In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

325 N o t e s o f M i d d l e A m e r i c a n A r c h a e o l o g y a n d E t h n o l o g y Carnegie Institution of Washington Division of Historical Research No. 82 October 13, 1947 Cuchumatan Textiles: The Course of an Error Oliver La Farge tume is skimpy and marred by incorrect terminology . Certainly, when confronted by what appeared to be an actual specimen from the area, supported by the most conspicuous illustration in the book, any reasonable person would include it as at least one form of Jacalteca costume. This Dr. O’Neale did, although with reservations (“Textiles,” pp. 108, 7.23, 267; Fig. 35a). A further factor influenced Dr. O’Neale. The correctly identified San Mateo Ixtatan huipils which she saw and described in her book (p. 278; Fig. 38) are choice specimens. One will not see one woman in a hundred wearing garments of this elaboration. The difference between them and the simple example at Tulane is enough to make it seem reasonable that they came from different villages. The uncertainty created by the situation described above made it possible for Dr. O’Neale to accept another misidentification, a correction of which she has asked me to include in this Note. Figure 129f of her book reproduces a photograph taken by A. Biener. Following his information, Dr. O’Neale describes this picture in part as, “Women of Jacaltenango . Tzute worn under straw hat.” The picture may well have been taken at Jacaltenango . The women appear to be either from San Pedro Soloma or from San Miguel Acatan, most likely the latter. The article worn under the hat is not a tzute, but another huipil turned inside out, a common practice at those villages and at Santa Eulalia. The Jacalteca women’s costume is correctly, but amateurishly, described in Year Bearer’s People (La A relatively unimportant error is capable of spreading and perpetuating itself in a remarkable way. One such, originally little more than a bit of carelessness, has developed to the point at which published correction is required, having infected not only one of my own publications (La Farge and Byers 1931), but also Dr. Lila M. O’Neale’s magnificent Textiles of Highland Guatemala (1945). As an example and a warning, also, the story is not without interest. Among other specimens I brought back from Los Altos Cuchumatanes of Guatemala to Tulane University in 1927 was a San Mateo Ixtatan huipil, somewhat less elaborate than the average. It was the kind of huipil that would usually be made for an older child. Later, after I had severed my connection with Tulane, this collection was shelved in favor of more important exhibits. The label on the huipil must have been lost. Someone relabeled it as from the “Jacaltenango District,” Actually the San Mateo Ixtatan huipil bears no resemblance to the Jacalteca. When Tulane University published The Year Bearer’s People, an artist was retained, without my knowledge, to prepare an additional color illustration (facing p. 36). Struck by the bright tones of this unfortunate huipil, the artist placed it upon a nondescript figure, and labeled his work of art, “Jacalteca Woman.” Unfortunately an erratum slip was not inserted in the book, nor was the label corrected. This huipil was the only specimen from the Cuchumatan area shown to Dr. O’Neale. She was aware of a conflict in the illustrations in Year Bearer’s People, where the description of the women’s cos- olivEr la FargE 326 Farge and Byers 1931:36–38; Figs. 11, 19, 21). If we delete the mention of the San Mateo Ixtatan huipil, it is also correctly described in Textiles (p. 26), although in this description it should have been stated that the use of the Totonicapan cinta is not very common, and that whether the local or Totonicapan cinta be used, the hair is wrapped in the same way. Four language groups occupy Los Altos Cuchumatanes . Along the southern edge are the Mam, sharply differentiated from the others linguistically and culturally. The rest of the area is occupied by Maya Indians speaking three closely related, but distinct , languages: Kanhobal, Jacalteca, and Chuj. The Jacalteca costume has been dealt with. The Chuj wear that described by Dr. O’Neale (p. 278; Fig. 38), except that the embroidery is usually less elaborate . The huipil figured by Termer (1930b, Pl...

Share