middle american folk soil taxonomy

ANNALS of the Association of American Geographers

- -

Number 3 __ September 1981 ~ - _. _ _ _ _ ~ ~

Vol. 71 --

MIDDLE AMERICAN FOLK SOIL TAXONOMY*

BARBARA J. WILLIAMS AND CARLOS A . ORTIZ-SOLORIO

ABSTRACT. Middle American folk soil taxonomies exhibit structures similar to those of folk biological taxonomies, but nomenclature patterns are quite unlike those found in other domains. Although many of the properties that differentiate technical soil taxa are recognized also in folk taxonomies, there is a low level of correspondence between technical and folk taxa because of differences in perception of the classificatory unit. To Spanish-speaking campesinos, soil individuals are two- rather than three-dimensional. Nevertheless, field studies indicate that folk taxa represent scientifically mea- Surdbk and statistically valid discontinuities in the surface soil.

N response to the query “What kind of soil I is this?” a Popoluca campesino may reply with a vegetation term, a Nahuatl speaker with a term denoting alluvium, and a Spanish speaker with a color or texture label. The extent of similarities and differences in perception and classification of soils among folk agriculturalists in Mexico and Guatemala, as elsewhere, is poorly known. Likewise, notwithstanding the numerous studies of peasant culture and subsistence, the linkages (which must necessarily exist) between folk knowledge of soil properties and pro-

Dr. Wiliitrrns i s As.vocicrte Professor of Gro:rcrphy a t the University of Wisconsin Center, Rock County, in Jcriiesiille, WI 53545 crnd M r . Ortiz-Solorio is er stcrff meinher cit the Center f o r Eciuphology, the Postgrutl- ucrte School of the Neitioncrl School of Agriculture, in Chapingo, Mexico.

* This paper is based in part upon research sup- ported by the National Science Foundation Grant BNS 7725659 to Barbara J . Williams. We gratefully acknowledge the International Maize and Wheat Im- provement Center (CIMMYT) and the Graduate Col- lege of the National School of Agriculture, Chapingo, Mexico, for facilitating field work, especially Donald Winkelmann, Heliodoro Didz Cisneros, Laura Hel- gem, and Lucila Gomez Sahagun. We thank Heriberto E. Cuanalo de la Cerda, Efraim Hernandez X., and H. R. Harvey for fruitful discussions during the course of research, Cecil H . Brown and William Denevan for reviewing and providing helpful comments on the manuscript, and Kenneth Winter for statistical anal- yses.

cesses and folk practices of soil and crop management have not been assessed systematically. In the context of agricultural development, these linkages are of more than academic interest. For example, receptivity to agronomists‘ cropping recommendations may be influenced by folk perceptions of soil “strength,” or campesinos may be highly suspicious of a single fertilizer recommendation for soils they perceive to be distinct. In Mexican agricultural villages, campesinos often refer to educated people from the outside (agronomists, engineers, professors) as 1 0 s que sahpn ‘those who know’ in contrast to themselves, 1 0 s qitr no scrhen ‘those who don’t know.’ Iwanska noted that in the Mazahua community of El Nopal this purported ignorance extended to all domains except that of local soils.‘ In the soils domain the villagers claimed expert knowledge over that of the “engineers.” In varying degrees this attitude permeates the Mexican countryside, often manifested by re- counting stories of agricultural failures of the “engineers. ’ ’

Folk perception of soil properties and processes, folk soil classification and taxonomy, folk theories and explanations of soil properties and dynamics, folk soil management, folk perceptions of the relationships between soil and

Alicja Iwanska, Purgutory crnd Utopia: A Meiiu- hucr Indian Villoge of Mexico (Cambridge, Mass.: Schenkman Publ. Co., 1971), p. 76.

ANNALS OF THE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN GEOGRAPHERS @ 1981 by the Association of Ameiican Geographers. Printed in U . S . A .

Vol. 71, N o . 3, September 1981

335

336 BARBARA J . WILLIAMS A N D CARLOS A. ORTIZ-SOLORIO September

plant domains, comparison between folk and technical soil science, assessment of the role of folk soil perception in agricultural practices and other behavioral realms all may be encompassed under the term “ethnopedology.” The term is used here in a broader sense than is usually im- plied in ethnoscience, or in the terms ethno- plus academic discipline, for example ethnoichthyol- ogy, ethnoornithology, ethnobotany, or folk - science.’ Since the relevance of the subject tran- scends concern for cognitive orientation, and since in its applied aspects the focus remains folk, the multiple connotations are useful in order to maintain a desired interdisciplinary per- spective.

The research on selected aspects of contemporary ethnopedology reported here is an out- growth of two summer field sessions conducted in the village of Tepetlaoztoc (population ca. 1,450) eight km northeast of Texcoco in the east- ern part of the Basin of Mexico. Field work was undertaken in Tepetlaoztoc because two Na- huatl codices provide pictorial data, including soil types, on 1,100 agricultural fields as they existed in the 1 5 4 0 ~ . ~ Investigation of the contemporary soil classification has facilitated interpretation of the soil glyphs and clarified Tex- cocan-Aztec soil classification by providing an empirical basis for assessing the impact of 400 years of agriculture on the soil resource.s Were it not for its ethnohistorical importance, other villages might have served better as field sites. First, located on the semiarid, gently to moderately sloping colluvial slopes of the Sierra de

See William C. Sturtevant, “Studies in Ethnosci- ence,” Ainericnti Anthropologist. Vol. 66, No. 3: Part 2 (1964), pp. 99-131: and Eugene Hunn, Tzeltul Folk Zoology (New York: Academic Press, 1977), pp. 3-4.

For a discussion of cognitive anthroplogy see Ste- phen A. Tyler, “Introduction,” in Stephen A. Tyler, ed., Cogniti1.e Anthropology (New York: Holt. Rine- hart, and Winston, 1969), pp. 1-23.

Codice de Santa Maria Asuncion, Apeo y Deslinde de Tierras (de 10s terrenos) de Santa Maria de la Asun- cion, Biblioteca Nacional de Mexico. Ms 1497bis; Codex Vergara, Bibliotheque Nationale de Paris, Ms Mex. 37-39.

For example, see Barbara J . Williams, “Nahuatl Soil Glyphs from the Codice de Santa Maria Asun- cion,” Actes du XLII‘ Congres Interi~trtioirirl des Atnc:rictr,ii.str.s, Vol. 7 (Paris: Societe des American- istes, 1980), pp. 27--37: “Aztec Soil Classification and Land Tenure,” Vol. Yb, pp. 165-175; and idem, “Pic- torial Representation of Soils in the Valley of Mexico: Evidence from the Codex Vergara,” Geoscience triid

Moii . Vol. 21 (1980), pp. 51-62.

Patlachique, the two square kms occupied by the eight barrios of the village and their sur- rounding agricultural lands are ecologically quite homogeneous. Therefore, the potential for sub- stantial soil variation from place to place is min- imized.” Second, since pre-Hispanic times, Te- petlaoztoc has been a zone of intensive, but largely rainfed, a g r i ~ u l t u r e . ~ Some maguey- hedged semiterraces (buncules. ,nrtepuntles), stone-faced terraces, and zanjm (contour ditch- es) are still maintained, but many are relics of a once more extensive system of erosion and water control. Partial abandonment of these intensive technologies relates in large part to des- sication of springs in the Patlachique Range, several episodes of population decline, and social and economic disruption attendant with the 1910 Revolution. Thus, the existing agricultural practices may reflect only selective survivals of a more complex and integrated system. Third, a strong component of Tepetlaoztoc subsistence in the Colonial period as well as today is graz- ing.R The villagers are as much “ranchers” as farmers, which potentially might affect the character of their ethnopedology. Fourth, since World War I1 Tepetlaoztoc has functioned as a dormitory community for Mexico City and Tex- coco, so that fewer and fewer families or individuals are directly involved in or dependent upon subsistence a g r i c u l t ~ r e . ~ Consequently, perception and knowledge of soils as a pan-community, shared trait has disappeared (if it ever did exist), and suitable informants cannot be chosen at random from the population. Finally, Tepetlaoztoc villagers are Spanish-speaking and culturally mestizos. Nahuatl phased out by the end of the nineteenth century, and significant linguistic acculturation occurred long before. Nevertheless, certain Nahuatl terms persist.

sociedud: Crrutro coi?iuriidude.~ tiel Acollirrocun (Mexico: SEP- INAH, 1975), pp. 147-192 and Margarita Campos Gar- cia, Escuelo y conlunicfod en TrpPl/tro.rtoc (Mexico: SEP-Setentas, 1973). ’ William T . Sanders, Jeffrey R . Parsons, and Kob-

ert S . Santley in The Bnsin ofhfcxico: Ecolo~ictr l Pro- cesses in the Etduriori of a Civil;:irrion (New York. Academic Press, 1979) calculate that under shifting cultivation the carrying capacity of the zone was ex- ceeded as early as 300-100 B.C., the First Interme- diate Phase (Map 23). Thus, agricultural intensification may have been initiated at that time in response to demographic pressure (pp. 378-85).

Charles Gibson, The Aztecs Under Spuni.s/i Rule (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1964), p. 367.

Perez Lizaur, op. cit., footnote 6, pp. 162-63.

~ _ _ _ _ _ See Mari.io1 Perez Lizaur, Pohltrciciir

1981 FOLK SOIL TAXONOMY 337

The linguistic and cultural interpretation of the ethnopedology of Tepetlaoztoc must take cog- nizance of the cultural dynamics of its origin for it is not the product of a single cultural tradition.

Field data on the domain of tierra ‘soil’ in Tepetlaoztoc are augmented by information on folk soil nomenclature and classification reported in Mexican and Guatemalan community studies. The additional data, although fragmentary, permit a test of several hypotheses suggested by the Tepetlaoztoc information and provide a basis for tentatively identifying those features of ethnopedology that are shared by Spanish- speaking campesinos, those which might derive from native cultures, and those which might be environmentally determined.

Recent studies in folk taxonomies provide the methodological framework for the discussion. Implicit is a broad question pertaining to “man, the classifier.” Contemporary research suggests that there may be common psychological processes that generate cross-cultural similarities in perception and classification not only of the biological world but of diverse, nonbiological phenomena as well. In a pioneering and monumen- tal work, Berlin, Breedlove, and Raven elaborated a set of general principles of folk taxonomy of biological phenomena.’” These sub- sequently have been tested and refined by Hunn, and Brown, Kolar, Torrey, Tniong-Quang, and Volkman, among others.” The linguistic analysis of the soils domain in Tepetlaoztoc is pre- sented with respect to these works in folk sys- tematics. Two principle questions are: 1) Is soil perception in Tepetlaoztoc expressed in a formal taxonomy? and, 2) If so, does the folk soil taxonomy conform to the general principles exhib- ited in other domains?

General Principles of Folk Taxonomy A formal taxonomy requires a taxonomic

structure, a set of names (lexemes), and a map-

lo Brent Berlin, Dennis E. Breedlove, and Peter H. Raven, “General Principles of Classification and No- menclature in Folk Biology,” American Anthropolo- gist, Vol 75 (1973), pp. 214-42.

l 1 Eugene Hunn, op. cit., footnote 2; Cecil H. Brown, John Kolar, Barbara J . Torrey, Tipawan Truong-Quang, and Phillip Volkman, “Some General Principles of Biological and Non-Biological Folk Clas- sification,” American Ethnologist, Vol. 3 (1976), pp. 73-85. Stanley R. Witkowski and Cecil H. Brown provide a literature review in “Lexical Universals,” An- nual Review of Anthropology, Vol. 7 (l978), pp. 427- 51.

ping that relates these two.I2 A taxonomic structure is the hierarchical relationship between taxa. Taxa (sing. taxon) are conventionally labeled sets (groupings) of objects that are the elements of the taxonomic structure.13 For example, in English, evergreens, oaks, and maples are taxa, and they are related by class inclusion to trees as “kinds of trees.” Trees, vines, and grasses are taxa and are related by class inclusion to plants as “kinds of plants.” There are several general principles which apply to taxonomic structures: 1) Taxonomic structures rarely exceed a maximum hierarchical depth of five levels, which correspond to Berlin et al.’s eth- nobiological ~a tegor ies . ’~ 2) The highest order taxon, the unique beginner, occurs at Level 0 and second order taxa, analogous to life form taxa, at Level 1 . 3) The number of Level 1 life form taxa is relatively small compared to the number of subordinate Level 2 generic taxa, and all include more than one taxon; that is, life form Level 1 form taxa are polytypic. 4 ) Generic Level 2 taxa are usually immediately included [no intervening taxa] in one of the few life form taxa, although it is not uncommon to find classes at the generic rank that are conceptually seen as unaffiliated to a life form taxa. 5) Level 3 specific taxa are less numerous than generic taxa, and Level 4 varietal taxa are quite rare. Specific and varietal taxa characteristically occur in contrast sets of a few members, the most frequent being a set of two classes distinguished in terms of features on few if not single semantic dimensions; e.g., red rose vs. white rose (Table l).15 If these generalizations were to hold true for the domain of soils, then the taxonomic structures should exhibit a unique beginner “soil” at Level 0, few classes at the life form Level 1 , the bulk of the taxa at the generic Level 2, and few specifics contrasting on one or two dimensions at Level 3.

l2 Paul Kay, “Taxonomy and Semantic Contrast,” Language, Vol. 7 (1971), p. 868.

l3 Berlin et al., op. cit., footnote 10, p. 214. Harold C. Conklin, “Lexicographical Treatment of Folk Tax- onomies,” in Fred W. Householder and Sol Saporta, eds., Problems in Lexicography (Bloomington: In- diana University Press, 1967), pp. 120-21 uses the term segregate. Occasionally folk taxa are unlabeled. See Brent Berlin, Dennis E. Breedlove, and Peter H. Raven, “Covert Categories and Folk Taxonomies,” American Anthropologist, Vol. 70 (1968), pp. 290-99.

l4 Brown et al., op. cit., footnote 11, p. 75; and Ber- lin et al., op. cit., footnote 10, pp. 214-15.

l5 Berlin et al., op. cit., footnote 10, pp. 215-16.


TABLE ~ . -Fo~ .K ~ A X O N O M I C LEVELS

Hierarchical level Taxonomic categow

Level 0 Unique beginner UB Level 1 Life form Lf Level 2 Generic Gn Level 3 Specific SP Level 4 Varietal Vr

Another feature of folk taxonomies is nomenclature, the set of labels naming the taxa. Berlin et al. suggest that nomenclature is a near perfect guide to folk taxonomic structure.16 In analyzing taxa labels, they distinguish between primary lexemes which are “single word” expressions such as oak, pine, rabbit, and bass, and secondary lexemes, which are modified primary lexemes such as post oak, ponderosa pine, cotton- tail rabbit, and largemouth bass. In biological taxonomies primary lexemes label life form and generic taxa, and secondary lexemes label specific and varietal taxa.“ Brown et al. found the nomenclature principles also to hold true in general in their analysis of four nonbiological taxonomies (American automobiles, tools, Finnish winter vehicles, and Thai spirit ghosts).Ix

One problem associated with analyzing taxonomic nomenclature is differentiating between lexemes serving as taxa labels and descriptive phrases, which might have similar grammatical status but are not category labels.IY In English, intonation sometimes serves to distinguish descriptive phrases, such as black bird, from the taxon labeled by a composite lexeme, blackbird, or grey holind from greyhound.’0 Methods used to distinguish Tzeltal descriptive phrases from plant and animal taxa labels are described by Berlin et al., and Hunn.” For plants, certain linguistic features mark plant names, e.g. numeri- cal classifiers, possessive affixes, and a deri- vational prefix. Less formal criteria may also be applied. The plant and animal nomenclature data

l6 Berlin et al., op. cit., footnote 10, p. 216. l 7 Berlin et al., op. cit., footnote 10, pp. 216-17;

summarized by Brown et al., op. cit., footnote 11, p. 74.

Ix Brown et al., op. cit.. footnote 11, pp. 78-80. ’gSturtevant, op. cit., footnote 2, p. 106.

Brent Berlin, Dennis E. Breedlove, and Peter H. Raven, Principles of 7irltrrl Plunt Cla.s.si$cution (New York: Academic Press, 1974). p. 50.

21 Berlin et al., idem., pp. 49-51: and Hunn, op. cit., footnote 2, pp. 26-27.

suggest that descriptive phrases tend to be less stable over time and between informants than labels identifying taxonomic categories. And, single lexeme names are more consistent over time and between informants than polylexemic phrases. Since taxa often are characterized by multiple criteria, whereas descriptive phrases only add features referred to in the phrase, questions that test for multiple criteria and elicit further specification provide evidence that the response is a taxon label rather than a descriptive phrase. Preliminary data on the campesino soils domain suggest that descriptive phrases are quite common, but that they may be segregated from taxa labels using these extra linguistic criteria.

The Domain of Soil, Tierru In Tepetlaoztoc, ten villagers (nine men and

one woman) were interviewed in Spanish. Initial contact and interviewing took place as the informants worked in their fields.22 They included older campesinos who still practice subsistence maize agriculture and younger people who sell on the cash market. Informants were asked to label (name) the soil in the field they were work- ing (i,Cdino s e llarnu esta tirrra?), to mention all the other types they knew of (i,Cudle,s son 10s otros t i p s cir t ierru?), and, if appropriate, where they were located. The latter formed the basis for a campesino soil map of the village territory that could be compared with a pedol- ogist’s map. Tests for class inclusion were framed by “Is Y a kind of X?” In addition to the list questions, dimensions and defining or critical attributes were elicited by I ) asking informants to describe each soil labeled and the differences between each, 2) following conver- sations when different soils were discussed, and 3) noting corrections made when folk terminology was incorrectly applied. In most cases re- peat visits were made by appointment with in-

22 The controlled environment, “white room” method suggested by Mary B. Black. “Eliciting Folk Tax- onomy in Ojibwa” in Tyler, op. cit., footnote 3, pp. 165-89 was judged inappropriate for this study. Also, showing informants soil samples out of context did not produce satisfactory identifications. Informants want- ed to know at the outset where the samples were ac- quired, implying that spatial context is important for proper identification. Likewise, Hunn found that animal identifications were best made by informants in their home territory and in familiar contexts (op. cit., footnote 2, p. 21).


formants either in their homes or fields. None of the informants were paid. A principal informant was one of the elder villagers (Francisco Bravo, age 75) who had an intimate knowledge of the soils in his barrio by virtue of his years spent as a g u h n (a hired plowman). In addition, because of his interest in the study, he was will- ing to walk the lands on several different occa- sions as soil samples were taken, pointing out and discussing soil differences along the way.

In Tepetlaoztoc the lexeme tierra includes referents other than kinds of soils. The question “What kinds of tierra are there‘?” elicits re- sponses such as ‘the earth’ I N tierra; ‘homeland’ as in “My homeland is far away” Mi tierra estk muy lejos; climatic zone, tierra culiente, tierru templada, tierra fria, tierru helada (‘hot, temperate, cold, frozen country’); topography, tierra buja, a h , pluna, rnontafiosa, etc. (‘low, high, level, mountainous,’ etc.). Informants acknowledge that these referents were unrelated to soils. Thus, a soil taxonomy headed by a unique beginner labeled tierru may properly ig- nore nonsoil n~rnenc la tu re .~~

As a unique beginner, tierra is conceptualized as unconsolidated, finely divided, surface material. It contrasts with ‘stone’ piedra or ‘rock’ roca, which is consolidated and hard, and tepetate (no English gloss). Tepetate is a Nahuatl loan word (tepetlatl: tetl, petlatl) literally rnean- ing ‘rock mat’ or soft rock. The folk term is widely used throughout Central Mexico labeling such diverse materials as pumice, caliche, and duripans developed from volcanic tuff. The defining attribute of the taxon apparently is consistence (resistence to pressure). That is, tepetate is any weak to strongly cemented material that can be broken into fine particles with moderate pressure, often merely by hand. Several informants illustrated the difference between ‘genuine rock’ piedra legitirna and. ‘rock-like’ tepetate by picking up a block of the material and crushing it by hand or throwing it against a rock, whereupon it disintegrated into small clumps and particles. In preconquest times tepetate layers in the soil profile, exposed through erosion, were converted into tierra suitable for

23 Brown et al., op. cit., footnote 11 , p. 84, encoun- tered a somewhat similar pattern when eliciting a tool taxonomy. Although almost anything could be a tool, such as cloth, clay, or electricity, these were disre- garded because informants did not regard them in the same sense as hammers, shovels, and saws.

cultivation with simple tools, such as picks and hoes. The conversion process continues today using traditional and modern technology, such as bulldozers and black powder.24 In Tepetlaoz- toc, all types of tepetate clearly contrast with tierru, but in other communities some types of tepetate that can be converted to arable land are included within the domain of tierru. The taxonomic variation suggests two different perceptions of the material. The contrasting view fo- cuses on the dimension of consistence, which places the material outside the soil domain, and ignores technologies that might be employed to change the consistence. The inclusion view rec- ognizes tepetate as a soil parent material. The soil: nonsoil fuzziness of the folk taxon tepetate is paralleled in the scientific literature, particularly in discussion of identification and genesis.25 In Tepetlaoztoc, however, the folk soils domain seems to be unambiguously defined and bound- ed.

The unique beginner of the soil domain tierra immediately includes two Level 1 taxa, tierras de .seinhrudurmiluhor ‘crop land’ and tierras cerriles ‘uncultivated land’ (Table 2). Eliciting did not include the latter so that taxonomic data are incomplete. However, taxa labeled by vegetation types such as monte alto ‘mature woodland’ and monte bajo ‘scrub woodland’ probably are immediately included in the taxon tierras cerriles. For the taxon tierras de semhradiiru, three monotypic [unpartitioned] generic Level 2 soil types were elicited from all informants: tierra negra lit. ‘black soil,’ tierru uwiurilla lit. ‘yellow soil,’ and tierra areno,sa lit. ‘sandy soil.’ Descriptive terminology reveals contrasts on dimensions of texture, consistence under moist or dry conditions, moisture retention, and workability (Table 3 ) . According to campesino descriptions tierra negru is heavy textured, sticky when moist and loose when dry, capable of absorbing and retaining much moisture, and is dif-

24 Barbara J. Williams, “Tepetate in the Valley of Mexico,” Anna/s , Association of American Geogra- phers, Vol. 62 (1972), pp. 618-26; and Gene C. Wilk- en, Studies of Resource Managernent in Trndirionnl Middle Americun Farming Systeins, N o . 6 (Report to the National Science Foundation, 1977).

25 For a recent study see Hans Aeppli and Ernst Schonhals, Los Suelvs de la Cuencu de Piiehla-Tlax- calo: Investigaciones ncerca dr su fnrmcicirin .v clas- ificrrciO’t7. El Proyecto Mexico de la Fundacion Ale- rnana para la Investigacion Cientifica. Vol. 7 (Wiesbaden: Franz Seiner Verlag GMBH, 1975).

340 BARBARA J. WILLIAMS AND CARLOS A. ORTIZ-SOLORIO September

TABL.E 2.-FOLK SOIL TAXONOMY I N TEPETI.AOZ1.OC

Hierarchical level Lahel

Level 0 Ub tierra ‘soil’

Level 1 Lf tierras cerriles” ‘uncultivated soils’

Level 1 Lf tierras de sembradura ‘crop land’

Level 2 Gn tierra negra ‘black soil’

Level 2 Gn tierra amarilla ‘yellow soil’

Level 2 Gn tierra arenosa ‘sandy soil’

Incomplete taxonomic data

ficult to work when moist. Tierra mnurilla is lighter textured, always of loose consistence, capable of absorbing abundant moisture and retaining it longer than rierru negrci, and is easy to work. Tierra urenosu differs in that it has more sand than tierru negru or tierrcr atnarillrr, and it maintains soil moisture longer than tierru negru,*‘j These three generic soil taxa are con-

26 Although values for moisture constants indicate the contrary (Table 8, wilting point and field capacity), the folk observations are accurate. Commonly in the Valley of Mexico, sands and silts are derived from pumice, yielding porous particles which retain moisture longer than clay.

figurational categories. There is a Gestalt property attached to each that synthesizes the relationships between the several dimensions, just as the Gestalt property of “birdness” synthesizes the attributes of wings, feathers, bill, and legs.27 Hunn notes that such categories are produced by the process of induction as opposed to deduction .2R

Deduction generates categories a priori by state- ment of a defining rule. Such categories are known by reference to a set of defining features. If an object possesses the defining features, it is a member of the category. If it lacks the features, it cannot be a member of the category . . . . Inductive categories must be created by abstracting a cot$guration from a sample of the membership of the category. No defining rule is given. With reference to folk-biological taxa, inductive categorization is constrained by the objective discontinuities in nature. Induction tends to produce a best possible fit between natural discontinuities and a psychologically and ecologically efficient system of classification . . . . Deduc- tive folk categories correspond rarely with scientific taxa. On the other hand, inductive folk taxa exhibit a near perfect correspondence with scientific taxa.

The Tepetlaoztoc folk generic soil taxa are examples of inductively produced configurational categories. However, in contrast to biological classifications, the correspondence between folk

27 J . S . Bruner. J. J . Goodnow, and G. A . Austin, A Stud? oJ’Thinking (New York: Wiley, 1956), p. 41, cited in H u m , op. cit., footnote 2, p. 46.

28 Hunn, op. cit., footnote 2, p. 46.

FOLK GENERIC Sorr TAXA TABI E 3.-DIMENSIONS 0 1

Dimension Tierra negra Tierra amarilla Tierra arenosa

Texture gruescr, rnaciza heavy, delgadn light rnucha arena

Consistence

massive

wet pegujoso, frrngmo, suelto loose suelto loose chicloso sticky, mirey, gummy

dry suelto loose .suelto loose suelto loose

Moisture rrgurrntu, resisre mjiuantn, resiste aguunta el uguu Retention rnucho el ugucr tolerates rnucho el nguu tolerates tolerates rainfall

abundant rainfall abundant rainfall

conserves moisture giinrclu In humedud Kuurda la liurnedcid mas

que la tierru negra o tierru aretimu conserves moisture more than black or sandy soil

guartlu In hurnedad m d s que lu tierra negra conserves moisture more than black soil

Workability fuerre firm, compact dcid flexible, pliable d 6 d flexible, pliable


and scientific soil taxa is not “near perfect,” as discussed below. Hunn’s generalization regarding deductive categories probably does apply to the nonsoil taxon tepetate. It is defined by a particular consistence and as a class has a low level of correspondence with scientific taxa.

The structure of the soil taxonomy in Tepe- tlaoztoc conforms to most general principles of folk taxonomy. The unique beginner tierra occurs at Level 0. Few taxa (two) occur at life form Level 1 , and the bulk of the taxa (three) occur at the generic Level 2. Hierarchical relationships are established by principles of class inclusion and contrast. The taxonomic depth, although shallow, falls within the range of other kinds of folk taxonomies. The generic Level 2 taxa are terminal, so specific and varietal levels are not present in the taxonomic structure. If on occasion further partitioning of the generic rank taxa is desired, descriptive phrases are employed. The latter does not necessarily violate the general structural principles.

Divergence from the general principles of folk biological taxonomies is most marked in soil taxa nomenclature. In biological classifications, the unique beginner is habitually ~ n n d m e d . ’ ~ In the Tepetlaoztoc soil taxonomy, the unique beginner is habitually labeled tierra.”’ Also, the primary lexeme tierra labels more than one category, which in itself is not atypical of folk taxonomies. What is atypical is that it is a constituent of all taxa labels. An analogy in English would be if all tree taxa labels habitually con- tained the lexical item tree: tree: pine tree: ponderosa pine tree. According to the general nomenclature principles, life form labels should be primary lexemes. However, tierra de sembrad- urallabor ‘crop land’ and tierras cerriles ‘uncultivated land’ are secondary lexemes. These labels are instructive of folk cognition in that the contrasting taxa do not reflect observed discontinuities in nature but rather usefulness for agriculturalists. They are deductive taxa defined in terms of culture instead of nature. The general

29 Berlin et al., op. cit., footnote 10, p. 215. How- ever, Hunn suggests that in its extended range, Eon- balum is the unique beginner label for the Tenehapa Tzeltal animal taxonomy, op. cit., footnote 2, p. 134.

30 Rarely in popular speech is suelo used as a label for ‘soil,’ whereas in technical Spanish suelo is almost always used. Particularly in the countryside, a common referent for suelo is ‘floor,’ so that the query QuP tipo de suelo es dste? ‘What kind of ‘floor’ is this?’ is incorrect.

nomenclature principles also predict that generic taxa should be marked by primary lexemes. Again, the generic rank soil taxa do not conform, since these labels are secondary lexemes. In syntax and morphology the generic Level 2 labels tierra negra, tierra amarilla, and tierra urenosa are identical to noun (descriptive) phrases, for example coche negro ‘black car,’ pcijuro negro ‘black bird,’ or tinto negro ‘black ink.’ The taxa labels differ from noun phrases semantically, however, because the referents for the labels are not the single dimension attributes “black,” “yellow,” or “sandy.” Rather, the referents are multidimensional categories. Fur- ther, the labels are similarily and consistently applied by all informants, indicative of semantic stability.

An interesting feature of the generic Level 2 labels is that two of them, negra and amarilla, have color referents, even though soil color is not explicitly a criteria1 attribute. Tierra negra ‘black soil’ is in fact dark to very dark grey brown (10 YR 3/2 moist) on the surface and black (10 YR 211 moist) below ten cm. The high humus content giving rise to the dark soil color often strongly correlates with other attributes of the taxon, such as moisture retention. On the other hand, tierra aniarilla lit. ‘yellow soil’ occasionally may be yellowish-brown but most often is light to dark grey brown. According to informants “yellow soil” has little to do with yellow color, but attempts to clarify the semantic meaning of the label always resulted in reit- eration of the attributes of moisture retention and loose consistence. Several possibilities might account for “yellow soil” not being yellow in color. For example, the attributes of the taxon might most clearly associate with yellow colored soil, so that the basic range could include color as an attribute. The core dimensions then might carry over into an extended range but without the color attribute. However, interviewing did not reveal any evidence supporting the notion that basic and extended ranges exist for the taxon today. Another possibility is that basic and extended ranges existed historically and that a semantic shift has since occurred, whereby the extended range has become the basic range today. Finally, the taxon label may have originated from a Colonial Spanish or Na- huatl taxon in which “yellow” denoted loose (friable) consistence. Color terms often have second, noncolor referents, but no data have come to light to support this conjecture.

342 BARBARA J. WILLIAMS A N D CARLOS A. ORTIZ-SOLORIO September

In summary, the Tepetlaoztoc folk partitioning of the soils domain conforms to the formal definition of a taxonomy. The taxa are related by contrast and class inclusion into a hierarchical structure. The structural features (unique beginner, life form, and generic level taxa) constitute another example of a nonbiological taxonomy corresponding to the general principles of folk taxonomy first recognized in the biological world. The nomenclature of the Tepetlaoz- toc soil taxa exhibits three features: 1) the unique beginner is habitually named; 2) the lexeme tirrra is a constituent of all taxa labels; and 3) both life form and generic level labels are secondary lexemes. Habitual naming of the unique beginner is at variance with the general principles of biological nomenclature as are secondary lexemes labeling generic and life form level taxa. Also, inclusion of the unique beginner label in all subordinate categories is uncharacteristic of biological domains. Thus, the fit between biological nomenclature patterns and soil nomenclature is less than perfect, whereas structurally there is significant similarity.

Comparative Soil Nomenclature The Tepetlaoztoc soil taxonomy does not in-

volve a complex partitioning of the tierra domain. Notwithstanding the abundant ethnographic descriptions of Middle American folk cultures, it is unclear whether relatively uncom- plicated soil taxonomies are typical of Spanish- speaking campesinos. In a survey of 130 ethnographic studies of both Spanish and Indian communities, roughly two-thirds were found to describe agricultural practices: the annual cycle of activities is nearly universally reported, and many authors also describe crop varieties in great botanical detail. But, only one-quarter ( 3 3 ) mention one or more soil terms of apparently local usage, and only six studies devote more than a paragraph to aspects of folk soil nomenclature and classification. None of the thirty- three explicitly considers taxonomic relations. In most cases, it is unclear whether the reported soil terms are descriptive phrases or taxonomic labels, and whether the terminology is exhaus- tive of the domain. Particularly in studies where the soils factor is treated only cursorily, there is a lack of distinction between informant nomenclature and that of the investigator. This problem is associated especially with studies of Spanish-speaking folk because certain lexemes pertaining to the soils domain are shared by

Spanish-speakers in general. For example, soil scientists and agronomists utilize a classification of soilsiland based on moisture: 'irrigated' riego, ' sub-surface mois ture ' h u m e d a d , a n d 'rainfed' ternporril. Identical terminology is reported for many campesinos throughout Mexico and Guatemala. However, soil classes based on rieKo-hurrze~lrici-tetnpoval distinctions, while they may be intelligible to and utilized by a specific campesino group, may be more important taxonomically to the investigator than to the campesinos. For example, in Tepetlaoztoc the rie- ~o-humedrrd-tetr iporri l se t is p a r t of t h e vocabulary but not part of the soil taxonomy. Nevertheless, an investigator focusing on agricultural productivity, and in an abbreviated treatment, might report only that most of the tenporal soils are light colored sandy loams and riego soils are dark brown clay loams. Such statements reflect soil attributes of color, moisture, and texture, but for taxonomic inquiry they are of minimal usefulness because of the ambi- guity of the origin of the classes and the relations between them.

The most comprehensive treatments of soil nomenclature among Spanish-speaking campesinos are those by Brand, Foster, and West for the Tarascan area in Michoacan, by Wilken for Tetlatlauhca, Tlaxcala, and Almolongo, Guate- mala, and by Stadelman for the Department of Huehuetenango in northwestern Guatemala."' Brand's study presents the most complete vocabulary relating to the soil domain, but is less useful for determining soil classes than the other works, which label and define locally recognized classes. Although all lack data on taxonomic relations, inferences may be drawn from the se- mantics of the lexemes regarding class differentiating criteria. The nomenclature from these core studies are supplemented with terminology

31 Donald D. Brand, Quiroga: A Mexicun Municipio (Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution, Institute of Social Anthropology, Vol. 11, 19.51), pp. 124-27: George M. Foster, Empire's Children: The People of Tzintzuntznn (Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Insti- tution, Institute of Social Anthropology, Vol. 6 , 1948), pp. 33-59; Robert C. West, Cultiirnl Geogrciph?: of rhe Moderri Turcisccrn Area (Washington, D.C.: Smithson- ian Institution, Institute of Social Anthropology, Vol. 7, 1948, pp. 9-11; Wilken, op. cit., footnote 24; and Raymond Stadelman, Moize Ciiltivcrtion in North- we.sterri Gucireniulo. Contributions to American An- thropology and History, Vol. 6, No. 33 (Washington, D.C.: Carnegie Institution of Washington, 1940), pp. 103-04.


from less comprehensive sources (Table 4). In the table, labels for soil classes are listed sepa- rately from lexemes which apparently function as noun phrases or descriptive terms. Question marks indicate cases in which the status of the term, class label, or noun phrase is especially ambiguous. Lexemes which are synonomous or closely related are indicated by slashes or brack- ets; lexemes with variant meanings are num- bered. English glosses are transcribed or trans- lated from the sources cited.

The most numerous class labels reported have lexical elements related to soil texture (clays, loams, sands, gravels) and colors (red, white, grayish, yellow, black, browns, and cinnamon). Texture and color attributes often occur in com- bination, such as yellow clay soil or gravelly red soil. Assuming that the lexemes label generic level soil taxa, which they probably do in the case of the clay soils reported by Wilken and the red soils described by Foster, then two nomenclature patterns are suggested.”2 I ) Generic taxa labeled by texture lexemes are partitioned into specific taxa labeled either by color lexemes or by a second texture lexeme, e.g. tierru de barro atnurillo ‘yellow clay soil’ and tierru ur- eno.su gruesa ‘coarse sandy soil.’ 2) Generic taxa labeled by color lexemes are partitioned into specific taxa labeled with texture lexemes, e.g. tierru colortrda urenosa ‘sandy red soil.’”3

Specific level partitioning also is accomplished through the formation of noun phrases using quantitative (ordinal) modifiers, that ex- press deviation from a conceptual generic norm. Poco, algo, bcisttrnte, tnas , and rnediu are examples reported by Wilken for both Tlaxcala, Mexico, and Almolongo, Guatemala: nzedio tie- gro ‘blackish’; tnus burro ?’ negro ‘more clay and darker than the norm’; tierra amarilla, pero poco colorado ‘somewhat reddish yellow soil’; purm arenu ‘pure sand’; and tierru juertci, per0

32 Wilken, op. cit., footnote 24; and Foster, op. cit., footnote 31.

33 The only exceptions to this pattern are two cases of specifics labeled by vegetation (grassy red earth and forest brown earth). The red and yellow generic soil types which have specifics labeled by the Tarascan loans churanda and t’upuri are somewhat confusing. Although Brand glosses chmrcinda as ‘red’ and t ’ i i p i r i as ‘yellow,’ which would constitute another exception, the descriptions of Foster and especially of West seem to indicate that these soils are strongly associated with textural attributes, clay and fine sandy loam respectively.

hnstutite urenosu ‘sticky soil, but quite sandy‘ (more than Such constructions em- phasize that soil texture and color are continu- ous rather than discrete variables. Substitution of noun phrases for specific level taxa, therefore, might be interpreted as indicative of astute observation rather than the contrary.

It is not unexpected that many soil class labels have texture and color as lexical constituents. These two variables are among the most physi- cally salient (sensible) characteristics and, further, they are highly associated with other qualities such as moisture retention, workability, and fertility. On the other hand, it might be expected that within a single community generic level soil taxa would be labeled consistently by one dimension, e.g. color, and specific level taxa by another, e.g. texture. However, classes labeled by textureg,-colors, and color,,,-texture,, are found within the same community. This suggests that the classes are configurational categories rather than based on defining criteria.

Consistence, parent material, and dominant chemical content are other attributes that label soil classes. Tierrci fuerte ‘compact, sticky soil’, a generic class recognized in Tlaxcala, is the only taxon reported whose label related to consistence. In Tepetlaoztoc, tierra fuerte is recognized also, but it is a descriptive phrase associated with tierra negra rather than a taxon label. Also, in contrast to Tepetlaoztoc, Tlax- cala soils developed from tepetate are included within the domain of tierra. These cultivated tierras tepetatosas are differentiated by color: tepetute umarillo ‘yellow tepetate,’ tepetute colorado ‘red tepetate,’ etc. Parent material also distinguishes a soil (?) class in Tepoztlan, Mo- relos, labeled trxcul, a Nahuatl loan word which, according to Lewis, refers to land covered with black volcanic rock (probably basalt).:35 Both white and black alkali (alculi hlunco, ulculi negro: tequisquitlalli, a Nahuatl loan) are reported from Michoacan and Tlaxcala. In the ‘Tarascan area, uirus (a Tarascan loan) labels a (generic?) soil type with gypsum (yeso) concentrations, and suelo calcrireo (descriptive phrase?) is calcareous soil.

Soil classifications based on vegetation cover rather than soil properties are reported particularly for groups practicing shifting cultivation in southern Mexico and Guatemala. Foster’s work

s4 Wilken, op. cit., footnote 24. 35 Lewis, op. cit., Table 4, footnote 1 1

344 BAKBARA J . WILLIAMS A N D CARLOS A. O R ~ I Z - S O L O R I O September

TABLE 4 -SPAIUI\H FOLK SOIL C145SES A N D NOMENCLATURE -

CLI,, Place

Te.rfurr tierra arenosa

t . a. delgada t. a. gruesa

suelo franco ? tierra migajosa ? tierra migajon

t . m. arenoso ? t . m. arcilloso '! t . m. limoso ?

t . de b. amarillo t . de b. blanco t. de b. colorado t. de b. pardo

tierra pedregosa '?

tierra de barro

cascajo

polvillas '?

gruesa, delgada

pesado, liviano

piedras guijarros grava arena limo(s)

limo/lodo/lamdfango/( bariial) polvo legamo pedregosa arcillosa arenosa limosa polvillos arcilldbarro ceniza alluvion

Lexemes related t o .Foil texture

Color tierra colorada

t . c. gramosa t. c. cascajosa t. c. arenosa t . c. charanda

(tierra) roja ?

(tierra) bermeja ? (tierra) charanda, charanda, tierra blanca

tierra pardusca '?

sandy soil

fine-grained coarse-grained

loam, open soil loamy soil friable earth

sandy loam clay loam silt loam

yellow clay white clay red clay dark clay

stony soil

clay soil

gravel

aeolian silts

coarse textured, fine textured

heavy textured, light textured

rocks pebbles gravel sand silt(s)

mudislimeimire dust loess gravelly clayey sandy silty aeolian silts clay ash alluvium

red

red grassy earth red gravel soil red sandy soil red charanda red earth

red earth red earth reddish brown clay white

grayish earth

Tetlatlauhca, Tlaxcala:' Almolongo, Guatemala;' Quiroga, Michoacan'

Tetlatlauhca, Tlaxcala' idem Quiroga, Michoacan' idem Tzintzuntzan, Michoacan3 Quiroga, Michoacan, idem idem Almolongo, Guatemala' Tetlatlauhca, Tlaxcala' idem idem idem Quiroga, Michoacan;'

Tzintzuntzan, Mi~hoacan ;~

Quiroga, MichoacanL

Tzintzuntzan, Michoacans

Tarascan region, Michoacan4

Tetlatlauhca, Tlaxcala'

Quiroga, Michoacan'

idem idem idem idem idem; Huehuetenango,

Quiroga, Michoacan' idem idem idem idem idem idem idem idem idem idem

Northwest Guatemala5

Cuijla, Guerrero;F Quiroga, Michoacan;, Arandas, J a l i ~ c o ; ~ Usila, OaxacaX

Tzintzuntzan, Michoacan3 idem idem idem Quiroga, Michoacan;?

Quiroga, Michoacan? Quiroga, Michoacan' Tarascan region, Michoacan4 Quiroga, Michoacan;, Arandas,

Quiroga, Michoacan,

Soteapan, Veracruzs

J a l i ~ c o ; ~ Tetlatlauhca, Tlaxcala'


TABLE 4.-cONTINUED

Class Place

tierra parda brown soil tierra amarilla yellow soil tierra amarilla, tupura , t'upliri, fine sandy loam tierra amarilla topura,

tierra negra black soil

yellow earth

yellow topura earth yellow gravel soil t . a. cascajosa

__ hard and soft black

tierra prieta ? blackish, very dark (tierra) cafe brown earth

t. c. oscuro dark brown earth t. c. de bosqueiforestal forest brown

soil

tierra canela cinnamon Con.Pistence

tierra fuerte compact, sticky soil Descriptive Terms Associuted with Consistence

fuerte docil

Parent Materirrl tierras tepetatosas '? tepetate amarillo tepetate colorado tepetate pardo tepetate gris texcal

Mineral.,

sticky, tough soft

tepetate soils yellow tepetate red tepetate dark tepetate grey tepetate black volcanic rock

alcali negrohequisquitlalli, black alkali (sodium

tequisquitlalli,/tequisqui tudo any salt impregnated and other carbonates

alcali blanco

salitre uiras yeso?

Vegrtution monte monte alto monte bajo montafia acahual monte nuevo huatal encinal, encinal, pinal

rastrojo rastrojo de solar

zacatal llano pajonal colchonal pradera

soil

and sulfates of Na, Mg) white alkali (chlorides

chlorides of Ca, K

gypsum [gypsum]

wooded virgin land mature woodland scrub woodland forest land [second growth woodland] [second growth forest] low bush covered grass and oak parkland oak forest pine forest

former maize field former maize field

near dwellings grassland sod covered bunch grass mat-forming grass prairie, savanna

Arandas, Jalisco' Almolongo, Guatemala' Quiroga, Michoacan2 Tarascan region, Michoacan4 Tzintzuntzan, Michoacan3 idem Almolongo, Guatemala:' Tetlatlauhca,

Tlaxcala:' Arandas, Jalisco:? Quiroga, Michoacan;2 Usila, OaxacaX

Panajachel, Guatemala'"

Quiroga, MichoacanZ idem idem idem Arandas. Jalisco7


idem idem

Quiroga, Michoacan2 Tetlatlauhca, Tlaxcala' idem idem idem Tepoztlan, Morelos"

Quiroga, Michoacan'


Quiroga, h.lichoacan2

idem idem: Tarascan region, Michoacan4 Quiroga, Michoacan,

Soteapan, Veracruzs Quiroga, Michoacan, idem Huehuetenango, Northwest Guatemala5 Soteapan, VeracruzY idem Huehuetenango, Northwest Guatemala5 Soteapan, Veracmzg Quiroga, Michoacan' idem; Huehuetenango, Northwest

Huehuetenango, Northwest Guatemala5 idem

Soteapan, Veracruzg Huehuetenango, Northwest Guatemala5 idem idem Quiroga, Michoacan2

Guatemalas


TABLE 4 . - cONTINUED

Class Place

pasta1 tierra delgada

Cliir?(ite tierra caliente

tierra templada

tierra fria tierra helada tierra baja (caliente) tierra alta (fria)

Re/i<f , Sire tierras de la ladera [tlaixtli] tlacomule pencos monte cerros [tierra de] I d s ) ladera(s) [tierra de] la(s) orilla(s) suelos de 10s bajios suelos de 10s planes [aluvion] de la ca~iada [aluvion] del chague milpas de la rnontafia milpas de la savana

M i ~ i s f i ~ r c tierra de temporal,

terreno5 de temporal, tierra de pan Ilevar, tierra de pan l levar2

tierra de coger tierra de riego

L

tierra pantanosa '? tierra cienegosa '? aguachal tierrir seca '?

Ptdi(crivif\, tierra de primera claw

tierra de segunda clase tierra de tercei-a clase

pasture sparce vegetation

hot country

temperate, subtropical

cold, cool country cold country lowland highland

warm

hillside soils level land boils hillside soils high, steep steep slope hillslope soils lake shore soils lowland soils lowland soils valley floor alluvium pond alluvium mountain (soil) milpas level savanna (soil)

milpas

rainfed

plowland rainfed (intergrade between

moist, humid temporal and humedad)

moist, humid

moist, humid irrigated

swampy swampy poorly drained dry

first class

second cl;iss third class

idem Espin, Los Altos of Jalisco"

Quiroga, Michoacan:2 Yalalag, Oaxaca:13 Ixtepeji, Oaxaca:I4 Santa Eulalia, GuatemalaIs

idem: Tales and Juquila, Oaxaca"' idem: Zempoaltepetl, Oaxaca" Quiroga, Michoacan2 Choapan, OaxacaIx idem

Alta, Pueblal!' idem Tlaxiaco, Oaxaca"' Zamora, MichoacanY' Tepoztlan, Morelos" Tzintzuntzan, Michoacan? idem: Huecorio, Michoacan" IAS Altos of Jalisco" idem Cuijla, Guerrero6 idem San Carlos, Guatemala'3 idem

Quiroga, Michoacan:2 Zamora, Micho- acan:" Tarascan region, Michoacan:' Teotihuacan, Mexico:24 Arandas, Jalis- co:i Tlaxico, Oaxaca?" Zernpoaltepetl. oaxaca17

Tepoztlan, Morelos" Teotihuacan, Mexico'* Tzintzuntzan, Michoacan"

Quiroga. Michoacan:' Teotihuacan, Mexico:24 Tarascan region, Michoacan'

Tlaxiaco, Oaxaca:'" Zamora, Michoacan;" Zenipoaltepet I . Oaxacali

Quiroga, Michoacan2 idem: Teotihuacan, Mexico:"

Zamora, Michoacan:" Tlaxiaco, Oaxaca:2'1 Arandas, Jalisco'

Quiroga, Michoacan? idem Tajin, Veracruz25 Quiroga, Michoacan'

Tepoztlan, Morelos;" Quiroga, Michoacan:' Huecorio, Michoacan:Y' Usila, O a x a ~ a : ~ Zamora, Michoacan:" Zempoaltepetl, Oaxaca"

idem idem


TABLE 4.-CONTINUED

Class Place

tierra de quarta clase fourth class idem tierras abonadas fertile lands Chichicastenango, Guatemalazo tierras ruinadas barren lands idem

tierras flojas lazy Tetlatlauhca, Tlaxcala’ tierra debiles weak idem tierras pohres poor idem

tierra de pan sembrar wheat land GamioZ4 tierra de pan coger, irrigated land idem tierra de pan coger, 2nd type of land not

requiring irrigation tierra de pan Ilevar, land suitable for truck idem

gardening tierra de pan Ilevar, rainfed soil (temporal) GamioZ4 tierra de negro superior arable land Carrera EstampaZ7 ‘ Gene C. Wilken, op. cit., footnote 24:

Descriptive Pharuses Associated with Productivity

16th Century Spunish Classes

Carrera StampaZ7

Donald D. Brand, op. cit., footnote 31; George M. Foster. op. cit., footnote 31; Robert C. West, op. cit., footnote 31: Gonzalo Aguirre Beltran, Cuijlrr: E.vhozo ernogrifico d e un pueblo negro (Mexico: Fondo de Cultura Economica, 19581, pp. 17-18; ’ Paul S. Taylor, A Spanish-Mexican Perronr Community: Anindas in Juli.%co, Me.rico. Ibero- Americana, Vol. 4 (Berkeley: University of California Press. 1933), p. 21; Roberto 1. Weitlaner and Carlo Antonio Castro, Usila: ,Mom& d e Colibries. Papeles de la Chinantla. Vol. 7 (Mexico: Museo Nacional de Antropologia. 1973). p. 72; George M. Foster. A Prirnilive Mexican Eronomv. Monographs of the American Ethnological Society, Vol. 5 (New York: I . 1. Augustin Puhlishers. 1942). p. 17; Sol Tax, Penny Cnpiroli.rm: A Guriremulon Irrilinri Eroiiorn\’ (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1%3), p . 129; ‘I Oscar Lewis, Life in (2 Msricun Village: ?.epoztlan Restudied (UrbdIId: University of Illinois Press, 1963). pp. 6-8; IZ Jaime Espin, “Uao y tenenciade tierraenel municipiode Teocaltiche,” in Jaime Espin and Patricia de Leonardo, Ecwnomiu v .soriedod en los Altos rle Jalisco (Mexico: CIS-INAH, Editorial Nueva Imagen, 1978), p. 151; ‘3Julio de la Fuente, Yulrrlrrg: Una Villu Zopotern Serrnno (Mexico: Museo Nacional de Antropologia, Sene Cientifica, Vol. I , 19491, p. 76; ‘ I Michael Kearney, The Wind., of 1.xfepeji: World View und Sorieri , in (I Zoputecrin Town (New York: Hull, Rinehart and Winston, 19721, p. 10; ’& Oliver LaFarge, Sanro Eulnlia: The Religion of (I Curhutnutin Indirrn Town (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1947), p. 38; 1s Laura Nader, Toleo and Juquilir: A Coiirpnri.von of Znpoter Social Organization University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology, Vol. 48, No. 3 (Berkeley: University of California Press, I%), p. ?01; ” Salomon Nahmad, Los Mixer: E.vfuilio Jociul y culrurul de la region del zempoal tepef l? ild I ~ t m o d e Tehurmreper. Memorias del Instituto Nacional Indigenista, Vol. 11 (1965). p. 46; ‘” lulio de la Fuente, “Los Zapotecos de Choapan, Oaxaca,” At ides del Insriruto Nariunnl d e AnrropoloXin e Historia, Vol. 2 (1Y47), p. 171; Is Jose de Jesus Montoya Briones, Arlrr: Erno.qroJ70 de un puehlo mihurrtl (Mexico: INAH. Departamento de lnvestigaciones Antropologicas, Vol. 14, IN), pp. 24, 47; 2o Alejandro Mar- roquin, La ciudud merrodo: Tlorincu. Cultural Mexicana, Vol. 19 (Mexico: UNAM, 1957). pp. 69, 77-80 %’ Oriol Pi-Sunyer, Zamord: A ReRionol Economy in Mexico. Middle American Research Institute Publication 29 (New Orleans: Tulane University Press, 1967), p. 110; 22 Michael Belshaw, A Villuge Eronom).: Land and Peuple ufHuecor io (New York: Columbia University Press, 1967). pp. 10-1 1; 23 John Guillin, The Culrurr of Security in Son Corlus: A Sluily of N Guiiternrrlun Communir?. of It idinns and Ludinov. Middle American Research Institute Publication 16 (New Orleans: Tulane University Press, 1951), p. 5 ; 14 Manuel Gamio, La Pohlircidn del Viille de Teorihuacan. Vol. 3 (Mexico: Secretaria de Agricultura y Fomento, 1922). p. 454; 25 Isabel Kelly and Angel Palerm, The Trrjin Toro,mr. Part 1 (Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution, Institute of Social Anthro- pology, Vol. 13, 195?). p. 100; p1 Ruth Bunzel, Chir.hicrr.rfennngo: A tiuoretnuliin Villuge (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1952). pp. 48- 49; *’ Manuel Carrera Stampa, “The Evolution of Weights and Measures in New Spain,” Hisprinir Americon Hi.~torical Review,, Vol. 30, No. 1: Part 2 (19501, p. 23.

Raymond Stadelman, op. cit., footnote 31;

in the Popoluca area of Veracruz and Stadel- man’s study of the Department of Huehueten- ango in northwestern Guatemala, provide the most detailed examples of the nomenclature among Spanish Characteristically, soil quality is inferred from the vegetal cover. For example, among the Popoluca, the lexeme set includes from best to poorest soils: monte ‘wooded virgin land’ (which probably no longer exists), encinul ‘grass and oak parkland,’ zu- cu t u 1 ‘ grass 1 and , ’ ( I cu h u ( I I ‘ second growth woodland,’ and rnoiite iiiievo ‘second growth forest.’ In non-slash and burn areas, uncultivated soils rather than crop lands are often classed

36 Foster, op. cit., footnote 31; and Stadelman, op. cit., footnote 31.

by vegetation cover, for example inonte alto ‘mature forest,’ inonte bajo ‘woodland or scrub,’ pustul ‘pasture,’ and praderu ‘grassland.’ In the Altos of Jalisco the related phenomena of thin soils and sparse vegetation cover are fused in the label tierra delgada, lit. ‘thin soil,’ which is reported as a soil class and glossed as ‘sparse vegetation.’

The more difficult soil lexeme sets to interpret from the literature are those relating to climatic zones, topography, and moisture. The fundamental problems are 1) the origin of the class distinctions, whether they are informant or investigator generated, and 2) shared folk and nonfolk vocabulary. For the Spanish-speaking Zapotecs of Oaxaca and Maya of highland Gua- temala, a lexeme set labeling climatic zones

BARBARA J. WILLIAMS A N D CARLOS A. ORTIZ-SOLORIO September 348

based on altitude are reported in the context of soil types: tierra caliente, tierra ternpluriu, and tierrci .fria (‘hot,’ ‘temperate,’ and ‘cold country’). Planting practices, both selection of crop varieties and timing, are adjusted to these “soil/ climates,” but little else suggests that these classes might be perceived as generic soil types. Soil types differentiated by steepness of slope (hillside versus level or gentle slope) appear to be folk classes in northern Puebla and in Tepoz- tlan, Morelos, among Nahuas, in the Mixteca of Oaxaca, perhaps in Michoacan, and among the Pokomam of Guatemala. The “lowland” soils in the Altos of Jalisco reported by Espin most likely are his clas~ification.:~~ Alluvial soils in Cuijla, Cuerrero, apparently are generics based on color and moisture, with specifics differentiated according to the location, ccrilaikr ‘valley floor,’ or chajiiic.v ‘pond.’ Finally, in the Lake Patzcuaro region, orillos ‘lake shore’ soils seem to constitute a class superordinate to tierru mi- gujhn ‘friable earth’ and tierrti dc pan Ilevar. According to Foster, the orillris soils contrast with latieras ‘hillside’ soils.38 Possibly there are taxonomic relations between these categories, but the data are insufficient to resolve the question.

A set of commonly used soil terms relates to soil moisture or its source. 7‘emporrrl soils are those whose moisture derives from rainfall. Hu- tnedad, jugo, or rle roger are soils with high moisture retention or where subsurface moisture is continuously available due to high water ta- bles-for example at sites near lakes. springs, or irrigation canals. Riejio refers to irrigated soils, sccri to dry soil, and panttrnosci, ciei7e- ,qo.sa, and rigurichal to poorly drained or swamp (bog) soils. Among some groups these moisture categories may be generic level soil types, but because the reports do not explicitly segregate folk from investigator classes, little taxonomic information can be derived from the nomenclature.

Soil classes labeled by productivity evaluations (prirnercr. sejirrnda, tcrcera, yuartu) are reported for the Chinantla-Oaxaca, for Morelos, and for the Tarascan-Michodcan areas. Among the Quiche in Guatemala, good quality (cibonci- iias ‘fertilized’) and bad quality (ruinadci.s ‘barren’) soils form a dichotomous classification. Other terms related to soil quality, such asfbjc1.s

:I7 Espin, op. cit., Table 4, footnote 12. :JH Foster, op. cit., footnote 31.

‘lazy,’ dibiles ‘weak,’ and pohres ‘poor’ are used most often as descriptive terms rather than as class labels. A notable feature of the Tepe- tlaoztoc classification is the complete absence of taxa based on productivity attributes. Cam- pesinos insist that all soils are of equal quality. Some just require a little additional fertilizer or more moisture than others. Informants consider queries framed to elicit ranking of soils by productivity are impossible to answer without numerous qualifications. Such questions are “incorrect” within their cognitive frame, perhaps because technology and management are seen to take precedence over soil qualities in their perception of productivity. Among Tlaxcalan campesinos, both inherent characteristics and managementitechnology determine soil evaluations. For example, Wilken noted that, although tierras arenosas delgadas ‘ fine-grain sandy soils’ generally rank below tierrli fuerte ‘sticky soil,’ they are judged good “both because of their agricultural qualities and because of their workability and response to fertilizer^."^^ He suggests that soil management enters into soil classifications and evaluation under intensive agricultural systems whereas in less intensive systems such as shifting cultivation, only inherent characteristics are important. The vegetation labeled soil classes reported for shifting cultivators such as the Popoluca would not seem to conform to the less intensive-inherent characteristics relationship, since vegetation is not an inherent soil property. However, the literature lacks sufficient detail on the attributes of soil classes to empirically test the hypothesis; and, when productivity or quality evaluations are reported, the sources often are unclear as to whose evaluation is being recorded, the investigator’s or the informant’s. Clarification of the latter is imperative if the role of productivity is to be ascertained in folk soil taxonomies. Intu- itively, it is self-evident that campesinos distinguish between good and poor soils, but taxonomically they may not. The limited data suggest the hypothesis that soil productivity is not uniformly perceived as a criteria1 or defining attribute of folk soil taxa.

Lexemes of colonial Spanish origin occur but rarely in reported nomenclature. A sixteenth century classification, applied in cases of land grants or sales, distinguished three or perhaps four classes: rierrrr tie p a n sernhrur, tierw tlc

:Iy Wilken, op. cit., footnote 24, p. 26.


cogcr, tierra de pan Ilevar, and tierra de negro. Some confusion exists regarding the referents of these classes. According to Gamio, tierra de p a n sembrar was soil suitable for wheat cultivation, tierra de pan coger was irrigated soil, and tierra de pan llevar was tetnporal ‘ r a i ~ ~ f e d . ’ ~ ~ Both tierra de pan llevar and tierra de coger are still used in the Lake Patzcuaro region, but with meanings different from those of the Colonial period. Tierra de pan llevar is a soil class located along the lake side which is less humid than humedad but more humid than temporal, according to Brand lists tierra de coger as a synonym for tierra de jug0 or h u m e d ~ d . ~ ~ In the Teotihuacan Valley and Tepetlaoztoc, tierra de pan llevur retains its original meaning of temporal soil.

In summary, ethnographic studies provide only a skeletal data base from which to draw generalizations regarding soil nomenclature and taxonomy among Spanish-speaking campesinos. Nomenclature patterns which seem to be widely shared are: 1) inclusion of the unique beginner tierra in all subordinate class labels; 2) lack of life form Level 1 taxa labels in subordinate taxa; 3) few generic Level 2 and specific Level 3 labels; and 4) relatively few dimensions function- ing as class labels. The most common soil classes are labeled by color, texture, and vegetation. Less common are those with constituents identifying parent materials, dominant chemical content, consistence, climatic zone, relief, moisture, or productivity. Some generic level labels have lexical structures indistinguishable mor- phologically and in syntax from noun phrases. These apparently single dimension constructions label multidimensional taxa in some cases, however. Specific level partitioning is most prevalent when generic level classes are labeled by either color or texture. Generally, the specific level taxa of generic classes labeled by texture incorporate another texture or a color term. Generics labeled by color have specifics labeled by texture. When color or texture generic classes are monotypic, then finer differentiation is accomplished through ordinal quantitative descriptive phrases.

The paucity of data on taxonomic relations in the literature provides much room for specula- tion but little basis for empirical interpretation.

40 Gamio, op. cit., Table 4, footnote 24. 41 Foster, op. cit., footnote 31.

Brand, op. cit., footnote 31.

Extrapolating from the Tepetlaoztoc data, the following hypotheses are suggested by Middle American community studies. Unlike biological taxonomies, soil nomenclature is not a near-perfect guide to taxonomy. Life form Level 1 taxa labels are not incorporated into the nomenclature structure, so identification of these taxa is problematic. Level 1 taxa vary among campesinos; potentially they might include the contrast set cropland : uncultivated soils as in Tepetlaoz- toc, or hillside : valley floor soils. The moisture set temporal-humedad-riego and the climate set tierra caliente-teinplada-fr~a perhaps label generic Level 2 taxa, but more likely are either Level 1 or extraneous to soil taxonomies.

Generic or specific level contrast sets based on soil productivity are not prevalent. Evalua- tions of soil fertility may be associated with particular taxa, but it is less common than might be expected. Among shifting cultivators, soil class labels based on vegetation cover also connote soil fertility. Where intensive technologies and soil management are practiced, productivity often is not inherently associated with soil classes. In some cases, soil fertility is perceived as a technological, man-made attribute rather than a natural one.

Finally, there is no striking cultural or spatial variation in soil nomenclature among Spanish- speakers. Macro- and micro-environments vary substantially from place to place, and yet the reported soil nomenclature does not appreciably reflect these differences. Undoubtedly, the cultural salience and status of certain lexeme sets are environmentally influenced. For example, the climate set predominates where village ter- ritories encompass tierra caliente, ternpluda, and fria. And, uncommon parent materials or salt concentrations give rise to local classes, which interestingly are often glossed with native-language loan words. As Gibson pointed out for the Valley of Mexico, Spanish soil nomenclature seems to have incorporated from native classification those terms for less productive soils, for example, tepetate and t e q ~ e s q u i t e . ~ ~ Overall, native classifications, if they differed significantly from the Spanish, did not survive the acculturation process, however.

Many of the differentiating criteria expressed in Spanish campesino soil nomenclature are recognized by soil scientists as descriptive attributes or factors of soil formation. The attributes

43 Gibson, op. cit., footnote 8, p. 300.

350 BARBARA r . W I L L I A M S A N D C A R L O S A. OR1 12-SOLORIO September

T A R 1 . E 5.-NATURE OF DIFFEREN’TIATING CHARACTERISTICS OF T H E CAlrEGORlES OF T H E UNITED ST.ATES COMPREHENSIVE SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM

Number Category of taxa Nature of differentiating charactenstics

Order

Suborder

10

47

Great Group 206 (approxi-

mate)

Subgroup

Family

Series 10,000 (approximate)

in United States

Soil-forming processes as indicated by presence or absence of

Genetic homogeneity. Subdivisions of orders according to

major diagnostic horizons.

presence or absence of properties associated with wetness, soil moisture regimes, major parent material, and vegetational effects as indicated by key properties; organic fiber decomposition stage in Histosols.

Subdivision of suborders according to similar kind, arrangement, and degree of expression of horizons, with emphasis on upper sequum: base status; soil temperature and moisture regimes: presence or absence of diagnostic layers (plinthite, fragipan, duripan).

Central concept taxa for great group and properties indicating intergradations to other great groups, suborders, and orders: extragradation to “not soil.”

Properties important for plant root growth: broad soil textural classes averaged over control section or solum: mineralogical classes for dominant mineralogy of solum: soil temperature classes [based on mean annual soil temperature at 50 cm (20 in) depth].

consistence, and reaction of horizons: chemical and mineralogical properties of the horizons.

Kind and arrangement of horizons; color, texture, structure,

Source: Huol et al., op. cit., footnote 44, Tnhle 14.9

that campesinos perceive to have taxonomic significance, however, are not identical to those utilized by pedologists. In the following section, technical soil nomenclature and taxonomy are compared with general folk systems.

Technical Soil Taxonomy Since there is no single technical soil taxon-

omy utilized worldwide, reference to technical classifications must be system-specific. Varia- tions in taxonomies arise from differential emphasis placed on core concepts in pedology, some of which are I ) explanation of soil genesis, which involves the interplay of the factors of soil formation, such as parent material, climate organisms, relief, time, and man; 2) processes of soil formation, including horizonation; 3) soil morphology, description and measurement of properties; and 4) applications of soil science in engineering, agriculture, and other fields. In the late 1950s and early 1960s, by circulating a series of approximations, United States and some overseas soil scientists set out to devise a new, comprehensive taxonomy that was to supersede all but Series level taxa of the older, Marbut-

based system. Justifications for the new system are outlined in Buol, Hole, and McCracken.44

The new Soil Taxonomy is the product of recent scientific endeavor. Its origin is not rooted in folk classifications, as is the Linnean system which provides the basis for scientific biological taxonomy.15 Since the Soil Taxonomy is based upon deductively defined taxa, little correspondence between folk and scientific taxa might be expected. Yet, as a taxonomic system, the Soil

44 S. W. Buol, F. D. Hole, and R . J. McCracken, So;[ Get7e.s;~ cind Clmsijccitiotz (Ames: Iowa State University Press, 1973), pp. 180-81.

4s Peter H. Raven, Brent Berlin, and Dennis E. Breedlove, “The Origins of Taxonomy,” Science, Vol. 174 (1971). pp. 1210-13 argue that a new biological taxonomic system should be devised. There are probably ten million species of organisms in the world, about ten to fifteen percent of which have been described at some level, and “the present taxonomic system is, in the face of the job for which it has re- sponsibility, inadequate. Being basically a Renais- sance codification of folk taxonomic principles made on the assumption that the number of organisms to be dealt with would perhaps be 25,000 to 50,000, it is incapable of doing what we expect of it” (p. 1210).

1981 FOI.K SOIL TAXONOMY 35 1

Taxonomy has several characteristics which correspond to folk classifications. One of these is taxonomic depth. As mentioned, folk systems typically have five hierarchical levels: the Soil Taxonomy has six taxonomic levels (or categories) (Table 5). Another characteristic of folk systems is that life form Level 1 taxa range from five to ten, generic Level 2 taxa number around 500, while specifics and varietals are fewer in number than generics. In the Soil Taxonomy, life form Level 1 taxa (Orders) conform to the upper limit of folk systems. The number of Great Groups does not exceed the maximum number of folk generics. In contrast to folk classifications, however, partitioning of Great Groups yields many more subordinate, lower level taxa.

The Soil Taxonomy nomenclature is binomial a t the Subgroup level. The primary lexemes are composed of three, usually single syllable, for- mative elements derived largely from Latin and Greek roots that identify the Great Group, Subgroup, and Order of the Soil unit. The Subgroup taxa labels are secondary lexemes. Unlike earlier or other technical soil terminology, the Soil Taxonomy nomenclature conveys a great deal of information about each taxon. The nomenclature is a near perfect guide to the taxonomic relations of each soil taxon, since the lexical construction identifies class and hierarchical category membership. It may be recalled that in Spanish folk soil nomenclature this principle is not followed, but that in other folk domains it is. Also, in the Soil Taxonomy the differentiating criteria for each taxon are selected from the properties of the soils themselves, and the definitions are precise and quantitative rath- e r than c ~ m p a r a t i v e . ~ ~ By comparison, the definitions of folk taxa draw upon soil properties themselves or exogenous attributes, such as vegetation. The definitions also tend to be expressed in comparative and qualitative terms, although these may have an underlying quantitative basis.

In the Soil Taxonomy, Family level taxa are based mainly on three criteria: I ) broad textural classes, 2) mineralogy, and 3) soil temperature. In the nomenclature structure, post-position ad- jectives indicating each of these three criteria are set off by commas. For example, a Typic Hapludult rich in kaolinitic clay and located in a thermic temperature belt would be designated

FIG. I . View of Tepetlaoztoc (center, background) 8 km northeast of Texcoco (foreground) in the Valley of Mexico. The village i s located at the southern base of the Patlachique Range at 2,300 rn.

Typic Hapludult, clayey, kaolinitic, thermic.l' This nomenclature pattern has n o analog in folk systematicr.

Technical classification of soils in the field op- erates at the lowest taxonomic category, the soil Series. In turn, soil Series may have two subordinate classes: I ) type, and 2) phase. Soil Se- ries differentiating criteria originally defined by Marbut and soil Series nomenclature have not been altered in the Soil Taxonomy. The differentiating criteria are the kind and arrangement of soil horizons: color, texture, structure, consistence, and reaction of horizons: and chemical and mineralogic properties of the horizons (Ta- ble 5). Soil Types are differentiated by soil texture of the surface layer (A horizon) and soil Phases principally by stoniness, slope, and degree of erosion. The criteria for defining Phase taxa are explicitly chosen in reference to factors deemed important for land use. Labels for soil Series identify the place where the Series was

46: Buol et al., op. cit., footnote 44, p. 198. 47 Buol et al., op. cit., footnote 44, p. 206.

September 352 BARBARA J. WILLIAMS A N D CARLOS A. ORTIZ-SOLORIO

1-AB1.E 6.-cOMPARISON BETWEEN TECHNIC-AL PHASE LEVEL TAXA A N D FOLK TAXA I N TEPETLAOZTOC

Sanlple sitesa Technical soil phases Folk taxa

Jolalpa sandy loam, typical

Jolalpa sandy loam, thin

Jolalpa sandy loam, eroded

Papalotla sandy loam, deep

Papalotla sandy loam, thin

tierra amarilla tierra negra

tierra amarilla tierra arenosa

[tepetateIb

tierra negra tierra amarilla

2, 10, 32, 33 3 , 6, 12, 31, 35 7, 13 26

4

30

34

a Numbers refer to sites where samples were taken of qoils identified by informants, see Fig. 3 for location. Tepetate is a non-soil taxon in Tepetlaoztoc.

originally defined, such as Miami, Tama, Hills- dale, and Fox. Soil Type labels add the textural class as a modifier, such as Miami loam. Since the development of precise definition of soil Se- ries, well-developed soils commonly are classified into Series with only one, two, or three Types.48

In order to compare folk and technical taxa, appropriate categorical levels must be identified in the technical taxonomy where correspon- dences should be sought. Folk soil taxonomies logically reflect the soilscapes with which the farmers are familiar, that is, the locally occur- ring soils. Since soil Series, Type, and Phase are identified by soil scientists in the field, these taxa are the most appropriate for comparison.

Technical Classification of Soils in Tepetlaoztoc

Two soil Types comprise the cultivated soils within the study area of Tepetlaoztoc; they are

Jolalpa sandy loam and Papalotla sandy loam (Figs. 1, 2 , and 3). Jolalpa sandy loam, which belongs to the Jolalpa Series, has three Phases (typical, thin, and eroded): Papalotla sandy loam of the Papalotla Series has two Phases, deep and thin (Fig. 3). Thus, there are five technical soil taxa compared to three folk soil taxa. Compar- ison of the taxa indicates that not only is there folk underdifferentiation vis a v i ~ the number of technical taxa, but also the correspondence is not one to one (Table 6). For example, tierra atnurilla ‘yellow soil’ is equated with three technical taxa, fierra negra ‘black soil’ with two. Also, there is overdifferentiation of two technical taxa. Both the typical and thin phases of Jo- lalpa sandy loam each include two folk taxa. Similarly, at the Type and Series levels, folk taxa overlap the technical taxa (Table 7; Fig. 4).

The Jolalpa Series are moderately deep soils. The Ap horizon (plow layer) has a thickness that varies from 13 to 60 cm, a dark grey brown color when moist, of sandv loam texture, moderatelv developed polyhedric subangular structure, and friable consistence. The Ap horizon is underlain by the B horizon 40 to 80 cm in thickness with

48 Mark Baldwin, Charles E. Kellogg, and James Thorp, ‘Gsoil Classification,3. in mnd M e r l , Yc,trr.- hook ofAPricultrcrf (Washington. D.C.: United States Deparime’nt of Agriculture, :938), p. 985. four subhorizons: B21 is a friable black clay

TARI E 7.-TEPETi AOZTOC FOl K T 4 X A COMPARED TO TECHNICAI PHASE, TYPF, 4 V D SERIES TAXA

Technical

Folk Phase

Tier-ra amarilla Jolalpa sandy loam-typical Jolalpa sandy loam-thin Papalotla sandy loam-thin

Tierra negra Jolalpa sandy loam-typical Papalotla sandy loam-deep

Tierra arenosa Jolalpa sandy loam-thin

Itepetatel Jolalpa sandy loam-eroded

Type

Jolalpa sandy loam

Papalotla sandy loam

Jolalpa sandy loam Papalotla sandy loam

Jolalpa sandy loam

Jolalpa sandy loam

Series

Jolalpa

Papalotla

Jolalpa Papalotla

Jolalpa

Jolalpa


FIG. 2. View of the study area (dashed line) looking north beyond the Patlachique Range into the Teoti- huacan Valley.

loam; B22 is a firm, very dark grey clay loam; B23 is a slightly sticky black clay; and B3 is a very firm, very dark clay loam. The heavy texture of the B horizon impedes root penetration, which reduces its agricultural value somewhat.49

The Papalotla Series is similar to Jolalpa. Both are moderately well drained, occur on level to gently sloping ( 1 4 % ) land, are of moderate fertility, rich in organic matter, have moderate permeability, neutral to slightly alkaline reaction, and are developed on colluvial material of fine to moderately coarse texture and on deposits of fine tuff (Jolalpa) or of recent age (Papalotla). The Papalotla Series differs from the Jolalpa Se- ries in texture. The surface is a silt loam or loam

4y Soil descriptions are from H. E. Cachon Ayora, H. Nery Genes, and H. E. Cuanalo de la Cera, Los suelos del area de influencia de Chapingo (Mexico: Secretaria de Agricultura y Ganaderia, Escuela Na- cional de Agricultura, Colegio de Postgraduados, Rarna de Suelos, 1976), pp. 38-41, 45-47.

instead of sandy loam, and the texture remains the same throughout the entire profile, unlike Jolalpa which exhibits sub-surface clay loams. Also, although both Series have dark grey brown surface horizons, Papalotla subsurface horizons do not have the black color present in the Jolalpa B horizons. Structurally the Papal- otla subsurface horizons are less strongly developed than Jolalpa, and the firm and sticky consistence of the Jolalpa is not found in the Papalotla.

One of the two types of the Jolalpa Series occurs in Tepetlaoztoc, that is, Jolalpa sandy loam, whose label identifies the texture of the surface horizon. Of the five phases of this type, three are represented in Tepetlaoztoc. Jolalpa sandy loam, typical phase has a dark grey brown (when moist) sandy loam surface horizon ten to thirteen cm thick which overlies a layer sev- enty to eighty cm thick of black clay loam in the upper part, very dark grey clay of slightly sticky consistence in the intermediate part, and of

BARBARA J . WILLIAMS A N D CARLOS A. ORI.IZ-SOL.ORIO September 3 54

SOIL MAP

Tepetlaoztoc, Mexico

.._.. ..:.:.: ....'..: >;..; .. , ::.':::: . . .__ . ....:.,' . . , , J o I al pa sandy

:::::.:: Jolalpa sandy

[Fj Jolalpa sandy .**.. loam, eroded

/,'/'/ Papalotla sandy k d loam, deep

Papalotla sandy ~ ~~~ ~~~ loam, thin

.. . ... .. . _... .. ...I... :..,..:+. loam, typical

::.*::*:. loam, thin

~~~ ~

~ ~~~

Uncultivated

I 0 500 rn '+

I K i n

FIG. 3 . Soil map of' Tepetlaoztoc based on the technical classification of soil series, type, and phase. Num- bers indicate sites of folk soil identifications which were sampled and analyz,ed.

black clay loam of firm consistence in the lower part. These soils are moderately well drained, rich in organic matter, have moderate water retention capacity, are of average fertility, and have a slightly alkaline reaction. The thin phase of the Jolalpa sandy loam is distinguished by the shallowness of the total profile (40-50 cm), a very shallow surface horizon (8-10 cm) of black sandy loam underlain by a black, sandy clay loam layer which is terminated by a strongly cemented layer. These are of low fertility, of moderate water retention capability, poor in organic matter, moderately drained, and of alkaline reaction. The eroded phase attains maximum thickness of ten to twenty crn, is dark grey brown or black, of sandy loam or loamy sand,

and overlies a strongly cemented layer which is often exposed at the surface. Located on slopes between four to six percent, these soils are of low fertility, low moisture retaining capacity, rapid permeability, and rapid surface drainage.

Of the two types of the Papalotla Series, one occurs in Tepetlaoztoc, Papalotla sandy loam, which has three phases, two of which are present in the study area, Papalotla sandy loam deep phase and shallow phase. The deep phase, which occurs on level land (0-1% slope) has surface layers extending to 100 cm which initially have a sandy loam texture but which change to loam or silty loam with depth; the surface layer is underlain by a layer forty to fifty c m thick, very dark grey loam in the upper part, a slightly

TA

B[-

E 8

.-sEL

ECTE

D

SOIL

PRO

PE

RT

IES

OF

TIE

RR

A A

IMA

RIL

1.A

A

ND

TIE

RR

A N

EG

RA

Exc

hang

eabl

e ca

tions

So

lubl

e ca

tions

Sand

C

lay

pH

B D

W

P

FC

C

EC

O

M

N N

a+

K+

Ca+

+ M

g++

P,O

, N

a+

K-

%

Q

H,O

gr

icc

IS A

tm

0.3

Atm

d

10

0g

r 9%

5% pp

m

ppm

me11

mei

l pp

m

ppm

pp

m

Am

arill

a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Mea

n

SD

Neg

ra

8 9 10

11

12

13

Mea

n

SD

50.7

5 52

.0

65.5

76

.25

35.5

59

.0

67.0

58

.00

13.3

17.5

8.

03

1.52

13

.58

17.0

8.

09

1.54

13

.05

15.0

7.

48

1.67

7.

57

12.5

7.

29

1.55

4.

93

17.0

7.

98

1.25

9.

91"

13.5

7.

78

1.13

10

.22

8.0

8.37

1.

35

10.1

I 14

.4

7.86

1.

43

9.91

3.39

0.

37

0.19

2.

99

40.5

28

.5

7.83

64

.0

19.0

7.

60

38.5

26

.0

7.62

22

.0

41.0

7.

63

40.7

5 21

.0

8.10

41

.25

33.7

5 7.

42

41.1

7 28

.21

7.7

13.4

8.

20

0.24

1.48

1.

69

1.08

1.

15

1.52

1.

49

1.40

0.24

15.2

2"

10.2

7 17

.24

20.0

14

.08

14.5

0

15.2

1 3.

26

25.0

0 22

.92

13.4

7 12

.15

19.3

4"

20. I

1 '2

2.36

19

.34

4.84

29.9

2"

22.7

7 32

.37

39.4

8 28

.88

26.1

1

29.9

2

5.73

28.0

2.

89

45.0

2.

03

35.0

1.

06

15.0

.6

9 29

.0

2.21

21

.0

2.03

37

.0

1.32

30.0

1.

75

10.1

0.

76

29.0

2.

17

26.8

1.

32

33.0

2.

23

27.0

1.

97

30.0

2.

0 30

.0

1.03

29.3

1.

79

2.3

0.49

.043

4.

5 ,0

47

42.0

,0

18

10.0

,0

17

6.0

.028

35

.0

,042

13

.0

.05

13.0

,035

17

.6

,014

14

.7

,028

13

.0

,029

22

.0

,043

29

.0

.031

18

.0

,028

13

.5

,013

37

.0

.029

22

.08

,009

9.

41

13.0

40

.0

13.0

6.

0 34

.0

16.0

9.

0

18.7

13.0

6.0

8.5

16.0

10

.0

15.0

7.

0

10.4

4. I8

6.5

5.25

11

5.0

8.5

4.5

4.75

12

0.5

8.0

4.0

2.0

15.4

5.

0 2.

5 1.

25

28.1

4.

0 2.

5 1.

0 66

.5

4.0

3.5

1.5

18.1

3 89

.0

6.04

4.

0 2.

5 3.

0

3.7

2.68

52

.81

17.5

1.5

1.72

48

.4

31.6

2.0

1.5

12.2

9.

0 3.

25

1.25

7.

55

5.0

3.75

2.

0 31

.74

5.2

2.25

2.

0 27

.2

5.0

5.0

4.75

24

.0

5.5

2.5

0.25

9.

5 12

.0

3.13

1.

96

18.6

9 6.

95

1.13

1.

51

10.2

17

.67

29.0

32

.5

12.0

6.

5 33

.5

19.5

13

.5

-3 16

.86

3 x

12.0

v)

0 r 4

P 13

.0

11.0

X

0

z 26

.5

22.5

0

20

.0

13.0

5

2.91

6.24

B

D B

ulk

dens

ity.

W P

Wilt

ing

poin

t, %

. F

C F

ield

cap

acity

. C

EC

Cat

ion

exch

ange

cap

acity

by

amm

oniu

m a

ceta

te m

etho

d, p

H 7

.0 a

fter

M. P

eech

, 1..

T. A

lexa

nder

, L

. A

. D

ean,

and

I. F

. Ree

d, "

Met

hods

of

Soil

Ana

lyai

? fo

r So

il Fe

rtili

ty I

nves

tigat

ions

."

US

. D

ept.

Agr

. C. 7

57, 1

947.

0

M 9

6 or

gani

c m

atte

r, m

oist

com

bust

ion

met

hod

mod

ified

by

Wal

key

and

Bla

ck,

repo

rted

in P

eech

et a

l. N

% to

tal

nitr

ogen

(m

acro

Kje

ldah

l) r

epor

ted

in O

ffic

ial a

nd T

enta

tive

Mer

hods

of

Ana

lysi

s (W

ashi

ngto

n, D

.C.:

Ass

ocia

tion

of O

ffic

ial

Agr

icul

tura

l C

hem

ists

, 19

45).

a M

ean

for

clas

s su

bstit

uted

for

mis

sing

val

ues.

N

a+,

K+

, C

a+

+,

and

Mg

fi

rolu

ble

catio

ns (

satu

ratio

n ex

trac

t):

Na

i an

d K

+ b

y Fl

ame

phot

omet

ry m

etho

d: C

a++

and

Mg

++

by

ED

TA

titr

atio

n m

etho

d re

port

ed i

n So

il .S

un~e

v Lcr

horn

rorr

P,O

, ph

osph

orou

s pe

ntox

ide.

Ols

en m

etho

d (o

ne o

bser

vatio

n by

met

hod

mod

ifie

d by

Bra

y P

-I) b

oth

desc

ribe

d in

M. L

. Jac

kson

, So

il C

hem

ical

Anu

lysi

s (E

ngle

woo

d C

liffs

, N.J

.: Pr

entic

e H

all,

1958

). N

at

and

Kt

exch

ange

able

cat

ions

(N

H,O

Ac

extr

actio

n) b

y Fl

ame

phot

omet

ry m

etho

d re

port

ed i

n Soil S

un

m L

abo

rnto

rv M

etho

ds a

nd

Pro

cedu

res

cite

d ab

ove.

So

il an

alys

es w

ere

run

by t

he E

daph

olog

y C

ente

r, G

radu

ate

Col

lege

. N

atio

nal

Scho

ol o

f A

gric

ultu

re, C

hapi

ngo,

Mex

ico.

Met

hods

an

d P

rore

dure

u,fo

r C

olle

crin

g So

il S

nmpl

es,

Soil

Surv

ey I

nves

tigat

ions

Rep

ort

No.

1 (

Was

hing

ton,

D.C

.: U

.S.D

.A.,

Soi

l Con

serv

atio

n Se

rvic

e, 1

972)

.

356 BARBARA J. WILLIAMS AND CARLOS A. O R r I z - S o L o R I o September

1 S p d y Loam I 1 I \ \ Papalotla Sandy Loam / /

thin I deep

/

FIG. 4. Correspondence between folk and technical soil taxa in Tepetlaoztoc.

stony silt loam in the lower part of firm consistence, and moderately developed structure. These soils are of average fertility, with average amounts of organic matter, low moisture retention capability, rapid permeability, and slightly alkaline to neutral reaction. The Papalotla sandy loam, thin phase, differs in that the surface layer is much shallower (10-15 cm), the sub-surface horizons are thinner (10-15 cm), the structure is less strongly developed, and it is limited by a strongly cemented layer.

The major diagnostic features that differentiate technical soil taxa are the character and sequence of soil horizons, their texture, and depth. In contrast, the Tepetlaoztoc folk taxa are derived from the properties of the surface horizon only. Thus, there is a fundamental difference in the perception of the taxonomic unit. For soil scientists, soil individuals have three dimensions, two lateral dimensions in a horizontal plane (x and y axes) and depth in a vertical plane ( z axis).5o For Tepetlaoztoc campesinos, soil individuals have only two horizontal dimensions. The vertical dimension is ignored for taxonomic purposes. This basic perceptual and conceptual difference largely explains the dis- crepancies between the technical and folk taxa, and why folk taxa are underdifferentiated rela- tive to the technical taxonomy.

See Buol et al., op. cit., footnote 44, pp. 17-19 for a discussion of soil individuals, pedons, and po- lypedons.

FIG. 5. Plot of first two principal component scores showing the discrimination between ‘yellow soil’ tierra amririlla (a, left) and ‘black soil’ rierrcr nr- grrr (n , right). Numbers refer to soil sample sites shown on Fig. 3 .

The principal difference between the two soil Series present in Tepetlaoxtoc is that one (Jo- lalpa) exhibits textual development (increased clay) in the B horizons. The distinction of phases depends upon horizon depth (deep, thin, eroded). If the properties of horizon development and depth are ignored as they are in the folk system, then the technical taxonomy may be abbreviated to a single type. That is, Jolalpa sandy loam and Papalotla sandy loam become J:P [Jolalpa-Papalotla] sandy loam (Table 7). The abbreviated technical taxonomy, generated by eliminating categories based on criteria extraneous to the folk system, yields one technical taxon, which corresponds to three folk taxa.5‘ The J:P sandy loam soil type is differentiated in the folk system into tierru negru ‘black soil,’ tierrri umarilla ‘yellow soil,’ and tierru arenosu ‘sandy soil,’ a case of folk overdifferentiation.

We have argued that the folk taxa are configurational, Gestalt taxa based not on single dimensions but on a number of sensible soil properties, overtly on texture, consistence, moisture retention, and workability. With the exception of the latter, these properties are all attributes incorporated into technical classifications as well. Since the folk and technical dimensions are similar, this suggests that the folk taxonomy also may have an underlying quantitative validity. The question is whether the folk taxa represent

The procedure for reducing a scientific taxonomy is discussed by Eugene Hunn in “A Measure of the Degree of Correspondence of Folk to Scientific Bio- logical Classification,” American Efhnolngisf, Vol. 2 (1975), pp. 309-27.


TABLE 9.-cORRELATION COEFFICIENTS OF SELECTED SOIL PROPERrIES FOR 71ERRA AMARILLA A N D TIERRA NEGRA COMBINED

Sand Clay PH FC OM N Na+ p205

Clay (96) PH FC OM (%) N (%I Na + P20s K +

-0.806 -0.109 -0.351 -0.822 0.798 0.164 - 0.572 0.164 0.535 0.506 -0.008 -0.309 0.728 0.248 0.588 -0.407 0.288 0.036 0.188 0.048 0.045 -0.131 -0.156 0.379 -0.034 0.589 0.426 0.254 -0.527 0.161 0.269 0.264 0.305 0.272 0.731 0.237

identifiable, scientifically measurable classes within the J:P sandy loam soil type. A null hypothesis, that the folk soil classification has no underlying quantitative basis, would be accept- ed if we find no satisfactory method for discrim- inating between the folk soil classes. The data available for testing the null hypothesis consist of thirteen soil samples taken from the surface (0-15 cm) of agricultural fields, seven identified by informants as tierra amarilla ‘yellow soil’ and six as tierra negra ‘black soil.’ Tierra arenosa ‘sandy soil’ is excluded because of its rare occurrence. The soil samples were analyzed for eighteen properties (Table 8). From these, nine were chosen for correlation: % sand, % clay, pH, field capacity, % organic matter, % nitro- gen, phosphate, soluble sodium, and exchange- able potassium (Table 9).s2 Principal components scores calculated from the correlation matrix of these variables show that the two folk classes, tierra negra ‘black soil’ and tierra amarilla ‘yellow soil,’ do cluster statistically. A straight line drawn on a plot of the first two principal components scores visually discriminates between the two folk taxa (Fig. 5). The result appears to reject the null hypothesis. A significance level can be generated by a binomial test. With thirteen observations, thirteen correct dis- criminations, and a fifty percent chance of being correct, the significance level is .0001, which far exceeds normal levels. Therefore, we reject the null hypothesis and state instead that 1) there are measurable differences between the folk taxa, and 2 ) there is an underlying quantitative basis to the Tepetlaoztoc folk taxonomy.

The degree of correspondence between folk

52 These variables were chosen so as to avoid pre- dictably high covariance. See Rodney J. Arkley, “Sta- tistical Methods in Soil Classification Research,” in N . C. Brady, ed. , Advances in Agronomy, Vol. 28 (New York: Academic Press, 1976), pp. 37-70.

and technical taxa is very low, but this does not constitute a negative assessment of campesino observational abilities. On the contrary, campesino classification utilizes technical attributes, the properties of soils themselves, and generates classes that are quantifiably different, just as in technical classifications. Appreciated for what it is, a classification of the upper part of the solum, the folk classification accurately reflects local spatial differences of surface soils. Further, the folk classification is applied at the land parcel or fractional parcel level. Recognition of several taxa within a single, one-quarter hectare field is not uncommon. At even larger scales, descriptive phrases provide comparison to the taxonomic norm. Thus, campesino classification compliments the technical one in that it parti- tions the technical soil types according to different criteria and provides a dense classification net at the micro level.

The Tepetlaoztoc folk taxonomy and the technical taxonomy share the features of hierarchical structure, the definition of taxa on the basis of soil properties themselves, and they both segregate taxa that are quantitatively different. In other respects the two taxonomies are significantly divergent. Taxonomic depth is greater in the technical taxonomy (six compared to three levels). Technical nomenclature indicates nearly complete taxonomic relations by identifying categories and class membership of each taxon, but it does not include the unique beginner, whereas folk nomenclature includes the unique beginner label at all levels but omits Level 1 life form lexical items. Most importantly, the two taxonomies differ in the perception of the object being classified. Soil individuals are three dimensional entities to soil scientists but only two dimensional for campesinos. The presence or absence and character of soil horizons are fundamental to soil scientists for both taxonomic and explan-


atory purposes. To the Tepetlaoztoc campesino, it is only the character of the surface layer that is taxonomically and functionally important. This fundamental conceptual difference generates a low level of correspondence between folk and technical taxa.

Conclusions Ultimately, survival of lifeways based upon

agriculture requires knowledge of soil properties important for plant growth. The evolutionary success of traditional agriculture over the mil- lennia attests to not only the existence of ac- cumulated folk knowledge but also to the overall correctness of folk evaluations and manipulation of the soil resource. The question is not whether traditional cultivators perceive soil differences and integrate these into their agricultural systems, but the nature of these perceptions and their adaptive significance.

Hypothetically, folk soil perceptions might range from unstructured observations of individ- ual, unassociated inherent or exogenous attributes, through soil classifications, to highly developed taxonomies. Linguistic expression provides the major avenue for ascertaining such cognitive structures. Data from Mexico and Guatemala on Spanish-speaking campesinos suggest that folk soil perceptions are taxonomically structured. The taxonomies are very shallow, however. Many soils are labeled by what appear to be descriptive phrases denoting a un- itary attribute such as “black” or “sandy,” but we suggest that in many cases such labels des- ignate multidimensional, generic level taxa. Tic.rrtr npgrri means much more than simply “black soil.”

In some folk systems the soils domain is partitioned according to inherent soil properties and in others by exogenous attributes. There appears to be a relatively limited number of dimensions which distinguish folk classes, among them color, texture , consistence, moisture, workability, and vegetation cover. The seman- tics of the reported nomenclature and the field data both suggest that evaluation of soil fertility is not as taxonomically important as might be expected. Indeed, where intensive agriculture is practiced, soil fertility seems to be conceived as a technologicalimanagerial, man-made attribute rather than as an inherent soil property.

There is little correspondence between folk and technical taxa, not so much because folk and technical observations of soil properties are remarkably different, but principally because technical classifications rest upon the character of a three- rather than two-dimensional taxonomic entity. Our field data, although limited, suggest that folk taxa reflect discontinuities in the surface soil which are scientifically measurable and are valid statistically as classes.

The soils domain among Spanish-speakers in Mexico and Guatemala appears to be partitioned into few taxa. As such they contrast strongly with botanical, zoological, and other domains. Hispanic acculturation of native peoples togeth- e r with lessening dependence upon subsistence agriculture perhaps account for attenuated taxonomies. However, some of the apparent sim- plicity undoubtedly relates to lack of systematic investigation in ethnopedology . Cognition and management of the soils domain remains a largely unexplored element in the cultural ecology of traditional agricultural systems.

middle american folk soil taxonomy

Documents