Body (Aristotle 1328A21)

80 HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY 37(3) 81 Pedro Paulo A. Funari journal, Public Archaeology, spearheaded by the Institute of Archaeology (University College Conflict and the Interpretation London). Conflicts in the past and conflicts in the interpretation of the past are thus a growing of Palmares, a Brazilian concern in the discipline. Runaway Polity Society is always characterized by conflict and grounded in a dialectical epistemology; the experience of past peoples is considered as part of an ABSTRACT ongoing social confrontation among social actors (McGuire and Saitta 1996:198–204). Historical In recent years, historical archaeologists have become increas- archaeology, in particular, deals with societies ingly interested in exploring how to use material culture to study conflict and how the interpretation of their sites is split by class divisions, whereby the producers of affected by modern perception. Grounded in a dialectical surplus labor are distinct from the appropriators. epistemology, the experience of past peoples is considered Exploitation generates a continuous, open conflict part of an ongoing social confrontation between social actors. and inner contradictions in society (Saitta 1992), Archaeologists tend to consider cultures as neatly bounded and the forces of domination and resistance are homogeneous entities. The holistic, monolithic nature of cultures has been put into question by several empirical and ever-present (Frazer 1999:5). The interpretation theoretical studies. In northeastern Brazil, a large maroon of these conflicts is malleable and subjective kingdom called Palmares developed in the 17th century, and (Rao 1994:154). Historical archaeologists can people have often interpreted it in two ways. Some prefer view the past as a set of complex texts, inter- to stress the African character of the polity, while others twined to form a discourse (M. Hall 1994:168). emphasize the diversity within the community. Archaeologi- cal research at Palmares produced evidence of a heterogeneous If conflict and subjectivity are part of both evi- society, an interpretive model that does not follow dominant dence and the interpretation of evidence, a variety epistemological schemes and prejudices. of views are inevitable, and archaeologists cannot avoid taking a position. There are different ways Introduction of knowing the past, and historical archaeologists must address the question of who is entitled to In recent years historical archaeologists have know—who can participate in the process of become increasingly interested in exploring how giving meaning to the past (Mueller 1991:613). to use material culture to study conflicts and In this context, this article deals with academic struggles. They have also become interested and lay interpretations of a 17th-century maroon in how interpretation of the past is affected kingdom in Brazil (Palmares) and explores the by modern perceptions. For instance, in 1999 different approaches to its past. Archaeology volume 3 of the International Journal of can be a powerful tool for uncovering subaltern Historical Archaeology dealt with “Archaeologies histories (Franklin 1997:800) and for empowering of Resistance in Britain and Ireland” and volume people. The struggles over the interpretation of 33 (1) of Historical Archaeology was concerned the runaway settlement provide a good example with “Confronting Class.” A bit earlier, modern of archaeological relevance to society at large. perceptions were the subject in Historical As is usual with archaeological research, this Archaeology 31 (1) in “In the Real of Politics: paper probably poses as many questions as it Prospects for Public Participation in African- answers (Delle 1999:32), but rather than propos- American and Plantation Archaeology” and ing a supposedly correct interpretation, this paper in “Archaeologists as Storytellers” (Historical fosters a pluralist discussion of the subject. Archaeology 32, 1). Both subjects are also at the heart of several chapters of an edited Documents, Archaeology, and Conflicts volume on historical archaeology (Funari et al. 1999), with contributions from all over the Attempting to describe and interpret what world. The same issues are also behind the occurred in past cultures requires the incorpora- initiative of a new scholarly archaeological tion of texts and artifacts (McKay 1976:95; Orser Historical Archaeology, 2003, 37(3):81-92. Permission to reprint required. 82 HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY 37(3) PEDRO PAULO A. FUNARI—Conflict and the Interpretation of Palmares, a Brazilian Runaway Polity 83 1987:131; Ober 1995:111). The documentary and partnership (Aristotle Politica1252a7).). Sharing archaeological data may be thought of as interde- values in a homogeneous culture means accepting pendent, complementary, and contradictory, at the generalizing features and common traits shared same time (Little 1992:4). It is often the case by everybody (Aristotle 1328a21). that many scholars are not aware of the existence Homogeneity is a concept informed by capi- of thousands of unpublished documents, most of talist nationalist movements (Handler 1988) and them in vernacular languages. Many of them are in direct opposition to an internationalist, pro- in Latin, the lingua franca of the modern world letarian Marxist approach, so clearly explained until the very recent past (Lee and Markman in the Communist Manifesto: Proletarier aller 1977:57). To cope with the task of interpret- Länder, vereignt euch! (“Proletarians of all coun- ing conflict within society, a multidisciplinary tries, unite”) (Marx and Engels 1954). Cultures approach is necessary in order to combine textual and nations were seen by bourgeois ideology as analysis with such disciplines as sociology and bounded, unified entities, and history was con- anthropology, among others (Small 1995:15). ceived as the product of the actions and events Traditionally, conflict has been interpreted associated with such homogeneous entities. This by the dominant groups in a society (Moly- bourgeois search for national solidarity was criti- neaux 1994:3). Until 40 years ago, historical cized time and again by Marx and Engels (Marx archaeologists directed their attention almost 1970), a point emphasized by several commenta- exclusively toward the wealthy and the famous, tors in recent studies commemorating the 150th contributing to the maintenance and reinforce- anniversary of the Communist Manifesto (Funari ment of conservative ideologies (Orser 1998b: 1998; Löwy 1998). 662). Gradually, archaeologists began to follow In this context, the concept of archaeological their colleagues in the humanities and the social culture can be understood. Bounded material sciences in turning their attention to subordi- complexes are assumed to be a product of past nate groups (Orser 1998a:65). Examining the ethnic groups because, it is said, people within material evidence of subordinate groups offered such groups shared a set of prescriptive norms the opportunity to have a more comprehensive of behavior that were learned at an early age, access to traditionally underrepresented groups and, therefore, they produced a common cul- (Guimarães 1990; Funari 1993). Even though ture. The very notion of early-age indoctrina- some scholars not well acquainted with mate- tion is inspired by the use of schools for forging rial culture studies openly questioning historical nationalist identities in a bourgeois perspective, archaeology’s ability to contribute to the under- as was most notable in the case of France after standing of the past (Burke 1991), several books the French Revolution. Archaeological entities and papers published in recent years confirmed are interpreted in the same light as organic units that material evidence is particularly important equivalent to bourgeois nations. Contradictions to the understanding of the intricacies of con- and struggle in society are only epistemologically flicts in society (Fitts 1996:69). possible if society is heterogeneous, and the dia- How to interpret conflict in society depends lectic between homogeneity and heterogeneity in directly on how we understand society itself. society can be seen in this light (Hobsbawm Traditionally, archaeologists considered that cul- and Ranger 1983; Hobsbawm 1992; Confino tures are neatly bounded homogeneous entities 1993; Penrose 1995). (Mullins 1999:32). This idea comes from the In this context, generalizing implies homog- well-known (and by now classic) definition cre- enizing, and there is a growing dissatisfaction ated by Childe (1935:198): “Culture is a social with using this normative approach to interpret heritage; it corresponds to a community sharing social life (Skidmore 1993:382). The holistic, common institutions and a common way of life monolithic nature of cultures and societies has [emphasis added].” This definition implies har- been questioned by several empirical and theo- mony and unity within society, a commonality of retical studies in the last decades (Bentley 1987; interest, and thus a lack of conflict (Jones 1997a: Jones 1997a). Homogeneity, order, and bound- 15–26). The roots of this understanding of social edness have been associated with the a priori life lie, on the one hand, with Aristotle and his assumption that stability characterizes societies, definition of society as a koinonia, that is, as a rather than conflict, a clear conservative Weltan- 82 HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY 37(3) PEDRO PAULO A. FUNARI—Conflict and the Interpretation of Palmares, a Brazilian Runaway Polity 83

Load more