review of los popol vuh y sus epistemologias

7/29/2019 Review of Los Popol Vuh y sus epistemologias

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/review-of-los-popol-vuh-y-sus-epistemologias 1/9

BOOK REVIEWS

Carlos M. López

Los “Popol Wuj” y sus epistemologías: Las diferencias,

el conocimiento y los ciclos del infinito

Quito: Abya-Yala, 1999. 294 pp.

Review by Gustavo Verdesio

In Los “Popol Wuj” y sus epistemologías,

Carlos M. López undertakes a very difficult but necessary enterprise: toclarify fundamental aspects of the genesis and structure of the book known

throughout the centuries as the Popol Vuh. His analysis begins with an

exhaustive survey of the extant bibliography, which allows us to put in

perspective his own contribution to scholarship on the Maya-Quiche text.

Later, he describes the objective of his investigation as detecting the conti-

nuities and ruptures the text shows with regard to the epistemologies that

dominate its different parts.

His theoretical model starts from the assumption that there arecertain continuities in the ways a community views both the world and

itself.Thesecontinuitiesaremadepossiblebythesuccessiveaccumulationof

ideological substrata that slowly form what López terms “epistemological

banks” (27). It is precisely by investigating the content of these banks that

he will be able to formulate hypotheses on the possible stages of the Popol

Vuh’s formation and transformation (ibid.). It goes without saying that

such a research enterprise faces a series of difficulties, among them the fact

that the language in which the Popol Vuh was written and the worldview itconveys are completely lost today; the absence of extant metatexts that could

help the interpreter decipher obscure words in the Maya-Quiche original

(a difficulty not faced by scholars investigating the works of such other past

cultures as, say, the Ancient Greek) (ibid.); the difficulties created in the

text’s transliteration from a pictographic register to a document written in

the Roman (Western European) alphabet (28); and, finally, the different

epistemological foundations of López’s discursive practice and the text’s

N e p a n t l a : V i e w s f r o m S o u t h 2.2

Copyright 2001 by Duke University Press

407



408

Nepantla

(ibid.). To help him overcome this last obstacle, López vows to be constantly

vigilant of his own interpretive practices in order to prevent his Occidental

background from interfering with the deciphering of the Popol Vuh (ibid.).

López’s initial hypotheses include his contention that there is not

a unitary ideological and epistemological system throughout the book. In-

stead he finds epistemological changes corresponding to the various social

transformations undergone by the culture that produced it (29). The other

basic idea inspiring his investigation is that the Popol Vuh can be read on

three great discursive planes: the cosmogonic, the ritual-phenomenological,

and the sociopolitical (ibid.). Finally, López states his intention to focus on

those conceptual patterns that have survived the changes made to the man-

uscript over the centuries: the dual dynamics, the preference for a unitarian

view of the universe and the creatures that populate it, and the understand-

ing of knowledge as something that is not alien to the matter of which

beings and things are made (ibid.).

At the end of his bibliographic survey in chapter 1, López con-

cludes that an alternative organization of the parts that comprise the Popol

Vuh can be proposed (54). He starts his reexamination of the text’s structure

with a propedeutic revaluation of the term most frequently used to desig-

nate his object of study: book—which is not the most appropriate word

for the Popol Vuh (55). The original Quiche, tzih, is so polysemous that it

cannot be translated into modern Western languages without losing a wide

range of connotations present in the original (55). Another question that

must be answered before the internal organization of the text can be elu-

cidated is who wrote it. According to López, the evidence available seems

to suggest that the authors belonged to the priestly class. Nevertheless, this

does not mean that the text represents only one class’s perspective: it is also

the book of a community (56).

Following, in part, the organization proposed by Villacorta, López

offers a classification of the fragments that comprise the document: first,

the cosmogonic stories recounted in numbers 7–83 and 540–65, the date

of which is not certain, although it could be deduced that they belong

to the preclassic period (the years 300–600 a.d.); second, the passage that

narrates the adventures of the twins Hunahpu and Xbalanque (numbers

84–539), which corresponds to the middle and late classic period (600–

900); and third, the “historic” tales (numbers 540–892), whose historicalperiod would correspond to the years 1200–1524 (58–59). Besides these

three clearly differentiated sections, López finds two additional kinds of

textual planes: the metatextual clarifications by one of the scribes (numbers



409

Book Reviews

1–6) and the repeated interventions of the manuscript’s copyists throughout

the years (60). According to López, this variegated group of fragments is, in

actuality, a series of texts that reproduce intellectual elaborations belonging

to different stages of the Quiche community’s history (64).

Havingestablishedhismodelfordescribingthemanuscript’sstruc-

ture, López begins studying the different epistemologies reflected by each

of the textual fragments. He chooses to start from the most recent section,

the one that narrates the historical events, because it is the one closest to

our present and, no less important, because it is the one that most strongly

interpellates present-day Maya-Quiche communities (69). He then works

backward until his analysis reaches the most ancient part of the manuscript.

In the more recent historical narratives, López sees a series of

foundational myths whose purpose is to justify the possession of lands by a

sector of the Quiche community (71). That group used these narratives to

legitimize a state of affairs that had been affected by a situation of instability:

the subjection of the entire community to the Spanish invaders (ibid.).

The situation of enunciation of the stories as they appear in the text is

complex: they are determined by the Spanish desire to get knowledge about

the native system of social organization and by the friars’ need to obtain

information about their future converts’ worldview. In that context, the

myths narrated by the text can be considered as an attempt to negotiate

with the conquistadores (ibid.). That is to say, these stories are not told only

to serve the Spaniards but also to advance the cause of those who wrote the

manuscript: the myths present genealogical lines that offer textual “proof”

of the Quiche nobility’s purity of blood; this allows the nobles both to

aspire to better treatment from the Spanish authorities and to reaffirm their

authority in relation to the rest of the indigenous ethnic groups (71–72).

In other words, these legitimation narratives were written by members of

the nobility in the context of a situation of oppression similar to the one to

which they had subjected other groups (72).

In this way, López introduces the reader to a text that deals with

problems related to militarism and hegemony. The Quiche, whose Toltec

heritage was widely acknowledged, were the dominant group in the re-

gion. As such, they decided to appeal to unity as an antidote to their loss

of hegemony that was the consequence of the triumphal arrival of the

Spaniards (73). But the unity the Popol Vuh proposes is based on domina-tion: it is a contract with Tojil, a protective power whose authority comes

from heaven (76). López shows us that, interestingly enough, there are no

allusions to Tojil in the rest of the surviving texts from other communities



410

Nepantla

in the Quiche-dominated region. This is almost certainly due to the fact

that those other peoples did not adhere to the hegemony narrative, centered

around Tojil, that the Popol Vuh scribes proposed (ibid.). In addition to the

protection contract, this narrative appealed to a supposedly common origin

that should serve as the basis for the unity of all the peoples in the region (77).

That common origin had East as its point of departure (ibid.). Unification,

in this narrative, required that the superiority of one group over the others

be acknowledged, precisely the ideology that the Popol Vuh tries to justify

(81).

The sacrifice to Tojil is interpreted, then, as a sign of subjection to

the Quiche (93). In this sense, sacrifice can be considered as an institution

that represents the ties between two human communities (96). Another

Maya-Quiche concept, nawalism (that is, the manifestation of the living in

diverse forms, be they human or animal), combines the idea of the multiple

with the one of the individual, thus legitimating the multiplicity of the

originally divine power that concentrates in a single point that may take the

shape of a chief, a warrior, a sage, or a witch (99). In sum, the idea of the

nawal expresses unity in diversity (100).

The episodes that narrate thetwins’ saga deal, instead, with themes

related to binarism understood as a symmetrical and reversible process. The

reversibility of binarisms suggests that behind symmetry there is transfor-

mation, which becomes the point of departure of a series of cycles of actions

(117). One of the ways in which this concept manifests itself is through the

incorporation of one of the antagonists into the other. Both in Quiche social

life and in the Popol Vuh, such incorporation takes the form of exogamic

practices (118). In López’s interpretation, this kind of practice strengthens

hegemony (119).

The main theme of the chapter on the twins is that in Quiche cos-

mology there is a dynamic principle that is enacted through all that exists

(130). For the Quiche, the universe included one force that ruptured things

and another that conserved them; the crossing of these two forces caused

the kind of genealogical mutations one sees in the twins’ saga (131). This

worldview is what gives foundation to a knowledge theory based on the

idea of development: knowledge is neither fixed nor fully accomplished

from inception; rather, it evolves and is completed as life—be it cosmic or

human—develops (134). In this worldview, then, knowledge is closely tiedto power, as shown in the episode in which the twins defeat the lords of

Xibalba (135). Their goal is to avoid falling into the traps that cost their par-

ents their lives; by learning how things work in Xibalba (the underworld),



411

Book Reviews

they are able to pass the ordeals established by its lords. Thus, the cos-

mogony López reconstructs proposes a predomination of antagonisms and

movement, as well as a knowledge that is never perfect but that must be

perfected throughout time (139).

In the chapter dedicated to the early divinities of what could be

called (inaccurately, in my opinion) the Quiche genesis, one finds what

for López are the deepest levels of the Maya way of understanding the

world (148). In this fragment, neither the twins nor Xibalba appear, despite

their being divinities themselves; instead, only divinities with origins in

the sky are talked about. This can be explained in three different ways:

(1) the genesis dates from a very ancient period, (2) the tales had been

left in the custody of a religious caste that kept them occult, and (3) the

genesis and the beliefs it contains may have lost currency by the colonial

era, when the manuscript was written (ibid.). These hypotheses are not

mutually exclusive; on the contrary, each supplements the others. Whatever

the explanation for the absences, López sees in this fragment the idea that

transformation is the permanent state of things and that knowledge is at

the center of the fragment’s theology (149). The actual origin of that genesis

is not in the divinities but in the cosmos itself—the “plethoric vacuum,” in

López’s words (ibid.). This means thatthere is no single force thatgives birth

to the universe but instead that there is a fragmentary and diverse origin:

multiplicity substitutes for the absolute, succession replaces the immutable,

and the perfectible, the perfect (ibid.). In other words, genesis is the action

of the universe itself that starts moving and, in so doing, begins to germinate

(167). It is an open genesis in which successive frustrated attempts are slowly

perfected with each retrial, a genesis that starts in more than one point at

the same time and that never becomes a closed, finished process (167).

In this universe, gods are not predetermined or immutable essences, nor

are they the first cause of the living; rather, they are pure potentiality: the

infinite possibility of combination of all the elements in the cosmos (171).

They are gods who need to create other beings in order to complete their

own existence (176). For that completion to be accomplished, they need to

acquire the knowledge necessary for the creation of beings. Only in this

way can they be sure that the beings will turn out exactly as they want them

to. Indeed, the gods are frustrated in several attempts before finally creating

human beings correctly. It would even seem that the gods knew in advancethat they were not going to be able to create a perfect human being in their

first try (179).



412

Nepantla

Another important element in the genesis is “seeing.” When the

gods realize that their creation is almost as perfect as they are, they deprive

it of far-reaching eyesight in order to make sure that they are still superior

(192). For in Quiche culture, according to López, “to see” also means to

know (ibid.). Yet, to talk is also part of the process, because for the hu-

man beings to be exactly as the gods desire they must be able to express

themselves: only then can they worship their creators (193). The gods of

the Quiche pantheon need that worship and human beings need divine

protection, which creates something like a reciprocity between them—a

reciprocity different from the one between Tojil and the other, subjected

ethnic groups of the region: in this case, one of the components of that

relationship is the notion of tribute, something that is absent in the genesis

(ibid.). Thus, in this section of the manuscript the human being’s condition

can be described as the manifestation of a life able to relate to the universe

(198). This is because in Quiche culture, nature is understood as something

with which human beings should live in harmony (187). This harmony

manifests itself, for example, in one of the failed attempts of the genesis,

when the imperfect creatures (the wooden men) are “absorbed” by the rest

of creation—they become monkeys, a category that already existed in the

universe (188).

López sums up his reading of the Popol Vuh by saying that, as

a whole, one notices in the manuscript a passage from a worldview that

privileges multiplicity and polyvalence (genesis) to one that is based on

unity and centralization (the historical part); the passage from a cosmogony

of equilibrium and harmony among all the parts of the universe to another

that reflects a group’s attempts to avoid disintegration—a disintegration

caused, in this case, by the arrival of the Spaniards (211).

Los Popol Wuj y sus epistemologías includes several appendices that

contain references to Quiche cosmogony found in chronicles written by

Spanish friars, a list of the titles of different editions of the manuscript,

a catalog of the diverse ways scholars have organized the text, reference

to pottery related to the twins’ saga, and a synthesis of the most popular

translations of the genesis divinities (217–64).

There is no doubt López’s book is a very serious, well-researched

investigation undertaken with responsibility and great respect for the

Amerindians who are the descendents of the tradition represented by thePopol Vuh. The knowledge of the past of the American continent’s in-

digenous cultures is one of the most important tasks for those of us who

study colonial Latin America. Deciphering the mechanisms Europeans use



413

Book Reviews

to construct alterity is very important, but we also have to pay attention

to the other side of the cultural clash. Both Walter Mignolo (1992) and

Rolena Adorno (1988) called for more studies of Amerindian cultures a

decade ago but, in spite of their efforts, the field is still dominated by studies

of texts of European origin. This is one more reason to welcome López’s

important contribution. His representation of Quiche culture’s symbolic

universe throughout its diverse historical stages has the advantage of being

an attempt to interpret that culture from within its own (non-Occidental)

cognitive patterns. Of course, this is a very difficult (if not impossible) task,

but the attempt is itself worthwhile. In this respect, his cognitive opera-

tion bears some resemblance to Inga Clendinnen’s (1991) investigation of

the Aztecs. Both projects urge us to unburden ourselves of our Occidental

ideological baggage and try to immerse ourselves in a totally alien culture.

Yet, unlike Clendinnen, who uses an exiguous textual corpus (Bernardino

de Sahagún’s Florentine Codex) as her only source, López consults all the

information sources about Quiche culture available to him. He does not

hesitate to use the analysis of illustrated pottery (pieces that depict episodes

of the saga of the twins Huhnahpu and Xbalanque) or the results yielded by

the most recent archaeological investigations confirming the chronology of

the historical narratives. In spite of our belonging to language and literature

departments dominated by a deeply rooted textualism, we Latin American

colonial studies scholars need to orient our efforts in the same direction

taken by López’s work. We must enhance our methodological arsenal and

abandon our disciplinary isolation. We do not know as much as we think,

and we ignore more than we should. Investigations like López’s are a breath

of fresh air for our language and literature departments.

Having said that, I believe López’s book may be similar to

Clendinnen’s work in another respect, at least in relation to its attitude to-

ward indigenous pasts. In Clendinnen’s research, one can see an approach

that privileges the study of Aztec culture as it was before the Conquest.

In other words, her apparent aim is to decipher a very complex culture

at its most glorious moment, emphasizing the Aztecs’ beliefs and world-

view before the Europeans’ arrival. This approach, very legitimate by both

academic and moral standards, nonetheless betrays a touch of exoticism

that manifests itself in the very selection of the object of study. That is, it

is apparent in the privilege conferred on one cultural stage of the ethnicgroup—its most glorious one—over the others. I repeat, this kind of in-

vestigation is absolutely legitimate and even necessary. However, I believe

such an attitude betrays a certain fascination with an “interesting” culture



414

Nepantla

that, because it has points of contact with ours in organizational matters,

is more intelligible to us—they had a state, an army, and a bureaucracy,

among other recognizable “civilized” traits. That fascination may obscure

the image of present-day descendants of that culture in our cognitive hori-

zon. In this respect, Clendinnen’s work is diametrically opposed to that of

James Lockhart, who attempts to recover the ways in which the Nahuas

adapted to Spanish domination, thus giving us clues to the process through

which Mesoamerican Amerindians’ culture has evolved into its modern-

day form. I believe the attitude I see in Clendinnen’s book can be detected in

López’s effort, albeit in a much less pronounced way. And I insist that I see it

developed to a far lesser degree because López is also interested in later, less

glorious historical stages of Quiche society (as we see, for example, when he

analyzes the section of the manuscript that deals with historical events). In

spite of all that, a certain fascination with Quiche cosmogony—as depicted

by the segment López calls the “genesis”—can be perceived. Needless to

say, the very term “genesis” indicates that, at least in this instance, López has

failed to leave behind his Western cognitive background. But even leaving

that detail aside, it is evident that López gets very excited at the reconstruc-

tion of the ancient Maya’s worldview as described in the oldest fragment

of the manuscript; however, if I am not mistaken, the textual evidence to

which he resorts gives little foundation for some of his lucubrations on the

way the Maya-Quiche understood the world. For example, when he says

that the gods are not understood as beings but, perhaps, as signs related

to a system of visual metaphors, it is difficult to see how the evidence he

uses supports his claims. I think his hypothesis is reasonable, but it is almost

impossible to prove in a persuasive or conclusive way. This kind of inter-

pretation may result from a growing enthusiasm for a culture that López

clearly respects and admires.

As I’ve already said, however, there is plenty of information about

the other stages of Quiche cultural development in López’s book to com-

pensate for his fascination with reconstructing pre-Columbian Quiche epis-

temology. For one thing, a historical perspective is never absent from his

book. Moreover, López’s respect for the descendents of the Maya-Quiche

is confirmed by his repeated declaration that his analysis of their sacred

text should not be interpreted as irreverence or as an attempt to contradict

the interpretations of that text made by modern-day Amerindians, whoselegitimacy he recognizes without reservation (102). Nor does he want his

efforts to be read as part of an agenda that pretends to solve our present

problems by resorting to the archaic past of a given culture. Nevertheless,



415

Book Reviews

he makes it very clear that, although the epistemologies of the Popol Vuh

cannot be thought of as solutions for the present, they can suggest ideas for

the elaboration of new strategies for human life (214).

One of the implicit questions I have tried to respond to here is

why this kind of study should be written today. One reason, I repeat, is

the disequilibrium that exists in our knowledge of the two sides of the

colonial cultural clash. I might add that, because scholars in the field of

colonial studies are faced with the problem of the representation of the

Other—or the subaltern—not only as academicians but also as subjects

educated in Western culture, books like López’s are very useful. His work

shows a renewed respect for Amerindian subjects that translates into an

understanding of the importance and validity of indigenous knowledge

for the rest of humankind. The most important aspect of López’s effort,

however, is his solidarity with peoples who created symbolic universes too

long despised or neglected by our Western culture.

References

Adorno, Rolena. 1988. “Nuevas perspectives en los estudios coloniales

hispanoamericanos.” Revista de crítica literaria latinoamericana 14.28: 11–28.

Clendinnen, Inga. 1991. Aztecs: An Interpretation. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.

Mignolo, Walter D. 1992. “The Darker Side of the Renaissance: Colonization and the

Discontinuity of the Classical Tradition.” Renaissance Quarterly 45.4: 808–28.

review of los popol vuh y sus epistemologias

Documents