Rethinking Venezuelan Anthropology

Berta E. Pérez, Instituto Venezolano de Investigaciones Cientíﬁcas

The articles presented in this special issue of Ethnohistory are the result of a concerted effort made by a group of anthropologists from the Venezue- lan Institute for Scientific Research (Instituto Venezolano de Investigacio- nes Científicas []).1 As the initial compiler and as the guest editor of this issue, I hope that this publication will serve as a first step for other anthropologists working with Venezuelan indigenous or other ethnic groups to redouble the efforts toward the reformulation and reintegration of the discipline in Venezuela. Also, I hope that this publication generates open forums, as these contribute to the continuous growth and maturity of the discipline. This development of Venezuelan anthropology is essential to the preparation of adequate responses to future academic demands and public interest issues at the national and international levels.2 The publication of this issue does not deny any previous efforts made by other anthropologists living in Venezuela and abroad on behalf of Vene- zuelan anthropology; nor does it imply that there has been either an absence of or an academic disregard for salient anthropological studies done in Venezuela. Rather, this special issue of Ethnohistory represents, on the one hand, the first concerted effort to publish abroad a group of essays about Venezuelan oral-based cultures that embraces some of the distinct subdisciplines of anthropology and is written by anthropologists living in situ. On the other hand, it contains richly empirical studies that have been undertaken, for the most part, by a new generation of anthropologists in Venezuela and are based on an academic tradition that searches for new models or paradigms of and for theorizing culture and representation.3 This latter point is important in that such theoretical and methodological re-

Downloaded from http://read.dukeupress.edu/ethnohistory/article-pdf/47/3-4/513/409178/47.3-01perez1.pdf by guest on 24 September 2021  Berta E. Pérez

search is precisely nurtured by other disciplines, such as literary, historical, and philosophical studies, as well as by anthropology through the integration of ethnohistory, archaeology, ethnography, and linguistics. The main purpose of this introduction is to offer a particular academic setting from which these articles can be examined. Not only is it important to highlight some of the themes reflected from the critical, historical interpretations on culture and power made by the authors in this volume; there is also a need to address the implications that this theoretical approach represents for Venezuelan anthropology and the national state. This introduction is thus divided into three sections. The first entails the presentation of shared common themes and elements (or models) that tie together the articles, which are explicitly or implicitly inferred by each author in their understanding of indigenous (e.g., the Warekena, Baré, Ye’kuana, Warao, Mapoyo, Palenque, Otomaco, Adole, Caquetío, Ayomán, Gayón, and Coyón) or Afro-Venezuelan peoples (e.g., the Ari- paeño). A comprehensive view of the academic and national significance of these studies requires a brief examination of the history, theoretical cur- rents, and tendencies of Venezuelan anthropology. Such a review forms the second section of this introduction and responds to the need to make Venezuelan anthropology visible. Based on the content presented in the first two sections, the third part of the introduction comprises a reflection of what the historical contextualization of Venezuelan oral-based cultures portrayed in these essays represents for the Venezuelan anthropological community and the national state. The analysis, interpretation, and reflection on epistemological matters raised in this introduction will perhaps leave the reader with more questions than answers or solutions.

Making History in Anthropology

The authors in this special issue of Ethnohistory carefully examine the relationship between colonizer and colonized in distinct contextual settings of time and space. Within this relationship the contributors explore the historical and active dimensions of indigenous or black populations in the colonial encounter. This focus has permitted the authors to oﬀer new historical interpretations that go beyond what is known today as the ‘‘oﬃ- cial’’ nation’s history. The authors provide a critical analysis of historical aspects that relate to episodes of, or responses to, cultural resistance and survival that were expressed by Venezuelan oral-based cultures in the forms of physical and cultural movement and concealment. Each of the articles thus represents a particular case study that brings a diachronic perspective into anthropology. This has been done through an

Downloaded from http://read.dukeupress.edu/ethnohistory/article-pdf/47/3-4/513/409178/47.3-01perez1.pdf by guest on 24 September 2021 Rethinking Venezuelan Anthropology 

integration of archaeology, history, and ethnology that is aimed at the historical contextualization of cultural diversity and power. The essays by the archaeologists show distinct approaches (or stages) in the way they make history in archaeology as they move beyond their traditional analysis of glottochronology and ceramic distribution. On the one hand, Rodrigo Na- varrete and Rafael A. Gassón rely on historical documents and archaeological and ethnographic bibliographic sources in their presentation of a particular problem or model. While Navarrete applies an ethnohistorical approach to provide an alternative perspective to the changes that occurred between the sixteenth and eighteenth centuries in the sociopolitical composition of the Palenque, Gassón uses an evolutionary and economic perspec- tivetoarriveataninterpretationofthequirípas and mostacillas as a medium of exchange during the colonial period. On the other hand, Franz Scara- melli and Kay Tarble as well as Lilliam Arvelo incorporate their own archaeological data but treat these differently in their own respective studies. In her analysis of aboriginal settlement patterns in the Quíbor Valley, Ar- velo treats her archaeological data as the main source of analysis and interpretation. She carefully introduces related information from historical documents and ethnographic sources as additional support to explain cultural change and continuity in specific indigenous populations during the colonial and postcolonial periods. Scaramelli and Tarble, however, seem to be closer to Patrick V. Kirch and Marshall Sahlins’s () proposal of ‘‘the anthropology of history,’’ as they finely intertwine their archaeological work on Mapoyo burial practice with written and oral historical accounts and ethnographic data. The rest of the articles represent ethnographic studies of Venezue- lan oral-based cultures, which are grounded in historical and political- economic realities. With the aid of historical documents, H. Dieter Heinen and Alvaro García-Castro embark on an analysis of the intricate multiethnic network that existed in the lower Orinoco during the early colonial period to elucidate the persistence, since pre-Hispanic times, of cultural differences among the Warao people and of a multiethnic society in the Orinoco Delta. Silvia M. Vidal and I ground our ethnographic studies of the Arawak and the Aripaeño, respectively, in historical records and oral histories to analyze the role that indigenous regional networks of trade, alliances, and warfare played in the processes of resistance, change, and continuity of these populations. Through an integration of historical events with her own ethnographic material and collected oral histories, Nelly Arvelo-Jiménez demonstrates the importance of religion and gender in the Ye’kuana’s cultural resistance and survival. The historical contextualization of Venezuelan oral-based cultures

Downloaded from http://read.dukeupress.edu/ethnohistory/article-pdf/47/3-4/513/409178/47.3-01perez1.pdf by guest on 24 September 2021  Berta E. Pérez

does not omit or negate the official history as that version has typically done with oral-based cultures. In fact, some of these essays not only demonstrate the historical and active dimensions of indigenous and black groups, they also critically incorporate the country’s national history with that of their own to provide a more integrated vision of histories. Both Scaramelli and Tarble’s essay and Arvelo-Jiménez’s article are perfect examples. There is a tendency toward the reconstruction of an ‘‘integral history’’ that is unique and diverse, as it incorporates the peoples (oppressors and oppressed) in a ‘‘contrapuntal’’ (contrapunteo) or an intercultural historical movement (Coronil , ). This concept is further discussed in relation to domination, resistance, and accommodation later in this introduction. Such critical, historical approaches to culture and power provide the basic guidelines from which to maintain that indigenous groups were not ‘‘cultural islands’’ before and after the European penetration (evident in all of the essays, although Arvelo’s study on the aboriginal settlement patterns is also a good example of a ‘‘prior’’ condition to European contact) and that other ethnic minorities (e.g., the black maroons of my essay) were also able to incorporate themselves into indigenous regional networks, although modified or transformed by the impact of European conquest and colonization. Without entering into the existing polemics among the diverse interpretations of indigenous regional networks, as that is not the purpose here, many of the articles in this issue make reference to the existence of () ‘‘systems of exchange’’ (e.g., Gassón’s work on the quirípas and mostacillas as a medium of exchange and Heinen and García-Castro’s study on the multiethnic network); () ‘‘spheres of interaction’’ (e.g., Vidal’s article on the Arawak sacred routes); or () a ‘‘system of regional interdependence’’ (e.g., my essay on the grand marronnage of maroon forebears and Arvelo’s archaeological study of indigenous populations in the Quíbor Valley) before and after the European penetration in northern South America. Any of these indigenous regional networks that had as a primary setting the riverine and interriverine zones of the lowlands of South America is a good indicator of the interconnections, interethnic relations, and even fluctuations in negotiations and alliances that existed among indigenous groups (e.g., Vidal’s article on the Arawak’s use of the Kuwé routes, the emergence of confederacies, and the incorporation of other groups like the Tukano and the Ye’kuana into their political system; Heinen and García- Castro’s essay on the multiethnic network that led to the formation of new interethnic relations and social forms; and Arvelo’s comments on the political, social, and ecological interrelations that existed among distinct indigenous groups within a wider geographical sphere). The contributions to this issue also reveal the interactions that occurred among indigenous peoples,

Downloaded from http://read.dukeupress.edu/ethnohistory/article-pdf/47/3-4/513/409178/47.3-01perez1.pdf by guest on 24 September 2021 Rethinking Venezuelan Anthropology 

Europeans, or other ethnic minorities as these groups penetrated any of the systems (e.g., Gassón’s article on the quirípas and mostacillas and my essay on the black maroons). Within this last category, Arvelo’s article is another example; even though her study lies outside of the Orinoco Basin, her historical material alludes to the existence of indigenous multiethnic networks that would explain Nikolaus Federmann’s ( [],  []) ability to travel into unknown territories in northwestern Venezuela. In another sense for future investigation, these networks also suggest the possibility that Arvelo’s indigenous populations were not necessarily socially isolated from populations of the Orinoco Basin. Today indigenous groups and other ethnic minorities still preserve interethnic relations through their reliance on riverine and interriverine routes, even though the original regional networks have been modified or transformed since colonial times. As is evident in many of these essays, the indigenous regional networks of trade, alliances, and warfare served Venezuelan oral-based cultures as mechanisms of cultural resistance and survival, especially after the entry of the European colonizers. Before giving some examples, it should be ex- plained that the histories of colonizer and colonized entailed a dance between domination and resistance that enveloped an interlocking flow of power relations that was dynamically intertwined and historically contextualized through time and space (Hill ; Whitehead ). None of the authors in this special issue defined the word resistance, however. One of the ways to define resistance is through the inclusion of its counterpart: domination. According to Jonathan D. Hill (: ), ‘‘Colonized or enslaved peoples exercised limited powers over the definition of the colonial situation and its historical trajectory....thecolonial authorities implicitly acknowledged these limited powers and, in doing so, succeeded in coupling resistance and accommodation directly to broader projects of domination and hegemony.’’ In essence, the colonizers did not necessarily apply their absolute dominion or power over the colonized or enslaved peoples. Rather, the former recognized the limited power of the latter and the danger if they went against it. This limited power was expressed in different forms depending on the culture and the context. To mention a few examples, in Arvelo- Jiménez’s article the Ye’kuana relied on the role of Ye’kuana women as religious guardians and keepers of their ancestral land as one of the mechanisms of resistance within and against dominion and hegemony. The Ara- wak, as reflected in Vidal’s article, used the Kuwé sacred routes as different forms of resistance, and their transformation from a ‘‘macropolity’’ into ‘‘multiethnic confederacies’’ was a way in which to encounter European penetration. As evident in my essay, the Aripaeño forebears chose grand

Downloaded from http://read.dukeupress.edu/ethnohistory/article-pdf/47/3-4/513/409178/47.3-01perez1.pdf by guest on 24 September 2021  Berta E. Pérez

marronnage to break away from the colonial slavery system. Although the colonizers made concessions for the ‘‘subordinate’’ cultural groups to exert their power, they were still able to literally or symbolically maintain their dominant status and power by incorporating resistance and accommodation of the colonized into their broader plans of dominion and hegemony. One good example is Gassón’s article, which explains the incorporation of the indigenous system of exchange into the European mercantile system. I argue that as indigenous peoples and other minority groups continued with their battles of resistance and accommodation, these were once again directly coupled with the dominant cultural groups, as they still are today, but into much broader projects of dominion and hegemony.4 An understanding of this dance between domination and resistance, however, allows us to analyze not only the phenomenon of sociocultural change but also the continuity of sociocultural elements that can still be perceived among contemporary indigenous and Afro-Venezuelan populations today. While the phenomenon of sociocultural change involves processes of ethnogenesis, the continuity of sociocultural elements points to issues of territoriality, identity, and ethos. The works in this issue by Heinen and García-Castro, Vidal, Scaramelli and Tarble, Arvelo-Jiménez, and me are good studies of those cultural elements that involve processes of ethnogenesis and a sense of territoriality, identity, and ethos. In the cases of Na- varrete, Gassón, and Arvelo, they deal with sufficient elements of cultural significance that aid them in identifying indigenous populations, not necessarily with a particular ethnic identity per se, but with a history based on ethnic ancestry and rights. While mechanisms of resistance permitted some cultural groups to survive, for others the use of these mechanisms could not prevent the groups’ ultimate disappearance (e.g., Navarrete’s Palenque). Why did mechanisms of resistance not work for these groups? Why did some indigenous groups disappear? The answers to many of these questions are still unknown, although the disappearance of some of these groups may be ex- plained by the impact of slavery, epidemics, and wars. Yet Arvelo-Jiménez (a) strongly advises that readers keep in mind that, on the one hand, there are indigenous ethnic groups that—although distinct, fragmented, and decentralized—only become overt when their ethnic rights and identity are threatened (e.g., Scaramelli and Tarble’s Mapoyo). On the other hand, there are those groups that suffered such a radical ethnic transformation that they are now part of the criollo population, the indio genérico (as in, e.g., Arvelo’s work on past [indigenous] and present [peasant] populations of the Quíbor Valley). Arvelo-Jiménez’s comments on the matter were based on her years of research and her interpretations of Darcy Ribeiro’s

Downloaded from http://read.dukeupress.edu/ethnohistory/article-pdf/47/3-4/513/409178/47.3-01perez1.pdf by guest on 24 September 2021 Rethinking Venezuelan Anthropology 

(, ) works, but they may not necessarily answer these questions. Her comments do explain the existence of those ethnic groups that were once thought to have disappeared, however. Each of these essays covers a great range of Venezuelan territory, and each historically contextualizes Venezuelan indigenous and black populations through a critical analysis of historical processes. Although the incorporation of additional studies conducted on the eastern, north-central, and western (especially the Andes) parts of Venezuela would have provided a more complete representative sample of Venezuelan oral-based cultures, the essays in this special issue contribute to the dismantling of what was once considered a region ‘‘intractable to historical study, being inhabited by ‘people without history’ (Wolf ), permanently organized into ‘cold’ societies (Lévi-Strauss ) that are ‘closed’ to historical change (Sahlins )’’ (Whitehead : ). Many of these articles are in harmony with Frédérique Apﬀel- Marglin’s (:) statement: ‘‘Political decolonization has not meant the decolonization of minds’’; that is, the discourse between oppressor and oppressed peoples has not ended. Dominant cultural groups continue to im- pose their own models onto indigenous and other subordinate populations through which they hope to delegitimatize traditional knowledge. They are also in agreement with Fernando Coronil (: ): ‘‘The ‘post’ of post- colonialism is not a sign of the overcoming but of the reproduction of colonialism.’’ Therefore, it remains the responsibility of anthropologists working on Venezuela, for example, to consider this postcolonial discourse as they reﬂect on the past, witness the present, and project onto the future.

Making Venezuelan Anthropology Visible

A preoccupation of mine concerning Venezuelan anthropology is its invisibility, or what I consider to be a reality within the national state and aca- demia as well as abroad. The causes for its invisibility, however, can be many; some of these are still unknown. But when the whole of anthropological scholarly works that are focused on Venezuela is examined, it takes on a fragmented or scattered characteristic. Where are its postu- lates, models, and paradigms? The prevalence of this discontinuity in its theoretical-methodological base is further perpetuated as particular studies conducted on Venezuela by foreign anthropologists are highlighted and ab- sorbed by the dominant academic centers for their unique and independent contributions toward the anthropological fascination with pristine or exotic cultures (e.g., Napoléon Chagnon’s and Jacques Lizot’s studies on the Yanomami) or toward a better understanding of other distinct anthro-

Downloaded from http://read.dukeupress.edu/ethnohistory/article-pdf/47/3-4/513/409178/47.3-01perez1.pdf by guest on 24 September 2021  Berta E. Pérez

pological aspects (e.g., economic and political systems, kinship, and the symbolic world). This is to say that there has not been a comprehensive and systematic evaluation and synthesis made that would interconnect and intertwine the existing anthropological studies at the intrasubdisciplinary level and very much less at the intersubdisciplinary level. In teaching activities, for example, there are no available textbooks or even courses created that would introduce students to Venezuelan anthropology per se. Venezuelan anthropology still requires its history (i.e., academic tradition) to be articulated and its present theoretical-methodological developments to be integrated with the past (or the past integrated with the present) to solidify and make itself more manifest as a discipline. Still necessary is an anthropological vision of Venezuela that would permit anthropologists living in Venezuela to arrive at the configuration of original paradigms and the elaboration of more systematic responses to academic demands and public interest issues at the national and international levels. Yet this invisibility does not deny the existence of a Venezuelan anthropological tradition. Ethnology, archaeology, linguistics, and physical anthropology have formed part of this tradition and have grown, through time, almost parallel with the anthropology of the metropolis. Venezue- lan anthropology, for instance, had its beginnings at the end of the nine- teenth century. It became characterized by a group of independent national and foreign scholars of various disciplines and vocations who had a special interest in indigenous peoples’ lifeways (Arvelo-Jiménez and Biord Cas- tillo ; Margolies and Suárez ). While some of these scholars reconstructed, in a systematic way, the available but dispersed ethnographic information from historical sources and archival documents, others articulated this ethnographic knowledge with their own direct observations on the traditions and customs of the Venezuelan indigenous peoples (Mar- golies and Suárez ). Although this type of anthropology was practiced without any institutional academic space, it had formed a marked positivist and evolution- ist perspective that was congruent with the then-current Western tendencies of the time and that lasted well into the s (Arvelo-Jiménez and Biord Castillo ). In the s, however, the development of Venezue- lan anthropology was gradually affected by the country’s major changes in its economic (oil boom), demographic (population boom), social (stereotypes of minorities and installations of missionaries in remote or peripheric areas), and political systems (democracy) (ibid.; Margolies and Suárez ). Venezuelan anthropology continued to survive, however; that is, it spun off into small nuclei for the research, rescue, and conservation of

Downloaded from http://read.dukeupress.edu/ethnohistory/article-pdf/47/3-4/513/409178/47.3-01perez1.pdf by guest on 24 September 2021 Rethinking Venezuelan Anthropology 

national patrimony (an archaeological bent), such as the Museo de Cien- cias Naturales (Museum of Natural Science), as well as for the development of political strategies on behalf of indigenous groups (an ethnological bent), such as the Grupo de Caracas (Caracas Group). Although these entities did not necessarily have a formal academic space in anthropology, they struggled to rescue the autochthonous history of indigenous peoples and to form a new generation of anthropologists in Venezuela (Arvelo-Jiménez and Biord Castillo ). This absence of formal academic space in anthropology ended in the s, however, with the emergence of a recognized department within institutions, such as the Universidad Central de Venezuela (Central Univer- sity of Venezuela,), Fundación La Salle de Ciencias Naturales (La Salle Foundation of Natural Science, ), and the  ().5 Yet these departments assumed their own praxis within the discipline, such as cultural relativism, Marxism, or scientific objectivity and apolitical attitude. Such orientations were founded on a historical process that permitted an inter- play between the departments’ respective interests (political or academic) and the influence received from Europe (the British or French schools of anthropology) and the United States in their adoption of theoretical trends for the studies of indigenous peoples, the particular focus of the time. The praxis that had once characterized and marked each department in the past became more or less diluted by the s. Each department of anthropology broke through its own boundaries to diversify, becoming more in- clusive of other orientations. Such inclusiveness, however, made it possible to speak of a Venezuelan anthropology beyond departmental barriers and stereotypes that as a discipline could now be characterized as enveloping three distinct praxes: Marxism, scientific objectivity and apolitical attitude, and scientific objectivity with a political ethos (or advocacy). There has also been a tendency toward diversification in specializa- tions and theoretical orientations, which has permitted the incorporation and expansion of peasant and black studies in Venezuela. This tendency toward diversification was influenced by two main factors: the contact and direct participation of the dominant academic centers with the periphery and the oil boom of the s that permitted Venezuela to send its scholars abroad for graduate studies in anthropology. While this development aided some scholars to create their own anthropological nuclei in academic institutions (e.g., Afro-American studies, folklore, and ethnomusicology [Arvelo-Jiménez and Biord Castillo ]), it also contributed to the dis- persion of anthropological knowledge as Venezuelan anthropology continued to reflect a fragmented character. This discontinuity in the historical development of Venezuelan an-

Downloaded from http://read.dukeupress.edu/ethnohistory/article-pdf/47/3-4/513/409178/47.3-01perez1.pdf by guest on 24 September 2021  Berta E. Pérez

thropology has perhaps instigated little room for dialogue and cooperation among scholars at the national level. This is further hindered by the compe- tition for limited funds, especially today, and the differences created among scholars by their academic levels, quality of education, and institutional af- filiations. But whatever the causes may be for its invisibility, Venezuelan anthropology must step back to transform itself and transcend these causes to become visible; that is, its fragmented or scattered characteristic is not inherent. On the contrary, Venezuelan anthropology has the necessary re- sources to become viable or well founded as a discipline in the world academic centers. But to transform itself and ascend from its peripheric position, the field requires the pursuit of a breadth and depth analysis of the old and new available data from anthropologists working on Venezuela. Through serious reflection and discussion, anthropologists could arrive at levels of intra- and interdisciplinary cooperation, data integration, and the discovery of common patterns that would aid in the building of macrointer- pretative models of and for the study and better understanding of anthropological phenomena. We agree with Nelly Arvelo-Jiménez and Horacio Biord Castillo (: –) that ‘‘A proper anthropological tradition, which has been progressively generating from an academic preoccupation instilled or highly influenced by the world academic centers, is beginning to demand that a new step be taken: the configuration of new paradigms that are not only original, but that are also no longer peripheric.’’ This new step is necessary in Venezuelan anthropology. To achieve that end, however, anthropologists living in Venezuela must work together from the base as well as seek the assistance of anthropologists living abroad whose research focuses on Venezuela. Although embryonic and small in scale, the efforts made in this issue of Ethnohistory to bring about a group of essays that would be theoretically and methodologically coherent and that would provide new insights into existing academic and public interest issues contribute toward making Venezuelan anthropology visible.

Venezuelan Anthropology: Making the ‘‘Other’’ Visible

These essays make important contributions to Venezuelan anthropology. Conjointly as well as in their own ways, the articles present a critical, historical contextualization of Venezuelan oral-based cultures through an integration of history, archaeology, and ethnology that reflects the inclusion of a diachronic perspective in anthropology. Their authors agree with Shepard Krech III (: ), that ‘‘much recent historiography reflects the sway of the social sciences and much recent anthropology shows the influence of a historical dimension for comprehension of culture.’’ This

Downloaded from http://read.dukeupress.edu/ethnohistory/article-pdf/47/3-4/513/409178/47.3-01perez1.pdf by guest on 24 September 2021 Rethinking Venezuelan Anthropology 

latter point cannot be any more evident than in this collection of articles on Venezuela. Although these essays demonstrate that archaeology has moved beyond its traditional usage of glottochronology and ceramic distribution in the interpretation of pre-Hispanic and postcolonial societies—and that ethnology has also refrained from presenting non-Western societies as an ‘‘ethnographic present,’’ a self-contained entity abstracted from historical and political-economic realities—the treatment of history and the implications that this approach has for Venezuelan anthropology and the national state must be made more explicit. The contributors to this issue critically evaluate their historical sources in describing and explaining Venezuelan oral-based cultures. This care- ful evaluation is anchored in the awareness that the written descriptions and interpretations found in historical documents and sources are not necessarily free from preconceived ideas and biased views that colonizers and explorers had of non-Western societies. Through serious reﬂection and analysis of historical and active dimensions expressed by indigenous and Afro-Venezuelans in their relationships with the dominant cultural groups, the authors position and examine the oppressors and the oppressed in a way that highlights their interrelations as being dynamically intertwined and historically contextualized within the processes of dominion, resistance, and accommodation through time and space. Such a proposition is not necessarily innovative, however. Contrary to a ‘‘top-down’’ or ‘‘core over periphery’’ model of power relations as formulated by Georges Balan- dier (), and in more aﬃnity with both Roberto Cardoso de Oliveira’s () concept of ‘‘situation of contact’’ and Gerald Sider’s () concept of ‘‘colonial paradox,’’ Hill () and Neil L. Whitehead (), for instance, propose a symbiotic interlocking of power relations between col- onizing and colonized peoples in which processes of resistance and accommodation come into play within and against broader contexts of dominion and hegemony.6 According to this new vision of power relations in the colonial situation, the articles in this special issue make the leap beyond essentialism by embracing an ‘‘antiessentialist’’ position (Knauft ) or a ‘‘comprehensive approach’’ (Carrier ).7 This position or approach is based on the contention that anthropology is the study or the appreciation of cultural diversity and that inequality should be empirically critiqued, as it is not structurally inherent (Knauft ). The treatment of history here is not just based on a Western version of ‘‘what happened’’ in the past; nor is it entirely a reliance on the knowledge obtained through either construction or deconstruction and reconstruction processes of peoples’ histories. Depending on the adopted theoretical orientations and methods, the authors of these articles have had a need to

Downloaded from http://read.dukeupress.edu/ethnohistory/article-pdf/47/3-4/513/409178/47.3-01perez1.pdf by guest on 24 September 2021  Berta E. Pérez

interconnect and conceptualize their own current research with either the past or present. In my own studies with the Arapeño, for instance, I have gone back in history to make sense and grasp the essence of the community’s current state of being, cultural matrix, and relationship at the regional, national, and international levels. In a sense this integration of a historical past into my work has not affected in the least but has rather en- riched the diachronic and synchronic analysis used in my study. Otherwise, what knowledge and understanding can I obtain of this community when informants give me information that I cannot observe directly, or when I see aspects of their culture that they themselves cannot explain to me?8 Thus, history is ‘‘the people’s own sense of how events are consti- tuted, and their ways of culturally constructing the past’’ (Schieffelin and Gewertz , in Krech : ). Or as Hill (: ) puts it, ‘‘Whether embodied in the written documents and interpretations of European colonizers, in the written and pictorial accounts of colonized Andeans, or in oral narratives of colonized Amazonians, history is not reducible to the ‘what happened’ of past events but is a culturally constructed social discourse punctuated by facts and events.’’ In essence, history is all of the above: the West writing about the West, and the East telling about the East; the West ‘‘telling’’ about the East, and the East ‘‘writing’’ about the West. But most important (and borrowing Coronil’s [, ] concept of contrapunteo), history should be seen as a contrapoint of two or more distinct histories that meet and engage in a relationship with each other; this relationship is not only characterized by processes of domination, resistance, and accommodation, but it also leads, eventually, through a process of time and space, to the formation of an integral history. Thus their differences should not be essentialized, but rather empirically examined or critiqued by attending to the structural conditions and the relationships of those conditions within that society. Although the theoretical orientations, methodologies, and aims may not be the same as in the past, the struggle and defense of indigenous groups in particular has been a part of Venezuelan anthropology since the field’s beginnings. Before the existence of formal academic spaces in anthropology within institutions, many anthropologists residing in Venezuela focused either on the research, rescue, and conservation of national patrimony or on the development of political strategies of indigenous groups. After the creation of departments in anthropology, this vision of indigenous groups continued. The ethnological bent, however, evolved into two praxes concerned with the plight of indigenous populations: Marxism and scientific objectivity with a political ethos (or advocacy). How has the continuity of this vision made Venezuelan anthropology

Downloaded from http://read.dukeupress.edu/ethnohistory/article-pdf/47/3-4/513/409178/47.3-01perez1.pdf by guest on 24 September 2021 Rethinking Venezuelan Anthropology 

distinct from the anthropology of the dominant academic centers? It is the ever present concern to provide an understanding and acceptance of ethnic ancestry, identity, and rights. But with the advent of a gradual rap- prochement between history and anthropology and the emergence of critical, historical approaches to culture and power in the s, the anthropology of the metropolis not only legitimized that aspect of Venezuelan anthropology but also gave it the academic license to argue that a historical consciousness exists within Venezuelan oral-based cultures. That is, Vene- zuelan oral-based cultures also have their own (autochthonous) history, or history proper (historia propia) as coined by Guillermo Bonﬁl Batalla (), which has been long negated by the West; yet it is as real as that of the West. It is a history based on the people’s own historical consciousness of their social reality, which they have intepreted, constructed, reproduced, and transformed, especially in moments of struggle toward cultural resistance and survival. As such, it is a history that gives legitimacy and claim to their own identity and territoriality. Two good examples of this history proper are Watunna (de Civrieux , ) and Kuyujani (Jiménez and Perozo ). These two historical accounts have not only been recognized internationally, but they have also put Venezuelan anthropology at the forefront. The histories of contemporary ethnic groups who are today claiming their ethnic ancestry, identity, and rights continue to be reconstructed; this reconstruction of their history proper has come to the forefront from its contrapuntal position with the oﬃcial or national history. Today, anthro- pologically speaking, the physical and cultural survival—as well as the continuity of groups like the Arawak, the Aripaeño, the Mapoyo, the Warao, and the Ye’kuana—is precisely founded on the sociohistorical consciousness that their ancestors (and subsequent generations) had of their past and how they managed it, congruently, in their implementation of mechanisms of resistance within and against systems of dominion and hegemony. Today the present and future persistence of these contemporary ethnic groups is also based on the ‘‘reconstruction’’ of that history proper on which they can rely to justify their own ethnic rights. As Arvelo-Jiménez points out in her contribution to this issue, the current legal claim of the Ye’kuana’s territorial rights against the national state, for example, is foundedon their own history, which explains how Ku- yujani demarcated their ancestral territory and how the Ye’kuana women function as the guardians and keepers of that territory. Bruce M. Knauft (: ), however, states that ‘‘there remains a lingering tendency in anthropology to collapse the great diversity of ethnographic and related writing—as if anthropology has had a singular Occidental gaze upon a singu-

Downloaded from http://read.dukeupress.edu/ethnohistory/article-pdf/47/3-4/513/409178/47.3-01perez1.pdf by guest on 24 September 2021  Berta E. Pérez

lar colonial object.’’ Perhaps this reconstruction of the history proper that incorporates the social, political, and economic conditions of Venezuelan oral-based cultures such as Watunna (de Civrieux , ) and Kuyu- jani (Jiménez and Perozo ) is one way in which their voices can be heard within the West without necessarily falling into an essentialist position. Although Venezuelan anthropology is still far from properly integrating the Western and Eastern points of view, there is an awareness of the need to develop more comprehensive models that would better explain the relationships between the dominant and the subordinate cultural groups. These essays help recompose the political relations between the national state and the pluricultural and multiethnic nature that defines the Venezuelan sociocultural horizon. The acknowledgment of the cultural and native rights (derechos originarios) of indigenous populations and other ethnic groups, such as the Aripaeño, constitutes a prime challenge in that re- definition of political relations among the national state and the populations that are ethnically and culturally diverse. That is, the invisibility of the ‘‘Other’’—indigenous and black populations of Venezuela—has been sustained by the disregard of their sociocultural profile and their histories. This disregard is further supported by an official history that minimizes ethnic and cultural diversity to reinforce ideologically the presence of an elite, the protection of that elite’s socioeconomic and political interests, and the maintenance of the national state as one ethnic composition or as culturally homogeneous. On the contrary, the essays point to a reinterpretation of histories as solemn proofs of the existence of the sociocultural segments that make up Venezuelan society. This reinterpretation can be visualized in two ways: with academic (or scientific objectivity and an apolitical attitude) or with scientific objectivity and a political ethos. With the theoretical-methodological contributions made by the anthropology of the world academic centers, the task of integrating history, archaeology, and ethnology was undertaken to in- terpret, explicitly or implicitly, forms of resistance, change, and continuity from colonial times until the present—a present that includes a globalized world-system that imposes the debate over the acknowledgment of cultural and native rights. In this sense the traditional vision of ethnic groups as ‘‘cultural islands’’ was transcended as processes of interethnic relations were assumed by anthropologists. This is the case in Gassón’s article, as he analyzes the role of the quirípas and mostacillas as a means of exchange within an indigenous economic system that begins to receive the impact of a colonial mercantile system. Similarly, Heinen and García-Castro allude to the ethnohistory of the Warao to explain a complex scenario of multiethnic relations that emphasizes, among other aspects, the specialization of

Downloaded from http://read.dukeupress.edu/ethnohistory/article-pdf/47/3-4/513/409178/47.3-01perez1.pdf by guest on 24 September 2021 Rethinking Venezuelan Anthropology 

modes of subsistence. Even though Navarrete focuses on a specific group, the Palenque, he too establishes the existence of interethnic relations and addresses the contrasting interpretations of these interrelationships made by the agents of colonization at different historical moments. Vidal, for her part, makes evident the aspect of interethnic relations through the study of the Arawak’s sacred routes of migration (also followed for political, religious, and economic exchanges), which served as a mechanism of resistance. In the academic context these essays begin to reveal the sociocultural profile negated by the official history. The other essays make more explicit the political ethos on behalf of Venezuelan oral-based cultures. This advocacy is based on the preeminence of the sociocultural impact caused by development projects implemented or about to be implemented by the national state. Scaramelli and Tarble detail a similar case with the Mapoyos, whose decreed disappearance— even by anthropologists—is in total contradiction to the archaeological, historical, and ethnological evidence that demonstrates their identity and vital presence in reference to the impact of the bauxite industry. A similar case is seen in Arvelo’s work, which analyzes the archaeological remains of northwestern Venezuela in an effort to rescue a part of the ancestral collective memory and patrimony of people known today by the generic term campesinos and who today are threatened by hydraulic and industrial agricultural programs sponsored by the national state. In my essay I re- construct a particular history of a black population, the descendants of maroons who inhabited the Caura region in the mid-eighteenth century. This region, which is still pristine, is the focus of plans by a government- owned institute named the Venezuelan Corporation of Guayana (Corpo- ración Venezolana de Guayana) for such future projects as the planting of eucalyptus trees and the construction of a dam at the headwaters of the Erevato, an affluent of the Caura River. The aim is to direct the river flow to the Guri dam on the Caroni River. Equally important, the region is also considered a center for the expansion of gold mining. Arvelo-Jiménez, who has defended indigenous peoples throughout her academic career, analyzes the recent role that Ye’kuana women have played in their own process of territorial demarcation as a response to land invasion by outsiders. If Venezuelan anthropology, or a part of it, has any significance, this is a result of its contribution, implicit or explicit, to the vindication of the cultural and native rights of Venezuelan oral-based cultures. In addition, it makes evident the transcendence of national boundaries over the geo- political context of the supposed cultural islands. This means that anthropological case studies must transcend the colonial as well as the postcolonial context—the latter represented by nation-states that disregard the

Downloaded from http://read.dukeupress.edu/ethnohistory/article-pdf/47/3-4/513/409178/47.3-01perez1.pdf by guest on 24 September 2021  Berta E. Pérez

sociocultural systems of organization and integration that existed before the fifteenth century. From these scenarios the hypothesis of a ‘‘system of regional interdependence’’ pioneered by Arvelo-Jiménez (, b; Arvelo-Jiménez et al.; Arvelo-Jiménez and Biord Castillo; Mora- les and Arvelo-Jiménez )—which is compatible in some respects with particular studies done by Betty J. Meggers () and Arie Boomert () —emerges to explain the dynamic ethnic interactions found in the mul- tiple and complex forms of exchange reconstructed by archaeology, history, and ethnology. The ‘‘system of Orinoco regional interdependence,’’ as it was originally known, is the only one that offers a view of a macrosystem that operated in the South American lowlands and that went beyond the sole purpose of trade; it also included intercultural exchanges of information and alliances of all sorts. Moreover, this system was based on a sociopolitical integration but was horizontally composed of indigenous groups who maintained their own political-economic autonomy and culture proper within that system. Although the European conquest and colonization induced change in various aspects of this system, it still permitted the incorporation and survival of distinct cultural groups based on an appreciation of cultural diversity and respect toward political-economic autonomy; and it still helped these groups to create mechanisms of resistance (e.g., the marronnage I examine) against dominion and hegemony. But most important, this macrosystem of regional interdependence can teach scholars that such a model is viable—on a large scale and based on intercultural components that are horizontally and autonomously organized— as long as hierarchy, dominion, and hegemony are not imposed by a particular cultural group from within or outside the system. A model similar to this macrosystem of regional interdependence has not only been implemented in the European economic system, but it is also being proposed for the Venezuelan political-economic system (e.g., decentralization). This special issue results from the work of a small group of Venezue- lan anthropologists living in Venezuela who gathered to communicate their findings on the archaeological, historical, sociocultural, linguistic, and bio- logical side of human beings. Although salient macrointerpretive models have not yet been developed—much greater integration of old and new data is needed—there seems to be movement in a new direction: to an increas- ing degree, our practice of anthropology is animated by conversations and convergeances, at the intra- and interdisciplinary levels, that should lead both to a better understanding of humankind and to more visible Vene- zuelan anthropology. In many ways these articles expand upon the ideas presented and discussed in this introduction; but in no manner are the au-

Downloaded from http://read.dukeupress.edu/ethnohistory/article-pdf/47/3-4/513/409178/47.3-01perez1.pdf by guest on 24 September 2021 Rethinking Venezuelan Anthropology 

thors responsible for what I have written here. Each essay should be read and valued on its own merits.

Notes

I thank general editor Neil L. Whitehead for inviting the authors, myself included, to publish our manuscripts in Ethnohistory. I also would like to thank all of the contributors to this special issue and to extend my gratitude to all of my colleagues who collaborated and participated in the  symposium on Reconstructing and Deconstructing Colonial Peripatetics in Venezuela, which I view as the trigger to this outcome and new beginning. My gratitude also goes to Nelly Arvelo-Jiménez and Alberta Zucchi, who engaged with me in many interesting theoretical conversations and discussions; to Stanford Zent for his valued critical comments on the manuscript; and a very special thanks is directed to Abel Perozo, who contributed his time and effort enormously to this volume in general and to this introduction in particular, with ideas, comments, suggestions, and constructive criticism. I would also like to thank  (the Venezuelan Council for Technological and Scien- tific Research) and the  for their financial support of the symposium and thus making this highly valued academic result a reality. Last but not least, I would like to extend my appreciation and gratitude to Morelba Navas for her secretarial support and to Carlos Quintero for his professional artistic skills in the illustrations; their concern and support also helped this dream to come true. As anthropologists, we are most indebted to the people whom we study, and to them we are very thank- ful; let this special volume become an aid to their cause and a testament of our gratitude. Unless otherwise noted, all translations in this article are my own. Most of the articles that appear in this issue were presented in a symposium en- titled ‘‘Reconstructing and Deconstructing Colonial Peripatetics in Venezuela,’’ which I organized and coordinated for the Ninety-fifth Annual Meeting of the American Anthropological Association in San Francisco, . This symposium was made possible by the support and participation of anthropology colleagues from the , Universidad Central de Venezuela, the University of Wisconsin at Madison, and Southern Illinois University at Carbondale.  Nelly Arvelo-Jiménez and Horacio Biord Castillo (: ), for instance, state that ‘‘our understanding of Venezuelan anthropology involves academic produc- tivity, teaching activities, the development of new topics for debates, and applied programs fulfilled by both Venezuelan and foreign anthropologists living in the country and whose findings have contributed and continue to contribute in a direct and significant way to the Venezuelan anthropological tradition.’’ In addition, I would like to emphasize that Venezuelan anthropology only entails works about Venezuela and that the contributions made to the discipline’s tradition mainly come from the findings obtained from those studies.  This new generation of anthropologists in Venezuela includes Lilliam Arvelo, Alvaro García-Castro, Rafael A. Gassón, Rodrigo Navarrete, Berta E. Pérez, Franz Scaramelli, Kay Tarble, and Silvia M. Vidal.  The extension of an electrical line across the Pemón territory has resulted in con-

Downloaded from http://read.dukeupress.edu/ethnohistory/article-pdf/47/3-4/513/409178/47.3-01perez1.pdf by guest on 24 September 2021  Berta E. Pérez

flict. In reality, however, this event is a contemporary expression of a continuous, structurally based, accumulative condition of domination and resistance. But the dominant cultural group can opt to act within a range from military confronta- tion to negotiation depending on the sociocultural context at the time.  Refer to Amodio , Arvelo-Jiménez and Biord Castillo , Margolies and Suárez , Pérez Itriago and Suárez , Torrealba , and Vargas  for specific details on the history of Venezuelan anthropology.  Although ‘‘symbiosis’’ seems to be a proper term to use for the contrapuntal development of two (or more) distinct histories, the concept also incorporates the idea of ‘‘mutual benefits.’’ That is, dominion from the part of the colonizers and resistance/accommodation from the part of the colonized implies the search for their own respective cultural benefits and survival, even though sociocultural situations were accidentally or intentionally imposed by the dominant cultural groups and even though these situations (e.g., slavery, epidemics, and wars) were beyond the control of the colonized. A word is still needed to explain this flow of power relations within an unequal association (or an asymmetrical social struc- ture) that is dynamically intertwined and historically contextualized between the oppressor and the oppressed.  According to James G. Carrier (: ), a ‘‘comprehensive approach means attending to the relationships between different areas of social life. These relationships are important...forunderstanding the patterns that exist in the social units we study.’’ In this sense it can help us to minimize our tendency to es- sentialize conceptual and ethnographic entities and to maximize our perceptions toward a critical analysis of inequality, cultural diversity, and globalization.  The following are examples of the kind of information they give me that I cannot observe: ‘‘Our ancestors were fugitive black slaves’’; ‘‘We are blacks from Africa’’; ‘‘Aripao is the last settlement founded by our ancestors’’; ‘‘Pantera Negra (or Black Panther), a mulatto woman, was the founder of this town’’; and ‘‘We are Aripaeños and this is our land.’’ The other aspect entails my observations, such as of the intermarriages that have occurred and continue to occur between the Aripaeño and either indigenous (Ka’riña) or criollo people; or of the system of regional interdependence (exchange of information and creation/maintenance of alliances) that exists between the Aripaeño and people from other communities, while the Aripaeño, for instance, attend to their fishing, hunting, gardening, and recollecting (e.g., tonka beans) activities. In essence, history is the groundwork of anthropological studies.

References

Amodio, Emanuele  Historias de la antropología en Venezuela. Ediciones de la Dirección de Cultura. Maracaibo, Venezuela: Universidad del Zulia. Apﬀel-Marglin, Frédérique  Introduction: Rationality and the World. In Decolonizing Knowledge: From Development to Dialogue. Frédérique Apﬀel-Marglin and Ste- phen A. Marglin, eds. Pp. –. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Arvelo-Jiménez, Nelly  Recursos humanos o el juego de fuerzas en la región amazónica. In El

Downloaded from http://read.dukeupress.edu/ethnohistory/article-pdf/47/3-4/513/409178/47.3-01perez1.pdf by guest on 24 September 2021 Rethinking Venezuelan Anthropology 

universo amazónico y la integración latinoamericana. Pp. –. Cara- cas: Fundación Bicentenario de Simón Bolívar and Impresos Urbina. a Personal communication,  September. b Fragmentación y reconstitución de identidades étnicas en la cuenca del Orinoco, Venezuela. Quinta reunión del grupo de trabajo: Identidades en América Latina. Recife, Brazil, – November. Arvelo-Jiménez, Nelly, and Horacio Biord Castillo  La antropología en Venezuela: Balance y perspectivas. In A antropo- logía na América Latina. George de Cerqueira Leite Zarur, ed. Pp. – . Mexico City: Instituto Panamericano de Geografía e Historia.  The Impact of Conquest on Contemporary Indigenous Peoples of the Guiana Shield. The System of Orinoco Regional Interdependence. In Amazonian Indians from Prehistory to the Present: Anthropological Perspectives. Anna Roosevelt, ed. Pp. –. Tucson: University of Ari- zona Press. Arvelo-Jiménez, Nelly, F. Morales Méndez, and Horacio Biord Castillo  Repensando la historia del Orinoco. Revista de Antropología :–. Balandier, Georges  Sociologie actuelle de l’Afrique noire: Dynamique des changements so- ciaux en Afrique centrale. Paris: PUF. Bonfil Batalla, Guillermo  Historias que no son todavía historia. In Historia ¿para qué? Carlos Pereyra et al., eds. Pp. –. Mexico City: Siglo Veintiuno. Boomert, Arie  Gifts of the Amazons: ‘‘Green Stone’’ Pendants and Beads as Items of Ceremonial Exchange in Amazonia and the Caribbean. Antropológica : –. Cardoso de Oliveira, Roberto  Oindioeomundodosbrancos. São Paulo: Diffuão Europeia do Livro. Carrier, James G.  Occidentalism: The World Turned Upside-Down. American Ethnolo- gist : –. Coronil, Fernando  Introduction: Transculturation and the Politics of Theory: Countering the Center, Cuban Counterpoint. In Cuban Counterpoint: Tobacco and Sugar. By Fernando Ortiz. Pp. ix–lvi. Durham, : Duke University Press.  Beyond Occidentalism: Toward Nonimperial Geohistorical Categories. Cultural Anthropology : –. de Civrieux, Marc  Watunna: Mitología Makiritare. Caracas: Monte Avilla.  Watunna: An Orinoco Creation Cycle. David M. Guss, ed. and trans. San Francisco: North Point. Federmann, Nikolaus  [] Narración del primer viaje de Federmann a Venezuela. Manuel Ar- caya, trans. Caracas: Litografía y Tipografía del Comercio.  [] Historia indiana. Juan Friede, trans. Madrid: Artes Gráficas. Hill, Jonathan D.  Violent Encounters: Ethnogenesis and Ethnocide in Long-Term Contact

Downloaded from http://read.dukeupress.edu/ethnohistory/article-pdf/47/3-4/513/409178/47.3-01perez1.pdf by guest on 24 September 2021  Berta E. Pérez

Situations. In Studies in Culture Contact: Interaction, Culture Change, and Archaeology. James G. Cusick, ed. Pp.–. Carbondale: South- ern Illinois University. Jiménez, Simeón, and Abel Perozo  Esperando a Kuyujani: Tierras, leyes y autodemarcación. Encuentro de comunidades Ye’kuanas del alto Orinoco. Caracas: Asociación Otro Futuro––. Kirch, Patrick V., and Marshall Sahlins  Anahulu: The Anthropology of History in the Kingdom of Hawaii. Vol. , Historical Ethnography. Marshall Sahlins. Vol. , The Archae- ology of History. Patrick V. Kirch. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Knauft, Bruce M.  Genealogies for the Present in Cultural Anthropology. New York: Rout- ledge. Krech, Shepard, III  The State of Ethnohistory. Annual Review of Anthropology : – . Lévi-Strauss, Claude  Structural Anthropology. New York: Basic. Margolies, Luise, and María Matilde Suárez  Historia de la etnología contemporánea en Venezuela. Colección de len- guas indígenas. Serie Menor . Caracas: Universidad Católica Andrés Bello. Meggers, Betty J.  El significado de la difusión como factor de evolución. Revista Chun- gará : –. Morales-Méndez, Filadelfo, and Nelly Arvelo-Jiménez  Hacia un modelo de estructura social Caribe. América indígena : –. Pérez Itriago, Auristela, and María Matilde Suárez  Venezuelan Anthropology at the End of the Millennium. Ibero Ameri- cana, Nordic Journal of Latin American Studies : –. Ribeiro, Darcy  El proceso civilizatorio. Caracas: Universidad Central de Venezuela.  Fronteras indígenas de la civilización. Mexico City: Siglo Veintiuno. Sahlins, Marshall  Islands of History. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Sider, Gerald  When Parrots Learn to Talk, and Why They Can’t: Domination, De- ception, and Self-Deception in Indian-White Relations. Comparative Studies in Society and History : –. Torrealba, Ricardo  Los marcos sociales e institucionales del desarrollo científico en Vene- zuela: El caso de la antropología social. In Ciencia académica en la Venezuela moderna. Historia reciente y perspectivas de las disciplinas científicas. H. M. C. Vessuri, ed. Pp. –. Caracas: Fondo Editorial Acta Científica Venezolana.

Downloaded from http://read.dukeupress.edu/ethnohistory/article-pdf/47/3-4/513/409178/47.3-01perez1.pdf by guest on 24 September 2021 Rethinking Venezuelan Anthropology 

Vargas, Arenas  Introducción al estudio de las ideas antropológicas venezolanas, – . Semestre histórico : –. Whitehead, Neil L.  Tribes Make States and States Make Tribes: Warfare and the Creation of Colonial Tribes and States in Northeastern South America. In War in the Tribal Zone: Expanding States and Indigenous Warfare. Brian R. Ferguson and Neil L. Whitehead, eds. Pp. –. Santa Fe, : School of American Research Press.  Recent Research on the Native History of Amazonia and Guayana. L’Homme : –. Wolf, Eric  Europe and the Peoples without History. Berkeley: University of Cali- fornia Press.

Downloaded from http://read.dukeupress.edu/ethnohistory/article-pdf/47/3-4/513/409178/47.3-01perez1.pdf by guest on 24 September 2021