SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY • NUMBER 35 The Flowering of Man A Tzotzil Botany of Zinacantan Volume I Dennis E. Breedlove and Robert M. Laughlin SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION PRESS Washington, D.C. 1993 AB STRACT Breedlove, Dennis E., and Robert M. Laughlin. The Flowering of Man: A Tzotzil Botany of Zinacantan. Smithsonian Contributions to Anthropology, number 35, 2 volumes, 706 pages, 52 figures, 3 maps, 10 appendices, 66 plates, 1993.—This encyclopedic presentation of the plant knowledge of the Trotzil-speaking Mayans of Zinacantan, in the highlands of the state of Chiapas, Mexico, is the fruit of 30 years' investigation, beginning in 1960. Dennis E. Breedlove, botanist, and Robert M. Laughlin, ethnologist, gained their information from many hundred men, women, and children. Seventy-three men and two women, representing 26 Zinacantec communities, were hired consultants. The total of 2686 Tzotzil names for generics, specifics, and varietals refers to Latin determinations of 1484 species with an additional 30 identifications by genus. Introductory chapters describe the methodology and provide the geographic, historic, cultural, and linguistic context for "the Flora." lohn B. Haviland details Zinacantec flower marketing. "The Flora" is organized by life form, set or isolate, genus, species, and variety, according to native taxonomic principles. A morphological description of each plant is followed by its cultural context. The appendices include tables of Mayan botanical name cognates, a survey of plant cultivation per hamlet, Tzotzil-Latin and Latin-Tzotzil indices, a Tzotzil plant name synonymy, a listing of plant uses,and a massive cultural omnibus, providing a broad range of Tzotzil vocabulary devoted to plants. Official PUBLICATION date is handstamped in a limited number of initial copies and is recorded in the Institution's annual report, Smithsonian Year. Cover DESIGN: floral embroidery on man's tunic. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Breedlove, Dennis Eugene. The flowering of man : a Tzotzil botany of Zinacantan / Dennis E. Breedlove and Robert M. Laughlin. p. cm.—(Smithsonian contributions to anthropology ; no. 35) Includes bibliographical references and index. 1. Tzotzil Indians—Ethnobotany. 2. Tzotzil Indians—Names. 3. Tzotzil Indians—Social life and customs. 4. Ethnobotany—Mexico—Zinacantan. 4. ZinacanliSn (Mexico)—Social life and customs. I. Laughlin, Robert M. II. Tide. III. Series. GNl.S54no. 35 [F1221.T9] 301 s—dc20 92-17800 [581.6T097275] CIP © The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of the American National Standard for Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials Z39.48—1984. Contents Volume I Page Epigraphs........................................ v Foreword, by Terence E. Hays............................. vi Acknowledgments, by Robert M. Laughlin...................... ix Key to Tzotzil Pronunciation, by Robert M. Laughlin............... xi Participants, by Robert M. Laughlin........................ xii From Beginning to End, by Robert M. Laughlin................... 1 Phytogeography of Zinacantan, by Dennis E. Breedlove............... 11 Into the Whirlwind, by Robert M. Laughlin...................... 19 Where Have All the Flowers Gone? by Robert M. Laughlin............. 31 Eating and Drinking, by Robert M. Laughlin..................... 37 On the Mend, by Robert M. Laughlin......................... 43 Dressing Our Lords, by Robert M. Laughlin..................... 45 For a Handful, a Fistful, by Robert M. Laughlin................... 49 Lordly Sunbeams, Lordly Shadows, by Robert M. Laughlin............. 67 Flowers for a Price, by lohn B. Haviland....................... 77 Poetic License, by Robert M. Laughlin........................101 What's in a Name? by Robert M. Laughlin......................109 The Flora, by Dennis E. Breedlove and Robert M. Laughlin.............113 "Vines"........................................117 "Trees"........................................142 "Plants" .......................................203 Literature Cited.....................................283 VOLUME II Appendices Appendix 1: Cultivated Plant Survey (1982-1983) and Gazetteer, by Robert M. Laughlin....................................287 Appendix 2: Mayan Plant Name Cognates and Notes, by Robert M. Laughlin . . 297 Appendix 3: Tzotzil-Latin, by Dennis E. Breedlove................315 Appendix 4: Latin-Tzotzil, by Dennis E. Breedlove................361 Appendix 5: Tzotzil Plant Name Synonymy, by Robert M. Laughlin......383 Appendix 6: Plant Use, by Robert M. Laughlin..................413 Appendix 7: Cultural Omnibus, by Robert M. Laughlin.............445 Appendix 8: Holy Cross Day Prayer (Tzotzil), as told to Robert M. Laughlin . . 585 Appendix 9: Colonial Dictionary, by Robert M. Laughlin............593 Appendix 10: Glossary of Botanical Terms, by Dennis E. Breedlove.......603 Plates 1-66.......................................609 General Index......................................675 Figures FRONTISPIECE: Floral embroidery on man's tunic, 1990................ xiv 1. The valley of Zinacantan Center, 1977....................... 3 2. The triumvirate and their safari, 1981....................... 7 3. Landscape northwest of Yaleb Taiv, 1977..................... 16 4. Landscape northwest of Yaleb Taiv, 1989..................... 17 iii SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY 5. Thatched roof house, Zinacantan Center, 1977.................. 20 6. Household accoutrements, 1977.......................... 21 7. Young weaver, 1977................................ 22 8. Weaving palm hat, 1977.............................. 23 9. Cold frames for chrysanthemums, Pat Osil, 1989................. 25 10. Scarlet runner bean harvest, October 1977.................... 39 11. Metate platform, 1977............................... 40 12. Decanting cane liquor, 1977............................ 41 13. Household altar, Zinacantan Center, 1977.................... 46 14. Christ on Good Friday, Naben Chauk, 1984................... 47 15. Breaking ground in Zinacantan Center, 1977.................. 68 16. Farmer with herbicide sprayer, 1983....................... 69 17. Flailing com in the highlands, 1976........................ 71 18. Lowland field house, corn harvest, 1976..................... 72 19. A walk in October 1977.............................. 75 20. All Saints* Day at the cemetery, Zinacantan Center, 1977............ 80 21. Arranging flower stall at the market, Tuxtla Gutierrez, 1983........... 87 22. Zinacantecs loading flowers at the lamaica Market, Mexico City, 1985..... 93 23. Tools (ax, machete, weed-clearing hook, billhook)................ 506 24. Tools (planting stick, rake, pick)......................... 507 25. Tools (weeding hoe, cultivating hoe)....................... 508 26. Sling........................................ 509 27. Mouse trap..................................... 509 28. Dove trap..................................... 510 29. Water gourd.................................... 511 30. Gourds (soul-recalling gourd, rattle gourd).................... 512 31. Ceremonial rattle................................. 512 32. Tobacco gourd................................... 513 33. Tortilla gourd................................... 513 34. Basket....................................... 514 35. Elderberry fence.................................. 532 36. Felled tree fence.................................. 533 37. Brush fence.................................... 533 38. Maguey fence................................... 533 39. Sod fence..................................... 534 40. Fences (stone fence, barbed wire fence)...................... 534 41. Gate and fence................................... 535 42. Stile ........................................ 535 43. Weaver in house yard............................... 536 44. Roof plan of traditional house: plan of tie beams................. 537 45. Elevation of house frame (posts, tie beam, roof beam plate, main roof beam)....................................... 538 46. Elevation of house frame (purlin, cross piece).................. 539 47. Roof plan of traditional house, A-frame and roof purlins in place........ 540 48. Roof plan with rafters in place.......................... 541 49. Roof plan with wattle in place........................... 542 50. Elevation of traditional house in construction................... 543 51. Block house in construction............................ 543 52. Modern house and yard.............................. 544 Maps 1. Chiapas....................................... 12 2. Zinacantan..................................... 13 3. Grijalva River Valley............................... 24 EPIGRAPHS What is ethnobotany? Is it the study of the flowering of man? Thomas Newby White III In order to amuse (Dr. lohnson) till dinner should be ready, he was taken out to walk in the garden. The master of the house, thinking it proper to introduce something scientifick into the conversation, addressed him thus: "Are you a botanist, Dr. lohnson?" "No, Sir (answered Johnson), I am not a botanist; and (alluding, no doubt, to his near-sightedness), should I wish to become a botanist, I must turn myself into a reptile." James Boswell One April day I had a talk with a native about the blue flowers which were abundant and in great variety at the side of the path. This was on the slope of a hill looking to the sea, about a mile from Mousehole. I saw a girl crossing a grass field, and as she was making for a gate opening on to the path, I waited for her and when she came out we went on together for some distance. But when I talked to her about the flowers growing in profusion by the hedge-side and along the borders of the path she assured me that she never looked at them and knew nothing about them. Well, yes, she did know three or four wild flowers by their names. "But surely," I said, "You must know these that are so common—these little blue flowers, for instance, what do you call them?" and I plucked a spray of speedwell. She said they were violets, and when I picked a violet and pointed out the difference in shape and size and colour she agreed that they were a little unlike when you looked at them, "but," she said, "we never look at them and we call all these little blue ones violets." "But," I persisted, "flowers are the most beautiful things on the earth and we all love and admire them and are glad to see them again in spring—surely you must know something more than you say about them—you must have been accustomed to gather them in your childhood." But she would not have it. "We never take notice of wild flowers," she said; "they are no use and we call them all violets—all these blue ones." And she pointed to the hedge-side, where there were violet, forget-me-not, bird's eye and ground-ivy all growing together. WH. Hudson May I pass before Thy flowery face, May I pass before Thy flowery eyes, Holy torches, Holy candles. For one moment, For two moments, I arrive kneeling, I arrive bending low, At the thresholds, At the altars, Of the holy fathers, The holy mothers, My flowery Father, My flowery Lord. Romin Teratol —Como estan las flores? M.W. Laughlin —Ya estamos floriendo! Xun Lopis Mentes (smiling broadly) Foreword From the chronicles of Herodotus, with their detailed notes on the food habits observed by him and other travelers, to the records of medicinal uses of plants compiled by Otto Brunfels and other pre-Linnaean medieval herbalists, and the token chapter or paragraphs on "subsistence behavior" in the most recent ethnographic report, beliefs and practices regarding plants have been a subject of long-standing interest in the wider study of human thought and behavior. The cumulative result is a vast body of information regarding people's relationships with the plant world, although for any given people our knowledge of their folk botany tends to be partial. With this book, the Tzotzil Maya join a handful of peoples for whom a comprehensive (if never complete) ethnobotany seems attainable. In North America, plant uses were the subject of many specialized studies in the early decades of the twentieth century, resulting largely from the "salvage ethnography" attempts by researchers from the Bureau of American Ethnology and by students in the Boas-Kroeber-Lowie tradition. These monographs typically consisted of two parts: an introductory section, describing the general ecological features of the area, with an ethnographic sketch of its aboriginal inhabitants; and the main section of the report, including a list of the economically useful plants found in the region, the "native name" for each of the plants, and a description of the plant lore and ways in which each was used in secular and ceremonial life. Such information was generally obtained by seeking out native speakers of the language concerned who also remembered the relevant details of social life, which often was no longer a living reality. The search frequently entailed the use of only one or a few informants (usually aged) who provided all that we will ever know, except for what archaeology might tell us, regarding the thoughts, beliefs, and behavior of populations sometimes numbering in the thousands. This utilization of few informants and reliance on "memory culture," both of which were unavoidable conditions of research in societies that had undergone radical changes, and sometimes near-extinction, in the nineteenth century, doubtless had significant effects on the quality as well as the quantity of the information obtained. Two further limitations, moreover, constrained ethnobotanical research of this kind by the very definitions of the problems it set for itself. The first of these restrictions derived from the selection of the focus of investigation, viz., plants that were utilized in "important" ways. Instead of investigating relationships with the plant world in a broad sense, "Classical Ethnobotany" had a much narrower, although legitimate, concern, and resembled what has come to be known as "Economic Botany." The second major internal restriction of these studies was rooted in their relegation of the investigation of linguistic and semantic aspects of plant knowledge to a minor place in the endeavor. Although "native names" for plants were collected and reported whenever possible, there was seldom shown any intensive concern with the conceptual systems of nomenclature and classification that underlay informants' labeling of plant specimens. The emphasis was nearly always on what people did with plants, rather than what they thought about them. A major turning point in ethnobotany was marked by Harold Conklin's doctoral dissertation at Yale University in 1954, "The Relation of Hanun6o Culture to the Plant World." There, and in subsequent published work, Conklin suggested a new program for the study of people's relationships with their botanical environments. The objective was to produce comprehensive and systematic descriptions of local floras as both biological and cultural phenomena, with ethnobotany inextricably embedded in ethnography. "Native names" for plants would no longer be mere appendages to information on plant uses, but would assume critical importance as both clues and tools for eliciting statements that, combined with first-hand observation of everyday life, would allow the ethnographer to vi NUMBER 35 construct models of how the natural world is conceptualized by those who live in it and draw sustenance (and not only of the physical kind) from it. With its emphasis on semantic analysis of terminological systems, and the modeling of culture as a system of concepts, categories, and rules or standards—including but not limited to those pertaining to plants—the "New Ethnobotany" emerged in the late 1950s and 1960s as one specialized focus within what would be called "Ethnoscience," "Ethnographic Semantics," and "the New Ethnography." One of the major arenas in which these new approaches were tested and refined was the state of Chiapas in the central highlands of Mexico, where Evon Z. Vogt's "Harvard Chiapas Project" was initiated in 1957, a "project" that would involve well over 100 fieldworkers over the next two decades and include collaborators from the University of Chicago, Stanford University, and the University of California at Berkeley and Irvine. Vogt's Harvard students and colleagues concentrated on the Tzotzil-speaking Maya communities near the ladino town of San Cristdbal de Las Casas, while the collaborators focused on their Tzeltal-speaking neighbors. Among the earliest of Vogt's fieldworkers was Robert M. Laughlin, who began his research in Zinacantan in 1959 and has been returning regularly ever since; indeed, as I write these remarks he is headed there on another field trip. As Laughlin relates in this book (p. 1), in 1963 he "resolved to compile a monumental dictionary of the Tzotzil language," to which his botanist colleague, Dennis E. Breedlove, responded: "How can you write a dictionary and leave out the plants?" Well, here are "the plants," but also much more. With his intimate knowledge of Zinacantec culture and everyday life, Laughlin realized that there was literally no end to "relevant material" in the pursuit of Tzotzil ethnobotany, conceived as "not merely the systematic study of the plant lore of a people, but rather a study of the flowering of man" (p. 5). And so more fieldwork was required—more plants to collect, more questions to ask, more texts to record, more activities to observe—and the stacks of cards and notebooks grew throughout the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s. During this time Breedlove also collaborated with another botanist, Peter H. Raven, and Brent Berlin, one of the Stanford ethnographers who was focusing on the ethnobotany of the Tenejapa Tzeltal neighbors of the Zinacantecs. That research resulted in the most influential series of early publications in "the New Ethnobotany," epitomized by the now-classic Principles of Tzeltal Plant Classification (Berlin, Breedlove, and Raven, 1974). Following the appearance of that book, Laughlin tells us (p. 9), he had in mind "a companion Tzotzil volume," but "soon this subject took on a life of its own." Although Berlin's work has always been characterized by the deep immersion in Tzeltal culture implied by the phrase "a botanical ethnography" in the subtitle of his book, one of his major concerns was with elucidating the folk classification and nomenclature system employed by the Tzeltal. For Laughlin, "native taxonomy was not our goal, but rather our vehicle for reaching a better understanding of native thought" (p. 9). Thus, "The Flora" that makes up the bulk of the present book is not organized simply as "a native taxonomy explained in ultimate detail," but as "an encyclopedia of botanical information, demonstrating simultaneously the flowers and the flowering of man in Zinacantan" (p. 9). But The Flowering of Man is even more than an encyclopedia. The best features of "Classical Ethnobotany" are incorporated as we are given remarkably detailed information on the complete flora of the region, including plant morphology, range, cultivation techniques (if applicable), and the "significance" of each plant for Zinacantecs, in both the secular and cosmological senses of the term. Sadly, we learn that much of the traditional folk knowledge of plants is disappearing rapidly, as is much of the vegetation itself and the Zinacantecs' direct utilization of their plant world. The past 25 years have been a period witnessing a "whirlwind of change" as the population has more than doubled, the economy has changed from its subsistence base to one oriented toward markets and money, and the society and culture have been radically transformed. Although the future of the Tzotzil may be uncertain, their past is reasonably well-known and it is documented herein, through v»l SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY Laughlin's historical scholarship and his and Breedlove's research in the community over a thirty-year period. Thus we have an invaluable record, not of a "memory culture" but of one that was lived, observed, and recorded. Throughout their decades of fieldwork, like Berlin and most practitioners of "ethnoscience," Laughlin and Breedlove have been appreciative of the heuristic value of formal elicitation and analytical methods, but also have been aware that these approaches must always be adjuncts to, rather than substitutes for, traditional ethnographic procedures, i.e., immersion in the language as it is spoken (and not merely elicited onto a tape recorder) and in everyday life as it is lived. The result is a richly contextualized systematic presentation of Tzotzil plant folk taxa and their interrelationships. The authors employ the analytic schema developed by Berlin and others, thereby adding another much-needed case to those now available from South America, New Guinea, Indonesia, and elsewhere, which have advanced our understanding of "universal" principles of folk biological classification and nomenclature and, in turn, general features of human cognition. Moreover, with such a comprehensive portrayal of Tzotzil folk botany, the prospects for controlled comparisons with that of the neighboring Tzeltal are obvious and exciting. Finally, there is the poetry of it all, both literally, in Laughlin's treatment of descriptive phrases and analogies showing the "poetic association between the flora and man, between the flora and the cosmos" (p. 95), and emergent in his sensitive renderings of Tzotzil texts, shamans' prayers, and the ethnographic portraits of "Lordly Sunbeams" and the like, which suffuse the narrative portions of the book. Given the now-sizeable ethnographic literature on Zinacantan produced by other members of the Chiapas Project, Laughlin seizes this opportunity to give us humanistically drawn capsules, inviting us ever deeper into the Tzotzil "experience" of their plant world. The Flowering of Man is, then, not only in part but in whole, a "cultural omnibus," combining Tzotzil economic botany, ethnoscience, and culture in the broadest sense: a melange whose hybrid vigor augurs the flowering of a "Newer Ethnobotany." Terence E. Hays Department of Anthropology and Geography Rhode Island College Providence, Rhode Island, 1991 Acknowledgments Through the years many members of the clerical staff of the Department of Anthropology at the Smithsonian Institution have fed seemingly endless revisions of multilingual text into their typewriters and word processors while, at the same time, keeping an itinerant curator in contact with his home base. For this we wish to give special thanks, in chronological order, to Paula Cardwell, Karen Willson, Laurice Stewart, Darla Hawkins, Maria Catala, Helen Morrill, Denise Hughes, Lawan Tyson, and Joyce Sommers. Johanna Humphrey, also of the Department of Anthropology, with the aid of Dale Child and Hazel I. Bobb, has been most helpful in transferring this material to computer diskettes and preparing indexes. Early documents included in this study were consulted in the Latin American Library, Tulane University, and the Archivo Historico Diocesano de San Crist6bal. We are indebted to Barbara Keller, who for over 12 years has been indispensable to us in keeping all the plant identification records and transferring them to the manuscript. Without her there could not be a Flowering of Man. In our search for Mayan plant name cognates, we are indebted to the anthropologists and linguists who kindly made their word lists available to us. Terrence Kaufman's huge store of vocabularies collected by himself and by colleagues in the Proyecto Lingufstico Francisco Marroqufn added cognates from many Mayan languages. Brent Berlin, Victoria Bricker, Nicholas Hopkins, and Kathryn Josserand generously responded to our pleas for more names. Over the years a great number of professional botanists have helped with identification of plants in their respective areas of interest. These annotated specimens have been valuable sources of reference in the preparation of the treatment. In particular we thank F. Almeda, California Academy of Sciences (Melastomataceae, Symplocaceae); WR. Anderson, (Malpighiaceae, Rubiaceae); R. Barneby, New York Botanical Garden (Astragalus, Cassia, Chamaecrista, Dalea, Marina, Senna); B. Bartholomew, California Academy of Sciences (Theaceae); D. Bates, Cornell University (Malvales); J. Beaman, Michigan State University (Caryophyllaceae); M. Bourell, California Academy of Sciences (Bryophyta); H. Bravo, Instituto de Biologia, UNAM (Cactaceae); C.R. Broome, University of Maryland (Centaurium); W Burger, Chicago Natural History Museum (Piperaceae); K. Burt-Utley, University of New Orleans (Begoniaceae); L. Constance, University of California, Berkeley (Hydrophyllaceae, Apiaceae); Thomas Croat, Missouri Botanical Garden (Araceae, Sapindaceae); T.F. Daniel, California Academy of Sciences (Acanthaceae); G. Davidse, Missouri Botanical Garden (Poaceae); A. Day, California Academy of Sciences (Polemoniaceae); A. Delgado S., Instituto de Biologia, UNAM (Phaseolus, Vigna); D. Denham, Boulder, Colorado (Gesneriaceae); M. Denton, University of Washington (Oxalis); T. Duncan, University of California, Berkeley (Ranunculus); J.A. Dwyer, St. Louis University (Rubiaceae); F. Ehrendorfer, Botanisches Institut der Universitat, Wien (Galium); C. Epling, deceased (Labiatae); C. Etienne, Santa Rosa (Polygalaceae); R.C. Foster, Harvard University (Sisyrinchium); P.A. Fryxell, Texas A & M University (Malvales); A. Gentry, Missouri Botanical Garden (Bignoniaceae); H.S. Gentry, Desert Botanical Garden (Agave, Phaseolus); T. German, Instituto de Biologia, UNAM (Galactia); F.W Gould, deceased (Poaceae); S. Graham, Kent State University (Cuphea); R. Grether G., UAMIZ (Mimosa); WL. Handlos, Bailey Hortorium (Tripogandra); F.J. Hermann, U.S. Forest Service Herbarium (Carex, Juncaceae); H. Hernandez M., Instituto de Biologia, UNAM (Calliandra); M. Hurt, Missouri Botanical Garden (Euphorbiaceae and Eriocaulaceae, Smilax); P.C. Hutchinson, Escondido, California (Cactaceae); H. Utis, University of Wisconsin (Capparidaceae); H.S. Irwin, New IX SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY York Botanical Garden (Cassia); C. Jeffrey, Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew (Cucurbita- ceae); M. Johnston, University of Texas, Austin (Rhamnaceae); B.T. Keller, California Academy of Sciences (Actinidiaceae and Dilleniaceae); H. Kennedy, Harold L. Lyon Arboretum (Marantaceae); M. Kimnach, Huntington Botanical Garden (Cactaceae, Crassulaceae); T. Koyama, New York Botanical Garden (Cyperaceae except Carex); B.A. Krukoff, deceased (Erythrina, Menispermaceae); J. Kuijt, University of Lethbridge (Loranthaceae); L.R. Landrum, Arizona State University (Myrtaceae); M. Lavin, University of Texas (Cracca); D. Lorence, Pacific Tropical Garden (Monimiaceae and Rubiaceae); C.L. Lundell, University of Texas, Dallas (Myrsinaceae, Myrtaceae, many other miscellaneous families); B. Maguire, New York Botanical Garden (Cusia); D. Mally, California Academy of Sciences (Orchidaceae); PC. Mangelsdorf, Harvard University (races of maize); E. McClintock, University of California, Berkeley (ornamentals, Saxifragaceae); R. McVaugh, University of Michigan (Asteraceae, Lobeliaceae, Burser- aceae, Rosaceae, Euphorbiaceae); F. Meyer, U.S. National Arboretum (Valeriana, Magnolia); H.N. Moldenke, Oregon (Eriocaulaceae, Verbenaceae); E. Molseed, deceased (Iradaceae, except Sisyrinchium); H.E. Moore, deceased (Geraniaceae, Arecaceae); Reid Moran, San Diego Natural History Museum (Crassulaceae); R.A. Moreno, Instituto de Biologia, (Crotalaria); C.V Morton, deceased (ferns, Smilax, Solanum); C.H. Muller, University of California, Santa Barbara (Quercus); D. Neill, Missoui Botanical Garden (Erythrina); L.I. Nevling, Chicago Natural History Museum (Thymelaeaceae); R. Ornduff, University of California, Berkeley (Nymphoides); Timothy Plowman, deceased (Erythrox- ylaceae, Brunfelsia); T.P. Ramamoorthy, Instituto de Biologia, UNAM (Lamiaceae, Ludwigia); P.H. Raven, Missouri Botanical Garden (Onagraceae); K.H. Rechinger, Naturhistorisches Museum, Wien (Rumex); C. Reeder, University of Arizona (Muhlenber- gia, Sporobolus); L. Rico A., Instituto de Biologia, UNAM (Acacia, Pithecellobium); CM. Rogers, Wayne State University (Linum); R.C. Rollins, Harvard University (Cruciferae); V. Rudd, California State University, Northridge (Fabaceae); J. Rzedowski, Instituto Politecnico Nacional, Mexico, D.F. (miscellaneous monocotyledons); J. Sauer, University of California, Los Angeles (Phytolaccaceae, Amaranthus); B. Schubert, Arnold Arboretum (Desmodium, Dioscorea); E.E. Sherff, deceased (Asteraceae, Coreopsidinae); L. Shinners, deceased (Convolvulaceae); C. Soto E., Instituto de Biologia, UNAM (Crotalaria); M. Sousa S., Instituto de Biologia, UNAM (Fabaceae); A.R. Smith, University of California, Berkeley (pteridophytes); L.B. Smith, National Museum of Natural History (Bromeliaceae, Begonia); H.C.M. Snelders, Utrecht (Burmanniaceae); T. Soderstrom, deceased (Poaceae, bamboos); J.A. Steyermark, Instituto Botinico, Caracas (Rubiaceae); J.L. Strother, University of California, Berkeley (Asteraceae); O. T611ez V, Instituto de Biologia, UNAM (Tephrosia, Dioscorea); R. Torres C, Instituto de Biologia, UNAM (Bauhinia); G. Tucker, Duke University (Cyperaceae); B.L. Turner, University of Texas, Austin (Asteraceae); J.F. Utley, University of New Orleans (Bromeliaceae); H.A. Wahl, Pennsylvania State University (Chenopodium); G. Wallace, Los Angeles State and County Arboretum (Monotropaceae); D. Wasshaussen, National Museum of Natural History (Acanthaceae); U.T. Waterfall, deceased (Physalis); R.E. Weaver, Arnold Arboretum (Lisianthius); G. Webster, University of Calfornia, Davis (Euphorbiaceae); T. Wendt, Herbario-Horatio, Escuela Nacional de Agricultura, Chapingo, Mexico (Polyga- laceae); L.O. Williams, Chicago Natural History Museum (Orchidaceae and many families done in conjunction with the Flora of Guatemala); D.R. Windier, Towson State University (Crotalaria, Neptunia); R.P. Wunderlin, University of South Florida (Bauhinia); J. Wurdack, National Museum of Natural History (Melastomataceae); S. Zarate P., Instituto de Biologia, UNAM (Leucaena). J.F. Copp of La Jolla, California, has consistantly helped with transport of specimens and material to and from the field. To provide the botanical sets with visual evidence, Terry Bell labored for a decade with infinite patience and artistry, transposing dried leaves and flowers and fleshy fruits to our plates. NUMBER 35 Antun Teratol kindly lent us his tunic to be photographed by Douglas Bryant for the frontispiece. Thor Anderson's illustrations faithfully dramatize the human setting of the flora of Zinacantin. For their insights on culture change we are indebted to Frank Cancian, George Collier, and Daniel Mountjoy. John Haviland has put this human setting into motion. The authors' absences and presences, unpredictable as well as predictable, were suffered by their wives, Nancy Breedlove and Mimi Laughlin, with amazing grace. Their encouragement in this quixotic search for truth, for many truths, spurred us on and brought us home. Financial support for this study was provided by the California Academy of Sciences and by the Smithsonian Institution through Fluid Research Fund awards, the Research Opportunities Fund, the Scholarly Studies Program, the Spencer Fullerton Baird Fund, and the Walcott Research Fund. Additional funding was provided by the National Geographic Society. A special thanks to Thomas, Marian, and Sarah Tilton for their help and support throughout the project. Whatever truths are reported in this book were provided knowingly and unknowingly by our Zinacantec participants, particularly by Maryan Martinis who always knew he had the last word. Robert M. Laughlin 1990 Key to Tzotzil Pronunciation There are five Tzotzil vowels, a, e, i, o, u, pronounced as in Spanish. When they occur initially in a word they are pre-glottalized; that is, they begin abruptly, as in German. The following consonants are pronounced as in English: ch, (d, f, g, Spanish loans), k, 1, m, n, p, s, t, and y. J is pronounced as h in English, tz as ts, x as sh, and r as in Spanish r, "pero." V is pronounced as in English, except when occurring in Spanish loan words that in Tzotzil form consonant clusters, such as kv (kventa), jv (jveves), when it is pronounced as a w. W occurs in only one loan word of unknown origin, wapo. ' is a glottal stop, pronounced as a "catch" in the voice, such as in uh-oh, or Hawai'i. The glottal catch combines with other consonants to form the glottalized consonants ch', k', p', t', and tz'. B is also a glottalized consonant. When b occurs before another consonant, or finally, it is pronounced as a pre-glottalized m. Stress is marked on three-syllable Spanish loans, otherwise it falls on the root syllable. The alphabetical order for Tzotzil is given as follows: a,', b, ch, ch', d, e, f, g, i, j, k, k', 1, m, n, o, p, p', r, s, t, t', tz, tz', u, v, x, and y. xii SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY Participants The participants in this encyclopedic venture number many hundreds: men, women, and children, the majority of these were unwitting contributors who, by a chance remark, added another bit of information. Seventy-five individuals, representing 26 communities, were paid for their efforts. Because of the aura of suspicion aroused by taking a woman "into the woods" we hired only two women, on one occasion, as plant collectors. Consequently the source of our information is heavily weighted on the male side. Initial training in plant collecting was provided by j'Alux Mentes Ton of Tenejapa, who had been the principal consultant of Berlin and Breedlove. Xun Lopis Mentes of Chamula provided many leads for further investigation. The persons named below served either as plant collectors or, being religious officials, had special knowledge of the plants used for church and chapel decoration. Many of the former spent hours in the preparation of plants and the supplying of knowledge about them. Fifty were from highland communities, 24 from temperate communities, and three from the lowlands (two of whom also provided information from the highlands). They varied in age from 18 years to their mid-sixties, but most were in their thirties or forties. Of these, four began working with us in the first stage of plant identification (1966) and resumed work in the second stage (1978-1980s). It is noteworthy, perhaps, that of the eight contributors who were shamans, five became so after engaging in extensive plant collecting. Throughout the years of our research, Maryan Martinis, native of the upper end of Zinacantan Center, has been number one (as identified in Laughlin 1975). At the age of 35, when we initiated our project, he already possessed a remarkable storage of knowledge concerning the flora: plant habitats, morphology, growth, cultivation, and use. He was a fearless explorer who loved the challenge of penetrating every corner of the township, no matter how forbidding. He was undaunted by the steepest slopes and the most hostile residents. As team leader he would let no "new" plant go uncollected. With careful attention to detail and great economy he could describe and define hundreds of plants. This same keenness was ever present in his efforts to iron out our bewilderment and untangle our misperceptions. His fierce appearance was belied by a shrewd, canny sense of humor. It is no wonder that this man became an unofficial lawyer for the town, and later rose rapidly through the religious hierarchy, reaching the pinnacle of grand alcalde before his mid-fifties. The ascent of Maryan Martinis was financed not only by us, but also by sensible, large-scale corn farming, by flower cultivation, and by the sale of flowers and fruits in Tuxtla Gutierrez. During our last plant collecting expedition he slyly confessed his entrance into shamanhood. Note: In the list below, (1) = 1966; (2) = 1978-1980; (1,2) = both 1966 and 1978-1980). Community Personnel Apas (1) Antun Tanjol, Maryan Emantis, Telex Xulub Te'; (2) Manvel Perez Sanchez Atz'am (Vo'-bitz) (1) Chep Boch, Markux Xantis; (2) Lol Sanches Ernandes, Romin Sanches Ernandes Bik'it Joyijel (2) Maryan Vaskes Ernandes, Xun Ernandes Vaskes Chak Toj (2) Martin Vaskes Lopes Chaynatik (1,2) Xun Konte Chikinibal Vo' (2) Maryan Lopes Peres Elan Vo' (1) Xun Lopis; (2) Maryan Chiku' Jech Toch' (2) Maryan Jimenes Lopes Jok' Ch'enom (1) Mikel Konte; (2) Maryan Emantis, Xun Montejo Ernandes NUMBER 35 Jtek Lum Kelem Ton Mas an Muk'ta Jok' Na Chij Naben Chauk Paste' Pat Osil Petz Toj P'ij Sak Lum San Mikulax Santa Rosa Sek'emtik Selva Stzellejtik (in Vo'-ch'oj Vo' Alto) (in Vo'-ch'oj Vo' Bajo) (1) Maryan Peres Mochilum, Romin Teratol; (1,2) Antzelmo Peres Peres, Chep Emantis; (2) Loxa Krus, Maryan Teratol, Matal Lopis Tanchak, Rafael Peres Ramires, Xun Teratol Lopis 2) Antun(?) 2) Xun Tanchak 1) Manvel Ximenes; (2) Markux Ernandes Peres 1) Chep Peres, Maryan Vaskis; (2) Manvel Peres Peres 1) Mikel Vaskis; (2) Antun Vaskes, Manvel Vaskes Peres, Maryan Peres Buluch, Mikel Peres Peres, Petul Uch, PetuI Vaskes 1) Maryan Xulub Te'; (2) Manvel Ernandes Peres, Martin Lopes Lopes, Romin Lopes Vaskes 1) Palas Xut; (2) Maryan de la Krus Peres, Petul de la Krus Ernandes 2) Xun Ernandes Konsares 2) Antun Vaskes 2) Antun Giyen Peres, Antun Giyen Peres, Manvel Giyen Peres, Xun Sanches Peres 2) Antun Xilon Ernandes, Lol Xilon Peres, Manvel Gomes Selestino, Xap Gomes Peres 2) Petul Uch, Xun Teratol Lopes 1) Antun Vaskis; (2) Lol Peres Asyenta, Lukax Montejo Sanches, Romin Peres, Telex Vaskes Peres 2) Marselino Gomes Ernandes, Palas Gomes, Ernandes 2) Matyo Tanchak, Palas Muchik 1) Maryan Chiku', Maryan Sarate; (1,2) Maryan Martinis; (2) Petul Gonsales Peres, Xun Peres Peres, Xun Vaskes FRONTISPIECE.—Floral embroidery on man's tunic, 1990. The Flowering of Man A Tzotzil Botany of Zinacantan Volume I Dennis E. Breedlove and Robert M. Laughlin From Beginning to End A Personal Reminiscence by Robert M. Laughlin The Old Look It could not have been more inauspicious—the beginning of all this. Day after day I sat in Zinacantan in the dark of my host's thatched roof house dumbly trying to grasp the torrent of Tzotzil sounds. My desperation to stretch my legs, to escape the compound, inspired a new tactic: Learn plant names! A dusty box of mostly sterile specimens sits in my Washington office, testament to my first botanical failure. Although the Zinacantecs accorded each of these bits of leaves and twigs a confusing multitude of names, the Smithsonian scholars claimed they could not be named at all! Hoping to give focus to my fieldwork in Chiapas, my project director, Evon Vogt, suggested I study the economic basis of Zinacantan—corn cultivation. But I fled into the world of myths and dreams. Four years later, in 1963, I resolved to compile a monumental dictionary of the Tzotzil language. Systematic compilation continued for three years, producing thousands of words. With a sigh of relief I decided the end was near. At this very time Dennis Breedlove was deeply involved with Brent Berlin and Peter Raven in their equally monumental ethnobo- tanic study of the neighboring Tzeltal Indians of Tenejapa. Perhaps I was celebrating my conclusion. "How can you write a dictionary and leave out the plants?" Dennis asked me accusingly. My feeble remonstrations prompted an immediate offer to provide equipment, training for myself and my plant collectors, followed by shipment and identification of my specimens. How could I refuse? Dennis E. Breedlove, Department of Botany, California Academy of Sciences, Golden Gate Park, San Francisco, California 94118. Robert M. Laughlin, Department of Anthropology, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. 20560. Because a description of my ethnobotanical efforts was provided in the introduction to my dictionary (Laughlin, 1975) I will draw freely from that source. As a first step to arouse the interest of my Indian colleagues in botanical collecting and to give me some idea of the scope of the Tzotzil botanical lexicon, I asked four men from Zinacantin Center to write separate lists of all the plant names they could recall. Combining the results of their one day's endeavor produced a master list of over 650 names! The multiplicity was surprising, for Zinacantecs are far less dependent on unculti- vated plants than the neighboring Tenejapanecs or even Chamulas. The first collections were made on 14 February 1966. In an effort to assure some control over the naming procedure, the original team of from two to four collectors was comprised of residents of the ceremonial center only. Whenever possible, they collected an original and three copies of all plants in fruit and flower from each of the major habitats. The specimens were named separately by the collectors, numbered, and dried. A file of plant lore was developed with the aid of the following questionnaire, which I asked my collectors to apply to every plant soon after an example of it was secured. 1. What is it called? If it has another name, where do they use that name? 2. Have you heard stories about why it was named that? 3. If you don't know its name, what is it like? 4. Is it a tree, a plant, a vine, or not any of these? 5. Is there a form -tik or -altik? (expanse or large expanse of). 6. Where does it grow: in the highlands, temperate zone, or lowlands? SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY 7. Where does it grow: in the yard, in the woods, in fields, etc.? 8. Is it cultivated? When? How? Who does it? 9. What part of it is used? 10. Who uses it? 11. What is it used for? 12. Is it "cold" or "hot"? 13. What effect does it have? 14. How is it gathered? Who brings it? When? Is it bought or gathered? 15. How many are used? 16. How is it prepared? 17. Is it used alone or is there another ingredient? If so, what is it? 18. How is it taken? 19. How much is drunk? After meals or not? 20. When is it used? If it is medicine, how often is it taken? 21. Is it the preferred kind? If not, what is? 22. If it is poisonous, what remedy is there? At the end of five months, overweening pride goaded me to try to determine whether my team's essential agreement on plant names and uses was shared by members of the outlying hamlets. Together, we chose individuals whom we thought would be knowledgeable. Several were shamans. Obvious ignoramuses were speedily replaced. Before collecting, each initiate was asked to name all of the plants that he could. His knowledge was tested against the master list from Zinacantan Center to fill out his own list and to spot variant pronunciations. On a rotating basis the additional collectors, ideally one from each of the major hamlets, accompanied by one or two from the original team, collected through January 1967. They, too, were asked to identify the plants and to respond to the items in the questionnaire. Over 3000 numbered specimens were obtained, of which several were species new to science; 1170 species were represented, as well as another 100 identifications at the generic level. Examples for nearly every one of the plant names on the master list were secured, and so the collection was comprehensive both from the botanical and lexical point of view. This dry account gives no hint of the pleasures of plant collecting: the mornings spent in crisp pine forests and along torrid lowland stream beds, the nights beneath giant fig trees, the dizzying verbal duels as we sorted and prepared the plants for drying. Nor does it hint at the problems: the collectors sunk deep in hangovers, the collectors who, rather than wrinkling their pants, would rely on me to bother climbing a tree to wrench down a spectacular orchid. Imagine a collecting party: myself, three veteran teammates from the Center, and three hamlet beginners. Everyone has been instructed that I only want genuine names, and that unfamiliarity with the plant should cause no concern. First, the beginners would be asked to name each plant. If they answered, "I don't know," four or five times, the veterans would begin exchanging superior winks. After the first 15 minutes of collecting, no plant was ever left unnamed. An enormous lexicon of several thousand names was created with extreme variations from one individual to the next. Some control was provided by having the members of the original team all from Zinacantan Center and by collecting in the same localities many times throughout the year. The variations seldom could be explained by noting the origins of the collectors, nor was it a simple question of the ignorance or wisdom of the collector, though this was a critical, but elusive factor. The impact of group dynamics upon the choice of plant names was terrible to behold. Of paramount importance was the social criteria of the collector within the team, such as his age or bonds of friendship. Social position and temperament often determined who would align with whom in assigning which names. Efforts to prevent collectors from influencing their colleagues' decisions frequently were unsuccessful. Even so, there was substantial agreement on culturally significant plants. Having completed a year of collecting in January 1967, I returned to the "States" (USA). The botanical information, written in three languages, by various collaborators, formed a small mountain of lined paper pads, graph sheets, and typed lists, which had to be thoroughly threshed, sifted, and weighed. I had to decide which plant names were genuine and which spurious. Phone calls to Dennis in California were frequent. As the botanical identifications came trickling in, the Latin names and the common English names had to be matched with all their Tzotzil equivalents. An endless shuffling of cards filled every day from dawn to dark. As we slowly began to impose some order on the material, I became obsessed with doubts about the value of my collection. I was well aware that a project that had brought together 3000 specimens, 22 informants not always sober, and countless thousands of names would demonstrate inconsistencies. I was haunted by an experiment I had tried just before I left Chiapas. No plant is more central to Zinacantec culture than com. Everyone grows com, everyone talks about com, everyone depends upon com for survival. My collaborators from Zinacantan Center collected 20 ears of com that they claimed were different from each other and which they called by different names. I strung the ears up across the room and brought in five men, each from a different hamlet. I asked them to name the com. They were free to handle the ears, chip off kernels, and so forth. If each informant had assigned a different name to each ear there would be 100 names. For these 20 ears that Paul Mangelsdorf assigned to 16 races the team provided 47 different Tzotzil names. Forty-one descriptive terms of such features as shape, color, habitat, season, and size were used to produce a majority of the distinctive names. Despite this extraordinary diversity, which might lead one to believe that these men were thoroughly confused by the array of com—and they confessed bewilderment at the time—not a single one mistook an ear of highland com for an ear of lowland com, whereas the mistakes in identifying temperate com that grows in the foothills only confirmed its intermediate quality. NUMBER 35 FIGURE 1.—The valley of Zinacantan Center, 1977. (Photo by John Swope.) Subsequent tests I performed in the "States" on professors and students only confirmed my fears that we lead our lives quite acceptably, undaunted by our prodigious ignorance about much that surrounds us. American testees coped no better identifying cars than bugs, cereals than vegetables. In compari- son, the Zinacantec farmers had excelled. Why should I worry? But I did! During the plant collecting enterprise I had watched with fascination, but also with horror, the development of a complex Tzotzil botanical taxonomy. My fellow collectors, confronted with hundreds of weeds that they had never paid the SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY least attention to, became expert taxonomists, adept at distinguishing fine-grained differences in form and habitat, and applying names accordingly. The Tzotzil life forms ("vine," "tree," "plant") and generics were unaffected, but the specific and varietal names were a tribute to the perceptivity and inventiveness of teams of Tzotzil botanists. Simultaneously, my anthropology colleagues (including Brent Berlin in Tenejapa) were engaged in discovering native taxonomies by means of "contrast level" studies and the elaboration of semantic dimension keys. The mapping of native words in hierarchies of different levels of generality—life form, genus, species, and variety—seemed entirely reasonable and incumbent upon me as I entered the plant names in the dictionary. I balked, however, at using keys, and called on natural scientists to back me up (Bulmer and Tyler, 1968:353): In so far as Karam informants are prepared to construct artificial keys at the behest of the anthropologist, or even, possibly, instructing their children (we have no evidence on this point), the characters which they consciously draw attention to may, in fact, only constitute a very small part of the total configuration which is the basis for the informant's actual recognition of examples of particular specimens. As Simpson puts it, such, "non-technical recogniton— identification—is normally not by...separate characters but by a mental image of the whole animal." Another technique that achieved its best results here in the highlands of Chiapas was "programmed specification," where native phrases and statements were carefully manipulated in a question and answer form "to elicit further statements about a given topic in a way that preserves as much of the native thought pattern as possible" (Colby, 1966:17). Although I appreciated the sophistication and precision of this method, which often illuminated the structure of segments of native thought, I was constrained by temperament from subduing either myself or my fellow lexicographers to such inexorable rigors. Even the very simple questionnaire that we used to derive plant lore soon proved frustrating. Some of the questions (2, 7, 10, 13, 21) evoked automatic answers or no answer at all. Others (15, 19) demanded a specificity that I didn't believe was real. For most herbal cures there is no traditionally accepted formula for the prescriptions nor for the quantity nor schedule of application. As the dictionary went to press I was dogged by two major concerns regarding the botanical material: (1) the reliability of the entries, and (2) the cultural relevance of taxonomy. Addressing the first concern, I commented (Laughlin, 1975:16): An informant's consistency can only be tested by multiple collections. The five botanists from Zinacantan Center collected an average of 1400 plants. Ten of the hamlet botanists collected an average of 380 plants, but even with this high number, multiple collections of a single plant cluster around the commonest plants. Not only must many collections be made, but there must be many collectors. This is of utmost consequence in ethnoscientific studies. Nearly three years passed before 80% of my specimens were identified and this was achieved under inconceivably favorable circumstances. Unless the investigator combines a comprehensive knowledge of plants in general, with a specific knowledge of the flora of the particular area, he must wait for the specimens to be identified by a host of specialists in various herbaria. Few botanists wield such control, and certainly no anthropologist. Without the Latin referent, it is difficult to know which questions to ask. Knowing now that Zinacantecs use five different names for one species of mallow I could ask more pointed questions, but even then I would have to collect new specimens as vouchers, because my original dried specimens would be too greatly altered in form to be recognized by informants. And then I would have to wait for the new specimens to be identified to be sure that we had collected the same species. Only because of the uniquely comprehensive study by Berlin, Breedlove, and Raven of ethnobotany in the closely allied language, Tzeltal, is my data susceptible to some verification. And I closed my remarks with (Laughlin, 1975:16-17): As a last remonstrance, I would like to add the observations of two students of Navajo linguistic behavior. They point out that any domain can be classified in a multiplicity of ways, that a "people's perception of their culture is not always shown by taxonomy." They "suggest that eth- noscience should focus its attention on the total system of lexical semantic relationships in the cultural universe—not merely on the taxonomic one" (Perchonock and Werner, 1969:237). How that should be done is not suggested by them nor will it be by me! Mulberry Street After relinquishing my ethnobotanical responsibilities so jauntily, it seems scarcely possible that just two years later, in 1975, Dennis and I were at it again: We reasoned that it would make good sense, for the benefit of botanists, to simply extract the plant entries from the dictionary and publish them separately, fortified with an introduction by Breedlove. But skimming through the dictionary pages I was reminded that a vast amount of botanical information was scattered throughout. In addition to the entries that referred specifically to plant morphology, agricultural techniques, tools, etc., relevant material was buried within the definitions. For instance, examples had been given for verbs and adjectives, as nulilan, "keep gnawing or eating clean /bone, corncob, mango pit/, keep chopping at (with dull axe or billhook)" (Laughlin, 1975:259), tomk'in, "break badly /cornstalk, leg, arm/" (Laughlin, 1975:343), sak-yoman, "white (face of invalid, flowers, dried weeds)" (Laughlin, 1975:304). Why not add a glossary? So I spent the next months scouring the dictionary and cataloging the terms. NUMBER 35 The next notion was far more treacherous. It involved the addition of considerable botanical material that I had excluded deliberately from the dictionary: yit'ix names. When the attributive, yit'ix, literally, "jealous," is placed before a plant name it denotes that the plant in question is similar to the named plant. The English attributives, "bastard," and "false," are comparable except that they specify a single species as, "bastard evening primrose," whereas yit'ix can be freely tacked onto the name of any plant with similar features. Although these are not true names, they obviously are of critical value in establishing relationships between plants. And so, all these names had to be added to the Tzotzil-Latin, Latin-Tzotzil card files that had been created for the production of the dictionary. There existed still another set of information relative to an ethnobotany. Years before, at Dennis' suggestion, when we made the plant collections, I had recorded what name had been assigned to every plant by each member of the team. From the field notes I extracted now the number of times each named plant had been collected and how many people had identified it. The total of plant identifications was roughly 10,000! This led us inexorably to the conclusion that we had amassed for ourselves an enormous responsibility that obliged us to return to "the field" to set our record straight, generating a Tzotzil ethnobotany that would rival in understanding and rigorous elegance the monumental Principles of Tzeltal Plant Classification (Berlin et al., 1974). Now it became our task to convince our home institutions, and eventually the National Geographic Society, that our forays to Zinacantan merited their dollars! And so was spawned a series of modest proposals. In 1978, after a previous month- long joint endeavor, I opined that "a short field session" would do the trick—"fill in the gaps and provide solutions to taxonomic problems." Four years later I proposed "a final three-month field session." And now, in January 1987, I find myself still ensconced in "the field." My procession of proposals, modest financially, glowed with vainglorious descriptions of our past achievements: "Never before have two related systems of native taxonomy been examined and compared with the depth and breadth of knowledge that can be marshalled by the principal investigators of this project." For the future flowering of our study I promised everything: Introductory chapters will describe the geographic, botani- cal, and human setting, the economic, aesthetic, and ritual use of the flora, the methods of collection and interviewing, and the classificatory principles of the native taxonomic system. Because the research methods of the Tzeltal study have been outlined in print so meticulously, they will not require lengthy discussion in this study. Greater emphasis will be placed on the medicinal, symbolic, and ritual aspects of plants in Tzotzil culture. And as previous work among both the Tzeltal and Tzotzil have concentrated exclusively on men's plant knowledge, an attempt will be made to interview female weavers and midwives. It will be the purpose of the introductory chapters to demonstrate that ethnobotany is not merely the systematic study of the plant lore of a people, but rather a study of the flowering of man. In presenting the human habitat of the flora it will become abundantly clear that "the worlds in which different societies live are distinct worlds—not merely the same world with different labels attached" (Sapir, 1929:209). This from the 1978 draft. Two years later: We will investigate the functional aspect of the taxonomy, going beyond the "whats" to the "whys." This project aims, then, to provide not only a detailed description of native plant taxonomy and use, but an exploration in depth of native world view. Then from the 1981 draft: ... we may consider investigating the economic aspects of Zinacantec cultivation and marketing. And to think that I saw it on Mulberry Street!1 So much for the visions. What were the attainments? Or, first, what intentions did we disregard? We abandoned our plan to compare the Tzotzil and Tzeltal taxonomic systems, deciding to leave that for some other ethnoscientist. Nor did we compare the cultural significance of plants in Tenejapa and Zinacantan as Brent Berlin's and my focus of attention had not been identical, and Tenejapa shamans had been reluctant to reveal their medical knowledge. I failed to interview female midwives and weavers, partly from shyness or laziness, and partly because of my inability to identify immediately the plants that would be involved. The proscription against taking women "into the woods" caused our title to be more literally true than we had intended or desired! We carefully sidestepped an in-depth study of the functional aspect of the taxonomy, preferring to treat it simply as a convenient way for the Zinacantecs and ourselves to discuss the flora. Unprincipled perhaps? Considerable investigation has already been made of traditional Zinacantec cultivation and marketing (Bunnin, 1966; Cancian, 1965, 1972; Collier, 1975). Enormously complex changes have occurred under government stimulus, and so a thorough update would have required a major study, requiring sophisticated economic expertise not available to us. Consequently, we chose to narrow our concentration and asked John Haviland to provide a description of the dynamics of the flower industry. In my pleas for financial support I was quick to point out the urgency of our research: It has become abundantly clear that the younger generation, because of truck transportation, does not know a quarter of what is known by the elders or by even the middle-aged people. This makes it all the more important to gather 'This refers to the outlandish vision of Theodor Seuss Geisel ("Dr. Seuss") in his And to Think That I Saw It on Mulberry Street (New York: The Vanguard Press). SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY botanical information which may be returned to the people (1981). In the past five years the environment, both natural and cultural, has changed at an ever more accelerating rate. Population pressure and industrial greed have brought the decimation of the forests and the reduction of arable land available to Indians. This, together with inflation and bilingualism, is propelling the younger generation out of their cornfields and into the oil fields. Traditional knowl- edge of the natural world, preserved only orally, is receding rapidly as modem civilization, with its factory-made materials for clothing, shelter, transport, agriculture, health, education, and even ritual decoration, advances apace, changing forever the relationship between man and nature (1982). Fortunately our pleas reached sympathetic ears! The New Look Confident that the native taxonomy of the Tzotzil flora would resemble closely the Tzeltal model, our first task on returning to Chiapas in 1976 was to try to discover some order in our mass of plant names. Although we eschewed folk keys and triad tests, we did use a modified paired comparison technique. Two of the most reliable members of the original collecting team (Antzelmo Peres and Chep Atz'am) were presented with stacks of cards. Each card contained a single plant name. I asked my colleagues to sort the cards into groups. After a morning's labor, working separately, they presented me with their results. The great majority of the cards were grouped together on the basis of morphology, a few because of their use. Many plants were set aside as belonging to no group. Of course Antzelmo's and Chep's taxonomies were not identical! The afternoon was spent arguing over the "truth." Some of the differences were resolved and some remained to be examined at a later date with other consultants. Re-enlisting our major veteran plant collector, Maryan Martinis, as well as Antzelmo and Chep, we spent a month, Dennis and I together, taking one-day field trips to try to establish a bit of order on our material. The following year a new dimension was added to our project by my discovery of a Spanish-Tzotzil dictionary compiled in Zinacantan (Laughlin and Haviland, 1988) almost surely at the end of the 16th century. It contained a significant number of plant names and revealed the degree of introduction of European plants at the time. It verified the persistence of Zinacantec plant names over a span of four hundred years. This dictionary, in addition, had a wealth of terms referring to agricultural practices. In 1978, with nearly all the new collections identified, we established a work pattern that was to persist until the project's end. Joint sessions in California alternated with series of field trips. For 10 days (all that we could stand) we would pore over our original data and our new field notes, checking specimens painstakingly in the herbarium, sipping our tea. Then we would hurtle over the hill, with our Bohemias, to wrestle with our problems the next day under the Bolinas sun. We weeded out native misidentifications, and pruned away the excess native descriptive terminology. That is, the bewildering array of plant names that distinguished size, habitat, color, etc., often proved to be redundant, overlapping, or overloaded terms that were produced by the native collectors to prove that they were just as discriminating as the foreign collectors. From out of what seemed a veritable chaos of names in 1976 emerged a comprehensible and comprehensive native taxonomic struc- ture. The first draft of "The Flora" was executed. What We Did on the Road Our collecting trips in Chiapas now had a new look. Gone were the days of five-man teams of Zinacantec collectors, drunk or sober, alone or chaufferred by an ignorant gringo anthropologist or by an even more ignorant ladino student, as they repeated or invented plant names by the score. No, now we managed some control! The team was composed always of botanist, anthropologist, and one or two (occasionally three), generally sober native collectors. Collectors from the hamlets were always accompanied by a collector from the center. In this way we could distinguish better between differences of opinion or the addition of merely synonymous names. On many of our initial collecting ventures we would leave San Crist6bal around 8 or 9 A.M., drive slowly down a road, making frequent stops. Dennis would point to every different plant, tree, or vine and ask for its name, while I would inquire about its use. If Dennis wanted a collection, that would be made in quadruplicate when possible. We kept separate notebooks, noting the collection number in both. I included the Tzotzil names and the Latin name, if known. I would also jot down the life form and any cultural information for further questioning. We would eat a picnic lunch and return around dusk. In the course of a single day 20 or 30 plants would have been collected and 200-300 species of plants would have been identified. If there were two native collectors, that meant 400-600 sight identifications! To our regret, now, we kept no tally of the number of plants that our consultants were unable to identify. Our trips were usually jovial affairs, sometimes raucous, as when Antzelmo cut a 15-foot white-flowered yucca inflorescence and marched with it at the head of our procession to the truck, intoning a mock prayer. Increasingly the trips were targeted on a particular habitat or were designed to fill a known gap, solve a taxonomic problem, or to revise and expand my omnibus of Tzotzil botanical vocabulary. On the last matter, after I had shown five sagittate leaves to the same Zinacantec colleague in one day, to make sure of his consistency in applying descriptive terms, and in which endeavor he had offered me four synonyms, my daughter, who had accompanied us, commented to me, much to my surprise, "Dad, he must think you're awfully dumb!" NUMBER 35 FIGURE 2.—The triumvirate and their safari, 1981. (Photo by Nancy Breedlove.) During the decade of 1976-1986 we made repeated visits to all the natural habitats known by Zinacantecs, in all seasons, and also, in all seasons, to the highland and lowland markets. During this same period our Zinacantec consultants made an additional 30,000 identifications. After each collecting trip I would interview the consultants, from 9 A.M. to 2 P.M., in my office, notebook at hand, to glean any further information on the plants we had seen. There were long periods in Chiapas when I was alone or Dennis was occupied with other projects, but always I had the consolation, the assurance, that he, by himself, or with the aid of a large company of botany colleagues, would provide us with reliable identifications—no mean feat! Two resources, drawn originally from the dictionary, and seeming to have added up to no more than a cultural midden, proved to be of extreme utility: the "Cultural Omnibus" and a digest of plant use. Both served as questionnaires for expanding and deepening my knowledge of the interaction between man and plants. Almost magically their volume was doubled, revealing many beliefs and practices that had entirely escaped my notice. In addition I recorded, transcribed and translated a signifi- cant body of plant origin myths, agricultural prayers, and autobiographical accounts. For each plant of cultural signifi- cance I routinely inquired, "Mi oy smelol?" "Is there traditional knowledge about it?" This would often disclose what we would call "superstitious" beliefs about plant care or human interaction with plants. It might bring forth a sentence or two about the plant's origin, or a whole myth. Occasionally I learned these traditional stories after a day of collecting in the lowlands, sitting around the fire, seldom equipped with a tape recorder. From the many folktales I had transcribed in the 8 SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY 1960s, told by both men and women, I selected sections relevant to this study. And so the mythic information included in "The Flora" varies greatly from mere snippets to whole transcribed narratives. This is the traditional knowledge that is passed on and shared by family members or fellow workers around the hearth, in the fields, or during any appropriate informal activity. I also made an effort to observe and sometimes participate in domestic, agricultural, or religious affairs for which my knowledge was decidely limited. But, indeed, on almost every occasion that I was in contact with Zinacantecs, for whatever reason, planned or spontaneous, I came home with a new bit of botanical information. Returning to California to prepare the second draft of "The Flora," we were reminded continually of the necessity for extensive fieldwork by botanist-anthropologist-native consult- ant teams working throughout the year, for although our framework of investigation remained relatively intact, consid- erable revisions and additions were made. Close examination of synonymous names and of yit'ix names provided independent evidence of the scope of each native generic and specific denominator. Often the collector, though he did not know, or could not recall the name of a plant, realized its similarity to known plants; e.g., he might call k'isis, the bald cypress, yit'ix toj, "false pine." Or his assertion that plant "a" was a "false b" demonstrated that while "a" was not "b," they were sufficiently similar to be included in the same set. Often a collector, incorrectly, would call plant "a" plant "b," which we had already concluded was a member of the same set. So, even consultants' errors were valuable in establishing the range of a set. Returning once again to "the field" we checked every set, plant by plant, to add to or define more precisely the relationships, synonymy and use. It became apparent that it was vain to search for the Zinacantec botanic taxonomy as every individual carries his own taxonomy, which itself may vary from one moment to the next. Instead, the taxonomy that emerged proved to be a pragmatic means to enter quickly into the Zinacantec realm of botany, following a map as accurate, as genuine, as that possessed by any native individual. Although no Zinacantec is familiar with every region or would agree to every detail, all Zinacantecs would be in substantial accord, for this was the product of the canvassing of many minds. Variation is not limited to taxonomic structure, nor to the names for plants, but even extends to the adjectives that may be used to describe leaf shape, fruit shape, or the rustling sounds of windblown seeds. On the Road Again In 1982-1983 we narrowed our focus to those plants that were of critical importance to the culture for economic or religious reasons. Already we had amassed a bewildering profusion of varietal names for the major cultivated plants: com, beans, squashes, chilies, fruits, and flowers. In addition to joint market visits and journeys to the cultivated fields, I embarked on a survey designed to produce a complete inventory of the plants grown by Zinacantecs in the center, in each and every hamlet and colony as well as in several temperate localities, and in the lowlands generally. I visited nearly every community, discovering an extraordinary number of crops, particularly in the temperate zone, many recently introduced, whose presence had not been suspected by me, nor even by many Zinacantecs with whom I spoke. Highlanders denied their existence. Our chief consultant, Maryan Martinis, could not be persuaded that an elephant ear was cultivated, despite our visit to a planting! The number of varieties, each of which had to be collected and analyzed, rife with synonymous names, reached astronomi- cal proportions. Equipped with a long list of the varieties of com that had eluded us, I made an expedition to the lowlands with two Zinacantecs, to be greeted in sun-dried field after field by great white mounds of threshed corncobs. One week too late! After a breakdown, we drove for miles past empty fields, with occasional stops to make furtive dashes into fields to filch a few ratty ears. After futile searches for open restaurants or adequate camping sites we slept fitfully in my VW Safari, battered by a frigid wind, returning home the next day with our prizes. Persistence had prevailed, nearly every missing ear was in the bag! No less challenging was my determination to make an inventory of all the plants, trees, and vines used to decorate each church or chapel, noting at what fiesta, how many plants were present, and by whom supplied. The suspicions of each clique of sacristans, stewards, and wardens had to be allayed even if it meant dancing with them the night through! So much for Chiapas. I made pilgrimages to the John Wesley Powell Library of Anthropology (National Museum of Natural History), the Library of Congress, and the Cathedral of Learning (University of Pittsburgh) to examine dictionaries and word lists of every Mayan language to reveal related plant names. Again in California, we confronted the problem that Linnaean taxonomy seldom stoops to consider the varieties of cultivated plants. How were we to cope with the endless varieties of bean, each exhibiting the finest distinctions, when nearly all these beans were subsumed by Linnaeus and his disciples under a single term, Phaseolus vulgaris? What we had characterized earlier as a "nomenclatural mess" of com varieties finally surrendered to a sensible ordering by race. An exhaustive search of horticultural tomes uncovered a variety of pear now rarely cultivated in Zinacantan that is known to have been in cultivation in Europe since 1628! The Finishing Touch At this last stage we have fed "The Flora," the "Cultural Ominibus," and many of the introductory chapters into word processors, permitting us to revise the text continually: from NUMBER 35 shifting whole blocks of material, to revising cultural and botanical descriptions, updating fluctuating Latin names, and correcting typographical errors. This system also facilitates the creation of the necesary indices. If this is the end, what have we wrought? Inspired at the outset by Principles of Tzeltal Plant Classification (Berlin et al., 1974), we strove to present a companion Tzotzil volume. But soon this subject took on a life of its own. Although we followed the neighboring work in broad outline, using "The Flora" as the base, with introductory discussions of research methods, native taxonomic principles, and the cultural utility of plants, we became convinced that the Zinacantecs maintained a greater latitutude of choice, a greater variety and flexibility in their principles! "The truth" was overrun by many truths. Native taxonomy was not our goal, but rather our vehicle for reaching a better understanding of native thought, and for delivering a disparate collection of knowledge. Consequently, our presentation has been branded as "uneven." We take that as a compliment, a recognition of the very nature of a people's knowledge. Instead of a native taxonomy explained in ultimate detail, this "Flora" is an encyclopedia of botanical information, demonstrating simultaneously the flowers and the flowering of man in Zinacantan. Or, if you wish, it may be seen as a flower cart of botanical knowledge. Behind it rides the "Cultural Omnibus," a ponderous conveyance chock-full of every Tzotzil flowery word and expression that I could find. Here is revealed the Zinacantecs' extraordinary awareness of shape, sound, smell, color, and texture in their floral environment. Here, too, appear dramati- cally the analogies, conscious and subconscious, between the flora and mankind as they flourish daily and nightly in Zinacantdn. It is clear that these "isolated peasants" share with millions of other Mayan peasants throughout southern Mexico and Guatemala a world view that is radically different from Western perceptions. We hope, as you see this ungainly, overloaded vehicle pass by you will realize that it bears "a distinct world, not merely the same world with different labels attached!" Phytogeography of Zinacantan Dennis E. Breedlove The township of Zinacantan is located along the dry western slope of the Central Plateau, which adjoins the Central Depression. Zinacantan is spread over 117 square kilometers with an additional 3249 hectares in the lowland colony of Santa Rosa. The vegetational types are dry in nature with pockets of wet vegetation occuring along steep canyons and near tops of the ridges of Pij (P'ij) and Cerro Huitepec (Muk'ta Vitz). The substrate rocks throughout most of the township are marine limestone of Cretaceous to Miocene age. There is a broad band of a sandy conglomerate near Ixtapa. The higher peaks have extrusions of volcanic rocks. The limestone slopes are dissected by steep-walled ravines and are punctuated by sink holes and caves. These limestones are 1000-2000 m thick and are capped with a red lateritic clay soil. The soil derived in the region of conglomerates is poor and sandy and supports a depauparate pine savanna. There is very little cultivation on this soil. A dark rich sandy clay loam is common on valley floors and alluvial fans and is the most prized for cultivation. Originally, the dry exposed slopes supported a succession of dry forest types with Tropical Deciduous Forest, Thorn Woodland, and Short Tree Savanna at the lower elevations and Pine Oak Forest on the slopes above 1200 m. Wet forest associations were widespread at elevations above 1800 m especially on steep north slopes and slopes along major watercourses. Evergreen Cloud Forest was most common at the highest elevations and Pine Oak Liquidambar Forest or Montane Rain Forest probably at elevations between 1800 and 2300 m on the slopes surrounding the valleys of Navenchauc (Naben Chauk), Nachig (Na Chij) and Zinacantan Center (Jtek Lum). Temperate Riparian Forest is a major component along streams from 1400 to 2700 m. Seasonal Evergreen Forest is a common element along waterways and steep ravines at lower elevations (below 1400 m). At the present time these primary forest types have a much reduced distribution in the township of Zinacantan. They exist only in areas that are inaccessable or infertile because of soil or elevation. Most of the present vegetation is composed of second growth shrub and forest associations that have considerably fewer species and are much less complex in their makeup. Fallow ground and cultivated land also account for a considerable portion of the township in any given year. Climate Most of Zinacantan has a mild, even climate. Annual rainfall varies from 90 mm to 250 mm, depending on the location. Although rain may fall in any month, most precipitation falls between May an October. There are three distinct seasons. The rains begin in mid-May with afternoon thundershowers, which continue until early October. There is often a 2-3 week hiatus (canicules or dog days) in late July and early August. From November into February the region is beset with a sequence of driving mist storms (nortes), which although they do not leave significant amounts of precipitation do make dirt roads and trails difficult to travel. At the lower elevations all but the very strongest of these storms are felt as high overcast. From February until the onset of rains in May is the dry season proper with only occasional local thunderstorms. This is the season to bum the fields. The sky is filled with a smoky haze, the sun often visible as a red disk. The hottest days of the year occur here. As mentioned before, temperature and rainfall vary greatly throughout the township. At the lowest elevations (hot country, 500 to 1000 m) in the Central Depression and the lower edge of the Central Plateau, the mean monthly temperature varies from 22°C to 28°C, and the annual rainfall fluctuates from 95 to 125 mm. At intermediate elevations (temperate country or hamlets 1000 to 1800 m), the mean monthly temperatures vary from 17°C to 23°C while the annual rainfall ranges from 120 to 160 mm. At the highest elevations (cold country, 1800 to 2900 m), mean monthly temperatures vary from 10°C to 17°C, and the annual rainfall ranges from 125 to 220 mm. Throughout the region the coldest months are November through February. Frosts are common during these months in exposed areas at the highest elevations and occur occasionally on flats in the path of cold air drainage as low as 1500 m (E. Garcia, 1965, 1973). Vegetation Throughout the body of the text, reference is made to vegetational associations followed by a temperature-elevation statement (e.g., Tropical Deciduous Forest of temperate and lowland areas). The same associations may occur in more than one zone and have a different species composition or physiognomic aspect in the different areas. For this reason the vegetational associations are here given separate characteriza- tions for each temperature-elevation zone in which they occur. For a complete treatment of the vegetational associations of Chiapas, reference should be made to Breedlove (1981). HOT COUNTRY VEGETATION (500-1000 M) Although most of the township of Zinacantan is not within 11 12 SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY £. Pueblo Nuevo ® Simojovel de Allende ) ^® El Bosque (San Juan) Magdalenas "¦• ®Chenalho . Cancuc Larrainzar (San Andres Chamula) 'ssJvs® Chicoasen I I Magdalenas ,t Sanla Marta • ^, fhpnalhn Soyalo© ,-, ® unenamo • Cancuc I Ixtapa g,' -® Tenejapa ^^^® —^ ¦- \ * i r\\ Chamula /"tuxTLA GUTIERREZ •^¦""\,/^ Zmi^an,an '-M--® San Cristobal de las Casas / CopoyaTt) ®\\ San Felipe S / Chiapa de CorzoVx * Laguna Grande \» Aguacatenango I \ \ \ ( \ (San Bartolome de los Llanos) \ ® Comita'n de Dominguez Map 1.—Chiapas. NUMBER 35 13 the limits of hot country, per se, much of the land the Zinacantecs rent for milpa is in the Central Depression and as such has typical hot country vegetation. The area has two overriding climatic factors that directly affect the type of vegetation present there. Very high monthly mean temperatures (22°C to 28°C) account for the large diversity of tropical genera, and a prolonged dry season (up to 7 months) is responsible for the deciduous nature of most of the vegetation. Tropical Deciduous Forest.—This is a diverse and wide-ranging association, which occurs from Sinaloa to Panama. In the Central Depression of Chiapas, it is the most prominent and common vegetational association. Characteristi- cally it has a tremendous number of species of trees that are co-dominant. These are deciduous or semi-deciduous and are usually 10 to 20 m tall with straight, slightly buttressed trunks and spreading crowns. The canopy consists of a single layer and can be continuous or discontinuous. With a few exceptions the forest is completely deciduous by March-April and many of the dominants flower at this time. The understory is sparse and made up mostly of annual growth during the rainy season. Lianas and epiphytes are not a conspicuous element except along ravines and ridges where they become locally abundant. This association grades into Seasonal Evergreen Forest along streams, into Short Tree Savanna in areas of poor soils, into Thorn Woodland in extreme dry locations, and finally grades into Pine Oak Forest with a rise in altitude. In the Central Depression the most common dominant trees are Albizzia caribaea (Urban) Britton & Rose, Bucida buceras L., B. macrostachya Standley, Bursera simaruba (L.) Sargent, Cecro- pia peltata L., Cedrela oaxacensis C. de Candolle & Rose, Ceiba aesculifolia (Kunth) Britton & Baker, Cochlospermum vitifolium Willdenow ex Sprengel, Cordia alliodora (Ruiz & Pavon) Oken, Elaeodendron trichotomum (Turczaninow) Lun- dell, Enterolobium cyclocarpum (Jacquin) Grisebach, Eysen- hardtia adenostylis Baillon, Gliricidia sepium (Jacquin) Steu- del, Godmania aesculifolia (Kunth) Standley, Heliocarpus terebinthinaceus (de Candolle) Hochreutiner, Hura polyandra Baillon, Hymenaea courabaril L., Leucaena spp., Luehea Candida (de Candolle) Martius, Lysiloma acapulcense (Kunth) Bentham, L. auritum (Schlechtendal) Bentham, Pithecellobium duke (Roxburgh) Bentham, Plumeria rubra L, Poeppigia procera Presl, Pseudobombax ellipticum (Kunth) Dugand, Spondias mombin L., Stemmadenia obovata (Hooker & Arnott) Schumacher, Swietenia humilis Zuccarini, Tabebuia chrysan- tha (Jacquin) Nichols, T. rosea (Bertoloni) de Candolle. Thorn Woodland.—In especially dry locations such as the western slopes of low rocky ridges, there occurs an assemblage of shrubs and thin-trunked low trees. Many of the woody species are variously spiny or divaricately branched. A mature stand often presents an inpenetrable thicket 1 to 4 m tall. This association is found in areas that experience the severest dry seasons and most of the woody species are deciduous. During wet periods the understory is made up of a thin cover of grasses and herbs. Although this is a very common and widespread association in Mexico to the north of Chiapas, in the Central Depression it has a scattered and local occurrence. Legumes ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------SI I l I l I I ! I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I III I I I I I l I I i I I I I I I .. . . Ka' K.u. Alz'am |ZBm8n Vllz Maflii bak Lum in . Chokn' .^/—BolomToi Ti-akm u.„m. s"." *"'" jXIi'Na Olon Jtek Lum - SalYB"lA * "eK'evBX.Ch'BnCh.lo- . ^ "*&£££*!!£; T "'"•"". Ak'ol J.ek Lum YaalKa1 • * lkal Lum Kalvaryo San Mlkulax p , • K on Asyenlo • Tzobol Aj »Oniifc 111 I I LLU J-LLLLLLU LI l i i i i , i i i San Amonyo * xani.fc.i vo' ---------- Paved Road r ^-"-r Highland Zone ~] Temperate Zone MAP 2.—Zinacantan. 14 SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY and cacti are the most prominent members of this association. Some of the common species found here are Acacia cochlia- cantha Humboldt & Bonpland,/4. cornigera (L.) Willdenow, A. farnesiana (L.) Willdenow, A. pringlei Rose, Bauhinia pauletia Persoon, Bursera diversifolia Rose, Cordia dodecan- dra de Candolle, C. spinescens L., Dalea versicolor Zuccarini, Diphysa floribunda Peyritsch, Erythroxylon havanense Jac- quin, Haematoxylon brasiletto Karsten, Jacquinia macrocarpa Cavanilles, Nopalea cochenillifera (L.) Salm-Dyck, N. lutea Rose, Opuntia spp., Piptadenia flava Bentham, Pisonia macranthocarpa J. Donnell-Smith, Pithecellobium lanceolatum (Kunth) Bentham, Prosopis juliflora (Swartz) de Candolle, Sageretia elegans (Kunth) Brongniart, Stenocereus eichlamii (Britton & Rose) Buxbaum, Zizyphus amole (Sesse & Mocino) M.C Johnston. Short Tree Savanna.—This vegetational formation oc- curs at scattered locations throughout the Central Depression. It is characterized by low-crowned trees spaced on a grassland. The soils are poorly drained and contain very litle nutrient material and are usually made up of compacted sandy deposits. Four species of trees, Byrsonima crassifolia (L.) de Candolle, Crescentia alata Kunth, C. cujete L., and Curatella americana L., essentially define this association. The grassland contains many species of herbs and grasses with Trachypogon spp. often dominant. The trees are usually 4 to 10 m tall; however, some individuals may attain a height of 20 m. Acacia pennatula (Schlechtendal & Chamisso) Bentham, Pinus oocarpa Schiede, Psidium guineense Swartz, or Quercus oleoides Schlechtendal & Chamisso often form savanna-like vegetation usually not in association with the four trees mentioned above. Evergreen Seasonal Forest.—In areas where water- courses cut through hills or are otherwise protected, the forest that occurs along them reflects this protection with a much wetter tropical aspect. Most of the species of trees and also shrubs of the understory are evergreen. The canopy is continuous and often is formed in two layers. Many of the trees are buttressed and attain a height of 25 to 35 m. Lianas and large epiphytes (aroids and bromeliads) are common. The understory contains a diverse woody element. This forest experiences the same severe dry season as the surrounding deciduous vegetation. In the Central Depression it is restricted to a gallery-like aspect but elsewhere in Chiapas in areas with slightly more precipitation, it has a wider distribution and intergrades with Tropical and Montane Rain Forest associa- tions. Some of the more common trees encountered in this formation are Bernoullia flammea Oliver, Brosimum alicas- trum Swartz, Bumelia pleistochasia J. Donnell-Smith, Calyco- phyllum candidissimum (Vahl) de Candolle, Ceiba pentandra (L.) Gaertner, Chrysophyllum mexicanum Brandegee ex Stan- dley, Coccoloba barbadensis Jacquin, Cupania dentata de Candolle, Exothea paniculata (Jussieu) Radlkofer, Ficus glabrata Kunth, F. glaucescens (Liebmann) Miquel, Guettarda combsii Urban, Hyperbaena mexicana Miers, Licania arborea Seemann, Machaerium biovulatum Michelli, Rheedia edulis Triana & Planchon, Sapindus saponaria L., Sterculia mexicana R. Brown, Styrax argentum Presl. In the understory the following species are common: Amyris chiapensis Lundell, Ardisia escallonioides Schlechtendas & Chamisso, Bourreria huanita (LaLlave & Lexara) Hemsley, Calyptranthes chiapen- sis Lundell, Chiococca sessilifolia Miranda, Clusia flava Jacquin, Dalbergia glabra (Miller) Standley, Eugenia acapul- censis Steudel, E. yunckeri Standley, Exostema caribaeum (Jacquin) Roemer & Schultes, Gentlea venosissima (Ruiz & Pavon) Lundell, Karwinskia calderonii Standley, Machaerium riparium Brandegee, Psychotria erythrocarpa Schlechtendal. Temperate Country Vegetation (1000-1800 m) This is a zone of transition from the tropical vegetation types of the Central Depression to the cool north-temperate types of vegetation on the mountain peaks. The lower portion of this zone is mostly Tropical Deciduous Forest and Evergreen Seasonal Forest as described above. This part of temperate country is still under the effect of the rain shadow produced by the mass of the Central Plateau. There are many narrowly endemic species that occur here and are not found in the same vegetational associations at lower elevations in the Central Depression. Some of these are Ateleia tomentosa Rudd, Catoferia chiapensis A. Gray, Erythrina goldmanii Standley, Eugenia carranzae Lundell, E. laughlinii Lundell, Euphorbia pseudofulva Miranda, Lopezia langmanniae Miranda, Micro- pholia sericea L.O. Williams, Phyllanthus mcvaughii Webster, Pitcairnia breedlovei L.B. Smith. Pine Oak Forest interfingers with these associations and becomes the prevalent type of vegetation in the upper part of this zone. In the canyon that runs from Salinas (Atz'am) towards Ixtapa and in the upper reaches of the canyons that drain towards El Zapotal (San Lukax), Evergreen Seasonal Forest grades into Montane Rain Forest especially on the north slopes of the tributaries. Pine Oak Forest.—This association occurs on dry ridges and slopes from 1200 to 2600 m. Oaks are found singly or in small groups as low as 900 m and pines first appear about 1000 m. The trees are usually 15 to 40 m tall and openly spaced with a discontinuous canopy. The understory is composed of a low cover of herbs and shrubs or in some situations a grassland. This grassy cover may be artificially maintained by a combination of burning and grazing. Epiphytes are abundant especially on the horizontal branches of the oaks and are at times so numerous as to obscure those branches. Pine Oak Forest intergrades into Evergreen Cloud Forest on the ridges approaching the high peaks. Streams that run through zones of Pine Oak usually are lined with Temperate Riparian Forest or Evergreen Seasonal Forest at the lower edge of the temperate area. The most common trees found in this association are Arbutus xalapensis Kunth, Buddleia skutchii Morton, Cra- taegus pubescens (Kunth) Steudel, Ehretia latifolia de Can- dolle, Erythrina chiapasana Krukoff, Juniperus gamboana Martinez, Pinus michoacana Martinez, P. montezumae Lamb, NUMBER 35 15 P. oaxacana Mirov, P. oocarpa Schiede, P. patula ssp. tecunumanii (Equilez & Perry) Styles, P. pseudostrobus Lindley, P. teocote Schlechtendal & Camisso, Quercus acutifolia Nee, Q. candicans Nee, Q. castanea Nee, Q. crassifolia Humboldt & Bonpland, Q. crispipilis Trelease, Q. elliptica Nee, Q. laurina Humboldt & Bonpland, Q. peduncu- laris Nee, Q. polymorpha Schlechtendal & Camisso, Q. rugosa Nee, Q. segoviensis Liebmann. The common woody plants of the understory are Amelanchier nervosa (Decaisne) Standley, Buddleia crotonoides A. Gray, Calliandra grandiflora (L'Heritier) Bentham, Ceanothus coeruleus Lagasca, Chio- cocca phaenostemon Schlechtendal, Desmodium nicaraguense Oersted ex Bentham & Oersted, Garrya laurifolia Hartweg, Holodiscus argenteus (L.f.) Maximowicz, Ilex vomitoria Aiton, Indigofera thibaudiana de Candolle, Lippia chiapasen- sis Moldenke, Litsea neesiana (Schaur) Hemsley, Mahonia volcania Standley & Steyermark, Monnina xalapensis Kunth, Myrica cerifera L., Rhamnus mucronata Schlechtendal, R. serrata Humboldt & Bonpland ex Schultes, Rhus schiedeana Schlechtendal, R. terebinthifolia Schlechtendal & Camisso, Solanum chrysotrichum Dunal, S. lanceolatum Cavanilles, S. nigricans Martens & Galeotti, S. pubigerum Dunal, Ternstro- emia oocarpa Rose, Viburnum hartwegii Bentham. Second-growth Shrub Associations: When Pine Oak For- est is cut over, the residue burned, planted to maize, and after a few years allowed to grow back, the regeneration begins with a scrub association that can last for as long as 10 years. This vegetation is extremely diverse and variable because the plants that are involved are from a variety of sources. Some are remnants of the forest that is being replaced; others are woody weeds that only occur after disturbances. Physically it is a dense cover of shrubs, vines, and rank herbs up to three meters tall. The most common species encountered are Acacia angustissima (Miller) Kuntze, Acalypha unibracteata Mueller de Aargau, Ageratina pringlei (Robinson & Greenman) King & H. Robinson, Ambrosia cumanensis Kunth, Archibaccaris androgyna (Brandegee) Blake, Baccharis serraefolia de Can- dolle, B. trinervis (Lamarck) Persoon, B. vaccinioides Kunth, Bidens squarrosa Kunth, Bouvardia longiflora (Cavanilles) Kunth, Calea trichotoma J, Donnell-Smith, C. urticifolia (Miller) de Candolle, Calliandra grandiflora (L'Heritier) Bentham, C. houstoniana (Miller) Kuntze, Ceanothus coerul- eus Lagasca, Chromolaena collina (de Candolle) King & H. Robinson, Comarostaphylos discolor (Hooker) Diggs, Coreop- sis mutica de Candolle, Coriaria ruscifolia L., Desmanthodium perfoliatum Bentham, Galphimia glauca Cavanilles, Gaulth- eria odorata Willdenow, Lantana hirta Graham, L. hispida Kunth, Lippia graveolens Kunth, L. myriocephala Schlechten- dal & Camisso, L. substrigosa Turczaninow, Malvaviscus arboreus Cavanilles, Montanoa hexagona Robinson & Green- man, Perymenium ghiesbreghtii Robinson & Greenman, Peteravenia phoenicolepis (Robinson) King & H. Robinson, Phyllanthus grandifolius L., Pluchea odorata (L.) Cassini, Rubus adenotrichus Schlechtendal, R. humistratus Steudel, R. trilobus Seringe, Salvia cinnabarina Martens & Galeotti, S. holwayi Blake, 5. lasiantha Bentham, 5. myriantha Epling, S. polystachya Ortega, S. purpurea Cavanilles, S. rubiginosa Bentham, S. tiliifolia Vahl, Senna guatemalensis var. chiapen- sis (Standley) Irwin & Barneby, S. incarnata (Bentham) Irwin & Barneby, 5. septentrionalis (Viviani) Irwin & Barneby, Smallanthus maculatus (Cavanilles) H. Robinson, Tithonia diversifolia (Hemsley) A. Gray, T. rotundifolia (Miller) Blake, T tubaeformis (Jacquin) Cassini, Verbesina perymenioides Schultz-Bipontinus ex Klatt, V. turbascensis Kunth, Vernonia deppeana Lessing, V. leiocarpa de Candolle, Viguiera cordata (Hooker & Amott) D'Arcy. Montane Rain Forest.—Throughout Chiapas this is a common formation on steep slopes between 1000 to 2000 m that experience some rain in all months of the year and have well-draining soils. In Zinacantan these conditions are very limited in distribution to a few remote locations. This association was much more widespread before the advent of intensive cultivation. There are two layers of canopy and a dense understory of woody plants. The canopy trees are usually 25 to 35 m tall. Many are buttressed. The understory of shrubs and small trees is between 5 and 15 m tall. Epiphytes and lianas are abundant through all layers of this formation. Alfaroa mexicana Stone, Ardisia densiflora Krug & Urban, Den- dropanax arboreus (L.) Decaisne & Planchon, Ilex brande- geana Loesner, Meliosma matudae Lundell, Oecopetalum mexicanum Greenman & Thompson, Oreopanax xalapensis (Kunth) Decaisne & Planchon, Quercus corrugata Hooker, Q. insignis Martens & Galeotti, Synardisia venosa (Masters) Lundell, Turpinia occidentalis Don, Ulmus mexicana Lieb- mann, Zunila alba (Lundell) Lundell are some of the common forest trees. In the understory one finds the following: Acalypha macrostachya Jacquin, Chamaedorea concolor Martius, Eu- genia rhombea (Berg) Krug & Urban ex Urban, Lozanella enantiophylla (J. Donnell-Smith) Killip & Morton, Mollinedia guatemalensis Perkins, Myrcianthes fragrans (Swartz) Mc- Vaugh, Myriocarpa longipes Liebmann, Parathesis donnell- smithii Mez, P. leptopa Lundell, Rapanea juergensenii Mez, Siparuna nicaraguensis Hemsley, Trophis mexicana (Lieb- mann) Bureau, Urera alceifolia Gaudichaud. Cold Country Vegetation (1800-2900 m) At the present time much of this area is covered by Pine Oak Forest. Some of this forest is second growth with many fewer species of trees. Abies guatemalensis Rehder, Pinus ayacahuite Ehrenberg, P. oaxacana Mirov, P. pseudostrobus Lindle, Quercus crassifolia Humboldt & Bonpland, Q. crispipilis Trelease, Q. laurina Humboldt & Bonpland, and Q. rugosa Nee are the principal trees of this zone. A striking characteristic of the plants of this region is the predominance of north-temperate genera at all levels of the vegetation from herbs to trees. Three vegetational formations have very limited distribution in cold 16 SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY FIGURE 3.—Landscape northwest of Yaleb Taiv, 1977. (Photo by John Swope.) country. (1) Bunch Grassland occurs on a few high ridges with the following clump-forming grasses: Festuca amplissima Ruprecht, Muhlenbergi gigantea (Foumier) Hitchcock, M. macroura Kunth, M. robusta (Foumier) Hitchcock, Stipa ichu (Ruiz & Pavon) Kunth, 5. virescens Kunth, and Trisetum irazuense (Kunze) Hitchcock. This formation may be of secondary origin; however, it appears stable and is probably maintained by grazing and harvesting for thatch. (2) Evergreen Cloud Scrub is limited to a few wind-swept ridges near the highest peaks. It is composed of a dense mat of thick-leaved shrubs. Common plants are Acaena elongata L., Gaultheria cumingii Sleumer, G. odorata Willdenow, Gnaphalium salici- folium (Bertoloni) Schultz-Bipontinus, Lycopodium spp., Oxy- lobus oaxacanus Blake, Pernettya ciliata (Schlechtendal & Camisso) Small, P. hirsuta (Martens & Galeotti) Camp, Ternstroemia lineata ssp. chalicophila Loesener, Ugni myri- coides (Kunth) Berg, Vaccinium confertum Kunth, V. geminiflorum Kunth, V. haematinum Standley & Steyermark. (3) There are a few locations in the high valleys with boggy land or standing water that have a characteristic Herbaceous Marsh. The common plants are Carex spp., Cyperus spp., Lythrum vulneraria Schrank, Rhynchospora spp., Scirpus spp., Typha latifolia L. Evergreen Cloud Forest.—On the tops of the highest peaks and ridges, on steep north-facing slopes, and at the heads of canyons at elevations of 2300 to 2900 m occurs this plant association. It is superficially similar to Montane Rain Forest and elsewhere in Chiapas it has a broad range of intergradation with Montane Rain Forest. In Zinacantan the stands of Evergreen Cloud Forest are isolated from other optimum formations and intergrade with Pine Oak Forest. Precipitation in some form falls in every month; however, that which falls in the dry season (February through May) is mostly through condensation from the daily fogs. This forest has one or sometimes two layers forming the canopy. The trees are closely spaced and up to 40 m tall. Epiphytes are abundant and are mostly ferns and bryophytes. There is a dense understory of shrubs. The common canopy trees are Abies guatemalensis Rehder, Chiranthodendron pentadactylon Larreategui, Clethra lanata Martens & Galeotti, Drimys granadensis L., Meliosma matudae Lundell, Microtropis contracta Lundell, Olmediella betschleriana (Goeppert) Loesener, Oreopanax capital us (Jac- quin) Decaisne & Planchon, Persea donnell-smithii Mez ex J. Donnell-Smith, Photinia matudae Lundell, Pinus ayacahuite Ehrenberg, Quercus benthamii A. de Candolle, Styrax rami- rezii Greenman, Weinmannia pinnata L., Wimmeria chiapensis Lundell. In the understory the following plants are common: Cavendishia crassifolia (Bentham) Hemsley, Celastrus vul- canicola J. Donnell-Smith, Chusquea foliosa, Cyclanthera NUMBER 35 17 FIGURE 4.—Landscape northwest of Yaleb Taiv, 1989. (Photo by Robert M. Laughlin.) langaei Cogniaux, Daphnopsis selerorum Gilg, Deppea gran- diflora Schlechtendal, Dryopteris wallichiana (Sprengel) Hy- land, Fuchsia paniculata Lindley, F splendens Zuccarini, Gentlea micranthera (J. Donnell-Smith) Lundell, Greigia oaxacana L.B Smith, Marattia weinmanniifolia Liebmann, Miconia oligotricha (de Candolle) Naudin, Rapanea juer- gensenii Mez, Saurauia oreophila Hemsley, Smilax domingen- sis Willdenow, Symplocos breedlovei Lundell, Ternstroemia lineata ssp. chalicophila Loesener. Temperate Riparian Forest.—This association borders all streams above 1400 m regardless of the surrounding vegetation. It is composed of genera of temperate plants that can tolerate roots in water most of the year. Most of the trees are deciduous and lose their leaves in the dry season when the water in the streams is at the lowest level or dry. Aside from mosses, these forests have few epiphytes. The trees vary from 10 to 30 m tall. The most common trees and shrubs of this formation are Acer negundo ssp. mexicanum (de Candolle) Wesmael, Alnus acuminata ssp. arguta (Schlechtendal) Fur- low, A. jorullensis Kunth, Berchemia scandens (Hill) Trelease, Cornus excelsa Kunth, Crataegus pubescens (Kunth) Steudel, Cuphea hyssopifolia Kunth, Platanus mexicana Moricand, Salix bonplandiana Kunth, S. chilensis Molina, S. taxifolia Kunth, Taxodium mucronatum Tenore. Into the Whirlwind Robert M. Laughlin San Lorenzo Zinacantan, a prosperous Mayan township in the highlands of the state of Chiapas, Mexico, has been the focus of intensive anthropological and linguistic research for 30 years. Responding to the cultural vitality of the Zinacantecs, Evon Z. Vogt chose this community to be a laboratory for the study of social and cultural change. His Harvard Chiapas Project fielded over a hundred students who investigated many aspects of Zinacantec life, from a wide variety of perspectives. Shortly after we began our ethnobotanic research in 1963, their publications confirmed our conviction of the importance of plants in Zinacantec culture and provided us with a substantial foundation for further study.1 The encyclopedic presentation in "The Flora" of myriads of discrete ethnobotanical details gives no hint of the whirlwind of change that has beset Zinacantan in the past 25 years. During this period the population has swelled from roughly 8000 to nearly 20.000.2 In 1963 most Zinacantecs lived in one-room houses with wattle-and-daub walls and high-pitched thatch roofs. The number of plant species known to have been used for the construction of a traditional house is impressive: House Component No. of Plant Species wattle 23| pole wall 10} 106 mainpost 611 roof 55) lashing 34 thatch 25 (9 commonly) These picturesque houses have all but disappeared. The loss of wattle-and-daub walls and thatch roofs means a great reduction in the variety of plants used for house construction. The roof structure now is essentially built of pine. Those people with sufficient resources build 1-3 room adobe or brick houses with tile roofs. A few are building flat-roofed cement or cement block structures. Far down the economic scale, and usually in the temperate hamlets, are pole-walled houses with galvanized metal or laminated cardboard roofs. Inside the house the most dramatic changes have been caused by the introduction of electricity: light bulbs, a radio, a tape recorder, possibly a record player, a television set, and a clothes iron. Also new are tortilla presses, metal pots and bowls, and plastic containers. Frequently the pole beds have been replaced by plank beds, sometimes enclosed by brightly colored plastic sheeting. The most noticeable change is in the clothing. The woven palm hat was largely replaced by one of woven plastic, before it, too, gave way to Texas-style sombreros, and then bare heads. Factory-made pants, belts, shirts, and sweaters, jackets, shoes, sneakers, and boots for men now predominate. The neckerchief is disappearing, leaving only the pin-striped red tunic to mark a man from Zinacantan, but that tunic, once plain, now sports an ever more exuberant display of floral embroidery. Women's blouses and shawls, too, are growing bright flowers. Wide ribbon bows perch on their heads. Earrings and plastic sandals are becoming fashionable. The past 25 years have witnessed a profound change in the economic, social, political, and religious structures of Zin- acantan, spurred by the economic boom of the 1970s, and now modified by a much tighter economy. In 1963 Zinacantan was populated by relatively independent peasant com farmers. A small minority was comprised of growers and merchants of flowers and fruits, as well as salt merchants. The principal agent of change was improved transport. In the highlands a network of rough roads was developed to connect the hamlets to the highway, and in the lowlands the remaining forests were made accessible for felling and conversion to cornfields. Previously, Zinacantecs had descended the mountains on foot, with their mules, to rent ladino lands on either side of the Grijalva River. Each year Zinacantec intermediaries, who knew a bit of Spanish, would renew contracts with the same landowners to parcel out the land and agree on the rent. But these ladinos now were turning their property into pasture land for cattle. So, the hours spent on foot were replaced by hours standing on trucks, followed by perhaps another hour on foot to reach an unfamiliar landlord. The farmers, too, had to deal with often unfriendly ladino truck owners to transport their harvest. Their difficulties eased in the 1970s as Zinacantecs themselves became truck owners. Rapid transportation, however, had mixed blessings, for there is now a whole generation of men who are ignorant of the plants that grew along the foot trails to the lowlands; plants useful for food, medicine, and construction. "I only know a quarter of what my father knows," is a frequent refrain. The prosperity of the 1970s spawned multiple government development programs. Milpa Production Many varieties of hybrid com and beans were introduced. The Mexican Department of Agriculture (SARH) periodically 19 20 SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY FIGURE 5.—Thatched roof house, Zinacantan Center, 1977. (Photo by John Swope.) NUMBER 35 21 FIGURE 6.—Household accoutrements, 1977. (Photo by John Swope.) 22 SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY FIGURE 7.—Young weaver, 1977. (Photo by John Swope.) NUMBER 35 23 FIGURE 8.—Weaving palm hat, 1977. (Photo by John Swope.) 24 SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY l\ i ^s / • Limatik TUXTA */—'"" ^J Muk'ta Nab -*a~^^ Amux Ton >t^ " Ch'abentik • . iTuxtla Gutierrez,! (Acaia) / """-v^^ Mankolik___„,•»*"'*' Muk'ta Karmen • ^--------- I Ankostura C *Sero Bankil - Paved road - Gravel road J N / 1 i ' V \ \ f 0 5 10 < i Km