BOOK REVIEWS 30 1

tion that ceremonial leadership and political power are in a one-to-one relationship ob-
scured the basic structure of Pueblo society.
Dr. Titiev’s realistic and detailed accounts of Hopi life also make it possible to as-
sess the comparative strengths of permissiveness (as expressed in the parent-child rela-
tionship and in matters of sex) and the intimidating pressures of even so “decentralized
and essentially non-legislative type” of government as the Hopi, pressures applied in
early childhood (see scare kachinas, pp. 216 ff.), in later childhood (see kachina cult initi-
a t i o n s , ~ llSff.),andinadulthood(seesevere
~. whippings,pp.65 ff,and 115, and fearof
witchcraft, p. 65 and note 46). Both aspects of Pueblo training have been commented
on before, but Dr. Titiev’s discussion again brings into focus the numerous arid often
contradictory factors involved in the Hopi socialization process. It challenges us anew
to look beyond the parent-child relationships to the over-all aims of the society for an
understanding of the basic personality structure. When viewed from this anglc, “Hopi
docility” no longer appears as an anomaly in a permissive milieu, but the logical result
of the need for cooperation in a community depending upon agriculture in a semi-arid
environment.
I n the ceremonial descriptions in the second section, the author has again brought
together relevant material from previous publications, noting particularly opinions or
observations differing from his own. Each description is followed by a short passage
which seeks to interpret the ccremony under discussion and integrate it into the total
ceremonial scheme. Chapter VIII, The Basic Pattern and Underlying Concepts of Hopi
Ceremonies, and Chapter XIV, The Scheme of Hopi Ceremonialism will be of grcat
help to students of Pueblo religion.
Where so excellent a n effort has been made to integrate new and old material, to
argue specific points, and to offer stimulating interpretations, it is perhaps carping to
criticize the general form in which the material has becn presented. That form, Dr.
Titiev tells us, has been dictated by his special interests. But it seems, a t least to the re-
viewer, that the valuable contributions made in this monograph could be more easily
comprehended, both by students of the Southwest and specialists in other areas, if, a t
the beginning, greater emphasis had been placed on the environmental and historical
factors that made the complex patterns of Oraibi social and ceremonial organization
necessary.
ESTHER S. GOLDFRANK
NEWYORKCITY

MIDDLE AMERICA
The Aztec and M u y u Papermakers. VICTORWOLFGANG VON HAGEN. (Second edition.
Introduction by Dard Hunter; x, 120 pp., 39 plates, 6 text figures. $6.00. J. J.
Augustin, New York, 1944.)
Mr. Victor Wolfgang von Hagen first produced The Aztec and Muya Puperntakers
in 1943 as a limited edition, which was selected by the American Institute of Graphic
Arts as one of the best books of the year. I n 1944, with slight changes, the publishers
brought out a trade edition.
The volume is handsome, the text interesting, and the appeal of the book will have
a range extending beyond archaeology and anthropology into the realm of the bib-
302 A M E R I C A N ‘4 NI’IIROPOLOGISZ’ [N.s., 47,1945

liophiles. A great deal of research has gone into the book, which covers the ancient and
modern use of paper in Middle America, and the sources of such paper. Mr. von IIagen
lays the ghost that aboriginal American paper was made from the ~ig(iz)(’,antl (Icnioii-
strates completely and convincingJy that it was inatle from thc injicr bark of various
types of wild fig.
The book was written for an infornictl public rather than readers in segregated tech-
nical fields. As such, it perhaps should not receive the same rigidly critical scrutiny as
if it were a basic technical work. Yet there is a certain looseness throughout the volume
that suggests a lack of scientific self-criticism. Mistakes in thc meaning of Aztec wortls,
like giving, instead of cemponlli, the Aztec word for “twenty,” the word pill;, meaning
(‘son,” seem inexcusable. To fly in the face of the pictogralhic cvitlcnce for w u u h m -
huac, and translate it as “place of the eagle” instcatl of “by the wood,” is carclcss, not
to say negligent, of accepted usage in translation. The confusion its to the time of origin
of papermaking, antl the suggestion that it may have followed, rather than prvcc(lct1,
carving on stone by the Maya likewise seems uncritical. On page 46 he cites as a “Sciior
Cam” the scholar Antonio Leon y Gama, who, as a private citizen in the troubled years
of the early nineteenth century, did so much to hold together the surviving rcmiiants of
Mexican manuscripts. This reference in connection with other statements secnis to i l l -
dicatc a lack of tietailed study as to the quantity and location of surviving Mexican pic-
ture manuscripts, the number of which seems fairly consistently to have bcc~iunder-
estimated. These citations are not meant to be consitlercd in a spirit of ac;t(lcmic ca1)-
tiousness, but rather to give an impression of the trend of the volume.
The author has been through a large body of material, but he evidently wrote his
book from his notes, which were hastily and carelessly assembled. Mr. von Ilagcn has
amassed so much important antl interesting information that it is a pity that it should
suffer from careless checking of background material. Perhaps if the author had cbxcr-
ciscd more care his book would lack its 1)rese’ntgusto. Perhaps, if the author u’crt, morc
the professional scholar, hc \vouIcI never have cntertainetl seriously t hc itlca of a gcncral
book on paper of interest both to bibliophiles antl to Americanists.
On the other hand, this academic generation has secn a n increased production of
popular books wherein slovenly and distorted scholarship has been rxcuscd so as to
promote popular appeal. I n the long run, it seems diflicult to see how a field of study can
maintain its honor and interest when presented in terms of t h c jerry-built or bruni-
niagem. If Mr. von Hagen had put in six mcinths morc of work, thcrc woul(l haw b e c ~
no need to make this delightful book the subject of so gcncralizctl a reproof as is mani-
fcstcd in this review. (;EOI<CF? c. VAII.1 A N T
UNIVl?RSlTY h‘fLJSEUM, P€IILAuKLl~IIIA

EXcUVUtiortS 01 Tujiimrrlco, (;uufelrtcl~a.HERTIIA P. DUTTON A N D ~ ~ I U T J K.

M IlOHBS.
With Appendices by T. D. Stewart and W. C. Root. (Monographs of the School of
American Research, No. 9, xii, 124 pp., 6 m a p , 101 figs., bibliography and intlcx.
Santa Fe, 1943.)
A three-month season of intensive work by the authors is here reported on antl the
resulting material is fully worked up. Excavation was for the School of Amcrican Re-
search, carried on in 1938-1939. The site is in a region hitherto unsampletl by a proper
archaeological investigation, and well chosen as one of very great potential iniportallce
in working out inter-regional and temporal relationships in Mitldlc America in gciicral.