724 A merican Anthropologist [65, 19631

cerning the nine CabCcar clans inadvertently illustrates that the women of six of these clans do not marry a t all. The explanation in the accompanying text does not fare much better. Such a complex system as that of reciprocal and non-reciprocal marriage possi- bilities among a group of some eighteen clans on the one hand, and of nine clans on the other, some of which allow marriage with those of the other group, can hardly be de- scribed and explained in three pages. The source of confusion here is that the distinction between reciprocal and non-reciprocal marriage relationships is not clear, although it is in the diagrams. Here the term “can marry” is usually employed. Since the clans are patrilocal, the reader will probably assume that this term signifies “men marry,” that is, for instance, that men of clan A “can marry” women of clan B. Here the relationship would be non-reciprocal. Only if the men of clan B “can marry” women of clan A would the relationship be reciprocal. In the enumeration of clans which six Bribri clans “can marry,” there is a lack of correspondence in five instances which, if our assumption be correct, should mean that here the marriages are not reciprocal (p. 37). However, it is perplexing that if so, the women of one of these clans (the mogriwak) are not accounted for. Lack of precision of this sort as well as the fragmentary nature of the data, make comprehension all but impossible.

The following three pages which deal with kinship terminology reveal a comparable source of perplexity. The main difficulty here seems to be a lack of understanding of the principles of kinship nomenclature, namely the ego principle. For instance, under the heading “male line” there appear the terms “Fa Wi Br”, “Mo So So”, “Mo Da So”, “So Mo”, ‘‘Da Mo”, “Fa So Da”, “Fa Da So”, “Fa So So” and “Fa Da Da” (p. 38). While it is possible to decipher some of these terms, others are plainly equivocal. The author is moreover inconsistent in her manner of designating different words in the native language which refer to the same kin. Even the most patient reader may finally question the accuracy of the data presented.

It is unfortunate that this sort of data was not dealt with systematically. Neverthe- less the study does make significant contributions and it should stimulate interest in this little known culture.

Aztecs of Mexico: Origin, Rise and Fall of the Aztec Nation. GEORGE C. VAILLANT. Re- vised by SUZANNAK B. VAILLANT. Garden City N. Y. , Doubleday, 1962. xxii, 312 p ~ . , bibliography, 51 figures, frontispiece (map), index, 68 plates, 14 tables. $7.50.

Reviewed by PEDRO CARRASCO, University of California, Los Angeles This is a slightly revised edition of the book first published in 1941. A reprint of the

first edition has long been available in paperback. The bulk of the book deals with the culture of the Aztecs as of the time of the

Spanish conquest, but the first few chapters trace the archeological and historical back- ground of the Aztecs and the final two chapters describe the Spanish conquest and its aftermath with suggestions for a modern tour through the area.

In describing Aztec culture greater attention is devoted, relatively speaking, to ma- terial culture, art, and religion, less to social and political organization. The chapters on material culture and art are perhaps the best, as could be expected from the author’s experience with field archeology and museum work. Economic organization is not really covered-the chapter entitled Economics is mostly on material culture.

The discussion of social organization is frankly poor. Vaillant subscribed to Ban- delier’s view of Aztec society as a democratic confederation of clans. The problem of what type of clan might have existed is avoided by defining clan as a tribal division

Book Reviews 725

without connotation of male orfemale descent (p. 8 9 , although later clans are said to be exogamous (p. 91). There is no real discussion of kinship.

Tenochtitlan is described as a city-state, a union of twenty clans with democratically elected representatives and leaders (pp. 94-5). Conquest and tribute are often men- tioned but there is no discussion of political organization beyond the city level. Cate- gories of social organization are loosely used and contradictions can appear within a single paragraph. For example:

The early chroniclers, conditioned by their mediaeval Spanish background, spoke of heredi- tary classes. I n all probability, judging from Indian communities as a whole, there was rank but not class in the hereditary sense until the Empire was well established . . . . property in the form of rights to use land, tools and other possessions created a social and economic stratification. In theory if not always in practice Aztec society was democratic, and the communal ownership of productive property was its economic base (p. 93).

The Tenochcas gained land on the lake shore, which gave them a strong foothold for further conquest. Since this new territory was granted to the leading warriors, a caste of power and wealth was established. Thus outwardly the conquest brought the Tenochcas from the condition of a feudal tributary to that of an independent state (p. 80).

. . . the political unit was a group, dwelling in its own village or city, supported by its own land. Even though such a group might grow to thousands of members, the village become trans- formed into a city-state, and the communal lands cease to support the population, no real shift in political organization took place. No leader developed the concept of empire so successfully applied by the Incas of Peru (p. 175).

Tribute is then explained by Vaillant as a means of adjusting food supply to popula- tion (p. 175).

In connection with the mediaeval background attributed to Spanish chroniclers in the above quotation, it is curious that Vaillant’s own description of native history (chapter V) is written in terms of vassals, fiefs, dynasties, and overlords.

All these contradictions could conceivably be explained in terms of a social struc- ture that included conflicting elements as well as regional and historical differences. It appears that Vaillant thought of differences between the early and later periods and be- tween theory and practice, but he never developed these ideas, and the description of a democratic confederation of clans is clearly assigned to the late period. It is clear to this reviewer that Vaillant simply summarized Bandelier on subjects for which he did not study the source materials and without understanding the theoretical issues in- volved.

The chapters on religion are not much better. There are, of course, the usual lists of gods and goddesses, the calendar system and the monthly rituals. The student of Aztec religion will be interested to read that the religious organization of the Aztecs is relatively clear (p. 251). What is clear is that Vaillant read the descriptions of rituals looking for curious sacrifices, hideous ceremonies and macabre dances (p. 166) without trying to analyse the underlying organization.

In summary, this book was never the classic treatise that the front cover says it is. The present edition has corrected the first edition’s mistaken identification of the Toltecs of historical traditions with the archeological culture of Teotihuacan, and the bibliography has been brought up to date.

The rest of the book has been left unchanged. Vaillant ended his book by contrasting the modern world torn with hate and war with that of the Indian: “The Indians worked together for their common good, and no sacrifice was too great for their corporate well- being” (p. 233).

The reviser’s note to this paragraph states:

726 A m e r i c a n Anthropologist [65, 19631

There is much talk today of status and class among the early Mexicans and the author’s view is called an idealization. It was written by a man who had not only studied the remains and traditions of the prehistoric Indian, but knew and loved his descendants in a nay that we know only those whom we do love. This plea for more understanding and less competition between individuals and nations will have meaning when the contemporary jargon of socioeconomic class structure has been forgotten. I have proudly let it stand (p. 256).

Priests and Warriors: Social Structures for Cherokee Politics in the 18th Century. FRED GEARING. (American Anthropological Association Memoir 93.) Menasha, Wiscon- sin: The American Anthropological Association, 1962. vii, 124 pp., 7 figures, index, notes, references. $2.00.

Reviewed by RAYMOND D. FOGELSON, University of Washington

This brilliantly conceived and executed monograph may very well come to be re- garded as a landmark in American structural studies. Gearing has attempted to do sev- eral things: 1) offer a situational approach to the study of social structure and political systems; 2) provide a synchronic model of early 18th century Cherokee political organ- ization; 3) create theoretical linkages between social structure and behavior, as medi- ated through ethos and personality; 4) present a n analytic interpretation of historical changes in Cherokee political organization from the early 1700’s to the American Revolution; and 5) suggest a general developmental sequence describing the process by which sovereign villages become voluntary states. As can be seen from this approximate listing of topics, Priests and Warriors is ambitious in scope and, as Gearing himself anticipates, there is much with which to disagree (pp. 8-9). M y stance throughout this review will be critical, hopefully constructively so, since the over-all excellence of the work demands reaction.

Gearing sees social structures not as monolithic entities but as shifting configurations of patterned role relationships adjusted to specific tasks occurring through the yearly cycle. Thus, for a given society, there may not be one social structure but several. These situationally determined patterned relationships are conceptualized as structural poses. A structural pose is defined as “the way a simple human society sees itself to be ap- propriately organized a t a particular moment for a particular purpose” (p. 15). This notion of structural pose underlies all else that follows in this work.

Four structural poses are felt to provide the interpersonal context for 18th century Cherokee male behavior. The first pose has to do with relationships within the local household. Gearing assumes, with some justification, that the typical Cherokee house- hold was a matrilocal extended family. (This assumption may need some qualification, since limited archeological evidence suggests small, probably single-family, dwellings.) The activities singled out as representative of this pose are the economic pursuits of the male householders, particularly hunting. A second structural pose focuses on relations within the clan or clan section (fellow clansmen resident within the local village). Here, emphasis is placed on the functions of the clan in marriage regulation and in social con- trol through the exaction of blood revenge.

In both these structural poses, real as they are, Gearing tends to underestimate the importance of the matrilineage in ordering Cherokee domestic affairs. I question whether a man’s economic productivity was channeled exclusively into his wife’s house- hold. There are several indications that Cherokee men, even after marriage, contrib- uted substantial economic support in the form of game, raw materials, trade goods, and clearing of fields to their mothers and sisters. With respect to blood revenge, I see the matrilineage as more influential than the clan section. Responsibility for avenging slain kinsmen seems to have fallen principally on consanguineal brothers, mother’s brothers, and sisters’ sons (and there are some recorded instances of fathers and sons