Archaeology in Latin America

Benjamin Alberti, Gustavo G. Politis

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2005
• Print ISBN:
  9780415221580
• eBook ISBN:
  9781134597833
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Latin American & Caribbean History
• Index: Social Sciences

This pioneering and comprehensive survey is the first overview of current themes in Latin American archaeology written solely by academics native to the region, and it makes their collected expertise available to an English-speaking audience for the first time. The contributors cover the most significant issues in the archaeology of Latin America, such as the domestication of camelids, the emergence of urban society in Mesoamerica, the frontier of the Inca empire, and the relatively little known archaeology of the Amazon basin. This book draws together key areas of research in Latin American archaeological thought into a coherent whole; no other volume on this area has ever dealt with such a diverse range of subjects, and some of the countries examined have never before been the subject of a regional study.

Chapter One
Introduction

Latin American archaeology: an inside view

Gustavo G.Politis

Archaeology in Latin America is the result of national and regional developments, and in no way can it be considered an homogeneous process or a compact set of related concepts and theories. When I refer to Latin American archaeology in this chapter I am including only the archaeology carried out in Latin America by Latin American scholars or by foreigners who have lived in the region over a long period of time (some of whom obtained their degrees in Latin America) and have been incorporated into the local scientific communities. I distinguish this type of archaeology from that practised in Latin America by foreign scholars who neither live in the region nor share the cultural idiosyncrasies of the country in which they are researching. The most striking example of the second case are the hundreds of North American archaeologists who are working in Mesoamerica or the Central Andes. While they undoubtedly help significantly towards the increase in knowledge of the indigenous past of the countries where they work, and have made relevant theoretical and methodological contributions, they cannot be considered Latin American archaeologists. Their tradition of research is another, their perception of reality is different, and their focus, therefore, necessarily differs greatly from that of archaeologists who are researching the places where they were born and grew up, and where they have subsequently held professional positions.

Latin American archaeology is diverse and heterogeneous, as is to be expected of a region with great cultural diversity. In spite of the fact that the majority of countries have a Spanish or Portuguese colonial background, the divergence in their historical development and socio-political contexts has led to distinct regional and national archaeologies. Is this diversity more profound than in other continents, such as Europe? The chapters included in this book will help to answer this question, since they demonstrate the variety not only of subject matter, but also of methodological approaches and theoretical frameworks in the region. Recent scholarship has highlighted how regional archaeological traditions in other parts of the world have developed, and how they are deeply influenced by their socio-political contexts (Trigger 1992; Ucko 1995). In the case of Latin America, very few attempts have been made to understand the regional processes of growth and development of archaeology (for exceptions see Oyuela-Caycedo 1994; Politis 1995), although histories of national archaeologies have proliferated in the last two decades, often written from very different perspectives. Some accounts have concentrated on strictly scientific and theoretical issues (Collier 1982; Fernández 1982; Fernández Distel 1985; Cabrera Pérez 1988; Mendonça de Souza 1991; Fernández Leiva 1992; Orellana Rodríguez 1996) and have taken the format of chronological narratives of specific events, incidents, and the contributions of local archaeologists as well as foreigners. Others have noted the social history of the discipline (Gnecco 1995; Funari 1992 and chapter 2 in this volume; Lorenzo 1981; Politis 1992, 1995) or have specifically focused on the theoretical influence of science in the country in question (Lorenzo 1976; Burger 1989; Barreto 1998). The proliferation of work on national archaeologies is one consequence of the necessity for reflection on and analysis of the construction of knowledge of the past, of realising how social and political factors mould the practice and theory of archaeology, and of the distancing of archaeology from supposed positivist objectivity (Gathercole and Lowenthal 1990; Ucko 1995; Kohl and Fawcett 1997).

TRENDS WITHIN THE REGION

In spite of the degree of diversity, the archaeology of Latin America has some shared characteristics. Although the recognition of these traits is essentially subjective and based on personal experience and an unequal knowledge of the different situations within the region, such traits can serve both to identify the main trends in the region and as a way in to an understanding of the construction of archaeological knowledge. Those with different personal experiences and perceptions of the current situation may disagree; consensus in a discussion of the present subject, where the participants are embedded in the context of the discussion, is as illusory as reaching the end of the rainbow.

Firstly, Latin American archaeology is largely empiricist. Although there are a few original theoretical approaches, such as Latin American social archaeology (see Vargas Arenas and Sanoja, chapter 4 in this volume), and serious attempts have been made to incorporate and develop some North American and European methodological and theoretical perspectives (see, for example, Lanata and Borrero, chapter 5; Manzanilla, chapter 6; Langebaek, chapter 12; Velandia, chapter 10, all in this volume), the practice of archaeology within the region remains heavily empirically grounded. The recovery of original data by means of survey, test pits and excavation is the initial activity of most research projects. Analysis of the recovered material and of the spatial and chronological distribution of sites and finds is usually the second step. Interpretation and the placement of the finds in the context of past ‘cultures’, or in an archaeological unit (such as a ‘phase’, a ‘tradition’ or an ‘industry’) is frequently the final goal. A typical case is provided by Brazil, where complaints about the lack of theory and of the suitability of contemporary methods are an urgent plea shared by a young generation of archaeologists (Funari, chapter 2; Goes Neves, chapter 11), one of whom has recently made a very clear and strong statement to that effect:

Ironically, the strong influence of foreign schools (both French and North American) while producing many advances, has also left Brazilian archaeology in a theoretical vacuum and a methodological straitjacket.

(Barreto 1998:574)

Secondly, Latin American archaeology is basically culture-history orientated. Culture-history has been the dominant approach in the region as a result of what has been defined as the ‘Classificatory-Historical Period’ (Willey and Sabloff 1980), an era when the main objective of (North) American archaeologists was the cultural synthesis of the various regions of America. Latin American archaeology followed this trend, especially after World War II, when North America consolidated its hegemony in the area which came within its political and economic sphere of influence. Political and economic involvement was accompanied by an increased cultural influence on Latin America, and within this general socio-political background culture-history became the dominant theoretical framework for archaeological research. Without a doubt, Julian Steward’s (1946–50) monumental study in The Handbook of South American Indians constituted the first large-scale attempt to interpret the archaeology of South America (Roosevelt 1991); numerous archaeologists, very few of whom were Latin American, were appointed to contribute to this project of systematisation. Among the contributors, Alfred Métraux (see Lopez Mazz, chapter 3) was perhaps one of the most important, as he also influenced the general approach adopted in the volume (Perez Gollán, pers. comm. )

The culture-historical approach had a direct impact on the archaeology practised in several countries in Latin America—archaeological finds were organised into a framework of cultures and periods; ceramics were compartmentalised into styles, and artifacts into complexes (see, for example, Bennett et al. 1948 in the case of Argentina, and Cruxent and Rouse 1958 for Venezuela). Contemporaneously, the North American tradition of research in the Central Andes (the so-called ‘peruvianistas’), although diffuse in origin, crystallised in 1946 at a conference entitled ‘Reappraisal of Peruvian Archaeology’ (Schadel and Shimada 1982). At the same time, the multidisciplinary Virú Valley Project, which claimed to be an holistic study of the complete culture of a Peruvian valley, was taking place (Willey 1946). The project also attempted to go further than a culture-historical reconstruction by emphasising ‘function and context’ and by searching for causal generalisations (Schadel and Shimada 1982).

Most local archaeologists followed the trend established by the introduction of North American culture-history, although the influence of British culture-history, mainly through the work of Gordon Childe, was felt in some areas. The Austro-German Kulturkreis school and a variety of French trends were also influential (Funari, chapter 2; Lanata and Borrero, chapter 5; López Mazz, chapter 3; Barreto 1998; Politis 1995), although in a thematically and geographically restricted manner. However, none of these theoretical trends have been able to challenge the overwhelming influence that North American culture-history has had on Latin American archaeologists.

Another milestone in the dynamic of the interrelationship between Latin American and North American archaeology was the publication of a volume in the Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collection entitled Aboriginal Cultural Development in Latin America: An Interpretative Review, edited by Betty Meggers and Clifford Evans (1963). This publication had as its goal the summary and interpretation, from a marked culture-historical perspective, of the indigenous past of Latin America. The editors clearly expressed their objectives in the prologue:

Whether the interpretation survives the test of time is less important than the fact that archaeologists from nine countries have been able to collaborate in the solution of the problem that is our common goal—the reconstruction of cultural development in the New World.

(Meggers and Evans 1963:vi)

There are two important points to be stressed. Firstly, cultural diffusion plays a key role in the book on an explanatory level. The appearance of pottery on the Ecuadorian coast, or the domesticated cotton of the Peruvian coast, were interpreted as the result of transpacific contact; migration was used as an explanation for the ‘striking resemblance’ between the Olmec and Chavín styles of art. Secondly, of the fourteen authors, half are Latin Americans—a more balanced proportion than in The Handbook of South American Indians, although it should be pointed out that these Latin American authors were strongly influenced by the culture-history approach.

Due to its empirical roots and culture-historical focus, it is not strange to note the existence of a very modest post-processual debate in Latin American archaeology, where current change is actually more towards processualism. However, it is important to recognise that processualism and post-processualism (or interpretavism) are labels whose contents have been the subjects of debate (see, among many others, Shanks and Hodder 1995; Whitley 1998), and although they undoubtedly represent different theoretical positions, there are overlaps (Kosso 1991) and the internal differentiation of each approach makes a binary distinction an over-simplification.

For the sake of the current discussion, let us consider that processual archaeology is rooted in behaviourism allied with positivism, and that it maintains a ‘systemic view of culture’ which awards the environment a determinant role in cultural change (Trigger 1992; Whitley 1998). This is probably the major direction in which contemporary Latin American archaeology will move when it decides to leave its culture-history framework, as is becoming clear through the numerous research projects which are orientated towards adaptative studies, site formation, taphonomy, and other derivatives of a processual approach.

The exploration of a post-processual alternative is more diffuse and less firmly rooted. Some aspects of post-processual archaeology have been present for a long time in many archaeological studies by Latin American archaeologists but have not been formally developed as such, and are usually tied to nationalist programmes (e.g. Lumbreras 1974). The explicit political and social involvement of academia in some countries (e.g. Peru, Mexico and Cuba) produced the kind of critique of a politically responsible archaeology that has occurred relatively more recently in North America and Great Britain. Moreover, because of the existence of large indigenous populations and popular social movements in several Latin American countries, some aspects of a post-processual critique—for example issues concerned with ethnicity, indigenous rights or multivocality—appear to be much more immediately relevant than other issues, such as gender. Gender archaeology is poorly developed in Latin America when compared with North America or Western Europe; of the little work accomplished, the majority has been carried out by foreigners (e.g. Gero 1991, 1992; Joyce 1996). Some examples of 1990s post-processualism can be seen in the analysis of the ideological and moral dimensions of the reconstruction of the indigenous American past (see Gnecco, chapter 13), or in the structuralist analysis of the archaeological culture of San Agustín (see Velandia, chapter 10).

Nonetheless, it would be unfair to see Latin American archaeology as a passive reflection of foreign, essentially North American, influence. There have most certainly been local archaeologists who have developed original methods, although obviously their contributions have been fed by foreign theories and methods since, as with any researcher in the world, Latin American archaeologists practise within open scientific communities and are exposed to intellectual movements generated in other countries. A few examples will suffice to illustrate these specific processes in several different Latin American countries.

Amongst the examples from the nineteenth century, Florentino Ameghino is notable in the case of Argentina. Ameghino represented the typical nineteenth-century naturalist who worked simultaneously from several different disciplines: archaeology, bio-anthropology, palaeontology and geology. He produced relevant contributions to all these fields, one of the most important being La Antigüedad del Hombre en el Plata (‘The Antiquity of Man in the Plata’) (Ameghino 1881), which constituted from an evolutionist perspective the first review of Argentinian and Uruguayan archaeology, and produced the momentum for typological and zooarchaeological studies whilst also forming the foundation for regional stratigraphical analyses. After his death in 1911, the image of Ameghino was appropriated by political sectors of society, especially the Socialist Party, who made him appear to be a secular saint (Podgorny 1997).

In Chile, José Toribio Medina (1882) published a monumental synthesis of Chilean p...

Table of contents

• COVER PAGE
• TITLE PAGE
• COPYRIGHT PAGE
• Figures
• TABLES
• CONTRIBUTORS
• PREFACE
• CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
• PART 1: HISTORY AND THEORY
• PART 2: KEY ISSUES IN LATIN AMERICAN ARCHAEOLOGY
• PART 3: NEW DIRECTIONS