Closed Corporate Peasant Communities in Mesoamerica and Central Java

Author(s): Eric R. Wolf

Reviewed work(s):
Source: Southwestern Journal of Anthropology, Vol. 13, No. 1 (Spring, 1957), pp. 1-18
Published by: University of New Mexico
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3629154 .
Accessed: 17/10/2012 15:40

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

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

University of New Mexico is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Southwestern
Journal of Anthropology.

http://www.jstor.org
 SOUTHWESTERN JOURNAL
OF ANTHROPOLOGY
VOLUME 13 * NUMBER I SPRING * 1957

CLOSED CORPORATE PEASANT COMMUNITIES

IN MESOAMERICAAND CENTRALJAVAI
ERIC R. WOLF

O NE OF THE SALIENT AIMS of

science,is to definerecurrent
modernanthropology,
sequencesof causeand effect,
conceived
that is,to
as a
formu-
late culturallaws.This paperis concerned withrecurrent featuresin thesocial,
economic, and religious organizationof peasantgroupsin twoworldareas,widely
and
separatedby past history geographical space: Mesoamerica'and Central
Java.3 These have been selected forcomparison, becauseI havesomemeasureof
acquaintance with Mesoamerica through work,and a measureof familiarity
field
withtheliterature dealing withthe twoareas.
The culturalconfiguration whichI wishto discussconcerns theorganization
of peasantgroups into closed,corporatecommunities. By peasantI mean an
agriculturalproducerin effective controlof land whocarrieson agriculture as a
meansof livelihood, notas a businessforprofit.4In Mesoamerica, as in Central
1 Thispaperrepresents an effortto contribute
to theaimsandmethods of theProjectfor
on Cross-Cultural
Research directed
Regularities, byJulian Steward at theUniversity of Illinois.
ThewriterwasResearch AssociateoftheProject from1954-55. He is grateful
forcomments and
to Julian
suggestions Steward,Robert Murphy, andCharlesErasmus, as wellas to thosefriends
of theProjectwhohearda reading of a first
draftof thispaperat theSymposium on Cross-
Cultural heldat theUniversity
Regularities, ofIllinois
on June16th,1955.
2 Fora definitionof Mesoamerica in culture-area
terms, seeKirchhoff,1952,pp. 17-30.In
thispaper,thetermis usedas short-hand forMexicanand Guatemalan communities which
conformtotheconfiguration See Wolf,1955,pp.456-461.
discussed.
3 Central Javais a regionof rice-growing
nucleated witha tendency
villages to communal
landtenure.It wasalsothemaincenter of commercial sugarand indigoproduction whichpro-
motedcommunal tenure anddensepopulations. Western Javais characterizedbycattle-breeding
rather
thanbyagriculture; EasternJavais occupiedbysmallhamlets, scattered
amongindividually
heldricefields(Furnivall,1939,p. 386). CentralJavais usedas short-hand forJavanese com-
munities
which conform totheconfigurationdiscussed.
4 Wolf,1955,pp.453-454.
1
2 SOUTHWESTERN JOURNAL OF ANTHROPOLOGY

Java,wefindsuchagricultural producers organized intocommunities withsimilar

characteristics. They are similar inthat they maintain a of
body rights toposses-
sions, such as land.They are similarbecause both putpressures on members to
redistribute surplusesat theircommand, in the of
preferably operation religiousa
system, andinducethemtocontent themselves withtherewards of"shared pov-
erty." They are similar in that theystrive to prevent outsidersfrombecoming
members of thecommunity, andin placinglimits on theability of members to
communicate withthelarger society.That is to say,in both areasthey are cor-
porateorganizations, maintaining a perpetuity of rights and membership; and
theyareclosedcorporations, becausethey limit these to
privileges insiders, and
discourage closeparticipation of members in thesocialrelations of thelarger
society.
Outright communal tenure wasoncegeneral inbothareas.In Java,suchtenure
stillsurvived in a thirdof all communities in 1927,whilelandin morethana
sixthofall communities wasstillredistributed annually. Suchlandconsisted of
thecommunity's mostvaluableland,theirrigated ricefields.5Yet evenwhere
communal tenure haslapsed,jurisdiction overlandbythecommunity remains
important. Communities maydenyorconfirm therights of heirswhohaveleft
thevillagetoinherit villagelands;6theymaytakebackandissuelandtosome-
oneelseifa member leavesthecommunity;7 ortheymaytakebacklandissued
ifa member commits a crime., Aliensmaysettleinsucha community as share-
but
croppers, may not inherit or buythe land they work.9 Community members
havepriority in thepurchase of villagelands.10 Andmembers do nothavethe
right topledgetheir landas security."
Estimates concerning the survival of land-holding communities in Meso-
america tendto varygreatly. McBrideestimated thatin Mexico, in 1854,there
weresome5,000"agrarian corporations" inpossession of11.6million hectares,but
thatin 1923land-holding communities survived only in "certainout-of-the-way
partsofthecountry."12 Tannenbaum, inturn, calculated thatin 1910about16
percent ofall Mexican villages and51 percent oftheruralMexican population
livedin"freevillages," thatis,villages notincluded insomelargeestate.13 This
computation hasbeencriticized bySimpson whofollows LuisCabrera inholding
that"bytheendoftheDiaz regime [in 19101. . . 90 percentofthevillages
on
andtowns the central plateau hadnocommunal landsofanykind."14 A recent
estimate holdsthatin 191041 percent of land-holding communities stillmain-
5 Boeke,1953,p. 65. 10 Boeke,1953,p. 31; Haar,1948,p. 97.
6 1951,p. 144.
S'Jacob, 11 Haar,1948,p. 113.
7 Haar,1948,p. 85; Oei,1948,pp.24-25. 12 McBride,1923,pp. 133,135.
8 Haar,1948,p. 85. 13 Tannenbaum, 1929,pp.30-37.
9 1951,p. 143.
Haar,1948,p. 119;S'Jacob, 14 Simpson,1937,p. 31.
 CLOSED CORPORATE PEASANT COMMUNITIES 3

tainedcommunal tenure,thoughon an illegalbasis.15Today,thereis a general

tendency to maintaincommunal tenureon hillsidesand forests,
but to grantpri-
vateownership overvalleybottoms and gardenplots.16 Even in suchcases,how-
ever,communitiescan and do prohibit thesale of land to outsidersand limitthe
rightof members to pledgeland as a security on loans.17In contrastto Central
Java,periodicre-allotmentof landto community members seemsto be ratherrare
in Mesoamerica."s
Peasantcommunities in bothareasshowstrongtendencies to restrict
member-
ship in the to
community people born and raised within the boundaries of the
The is not
community. communityterritorial, kinship-based."9 Rules of community
endogamy furtherlimittheimmigration of newpersonnel. These rulesare char-
acteristic
ofMesoamerica; theyoccuronlyoccasionally inCentral Java.20
in the
Membership community isalsodemonstrated byparticipationinreligious
maintained
rituals the
by community.Java, In each is
communitycharged with
themaintenanceofproper with
relations itsspirits
andancestors.Therituals which
servethisfunction cannot be carriedonbytheindividual.21 Eachyeartheland
isritually
purified
(slametan bresihdesa),thecommunity isfeasted
spirit (sedekab
bum),andofferings aremadetothesoulsofthedead(njadran).22 The religious
- inthepastusually
official thechief, butnowadays moreoftenthelandsuper-
visoranddiviner of thecommunity23 - is lookeduponas "a personification of
relation
thespiritual of thepeople totheir In
land."24 Mesoamerica, thereis no
evidenceofancestor worship orpropitiationas such.25Yet eachcommunity tends
tosupport thecultofoneormoresaints. Thefunctions withthesecults
associated
are delegatedto members of thecommunity. A mangainssocialprestige by
15 GonzalezNavarro, 1954,p. 129.
16 AguirreandPozas,1954,pp.192-198; Carrasco,1951,pp. 101-102;Tax,1952,p. 61.
17 Aguirre, 1952a,p. 149; Carrasco,
1951,p. 102; Carrasco,1952,p. 17; Lewis,1951,
p. 124;Tax,1953,pp.68-69;Wagley, 1941,p. 65.
18 Tax,1952,p. 60.
19 Haar, 1948,pp. 51, 71; Lekkerkerker, 1952,pp. 99-100;Red-
1938,p. 568; Guiteras,
fieldandTax,1952,p. 33.
20 Haar,1948,p. 155;Redfield andTax,1952,p. 31.
21 S'Jacob, 1951,p. 140.
22 Haar,1948,pp. 24,28; Kattenburg, 1951,p. 16; Ploegsma,1936,p. 4; Supatmo,1943,
p. 9.
23 Haar,1948,pp.91-92.
24 Ibid.
a guessthatfurther
25 I shouldliketo express fieldworkmightreverse thisstatement.
It
is possible,forinstance,
thatthecemetery playsa muchgreater symbolic rolein Mesoamerican
lifethanis generally suspected.The Mazatecof thePapaloapan Rivervalley,aboutto be re-
settled, tookgreatcareto transferthebonesof theirdeadfromtheirold to theirnewvillages
(Pozas,personal communication).The annualfeastof the dead mayhavemorecommunal
function assumed.
thanis generally
4 SOUTHWESTERN JOURNALOF ANTHROPOLOGY

occupying a seriesofreligious offices

charged withthesefunctions; thesetendto
be ranked in a prescribed ladderof achievement. Often,theycarrywiththem
a decisivevoice in the and
political social affairs of thecommunity.26 Apparently
only members of the are
community normally admitted to suchreligio-political
participation.
In bothareas,thecommunity motivatesitsmembers toexpend surpluses inthe
operation ofa prestige economy. Theprestige economy operates largely insupport
of thecommunal religiouscult,andalliedreligious activities.In CentralJava,
where cattlearesymbolic ofland-ownership,27 wealthis expended conspicuously
incattlesacrifices,as wellas ina largenumber ofritualfeasts (slametans) offered
byprivate individuals to wardoffevilordifficulties, to celebrate specialevents
inthelife-cycle, tomarkholidays, andtoemphasize stagesin theproduction of
rice.28Similarly,pilgrimages toMeccaearnprestige at thecostoflargestores of
surplus wealth. In 1927,thecostof sucha pilgrimage wasestimated at 1,000
florin.In thatyear,60,000Indonesians madethevoyage, spending 60 million
florinintheprocess, "anenormous sumforsopoora country."29 In Mesoamerica,
adultmembers ofthecommunity generally undertake to finance partofthecult
ofoneormoresaints, whentheyassume office.
religious Expenditures mayprove
economically ruinous, though theyearngreatsocialprestige forthespender.30
In bothareas,wenotonlyencounter a marked tendency to exclude theout-
sideras a person, butalsoto limittheflowofoutside goods and ideas intothe
This
community. tendency is oftenascribedto "inherent peasant conservatism" or
to adherence to"staticneeds," butmayactually represent thecomplex interplay
of manyfactors. Villagers arepoor,andunableto buymanynewgoods.The
goodspurchased mustbe functional within peasantlife.Peasantneedsin both
areasaremetbymarketing systems which serve onlythepeasantry, andwhich
areorganizationally andculturally distinct
from other marketing systems within
thelarger societiesto which they belong.Such markets alsohavesimilar character-
Theytendtooffer
istics. a very highpercentage ofobjects manufactured bypeas-
antlaborwithin thepeasant household.Theyshowa highproportion ofdealings
between primary producers andultimate consumers. Theyarecharacterized by
smallpurchases dueto thelimited amount of consumer purchasing power.In
bothareas,moreover, we findregular market daysin regional sequence which
makefora wideexchange ofanassortment oflocalproducts, probably much larger
26 Caimara, andTax,1952,pp.36-38.
1952;Redfield
27 Boeke,1953,p. 46.
28 Geertz, 1943,p. 9.
1956,pp. 138-140;Landon,1949,pp. 156-158;Supatmo,
29 Vandenbosch,1942,p. 27.
30 Aguirre,1952a,pp.234-242;Crmara,1952,pp. 155-157.
 CLOSED CORPORATE PEASANT COMMUNITIES 5

thananystore-keeper couldhopeto keepin hisstore.3" Suchmarkets canonly

admitgoodswhich arecongruous withthesecharacteristics. The goodssoldmust
becheap,easilytransportable, adaptable tothelimited capitaloftheseller. Only
goods such as these willreach the peasant household.
In bothareas,moreover, peasant communities maintain strong attitudes against
accumulated wealth. In Mesoamerica, display ofwealth is viewed withdirect hos-
In
tility. turn, is and
povertypraised resignation in the face of poverty accorded
highvalue.32 We haveseenhowmuchsurplus wealth isdestroyed orredistributed
through participation in the communal religiouscult. In Java, there aresimilar
to
pressuresredistribute wealth:
. . every prosperous person hastoshare hiswealth right andleft;every windfall
mustbedistributed without delay. Thevillage community cannot easily eco-
tolerate
nomic differences butisapttoactas a leveller inthisrespect, regarding theindividual
as partofthecommunity.33
...
Surplus wealth thustendstobe siphoned off,rather thantobe directed towards
thepurchase ofnewgoods.84
It is further necessary topointoutthatclosedcorporate peasant communities
inbothareasaresocially andculturally isolated from thelarger society inwhich
they exist.The nature of this isolationwill be discussed below. This general iso-
lationof thepeasantcommunity fromthelargersociety is,however, reinforced
bytheparochial, localocentric attitudesofthecommunity. In Mesoamerica, each
community tends tomaintain a relativelyautonomous economic, social,linguistic,
andpolitico-religious system, as wellas a setof relatively exclusive customs and
In
practices.35 Gillin'swords, "the Indian universe is spatially limited and its
horizon typically does not extend beyond the limits of the local community or
region.""In Central Java,similarly, is a
eachcommunity separate sociocultural
universe." Suchlocalocentrism is a form of"ignorance [whichjperforms specifi-
able functions in socialstructure and action."38 It servesto excludecultural
alternatives bylimiting the"incentives on thepartof individuals of thegroups
31 Re Java,seeBoeke,1953,pp.48,75; Lekkerkerker, 1938,pp. 728-729;Ploegsma,1936,
p. 24. Re Mesoamerica, see Foster,1948,p. 154; Pozas,1952,pp. 326-338;Whetten, 1948,
pp.357-360.Whetten's accountis a summary ofa manuscriptbyB. MalinowskiandJuliode la
Fuente, "The Economics
entitled of a MexicanMarketSystem," has never
whichunfortunately
beenpublished.
32 See e.g.Carrasco, 1952,pp. 47, 48; Lewis,1951,p. 54; Tumin,1950,p. 198; Tumin,
1952,pp.85-94.
33 Boeke,1953,p. 34.SeealsoGeertz, 1956,p. 141.
34 See Kroef,1956,p. 124.
35 RedfieldandTax,1952,p. 31; Tax,1941,p. 29.
36 Gillin,1952,p. 197.
37 Ploegsma, 1936,p. 5. 38 Moore and Tumin,1949,p. 788.
6 SOUTHWESTERN JOURNALOF ANTHROPOLOGY

insocialinteraction tolearnthewaysoftheir neighbors, forlearning isthepsycho-

logical crux of acculturation."" In Mesoamerica, such exclusion of cultural al-
ternatives40 is strongestintheareaofthecostumbres, thosereligious andsocial
features of thecommunity which - in terms of thispaper- helpto maintain
its closedand corporate In
character,41Java,similarly, communities showa
tendency to
. . . preserve a balance byaverting andfighting every deviation from thetradi-
tionalpattern.
. . . whenthevillager seekseconomic contactwithwestern he doesnot
society,
enjoythesupport ofhiscommunity. Quitethecontrary. Bysodoing hesteps outside
thebounds ofthecommunity, isolateshimselffrom it,losesitsmoral support andis
thrown onhisownresources.42
Peasantcommunities inbothareasthusshowcertain similarities.
Bothmain-
taina measure of communal jurisdiction overland. Both their
restrict member-
ship,maintain a religious
system,enforce mechanisms which ensurethe redistribu-
tionor destruction of surpluswealth, and upholdbarriers againsttheentry of
goods and ideas produced outsidethe community.43 These resemblances also mark
theirdifferences from other kindsofpeasant communities. Theyform a contrast,
forinstance, withthe"open"peasant communities ofLatinAmerica where com-
munaljurisdiction overlandis absent, membership is unrestricted,andwealth is
notredistributed.44 Theyalsocontrast withthepeasant communities ofa society
likepre-British Ugandawhere accesstoscarcelandwasnotan issue,andwhere
localgroups consisted ofclient families,unitedintemporary allegiancetoa com-
monchiefbyhopesoffavors, bounty, andbooty inwar,yetabletochange their
residence andtobetter theirlifechances through changes inloyaltieswhenthese
werenotforthcoming.45 Differences alsoappearwhenthecorporate communities
discussed inthispaperarecompared withthepeasant communities ofChina.In
China,freebuying andselling oflandhasbeenpresent from earlytimes. Com-
munities arenotendogamous andrarely closedto outsiders, evenwhere a single
39 Hallowell,1955,p. 319.
40 Linton,1936,pp.282-283;MooreandTumin,1949,p. 791.
41 Beals,1952,pp.229-232.See alsoBeals,1946,p. 211.
42 Boeke,1953,p. 29,p. 51.
43 Communities in bothareasarealsocharacterized bya tendency to nuclear ratherthan
extendedfamily andbya tendency
organization, todivideaccesstolandequallyamongthefilial
generation(Haar,1948,p. 71; Kattenburg, andTax, 1952,p. 33; Aguirre
1951,p. 10; Redfield
and Pozas,1954,pp. 181-182).I havenotdiscussed thesesimilarities
in thispaper,becauseI
feelthatclosedcorporate
community cancoexist
organization withvarious kindsof familiesand
varioussystemsof inheritance,
as longas thesedo notimply lossof landtooutsiders. Thiswill
be thecase,forinstance,
evenwhere wehaveextended families
or lineages,as longas onlysons
inherit
rightstolandandresidence aftermarriage
remains patrilocal.
44 Wolf,1955,pp.461-466. 45 Roscoe,1911,p. 13,p. 269.
 PEASANT
CLOSEDCORPORATE COMMUNITIES 7
stratified
"clan"or tsuheldsway.Constant circulation of locallandowners into
theimperial bureaucracy andof officials intolocalcommunities wheretheyac-
quiredlandprevented theformation ofclosedcommunities. Moreover, statecon-
trolsmaintained through control oflarge-scale waterworks heavily curtailed the
autonomy ofthelocalgroup.In sucha society, relations between individual vil-
lagersandindividual government officials
offered moresecurity andpromise than
relations the
among villagers themselves.4" Peasants may thus be found organized
intomanykindsof communities; onlysome,however, livein closedcorporate
bodiesofthekinddescribed here.
Thesecasualcontrasts afford another insight.In eachcase,thekindofpeasant
community to
appears respond to forces which liewithin thelarger society towhich
thecommunity belongs ratherthan withintheboundaries of the community itself.
The "open"peasant communities ofLatinAmerica "aroseinresponse to theris-
ingdemand forcashcropswhich accompanied thedevelopment of capitalism in
Europe."'4Pre-British Uganda was characterized bypolitical instabilityat the
top,considerable personal mobility, and frequent shifts in personal allegiances,
allofwhich found expressioninthecharacter ofitslocalgroups. Similarly, efforts
to understand thepeasantcommunity in Chinapurely in itsownterms would
be foredoomed to failure.Theseconsiderations suggest thatthecausesforthe
development ofclosedcorporate communities in Mesoamerica andCentral Java
mayderive from thecharacteristics ofthelarger societieswhich gaverisetothem.
Historically, theclosedcorporate peasantconfiguration in Mesoamerica is a
creatureof theSpanishConquest. Authorities differas to thecharacteristics of
thepre-Hispanic in the
community area,48 but there is general recognition that
thoroughgoing changes dividethepost-Hispanic community from itspre-conquest
predecessor.49In part,the new configurationwas theresult of serious socialand
cultural
crises which destroyed more than three-quarters of the Indian population,
androbbed itofitslandandwater supply.50Population lossesandflight prompted
colonial
measures leading tolarge-scale resettlement andconcentration ofpopula-
ThenewIndiancommunities
tion.51 weregivenrights tolandas localgroups, not
kinship-wise;52 politicalauthority wasplaced in the hands of new local office
holdersand madeelective;5" tribute and laborservices wereplacedon a new
46 See e.g. Fei, 1953;Fried,1953;Fukutake, 1935;
1951;Ha, 1948,p. 91; Wittfogel,
1938;Yang,1945,pp. 132-142.
Wittfogel,
47 Wolf,1955,p. 462.
48 Fora recent statementofconflicting seeMonz6n,1949.
views,
49 Fora masterly ofthesechanges,
exposition seeGibson,1955.
50 E.g.WolfandPalerm, 1955,pp.277-278.
51 ZavalaandMiranda, 1954,pp.39-41.
52 Idem,pp. 70-74.
53 Idem,p. 80; Aguirre, 1952b;Gibson,1955,pp. 588-591.
8 SOUTHWESTERN JOURNALOF ANTHROPOLOGY

basis;"4and"therapidgrowth
ofIndiancofradias afterthelatesix-
(sodalities)
teenth gaveto parishioners
century a seriesof organized
andstableassociations
withwhich andcommunal
personal identification
might be made.""5
readily In
Java,similarly,
corporate
peasantcommunitiesdidnottakeshape
untilafterthecomingoftheDutch,whenforthefirst
timethevillageas a territorial
unitbecamea moralorganism withitsowngovernmentand itsownlandat thedis-
posalof itsinhabitants.5"
At thetimeof theDutchconquest, therewasstill"an abundance of waste"in
Java;57slash-and-bum farming wascarried onquitegenerally; population densi-
tiesaveraged only33.9persons per The closedcorporate peasantcom-
munity inCentral Javathusrepresents km2.8
an attempt toconcentrate bothpopulation
andtenure rights.
Overthegreater partofJavaitwasonlyon theintroduction of landrevenue
from 1813onwards thatvillageswerereduced touniformity andtheir landsbound
upintoa closed unit,andduring thisprocessthere werenumerous referencestothe
andamalgamation
splitting ofvillages,
andtothepromotion ofhamlets tothestatus
ofindependent villages.59
In thetwoareas,then, theclosedcorporate peasant community is a childof
conquest;but this need not always be so. The corporate community ofpre-1861
Russia,themir,wastheproduct ofinternal colonization, ratherthan of foreign
domination imposed by force of arms.80The corporate peasantcommunity is not
an offspringof conquest as such,butrather of thedualization of societyintoa
dominant entrepreneurial sector anda dominated sectorofnativepeasants. This
dualizationmay take in
place peaceful as well as in warlikecircumstances, and
inmetropolitan as wellas incolonial countries.61
BothinMesoamerica andCentral Java,theconquerors occupied thelandand
to
proceeded organize labor to produce and
crops goods forsale in newly estab-
lished
markets. Thenative peasantry did not command the requisite
culturally de-
veloped skillsand resources to participate in thedevelopment of large-scale
forprofit.
enterprises In bothareas,therefore, thepeasantry wasforced tosupply
54 ZavalaandMiranda, 1954,pp.85-88;Miranda, 1952.
55 Gibson,1955,p. 600.
56 Furnivall,1939,p. 13.
57 Idem,p. 12.
58 Klaveren,1953,p. 152.
59 Furnivall,1939,p. 11.
60 See e.g.Simkhovitsch, 1898,pp.46-81.
61 The concept ofa "dual"structureofcolonial hasbeenadvanced
societies byBoeke,1953.
It is notnecessarytosubscribetoall partsoftheauthor's nortohispredictions
theory, regarding
thefuture, toappreciatetheutilityofhisconcept in theanalysis
of socialandcultural
systems.
 CLOSED CORPORATE PEASANT COMMUNITIES 9

labortothenewenterprises, butbarred from direct participationintheresultant

returns.In bothareas,moreover, theconquerors alsoseizedcontrol oflarge-scale
trade,anddeprived thenativepopulation of direct accessto sources of wealth
acquired through trade, such as they had commanded in thepre-conquest past."2
Yet inbothareas,thepeasantry - forced to workon colonist enterprises -
didnotbecome converted intoa permanent laborforce.The part-time laborer
continued todrawthelarger shareofhissubsistence from hisownefforts on the
land.Fromthepointofviewoftheentrepreneurial the
sector, peasant sector re-
mained primarily a labor reservewhere laborcould maintain itselfat no cost to
theenterprises.Thisserved to maintain theimportance of landin peasantlife.
Atthesametime, andinbothareas,landinthehandsofthepeasantry hadtobe
limitedinamount, orthepeasantry wouldnothavepossessed sufficientincentive
tooffer itslaborto theentrepreneurial sector.It is significant
inthisregard that
therelation between peasantandentrepreneur wasnot"feudal."No economic,
or legaltiebounda particular
political, peasantto a particular colonist. In the
absenceofsuchpersonal, face-to-face
bonds,onlychanges inthegeneral conditions
underlying theentire peasant economy couldassuretheentrepreneurs of a suffi-
cientseasonalsupplement to theirsmallnumber of resident laborers. Thiswas
accomplished in Mesoamerica in thecourseof theenforced settlement of the
Indianpopulation innucleated communitiesduring thelastdecadesof the16th
century andthefirst decadeof the17th.By restricting theamount of landin
thehandsofeachIndiancommunity tosixandone-half square miles, theCrown
obtained landforthesettlement ofSpanish colonists." A similarprocess oflimit-
ingthe land frontierofthe native populationwas introduced in Java. If access to
landthusremained to the
important peasantry, land itselfbecame a scarce resource
andsubject tointense competition, whenthepeasant
especially population began
togrowinnumbers.
foraccumulation
With possibilities limitedto money-wagesobtainedin part-
timeemployment produceor productsof
and to occasionalsales of agricultural
homecraftsat low prices,peasantagriculture remainedneedsdependenton the
oflabor,a laborfurnished
expenditure ofpeoplelivingoff
numbers
bygrowing
amountof land. The technology
a limitedor decreasing of the peasantry
thus
remained when
labor-intensive, withthecapital-intensive
compared andequipment-
intensive
colonist Peasant
enterprises. isoften
technology as "backward"
described
in disregard
or "tradition-bound," of manyitemssuchas second-hand
Singersew-
steel iron
ingmachines, needles, pots, nails,
tin-cans, goods,aniline
factory-woven
62 ForJava,seeFurnivall, 1929,p. 111;Leur,1955,p. 92; Schrieke,
1939,pp.43-44;Kolff,
1955,pp.3-79;forMesoamerica,
seeGibson,
1955,pp.586-587.
63 ZavalaandMiranda,1954,p. 73.
10 SOUTHWESTERN JOURNAL OF ANTHROPOLOGY

dyesandpaints, etc.which maybe found inthepeasant inventory. It is backward

onlybecause thepeasant isa captive ofthelabor-intensive technology withwhich
hemustoperate. He mustalwaysweigh theadoption ofa newgoodagainst the
balanceof hisresources. This balanceincludes notonlyfinancial or technical
resources, butalso"resources in people"to whomhe mustmaintain accessby
maintaining proper cultural behavior. Thesehumanrelations he couldonlydis-
regard at thepriceofsharply increasingliferisks. The labor-intensive technology
in turnlimits theamounts andkindsof technological changeandcapitalization
which hecanafford, as wellas hisconsumption andhisneeds.
The socialandeconomic dualizationofpost-conquest Mesoamerica andJava
wasalsoaccompanied in bothareasbydualization in theadministrative sphere.
Byplacing thenative communities underthedirect jurisdiction ofa specialcorps
ofofficialsresponsible tothehomegovernment rather thanto officials setup by
thecolonists, thehomegovernment attempted tomaintain control over the native
and
population deny to thiscontrol to thecolonists.Bygranting relative autonomy
tothenative communities, thehomegovernment couldat oneandthesametime
ensure themaintenance ofcultural barriersagainst colonist encroachment, while
the cost
avoiding huge ofdirect administration. Thus,inMesoamerica, theCrown
insistedonthespatialseparation ofnative peasants andcolonists,64 andfurthered
theorganization of thenativepopulation intonucleated communities withtheir
ownrelatively autonomous government. It charged thesenativeauthorities with
theright anddutytocollect tribute,organize corvye laborandtoexercise formal
andinformal sanctions in themaintenance of peaceand order.65 In Java,the
government reliedfrom thebeginning onthecooiperation oftheautonomous com-
munities, bymaking useofthetraditional channels ofintermediate chieftainship.
Administrative "contactwithvillagesocietywas limitedto a minimum.""
After a period characterized byemphasis onindividualism anddistrust ofnative
communalism during thesecondhalfofthe19thcentury, theDutchadministra-
tionreverted to relianceon theclosedcorporate peasantcommunity at thebe-
ginning of the 20thcentury."7
Oncethedualizedsystem of administration beganto operate, however, the
coloniststhemselves foundthattheycouldoftenuseit to theirownadvantage.
In Central Javathesugarindustry haspreferred torentlandinblockfrom native
villages,and to draw on the total supply of labor in the rather
village, than to
makedealswithindividual Since
villagers. sugar can be rotated with rice,such
64 ZavalaandMiranda,1954,pp. 38-39.
65 Aguirre,1952b,p. 291; ChavezOrozco,1943,p. 8; Gibson,1955,p. 590; Zavalaand
1954,p. 82.
Miranda,
66 Kroef,1953,p. 201.SeealsoFurnivall,
1939,pp. 118,126,217.
67 Furnivall,1939,pp. 182-187,294-295.
 CLOSED CORPORATE PEASANT COMMUNITIES 11

rentalagreements
haveusuallyspecified
thatsugarcultivation
bythecolonist
could be followedby food production
enterprise on the same land by native
inanorderly
peasants rotational Thus
cycle.
thesugarcultivationof theestatesandthericeandothercultivations
of thepopula-
tionare,as it were,co-ordinated
in one large-scale
agricultural theman-
enterprise,
agementofwhichis practicallyinthehandsofthesugarfactory.6s
In thelastyearsbefore
WorldWarII, thetotalareaoflandrentedfrom native
corporatecommunities
didnotexceed100,000 or 3 percent
hectares of irrigated
riceland.In boomyearsit mighthavebeen6 percent. was
But sugarproduction
inCentral
concentrated Java,andthere a largepartofthearablearea.69
covered
I havearguedelsewhere
thata somewhat similarsymbiotic between
relation
corporate
peasantcommunityandcolonist canbe discovered
enterprise inMeso-
america.
Thereeventhevoracious
haciendas
reacheda pointintheir
growthwhere
of corporatepeasantcommunities
absorption intothe estatesput too greata
strain
onthecontrol mechanisms attheir andwhere
disposal, they foundsystematic
relations
withsuchcommunities ontheir bordersbeneficialanduseful.70
Within thenative sector,administrativecharges inbothareaswerethusplaced
on
largely the as a and
community whole, onlysecondarily ontheindividual. This
wasespeciallytrueof tribute payments and labor services.In CentralJavathe
demands onland-holders became so great
thatland-holdingwasno longer a privilege
buta burden which triedto
occupants
sharewithothers..... Again, inmany partsofJava, theliability onpublic
toservice
workswasconfined bycustom and,as officials
toland-holders; wished toincreasethe
number of handsavailable forpublicworks, andthepeoplethemselves wished to
andreduce
distribute theburden ofserviceonsuchworks, itwastotheinterest of
bothofficials
andland-holders thattheoccupation oflandshould be widelyshared.
Thisencouraged communal possessionandobliterated socialdistinctions.71
hereditary
In Mesoamerica also,tribute andlaborcharges wereimposed onthewholecom-
munity during the 16th and 17th centuries.
Only around the beginningof the
18thcentury weretheycharged The constant
to individuals.72 of the
decrease
Indianpopulation untilthemid-17th century,theflight of Indiansintoremote
the
refuge-areas, exodus of Indians tothenorthern periphery ofMesoamerica and
topermanent settlements oncolonist all
enterprisesleftthefixed tribute-payments
and charges in thehandsof theremnant population. It is reasonableto
corv&e
supposethattheseeconomic pressuresaccelerated tendencies towards greater
1929,p. 111.See alsoHaar,1948,p. 85; Kolff,
68 Kolff, 1951,
1929,pp. 122-124;Pieters,
1951,pp. 144-145.
p. 130;S'Jacob,
69 Pieters,
1951,p. 131. 71 Furnivall,
1939,pp. 140-141.
70 Wolf,1956. 72 ZavalaandMiranda, 1954,p. 85.
12 SOUTHWESTERN JOURNALOF ANTHROPOLOGY

egalitarianismandlevelling,in Mesoamerica as in Java.It is possiblethatthe

disappearance ofstatusdistinctionsbetween noblesandcommoners andtherise
ofreligioussodalities
as dispensersofwealth inreligious
ceremonial wereinpart
consequences ofthislevelling
tendency.
It ismycontention thattheclosedcorporate community
peasant inbothareas
representsa responsetotheseseveral ofthelarger
characteristics society.Relega-
tionofthepeasantry tothestatusofpart-time laborers,
providing fortheir own
subsistenceon scarceland,together withtheimposition of charges leviedand
enforced bysemi-autonomous localauthorities, tendsto define thecommon life
situationwhichconfronts thepeasantry of bothsocieties. The closedcorporate
peasant community isan attempt tocometogripswiththissituation. Itsinternal
function,as opposed toitsexternal functionin thesocial,economic, andpolitical
webof thedualizedsociety, is to equalizethelifechances and liferisksof its
members.
The liferisksof a peasantry areraisedbyanythreat to itsbasicsourceof
the
livelihood, land, and to the produce which is raisedon thatland.Thesethreats
comebothfrom within andwithout thecommunity. Naturalpopulation increase
within thecommunity would serve to decrease the amount of land availableto
members ofthecommunity, as wouldunrestricted purchase andhoarding ofland
byindividual community members. Thus,as longas possible, closedcorporate
peasant communities willtendto pushoffsurplus population intonewly-formed
daughter Moreimportantly,
villages. however, they willstrive
toforce co-members
to redistributeorto destroy anypoolofaccumulated wealthwhich couldpoten-
beusedtoalterthelandtenure
tially balance infavor ofa fewindividual families
orindividuals. Purchase ofgoodsproduced outside thepeasant sector ofsociety
andtheirostentatious display also rankas majorsocialthreats, sincetheyare
prima facie evidenceof an unwillingness to continue to redistribute anddestroy
suchaccumulated surplus. They are indications of an unwillingnesssharethe
to
liferisksoffellowvillagers according to traditionalculturalpatterns. Among most
peasantgroups, as indeed among most socialgroupsanywhere, social relations
represent a sortoflong-term lifeinsurance. The extension ofgoodsandservices
atanygivenmoment isexpected toyieldresults inthefuture, intheform ofhelp
in caseof threat. Departure from the customary distribution of here
risks, sig-
nalledbya departure fromtheaccepted disposalof surpluses, is a causefor
immediate concernfor the corporately organized peasantry,and for itsimmediate
opposition. Similarly,unrestricted immigration and unrestrictedpurchase ofland
by outsiders would both serve to decrease the amount of land available to com-
munity members, as it would the
endanger pattern of distributionof risksdevel-
opedbycommunity members overtime. Hencethemaintenance ofstrong defenses
 CLOSED CORPORATE PEASANT COMMUNITIES 13

againstthethreatening It mustbe emphasized

outsider. thatthesedefenses are
required,because the closed corporate community is situated within a dualized
society.
capitalist Theyareneither simple "survivals," northeresults of"culture
lag,"nor due to some putative tendency to conservatism said to be characteristic
ofall culture.Theydo notillustrate the"contemporaneousness of thenon-con-
temporaneous." Theyexist, because their functions are contemporaneous.
Thisis notto saythattheirdefensive functions areultimately adequateto
thechallenge.The disappearance ofclosedcorporate peasant communities where
theyhave existed in the and
past, the lessening number of surviving communities
ofthistype, testify totheproposition thatinthelongruntheyareincapable of
preventingchange. Internal population surpluses can be pushed into
off daughter
onlyas longas newlandis available.
villages Retained within theboundaries of
thecommunity, theyexercise ever-increasing pressure onitscapacity to servethe
of itsmembers.
interests The corporate community maythenbe caughtin a
curiousdilemma: itcanmaintain itsintegrity onlyifitcansponsor theemigration
andurbanization orproletarianization ofitssons.If theentrepreneurial is
sector
unabletoacceptthesenewcomers, thesetruly "marginal" menwillcometorepre-
senta doublethreat: a threattotheir homecommunity intowhich theyintroduce
newwaysandneeds;anda threat to thepeaceof thenon-peasant sector which
theymay undermine with demands for social and economic justice,often defended
withthedesperation ofmenwhohavebutlittletolose.
Secondly, while the closedcorporate peasant community operates to diminish
of
inequalities risks, it can nevereliminate them completely. Individual member
familiesmay suffer lossesof crops, livestock, orother assets through accident or
mismanagement. Some member families be
may exceedingly fertileand have many
mouths to feed,whileothers areinfertile andableto getalongwithlittle.Indi-
vidualswhose liferisks aresuddenly increased duetotheplayofsomesuchfactor
mustseektheaid ofothers whocanhelpthem. Someoftheseriskscanbe met
the
through culturally standardized social relations of mutualaid andsupport;
some,however, willstrain theserelations their
beyond capacity. Individuals may
thenindesperation seekaid from members of their communityfrom
or outsiders
whoseaid is tinged withself-interest. It wouldseemthateventhemostefficient
prestigeeconomy cannotbe counted on to disposeof all surplus wealthin the
community. Poolsofsuchwealth tendtosurvive inthehandsoflocalfigures, such
as political
leaders, ornobles, or usurers, or store-keepers. Suchindividuals are
oftenexempt fromtheeveryday controls of thelocalcommunity, becausethey
occupya privileged positionwithin theeconomic or political apparatus of the
larger or are
society; they people who are willing topay the price of social ostra-
cismfortherewards ofa pursuit ofprofit andpower. Suchindividuals offerthe
14 SOUTHWESTERN JOURNALOF ANTHROPOLOGY

needypeasanta chancetoreducehisrisksmomentarily throughloansorfavors.

thepeasant
In turn, in becomingtheirclient, the
strengthensdegreeof relative
and which
autonomy immunity theyenjoy in thecommunity.Suchinternal
alli-
ancesmustweaken communal defensestoa pointwhere thecorporate
organization
comestorepresentbuta hollowshell,oris sweptasideentirely.73

BmLIOGRAPHY
AGUIRRE GONZALO
BELTRAN,
1952aProblemas de la poblaci6n
indigenade la cuencadelTepalcatepec(Me-
moriasdelInstituto
Nacional no.3).
Indigenista,
1952bEl gobiernoindigenaenMexicoy el proceso de aculturacidn
(America
vol.12,pp.271-297).
Indigena,
AGUIRREBELTRAN, GONZALO, AND RICARDO POZAs ARCINIEGAS
1954 "Instituciones
indigenasenel Mexico actual"(inCasoetal.,Mdtodosy
dela politica
resultados enMixico,
indigenista Memorias
pp.171-272, del
Instituto
Nacional no.6).
Indigenista,
RALPH
BEALS,
1946 Cherdn: a SierraTarascan Village(Smithsonian ofSocialAn-
Institute
Publication
thropology, no.2).
1952 "NotesonAcculturation" (inTax,ed.,Heritage ofConquest,pp.225-
231,Glencoe:FreePress).
BOEKE,J.H.
1953 Economics andEconomic PolicyofDualSocieties: byIndo-
asExemplified
nesia(NewYork:Institute ofPacificRelations).
CAMARABARBACHANO, FERNANDO
1952 "Religiousand PoliticalOrganization"(in Tax, ed.,Heritageof Conquest,
Glencoe:
pp.142-164, FreePress).
PEDRO
CARRASCO,
1951 Las culturas de Oaxaca,Mixico(American
indigenas vol.11,
Indigena,
pp.99-114).
1952 Tarascan an Analysis
FolkReligion: ofEconomic,SocialandReligious
Interactions
(MiddleAmerican
Research Publication
Institute, no.17).
CHAVEZ OROZCO,Luis
1943 Las instituciones de los indigenas
democraticas Mexicanos
en la ipoca
D.F.: Ediciones
colonial(Mexico, del Instituto Interameri-
Indigenista
cano).
FEI,HSIAo-TUNG
1953 China's
Gentry
(Chicago: ofChicago
University Press).
73 Wolf,1956.
 CLOSED CORPORATE PEASANT COMMUNITIES 15

GEORGE
FOSTER, M.
toMarketing
ofRuralMexicowithSpecialReference
1948 TheFolkEconomy
ofMarketing,
(Journal vol.12,pp.153-162).
FRIED, MORTON H.
1953 Fabric
ofChinese (NewYork:Praeger).
Society
FUKUTAKE, TADASHI
1951 ChiigokuN5sonShakaino Koz5 [Structure
of ChineseRuralSociety1
(Tokyo:Yfihikaku
Publishing
Co.).
FURNIVALL,J.S.
1939 Netherlands
India:a Studyof PluralEconomy(Cambridge:
Cambridge
University
Press).
GEERTZ,CLIFFORD
1956 Religious andEconomic
Belief ina Central
Behavior Town(Eco-
Javanese
nomic andCultural
Development Change,vol.4,pp.134-158).
GIBsoN,CHARLES
1955 TheTransformation
oftheIndianCommunity inNewSpain1500-1810
ofWorldHistory,
(Journal vol.2,pp.581-607).
GILLIN,
JOHN
1952 "EthosandCultural Aspectsof Personality"
(inTax,ed.,Heritage of
Conquest,pp.193-212, FreePress).
Glencoe:
NAVARRO,
GONZALEZ MOISES
1954 "Instituciones
indigenasen MexicoIndependiente" (in Caso et. al.,
Metodos de la politica
y resultados enMexico,
indigenista pp. 113-169,
Memorias Nacional
delInstituto no.6).
Indigenista,
GUITERAS
HOLMES, CALIXTA
1952 "SocialOrganization"(inTax,ed.,Heritage pp.97-108,
of Conquest,
Glencoe:FreePress).
HAAR, B. TER
1948 Adatlaw (NewYork:Institute
inIndonesia ofPacific
Relations).
A.IRVING
HALLOWELL,
1955 Culture
andExperience
(Philadelphia: ofPennsylvania
University Press).
Hu, HSIENCHIN
1948 TheCommon GroupinChinaanditsFunctions
Descent Fund
(Viking
inAnthropology,
Publications no.10).
KATTENBURG, PAUL
1951 A CentralJavaneseVillagein 1950 (CornellUniversity of
Department
FarEastern Data Paperno.2).
Studies,
16 OF ANTHROPOLOGY
SOUTHWESTERNJOURNAL

KIRCHHOFF, PAUL
1952 "Mesoamerica" pp. 17-30,Glencoe:
(in Tax, ed.,Heritageof Conquest,
FreePress).
J.J.VAN
KLAVEREN,
1953 TheDutchColonial in theEastIndies(Rotterdam:
System Drukkerij
Benedictus).
KOLFF, G. H. VAN DER
Influence
1929 "European onNative ed.,TheEffect
(inSchrieke,
Agriculture"
of Western
Influence intheMalayArchipelago,
onNativeCivilizations
Batavia:
pp.103-125, Kolff).
KROEF,JUSTUSM. VANDER
1953 Collectivism
inIndonesian vol.20,pp.193-209).
(SocialResearch,
Society
1956 EconomicDevelopment SomeSocialandCultural
inIndonesia: Implica-
tions(Economic andCultural
Development Change,vol.4,pp.116-133).
KENNETH PERRY
LANDON,
1949 Southeast
Asia:Crossroad ofChicago
University
(Chicago:
ofReligions
Press).
LEKKERKERKER, CORNELIS
1938 LandenVolkVanJava(Groningen-Batavia:
Wolters).
LEUR, JACOB CORNELIS VAN DER
1955 IndonesianTradeandSociety: His-
EssayinAsianSocialandEconomic
tory(TheHague-Bandung:W. Van HoeveLtd.).
OSCAR
LEWIs,
1951 Lifeina MexicanVillage:
TepoztlinRevisited of
(Urbana:University
Illinois
Press).
LINTON, RALPH
ofMan(NewYork:Appleton-Century).
1936 TheStudy
MCBRIDE, GEORGE MCCUTCHEN
ofMexico(NewYork:American
1923 TheLandSystems So-
Geographical
ciety).
MIRANDA,JOSE
1952 El tributoindigenaen la Nueva Espaiia duranteel siglo XVI (Mexico,
deMexico).
D.F.: El Colegio
MONZON, ARTURO
socialdelosTenochca
enla organizaci6n
1949 El Calpulli D.F.: In-
(Mexico,
deHistoria)
stituto .
WILBERT
MOORE, E.,AND MELVIN M. TUMIN
1949 SomeSocialFunctions of Ignorance (American Review,
Sociological
vol.14,pp.787-795).
 CLOSED CORPORATE PEASANT COMMUNITIES 17

OmE,TJONG Bo
1948 Niederlandisch-Indien:
eine Wirtschaftsstudie
(Ziirich:Institut
Orell
Fiissli
A.G.).
J.M.
PIETERS,
1951 "LandPolicy intheNetherlandsEastIndiesbefore
theSecondWorld
War" (inAfrika Instituut org.,LandTenure
Leiden, Symposium Am-
sterdam Leiden:
1950,pp.116-139, Universitaure
PersLeiden).
PLOEGSMA, NICOLAS DIRK
1936 Oorspronkelijkheid
en EconomischAspectvanhetDorp op Java en
Madoera(Leiden:
Antiquariaat
J.Ginsberg).
PozAsARCINIEGAS,
RICARDO
1952 La situation etfinancidre
economique del'Indien (Civilization,
Am&ricain
vol.2,pp.309-329).
REDFIELD,ROBERT,ANDSOL TAX
1952 "GeneralCharacteristics
of Present-Day
Mesoamerican
IndianSociety"
(inTax,ed.,Heritage Glencoe:
pp.31-39,
ofConquest, FreePress).
RoscOE,
JOHN
1911 TheBaganda(London:
Macmillan).
J.0.
SCHRIEKE, BERTRAM
1955 Indonesian Studies
Sociological (TheHague:W. VanHoeve).
SIMKHOVITSCH, WLADIMIR GR.
1898 Die Feldgemeinschaft
inRussland(Jena:Fischer).
SIMPSON, EYLER N.
1937 TheEjido:Mexico's
WayOut(Chapel
Hill:University
ofNorth
Caro-
linaPress).
E.H.
S'JACOB,
1951 "Observations
ontheDevelopment ofLandrights
inIndonesia"(inAfrika
Leiden,org.,LandTenureSymposium
Instituut Amsterdam1950,pp. 140-
146,Leiden:Universitaure
PersLeiden).
SUPATMO, RADEN
1943 Animistic
andReligious
Practices (NewYork:EastIndies
oftheJavanese
ofAmerica,
Institute mimeo.).
TANNENBAUM, FRANK
1929 TheMexican Revolution
Agrarian (Washington:
Brookings
Institution).
TAx,SOL
1941 WorldViewand SocialRelations
in Guatemala(American
Anthropolo-
vol.43,pp.27-42).
gist,
1952 "Economy andTechnology"(inTax,ed.,Heritage pp.43-
ofConquest,
65,Glencoe:FreePress).
18 SOUTHWESTERN JOURNALOF ANTHROPOLOGY

1953 Penny a Guatemalan

Capitalism: IndianEconomy(SmithsonianInstitu-
tionInstitute
ofSocialAnthropology,
Publication
no.16).
TuNmIN,
MELVIN M.
1950 TheHeroandtheScapegoat ina Peasant
Community(JournalofPerson-
vol.19,pp.197-211).
ality,
1952 Casteina PeasantSociety Princeton
(Princeton: UniversityPress).
A.
VANDENBOSCH,
1942 TheDutchEastIndies(Berkeley: ofCalifornia
University Press).
WAGLEY, CHARLES
1941 Economics
ofa Guatemalan American
(Memoirs,
Village Anthropological
no.58).
Association,
WHETTEN, NATHAN L.
1948 Rural
Mexico(Chicago: ofChicago
University Press).
KARL
WITTFOGEL, A.
1935 Foundationsand Stagesof ChineseEconomicHistory(Zeitschrift
fiir
vol.4, pp. 26-60).
Sozialforschung,
1938 Die Theorieder Orientalischen fiirSozial-
(Zeitschrift
Gesellschaft
vol.7,pp.90-122).
forschung,
ERIcR.
WOLF,
1955 TypesofLatinAmerican (American
Peasantry vol.57,
Anthropologist,
pp.452-471).
1956 Aspects
ofGroup ina Complex
Relations Mexico(American
Society: An-
vol.58,pp.1065-1078).
thropologist,
WOLF,ERICR., AND ANGELPALERM
1955 Irrigation
intheOldAcolhuaDomain, Mexico(Southwestern of
Journal
vol.11,pp.265-281).
Anthropology,
YANG, MARTIN
1945 A ChineseVillage:Taitou,Shantung Province(New York: Columbia
University
Press).
ZAVALA, ANDJOSE
SILVIO, MIRANDA
1954 "Instituciones
indigenas en la Colonia"(in Caso et. al., Metodosy re-
sultadosde la politicaindigenista
en Mexico,pp. 29-169,Memorias del
Instituto
Nacional no.6).
Indigenista,
UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA
CHARLOTTESVILLE,VIRGINIA