The territorial limits of both the activities at Monte Negro as well as those in the Apoala Valley consisted of discrete landscape features: the former a ridge top and the latter a valley. These landscapes possess cultural meaning which is expressed through the local oral tradition. In the previous chapter, participatory initiatives such as those defined within community archaeology have been analyzed as consisting of individual actors. This analysis, based on reflexive analysis during the process of establishing and maintaining two partnerships in the Mixteca Alta, signifi- cantly complicates the initial goals set for these local participatory initiatives in archaeological research. In part, these complications are unforeseeable and socially contingent. This chapter will look at a way in which an archaeological project can broach this collaborative void by structurally incorporating oral tradition in the research, and thereby enabling mutual media- tion of archaeological knowledge. Reported are elements of the partnership in Monte Negro and Apoala that held a landscape-oriented focus for both partners and involved data diffused through toponyms contained in local oral tradition.
6.1.1 Oral tradition
Mixtec communities are tied to the landscape by, a) their life histories; b) their more distant historic past, and c) the remote ‘archaeological past’. But this does not mean that monumen- tal remnants and other archaeological material categories are regarded as solely pertaining to this remote past. Archaeological sites are many times interwoven with the cultural landscape through oral tradition and daily practice. As such, archaeological sites are not a mute testimo- nial of a long lost history, but active elements in the present. This approach to local histories is one, which has been hard to handle for archaeology in the past, but it is essential to recognize the synergies between past and present in order for any community approach to be successful. Jan Vansina defines oral tradition as verbally “reported statements from the past beyond the present generation” (984: 27). This definition is of course only one among many, and Vansina Toponyms are widespread in the Mixtec region, and represent one of the core vehicles for the transmission
motivates his formulation in light of its particular applicability in historical research. In this context of historical research, the discipline of archaeology is recurrently mentioned, serving as a catalyst for verifying the evidential value of oral tradition.
The linking of archaeological knowledge to Amerindian oral tradition has been the subject of a number of studies in recent years (Anyon et al. 997; Echo-Hawk 2000; Hegmon 2003; Riley et al. 2005; Swidler et al. 997; Whiteley 2002), with particular emphasis on Native American peoples in the US and Canada, but in other parts of the world also (Moser 995; Schmidt 995; Ucko 983). In these works, archaeology has evolved from monologue to dia- logue, implying, among others, the use of oral tradition as a tool for archaeological interpreta- tion. Following Anyon et al. (997):
‘An indiscriminate reference to oral traditions as “myths and legends” is demeaning to Native Americans. It perpetuates a false dichotomy that implies that oral history is less valid than scien- tifically based knowledge. Oral history and scientific knowledge both have validity in their own cultural context. Scientific knowledge does not constitute a privileged view of the past that in and of itself makes it better than oral history. It is simply another way of knowing the past’ (emphasis added, Anyon et al. 997).
Oral tradition has now taken a central position as a valid addition to Western science. This interest has been generated by the increased incentives for a more socially grounded archaeol- ogy; similar to the community archaeology approaches of recent years.
6.1.2 Archaeology and oral tradition in the Mixteca Alta
It is sad to say, that archaeology in the Mixteca still at times seems to be stuck in the monologue stage, while sometimes even that is hardly present. Oral tradition is the primary traditional conduit in Mixtec communities through which views on the past, present as well as the future are transferred. This transferal is marked by a relatively high degree of territorial boundedness and a considerable time depth. Both features, but in particular the latter one, have long been of interest to archaeology, a recent example of which is the survey conducted by Byland and Pohl (994) in the Tilantongo and Jaltepec area.
Long before any academically motivated person had set foot in the Mixteca Alta, the Mixtec had started to engage with the archaeological sites in their immediate surroundings. By forming opinions on these monumental structures as an everyday practice, they became part of the oral tradition and have continued to be discussed and debated ever since. Probably since their mo- ment of inception they developed into an integral part of the communities cluttered through the hills and valley that make up this cultural part of Mesoamerica.
Mostly touched upon through iconographic studies, oral tradition in the Mixteca Alta has regrettably remained an outsider in past and current day archaeological constructions of Mixtec
history. The sole investigation that emphasized its importance was the mentioned Byland and Pohl research at the end of the 980s. This study attempted to unite data from commonly separated disciplines, by arguing that the anthropological keywords used with frequency in archaeology, such as religion and ideology, must remain grounded in an image of everyday concerns for those living in the past (Byland and Pohl 994:4-5). In this attempt to unify archaeological research with contemporary localities, oral tradition fills an important void, the authors argue, and in this sense this research is to be commended. Clearly, however, and understandably perhaps, the questions under scrutiny are still largely based on the well-known research topics regarding socio-political development described in Chapter One. Even when an effort is made to underscore its potential scientific value, information from oral tradition does not substantially influence the conclusions regarding the historical development of the area in question, in this case the Tilantongo-Jaltepec sub-valleys. In apparent contrast with the aforementioned, the methodological justification states that oral tradition seemed to function primarily as a means to bridge the social gap between archaeologist and local inhabitant during the survey activities:
‘By stopping and talking to the people we encountered, we not only assuaged natural fears of out- siders trespassing on their lands but also incorporated every interested person in the community into the survey process’ (ibid 29).
The above observation raises questions as to what this ‘incorporating’ actually entailed, but the descriptions provided are unfortunately not sufficiently specific as to permit further analy- sis. However, Byland and Pohl are keen to emphasize the interaction that occurred between archaeologist and local population, and provide descriptions on a number of occasions in the book, but the question remains how structural instead of anecdotal this collaboration really was. Regrettably in their analyses and results not much is left of this interaction.
Oral tradition seems to have become a ‘couleur locale’ for archaeology in this example, providing the research with a (admittedly much needed) local character. The success rate for the investigator regarding this type of multidisciplinary survey strategy seems to make it worth- while, as Byland and Pohl conclude:
‘By seeking out maximum contact, we benefited immensely from the knowledge and sophistica- tion of the Mixtec people of today’ (ibid 29).
Additionally, Byland and Pohl see oral tradition as a ‘humanizing’ catalyst in the study of the past. Although aware of the difficulties involved in applying current knowledge to the study of the distant past, no apparent procedures are proposed or integrated to tackle these difficulties (ibid 46).
In their research Byland and Pohl’s approach taken does not consider oral tradition as an epistemologically valid tool, but rather as an additional category of information that can, but need not necessarily be, an asset in reconstructing the singular past of a given region that is the objective of many regional archaeologies to which the Mixteca Alta is no exception. It is, however, certainly considered as a facilitator for the archaeological practice.
It is the contention here that oral tradition as empirical source is meaningful in creating a more inclusive overview of the multiple perspectives on the past. The multiple perspectives on the past that are recognized in archaeological studies involving oral tradition use the cultural landscape as a canvas on which the history is narrated. Specifically this is manifested through personal life histories; place histories; and toponymic data.
6.1.3 Landscape
The use of a community-centered archaeology by itself already implies a focus on the locality of landscape. In turn, this locality draws attention to the built elements of that landscape, par- ticularly monumental archaeological sites. Essentially this enables two ways of archaeological focus; one on the wider landscape through techniques such as survey or view-shed analysis, and another through site-based approaches, possibly functional interpretation of architecture and placement in the surrounding landscape. These two approaches, landscape and site, when applied either separate or combined, offer substantial entrances for creating a narrative by, and with the local community.
6.1.3.1 Landscape archaeology
Archaeology has always been involved with the study of landscape, but in differing ways through time. The use of landscape in archaeology has predominantly involved an analysis of empty space upon which human activities take place. This image of landscape as a backdrop to social action was in particular promoted by the New Archaeology, and portrayed landscapes as geo- and topographical sheets suitable for plotting archaeological remains.2 Research goals
in these types of analyses were the explanation of economical and political elements of past societies, by applying techniques such as resource analysis and site catchment area analysis, themes often seen in the archaeological studies in the Mixteca Alta. Post-processual approaches, however, have shifted some of the research emphasis to more social and symbolic connotations of landscape. The collective of these approaches are principally identified as studies regarding the ‘sacred’ elements of landscape. The heuristic dilemma apparent to archaeology has been that material remains seem to be disjunctive in relation to people’s perception or experience 2 In archaeological theory, the main difference between processual and post-processual views on landscape are analysed as the distinction between landscape as an inert environment or powerful determinant, or, as an active element in the foreground of culture (Knapp & Ashmore 994). The advent of settlement pattern ar- chaeology meant a strong impetus for involving landscape in archaeological studies, despite it being grounded in the theoretical perspective of cultural ecology (Steward 955).
regarding any given landscape. In other words, how can the material record offer insights into the understandings of environment? In response to this problem, experiments were undertaken to find ways to tackle the apparent discrepancy of data and research question, resulting in the aforementioned thematic diversity in landscape studies since the beginning of the 990s. One of these post-processual themes is multivocality; describing multiple interpretations on a given subject, it is intrinsic to the concept of landscape itself. In the context of the Mixteca Alta, the critical necessity to involve multiple perspectives in landscape archaeology implies the inclusion of local indigenous voices, as those whose past is represented (e.g. Maldonado Alvarado 2002). Inherently contextual (Johnston 998), definitions of landscape are dependent on social interpretation; therefore making its use valuable to archaeology. This post-processual discursive widening enables archaeology to look at the landscape notion in diverse ways. In recent years, landscape studies have increased considerably in number and, more importantly, in diversity of subjects that are treated. Recent contributions by Ashmore & Knapp (999); Bradley (2000); Hirsch & O’Hanlon 995; Tilley 994; and others (e.g. Bender 993; Car- michael et al. 994; Low & Lawrence-Zúñiga 2003; Nash 997) range from the experiential features of landscape to (re)constructed sacred landscapes, and from monumental aspects of landscape to those devoid of any physical human intervention. In general, landscape approaches in archaeology have centred on the de-quantification of space, instead enhancing its social and qualitative aspects.
6.1.3.2 Landscape Studies in Mesoamerica
In the archaeology of Mesoamerica, landscape has figured in the last two decades in a number of ways. Aside from numerous settlement pattern analyses, the sub-discipline of archaeoastronomy figures prominently (Aveni 200; and see Aveni 2003 for a recent overview). Archaeoastronomy has drawn attention primarily to the linkages between cognitive elements of Mesoamerican societies (e.g. interpretations of celestial bodies and directionality) and orientations of landscape features. Events in the sky are, herein, considered of relevance to the planning of monumental sites such as Teotihuacán, Tenochtitlán, and numerous Maya ceremonial centres. Observations, however, have primarily focussed on layout characteristics of monuments and have largely disre- garded landscape features, with a few notable exceptions (e.g. Broda et al 200; Carrasco 99; Šprajc 2000 on alignment Teotihuacán toward Cerro Gordo). To this day, archaeoastronomical studies in Oaxaca are few, and limited to the ceremonial centre of Monte Albán (Aveni and Linsley 972; Orr 200; Peeler and Winter 993, 995). On the whole, archaeoastronomical studies in Mesoamerica still show a bias towards monumental ceremonial centres, and pay lit- tle attention to the landscape in which they are situated, and in which they were perceived as part of daily social life.
Views of surrounding landscapes are in the Mixteca Alta often defined by religious inter- pretation of particular natural features, involving caves, hills, boulders, streams and waterfalls,
among many other elements making processual method and theory a poor medium of com- munication in the local context. Despite these contemporary landscape studies that point to the temporal elements of landscape (Ingold 993), this is as yet not reflected in archaeological studies based in the Mixteca Alta. Monuments and settlements in general are, by and large, objectified by treating them as timeless architectural constructs, located in a specific environ- ment, but largely independent of those surroundings. Among the Mixtec, as among other Mes- oamerican cultures, these frontiers between monument and landscape are equally non-existent, and in order to represent Mixtec views on landscape, the continuities between the built and the unbuilt landscapes should be incorporated in archaeological research (Bradley 2000).
6.2 Landscape narration in the Mixteca Alta
Two landscape studies, one in Santiago Tilantongo and one in Santiago Apoala, were conducted in light of the findings from the reflexivity analysis contained in Chapter Five. The two studies are ordered along the spatial scales perceived by inhabitants of the two respective communi- ties. In this sense, the research in Santiago Tilantongo took place in a discrete element of the greater Tilantongo landscape: Cerro Negro. This landscape defined by cold, and misty weather conditions was subjected to a toponymic survey after having undergone a ‘traditional’ surface survey. In the research in Santiago Apoala, the entire Apoala Valley landscape was included in the analysis. For both studies, archaeological information was augmented by existing analyses from some of the pre-colonial pictorial manuscripts originating in the Mixteca Alta.
6.2.1 Deep and recent times of the Cerro Negro landscape3
In the summer of 2004 a second field season was planned and executed on the Cerro Negro. This campaign consisted of the expressed desire by some of the local inhabitants of the Monte Negro aldea to create a register regarding the oral tradition of the mountain’s natural and cul- tural features. In the course of the 2000 campaign, the topic of oral tradition had occasionally come up in discussions about meaning and origin of, in particular, the Monte Negro site, but also the events which were recounted to have taken place in the past and which were com- municated in stories.
Oral tradition was involved in the form of a field survey of local toponyms as well several stories that were recorded in a communal setting (Figure 6.). The preference for establishing a recording of the toponyms of Cerro Negro was founded in a desire for a written register that several local partners had envisioned for some time, in part also for territorial rights. In official 3 The analysis offered reflecting on information from pictographic manuscripts is based on a co-authored pub-
lication (Geurds and Jansen 2006), which in turn relies on interpretative iconological studies into the corpus of Late Postclassic period pictorial manuscripts by Maarten Jansen.