C H A P T E R 1 1 Latin American Archaeology in History and Practice Tom D. Dillehay This chapter reviews the varieties of archaeo- American flux. In common with similar developments logical approaches in Latin America, which encom- elsewhere in the world, specific country-based archae- passes the geographical space extending from Mexico ologies in the Americas have begun to recede behind to Tierra del Fuego, including the Caribbean. From the exploration of common problems. Examples are its romanticized beginnings in pyramid and tomb cultural patrimony and heritage laws, collaborative re- excavations in the late nineteenth century in Mexico, search across international borders, such as the study Honduras, Peru, Bolivia, and other countries to its of the first Americans, state development, and plant present concerns with epistemology, interpretation, domestication, historical archaeology, and archaeol- and cultural heritage, Latin American archaeology ogy as part of ecotourism. Thus it is difficult to locate has long been a place of new and exciting discoveries, the exact referents of Latin American archaeology in of important contributions to our understanding of global terms and in broader American terms. Whether the archaeological record, of theoretical debates, and archaeologists are from the North America, Europe, of the relevance of the past for understanding the or Latin America, they bring to archaeological inquiry present. 1 an implicit approach of anthropology and history, or Who are the practitioners of Latin American archae- even a hybrid of approaches derived from the disci- ology and can the collective result of their approaches pline at large. be defined? Beyond geography, Latin American ar- In turning to my primary focus on Latin American chaeology is a conjunction of distinct research issues, archaeology in history and practice, the discussion is theoretically informed practices, regional and national organized by a set of interconnected matters ranging ideas of history, society and culture, and historical from descriptive culture history, cultural specificity, power relations between national and foreign archae- and the changeability of theory and method in archae- ologists and between the archaeological processes and ology to indigenous concerns, politics in archaeology, methods done regionally and nationally all set against interdisciplinary research, and the relationships be- a background of global scientific space. Although for- tween North American (and European) archaeology eigners often wield great influence, they are often and Latin American archaeology. More specific issues influenced by the profession in Latin America. In fact, include the contribution of Latin American archaeol- parts of the profession in North America, Europe, and ogy to the treatment of subsistence economies, the Latin America work off one another through mutual emergence and development of complex societies, the provocation—no part makes sense alone—given the role of exchange in pre-Hispanic social dynamics, the presence of many foreigners working in most Latin initial colonization of continents, Marxist archaeol- American countries and of several Latin Americans ogy, processualism and post-processualism, cultural taking academic degrees in North America and Eu- patrimony, social archaeology, and other topics. rope (Burger 1989; Barreto 1998; Funari 1992; Lego- Running through these topics and the chapter as a upil 1998; Politis 2003; Caycedo 1994). whole are three recurring themes: the valuable con- In short, we cannot really say that there is a true tribution that Latin American archaeology has made “Latin American (or even American) archaeology” to our understanding of past human behavior and to due to the vastness of the area and to the many the way archaeology is conducted in our profession; local traditions and inequalities of access to grants, the inequalities of historical power relations through academic training, and technical expertise. For ar- which inter-American archaeology (i.e., Euro-Ameri- chaeologists to wait around until we all share the can and Latin America) has been developed and per- same approaches would be like Sisyphus waiting for ceived; and how matters are changing today. This Godot, yet we are engaged in a time of exciting inter- chapter, due to space limitations, makes no claim to 165 being comprehensive. Further, as a selection of topics, nationalistic archaeology, typical of most non-West- this discussion crystallizes from my own configuration ern countries (Trigger 1984; Burger 1989). Although of discussions with colleagues and of living and re- Trigger’s dichotomy is extreme and fails to include search experiences in several Latin American countries countries falling somewhere between these brands, it over the past thirty years, and reflects my temporal, is useful as a starting point. Most archaeology prac- social, and academic formation in ways—culturally, ticed by Latin Americans generally falls into his latter scientifically, intellectually, politically—that the chap- category, which I would characterize as being more ter should make clear. national or regional in focus than nationalistic. In Due to space limitations, most of my comments fact, there are so many binational and multinational are generally indifferent to country identities, with projects operating throughout Latin America that it is the exception of Mexico, Peru, Argentina, and Brazil, inaccurate to speak of nationalism in archaeology or a where events are often paramount due to their size, the national archaeology in most countries. Yet to under- large number of national and foreign archaeologists stand Latin American archaeology, the historical role working there, and the kind of political archaeology of the United States and Europe must be considered practiced. The archaeology practiced in Mexico and briefly in terms of theoretical and methodological ap- Peru, for instance, is often based on deep archaeo- proaches to understanding the past (and the present) logical genealogies and on even deeper and, at times, and to training students and conducting research. conflicting, regional archaeological traditions (Litvak At issue here are similarities and differences in King 1997; Lorenzo 1976; Burger 1989; Schaedel and theory and interpretation in the Americas and in the Shimada 1982; Orellana Rodríquez 1996; Lumbreras historical power relations between Latin America, Eu- and Cisneros 1986). Brazil, however, differs in many rope, and North America and their role in construct- ways from the Hispanic countries; its identity and his- ing an archaeological identity. The level of awareness tory are more closely tied to Portugal and to a differ- of the basic characteristics of archaeological research ent colonial history that sets it apart from other Latin in terms of methodological and interpretative prac- American countries (Funari 1995). In these countries, tices has developed at varying speeds in different tra- each generation of archaeologists has constructed its ditions and countries in Latin America. There also own interpretation of the historical past and of the are biases or myths among some North American intellectual and political history of archaeology. The archaeologists, including one that most Latin Ameri- same can obviously be said about other countries that can archaeologists, particularly in Mexico and Peru, also offer learning experiences, but whether discuss- interpret the past according to Marxism (for more ing Mexico, Peru, Brazil, Argentina, and Colombia, on Marxist theory in Latin American archaeology, Venezuela, Guatemala, or smaller countries, a com- see McGuire, chapter 6). This is a narrow conception, mon ground in all regions of Latin American is that as Latin Americans have employed a wide variety of interpretations of the past are traditionally linked to other approaches, including culture history, ecological social concerns of the nation-state and to the use of archaeology, symbolic archaeology, prehistory (mean- archaeology to construct national identity (Cabrera ing a nonanthropological archaeology), and their own and Curbelo 1992; Funari 2000; Vargas and Sanoja brand of social archaeology (Patterson 1994; Fonseca 1998; Podgorny 2000; Pérez 1981; Politis and Alberti 1988; Sanoja 1988; Vargas 1988; Politis 1995; Bonavia 1999; Politis 2002). Last, I obviously cannot cite all im- 1996; McGuire and Navarrete 1999). That is, a healthy portant publications related to specific issues. Instead, pluralism of ideas and approaches coexist. If there are I have attempted to provide a representative sample different theoretical approaches in Latin America, they of publications covering different research themes, would be Marxist social archaeology practiced by a se- authors, and epochs in several countries. lect few in specific countries (Vargas and Sanoja 1999), aspects of new or processual archaeology, which has a COMMONALTIES AND DIVERGENCES: LATIN strong lingering effect in many countries (as it does in AMERICA AND NON-LATIN AMERICA the United States), and humanistic brands of archae- A few years ago, Bruce Trigger envisioned three broad ology (i.e., post-processualism, post-post-processual- categories of archaeological approaches in the world. ism, interpretative, praxis, historical, dialectical, and One is the imperialist approach, generally practiced by cultural critique (sensu Hodder 1987; 1999; Shanks the United States, Western European countries (e.g., and Hodder 1995; see Gardner, chapter 7; Shanks,