While I liked how Seed structured and organized the research which produced a nice flow to the work, there were a few aspects which I did not agree with.  The two chapters based on sea travel were a little broader than I thought the scope of the book was intended to make.  In these two chapters Seed goes into aspects which ranged around the world and the New World was kind of lost until it resurfaced right at the end.  So in this aspect I would have liked to have seen more of a connection to the overall theme of the book.  A second aspect was the repetition I often felt like Seed was reiterating the same information again and again which did not seem necessary while you were reading.

Like I said I did enjoy the book in the past year I have done a lot of research concerning archaeological theory of landscapes and the English chapter really did ring true to what I have been looking at.  However, the book kind of left me wanting.  I felt like there should have been two more volumes to this book.  For instance I would have liked more information on how native peoples developed their concept of land possession.  And I know people say that Native Americans didn’t “own” the land but there are clear signs in the archaeological record of how communities defined their living space within the group and in relation to other groups they had to compete for resources against.  And secondly, Seed’s book covers the conquest but what happened afterward?  There has been a lot of research done on how American colonies organized themselves and the factors that influenced them.  As you can see with Seed the Europeans were highly influenced by the culture from their native land but once they got here you can see how a new culture grows out of the Americas.  Event the concept of the lock had a profound effect on how native peoples who were interacting with Europeans.  So in the end I found Seed’s book to be very interesting bringing together contrasting ideas that existed within Europe at the time of the conquest, however, I still would have liked to have seen more.

In reading the books it became clear that I found Sigal’s approach more appealing.  In Sigal’s book he took a more well rounded look at sex in both the native culture as well as during the conquest.  Allowing the reader to compare and contrast how aspects changed and what was lost by the Spanish enforcement of acceptable behavior.  Trexler outright acknowledges in his book that he did not want to dive into the historical background of aspects of native traditions and rituals.  As an anthropologist I like to have the details picking up a story in the middle right before everything changes is not how I like to learn about culture.

But don’t get me wrong Trexler was not all bad.  But he had a motive for writing the book he wanted to examine how power and dominance are expressed through sex. For a good third of the book Trexler looks at other cultures and how sex and violence occur.  The rest of the structure of the book made me feel like he could have plugged in any culture instead of the Americas.  But maybe that is the point that this form of violence exists in every culture and he used this book to not only look at how this has occurred but the implications it can have for current times as well.

Sex is a part of human culture no matter what part of the world or time period.  However, humans express their cultural rituals in various ways.  As we have seen in these two works the native people of the Americas developed sexual rituals that were bizarre to Spanish causing them to react violently.  By reading these two works we can see how Trexler analyzes the darker side of sex and violence.  While Sigal takes a more positive look incorporating the evolution of the traditions from there incorporation in the culture to their evolution during the contact period. However, by reading both books at the same time we not only see how things occurred in the past but the different tones the topics can take on based on the message the author is trying relate.

Invading Guatemala depicted how horrible the conquest was.  Which seemed by far to be worse than that of Mexico.  If you take the friar’s account to be accurate Alvarado was a very sadistic man hell bent on exterminating everyone who he came in contact with.  But, this brings up another point who do you believe when you read these accounts?  Is one side right and the other wrong or is it really a matter of exaggeration on everyone’s part.  Another thing that struck me was how similar the letters addressed to the king were.  That same form of writing that pivotal to the Spanish account creeps its way into what the Native populations are writing.  But either way the way in which Restall and Asselberg present the information is intriguing.  They are able to combine both sets of writings in a coherent manner that place an almost checks and balance system on the account playing each off of each other.

As for Mesoamerican Voices it is true paperwork is the norm no matter what culture you are in and often is only what is preserved.  It is kind of ironic our society is always obsessed with preserving beautiful things but in a few thousand years it may be more likely the day to day paperwork we drown ourselves in may be what survives, but I digress.  Restall, Sousa, and Terracino’s work pulls together the everyday means in which the native people of South America lived.  During the conquest it was not clear how the Spanish would affect the local culture, however, afterwards it became abundantly clear.  The two cultures blended to become something almost new with deep ties to the past.  By presenting the native accounts under their topics the authors are able to show how people were adapting to the new culture.  While some of the accounts like the wills were a little daunting to get through it showed how the Spanish and South American systems of life, government, and religion possessed a basic familiarity.

All in all the readings for this week were a fresh look at how the other half lived.  After weeks of Spanish accounts one begins to wonder if anything else existed.  So by reading these accounts and seeing how they both compared and contrasted I was able to fill out my vision of how the conquest affected everyone involved.

P.S. Everyone gets a special treat for tomorrows class 

Lockhart’s Of Things of the Indies there were several competing factors that for me were both interesting and perplexing.  To begin with, as with all complied essay books I have a fear that the organization will be lacking and confuse the hell out of me.  However,  I found that the progression of Lockhart’s chapters followed a very linear line and related to each other in a very coherent way.  And I very much appreciated this aspect of the book.

Another aspect of the book that I liked was how Lockhart talks about what other people have written and/or researched.  The progression of a historiography is a somewhat new feature to me and reading this book helped to clarify how things work on this level.  I will admit that this on more than one occasion came out a little heavy and I would have liked to have seen a little more explanation about what he was discussing.  So in this respect the book it not quite how I thought it would be.

As for the content of what the essays were designed to discuss I was conflicted in my attitude towards it.  Ah the linguistics.  I will admit linguistics is an aspect of anthropology that will always elude me, so as a consequence I didn’t get as much out of what he discussed.  But, it is good that he takes this approach to how he studies the history of the area.  The other aspects such as the interweaving of the cultures and how systems were formed in New Spain were very interesting.  And seeing as I have been experimenting with social memory theory for my thesis his explanation of social history hit a few familiar cords with my own research.

There is however, one aspect of the book I’m taking issue with, his discussion of anthropologists at the end especially the archaeologists.   I realize that he is trying to relate how his own research developed over time and that’s fine it is a good way to wrap up the book and show how he came to his conclusions.  But, the tone he took with my field was a little harsh.  He blames us for what we had not done or were not doing or were leaving out of our research.  During this he referred to the 1960s and grant it our history prior to that time was neglecting in how we studied things.  But, I don’t think that Lock hart gives us enough credit for where the discipline as a whole was heading.  From the 60s onward was a time of new theories and methods which have revolutionized how we understand cultures and conduct research.  And as for archaeology it is always going to be the study of physical objects and that is never going to change so it should be left up to others to study the finer details of written documents.  There is a reason why anthropology is such a specialized field.  It is impossible to study all aspects of a culture cause in the end you will fail and neglect the culture you are studying.  So by having an almost fragmented personality in anthropology allows us to look at a culture from all sides and then compare notes and figure out what it is going on.  It is not that I hate Lockhart’s interpretation of his research but I would prefer it if he did not accuse us of not doing things when those theoretical paradigms were being developed.

William Prescott’s History of the Conquest of Mexico is an extremely detailed account of the Spanish influence in Mexico.  This work is more in the vein of Dias’ account as multiple primary sources were available to piece together the events which occurred.  However, the problem with basing your work on primary documents means you get the original Spanish propaganda as well.  All throughout the book the tone is almost identical to the accounts of the conquistadors, praising the Spanish and bring civilization to the natives in the name of God.  The myths of the Spanish are self perpetuated throughout Prescott’s work casing the reader to doubt the validity of the truth of the facts. 

Another aspect of the book I found perplexing was how Prescott compared things.  When the Spanish first beheld the sites in Mexico it became necessary to describe to the crown what they were seeing.  Buy how do you do so?  Through comparison.  However, Prescott takes it to another level.  Due to the complexity of the civilization Prescott could not simply designate them as savages so in turn he turns to comparing them to ancient civilizations for a majority of the time.  Even doing to he is placing their civilization as far away temporally as possible to his own culture. 

Despite its many faults Prescott’s work is a prime example of the 19^th century attitude towards history.  As first hand research was scarce primary document use was the norm.  Which in turn perpetuated the superiority complex of European scholars.  As a product of this we get History of the Conquest of Mexico which is easier to read than Cortes’ account as it is meant to be scholarly work.  I often found it hard to follow Cortes’ account as it wasn’t meant for a wide audience.  Prescott’s work attempts to synthesize the history in a more organized manner.  This was at least one aspect I liked about the book.  And one does have to keep in mind the time in which it was written.  So in truth the book serves two purposes.  First it examines the actual history of the conquest and secondly it provided an almost anthropological look at the mentality of 19^th century scholarly work and how they viewed other cultures in relation to themselves.