A PASSAGE TO PREMODERNITY:
CARL SAUER REPOSITIONED IN THE FIELD

by

ANNA CLARE SKEELS

B.A., Oxford University, 1990

A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF

THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF

MASTER OF ARTS

in

THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES

(Department of Geography)

We accept this thesis as conforming
to the required standard

THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUI’4BIA

December 1993

Anna Clare Skeels, 1993



In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced
degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it
freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive
copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my
department or by his or her representatives, It is understood that copying or
pubTication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written
permission.

(Signature)

__________________________

Department of geography

The University of British Columbia
Vancouver, Canada

Date 26/11/93

DE..6 (2/88)



ABSTRACT

This thesis is an attempt to mediate between the different

perspectives on Carl Sauer and his work that fix him in the “field”

of geography. By repositioning Sauer literally in the “field11 in

Mexico (and later, in South America) through a reading of his

correspondence and fieldnotes, I hope to open up Sauer and cultural

geography to a new range of questions and debate. In the course of

the thesis, it is maintained that you cannot consider Sauer and

culture in the “field” of geography without remobilising him as

geographer amidst culture in the “field”;

nor can you consider Sauer as fieldworker in isolation from the

“passage to premodernity” of his life and work. Sauer is thus

positioned ambivalently in various “moments” of the practices and

politics of dwelling and travelling in the “field” and presented as

an ant imodernist looking for a cultural and an academic “home”.

ii



H
H

H
H

H
H

D
M

M
H

H
O

O
O

D
O

c
O

J
H

.D
D

O
O

F
M

W
H

O
G

•
W

W
W

M
M

M
M

D
Q

D
O

H
H

H
H

-1
U

1
H

H
H

-
H

-

H
-H

-
H

-
H

H
H

-

I
I

I
I

I CD
ti

H
C

D

H
-

it
I—

’
-J

CD CD H it CD C’
)

a)

I
I

I
I

I
I

I
I

I
I

I

f
l
’
r
’
J
t
i
d

Q
d
-

J
D

I
j
(
J
)

0
0
J
F

H
-
)

O
H

-
•

C
)
H

-
J
H

-
‘t

i
i
t
h

C
D

C
D

d
1-

3
b
i
t
-

H
-
L

Q
c
t

-3
J
d

i
t
J
H

H
C

D
L

i
i
t
C

D
C

D
H

-
C

D
L

i
a
)
i
t
H

a
)

Q
c
t
i
H

-
a
)

)
P

C
)
a
)
H

-
-

0
-

x
J

C
D

•-
P

J
C

D
Q

C
r
r
tQ

0
H

-
U

i.
I-

:x
i

C)
d
C

D
‘d

c
C)

C
D

•
P

J
U

I
O

H
-

P
)H

-
it

‘
<

.
Cl

)
L

i
H

<
H

-
i
t
3
t
5

•
.

H
-

0
C)

L
i

H
C

D
0

C
D

0
Cl

)
‘
)
a
)
i
t
H

a)
‘-3

a
)C

D
i’

-3
CD

a)
Cl

)
‘—

3
h
P

J
C

D
J

>4
P

)
a
)
C

)
H

it
it

CD
i
t
H

•
0

J
H n

•
c_I

L
Q

Q
-3

0
H

C
D

CD
a
)
S

C)
a)

c
tp

i
0

H
-

CD
a)

H
-N

O
H

-
a)

‘x
J

H
Q

‘—
3

CD
h-

I
H

i
U

i
0

f
-

CD
CD

0
a
)

H
CD

H
-i

CD II
CD Pi

CD
Q

II
a)

O
’
.
q

Pi
CD

H
-

a)

‘-
d
I-

Q
Q

P)

a)
H

-
CD

c
t
J 13

it
H

-
i
t
O

a)
—

1
:3

Q
C

D
‘
-

I,
’O

II
H

-
C

D
l-

ij
1
3

C
O

(Q
0
0

I-
ç
i
p

,
C

D
CD

H
-C

D
I-

I
1

a
)

13
1

3
c
t

H it
C-

)
0 13 c
i

l-

H
-

H
-

H
-

0
I
I
’
’
’

0
Ii

‘-3
CD

C)
H

-
P)

_
‘
‘
-
-
3
F

-
3

‘<
a)

b
a
)

0
C

D
0

1
3

C
D

13
it

i—
’i

t
‘-3

S
P

J
1

3
C

D
>

<
‘-3

ç
t

0
C

D
h

L
i

C
D

O
it

Lx
i

0
0

C
)
H

-
I
-
’
-
x
J

H
H

-,
C

C
)

0
1
3
H

-
H

-
P

i
‘-

i
CD

H
-,

c
t

(
h
h
C

D
H

-
’

0
0

H
-

H
-H

Z
0

Q
H

-
C

)
0

1
3

i
t
C

)
’
-
’
i

Lx
i

it
CD

Q
0

>
‘•

•
(
1

3
H

-
0

.
.

13
13

a
)
C

D
O

C
D

13
0

CD
-

it
l
)
’

H
-h

h
H

P
u

-i
it

3
CD

CD
‘-

d
P

i
P

‘1
1

3
CD

it
a)

13
P

ia
)

C
D

b
0

a
)

i
t
i
t

a)
a)

it
it

a
)

P
)
0
C

D
•

H
-’

1
a)

H
-P

u
it

—
•
0

1
3
0

P
J
Q

CD
iQ

f
l

IQ
p
-

H
C

D
1
3
0
’
1
’
1

-
H

-
C

)
W

it
‘—

3
H

-d
it

-
<

i
t

H
-C

‘
1

i
t
H

-
H

0
P

J
H

-H
-C

)
0
0

(
‘
-

H
-C

)C
)P

J
0
1
3

‘1
’1

H
P

)
P

J
H

•
•

P
JC

D
•
-
H

H
‘1

t
i

a
)C

l)
1
3
0

Q
f
l’

-
-
3
’
1

C
D

PJ
k
<

P
C

D
H

’1
C

)
H

-
CD

0
0
P

J
1

3
H

‘1
I
.
Q

a
)
H

-
H

13
‘
1
C

D
13

H
-

P
J
’1

H
C

D
(C

l
it

‘d
C

D
a)

k
<

U
i

..
H ‘1

H
-

CD
13

C) it
it

H
13

0
CD

13 a)

w I:-’ Li 0 Ii C) 0 z ‘-3 Lxi z ‘-3 Cl)

fr
iJ H
-

CD H



I
r:

i
I

I
I

I
I

I
I

I
I

I
I

I
I

I
I

I
I

I
I

I
I

I
I

I
I

H
C

Ft
J

W
Z

‘
Q

o
’

Lx
i

0
P

C
D

Q
C

D
C

D
H

-
h

Q
Q

Q
D

)
Q

H
Q

H
-
V

I
-
H

-
J

H
r
t
C

D
h

C
D

r
t
H

-
D

C
D

p
i-3

0
c
i

Ii
D

h
J
Q

c
t
H

-
H

-
Pi

f
t

Q
C

D
C

D
1

Q
a
)
H

-
Lx

i
H

0
U

C
D

-
c
t
Q

c
I
T

J
H

-
C

D
Q

C
D

C
)C

r
C

D
U

H
O

H
-
h
h
h
c
t
H

-
C

)
h
d
p
J
C

)
.•

‘
0

.
i
c
t

C
1

F
—

’J
’F

--
H

-
C

D
r
t

‘t
J

Z
H

-
F

-
-
(
D

H
-
C

)
C

D
F

-
-

H
P

J
C

D
J

H
-
-
)

H
d

lx
i

C
D

O
C

D
O

C
D

-
.c

1
C

D
P

N
F

—
I
H

<
‘

‘<
S

H
-
C

s
p

t
•
•
•
•

1
•
.

C
).

)
.

D
W

)
I
J

Lx
i

H
-

C
D

H
-
O

w
f
l
X

-
-
o

i
C

D
C

)
r
t

5
C

D
i-

’J
C

D
H

-
J

CD
H

C
)
C

D
II

1
Q

I
-
-
-
(
)
Q

JJ
0

H
-
r
r
0
u
)
h

l-
--

a
)

C
)
h
Q

f
l

i
H

-
5

5
-
.
C

D
0

CD
H

-
I
-

C
)

f
t

C)
H

-
C

r
L

Y
H

U
)
C

1
)

H
-

0
C

D
3

C
D

H
-

Cl
)

d
E

C
D

C
D

P
Ja

)C
D

H
-

lJ
I)

ç
t

I-
it

Cl
)

I-
5

Q
C

D
iJ

CD
-J

L
x
J

0
C

)
PJ

Cl
)

f
t

C
D

H
-i

J
0

C
)

l-
CD

H
-

Q
H

-
fr

h
0

H
-

C
)
C

i
)

C)
.

I))
CD

‘
d

><
C)

H
H

CD
0

Q
C

)
Ci

i
C

D
C

D
C

J
0

o
-

I-
i

-
(
n
O

H
-

H
-

L’
J

CD
H

-
C

r
c
t

-
h

(I)
ç
t

0
H

-
H

(.Q
C)

I-
CD

CD
l-

Ci
i

0
H

H
0

H
CD

C)
0

o
C

)
CD

o
-

0
Ci

i
5

a)
ft

ç
t

CD
CD

H
-

H
-

-‘
3

C
r

CD
CD

0
C)

C)
Ci

i
-
-

CD
CD

11 -‘3

M
L\

)
L\

)
J
J
M

H
H

H
H

H
H

H
H

H
H

H
H

H
H

H
H

H
H

H
H

W
H

H
H

H
0
0
0
0
0

W
O

‘o
o

--
j

..
j

__
j

a
-

o
a

u-
i

u
i

u
i

w
w

w
L’

J
H

D
H

0
0
W

H
-
.
J
U

]
W

0
G

0
G

H
0
O

D
a

0



—
C

I)
C

D
P

)C
D

H
-

H
ç
-
r

O
Q

b p
i
:

-C
D

n pJ
O

Pi
H

C
r

P
)C

D C)
H

O
-
D

c
3

i
C

r
—

h
.
k

< (
I) pi CD h pi i - CI

)
p) p) C

r
U) - k<

H

p)

C
D

H
>

<
P

)
H

-
O

c
t

0

H
H

C
t

H
C

D

.
CD 0 H CD Cl

)
pi CD pi 0 I-H H pi U)

I
-
p
)

H
-

rI
-C

D
C

D
I-

-C
D

H
H

D
O

F
O

H -
p

.) H
-

C
r

U
) CD U) 0 p) H H
-

C
r

p) 0 C
r

C
r

0

x
c
I)

h
O

U
)

I-
’

H
-

C
r

C
j)

)

CD h
r
t II

—
— N

H
P

)
H

C)
-‘

)
p) C

rC
!)

C
D

C
D

O
C

D
p)

H
U

)
-
I
Q

C
D

C
D

k<
><

C
D

H
-

U)
C

)
-

0 —
Ci

)
p)

LD
C

D

H

H p
-

CD p) p
-

C
D

C
D

C
D

U
)

H
C

D
C

D
S

<
H
-

pi
H

I
-

u
ip

)
O

U
)

-C
D H 0 p

) C
r

H 0 -‘
3

C-
)

H
-

U) C
I

p3 U) p3 C
r

‘D
H

-C
D

H
H

C
r

—
CD

H
C

D
O

p
.) -3

H C
rC

!)
-
p

J

p
ih

i

(.
P

J

c
-
r
p

CD I
-
- H

W
U

)
H H

-
N

O
p

if
-
l

b-
C

D
C

D
b

C
r
0

C
D

H
-

f
t

O
C

D

iJ
‘.i

j
xJ

0
H

-
H

-
H

-
H

-
H

-
H

-
H

-
H

-
H

-
H

-
H

-
H

-
H

i
H H

h
i

I-
I-

I-
F

-
I-

I-
I-

I-
h

h
p3

CD
CD

CD
CD

CD
CD

CD
CD

CD
CD

CD
CD

H H
-

0
H

H
H

.D
—

J
U

]
W

H
H

i
C

I
M

H
0

-
-.

--
--

--
-

--
0

0
-.

--
I

1Q
Ii

hi
O

tt
)

<
ij

—
Q

C
t

C
t

H
-

)
I
P

)
c
V

H
-

P
)i

-<
H

,
O

C
D

C
D

c
t

j-
’c

pj
H

C
D

h
iP

)H
,

H
-

h
C

D
Q

C
D

H
H

U
)Q

P3
U)

H
-h

i
C

D
O

r
t

•
p
J

C
D

O
H

i’
-<

-
-

‘-
<

H
-

ç
t

H
H

-H
-

P3
U)

-
U

)
CD

-‘
3

C
D

C
D

C
D

W
hi

C
D

S
H

-
‘-

<
--

-)
H

1
Q

CD
CD

H
)

U
)

H
-
b

C-
)

-
H

,3
H

-H
-

P3
C

)
C)

-‘
3

0
0

U
)C

D
P

)
H

)
—

0
CD

0
0

3
h

i
c
t

hi
O

H
—

H
,

P
.-

-
H

-
CD

-
H

O
f
t

CD
h

hi
CD

b
-U

)
‘-

<
C

r
C

D
C

r
Cl

)
Q

h
i

0
Cl

)
CD

-
CD

C
r

O
P

)
—

O
C

r
CD

P3
h

iH
-

U
)

C
D

J
i

-
U

)
h

-
—

r
I-

P
)C

D
U

)
J

CD
s

H
-C

)
P3

h
Q

C
D

PJ
CD

CD
H

i
P

-.
h
i

C
r0

I
-
Q

-
i

‘-
<

to
U

)
H

-
-.

r
I
-
c
t

rI
-H

-
=

-
c
i

0
P3

O
-
P

)
Ci

)
I-

C
r

U
)

C
D

O
.)

P3
Z

C
D

p3
CD

W
>

<
H

-
ci

I-
C

D
-C

CI
-

U)
C

D
O

O
<

H
-P

.
CD

H
h
h

U
)p

J
O

H
-

hi
-

H
-W

0
‘d

O
-

O
C

D
P3

C
D

h
iC

I-
-
I
-
P

U
)

hi
O

h
i

U)
hi

H
O

H
-P

3
CD
-

U)
C

D
O

I-
Q

H
rI

-
CD

H
-

0
k<

C
D

-C
D

O
pJ

H
H

3
-
h
i

hi
0

‘o
C

D
U)

r
J

0
h

CD
0

F
1
<

H
C

D
O

-
H

-
3

H
P.)

P3
I-

O
H

-
>

4
H

-
U)

CI
-

—
U

)
h

C
r

—
j:

i
H

-
C

r
I
-

U)
-
-
r

CD
0

O
C

r
P.)

-
0

ci
C

r
—

U
)

O
C

r
•
t

—
‘

C
D

h
i

U)
CD

CD
H

-
—

U
)p

J
0

CD
CD

C
r

ci
H

-
C

r
U)

CD
H

CD
U)

CD
U)

H
-

U)
H

-
3

H
P.)

CD
h

h
CD

U) H
M

H
C

r
I-

-i
H

H
H

I-
!)

(
O

i
U

i
L’

-)
H

H
H

-
-<

U
i

U
i

W
O

C
i

—
.3

I-
C

I-
C

I-
C

U)
W

I-’
)

H
--

H ‘-3 0 IzJ tx
j

H 0 Li
i

i:
i



ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to acknowledge the support of people in both Canada
and Britain. At the Department of Geography, UBC, thanks goes to
David Ley, Derek Gregory and Alf Siemens of the Faculty; to Kate
Boyer, Alison Blunt and Matt Little for moral support and to
everyone in the Office, especially Sandy Lapsky. In England,
thanks goes to my family and friends for long-distance support and
to Geraint Tarling, to whom I wish to dedicate this thesis.

vi



C!
)

Ef
l

I-
h

-

CD
<

<
<

<
H

-
H

-
H

-
P)

0
CD

H
-

H
-

H
-

—
<

H
-

H
-

0
I-

H
-

H
-

—
‘
—

H
-

CD
rt

0
ct

H
-

‘
—

—

0
Q

CD
C!

)
‘d

0
CD

0
H

-
J

Pi
0

CD
0

I-
CD

U)
U)

II
C)

H
-

rr
Q

1
CD

rr
C)

CD
U)

IQ
CD

IJ
U)

I-
U

CD
CD

h
0

CD
0

D
l

U)
rt

H
,

I
-

0
H

-
F

-
U

)
U)

CD
k

<
0

U)
CI

)
I-

h
CD

H
-

)
F

-
I)

F
-

0
CD

5
J

Q
U)

C
r

r—
C

r
CD

CD
CD

CD
H

-
C)

I-
I-

h
0

C)
I-

I-
0

0
0

0
CD

0
U)

rr
C!

)
U)

U)
•
-

0
CI

)
CI

)
I-

U
)

H
I-

Cr
•

I-
CD

•
•

U)
ç
t

H
,

J
CI

)
C)

H
-

U)
H

-
Q

H1
0

C)
CD

I1
H

-
0

0
I-

I
CD

I-
C)

<
U)

I-
U)

•
-

CD
0

CD
•
-

I-
II

I
o

U)
I-

CD
CD

CD
U)

I1
U)

H
,

I-
j

H
-

•
CD

C
C)

CD
C)

U)
C)

0
CD

()
CD

C)
Cr

•
3

<1
U)

•
H

-
)

C
r

H
-

0
CD

‘d
0

0
H

-
H

-
3

C
l

C
)

0
C)

.
‘-

3
Cl

)
CD

Z
H

,
•
•

H
-

0
C

i
H

,
1-

3
H1

0
0

CI)
tI

•
I-

C
)

.
.

U) Ci
CI) Cr

F
-

1
CD

CD
H

-
CD

CI
)

Ii
I1

Cr
H Cr CD



F
-

H H
:
f
t

C
D

ft
O

H
Q

Q
(
D

C
D

U
)

0
0

H
-

H
,

hi rr
c-

rQ
CD

I-
h

H C
)
C

)
H

)
I-

L
D

H
)

D
H

-
H

U) f
t
.

C
M H

C
r

H
C

rh
i H

C
D

U
)

I-
lU

) H

‘
d
0 H H <

r
r

H
-C

D
C

r

0

f
-
r

H
-C

D

c
r

ç
u

(O
H

‘
j
r
r
c
-
r
p
J

0
I-I

o
p’

-
j
-
h

I-
h
e

<
P

)
C

D
C

)
H

O
C

D
rr

C
D

pi
-

H
-
H

-
U

)
H

-
c
p

H
C

D
C

D
H

r
r
U

)
O

h
iO

-

—
h
i
0

0
I-I

H0
p

H
-

U
)

H
H

-
C

)
c
a
h
iH

.
H

-
H

-
H

0C
t

0
C

D
C

r
O

H
hi

H
f
t
W

C
D

U
)

-

h
lH

-C
)

i t
j
)

0h
i
C

D
lJ

•
H

,
D

Q
U

) CD
P

j)
U

)
0p

j
f
t

C
r

H
H

-
H

-
C

D
CD

C)

..
.C

D
P

i
jC

D
C

D
H

U)
,

1
q

i
-

‘
H

O
C

D
h

iC
D

C
r

H C
r

H
U)

U)
C)

çu
Cl

)

CD
C

D

‘
O

p
-

,
J
f
-
r
C

)

8 U)
°

b
H

U)
h

hi
H

-
U

)
C

D
C

)
0C

D
(
O

)
<

C
D

H
ft

CD
H

-
H

,
CD

C
r

ft
U)

-
H

-Q
C

)C
I)

rr
h
i

C
rH

,
)

C
D

C
l-

U
)

U)
C

D
d

C
D

p
i

U
)C

D
h
iC

D
H

H
-
h
iC

D
H

,l
))

0
0
U

)C
D

CD
C

rC
D

h
i’

t
C

r
H

-
H

-
i

Pi
Pi

Q
H

O
f
t

h
i0

H
,

H
i

U
)

U)
C

r
H

,

‘-
i

h
CD

H
-

CD
l—

H
-

ft
H

H
hi

H
,

H
H

CD
CD

H
U)

Pi
hi

<
CD

CD
p-

I
H

U)
C

l
pj

CD

P)
Pi

H
-

C
l-

i

0
CD

0
CD

H
,

C
r

< CD
H

,
C

D
h
i

S
p
j

CD
H

hi
H

CD

Pi
I-I

H
-

CD
C

r
=

U)
Pi

H
-

H
hi

H
-

C
r

C
r

H
-

H
-

C
r

CD
CD

H
-

H
-

H
-

C
l-

,-Q
0 C)

CD
CD

)
PJ

-
H

-
O

H
0

H
CD

H
-

H
-

H
-

CD
Cl

-
CD

C)
CD

-

Pi
-

PJ
H

C
r

H
,

i
Q

‘•g
CD

0
LQ

C
r

CD
P) hi

S
H

CD
C

l-
CD

Pi
‘-I

=
pi

P-
I

C
r

P-I
P-I

H
-

ft
0

l1
CD

‘—
r

-
0

U)
PJ

hi
P-I

P-I
0

‘•‘
i

CD
hi

H
0

C)
hi

CD
CD

C
r

H
-

i
-

P-I
P-I

H
-

I-I
C

r
CD

•
H

H
-

U)
0

(1
)

C) h

U)
-I

H
-

H
CD

H
P-I

-
C)

P-I
P-I

C
r

H
L

I
fl

ft
CD

CD
0

CD

0 H
,

H
Pi

ft
0

ç
r

H
hi

CD
CD

CD
5

CD
CD P-I

p-
I

P-I

U
‘-Q

C
l-

CD
CD

CD
-

hi
CD I-Q

H
I

Q
I

H
-

hi
H1

H
-

hi
H

,
Q

C)
H

,
H

-
=

CD
p-

I
hi

hi
CD

H
-

C)
0

-I

ft
CD

P-I <1
H

,
CD

hi
o

hi
H

,
H

-
C

r
ft

ft
H

S k<
CD

CD

CD ‘U I-
i

M
i

‘-
‘

CD I-
I

‘-1 I1
.

C
r

I1
.

1 I-
I

‘U ii I1
.

CD

D 0 z Li

C
)

P-I hi H 0 U) H
-

H H H P-I S U) H P-I hi P-I hi H
-

H —
-I

‘-
0

0
-I

=
H

,C
D

h
i
0
P

i
<

CD
ft

H
-C

D
‘d

H
-

H
hi

CD
0

j
k

<

C
l
-
h
i

H
-

CD u
)

ft
ft

C
D

ft
C

D
P

J
CD

•
CD

ft
H

5
Q

pi
H

I

C
C

I)
‘0

C
D H

-

P
P

H

H
<

H
0

w

H
Q

C
D

H
I

(
U

)
h
i

0
p

f
t’

<
p
i

H
-

U)

‘•d
C

r
H

,
H

pj
P

-
I
<

-
I

h
i
p

H C
D

S
P-I

-
P

ih
i

H
f
t
-
?

H
,
°

H
,

U)
C

D
CD

=
w —

:
j
f
t

P-I hi
H

Q
1

CD
!-

P-I
f
tQ

I

H
P-

I
U)

H
-

0
C

U
)

H
,
Q

1

0 ft 0 CD H ft 0 H
,

H P-I U) P-I CD ft 0 CD LQ H f
t 0 CD tQ H P

-I p-I H --‘-
I

C-
)

H z 0 L’i

I-
I z 0 Li c C) H 0 z H H z C) Li H Lii C-) H 0 z



Cl
)

Cl
)

CD
CD

CD
CD

CD
CD

CD

Cl
)

d
Cl

)
CD

CD
H

H
-

I
-

p.
,

<
p.

,
CD

CD
CD

o
H

0
‘

D
•

iD

C)
•-

C)
H

-
H

ft
‘d

Ci
-

-
L\_

)
-

cx

U
]

H
cx

h
()

CD
H

J
•

C
D

h
r
r
J
O

d
—

.i’
tI

0
h’

C)
D

CD
CD

H
-
(

0
U

i
5

H
•
H

-
J

00

f
t
c

C
D

Q
Cu

Cu
Cl

)
H

-
Cl

)
P

CD
CD

O
P

.’ -
-
O

CD
H

i
-
C

D

Cu
i-

C
u

C
D

H
Cu

O
C

D
H

C
D

L
D

i-
::

3
.’

h
H

-
f
t

H
-

o
CD

CD
h

0
-
.

CD (J
)H

=
O

h
1
Q

Cl
i

c
i

p
ip

.’
pi

I-
P

k
pi

Cl
i
1-.

C
)

p)
N

-<
H

-
,

H
H

C
D

C
D

H
i-

.
C)

CD l-
t

H
H

C
D

p
i
C

D
C

D
C)

ft
ç
t

Cl
)

H
-
-

W
CD

C
u
C

D
0

D
k

<
H

it
-i

-I

H
iC

D
c
t

0
j

O
H

-
‘
C

u
H

-
C

u
co

o
H

ç
t

ç
t

C
D

ft
p

.’
-i

-
H

i
C

D
C

D
C

D
CC

)
CD

i
-
i
-
f
t
C

D
(f

)C
D

C
D

:
H

C
D

ç
2

ft
C

D
C

u
0

CD
Cu

h
H

P.
’C

D
CD

C
D

p
.C

D
p
.
’
”

C
D

0
h0 CD

ft
C

D
i

ft
C

l)
O

C
D

,—
,

lC
D

ci
-

H
o

0
0
Q

.
’

CD
0

CD
i

H
iC

D
C

D
H

i
H

CD
H

<
i
-
l

C
D

O
O

-

H
-

C)
C

l
CD

0
f
t
i
i
-

—
C

u
r
i-

r
i-

p
1

Cu
H

-
ft

H
ft

C
)

H
-

0
H

P
.’

i
d
O

f
t

p
i
C

D
3

ft
H

i
H

-
H

-
Cl

i
C

)
0

‘d
I
:

‘d
Cu

f
t

pi
0

=
Cl

)
CD

H
-

ci
-

h
pi

H
i

F-
’

H
i

11
0

II
0

Cl
i

><
<

Ci
-

ft
H

-
CD

Cl
i

IH
-

0
0.

’
f
t

H
-

C)
ft

H
-

CD
CD

ft
ft

I.
<

lCD
pi

.
‘

f
t

(-0
C)

CD
—

ft
i-

h
H

-
.

IH
H

I—
’

Cu
0

H
II

k
<

<
H

-
-

CD
10

.’
f
t

CD
1

3
d

-.

CD
CD

H
p

0
‘1

CD
H

-
CD

H
-

‘-
<

CD
••

‘1
CD

0
0

H
H

Cl
)

CD
H

i
-

H
H

H
i

H

H
-

i-
CD

Cu
pi

H
-

ip
H

i

f
t

CD
CD

CD
H

i
H

-
0

f
t

0
0

CD
0

F-
.’

H
-

H
-

0
0

i--
i-

p
ft

f
t

H
-

H
-

<
IQ

1
H

CD
H

-
<

CD
-Q

CD
1

-
CD

CD
h

•
0
0

(-Q
H

-
Cl

i
H

-
ft

0
CD

=
ft

CD
CD

‘
-

0
-

pi
i

h
1C

0
H

CD
ft

k
<

Q
H

p.
’

pi
CD

-
H

-
><

CD
H

H
ft

<
.
‘

H
CD

<1
H

i
ft

H
h

H
-

H
CD

p.
’

CD
p

CD
C)

CD
><

H
i

CD
CD

b.
’

0
(.0

)<
f
t

•.
.

Q
=

‘1
0

CD
CD

Cl
i

CD
Cu

H
p

H
-

H
-

P.
’

CD
CD

C)
P.

’
0

CD
C)

Cli
‘d

H
i

0
H

cc
CD

‘
CD

.
0

H
-

H
-

H
-

d
0

‘
5

H
i
C

D
H

i
Il

pi
CD

0
CD

CD
CD

II
ft

CD
‘I

cc
Cu

—
Cli

ft
.‘

CD
H

-
I

ft
H

-
-

H
-

CD
CD

Q
k
<

C
C)

0
I

CD
CD

Cl
i

CD
H

5
C

l
•

CD
Cl

i
-.

f
t

Cu
H

-
‘I

CD
CD

Cl
)

0
CD

CD
f
t

CD
CD

F-
I

H
i

Cu
0

ft
f
t

H
i

H
-

C
)

C
)

ft
-

-t
-

CD
CD

p
ft

CD
o

<
3

C
D

C
D

H
-

><
H

H
H

-
Cl

)
H

-
CD

<
(

CD
CD

CD
H

-
CD

H
CD

CD
CD

CD
p

-

C)
p

c
CD

-
CD

CD
CD

0
.‘

•
CD

Cl
)

H
-

Cu
0

H
-

CD
Cu

1
CD

C’
)

S
Cl H

-
CD

ft
ft

H
-

CD
F-

’
Cu

C)

ft
CD

CD
CD

0
ft

H
-

CD
0

H
0

ft
II

CD
H

-
(-P

Pi
CD

C)
CD

0
8

(.Q
pj

H
CD

zi
p

CD
H

<
pi

0
C

l
CD

CD
Cl

i
Cl

i
CD

H
-

5
‘1

CD
c
i

CD
H

i
H

-
CD

pj
3

H
-

H
CD

Cl
)

p
CD

3
CD

H
H

-
C

l)
p.

’
ft

H
-

CD
H

-
1

CD
H

i
CD

CD
H

i
CD

d
H

i
ft

ft
Cl

i
CD

f
t

Cu
Cl

i
CD

1
pi

0
1

H
-

CD
ft

H
,i

-
ci

-
CD

CD
CD

H
-

0
‘

g
H

-
ft

H
-

ft
H

i
H

i
CD

H
-

CD
pi

CD
Cu

C
l

H
-

><
f
t

Cl
)

P.
’

‘
0

ft
P.

’
ft

ft
H

-
ft

CD
ci

-
Cu

CD
0

5
ft

Cu
CD

0
Cu

H
-

0
ft

0
Cu

13
CD

S
13

ft
ft

Cu
CD

C)
H

13
.’

ft
CD

P.
’

‘1
k
<

ft
CD

13
CD

H
ft

l
‘-

<
<

CD
CD



criticism is also text,9 open to interpretation, to other critical

trails: my end is also a beginning.

I cannot, however, begin , end with the text. Concentrating

solely on Sauer’s writing neglects the “worldly” nature of his

textual “field”: his writing is placed in the world, it has a

discursive context, i.e. historical, cultural and, most

importantly, political moments to its production and reception:

“The understanding of a text consists first of all of placing it in
its proper sociopolitical configuration, in having the text
confront its historical context, and in calling on a broad
anthropological tradition. “°

The textual “field” is situated amidst the “fields” of discursive

practices that regulate knowledge and power in the “archive” of

Sauer’s time. However, not wanting to lose Sauer completely amidst

discourse, the notion of Sauer as simply author-function is

rejected in favour of a strategic positioning of changing Sauer

subjects for the purpose of critique.11 We move from the “work and

See Harari, op. cit., pp.60-72 for the notion that critical
discourse has no mastery over the text and is itself open to
critique. See also Bhabha in Young, 1990, p.155: “the space of
critical activity is also that of the (re)construction of
knowledges.”

° Said in Harari, op. cit., p.45. Said stands here with
Foucault in the rejection of reducing everything to the level of
the text and preferring instead to focus on the discursive text.

Via Foucault, the “author” is transformed into the
“author-function” - simply one mode of the functioning of
discourse: “The authorial function is but an additional instrument
for the exercise of a knowledge whose only politics is that of
power. The author.. . is a principle of power, but one which is
always presented. . . as being only an instrument of knowledge”
(Foucault in Harari, op. cit., p.44). I, however, choose to follow
Spivak (in Guha and Spivak, op. cit., p.342) and to position Sauer
- in different “moments” - as subject (making no claims for a

3



H
,d

C
D

H
-

H
Cl

)
CD

P
i-

I
—

’
O

O
H

,
H

O
C

D
J

CD
rt

CD
)

H
-

0
CD

(
D

b
0

H
-

CD
I—

i
J

C
D

-
F

’
H

,
CD

U
C)

CD
CD

I—
hC

D
Pi

CD
>

C)
C

D
W

H
C

D
C

Q
H

-
I-

CD
C)

I
C

t
C

)
H

-
CD

0
C)

H
H

-
CD

1t
’

-
CD

C
U

]
H

-
P

H
-

H
I-

’-
:ç

tH
-
C

t
H

-
CD

H
rr

H
H

-
CD

0C
)
h

Q
CD

Ci
)

H
Cl

)
H

-
LQ

H
-
C

)
I-

’
t
d
5
i

H
-

CD
C)

b
H

-
U

1
CD

i
H

CD
CD

CD
C

)
C

D
CD

•
CD

0
JJ

H
J
C

D
H

0
Z

-
H

,
CD

rt
H

W
lj

<
F

-
CD

H
r
t

I-
h

p
0

g
C

D
C

D
H

-
CD

H
C

D
Cl

)
1D

c
l-

a
CD

0
CD

8
0

(1)
1Q

J
C

D
0

°
H

-
H

C
)

o
C

D
J

CD
0

k
<

C)
W

C
)
H

Cl
i

CD
C)

,
0

H
-
C

D
U

]
ç
i,

C
D

-C
D

CD
Cl

)
H

:i
H

-
H

0C
D

H
C

D
1

C
t

•
H

°
H

C)
C

l
C

t
.D

H
-

C
)
(
H

<
Q

Q
1.
<

c
-
t

H
-

l
Q

CD
CD

H
-
c
-
t

L..
D

ç
t

H
-C

D
C

D
Q

p.
0

H
,

C)
<

I1
C

t
C

)
C

D
Ts

J
•

C
t

H
,

rt
H

CD
U

Q
C

D
CD S

:
-

CD
0

H
CD

C)
H

,
CD

H
H

0
C

t
•

CD
-

U
)

C
i
)

‘
C

l
CD

CD
H

,
C

t
I

Cl)
H

-
CD

H
r
t

H
CD

><
C

l
IQ

C
D

H
-r

t
CD

CD
-

L’
J

C
l

Cl
i

CD
C

)
H

I—
’

0
F

_
H

,
•

-
H

O
C

D
C

D
C)

C
D

F
_
0

H
C

D
:

CD
C

t
H

-
-

CD
Q

C)
II

0
H

-
CD

H
h
j
H

-
CD

rt H
C

l
C

l
z
0

C
t

H
C

l
CD

C
)
H

-
Cl

hC
D

H
C)

CD
<

r
tC

D

r
t

r
t
’
1

Cl
i

3
0

H
h

-

H
C

)
H

-
H

,
-

0
H

CD
i

H
C

l
)

C
l)

r-
rC

)
k

-
C

l
H

r
t
C

l
j

-
C

l
H

,
-

0
C

t
1-1p

C
D

C
D

H
H

-
H

H
H

C
l

H
,

CD
-

C
t

-

CD
C

D
C

D
0

2.
Cl

)
C

D
H

,
5

H
,

C
li

C
D

)
)

)
-
.

L
i

Cl)
ç
t

O
c
tH

-
Q

C
lh

C
D

c
tH

-
H

-
CD

Cl)
C

l
CD

C
D

p
iC

D
0

C
D

C
D

3
0

3
0

H
-H

-S
C

l

C
D

<
H

-
CD

H
-

1Q
C

t
)

C
t

CD
0

o
H

-L
Q

CD
C

t
II

H
-

H
-

H
-

H
-

ç
t

O
C

li
t-

t-
‘

CD
H

,

CD
0

CD
i.Q

CD
CD

CD
3

H
0

CD
C

D
H

-
CD

0
C

D
t

CD
H

,H
-C

l)
CC

i
k
<

Cl
i

H
C

D
C

D
C

l
C

l
•

C
D

r
t

Cli
Q

C
t

Cl
i

C
D

H
H

-
-

Cli
C

C
C

D
0

0
u

CD
CD

H
-

‘-
I-

CD
C)

C
t

C
tH

k
<

H
I
Q

H
H

-
H

-
.

0
CD

CD
S

CD
.

CC
H

-
H

(
D

H
H

-
CD

H
-

Cl
)

1C
CD

CD
Cl)

C
t

C
t

H
I
r
J
j

C
r

CC
H

-
H

-
C

t
H

-
C)

CD
CD

0
L

i
C

t
Cl

i
C)

H
D

C
D

<
CD

C
l

Cli
Cli

Cli
C

D
H

-
CD

H
-

I—
’

H
D

H
-

0
C

)C
l)

I-
0

H
-

3
F

C
D

t0
CD

CD
H

i-
C

D
H

,C
D

CD
I

H
,

C
l

C
l

k
<

k
<

C
tC

D
13

Cl)
S



permeable and this was its “nature’1 and its “destiny”. The “field”

was beyond partition and control, greater than those who practiced

it - they were merely “tillers” of the “field”. Sauer said:

“If we shrink the limits of geography, the greater field will still
exist; it will only be our awareness that is diminished.”

“. .should we disappear, the field will remain and it will not
become vacant. ,,17

The individual geographer thus had a choice between truth and

repose: true geographical enquiry was to travel; the “field” of

geography was also trail. Even here, maintained Sauer, geography

defied confinement: there must be no dominant trail, no beaten

path, but the freedom of individual travel for the geographer: you

could not “predetermine the quest for knowledge”:18

“No field of inquiry can be properly defined by any specific means
or methods of gaining knowledge.”9

Sauer claimed that he himself kept the “field” open and the trail

unmarked “by any arrows of methodology”.20 His own work stepped

aside from the “fields” of concern of other geographers of his time

and contradicted accepted theories. Williams portrays him as an

“intellectual Voortrekker” darting “about the geographical scene”

and “moving on when he saw the next man’s methodological smoke”.2’

This did not, however, preclude Sauer from wanting to meet others

17 Ibid., pp.394 and 389.

18 Ibid., p.387.

‘ Ibid., p.381.

20 Ibid., p.401.

21 Williams, 1983, p.2.

5



F
t

0
2

Q
r
t
r
t
’
d

(
Q

Q
‘
d
r
D

O
C

D
H

i
D

F
—

H
-
C

D
O

H
P

iC
D

)
W

F
t
r
r

H
rN

H
-<
0
2
P

J
P

)
H

-
Q

—
C

D
C

D
<

d
Cl

)
W

H
-H

-
O

C
f
lC

D
Cl

)
0

)
W

C
D

<
F

t
P

)
b’

C
D

C
)
1

CD
H

H
-
C

D
p
J
r
t

C
D

C
D

I-
c
i H

C
r

H
-

H
-

F
t
H

-
P

J
C

D
W

H
-

CD
H

-
o

F
t
W

2J
CD

F
t

O1-
t
C

D
C

D
1Q

‘d
F

-
CC

)
‘1

H
-

—

CD
-

C
f
lF

tO
CD

I
)

H
H

-
H

LO
r
t
C

f
l
C

)
cx

H
-
O

Q
0

) C
r
C

D
F

t
Q

C
t
C

r
-

H
p
J
>

4
-C

D
O

H
C

)
S

F
t
Q

CD
C

)
H

<
U

O
F

t
o

C
D

F
t

S
t
C

D
-

h
-

H
-
S

H
-
C

D
W

02
C

I)
1.

.Q
Cl

)
0

,
,

F
t

C)
C

D

C
t
C

D
0C

1
-

C
D

d
H

P
)

C)
H

-
°
C

)
C

D
°
H

0
2

C
)
f
r
C

D
C

D
P

)
C

D
c
t

O
C

D
C

)
H

H
H

-
C

F
C

D
g

Cl
)

CD
C

t
H

-
C

i

o
p

H
C

)
1

F
t
P

J
C

D
H

-
C

D
H

C
D

H
-

H
C

f
l
r
H

Q
C

D
C

D

0
0
F

t
H

-

c-
I-

°
t
H

F
t
F

t
H

i
P

)
C

D
j
r
r

02
C

)
0

H
t
C

)
P

J
C

D
F

t
CD

H
CD

H
-C

D
C

t
H

-
0

LO
Q

H
i
C

D
I

C
D

CD
F

t
t
0

2
H

-
W

CD
-

r
t
Q

F
t
t
n

F
-
1

H
-
C

n
Q

i
t
n
Q

C
D

p
0

H
-

H
0

H
i

0
Pi

H
-

CD
C

t
Pi

F
t

H
H

-
F

t
Cl

)
CD

CD
Cl

)
-

C)
-

Q
,

H
-

CD
d

H
-

H
-

H
C)

02
F

t
a

H
-

Cl
)

CD
H

i
C)

h
I-

h
i-

N
F

t
H

CD
H

P)
Q CD

Cl
)

CD
CD

Cl
)

P
H -

pi
CD

CD
I

H
i

Cl
)

k
<

H
Pi

H
pi

H
-

CD
H

h-
ç
t

F
t

CD
H

-
H

-
H

-
I-

Cl
)

CD
Cl

)

F
t

CD
H

-
H H

i
Cl

)
CD

pj

H
CD

h
CD

0)
o

pi
02

H
CD

(Q
H

-
Cl

)
Ft

c-
I

C
r

Pi

Cl
)

H H
-

CD
p1

Cl
)

h
CD

CD
C)

H
H

<
CD

pi
Q

-
H

-
I- 0

CD
H

i

pi
H

i
C!

)
H

-
H

;7
s-

3
CD

Cl
)

CD
F

t
CD

C
r

Q
0

i-
0

-

Pi
Pi

0)

:
H

i
F

t
o

H
-

H
-

P)
ct

h
F

t
h

H
o

0
S

H
H

-
H

Cl
)

H
-

<
°

H
i

CD
H

i
H

-
CI

-
C

r
C)

0
II

-
CD

0)
C)

H
H

Q
r

I
0

o
H

-
H

-
02

Cl
)

H
i

><
C)

::-
H

-
CD

CD
CD

02
Cl)

H

_
P

)
P)

H
-

CD
H

C)
U)

-
Q

.

-
H

-
0)

02
C

I
CD

F
t

H
-

S
H

CD
CD

H
CD

-<
H

H
H

i
H

Pi
CD

CQ
p

F
t

h
C)

F
t

CD
C

I

02
CD

CD
H

h
Pi

CD
H

-
-

H H
F

t
H

-
CD

H
-

H
-

U
)

Q
pj

C)
H

-
pi

C!
)

H
Cl

)
F

t
F

t
-

CD
CD

‘-Q
H

i
C

I
F

t
C

I
-

H
-

—

CD
10

CD

H
i

-

0)

U
IC

H
I
0
)

F
t

C
D

C
D

CD
H

F
t

Y
P)

CD
CD

H
(Q

i
pj

H
H

i
C

D
S

F
t

Cl
)

-
h

U
)

P
S

P H
-

3
CD

H
Pi

I-
0

Cl
)

<1
-

CD
H

i
Q

CD
0)

C!
)

F
t

H H 0
2

C
D

C
D

H H u
i

P
)

0
2 H

L
D

C
D

H k
<

I

O
H

c
o

L
O

W

o
-’

u
i

Cl
)

CD CD

H
i

CD F
t

Pi H
-

F
t

H 0 0 H
i

F
t

CD C) S H
i

H CD CD II 0) Cl) F
t

Pi F
t

0 H
i

F
t

CD Pi S H U
)

5
C

I
:

0
C

D
O

P
)
C

D
0

0
F

t
H

I-i
‘
H

-
k

<

H
-

H
-

H
i

H
-

F
t

0
r
r
-

C
D

CD
H

H
H

-
C

n
:J

C)
‘
C

D
P)

H
C

)
5

0
C

D
H

0
h

.
H

i
t

0
C

D
p
j

H
-

‘1 H rr
F

t
CD

H
<

C
D

0 )
II

H
0

2
C

D

;
F

tC
)

0 H
F

t
k

<

0
C

D
C

D
H

i
ri

CD
Fl

i
J

CD

h
Cl

)

H

iQ
C

Q
j

H
-

P

H
-

Cl
)

F
t

C
)

Cl)
1
i

0
2

O
)
g

p
jL

Q

j
Cl

)

P
)
:

H
-

H
P

)
H

H
i

0
h

H
iF

t
H

F
tC

D
J

H
-

F
t

C
D

t0



CD
C)

CD
CD

5
F

t
Pi

I-
I-

H
h

ç
t

Q
F

t
Pi

()
I

F
r

0
CD

CD
)

H
-

H
-

CD
CD

H
-

H
-

CD
CD

CD
F

t
t

H
-

J
lo

0
CD

H
F

t
Q

5
CD

CD
U)

H
-

(Q
F

t
5

CD
CD

Pi
CD

I-
I

F
r

l
CD

F
t

I-
Pi

Pi
F

t
Q

H
10

CD
H

-
CD

CD
CU

CD
F

-
1

CD
CD

h
H

-
CD

H
-

Iii
CU

C)
1

F
t

-
P

-
F

t
C)

CD
0

F
t

CD
CU

H
Cl

)
IF

F
t

H
,

P3
IH

i
I

F
t

IQ
H

-
CD

F
t

CD
-
-

S
CD

H
‘d

F
t

CU
CD

0
3

0
CD

P3
F

t
P3

CD
H

-
C

l
CD

CD
II

-•
F

t
CD

IQ
CU

CU
F

t
CD

pi
F

t
H

,
F

r
CD

F
t

H
I-

H
-

II
Q

-
CD

CD
H

-
0

F
t

CD
H

-
F-1

-
<I

0
Ii—

CD
Q

I
CD

0
CD

F
t

oo
ç-

t
H

,
F

t
CD

CD
CD

Q
I

Ii
i.

CD
CD

CD
H

-
H

-
CD

F
r

CD
CD

F
t

hj
0

F
t

CD
CU

CD
CD

k
<

H
-

lo
CU

CD
H

-
-

F
t

0
CD

CD
H

-
CD

CD
H CD

F
t

H1
Ci)

pi
CD

p3
0

H
-

H
-

•
CD

H
-

h
H

-
CD

CD
CD

H
-

0
CI

)
CD

,
0

(.Q
F

t
H

-
LQ

H
-

F
t

H
-

0
CD

H
,

H
H

-
q

H
H

,
5

CD
CD

0
F

t
CD

H
,

CD
H

H
-

5
Q

5
F

t
CU

F
t

1
pJ

F
t

H
-

C)
j

0
F

t
H

CD

_

l:
Y

.<
CD

N
CD

0
C)

pj
H

,
CD

F
t

ç
H

H
-

CD
F

t
H

,
H

-
F

t
H

-
3

<
CU

C)
H

0
CD

-
P3

F
t

F
t

H
0

CD
0

p
0

CD
0

CD
F

t
H

CD
H

-
H

,
H

0
-

H
,

-Q
•

F
t

0
CD

H
5

U)
3

H
CD

CD
0

CD
0

H
co

‘
0

o
C)

Q
ct

0
F

t
-

C
)

h
CD

P3
CU F

t
-

0
.

I-
”

(3
1

F
t

CD
H

-
CD

H
,

Q
I

CD
H

-
S

CD
F’

-
-

H
CD

CD
F

t
CD

CD
CD

‘
F

-
1

h
CD CD

CD
C)

0
F

t
g

h
CU

H
-

CD
0

F
t

H
-

0
.

H
-

0
Pi

H
-

C)
0

pi
0

H
H

,
S

H
-
H

-
C

D
F

r
H

-
CD

H
,

H
,

CU
CD

H
-

F
t

CD
CU

CD
H

-
P3

0
F

r
H

<
F

t
H

0
F

t
CD

-
0

CD
CD

CD
-Q

H
I-

H
-

H
,

CD
H

,
CD

CD
H

CU
CU

0
0

CD
H

-
H

,
CD

F
r

H
,

CD
CD

0
P3

CD

H
-

CD
1

h
CD

F
t

CD
F

r
H

F
t

CD
p3

CD
p3

H
-

CD
H

-
P3

H
-
Q

CD
CU

0
CD

CD
‘<

CD
CD

CD
S

H
P3

3
CD

CU
CD

<
CD

CD
H

-
F

t

CD
F

t
CD

H
-

H
-

H
F

t
k
<

CD
CD

CU
0

0
C)

H
-

H
,

<I
W

CD
H

-
F

r
CD

H
,

H
-

0
F

t
CD

CD
CD

0
Cl

)
CD

CD
H

,
H

,
H

-
CD

h
0

l
CU

CU
Q

3
P3

S
13

I-
CU

•-
13

H
-

CD
C)

H
-

H
,

CD
F

t
k
<

H
-

F
t

h
F

t
CD

k
<

CD
13

-
H

-
CD

CD
13

CD
F

t
0

13-
<

CD
i-

Ii
0

.
CD

H
-

h
H

-
H

,
H

-
CD

CU
S

H
CD

-
I-

Q
C)

13
H

CD
C)

-
t-

3
h

Q
0

CD
13

CD
CU

CU
CD

CD
CU

F
t

F
r

CD
CD

<1
F

r
(Q

CD
13

h
CD

H
P3

13
U

’
F

t
H

‘-
<

0
CD

CD
CU

0
.

CD
13

F
r

I-
H

CD
CU

5
C)

I
CU

H
0

.
Q

.
3

CU
CD

F
t

F
t

5
-

II
H

-
0

H
P3

0
H

-
H

13
H

-
F

t
hI

H
hI

lZ
CU

H
3

H
13

H
13

Q
F

r
CD

F
t

H
0
.
0
.
0

-
<

CD
-

13
<

CU
<

0
.

F
r

CD
k
<

0
.

k
<

0
Q

I
13



phrases he had made his own over the years:

“Now I find myself reproducing them again and in so doing
reproducing Carl Sauer’s thought.”29

This “index of the pervasive influence of this scholar” is, for

Stoddart, an indication of Sauer’s greatness as an academic. It

also, however, represents an uncritical adoption of his ideas.

Critical closure

Over the past decade, a “new cultural geography” has been

constructed which focuses on a critical rejection rather than

adoption of Sauer’s ideas, particularly his definition of culture.

Equating Sauer with the Berkeley department and North American

cultural geography as a whole, it dismisses them as outmoded,

relegating them to the “old cultural geography”, the heritage of

the “new”.

Sauer’s definition of culture, states James Duncan3° in his

pioneering article of cultural critique, reifies culture, missing

the wider social context in which it is constituted and expressed

and limiting the questions that may be asked within the discipline.

Sauer’s “superorganic” view of culture, says Duncan, sees culture

as an entity at a higher level than the individual, governed by a

logic of its own, actively constraining human behaviour and leaving

little room for human agency - we see reality “through the

29 Stoddart, op. cit., p.17.

30 Duncan, 1980.

8



creature’s eyes and act accordingly”.31 Duncan attributes this

superorganic notion to Sauer’s close links with Alfred Kroeber in

the Department of Anthropology at Berkeley, from whom these ideas

were apparently uncritically adopted and filtered down to Sauer’s

students in the geography department. Peter Jackson,32 in a more

recent critique, adds that Sauer’s view of culture is too rural,

materialist, historicist, concentrating on mapping the distribution

of non-urban cultural traits in the landscape and deciphering the

nature of their origins. As an alternative, Jackson advocates a

convergence of cultural and social geography and the adoption of a

more political approach to culture which allows a real concern with

social agency and the constructed nature of culture.

Price and Lewis,33 two former Berkeley students, have recently

replied to this critique, rightly criticising its reductionist view

of cultural geography at Berkeley and its relegation of the latter

to the defunct half of an old/new intellectual dualism. While

accepting the critical input of the “new cultural geography”, they

resent its destructive approach:

“Although members of the new school claim to be revitalising the
sub-discipline, they are in fact reinventing it, casting aside all
of the features that have long distinguished American cultural
geography. “

Price and Lewis advocate a mutual toleration in cultural approaches

31 Freilich in Duncan, op. cit., p.191.

32 Jackson, 1989.

Price and Lewis, 1993.

Ibid., p.2.

9



to geographical enquiry: they seek not to reinstate Berkeley as the

true exemplar of cultural geography, but to prevent its

misinterpretation .

In spite of this assertion, however, there is something of an

“establishment” feel to their tone. The delay in the reply to the

“new cultural geography” is exemplary of the long-established

positions of Berkeley geographers within the sub-discipline. As

they themselves note, they do not have to participate in

“intellectual jockeying”: their ways are “time-honored”.36 The

conceptualisation of the representatives of the “new cultural

geography” almost as the “youth of today”, elbowing their way in,

has connotations of their having to earn their place within the

tradition. Price and Lewis seem to forget that they are as much a

selective self-invented tradition as the caricature forced upon

them by the “new cultural geography”.

Neither do Price and Lewis, in my mind, adequately answer the

challenges of the “new cultural geography”. To meet Duncan’s

criticism of the superorganic, with its twin allegations of tribal

holism and discounting the individual, with the response that Sauer

was aware of the former but never did anything about it and, as for

the latter, he “did accord historical efficacy to individuals but

generally only to those who remained anonymous” (for example unamed

Ibid., p.3.

36 Ibid., pp.2 and 8.

10



women and Columbus!) is inadequate, to say the least.37

Sidestepping, Price and Lewis dismiss the matter, maintaining that

Sauer did not even pay much attention to conceptualising culture:

“Given the international orientation of the Berkeley school,
“culture” was a shorthand for those foreign peoples in whose land
geographers muddied their boots. ,,38

This, however, just reinforces Duncan’s critique that culture is

“out there”, and the point that culture is something other

(foreign) people are dominated by and from which the geographer is

exempt. Only he can swim against the cultural tide.

While Price and Lewis thus seek to mobilise the “old” cultural

geography from its ossified form imposed by the “new”, they do not

unfreeze their own conception of their tradition, especially the

role of Carl Sauer. True, the “Berkeley school” is not reducible

to Sauer’s work and influence. However, he is a significant part

of its (constructed) history and later work is defined in relation

to him. The “Berkeley school” may have “many voices”, but Sauer

was the first. We therefore need to take another look at this

legend.

Leaving the beaten trail: geography in the field

“The important thing is to leave the beaten trail and start cutting
one of your own; it will lead into a land of delight. That is both
the advantage and difficulty of being a geographer.”39

Ibid., p.10.

38 Ibid., p.11.

Sauer in Stoddart, op. cit., p.19.

11



çu
C)

ft
l-

CD
C)

H
,

Q
Ct

)
f
t

H
-

H
-

H
H

-
f
t

CD
ft

C)
C

H
CD

Q
I-

h
H

ci
i

ci
i

CD
H

ct
p
.

pi
ci

i
CD

pi
lQ

CI
)

(.Q
ct

CD
CD

c
t

C
H

-
ci

ci
i

cs
CD

1Q
f
t

<

F
-

1
ct

ft
C

0)
ci

i
H

H
-

-
tI)

‘
<

:
CD

CD
5

0)
-

cii
C

r
C)

F
-

1
C

H
-

CD
H

CD

C
)
C

D
0
2

H
,

CD
H

-
H

-
Cl

)
H

-
CD

CD
H

-
3

H
CD

ç
t

pi
H

-
CD

ft
I-

CD
CD

CD

Cl
)

-
I-,

Cl
)

ft
C

D
C

H C
D

-
-.

C
CD

CD
-

H
<1

ci
i

CD

H
-

CI
)

ft
C)

C

C
U

)
i
g
C

CD

H
-
1

Q

CD
ci

i
H

b
i-

H
-

C
ci

i
1

Cl
)

H
-

CD
Ci

)
-

Cl
)

h
C

IH
H

-
i

CD
I-Q

5
I—

o
ft

I-
CI

)
CD

H
-

CD
Ci

)

C

‘-
d

H
-

C) CD cii CD H
-

Cl
) C C) H

H to

f
t

ii
)i

H
,

H
-

ft
C)

ci
i

ft
d

Cl
)

H
-

C)
H

-
ft

Cl
)

‘-
d

CD
H

,
H

-
C

l)
J

C
3

I-
ci

i
CI

)
C

5
H

-
ci

i
C

C
Q

H
-

CD
CD

ft
CD

ci
i

C
CD

3
d

CD
H

CQ
CD

F
-

1
C)

CD
H

f
t

C
CD

H
-

II
H

Q
I

C
CD

h
ft

F
-

i
H

-
h

H
-

H
ft

ci
i

f
t

H
,

C)
C

H
-

f
t

Q
I

f
t

C)
H

,
H

H
-

CD
C)

zr
H

,
H

ft
H

pi
H

-
H

-
ci

i
H

-
02

0
Ci

)
CD

3
H

C)
h

p
j

k
<

ft
I

CD
H

-
C

CD
C)

U
)

C)
ft

ci
i

H
0

H
H

ft
‘1

o
CD

C)
ft

=
H

,
0)

f
t

1
C)

H
,

ft
C

p
CD

-

CD
0

H
-

1
CD

p
i

CD
H

C
H

,
H

Cl
)

H
-

H
-

h
CD

ft
Q

I
Q

S
Q

ft
C

ft
Q

I
CD

b
CD

f
t

CD
CD

H
-

H
,

CD
Cl

)
CD

ii
f
t

Q
li

ci
i

C
—

Q
I

H
-
C

CD
ci

i
H

,
C

CD
H

,

ft
H

-
h

H
f
t

CD
H

-
H

-

H
CD

ft
5

CD
CD

CD
CD

C
Cl

)
H

-
H

f
t

CD
CD

H
-

CD
H

-
H

ci
h

C
i
<

-
CD

o
H

,
H

-
H

CD
pi

ft
H

-
C)

-

f
t

H
-

CD
CD

H
-

H
ci

i
I-

0
H

CD
CD

C)
l

H
-

ft
H

-
ci

i
CD

o
pi

C
Q

0)
ft

H
CD

Ci
)

H
-

i
H

H
H

,
h

H
-

ci
i

H
H

H
Cl

)
Cl

)
C

ci
i

CD
CD

H
,

CD
p
i

H
-
C

D
CD

<1
S

H
-

k
<

ft
U)

H
H

-
cii

H
CD

ft
H

-
Ci

)
i

C
Cl

)
H

-
CD

CD
f
t

ft
f
t

U
)

C)
H

,
ft

02
-<

H
ci

i
0)

0
C)

l-
S

C
ft

ft
o

f
t

CD
C)

CD
H

H
-

H
,

k
<

H
-

CD
H

-
J

H
,

H
H

-
CD

5
H

-
CD

0
CD

Cl
)

f
t

H
-

H
CD

Cl
)

H
H

-
CD

H
H

C)
CI

CD
C)

CD
-

p
ft

H
-

cii
CQ

ci
i

Q
1

f
t

-
H

-
H

-
C

D
H

:
H

;-
p

CD
H

CD
H

,
H

,
C

H
C

ft
h

ft
H

CD
-
-

H
-

Cl
)

U)
CD

ft
‘

H
ft

CD H
p

CD
ci

i
pi

Ct
)

H
-

Cl
)

w
p
i

H
,

H
H

H
-

C
I-Q

H
3

CD
C

f
t

ci
i

Q
I

H
CQ

I
CD

pi
H

-
CD

H
-

H
C

CD
C

CD
H

CD
Q

-
H

-
H

CD
Q

I
C

H
-

H
-

H
0

ft
ci

i
C

H
,

CD
C)

5
3

H
H

-
k
<

Q
C)

h-
H

-
p
i

H
-

pi
H

-
C

)
p
i

CD
3

CD
ci

i
CD

C)
H

d
H

Cl
)

C)
H

ft
Cl

)
Q

I
CD

i-
H

CQ
ft

H
H

Q
I

ft
C)

C)
U)

ft
i-

CD
Q

CD
CD

ci
i

p
i

ft
CD

CD
Cl

)
ft

CD
C

5
ft

C)
‘1

C
pi

H
H

IC
H

-
Q

.
Cl

)
H

C
CQ

H
-

Cl
)

h
C

)
f
t

ft
IH

IZ
CD

CD
CD

li
<

l-
i-

C
C

CD
Q

I
f
t

C
Ci

)
b

H
-

H
ci

i
‘-

Q
I

CD
II

l-
ft

ft
H

-
ft

ft
ci

i
H

-
pi

ft
H

-
h

ci
i

ci
i

CD
3

H
-

f
t

ft
Cl

)
H

-
I-

ft
j

Q
I

-
U)

H
-

CD
CD

ft
CD

Cl)
CD

C
CD

‘-
<

‘-
<

C
CD

Cl)



.
.

‘-
d

()
D II

H
-

Ci
)

H
,

o
H

,
j

0
Cl

)
h

- C
D

0
I-

d
Cr

)

C)
C)

H
-

o
F

t
S S

-

H L%
J

-0 w

cI
)

CD CD C-
)

H H
-

H
,

H
,

0 H 0 0 Cl) Cr) CD

H

CD F
t

H

C
D

J
P

J
I
C

)
I

Cl
)

J
F

t
)

0
.Q

Pi
)

Cl
)

H
H

H
,

CD
$)J

0
t
F

t
I
I
I
-

0
3

F
t

0
—

0
H

-
c
t

CD
fr

0
H

rt
F

tI
H

IH
-

CD
Q

i
CD

F
t

F
t

h
•

0
CD

CD
F

t
F

t
H

-
C

D
I
c
t
I
F

t
F

t
CD

Cl
)

J
F

t
H

F
t

F
t
0
h
5
I
I
H

-
H

H
-
1

Q
O

I
t
I

PJ
H

,
F

t
0

H
-

Q
i

0
H

-
0

H
-

h
Q

0
I-

’
<

CD
d

C)
h

F
t

CD
LQ

H
H

-
H

-
0

H
-

W
0

I
H

,
CD

H
-

F
t

0

0

i—
i

,
CD

H
0

0
C

5
H

F
t
I
C

)
C

D
Pi

U
’

H
,

H
F

t
H

CD
k
<

H
H

H
i

O
o
Q

I
<

Q
i

H
-

F
t

F
t

CD
-

C)
C

D
tQ

H
I
H

F
t

CD
<

H
I
F

t
-

H
,

F
t

F
t

F
t

H
-

H
,

I
-

Q
i

CI
)

CD
Ci

)
3

)
CD

H
-

C)
H

-
‘-

0
H

-
F

t
Cl

)
i

CD
0

C
D

H
CD

CD
H

,
CI

)
C

CI
)

Q
F

t
C)

CD
H

H

F
t

H
-

H
-

CI
)

3
F

t

CD
0

F
t

F
t

)
C)

F
t

t
H

-
H

-

H
-

H
-

‘1
I-

H
>

4
H

H
H

H
H

,
CD

CD
F

t
F

t
0

d
F

t
F

t
c
o

F
’

H
-

H
-

.Q
Q

H
,

0
H

F
t

0
0

‘
0

CD
H

-
CD

H
F

t

0j
C

)
5

H
-

CD
F

t
CI

)
Q

i
H

—
w

cC
CJ

)
CD

H
-
H

H
-

F
t

F
t

Ci
)

F
t

F
t

C
)C

n
H

p
J
P

-’
C

D
Q

H
-

0
CD

cC
h

Q
H

0

C
D

H
-
’
<

i
.

0
Z

0
CD

I-
CD

CI
)

CD
H

Cl
)

-Q
Pi

Q
i

0
H

-
F

t
pi

h
Q

iP
J

F
t

0
CD

pi
PJ

CD
(-

Q
P

J
cC

5
H

Cl
)

H
-

q
H

-
C)

CI
)

0F
t

1Q
i

C)
o

CD
CD

H
,

Cl
)

C)
k

<

Ci
)

Q
i

-
pj

H
H

P
)

H
-

H
,

H
,

H
,

F
t

CI
)

-
CD

H
-

H
g

F
t

0
Q

c
-
p

F
t

0
H

-
Cl

)
CD

C
D
1)
f
r

C)
-

CD
F

t
CI

)
ci

-
pj

I—
i

H

ci
-

C)
CD

i
d
I
P

J
<

i
I—

’
•

F
t

F
t

CD
Cl)

‘-
<

H
-

0
(-Q

:-
CD

CD
H

-
H

F
t

F
t
h
I
W

H
F

t
H

-
CD

0
0

F
t

H
-

H
,

0
F

t
H

-
H

O
i-

s
•

F
t

H
,

P)
H

-
ci

C
D

C
)1

H
-

H
H

H5C
D

I
H

H
-

p.1
H

Q
i

H
-

Ci
)

i
ci

-<
CD

0
H

H
-

F
t

Pi
I-

P
J
W

IH
-c

o
pi

F
H

-
3

0
CD

F-
’

CD
Q

i
F

t
F

t
0

P.1
C

)
F

t
I
F

t
H

i
Cl

)
•
•

F
t

H
,

CD
H

a
H

H
p

C)
pj

H
-

H
CI

)
h

CD
CD

F
t

Q
I
U

)
H

c
i
-
H

-
Q

CD
C)

F
t

H
F

t
C)

F
t

CD
H

-
H

,
1

H
-
C

-
-

I-
H

-
H

0
F

t
H

H
-
C

D
-

F
t

Q
i

CD
F

t
I

F
t

s
Cl

)
k
<

H
i

H
-

H
-

CD
F

t
Cf

)
Q

i
CD

H
-

F
t

H
-

CD
CD

CD
b

H
,

F
t

F
t

Pi

H
-

lCD
H

-
Ci

)
-

P
CD

Pi
F

tl
-Q

H
IQ

iC
H

i
CD

-
Q

i
0

H
,

C
)

1H
-

H
-

0
H

-
F

t
F

t
H

-
(Q

Cl
)

1C
)
Q

3
F

t
F

t
p
j

F
CD

CD
H

c
o

iC
U

h
H

-
F

t
CD

pi
CD

2
H

F
t

0
F

t—
I
5

Q
CD

CD
P.1

C)
H

-
-

I
p

)
Q

I
C

D
F

t
F

-
1

C)
H

-
pi

F
t

H
,

CD
CD

CD
H

5
H

,
I

CD
Ci

)
F

t
F

t
H

-
CD

IF
tC

D
H

-
<

CD
Q-

’
i—

i
IQ

Cl
)

ci
-

Cl
)

Q
iF

t
l

-
F

t
C)

‘-
çj

0
C

l
)
H

-
H

I
0
o
)

H
i

H
-

CD
0

H
-

-•
pi

0
I—

i
Q

CD
H

-
S

F
t
C

D
H

I
H

,-
Cl

)
H

,
i-n

U
i

F
t

H
,

CD
H

,
Q

i
i-n

CD



w CD CD CD CD
IH

ji
p

ç
r CD

C C
D

1

H
H

C
D

F—
’

O
C

r
U

)
CD 1

H

C
D

Cf
l

H
C

r
C

r

C
D

CD
0

x H C) 0 H H



localisation, the drawing of a boundary. Like Clifford, I am

interested in the spatiality of cultural authority and cultural

futures. In a shift of focus from geography as “field” to

geography j the “field”, I am left with a complex view of Sauer

amidst intellectually and spatially bounded travel: fixed in the

academic “field” and fixing his authority in the “field”; mobilised

in the “field” and mobilising against fixed authority in the

academic “field”. Retaining this tension between dwelling and

travelling allows for an ambivalent and productive approach to

Sauer’s authority: holding onto an ethnographic crisis but an

enabling crisis that searches out the limits to authority and the

grounds for its transgression.

Homecomings

There are trails that must be followed if we are to get some

answers. We begin with Sauer’s life and work as bounded marginal

spaces in a “passage to premodernity”.46 Sauer is always already

travelling, displaced amidst a condition of “ethnographic

modernity”47 and looking for a cultural and intellectual dwelling

(“home”) . Following Sauer’s premodern passage into Mexico, the

“field”, culture and their inscription in Sauer’s notes and works

are treated as ambivalent attempts at homecoming amidst travel -the

positing of academic and cultural truths - “the notebook of a

return” •48 Allowing the spatial tension to resonate throughout

different “moments” of Sauer’s life and work, Sauer is thus

46 Mathewson in Kenzer, 1987, p.105.

Clifford, op. cit., p.3.

48 Ibid., p.173.

15



positioned ambivalently and strategically, negotiating the identity

of self and others amidst wider discourses of dwelling and

travelling. Finally, through a second and imposed (“home”) coming,

Sauer is ambivalently repositioned in the modern via the example of

his South American trip of 1942 with the question that perhaps it

is this that constitutes the true notebook of a return.

16



H
I

pi
it

H
-

—
.

U)
it

C/
)

CD
0

Cl
)

<
it

c
i

H
I

IC
-)

3
it

H
-
C

D
0

Pi
3

H
i

pi
H

i
H

-
F

H
i

I
H

-
C

D
—

CD
c
i

<1
H

-
CD

CD
I

çu
H

-
CD

H
-

H
-

CD
CD

I
U

)
P-

’
i-

H
I—

i
CD

CD
C)

Ii
-

H
-

t-Q
it

U)
J

U)
H

i
c
i

C)
I

H
c
i

H
i

CD
H

-
-

-
0

CD
-

H
-

i
>4

c
i

CD
H

-
(Q

CD
U)

-
CD

PJ
CD

CD
0

o
çu

H
:3

CD
:

CD
-

H
U)

:3
1

:3
Ii

-
o

‘
H

-
CD

1
U)

Q
H

-
H

-
U)

I
U)

it
0

-
H

=
H

i
-

c
i

çt
H

i
-

U
)

CD
it

H
-

10
:3

H
-

0
1

I..
o

CD
ft

H
c-

i
-
-

—
H

i
h4

-
.
-
-

CD
ci

i
0

CD
CD

H
-

it
H

i
Q

I

:3
H

it
CD

ci
i

H
-
c
t

>4
CD

H
-

i
ci

i
H

-
0

H
-

CD
F

-
1

H
ci

i
it

it
it

0
-

H
i

H
-

it
Cl

)
ci)

U)
U)

0
-

c1
CD

0
j

CD
CD

H
CD

H
-

CD
-

>4
H

CD
H

CD
—

0
0

H
M

C)

U)
H

I
CD

CD
S

it
0

it
C)

CD
H

-
c
t

Q
I

5
o

-
F’

H
-

H
-

H
I

CD
H

i
H

i
c
i

CD
d

H
0

0
H

-
c
i

‘<
c
i

CD
0

U)
ci

i
U)

CD
f-

i
CD

CD
p
i

0
U)

U)
-

c
t

CD
ci)

CD
H

0
CD

H
H

-
i

c
t

0
H

i
c
t

CD
H

-
U

)
ç

W
-

ç
C)

CD
‘

CD
H

-
pi

C)
-

•
-

C
)

CD
H

c
-

ç
CD

-
CD

CD
-

CD
H

i
H

Q
I

c
t

CD
H

t
h$

CD
CD

<
CD

CD
CD

H
it

U)
it

H
CD

H
c
i

Q
H

-
-

ci
i

-
.

)
H

-

C/
)

CD
CD

Cu
c-’

-
‘<

CD
CD

H
ci)

it
Q

I
cii

CD
C)

‘
CD

CD
—

.]
H

C/
)

0
it

-
0

CD
U)

H
-

Cu
0

cii
it

U)
CD

it
‘-

U)
cx

)
C)

H
i

C)
:3

it
CD

it
U)

it
-

CD
it

H
-

CD
CD

CD
0

it
C)

CD
‘-4

‘-4
—

:3
U

)
H

0
CD

i-

0
:3

U)
CD

H
1-4

it
CD

CD
CD

0
it

U)
CD

U)
>4

>4
I

IC
)

p
i

0
H

-
H

i
CD

0
0

Cu
it

‘
H

-
H

o
F-

’
H

i
<

C)
k
<

$
cx

i

CD
0

1i
H

-
CD

pi
CD

0
CD

Cu
H

i
‘-

11
3

Q
I

CD
1-4

it
1-4

it
‘

CD
H

-
H

-
—

CD
lCD

H
CD

CD
CD

CD C
<

CD
0

H
i

IC
)

H
-

H
0

Z
j

0
it

U)
it

0
5

CD
c-i

-
Q

I
CD

H
CD

H
i

P
H

H
-

U)
-

p
i

-
‘

5
Q

I
H

-
U)

CD
CD

pi
H

cii
-

F’
-

H
H

c-
i

h
0

CD
0

H
-

H
i

U)
k
<

CD
U)

0
1

-
it

ci
i

ci
i

CD
CD

0
13

U)
CD

H
-

pi
it

H
i

0
I

-
it

-
<

CD
i

CD
-

H
i

Pi
i-

ci
i

ci
)

•
U

)
k
<

H
it

H
i

H
0

CD
-

C)
I-

<
0

Cl
)

CD
-

0
it

H
-

U)
CD

C)
0

cii
13

3
5

1-4
0

CD
H

-
D

U)
CD

p
13

H
i

ci
i

it
S

U)
‘-Q

=
ci

i
H

-
0

Cl
)

ci
i

ci
i

H
-

it
0

CD
‘-4

13
‘-4

0
CD

‘-4
O

Q
I

0
H

-
(Q

it
J

1-4
b

cii
CD

1Q
CD

H
i

Q
I

it
CD

CD
I-

h
U)

CD
13

CD
CD

it
13



to begin with a “home”: “home” not in the sense of the “warm,

redwood house”4 that James Parsons immediately associates with

Sauer (see Figure 2), but in the sense of identity, the sense of

belonging. Sauer himself conceptualised his life as a kind of of f

beat existence: that of the small-town “peasant”, tangential to a

modernising, urbanising United States within which he emerged as

dissenter, “maverick”, even “jester”.5 In fact, born second

generation into a German immigrant community, Sauer was in a way

already marginal to the United States, displaced by birth. Thus,

rather than taking “home” as our starting point for granted, it

becomes more productive to begin with a condition of displacement;

the important query being not so much “Where are you from?” but

“Where are you between?”: James Clifford’s question of

intercultural identity that puts the very notion of “home” to the

test 6

Rather than unproblematically charting Sauer’s biography, then, I

choose to view “home” critically as a persistent issue in his life.

Beginning with the ambivalence of the German-American “home”

(Heimat) into which Sauer was born, I go on to position him in a

further “unhomely dwelling”,7 disorientated by a modernising United

Parsons, pers. comm. (L) , op. cit. Here Parsons is referring
to Sauer’s house in Berkeley.

Sauer in Williams, op. cit., p.21.

6 Clifford in Grossberg et. al., op. cit., p.109.

Bhabha, op. cit., p.141. I realise that there is much to
Bhabha’s discussion of the “unhomely dwelling” (the “paradigmatic
post-colonial experience”) and that I am here quoting out of
context. However, what appeals is Bhabha’s sense that the border
between the home and the world are confused and the private and

18



Figure 2: At home?
Carl Sauer’s “warm, redwood house” in Berkeley.

MERRY CHRISTMAS * HAPPY NEW YEAR

19



States. Within this context, I find Sauer’s reaction to be one of

retreat (in response to the United States as “lack”) : a desire for

cultural and academic alternatives and a replaying of his German

background as traditional “home” against American societal change.

This reaction is spatialised in Sauer’s life and work as a “passage

to premodernity”:8an association with non-modern spaces forming a

trajectory that eventually situates him in the “field” in Mexico.

The exploration of the “field” as antimodern “home” provides us

with sign posts for the remainder of the thesis.

Heiluat?

Carl Sauer was born in Warrenton, Missouri in 1889 where, with the

exception of three years in Southern Germany,9 he remained until

1908. Although moving further and further away in later life,

according to Kenzer,1° Sauer would often look to Warrenton for “that

hometown feeling” that he could not find elsewhere. Indeed,

Sauer’s boyhood years in “hometown” Warrenton were certainly

distinctive: his parents had migrated to the Midwest amidst a wave

of intellectuals escaping Germany in the 1850811 and were thus part

of a German cultural renaissance in the United States. Whole

public are part of each other: a notion of “the world-in-the-home
and the home-in-the-world” which I am trying to use here as an
approach to Sauer.

8 See Mathewson in Kenzer, op. cit., p.105.

Sauer was with his parents in Calw in the Schwarzwald from
the age of nine to the age of twelve (1898-1901)

10
Kenzer, 1985a, p.261.

See Kenzer, l987c, p.41.

20



villages had migrated intact, bringing a sense of “Heimat”2 from

Germany (see Figure 3) : a cohesive community to be rooted firmly in

the soil of Missouri. As “custodians of culture” living in a new

country,’3 they attempted to recreate the ways of the old. Sauer’s

early experience was thus of a way of life in exile: he

communicated with his parents in German’4 and attended Central

Wesleyan College (CWC), a bilingual Methodist school which had

grown out of the nineteenth-century migration. According to

Kenzer, CWC had perhaps the foremost collection of German

literature and religious works available in the United States at

that time and prided itself on being a very “German” college;’5 in

turn, Sauer’s father was apparently “the best of the religious and

12 “Heimat”, directly translated, means “home”; however, it
gains a wealth of meaning from its participation in the “volkish”
movement of mid nineteenth-century Germany - a spiritual reaction
to the dislocation of urbanisation and industrialisation. This
movement incorporated, along with the highly romantic notion of the
“yolk” (the people), a focus on rootedness in the landscape
(“Verwurzelung”) . The “Heimat” was “the specific location where
the yolk was rooted and where it maintained its elemental ties with
the natural world” (Bassin, 1987, p.123). The very strength of the
term “Heituat” thus came from its resistance to the mobility and
alienation of the times. While Sauer’s parents moved from their
home region in Germany (their true “Heimat”), they can, in a sense,
be seen as reforming this concept in the face of dislocation.
Later on (indeed, throughout the thesis), Sauer seems to turn to
some form of “Heimat” in the face of change.

3 Carter, op. cit., p.100. See Carter for an interesting
discussion of how meaning is constructed in a migrant situation:
the clinging to cultural baggage versus the mirroring of the host
culture and the third alternative of what he calls an
“authentically migrant perspective”.

‘ This was up to 1918. Kenzer, l987c, op. cit., p.49.

Kenzer, 1985a, op. cit., p.262. For Kenzer, CWC offered a
traditional German education with its emphasis on the natural and
physical sciences and its fostering of a historicist perspective.
Kenzer is also keen to point out the importance of such classical
German writers as Goethe in CWC’s intellectual landscape.

21



C
ii

ç
j
[
l

(o
w

(1 J

F
t

cn (0 Ft
c
T

)
o
w

j0J



educational life” of the “Germany of other days”.’6 Thus, as a

result of both parental and college influence, Sauer’s early

environment was distinctively Germanic.’7

However, if Warrenton’s community provided a sense of “home”, it

was a precarious one. Although the German emigres felt that they

had established a second Rhineland,’8 they were not allowed to call

it their own: for “true Americans”, they were the “enemy forces”:

“rag-tag and bob-tail cutthroats of Beelzebub from the Rhine, the
Danube, the Vistula and the Elbe.”19

This was particularly the case during the First World War when

anti-German sentiment in the Midwest mushroomed and the “American”

sense of place challenged the Germanic.2°Towns changed their names

under pressure - Berlin became Lincoln! - and in 1918, CWC was

forced to remove a large percentage of its German program as a

16 Kenzer, 1987c, op. cit., p.50.

17 Sauer continued his German education while a graduate
student in Chicago, familiarising himself with German social
science. See Glick, 1988, p.446.

18 Warren County was one of the several counties that, as a
function of German migration, constituted “The Missouri Rhineland”
during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. See Kenzer,
1985a, op. cit., p.260.

19 Lears, 1981, p.29. Lears is quoting here from an American
editorial of 1886.

20 Copley, pers. comm. (I), 12/3/93. For Copley, there are
strong memories of anti-German sentiment in the Midwest around the
time of the First World War. Sauer, he suggests, may well have
been affected by such persecution and this could have fuelled his
later move to the west. Similarly, Williams (op. cit., p.4)
asserts that the “American reaction to Germans during the First
World War” left Sauer with “indelible memories”.

23



it
0

‘
C

D
U

)
0

0
H

-
CD

it
H

-
H

-
H

-
h

f
-
i
t

•
H

-
H

-
’
T

J
H

-
C

D
0
H

-
0

F
-
’
C

D
H

,
CD

H
,

Q
))

5
CD

U
)
0

Q
U

)
C

D
U

)
5

U
)

U
)
<

CD
CD

Q
it

S
U)

C
)

C
)
i
t
i
t
H

-
i
t

F
-

1
(1

)
C

D
U

)
CD

H
-

H
-

CD
H

-
Q

h
CD

CD
)
U

)
)

it
H

I
<

F
-

1
(-Q

H
C

D
f
l
H

-
C

D
C

D
P

J
h

F
-

0
H

-
H

-
H

h
it

h
U

)
.Q

H
H

-
H

-
<

i
t
H

-
it

<
C

D
H

-s
h

U
)

5
it

p
1

CD
Pi

5
i
i
t

U
)
H

-
N

C
)
C

)
C

D
C

)
H

-
L

h
0
C

D
CD

CD
<

pi
H

-
C)

D
r
j
:

H
-c

C
D

U
)
P

)
Q

p
1
H

-
CD

Cl
)

C
D

H
,

U
)

Q
pi

it
it

0
r
t

CD
h
p
j
P

J
i—

C
D

U
)C

Q
Q

‘1
it

0
pi

Y
H

U
)

H
,

<
C

D
H

-
a

C
D

r
0
H

5
N

Cr
)

m
U)

0
‘1

H
-

H
H

-
P-

h
h
’
<

S
H

CD
CD

i
t
Q

Cu
<

U)
H

I_
U

)
-

)
U

)
-

h
it

U)
CD

5
H

H
CD

h
h
i
-
t
c
t

U)
-

H
-

Cu
Cu

U
)

<
H

-
pi

H
-C

D
C

u
0
C

D
H

H
k
<

0
U

)
U)

H
-

p
1

H
c
-
r
l
j

S
c
r

H
CD

(1
U)

°
CD

i
C

D
C

D
‘-.

0
H

Q
U)

0
CD

0
)

h
H

-
0

C)
h

CD
H

,:
j

U
’

g
0

CD
Cu

CD
CD

H
Cu

ç
t

S
Cu

b
H

-
H

Cu
P

Cu
O

C
D

i-
i

CD
H

.Q
H

-
C)

Cu
it

it
H

-
H

-
C

D
U

)U
)

CD
H

-
CD

CD
CD

0
U

)U
)

-
—

CD
U)

H
-

j
i-

p1
Cu
i
t

0
C

)
H

-
H

-
5o
i
t

‘d
it

i
t
0

Q
CD

I
p
1
0O

i
t

0O
H

C
D

N
.

0
H

0
C)

H
it

it
5

p
1

U
)

Cu
H

-
.

Q
C

)
D

h
C)

it
‘-

Cu
it

CD
0

“
H

-

CD
C

uC
D

C
D

CD
H

-
CD

H
-
i
t

CD
CD

0
H

,
U

)
C

)
C

D
p

0
it

CD
-

CD
Cu

it
C

D
0i
t
5
C

u
o
i
t

-
.

CD
U)

it
H

p
1

H
-
P

J
U

)
f
r
p

1
H

Cu
Cu

C
D

CD
L’

.1
F-

’
Cu

CD
H

p
p
1
i
t

C
u

i
t
C

)
H

H
C

D
p

1
C

D
U

)
CD

F
-

1
CD

II
it

i
t

H
-C

D
-.

C
D

i
t

H
H

Q
C

D
U

)
C

u
C

)
M

0
H

U)
H

-

U
’

U
)
U

)
0

Q
U

)
it

C
D

\.
)

H
,

H
C

D
it

H
,

H
-

H
-

U
)

CD

0
p
1
i
t
O

H
-

H
0

CD
0

s
C)

it

‘
d

CD
H

-
it

H
I

H
CD

0
1S

U
)

0
0

p1
Cu

-
-

c
H

1
C

u
i
t
U

)
d

p
1

0
it

CD
C)

0
H

-
-

pi
H

-
k
<

it
U

)
H

H
-
p
j
C

)

C
D

-P
CD

0
it

H
-

II
-

U
)p

)
it

H
-

0
CD

C
u

U
)

U
)

i
t
h

C
u

r-
i

CD
Q

U)
Cu

0
U)

0
C

D
k
<

H
-

C
D
0

Q
P

1
C

)
H

CD
CD

H
-

i-

C)
it

CD
p
1

it
0

pi
N

0
it

U
)

1
‘
d
O

i
t
H

H
H

H
CD

S
U)

Cu
CD

H
C

)
C

D
C

D
<

CD
C

D
‘d

CD
H

-
=

i
-

p
1

I-
it

H
it

CD
H

-
it

0
CD

U)
C)

it
H

H
,

p
1
-
O

U
)
H

-
H

,
it

CD
H

-
I
<

C
D

Q
Q

H
,U

)
it

U
)

CD
Ij

—
S

pi
0

-

0
H

-C
D

i
t
•

k
<

Cu
H

‘
C

D
p1

CD
il

C
u

pj
H

5
-

H
-

S
Cu

C
D

C
D

CD
5
<

it
p1

CD
CD

0
CD

C
D

C
)
C

D
C

u
C

D
H

,
L

I.
p
jC

D
CD

H
0

‘-
‘

CD
CD

H
-
C

D
’
d

H
H

-
Q

0
5

it
it

ip
F-

’-
H

,
h-

U
)

CD
it

it
I-

CD
it

H
-

it
H

-
0

H
‘<

CD
H

-
H

-
H

-
C)

CD
S

U
)C

D
C

u
C

D
-

-
i
t
i
t
C

)
C

D
0

it
Cu

i
H

-
0

U)
i

Cu
H

Cu
=

C
D

U
)

p
1
-

U
)
C

D
k

<
I

U
)

p
1

=
p

1
it

U)
i

—
Q

j
it



:j
-s

::
i

O
I)

r
t
Q

f
t

ç
iJ

H
i

C
D

p
J

L
J(

D
p

i
‘-

i
h

L
J
.

K
)

H
-

r.
Q

H
C

)
h

H
i CD

O
0

H
-

i-
r
C

D
i
Q

H H
(
.
Q

f
t
p

i
H

00C
l
) U

)
CD

O
j
H H

-
H

E\
)

(I
I

f
t

C
D

w
H

CD
H H

i
-

H
i

H
-.

p
i’

C)
U

)
”
f
t

ft
C

D
C

I)
CD
P

J
U

)C
D

i
ct

-r
C

D -
pi

H
-

f
t

Cl
)

:f
tC

D
pi

H tt)
L

1
C

t
K

)C
D

U
)

-
f
t

p
)

0
C

D
H

i

C
l
)

C)
CD

ft
C

D
h
p
i
h
p
)

i
H

-
i

C
rC

)
O

o
CD

C
D

C
)

C
D

r
r C

D

C
)

Cl
)

Pi
tO

CD
1

)
t-

-
CD U

)
Cl

)
CD

H
P)

I.
D

f
t

—
I

CD
o

i-i
—

H
c-

f
C

f
0

1
J

•
f
t

•
CD H

i
p1

ft
C)

-
CD

H
0
<

H
i

H o

CD
•

i
-

U
)O

0
:
:

C
)C

D
H

-
C

D
C

D
c
-
r
h

p
1

-
H C

) p1
p1 C

D
iQ C

D p1 U
)

Cc
-

H
-

C) C
f

0

p
1

°
C

)
P

H
iC

D

H
-

C
t

t-
C

D
H

-
h

O
I
d

k
<

f
-
-

(I
)

P1
pJ

H
i-

1
i

f
t

CD

p
)

P1
H

-
t-t

-
c
:

H
t-

C
D

H
Cl

)
0

C
c-

C
D

P
J
C

D

r
t

C
D

P
i

CD ci
)
C

D
H

C)
H

-
ci

i
o
N C

D

f
t

i
t

p1 p-
.

Cl
)

H
-

CD
H

-
-

H
ft

H
U)

C)
C

D C
D

H
f
t

H
-

H
H

-
CD

-
t-

C
D

U
)
P

1
i-

C
D

f-
i-

-
H

i

o i
O

C)
H

i
C

)U
)

CD
f
t

H CD
H

-
CD

CD
p
j
C

)
f
t

f
t
-
i

C
D

CD
P

JC
D

•
p
)
I
Q

c—
c

P
l

X
C

)
C

D
P

iC
D

0

CD
f
t
3

H
f
t

0
-

O
O

Cl
)

C
D

U
)

U
)
F

i(
l)

CD
P

-
ç
-
c
-
-
P

1
CD

t
p
i

-

CD
C

)
C

D
C

D
C

D
H

H H
-

CD
H

-
-

H
i

•
C

l
)
t
-
Q

H
i

Cl
)

H
-
.

O
p
J
O

L
D

U
)

a
H

-n
-)

C)
H

-
C

l)
Q

-
J

r
r
p
i

CD
H

O
0

F
P

i
C

D
.

i-
C

D
h
C

D
c
--

O
C

l
)
’
<

-

f
t

C
D

H
<

Cl
)

H
-
i

h
p
j

L
I

-

CD
t-Q

C
D

CD

H
CD

C)
H

-
CD

CD
H

-
1

C
L

J
P1

H
-

CD
A

,H
O

C
)

H
f
t

•
1
r
J
<

U
)
C

D
-

h
H

-
c
-

C)
O

O
)
P

J
C

)
C

D
O

•
H

-
f
t

1<
1

c
tp

iO
P

C)
-

f
t
H

i
H

H
-

f
t
H

-
O

ft
P

iC
D

C
)
c
-
Q

f
t
U

)
p
)
1
t
-

P
I
H

O
O

U
)

:
•

H
i

U)
IQ

C
D

i
ñ

O
i

•
O

c
-U

)

H
-

H
0

-

H
-

H
i

ft
C

)
CD

j
k

<
0

H
-U

)
ft

I
p

)
U

)
.

H
i

C)
C)

ft
C)

O
0

U)
0

p1
CD

P1
H

ft
U

)
Q

1Q
H

-
CD

H
i

=
o

0
CD

H
-

.
-

0
H

S
ft

H
CD

U)
0

.

CD
-
‘

H
CD

CD
H

i
.
-

U)
-

h
CD

ft

H
i
C

D
Q

C
D

CD
H

H
U)

-
H

H

d
CD

‘1
i-

Q
H

-
P1

CD
CD

H
U)

H
-

-

CD
L

I H
i

f
t

ft
ft

H
-

U)
p

i
i-

0
P-

CD
o

U)
Q

.
1Q

CD
ft

CD
ft

CD
H

U)
P

H
i

CD
U)

ft
-

I
0 H

i
H

i
CD

C/
)

0
ft

0
P-

C) H
CD

f-
i-

H
CD

p1
CD

CD
H

-
C)

CD
—

,
H

i
CD

P1

5
CQ

CD
Q

0
0

H
-

Q
f
t

ft

C
)

X
O

CD f
t

p1
0

Q
J -

H
-

U
)

U) ft

CD H
-

H CD CD ft P1 CD H CD U) CD C) p1 S CD H ft CD S 0 CD p1 CD L
A

CD

U
)

Cl
)

f
tO

p1
p
1

t3
-c

i
CD

H
H

c
-

C
D

P1 f
t

U) CD
H

-
U)

U)
CD

H
i

CD
H

-
P1 0

H
-

H
i

Q CD
ft

I
S

CD h
P

H
-

CD
C)

i-
p1

P1

0 C) H f
t

k
<

o
P

H
c- 0 0

CD
ft

S
H CD U) U)

p1 H
CD U

)
Ci

)
ft

p1
U)

Q
p1 f
t

H
-

H
-

U)
P1 H

H p1 C) CD
Cr

1
S

p1
CD i

CD
ft

i-i

H
i

p1 S H
-

H H H
-

C) CD p1 c
i

CD CD p1 H
-

U) CD I:-
’

H CD c 0 U) CD

p1 H CD c
i

1
P

c
i

C
D

ci
C

D
p1



that contradicted the - if threatened - community of his “hometown”

Warrenton. This new image of the “Restless American” was, to Sauer,

greatly disturbing and continued as a concern into later life:

“We have since become a greatly nomadic people at all levels and
occupations. . .The moving van and the house trailer travel our
highways coast to coast unendingly. Home ownership may be more
practical and convenient than rental, but in either case there is
a short expectation of staying. The community ties are greatly
loosened or lost, the home a temporary address, not the place where
the family puts down its roots.”3’

Sauer thus found himself further displaced in a society

representing the antithesis of his upbringing: not only a

disrespect for history and tradition but a restlessness, a nomadism

and a further destabilisation of “home”. For Sauer, as for Lears,

not only “home” but identity was seriously threatened once people

“cut loose from geography”: how far backward then over the days

could “the uninterrupted “I” be said to extend?”32

In addition to a sense of spatio-temporal dislocation - change as

disorder - the modern for Sauer, as for many, was constituted as

loss. After the War when “the world blew up”33 and “American

civilisation began rolling,34 Sauer found American society wanting

both culturally and academically. On the one hand, he interpreted

the modern as a form of urban culture monster: inauthentic,

overriding cultural particularity and destroying the diversity of

31 PAR, Sauer to Jackson, 24/6/60.

32 Lears, op. cit., p.5.

Williams in Mathewson in Kenzer, 1987, op. cit., p.107.

Sauer, 1945, p.124.

26



American small-town communities.35 In Homestead and community on

the middle border, Sauer lamented the loss of community, the

village break-up with emigration: it would, he said, be missed.36

Sauer enjoyed diversity: he rejected the modern path to “hear the

same thing, see the same thing, think the same thing”37 and wanted

a world that resisted uniformity.38 Later in life, he watched the

transformation of California with anxiety, viewing it as a

microcosm of the modern cultural crisis spreading throughout the

United States:

“There is a lot of experimentation going on out here, but it is
for the gaining of general acceptance. We get a fashion of
housetype, supermarket, basket-ball competition, betting on races
or mixing drinks, that if successful sweeps the state. . .Our goal
seems to be that we look alike, have the same manners and the same
thoughts. . .We are the perfect example of a highly mobile mass in
which change must affect all parts or die out.”39

On the other hand, in addition to the inadequacy of this

“succesfully industrialised world” eradicating the cultural

landmarks that he cherished, Sauer also feared the loss of

Sauer’s concern for the destructive potential of the modern
was not purely cultural but also environmental. In his speech to
the Royal Geographic Society in 1975, Sauer cautioned:
“Civilisation in our time has developed a technical dominance that
has changed the world and is impoverishing it. . .Biology is aware of
the limited world. Geography must not forget it.” (SN34, misc.).
This concern arose out of his early fieldwork and involvement in
land surveying in Michigan, witnessing at first hand the effects of
environmental neglect. For Sauer - since culture was expressed via
the landscape - culture conservancy and nature conservancy went
hand in hand. This thesis, however, concentrates predominantly on
the former.

36 Sauer in Leighly, 1969, op. cit., p.41.

Sauer, 1945, op. cit., p.124.

38 LQ5, Sauer to Smith, 19/4/38.

Sauer in Williams, op. cit., p.19.

27



academic interest in cultural particularity. The modern mood

appeared to be “antihistorical and antigeographical”4°and Sauer -

who felt he “did not know how to think except in terms of time and

space”41- found himself increasingly disillusioned. What, he said,

was the point of:

“knowing the illuminated letters of a missal, the finding of a
Gregorian chant, the tying of a trout fly”42

if history and geography were becoming irrelevant; the conservation

of cultural difference alien thinking? American academic geography

was becoming for Sauer far too seduced by modern trends: its

practitioners were “slick salesmen” turning thematically towards

the economic, politic and the urban; embracing the contemporary

(which for Sauer was the political) and looking to apply,

synthesise, plan and, worst of all, universalise. As James

Parsons notes, Sauer’s “ecologic, historical, cultural

interests. . . found little reflection in the main currents of the

times”.43 There was a “blindness” in the “modern age”,44 a lack of

curiosity: cultural particularity, history, and the whim of

discovering difference seemed to be becoming passé.

Sauer thus positioned himself uncomfortably amidst a modernising

40 LQ5, Sauer to Smith, 19/4/38.

‘ Sauer in Williams, op. cit., p.20.

42 Ibid., p.22.

“ Parsons, pers. comm. (L), op. cit.

LQ9, Sauer to Bowman, 5/12/42.

28



American society: “off to one side”45 of cultural and academic

trends. Although this became increasingly articulated at the

intellectual level for Sauer - a feature in his work as well as his

correspondence - it remained a highly personal issue; a question of

identity and “home”. The spread of modern culture, it must be

remembered, threatened his own community of Warrenton; the academic

neglect of the past challenged his own early historicist education.

Many experienced the modern as cultural disintegration;46 Sauer

integrated it into his work - it was not, however, any less

personal.

Passage to premodernity

“Sauer. . lived through a period of quite unprecedented change in all
the places that he knew best, in the face of which he held even
more tenaciously to his more traditional values.”47

Sauer’s response to his “unhomely dwelling” in the modern was to

take refuge in retrospect. Sauer himself said he was “either born

or conditioned to look on the world historically”48 and perhaps

both were true: the historicism of his early “Weltanschaung” fusing

with the shock of the new to make him hold on to a sense of

tradition.49 Either way, although he may have been afraid of the

present and the future, he had no misgivings about the past. It

‘ Hooson in Blouet et. al., op. cit., p.166.

46 See Clifford, op. cit., pp.4-5.

Mathewson in Kenzer, op. cit., p.105.

48 Sauer in Leighly, 1969, op. cit., p.389.

Also, Sauer’s early academic training in the natural
sciences, particularly geology, endowed him with a concern for “all
human time” and, later, for geography as a retrospective science.

29



was here that Sauer hoped to find some compensation for the loss of

the modern; some form of cultural and academic belonging. Indeed,

the modern was only constituted as lack by Sauer because it had

departed from the past. The answer lay in a return to cultural and

academic tradition.

For Sauer, the question of return resided not only in retrospect

but also in mobility. As John Leighly notes, he attempted to:

.escape from the obtrusive ugliness of our culture, which does
not spare the academic community, in the exploration of remote
times and remote places.”5°

Sauer can thus be viewed as antimodern traveller, looking for

alternative spaces to reinforce a sense of tradition; a sense of

identity and “home”. His reorientation to the antimodern is

spatialised as a “passage to premodernity” - a trajectory that

takes him further back to the past and into the “field” in Mexico.

This can be divided into a series of dischotomies: urban/rural;

east/west; north/south, each of which speaks to Sauer’s

antimodernism and the issue of “home”.

Aging in the wood5’

Viewed synoptically, Sauer’s life and work were pitted by bouts of

anti-urban sentiment and a strong association with the rural.

° Leighly, 1969, op. cit., p.7. My use of emphasis.

51 See Leighly, 1979, p.15. “Aging in the wood” was, for one of
Sauer’s students, the process of doing a thesis in Berkeley. This
speaks to the section below on Berkeley as a form of academic
“home”: a return to a form of intellectual craft and a rural (read:
authentic) alternative set apart from the more urban San Francisco
environment.

30



Sauer was based in urban areas for much of his life but, according

to James Parsons, did not “especially like cities.. .though he was

himself a part of them” •52 He resented urban encroachment on the

countryside and wrote with disappointment that “the ways of the

country” were “becoming subordinated to the demands of the cities”;

the farmer “becoming a town dweller”.53 The cities and city

masses, said Sauer, were “an offense to a good and sweet-smelling

world”; he was against them, against all the:

“masses of people rushing about, making unnecessary noises,
gobbling sweets and chocolate drinks, dragging their wet and smelly
infants about.”

Cities were part of civilisation’s “garbage, literally and

figuratively”, and he dismissed them.54

Since, as James Parsons notes, Sauer studied “things he liked and

had sympathy f or”,55 it is not surprising that this rejection of

the urban should filter into his academic work. It was not, says

Wagner, part of Sauer’s “vision to take account of the apogee of

urbanism”:56 “Too complicated” Sauer would say “as he looked out

52 Parsons, pers. comm. CL) , op. cit.. The cities Sauer lived
in, however, were not all as “urban” as each other: Berkeley, for
example, would have been less so than the rest of the Bay Area
cities and than Sauer’s earlier Chicago environment.

Sauer in Thomas, op. cit., p.61.

LQ22, Sauer to Hess, 15/9/55. Mexico City and Washington
D.C., as we shall see in Chapters Five and Six, were the ultimate
city spaces for Sauer to avoid.

Parsons, pers. comm. (L) , op. cit. Also, according to
Copley (pers. comm. (I), op. cit.), Sauer once said: “I’ve yet to
meet an urban geographer who likes cities.”

56 Wagner, pers. comm. (I) , op. cit.

31



over the urban sprawl of the Bay Area” in San Francisco “and let it

go at that”.57 Urban geography for Sauer was simply “fustian and

feathers”58- he turned away from cities and claimed

incomprehension:

“I do not know what urbanism means. I have kept away from cities
in my thinking. The growth of cities reflects something that is
happening in and to the country round about. It is a phenomenon,
and as such worth studying, but I cannot get into it.”59

Despite often living in cities, Sauer was very conscious of the

rural nature of his beginnings: “his roots. . .sunk deep in

Midwestern so±l,,60 in “the wooded triangle between the Missouri and

the Mississippi rivers”.6’ In the midst of the urban, Sauer

continued to claim an association with the rural:

“Mainly we were country-bred of prairie and woodland soil, and kept
this knowledge and quality when we went to the cities to
live. ,,62

As respite from the urban, Sauer’s early fieldwork returned him to

the rural areas of Missouri and Illinois. His later work for the

State Geological Survey in Southern Illinois and for the Michigan

Land Survey allowed him to escape the city for the country again.63

Parsons, pers. comm. (L), op. cit.

58 Sauer in Stanislawski, op. cit., p.553.

Sauer, 1945, op. cit., p.127. The “country” here is the
reality, the “city” merely an intruder.

60 Parsons, 1976, op. cit., p.83.

61 Leighly, 1976, op. cit., p.337.

62 Ibid.

63 The period of fieldwork covered here is from around 1916 to
the early 1920s.

32



Q
M

i
C

t
:

M
i

D
C

t
J

C
t

02
:

I—
’

Cl
)

M
i

th
O

P
J

-C
D

0
Cl

)
M

i
J

J
0

CD
CD

C
D

IC
D

0
$

C
u
rt

c-
t

CD
CD

CD
Cu

H
-

I-
I-

Cu
C

r
h

H
0

F-
’

C
tH

-
H

-
H

-
0

C
t

Cl
)

Cu
0

P
0

H
H

-
I
O

C
D

H
H

-H
$

C)
C)

$
H

-
H

Cl
)

CD
l—

°
C

u
C

t
N

0
Q

H
-

c
-r

H
0

H
-

H
-

0
Cu

•
C

t
:

CD
j

(Q
CD

CD
H

H
-I

C
u

Cu
H

-
C

t
Cu

Q
H

H
-

•
CD

C
l)

0
I
C

l
)

(
0
(
0
h

Ii
0

CD
k
<

C
r

CD
CD

CD
Q

-’
H

H
-

‘1
I

M
i

Cu
1
0

C
D

I
C

D
:0

2
.
.
C

1
)

1
0

Cu
I-

02
H

0
2

I
CD

Cl)
tO

C
u
rt

C
t

to
—

‘C
D

CD
Cl

)
02

CD
H

-
0
H

-
jC

u
C

o
CD

I
CD

D
02

I
tI

Cu

C
u

CD
CD

0
H

CD
0
M

L
Q

i
p

Cl
)

M
i

I
O

0
)

Cl
)

H
-

=
C)

H
-

H
-

H
H

-
CD

Cl
)

H
-

H
Cu

I
H

C
u

C
D

H
-

Cu
C

t
CD

Cl
)

H
CD

cq
P

CD
0

H
0

H
ft

to
CD

C
D

0
I

CD
f-

rH
-

C
t

CD
Cu

C
D

o
•

ç-
t-

c-
t

CD
-

CD
Cu

CD
H

H
-

ct
C

D
Cu

C
t

0
2

F
-

f
t

C
t

Q
CD

0
$

0
c
t

C
D

$
M

i
H

Cl
)

i)
0

CD
0

C
)
H

CD
0

Cu
CD

M
i

CD
H

i

0
H

•
C

t
H

l
—
0C

D
.

Cl
)

J
f
t

1
‘-

C
l)

C
r

h
Q

H
H

CD
w

Cu
H

-
0

C
t
H

W
CD

°°
C

D
CD

i-
Cu

H
-

CD
CD

pi
CD

‘
CD

H
C

t
H

I-
M

i
-

Cl
)

0)
•

‘-
<

Cl
)

•
C

D
.

Cl
)

C)
0

I
C)

H
Cu

H
-

Cu
ç
t

H
-

Q
Cu

Cl
)

M
i

0
Z

C
D

C
T

)
0

Cu
CD

u
f
t

Q
f-

r
M

i
H

-
H

Cu
0)

C
r

-
Cl

)
Cu

$
0

P
CD

C
r

f
-
t
°
-

CD
Cl

)
Cu

H
-

H
M

i
-

Cl
)

Cl
)

C
Q

H
ç

ç
CD

f-
t

H
-

-
Cu

C
D

C
D

:M
iH

C)
M

i
0

0)
Cu

C)
H

-
<

C
t

r-
t

H
-

0
CD

C)
CD

ft
H

-
Cu

H
•
.

f
t

CD
Cu

CD
0

H
=

Cu
C

l)
H

H
-

f
-
t
3

0
Cu

0)
CD

CD
Cl

)
CD

i
<

•
C)

Cu
CD

C)
C

D
0

Cl
)

ç-
t

CD
CD

CD
<

i-
c-

t
Q

02
0

H
-

i-
W

M
i

0
)
0
.

0
CD

0
Cu

CD
F

-
Cl

)
C

D
C

D
U

i
Cu

0
H

M
i

M
i

Cl
)

M
i

H
-

H
0

02
‘-

C)
CD

H
-
F

-
0

H
-

C
r

CD
0

0
0

CD
C)

C
D

H
-

C
IQ

0
C

D
Cu

H
H

Cl
)

H
-

W
C

D
CD

f
t

H
Cu

0
C

r
0

M
i

0
Z

P
J

C
r

0
H

-
Cl

)
N

C
r

Cu
CD

Cu
0

Cl
)

C
t

CD
Q

<
0

C
D

CD
CD

-
Cu

Cu
Cu

C
l

C)
H

C
l

H

0
2
(0

0
h

Cl
)

ft
Cl

)
-

h
CD

C
l

H
-

CD
0

0
H C

D
C

u
H

-
ç
-
t

<
H

Cl
)

0
H

-
H

H
H

C
)

°C
l)

C
D

-
Q

H
-

M
i

p
M

i
Cl

)
M

i
0(
0

Cl)
Cu

Cl
)

<
C

r
Cu

0
Cu

Cl
)

—
‘

0
Cl

)
I—

’
H

H
h

M
i

H
Cl

)
d

0
H

CD
Cu

H
-

H
H

-
D

D
0

j
0

Cu
C

u
(
0

C
t

CD
Cu

Cu
0

C)
0

=
1Q

C)
0

)
-
O

H
H

-
Cl)

CD
0

M
i

CD
I

Cl
)

0
0
2
0
(
0

0
Cl

)
Cl)

C
r

C
l

Cl
)

:
IQ

z
C

D
H

Cu
()

•
.

ft
C)

Cl)
C

t
Cu

Cu
C

f
i

CD
Cu

C
t

0
C

l
)
H

-
0

CD
0

H
-

H
-

0
C)

Cu
H

-
-I

‘-
Q

,
M

i
C

D
-C

l)
M

i
l-

M
i

M
i

CD
M

i
Cu

CD
H

ft
C)

CD



<
c
t
p
)

CD
H

-

h
(D

U
)

U)
ç
t H

-
CD

CD
H
0C

D
C

D
0 C

D
.

cv
r
t
.
d

H
-

CD H
-

f
t U

)
rJ

2
C

D
ft

H
,

H
-

0
k
<

c
)

C
D

h
Q

C
D

)
U

)
f
-
t

H
-

C
D

H
-
Q

f
t
f
t

C
D C

)
U

)C
D

C) CD
H

-
H

-
CD

f
t
f
t

U
)
C

D

Q
H

H
,Q

ft

C
D

C
D

k
<

k
<

U)
C)

CD
U)

0
cv

CD
cv

F
H

U)
C)

f
t

tn
U)

CD
U)

0
CD

i
o

H
-

0
cv

cv
o

U)
Q

H
,

F1
U)

r
r
0

0
C

D
f
t

H
-

,—
i

I
L

J

F1
•
•

H
,

0
ft

CD
i

p
p-

’
U)

U)
C)

H
-

ft
H

-
H

-
CI

)
CD

ft
Q

,
H

cv
CD

-

-
‘o

0
i-

I
CD

H

Ci
-

U)
C)

CD
(I

)
H

cv
h

CD
CD

i-

0
‘-

h
j

f
t

cv
H

CD
H

C)
CD

0
I-

H
-

I-
I

U
)

c
i

H
F1

c
i

H
0 H

,

0 H
-

<
)

U)
-

H
CD

H
H

H
-

H
-

f-i
-

H
-

c
i

f-
i-

U)
1

‘1
F1

CD
‘o

CD
CD

U)
CD

ci
-

U)
U)

c
i

cv

H
-

U)
H

-

H
-

H
-

FCD
CD

f
t

U
)

CD
ft

J
ft

CD
CD

3
H

-
F1

0
h

H
U)

CD
H

,
H

,
3

k
<

Cl
)

F
-

0
Pi

cv
0

h
f
t

C)
U)

H
C)

C
D

CD
c
i

CD
CD

H
-

L
f
t

I
CD

C
D

d
U)

H
,

Q
çj

U)
cv

C
D

i-
CD

CD
o

H
0

H
,

-r
IF

<
‘-

<
F

--
1

ft
H

-
CD

cv
-

cv
cv

CD
ii

H
CD

ft
c
i

1
f
t

‘
d

cv
H

-
CD

H
C

D

CD
0

U)
—

cv
f
t

cv f-i
-

Pi
f
tH

Q
J

H1
ci

-
H

-
H

-
‘-

<
o

<
ci

-
<

H
-

U)
b

U)
CD

CD
-

C
D

CD
1

ft
H

H
ft

f
t

h
0C

D
C)

H
-

CD
CD

U)
CD

U
)

i
H

H1
Pi

H
-

c
i

CD
-
-

Cl
)

CD
H

,
CD

H
-

0 ft
Pi

H
-

F
-

1
o

U) 0
H

-
CD

i
C)

F1
ft

0
Q

c
i

ft
‘-

<
H

-
U)

c
i

H
-

ft
cv

f
t

CD
j

f-
f

H
-

ci
-

h
H

-
H

-
H

CD
CD

ci
-

0
H

H

CD
U)

H
,

CD
o

cv
CD

0
H

H
-

h
pj

U)
i-

H
-

H
-

i-
0

ci
-

CD
Pi

P1
0

CD
U)

ft
j

H
,

H
-

k
<

‘
0

U)
I-

I
1

CD
H

CD
U

)
I

H
c
i

CD
CD

<1
h

H
-

H
-

0
ci

-
U

)
-

<1
C)

0
P1

ft
CD

CD
CD

H
-

c
i

U)
U)

P)
CD

CD
CD

-
-

U)
-

U)
h

o
ci

H
,

H

ft
H F1

CD
p

i
II

H
,

H1
h

k
<

0
-

ft H
-

h
CD

H
I-

ft H 1Q
cv II

—
1

—
1

O
—

C
SO

C
l)

I:-
’

Cl
)

P1
iO

pl
H

CD
‘.

0
Cl

)
II

-

H
-

Cl
)

1
H ‘.0

C
l)

CD
i-s

)
ft

II
0

0 c
i

c
i

P1
P1

c
i

II
c
i

-

ft
II

i-
J

-
CD

H
U)

0
0

U) —
P

1
•

•

c
i

C) H ft •
U

)

I1 ‘.0 z < U) CD 0 H
,

CD cv U) H
-

U)

CD
0

o
c
i

H CD
CD U)

-
ft H CD U) U)



Sauer’s own experience of and reaction to modernity were thus

displaced onto city and country space. The notion of the country

allowed Sauer to time and space travel: a link back to a more

“homely” past and place from the unappealing context of the

modern.72 For Raymond Williams, this spatial trope is age-old: “a

contrast between city and country, as fundamental ways of life”

reaching “back into classical times”73 and giving expression to

the displacement of the new:

“The pull of the idea of the country is towards old ways, human
ways, natural ways. The pull of the idea of the city is towards
progress, modernisation, development. In what is then a tension,
a present experienced as tension, we use the contrast of city and
country to ratify an unresolved division and conflict of
impulses.

As Williams also notes, the relation between country and city is

“not only objective problem and history” but also “a direct and

intense preoccupation and experience”:75

“A dog is barking - that chained bark - behind the asbestos barn.
It is now and then: here and many places.”76

72 Sauer’s polar forms are very like those of the sociologist,
T8nnies, who posited an evolutionary perspective from rural to city
space over time and a concomitant shift from a cultural form ruled
by natural will (“Gesellschaft”) to one determined by the rational
(“Gemeinschaft”) . However, while
for Tnnies the path from country to city was irreversible - the
community could not be regained once it had been lost - Sauer’s
spatial and temporal travel seem to allow for a process of (at
least imaginary) return. See Saunders, 1981, pp.86-88.

Williams, 1973, p.1.

Ibid., p.297.

‘ Ibid., p.11.

76 Ibid., p17.

35



CD H
i

H
i

CD U) H ‘0 w

o o
\D

I-H
Cl

)

H
-

CD
•

hi H CD H H H

w

C) H
-

F
t

U
i

0 0 CD ii

CD
J

C
D

H
CD

F
t

H
-

U)
o

CD
H

F
t

C
)N

h
IC

D
C

D
P

JC
D

-
I-

I
F

t
h

i
C

D
-

O
p
j

<
H

o
H

C
D

0
‘
D

Q
C

)C
D

C
)C

o
P

J
CD

D
CD

F
t

0
C)

‘
-
H

U
)N

-

O h
i
O

,
H

2
0

H
F

tC
)
f
t
F

t
H

-C
l)

CD
F

tF
tC

)
U

)
CD

0
l)

J
CD

—
hi

CD
H

iS
h
)

H
i-

hi Q
)
U

)
F

tU
)

H
F

t-
H

-
H

-
C

)
h
if

t
C

D
C

,D
H

F—
i

h
iP

J
H

-C
D

I-I
0’
I
Q

F
t

H
-

CD
H

CD
F

tC
D

S
F

t
H

-
hi

H
-

CD
U)

b
U)

0
O

O
i

H
i I-I

0
CD

H
<

C
D

<
C

D
C

D
hi

C
D

h
i
S

H
-

ci
i

F
t

ci
h
i
C

)
P

-
C

D
p
j

I
H

i
j

H
C

)

h
iU

)C
D

h
i

h
iO

h
iC

D
U

)
CD

C)
H

-
F

t
Q

H
-

C)
C

D
c
i)

h
i

F
t
F

t
:i

0
<

U
)
-

ci)

ci)
U)

Q
-Q

-,
=

F
t

hi
LI

]
0

U)
H

5
H

i
0

H
-

H
-

H
-

CD
ci)

H
i

C)
D

H
-

ci)
U

)x
J

F
t

5
5
F

—
C

D
H

i
5

U
)

U)
H

i
ci)

1’
J

F
t

U)
H

-
0

CD
CD

CD
H

-H
H

i
CD

H
-

F
t

CD
H

W
U)

H
r
jh

i
i-

i
Q

-
CD

U)
I-I

CD
CD

CD
h
i

D
F

t
ci)

0
hi

F
t

-
U)

U)
C

D
C

D
O

0
y

F
t

CD
ci)

ci
i

—
.

H
i

CD
0

CD
U)

ci)
0

5
F

t
CD

U
)h

iO
C)

C)
hi

CD
H

-c
u

H
F

t
CD

-
CD

P
-

H
F

tH
-

-
CD

hi
F

t

CD
F

t
C

D
F

t0
hi

H
CD

H
i

H
0

cu
‘-d

U)
H

-
H

-
C

D
C

D
H

-
F

t
U

)H
F

t
F

t
CD

CD
CD

hi
-
H

i
F

t
.

2
H

u
‘

U)
H

•
I-I

j
C

D
0
<

)
F

t
ci)

F
t

F
t

0
hi

CD
CD

.
H

-
H

-
H

iC
D

CD
hi

F
t

CD
)

U)
H

i
CD

‘
h
ic

i)
C

D
CD

H

-
0
c
i
)

F
t

F
t

H
hi

H
C

D
S

h
i

F
t

F
t

H
i

H
-

F
t

CD
F

t
F

t
ci)

ci)
0

H
H

-
ci

)U
)C

D

<
0

F
t

H
H

CD
ci

F
t

CD
CD

F
t
S

f
t

H
CD

CD
F

t
<

CD
k
<

)
CD

hi
c
i)

F
t

ci
F

t
0

H
H

F
t

H
i

CD
-

cii
0

U)
<

F
t

H
0

CD
I—

’
Q

r
t

H
-

H
Cl

)
CD

H
-

CD
CD

5
C

D
C

D
ci

F
t

0
H

-
H

cii
<

:
C

D
O

F
t

CD
i

hi
0

U
)C

D
H

CD
H

-
F

t
F

t
F

t
U

)
ci

F
t
O

H
-

H
-

g
ci

CD
ci)

-F
tC

D
=

H
i

I
hi

U)

C)
0

0
0

H
-

0
hi

H
CD

H
-

H
i

0
:

:c
i)

S
H

-
hi

CD
H

-
H

-
F

t
CD

S
H

H
H

-
CD

F
t

CD
ci)

U)
H

i
H

-
F

t
F

t
CD

CD
CD

C
D

F
t

F
t

CD
H

i
C

D
H

i
H

i
F

t
hi

U
)

H
CD

CD
0

F
t

H
C

D
hi

CD
F

t
I-I

‘-I
CD

CD
F

t
ci)

CD
<

-
F

t
CD

H
i

F
t

CD
C)

F
tU

)
U)

-
h

i
hi

p
F

t
C

D
H

-
0

H
-

cii
CD

C
C

D
F

t
0

F
tC

D
H

i
ç
t

H
-

U
)

L
i

H

C)
H

U)
CD

S
cii

F
t

F
t

F
t

I
•
F

t
0

F
t

CD
CD

H
i

0
I

O
CD

H
i

-
CD

H
-c

l
H

-
CD

CD
S

I—
’h

i
H

-
CD

H
CD

CD
H

-
U

)
ciI

ci.
i

F
t

H
-

H
-

F
t

P
-

F
tH

-
ci

F
t

U)
<

U
)

F
t

U
)

C)
CD

0
0

F
t

CD
H

-
ci

i
CD

U)
hi

Q
hi

0
0

ci)
F

t
H

0
5

U)
H

-
U)

C)
F

t
H

i
CD

ci)
H

-
CI

D
ci)

H
i

F
tH

-
•
•

CD
F

t
F

t
ci)

ci)
C)

H
-

H
-

H
-

hi
F

t
H

-
F

H
Q

3
H

F
t

0
ci

i
ci)

F
t

ci
i

H
-

CD
F

t
U

)
Q

H
O

H
i

F
t

H
CD

0
H

3
hi

<



c-
I

h
H

o
i

C
D

O
c
-t

H
-c

-I
-C

D
h

H
-

c
c

c
c

i
-

c
c

c
c

—

Ci
)

(1
)

c
-
I

q
I)

CU
C

D
0

CD H
,

CD
Cl

)
H

,

h
h

CD II
H

-
U)

H
- 0

CD
-

N CD
C)

•
II

:
H

H
‘

H
c-

I
c-

I
H

H
j-

H
-

-

•
o U

i
H

C
)
H

lJ
J
H

-
’

Io
-

C
D

-

Q
0
p

0
c
-
I

H
,
(
J

9

H

i
f

CU
°

C)
U

)
H

-
c-

I-

-
c
-
I

p
j

H
H

CD
H

-
H

-
H

a
pi

co
C

D
C

U
Q

•
Q

H
c-

I

H
,
H

-
H

J
c
I

C
D C

D
CU

0
c
t

‘
-

H
-

H
-

H
q

C
D

CD
p
j
U

)
H

i
c-

I
Q

H
,

P
J

I-
CD

Q
-

U
)

H
-

0
U)

c-
I

C -
CU

CU
c-

I

H
CD

CU
H

c-
I

0
CD

CD
CU

H
,

CD
h

p
o

o
I-

Q
CU

H
CU

Q CD CU
CD

CU
H

,
Ci

i
H

-
‘—

)
C) 0

U)
0

c-
I

‘

c-
t

H
CD

c
-

c-
I

S
-

o
c-

t
c
-

0
CD

CD
h

II
j

CD
H

-
H

-
U

)
U)

H
-

U
)

c-1
c-

I
(Q

Ci)
Ci)

c-I
-

c-
I

CD
p c-1 CD

c-
I-

0
o

CD
H

c-I
-

U) Ci)
CD

I

CQ
CU

Ci
i

CD

CD
H

-
h

S
CD

U
)

CD
o

H
S

U)
C

D
C

C) H c-I
-

H
I

i-I Ci)
U)

H
-

C)
H

-
o c
-
I

CD
CD

U) Ci) c-I
-

Ci
)

H
-

5
C

D

H
,

Ci
)

c-
I

c-
I

Ci
)

CD
c
-

Cl
)

Q
Ii

CD
CD

Ci
i

U
)

CU H
Ci) C)

H
,

CD
Q C)

o H,
U)

H
-

H
,

H
,

CD CD C) CD Ci
)

C) 0 c-I
-

H Ci) c-
I

H 0 0 H
,

c-
I

CD Ci
) H 0 H U) Ci) C) CD 0 H
,

c-
I

CD H CD U
)

c-I
-

H
I

0
0

H
,

CD
H

,
CD

0
CD

k
<

H
CD

CD
c-

I-
Ci

)
U) c
-

C
)

I-

Ci)
=

H
H

-
H

-
I

o
Ci

i
I
-

Ci
)

Cr
)

H
-

Ci)
CD

Ci
)

C)
H

,
C)

fr
CD U)

Ci)
CD

U)
I-

c
-

c-
I

0
-

Ci)
CD

o
c-

I
c-

I-
U)

S
-

0
CD

Cl
)

Ci)
CD

d
o

I
Ci)

CD
U)

CD
c-

I
c-I

-
-

o
0

fr
Ci)

-
U)

Ci)
i U)

U) H
-

0
2

n
S

CD
CD

“
C)

H
H

H
H

CD
Ci)

Ci)
c-I

-
0

H
-

H
W

Q
H

CU
0

CU
i

U)
0

c
-

H
,

0
0

I-
c-

I
C)

CU
CD

H
U)

H
-

c-I
-

H S
S

Ci
)

Ci
)

Ci
i

H
CD

k
<

CD
CU

CU
U

)
U) c-I

-

C) C) 0 H c-I
-

0 CD N CD 0 S 0 H c-I
-

0 CD CD H CD Cl
)

Ci
) CD CD Ci
i

c-
I

0

o
H

-
H

CQ
Q

c-
I-

I
CD

CD
CD

0
CD

c-I
-

U)
0

0
CD

U)
L.Q

I-
Q

()
H

h
I-

Ci
)

c-
I

c-I
-

H
Ci)

Ci
i

H
o

o
)

H
-

C)
U)

:
H

,
c-

I
CD

<
0

H
-

I
S

Ci.
U)

Ci)
CD

H
Ci

)
H

-
H

-
c-

I
CU

H
U)

I-
CD

c-I
-

Q
h

c
-
I
-
n
j

H
-

H
,

CD
c-

I
0

H
-

CD
CU

II
H o

CD
Ci

)
U

)
H

-
d

CQ
c-

I
U)

I-
-

Ci)
0

H
-

c-
I

H
,

Ci
)

fl

=

CD
c
-

Ci
) g U)

Ci
)

CU
o

H
U)

H
c-

I
CD

H
-

c-
I

H
H

U)
0

c
-

H
,

H
-

CD
CD

-
d1

I
II

H
cc

H
-

-
U)

c-
I-

C)
c-

I
J

c-
I-

CD
Cl

)
Ci

i
H

I
H

-
c-

I
Ci)

Ci
Ci)

a
c-

I
c-

I

0
(.Q

0
I-

0
c
-

o
I’

o
CU

o
H c
-

H
0

H
-

H
,

Q
I-

0
H

-
CD

H
-

‘d
0

N
-

H
,

S
CU

0
c-

I
H

c-
I

CD
U)

0
CD

S
H

-
U)

CD
C)

H
,

U)
0

c-
I

c-
I

H
CU

I-
H

-
CU

0
Cii

1
CD

U)
C

l
c-

I
H

,
i



“appreciate a Germanic conception of the discipline”,85 to

construct “his version of European geography on American soil”.86

From the remembrances of John Le±ghly and James Parsons of Berkeley

in the l920s, this certainly seems to be the case.87 Both recall

Sauer’s geography as a turning away from the “favorite topics”88 of

the time in the United States towards past work in Europe,

especially Germany. They felt they were “a world apart from most

of academic geography”,89 not only because of California’s

isolation but also because Sauer wanted them to “march to a

different drummer”.9° In opposition to modern American geography,

the Berkeley strain sought, among other things, to reinstate the

importance of intellectual freedom - originality and curiosity; to

counteract the “blindness” of the age with direct observation in

the “field” and, most pertinently, to reinstate the importance of

the past (this, in opposition to the politics of the contemporary).

Thus, as with his cultural displacement in the modern, Sauer sought

redress in tradition. Akin to the “yolk” of the rural past, Sauer

recreated an intellectual community of his own in Berkeley:

academic “peasants” that understood the importance of continuity

85 Kenzer, 1986, p.2.

86 Ibid., p.3.

87 See Parsons, 1976, op. cit. and Leighly, 1976, op. cit.

88 Leighly, ibid., p.8.

89 Parsons, 1976, op. cit., p.15.

° Ibid., p.13.

38



‘0
‘0

‘d ci
i

CO
I-

M
U

)
-

0
(I

)
U

)
i

-

CD
H

h
‘0 0 C) H C

r

H U
i

‘0 C
’

ci
i

I- C
r

H CD N CD H —
:1 0 C) H C
r

H

I
- H U
) H
-

U
)

C
r

CD C
r

H C
r

H CD C
r

0 cii C C cii H C CD C
r

ci
i H

H
C

I)
D

c
ii

O
C

D ci
i

C

d
c
i

C
r

H

C
D

r-
i

C

C
D

H
-C

I-
Q

C
—

U
)

C
r

H
i

H
-

H
U

)
0 d
iC

D
C

)
C

r

ci
i

Q
-C

D
C

D
C

r

H C
)c

ii H

C C
D

C

U
).

C) H

c
t-

.

C
D

C
D

H
c
ia

-’
h
o

U
)

C
D

c
ic

ii
C

)
I-

C
CD

H
-

C
CD

C)
CD

H
-

H
i

C
r

L
J
H

.(
.Q

H
i
H

i
H

-
CD

h
H

-C
D

C
D

C
)
[
-
H

i
H

-<
I-Q

CD
CD

ci
i

H
-

C)
U

)
c
t
C

I
)

CD
C

r1
-t

C
)’

-<
C

D
U

)
C

D
,-

H
-

CD
-

U)
U

)
H

-

H
-
c
ii

H
i

0 H
H

-
CD

C
c
ii

H
-

H

C
)
H

H
l-

h
j

c
-r

d
CD

H
l

t
H

W
H

-H
.C

D
I H

-
H

i
O

CD
U)

i
-

L
i
C

p
iC

rO
U)

CD
H

-
H

C
D

C
D

H
H

-
H

H

iC
Q

H
I
I
C

)

C
D

C
r

H
Q

C
H

i
C

D
C

-
30

S
c
i
i
c
i

H
H

-
ci

r
n
H

C
D

’
H

-
d
U

)
H

-
H

-
H

c
iC

)
H

-H
c
r

C
D

H
-U

)
tQ

U
)

k
<

c
r
Q

H
°

8
c
-t

O
c
i
i
H

i

CD
CD

H
iC

D
CD

ci
i

I
t
i
;
J

ci
i

U
)
U

)
r
r

c
-
r

C
D

i
CD

H
H

-
W

CD
CD

I
H

C
D

C
r
r
p

i
C

D
II

l-
U)

H
C

D
C

r
H

C
tC

D
h

p
i

ci
C

D
--

<
‘-

<
CD

CD
c
i
i

C
D

C
)

U
)
h
h

C
rC

D
C U)

c
iH

U
)

H
-

di
C

D
’<

C
r

c
i

-
C

D
H (-
Q

O
H

-

C
t
r

CD
H

l
-

H
-

C
r

C
c
ii

‘—
<

ci
i

H I-
.d

l H
-

H H
i

H
-

C)

H
c
i
i

H C U) C
r
r
r

C
D

C
D

k
<

U
)

C
r

H
-

C) U
)

CD c
ii

H
i

H C
D

C
D

ci
>

< H
C

rC
)

C
C

H
i

E
C

CD
C)

U)
H

C
r

H
U

)
CD

CD

ci
i

C
r

ci
CD

H
-

CD
c
t

-

CD

H
-

CD IQ
C

Ii
H

-
ci

i
C

r

C
r

CD
-

o
U)

C
r

H
i

U)
C

h
l

l C)
CD

ci
i

ci
i

ci
H

-
CD

U)
CD

S
I—

H C)
ci

i
N

ci
i

C)
CD

U)

C
r
C

C
H

C
r

k
<

H C
r

CD
ci

i
k
<

U)
C

r
C

CD

C
r

C
-

CD

H
-

U) rr
C

r
CD

C
H H

Q
CD C)

c,
’

C
r

C
r

ci
i H

CD

I-
]

U)
S

ci
i

ci
C

U
)

<
Ci

)
C

C
di

I-Q
CD

H
i

CD
ci

i
<

CL
)

5
H

ci
i

U)
C

h
CD

CD
Q

H
-

C
r

I
U

)
CD

h
d

H
-

ci
i

C)
C

r
H

-
i-

QI
ci

3
U)

b
ci

i
-

C
C)

o
U)

U)
C

r
H

-
C)

.
H

CD
C

r
ci

i
:

C)
H

-
C

H
(-C

-
U)

H
-

CD
H

i
tQ

H
ci

ci
C)

C
r

H
-

CD
CD

3
C

r
Q)

IQ
H

-
CD

CD
C

r
CD

0
ci

i
CD

H
i

CD
0

H
-

H
-

C
r

<
C)

I
H

i
U)

Ct
)

H
-

C
r

H
-

C)

C)
C)

0
0

H
-

CC
-

C)
H

-
h

Q
CD

CD
,

H
-

H
=

U)
C

ci
i

H

0
CD

C
r

C
r

cii
H

C)
0

C)
ci

i
CC

-

g
c
i

C
r

ci
C

r
CD

C
rr

U)
CD

H
5

I-i <
C)

H
ci

H
-

-
1

C
r

S
ci

i
CD

C)
CD

CD
C

h
r-

C
r

H
-

U)
C

r
CC

-
U

)
CD

CD
l-

Q
h-

-

C h
H

C
r

H
i

C
r

C
D

C
r

ci
i

Ci
)

-
C

i
CD

CD
H

-
U)

H

CD
H

-

ci
i

ç
c
-r

r
j

U
)

C)
C

r-
CD

ci
U)

cii
CD

CD
CD

di
d

H
i

C
r

C
C

t
H

-

C)
C

—
CD

CD CD
C

r
CC

-
c
i

H
-

0
C

i
.

H
-

H
-

H
i

CD
CC

-
C

r
CD

H
i

U
)

-
-

H
-

3
H

-
C

r
C

r
H

-
Q

C
r

I
5

Cl
-

F
-

H
C

r
H

7
Q

CD
dl

C)
cii

C
o

ci
‘-

CD
H

CC
H

-
H

-
U)

‘-
<

C)
C

r
U)

C
r

H
i

CD
CD

C
r

H
-

H
-

H
-

t
5

C
r

C
U)

C
U)

-
CD

C
CD

•-
C

U)



Sauer saw West Mexico as he had seen California before:

academically “open”, a “tabula rasa” awaiting his “pioneer” effort.

Following his gaze, Sauer took twenty “field” trips down the

Mexican coast between 1926 and 1967 and, in keeping with his

antimodern “trademark” retained a sense of history throughout,

focusing almost completely on the cultural past.97 As Glick notes,

this “austral impulse” gave body to Sauer’s institutional

distancing from “the background assumptions informing both

Midwestern geography and northeastern Academia generally”.98 For

Mathewson, it was also a continuation of association with the

cultural space of the “peasant”:

“The northern Euro-American landscape continuum mediated by post-
peasant small land-holders with distant but distinguishable
Neolithic roots, was replaced with an hispanic-aboriginal
construct. Along this austral trajectory the farmers were still
peasants, the Neolithic much nearer, and the remains of ancient
civilisations clearly evident.

The space of the “field” in Mexico thus slots into Sauer’s

antimodern trajectory: the past is not only rural community and

western region but also a foreign country. Still in California and

yet still moving into Mexico, Sauer continues to be between places

and - further disassociating with modern geography and looking for

premodern cultures - searching for a sense of (academic, cultural)

identity and “home”.

The nature of this focus varied over the years: West (1979,
pp.15-22) notes the thematic change in Sauer’s fieldwork from
archaeogeography to colonial settlement, agriculture and early man:
all, however, shared a focus on the past.

98 Glick, op. cit., pp.446-7.

Mathewson, 1986, p.2.

40



Through the course of this chapter, I have begun to allow Sauer’s

“home life and fieldwork to speak to each other and am left with

a more meaningful and more animated sense of the “field”. Unlike

Mathewson,’°° for whom the spatial charting of Sauer’s

antimodernism is an endpoint in itself, I want to use the “field”

as antimodern space as the beginning for a more critical

perspective in the remaining chapters. Rather than a simple

matchmaking of Sauer with antimodern individuals and landscapes, I

prefer to unpack the implications of an antimodernist strain in

Sauer’s thinking - to ask how it is made manifest in his fieldwork.

In addition, despite Sauer’s own positioning against the modern, I

want to question to what extent Sauer can be seen as completely

marginal to modern institutions and trends: I want to find the

limits to his antimodernism. I begin in the next chapter with a

consideration of the “field” as integral to Sauer’s sense of an

academic (and antimodern) “home”.

‘°° Ibid.

41



M
Q

I
Q

H
S

Q
o

o
CD

H
-C

D
CD

:ii
j

CD
[
1

C
D

O
O

C
D

H
I—

i
J
(.

Q
(Q

Q
.

ç
t

H i
C

D
P

J
P

J
C

)
CD

CD
pi

C
D C

D
ri

-k
<

.<
C

D
p
j:

3
h
Q

C
D

-
C

D
Q

H
H

-C
D

hj
C

D
P

C
-i

-h
h
h

C
D

o
CD

J
H

-
l)

C
-
i
-
C

D
CD

C
D

C
D

H
-

H
-

t
H
J

CD
CD

H
-

CD
CD

C-
i-

0
H

C
D

C
D

C
-i

-C
D

C
D

-
ri

-e
n

I-
c-

i
C

D
’d

-
l) :

CD
u

0
C

D
.

CD
c-

i-
I
-

i-
H

-
C

-
i
-

C
D

C
D

ci
-O

l
j
k
<

I-
h

fi
o

p
J

H
-

i-
-1

0
F

-
1

H
,

1\
)

C
D

l
Q

C
t
:

C
D

h
h

i-
i,

CD
CD

Ci
)

H
-

Cl
)

0
H

-
Q

p
j
H

-
,
-

C
i)

:j
C

D
H

d
h

C
D

C
D

Q
p

H
-

a
.

ii
I-

C
-i

C
D

C
D

h
o

a
.

C
D

C
D

CD
i
-
h

C
i
)
p
j

Cl
)

CD
C-

i-
F

-
1

H
-

Ci
)

(J
)

P
)C

D
C

-i
-

CD

C
D

H
H

C
D

C
i)

0
C

)
H

-
C

)
C

-
i
-
p

)
I
1

P
)
C

D
-

C
D

C
-i-

Q
-.

O
H

-’
d

f
r
h

O
L

Q
C

D
F

-’
C

)C
-i

-
H

C
D

C
iC

D
p

J
C

D
H

a
.C

D
H

-

C
D

-
C

-i
-U

)
C

D
C

)
-

C
D
1j

P
J
W

F
H

C
i)

C
)
C

D
H

H
,

C
I
)

CU
I-

CD
—

‘0
‘<

Cl
i

F
-

Q
C)

H
-

C)
w

o
C

D
C

D
C

D
C

-
i-

Ci)
CD

CD
F

—
h
i

CD
CD

0
F

CD
H

-C
D

Ci
i

CD
i
-
h
-
-

=
C

)
k

<
F

J

F
j

CU
H

h
H1

Cl
)

F
o

H Ci)
CD -

CD

CD
0

CD
- C)

C)
H

-
o

c-
i

I1

L
o w

o C) F-’
-

C-
i-

H
,

Cii
a
.

C
)

-
I—

s
C-

i-
CD

‘1
CD

>
0

H
C-

i-
H

-
H

-
C)

C-
i-

H
-

CD
CD

CD
Ci

)

-
CD

0
pj

C
-i

l CD
I-

ij
-
-

H
-

CD
H

-
H

-
F

-
1

H
,

i
a
.

z
o

o
C

i
0

ri
-

CD
i-

CD

c-
i-

CD
Ci

)
CD

CD
p
i

F
-

1
H

-
a
.

CD
F

-
1

CD
CD

—
—

i-
CD

C-
i

r,
CD

CD
I
-

1
H

,

H
-

H
-

CD
CD

CD
CD

CD
C)

0
H

-
lQ

i-
H

,
‘d

o
H

-
Ci

)
i-1

(
‘1

H
-

C-
i-

-1
CD

a
.

0
CD

CD
CD

Ci
)

1-
Q

0
CD

0
H

,

o
H

,
C

-i

Ci
i

-
C-

i-
CD

lQ

CD
i-

CD
CD

CD
CD

I-
i

•
C-

i-
CD

‘<
CD

=

H
-

CD
0

a
.

0
H

-
H

CD
H

-
C-

i

C-
i-

I-
CD

C-
i-

CD
Ci

)
CD

H
-

H
,

I
1

C-
i-

H
-

i-
h

I
Ci

)
Ci

)
a
.

Cl
)

H
-

Ci
i

CD
Ci

i
0

ci
H

-
0

h
l-

Cl)
CD

C-
i-

=
H

,
C

)
H

,
H

-
CU

H
-

CD
CD

I-
CD

F
-

1
1

1

H
1

Cl
)

0
CD

CU ci
Ci)

CD
Ci)

i-

CD
CD

Ci
)

Ci
i

Ci
i

CD
C)

I-’
:

0
CD

H
-

0

H
-

Ci
)

H
-

C-1
H

C-
i-

-
0

Ci
)

C
-i

C-
i-

CD
H

-
o

C)

Cl
)

H
,

Ci-1
Ci

)
H

-
CD

CD
I
-

1

Ci
)

-
-

F
-

1
CD

F
-

1
-

CD
H

-
C)

Ci
)

Ci
)

H1
S

S
C-

i-
CD

o
CD

—

CD
0

CD
i

-
IQ

Ci
)

CD
-

CD
Ci

i
H

-
C-

i-
CD

CD

U
.

CD
ci

Q
k
<

h

CD
CD

CD
ir

j
CD

H
-

C-
i-

H
L

i.
CD

0
ci

-
CD

S CD
C-

i-
C-

i
C-

i-
C-

i-
Ci

i
Ci)

-
CD

C-
i-

i-
<

:-
F

x
J
F

x
J
H

iJ
o

0
0

-

ci
CD

CD
0

II
H

-
i-

-

S
F

-’
-

C
i)

C
D

U
J’

-
0
C

D
0
S

0
h
C

i)
C

-i
-b

C
D

a
.:

i
ci

C
D

ri
-C

D
‘
<

C
D

i
C

ii
H

-
1

C
-i

-C
l)

a
.C

D
C

i)
’<
0

C-
i-

CD
C

i
i

ci
‘-

<
C

ii
C

U
’•

C
1
J-

H
-

0
F

-
1

H
-

S
I
-

1
H

-C
l)

Ci)
ci

I-1
H

-C
D

CD
H1

d
’
-

C
D

C
)C

D
H

‘d
ri

-r
i-

C
D

c
iC

D
C

i
i
0

H
-
I

C
-i

-C
-i

0
ri

-0
H

,
5

j
-
’
z

c
iC

D
H

-0
C

il
CD

—1C
)

ri
-r

i-
C

D
C

D
d

H
-
F

-
’
H

-
-
-

F
—

C
-
l

C
D

C
)C

D
0

H
’

=
C

i)
C

ii
S

F
’

c-
i-

h
Cii

CD
-
-

CD
0

CD H CD

CD
0

‘-
<

C
D

o
C

D
C

D

a.
C

ii
5

H
,

C-
i-

CD
H

ri
-c

i
CD

:J
-H

--
tF

-
’

C
D

C
J
C

D
a
.

S
C)

H
-

H
-

Ci
i

o
C

D
Q

I—
C

-
i
-

Ci)
C

-
i-

F
-’

C
D

Ci
i

Ci)
Q

-C
D

C
D

C
D

C-
i-

I-
<

C
U

C
D

C
i)

C
i)

C
D

a
.:

i
C

l
H

-
-C

D
.

Cii
-C

D
=

a
.

H
-

CD CD Q
I

(: It
,

I-
]

Lx
i

‘-3 Lx
i

Lx
i

1-
1

—

Cl
) z w S H- CD C)

‘-3 L
i

It
,

I’ L
i

C
l) x
j

H Lx
i

t.
I



0
U

)
r
t
’
d
H

-
Q

H
C

D
H

Q
x
j
O

O
J
U

)
C

D
O

<
H

-
O

J
H

-
d

F
-
O

C
D

H
-
C

D
P

J
H

-
0

U
)C

D
•

P
J
P

J
C

tO
U

)
U

)
O

c
O

H
-
(
.Q

J
C

D
I—

’
H

-
H

-
F

-
-
’
0
r
t

C
D

C
D

0
0

h
C

D
0

j
C

)
C

D
O

H
-

h
U

).
.

0
H

-
i
J
>

4
°
°

H
CD

°
F

-
’
H

-
i-

”

ç
t

d
P

)
H

-
C

D
p
j

U
)
Q

C
P

J
f
t
H

H
H

C
I

Q
a’

-
H

-
C

D
d
Q

C
D

•
C

D
H

U
)
J

U
)
C

D
CD
H0H

-
’

CD
O

C
D

h
0H

-
,<

-
.

S
O

Pi
f
t

C
D

’
O

H
C

D
h

C
-
)
c
t

H
U

)
0

O
H

-
C

D
c
jD

r
t
C

D

C
D

C
D

<
0

H
I-

H
-

CD
D

C
D

H
H

H
-
C

D
0
H

-
U)

‘U
)

0
0

0
r
t
Q

0
H

CD
U

)
Z

C
D

H
G

H
0

H
C

D
P

-
’
c
-
r

U
)
)

O
C

D
CD

r
Q

H
-
C

D
‘
d

H
-

0
1
0

H
-

ç-t
-

C
D

CD
i
y

’

II
rt

’-
Q

H
-
C

D
hh

C
D

U
)U

)
-

C
D

0

-

-
f
t
U

)
C

D
H

C
D

C
D

O
P

-
H

-
C

D
C

D
O

c
-
t

H
H

H
-

CD
ft

i
r
t
H

H
C

D
Q

0
H

C
D
0

CD
C

D
i

h
w

8
H

i
U

)
o

f
t
Q

Q
C

D
H

-
0C

D
C

D
-

‘1
H

-
(
,

H
-i

-1
,’

l
Cl

)
CD

ft
c
-I

-
H

-
0

:
C

D
d
0

f
t
H

-
0

U
)

.
<

C
D

Q
°

2
C

D
H

C
D

H
C

D
c
-
tc

j
0C

D
H

H

C
D

f
tU

)
.H

O
H

-
•
H

H
-H

U
)
C

D
f
t’

’
1
d
C

D
-h

H
H

-
H

t
H

-C
D

c-
C

D
j
C

D
0

CD
0

H
.

C
D

C
D

H
0

H
O

CD
H

Q
h

CD
CD

I
-
h

1
.=

p
j

C
D

C
D

H
- C
D

C
D

C
D

1
1

U
)
p

C
D

C
D

f
t

M
o

o
H

-
C

D
H

i-
J

C
D

U
)
o

5
3p
)
U

)
o

H
5

O0H
-
a
O

-

-
H

f
t

05
f
t

-
h
O
0H

-
C

D
8

o
o

H
H

-
H

C
D
-

0
H

C
’

20
0

r
t
0

)
c
I
-
C

D
(
Q

5
C

D
C

D
<

C
D

C
D

c
t5

H
-
U

)
j
O

•
--

P
-a

C
D

‘-
Q

C
D

ft
M

0
f
t
M

Q
-
-

CD
1
l
U

)
I
f
t
H

-
‘
<

5
’
f
t

-
0

U
)

U)
C

D
C

D
IC

D
CD

c
t

H
-
C

D
0

I-
h
C

D
H

-
C

D
1

C
D

S
C

D
I
C

D
H

J
H

-
C

D
r
t
C

D
O

<
—

1
C

D
0

c
-
tU

)
C

D
U

)
-
-

I
-
-

Q
<

0
Q

.I
I
-

=

H
CD

CD
<1

d
CD

5
H

H
-

H
-

H
-

h
’

Q
Q

ft
ft

U)
CD

U
)

CD
CD

H
-

H
-

0
ft

ft
0

CD
0

h
0

H
-

CD
H

-
H

-
h

U)
0

‘1
-

5
0

H
-

H
-

I-
Q

H
-

H
CD

Z
ft

U)
0

cI
-

H
c-

r
CD

‘-
<

CD
I

H
CD

H
ft

0
CD

H
-

H
CD

0
H

-
CD

-
ft

0
H

CD
Q

k
<

ft

-
I
-
h

C
D

H
-

H
,

f
t

0
CD

H
-

CD
U)

‘1
CD H

0
C

D

<
CD

H
-

H
-

‘
IQ

‘-
<

0
H

5
C

l
0

CD
0

f
t

3
U)

U)
<

CD
0

0
c
t

ft
II

ci
H

pi
CD

ft
5

CD
ci

5
CD

CD
H

-
CD

CD
0

CD
C

l
CD

0
0

ci
ft

H
,

CD
CD

CD
o

CD
H

fJ
—

C
l

CD
U)

I
0

H
1

Cl
)

‘1
CD

CD
ft

H
-

CD
CD

H
-

ci
i-

j
H

rr
CD

-
0

0
ft

H
CD

CD
‘1

CD
t

U)
ft

H
-

-
ft

-
CD

ft
0

H
-

U)
Q

CD
C

l
CD

CD
H

CD
‘-

i,
II

CD
<

M
U)

H
-

CD
‘

H
-

CD
H

-
5

H
-

CD

ft
H

CD
C

D
o

C
D

0

0
CD

C
l

H
-

<
CD

CD

;;‘
s.

::
t.Q

0

CD
0

H
-

ft
CD

‘
0

—
0

ci
i

0
H

-
CD

ft
CD

o
o

H
-

CD
ft

CD
CD

CD
CD

0
CD

H
ç-

r
-

CD
0

CD
CD

CD
H

-
CD

‘1
0

H
ci

C
l

0
h

CD
-

CD
CD

0
H

-
‘1

‘
‘

CD
0

0
1

.
H

-
H

CD
CD

c
t

CD
o

H
U)

‘d
H

L
j

C
l

CD
.

=
CD

f
t

H
‘<

ft
‘

CD
CD

CD
C

l
CD

H
-

CD
CD

CD
0

C
l

C
l
•

U)
-

U)
H

,

U) H
-

0 ‘1 H 0 H CD H ft CD U) H
-

f
t CD U) CD H U) 0 ci C
l

CD S CD ft CD H ft 0 CD ci ft 0 H
-

ft



Stoddart looks to the European heritage of the discipline for “why

we call ourselves geographers” and comes up with the emphasis on

“field science” that “emerged as Europe encountered the rest of the

world”: the point, he claims, when truth became “our central

criterion”.9 Positioning Sauer in the field, it is thus important

to ask, like Clifford Geertz, “how the thing is done”.’° Rather

than allowing the “field” to remain untouched as password to the

legitimacy of Sauer’s work, we need to unpack its construction as

authority. I do this by looking at Sauer’s constitution of

fieldwork as spatial practice and observational strategy - sites

and sights used to support Sauer’s and the discipline’s claims to

“Truth” - and at his “rites” of education for geographers: the

formation of guided and unguided fieldworker identities.

Throughout this chapter, I try to show that the authorities and

identities constructed are gendered: that it is not only a question

of reinstating the “field”, fieldwork and the fieldworker as

legitimate but also of labelling them as inherently “male”. The

sense of discipline and self from the “field” for Sauer thus did

not read simply “geography” but also (if subliminally)

“patriarchy”. This critique comes from the work of Gillian Rose

who argues that geography is masculinist, that:

“to think geography - to think within the parameters of the
discipline in order to create geographical knowledge acceptable to

geography’s claims to Truth - must also take its turn at being
taken critically apart.

Stoddart, 1986, pp.28-33.

10 Geertz, op. cit., p.2..

44



the discipline - is to occupy a masculinist subject position”.”

More specifically, Rose states that fieldwork is:

“a performance which enacts some of the discipline’s underlying
masculinist assumptions about its knowledge of the world”:’2

it prioritises a male “heroic” fieldworker over a female “Other”

and, remaining central to academic geography, requires a feminist

critique.

This leads me finally (and, most importantly for this thesis) to a

third sense of “self” from the “field” which comes from

contextualising Sauer’s call (indeed, need?) for fieldwork as

authority. Following on from the last chapter, Sauer may be

repositioned amidst American academic geography and, at the same

time, against its modernising trends - one of which was the turning

away from work in the “field”. In keeping with his antimodernist

stance, Sauer objected to what he saw as the reluctance of other

American geographers to prioritise fieldwork over desk work and

positioned himself once more on the margins (the “hapless

fieldman”)

“For Carl Sauer, nothing mattered more than fieldwork; and no other
single issue annoyed him more than the ever increasing tendency
among American geographers to rely on field observations only as a
last resort”.’3

In opposition to the applied and armchair geographers who seemed

Rose, 1993, p.4.

12 Ibid., p.65.

13 Kenzer, 1986, op. cit., p.5.

45



0
I—

’O
H

-
F—

a
r1

0
H

(
-
t
-
0

c
t

CD

j
H

-
-

C
o
-
C

I
)

H
,
d

ç
t

H
-

Cl>
H

-
o

rr
P

J
<

Co
C

lu
> H

-
H

(
t

0 H
-

0 C
l

1 H
-

Co
> C

t
H

-
C

l

C
o

ID
0

-

0
C

t
C

fl
ID Co 0

H
c
t
h

‘I
H

ID
H

Co
0

II
H

W
CD

U
i

Co
H

C
o

0 H
-

-I
ID

O

—
C

D tQ
r
t

0
-
-
C

D

c
t

ID
i

L
—

t’
d

ID
0

CD
C

t
C

l
CD

H
-

C
l

H
r
t
S

c
r
t

H
-
0
C

l
C

l
CD

H
-

0
0

CD
CD

Co
C

D
C

D

0
C

D
C

oC
D

C
l

Cl
)
d

Co
H

-
C

t
CD

CD
C

o
ID

rt
h

C
t

CD
H

-
H

-
CD

H
i

-

Co
0

H
C

D
‘

II
ID

ID
H

H
-
Q

H
c-

t
0

::Y
ID

H
.

j
CD

H
-

-

:,
c
jC

o
H

-
c
t

0
U

p
j

C
D

H

II
k
<

I
D

.
‘I
0
k
<

0
o

CD
CD

Co
i
-

Co
C

D
H

-
S

C
l

CD
C

t
CD

CD
0

H
-

ID
C

l
H

CD
c
t

0
H

io
C

D
c
t

r
tO

C
l

h
C

D
C

D

CD
H

C
lC

D
0

C
l

H
-’

l
0

H
i
r

C
o
‘

0
Co

Q0H
d

CD
S

j
C

ti
-t

Q
C

D
0

t
C

D
Q

C
D

I
D

h
5

C
l-

ID
CD

Lt
J

CD
H

‘d
CD

c
t
i
j

C
l
I

ç
t

H
-

‘<
0

Q
t

H
i

0
ID

0
CD

H
-

ID
(
-
th

H
C

D

C
r

ID
II

CD
C

r
Co

0
0

0
Cl

)
0

0
H

CD
>

CD
0

CD
0

ID
C

l
<

H
-

0
C

l
CD

ID
C

r
CD

II
Co

0
CD

i
‘t

-
CD

<
h

h
1

ID
CD

S
C

r
C

r
F

C
r

CD
H

-
H

-
H

Co
I

CD
ID

CD
H

i
CD

C
r

H
-

Co
Co

H
ID

II
0

0
C

l
CD

H
-

ID
Co

Co
‘I

Co
LQ

0
Co

ID
ç-

t
pj

ID
‘I

Co
ID

0
Co

Co
H

-
C

r
CD

CQ
H

i
C

t
J

0
0

CD
ID

0
C

l
C

r
H

-
H

i
H

i
CD

H
i

CD
C

r
CD

C
r

H
0

CD
Co

CD
Cl

)
0

(j
)

ID
‘I

-
0

CD
Co

ID
H

c-
t

H
p
j

0
ID

H
-

C
l

Co
Co

Co
C

l
CD

C
r

CD
d

CD
CD

Co
Cl

)
Co

0
-

0
1

H
h

C
r

H
-

g
H

-
0

CD
‘I

-
CD

-
z

0
Co

>c
Co

CD
H

-
H

-
Q

ID
CD

H
pj

‘I
H

-
H

-
0

CD
C

r
0

C
l

II
h

g
H

C
r

C
t

.
C

l
CD

H
Co

5
—

f-
t

0
Co

CD
-

H
-
C

t

C
r

Co
CD

C
r

3
ID

‘I
ID

II
Co

‘I
H

-
Co

CD
H

i
C

r
C

r
II

ID
Pi

Co
ID

C
r

ID
<

H
-

CD
Co

,
C

l
H

H
-

C
l

CD
CD

CD
ID

H
c
t

H
C

f
l
l
)
<

0
Pi

ID
0

C
l

J
C

r
C

r
H

C
l

ID
C

r
0

Co
CD

H
-

H
-

C
l

H
-

CD
t

C
r

H
-

H
i

-
Co

C
r

1Q
CD

‘I
CD

h
‘I

CD
ID

0
Co

C
l

Co
Co

H
-

C
l

C
l

H
-

ID
CD

C
r

0
II

H
-

CD
ID

Co

CD
H

-
H

-
CD

H
Pi

0
‘1

C
r

C
l

H
i

C
r

H
-

H
CD

0
Co

Co
H

-
H

-
H

-
J

H
CD

0
Co

H
0

H
C

l
-

C
r

ID
S

H
-

CD
CD

Co
ID

0
H

-
H

çu
0

C
l

-
C

r
S

<
0

ç
t

‘I
C

r
CD

k
<

CD
CD

‘I
C

r
H

-
H

CD
H

ID
H

-
CD

H
i

C
r

CD
C

r
<

C
l

H
CD

C
r

‘I
-

C
l

C
r

C
r

H
C

r
CD

CD
H

-
0

H
-
C

D
H

i
Co

H
-

‘I
ID

CD
5

f
t

CD
3

H
H

-
CD

C
r

ID
-

H
i

h
C

o
H

Co
C

t
‘

ID
C

r
H

-
H

-
CD

0
CD

ci
-

H
ID

H
C

r
CD

0
‘1

=

ID
CD

‘<
Co

CD
H

i
H

ID
Co

-
H

i
9

CD
C

l
ID

ID

0
H

i
C

r
CQ

i
j

C
r

ID
H

C
l

Co
H

i
S

CD
C

r
1

H
i

H
-

II
5

CD
H

-
CD

ID
0

0
0

C
t

I-
Q

0
k
<

CD
‘<

H
0

H
i

0
H

ID
Q

CD
3

H
-

C
r

CQ
0

C
l

0
t

Co
CD

ID
C

l
CD

Co
Co

C
l

H
i

CD
f
t

C
r

-



SITES

“Being afoot, sleeping out, sitting about camp.”6

In Travelling cultures, James Clifford reflects on the “powerfully

ambiguous ways” in which the “field” experience has been portrayed

and asks:

“what specific kinds of travel and dwelling (where? how
long?) . . .have made a certain range of experiences count as
fieldwork? ,,17

and, more importantly, as authority. For Clifford, the

ethnographer’s status as fieldworker comes from being a “homebody

abroad” - someone who stays and digs in for a time - gaining

authority from dwelling simultaneously in village and “field”

16 Sauer in Leighly, 1969, op. cit., p.400.

17 Clifford in Grossberg et. al., op. cit., p.99. Clifford is
also concerned here with the forms of cultural interaction that
constitute fieldwork: discursive as well as spatial practices.
Sauer was renowned among his students for the “interview” as field
technique - a “low key” interaction with “locals” in the “field”,
“pumping” them for information (see West, op. cit., pp.13 and 136).
Sauer, however, had no knowledge of Spanish on first crossing the
border in 1928 and taught himself the language from a German
dictionary (itself of interest for our later discussion of Sauer’s
cultural self-fashioning in the “field”), leading us to question
the “accuracy” of his information from the “field”. As Clifford
states, no matter how fluent the fieldworker, he/she can only ever
work in part of the language and thus the ability to “speak” for
others, to represent them “truthfully” is never possible. I will
consider Sauer’s cultural interaction in more detail in Chapter
Five with an emphasis on Sauer’s representation of rather than
communication with others in the “field”. In this chapter, while
focusing on the spatial and observational elements to Sauer’s
fieldwork, I am aware that these are not independent from issues of
culture in the “field” and attempt to integrate these via footnotes
along the way. Wary of creating a textual “homeland” (see Pratt,
1985, pp.126-7) and artificially separating culture from the
“field”, it does however seem necessary for a thematic biography of
Sauer.

47



rather than passing through as traveller.18 While Sauer, for James

Parsons, was “an ethnographer of sorts” (just as he was an economic

botanist, historian.. •) ,‘ his fieldwork was a process of living not

so much with the culture as with the culture area.2° For the young

Sauer, based in the United States and studying the familiar scene

as “region” (the known), this manifested itself as a dwelling and

mapping of the “field” as “home geography”. However, later moving

outside the United States to the unknown, fieldwork became a trail

of discovery, a process of cumulative travel that could eventually

posit the Mexican “field” as known. Throughout, Sauer’s main

distinction was not between fieldwork as dwelling and travelling

but between the geographer’s experience in the “field” and the

“tour”. Thus, both dwelling and passing through (unlike Clifford’s

ethnographer), Sauer retained authority for himself and the

discipline against the spatiality of the tourist. This anti-

touristic stance also marked geographer and geography as “male” and

gave expression to Sauer’s cultural antimodernism.

Familiar scene to -iourneyman-geocrrapher

Sauer attributed his early interest in fieldwork to his “rural

18 Clifford in Grossberg et. al., op. cit.

19 Parsons, pers. comm. (L) , op. cit.

20 While, as we have seen above, Sauer did interact with
“living” culture in the “field”, his focus was on material culture
and the reading of cultural pasts from the landscape (culture
history) : “The ability to distinguish the hand of nature from that
of primitive man is not learned from classrooms, books, or
museums. It was acquired by such amateur field observers who lived
with their particular area” (Sauer, 1956, p.9. My use of emphasis).

48



surroundings” in Missouri,2’ stimulating his curiosity in “people

who went out, saw the country and wrote about it”. His years as an

“apprentice geographer” were spent in mapping and survey work

locally in Illinois, Missouri, Michigan and Kentucky with a focus

on the region as “field”.22 This, for Sauer, was “home

geography”23-the familiar scene that every geographer should begin

with - and this attitude percolated into his early published work:

“All about us lies a great and essentially uncultivated field of
geography. The strange and distant scene has borne an unholy charm
to the geographer who has thought that travel in far lands is the
beginning of geographic research.”24

Although Sauer recognised the popularity of the “grand tour” for

the “man of culture” - the movement away from the familiar scene -

he criticised its “competence to evaluate the geography of a

country” without the comparative perspective of the “home”. The

geographer thus could not leave the local scene without fully

immersing himself into its problems; preparation was by way of

familiarity: “Then only can we discover truly the significant

contrasts of far countries.”25

In 1928, presumably with this comparative basis, Sauer left the

21 Sauer, addressing the Royal Geographical Society in 1975
(SN34, misc., op. cit.).

22 Sauer, pers. comm. (V) , op. cit.

23 Sauer in Stoddart, 1991, op. cit., p.19.

24 Sauer, 1924, p.32.

25 Ibid.

49



United States for a trail of discovery into Mexico:26 “I went into

Mexico for discovery - it’s that simple”.27 Moving away from the

familiar scene, Sauer felt that he was pushing back the boundaries

of the (and his) unknown - “it was a kind of primitive way of going

exploring” since “hardly anything was known about anything” and:

“in those days, geographers didn’t take off for the ends of the
earth for months and months at a time”.28

This change in Sauer’s personal experience spoke to a wider

audience in The education of a geographer.29 The article begins

with a reconceptualisation of fieldwork as trail of discovery and

the field worker as “journeyman”30 who “goes forth alone to far and

26 The notion of a comparative basis resurfaces in Sauer’s
transition from Mexico to South America which is explored in
Chapter Six.

27 Sauer, pers. comm. (V)1 op. cit. It was not actually, as we
saw in Chapter Two, quite that simple. Sauer’s physical travel into
Mexico was as much escape as discovery - a critical distancing from
other (modern) geographies. In fact, by attempting to reconnect
with the European tradition of fieldwork, it was more of a
rediscovery. Additionally, it is ironic that Sauer should use the
modern rhetoric of discovery here to escape the modern and that he
should write against (colonial) discovery (see Chapter Four) but
use its (colonising) rhetoric to conceptualise his own presence in
the field. See Carter (1987) for a consideration of the rhetoric
of discovery and its ordering forth of countries linguistically and
spatially as colonial appropriation.

28 Ibid. This seems contradictory to Sauer’s earlier
definition of the geographer and the familiar scene against
geographers that were travelling to far lands for geographic
research. It is, however, useful at this stage for Sauer,
attempting to define himself as solitary journeyman.

29 Sauer in Leighly, 1969, op. cit., pp.389-406.

30 Whether homebody or journeyman, the fieldworker was
written up with continuity by Sauer as male. See the discussion of
Sauer’s “fieldman” at the end of this section.

50



strange places”. The focus is no longer the familiar ground of the

“home” territory but the exotic, the ends of the earth:

“to go where none of your kind has been, to see and learn and make
sense out of what has not been known to any of us.”3’

Although Sauer has altered the domain of the fieldworker from the

familiar scene to the “foreign”, he maintains his critique of the

“tour” and emphasises the distinction between traveller

(geographer) and tourist:

“The geographer and the geographer-to-be are travelers, vicarious
when they must be,32 actual when they may. They are not of the
class of tourists who are directed by guidebooks over the routes of
the grand tours to the starred attractions, nor do they lodge at
the grand hotels. . .they may pass by the places one is supposed to
see and seek out byways and unnoted places where they gain the
feeling of personal discovery. They enjoy striking out on foot,
away from roads.”33

The spatial and intellectual practice of the geographer is

therefore to “leave the beaten trail”,34 to keep away from the

sites of the tour if he wants to avoid being an academic “tourist”

himself.35 The geographer not only discovers unknown space but also

31 Sauer in Leighly, 1969, op. cit., p.396.

32 Contrary to West, op. cit., p.9, Sauer did allow for some
“armchair” (vicarious) travel for the geographer as a complement to
actual travel (see the next section on visuality and the map) but
only when necessary.

Sauer in Leighly, 1969, op. cit., p.392.

Sauer in Stoddart, 1991, op. cit., p.19.

Sauer was extremely critical of what he saw as the
academic “tourists” in the east of the United States: the “herd”,
the “tub-thumpers, spellbinders and slickers” (the tourists of the
modern?) that ran with politics and the contemporary and seemed to
have given up the pursuit of “the good, the beautiful and the true”
(Wagner, pers. comm. (I), op. cit.)

51



goes in search of the academically authentic: conquering “a bit of

truth here and a bit of truth there”,36 the physical discovery of

lands is matched by the scientific discovery of “pebbles on the

shore of a sea of truth”.37 Sauer’s fieldworker is not, however,

completely free to roam. Travelling away from the tourist and

striking out into the unknown, he must eventually limit his travels

to a place that he can know - he must bound the unbeaten trail into

a field:

“the human geographer cannot be a world tourist, moving from people
to people and land to land, and knowing only casually and doubtful
ly related things about any of them.”38

Prepared, the f±eldworker thus leaves the “home” scene and, keeping

away from the “herd”, intimately comes to know the “field”. Once

again, therefore, Sauer’s critique is of the incompetence and

inauthenticity of the “tour”, constructing the spatiality and

mentality of the geographer so as to avoid this.39

Repositioning Sauer in Mexico, we achieve a more grounded sense of

the importance of geographer-traveler as distinct from tourist.

According to Deplar, the 1920s and 1930s in the United States

witnessed a “vogue” for things Mexican and a wave of American

36 Conrad in Driver, op. cit., p.24.

Leighly, 1979, op. cit., p.9.

38 Sauer in Leighly, 1969, op. cit., p.362.

With this in mind, it is strange that West (OP. cit., p.143)
should call Sauer’s later Mexican visits “grand tours”. Perhaps at
this stage (the late 1940s), Mexico was considered by Sauer as
“known” and could therefore be toured at leisure - with “no
definite purpose in mind, save to get back to Mexico for a spell.”

52



tourists - “Anglo-Saxons in herd formation” - were heading across

the border towards the end of the period.40 Thus while Sauer may

have considered himself as journeyman-explorer at the “ends of the

earth” in Mexico, he was certainly not alone. In fact, ironically

for Sauer, the Mexican government was campaigning for American

tourists in exactly the same year that he was crossing the border

for his first Mexican “discovery.”41

Thus while Sauer was travelling in Mexico, textualising his trip in

his fieldnotes, others were being introduced to the country through

the pages of a guidebook, Terry’s guide to Mexico being a prime

example of the period.42 True to the mentality of the “tour”,

Terry’s presented Mexico as a place to travel through quickly, with

limited knowledge of language and institution, in order to return

with the whole:

“The constant aim of the writer of this guidebook is to show the
user how he can best see all there is worth seeing in Mexico with
the least outlay of time, energy and money.

Mexico, said Terry’s, made “foreign recreation” easy: it was “just

° Deplar, 1992, p.58. This period was apparently
characterised by discovery. Leftist artists and intellectuals
(hardly Sauer!) made a political pilgrimage to Mexico encouraged by
the socialist promises of the post-revolutionary period, while
others saw the country as a cultural “Mecca” and went in search of
“art” and “civilisation”. This political cultural and academic
travel laid the foundations for the tourist wave.

41 Ibid. While tourists had been reluctant to visit Mexico,
associating the country with violence, banditry and instability,
the Mexican government’s campaign to promote tourism in 1928
reconceptualised Mexico as safe, unspoiled, cheap and, best of all,
just across the border.

42 Terry, 1938.

‘ Ibid., p.xiia.

53



across the line from Uncle Samuel’s domain” (so easy to communicate

by telegraph, receive the New York Times, return home) and yet

“foreign in the fullest sense of the word”.44 A new smoother

travel experience awaited the “old traveller”: “a frictionless and

wholly delightful travel adventure”45 where the climate was

“healthful”, the people helpful (“hands ready to be of service”)

and the language simple. In ninety days, the tourist would be

speaking like “the average man on the street” so that the lack of

the language “ should never deter the traveller from visiting

Mexico”.46 It was, in essence, “one of the easiest foreign

countries to travel in”, “as pleasant as a foreign journey could

possibly be”

Moving on from this generic picture of quick and easy travel, we

find that not only were tourists crossing the border into Mexico

with Sauer but, more specifically, touring his “field” of the

Northwest.48 In 1927, the Southern Pacific Railroad had been

‘ Ibid., p.x±.

Ibid., p.xxiif.

46 Ibid., p.xxiia. If in difficulty, the tourist could turn to
Terry’s companion, Speak Spanish at once, for a travelling language
to ease passage through the country (ibid., p.xxiic).

Ibid., p.xxiif. The traveller is advised on what to wear:
male tourists are allowed, among other things, “24 handkerchiefs
(panuelos) - cotton or silk. .6 street or business suits. .1 smoking
jacket” and “must” use “1 tennis racket. .1 pair field—glasses” and
“1 golf-bag”! (ibid., p.xvi)

48 What actually constitutes Sauer’s “field” spatially (and
authoritatively?) varies - while Sauer talks of “my Mexico”, he
more specifically outlines to Samuel Dicken that his “field” is the
Northwest: “My field is northwest Mexico, and about northeast
Mexico I know very little. I hope that you are going to pre-empt

54



extended from the United States along the West coast of Mexico,

giving “new commercial life” to 1100 miles of Mexican territory and

bringing cities such as Hermosillo, Mazatlán, Tepic and Guadalajara

into “deserved touristic prominence” Crossing from the United

States into Mexico at the “friendly fence” of Nogales, the new

railway was, said Terry’s, of “supreme importance” for the tourist

since it was:

“now possible for him to travel in comfort through one of the least
known, richest, most beautiful, and most picturesque regions of the
real Old Mexico; one which offers him more of touristic value than
almost any other railway on the continent.”50

As “the only railway traversing this fascinating section”, it was

becoming “each day. .more popular with the travelling public”.5’

The “West Coast Region” was itself thus newly “discovered” as

tourist resort, enabling the “casual globe trotter” to add one more

“unbeaten track to his touristic scalps”.52 At the same time, it

already offered clean, modern cities for the tourist’s comfort, for

example the “Southern Pacific Paradise” of Mazatlán: “rapidly

coming into prominence as one of the most delightful. .. Vacation

the latter field, and, if you do, you will have to work up the
historical-geographic background as I have done for northwest
Mexico.” (PC, Sauer to Dicken, 28/2/36). John Leighly, however,
marks Latin America as Sauer’s field (Leighly, pers. comm. CV),
8/1/80) . While, as we will see in Chapter Five, Sauer does seem to
feel he can delimit the personality of all of Mexico, he does not
(in Chapter Six) move outside Mexico with as much authority.

‘ Terry, op. cit., p.162.

50 Ibid., p.86.

Ibid., p.xxxiv.

52 Ibid., p.86.

55



Resorts on the continent”.53 Recommending the Northwest as

“region”, Terry’s thus plotted the “route” of the tourist by rail

along the coast, connecting up its “progressive” cities with their

“modern, finely equipped hotels” as nodes. The same cities were

also connected up by the “scenic grandeur and tropical charm” of

the Western Main Artery for those who wanted to travel by highway

(Nogales-Sonora-Sinaloa-Nayarit-Jalisco-Guadalajara-Mexicocity)

Through Terry’s then we find exactly the “class of tourists...

grand tours. . . starred attractions. .grand hotels” that the

geographer-traveler, according to Sauer, had to avoid. However, if

the contemporary Mexican scene reveals Sauer in the company of

tourists, his destination shared with the “herd”, the specifics of

his fieldwork do not. Rather than follow the mapped itineraries,

for Sauer it was always important to “depart from the highway”55

and he demonstrated this spatially in relation to tourists in the

field.56 While the latter, as we have seen, kept to the main

cities and rail and road arteries on the west coast, Sauer’s

Ibid., p.96a.

Ibid., p.xxxviii.

Sauer in Leighly, 1969, op. cit., p.388.

56 In a visual representation of Sauer’s travel in
northwest Mexico, we would see Sauer’s field mapped as a departure
from the west coast tourist route. Sauer’s 1929/1930 field trip,
for example, involved Sauer in “reconnaisance” of rural areas
around Nogales in northwest Sonora and, further south, around
Mazatlán. His more touristic contemporaries would have passed
direct from Nogales to Hermosillo; from Culiacan to Mazatlán and
therefore missed Sauer’s trails along the way.

56



fieldwork was in rural regions57 and he used main routes only for

initial access to his “field”. Rather than the rapid passing

through of the tourist, West notes that Sauer “often visited the

same places and traversed the same trails and roads season after

season” - his was a more cumulative form of travel.58 While he

often took the train from Nogales down the Mexican West coast,

Sauer used this as a starting point from which he travelled to more

remote areas by foot, mule, horse and car. He thus literally

departed from the highway on his field trips, defining his routes

against the tourist, moving slowly and intensively through small

sections of his “field” for weeks at a time. Any dwelling in the

“field” was also defined against the tourist, Sauer preferring to

camp in the open countryside or lodge in villages rather than stay

in more comfortable hotels. According to West, Sauer was “always

contemptuous of modern urban amenities when travelling” and thought

that “travel by any means other than the best” was the way to go on

(see figure 4) The geographer’s knowledge of an area, Sauer

emphasised, came from a much baser (and therefore more authentic)

experience:

His archive work was, however, in urban areas: mainly in
Mexico City but also in Guadalajara and Hermosillo (see West, op.
cit., pp.65 and 94).

58 Ibid., p.12. This cumulative spatial practice of Sauer’s was
as much a cultural as a spatial knowledge: returning again and
again to the “field”, Sauer maintained the fieldworker would get
“to the point where he sees the culture from the inside”. Thus,
persisting in the “field” and avoiding the “tour”, the authority to
define Mexican culture (at least materially and in the past) was
his.

Ibid., pp.47 and 84.

57



“an individual creation out of long application, involving physical
discomforts and pleasures, muscular, cutaneous, and gastric. “°

Tourists “travelling” through a text to travel the country thus

seemed to be caught in a different relationship to geography and

writing than Sauer - they were travelling the beaten track, the

already known. Rejecting the “guidebook” and its routes in The

education of a geographer and in practice in Mexico, Sauer could

maintain the status of discovery of his fieldwork - as Stratton

states “there are no guidebooks for exploration”6’ - and the

authority.

The opposition between traveller and tourist, claims Jonathan

Culler, is not “real” but a common trope, a division that is

integral to tourism itself.62 The critique of tourism, complete

with herd imagery and allegations of inauthenticity, masks yet

further tourists, posing as travellers. The traveller’s label

posits a more active, authentic, individual experience which is

used for authority but which, for Culler, is never achievable - off

60• Sauer in Leighly, 1969, op. cit., p.397. While this
appears to be the kind of fieldwork Sauer’s students experienced,
letters to Sauer from the “field” could also portray a leisurely
pace to fieldwork. Homer Aschmann writes a “progress report” to
Sauer from Central America in 1954, outlining his “side trips” in
which, “like any tourist”, he “poked up to Santa Marta” and made
the “regular pilgrimage” (PC, Aschmann to Sauer, 18/7/54).
Similarly, Parsons writes from a boat trip on the lower Amazon in
1956, documenting his views, excursions and landings as “half
fieldwork and half fiesta” (PC, Parsons to Sauer, 1/9/56)

61 Stratton, 1990, p.54.

62 Culler, 1981, pp.130-131.

58



0
X

H
CD :: 0

‘-1

0

D (7
’

H
C

tA
0 ‘4

’

(
r
t

)
1

r
t

CD
H

CD
Cf

l
f
-

0
,

‘-
0

L
4

CD

‘t
1
c
)

CD

Cf
l

rt
o

‘-
i

Cf
l

H
C)

‘t
1

CD
•
‘
)

(n H
1



the beaten track is “the most beaten track of all”63 and the

“authentic” is always already mediated by markers - the relation is

never pure. Echoes of Sauer’s fieldworker/tour±st distinction

replay in Culler’s examples of the trope:

“The traveler, then, was working at something; the tourist was a
pleasure-seeker. The traveler was active; he went strenuously in
search of people, of adventure, of experience. The tourist was
passive; he expects interesting things to happen to him.M

The genre, as he says, is familiar.

Like Culler, James Buzard seeks to investigate rather than repeat

“travel” and “tourism” as trope and to explore its tendency to

construct authenticity and to distinguish (the travelling) “self”

from (the touristic) “other”.65 More particularly for Buzard, the

trope is viewed as a binary opposition fundamental to modern

culture, its emergence linked to industrialisation and the

destruction of traditional rural communities: it was a means of

expressing and confronting modernity.66 “Travel” came to represent

a claim to find (acculturation) and to leave behind (cultural

escape) . In opposition to the “tourist”, the “traveller” claimed to

63 Ibid., p.135. This appears to be the case in Chapter Five
where we see Sauer in the company of other antimodernists, looking
for the culturally authentic in rural Mexico.

64 Ibid., p.129.

65 Buzard, 1993, p.3.

66 Ibid., pp.18-19. Buzard is here writing about nineteenth
century England, but he also focuses beyond Europe to America later
on in his book.

60



go “off the beaten track”67 and to penetrate the authentic essence

of the traditional society which had been hounded there by

modernity.68 Secondly, the “traveller” claimed to escape the

modern, whereas the “tourist” was its “relentless representative”:

“the tourist appears unable or unwilling to cast off the traces of
a modernity which at home is all too much with us. . .As such the
tourist is an unwelcome reminder, to self-styled ‘travellers’, of
the modern realities that dog their fleeing footsteps.”69

Thus “tourist” and “traveller”, like city and country in the last

chapter, appear as synecdoche for modern and antimodern culture.

The tourist represents change, displacement and exile, the

traveller tradition, belonging and a sense of “home”.7° Sauer’s

self-definition in opposition to the “tourist” and his charting of

anti-touristic space were not, then, so much a question of

geography as of modernity: a replay of Sauer’s search for a

67 The “beaten track” is, for Buzard (ibid., p.4), the “master
trope” in the tourist/travel opposition. It denotes the ultimate
touristic space of the inauthentic and is brought into play as a
foil to spaces of acculturation and cultural authenticity.

68 This desire for access and penetration was a contradictory
one. The self-proclaimed traveller was aware of the transformative
potential of the tourist - the tendency to remake places in his own
(modern, inauthentic) image - and therefore there was a both a
denial and a fear of transformative potential (Buzard, ibid.,
p.28) : “the traveller was to seek the double goal of attaining a
distinctly meaningful and lasting contact with the visited place
that would none the less make no constitutive changes, leave no
imprint of force behind.”

69 Ibid., p.8.

° It is interesting that Buzard makes the distinction between
“tourist” (exile) and “brother” (belonging) - a reminder, perhaps,
of Sauer’s own distinction in the last chapter between himself and
his “brothers in spirit” in the “backwoods” and the urban “Other”.

61



“home”.71 The fieldworker had to avoid the “beaten track” - the

cities, the main thoroughfares - and turn to the rural because

Sauer required a departure from the modern in the “field”. The

spaces of the tour were the spaces of the modern; the geography of

the tourist, a modern geography and Sauer - not just geographer but

antimodernist - defined himself against both.

This unpacking of travel/tourism is extremely useful: while Culler

reveals the geographer-traveller’s claims to authority as

constructed, Buzard helps to blur the boundary between the academic

figure of the fieldworker and Sauer’s antimodern home-seeking

persona. However, while Culler and Buzard keep their analysis at

the individual level, an application to the construction of

disciplinary authority is also revealing. While all travellers may

be tourists, some have the ability and authority to define

themselves and their practices against this and to use the

distinction as an effective form of othering. What is most

important, therefore, is that Sauer maintains this division from

the tourist, placing himself firmly in the boots of the

fieldworker. This is not only a touristic topos working in favour

of an individual, but also in support of a discipline: the

fieldworker-geographer is not a tourist and, because of this, he

[sic.] can speak with authority. Meanwhile, ironically, the

authors of Terry’s guide are claiming the same thing:

“Nearly twelve years of residence in the country, and repeated
journeys from one end of it to the other, have qualified us to

71 “The earnest traveller”, says Buzard (ibid., p.29) “could
find a ‘home’ anywhere.”

62



o
U

)
H

C
D

Q
C

D
U

.
H

-
CD

U
)C

D
C

)
C

)
c
t

c
tC

D
O

r
tP

)
H

-
h

<
CD

<
CD

CD
CD
1z

H
-

I
C

D
O

rt
C

)<
c
t

CD

H
,

C)
H

C
D

r
r

PJ
0)

U
’

H
C)

,—
‘

CD

CD
H

,
j
_
i

C
r

j
N

’

C
)—

C
D

-

CD
H

)
)1P

)
p)

H
k

<
C

)
Q

t
C

)
CD

0
:
-

><
P)

H
-C

D
H

-
0

U)
H

‘-
<

.
c
t
C

D
Q (

-Q

Q0Q
H P

)
P)

Q
,P

)
h
0

CD
U)

H
-

U)
h

N
C

D
C

D
h

‘1
I

p)
r
r

d
j
i

.
U

)
C

D
0
0

Pi
U

J
.Q

C
r

CD
H

,
C

D
H

-
C)

U
)U

)g
r-

r
—

H
-

H
-(

Q
C

D
.

U
)
r

C
D

H
.C

r
P

—

- i
-
-
t
C

D
Q

CD
1
:j

CD
c
t

0
p

j
CD

H
-

<1
p

i
1
h
c
r
H

’
i

CD
H

-
P)

H1
0

C
t

0
CD

H
-
C

t
o

H
-’

O
C

D
k
<

i
CD

Q

H
,

C)
H

-
o

H
-

0
C

rC
D

P)
)

C
r

CD
H

II
H

-
U)

Q
,P

)
c-

rQ

C
r0

C
rC

D
CD

0
C

D
;

f
H

,

lQ
)
C

t

CD
U)

C
r

H
-

H
,

-
H

-
C

r
CD

)

1z
C

)
<

_
C

)

U)

CD
C

r

H
H

C
r

CD
P)

C
rC

r
C

r
p
i

—
H

,
•

CD
h

C
D

U
)U

)
C

D
H

-
H

H
H

-
0

o
CD

C)
H

C
D

C
D

H
CD

C
r
,-

H
-

C
r

C
D

CD
CD

CD
c-

r
H

-
I—

’
C

r
C

D
P

O
F

-I
11c
t

c
tH

,C
r

I-
H

-C
D

C)
H

-
CD

Cl
)

C)
0

U
)C

D
H

C
r
Q

-
b
P

)
Pi

H
0

H
C

)
Q

•
i
H

.C
r

rr
U

)

P
)

U
)C

)
at

C
r
0

Q
H

,
o

H
C

D
P

J

•
C

D
ç
t

C
r

CD
h

-
P

)
U

)
C

D
-

tI
CD

‘d
H

r
-
r

‘
d
<

C
D

-
U)

H
P

)
Pi

CD
C

r
c
3

j
h

j
—

0
1C

D
C

tC
D

0
L•

Q
C

l)
0

H
,

CD
H S

CD
P

C
l

H
h

H
-

CD
H

U)
I-

p
i

C)
CD

I-
0

C
l

H
U)

<
-
-

C)
CD

-

H
-

I-
ç
r

CD
<

C
r

CD
C)

-
-

CD
CD

U
)

H
-

H
CD

—
p
)

CI
)

c-
r

C
r

H
-

II
Cl

)
CI

)
C)

H

H
,

C)
I-

•
Q

Q
C

r
U)

I-
r

CD
CI

)
-

H
,

H
N

Q
C

l
CD

H
-

C
r

U)
-

CI
)

Pi
C)

H
-

C
r

0
‘-

‘
H

-
-

C
r

Q
CD

o
II

C
r

P)
k
<

H
LQ

CD
0

CD
H

,

II
U)

P
C)

H
CD

CD
H

,
H

C
l

H
-

H
-

IQ
CD

i
CD

H
H

-
C

l
L

U)
C

r
C

r

F
-

)
Q

;‘s
•’

CD
U)

1Q
U)

S
H

d
C

r
U)

C
r

P)
H

-
CD

CD
U)

0
i.Q

C
r

U)
II

C
t

0
H

0
H

CD
H

,
CD

k
<

C)
H

,
C

l
0

H
H

-
H

-
C

r
H

CD
U)

C
r

H
-

C
r

H
C)

C
l

0
CI

CD II
CD

CD
<

CI)
-

H
-

CD
‘-‘

I
k
<

I-
CD

CI
H

,
H

I
CD

H
I

C
r

CD
C

r
U) H

,
CD

H
H

,
P)

pj
C

r
H

-
CD

H
CD

H
CD

H
-

H
,

C
l

H
H

-
o

-
CD

H
-

-
H

U)
CD H

CI
CD

H CD
U)

Q
o H

,
--

CI
)

H
-

C
r

CD
C

r

C
r

H
h

H
-

C
r

-
CI

)
,

H
CD

CD
H

-
C

r

CD
C

r
CD

‘<
>

0
C

r
o

H
,

c
r

I-
CD

H
,

H C)
CI)

H
-

H
-

iu
H

S
CD

CD
H

,
C)

CI
)

0
Q

0
H

H
CD

C
l

i
-

O
k
<

J
C

t
Q

o
::3

-
CI)

CD
1•d

C
r

C1 II
CD

CI-I
C

r

CI)
F

--
S

CD
CI

)
H

H
t

CD
0

0
I

C
r

-
H

,
CD

I
U)

H
,

Q
H

C
D

C
l

F
H

-
Z

C
I)

<
C

D
o

U)
CD

C
D

U
)

S
C)

H
-
C

lC
)

H
-

C
r

d
CI)

U
)

H
C

r
C

I)
p

C
D

CD
C

)C
lU

)
CD

0
C)

C
D

C
r

C
r

e
c
t

H C
r

I))
C

)
U

)
°
C

r

H
-

U)
0

:
o
O

C
r

H
,

•
0

3
U

)
ç
t

—
C

D
C

D
-

C
r

h
C

I)
P

)
U

)
C

r
CD

o
C

l
CI

)
C

D
p

H
CD

H
,

i—
H

U
)

<
H

-
C

r
H

P
)

0
CD

CD
0

<
C

)
H

CD
I

-
H

C
rU

)
Z

0
h

0
U)

CI
)

iQ
CD

C
r

p
j

H
-C

rC
I)

H
-

CD
CI

)
C

D
C

D
H

CD
i

H
Ø

iQ
c
-r

u
)

CD
CD

U)
S

Q
C

D
0

U)
CD

Q I
-

I—
rC

)c
-r

CD
CD

CI
)

H
’

d
<

U
)

F-
’

CD
C

D
0
)

C
D

I-
’-

i-
r

H
C

D
C

D
C)

H
’C

)H
H

-
C

r
r
l
Q

CI)
H

’
C

D

C
l

C
)
P

i
,

U)
U)

0
CD

C
r

H
-

H
,C

r
H

,
H

-
H

I-
•

C)
U)

0
C

r
H

-
C

D
H

-1
Q

S
H

-
C)

C
)
U

)
H

CI
)

C
D

C
r

H
,

C)
H

-
0

H
-

0
C

rC
D

P
iP

)
C

r
CD

H
’

II
H

-
U)

C
lC

I)
C

r
0

C
)
j

C
r
0

C
rC

D
CI

)
C

D
0

d
C

D
c
C

r
H

,
H

-
H

-H
<

P
)
U

)
C

)
C

r
CI)

-
H

C
t
C

D
P

i
C

)
C)

H
-

CD
U

)-
-

I
lu

l
-

CD
C

r
C

r
0

‘
P

)
H

-
U)

CD

-
C

r
C

I
)
F

H
,

0
C

r
C

D
U

)
U

)
5

d
C

D
H

-
H

.H

0
CD

S
C)

H
-

C)
H0

)
td

C
D

H
-

C
D

H
’

CD
C

r
C

r
H

-
C

r
•

5
C

D
-

C
D

C
D

C
lU

)C
D

C
r

=
H

-
H

-
C

r
C

D
C

I)
Q

F
-I

C
r

•
C

r
H

,
C

r
C

l
H

-
CD

C)
H

-
CD

CD
C)

Ii
0

U
)C

D
H

C
r
C

l
P

i
CI

)
H

O
F

-’
C

)C
l

-
H

C
r

C
r

b
•

CD
N

H
.

‘
I

P
i

U
)C

)

C
r0

i
Q

H
,

0
H

C
D

P
i

•
L

4
C

r
CD

C
rC

D
C

)
O

1

C
r

C
D

II
-

C
I)

U
)C

D
-

CD
H

C
r

lt
I
k
<

C
D

•
U

)
H

P
)

CI
)

CD
C

r
a

I
—

C
lC

D
C

rC
D

H
,

CD S H H CD CI) C
l

H CD 0) C’
)

H CD H
-

C
r

H S CI) Cr CD 0 Cr CD II H CI) II CI) H H CD H
’

C
r

0 (I
)

CI
)

CD II U)



authority of the traveller relies on the counter-figure of the

tourist, so the field is formed against a feminine non-field

equivalent. In both cases, the identity of the fieldworker is not

essential but relational: it is constructed against and requires

the subversion of the Other to legitimate an authoritative stance.

Despite the critiques of Culler, Buzard and Rose, geographers like

David Stoddart continue to build on Sauer’s persona of the

“journeyman11 and to conceptualise fieldwork as discovery. Although

Felix Driver has cited Conrad “in memoriam” for a geography of

discovery and claimed that geographers are “condemned to make their

discoveries on beaten tracks” (we are tourists all) , Stoddart

states that Cook’s “discovery” of Australia in 1769 marked the

transformation to geography as truth and that this continues to

speak to a geography of the present. Our central theme, continues

Stoddart - drawing in full on the masculinist assumptions of

fieldwork - should be:

“sending out versed in science and the knowledge of nature on
all occasions to the remote parts of the world.”76

Contradictory to Driver, the “days of heroic travel” for geography

do not seem to be over:77 Stoddart, like Sauer, freezes geography

the whole the belief that the true nature of the world can be
revealed via objective study - a conviction expressed through the
trope of discovery. In this light, Sauer’s geographer-discoverer,
searching for “pebbles on the shore of a sea of truth”, is
symptomatic of geography as masculinist knowledge.

76 Stoddart, 1986, op. cit., p.39. My use of emphasis.

Conrad in Driver, op. cit., p.24.

64



U)
CD

0
H

><
I—

I,

CD
H

p
.

0
0

h
p

i
U

)
H

-
H

-
C)

U)
0

CU
H

-
C)

rt
CD

0
H

-

H
I

c-
t

0
)

CD

(
D

I
0

CI)
U

)
0

o
CU

CI)
p
.

p
.

CI)

C)
rr

CI)
rt

H
-

>4
ç
t

CU CD
H

H
CI

)
-

CU
U

)
p
.

H W
U

)

0
-

0
)
‘

p
j

U)
H

U
i

rt
C

)
çu

p
j

H
-

H H
U)

CD
ct

h
H

CU
U

)

U
)

CD H
C

t
’

H
CD

CU
C

D
U

)
I- U)

U)

U)
CU

CU
U)

CU
CU

p
.

H
-

0
0

CD
I-

U)
M

i
H

-
CD

CI
)

C)
I-

CD
CU

<
H

H
CD



SIGHTS

“Everything’s so Goddamned pictorial it takes my breath
away. 1,79

It was not only the being of fieldwork - the sheer presence of the

geographer away from his [sic.] desk - that gave Sauer’s geography

its authority, but the seeing: the clarity and contemporaneity of

vision that the direct experience of the field allowed. Geography,

for Sauer, was primarily knowledge gained by observation: in order

to know, you had to see and Sauer thus further “othered” the “desk

geographers” that he perceived as taking over the American academic

scene. Reading and archive work could complement observation but

only the latter had the ultimate claim to “Truth” and could truly

enable the geographer to learn and “see”. In reference to his own

work, Sauer said:

“I still think I can learn more by being in the field than by
reading. When I am fresh from the field I have a new incentive to
read, and after I have read for some time I have the additional
reason for getting back into the field.”8°

Sauer thus further made the distinction between the “real”

geographer out in the “field” and the less authoritative and more

“bookish” counterpart that “stayed at home”. While this seemed to

sort out the field observers from the deskworkers within geography,

it did not, however, distinguish between geographers and other

disciplines, equally keen on “being” and “seeing” in the field.

Dos Passos in Deplar, op. cit., p.199.

80 Sauer in Williams, 1983, op. cit., p.9.

66



H
-

I
-

C)
ç
t

J
Q

I
-
C

D

0
(.Q

C)
<

H
F

—
CD

(D
O

<
P

J
i
H

b
0

H
-I

.Q
(-

I-
C

D
IQ

P
J

P
F

t
I-

.
CD

H
(D

O
P

-
w

Q
-’

U)
CD

H
-

O
H

O
0

C
D

(
0
-

-
0

C
D

S
U

)
U

)C
D

(D
r-

I-
P

b
-

F
r

C
D

H
.

H
-

(U
CD

I-
o
U

)p
rh

t
o

•

O
r—

’
0

k
<

0

H
-

W
‘-

‘
r
t
Q

CD

o CD
C

D
c
D

U
)C

D
C

D
U)

J
U

)

a
U

)
F

t
(
U

F
rI

-i
U

)H
O

C
D

c

U
)H

)
U

)
F

r
g

C
D

(D
O

H
-
U

)
C

D
C

D
I-

J)
U

)
0
0

h
(D

H
i
H

:
0

h
CD

.-
C

D

H
-
ç
t
(
U

(
t

H
-

CD
H

-
F

I
-

P
-

0
M

i
C

D
U

)
r
-

(U
0C

D
0

F
—
1H1

(U
o

ci
CD

C
D

0
0

(U
I-

Q

r
(
U

c
-
t
p
J

U
)

Q
c
t
Q

(U
(U

C
D

C
D

c
t

h
h

IQ
U)

H
-C

D
0

0
CD

C
D

-
h

I
-

0
0

J
P

J
•

k
<

U
)

I
-

U
)

i
t

H
-

(1
-

h
CD

(
D

h
U

)
r
t

H
r
I
i

H
0
<

P
C

D

0
_

k
<

U
)

0
0

P
$ ‘t
I(

U
CD

F
-
’

(
th

’
C

D
C

D
-

i-
tI

-
i

CD
U)

CD F
r
F

-
5 (U

CD
C

D
U

)

1l
I
-

H
-

CD
—

iU
)

‘-Q
(U

H
-

0
H

CD
H

-
(U

_
,O

H U
)

H
it

H
-

_
-i

CD
U

)
p

j
H

1
H

Q

CD
o

H F
r

C
D

CD
F

r(
fl

U
)

- 0
H

0
°
U

)

0
u

-’

H
-

U)
CD

-r
C

D
0

•
F

r
H

H
.

-
c
t
Q

H
IQ

d
C

D
k<

p
•

C
D

P
J
D H

r
t
Q
1O

—
ti

U
)-

0
(U

p
I
-

C
D

—
0
0

0
0

fl
0
0

t-
1

)
—

p
j
U

)

I-
I

I-
I

H
-M

b
H

-
H

-
C

D
0U

)
•

•
H

-
(
U

1Q
CD

o
o

•
•

P
CD

w
w

k
<

p
C

D
h

o
i

u
i

-
r
r
o
C

D
U

,
tJ

•
•

H
I
-
I
-

W
C

D
(U

0 F
r

-
H

-
F

r

O
c
t

CD
‘
d
0Q1

(U
0

H
-

H
-

F
r
F

r 0
H

-
H

-
•

F
r

w
-Q

(U
H

a
-

I
-

•—
J(

U
0
0

—
I
l

D
c
-t

•
0

(U
H

C
D

0
H

-
0

o:1
P

U
)

C
D

0
--

U
)I

Q

H
-

(U

c
t
C

D
Q

h

F
r

CD
C

D
0H

i

I—
h

CD
H

-
0

CD
H

H
r
t

1
.

H U)

b
0

I-Q
H

-
Q

b
CD

CD
F

r
U)

0
F

-
0

CD
(

H
-

F
r

P
i

I-
h

0
0

<
(U

CD
CD

Q
it

(U
d

F
r

H
i

H
-

‘-
<

H
-

(U
H

-
0

-
CD

U)
CD

—
‘

0

H
i

-
0

0
0

CD
H

(U
U)

(U
(U

H
H

:i
II

H
H

-
F

r
I—

h
‘9

P
0

o
CD

0
0

U)
I

0
CD

H
H

-
U)

H
-

0
U)

‘c
i

it
CD

CD
CD

(U
-

‘1 CD
CD

.
P

-
U)

- CD
it

Q
F

r
F

r
H

-
CD

ci
0

(U
H

-
CD

LQ
CD

it
I-

U)
-

pi
-

0
-

F
t

H
H

-
(U

-
I

U
)
F

t
P

CD
0

0
0

0
it

U
)

(U
H

-
U)

CD
CD

CD
CD

F
r

CD
H

,
H

i-
i-

H
-

-
-

0
0

H
-

i-
‘c

i
0

CD
‘c

i
IQ

H
-

0
0

CD
H

o
<

H
H

-,
0

H
0

F
t

H
-

0
H

CD
k
<

IQ
<

h
H

‘-
<

CD
CD

P
I

-

U
)

(U
U

)
0

(U
(U

I-
Q

(U
0

(U
U)

it
P

CD
H

-
CD

CD
F-

’
II

I-
h

I-
H

-
-

U)
-

0
i

U)
it

(U
‘d

H
-

i
t

0
H

-
P

-
F

r
0

0
U

)
IQ

(U
H

-
H

-
H

U)
IP

U)
H

IH
-

F
r

U)
0

IM
i

[h
H

lC
D

P
i

H
H

H
,
<

CD
H

-
lC

D
I-

’
-.

0
H

I
CD

H-
li

t
CD

CD
0

H
U)

CD
0

it
0

CD
CD

(U
M

i
-.

U)
-
.

H
i

(
U

C
D

O
O

F
r

H
H

1Q
0

it
CD

Q <
I-

CD
CD

CD
F

r
H

-
(U

0
0

0
U)

U)
F

r
F

r
0

(U
(U

CD
H

-
CD

CD
F

r
‘c

i 0
0

-
(1

CD
CD

o
CD

o
(U

H
,

0
H

-
-.

‘-
<

P
(U

o
CD

‘
-

(Q
(1

:
(U

CD
U)

I-
i- U)

CD
1Q

E
I-

H
,

D
(U

H
-

CD
H

-
H

-
‘c

i
CD

H
it

H
P

CD
J

CD
k

<

U
)

(U CD U) 0 CD (U H CD ‘c
i CD H
-

CD 0 CD 0 H
,

H
,

H
-

CD P 0 II (U U) H c-
I

F
t

CD 1Q C
D 0 H 0 H
-

U) (-
I

0
0

0
0

C
M

I-
I

U
)

(U
H

-
1

CD H
‘c

i w —
]

CD
0
’

H
-

H F-
’

0
,

0 0 H
-

F
r

w U
i

—
1



S
D

S
D

S
D

—

Cl
)

Cl
)

H
PJ

PJ
t H

-
CD

CD
P

-
I-

h
.

H
-

H

w
CD

CD
M

H
-

a)
H

Q
rr -

H
k
<

0
- H o

C)
O

H

0 d
d 0

C) H C
t

LA
)

H 0-
I

P
J

H
0
0

0
0

S
D

0
0

H
Cl

)
i
.0

b
Pi

H
-

•
CD

CD
•

I-
CD

-

H
-

-

•
a)

LA
)

0
H

CD
0
-

H
-

C
r

H
a)

LO
CD

O
I

0
-

C) H

CD
‘d

c
t

S
•

II CD
Pi

H
-

a)
ft

-

H
-

a)
-

C
r

CD H
,

H CD
I

H a) CD CD Cl
)

Pi CD l- H LA
)

U
,

b
H

i
d

C
i-

C
r

0
0

CD
C

r
H

-
H

-
CD

CD
a)

j
C

r
c
t

Pi
H1

a)
a)

I-
pj

C)
h

CD
H

-
)

p)
CD

C)
-

H
a)

C
F

a)
C)

C
r

H
CD

H
,

pi
C

r
H

-
C)

CD
H

,
CD

CD
H

-
I•

tj

C)
0

H
-

a)
p)

H
,

IQ
H

0
CD

H
H

h
H

,
H

,
CD

C
r

H

P)
Q

U
,

CD
a)

—
CD

CD
1

C)
-

Pi
Q-

’
P)

‘d
H

-
H

-
)

l-
CD

PJ
a)

H
,

a)
C

r
C)

H
-

H
-

0
CD

H
-

CD
a)

a)
C

r
a)

H
CD

H
-

CD
H

H
-

<
CD

C)
h

Q
i

H
-

H
o

Q
CD

CD
H

P
)

;s
-•

•
•

LQ

0
H

-
3

0
a)

Ii
1

H
-

0
h

a)
H

,
0

H
,

H
-

H
-

0
C)

h
H

-
Cl

-
o

0
H

-
I-

i
-‘

CD
o

C) CD
a)

a)
CD

H
t

j
CD

P)

o
0

t5
-

CU
CD

CD
LQ

0
I_

I.
H

H
CD

H
-

0
H

,
U

C
r

C)
a)

H
,

C
t

CD
0

H
-

CD
J

I-
P)

CD
b

CD
ç
t

S
a)

)
ci

Cl
)

j
i

r
r

CU
h

P)
0

C
r

C)
a)

ci
H

P
)

CD
CD

CD
LQ

CD
H

k
<

I-
•

CD

Pi
d

CD
‘1

C)
C

t
1

CD
0

H
ci

I
0

)
H

-
CD

0
h’

C)
C

r
5

t
0

CD
H

-
a)

H
ç
t

CD
0

H
,

CU
CD

I
LQ

P)
ci

P-
-<

C)
C

r
C

r
a)

ft
0

C
r

a)
0

p)

Cl
)

CD
L

J
a)

-

CD
C

F
a)

C)
k
<

C
r

C
F

CD
H

-
CD

H H
a)

-
k
<

a)
a)

CU
0

H
-

o
H

,
Q

,

a)
CU

Cl
)

CD
P

I-
i

CD
ci

CU
CD

0
H

-
CU C

t
H

-
H

-
LQ

o
CD

H
-

H
i

a)
H

-
CD

i--
i

CD
Pi

H
C

l-
CD

s
ci

Q
0

a)
LQ

CD
a)

C
r

CU
C)

H
,

0
H

CD
H

-
H

CD

CD
<

0
C)

C)

-

CD
H

Pi
CD

Q
0

0
H

,
H

,
C)

H
,

CD
0

H
0

CD
Q

a)
H

,
CD

a)
F’

ç
t

CD
H

-
C)

<

o
C

t
CU

CU
CD

LQ
a)

C
r

CD
H

-
l

CU
3

0
CD

H
-

LQ
C)

=
H

-
H

-
CU

•
0

C)
CD

a)

H
0

c
ic

tC
D

=
CU

CD 0
0
H

-C
D

a
)

Q
I

IQ
a)

l-
C)

CU
C

t
H

-
p

j
CU

d
C

t
a
)

C
D

L
Q

a
)

C
‘-

<
C

U
C

U
H

-
H

,
h
J

0
C

D
0

H
.
ç
t

Cl
)

C
D

l
CU

C
)

H
-

ci
C

l-
CD

H
P

)
a)

I-
i

P
-C

D
ft

1a
)
P

)
P3

C
D

C
)H

C
r

C
U

H
ci

a)
1C

t
I- CU H

a)
C

U
.

a)
S

.
C

D
CU

$
H

1
CD

P
-

C)
C

D
C

D

ci
fr

H
-c

i
H

CD
c
t

a)
H

W
p
j
Q

i
0

H
-

CU
S

a
)

H
a) H

C
D

H
H

-
a
)
C

)
H

a
)
f
t

H
-

C
r

H
,

H
-

I-
P

C
)

H
,

1-r
C

D
H

-
0

C
r

I-
CD

LQ
a)

C
t

p
jC

U

‘
CD

H
a)

a
)C

)C
)

C1
ci

ci
Q

H
H

,p
)
r
-
r

CD
5

l-
Q

P
)Q

P
)

CD
H

,
H

,
H

SD

Cl
)

C
l

CU H
-

a) H CU a) H
-

0 C) H C
t

U
,

0



Q
H

C
D

(f
l

n
o

D
J

C
D

[f
)

rt
D

)

D
)C

D

I
j I. CD

<
I-

i.
CD

,
-
,
.

c
i

0

U
I

—
-
-

•
1

,

j
o

0
<

r
t

(D
o
)

X
L

Q
H

CD
C) —

0 r
t



W
I
J
U

)
f
t

)
tr

U)
c
t

f
t

Q
H

-
H

IC
j

Cl
)

Ip
j

H
-

CU
Q

C
)
l

H
-

CU
c
f

CD
‘d

CD
CD

fr
CU

C)
)

CD
10

CU
Id

a
F

-’
H

-C
D

U
)

CD
U)

c
t

0
CD

CD
-

C)
0

U)
M

Cl
)

Ii-
’-

H
-

Id
d

P
CD

(1
CU

CD
C)

H
-

Ico
ft

CD
h

-
0

ft
H

CD
ft

I
h

IC
-

C
C

)
)
C

)
H

-
1Q

0
‘d

CU
0

H
-

U
)

CD
0

H
-

H
-

lo
Ip

ft
H

D
O

‘0

C
D

If
t

H
-

CD
f-i

-
‘d

0
‘d

i.Q
U

)
CD

f
t

H
,

Ct
)

rn
a

C))
U)

Cl
)

U)
Cl

)
Cl

)
H

,
U

.
-

H
-

H
-

I.
CU

0
C)

C))
C

U
C

U
C)

CU
CD

CD
CD

CD
0

CD
U)

I.
U)

0U
)C

D
C

t

ç
t

C
i-

CU
C)

.
.

I.
C)

CD
C

U
U

)C
D

CD
CD

0
U)

H
-

f
t

CD
CD

CD

LQ
CD

H
-

C)
0

-
H

-
H

-
H

H

0
H

-
H

,
CD

CD
H

O
-h

CU
H

,
CD

CD
0

C
)

0
l
J
3

F-
’

H
-

CD
H

-
H

H
-

CU
b

f
t

CD
0

H
,

f
t

(Q
CD

H
-

U)
H

-
U)

CD
C

l-
U)

H
-

C)
)

CD
ft

CD
d

CD
H

-
CD

Q
<

CU
f
t

CU
<

CD

U
)
C

D
H

H
CD

H
CU

H

CD
0

CU
CD

U)
0

C)
CD

O
C

)C
))

C
D

H
-

0
‘

U)
f
t

H
C)

H
-

U
)

H
,

P
’

CU
C

)-
CU

H
-

CU
C

D
C)

CD
CD

S
0

H
f-

3
H

-
H

H
-

H
-

ft
ft

C
l

C)
)

ft
H

-
C

)C
D

C
U

H
-

H
H

-
‘

C)
H

-
fr

H
C

D
U

)
H

-
H

-
CU

0
H

CU
C)

)
o

2
ft

ft
H

-
CD

•
H

p
,

‘
H

-
F-

’
H

0
3

-
-

-
p

,
.

.
CD

C)
CD

U)
0

CU
CD

CD
U

)
C

U
C

U
C

D
W

0
C

D
C

)
Q

H
-
Q

-

0
H

-
L

J
H

I
0

0
C

l
CD

CU
0

‘
H

-
i

H
-

CD
H

H
-

CD
H

-
I-

C
D
5

CD
H

-
U

)
0

CU

ft
f
t

C)
0

H
,

H
CD

CU
C

l
H

-
H

-
H

-
H

0
<

CD
U)

CD
0

H
-

ft
h

CU
CD

CD
i-

h
H

-

CD
H

-
0

H
d

CD
CU

CD
CU

‘
CU

0
0

0
(D

H

o
C

U
H

H
ft

0
C)

CU
H

-
H

-
H

‘.
O

C
D

H
.

H
CU

CD
CU

CD
0

1D
ft

f
t
C

)
)

0
ft

t
Q

U
)

H
Z

1
Q

CD
CD

H
-

CD
0

ft
CU

-
_
1

•

H
H

C
l

H
-

H
-

CD
C

l
H

U)
f
t

d
CU

‘-
CD

C)
)

H
0

H
-

0
h

CU
i-

0
CD

CU

0
C)

U)
H

C)
C)

)
CD

-

CD
H

H
-

C
l

CD
I

CD
C)

)
CU

CU
C)

H
-

H
0

H
CU

f
t

ft
CD

C)
)

-
CU

H
ft

I-

CD
CD

0
H

H
,

ft
U

)
H

-
-

CU
C)

S
H

CD
H

H
-
C

l
H

-
H

-
U)

C
l

f
t

C
)
)
-

H
-

U
)

ft
U)

H
-

CD
CU

H
CU

CD
S

C)
CD

0
U)

-
0

H
ft

-
CD

CU
C

l
-

H
-

C)
0

d
C

U
O

C
l

CU
CD

H
CD

0
H

-
d

F-
’

CU
ft

H
,

H
-

Q
U)

CU
Cl

)
0

-
f
t
0
C

U
H

W
H

-
C

)
C

U
H

,
ft

H
-

C)
f
t

C
)
H

-
d

H
-

CU
ft

f
t

H
-

f
t

C)
CU

U)
1Q

CD
H

-
f
t

ft
o

H
C

U
C

U
CD

U)
f
t

H
,

CU
H

-
C

l
C)

)
CD

0
‘C

D
H

U
)k

<
C

l
c

CD
CD

0
‘<

CD
H

CU
ft

‘<
H

i
CD

CD



“The sprightly sketchiness of observation of the
geographer-traveler may retain its use in explorations and other
forms of preliminary reconnaisances but intensive work needs to
rely primarily on rigorous observation of unit areas. ,,98

Sauer thus recommended a landscape to survey as a unified panorama

rather than the less accurate passing through of the

traveler-geographer.99 The former was a systematic, precise,

quantitative, and scientific method; the latter lay in the realm of

the informal and subjective. While “sketchy observation” could

complement the scientific, it could not stand in its place; it had

charm and appeal but no scientific currency. Geography, in fact,

had given “excessive freedom to temperament” and “subjective

impression” and needed to ward off the dangers of being “anti

scientif±c”.’°° “The purpose of these suggestions”, said Sauer, was

“not to make field work mechanical but to increase its precision”;

the choice of which landscape to observe could “remain a matter of

individual judgement”.10’After this initial choice, however, the

geographer proceeded objectively.

.and beyond.

The scientific and subjective elements of landscape observation

were more balanced in Sauer’s later publication The morphology of

98 Ibid., p.25.

It is interesting here to note that the “traveller” denotes
a less authoritative stance - a contrast to the last section in
which it was the tourist that stood for a lack of authority. As
Buzard notes, we must be wary of simplification of the division
between travel and tourism and be ready for contradiction (op.
cit., p.31).

‘°° Sauer, 1924, op. cit., p.21.

101 Ibid.

71



it
U)

=
it

it
it

H
-

C
C

C
:

it
U)

I
-

lC
D

CD
)

CD
H

-
J

J
0

H
i
-

h
C)

Ip
CD

h
IC

Pi
h

it
U)

)
P

CD
CD

CD
H

-
I:

j
U

)
it

U
)

it
H

-
L

J
.H

C
D

C)
CD

I
H

-
H

-
ICC

CD
H

it
0

H
-

w
it

a
H

-
<

Ip
i

H
-
C

D
=

CD
i
t
C

D
CD

H
-

Ip
)

i
c

v
.

Id
it

c
H

,
CD

U)
it

H
,

P1
Iy

1
it

H
H

H
H

H
H

Cl
)

0
lCD

it
H

-
1.8

Pi
H

U
)U

)
0

H
,

Id
CD

H
-

it
CD

H
-

CD
P1

‘-
C

l
H

H
-

<
it

,<
C)

H
-

H
-

H
-

H
-

H
-

H
-

<
CD

CD
H

H

C
l

C
l

C
l

CD
P1

CD
CD

1
H

,
CD

h
<

-:
.:

.:
.:

I—
’

CD
H

CD
0

C)
CD

pi
C

CD
3

CD
U)

H
-

C
l

0
0

H
,

<
it

U)
-
-

CD
‘d

‘d
H

,
H

,
CD

it
p
i

0
H

-
C

D
H

H
-

H
-

=
C)

CD
0
d

H
,

Q
H

•
•

W
W

W
U

I
CD

‘
i.Q

CD
H

-
P1

CD
U

I
H

U
I

M
i

H
CD

CD
H

0
C

<
CD

CD
p

j
l-

Q
H

,
0
)

0
H

M
0
)

H
-

P1
P1

H
-

C)
H

a
H

CD
S

,
H0

pi
H

H
-

0
P1

0
H

-
H

0
P1

H
-

(
C)

H
H

U)
it

1
o

H
0

0
)

-
P1

H
,

it
it

0
H

-
CD

CD
it

H
()

CD
0

CD
=

1.Q
CD

0
C

D
<

1
d

c
-
-

pj
H

,
pj

-
-

h
H

-
C

l)
H

CD
CD

CD
pi

0
U

)
o

U)
ci

i
F

d
0

CD
C

l
C

l
CD

Cl)
0

CD
H

CD
0

CD
H

-
H

-
U)

0
p1

H
-

C
l

a
0

CD
U)

CD
i

it
U)

1’
J

H
,

CD
o

C
l

P1
-

U)
CD

(
C)

C)
<1

it
H

CD
H

-
H

-
0

CD
P1

H
,

H
-

Cl)
H

,
k
<

-
‘-

H
-

o
CD

-

it
H

-
H

-
CD

Z
H

-
it

H
H

-
p1

H
-

U)
-

o
C

l
C

)
CD

CD
it

CD
CD

it
P1

H
C

l
o

=
P1

it
CD

H
-

CD
H

=
1.

H
,

it
C)

(
it

I
CD

CD
-

H
it

it
‘

3
Pj

CD
H

-
CD

0
it

<
C

D
it

U
I

-
PJ

pi
pi

C
l

CD
it

H
H U

,
I

CD
it

H
H

P1
CD

U)
H

-
-

p
iC

D
CD

it
CD

p,
Cl

)

C)
d

U
)

CD
CD

CD
d

i
t

U)
pi

C
l

U
i

- U)
P1

H
it

3
I

CD
CD

CD
C

Q
C

D
d

H
CD

CD
O

H
-

CD
0

j
c
-i

-
CD

C)
it

0
H

U)
p

i
t

c
-i

.
U)

CD
P1

P1
a

a
C)

CD
h
j

it
-

U
)

C)
C)

I
CD

CD

H
-

H
-

0
it

CI
h

0
it

H
-

it
it

it
c

H
P1

CD
CD

H
-

o
:

CD

<
CD

CD
it

U)
p1

CD
U)

H
-

)
CD

CD
CD

H
-
.

H
-

CD
H

-
CD

CD
H

-
CD

3
-

H
-

C
l

=
it

0
H

-
H

,
S

0
II

U)
it

it
CD

5
p1

H
,

0
it

I
P1

H
-

CI
’

it
it

H
-

h
C

it
H

-
I-

P1
I

CD
5

0
C

D
CD

U)
C

l
C)

P1
CD

H
CD

CD
C

l
CD

3
it

CD
C

D
U

)
C

l
it

CD



“Beyond all that can be communicated by instruction and mastered by
techniques lies a realm of individual perception and interpreta
tion” 109

Sauer also performed a “volte-face” in terms of his concern for

scientific technique in observing the landscape, moving away from

any guidelines on mapping:

“The more time is spent making maps, the less attention is likely
to be left for thinking about why things are set down on the
map. . .A mapping plan is likely to freeze attention when it should
be most elastic. .

This “elasticity” came, for Sauer, from a reconceptualisation of

the map from field technique to “the language of geography”,

allowing for an “armchair travel”, an imaginary voyage to the

“exotic”. He asked:

“Who has not journeyed by map to Tibesti or Tibet, raised the peaks
of Tenerife or Trinidad on the Western horizon or sought the
Northwest Passage? Who has not been with Marco Polo to Cathay,
with Captain Cook to the Sandwich Islands?,m

Journeying by map was also the subject of Sauer’s later address in

The quality of geography, where the map was seen as vehicle for the

mental travel of the geographer: “a wandering by the mind’s eye”

and a subjective experience that depended on “one’s particular

109 Ibid., p.403. For Williams, 1983, op. cit., p.5, this
“realm of individual perception” was a product of Sauer’s
intellectual heritage: a “mysticism of observation and
contemplation”, associated with German romanticism, which gave rise
to “verstehen” (empathetic understanding and intuitive insight) in
Sauer’s work.

110 Sauer in Kenzer, 1986, op. cit., p.6.

Once again the overtly masculinist trope of discovery.

73



C)
I))

H
Cl

)
CD

‘d
H

PJ
U)

P.)
H

-
P.)

P.)
0

I-
h

H
i

F
-

1
f-

f
C

U)
F

H
H

-
f-

f
H

i
H

i
CD

H
i

U)
S

CD
o

pi
F

H
-

<
0

H
i

0
f-

f
1

ft
0

p
.

o
H

-
H

-
U

)
<

0
U)

I-
h

U)
0

CD
-

P.)
-

Cl
)

-
Cl

)
5

(-
I

o
H

-
H

-
=

P.
)

U)
P.)

P.’
o

.‘
H

-
H

-
CD

p
CD

p.)
CD

H
-

b
p
.

c-f
H

i
f
t

0
U)

CD
0

-
-

p.’
H

-
0

f
t

p
.

f
t

H
-

o
I-

h
j

H
-

H
U

)
U)

U)
H

-
CD

C)
U)

p
.

CD
CD

p
U)

CD
0

C)
C)

I-
H

-
CD

.‘
H

-
0

H
-

-
0

I-
i

p
.

I-
h

CD
c-i

-
CD

U
)

p.
,

ft
CD P.’

p.’
CD

F
-

1
CD

(
1P

ft
CD

U)
p
.

pi
-
,

H
-

I-
H

-
i.

<

1Q
0

c-
f

-
Q

C)
‘-1

CD
P.)

H
-

H
i

H
i

CD
°)

:
-

S
p.’

H
-

P.’
‘.

<
‘d

5
CD

-

I-
U) H

II
ft

CD
CD

CD
CD

P.’
p.’

CD
L

J
ft

U)
CD

0
0

U)
C)

C)
H

-
H

-
H

-
p.’

ft
ft

P.)
P.’

p
.

P.’

p
.

p
.

H
U)

I
H

i
CD

H
-

0
P.)

C)
-

H
-

C)
I-

h
CD

H
-

ft
H

-
u
-

0
I-

ti
ft

U)
U)

C)
s).’

.‘
0

CD
0

H
-

CD
0

CD
U)

C)
I-

p
‘1

g
CD

CD
ft

U)
pi

<
‘

H
i

H
-

0
1

CD
H

-
CD

0
C)

CD
P.’

p.’
CD

ft
C

D
f
t

H
i

U
)

H
p.)

p
.

-
U

)
hj

p.)
0

U
)

ft
5

H
-

C)
I-

h
0

Cl
)

P.)
C

l)
0

p.’
0

‘
f
t

C)
I-

t,
H

-
H

H
-

CD
p.’

q
CD

P.)
U

)
CD

H
-

P.)
ft

F-
<

f
t

I-
P.’

I
5

H
-

ft
H

-
H

-
-

H
-

0
H

-
H

i
CD

C)
U)

p
.

C)
U)

p
.

3
3

k
<

U)
CD

I:-
’

H H I-
p U) c-
I

0 CD H L
a

L
a

L
D

I..
)

C’
)

P.) CD I-. H LO 0 0 C) H U
i

U
)
0
1
Q

H
-
f
t

r
f
c
t
C

D
-

-
U

)
0
0

f
t

W
W

0
I—

C
D

p
.U

)C
D

U
1

U
iC

D
C

)
‘c

’l
Y

5
’
<

C
D

o
M

H
-
f
t

CD
C

D
p
.—

p
.’

f
t
_

_
_

f
t
.

5
H

iC
D

U
)U

)
C

D
H

-
H

-
‘C

D
U

)P
.’

S
CD CD

•

0
U

)
C

)
C

D

C
D

C
)
C

)

-
CD

3
f
t

C)
C

)
H

F
C

D
C

D
U

)
C

D

I_
p

C
)

C)
p
iC

D
<

C
D

CD
ft

C
)

p
.
)

f
t

H
i

H
-C

)
f
t
Q

p
.)

P
.)

C)
H

-
U

)
Q
5

f
t
Q

(
j
)

5
(
C

D
U

)
p
.P

.)
C

D
Q

P
.)

.
0
C

D
C

)
f
r
C

D
.
‘

C
D

—
..

p
.
’
f
t
H

-
C

)
C

D
i
-
0

U
)

U)
C)

p
.

H
-

H
-

p
.

H
-
C

D
N

H
C

D
H

o

C
D

W
I
-
P

C
)
i
-
-
,
.

H
H

-
I
1
H

-
C

f
t
w

C
D

C
D

C
D

H
U) U

)
W

C
D

H
0

M
-,

F
--

’f
tC

D
k
<

p
.

-
ft

H
-

c-I
-

H
-

P.)
H

-I
-P

C
D

H
-
p

.
f
t
C

D
H

i
S

0

C
)
5

C
D

H
-

C
D

C
D

O
U

)
H

-
H

f
t

—
L

a
C

D
H

-
-
0
H

H
i

C
D

f
t
C

D
C

)
I-

hC
D

0
U)

0
H

W
U

)
ft

“
H

iC
D

H
-C

)
-

H
-
H

-

-
-

ft
C

D
H

iC
)

r
f
H

-
C

D
p

.
C

D
S

-J
C

D
h
C

D
C

D
t1

’
d

H
H

-
C

D
—

p
.)

p
.

—
-
-
-
.
.
-

<
U

)
-
-
i

C
D

H
-H

-H
H

C
D

I-
Q

H
i
b

H
i
t
L

D
s
i
5

U)
H

-
p
.

CD
p
.

H
-

H
-

—
.1

H
CD

CD
CD

CD
3

CD
p
.
p

.
—

-
-

H
-C

D
h
h
f
-
f
f
-

-
-

-
f
t
U

)
5

p
.

CD U) H I- CD P.) p
.

CD P.’ I- H I_
p ft 0 P.) p
.

CD

C)
o

P.’
H

-
P.)

H
U)

<
ft

U)
ft

P.
’

H
-

CD
ii

H
-

I-
P

CD
<1

CD
U

)
U

)
p.’

k
<

f
t

ft
ft

U)
H

-
0

0
H

-
-

H
-

C)
I-

h
o

C)
CD

‘-
‘

P.)
U)

P.’
H

i
ft

H
i

ft
I.Q

CD
-

CD
p.)

C)
CD

0
;;‘

ç
H

-
-

CD
H

i
.‘

C)
P.)

H
C —

p
.

=

H
A

H

o
CD

-

p.’
O

U
f
t

P.)
I-

h
-

H
-

CD
U

)

C!
)

I-
C)

f
t

CD
0

CD
o p

.
p.’

I-
h

p
.

H
-

f
t

p.’ I-
CD

CD
ft

c-
Cl

)
-

S
P.’

p.’ ft
CD

CD
I-

H
-

H
-

I-
U)

U)
H

-
=

p.’
P.)

H
-

H
H

i

CD
H

i

H
U

CD
CD

_
S

0
CD

CD
I-

P I-
CD

p.’
U

)
f
t D

P.’
0

-<
CD

U)
I-

h



5
h

H
H

‘d
ft

f
t

H
C

Cv
Cl

)
Cv

0
Cv

H
-

CD
Cv

Cv
H

Cv
Cl)

0
H

-
0

CD
b

C)
H

-
P1

H
-

Cv
H

-
Cl

)
1

(Q
Cl

)
H

-
p

H
-

—
i-

ft
H

-
C)

I-
C)

H
-
C

D
H

,
CD

Ci
)

CD
f
t

0
Cl

)
Cl

)
Q

ft
CD

CD
Cv

f
t

I-
0

C)
0

—
—

—
-

C)
C)

Cl
)

H
-

Cl
)

5
Cl

)
CD

‘<
H

-
<

C)
ft

H
,

f
t

H
-

I-
Cv

H
-

H
-

H
-

f
t

H
w

0
d

Cv
(

ft
p

H
-

CD
H

-
0

P1
ft

w
H

,
H

i-
H

-
f
t

H
,

Cv
Cv

C)
3

i
Cl

)
S

Cv
Q

ft
ft

I-
CD

CD
H

,
P

H
C)

H
-

H
-

H
ft

CD
H

-
Cl

)
f
t

CD
i
<

H
-

CD
CD

CD
(-Q

CD
P1

Cv
Cv

P1
Cv

Cl
)

Cl
)

-j
Cl)

I-1
C

CD
H

-
pj

Cv
H

-
C)

k
<

H
,

-
-

Q
‘

Cl
)

I))
CD

<
H

-
Cl

)
P’

CD
H

H
-

5
H

CD
Cv

C)
H

-
<

1
Cv

Cv
H

ft
CD

H
P

)
:i

3
CD

ft
H

-
Cl

)
H

Cl
)

H
,

Cv
0

-
CD

-

Cv
H

-
,

H
,

i-
H

-
CD

ft
CD

Cv
CD

CD
P1

Q
Cl)

ft
CD

CD
Cl

)
ft

H
,

5
CD

U
i

H
H

H
-

H
CD

CD
o

CC
)

H
-

Cl
)

I
C

D
C

O
H

,
H

-
-)

CD
CD

H
-

f
t

CD
Cv

Cv
H

-
H

-
J

H
,

CD
U

i
CD

H
-

Cl
)

P1
H

,
h

h
H

-
H

H
-

-
-

C)
Q

Cv
Q

o
H

CD
Cl

)
C)

Cv
CD

H
,

CD
H

H
5

Cv
0

H
-

0
Cv

H
•

-
H

,
CD

Cl
)

Cv
‘H

-
H

-
Cv

‘f
t

S
CD

H
-

C
D

C
D

C
l

C
l

0)
Cv

Cl
)

‘

CD
-

C)
Cv

CD
Cl)

Q
H

,
Cv

H
CD

H
ICI

)
Cl

)
Cl

)
0

CD
C

D
H

-
ft

C
l

CD
S

S
Cv

><
H

CD
ft

Q
H

-
C)

H
H

-
Cv

H
-

0
H

H
,

Cl
)

H
-

Cv
C

l
C)

i—
’

H
,

0
<

Cl
)

Cv
-

0
f
t

CD
Cv

0
I—

’
CD

i
Q

H
Cv

ft
CD

Cl
)

ft
CD

CD
I-

H
H

Cv
—

.1
0

-
I-

”
Cl

)
H

Cl
)

C
l

C)
H

I
C

l
CD

CD
Cl

)
k
<

CD
•

Cv
H

-
Cv

CD
Cl

)
Cv

<
H

-
<

Cv
C

l
lCD

f
t

Cl
)

Cl
)

II
C)

W
ft

Cl
)

H
-

CD
ft

H
Cl

)
<

CD
Cl

)
H

-
H

H
-

ft
-

CD
C)

CD
C)

Cv
1<

CD
Cv

Cl)
ft

H
-

Cv
fr

H

o
•

ft H
-
C

D
H

,
0

C
l

o
H

C)
H

-
CD

0
If

t
Cv

C)
H

-
0

H
-

0)
-

H
-

IH
-

H
-

H
CD

C)
‘

C!
)

ft
H

-
P1

U
I

H
-
I
C

Cv
CD

C)
H

-
5

CD
H

ft
Cl

)
H

Cv
C

l
•

ft
Ci

)
Cl

)
CI

)
C)

H
-

C
l

H
-

ft
w

H
Cv

Cl)
‘

1
H

Cv
Cv

Cv
H

-
CD

H
-

0
Cv

Cl
)

H
,

H
-

H
,

Cv
H

,
‘<

CD
H

-
H

ui
H

0
CD

H
H

H
CD

Cv
C)

ft
H

-
-

C
l

H
,

ft
Cl

)
ft

CD
Pi

CD
H

C
)
0

U
i

0
Cv

Cl
)

CD
0

H
ft

0
Cv

Q
Cl

)
H

o
H

-
0

CD
H

Cl
)

H
Cl)

ft
-

i—
i

H
,

i-
Cv

Cl
)

CD
CD

Cv
H

-
Cv

CD
H

-
ft

-
CD

H
0
)
5
H

-
0

0
CD

Cl
)

Cl
)

CD
H

H
,

CQ
f
t

Cl
)

CD
Cv

C)
H

Cv
ft

C)
Cv

0
-

0
H

-
Cv

<
0

CD
CD

C
W

Cl
)

Cv
‘d

CD
C

l
Cl)

H
-

h
Cv

k
<

C
l

H
Cv

CD
CD

ft
Cl

)
CQ

Cl
)

0
h

0
0

CD
f
t

C)
h

H
-

C)
H

CD
H

,
H

-
0

H
-

Cv
‘-

‘-
Cv

Cv
Cv

0
0

CD
ft

<1
H

-
I-

I-
C

l
Cv

Ii
CQ

-
Cv

3
0

‘d
<

Cl
)

J
CD

ft
-

0
CD

C)
ft

CD
-

Cl
)

H
C

l
C

l
H

,
CD

CD
Cl

)
-

C
l

3
’

Cl
)

5
j

3
’

0
‘



I-H
I-H

b
b

H
-

H

o
a
-

C
r

CD
=

c
i

P1
p

i
p

.
p
i

‘C
i

0
0

1Q
0

d
CD

h’
C-

’
S

H
-

P1
0

CD
P1

t
C

D
<

H
CD

I-
CD

H
,

CD
P1

CD
P1

CD
I-

CD
p

.
Ci

)
H

-
‘
d
c
t
H

-
Ci

)
H

L
J

H
-

IQ
0

h
D

CD
H

-
I-

’
Cl

)
Cl

)
h
J
U

)
0

Cl)
CD

C)
P1

5
Cl

)
H

P1
p
.

C)
0
C

)
‘d

C)
it

CD
Ci

)
<

H
-

C
)

f
t

Cl
)

P1
<

P1
H

<
‘t

it
T

P
J

P1
CD

it
0

H
ft

CD
Cl

)
C)

H
,

Cl)
H

-
IX

CD
0

H
-

ç
t

0
P1

CD
0

H
-

C)
H

-
h

Ci
)

I-
C)

Cl
)

P1
I-

Cl)
P1

H
-

Ci
)

Cl
)

H
-
p
.H

H
-,

f
t

H
-

P1
k
<

C
l-

H
P1

‘-
d

CD
H

-
0

CI
)

it
CD

CD
P1

0
H

-
H

-
J

c
t

CD
-

CD
H

H
-

‘<
H

pi
f
tQ

<
c
t

H
H

-
‘<

C)
-

P1
‘<

CD
P1

k
<

H
C

D
S

CD
<

0
H

-
CD

Ci
)

P
1
P

1
1Q

0
H

-
0)

f
t

0
CD

H
Q

P
1

H
,

b
P1

P1
P1

=
-

H
CD

5
0

P1
p

.
3-
<

0
‘•g

CD
p

.
-

1
C

D
C

D
P1

C)
H

f
t

C)
H

-
p
.

5
0

b
i-

P1
C)

H
-

p
.

p
.

C
D

0)
CD

P1
H

-
Cl

)
C)

H
-

I-
C)

CD
Cl

)
H

0
CD

f
t

0
H

,
o

P1
CD

IQ
P1

S
-r

CD
Cl

)
H

-
C)

H
-

P1
-

0
H

d
ç
t

P1
<

3
-

1
Cl

)
0

I-
P1

p
CD

-
CD

,
.

0
CD

CD
1

Cl)
c
i

5
C

D
H

-

H
-

H
-

Cl
)

CD
p

.
H

<
Cl

)
P1

P1
Cl)

P1
H

-
‘d

H
-

it
CD

P1
CD

f-
i

0
H

P1
0

P1
H

-
C

D
0

CD
g

‘
H

-
H

•
c
t

Q
C)

)
H

-
0

H

0
H

-
H

P1
C

nC
D

P1
P1

P1
I-

-
t

-
CD

p
.

c
t

P1
H

-
Cl)

P1
0

ft
-

0
C

D
it

H
-

0
Q

H
,

CI
)

0
Ci)

CD
CD

H
-

CD
H

-
0

H
<

Q
p

.
II

f
t

H
,

-Q
l

h
P1

H
H

(
H

-
H

H
-

P1
I

ft
CD

Ci
)

0
C)

H
C

D
H

-
C)

H
CD

p
0

H
-

0
P1

Cl
)

CD
Cl)

0
t

CD
0

C
D

P1
I-

I
P1

CD
‘<

(
p
.

H
-

CD
II

H
‘<

H
,

Cl)
0

H
-

Cl
)

H
-

H
-

p
H

,

p
.

CD
I—

i

H
-

P1
0

‘-
P1

P1
H

-
H

-
C)

0)
X

P1
P

1
H

-
C)

C
)

CD
P1

ft
ft

CD
H

H
C)

C
ti

t
C)

H
i<

0
b
f
t
C

D
C

)
P

1
-

H

-
0

CD
H

-
c-

I-
Cn

‘
CD

0
C

I)
P1

0
CD

H
-

CD
f
t

H
-

<1
H

(-
I

H
-

CD
P1

H
H

-H
,

0
H

-
P1

CD
H

c
t

H
Cl

)
CD

C-
’

C)
P1

P1
c
t

ft
H

,
C)

ft
p

.
H

•
0

H
P1

P1
0

H
-

P1
CD

p
.

0
)

<
CD

H
-

CD
‘<

C)
H

-
CD

H
CD

H
II

f
t

U)
C)

H
H

-
ft

i.Q
CD

p
.

P1
<

C)
CD

C)
H

-
H

,
i

0
0H

CD
CD

P1
P1

P1
=

C)
CD

H
-

CD
c-I

-
P1

Cl)
CD

k
<

H
-

C)
d

C)
P1

H
,

P1
Cl)

H
-

CD
p
.

Cl
)

S
CD

0
H

0
f-C

H
-

(Q
II

c
t

—
3

C
D

p
.

CD
C)

Li
i

CD
P1

P1
0

P1
p

.
F

‘d
H

-
P1

H
H

,
CD

it
<

CD
H

-
Cl)

H
-

P1
C

D
C)

P1
CD

C)
C)

H
H

-
H

-
0

‘<
CD

CD
CD

<
H

•
-

CD
H

H
f
t

H
-
C

D
H

-j
ft

P1
H

-
p
.p

.
H

-
1

I-
j

H
-

I-
’

p
.

c
t

C
D

3
H

-
p
.

C)
)

H
-

H
-

P
1

CD
H

-
0

H
-

C)
CD

P1
P1

W
P1

IQ
P1

r
I
-
H

P1
P1

ft
it

P1
CD

P1
0

P1
Cl

)
<

CD
3

CQ
H

CQ
Cl)

0
Cl)

-
Cl

)
I-

j
p
.

H
,



way of knowing and an assertion of power over space. From his

vantage point Sauer could - scientifically or artistically -“see”

and “know” the Mexican landscape and appropriate Mexico as his

field. Distanced from the scene, he could present himself as

transcendental being, passive interrogator and uninvolved collector

of views.’22 As such, Sauer could be drawn upon by others taking

landscape into their own disciplines.’23

However, as Rose notes, “more was involved in looking at landscape

than property relations”:’24 the “ideological baggage” or “way of

seeing” incorporated into geography was distinctively “male”. The

(active) gaze of the fieldworker, for Rose, is a gendered vision

which posits Nature/the landscape as (passive) feminine and looks

122 Mary Louise Pratt in her history of meaning-making in
European travel writing (1992) identifies contradictory strategies
of observation at the imperial frontier: “science” appealing to the
objective and “sentiment” to the personal. This duality is
personified for Clifford Geertz in the field in the figure of
Malinowski, at once “Absolute Cosmopolite” appealing to the
personal and “Complete Investigator. . dedicated to wintry truth”
(op. cit., p.74). Both strategies are similar, however, in that
they posit the “seer” as passive interrogator of the scene rather
than with any transformative potential (Pratt, op. cit., 1992,
p.18) . This can be seen in relation to Sauer in the last two
chapters where he fails to see his own presence amidst culture in
the field as any kind of (political) intervention.

123 Attempting a Mexican textual landscape in his poetry,
Charles Olson used Sauer’s focus on form, direct observation and
eye-witness accounts to provide him with a “methodology of knowing”
for his writing: “I mean to know, to really know” (Olson in Ford,
1974, p.147) . The authority of Sauer’s landscape perspective
allowed Olson to reunite “fiction” with “science” and to
“incorporate the thing itself” into his poems. He wanted
“evidence” and the reality of Sauer’s observations gave him “the
force of the word” (Ibid. p.l46) that he was looking for.
Displaced into poetry, Sauer’s landscapes thus retained their
currency as products of a legitimate “morphologic eye” (Sauer in
Leighly, 1969, op. cit., p.393)

124 Rose, op. cit., p.93.

77



out (down?) motivated by domination (science) and desire

(art/pleasure) 125 This feminization of the landscape in geography,

argues Rose, is akin to the masculinity of the gaze at the nude.’26

More pertinent to my argument, Rose isolates in particular the work

of Sauer as an example of this Culture/Nature division, arguing

that:

“Carl Sauer, one of the founding fathers of geography in the USA,
based his life’s work on the study of the relationship between
human cultures and what he termed the ‘maternal natural
landscape’ i127

The fieldworker’s gaze - whether represented as that of the

“objective scientist” or the “poet of landscape” - is, for Rose, a

masculinist practice.’28 Thus, whether we take Sauer’s scientific

survey defined against the “charm and appeal” of the non-scientific

or his “desire to wander” in the imaginary travel of the map, we

find him implicated in a gendered gaze which, through its

construction of authority, objectifies a feminine Other. At the

same time, however, according to Rose, the pleasure involved in the

art of seeing disrupts and contradicts the objective claim to know,

125 Ibid., p.68. The opposition Nature/Culture, states Rose, is
fundamental to Western thought and also to geography, with its
division into the physical and the cultural. It has also been
focused on by feminists because it is thought to be a heavily
gendered and power-ridden dualism within geography.

126 Ibid., p.88.

127 Ibid., p.69.

128 Ibid., p.72.

78



H
-C

)
C

D
r
t
-
c
n

c
t
P

-
t
,

O
D

U
)
H

-
C

D
>

<
1
•

C
)
O

H
ç
t

tU
)
U

)
D

-
J
H

-
C

D
C

D
U

)
C

D
C

)
J
r
t
H

-
M

C
D

C
D

H
-
H

-
c
t

H
-
I
-

rt
C

D
t

H
-

t
C’)

C
t

(I)
t

t
H

-
U)

H
-

H
-

H
-

•
C

r
C

t
C’

)
P

r
t

‘I
H

-U
)

—
C

U
)
r
tO

O
H

-
C

rC
I
—

C
)
O

H
-

H
-

Z
t
C

U
)
Q

H
-
C

’
)
D

F
-
]
H

-
H

-
Q

-
1

CD
C

rC
D

C
’)

C’
)

-
(
1
)
Q

<
H

H
H

-
k
<

C
r

H
-

C
)k

<
C

’)
U

)C
’)

H
C

’)
Q

.
H

-
O

b
0

-
b
U

)
‘

H
-
r

C
’
)

H
-
H

-
c

Q
H

,C
’

-
C

r
C

)
H

-
H

-
H

-
(
Q

C
’)

1
-

U
)
C

D
p

,
C

’
)

-
CD

U
)
0

C
D

N
ç
tC

rW
C

r
(
U

)
(
D

U)
C)

d
-
-

CD
‘
d
H

H
-
-
t
t

H
H

-
H

C
D

-
C

D
H

C
D

0
H

C
’

C
r

Cl
)

C
’
)
H

C
)
C

D

p
H

)
C

D
C

D
CD

‘—
a

C
r

H
-

C
D C
D

H
C

D
U

)
C

D
H

-
F

0

C)
-

U
)

>
C

rC
D

O
>

C
)

C
r

d
• H

H

U
)-

C
’)

’I
o
r
r
C

D
C

D
j
C

D
f
-
t

i
-
:

C
D

C
D

C) c-C
C’

)
H

-
U)

II
H

,H
U

)
C

r
CD

H
-

CD
Q

’
1

C
D

<
H

0
U

)Q
b
r
t
U

)
U

)
.p

)
U

)
P

-
C

r
U

)
I

C
D

H
U

)
c

C
’
)
h

i
C

D
H

-
C

-
t

C
D

C
’)

-
C

)
c
-
t
-
0H

k
<

H
H

-
)
C

’
)
Q

U
)
C

)
C

D
’

-
H

c
-

C
r
C

D
C

D
H

C’)
H

C
D

H
p
U

)
C

D
O

<

C)
C

r
-

-
0

C’
)

C
rC

)
‘
C

’
C’

)
U

)
H

,

H
-
°

f
t

C
r
C

D
C

D
C

D
CD

C
r
0

C’
)

f
-
t
U

)
C

D
H

-
U

)
U

)
H

-
c
t

C
’)

C
)

0
C

)H
-U

)(
D

(D

a
H

,Q
U

)
U

)
C

’
)

CD
H

C
D

C
)
C

r
C

D
C

r
H

.
1Q

H
-
C

r
H

-
C

r
ç
t

H
-
I

C
D

U
)C

D
C

D
b

C
D

C
D

J
U)

ft
C

’)
C

r
CD

c
t

0
C

)
Q

C
r
U

)
H

-
c
t

H
-H

-
C

D
C

D
C

’)
C

D
C

r-
C

)
U

)
C

’)
C

D
h

I
I
U

)
-

U)
C

D
C

”
-

CD

U
)

0
U)

H
‘d

H
=

C’
)

C
)

H
-

<
C)

H
,

0
C’)

I
C’)

U)
C’)

H
-

CD
CD

II
j

0
C)

H
-

II
C

r
CI

)
3

H
C

r
1

C)
0

H
CD

H
-

CD
CD

H
II

U)
H

U
)

1
h

CD
C’)

C)
C’)

C)
H

-
H

Cl
)

t
k
<

k
<

C’)
H

-
C’)

C)
CD

C’
)

C’
)

C
-

H
-

CD
H

C’)
P

CD
CD

CD
C

r
CD

C’
H

-
H

,
-

CD
C’

)
H

-
I

C
r

1
Q

ç
U

)
C

r
H

-
H H

,
C

r
H

.
CD

CD
CD

U)
-

H
-

C
r

C’)
CD

C
r

U)
C

r
CD

C
r

H
H

-
-

H

-—
U)

CD
CD

H

H
H

H
-

H
,

H
C’

C
r

H
-

)
C’

)
C)

CD

$
C

r
H

,
C’)

C
r

0
H

,

H
CD

H
-

II
CD

-
—

H
C

r
C

r
U)

H
-

0
CD

C
r

C
r

CD
H

H
-

<
-

C’)
0

f-C
<

o
H

H
,

0
-

C
r

f
t

-
-

C’)
C

r
CD

II
H

‘I
CD

C
r

CD
H

CD
CD

‘I
U)

H
0

H
-

0
C’

)
k
<

U
)

CD
C

r
b

C
r

H
C

r
C’)

CD
C

r
U)

C’)
CD

0
CD

C
-

P
C)

CD
C’

)
H

-
H

-
C

D
C

r
j

II
H

-
Q

U)
U)

H
,

CD
0

<

,
.

II
CD

C”
CD

C
r

H
-

U)
<

‘I
C

r
H

C
r

CD
0

H
-

H
-

CD
CD

U
)

H
CD

-
C’

)
CD

H
H

-
1

U
)

C
r

U)
CD

C)
H

H
-

C
r

C
r

CD
CD

C
r

CD
k
<

0
9-

CD

CD
CD k<

<
CD

CD
H

-

H
CD

H
C

r
ti)

Q
0

U)

C’
)

U)
C

r
0

H

H
-

II
H

-
CD

Q
C’)

CD
Cl

)
H

-
C

r
H

C’
)

CD
H

CD
C

r
><

C
r

H
U

)
C)

1
U)

CD
H

-
H

0
<

CD
CD

H
-

C’
)

p
.

CD
C)

C’)
H

0
‘1

U
)

C’)
b

C’)
C’)

H
,

-
C’)

C’)
0

CD
CD

p
.

CD
U)

U)
I

U
)

H
U)

H
,

p
.



c
-
t

r
t

tT
Cl

)
0

0
H

F
t

F
t

H
C!

)
CD

S
<

CD
0

J
d

0
Pi

<
.)

H
-
P

J
H

II
H

-
H

C
D

Q
CD

Cl
)

h
H

i
pi

c-
to

CD
CD

CD
Cl

)
P)

CD
Cl)

i
CD

-
Q

.
CD

C
D

F
t

•
-

CD
h

Cl
)

h
F

t
Cl)

-
J

H
-

Cl)
F

t
h

h
f
-
J
.

Cl
)

CD
J

H
,

F
t

<
h

C)
Cl

)
Cl

)
C)

P1
C

D
F

Cl
)

CD
H

F
t
F

t
P

0
CD

P-I
F

t
p1

Q
W

C
D

H
F

t
F

t
0

C
D

C
D

S
0

P1
-

‘
t

CD
F

tC
l)

o
H

-
H

,
CD

=
0

H
-

F
t

CD
Cl)

CD
CD

H
-
Q

5
CD

F
t

H
-

H
C

D
C

D
0

P1
CD

1
Q

C
D

-
C

D
Q

H
-

H
P1

CD
0)

-

CD
H

-
0

F
t

H
,

H
,

H
C

D
F

t<
S

-

H
-
S

CD
H

-
F

t
CD

F
t

w
“

U
)

p
iP

i
p1

F
t

F
t

p
j

CD
0

H
,

CD
I

H
,

H
t

CD
H1

O
H0O

F
t

H
,Q

CD
Ii—

CD
0

k
<

CD
CD

H
,

H
-

CD
CD

F
t

Cl
)

F
tC

D
C

D
<

IF
t

i-
H

,
Cl

)
P1

0
CD

F
t

H
,

CD
t

5
H

0
‘H

CD
p
i

H
-

0
P

JH
-P

1
>

c-C
15

‘
IP

I
ci

-
0)

Cl
)

=
H

CD
F

tH
-

Q

H
-

P1
C

D
H

P
J

F
t

i_
CD

CD
J

Cl
)

0

0

F
t

F
t

CD
I

H

I
—

H
-

CD
CD

‘-
<

F
t

F
t

F
t

p
j
C

D
H

-
F

t

C
D

H
P1

H
-

c
-
r

8
CD

CD
C

D
C

D
CD

0)
0

F
t

F
th

C
D

,
0

IQ
H

,
F

t
F

t
P

1
.

H

H
-
-

l
Cl

)
-

F
t

Ci
)

0
pi

H
(
_

)
CD

CD
F

t
-

CD
0

H
H

P
J
F

t
0

H
-

CD
H

P1
CD

F
t

CD
H

-
H

Cl
)

P1
c
-t

P
iU

)
F

t
P

1
io

CD
CD

=
w

CD
0
F

t
H

C
l)

c
o

0C
D

I
CD

H
-

h
0
)

-
CD

p
jc

-
tH

H
P

1
C

l
)

F
t

F
t

F
t

CD
H

-
C

D
0

CD
0

C
D

C
D

H
-

CD
F

t
C

D
P1

Cl
)

-
CD

0
P1

H
-

H
F

t
H

-C
-j

0C
D

P1
-

‘
CD

F
t

0
P1

H
w

H
-

F
t

H
0

0)
H

-

F
t

C
D

p
jH

-
0

P1
H

,
Cl

)
F

t
F

t
0

S
H

0

F
t

H
,

F
t

0
*
‘C

D
H

,
D

0
H

-

CD
H

-
0

p
i

F
t

H
-

Cl
)

CD
F

t
H

-
F

t
0

F
t

—
F

t
H

CD
h

F
t

P1
CD

C
D

CD
CD

C
l
)

‘1
U

)
F

t
-

O
C

D
H

-
CD

CD
CD

0
0

H
,

P1
H

,
H

,
CD

CD
0

H
-F

t
N

Cl
)

0
P1

H
,Q

CD
II

0
0

F
t

Cl
)

P1
CD

H
CD

S
H

-p
j

C
D

P1
-
-

F
t

H
-

CD
CD

CD
CD

CD
F

t

Cl
)

C
H

CD
H

H
-

0
Cl

)
0

CD

CD
P1

H
-

F
t

0
0

CD
H

-
F

t
Cl

)
H

C
D

F
t

H
-

0

5
H

-
CD

F
tF

t
CD

CD
CD

w
Cl

)
P1

H
C

l
)

CD
-

Cl
)

Cl
)

F
tH

C
D

CD
<

F
t

H
-

0
P1

P1
F

t
P)

0
CD

0
0

-

F
t

F
P

-
H

-
H

-
H

0
CD

C
D

h
pi

CD
P1

0
P1

F
t

CD
CD

F
t

o
p

H

F
t

0
H

-
CD

CD
F

t
0

H
-

CD
H

F
t

C
D

°
CD

H
,

0
Cl

)
IP)

Cl
)

—
><

i
<

H
-

P1
H

CD
CD

H
-

F
t

Cl
)

IC!
)

H
-

CD
0

P
1

F
t

0
CD

CD
IF

t
F

t
0

F
t

I
-
H

-
H

-
CD

0
F

tC
0

CD
II

lCD
P1

D
H

-
P1

1
H

H
-

CD
0

I—
i

C
D

O
CD

H
Cl

)
CD

CD
Cl)

CD
k
<

k
<

Cl)
‘—

i
0

CD
Cl)



in contrast to the passing through of the tourist.’39

Most importantly, Sauer claimed the landscape perspective as the

preserve of geography: fieldworkers on a “vantage points”, unlike

tourists, had the weight of the discipline behind them.

For Michel de Certeau, this visual authority of the “overview” -the

“solar Eye looking down like a God” - may be undercut by the

spatial resistance of walking.14° While on the one hand the

panorama has the mastery of perspective, it misunderstands and is

undermined by the migrational spatiality of “Wandersmânner” -the

practices of everyday life that act themselves out below its

threshold of vision. This contrast is interesting in reference to

Sauer who, for John Leighly, found room for “longer and higher

flights” than the pedestrian mind while never permitting his feet

“to lose contact with the. .surf ace of the As I have

shown, Sauer’s “high flights” of vision were akin to the

‘ Sauer’s authority to “see” the landscape was also one of
knowing the culture. From the scientific approach - the mapping of
cultural traits - and also the more subjective - the “savoring of
ambiance” - he could learn “the ways and devices men have used for
making a living out of their homelands” (Sauer in Leighly, 1969,
op. cit., p.369) and come to know an area culturally. While this
“ability to see the land with the eyes of its former occupants” was
the “most difficult task in all human geography”, it was, however,
possible with time: “It is a rewarding experience to know that one
has succeeded in penetrating a culture that is removed in time and
alien in content from ours”. Again, I shall focus more on Sauer
and culture in the field in Chapter Five.

140 De Certeau, 1984, pp.92-93. De Certeau’s discussion here is
based on the city but the visual mastery of the overview is related
(like Cosgrove) to Renaissance painters and perspective. See also
Spurr (1993) for a discussion of the politics of vision and
landscape.

141 Leighly, 1969, op. cit., pp.1-2.

81



perspectival mastery of de Certeau’s “solar Eye”. However,

previously bringing Sauer down from his vantage point and allowing

him to wander presented us with a spatial practice that was also

authoritative. Rather than undercut the authority of vision from

above, the mobility of Sauer’s geography in the field quite

literally placed it on a different terrain. Sauer, fieldworker

geographer, therefore appropriated the field both spatially and

visually: from locomotion landscape.’42

142 This issue of appropriation is extremely political. While
Sauer was conceptually claiming Mexico and therefore the right to
represent its “personality” (see Chapter Five) , others were
involved in a more material appropriation of the “field”.
According to Deplar (op. cit., p.93), the early twentieth century
in Mexico saw a phase of “archaeological Monroeism”, i.e.
visiting American archaeologists taking artifacts out of the
country without the permission of the Mexican government. Other
American intellectuals were therefore acting on their claims that
Mexico was theirs. In fact, one of Sauer’s students (Donald Brand)
was reprimanded for taking pottery out of the country after he had
been refused permission for archaeologic work in Northern Mexico
(PC, Sauer to Brand, 24/12/36). Brand’s response is interesting
for its reclaiming of the field in the name of science and
sidestepping the ethics of the issue: “Why should you wish to bar
an institution that spends money in your country, digs only at
sites that are in the process of being cut away by arroyos and lost
forever to science, and takes out of Mexico only potsherds, common
stone artifacts and broken or fractured pottery ware?” (PC, Brand
to Marquina, 30/10/36) . See Mary Louise Pratt’s discussion of Von
Humboldt’s “archaeologised America” (1992, op. cit., p.132) for the
way that archaeology views culture as nature (dead artifact) and
therefore deterritorialises culture in the present. Brand can be
criticised of this and also Sauer, with his view of the cultural
landscape, allowing interaction in the present to take backstage.

82



RITES

The “business of becoming a geographer” for Sauer, as we have seen

above, was a “job of lifelong learning”143- an evolutionary and

contradictory fieldwork process that took him from “familiar scene”

to the “ends of the earth” and from scientific to artistic

observation. While Sauer claimed authority for himself and for the

discipline through these different spatial and observational

strategies, he also allowed them to “speak” to other would-be

geographers through his changing views on method in the “field”.

While the young Sauer, concerned with scientific mapping and “home

geography” in the United States, advised the importance of the

“field” method for the “inexperienced fieldworker”,’ the later

“journeyman” Sauer in Mexico disclaimed any directives for the

“geographer-to-be”45:“I have been leaving the trail unmarked by

any arrows of methodology”.’46 As a forum for educating

geographers, the “field” was thus conceptualised as area

(“laboratory”, a testing ground for theories) and then

reconceptualised as trail (“rite de passage”, a testing ground for

143 Sauer in Leighly, 1969, op. cit. p.355.

144 Sauer and Jones, 1915, p.520.

145 Sauer in Leighly, 1969, op. cit., p.392.

146 Ibid., p.402.

83



(
0

0
O

c
t

C
—

I—
I

Cl
)

CD

H
-

‘
l
U

)
0

p
.

CD
U

)
U

)

• -
C

D
H

l
C

D
0

p
.

CD

M
H

-

o
0

•
H

-

CD
r
r
p

. -:

f
tc

)

0

H
-
)

“

H
-

C
i-

C
t

0
U)

c-
i-

Il
Pi ft

C
D

C
)C

D
C

D
tJ

)
1-

hU
)

ft
H

-
CD

)
H

i
p
.

H
,

CD
H

)
H

-C
D

U)
C

r
F

-
1

p
.

:C
D

Pi
‘I

H C
D -
U

) ft

O C
D

f
t

CD ‘l
P

J
-

U)

f
t(

p
(
p

Il
O

C
D

C
D

H
,

o
0

H
-

(p
CD

CD
CD

l
-
’
l
f
-
-
’

U)
p

i
p

i
p

.
U)

:
l

ft
=

-1

C
)

o
H

-
CD

0
-

H
Z

Il
Ii

H
U

)
H

,
H

-
H

,

p
.
’
’
l

0
H

-C
D

C
D

’
l

-
P

p
.

ç
t

F
-
H

c-
i-

U
)

Pi
p
.

H
P

iC
)

0C
D

0
3C

D
f
l
U

)
-

=
O

)
’
U

)
I-

h
z

H
U)

CD
CD

C
D

H
-

II
l-

p
j

-t
Y

(p

-
CD

C
D

’l
z
C

r
-

P
iC

D
U

)
F

U)
p

.
:

p
.

Q
f
t

H
-

0
(p

Q
‘1

—
CD

0
P

J
’
l
U

)
C)

ft f
t
H

-
H

-
ft

-
C

)
0

b
C

D c
u

0
0
c
t

H
,
p
.
D

C
D

C
D

<
P

ç
t

CD
CD

p
.

H
-

U) ft

H
Pi

c
t

ft
U

)
cu

=
U

)
c
t

cu
-

p
.
1

U
)U

)C
D

=
ft

C)
Pi

1
3

ft
d

CD
H

,
(p

M
H

-
H

C)
f
t

=
U

)
U)

0
CD

II
CD

H
-C

D
H

-
0

C)
CD

CD
3

p
.

d
CD

0
CD

0
C)

CD
0

CD
Pi

Cl
)

ft
0

<
0

H
(p

H
H

p
.

U)
H

0
H

-
PJ

p
j

II
PJ

H
-

H
-

p
.

Il
p
.

(0
H

-
CD

H
H

,
C)

ft
‘I

k
<

p
.

pj
CD

H
ft

=
(p

H
-

ft
Pi

Ci
-

CD
CD

0
CD

H
•

II
CD

U)
c
t

CD
<

p
.

CD
‘I

1
-

0
U)

b
H

Il
Il

F-
’-

l-
H

-
p

.
H

-
0

(p
(0

CD
CD

C)
Q

CO
U)

-

ft
CD

l-
p

.
‘l

H
,

Pi
•

p
.

i<
H

U)
0

H
-

-
=

H
,

H
-

0
-

(p
CD

H
-

H
-

CD
H

,
H

(p
C

cu
CD

U)
hj

H
,

><
Lx

i
H

<
H

0
p

i
1

H
-

H
-

CD
Pi

P.’
Pi

0
CD

p
.

U)
0

C
i-

‘I
C-

,-
0

3
p.

’
CD

CD
CD

ft
U)

CD
CD

H
,

0
CD

CD
‘1

H
-

‘1
p.

’
i-

CD
0

‘1
(p

0
0

Il
c-

i
i

CD
p

.
CD

ft
C)

H
‘I

0
i-’

-
0

p
.

II
H

-
c-

i-
:

Pi
-

(p
H

,
CD

ft
CD

0
P.’

U)
II

CD
H

U)
H

-
-

H
p
.’

H
.

CD
CD

.‘
P.’

ft
p

.
0

-
0

CD
p

.
H

p.’
H

H
,

,
,
,

0
C

i-
-

.‘
p

.
p

.
CD

H
,

0
(p l

0
H

-
CD

H
3

H
’

p
.

Il
CD

CD
0

p
.

‘1
CD

.‘

0
P.’

CD
H

,
p
.

CD
H

0
CD

H
-

U)
p

.
H

-
P.1

H
,

H
CD

ft
H

-
Lx

i
CD

CD
H

-
CD

O
f
t
H

’
l
P

i
f
t
H

.
P

i
H

-
H

0
C)

CD
ft

c-
i-

U)
P.’

P.’
0

U)
‘I

p.’
.‘

-
CD

p
.

p
.

H
-

H
-

H
-

p
.

p
.

p.’
CD

(p
-

0
H

,
C

i
-

CD
$
H

,
(
p

p.’
CD

‘<
p.’

ft
H

,
C

i-
.p

H0
‘
-

d
Il

U)
H

CD
0

H
-

p
.

F
-

1
<

0
CD

<
CD

P.’
H

p
.

II
0

0
H

,
H

H
-

CD
H

,
0

<
ft

H
-

F
-

1
H

H
-

CD
—

i-
8

(p
H

H
CD

H
1

CD
p

.
0

U)
-

ci.
’

C)
p
.

P.’
CD

ft
H

p.’
CD

p
.

(p
CD

U)
-
i

CD
CD

ft
p

.
U)

-

0
H

-
p.’

(p
p

.
H

,
H

-
H

-
H

-
ft

Q
‘I

P.’
CD

H
-

CD
H

-
P.’

CD
CD

H
,

P.’
H

,
-

C
i-

p
.

0
H

,
ft

II
H

CD
‘I

H
-

H
-

H
-

C)
(p

H
-

0
CD

H
,

II
CD

C)
0

p
.

CD
P.’

0
C)

H
CD

0
P.’

CD
p.’

H
C

i-
II

p
.

ft
Il

CD
H

II
H

-
0

H
-

(p
0

p
.

H
CD

CD
‘C

i-
‘I

Il
P.’

(p
1

p.’
H

,
p

.
CD

‘H
P.’

CD
P.’

C)
F

-
CD

•
CD

CD
CD

ft
-

H
-

0
C)

0
0

0
i

‘I
-

H
,

Il
H

-
H

-
U)

H
,

-
0

ii
‘C

D
CD

0
0

P.’
H

-
ft

U)
I

Cn
II

p
.

P.’
ft

CD
<

H
O

I
P.’

H
-

H
-

P.’
H

CD
H

-
IH

,
CD

Ci
-

f
t

ft
0

H
-

U)
0

i
p

.
‘I

H
0

10
‘1

CD
H

,
-

p
.

=
CD

ft
CD

‘-
<

H
,

H
CD

CD
‘I

CD



Cl
)

cl
i

CD H CD N CD H C C
) H

C
D

U
)C

f—
’C

D
c-

I
F1

CD
H C

c
l
i

U
)c

li
c
i)

cli
C

°

ct
C

D
C)

c-
C

D
cli

c
cli

CD
T

Q
1—

C
D

CD
H

CD
H

H
-

H
-f

--
1

3
C

D

c
li

H
CD

:L
D

U
)

cli
C

D
U)

k
<
O1—

C
D

-

H
,

h
C

c
li

C
,) cl

i
.

cl
ic

::
C

D
H

-
C)

CD
i-

c
-I

-H
-b

U
i

•
c
t
C

D
.

•
U

) H H
cl

iC
D

C
)

c
l
i

c
-
I

c-
I

<
C

)C
D

H
-

-

C
H

S
c
-
I
-

C
C

H 1-C
D

CD 5
C

D
o

Cl
)

c
-
I

C
D

c
li

cl
i

c
l
i

U
)C

D

cli
d

Cl
)

Z
H

-
C

)
U

)
h

c
l
l
:

5
C

l)
P

-
Cl

)
=

C)
C)

c-
I

S
I-

cl
i

C
CD

I-
c
li

C
D

C
D

U
)H

h
cl

i
cl

i
cl

i
cu

I-
-J

H
,

cl
i

C
H

-
C

c
t

C
c
l
l

-
C

H
-

(-Q
‘-

<
cl

i
H

-
S

5
CD

C)
CD

—
1Q

C
C)

U
)
Q

$
C)

13
CD

U)
CD

CD
CD

CD
h

ib
H

-
’
-
<

H
-

CD
c-I

-
h

H
-

=
I-

C
I1

1
II

c-
i-

U
)

cli
-I-

1
3
C

D
c-

I-
<

1
3

U)
cli

-
-

P
.

cli
CD

C
U

)
CD

H
-

d
F

-
1

H
-c

-P
H

-C
U)

H
U)

CD
cl

i
U

)
cl

i
13

c-
I-

H
-

b
H

<
1

3
c
-I

13
13

c-
I

CD
H

-
cl

i
cli

13
CD

13
C

D
C

D
C

D
°
lQ

cli
C

13
H

,

j-
H

i
J

I-
CD

cl
i

H
I-

U)
H

-

U)
13

H
-

H
-

CD
<

Q
C

U)
H

-
—

i
1

3
1
3

C
c
-
I

c-
I

13
H

>
H

-
H

-
S

H
,

i
C

D
C

D
k<

C
D

c-
I-

c:
-

CD
U)

c-
i-

U)
CD

‘
U)

(
1

U
)

cli
CD

CD
CD

C)
CD

C
J

-
c
l
l

CD
c-

i-
U)

C
H

-
5

c-
I-

c
-
r
H

C
D

c
-
I
-
c
-
I

U
)

CD
U)

I--
1

CD
13

C
D

13
—

c-
I-

CD
c-

I
cli

CD
c-

I
CD

CD
CD

c-
I-

c-
I-

C
)
H

,
C

D
a

13
C

CD
C)

C
CD

c-I
-

U)
CD

CD
cli

H
-

c-
I

cli
CD

1
3

C
D

U
)

1
3

H
.

13
I-

C)
•

CD
H

U
)
U

)
g
1
3

i
C

H
,

U)
c
-

H
C

C
D

i-
-h

F
-

CD
U)

I
C

C)
U)

<
,

<
,

C)
I-

h
•
C

l
H

-
c
l
i

C
cu

i
cu

i
H

-
H

,
13

<1
H

-
C)

H
-

CD
CD

5
c-

i-
CD

-
-

H
i

S
CD

‘1
H

H
-

c
-
I
-

H
(
Q

H
-

H
C

H
,

cl
i

-
CD

CD
C

H
C

CD
5C

c-
I

C
H

c
-
I

P
C

H
,

H
i

c-
I-

8
c-

I-
C

C
U

)
C

D
D

CD
i—

i-
CD

13
‘

CD
C

U)
U)

C)
CD

CD
•

CD
CD

‘1
C

C
U)

‘
c-

I-
-

C
1
3
s

H
-

c-
I

cl
i

U)
H

c
l
i
<

C
D

H
-

‘
<

t3
.C

D
C

H
-

H
-

C
D

C
D

c-
I-

c-
I- H

‘
c
u
-

c-
I-

‘
-
‘

-
Cl

)
S

C
CD

C
c-I

-
CD

C
)
C

C
C)

C
CD13

c-
I

C)
IC)

c-
I-

C
D

C
D

c
-I

-b
I

H
,

CD
c-I

-
c-

H
-

cl
i

CD
CD

C
c-I

-
-

-
H

-
‘-‘1

h
b

-
CD

H
Ii-

c-I
-

H
-

H
-

H
I.

Q
13

CD
c-i

lCD
C

C1
3

-
<

cl
i

cl
i

CD
H

C
D

CD
H

,
H

‘
c-

I
H

,
IQ

I
H

C
S

C
)
-
i

CD
c-I

-
C

H
C

=
H

-
CD

C
I
-
1
3

c-
I

H
8

k
cl-1

H
H

,
1
3
C

1
3
5

C
C

Q
c-

I-
U)

H
CD

CD
H

Q
I
h

C
D

H
i

H
-

C
cl

i
CD

C
c
lJ

1
3
C

D
c
li

CD
C

C
i
c
-
r

H
-

—
-

C
c-

i
c-

I
‘

c
U)

l-
b

c
li

CD
H

-
C

D
U)

H
-

cl
i

CD
H

,
Ic
-
r
U

)
H

,

Cl
)

c-
I-

13
H

-
CD

C
D

c-
I

H
-

cli
cl

i
S

k
<

13
CD

c
-
C

<
CD

g
c:

C
CD

—
H

13
C

D
‘
C

H
CD

•
CD

H
-

c-
I

CD
I-

‘1
C

Q
I

c
l
i
U

)
f
r
1
3

Q
I

‘—
—

cl
i

3
c-

I
13

h
CD

cli
-

c-
I-

U
)C

D
C

D
C

D
=

—
13

c-
I

U)
CD



was thus as much testing ground for fieldmen as it was for

theories; not a playing out of instructions but a question of

“survival”.’54 Sauer seemed to treat the seminar the same way,

expecting a curiosity and discovery from the student and offering

very little guidance himself (see Figure 6):

“Of the graduate student, we ask not only proficiency but
discovery, increasing independence from his teacher, growing
ability to chart his own course. . .we direct him to the limits of
the known, and encourage him to consider how he may proceed beyond
them. ,,155

While fieldwork and seminar as “rite de passage” was a step away

from Sauer’s earlier directives in the Outline, it was also a step

back to Sauer’s own initiatory educational experience under

Salisbury. In “those days of rough professors and respectful

students”, Sauer remembered being sent without guidance into the

“field” in Illinois and learning not to be a “yes-man” in

seminars.’56 Although the early Sauer seems to have reacted

negatively to this experience, drawing up guidelines for fieldwork

by way of compensation, the later Sauer mirrored his mentor and

positioned his students unguided in the “field”.

As recruiting officer for potential geographers, Sauer thus

retained the “lessons” and contradictions of his own experiences

154 John Le±ghly’s memories of being in the field with Sauer
were of being completely on his own resources “seeing neither Sauer
nor anyone else connected with the work” (Leighly, 1979, op. cit.,
p.5), while Leslie Hewes remembers a continuous set of field tasks
that he was never allowed to finish (Hewes, op. cit. p.l43)

155 Sauer, 1976, p.32.

156 Sauer, pers. comm. (V), op. cit.

86



Vu JH
.

U)

aD

(n
(D

C’
)

(0 CD C
D
x

u
1

0



repersonifying them in the form of the “fieldman”. On the one

hand, the generic character of the f±eldman remained unchanged a

hardy general observer, with a questioning mind, an acuteness of

eye and the ability to stand the physical trials of the “field”.’57

On the other hand, however, the superficial identity of the

fieldman varied with Sauer’s rejection of “field” technique: a call

not only to go out into the “field”, but to go into the “field”

alone, “to follow a trail of actual inquiry.., wherever it takes

him”.158 It was therefore later an unmethodical, independent form

of “being” that defined the fieldman for Sauer and placed

geographers on the inside or the outside of authority in the

“field”.

It is not really surprising that Sauer changed from outlining field

techniques for other geographers to methodological denial: we

already have a contradictory image of him in the “field”, evolving

over time. Sauer seemed to be able to undergo significant changes

in his conceptualisation of fieldwork and yet to retain his belief

in the authority of each - perhaps because he turned his back on

his former ideas and reconstituted the new as truth:

“I have the idiosyncracy that once having written something, I do
not refer to it again myself. . .1 thus escape from commitment to

157 This was in keeping with Sauer’s definition of his geography
against the “deskmen” - “geographers who work in their offices
through the years when their legs, heart, and eyes are good” (PC,
Sauer to Kniffen, 28/9/54) - and the demonstration of its prowess
in the field: “Go out and show them how a geographer works, mostly
in the field. Refute the belief that geographers don’t know what
to see in the field and that they don’t know what to do. ..“(PC,
Sauer to Hewes, 16/5/32)

158 PC, Sauer to Kniffen, 13/12/54.

88



previous opinions and conclusions. . .and am therefore not obliged to
defend my past self.”159

What is revealing, however, is that although Sauer chose to move on

from his Outline for fieldwork in geography to a more casual,

haphazard form of fieldwork, he did so only in his personal

correspondence)6°Since the Education of a geographer was only

published in 1956 (forty years after the Outline), Sauer’s freedom

of the “field” as trail where he “just went off and followed

whatever interested him” 161 took place legitimated by the

Outline’s emphasis on rigorous technique. While Sauer may have

turned his back on the Outline, others were presumably still

reading it, in the absence of any other programmatic statement on

the “field”. Perhaps the disjunction between published technique

and “field” disorganisation was a useful one for authority - a

leisurely “field” experience portrayed as structured and supporting

the “field” as a legitimating term in other published work.

Finally, despite these contradictions, it should be clear from

Sauer’s conceptualisation of field education as the formation of

the fieldman from the “boys” that there constancy in the

159 Sauer in Leighly, 1976, op. cit., p.340.

160 In general, Sauer’s correspondence portrays the fieldwork
experience as relatively undefined and unstructured: “let’s cook up
a schedule together” (PC, Sauer to Wilder, 8/11/40) . The process
and organisation of fieldwork seem to be much more arbitrary. In
January 1946, Sauer writes to Stanislawski about his indecision
regarding fieldwork plans: “I haven’t made my plans for the long
vacation coming up from March to September. I want to get some
writing done in it somewhere. I might go with Haury into
Sonora. . .1 might buy a piece of property on Lake Chapala. I might
do a lot of things.” (PC, Sauer to Stanislawski, 22/1/46).

161 Parsons pers comm

89



fieldworker identity and authority as “male”. The notion of the

fieldman instructed to view objectively (a vision, remember, that

was thought only possible for the male viewer, able to separate

himself from his bodily self) within his field laboratory draws

upon geography’s masculinist rhetoric, as does the “rite de

passage” of boy to fieldman via the trope of discovery and the

“heroic” concept of survival in the “field” (aiding the formation

of “stronger men”) •162

This theoretical and epistemological erasure of women in the

“field” seems also to have been matched by their exclusion from the

practicalities of fieldwork: Sauer himself did not have any female

students in the “field”. He did, however, correspond with Alfred

Kroeber’s student, Isabel Kelly, and appears to treat her

(textually at least) on a par with other fieldworkers. Kelly is

always portrayed as extremely capable, used to the “rough, mean

exploring” of the “field” and close to the image of the

journey (man?) geographer:

“She has followed her archaeologic trails to areas where hardly
anyone else would be willing to go”.’63

She remains, however, defined in male terms: according to West, she

162 See Rose, op. cit. p.70 for a discussion of the “heroic”
ethos in geography. Geographers are seen to become “stronger men”
by challenging Nature through fieldwork and Rose likens the
masculinist self-image of the f±eldworker to the mythical giant
Anteus who “became stronger each time he was hurled to the ground”.
In this context, Sauer’s statement that the “Anteus quality” of
fieldwork is something that is discovered by true geographers (PC,
Sauer to Kniffen, op. cit., 28/9/54) gains an added potency.

163 CC, Sauer to American Council of Learned Societies,
14/12/43.

90



was Sauer’s Friday”.’64

For Anne MacPherson, one of the first female doctorate students in

geography at Berkeley, this under-representation of women in the

“field” is not surprising:

“there were practically no women geographers in those days, in PhD
programs at least - a total blind spot towards women by all men -
continuing until maybe the 1960s.”165

Sauer, according to MacPherson, was:

“not as prejudiced against the idea of women as some. .with Sauer
and U.C. geographers it was more subtle and unconscious. He liked
women and respected them - no obvious put down, but they all had a
blind eye to their unconscious assumption that geographers were men
(boys) who would be given jobs etc. There were women T.A.s from
the beginning but I think I was only the third woman PhD.”66

More specific to the “field”, she adds “some cautionary remarks

about judging Sauer and women through modern eyes: “seeing as

his Mexican trips involved camping, he’d only take men.”

This statement, however, only emphasises the division between

“field” practices that were classed as “male” and the female,

excluded from fieldwork (and geography) and left “at home”.

164 1979, op. cit, p.95. My use of emphasis.

165 MacPherson, pers. comm. (L), 22/6/93.

166 MacPherson, pers. comm. (L), 15/2/93.

91



CONTRADICTIONS

Beginning with the “hapless fieldman”, we have seen Sauer “travel”

critically and literally away from what he perceived as the

American intellectual “landscape”: a core of desk-bound geographers

lacking a fieldwork focus. Positioning himself

“off-centre” from modern trends in geography, Sauer went on to

“domesticate” his travel by reconstituting the “field” as

intellectual “home” (Truth) - the traditional (European) authority

of the discipline. As a corollary, he constructed himself and

others with legitimacy as geographers through observation and

travel and, more specifically, appropriated Mexico as “known”: “Mr.

Sauer’s field”. At the same time - if only at a subtle and

unconscious level - his attempts at definition, authorisation and

appropriation were a reinforcement of self, others, geography,

“field” and fieldwork as “male”.167

They were also, at times, an expression of his cultural - as well

as academic - displacement in the modern.

This process of overcoming the “lack” of American geography and

ref inding authority in the “field” was not, as we have seen,

without contradictions. Traveller-f ieldworker-geographer, not

tourist; with the combined perspectives of imaginative and

scientific geography and a confused methodological directive

between technique and discovery, Carl Sauer positioned himself and

167 What is truly ironic is that Sauer, the self-proclaimed
antimodernist, should draw on the modernist rhetoric of discovery
and vision in order to do this.

92



others extremely ambivalently in the “field”. Indeed, the “field”

itself was shaped and reshaped to fit Sauer’s experiences and the

education of the geographer: at once a bounded space (familiar

scene, laboratory), closed and defined, and a trail (voyage of

discovery, rite de passage), open and fluid. However, through an

efficient process of “othering” (familiar not foreign; travel not

tourist...) and the “idiosyncracy” of travelling forward from his

“commitments” rather than looking back, Sauer presented himself as

always one step ahead of the inauthentic, buttressing his version

from the “field” as truth.

While different strategies were used by Sauer for authority, in

combination they can be used to question it. Only by viewing

Sauer’s field in all its plurality and reconnecting his fieldwork

directives with his own experiences do we get a sense of authority

as a shifting ground that is as arbitrary as it is complex. Each

facet reflects critically on the others since the claims to truth

are shown as partial, their boundaries as constructs: the trail may

cut across the limits of the (familiar) “field”; the aesthetic

demonstrate the limits of the scientific (remember Rose’s

productive tension between domination and desire) . This tension

proves to be productive as we move on to consider the writing up of

the “field”, combining the fixity of authority with the mobility of

its contradictions.

93



CHAPTER FOUR:

TEXT.. .TURNING TRAVELLER

“One says Mexico: one means, after all. . .a person with a
pen.. . one little individual looking at a bit of sky and
trees, then looking down at the page of his exercise book.”

“All you need for geography is a pencil and a piece of
paper. ,,2

For Carl Sauer, the “way to go on” was not only “a spot of travel

to learn” but also “a spot of quiet to study and write”.3 In our

consideration of the journeyman-geographer in the “field”, we thus

also need to make room for the textual: “the person with a pen”.

While Sauer’s legitimacy as a geographer, as we have seen, came

from a combination of spatial and observational practices, it also

came from his writing up of the “field”: authority as “author”.4

Sauer wrote for sixty-four of his eighty-five years5 and produced

a body of publications, many based on fieldwork, that stood as

testimony to his authority in the “field”. Writing up his

geography of the “field”, he was thus also writing himself into the

academic “field” of geography.

Sauer’s pronouncements and directives on the “field”, however,

1 Lawrence, 1927, p.3.

2 Stoddart, pers. comm. (I), quoting Leighly on geography.

Sauer in Parsons, 1976, op. cit., p.343.

For Clifford Geertz (op. cit., p.1), it is not only the
physical being in the “field” that connotes authority but the
authorial “being there” in the text: the way that the reader is
convinced and the fieldworker’s legitimacy is written in.

Williams, op. cit., 1983, p.2.

94



Q
M

i
f
t
M

i
H

-
H

Cl
)

C)
M

i
H

-
Q

I))
Cl)

ft
1J

C
i)

h
iJ

C
r

Cl
)

M
i

C
D

C
D

0
f
r
5

D
O

CD
CD

H
-

CD
ft

0
CD

0
5

M
i

ft
CD

Ii
CD

II
H

-
H

-
I))

f
t

CD
5

H
-

Cl
)

ii
d

H

O
f
t
5

C
Q

H
C

D
ft

F
-

C)
Cl

)
S

3
H

H1
H

ft
)
C

l
)

C
D

-
<1

0
H

-
Q

.
t-

H
-

5
H

-
M

i
CQ

I
-

CD
C)

H
-

C
r

Pi
><

F
-

1

CD
CD

ft
H

-
H

H
-P

J
c-

r
C

D
°
°

i.Q
H

-
d

CD
I

I—
i

H
-

CD
0

Cl
)

F
-

1
Cl

)
Q

f
t

F
-

1
CD

H
-

i
CD

H
1

<
Cl)

H
O

C
D

M
i

Cl)
CD

3
ft

Cl
)

k
<

CD
CD

C
r

)
M

i
H

-
CD

I
CD

0
P

Cl
)

-
ft

Cl
)

Cl
)

M
i

H
-C

l)
0

Cl
)

D
C

t
ft

f
t

C)
H

-
Cl

)
l)

-
ft

0
0

H
-C

fC
I)

CD
C)

C)
I

Cl
)

0
0

CD
I-’

M
i

p)
3

CD
CD

CD
M

i
Q

O
C

l
)
0
f
t

I
C

D
C

D
CD

-
H

-
d

f
t

M
i

ft
I-

C)
CD

5
CD

CD
H

-
C)

Cl
)

CD
.

CD
CD

rr
CD

f
t
g

D
l-

Cl
)

H
1

C
)
I
M

i
P

C
D

CD
H

-
H

-
F-

-
f
t

M
i

O
V

C
D

C
)

c
H

-
H

-
Cl

)
—

3
ft

H
-

H
-

ft
H

Q
J
f
t
C

)
F

-
O

H
-

H
-

CD
Q

Cl
)

H
-

CD
H

-
)
M

i
O

F
-
r
t
)

ft
CD

ft
Cl)

CJ
)

C
D

C
D

CD
ft

I))
C

r
M

i
H

1
H

0
H

W
C

J)
3

f
t

Cl
)

Cl
)

CD
CD

H
-

rr
C

D
C

D
O

M
i

-
f
t

CD
CD

><
CD

o
H

H1
C

D
-
-
1
-

H
IQ

ft
Cl)

CD
H

-
f
t

C)
0

H
-

CD
CD

h
o

H
-

o
C

t
M

ft
H

p
J
W

M
iC

D
f
t

u
‘<

0
M

i
<1

-
CD

CD
Ii

H
-

Cl
)

CD
H1

C)
o

CD
0

C
)P

)
f-

r
C

r
M

i
C

r
o

M
i

CD
0

H
-

H
-

Cl
)

H
-

M
i

Cl
)

U
i

Cl
)

C
rC

D
CD

f
t

f
t

1
ft

Cl
)

C
l

CD
11

J
H

-
Cl

)

ft
C

D
(C

l
13

0
(1

)
H

-
CD

ft
CD

0
C

r
0

F
-

1
H

O
C

D
C

l)
ft

—
-

ft
CD

C
l

C
r

C
D

C
D

C
r

-C
l)

M
i

H
Cl

)
o

CD
CD

ft
Cl)

H
-

0
S

13
-

13
13

C
D

.f
t

CD
13

lJ
0

F
-

1
ç
t

F
0

Cl
)

ft
Cl

)
f
t

CD
C”

)

C
l)

C
D

M
i
F

1
3

0
H

-
0

M
i

‘1
ft

-
M

i
IQ

ft
H

-
0

‘-
<

CI
)

0
1

C
l

O
H

-
p
Q

f
t

Cl
)

F
-

1
H1

k
<

C)
O

C
C

l
C

C
,)

H
-

CI
)

H
-

C)
H

13
CD

13
CD

F
-

1
0

H
-

,<
1
3
C

D
1
3
C

)C
D

C
D

C
I)

13
CD

Cl)
CD

CD
Cl)

CD
H

M
i

0
CD

j
Cl)

0
o

-
f
t

ft
M

i
H

-
C

I
)

Cl)
0

C
I
)
C

D
M

i
1
3

0
ft

0
0

I
W

H
-

13
CD

0
H

1
f
t
l
H

w
f
t
f
t
M

i
M

i
CD

M
i

C)
C

D
C

l
S

0
0

1
))

ft
I

-
CD

D
Cl)

5
O

h
C

D
ft

f
t

H
1

o
C

l

ft
o

H
H

Cl
)

°
H

-
0

M
i

M
i

1
3
j
C

)
H

-
‘<

CT
)

CD
M

i
CD

H
CD

S
i-

CD
0

o
13

CD
H

-
H

C
l

p
ft

C
D

5
h

1
3

>
<

P
)
f
t
1
3

H
-

C
l

ft
1j

’
o

C
l

13
CD

<
0

0
ft

Cl
)

0

C
D

C
D

C
D

H
1

f
t

C
l

CD M
i

p
,

CD
Cl

)
CD

Cl
)

‘1
CD

h’
l

IQ
H

-
ft

CD
f
t

CD
CD

C
D

I
f
t
C

D
H

0
13

CD
L

0
0

H
-

I
H

-
H

-
F

-
1

13
-

—
Cl

)
H

-
<

f
tM

iH
C

l1
3

C)
0

H
-O

C
D

Q
C

lj
ft

H
O

f
t
C

l
f
t
d
H

-
1
C

l
)

H
-

C
l

13
13

CD
M

i
ft

H
-

f
t

C)
0

M
i

CI
)

M
i

ft
0

)
Cl

)
J’

13
CD

C)
0

1
ft

CD
3

II
H

-C
I)

C
l)

O
C

D
H

-
J

ft
13

ft
13

ft
CD

0
CD

l-
CD

H
-

H
-

•
f
t
O

C
I
)
>

<
C

l
H

-
0

13
CD

C
l

13
CD

3
h

CI
)

0
Cl

)
5

F
-

1
3

ft
ft

C
I
C

D
O

l
f
t
I
-
-

3
1

C
l

-
-

CD
C

l
CD

CD
13

ft
M

i
Cl

)
-

k
<

IQ
0

Cl
)



Figure 7: Text revealed? Sauer and his
notebook in the field (along with daughter

Elizabeth, Mexico, 1941).

•..

I

96



of the fieldnote, states James Clifford, supports the notion of a

clear division between “home” and “field” and thus “field” facts

that are hermetically sealed and transported back as definitive

data. This drawing of boundaries also silences much of the context

of the production of writing: “Historical realities” such as the

home university, transportation to the “field” and sites of

translation of fieldnotes that are all allowed to “slip out of the

ethnographic frame”.9 On the other hand, fieldnotes have been

implicated in a transitional textual critique, concerned with the

filtering process inherent in the writing up of notes and the

writing in of authority. For Wolf, f±eldnotes are the “first

sacred text in the preparation of ethnography”: the move to present

the finished work as objective, scientific, Truth begins with them:

“The construction of a partial and incomplete version of a reality
observed by the anthropologist begins with the writing of
fieldnotes. ,,1o

According to Jackson, anthropology’s “fieldnote tradition comes out

of a naturalist explorer-geographer background”: “Lewis and Clark

were not that different”.’1 Thus, turning to our own explorer-

geographer, we also need to examine the “sacred text” of Sauer’s

fieldnotes. While Robert West has looked at Sauer’s notebooks,’2

he uses them to chronologically connect up Sauer’s field trips and

Clifford in Grossberg et. al., op. cit., p.99.

10 Wolf, 1992, p.87.

‘ Jackson in Sanjek, 1990, p.16.

12 West, op. cit.

97



articles without saying anything about the transition from note to

published work. He takes the notes at face value and does not

attempt to read anything into them: they are a resource to be used

and not questioned. We, however, need to unpack their use. While

showing that for many of Sauer’s contemporaries a focus on the

fieldnotes is deemed unwarranted, I return to the notebooks to pick

up the last chapter’s tensions of the “field” (space/trail;

objective/subjective) and use them to productively question Sauer’s

writing. While on the one hand Sauer textualises his authority,

he also points the way for its transgression.

Papers, pipes and corncobs

“limited to earlier years in Mexico. . . in fading pencil and perhaps
of limited value. .No one has really tried to use them.”13

There is a consensus among Sauer’s contemporaries that fieldnotes

were a relatively minor part of the education of the geographer.

For James Parsons, Sauer relied more on his memory than on

fieldnotes:

“I never saw Sauer with notes or books around him when he was
writing - he just sat down and typed from memory - it seemed like
it. He wrote nearly everything at work and not at home and was
frequently interrupted but could pick up where he left of f.”14

Fieldnotes as an indication of Sauer’s work were therefore of

“limited use”:

“fieldnotes, as I mentioned, are relatively few - all from an
earlier time (Ozarks etc; NW Mexico), in fading pencil...

13 Parsons, pers. comm. (L), op. cit.

14 Ibid.

98



Fieldnotes from later years (post World War Two) hardly
exist.. .yes, I Chink he kept them in his head (a phenomenal
memory) . Those I have seen were chiefly from archival
investigations (after his early years in the Middle West - and
Sonora-Sinaloa - when he did keep copious fieldnotes (of which not
large numbers remain) “s

Other colleagues of Sauer’s reinforced this notion Chat he relied

more on his memory than on his fieldnotes. Wagner, who went into

the “field” with Sauer, claimed Chat he never saw him Cake notes in

the “field” nor did he see him write any up back at Berkeley.’6

David Hooson, who shared an office with Sauer in his later years,

has memories of him sitting at his desk at a 1910 typewriter (which

still sits on the top shelf of the office across from Hooson’s

desk) “typing in a cloud of dust”. Hooson did not, however,

remember Sauer typing from notes; in fact he stated that Sauer’s

note organisation and filing system were completely haphazard:

“I wanted to know what kind of filing system he had so when he was
out I opened one of the drawers and found that he didn’t have one
at all - just a pile of papers and pipes and corncobs.”7

Perhaps, then, there was a tension for Sauer between the “doing”

and the “writing” in the “field”. We have seen that observation

and “field” time were precious to him: perhaps, like Jackson,

Sauer felt that fieldnotes got “in the way” and interfered “with

what fieldwork” was “all about - the doing”.’8 However, as Parsons

states, fieldnotes from the “earlier years” exist: those from

‘ Ibid.

16 Wagner, pers. comm. (I) , op. cit.

Hooson, pers. comm. (I), 8/92.

18 Jackson in Sanjek, op. cit., p.23.

99



I-
h

M
CI

)
H

D
H

i—
s]

F
t

0
h

F
t

F
t

‘
-
<

F
t

H
C)

H
F

t
H

-
H

-
H

-
H

-
H

-
CD

h
III

)
0

0
h
H

Cl
)

0
P1

H
-

CD
CD

P1
Cl

)
CD

CD
CD

Cr1
P1

10
CD

P
J

1
5

F
t

S
CD

H
H

F
t

CD
H

CD
0

I
1

H
-
-

CD
d

H
-

CD
pj

h
I-

Ci
)

H
H

H
’

0
CD

H
I-

I
—

—
P1

0
P1

II
<

F
t

C)
Ip

i
H

-
“<

H
H

’
CD

CD
0

0
H

’
I-

h
I-

0
H

-
P1

II
It

I
F

t
0

C
D

H
-C

D
C1

H
Cl

)
F

F
t

F
t

H
F

t
CD

F
t

F
t

H
-

CD
F

tO
CD

‘<
Cl

)
‘D

Cl
)

Cl
)

Cl
)

F
t

H
-

H
’

Cl
)

P1
<

CD
Cl

)
CD

H
-

I_
i

H
-

I-
CD

Ci
)

Cl
)

0
0

Q-
’

CI
)

0
0

W
F

t
‘<

<1
Cl

)
P1

F
t

p1
Cl

)
CD

-

P1
Cl

)
F

t
H

-
CD

5
F

t
H

-
P1

H
0

—

1
C

)
P1

CD
CD

P1
‘
.

‘-
<

CD
i-

H
-

H
-

F
t

CD
CD

H
-

M

CD
-

F
t

CD
0

F
t

0
Q

P1
CD

CI
)

H
-
’
<

I-
h

H
,

P1
H

-
C)

d
CD

CD
0

H
-

F
t

CD
H

-
CD

Cl
)

C
D

F
t

CD
Ci

)
H

’
H

CD
H

’
c-

i
F

t
CD

Cn
g

F
t

H
i

CD
b

p1
CD

F
t

0
0

-

CI
)

F
t

-
CD

H
H

-
H

H
’

H
-

H
CD

H
-

F
t

H
-

F
t

H
-

CD
H

-
Cl

)
F

tH
H

-
0

CD
0

C)
-’

H
Cl

)
0

O
H

S
H

C)
CD

H
-

F
t

P1
CD

I-
H

’
0

P1
CD

Cl
)

0
Ci

)
H

’
CI

)
O

k
<

S
I-C

)
iQ

H
j

9
CD

Q-
’

C
D

-
-

S
P1

CD
Cl

)
P1

F
t

CD
H

I-
Cl

)
C)

H
CD

13
)

Cl
)

0
CD

H
P1

C)
—

—
0

F
t

I-
0

CD
F

t
F

t
0

C)
i-

i
çj

j

H
’

CD
CD

CD
H

-
H

jj
H

-
H

-
H

-
o

I-
t’

F
t

H
CD

0
F

t
F

t
CD

C)
CD

CI
)

F
t

H
-C

D
-
,

CD
CD

H
-

0
P1

H
-

—
.

-
Cl

)
F’

-
O

Cl
)

H
-

CD
CD

P1
CD

CD
p
jC

D
1

o
H

0
.

CD
CD

I-
H

g
F

t
S

-
LQ

CD
-

n
0

F
t

P1
F

t
CD

o
13

F
t

0
H

C
D

<
13

0
.

F-
’-

C
l

0
H

-
F

t
CD

F
t

-
‘

F
t

CD
F

t
P1

P1
C)

o
CD

F
t

CD
CD

‘d
CD

0
CD

Cl
)

P1
-

F
t

Cl
)

CD
H

-
CD

M
i

CI
)

H
-

CD
F

t
P1

C)
CD

F
t

C)
Cl

)
CD

C
D

H
Cl

)
CD

-
,

CD
1]

H
P1

-

P1
P1

O
H

-
F

t
I-

h
P1

F
t

H
I

CD
H

’
F

t
F

—
H

CD
H

’
CD

CD
H

F
t

C
D

S
H

P1
H

0)
F

t
P1

F
t

CD
F

t
P1

P1
P1

Cl
)

13
CD

F
t

1
3

j’
o

13
CD

P1
CD

O
F

t
5

H
-

H
g

CD
CD

1C
)

I-
h

CI
)

H
CD

Cl
)

CD
o

CD
-C

D
F

t
H

-
Cl

)
Cl

)
5

H
,

P1
F

t
F

t
CD

p
i

-
.

0
-

H
-

H
IQ

CD
CD

CD
F

t
C1

)
-

0
O

H
’

0
H

-
I-

h
CD

H
C

D
F

t
F

t
H

’
P1

P1
H

-
I—

’
H

,
1
3

C
)

=
CD

P1
0

Ib
0

P1
F

t
H

p
,

H
-

-
-

lCD
H

-
F

t
CD

H
-

H
F

t
0
)

CD
10

)
P1

F
t

13
F

t
CD

113
P1

13
CD

P1
CD

H
-

o
0C

D
0

H
-

IC
)

I-
I-

F
t

F
t

3
F

t
<

13
lC

D
CD

F
t

F
t

H
-

ç
0

C
1

1
<

CD
P1

I-
F

t
I-

h
13

CD
F

t
13

F
t

P
1
0

H
13

0
-

13
H

0
P1

0
CD

13
I-C

)
H

-
CD

F
t

H
-

I-
h

Ci
)

CD
CD

t
13

I-
h

3
CD

-
-

13
Ci

)
C

D
t

0
CD

Cl
)



0
‘H

H
,

CJ
U

)
CD

))
H

H
ft

U)
Q

U
)

i—
i

C
D

H
-
0

j
J

H
,

H
I-

0
CD

X
0

0
I-

h
Pi

0
D

CD
H

-
C

)
C

)
P

J
Pi

H
,

CD
P

H
-

I
Cl

i
H

-
C)

CD
CD

CD
O

)
0
0

C)
H

-
Cl

i
ft

H
,

Cli
CD

‘<
CD

C
l

Cl
i

H
-

d
H

5
Q

H
-

ft
CD

C)
-

Cl
i

H
-

h
f
t

H
F

-
1

-
ft

0
F

-
1

U)
H

CD
Cl

i
H

-
H

,
CD

C
l

H
-

Q
h

H
-

I
-

C
)U

).
C

l
l

CD
F

CD
H

ft
CD

CD
f
t
-

h
Q

C
ll

h
C

D
C

D
H

,
IQ

0
H

-
0

Cl
i

1H
C

l
CD

0
C

l
1Q

g
U

)
S

CD
f
t

H
f
t
C

)
H

5
h

h
CD

<
H

-
i

C)
IQ

C
D

ft
C

J
C

D
Q

C
D

CD
ft

H
-

U)
C

l
C

‘1
‘
d

C
)
-

H
I

Cl
i

C
l

=
f
t
f
t

C
l

CD
CD

C
l

0
CD

H
H

C
D

f
t

CD

C
l

w
•

S
I
-
h
C

D
H

f
t

U)
rt

H
-

U)
H

,
Cl

i
C

l
H

-
ft

ft
CD

CD
H

H
-

H
-

H
o
C

D
C

l
g

C
l

H
,

-

CD
f
t

0
CD

H
f
t

H
CD

ft
H

CD
0

H
,

U)
H

-
H

f
t
H

-
b
,
U

)
ft

ft
CD

0
H

-
CD

H
,

0
U)

-
ft

:
Q

Cli
3

ft
-

CD
b
C

)
Cl

)
CD

CD
çu

U)
1

o
CD

Cl)
CD

0
CD

CD
CD

ft
f
tF

—
s
-
f
th

CD
H

-
H

,
F-

CD
S

CD
0

H
-
C

l)
C

D
H

-
ft

CD
U

)
CD

‘
H

,
0

H
U)

H
,

5H
-

0C
D

H
,

-
‘d

CD
H

,
ft

:i’
H

,
CD

H
-

Cl
i

ft
U)

H
-

H
-

CD
H

-
C

D
‘1

H
-

CD
H

CD
0

H
CD

C
lI

-
CD

f
t

CD
-,

CD
H

f
t
f
t
C

l
l
H

-
H

H
-

(C
U

)
H

C
)

Y
<

f
t

C
l

Cli
H

I-Q
H

CD
CD

CD
C

li
°
H

-
C

D
-
-
f
t

(.Q
H

,
C

l
-

f
t

5
CD

H
-

U
)C

l
C

l
CD

C
Cl

i
ft

H
-

H
,

H
,

><
05H

-
C

l
J

0
0

ft
F

-
1

,
Q

C
l

0
CD

CD
H

H
,

CD
C)

ft
H

,
‘

CD
CD

H
-

CD
U)

1
Cli

C
D

<
f
t

H
,

H
-

0
CD

:-
C)

Cli
U

)
Cl

i
0

U
)

5C
D

CD
CD

C
l

Cli
ft

i
CD

H
-

H
-

H
H

0
CD

H
CD

C)
CD

f
t

C
l

f
t

CD
-

0
-

I-
i

C
l

U)
H

-
C)

H
-

•

CD
CD

H
-

H
-

CD
CD

H
,

ft
I-

Cli
C

D
C

D
H

CD
0

ft
k
<

CD
ft

h
H

-
—

C
l

0
U

)
ft

CD
CD

CD
CD

0
0

H
‘-

<
H

U
)

C
D

‘
ft

H
-

0
CD

Cl)
C

l
-

C)
ft

-
ft

‘
CD

CD
CD

Cl
i

CD
C

D
H

H
-

Cl
i

.
CD

U
)

Cli
JJ

H
-

0
C

l
CD

H
,
Q

U
)

0

H
-

I
II

f
t

CD
C

l
<

H
-

Q
f
t

f
t
H

,

CD
0

0
H

CD
U)

CD
CD

C
l

H
-

CD
3

ft
5

U) H
-F

-I
C

D
°

0
Cli

C
l

ft
C

U)
H

-
CD

f
t

Cli
C

l
H

,
C

l
CD

=
0

U
)

U)
0

CD
Cl

i
0

ft
h

C
D

C
D

.Y
g
C

D
0

H
,

H
,

h
H

,
0

H
,

U)
k

<
IQ

f
t

i
0

CD
0

C
IC

D
0
f
t

CD
0

H
-

0
5

0
CD

i-
CD

CD
U)

-
ft

Cl
i

U)
ft

0
f
t
C

D
H

f
t

CD
H

,
C

l
H

,
CD

CD
Cl

i
CD

CD
ft

H
=

C)
Cl

)
C

l
C)

-
CD

H
,

O
f
t
H

H
Cl

i
H

-
H

,
H

-
—

-
f
t

0
f
t
C

D
0
0
0

CD
CD

H
-

ft
=

ft
U

)
CD

CD
U

)
C

D
S

H
,

CD
C

l
H

5
0

H
H

-
H

-
H

,
0

0
CD

g
H

,
H

CD

C
l

CD
C

l
f
t

H
I-

h
‘

=
C

l
C’

)
CD

i
H

-
ft

0
Cl

i
ft

ft
H

H
-

f
t

ft
ft

ft
Q

f
t

Y
H

-
0

D
ft

0
C)

Q
ft

U
)

H
0

I-
f
t

0
H

-
C

l
-<

H
-

CD
0

CD
CD

CD
H

,Q
C

D
C

iC
D

U
)

I-
Q

C
l

CD
—

H
,

U)
IQ

—
U

)
CD

I-
’

I
U)

Cl
)

h



C)
J

C)
0

0

U) H
-

r
t

CD C)
CD

H
-

CD
F

r
<

CD
CD

H

I-
ç
t

CD
CD

H
F

r
0

F
r

C)
H

-
CD

CD
F

r

H
U)

Cl
)

CD
CD

U
)

M
i

0
F

r
‘1

0
CD

ç
t

<
J

CD
CD

P
-

U)
U)

S
pi

-
-

U)
pi U)

CD
H

F
r

U)
S C)

F
r

CD
F

r

‘H
-

I
-

CD
0

I
<

(Q C
D

C)
F

r
0

H
-

C
l

(Q
M

i
P

CD
0

C)
I-

F
r

S
H

CD
M

i
I))

U
)

H
-

H
-

0
F

r
-

CD
M

i
CD

H
F

r
IQ

‘
F

r
pi

H
-

CD
—

0
F

r
F

r
U)

H
-

<1
F

r
F

r
H

-
CD

H
-

F
r

U)
H1

o
H

-
-

H
-

Ii
U)

Cu
S

Cu
C

l
F

r
U)

H

(Q
H

-
CD

F
r

F
r

C
D

CD

=

CD
M

i
Cu

M
i

H
-

H
-

U)
0

CD
CD

CD
F

r
i

I1
I—

i
::

)
F

r
F

-
C

l
0

CD
0

k
<

M
i

-

Cu
C

l

C
l

CD
CD H 11

F
r

H

F
r

C) H U) 0 H

H
-

M
i

F
r

H
-

U
)

CD H -

F
r

H
-

Cu

Cu
F

r
F

r
H

H 0
H

CD
CD

0
U) Cu

C
l

H C
l

F
r

0 CD H

Cu
Cu

I-
i

H
-

0
‘-

<
h

H
-

5
C)

h
F

r
H

-
Cu

Cu
F

r
F

r
F

r
—

.F
rC

D
C

D
H

-
t

H
-

1
0

C
D

U)
CD

H
-

F
r

C
l
C

u
-
F

r
C

D
F

r
C

)
C

l
H

C
u
Z

H
1

F
r
C

D
Cu

0
0

0
)

h
t
F

r
M

H
-

CD
CD

—
U

)C
lp

iU
)

CD U)
H

-
F

r
•

h
C

D
C

D
H

-
CD

CD
H

F
r
C

l
o
.

-
CD

F
r”

<
CD

U)
F

r
t_

0
Cu

U)

F
r
°

U)
CD

0
H

-
H

C
D

C
D

C
D

C
l

(-
Q

:i
C

u
F

r
0

CD
H

H
-

CD
—

.
H

M
i

U)
C

l
CD

k
<

H CD
C

u
H

F
r

C
l

U)
F

r
0
k
.,

Cu x
-

H

C
l’

’
CD

:
C

l

0
H

-
H

H

Q U
)
F

r
k
<

-
•
0

0
)

Cu
CD

F
rC

u
F

-<
Cu

Cu
0

F
rC

D
M

i
H

-
h

CD
Q

0
0

F
r
5
.

H
-C

u
F

r
C

D
C

u
‘
C

l

C
n

U
)

U
)C

D
H

-
h

u
•

.

H
-

H
-

H
-

—
Cu

F
r-

i-

•
CD

C
D

F
rF

r Cu

H
-

CD

C
D

C
D

Q
H

C
u

H
C

D

F
rC

u

Cu C
u

C
D

H
H

‘
0
) Cu

F
r

C
D

C
D

h

M
i-

C
D

I.- 0 M
iC

D F
r

F
r

0

U
)C

u

C
u
H

1

M
i

H
-

CD H C
l

CD Cu H H 0 CD C
l

H F
r

H
-

U) Cu 0 H
-

U) H
-

F
r

Cu S C) S 0 CD 0 CD

0
F

r
Cu

C
l)

F
r

F
r

Cu
b

0
Cu

i
F

r
CD

U)
CD

0
F

r
CD

H
-

CD
U)

CD
CD

CD
k
<

C
l

M
i

F
r

CD
H

W
H

-
H

-

H
0

CD
Cu

S
F

r
-

0
U)

çu
S

CD
U)

C)
)

H
-

F
r

M
i

F
r

F
r

CD
H

-
0

CD
H

-
CD

M
i

CD

F
r

C)
C

l
F

r
C)

H
-

Cu
CD

i-

U)
F

r
H

-
H

-
0

M
i

H
H

-
H

-
CD

C
l

CD
CD

U)
C)

Cu
p

i
Cu

0
H

H
-

F
r

-

N
0

CD
0

H
CD

-
.

Cu
M

i
Cu

F
r

H
-

H
0

CD
U)

F
r

Cu
H

-
F

r
F

r
F

r
Cu

I
Cu

CD
H

-
F

r
F

r
pi

Cu
CD

CD
<

CD
H

-
H

-
C

l
CD

Cu
0

0
0

C
l

C
l

M
i

H
M

i
Cu

-
H

-
H

-
t

H
-

CD
0

U)
Cu

H
0

F
r

M
i

<
U)

CD
0

U)
U)

-
s

H
-

CD
0

F
r

S
Cu

F
r

tD
CD

Cu

0
Q

H
-

F
r

CD
CD

0
H

Cu
U)

H
-

U
)

H
-

0
H

F
r

F
r

C
l

H
-

5
p1

H
-

1
F

r
H

-
CD

CD
<

F
r

0
0

CD
CD

H
-

C
l

pi
C)

F
r

F
r

Cu
Cu

H
-

Cu
H

-
CD

U)
U)

U)
(Q

F
r
-

H
-

F
r

F
r

H
-

CD
F

r
CD

0
i

F
r

0
‘

H
-

(I
)

CD
M

i
U)

i-
U)

p1
F

r
CD

CD
M

i
0

Cu
H

-
F

r
o

PJ
S

H
-

h

H
-

M
i

M
i

H
S

CD
H

-
H

CD
C

l
CD

CD
F

r
CD

H
-

-
p.

’
H

F
r

C
l

Q
0

C)
0

0
Cu

F
r

0
F

r
CD

Cu
F

r
F

r
1

CD
H

-
S

H
CD

t
F

r
U)

CD
0

-
-

P.’
Cu

0
<

M
i

-Q
<

‘J
i-

0
<

CD
H

F
r

F
r

0
CD

p.
’

0
0

0
H

H
-

<
5

M
i

(Q
CD

S
I

U)
-

CD

I-H U) Cl
)

p.
’ CD II U) H
-

F
r

H H F
r

CD



<
r
t

CD
0

—
..

CU
H

-
It

T
U

)
—

C
t

C
t

tT
H

i
C)

CU
CU

I—
a

h
h

5
t-

C
r

U)
CU

0
lCD

CU
S

F
-

1
h

Q
H

-
H

h
H

CD
<

0
H

CD
d

h
C

t
C

r
IH

i
0

CD
C

r
CU

H
i

CD
0

CD
0

C
t

H
0

C
t

0
CD

IC
CD

I-
H

-
H

i
H

U
)

CU
H

,
s

H
-

0
CU

C
r

tT
H

-
U

)
C)

U)
CD

U)
H

ii
CD

0
H

Q
I

CD
Q

I
U

)
0

C
r

lCD
H

i
.

CU
I

0
0

1
C

F-
’

CD
CD

CU
I-

P
CU

H
-

CD
H

i
U)

CD
H

-
H

-
CD

0
C)

H
U

)
CD

H
CD

U
)

C
t

U)
CD

CD
5

5
CD

H
-

C
r

0
tT

C
)

CU
CD

CD
CD

CU
U

)
0

‘t
i

H
CD

C
r

CD

H
i

H
CD

:
CU

H
i

C
r

H
p
.

U)
--

J
I
-
’
-
-
-

-
CU

H
-

H
-

H
CD

CU
H

-
0

CD
p
.

CD
0

p
.

0
C

r
0

tT
CD

H
CD

CD
‘

U)
C)

0
CU

C)
U

)
p
.

•
Q

‘1
H

H
-

H
-

H
k
<

)

CD
C

r
CU

p
.

tT
U)

r
r

H
-

0
H

i
,.<

ç-
t

H
-

H
CD

0
Q

I
0

C
r

U)
CD

I-
P

CD
H

3
C

r
w

H

M
h

H
i

CD
C

t
CD

k
<

U
)

‘-
<

CD

H
C

r
CD

C
r

U
)

CU
C

r
C

r
C

r
C

r
CD

CD
CD

CD
CU

C
r

H
CD

H
0

H
-

0
CU

CU
H

C
CD

CD
CD

CD
H

i
CD

1
C

r
CD

5
U)

CD
CU

CD
H

-
CD

CU
H

-
CD

CD
H

H
CU

CU
0

o
CD

F
-

1
U)

H
-

0
H

H
p

.
U)

C
r

CD
CD

Q
I

C)
S

<
CU

H
-

‘
CD

C
r

CU
-

C
r

H
H

H
-

CD U)
‘
t
C

U
C

D
C

)
C

t
p

.
t
I
-
Q

U
)

H
CD

0
H

CD
k
<

C)
lc-

t
p
.

CU
H

-
U

)
CD

C
t

C
r

0
CU

H
p

.
‘

U
)

H
IC

C
r

CU
5

C
r

H
i

CD
‘

0
C

r
C

t
-
-

0
C

r
CD

CD
tT

CU
CU

0
D

CD
H

i
C)

H
-

C
r

CD
h

C
r

CD
0

CU
CD

CD
CD

0
0

H
CD

p
.

H
-

S
t

i
5

H
CD

p
.

0
C

r
H

i
CD

-
C)

0)
-

CU
H

F-
’

0
H

0
g

CD
CU

H
H

i
C

r
CD

H
-
C

CD
CU

CD
CU

CD
CD

w
C

r
F-

’
H

CD
H

U)
C

r
C

r
C)

C
r

0
CD

CD
0

C
r

0
0

CD
C)

-
.

U
)

p
.

CD
-

)
1

H
tT

CU
CD

CU
H

-
H

C
r

U)
H

-
C

D
C

r
C)

C
r

-

C
r

0
H

0
0

I—
’

CD
0

0
CD

H
-

CD
0

CU
C)

CD
p
.

H
H

-
C

r
0

H
CD

g
H

Cl
)

c
t

U)
CD

0
H

i
)

C
t

0
c-

i-
H

CU
U)

i-
CD

H
-

H
H

-
H

CU
<

3
CD

I-
0

C
C)

H
-

p
.

0
CD

H
CD

C
r

CU
CU

H
-

C
r

H
-

H
i

•
H

d
0

H
-

H
C

r
<

C
r

CU
p

.
CD

H
i

H
-

I—
H

Cl)
CU

H
-

‘
H

-
c
p

0
o

0
CU

0
0

k
<

H
-

tT
C

r
H

i
U)

H
CD

CD
D

Q
C

)
C

r
H

H
Q

I
CD

C
r

CD
0

tT
CD

C)

H
-

j
0

CD
p

.
p
i

C
r

CU
U

)
I

CD
Q

I
CD

F-
’

U)
CU

0
tT

CU
H

i
CD

CD
U)

C
r

C
r

C
r

H
-

CD
H

-
CU

h
C

r
0

0
H

p
.

C
r

tT
H

C
t

H
i

CD
C

r
0

—
p
.

=
CU

H
-

H
-
C

D
I—

’
H

‘d
CD

p
.

:-
C

r
CU

H
i

0
U)

-
CU

‘<
0

—
CD

CU
H

I—
i

H
-

0
CU

CD
0

H
CU

H
h-

CD
C)

C
r

I
CD

C
r

-
0

U
)

U)
‘<

p
.

p
.

C)
S

CU
C

r
C

r
CD

CD
0

CD
CU

CD
p

.
=

U
)

CD
C

r
CD

S
CU

U
)

U)
p

.
H

H
i

I
H

-
U

)
‘1

CU
H

-
H

-
I-Q

CD
U)

CD
CU

U)
3

H
-

<
C

r
0

hl
H

-
CD

H
CU

C
r

C
r

CD
C

r
C

r
C

r
C

r
CD

CD
CD

CU
C

r
C)

U
)

CU
J

-
CU

0
CD

0
U

)
0

I—
U

)
p

.
H

U)
I-Q

-
0

p
.

U)
CD

CU
CD



F
-
5
i
P

J
W

0
0

f
t
Q

C
f
l

H
-
)
O

C
D

C
D

H
-
H

-
-
f
t

f
t
-
t
1
I
<

)
C

D
H

-
ft

’t
IC

D
C

D
C

D
•

H
-

C
D

H
i

f
-
J
C

D
W

F-
-

O
-
t
h
f
t

C
D

H
-
p

j
H

-
I
-
W

]
W

I
-

d
(
.Q

H
i

-
H

i

p
J
c
-
r
1J
f
t

—
O

H
H

0
CD

0)

o
H

i
Cl

)
H

H
-
3

0
0

)

C
D

C
D

-
-

0
CD

H
-

H

C
D

W
r
r

8
W

C
f

C
D

H
O

t
ci

-
-
i
-
.
o

o
f
t

CD
CD

C
D

ç
W

f
tH

-
C

D
•
0H

-
TD

CD

o
0
n
1
Q

Pi
H

W
C

D F
-

1
Q

H
pj

1
ç
j

ft
:
f
t

H
-c

t
0

C
l)

i
f
tC

D
f
tH

,C
D

i
c
r
P

CD
CD

<
c
-
r

C
D

C
D

O
C

D
p
J
Q

O
W

C
D

0H
-
C

f
l
-
j

1
-

o
F

-
J
f
lf

t
H

-
0)

C
D

0
)

O
O

f
t
O

P
1

H
W

f
tf

tH
l

O
f
t

O
O

f
t

H
-

0
O

C
l
)
h

h
r
-
h

0
CD

f
tH

-
Q

Q
U)

0
)

H
O

W
•

k
<

W
CD

f
t

C
D

C
D

0

C
D

k
<

O

H
-

3
F

—
H

-
0

)
f
tC

D
J

C
D

C
D

f
t
C

D
O

H
i

-j
Q

,H
-

I))
1
C

D
H

f
t

C
D

f
t

CD
-

W
c
t
p
i

o
CD

f
t
H

-
0

I
-
jH

ii
-
-
f
t

I-’
f
t

C
D

Q
I-)

)
O

k
<

0
CD

CD
Cl

)
5

•
f
t
-

I
-
Q

CD

0)
Pi

0)
Ci

i
0

O
C

l
Ci

)
0

C
l

ci
H

-
CD

F
-

1
I

CD
CD

i
CD

C
l

0
O

H
-

0
h

CD
Pi

O
(Q

ft
pi

Cl
)

C
l-

p1
f
t

CD
CD

H
-

Ci
)

H
-

CD
f
t

0)
CD

CD
CD

0
ft

H
i

CD
ft

CD
H

i
H

-
Cl

)
H

-
CD

<1
o

I—
a

CD
H

i
H

-
CD

0)
f
t

CD
f
t
k
<

CD
0

cn
CD

F
-

1
H

i
I-

rn
i

H
0

0
0

0
CD

‘-
Ci

i
CD

CD
CD

CD

0)
Cl

)
H

-
F

-
1

.
.

Ci
i

O
0

CD
II

H
i

H
ft

C
l

4
1

ft
-

C
l

‘-
-1

(
i

CD
‘—

i
C

l
0 Ci

i

O
ii

ft
H

CD
CD

0
1

C
r

Cl
)

l-
Ci

i
CD

I-
-

0)
p
i

H
-

-
ft

0
F

-
1

H
-

O
C

i
k

<

-
0

H
C

l
H

i

Ci
i

II
f
t

0)
0)

ft
1

Ci
i

CD
CD

CD
-

C
l

Cl
)

P1
S

-

H
-

II
p1

H
i

i-
S

Ci
i

CD
h

H
-

CD
H

-
LQ

CD
H

i
F

-
CD

0
H

-
H

H
-

Ci
i

II
C

l
H CD

H
Ci

i
H

-
i z

ft
-

CD
Q

C
l

0
I

ft
0)

ft
H

-
CD

Ci
i

F
CD

CD
CD

ft
Q

I
H

H
-

0
h

I—
0

CD
H

i
CD

CD
i

H
-

Cl
)

ft
ft

ft
0

0
CD

1.Q
H

-
S

l-
H

i
U

)

H
i

Ci
i

H
-

L-
CD

CD

O
CD

0
H

ft
-

H
i

0
H

-
O

-
f
t

CD
H

i
CD

H
Ci

i
0)

ft
C

l
ft

-
H

CD
H

-
CD

I-
H

-
C

l-
-

0)
CD

0
H

-
O

0
0)

H
i

H
-

0
F

-
1

CD
H

-
CD

I-
0)

I-
IQ

CD
I

H
i

H
-

0
CD

H
-

0)
ft

)
CD

H
-

C
l

F
<

CD
C

l

p1
CD

p
i

j
f
t

0)
0)

C
l-

H
-

CD
H

-
H

-
0

II
CD

0
Cl

-
H

-
O

ft
0

CD
H

-
H

i
0

Ci
i

-
0

‘-Q
ft

I-

8
H

-

S
C

l
f
t
H

CD
H

-

C
l

CD
CD

Cl
)

O
CD

f
t

0)
Ci

)
O

H1
CD

0
H

i
0)

Q
I

H
H

-
CD

CD
5

:
p

i
CD

H
-

F
-

1
‘-

<
Q

I
0)

Ci
i

CD
CD

;
H

p1
I-

0
CD

0)
H

i
CD

CD
3

C
l

0

0
0

H
-

Cl
-

O
ft

l-
.

S
CD

CD
CD

Cl
-

I

I-
i

h
H

i
CD

0)
CD

H
-

I-
ft

-
CD

H
-

CD
I—

’
C

l
i—

i
H

i
C

l
H

k
<

H
-

H
Q

I
CD

H
tQ

ft
CD

F
-

1
H

-
O

Ci
i

C
l

ft
o

Cl
)

CD
H

i
Cl

-
•

Ci
)

H
i

CD
Ci

i
Cl

-
H

-
Cl

)
CD

C
l

H
H

i
-

CD
C

l
H

-
CD

CD
ft

0
H

i
I-

0
d
l

Q
I

H
-

CD
ci

-
H

P
Ci

)
H

-
‘
-

Ci
i

0
b

0)
IQ

H
0)

H
-

CI
)

<

H
n

CD
0)

Ci
i

P
H

0
(
l

Ci
)

c-i
-

CD
C

l
C

l
CD

O h
ft

CD
0)

<
0

C
l-

CD
CD

O
h Cl

)
H

-
ft

C
l

C
l)

H
i

p)
Ci

)
0

ft
p1

I-
h

CD
H

i
H

-
CD

CD
H

CD
ci

-
I-

<
0)

Ci
)

ft
Cl

)
CD

ft
0

0
H

-
=

ft
p

i
Cl

)
0

Ci
i

H
Ci

i
Cl

)
CD

=
0)

ft
h

•
.

CD
H

ii
z

O
C

l
F

0)
CD

p1
H

i
-

H 0
H

-
0

i
H

-
S

lQ
IQ

f
t

H
-

H
-

ft
0

I-
Q

3
Q

CD



notes should not be classified at the time of being written:31 they

are the raw material, the record unprocessed awaiting the return.

Finally, the long life of the notes is kept in mind in the

importance of keeping a record of names and addresses of contacts

to contact once home:”to whom you may wish later to write for

information” 32

Although Sauer does not seem to have followed these directives

meticulously, his Mexico fieldnotes themselves do indicate that

they were a resource to be referred to in the future. Many of the

notebooks have periodic lists, comments and questions that seem to

be reminders for Sauer for later on. For example, on his 1935 trip

notebook, Sauer writes:

“Guadalajara July 18.. .the Ceno Tequila - remember - was the
outpost of wild Indians (why not go back to your records) who
harassed the civilised Indians and the early missionaries. .

and also on his 1945 trip, at the Mexican National Herbarium:

“not at all evident the basis on which distinguished - see if you

can find out”.34 Jotted lists in the fieldnotes seem to be there

31 While Sauer also (and contradictorily) states that
general impressions should be written frequently before moving on
and that the notes should be distinguished “carefully” between
observations, inferences and information secured from others, this
does not tend to happen in his notebooks. While begging the
question as to how possible it would be to separate out information
in this way, we find in the transition from fieldnotes to article
that Sauer writes out the contributions of others and the less
secure inferences and writes in only observation as authority.

32 Sauer and Jones, op. cit., p.521.

SN14, p.43.

SN18, p.89.

105



Cl
)

Cl
)

H
O

H •
w

t’
J

t\
)

0
0

C
)

H H
-

H
,

H
,

0 H Cl
)

ci
i

L
J

CD H 0
H

-

0 a’
0 0 H F

t

U
i

L’
)

w

CD
II

H
C

D
p
ic

ii
0

)
1

c
t

H
-

0
CQ

H 0)
c
ii

c
ii

‘d
H

-
F

t

C
D

i
-

H H
c
i
i

0 F
tF

t

0
0

H C
D

, CD

tQ
c
ii

c
i
l

H
-

ç
t

0

H
ci

u
i-

j
F

t
2 (
O

H
,

:
j
H

,
F

t
H

-
(D

O
h
H

C
D

Q 0
H

-
h

H
,

H
,

0
F

t
0)

H
F

t
C)

F
t

H
-

0
F

t
i

Q
ç-

t
F

t
CD

H
-

H
-

H
,

H
-

H
,

0
H

,
H

-
Cl

)
CD

1
0

C)
CD

CD
h

0
ci

i
CD

H
-

CD
F

t
CD

h
F

t
H

-
0

H
H

F
t

0
H

-
CD

I-
F

t
CD

I-
j

(0
i

H
-
F

t
H

H
CD

CD
C)

H
-

CD
(I)

l-
02

Q
1

P
i

l
CD

F
t

0
H

0
Q

0)
0

0
0

F
t

II
H

-
0)

H
-

•
•

1
F

t
F

t
-

CD
0

H
-

H
-

CD
ci

i
F

t
Q

Q
Cl

)
H

CD
CD

0
H

ci
i

<1
CD

II
1

CD
0

-
H

,
ci

i
0)

0
i

H0
CD

Cl
)

CD
C)

H
-

H
-

H
H

-
0

0
F

t
F

t
F

t
02

H
,

H
-

(
,

0
H

-
U

)
ç)

.
CD

‘1
CD

0
<1

CD
C)

(f)
H

-
CD

CD
0

F
t

i
Cl

)
0)

F
t

F
t

CD
Cl

)
0

F
t

C)
CD

ci
i

.<
H

F
t

-
j

,
ci

i
ci

i
I

CD
CD

I-
C)

H
CD

c
l

F
t

H
,

Cl
)

CD
0

CD
l)

-
U

i

F
t

H
-

H
-

Cl
)

F
t

Cl
)

H
,

CD
b

H
-

H
-

CD
(1

)
H

-
ci

i
CD

0
0

‘
H

0
j

j
p
i

H
H

F
t

0
I

S
H

,
(I)

I
F

t
H

-
H

-
0

H
-

0
F

t
.

H
-

F
t

F
t

Cl
)

H
H

,
(1

)
02

H
,

H
-

0
H

F
t

<
H

-
F

t
H

-

F
t

C
Ci

)
8

P
0

F
t

Q
W

0
CD

F
t

ci
i

H
0

H
,

ç)
,

0
F

t
F

t
ci

i
o

F
-

0
F

t
C

)
0) F

t
k
<

H
,

0
CD

F
t

(0
F

t
0

Cl
)

CD
F

t
I-

0
h

0
CD

H
,

-
F

t
0

ci
i

0)
H

F
t

0)
CD

Cl
)

0
<

:

ci
i

-
0)

H
-

H
,

CO
0

H
-

Q
N

0
0

Cl
)

H
-

H
-

0
H

0)
0

H
l
-

<
I-

<
ci

i
H

-i
,

ci
i

jj
F

t
0

ci
i

Cl
)

H
-

F
t

F
t

CD
(
0
0

C
C

O
F

t
ci

i
C

CD
ci

i
S

F
t

F
t

H
0)

0
CD

H
-

H
,

0
H

0

CD
b

0
0

CD
I

d
Q

c
u

F
t
c
i
i
C

D
F

t
F

t
F

t
F

t
0

F
t

H
-

0
ci•

(0
0)

H
-

CD
:

Cl
)

H
-

•
0

J

H
0)

Ci
)

F
t

Cl
)

(0
H

-
0

Q
-

ci
i

h
0

-
(0

><
0

F
t

H
CD

H
-

0
F

t
(0

CD
0

CD
i

CD
H

,
h

CD
H

,
ci

i
i-

0
ci

i
H

0
0
)

CD
H

,
I-

j

5
0

P
H

-
CD

Cl
)

CD

0)
H

-
0

Z
CD

i-
CD

H
,

F
t

CD
F

t
I

H
,

F
t

F
t

ø
ci

i
F

t
F

t
H

F
t

H
Cl

)
0

H
,

H
H

-

H
Cl

)
H

,
CD

0
H

,
F

t

(0
S

0
H

ci
i

H
,

Cl
)

F
t

H
-

H
,

CD
Cl

)
C)

)
Cl

)
0

0
0

H
,

H
0

CD
h

0)
F

t
0

F
t

0
0

H
,

H
‘1

‘
H

-

0
-

ci
i

0
CD

0)
ci

i
H

H
,

H
,

-
H

,
F

t
5

0
h

p
i

F
t

0)
H

H
CD

H
Q

-
H

,
ci

i
0

CD
F

t
ci

i
ci

i
F

t
H

ci
i

ci
i

F
t

0)
F

t
CD

o
F

t
CD

-
CD

H
-

H
,

H
H

-
0

0
IQ

0)
CD

CD
0

CD
I-

I-
i

0
Q

0)
F

t
Q

CD
CD

-
-

CD
‘-I

i
ci)

CD
•
.

I-
I-

CD
CD

CQ
I-



C.
)

C’
)

CD C
l

0 S H H C
l

0 H
H 0

w

C
l
Q

U
)

C
l

CD
J

CD
Q

c
-
r
Q

I-
-

H
H

-H
r
t

U
)
-
H

,
r
-
r
c
-
r

ç
t

I-
C)

H
i

CD
H

-H
C

)
O

H
-
C

D
O

H
p
j
c
-
t
-
H

-
.
<

CD
CD

C)
-

•
.
r
t
j

H
C

l
>

<
H

h
C

l
‘d

C
D

H
-

U
(D

Q
C

D
I
-

C
)
H

-
C

)
•

0
C

)
r
r
H

H
i
C

D
r
r
-

H
-
U

)
J

P
J
C

l
H

-
U

)
C

l
U

)
U

)
H

-
H

-
C

D
°

J
H

C
l

U
)

C
D

c
1

C
D

,-
Q

-C
D

H
C’

)
(
D

U
)

<
H

-
U

)
Q

P
J
U

)
:
C

l
5

C
D

b
P

i
C

D
L

i.
C

)C
D

C
D

C
lC

D
H

.
CD

Q
Q

H
i

Q
C

l
H

-
Pi

-
C

l
C

lC
lH

.C
D

-
H

I
P

J
Q

-
j

C
D

C
D

k
<

C
t
H

i
C

)
CD

H
-
H

O
H

i
o

U
)
C

lC
D

H
-

-
H

-
H

H
-
C

lC
D

C
)
C

D
C

l
H

-
CU

Q
C

l
CD

H
o

U
)
C

l
H

-
C)

C
D

C
l

•

:
H

P
J

rn
C

U
C

l
C)

U
)
C

D
H

-
H

i0
(

H
-C

D
p
iC

l
•

H
-

tf
lC

I)
C

U
H

i
-

:
C

l
C

’
C

l
H

0H
-
H

-

•
H

-
0

W
C

D
C

U
S

S
C

l
°
C

D
0

H
-

H
-
0

<
H

i
C

D
•

H
l1

(-
Q

U
)
C

I
)
C

)
C

l
H

H
-

C
D

J
C

D
Q

0
U

)
h

(D
C

)
C

)
<

C
D

C
fl

H
iC

l
U

)
C

D
E

C
U

H
-
H

U
)
>

<
H

-
J
C

D
Q

C
D

O
H

.0
H

-
C

D
H

H
-

C)
H CD

-
H

i
H

-C
l

H
0

U
)
C

)
C

D
Q

1
0

(C
H

0
H

-
C

l
C

l
0

H
H

-C
l

C
l

H
P

J
k
<

i
CD

CD
CD

CD
Q

H
Q

U)
CD

C
l

C)
H

-
‘x

j
It

J
C)

C
l

I
H

-
:

(U
h

0
0

i
I—

’
0

11
.1.

h
CD

H
H

U)
U)

0
0

(U
C

l
Q

(U
‘1

lCD
3

C)
(U

H
-

C
l

h
<

C
l

CD
Cl)

h
C)

0
C)

H
C

l
E

i
C

l
CD

C
l

CD
1

U
)

CD
Q

cc
I

H
U

)
CD

CD
(
U

U
)

(U
H

(U
Q

CD
j

I
(U

H
-

C
D

<
1

(U
CD

-
-

H
10

H
C

l
CD

H
-

(U
CD

H
H

-
(U

H
-

k
<

CD
ic

r
H

-
C)

H
i

U)
C

l
CD

(U
C

l
P

-
d

C
l

CD
0

C
l

H
-H

I
H

i
(U

H
-

C
)

C
D

O
‘d

H
-

CD
C

l
0

k-i
-

H
F-

CD
H

C)
i

CD
CD

10
C

l
H

i
tQ

H
-

H
J-

U)
-

I
H

-
C

l
C)

H
-

U)
H

i
0

:
C

l
C)

=
C

l
H

-
H

i
H

i
CD

CD
1jI

Q
H

-
<

H
-

CD
0

CD
13

c
t

C
l

H
C

l°
(U

H
-
C

l
h

13
H

-
CD

H
-

-
C

l
C

l
H

i
H

C
l

H
-

(1
0

C
l

H
CD

CD
H

-
H

-
H

-
1
3

H
-

CD
0

U)
H

i
Q

C
l

CD
CD

C
l

0
k
<

0
0

(U
C

l
H

CD
s

0
‘1

CD
0

C
l

H
i

CD
CD

0
0

(U
(U

13
U)

13
C

l
<1

CD
H

-
CD

>1
CD

CD
CD

H
C

l
CD

CD
Cl

)
U

)
1

-
-

13
C

l
-

13
CD

<
-

CD
1

(U
C

lC
D

CD
CD

13
C

l
h

.
C

l
H

i
H

-
CD

CD
13

H
-

U)
0

CD
CD

U)
CD

CD
C

l
CD

h
g

13
C

l
I-

H
-

CD
-

(U
H

H
-

C
l

CD
U

)
(U

13
C

l
H

i
H

-
H

-
U)

CD •
C

l
H

C)
H

i
C

l
H

-
H

CD
H

-
H

-
=

C
l

H
-

13
CD

CD
CD

13
C)

CD
CD

0
13

H
C)

1-
Q

13
(1

)
H

H
-

C
l

(U
13

(U
(U

C
l

CD
C)

H
H

i
CD

C
l

U
)

0
d

CD
H

C
D

H
i

U)
C

l
CD

3
CD

CD
H

-
CD

0
CD

C)
C

l
I

C
l

=
H

(U
‘

Q
H

0
H

i
(U

U
)

13
CD

H
-

C
l

C)
CD

II
11

CD
CD

U
)

°
0

H
C

D

CD
C

l
0

0
i-

-

;
0

U)
13

h
U)

CD

C
l

H
i

C
l

H
-

p
j

H
\D

H
-

CD
Q

C
)

C
l

CD
0

C
l

CD
C

D
C

l
CD

0
H

-
0

C)
Q

CD
C

l
-

C
l

C
l

CD
(U

H
CD

H
C)

C
l

CD
3

0
H

-
0

U)
U

)
H

H
-

C
l

0
CD

S
H

-
U

)
13

II
13

CD
H

-
(U

H
i

H
iH

-
CD

H
-

13
CD

C
l

H
i

C
lU

)
U)

C
l

Q
(U

(U
C

l
H

-
CD

0
CD

CD
.<

U
)

CD

CD
H

i
‘

0
‘

H
-

H
H

-
U)

H
-

I
Q

C
l

CD
C

l
(U

C
l

CD
H

-
C)

13
H

-
CD

C
l

H
0

(U
13

H
-

0
C

l
U

)C
l

H
i

C
l

C
l

S
(U

(U
H

-
C)

(U
C

l
(U

0
C

l
13

:1
3

13
H

-
C

l
H

-
(U

3
CD

(U
U

)
CD

0
(U

C
l

U
)

13
CD

U)
C

l
CD

-
U

)
C

l
-

H
CD



CU
I
-
C

D
:

c-
I-

5
H

-
CD

C)
H

-
H

CD
U

)
C

D
C

D
C

D
C

D
CD

S
P

CD
H

CD
C

D
0

><
W

c
-I

-<
Q

CD
c-I

-
CU

(1
)

U
)

0
I—

’
CD

ç
t

O
H

-
CU

H
-

5
I—

a
c-I

-
c
-I

-Q
H

-C
D

H
,

CD
Q

H
O

W
CU

CD
0

H
-

J
CD

H
-

h
U

)
c-

I-
U

)
c
-
I
-

I
U

)
CD

t5
’C

D
H

U
)
J
-

•c
-I

-
H

-
-

H
-

H
-

H
-

Q
c-I

-
Z5

H1-
.
c
-
I
-

0
CD

CU
pi

C
sD

0
Cl

)
U

)
c-I

-
0

CD
U)

CD
Cl

)
CD

C
D

C
D

Q
C

D
H

—
-<

C
D

CD
CU

0
-.

H
-

3
U)

H
,

-
CD

C)
H

-C
D

C
D

CD
H

F
-

3
Cl

)
U)

0
CD

H
,

CD
CD

CU
h

C
)<

U
)C

U
CD

c-
I-

II
-

c
tc

_
t_

H
,

II
p

j
i

CD
0

c
-
I
-

U)

C
D

H
N

c
-
I
-

CD
0

0
CD

cI
-

C
D

c-
I-

H
C

D
H

-
-

H
-

0
C

D
C

D
1

H
c-

I-
H

-
S

H
U)

C
D

c
-H

I-
-t

,
0

CU
CD

H
H

-
CD

Y
C

U
CD

‘
0

H
CD

C
D

H
U

)
j

CD
H

,
0

U)

H
°

d
I

c-
I-

CD
CD

CD
U)

CD
p

.
>

<
C

D
c
t

CD
o

c-I
-

U)
-

-
CD

C)
H

-
CD

CU
H

-
H

-
U

)
U

)
U

)
0

‘
C)

-
••

c-
I-

CU
C)

1Q
c
t

C
D

O
H

-
•

-
H

<
C

U
’
0

H
-

c-
I-

CD
c-

I-
H

-
H

H
CU

U
)

CU
H

-
C

D
H

-
H

,
c
-

H
-
O

<
O

—
-

-
c
-t

-n
-

s
H

-
C

D
-

U
)
H

-
H

,
O

U
)

.
CU

U
)
Q

H
H

d
H

H
-

.
o

H
-

CU
-

H
,

U)
‘
-

U)
c-

I-
H

-
H

,
U

i
H

-
-

CD
0

I-
jH

-
C)

CD
U

)
C

1
U

)H
-C

U
CD

CU
H

CU
O

Q
C

U
H

,
0

L
O

-
CD

CD
F

-
C

D
c
-I

-5
c
-i

-
C)

Q
-

H
,

H
-

c-I
-

0
CU

C
D

i
p-

,
0

ti
C

l
H

0
C)

D
c-

I-
H

-
F

—
’i

lq
CU

C)
CD

c-
I-

CU
c-

I-
o

CD
CD

<
c
-I

-C
D

C
U

U)
•

F
-U

)
H

-
H

C)
CU

c
-

C
l

c-I
-

U)
J

c-
I-

Cl
)

CD
I-

:<
c
-
I
-

0
U)

CD
c-

I-
H

-
C)

H
C

D
H

C
l

C)
c-

I-
c-

i-
h

CD
c-I

-
CD

H
-

H
,

0
S

CU
k
<

CU
H

,
C

D
C

l
CD

U
)
O

c-I
-

C
D

C
D

H
-

H
,

H
-

C)
c-I

-
c-

I-
H

-
S

C
)

‘d
CD

‘1
c-

I-
c-

I-
c-

I-
C)

tQ
0

CD
CD

H
-

H
-

H
-

H
-

0
CU

S
O

H
,

U)
CU

C
H

-
CU

-
CD c-I

-
CU H

-
H

H
,H

-
C)

H
CD

--
c-

I-
CD

CD

h
g

-‘
3

C
l

c-I
-

c-
t

C
)

c-
I

U
)
j

w
C

D
C

l
U

) H
-

0
H

,
CU

CD
H

-
U)

U
)

CD
0

CD
C

D
O

H
-

1
1

0
)

c-I
-

H
-

c-I
-

F
—

c
-I

-)
U)

c-
r

c-
I-

<
C

D
CU

H
-

c-
I-

H
-

c-I
-

CU
H

-
H

-
H

-
‘3

CU
C

D
U

)
H

-
Q

c-
I-

CD
CD

CD
<

U
)
-

CD
c
-

CD
H

CD
CD

0
H

c
-I

-C
D

0

-
CD

H
,

H
C

D
c
-

H
,

CD
H1
1

M
C

D
H

.
‘

0
o

CD
CD

c-
I-

C)
CD

C
l

H
H

-
-‘

3

C
)O

U
)

U
)

0
H

-
c-

I-
H

C
l

‘1
CD

C
D

1
1

H
-

F
-

LQ
H

,
CD

Q
k

<
CD

(P
I
d

C
l

U
)

0
--

C
U

c-
I-

Ii
-

(P
H

,C
U

C)
CU

0
c
-
I
-
0

C
D

c-
I-

I
CU

CD
H

-
H

-
O

<
CU

H
,
O

C
lC

l
I

0
CD

CD
c-

I-
c-

I-
U)

U
)1

1
C

l
--

U)
C

l



“Why can’t a geographer. . .convey to the reader the feel of horizon,
sky, air and land. . . ?“

The early Sauer, concerned with geography as observational science

and survey, had emphasised the rigorous, systematic nature of

fieldnotes, defined against such “happy illustrations” as these

letters from the “field”:

“Notes are to be taken not simply when some happy illustration
impinges upon the consciousness of the observer but notes are to be
put down so systematically that they form a definite set of
quantitative data. . .

In keeping with his later move “beyond science”, however, Sauer

gave more emphasis to informal note-taking, questioning the very

basis of its scientific and exclusionary counterpart. Fieldnotes

could thus be both objective data and subjective reflection:48 “I

write when I want to get something off my chest”.49 With this

46 Sauer in Leighly, 1969, op. cit., p.403.

Sauer, 1924, op. cit., p.25.

48 The fieldnote comes in many forms: Sanjek (op. cit., p.x±i)
includes text accounts, reports, impressions, letters; Jackson
talks about diaries, transcripts, jottings, students’ notes, notes
from informants (in Sanjek, ibid., p.5). Jackson also portrays the
tension between the subjective and the objective conceptions of the
fieldnote - while one anthropologist interviewee claims the
ultimate subjectivity of “I am a field note”, another denies it:
“If I felt that ethnography just reflected internal states, I
wouldn’t be in this game” (ibid., p.21). This tension is matched by
Sauer’s advice to his students on writing their reports. While
Sauer insists on a detailed account of progress from Henry Bruman
(PC, Sauer to Bruman, 24/3/39) - he enjoyed his “notes” but
expected a more organised report - he advises Bowman to write by
sitting down and communing with his “inmost self intensively” (PC,
Sauer to Bowman, 23/12/38) and tells Isabel Kelly he wants an
unsystematic report with her personality in it, written in out of
the way places without “every tourist-archaeologist coming in” on
her (PC, Sauer to Kelly, 15/5/41)

PC, Sauer to Willits, 1/3/44.

109



plural conceptualisation of the fieldnote in mind, Sauer then went

on to think about writing the horizon.

While indicating the different guises of fieldnotes, Sauer’s

question thus directs us to the filtering process of writing: the

loss of the ‘subjective’ . Mary Louise Pratt, in her discussion of

the relation between ethnography and travel writing, notes how the

personal narrative of travel was progressively edited out -“killed

by science” - in the consolidation of the authoritative

ethnographic account.5° For Pratt, there remains a contradiction

between the subjective experience of the “field” and the objective

scientific discourse to which the finished text is expected to

conform. Sauer, with his “poetics of science”, seems to rest

hesitantly on the editing line; a hesitation which, for Donald

Meinig, is productive. Meinig applauds Sauer’s call for the

inclusion of the emotive in geographic writing, but is disappointed

that Sauer’s “own work is not strongly evocative in this sense”,

its effect coming from “breadth of knowledge and mature reflection

rather than from vivid descriptions”.5’ Unlike Meinig, however, I

read Sauer’s question more as a lament: an indication that his own

unpublished work was evocative but that much of this had to be lost

in translation: the authority of the discipline, perhaps, required

it.

If we look to Sauer’s fieldnotes, we find that Sauer does indeed

° Pratt in Hall and Abbas, 1986, op. cit.

51 Meinig, op. cit., p.320.

110



convey a “feel of horizon, sky, air and land”. Although his

landscape appreciation exists on many levels in the notes, it is

often evocative, picking out a “pretty little valley” or “lush

green scene”52 to elaborate upon (often romanticise) . On land near

Zapotlan, Colima, Sauer recounts:

“The long tree-shaded avenue through alfalfa fields. . .the drowsing
sun-drenched plaza of the town with its high trimmed laurels and
the rose-filled patio of the Hotel Diaz where the birds shout
haughtily all day.”53

He dwells on the colour and drama of the Mexican scene and veers

towards the ornamental and picturesque common in writings of Mexico

at the time:

“the magnificent view of the lateral baranca drowning the bay of
Tequila and the mountain behind. Banana and sugar cane plantation
below.. . all in all a topographic picture of the most romantic
school such as might have been acquired by the pre-physiographic
painters.

Sauer finds this “gem of landscape” in the Mexican summer “soul

pleasing” and “eye filling”55- not only an exercise in “field”

description, he treats landscape also as an artistic form.

Later, at sea along the west coast of South America, Sauer’s travel

notes also take pleasure in the horizon:

52 SN12, p.3.

5N8, p.34.

SNl4b, p.39. This quotation shows both Sauer tying into the
visual appreciation of Mexico and also landscape (painting and
perspective) as a way of seeing.

Ibid., p.38.

111



“off Cuba last night only a dark looming mass behind the lighthouse
on the extremity. This morning the sea much calmer with that well-
greased, leaden look that makes you think it quite opaque.
Against the eastern horizon the Haitian peninsula.

Moving from the sea-view of one landscape to another, Sauer

evocatively records the transition from the “absolute desert”,57

naked except for its darkly capped coastal hills to the excesses of

the tropics:

“under way for the lovely crossing of the canal. Verdent lush
green of the tropical forest. The formerly tilled slopes now
completely covered by a very course, large bladed grass, except
where clumps of bananas keep growing on their own, with surprising
vegetative vigor” ,58

and, fusing imagination with observation, connects landscape and

the past as he looks out from the ship:

“Where still the ghosts of Cubao?. . .strange to get one’s first view
of the last island sun by white men at such a distance that we
cannot see the changes wrought thus and could still look for the
smoke coming up from the villages of the Amah, watching the white
man sail by on his great missels. Fine cumulous clouds building up
in a sky of light, luminous blue.”59

This, then, is the kind of vivid description that Meinig misses out

on (as do we all) by focusing solely on Sauer’s published work.

56 SN21, p.1.

Ibid., p.33.

58 Ibid., p.1.

Ibid., p.1. This is rather a romantic view of the “Indian’s”
first contact with the “white man”, in awe of his “great missels”.
While Sauer wrote about the destruction of the Iberian conquest and
the decimation of the “Indian” population, this did tend to be
couched in a rather romantic-tragic rhetoric. This resurfaces in
Sauer’s comments on the “Indian” populations he interacts with in
the “field” in Mexico and in South America (Chapter Five and
Chapter Six): the traces of a “noble savage”.

112



o
c —

I-
I

Cl
)

0
tx

’
J

CD
H

-
CD

a
CD

h
•

I
ft

-
N

H
-

- 0

U
i

CD
W

H
I

IQ
C)

H
H

-
o

H
ft

w
< H

d

o
•
-

H
0

H w

C) H H 0 H 0

Cl
)

‘-
Ii

)
0

a)
Cu

C)
H

-
a)

CD
H

h
a)

CD
-

H
-

i
i

C)
tQ

CD

H
i

o
H

-
CD H Ii 0 ft CD a)

0 ft CD o C) H r

C)
CD

H
h

ft
a) 0

CD
Cu

-
H H ft

CD

H
i

CD
: CD

H
i

><
o

H
-

C)
C) 0

a) o

H H
CD

H

H Cu
CD

ft
CD

CD
Cu H

H

H
-

H
I

H

Cu
ft

Q
CD

o
CD

C
)

><
f
t

o H Cu
Cu ft CD

rJ o
o

I-

—
Cl

)
b

f
t

H
i

S
d

Cu
CD

0
Cu

S
H

-
CD

f
t

0
CD

a)
H

‘1
CD

f
t

S
5

H
f
t

a)
a)

I-
CD

CD
CD

CD
Q

C)
o

-
CD

H
a)

b
a)

H
a)

f
t

0
Cu

a)
CD

a
H

iJ
IQ

H
-

h
CD

CD
f
t

H
-

CD
f
t

i-
k
<

f
t

H
H

-
ft

Z5
Cu

H
-

H
H

i
0

CD
a)

H
-

H
i

f
t

CD
CD

CD
C

l
CD

C
l

CD
CD

CD
ft

H
-

I-

ft
Cu

H
-

a)
CD

CD
0

CD
CD

0
H

H
H

H
i

Cu
H

i
a

1-
H

H
CD

CD
CD

Cu
CD

H
C

l
f
t

H
-

H
i

H
-

H
H

-
CD

CT
)

H
H

i
H

i
f
t

0
C

l
H

-
j

0
a)

CD
H

i
Cl

)
H

CD
H

5
CI

)
a)

f
t

0
H

-
-

0
C

l
H

i
ft

CD
f
t

ft
h

Cu
O

H
-

CD
CD

CD
a)

a)
Cu

<i
-

CI)
CD

H
0

C)
j

ñ
H

Cu
H

i
C

D
H

-
a)

j.
H

-
ft

0
ft

0
-<

H
i

g
0

C
u

CD

f
t

C)
H

i
g

-
I
C

l
H

-
CD

f
t

f
t

ft
Cu

ft
CD

5
CD

CD
Cl

)
H

-

CD
ft

f
t

C
l

CD
t

tQ

CD
C

l
C

l
0

0

I
h

i
CD

f
t

Cu
a)

I-
Q

ft
H

-
H

-
a)

0
I3

CD
ft

0
H

-
Cu

lCD
Cu

0
i

a)
I

I
ft

H
i

H
i

Cu
H

-
a)

H
-

I-
CD

CD
CD

CD
H

H
C

l
CI)

C
l

CD
0

0
a)

f
t

ft
0

CD
0

H
i

H
h

J
a)

k
CD

I_
f

ft
o

D
-

C
l

CD
0

-
0 h

ft
=

I-
Q a)

f
t

‘d
CD

H
-

0
H

-
CD

CD
0

a)
I•

r-
I

- CD
H

i

H
-

CI)
II

C
l

ft
CD

a)
a)

CD
h

CD
h

ft
CD

Cu
CD

H
-

C
l

H
i

0
CD

ft
-

0
CD

Q
H

-
CD

CD
H

-
C)

‘
ft

H
Cu

f
t

CD
CD

ft
H

CD
0

‘-
Cu

CD
f
t

ft
f
t

ft
Cu

H
-

CD
d

a)
CI)

C)
CD

H
CD

CD
H

i
H

-
H

i
0

H
-

H
-

a)
CD

H
CD

-
a)

H
°

CD
H

-
a)

ft
C

l
a)

CD
H

0
CD

H
-

H
-

Cu
a)

0
>

H
i

a)
ft

a)
H

-
0

CD
CD

i-
H

5
ft

H
-

C
l

C
l

CD
CD

CD
CD

C) CD
0

H
i

-
0

b
H

i
‘-

H
i

CD
H

-
CD

Cu
0

ft
CD

><
H

tQ
5

H
I

H
H

-
CD

J
ft

CD
C

l
a)

CI
ft

H
-

CD
ft

<
a)

CD
•

a)
a)

Cu
CD

Cu
IQ

d
H

I
CD

i-
ft

0
CD

H
CQ

a)
a)

0
II

h
CI)

S
H

-
H

-
Cu

ft ‘-
<

CD
H

H

ft
a)

o
T:

3
0

Cu
CD

H
-

C
l

C)
ft

CI
)

:-
C)

CD
H

0
CD

C
l

-

CD
C) o

f
t

S
CD

CD
C)

H
-

f
t

a)
C

l o
H

-
0

f
t

H
i

C
l)

H
Cu

C
l

0
CD

CD
CD

-

0
f
t

Ii
f
t

Cu
CD

h J
H

H
-

<
Cu

‘I
CD

S
r

H
-

H
CD

C
l

-
CD

f
t

f
t

0) C)
0

H
-

H
i

S
CD

H
-

CI
)

a)
ft

C)
ft

ft
CD

CD
I-

i
CD

C
l

H
-

H
-

f
t

H
o

Cu
H

-
o

h
a)

a)
I-

H
-

H
i

H
-

0
C)

Cu
CD

-
H

-
•

H
i

H
-

H
i

ft
C)

0
::5

-
CD

CD
CD

C
l



John Leighly, this article represents only part of Sauer’s

published Mexican work and he advises that “The reader who would

follow Sauer along other Mexican trails . . .should look to Sauer’s

longer works on Mexico.M However, since comprehensive fieldnotes

and correspondence also exist for this period, we may look to

Sauer’s unpublished writings of the same time to find our other

Mexican trail: Sauer’s own road to CIbola.

Arrant swindlers and amazing dunderheads

In 1931, Sauer wrote with some excitement to John Leighly of his

work in the archives in Mexico City:

“I have some very old chronicles never published which will enable
me to carry out a minor project I have had in mind for some time,
a reexamination of the explorations of the northwest of Mexico -
“Roads to Cibola Reexamined”. That will be fun, to swat Fray
Marcos, reroute Cabeza de Vaca, Coronado and Ybarra.”65

The next year he published The road to Cibola which, true to his

word, attempted a thorough debunking of the route of the Spanish

explorers, falsely represented in their accounts. However, while

Sauer used these chronicles for his re-reading of the

conquistadors, it was from direct observation - from taking

archives into a well-travelled “field” - that he drew his main line

of critique.66 In the article, Sauer claims the “advantage of

64 Ibid., p.7.

65 PC, Sauer to Leighly, undated (probably 1931).

66 Sauer attributes the article generally to “fieldwork
directed to other ends”, a “by-product of five field seasons spent
in Arizona, Sonora, Sinaloa, Nayarit and Colima” (in Leighly, 1969,
op. cit., p.54). While “fieldwork” here could refer to both field
and archive, it is from the former that Sauer tends to draw on for
his argument.

114



knowing the country” and this distinguishes him from other

“commentators” on the explorations:

“I had occasion to cover, by car, on horseback, and afoot,
virtually all the country between the Gila River on the north and
the Rio Grande de Santiago at the south. I have seen all but a
very few miles of the route herein examined, and I have been over
a good deal of it a number of times and at different seasons of the
year. ,,67

Travelling the road and familiarity with the terrain thus allows

Sauer to reconstruct the scene at the time of the conquest. He

pieces together the routes by the distances and watering places,

physical features and settlements mentioned, matching up text with

relief. This first-hand knowledge is then used by Sauer for a more

critical re-reading - with the help of geography, he reinterprets

the historical evidence, questioning the feasibility of the claimed

exploration routes. In discussing why the Spaniards under Guzman

turned away from Cibola, Sauer reads the accounts against the

terrain and contradicts them:

“The common statement in contemporary accounts, and quoted by
historians, that they turned inland because they were blocked by
mountains along the coast, has no foundation in fact. These are no
more than isolated hills ,,68

Measured against his own knowledge of the field, selected explorers

are approved of or discredited by Sauer according to their

standards of observation and negotiation of the terrain. Sauer

approves of Francisco Cortes who initiated the northwestern

discoveries since “at first trial” he found the best route from

67 Ibid.

68 Ibid., p.62.

115



U)
(Q

CD
CD

>1
ft

H
ft

p.
,

CD
I—

’
CD

h
CD

U)
ft

CD

H
-

-
.

ct
p.

,

C
f
t

CD S
CD

U
)

CD I-
r1 CD

ç-
r

CD U)
C)

J

I-
‘1

H
-

CD
c
t

0
H

-
H

-
o

H
-

p.
,

H
-

H
CD -

ft

o
CD

j
h

H
-

H S U)
ft ft

)
I-

CD

ft
Q

CD
H

,
CD

ft
H

H
-

H
-

P.
,

ft
U)

H
-

H
ft

(.Q
0

=
U

)
0

Q
f
t
J
-

H
b

P
C

D
0

H
-
d

•
ft

H
-

O
f
tH

-
H

,U
)
0

f
t
•

p
.

0
F-

’
q
f
tC

D
W

C
D

H
-

Z
CD

ft
C

D
Q

.,
U

)
C

D
p

j
1
)

0 S
p.

,
H

-
C

D
J
d
C

D
U

)
f
t
C

D
=

‘<
CD

f
t
f
t

D
O

J
>

<

(Q
H

-
,H

-
H

-
1
Q

f
t
C

D
U

)
p

j
05C

)
O

C
D

H
,

H
-

f
t
H

-
Q

H
-

i-
f
t
.

ft
C

)
H

-
H

-
H

.

ft
C

D
H

,
C

D
C

)
0

CD
C

D
p
.
,
j
i
f
t
b
C

D

p
j
H

-
CD

H
I-

.
F

-
1

CD

-n

H

H
,L

..
,.

H
1
ft

C
D

O
f
t
o

h
h
Q

I
-

H
-

O
p
i

o h
ft

F
-
H

-
f
t

CD
JJ

CD
h

H
-

C
D

p
)
h

U
)

U)
b
’
f
t
f
t
J

J
p

J
H

-
0

.
C

)
U

)
_

S
H

-
C

D
0

(.Q
ft CD

CD
U

)
p
J
o

P
J

C
D

p
j

P
H1

H
C

D
)
C

D
C

D
(I

)
C

D
f
tp

.,
C

)
Q

H
,

0
ft

ft
0
P

J
f
t

U
)
p

0
CD

f
t
g
:

Cu
H

-H
-C

D
C

D

Cl
)

F
-

1
j
S

C
u
U

)
U

)
H

U)
CD

H
-
f
t
U

)
H

-
H

C
)

CU
U

)
p
j

H
-
Q

U
)

U)
U

)
_

1U
)

H
,
C

u
C

D
ft

P
-’

o
0p

i
f
t
>

<
CD

f
t

C
u
C

D
f
t
f
t
-
j
H

-
’
d

U)
0
-
1

H
-
O

H
CU

H
-

ft
H

-
C

D
p
.
,
f
-
Q

U)
<

CD
CJ

U
H

-
U

)
CD

U
)

J
C

D
f
t
P

J
Cu

CD
ft

C)
ft

C
u
C

u
h

H
-
P

J
H

ft
Cu

C
D

C
D

f
t
h

U
)
C

u
f
t
0

U)
P

.
CD

f
t
C

D
f
t
U

)
<

p

H
,

0
<

Cl
)

p.
,

h
Cu

0
f
t

H
-

H
-

H
-

0
ft

II
U)

S
U)

CD
H

-
‘1

ft
Cu

F
-

1
o

CD
U)

H
Cu

CD
-

‘1
CD

H
-

-
I—

I

ft
S

S
-

f
t

CD
I

ft

p.
,

:
Cu

CU
Cu

,
U)

Cu
H

-
Cu

I-
C)

I-
C

)
i

CD
C)

ft
CD

H
,

Q
0

Cu
- H
,

ft
h’

ft
H

CD

ii
CD

0
CD

-
-

U
)

h

o
LQ C

u
I-

U)
H

-
CD

I-
H

-
P

Cu
b

CD
CD

-
i

F
-

1
H

-
H

-
Cu

-
H

-
CD

U)
f
t

U
)

U)
P

‘<
P.

,
C)

F’
-

H
,

U
)

U)
f
t

Cu
H

-
C)

ft
0

<
Cu

Cu
Cu

0
d

o
CD

CD
CD

CD
U

)
h

I-
.

C)
U)

o
CD

U)
U)

H
CD

CD
Cu

‘<
Cu

i-
P.

,
Cu

o
H

P
Cu

Cu
H

-
H

-
H

U)
H

,
Cu

p.
,

P1
I
.<

CD
p.

,
H

-
Cu

CD
CD

CD
0

(
.
Q

f
t
H

,
C

)
Q

Cu F
-

1
Cu

H
-

U
)

U
)

H
-

U)
U)

H
-

ft
U

)
H

-
H

,
H

-
CD

H
,

C)
H

-
Cu

H
-

U
)

P.
,

Cu
Cu

ft
h

CD
CD

H
H

CD
P.

,
P

—
C

H
H

H

H
-

H
-

H

d
d

-
.D

U
i

c
.

•-
.j

L’
) D w

H H

ft CD Cu U) 0 Cu ‘1 0 U) U) H Cu C) C) Cu C) 0 H
,

0 U) CD Cu ft H
-

0

C
C)

-
,

0
F

-
1 Cu

Cu
ft

f
t

H
-

CD Cu
d

ti

CD
CD

ft
CD

CD
U)

><
C)

H
-

H
Cu

0
=

ft
Cu

Cu H
H

H
’

-.
,

0 H
o

Cu
H

,
H

-
U

)
U)

0
ft .,

0
H

-
CD

H
,

C) Cu H
F

- o
CD

Cu
ft

C)
CD

0
H CD

Cu U)
CD

ft
U) ft

0 ft

H
-

CD
U)

0
H

,
Q

0 h’
Cu

ft

H
-

CD
C)

•
Cu H

H
-

U) H
,

Cu H
-

H I-i CD ft 0



—
—

—
1

M
.

)

J
)

0
H

H
J

CD
b

CD
H

-
H

-
CD

I-
h

c-
I

N
-
,

H
-

-

d
‘d

0 d
D

—
J

CD
•

Is
)

H
H Q

C) H
-

H
c-

I

H

H
D

C

H
0

H
‘Z

I C) H
-

c-
I

u-
I

w

CD
CD

<
O

CD
1Q

CD
J

CD
h

CD

)
I)

H
-

CD
H

t
U)

fr
0

Cl
)

:l
i

c-
I

-
c-

I-
c-

I

CD
CD

0)
H

-
h

o
i

CD H
,

i
-

U)
0

c
t

c-
I

1
H

-
CD

‘-
4

H
0)

CD
(Q

i
CD

U)
CD

C
l

S
H

d
U)

CD
p
i

0
C)

0)
H

-
c-I

-
CD

H
-

H
,

CD
U)

c-
I

I-
H

c
t

S
-

0

a
c
-
I

J_
0

d
CD

CD
d

L
J

h
i

C)
CD

p
i

0
C

l
H

-
H

,
U)

I•
Q

CD
H

-
CD

CD
C

l
H

-
H

U)
H

C
l

H
,

c-
I-

c-I
-

S
c,

CD
i-

C
l

H
-

0
Cl

)

c-
I

H
-

CD
c
-

O
H

CD
CD

S
<

C
U)

CD
b

CD
U)

H
-

H
H

-
-

H H
-

CD
CD

(I
)

c-
I

U)
U)

P)
‘<

0)
C)

)
CD

C)
)

h
c-

I
l-

U
)

CD
0

c-
I-

0)
c-I

-
c-

I-
p

H
-

CD
CD

c-I
-

<
CD

C))
C))

H
CD

c-I
-

c-
I

CD
U)

H
0)

H
,

c-
I

H
-

o
p.

U)
0

U)
II

cI
-

CD
0

H
C)

c-I
-

o
c-I

-
H

,
U)

C)
)

CD
CD

H
-

i-

C)
)

P
c-

t
i-

Cl
)

-
CD

U)
c-I

-
I-

CD
c-

i
c-1

H
-

o
C)

)
h

0
c-I

-
I-

(Q
H

-
H

,
H

-
cs

H
-

c-
I

C)
)

C)
)

C)
C)

)
‘<

c
t

H
•

CD
0

0
CD

l-
H

,

-
C

l
C)

)
C)

)
H

,
c-

I-

H
-

0
;‘

s-
H

-
D

CD
CD

CD
CD

H
-

H
U)

H
Cl

)

C
l

C)
)

C)
)

H
0)

5
pi

c-
I

U
)

H
-

U
)

CD
c-I

-
C)

H
H

CD
d

,,
H

,
0

CD
CD

I-
i

H
0

5
H

-
H

0
c-

I-
U

)
O

H
,

U H
-

H
-

c-
I

CD
o

1Q
H

,
c-

I
I-

H
,

CD
CD

C)
)

CI
)

C)
)

c-
I-

c-
I-

c-I
-

CD
C)

)

_

i-
C)

)
c-

I
C

l
H

-
CD

U)
C)

CD
CI

)
z

=
-

C)
)

c
t

U) CD
c-

I-
H

-
c-

I-
CD

c-
I

C
l

0)
0

i-
Q

C)
CD

i-
(I)

CD
H

-
H

-
U

)
H

-
CD

CD
C)

1Q
C

l
H

-
C)

)
c-

I
C)

0
H

-
H

0
C

l
CD

i
c-

I

C)
)

5
0

Cl
)

C)
H

,
H

-
C)

C
l

S
C

l
‘-

tj
H

H
II

H
C)

)
CD

C)
)

C)
)

C)
C

l
C)

H
H

-
-<

0) C)
c-

I

-
C

l
CD

C)
H

H
0

H
-

C)
)

i
C

l
H

l-
C)

c
-

C)
)

H
C)

)
H

H
-

0
C

D
H

,
-

c-I
-

li
i

H c-
r

H
-

IQ
c-I

-
Cl

)
c-I

-
c-

I

C)
)

Cl
)

c-I
-

CD
o

C
l

CD

H
-

i

S
=

CD
C)

)
C)

0)
C

l
0)

S
CD

CD
C)

)
c-

I
c-

I
0

H
-
‘

I-

ii
-

c-
I

C)
)

c-I
-

CD
C

l
C)

)
c-

I-
=

I-
b-

,
C)

)
C)

)
<

H
,

C
l

CD
o

H
H

II
k
<

Cl
)

C)
)

d I
-

C
l

0 C)
h

CD
CD

0)
d

0)
H C)

)
0

C)
H

,

c
-
I

H
-

CD

c-I
-

C)
)

C)
.
•

C)
H

-
c-

I

c-
I

U
)

U
) C
D

C)

CD
H

><
c-

I
d

H
-

CD
C)

II
H

-
H

-
U)

CD
CD U)

C) CD
c-

I
.
.

CD S CD S 0 0 H
,

C
)

C)) CD N C)
) C
l

CD C)
)

C) C)
)

0
)
H

,
C

)
)

=
C)

)
H

a
)

H
b
c
-
I
-
0

c-
I

U
)C

)O
c
-I

H
-

0
H

C
lH

--
Cl

)
C

D
•

c-
I-

C)
H

O
C

D
c-

I
h

1
:3

-’
CD

Q
C

D
C

))
H

,
C

l
U)

c
-I

-H
O

C
D

H
-

U
)

C
D

0
)

h
C

)

C) 0
C)

)

c-I
-

H
H

-
H

CD
C)

H
-

0

c-I
-

:i
o

CD C) c-I
-

H
-

H
U) 0

c-
I

c
-

CD

C)
)

C
l

H
-

CD
U)

H H
c-

I

c-I
-

C)
)

CD
0) c-

I

H
-

H
-

CD
c-

I
H C

l
c-I

-

CD S
U)

0
-

C
l

CD
CD C)

)
-

d
C

D

U)
U)

CD
CD

CD o CD
c-

I
I-

0

CD CD 0 C) CD c-
I

U) c-
I

CD C) H
-

c-
I

H
-

C) C)
)

H CD CD 0 H S U) CD H H
,

0 II C)
) H H 0 U) c-
I

CD C
?

I- C)) H
-

H

c-
I

C)) c-
I

c-
I

CD

C
))

c-
C

D H
-

C)
c-

I-
I-

i)

C)
C

)
)

H
o

o
::

5
tI

I-l
i

H
-

H
-

,,
H

-
C)

U) c
-
I
-

1-
,

U
)5

H
c
-
I

C
)
)

O
O

)H
,

II
C

)
S

c-
I-

C
)-

1
CD

C
)C

))
C

D
C

D
1

H
-

N
C

l
h

C)
)

c-I
-

C
))

CD
CD

CD
c
-
I

c
-
i C
D

<
Ci

)
C

J)
-j

C))
c-

I-
C

))
c-

I-
C

)
H

-
1

H
-

C)
)

I
—

’
U)

U)
C))

l:j
-’

S
H

<
CD

O
H

-
S

d
c-

I-
O

CD
C)

)
1:

5-
l1

l
-

C
D

k<



H
h

L
CD

c
t

Cl
)

C)
H

D
O

C
D

0
(D

O
Cl

)
W

P
J
H

-(
D

S
H

1
(

C)
CD

d
H

-
’

h
)

-
f
t
-
-
J
f
r

H
-
O

<
H

-
H

I
-
-

Cl
)

CD
C)

Cl
)

Pi
H

Q
H

-
P

)
P

J
M

-
0

H
H

-
H

CD
H

(
D

C
)

h
C

D
0

H
’
-
<

H
C

D
H

-
.

H
H

-
C

)
P

J
W

C
lD

ç
t

ci
i
‘

i:-
’

CD
H

-
C

D
-

H
-

O
H

-
j
-

C
D

C
D

$
Q

O
C

)
‘
d
C

D
p
i C

r
H

i
H

—
.
.

C
)
C

D
O

H
k
<

H
H

Q
O

C
r
H

C
f
l
C

D
W

H
ç
j
0
H

H Q
H

D
CD

C
D

U
)

0
-
.

C
r

-
C

D
0

c
r

0
P

CD
-
.

H
0

H
C

)
C

r
H

-
H

C
D

p
)

-
H

-
Q

C
D

C
D

C
fl

h
C

r
U

)
CD

H
-

H
-O

H
ç
t

U
)
C

)
Q

H
-
i

•
Q

y
j
-
r
t

C
D

H
H

C
D

C
r

CD
d

O
<

C
D

C
r
i
C

D
H

.
C

r

1
°
-
F

-
’
C

)
ci

i
C)

U
)
M

1
O

H
.Q

C) CD
H

-
C

r
C

D
i

•
P

)
C

D

1
CD

0
c
t
H

0
)

p
i

C
D

H
-

C
II

C
D

1
CD

5
0

C
t

H
C

)H
-

I—
P

l
H

-
(-

rC
D

P
<

f
lC

)
C

D
l
i
M

.
H

-
H

0H
b
b
C

D
C

D
t-

h
(D

C
D

C
D

O
w

U
)

I—
’

H
CD

C
r

p
i

-

-
C

U
)

H
,

H
-

C
r

CD
C

t
0

H
U

)
CD

0
CD

Q
O

I-
C

r

CD
0

(Q
h

CD
CD

0
i

Cl
)

0
Cl

)
CD

CD
h

h
<

ci) CD

0

ç
t

CD CD
0

CD
I-

H
H

-
C

t

—
ci

i

ci
i

C
t

C
r

I-
CD

ci
i CD

‘
-

H
‘

H H
-

C
r

Cl
)

CD
H

,
CD C

r
S

ci) C
t

H
-

CD C
t

C
t

0 C
r

ci
i

U
)
O

U
)

C
t
H

o
C

r
0

d
C

D
C

)
CD

ci
)

S
ci

i
U)

C
tH

-O
C

r
ci

i
C

r
H

-
.Q

c
t
H

0
C

D
0

H
-

C
D

h

H
-

H
C

r
t

C
t

H
-

C
r

Q
C

r
Q

5
CD

CD
H

5
ci

i
H

,
H

-
CD

H
-

U)
C

r
CD

CD
U

)H
H

•
C

D
U)

H
-
H

H

CD

=
-
.

H
-

H
‘;

:
C

j
C

D

CD
J
U

)

C
r

0 S
CD

0 CI
-

(Q
C

rC
D

H
,

H
-

H
-

0
H

-
CD

:i
C

n
c
t

H
-

CD
H

-
c-

rC
D

o
cii

C
r

CD
Q

CD
0

c
t

p
jC

D

o
H CD cii

C
D

CD
C

r
C

U
)

C
t

0
H

-
D

CD
I-

CD
H

-
H

-
C

t
5

0
C

t
C

D
F

—
H

-
H

-
<

H
-

H
ci

i
ci

i
C

r
ci

i
ci

i
t

U
)

C
D

cii C
t

ci
i

j
çp

IQ

U)
c

CD
CD CD II C

r
U)

C
r

I-
h

Q
0

Q
H

,
0

I
H

-
b

H
-

H
-

0
U

)
U)

Cl
)

<
C/

)
S

C
r

CD
C)

CD
ci

i
0

‘1
0

C1
h

.
c

H
,

CD
C

r
ci

i
CD

H
I-

CD
CD

C
t

h
CD

-
,

H
-

k
<

H
U)

H
,

0
H

-
H

-
ci

i
CD

‘<
CD

C
t

I-
H

C1
h

C
I-

ci
i

Q
H

-
H

-
CD

C)
0

U
)

H
C

r
0

-
.

CD
CD

I-
j

•
U

)
“

C)
C

r
-‘

.3
C)

ci
i

ci
)

0
CD

CD
U

)
C

r
C

t
C)

CD
o

H
-

CD
H

S
i-

H
-

Ci
)

CD
h

H
-

CD
U

)
CD

H
-

H
C

r
H

,

o
.Q

CD
ci

i

CD
U

)
p
.,

C
r

“

C)
H

-
CD

C
D

0
H

O

I
U)

ci)
C

I-
C

t
C

r
ci

i
0

CD
CD

CD
ç
t

C
)
H

C
D

H
•
•

ci
i

0
CD

-
,

tQ
U)

H
,

C
r

C)
H

-
-

CD
CD

H
P

k
<

CD p
.

H
C)

0
0

0
CD

ci
i

C
r

p
i

C
I

I-
0

CD
H

-
H

-
U)

ç
t

I-
Q

CD
CD

CD
C

r
-

II
ci)

o
CD

U)
H

-
i

I-
p

.,
-
-

Cl
)

P

rD 0 F-
’

ID rr F-
’

0 Ca

0
0

H
c-I

-
M

b
0

II
U)

C)
CD

H
CD

0
CD

h
5

H
-

H
-

<
0

H
ci

i
CI

-
IQ

CD
I.

P
C

r
H

-
tQ

H
-

0
CD

CD
ci)

0
U) C

t
p
.,

H

U)
CD

C
t

CD
H

-
p
i

S
C)

I-
pi

I-
P

C
r

U)
I-

H
-

CD
U)

_

CD
0

-
ci)

H
H

C
r

H
ci

i
1
<

U)
1
<

0

p
.,

C)
I-Q

P
CD

CD
CD

S
ii

C
r

I-
i

C)
C)

ci)
ci

r
.

H
C

t
Cl

)
C

r
H

H
C

r
H

-

CD
I-

p
H

0
H

C
r

H
,

C
r

H
-

CD
H

I.
Q

0
H

-
H

-
h’

C
r

C
r

H
-

C
r

H
-

C
r

CD
Q

CD
S

ci)
ci

i
C

r
H

-
C)

H
-

C
r

0
k
<

<1
i

U
)

p
i

-
CD

H
P-

’
H

H

0
•

H

C
)

H
H

’
ci

i
C

r

0
C

r
H

I
0

H
H

ci
i

0
P.

,
U

)
-.

‘1
CD

H
-

CD
ci

i
H

-
C

r
C

r
P.

,
i

U)
1
<

0
-

P.
,

Cl
)

ci
i CD II



C)
H

-
H

-
1

0
0

Z
it

it
C)

CD
0

H
-

CD
U)

h
.

it
CD

it
cu

ct

o
it

H
hj

H
-

H
U

)
0

H
-

it
CD

CD
ci

)
-

H
C)

H
CD

o
U

)

H
-

cu
i

CD

0
U

) Cl
)

I—
’

-.
CD

CD
cu

i
C)

CD
CD

CD
C)

P)
it

H
H

-
o

it
it

0
o

H
-

;‘s
-

CD
U)

U)
—

C)
o

:-
<

.

‘1
.

it
Q

H
-

H
it

H
-

CD
o

C) H
u-

it
CD

CD
-

U)
U)

CD

o
CD

P
1

H
0

H
it

C)
cu

it
P

1
CD

U)
CD

0
C)

it
cu

U
)

CD
çu

it
CD

ci
i

i
H

-
I-

U)
CD

P
1

U
)

ci
i

P
1

P1
S

U)
ci

i
H

-
P1

H
-

CD
cii

H
H

-
U)

U)
it

CD
H1

CD
P

1
ci

i
it

cii
0

CD
cii

ci
i

C)
I-

U)
U

)
H

-
CD

it
ci

i
U)

:i
ci

i
C)

CD
5

ci
i

it
U)

-Q
CD

P
1

H
-

h
H

-
CD

CD
C)

CD
I

U)
H H

C)
H

-
-

it
CD

it
Z

it
-

CD
H

-
CD

it
it

<
II

CD
II

CD
CD

CD
cii

H
it

H
,

C
l)

H
,

H
ci

i
0

ci
H

U
)

it
it

H
-

CD
H

-
H

,
CD

CD
H

-
H

-
5

CD
0

CD
H

,
0

I
H

,
CD

0
CD

it
Cl

)
0

Q
Q

U)
H

-
0

CD
CD

CD
CD

CD
H

-
H

,

C)
CD

CD
it

H
it

1Q
ci

H
,

H
3

0
H

H
H

-
5

5
(-Q

H
-

k
<

$D1
CD

ci
CD

0
H

-
H

it
CD

it
P

1

-
0

P
1

0
0

i
t
C

l
)

H
,

0
C

D

it
I

H
-

CD
‘

CD
1:

3
U)

CD
CD

C)
U)

U)
ci)

0
0

=
H

-
U)

U)
<

H
-

H
,

CD
it

CD
<

L
I
.

CD
it

ci)
CD

it
cii

H
-

CD
H

-
i

0
i

it
H1

it
U)

P1
°

CD
H

,

it
it

0
H

-
H

it
-

0
CD

it
(D

CD
H

-
CD

CD
U)

U)
it

H
,

d
CD

H
,

ci
i

H
CD

-
H

-
CD

U)
H

,
0

C)
C)

it
it

ci
i

Cl
)

H
-

ci
i

-
ci)

P1
it

C
l)

it
CD

cii
CD

H
-

it
I-

H
,

H
it

cii
—

0
CD

ci
i

CD
U)

‘-
‘

1Q
(I

)
o

ci
i

o
CD

it
U)

0 o
cii

U)
it

H
-

cii
P

1
CD

CD

it
0 H

-
CD

it U)

N
cii

P
1

Q
I

U) 0
I-

Q

H
,

-
U)

i
t

H
-

H
-

CD
L

)

H1 -
cii -

CD
H

-

it CD 0 it CD U) H H
-

H H

H H

it
’d

U
)
1
Q

C
l)
‘
d

U)
Q

k
<

H
-

ci
i

H
-

‘d
0

H
-U

)-
it

H
-
U

)
C

D
c
iu

r
-
l

•
P

1
U

)C
)C

D
C

Q
it

-
-

c
i)

Q
C

D
C

D
U

)
0
0

-1
o

\
U

)
H

-
-

<
t
)
’

0
--

U
)i

t
C!

)
C!

)
c
i)

3
P

1
it

C
D

‘
d
r

h
H

-
h

i
t

ci
i

H
H

C
D

i
z
Z

u
<

C
D

O
H

Q
i
t
c
i
S

.
C

D
-‘ -

i
t
U

)
°

C
D

C
)
-

H
‘c

i
‘c

i
d
O

CD
•

•
M

J
H

-C
D

C
D

.
H

-
H

0
H

U
)

M
i
t

i
t
d
i
t
H

•
•

i
i

H
-C

D
C

)
°

U
)

P
1

C
D

i
t

h
Q

Q
H

,
C

D C
D

C
D
0
d

H
H

Q
F

-
(
Q

i
t

C
D

P
1

U
)

)
C

l)
C

D
U

)
H U

)

H
H

0
0

CD
H

-
‘

U)
CD

0
H

-
p
i
i
t

1C
D

-

c
i
)
p
i

0
•

P
1
C

D
it

d
H

,
F

l
C

D
H

C
D

P
1

H
-

5
Q

C
D

•
d

i
t
H

-
-

:
0

H
H

-
C

)-
H

Z
’
’
C

)
H

.
U)

-
;

U
)

H
-

‘d
i
t
•

<
i

CD

-
I

H
-
U

)
d
H

-
5H

-
U

) H
-
i
t
H

-
0

CD
i
t
c
i
i
i
t

H
-
C

)
-.

U
)H

U
)c

ii
H

,C
D

P
1

C
D

it
H

it

‘c
i

it
H

CD
(.Q

0
H

-
it

it
CD U)

it

0
CD

U
) H
-

C)
it

J_
H

-
ci

0
S

3 Cl
)

0
cii

H
-

CD 0
0 H

,

cii
P1 ii

it CD I- CD H
,

0 CD H CD U) U) C) CD I- it cii H H it CD H
,

H
-

CD H P
1

H
,

it CD P
1

CD cii H H H
-

CD H
,

H H
-

it



0
0

0
0

0
0

—

‘-d
H

Cl
)

C
)

b
Z

-
H

-
H

C
l
)
•

pi CD
d

d

rt
U

i
o

0
-

I:- CD H H H U
i

H H w H

U
)
C

)
H

-
C

D
0

CD
<

C
D

D
h

U)
h
rr

C
D

ci
i

-

C
r

CD

H
U

)

0
U

)
C

t

H
,

H
C

r
CD

CD
0

H
c
ii

ç
U

)

CD C)
H

-c
u

o
H

h
P

-
CD

-
k

<
C

)
C

o

C)
0

- -
ç
t

H
-

c
t

S
r
r

C
D

C
D

H

U)
‘
r
r
C

D
U

) H
-

o U)
ci

i
-

H
c
t

C
c
ii

C) o
U

)H

L
J

CD C)
C

r
C

r
U)

CD p
iC

H
U

)
C

r
o

o
I-

C
D

L
J

CD
H

-
U)

U)
C

r
Q

C)
CD

CD
C

•
CD

ci
•

I- CD

U) Q
o

:
b

‘—
s

U) CD h
ci

i

ci
i

S
ç
t

H
-

H
-

U)
H

0
U)

H
H

-
H

,
0

H
j

C)
-

ci
i

0
0

L
I

H
-

H
i

0

CD H
,

H
-

U)
CD

ct
iQ

CD
(‘

1

CD
I
1

CD
I-

)

C
r

ci
i

H
-

k
<

CD
H (-‘

II
CD

-
U)

U) C
r

C
r

H
-

0
0 U)

CD

ci
i

C
r

CD U) CD CD U)

CD
C)

0
H

I-
0

i
0

CD
U)

ci
i

H
-

H
0

0
CD

H
,

H CD ft
-

0
H

-
ç
t

H
,

CD

H
-

H
CD

0
H

H
-

U)
CD

H
C)

CD
CD

CD
H

-
ci

i
U

)
(,Q

I-
U)

5
0

0
H

ci
i

l-
‘-

<
H

-
U)

H
-

C
r

H
-

ci
i

H
-

H
CD

ç
t

D
H

-
II

w
Z

CD
H

I-Q
-

H
-

H
i

CI
)

C
r

H
H

-
ci

i
H

CD
CD

0
H

CD
c
i

i-i
H S

•
-

H
C

D
:

I-’
H

-
CD

C1
H

,
pi

0
C

r
0

U)
C)

H
CD

c
i

H
C

r

CD
0 H

,
ci

CD
H H

-
C

r
CD

ci
i

H
-

CD
U)

C
r

CD
CD

CD
H H

-
<

ci
i

5
H CD

C
r

hj
CD

ci
CD

Q
LQ

ci
i

0
CD

H
ci

i
H

,

C
t

C
D

0
CD

Cl
)

‘
d

0
c
ii

h

H
H

-U
)

c
i

C
D C

)
ci

i
c
i)

C
r

U
)H

CD
U

)
0

0
o

C
r

H
,

(Q
c
i
i
(

0
CD

CD
ç
t

t
C

D
H

.
0 hj CD

C
D

C) ct
H

C
r

C
l

0

C
r

C
r

-‘.
3

p
i

C
D

c
i

::
•c

ii CD 0 C) C) II II CD c
i

C
r

0

0
0

0
0

Cl
)

Cl
) z

H
H

0 -
ci

i c
i w 0 Cl
) z

H 0

ci
i c
i

H
-

U) U) I- CD 0 H
,

H
-

U) H C
r

CD II l- CD C
r

ci) C
r

H
-

0 U)

C) 0 C
r

CD U) C
r

U)

H
-

C
r

‘d 0
C)

0
CD

H
-

CD
CD

C)
i-

Cl
-

CD
H

C
r

C
r

r-
r

U)
H

ci
i

H
-

CD
U)

H
-

0
-

H
-

C
r

C
r

0
H

,
H

-
l

Cl
)

CD
CD

C
r

ci
i

H
U)

C
c
i

CD
H

-
U)

I
0

C
r

CD
C

r
CD

CD
H

H
-

i
0 C

r

CD
H

-
U)

cr
i

CD
0

H
,

-

<1
ç
t

CD
U)

C
r

ci
i

CD
CD

CD
C

r
H

-
-

-
C

Cl
)

H
-

C
r

H
,

i
CD

-

U)
h

H

‘-
<

H
C

r
ci

i
ci

i
ci

-
H

H
H

çt
U)

U)
H

,
0

0
ci

H
,

Cr
0

c
i

H
CD

H
H

,
U)

H
H

Q
H

0
CD

çt
CD

IQ
U)

0
H

-
CD

CD
l-

ci
<

t
H

-
‘1

CD
C

l-
C

r
U)

k
<

H
-

C
r

h
H

-
h

U)
0

CD
i

ci
i

H
H

,
h

ci
CD

CD
-

H
-

C
r

CD
H

-

0
=

H
-

Cl
-

c
i

i
C

r
CD

H
-

CD
C)

H
C

CD
CD

ci
i

C
r

h
C

H
0

<1
0

H
-

ci
i

H
,

C
0

C
r

ci
i

H
-

çt
H

-
0

0
U)

CD
H

,

H
-

H
-

H
<1

C
r

c
i

CD
1
J



contradictory, leaving Sauer to “gather up some of the observations

that remain through the confusion”.86 Sauer notes the constraints

of time on what he can see in the “field”, restricting him “within

the limits of observation of the day”.87 Similarly, the weather

and his distance from his chosen scene are also acknowledged as

distortions of the observational process.

Observation becomes even more complicated when Sauer descends from

his “vantage point” and travels. Much of Sauer’s observation is

while he is in motion - “things seen along the road”88- and we get

a sense of mobility in the notebook entries. The documented

itineraries give us the bare spatial bones to Sauer’s locomotion

while a more extensive travelogue mobilises us with him:

“This morning out to the southwest - road deeply sunk. . .Hence into
the wide terrace-flanked valley.

“Twelve miles out. .No houses until the last three miles. Broad
smooth apron of volcanic stuff, involving however steady climb. ,,89

In fact, along with Sauer we move “out. . along. . across. . over..

into.. north.. south.. miles out.. down valley., in search of.. en

route to. . upstream. . down river. .“ finding we are “crossing.

descending.. leading.. steaming forth.. heading.. drifting down..

walking west.. strolling by.. coming upon.. coming from.. riding

down. . walking one league from. . passing over. . bearing east.

driving back” while we are “on the road to.. on the street.. back

86 SN11, p.27.

87 Ibid., p.63.

88 SN8, p.29.

89 Ibid.

121



o
so

—

Cl
)

Cl
)

I1
H

H
M

d
d

M
-.1

H L%
J

L.’
J

Cl
)

t
H

-
0

H
-

0
H

W
)
H

-
Q

f
t

C)
Pi

0
H

-
Q

p.
1

H
i

h
3

3
H

i
O

H
H

-
I-I

0
H

i
CD

Cl
)

H
i

ç
t

Q
<

H
-

CD
0

CD
H

i
ft

P
J
-

CD
CD

H
i

P.1
<

H
i

U
Cl

)
0

CD
CD

ft
H

Cl
)

H
i

<
CD

CD
f
t

CD
CD

0)
I-

I-
H

3
CD

H
-

0
Ci

)
H

-
CD

h
C)

=
H

-
0

CD
Q

0
Cl

)
H

i
CD

f
t
H

i
-
t
C

D
C)

H
CD

ft
CD

-
H

1
0

Cl)
ct

rr
0
0

-
H

i
P

H
h

H
i

CD
CD

-
CD

Cl
)

()
•
f
t

H
H

-
3

-
CD

0)
H

H
-

0
CD

C
D

O
0

C
D

CD
Pi

ft
ft

H
-

H
i

0

CD
CD

C
D

k<
ft

H
-

H
CD

C)
5
0

H
-

CD
H

0)
Il

i
CD

p.
1

0
ft

Cl
)

r
r

Ci
)

CD
S

p

3
0

lo
H

-
Cl

)
c-

f
H

-
p

i
ft

Cl
)

0
H

0
H

-
Cl

)
C

f
l
1

p
.

CD
CD

CD
i

3
C)

fr-t
-

CD
CD

CD
H

-
f
t

Cl
)

Cl
)

CD
ft

i
H

CD
CD

H
H

CD
H

-
0

Ci
)

Q
p
i

0
0
.

Cl
)

H
c-

S
i

c-
r

c-
r

rr
F-

0
c-i

.
0

C1
—

CD
C

t
H

O
C

D
0

CD
CD

Cl
)

c-
r

Cl
)

H
i

H
i

IH
’

H
i

f
t

H
-

0
.

C
D

-
t
-

P
J>

<
H

H
-

ft
g

h
I
b

0
10

Cl
)

CQ
IH

0
.

CD
S

C
l)

i-
rj

H
-

f
t

I
Q

<
H

C
D

H
0

CD
<

f
t
p
J

H
-C

)
H

l
H

-
CD

H
-

CD
Q

H
0
.

H
-

CD
P)

C)

H
-

0

H
-

CD
CD

U
0

H
-

Ci
)

CD
H

i
0

ft
H

-
C

D
CD

ft
0

-
-

l
ft

p
.

0)
‘<

f
t

o
CI

)
C

l)
ft

CD
C)

CD
H

P.1
CD

P1

0
ft

CD
h

P1
H

Cl
)

H
-

0)
CD

H
-

CD
CD

CD
.
-

CD
H

-
f
t
H

:
f
t

H
i

0)
0
.

H
i

CD
0

H
-

H
ft

P1
P1

P1
-
P

1
H

Cl
o

o
H

H
i

Cl
)

H
ft

CD
C

)H
i

0
S

CD
:c-

ft
U

)
CD

j
p
j
f
t

C
D

C
D

CQ
3

CD
Cl

)
H

-
CD

H
p

H
-

CD
CD

ft
H

H
-

Cl
)

H
CQ

0
H

-
CD

H
-

—
CD

<
ft

H
-

ft
P1

p1
(.Q

CD
H

b
Ci

)
CD

C
D

C
D

S
0C

D
0)

H
Cl

)
-

f
t

Cl
)

H
-

H
i

CD
ft

P1
—

P1
-

C
)
f
t
O

H
-

P1
CD

Q
l-

-
Ci

)
0

.
-

C
l)

p
j

H
i

f
t

H
w

0
.

-

CD
ft

ft
0

-
CD

Cl
)

0
)

f
t

CD
H

i
q

Cl
)

o
D

H
i

CD
j
C

i
)

C
)C

)
H

i
0

.
p.

H
-
H

CD
H

i
CD

P1
H

-
H

-
C)

P1

o
0

C)
0

N
H

‘
P1

o
H

Cl
)

H
i

0
H

ft
H

i
P1

0
.

-
:H

-
P

1
p1

CD
-

H
CD

0
.

ft
H

-
C)

0
H

-
H

-
0

CD
CD

Cl
)

1
Cl

)
0

0
0

f
t

P1
ft

f
t

H
o
P

1
i
.

1j
I

H
Cl

)
0

.
f
t

C
)

H
-

0
H

P1
Cl)

CD
P1

p1
C

D
I-

f
t

ft
l1

‘1
0

-
—

Cl
)

0
.

-
p1

H
CD

-
H

-
O

f
t

ft
p

P1
0

H
i

C)
o

CD
H

i
Cl

)
Cl

)
CD

P1
f
t

H
-

H
-

0
CD

I-
CD

H
H

i
p1

P1
H

I-
Q

H
-

0
H

-
CD

C)
C)

C)
H

-
CD

5
j)

CD
p1

C)
w

-
0

CD
CD

O
H

Cl
)

3
CD

P1
H

i
C)

ft
I-

P1
CD

H
-P

1
O

0
Cl

)
ft

CD
0

CD
0

P1
H

C
l)

C
l)

I
0

0)
0

ft
0

•
CD

5
0

.
Cl

)
C

D
ft

ft
H

i
CD

-
H

i
0

Cl
)

ft
0

.



“We’re through with Sinaloa. This end of the trip has been most
disappointing of all and there is no fooling away more time here”92

and goes on to write extremely negatively about the “field”:

“Further north we had cold nights. Here the nights are heartless
and the days a furnace heat. We’ve eaten so many beans and
tortillas that Hewes eyeballs have turned yellow. The whole coast
is full of typhoid, dysentery, and malaria. . .we’ve eaten quinine
and smothered ourselves in mosquito nets until we’re sick of it.
We’ve charged our water. . .with soda until we don’t like water.
We’ve lived in, eaten, drunk and breathed filth until we’ve decided
to shake the bacillus-laden dust of Sinaloa from our feet and get
some good American food at Navajoa. . This country at present is just
infernal and we’re quitting it, I think with no great detriment to
science.

In his report to the Foundation on his return, Sauer also outlines

the difficulties of travel and the obstruction of his efforts by

conditions on the west coast.94 The southern area, reports Sauer,

was “out of the question because of rain and floods”, the physical

conditions the worst he had “ever encountered”. Sauer was kicked

by a mule and had to abandon a trip to the Sierra Madre and was

unable to exert himself for weeks; Hewes, his “field” assistant,

was ill with jaundice.

Even Sauer’s archive work was fraught with difficulty.95 In

92 pc, Sauer to Leighly, 5/11/31.

Ibid.

This is a less graphic account and written to a different
audience - foundation rather than friend and colleague. It may
perhaps stand as an edited version of Sauer’s letters to Leighly -
a more formal report that tones down the hardship of the “field”
and claims the productivity of the trip.

The difficulty of the physical climate of the field is
matched by the political climate in Mexico city where Sauer works
in the archives. The politicians and the military men are rioting
in “barbaric splendour” and “the upper class Mexican says ‘How
long, lad, how long?’”. Sauer foresees the “abyss” rather than the
“dawn of a new day” as a result of the political activity. The

123



H

U
H

,C
U

I—
h
c
ic

iQ
M

,
Z

CD
II

CD
0

H
-

0
C

D
C

D
C

D
C

D
C

D
0
2
h
h

)
H

C
D

0
H

-
,

H
-

H
H

-
H

-
H

P
)
0

0
)
(
-
Q

C
D

Q
L

J
Q

Cl
)

c
i

,-
‘

C
D

C
l)

C
D

C
D

P
)

C
D

w
C

l
)
h
h
r
r
M

C
D

0
-
t

i ci
H

-
H

-
H

-
(2

c
iH

.
C

D
C

D
0

0
)
p

CD
<

f
-

C
D

C
D

H
.

c
iC

Cl
)

H H
C

D
H

C
D

C
D

H
()

P
)

H
0

H
H

-
H

H
-

H
-

-
-
‘

H
’
-
<

0
2

I
-
Q

H
.O

H
(
D

C
D

0
2

CD
-

Q
C

)
<

Q Di
C

D

CD
C

D
°
c
i

0
(
-
.
)
-
‘
-

H
-

c
i
1
H

C
D

D
i

C
D

0
H0
2

0
(2

C
D

Cl
)

C
D

ci
j-

C
D

“
<

H
-c

i
H

c
i

0Z
D

l
Cl

)
CD

H
C

D
0C

D
C

D
1-
t

H
-

H
-C

D
CD

H
-

0
d

p
i

Cl
)

S
W

Q
Q

)
p
H

-
c
i

0
2

C
D

i
-

C
D

Q
0

)
H

H
c
i
Q

H
,
(
l
)
D

J
c
i

C
D

0
.

H
c
i
C

D
c
i
H

‘t
J
C

D
.

p
i0

)
•

0
2
i—

]
-
c
i

0
2

c
i

H
-

(2
Cl

)
c
i

Q
H

-
C

D
Q

Q
D

i
H

-
h

c
i

ci
l-

Q
C

D
C

l)
C

J)
•

c
i

—
C

l)
D

iC
D

:
C

f
)

•
C

D
H

0
D

l
CD

0)
p

z
i

c
i

c
i
H

C
D

C
D

Cl
)

Di
0
)-

<
CD

i
I-

CD

Cl
)

H
Di

CD
H

CD
c
i

CD
CD

Di
Di

H
,

H
I-

H
,

H
H

-
CD

‘-
<

c
i

(2
-

CD
c
i

Ci
)

CD
H c
i

b
H

-

0
k
<

0)

Cl
)

:- Di

D
i

Cl
)

c
i

Di
Di

Cl
)

0
CD

Co
<1 in

H
-

H
-

-
CD

H
-

-
i

02
Cl

)
D

i
11

-
0)

CD
H

-
0

H

CD
‘

C_
)

Cl
)

Cl
)

0
CD

H
D

i
c
i

H
CQ

0
;i

i
H

,
Cl

)
c
i

D
i

D
i

0
H

!j

Ci
)

c
i

H
-

H
CD

<
0

0
H

-
H

-
0

c
i

c
i

H
-

CD
c
i

D
i

c
i

H
-

H
-

c
i

D
i

D
i

D
i

<
c
i

Ø
CD

U)
CD

CD

Di
H

-
0

I
H

,
H

c
i

D
i

H
-

l1
C)

C
)

::
5

0
CD

H
CD

C)
Cl

)
CD

0
Di Cl)

_

c
i

•
•

Cl
)

c
i

H
-

0)
CD

0
H

‘-<
C

)
0

Cl
)

H
S

c
i

0
C)

H
CD

r
D

_
Di

-
Di

Cu
H

,
H

H CD
H

H

H
-

-
0

C)
c
i

c
i

c
i

Di c
i

0
0

H
,

H
-

C)
CD

0)
D

i
C!

)
H

D
i

c
i

d
-

CD
CD

CD
Cl

)
-

Cl
)

CD
H

0)
c
i

CD
c
i

D
i

H
CD

CC
)

0
H

0)

Di
0

Cl)
H

,
CD

H
-

CD
D

i
CD H

CD

c
i

c
i

H
-

c
i

H
-

c
i

c
i Di

CD
D

i
c
i

c
i

H
-

c
i

<1
Di

H
-

c
i

CD
c
i

H
CD

CD
CD

•<
I-

C)
Cl

)
—

H
c
i

5
0

Di
H

-
D

i
CD

J
H

c
i

C)
CQ

CD
Cl

)
c
i

CD
0)

D
i

‘<
Cl

)
CD

CD
H

-
c
i

H
0

H
H

-
0

H
,

H
,

<
Di

CD
c
i

H
-

c
i

D
l

CD
c
i

0)
CD

CD
CD

i-
0
)

CD
0

H
CD

H
-

c
i

(2
•
-

D
i

D
l

D
i

H
=

H
p

c
i

CD
c
i

Cl
)

D
i

CD
H

-
CD

CD
Q

CD
CD

H
C

l
CD

i-
C

Cl
)

Di
H

CD
c
i

0
D

i
h

C
l

C
l

CD
c
i

0
CD

CD
H

,
0

C
l

H
-

0)
D

i
0)

c
i

cc
0

c
i

-
0

H
0

CD
H

,
c
i

C
C

CD
Dl

D
i

Di
H

-
(2

CD
<

CD

()
CD

I-

0
H

Cl
)

D
i

H
-

c
i

0
H

,
C)

H
-

h
H

-
0)

0)
H

0
fl

H

CJ
)

c
i

C)
c
i

<
Di

D
i

Cl
)

a
.Q

c
i

Di
CD

CD
H

,
0

Di
Dl

Di
H

,
-Q

Z
‘-

H
-

0
CD

C)
j.

()
D

l
1

h
D

0
c
i

H
CD

H
D

’
0)

0)
c
i

H
-

CD
0

H
-

C)
CD

H
CD

CD
<1

0)
0

c
i

H
I-

CD
—

‘
Di

0
H

-
Cl

)
D

i
0

H
,

CD
‘-

0)

c
i

0
(2

CD
H

-
C

l
Cl

)
0

5
H

-
D

i
H

-
c
i

D
i

c
i

<
H

I—
’

CD
Cl

)
Di

Di
C

l
CD

CD
0

c
i

Cl
)

Z
0

0
CD

0
c
i

C)
I-

Dl
CD

c
i

c
i

C
l

C)
)

H
-

D
l

0
H

CD
D

i
Cl

)
L

J

0
c
i

Di
H

,
II

b
Di

c
i

-
c
i

CD
CD

CD
c
i

CD C)
CD

CD
0

Cl
)

Cl
)

c
i

CD
0 H

-
c
i

CD
CD

C)
0

C
l

c
i

Di
H

-
=

0
C)

Cl
)

0
CQ

(-Q
Cl)

CD
I-

c
i

C
l

CD
Di

()

-
c
i

h
0

C
l

H
i

H
-

0)

c
i

0
cc

H
,

CD
CD

CD
0)

H
,

0
0

h
H

c
i

C
l

Di
0)

CD
0

0
0)

H
,

cc
H

J
<

H
-

H Di
C

l
CD

0)
0)

C
l

C)
0)

Di
H

,
-
J

c
i

0
H

c
i

h
CD

c
i

I-
c
i

c
i

CD
CD

C
l

CD
CD

d
(Q

Di
H

-
CD

i-
C)

0
c
i

c
i

(
H

h
C)

h
Di

H
CD

d
CD

-
-

H C)

H
D

i
CD

C
l

Di
H

,
H

Di
Di

C)
h

CD
c
i

C) H
-

Di c
i

CD

CD



0
tJ

C
I
)
r
tr

r
C

n
r
tl

r
t

rt
Q

p
.

C)
C)

H
C

l)
h—

a
r
t

Pi
U)

h
H

-
o
p

J
C

D
o
p
ip

J
I
o

‘1
c
D

o
F

-4
0

I—
’

CD
H

-
P

J
C

D
E

I
0

Pi
‘d

CD
-i

,
cn

F
t

J
H

-
0
0

Pi
CD

<
0

C
D

lCD
p
.

H
-

p
.

H
-

p
.C

D
r
tC

D
C

D
I
Q

U)
CD

H
-

I
-

H
-

C
D

C
D

I
CD

P)
rt

CD
CD

H
C

D
.
3

C
D

1H
U)

I—
a

U
)p

.
Iii

$
CD

CD
I—

’
H

,
h

:H
-

I
D

‘0
‘0

p
.

CD
‘0

L
q

Q
H

-I
o

°
°

H
-

P
iC

D
z

Pi
0
U

)
H

-
0

CD

o
0

H
-

F
t

0
H

Ip
.

Pi
‘
C

D
H

,
CD

i
O

p
ip

.
Ip

i
U)

d
F

j
H

.
F

t
I
P

J
F

j
b

0
0

H
-
P

)
-
t

‘1
‘
d
<

o
I

C
t

p
.

-
U

)
0
k
<

F
t
O

f
t

H
-

H
-

P.
’

-
I
-

it
t

H
-

0
p
.

F
t

<
C

D
U)

C
D

ç
-t

<
IC

U)
H

(D
H

-
p

.
U)

P.’
p

.
F

tO
C

D
I

CD
CD

(I
)

‘
P

)
Cl

)
H

,
p

.
.‘

t.
J
H

,C
l)

H
-

0
P.’

H
-

F
t

F
t

it
CD

CD
h

IC
)

lo
Pi

p
J
:
U

)
0C

D
(
Q

0
o

CD
p
.

IH
’.

CD
.0H

C
D

0j
CD

pj
p
.p

.’
CD

C
D

CD
IP.

’
F

t
CD

F
t

H
-,

--
tC

D
H

-
H

IF
-I

-
-

H
-

I
H

-
C

D
Cl

)
H

-
C

D
C

D
U

)
c
t
0

IC
CD

c
t

><
I

F
t

it
Pi

H
CD

it
H

-
H

-
IF

t
U

)
p

i
0

CD
H

-
F

t
CD

F
t

H
-
<

•
-

P.
’

IC
)

F
t

o
CD

CD
><

CD
0

3
I

H
C

D
H

-
°
t

I-
Q

f
J

H
-

CD
i
.<

c
t
h

I-
i

U)
I

-
c
i

C
D

U
)
U

)
H

0
0

o
U

)
p
.U

)
C)

U)
H

,
CD

F
t

P.)
0

0
CD

0
H

-
Ib

-
CD

U)
0

P
i
H

-
H

C
D

C
D

F
t
-
t

H
H

-
H

,
0

10
‘

(P
I_

CD
H

,C
D

C
D

CD
CD

F
t

U)
CD

H
,

0
Pi

H
,

u
(P

Q
C

D
p

.
Ipi

F
t

H
,

F
tF

J
O

H
CD

CD
0

p
.

CD
o

CD

F
-

1
p
.
H

0
H

Q
F—

i
o

p
.

i
CD

C
D
1-
r

CD
p
.

H
-

U)
H

,
H

-
0

CD
U

)
H

,
U)

0
H

H
,
U

)
0

CD
H

-
H

,
0

Ii—
0

H
,

(P
CD

C
D

p
p

.’
-<

CD
H

-
U

)
I

Pi
ç
t

H
-

i
0

-

p
P

i
U

1
C

c
t
o

H
’

lCD
0

H
-

0
H

-
0

S
CD

p
.o

H
,

<
p.

0
F

t
F

tF
1

C
D

0
CD

CD
H

-C
D

F
t

0
H

-
H

ç
t

0
0

C
D

w
C

D
C

D
U

)
H

-
ç
t

0
lo

0
O

(
j
)

F
t

F
t

F
t

CD
C

D
Iu

H
,

I-
I

‘-
<

H
-

H
,

CD
CD

d
H

pi
P

H
-

F
t

p
.

3
-

CD
p

.
-

Pi
CD

H
-

<1
0

p
.

P
i
F

t
p

.
p

.
’

0
C”

(P
o

U)
F

t
H

-
Q

U)
P

0
CD

CD
Pi

i
t
H

’
Q

it
it

H
-

I
ç
t

H
-

CD
H

,
H

-
‘0

F
t

F
t

.
F

t
C’

)
CD

H
,

F
t

P.’

H
-

U
)

P
i
0
U

)
CD

3
H

-
i

CD
C

D
0

—
F

t
F

t
U

)
C

D
H

-
0

o
C

U)
IC)

C’
,

C
CD

0
U)

H
,

0p
.

p.
C

D
H

0
CD

IH
h

H
-

CD
U

)p
J

i-
Ib

0
CD

H
,

it
CD

C
D

H
’
C

p
.

p
.

it
H

F
t

C
D

U
)
C

D
i-

tP
i

C’)
H

’
p

.
p.’

IH
H

-
-

-

P.’
p.

H
--

ç
t

IP
-

_

H
-

P1
H

-
H

S
Q

-
CD

H
-

CD
F

t
.
p

j
p
.

d
U)

c
t

CD

U
)

.C
D

H
-C

D
C

D
F

t
-

U
)F

t
S

U)
H

-
F

t
CD

P.’
-

0H
-p

.
H

-
C

H
’

0
C

l)
F

t
F

tH
C

D
H

0
0
H

-
p

.
F

t
F

t
CD

0i
t
0
U

)
p
.
.

C’
)

CD
H

,
P.’

F
t

H
,

H
-

H
0

‘-
C

h
l

H
-
r
iF

t
H

-
CD

H
,F

t
-

CD
Q

C
D

F
t

F
t

H
-

P.’
CD

D
II

o
U

)
C

D
H

<
H

,
0

(P
P

U)
it

h
CD

C’
)

CD
H

,
C’

)
p.

CD
U

)
s

-
H

-
C

U)
Pi

0
0

0
H

-
CD

it
i

P.’
H

CD
CD

-
CD

H
-

I-
F

t
it

H
-

U
)

5
C

D
I—

’
P.’

(
P

P
U

)
C

D
p
.

CD
H

-
U)

.
r
t
H

CD
0

F
t

F
t

P.’
-

CD
H

C
D

H
p
.

0
-

F
t

H
-

it
H

-
CD

Pi
U)

0
0
tH

-
H

H
-
C

D
I
C

D
CD

it
Q

F
t

P.’
CD

H
-

-
H

,
(P

C
D

F
tU

)I
P

i
-

-
CD

H
-Q

U)
F

t
Cl

)
H

-
it

F
t

CD
F

t
H

-
I’-

H
-

U)
H

-
5

F
t

Pi
(P

U
)

0
F

t
i
t
I
0

.‘
O

F
t

p
.

(P
H

,
P.’

F
t

J
P

)
O

C
D

(
P

0
I
P

i
H

F
t

F
t

CD
F

t
Q

CD
H

H
it

•
C

D
F

t
C

D
t
-
F

t
p

.
-

0
P.’

H
C

D
C

I-
0

H
C

D
I-

p
.

h
k
<

13
0

CD



Leighly and to the Foundation, each stage editing out a little of

the hardship of the “field” which is finally silenced for authority

in the published article itself.

Compound eyes

If Sauer was silent about his “field” experience in his

articles, the participation of others in the field was equally

hidden. Despite his criticism of the lack of autonomy of the

conquistadors and their not relying on first-hand observation,

Sauer himself relied on guides for his own fieldwork (see Figure 8)

and the “seeing eyes” of students in the field when he was in

Berkeley. Sauer’s fieldnotes refer frequently to informants:

whether an impersonal “they” or “he” or “guide”.1°° Information

comes from a wide range of characters - groups of “old fellows”,

“Indians” - or a disembodied voice in the field: “it is said..”,

“it is thought...”, “it is believed”, reduced finally to the

“word”.’°1 When he is not in the “field”, Sauer has a network of

100 This depersonalising of informants is interesting for the
debate on the superorganic: whether Sauer takes individuals into
account in the “field” or just sees them as “cultural messengers”.
Interacting in the “field”, Sauer pictures cultures as distinctive
wholes physically and rarely names those that he communicates with
as individuals. Some, for example in the Mennonite communities in
Mexico (see next chapter) are given names and histories but most
are reduced to just informant status.

101 Sauer’s correspondence with his students in the “field”
equally emphasises the role of the informant. Robert Barlow (PC,
Barlow to Sauer, 9/12/41) writes to Sauer of the importance of a
joint effort in the “field” with local people with the ethnographic
and linguistic background that he does not have. Similarly, Robert
Bowman (PC, Bowman to Sauer 21/1/39) and Homer Aschmann (PC,
Aschmann to Sauer, 18/7/54) are both directed in the “field” by
local informants. Different fieldworkers do however have different
types of interaction. Bruman seems to mix with the local elite,
socialising with the “true cosmopolites” of the “field”. He is
given “the run of the place” in the Archivo General and the

126



C1
2

II-
..

CD

c
z

C
D

C
Ii 0

xp
J

CD x c
X

’-
i

t\
)

Cf
l

P1
D

t1
2
P

i

—
CD

•
‘)

‘1
tl

)
CD

tI
C

D -1
.

D
)L

Q
rt CD

C
D

C
D

cn
cn



support workers - a host of seeing eyes - on the lookout on his

behalf. Sauer writes to his student Robert Barlow in Mexico City:

“While you are on the Yopi trail see if you can pick up anything

further on Pinome”?102 and to Donald Brand (another student) for

his opinion on Cabeza de Vaca’s route and location from the

“field”.’°3 Isabel Kelly appears to be Sauer’s main Mexican eyes

(his “mental companion”) , recommending local contacts and checking

his theories in the field and preparing the way for his

fieldwork.104 Sauer’s being and seeing in the “field” was

therefore partly vicarious through his students and one step

removed from his own presence in the “field”, although this was not

acknowledged in his work. Similarly, while Sauer may have rejected

the guidebook in Mexico, he did not reject Mexican guides and

therefore his trail of “discovery” in the “field” and his writing

up of notes was as much a joint process as a solitary one. Sauer’s

Biblioteca Nacional in Mexico City and feels “at home” with his
host family (PC, Bruman to Sauer, 24/7/38). Homer Aschmann
travels about with the lorry of the Provision de Aguas carrying
potable water into the peripheral areas and comes into contact with
“Indians” in La Guajira who refuse to speak Spanish - you have to
know their language to do business with them (PC, Aschmann to
Sauer, 9/8/54) . James Parsons writes to Sauer from Colombia in
1946 of how he passes for a “profesor” of California which has
increased his interaction, picking up stories on Indian graves and
their location: “They pick up the ball from there and the
adjectives flow freely” (PC, Parsons to Sauer, 11/9/46) . There are
limitations, however, to who can class as an informant: “I didn’t
know that one ever talked to Mexican women” (PC, Stanislawski to
Sauer, 6/4/40)

102 PC, Sauer to Brand, 22/11/43.

103 PC, Sauer to Brand, 20/6/38.

104 This is perhaps because Mexico became her permanent address
rather than a place to travel:”it is a swell country; I like the
people and I like the country, and I can hardly remember having
lived in Berkeley.. .1 feel one of the local populace.” (PC, Kelly
to Sauer, 2/2/35)

127



authority as independent journeyman and sole author of the

fieldnote is therefore a little displaced.

Total recall?

“We have to think of the ancient orator. . as moving in imagination
through his memory building whilst he is making his speech, drawing
from the memorised places the images he has placed on them. “°

It is quite ironic that Sauer should criticise the memory of the

conquistadors since, as we saw at the beginning of this chapter, he

himself was renowned for his tendency to rely on “headnotes”.

While not wishing to challenge the capacity of Sauer’s memory nor

deify writing as the true means of recording, remembered

observations must be seen to especially problematise authority from

the “field”. Headnotes, says Ottenberg are “kinder - and more

dangerous” than fieldnotes, “all too easy to revise to suit some

current theory”.106 The mind is not a passive receptacle for

headnotes, waiting to spill them out in pure form onto the written

page: it is an intervening agent in the writing process, its

contents continually in flux. The “field” thus cannot be perfectly

maintained in the head, unaffected by travel and interaction and

the context of “home”; moving through his “memorised places” Sauer

would also be changing his mind. The unstable and unreliable

nature of the headnote must then detract from any claims to

accuracy in Sauer’s work. Looking back on former fieldnote

silences, Sauer himself seemed to realise the difficulties of his

own headnote method which, sometimes forgotten, provided him with

105 Hutchinson, op. cit., p.28.

106 In Wolf, op. cit., p.88.

128



no basis for comparison on his return : “I didn’t record the land

as I saw it. Mea culpa.”°7

In a sense, we have come full circle, beginning and ending with

Sauer’s “memory building”. We have, however, achieved a certain

“movement” in Sauer’s textuality that has allowed us to question

his authority along the way.108 Firstly, writing has been set in

motion from the “field” and from Sauer as “author”. Since the

fieldnotes can be seen to “cross” the boundaries of the “field”,

they cannot retain their authority as facts untainted by Sauer’s

relation to other texts or to the “home” context. Secondly,

Sauer’s published work has turned “kinetic” - been read

differently, “explosively” - through a critical comparison with his

fieldnotes and the filtering movement necessary for authority has

been exposed. Like Hutchinson, I have attempted to think about

Sauer’s textuality as mobility so that its “experiential

dimensions” - the processes of writing and remembering rather than

the traces of the written product - can be revealed. The

alternative - writing as dwelling - allows writing to be “cut off

from the subjectivities and circumstances involved in its

making”.’°9 Maintaining the play between Sauer’s published work

and fieldnotes and the connection with the circumstances of their

making, we move on to Sauer’s The personality of Mexico and an

alternative form of textual dwelling in the “field”.

107 SN11, p.22.

108 Hutchinson, op. cit., p.4.

109 Ibid., p.30.

129



I_
ti

H H CD H c_
c

H
-

c_
c

H CD

L
i

H L
i

O
C

D
H

P
)

C
D

U
)

i
t
i
H

2i
t

0C
D

c
_
c
U

) U
)

ç
c
2

CD
CD

Cl
)

i-
I
.i

tp
j

C
D

C
D

C
D

C
D

p
j

c
-
c
u
)

H
0

0
H

H
c
_

H
-

H
il

i-
1
-
:j

H ç
t

0 H
,

c
_

r
n

c_
i

H

C) 0
(
0
0

c
r
P

)
,-

cC
D

U)
‘
_

C)
0 H

iH
c_

i

C
D

C
D

2
)
0

‘d
C

D
C

D
’

J
U

)

U
)
_
l

(j
)

2)
0

H
-

CD

H
-

c_
cc

_c
H

0 C
D
0

H
C)

H
C

D
O

o
U

)
0C

D
0 -

U
)

ti
) H
-

0
c
_
c
U

)i
t

0
H

H
-

H
H

c
_
i

c_
I

C
D

C
D

-

I
-

H
c
_
tp

j
w

H
(D

c
t CD

i
t

2) C
D

U
)

U) 0
2
)

c
_
c

c
_

c
U

)
J

c_
c

H
-

c_
c

U)
‘J

U)
0

2)
2)

H
-

C)
Ih

H
0

I.
Q

c_
I.

0
CD

0
lo

2
)
H

-
C

D
H

-
0

0
)

0
CD

Q
2)

U)
12

)
C

D
H

i
0

CD
it

H
h

H
-

U)
IQ

H
C

D
H

-H
iQ

C
1
)

Q
U

)
Z

CD
lit

P
)
I
lP

)
U

)
2)

c_
c

H
-
C

D
it

0
p.

,
I

C
D

H

H
0

H
H

-
‘
<

2)
p.

,
0

H
C

D
-
O

C
D

lp
j

H
I

CD
Q

P
H

c_
c

0
H

-
()

IC
)

C
D

Q
U

)
h

2)
H

-
it

CD
H

:-
H

i
c_

I.
IH

0H
C

D
-

H
-

9)
CD

H
-

CD
H

H
,-

Z
C

D
Cl)

H
-

C)
10

CD
IH

0
c
_
in

CD
P

-
CD

it
0

IP
i

H
-

CD
0

CD
H

i
c_

i
H

CD
Cl)

9)
H

-
it

9)
H

-
U

)
it

2)
c_

•
<

CD
H

-
0

CD

0
CD

3
it

H
-

><
0

I.Q
c_

I
I
_
d

H
i

c_
c

i
-
k

<
p.i

H

CD
9)

it

CD
H

1:)
-’

9)
H

CD
U)

c_
i

9)
U)

9)
0

H
H

CD
CD

c_
c

p.
’

c_
i

H
H

-
U)

U)
9)

U)
2
)
C

D
U

)
c_

c
it

CD
c_

c

CD
0

CD
9)

h
U)

H
i

2
)
9

j
p

.
’
U

)
U

)
c_

c
U)

9)
CD

CD
H

-
H

-
9)

<
2

)
C

D

c_
I.

H
2
)
c
t

U
)C

D
H

H
i

p.
,

p
c_

c
‘
tj

H
2)

CD
I
.
<

H
-
i
t
H

I
l

0
p.

,
H

-
it

c_
c

Cu
H

-
H

U
)
Q

9
)
c
_
c

c_
c

Q
C

D
U

)
CD

CD
U)

H
-

0
U)

()
C)

H
H

-
H

E
H

-p
.,
.

U
)

H
i

CD
H

-
H

i
CD

H
-
H

i
Y

U
)

1
H

-
H

,
H

CD
H

-
it

H
Cl

)
U)

c_
c

c_
i-
0C

D
p
j

CD
9)

0
9)

9)
2)

H
H

-
9)

(
c_

c
p

g
U

)
it

C
D

CD
CD

2)
it

2)
H

-
CD

U)
H

-
H

1
H

H
-

CD
H

-
H

9)
c_

i-
it

CD
H

9)
-

H
-

CD
9)

H
-

U)
0

H
-

it
9)

U
)

C
D

C
D

CD
U

)
i
t

H
it

CD
-

•
‘

0
H

-
9)

,<
H

G
i
t

<
it

p
j

CD
-

.
,

C)
0

it
°

CD
0

H
-

CD
C)

U
)

it
=

CD
H

i
H

0
-

0
H

9)
c_

i
H

9)
-

k
<

c_
i

U
)

CD
CD

U)
C)

_
- H

-
c_

i-
U)

U)
9)

p.
,

U)
C)

c_
i

CD
H

-
0

9)
9
)
i
t
Q

0
0

it
H

,
H

-
U)

II
CD

0
H

-
C)

C
H

-
C)

it
0

h
H

0
0

><
9)

=
H

-
0

C
D

f
r
i

H
H

-
i

CD
H

it
2)

c_
i-

H
-

CD
CD

9)
P

it
3

C)
CD

U)
1

it
C

D
C

D
H

CD
0

it
Q

U)
H

it
h

I-
H

-
i
t

H
9)

CD
it

0
H

-
9)

C
)
0
2
)

-<
U)

9)
CD

P
3

2)
lCD

U
)

CD
C

D
H

iU
)C

D

z 0



Figure 9: Sauer, Mexico and its personality:
about to write up, 1941.

131



involved in the past” in Mexico, as were “all of his students

without exception” who worked in that” field”,5 and he therefore

was not interested in the Mexican present. Additionally, for

Duncan, Sauer’s “personality” is in keeping with the “drowning of

living detail”, the homogeneity assumption of the superorganic (see

the Introduction) and even justified since it focuses on the “less

complex”6 rural Mexican past. However, while Sauer may have been

interested only in the past academically, the conditions of his

fieldwork were contemporary: The personality of Mexico as the

product of fifteen years fieldwork, like The road to Cibola, had a

“story” to tell. Similarly, while Sauer may have published Mexico

“at a distance” as modal national type, bounded and defined, he was

caught up in a web of complex cultural interaction in the “field”.

Thus, taking contemporary culture from Sauer’s subtext and bringing

it to the fore, we can rethink Sauer, the border and the

superorganic view of culture.

A cultural reading of the border for Sauer was not solely a

textual, academic affair located in the past but also a personal,

practical and very much contemporary dilemma. “Steaming forth”

across the dividing line between Mexico and the United States -

“the greatest cultural boundary in the world” - was integral to his

self-definition against the modern and the constitution of an

Parsons, pers. comm. (L) , op. cit.

6 Duncan, op. cit. p.194 and Geertz in Duncan, p.197. This is
a strange statement given what we know of Sauer’s views on American
culture as homogeneous, uncomplicated and characterised by
standardisation, in opposition to the rural areas in which he
worked. Duncan’s assumption of homogeneity for Sauer’s Mexican
“field” area is, as we shall see, misplaced.

132



antimodern cultural 11homel.7 Like other “bewildered witnesses” of

change in the United States, Sauer looked across the border to

peasant communities in Mexico - akin to the “simple folk” of his

past - as cultural and emotional compensation. As antimodernists,

they went to Mexico to “feel the soil” and to escape the “gray

commercialism” and “nervous cities” of the United States and looked

for their lost sense of authenticity and tradition in rural areas.8

Thus Sauer’s stepping away from the beaten trail in the “field” was

not only legitimation for the geographer but personal aversion to

the culturally modern; the trail of the journeyman not only one of

discovery but discovery of the cultural past; the “field” a

cultural as well as an academic home.9 Sauer thus had a vested

interest in defining Mexico as continuity rather than change.

This return to Sauer’s antimodernism further problematises the

question of authority in the “field”. While in Chapter Two we saw

how Sauer’s own fieldwork experiences were tied into his directives

for the “field”; how his identity as a geographer was used to

create the “rules” for the subjectification of others, here we see

the “field” connected to Sauer’s life experiences as a whole and to

SN11, p.3.

8 In practice, then, the Mexico/United States border was also
conceptualised as continuity/change. Mexico was seen by the
antimodernists as “closer to a parental Europe” (Robinson, op.
cit., p.147) and “in the thick of history” (Deplar, op. cit.,
p.25), its native population providing a connection with the
“America” of the past (ibid., p.91). Constituted as such, Mexico
provided a welcome escape from a modern United States that seemed
to be characterised only by change: it was a “barrier against the
blighting southward progress of Anglo-Saxondom” (ibid., p.38).

See Clifford in Grossberg et. al., op. cit. for a discussion
of the interrelation of conceptualisations of fieldwork and
culture.

133



-
0

P
H

0
f
t

H
-

Q
.,

Cl
)

CD
CD

CD
C)

0
h

H
CD

0
h

p
j

Cl)
Q

-
Cl

)
H

-
H

<
C)

CD
)

i
H H

,
Cl

)
CU

H
,

f
t

C)
Q

I
CD

hj
0

o
ii

CU
><

CD
f

Cl)
H

-
CD

ft
C)

ft
L.

Q
I-

CU
-.

--

:
C

)

-
-

H
-

H
-

H
-

0

CD
0

H
-

ft
H

(
l
)
C

l
) CD

C)
H

-
ft

CD
CU

CD
I-

H
-

f
t

CU CD
H

Q
I

0
CD

0

U)
C)

ft
H

CD
CD

CU

F
-

CD
CD

CD
0

CU
H

-
ft

CD
Cl)

k
<

H
H

;s
H

-
CD

H
-

0
CU

0
S

ft
H

C)
CU

Cl
)

CD
CD

‘1
o

—
=

C)
Cl

)
Cl

)
5

CD
CU

ft
CU

H
-

ft
U

.

i
0

Cl)
0

CD
Q

I
H

,
—

CD

I-
H

-
CD

CD
CU

>
ft

Q
I

H
-

CD
C)

h
S

0
CD

0
C)

I-
5

ft
CD

CU
H

k
<

0
CU

CD
H

5
F

-
1

CD
H

-
ft

-
J

Cl
)

C
l
)

Cl
)

C
U

0
Q-

,
‘1

CD
CD

CU
ft

Q
I

H
-

C)
Cl

)
CU

ft
H

CD
F-

’

g
C

l)
<

CU

CD
CD

=
I- Cl

)
H

-

t
CD

CU <
Cl)

H
-

0
Cl

)
i CU

H
-

F
-

1
ft

H
-

ft
k

b
0

CD
H

,

C)
CD

f
t

CU
‘<

CD
F

-
1

Cl
)

ft
5

f
t

CD
CU

o
H

ft
‘-

CD
i-

i
CD

0
H ;J

CU

Cl
)

Cl
)

f
t

CD
=

0
0

CD
ft

Cl
)

Q
I

H
-

C)
H

-
h

CU
CU

Cl
)

‘-
<

H
ft

•‘
-

CD
CU

C)

Cl
)

C)
F

-
1

CD
f
t

CU

H
-

CD

—
ft

F
-

1
H

,

o
H

-
C)

Cl
)

H
,

CU
‘-

H
0

CU
IC

-
I
-

ft
I

CU
CU

ft
CD

IC
)

‘1
lC

D
H

-
CU

o
Q

I
CD

0
1f
t

Cl
)

I
CU

ICU
ft

0
H

-
ft

I’—
H

,
C)

h
t3

IH
-

CD
CU

:;-
CD

IC
J)

i-
0

H
ICU

ft
H

-

If
t

ft
0

IH
-

CD
—

IC
CU

CD
CU

ii
Cl

)
Cl)

(Q C
D

0
0

H
,

-
H

,
ft

0
C)

H
Cl

’
i-

i
C)

CD
CD

<
S

H
,

CD
CD

F
-

1
f
t

H
,

C
l)

ft
h

H
-

H
-

CU
CU

CD
ft

C)
:

ft
H

CU
CD

CD
CD

Q
CD

CU
CU Cl)

<
Cl)

H
-

CD
CD

h
f
t

ft
k

<
H

0
1Q

CD
H

,

.
- 0

H
-

Cl)
ft

ft
-

CU
CD

H H C
D

CU
H

—

w
ft

Q
I

CD

Cl)
CU

0
Cl)

H CD
:-

F-
’

H
k
<

Cl) CU
o

ft H
-

ft
S 0

C
D

I-
IH

,
IH I><

-

IH
-

CU
I K 0

H
-

C) 0 H1 0 H CU H H
-

Cl) C) 0 Cl) CD H
-

Cl
) CD CD CD ft 0 ft CD C) 0 C) CD ft 0 H
,

H
,

H H
-

ft H ft CD

CU
-i

i
0

x
i-

H
-

CD ft
H Cl)

ft
0 0 H

,
0

CU S
f
t

H
-

CD

CU F
-

o
CD

I-
C) CD

0 H
,

CU
0 S H

-
CD Cl)

-
H 0

w CU
CD f
t

CU -
CD CD

1x
j o

H
,

I-

f
t CU

CU —

Cl) CD 0 (Q C
U H
-

C) CD CU H Cl) 0 CD CD ft 0 CU CD Cl) Cl) ft CD ICU I I>< IH lCD 0 H
,

H Cl
) C) H1 ft CU H1

CD CD H H
-

ft H ft CD 0 Cl) 0 H
,

ft CU H
-

ft H
-

0 CU H CD CU ft CD 0 Cl
)

CU CD CU ft CD

C)
0

5
CU

‘d
I-

h
CU

CD
H

0
Q

.
f
t

h
Cl

)
Cl)

CD
Cl)

Cl)
II

0
0

C)
H

-
-1

i
0

H
-

CU
H

<
-Q

ft
F

-
1

ft
Cl

)
CU

H
,

f
t

CU
II

h
H

-
i

CU
f
t

I-
Q

-.
H

C
D

f
t
H

H
,

CD
H

-
CD

CD

0
)<

CD
CU

h
H

-
H

C)
H

Q
I

C)
Q

I
)

f
t

0
0
C

D
<

CU
h

CU
Cl)

H

H
-
‘

‘
C

U
:

ft
IQ

Cl)
Cl)

H
-

CD
Q

-,
ft

5
0

CU
0

IQ
b

h
Q

I
I-

::
CU

ft
CU

H

CU
Cl)

CD
CD

CQ
CU

‘1
CU

H
H

-
f
t

C
U

CD
Q

I
0

Cl
)

CU
CU

:
Cl)

Q
I

CD
H

-
CU

h
< CD

Q
I

U)
CD

-
H

-

a
CU

Cl
)

H
H

ft
H

CU
CD

CD
Q

0
C)

ft
H

CD Q
I

(
CU

Cl
)

ft
Cl

)
CU

CU
H

-
CU

ft
0

S
CD

CD
0

CD
Cl)

I-
Q

I
H

CD
ft

CU
ft

‘-
CU

ft
0

:i
Cl

)
CD



C) H H H
i

H
i

0 H Q I-i 0 U) U) CD II CD
H

ft
w u-

I

0 C) H ft H 0 H H 0

H
-

Il
Pi

C
D

C
D

U
)

ft
c
-I

-f
-I

O
H

-
C

D
Il

O
H

-
W

U
)

C)
H

-
ft

z
)

CD
0
Q

b
h
jH

i
CD o

CD
H

i H ‘
0

C
D

Il
.
C

D
W

H
-

H
-

U)
C

)P
)

ft
C

D

cu
H

I
l

0
CD

C
D C

D
C) O

r
U

)

ft C
D

cu
j

Il C
D

U
)

H
-

H

C
D

C
D

o
H

-
‘I

c
t
j

i
c
t
P

J
C

D
I
lr

t
II

0
H

C
)
C

D
C

)
C

D
H

U
)

H
-

Cu
-

i
CD

CD
f
r
f
t

U)
-
O

—
‘C

D
H

i

I-
o

ft
f
t

I—
I

C)
H

i
cu

i
i-

i
H

-
f
t

ft
1t3

H
-

0
0

II
p)

f
t

0
t

CD
0

H
-

0
U

)
‘I

H
-

Il
H

i
ft

0
f
t

3
)

H
i

Il
CD

H
-

h
H

><
Q

C)
U)

CI
)

U
)

II
IC

)
CD

CD
ft

ft
CD

CI
)

U)
CI

)
U)

ft
ft

H
-

d
0

I
H

-
CD

U)
H

I
ft

CD
II

CD
‘1

H
8

C)
II

U)
CD

H
H

-
H

-
CD

C)
CI

)
h

(Q
ft

CD
f
t

0
H

-
CD

U)
H

-
CI

)
Q

IC
)

H
-

ft
C)

ft
H

i
CD

f
t

p
U

)
ft

H
-

CD
ft

U)
C)

CD
H

CD
CD

1H
II

ft
CI

)
CI)

d
I)

ft
=

H
i

ft
<

CD
U)

CD
H

CD
CD

ft
CI

)
CD

CD
Il

H
F-

I
C

l)
II

H
-

CD
CD

k
CD

U)
CD

CD
<

0
ft

CI
)

H
-

CI
)

H
-

U
)

‘I
H

-
U

)
CD

CD
CD

H
i

CD
ft

H
CD

CD
U)

CI)
CD

0
ft

f-u
-

U
)

C
H

i
ft

0
CD

Q
CD

Il
k
<

Il
H

-
I
l

H
H

-
C

D
ft

U)
CI

)
CD

o
U

)
U

)
CD

0
CI

)
Il

CD
CD

CD
H

-
U)

II
II

U)
CD

H
-

ft
H

U
)

C)
<

H
-

H
-

<
H

-
C

l
C)

U
)

5
0

p
CD

f
t

H
-

CD
II

CI
)

k
<

CD
C

l)
C)

ft
II

H
CD

CI
)

H
-

H
U)

H
-

CD
CI

J
CD

CD
°)

H
CD

‘1
f-u

-
CD

ft
U)

U
)

CD
C

l
CD

H
Il

ft
H

-
H

-
H

-
U)

CD
ft

CD
CD

U)
ft

H
-

Il
f
t

o
0

II
CD

H
-

U)
CD

0
H

i
-
-

0
H

-
H

ft
ft

ft
5

<
CD

CD
5

II
C)

ft
ft

0
CD

CD
H

-
CD

II
-

C)
Q

C
l

C)
CD

H
-

C
l

CD
5

f
t

(
CD

CD
C

l
H

-
0

C)
CD

ft
CD

H
-

II
CD

U)
CD

‘d
II

CD
f
t

1
CI

)
II

CD
U)

CD
Il

1
Il

C)
H

i
CD

II
U)

II
f
t

Q
0

-
ft

CD
II

L
J

H
’

CI)
CD

U)
II

0
0

0
0

CD
II

Il
H

-
H

i
II

‘-I
H

-
C)

.:
CD

Il
CD

0
0

f
t
H

-
C

D
C

D
C

D
C

D
CD

U)
Il

CD
0

0
CI

)
H

-
CD

H
-

H
H

-
b

1Q
-

CD
H

i
C

D
C)

CD
ft

H
-

ft
L

J
I)

3
C)

C)
H

-
<

H
-

-
0

C
l

H
CD

ft
CD

CI
J

0
CD

II
-

H
i

H
-

C)
-

C)
H

-
Il

f
t

ft
<

CD
F-

’
H

I-
CD

I-
U

)

ft
H

-
CD

U)
C)

-Q
0

II
o

H

Il
f
t

CD
H

O
U)

H
-
H

C
D

b
H

i
H

i
H

H
-

CD
H

H
H

ft
‘I

CD
U)

H
-

CD
H

-
C)

H
CI

)
H

C)
CD

ft
ft

5
CD

CD
U)

CD
H

H
U)

CD
CD

S
H

-
[-

h
ft

H
-

CI
)

ft
CD

ft
H

i
o

H
i

d
H

-
C

CI
)

CD
0

1Q
H

-
II

H
-

CD
CD

H
,

S
C)

H
-

CD
><

H
0

‘<
I-

H
H

i
0

0
H

-
ft

U)
CD

CD
H

’
CD

ft
H

-
CI

j
H

-
Il

5
-
.

0
H

-
S

p
ft

C
l

CD
CD

U)
-

II
0

H
Il

0
CD

H
CD

CI
)

CD
-

CD
CD

S
ft

II
H

H
-

H
i

U
)

H
-

C
l

II
U

)
U

)
)

C)
CD

0
f
t

CD
CD

ft
H

-
U)

H
i

CD
f
t

0
H

-
II

CD
CD

U)
CD

CD
H

-
C)

f
t

f
t

H
CD

H
H

-
H

J
C

l
CD

CD
0

0
CD

CD
CD

ft
U)

ft
H

’
CD

CI
)

f
t

CD
U)

C
l

H
i

H
-

H
I-

-
U)

0
U)

C
l

H
CD

f
t

ft
H

-
U

)
H

-
t

H
-

ft
ft

Q
H

-
H

H
-

ft
ft

CI
)

CD
ft

H
-

ft
CD

‘-
<

CI
)

U)
0

H
H

-
LQ

D
0

CI)
H

CI
)

ft
H

’
H

-
ft

3
U)

C
l

-
U

)
0

ft
CD

CD
CD

II
=

CD
H

i
-

CD
—

U)
0

CD
0

0
ft



constitution. Once these are shown as ambivalent and the

stereotype as never completely fixed, agency can then come into

play in terms of room to travel away from the cultural whole. At

issue is Sauer’s identity as much as his ability to define (with

authority) that of other cultures. Turning to Sauer’s

correspondence and fieldnotes allows for this more ambivalent view

of Sauer and “personality”. Interacting with Indian, Mennonite and

urban Mexican communities in the “field”, Sauer’s self-fashioning

involves anything but the “homogeneity” that Duncan attributes to

his “work.. .in the rural regions of Mexico”.

Man and nature’2

This is the title of an elementary education textbook written by

Sauer which focused on “America before the days of the white man”:

a movement region by region through North America with “Indian”

life as the organising concept. The book demonstrates Sauer’s

concern with the “Indian” base to American history and with the

importance of recognition of other cultures. Additionally, adopted

by various “Indian” tribes in the United States and Canada, it

stands as testimony to the “germinal potential” (see Conclusion) of

Sauer’s work. What it does not do, however, is show how much “man

and nature” were part of Sauer’s image of antimodern “home” as well

as his respect for native culture.

Writing on his foray into “Indian” cultures in Mexico, Sauer

12 The focus on “man and nature” here is inspired by George
Lovell’s colloquium “Carl Sauer and the crisis of representation”
at the University of British Columbia, 3/3/93.

136



said:

“By chance and by choice I have turned away from commercialised
areas and dominant civilisations to conservative and primitive
areas. I have found pleasure in “backward” lands.”13

Sauer turned to Mexico’s “Indian” population by both “chance and

choice”. On the one hand, crossing into Mexico for discovery, he

found that he “couldn’t get very far on Spanish towns, missions,

agriculture without knowing about the Indians”: “the whole

structure rested on an Indian base”. Therefore, “without having

intended to do anything of the sort”, he became an “Indian

geographer”.’4On the other hand, despite this “unplanned” movement

“back in culture and in time”,’5 Sauer’s identification with the

“Indian” in Mexico was part of the conscious turning towards the

premodern of his work and life.

In keeping with the Indian as antimodern (and) base, Sauer “roots”

(and writes) The personality of Mexico in the Indian culture of a

“deep, rich past”. While he is aware that an “invasion by the

modern, Western world is under way”, its impact for him is only

partial, insufficient to “dominate or replace native culture”.’6

Sauer in Jackson, op. cit., p.15.

Sauer, pers. comm. (V) , op. cit.

‘ Ibid.

16 Sauer in Leighly, 1969, op. cit., p.lO5. Sauer goes on to
say: “the conquest will remain partial. . .The American motorcar now
does duty in remotest villages; but it is loaded with the
immemorial goods and persons native to the land.. . It and other
machines, however, are being adapted to native ways and native
needs”. This mix of the machinery of the modern and native needs
resurfaces in Sauer’s encounter with Mexican poverty below.

137



Sauer thus passes over the modern and focuses instead on the

geographies of the prehistoric and the sixteenth century,

maintaining that these are still “the most important things to know

about Mexico”.’7

Sauer’s fieldnotes and correspondence, however, show a more urgent

concern with the “modern invasion” of Mexico. For someone who

declares confidence in the resilience of native culture, Sauer

seems paradoxically alarmed at the threat of its disappearance.

Rather than dismissing modern change as inconsequential, we

therefore see Sauer grappling with transformations in the “field”

and attempting to preserve Indian culture on several levels.’8 On

the one hand, as James Parsons states, this tendency of Sauer’s to

be “always for the Indians” puts him “well out ahead of his

time”.’9 Both American and “Mexican” forces were in part aimed at

“Indian” assimilation and Sauer, true to his culture history,

argued in practice for “Indian” distinction.20 However, on the

‘ Ibid.

18 This, then, is another element to the importance of time in
the field for Sauer and another side to the “hapless fieldman”.

‘ Parsons, pers. comm. (L) , op. cit.

20 As we saw in Chapter One, Sauer’s culture history involved
the championing of the plurality of cultures and the bringing in of
the “simple folk” of “backward lands”. While early on this
involved a focus on rural communities in the United States, it was
later broadened out to native peoples in Mexico. Sauer’s work
involved both a reconstruction of demographic conditions at the
time of Columbus and also a critique of colonial conquest and the
destruction of native populations. For Sauer, the corollary of
discovery was the loss of cultural diversity (this becomes
interesting when we consider Sauer’s own fieldwork as “discovery”
and its impact on cultural representation) : “The course of colonial
empire began with the disregard of native rights and persons”
(Sauer, 1968, p.55) . This concern for “Indian” culture filters

138



other hand, Sauer was a product of his time in viewing Mexico as an

escape from the modern which tended to define the terms of his

“Indian” preservation. His antimodernism fuelled a sense of

“Indian” peoples as “endangered authenticities”:2’a desire to fix

culture purely in the past and a view of change as loss, which in

turn was associated with Mexico as a somewhat idyllic “home” 22

More ambivalently, Sauer’s fieldwork off the beaten trail that

allowed him to posit an antimodern “retreat” also provided him with

the experience of the anti-idyll.

Hiding places; blank spaces

“Through a moving window
I see a glimpse of burros
a Pepsi Cola stand,
an old Indian sitting
smiling toothless by a hut. ,,23

Sauer would have been horrified at Corso’s image of cultural

extinction in the Pepsi Cola “Indian”. While Sauer’s published

article excused Mexican “Indians” politely from the modern, he and

they were racing against its “materialistic monism” in his

into Sauer’s interaction in the field.

21 Clifford, 1988, op. cit., p.5.

22 Stanislawski (op. cit., p.554) has contradicted the view
that Sauer had a romantic picture of native life (“no Rousseau he”)
and Sauer himself (in Leighly, 1969, op. cit., p.146) criticises
the “romantic view of colonisation” and calls for a focus on the
“dark obverse to the picture, which we have regarded scarcely at
all”. While this may be true for Sauer’s published writing
(although Sauer’s picture of colonisation is certainly more
romantic than, for example, Michael Taussig’s (1987) who in no way
takes “pleasure in backward lands”) , it is less certain once we
make these stand against Sauer’s antimodernism and the “story” of
his fieldnotes.

23 Corso in Robinson, op. cit., p.250.

139



correspondence.24 Sauer showed dismay at the “fading primitive

groups”, natives who were going “faster than ever” leaving him no

time to find their “hiding places”. At the same time, it seemed to

him that the modern age was intent on sweeping “the furniture of

ideas” of other cultures into its “rubbish heap” and not even

concerned to “save attic space” for those things that “were valid

for other kinds of men”.25 Amidst the universalism of the “folkways

of social science”, the concern with the cultural record of

“primitives” was “out the window”.26 Both the “primitives” and

their cultural baggage were thus casualties of the modern for Sauer

and in danger of extinction. The modern age was “an age of clean

sweeps - in many cases sweeps clean off the map”.27 “Indian”

cultures were not finding their way through the modern, for Sauer,

but were being erased by it.

In opposition to the threat of the modern, Sauer attempts to write

“Indian” cultures back in. Aware of the “dozens of blank spaces”

that are still to be “discovered”, he exclaims to Paul Kirchoff in

anger at his dismissal of “Indian” groups from a map of Meso

America:

“I’m pained that my Indians of Colima, Jalisco and Culiacán got
pushed off as atypical. Damn it, I more or less discovered these,
and they were good high culture folk. . .1 fought and bled for these
people and you drop them in with such folk as the Cahita and
Tepehuan. . I’d like to see you walk over the ruins of some of the

24 pc, Sauer to Willits, 27/9/45.

25 Ibid.

26 p, Sauer to Kroeber, 6/5/48.

27 Pc, Barlow to Sauer, 8/10/42.

140



)
J
C

D
O

F
—

C
D

0
H

-
H

-
S

w
J
w

0
0

C
D

’
Ii

Cl
)

ft
0

2
0)

0
W H

-J
J
C

D
CD H

p
i

f
t
J
<

U
)

L
J
.H

CD
f
t
h

II
CD

-
0
)

‘
•
C

h
H

-
ci

-
o

H
i

H
-
i

CD
•

,
.
f
t

n
H

H
i

0
H

I-
.

I-

C
l
)

r
r
C

-
C

(
0C

D
Q

_
p
i
S

H
0d

o 0
r

H
O

H
C

D
-

h
—

..
u-

i
A

J

CD
f
t
p
j

0h
ç
t

•c
h
<

H
i

C
D

f-
rC

D
..

C
rC

!)
j
P

J
CD

CD
H

-
C

r
C

D
C

D
-

H
-
C

D
0

)
0

0
)
<

-
-

I_
ic

)
F

-C
D

P
C

D
Q

il
i

‘-
CD

CD

H
-

0
H

-
Cl

)
H

:i
H

iC
i)

0
0
)

0
I-

CD
))

C)
Q

CD
h

ft
H

-
0)

Pi
Q

i
CD

H
i

Cl
)

H
i

H
i

H
i

CD
CD

Cl
)

c
t

CD
C)

Q
i

CD
h

f
t

•
H

-
0

CD
CD

Cl
)

S
i ft

H
i

i-
]

ft
0

H
i

H
-

II
CD

CD
(Q

CD
H

H
=

CD
02

Q
i

t
h

t Q
CD

H
i

CD
0

CD
t

C
r

CD
Cl

)
H

-
CD

Cl
)

H
çj

j
=

CD
H

C
r

Cl
)

CD
CD

C
r

ç
t

ci
CD

CD
ft

C!
)

H
0) =

CD
ft

- -
CD

02
C

r
Cl

)
CD

-

ft

H
Cl

)
S

C
l

b
CD

ç
t

:J
-

I
CDQ

i
0

C
D

H
i

H
-

CD
H

-
rr

°
C

l
CD

C
r

H
F-

’
H

-
0)

ft
0)

-

t-Q
C

t
C

t
f
t

Q
Ii

H
-

CD
CD

H
i

02
F

-’
C)

Q
F-

-
C

l
CD

H
-

ci

ft
ci

C
r

CD
CD

S
C)

f
t

H
-

CD
0

H
-

Q
i

CD
CD

CD
CD

U)
02

5
-

02
f
t

Cl
)

0)
h

CD
CD

0
H

i
H

02
F—

a
<1

H
-

H
‘d

0
CD

0)
H

ft
Cl

)
CD

H
H

-
H

-
H

CD
0

CD
H

i
Cl

)
H

i
IQ

Cl
)

I
CD

H
i—

a
J
-
’
O

j
cD

:-
0
C

D
C

D
C

D
-

—
‘

CD
W

S
C

)
0

)
:J

-
S

C
D

f
t

5C
D

-
P

J
0

S
0
)

C
D

N
CD H

-
Q

i
S

f
t

H
-

C
D

k
<

ft
C

D
C

D
O

ft
CD

f
t

CD
W

C
D

H
ft

C
D

H
-

Cl
)

H
-

Q
i

0
)

C
D

C
D

C
D

H
i

ft
C

D
c
i

•C
D

(Q
0

CD
-

C
D

- H
-

C!
)

CD
J
f
t

C
lC

D
0)

CD
C

D
h

C
D

C
D

Q
H

-
f
t

CD
CD

CD
p
j
h

CD
<

H
C

D

0
CD

H
C

D

H
i

CD
p

0
U

)
C

D
H

H
i

C
fl

tQ
H

CD
H

Q
C

D
C

l
Q

H
h

CD
O

•
0

f
t

f
t

p
jH

-
5
Q

,j
—

CD
CD

H
i
r
f
t

CD
H

-
F-

’
f
t

J
f
t
c
i
p
j

H
-

H
-

ci
CQ

ft
H

-
CD

H
H

-
H

H
H

C
D

CD
C

l
CD

F
-

H
-

-
ft

C
D

C
D

tQ
CD

-
F

-
ft

CD
0

•
C

D
<

C
D

C
D

H
-

k
<

H
-

=
C

l)
C

D
ft

H
CD

CD
k
<

CD
ft

CD
CD

CD
U)

C
D

0
02

k
<

h
Q

iC
D

CD
CD

H
-

02
CD

p
j
H

0
)

=
CD

ci
H0
)

O
0)

<
‘-x

i
C

D
H

-H
C

D
C

j
ft

H
-

0
H

-
O

C
D

H
h

tQ
rQ

5
f
t

CD
d

O
ft

C
D

H
-

F-
’

0
ci

0
c
i
f
t
c
i

I-
k
<

H
i

CD
P

-
C

D
O

C
D

CD
ft

‘d
CD

H 0
F-

’
H

-
0

f
t

Cl
)

CD
Cl

)
C

r
H

-
0 H C

l
H

H
-

CD
H CD

=

Cl)
C)

0
ci

S
CD

CD
H

i
ft Ci

)
H

CD
C

l
i

H
-

Q
i

CD
C

r
CI

)
CD

CD ci
CD

CD
CD C

l

0
H

i
H

0
C

l
ci

H

0
0

CD
C

r
C) C

r
cc

i
H

‘-Q
0

cc
i H

cc
i

C!
)

cQ
C

r
CD H

-
f
t

Cl
)

CD
f
t

C

H
‘
- C•
)

H
-

-

C
l

-
Cl

)
CD CD ft 0 H

-
H H H

-
ft 0) H L\

)
H H

u-
i

C)
H

0
H H

i
02

CD
CD

=
ci •c

ft
CD ci

CD
Cc)

ft

0 H
i

CD C
l

0
0

H
CD

C
l

0)

f
t ci

0
CD C

l
H

-
f
t

CD

0
C

r
0
0

CI
)

CD
CD CD

C
l

C
l

CD 0) f
t ci 0 CD C
l

S 0 C
l

CD 0 ft CD 02 cc
) ci CD c
i

H Cl
) CD CD cc
i

ci H CQ H
i

cc
i

Cl
)

f
t

F-
I

ft
CD

0
0

CD
C

l
ci

ci
H

-
CD

ft
CD

02

0
CD

H
i

C) ft
CD

H
i

H <1
C

l
b

CD
H

-
C

F-
’

CD
CD

ft
-

CD

z
-

H
-

ci
CD ><

ci
H

-
F-

-
CD

C)
0)

ft
CD

0
C

l
=

S
CD

CD
H

-
F

-
H

H
i

H
‘
-
i

-
CD

1:3
=

CD
H

CD
><

ft
c
i

CD
o

C)
Cl

)
0

‘-
CD

H
-

CD
i.Q

-I
CD

‘
H

i
CD

H
0

0)
co

f
t

0)
-

CD
ci

j
C)

Cl
)

C
l

=

CD
CD

‘-d
0)

CD
ci

c
i
H

i

Cl
)

CD
O I—

i

0
CD

0)
•

0
C)

ft
0

ft CD
C)

I-
I

C
D

k
<

= ft
CD

=

C
r

CD



CD H C H H c
t

H

H

(O
c
t

X
H

H
CD

C-
)

-C
D 0

H
’
tI

D
H

H

(I
-) CD H H 1
)

H N
)



Zapotecan “Indians”, he notes a parallel decay in “Indian” language

- a “tongue-tiedness, almost sulkiness” - and makes a speech on

how ashamed “Indians” are in Mexico “to admit any knowledge of

Indian things, how desconfiado”.3’ Sauer thus reiterates a sense

of change as loss of “Indian” craft, tradition and language,

drawing on a kind of “noble savage” image of the dignity of the

“humble Indians” that should sustain them through the modern.32

If essent±alising and patronising at times - placing “Indian”

communities as the “little people” of the past - Sauer’s antimodern

perspective gave him a more favourable outlook on the “Indians”

than many. For both American tourists to Mexico and, at times, the

Mexican government, the “Indian” population (“red degenerates”) was

ripe for cultural “improvement”. For the readers of Terry’s guide

to Mexico33, there was hope in the increasing number of “Indians”

speaking Spanish each year and the merging of their identity with

31 SN8, p.33.

32 This is a very sanitised picture of “Indian” existence in
Mexico, reducing conflict to a question of craft and sullenness.
The “Indian” battle for cultural survival was also a much less
artifactual process - a violence of language and a “white
terror. .brutal exploitation . . systematic slaughter” (Freeman in
Deplar, op. cit., p.72) that Sauer’s apolitical stance and focus on
material culture allows him to preclude. Alternatively,
attributing a dignity to Mexico’s “Indian” population for Sauer was
also far from the “red degenerate” image and a means of positive
evaluation in comparison to the modern United States. From the
International Congress for the “Indian” in Patzcuaro (Mexico) in
1940, Sauer’s student Stanislawski writes: “The most impressive
group in the whole Congreso is that of the American Indians. They
are full of dignity, good manners and perfect poise. They make the
rest of us look like bad-mannered upstarts” (PC, Stanislawski to
Sauer, 29/4/40)

Terry, op. cit.

143



that of their Mexican neighbours:

“The national life of the Mexican Indians has almost vanished; old
tribal habits and customs are being superseded by the more
civilised ways of the superior Mexican, and a faint ambition is
replacing the sodden lethargy which for so long characterised
them. “

Similarly, in 1930 President Ortiz Rub±o had declared the

importance of developing Mexico as a modern state, taking its place

among the civilised nations of the world, and renounced the

“indigenismo”35 policy of the Revolution that had focused so

extensively on “Indian” culture. “Indian” communities found

themselves subject to land-hungry “whites” disatisfied with the

truncation of revolutionary land redistribution - literally pushing

them off the map as well as out of the conception of the modern

Mexican state.36 Sauer himself reflected in the “field” on the

“objectives of Mexican nationalism” and posed them as threat to the

“Indian”: “their liking is for whiteness”.37 Thus Sauer’s

preservationist views - if only a textual rather than a political

reservation - were certainly more progressive for “Indian” futures

than their forced assimilation.

Ibid., p.lxi.

See Deplar, op. cit., p.91. “Indigenismo” was the policy of
the Mexican government towards its native peoples during the
Revolution in the early twentieth century. It involved a
commitment to the moral and economic elevation of the “Indian” and
a recognition of his [sic.] centrality to the national experience.

36 Near Chihuahua in 1933, Sauer was told by a missionary with
the Tarahumara “Indians” of their powerless condition, unable to
resist incursions by “whites” and forced into the worst barrancas:
“only a reservation” would protect them (SN11, p.18). This
intercultural conflict is important for the way Sauer chooses to
conceptualise the Mexicans as threat.

Ibid., p.35.

144



There were other views of “Indian” Mexico, however, that Sauer was

more in tune with. As we have seen, there was a flow of

antimodernists to Mexico who focused on “Indian” communities as

authentic and harmonious alternative to the Depression-ridden

United States. Disillusioned with the “ills” of their own society,

they looked to “Indian” Mexico for an antidote. This

“Indian”/Un±ted States comparison came through in literary images

of village life, for example Stuart Chase’s Mexico: a study of two

Americas and Carleton Beals’ Mexican maze (both in 1931) as well as

in anthropological studies of Indian communities, such as the well-

known study by Robert Redfield of Tepoztlán.38 Both types of study

were criticised for their romantic primitivism, singing “lyrical

paeans of praise about the skies and the golden sunlight” and

keeping quiet about the “brutal exploitation of the ‘noble and

happy’ Indians”.39 While much of Sauer’s published work, as we saw

above, could never be accused of silence about “Indian”

exploitation, Sauer does tend in places towards a rather romantic

image and, in connection with this, towards a conception of Indian

Mexico as idyll. He refuses to believe his student Isabel Kelly

that Chametla is not the “obscure Utopia” that he thought and that

it has been transformed into the “lousy gringo-Mexican country

38 See Deplar, op. cit. pp69-72 and 113-117. Redf±eld’s study
(1924) was of a Mexican village (Tepoztlan) : a picture of folk life
compared to the urban United States. It was later contradicted by
Oscar Lewis (1943) who visited the same village and returned with
a more negative picture, criticising Redfield for his “sheer
Rousseauan romanticism” (ibid., p.124).

Freeman in Deplar, op. cit. p.72.

145



which the Culiacán Valley is”.40 For Sauer, the choice once more

appears as preservation or decay: “If it isn’t as I have said, it’s

been ruined by progress” 41 More specifically, like the poet Witter

Bynner, Sauer looked to “Indian” Mexico as a primitive location for

retirement: Lake Chapala where “the air [was] full of sun and

birds”.42 Sauer’s push for the preservation of Indian communities

was therefore at least part motivated by his need for Mexico as

antimodern “home”, dreaming, as he said:

“of my own land on the lake shore and my own vine and fig
trees. . .What a spot that is and as yet an unspoiled lot of fisher
folk. I think it is my chosen spot to retreat from the world - if
it doesn’t get overwhelmed by c±v±lisation.”43

Presents -becoming- futures44

“What’s the length and breadth, what’s the height and the depths
between you and me?”45

D.H. Lawrence, writing of his Mexican experience in 1927, located

the country’s “Indian” population in an “other dimension”46 with

“no bridge, no canal of connection”47 to the “white man”; no

reconciliation possible between the premodern and the modern, past

40 PC, Sauer to Kelly, 5/3/35.

41 Ibid.

42 Deplar, op. cit. p.207.

“ PC, Sauer to Kelly, 20/4/45.

clifford, 1988, op. cit., pp.5 and 15.

Lawrence, op. cit., p.14.

46 Ibid., p.14.

Lawrence in Fussell, 1980, p.158.

146



and future. While as we have seen Sauer tended to oppose “Indian”

cultures against the modern, at times fixing them in the

traditional, he also maintained that he was “not interested in the

Indians as museum pieces” and saw them also as “active cultures”

with the potential to survive and develop.48 Through his “field”

experience he became keenly aware of the practicality of modern

technology for “Indian” communities and the importance of “Indian”

paths through the modern.49 While mentally Sauer may have pictured

Mexico as antimodern escape and retirement idyll, in practice in

the “field” such romanticism was dispelled. Off the beaten trail

was not only the chance to retreat from civilisation but also meant

hardship and the underside of “Indian” life. In 1931, on a

particularly severe “field” trip, Sauer wrote to Leighly5° of

Mexico as a “sick country” far from the “gorgeous primitivism” of

his more Rousseauist moments. With the “dust” and “filth” of

Sinaloa foremost in his mind, Sauer went on to question any

antimodernist escape to “Indian” Mexico. Shocked by the conditions

he observed in the “field”, Sauer let loose a diatribe to Leighly

against Stuart Chase who was known to have compared the machine

civilisation of the United States with “Indian” Mexico and found

48 PC, Sauer to Willits, 12/2/45.

For Clifford, 1988, op. cit. marginal cultures do not have
to vanish on entering the modern world but can be allowed to invent
their own futures, to make their own paths through it. While Sauer
tends to cling to the notion of the “Indian” populations as
“endangered” and the importance of preservation versus the modern,
he does seem to allow for at least a technical change and Indian
participation in the (agricultural) development of their land.

50 PC, Sauer to Leighly, 5/11/31.

147



Mexican villages to be self-sufficient and “wantless”:51

“If Mr know-it-all Stuart Chase were anchored in one of these
villages where the people have nothing to eat, foul water to drink,
no medecine and no money with which to buy any, I think he’d be a
little more inclined to hand our machine age its due. I’m for as
much of it as I can get. These people crawl off and die or get
well like sick animals. Children going blind for lack of
treatment, people with hunger because the crops die out and they
haven’t simple means of irrigation, these and other blessings of
the primitive life are daily sights.”52

Disillusioned, Sauer finished his letter to Leighly by “swatting

mosqitoes” in his hotel “listening to the welcome ching of the

south-bound train” in the station reminding him that there was “a

link with civilisation”.

In 1941, ten years later, Sauer was given the chance to air his

opinions on both the importance of cultural preservation and

bringing “civilisation” to Mexico’s “Indian” communities. Moving

into Sauer’s “field” of Northwest Mexico, the Rockefeller

Foundation had established an agricultural research centre near

Mexico City and become involved in plant breeding and irrigation in

Sonora and Sinaloa - the beginnings of the “Green Revolution”

bringing modern agricultural technology to Mexico.53 Sauer’s

advice was solicited as a “renowned scholar with extensive

experience in Mexico” and he replied with the championing of

51 Deplar, op. cit., p.70. However, as Deplar notes, Stuart
Chase was in this respect misread: he recognise that rural
Mexico was not a utopia and needed electricity, scientific
agriculture and other modern technology but many missed this,
including, it seems, Carl Sauer.

52 PC, Sauer to Leighly, 5/11/31, op. cit.

See wright, 1984 (mimeo, unpaginated).

148



peasant (Indian) cultural practices and techniques - a “bottom up”

strategy for modern intervention. Sauer shifted his views on

“Indian” cultural preservation into agricultural preservation54 and

defied any standardisation by the Foundation: “Unless the Americans

understand that, they’d better keep out of this country

entirely.”55 Indigenous knowledge would point the way for any

“modernisation”, the peasants identifying the problems themselves.

While denying that Mexico’s problems were cultural, i.e. requiring

the cultural conquest of the modern, Sauer did see the need for

economic aid and support for agricultural change. Unfortunately,

despite his attempts to reconcile his preference for marginal

cultures with the need for modern, Sauer was read by the Foundation

as obstructive:56 viewed as fixing Mexico in the antimodern and

preventing any opportunity for modern improvement and his opinion

virtually ignored:

The two, as Wright points out (ibid.), are connected.
Cultural differences influence the way plants are selected,
planted, cultivated etc as well as patterns of land distribution,
labour, income and consumption.

It is interesting here that Sauer does not include himself
as a transformative force in Mexico: his presence is not included
in the Americans that must keep out of the country. For Spurr (op.
cit., p.50), this is characteristic of the colonial rhetorical mode
of “aestheticisation” where access to and preservation of the
authentic are seen as unconnected. In this way, Sauer can also
posit Mexico as antimodern “home”, unaffected by his own uninvolved
presence (again the distancing of the vantage point) . This theme
resurfaces in Sauer’s positioning in South America where he places
himself apart from those carrying the “academic torch” to the
continent.

56 Sauer’s relation to the Rockefeller Foundation will be dealt
with in more detail in the next chapter. While here Sauer feels
that he has the authority to advise and is ignored, in South
America we see how Sauer’s comments are taken as authority when he
himself has doubts.

149



“to. . Sauer, Mexico is a kind of glorified ant hill which [he is] in
the process of studying. [He resents] any effort to ‘improve’ the
ants. [He much prefers] to study them as they now are.”57

The statement of the Foundation really misses the ambivalence of

Sauer’s position. Although he did reject the “improvement” of

modernising “Indian” agriculture, he also saw the need for support

and change. On a personal level, he wanted “Indian” Mexico as

retreat from civilisation but was at the same time prepared to give

the machine age its due. Ironically, probably considered

“backward” in his reluctance to embrace modern “improvement”,

Sauer’s view of the “Indian” as germinal base is now agriculturally

the vogue.58

Gang der Kultur über die Erde59

“Wann wird die Odysee wohl enden,
Und wann erreichen wir den Port?
Und wann entgurten wir unsere Lenden
Zum letzten mal, für immerfort?”6°

In 1933, blocked by a “road out of commission” in “Indian country”

near Chihuahua,6’ Sauer turned instead to a settlement of

Mennonites; two years later, he visited them again. The first trip

Jennings, 1988, p.55.

58 See Pawluk, Sandor and Tabor, 1992 for a discussion of the
contemporary role of indigenous knowledge in agricultural
development.

Translated: the spread of culture over the world. From
Sauer in Leighly, 1969, op. cit., p.296.

60 Senn in Loewen, 1980, p.250. Translation: “When will the
Odyssey end completely, and when will we reach the port? And when
will we recover our lands, for the final time, forever?”

61 West, 1979, op. cit., p.74.

150



was almost a chance encounter: according to Robert West, it

represented nothing more than “speaking German and. . . observing” the

land; the second a return to see “old friends”.62 James Parsons,

one of Sauer’s closest colleagues, was not even aware of his

contact with the Mennonites (“he never published anything”) : both

visits are acknowledged and then forgotten.

Sauer, however, found the Mennonite cause more engaging: he was

inspired to write more extensively and prosaically in his notes on

these two encounters than on any other cultural interaction in

Mexico. It is a crucial oversight by West since perhaps here more

than anywhere else in Sauer’s notebooks do we get a sense of the

personal: cultural self-fashioning in the “field”.63 Encountering

the Mennonites near Chihuahua, Sauer attempted to re-encounter his

antimodernism and, at the same time, his sense of “home”. As with

Mexico’s “Indian” communities, this “return” proved highly

ambivalent for Sauer and involved a further questioning of

antimodern idyll; a tension between cultural preservation and decay

(dwelling and travel) . Among the Mennonites, however, Sauer’s

primary concern was not so much with a temporal fixing of culture -

they isolated themselves voluntarily from the modern - but with an

essentialising as “German”.

Die Stillen im LandeM

62 Ibid., p.84.

63 Perhaps this is why it has been overlooked by West.
Although he gives a sense of Sauer as individual, he keeps his
focus on Sauer as fieldworker and does not refer to Sauer’s
personal life beyond.

64 Sawatsky, 1971, p.2. Translated: “the unobtrusive ones”.

151



In a sense, like Sauer, the Mennonites were antimodernists,

travelling in order to stay the same, defining themselves against

11Caesar”, the State.65 Formed as a religious sect in the Low

Countries in the sixteenth century,66 theirs was a history of

exile in an attempt to keep apart. They sought a “Privelegium”

from the governments of their host countries an exemption from

military and civil service, the freedom of religion and the right

to educate themselves 67 and moved on whenever this was

threatened. Once settled, they isolated themselves by being “in

the world but not of the world”,68 living off an agrarian base in

rural habitats, founding spatially and culturally distinct

colonies.69 Those interacting with Sauer in Chihuahua were the most

mobile of the sect - they had a tradition of exile from Germany,

through Russia and Canada to Mexico - and were therefore also the

most conservative: “wanderers” who had carried their past with

them.7° Under pressure from the Canadian government,7’ they had

65 See Yoder in Loewen (op. cit., pp.7-16) for a discussion of
how the Mennonites related to God (the Lord) and the State
(Caesar) . It is interesting to note that Sauer conceptualises his
own position in these terms in his discussion of keeping academics
(things that are God’s) away from politics (things that are
Caesar’s)

66 The Mennonites were ideological descendants of an Anabaptist
wing of the Protestant Reformation and had their origins as a sect
in the Low Countries under Menno Simon (Sawatsky, op.cit., p.l).

67 Ibid., p.5. In this sense the Mennonites appear as the
epitome of antimodernism: legally they have the right to deny the
modern.

68 Yoder in Loewen, op. cit., p.274.

69 At the heart of the Mennonite colonies were the “Gemeinde”:
the church and secular communities that acted as institutions with
their own Elders and lay ministers.

70 Sawatsky, op. cit., p.249.

152



Fiqure 11: Seeking Mennonite country:
Sauer and Sawatsky (Manitoba, Canada, 1968).

153



transferred their villages whole to Mexico and prepared to be “die

Stillen im Lande”.

Sauer’s cultural encounter was thus once more with the rural

community of his antimodernist sympathies. For Sawatsky (see

Figure 11) , “life in a Mennonite village” portrayed “an almost

other-worldly quality of rustic unhurriedness” to the outside

observer - at a distance, at least, the rural idyll.72 However, as

with Sauer’s disillusionment with “Indian” poverty, his

identification with the antimodern via the Mennonites was only

partial. Although the Mennonites appeared as the quintessential

simple “yolk” - they were “prairie farmers”,73 provincial, “wholly

rural”74- they were also “ignorant peasants”.75 Sauer criticised

them for their extreme of antimodernism; their “mulish

conservatism” which separated them from the Mexican scene. In

restricting their educational focus to “the life hereafter” and

“farming”, they cut themselves off from knowledge of the Mexican

(physical and political) climate and located in an area that was

71 Ibid., p.21. The pressures were various in Canada: a
redrawing of provincial boundaries weakening Mennonnite self-
government; a draft during the War going against their pacifist
sympathies (and a resentment when they refused) and the
introduction of “worldly” subjects, for example geography and
history, into their schools, representing an intervention into
their separate education system.

72 Ibid., p.289.

SN11, p.33.

Sauer in Sawatsky, op. cit., p.vii.

SN14b, p.78.

154



agriculturally unproductive and politically unsettled.76 After a

series of bad harvests and raids by the local “agraristas”,77 they

then found themselves reconsidering exile.78 Sauer was disappointed

in their lack of awareness: they did not live up to “the wisdom of

the primitive peasant rooted to his ancestral lands”,79 an integral

part of his antimodernism and his notion of “yolk”; nor did they

mirror his fieldworker’s familiarity with the Mexican scene - the

responsibility of taking documents into the field. Their very

mobility severed them from a true connection with the land - they

had “the farmer’s love for working in the dirt” but not “for his

particular piece of dirt” -and, “nomadic”, lacked the rootedness of

the “Heimat”.8° What is more, they had blundered into Sauer’s

field almost as “tourists”, “dumb” and unprepared. Transferring

from the “dark smooth soil” in Canada, the Mennonites assumed that

the Mexican equivalent “that looked somewhat like it” was as

fertile and fell into an agricultural “mess by their ignorance”.81

Sauer was struck by the irony of a separatism that rejected “book-

76 Ibid., p.79.

‘‘ The agraristas were former peons under hacienda owners who
had been promised land in the revolution - “The land belongs to him
who tills it!” - and resented Mennonite incursion on Mexican land.
See Sawatsky, op. cit., p.67.

78 SNl4b, p.81.

Sauer in Thomas, op. cit., p.57.

80 SNil, p.23. Although Sawatsky’s book They sought a country
has been translated as seeking a “Heimat”, in the former romantic
sense of the word (see Chapter One) this was not the case. Ileimat
inherently meant a rootedness in one soil and therefore Sawatsky’s
Mennonites “standing about as at home”, the new “Heimat” exchanged
for the old, were a paradox.

81 SN14b, p.78.

155



learning” and only resulted in disruption:

“The pragmatic justification of education could be applied to them
with a vengeance. As it is they have sunk three and a half million
into a venture from which all who can will flee.

On a subtextual level, perhaps more importantly, he appeared

embittered at a rural idyll (and an environmental stewardship?)

turned sour.

Homecoming?

UIt is in culture that we can seek out the range of meanings and
ideas conveyed by the phrases belonging to or in a place, being at
home in a place.”83

While Sauer is dismayed at the impending exile of the Mennonites -

their spatial upheaval - his main concern is with what he sees as

their cultural decay. The issue of preservation for Sauer hinges

not so much on the antimodernism of the Mennonites but on their

“German” identity. This question is quite literally “closer to

home” since, travelling in the “field” in Mexico, Sauer seems to

feel he has found something of the German community of his youth.

While their status as “yolk” rooted in soil and “Heimat” is

lacking, the Mennonites as “German” represent an alternative

“dwelling” for Sauer - a “return” - amidst travel. More than the

generic identification with “simple cultures”, then, contact with

the Mennonites is a significant moment of Sauer’s self-fashioning

in the “field”.

82 Ibid., p.81.

83 Carter, 1992, op. cit., p.101.

156



One of Sauer’s “first sights” of the Mennonites “brings tears” to

his eyes:

“Mexicans lulling in the shade, Germans driving wagons loading and
unloading. . .Yard swarms with flaxen youngsters all sizes to full
grown. Youngest in cradle being rocked by barefoot mother pushing
cradle with her toes.

The Mennonites are thus immediately defined as Germans by Sauer: in

appearance they are a “rather large and blonde race”, larger and

more plentiful than the Mexicans.85 Sauer later makes contact in

German, breaking the ice by “saying n’Tag to several Mennonites all

of whom proceeded to shake hands and talk in passably good high

German”.86 Importing poetic German names for their colonies in

Mexico (Wilhelm, Roscutal), the Mennonites provide Sauer with a

miniature German terrain to travel through: “First stop at

Hamburg”.87 However, despite these German “markers”, Sauer is

contradicted by a German (not Mennonite) “tienda” owner - an ex

Wurtenberger - who has “seen the entire local Mennonite historyT

and, while acknowledging their antimodernism, denies that they are

“real Germans”:

“they drift like sheep and act together only to prevent change.
They ride no wagons, wear no neckties or ornaments. They know
nothing of German literature or music. . .Stille Nacht and Goethe
unknown to them.

84 SN11, p.9.

85 Ibid., p.7.

86 Ibid., p.33.

87 Ibid., p.10. Noticing the map of the settlement colonies in
Mexico on the schoolroom wall, Sauer offers a supplemental map of
Germany.

88 Ibid., p.8.

157



After further contact with the Mennonites, Sauer becomes

conscious of a community that is hybrid: both familiar and

strange,89 to him what seems as a “pure product gone crazy”.9° To

his “high German enquiry a young blonde 6 footer” replies “in

Spanish” and Sauer begins to realise that the Mennonites have the

“physique” of Germans, occasionally the language, “but no more”.91

Essentialising culturally on the basis of physical traits, Sauer

finds himself disillusioned by closer contact, the Mennonites

“white” but “not quite” German, reflecting back a distorted image

of the known.93

Given what we know of the Mennonites, this is to be expected.

Their “cultural baggage” may be partly German but their very

rejection of education outside the Bible and farming would make

89 See Clifford in Grossberg et. al., op. cit., p.97.

90 Clifford, 1988, op. cit., p.5.

91 SNll, p.9.

For Mary Louise Pratt (1992, op. cit., p.153), the reliance
on one trait from a distance to speak for a cultural whole was
common in travel writing articulating the imperial frontier: “One
needed only to see a person at rest to bear witness, if one chose,
to the trait of idleness. One needed only to see dirt to bear
witness to the trait of uncleanliness. This essentialising
discursive power is impervious until those who are seen are also
listened to.” Travellers see what they want to see.

This is an allusion to Bhabha’s concept of mimicry which
itself ties into the earlier discussion of anxiety over the fixing
of culture. For Bhabha, the cultural other cannot be fixed with
the gaze but returns it displaced in a form of resemblance and
menace which does and does not authorise the
observer - mimicry. While I am arguing here that Sauer attempts to
constitute the Mennonites as same rather than other, Bhabha’s
concept remains interesting for the way Sauer cannot have his
German identity confirmed/ returned to him. See Bhabha, 1983, op.
cit.)

158



F
t

d
d

CD
C)

)
Q

CU
F

t
‘i

J
C

U
O

F
t
:

Q
i

F—1
I-

CU
Q.

,
CU

CD
H

-
CU

5
0

Cl
)

CD
H

-
CD

0
CD

CU
CU

3
H

-
L-

Q
Q

CD
Cl

)
Ci

)
t

0
F

H
-

H
-

CD
f
t

C)
t

H
3
H

-
C)

C)
F

t
Q

i
Ci

)
CU

0
CU

F
t

F
t

CD
5

CU
C

fl
F

t
CU

H
-
C

D
F-

’-
F

-
1

H
-

F
t

>‘
CU

Q
H

-
F

t
H

-
Cl

)
0

‘0
F

t
‘d

‘<
Q

h
F

r
S

r
t

h
Ci)

CU
M

iC
D

C
U

CD
fl

H
F

t
0

I
CU

CU
U)

CD
C)

F
t

Cl)
H

-
H

-
k
<

CD
0

CD
CD

CD
CU

CD
CD

F
-

1
CD

CD
F

t
d

F
t

CU
CD

I-
I

C]
)

H
><

F—
’

Cl
)

S
CU

H
ft

0
I-

JH
-i

k
<

C
D

CD
H

-
H

-
H

0
H

-
t

CD
Cl

)
Ci

)
Q

y
H

i
C

D
C

D
H

H
Q

i
H

Cl
)

CD
CE

)
H

-
CU

H
0

CD
CD

H
-

H
-

H
-

3
Cl

)
h

-

H
-

CU
I-

H
-

F
t

F
t

h
f
t
1
Q

f
t

F
t

H
-

5
F

t
S

‘
CU

t
CU

CD
CD

H
-

H
-

CD
F

-
1

Ci
)

CD
fJ)

Q
CD

CD
CD

Pi
CD

CD
Q

h
CD

C)
H

-
C

D
C

D
C)

C)
CD

CD
CU

Q
H

-
I

Cl
)

I-
h

C
D

0
2

F
t

CD
‘-

<
U

)
<

Cl
)

Cl
)

H
-

H
-

CU
CU

0
Ci)

H
H

H
-

F
t

H
F

t
CU

h
C)

C
0

CU
H

CD
F

t
CU

0
)
)

CD
H

-
CD

CD
H

-
F

t
H

-,
H

-
CU

CD
C)

H
f
t

i-
C)

CD
H

-
j

CD
0

F-
’

CD
F

t
Cl

)
CD

-

CD
H

-
CD

S
H

Q
CD

Cl
)

F
t

‘1
5

CD
H

-
CD

0
H

-
k
<

5
CD

‘-
“

0
CD

F
—

F
-
-
’

0.
Q-

’
f’

CU
Cl

)
M

i
()

CD
F

t
CD

H
i

F
tC

D
C

i:
CU

F
t

CD
‘-

CD
h

CU
Cl

)
CU

CU
Q

i
CD

Cl
)

Cl)
CD

0
0

h
C

U
F

t
CD

Q
h

-
CU

CD
.Q

C
U

p
j

Cl
)

H
CD

H
-

Cl
)

H
0)

—
<

0
-

pj
‘-

H
-

:
Q

H
H

-
CD

k
<

F
t

S
0

CD
f
t

)
F

-
F

t
5

F
t

F
t

C
D

F
t

F-
’

0
-

CU
CD

C
D

H
H

CD
Cl

)
Q

CU
CD

Cl
)

i
Cl

)
C

n
p
J
F

t
CD

C)
H

0
CD

F
1

CU
CD

H
M

i
CU

Cl
)

CD
Cl

)
‘-

<
U

i
CU

CD
-

H
Q

i
0

F
t

CU
C

D
F

tC
D

Cl
)

H
CU

CD
LD

F
t

k
<

F
t

0)
‘d

-
h

‘<
C

D
0

CD
H

-
Ci

)
CD

CU
CU

CD
C

)
M

iC
D

Cl
)

CU
0

Cl
)

H
Cl)

Cl
)

CD
CU

H
-

C
D

H
-C

D
h

0
CU

Cl
)

F
t

-
F

t
Q

Cl
)

I-
k
<

CD
CD Cl)

CU
-

Cl
)

CU
-

Cl
)

H
-
H

CU
H

-
H

H
CD

CD
M

i
C)

CU
Cl

)
H

-
F

t(
Q

H
P

)

H
-

-
Cl

)
<

F
t

F
t

Q
H

(
Q

0
H

-
CD

CD
CD

C)
CD

U)
CU

F
t

H
i

Q
Cl)

h
F

t
I

5
0

CD
CU

O
H

-
H

-
CU

CD
0

I—
’

H
-

H
C

D
CD

Q
p

jH
i5

H
i

CU
0

(1
)

CU
1Q

CU
CU

H

F
t

C)
H

i
F

t
CD

Cl
)

H
-

i.
0

CU
CD

II
CU

H
-

S
H

H
p
j

F
t

CU
H

F
t

CD
CU

CU
F

-
CD

CU
i-

H
-

O
H

C
D

h
H

-
H

F
t

CD
F

t
Q

,
CD

Q
CD

0
M

i
CD

Cl)
H

-
CD

CD
H

i
LQ

C
D

F
-

1
F

t
C

D
CU

H
i

H
-

F
t

CD
Cl

)
I

F
t

CD
‘<

CD
.Q

o
CU

F
t

J
CU

H
S

F
t

H
i

CD
O

5
‘

CU
(Q

H
i

Cl
)

H
-

Cl
)

I-
Cl

)
C

U
C

D
H

.
)

CD
H

-
CD

CU
o

0
H

CD
C

D
F

—
‘-

F
t

Q
,

‘-
Cl

)
CU

-
H

-
CD

F
t

CU
C)

(
Q

O
Z

p
0

-

O
Q

i
CD

CD
H

Q
i

F
t

0
C)

02
F

t
Cl

)
02

CD
CD

S
C

U
H

i
CD

(Q
ft

0
CD

CU
CU

CD
H

-
5

t-
Q

C
U

H
-C

lj
H

CD
CD

‘
H

CD
C

D
<

c
-t

C
)

F
t

Ci
)

0
5

CD
CU

CD I-
0)

CD
CD

0
Q

,
-
C

D
C

D
H

O
)

5
F

t
F

t
CD

F
t

Cl
)

H
-

-
Ci

)
h

F
t

CD
F

t
CD

H
CD

CU
h

Cl
)

H
i

F
t

F
—

<
CD

CD
H

-
H

CU
CU

0
CD

b
F

t
CD

CD
I-

H
-

:
0
0
’

CD
CD

Cl
)

F-
’-

H
-

l-
:

CD
H

-
H

-
0

0
CD

C
i
)
H

-
H

-
H

-
h

H
-

H
CD

Cl
)

5
Cl

)
-

(-Q
F

t
CD

II
Fl

H
i

5
0)

F
tF

lC
i)

‘I
-

CU
k
<

0)



Cl
)

Q
—

,:
H

-
H

i
H

-
U

)
I-

I
Q

-
h
J
p
J
p
J
t
5

:
)

U)
U)

ç
t
<

c
i

Q
,

f
J

c
i

0
Cl

)
C

D
C

D
C

JJ
5

C
D

F-
1

i
CD

CD
p

H
C

D
I-

U)
I

c
i

h
C

D
<

P
J
C

)
C

D
0

Q
CD

c
i

ci
C

D
F

CD
U)

CD
‘<

P
)

1(1
)

P1
c
i

H
5

F
-
’
C

D
N

0C
D

S
-

5
c
i

‘-
<

H
-

H
L

Q
H

-c
i

III
P1

H
H

-
P

J
H

-
H

-
‘-

<
CD

U)
P1

H
0

5
H

O
D

\
-

C
)

II
CD

Q
CD

CD
H

CD
P1

H1
0

0
—

.
O

U)
C

D
P

1
-

k
<

H
-

U
)

.Q
’
tQ

H
O

U
)

c
i

U)
l-

h
U

)
Ii

1
)

0
U

)Z
U

)
0

U
)

1
C

D
H

U
)
d

H
-

0
0

U)
CD

tQ
U)

‘<
H

()
CD

c
iU

)
C)

H
i

0
ci

C
D

c
i

:
H

-
H

C)
H

-
P

)
Q

C)
H

-
n

—
-
t

CD
CD

H
i

0
O

h
U)

H
i

C)
U

)
h

H
i

CD
0

P1
C

D
c
i

c
i

H
-

0
P1

H
iU

)
H

-
0

H
-

i
P1

h
c
i

-

P1
H

-
0

c
iU

)
0

0
P

CD
c
i

P1
CD

U)
H

-
c-c

3
c
i

CD
p
i0

c
i

0
P1

c
i

P1
H

-
k
<

H
i

0
CD

-
CD

CD
P1

1
c
iH

’
<

-J
0

-
c
i

C
D

Q
c
i
O

C
D

H
‘1

CD
H

c
i

J
j

H
-

c
i

Pi
H

i
CD

H
-

.
P1

c
i

c
i

P1
D

0
H

(.
Q

k
<

c
i

U)
U

)C
D

C
D

C
D

CD
c-

-
c
i

0
)

H
-

0
H

c
i

H
i

•
H

-
P

t
j

CD
p
jC

D
CD

U)
o

c
i

<
CD

k
<

Q
c
i
C

)
O

H
-

U)
-

0
H

C
D

CD
H

><
H

-
H

-
H

i
0

CD
P

J
j’

—
’

c
i

c
i

C
D
5U

)
C

D
C

D
‘

H
-

:
0

—
0

-
c
i

H
(Q

C
D

c
i
P

1
H

Q
Q

C
D

P1
O

F
C

D
c
i

CD
U)

‘
d

O
-

CD
c
-
t
-

CU
H

H
-

‘
<

C
)
U

)
11

H
-

CD
0

W
H

-
-
i

H
<

5
c
i

CD
C)

Li
H

•
C)

U)
H

-
W

CD
C

l
0

C)
c
i

-
_

.
Q0H

-
0

c
i

CD
0

H
-

c
i

CU
U)

CD
Q

c
i
H

-

H
-

•
W

CD
CD

H
-

U
)

CD
CD

H
c
i

-
0

C
D

H
H

C)
H

i
-

H
i

H
•

•
3

U
)
•
-

,.<
H

O
H

-
-

H
-

<
H

i
0

-
H

-
H

-
5

C)
F

-
’
f
-

CD
CD

P1
c
i

:
C

)
H

i
H

-
ci

i
-

H
C

D
H

c
i

C
D

c-
-

H

•
U)

H
CD

(
H

-
-

CD
U

)
H

iC
D

CD
H

CD
H

-
c
i

C
U

p
,

C
l

H
-

H
i

W
U

)
H

-
-

0
P1C

)
P

1
C

D
L’

J
-

H
-

U
)

H
-

C)
f-

F
-’

C
l

S
C

D
CD

C)
H

H
H

-
°
c
i

0
-

c
ic

i
CD

-
U

)
0

CD
H

-
H

-
H

-
-

H
i

H
-

c
i

c
i

h
U

)
H

C
)
P

1
C

D
C

D
c
i

CD
U)

<
P

1
C

U
CD

1
i
0

P
1

<
c
i

1
C

D
U)

0
c
i

U)
c
i

c
i
C

l
.

H
-

P1
CD

c
i

H
-

c
i

0
P

1C
D

H
-

c
i

c
i

c
i

0
H

CD
U

)
c
i

)
U)

CD
CD

H
i

U)
0

c
i

H
-c

)
S

c
i

H
-

C
l

H
-
H

-
H

i
CD

H
-

O
Q

CD
P

H
CD

H
-

H
ci

C
D

C)
.

0)
H

H
-

c
i

c
i

CD
H

C
D

C
)

c
i

CD
CD

H
i

C
l

C
D

P
i
c
i

C
D

p
i

h
L

i
c
i

H
-

H
i

CD
CD

<1
:

H
H

-
Cl

)
0

U)
c
i

U)
0

5
CD

CD
c
i

c
i

CD
CD

H
C

D
-

P1
CD

c
i

H
-

H
0

C
D

Q
U)

0
Li

P
1
c
i
O

h
P

l
CD

C
)
P

1
c
i
P

i
H

H
-

CD
CD

I—
’

C
D

—
h

c
i

i
C

D
<

C
D

C
D

C
D

c
i

H
0

P1
S

U)
S

-
C

l
CD

CU
C

D
C

l’
-<

H
Li

CD
c
i

CD
c
i

c
i

c
i

c
i

H
H

-
CD

CD
H

i
P

1
c
i

H
i

Li
CD

D
L

ic
i’

<
P

1
P

1
P

1
c
i

ii
0

0
l-

U)
Li

h
C

)
<

P1
CD

0
C

D
C

D
U)

‘<
C

D
H

IC
D

C
D

U)
U)

H
i



what it says about German culture but also about “Mexicans” -

whether from the point of view of the Mennonites or Sauer

himself.99 As with Sauer’s notes on “Indian” communities in the

field, the Mexican population enters in around the fringes as an

external - and alien - force. In the case of the Mennonites, Sauer

is concerned by the threat of Mexican nationalism and its pressure

for assimilation. While on Sauer’s first visit to the Mennonites

in 1933 the Mexican government is supportive of the colonies’

separatism, maintaining their right to self-educate (legislated in

1921), on his second visit two years later the situation has

deteriorated. The government wants their schools to be operated by

federal “maestros” and their own schoolteachers are forbidden to

function. The Mennonites are also given a working order that it is

not healthy for them to live separately: they must disseminate,

intermarry and “castellanizar” - the “fin patriotico” of the

Mexican government.’°° For Sauer, this appears as an external

corollary to the internal dissolution of Mennonite “German”

culture. Indeed, the government is actively attacking their

linguistic and physical distinction: the two traits that for Sauer

are the most Germanic. The Mennonites’ reaction is mobility: “thus

the emigration commences”.’°’ Sauer thus feels that he is

This is difficult terrain as with the definition of “Indian”
above: Sauer defines Mexico as “mestizo” in The personality of
Mexico which makes the distinction of “Mexican” and “Indian”
difficult. It is not always certain who Sauer is referring to, but
he does tend to distinguish between “Indian” and “Mexican” in his
notes.

100 SN14b, p.68. Translated: “castellanizar” means to become
Spanish-speaking and “fin patriotico” means “patriotic goal”.

101 Ibid.

161



witnessing “the beginning of the decline of the Mennonite

colonisation” - a spatial as well as a cultural “decay”. What is

particularly interesting, however, is the way he chooses to

conceptualise the exodus:

“The humble Mennonites have not established a sufficient gulf
between them and the natives to take this with equanimity. They
came to keep apart and thought it would be easier to do so in an
alien than in a kindred culture, and now that they have the open
threat of the design of the alien culture upon their souls and
bodies, it gives them the jitters. If there is no land where they
can build the Reich Mennos then far better back among the
Canadians. If they are to be subject to cultural absorption then
at least let it come from worthier hands than the present.”°2

The Mexicans are thus unworthy - they are not “kindred” to the

blonde race of the Mennonites (the Anglo Saxon of the Canadians)

ironically they are made “alien” in their own homeland. This is

obviously the view of the Mennonites, but Sauer himself hints at a

similar cultural comparison in his letter to Moe. Here he

describes the Mennonites as distinct from the masses: “islands of

Saxon peasants in a sea of brown-skinned Mexicans”, German

colonists “in the backwoods of the world”.’°3

Fatherland?

If the above quotation allows us to find the “Mexican” on the

margins of the “German”, it also takes us from an “eighteenth

century” past to a “modern” Germany of the 1930s. In the company

of antimodernists and displaced “Germans”, we almost pass over the

rhetoric of “Reich” and “Nordic stock” and miss the contemporary

102 Ibid.

103 OC, Sauer to Moe, op. cit.

162



significance of Sauer’s cultural remarks.104 While it is true that

the Mennonite connection with Germany was temporally and culturally

distant and Sauer himself only lived in Germany for three years as

a child, their rhetoric in exile was having political currency at

“home” (Germany). While not attempting to implicate Sauer in the

Germany of the 1930s, a repositioning helps to show that what may

have been framed as antimodern debate in Mexico was more modern in

the German “fatherland”. This is a particularly important point

because, although frequent reference is made to the German

(philosophical) heritage of Sauer’s cultural geography, none is

made to the political context in which this “heritage”

developed. 105

While Sauer was drawing on imagery of land, soil, folk and home to

define the Mennonites at the local level, the National Socialists

were using the same rhetoric to essentialise the German nation

104 could only find very few hints in Sauer’s notes and
correspondence on contemporary Germany, for example in relation to
the Mennonites, shut off from the world: “Hitler (abwarten) we’ve
been told things before but if he has been doing the things they
say, it’s a shame” (SN11, p.34) and Sauer later writing to Donald
Brand about a German geographer - Karl Josef Pelzer - who had left
the “distasteful political situation” in Germany and was interested
in working on the Mennonites (PC, Sauer to Brand, 15/4/36). While
the letter says little in itself, it serves as a reminder that any
discussion of Mennonites, Sauer and German identity in Mexico needs
to be repositioned.

105 See Kenzer, 1987, op. cit., pp.40-69 and Speth in Kenzer
(ibid., pp.11-39): both focus on Sauer’s connection with Goethe and
document his connection with German Romanticism but fail to provide
the context for the development of these currents of German thought
or the use of romantic notions in political ideology. See Woodruff
Smith, 1991, for an excellent and politically aware alternative: in
his study of Politics and the sciences of culture in Germany, he
puts questions of philosophical influence in the background and
concentrates instead on the political ideology of “culture” in
German scientific discourse.

163



under the Third Reich. They found inspiration in the anti-

materialist “volkish” movement of the nineteenth century,

associating themselves explicitly with the German heritage that had

formed at least part of Sauer’s “Weltanschauung” at an early age.

However, rather than inform a generic identification with peasant

peoples, the “yolk” under the National Socialists came to take on

a specifically national and racial connotation.’°6 Humankind was

seen as divided into a hierarchy of mutually exclusive and

irreconcilable racial categories with the German “Aryan” (Nordic?)

race at its apex, convinced of its own superiority. At the same

time, images of land and soil were used to locate the Aryans

naturally in the German “I-leimat”, in harmony with the natural

world: rooted in the cultural landscape, they were there to

stay.107 These images of racial purity and permanence, according

to Mark Bassin, “formed the essence and rationale for the National

Socialist movement”: legitimately “at home” in German soil, the

Aryan “yolk” could provide a justification for the Nazis

persecuting the “Other” in both domestic and foreign policy - it

defined their non-Aryan enemy on the European stage.108

Thus the very question of German identity was at issue -

politically charged - and increasingly crucial as the Nazi party

106 As Bassin (op. cit., p.117) notes, the notion of the “yolk”
crossed over with the development of racism as a science at the end
of the nineteenth century which stressed the primary importance of
inherited genetic qualities and the immutability of races making
environmental factors irrelevant.

107 Ibid., pp.122-123.

108 Ibid., p.123.

164



under Hitler took Germany into the Second World War. The image of

the yolk was joined by other legitimating concepts such as Ratzel’s

“Lebensraum”,109 which, stating that as part of nature humankind

(as yolk) must search for living space (colonisation), provided the

password for Nazi expansionism. As Woodruff Smith shows, the

romantic imagery of “Bauer, yolk and Kultur” fed into German

imperialism with “a real and terrible effect”.”°

Nazi Germany seems far away from Sauer and the Mennonites

in Chihuahua - perhaps this is the point - but it is not so distant

as it appears. The “Vôlkerwanderungen” and imperialism of Ratzel’s

Lebensraum is not so far from viewing the Mennonites as “German

colonists” in the Mexican “backwoods of the world”. Indeed, Ratzel,

the “grandfather of German Geopolitik”1 and “one of the best

known academic imperialists of the turn of the century”,’12 was

109 In what is almost a mirror image of Sauer’s culture history,
Smith describes the focus on the peasant as the foundation of
culture - “Bauer, yolk and Kultur” - in the works of the German
geographer Ratzel in the nineteenth century (op. cit., p.129). The
peasantry were essential to the notion of the German “yolk” for
Ratzel, their preservation crucial. On the one hand, this
connected Ratzel to the literary Romanticism of the time and the
tendency to idyllise the rural, viewing “country life through
deeply rose-tinted spectacles” (ibid.) . More importantly, however,
it fed into Ratzel’s later diffusionist theory and his belief in
“migrationist colonialism” - the German
peasant-emigrant taking the national spirit with him to “foreign
lands”; a rationale of German colonialism in the 1870s (ibid.,
p150). Maintaining the importance of “the group, the nation, the
yolk, the state”, Ratzel later added the concept of “Lebensraum” -
intended as a purely scientific idea - to his diffusionist corpus
(ibid., p.220).

110 Ibid., p.232.

Bassin, op. cit., p.116.

112 Smith, op. cit., p.122.

165



also, according to James Duncan, “considered by Sauer to be the

father of [his?] cultural geography”.’13

Temporally, Sauer’s visits to the Mennonites were in synchrony with

the rise to power of the Nazis, although he and they constituted

contemporary Germany as a world apart. Like Malinowsk± in the

field among the Trobrianders, Sauer must have been overcome at

times “by a terrible melancholy” at “things. .going on back

there”;”4 must have further questioned his German identity and

ideas in the face of the rise of the Aryan race; worried about the

separation of academics and politics as geography turned to

geopolitics. Or perhaps the point is that he did not see, or chose

not to:”5 compass set firmly “south by southwest”,”6 perhaps he

113 Duncan, op. cit., p.186. Sauer’s intellectual debt to
Ratzel has been frequently emphasised, in particular by Sauer
himself. Peter Jackson notes that Sauer’s work was “heavily
influenced by the German cultural and historical sciences
(Geisteswissenschaften) “ and that it was from the German classics,
for example Ratzel, that Sauer “derived his perspective on culture
and landscape”(op. cit., p.12). similarly, James Duncan states
that: “Sauer acknowledged his intellectual debt to the German
cultural geographers of the late nineteenth and early twentieth
centuries, especially Ratzel. .“ (op. cit. p.186) . Sauer’s focus on
culture area and diffusion was in part attributed to Ratzel and, in
interview, Sauer talked of how his introduction to Ratzel through
Lowie had given him “an opening on the geography of the life of
primitive peoples” that he “might not have gotten into” without
this “accidental connection” (Sauer, pers. comm. (V) , op. cit.)
Sauer goes on to situate Ratzel as journalist-turned-geographer in
the United States and as a potential “father of ecology” if he had
continued longer. It is interesting that this summary takes us
away from Ratzel in Germany and from Ratzel as political journalist
as well as geographer (Smith, op. cit., p.136).

114 In Geertz, op. cit., p.74.

115 We need to remember that Sauer’s experience as a German
American during World War One in the Midwest was not a positive
one, so that his identification with a German past might be a
reaction to his implication by others in the German present. In
his notes Sauer talks about his “black boyhood year” which may be

166



turned his back on modern political Germany and looked to the

Mennonites for a. German identity from the past. Perhaps that is

why he was so disappointed.”7

The Other Mexico

If Sauer’s antimodernist perspective was responsible for a partial

fixing of “Indian” and Mennonite communities as cultural home, it

also gave him a critical outlook on the “rest” of Mexico.

“Mexicans”, as we have seen, seemed to be constituted by Sauer in

opposition to both “Indians” and Mennonites: Mexicanisation was a

threat to the “true” premodern personality of the country. What we

find in Sauer’s notebooks and correspondence, therefore, is a

division between a “historical” and a more “contemporary” Mexico,

the former associated (as seen above) with the cultural spaces of

the rural and the latter with the more urbane. While Sauer

identifies with the peasant cultures of rural Mexico, he rejects

their modernising urban counterpart, often epitomised in the form

of Mexico City.

In opposition to the “Indian” and Mennonite communities, harbingers

(at least partially) of the “folk” ideal (idyll?), Sauer portrayed

Mexico City as corrupt and unclean. It was, said Sauer “a sort of

punchiuck Paris with much ostentation and equal poverty and dirt”

a reference to the difficulties of the earlier War.

116 Mathewson in Kenzer, op. cit.

117 Sauer appears here as Paul Carter’s (1992, op. cit., p.100)
“self-styled custodian of. . . culture” standing “in relation to the
living (both here and there) as a ghost”: neither finding the
identity he is looking for in the German home (lost and left
behind) nor in the Mennonite alternative.

167



and he liked “the smaller Mexican towns much better and also the

country people.”18 Mexico City was full of “politicians” and

“military men” - the “slickers” of the modern -and it was here, in

contact with the corrupt, said Sauer, that his “suspicion of

institutions became hardened into an aversion”.119 Writing to

Joseph Willits of the Rockefeller Foundation, Sauer saw politics

and academics too closely tied in Mexico City:

“Of any endowment placed in the hands of any Mexican organisation,
I should be sceptical. Mexican politicians can’t leave plum trees
alone” 120

and risked the “sweeping generalisation” that his “Mexican friends”
were basically dishonest.’21 They had, maintained Sauer, “lived so

long in Mexico City that frankness [had] been suppressed in them”

and he went on to state:

“If I want a straight from the shoulder judgement about somebody or
something there, I can get it from Spanish refugees, ex-Germans or
ex-Austrians, but I can think of only one Mexican in Mexico City
who doesn’t immediately pull the blind across his mind.”22

Virtually all of Mexico City’s population, save its (European)

immigrants was thus written off (generalised/essentialised) as

untrustworthy. In addition to dishonesty, Mexican cities were

charged by Sauer as prone to a “type of lechery”. Sauer located

the “white meat complex that exposes any white woman to risk in

Mexico” in the cities. While he has seen this theme revoltingly

118 PC, Sauer to Leighly, op. cit., 15/11/31.

119 PC, Sauer to Willits, 25/2/43.

120 Ibid.

121 PC, Sauer to Willits, 3/8/42.

122 Ibid.

168



expressed in “contemporary Mexican literature”, he maintains that

it is unheard of in the “unilluminated provinces” where the main

problems are bouts of banditry and agrarian unrest.123 In spite of

this comment, rural areas are rarely seen as politically unstable

by Sauer in his notes, the cities tending to provide the backdrop

for political unrest, for example on “a muggy Sunday in Ameca”:

“Town was full of armed agraristas, federal government having sent
a thousand rifles to them in the last two weeks. Undoubtedly
connected with the expulsion of the Callistas from power and
recalls the return of the latter in 1923 ,,124

The Mexican as dirty, dishonest, lecherous and politically unstable

was a familiar refrain in American images of its southern

neighbour.125 While some, as we have seen, conceptualised Mexico

romantically, focusing on its “Indian” communities, others

preferred the “greaser” personality for a more negative portrayal.

Cecil Robinson notes that some American literature of the 1930s

continued to show disgust at the “stock image” of the Mexican:

violent, lazy, politically disruptive, unhygienic and drunk.’26

Sauer’s own “sweeping generalisation”, although perhaps not so

extreme, certainly seems to draw in part on these negative Mexican

traits of the time. However, what is interesting in Sauer’s case

is that these traits are not so much part of a United States/Mexico

opposition, defining the distinction between countries, but a

123 PC, Sauer to Kelly, 8/9/38.

124 sNl4b, p.36.

125 See Cortes in Coatsworth and Rico, 1989, pp.91-119 and
Robinson, op. cit., pp.33-68 and 164-210.

126 Robinson, op. cit., p.173.

169



rural/urban one. Sauer channels negative traits into the urban -

makes them territorially distinct - and thus uses them to support

the alter-image of rural premodern Mexico. By associating the

negative rhetoric of the “greaser” with the cities, Sauer is able

to portray his “other” Mexico as distinct.

The negative Mexican image thus acts as a foil for a more “folkish”

rural counterpart that Sauer can then identify with as “home”.

Mexico’s cities are not only taking on the negative characteristics

of the Mexican but also, and more importantly, of the modern. The

crucial distinction for Sauer appears to be, as always, between the

“yolk” of the rural space and the slickers of the modern urban and

Mexico’s personality - written up as the former, written off as the

latter - is moulded to fit this refrain. In Mexican culture we

thus see a replay of Sauer’s experience of modernisation spatially

displaced onto cultures of the city and the country. Pushing the

modern and the political into the cities allows Sauer to resituate

himself and his work in the antimodern and the apolitical.

Sauer’s ability to portray Mexico as a premodern personality was

not only aided by this rejection of Mexican cities but also of

Mexicans in cities in the United States. Ironically, parallel to

Sauer’s passage to antimodern Mexico, Mexicans were moving into the

United States for the modern,127 attracted by the very urban

127 This was obviously a very different kind of mobility to
Sauer’s. See Clifford in Grossberg, op. cit. for a discussion of
the privileged connotations of the label “traveller” and the
difficulties of applying it to groups such as Mexican immigrants
moving out of economic hardship to the United States.

170



landscapes Sauer was trying to escape.’28 Mexicanisation was not

only a process of self-fashioning within Mexico itself (that Sauer

avoided) but in the immigrant neighbourhoods of Californian cities

where other “Mexicos” were being defined and delimited.’29

This period, as Clifford notes, was one of in which American cities

developed as spaces of “cultural connections and dissolutions” with

“local authenticities” meeting and merging in “transient urban and

suburban settings”.’3° Thus, while attempting to keep the

personality of Mexico apart from the modern, it was being defined

through it in the cities of Sauer’s university state. Sauer, with

his turning away from the Californian urban scene - “too

complicated” - was able to silence/ignore Mexico as change across

the border and root it as continuity in the “field”.’3’

128 Diego Rivera in Deplar, op. cit., p.202 talking about
California: “the splendid beauty of your factories.. .the charm of
your native houses, the lustre of your metals, the clarity of your
glass”.

129 In the 1920s, there was a large outflow of Mexicans to the
United States, almost doubling its Mexican population and causing
a “presence” in California that inspired racist ferment. See
Deplar, op. cit., p16.

130 Clifford, 1988, op. cit., p.4.

One question which arises from this separation out of
Mexican and American culture is what Sauer would have thought of
the Chicano movement: the culture of the “borderlands” coming into
prominence academically and politically today. For Clifford (in
Grossberg et. al., op. cit., p.109), the border is a place of
“hybridity and struggle” and implies the “subversion of all
binarisms”: would this have entered into Sauer’s imagined geography
or would he have erased it in the same way that he turned his back
on cities and on the modern? In some ways, Sauer could have
contributed to the Chicano movement. Robinson notes that the
United States needs a “real history” and literature that includes
its Hispanic Southwest and does not just begin with the Mayflower;
it needs to balance its German and British elements with its
Spanish (op. cit., p.334). Robinson’s citation of Chapman that

171



Borderlands

“How can a life on a border be other than restless?”32

While Sauer may have published Mexico as a singular personality,

in the “field” this disintegrates into a set of multiple

associations and disassociations, a complexity that is to be

expected given Sauer’s own self-fashioning: a “restless” identity

drawing on (or defining against) the United States, Germany and

Mexico. Positioned ambivalently in the “field” amidst culture as

antimodernist, Sauer cannot be said to either fully escape the

modern or fix others as its antithesis. While with the “Indian”

communities Sauer’s focus on the antimodern takes him into the

modern, with the Mennonites he only obscures the modern. In both

cases, he approximates but does not achieve his antimodern goal.

By reconnecting with his antimodernism, Sauer’s pronouncements on

culture in the “field” become not only about Mexico but also about

Sauer himself: we increasingly get the sense that we are dealing

with the “country within”. For Adams and Morris, Mexico has always

been the “sounding board” for American sensibilities, becoming a

different country for each visitor;’33 for Cortes, it is metaphor,

“Our Weimar is ready, perhaps, but Goethe is lagging” (ibid.,
p.332) seems almost an invitation to an alternative application of
Sauer’s work on the Hispanic culture of the Southwest. This would
provide a nice counterpoint to Sauer’s regimental reading of the
United States/Mexico border at the beginning of this chapter.

132 Greene, 1939, p.’0.

133 See Adams, 1990, pxi. Adams’ statement that Mexico has
always been “invasion-prone”, passive and awaiting definition from
outside is however extremely problematic, connoting a politics of
subordination that allows Mexico to be (justifiably) entered and

172



boosting the image of the US as a whole.’34 More specifically (and

pertinently for Sauer), Robinson labels Mexico as a critique of and

“compensation” for the United States, “much resorted to by American

writers” opposing their own society.’35 Similarly Deplar points

out the tendency to constitute the United States as lack and Mexico

as fulfilment: Mexico represents “vaguely from afar” something the

American traveller “lacks and craves” and “more deeply and vaguely”

seems to be his.’36 In a sense, then, like the Mennonites, Sauer

appropriates Mexico on his own terms as homeland, marginalising

Mexicans from this image by associating them with the modern. As

with his appropriation of the “field” as authority, Sauer thus also

claims Mexico culturally by conjuring up the rural landscape as

“home” and the rural cultures as “folk”. As David Spurr notes,

the act of appropriation is often concealed by cultural memory and

a notion of the past:

“not acknowledged as itself, but as a spiritual return, a nostos,
summoned not only by historical vision but by the nature of the
land itself.”37

The “field” is thus imagined as familiar terrain, homeland, if only

ambivalently.

controlled (ibid., p.xiv).

134 Cortes in Rico and Coatsworth, op. cit., p.95.

Robinson, op. cit., pp.70 and 165.

136 Deplar, op. cit., p.197.

Spurr, op. cit., p.90.

173



CHAPTER SIX:

SOUTH AMERICA. . . INNOCENT ABROAD?’

“Soon after coming to Berkeley as head of the geography
department in 1923, Carl Sauer chose Mexico and the American
Southwest as his field laboratory. Although he had often wanted to
visit South America, his only extended trip to the southern
continent was that financed by the Rockefeller Foundation in
1942. ,,2

“he will imagine he has no politics and will consider that a
virtue.

In 1942, the year after The personality of Mexico was published,

Sauer wrote that he felt he could understand the problems of Mexico

and was ready to use this as a comparative base for elsewhere.4 His

opportunity arose in the form of an offer from Joseph Willits of

the Rockefeller Foundation: did Sauer want to spend a year or half

a year studying what he would in South America while involved in a

project assessing its social sciences?5 Sauer replied

affirmatively: he would visit all the countries of the west coast,

reporting to the Foundation on interesting men and ideas in the

social sciences and making his own observations and recommendations

along the way.6 He was thus set to continue his trail from Mexico

1 “Innocent abroad” is the label on Sauer’s notebook for his
trip to Europe with his wife but is used more critically here.

2 West, 1982, op. cit., p.1.

Pratt, 1986, op. cit., p.218.

OC, Sauer to Moe, 22/10/40.

PC, Willits to Sauer, 21/4/41.

6 West, 1982, op. cit., p.97 states Sauer’s own objectives on
the trip as carrying out observations on the relationship of
climate and soils to land use and the stimulation of studies by
local workers in agricultural geography and culture history. While
in this chapter I am more concerned - as usual - with Sauer’s

174



to the south.

Leaving Berkeley by train on December 17, 1942, Sauer (accompanied

by his son and assistant, Jonathan) was at sea for twenty days,

calling at various ports along the way. He arrived in Santiago on

January 18 and spent two months in Chile, eight days in Bolivia,

forty-five days in Peru and one month in Ecuador and Colombia

respectively. On the first of July, he flew to Mexico and returned

to Berkeley by train.

This travel south from Mexico into South America provides a vehicle

for a rich consideration of Sauer in relation to the preceding

chapters. On the one level, we see a replaying of Sauer’s

cultural-academic positioning from Chapter One - the geographer

looking for cultural particulars and endorsing intellectual freedom

and an apolitical stance. This, however, proves paradoxical within

the institutional context of the Rockefeller Foundation which

appears more as counterweight to Sauer than supportive funding

body: not just in the sense of an institution versus an individual,

but also the modern versus the antimodern. Although this paradox

is in part mediated by the introduction of Joseph Willits, the

‘face” to the Foundation - a fellow antimodernist that allows Sauer

to attempt a by-pass of institutional constraints - it is further

complicated by the move from Mexico to South America and the

contemporary political climate. Leaving behind the familiar

territory of the Mexican “field”, Sauer experiences a crisis of

hidden agenda, Sauer’s reports to Willits are extremely rich and
may be read informatively in a variety of ways.

175



authority on new ground and, caught up in the all-too-present

moment of the Second World War, finds it harder than ever to look

to a depoliticised past. While, despite these doubts, Sauer

manages to reinstate (and take refuge in?) a sense of cultural

diversity and apolitical “home”, I attempt a further

destabilisation by repositioning him amidst the universal and the

political. Indeed, by blurring the boundary between Sauer and the

Foundation, I lead into the conclusion with the question how far

the view of Sauer as antimodern man of the margins can be said to

hold.

Particulars and paradox

Sitting on the plateau of New Mexico in 1940, “looking out at the

little green valleys and the juniper-covered rock”, Carl Sauer had

written to Henry Allan Moe of the Guggenheim Foundation of

his hostility for “New York, L.A.” indeed for “the common values of

civilisation.” Sauer’s “mood” instead, he said, was for Latin

America: “a big part of the world” that showed “less tendency to

march under one ideology”. Rejecting the universalising drive of

the modern - “call it ‘personality’ of a land, genre de vie, yolk

and raum, pluralism of cultures”: Sauer claimed to start with the

particular.7At the same time, he turned his back on the political:

cultural personalities were, for him, “far more important” than

“all the words” about politics or international relations.8 It

seems that Sauer, almost twenty years on from his move to Berkeley

OC, Sauer to Moe, 22/10/40, op. cit. True to fieldworker
form, Sauer continues to reflect from a “vantage point”.

8 Ibid.

176



and with twelve years of Mexican’fieldwork behind him, was still

singing the same antimodern tune.

It is ironic, then, that given Sauer’s championing of the

particular over the universal, his further move into Latin America

two years later should be funded by the Rockefeller Foundation. In

his correspondence, Sauer often found himself at odds with this

institution, especially over matters concerning cultural diversity.

Writing to Stacy May of the Foundation in 1938, Sauer set out what

he considered to be the major dilemma of the social sciences at the

time, polarising their universalising trend and his own time and

place specific form of particularism.9He aligned the Foundation’s

interests with the former and seemed to conclude that his views and

theirs were diametrically opposed:

“This dilemma. . .of not being able to make ourselves understood to
each other. I am not sure that it doesn’t go back to two quite
different cosmologies, that it may not be the conflict between the
one god and the pluralist world. Some such gulf does separate the
people in the social sciences. On the one side are the
universalising thinkers, on the other side the particularists. The
one group deals with formal logic and the workings of the mind,
the other is concerned with the logic of events which are forever
conditioned by a framework of time and place. It is Milton against
Goethe, perhaps St. Paul against the Greeks.”1°

Sauer rejected the programmatic strand of the social sciences and,

by implication, the normative interests of the Foundation; his

This theme was elaborated on in Sauer’s later article
Dominant folkways in the social sciences (in Leighly, 1969, op.
cit., pp.380-388) where he continued to oppose the universalists
with the particularists. This opposition is destabilised when
Sauer’s own form of universalism is brought to light later on in
this chapter.

10 oc, Sauer to May, 30/7/37. Once again, we see Sauer making
use of religious terminology as part of his antimodern rhetoric.

177



solution: an inevitable divorce - I suspect that we shall have to

go our own way as we know it.” This, it must be said, sits

uneasily with the partnership of 1942.

Further irony arises from the fact that Sauer should undermine

international relations and politics in his letter to Moe and then

travel in association with the Rockefeller Foundation. It is true

that some have underlined the purely philanthropic nature of the

Foundation’s work, presenting it as a disinterested body with an

open attitude to knowledge. Raymond Fosdick, for example,

summarises the Foundation’s role as:

“to support the institutions or groups where able men were working
fruitfully and intelligently on significant issues”2

and insists that this was its only aim: “it was interested in no

device” and “had no nostrum to sell”. Others, however, are less

generous in their appraisal of the Foundation, tying it into

American cultural hegemony. Edward Berman takes a critical

approach to Rockefeller rhetoric and actions and concludes that the

Foundation is highly political, a “silent partner” of United States

foreign policy interests and state capitalism: “the fat boy in the

philanthropic canoe” 13

In fact, in some ways, it seems paradoxical that Sauer - the

‘ Ibid.

12 Fosdick, 1952, p.221.

13 Berman, 1983, p.2.

178



intellectually free traveller’4- should want to be part of a

Rockefeller research project at all. In his correspondence,

Sauer’s notion of the trail rather than the bounded “field” of

academic study contrasts with the more methodical and circumscribed

expectations of the Foundation. While Sauer argues:

“I think. . . that the Foundation should support persons of high
ability and originality in what they want to do, whatever that may
be” , 15

the Foundation expects a “more specific definition of scope and

implications of activities”.’6 In this sense, the academic “field”

is bounded by the limitations of the Foundation: their scholars are

not free to follow the trail.

Rereading Sauer’s letter to Moe 17 against this contradictory

14 See the Introduction for the discussion of Sauer as
reluctant to bound the academic “field” of geography and also
Chapter Three for Sauer’s emphasis on intellectual freedom in the
Mexican “field”.

15 oc, Sauer to Berrien, 28/2/43. William Berrien was the
Assistant Director of the Humanities Division of the Rockefeller
Foundation at that time.

16 cc, Berrien to Sauer, 7/1/44.
17 While this chapter is concerned with the relationship

between Sauer and the Rockefeller Foundation and how this speaks to
Sauer’s antimodernism, an equally interesting line of pursuit would
be Sauer’s relations with Henry Moe and the Guggenheim Foundation.
The latter funded some of Sauer’s work in the “field” in Mexico and
Sauer in turn was on the Board of the Foundation from 1934 in an
advisory capacity re: its work and policies and scholar selection
process. Moe, like Willits, stood as a “face” to his institution
for Sauer and corresponded with Sauer on similar themes, for
example the separation of academics and politics. Finally, while
in this chapter I concentrate on Sauer’s letters to Willits and how
they betray his antimodern leanings, Sauer’s reports to the
Guggenheim Foundation on potential scholars are equally revealing.

179



background thus leaves us with the Rockefeller funded trip to South

America as paradox: Sauer the self-styled apolitical, academically

free cultural particularist jarring with a political research body

and champion of the universal; turning his back on New York and

interacting with one of its symbols at the same time. If the

Foundation and the paradox appear new, the story is familiar: it

is, it seems, “the old themes and causes relived”8- Sauer the

antimodernist fighting the cultural and academic trends of the

modern. How, then, was an alliance between Sauer and Foundation -

antimodern and modern - possible?

The face

While Sauer often clashed with the Rockefeller Foundation as a

body, the institution had a “face” that he could relate to: that of

Joseph Willits. Willits was the Director of the Social Sciences

Division at the time of the South America trip, Sauer’s closest

contact in the institution, one of his main correspondents, his

advocate and his friend. Sauer’s interaction with Willits was thus

much more symbiotic in nature.

With Willits as mediator, the stark opposition between Sauer and

the Foundation becomes increasingly destabilised: “Rockefeller”

comes to denote not only institution but individual. While the

Foundation, as we have seen, drew boundaries and reminded Sauer of

his place, Willits sought to decrease the dictates and set Sauer

along the trail. For Willits, it was Sauer’s ideology, rather than

that of the Foundation, that seemed to hold currency:

18 Sauer in West, 1982, op. cit., p.15.

180



“If anybody is the patron, it is COS - who lets us share his ideas.
Sharing dollars. . . is small business. . .pray let me continue to share
your ideas.”9

Thus, perhaps from sharing Sauer’s “ideas” on intellectual freedom,

Willits’ offer for the South America trip was (or at least appeared

to be) relatively open-ended: “Do you want to go? If so, when? How

much will it cost?.. .the itinerary is yours to decide”.2° Empowered

by Willits and placed in a position of authority, Sauer makes his

claims for the trip2’ and advises Willits against any mixing of

academics with politics: the Latin Americans, he says, “will not

respect us if we dissemble political ends under academic

mantles”.22 Willits in turn allows Sauer to present himself - if

misguidedly - as disassociated researcher and distances him from

the Foundation on the trip:

“your study tour comes first - and any information for us is
incidental. Our point of view is about this: you and the others
are not travelling as representatives of the Rockefeller Foundation
or even under its auspices, but as scholars on leave from their
universities making their own scholarly studies and
investigations. ,,23

While in his professional correspondence - as evident in the above

quotations - Willits spoke often for himself and the Foundation

(“our point of view...”; “let us share your ideas”), he identified

19 p, Willits to Sauer, 8/2/41.

20 p, Willits to Sauer, 21/4/41.

21 For example, that he wants his son Jonathan to accompany
him; that he wants one of his students, Robert Barlow, to be his
researcher in preparation for the trip and so on.

22 P, Sauer to Willits, 23/9/40.

23 P, Willits to Sauer, 20/9/41.

181



more personally with Sauer at a different level.

Although one of the Directors of a modern institution in New York,

Willits shared with Sauer his sense of rural beginnings and, more

importantly, his antimodernist leaning:

“I wish you could see this spot, beloved of the Willits family.
Out of my office window is the barn (this spot was the hen roost
when the Hayes family lived here) . I can look at as fine a view as
a man with the blood of farmers in his veins and some early
training as a geographer and as ornithologist could wish.”24

There was thus an additional bond between Sauer in South America

and Willits in the United States that allowed them - at least

imaginatively - to by-pass the more urbane image of the Foundation:

“I too love the country as you do. You indicate yours by wandering
around the old spots in Latin America; I make my little daily
contribution travelling an hour and a half. . . in order to sleep in
the woods and hear woodcocks.”25

Sauer’s association with Willits was not, however, simply an

avoidance strategy, distancing himself from Rockefeller rhetoric,

but a stepping stone to an engagement with Foundation policy. In

his personal notebook for the trip, Sauer reveals that he is

relying on Willits to work against the “block” of the Foundation

and to push through the importance of cultural particularity

against its universalising trend:

“I wonder if I can make him see that these things - all of which
are only partly social sciences - are good to do. . . the factual
equipment of the s.s. appears usually quite meagre and stereotyped,
though his thinking apparatus may be excellent. The organisation
of the RF may be a block - but Willits if anyone can get around
that. Wish I had comment on the dozen letters I have sent in thus

24 Pc, Willits to Sauer, 9/9/42.

25 pc, Willits to Sauer, 10/4/45.

182



far. . .1 am fighting something and I don’t know what, perhaps the
concept of the s.s. as normative without being aware that your norm
is what you desire. The low curiosity of the s.s. as compared to
the natural scientist is certainly mixed up in my attitude. Unable
to be a philosopher and sceptical of persuasion by words, I’m still
trying to write always an apology for culture history.”26

The trip, for Sauer, thus aims to collect cultural facts and to

persuade Willits and the Foundation of the casualties of a

normative approach. The letters are not, then, as Robert West has

written, Sauer’s “first impressions” or “andean reflections”27 but

planned comments with a transformative end in mind. Aiming his

argument at (and through) Willits, the weakest link in the

Foundation’s chain, Sauer has an agenda of his own.

Putting the contradictions of Sauer’s institutional context to one

side temporarily allows for a further exploration of the complexity

of the trip. Not only did Sauer have to negotiate his position

vis-a-vis the Rockefeller Foundation, but he also had to maintain

his cultural agenda and apolitical stance in a new spatial

(cultural) and temporal (political) context: South America in

wartime. As shown below, Sauer’s positioning became even more

ambivalent as a result.

New space: a crisis of cultural confidence

In only his second report to Willits from South America - still at

sea - Sauer began his cultural “offensive”: airing his views on

particularity and providing a framework within which his letters

26 5N21, p.2l.

27 West, 1982, op. cit., p.25.

183



should be read. Sauer was, he said, concerned about the way the

social sciences and the Foundation regarded culture and

disappointed by their lack of curiosity:

“I don’t think that there has been enough concern with the
attitudes or values of the numerous peoples of the world. One of
the things we most need is curiosity about other people and some
competence to look at the world through their eyes. . .1 do insist
that there is too much in each of the social sciences that is
egocentric, in terms of culture, and that it isn’t that kind of a
world. ,,28

The “great mistake” for Sauer was the notion that “the data of

culture” could “be universalized as well as the data of the

physical sciences” •29

However, despite such a strong textual advance on Foundation

cultural policy - advising a move towards the “numerous peoples of

the world” - Sauer found himself doubting his own ability to move

outside Mexico:

“As a physical geographer, I might, with sufficient preparation,
undertake to study land forms or climate anywhere in the world;
but as a cultural geographer, I cannot easily pass from one part of
the world to another as a serious scholar. In one lifetime I may
bridge the gap between my native culture and another, but hardly to
many others.”3°

Travelling to South America, it seems, presented itself to Sauer as

28 Sauer in West, ibid., p.15. This statement of Sauer’s seems
extremely progressive for his time: a push for the equality of
other ways of life over the cultural imperialism of the modernising
Western world. Despite the critique aimed at Sauer in this chapter
and the limitations (as we shall see later) of his attempts to
reintroduce other cultures, this progressive side should not be
overlooked.

29 Ibid., p.17.

° Ibid., p.19.

184



a crisis of cultural authority. While - as we have seen in Chapter

Three - through spatial and observational practices and sheer

endurance Sauer considered himself a voice of authority in the

Mexican “field”, he did not feel that he could enter South American

space for the first time with the same legitimacy. Ironically for

Sauer, wanting to introduce cultural diversity against the

universal, he found himself trapped by the particular time and

space of his “field”. In opposition to his authority in Mexico,

Sauer thus articulated his self-doubt in the form of a reverse

persona: the tourist, this time, rather than the fieldworker and a

problematic vision rather than the clarity of observation in the

“field”. Scribbled (perhaps aptly) on the inside of Sauer’s South

American notebook, we find a less authoritative Sauerian stance:

“You can’t answer anything but you can ask a lot of questions.”3’

Not grand: tour

Mexico, as we saw in Chapter Three, was Sauer’s “field”, his realm

of authority within which he was always the legitimate worker and

never the tourist. Sauer in South America, however, presents us

with an image that is much less grand. According to James Parsons,

Sauer’s foray was a “reconnaissance” that he “obviously enjoyed”

but was “in no sense fieldwork”.32 It seems that moving south in

1942 was for Sauer a repositioning towards a less authentic, less

authoritative stance. The geographer, we must remember, could not

be a “world tourist” travelling through many cultures and “knowing

31 SN21, p.29.

32 Parsons, pers. comm. (L) , op. cit.

185



only casually and doubtfully related things about any of them”.33

While in the “field” in Mexico Sauer had the authority of

cumulative years of dwelling and travelling in the same territory,

the trail in South America was taking him into new space and a

terrain of uncertainty: thus, the South American experience, wrote

Sauer in his reports to Willits, was a only a “tour”.34

In a complete contrast to his positioning in Mexico, Sauer thus

went on to claim the status of tourist for both himself and his son

Jonathan. The Sauers, he wrote, were “rank tourists” in comparison

to the more sedentary and therefore more authoritative presence of

other academics in the area. The latter had the cumulative

knowledge and the endurance that the Sauers - who would “flit along

north by the end of the month” - did not have: this was not his,

but their “field”.35 In Chile, Sauer thus associated himself with

the dwelling space of the tour rather than the hardship of the

field: “I almost fancied myself back at the Murray Hill Hotel”.36

This self-positioning as tourist was not, however, completely

continuous for Sauer. Although he never identified himself as

Sauer in Leighly, 1969, op. cit., p.362.

Sauer in West, 1982, op. cit., p.l23.

Ibid., p.79. Sauer, as we saw above, passed very quickly
through certain countries, spending only a number of days in some.

36 Ibid., p.61. Sauer’s association with the tour is
textualised differently to Mexico in his South America notebook.
We are shown the process of getting there rather than beginning
with the entrance to the “field”. Perhaps, then, the traveller
geographer becomes fieldworker through the bounded fact-notes of
the “field” whereas the traveller-tourist writes up his experience
in the open-ended narrative of the travelogue?

186



-
c
-
I
-
C

)
J
c
-
t

0
C

CD
H

-
1J

CD
I-

Cl
)

C
F

-’
Q

.I
-

><
Cl

)
h

CD
C

D
C

D
F

—
C

C
)C

)f
I-

C
1

CD
II

(0
CD

H
-

0
CD

Cl
)

C
)
h

i
Q

I
-

C
D

N
c
-I

-C
)H

-C
D

—
ft

f
t
Q

Q
h
U

)
O

H
1

C
D

c-
I-

-

5
H

-
I
h
H

C
l)

ft
0

jI
I

CD
H

-
CD

Cl
)

H
H

-
f
t
C

D
H

C
D

f
t

H
-

l
-
’
-

-
t
H

0
H

C
D

(
Ci

D
C

D

CD
<

H
-

t
1

H
C

l)
C

D
C

)
f
t

0 d
I
-
h

p
j
C

D
J
H

-
’

U
)
P

J
>

‘C
fl

C
D

ft

0
-’

P
J

fr
c
-I

.
P)
H

g
-
D

)
C0
0

p
j

l
)

f
tF

F
-
C

D
C)

C
f
)
H

-
H

-C
F

F
—

’h
F

-’
0

-P
J

C)
c
-I

-s
i
<

f
t

C
D

p
U

)C
D

I-
-’

C
Cl

)
c-

I
t

I-
)
j

0
F’

-
CD

H
-
C

)
I-

H
-
j
i
b

I
-
H

-
H

CD
(0

H
-C

D
CD

H
-

f
t

0-
’

Z
C

C)
c-

I
CD

H
-

f
t

C
D

H
I—

h
H

-C
D

S
C

CD
H

-
I-

CD
0

H
-

Cl
)

I—
’

H
c
-I

-C
D

0
-H

-
Q

i
C

D
O

C
)ç

-I
-

CD
C

H
M

-
H

-
pi

0
-

CD
0C

D
U

)

•
c-

I-
H

-U
)

C
D

U
)

p
J
0

-
’

C
0
C

)
=

C
D

0-
F

-’
C

)
H

O
1

ic
-
I

<
H

-
pi

F—
-’

CD
0

H
-

C)
(l

)W
C

D
C

)
C

C
D

O
c
-
I
-
C

D
(
0

c-
I-

:
H

p1
<

D
)
H

-
0

C
)
C

D
C

)
)

p
J

Cl
)

Cl
)

Ci
i

Ci
i
i

H
-

0
CD

(I)
H

C
)

I—
i,

I-
--

’l
-

c-
I-

Cl
)

1
CD

c
-I

-C
C

)
CD

I-
-’

H
-

P
iM

P
)

I-
H

,
F-

’
f
t
•

H
CD

CD
C

D
-

l-
H

,
0-

’
0

0
c-I

-
C

D
c
-I

-H

CD
CD

c-
I-

C
D

(0
-

c-
I

c-
I

0
pi

CD
C

D
<

c-
I-

ft
H

CD
Cl

)
0

f
tp

i
H

-
M

H
-

0
H

-
h
p
j

c-I
-

CD
C)

Ci
)

C
C

F-
’

H
-

H
-

C
)

5
ft

H
-

H
-

H
-

C
fl

ft
ft

U)
CD

C
)

0
U

)
C

ft
C

)
H

,
C

C
D

H
-

II
CD

h
F-

’
Q

0
_
P

i Cl)

ft
H

,
H

p
i

1
H

-
ft

C)
C

)
1

O
S

0
c-I

-
C

D
h

H
-

ft
M

H
-

<
c-

I
CD

C
D

0
H

-
H

c-
I

C!
)

CD ><
CD

H
-

M
C)

-
ft

C
Cl)

-

I—
’C

D
H

-
ft

C)
0

0
-’

.
c
)

H
-

C
D

-
M

C
)

‘C
D

P1
c-I

-
H

-
0

H
U

)
P-

ft
H

-
C)

CD
CD

U)
P1

C)
CD

F-
-’

ft
0-

’
C

M
0-

’
CD

CJ
)

0-
’

5
CD

C
CD

H
-

H
-

h
H

-
h

C)
H

-
ft

U
)

CD
CD

f
t

h
C

CD
•

c-I
-

P1
H

C
CD

0-
’

Cl
)

Cl
)

H
C

P
CD

ft
Ih

C
Cl

)
P)

CD
CD

=
I-

l-’ H

P)
C

P1
U

)
Cl

)
F-

P
CD

H
-

CD
S

F
U

)
CD

o
H

Cl
)

P-
I

H
C

Cl)
-

CD
CD

i—
i

CD
H

,
0-

’
F-

’
-
-

CD
C

F-
’

CD

H
-

c-
I

CD
p

ft

C
ft

-
c-I

-
ft

Cl
)

CD
P)

P1
h

ft
H

-
0-

’
F-

0-
’

o
P1

CD
H

-
P

(0
Cl

)
F-

’
CD

c-
I-

F-
Cl

)
0-

’
M

ft I-
i—

CD
F-

C)
k
<

P1
‘-

<
M

k
<

C)
H

-
ft

P1
ft

ft
C

S
H

-

-

CD
C

.Q
M C

CD
P1

ft
H

-
0)

ft
(Q

C
Cl

)
CD

f
t
x

j
f
t

C
C

C
D

M
i
I
-
h

CD
Q

i
[h

P
l

h
C

f
t
f
t

II
H

-
C

D
C

C
D

H H H (0

C
r

0 C
r

0 i-
I

Co CD C
r

0 I-
’

C
l
)
f
t

C
H

-
C

D
C

D
ft

H
c
-
x

J

f
t

C
D

M
C

D
H C

):
i

p
-I

’
P

1

f
t(

0

C
D

0
)0

-’

C
D

P
i

ft
C

)
C

D
C

D

M
M

H
H

,C
D

M
U

)
.—

]

-
f
t H H

C
l
)

C
D

(0 CD
C

l)
p
j ft

M
C

D

s
ip

i
M

C
)

C
)

-C
D f
t

H
P-

I
C

l)
’-

d
:-

H
C

D

(D
C

D
H

H
-

—
c-

I
C

l
)
C

C)
C

D
d

C
H

-
M

S
f
t
h

CD
ft

C
D

CC
]

M
H

-
CD

CD J-
_
Q

p1
ft

CD
(f

lU
)

ft
0
-’

C
- c

-I

U
)

C
D

H

P1
H

ft
pi

H
C

)
C)

o
P

)
1-0

CD
M

O
-’

U)
H

-C
D

H
-

c
-I

-S
P1

k
<

H
-
0

-
’

H
-

l.Q
Cl

)
C

D
P1

ft
C

C
)

W
P

C
,

H
C

D
C

f
tC

Cl
)

(
0

c-I
-

I-
S

M
CD

C
D

p
1
C

D
C

D
ft

’-
<

C

-
.

CD
C

D

U
)

C
C

D
C

D
CD

ft
C

D
h C

CD
H

,
c-I

-
H

,

C
l)

H
c-

I
CD
H ‘<

C
D

C
D

C!
)

P1

C
D

C
D

M
P1 U

)



Cl
) 0 Cl) CD I- Cl) C) 0

o
IC

)
H

ft
IC

D
0

I
IX

I
f
tI

U
1
C

l)
f
l
f
t
-

i-
<

C
D

jh

H
O

Q
C

l)
Pi

h
i—

’P
i

Z
3

H
-

C
D

çi
Cl)

CD

p
i

H
-

H
d

Cl)
I
-
h

CD
H

,
(D

C
D

H
P

’
C

D
H

H
-E

Q
C

r
f
t

f
t

S
c
::

cD

C
D

C
l)

C
l)

H

i-

H
-

Cl
)

H
H

-
f
t

tQ

H
-

C
D

t
C

l
)

H
0

H
Q

i
L

I

C
l)

Pi
Cl

)
CD

h
C

)
0

-
çt

PJ
t
h

ct
C

D
CD

C)
‘1

-
-
‘

CD
w

(
D

C
)

C)
rj

H
p

C
D

H
C

l
CD

Q
0

ft
r
t

C
D
0

ç
t

Cl
)

I-
H

H
-

ft
C

D
i-

i,
0

H
-

pi
Cl

)
Cl

)
h

h
C

)
C

D
C

)
H

-
C

D
P

J
H

-
p1

H
5

0
ç
r

H
-

H
,I

C)
C

l)
I-

P
J
-

CD
H

-
f
t

ct
H

Q
i
j
c
t

•
f
tC

D

Cl
)

P1
C

=
Cl

)
Cl

)
H

C)
H

-
Cl

)
CD

C
r

f
t

0
CD

C)
H

-
0

Cl
)

H
H

Cl
)

P1
0

‘•
d

CD
S

H

p1
H

:
p

-
CD

H
P1

f
t
C

l
)

-
-

-

H
-

H
-

H
-

C
l)

H
,

CD
p1

C)

—
1

H
Cl

)
k
<

C
r

rn
H

-
H

,
r-

H
-

C)
0

C
r

‘•
d

ç
t

I-
P1

P1
‘
-

CD
CD

H
-

P1
CD Cl

)
H

-
P

p1

.c
-

Cl
)

H
-

Cl
)

;s
H

1
CD

H
L

I
C

I-
H

-
C)

I•
tJ

l.Q
U

)
h

0
pi

0
CD

H
,

Cl
)

c-I
-

C)
Cl

)
H

-
W

—
Cl

)
0

C)
H

ft
5

0
H

-
o

CD I-
Cl

)
H

S
H

-
C)

p
l

P1
C)

CD
p1

-

-
CD

H
Cl

)
CD

0
H

-
p1

f
t

5
1-1

H
-

CD
H

-
Cl

)
CD

CD
CD

CD
CD

Cl
)

-
H

-
f
t

Cl
)

C
I-

Cl
)

CD
H

Cl
)

H
-

C
l

CD
H

-
CD

H
-

ft
H

,
-

C
r

0
H

-
?-

•
0

H
-

H
p1

H
-

CD
H

H
,

H
-

H
,

C
l-

;
CD

Cl
)

H
ft

H
-

CD

S H
-

l-
;

H
CD

P1
Cl

)

H CD
H

P1

H
-

o
-

S
H

,
H

()
Cl

)
C

r
‘
-
‘

Cl
)

N
H

-
CD

C)
0

0
T

‘1
-

—

CD
CD

H
-

CD
><

CD
0

h
H

-
C)

--
-

0
P

—

U
)

Cl
)

P1
—

P1
CD

-
0

I-
CD

H
,

‘1
:

U
)

H
-

H
-

CD
f
t

ft
ft

CD
0

H
Cl

)
h

CD
H

-
5

ft
H

-
CD

0
Cl

)
0

ft
H

,
pj

p1
H

-
H

Cl
)

f
t

k
<

H
C)

H
-

h
0

ft
‘-

0
Cl

)
C

r
H

-
C)

r-
t

ft
H

-
‘<

i-
i

CD

-
-0

H
-

- CD
P1

0 ft
p1

P-
,

H
-

H
0

0
h

Cl
)

CD
;;‘

s
f
t

p1
CD

0
P

C
r

H
,

<
C) (

j_ C)
f
t

Cl
)

0
C)

t:
Ij

l-
p1

p1
‘1

P1
-

ft
H

Cl
)

C)
k
<

U
)

H
-

0
P1 H Cl

)
H

-
0

H P1
C

l-
CD

C) CD
CD

L
I

H
-

Cl
)

Cl
)

r
r

CD
P1

Cl
)

c-
r

H
-

CD
Cl

)
f
t

-
P-

.
H

,

P1
H

U
)

H
p1

-
C

r
H

p
l

CD
0

Cl
)

I-
p1

4
.

.
I

—

H
H

U
)

1
H

-
H

-
0-

,
0

CD
•

-
I- H

-
0

D
0

CD
-

Cl
)

ft
P1

H 0

N
0 C) H

-
ft —

1
U

,

H
-

0 0
0 C) H Cr

0
H

H
-

H
,

C
D

C
D

P
1
U

)
Cl

)
C

)
f
tc

-
r

H
-

5
1

0
-
Q

-
l-

ft
d

p
i

Q
r
h

p1
CD

h
‘d

0
-

0
-
C

D
H

Z
CD

H
-

CD
1Q

ft
H

-
P

1
-
’
C

D
CD

H
P

1
j
p
i
-

k
<

<
(Q

C
C

fl
0

-,
C

) f
t

C)
P1

0C
)
C

D
O

p
-
,
p
i

5
H

,
5F

-
f
t

0
H

Q
-

H0
H

-
h

C
D

P1
H

-
C

)
Ct

)
ft

S
P1

P1
f
t

H
f-

r
=

CD
CD

ft
0

1C
D

0
-

U
)

I—
’

0
H

C
D

P1
H

-
- P1

‘-
0

I-
-

C
l)

C
D

P
1

f
t

H
0

CD
C

D
S

H
,

CD
C

l
)

H
-

t
j.

0
C

D
f
t

ft
-

C
D

1
H

-C
D

C
)C

D
H

-
’

l-Q
P

1
C

0
C

r
I
-

Cl
)

f
t
H

.
k
<

H
-

f
t

P1
Cl

)
Cl

)
Cl

)
k
<

CD
P1

H
-

Cl
)

ft
C

)
H

0

0
0

H
-

Ci
)

C)
C

r
CD

0
Cl

)
C

D
C

D
CD

-
ft

H
,

H
CD

H
-

H
,

H
-

H
0C

D

P1
H

f
t

Cl)
H

,
CD

r
H

-
C

D
H

1
0

p
iH

-C
D

ft
I- 0

j
(
Q

C
)
H

,

Cl
)

CD
H

ft
C

r
H

-
3

CD
C

r
0

Cl
)

0
-

S
0
C

D
C

D



Without the security of the science of observation of the field,

Sauer has to come down (at least partly) from his vantage point and

admit (if reluctantly) that his vision is unclear.45

As with the rhetoric of the tour, however, Sauer remains ambiguous.

With some security - perhaps from Mexico as basis for comparison46-

Sauer accompanies his doubts with cultural synopses. In Callao,

Sauer finds cultural “pallor common”: the people “soft spoken” and

“much given to the use of their arms in speech”,47 whereas the

Chilotes, on hearsay, are “very moral and industrious”, owning

their land and feeding themselves.48 Sauer sets up a hierarchy of

cultures, his most frequent comparison being that between Mexico

and Chile in which the Chileans are the seen as the “extreme of

race” and their language “vile”:

“With the wisdom of my three days’ experience in Chile, I’d
rather be a Mexican; that is partly because I think the Mexican
enjoys life more.. .These Chilenos are dapper and disciplined, but
they are not lusty, like my Mexicans. (I see I’m getting in deeper
and deeper, so here goes off the deep end.) They dress carefully,
they run their trains on time, they don’t bay at the moon. . .

‘ Although Sauer’s views lack clarity, however, this does not
mean that he does not still aspire to the “vantage point view”. In
opposition to the “vantage points” in Sauer’s Mexican notebooks,
Sauer’s vision is often unclear in his South American notes. Sauer
is more speculative and imaginative, uncertain of what he sees from
the ship and also mists often obscuring his view.

46 This notion of Mexico as secure basis for authority is, of
course, itself spurious: as we saw in Chapters Three and Four,
Sauer’s created authority in the “field” was not without its
loopholes.

Sauer in West, 1982, op. cit., p.122.

48 Ibid., p.53.

Ibid., p.27.

189



Thus, despite his lack of descriptive authority on new ground,

Sauer attempts a cultural commentary.

Although Sauer’s self-doubt is not absolute, its expression as

tourist “scratching” at culture feeds into a wider anxiety in the

letters as to the Foundation’s use of his ideas. Sauer reiterates

to Willits that he is “just the impressionist now, watching the

faces, the gaits, the gestures, the remarks that are passed..

he cannot be a serious scholar in unknown space and limited time:

“I’m just giving you my mixed reactions as they come along. It is
impossible to come here, a complete stranger, and size up the
intellectual currents properly in a few days.”51

When Willits writes to Sauer that he has shown the letters to his

acquaintances, Sauer fills his response with qualifiers and draws

in full on the imagery of his hasty touristic passage through

South America and his inadequacy as a painter of culture:

“I am very pleased to get your letter, and pleased no end to hear
that you have found things worthwhile in my observation. I hope
that these friends of yours who have seen my letters will not get
the idea that Sauer makes rash and sweeping generalisations
wherever he alights in his hasty passage through Andean lands.
There is, I think, some value to first impressions, if they are
understood as being only such. The business of appraising the
worth of individuals is mostly beyond the possibilities of such a
reconnaissance trip. Sometimes I think that even the matter of
making notations on the intellectual atmosphere of a place is
pretty presumptuous. In apology, I can say that I think I do have
a comparative basis out of my long Mexican experience, and that I
should have some ability to understand not only what is being said
but what is being meant. It is all pretty sketchy, however, and I
do not have too much confidence in the sketches I have tried to
draw. . . It all seems pretty futile at times, but I know of nothing
else to do than expose these impressions, with almost constant

° Ibid.

51 Ibid., p.37.

190



misgivings, as recording my reconnaissance.”52

Sauer’s cultural impressions, as we have seen above, are indeed

“sweeping generalisations” - in more ways than one, as I will show

- and, as we shall see later in politicising Sauer, his caution

against the interpretation of his sketches as fact is extremely

prophetic. Here, however, we turn to a second round of self-doubt:

from Sauer’s spatial-cultural dilemma to his temporal-political -

the separation of academics and politics contemporary with World

War Two.

Now time: a crisis of political abstinence

Sauer’s early reports to Willits were not only a forum for his

cultural agenda but also for his views on the separation of

academics from politics. The realm of the scholar, wrote Sauer,

had to be divorced from that of the state - the worlds of Caesar

and God could not be allowed to meet:

“My view of the scholar’s obligations is that he should ‘render
unto Caesar the things that be Caesar’s but that his primary
concern be not with them.”53

The primary concern of the scholar was a non-aligned search for

Truth, itself “neither a belligerent nor a tribal god”. There was

a need for “detached observers” to take “the long view and the cool

view”, scholars who could be objective and stand away from the

52 Ibid., p.85.

PC, Sauer to Willits, op. cit., 23/9/40. This is
reminiscent of the Mennonites and their rejection of Caesar, the
state.

191



“thick of the strife”.54

Here, Sauer was not speaking generically, simply reliving his old

apolitical theme, but had a specific subtext to his commentary: the

political moment of the Second World War. The United States had

just entered the War and were battling in the Pacific as Sauer

sailed slowly through on “The Imperial”55 on his way to South

America. Therefore, for Sauer, it was not only imperative that he

return to his apolitical refrain but that he also insist on his own

distance from the contemporary “strife”. The world of the present,

wrote Sauer, was not “exciting” for him; the events were not

“tangible”, the “business” too unreal for him to think with

awareness of the United States at war.56 Couching the political

context in euphemism, he refused to think of it head-on:

“The warm Pacific is swishing by my porthole and it is time to go
up and see if there are any signs of lower life on the deep, or
perchance, and we hope not, of that higher form that is rumoured as
being about on unpacif Ic business.”57

and, writing to Willits from South America, he claims escape: “We

are far out of your world.”58

Sauer in West, 1982, op. cit., pp.13-14.

This ship is quite ironically named considering Sauer’s
denial of the political nature of his travel.

56 Sauer in West, 1982, op. cit., pp.9-la.

Ibid., p.15.

58 Ibid., p.33. Sauer turns instead to his book, The golden
bough: its consideration the whole world and human time perhaps
allowing him to escape the here and now of the North Pacific. The
notion of fieldworkers taking refuge in literature is not novel -
see Geertz discussion of Malinowski, op. cit., p.74.

192



C)
C

J
Q

H
,

Q
0

CD
‘1

CD
H

-
CD

C!
)

0
I-

Q
C)

H
CD

-
c
i

H
-

c
i

H
’

CD
I—

I
H

I
c-r

J
c
i

‘-
<

CD
H

-
H

-

-

CD
H

c
i

CU
C)

•
CU

H
-

H
CD

CD
H

-
CD

H
H

•
w H

H
-

H
-

CD
CD

CD H
CU H

CD
C)

CD
p

0
CD

C)
Cl

i
H

,
<

0
H

-
CD

CD
CD

H
,

C)
C)

C)
0

CU
CD

CD
H

-
H

CD
C)

CU
C)

c
i

CD
H

M
H

CD
Cl

i
H

-
0

H
ci

H
-

H
-

C)

CD
C)

c
i

0

0
CU

CD
CD

H
-

l
H

,

CD
H

-
c
i

CD
CD

Q

Cl
i

H
-

3
H

-

c
i

c
i

CD

CD
C)

-
IQ

CD
CD

H
c
i

i
Cl

)
CU

Q
ci

C)
H

-
Cl

)
CU

CU
H

,
<

c
i

0
CD

CD
0

C)
-

CD
H

,
H

-
0

CD

CU
H

h
c
i

0
H

H
’

CD
0

H
C

”
ci

0
‘d

Cl
i

c
i

I-
I-

0
H

’
Cl

)
c
i

CD
CD

CD
H

CD
-

0

H I-
’

CD CD H CD ‘1 CD

H w

C)
Cl

i
Q

C)
Q

=
Cl

)
d

d
h

3
H

-
b

CD
0

CD
0

H
,

CU
0

0
0

o
CD

Cl
i

CD
C

’
CD

CD
l-

H
CD

CD
H

-
CD

H
’

CD
I-

H
-

CD
c
i

H
-

c
i

H
-

c
i

CD
CD

CD
H

-
CD

CD
CD

l-
CU

c
i

CU
c
i

I-
H

-
c
i

<
CD

CD
CU

0
<

H
H

-
H

-
b

H
CD

CD
CD

CD
C)

H
-

0
c
i

H
-

C)
I-

‘-
0

CD
Cl

)
H

CU
I—

’
-

Q
H

CD
-

o
CD

H
-

‘<
H

H
-

C)
0

H
-

H
c
i

-
H

-
H

CD
Cl

i
0

H
-

<
CU

H
,

CD
CD

CD
:

CU
CD

3
H

Q
Cl

i
ci

c
i

c
i

-
CU

H
I

CD
H

-
CU

CD
Cl

)
-

CD
0

c
i

H
-

c
i

H
-

H
-

Q
0

C)
h

H
-

CD
c
i

CD
c
i

c
i

CD
•

0
H

,
0

CD
0

H
CD

0
Z

3
CD

H
-

CD
CD

CD
Cl

i
H

I- H
-

H
CD

CD
CD

C)
Cl

i
c
i

Cl
)

CD
o

H
-

CD
c
i

CD
Cl

i
H

c
i

CU
H

ô
h

CD
c
i

H
0

H
-

0
c
i

-
H

-
c
i

CD
H

-
H

-
Cl

i
CD

CD
H

-
CD

CD
H

CD
-

-
H

‘
-.

CD
‘

c
i

CD
CD

0
c
i

c
i

CD
CU

CU
><

CD
C)

CD
CD

H
-

C
”

H
-

CD
CD

CU
H

-
0

CD
c
i

0
CD

<
CD

I-
H

,
Cl

i
CD

H
-

Cl
i

H
-

Cl)
Cl

i
p

CD
H

,
Cl

)
0

H
,

P
Cl

i
H

-
CD

CD
H

CD
H

-
0

H
-

-
Cl

i
CD

I
CD

CD
H

CD
-

CU
H

H
-

CD
CD

CU C)
H

,
CU

CU
CD

CD
H

CD
Cl

i
cc

CD
-

C
l

c
i

H
-

CU
H

-
IQ

CD
CD

Cl
i

0
H

c
i

CU
CD

CD
H

-
S

()
H

-
CD

CD
CD

H
H

-
H

,
c
i

<1
H

,
CD

H
,

Cl
i

C)
c-I

-
H

-
k
<

CD
CD

C)
CD

CD
CD

H
CD

0
H

-
0

CD
CD

H
c
i

H
CD

H
,

5
H

-
Cl

i
CD

H
-

H
-

0
CD

H
-

CD
<

0
c
i

H
,

Cl
)

I-Q
CD

CD
c
i

CU
CD

H
-

CD
Cl

)
Cl

i
-

CD
CD

IQ
II

CD
H

-
H

CD
c
i

Cl
i

CD
C

l
C

l
0

CU
CD

CU
CD

CD
H

-
CD

c
i

CU
0

H
0

i-

H
-

0
CD

H
Cl

i
CD

H
-

CD
b

h
z

CD
H

Cl
i

Cl
i

CD
CD

c
i

H
,

S
c
i

Q
c
i

-
CU

CD
H

-
H

-
o

c
i

c
i

C)
C)

Cl
i

l

CD
CU

F-
’

C
l

CU
CD

CD
CD

5
H

-
c
i

CD
CD

0
CU

H
’

0
CD

c
i

CD
H

,
CU

CU
0

d
c
i

<
H

,
CU

C)
H

,
H

,
c
i

0
Cl

i
H

-
C)

CD
CD

0
CD

H
,

H
0

l-
H

-
c
i

-
-

h
C)

c
i

H
-

I-
H

’
H

CD
c
i

CD
CU

-
c
i

0
‘-

<
CD

c
i

CD
CD

CU
CD

CD
CD

I
CD

S



tendency towards an “egocentric” perspective. He thus positioned

himself in opposition as “cultural discoverer” of South America

rather than representative of American intellectual dominance

carrying the “academic torch” to the south. As part of this

positioning, Sauer used his reports to Willits as a vehicle for

reinstating “Indian” cultures against “white dominance” and

protecting academic traditions - for Sauer, very much a part of

cultural particularity - against American intellectual inroads.

Passing through the countries along the west coast of South

America, Sauer frequently gave articulation in his reports to the

cause of “Indian” populations holding out against “white” culture.

As in Mexico, Sauer shows himself concerned with native resistance

versus the modern: aware (even ashamed) of the atrocities of the

past, he places hope in preservation in the future. In Cuzco in

the Peruvian Highlands, Sauer feels:

.a little like the apostle Paul must have felt about the
Macedonian Christians. This is the heart of Quechua country, this
is the seat of Incaland; the Indian has taken and is taking a
terrible beating from the white man and the latter’s civilisation”,

but maintains that:

“. . .they are badly bent but not broken.. .Cuzco may yet be
occidentalised, but I’m betting against it. The white man has had
his will of the Indian of the altiplano for 400 years, and much of
it has been and is shocking. But here... 400 years are not enough
to give assurance that the white man has the requisite staying
power. ,,61

Down on the Peruvian coast, Sauer later “discovers” a pocket of

61 Ibid., p.77.

194



“Indians” - “scarcely cross-bred” - which he has never heard of and

he feels has never been studied: here is a “going culture”, an

“authentic culture” that has to be maintained.62 Similarly, in

Bolivia, Sauer finds four fifths of the population to be “pure

Indian”: vital, confident and far from being “deculturated”:

• .the personality is not dragged out of these people; your eye is
caught by the interesting and alert faces. There is meaning in the
persistence of beautifully woven costumes; these people will not
hide themselves in the white man’s shoddy or cast-off clothing.”63

Finally, in Ecuador - to his preservationist delight - Sauer spots

“Indians. . .on every road” and writes to Willits of their

accessibility: “I can go round the corner from my room and bring

you an Indian with his hair in a braid in three minutes.M

Faced with such cultural persistence, Sauer pushes for the academic

study of “Indian” populations, criticising what he sees as purist

intellectuals who are not interested in such issues and impressing

the value of those that are, for example Don Ricardo Donoso,

Director of the National Library and Archives in Santiago, who:

“Came to Chile at 19 to do engineering.. . got interested in the
Arancanians - lived with them. .made love to their girls. . .proud of
the fact that he really lived with the Indians. .His ethnologic
interest was by direct and close association with the Indians.”65

62 Ibid., p.125.

63 Ibid., p.72.

64 Ibid., p.l06. There are, of course, problems with Sauer’s
focus on the dignity, purity and authenticity of “Indian” cultures.
As in Mexico, the questions of romanticisation - the “noble savage”
- and essentialisation are crucial but, since they were explored in
the last chapter, are here left relatively undeveloped.

65 SN21, p12.

195



Sauer is concerned about countries like Bolivia with a “largely

unstudied. . . . culture” where the “Indian” has not yet been

“discovered” intellectually: the “literate Bolivian”, he claims,

has not yet learned to articulate “his homeland”. At the same

time, however, given what he sees as the “unspoiled” nature of

“Indian” culture, Sauer finds himself “not even sure that the

Americans or anyone else should move in on them”:66

“Here lies appeal and risk. The appeal is that of a largely
unstudied country and culture, of an economically largely
undeveloped land. The risk is in such persons as the university
president who is building a modern skyscraper. . . “

This notion of “Americans” moving in was not only an issue for

Sauer in relation to “Indian” populations but a threat to South

American cultural variety as a whole. In his recommendations in

his reports to Willits, Sauer continually criticises a strategy of

American academic imperialism which would wipe out local ways of

thinking and reduce diversity: the answer, he says, is not “by

us”.68 Sauer thus advises Willits to support local intellectual

development in situ rather than an overdominance by, or a

transplanting to, the United States. The locals, Sauer feels, have

an insider perspective and a preparation for the conditions and

66 Sauer in West, 1982, op. cit., p.108. It is typical of
Sauer’s self-positioning that he does not include himself here as
an American moving in on other cultures. Sauer sees himself as
passing through with no transformative potential and therefore the
fact that he has “been having the time of his life. . . from grandee
to pigtailed Indian” does not, for him, sit uncomfortably with his
critique of American intervention.

67 Ibid p72

68 Ibid., p.81.

196



kind of work that is necessary: “We can’t all”, he reminds Willits,

“graduate from Harvard or Chicago and sit in the seats of the

elect”.69 In fact, Sauer is critical of American-led efforts to

date in South America, in particular the Andean Institute which, he

feels, “muffed its opportunity . . .woefully . . .because it was

thinking of jobs for Americans and benefits to American

institutions” :70

“These fellows have come down supplied with money for field work,
automobiles, living conditions, demonstrating that the US is the
land of incredible wealth. They have done almost nothing in
picking up potential native archaeologists or ethnologists and
giving them a year’s experience, and they have hardly blocked out
or tied into a feasible local program of investigation. It has
been a great year of the American youngsters, but that is about
all. . .None of these things seem to me to be a workable bridge to
the future. Nor does it seem to me that there is a very good
answer in general in bringing the natives single or in groups to
the United States.”71

Similarly, in Chilo& Sauer is critical of American agricultural

interests that are threatening the local:

“The littler agricultural group imitates the bigger one. I fear
that if you get enough Cornell and California trained
agriculturalists down here in South America you will wipe out the
thousands of years of plant breeding.”72

For Sauer, the United States is far better off using its plane

space to send down academic aid - “editions of good American

reference books and less-than-the-latest microscope” - than the

69 Ibid., p.108.

70 Ibid., p.87.

71 Ibid., p.81.

72 Ibid., p.53. Agricultural history went on to be Sauer’s
main interest in the Mexican “field” in the late 1940s.

197



a
M

.

H
H

H
H

H
-

H
-

H
-

H

H
W

U
i

H
o

0
U

i
•

W

H

d
1Q

ft
ft

p
.

C)
ft

d
C)

H
I’

j
CD

0
I-

c
t

0
J

H
-

H
)

0
Cl

)
H

-
C)

0
0

H
,

Iii
f
t

H
H

-
0

CD
C)

U)
U

)
H

H
-

d
H

0
H

-
CD

H
I-

I
H

-
CD

CD
)

CD
H

-
t

CD
<

CD
h

H
-

H
-

11
.1.

C
t-

CD
H

-
I-

j
ft

CD
CD

U)
CD

f
t

0
Ic-

i-
0

-

H
,

H
-

H
-

U)
H

H
-

Cl
)

IH
C)

H
h

c-
t-

0
Cl

)
C)

(1
)

J
CD

Ci
)

f
t

H
-

C
t

I
CD

Pi
U)

CD
CD

CD
II

U)
Q

f
t

H
-

0
CD

pi
C

t
Ii-

’
‘-

<
I

f
t

H
f-

t
H

CD
-

f
t

CD
C

t
1

H

pi
H

H
-

C
t

H
-

H
0

U)
0

<
1

CD
CD

H
-

H
-

CD
C

r
-

:)
‘

Im
pj

H
,

pj
0

H
-

H
,

H
L

i.
C)

0
H

,
CD

C)
ft

U)
H

,
p
.

CD
H

-
CD

Ii
-

CD
ft

i
IH

H
-

H
-

Cl)
CD

0
CD

CD
CD

H
ft

-
U)

1
0

h
p

.
h

H
-

CD
H

I
-

0
P)

U)
U

)
H

-
H

Pi
H

-
H

-
H

-
U)

C)
ft

ft
CD

p
P

J
C

D
H

-
Q

Pi
H

tc
C

t
pj

C)
ft

ft
U)

<1
CD

H
CD

H
CD

ft
p

.
CD

C)
U)

CD
-

H
CD

CD
p
.

p
.

H
-

Cl
)

U
)

b
H

-
H

,
H

-
U)

CD
p

.
H

-
CD

CD
CD

ft
Q

ft
0

i-
H

-
CD

p
.

H
-

H
CD

CV
0

p
.

C
I

H
,

gQ
U)

pi
I-

H
-

II
p

.
CD

p
.

H
,

CD
CD

H
f
t

0
CD

H
H

-
H

-
H

•
ft

CD
H

,
H

U)
•

0
U)

U)
CD

H
-

Ii
V

Q
-

H
,

g
U)

CD
•

f-
t

C)
U)

CD
ft

H
-

ft
-

H
-

H
-

CD
t

C
t

p
.

U)
ft

U)
H

H
CD

CD
H

0
CD

U)
CD

ft
p

.
p

.
CV

-
H

-
H

,
H

.Q
U)

H
-

U)
CD

CD
CD

H
ft

H
LI

I
H

CD
CD

H
-

H
CD

pi
CD

p
.

CV
H

-
H

-
H

-
CV

CD
0

C
t

C
t

CD
U)

p
.

j
U)

d
i

H
ft

pi
H

<1
H

,
H

-
C

t
Ct

-
-

CV
Q

CD
pi

‘<
CD

pi
U)

H
CD

CD
H

C
t

H
CV

H
-

p
.

r-
r

pj
CD

CD
0

H
,

1
<

p
.

Cl
)

p
.

H
-

H
-

H
-

H
-

p
.

H
U)

H
CD

CD
U)

rn
0

H
-

H
-

U)
U)

U)
0

C)
H

-
p

C
t

C)
0

U)
H

-
CD

S
CD

-Q
P1

P
H

,

H
-

f
t

Ci
i

H
CD

H
ft

H
CD

CD
Ci

i
H

,
C)

H
CD

H
-

H
-

U)
pi

l-
i-

C)
o

p
.

U)
CD

U)
CV

p
.

CD
CD

CD
p

.
U)

C)
H

-
C

t
Ci

i
h

Ci
i

C
t

CD
p

.
0

p
.

<
CD

H
-

H
P

-
0

p
.

0
h

-
(j

)
CD

CD
S

pi
H

CD
c-

t
CD

p
.

p
.

0
H

-
H

-
-

H
p

.
H

-
CD

CD
tY

C)
Ci

i
H

-
H

H
,

CD
U)

c-
t

pi
U

)
H

-
U

)
CD

‘
p

.
CD

<
f
t

CD
CD

CD
U)

p
.

H
p

.

H
-

C)
H

-
U)

P1
h

H
H

-
C)

CD
H

-
1

C)
U

)
CD

CD
CD

pi
CD

U)

CD
U)

CD
Ci)

C)
t

H
,

C!
)

H

ft
CD

CD
ft

b
CD

0
H

H
,

Ci
)

f
t

Ci
i

H
,

CD
0

H
-
C

D
H

,

i
Ci)

0
I-

Q
Q

-
H

-
CD

p
.

CD
h

CD
Ci

i
Ci

i
p
.

Ci
)

U)
h

U)
H

,
i

U)
ft

U)
CD

I-
ft

Pi
H



Even more to their credit in Sauer’s mind, Concepc±n and Quito

seem to hold out against American academic imperialism and retain

a sense of distinction. Sauer writes of Concepcion that:

“there is fruitful soil. . .There are biologists who work with
anthropology. There is Atenea, which touches intellectually on all
Latin America. There is an awareness of problems of culture
history. There are good scientific habits and a research
atmosphere”77

and, most pertinently, that “there is an awareness of a particular

land and its people”. Similarly, the “cult” of American academics

is out of place in Quito and this particularity, for Sauer, has

appeal:

“two young holders of fellowships in social sciences from the
US. . .practitioners of a strange cult, which the natives did not
understand, and the meaning of which was in reality lost when
practised in the midst of a culture completely foreign to the young
disciples. ,,78

Perhaps encouraged by his discoveries in Concepcin and Quito,

Sauer went on to reinforce the boundary between academics and

politics in his final report to Willits. Written from Berkeley

(“turning over in my mind the past few days”) , Sauer’s “summary

statement” maintained the importance of “disinterested and free

intellectual exchange”. It also, however - perhaps boosted by the

new-found intellectual freedom of South America - defined the

Rockefeller “mission” in favour of “common intellectual interests”

and positioned the Foundation apolitically:

‘ Ibid., p.52. Atenea is perhaps the title of an academic
journal.

78 Ibid., p.105.

199



“The Rockefeller Foundation holds a position of advantage over any
other organisation. It is not constrained by political ends as are
Government agencies. It is not restricted by charter as is, to
date, the Guggenheim Foundation. It has, moreover, an enviable
reputation throughout Latin America. It is not suspect of ulterior
motives. . .

Thus, through his journey in South America, Sauer returned not only

with the discovery of an apolitical academic “home” (Concepci6n,

Quito) but also having purged the Foundation of any political

affiliation.

Sauer, it seems - at least in his reports - felt satisfied with

mapping South America as culturally diverse and intellectually free

and positioning himself, by association, as particularist and non

aligned.80 The boundaries, however, cannot be so clearly defined.

If Sauer managed to overcome his cultural and political doubts -

his fear of “rash generalization” and the impossibility of the

“detached observer” - they can be recaptured as prophesy and used

to re-read Sauer’s cultural commentary and his positioning on the

trip. In this way, Sauer is made to cross the divide and is

brought closer to the universal, political and intellectually

directed climate of the Foundation than his initial self-

posit ion±ng allows.

Mister universal?

Ibid., p.127.

80 In fact, however, Sauer’s notion of the culturally diverse
was itself highly political - the notion of the importance of the
“Indian” cause, of the battle of the local versus the United States
- and therefore Sauer was politicising himself, mixing academics
and politics, at the same time that he was declaring (and finding
hope in) parts of South American academia politically free.

200



Offering up his cultural-academic comments in his reports, Sauer

wrote to Willits:

“You will see that my mind works along descriptive-comparative
lines, not along the lines of what is in the strict sense
generalization. ,,81

Sauer, as we have seen, considered himself simply the

“impressionist”, presenting the particulars of South American space

- the cultural and academic facts - as they came his way. However,

bringing together Sauer’s recommendations - the “Indian” cause, the

local intellectual, the “free” university - we begin to get a

sense of an underlying generalization, one particular spatial trope

recurring again and again: the capital/province division, a close

relative of the by now overfamiliar city/country refrain.

In his reports, Sauer becomes quickly frustrated with the capital

cities of South America: La Paz is dismissed as “go-getter” and

“professional” with “the skyscraper... a proper symbol of what is

in the making”82 and Lima, “urban and urbane” - “another capital

that is growing furiously” - is similarly chastised.83 Santiago in

Chile is also for Sauer a “smug little metropolis” to which he will

only give a limited amount of time: “I’ll give it the once over and

then we’ll see the provinces”.84 Sauer’s rhetoric even precedes

his travel at times, his spaces of the imagination biasing him

81 Ibid., p.47.

82 Ibid., pp.67-S.

83 Ibid., p.86.

84 Ibid., p.25.

201



against the cities:

“I keep inagining that I am seeing the Mexico of the glittering
days of Diaz. However, we have barely arrived, and I should have
no opinions as yet.”85

By way of contrast, Sauer claims that the provinces are more

readable - “in a short time I can get more out of the provincial

picture than from the capitals”.86 Sauer advises Willits to mark

Popayan in “with a red X” on his map “for the best of Hispanic

provincialism”.87 Similarly, Sucre is superior to La Paz in

/ /
Bolivia, Medellin to Bogota in Colombia and Cuzco in Peru to Lima -

the provinces continually triumph over the capitals.

Sauer’s reports thus begin to fit into a wider pattern. The

“Indian” populations are associated with the provinces, providing

a cultural (and premodern) alternative to the cities. In the same

way, provincial intellectual efforts are championed over the

capitals: the prized University of Concepcin “at the farthest end

of the civilised world” and “a far cry from. . .metropolitan

Santiago”.88 Concepcin is also appealing for its “Indian” country

to the south and “Frontera” of German farmers close by: the

cultural mix (remember Mexico) should be familiar. It is Sauer’s

85 Ibid., p.68. The “days, of ]Dlaz” refer to a period of
Mexican history under Porfirio lDiaz (1876-1911) when the focus was
very much outwards towards the United States, emphasising good
economic relations, American investment and also an American
presence in Mexico (See Deplar, op. cit., p.1).

86 Sauer in West, 1982, op. cit., p.88.

87 Ibid., p.114.

88 Ibid., p.52.

202



passage to the premodern continued.

In a resurfacing of Sauer’s antimodern rhetoric and spaces, then,

the modern and political cities are rejected in favour of the

provinces where the authentic cultures and the true craftsmen - the

“academic folk”89- can be found. What we find, therefore, is that

Sauer, although presenting his findings as particularity - in

opposition to the universal orientation of the Foundation -is in

fact falling back on his own universal theme. As in Mexico, the

city and country trope (read: modern displacement) enters into

Sauer’s work and allows him to position himself on the antimodern

edge. The boundary between Mexico and South America, it seems,

disappeared, all becomes a question of urbanity: where the

particularist now?

“The urbanity of the capital, Mexico, Santiago, Lima, Bogot, but
if you do run across someone who can tell the difference between a
piece of work and a flourish he’s not likely to belong to the
urbanity. I may be extreme on the subject, but I do know my Mexico
and the rest are much like it.”9°

Perhaps in the face of the difficulties of moving authoritatively

from Mexico to South America - the problem of to speak about

new cultures and new spaces - a return to the known was the only,

if unconscious, alternative. On the other hand, as I have been

arguing all along, Sauer’s work was never separate from his own

“passage to premodernity” and, in this sense, South America becomes

another form of cultural and academic antimodern “home”. It is

89 Ibid., p.97.

° Ibid., p.117.

203



perhaps for this reason that, although Isabel Kelly wrote to Sauer:

“Please come back to Mexico. Don’t be a dodo and bite on S.
America; better return here, where you know the terrain, the people
and the history: and where you can do a real job without having to
start from scratch. What’s the point in building up such a
background as you have if you’re not going to put it to
constructive use?”91,

for him, South America had appeal. It was not, I think, just a

question of authority.

Repositioning: departure, lourney, return

Sauer’s “provincial enthusiasm” in South America, as in Mexico, not

only allowed him to claim a form of cultural and academic “home”

but also to push politics into the cities and declare himself as

politically “free”. “I may once more tell you”, he wrote to

Willits, “that I don’t like the capitals”: there the “political

slickers, the good time charleys, the hangers-on” - “the gravy

train”, Sauer felt, rolled “merrily in the political centers”.92

This self-positioning, combined with the earlier sense of

separation from the Foundation and the presentation of the

Foundation as working without “political ends”, allowed Sauer to

set himself up firmly amidst an apolitical context interested only

in research.

We do, however, have to return to Sauer’s earlier doubts: the

impossibility of an innocent positioning in such an “emotionally

charged” situation. To begin with, the Rockefeller Foundation was

91 PC, Kelly to Sauer, 20/7/40.

92 Ibid., p.123.

204



not so distanced from Government work (politics, the state: Caesar)

as Sauer supposed. During the War, American geopolitical concerns

with hemispheric defense had turned foreign policy towards South

America to further the Allied cause, and Roosevelt’s “Good

Neighbour Policy” sought to develop close economic and cultural

ties with the continent. As part of the “Good Neighbour Policy”,

Roosevelt had formed an Office of Coordination of Inter-American

Affairs, of which Nelson Rockefeller was the head. Thus the

Rockefeller Foundation, moving south to assess its continental

neighbour, was part of this strategic effort. In fact, while Sauer

describes those funded by the Foundation in South America in 1942

as a “curiously assorted lot”, there was a very definite theme to

selection if the contemporary political climate is taken into

consideration. Of the three others, one was a historian working on

the background of the Monroe Doctrine (the United States

declaration of hegemony over the Western hemisphere) ; the second a

geographer working on the acculturation of Japanese immigrants in

Latin America (Pearl Harbour was bombed by the Japanese on December

7, 1942) and the third an anthropologist working on the Negro in

Brazil (at a time when the “Negro” was being integrated into the

wartime workforce of the United States) . With this context in

mind, Sauer’s opinion of the Foundation as without “political ends”

becomes tenuous at best.93

This political background to Sauer’s South America trip is
relegated by West to footnotes. However, as can be seen here, by
allowing it to stand against the nature of the trip, we come to a
different reading of Sauer from that presented by himself and the
Foundation.

205



If the above begins to connect the Rockefeller Foundation with

United States foreign policy, it does not fully reposition Sauer,

i.e. associate him with the politics of both Foundation and

Government in turn. At the outset, by way of implication, Sauer’s

exploration of the social sciences can be seen as integral to the

United States’ cultural-political relations with Latin America

discussed above. However - beyond this - a second reading of the

early correspondence with the Foundation shows in what ways the

latter provided the political framework for Sauer’s trip to South

America and allows us to reconceptualise Sauer as privileged

(directed?) traveller rather than wanderer from the wayside.

While, as we have seen, correspondence with Willits emphasised the

apolitical, non-aligned nature of Sauer’s travel, the Foundation

was in fact ever-present in issues of access, financial fluidity

and mobility and, most importantly, in the aftermath of the trip.

Here - in the absence of Willits and in spite of his own self-

positioning - Sauer is reconnected with the Foundation as

institution and reassociated with Government, Washington and the

modern. Thus, through departure, journey and return, Sauer’s

politicization is also spatialised.

Departure

In keeping with his independent stance, Sauer’s correspondence from

Foundation officials truncated Rockefeller involvement in the South

America trip. Sauer was informed that his funds would begin on

October 1, 1942, that his conditions were accepted and that beyond

that there was “nothing the Rockefeller Foundation” could “do in an

206



official capacity to facilitate” his trip.94 On the 18 December

1941, however, Sauer was issued a “pax romana” by the Catholic

University of America in Washington DC: a letter which gave him

introduction to key Catholic academics and universities in the

Andean countries who would best give him information on the state

of the social sciences.95 This, it seems, was only part of the

administrative baggage that the Foundation provided for Sauer prior

to departure on his trip. Further investigation shows that visas

were secured for Sauer from the United States-based Consul-Generals

for the destination countries in addition to documents for freedom

of mobility from internal authorities. The Minister for External

Relations in Colombia marked Sauer and his son Jonathan with a

“RECOMENDAR DE MANEPA ESPECIAL” (a special recommendation) and

requested:

“a las autoridades extranjeros de los lugares por donde tuvieron
que pasar los mencionados senores Sauer, les presten todos los
auxilios y facilidades de los que ellos tuvieren necissidad en el
transcurso de su viaje, a fin de que puedan llevar a cabo su
cometido.”96

Representatives of the Foundation also supplied Sauer with contacts

in the countries he was to visit and compiled a list of people who

knew of his impending trip.97 In this sense, Sauer was already well

OC, Paine to Sauer, 22/10/41.

DC, Catholic University of America to Sauer, 19/12/41.

96 DC, Ecuador Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores to Sauer,
25/5/42. Translation: “that the foriegn authorities of the places
through which the aforementioned Sauers have to pass allow them all
the help and facilities that they require in the process of their
travel so that they can bring their task to fruition.”

OC, Kittridge to Sauer, 5/12/41. Sauer did seem to contact
most of these people on the trip.

207



under the umbrella of the Foundation before he even left the United

States. Thus, while Sauer maintains an air of mystery and

uncertainty prior to his trip:

“My friends the Mexicans like to use the word ‘pendiente’, which is
a little more earthy than ‘the lap of the gods’. I am going ahead,
‘pendiente’ ,98

he was in fact “going ahead” in the lap of the Foundation as well

as that of the gods.

Journey

In his notebook for the South American trip, Sauer complains about

the difficulty and hardship of travel: he finds he is always

negotiating for a way around bottlenecks that obstruct his ease of

movement. Sauer’s itinerary appears to be affected by the road

conditions and the delays in South America and he continually has

to make arrangements and decisions about travel:

“Trying to find ways of going north. The situation reported as
follows - no berth on railway train until March 9, no place on
plane until March 9, no place on boat until March 11 (+ 15O for de
luxe suite) . .This is transportation in Chile.. .

Sauer is not, however, alone in his attempts to overcome such

difficulties - the “magical name” of the Rockefeller Foundation is

always at hand. One of Sauer’s reports to Willits, which West

calls “transportation problems in northern Peru”, is an excellent

example of this facilitated travel of the Sauers.’°° Trying to

98 PC, Sauer to Willits, 9/5/41.

5N21, p.31.

‘°° Sauer in West, 1982, op. cit., p.95.

208



“bridge the gap” between Peru and Ecuador, in the shadow of the war

between these two countries, Sauer writes “we were the first people

since the war who had even thought of getting across this

border.101 Sauer’s connections, however, “smooth the way”.’°2 In

Tumbes, Sauer has a recommendation to the United States Attache and

is “passed along a line of officials and given every facility”.’03

Later, he dines with the boss of International Petroleum (an old

schoolmate from Chicago) and then retraces his steps to Talara

where a known Canadian official finds him emergency lodging. Sauer

and son then take up two places on a plane to Guayaquil, Ecuador,

made vacant by officials flying with the President (Prado) of Peru.

Finally, in Guayaquil, Sauer reuses the Rockefeller name to get

money from the bank: “change in our pockets.. .we can begin to

circulate about town”.104

Thus, although Sauer positions himself individually in South

America - he is, it is true, “there” - he is accompanied from a

distance institutionally by the Foundation. However, in finding

the whole situation “miraculous” and reconstituting his privilege

as chance, Sauer further silences this guiding Rockefeller hand.

Return

The Sauer letters, according to West, made an immediate hit among

101 Ibid., p.96.

102 Ibid., p.93.

103 Ibid., p.96.

104 Ibid., p.95.

209



the Rockefeller personnel in New York and were circulated among its

key figures. Walter Steward, the Chairman of the Board of

Trustees, regarded them as having “spice, flavour and

discrimination”, while Willits himself commented on their

“sagacious wisdom and scholarly awareness” and wrote to Sauer of

their public success:

“At the long table in the Rockefeller Foundation restaurant today
the subject of discussion was “Carl Sauer’s letters” from Latin
America. This is just one sample of the many minds you have
stimulated by your penetrating comments of people and institutions
along the West coast of Latin America.”05

Although the Foundation as a whole provided a reception for Sauer’s

textual return, there was - at least initially - some mediation by

Willits as the “face”. Picking up on the positioning prior to

Sauer’s departure, Willits can be seen again to offer Sauer a sense

of independence and to prioritise his, rather than the

Foundation’s, ideas. Rereading the letters at home, Willits

appears to have been persuaded by Sauer’s agenda and is ready to

work against the block of the Foundation:

“You with your seeing eye have given a perfect demonstration of the
way in which Foundations should work to seek out and discriminate
between the truly intellectual and noble and the success boys who
ride the band wagon. I don’t believe even you realise how powerful
the pulls are (from without and from within) to ride with the
pack” 106

“Where”, he asks Sauer, “do we go from here?” This, however, as we

shall see below, was a question that was out of Sauer’s hands: the

105 Willits in West, 1982, op. cit., p.5.

106 PC, Willits to Sauer, 11/7/42.

210



“pulls” to “ride with the pack” were indeed strong. While Sauer

chose to position himself with Willits against the Foundation, he

could not prevent an alternative positioning by others: he, of all

people, should have known that you cannot bound the trail.

Safely home?

“The greatest risk in Latin America is a mule, in my past
experience, and this risk we dodged. .. (we are safely home)

On August 7, 1942, Willits’ secretary, Janet Paine, wrote to Sauer

in Willits’ absence that she was glad that he and Jonathan were

“safely home”.108 Perhaps the greatest risks for Sauer, however,

were those posed by the advent of his return. Arriving home, Sauer

found himself visited by representatives of the United States

Government’s Board of Economic Welfare (BEW)109 and he wrote to

Paine in some confusion:

“It was a long rambling visit and I am not certain of the sequences
in it. However, Anderson said that they had to get their teeth
into the problems that may become critical very promptly and that
he wanted my help because there was little known to them of the
immediate situation in these countries.””0

Sauer’s obervations, he was told, were crucial, his cooperation

with the BEW necessary:

107 oc, Sauer to Paine, 14/7/42.

108 OC, Paine to Saue, 7/7/42.

109 There is some confusion in the notes as to whether BEW
stands for Board of Economic Welfare or Warfare. According to the
Rockefeller Archive Center in New York, it is the former, but in
some of Sauer’s notes it appears as the latter. Perhaps an
allusion to his political context?

110 Sauer to Paine, 18/7/42.

211



“He said something to the effect that I should set down these
observations. Unguardedly, and without thinking two moves ahead, I
said that of course I had included them in my letters to Dr.
Willits. ‘f”

Anderson, maintaining that he had good relations with the

Foundation, said that he would like to study Sauer’s letters while

Sauer attempted to backtrack saying they were “personal reports”

and not written for “wider scrutiny”. Here, however, Sauer was

being read as representative of the Foundation and being tied into

a network that operated at an institutional rather than a personal

level. Realising that his own authority and his link with Willits

were being ignored and that his letters were set to travel - as

fact (not “sketches”)112- into a highly politicised, governmental

context (Washington as symbol of the modern looms large), Sauer

wrote at length with concern again to Janet Paine:

“I have not shown the copies of the letters to anyone except
Jonathan. They were thought of as letters to Mr Willits and to the
Foundation.. .1 should hate to think that this correspondence would
become accessible in any file in Washington. I should have
misgivings if ever the whole of these letters, with their many
references to named individuals were examined by any member of one
of the Washington bureaus. For instance, the relations between the
State Department, the Office of the Coordinator of Latin American
Relations, and the Board of Economic Warf are”3 are not in all
respects mutually sustaining. I don’t mind if certain of these
observations of mine, for example, are of use to Henry Moe in his

‘‘ Ibid.

112 Here we see the “battle” of the reception of writing that
was alluded to in Chapter Four - the notion that what is written
and how it is interpreted is as much a factor of the “home” context
(for Sauer, the political “moment” of World War Two and political
space of Washington) as it is of the “field”. This chapter shows
the “worldly” nature of Sauer’s writing - sets it in context - and
returns it to its more modern “home”. It also -through the
mobility of Sauer’s ideas from one context to another - returns us
to the notion of discursive movement.

113 See comment above.

212



Washington relations. That would be constructive criticism, and
Moe knows me as well as he knows his men in Washington with whom he
deals. . . It’s a good deal of nuisance and I wish Anderson would
forget about it. I think he does have the right to ask for aid in
the war effort, but in those terms there should be a heavy editing
of the letters. I am willing to be cooperative but I don’t want to
be indiscreet. ,,h14

Unfortunately, further correspondence only contains Willits’

secretary’s reply to Sauer to wait until Willits’ return and a

later letter informing Sauer of a meeting between himself, the

Foundation and Anderson about the letters the next month. No

further documentation exists of the meeting in either the Berkeley

archives or the archives of the Rockefeller Foundation in New York,

except a one-line enigmatic note from Willits to Sauer:”I enclose

copy of a letter from Lewis Hanke [not enclosed) Shall I proceed on

the same basis as with Dewey Anderson?”115

Despite a lack of information, this whole incident shows the

futility of Sauer’s attempts at maintaining a boundary between

academics and politics and trying to work towards intellectual

freedom through a body like the Rockefeller Foundation. Relating

to faces - Willits, Moe - rather than to institutions, Sauer was

not (or chose not to be) aware of the “pulls” of the “pack”, hence

the feeling of panic as supposedly non-partisan ideas are

transformed into grist for the geopolitical mill. Also, the

114 cc, Sauer to Paine, op. cit., 18/7/42. It is interesting
to see here how Sauer places his faith again in an individual -
Henry Moe - rather than in an institution. He seems not to think
at the structural level and to believe in individual agency within
an institutional context. This is an interesting counterpoint to
the James Duncan/Peter Jackson arguments that Sauer makes no room
for individuals.

115 PC, Willits to Sauer, 26/10/42 (PA)

213



intersection of Sauer’s own personal beliefs and “passage to the

premodern” with the similar beliefs of Willits working within the

Foundation fed Sauer’s myopia of the open political context within

which he was working. Despite Sauer’s apolitical and often

doubtful positioning, his ideas were to be read authoritatively and

politically by the BEW. At a wider level, then, repositioned

amidst Government institutions in Washington, Sauer is not only

forced to meet the political but also the modern.

The rough war; the enveloping gloom’16

In the aftermath of the 1942 trip, perhaps related to the BEW

incident, Sauer remains adamant about the separation of academics

from politics, but, along with Willits (and the progression of

World War Two) , becomes increasingly disillusioned.”7 For Sauer,

116 Sauer to Kelly p114

117 In addition to the BEW incident, Sauer must have been
increasingly affected by the impact of the War on his Berkeley
department and work in the field. As West notes (1982, op. cit.,
p.114), from the autumn of 1942 to the spring of 1944 Sauer was
closely confined to the campus with teaching duties that were
connected to the university’s military program. The geography
department in Berkeley felt the effects of the War on its student
body and its resources and courses. Sauer writes to Mitchell
Wilder (curator of the Taylor Museum Colorado Springs Fine Arts
Centre) (PC, Sauer to Wilder, 10/2/44) : “Things are of course like
most places. The teaching staff is shot to pieces or else is
abstracted into Army courses. . .our Ibero-Americana Series is more
or less sunk with the late ruling restricting publication to
members of this faculty.” This must have further blurred the
academic/politic boundary for Sauer and increased his disillusion.

At the same time, the War and the “field” were becoming
increasingly intertwined in the lives of Sauer’s students. Homer
Aschmann, (PC, Aschmann to Sauer, 11/8/42) one of Sauer’s students
in the army, wrote to Sauer in 1942 of his experiences in his camp
in Texas. Managing to get himself classified as a geographer,
Aschmann is disappointed at the lack of recognition this gets and
pursues his own education, looking out for geographical facts and
the pioneering experience of life in the (military) field.
Similarly, James Parsons (PC, Parsons to Sauer, 1/2/43) wrote to

214



the real fear seems to be the political takeover of the academic

“field”:

“I suspect that the world is in the greatest catastrophe it has
known and that free intellectual enterprise is in for a bad
time. . . It matters less that you have a competent supervisory
organisation than it does that the scattered watchers of the sacred
fire know that you are of their brotherhood. . .1 don’t think it
matters that some fail, some are weak, and some turned
aside.. .Darkness is spreading, and that is what matters.”118

Sauer asks Willits to support individual academics who for him have

“kindled and maintained a flame that should not go out”.’19 In a

letter dated January 1944,120 he looks in opposition to the

(nostalgic) early days of geography - “ it was a promising spring

in this country in the field of geography” - listing for Willits

Sauer from Intelligence School of his salvage attempts from his
training - hoping that scouting might develop his faculties for
field observation that Sauer “so often mentioned”. Although Robert
Bowman writes to Sauer (PC, Bowman to Sauer, 11/9/43) that his army
experience is “a far cry from geography”, he tells Sauer of his
travel to distant lands “where only a handful of explorers have
penetrated” which ties in with the chance to see the “unknown”
that we came into contact with in chapter two. Bowman’s experience
in New Guinea presents the “distant lands” as a mixture of army and
field terrain - a fusion of the fieldwork and the military
experience. Unlike Sauer’s, this field is portrayed in all its
politics of interaction and resistance.

Finally, other students of Sauer’s, for example Robert West, found
themselves working in Washington. West writes to Sauer with
information on South America since his war effort involves the
mapping and access of the continent as a strategic resource and the
compiling of information on road conditions: “just one of the many
things Military Intelligence should have had on its finger tips
before the war started” (PC, West to Sauer, p55). Others, like
Donald Brand (p88) found themselves urged into a desk job while
they yearned to go out into the “field”.

118 PC, Sauer to Willits, 13/7/42.

119 PC, Sauer to Willits, 31/8/43.

120 PC, Sauer to Willits, 15/1/44.

215



the “good journeymen geographers of latter days” and his fears of

the contemporary state of geography drawn away from research to

teaching, economics and, worst of all, to geopolitics:

“I object strongly to the idea that I am a proper sort of
geographer if I set myself up as a geopolitician, but am an
improper one if I get interested in the way the Jesuits make their
mission areas work. . . There is as much significance in extinction as
in survival.”2’

Sauer has “a torch to carry” over the current affairs leaning of

the Berkeley campus - verging on “political indoctrination”22-and

is equally concerned with the Foundation’s foreign area interest in

Latin America and its tendency to focus on current events. Fearing

change at all levels - academia as a whole, geography, Berkeley,

the Foundation - Sauer still seems to feel that he is out of step

with the time but now cannot separate himself from it completely:

“The wedding guest, he beat his breast Yet he could not choose but

hear” 123

For Willits too, the fear is real: his letters to Sauer are full of

the threat of the current, the state, the political:

“Yes, I feel we are headed for another Balance of Power or another
Holy Alliance, which amounts to the same thing. I agree with what
you say concerning the bitter harvest that is coming out of the
sowing of our whole modern philosophy, of its materialism and its
god, the all-powerful State. . .the struggle to power, the
deification of the current and the exhibitionism of frustration. I
wonder just what would happen to Jesus of Nazareth if he happened

121 pc, Sauer to Willits, 11/2/44.

122 Pc, Sauer to Willits, 11/5/44.

123 p, Sauer to Willits, op. cit., 11/2/44.

216



on the scene today.”124

While Willits maintains the importance of freedom of scholarship -

he has no “line” to take in Foundation af fairs;’25 requires “Leave
to live by no man’s leave underneath the law”26- his view of the

non-aligned Foundation becomes more and more pressurised as the War

draws to a close. With the ultimate fusion of science and politics

- the atomic bomb - entering the contemporary scene, he writes to

Sauer: “Truly, the old order changeth”.’27 It seems to dawn

suddenly on Willits (“I need a confessor now”) that scientific work

is not value free, that the “physicists are generals”, that the

state has grown “and the station and dignity of the individual

human being” has shrunk. Willits, looking still to Sauer for his

answers, asks: “where are we headed?”28 Sauer - stoic - was

already picking up his “passage”, looking to Berkeley for the

renewal of an academic “home”:

“I think we should reassemble and see whether there isn’t still
time for us to realise, at least in part, the design of scholarship
we once had in common, for I have the feeling that there may be
another bunch of boys coming up comparable to that extraordinary
group that was gathered here in the ‘20s. I think we might have
again a period like that unforgettable one.”29

Where are we headed?

In Chapter One, I said that I wanted to find the limits to Sauer’s

124 PC, Willits to Sauer, 21/12/43.

125 PC, Willits to Sauer, 6/6/44.

126 Ibid.

127 PC, Willits to Sauer, 15/9/45.

128 PC, Willits to Sauer, 15/9/45.

129 PC, Sauer to Leighly, 15/11/45.

217



antimodernism. Although I edged towards this in the subsequent

chapters, it is perhaps only through the consideration of the South

America trip that the full complexity and ambiguity of Sauer’s

positioning come to light. In this chapter, I have tried to show

that Sauer’s oppositions - so frequently employed to conceptualise

himself as different (authentic? authoritative? innocent?) - are

artificial, constructed, ambivalent. Thus throughout there has

been a sense of destabilisation: Sauer, associated with the

particular, the apolitical, the intellectually free, the rural, the

“field”, the vantage point, the marginal, the individual (in

combination: the (his) antimodern) is also implicated in their

universal, political, intellectually constrained, urban, tourist,

sketchy, central, institutional (again: in sum, Sauer’s modern)

counterparts. Sauer, it seems, was a modern man in spite of

himself. It is this negotiation of Sauer’s initially clear self

positioning that I take into the conclusion: ready to tease out the

implications of Sauer’s ambivalent situation on the

antimodern/modern line (how progressive? how deceptive?) and to

look beyond that to cultural geography and the academic “field” as

a whole: the question of where we are headed.

218



CONCLUS ION

“In my end is my beginning.”

Sauer once commented on what he saw as the futility of “going

through life afraid to be lonely” when there was the inevitability

of facing the “ultimate loneliness” in going of life.2 For

Sauer, I think, disorientation amidst modernisation approached a

form of “loneliness”: a self-perception as one of the last bastions

of German/European academic and cultural tradition and a self-

positioning on the margins of the modern. This “loneliness”

appears as “real” for Sauer as a “bewildered witness” during World

War One (Chapter Two) as it does through his disillusionment during

World War Two (Chapter Six) . While this sense of dislocation

amidst change was, for Sauer, a source of fear (he was afraid1

remember, of the present and the future) , it appears also as a

source of productivity: Sauer the intellectual “Voortrekker”,

arguing for the potential of other (non-modern) ways and almost

“unconcerned to discover” that there is “no-one following”.3Having

said that, however, Sauer’s lone stance was often contradicted by

various forms of “company” - and here I am not only thinking of

companions that would have been vaguely acceptable to Sauer (for

example, other American antimodernists in Mexico) but also the more

modern, unsolicited form of companion, such as Dewey Anderson from

the BEW. Thus, as I stated at the end of the last chapter, having

1 Eliot, op. cit., p.15.

2 PC, Sauer to Willits, 15/9/45.

Robinson, op. cit., p.338.

219



asserted Sauer’s antimodern life theme and pursued it through

various aspects of the “field”, I am left with a tension within

Sauer’s antimodernism, an ambivalence that needs to be explored.

I do this by focusing on the progressive, restrictive and deceptive

threads to Sauer as antimodern man of the margins: issues that

“speak” from the repetitions and contradictions of the last six

chapters. Beyond that, I am concerned with how the “take” on

Sauer pursued in this thesis can be made to “speak” to geographies

in the present.

In 1944, Sauer was offered the chance to move from Berkeley to a

new position in the geography department at Johns Hopkins: he

declined and gave as his motivation the proximity of the university

to Washington (as we saw in the last chapter, the ultimate space of

the modern) . He wrote:

“I happen to have a fondness for the provinces and a somewhat
emotional attitude that the better world will come through a
strengthening of local centers of culture, not from the great
capitals. Don’t write this off as a whim of mine; the whole
geography of evolution shows arguments uniformly in favor of
partial isolation. If I should move into the center of the mass I
should still feel that the germinal potential was out on the
periphery. . .

We have come across examples of this “germinal potential” of the

periphery in Chapters Five and Six. In both Mexico and South

America, we saw Sauer attempting to strengthen local (often

“Indian”) cultures against the destructive effects of

“Americanization” (monocentrism) from the north and advising the

PC, Sauer to Bowman, 21/5/44 in Parsons, pers. comm. (L), op.
cit.

220



Rockefeller Foundation on a way forward sensitive to cultural

context. These instances, I think, allow for a productive reading

of Sauer and culture - certainly a more generous perspective than

that afforded by Peter Jackson in the Introduction. Jackson, as we

saw, chose to read Sauer’s focus on the rural and the provincial

negatively as outmoded and conservative. However, Sauer’s view of

the “margins” was a more progressive one: as James Parsons states,

while Sauer identified with “simpler cultures”, it did not “follow

that these simpler cultures were necessarily irrelevant to

contemporary issues”.5 Indeed, as we saw with Sauer and indigenous

agriculture in Chapter Five, Sauer, basing his advice in “Indian”

practices and traditions, pre-empted today’s vogue for the local as

“germinal” base for development.6

Thus Jackson is perhaps overly hasty in rejecting Sauer’s more

provincial focus for the cultural politics of urban space.

Certainly contemporary cultural debates have seen a resurfacing of

the rhetoric of margin and centre, critiquing the control of the

(modern, urban, colonial) latter and viewing the (premodern, rural,

colonised) former as a source of creative energy. Ashcroft et.

Parsons, pers. comm. (L) , op. cit. Thus, for Parsons, Sauer
should be associated with the imagery of the “frontier” (pioneering
the way forward) rather than that of the margins. However, the
notion of the “frontier” is itself tied up in the rhetoric of
colonialism (the “white man” bringing wild/savage nature and
culture under his control at the “frontier” of discovery)

6 Geographers, said Sauer in The quality of geography (1970,
op. cit., p.9) “do not worry enough”. Sauer himself worried about
change but, he felt, could not get enough people to “worry along”
with him. While some have taken up Sauer’s worries about the
environment, his worries on cultural change seem to have been
vocalised less. Perhaps this is one of the other ways in which
Sauer’s geography may be brought forward?

221



al.,7 for example, have isolated the tendency of what they call

“post-colonial literature” to assert difference from the centre:

the Empire, finally, writing back. Thus, in a sense, Sauer could

be viewed as sympathetic to this counterdiscursive “movement”,

turning the spatial rhetoric of the modern centre on its head by

prioritising the rural frontier and conferring authority on the

margins.8 Although for V.8. Naipaul, the people of the margins are

“mimic men”, condemned to repetition of the colonial authority,9

for Sauer, as we have seen, it is the modern “tourists” (the herd)

that mimic and the provinces that represent the authentic. The

link between Sauer and “post-colonial” movements is not, of course,

a direct one: Sauer’s selected (and, as I show below, misleading)

self-perception as marginal is a far cry from the enforced

marginality of formerly colonised peoples. However, the link does

provide other ways of looking at Sauer’s writing and may provide a

means to recycle Sauer’s ideas which, as Lewis and Price suggest,

are not ready for “academia’s dust-bin”.’0

In addition to the “germinal” aspects of Sauer’s views on culture,

we do, however, have to think about the casualties of a “backward”,

ruralist perspective. For Raymond Williams, the contrast between

city and country (so clearly identified with Sauer throughout the

‘ Ashcroft et. al., 1989.

8 The notion of turning colonial rhetoric on its head is not,
however, without its limitations. Robert Young (op. cit.) writes
of the difficulties of opting out of the binary oppositions that
have characterised the presentation of modern Western thought.

In Ashcroft et. al., op. cit., p.88.

10 Price and Lewis, op. cit., p.5.

222



thesis) represents a tendency towards the idyllic rather than the

urealistidu. The true socio-cultural relations of the country are

neglected and passed onto the city as centre of corruption; the

rural areas remaining harmonious.’1 Such harmony, Williams fears,

is a mystification out of which the rhetoric of nationalism - the

call for blood and soil - may arise.’2 Sauer, with his semi-idyllic

view of a rural “home”, his consistent denigration of the city as

corrupt and his use of the rhetoric of German nationalism to

describe his Mennonite “ideal” cannot be excused from Williams’

critiques. True, through his experience of the hardship of rural

life, Sauer also voiced anti-idyllic sentiments in Mexico; however,

it remains that, elsewhere, Sauer replaced his distaste for the

“smiling aspects”3of modern American society with a counter-image

of a “smiling” (Mexican) “countryside”.’4

Like Williams, James Clifford is also concerned with the tendency

to idyllise the rural in a folkloristic appeal to the past’5but,

more centrally, with the allied attempt to redeem a cultural

essence: a “symmetry of redemption” that requires cultural

traditions to abstain from the modern. Clifford is suspicious

about the positing of pure cultural forms that can be retrieved:

culture for Clifford is relational, changing - it cannot be fixed

“ Williams, 1981, op. cit., p.31.

12 Ibid., p.48.

13 Lears, op. cit., p.17.

‘ Williams, 1981, op. cit., p.114.

‘ Clifford, 1988, op. cit., p.4.

223



except for authority as invention.16 Here too, Sauer cannot be

excused from critique: we saw in Chapter Five how his vision of

“Indian” and Mennonite communities were, at least partially,

clouded by his need to maintain the essence of “Indian” and German

premodern culture for his sense of self. Thus the progressive side

to Sauer’s antimodernism proves tainted by a restrictive,

immobilising element - keeping cultures in their place.’7

If Sauer’s sympathy with rural space and folk was genuine, however,

his complete identification with them was not.’8 Allowing Sauer to

set up “home” in the margins denies any relation with the

metropolis and the spaces of the modern and this, as we saw in the

last chapter, was not the case: Sauer found himself closer to

Washington than he would have liked. For Mary Louise Pratt, the

rural discourse of the traveller (perhaps-geographer?) is a

“strategy of innocence”, a deception that conceals his/her urban

metropolitan identity.’9 Michael Williams, although less

stridently, seems to adopt this rural/urbane contradiction for

Sauer:

“Whether consciously or unconsciously the cult of the simple,

16 Ibid., p.11.

‘ See also Ashcroft et. al., op. cit., p.116 for a similar
critique to Clifford: the notion that a redemption of pure culture
is not an alternative; the impossibility of a return and the need
for a positive perspective on the cultural confusion (syncretism)
of the present.

18 Hooson in Blouet et. al., op. cit., p.337.

‘ Pratt, 1992, op. cit., p.38. The innocent positioning masks
a male, urban, lettered rationality that is being imposed on the
world in the guise of the rural.

224



homespun, rural man (aided by the ever-present pipe) grew stronger
with the years. But it masked a complex man whose early philosophy
was broad ranging, learned and speculative. The paradoxical nature
of this character and image is one of the reasons why it is so
difficult to get a clear view of his thinking. 20

Williams is justified in questioning the image of the “simple,

homespun, rural man” (see Figure 12) . Indeed, in addition to

travelling in the “margins”, Sauer lived and functioned in a modern

academic context. He had power as Head of the Department of

Geography at Berkeley; influence on the Selection Committee of the

Guggenheim Foundation and input (if unbounded) into the policies of

the Rockefeller Foundation. At the same time, although he spent

extensive periods in the field, this experience and the fruits of

its publication only further contributed to his academic status

“back home”. The self-presentation as intellectual craftsman thus

shielded an all-too-institutionalised and authoritative academic.

In this sense, as Thomas Glick notes, Sauer “was not the loner he

is too often made to appear”: “his influence was persistent and

pervasive” 21

Thus, as James Clifford points out: “All terms get us some distance

and fall apart”.22 While Sauer as antimodernist allows us to

reinject Sauer’s “provincial” focus with a more “progressive” edge,

it must be approached ambivalently. Certainly Sauer positions

himself stridently against the modern but other voices point the

way to the futility of antimodern - even cultural - flight. For

20 Williams, 1983, op. cit., p.4.

21 Glick, 1988, op. cit., p.446.

22 In Grossberg et. al., op. cit., p.110.

225



Figure 12: Sauer: man of the margins or
modern in spite of himself?
(returned to Berkeley, 1970).

225I



Clifford, there are no distant places left:

“one no longer leaves home confident of finding something radically
new: another time or space.”23

Similarly, for Claude Levi-Strauss, escape from the modern only

results in confronting the traveller with the “unhappiest forms”

of his “historical existence”: the “garbage” of the modern.24

Finally, and perhaps most ironically, the voice of Alfred Kroeber,

outlining the fundamentals of (what is taken to be Sauer’s)

“superorganic” view and, by association, condemning Sauer’s

attempts to escape his modern, American context:

“When a tide sets one way for fifty years, men float with it, or
thread their course across it; those who breast the vast stream
condemn themselves to futility of accomplishment.”25

Progressive, restrictive, deceptive: this ambivalent view of Sauer,

I hope, offers some form of mediation of the debate between the

“new” and the “traditional” cultural geographers outlined in the

Introduction. While I do not claim to have retrieved the essential

23 Clifford, 1988, op. cit., p.14.

24 In Porter, 1991, op. cit., p.240.

25 Kroeber in Duncan, op. cit., p.l84. Once Sauer is placed in
culture, then, the so-called “superorganic” view may be used to
reflect on Sauer himself. If Sauer’s cultural origins are viewed
as modern American, then Sauer’s attempts to position himself as
“off-beat American”, critical of and distanced from American
culture, appears as paradox. Michael Williams (op. cit. 1983,
p.2O) has picked up on this contradiction between Sauer’s cultural
pronouncements and his “living” self: “The man of Sauer’s writing
was a disembodied, generic man; the man of Sauer’s academic and
intellectual life was a real, individual, thinking man. Sauer was
the living example of the very thing his writing denied.” However,
if Sauer’s cultural beginnings are viewed as traditionally German,
then perhaps his passage to the premodern represents a move towards
rather than away from his cultural “home”: a slave to the
“superorganic” after all?

226



C
r

C)
H

,
Dl

0
C

r
CD

C
r

H
-

f
t

D
i

D
i

ft
—

D)
C

D
i

5
p

.
CC

)
0

F
-

1
H

-
C

D
CD

p
.

H
,

D
i

J
F-

ft
3

0
hi

rr
<

C
5

D
i

CD
i

CD
ft

F
-

1
p

.
hi

0
H

-
D

i
En

H
-

En
Q

I
D

i
H

-
F

-
1

C
E

CD
d

Q
En

C)
F

-
1

H
-

En
0

0
5

CD
En

<1
Cl

)
C

E
C)

H
-

CD
p
.

CD
CD

f
t

CD
hi

CD
D

i
Q

I
I-

C
l)

En
5

hi
CD

I-I
Di

p
.

En
CD

<
Di

EQ
En

H
5

Di
0

CD
ft

CD
ft

ft
p

.
H

-
(1

)
D

i
5

CD

<
CD

0
CD

CD
H

-
F

-
1

ft
C)

Ic-
I-

hi
C

E
En

ft
H

,
hi

H
-

H
-

H
-

0
f
t

t
CD

=
CD

H
-

En
i—

i
0

ft
f
t

En
H

,
-

I><
C)

Di
CD

En
hi

H
-

H
,

0
H

-
f
t

EQ
Di

5
ft

C)
p

.
H

,

CD
CD

-
H

-
S

3
ft

En
g

cm
p
.

H
-

D
i

H
En

‘-1
F

-
1

D
i

Di
H

CD
—

Di
0

CD
h—

a
L

i
CD

ft
CD

H
Di

CD
Q

I
H

-
En

CD
C)

ft
H

-
hi

IH
-

-
C)

=
CD

hi
CD

Di
H1

H
-

En
CD

d
H

-
hi

H
-

CD
CD

En
Di

F
-

0
CD

p
.

Di
-

hi
ft

hi
Di

CD
ft

CD
H

-
H

-
D

i
H

-
CD

C)
En

D
i

D
i

f
t

-
Di

p
.

0
H

Di
hi

c
-r

CD
Q

g
D

i
CD

L
i-

C)
p
.

C)
-i

ft
C)

<1
En

H
-

D
i

hi
p

.
En

5
H

-
En

CD
-

EQ
D

i
CD

Di
-
.

CD
ft

-i
-

‘
EQ

ft
H

-
0

H
,

<
ft

ft
0

En
C)

D
i

f
t

CD
H

-
0

hi
3

CD
hi

En
Di

H
0

H
-

CD
CD

H
C)

CD
0

ft
I—

I
p

.
0

En
p

.
0

I-I
H

D
i

Di
-

EQ
D

i
CD

H
hi

C)
p

.
H

-
p

.
CD

C)
En

EQ
CD

c-
I-

0
Di

CD
p
.

CD
CD

D
i

0
H

,
ft

D
i

hi
0

ft
-

C)
CD

H
,

H
-

ft
CD

C)
D

l
D

l
CD

H
Di

En
-

0
D

i
hi

H
-

j
CD

0
CD

0
hi

H
-

p
.

C)
3

D
i

D
i

En
H

H1
-

1

CD
CD

H
,

0
H

Di
H

-
‘<

C)
ft

CD
F’

-
H

-
H

0
ft

hi
F

-
1

ft
CD

H

En
p

.
H

,
H

-
ft

hi
En

En
p
.

0
CD

H
-

CD
ft

CD
CD

H
-

CD
0

f
t

D
i

EQ
D

i
I-

J
3

D
i

ft
H

t’
J

0
H

-
H

-
H

-
D

i
0

CD
D

i
CD

0
CD

H
H

ft
C)

C)

ft
En

H
,

En
CD

En
CD

I
En

i.Q
Di

H
-

En
0

CD
0

p
.

CD
1H

-
C)

p
.

0
5

En
CT

)
H

-
H

CD
H

H
CD

H
-

EQ
s

CD
p
.

H
-

CD
f
t

Di
En

0
Di

0
D

i
‘<

H
-

En
f
t

ft
EQ

H
-

D
i

I
<

En
0

CD
S

C)
F

-
1

H
,

hi
ft

En
En

H
-

Ih
i

CD
H

,
F

-
1

><
CD

0
p

.
H

-
0

Di
CD

En
-
-

CD
CD

Di
C)

D
i

hi
CD

0
CD

0
D

i
CD

p
.

H
-

En
ft

ft
CD

CD
H

En
CD

Di
hi

H
,

ft
C)

En
CD

En
CD

-
ft

p
.

Ift
ft

Di
hi

k
<

hi
F

-
1

hi
En

F
-

1
ft

H
,

H
-

D
i

CD
H

-
0

D
i

D
i

Di
ft

Di
f
t

0
CD

En
H

-
‘d

Di
H

,
5

Di
En

H
-
C

D
H

,
hi

C)
Di

H
En

D
l

p
.

CD
Di

,
p

.
CD

En
En

0
CD

CD
0

H
H

-

ft
p

.
EQ

En
hi

<
En

F
-

1
CD

hi
C)

0
En

f
t

ft
-

hi
H

p
.

Q
I

H
-

Di
CD

H
-

C)
H

-
D

i
H

,
-

F’
D

i
H

,
Q

H
-

ft
p

.
—

Cl
)

D
i

(C
I

D
i

H
CD

S
D

l
‘

0
C)

H
-

C)
0

CD
Z

H
-

CD
H

hi
C)

p
.

D
i

ft
0

H
,

CD
p

.
H

-
F

-
1

hi
hi

H
-

D
i

hi
p

.
En

.Q
S

!-
CD

En
En

H
-

‘
D

i
H

-
EQ

,<
<

ft
ft

H
-

f
t

H
C)

C)
hi

1(1
1

[f)
I

S
H

ft
p
.

Di
:
.

Di
Di

CD
C)

H
-

I-
<

ft
ft

=
CD

El
)

H
-

H
-

p
.

-
H

D
i

D
i

IQ
I

H
-

H
-

C)
C)

f
t

H
-

F
-

1
CD

D
i

ft
En

ft
CD

Di
hi

ft
j-

H
H

-
0

CD
0

hi
D

i
CD

ft
CD

CD
H

-
CD

0
hi

H
,

En
En

H
,

ft
I—

’
0

hi
En

H
f
t

hi
—

hi
D

i
ft

p
.

Di
H

-
H

-
H

-
H

,
I—

’
-

CD
CD

0
F

-
1

I-
’-

CD
CD

0
H

CD
En

En
ft

CD
Di

D
i

D
i

H
Ii

ft
H

CD
CD

ft
C)

><
H

H
-

-
0

H
-

hi
D

i
H

,

ft
5

hi
En

CD
H

-
ft

H
,

F
-

1
ft

p
.

p
.

ft
p

.
hi

f
t

H
-

0
EQ

3
CD

D
i

3
CD

hi
k
<

0
H

-
F

-
1

CD
H

-
ft

En
hi

X
En

H
-

<1
0

H
-

-
0

ft
D

i
CD

D
l

ft
H

-
D

i
CD

CD
H

-
D

i
ft

0
CD

H
-

CD
hi

H
-

H
-

CD
0

En
-

D
’

C)
3

hi
IF

-’
<

H
-

ft
En

ft
—

En
EQ

H
ft

En
hi

CD
3

p
.

En
CD

CD
0

p
.

En
iH

,
CD

CD
ft



of geographers (past or present), I maintain that the public sphere

of (f±eld)work cannot remain exempt from “pollution” by the

personal.

My focus on the “field”, however, stands not only as an attempt to

depart from the debate surrounding Sauer, but also as a wider

critique of geography, authority and culture as a whole. While in

anthropology, as James Clifford states, there is a growing sense

that “we ground things, now, on a moving earth”, i.e. there are no

longer any privileged positions (islands of distinction, vantage

points of authority) from which to speak about the culturally

Other,26geography, as Alisdair Rogers notes, has yet to experience

such a “crisis of ethnographic authority”.27 This, for me, is a

function of a neglect of the “field” as a focus for critical

enquiry. Once we move beyond the seamless authority of geographic

texts, legitimated by calls to the “field”, and actually look at

what work in “the field” entails, view it in its plurality and

contradictions (the hardship, the silences, the emotions, the

misunderstandings, the intrusions, the exclusions. .) , the

geographer is forced to come down from the privileged position on

26 Clifford in Clifford and Marcus, op. cit., p.22. In
contrast to Sauer’s “vantage points” of authority, then, we turn
instead to his cultural doubt of the last chapter. This is more
akin to Clifford’s sentiments on cultural representation in the
present: “There is no longer any place of overview (mountaintop)
from which to map human ways of life. . .Mountains are in constant
motion. So are islands: for one cannot occupy, unambiguously, a
bounded cultural world from which to journey out and analyze other
cultures.”

27 Rogers, 1992, p.513.

228



the hill28and face up to a more critical perspective on the

authority of fieldwork amidst “culture”. Through Sauer, we can

begin to see how geography constructs itself: how it draws on

varied tropes and rhetorical devices to distinguish itself, how it

presents a legitimate image of itself - in essence, how it lies to

itself about its own authority. At the same time, we can begin to

see how geography constructs others: how its practitioners can fuse

their own sentiments with science and present cultures objectively

as “personality”. Thus, despite a continuous focus on Sauer, I am

not simply advocating a rewriting of one geographer in the language

of theory - merely attaching theoretical insights to a study of

Sauer like “flags of convenience”29- but attempting a serious

integration of critiques into geography as a whole. Picking up my

critiques from the Introduction of the bounding, essentialising and

fixing of Sauer, I take these into a reconsideration of geography

as strategic, hybrid and reflexive space within wider disciplinary

travel. This is an alternative view of geography as shifting and

open, not overly concerned with boundaries and fixing and

attempting an awareness of its own closures. Thus I end as I

began: talking about travel in the academic field of geography.

While Sauer, in his address to Californian geographers in 1970,

said that this “kind of geography” was “gone”,30the need to get

away from the “but-is-this-geography state” and open the discipline

28 This coming down from the mount is, following on from the
discussion of chapter three, particularly aimed at male geographers
since “field”, geography and geographical knowledge seem to be
authorised in masculinist terms.

29 Dhareshwar in Kreiswirth and Cheetham, 1990, p.242.

° Sauer, 1970, op. cit., p.6.

229



up to new trails remains.

230



L
’
J

I
Q

Q
r
t
f
l

Q
Ii—

’
I
f
l

P)
W

I
H

tC
l
W

ø
(
1

W
l

Z
IH

I
(D

F
—

’F
--

’
0
F

—
’

p
)
I

IH
-P

)
0

D
F

—
’

I
C

X
C

D
I
0
C

D
—

C
D

P
)

0
h

O
2

C
D

C
l

H
,
H

,
C

l
H

,
f
t

I
I
f
tf

t
)

Cl
)

I
W

Q
I
F

-
—

C
l)

C
lf

tO
$

1
0

C
D

I—
D

O
0
0

H
-

p3
f
t

•
C

l)
P

)
I
H

,
i

F
-f

li
C

l
)
0

0
IZ

I
C

D
H

,H
,

0
H

I:I
IO

C
D

c
t
h

-
C

C
D

I
IP

3
C

D
P

3
-
-
O

H
-

o
(
D

F
-<

cl
)

Ii
’i

C
J
)
H

D
h

•
-
C

D
CD

J
H

-
H

H
--

If
tC

D
H

H
-

H
,

I-
Ii

i
O

D
k
<

Q
,Q

,
C

l
C

l
I
H

H
f
t

U
f
t

7
J
)

I
D0

Cl
)

C
D

W
CD

1
H

H
-

-
C

H
-

I
I
-
’
-
H

-
3
(
D

H
-

p)
i
i
I

IC
l)

C
lN

p3
co

o
i

l
O

P
)

I
H

-
0

‘
)
0
C

l)
H

-
P

P3
O

C
l

H
-C

l)
q

‘P
)

P
1

C
l

{
[
D

r
t
i

I
p

H
-

I
N

C
l)

0
‘-

P3
0

H
Cl

)
Cl

)
H

I
‘d

O
I..

W
p

c1
C

D
P

(-
C

l
Cl

)
H

f
t
f
t

f
tH

-
.
J

i
1

j
CD

-
CD

0
p

h
C

D
CD

C
lL

-’
0

-
C

l
H

CD
CD

I-
°

f
t
o

C
l)

C
D

O
H

-
H

-
H

Z
-
-

-
,
-
,

H
H

W
•

H
-

t
Q

ft
P3

D
“
H

0
ri-

p
j
P

)
p

)
-

O
C

D

H
‘
C

l
P3

CD
f
t
W

f
t
.

CD

CD
0H

-
.

p3
H

CD
C

D
F-

’
H

.<
H

H
-

C
f
lL

I
j

H
’
Q

C
D

F
-

f
t

P
p
,

C
l

C
D

O
H

p3C
D

i
f
t

-
-

H
-C

D
C

D
H

I
1

C
D

Cl
)

C
l
)

o
H

>
<

H
-
lH

-
PJ

Q
°
0

I
i
-

CD
‘

f
t

C
l.

P3
f
tW

)
W

P
)
0

H
H

C
D

H
-

0
C

l
)
h

lCD
P3

C
D

b
CD

i
<

-
f
t

H
-°

C
D

I
C

lO
-

P3
CD

H
I-

’
I-

Q
I

P
)p

j
CD

C
l

H
C

l
3C

D
f
tC

lf
t

O
H

W
I

I
h
H

10
C

l
f
t

cx
ft

CD
H

-
0

0
CD

Cl
)

CD
H

-I
O

p
j

0
f
r
j
0C

D
“
lC

l
O

C
D

0
Q

H
D

C
l

C
l)

f
t
l
H

ij
C

D
p

>
<

3
H

,
0

-
CD

C
D

C
D

H
,

-
1W

-
<

I
H

H
IH

P
)

H
,

I
Q

P
3

w
IH

h
H

H
P

)
CD

I1
If

t
CD

0
H

-
IH

-
CD

0
tQ

C
l

H
-

H
-

H
-

IH
0
I
c

P
)

0P
)

Ii
C

D
0

CD
C

D
0

0
C

D
W

C
l)

U
i

ft
‘—

i
lC

D
o

-
C

l
o

C
D

0f
t

C
D

p
j

10 10
H

IC
D

C
lH

.
‘
d
0

Il)
)

0
H

-
0

D
Q

I
<
0

h
l
)
)

-

ft
o

0C
D

Cl
)

CD
-
p

)
CD

H
-H

,
0

<1
P

3
1

.
C

D
C

l)
H

d
H

-
Cl

)
f
t
C

C
D

H
-

CD
H

1
H

-
.
-

C
l)

-
Z

Cl
)

CD
‘

g
‘-

<
h
o

0
-
-

H
I

H
,

H
C

D
C

D
-
-

k
<

..
H

-
C

D
H

,
H

Cl
)

0
IH

-
C

l
CD

-
H

-
H

0
H

-
H

-
ft

H
,

C
l)

lP
)

C
l
)

I-
<

0
0

)
C

i
)

IP
)

CD
H

,
H

-
p3

q
H

-
I
H

CD
0

C
D

10
=

0
IH

C
l

f
t

H
-C

D
0

I
H

-
f
t

0
C

l
C

l
H

-
0

f
t
I
f
t

-
II

H
-

I
P3

.
.

ft
0

Q
H

Q
CD

Cl
)

k
<

L
Q

H
H

Cl
)

“
Z

C
D

H
IF

-B
W

H
CD

CD
P

3
0

D
l)

)
h
Q

H
,I

i
C

D
°’

<
0

CD
f
tp

)
ft

:
-

H
-

CD

l
C

l
)

Q
IO

F
—

’
H

0
p

d
f
t

0
°

0
C

l
0

H
f
l
f
t
f
t

i
-
<

.
H

-
C

D
-

CD
H

H
-
’

W
0

0
I

H
-

W
-

><
H

C
D

-
-

ft
H

H
I
’
i

l))
Cl

)
—

H
-

-
0

H
-

11
-

H
H

-l
C

D
0

IH
-

1C
p3

M
0

H
-

P3
P3

CD
H

0
H

,’
-

w
If

t
H

‘d
F’

J
Cl

)

C
l

I-S
I-

I
Z

CD
CD

H
-

F-
’

—
C

D
C

D
W

F
-

H
F

-’

CD
11

0
1

IH
-

‘d
.
-

0
CD

CD
D

H

C
D

P
)

iL
Q

H
-

.
C

l)
Q

H
C

D
0
2

C
l

CD
H

-I
]

CD
H

H
-

H
I

IQ
ft

w
C

D
-

CD
f
t
I

C
D

C
l

C
D

I0
CD

H
h

H
0

0
CD

IC
D

Cl)
H

l
H

-
Cl

)
h

U
i

p3
I

H
h

P3
I

-
0

‘t
J

C
D

II
-’

P3
—.

1
H

O
C

l
C

U
IC

D
f-

f
CD

h
H

C
lH

ft
P3

ft
I

11
1

ft
C

D
f
t
I

0
C

D
IP

3
H

ft
H

U
i

—
P

3
C

D
CD

tE
’

W
M

P
3I

h
P3

H
-

I
-

P3
I
-
S

I
-
I
H

Q
IQ

W
G

C
D

iC
D

0
P3

CD
H

H
-

—
O

H
P

3
C

D
II

I
CD

C
l)C

D
-
-
W

C
li

--
-

C
l

F-
’

-
3

--
P

3
H

,C
l

-l
C

D
-



I
I
j

J
h

I
’

-C
ID

I
i

IC
1
)f

l
I
i

d
’

‘—
R

I
O

f
l

‘
d
Q

I
f
l
i

x
J
i

c
C

D
I

H
-
h

C
D

C
D

C
D

C
D

I
)

0
P

J
IC

D
Iii

I
I

O
H

-
Z

0
Ii

i
O

H
-
’

r
t
i

5
H

-
h
’

Pi
H

lCD
H

-
<

r
r
p

H
-

IH
-F

--
Ip

i
I

I
I

r
tI

Q
C

l)
1

r
t
r
t

c
t

I
Q

.H
I

<
I

I—
C

D
H

-O
O

)C
D

ç
t
)

C
D

C
D

Il
—

u)
C

D
C

D
C

D
1
0
(0

I
I

1
)2

1
C

fl
O

C
D

&
)
I

O
Q

I
C

D
O

I
C

D
(
h
W

O
H

-
N

F
-H

-i
1CD

H
Cl

)
I
r
t

H
CD

P3
O

•
•
.
Q

1
P

J
H

H
J

O
C

D
c
t

CI
)

I
H

u
)

0
P

3
0

H
“
O

H
D

)
l

‘<
C

D
•

0
In

.
.

D
)

c
t
i

H
(D

C
1
)l

-
H

r
t’

D
H

P
J
H

C
D

’J
F

tp
)

0
u

)
“
p

O
H

-
O

rt
C

D
P

J
F

-
d

I
L

Q
<

J
H

-
<

I
S

H
IC

D
I

0
1

J
I

H
U

)
C

D
C

D
H

-P
J

H
I

M
C

D
I

•
CD

CD
H

c
t

lC
n
C

H
j

c
-
r
r
r

(
)
C

D
D

F
t

0
0

)
Q

t
2
t
J

0
0
)
0

H
h
<

-
•
.
T

F
-

c
0

W
H

-
C

D
H

-P
’

C
D

C
D

C
D

H
t5

U
1

u
i

CD
rt

F
t

t
-
.
.
.

H
-

O
C

D
0H

0
)
.

0
F

tC
D

W
H

-
P

1
J

O
P

)
0H

I
0C

D
l
Q

P
C

D
F

t
H

0
C

D
H

H
-

H
0

H
-

C
D

C
D

H
C

D
i

1
Jp

j
H

5
H

1
j

P
3

0
)

C
D

H
r
t

C
n
H

C
D

L
D

I
H

-
H

—
fl

i
q

P
)c

t
..
c
_
•

tP
3

C
D

C
D

c
t
F

-

H
W

H
0

t
W

k
<

H
0H

-
-

Cl
)

•
C

D
O

CD
c
o

W
P

)
0

0
P

3
-
L

o
pi

C
D

u
)

C
D

H
-

H
0
h

H
ir

j
.

C
D

H
H

P
)
0

CD
H

C0
Ci

)
C

D
p
i

F
tC

D
i
p

H
r
,
i

C
D

C
D

H
Z

H
-

I
:
-
0
)

H
O

H
-

1
0

0
)

.
H

C
D

H
F

tC
D

r
t

O
°

C
O

F
t

F
t

F
-

I
.

F
r

IP
3.

C
D

H
-

0
j
—

H
H

C
fl

C
D

1
-
h

0
)

P
i
p
j

H
CD

Ii
i

0
.

(
Y

w
-
t

C
D

(0
0C

D
o

H
-

1C
D

i
j

H
P

)
0

IP
I

H
0
2
H

O
IC

1
d

C
D

W
H

O
F

t
CD

0
)

F
t
0

rt
H

C
D

n
<

O
I

h
h

M
,

IH
-H

H
-

H
<

H
P

)—
O

t
I

C!
)

j
P

J
.

C
O

O
H

F
’

CD
Ip

ip
i

H
O

0
M

H
0

P
J

0
H

-
H

C
D

O
H

-
0

•
C

r
CD

pi
-

P3
C

!)
Q

0
H

-
Z

w
F

r
H

-
0
-

C
D

l-
C

D
C

D
CD

.
.
)

r
t(

0
lCD

C
D

C
D

C
D

M
H

W
C

D
P

3
H

C
D

0)
H

-
0

H
C

1
)
Q

U
)

0
)
r
t

1’
.)

5
P3

0C
D

C
D

a
0

rt
C

D
W

F
-c

::

u
i

o
O

r
0

H
-

-
I
-

1-
h

I
”

<
0

5
1
-h

tj
H

-
0C

D
S

p
‘
d

•
CD

p
j
O

0
CD

C
D

7
S

‘-
I

C
D
0D

••
H

H
-

0
CD

0
H

-
C

D
ç
1
3C

D
H

-
p
j

g
0

C
D

P
)

0
)

C
f
)

0
P

-
j

1
-

P
)

1
-

•
0

0
1
-
_
)

Cl
)

P3
o

H
M

C
D

C
D

0
0

C
D

r
H

-H
-

C
D

>
c
t

P
3

S
1-

•
.

H
-
p

jH
l

r
tF

-
CD

C
D

u
)

0
)

H
-

H
-

.
H

-
pj

CD
H

O
c
tF

r
c
t
c
-
t

O
H

-
F

t
0

0
H

-
H

h
F

r
C

D
H

.P
J

C
D

D
)

,C
D

C
D

0
0

)
O

Q
&

)
C

/
)

CD
I

C
fl

C
D

l
.
Q

P3
C

D
0

H
C

l)
CD

rt
H

j
F

t
H

C
I
)

C
D

C
D

Cl
)

C
D

P3 o
F

t
0

CD
0

H
F

t

CD
0

•
.H

.C
D

k
<

0
0

C
D

CD
F

r
P3

C
D

0
C

D
I
>

<
Q

P
3

P
3

Ia
0
-

P
3

1
-

h
C

D
W

H
-

I-
h

0
0

C
CD

U
0

CD

C
D

0
.
p

-
“
H

-C
D

P3
t

C
D

F
r

CD
F

tH
CD

H
-
H

CD
H

P3
•

l
-

F
tC

D
H

O
H

I.
.

H
0

CD
•
d

P3
0

P3
rt

01
Q

C
D

O
•

l-
IQ

<
M

P
3

CD
O

C
D

H

0
)
0

CD
C

i
0

H
CD

H
0

0
H

I
Pi

Ci
)

O
C

i
H

0
)
0

I1
-

H
-

H
-
3

H
-
H

H
P

)F
-

1
-

H
-O

113
II

CE
)

P3
C

D
H

IP3
P3

0
)

H
-

0
C

D
H

-
0

0
1

3
IH

I
CD

<
F

t
I
H

-
k
<

3
O

C
i

H
-

CD
CD

0
1-

h
P3

P3
I

0
)

CD
1
3
C

n
rt

P3
P

3
C

i
0

P
3

0
C

I
)
Z

0
)P

3
CD

0
1

3
0

1
3

10
P3

0
H

-P
3
1
3

CI
)

13
P

3
H

Cl
)

P
1
-
h

fr
-h

•
•

•
1-

h
P

J1
3
C

D
•



IH
-Q

(D
Q

I
i
Q

l
i
j

Q
i

t
J

t
j
’
I
J

I
-
<

11
J

t
J

I
j
’
x

J
t
J

I
I

Lx
J

L
x
Jd

I
-

1(
Q

i
t

O
P

J
IF

—
IC

D
IP

J
H

,C
D

I
H

O
H

-O
0
0

C
D

O
C

D
H

H
I

I
H

i
i

-
D

C
D

H
I

H
-

C
D

Ii
tC

D
H

&
)

0
1

IC
D

<
C

fl
U

)
U

)
i
t
h

i
i

r
r

I
H

-
P

iP
)

(
Q

H
1

0
0

CD
I1

D
IW

D
)

‘
P

)
I

It
n

’
O

c
t

Q
p

I
0

H
-O

-
C

Q
O

I
C

D
IO

n
-C

D
I

lC
D

C
D

•
-
H

-
0

-
H

C
D

H
-

I
I

it
I-

P
)

p
i

-
-

O
H

I
tO

(1
)-

C
i
<

Ih
H

-
H

H
d

o
-

h
-
]

>
<

-
H

-
D

-
-

H
J
-

H
O

-
-

‘.
o

‘-3

P
J
H

-
C

D
C

D
H

N
H

C
D

it
Iz

C
fl

h
0

Q
H

-C
D

H
-

O
P

J

o
p

‘-
<

Q
C

l
)

0
-
h

O
H

-
D

-
0

-

Q
C

(
P

)
O

it
P

J
H

Cl
)

p
i

‘
d

1
C

C
-

‘—
3

M
H

C
l)

P
)

h
p
J

P
)
H

C
D

H
C

D
-

‘
<

-
-

-
i
t

-

1
H

i
H

P
)
I
—

i
t

H
-

0
C

D
-

‘

Ii
W

H
J
D

)
jC

D
C

D
.

O
w

•
.P

i
H

i
H

i
P1

C
D

H
iP

0
Z

IH
-

Ii
o

H
H

0
0

0H
w

i
t
i
t

Q
‘c

—
i

0
li

t
I

o
H

1Q
M

H
C

D
h

‘
-
H

it
(l

)H
-

Ic-
I-

Ih
Q

,C
i)

P1

()
c

O
H

P
i’

lO
C

D
0

P
li

t
Cl

)
—

Q
(
W

h
O

ç
1

‘
-

H
W

M
0

-
h
O

lCD
I

H
-

H
-p

i
•
.
-

L
O

Q
H

h
0

it
H

1
1

I
I

‘
1Q

0
Ip

<
ID

)
p

i
-

p
j

Q
O

O
.

C
D

0
H

-
CD

C
D

-
3

H
F

-
1

CD
i
t

0
JC

fl
IH

-
IF

’
cn

H
-

C
fl.

’—
3

H
-

C
II

-
‘
tJ

O
H

-
‘
-

H
I
i

li
t

ii
-

H
t
n

°
C

D
C

D
P

D
)
-

I
-

O
-

0
0

.
C

D
•
P

1
Ii

IC
O

o
H

-P
.s

c
t

CD
0

H
-P

)
CD

X
C

D
II

-
P

J
°

IH
-

113
()

0
-

Q
C

D
P

)
H

-
H

-
W

o
I
W

0
CD

H
-

i
-
r

tO
)

O
0

W
-
-

C
D

O
P

1
<

C
D

D
)

IW
F—

1
H

13
-

0
H

-<
I-

U
iI

-
H

13
-
.

D)
>

4
p

i
H

-
IO

C
D

z
it

’-
-3

o
P

-
C

D
P

1
C

O
W

-
O

O
c
t

P
H

11
3

it
C

D
0

I
O

C
D

I-
0
0

-
I

Ii
13

ci
)

P1
1
3
H

--
IP

1C
D

‘
‘

0
P

O
C

D
H

.
C

D
13

CD
C

O
t

D
)G

t
P

lO
)

C
l)

‘
<

i
t

H
-

H
-

H
H

H
C

D
13

0
0

0
o

0
13

CD
C

O
.

1
3
W

it
P

l
H

-
cri

13
i
t
p
l

p
H

o
W

-
0

h-
1

‘d
P

1
1
3

‘d
O

)
w

i_
II

1
3
p
-.

I-
1

3
it

—
I

13
Q

i
t
i

C
D

H
c-i

-
H

-
0
0

H
i

CD
H

p
0

CD
it

CD
-.

“
j

0
O

P
I

O
W

°
‘

0
P

-
H

C
l
)

CX
)

C
D

°
CD

.
-

P
1
3

CD
P

l
‘•‘

J
d

C
X

)

H
o

.
.
P

)
C

D
13

I-
‘•x

J
:
1

o
C

D
C

D
i
-
1

-
0

--
CD

CD
P1

P
)

1
3

it
P1

D
)

P1
0

I
-

P
C

D
H

-
CD

‘<
H

-”
i
t

<I
P

o
H

-
H

O
CD

,4
P

)
—

‘-
d

o
P1

0
CD

C
D

rr
-i

iC
D

C
D

(
f
)
it

H
i

CD
k

g
O

(D
Cl

)
H

i
>4

C
D

h
O

C
D

.
CD

‘
H

-
Q

‘x
J

P1
C

D
P

)
H

-
C

O
C

D
CD

H
-

P1
H

U
]

D
H

pl
13

0
1
3

o
0

H
-

13
0

it
H

<
o

J
Y

(1
H

-
I-

p,
CD

P1
i
t
p

j
Cl)

Z
n

P
1
”

c
-
r
d

CD
•
l

0
-

P’
CD

H
-

13
0

13
p

CD
H

-
1

0
c-

c
it

it
H

C
D

P1
P1

CD
-

P1
H

13
’C

D
CD

I-
b

H
(
D

H
-

-

H
-

O
—

P1
0

W
°

0
CD

CD
CD

—
J
it

P1
0

‘d
C

D
0

C
D

13
C

D
W

-
-

.
h

I
1
3

c
o
o

H
Cl)

0
c
o

>4
p

1
P

i
t

13
-

H
(D

pj
H

-C
D

H
I-.

-)
—

J1
3

p
CD

CD
0

0
‘i

j
P1

it
13

H
i

0
0

it
0

O
it

0
H

-
-

H -
P

1
H

-
I

“
“
i

H
-

C!
)

13
M

O
O

I
H

-
CD

0
H

-
C

D
13

0
P1

‘d
it

-
0

CD
C

l)
>4

C
fl

P
13

H
H

-
0)

H
-

0
it

C
)-

CD
C

O
P)

-
CD

it
0

it
O

l
13

13
0)

-
i
t

Cl
)

0)
CD

P1
13

0
lCD

(1
.

it
O

C
D

C
fl

c-
t

H
-

Z
CD

‘d
Cl

)
IC!)

0
P1

13
0

13
0

CD
>4

0
CD

H
P

)
-

1
0)

13
Cl

)
CD

H
-

CD
3

-.
H

i
-

I
I
-
-



i
I
f
li

Q
I
i

f
l
C

Z
C

C
D

C
IU

)(
D

C
C

M
H

i
0

Q
0

I
Q

H
,
(
J
)

‘
lC

D
’

C
D

1
0

H
1

S
C

D
C

D
C

C
D

C
D

(D
O

1
C

D
lf

t<
C

)J
p
J

p
i

l
—

i-
t,

s
i

0
0

p
J
c
-
r
p
J

<
I

)
J
i

I
P

U
)
I

‘
I
F

-
N

0
C

D
-

I
C

D
<

H
-
H

CD
C

)
U)

Q
C

D
U

)
r
tC

D
C

D
’

Q
’

‘
I
’

1
0
0
’

H
-

CD
‘I

C
D

H
-

‘-
<

C
D

<
IC

D
C

)U
)

0
C

D
U

)
U

)
M

r
r

H
-

O
H

-
C

I’
IU

)
U

)H
-C

)’
I

‘I
H

-
CU

C
)

0’
I

P
)
’
I

0
’
I

H
-

l’
Ir

tO
‘I

U
)0

0
P

H
-

U
)H

-
-

Q
f
t
H

U
)

p
)

H
f
t
’
I
-

p
i
-

C
)
l
Q

w
U

)
l

lc
ip

i
w

w
w

z
‘
o

C
)

f
t
U

)
H

-”
’

i
IH

-
H

-
0

U)
H

-
‘I

ID
)

f
t

H
-

H
-

-
W

H
i

0
U

)
H

-
U)

‘I
f
tC

l
O

f
t

H
-

f
t

Q
H

i
O

C
)

0
CD

0
°

U
)
U

1
Q

C
I)

C
D

ti
H

-
H

-
O

‘
<

O
i
q

‘t
i

•
-

c
n

1p
i

CD
C

)
p

C

H
-

I
C

IH
U

)
C

D
P

U
)

H
,

-
k

<
lCD

C)
H

-
0
C

)
C)

ft
H

-
Q

I
o

C
D

C
)

0H
Z

-
U)

C
D

C
D

’I
C

D
•

CD
H

--
f
t

<
C

D
D

)
Q

r
t

CD
P

l
p1

•
U

)
‘-d

i—
’L

’J
ft

3
•
•
H

-
)

H
-U

)<
‘-

d
P

°
O

H
-

H
-

H
-

H
CD

H
-

Cl
)

f
t
f
t

‘
I
’
I

1
3

D
C

D
‘I

C)
‘-

a
ft

CD
H

C
D

U
)

(
D

S
O

<
P

CD
0
<

O
’
I
D

p
CD

U
)—

)
C

U
)

CX
)

CD
H

‘I
C

D
0H

H
C)

U
)t

y
f
t

C
D
0

H
--

X
)

CD
U

)C
D
0H

P
C

)
)

C
)
p

CD
f
tp

)
‘
I

C
D

H
H

C
)

C
D

H
U

)
-

U
)C

D
.

I—
h
H

-.
0

O
p

C
C

l)
II

‘
I

W
<

C
D

U
)
L

0
C

D
C

)
p
)

0C
D

H
H

f
t

H
-

C
D

f
t

D
U

)
H

O
‘I

‘D
‘I

C
)

-
C

)
H

‘I
p

’
I

U
i’

I
M

’
I
f
t
0U

i
C

D
H

-
C

)
H

’
I

Z
H

-C
D

C
D

-
f
t
C

)
H

—
0

-
.

pj
O

U
)
’
I

U
iC

D
U)

•
f
tH

-
H

C
D

<
CD

M
C

)
’
I

C
)

H
-H

-C
D

H
Q

-

U
)

f
t
P

U
)

0
C)

U
)

CD
Q

C
D

H
CD

O
U

)
>

‘I
S

f
t

ft
f
t

•
.

H
-

‘I
-

C
)

C
D

Q
H

H
°

CD
i
p

i
lo

CD
‘I

S
-

CD
f
t

H
-

U
)

H
i

I
L

U
)C

)U
)

o
—
.

CD
C

D
F

-
H

-
d

Q
C

D
’

‘
li-

i,
ii

O
H

-
p

‘I
0

CD
U)

M
f
tH

C
)C

D
U)

C
D

H
‘C

D
lC

D
-

w
C

D
lC

D
I3

‘
-
U

)
M

H
f
t

U
i

0
0

ft
o

O
U

)
b

1
-
H

-
IS

H
-

lCD
U)

pi
P

C
)

CD
W

W
0

‘1
cU

P-
’

M
p
j

0
W

U
)
Q

w
Q

I
CD

H
-

O
’
I

‘I
‘I

w
IH

-
‘I

-

ft
H

i
0

‘
-
H

-
°

‘I
o

I
<1

‘I
0

‘I
C

)
O

5
ft

LQ
H

C
D

H
I

U
)C

D
•

0
-

H
-

C)

M
U

)
f
t

O
F

-’
lCD

ft
(D

O
CD

.
H

C
D

O
,C

D
—

C
D

0

H
-

0
H

-
f
t
-

t
w

CD
0

ft
C

D
L

J
0

‘1
-

CD
U)

C
-’ o

C
)

-
-

CD
C

D
(D

H
i

H
-

-
‘I

-
U

)
C

D
H

-
C

D
‘
I
C

D
C

)
H

-
Q

-
ft

CD
-
W

U)
‘I

-
-
H

-
0H

-
’

P
s—

C
D

0
H

0
CD

CD
H

C
D

CD
ft

U)
H

U
)

0
o

0
‘I

‘I
C

D
W

k
<

U
)
?

•
•

W
•

CD
C

D
p
)C

D
0

C
U

-
CD

H
II

o
‘I

‘I
H

i
-<

C
‘
-
f
t

H
-

CD
0

H
-
f
t

P
C)

CD
H

F
’-

C
)H

-
CD

0
0

<1
0

Ct
)

CD
H

<
0

‘
I

H
-

H
-

H
f
t

H
-

‘I
C)

H
-

‘-d
0
0

“
-

H
C

D
b

o
C

D
O

IH
-

C
)

U)
ft

C)
CD

C
)U

)
f
t
H

H
-

U
)

I0C
D

Q
U

i
O

o
H

U
)C

D
U

)C
D

‘I
P

-
i
H

CD
‘C

D
•

ft
-
-

P
p

o
U

)
H

-C
D

U
)H

‘I
p

.,
U)

F-
’

‘I
-

CD
Ic

-I
CD

C
D

IC
D

P
lO

•
Q

-
i

H
-

H
-

Ic
H

-
0

0
IQ

0
C)

U)
f
t

10
‘-

<
-

H
-

CD
I’I

H
-I

C
)

ft
IU

)’
I

U)
0

CD
ft

H
C

)I
U

)S
]
Q

ft
IC

ft
C)

H
H

i
0

‘I
C

ft
1
0

0
CD

U)
CD

0
IH

U
)

‘I
CD

H
f
t

H
i

‘I
‘I

I
0

Q
‘I

‘I
S

IH
‘
I
I
f
t

l
i—

•
lCD

U)
I

U
)I

H
-Q

CD
lH

-
CD

0
0

‘I
‘I

CD
ft

CD
l

l
H

-
0
i

I
H

-I
C

)
U)

C
)C

D
Q

i
CD

-
ft f
t

l
10

lCD
U

)
0

-
‘I

CD
U

)
H
l

0
ft

ft
I

Ic
ft
I

f
t

o
lCD

H
i

IH
ft

H
i

-
-

-
H

lCD
H

CD
H

i
lCD

k
<

10
IH

i
<

IH



1
Q

0
C

D
i
Z

Iç
l)

h
h

F
—

’
I

I
L

W
‘d

I
I

I
i
-
i

W
C

I
L

-
1

u
i
w

Q
c
,

lC
D

-h
P

J
lo

p
i

(D
P

i
I

H
-P

J
<

H
-
0

kD
O

P
H

-
I
-
i’

0
2

’
5
’

I-
C

D
0

h
C

D
C

I
l

)
0

H
-

P
1
I

ID
C

I
lo

w
I
C

I
0

r
t
C

D
I
i

P
1

<
0

’
0

2
’

C
D

’
H

-H
-

-
Q

O
P

iP
I

Q
C

D
I

L
Q

d
IH

-U
)

H
-C

)
l
0
2
d

C
D

C
D

I
IQ

O
H

-
[-

1
,1

0
1

I
rt

tQ
-J

CD
•

l-
I

ft
C

)
1

C
D

I

C
D

IC
D

C
D

C
D

I
H

-
r
t

1
C

D
IC

D
‘
i

C
D

’
0
’

H
-
I

H
-

tf
lC

l)
C

fl
CD

U
Q

h
i

P
i
j

Ir
t’

<
U

)
b

CD
H

-
P

l
1C

D
02

H
-

C)
iF

—
a

I
,
5

•
f
l
5

C
D

C
J)

1
<

-
k
iC

I
I
-

Q
h

1<
C

D
cn

w
H

pi
p
ip

Q
C)

Q
(D

0
•
.

P
h

0
I

0
1C

IC
D

0
2

,
H

-
P

C
I

H
-L

O
f
t
P

CD
13

IP
i3

1
-h

Q
(
D

1
3

0
IC

D
P1

i
D

0
H

-
t1

)
P

1
3

CD
.

(O
H

,
S

p
i

r
tH

,
Q

H
1
1
3
0

13
‘
d

C
D

I
<

-
1
3

0
Q

a
-,

O
p
i

0
.
.
-

0
2

C
D

IP
-’

L
’
i

‘
<

-
H

-
CD

P1
C

D
.

I-
h

CD
0

I
CD

1
3

.
C

D
C

D
w

P
-

P
0

0
C

Ip
1

13
1
3

’
P

i
02

Q
0

I-
h

t-
j

h
i
p

p
ip

-’
p
jL

i-
p

1
3
t
-
’

C
D

C
flC

D
C

I
P

1
W

p
i’

<
o

L’
i

,
(
_

)

o
C

I
0
2

C
D

d
C

D
O

0
C

D
f
t
H

I_
A

0
1
’

C
l
)
H

-
l
o

p
C

I
0

1
3

F
—

CD
-

IC
D

D
“
—

1
<1

0
2

ç
‘..

o
0

P
-C

D
.

H
-

I
-
Q

C
D

ft
C

D
0

(/
)Q

pj
M

c
t1

3
C

D

.P
1

H
P

<
H

-
-

C
D

0
F

H
-

1
3

0
2

r
r

P
-p

,I
—

C
D

C
D

.
fl

H
-

0
p
j

W
J

.
‘C

D
D

1
3

H
-

i-
z

I
.

13
C

D
C

D
i
l
p

,
0
2

,
-

CD
CD

C
D

P1
‘C

D
H

0
0

0
H

-
1

3
u-

i>
<

-

w
C

D
0
1
3

W
U

i•
P

H
-
C

I
‘H

-
<

N
C

D
C

D
CD

—
JH

-
.
.

H
C

D
H

-
‘
-
D

C
D

—
1?

CD
0
C

D
0

2
1
3

.
13

w
p
)

r
t

1
3

.
0
2

C
I

H
C

D
P1

1
3
0

H
,C

D
C

IC
D

C
D

Cl
)

H
-

1
3

H
1:

31
3

CD
(
i
l

0
02

G
0

h
H

-
CD

H
f
l
O

h
i

F
-C

D
IH

C
I

CD
CD

C
D

Q
O

c
t

w
-

1
3

C
D

C
I

0
C

D
k
<

C
D

C
D

C
I

113
C

D

c
r0

2
1

3
U

]
C

D
H

-
-

I-
Q

H
-

I
,
P
0

•
•

I
02

H
-

C
D

P
)

1
3

0
)

1
3

5
CD

0
2
-

H
CD

lCD
Q

C
I

O
H

0
2

Pi
p

0
P

1
°

C
I

H
-

CD
p

0
H

-
f
t

C
D

C
D

C
D

H
-

13
O

H
,

H
-

0C
D

0
-

0
pi

P1
Cl

)
—

O
2C

D
<

S
-
.

5
,

1
3

H
--

•
H

-
H

-
C

D
H

-
Cl)

02
-
-

H
--

-
C

D
P

J<
0

C
D

C
I

jP
1

1
H

-
P

P
1

P1
O

0
2
1
3

5
H

-
i

‘<
-

13
j
H

-
0

C
D

0
2

P1
13

13
P1

0
1
3

P
-

o
S

.
C

I
0

p
iC

D
0C

I
pA

ø
C

D
13

0
C

I
H

-
13

0
P1

I-
h
O

)
C

D
CD

-
CD

CD
Cl)

CD

1
3

C
I

P1
i
P

1
H

-°
02

C
D

pA
13

H
C

I

S
CD

CD
H

-
C

I
H

CD
0)

H
-
C

D
1

3
H

C
I

-
H

-
f
t

Cl
)

‘
<

1
p

PA
13

C
I

ft
H

-
0)

H
,H

-
0
2
P

1
Q

°
H

H
-

CD
‘
d
0

a
CD

02
0
0

.1
3

w
P1

0C
I

0
1
3

C
I

S
o
1
3

C
)

CD
>

‘d
IC

)p
i

C
D

-
o

0
13

1
3
H

-
“
‘v

-
p
C

D
01

P
C

I
I
-
I
P

1
H

-
p

P1
0)

CD
II

-
p

••
ft

13
p

H
-

H
-

H
,

I-
CD

VA
0

Ci)
13

-
(f

li
P

H
-

0
P1

P
1

O
P

‘d
CD

P
1

P
I

H
-

H
-

0
-

C
I

13
0
2
1
(1

2
C)

(1)
0

CI
1
3

13
o

H
-

I
-i

C
l)

P
1

P
1

<
H

-
I

F
-
0

C
I

CD
ft

C
D

13
hi

IP
1

1
3
p

.
H

,
0

H
-

13
ls

i
CD

P1
0

13
CD

0
C

I
13

5
P1

I
C

I
O

C
D

i
IC

D
P

A
P

1
Ii—

I-I
II—

(O
ft

CD
C

D
C

I
p1

U
1

C
I

P
1>

<
Ii

P1
I
h

-
P

1
1
3

I
0

0
2
1
3

0)
0
1
3

13
0
C

D
U

1
H

-
P

C
I

--
P

-
-
0

)
--

P
A

CD
-.

lC
D

H
,

-C
D

-
13

C
D

13
•
-

-
1
3



I
P

d
L

1
J
d

‘d
‘d

C
ID

H
-d

d
c
J

Q
I

IQ
I

I
Q

c
0

H
I
j

Z
O

H
-
I

o
p
i

c
o

p
i

I
l
p
i
l

lCD
IC

D
J

P
C

D
c
-
’
-

‘
0

C
D

H
-

I’
-j

ct
,

‘
d

o
H

1
“
P

J
P

J
H

-
I
lI

l
•
c
t
I

H
-
1

-
i

C
D

I
0
’

IQ
Il

H
-
F

-
-
c
t

-
I
l

IH
-H

-
0

c
T

h
C

D
’d

I
H

c
t
I

rt
rt

O
r
t

w
C

D
c
t

H
H

-
H

M
—

(
Q

C
-
tI
I

Q
C

D
H

-
P

J
C

D
--

]I
l

H
C

D
C

D
Ic

-t
i

C
D

F
-

.D
H

-
I

H
C

t
CD

CD
-

1
Q

0
C

D
O

H
-
I

l
I
l
l

lI
lO

C
D

c
t

H
-

‘
d

C
D

IH
-H

-
C

tH
-

O
H

Il
C

D
Il

H
-

P
J
C

D
—

J
-

IPJ
IC

IJ
Il

H
-
b

CD
C

D
C

D
I
w

i
C

D
I
(
Q

H
D

I
l

C
J
2

D
I

I
H

-
H

I
d
H

td
w

C
D

C
D

O
C

D
I
Q

H
IY

-
O

c
t

..
C

D
H

M
-

D
I
.

X
H

-
i

C
1
O

(
J
1
C

t
I
2
)
I
)

I
J
D

I
H

-
H

C
t
H

I
0

0
M

H
CI

ft
O

D
.

O
C

D
C

D
f
t
•
O

D
IC

D
]

IH
-
f
t

0C
D

Q
H

-
-

lO
d

H
O

0
f
t

)
.-

J
II

lL
D

In
CD

L
D

1CD
0

I
l
H

k
<

CD

II
C

D
C

D
H

p
i

(D
X

I
o

C
D

C
D

f
t
.

1CD
I
c
,

-

Q
H

-
tQ

i
o

I
I
l
C

D
j

2
0

0X
C

1
)

0
C

D
C

D
L

D
N

O
IC

D
CD

0
Id

L
D

H
-

C
D

f
t

H
L

Ø
C

D
c
t

C
D

IC
D

w
0

2
f
t
f
t
•

h
-

Ip
jH

H

0
LD

IC
D

W
5

C
i

d
•
O

.c
0

H

H
-

H
-
C

D
H

H
C

D
0

L
Q

H
I
Z

C
D

C
D

c
o

C
D

‘D
CD

.
CD

H
C

D
0

)
0

.
LQ

Il
C

D
H

,
c_

I
X

C
1I

l
H

0
H

C
D

—
C

D
o

•
-

1w
-

L
0

H
-

I
l
H

H
-
.

0
Il

H
C

D
O

0
C

D
I
M

C
D

j
H

-
H

-Z
CD

C
D

C
n

Q
H

I

CD
,-

t-
w

L
Q

In
C

D
U

1
f
tp

)
0H

p
J
p

j
C

I
)

H
°
c
t

Il
H

-C
1

)
_
.0

1o
H

-
c
t
L

Q
j

CD
‘

H
-

H
-

f
t

IE
’-

H
-
C

D
‘
I
l
P

CD
•
.

O
’

-
0

CD
•
.

1P
)

<
N

<
0
-
0

1Z
C

1)
f
t

0
0

0
0

CD
‘

H
C

D
C

D
C

D
H

-
C

D
•C

D
t
j
f
t

H
-
I
l

H
I
l

-
‘•d

H
-

.

1
H

-
0

H
J

O
C

D
0

)
I
lO

C
1

2
‘d

Il
I

Cl
)

)
H

<
I
I
-

w
0

0
C

D
ti
i

i
F

-
j
p

j
P

J
Cl

)
CD

W
Q

•
f
t

k
<
t

4
H

-
C

D
P

I
>

<
f
tC

D
f
t

-
ci

i
C

D
_
_

0
•
.c

i
—

(
Q

<
‘d

c
t

w
H

-
f
r
h

<
h

l
,
.
d
,
H

i
C

D
Il

ci
C

D
C

D
H

CD
Q

O
H

-
-
H

-
C

D
0

0
Il

C
D

CD
H

,
<

C
D

P
C

D
L

i
o

CD
H

°
C

D
.

Il
fl

C
D

O
w

Q
c
t
H

Q
Il

C
D

Il
-

CD
C

D
H

i
(
0
P

f
t

H
i

I-
C

D
C

D
H 0

C
D

p
i0

2
0

o
C

D
CD

H
-

I-
w

I.
d

w
I
l
•

H
-
<

1
0

<
CD

c
t

go
)

C
D

”
Il

.
I
l

C
D

H
H

i
C

D
c
-r

H
ft

CD
f-I

-
I-

°
Il

C
I.

l1
i

C
D

-
H

Q
f-

I-
Il

-
P

i
,,
C

()
0

I
l
O

H
-C

D
W

C
D

CD
Il

c
t

H
-C

D

f
t
I
l
I
l

CD
C

D
C

D
H

p
i

C
D

C
D

0)
G

:
O

C
D

c
ii

f
t

i-
ti

Z
H

-
M

CD
H

-
k
<

Il
I
lO

C
D

Il
H

j
L

D
Q

o
C

D
r
r
-
•
•

C
D

5

f
t

0
C

D
P

J
CD

.
.

‘
d
f
t

5C
D

I
l
I
l
H

-
CD

I
l

W
C

D
H

i!
o

H
0
)

ci
i

-
O

C
D

C
D

CD
O

H
H

CD
ft

f
t

H
-

CD
CD

-
I-

ti
H

-
M

O
L

D
C

D
i

ft
C

D
ft

-
‘d

L
D

(
D

‘
d

H
-

Il
P

-
I

C
D

C
l)

H
f
t

0
H

,
-

CD
•

I
l

0
(
0

I
H

1
x
j
O

C
D

CD
H

0
)

I
l

H
,

CD
H

I
l

W
f
t

CD
O

’
H

-
f
t

I
I
l
f
t

H
f
t

C
D

‘d I
l
c
i
1

0
ft

C
D

Il
I

CD
IC

D
C

D
IC

,)
--

-
CD

C
D

f
tf

t
1
0
0

C
D

f
t

C
D

I
0

I
”

I
ft

CD
lH

-
0

CD
CD

0
-

HI
H

-
H

L
D

I
H

li-
i-

CD
H

I
-.

:D
-

Ic
i

Il
H

i
iq

CD
IH

-’-
Q

w
Il

H
,

H
I

Ic
H

,
‘d

Il
IH

‘d
CD

•
Il

CD
lo

IS
-

LD
10

IH
-

ft
‘d

CD
0
0

I
ft

Il
w

O
I
l

IC
u
ft

CD
I
f
to

lCD
ft

H
-

ft
-

IC
IF

-l
Il

H
-

Il
H

o
Q

H
5

U
i

Q
IC

D
CD

Il
f
t

L
D

i

H
ci

)
L

Q
”

0
0

H
C

D
0

2
5

C
D

<
Il

I
l
I
”

M
f
t

1
0
)

O
I
l

Ii
k

<
H

-
O

H
-

I
H

C
D

C
D

Il
C

D
CD

•
oI

C
D

ci
i

H
-

CD

O
’d

Ii
C

D
O

H
CD

(Q
H

-
I

-
CD

ft
H

f
t

H
-

Il
Il

0
H

-
0

0
-

H
-

H
I

I
H

I
CD

0
Il

H
O

0
H

I
C

D
If

tH
-

H
ft

CD
H

I
l

IH
-O

ft

-
o

[<
-

i
-
H

i
fr

-I
-H

’
-

-
-

(0
H

IC
D

IQ
--

-
‘-

I,
5

-
H



Q
(
D

’
C

D
U

)
Q

(r
If

tC
f)

Q
C

(
)

(
(
)

D
C

l
)

I-
IC

()
c
I
p
i
r
J

U
1
J

IF
—

C
i
i

Q
i

h
i

d
P

-.
’t

l
IC

D
S

b
(
D

Q
)

J
Q

)
f
t
J

C
D

O
I
h
o

H
O

IH
-O

C
D

F
’

Q
i

C
D

i
CD

I
•

CD
CD

H
H

-
lC

D
H

H
-

H
ft

•
0

Ci
)

H
-I

H
-

Cl
)

H
1
jQ

b’
0

H
-

I
I-

Q
0

I
IQ

C
D

’
M

-
f
t

IS
ft

I
O

<
Q

p
j

i
.

CD
<

H
ft

Pi
I

CD
IC

D
H

-
(
O

1
i

C
D

h
i

Q
i

O
H

C
D

C
D

f
t

O
’J

C
D

O
C

D
C

D
IH

-f
tF

-
L

\J
L

X
JF

H
C

D
0
’

I—
Q

’
H

I
f
<

i
M

H
-C

l)
H

-C
D

H
-

p
J

IJ
a
u

Ip
iw

C
D

C
D

H
I

C
D

N
•
-
C

D
-

C
I
C

D
0

If
tQ

H
O

L
’J

C
D

H
p
ik

<
C

D
C

l)
H

Q
H

-I
-

C’
)

H
C

D
t!

j

C
D

H
-

O
O

O
O

H
-

CD
f
t
f
t
-

O
O

Q
H

-H
-

f
t
I

0H
-

I
-

k
<

p
j

o
‘1

-
j

W
C

D
f
t
C

D
C

D
H

H
-

O
I
f
t

C
fl

H
CD

C
D

Z
C

D
X

.
-

>
<

0
‘d

O
(
Q

I-
Q

P
JF

—
1

lH
C

D
0

H
i-

i,
p
1

C
D

C
D

Q
h

C’
)

H
I
jH

-
p
J

P
J’

.D
‘
-
I

0
CD

i
i

C
D

H
C

fl
1

-
i

l
C

D
f
t

H
-’

D
j
H

-
Q

O
i
j

C
l
)

ft
0
H

-
O

I—
’”

H
Q

Q
IC

D
H

-O
0
H

0H
u

C
D

H
O

H
p

i
C

’)
H

O
C

D
0

p
il

.
ft

-
H

C
D

p
C

D
C

D
ft

CD
Q

j
D

H
-’

p
,

H
H

l
.
O

H
0H

CD
•
.
-

H
-

L
H

-
•
-
•

H
D

H
-
.
[
c
j

L
i

D
H

•
.C

D
L

O
-
j,

C
D

-
C

D
O

H
,.

..
•

f
t•

H
-

H
C

D
-

0
C

D
H

<
O

H
Q

.,
W

0
C

D
.

0
P

J
C

D
CD

C
D
5

-
H

-
I
-

H
-’

h
D

CD
C

D
CD

H
C

’
)

-
H

x
j

H
-C

D
0H

-
Q

C
D

H
H

ft
N

>
<

O
C

D
C

D
<

-
f
t

C
D

’
S

0H
-

H
-

ft
C

D
0

H
O

C
D

C
D

f
t

O
S

C
D

H
pi

H
p
i5

C
D

H
C

D
f
t
H

-
o

‘<
P

i
‘

H
-

S
H

-
F

’
P

)
ft

C
D

C
D

--
C

D
CD

H
-O

C
D

H
-
-

C
D

J
H

C
D

b
C

D
f
t

H
-

P
..

H
-
I
8

C’
)

O
H

-
Q

-
-

ft
H

C
D

C
D

)
0

CD
C

D
C

D
H

ft
H

H
-

Cl)
CD

ft
Q

F
-
h

C
D

-
CD

C’
)

H
-P

..
H

-C
D

CD
P

JC
D

C
D

CD
C

D
p

)
f
t
C

D
H

-
CD

C
D

I
1

<
1

P
..
S

H
-

-
-
O

p
i

C
D

C
D

C
D

-
0

C
D

j<
C

D
O

(
H

H
-

O
H

<
0

0
CD

°C
D

f
t

CD
C

D
H

-
H

,
CD

C
D

C
D

H
,

C
D

C
D

--
C

’)
H

,
°

-
d
H

C
D

‘..
D

H
H

,
O

H
-C

l)
H

,
°

h
C

D
w

0
I

C
D

d
0

-
0

f
t-

-
‘d

P
..

C
D

Q
C

D
P

I
H

C
D

H
H

C
D

II
0

H
-

H
P

o
H

,
ft

H
CD

Q
H

,
H

-C
l)

H
-

H
-

H
-I

.
0

-
-

C
D

-
H

I.
<

C
D

H
-
-

[-
h

i.
CD

C
’)

p
f
t
H

-
)

CD
k

<
Q

o
p
i

p
H

-
O

C
D

CD
C

D
ft

C
D

C’
)

O
H

-f
t

[1
-

C
D

’.<
H

-
I

><
C

D
f
tQ

C
D

CD
p

,
C

D
5

f
t
W

H
,

<
-

C
D

C
’)

‘
d

‘
-
f
t

-
•

_
w

Q
C

D
0

C
D

-
‘

-
0

o
0C

D
ft

H
-

CD
C

D
p
)
h

CD
C

D
C

D
C

D
C

nC
D

C
D

H
C’

)

CD
CD

H
-

0
O

‘
d

j

f
t
p
.

C
D

C
D

O
-

Cl)
-
-
-

f
t

H
-O

°
C

D
C

D
1p
i

H
O

C
D

H
-

1
C

D
C

D
-
•

C
D

ft
C

D
5

0
C

D
ft

H
-

-
C

D
’

C
D

0
C

D
CD

H
1L

i
f
t

CD
-

-C
D

f
t
H

II
C

D
o

C
D

C
D

p
.
.

C
D
0

H
,

CD
r
n

CD
ft

H
C’

)
CD

CD
pj

H
-

-
0

f
t

CD
CD

0
C

D
C

l
)

H
,

.
-

ft
C

’p
)H

,
C

D
H

,
H

ft
C

)
P.

.
i-

iC
D

H
h

H
-

CD
C

D
H

C
D

k
<

ft
•

f
t

H
-

O
C

D
Ci

)
•

W
ft

C
D

H
,

H
-

H
CD

C
D

C
D

‘
d
f
t

O
H

-
0

5
H

“
C

)
I—

’
C1

H
-

C
D

p
.

p
iO

5
II

CD
H

h
f
t

O
0

Q
C

’)
0

ft
O

0
5

CD
H

-H
C’

)
-

C
D

<
C

D
0

H
CD

i
0

C
D

C
D

II
f
t

ft
-

C
D

C
D
.

Q
..
i

Q
..

U
.

Q
p
.C

D
H

-
H

-
H

H
W

C’)
CD

O
H

-
0

p
iC

D
O

p
.

H
P

)
0

—
iI

-
0

i:
-’

P
i

‘.
D

O
H

-
H

-
f
t

0
C

D
C

D
pi

-
p
i

-
-

-
-‘

C
D

--
P

..-
-

H
,

-
-
-
h

•
-

H
-

-
C

D
p
.



i
c

i
J
i
<

i
I
J

Q
H

‘
-
t
j
-

p
i

U
)H

J
]
Q

C
J
)

I
C

J
)

IZ
I

Cl
)

IQ
C

l)
-C

l)
D

C
I
)

H
-(

D
C

D
lo

p
-I

(D
C

D
H

-
H

-
I

IH
-P

J
i
-
F

h
h

O
C

D
c
?
P

J
H

<
Ic

c-
i-

1
(0

1
c-i

-
Ic

on
-

O
O

P
H

-
”
d

O
H

U
)

IF
—

i
I
P

J
i

C
D

O
Q

O
H

-
U

)
n
-
H

-
I
-

•
H

5
I
h
h

I
I

C)
IQ

p
J

U
)
U

)
-

h
—

J
c
t

IU
)F

—
P

JO
‘

IC
)

h
h

c
-
i-

O
Q

-
C

lU
)

c
t
p
)

IH
P

J
IU

)i
c
t
-

ic
D

p
i

Z
CD

(D
i

H
P

O
r
i
-

C
D

O
S

C
D

k
<

U
)

i
-
J

I
c
t

IH
I

P
-

M
H

-
O

i
-

I-
h
H

H
o

C
D

c
-t

Z
(i

i
IH

-C
D

H
-
P

J
U

)C
D

i
Q

H
-

[
-
U

)
•
c
l

(0
Pi

iP
iU

)
P

J
-

C
n

h
s

H
-P

J
‘t

Ic
-t

•
-
C

D
U

)H
b

O
H

Q
—

.]
P

J
C

Ic
-i

-H
i-

Id
F

-
-
-
H

C
D

H
-

H
H

-
IP

-)
-

Q
H

IH
-

h
c-i

-
H

-
H

pi
H

-
0

-
I

H
H

-
lcD

°
c-i

-
I
3

J
H

-
ij

H
0

ic-
i-

H
-

H
D

I
o

.
Q

U
)-

0
-

F
-
’

i-
’
-
)
-

0
-

I
i
i

-
k

o
p

w
b

‘H
-

(
D

H
-

lU
)

p
-
,(

ç
t

H
U

)
5
<

f
l
h

P
1)

l
0

‘<
c

U
)

CD
c
-
i
-

C
D

H
-

H
-

Q
H

H
H

H
q

H
H

-
0

CD
-

H
-

CD
b
c
-i

-n
-

CD
O

P
)
p

J
0C

D
0

H
-Q

-
—

-

c-i
-

n
-H

-
c-i

-
Q

-
-

H
-

Q
p
c
-
i
-
H

0J
‘1

(
D

P
J

P
J

H
.

H
M

C
1
)

O
U

)
(
D

w
.
H

H
-.

H
-
<

U
)O

0
0

L
0

><
P-I

.
0

i-
p
j

CD
U

]
(
O

H
.

0H
&

)
.i

-
H

C
t

pi
::

rC
D

i
co

-
<

C
D

w
b
H

0
i-

i
1-i

-H
-

-
Z

-
CD

H
H

O
O

H
Q

(
D

H
0
°

U
)

I
H

-
-

.
O

F
-’

.
i-

‘-
i’

Q
-
H

-
-

H
O

H
f
l

iQ
U

]U
]

“
U

)
U

)
i
-
)

H
H

-
I

U
]

f
r
’

0
H

H
H

-n
-

-
-

H o
C

D
n

H
.

CD
l
-

C
)

d

h
jC

D
Cl

]
Q

H
-C

D
o

h
p
)

-
CD

CD
pi

h

5
H

U)
H

n
-C

n
o

U
)
N

-
-

p
i

i
U

)
H

-Q
C

O
H

C
D

p
i

-
H

H
w

x
j

C)
M

u
C

D
f
l

CD
C

D
c
o

h
’
-

I—
i

p
i

H
-C

D
H

-
H

-
U

)
0

H
-

0
H

-
I

H
H

-
H

-
0

H
0

H
-

CD
i—

H
-C

)
•

w
n

-
u

W
N

H
-

O
U

)H
]

S
-
U

)
H

-,
‘-

<
--

‘1
i-

C
D

W
h

O
(
D

pi
0

0
H

-
-

(
0
H

u
M

C)
H

-
C

D
i-

-h
C

D
’

0
U

)
U)

-.
-

W

0H
-

U
)’

U
)c

-i
-n

-
‘

CD
P’

(
D

c
-
i-

0
r
r

u
W

U
)

°
U

)c
l)

c
0

c-
i-

H
c-

i-
--

H
-

(
D

O
-

U)
U

)
C

D

H
c-

r
u

p
4

w
k
<

P
J
C

D
H

H
-S

(1
)

(0
d

c
-
i
-
o

H
-

U
)

C
D

0
--

-
II

H
O

d
c-

i-
P

S
..

c-i
-

-
c-i

-
..
O

O
(O

H
P

J
O

0
C)

U
)

H
](

O
U

)H
H

H
-

H
-c

-i
u

‘I
-

C
D

c
-i

-Q
h

0
H

CD
H

-
0

C
D

I-
C

D
c
-
i-

c-i
-

>
<

C
D

..
CD

P
CD

H
f
l

-
U

)
(
D

pi
u

-j
o

H
-

II
p

i
0

c-i
-

H
1-a

-U
)

U
)c

-i
-

H
-H

]
co

U
)

‘
<

C
D

C
Q

0
H

-
I

I
-

p
C

D
U

)
F

-
l

1
u—

0
c-i

-
H

P
i

U
)

c
-
i-

H
-

u-
h

H
-

u-
h

CD
‘-

o
n

-H
-

0
b_

i_
_I

t
n

-
C

D
c-

i-
O

H
H

-
O h

U
)

c-
i-

(i
i

X
c-i

-
H

P
)

0.
-

<
C

D
U

)c
-i

-
-

d
C

D
p
j

I-
h

U
)

H
-

H
-

CD
H

-
0
.

C
‘

U)
d
P

)
U

)C
D

O
Q

H
(O

H
-

I
-P

Pi
p

iH
-

H
-

U
)

H
-

U
)P

i
C

D
O

0
M

U
)

0
P

i
U

)
0

0
.

U)
H

-
n

c-
i-

-
CD

Q
h
-

(
Q

H
0

Q
U)

0
<

U
)

-
5

-
->

<
CD

H
H

-
CQ

H
-
c
-
i-

u
s

c-
i-

1_
(
n

i
l

C
D

C
D

U
)

-
U

)
0

—
J0

.
II

U
)H

P
)

‘
d
S

I
Cl

)
U

)
‘C

D
P)

C
D

p
i

0
U

)H
-

Pi
CD

H
-

M
U

)
‘t

i
n
-
p
i
p

(
D

H
-

Q
,

H
5
U

)
H

-C
)

CD
c
-
i

H
-f

l
P)

U)
M

c-
i-

Pi
U

)-
-

(D
O

CD
I

Pi
c-

i-
P

i
c
-i

-1
c-i

-
0

‘-
<

U
)U

)i
l

U
)

il
p
i

0
H

p
1
.

-
-

-
H

]
-

--
Q_

-
p
i

U
)

(I
)

I-
i,



H
O

I
I

d
0

I
<

I
i

C
fl

i
‘d

C
I)

IQ
C

I)
H

I
F

.<
H

O
<

Z
X

-
(
1

‘
0
’

P
J
H

-
i

H
-
i
i

Io
i

Q
)

(D
P

i
H

1
(0

0
O

f
r
Q

O
C

D
(
D

c
r
0

H
-

H
-H

-
O

P
IC

D
o
P

l
I

F—
Jr

-r
i

F
-
i

—
i

I
IF

--
I

F
—

i
O

•
IU

)
-

ci
.

II
C

D
U

)H
-

H
F

—
1

U
)
H

0
U

)
M

U
)

I
H

-
J
i

I—
’C

1
-I

W
I

Ph
1
(0

1
H

-C
D

IQ
C

D
I
c
r

0
(
0

r
tc

tC
D

lQ
:3

1
--

I,
F—1

c
tF

—
1

C
D

r
-
r

c
r
1

H
,

I
H

-
I

0
1

H
I

1
I

r1
-1

-
I
-
h

•
Q

F
H

-
h

0
H

-
O

H
-

C
D

h
C

U
)

W
U

)
c
r

H
--

P
h

-
-

H
-
3
-

F
c
r

H
-P

h
i
-
h

H
,

P
JC

D
P

)
—

H
H

H
H

C)
‘d

W
c
r

‘d
C

)-
i

H
-

C
D

w
P

h
O

h
C

0
P

h
.

1U
)

0
U

)
H

H
H0

H
-
P

h
H

-
H

P
h

P
h

H
H

-
P

iO
H

C
r

P
h
-

H
-

C
1
-

-
U

)
i
°
0

H
-

U
)

H
C

D
H

C
D

H
0

(
0

C
D

H
-

c
-r

C
D

:3
:3

CD
CD

w
0

C)
tJ

‘-
Q

o
C

D
(

0
P

h
H

.<
C

D
‘•:

tJ
-

H
r-

p
H

F
r
-

1
-

p
h

F
-
(

0H
:
3

h
ph

3
Q

O
CD

-
O

C
D

0H
P

hC
D

(0
(0

L
H

Ph

H
P

h
C

D
W

H
-

C
D

.
CD

P
h

r
-

1
-

H
-
°

0
:3

-
0
0

C
I)

<
o
Q

o
H

-Q
O

ph
p
H

p
i
:
3

P
U)

:3
:3

0H
H

f
t

0
H

-
i

Q
r
j
H

-
(
0

:3
.

U)
0H

o
H

,
p

i
c
r
r
W

O
1
-

CD
U

]
C

O
o

Q
1
--

1
.P

h
9
C

E
)

r
-
r

H
C

r
H

3
H

-
C

0
1

-
CD

l-’
H

O
CD

p
i
:
3

U
)

<
H

H
-
j

u
•
•

o
P

,-
p
h
H

-
k
<

0
<

H
O

<
0

Ph
0

P
h

0
1-

-h
C

D
•-

H
Q

C
D

O
H

—
•

0
O

F
—

U
)C

D
Q

H
k
<

0
CD

H
-h

i
°
H

M
°
H

-
0

P
h

0
H

-
.

q
W

(
H

-
<

1
-

1Q
U

)
H

o
H

,C
D

H
-

H
f
t

H
F

--
‘
Z

I
H

-
0

H
,

H
C

D
0

U
1
C

)
><

“
C

D
C

D
k<

h1
,

:
3

_
j

h
H

-
C

r

f
t
f
t
O

H
P

h
Ph

0
0

0
C

r

U
]

0
O

C
D

P
h

C
D

0
•
P

h

U)
Q

H
—

.
-

H
-

H
-f

l-
(
D

O
-

o
P

h
D

0
(
0

CD
P

h
Q

W
c
r

:
3

Q
C

D
ph

0
F

-’
O

F
-
c
r

0
M

H
-

h
h
h

0
0

0c
l
-

$
H

U
)
U

)
H

h
H

j
W

0
P

h
Q

(
0

M
H

-
<

0H
-

H
Ph

H
H

-P
h

D
h

h
H

c-
r

U
)

)
0
0

1-
CD

u
C

D
H

0
(
0

H
-
H

0
0

0
(
1

0
(
0

U
)

C
D

P
p
h

H
-

(j)
Ph

o
‘
C

t
F

-
H

H
-

O
_
C

D
C

D
ç
-
r

w
0

p
g0

P
h
H

u
i
g

F-
’

P
h

D
H

,
C

D
CI

)
L

H
-

-
0

P
h

H
-

r-
l

H
-p

j
H

-
f
tc

)
]

CI
)

ç
t

c
r

P
h

-
.

h
H

,
1

)
H

-
:3

-H
-I

-
I
H

-
-

0
O

C
D

PJ
C

r
.I

C
D

o
C

I
p
i

D
‘1

-
P

h
J
:
3

U
)

U
)P

h
p

h
H

I-
I

:3
U)

H
-

f-
f

CD
<

H
-

>
<

k
<

H
H

-
o1

-
—

:
3

CD
--

i-
a
o

C
r

(D
P

i
0

C
r

Q
C

D
ph

C
D

I_
_

IC
-
h

:3
H

-
IH

-O
P

h
P

h
C

D
0

0
C

D
<

CD
N

Ph
c
r

i
c
r
j

-
t
-

I-
I

H
Q

C
D

0
(0C

t
H

F
H

-
c
r

--
H

-C
D

lCD
U)

H
Q

J
C

r
-

C
r

H
-

P
h

0C
D

0
lC

D
°
H

-
-

..
f
t

-
Ph

H
,

-
H

-I
l

i
.

)
H

H
-

H
-

H
-

I
<

U)
rt

I
c
c
r

H
I
g

—
h
h

U)
IP

hP
h

C
I
)

0
w

Ph
O

-
c
rP

h
CD

1
U

)
I
-

H
,

IC
D

-
:3

Q
P

h
C

D
(1

H
Il

C
r

IH
H-

1<
0

H
H

-
-

0
-

IY
U

i
H

-
i-

lU)
U)

0
CQ

Il
CD

(1
D

H
-

f
t

Il
(I)

0

H
U

)
H

i
p
h
P

h
fl

H
-

Ph
C

D
H

,
Ph

Ph
Ph

O
H

.
--

H
-H

-
(1

Ph
U

)
-
-

I
l

0

H
O

o
H

,c
r

Cl
)

f
t

CD
1-

JO
Ph

0
H

‘t
jS

CD
I
l
P

h

0
0
.
.

0
H

r

M
C

D
I-

Ix
JH

1
--

I
H

-

H
-

O
Il

Il
H

-
•

P
h

U
)C

D
CD

Ph
I

U)
H

O
C

D
5
-

-
t

O
‘
T

jh
H

-
f
t

I-
I

H
C

D
z

I
Il

Ph
CD

Il—
a

0
C

r
-
(
1

0
(
1
h

U
)P

h
C

r
M

P
h

U
)C

r
--

--
H

-
lO

P
h

H
-

CD
U)

Ph
H

-
--

JO
0
U

)P
h

U)
C

r
Q

-
-
0

IH
,

P
h
(1

lCD
:3

Ii
CD

I
X

•
-
-
F

-
-

1
-

0
-
(
1

C
D

-



H
I

I
i

0
1

I
Q

i
I

f
l
I

H
I
i

C
l)

’
C

I
0

1
I

I
I

I
I
J
”
I

H
I

I
I

I
H

I
H

-
I

H
-
H

I
•

I
H

I
I

H
-
I

I
I

1
0
)1

H
-
I

I
C

D
I

J
I

W
I

I
I

H
-
I

I
Q

C
D

I
I

H
I

c
t
l

1
M

]
I

-
I

IC
tI

<
I

I
F

-
c
tI

I
H

I
I

H
I

(
D

I
I

I
(D

I
I

C
D

I
(D

I
I

1
0
1

(D
I

I
H

-
J
I

HHi
l

I
pu

I
Q

i
W

I
i

0
’

i
’

0
’

C
D

I
IH

-I
i

I
s
o

’

CD
CD

0
t
H

(-I
-

ii
Ii

i
ii

I
o

•
c
t

I
-
H

H
h

0
)

H
O

H
H

H
-

H
Cl

)
C

D
H

H
IH

-H
Cl

)
IP

u
C

D
H

H
-
t0

P)
U

]
U

]
C

D
t)

]
C

tD
0

H
-W

IP
JW

r
t

P
u
c
tW

H
-W

H
H

H
-H

I
x
J

I0
ID

H
-
p

I
C

l
)
o

o
°

O
D

0
i

H
h
O

C
D
tD

I
P

)
W

-
‘
4

H
-P

u
-

-
C

l)
.

I
Pu

W
Q

•
0

.
I
i

“

Cl
)

C
D

I
Z

3
0

H
-

H
l

CD
W

0C
D

CD
0)

10
Q

H
-
C

D
CD

f
l

0
L

C
D

Q
I

C
D

C
D

0
lC

D
Pu

I
-

pu
C

D
i
Z

Cl
)

P
)

H
O

P
)O

Cl
)

H
0

H
p

P
H

-
H

0
•

W
P

u
p

P
u

H
i
j

Pu
Q

(-
t-

H
-H

(
t

CD
H

]p
j

“
c
tC

D
Y1-
-

H
-P

u
H

,S
Z

C
D

H
-

P
I
-
h

CD
S

C
D

H
-

O
0

P
u

O
P

u
c
t
H

CD
-C

D
H

‘
-
C

D
0

O
p

H
-p

u
Z

°
1

f
t

H
-

i
<

n
i

k
<

c
t

C
C

)k
<

ç
-
-

Q
P

.0
H

-
(
l)

f
t

P
u

I
H

-
CD

H
CD

H
H

i
f
tQ

Q
p
u
P

)
H

-
0

S
IH

-
Pu

()
fr

(
3
5

H
-,

b
Iw

Cl
)

Pu
0P

pu
H

i
C)

H
i

H
,

H

CD
C

D
I
r
t

‘
-
d
i

CD
C

D
I
k

<
C

D
H

P
u
..

L
’
J

0
I-

S
O

1Q
H

-I
D

)
ç
t

CD
i
.

C
D

<
P.

)
H

-
Q

H
H0

tJ
l

j
,

H
i

y
i
-

Cl
)

0
tQ

fJ
)H

-
C

D
0

P
u

L
O

H
c
t
o

C
D

0
)C

)
H

i
ç
t
i

ft
H

-
-J

H
O

H

•
H

0
J

j
c
t

W
0C

1
)

h
S

•C
D

Z
H

]
CD

H
Pu

C
D

W
f
-

i
Ci

)
Pu

p
u

P
)

Cl
)

C
D

C
)

H
-c

t
H

ib
k
<

C
I
)

0
T

’
r
t
’
-

h
H

P)
CD

O
-

CD
H

H
.

O
H

O
F

-I
c-I

-
-

CD
CD

g
P

u
O

H
-

0
CD

O
P

H
‘-

<
U

i
H

]L
’J

ft
c
t

H
-

Ci
)

Pu
“
H

-
P

u
rj

O
C

D
H

-
H

IQ

H
-

U
i

i
p
u
Q

II
I
H

i
H

-
H

c
t

S
H

S
O

H0
H

,t
I

O
p
u

0
H

k
.
<

3
CD

H
-
H

CD
f-I

-
U

i
C

D
‘-I

S CD
-

H
i

I
I

H
C

D
ç-

t-
CD

Pu
H

-
H

CD
-

H
-
f
t

H
-

k
<

-
<

0
H

O
C

D
8

C)
-

0
0

P)
H

-
Pu

CD
I

I
o

H
-

Pu
H

-
H

-
Cl

)
CD

-
P

u
P

H
-

H
C

D
-

Cl
)

I
‘
-
d
j-

H
-

Cl
)

f
t

Q
-
O

It
-’

Cl
)

C
D

H
-

-
H

-
C

D
C

D

U
i

0
CD

Pu
C

D
’
-
-

Ipu
h
<

c
t

C
D

C
f
l

.
I

o
-
-

Cl
)

°
CD

H
H

-c
t

CD
H

-
0

IQ
-.

-
-

O
C

D
“
(
D

h
0C

D
H

-p
u

C)
I

i-
IC

!)
--

p
u

0
)t

l)
CD

p0
Pu

IC
)

-
-

H
C

r
CD

Pu
r

i
p
u

-
-

H
p
u

H
-H

H
10

P
j

H
i

o
p
u

CD
lCD

I
)j

I-’
J

I
I

H
C

l
)

U
]

H
ft

I!))

0
0

•
•

W
5

CD
H

CD
CD

‘-
z:

1
Q

J
i
4

Q
•.

C
)

U
]

I
-
-

•
•

I-’
)

•C
D

0
H

-
H

I
H

C
D

H
tQ

Pu
CD

D
IX

0
I

lCD
I
>

<
b
C

D
Pu

Ic
t

U
]

H
I

IP
)

H
-

H
I’<

W
H

-
CD

Cl
)

ft
IH

-
I

CD
O

Ni
C)

0
I-

I
H

-
IH

-
W

0
I-

H
0

‘.
0

0
1)

)
‘o

H
Pu

0
k
<

ft
IC

)
•
O

O
H

-
CD

N
i

-
H

i
-
-

-
IC)

)
I

•
H

i
-

-
Pu

CD
0

•
I

3



‘J
fr

J
H

-
C

)
H

O
)

H
0

0
)J

U
i

5
H

-
C

D
0

h
M

iI
-C

D
CD

H
h

CD
(Q

i
C

D
H

C
D

CD
CD

CI
)

5
CD

H
Cl

)
CD

H
-H

-
CD

H
CD

CD
-
-
5

r
r

C
r

Cl)
O

1
H

-
f
lC

t(
0

Cl)
5

0
H

-
CD

H
-

I-
Q

Cl
)

b
—

H
-

(Q
I-

P
i
H

-
D

M
i

Q
J

D
Q

(0
H

h
C

)
CD

0
h

C
r

pi
-
C

r
H

-
H

F
—

0
C

)
h

I-
F’

(D
O

C
D

J
I-

PJ
H

-
Cl

)
t

H
-

<
d

H
-

k
<

H
C)

CI
)

0
‘d

l)J
C

t
W

M
i

CI
)

C)
pi

i
0

CD
Pi

-
h
W

-
H

0
3

—
0

P1
0

CD
(0

0
0

C
t

0
C

t
0

CD
—

C
t

H
Cl

•
-

CD
i-

O
H

-
M

i
0

H
H

-
pi

Q
P1

l))
M

i
H

-
C

I
o

0
C)

CD
P

H
IQ

0
H

-
0

3
0)

(0
C)

H
H

-
f
l

CD
0

0
M

i
IQ

o
H

-
k
<

Cl
)

0
C

r
)

C
t

H
-

0
M

i
S

Lx
i

o
C)

Cl
)

H
H

‘-
<

b
IQ

C)
P1

M
i

H
-

C
r

0
CD

0
I

0
I-

Q
H

CD
I-

p
i

C
M

i
C

t
(0

H
H

0
H

P1
5

CD
0

h
C

D
0C

D
C

r
H

I—
’

II
C)

‘-
<

M
i

P1
d

5
CI

)
l
)

H
-

Z
H

-
H

I
l

C
r

Cl
)

C
J
)-

t-
C

)
IQ

Cl
)

C)
P1

0
CD

C)
P1

0
M

i
i.

<
j

CD
H

-
H

CD
H

-
C)

H
-

CD
Lx

i
o

H
-

H
M

i
H

-
H

H
><

p
i

ç-
t

Cl
)

H
(0

CD
0)

C
r

.o
H

-
<

H
10

C)
CD

i-
P1

w
o

u-
i

H
-

CD
C

n
P1

P1
C)

CD
P1

P1
0

H
O

ii
-

0
w

Q
M

i
H

-
P1

I-
CD

0
1

H
-

I
C

t
CD

IQ
i

CD
H

H
-

CD
(0

CD
H

H
-

CD
10

d
0

CD
C

t
H

h
t

M
i

CD
-

i-
k
<

C)
P1

r-
r

H
-

d
W

-

0
5

H
-

-
-

CD
w

C
r

-
P1

Cl
)

H
CD

I
i

M
I

W
k
<

.
.

0
H

Cl
)

5
W

CD
03

W
C

-
i4

(0
C

r
H

-
H

I-
H

-
0

—
H

H
-

CD
H

-
I

W
CD

Q
-
•

w
i

U
i

3
I-

H
1”

-)
II

0
I
.g

0
w

d
I

H
-

H
—

H
H

II
(0

03
•

w
X

1
C)

C)
—

)
-

CD
CD

H
-

CD
I

CO
W

U
i

H
-

0
M

i
L’

J
IQ

-
-

U
i

0
CD

-
H

-
0

H
-
-

i—
Cl

)
H

0
0

I-
I

M
i

o
H

I
H

-
d

CD
H

-
(0

-
H

P1
C

D
(0

W
H

C)
C)

C
t

Q
H

H
U

i
-]

‘0
P1

-
0

CD
H

H
-

CD
H

-
H

J
(0

H
—

CD
F

(0
—

-
.

U
i

—
.

03
p

•
Cl

)
U

i
-

5
ç
t

H
-

C
r

H
-

I
H

-
H

-
Cl

)
CD

C
I
)

(0
-

H
C)

Q
Cl)

C
D

•
i4

H
(0

(
O

H
H

1-
0

W
•

W
P1

0
CD

CD
H

-
1

l’
J

H
M

i
H

C
)

-
I

Cl
)

0
M

I
H

C
D

C
r

M
H

C
r

M
i

I
CD

C
l)

H
(0

0
U

i
H

-<
Q

U
i

U
i

I
-.

03
H

C
r

H
H

-
M

i
(0

1-
0

o
•

P1
H

-
—

H
1-

0

CD
w

M
H

C
r

Cl
)

•
0

—
H

H
-

H
-

0
CI

)
•

1
-

H
-C

t
U

i
c’

-)
I

-
.

-<
C

D



* H U
) 0 Cl
)

CD Cr 0

M
H

H
H

H
0

‘D
0

U
i

H
H

H
H

W
M

H

F
-
L

’
J

U
)C

D
P

J
ç
u
U

)
h

CD
H

l
—
1C

D
1:1

)

CD
CD

H H
H

C
D

ç
t

k
<

U
)
O

f
l
j

.
S

H
-
P

J
C

D
C

D
P

J
U

O
O

H
h
)

Pi
H

-C
D

l-
F

-
’
b

J
b

’
H

iC
D

H
-
H

U
)
H

-
C

D
C

D
H

h
C

D
h
Q

H
)
H

-
C

D
H

-
U

)
U

)
O

O
C

D
U

)
F

-
1O

I
H

-H
-

H
<

C
D

d
H

O
1
C

D
C

U
P

)
ti

P
i

)
)

H
-
I
j
H

-
I

0
U

)
‘-

0
‘-

I-
h

o
U)

S
I
-
Q

U
)C

D
r
r
O

3
O

H
i

C
D

O
H

H
-
U

)
H

H
-
C

D
C

D
H

-
C

D
i

<
C

D
O

O
N

U
)U

)
CD

CD
M

i
N

h
M

i
M M

H I-
] 1x Li

Pi
H

-
CD

0
0

0
0

s
o

pj
P

J
h

P
J
C

D
C

D
C

D
C

D
‘
<

H
h
h

H
Q
1Q

r
r
c
-
r

O
O

li
S

W
U

)
H

-
li

P)
I-

p
I

()
O

O
U

)
5
P

)
h
3

;
,
c

P
)
5

H
5

C
D

O
P

J
O

P
J

U
) O

q P) 0
J
i
—

7S
0

H
-

0
J

U)
U)

c
r
b
O

O
C

D
0

C
D

C
D

r
r
r
r

H
M

H
H

-
C

D
P

J
H

U)
H

a
H

H
-

Cl
-

C
l

H
-
H

CD
a
i
r
t
p

0
U

)
CD II

0 0 H
H

H
M

W
I
D

M
M

H
0
H

—
J
H

H
W

W
M

H
H

H
M

G
i
M

O
i
H

M
W

M
H

h
0

0
M

U
]

W
W

0
U

i
0

—J
0

0
0

-D
—

.]
—

)
W

M
H

0
-

0
(
-
l
-

CD
H

H
H

0
H

H
]

W
H

M
—

J
M

H
H

U
i
H

D
U

i
U

i
M

W
O

i
H

H
p
G

i
U

)—
J
W

--
J
--

J
H

M
M

iT
0
H

W
-

—
]

0

0
H

H
-’

H
H

H
-’

H
H

H
H

H
H

-’
H

H
H

H
H

H
H

H
H

-’
H

-’
H

-,
C

D
C

D
C

D
C

D
CD

C
D

C
D

C
D

C
D

C
D

C
D

C
D

C
D

C
D

C
D

C
D

C
D

C
D

C
D

C
D

C
D

r
t
r
t
r
t
r
r

C
r

r
r
r
r

i-
ti

-I
-f

-I
-

r
t
r
r
r
r
r
r
c
-
r

i
-
r
i
-
t
i
-
t
i
-
I

c
t
r
t
r
t

C
t

i-
ti

-I
-

r
r
r
t
r
t

ti
-t

i-
I-

C
rc

-t
i-

ti
-I

P
)C

D
C

D
C

D
C

D
CD

C
D

C
D

C
D

C
D

C
D

C
D

C
D

C
D

C
D

C
D

C
D

C
D

C
D

C
D

C
D

C
D

5
h
h
h

I-
I
-
h

h
h
h

C
D

U
)U

)U
)U

)
U

)
U

)U
)

U
)U

)U
)

U
)U

)U
)U

)U
)U

)U
)

U
)U

)U
)U

)
U

)

H
H

H
H

H
H

H
H

H
H

H
H

H
H

H
H

H
H

H
H

H
H

H
H

H
H

H
‘D

ID
LD

D
1-

0
1-

0
L

i)
1

-0
1

-0
1

-0
1
-0

1
-0

1
-0

1
-0

1
-0

1
-0

1
-0

1
-0

1
-0

1
-0

1
-0

1
-0

1
-0

1
-0

1
-0

1
-0

1
-0

P
)w

w
w

w
w

w
w

w
w

w
w

w
w

w
w

w
w

w
h

0
-
.
-
J
M

0
i
4

0
0

M
U

iH
M

M
W

H
U

iM
W

M
W

M
i)

iM
W

H
W

U
)

I
I

I
I

I
I

I
I

I
I

I
I

I
I

I
I

I
I

I
I

I
I

I
I

I
I

O
—

)
-
-
J
W

U
]

U
i

O
i—

U
i

U
i
1

0
U

i
-
]
W

W
U

i
U

i
H

H
H

U
i
M

M
0

1-
0

U
1
M

1
f
M

-
J
0
0
0
-
-
J
W

U
i

1
-0

-J
]
0

0
0

1
-
0

U
)

U
i

U
i

•
1
-
0
0

0

I-
h

l- 0 S Ct
)

Pi CD cli cli LQ C
D cli H cli CD CI
-

H 0 cli H H

l
l

L—
P

i
W

C
n
O

—
-

Io
CD

Ii
i.

O
C

D
P

)
O

I
-
W

l>
<

C
r

II
.i.

C
r
C

D
1

-
Q

C
D

C
D

••
i-

I-
I-

CD
U

)
Q

f
tp

iF
-

CD
I

r
t

I-
I

O
F

1
O

O
H

C
D

1
1

U)
lC

D
C

D
O

C
D

f
l
h
U

)
H

.
II

I
C

r
H

r
I

C
r

1w
U

)
i
-
’

0
10

O
C

D
J
U

)
H

-
-
-
-

I
C

r
j
<

H
-
0

0
P

U
)

0
ø

C
D

c
-
r
p

p
i
H

-
s

I-
J

b o
I
-
h

0C
D

H
U

)
O

O
O

t
S

CD
0

0
1

‘1
0

—
]

‘1 CD
cli

ra
C

D
U

)O
C

D
C

D
H

O
C

D
p

i
O

U
)
U

)
—

J
’

0
o

O
.
c
-
r
C

D
1d
o

C
D

C
r
k
<

H
-

O
O

c
-
r

P
O

H
-
P

)
CD

C
D

b
t
I
-
Q

-
’

CD
h
O

c
l
l

1
-

C
D

C
D

(
CD

CD
.
O

U
)
0
C

D
F

O
O

t
M

i
CD

0
CD

2

0
0

C
D

C
rC

D
d

U
)

H
I
-

C
r
0

C
r

H
C

D
U

)
C

D
0
C

D
O

1
C

rC
[i

C
D

P
)C

r
C

rc
l

o
I
—

0
CD

CD
O

I
-

C
D

C
D

k
<

M
i

c
C

D
C

rC
D

U
)U

)P
)

C
r
U

)
i
C

D

CD
-
C

r
C

D
0

M
i
C

0
C

r
°
1
-
Q

I
-
i
M

,
H

-
!
C

D
H

C
D

U
)

C
D

O
CD

H
-
>

<
i

cli
H

-H
c
l)

C
l)

C
r

C
r
O

b
S

P
iC

D
C

D
‘

l
j
i

<
C

r
P

i
P

i
P

i
CD

CD
0

Q
C

r
i

1
I-

I-
M

i
-

CD
1
’
-
<

H
H

H
C

D
C

D
C

D
C

rC
rC

r
C

rC
rC

r
C

D
C

D
C

D

U
)U

)U
)

L
i

L
i

C
D

C
D

CD
C

rC
rC

r
C

r
C

r
r
t

C
D

C
D

C
D

U
)U

)U
)

H
H

H
H

C
D

C
D

C
D

C
D

rI
-C

rC
rC

r
C

r
r
r
C

r
C

r
C

D
C

D
C

D
C

D

U
)U

)U
)U

)

H
H

H
H

1
-0

1
-0

1
-0

1
-0

4
M

H
0

H I-
h

H
-

H CD U)



*
C

)
Li

i
W

Q
O

F
I.

‘1
H

C
t

U)
Q

W
p

o
C

) 0
C

l)
1_

I
ij

‘x
J

‘x
J

‘x
J

‘r
J

‘r
J

H
-

H
-

H
-

H
-

H
-

H
-

H
-C

D
CD

P
H

-
H

-
H

F
-

1
H

F—1
H

’
H

(f
i

F
-

1
H

’
H

’
CD

CD
CD

CD
CD

CD
CD

CD
CD

CD
-
-
0

C
r

•
-

•
•

o
CD

H
-

C)
F

-
Q

Q
C

Q
C

fl
Q

d
q
d
d

J
i
H

‘
i
j

l
O

t
-
i

C
f
l
O

O
C

l)
O

L
]i

f
l
H

H
I
(
D

t-
1
C

D
P

J
P

J
C

D
P

J
P

J
F

—
’
O

H
-

0
0

r
t
<

0
i

0
0

O
t
-
h

h
H

-
0

h
h

H
-
O

f
t

P
J

<
i
H

-
-

O
C

Q
F

—
’C

)
O

0
P

r
t
r
t
O

0
C)

CD
U

)
H

-
C)

r
t
C

D
C

t
f
t
H

-
C

D
I
-
Q

h
H

-C
D

F
-

1
‘-

<
C

D
H

F
--

‘
<

O
H

-
C

D
)
F

—
1

H
-
I
-

0
C

D
C

t’
<

(Q
C

D
h

C
D

rt
I-

’
r
t

C
D

’<
Q

r
t
H

-
C

l
)
Q

H
-

C
D

O
Q

0
Q1C

D
C

D
C

D
H

-
i
•

I
-
H

-
J
H

-
r
t

CD
U

)-
P

J
C

r
P

J
P

J
[-

h
F

-
1H

-
O

F
-
-
1

J
H

r
tP

J
O

ty
O

C
D

F
-’

C
D

0
r
t

O
H

-
-

d
1
J
’
J
S

C
D

rt
C

D
W

’
J
P

O
h
H

-
C

D
rt

C
D

H
-
h
P

J
F—

’h
’

CD
0

U
)
P

J
i

C
D

t-
1

P
J
L

I
lf

r
O

k
<

.
U

)
H

-H
‘-

<
-

C
D

H
-

O
U

)
H

-H
’

H
-C

D
U

)
C

1
)

U
)
r
r
i

d
r
t
0

o
O

C
D

0
H

-H
H

-
-
’
<

’
<

H
’

tI
J

O
H

H
h

t
C

D
O

H
’

U
)C

D
0

<
O

C
D

C
D

H
-H

-
C

D
C

D
j

t
h
’

C
D

0
)

t
l
)
i

C
D

W
C

D
O

C
D

C
D

P
C

D
U

)
H

-
0

C
D

Q
IC

)
P

J
H

-
0

U
)O

U
)

U
)

P
)

H
-

>
<

r
t
C

D
<

F
Q

H
-O

0
rt

C
D

H
-H

-
r
t

C
D

Q
O

r
r
0

H
-C

D
‘j

CD
O

•
)J

J
I

C
t

H
-
H

-
h

H
-

C
lJ

U
)

P
)
h
h
i

0
H

-
P

J
)

O
t-

h
O

<
U)

‘<
H

-
r
t

U
)
<

O
U

)
H

’
F

-’
-

h
Ii

•
tJ

s
r
t
i

O
C

D
O

CD
H

’
U

)C
D

C
D

CD
rt

C
D

C
D

0
0

w
CD

H
-

H
’

C
D

l
C

D
H

-
U

)
I—

i
d

C
D

h
U

)
H

-
U)

W
I
—

h
H

I
H

’
U)

‘
<

H
’

H
-

0
F-

’
(1

C
D

CD
J

H
’

0
H

-H
-O

H
’
C

D
U

)
l

rt
CD

O
r
t

0
H

’
F

r
t

H
-

CD
CD

‘<
P

-’
-
-
C

O
H

’
H

H
’

C
D

H
-C

D
H

-
0

CD
H

Q
I

CD
F)J

C
D

H
-

0
0
c
-
t
.

CX
)

H
C

D
O

H
-
H

H
’

U)
H

’
0

H
0

c
t
C

D
CD

H
-

0
H

CD
CD

H
’

zJ
CD

U
)C

D
rt

r
t

C
r

-
CD

C
r

C
)

h
P

JC
D

CD
C

D
0

r
r

C
r

CD
rt

ç
t

C
)

C
r

I1
U

)C
D

CD
S

C
r

CD
r
t

H
-

C
r

F)
)

CD
H

-
H

--
h

U)
CD

i-
i

H
-
C

l)
C

r
CD

Q
F

c
-
t

U)
U

)
1

<
1

r
r

I-
H

-
H

-
J

C
r

-
U)

C
D

H
-

-.
U)

0
0

-
-

U
)

C
D

Q
I

F
)
)

-
CD

i-
C

D
U

)
Q

U)
H H

H
H

’
H

H
’

H
’

H
H

’
CD

CD
CD

CD
CD

CD
CD

w
U

)
U

)
U

i
H

—
J

U
)

0
)

H
I

I
I

I
•

0
l

1s
J

—
J

0



(iii) Sauer quotations (LQ):

John Leighly collected together a selection of Sauer quotations
from the Sauer papers. I have used these and referenced them in
the thesis text as the other correspondence - with the names of the
correspondents and the date - and with the prefix ‘LQ” for Leighly
quotation collection (LQS for its supplement) followed by the page
number.

(iv) Notebooks (SN):

I had some difficulties with the notebooks in terms of
identification, i.e. the date of the excursion to which each
corresponded. Some were placed in files and dated at a different
time to the date marked on the front of the notebooks; others had
no date attached. The absence of anyone with specific knowledge of
the notebooks in the Bancroft Library further complicated the
situation. The time span of the notebooks marked below is taken
from the first and last entries of each book. The year date is
either that marked on the notebook (M) or my guess (checking
against West, 1979, op. cit.) from the content and time span of the
notes. Pagination for quotations in the thesis text is either that
of the notebooks themselves or my own numbering of the pages for
identification.

__________

Notebook re
trip to Mexico 10-28/6/31 (M)

10/1-11/4/41 (?)
10: Notebook re

trip to Baja 7/46 (?)
11: Notebook re 18/5-25/6/33 (M)

trip to Mexico
2/4-11/6/29 (M)
17/12-30/12/29 (?)
1-25/7/48 (M)
14/7-1/8/35 (?)
1935/8 (M unclear)
(? unclear)
15/12-16/2/44 (?)

25: Unidentified
notebook
(possibly of
Cuba trip) 23/3-11/7/46 (M)

________

21: Notebook of
Rockefeller Foundation

sponsored trip to South
America

Carton 4 File 34: Miscellany.
File 4: Miscellany.

Carton 4 File 7:

8:

12:
13:
14:

16:
17:
18:

Carton 4 File 1/1-10/5/42 (M)

244



I
j
j

H
C

4
d
d

H
H

H
C

)
—

t
H

I
H

F
—

ip
J

CD
I-

’•
H

-
F

-
’

I-
’-

0
Pi

Q
I-’

•
C

D
H

Pi
O

H
ç
t

I.
•

Q
h
h
H

-
D

rt
I-’

•
II

0
—

>
<

0
H

H
rD

C
D

C
D

C
D

C
D

rt
H

<
F

-
C

D
C

D
H

-
H

-
rr

W
C

D
H

c
t

•
Ir

r
CD

h
U

)
CD

Cl
)

P1
U

)
P

-
J

H
IQ

c
tZ

1
Q

H
-

C
l
)
d

CD
0

H
-

I-
’-

Q
P

J
r
r

f-
I

Ii
Q

C
)

P
1
d

U)
O

C
D

P
J

C)
d
C

l
)

H
-

CD
CD

P
U

)
H

-
Z

0P
)

LX
I

CD
‘
d

Q
0

P
J
C

)
C

D
P

1
r
r
Q

CD
ii

H
-

S
C

D
CD

O
‘-3

Io
H

H
’
-
u
jh

C
t

II
H

C
D

h
i
P

-
0
0

CD
01

Cl
)

C
U

D
0

F
-
i

LX
I

U
)H

4
U

)
U

)
0

01
C

D
C

U
<

I
-

U
)Q

U
)

U)
0

P1
h
U

)
C

D
U

)
‘I

j
P

)C
D

0
0

<
U

)
F

CD
U

)C
D

0
Q

O
p1

H
H

-
i-s

-
r-

rC
D

H
-

P
)

0
1

h
111

<
CD

C
)h

h
C

t
H

,
H

H
LX

I
U

)U
)U

)
CD

)
U)

U
)

C
t

0
H

I
P

)
(•

t
C

D
h

LX
I

CD
W

C
U

D
H

0
H

-
O

CD
‘1

0
E

•
-

-
LX

I
H

CD
I-

’-
i

H
-

F
j
-

ci
0C

D
0

c-
-

Q
D

h
0

0
C

t
rr

CD
rt

C
U

C
t

-•
-
h

r
-
t
-

0
‘-

II
-i-

CD
CD

0
CD

‘—
3

‘1
0

CI
)

<
CD

H
CI

)
C

D
H

‘
-

M
H

H
C)

CD
l
i
i
i

0
H

H
-

<
tU

)
01

H
_

LX
I

—
.Z

U
)0

LX
I

U
1

O
0

01
M

O
‘
‘
‘
I

CD
H

-
P

)
0

D
-
-

X
I

-h
C

D
h

d
F

.X
I

l
i
i
i

‘
H

0
CD

CD
D

>
<

D
0

M
M

O
C

t
0

I
W

ø
l
i
i
i

D
CD

CD
<

fl
H

-C
D

••
—

.
—

—
.

P1
I

—
.
—

I
I

I
I

I
D

0
01

P
CD

.D
c
D

D
C)

P
tO

(
CD

•
.

-Q
,C

D
P

-
’

CD
0
(
0

C
D

C
D

W
W

M
C

t
CD

I—
b

r
t

<1
‘

U)
CD

H
‘
<

Y
LX

I
O

H
0C

D

CD
C

D
0

H
L

O
C

D
H

-
CD

0
CD

0
S

O
r
t

H
-

Q
Q

I
Q

I
H

‘d
CD

CD
U

)C
)

tO
H

M
H

P1
H

-
CD

CD
‘1

Pj
h

LX
I

—
0

C
)

i4
tO

tO
M

CD
r
t

U)
P1

P
)
U

)
z

0
‘d

C
t

U
i

.
—

-
-
.
.
.

h
..

I-
0

()

H
I-

Q
.

LX
I

U
)

CD
CD

CD
CD U)

H
w

w
w

CD
D

-
tO

r
t

CD
P1

0
H

-
Z

-C
D

—
CD

(D
P

I
-
.

CD
CD

H
U)

D
W

H
-

-
CD

H
-

0
H

S
Cl

)
0

o
tO

P1 CD
P1

0

C
D

C
t

—
1

CD
3

0

H
H

-
0

H

tO
CD

H
-

U)
C

D
C

t
C

t
H

-
0

0
0

C
D

ft
CD

CD
CD

P
lU

)
0

CD
H

i
U

)