Ethnoecology of the Yucatec Maya 34

8/12/2019 Ethnoecology of the Yucatec Maya 34

1/34

Ethnoecology of the Yucatec Maya: Symbolism, Knowledge and Management of NaturalResourcesAuthor(s): Narciso Barrera-Bassols and Vctor M. ToledoSource: Journal of Latin American Geography, Vol. 4, No. 1, ETHNOECOLOGY (2005), pp. 9-41Published by: University of Texas PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25765087 .Accessed: 20/03/2014 18:36

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

University of Texas Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Latin American Geography.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 200 .34.194.30 on Thu, 20 Mar 20 14 18:36:33 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=texashttp://www.jstor.org/stable/25765087?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/25765087?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=texas


2/34

Ethnoecology of the Yucatec Maya:Symbolism, Knowledge and Management of

Natural Resources

Narciso Barrera-Bassols1Instituto eGeografia, nidadAcademicaMorelia. UNAM, Michoacdn,Mexico

Victor M. ToledoCentro de Investigacionesn cosistemas (CIECO), UNAM, Morelia Campus

Corresponding author

Abstract

There is a growing interest worldwide in adopting interdisciplinary approaches for

studying the complex and dynamic interplay between societies and landscapes. During the

last few years, ethnoecology, broadly defined as an integrative study of beliefs, knowledgeand practice of a given social entity, has emerged as a useful research method for the

comprehensive understanding of landscape use and management. Maya people have in

habited the Yucatan Peninsula for the last three thousand years, suggesting that Mayafarmers have successfully managed natural resources, preserving both nature and culture

in the long run. Despite research focusing on Yucatec Maya resource management, un

derstanding of how pre-Hispanic Maya adapted to their heterogeneous and changingenvironment during the past is still limited. There are few studies that fully understand

and explain how contemporary Maya farmers perceive, know, use and manage their land

scapes as awhole. By applying the ethnoecological approach, this article reveals the inex

tricable links between beliefs, knowledge and management of natural resources amongthe Yucatec Maya. The paper concludes by discussing the highly resilient capacity of

Yucatec Maya producers through examining two main mechanisms: their multiple-use

strategy and their cross-scale concept of health.

Keywords: Ethnoecology, landscape, natural resourcemanagement, indigenous knowledge, esoamerica,

Yucatec Maya, Mexico

Resumen

Existe un creciente interes a nivel mundial por adoptar enfoques interdisciplinariosen el estudio de lasmiiltifaceticas relaciones entre la sociedad y sus paisajes. La etnoecologia,definida en terminos generales como el estudio integral de creencias, conocimientos y

practicas de una entidad social dada, ha surgido como un metodo cientifico util para el

cabal entendimiento de la apropiacion humana de la naturaleza. El pueblo Maya ha habitado

la Peninsula de Yucatan durante los ultimos 3 mil afios, lo cual sugiere que el campesino

Maya ha manejado sus recursos naturales de manera exitosa, preservando naturaleza ycultura a traves del tiempo. Sin embargo, existen pocos estudios dedicados a entender y

explicar, de manera integrada, como el campesino Maya percibe, conoce, usa ymanejasus

recursos naturales. Al aplicar el metodo etnoecologico, este articulo revela las inseparablesrelaciones que existen entre creencia, conocimiento y practica entre los Maya yucatecosactuales. El articulo finaliza discutiendo la alta capacidad de resiliencia mostrada por los

Maya yucatecos a traves de dos mecanismos principales: la estrategia de uso multiple ysu

concepto multi-escalar de salud.

journal of atin American Geography (1), 2005

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/34


4/34

Ethnoecology of the Yucatec Maya 11

mediated by intellectual functions, such as knowledge and cosmology, and organized bysocial institutions.

Conceptual framework: The k-c-p complex as a theoretical foundation

of ethnoecologyEthnoecology can be defined as an interdisciplinary study of how nature is per

ceived by humans through a screen of beliefs and knowledge, and how humans, throughtheir symbolic meanings and representations, use and/or manage landscapes and naturalresources. This approach allows recognition of the cultural value of the belief-knowl

edge-practice (k-c-p) complex (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Ethnoecology focuses on the kosmos, corpus and praxis (k-c-p) complex.

By focusing on the kosmos, the belief system or cosmovision, the corpus, the whole

repertory of knowledge or cognitive systems, and the praxis, the set of production

practices, ethnoecology offers an integrative approach to the study of the process of

human appropriation of nature (see details inToledo 1992; 2002; Barrera-Bassols 2003).

Ethnoecology seeks to explore the connections, synergies and feedbacks between the

whole repertory of the Yucatec Maya symbols, concepts and perceptions of landscapesand natural resources, and the set of practical operations through which the material

appropriation of nature takes place.The spatio-temporal analysis of the k-c-p matrix, recognized as the main aim of

any given ethnoecological study, allows a comprehensive and holistic understanding ofthe relationships between the three spheres involved in nature's appropriation, which are

geographically and historically contextualized: these are the mindscape, knownscape and

technoscape (Figure 2). The local eco-geographical thought and practice is the result of

the multiple interconnections between the above mentioned three spatiotemporal do

mains (see also Sauer 1925). Knownscapes and mindscapes are used as intellectual tools

Intellectual

appropriation

Material

appropriation



5/34

12 Journal of Latin American Geography

CULTURAL CONTEXT

I


6/34


Maya (Toledo et al. 2002). Such a large number of studies about the Yucatec Maya reveal

much research focused on agriculture, soils, ethnobotany, natural resources management

(including housegardens, silviculture, hunting and bee-keeping) and ethnology, from a

broad perspective.We selected three kinds of studies for analyzing the k-c-p complex of the Yucatec

Maya: (1) updated and well-informed regional studies about vegetation, flora, soils, cli

mate, hurricanes, demography, linguistics and land use, which served to characterize hu

man setdements and landscapes of the Yucatan Peninsula; (2) case studies informingabout specific aspects of each one of the three ethnoecological domains (symbolism,

knowledge and practice). In this case, sixty Yucatec Maya communities were identified as

having one or more studies covering some aspects of the k-c-p complex2 (Figure 3 and

Table 1).

/ (30? YUCATAN0

a? /?^ X &/'?/ mS ,


7/34


ern Maya Lowlands, where wetlands cover between 40 to 60% of the area, the northernlowlands are characterized by a lack of rivers and surface water, low rainfall, lower eleva

ETHNOECOLOGICALINFORMATION OF 60YUCATEC MAYA LOCALITIES (PART 1)

29

32

38

S. N. Buenavistaj

Los Divurciadosl

RealityBenito juarczHuntochac

Xcitpil

XcumcheiHampololKastamay

Pich

DzacauchenEjidoHaroIxchugalSta. Elena

KanibulChac -choben

KanreniocM. Ocampo

Tres Reyes

Chan Chen

20 de nov.

TenaboPuntaLaguna

MuxupipOxkintoc

Chankom

Tixcacaltuyub

Chacsinkin

X-Hazil

AuthorsRuenes et al. 1995Ruenes et al. 1995Ruenes et al. 1995Rucncset al. 1995Rueneset al. 1995Ruenes et al. 1995Ruenes et al. 1995Ruenes et al. 1995Ruenes et al. 1995Ruenes et al. 1Faust 1998Hirose 2003Ruenes et al. 1995Ruenes et al. 1995Ruenes et al. 1995Ruenes et al. 1995Ruenes et al. 1995Ruenes et al. 1995Ruenes et al. 1995Rueneset al. 1995Ruenes et al. 1995Ruenes et al. 1995Ruenes et al. 1995QuijanoHernandezi& Calmc 2002

CaribbeanReef &[Eastern oastalMargin]

Ruenes et al. 1995Ruenes et al. 1995Ruenes et al. 1995Ruenes et al. 1995Ruenes et al. 1995Ruenes et al. 1995Caballero 1992Garcia-Frapolliet al.2005Dorruneucz- ke1996

Rcdfield& VillaRojasl934Giballero 1992Gutierrez 1996Villa-Roias 1978

Hernandez-Brisendet al. 1982Cortina -Villar1995

Flores& Balam1997

Raniirez-Borgiaet al. 2001Avila-Gomez 2003jorgenson 998

EAR1Puuc-BolonchenMillsPuuc-Bolonchen illsPuuc-Bolonchen illsPuuc-Bolonchen illsCentralHillsCentralHillsPuuc-Bolonchen illsPuuc-Bolonchen illsPuuc-Bolonchen illsEdzna-SilvirukTrough

CentralHillsCentralHillsPuuc-Bolonchen illsPuuc-Bolonchen illsNortheast Karst PlainUaymilUavmilCoba-Okop

CaribbeanReef &Eastern CoastalMarginCoba-OkopCoba-Okop. 0?. ~OkopThree Rivers

Three RiversUaymilPuuc-Bolonchen ills

Coba-Okop

North CoastPuuc-Santa lenaNortheastKarst PlainNortheastKarst Plain

Quintana RooDepressionCentralHills

North Coast

Uaymil

Kosmos

Sp,Ri,My

Ri,My

Sp,Ri,MyRi

My, Ri

Cqrjpus

PI, An,So,Veg

An, I.Veg

PI,An,So,Cl

PI,An

PI,An,Su

Table 1. Ethnological information offered from 60 case studies (seegeographical location in Figure 3), with aspects related to the Yucatec

Maya k-c-p complex.1 EAR: environmental adaptive regions of the Mayalowlands, proposed by Dunning et al. 1998.

tion and more level terrain, and low forest canopy (Fedick and Morrison 2004; Dunninget al. 2002).



8/34


ETHNOECOLOGICAL INFORMATION OF 60 YUCATEC MAYA LOCALITIES (PART 2)Locality Authors EAR< Kosmos Corpus Praxis

Caballero 1992 Gob -OkopCaballero 1992 Uavmil Hg41 |Teran Rassmussen

1994_Gob -Okop Sp,Ri,My

PI,An,So,Veg Ag,

Hor, Bee

42 Xuilub

Flores& Balam1997

Herrera-Castroet al. 1993Sanchez-Gonzalez1993

Gob -Okop Hg, Ext

Coba Barreraet al. 1976 Gob -Okop PI,Vc

Yalcoba Sosa t990 Northeast arstPlains Sp,Ri,My

Yaxuna Freidel et al. 1993 Northeast arstPlains Sp,Ri,My

Solferino LaTorre-Cuadros& Islebe2003 PI,Vc

Dzonot Ake Caballero 1992 Northeast arstPlains Hg

Loche Caballero 1992 Northeast arstPlains Hg

49 Yaxcaba

Arias 1980Isley 1984Flores& Balam1997

Northeast arstPlains Ri,My

Cl, PI, An,So,Ve

Ag, Hor, Arb,Bee

Sotuta Flores& Balam

1997

Northwest

Karst PlainsRi,My

Caballero 1992 Puuc-SantaElena Hg

Pixov Ucan-Hket al. 1984Northeast arst

Plains Ri,MyAg, Hor, Aro,

Bee

Maxcanu Caballero 1992 Puuc-SantaElena Hg

Sanabria 1986 PuucBolonchenHillsCl, PI,An,

So,VcAg, Hor, Ex,

Chunchucmil Ortega ct al. 1993NorthwestKarst Plains Hg

Chunhuhub Anderson 2003 Quintana RooDepression

A vilaCamacho Ortega et al. 1993 QuintanaRoo

_Depression An, PI Hu

X-Hazil Bello et al. 2000 PI,An, So Ag,Hg,Hor,Hu

Sinanche Monti el-Ortegaetal. 1999

Hocaba Estrada-Medinaet al.2004Northwest

Karst Plains Ag

Table 1 (continued).

The Maya of the Yucatan Peninsula: socio-cultural and geographicalcontexts

The socio-cultural context

The Mesoamerican region, which includes portions of Mexico, Guatemala, El Sal

vador, Belize, Honduras and Costa Rica, is one of the richest biological and cultural areas

of the world, housing over 100 indigenous peoples, with a current population of some 16

million inhabitants (Toledo et al. 2002). Approximately 0.8 million Yucatec-Mayan lan

guage-speaking inhabitants live in the states of Yucatan, Quintana Roo and Campeche,within the Mexican portion of the Yucatan Peninsula (YP), according to the last population ensusofMexico (INEGI 2000).



9/34


10/34


relief of the northern Maya Lowland is amosaic of dissolution depressions alternatingwith rock outcrop mounds with a relative elevation of one to two meters.

Leptosols are the most common soils in the northern YP (Bautista-Zuniga et al.

2003a). Leptosols are not easy to classify using conventional taxonomies so that almost

everyone specializing inYucatan soils, including governmental agencies, research agenciesand extension services, uses theMayan soil nomenclature (Ewell 1984; Duch, 1989; Bautista

Zuniga et al. 2003a, 2003b; Estrada-Medina et al. 2004). Generally, soils are too shallow

and stony to allow agricultural mechanization; therefore, milpa shifting cultivation is the

best-adapted system to the patchy karstic landscapes of the region (Pool-Novelo 1980).Moreover, high spatial heterogeneity of Leptosol areas complicates soil inventory, agricultural development, agronomic experimentation and transfer of agricultural technol

ogy, among other things (Bautista et al. 2004).

Vegetation distribution follows the climatic zoning of the YP, ranging from low

forests in the dry northwest to tall forests in the humid southeast. Forests are distributedin a patch-like pattern due to shifting cultivation, with the inclusion of tropical plantations and pastures.

The Yucatec Maya appropriation of nature

The cognitive appropriation: the corpus sphereYucatec Maya ecological knowledge (the corpus sphere) is relatively well-known

and well documented. The best repertory of Yucatec Maya knowledge refers to nomen

clature and taxonomy of soils, relief, hydrology, plants (wild and cultivated) and vegetation. Local knowledge of climate, ecological processes or biotic interactions also existsbut has been poorly recorded.

Climate, relief nd soilsThe wide variety of Yucatec Maya meteorological and climatic terms demonstrates

a good understanding of the YP hydrological cycle and zoning, although the full compre

hension of these phenomena requires further analysis. Canul-Pech (1967) recognizes threemain climatic seasons, according to temperature, rainfall presence or absence and season

ality. Temperature, direction and intensity of winds, and rainfall are constantly assessed

around the year and within the day, as these factors are inextricably linked to the success

of Yucatec Maya shifting cultivation. Rainfall is constantly and obsessively monitored

during the annual cycle, as it is scarce, irregular and unpredictable. That is why Yucatec

Maya farmers make use of their astronomical knowledge to predict rainfall and recognizeas one of their main deities to Chaak, the rain God. In fact, Yucatec Maya farmers dependon their knowledge skills and constandy offer rituals to this uneven meteorological phenomenon.

The Maya term for soil is Luum. However, Lu'um also means land, terrain, land

scape and nature inYucatec Maya language. It is a comprehensive relational domain that

surpasses the scientific concept of soil body, because it considers the karstic landscape as

an integral unit where soil-relief-vegetation relationships and dynamics play a fundamen

tal role for farming practices (see below). Thus, Lu'um is a holistic concept reflecting

pervasive and discrete structures, dynamics and processes in the soil mande and on the

entire landscape, but which also includes a primordial symbolic domain within the Yucatec

Maya cosmology.So

far,Yucatec

Maya knowledgeon soils uses the most extensive

indigenous pedological terminology known among all Mesoamerican peoples, including Mestizo popula



11/34


tions (Barrera-Bassols and Zinck 2000,2004). More than 80 descriptive terms have beenfound referring to soil characteristics, properties and attributes relating to color, texture,

structure, consistency, moisture retention capacity, moisture condition, soil erosion, soil

depth, soil fertility, stoniness, relief position, soil-relief-vegetation relations and anthro

pogenic soils. The number of descriptive terms used is rapidly increasing, as revealed innew ethnopedological research (Table 2) (Barrera-Bassols 2003; Bautista-Zuniga et al.

2004).

Yucatec MayaSoil Terms

(Luum)

Yucatec MayaEtymology

English Terms Spanish Terms

Soils named by colorBox lu 'um Box:

lightlack

lightblack soil Suelo

negroclaro

lik' lu 'um Ek': dark black Dark black soil Suelo negro obscuro

Katicab lu 'um Kan: yellowCab: reddish syrupReddish-yellowsoil Suelo Amarillo rojizo

Chak Kancab In urn Chak: red Yellowish-red soil Suelo rojo amarillentoChak lu 'um Char: dark red Dark reddish soil Suelo rojizo obscuro)a 'axkom i 'um Ya'axkom: green Gr soil Suelo verde

Sahkab lu 'um Sahkab: white White soil Suelo biancoSoils named by texture, structure and consistence

'Itrtkel u Tzekel: flat stone Flat stone soil Suelo pedregoso de la)aChid) lu 'urn Chich: gravel Gravellv soil Suelo gravosoPuus lu 'um Puus: loamy Loamy soil Suelo francoTaiakei lu 'urn Tatakei: sticky Sticky soil Suelo pegajosoKas tatakei u um Kas: halfTatakei: stickv Slightly sticky soil Suelo medio pegajosoKat lu'um Kat: heavy clay Heavy clay soil Suelo arcilloso pesadoKuut lu um Kuut: fine-grainedwhitish clay

Fine-grainedwhitish claved soil

Suelo fino arcillosov bianco

Tas In um Tas: soft Soft soil Suelo blandoChbchdk u 'um Chochok: loose Loose soil Suelo suelto, flojoBuy lu um Buy: hardness Harden soil Suelo endurecidoTutluk' Tul Luk': mud Muddv soil Suelo lodoso, lodo

Soils named by moisture retention capacity and moisture conditionSuelo que absorbebien el agua

u 'umn d~ud%icaDzudzic: to absorbHa: water

Soil with gooddrainage

Lu'um matech uhd^ttdsjc ha

Matech uh: to impedeDzudzic: to absorbHa: water_

Soilwith poordrainage conditions

Suelo que no absorbeel agua

Ak'akbe' A'kalche': swamp Swampy soil Suelo pantanoso

Kas chnl u'nm Kas: halfChul: moist Half moist soil Suelo medio mojado

Lu 'umtupis mli Tupis:field capacity

Chul: moistSoilmoisture atfield capacity

Humedad al pun to decapacidad de campo

l.M um ach dml Hach: excessiveChul: moistSoilmoisture atwilting point

Humedad al puntode marchitez

Ak' akannak lu 'um Ak': humidAkannak: fatty, reasyHumid and greasysoil

Suelo humedoVmantecoso

Table 2. Some soil and land terms commonly and widely used by Yucatec

Maya farmers. Source: Barrera-Bassols 2003.

The review f this terminology hows the following spects (Figure ):While soilterms referring to relief position, soil-relief-vegetation relationship, stoniness, texture,structure and consistency account for 62.5% of the Yucatec Maya soil nomenclature,terms

referringto fertility, moisture retention

capacity, drainage regimeand color account

for 27.5%. On the other hand, soil terms referring to erosion, depth and anthropogenic



12/34


soils include only 10% of the Yucatec Maya soil nomenclature. All of these soil properties and attributes are directly or indirectly related to soil fertility, land management and

workability under shifting cultivation in karstic landscapes. Although Yucatec Maya farm

ers are not aware of long-term soil formation processes, they are able to recognize andname soil erosion and fertility depletion processes when assessing shifting cultivation

practices.

14

12

10

(1)Relief(3) Soil-relief-vegetation(5) Fertility(7) Moisture

(9) Anthropogenic origin

(2) Stoniness

(4) Texture, structure and consistence

(6) Color

(8) Erosion

(10)Depth

Figure 4. Frequency of YM soil terms related to ten main soil properties.Source Barrera-Bassols 2003.

Soil identification is closely related to relief, such that this criterion determines the

highest number of soil categories. Yucatec Maya recognize at least 9 main relief types,and the understanding of soil-relief relations as a continuum resembles the concept of

soil catena or toposequence coined by Milne (1947), and reflects a detailed recognition of

the local and micro-local soil heterogeneity and variability (Bautista-Zufiiga et al. 2003b).Soil

depthand stoniness

playa critical

agriculturalrole in areas of shallow and

marginalsoils, and while the Yucatec Maya farmers recognize the soil as a 3-D body, nevertheless,the topsoil is considered the diagnostic horizon for the local soil classification.

From the literature review itwas found that the Yucatec Maya recognize some 30

soil taxa, with their corresponding relief types; twelve of them can be considered asmain

soil types. Most of these soil types are well represented in the YP and are further clustered

into subtypes. Contemporary Maya soil taxonomy is a rather simple but hierarchical system, according to ethnopedological research in different Mayan communities of the YP

(Perez-Pool 1984; Sanabria 1986; Dunning 1992; Teran and Rasmussen 1994; Estrada

Medina et al.2004).

Therecognition

of alarge

number of soilproperties

allows Yucatec

Maya farmers to classify soils by the inclusion of soil descriptors, which are not necessar



13/34


ily used and contrasted among all soil taxa. Soil classification is based on color, relief

position, depth, stoniness, drainage, moisture retention capacity, consistence, texture, fer

tilityand

workabilityof the

topsoil.Although any comparison between the Yucatec Maya and technical soil classifica

tions is preliminary at this stage, the correlation between soil classes of two contrasting

systems is striking. Yucatec Maya farmers classify soils on the basis of a continuous as

sessment of the topsoil. Soil classes are determined using qualitative properties such as

soil fertility, relief, vegetation types and land-use history. Technical soil classifications use

measurable properties of the 3-D soil body, supported by laboratory determinations and

theories on soil formation. Yucatec Maya soil classification is behavioral, relational,

diachronic, qualitative, utilitarian and local, while technical soil classification is synchronic,measurable, genetically oriented and universal. The first relies on agricultural land-use

potential and soil fertility maintenance, while the second is based on diagnostic propertiesthat are not necessarily utilitarian.

However, recent research carried out by Bautista-Zuniga and collaborators (2004),demonstrates a close correlation between Mayan soil types and the WRB soil types alonga typical toposequence in the northern YP1 (Figure 5). Estrada-Medina and collaborators

(2004) found similar results when constructing a hierarchical Maya soil taxonomy inHocaba

municipality. Results also demonstrate synergies between the classifications systems, which

could be further utilized for agricultural development.

1ST(ALT1LLOorMOUND)

13.5-13c'%Shallowsoils

|1|

Highesttoninessnd ockiness.Lowest ulk ensity

Box liTamLight lack oils)Ch'oclTolBlackoils ith any malltones)Tsek'el Black,lat, tonyoils)Ch'ich'lu'um Black,ray r light rowngravellyoils)PushTumBlacko ray oamyoils)

Lithic yperskeletikeptosolsHyperskeletikeptosols

I* ithic eptosols*Rendziccntsols

CHPW1TS(LADERA

orSLOPE)

13.5-12.5 C %

lntergrade oils

Brownreddish rown,and rownreddish oils

SOIL TOPOSEQUENCEACCORDING TO

THE MAYA SOIL NOMENCLATUREAND THEWRB

TAAX(PLANADA or DEPRESSION)

9-6OC %

Deep soilsRedbrownish o ed oils

High ockinessand toniness.Lowbulkdensity

Intermediaterockinessndlow toniness.

'. Intermediatebulk ensity

Chaltnn .rlaylu'uraRed o(Black,hallow,lat, rownished.stonyoils) shallow


14/34


Flores 1998; Flores and Ucan-Ek 1983; Flores and Espejel 1994). These include both

spatial and temporal units, because Yucatec Maya also have a detailed repertory of termsto identify stages of vegetation renewal, the ecological succession process which is locallyknown as Hubche. Yucatec Maya terms define at least 10 of the 11main vegetation typesof the YP (Flores and Espejel 1994); besides, there are at least six terms used to characterize each forest renewal stage (Figure 6). Yucatec Maya farmers also identify relief-soil

vegetation relationships and processes depending on the plant ensemble position in both

place and time. In addition, there are numerous key-plant species used as ecological indicators for productive practices, such as soil fertility indicators.

Ecologicalsuccession

Ka'anal k'aax> 50years

//

\ ubche'

( Kelenche'15-30years

Ka'anal hubche'^ W-15 years

f .V


15/34


16/34


In addition to agricultural practices, two activities are especially important: gar

dening and hunting. Several studies show the myriad of plants obtained from housegardens,

principally fruits, firewood, medicinal plants and fodder. Floristic richness of these gardens fluctuates between 80-90 (Caballero 1992) to 250-276 species (Sanabria 1986; Ortega,et al. 1993), with amaximum of 387 (Herrera-Castro 1994). Housegardens are occupiedby a variety of domestic animals, most commonly pigs, turkeys, chickens and ducks, whichare especially consumed at feasts and rituals. Honey production from stingless bees

(Melipona spp) is also practiced. The Yucatec Maya landscape mosaic also allows huntingfor large and small mammal and bird species. Landscape variety (agricultural fields, fallows and mature forests) offers different hunting areas for domestic consumption.

Studies carried out in four Yucatec Maya villages of Quintana Roo (Jorgenson1998; Avila-Gomez 2003; Montiel-Ortega et al. 1999), show a selected pool of preferred

game species, including white-tailed deer, brocket deer, collared peccary, white lippedpeccary, coati, pocket gopher, tepevguintle, erete, chachalaca and ocellated turkey (Table 3).

NAMESScientific [ aya | Spanish English

I X: azil Sinanche

AvilaCamacho

Petcacab

Mammals

Qrthomnyshispiaus pocket gopher

9.0

Dasyproctapnnctata

tsuub sereke gouti 8.0 21

Agouitipaca jaleb tepescuintle paca 6.0 0.73 27 22

Nasua narica chiik,chwe tejon 28.5 5.1 25

Dasypusnovemrinicus armadillo armadillo 10

Tayassu pecari kitam puercotie

Imonte, ahuiHalwhite-lipped

peccary 0.51

Pecari tajacH kitam jabali collar pecarv 6.8 0.73 14 20

Manamaamericana brocket deer 2.7

Qdocoikusvirginianus keh

venado colablanca white-tailed deer 4.1 67.6 11 11

Tamanduamexicana

osohormigucro

ant bear 0.73

Felts wieddi tigrillo wild cat 2.2

BirdsCypturelluscinnawomeus perdiz thicket tinamou 2.2

Crax rtibra hocotaisan great curassow 2.2

Ortalis vetula Ixbachbaach chachalaca plain chachalaca 11.'

Agriocharisocellata kuts ipavode montd ocellated turkey 16.1

Colinusmgjrogularis I yucatec quail

4.4

Reptiles

iCteftosaura pp.vaaxikil iguana black iguana 0.73

Crocodylusmortleti aayin

cocodrilo depantano

moreletscrocodile 1.4

Table 3. Game species taken by Yucatec hunters from four villages. (Sources: Jorgenson

1998; Montiel-Ortegaet

al. 1999; Avila- Gomez 2003; Quijano-Hernandez and Calme2002).



17/34


Of interest is that current hunters are roughly harvesting the same species as were

hunted by ancient Maya (Jorgenson 1998). Maya hunters have practiced subsistence hunt

ing for 4,000 years, thus suggesting similar landscape management and some co-evolu

tionary process between Yucatec Maya management strategies and hunted species

(Greenberg 1992; Jorgenson 1998). Yet more interesting is that most of these game

species are not only inhabitants of fallow and secondary forests but also regular or fre

quent visitors to the milpa fields (Table 4). The Yucatec Maya multiple-use strategy showsthat not only garden hunting but milpa hunting is central to survival, making milpa fields

local reservoirs of animal protein.

SPECIES

MILPA CYCLEClearing

andfelling

(1)

Burn

plot(2)

Plantseeds

(3)

Maize cob

growingperiod(4a)

Matureear corn

(4b)

PRESENCEIN MILPA

FIELDS

Odocoileusvirginianus

|(white-tailed deer)Frequent

\Ma%ama mericana(brocket deer) Regular

Pecari tajacu (collaripeeary)

VeryFrequent

Tayassu pecari(white-lipped

peccary)Ocassional

Agouitipaca (paca) Frequent

Dasyprocta punctata(gouti) Regular

Dasypusnovemcintcus(armadillo)

Ocassional

Nama narica (coati)Veryfrequent

Procyon lotor(raccoon) Regular

Tapirus bairdi(bairds tapir)

Ocassional

Ortalis vetula(Plain chachalaca)Doves

Regular

Regular

Table 4. Presence of 12 selected game species in a Yucatec Maya milpa field

(Source: Saldivia 1994).

The Yucatec Maya landscape-use evaluation

Yucatec Maya ecological knowledge is based on the analysis of climate-relief-soil

vegetation relations and ecological processes (succession), which enables multiple-usestrategy maintenance. As theorized in previous sections of this study, Yucatec Maya farmers apply their ecological knowledge in complex ways for production purposes. Their

landscape-use evaluation is based on: (1) assessment of soil-relief-vegetation relation

ships as a factor in the soil fertility status, land productivity and landscape management

according to specific practices, and (2) recording and monitoring of the landscape-usehistory. Milpa is managed as an agroforestry continuum, basically depending on the



18/34


19/34


ment units. A brief description of each land management unit is given according to the

local soil fertility and land productivity ranking, using farmers' terminology3 (Table 5).Sites with evergreen tropical forest (Ya'axk'aax) are considered most fertile for

agriculture. Vegetables, fruit trees and short-cycle maize varieties are grown after clearing,cutting and burning the vegetation on the new agricultural plot. Forest sites on stony and

hilly terrain (T^eke/ k 'aax) are suitable for long-cycle maize varieties, while stony and flat

forest remains (T%eke/kancab k 'aax) are considered as the low fertility sites for agriculturalpurposes. Soil fertility replenishment is assessed according to soil type and the speed of

recovery of herbs, shrubs and trees, which may take up to 40 years. Thus the Yucatec

Maya producer not only distinguishes and uses succession processes, but manipulates the

speed of such processes for decision-making.

MILPAEK

LANDSCAPE UNITSEKWM 1PWM IBWM ICHK I CHB

Short cycle maize >4? >10

Long cycle maize >10 >10 >10

Pachpakal >4 >10 >20 >10

Tol-ch6 >4 >10

Homegarden >10

Bee-keeping >20 >4Hunting >4Plant gathering:

Edible >10 >10

Medicine >4

Firewood >4

Forage >3 >10

Tools >20 >20Wood >20 >4Others >10 >1 >10

Domestic tools >10

Table 5. Landscape units recognized and managed by Yucatec Maya farmers of Xu'ul,Yucatan. Numbers indicate years after fallow. Source: Sanabria 1986; Barrera-Bassols

2003.

The Yucatec Maya appropriation: the kosmos sphereAn ample literature sheds a good deal of light on the cosmovision of the pre

Hispanic Yucatec Maya. Research findings reveal a complex and rich Yucatec Maya symbolic representation of their world (see seminal works of Roys 1965; Thompson 1970;Coe 1980; Aveni 1992; Freidel et al. 1993; Breton et al. 2003). Archaeological and

ethnohistorical evidence, coupled with a vivid cultural presence of the Yucatec Maya

during the last 3,000 years, provide awealth of information on how the Maya structuredtheir worldview and their symbolic representations. The ancient Yucatec Maya cosmos is



20/34


well understood and is probably the best-known and fascinating Mesoamerican cosmo

logical world (Figure 7).However, there has been less research on how and why the contemporary Yucatec

Maya people still maintain and enrich their syncretic cosmovision or symbolic world.

There are only a few studies that focus on the links between the k-c-p complex, as regardsthe appropriation of nature (see for example Teran and Rasmussen 1994; Boccara 1997;Faust 1998 and 2001; Iroshe 2002; Breton et al. 2003, Quintal et al. 2003). However,

findings from this promising research field reveal the richness and complexity of the

contemporary Yucatec Maya kosmos sphere, in which farmers intend to balance their

'sacred ecology', as elaborated by Faust (1998), and inwhich they conceive and apply, in

their own peculiar and varied understanding, the notion of socio-ecological resilience

(Holling 2000). The Yucatec Maya conceptualization of land (Lu'um) as a polysemic,

syncretic and multidimensional domain, illustrates the inextricably links within the k-c-p

complex, and shows how farmers perceive and work with their own, syncretic theoriza

tion of world life and worldview, including their ritual representations.

Midday

ELAKIN (Red)

The sun (Eye of god)

W - ' v.>.

the holyabove

woRi^rr^rriYokulabl),,

Sunrise

i NOHOLf (Yellow)

CHIKIN (Black)The Moon (Ear of God)

Midnight

Figure 7. The Yucatec Maya worldview. Of note is that the Maya northcardinal corresponds to the western notion of the west cardinal point

(after Faust 1998; Iroshe 2002; Quintal et al. 2003).

The Yucatec Maya land concept as a polysemic, syncretic and multidimensional domain

Lu'um has a polysemic meaning because is commonly used when referring to soil,

land, terrain, territory, landscape, nature and world (Teran and Rasmussen 1994; Iroshe

2002). In fact, it is considered a comprehensive realm in the Yucatec Maya cosmovision.

However, meanings are assigned to a given discursive and practical context. Lu'um as a

comprehensive domain has also a utilitarian value related to food, housing, health and



21/34


energy (Faust 1998) and as a symbolic (aesthetic, sacred and intangible) value (Iroshe

2002). Thus there is no strict separation between the material and the sacred values.

Lu'um has, in addition, a multidimensional connotation because it refers to: (a)land as a bi-dimensional domain, (b) the soil resource as a tri-dimensional body, and (c) as

having a fourth and intangible domain, that is the sacred one. In fact, Santo Yj4yum or the

"Spirit of the Land" is considered one of the most important deities of the Yucatec Maya

pantheon, and is still highly venerated.

As a sacred domain, Lu'um symbolizes the following principles: (1) a life supporter

(nature); (2) a home (sense of place); (3) an agricultural parcel or milpa (sense of abun

dance), (4)a territory aprimordial dentity alue); (5)awomb (sense f fertility), nd (5)a graveyard (sense of destiny). For example, Yucatec Maya define their own territory as

"U lu'umilwtntko ot the Land of the Maya (Quintal et al. 2003) (Figure 7). The seman

tic and epistemological richness of the Lu'um domain is also reflected by this holistic

perception, inwhich land is inextricably linked to the material and spiritual worlds (Iroshe

2002). Finally, Lu'um is a syncretic domain because the Yucatec Maya polymorphic discourse about land and its function and behavior, synthesizes knowledge acquired from

pre-Columbian Maya thought, colonial wisdom and modern knowledge.

Discussion

According to the material reviewed in the previous sections, examination of the k

c-pcomplex

of the Yucatec Maya shows notonly

coherentrelationships

between the

three domains, but reveals key processes which operate as "hinges" in the complex dynamics of the matrix. The following hinges may be pointed out: (a) the use of symboliccolors in their plant nomenclature and classification (Barrera-Marin et. al [1976], reportedone third of the over 900 vegetal taxa as being labeled by color); (b) the existence of a

myriad of gods and spirits linked to nature's elements, such as winds, rain, caves, springs,animals and plants (the number of deities in a well-studied Maya village reached 130

alone, as reported by Teran and Rasmussen (1994); (c) the performance of agrarian cer

emonies throughout the year (the rain-calling ceremony of Chac-Chaac has been reportedfrom at least 15 villages (Villa-Rojas 1968; Freidel et al. 1993; Flores and Balam 1997); (d)the sacred geography represented by the cosmic tree and the four world corners, which is

represented across scales: the human body, the home, the homegarden, the Kool or milpa,and the whole cosmos, and (e) the recognition of soil-relief-vegetation units in the land

scape, which operates as a key organizer of ecological knowledge, giving meaning to

intellectual rationale through practice. These examples illustrate reciprocal relations between the cosmological dimension, the cognitive body and the ensemble of practices.

In addition, two seminal processes function as key organizers of Yucatec Mayalandscape management and therefore as resilience mechanisms: (1) a wise managementof both ecological processes and biodiversity represented by the multiple-use strategy

(Figure 6), and (2) a guiding concept of health, which is applied across scale. These mechanisms express the double relationship that the Yucatec Maya establish with nature: thefirst situated in the sphere of the profane, objective and rational thinking; and the second

belonging to the domain of the subjective, unconscious and sacred rationale. Both guidetechno-productive and symbolic practice. They appear to be amalgamated in the farmer's

mind, with litde or no separation between the secular and the sacred or mystic thought,but in permanent feedback, so to say,mutually determined. The first offers informationabout nature through empirical knowledge; and the second deals will problems not cov

ered be the first (the unknown, uncontrollable and unpredictable), through the dialoguewith the supra-natural entities (gods, deities, spirits). In brief: nature, deities and humanswork together in the eternal production and reproduction of life.



22/34


The multiple-use strategy: the secular dimension of resilienceAny Yucatec Maya producer needs from nature (a) enough food, energy, medi

cines, water, tools and other goods and (b) commodities, that (c)must be sustained for

his/her subsistence, through time. This requires some recognition of the environmental

context and the use of adapted skills for landscape management. Thus knowledge about

physical and biological elements and ecological processes, and suitable landscape management are central to his/her survival.

Contemporary Yucatec Maya multiple-use strategy demonstrates all the above

mentioned mechanisms. Multiple-use implies lower production per land use unit, but

higher production of the aggregate landscape, and stands as a dynamic and permanent

system based on the benefits of diversity, when compared with specialized use. Thus, the

multiple-use strategy is an adaptive response to the high variety of landscapes, soils, relief

and biotic elements, and to the ecological process of tropical forests' succession. This

explains the existence of a "Maya silviculture", an idea postulated by Gomez-Pompa and

colleagues almost two decades ago (Gomez-Pompa 1987a; 1987b; Gomez-Pompa et al.

1987).Because natural forces will always tend to restore systems to their mature stage, the

maintenance cost will increase with increased management intensity. The Yucatec Maya,like many other pre-industrial societies, have benefited from forest recovery manipulation. The Yucatec Maya take advantage of forest restoration by maintaining landscape

variety, which helps derive benefits from land conversion and from the various fallow

stages, seeking the use of available resources with maximum efficiency. In spatial terms,maximum utilization is sought through the management of several landscape units. In

temporal terms, landscape diversity maintenance complements the use of a maximum

number of products offered by each landscape unit, throughout the year. As a result, this

strategy focuses on seeking for optimal combinations of all available landscape units

(mature forests, housegarden, fallow, shifting cultivation and intensive agriculture) while

maximizing products.Variety is a risk-avoidance mechanism, thus multiple-use functions as a buffering

strategy for both environmental uncertainties and hazards, and market fluctuations and

surprises. In summary, the Yucatec Maya practice a modality of what has been called

"adaptive management", based on the multiple use of species and landscape units, re

source rotation, landscape-patch and succession management (Berkes et al. 2000). Adaptive management isperformed inmany other indigenous territories of the Mexican tropical lowlands (Toledo et al. 2003). It represents a secular mode of resilience.

The concept of land health: the sacred dimension of resilienceAccording to Yucatec Maya perception, land is considered as a living being. Land

health is linked to the food chain, according to a higher discourse that connects health and

well-being of plants, animals and men with soil health (Iroshe 2002). This principle of

interconnection is used to explain the food chain: "If plants, animals and soils are healthy, then

men should ehealthf Vogt, 1979,citedby Iroshe, 002.pp.9).Soil health and soil quality are constandy assessed by means of assigning criteria

used for the human body health, for plants and for animals; thus the Yucatec Maya soil

theory uses mimicry to evaluate the land health. However, there is a subde difference in

the conception of land as a living being as compared with plants, animals and men. "Land

never dies as we do; and plants, and animals are also condemned to die... hand is a spirif (Iroshe2002. pp. 4). Yucatec Maya farmers consider that land may be degraded and behaves in a'death stage', but that it 'wakes up', regaining its own quality and health, after fallow and



23/34


soil conservation practices are carried out (soil fertility replenishment) (Iroshe 2002. pp.

70).

Land,as a

living being,needs to be fed and cared for. This function does not

happen by itself, but with help from men and supra-natural beings {aluxes: owners or

saints that administer natural phenomena). This connotation shows principles of reci

procity and equality; and this is why rituals mimic conservation practices to maintain the

(symbolic and material) balance between abundance and scarcity, or weakness and strength.Connectedness means that all actors should work together as a team, otherwise men maynot receive the benefits from the borrowed land, and may be punished by nature and the

supra-natural beings (aluxes).

The importance of ritualsThe H'men or shaman (the middleman between spiritual forces and human beings)represents land-men connectedness, by affirming that "we are made of soil, and we will returnas soil after we die, and our body has been eaten byworms" (Iroshe 2002. pp. 65,70). The principleof land-men connectedness is central to the Yucatec Maya cosmology, as it is believedthat the human body is interconnected with all that surrounds him/her: the milpa,homegarden, plants, forest patches, rocks, soils, water, winds, constellations and stars, andthe sun and the moon. This connection includes other human beings (the household

family, villagers and the Yucatec Maya people), and deities.In

fact, it is commonly said thatmen are

allowedto

live in this world by the will ofnature and its sacred deities (Quintal et al. 2003). This is the way that the Yucatec Mayaorganize their worldview (Figure 7). Cosmic order allows resilience of multiple actors

(nature, men and deities). An example is the relatedness between agricultural rituals andsoil conservation practices.

H'men believe that land and water are also the first medicines that God providedto counteract men's illness. They say: "water is thefirst medicine, and lu 'urn s the second onewhere

plants are grown, which are the third medicine" (Iroshe 2002. pp. 66). Lu'um is considered as (1)a curative element, and (2) a sacred element in the Yucatec Maya medicinal practice. Somesoil classes, such as the Kancab and Chak lu'um are

widelyused to treat fever and other

diseases. Some diseases are considered natural or "earthly" diseases {Lu'um kabil), whileothers are considered to be provoked by supra-natural forces (lik naal or bad winds).

Medicinal practices are commonly used but intermixed with rituals, because is commonlybelieved that a person may be cured by offering gifts to lu'um or other aluxes, guided bythe h'men wisdom and experience. Some of the rituals offered to lu'um are: (1)Loh or

"awaking or curing the land", (2)Het% lu'um or "curing the homegarden", (3) Hanli k 'oloi

"feeding the milpa", (4) Loh corral or "curing the domestic animals", (5) Saka'or thanks

giving to the wind deities, and (6)Chac-chac the rain-asking ceremony. The main differencebetween rituals offered to the land and rituals offered to other Aluxes or

spirits,such as

rain, forest, sun, etc., is that an animal is sacrificed during the first. A bull, a 'virgin'chicken or a cock is sacrificed and buried at the center of the agricultural plot and offeredas a sacred fertilizer, that may allow land to be highly productive.

It is commonly thought that blood (red) will nurture land, prevent diseases of men

and/or help them to recuperate from disease. Sacrifice is seen as an exchange or gift toSanto Lu'um, or the "Spirit of the Land", to reestablish health of a sick person. Red isconceived of as a female color and land is also conceived of as female, while white is a

male color (semen) and is given to the land when a farmer penetrates the soil body withhis lob or digging stick. The mixture of red and white will be then stimulated

byrainfall,

which is also amale force.



24/34


25/34


conquest), they never completely vanished as a culture, and in the near future, the

population will reach one million inhabitants. Yucatec Maya peasants have established

uneven relations with nearby growing urban centers during the last century (such as

Merida and more recendy Cancun), which have induced technological modifications,cultural transformations and unequal economic exchanges. The long-term existence of

the Yucatec Maya indicates that some kinds of mechanisms are present in both the

internal household and community relations, and in relations between localities and their

surrounding landscapes, allowing the continue reshaping of the Yucatec Maya culture,

despite changes which could destabilize the situation.

Since the Yucatec Maya culture has avoided ecological and cultural collapse throughtime, it is evident that it has a recovery capacity capable of dealing will different kinds of

disturbances. It demonstrates an adaptive capability to re-organize both social and eco

logical relations, after significant change. In other words, Yucatec Maya culture demon

strates high levels of resilience. Resilience is defined as the capacity of adaptive systemsto absorb disturbances (Reldman and Kinzig 2003), which translated to the field of cul

tural history means the ability to collectively memorize success and failure, including the

ways to overcome unexpected changes and perturbations.The long-term permanence of Yucatec Maya culture has been extensively researched

and debated from numerous perspectives (see seminal contributions in Harrison and

Turner 1978; Flannery 1982; Fedick 1996; Gomez-Pompa et al. 2003). Although full com

prehension of the successes and failures of the ancient Yucatec Maya goes far beyond the

objectives of this study, we think that the approach adopted in our research about con

temporary Yucatec Maya-landscape relationships may be useful for scholars exploringancient changes and continuities in the northern portion of the YP.

Following what has been proposed by other authors (Rappaport 1979; Descola

and Palsson 1996; Hornborg 1996), we think that the long-term permanence of the Yucatec

Maya in the YP can not be solely explained by ideological, cognitive or technological and

productive factors, but by a combination thereof. Thus, we identify the core of the resil

ience capacity of the Yucatec Maya in their k-c-p matrix. This matrix functions as an

assemblage whereby meanings, facts and practice are in dynamic feedback, and synergies

resulting from these dynamics have both spatial and temporal expression. There is a needfor more detailed and robust research that compares past with present, to fully acknowl

edge the "Maya puzzle", not just in the northern Yucatan Peninsula, but in the whole

Maya lowland.

AcknowledgementsWe are grateful to three anonymous reviewers for their critical and helpful com

ments on early versions of this paper. Thanks are also given to Jose Salvador Flores, Silvia

Teran, Patricia Colunga-GarciaMarin, Gilberto Avila-Gomez, Nicholas Dunning, Timo

thy Beach and Eduardo Garcia-Frapolli, for providing us with several publications. Special thanks are given to Pablo-Alarcon-Chaires for his permanent technical assistance and

elaboration of the graphics. Finally, we are indebted to Margaret Skutch and David

Robinson for revising the manuscript's English style. This paper is dedicated to Arturo

Gomez-Pompa and Alfredo Barrera-Marin (f), two pioneering contributors to the ethno

ecological study of the Yucatec Maya.

Notes:

*Atypical

soiltoposequence

of the northern Yucatan Peninsula includes:calcimorphicsoilswith good drainage on the higher ositions (Nt\ ltillos r mounds); calcimorphic



26/34


soils with moderate drainage on gentle slopes (Chi wits); and hydromorphic soils with

poor drainage on the flat lowlands and bottom-level lands (Taax, planadas and aguadas).The soil mantle is

highlyvariable

along micro-catenas,recurrent at short

distances,thus

expressing high soil spatial heterogeneity.

tillages are located within the environmental adaptive regions (EAR) proposed by Dun

ning et al. 1998. Kosmos: Sp: sacred spaces. Ri: rituals. My: myths. Corpus: Cl: climate. So:soils. PI: plants. An: animals. Veg: vegetation. Praxis: Ag: agriculture. Hor: horticulture.

Hg: housegarden. Hu: hunting. Fi: fishing. Ext: extraction. Bee: beekeeping. Afo:

agroforestry. Ca: cattle raising.

3Landscapeunits: EK: Ek'lu'um soils

developedon kancabal or flatlands; EKWM: Ek'

lu'um soils developed on wits and/or mulu'ch, or hills and hummocks; PWM: Pus lu'umsoils developed on wits and mulu'ch; BWM: Box lu'um soils developed on wits and mulu'ch;

CHK: Chak lu'um soils developed on kancabal; TCHB: Chak lu'um or T^ekel box lu'um

soils developed on kancabal.

References

Allen, M. F, S. L. Fedick, A. Gomez-Pompa, and J. J. Jimenez-Osornio. 2003. The MayaLowlands: a case study for the future? Conclusions. In The Lowland Maya Area, A. Gomez

Pompa, M. F. Allen, S. L. Fedick and J. J. Jimenez-Osornio (eds), pp. 623-634. New York:

The Haworth Press, Inc.

Anderson, E. N. 2003. Traditional knowledge of plant resources. In The Lowland MayaArea, A. Gomez-Pompa, M. E Allen, S. L. Fedick and J.J. Jimenez-Osornio (eds), pp. 533

550. New York: The Haworth Press, Inc.

Arellano-Rodriguez,J. A., R. Rodriguez-Rivera, and P. Uuh Chi. 1992. Glosario de terminos

agricolas Maya-Espanol. Etnoflora Yucatanense 7: 1-83.

Arellano-Rodriguez, J. A., J. S. Flores,J. Tun-Garrido and M. M. Cruz-Bojorquez. 2003.Nomenclatura, Forma de Vida, Uso, Manejo y Distribution de las Especies Vegetales de

la Peninsula de Yucatan. Etnoflora Yucatanense 20: 1-815.

Arias, L. 1980. La production milpera actual en Yaxcaba, Yucatan. In Seminario sobre la

Production Agricola enYucatan. E. Hernandez-Xolocotzim and R.P. Ortega (eds), pp. 259

302. Mexico. Universidad de Chapingo and Gobierno del Estado de Yucatan.

Aveni, M. 1992. The Sky inMaya Literature. New York: Oxford University Press.

Avila-Gomez, G. 2003. Manejo de fauna silvestre en bosques tropicales por ejidos forestales

de Quintana Roo. Unpublished M.Sc. Thesis, Colegio de Posgraduados, Mexico.

Barrera-Marin, A, A. Barrera-Vazquez, and R. M. Lopez-Franco. 1976. Nomenclatura

etnobotdnicaMaya. Coleccion Cientifica 36. Etnologia. Yucatan, Mexico: Centro RegionalSureste INAH.

Barrera-Marin, A. 1994. La taxonomia botanica Maya. In Taxonomia biologica. J. Llorente

and I. Luna (comp.), pp. 27-38. Mexico D.F.: UNAM/FCE.



27/34


Barrera-Bassols, N. 2003. Symbolism, knowledge and management of soil and land re

sources in indigenous communities: ethnopedology at global, regional and local scales.

Unpublished PhD Thesis 2 vols. Ghent, Belgium: Faculty of Science, University of Ghent.

Barrera-Bassols, N., and J. A. Zinck. 2000 Ethnopedology in a worldwide perspective. An anno

tated bibliography. ITC Publication 77. Enschede, The Netherlands: ITC.

_. 2004. Ethnopedology: a worldwide view on the soil knowledge of local

people. GeodermaXW (3-4): 171-195.

Bautista-Zuniga, F, Ma. S. Diaz-Garrido, M. Castillo-Gonzalez, and J. A. Zinck. 2004.

Spatial heterogeneity of the soil cover in the Yucatan karst:comparison

of Mayan, WRBand numerical classifications. Paper presented at the International Conference "Soil Classification 2004", held at Petrozavodsk, Karelia, Russia. August 3-9, 2004. IUSS.

Bautista-Zuniga, J.,J. J. Jimenez-Osornio, A. Navarro-Alberto, A. Manu, and R. Lozano.2003a. Microrrelieve y color del suelo como propiedades diagnostico de Leptosolescarsticos. Terra 21:1-11.

Bautista-Zuniga, E, H. Estrada, J. J. Jimenez, and J. A. Gonzalez. 2003b. Relacion entre

relieve y las unidades de suelo en zonas carsticas de Yucatan. Unpublished Manuscript.Yucatan, Mexico: UADY

Beach, T, N. Dunning, S. Luzzadder-Beach, and V. Scarborough. 2003. Depression soilsin the lowland tropics of Northwestern Belize: on anthropogenic and natural origins. In

The Eowland Maya Area, A. Gomez-Pompa, M. F. Allen, S. L. Fedick and J. J. JimenezOsornio (eds), pp. 139-174. New York, USA,: The Haworth Press, Inc.

Bello-Baltazar, E., M. Macario, and E. I. J. Estrada-Lugo. 2000. Procesos comunitarios enelmanejo de la selva: el caso de un ejido forestal Maya. In ElAjuste Estructural en elCampo

Mexicano. H. Carton de Gramont (ed), tomo II: pp. 38-55. Universidad Nacional Autonomade Mexico. Edicion en CD-ROM.

Berkes, F. 1999. Sacred ecology: traditional ecologicalknowledge and resourcemanagement. Philadel

phia, USA: Francis and Taylor.

Berkes, F, J. Colding, and C. Folke. 2000. Rediscovery of traditional ecological knowledgeas adaptive management. Ecological Applications 10 (5): 1251-1262.

Boccara, M. 1997. Ees Eabyrinthes Sonores. Encyclopedic de laMjthologieMaya Yucateque. 7 vols.

Paris/Amiens: Ductus/URA 1478. CNRS/Universite de Picardie.

Boege, E. 2004. Acerca de la diversidad biocultural y los recursos biologicos colectivosde Mexico. SEMARNAT Technical Report. Mexico.

Boose, E., R. Foster, A. Barker Plotkin, and B. Hall. 2003. Geographical and historicalvariation in hurricanes across the Yucatan Peninsula. In The Eowland Maya Area, A. Gomez

Pompa, M. F. Allen, S. L. Fedick and J. J. Jimenez-Osornio (eds), pp. 495-516. New York,USA: The Haworth Press, Inc..



28/34


Breton, A., A. Monod Becquelin, and M. H. Ruz. (eds). 2003. EspaciosMayas: representaciones,usos, creenrias. entro de Estudios Mayas, IIFL. Mexico: UNAM/Centro Frances de Estudios

Mexicanos y Centroamericanos (CEMCA).

Caballero J. 1992. The Maya homegardens of the Yucatan Peninsula: Past, present and

future. Etnoecologica 1(1): 35-54. Online: www.etnoecologica.org.mx.

Canevalli, G., I. M. Ramirez, and J. A. Gonzalez-Iturbe. 2003. Flora y vegetation de la

Peninsula de Yucatan. InNaturale^a y Sociedad en elArea Maya. P. Colunga-GartiaMarinand A. Larque-Saavedra (eds), pp. 53-68. Yucatan, Mexico: Academia Mexicana de Ciencias

y Centro de Investigaciones Cientificas de Yucatan.

Canul-Pech, P. 1967. Terminos mayas para la denomination de: suelos, vegetation,

topografia, clima, cultivos y aguas. Unpublished manuscript. Merida, Yucatan: Secretaria

de Recursos Hidraulicos.

Coe, M. D., and R. A. Dile. 1980. In the and of theOlmec, vol. 1.Austin: University of Texas

Press.

Colunga-Garcia Marin, P., and D. Zizumbo-Villarreal. 2004. Domestication of plants in

Maya Lowlands. Economic Botany 58 (Supplement): SI 01-SI 10.

Colunga-Garcia Marin, P., R. Ruenes-Morales and D. Zizumbo-Villarreal. 2003.Domestication de plantas en las tierras bajas Mayas y recursos fitogeneticos disponibles.InNaturale^ay Sociedad en el rea Maya. P. Colunga-GartiaMarin and A. Larque-Saavedra(eds), pp. 145-158. Yucatan, Mexico: Academia Mexicana de Ciencias y Centro de

Investigaciones Cientificas de Yucatan.

Cortina-Villar, S.H. 1995. La milpa traditional en Becanchen. In La milpa enYucatan. Un

sistema deproduction agricola traditional E. Hernandez, E. Bello y S. Levy (comp.), tomo 1:

pp. 201-223. Mexico: Colegio de Postgraduados.

Descola, P., and G. Palsson. 1996. Introduction. InNature and Society:Anthropological Per

spectives, . Descola and G. Palsson (eds), pp. 1-21. London: Routledge.

Dominguez-Ake, S. 1996. La Milpa enMuxupip. Mexico DE: Letras Indigenas

Contemporaneas.

Duch, J. 1989. La conformation territorial del estado de Yucatan. Los componentes del medio fisico.Centro Regional de Yucatan. Merida, Mexico: Universidad Autonoma de Chapingo.

Dunning, N. P. 1992. The implications of soil folk taxonomies for agricultural change in

Middle America. Yearbook, Conference of Latin American Geographers 17/18: 243-247.

Dunning, N. P. and T. Beach. 2004a. Noxious or nurturing nature? Maya civilization in

environmental context. In Continuities and Changes inMaya Archaeology: perspectives at the

millennium. Ch. W Golden & G. Borgstede (eds), pp. 125-141. New York and London:

Routledge.

_. 2004b. Fruit of the luum. lowland Maya soil knowledge and agricultural

practices, journal of the esoamerican Archaeological Research Laboratory 2: 3-14.



29/34


Dunning, N. P., T. Beach, P. Farrell, and S. Luzzadder-Beach. 1998. Prehispanic agrosystemsand adaptive regions in the Maya Lowlands. Culture and Agriculture 20: 87-101.

Dunning, N. P., S. Luzzadder-Beach, T. Beach, J. G. Jones, V. Scarborough, and T. P.

Culbert. 2002. Arising from the Bajos: the evolution of a Neotropical landscape and the

rise of Maya civilization. Annals of the ssociation ofAmerican Geographers 92: 267-283

Estrada-Medina, H., F. Bautista-Zuniga,J. J. Ma. Jimenez, andj. A. Gonzalez-Iturbe. 2004.

Relationship between WRSBSR soil classification and Maya land classification in the

municipality of Hocaba. Unpublished manuscript. Yucatan, Mexico: UADY

Ewell, P. T. 1984. Intensification of Peasant Agriculture inYucatan. New York: Cornell Univer

sity School of Agriculture.

Ewell, P. T., and D. Merrill-Sands. 1987. Milpa in Yucatan. A long-fallow maize systemand its alternatives in the Maya peasant economy. In Comparative Farming Systems, B. L.

Turner and S. Brush (eds), pp. 95-129. USA: The Guilford Press.

Faust, B. 1998. Mexican Rural Development and the Plumed Serpent. USA-England: Bergin &

Garvey.

_. 2001. Maya environmental success and failures in the Yucatan Peninsula.Environmental Science


30/34


the Peninsula of Yucatan. Journal of Ethnohiology 17(1): 97-108.

Freidle, D., L. Schele, and J. Parker. 1993.Maya Cosmos. Three Thousand Years on the hamansPath. New York: William Morrow and Co.

Gartia-Frapolli, E., E. Galicia, G Ramos-Fernandez and A. Serrano-Solis. 2005. Under

standing Mexican biodiversity conservation through the policy of natural protected areas:

three cases from the Yucatan Peninsula. Submitted to Conservation Biology.

Gomez-Pompa, A. 1987a. On Maya silviculture. Mexican Studies/EstudiosMexicanos 3(1): 117.

_. 1987b. Tropical deforestation and Maya silviculture: an ecological paradox.Tulane Studies in Zoology and Botany 26: 19-37.

_. 2003. Research challenges for the lowland Maya Area. An introduction. InThe lowland Maya Area, A. Gomez-Pompa, M. F. Allen, S. L. Fedick and J. J. JimenezOsornio (eds), pp. 3-12. New York: The Haworth Press.

Gomez-Pompa, A., Flores, S., Sosa, V. 1987. The "Pek Kot": aman-made tropical forestof the Maya. Interciencia 12 (1): 10-15.

Greenberg, L. S. Z. 1992. Garden hunting among the Yucatec Maya. Etnoecoldgica 1: 22-32.

[online] URL: http:// www.etnoecologica.org.mx.

Gutierrez, J. A. 1993. Agricultura de roza y dinamica demografica en una comunidad

Maya. Etnoecoldgica 2: 35-47. [online] URL: http:// www.etnoecologica.org.mx.

Gunn, J.D., R. T. Matheny, and W J. Folan. 2002a. Climatic-changes studies in the Mayaarea. A diachronic analysis. Ancient Mesoamerica 13: 79-84.

Gunn, J. ., J. E. Foss, W J. Folan, M. del R. Dominguez-Carrasco, and B. B. Faust. 2002b.

Bajo sediments and the hydraulic system of Calakmul, Campeche, Mexico. Ancient

Mesoamerica 13: 297-315.

Hanks, W F. 1990. Referentialpractice. Eanguage and lived space among theMaya. Chicago: The

University of Chicago Press.

Harrison, P. D., and B. L. Turner II. 1978. Pre-Hispanic Maya Agriculture. New Mexico:

University of New Mexico Press.

Hernandez-Briceno, A., J. L. Sanchez-Bianco, and E. Sanchez. 1982. El cultivo del maizen Chacsinkin, Yucatan. InNuestro mat%.Vol. 1:pp. 243-287. Mexico, D. E: Museo National

de Culturas Populares. SEP.

Hernandez-Xolocotzim, E. 1959. La agricultura. In: Eos recursos naturales del surestey su

aprovechamiento. E. Beltran (ed.), Vol. 3.Mexico: IMRNR.

Hernandez-Xolocotzim, E., L. M. Arias, and L. Pool-Novelo. 1990. El sistema agricola deroza-tumba-quema en Yucatan y su capacidad de sostenimiento. InAgricultura Indigena.



31/34

38 journal of Latin American Geography

Presentey Pasado. T. Rojas and W Sanders (eds), pp. 343-358. Mexico: Ediciones de la Casa

Chata, Vol. 27: CIESAS.

Herrera-Castro, N. D. 1994. Los huertos farniliares mayas en el oriente de Yucatan. EtnofloraYucatanense 9. Yucatan, Mexico: UAY.

Herrera-Castro, N. D., A. Gomez-Pompa, L. Cruz-Kuri, and J. S. Flores. 1993. Los Huertos

farniliares mayas en X-uilub, Yucatan, Mexico: aspectos generales y estudio comparativoentre la flora de los huertos farniliares y la selva. Biotica 1:19-36.

Holling, C. S. 2000. Theories for sustainable futures. Conservation Ecology 4 (2):7.

Hornbog, A. 1996. Ecology as semiotics: outlines of a contextualist paradigm for human

ecology. InNature and Society:Anthropological Perspectives, P. Descola and G. Palsson (eds),pp. 45-61. London: Routiedge.

Illsley, C. 1984. Vegetation y production de lamilpa bajo roza, tumba y quema en el ejidode Yaxkaba, Yucatan, Mexico. Unpublished Professional Thesis. Morelia, Mexico:

Universidad Michoacana de San Nicolas de Hidalgo.

Iroshe, J. 2002. La salud de la tierra: el orden natural en la practica medica traditional en

una comunidad Maya de la Peninsula de Yucatan. Unpublished M.Sc. Thesis. Merida,Mexico: CINVESTAV.

Jimenez-Osornio, J. J., M. Ruenes-Morales, y P. Montanez-Escalante. 1999.

Agrobiodiversidad de los solares de la peninsula de Yucatan. Red-Gestion de Recursos Naturales 14:30-40.

Jorgenson, J. P. 1998. The impact of hunting on wildlife in the Maya Forest of Mexico. In

Timber, Tourists and Temples: Conservation and Development in theMaya Forest of Belize, Guatemala and Mexico, R. B. Primarck, D. Bray, H. A. Galleti and I. Ponciano (eds), pp. 179-193.

Island Press.

La Torre-Cuadros, M. A., and G. A. Islebe. 2003. Traditional ecological knowledge anduse of vegetation in southeastern Mexico: a case study from Solferino, Quintana Roo.

Biodiversity Conservation 12: 2455-2476.

Landa de, B. 1982. Yucatan before and after the conquest. University of Alabama Press. NewYork.

Lundell, C. L. 1933. Archeological discoveries in the Maya area. Proceedings of the merican

Philosophicalociety 2 (3):147-179.

Montiel-Ortega, S., L. M. Arias-Reyes, and F. Dickinson. 1999. La caceria traditional en elnorte de Yucatan: una practica comunitaria. Revisa de Geografia Agricola 29:43-52.

Ortega, L. M., S. Avendano, A. Gomez-Pompa, y E. Ucan Ek. 1993. Los solares de

Chunchucmil, Yucatan, Mexico. Biotica 1:37-52.

Perez del Toro, A. 1945. La milpa. Merida, Mexico: Gobierno de Yucatan.



32/34


Perez-Pool, J. M. 1984. Caracterizacion y utilization de la clasificacion Maya de los suelosen elmunicipio de Oxtkuzcab, Yucatan. Unpublished Professional Thesis. Mexico: UACH.

Pool-Novelo, L. 1980. El estudio de los suelos calcimorficos con relation a la productionmaicera. Paper presented at the Seminario Sobre Production Agricola, Merida, Yucatan,Mexico: UACH.

Quijano-Hernandez, E. and S. Calme. 2002. Patrones de caceria y conservation de la

fauna silvestre en una comunidad Maya de Quintana Roo. Etnobiologta 2: 1-18.

Quintal, E. E, J. R. Bastarrachea, F. Briceno, M. Medina, B. Repetto, L. Rejon, and M.

Rosales. 2003. Ulu 'Umil Maaya Winiko 'Ob: La tierra de losMayas. In Didlogos con elterritorio.

Simboli^acion sobre el espacio en las culturas indigerias deMexico. A.M. Barabas (Coord.), pp. 275314. Coleccion Etnografia de los Pueblos Indigenas de Mexico. Serie Ensayos. Mexico:

INAH.

Ramirez-Barajas, P. J., N. Torrescano-Valle, A. Tecpa-Jimenez, and J.Vazquez-Rodriguez,2001. Importancia y uso del entorno natural en una comunidad Maya (Petcacab, QuintanaRoo, Mexico) TIP Revista Especiali^aaa enCiencias Qmmico-Biologicas 4 (2): 61-71.

Rappaport, R. 1979. Ecology, Meaning and Religion. Ann Arbor: University of MichiganPress.

Redfield, R., and A. Villa Rojas. 1934. Chan Kom, A Maya Village. Washington D. C: CarnegieInstitute of Washington.

Reldman, Ch. L. and A. P. Kinzig. 2003. Resilience of past landscapes: resilience, theory,

society, and the Longue Duree. Conservation Ecology 7 (1): 14-40.

Remmers, G. G. A., y E. Ucan-Ek 1996. La roza-tumba-quema Maya: un sistema

agroecologico traditional frente al cambio tecnologico. Etnoecoldgica 4-5: 97-109. Online:

www.etnoecologica.org.mx.

Robles Ramos, R. 1958. Geologia y Geohidrologia. In Eos recursos naturales del Surestey su

aprovechamiento, E. Beltran (ed.), pp. 53-92. Mexico: IMRNR.

Roys, R. L. 1931. The Ethnobotany of theMaya. New Orleans: Tulane University Press.

_. 1965. Ritual of the Bacabs. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.

Saldivia, G. T. 1994. Estudio sobre la relation entre la fauna silvestre y lamilpaen

ejidosforestales de Quintana Roo. InMemorias delXII Simposio sobreFauna Silvestre, pp. 496-512.

Mexico D. E: Universidad National Autonoma de Mexico.

Sanabria, O. L. 1986. El uso y manejo forestal en la comunidad de Xu'ul, en el sur de

Yucatan. Etnoflora Yucatanense 2: 1-180.

Sanchez-Gonzalez, M. C. 1993. Arboles y arbustos utilizados para lena en la comunidad

de X-uilub, Yucatan, Mexico. Biotica. 69-82.

Sauer, C. O. 1925. The morphology of landscape. University of California Publications in



33/34


Geography 2 (2): 19-54.

Schlesinger, V. 2001. Animals and Plants of the ncient Maya. Austin, Texas: University of

Texas Press.

Snook, L. 1998. Sustaining harvests of Mahogany (Swieteniamacrophylla King) from Mexico's

Yucatan Forests: Past, Present and Future. In Timber, Tourists and Temples: Conservation and

Development in theMaya Forest of Belize, Guatemala and Mexico. R. B. Primarck, D. Bray, H. A.

Galleti and I. Ponciano (eds), pp. 61-79. Island Press.

Sosa, J. 1990. Cosmological, symbolic and cultural complexity among the contemporary

Maya at Yucatan. In: World Archeoastronomy, A. Aveni (ed.), pp. 130-142. Cambridge Uni

versity Press.

Teran, S. and C. Rasmussen. 1994. ha milpa de losMayas. Yucatan, Mexico: DANIDA.

Teran, S., C. Rasmussen, and O. May-Cauich 1998. hasplantas de lamilpa entre losMayas.Yucatan, Mexico: Fundacion Tun Ben Kin, A. C.

Thompson, E. J. 1970.Maya history nd religion. klahoma: University of Oklahoma Press.

Toledo, V. M. 1992. What is ethnoecology?: origins, scope and implications of a rising

discipline, Etnoecologica 1: 5-21. [online] URL: http://www.etnoecologica.org.mx.

_. 2002. Ethnoecology: a conceptual framework for the study of indigenous

knowledge of nature. In Ethnobiology and Biocultural Diversity, J. R. Stepp, F. S.Wyndham,and R. S. Zarger (eds), pp. 511-522. Georgia: International Society of Ethnobiology.

Toledo, V. M., P. Alarcon-Chaires, P. Moguel, M. Olivo, A. Cabrera and A. RodriguezAldabe 2002. Mesoamerican Ethnoecology: a review of the state of the art. In Ethnobiologyand Biocultural Diversity,]. R. Stepp, F. S.Wyndham, and R. S. Zarger (eds), pp.561-574.

Georgia, USA: International Society of Ethnobiology.

Toledo, V. M., B. Ortiz, L. Cortes, P. Moguel, and M. J. Ordonez. 2003. The multiple use

of tropical forests by indigenous peoples in Mexico: a case of adaptive management.Conservation Ecology. 7 (3): 9 [online] URL: http://www.consecol.org/vol7/iss3/art9.

Turner II, B. L., P. Klepeis, and L. C. Schneider. 2003. Three millennia in the southernYucatan Peninsula: Implications for occupancy, use, and carrying capacity. In The lowland

Maya area, A. Gomez-Pompa, M. F. Allen, S. L. Fedick and J. J. Jimenez-Osornio (eds), pp.

361-388. New York: The Haworth Press, Inc.

Ucan-Ek, E., M. Narvaez Segovia, A. Puch Tzub, y C. Chan Vermont. 1982. El cultivodel maiz en el ejido de Mucel (Pixoy, Valladolid, Yucatan, Mexico). InNuestro maz\. Vol. 1.

pp. 243-287. Mexico, D. E: Museo National de Culturas Populares. SEP.

Varguez-Pasos, L. A. 1981. ha Milpa entre osMayas deYucatan. Merida, Mexico: Edicionesde la Universidad de Yucatan.

Villa-Flores, A. 2003. Los conceptos de espacio y tiempo entre los grupos mayences



34/34


contemporaneos. In Tiempoy realidaden elPensamiento Maya, M. Leon Portilla (ed.), pp. 121163. Mexico: UNAM.

Villa-Rojas, A. 1987. Los Elegidos deDios. Etnografia de losMayas deQuintana Roo. Mexico:Instituto Nacional Indigenista.

Zizumbo, D. and P. Sima. 1988. Las practicas de roza-tumba-quema en la agriculturaMaya-Yucateca y su papel en la regeneration de la selva. InMedio ambientej comunidades

indigenas del sureste, R. Uribe (comp.). Mexico: Gobierno de Tabasco y UNESCO.

Zizumbo, D., C. H. Rasmussen, L. M. Arias-Reyes, and S. Teran-Contreras. 1992. La

modernisation de la milpa en Yucatan: Utopia o realidad. Merida, Yucatan, Mexico: CICY/

DANIDA.

Ethnoecology of the Yucatec Maya 34

Documents

Transcript of Ethnoecology of the Yucatec Maya 34