Cognitive Mapping of a Folk Taxonomy of Mexican …...Cognitive Mapping of a Folk Taxonomy of Mexican Pottery: A Multivariate Approach Author(s): Flora S. Kaplan and David M. Levine

Cognitive Mapping of a Folk Taxonomy of Mexican Pottery: A Multivariate ApproachAuthor(s): Flora S. Kaplan and David M. LevineReviewed work(s):Source: American Anthropologist, New Series, Vol. 83, No. 4 (Dec., 1981), pp. 868-884Published by: Blackwell Publishing on behalf of the American Anthropological AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/676246 .Accessed: 15/01/2012 10:37

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Blackwell Publishing and American Anthropological Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,preserve and extend access to American Anthropologist.

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=anthro

http://www.jstor.org/stable/676246?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

Cognitive Mapping of a Folk Taxonomy of Mexican Pottery: A Multivariate Approach

FLORA S. KAPLAN New York University

DAVID M. LEVINE

City University of New York

A folk taxonomy of cooking pottery from Puebla, Mexico, is derived from potters, accord-

ing to a method described here. Making no assumptions about the taxonomy, the potters' raw data are subjected to a multivariate analysis. The resulting cognitive mapping reveals an inherent structure that can be interpreted in two dimensions, and attributed to two

factors: open/closed pottery types, and multiple/nonmultiple ears. These factors are

found to be analogous to important cultural categories in the society, upon which people organize their thinking and behavior. Multivariate analysis manifests the system underly- ing the folk taxonomy, and provides a check on the ethnographer. [folk taxonomy; multivariate analysis; pottery: Puebla, Mexico]

_:,:j,:i::.~p~?-~,,:::~:::' :::I:::

:iii-i:i-ii :i:i ::,::?: I1PI li~L~ ~

::-:::::::: ::: :::i:: i:,ii iiiiii:i:iiiiiiiii i:-:::-::i~::?::::.::::::I:1::::-

i:iii'

.:i:::::: :i ?-?.?? ,::::: :~::::::

FLORA S. KAPLAN is an Assistant Professor of Anthropology, and Director of the grad- uate Museum Studies Program at New York University. She received her doctorate in 1976 from the City University of New York. She was formerly Acting Curator of the Department of Africa, Oceania, and New World Cultures at The Brooklyn Museum. Her research focuses on art, material culture, and political anthropology; and on the relationship between descriptive and quantitative methods, ethnohistory, and the role of visual symbolic systems in group identity and culture change. Among recent publications is "Privies, Privacy, and Political Process: Some Thoughts on Bathroom Graffiti and Group Identity" (in Group Cohesion, Henry Kellerman, ed., New York: Grune & Stratton, 1981). She is the author of Una Tradicion Alfarera (published by the Instituto Nacional Indigenista, Mex- ico, 1980); and an editor of "Women: The Dialectic of Public and Private Spaces" (published in Centerpoint, by the City University of New York, 1980). She is a contributor and the editor of Art of the Royal Court of Benin: Images of Power (1981), based on the African art exhibition she organized at New York University's Grey Art Gallery and Study Center.

DAVID M. LEVINE is an Associate Professor in the Department of Statistics at the Ber- nard M. Baruch College of the City University of New York. He received his Ph.D. from New York University in 1973. His areas of research interest include applied multivariate analysis, statistical computing, and the teaching of statistics. He has published articles in such journals as Psychometrika, Multivariate Behavioral Research, and Communications in Statistics and is a coauthor of Basic Business Statistics: Concepts and Applications and Applied Linear Models and Multivariate Methods: A Computer Package Approach, both published by Prentice-Hall, Inc.

:: :: : .. .... ::::: :-:-:::::::::::'- ........._ ::-:::?:---i-::: -i:::- ....... ::::::: :--::::--::i:-- ..... -:~--- :-:-:-:?-:::-: ,. ji:~~~ii:ji-ii-i ~.-~.:i:~;~:~l:-i:-------i:i:i:i:::: :::::i ; :::j:::::::i::::::-::-::::::::::i ::: ...: r:: : :::::::::::::::-:-_::--:-i-_,i-_-::--r_~ ::::::::i:::::-:;::: :::::::: ::::: ::::::::: ::::: : .... :~i~i~:ii_~i-i:~ ---:-::-i:::'::: :::::: :::: : ::::j: ,~~::---- ::-:::-: ..- ~~~-i:ii-i, i:-i--- ::::::::::::::::::::: ''-'~-F.i~i~r::::::-:-: :: ::::: ::? - ; : : : :::-:::-.:::::-:::: i_-,-~-~:i-:i-: ,,j-id,:: ::i---li-~:------ ::::::-::-::i:::: :::-:::::::i --::_-ii:: :---: ----I--:--:-- ::i::::i:i:~:;: :::':.::::::i:::-;:--::: :-:~:-:::i::-:::::---::?:::::::_: :::::::: :::::::j: :i.?;?:- --,-i_-ii~8ii :::::'::'::::::: -:-:-::::~:~~:~.i .. :::::::- ::'~l~i:i::-i, :--::i::::::-::: :::i-:: _: ? -:::i-: ::::::::-::i:---:::::::----:-:

?.:::::.::-:::i::: :::i:: -i-i'i-iiii-- :':-:-:::::::::':::::'::::::': ::::::::::: :::::: ::-':::::---:-_:_: 1~~~:: :;:i:::::::::-:::: : :::::::: ::::::::-:::-::::::::-:::i:::i:::::i:::: :::_;:-:::: i:-:::j::::-::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::

::::-::'::::':::::::-:::::: :: ? : . ... .. ::::i: :::::::::::::::: :2:: ::'::: ....... i:i-'-- -::;-i-::--ia::::: ~.?:a::::::-;.i::---::~:I:I;::::;:::-:~ ::::::i:::: :j:: r:-?:::::: :::::::: ::i -:ii::::-:l:_:_:::j::: :::_:: :::i::: :;:-:: ::::-i:----- j::-:: ?:~--: ~__-:!:-i:::::::-i--iii~-:-::::::::::::-::::: ::''':: ::'::::::':':: "":':':

....' -:i~i: : : :::::::: ::::: :::j::::: :?:::- .... ::: :i:::: ?:?:::::i:- i:::?: :::,:?: ::*:: ::i::: :: :':::

:::;:-

Copyright @ 1981 by the American Anthropological Association 0002-7294/81/040868-17$1.20/1

868

Kaplan and Levine] MAPPING MEXICAN POTTERY 869

INTRODUCTION

INTEREST IN THE WAY a "native" sees his or her culture has a long history in American an-

thropology, going back to Franz Boas, Ruth Benedict, Robert Lowie, Ralph Linton, and

many others active in the first half of the 20th century. This interest has continued with new theories and methods of description, classification, and analysis of cultural

phenomena. Some, which relate to this study, include: structuralism in its various guises (Adams 1973; D'Azevedo 1958; Faris 1972; Glassie 1969; 1975; Kaplan 1977, 1980; Levi- Strauss 1963, 1964, 1970; Muller 1966, 1980; Piaget 1970; Sturtevant 1967; Turner 1967, 1969; Witherspoon 1977: Wolfe 1969); psychological and symbolic analyses (Douglas 1966, 1967, 1975; Geertz 1973; Leach 1958, 1961; Paul 1976); and ethnoscientific approaches (Berlin 1964, 1973; Bulmer 1967; Conklin 1955, 1972; Romney and D'Andrade 1964; Sturtevant 1968; Tyler 1969; Warren 1977). Criticism of these approaches, skepticism, and rejection of the methods concern both the validity and mean-

ing of the data (Berreman 1966; Burling 1964; Harris 1968; Keesing 1972; Shankman 1969; Yalman 1967).

For the most part criticism has focused on the reliance of these approaches on verbal behavior and on the internal logic of the description, rather than an observable behavior that can be tested and even measured. Certainly, few such studies have been devoted to material culture. Those which have are provocative (see Adams 1973; Farris 1972; Glassie 1969, 1975; Kaplan 1977, 1980; Muller 1966, 1980; Munn 1962, 1971, 1973, 1974; Paul 1976; Sturtevant 1967; and Warren 1977. They have provided new insights into the meaning of form and design, aesthetics, cognition, and social and cultural

change. Our understanding has been enhanced by the attendant ethnographic depth of

description and the view of the "native" informants.

Archaeologists who have to do without native informants have made inroads into

variability, change, and expression through intensive development of quantitative methods and techniques, and ethnoarchaeology. The emphasis has necessarily been on material culture that has been made to yield insights into social and cultural behavior. To these ends, a major concern over the past 30 to 40 years has been the study of the association of sets of features (Ford 1954; Krieger 1944; Spaulding 1953; Hill and Gunn 1977). Implicit in this concern is the desire to uncover meaningful relationships in a set of data, not immediately apparent to an investigator; and the desire on the part of some in-

vestigators to discover the cultural implications of the data for the natives themselves. The multivariate techniques of multidimensional scaling and cluster analysis, which have been widely applied in business and social sciences (Romney, Shepard, and Nerlove 1972; Kruskal and Wish 1978; Green and Tull 1978), offer powerful tools to assist in the deter- mination of cognitive structure of a set of data, in this case pottery types.

In this paper, multivariate procedures are applied to a folk universe of black-on-red

glazed utilitarian pottery from the Valley of Puebla, Mexico. The potters' system of classification is obtained from them according to a method developed and described here. This method, which carefully avoids suggesting or imposing categories or features to the informants, follows essentially linguistic techniques for eliciting phonemic systems, but adapts them to material culture. However, it does not rely solely on verbal responses or on the formal methodology of the investigator; it also tests responses against actual behavior in the course of pottery manufacture to see whether the features identified and

types labeled actually are both referred to and manipulated in the ways stated and noted. In addition, the casual behavior of potters and others in the day-to-day handling, selling, purchasing, and using of the pottery is checked against the features, and types named, and the proposed folk system. The data elicited in this paper reveal the potters' categories and subcategories which resemble componential analysis. But they are tested both for-

870 AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST [83, 1981

mally and informally in the ethnographic setting; and they are the result of systematic observation and recording of spontaneous behavior and the use of material culture as

part of the test procedures. In this regard, this paper departs from most others men- tioned in the introduction.

The assumption of order in ethnotaxonomies is taken yet a step further here, from verbal elicitations, tests, and observation to the application of a multivariate approach. Statistical techniques drawn from archaeology, primarily, and social science uses,

generally, are applied to the data elicited from potters, to determine if an order is pres- ent. We recognized that the techniques used made no assumptions about the order, and that, in fact, they might discover no order--another order--or the same order as con- tained in the native taxonomy. The potters' raw data were measured for association, and a weight was obtained for each distinctive feature. In most such analyses, either a weight is arbitrarily assigned, or all are weighted equally. Here, the order of frequency yielded the weight of each feature. This data base was then scaled up to six dimensions, and the resultant mapping studied for interpretable dimensions. These are discussed in detail later in the paper. What is significant for us here, is that in what appears to be a random and chaotic universe, the universe of pottery and potters, these methods--two different

ways of analyzing the same data - constitute a check on the ethnographer. The first tech-

nique of componential analysis, or "emic" analysis, assumes but does not impose an order on the data; the second technique of multivariate analysis applied to the data shows that the same order is there. It shows that what is assumed, reemerges in another form, in a test of the methods and results obtained from the "native's" point of view.

The folk system of classification was obtained from 12 master potters who served as

prime informants. They distinguished among the (presence or absence of) 94 distinctive features of 25 pottery types. The study of the sets of features was used to discover the structure or organization of this "universe" of pottery; and to give visual form to the folk

taxonomy, to test and retest it.

BACKGROUND

Black-on-red glazed cooking pottery is made by potters living and working in two barrios of a major city in the Valley of Puebla. The city, which was founded in the 16th cen-

tury, is in an area famed for its pottery long before the Spanish Conquest. Though there has been no historical archaeology in the city or its environs, potters and people living in the region consider black-on-red ware to be very old, and to have originated in the city. Archival records show pottery manufacture in the late 17th century, but it may have been earlier. Documents found in the municipal archives and historic accounts give evidence of a similar style of pottery in the 18th century. Further documentation is found in two still-life paintings by Agustin Arrieta (1809-67). The pottery shown is virtually identical with that still produced in the city.

The pottery is the product of traditional modes of production; and the potters work for

profit or wages in a market economy. They constitute craft specialists, concentrated within certain barrios in an urban setting. They are part of a crude system of mass production with much specialization in the stages of manufacture. There is also evidence of an earlier craft workshop organization. These potters constitute a cohesive community of urban potters, craft specialists with considerable time depth and continuity of style and mode of manufacture. They provide an excellent opportunity for studying and testing folk taxonomy. They have the additional interest of being urban craft specialists.

The history of black-on-red glazed ware suggests that the manufacture of this pottery emerged and flourished against a background of social, economic, and political change in the State of Puebla, following the Spanish Conquest. Certainly, the separation and ex-


ploitation of the Indians by the Spaniards during the colonial period served to heighten and perpetuate Indian consciousness. Pottery and the native foods associated with its use were at once a necessity and a subtle means of expressing both an ancient heritage and an "Indian" identity. Europeans adopted the pottery along with native foods, ingredients, and techniques of food preparation, which encouraged indigenous pottery manufacture.

Independence from Spain after 1821 led to a new awareness of a common American

identity and made possible the formation of Mexico as a nation. This new common iden-

tity was a blend of Indian and European elements of culture. Among potters, formerly separate Indian and Spanish manufacture of utilitarian wares became fused as a result of social and economic change. In the middle to late 19th century, this fusion was followed

by a florescence of black-on-red glazed pottery; it coincided with capitalist expansion and the growth of a new bourgeoisie. It was the time of the beginnings of the industrial revolution in Mexico, which took place in Puebla. Black-on-red glazed cooking pots became markers of a traditional group consciousness and of a new national identity.

DATA COLLECTION

Today, 70 potters and 25 crewmen are engaged in the production, decoration, and fir-

ing of black-on-red glazed ware. The 12 potters who served as primary informants are

acknowledged among their peers as masters. In a series of open-ended interviews they identified 25 pottery types with discrete labels, based on 94 distinctive features. The pots were photographed in color, numbered, and mounted in an album without accompany- ing labels for use in formal tests that followed (Kaplan 1980:141-142). Open-ended interviews were used to discover the potters' terms for pottery sizes, types, and features. Only terms that were first introduced by the informants were employed in the interviews. No terms were introduced by the investigator. In a sense, then, each informant was allowed to construct his or her own interview. The folk taxonomy constructed from these interviews was shown to the potters, and the categories of types, sizes, and distinctive features were checked with them. Though no potter provided the whole system or controlled all of it, they were able to verify the parts and the relations among them. This was done in-

dividually, and in the presence of several potters who spoke, noted, and conferred with each other as well as with the investigator. As noted earlier, the observation of potters and others provided further checks on the taxonomy. However, it was the potter's responses, not the taxonomy, using whole pots, that served as the input for the application of cluster analysis and multidimensional scaling.

Standardized tests based on an original photograph album of 52 photographs were ad- ministered to potters and a selected sample of people in the city. Thirteen photographs of

pottery from nearby towns and from other regions of Mexico were included. Eight un- finished pots were also included as a further test of the knowledge of the finished style. It was assumed the potters would control the most information on form and function of local pottery.

The tests and interviews were usually conducted in the potter's workshop and home. They always took place in familiar surroundings where the potter would feel at ease. In these surroundings the behavior of other members of the pottery-making community-- families and friends--could also be observed. They often lent support to a potter's response, and offered additional examples from their own experiences, which were noted separately. The results of the interviews were checked against spontaneous comments and labels applied to the pottery in daily life. The extent to which potters isolated and manipulated distinctive features in the course of manufacture of a given pottery type was recorded; and references to features and pottery types, using discrete labels, were noted in casual conversations among potters, and in discussions with the investigator. All of


these observations of actual behavior supported the system of classification and distinctive features used by potters to describe the "universe" of black-on-red glazed ware.

Figure 1 lists the 25 pottery types of black-on-red glazed ware identified by potter informants. Table I lists the 94 distinctive features they described.

METHOD

Potters distinguished the presence or absence of 94 features (Table I) on 25 pottery types (Figure 1). These pottery types and features were cross-classified with a (+) in-

dicating the presence of a particular feature on a specific pottery type. A measure of

similarity or distance can be computed by analyzing the cross-classification of the pottery types with the features. This analysis assumes only that the pottery types are in some way determined by the feature analyzed.

A variety of techniques can be utilized to measure the similarity of the different features identified by the potters. For example, D'Andrade, Quinn, Nerlove, and

Romney (1972) have utilized the phi (4) coefficient to measure the similarity between Mexican and American disease terms. However, Goodman and Kruskal (1954, 1959, 1963, 1972), who have developed a set of measures of association, note that, although the

chi-square statistic is useful as a test of hypothesis, its accuracy as a measure of association is questionable. In particlar, there is serious doubt whether two different phi (4) coeffi- cients can be compared, as is necessary in developing a measure of distance between all

pairs of objects. Among the alternative measures of association developed are various matching coeffi-

cients. For example, the simplest measure of association involves counting the number of features on which two pottery types agree, either counting or ignoring absence/absence matches. However, as Whallon (1972) has noted, these similarity measures are inherently deficient since each feature is weighted equally in its derivation.

A measure that differentially weights each feature has been developed by Goodman and Kruskal (1954). This measure indicates the power of one feature as a predictor of a second feature and is based upon Guttman's (1941) lambda (X) coefficient of predictabili- ty. It allows for differential weighting of features in measuring the similarity of the pottery types. The more alike the feature is to other features, the smaller will be the weight of the feature. These weights are computed as follows:

WT = 1/Ej Xijy Xij> o

where: Xq = Efr- Efc-(Fr + Fc) 2n-(Fr-Fc)

where: fr = maximum frequency for each within class row

fc = maximum frequency for each within class column Fr = maximum frequency of marginal total/rows Fc = maximum frequency of marginal totals/columns n = total frequency (number of pottery types)

1. Olla (mold) 2. Olla (wheel) 3. Olla colorada 4. Jarro 5. Jarro cachucho 6. Jarro cantimplora 7. Velorio 8. Velorio huevito

9. Cazuela (wheel) 10. Caso (wheel) 11. Cazuela (mold) 12. Caso (mold) 13. Tortera 14. Tecomate 15. Borcelana 16. Bacin 17. Maceta

18. Molcajete 19. Cajete 20. Cantimplora 21. Jarro labrada 22. Olla labrada 23. Tortera labrada 24. Jarro negro 25. Olla negra

Fig. 1. Twenty-five pottery types distinguished by potters.


TABLE I. FEATURES ASSOCIATED WITH 25 POTTERY TYPES DISTINGUISHED BY POTTERS.

Techniques (tecnico) 1. Wheel (tornero) 2. Mold (manero) 3. Mold (ollero)

Shape (forma) 4. Round (redonda) 5. Deep (honda) 6. Extended (extendida) 7. Oval (ovalda) 8. Egg-shaped (huevito) 9. Very round (panzon)

10. Straight-walled (pared va derecho) 11. Flaring-walled (pared va tendido) 12. Arc-walled

Mouth (boca) 13. Open (abierta) 14. Wide (ancha) 15. Narrow (angosta)

Neck (gollete/pesqueso) 16. No-neck (sin gollete) 17. Tall-neck (pesqueso largo) 18. Short-neck (pesqueso corto)

Rim (bordo) 19. No rim added (sin bordo) 20. Big rim (bordo grande) 21. Small rim (bordo pequeno) 22. Spout (pico) 23. Plain rim (liso) 24. Pinched rim (repulgado) 25. Wavy rim (china)

Seat (asiento) 26. Round (redonda)

Foot (pata) 27. Base (con pata) 28. Three-feet (tripoda) 29. No feet (sin patas)

Ears (orejas) 30. Rolled type # 1 (volada) 31. Flat types # 2, # 3 (oreja) 32. Spider type (adornada/arana) 33. Rat type # 5 (raton) 34. Decorative type # 6 (adornada) 35. Decorative types # 8, # 9 (adornada) 36. Flat type # 10 (oreja) 37. No ears (sin oreja) 38. One ear (una oreja) 39. Two ears (dos orejas) 40. Four and eight ears (cuatro y ocho orejas) 41. Ears-horizontal 42. Ears-vertical

43. Ears on body of pot 44. Ears on rim of pot 45. Ears on rim and body of pot

Cover (tapa) 46. No cover (sin tapa) 47. Corn cob cover (elote) 48. Rag cover (trapo) 49. Wood cover (madera) 50. Pottery cover (tapa) 51. Leaf cover (hoja)

Color (color) 52. Red and black (rojo y negro) 53. Red (rojo) 54. Black (negro)

Glace (grieta) 55. Glaze inside--all over (grieta adentro) 56. Glaze outside-all over (grieta afuera) 57. Glaze outside--upper half (grieta afuera

arriba) 58. No glaze outside (sin grieta) 59. Shiny glaze (brilla mucha)

Decoration-painted (pintado) 60. Unpainted (sin negro) 61. Black stripes (rayas negras) 62. Black crisscross (cocoles) 63. Black spots (manchas negras o gavilanes)

Decoration-embossed (moldeada) 64. Flowers (flores) 65. Stars (estrellas), Leaves (hojas), Buttons

(botones), Birds (pajaritos), Fish (pescaditos), Eagle with serpent (aguila con vivora)

Decoration-modeled (figures) 66. Lady (muneca)

Decoration-grooved 67. Spur-grooved (espuela) 68. Channeled (acanalada)

Effigy (labrada) 69. Lady (catarina), Fat Man (pan-

zon), Monkey (mono) Design location

70. Inside--all over (adentro) 71. None inside (liso) 72. None outside (liso) 73. On neck (pesqueso) 74. On body 75. On neck and upper half of body 76. On bottom--inside 77. On sides--inside

(Table I continued on next page)


(Table I continued)

Functions 78. To cook food (cocer) 79. To boil liquid (hervir) 80. To stew (guisar) 81. To fry (freir) 82. To grind (moler) 83. To pour (echar) 84. To drink--nonalcoholic (tomar) 85. To drink--alcoholic (beber)

86. To serve (servir) 87. To store food (guardar) 88. To store water (conservar) 89. To adorn with-as a gift (adornar) 90. To play with--as a toy (jugar) 91. To hang up (colgar) 92. To wash in (lavar) 93. To plant in (sembrar) 94. To carry in (Ilevar)

The computational aspects of this formula can be illustrated by computing Xij for a particular pair of features. The cross-classification for feature 1 (wheel technique) and feature 13 (open-mouth), for example, is shown in Table II, with regard to the presence/absence of these two features.

In order to compute the weight for feature 1 (wheel technique), the Xij can be computed for all cross-classifications of feature 1 with each other feature. The X (lambda) values are summed up and the weight for each feature is the reciprocal of this sum. In this manner the weight for each feature is computed. The distance between two pottery types is computed by adding up the weights for the features in which the two types have a mutual presence or a mutual absence. Thus, the various features are being assessed differentially in determining the similarity of pottery types.

Based upon the computations used here, those features that are somewhat redundant with the other features receive less importance in measuring the similarity of the pottery types, while those features that are more discriminating in differentiating between types receive greater importance. Features that were completely redundant with other features are combined for the purpose of analysis. Because of the large number of pottery types (25) and features (94) involved in this study, a computer program (see Carmone, Green,

TABLE II. CROSS-CLASSIFICATION OF FEATURE 1 (WHEEL TECHNIQUE) WITH FEATURE 13 (OPEN MOUTH).

Feature 1 (Wheel technique)

Feature 13 + (presence) - (absence) Total

(Open mouth) + 4 6 10 11 4 15

15 10 25

In this case, we have:

Xl (13) = (6 + 11) + (11 + 6) - (15 + 15)

2(25) - (15 + 15)

Xl (13) = 17 + 17 - 30

50 - 30

Xl (13) = 4 Xl (13) = .20 20


and Robinson [1968]) was utilized to compute the weights of each feature as well as the

proximity of each pair of pottery types. In order to evaluate the similarity of the 25 pottery types, the statistical procedures of

nonmetric multidimensional scaling and hierarchical clustering were utilized. Multi- dimensional scaling aims to represent the set of pottery types on a "map" or configuration. Nonmetric multidimensional scaling, as developed by Shepard (1962a, b), uses only the rank order of the similarity of the paired pottery types in developing this configuration. A measure (such as Kruskal's [1964a, b] stress coefficient) is computed to determine the goodness of fit of the configuration to the actual data. The interpretation of the con-

figuration should represent a plausible analysis of the actual phenomena involved in the

separation of the various objects (pottery types). However, the factors which go into this

interpretation are not known beforehand, and must be derived from the cognitive map. This requires a knowledge of the culture as well as the pottery types.

One criterion for analysis (see Shepard 1974) is to interpret the smallest number of

possible dimensions or factors, while attempting at the same time to minimize the stress

(goodness of fit) coefficient. The resulting stress coefficient can be tested to determine the

plausibility of hypothesizing a definitive structure to the data (see Green 1975; Levine

1978). Cluster analysis, in contrast to multidimensional scaling, does not attempt to develop a

spatial configuration of pottery types, but instead organizes the set of types into homog- eneous groups. The pottery types are separated into groups so that a given type is more similar to others within its group than to types outside its group. Hierarchical clustering as developed by Johnson (1967) forms a treelike structure which joins pottery types together in groups. The organization of this treelike structure when viewed in conjunction with the cognitive map provided by multidimensional scaling provides an additional

aspect for the interpretation.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Ninety-four features and 25 pottery types distinguished by a group of 12 master potters provided the data base for a multivariate analysis, using nonmetric multidimensional

scaling and cluster analysis. The study, unlike archaeological ones, uses whole pots and features identified by native potters; unlike many ethnoscientific studies, it does not rely mostly on verbal behavior, but uses quantitative methods to analyze the structure of a folk taxonomy. It also uses material culture in standardized tests, interviews, and observation of overt behavior in the production and use of pottery.

Identification of features and types of pottery was remarkably consistent throughout the whole pottery-making community, which comprised 70 potters and 25 crewmen. This

consistency was manifest despite much specialization in technique of manufacture, type, and size of pottery, and division of labor between potters and crewmen. In addition to the 12 primary informants, 73 other potters and crewmen were interviewed and observed in the course of fieldwork. Thus only 10 of the 95 were not part of the sample. Informants did not conceptualize the whole picture or overview of the native system of classification. Rather, they identified features and pottery types from actual pots in workshops and kilns. The resulting folk taxonomy is a composite of the knowledge and behavior of the individual potters. The data base is derived from a universe of pottery manufactured during the period of ethnographic fieldwork; it consists of more than 100,000 pots manufactured and fired in 13 kilns, each having a capacity from 1,500 to 3,000, during 1972, 1973, and 1974.

The Goodman and Kruskal (1954) lambda measure of association was used to obtain a weight for each of the 94 features distinguished by potters. The emergent hierarchy of


pottery types, obtained through cluster analysis, is based on the number and relative

weight of the features (Figure 2). Most studies that depend on the identification of traits or distinctive features usually

either assign a weight to them (Naroll 1956:705), or leave them unweighted (Carneiro 1969, 1970; Tolstoy 1963, 1966). In this study, a weight was obtained for each feature

(Goodman and Kruskal 1954) and it is interesting to note that the clusters are consistent with the potters' typology.

The first two types of pottery to cluster may be considered prototypes and reflect a ma-

jor distinction between wheel-made and mold-made pots in the pottery-making com-

munity. The first cluster, types 7 and 8, are wheel-made drinking vessels (velorios). They are complex in form, being closed vessels, but they are identical except for a single feature -7 is round while 8 is egg-shaped (huevito). The second cluster, types 18 and 19, are mold-made bowls for grinding (molcajete) and eating (cajete), respectively. They are

simple in form, being open, half-spherical and without ears. But they differ in 7 of the 19 features they share. The eating bowl is the basis of all mold-made jars and cooking pots; and it is identified as a primary stage of manufacture on the wheel when the size of a vessel is determined, before the potter closes it. These clusters also have historical im-

plications since mold-made vessels are indigenous and wheel-made ones post-Conquest, having been introduced by the Spanish in the 16th century.

Figure 3 shows the M-D-SCAL Plot for the pottery types with the major groupings obtained from cluster analysis encircled. The types are scaled in a space of a given number of dimensions and coordinates developed that indicate their relative position. Our data

yielded two clearly interpretable dimensions or factors: open/closed pottery types, and

nonmultiple/multiple ears. The stress coefficient is .5056 for the 25 pottery types scaled in two dimensions. Based on Levine (1978), if there was no structure to the data the stress value in two dimensions would have been at least .75. Since the value of .5056 is

significantly less, this indicates the data involved in this study have an inherent structure.

Interpretation of the dimensions was made possible by ethnographic fieldwork (Kaplan 1980). The distinction between open- and closed-pottery types corresponds to significant cultural categories among potter informants and members of the pottery-making com-

munity. Open and closed vessels are said to be like men and women. Women are said to be open, yielding, and submissive; while men are closed and aggressive. This concept shapes the roles of men and women, generally, in the culture. Open pots (cooking pots/azuelas) are described by potters as female forms, while closed pots (jars/jarros o

ollas) are described as male forms. An aberrant vessel that combines both forms, open and closed, is called joto (homosexual) by potters and others in the culture.

A third distinction is found to the right and left of the vertical axis that divides open/ closed types of pottery. All those to the right may be undecorated or decorated with either black-on-red designs or be all red. All those to the left may be decorated with either black-on-red designs or be all black. This distinction, too, corresponds to significant cultural categories. Red is associated with day, the life force, and hot things; black is associated with night, death, and cold things. Red, in conjunction with being open and female, and black, in conjunction with being closed and male, are shown in opposition to each other on the graph, just as they are conceived to be in daily life. The dichotomy between men and women, disclosed in observable behavior in Puebla and frequently verb-

alized, is embodied in their folk pottery and conveyed through form, design, and color. The colors and designs of the pottery also represent important concepts associated with

the native world view. According to potters and their people in the Puebla region, life is perpetuated by a daily balance struck between opposing forces - life and death, day and night, women and men. The radiating designs and combined colors of the domestic pottery represent both a cyclical view of the universe and the desired balance. The extremes


Pots

9. Cazuela (wheel)

10. Caso (wheel)

11. Cazuela (mold)

12. Caso (mold)

13. Tortera

1. Olla (mold)

2. Olla (wheel)

3. Olla colorada

16. Bacin

4. Jarro

20. Cantimplora

14. Tecomate

21. Jarro labrada

22. Olla labrada

18. Molcajete

19. Cajete

17. Maceta

23. Tortera labrada

15. Borcelana

24. Jarro negro

5. Jarro cachucho

6. Jarro cantimplora

7. Velorio

8. Velorio-huevito

25. Olla negra

Fig. 2. Taxonomy of pottery types based on hierarchical clustering technique.


Iis

A2ZLS

Z3~ L

10~Y

Fig. 3. M-D-SCAL plot for 25 pottery types with major groupings from the hierarchical clustering technique encircled.

of the color spectrum of the ware define the parameters of this pottery in the culture. All- red pots are the least valued and most ordinary types used every day; all-black pots are the most valued types, used ceremonially once a year to honor the dead. Children, not

fully part of the adult world, are remembered in death with miniature pottery, gaily painted in pinks and blues and decorated with flowers. This pottery, made by the same

potters who make black-on-red ware, is decorated by people who come from another

region for this purpose once a year (Kaplan 1977). The miniature pottery is outside the

parameters of the traditional ware of the region, black-on-red, just as the children themselves are outside the normal rewards and punishments meted out to those who are fully "persons" in the social and religious senses of the culture.

The nonmultiple/multiple-ears distinction, marked by the horizontal axis in Figure 3, is an important criterion used by potters to distinguish types of pottery. Nonmultiple ears (one ear or none) are generally found on jars used for drinking and on undecorated jars and bowls used for eating, and to prepare traditional ingredients (beans and chilis). Pots used for cooking and on festive occasions, generally, have multiple ears (two or more).


The nonmultiple-ears jars are used daily to take the fermented juice of the maguey cactus, pulque, a mucilagelike and milky but nutritious drink known to the Indians long before the Conquest. A thin cornmeal gruel, atole, sometimes flavored with fruits, cin- namon, or spices, is drunk in jars in the morning or late afternoon; it is sold on street cor- ners by vendors, in little restaurants, and is prepared at home. Pulque is purchased from special bars called pulquerias, where men gather during the day and evening with friends; children and young women are often sent to buy it for meals at home. The drinks offered to the dead are served in black jars; those offered during the vigils kept for the dead are served in the red and black velorios; their special designs and colors mark the transition from life to death.

The small bowls for eating, drinking, and grinding, cajetes and molcajetes, are the same types used in pre-Columbian times, for essentially the same purposes. Pulque is still drunk from gourd vessels of the same size and shape in villages, and chilis are still ground in them as they have been for millennia. These types, or bowls, as was pointed out earlier, are the prototypes for jars, constituting as they do the bases of all jars formed in molds and on the wheel.

These nonmultiple-ears pottery types relate to culturally defined Indian food categories in the culture, including drink; they are also functional since small- to medium-size vessels may easily be carried and handled with one or no ears. They also reflect the small social groups (like drinking partners and friends), and close family situa- tions like daily mealtimes, those meals and drinks shared with deceased family members on home altars, on graves, and during vigils for the dead. These traditional pottery types are grouped with their wheel-made equivalents in Figure 3.

Multiple-ears pottery, found below the horizontal axis in Figure 3, likewise reflects cultural and functional categories. Large and elaborate pieces are found here. These include cooking vessels and decorative serving pieces that were displayed in the kitchens and dining rooms of the upwardly mobile middle classes that emerged during the expanding capitalism of the late 19th century and early 20th century Porfiriato. The multiple ears are functional for lifting large and heavy pottery, and are the decorative markers for serving pieces. They also reflect the size of the social groups who use them on ceremonial, ritual, and festive occasions.

Multiple ears are indicative of the common "Mexican" heritage which emerged with the rise of nationalism in the 19th century. Like the new IMexican cultural identity, they are also a blend of the Indian and Spanish elements. Added features such as the serpent held in the beak of an eagle standing on a cactus, the symbol adopted for the flag of Mex- ico, appear embossed as a design on the bottom of serving dishes with many curving handles, or ears. Other designs embossed on the decorative pottery, labrada, exemplify similar nationalistic emblems; they include also many "sayings" or dichos, like "Viva Mexico" or the names of cities, towns, or persons, and flowers, roses, and modeled heads and hats to the jars and pots.

Table III lists the ten most "informative" pottery features in their ranked order. The most important one is whether or not a pottery type is red or black. Aside from color, which serves to define wares, other features are related to functions (frying, washing,

TABLE III. THE TEN FEATURES WITH HIGHEST WEIGHTS.

1. Red and black colors 2. Used for frying 3. Used for washing/waste 4. Egg-shaped 5. Black spot design

6. Absence of feet on pottery 7. Corncob cover 8. Spur-grooved design 9. Used for grinding

10. Glazed inside--all over


etc.), rare and design elements; these receive the highest weights and are the most informative as was expected. The importance of colors, singly and together, has been discussed in connection with the symbolism associated with the pottery; and function, design, and rare features are indicative of cultural categories. They also have an historical aspect in that their occurrence, or lack of it, is both significant and explainable in cultural context. Rare features are no more than idiosyncratic variation to be lumped by investigators into such favored categories as "miscellaneous."

CONCLUSIONS

Cluster analysis and nonmetric multidimensional scaling applied to the raw data obtained from potters served as a check on the ethnographer, and on the native taxonomy of pottery analyzed from the same data base. The cognitive map that these techniques produced revealed factors that were analogous to cultural categories upon which thinking and behavior in the society were organized. A further and somewhat unexpected result was the historical dimension which manifested itself in the course of interpreting the dimensions produced by multidimensional scaling (see Figure 3). Indian and traditional pottery types appeared separately and together in the discussion of the meaning of dimensions. Although up to six factors were investigated in the multidimensional scaling analysis, the structure of the cognitive map could be clearly attributed to the two factors of open/closed pottery types and multiple/nonmultiple ears. Significantly, these factors correspond to cognitive categories within the folk culture: male/female, night/day, life/death, hot/cold, natural world/supernatural world, drink/food, Indianism/nationalism. The goodness of fit of this cognitive map to the data obtained from pottery informants is significantly better than what could have occurred had there been no inherent structure to the data. It provides another way to look at the same data, the "native" view- point, and to see if a second statistical set of techniques produce the same results.

The importance of ears as a factor in the folk classification of pottery types resembles Deetz's findings in his study of Arikara ceramics (1965: 75-80). Rims, though, do not have the same importance which Deetz and others attribute to archaeological pottery re- mains (which are mostly sherds, not whole pots). Puebla potters vary rim form and decoration in response to consumer preference; rim form is related to the technique of manufacture and function. For the most part, the folk potters themselves used the same criteria archaeologists do to classify pottery: color, shape, design elements, and function. However, ears and size differentiation within major pottery types (150 sizes of 25 types), received more attention from Puebla potters.

The quantitative techniques applied in this study classified a body of empirical ethnographic data, provided insights into the cognitive structure of a folk taxonomy of pottery, and proved to correspond to major cultural categories that organize social behavior and world view in Puebla. Ethnographic and ethnohistoric fieldwork show, too, that these data and the folk taxonomy they yield are not arbitrary cultural behavior, but reflect historical developments as well as an inherent structure made evident by the application of a multivariate approach, using cultural interpretation.

NOTES

Acknowledgments. The authors wish to thank Gregory A. Johnson and John D. Speth for their critical comments and careful attention to an earlier draft of this article and to acknowledge the useful comments by Owen Lynch incorporated into this paper. The assistance of Lic. Francisco Ad- ame, Dr. Efrain Castro, Sr. Alberto Beltran, and Dr. Fernando Camara greatly facilitated the ethnographic fieldwork in Mexico.


REFERENCES CITED

Adams, Marie Jeanne 1973 Structural Aspects of a Village Art. American Anthropologist 75:265-279.

Berlin, Brent, and Paul Kay 1969 Basic Color Terms: Their Universality and Evolution. Berkeley and Los Angeles: Univer-

sity of California Press. Berlin, Brent, Dennis E. Breedlove, and Peter H. Raven

1974 Principles of Tzeltal Plant Classification: An Introduction to the Botanical Ethnography of a Mayan-Speaking People of Highland Chiapas. New York: Academic Press.

Berreman, Gerald D. 1966 Anemic and Emetic Analysis in Social Anthropology. American Anthropologist 68:346-

354. Bulmer, Ralph

1967 Why Is the Cassowary Not a Bird? A Problem of Zoological Taxonomy Among the Karam of the New Guinea Highlands (N.S.). Man 2:5-25.

Burling, Robbins 1964 Cognition and Componential Analysis: God's Truth or Hocus-Pocus? American Anthro-

pologist 66:20-28. Carmone, F. J., Jr., and Patrick J. Robinson

1968 WAGS: an IBM 7040/360-65 Program to Compute Weighted Agreement Scores for Mul- tidimensional Scaling. Journal of Marketing Research 5:95-98.

Carneiro, Robert L. 1969 The Measurement of Cultural Development in the Ancient Near East and in Anglo-Saxon

England. Transactions of the New York Academy of Sciences, Series II. 31:1013-1023. 1970 Scale Analysis, Evolutionary Sequences, and the Rating of Cultures. In A Handbook of

Method in Cultural Anthropology. Raoul Naroll and Ronald Cohen, eds. pp. 834-871. Garden City, New York: Natural History Press.

Conklin, Harold C. 1955 Hanun6o Color Categories. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 11:339-344. 1972 Folk Classification: A Topically Arranged Bibliography of Contemporary and Background

References Through 1971. Department of Anthropology, Yale University, New Haven, Conn. D'Andrade, Roy G., Naomi R. Quinn, Sara Beth Nerlove, and A. Kimball Romney

1972 Categories of Disease in American-English and Mexican-Spanish. In Multidimensional Scal- ing: Theory and Applications in the Behavioral Sciences, Vol. II: Applications. A. Kimball Romney, Roger N. Shepherd, and Sara Beth Nerlove, eds. pp. 9-54. New York: Seminar Press.

D'Azevedo, Warren L. 1958 A Structural Approach to Esthetics: Toward a Definition of Art in Anthropology. American

Anthropologist 60:702-714. Deetz, James J.

1965 Dynamics of Stylistic Change in Arikara Ceramics. Illinois Studies in Anthropology 4. Ur- bana: University of Illinois Press.

Douglas, Mary 1966 Purity and Danger: an Analysis of Concepts of Pollution and Taboo. London: Routledge &

Kegan Paul. 1967 The Meaning of Myth, with special reference to "La Geste d'Asdiwal." In The Structural

Study of Myth and Totemism. ASA 5. Edmund Leach, ed. pp. 49-69. London: Tavistock. 1973 Natural Symbols, Explorations in Cosmology. New York: Vintage Books.

Faris, James C. 1972 Nuba Personal Art. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Ford, James A. 1954 The Type Concept Revisited. American Anthropologist 56:42-44.

Geertz, Clifford 1973 The Interpretation of Cultures: Selected Essays. New York: Basic Books.

Glassie, Henry H. 1969 Pattern in the Material Folk Culture of Eastern United States. In University of Pennsylvania

Monographs, Folklore and Folklife. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.


1975 Folk Housing in Middle Virginia: Structural Analysis of Historical Artifacts. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press.

Goodman, Leo A., and William H. Kruskal 1954 Measures of Association for Cross Classifications. American Statistical Association Journal

49:732-764. 1959 Measures of Association for Cross Classifications, II: Further Discussion and References.

American Statistical Association Journal 54:123-163. 1963 Measures of Association for Cross Classifications, III: Approximate Sampling Theory.

American Statistical Association Journal 58:310-364. 1972 Measures of Association for Cross Classifications, IV: Simplification of Asymptotic

Variances. American Statistical Association Journal 67:415-421. Green, Paul E.

1975 On the Robustness of Multidimensional Scaling Techniques. Journal of Marketing Re- search 12:73-81.

Green, Paul E., and Donald S. Tull 1978 Research for Marketing Decisions, 4th ed. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall.

Gunn, Joel 1977 Idiosyncratic Chipping Style as a Demographic Indicator: A Proposed Application to the

South Hills Region of Idaho and Utah. In The Individual in Prehistory: Studies of Variability in Style in Prehistoric Technologies. James N. Hill and Joel Gunn, eds. pp. 167-204. New York: Academic Press.

Guttman, Louis 1941 An Outline of the Statistical Theory of Prediction. In The Prediction of Personal Adjust-

ment. P. Horst and others, eds. pp. 253-311. Social Science Research Council Bulletin 48. Harris, Marvin

1968 The Rise of Anthropological Theory: A History of Theories of Culture. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell.

Hodson, F. R., D. G. Kendall, and P. Tautu, eds. 1971 Proceedings of the Anglo-Romanian Conference, Mamia, 1970. Organized by the Royal

Society of London and the Academy of the Socialist Republic of Romania. Chicago: Aldine. Johnson, Stephen C.

1967 Hierarchical Clustering Schemes. Psychometrika 32:241-254. Kaplan, Flora S.

1980 Una Tradicion Alfarera: Conocimiento y estilo. Mexico City: Instituto Nacional Indigen- ista.

1977 Symbolism in Mexican Utilitarian Pottery. Centerpoint 2:33-41. Keesing, Roger M.

1972 Paradigms Lost: The New Ethnography and the New Linguistics. Southwest Journal of Anthropology 28:299-332.

Krieger, Alex D. 1944 The Typological Concept. American Antiquity 9:271-288.

Kruskal, J. B. 1964a Multidimensional Scaling by Optimizing the Goodness of Fit to a Nonmetric Hypothesis.

Psychometrika 29:1-27. 1964b Nonmetric Multidimensional Scaling: A Numerical Method. Psychometrika

29:115-129. Kruskal, Joseph B., and Myron Wish

1978 Multidimensional Scaling. A Sage University Paper on Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences, Vol. 11. Beverly Hills: Sage.

Leach, Edmund R. 1956 Aesthetics. In Third Programme (Radio Program), The Institutions of Primitive Society.

A Series of Broadcast Talks by E. E. Evans-Pritchard and others. pp. 25-38. New York: Free Press of Glencoe.

1958 Magical Hair. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland 88:147-164.


Levi-Strauss, Claude 1963 Structural Anthropology. Claire Jacobson and Brooke Grundfest Schoepf, transls. New

York: Basic Books. 1964 Tristes Tropiques. John Russell, transl. (1st ed) New York: Atheneum. 1970 The Raw and the Cooked, John and Doreene Weightman, transl. London: Jonathan

Cape. Levine, David M.

1978 A Monte Carlo Study of Kruskal's Variance Based on Measure on Stress. Psychometrika 43:307-315.

Muller, Jon D. 1966 Archaeological analysis of art styles. Tennessee Archaeologist 23:25-39. 1980 Structural studies of art styles. In The Visual Arts: Plastic and Graphic. Justine M. Cord-

well, ed. pp. 139-211. The Hague: Mouton. Munn, Nancy

1962 Walbiri Graphic Signs: An Analysis. American Anthropologist 64:972-984. 1971 Visual Categories: An Approach to the Study of Representational Systems. In Art and

Aesthetics in Primitive Societies: A Critical Anthology. Carol Jopling, ed. pp. 335-355. New York: Dutton.

1973 Walbiri Iconography: Graphic Representation and Cultural Symbolism in a Central Aus- tralian Society. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press.

1974 The Spatial Presentation of Cosmic Order in Walbiri Iconography. In Primitive Art Soci- ety. Anthony Forge, ed. pp. 193-220. New York: Oxford University Press.

Naroll, Raoul 1956 A Preliminary Index of Social Development. American Anthropologist 58:687-715.

Paul, Robert A. 1976 The Sherpa Temple as a Model of the Psyche. American Ethnologist 3(1):131-146.

Piaget, Jean 1970 Structuralism. Chaninah Maschler, transl. and ed., New York: Basic Books.

Romney, A. Kimball, R. N. Shepard, and Sara Beth Nerlove 1964 and Roy Goodwin D'Andrade eds. Transcultural Studies in Cognition. American An-

thropologist Special Publication 66, No. 3. Part 2. 1972 Multidimensional Scaling: Theory and Applications in the Behavioral Sciences. Vol. II:

Applications. New York: Seminar Press. Shankman, Paul

1969 Le Roti et Le Bouilli: L6vi-Strauss' Theory of Cannibalism. American Anthropologist 71:54-69.

Shepard, Roger N. 1962a The Analysis of Proximities: Multidimensional Scaling with an Unknown Distance of

Function, I. Psychometrika 27:125-140. 1962b The Analysis of Proximities: Multidimensional Scaling with an Unknown Distance Func-

tion, II. Psychometrika 27:219-246. 1974 Representation of Structure in Similarity Data: Problems and Prospects. Psychometrika

39:373-421. Spaulding, Albert C.

1953 Statistical Techniques for the Discovery of Artifact Types. American Antiquity 18:305- 313.

Sturtevant, William C. 1967 Seminole Men's Clothing. In Essays on the Verbal and Visual Arts: Proceedings of the

1966 Annual Spring Meeting of the American Ethnological Society. June Helm, ed. pp. 160-174. Seattle: University of Washington Press.

1968 Studies in Ethnoscience. In Theory in Anthropology: A Sourcebook. Robert A. Manners and David Kaplan, eds. pp. 475-500. Chicago: Aldine.

Tolstoy, Paul 1963 Cultural Parallels between Southeast Asia and Mesoamerica in the Manufacture of Bark

Cloth. Transactions of the New York Academy of Sciences, Ser. II, 25(6):646-662.


1966 Method in Long Range Comparison. Proceedings 36th International Congress of Ameri- canists, Seville, Spain, 1964. Vol. 1: 69-89.

Turner, Victor W. 1967 The Forest of Symbols: Aspects of Ndembu Ritual. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University

Press. 1969 The Ritual Process: Structure and Anti-Structure. Chicago: Aldine.

Tyler, Stephen A., ed. 1969 Cognitive Anthropology: Readings. New York: Holt.

Warren, Dennis M., and J. Kweku Andrews 1977 An Ethnoscientific Approach to Akan Arts and Aesthetics. Working Papers in the Tradi-

tional Arts, 3. Philadelphia: Ishi Press. Whallon, Robert, Jr.

1972 A New Approach to Pottery Typology. American Antiquity 37:13-33. Witherspoon, Gary

1977 Language and Art in the Navajo Universe. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Wolfe, Alvin W.

1969 Social Structural Bases of Art. Current Anthropology 10:3-44. Yalman, Nur

1967 The Raw: The Cooked::Nature:Culture Observations on Le Cru et le Cuit. In The Struc- tural Study of Myth and Totemism. ASA #5, Edmund Leach, ed., pp. 71-89. London: Tavistock.

Submitted 30 May 1980 Revised manuscrzpt submitted 28 May 1981 Accepted 5June 1981