded from attempting to present
historiographical syntheses, but were specifically aimed to inventory and discuss
documentary and published materials which later hands could utilize to produce
professionally acceptable ethnohistory [Cline 1972:4 ].
It is unfortunate that the scope of the Guide was so unnecessarily and arbitrarily restricted.
The claim that substantive articles would be premature, that knowledge was in disarray or
lacking, or that there was no agreement on the nature of ethnohistory are lame and
unjustified excuses for failure to do what was possible with resources and personnel that
were available at the time the Guide was prepared. The organization of the Guide more
accurately reflects the interests of the editor and a relatively closed group (19 articles by two
people!) rather than the status and/or potentialities of Middle American ethnohistory at the
time.
In the opinion of the present reviewers, one of the most serious shortcomings of the
Handbook is reflected in the Guide; it is the lack of substantive coverage of native societies
at the time of the Conquest, during the Colonial period, and during the 19th and early 20th
centuries. The editors chose to concentrate on documents rather than culture history, and
on the Colonial period at the expense of later periods. Space that was given over to
misplaced concern for territorial and jurisdictional patterns in Volume 12, for example,
could have been far more wisely utilized for substantive and/or post-Colonial considerations.
On the positive side, the Guide is a magnificent bibliographical achievement heretofore
unparalleled in American ethnohistory. The painstaking work of Glass, Nicholson, Cline,
Gibson, Robertson, and their collaborators stands as an enviable model for
ethnohistoriographic bibliography, and we should praise them for what they accomplished
rather than only condemn them for oversights which, in their view, were not oversights.
Volume 16, Sources Cited and Artifacts Illustrated, is well done and requires little
comment. The volume may appear somewhat redundant, but "the bibliography in each
volume," writes Margaret Harrison, "was not intended to be a precise compilation based on
principles of bibliographic scholarship," and Volume 16 represents an attempt to furnish a
complete bibliography for the series. Since the editors have gone to the trouble of preparing
this general bibliography, it is unfortunate that they did not proceed one step further and
include a comprehensive index to the entire series. If a general bibliography can be justified,
certainly a general index could have been prepared as well.
This content downloaded from
141.211.4.224 on Wed, 25 May 2022 19:14:21 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
98 AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST [80, 1978
CONCLUDING OBSERVATIONS
Who Uses the Handbook?
In our informal poll of colleagues, we found that most scholars use the Handbook for its
bibliographies. Students said that a few articles were too technical and that there was too
much specialized jargon for them; a glossary of terms might resolve some of these problems.
Many professionals told us that they use primarily the volumes outside of their specialties,
because the articles on their own specialties were out-of-date or too general. On the whole,
everyone seems to use the Handbook as a guide to the literature and for those areas for
which he has little or no first-hand knowledge. It is also an excellent place to send the
beginning student, a jumping-off place from which he can then plunge into the primary
literature.
Can the Handbook be Updated?
While some volumes of the Handbook are ageless because of their format and the nature
of the material, others are now far behind the field. In the case of archaeology, we need only
consider the fact that the volumes went to press before MacNeish's work in Tehuacin,
Sanders' survey of the Valley of Mexico, Millon's work at Teotihuacin, Blanton's work at
Monte Albin, Litvak's work at Xochicalco, Lorenzo and Mirambell's work at Tlapacoya,
Grove's work at Chalcatzingo, M. Coe's work at San Lorenzo, and the New World
Archaeological Foundation's work at Izapa, to get an idea how out-of-date some volumes
are. Can anything be done to update the Handbook?
At this stage, the series editors must have had all the frustration and harassment they can
take, and like the Maya year-bearer, are probably glad they can set their burden down. There
are good reasons, therefore, for letting the series stand as it is and accepting philosophically
the lag between its syntheses and the current state of the field.
Alternatively, it would be possible to leave the series open-ended, much like the
Handbook of Latin American Studies, a biennial review of significant contributions in the
social sciences and humanities for Latin America. With the publication of Volume 16, the
goals of the editors of the Handbook have been achieved. It would nonetheless be possible to
bring the series up-to-date on a biennial or occasional publication basis. We are convinced
that, despite certain shortcomings which we have indicated, the Handbook can and does
serve a very useful purpose. Someone (possibly one of the original volume editors), in
conjunction with the University of Texas Press, could undertake the publication of a
proposed Volume 17. Editorship of succeeding volumes could be decided on an ad hoc basis
by earlier editors, or by a special committee appointed for the purpose. A program of regular
supplementation would keep the Handbook alive, active, responsive, and flexible; ensure
currency of information and theoretical and methodological orientations and trends; and
provide for continuity of this worthy undertaking into the future. Such a "living" handbook
concept could well serve as a model for other world culture areas. As such, it should retain
its comprehensive coverage, its macroregional, macrotemporal, multiproblematical and
multisubdisciplinary approaches.
A volume of the Handbook to be published in 1979 might, for example, bring up-to-date
the prehistory of various regions: Valley of Mexico, Northern Gulf Coast, Southern Gulf
Coast, Northern Mesoamerica, the Desert North, West Mexico, Puebla-Hidalgo, Oaxaca,
Northern Maya, Central Maya, and Southern Maya areas. Equal emphasis should be placed
on regional or, probably preferably, topical treatments of ethnological, social
anthropological, ethnohistorical, demographic, developmental, and urban studies.
Any new volumes of the Handbook should contain syntheses of the results of
This content downloaded from
141.211.4.224 on Wed, 25 May 2022 19:14:21 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Marcus and Spores] HANDBOOK OF MIDDLE AMERICAN INDIANS 99
archaeological, ethnographic, ethnohistorical, linguistic, applied anthropological, and
biological anthropological research during the 1970s, as well as methodological and/or
theoretical treatises on the major subfields. An attempt should be made to invite
participation of the most qualified scholars, to rise above the time-worn "buddy system"
approach often characterizing edited works, and to involve individuals recruited from the
universe extending beyond the editor's personal network of associates, friends, and students.
It will continue to be a challenge to provide archaeological data which are accurate,
up-to-date, and of lasting value to students and specialists. One way to achieve this would be
to produce a volume which would assess and evaluate the bibliographic source material
available for archaeologists. Specifically, bibliographies could be organized either on the
basis of site name, or by periods of occupation, or by topics. Thus, the student could find in
one bibliography all the articles ever written about Site A; alternatively, he would be able to
find out the references to all sites occupied in the Middle Formative; or finally, in a different
type of bibliography, he could locate all articles written on the origins of agriculture in
Mexico. These bibliographies could be comprehensive, or they could be ten-year reports
covering research from 1970 to 1980, and so on.
Epilogue
The Handbook of Middle A merican Indians is a notable achievement in anthropological
publication. It would not have been accomplished without devoted, patient, and persistent
editorship. The project from planning to final volume, after all, covered 20 years!
Fortunately, these responsibilities fell to Robert Wauchope and Margaret Harrison. Given the
enormous problems of preparation and integration of vast amounts of data, communication,
the personal idiosyncracies of the contributors and volume editors, and the scope of the
work, it is unlikely that anyone in the field could have done a better job than Wauchope.
This has been a happy convergence of the right people in the right place at the right time. It
is probable that since this 16-volume work is now in existence for Middle America, such an
effort may not be made again during the next 50 to 100 years, or it may never be made.
Indeed, given the enormous problems of time, organization, coordination, and inflation
involved, the same type of work may never be economically feasible again. Thus, while some
critics of the Handbook say it is less than it might have been, we definitely feel it is a great
deal more than we had before.
NOTES
Acknowledgments. Robert Wauchope supplied us with lengthy and detailed answers to
our questions about the finances, history, and production of the Handbook; he also most
generously provided a set of reviews which aided us greatly in the preparation of this paper.
Gordon R. Willey also answered a series of questions about the plans and goals the volume
editors sought to meet in producing the Handbook. Finally, we would like to thank Richard
B. Woodbury for asking us to undertake this endeavor, from which we learned a lot about
our colleagues.
REFERENCES CITED
Armillas, Pedro
1969 Review of Handbook of Middle American Indians, Vols. 2-4. American
Anthropologist 71:1198-1202.
Brumfiel, Elizabeth M.
1976 Review of Handbook of Middle American Indians, Vols. 12-15. American
Antiquity 41:398-403.
Bushnell, G. H. S.
1967 Review of Handbook of Middle American Indians, Vols. 2 and 3. Man 2:137-138.
This content downloaded from
141.211.4.224 on Wed, 25 May 2022 19:14:21 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
100 AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST [80, 1978
Carrasco, Pedro
1973 Review of Handbook of Middle American Indians, Vols. 12 and 13. Ethnohistory
20:429-432.
Cline, Howard F.
1972 Introduction: Reflections on Ethnohistory. In Guide to Ethnohistorical Sources.
Howard F. Cline, ed. Pp. 3-16. Handbook of Middle American Indians, Vol. 12.
Robert Wauchope, gen. ed. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Feldman, Lawrence H.
1976 Review of Handbook of Middle American Indians, Vol. 13. American
Anthropologist 78:166-167.
Flannery, Kent V.
1965 Review of Handbook of Middle American Indians, Vol. 1. American
Anthropologist 77:1333-1336.
Hanna, Joel M.
1970 Review of Handbook of Middle American Indians, Vol. 9. American Antiquity
37:457-458.
Hester, Joseph A.
1966 Review of Handbook of Middle American Indians, Vol. 1. American Antiquity
31:445-446.
Hodge, Frederick W., ed.
1907-10 Handbook of American Indians North of Mexico, Parts 1 and 2. Bureau of
American Ethnology, Bulletin 30.
Meggers, Betty J.
1965 Review of Handbook of Middle American Indians, Vol. 1. American Journal of
Archaeology 69:386-387.
Nash, Manning
1967 Introduction. In Social Anthropology, Manning Nash, ed. Pp. 3-11. Handbook of
Middle American Indians, Vol. 6. Robert Wauchope, gen. ed. Austin: University of
Texas Press.
Nutini, Hugo G.
1972 Review of Handbook of Middle American Indians, Vols. 7 and 8. Ethnohistory
19:171-174.
Schoolcraft, Henry R.
1853-57 Historical and Statistical Information Respecting the History, Condition and
Prospects of the Indian Tribes of the United States. Philadelphia: Lippincott, Grambo
and Co.
Scott, Stuart D.
1965 Review of Handbook of Middle American Indians, Vol. 1. Ethnohistory
12:380-382.
Seler, Eduard
1902-23 Gesammelte Abhandlungen zur Amerikanischen Sprach- und Alterthumskunde.
5 vols. Berlin.
Steward, Julian H., ed.
1946-59 Handbook of South American Indians. 7 vols. Bureau of American Ethnology,
Bulletin 143.
Thompson, J. Eric S.
1966 Review of Handbook of Middle American Indians, Vol. 1. Man 1:254.
Wauchope, Robert
1960 Handbook of Middle American Indians. American Antiquity 26:139.
1968 Activities of the Middle American Research Institute, 1957-1967. Middle
American Research Institute, Miscellaneous Series, No. 12.
Wauchope, Robert, gen. ed.
1964-76 Handbook of Middle American Indians. 16 vols. Austin: University of Texas
Press.
Woodbury, Richard B.
1965 Review of Handbook of Middle American Indians, Vol. 1. Science 148:798-799.
Submitted 6 May 1977
Accepted 12 May 1977
This content downloaded from
141.211.4.224 on Wed, 25 May 2022 19:14:21 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms