Lockhart and Gibson and the Indies
In writing this blog I think it is prudent to take the readings in how I felt they were helpful to read. I began reading Lockhart but soon got a little lost in the terminology, so to remedy this situation I switched to the selections written by Gibson. Gibson’s work I found much more of an explanatory process for someone who is new to the field to understand. I found the information Gibson provided to be enlightening. Especially when it came to forming a background for what Lockhart has written. I have been in need of a little more background on the different groups of native people which were present during the contact period. Gibson’s analyses of how the different groups conceptualize there own unique history was fascinating. All in all, I found Gibson’s sections to be very helpful and presented the information on a good level.
Lockhart’s Of Things of the Indies there were several competing factors that for me were both interesting and perplexing. To begin with, as with all complied essay books I have a fear that the organization will be lacking and confuse the hell out of me. However, I found that the progression of Lockhart’s chapters followed a very linear line and related to each other in a very coherent way. And I very much appreciated this aspect of the book.
Another aspect of the book that I liked was how Lockhart talks about what other people have written and/or researched. The progression of a historiography is a somewhat new feature to me and reading this book helped to clarify how things work on this level. I will admit that this on more than one occasion came out a little heavy and I would have liked to have seen a little more explanation about what he was discussing. So in this respect the book it not quite how I thought it would be.
As for the content of what the essays were designed to discuss I was conflicted in my attitude towards it. Ah the linguistics. I will admit linguistics is an aspect of anthropology that will always elude me, so as a consequence I didn’t get as much out of what he discussed. But, it is good that he takes this approach to how he studies the history of the area. The other aspects such as the interweaving of the cultures and how systems were formed in New Spain were very interesting. And seeing as I have been experimenting with social memory theory for my thesis his explanation of social history hit a few familiar cords with my own research.
There is however, one aspect of the book I’m taking issue with, his discussion of anthropologists at the end especially the archaeologists. I realize that he is trying to relate how his own research developed over time and that’s fine it is a good way to wrap up the book and show how he came to his conclusions. But, the tone he took with my field was a little harsh. He blames us for what we had not done or were not doing or were leaving out of our research. During this he referred to the 1960s and grant it our history prior to that time was neglecting in how we studied things. But, I don’t think that Lock hart gives us enough credit for where the discipline as a whole was heading. From the 60s onward was a time of new theories and methods which have revolutionized how we understand cultures and conduct research. And as for archaeology it is always going to be the study of physical objects and that is never going to change so it should be left up to others to study the finer details of written documents. There is a reason why anthropology is such a specialized field. It is impossible to study all aspects of a culture cause in the end you will fail and neglect the culture you are studying. So by having an almost fragmented personality in anthropology allows us to look at a culture from all sides and then compare notes and figure out what it is going on. It is not that I hate Lockhart’s interpretation of his research but I would prefer it if he did not accuse us of not doing things when those theoretical paradigms were being developed.
