Basic Overview
The article under the analysis is called Sowing Blood with the Maize: Zapotec Effigy Vessels and Agricultural Ritual. The research seeks to define how the bloodletting rituals and the maize depicted on Zapotec urns are conceptually connected. Specifically, the author assumes that effigy vessels embody the concepts associated with maize and bloodletting rituals were connected through the concept of fertility.
This ritual of self-sacrifice is represented as an agreement between a human and god to sustain growth of plants. It is also assumed that corncob is also symbolizes male fertility, a fundamental element of Zapotec ideology. Despite a great number of facts and artifacts presented in the studies, little evidence is found concerning the accuracy and transparency of facts.
Main Weaknesses and Strengths of the Conceptual Framework
Interpretive Tools and Strategies
While discussing the main tools and evidence, the author resorts to iconography, comparative analysis, as well as cultural and historical evaluation. The researcher also relies on visual analysis in a deep historical context to define the origins, authenticity, and themes represented on the artifacts. Specific attention has been paid to the associations drawn by a scientist that are composed of several links shaping a complete chain.
At the very beginning, the author overviews the importance of maize for human and relates it to the peculiarities of Zapotec religion, including the description of genital bloodletting as an act of self-sacrifice to gods. Further, the article expands on the analysis of urns with regard to visual representations of specific symbols.
While referring to connotative representation of corncob, the author provides a sufficient explanation of the function and role of seed. Further analysis proceeds with envision the iconic representation of maize seeds on the urns. The author introduces different images of Zapotec vessels for genital bloodletting to prove the presence of seed symbol.
While describing specific connection between the bloodletting rituals and its connection to maize, the author relies heavily on imagery rather than on the actual function of the Zapotec urns. However, using visual examination only can prevent from presenting sufficient and accurate evidence.
Based on the initial hypothesis that the self-sacrifice is based on bloodletting, there is no evidence on the connection between blood and maize on the presented artifacts. Specifically, the author presents both original documents separately from the urns.
Still, arguing on isolated connections, there is no a complete figure of research. Aside from contextual analysis, the article also contains some lexical and linguistic pitfalls. Specifically, some of the passages cited in the text are presented in the Spanish language, which also prevents from embracing the entire volume of presented information.
Projection of the Present
The author attains much important to the role of priest in performing the ritual of bloodletting, which implies that priests have much higher status in society. In this respect, must authority is given to priest whereas others taking part in the self-sacrifice are ignored, which contributes to the ambiguity to the research.
In fact, the Zapotec urns usually represented supernatural creatures and, therefore, they cannot describe a ritual of self-sacrifice of humble humans. So, one should ignore the statement that urns symbolized a direct connection of humans with gods.
At the same time, there are urns that do not refer to uniquely produced artifacts, but to the ones made up in molds. Mass production of vessels cannot be produced for deities, but for people. While reading the article, there is no reference to what kind of creature the urn represents. Specifically, no mentioning is presented whether ancestors are indeed gods.
One of the main approaches used by the author was comparison of different concepts, including corns and vessels, blood and fertility, maize and ritual. These models shape the core framework of the entire study which contribute to limiting representation of cultural and social characteristics of Zapotec culture in a broader context.
Interpretive Possibilities Applied by the Author
While delivering the description of each of the component of exploration (blood, bloodletting, maize, self-sacrifice), the author fails to adhere to a consistent and logical framework of interpretation. Specifically, the article provides different associations between the identified concepts in different contexts, but there is no conclusion concerning how the determined associations can be combined to form a whole.
Second, while referring to different artifacts connected to the representation of Zapotec ideologies and rituals, the author successfully manages to define and explain what is depicted and how these elements are linked to the hypothesis. However, the article does not provide information concerning how these elements related to a socio-cultural context. In other words, the author makes an accent on imagery rather than on function.
Politics
The author discusses deities represented by urns, but he fails to introduce the vessels symbolizing females participating in different rituals. In the most of cases, the article mentions males’ ritual of bloodletting, predominantly made by priest. Hence, the symbol of fertility is more associated with males’ power of reproduction.
In fact, ignorance of females’ representation can provide a lot of bias to discussing the connection between maize, fertility, and bloodletting. In fact, Zapotec culture provides equal reference to male and female ancestors.
The fact that the article focuses mostly on representation of male figures participating in self-sacrifice can be explained by the fact that males were of supernatural origins because few women were represented as deities. Nevertheless, one should not ignore the fact that most of the human figures were women. In addition, representing males as gods supports the idea that male authority dominated the Zapotec civilization.
Hence, while making description of different glyphs and symbols, the author makes accent on the sexual practices of the community rather than on the actual association between different conceptual frameworks that has been previously overviewed. Further, though the author provides an extensive overview of the self-sacrifice ritual, no concrete evidence is actually found concerning the main function of the bloodletting. A wide range of facts and artifacts are presented, but few of them directly relate to the topic of discussion.
Finally, a number of contradictions occurred while presenting a variety of studies because each research represents a specific perspective that slightly deviates from the established topic of discussion. Moreover, excess in versions concerning the reasons of self-sacrifice provide much ambiguity and creates misconception between the actual concept and its multiple interpretations.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the article analysis provides a deep analysis of specific concepts and ideological frameworks existed in Zapotec culture. Specific accent is made on the conceptual representation of maize and blood on Zapotec urn.
On the other hand, the study provides a sufficient explanation of the existing connection. However, a limited perspective of analysis fails to provide a reliable and valid examination of the presented artifacts.