C H A P T E R 1 1 Latin American in History and Practice Tom D. Dillehay

This chapter reviews the varieties of archaeo- American flux. In common with similar developments logical approaches in , which encom- elsewhere in the world, specific country-based archae- passes the geographical space extending from ologies in the have begun to recede behind to Tierra del Fuego, including the . 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, , 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 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 . 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, , 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, Britain, France), and, in recent years, Japan. Another is chapter 9; Jones, chapter 19). Although recent political

166 tom d. dillehay changes in several countries have aided a greater inter- ers claim that this line of inquiry has contributed little est in postmodern and relativistic paradigms, there in the way of new methodological approaches and un- seemingly always has been a discomfort with popular derstandings of the past and is followed by few prac- global paradigms—even Marxism—and an empha- titioners (Gnecco 1999; Lanata y Borrero 1999; Politis sis on regional histories, adaptations, and knowledge 2003). Nevertheless, social archaeology has focused systems. more attention on social processes of a regional his- Over the past few decades, one of the most impor- torical character and how history, as a dialectical pro- tant “borrowings” from Marxism in Latin America cess, informs the present and at times is manipulated has been that conflict within past societies has largely by the present in local Latin American contexts. That been concerned with the ability of different social is, social archaeology attempts to relate archaeology groups or classes to control the production and allo- to current social happenings relative to each country cation of goods and services and that this was a major and to Latin America in general. In this regard, social internal stimulus to change (Choy 1960; Lumbreras archaeology purports to serve the nation-state and 1974; Gándara and Rodríquez et al. 1985; Montané its public, as well as the profession itself (Bate 1984; 1980; Vargas 1990; Trigger 1992). This dialectical view Funari 1998; Vargas and Sanoja 1999). (see McGuire, chapter 6), which in some ways is the Whether it be Marxist social archaeology, New antithesis of the ecological determinism of the New Archaeology, or post-processual archaeology, many Archaeology (see Watson, chapter 3), placed people Latin Americans still work through local data to ap- at the center of social change in a different form from ply them to Euro-American ways of seeing things non-Marxist efforts and lessened the rigidity of eco- rather than attempting to transform them into a new logical determinism by broadening the range of ex- interpretative theoretical realm, whether non-Latin or ternal factors that influenced human behavior. More Latin American, that best fits the social and histori- recently, this view has examined broader social issues, cal circumstances in their own countries or in Latin including systems of dominance and subordination, America in general. These attempts have been success- resistance strategies to oppression, daily customs and ful in varying degrees; they have become interesting practices as expressions of social order, modes of life episodes in one reflection on the total Latin American (Vargas and Sanoja 1999; Bate 1998), and the role of milieu. ideology and history (Millones 1986). Perhaps because Latin Americans practice a wide Yet much of this interest still grows out of an Anglo- variety of approaches, the discipline is generally free American and Eurocentric (sensu Childe 1951) model of authoritative paradigms or any single hegemonic of Marxism, whether it be structural Marxism that hold of a dominate theory or method. Of course, this first developed in France and England, political econ- does not mean that debates do not take place or that omy that developed in the United States and England, certain individual Latin American authorities don’t or cultural Marxism that developed in literary and advocate a particular ism. During the 1960s and 1980s, historical studies (Trigger 1992). However, the value for instance, there was much debate among American of the Marxist model is that several Latin American (and British) archaeologists about the causal relation- scholars have enriched the idea on their own terms ships of culture change and about the meaning of the by adding Mexican, Peruvian, Venezuelan, and other archaeological record (Dillehay 1989). These debates experiences and loosely calling it social archaeology have been less frequent among Latin Americans, but (Lumbreras 1981; Fonseca 1988; Vargas 1968). The they often have been played out on Latin American purpose of social archaeology is basically to bring a turf. In referring to Mexico, for instance, José Lorenzo more humanistic and social science perspective to the (1976, 1981) once remarked that “Mexico has been study and pedagogy of history within a Latin Ameri- turned into an academic battleground on which vari- can context (Vargas and Sanoja 1999). Although some ous US archaeologists, and archaeological trends fight may believe that social archaeology is a widely accepted it out with more noise than justification.” This does practice, it actually is employed by only a handful of not imply that intellectual or political conflicts don’t Latin American archaeologists in a few countries. As exist in Mexico or Latin America. Conflicts emerg- one critic noted, “The practicing social archaeologists ing between scientism and humanism, for instance, . . . have not created a single school of thought, with are played out between individual scholars and occa- the exception of Venezuela [where Sanoja, Vargas and sionally between academic programs and institutions, others practice]” (Caycedo et al. 1994:371–372). Oth- but not so much between institutions. The point is

Latin American Archaeology in History and Practice 167 that the advocacy of authority historically imposed by reasons relate to the historical relation of political and Euro-American models and theoretical isms no longer economic dominance between Euro-American and holds complete conviction in Latin American archae- Latin American countries, to most theoretical discus- ology the way it did in the first half of the twentieth sions being in English, and to most academic degrees century. in archaeology in Latin America attained at the bache- Rather than formulate and test hypotheses about lor and master levels that are focused more on method a particular ism and formal research question, many and data collection than theory building. More inter- Latin Americans traditionally have employed em- pretative reports exist in Spanish and Portuguese than pirical evidence and inductive reasoning to interpret in English and other languages, but because they are in archaeological phenomena. Often what passes for the- a foreign language, they are not read by the majority of oretical consideration in Latin America is some form non-Latin Americans (López M. 1999; Barreto 1998). of inductive interpretation that fits the available data, Moreover, many reports in English are never known which often dominate research reports. My experience in Latin America. There also may be complex histori- has often been that because Latin Americans gener- cal reasons for the reluctance of some Latin American ally take a more empiricist approach to archaeology, archaeologists to engage in theory, which probably they identify more concrete patterns in the record stems in part from healthy reactions against the posi- and often assess more openly the validity and ap- tivistic logic of the 1970s and 1980s in much of North plication of interpretative models in ways that many American discourse on new archaeology and other non-Latin Americans don’t always do. (In fact, many foreign approaches. Furthermore, many countries are Latin Americans often think too much interpretation still attempting to define regional cultural periods and in North American reports is derived from too little simply don’t have the critical mass of archaeologists data.) Simply put, many Latin Americans consider to specialize in all theoretical and methodological ap- the production of raw archaeological data as a general proaches. development itself which eventually will lead to in- There also are some social reasons related to the na- terpretative models (Politis 2003; Orellana Rodríquez ture of the society at large and to the role of academia. 1996; Funari 1991; Cabrera 1988: Fernández 1982). Latin American society still is largely patriarchal; pa- And efforts to explore new interpretative venues are tronage is the norm in many countries, and meritoc- frequently considered to be premature in the absence racy often is a foreign concept. During the decades of of more data. dictatorships in many countries (until the mid-1980s), As a result, Latin Americans generally give less ex- national governments encouraged conservative insti- plicit attention to theoretical issues than North Ameri- tutions of higher education that were based more on cans and some Europeans do. Latin Americans have patronage than on meritocracy. Academia was largely been interested in interpretative frameworks since the viewed as an elite preserve, making it difficult in many early 1900s, but their primary concern has largely countries for most archaeologists to access public or been the definition of chronological and artifactual private research funding on a consistent basis. It has relationships and the reconstruction of past lifestyles. only been in recent times that meritocracy has begun Recent years have witnessed the pursuit of these ob- to play a more important role in research and educa- jectives with more interdisciplinary methodological tion (Funari, personal communication, 2000). sophistication, but theoretically, the interpretative But the failures and shortcomings of Euro-Ameri- models of pre-Hispanic society that have been pro- can traditions are not always sufficient reasons for duced by new approaches are often similar to those of Latin Americans to be reluctant to theorize about their a few decades ago, and often employ cultural diffusion own endeavors or even to make use of contemporary and migration as causal factors in change (Willey and theoretical innovations when this seems either useful Sabloff 1986). Interpretative models generally remain or appropriate. Although there have been exceptions secondary to the reconstruction of chronology and (Alvarez and Fiore 1993; Funari 1998; González 1998; lifeways and to filling gaps in the regional archaeologi- Lumbreras 1989), theory as a subject of consistent cal records of Latin America. and more widespread inquiry has only in the past two There probably are several reasons to explain this decades begun to seriously form in Mexican, Peru- pattern. Much research in Latin America still remains vian, Argentine, Venezuelan, Colombian, and Chilean peripheral to the theoretical and academic centers archaeology, which have long periodically reflected of discussion in North America and Europe. Other on their theoretical underpinnings (Núñez and Mena

168 tom d. dillehay 1994; Barreto 1998; Gándara et al. 1985; Alvaréz and of its roots in Latin America.. But working in Latin Fiore 1993; Bate 1998). Several publications have America also has led many foreign archaeologists, in- made data particular to regional traditions, yet related cluding me, to critically question many anthropologi- to and compatible with contemporary North Ameri- cal concepts and traditional models of interpretation can and European theory and modeling generally, yet in archaeology. For instance, it does not take much still Latin American (Lanata and Borrero 1999; Ardila experience to realize that our definitions of tribal and and Politis 1992; Yacobbacio 1994; Perota and Botelho chiefdom societies simply don’t explain the wide range 1992; Langebaek 1995). In recent years younger South of variability existing in historic and present-day in- American scholars have organized a biennial meeting digenous groups of the eastern tropical lowlands of on Reuniones Internacionales de Teoria Arqueologica , much less the archaeological record. en America del Sur. All of this means that many Latin Before leaving this specific topic, I should mention American archaeologists no longer see the only goals that some foreigners still view Latin America (and of archaeology being the study of chronology and the other areas of the world) simply as a place to extract relationships among recurring artifact assemblages. data; they barely speak Spanish or Portuguese, rarely This change has taken place largely as a result of the publish in these languages, and remain uninfluenced growth and development of excellent academic pro- by their experience in another country. grams in several Latin American countries, especially No country does reflexive archaeology better than Mexico, Costa Rica, Colombia, Peru, Brazil, , and Mexico (Litvak King 1997; Newell 1999).b Since the Argentina, and of a new younger generation of Latin Mexican revolution in 1910, Mexico has invested sig- American scholars who have taken advanced degrees nificant fiscal resources into promoting a greater un- in the United States and Europe. In short, we cannot derstanding of its indigenous past for the purpose say that there are few contemporary Latin American of building a national identity. As part of this effort, theorists. It is rather that many have yet to assert their archaeology has taken a historicist approach (Gamio presence within a larger public sphere, articulating a 1922; Lorenzo 1981; Gándara 1997; Trigger 1992) to new set of research and theoretical problems that can incorporate prehistory as an important element of the guide the development of a new hemisphere and even Mexican heritage. In Mexico, most federal and state global agenda able to include not just Latin Americans, funding of archaeological projects are directed toward but also the broader group of North Americans, Euro- interpretation and reconstruction of sites with tourist peans, and others (Politis 2003; Pagan-Jimenez 2004). potential and toward rescate (or salvage) projects as- We also should ask how work in Latin America has sociated with construction, mineral exploration, and changed non-Latin American archaeology? Working most recently documenting sites in the wake of ejido in Latin America has made some foreign archaeologists privitization, all of which reinforces empiricist and reflect on their own personal identity and approach culture-historical approaches. The Mexican govern- to the discipline and to comprehend the intellectual, ment also has encouraged the development of na- epistemological, and sociopolitical contexts in which tional and regional museums and the restoration of archaeology is carried out. For instance, the mere pres- major archaeological sites for educating Mexicans and ence of larger indigenous populations in Mesoamer- tourists. Within this framework Marxism, positivism, ica, the , and Amazonia encourages greater use and more recently post-processualism have been em- of the direct historical approach. Some foreigners also ployed more to carry out research projects. To a lesser have learned from their Latin American colleagues’ ef- extent, other countries such as Guatemala, Honduras, forts to make archaeology fit human needs today. For Costa Rica, Chile, and Bolivia have done the same but instance, although recent years in the United States with less obvious impact on the public at large and the have witnessed an increased interest in the use of discipline. the archaeological past as a symbolic resource for Although it may seem up to now that this chap- legitimizing authority and for establishing national ter is most concerned with archaeology understood identities (primarily among Native Americans), this and practiced either by non-Latin Americans or Latin practice has been equally (if not more) deeply rooted Americans working in Latin America, it is neither. The in Latin American countries, with archaeology being attempt simply has been to distinguish some tradi- increasingly characterized by rationalization of its ap- tions and histories that have produced the foci of study plication to present-day society. In this regard, politi- discussed here. Furthermore, my observations here are cally reflective archaeology in the Americas has many not meant to be pessimistic nor intended to single out

Latin American Archaeology in History and Practice 169 Latin Americans, because there are many non-Latin ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONTRIBUTIONS FROM LATIN American archaeologists who are not theoretically in- AMERICA clined and do not practice anthropological archaeol- This section reviews only the highlights of what has ogy. For instance, many U.S. archaeologists involved in been accomplished by archaeologists (both national local archaeology or in cultural resource management and foreign) during the past few decades in Latin do straightforward descriptive archaeology that is of- American archaeology. ten strictly concerned with the reconstruction of local During the past half century, systematic fieldwork chronologies and past lifeways rather than with the has been carried out in nearly all areas of Latin Amer- explanation of social meaning, history, and process. In ica. Current approaches in theory and method in this sense, perhaps Dick Drennan (personal commu- many countries still stress the culture-historical ap- nication, 2001) is correct in noting that much theory proach, the incomplete acceptance of new techniques is practiced by archaeologists who work long distances in field work and in specialized data analyses (e.g., away from their homes, because they must develop paleobotany, statistics), and often limited knowledge theoretical interests of a broad significance to the of the cutting-edge trends in international archaeol- discipline as a whole in order to obtain funding and ogy (Barreto 1998; Litvak King 1997; López M. 1992). to justify excess research expenditures. This perhaps Much of this is due to limited resources, to the training would partly explain why many North Americans and of national archaeologists, and to the traditional role Europeans are involved more in theory and why many of archaeology in countries. During the first half of the local archaeologists, whether they be in Mexico, Belize, past century, there was little interest in understand- Colombia, Chile, France, or the United States, practice ing prehistory in terms of intensified production and more descriptive regional archaeology. trade and the formation of larger and more complex In summary, Latin American archaeology is not communities. Instead, past research largely concen- a unified field. Theoretical traditions are distinct, trated on data gathering, mortuary practice, artifact and there is marked divergence in the geographical typology, and chronology or what has been labeled and social contexts in which archaeology is prac- the classificatory-historical period (sensu Willey and ticed. Thus it is tempting to define simplistically the Sabloff 1986). Although this period began around dividing lines and frontiers of the discipline in the 1915 in the United States, it did not begin in some Americas: North America, Latin America, and Eu- Latin American countries until the 1930s and 1940s. rope or even internal divisions such as , The work and investment of many professionals, since lower , the Andes, Amazonia, and the 1940s and 1950s, has drawn archaeology into the the Southern Cone dominated by culture-histori- mainstream discourse on scientific archaeology, hu- cal and processual archetypes; a Mexican and Peru- manistic archaeology, and history and national iden- vian type where theory, interpretation, and political tity in many countries. This situation shows, since the archaeology occasionally are in the foreground; or 1980s, other positive changes in most countries, with the Guineas, parts of the Caribbean, and Paraguay more funding and training and with a greater concern where little archaeology has been done. No doubt for broader social and economic issues within a frame- such divisions also describe wider, and obvious, is- work of anthropological and social questions. sues of international politics, of which archaeology From a brief historical perspective, during the 1930s, forms a part (though not always important), history, Kidder’s (1947) archaeological and ethnographic re- and participation of foreigners in archaeology. But I search in Mexico and in the Andes played a crucial role also prefer to see disciplinary unity as history and as in the development of the culture-historical approach. practice of relations of archaeologists (which in some His research laid a foundation for methodological cases antedate the interlaced political frameworks in improvement and inductive approaches in archaeol- some countries), exchange schemes of students and ogy. He emphasized detailed data recording, site stra- researchers, and unified policies on cultural heritage tigraphy, and methodological refinement which had a that are structures forming a community of interests major impact on world archaeology. and relations in the Americas and beyond. What all Important interpretative work has been done in of us have in common is the art of interpretation, recent years, but generally in the form of broad syn- even where we do not have in common the same re- theses of data accumulating through excavation (Ar- search problems, data, methods, resources, histories, millas 1956; Bennett 1948; Brochado 1984; Cruxent and national identities. and Rouse 1958; Dillehay et al. 1992; Schmitz 1987;

170 tom d. dillehay Bonavia 1996; Demarest and Foias 1993; Kidder 1947; On a hemisphere-long scale, the level of archaeo- Lanning 1963; Meggers and Evans 1963; Niederberger logical coverage in Latin America is much less com- 1999; Lavallée 2000; Ochoa 1999; Prous 1992; Quilter plete than North America and Europe. There are vast 1991; Smith 1993; Tarragó 1999; Willey 1971; Wilson unexplored areas with no survey and known sites, 1997). Others have produced important thematic syn- especially in parts of the Amazon basin, the South- theses on regional archaeologies from a techno-envi- ern Cone of South America, and portions of Central ronmental perspective (Kolata 1996; Plazas et al. 1993; America. Since Gordon Willey’s (1953) seminal survey Sanders and Price 1968; Orquera 1986; Borrero 1999), in the Viru valley in the 1940s, settlement pattern which are concerned with general processes of adapta- studies have been undertaken by many archaeolo- tion and change. Still others have moved beyond this gists, with outstanding syntheses of regional surveys focus to address various issues of technology, resource produced in various parts of Latin America, espe- exchange, social organization, and ideology in their cially Mesoamerica and the Andes (Sanders et al. 1979; regional synthesis of prehistory. Major contributions Parsons 1971, 2000; Hurtado de Mendoza and Arias made by archaeologists also have focused on themes 1982–1983; Feinman 1985; Ferreo 1975; Rice 1976; of global interest, including: Hyslop 1990; Lange and Norr 1982–1983; Stark and Arnold 1997; Wilson 1988; Zucchi 1973). It is difficult v T he role of craft specialization in the emergence of to generalize the impact of these settlement pattern social complexity (Evans 1978; Brumfiel and Earle studies on the discipline as a whole for there are many 1987; Costin 1991) important regional and problem-specific differences v Household archaeology (Manzanilla and Barba in the archaeology of Latin America. Yet the extensive 1990; Wilk and Ashmore 1987) and interdisciplinary settlement surveys which char- v Exchange systems (Earle and Ericson 1977; D’Altroy acterized the early work of MacNeish (1972), Parsons and Earle 1985; Hirth 1984) (1971), Sanders, Parsons and Stantley (1979) in the v Agricultural origins and early village development central highlands of Mexico, Isbell (1988), Williams (Bird 1963; MacNeish 1972; Flannery 1972, 1976; (1978–1980), and Wilson (1988) in Peru, and others Marcos 1988) in South America (Ardila 1996; Llanos and Duran v Animal domestication (Wing 1978; Wheeler 1984; 1983; Evans and Meggers 1960) are little known in Bonavia 1996; Yacobaccio et al. 1998) some countries. Settlement research eventually incor- v Chiefdoms (Spencer and Redmond 1998; Burger porated more ecological concerns, which led others, 1992; Coe 1965; Cooke 1984; Drennan 1991; Grove such as Sanders and Price (1968), to examine site 1987) density and size in demographic archaeology and to v Urbanism and state development (Sanders and postulate that population growth was a primary factor Price 1968; Cowgill 1992; Blanton 1978; Gándara in the rise of complex society and especially its influ- 1997; Murra 1975; Schaedel 1978; Santisteban 1997; ence on social competition and cooperation. Lumbreras 1974; Manzanilla 1999) Though settlement studies have long been under v Warfare (Friedel 1986; Webster 1977; Haas 1982) way in Latin American countries, there also has been v Power, identity, and ideology (Helms 1979; DeMar- a strong focus on single sites rather than regions. Sur- rais et al. 1996; Moore 1996; Joyce and Winter 1996); vey has been made more intensive by a total coverage symbolism and ritual (Alconini 1995; Carrasco of a single large site or site cluster biased toward the 1990; Lathrap 1974; González 1975; Kubler 1962; urban element because these sites are massive and Schele and Freidel 1990; Brown 2001) well preserved (Benavides 1997; Matos 1994; Millon v The archaeology of art, style, and myth (Baudéz 1973; Moseley and Mackey 1974; Fash 1988; Izum and 1994; Caso 1960; Benson 1974; Donnan 1978; Rowe Terada 1972; Kolata 1996; Hammond 1985; Silver- 1962) man 1989; Uceda et al. 1997; Villalba 1988). At Teoti- v Archaeoastronomy (Aveni 1982); biological an- huacan, for example, Millon’s (1973) major mapping thropology (Guillen 1992; Rothhammer et al. 1997; project initiated in the 1960s has added greatly to our Winter et al. 1996; Verano 1995; Sempowski and knowledge of the area around this great city and to Spence 1994). the methodology of studying large urban complexes v Ethnoarchaeology (DeBoer and Lathrap 1979; elsewhere (Hirth 1984; Shimada 1994; Isbell 1972; Hayden and Cannon 1984; Politis 1996; Wust and Cowgill 1992, 2003;Garcia 1987; Manzanilla 1997; Barreto 1999) Morris and Thompson 1983; Moseley and Mackey

Latin American Archaeology in History and Practice 171 1974; Porras 1987). Other important urban studies greatest Andean empires, the Huari, Tiwanaku, and have centered on other central highland sites in Mex- Inka (Wheeler 1984; Browman 1974; Núñez and Dille- ico, Mayan localities, and Formative, Moche, Huari, hay 1979; Lavallée 2000). Tiwanaku, Chimu, and Inca settlements in the Andes Another classic ecological study is the case of the (Lorandi 1988; Netherly 1984; Raffino and Stehberg Maya collapse, which not only provided productive 1999; Shady and Leyva 2003), and in other areas of debates about the fragile coexistence between people Latin America. and environments but exhibited several classic pat- The work of these and many more archaeologists terns of Kuhnian (Kuhn 1970) scientific discourse has had a major impact on the interpretation of set- (Kelly and Hanen 1988:317–326). In recent years more tlement and community patterns far beyond Latin attention has been paid to catastrophic environmental America, for many ideas have been adopted as para- change that led to major culture changes (Sheets 1984; digms of study in much of the world. Not only are Kolata 1996). Borrero’s (1999) work on the settlement many sites well mapped and many areas well surveyed, ecology of early hunters and gatherers in the southern but also the chronological framework is sufficiently grasslands of South America represents an important fine-grained to allow measurement of fluctuations example of a recent attempt to go beyond the simple in population size over periods as short as a century reconstruction of regional habitats to explore the long- or two, especially in later periods and in the central term interaction between human societies and their highlands of Mexico. When the entire picture is con- changing physical environment. Some of the most sidered, many regions of Latin America may be some celebrated recent studies about long-term human and of the best places to ask demographic questions that environmental interaction concern the Amazon basin rely on the distribution and density of a wide variety and surrounding tropical lowlands of eastern South of urban and rural sites. America, where scholars from various disciplines have Furthermore, the rich diversity of environmental debated the role of humans in habitat degradation and zones in many parts of Latin America has been studied of climatic change in structuring human society (Meg- from a marked ecological orientation. One of the most gers 1972; Lathrap 1971; Piperno et al. 1991; Navarrete significant contributions to ecological anthropology Pajol 1983). Another important aspect of this region is coming out of Latin American studies has been on the discovery of massive earthworks (i.e., causeways, the development and spread of . In 1968, residential mounds, raised agriculture fields) in highly Kent Flannery (1972) applied the systems approach to productive wetlands of Brazil (Roosevelt 1980; Neves the origins of food production in early Mesoamerica. 1999), Bolivia (Denevan et al. 1987; Erickson and c Flannery and his colleagues rejuvenated the con- Candler 1989), which signal the widespread develop- cepts of scheduling, seasonality, and positive feed- ment of large, complex agricultural societies several back to explain food procurement systems and the centuries before the arrival of Europeans. spread of plant domestication in the southern Mexi- If demographic and environmental variables have can highlands. Equally important research on plant been a traditional focus of research in Latin American domestication has been carried out in other regions of during the past few decades, exchange and the forma- South America, particularly the Andes where several tion of surplus economies have occupied an equal cultigens are known by the seventh millennium b.c. share of the archaeologists’ attention. A topic that (Bonavia 1982; MacNeish and Eubanks 2000; Man- has received a large amount of attention, especially in delsdorf and MacNeish 1964; Pearsall 1992; Kaplan et Mesoamerica and the Andes, is exchange systems for al. 1973). the development of organizational complexity. Often The earliest Andean people also undertook the reconstructions of pre-Hispanic systems have empha- breeding and keeping of livestock. Evidence from ex- sized elite exchange networks and the movement of cavations performed in the Pampa de Junin in Peru exotic goods over long distances (Blanton et al. 1996; (Bonavia 1996; Lavallée 1978) suggests that by about D’Altroy and Earle 1985; Hirth 1984). In the area of 4500 b.c., there was an increasingly strong link be- methodology, sourcing studies have long been used tween humans and camelids. Two thousand years later in Mexican and Peruvian archaeology to define direc- this relation evidently resulted in the domestication of tions and distances of exchange in chiefdom and state the llama and the alpaca. Three to four thousand years societies (Burger et al. 2000). later camelid breeding and especially llama caravans Major cultural developments in the early history played important roles in the rise and spread of the of the Americas was that of the hunters and gatherers

172 tom d. dillehay adapted to the wide variety of rich landscapes charac- logical and ritual innovations in the Americas and terizing the New World. The situation in Latin Amer- their role in core and periphery relations, the emer- ica is somewhat different than that in North America. gence and development of pastoral nomadism (in the Archaeologists have found evidence of the presence Central Andes), and explanations for major socio- of many different regional cultural groups that flour- cultural fluctuations in urban developments. Several ished almost simultaneously. Since the 1930s, when regions of Latin America always have played crucial Bird carried out his pioneering research in southern roles as urban centers, with special attention given to Patagonia, early South American sites have provided the development of metallurgy, which shaped regional crucial evidence documenting entry dates, migration structures and interregional dynamics over several routes, and cultural patterns of the first Americans. millennia. The most sophisticated metallurgical tech- Although a few early sites are known in Mexico and nologies in the New World were developed in parts Central America, it’s primarily the South American of the Andes and in lower Central America. Although sites that have seriously questioned the primacy of the their craft was based on copper and the soft precious Clovis-first model in the New World and developed metals (gold and silver), Andean metalsmiths also several new methods and interpretative scenarios worked with a variety of alloys, including bronze, and about the initial peopling of continents (Bird 1938; sophisticated surface plating techniques (Lechtman Bryan 1991; Cardich 1977; Chauchat et al. 1998; Cor- 1979; González 1992). Along with elaborate textiles, real 1981; Dillehay 2000; Lynch 1983; Neves et al. 2001; sculptured figurines, and other decorative objects, Politis 1991; Kipnis 1998; Rick 1980; Schmitz 1987; stylized metals played an important symbolic role in Nami 1987). defining and reinforcing power relations (Langebaek Although the processes leading to the development 1999; Quilter and Hoopes 2003). of civilization have been an anchor of research for the In the past two decades, a new sense of theoretical past several decades in Latin American archaeology, direction has emerged in Latin American archaeology. until recently most of this work has been conducted This is social archaeology (apart from Marxist social within the context of state-level polities, particularly archaeology) which not only examines more closely in Mexico and Peru. More recently, however, archae- social organization and ideology but also themes of ologists working in Central America, several Andean social concern to modern society, such as race, gender, countries, the Caribbean, and the eastern tropical low- ethnicity, agency, identity, and so forth (Bate 1998; lands of South America have given more emphasis to Gaspar 1996; Curet 1996; see Jones, chapter 19). In- emergent complexity of agricultural chiefdoms and terests in these issues have existed for a long time, smaller-scale societies (López and Bracco 1976; Perez but what is different are questions about social struc- 2000; Cooke 1984). Yet, whether examining large-scale ture, political economy and ideology, and especially or small-scale societies, more attention is being paid to about agency in hierarchical societies (Feinman 2000; the political antecedents of civilizations. More concern Blanton et al. 1996; Drennan 1996; Pérez 2000; see also has been directed toward identifying the kinds of Gardner, chapter 7). Much of this change has resulted historical and developmental processes that resulted from new techniques and data and recognition of the in a particular constellation of organizational fea- archaeological correlates of social organization, such tures and transformations, including themes centered as a symbolic resource for studying the legitimizing of on dominance and subordinance, resistance, power authority and power relations (Earle 1991; González sources and relations, scales of systems, information 1998). On the crucial role of ideology in state devel- flow, productive forces, models of political action (e.g., opment, Conrad and Demarest (1984) argued that corporate versus network polities sensu Blanton et al. several interrelated changes in traditional religious 1996), agency within historical and cultural contexts, ideology were instrumental to the success of the Aztec and the role of archaeology in defining and defend- and Inca societies. Movement also is afoot to incor- ing regional cultural heritage (Joyce and Winter 1996; porate more of the new phenomenology of monu- López M. 1992). ments and landscapes that potentially allows more Several major analytical overviews of the most large-scale trends to be understood at the human scale. intriguing complex societies of pre-Hispanic Amer- Increasingly there also are calls for more historical ar- ica—Valdivia, Olmec, San Agustin, Chavin, Aguada, chaeology in Latin America (Kern 1991; Barcena et al. Zapotec, Maya, Aztec, Chibcha, Moche, Huari, Tiwa- 1990; Funari 2000; Deagan 1995; Higman 1999; Ortiz naku, Chimu, Inka—have recognized many techno- Troncoso 1995; Andrade 1999; Senatore 1995), and

Latin American Archaeology in History and Practice 173 what it reveals about local histories of and 1998). The joint work of Mexican, Guatemalan, and postcolonialism (Salomon 2002; Deagan and Cruxent Belizan archaeologists on Mayan prehistory, Chilean 2002; Pagan-Jimenez 2004). and Argentine archaeologists on the study of Late One of the most significant advances in Mesoamer- Pleistocene populations in southern Patagonia, and an ican archaeology has come from the reading of the increasingly fluent communication between Inca spe- inscribed symbols (glyphs) on the stela at the largest cialists on both sides of the Andes, provide excellent ceremonial centers (Kelley 1976; Caso 1967; Coe 1965; illustrations of efforts to establish a close collaboration Houston and Stuart 1989; Miller 1986; Marcus 1972). with archaeologists in neighboring countries. Included Not only do the inscriptions inform us of calendrical here are recent international meetings concerned with knowledge and of religious matters, but also of real theory building in Latin American archaeology which historical events, mainly the deeds of Maya kings and were held recently in Vitoria, Brazil, and in Olavarría, of the likely territories belonging to individual centers. Argentina. Latin American archaeologists also are at- The calendrical records of Mesoamerican civilizations tending more national and international conferences also have greatly aided in constructing basic chronol- as well, with the emergence of professionals contrib- ogy of past events. In Mexico, the Maya long count uting to the academic, scientific, and administrative and the recurring cycle of fifty-two years have allowed aspects of archaeology. Today in nearly all Latin Amer- archaeologists to reconstruct short-term calendrical ican countries many projects are being conducted chronologies for several areas. As a result, Mayan his- by a young generation of professional archaeologists, tory has taken on new dimensions. In this respect, thanks to the support of government and private much of Mesoamerican archaeology, with its advances grants. As the discipline has been professionalized in in understanding the meaning of hieroglyphs, has smaller countries, greater institutional obligation or balanced the interrelationships that characterize the commitment also has occurred. employment of standard archaeological data and sym- As for foreign participation, many more are work- bolic or written data to study past complex societies. ing in more Latin American countries, usually in Presented in this section have been examples of collaboration with host institutions, thus fostering contributions by archaeologists doing traditional cul- mutual respect and avoiding the kind of scientific tural historical, processual, post-processual, agency, imperialism that has occurred before. Still, in some practice, and other archaeologies. But let us not lose countries, foreign investigators come, conduct their sight of others focused on reflexive and participative investigations and excavations, obtain data, and leave perspectives, attempting to break down established the country without filing reports or other products patterns of thought and domination, so that archaeol- of their investigations (Ponciano 1994). Over the past ogy can play a more socially informed role in bringing several years, attempts have been made to establish the past to bear on the present and the future in Latin procedures and norms for the fulfillment of mutual America. As yet, however, this focus has had little im- research goals and the situation is improving. pact on the way in which most archaeologists practice Latin American countries also maintain varying the discipline. Perhaps more so than any other aspect degrees of interest in interdisciplinary research (López of the profession, museums (Podgorny 1995; Schmil- M. 1998, 1999; Bonavia 1996). Most countries have chuk 1995) and educational outreach programs have few trained specialists in faunal, floral, archaeometric, begun to broaden their roles to inform the public and other studies that may lead to more precision and about site protection and the meaning of the past in interdisciplinary foci. For instance, few radiocarbon reflecting on cultural heritage. laboratories exist in Latin America. Several countries also are looking more to archaeol- BEYOND DISCOVERIES AND MODELS: THE ogy in search of their cultural identities (Salazar 1995; INTANGIBLES OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL PRACTICE Funari 2000). This is not always an easy task, because There are issues other than archaeological discover- the media in some countries constantly spreads and ies and interpretations that construct the nature of outwardly promotes foreign traditions that are det- Latin American contributions to archaeology. For ex- rimental to local heritages with deep pre-Columbian ample, a positive feature of the events and changes roots. As a consequence, some countries have gener- now in progress is the enormous increase in contacts ally underestimated the importance of archaeological between professional archaeologists in neighboring research and knowledge of its past (Salazar 1995; Cas- Latin American countries (Yacobaccio 1994; Barreto tillo and Mujica 1995). In other countries, particularly

174 tom d. dillehay Argentina and Chile, archaeology has been employed influence of a socialist government (Fernández Leiva to search for desaparecidos (those who disappeared 1992). Paraguay is a country where professional ar- during the military dictatorships in the 1970s and chaeology has not yet formally developed, although 1980s; Bellelli and Tobin 1996; EEAF 1992), remind- efforts are slowly moving in this direction. ing us of the close association between archaeology Several countries have maintained an ambiguous and current social events in some regions of Latin position on cultural resources, with actions based America. more on the personal ethics of government function- Some countries are also planning more economic aries than on any real policy for the protection of these growth based partly on archaeological tourism (Litvak resources (Corrales and Hoopes 2000; Fajardo 1997; King 1997). This could be a great opportunity for the Salazar 1995; Bonavia 1984). The result is an erratic development of archaeological research, particularly management policy. Despite the legal mandate that since Mexico bases a good part of its tourist attraction the state conserve and protect the national patrimony, on its archaeological resources. In fact, Mexico is the national governments do not always consider protec- leader in developing a first-rate archaeology and em- tion of its heritage a priority since countries often are ploying the past as a way of reaffirming the existence submerged in crises of security, health, education, of a valid nationality. In the early part of this century, communication, and economy. This is dramatic be- Mexican archaeology was primarily concerned with cause of the alarming extent to which many archaeo- the interpretation of monumental architecture, with logical sites are looted and destroyed and because of issues related to religious practice, symbolism, and the market that has been created for the illegal sale of historical sources. Now it is a leader with national, pre-Columbian artifacts even on such Internet sites as state, and local governments and private consortiums eBay and amazon.com (Lopéz L. 2000). challenging each other for opportunities to develop An area of rapid growth in Latin America is cultural their own prospects for cultural tourism (Salazar resource management (CRM) or arqueologia ambien- 1995; Robles 1998). This has placed new and differ- tal. In several countries, CRM is becoming the major ent responsibilities on archaeologists to develop new source of work for young archaeologists and of fund- political courses. ing for others. In Honduras, Costa Rica, Panama, In the largest Latin American country, Brazil, ar- Colombia, Ecuador, Chile, and Argentina, CRM or sal- chaeology “is seen neither as a tourist resource nor as vage archaeology is developing in many ways similar a means by which its small indigenous population af- to the U.S. model (see Green, chapter 22), both legally firms ethnic identity.” It seemingly is a country where and professionally. In other countries, such as Peru, professional archaeologists have been more concerned Brazil, and particularly Mexico, the economic, legal, with documenting the past than interpreting and ex- and organizational aspects of CRM are very differ- plaining it (Barreto 1998; Funari 1992). In many areas ent from those in the United States. And in still other of the country, there are few problem-oriented stud- countries, this aspect of the profession has not yet de- ies and little theoretical debate. Despite being the veloped. Whatever form is practiced, CRM archaeol- largest country, it is one of the most isolated due to ogy has made important changes in the profession, not language, limited intellectual role of archaeology, and only in terms of career opportunities and mitigation comparatively less contact with other Latin American of the destruction of sites, but also in terms of new countries. Yet it also is one of the richest archaeo- questions focused on ownership of cultural resources, logical countries in the Americas, with enormous shell conservation, and curation of recovered archaeologi- mounds (sambaquis), a long sequence of highly vari- cal data and execution of heritage laws. able hunter-gatherer and smaller-scale agricultural so- Another issue is repatriation of indigenous skel- cieties, and living indigenous peoples offering some of etal remains and artifacts which has not yet hit most the world’s most varied opportunities for conducting regions of Latin America. Indigenous groups are be- anthropological and ethnoarchaeological research. ginning to claim authority over archaeological zones In other countries, such as Cuba and Paraguay, afi- or materials as they have in other countries (Wil- cionados still play an important role in archaeology. liams 1996; Endere 1998). Educating archaeologists The Cuban experience represents a deliberate attempt about indigenous people’s self-determination in the to shift archaeology away from North American influ- land use planning for cultural resources is becom- ence and to Marxism; it is the only Latin American ing an important issue in some countries. In other where archaeology has developed under the long-term countries, such as Mexico, Guatemala, Colombia,

Latin American Archaeology in History and Practice 175 Ecuador, Brazil, Chile, Peru, and Bolivia, it already is 1970s and 1980s, many positive changes, especially in an important issue. the larger countries such as Mexico, Peru, Colombia, Whether discussing theory, method, academic Brazil, and Argentina. The appearance of globaliza- training, and resources, archaeologists don’t always tion, more in-country training and more exchange have the luxury of unlimited time to ponder con- programs between Latin American countries may lead servation and curation issues. That most important to more balanced approaches between Latin American part of the discipline that defines Latin American ar- and Euro-American ways of thinking and doing things chaeology—the archaeological sites—is being rapidly in archaeology. destroyed in many regions by economic development, In El Salvador, Nicaragua, Venezuela, Ecuador, and urban sprawl, and increased looting. This implies that Bolivia, the new trends in archaeology have hardly archaeologists simply cannot always afford a major made inroads into the conventional sort of culture- diversion in debates about theory, meaning, and rel- historical archaeology. Yet sweeping changes are oc- evance in archaeology when equally important is- curring in archaeology throughout most areas of Latin sues are conservation and salvage of sites and the America—a circumstance that has seemingly wrought description and explanation of the human past. These a philosophical change in the field. There is a greater concerns necessitate greater attention to significant self-criticism and a concern with working out the archaeological problems, to research designs, and, per- problems of ethics and values connected with the haps above all, to the different roles of archaeology in discipline and of the epistemology of archaeology in educating the public in general about the value of its Latin America. However, some countries seldom con- past and in constructing its national identity. sider such questions, particularly with regard to the ethical implications of CRM archaeology. The number EPILOGUE of techniques available to archaeologists to gain in- This chapter has touched on some of the major ap- formation about the past also has grown enormously, proaches and works in Latin America that have either as has the apparent difficulty assessing the reliability had considerable influence or that represent the effect of archaeological methods in relation to substantive of theoretical advances in thinking about the archaeo- claims. logical record in that part of the world. As elsewhere Like North American and European archaeology, in the world, the sole task of archaeology in Latin Latin American archaeology has many more dimen- America is not just the discovery of fantastic tombs sions to it than most outsiders may consider. There and sites and the study of variation in the material is a constant debate about the intellectual and epis- culture across time and space, but also a concern for temological frameworks within which archaeologi- the meaning of archaeology to regional histories and cal knowledge is developed. And any debate on the to living peoples. In many ways culture history and the political role of archaeology is deeply rooted in the not so new processual archaeology continue to be the beginnings and contemporary developments of the dominate elements of modern archaeological thought discipline in many countries (McGuire and Navarrete in most of Latin America, although movement has 1999; see McGuire, chapter 6). Yet this is not all. The been afoot for years toward social, post-processual, institutional position of the discipline is changing, and other kinds of archaeologies. Besides these general too. Old questions are cast in new ways. For instance, interests, there always has been an emphasis on re- to what extent do ideas about the past reflect the gional and techno-environmental approaches in Latin historical and contemporary conditions of a rapidly American archaeology, and there is a growing need changing contemporary Latin American society? How to carry out more CRM, ethnoarchaeological, experi- has this context affected archaeological knowledge? mental, and humanistic studies. There also seems to Similarly, what should the relationship of archaeolo- be an implicit assumption that these approaches in gists (and by extension archaeological knowledge) be Latin America have always been touched by European to others, such as indigenous peoples who claim a or North American systems. Therefore, much of what historical connection to and moral concern about the we see in fieldwork and described in publications must archaeological record and the way it is used? What be understood as having been shaped in response to can be done about preserving historic properties for those systems. Perhaps this is true for the early half the future? How has the discipline grown in terms of of the twentieth century, but this is not so much the jobs available for students? How has the growth of case in recent decades. This situation shows, since the employment in research and contract-based archae-

176 tom d. dillehay ology related to concerns for the preservation of the numerous indigenous populations, it is not difficult archaeological record? What role does the news media, to foresee the future necessity to test many anthro- social class conflict, and ecotourism play in promoting pological notions of human development, emergent and protecting the archaeological record? In today’s complexity, colonialism, political economy, and other Latin American setting, these concerns are being amal- themes against the experience of so many different gamated with social, historical, anthropological, and Latin American societies and their ancestors. In the archaeological thought, where applicable. end, Latin American archaeology always has and will Much of what this chapter is about pertains to the continue to have implications for the role of archaeol- type of discipline archaeology is or can become in ogy and cultural heritage within new American and each country and each region in Latin America and global environments and in the context of new social the Americas in general: a natural science, a social sci- issues. ence, a humanity, or some other category. For archae- ology, each of these types of disciplines constitutes a ACKNOWLEDGMENTS different approach and set of interpretative models, I wish to thank several colleagues for commenting which has so far been given little consideration. In on this chapter: Patricia J. Netherly, Gustavo Politis, the future, we need to identify points of convergence Pedro Funari, Peter Kaulicke, Fransisco Mena, Richard as well as divergence for the competing perspectives Drennan, Christopher Pool, Duccio Bonavia, Ramiro in Latin America and in the Americas as a whole. The Matos, Linda Manzanilla, and José Peréz Gollan. I concern is that archaeologists identify the intellectual also want to thank those institutions in Latin America perspective in which research is done and then hold where I have taught and/or carried out research over that research to its own standards (and those widely the past three decades. Any omissions or misunder- shared in the global discipline as well), especially as standings are my responsibility. it regards logical consistency, theoretical coherence, and empirical sufficiency. But above all, Latin Ameri- NOTES can archaeology does not operate in isolation from 1. Epistemology is the study of knowledge acquisition and present-day social and economic developments. The communication. past several decades have provided new opportuni- 2. Reflexive archaeology is a term coined by Ian Hodder (1997, 2000) for fieldwork allowing for the multiple, ties for establishing new and constructive relation- subjective interpretations of the excavators involved. ships with political forces, ecological concerns, and 3. Systems theory in archaeology is a way of explaining change tourism. As is the case in many other areas of the through multiple, mutually interacting causes, whose world, this implies that archaeology is no longer feedback leads the system toward an equilibrium state controlled by professionals: politicians, government (Flannery 1986; see Bentley and Maschner, chapter 15). institutions, news media, art museums, and others have as much access to the past and its interpretation REFERENCES as professionals. Aguilar, F. 1984. Elementos para una construccion teorica Some of the issues raised in this chapter may not en arqueologia. Colección Científica Serie Arqueología. matter to all archaeologists in all countries because México D.F.: INAH. they have not yet developed as an issue and because Alconini, M. S. 1995. Rito, símbolo e historia en la Pirámide their relevance to the practice of the discipline has de Akapana, Tiwanaku: Un análisis de cerámica ceremonial been poorly sketched. Due to time lag and to the dif- prehispánica. La Paz: Editorial Acción. ferential development and scale of issues in various Alvarez, M., and D. Fiore. 1993. La arqueología como ciencia countries, many differences exist within Latin America social: Apuntes para un enfoque teórico-metodológico. and the Americas in general. I would argue, however, Boletín de Antropología Americana 27: 21–38. that in the age of computers and globalization the Andrade Lima, Tania. 1999. Historical archaeology in Brazil. SAA Bulletin 17(2): 18–19. multidimensional nature of archaeology today makes Ardila, Gerardo. 1996. Los tiempos de las conchas. Bogotá: it increasingly likely that the various issues and dis- Editorial Universidad Nacional de Colombia. cussions about the discipline will affect most of us Armillas, Pedro. 1956. Cronología y periodificación de la who work in the profession in Latin America. And historia de la América precolumbina. Journal of World when one also considers Latin America’s vast richness History 3(2): 463–503. in prehistoric sites, its abundance of languages, and Aveni, Anthony F. (ed.). 1982. Archaeoastronomy in the New its incredible regional and ethnic diversity, including World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Latin American Archaeology in History and Practice 177 Barcena, J. Roberto, D. Schavelzón, M. del Rosario Prieto, S. Brown, Linda. 2001. Feasting on the periphery: The produc- Choren de Fischetti, A. M. Mateu, M. S. Gascón, and E. B. tion of ritual feasting and village festivals at the Ceren Bragoni. 1990. Allmiquina hutu: De edificios, sociedad y site, El Salvador. In Michael Dietler and Brian Hayden, economia en la Mendoza del siglo XIX. Mendoza: CRICYT. eds., Feasts: Archaeological and ethnographic perspectives Xama 3. on food, politics, and power, 369–390. Washington, DC: Barreto, Cristina. 1998. Brazilian archaeology from a Brazil- Smithsonian Institution Press. ian perspective. Antiquity 72(277): 573–581. Bryan, Alan L. 1991. The fluted point tradition in the Bate, Luis F. 1984. Cultura, clases y cuestión étnico nacional. Americas: One of several adaptations to Late Pleisto- México: Colección Principios. cene environments. In Robson Bonnichsen and Karen ———. 1998. El proceso de investigación en arqueología. L. Turnmire, eds., Clovis: Origins and adaptations: Barcelona: Editorial Crítica. 15–33. Corvallis, OR: Center for the Study of the First Belleli, Christina, and Jeffrey Tobin. 1996. Archaeology of Americans. the desaparecidos. SAA Bulletin 14(2): 6–7. Brumfiel, Elizabeth, and Timothy K. Earle (eds.). 1987. Benavides Castillo, A. 1997. Edzna: Una ciudad pre-Hispanica Specialization, exchange, and complex society. Cambridge: de Campeche/Edzna: A Pre-Columbian city in Campeche. Cambridge University Press. Pittsburgh, PA: Instituto Nacional de Antropológia e His- Burger, Richard L. 1989. An overview of Peruvian archae- toria/University of Pittsburgh. ology (1976–1986). Annual Review of Anthropology 18: Bennett, Wendell C. 1948. The Peruvian co-tradition. In 37–69. Wendell C. Bennett, ed., A reappraisal of Peruvian archae- ———. 1992. Chavin and the origins of Andean civilization. ology, 1–7. Memoir 4. Menasha, WI: Society for American London: Thames & Hudson. Archaeology. Burger, Richard L, Karen L. Mohr-Chavez, and Sergio J. Benson, Elizabeth P. 1974. A man and a feline in Mochica Chavez. 2000. Through the glass darkly: Prehispanic ob- art. Studies in Pre-Columbian Art and Archaeology 14. sidian procurement and exchange in southern Peru and Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks. northern Bolivia. Journal of World Prehistory 14: 267–362. Bernal, Ignacio. 1969. The Olmec world. Berkeley: University Cabrera, Leonel. 1988. Panorama retrospectivo y situación ac- of California Press. tual de la arqueología uruguaya. Montevideo: Universidad Bird, Junius B. 1938. Antiquity and migrations of the early de la República, Facultad de Humanidades y Ciencias. inhabitants of Patagonia. Geographical Review 28(2): Cabrera, Leonel, and Maria del C. Curbelo. 1992. Patrimo- 250–275. nio y arqueología en el Uruguay: Hacia el reconocimiento ———. 1963. Pre-Ceramic art from Huaca Prieta, Chicama de un pasado olvidado. In Gustavo G. Politis and Ben- valley. Nawpa Pacha 1: 29–34. Berkeley, CA: Institute of jamin Alberti, eds., Arqueología en América Latina hoy, Andean Studies. 45–56. Bogotá: Editorial Presencia. Blanton, Richard E. 1978. Monte Alban: Settlement patterns Caldwell, Joseph R. 1964 . Interaction spheres in prehistory. of the ancient Zapotec capital. New York: Academic. In Joseph R. Caldwell and Robert L. Hall, eds., Hopewel- Blanton, Richard E., Gary M. Feinman, Stephen A. Kow- lian studies, 133–143. Scientific Papers 12. Springfield: alewski, and Peter N. Peregrine. 1996. A dual-processual Illinois State Museum. theory for the evolution of Mesoamerican civilization. Cardich, Augusto. 1977. Las culturas Pleistocénica y post- Current Anthropology 37: 1–14. Pleistocénicas de Los Toldos y un bosquejo de la prehis- Bonavia, Duccio. 1982. Los Gavilanes: Mar, desierto y oasis en toria de Sudamérica. Obra del Centenario del Museo de La la historia del hombre. Corporación Financiera del Desar- Plata 2: 149–172. rollo S.A. COFIDE. Lima: Instituto Arqueológico Alemán. Carrasco, David. 1990. Religions of Mesoamerica: Cosmovi- ———. 1995. La domesticación de las plantas y los orígenes sion and ceremonial centers. New York: Harper & Row. de la agricultura en los Andes centrales. Separata de la Caso, Alfonso. 1960. La interpretación del Codice Bodley. Revista Histórica 28: 77–107. Mexico D.F.: Sociedad Mexicana de Antropología. ———. 1996. Los camélidos sudamericanos: Una introduc- ———. 1967. Los calendarios prehispánicos. Mexico City: ción a su estudio. Lima: Instituto Francés de Estudios UNAM. Andinos. Castillo Butters, Luis Jaime, and Elias Mujica Barreda. 1995. Borrero, Luis A. 1999. The prehistoric exploration and colo- Peruvian archaeology: Crisis or development? SAA Bulle- nization of Fuego-Patagonia. Journal of World Prehistory tin 13(3): 18–20. 13(3): 321–355. Chauchat, Claude, Cesar Galvez M., Jesus R. Briceno, and Brochado, Jose P. 1984. An ecological model of the spread of Santiago C. Uceda. 1998. Sitios arqueológicos de la zona de pottery and agriculture into eastern South America. Ph.D. Cupisnique y márgen derecha del Valle de Chicama. Insti- diss., University of Illinois. tuto Nacional de Cultura La Libertad, Trujillo. Instituto Browman, David L. 1974. Pastoral nomadism in the Andes. Francés de Estudios Andinos, Lima. Current Anthropology 15(2): 188–196. Childe, V. Gordon. 1951. Social evolution. London: Watts.

178 tom d. dillehay Choy, Emilio. 1960. La Revolución Neolítica y los origenes DeBoer, Warren R., and Donald W. Lathrap. 1979. The de la civilización. In Antiguo Perú: Espacio y tiempo,149– making and breaking of Shipibo-Conibo ceramics. In 197. Lima: Editorial Juan Mejia Baca. Carol Kramer, ed., Ethnoarchaeology: Implications of eth- Coe, Michael D. 1965. The Olmec style and its distribution. nography for archaeology, 102–138. New York: Columbia In Gordon R. Willey, ed., Handbook of Middle Ameri- University Press. can Indians, vol. 3, Archaeology of southern Mesoamerica, DeMarrais, Elizabeth, Luis Jamie Castillo, and Timothy K. 739–775. Austin: University of Texas Press. Earle. 1996. Ideology, materialization, and power strate- Collier, Donald. 1982. One hundred years of Ecuadoran gies. Current Anthropology 37: 15–32. archaeology. In Joyce Marcus and P. Norton, eds., Primer Demarest, Arthur A., and A. E. Foias. 1993. Mesoamerican Simposio de Correlaciones Antropológicas Andino-Meso- horizons and the cultural transformations of Maya civili- americanas, 5–33. Guayaquil: Escuela Superior Politéc- zation. In Don Stephen Rice, ed., Latin American horizons: nica del Litoral. 147–192. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks. Conrad, Geoffrey W., and Arthur A. Demarest. 1984. Reli- Denevan, William, K. Mathewson, and Greggory Knapp gion and empire: The dynamics of Aztec and Inca expan- (eds.). 1987. Prehistoric agricultural fields in the central sion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Andes. International Series 359. Oxford: British Archaeo- Cooke, Richard. 1984. Archaeological research in central logical Reports. and eastern Panama. In Frederick W. Lange and Doris Dillehay, Tom D. 1988. Un ensayo sobre el reduccionismo Z. Stone, eds., The archaeology of lower Central America, metodológico y la “ley del instrumento” en la arqueología 263–302. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. norteamericana. Etnia 33: 3–17. Cornely, F. L. 1940. Prehistoria del territorio Diaguita-Chil- –——. 2000. The settlement of the Americas: A new prehis- eno. Publicaciones del Museo y la Sociedad Arqueológica de tory. New York: Basic. La Serena, Boletín 5: 3–18. Dillehay, Tom D., Gerardo Ardila, Gustavo G. Politis, and Corrales U., Fonseca, and John W. Hoopes. 2000. The law of Maria Beltrão. 1992. Earliest hunters and gatherers of the bulldozer: Costa Rican government restricts archaeo- South America. Journal of World Prehistory 6(2): 145– logical impact studies. SAA Bulletin 18(1): 21–24. 204. Correal Urrego, G. 1981. Evidencias culturales y megafauna Donnan, Christopher B. 1978. Moche art of Peru. Los Ange- Pleistocenico eb Colombia. Publicación de la Fundación les: UCLA Latin America Center. de Investigaciones Arqueológicas Nacionales 12. Bogotá: Drennan, Robert D. 1991. Pre-Hispanic chiefdom trajec- Banco de la Republica. tories in Mesoamerica, Central America, and northern Costin, Cathy L. 1991. Craft specialization: Issues in defin- South America. In Timothy K. Earle, ed., Chiefdoms: ing, documenting, and explaining the organization of power, economy, and ideology, 263–287. Cambridge: Cam- production. Archaeological Method and Theory 3: 1–56. bridge University Press. Cowgill, George. 1992. Toward a political history of Teoti- Earle, Timothy K. (ed.). 1991. Chiefdoms: Power, economy, huacan. In Arthur A. Demarest and Geoffrey W. Conrad, and ideology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. eds., Ideology and Pre-Columbian civilizations, 87–114. Earle, Timothy K., and Jonathon E. Ericson (eds.). 1977. Santa Fe, NM: School of American Research Press. Exchange systems in prehistory. New York: Academic. ———. 2003. : Cosmic glories and mundane EEAF (Equipo Argentino de Antropología Forense). 1992. needs. In Monica Smith, ed., The social construction of Excavando la violencia: Arqueología y derechos humanos ancient cities, 37–54. Washington, DC: Smithsonian In- en el Cono Sur. In Gustavo G. Politis and Benjamin Al- stitution Press. berti (eds.), Arqueología en América Latina hoy, 160–166. Cruxent, Jose, and . 1958. An archaeological Bogotá: Editorial Presencia. chronology of Venezuela. Social Science Monographs 1: Emperaire, Josef, and Annette Emperaire. 1956. Les Sam- 2–39. baquis de la côte meridionale du Brésil: Campagnes de Curet, L. Antonio. 1996. Ideology, chiefly power, and mate- fouilles (1954–1956). Journal de la Societé des América- rial culture: An example from the Greater Antilles. Latin nistes 45: 5–163. American Antiquity 7: 114–132. Endere, M. L. 1998. Collections of indigenous human re- D’Altroy, Terence N., and Timothy K. Earle. 1985. Staple mains in Argentina: The issue of claiming a national heri- finance, wealth finance, and storage in the Inka political tage. Master’s thesis, Institute of Archaeology, London. economy. Current Anthropology 26: 187–206. Erickson, Clark L., and K. L. Candler. 1989. Raised fields Deagan, Kathleen (ed.). 1995. Puerto Real: The archaeology and sustainable agriculture in the Lake Titicaca basin. of a sixteenth-century Spanish town in Hispaniola. Gaines- In John O. Browder, ed., Fragile lands of Latin America: ville: University Press of Florida. Strategies for sustainable development, 230–248. Boulder: Deagan, Kathleen, and Jose Maria Cruxent (eds.). 2002. Westview. Archaeology at La Isabela: America’s first European town. Estrada, E. 1957. Prehistoria de Manabí. Guayaquil: Publica- New Haven: Press. ciones del Museo Víctor Emilio Estrada 4.

Latin American Archaeology in History and Practice 179 Evans, Susan T. (ed.). 1988. Excavations at Cihuatecpan, an García García, M. T. 1987. Huexotla: Un sitio del Acolhuacan. Aztec village in the Teotihuacan valley. Vanderbilt Univer- Colección Científica 165. México City: Instituto Nacional sity Publications in Anthropology. Nashville, TN: Depart- de Antropología e Historia. ment of Anthropology, Vanderbilt University. Gaspar, Maria Dulce. 1996. Dataçoes, construçao de sam- Evans, Clifford, and Betty J. Meggers. 1960. Archaeological baqui e identidade social dos Pescadores, Coletores, e Investigations in British Guiana. Bulletin 177. Washing- Caçadores. Anais 1: 377–398. ton, DC: Bureau of American Ethnology. Gnecco, Cristobal. 1999. Archaeology and historical multi- Fajardo Cardona, C. J. 1997. Archaeological investigation and vocality: A reflection from the Colombian multicultural conservation in Honduras. SAA Bulletin 15(1): 22–23. context. In Gustavo G. Politis and Benjamin Alberti, eds., Fash, William L., Jr. 1988. Scribes, warriors, and kings: The city of Archaeology in Latin America, 258–270. London: Rout- Copan and the ancient Maya. New York: Thames & Hudson. ledge. Feinman, Gary M. 1985. Investigations in a near-periphery: González, Alberto Rex. 1961. Cultural development in Regional settlement pattern survey in the Ejutla valley, northwestern Argentina. In Betty J. Meggers and Clif- Oaxaca, Mexico. Mexicon 7: 60–68. ford Evans, eds., Aboriginal cultural development in Latin ———. 2000. New Perspectives on models of political ac- America: An interpretive review, 103–118. Smithsonian tion and the Puebloan Southwest. In Michael B. Schiffer, Miscellaneous Collections 140(1). Washington, DC: ed., Social theory in archaeology, 31–51. Salt Lake City: Smithsonian Institution. University of Utah Press. ———. 1992. Las placas metalicas de los Andes del Sur: Fernández, Jorje. 1982. Historia de la arqueología argentina. Contribución al estudio de las religiones PreColombinas. Mendoza: Asociación Cuyana de Antropología. Materialien zur allgemeinen und vergleichenden Archäo- Fernández Leiva, O. 1992. Desarrollo del pensamiento ar- logie des Deutschen Archäologischen Institut 46. Mainz queológico en Cuba. In Gustavo G. Politis and Benjamin am Rhein: P. von Zabern. Alberti, eds., Arqueología en América Latina hoy, 432–444. ———. 1998. Cultura la aguada: Arqueología y disenos. Bue- Bogotá: Editorial Presencia. nos Aires: Filmediciones Valero. Ferrero, L. 1975. Costa Rica PreColombina. San José: Edito- Grove, David C. (ed.). 1987. Ancient Chalcatzingo. Austin: rial Costa Rica. University of Texas Press. Flannery, Kent V. 1972. The cultural evolution of civilizations. Guillén, Sonia E. 1992. The : Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 2: 399–426. and crania in the reconstruction of preceramic coastal ad- ———. 1986. A visit to the master. In Guila Naquitz: Archaic aptation in the south central Andes. Ph.D diss., University foraging and early agriculture in Oaxaca, Mexico, 511–519. of Michigan. Orlando, FL: Academic. Haas, Jonathan. 1982. The evolution of the prehistoric state. Flannery, Kent V. (ed.). 1976. The early Mesoamerican vil- New York: Columbia University Press. lage. New York: Academic. Hammond, Norman. 1985. Nohmul: A prehistoric Maya Fonseca, Oscar (ed.). 1988. Hacia una arqueología social: community in Belize: Excavations, 1973–1983. Interna- Actas del Primer Simposio de la Fundación de Arqueología tional Series 250. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports. del Caribe. San José: Universidad de Costa Rica. Hayden, Brian, and Aubrey Cannon. 1984. The structure of Freidel, David A. 1986. Maya warfare: An example of peer- material systems: Ethnoarchaeology in the Maya highlands. polity interaction. In A. Colin Renfrew and John Cherry, Memoirs 4. Washington, DC: Society for American Ar- eds., Peer polity interaction and socio-political change, 93– chaeology. 116. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Helms, Mary W. 1979. Ancient Panama: Chiefs in search of Funari, Pedro Paulo A. 1992. La arqueología en Brasil: Polí- power. Austin: University of Texas Press. tica y academia en una encrucijada. In Gustavo G. Politis Higman, B. W. 1999. Montpellier, Jamaica: A plantation and Benjamin Alberti, eds., Arqueología en América Latina community in slavery and freedom, 1739–1912. Kingston: hoy, 57–69. Bogotá: Editorial Presencia. University of West Indies Press. ———. 1998. Cultura material e arqueologia historica. Sao Hirth, Kenneth G. 1984. Trade and exchange in early Meso- Paolo: Instituto de Filosofia e Ciencias Humans, Colecao america. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. Ideias. Hodder, Ian. 1997. Always momentary, fluid, and flexible: ———. 2000. Archaeology, education, and Brazilian iden- Towards a reflexive excavation methodology. Antiquity tity. Antiquity 74: 182–185. 71: 691–700. Gándara, Manuel F. 1997. El criterio de la “fertilidad teórica” ———. 1999. The archaeological process: An introduction. y su aplicación a las teorías sobre el Estado. Cuicuilco 4: Oxford: Blackwell. 19–34. ———. 2000. Developing a reflexive method in archae- Gándara, Manuel F., and I. Rodríguez. 1985. Arqueología y ology. In Ian Hodder, ed., Towards reflexive method in marxismo en México. Boletín de Arqueología Americana archaeology: The example of Çatalhöyük, 1–4. Cambridge: 11: 5–18. McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research .

180 tom d. dillehay Houston, Stephen, and David Stuart. 1989. The Way Glyph: tavo G. Politis and Benjamin Alberti, eds., Archaeology in Evidence for “co-essences” among the Classic Maya. Re- Latin America, 244–257. London: Routledge. search Reports on Ancient Maya Writing 30. Washington, Langebaek, Carl H., and F. Cárdenas Arroyo. 1995. Chief- DC: Center for Maya Research. tains, power, and trade: Regional interactions in the inter- Hurtado de Mendoza, L., and A. C. Arias. 1982–1983. Cerá- mediate area of the Américas. Bogotá: Departamento de mica y patrones de asentamiento en la región de Guayabo Antropología, Universidad de los Andes. de Turrialba. Journal of the Steward Anthropological So- Lanning, Edward P. 1967. Peru before the Incas. Englewood ciety 14(1–2): 269–280. Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Hyslop, John. 1990. Inka settlement planning. Austin: Uni- Latcham, Ricardo E. 1928. La prehistoria Chilena. Santiago: versity of Texas Press. La Comisión Oficial de la Concurencia Organizadora de Isbell, William H. 1988. City and state in Middle Horizon la Exposición Ibero-Americano de Sevilla. Huari. In Richard W. Keating, ed., Peruvian prehistory: ———. 1971. The tropical forest and the cultural con- An overview of pre-Inca and , 164–189. Cam- text of Chavín. In Elizabeth P. Benson, ed., Dumbarton bridge: Cambridge University Press. Oaks Conference on Chavín, 73–100. Washington, DC: Izumi, Seiichi, and Kazuo Terada (eds.). 1972. Excavations at Dumbarton Oaks. , Peru. Tokyo: University of Tokyo Press. Lathrap, Donald W. 1974. The moist tropics, the arid lands, Joyce, Arthur A., and Marcos Winter. 1996. Ideology, power, and the appearance of great art styles in the New World. and urban society in pre-Hispanic Oaxaca. Current An- In Mary Elizabeth King and Idris R. Traylor Jr., eds., Art thropology 37: 33–47. and environment in native North America, 115–158. Lub- Kaplan, Lawrence, Thomas F. Lynch, and Charles E. Smith Jr. bock: Texas Tech University Museum. 1973. Early cultivated beans (Phaseolus vulgaris) from an Lavallée, Daniele. 1978. Pasteurs préhistoriques des hauts intermontane Peruvian valley. Science 179: 76–77. plateaux andins, L’Histoire 5: 33–42. Kelley, David H. 1976. Deciphering the . Austin: ———. 2000. The first South Americans: The peopling of a University of Texas Press. continent from the earliest evidence to high culture. Salt Kelly, Jane Holden, and M. P. Hanen. 1988. Archaeology and Lake City: University of Utah Press. Original edition in the methodology of science. Albuquerque: University of French: Promesse d’Amérique: La préhistoire de l’Amérique New Mexico Press. du Sud. Paris: Hachette, 1985. Kern, A. A. 1991. Sociedade Barroca e Missoes Guaranis: Legoupil, Dominique. 1998. French archaeology in Patagonia Do cofronto complementaridade. In Actas de Primeiro and Tierra del Fuego. SAA Bulletin 16(4): 33–34, 36, 39. Congreso Internacional do Barroco, 445–465. Porto: Uni- Lecthman, Heather. 1979. Issues in Andean metallurgy. In versidad do Porto. Elizabeth P. Benson, ed., Precolumbian metallurgy of South Kidder, Alfred V. 1947. The artifacts of Uaxactún, Guatemala. America, 1–4. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks. Publication 576. Washington, DC: Carnegie Institution. Litvak King, Jaime. 1997. Mexican archaeology: Challenges Kipnis, Renato I. 1998. Early hunter-gatherers in the Ameri- at the end of the century. SAA Bulletin 15(4): 10–11. cas: Perspectives from central Brazil. Antiquity 72: 581– Llanos Vargas, H., and A. Durán de Gómez. 1983. Asenta- 592. mientos prehispánicos del Quinchana, San Agustín. Bogotá: Kolata, Alan L. (ed.). 1996. Tiwanaku and its hinterland: Fundación de Investigaciones Arqueológicas Nacionales Archaeology and paleoecology of an Andean civilization. del Banco de la República. Vol. 1, Agroecology. Washington, DC: Smithsonian In- López Luján, L. 2000. Conflict of interests? SAA Bulletin stitution Press. 18(4): 26. Kubler, George. 1962. The art and architecture of ancient López Mazz, José M. 1992. La reconstrucción del pasado, America: The Mexican, Maya, and Andean peoples. Balti- la identidad nacional y la labor arqueológica: El caso more, MD: Pelican. uruguayo. In Gustavo G. Politis and Benjamin Alberti, Kuhn, Thomas J. 1970. The structure of scientific revolutions. eds., Arqueología en América Latina hoy, 167–175. Bogotá: 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Editorial Presencia. Lanata, Jose Luis, and Luis A. Borrero. 1999. The archaeol- ———. 1998. Archaeological training in Uruguay, SAA Bul- ogy of hunter-gatherers in South America: Recent history letin 16(5): 30. and new directions. In Gustavo G. Politis and Benjamin ———. 1999. Some aspects of the French influence upon Alberti, eds., Archaeology in Latin America, 76–89. Lon- Uruguayan and Brazilian archaeology. In Gustavo G. don: Routledge. Politis and Benjamin Alberti, eds., Archaeology in Latin Lange, Frederick W., and Lynette Norr (eds.). 1982–1983. America. 38–58. London: Routledge. Prehistoric settlement patterns in Costa Rica. Journal of López Mazz, José M., and Roberto Bracco. 1994. Cazadores- the Steward Anthropological Society 14(1–2). recolectores en la Cuenca de la Laguna Merín: Aproxima- Langebaek, Carl H. 1999. Pre-Columbian metallurgy and ciones teóricas y modelos arqueológicos. In Arqueología de social change: Two case studies from Colombia. In Gus- cazadores-recolectores, arqueología contemporánea 5: 51–64.

Latin American Archaeology in History and Practice 181 Lorandi, A. 1988. Los Diaguitas y el Tawantinsuyu: Una Marcus, Joyce. 1972. The first appearance of Zapotec writ- hipotésis de conflicto. In Tom D. Dillehay and Patricia ing and calendrics. In Kent V. Flannery and Joyce Marcus, J. Netherly, eds., La frontera del estado Inca, 235–259. eds., The cloud people, 106–108. New York: Academic. International Series 442. Oxford: British Archaeological Matos, M. Ramiro. 1994. Pumpu: Centro administrativo Inka Reports. de la Puna de Junín. Lima: Editorial Horizonte. Lorenzo, Jose L. 1976. La arqueología mexicana y los ar- McGuire, Randall, and R. Navarrete. 1999. Entre moto- queólogos norteamericanos. Cuadernos de trabajo, Apun- cicletas y fusiles: Las arqueologías radicales anglosajona tes para la Arqueología 14. México: INAH, Departamento y latinoamericana. Boletín de Antropología Americana 34: de Prehistoria. 89–110. ———. 1981. Archaeology south of the Rio Grande. World Meggers, Betty J. 1972. Amazonia: Real or counterfeit para- Archaeology 13(2): 190–208. dise? Review of Archaeology 13: 25–40. Lothrop, Samuel K. 1946. Indians of the Parana delta and Meggers, Betty J., and Clifford Evans (eds.). 1963. Aboriginal La Plata littoral. In Julian H. Steward, ed., Handbook of cultural development in Latin America: An interpretive South American Indians, 1:177–190. Bureau of American review. Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections 140(1). Ethnology Bulletin 143. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution. Institution. Miller, Mary Ellen. 1986. The Bonampak murals. Princeton, Lumbreras, Luis. 1974. La arqueología como ciencia social. NJ: Princeton University Press. Lima: Ediciones Histar. Millon, René (ed.). 1973. The Teotihuacán map: Urbaniza- ———. 1989. Chavin de Huantar en el nacimiento de la tion at Teotihuacán, Mexico. Vol. 1. Austin: University of civilización andina. Lima: Ediciones INDEA. Texas Press. Lumbreras, Luis, and L. Cisneros. 1986. Estado de la en- Millones, Luis. 1986. Historia y poder en los Andes centrales: señanza en arqueologia en el area Andina. In S. Alvarez, Desde los orígenes al siglo XVII. Madrid: Alianza Univer- ed., Guia historico informativo, 29–40. Guayaquil: ESPOL. sitaria. Centro de Estudios Arqueológicos y Antropológicos de Montané, Julio. 1980. Fundamentos para una teoría arque- la ESPOL. ológica. México: INAH, Centro Regional del Noreste. Lynch, Thomas F. 1983. The Paleo-Indians. In Jesse D. Jen- Moore, Jerry D. 1996. Architecture and power in the ancient nings, ed., Ancient South Americans, 87–137. New York: Andes: The archaeology of public buildings. Cambridge: Freeman. Cambridge University Press. MacNeish, Richard S. 1972. The prehistory of the Tehuacan Morris, Craig, and Donald E. Thompson. 1983. Huanuco valley. Austin: University of Texas Press. Pampa: An Inca city and its hinterlands. London: Thames MacNeish, Richard S., and M. Eubanks. 2000. Comparative & Hudson. analysis of the Rio Balsas and Tehuacan models for the Moseley, Michael Edward, and Carol J. Mackey. 1974. Twenty- origins of maize. Latin American Antiquity 11: 3–20. four architectural plans of , Peru: Structure and MacNeish, Richard S., M. L. Fowler, A. G. Cook, F. A. Peter- form at the capital of . Cambridge: Harvard Uni- son, A. Nelken-Terner, and J. A. Neely. 1972. The prehistory versity/Peabody Museum Press. of the Tehuacán valley. Vol. 5, Excavations and reconnais- Murra, John V. 1975. Formaciones económicas y políticas del sance. Austin: University of Texas Press. mundo andino. Lima: Instituto de Estudios Andinos. Mangelsdorf, Paul C., Richard S. MacNeish, and Gordon Nami, Hugo. 1987. Informe sobre la segunda y tercera expe- R. Willey. 1964. Origins of agriculture in Mesoamerica. dición a la Cueva del Medio: Perspectivas arqueológicas In Robert Wauchope and R. C. West, eds., Handbook of para la Patagonia austral. Anales del Instituto de la Pata- Middle American Indians, vol. 1, Natural environment and gonia 17: 71–105. early cultures, 437–445. Austin: University of Texas Press. Navarrete Pajol, R. 1983 Arqueoolgía de Caimanes III. San- Manzanilla, Linda. 1997. Teotihuacan: Urban archetype, tiago de Cuba: Instituto Cubano del Libro. cosmic model. In Emergence and change in early urban Netherly, Patricia J. 1984. The management of late Andean societies, 109–131. New York: Plenum. irrigation systems on the north coast of Peru. American ———. 1999. The emergence of complex urban societies in Antiquity 49: 227–254. central Mexico: The case of Teotihuacan. In Gustavo G. Neves, Eduardo G. 1999. Changing perspectives in Ama- Politis and Benjamin Alberti, eds., Archaeology in Latin zonian archaeology. In Gustavo G. Politis and Benjamin America, 93–129. London: Routledge. Alberti, eds., Archaeology in Latin America, 216–243. Lon- Manzanilla, Linda, and L. Barba. 1990. The study of ac- don: Routledge. tivities in classic households: Two case studies from Coba Neves, Walter, M. Blum, Andre Prous, and Joseph Powell. and Teotihuacan. Ancient Mesoamerica 1: 41–49. 2001. Paleoindian skeletal remains from Santana do Ria- Marcos, Jorje G. 1988. Real Alto: La historia de un centro cho I, Minas Gerais, Brazil: Archaeological background, ceremonial valdivia. Pt. 2. Quito: Corporación Editora chronological context, and comparative cranial morphol- Nacional. ogy. Paper presented at the 70th Annual Meeting of the

182 tom d. dillehay American Association of Physical Anthropologists, Kan- Pérez de Barradas, J. 1937. Arqueología y antropología preco- sas City. lombinas de Tierra Dentro. Publicación de la Sección de Newell, Gillian E. 1999. American and Mexican archaeol- Arqueología 1. Bogotá. ogy: Differences in meaning and teaching. SAA Bulletin Perota, Carlota, and W. Botelho. 1992. Les “Sambaquis” de 17(5): 29–31. Guará et des variations climatiques pendant l’. Niederberger, Christian. 1999. Las sociedades mesoamerica- In M. Prost, ed., Evolution des littoraux de Guyane et nas: Las civilizaciones antiguas y su nacimiento. In T. Rojas de la Zone Caraïbe Méridionale pendant le Quaternaire, Rabiela and John V. Murra, eds., Las sociedades originarias, 379–395. Paris: Editions de l’Orstom. 117–150. Spain: Ediciones Unesco, Editorial Trotta. Piperno, Dolores, Mark B. Bush, and Paul Colinvaux. 1991. Núñez A., Lautaro, and Tom D. Dillehay. 1979. Movilidad Paleoecological perspectives on human adaptation in giratoria, armonia social y desarrollo en los Andes merion- Panama II: The Holocene. Geoarchaeology 6: 227–250. dales: Patrones de trafíco e interaccóon económica. Antofa- Plazas, Clemencia A., Maria Falchetti, J. Sáenz Samper, S. Ar- gasta: Universidad del Norte. chila. 1993. La sociedad hidráulica Zenu: Estudio arqueo- Núñez A., Lautaro, and Francisco Mena. 1994. Chilean ar- lógico de 2.000 años de historia en las llanuras del Caribe chaeology today: An evaluation. SAA Bulletin 12(1): 6–8. colombiano. Bogotá: Banco de la República. Ochoa, L. 1999. La civilización Maya en la historia regional Podgorny, Irina. 1995. De razón a facultad: Ideas acerca de mesoamericana. In T. Rojas Rabiela and John V. Murra, las funciones del Museo de la Plata en el período 1890– eds., Las sociedades originarias, 175–198. Spain: Ediciones 1918. Runa 22: 89–104. Unesco, Editorial Trotta. ———. 2000. Archaeology and education in Argentina. Orellana Rodríguez, Mario. 1996. Historia de la arqueología Antiquity 74(1): 151–155. en Chile. Santiago: Bravo y Allende Editores. Politis, Gustavo G. 1991. Fishtail projectile points in the Orquera, Luis A. 1986. Tradiciones culturales y evolución en Southern Cone of South America. In Robson Bonnichsen Patagonia. Relaciones 16: 249–267. and Karen L. Turnmire, eds., Clovis: Origins and adapta- Ortiz-Troncoso, Omar R. 1995. Observaciones sobre la cla- tions, 287–302. Corvallis, OR: Center for the Study of the sificación arqueológica de sitios históricos e industriales First Americans. en el contexto americano. Ultramarine Occasional Papers ———. 1995. The socio-politics of the development of 1: 1–22. archaeology in Hispanic South America. In Peter Ucko, Oyuela-Caycedo, Augusto. 1994. History of Latin American ed., Theory in archaeology: A world perspective, 197–235. archaeology. Aldershot, UK: Avebury. London: Routledge. Oyuela-Caycedo, Augusto, A. Amaya, C. G. Elera, and L. Val- ———. 1996. Nukak. Bogotá: Instituto Amazónico de In- dez. 1997. Social archaeology in Latin America? Comments vestigaciones Científicas Sinchi. to T. C. Patterson. American Antiquity 62: 365–374. ———. 2002. South America: In the garden of forking Pagan-Jimenez, Jaime R. 2004. Is all archaeology at present a paths. In Barry Cunliffe, William Davies, and Co- postcolonial one? Constructive answers from an eccentric lin Renfrew, eds., Archaeology: The Widening Debate, point of view. Journal of Social Archaeology 4: 200–213. 193–244. Oxford: British Academy Oxford University Parsons, Jeffrey R. 1971. Prehistoric settlement patterns in the Press. Texcoco region, Mexico. Memoirs 3. Ann Arbor: Museum ———. 2003. The theoretical landscape and the method- of Anthropology, University of Michigan. ological development of archaeology in Latin America. ———. 2000. Prehispanic settlement patterns in the Upper American Antiquity 14: 115–142. Mantaro and Tarma drainages, Junin, Peru. Vol. 1, The Politis, Gustavo G., and Benjamin Alberti (eds.). 1999. Ar- Tarama-Chinchaycocha region. Memoirs 34. Ann Arbor: chaeology in Latin America. London: Routledge. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan. Ponce Sanguines, Carlos. 1981 Tiwanaku: Espacio, tiempo y Patterson, Thomas C. 1994. Social archaeology in Latin cultura. La Paz. America: an appreciation. American Antiquity 59: 531– Ponciano, E. M. 1994. Current Guatemalan archaeology: An 537. evaluation. SAA Bulletin 15: 14–16. Pearsall, Deborah. 1992. The origins of plant cultivation in Porras, G., Padre. 1987. Investigaciones arqueológicas a las South America. In C. Wesley Cowan and Patty Jo Wat- faldas del Sangay, Provincia Morona Santiago: Tradición son, The origins of agriculture: An international perspec- Upano. Quito: Artes Gráficas Señal. tive, 173–205. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Prous, Andre. 1992. Arqueologia Brasileira. Brasilia: Editora Press. da Universidade de Brasilia. Pérez, J. Aurelio. 1981. Presencia de Vere Gordon Childe. Quilter, Jeffrey. 1991. Late Preceramic Peru. Journal of World México D.F.: INAH. Prehistory 5(4): 387–438. ———. 2000. El jaguar en llanos. In Myriam N. Tarragó, ed., Quilter, Jeffrey, and John W. Hoopes. 2003. Gold and power Nueva historia Argentina, 229–56. Buenos Aires: Editorial in Ancient Costa Rica, Panama, and Colombia. Washing- Sudamericano. ton, DC: Dumbarton Oaks.

Latin American Archaeology in History and Practice 183 Raffino, Rodolfo A., and Ruben Stehberg. 1999. Tawantin- Schmilchuk, G. 1995. Historia, antropología y arte: Notas suyu: The frontiers of the . In Gustavo G. sobre la formación de los Museos Nacionales de Mexico. Politis and Benjamin Alberti, eds., Archaeology in Latin Runa 22: 21–38. America, 167–181. London: Routledge. Schmitz, Padre I. 1987. Prehistoric hunters and gatherers of Reichel-Dolmatoff, Gerardo. 1971. Amazonian cosmos. Chi- Brazil. Journal of World Prehistory 1(1): 53–125. cago: University of Chicago Press. Sempowski, Martha L., and Michael W. Spence. 1994. Ur- Rice, Don Stephen. 1976. Middle Preclassic Maya settle- banization at Teotihuacan, Mexico. Vol. 3, Mortuary prac- ments in the central Maya lowlands. Journal of Field tices and skeletal remains at Teotihuacan. Salt Lake City Archaeology 3: 425–445. (UT): University of Utah Press. Rick, John W. 1980. Prehistoric hunters of the high Andes. Senatore, M. X. 1995. Tecnologías nativas y estrategias de ocu- New York: Academic. pacion Española en la región del Río de la Plata. Historical Robles García, N. M. 1998. Management of archaeological Archaeology in Latin America 11. Columbia: South Caro- resources in Mexico: Experiences in Oaxaca. SAA Bulletin lina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology, Univer- 16(3): 22–25. sity of South Carolina. Rothhammer, Francisco, C. Silva, S.M. Callegari-Jaques, E. Shady, Ruth, and Carlos Leyva. 2003. La ciudad sagrada de Llop, and F. M. Salzano. 1997. Gradients of HLA diversity caral-supe. Lima: Instituto nacional de cultura. in South American Indians. Annals of Human Biology 24: Sharer, Robert, and Michael D. Coe. 1978. The Quirigua 197–208. project: Origins, objectives, and research in 1973 and 1974. Roosevelt, Anna C. 1980. Moundbuilders of the Amazon: Quirigia Reports 1. Philadelphia: University Museum. Geophysical archaeology on Marajo Island, Brazil. New Shanks, Michael, and Ian Hodder. 1995. Processual, post- York: Academic. processual, and interpretive archaeologies. In Ian Hodder Rouse, Irving, and Jose M. Cruxent. 1963. Venezuelan ar- et al., eds., Interpreting archaeology: Finding meaning in chaeology. New Haven: Yale University Press. the past, 3–28, London: Routledge. Rowe, John H. 1962. Chavin art: An inquiry into its form and Sheets, Payson D. (ed.). 1984. Archaeology and volcanism in meaning. New York: Museum of Primitive Art. Central America: The Zapotitan Valley of El Salvado. Aus- Salomon, Frank. 2002. Unethnic ethnohistory: On Peruvian tin: University of Texas Press. peasant historiography and ideas of authochthony. Eth- Shimada, Izumi. 1994. Pampa Grande and the . nohistory 49: 475–506. Austin: University of Texas Press. Salazar Peralta, Ana María. 1998. Cuicuilco: Public protec- Silverman, Helaine. 1988. Cahuachi: Non-urban cultural tion of Mexican cultural patrimony in an archaeological complexity on the south coast of Peru. Journal of Field zone. SAA Bulletin 16(4): 30–33. Archaeology 15: 403–430. Salazar, Ernesto. 1995. Between crisis and hope: Archaeol- Smith, Michael E. 1993. New World complex societies: Re- ogy in Ecuador. SAA Bulletin 13(4): 34–37. cent economic, social, and political studies. Journal of Sanders, William T., and Barbara J. Price. 1968. Mesoamerica: Archaeological Research 1(1): 5–41. The evolution of a civilization. New York: Random House. Spencer, Charles, and Elsa Redmond. 1998. Prehispanic Sanders, William T., Jeffrey R. Parsons, and Robert S. Sant- causeways and regional politics in the Llanos of Barinas, ley. 1979. The Basin of Mexico: Ecological processes in the Venezuela. Latin American Antiquity 9(2): 95–110. evolution of a civilization. New York: Academic. Stark, Barbara L., and Philip J. Arnold III (eds.). 1997. Olmec Sanoja, Mario. 1988. La inferencia en la arqueología social. to Aztec: Settlement patterns in the ancient gulf lowlands. In O. Fonseca, ed., Hacia una arqueología social: Actas del Tucson: University of Arizona Press. Primer Simposio de la Fundación de Arqueología del Ca- Tarragó, Myriam N. 1999. Las sociedades originarias del ribe, 132–144. San José: Universidad de Costa Rica. sudeste andino. In T. Rojas Rabiela and John V. Murra, Sanoja, Mario, and I. Vargas Arenas. 1999. Early modes of eds., Las sociedades originarias, 465–480. Rome: Ediciones life of the indigenous population of northeastern Venezu- Unesco, Editorial Trotta. ela. In Gustavo G. Politis and Benjamin Alberti, eds., Ar- Trigger, Bruce G. 1984. Alternative archaeologies: National- chaeology in Latin America, 148–165. London: Routledge. ist, colonialist, imperialist. Man 19: 355–370. Schaedel, Richard P. 1978. Early state of the Incas. In Henri ———. 1992. Historia del pensamiento arqueológico. Barce- J. M. Claessen and Peter Skalnik, eds., The early state, lona: Editorial Crítica. 289–320. The Hague: Mouton. Uceda, Santiago, Elias Mujica, and Roberto Morales (eds.). Schaedel, Richard P., and Izumi Shimada. 1982. Peruvian 1997. Investigaciones en la Huaca de la Luna 1995. Perú: archaeology 1940–80: An analytical overview. World Ar- Universidad Nacional de Trujillo. chaeology 13: 359–371. Vargas Arenas, Iraida. 1990. Arqueología, ciencia y sociedad. Schele, Linda, and David Freidel. 1990. A forest of kings: The Caracas: Editorial Abre Brecha. untold story of the ancient Maya. New York: Quill/William Vargas Arenas, Iraida, and Mario Sanoja Obediente. 1998. Morrow. Historia, identidad y poder. Caracas: Editorial Tropykos.

184 tom d. dillehay ———. 1999. Archaeology as social science: Its expression Willey, Gordon R., and Jeremy A. Sabloff. 1986. A history of in Latin America. In Gustavo G. Politis and Benjamin Al- American archaeology. 2nd ed. San Francisco: Freeman. berti, eds., Archaeology in Latin America, 59–75. London: Williams, Denis. 1996. Archaeology in the Guianas. SAA Routledge. Bulletin 14(1): 10–12. Verano, John W. 1995. Where do they rest? The treatment of Williams, Carlos. 1978–1980. Complejo de píramides con human offerings and trophies in ancient Peru. In Tom D. planta en U, patron arquitectonico de la costa central. Dillehay, ed., Tombs for the living, 189–227. Washington, Revista del Museo Nacional 44: 95–100. DC: Dumbarton Oaks. Wilson, David J. 1988. Prehispanic settlement patterns in Villalba, M. 1988 Cotocollao: Una aldea formativa del valle the lower Santa Valley, Peru: A regional perspective on the de Quito. MAE Serie Monografica 2. Quito: Museos del origins and development of complex north coast society. Banco Central del Ecuador. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press. Webster, David L. 1977. Warfare and the evolution of Maya Wilson, Samuel (ed.). 1997. The indigenous people of the Ca- civilization. In Richard E. W. Adams, ed., The origins of ribbean. Gainesville: University of Florida Press. , 335–372. Albuquerque: University of Wing, Elizabeth S. 1978. Animal domestication in the Andes. New Mexico Press. In David L. Browman, ed., Advances in Andean archaeol- Wheeler, Jane C. 1984. On the orig in and early development ogy, 167–188. The Hague: Mouton. of camelid pastoralism in the Andes. In Juliet Clutton- Winter, Mark, C. Martínez López, W. O. Autry Jr., R. G. Brock and Caroline Grigson, eds., Animals and archaeology, Wilkinson, and P. A. Juárez. 1996. Entierros humanos de vol. 3, Early herders and their flocks, 395–410. International Monte Albán: Dos estudios. Oaxaca: Centro INAH. Series 83. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports. Wust, Irma, and Cristina Barreto. 1999 The ring villages of Wilk, Richard R., and Wendy Ashmore (eds.). 1987. House central Brazil: A challenge for Amazonian archaeology. and household in the Mesoamerican past: Case studies from Latin American Antiquity 10: 3–24. Oaxaca and the Maya lowlands. Albuquerque: University Yacobaccio, Hugo. 1994. Argentinean archaeology: The last of New Mexico Press. 20 years. SAA Bulletin 12(4): 10–11. Willey, Gordon R. 1953. Prehistoric settlement patterns in the Yacobaccio, Hugo, C. M. Madero, and M. P. Malmiera. 1998. Et- Virú valley, Perú. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin noarqueología de Pastores Surandinos. Buenos Aires: GZC. 155. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office. Zucchi, Alberta. 1973. prehistoric human occupation of ———. 1971. An introduction to American archaeology. Vol. the western Venezuelan llanos. American Antiquity 38: 2, South America. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. 182–190.

Latin American Archaeology in History and Practice 185