Rabina Achi: A Mayan Drama of War and Sacrifice

Abstract

Dennis Tedlock’s translation and exegesis of the Rabinal Achi text (RA) is a valuable contribution to Mayan studies, as well as to the anthropology of cultural discourse and artistic expression. As with his prior translation of the Popol Wuj, Tedlock once again demonstrates his ability to translate classical K’iche texts into beautiful poetry and prose. I was particularly pleased to find that besides Tedlock’s devoted interest in the literary and poetic features of the RA, he did not neglect the historical and even political dimensions of this important Mayan drama. Also, like all good historiographers, Tedlock defines the type of Mayan document that the RA represents, compares and contrasts it with other K’iche documents, explains its scholarly and humanistic significance relative to other post-Hispanic Mayan dramas, ties it to archaeological remains found in the Rabinal area, and most importantly provides extensive exegeses on the language and meaning of the text.Tedlock captures the precise nature of K’iche history that the RA sets forth, “a series of customary actions in which the participants could be any captive in the Guatemalan highlands at any time during the last several centuries preceding the Spanish invasion” (p. 175). He then attempts to use the text’s generic history in order to reconstruct a more specific K’iche history based on strategic references in other Mayan sources, such as the Popol Wuj, Título de Totonicapán, Annals of the Kaqchikels, and so on. His effort in this regard is insightful and most welcome.Tedlock is to be commended for extending his historiographic study of the RA into the post-Hispanic period. For example, he points to the possible influence of the Old World Carlomagno drama, translated into Spanish in 1521, on the composition of the RA, and he points out similarities between the RA and other colonial “dance dramas” such as the Dance of the Conquest (Saq K’oxol) and Dance of the Trumpets (Xajol Tun). These other K’iche colonial dramas, however, are shown to be much less indigenous than the RA.Despite the considerable merits of his study, some of Tedlock’s methods and interpretations are open to challenge. It is especially noteworthy that he did not carry out serious ethnographic research on the K’iches of Rabinal, and hence he can offer only limited insights into the local cultural features that no doubt shaped this highly stylized account. His scattered references to comments made by the current director of the drama seem particularly meager compared to translations of cognate Mayan texts by other scholars. As a minimum, for example, one would expect Tedlock to have at least visited the many sites of the area that are mentioned in the text. I also found it disconcerting that Tedlock has translated the K’iche names of sites and persons to English. Not only are such etymologies almost always subject to contested interpretations, but they also make it difficult to know which places or persons they refer to as recorded in other texts.Some of Tedlock’s interpretations of the RA seem overly speculative. I salute Tedlock for attempting to understand elements of K’iche history in the RA, but in some cases his reconstructions are based on very thin evidence. For example, he offers no real supporting evidence for his suggestion that the prisoner, Kaweq, might be identified with (or served as a model for) Tata Yak, a rebel son of the legendary K’iche king, K’iq’ab. And the parallels he finds between the RA account and carved and painted scenes from classic Mayan sites, while intriguing, are also speculative. Any connection between the Late Postclassic K’iche and Classic Mayan cultures and histories should be based on historical information that bridges the large gap in time and space between these two Mayan traditions.I also think that Tedlock could have been more generous in recognizing the contributions of prior scholars who have studied the Rabinal documents, cultural life, and archaeological remains (such as Alain Breton, Charlotte Arnauld, Ruud van Akkeren, and many others). It is proper to point to the errors of our predecessors, or suggest alternatives to their interpretations, but we inevitably build on their prior work, and it is more than just courtesy to recognize our debt to them.Despite the criticisms just mentioned, I highly recommend this book not only to historians and other scholars, but also to the educated reader interested in the Mayas and other native peoples around the world. It is a fascinating read backed by serious scholarship.