Howard F. Cline

Mexico: A Matured Latin-American Revolution, 1910-1960

From initially political motivations at its out break in 1910, the credos and ideals of the Mexican Revolution have broadened to include social, economic, and cultural mat ters and changes. Developments in ideologies and events have been uneven. The main focus was on political life from 1917 to 1933; from 1934 to 1940 it was on social, especially agrarian, reforms; there were major shifts toward balanced economic growth, including industrialism, from 1940 to the present. Militarism has waned. Under the Institutional Revolution, since 1940, a second generation of leaders has accepted the often utopian objectives of earlier phases but has emphasized harmony, a directed economy, and national unities rather than class struggle and state socialism as bases for policy. Goals remain autodetermination, liberal democracy, big government, nationalism. Major revolutionary hopes, summarized in Arti cles 3, 27, and 123 of the 1917 Constitution, are being imple mented, but by less doctrinaire means. Revolution has imper ceptibly passed into normal evolution. Lack of predetermined ideology, plus alternatives, compromises, and contradictions in the original 1910-1917 credos of the Revolution have per mitted a salutary flexibility and continuity of the Revolution. A main result of a half century of varied programs has been to reshape society, creating a relatively open system. One effect has been to increase the middle sectors, with a dwindling of the proletarian base from an estimated 90 per cent in pre- revolutionary days to about half that in 1960. As a process, the Revolution continues within stable frameworks.

Ancient and Colonial Zapotec and Mixtec Calendars: A Revisionist View

In 1966 Jose Alcina Franch published preliminary descriptions of a remarkable group of 29 Zapotec colonial calendars in the Archives of the Indies. As colonial material on Zapotec calendars has been nearly non-existent, this find is very important. Alcina Franch illustrated some folios and discussed the solar tropical year which Calendar 21 provides. He noted the provisional nature of his findings, and indicated that fuller publication would follow after further study. So far as the writer is aware this more definitive publication has not appeared. Using techniques and approaches he developed in the course of a long and detailed comparative study of ancient and colonial Mesoamerican chronologies and calendars now nearly completed, the writer will extract further information from the material partially published by Alcina Franch.3 His data, even in their incomplete form, can be made to yield several significant results under such analysis, especially when the Zapotec is related to what is known about Mixtec calendrics. In the early stages the two cultures were nearly undifferentiated, and in ancient and colonial days shared a common tonalpohualli.

A Note on Torquemada’s Native Sources and Historiographical Methods

Historians generally see their tasks broken into three main stages: as comprehensive as possible collection of relevant documentation, followed by critical and evaluative appraisal of it, and finally, a synthesis based on verified data. Contrary to a considerable body of hostile secondary discussion, critical examination of Juan de Torquemada’s Monarquia Indiana indicates a surprisingly high level of workmanship in at least the first two phases. Although what he strove for in synthesis—an accurate record that would place native Mexican cultures on a par with ancient, classical, and for him modern societies—is an early and interesting example of a comparative approach, the classical and Biblical citations he employed for such comparisons are now largely of curiosity value, except as clues to his own ambience and personal outlook.

The Conference: A Fecund Decade, 1954-1964

ISTORIANS LOOK AT THE PAST. In the case of the Conference on Latin American History we do have a history, dating from at least 1928. Briefly I should like to highlight some important developments of the past decade. During that span the Conference has moved from a determined but underdeveloped group to a position of dignity and significance within the historical guild, and especially within the American Historical Association, with which we meet concurrently. The names of previous Conference Chairmen since 1954 attest to the qualities of leadership and competence which we are able to bring to this responsible post year after year.1 During the same period, we have seen the Hispanic America~n Historical Review grow and develop under two successive editors; we expect its quality to be maintained and its coverage expanded under yet another who will be taking responsibility this coming year. The institutional framework within which the Conference operates has been stabilized. Exactly ten years ago, in December, 1954, this body ratified the present Constitution, itself a revision of a document adopted in 1938 on the eve of the Second World War when most other area studies were still far over the academic horizon. The Conference could be counted among the more stable governments of Latin America, in view of the fact that we have required only one amendment to our constitution, adopted in 1960 to provide for a ViceChairman. In 1964 the Conference took an important step. It became an incorporated organization under the laws of the District of Columbia,

Ethnohistory: A Progress Report on the Handbook of Middle American Indians

S INCE THE APPEARANCE of the invaluable Iandbook of South American Indians, edited by Julian Steward and published by the Smithsonian Institution (1941-1946; Index, 1959), hope that a comparable coverage of the Central American and Mexican areas would sometime be forthcoming was often expressed by individual scholars and various groups of investigators. It is pleasing to report that such hopes are nearer being realized. The Handbook of Middle American Indians is currently being prepared, and its several volumes are scheduled to appear in the latter part of the 1960s. It should have special interest for historians, as a substantial allocation of space has been given to ethnohistory. The enterprise is sponsored by the Committee on Latin American Anthropology of the National Research Council, headed by Professor Gordon Willey (Harvard). This group met in New York on October 20, 1956, to discuss the general problems involved in outlining a Handbook and securing the necessary scholarly and financial support. A small sub-committee was successful in securing such interest, and the National Science Foundation provided an initial grant that has permitted further detailed planning and actual preparation of the Handbook. The grant was made to Tulane University, and the Committee enlisted the services of Robert Wauchope, Director of the Middle American Research Institute at Tulane, as General Editor. He was also named to the National Research Council Committee. From its membership, he selected a group of specialists, each to act as Editor for a particular field, and as a body to act as Advisory Board to him. The Editorial Advisory Board has also met as a group on one occasion, and meetings of the several Editors with the General Editor have been convened to solve particular problems. In January 1960 more than 238 articles had been solicited of leading authorities,

Problems of Mexican Ethno-History: The Ancient Chinantla, A Case Study

A GROWING trend of current research has been the revitalization of an older Americanist tradition that brought history and anthropology intimately into working relations by attempting to reconstruct from historical documents the nature and extent of native provinces and empires, both in precolonial times and subsequently. Much attention is now paid to their metamorphoses as they became incorporated in the American empire of Spain. In the so-called Indian countries like Mexico, Peru, Bolivia, Ecuador, and others where persistent native traditions modified Spanish institutional development, as well as being modified by it, these detailed studies provide important insights into historical processes. Of wide utility to other historians, as well as to investigators in related disciplines, for instance, are the findings of Ralph Roys, Charles Gibson, George Kubler, John Rowe, and others who have already made substantial contributions to what is currently being called ethno-history. Generally this combination focuses on the native side of affairs, leaning for source materials on post-Conquest and often European writings. Successful and professionally acceptable results usually depend on a fairly sophisticated grasp both of anthropological techniques and literature, and on sound grounding in historical methodology and practices. Ethno-history thus must draw on many skills and a wide variety of materials. The following paragraphs discuss what seems to be a typical area of Mexico whose ethno-history yet remains to be written. It is thus an illuminating case history. To outline some of the procedural techniques and to demonstrate the questions raised by