Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ccla20

Download by: [74.97.37.194] Date: 19 August 2017, At: 13:53

Colonial Latin American Review

ISSN: 1060-9164 (Print) 1466-1802 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ccla20

Introduction: entangled trajectories: indigenousand European histories

Ralph Bauer & Marcy Norton

To cite this article: Ralph Bauer & Marcy Norton (2017) Introduction: entangled trajectories:indigenous and European histories, Colonial Latin American Review, 26:1, 1-17, DOI:10.1080/10609164.2017.1287321

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10609164.2017.1287321

Published online: 07 Apr 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 351

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Introduction: entangled trajectories: indigenous andEuropean historiesRalph Bauera and Marcy Nortonb

aUniversity of Maryland; bGeorge Washington University

Derived in maritime language from the noun ‘tangle’ (a species of sea-weed), the Englishverb ‘to entangle’ has one of its earliest documented uses in Richard Eden’s 1555 Decadesof the New World, a translation of Peter Martyr d’Anghiera’s multi-volume history ofEuropean encounters with Native America. In his translation, Eden writes that, duringa reconnaissance of Cuba, in the course of the Second Voyage, Columbus’s men attemptedto penetrate a great plain in the interior filled with grasses and herbs but became ‘sooentangled and bewrapte therin, that they were scarsely able to passe a myle, the grassebeinge there lyttle lower then owre rype corne’ (Eden 1555, 16v). The word used byPeter Martyr in his original Latin version was in this context ‘offenderunt’ [they stumbled](Martyr 1530, f. Xv), evoking the sense of impediment and resistance to European con-quest offered by an unwieldy American nature and underscored by Eden with his trans-lation. Thus, in another passage Eden reports that Columbus’s men, after being ambushedby powerful Caribbean archers, ‘fledde to warde the shippes, [but] were entangeled in themudde and maryshes nere vnto the shore. Twentie and two, were slayne with arrowes, andthe resydewe for the most parte, wounded’ (Eden 1555, 151v). In America, it seems, nature(‘mudde and maryshes’) and culture (‘arrowes’), rather than being separate, conspire toarrest European progress. Whereas cunning Odysseus of old could choose betweenScylla and Charybdis, becoming entangled in America means being swallowed whole.The currents of the sea there clash so violently that the Spanish ships become ‘entangledwith whirlepooles’ (Eden 1555, 160r). And the quicksands are so powerful that they arecalled ‘vypers’ by the Spaniards with good reason: ‘in them many shyppes are entangled,as the lycertes are implicate in the tayles of the vipers’ (Eden 1555, 157r).

But in Eden’s translation, American nature not only physically entangles Europeanconquerors with disastrous consequences; it defies the imposition of a European orderof things. In America, fish—which are supposed to live in water—still fly in the air, andthe sea is ‘euery where entangeled with Ilandes: by reason whereof, the keeles of theshippes often tymes rased the sandes for shalownes of the water’ (Eden 1555, 16r). InAmerica, it seems, nature was still in a primordial state of Chaos, when the four elementscomprising nature were not yet fully separate. For this reason, entangled America not onlyimpedes the European conquest and technologies of transportation but also defies theorder of historical narration. Thus, the historian who had set out to offer a chronologicalaccount of the European discovery and conquest (neatly organized into ‘decades’) is sobewildered by American nature ‘that I fynde my wytte more entangeled in the descriptionhereof, then is sayde of the henne when shee seeth her younge chekyn inwrapped in towe’(Eden 1555, 83v). In Richard Eden’s translation, then, to ‘entangle’ means to mingle and

© 2017 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group on behalf of CLAR

COLONIAL LATIN AMERICAN REVIEW, 2017VOL. 26, NO. 1, 1–17http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10609164.2017.1287321

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

74.9

7.37

.194

] at

13:

53 1

9 A

ugus

t 201

7

confuse that which should be separate, according to the European order of things—thefour elements, nature and culture, subjects and objects, time and space.

In this special issue, we want to adopt Eden’s literary trope as a metaphor for under-standing the history of the early modern Atlantic World after Eurasia, Africa, andAmerica came into contact with one another. If the word’s origin in maritime languagemakes it an appropriate metaphor for the ways in which scholars have recently come torethink the early modern period, the 25th anniversary of the Quincentenary of 1492would seem to be an opportune moment to devote a special issue of Colonial Latin Amer-ican Review to this historiographic current. For, the year of Columbus’s landfall in the Car-ibbean initiated the sustained ecological and cultural integration of western and easternhemispheres, whose ecologies and peoples had developed in isolation from each otherfor at least 10,000 years (see Fiedel 2000, 56).

The semantic field associated with ‘entanglement’ makes it an apt metaphor for think-ing methodologically about Atlantic history. According to the Oxford English Dictionary(OED), the verb ‘to entangle’ means ‘to intertwist (threads, branches, or the like) compli-catedly or confusedly together; to intertwist the threads or parts of (a thing) in this way’(OED). Its etymological origin in seaweed reminds us of the need to transcend epistemo-logically indefensible nature-culture binaries (Latour 1993; Descola 2013) that arose intandem with European colonial ideologies legitimating conquests of indigenous people.The OED’s definition of ‘intertwist[ing] threads’ also evokes textiles, reminding us ofsophisticated technologies allowing the transformation of plant material into thingswith stunning aesthetic properties as well as a multitude of other uses (clothing,baskets, hammocks, quipu, wampum belts, among many) which were developed in a mul-titude of Native American and African, as well as European, societies over millennia. Inturn, textiles—whether webs woven by spiders or cloth and quipu woven by people—themselves became a source of powerful metaphors for understanding the nature of exist-ence (Díaz et al. 1993, pl. 33–34; Tedlock and Tedlock 1985; Maffie 2014; Brokaw 2010). Asustained focus on these technologies and interlinked ontologies holds the promise of amore equitable and pluralistic perspective when approaching the disparate cultures thatcame into contact after 1492, a perspective that foregoes Eurocentric paradigms ofstagist developmental progress that have summarily been called the ‘denial of coevalness’and according to which any historical pattern that does not follow a European prototypemust be seen as aberrant, ‘backward’, or insignificant (Fabian 1983, 31). Moreover, theconnotations of ‘obstruction’ and ‘confusion’ associated with the verb ‘to entangle’ helpus keep in mind the destructive, confounding, and generative nature of the entanglementsas well as the radical asymmetries of power that have often accompanied early modernglobalization. Finally, the metaphor of multiple threads forming a new, complex, inextric-able, and often intimate web of relations connoted by the sixteenth-century meaning of‘entangle’ encourages a genealogical, rather than a teleological, approach to earlymodern Atlantic history, reminding us of the impossibility of keeping separate variouskinds of agency in an interdependent world. When twenty-first-century physicists nowspeak of ‘quantum entanglement’ to describe how certain pairs or group of particles con-tinued to affect one another, even after they are physically separated by vast distances(Grant 2015), they encourage us to think about how seemingly disparate persons,places, things, and events can be inextricably connected.1

2 R. BAUER AND M. NORTON

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

74.9

7.37

.194

] at

13:

53 1

9 A

ugus

t 201

7

Writing entangled histories of the early modern Atlantic World requires paying atten-tion to the agentive capacities of all actors, particularly those whose stories and agenciesthat have traditionally been ignored as a result of both Eurocentric historiographic para-digms and the nature of the sources, which are most often ‘written by the winners.’ Unlikesome global and trans-national histories that continue to focus exclusively on the impactthat Europeans had on ‘others,’ or on the formers’ ‘representations’ of the latter, entangledhistories attend to the multiplicity of sources, agencies, directions of influence, and mod-alities of intercultural connectedness. While entangled histories of the early modern Atlan-tic World can focus on single or multiple sites of historical transformation—whether inAfrica, Europe or America—they require a hermeneutics that attend to the permeabilityof borders; the negotiations of power in colonial relations; the dynamism of interculturalprocesses; and the inextricability of material and symbolic factors.

In addition to its genealogical relationship with the history of the New World encoun-ters, ‘entangled’ and its variants belong to the zeitgeist of contemporary academic dis-course, appearing in titles of books, articles, and conferences across fields anddisciplines. Yet, the word evokes different, even conflicting, paradigms, methodologiesand priorities. A foundational text—whose title marks the word’s first appearance in con-temporary academic publications—is anthropologist Nicholas Thomas’s EntangledObjects: Exchange, Material Culture, and Colonialism in the Pacific (1991), a study ofthe ‘processes of mutual appropriation and unequal exchange on colonial peripheries’by Pacific Islanders and Europeans. For many historians of the Atlantic World,however, the term ‘entanglement’ is perhaps more closely associated with the forumentitled ‘Entangled Empires in the Atlantic World,’ published in 2007 by the AmericanHistorical Review. The forum featured essays by James Epstein, Rafe Blaubarb, EligaGould, and Jorge Cañizares-Esguerra, fittingly followed by a ‘featured review’ ofJ. H. Elliott’s Empires of the Atlantic World (2006) by Ian Steele. But while Thomas’sbook and the AHR forum were both seminal in the development of entangled frameworksand methodologies, their differences are as important as their similarities. For the editorsand contributors to the AHR forum on ‘Entangled Empires,’ the notion of ‘entanglement’referred primarily to intersections and connections among and within European empires.Thus, the introductory note asserted that the essays ‘remin[d] us that the history of theAtlantic World is in large measure the history of empires and imperial aspirations.’2 Inthis tradition of ‘entanglement’ the focus is on Europeans and settler colonials—albeitwith much needed attention to the formerly neglected non-Anglo powers in Atlantichistory (Cañizares-Esguerra 2007; Gould 2007)—rather than on the relationshipsbetween settler-colonists (or creoles) and subaltern subjects. By contrast, Thomas hadresisted the notion that ‘indigenous responses or practices are to be explained throughsome clarification of an alternate cultural order’ (Thomas 1991, 3). More central to theconcerns of this present volume, he was on the forefront of scholars who debunked‘unitary conceptions’ of indigenous societies and who attended to the mutual, albeit asym-metrical, effects of contact between colonizing and indigenous societies, such as (in hiscase) the ‘entanglement’ of Pacific Islander trade with Western capitalism (Thomas1991, 4). In other words, Thomas entangled the ‘West’ and the ‘Rest,’ particularly by focus-ing on materiality, and the 2007 AHR forum entangled the Atlantic empires of competingEuropean powers.

COLONIAL LATIN AMERICAN REVIEW 3

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

74.9

7.37

.194

] at

13:

53 1

9 A

ugus

t 201

7

It could be said that the 2013 seminar and 2015 conference out of which this specialissue emerges were informed by a desire to bring the sense of ‘entanglement’ foregroundedin Thomas’s work in dialog with that featured in the AHR forum. The seed that generatedthe seminar was the recognition of an emerging scholarship that has brought ethno-history and Native American studies into broader Atlantic or global histories. In articlesand books published in a variety of disciplines, often with quite different intellectual gen-ealogies, one can increasingly find the explicit or implicit claim that Native AmericanStudies and ethno-history—fields which have long shown the way that native peoplesacross the hemispheres in different times and places exerted agency in adapting to circum-stances both of their making and not of their making—challenges Eurocentric Atlanticand even global history frameworks. The Folger Shakespeare Library—an institution atthe center of early modern European, and more particularly early modern Britishstudies—was suitably the site of a 2013 indigenous- and Ibero-centric seminar thatbecame the launching ground for the 2015 conference ‘Entangled Trajectories: IntegratingEuropean and Native American Histories.’ We invited a diverse group of scholars, fromthe fields of history, art history, literary studies, Native American studies, anthropology,religious studies, whose research encompassed sites stretching from the Amazon toAlaska, and London and to Andalucía. However, in this CLAR venue, we prioritizedpushing the boundaries of Latin American ethno-history eastward towards Europerather than northward towards Anglo-America—without losing sight of the entangle-ments located within Latin America—as part of the broader effort to decolonize bothEuropean and ‘global history.’ Accordingly, the essays in this issue focus on the entangledhistories of indigenous, European and African-descended peoples, of Native Americanand Iberian cultures, in South America, in Mesoamerica, and in the Iberian Peninsula.

Well before the signifier ‘entangled’ appeared in contemporary academic discourse, onecan find precursors and practitioners of this kind of entangled approach in ethno-histori-cal and African diaspora scholarship. Some of the most nuanced treatments of culturaldynamism have come from the field of ethno-history, which integrates (at its best)approaches from history, anthropology, philology, linguistics, and literary criticism.3 Totake the one case: since the philological work of Ángel María Garibay (1953) and theAnnales-inspired social history of Charles Gibson (1964), scholars of Mesoamericanethno-history have demonstrated how indigenous peoples responded to colonial con-ditions in diverse ways and, far from ‘disappearing’ after conquest, were chief protagonistsin everything from colonial art, as in the lyric poetry of the ‘Cantares mexicanos,’ to thecolonial institutions and labor regimes that relied upon native resources for the means toimplement them.4 While the intention in such histories may have been to write histories ofnative peoples under colonial rule, they often reveal as much about how creoles wereentangled in indigenous societies, such as the ‘creole children [who] spent their infancy,literally from birth and their early childhood in almost the sole company of Mayawomen, suckled by Maya wet nurses commandeered from the villages, reared by Mayanurses, and surrounded by Maya servants’ (Farriss 1984, 112).

Likewise, since the seminal work of Carter G. Woodson (1936), W. E. B. DuBois,(1939), and Melville J. Herskovits (1941), scholars of the African diaspora have developedmethodologies for writing entangled histories of modernity. As they have moved awayfrom Herskovits’s model of African ‘cultural survivals’ and towards a focus on creolizationor circulation, scholars in this field have provided models for re-thinking spatial relations

4 R. BAUER AND M. NORTON

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

74.9

7.37

.194

] at

13:

53 1

9 A

ugus

t 201

7

in the Atlantic World by offering multi-sited analysis, and considering multi-directionalinfluence.5 For instance, Stephan Palmié argues that ‘a valid explanation for’ Ekpe (amale secret sodality) ‘cannot be found on one single side of those waters which, for atime, brought the bay of Havana into intimate alignment with the landings and beachesof the Cross River and its slave-supplying hinterland’ and that it was ‘in effect an “Atlan-tic”—“creole”, if you will—institution before it even arrived in Cuba’ (Palmié 2010, 19).Moreover, indigenous, black and Asian histories in Latin America are often themselvesinextricably entangled. Blind spots in the scholarship of both black Atlantic and indigen-ous ethno-history have contributed to its occlusion,6 but recent scholarship—includingthe essay in this special issue by Nancy van Deusen—is now illuminating the centralityof these entanglements (Lewis 2003; Restall 2005; Langfur 2006; Bristol 2007; Vinsonand Restall 2009; O’Toole 2012; Lowe 2015).

If the ‘Black Atlantic’ scholarship was shaped, if not invented, by politically engagedscholars of African descent, the fields of ethno-history and related disciplines have arather different history in regards to the respective roles of native and non-native intellec-tuals.7 The relationship between native and non-native producers of knowledge inside andoutside academia is well beyond the scope of this introduction and is characterized byenormous diversity depending on time, place, and field. Yet the issue cannot beignored, as it not only is a primary form of European and indigenous entanglement his-torically but also continues to have profound methodological and ethic implications—par-ticularly in this moment of Ayotzinapa, Standing Rock Sioux, and the efforts of indigenousactivists across South America to protect the environment and their communities frommining, logging, damming interests, etc. (sometimes with fatal consequences as in thecase of Berta Cáceres).

In U.S. academia, Native scholars have been on the forefront of scholarship related toearly modern indigenous and entangled histories, often connected explicitly or implicitlyto political concerns of the present (e.g. Blackhawk 2006; Byrd 2011; Witgen 2013). Diver-gent colonial and national histories have led the relationship between native and non-native intellectuals to take a great range of forms in Latin America. Arguably, thehistory of outsider scholarship in relationship to indigenous intellectuals begins withthe Jeronomite friar Ramon Pané’s relationships with the Arawak-speaking men whoshared with him their understanding of cosmology and history of the Greater Antillesin the last decade of the fifteenth century (Pané 1999), and continues with the indigenousintellectuals of sixteenth-century Mesoamerica and Andes discussed in the book edited byGabriela Ramos and Yanna Yannakakis (2014). In the era of modern scholarship, a pivotalfigure is native Nahuatl speaker Luis Reyes García. Though recognized for his unsurpassedphilological erudition and critical role in translations of classical Nahuatl (e.g. 1978, 2001),his analysis of the central Mexican structures of calpulli, for instance, was also a founda-tional contribution to the history of colonial Mexico (1996). Significantly, his scholarlywork was not separate from political work on behalf of indigenous communities, andhe put his philological and archival erudition to work in legal battles to help indigenouscommunities protect their lands from seizure. For Reyes García these academic and acti-vist endeavors were mutually informing: ‘Quizá para algunos el estudio de la organizaciónsocial de los tenochca es un problema puramente académico, sin embargo está íntima-mente vinculado con la política que el Estado mexicano debe seguir con respecto a lapoblación indígena actual.’8 Anthropologists and others sensitive to the history of their

COLONIAL LATIN AMERICAN REVIEW 5

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

74.9

7.37

.194

] at

13:

53 1

9 A

ugus

t 201

7

disciplines in which scholars treated those they studied as if they had no history and wereunable to contribute to scholarship in their own right have developed new models in thehope of creating a more equal exchange between scholars and the people they study.Joanne Rappaport, in Intercultural Utopias: Public Intellectuals, Cultural Experimentation,and Ethnic Pluralism in Colombia (2005), has argued for ‘interculturalism’ as a method forthis new form of research and collaboration that ‘is a utopian political philosophy aimed atachieving interethnic dialogue based on relations of equivalence and at constructing a par-ticular mode of indigenous citizenship in a plural nation’ and ‘poses a challenge to tra-ditional forms of ethnographic research, replacing classic thick description withengaged conversation and collaboration’ (Rappaport 2005, 7; see also Bruchac 2016). Rap-paport and other anthropologists and historians have collaborated with indigenousexperts throughout Latin America in a variety of creative ways that have benefitednative communities in both legal efforts and projects to recover cultural patrimonysuch as indigenous language literacy (e.g. Rappaport 2005; Ruiz Medrano 2010; Fausto2012; Farriss with Vásquez Vásquez 2014).

Yet, creative and mutually beneficial collaborations such as these should not obscurethe fact that colonialism continues to profoundly shape the current academic landscape.It does so in forms of systemic racism and impoverishment that mean that in both thesouthern and northern hemispheres, native peoples have dramatically fewer opportunitiesto access educational opportunities than members of more privileged ethnic groups. In thewords of Reyes García, ‘me parece importante continuar con la formación de los propiosindios a nivel de maestría y doctorado. Tenemos que abandonar la lingüística colonial quese hace desde afuera y poner en manos indias el conocimiento lingüístico y antropológicopara que les sean herramientas útiles en la planeación del futuro que decidan para susidiomas, ahora oprimidos,’ a goal which he saw as being related to the ‘discriminacióny la opresión de las lenguas indias de México’ (1989, 448). Colonialism also lingers dueto the fact that the parent disciplines of ethno-history—anthropology and history—were themselves shaped by colonialism (Chakrabarty 2000; Zimmerman 2001). The colo-nialist legacy of this parentage continues to haunt these fields, particularly in terms ofunacknowledged appropriation of indigenous knowledge (Rivera Cusicanqui 2010).

At this point, it is also important to consider some of the seminal publications that haveinterrogated the meaning and impact of the Early Modern Atlantic encounters in the after-math of the Quincentenary of 1492.9 Well before but reaching a fever pitch after this anni-versary, scholars across the disciplines of the humanities wrestling with the complexities ofentanglements were magnetized by debates about terminology (syncretism, transcultura-tion, mestizaje, hybridity, creolization etc.). Given the abundance of excellent analysis ofthese issues,10 there is no need here to rehearse them comprehensively. However, there arestill several vexing issues that endure and that are worth highlighting, to the extent thatthey are germane to the present focus on the notion of entanglement. First, there hasbeen a tendency to reify a particular moment in the ongoing and infinite process of cul-tural dynamism. For this very reason, many scholars now reject the notion of ‘syncretism,’since the term has been associated with a holistic, essentialist, and static view of culture,with little room to conceptualize change and flexibility. As William Taylor has observed,the notion of syncretism has often led scholars to ‘miss the loose ends, reworkings, con-flicts, and contradictions,’ as well as the likelihood that change is ongoing and that greatchanges may come late. In general, he argues that studies employing a syncretist paradigm

6 R. BAUER AND M. NORTON

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

74.9

7.37

.194

] at

13:

53 1

9 A

ugus

t 201

7

‘have focused on an end state of completion and wholeness’ (1996, 56, 59; see also Figueir-edo Ferretti 1995; Gruzinski 2002). A similar criticism has recently been leveled against theterm ‘hybridity,’ which had been associated with South Asian subaltern and postcolonialtheory by colonial Latin Americanists since the 1990s. Like syncretism, hybridity seems tolack the conceptual precision and specificity necessary adequately to describe the culturalexchanges taking place in early modern colonial encounters. Indeed, as Carolyn Dean andDana Leibsohn have pointed out, almost all cultures ‘are inherently heterogeneous’ due to‘millennia of travel and trade [that] have insured that mixing and interaction is the norm.’In light of this, they ask why it is that ‘certain mixtures become naturalized over time,losing their visibility and potency as mixtures, while others continue to be marked assuch?’ (Dean and Leibsohn 2003, 5). They apply the phrase the ‘deception of visibility’to the notion that ‘native peoples have to be culturally pre-Hispanic, and their workshave to look pre-Hispanic, to be recognized as indigenous,’ which, they argue, ‘deniesthe radical transformations of the lives of indigenous peoples brought about as a resultof colonization’ and ‘betray[s] desires to freeze indigenous people in the past, turningthem (or aspects of their lives) into artifacts or relics of a bygone, romanticized era’(Dean and Leibsohn 2003, 14–15).11

Partly in response to the critique of the tendency of those who used these terms of treat-ing culture as a static entity, scholars from various fields have also adopted the term ‘trans-culturation’ (Pratt 1992; Spitta 1995; Hernández et al. 2005; Arrizón 2006; Parkinson andKaup 2010). The term had originally been proposed by anthropologist Fernando Ortizlargely in critique of the Anglo-academic ‘acculturation’ model dominant in mid-twenti-eth-century anthropology that favored one-way models of cultural change. ‘Transcultura-tion,’ he argued, ‘better expresses the different phases of the process of transition from oneculture to another.’ Whereas acculturation implied the mere acquisition of anotherculture, transculturation ‘carries with it the consequent creation of new cultural phenom-ena’ (Ortiz 1995, 102–3). Similarly, Serge Gruzinski (and other scholars skeptical of termi-nology imported from the Anglo-American context) has put forward the terminology ofmid-twentieth-century Latin American scholars such as Brazilian Gilberto Freyre andMexican Gonzalo Aguirre Beltrán who use ‘mestizaje’ to describe the cultural phenomenathat emerged in and beyond the Americas (Gruzinski 2002; also Russo 2014). Crucially,mestizaje—unlike ‘syncretism’ or ‘hybridity’—has a genealogical relationship to theworld scholars are investigating. Linguistically the term derived from the Spanish wordmestizo, which was originally used to describe the progeny of different animal speciesand took on a new meaning in colonial America. There, it came to denote the mixed off-spring of (usually male) Spanish colonists and (usually female) Native Americans, whowere viewed as straddling the boundary between the república de españoles and the repúb-lica de indios. Mestizos were therefore often regarded as disruptive to an ideological andlegal caste system implemented by the imperial state to facilitate the colonial extraction oftribute and labor (Martínez 2008, 163–64; Rappaport 2014).

But despite its rootedness in Latin American history, the concept of ‘mestizaje’ is alsonot unproblematic in its inextricable genealogical relationship to nationalist discoursesthat are both racialist and oppressive to indigenous people and those of Africandescent. In the words of Florencia Mallon, ‘mestizaje emerges as an official discourse ofnation formation, a new claim to authenticity that denies colonial forms of racial andethnic oppression by creating an intermediate subject and interpellating him as “the

COLONIAL LATIN AMERICAN REVIEW 7

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

74.9

7.37

.194

] at

13:

53 1

9 A

ugus

t 201

7

citizen”’ (qtd. in Wade 2005, 241). In this regard, the history of the concept of mestizajeuncannily mirrors that of ‘hybridity,’ though in the context of Iberian rather than Britishcolonialism. Webster defined ‘hybrid’ in 1828 as ‘a mongrel or mule; an animal or plant,produced from the mixture of two species’ and several decades later it was used to ‘denotethe crossing of people of different races’ (Young 1995, 5; see also Cornejo Polar 1997).Both ‘mestizo’ and ‘hybrid’ were associated with nomenclature used to describe animalreproduction, appropriated in colonial contexts in the sixteenth and nineteenth centuries(respectively seminal centuries in Iberian and Anglo imperialism) to pejoratively refer tooffspring of mixed racial heritage before they were later recuperated by theorists seeking tobreak out of essentialist ways of thinking about identity and cultural change. However, theconcepts ‘mestizo’ and ‘hybrid’ ultimately fail to move beyond the notion of ‘syncreticism’and remain beholden to the idea of a natural fusion of previously separate species or enti-ties into a new organic whole (such as the nation), despite occasional internal tensions andconflicts.

While the concepts of hybridity and mestizaje thus connote cultural states of being—theproducts of cultural fusion—entanglement emphasizes the dynamic processes of intercul-tural exchange and conflict that are neither static nor complete. As Karen Graubart puts itin her essay in this issue, ‘Rather than name an outcome, entanglement suggests ongoingconfrontations, shifts, and revisions: a state of mutual learning and pushback which doesnot dissolve into a final product’ (Graubart 2017). Indeed, since the Quincentenary (andpicking up speed in the new millennium) scholars of the Black and Red Atlantics havebegun to offer accounts that emphasize intercultural process and practice multi-sitedanalysis, hereby transcending accounts of unilateral influence and weaving together sym-bolic and material factors. Similarly, a growing body of Latin Americanist and IberianAtlantic scholarship has developed innovative and diverse methodologies that are inclus-ive of subaltern actors and resist the reification of identities or institutions, such as Chris-tianity, slavery, or cuisine.

Several recent studies that focus on material culture in very different ways can illustratethe progress being made in the writing of entangled histories. Alessandra Russo hasdemonstrated how ‘mestizo’ artifacts can become vehicles for entangled aesthetics andontology. Indigenous featherworkers [amanteca], employing pre-conquest technologiesand artistic ethos, produced Christian liturgical objects from feathers, often destined forexport to Europe. These stunning objects intertwined Christian and Mesoamericanideas about creation and sacrifice, as well as evincedMesoamerican notions of the relation-ship between aesthetics, material objects, and theology; and they connected the experi-ences of ‘spectators who looked at them during liturgies whether in New Spain, Milan,Florence, or the Iberian Peninsula’ (Russo 2002, 242; see also Russo 2014). MarcyNorton focused on the interplay of two kinds of materiality—that of things (tobaccoand chocolate and their accessories) and that of the body (Norton 2008). In doing so,she put embodied experience at the center of Atlantic history, suggesting that creolesand Europeans learned from indigenous peoples new ways to apprehend the world senso-rially and that these somatic transformations had repercussions for the inter-connectedhistories of aesthetics, science, religion and secularization in not only the western hemi-sphere but Europe as well. Byron Hamann uses yet another material approach to illumi-nate entangled relationships in Europe and Latin America, responding directly to Deanand Leibsohn’s warning about the ‘deception of visibility’ (Hamann 2010). By providing

8 R. BAUER AND M. NORTON

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

74.9

7.37

.194

] at

13:

53 1

9 A

ugus

t 201

7

a genealogical interpretation of canonical art of seventeenth-century Spain, and by lookingat it through ‘lenses of materialist and postcolonial theory,’ Hamann argues that DiegoVelázquez’s Las Meninas ‘reveals the transatlantic connections linking Amerindianlaborers in the New World to Spanish courtiers in Madrid’ by showing how traces ofthe colonized worlds—here, a silver tray, a ceramic vessel and cochineal-dyed curtainsdepicted in the painting—are ‘already present within the canon itself,’ though the indigen-ous knowledge and labor regimes that made these entangled things possible are hiddenfrom the painting itself (Hamann 2010). As with the feather-works produced by the aman-teca, entangled histories such as these help us see the distinct phenomena—the ‘feathers’—of indigenous-originating aesthetics, sensory complexes, knowledge, labor, etc., as well asthe new mosaic constituted by their entanglement with European structures.

In these entangled material histories, the artifacts, aesthetics, and sensorium are firstlocated in their Native American or African context and then creole or European elementsare considered, allowing the scholars to push back against the tradition of focusing onEuropean ‘representations of the other.’ Similarly powerful models of entangled historycan be found in recent scholarship on topics such as conquest, religion, legal regimes, lit-eracies, slavery, and gender and women’s history.12 But one reason to highlight the work inmaterial history in the introduction to this volume is that this is a particular area in whichit is clear that entanglements exerted transformative effects on European, as well as LatinAmerican, societies. Indeed, these examples suggest that, rather than focus on ‘contactzones’ 13 restricted to a particular time or place, entanglement happens in Europe andAfrica as well as in Latin America and calls into question designations such as ‘peripheries’and ‘borderlands.’

* * *Collectively, the essays assembled below seek to explore the multiple implications ofattending to the principle of entanglement in the history of the early modern AtlanticWorld. In the opening essay, Marcy Norton reflects critically on some of the governingparadigms in modern historiography—such as J. H. Elliott’s seminal notion of a ‘bluntedimpact’ of the New World upon the Old—that have all too often resulted in an under-standing of Atlantic history in terms of the history of European expansionism, as well asof European technological progress and modernization. Norton, by contrast, adoptsrecent insights from postcolonial theory, cultural anthropology, and the history ofscience in order to propose ‘subaltern technologies’ (in an extended sense) as an analyticcategory for laying bare the entangled history of early Atlantic modernity. Like a moderncomputer program, subaltern technologies such as cultivation of chocolate and the SouthAmerican and Caribbean domestication of iegue (a tamed animal or person) are bothmodular and mobile, set in motion through contact and adapting to new contexts, trans-forming in cultural meaning and generating new technologies as they move within trans-regional and even global networks. However, in order to appreciate subaltern technol-ogies as technology, Norton argues, it is necessary to look beyond the nature/culturebinary—manifested in Peter Martyr’s Decades—that has structured Westernmetaphysics.

If Norton suggests how early modern Atlantic history is entangled with Native Amer-ican technologies, Elizabeth Hill Boone shows how European technologies, in turn,became entangled in the intercultural encounter with the Americas. In ‘Seeking Indian-ness: Christoph Weiditz, the Aztecs, and feathered Amerindians,’ she offers a close

COLONIAL LATIN AMERICAN REVIEW 9

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

74.9

7.37

.194

] at

13:

53 1

9 A

ugus

t 201

7

examination of the Trachtenbuch [costume book], produced by the German painter Chris-toph Weiditz (1498–1559), which ostensibly portrays certain Aztec lords whom Weiditzhad allegedly encountered during his visit to the court of Charles V. In fact, Booneshows, the ‘Aztecs’ depicted in Weiditz’s Trachtenbuch wear feathers that seem toderive not from the memory of his own eye-witness experience but rather from pictorialrepresentations of Brazilians that circulated in contemporary travel literature. Weidnitz’s‘Tupinambization’ of his Mexican subjects, Boone argues, reveals the historical entangle-ments that would sustain the amorphous European category of the ‘Indian’ and the extentto which perceptions and representations of the ‘new’—albeit often cloaked in the auth-ority of eye-witness testimony—were entangled with representational conventions andintertextual relations. Finally, to the extent that Weiditz’s Trachtenbuch represents anearly example of a genre—the costume book—that chronicles an incipient modern interestin the particular, the local, the vernacular, the different, and even the deviant, its Americansubject matter suggests the extent to which the history of early modern European rep-resentational practices was entangled with the history of technologies of bodily adornmentin multiple indigenous cultures.

Arguably, the Tupinambization of Native Americans throughout the continent by Eur-opeans was not an entirely innocent stylistic device. For while there could be little doubt inthe European mind, as already observed by Francisco de Vitoria in the sixteenth century,that the Mexica lords were ‘ueri domini’ of their lands and possessions (qtd. in Graubart,below), the Tupinamba of Brazil had entered the European imagination, via the letters ofVespucci, as a people who knew no private property ‘but own everything in common’(Vespucci 1992, 49). Indeed, as Karen Graubart shows in ‘Shifting landscapes: hetero-geneous conceptions of land use and tenure in the Lima valley,’ one of the most momen-tous, contentious, and complex ways in which indigenous and European cultures becameentangled was with regard to conceptions of land use and tenure. Whereas historians havetraditionally assumed that the encounter between Andean and European conceptions ofland tenure can be understood in binary terms—as a difference between Andean ‘collec-tive’ ownership and European ‘private’ ownership—she shows that the story was in fact farmore complex, that each culture had several conceptions of land tenure that subsequentlybecame entangled with those of the other culture, resulting in various hybrid forms thatwere new to both parties. Despite a gradual standardization of land holding practices,Graubart shows, alternative characterizations of property continued to exist, entanglinglegal definitions and local practice in unexpected ways during the first hundred years ofcolonial development.

The boundaries between the cultures that became entangled during the early modernperiod were extremely porous with regard to not only land holding practices but alsosocial identities, as Nancy van Deusen shows in ‘Passing in sixteenth-century Castile.’But whereas historians of the Iberian Atlantic have typically focused on how social iden-tities and ideologies are exported from the imperial ‘center’ in Castile to the ‘periphery’ inthe Americas—there to be hybridized, creolized, or transculturated—van Deusen, likeNorton, investigates how the colonial encounter entangled cultures and identities notonly in the Americas but also in Europe—even in the heart of the Spanish Empire.Thus, van Deusen offers the life story of two early modern women living in Spainwhose lives became entangled and almost fused (though not quite). In the aftermath ofthe New Laws of 1542 (which prohibited the enslavement of Indians), the mulatta slave

10 R. BAUER AND M. NORTON

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

74.9

7.37

.194

] at

13:

53 1

9 A

ugus

t 201

7

Violante shrewdly attempted to elude slavery by assuming the identity of the deceasedBeatriz, an india from Puerto Rico. Although Violante went to considerable lengths inher attempt to pass as Beatriz—even having her face mutilated by a branding iron—herattempts were ultimately frustrated, as her impersonation was exposed and she perma-nently returned to her owner. Nevertheless, her case reveals, van Deusen argues, howsocial boundaries, differences, and identities were by no means rigid, clear-cut, and objec-tive but often subjective and embedded in complex social and historical situations.

In the final essay included here, ‘Masked observers and mask collectors: entangledvisions from the eighteenth-century Amazon,’ Neil Safier focuses on the 1785 scientificexpedition of Alexandre Rodrigues Ferreira (1756–1815) in the Amazon in order toraise methodological questions about how to approach the ethno-historical study ofeighteenth-century indigenous artifacts, in this case Amazonian masks and skulls.Attending to what Fernando Santos-Granero has called ‘the occult life of things,’Safier envisions an ethno-historical approach of entanglement that he calls ‘participatoryrepresentation,’ which would begin with the recognition that ‘native actors regularlyfunctioned as participants in the identities that they created.’ Once we accept the rel-evance of native cosmologies for understanding the scientific practices of early modernEuropean naturalists, he argues, it becomes possible to turn around the instruments ofobservation and ask what eighteenth-century Amazonian masks can tell us about hownative peoples might have imagined themselves. Thus, working across multiple tempor-alities, he attends to historical source materials, material objects, and anthropologicalfieldwork, proposing that the modern ethno-historian must avail him- or herself of adialog with contemporary indigenous communities in order to open ‘new opportunitiesto demonstrate the sometimes muffled voices of indigenous actors by raising their ownparticipation—and evidentiary production through material artistry—to the level ofmimesis.’

In their sum, the essays assembled here explore the conceptual possibilities of entangledhistoriography as a principle underlying the dynamic processes of intercultural exchange,conflict, and transformation in the early modern Atlantic World. Rather than try toaccount for the unilateral impact of one culture upon another resulting in the birth ofnew imperial, colonial, or postcolonial forms of religion, science, culture, society, or pol-itical organization, they offer multi-sited analyses that emphasize the continuous andunresolved tensions, appropriations, interactions, and intercultural exchanges as multipleagencies, historical temporalities, symbolic orders, and ontologies become entangledbeginning with the Columbian encounter of 1492.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the participants, guest speakers, and Folger Shakespeare Library for theseminar, ‘Entangled Trajectories: Integrating European and Native American Histories,’ as wellas the panelists and commentators who participated in the 2015 conference that emerged fromthis seminar, whose formal and informal contributions were critical to the thinking reflected inthis essay and issue. In addition this essay benefited from conversations that took place at eventsorganized by Angélica Morales Sarabia and Haydeé García Bravo at the UNAM-CEIICH in2015. We are very grateful to Dana Leibsohn for her support and comments, the anonymousreaders for CLAR, and the Kislak Family Foundation for co-sponsoring the conference out ofwhich this special issue grew.

COLONIAL LATIN AMERICAN REVIEW 11

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

74.9

7.37

.194

] at

13:

53 1

9 A

ugus

t 201

7

Notes

1. Although recent historiography has also been increasingly attentive to the inter-connected-ness of Latin America and the Pacific (e.g. Leibsohn and Priyadarshini 2016), the essaysassembled here focus on the early modern Atlantic World, which was the focus of the con-ference from which this special issue originated. However, similar methodological consider-ations would be applicable to more global geographic perspectives. In addition, work done byscholars such as James McCann (2005) on maize in Africa, Carol Benedict (2011) on tobacco,and Charles Mann (2011) on potatoes in China is suggestive of the way that American indi-genous history is entangled with other parts of the world.

2. Introduction to AHR Forum Entangled Empires in the Atlantic World 2007, 740. Thebenefits and drawbacks of ‘Atlantic World’ as a conceptual framework has been a topic ofvigorous debate (Greene and Morgan 2009) and scholars have long been aware of tendenciestoward Eurocentrism and aphasia concerning its origins in the ‘Black Atlantic’ scholarship(e.g. Coclanis 2002; Games 2006; Sweet 2011). The phrase ‘Black Atlantic’ originated withGilroy (1993). For Atlantic history as a framework that focuses ‘on European and AfricanAtlantic-crossers and their creole descendants’ and not indigenous people, see Bushnell 2009.

3. In addition to the works mentioned in the bibliography, many other foundational and impor-tant recent works in Mesoamerican, Andean, and Amazonian fields of ethno-history are citedin the articles included in this special issue.

4. Of course Mesoamerican ethno-history is also indebted to seminal work of Alfredo LópezAustin andMiguel León Portilla but their own interests lie more with reconstructing pre-His-panic civilization of central Mexico rather than on native history after 1521.

5. See, for instance, Mintz and Price 1976, 1992; Berlin 1996; Thornton 2012; Gilroy 1993;Apter 2002; Palmié 2002; Matory 2005; Smallwood 2007; Sweet 2011; Krug 2014.

6. For the former, see Byrd 2011, and also Jackson 2012; for the latter see Bennett 2009; alsoVinson and Vaughn 2004.

7. It should be noted here that definitions of ‘intellectual’ are subjective and politically charged(Rappaport 2005) and that there are many other, often superior, ways—song, poetry, paint-ing, film-making, etc.—to apprehend the world than the ones found in academia, and thatindigenous artists and the communities that support them are found throughout theAmericas.

8. Quoted in Castillo Palma and González-Hermosillo Adams 2004, 156. For a brief overview ofhis contributions, see Castillo Palma and González-Hermosillo Adams 2004. We are gratefulfor Ethelia Ruiz Medrano’s presentation about Reyes García during the NEH summer insti-tute on ‘Pictorial Histoires and Myth Histories: Graphic Novels of the Mixtecs and Aztecs,’organized by Laraine Fletcher and George Scheper in Mexico in the summer of 2014, and forfurther reflections offered by Michael Swanton.

9. See, for instance, Sale 1990; Representations 33: Special Issue: The New World (Winter,1991); Greenblatt 1991 and 1993; Kadir 1992; Stannard 1992; Rabasa 1993; Williams andLewis 1993; Boone and Mignolo 1994; Mignolo 1995; and Dussel 1995.

10. For useful overviews of the issues, see Figueiredo Ferretti 1995; Taylor 1996; Cornejo Polar1997; Gruzinski 2002; Dean and Leibsohn 2003; Wade 2005; and Adorno 2007.

11. Another problem with current usage of hybridity in the context of Latin America and theAtlantic World is that scholars are often not clear to what degree they are importing thefull conceptual apparatus associated with ‘hybridity.’ In his seminal The Location ofCulture (1994), which was informed by deconstructionist and psychoanalytic theory,Homi Bhabha defined hybridity as ‘a problematic of colonial representation and individua-tion that reverses the effects of the colonialist disavowal, so that other “denied” knowledgesenter upon the dominant discourse and estrange the basis of its authority’ (Bhabha 1994,114). In this definition there is a notion of resistance that often does not appear intendedin the usage of scholars writing about Latin America. Indeed, their usage seems closer tothe meanings of the often disavowed syncretism.

12 R. BAUER AND M. NORTON

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

74.9

7.37

.194

] at

13:

53 1

9 A

ugus

t 201

7

12. Works illuminating these various forms of entanglement in the Iberian Atlantic publishedwithin the past decade include Barr 2007; Graubart 2007; Owensby 2008; Schwartz 2009;Sigal 2011; Ruiz Medrano and Kellogg 2010; Rappaport and Cummins 2011; Matthew2012; Mangan and Owens 2012; Seijas 2014; Remensynder 2014; Van Deusen 2015; andCook 2016. In her essay in this special issue, Norton discusses other recent works, particularlythose related to history of science and the environment, that demonstrate entangled pro-cesses in the Atlantic World.

13. Rolena Adorno described ‘contact zones’ as colonial spaces ‘in which the simple line betweenSpaniards and Andean that defined native experience at the moment of conquest no longerexisted with such clarity’ (Adorno 2007, 23; see also Adorno 1987). Pratt re-defined it as‘social spaces where disparate cultures meet, clash and grapple with each other, often inhighly asymmetrical relation of domination and subordination,’ places that produceOritz’s ‘transculturation’ (Pratt 1992, 4).

Notes on contributors

Ralph Bauer is associate professor of English and Comparative Literature at the University ofMaryland, College Park. His publications include The cultural geography of colonial American lit-eratures: empire, travel, modernity (2003, 2008); An Inca account of the conquest of Peru (2005); (co-edited with José Antonio Mazzotti) Creole subjects in the colonial Americas: empires, texts, identities(2009); and (co-edited with Jaime Marroquín Arredondo) Translating nature: a transculturalhistory of early modern science (forthcoming 2018). He is currently completing a monographentitled ‘The alchemy of conquest: science, religion, and the secrets of the new world’.

Marcy Norton is associate professor of History at George Washington University. Her researchfocuses on the entangled cultural and ecological histories of early modern Europe and NativeAmerica. Her publications include Sacred gifts, profane pleasures: a history of tobacco and chocolatein the atlantic world (2008) and ’The chicken or the iegue: Human–animal relationships and theColumbian exchange’ (American Historical Review, 2015). She is currently writing a book aboutthe history of human–animal relationships in the Atlantic world after 1492.

Works cited

Adorno, Rolena. 2007. The polemics of possession in Spanish American narrative. New Haven: YaleUniversity Press.

———. 1987. Waman Puma: el autor y su obra. In Felipe Guaman Poma de Ayala, Nueva corónica ybuen gobierno, edited by John Murra, Rolena Adorno, and Jorge Urioste, 1:xvii–xlvii. Madrid:Historia.

Apter, Andrew. 2002. On African origins: Creolization and connaissance in Haitian vodou.American Ethnologist 29 (2): 233–60.

Arrizón, Alicia. 2006. Queering mestizaje: Transculturation and performance. Ann Arbor:University of Michigan Press.

Barr, Juliana. 2007. Peace came in the form of a woman: Indians and Spaniards in the TexasBorderlands. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.

Benedict, Carol. 2011. Golden-silk smoke: A history of tobacco in China, 1550–2010. Berkeley:University of California Press.

Bennett, Herman L. 2009. Colonial blackness: A history of Afro-Mexico. Bloomington: IndianaUniversity Press.

Berlin, Ira. 1996. From Creole to African: Atlantic Creoles and the origins of African-Americansociety in mainland North America. William and Mary Quarterly 53 (2): 251–88.

Bhabha, Homi. 1994. The location of culture. London: Routledge.Blackhawk, Ned. 2006. Violence over land: Indians and empires in the early American West.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

COLONIAL LATIN AMERICAN REVIEW 13

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

74.9

7.37

.194

] at

13:

53 1

9 A

ugus

t 201

7

Boone, Elizabeth Hill, and Walter Mignolo, eds. 1994. Writing without words: Alternative literaciesin Mesoamerica and the Andes. Durham: Duke University Press.

Bristol, Joan Cameron. 2007. Christians, blasphemers, and witches: Afro-Mexican ritual practice inthe seventeenth century. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.

Brokaw, Galen. 2010. A history of the khipu. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Bruchac, Margaret. On the Wampus trail. https://wampumtrail.wordpress.com/ On-line. Accessed

20 October 2016.Bushnell, Amy Turner. 2009. Indigenous America and the limits of the Atlantic World, 1493–825.

In Atlantic history: A critical appraisal, edited by Jack Greene and Philip D. Morgan, 191–221.Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Byrd, Jodi. 2011. The transit of empire: Indigenous critiques of colonialism. Minneapolis: Universityof Minnesota Press.

Cañizares-Esguerra, Jorge. 2007. The core and peripheries of our national narratives: A responsefrom IH-35. The American Historical Review 112 (5): 1423–31.

Castillo Palma, Norma Angélica, and Francisco González-Hermosillo Adams. 2004. Luis ReyesGarcía, 1935–2004. Signos Históricos 11: 152–57.

Chakrabarty, Dipesh. 2000. Provincializing Europe: Postcolonial thought and historical difference.Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Coclanis, Peter A. 2002. Drang nach Osten: Bernard Bailyn, the world-island, and the idea ofAtlantic history. Journal of World History 13 (1): 169–82.

Cook, Karoline P. 2016. Forbidden passages: Muslims and Moriscos in colonial Spanish America.Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Cornejo Polar, Antonio. 1997. Mestizaje e hibridez: los riesgos de las metaforas. Apuntes. RevistaIberoamericana 63 (180): 341–44.

Dean, Caroline, and Dana Leibsohn. 2003. Hybridity and its discontents: Considering visual culturein colonial Spanish America. Colonial Latin American Review 12 (1): 5–35.

Descola, Philippe. 2013. Beyond nature and culture [2005]. Trans. by Janet Lloyd, foreword byMarshall Sahlins. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Díaz, Gisele, Alan Rodgers, and Bruce E. Byland. 1993. The Codex Borgia: A full-color restoration ofthe ancient Mexican manuscript. New York: Dover Publications.

DuBois, W. E. B. 1939. Black folk, then and now; an essay in the history and sociology of the Negrorace. New York: H. Holt.

Dussel, Enrique. 1995. The invention of the Americas: Eclipse of “the other” and the myth of mod-ernity. New York: Continuum.

Eden, Richard. 1555. The Decades of the newe worlde or west India. London: William Powell.Elliott, John H. 2006. Empires of the Atlantic World: Britain and Spain in America 1492–1830. New

Haven: Yale University Press.Fabian, Johannes. 1983. Time and other: How anthropology makes its object. New York: Columbia

University Press.Fausto, Carlos. 2012. Sangue de le lua: reflexôes sobre espíritos e eclipses. Journal de la Société des

Américanistes 98 (1): 63–80.Farriss, Nancy. 1984. Maya society under colonial rule: The collective enterprise of survival.

Princeton: Princeton University Press.Farriss, Nancy M., with collaboration of Juana Vásquez Vásquez. 2014. Libana: El discurso ceremo-

nial mesoamericano y el sermón cristiano. Mexico City: Artes de México.Fiedel, Stuart. 2000. The peopling of the New World: Present evidence, new theories, and future

directions. Journal of Archaeological Research 8 (1): 39–103.Figueiredo Ferretti, Sérgio. 1995. Repensando o sincretismo. São Paulo: EdUSP.Games, Alison. 2006. AHR forum: Oceans of history–Atlantic history: Definitions, challenges, and

opportunities. The American Historical Review 111 (3): 741–57.Garibay, Angel María. 1953. Historia de la literature náhuatl. Mexico City: Editorial Porrúa.Gibson, Charles. 1964. The Aztecs under Spanish rule: A history of the Indians in the Valley of

Mexico, 1519–1810. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

14 R. BAUER AND M. NORTON

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

74.9

7.37

.194

] at

13:

53 1

9 A

ugus

t 201

7

Gilroy, Paul. 1993. The Black Atlantic: Modernity and double consciousness. Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press.

Gould, Eliga H. 2007. Entangled Atlantic histories: A response from the Anglo-American periphery.The American Historical Review 112 (5): 1415–22.

Grant, Andrew. 2015. Entanglement: Gravity’s long-distance connection. Science News 188 (8): 28.Graubart, Karen B. 2007. With our labor and sweat: Indigenous women and the formation of colo-

nial Society in Peru, 1550–1700. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Graubart, Karen B. 2017. Shifting landscapes. Heterogeneous conceptions of land use and tenure in

the Lima valley. Colonial Latin American Review. doi:10.1080/10609164.2017.1287328.Greenblatt, Stephen. 1991. Marvelous possessions: The wonder of the New World. Chicago:

University of Chicago Press.———, ed. 1993. New World encounters. Berkeley: University of California Press.Greene, Jack, and Philip D. Morgan, eds. 2009. Atlantic history: A critical appraisal. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.Gruzinski, Serge. 2002. The Mestizo mind: The intellectual dynamics of colonization and globaliza-

tion. New York: Routledge.Hamann, Byron E. 2010. The mirrors of Las Meninas: Cochineal, silver, and clay. The Art Bulletin

92 (1–2): 6–35.Hernández, Felipe, Mark Millington, and Iain Borden. 2005. Transculturation: Cities, spaces, and

architectures. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Herskovits, Melville J. 1941. The myth of the Negro past. New York: Harper & Brothers.Introduction to AHR Forum Entangled Empires in the Atlantic World. 2007. The American

Historical Review 112 (3): 710–11.Jackson, Shona N. 2012. Creole indigeneity: Between myth and nation in the Caribbean.

Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Kadir, Djelal. 1992. Columbus and the ends of the earth: Europe’s prophetic rhetoric as conquering

ideology. Berkeley: University of California Press.Krug, Jessica. 2014. Social dismemberment, social (re)membering: Obeah idioms, Kromanti iden-

tities and the trans-Atlantic politics of memory, c. 1675–present. Slavery & Abolition: A Journalof Slave and Post-Slave Studies 35 (4): 537–58.

Langfur, Hal. 2006. The forbidden lands: Colonial identity, frontier violence, and the persistence ofBrazil’s Eastern Indians, 1750–1830. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Latour, Bruno. 1993. We have never been modern. Trans. Catherine Porter. Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press.

Leibsohn, Dana, and Meha Priyadarshini. 2016. Introduction: Transpacific: Beyond silk and silver.Colonial Latin American Review 25 (1): 1–15.

Lewis, Laura A. 2003. Hall of mirrors: Power, witchcraft, and caste in colonial Mexico. Durham:Duke University Press.

Lowe, Lisa. 2015. The intimacies of four continents. Durham: Duke University Press.Maffie, James. 2014. Aztec philosophy: Understanding a world in motion. Boulder: University Press

of Colorado.Mangan, Jane E., and Sarah E. Owens. 2012. Women of the Iberian Atlantic. Louisiana State

University Press.Mann, Charles C. 2011. 1493: Uncovering the New World Columbus created. New York: Knopf.Martínez, María Elena. 2008. Genealogical fictions: Limpieza de sangre, religion, and gender in colo-

nial Mexico. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Matory, James Lorand. 2005. Black Atlantic religion : Tradition, transnationalism, and matriarchy

in the Afro-Brazilian Candomblé. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Martyr d’Anghiera, Peter. 1530. De orbe nouo Petri Martyris ab Angleria Mediolanensis protonotarij

C[a]esaris senatoris decades. Alcalá de Henares: Miguel de Eguía.Matthew, Laura E. 2012. Memories of conquest: Becoming Mexicano in colonial Guatemala. Chapel

Hill: University of North Carolina Press.McCann, James. 2005. Maize and grace: Africa’s encounter with a New World crop, 1500–2000.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

COLONIAL LATIN AMERICAN REVIEW 15

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

74.9

7.37

.194

] at

13:

53 1

9 A

ugus

t 201

7

Mignolo, Walter. 1995. The darker side of the Renaissance. Literacy, territoriality, and colonization.Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Mintz, Sidney W., and Richard Price. 1976. An anthropological approach to the Afro-American past:A Caribbean perspective. Philadelphia: Institute for the Study of Human Issues.

———. 1992. The birth of African American culture. An anthropological approach. Boston: BeaconPress.

Norton, Marcy. 2008. Sacred gifts, profane, pleasures: A history of tobacco and chocolate in theAtlantic World. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

Ortiz, Fernando. 1995. Cuban counterpoint: Tobacco and sugar [1940]. Trans. Harriet de Onís,introduction by Fernando Coronil. Durham: Duke University Press.

O’Toole, Rachel Sarah. 2012. Bound lives: Africans, Indians, and the making of race in colonial Peru.Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.

Owensby, Brian Philip. 2008. Empire of law and Indian justice in colonial Mexico. Stanford:Stanford University Press.

Oxford English Dictionary (OED). Entangle. In Oxford English Dictionary. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press, 2000–. On-line resource.

Palmié, Stephan. 2002.Wizards and scientists: Explorations in Afro-Cuban modernity and tradition.Durham: Duke University Press.

———. 2010. ‘Ekpe/Abakuá; in middle passage: Time, space and units of analysis in AfricanAmerican historical anthropology. In Activating the past: History and memory in the BlackAtlantic World, edited by Andrew H. Apter and Lauren Hutchinson Derby, 1–44. Newcastle:Cambridge Scholars.

Pané, Ramón. 1999. An account of the antiquities of the Indians: Chronicles of the New Worldencounter. Durham: Duke University Press.

Parkinson Zamora, Lois, and Monika Kaup, 2010. Baroque New Worlds: Representation, transcul-turation, counterconquest. Durham: Duke University Press.

Pratt, Mary Louise. 1992. Imperial eyes: Travel writing and transculturation. London: Routledge.Rabasa, José. 1993. Inventing America: Spanish historiography and the formation of Eurocentrism.

Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.Ramos, Gabriela, and Yanna Yannakakis, eds. 2014. Indigenous intellectuals: Knowledge, power, and

colonial culture in Mexico and the Andes. Durham: Duke University Press.Rappaport, Joanne. 2005. Intercultural Utopias: Public intellectuals, cultural experimentation, and

ethnic pluralism in Colombia. Durham: Duke University Press.———. 2014. The disappearing mestizo: Configuring difference in the colonial New Kingdom of

Granada. Durham: Duke University Press.Rappaport, Joanne, and Tom Cummins. 2011. Beyond the lettered city: Indigenous literacies in the

Andes. Durham: Duke University Press.Remensnyder, Amy G. 2014. La Conquistadora: The Virgin Mary at war and peace in the Old and

the New Worlds. New York: Oxford University Press.Restall, Matthew. 2005. Beyond Black and Red: African-Native relations in colonial Latin America.

Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.Reyes García, Luis. 1978. Documentos sobre tierras y señorio en Cuauhtinchan. Mexico City:

Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia, Centro de Investigaciones Superiores.———. 1989. Las lenguas y literaturas indígenas. In La visión india: Tierra, cultura. lengua y dere-

chos humanos, edited by Rodolfo Stavenhagen, 444–48. Leiden: Centro Arqueológico, Universityof Leiden.

———. 1996. El término calpulli en documentos del siglo XVI [1975]. In Documentos nahuas de laCiudad de México de Siglo XVI, edited by Luis Reyes García, Eustaquio Celestino Solís, ArmandoValencia Ríos, Constantino Medina Lima, and Gregorio Guerrero Díaz, 21–68. Mexico City:Archivo General de la Nación, Centro de Investigaciones y Estudios Superiores enAntropología Social.

———. 2001. Anales de Juan Bautista: cómo te confundes? Acaso no somos conquistados?. MexicoCity: Centro de Investigaciones y Estudios, Superiores an Antopología Socia: BibliotecaLorenzo Boturini, Insigne y Nacional Basílica de Guadalupe.

16 R. BAUER AND M. NORTON

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

74.9

7.37

.194

] at

13:

53 1

9 A

ugus

t 201

7

Rivera Cusicanqui, Silvia. 2010. Ch’ixinakax utxiwa: una reflexión sobre prácticas y discursos desco-lonizadores. Buenos Aires: Retazos: Tinta Limón Ediciones.

Ruiz Medrano, E. 2010. Mexico’s indigenous communities: Their lands and histories, 1500–2010.Boulder: University Press of Colorado.

Ruiz Medrano, Ethelia, and Susan Kellog, eds. 2010. Negotiation within domination: New Spain’sIndian pueblos confront the Spanish state. Boulder: University of Colorado Press.

Russo, Alessandra. 2002. Plumes of sacrifice: Transformations in sixteenth-century Mexican featherart. RES: Anthropology and Aesthetics 42: 226–50.

———. 2014. The untranslatable image: A Mestizo history of the arts in New Spain, trans. SusanEmanuel. Austin: University of Texas Press.

Sale, Kirkpatrick. 1990. The conquest of paradise: Christopher Columbus and the Columbian legacy.New York: Knopf.

Schwartz, Stuart B. 2009. All can be saved: Religious tolerance and salvation in the Iberian AtlanticWorld. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Seijas, Tatiana. 2014. Asian slaves in colonial Mexico: From Chinos to Indians. New York:Cambridge University Press.

Sigal, Peter. 2011. The flower and the scorpion: Sexuality and ritual in early Nahua culture. Durham:Duke University Press.

Smallwood, Stephanie E. 2007. Saltwater slavery: A middle passage from Africa to American dia-spora. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Spitta, Silvia. 1995. Between two waters: Narratives of transculturation. Houston: Rice University Press.Stannard, David. 1992. American holocaust: Columbus and the conquest of the New World.

New York: Oxford University Press.Sweet, James H. 2011. Domingos Álvares, African healing, and the intellectual history of the Atlantic

World. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.Taylor, William B. 1996. Magistrates of the sacred: Priests and parishioners in eighteenth-century

Mexico. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Tedlock, Barbara, and Tedlock, Dennis. 1985. Text and textile: Language and technology in the arts

of the Quiché Maya. Journal of Anthropological Research 41 (2): 121–46.Thomas, Nicholas. 1991. Entangled objects: Exchange, material culture, and colonialism in the

Pacific. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Thornton, John K. 2012. A cultural history of the Atlantic World, 1250–1820. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.van Deusen, Nancy E. 2015. Global Indios: The indigenous struggle for justice in sixteenth-century

Spain. Durham: Duke University Press.Vespucci, Amerigo. 1992. Letters from a NewWorld: Amerigo Vespucci’s discovery of America, edition

and introduction by Luciano Formisano, translation by David Jacobson. New York: Marilio.Vinson, Ben, and Bobby Vaughn. 2004. Afroméxico: El pulso de la población negra en México: una

historia recordada, olvidada y vuelta a recorder, trans. Clara García Ayluardo. Mexico City:Centro de Investigación y Docencia Económica.

Vinson, Ben, and Matthew Restall. 2009. Black Mexico: Race and society from colonial to moderntimes. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.

Wade, Peter. 2005. Rethinking mestizaje: Ideology and lived experience. Journal of Latin AmericanStudies 37 (2): 239–57.

Williams, Jerry M., and Robert E. Lewis, eds. 1993. Early images of the Americas. Transfer andinvention. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.

Witgen, Michael. 2013. An infinity of nations: How the native New World shaped early NorthAmerica. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Woodson, Carter Godwin. 1936. The African background outlined; Or, handbook for the study of theNegro. Washington, D.C: The Association for the Study of Negro Life and History.

Young, J. C. 1995. Colonial desire: Hybridity in theory, culture, and race. London: Routledge.Zimmerman, Andrew. 2001. Anthropology and antihumanism in imperial Germany. Chicago:

University of Chicago Press.

COLONIAL LATIN AMERICAN REVIEW 17

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

74.9

7.37

.194

] at

13:

53 1

9 A

ugus

t 201

7