Society for American Archaeology

The Theoretical Landscape and the Methodological Development of Archaeology in Latin

America
Author(s): Gustavo G. Politis
Source: American Antiquity, Vol. 68, No. 2 (Apr., 2003), pp. 245-272
Published by: Society for American Archaeology
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3557079
Accessed: 25/04/2009 12:23
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sam.
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the
scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that
promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Society for American Archaeology is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
American Antiquity.

http://www.jstor.org

THE THEORETICAL LANDSCAPE AND THE METHODOLOGICAL

DEVELOPMENT OF ARCHAEOLOGY IN LATIN AMERICA
GustavoG. Politis
Latin American archaeology has been infenced by the world theoretical context, from which it has developed original
approaches. Currently,a culture-historyconceptual foundation still predominates in the region, with some modern variants
that have emphasizedenvironmentalaspects and approachedspecific problems. Processual archaeology, especially the North
Americanvarieties, remainsminor in the region despite manyLatinAmericanarchaeologists' belief that their workfalls within
this camp. Post-processual trendsare even less well represented,although a growing numberof researchersfocus in an eclecticfashion on subject matter that corresponds to the post-processual agenda (e.g., identity,multivocality,etc.). Researchersin
certain areas within the region are producing original research linked to political economy and its relation to ideology, and
others arefocusing on symbolic and cognitive aspectin some cases within a structuralistframework).In LatinAmerica several interesting methodological developmentsare emerging,among which ethnoarchaeologyand vertebrate taphonomystand
out. In recent years historical archaeology has been one of the disciplines that has grown the most and achieved the greatest
popularity.Despite the still-limited nature of LatinAmericanarchaeology's contributionsin thefield of theory and methodology, there is nonetheless sustained growth in this direction,fundamentally in the generation of modelsfor the interpretationof
regional processes. However, these contributionsare not visible at the level of international debate and are generally ignored
by archaeologistsfrom the central countries. The multiple causes of this phenomenon are analyzed.
En este articulo se sintetizanlas principales tendenciastedricasy metodoldgicasde las investigacionesarqueoldgicasenAmerica
Latina. La arqueologia de esta region ha estado influidapor el contexto tedrico mundial,desde donde ha generado desarrollos
originales. Actualmenteaun predominaen la region una base conceptual histdrico-culturalcon algunas variantes modemas que
han puesto enfasis en los aspectos ambientalesy en el abordajede problemasespecificos. La arqueologiaprocesual, sobre todo
en las vertientesnorteamericanas,es ain minoritariaen la regidn,a pesar de que muchos arquedlogoslatinoamericanoscreen
que sus trabajosse encuadrandentrode este enfoque.Las corrientespost-procesualesson ain mas restringidas,aunque un creciente nu'merosde investigadoresestd abordandode maneraeclectica temas de la agenda post-procesual(e.g., identidad,multivocalidad, etc). Algunas investigacionesen ciertas areas de la regionestdngenerandolineas originales vinculadas a la economfa
politica y a su relacidncon la ideologia, y otros estdn enfocandoaspectos simbolicoy cognitivos (en algunos casos desde el estructuralismo).En Ame'ricaLatina se estdn produciendovarios desarrollos metodoldgicosinteresantes,entre los que se destacan la
etnoarqueologiay la tafonomiade vertebrados.En los u'ltimosaiios, la arqueologia historica ha sido una de las disciplinas que
mas ha crecido y que mas popularidadha logrado.A pesar de que au'nson limitados los aportes de la arqueologia latinoamericana en el campo de la teorfa y la metodologia, estos tienen un crecimientosostenido,fundamentalmenteen la generacidnde
modelospara la interpretacidnde los procesos regionales.Sin embargo,estos aportes no son visibles en el debate mundialy son
generalmenteignoradospor los arquedlogosde los paises centrales.En este articulo se analizan las miultiplescausas de estefendmeno.

heterm"LatinAmerica" is commonlyused

to designatea largeregionencompassingseveral countrieswith some similaritiesin their

colonialbackground,language,andtraditions.However,it has little utilityin defininga LatinAmerican
archaeology.Suchanentitydoes notexist. Thereare
a varietyof regionalandnationaltraditionsof archaeological practices, with significant differences

betweenthem(see Dillehay2003). WhatmostLatin

American countries do share are socioeconomic
dependenceanda neocolonialstatuscomparedwith
the developednations.Obviously,these sociopolitical conditionsaffect the theoreticaltrendsin these
countriesand how Latin American archaeologists
accomplishtheirresearch(Benavides2001; Gnecco
1999; Politis 1995).

del Centrode la Pcia. de Buenos Aires y Universidadde La Plata,Avda. del

Gustavo G. Politis * CONICET-Universidad
Valle 5737, (7400) Olavarria,Argentina,gpolitis@museo.fcnym.unlp.edu.ar
AmericanAntiquity,68(2), 2003, pp. 245-272
Copyright? 2003 by the Society for AmericanArchaeology
245

246

AMERICAN ANTIQUITY

In LatinAmerica,culturehistorywas almostthe
exclusive approachuntilthe 1960s andremainsthe
dominant paradigm structuring archaeological
inquiryin the region.However,it wouldbe unfairto
thecurrenttheoreticallandscapeof Latin
characterize
Americanarchaeologyas dominatedby a mid-twentieth-centuryculturehistory. Many new developments and methodologicalinnovationshave been
transformingit into a muchmoredynamicandflexible discipline with multipleresearchdirections.It
also would be unjustto consider Latin American
archaeologyas a passivereflectionof foreign,essentially NorthAmerican,influences.Local archaeologists havedevelopedoriginalmethodsandgenerated
theirown models andconceptualframeworks.Certainly archaeologicalpracticeshave adoptedtheoretical questions and methods from foreign
intellectualtraditions.Thisis simplybecause,as with
any researchin the Westernworld,LatinAmerican
archaeologistsareengagedas partof open scientific
communities, exposed to intellectual movements
generatedin othercountries.
Withthe publicationof the two volumesof GordonWilley's 1966 and 1971 masterpieces,AnIntroduction to American Archaeology, the culturehistoricalapproachreachedits peak in both North
and LatinAmerica.This publicationwas probably
the mostcompletesynthesisby a singleauthorof the
culture-historicalview of the pre-Europeanpast of
Latin America. Several previous edited volumes
(e.g., MeggersandEvans1963;Steward1946-1950)
were importantantecedentsto Willey's influential
work. In this paper, I will attempt to show how
archaeology in Latin America evolved from this
theoreticalframework
hegemonicculture-historical
thatled the disciplinefor severaldecades,to the currentsituation.I feel thatalthougha modem formof
culturehistorydominatesLatinAmericanarchaeology today,it is a verydifferentparadigm,alliedwith
processualand post-processualapproaches.Unfortunately,I do not havethe same depthof knowledge
forall partsof thisvastregionnoramI equallyfamiliar with the breadthof topics investigatedin several
individualareas.LatinAmericais animmenseregion
withvariedresearchinterests.My coveragewill necessarilybe unevenandthe examplesderivefromthe
areasand themesI know best. Not all relevantsubjects will be discussed,andneitherwill all theimportant Latin American authors be mentioned (I
therefore extend advance apologies to many col-

[Vol. 68, No. 2, 2003

leagueswhose namesarenotin thissynthesis).However,I hope thatthis papercapturesthe diversityof

practicesin the region and discusses in a balanced
fashion the main theoretical and methodological
developmentsin LatinAmericanarchaeology.
I will concentrateon local traditionsof archaeological researchin LatinAmerica. I emphasizethe
contributionsand interestsof local archaeologists
and their production of conceptual and methodological frameworksfor investigation. However,
because foreign researchershave been involved in
thearchaeologyof theregionforcenturies,I alsotake
into account some of the most influentialforeign
scholarsto contextualizetheissuesI discuss.Thecurrent archaeologypracticedin most areas of Latin
America cannot be detached from the effect of
archaeologists from western Europe and North
America,many of whom have been tremendously
influentialin the directionsof local archaeological
inquiry.Individualssuchas BettyMeggersandCliffordEvansin Brazil,FredLange in CostaRica and
Nicaragua,RichardDrennanandWarwickBrayfor
Colombia, Charles Spencer and Elsa Redman in
Venezuela,RichardCooke andAnthonyRanerefor
Panama,and Tom Dillehay in Chile are intimately
associatedwith the contemporarydevelopmentand
practice of archaeologyin those countries.Addibut
tionally,manyforeign(primarilyNorthAmerican
also French, British, and Spanish) archaeologists
have been significant in the archaeology of
MesoamericaandtheAndes.Finally,I will avoiddiscussionof the sociopoliticalaspectsof LatinAmerican archaeologicalpracticein this paper,becauseI
have addressedit in detailelsewhere (Politis 1995,
2001; Politis and PerezGollan2004).
The Theoretical Scenario
TheNorthAmericanculture-historical
approachhad
a directimpacton thearchaeologypracticedin every
countryof LatinAmerica.Archaeologicalfindswere
organizedinto a temporalframeworkof cultures,
periodsandphases.Technologicaldivisions,suchas
thosefocused on ceramicsandlithics,placedsherds
andartifactsin seriationsequences,compartmentalized styles,technologicalcomplexes,andindustries.
This work was done mainly by North American
archaeologists(e.g., Bennettet al. 1948 in the case
of NorthwestArgentina;Meggers and Evans 1957
fortheAmazon;BennettandBird 1949forPeru;see
also Willey 1958 for a comparativesynthesis),but

Gustavo G. Politis]

ARCHAEOLOGY IN LATINAMERICA

in some cases withthecollaborationof local archaeologists (e.g., Cruxent and Rouse 1958 for
Venezuela;Estradaand Evans 1963 for Ecuador).
The frameworkforthereconstructionof the pasthas
been, and remains, a complex mosaic in which
regional sequences, sites, and interpretiveunits of
integrationsuchas periods,traditions,subtraditions,
andhorizons,arearticulatedwithina culture-history
dominatedapproach.Most local archaeologistsfollowed trendsestablishedby the dominanceof North
Americanculture-history
paradigm.Theinfluenceof
Britishculturehistory,mainly throughthe work of
GordonChilde (PerezGollan 1981), of the AustroGermanKulturkreiseschool (Gnecco 1995; Politis
1995)andof someFrenchtrends(L6pezMazz 1999)
has been importantin some areas.Duringthe 1950s
and 1960s some prominent Latin American
researcherscontinued these temporal and spatial
organizational approaches to the archaeological
record and produced their own local or regional
sequences(e.g., Gonzalez1955, 1963;OliveNegrete
1958;PifiaChan1955, 1963).These had some individualinnovations,butessentiallyfollowedtheconceptual schemes of their North American
predecessors.
This culture-historylegacy has been difficultto
replacein currentLatinAmericanarchaeology.The
influenceof the culture-historical
approachremains
of
its
because
epistemologicalstabilstrong,partly
to
its
but
also
ability organizediversearchaeoity,
with
records
comparableunits.It provideda
logical
powerfuldescriptivetool thatcouldsynthesizeexisting data at a regionalscale and offeredmethodsto
investigateunknownareas.The ability to incorporateinformationfrompoorlyknownareasintoextant
schemais a key reasonfor the popularityof culture
history.Currently,most LatinAmericanarchaeoloapproachas the most
gists see the culture-historical
a researchprojectin
initiate
manner
to
appropriate
a new geographicalarea.Withinthisessentialist,culture-historicalfoundation,LatinAmericanarchaeologists have developedthree major strategiesfor
studyingthe past.This has involvedthe adoptionof
new scientificmethodsandconcerns,influencedby
recognition during the 1970s of the incomplete
explanatorypowerof culturehistory.These include
improvedmethods for empiricalidentificationand
temporaland spatialorganizationof archaeological
remains,environmentalarchaeology,and problemorientedresearch.All three strategiesare currently

247

integralto LatinAmericanarchaeologicalpractice
and are often difficultto divide into separatetheoretical-methodologicaltrends.
The first strategyincludes improvedsophisticationin the methodsandtechniquesfor analyzingthe
archaeologicalrecordand for formingit into temporal-spatialunits.In most cases, directcorrelations
between archaeologicalunits (e.g., a phase or subphase) and ethnographiccategories (e.g., a band,
tribe,orethnicgroup)werenotassumed.Thisavoids
one of the main shortcomingsof the culture-historical approachthat often equatedinferredarchaeological variability with interpretations of
ethnographicallymeaningfulunits.Theemphasisin
this approachis on developmentand bettercontrol
of chronology and spatial patterns of variation.
Therefore,more datawere recordedto describeand
definearchaeologicalcultures,phases,andsubphases
withparticularemphasison ceramicsequences.Seriation of pottery,often termed Ford's method, has
been progressively replaced by other kinds of
ceramic analyses (i.e., functional, technological,
etc.).This strategyalso took full advantageof radiocarbondatingto moresecurelyidentifyandseparate
existingchronologiesof phasesanddifferentcultural
evidence
components.Linguisticandethnohistorical
were fully exploited,especially in the construction
of regionalmodels in LowlandSouthAmerica(see
critiquesin Neves 1999a).
Throughthe combinationof these methodsand
researchtactics, a substantiallyexpandedcomparative databasewas createdfor many areas of Latin
America.A good exampleof the improvedinterpretationsprovidedby thisapproachis theresearchdone
in Brazil underthe auspices of Betty Meggers and
the SmithsonianInstitution(see papersin Meggers
1992).Most of theresearchin Cuba(e.g.,Feblesand
Rives 1991) and in northeasternArgentina(e.g.,
Rodriguez2001) could be included in this trend.
Other examples are the synthesis of Ecuadorian
archaeologyproposedby Porras(1980), the studyof
the early pottery of Costa Rica done by Fonseca
Zamora(1997), andthemodelforthepeoplingof the
MaracaiboLake Basin, Venezuela, developed by
Arvelo(1996). In the lattercase, the modelwas built
with an elegantintegrationof archaeological,ethnohistorical,and linguisticevidence.It is importantto
note thatunderthese innovationsto the culture-historyumbrella,someinterestingandprovocativemodels of archaeologicalchangeshave been developed,

248

AMERICAN ANTIQUITY

suchas JoseBrochado'sexplanation(underthestrong
influenceof DonaldLathrap)of the spreadof pottery
and horticulture into eastern South America
(Brochado1984).
The second strategyis environmentalarchaeolresearch
ogy. This approachallies culture-historical
with a strongecologicalinterest.In contrastto using
broad paleoenvironmentalmodels, environmental
archaeologyfocuses on creatingdetailed local or
micro-regionaldata.The integrationof palynology,
paleontology,sedimentology,andisotopic analyses
has been critical in the developmentof this investigative strategy.Incorporatingthese data anchors
culture-historical
unitswithinwell-definedenvironmentalsettings.Inadditionto providingmoresophisticated descriptions of recognized chronological
periods, this emphasis has occasionally suggested
causalconnectionsbetweenparticularenvironmentaldynamicsandculturalstabilityandchange.Examples of this trendincludesthe recentstudydone by
Nuiiez et al. (1999) in the Quebradade Puripica
wherethey have combinedarchaeologicalanalyses
(lithic, zooarchaeological,spatial,etc.) with a varidata.
ety of paleoenvironmental
Thethirdstrategyaugmentingtheculture-history
archaeology.Thisuses
approachis problem-oriented
a strongemphasison comparativeanalyticalprocedures to addressquestions other than chronology.
Althoughstill situatedwithinchronologicalandspatialframeworks,problem-oriented
archaeologycombinestheresultsof detailedanalyses(lithic,ceramic,
faunal,architectural,
etc.)focusedon addressingspecific researchquestionsaboutpast behaviors.Perhapsone of thebestandmostsophisticatedexamples
of this strategyis the study of early urbanismin
Mesoamerica by Manzanilla (1997, 1999). This
coninvestigationcombinessome culture-historical
Table
in
6.1
Manzanilla
with
dis(see
1999)
cepts
cussionsof sacredurbanplanning,thecosmicsphere,
monumental architecture, social and economic
issues, etc. In this researchManzanillaarticulatesin
a fine way "hard"datafromher own excavationsin
Teotihuacanwith social andideationalquestions.
Most of the researchcarriedout in the Central
Andes by local archaeologists-both Peruviansand
Bolivians-follows one of thesethreestrategies(e.g.,
the majority of the articles published in Gaceta
Arqueologica Andina), although environmental
archaeology is scarcely represented. Interest is
focused on architecturalandurbanpatterns,pottery

[Vol. 68, No. 2, 2003

styles, economic organization,and establishingthe

temporal-spatialvariables for the overwhelming
archaeologicalrecordof this area. Rowe's scheme
of horizonsand intermediateperiods (Rowe 1960;
see also Lanning 1967) has provideda framework
to organizeandinterpreta varietyof evidence,from
isolated finds to pottery styles and sites. By this
means, a number of regional culture-history
sequences have been proposed (in many cases in
close alliance with foreign scholars),and the database for the CentralAndes has increased significantlyin recentdecades.
Some would arguethatthe last two strategiesof
research should be considered to be processual
archaeology,since both detailedpaleoenvironmental inquiryand problem-orientedresearchare often
centralto processualinvestigations.I do not think
this is appropriate.In muchresearchin LatinAmerica, the use of environmentalinformationandproblem orientationhas primarilyservedto make more
precise spatialand temporalreconstructionsof the
past. Currently,more than two decades after the
adoptionof elements of processualarchaeologyin
LatinAmerica,it is apparentthatthishasnotchanged
the essentialinterpretiveconcernsof culture-historical investigations.The adoptionof modernscientific techniques,discourse,and the introductionof
some new concepts (e.g., adaptation,culturalsystems, site formationprocess, n- and c-transforms,
etc.)wereattachedto theculture-historical
paradigm
with minimalchangesto researchgoals and strategies. These additionalmethods have not substantially altered the nature of explanations or
understandingof culturalprocesses in LatinAmerican archaeologicalpractice.I believe thatmost of
whatis considered"processualarchaeology"by its
practitionersis actually culturehistory with more
sophisticatedanalyticalmethods, an emphasis on
paleoenvironmental data and some fashionable
themes (for examplerisk and uncertainty,adaptive
strategies,technologicalefficiency,etc.) embedded
in the discussion or sometimes only appendedto
introductions.I am not denigratingthis research;
most of the investigationsperformedunderwhat I
term"environmental"
and "problem-oriented"
culturehistoryis good archaeology.They undoubtedly
representqualitativeand quantitativeadvances,but
thetrappingsofprocessual-archaeological
discourse
often mask a dominantculture-historycore. Ultimately,"noteveryculture-historical
archaeologistis

Gustavo G. Politis]

IN LATINAMERICA
ARCHAEOLOGY

a stamp collector, and despite certainpretensions,

most processualistsand post-processualistscannot
be consideredgrandtheoreticians .
(Kohl and
PerezGollan2002:573).
Processualarchaeologyis still quitelimitedin its
applications in Latin America. Processual
approaches,emphasizingan ecological-functionalist orientation,were importantin the workof North
American archaeologists conducting research in
Latin America (e.g., Flannery 1968, 1972; Rick
1980). It can also be clearlyrecognizedin a generation of Latin American archaeologists who
embarkedon theircareersin the 1970s and 1980s.
As a resultof the conceptualframeworkand goals
of the early processualarchaeology,LatinAmerica
became a kind of laboratoryfor testingmodels and
hypothesesdevelopedelsewhere.Culture-historical
reconstructionswere not given researchpriority.As
the focus shifted toward more problem-oriented
researchheavilyrelianton paleoenvironmental
data,
therewas little or no concernfor refineddefinition
of temporalandspatialunits.The principalsubjects
andconceptsaddressedby thistrendwerethoseconsideredpertinentmostlyto the studyof hunter-gatherers(see reviewin LanataandBorrero1999).There
were also some minor processual influences on
archaeologicalresearchof Andean complex societies. In most countries,the workof Binford(1981,
1983, 1989) was the principalinfluenceon archaeologistsexploringthepotentialof processualarchaeology. His organizationalmodels were widely used
andhe was undoubtedlythe mostinfluentialprocessualarchaeologist.Althoughhis inputis moreclearly
studies,it also perrecognizablein hunter-gatherer
colates throughmost of the archaeologicalresearch
in the region in one way or another.In othercountries, such as Uruguay,Brazil and Mexico, several
researchersalso alludeto Schiffer's(1995) "behavioralarchaeology,"
butrarelypresentempiricalstudies thatactivelyemploy this framework.In Mexico
therehas been some criticalreflectionaboutbehavioralarchaeologythroughthe lens of historicmaterialism(LopezAguilar 1990).
Researchagendasderivedfromprocessualparadigms are embedded in much archaeological
research of Latin America. Most of the recent
methodologicaldevelopmentsrelatedto this paradigm are offspringof middle-rangetheory and site
formation studies. Interest in these approaches
amongLatinAmericanarchaeologistsemergedafter

249

Binford's calls for the generationof a systematic

body of methodologicalinstrumentscrucialto linking the static presentation of the archaeological
record with the dynamic behaviors that can be
observedin living societies.Thesedevelopmentsare
basedon actualisticstudiesunderthe assumptionof
uniformitarianprinciples. Experimentalarchaeology, significantlyin lithic materials(e.g., Curtoni
1996; Flegenheimer et al. 1996; Nami 1997,
1997-1998), and especially taphonomy and ethnoarchaeology,emergedin LatinAmerica,as elsewhere, as the most promising methodological
responsesto this call (see below).
Otherresearchfocused on increasingthe potentialof materialanalyticalstudies.Thisgoal involved
developing instrumentalconcepts to extractmore
and better information from the archaeological
record.Amongthemlithictechnologyandtypology,
ceramic analysis, and zooarchaeology can be
addressedin greatestdetail.The firsttwo havea long
traditionin LatinAmerica,predatingprocessualism
(e.g., Aschero 1975; B6rmida 1960; Chmyz
1961-1963; Taddei1964). Lithic studieshave been
profoundlyinfluencedby Frenchanalyticalschools
(Bordes 1950, 1961; Brezillion 1968; LamingEmperaire1967).Forexample,a Spanishtranslation
of the classic typology of the Lower and Middle
Paleolithic(Bordes1961), publishedby the University of Buenos Aires, was widely circulatedin the
SouthernCone. Similarly,Laming-Emperaire
gave
a seminarin Brazilthatresultedin the publication,
in Portuguese,of a guide for lithic studiesin South
America(Laming-Emperaire
1967).Ceramicanalysis beforeprocessualismfollowedtwo mainauthors,
Shepard(1956) and Ford (1962). The influenceof
theseapproachesvariedaccordingto country.Ford's
work was latertranslatedinto Spanish,adaptedfor
particularregionalexamplesand widely distributed
throughoutLatinAmericaby the SmithsonianInstitution (Meggers and Evans 1969). The impact of
processual archaeology benefited both lithic and
ceramic studies tremendously,primarilythrough
informationproducedfrom ethnoarchaeologyand
experimentalarchaeology.The improvedscientific
rigor of these combined approacheswas used to
investigatearchaeologicalmaterialeffectsandmore
carefullydevelopinferentialproceduresandanalytic
methodsfor understandingtheircauses. Models of
technologicalorganizationand its potentialarchaeological visibility came from Collins (1975) (also

250

AMERICAN ANTIQUITY

translatedinto Spanish),Torrence(1983), Nelson

(1992), and others.Binford's(1980) discussion of
curatedand expedienttechnologieswas especially
research(e.g.,Aschero
influentialin hunter-gatherer
1988; Dias and Hoeltz 1997;Fogaca 1995).
Zooarchaeologicalresearchin LatinAmericawas
directlyinfluencedby processualarchaeology.Prior
to that impetus, complete faunal studies were
extremelylimitedand were basicallyperformedby
palaeontologists.Withthe processualinput,important zooarchaeological studies have focused on
camelids in the Andes (e.g., Bonavia 1996; Cartajena andConcha1997;Vaizquezet al. 2001), Patagonia (e.g., Mengoni Goiialons 1999; Miotti 1998)
and Pampas (e.g., Martinez 1999; Politis and
Salemme1990;Salemme1987).Archaeologicalfaunal researchhas benefitedtremendouslyfromabundantinformationgeneratedaboutmoder wild and
domesticatedcamelidpopulations(e.g., Benavente
et al. 1993; Olivera2000; Raedeke 1976) and their
currentmanagementandexploitationby traditional
societies (G6bel 1999; Gonzalez 2000; Guerrero
Lara1986;Kuznar1995;Tomka1992).Thisarchaeological and ethnoarchaeologicalfocus on camelid
studiesis a consequenceof the importancethisfamily holds for currentandpasttraditionaleconomies,
social lives, and ideational spheres among many
SouthAmericanculturesfor at least 10,000 years.
Studies have examined its economic utility, symbolic meaning, and social significance(e.g., Mengoni Gonialons et al. 2001). Because of these
extensive studies, this family is the best known
amongthe LatinAmericanfauna.Otherzooarchaeological studieshave providedsignificantcontributions on cervids (e.g., Belardi and G6mez Otero
1998), sea mammals (e.g., Schiavini 1993), mollusks and fishes from coastal shell middens (e.g.,
Falabellaet al. 1994; Figuti 1992; Figuti and Klokler 1996; Jerardinoet al. 1992; Orqueraand Piana
2000), rodents(e.g., Simonettiand Corejo 1991),
prehispanicdogs (e.g.,ValadezAzuaet al. 1999),and
extinct Pleistocene megafauna(e.g., Alberdi et al.
2001; Lorenzo and Mirambell 1986; Miotti and
Salemme 1999). In the last decade,detailedzooarchaeologicalstudieshaveproliferatedin most areas
of Latin America (e.g., Alves and Caleffo 1996;
andPolaco
Arroyo-Cabrales1997;Arroyo-Cabrales
1997;MazzantiandQuintana2001) includingthose
of historicalperiods(e.g., Pintos Blanco 1996; Silveira1995).Moreover,thecombinedanalysisofutil-

[Vol. 68, No. 2, 2003

ity index and bone density have provideda more

accuratetool to approachthe faunal osteological
assemblages(e.g., Neme and Gil 2002).
Zooarchaeologicalresearchis among the bestdevelopedarenasof modem archaeologicalinvestigation in Latin America. Initial studies answered
basic qualitativeand quantitativequestions about
pastsubsistencepracticesthatwerelargelyunknown
until the late 1970s. Subsequently,zooarchaeologists have addresseda numberof otherissues currently being explored worldwide. New topics of
intense investigationinclude anatomicprey economy,preyprocessingandconsumption,bone transport and discardpatterns,bone technology, and a
rangeof taphonomicstudies(see below). While the
zooarchaeologyof camelidsin the Andes benefited
from the work of severalforeignresearchers(e.g.,
Wheeler Pires Ferreiraet al. 1976; Wing 1972),
researchin thePampasandPatagoniawas essentially
a local development.Severalaspectsof theseinvestigations,such as bone breakagepatterns,achieved
internationalstandardsof innovationrelativelyearly
(e.g., MengoniGoiialons1982, 1988).
Processualarchaeologyhas stimulatedseveral
importantchanges in LatinAmericanarchaeology.
It spurredrefinementsin the analyticalapproaches
to recognizedclasses of archaeologicalremainsand
expandedtherangeof materialsconsideredpertinent
for researchon a varietyof topics.Most critically,it
led to a reformulationof the kindsof archaeological
unitsandtheircomponentsusedto addressquestions
aboutchangeandstabilityin pastsocieties.However,
as I havenoted,this changehas beenmorerestricted
than in otherregions becauseprocessualarchaeology in LatinAmerica was incorporatedwithinthe
dominantculture-history
framework.New directions
in materialsanalysis,greaterrangesof variablesconsideredrelevantto researchissues,andmiddle-range
studies were all used primarilyto elaborateredefined culture-historicalquestionsof time andspace
systematics.
Moreextremepositivistpositions,suchas evolutionaryecology and selectionism(see Hegmon,this
issue), have been more limitedin theirinfluenceon
Latin Americanarchaeology(e.g., Laguens 1998,
1997-98; LanataandBorrero1994).Althoughthese
are genuine attemptsat developingmore scientific
investigationsthatcanreduceormorecarefullyspecdata,manyof thegoals
ify ambiguityin archaeological
of evolutionaryecology andselectionism,especially

Gustavo G. Politis]

IN LATINAMERICA
ARCHAEOLOGY

those which requirefine-grainedanalysis, are currently unrealized.For example,there is little comprehensivedataon plantandanimalbiomassto assist
in quantitativelymodelinghumansubsistencefrom
the existing archaeologicalandpaleoenvironmental
data.These limitationshave forced some studiesto
make a great many assumptionsand speculations
thatreducethe reliabilityand utility of theiranalyses andresults(e.g., Laguens1998). Discussionsof
models of culturaltransmissionand evolutionary
ecologicalapproaches(e.g.,Borrero1993;see papers
in MartinezandLanata2002) arestillatanearlystage
in LatinAmericantheoreticaldebates.
Marxism and historicalmaterialismhave long
been common elements in LatinAmericanarchaeology.Thisis duepartiallyto theimportantinfluence
of SpanishRepublicanswho emigratedto Mexico
aftertheSpanishCivilWar(e.g.,AngelPalerm,Pedro
Armillas,JoseLuisLorenzo,etc.). Inrecentdecades
its adherentshave consolidateda position as "Latin
American social archaeology"and formally proposed a programmaticagendadirectedtowardmaking the practiceof archaeologysociallyrelevantand
politically active (Lorenzoet al. 1976; Lumbreras
1974). This school of thoughthas been subjectto
recentdebateaboutits epistemologicalbasis, originality,andtranscendencewithinandoutsideof Latin
America(Benavides2001;McGuire1992;McGuire
and Navarrete1999; Oyuela-Caycedoet al. 1997;
Patterson1994). "LatinAmericansocial archaeology"recognizesits sourceof inspirationin theworks
of GordonChilde,the papersof PeruviansE. Choy
(1960) andJ. C. Maridtegui(1952), andin the book
by Cubans E. Tabio and E. Rey (1966) as the
antecedentsof Marxistthinkingin LatinAmerica.
The fundamentalpapersdetailingthis paradigmare
considered the manifiesto published from the
Reunionde Teotihuacan(Lorenzoet al. 1976) and
theearlybooksof Lumbreras
(1974),SanojaandVarBate
and
(1977, 1978) (for recent and
gas (1978),
extensivereviewssee Bate 1998;Fournier1999;Vargas and Sanoja 1999). A deep analysis of the conceptual and epistemological foundations of this
schoolis nottheaimof thisarticle;I concentrateonly
on clarifyingits significancein the theoreticallandscape of LatinAmericanarchaeology.
LatinAmericansocial archaeologyis not a unified body of theory.The methodologiesappliedand
the intellectual positions held by its practitioners
varywidely.Theydo allrecognizethehistoric-mate-

251

rialist method and the generalprinciplesof Marxism. Beyond this basic umbrellathere are conceptual and methodological differences among its
adherents.Forexample,thereis no agreementon the
definitions,use, and utility of archaeologicalinterpretationsof veryfundamentalconceptssuchas "cul2002 andpersonalcommunication
ture"(Lumbreras,
2001). Severalotherbasic termsin theirliterature,
such as "modeof life" and "socialformation,"also
are subjectto variableuses and interpretations(see
discussionin Ensor2000). Therealso aresignificant
differencesin how LatinAmericansocial archaeologists use archaeologicaldata in the analysis and
evaluationof theirmodels. Some remainpurelyin
the sphere of theoreticalproductionwith minimal
attemptsto examinethe applicationof Marxistideas
throughcase studiesandempiricaldata.Othershave
developeda morebalancedapproachthatcombines
conceptualargumentwith methodologicaldevelopment, data collection, analyses, and interpretation
(e.g., SanojaandVargas1995, 1999;Vargas1990).
One of themostinfluentialfoundingmembersof the
LatinAmericansocial archaeologyschool,Lumbreras,illustratesa uniquelyatypicalresearchapproach
withintheMarxistparadigm.Lumbreras
hasactively
in
the
so-called
participated meetings organizedby
inside
the
school) and
GrupoOaxtepec(a subgroup
is recognizedas one of the most prominentMarxist
thinkersin LatinAmericanarchaeology,especially
afterhis seminalpaper(Lumbreras1974).His excellent archaeologicalwork on Chavin(see for example Lumbreras1989), which consumedmanyyears
of his professionalcareer,is essentially a sophisticated culture-historicalinterpretation.It does not
representan example of Marxist archaeology.In
Mexico, the homeland of "LatinAmerican social
Gandaraet al. (1985:12)concludethat
archaeology,"
aftermorethan10 yearsof theoreticalproductionby
practitionersof this school, "we cannotcount even
one case of Marxist archaeology."According to
Vazquez Le6n (1996:35), that summaryremained
true at least into the mid-1990s. This demonstrates
a very unevendevelopmentof Marxistarchaeology
in LatinAmerica.Thereis a disproportionate
emphasis on dense theoreticaldevelopmentwith significantlyless efforttowardgrowthof methodologyand
empiricalevaluationof archaeologicaldata.Thissituationwouldbe understandable
25 yearsago, when
the school was establishing its conceptual and
methodologicalframework.Currently,this severely

252

AMERICAN ANTIQUITY

limitstheinfluenceof Marxistthoughtin LatinAmerican archaeology.In agreementwith this view, Litvak (1997:11) recently wrote that "this social
archaeologymade a clear impact in theory and in
education[in Mexico], althoughit was not considered importantin the way archaeologicalresearch
was conducted."
Adherentsto and reviewersof Latin American
social archaeologyoften emphasizethe importance
of an activepoliticalcommitmentfromits members,
who considerarchaeologyas a means to transform
the currentsociopoliticalreality throughengaged,
revolutionaryapproachesto research.Forexample,
McGuireand Navarrete(1999:195) state that "los
programascolectivosaltamentepolitizadosy socialmentecomprometidosdefinena la arqueologfasocial
latinoamericana."
Despite the rhetoric,such a realized politicalagendain theformof a concertedgroup
of researchersengagedin a collectiveenterprisedoes
notexist;as Fournier(1999:20)states,therearevery
few LatinAmericansocial archaeologistswho actually assumethis responsibility.Theirpersonalpolitical engagementdoes not differ substantiallyfrom
that of otherLatinAmericanarchaeologistsworking underdifferentparadigms.On this point, I differ with the view presentedby Benavides (2001).
Following an acute revisionistpresentationof the
neo-colonialposition of LatinAmericaandthe role
that "social archaeology"shouldplay in the transformationof the currentsociopoliticalscene, Benavides presentsthree examples of socially engaged
archaeologicalprojects.Theseprojectscertainlyproduced positive impacts within those communities
andaddressedtheirpresentpoliticalstruggles.However, as Benavides himself recognizes (2001:362),
thebestexamplehas"neverbeenaffiliateditselfwith
anyof socialarchaeology'sguidelines";norwerethe
othertwo. My feeling is thatin LatinAmericamany
archaeologists(bothlocal andforeign)from a variety of theoreticalpositionsmay personallyembrace
Marxismand are socially sensitive,withoutnecessarily being affiliatedwith "LatinAmericansocial
archaeology." The logistics of fieldwork place
archaeologistsin contactwiththemarkedeconomic
contraststhat exist among ruralpopulations.The
need to maketheirworkrelevantto local communities is related to these experiences with poor,
exploited, and sometimesindigenouspeoples who
live in proximityto archaeologicalsites. This is evident in the effortsof some archaeologiststo ensure

[Vol. 68, No. 2, 2003

thatthe knowledgethey generatehelps improvethe

living standardsof the communitieswithwhomthey
work(e.g.,Erickson1986, 1992;OliveraandTchilinguirian2000). Most of these archaeologistsare not
"social archaeologists"and several are not even
Marxist.Therefore,I do notsee currentsocialarchaeologists possessingany determinedpoliticalagenda
for the practiceof archaeologyas a partof a revolutionaryprocess, as did happenin the past with the
indigenistarchaeologistsManuelGamioin Mexico
or JulioTelloin Peru.I am not denyingthe genuine
preoccupationof social archaeologistswith a more
useful archaeologyfor the indigenous,mestizo,and
dispossessed people in principle.These concerns,
however,appearto remainlargely theoretical,and
therearecurrentlyfew demonstrationsof theirpracticalintegrationunderMarxistarchaeology(see also
Fournier1999).
The last issue regardingMarxistarchaeologyI
discuss is the importanceof social archaeologyin
the theoreticallandscapeof LatinAmericanarchaeology.As faras I can see, thisparadigmis not dominant in any country within the region (see also
Dillehay2003).Itcompeteswithotherequallystrong
theoreticalpositionsin Venezuelaand possibly the
DominicanRepublic;it is secondaryandmostlytheoreticalin Mexico andPeru;andis virtuallynonexistent in the rest of Latin America. This does not
negateits originalityorpotentialto be a viablealternative school of archaeologicalthoughtor practice
in LatinAmerica.It does demonstrate,however,that
after25 yearsof densetheoreticaldebate,it hasbeen
adopted by only a minority of Latin American
archaeologists.As I havediscussedelsewhere(Politis 1995), the unpopularityof this school in several
countries (especially in the Southern Cone and
to milBrazil)mightatone timehavebeenattributed
itary governments'oppositionto Marxistideas in
any field. However,given the intellectualfreedoms
enjoyedfor the last 15 yearsin most of LatinAmerica, this lack of acceptanceand concretepractical
developmentmay be attributedto failures of this
school thatappearto be primarilymethodological.
Post-processualismhas still had only a modest
impacton LatinAmericanarchaeologythathascome
basicallythroughthe workof IanHodder(1982, ed.
1982, 1994).Althoughfew SouthAmericanarchaeologists recognizethat theirworkfalls withinvariants of this increasingly loosely defined set of
approaches(e.g., Acuto 1999; Haber 1997), many

Gustavo G. Politis]

ARCHAEOLOGY IN LATINAMERICA

more are discussing some of the ideas in the postprocessual agenda (e.g., Castro and Gallardo
1995-1996; Curtoni2000; Gianotti Garcia 2000;
Gnecco 1999). Several themes of post-processual
interest(e.g., symbolicstudyof artifacts)havelong
been componentsin the work of manyLatinAmericanarchaeologists(e.g., Gonzalez1977).Moreover,
in severalLatinAmericancountries(such as Peru,
Mexico, and Cuba),the explicitpolitical and social
involvementof academiahas a traditionof producing the kindsof critiquesaboutpoliticallyresponsible archaeologythat have occurredonly relatively
recently in North America and Great Britain
(McGuireand Navarrete1999). The existence of
large indigenous populations and popular social
movements in several South American countries
make some post-processualconcerns immediately
relevant. Issues concerning ethnicity, indigenous
rights, or multivocalityare obviously pertinentto
LatinAmerica.Othercomponentsof post-processual
critiquesuchas the studyof genderor therole of the
individualhave not been considered as germane.
Archaeologicalresearchfocusing on genderissues
in particularis poorlyrepresentedin LatinAmerica
comparedwith NorthAmericaor WesternEurope.
The few studies that do addressgender roles systematicallyhave been performedmostly by foreign
researchers(e.g., Gero 1991, 1992; Hastorf 1991;
Joyce 1996, 1998).
Among many developmentsin LatinAmerican
archaeologythatdidnotembracetheecologicalfunctionalism of processual archaeology, some have
addressedsymbolic andcognitivetopics (in certain
cases within a structuralistframework)somewhat
independentlyfrom Anglo-Americanpost-processualism.I will highlightonly a few examplesthatI
consider the most interesting, notably from the
NorthernAndes,whichcouldbe consideredan original regionaltrend.A "core"of symbolic and cognitiveinterestcan be identifiedin the archaeologyof
metallurgy,sacredarchitecture,and ritualofferings
in northeasternSouthAmerica(e.g., Falchetti1999,
2000; Llanos Vargas1995). However,many other
cases can be found in a more isolated fashion
throughoutthe region, from Mexico (e.g., Lopez
Lujan1994) to the southernAndes (e.g., Gonzdlez
1992, 1998), including the GreaterAntilles (e.g.,
Oliver2000). The "nucleus"of this researcheffort
is essentiallymade up of Colombiansand has been
clearlyinfluencedby the ethnographicworkandthe

253

interpretativestrategies of G. Reichel-Dolmatoff
(1978, 1985, 1986, 1988), a positive influencethat
introducedan original mode of inquiry,although
simultaneouslyproducingsome bias in interpretation due to the pervasiveeffect of Tukanoand Kogi
Indiancosmologies (the best and most-developed
ethnographicsources studiedand used by ReichelDolmatoff).Based on mythologiesandethnohistorical sources, this researchhas tried to capturethe
meaningof themetalobjectsandmonumentalarchitectureas well as understandthe symbolic context
of metalworkingandmonumentalstonework.In an
original approach,Falchetti (1999) attemptedto
showhowtheassociationbetweencosmologicaland
biologicalcycles is the foundationof theindigenous
interpretationof the symbolism of metals and the
functionof certainobjects.TheresearchbyVelandia
(1994, 1999) in San Agustin, Colombia,is a good
example of an elegant applicationof structuralist
of a
conceptsandmethodologyto the interpretation
work
different
sources.
This
set
data
from
of
complex
combines contemporaryethnographicinformation
withthearchaeologicalstudyof a varietyof remains
suchas statues,iconography,polychrometombornamentation,and locations of funeraryassemblages.
Anothergood example of the applicationof structuralistprinciplesis the studyby Lleras-P6rez(2000)
of theiconographyandsymbolismof metallicvotive
offeringsin the easternmostbranchof the Northern
Andesrange.In this research,Lleras-Perezused the
concept of dualism taken from Levi-Strauss to
explore the modes of thought and the underlying
principlesoperatingin the prehispanicsocieties of
the easternCordillera.He identifiedseveraldouble
oppositionsdepictedin thevotiveiconography,such
as barrenversusfertile,dominationversussubmission, etc. (Lleras-Perez2000:127-129).
In additionto these Colombianexamples,other
cases show an interestin cognitive-symbolictopics
in many areas in the region (e.g., Aguilera 1997;
Alconini 1995; Schaan 2001; Zucchi 1993). The
analysisof the TemploMayorcaches (some 7,000
objects, nonrandomlyplaced) in Tenochtitlanby
Lopez Lujan(1994) is representative.In this study,
the authorshed light on the ritualmeaning of the
offeringsandthe "language"of thegifts as theywere
placedmorethanfive centuriesago. Therecentwork
of A. R. Gonzdlez(1992, 1998) is also interestingin
thisregard.Althoughconceivedundera culture-historicalapproach(as he explicitlyacknowledges),the

254

AMERICAN ANTIQUITY

researchof Gonzalez attemptsto discuss symbolic

and cognitive aspects of the Aguada culture and
Andean metallurgy.Although the cases presented
here could be consideredclosely relatedto British
post-processualism,theyseem to haveevolvedindependentlyfromthistheoreticaltrend.However,some
overlapdoes exist in researchtopics andmethodology.
Other innovative advances have been made in
the study of complex societies underthe umbrella
of political economy, which is also analyzed at
times in connection with ideology. Many of these
developmentsandinterpretationsarepartlyderived
fromthe ideasofT. Earleon the politicaleconomies
of chiefdoms.In the CentralAndes,recentresearch
on Moche and associated cultures on the North
Coast of Peruwent beyond the dominanthorizonintermediateperiod chronology and explored the
role played by ideology in the consolidation and
centralizationof politicalpowerandhow it is materialized (e.g., Alva 1992; Alva and Donnan 1993;
Castillo 1993; Uceda and Mujica 1994). Since the
1987 discovery of the famous El Seiior de Sipain
tomb (Alva 1990), Moche archaeologyhas developed in a new direction,characterizedby the study
of political ideology, the structure of political
power,andthe natureof ideology andits role in the
development of complex societies. The rich evidence obtainedfromsites suchas SanJose de Moro
in the Jequetepequevalley (Donnan and Castillo
1992) allowedCastillo(1993) to discusstheprocess
of creation of ideological mechanisms of control
by Moche elites, and to analyze the evolution of
these mechanisms as tools of domination. The
remainsandmuralsfound at Huacade la Lunaand
Huaca Cao Viejo also provided high-qualityevidence that fueled this dynamic and creative discussion (De Marraiset al. 1996; Uceda et al. 1994,
1995). The work of Perez Gollan (2000) in the
southernAndes is particularlyprovocative.Perez
Gollan disarticulatedthe culturalsequence of the
prehispanicagriculturaland ceramic societies in
theValliserranaareaof northwesternArgentinaand
examines the data from a very different perspective, focusing on explaining social processes of
power and inequality.He proposesthat in the Valliserranasocieties, ideological power was derived
from a process in which social inequalitybecame
hereditary.Controlof the means of productionand
exchange of surplusand subsistencegoods was the

[Vol. 68, No. 2, 2003

fundamentalsource of political power. He thinks

that ideological and military powers became subordinatedto a chiefdom economy (Perez Gollan
2000:254). Othergood examplesof the studyof the
relationshipbetween chiefly power, social development,and ideology come fromrecent work carried out in Puerto Rico (Curet 1996; Curet and
Oliver 1998; Oliver 1998).
Otherrecentresearchon politicaleconomypays
less attentionto ideology, focusing ratheron the
socialimplicationsof economiccontrol(e.g., Gass6n
1997, 1998). One good case is the studyof relationships between center and peripheryin the Classic
period in Tula, Mexico, in regardto processes of
expansionandretractionof Teotihuacanin the area
(Rodriguez et al. 1999). Another example is the
researchof Langebaek(2000),whohasrecentlystudied therelationshipbetweengoldworkingandchiefly
organizationin prehispanicColombiain threeareas:
Calima,AltoMagdalena,andAndesOrientales.After
comparingthe similaritiesand differencesin these
threechiefdomsfrom a temporaland regionalperspective,he exploresseveraldifferentissues includof their
ing thenatureof theelites, thecharacteristics
and
how
circulated
and
were
leadership,
gold objects
these
elites.
He
concludes
that
"los
manipulatedby
de
oro
no
sirvieron
solo
tamobjetos
parapensar;
bienfueronproducidosy manipuladospoliticamente,
esto es, consumidosen el contextode la economia
politica de los cacicazgos" (Langebaek2000:36).
Albarracin-Jordan
(1996) also producedan original
interpretation
regardingemergenceof theTiwanaku
phenomenon.Based on archaeological,ethnohistorical,andethnographicevidence,he proposesthat
the basic principlesof politicalandeconomic organization of the Aymaraayllus and markas can be
inferred to have been present during the Early
Tiwanakuperiod.He suggeststhattheemergenceof
Tiwanakucultureis explainedthroughintegrational
mechanismsthatincorporatedlocal "nestedhierarchies" into larger-orderpolitical structures(Albarracin-Jordan1996:205).A finalexample,originally
is the reinterpretation
applied to hunter-gatherers,
madeby L6pezMazz (2001) of the "cerritos"(earth
mounds) of eastern Uruguay.In this case, L6pez
Mazz combines concepts from political economy
with landscapearchaeologyand ceremoniallandscapes (Dillehay 1990) to postulatethatthe "cerritos" were "productossociales utiles a la actividad
ceremonialy se vinculancon estructurasy conduc-

Gustavo G. Politis]

IN LATINAMERICA
ARCHAEOLOGY

tas econ6micas, sociales y politicas"(L6pez Mazz

2001:251).
Methodological Developments
In the last two decadesLatinAmericanarchaeology
has attemptedto develop several methodological
tools to improvethe accuracyof empiricaldatacollection andlead to moresophisticatedinterpretation
of the materialrecordof the past. These are particularto theconcernsof researchin LatinAmericaand
to an arrayof verydifferentconditionsaffectingthe
diversearchaeologicalrecordin this region.
One centralapproach,derivedfrom processual
archaeology,hastargetedthedevelopmentof sophisticatedresearchinto site formationprocesses.This
has resultedin severalimportantvertebratetaphonomy andpaleoecologicalstudiesbestexemplifiedby
theworkofL. Borreroandhis collaboratorsin southern Patagoniaand Tierradel Fuego (Borella and
Favier Dubois 1994-1995; Borrero 1988, 1989,
1990, 2001; Borreroand Munioz1999; Martinand
Borrero 1997). These studies have generatedvery
importantbaselineinformationthatis systematicand
methodologically consistent, addressing natural
processes that affect archaeologicaldeposits in the
southernportionof SouthAmerica.They have significantly advancedunderstandingof taphonomic
modificationsof guanaco(Lamaguanicoe) skeletal
elements.This was the most importantlargepreyof
This
SouthernCone and Andeanhunter-gatherers.
work has focused on a varietyof archaeologically
visible effects on bones includingsurfaceweathering, carnivoremodifications,elementpreservation,
andspatialpatterning.Thesecarefulstudiesprovide
crucial data necessary in addressing a variety of
archaeological site formation issues. Especially
importantaretheirimplicationsforthestudyof early
humanpopulationsof theAmericas.Manyopen and
cave sites,especiallythosedocumentedin the SouthernCone,demonstrate
theimportanceof taphonomic
research to understandinghuman and nonhuman
agencies of materialpatterning.
Vertebrate
taphonomyhasundertakenseveraldifferent trajectoriesof actualisticresearch.In Latin
America,thisfieldhasbeendevelopedalmostexclusively by archaeologists.Recently,detailedstudies
of bone diagenesishavebeen initiatedusing anthropogenic and non-anthropogenicaccumulationsof
guanacobonesfromPampeansites(Gutierrez2001).
In a less-systematic way, disturbanceof archaeo-

255

logical sites by rodents has been studied,both in

archaeologicaldeposits (G6mez 2000; Politis and
Madrid 1988) and experimentally(Duran 1991).
Additionaldetailed taphonomicresearchhas been
developedto study cetaceans(Borella2001), birds
(Belardi1999; Cruz 1999, 2000), andbone density
(Elkin 1995). These sophisticated investigations
includelong-termsystematicresearchprojectson a
rangeof agentsof modificationandtheirapplication
to thestudyof archaeologicalsites.Witha few exceptions (e.g., Nogueirade Queiroz2001), this taphonomic research appears to be an Argentine
archaeologicaldevelopmentand includes most of
the majorregions of the country(e.g., Gutierrezet
al. 1997;Kligmannetal. 1999;Mondini1995;Mondini and Mufioz 1996; Nasti 1991, 2000; Oliveraet
al. 1991-1992).
Anothersignificantmethodologicaldevelopment
directlyinfluencedby processualarchaeologyis ethnoarchaeologicalresearch.Despite therichnessand
varietyof indigenoussocieties living in manyparts
of LatinAmerica,thereare still relativelyfew ethnoarchaeologicalstudies.Opportunitiesfor significantadditionalworkaretremendous.However,there
is a long-standingtraditionof using local ethnographicinformationto interpretandexplainseveral
aspectsof the archaeologicalrecord.Manyof these
now seem rathersimplistic mechanisticanalogies
that rely on assumptions of historical continuity
between archaeological phenomena and modern
ethnographicbehaviors.The currentapproachesin
ethnoarchaeologyhavetheirantecedentsin the studies of agro-pastoralsocieties in the Andes (Miller
1977),tropicalhunter-gatherers
(Laming-Emperaire
et al. 1978; Miller 1979) and horticulturists(Wtist
1975),Mexicanvillagers(BarbaandBello 1978)and
in the workof DeboerandLathrap(1979), andZeidler (1984) amongthe Shipibo andAshuarof eastern Ecuador. In recent years far-reaching and
systematic research programs have followed the
interests of these pioneer studies. Local ethnoarchaeologicalstudiesconcentrateon two main economic strategies,Andeanagro-pastoralistsocieties
(e.g., Cremonte 1988-1989, Nielsen 1997-1998;
Yacobaccio 1995; Yacobaccio and Madero 1994;
Yacobaccio et al. 1998; see also the recent book
editedby Kuznar[2001], where the greatmajority
of chapters are written by South American
researchers)and tropical lowlands horticulturists
(e.g., Assis 1995-96; Frias 1993; Heckenbergeret

256

AMERICAN ANTIQUITY

al. 1999;Wiist 1998).Otherareasof researchinclude

hunter-gatherersof the tropicalrainforest(Politis
1996a, 1996b, 1998, 1999) and ceramicmanufacture in Mexico (Williams 1994; Williams and
Weigand2001). A wide rangeof ethnoarchaeological materialstudies have been performed.Investigations have examined ceramic technological
production (Cremonte 1988-1989; Garcia 1988;
Williams 1994), ceramics as a vehicle of social
expression(Frias 1993; Silva 2000), bone and artifactrefusein agro-pastoralist
sites(Yacobaccioet al.
1998), settlementpatternsand architectureof lowland villagers(Assis 1995-1996; Wiist 1998; Wiist
and Barreto1999), chemicalcompositionof floors
in modemhabitationalunits(Barba1990;Barbaand
Ortiz 1992), and the study of the materialconsequences of food taboos(Politis andMartinez1996;
Politis and Saunders2002).
At least threetrendscan be identifiedin ethnoarchaeologicalresearchperformedby LatinAmerican
researchers.The firstselectscase studiesto examine
the physical effects of a limited suite of behaviors.
Well-defined manufacturingor refuse-generating
activitiessuch as ceramicproduction(Garcia1993;
Wiist 1981-1982), spatialdistributionsof discarded
bones (BorreroandYacobaccio1989),the technical
processandmaterialcultureassociatedwith saltproduction(Williams1999),andthechemicalalteration
of house floors(BarbaandOrtiz1992) can be readily controlledin ethnoarchaeologicalobservations.
Scholarsworkingfromthisperspectiveproposethat
researchshouldbe directedtowardparticularcases
within general theoretical models (Yacobaccio
1995). This group of investigations emphasizes
techno-economic aspects of materialculture and
could be identifiedwith whatHodder(2002) called
the analyticperspective.The secondtendencyis oriented towardthe study of more complex systems
wherethe variablesareharderto control,but which
take into account more diverse phenomena (e.g.,
Nielsen 1997, 1997-1998). Frequentlythese investigationsattemptto discernthenon-techno-economic
meaningof objectsthroughethnographiccase studies (e.g., Frias 1993; Politis 1998; Silva 2000). In
these approaches,archaeologicalartifactsare not
simply "thingsin themselves,"butareconsideredto
be polysemic in characterand to carryrepresentations of ideas (Leach 1977:16).Ethnographicstudies carriedout by archaeologists(e.g., Castro and
Varela1994) who wantto expandknowledgeof tra-

[Vol. 68, No. 2, 2003

ditional,non-Westernpatternsof rationalitycould
also be includedwithinthis trend.This is close to a
hermeneutic perspective in the sense of Hodder
(2002). Both of these researchstrategiesare tied to
the materialeffects of behaviorand their physical
properties(e.g., density,variability,etc.). While the
firstattemptsto establishunambiguousrelationships
or strongcross-culturalregularitiesbetweenactivities andtheirresidues,the secondis directedtowards
understandingthe material,social, and ideational
conditionsthatmayresultin particularvariabilityin
the archaeologicalrecord. In this second research
strategy,the utilityof establishingtranscultural
generalizationsis recognised,butit alsorelieson theuse
of context-specificculturalvariabilityand explores
thecontinuityof cosmologiesandmeaningsattached
to specific symbols and icons (see discussion in
Grebe 1995-1996; Saunders 1998). Research by
Tochetto(1996), althoughnot strictlyethnoarchaeological,is a good exampleof thiskindof study.She
attemptsto interpretthe symboliccontentof designs
andicons of theprecolonialGuaranipottery
by using
historicalanalogies.Herworkexploresformalsimilaritiesbetweenthe centralelementsof motifs and
theirmythicalreferentsas recordedby ethnohistory
and ethnography.The ethnoarchaeologicalstudyof
social and ideationalissues has been incorporated
intothis formof investigationthroughmaterialstudies among egalitariansocieties, such as Amazonian
(Politis 1996b; Politis and Saunhunter-gatherers
ders 2002), and societies with low levels of social
hierarchy,for example Amazonian horticulturists
(Silva2000) andAndeanpastoralists(Nielsen 1997).
A third trend in current ethnoarchaeological
researchis representedby a groupof researchprojects, primarilyin Brazil,thatfocuson gatheringethnoarchaeologicaldata to reconstructthe historical
events and processes affectingmodem indigenous
groups(e.g., Heckenbergeret al. 1999;Wiist 1998;
WiistandBarreto1999). These emphasizeresearch
to understandthe processes of culturalcontinuity,
combining ethnographicand archaeologicaldata
obtainedin the same area.This workseeks to study
cases wherelinksbetweencontemporary
peopleand
those responsiblefor producingthe archaeological
depositsunderinvestigationcanbe securelyidentified
orproven.Argumentsby formalanalogyareminimal
in thisapproachandarchaeologicalandethnographic
dataare used to complementdataon historicalcultureprocesses.This researchis probablymore akin

Gustavo G. Politis]

ARCHAEOLOGY IN LATINAMERICA

to what is called "indigenoushistory"(e.g., Neves

Theresultsof these
1999b)thanto ethnoarchaeology.
culstudieswouldbe consideredspecificto particular
turesandrestrictedto closely relatedarchaeological
cases. However,thepotentialis enormousfor understandingbroaderculturalpatternsthroughtime,such
as village configurationvariability,occupationand
abandonment
dynamics,formationof anthropogenic
other
and
soils,
significant archaeological issues
aboutpastAmazoniansocieties.
Continuing Concerns and New Topics
Throughoutthe history of LatinAmericanarchaeology, a series of subjects and researchproblems
have captured the attention of local and foreign
archaeologists.Most of these topics remainimportantto contemporaryarchaeologicalinvestigations.
All have been approachedfrom a rangeof theoretical and methodological perspectives (discussed
above) and have received various emphases by
researchersfromdifferentLatinAmericancountries.
Among the most-studiedsubjectsare the peopling
of the Americas(e.g., Cardich1983; Gnecco 2000;
Lopez Castano1999; Jaimes 1998; Massone 1996;
Miottiet al. 1999;Nufiezet al. 1994),theIncaEmpire
(e.g., Estevez 1992; Gallardoet al. 1995; Matos
Mendieta,1993-1995, 1994; Raffino1993; Raffino
andStehberg1999;Stehberg1995;Williams 1995),
the origins of socioeconomic complexity and the
urbanizationprocess(e.g., Albarracin-Jordan
1996;
GarciaCook andMerinoCarri6n1998; Lumbreras
1989, 1993; Manzanilla1997, 1999; Marcos 1988)
and the domesticationof plantsand camelids (e.g.,
Bonavia 1984, 1999; Castro and Tarrag6 1992;
Nufiez 1988; Veloz Maggiolo 1992;Yacobaccioet
al. 1994, 1997-1998).
Historyhas alwaysbeen a greatally of archaeology in the region.Therehas been an increasingdialogue between ethnohistoriansand archaeologists
that results in tremendousmutual benefits. In the
CentralAndes, this dialogue is especially fruitful
since ethnohistoryhas been crucialto interpretation
of the lateprehispanicperiodsandthe life of indigenoussocietiesduringcolonialtimes(e.g.,AmatOlazabal 1997; Espinoza 1977, 1988; Gonzdlez Carre
1992;Huertas1995).In this area,a well-established
traditionin ethnohistoricalresearchstartedwith L.
Valcaircel(1959) andreceivedimportantinputfrom
theworkof JohnMurra(1954,1978). Murra'smodel
of the verticalcontrolof multipleecological zones

257

was without any doubt a landmark for Andean

archaeology,and for decades provideda powerful
tool withwhichto interpretthearchaeologicalrecord
from the late prehispanicperiods.The influenceof
Frenchresearchers,notablyNathanWachtel(1976,
1990) and PierreDuviols (1977), was also significant and helped to improvea local traditionin ethnohistoricalresearchwhose outstandingfigure is
MariaRostworowski(1953, 1978, 1988). Her contributionto many archaeological subject areas is
overwhelming,and her work has been widely used
by archaeologists(see overviewin Var6nGabaiand
Flores Espinoza 1997). In Mesoamerica,the assistance of ethnohistoryhas been equally important
(e.g., L6pez Austin and Lopez Lujan1999). In this
area, ethnohistoricalstudies were key sources for
understandingthe "Post-Classic Horizon" (e.g.,
chaptersin Manzanillaand L6pez Lujan 1995). In
both Mexico and Peru,intense use of ethnohistorical sources reinforced the idea of continuity of
indigenouspeople from the prehispanicto posthispanic periods.
In otherareasof LatinAmerica,ethnohistorical
studieswere also developedin relationto archaeology, but less intensively (e.g., Londofio 1992;
Lorandi1988;Lorandietal. 1991;OrqueraandPiana
1999;Perera2000;Pradillaetal. 1992;Zucchi1991).
In the Lowlands,a good example of the help provided by ethnohistorycan be foundin the studycarried out by Noelli (1996, 1998) on the origins and
expansionroutesof Tupipopulationsin theAmazon.
Finally,one of the majorcontributionsof ethnohistory has been the endowmentof AmericanIndians
with social agency and the sensitizationof archaeologists to manydimensionsof nativesocietiesthat
areusuallyinvisiblein the archaeologicalrecord.
In the last couple of decades severaladditional
fields of investigationhavejoined this mainstream.
Some, such as historicalarchaeology,althoughnot
entirelynovelin LatinAmericanresearch,haveexperienced significant new popularity among local
archaeologists.Historicalarchaeologyis nowpartof
a burgeoningproliferationof long-termresearchprojects in almosteverycountryin LatinAmerica.This
explosion of researchis in partthe result of a new
researchagendathat has takentremendousadvantage of the depthof informationthatcanbe obtained
throughcomplementaryuse of archaeologicaldata
andhistoricaldocuments(Carver2002; Kern1996;
Pedrottaand Gomez Romero 1998). In opposition

258

AMERICAN ANTIQUITY

to most otherfields withinarchaeology(see below),

Latin American historical archaeology has had a
uniqueimpacton shapinga worldwidedefinitionof
the discipline in the last 15 years or so, and contributesto shaping the epistemology of the discipline itself (Funari,personalcommunication2002).
Forthe firsttime, this approachpays as muchattention to LatinAmerica as to Europeand the United
States (e.g., Orser1997).
Historicalarchaeologyin LatinAmericahas not
escapedthe tendencythathas led it to be characterized as "thearchaeologyof the spreadof European
culturethroughoutthe worldsince the fifteenthcentury and its impact on indigenouspeople" (Deetz
1977:5). However, the discipline, previously concernedwith a narrowNorthAmericandefinitionof
sitesin theNew World,"broadened
"post-prehistoric
its scope to include a muchmore open perspective.
Nowadaysin LatinAmericamost historicalarchaeology addressesa varietyof postcontactphenomena
and theirsocial effects, includingthe agency of the
aboriginalpopulations(see reviews in Funari1994
andFourier andMiranda-Flores1992).Interesthas
focused primarilyon urbanstudies, especially in
cities such as BuenosAires (e.g., Schavelzon1999),
Rio de Janeiro(e.g., AndradeLima 1999), Colonia
(Fusco Zambetogliris1995), Caracas(Vargaset al.
1998),SantoDomingo(VelozMaggioloet al. 1992),
Panama(Rovira2001), andMexico (wherehistorical archaeologyis closely allied with precolonial
archaeology,see Matos Moctezuma 1993). Other
researchhas addressedmilitary settlements (e.g.,
Albuquerque1996;G6mezRomero1999)andJesuit
missions (e.g., Curbelo1999; Kern1996). Conceptual and methodologicaldiscussionshave emerged
duringthe last decade thatmove historicalarchaeology toward more reflexive perspectives (e.g.,
AndradeLima 1999; Fourier 1995, 1999; Funari
1999a;PedrottaandG6mezRomero1998;Zarankin
1999).
Very recently, an interesthas developed in the
archaeologyof Afro-Americanpeoples,partiallyas
a resultof post-processualinfluences.This stimulus
has addedan originaldimensionto the archaeological study of the historicalperiodin LatinAmerica.
The "invisibility"of recognizedAfricanculturein
modem SouthAmericanandCaribbeanpopulations
has been noted with increasingvigor over the last
decade. In Brazilianarchaeology,the materialproduction of Afro-Americanpopulations had been

[Vol. 68, No. 2, 2003

practicallyignoreduntilthe initiationof systematic

archaeologicalstudiesin the zone wherethemaroon
state of Palmareswas located (Allen 1995; Funari
1999b).Thisresearchwas conceivedfromits inception as a social archaeologyand was an attemptto
obtainnew evidence of slave resistanceand struggles for freedom.In thelast decade,nauticalarchaeology (considereda branchof historicalarchaeology
in LatinAmerica)has receivedattentionas a consequenceof the necessityof statesto monitorandpreserve the archaeologicalheritage of their marine
platforms. Some countries, such as Mexico and
Argentina,haveformedwell-trainedarchaeological
teamsthatbelongto officialinstitutionsas a strategy
to control and reduce the activities of treasure
hunters.Explicittheoreticaldevelopmentis not yet
partof thecurrentresearchagendaof nauticalarchaeology,whichfocuseson thecomplexmethodologies,
excavationstrategies,andpreservation
of sub-aquatic
culturalresources(e.g., Elkin2000; Rambelli2002).
Concluding Remarks
This paperhas summarizedsome of the wide variety of traditions,influences,and historicaltrajectoriesin LatinAmericanarchaeology.Severalcommon
featurescan be identifiedin the currentlandscapeof
archaeologicalpracticeacrossthis largeregion.The
mostubiquitousis thesharedculture-historical
backand
its
within
several
strong persistence
ground
branches of Latin American archaeology. This
approachhas been extensivelymodifiedandincorporatesseveral new methods and researchtopics.
The second common researchapproachis a set of
methodologies developed and/or adjusted in
response to processual archaeology,with a great
emphasison the NorthAmerican(Binfordian)style.
Behavioral archaeology (in the sense of Schiffer
1995) is muchless common.WhenLatinAmerican
archaeologists study nonhuman site formation
processes,theyapproachthemvia vertebratetaphonomy andgeoarchaeology,ratherthanembracingthe
methodologicalandconceptualtenets of this trend.
I doubtthat any LatinAmericanarchaeologistsare
workingto accumulate"acorpusof well-confirmed
laws andtheories(expressedin behavioralterms)for
inferringandexplaininghumanbehavior"(Schiffer
1995:253).A pervasivecharacteristicof contemporaryarchaeologyin the regionis the importanceof
environmental variability in explaining cultural
change. This is not exclusively influencedby any

Gustavo G. Politis]

ARCHAEOLOGY
IN LATINAMERICA

particulartheoreticalposition.Withfew exceptions
(most prominently some post-processual
approaches),most recentresearchin LatinAmerica
emphasizesthe role of environmentalchange as a
primarystimulussignificantlydirectingtransformations of past societies.
Marxistthinkingis well representedby the Latin
American social archaeology school. This is a
regionaltheoreticaldevelopmentthatreactedearly
against processualarchaeology.Despite the initial
Spanishand otherinfluencesdiscussed above, this
theoretical trend has emerged independently of
Marxist archaeologicalapproachesin Europe and
NorthAmerica.On the otherhand,post-processual
archaeology remains marginal in most of Latin
America.Thisis somewhatsurprisinggiventhatseveralaspectsof the subjectmatterappealto the interests of many archaeologistsin this region. Topics
such as power and the constructionand legitimization of knowledge,orreflectionson whetherarchaeology can be used in the constructionof ethnicand
social identitiesmay be especially appropriateto a
numberof currentresearchquestionsand political
agendas.However,someelementsof post-processual
interest(e.g., the radicalcritique,the study of the
social and ideationaldimensionsof technology,the
perceptionandconceptualizationof places, etc.) are
presentwithinseveralLatinAmericanresearchprojects. Few LatinAmericanarchaeologistsseem to
agree with the extreme relativism of some postprocessualapproaches(e.g., Tilley 1991). The lack
of greaterinterestis partlybecausepost-processualism does not seem to offerappropriatemethodologicaltoolsin thecontextof a veryincompletedatabase,
often lacking complementarywrittendocumentary
sources, which is common to most areas of Latin
America. Some recentregionaltrendshave developed in the last decadeor so. Interestin the studyof
the symbolic dimensionsof metallurgicand sacred
architecture,sometimes throughthe lens of structuralism,is one of the most original.Severalstudies
relatedto politicaleconomyandideology,especially
in Andean chiefdom societies, are also promising.
Thisresearchis innovativeandis evolvingsomewhat
independentlyin the region.
Ethnoarchaeologyhas tremendouspotentialin
LatinAmerica.Numerousindigenoussocietiesexist
throughoutthe region with a varietyof subsistence
practices, manufacturingactivities, lifeways, and
worldviews. None of them should be considered

259

"pristine"(a false expectationaboutany contemporary society in any case), but many still practicea
range of traditionalactivities of great interest to
archaeology. Currently,research has focused on
recordingpatternsof materialdiscardthat emphasize economic and utilitarian aspects of human
behavior.This is clearly a legacy of ethnoarchaeology's processual origins. Social and ideological
aspectshavebeenoverlookedin thearchaeologyand
of LatinAmerica.Forexample,the
ethnoarchaeology
contributions
of a varietyof behaviorsother
possible
thanthoserelatedto subsistenceandmanufacturing
in structuringthe archaeologicalrecord have not
beenaddressed.A wealthof well-reportedbehaviors
in ethnographicstudiesof indigenoussocieties,such
as food taboos, the existence of sacredplaces, the
symbolicsideof utilitarianobjects,orthedifferences
in thematerialcultureproducedby age-cohorts,may
play significantroles in site formationanddistribution of archaeologicalsites withinregions.I believe
that Latin American ethnoarchaeologycan make
substantialcontributionsto a world archaeologyin
this direction.
LatinAmericanarchaeologistsaregenerallyless
preoccupiedwithexplicitlytheoreticalissuesthanare
their NorthAmerican(but see Hegmon this issue)
and (some) Europeancounterparts(Dillehay2003).
However,I do not shareBate's(2001:XIX)simplistic view that"inpractice,real andeverydayarchaeology [presumablyin Latin America] is still over
ninety percent particularist-historical,and, at the
most, vulgarly evolutionist.In short, antiquatedly
traditional."
As I have discussed,a greatvarietyof
archaeologicaltraditionsin Latin America today
drawinspirationfromarangeof recentlocal andforeign archaeologicalperspectives.Althoughperhaps
stilllimitedin extentcomparedwithWesternEurope
and NorthAmerica,an increasingnumberof innovativemethodologicalandtheoreticaldevelopments
can be seen within these different approachesto
archaeological research. Most of the conceptual
advances in Latin American archaeology are not
directedtowarddevelopmentof synthetic,high-level
theory.However,in recentdecades,severalmethodologies, explanatorygoals, and amalgamationsof a
varietyof novelapproacheshavebeenelaboratedthat
significantlyadvancemanyaspectsof archaeological researchin LatinAmerica.
Admittedly,the outputis still somewhatlimited
in extent. This is unsettlinggiven the many active

260

AMERICAN ANTIQUITY

LatinAmericanarchaeologistsand the long history

of archaeologicalinvestigationsin countriessuchas
Mexico, Peru, and Argentina.The explanationfor
this is complex. It is relatedto a rangeof historical,
scientific, economic, and sociopolitical factors in
LatinAmerica.It has been alleged thatlack of significant trends toward development of locally
inspiredarchaeologicaltheory is the absence of a
"criticalmass"of researchers.Thispositionsuggests
an odd mathematicalrule thatparticulartotalnumbersof archaeologistsarenecessaryto sustaina minimal thresholdof theory producers.I will briefly
summarizewhatI believe to be the most significant
factors affectingthe apparentlack of emphasison
theoryproductionin LatinAmericanarchaeology.
Perhapsthe most importantprimaryconcernfor
LatinAmericanarchaeologistsis the accumulation
of essential descriptivedataaboutthe archaeological recordof this vast region.Many areashave had
no systematicarchaeologicalsurvey or excavation
at all and many othersarepoorlyknownfromminimal investigation.Even areas that have been the
focus of regionalresearchthroughoutthe twentieth
century,suchas the CentralAndes, areinadequately
known.Thissituationhasproducedan anxietyabout
the adequacyof existingbasic archaeologicalinformationon which innovativemethodologicaldevelopment and theory production might be based.
Anotherobstacleto creatinga regionalemphasison
explanationratherthandescriptionis the conditions
underwhicharchaeologistshavehadto developtheir
research.The social and political stabilityof both
field locations and laboratoryand office environments fluctuateswildly and sometimesviolentlyin
many Latin American countries. Many military
coupsduringthecourseof thetwentiethcenturyhave
often targetedeither the scientific and intellectual
community or affected its output.These political
upheavalshaveoftenresultedin dramaticretrograde
effects on many aspectsof LatinAmericancultural
life. Frequently,such events interruptand reduce
fundingavailablefor archaeologicalinvestigations
and createan environmentof inconsistentresearch
and educationalpolicy.This obviouslyhas affected
thedevelopmentof archaeologicalresearch.Thesubordinationof academicand researchinstitutionsto
political powers has generateddifficult,uncertain,
andinterrupted
directionsformanyarchaeologyprogramsin LatinAmerica.Additionally,poorlibraries
and difficultiesin obtainingcomplete and current

[Vol. 68, No. 2, 2003

publicationsfrom colleaguesin otherpartsof Latin

America and the rest of the world plague most
researchinstitutions.This has frequentlyproduced
unease thatconcertedeffortin theorydevelopment
may unintentionallyignore significantnew information,resultingin simplisticexplanationsor labor
thatjust "reinventsthe wheel."
Although the need for basic archaeological
researchin many areas of Latin America and the
political instabilityand economic weakness of the
region have affectedmethodologicalcreativityand
theory production,these are often secondaryto a
more insidious set of problems.The lack of programmatic attention to theory development and
resulting modest conceptual and methodological
designamongLatinAmericanarchaeologistsis partially a consequenceof theirintellectualsubordination andthelack of confidencein theirownresearch
potential.This is a scientificand social reflectionof
the political and economic dependency of Latin
Americancountries.Most archaeologistsin Mexico
and Centraland SouthAmericawork withinintellectual and political environmentsdeterminedand
maintainedby the neocolonialstatusof theircountries.The intellectualproductsof local scholarsare
affordeda peripheralpositioncomparableto theeconomic peripheralization
of the region.LatinAmericancountriesproducerawmaterialsandoccasionally
providecheaplaborforless-complexindustrialmanufacturingprocessesthroughthe internationaldivision of labor.The productionand appreciationof
archaeologicalknowledgemimicsthiseconomicsituation(Politisand Perez Gollan2004).
I statedabovethatLatinAmericanarchaeologists
are influencedby theoriesand methodsdeveloped
by intellectualsin otherpartsof the world.However,
the reverseprocess is far less noticeable,and other
than the rareexceptions (for example, the case of
Latin American social archaeology and its repercussionsin Spainand amonga small groupof U.S.
archaeologists,or the recent visibility of historical
archaeology),the conceptsandmodelsproposedby
archaeologistsof the region,even thoughfairlylimited,havenotenteredthetheoreticaldebateata world
level to any extent (among the few exceptionsare
D'Altroy 1997; Dillehay 2000; Ensor2000; Lavallee 1995;Ucko 1995). In short,the data(whenadequate) enter the international debate; the ideas,
models,concepts,andmethodologicaldevelopment
usuallyremainin the countrywheretheyoriginated,

Gustavo G. Politis]

IN LATINAMERICA
ARCHAEOLOGY

and exceptionallycirculatewithin the region. Usually, only infrequentmentionis made of such work,
and these advances in explanationremain largely
ignoredin regionalsynthesesandtopicaldiscussions
by the majorityof the archaeologicalcommunity
outsideof LatinAmerica.
Theoretical and methodological developments
may be limited,butthey arean activecomponentof
archaeology in Latin America. In addition to the
examplessummarizedabove,manypurelytheoretical papers can be found in the Boletin de
AntropologiaAmericana(in printfor over20 years),
several other Latin Americanjournals, and in the
recentproceedingsof the InternationalMeetingsof
South American Theoretical Archaeology
(D'Agostino Fleming 1999; Martinezand Lanata
2002). These publicationsincludenot only theoretical papers,but also work addressingthe relationshipsbetweendataandinterpretivemodels, current
thoughton a varietyof researchproblems,and the
implicationsof new empiricalinformationon the
generationof archaeologicaltheory.Unfortunately,
thesecontributionsarevirtuallyinvisiblein theworld
archaeologicalliterature.This includes theoretical
books (e.g., Trigger 1989), general archaeological
textbooks(e.g., RenfrewandBahn 1991), andpublicationson specifictopicsof interestin LatinAmerican research(e.g., Fiedel 1992; David and Kramer
2001). Commonly,reasonsgiven for ignoringcurrent Latin American archaeologicaldevelopments
arethatthe literatureis in Spanishor thatit is difficult to obtain work published in Latin America.
Althoughthismay be true,thisdoes not excuse such
surveyworksfrommakingeffortsfor fairinclusion
of thevoices andopinionsof archaeologistswho live
and conductresearchin the areas(both geographical andepistemological)thatthesesupposedlyglobal
publicationscover. Articles on the CentralAndes
and Mesoamerica published in Latin American
Antiquityare also good examples.The greatmajority of these articlesarewrittenby non-LatinAmerican authors and rarely discuss explanations or
modelsproposedby local archaeologists.Thisoversight is especially relevantbecause the vast majority of the foreign archaeologists who conduct
researchin the regiondo readSpanishand do have
access to the literatureof local archaeologists.Certainly some of the ideas generatedby local Latin
American archaeologistsshould be of interest to
themandtheirintendedaudiences,buttoo few Eng-

261

lish-speakingauthorsappeardisposed to seriously
explore the research of their Latin Americancolleagues.Theyarewillingto scavengedatabutignore
engagingwith LatinAmericanresearchersin equal
scientificdebate. This situationis not reducibleto
simplyan attitudeof personaldissatisfactionamong
LatinAmericanresearchers.This attitudeappearsto
be the resultof a complexset of historical,political,
and economic relationshipsamong LatinAmerica,
the more industrializednationsof Europe,and the
UnitedStates.
Addressingthis subjectis always a verydifficult
matter.It is too easy to characterizethis situation
throughsimplistic dichotomiesof victim and victimizerorreductioniststereotypessuchas the imperialist gringo and the pobrecito Latin American
archaeologist.Neitherof theseis my intention.Such
stereotypesdo not actuallyrepresentanyoneor the
dynamicsof the problem.Neitherare most gringos
imperialists,nor (althoughat times they may enjoy
playingthatrole) areLatinAmericanarchaeologists
pobrecitos. Amenable resolution of this situation
requiressignificantdialogueaboutthe roles of participants in a global field of archaeology.I have
attemptedto presenta diagnosis of the situationto
understandwhy there is a limited theoreticaland
methodological production by Latin American
archaeologists,why it has low visibilityin the world
debate,and to expressmy concernover the lack of
effortexpendedby LatinAmericanarchaeologistsin
pursuitof higher-leveltheorydevelopment.
Inconclusion,I believethatsignificantaspectsof
theseissuesregardingresearchandrecognitionmust
be understoodwithinthe contextof productionand
legitimization of knowledge determinedby economicandpoliticalsituations.Thisproblemhastwo
faces.Oneaspectis thelackof a driveto achievetheoretical syntheses and grapple with significant
explanatoryquestionsby LatinAmericanarchaeologists. This is a consequenceof the historical,political, and intellectualfactorspresentedabove. The
otherface of this problemis the invisibilityafforded
theperhapsmodestbutdynamicworkof LatinAmericanarchaeologistsamongresearchersin othercountries.Obviously,changingthis situationwill haveto
be theresultof mutualefforts.Theremustbe greater
theoreticalandmethodologicalproductionby Latin
Americanarchaeologists.However,these changes
will remain invisible in the world if they are not
accompaniedby a greaterwillingnesson the partof

AMERICAN ANTIQUITY

262

foreigncolleaguesto takenoticeof developmentsby

LatinAmericanscholarsandincorporatethis growing work into bodies of internationaldebate. Only
such mutualchanges in attitudewill alterthe existing inequalityandplacethe ideas anddevelopments
fromLatinAmericanarchaeologyon an equalfooting in internationaldebate.
Acknowledgments.Thanks to Russell Greaves and Benjamin
Alberti for helping me with the translationand for their comments; to Guillermo Mengoni Gofialons, Tom Dillehay, Jose
Perez Gollan, Luis Borrero, Gustavo Martinez, Adriana
Schmidt Dias, Pedro Funari, and Ver6nicaWilliams for their
comments and suggestions; and to ClaraScabuzzo for helping
me with the bibliography.Also, thanks to the anonymous
reviewers and to Charles Stanishfor their appropriatesuggestions duringthe review process. Needless to say, any remaining mistakes are my own responsibility.

References Cited
Acuto, Felix A.
1999 Paisajey dominaci6n:Laconstituci6ndel espaciosocial
en el ImperioInka.In Sed Non Satiata.TeoriaSocial en la
editedbyA.
ArqueologiaLatinoamericanaContempordnea,
ZarankinandF.A. Acuto,pp.33-75. Tridente,BuenosAires.
Aguilera,Carmen
1997 Of RoyalMantlesandBlue Turquoise:The Meaningof
the Mexica Emperor'sMantle. Latin AmericanAntiquity
8:3-19.
JuanV.
Albarracin-Jordan,
1996 TiwanakuSettlementSystem:TheIntegrationof Nested
Hierarchiesin the LowerTiwanakuValley.LatinAmerican
Antiquity7:183-210.
Alberdi,MariaT., LauraMiotti,andJos6L. Prado
2001 Hippidion saldiasi Roth, 1899 (Equidae, Perissodactyla),at the PiedraMuseo Site (SantaCruz,Argentina):
ItsImplicationfortheRegionalEconomyandEnvironmental
Reconstruction. Journal of Archaeological Science
28:411-419.
Albuquerque,Marcos
1996 Asentamientosmilitares:una perspectivade abordaje.
HistoricalArchaeologyin LatinAmerica 14:19-38.
Alconini, N. Sonia
1995 Rito, simbolismo e historia en la pirdmide acopana
tiawanaku:un andlisis de la cerdmicaceremonialprehispdnica. Acci6n, La Paz.
Allen, Scott
1995 Africanism, Mosaics and Creativity:The Historical
Archaeologyof Palmares.UnpublishedM.A. thesis,Brown
University,Providence,RhodeIsland.
Alva, Walter
1990 New Tomb of Royal Splendor.National Geographic
Magazine 177:2-15.
1992 El Sefiorde Sipin. Revistadel Museo de Arqueologia
3:51-64. UniversidadNacionalde Trujillo,Peru.
Alva, Walter,and ChristopherB. Donnan
1993 RoyalTombsofSipdn.FowlerMuseumof CulturalHistory,Universityof California,Los Angeles.
Alves, MarciaA., and MyriaE. V. Calleffo
1996 Sitio de Agua Limpia,MonteAlto, Sao Paulo.Estructurasde combustao,restosalimentarese padr6esde subsistencia. Revista do Museu de Antropologia e Etnologia

[Vol. 68, No. 2, 2003

6:123-140.
Amat Olazibal, Hernin
1997 Arqueologiay Etnohistoriade Ollaytaytambo.In XI
CongresoPeruanodel hombrey la culturaAndina"Augusto
Cardich,"Tomo 1, edited by H. Amat Olazabal and L.
Guzman Palomino, pp. 303-337. Universidad Nacional
"HermilioValdizan"de Huanuco,Lima.
AndradeLima,Tania
1999 El huevo de la serpiente:Una arqueologiadel capitalismo embrionarioen el Rio de Janeirodel siglo XIX. InSed
Non Satiata.TeoriaSocial en la ArqueologiaLatinoamericana Contempordnea,
editedbyA. ZarankinandE A. Acuto,
pp. 189-238. Edicionesdel Tridente,BuenosAires.
Arroyo-Cabrales,Joaquin
1997 Analisisde restosde vertebradosterrestres,Machomoncobe 1, Huatabampo, Sonora, Mexico. Arqueologfa
17:63-77.
Arroyo-Cabrales,Joaquin,and OscarPolaco (editors)
1997 Homenajeal ProfesorliculAlvdrez. InstitutoNacional
de Arqueologiae Historia.Mexico.
Arvelo, Liliam
1996 Modelo de poblamiento en el lago Maracaibo. In
Caciques,Intercambioy Poder:InteraccionRegionalen el
Area de las Americas, edited by Carl H. Langebaekand
Felipe Cardenas-Arroyo,pp. 75-106. Departamentode
Antropologia,Universidadde los Andes, Bogota, Colombia.
Aschero,CarlosA.
1975 Ensayopara una clasificacionmorfoldgicade artefactos liticos aplicada a estudios tipologicos comparativos.
CONICET,BuenosAires.
1988 De puntaa punta:producci6n,mantenimientoy disefio
en puntasde proyectilpreceramicasde la punaArgentina.
In Precirculadosde las ponenciascientificaspresentadasa
los simposios del IX CongresoNacional de Arqueologia
Argentina,pp. 219-229. Universidadde BuenosAires,Facultadde Filosofiay Letras,Institutode CienciasAntropol6gicas, BuenosAires.
Assis, Valeria.S.
1995-96 Um estudo da casa mbya pela perspectivaetnoarqueol6gica.ColecaoArqueologia1(2):519-526.
Barba,Luis
1990 El analisisquimicode pisos de unidadeshabitacionales
paradeterminarsus areasde actividad.In Etnoarqueologia
ColoquioBosch Gimpera1988, editedbyY. SugiuraandM.
C. Serra, pp. 177-200. Instituto de Investigaciones
Antropol6gicas,UniversidadNacionalAut6nomade Mdxico, M6xico D.F.
Barba,Luis, andG. Bello
1978 Analisis de fosfatos en el piso de una casa habitada
actualmente.NotaAntropoldgica1,24:188-193. Institutode
Investigaciones Antropol6gicas, Universidad Nacional
Aut6nomade Mdxico,MdxicoD.F.
Barba,Luis, andAgustinOrtiz
1992 Analisisquimicode pisos de ocupaci6n:un caso etnogrdfico en Tlaxcala, Mdxico. Latin American Antiquity
3:63-82.
Bate, Luis Felipe
1977 Arqueologiay materialismohistorico.Editorialde CulturaPopular,Mdxico.
1978 Sociedad,formacidn econdmicosocial y cultura.Ediciones de CulturaPopular,Mexico.
1998 El proceso de investigacidnen arqueologia.Editorial
Critica,Barcelona.
2001 Teoriasy m6todosen arqueologia.,Criticaro proponer?
ActasdelXII CongresoNacionaldeArqueologaArgentina,

Gustavo G. Politis]

ARCHAEOLOGY
IN LATINAMERICA

263

TomoI, pp. 17-24. C6rdoba.

ciaparaentenderprocesosde formaci6ndel registroarqueoBelardi,JuanB.
16gico.InArqueologiaContempordnea
Argentina.Actualidad y Perspectivas,edited by H. Yacobaccio,pp. 13-32.
1999 Hay choiquesen la terraza,informaci6ntafon6micay
EditorialBusqueda,BuenosAires.
primerasimplicaciones arqueofaunisticaspara Patagonia.
1989 Sites in Action: The Meaning of GuanacoBones in
Arqueologia9:163-185.
Belardi,JuanB., andJulietaG6mez Otero
Fueguian Archaeological Sites. Archaeozoologia
1998 Anatomiaecon6micadel huemul(HippocamelusbisulIII(1-2):9-24.
1990 Taphonomyof Guanaco Bones in Tierradel Fuego.
cus): una contribuci6na la interpretaci6nde las evidencias
QuaternaryResearch34:36-371.
arqueol6gicasde su aprovechamientoen Patagonia.Anales
del Institutode la Patagonia26:195-207.
1993 Artefactosy evoluci6n.Palimpsesto3:15-32.
2001 RegionalTaphonomy:The Scales of Applicationto the
Benavente,MariaA., Luis Adaro, Gecele Plinio, and Claudia
Cunazza
ArchaeologicalRecord. In Animalsand Man in the Past:
1993 Contribucionesa la determinaci6nde especies aniEssays in Honourof Dr A. T. Clason,editedby H. Buitenhuis and W. Prummel, pp. 17-20. ARC-Publicatie 41,
males en arqueologia: Familia Camelidae y Tarucadel
Norte.Universidadde Chile, Santiagode Chile.
Groningen,The Netherlands.
Benavides,Hugo O.
Borrero,Luis, andAndrdsMufioz
2001 Returningto the Source:Social Archaeologyas Latin
1999 Tafonomiaenel bosquepatag6nico.Implicacionespara
el estudiode su explotaci6ny uso porpoblacioneshumanas
American Philosophy. Latin American Antiquity
12:355-370.
de cazadores-recolectores.
In Soplandoen el viento...Actas
de las TercerasJornadasde Arqueologiade la Patagonia,
Bennett,Wendell,andJuniusBird
1949 Andean CultureHistory. Handbook Series No. 15.
pp. 43-56. San Carlosde Bariloche(1996).
AmericanMuseumof NaturalHistory,New York.
Borrero,Luis, andHugo Yacobaccio
1989 Etnoarqueologiade asentamientosAch6.Journalde la
Bennett,Wendell,EverettF Bleiler,andFrankH. Sommer
1948 Northwest Argentine Archaeology. Publications in
Societe des AmericanistesLXXV:7-33.
Brezillion,Michel
AnthropologyNo. 38. YaleUniversity,New Haven.
1968 La D6nominationdes Objectsde PierreTailles.Galia
Binford,Lewis
1980 Willow Smoke and Dogs' Tails:HunterGathererSetPrdhistoireIV supl.Editionsdu CNRS, Paris.
tlementSystemsandArchaeologicalSite Formation.Amer- Brochado,Josd
1984 An EcologicalModelofthe Spreadof PotteryandAgriican Antiquity45:4-20.
1981 Bones: Ancient Men and Modern Myths. Academic
cultureintoEasternSouthAmerica.UnpublishedPh.D.disPress,New York.
sertation,Departmentof Anthropology,
Universityof Illinois,
1983 Workingat Archaeology.AcademicPress,New York.
Urbana-Champaign.
1989 DebatingArchaeology.AcademicPress,New York.
Cardich,Augusto
1983 A prop6sitodel 25 aniversariode Lauricocha.Revista
Bonavia,Duccio
1984 La importanciade los restosde papay camotede epoca
Andina 1(1):151-174.
preceramicahalladosen el valle de Casma.Journalde la Cartajena,Isabel,and Ismael Concha
1997 Una contribuci6na la determinaci6ntaxon6micade la
Societe des Americanistes70:7-20.
1996 Los camelidossudamericanos,una introduccidna su
familiaCamelidaeen sitios formativosdel LoaMedio.Estudios Atacamenos14:71-84.
estudio. Serie Travaux de l'Institut Fran9ais d'Etudes
Andines, Tomo 93. IFEA-UPCH-ConservationInterna- Carver,Martin
2002 Marriagesof TrueMinds:Archaeologywith Texts.In
tional,Lima.
1999 The Domesticationof AndeanCamelids.In ArchaeolArchaeology:The WideningDebate, editedby B. Cunliffe,
W.Davies, andC. Renfrew,pp. 465-496. The BritishAcadogy in LatinAmerica,editedby G. PolitisandB. Alberti,pp.
130-147. Routledge,London.
emy-OxfordUniversityPress,Oxford.
Bordes,Francois
Castillo,Luis J.
1950 Principes d'une mdthoded'etude des techniques de
1993 Practicasfunerarias,podere ideologia en la sociedad
Moche tardia:El proyectoarqueol6gicoSan Jos6de Moro.
debitageet de la typologiede Paleolithiqueancienet moyen.
GacetaArqueoldgicaAndina7(23):67-82.
L'Anthropologie54:19-34.
1961 Typologiedu PaldolithiqueAncien et Moyen. Delmas, Castro,Victoria,andMyriamTarrag6
Bordeaux.
1992 Los iniciosde la producci6nde alimentoen el ConoSur
de Amdrica.Revistade ArqueologiaAmericana6:91-224.
Borella,Florencia
2001 Tafonomiaregional y estudios arqueofaunisticosen Castro,Victoria,andVariniaVarela(editors)
TierradelFuegoy PatagoniaMeridional.UnpublishedPh.D.
1994 Ceremoniasde tierray agua: ritosmilenariosAndinos.
Fondo de Desarrollode la Culturay las Artes,FONDART,
dissertation,Facultadde Filosofia y Letras,Universidadde
BuenosAires,Argentina.
Ministeriode Educaci6ny Fundaci6nAndes, Santiagode
Chile.
Borella,Florencia,and CristianFavierDubois
1994-1995 Observaciones tafon6micas en la Bahia San Castro,Victoria,and FranciscoGallardo
1995-1996 El poderde los Gentiles.ArteRupestreen el Rio
Sebastian, Costa Norte de Tierradel Fuego, Argentina.
Salado.RevistaChilenade Antropologia13:79-98.
Palimpsesto4:1-8.
B6rmida,Marcelo
Chmyz, Igor
1960 Proleg6menos para una arqueologia en la Pampa
1961-1963 Prospecqoesarqueol6gicasno Vale do Rio das
Bonaerense.Edici6nOficialde la Provinciade BuenosAires.
Antas, Rio Grande do Sul (Brasil). Actas Praehistorica
Direcci6nde Bibliotecas,Museos y ArchivoHist6rico.La
V/VII: 35-52. CentroArgentinode EstudiosPrehist6ricos,
BuenosAires.
Plata,Argentina.
Borrero,Luis
Choy,Emilio
1988 Estudiostafon6micosen Tierradel Fuego: Su relevan1960 La Revoluci6n Neolitica en los origenes de la civi-

264

AMERICAN ANTIQUITY

lizaci6n Americana. In Antiguo Peru, espacio y tiempo,

edited by R. Matos Mendieta,pp. 149-197. LibreriaJuan
MejiaBaca, Lima.
Collins, MichaelB.
1975 LithicTechnologyas a Meansof ProcessualInference.
InLithicTechnology:Makingand UsingStoneTools,edited
by E. Swanson,pp. 15-34. Mouton,Chicago.
Cremonte,Beatriz
1988-89 T6cnicas alfarerastradicionalesen la puna: IntiCancha.ArqueologiaContempordnea2:5-29.
Cruxent,Jose, and IrvingRouse
1958 AnArcheologicalChronologyofVenezuela SocialScience Monographs1:2-39.
Cruz,Isabel
1999 Estepasy bosques:paisajesactualesy tafonomiaen el
noroestede SantaCruz.In Soplandoen el viento...Actasde
las TercerasJornadasde Arqueologiade la Patagonia,pp.
303-317. San Carlosde Bariloche(1996).
2000 Lineas tafon6micas y ecol6gicas para evaluar la
explotaci6n prehist6rica de aves acuaticas en la zona
cordillerana(Provinciade SantaCruz).In Desde el Pais de
los Gigantes. Perspectivas arqueol6gicas en Patagonia,
TomoI, editedby F. CarballoMarina,S. Espinosa,andJ. B.
Belardi,pp. 203-218. UniversidadNacional de la Patagonia Austral,La Plata.
Curbelo,Carmen
1999 Analisisdel uso del espacioen "SanFranciscode Borja
del Yi" (Depto. de Florida,Uruguay).In Sed Non Satiata.
TeorfaSocial en la ArqueologiaLatinoamericanaContempordnea, edited by A. Zarankinand F Acuto, pp. 97-116.
Edicionesdel Tridente,BuenosAires.
Curet,L. Antonio
1996 Ideology, Chiefly Power, and Material Culture:An
Examplefrom the GreaterAntilles. LatinAmericanAntiquity7:114-131.
Curet,L. Antonio,and Jos6 R. Oliver
1998 MortuaryPractices,SocialDevelopment,andIdeology
in PrecolumbianPuerto Rico. Latin American Antiquity
9:217-239.
Curtoni,RafaelP.
1996 Experimentandocon bipolares:Indicadorese implicanciasarqueol6gicas.Relacionesde la SociedadArgentina
de AntropologiaXXI:187-214.
2000 La percepci6ndel paisajey la reproducci6nsocial de
la identidad en la Regi6n Pampeana Occidental. Tapa
19:115-125.
D'Altroy,TerenceN.
1997 Recent Research on the CentralAndes. Journal of
ArchaeologicalResearch5:3-73.
D'Agostino Fleming,MariaIsabel(editor)
1999 Revistado Museu de Arqueologiae Etnologia.Anais
da I Reuniao Internacional de Teoria Arqueoldgica na
Amdricado Sul. Suplemento3, Universidadde Sao Paulo,
Sao Paulo,Brasil.
David, Nicholas,and CarolKramer
2001 Ethnoarchaeologyin Action. CambridgeUniversity
Press,Cambridge.
Deboer,Warren,and DonaldLathrap
1979 The Makingand Breakingof Shipibo-ConiboCeramics. In Ethnoarchaeology:Implicationsof Ethnographyfor
Archaeology,editedby C. Kramer,pp. 102-138. Columbia
UniversityPress,New York.
Deetz, James
1977 In Small ThingsForgotten:TheArchaeologyof Early
AmericanLife. GardenCity,New York.

[Vol. 68, No. 2, 2003

DeMarrais,Elizabeth,Luis JaimeCastillo,and TimothyEarle

1996 Ideology,Materialization
andPowerStrategies.Current
Anthropology37:15-31.
Dias, AdrianaS., and Sirlei Hoeltz
1997 Propostametodol6gicaparao estudodasindustriasliticas do sul do Brasil.Revistado CEPA21(25):21-62.
Dillehay,Tom
1990 MapucheCeremonialLandscape,Social Recruitment
andResourceRight. WorldArchaeology22:223-241.
2000 TheSettlementof theAmericas:New Prehistory.Basic
Books, New York.
2003 LatinAmericanTheoriesand Methods.In Contemporary Theoryand Method,editedby HerbertMaschnerand
ChristopherChippindale,Aldine Press,in press.
Donnan,ChristopherB., andLuis JaimeCastillo
1992 Findingthe Tomb of a Moche Priestess.Archaeology
45(6):38-42.
Duran,Victor
1991 Estudios de perturbaci6npor roedores del genero
Ctenomysen un sitio arqueol6gicoexperimental.Revistade
EstudiosRegionales7:7-31.
Duviols, Pierre
1977 La destrucci6nde las religiones andinas (durantela
conquistay colonia). UNAM, Mexico.
Elkin, Dolores
1995 VolumeDensity of SouthAmericanCamelidSkeletal
Parts.InternationalJournalof Osteoarchaeology5:29-37.
2000 Procesosde formaci6ndel registroarqueol6gicosubacuatico:una propuestametodol6gica para el sitio Swift
(Puerto Deseado, Santa Cruz). In Desde el Pais de los
Gigantes.Perspectivasarqueol6gicasen Patagonia,edited
by F. CarballoMarina,S. Espinosa,and J. B. Belardi,pp.
195-202. UniversidadNacionalde la PatagoniaAustral,
Rio
Gallegos,Argentina.
Ensor,BradleyE.
2000 Social Formations, Modo de Vida and Conflict in
Archaeology.AmericanAntiquity65:15-42.
Erickson,Clark
1986 Waru-Waru:
una tecnologiaagricoladel altiplanoprehispanico.InAndenesy camellonesen el PeruAndino.Historia, presente y futuro, edited by C. de la Torreand M.
Lima.
Burga,pp. 59-84. CONCYTEC-Peru,
1992 AppliedArchaeologyandRuralDevelopment:Archaeology's PotentialContributionto the Future.Journalof the
Society20(1-2):1-16.
StewardAnthropological
Espinoza,Waldemar
1977 La destrucci6n del imperio de los Incas. 2nd. Ed.
Retablode PapelEdiciones,Lima.
1988 Etnohistoria Ecuatoriana. Estudios y documentos.
Abya-Yala,Quito.
Estevez, J.
1992 Pasto Grande:CentroproductivoTiwanakue Inkaen
las sud yungas Bolivianas. Gaceta ArqueoldgicaAndina
421:109-138.
Estrada,Emilio, and CliffordEvans
1963 CulturalDevelopmentin Ecuador.In AboriginalCultural Development in Latin America: An Interpretative
Review,edited by B. Meggers and C. Evans, pp. 77-88.
SmithsonianMiscellaneousCollectionVol 146. Smithsonian Institution,Washington.
Falabella,Fernanda,M. LoretoVargas,and R. Melendez
1994 DifferentialPreservationandRecoveryof FishRemains
in CentralChile. In Fish Exploitationin the Past.Proceedings of the 7th meetingof the ICAZFish RemainsWorking
Group,editedby W.VanNeer,pp. 25-35. AnnalesduMusee

Gustavo G. Politis]

IN LATINAMERICA
ARCHAEOLOGY

Royal de l'Afrique Centrale,Sciences Zoologiques Nro.

274, Tervuren,Belgium.
Falchetti,Ana Maria
1999 El poder simb6lico de los metales: la tumbagay las
transformacionesmetalurgicas.Boletin de Arqueologfa
14(2):53-82.
2000 The Gold of GreaterZend:PrehispanicMetallurgyin
the CaribbeanLowlands of Colombia. In Precolumbian
Gold. Technology,Style and Iconography,editedby Colin
McEwan,pp.132-151. BritishMuseumPress,London.
Febles, J., andV. Rives (editors)
1991 Arqueologiade Cubay de otras areas antillanas.EditorialAcademia,La Habana.
Fiedel, Stuart
1992 Prehistoryof the Americas.2nd. ed. CambridgeUniversityPress,Cambridge.
Figuti,Levy
1992 Les sambaquisCosipa(4200 a 1200 ansBP):etudesde
la subsistencechez les peuplesprehistoriquesde pecheursramasseursde bivalvesde la c6te centralede l'Etat de Sao
Paulo (Bresil). UnpublishedPh.D. dissertation,Institutde
PaleontologieHumaine,Paris.
Figuti,Levy, and DanielaM. Klokler
1996 Resultadospreliminaresdos vestigios zooarqueol6gicos do sambaquiEspinheirosII (Joinville,SC). Revistado
Museude Arqueologiae Etnologia6:169-188.
Flannery,Kent
1968 ArchaeologicalSystemsTheoryandEarlyMesoamerin theAmericas,edited
ica. InAnthropologicalArchaeology
by B. Meggers,pp.67-87. AnthropologicalSocietyof Washington,Washington,D.C.
1972 TheEarlyMesoamericanlllage. AcademicPress,New
York.
Flegenheimer,Nora,CristinaBay6n, andMariaIsabelGonzalez
de Bonaveri
1996 T6cnicasimple, comportamientoscomplejos:La talla
bipolar en la arqueologia bonaerense. Relaciones de la
SociedadArgentinade AntropologiaXX:81-110.
Fogaca,Emilio
1995 A TradiqcoItaparicae as industriasliticas pre-ceramicas da Lapado Boquete(MG-Brasil).Revistado Museude
Arqueologiae Etnologia5:145-158.
FonsecaZamora,OscarM.
1997 La ceramicatempranade CostaRica en el contextodel
area hist6rica Chibchoide (4000-2500 a.P). Revista de
ArqueologiaAmericana13:41-68.
Ford,James
1962 A QuantitativeMethodforDerivingCulturalChronology. TechnicalManualNo. 1. PanAmericanUnion, Washington,D.C.
Fournier,Patricia
1995 Problematicametodol6gicaen el analisisde materiales
ceramicoshist6ricos.HistoricalArchaeologyinLatinAmerica 15:1-12.
1999 La Arqueologia Social Latinoamericana:caracterizaci6n de una posici6n te6ricamarxista.In Sed Non Satiata. Teoria Social en la Arqueologia Latinoamericana
Contempordnea,edited by A. Zarankinand F Acuto, pp.
17-32. Edicionesdel Tridente,BuenosAires.
Fourier, Patricia,andF. A. Miranda-Flores
1992 HistoricSiteArchaeologyin Mexico.HistoricalArchaeology 26:75-83.
Frias,Ines
1993 Ajuarceramicode los Piapoco:un caso de estilo como
transmisorde informaci6n.In Contribucionesa la Arqueologia Regional de Venezuela,edited by F. Fernandezand

265

R. Gasson, pp. 107-138. Fondo EditorialActa Cientifica

Venezolana,Colinas de Bello Monte.
Funari,PedroPauloA.
1994 SouthAmericanHistoricalArchaeology.LatinAmerican HistoricalArchaeology3:1-14.
1999a HistoricalArcheology from a WorldPerspective.In
HistoricalArcheology:Backfrom the Edge, editedby P. P.
Funari,M. Hall, and S. Jones,pp. 37-66. Routledge,London.
1999b Etnicidad,identidady culturamaterial:unestudiodel
cimarr6nPalmares,Brasil,Siglo XVII. In SedNon Satiata.
TeoriaSocial en la ArqueologiaLatinoamericanaContempordnea,editedbyA. ZarankinandF.Acuto,pp.77-96. Ediciones del Tridente,BuenosAires.
Fusco Zambetogliris,Nelsys
1995 La arqueologiaurbanade la Colonia del Sacramento.
Revistado Museude Arqueologiae Etnologia5:39-50.
Gallardo,Francisco,MauricioUriberry,and PatriciaAyala
1995 ArquitecturaInkay poderen el Pukarade Turi,Norte
de Chile. GacetaArqueologicaAndina24:151-171.
Gandara,Manuel,Ferando L6pez, and IgnacioRodriguez
1985 Arqueologia y Marxismo en Mexico. Boletin de
AntropologiaAmericana11:5-17.
Garcia,LidiaC.
1988 Etnoarqueologia:Manufacturade Ceramicaen Alto
Argentina,edited
Sapagua.InArqueologiaContempordnea
by H. Yacobaccio,pp. 33-58. EditorialBusqueda,Buenos
Aires.
1993 Que nos cuentanlas cocinas.Etnoarqueologfaen Inca
Cueva.Palimpsesto3:133-138.
GarciaCook,Angel, and BeatrizL. MerinoCarri6n
1998 Cantona:Urbe Prehispanicaen el AltiplanoCentralde
Mexico. LatinAmericanAntiquity9:191-216.
Gass6n,Rafael
1997 LocationalAnalysis and Elites Activities in a Prehispanic Chiefdom of the Western Venezuelan Llanos.
Antropoldgica88:3-32.
1998 PrehispanicIntensiveAgriculture,SettlementPattern
and PoliticalEconomy in the WesternVenezuelanLlanos.
UnpublishedPh.D. dissertation,Universityof Pittsburgh,
Pittsburgh.
Gero,Joan
1991 GenderLithics:Women'sRoles in StoneToolProduction. In EngenderingArchaeology.Womenin Prehistory,
editedby J. Gero andM. Conkey,pp. 163-193. Blackwell,
Oxford.
1992 FeastandFemales:GenderIdeologyandPoliticalMeals
intheAndes.NorwegianArchaeological
Review25(1):15-30.
GianottiGarcia,Camila
ceremonialismoy continuidadritual.
2000 Monumentalidad,
Tapa19:87-102
Gnecco, Crist6bal
1995 Praxis cientificaen la periferia:Notas parauna historia social de la arqueologiaColombiana.RevistaEspaiola
de ArqueologiaAmericana25:9-22.
1999 Multivocalidadhist6rica.Hacia una cartografiapostcolonial de la arqueologia. Universidad de Los Andes,
Santafede Bogota.
2000 Ocupacionestempranasde bosquestropicalesde montaiia. Universidaddel Cauca,Popayan.
Gobel, Barbara
1999 WhyHerdAnimalsDie: Environmental
Perceptionand
CulturalRisk Managementin the Andes. In Coping with
ChangingEnvironments-SocialDimensionsofEndangered
Ecosystemsin theDevelopingWorld,editedby H. Geistand
B. Lohnert,pp. 205-228. Ashgate,London.

266

AMERICAN ANTIQUITY

G6mez, Gustavo
2000 Analisis tafon6micoy paleoecol6gico de los micro y
mesomamiferosdel sitio arqueol6gicode Arroyo Seco 2
(BuenosAires,Argentina)y sus comparacionescon la fauna
actual. Unpublished Ph.D disseration, Departamentode
Biologia Animal 1, Facultadde CienciasBiol6gicas, UniversidadComplutensede Madrid.
G6mez Romero,Facundo
1999 Sobre lo arado: el pasado. ArqueologiaHistorica en
los alrededoresdel FortinMiiana (1860-1869). Editorial
Biblos, Azul.
Gonzalez,AlbertoRex
1955 Contextos culturalesy cronologiarelativaen el area
central del N.O. Argentino. Anales de Arqueologia y
Etnologia 11:7-32.
1963 CulturalDevelopmentin NorthWesternArgentina.In
AboriginalCulturalDevelopmentin LatinAmerica,edited
by B. J. Meggersand C. Evans,pp. 103-118. Smithsonian
InstitutionMiscellaneousCollection, 146, No.l, Washington D.C.
1977 Arte Precolombinode la Argentina.Introducci6na su
historiacultural.FilmedicionesValero,Buenos Aires.
1992 Las placas metdlicasde los Andes del Sur. Contribucion al estudio de las religiones precolombinas. Verlag
Phillippvon Zabern,Mainzam Rhein.
1998 ArtePrecolombino.CulturaLaAguada.Arqueologay
Diseio. FilmedicionesValero,BuenosAires.
Gonzilez, Josefina
2000 Manejode camelidosdomesticosen Aiquina(nortede
Chile,IIregi6n).InEl usode los camelidosa travdsdeltiempo,
editedby G. MengoniGofialons,D. Olivera,andH.Yacobaccio, pp. 117-130. Edicionesdel Tridente,BuenosAires.
GonzalezCarre,Enrique
1992 Los Senorios Chankas.INDEA,Lima.
Grebe,MariaEster
1995-1996 Continuidady cambio en las representaciones
ic6nicas:significadosimb6licoSurandino.RevistaChilena
de Antropologia13:137-153.
GuerreroLara,Raul
1986 Los camelidos sudamericanosy su significadoparael
hombrede la Puna.DidlogoAndino5:7-90.
Guti6rrez,MariaA.
2001 Bone Diagenesis and TaphonomicHistoryof the Paso
Otero1 Bone Bed, Pampasof Argentina.JournalofArchaeological Science 28:1277-1290.
Guti6rrez,Maria, GustavoMartinez,Eileen Johnson, Gustavo
Politis, andWilliamHartwell
1997 Nuevos analisis6seos en el sitio Paso Otero 1 (Partido
de Necochea, Provinciade Buenos Aires). In Arqueologia
Pampeanaen la decada de los '90, editedby M. Ber6nand
G. Politis, pp. 213-228. Museo de HistoriaNaturalde San
Rafael (Mendoza)-INCUAPA,San Rafael.
Haber,Alejandro
1997 La casa, el senderoy el mundo.Significadosculturales
de la arqueologia,la culturamaterialy el paisajeen la Puna
de Atacama.EstudiosAtacamenos14:373-398.
Hastorf,Christine
1991 Gender,Space andFood in Prehistory.In Engendering
Archaeology:Womenin Prehistory,edited by J. Gero and
M. Conkey,pp. 132-159. Blackwell,Oxford.
Heckenberger,Michael,JamesPeterson,andEduardoG. Neves
1999 VillageSize andPermanenceinAmazonia:TwoArchaeological Examples from Brazil. LatinAmericanAntiquity
10:353-376.
Hodder,Ian
1982 Symbolsin Action.CambridgeUniversityPress,Cambridge.

[Vol. 68, No. 2, 2003

1994 Interpretacionesen arqueologia.Corrientesactuales.

Critica,Barcelona.
2002 ArchaeologicalTheory.InArchaeology:TheWidening
Debate, editedby B. Cunliffe,W. Davies, and C. Renfrew,
pp. 77-90. The BritishAcademy-OxfordUniversityPress,
Oxford.
Hodder,Ian (editor)
1982 SymbolicandStructuralArchaeology.
CambridgeUniversityPress,Cambridge.
HuertasVallejos,Lorenzo
1995 Sechura.Identidadculturala travesde los siglos. Concejo Municipalde Sechura,Lima.
Jaimes,Arturo
1998 ElVano:El JoboTraditionsin MegathereKill Site. CurrentResearchin the Pleistocene 15:25-27.
Jerardino,Antonieta,JuanC. Castilla,Jose MiguelRamirez,and
NuriluzHermosilla
1992 EarlyCoastalSubsistencePatternsin CentralChile:A
Faunafromthe
SystematicStudyof theMarine-Invertebrate
Site of Curaumilla-1.LatinAmericanAntiquity3:43-62.
Joyce, Rosemary
1996 The Constructionof Genderin Classic Maya Monuments. In Genderand Archaeology,editedby R.P.Wright,
pp. 167-195. Universityof Pennsylvania,Philadelphia.
1998 PerformingGenderin Pre-HispanicCentralAmerica:
Ornamentation,
Representationandthe Constructionof the
Body. RES:AnthropologicalAesthetics33:147-166.
Kern,Arno
1996 Pesquisas Arqueol6gicas e Hist6ricas nas Missi6es
Jesuitico-Guaranis
(1985-1995). HistoricalArchaeologyin
LatinAmerica13:1-47.
Kligmann,Debora,CarmenSes6, and JavierBarbadillo
1999 Analisis tafon6mico de la faunade microvertebrados
delAlero 12 (Punameridional,Catamarquefia,
Argentina)y
sus implicanciasparael comportamientohumano.Arqueologia 9:9-48.
Kohl, PhilipL., andJos6A. Per6zGollan
2002 Religion, Politics, and Prehistory:The Life andWritings of O. Menghinand TheirLingeringLegacy for Culture-Historical Archaeology. Current Anthropology
43:561-586.
Kuznar,LawrenceA.
1995 Awatimarka:
TheEthnoarchaeology
ofanAndeanHerding Community.HarcourtBrace,ForthWorth.
Kuznar,LawrenceA. (editor)
2001 EthnoarchaeologyofAndean SouthAmerica: ContributionstoArchaeologicalMethodandTheory.International
Monographsin Prehistory,AnnArbor,Michigan.
Laguens,Andr6s
1997/1998 Valorcal6rico neto final y areas de aprovisionamiento efectivas en el valle de Copacabana, C6rdoba
(Argentina). Relaciones de la Sociedad Argentina de
AntropologiaXXII-XXIII:271-294.
1998 Modelizaci6nmedianteprogramaci6nlineal de cambio
Actasy Memoriasdel IXConregistradoarqueol6gicamente.
greso Nacional de Arqueologia Argentina. 8va. Parte.
Metodologiay Ciencia en Arqueologia:57-78.
Annette
Laming-Emperaire,
1967 Guia parao Estudo das IndustriasLiticas da Am6rica
do Sul. Manuais de Arqueologia 2. Centro de Ensino e
PesquisasArqueol6gicasda UniversidadFederaldo Parana,
Curitiba.
Annette,MariaJoseMenezes,andMargarida
Laming-Emperaire,
DavinaAndreatta
1978 O trabalhodapedra entreos Xetdda Serrados Dourados, Estado do Parana. Coletaneade Estudos em Homenagem a Annette Laming-Emperaire. Coleqao Museu

Gustavo G. Politis]

ARCHAEOLOGY
IN LATINAMERICA

267

Paulista,Serie Ensaios,vol 2:19-82.

Dillehay and P.Netherly,pp. 235-259. BritishArchaeological Reports(InternationalSeries 442), Oxford.
Lanata,JosdLuis, andLuis Borrero
1994 Riesgo y Arqueologia.In Arqueologiade Cazadores- Lorandi,Ana Maria, Maria Beatriz Cremonte, and Ver6nica
Recolectores.Limites, Casos y Aperturas,edited by J. L.
Williams
1991 Identificaci6netnicade los Mitmakunainstaladosen el
Lanataand L. Borrero,pp. 129-144. Edici6n Especial de
establecimientoIncaicoPotrero-Chaquiago.
InActasdel XI
ArqueologiaContemporanea,BuenosAires.
in SouthAmer1999 The Archaeologyof Hunter-gatherers
CongresoNacionaldeArqueologiaChilena,tomo II,edited
ica. In Archaeologyin LatinAmerica,editedby G. Politis
by H. Niemeyer,pp.195-200. Museo Nacionalde Historia
and B. Alberti,pp. 76-89. Routledge,London.
NaturalSociedadChilenadeArqueologia,Santiagode Chile.
Lorenzo, Josd Luis, Antonio Perez Elias, and JoaquinGarcia
Langebaek,CarlHenrik
2000 Cacicazgos,orfebreriaypoliticaprehispanica:
Barcena
unapers1976 Hacia unaArqueologiaSocial:Reunin de Teotihuacdn.
pectivadesdeColombia.RevistaArqueologiadelAreaIntermedia 2:11-46.
InstitutoNacionalde Antropologiae Historia,Mdxico.
Lorenzo,JosdLuis, andLorenaMirambell
Lanning,E. P.
1967 Peru before the Incas. PrenticeHall Inc., Englewood
1986 Mamutes excavados en la Cuenca de Mdxico
Cliffs, New Jersey.
(1952-1980). Cuadernosde Trabajo32:1-151. Departamento de Prehistoria,InstitutoNacional de Antropologiae
Lavallee,Danielle
1995 PromesseD'Amerique.
Historia,Mdxico.
Laprehistoiredel'Ameriquedu
Sud. Hachette,Paris.
Lumbreras,Luis
1974 LaArqueologfacomo ciencia social. EdicionesHistar,
Leach,Edmund
1977 A View fromthe Bridge. In Archaeologyand AnthroLima.
1989 Chavinde Huantaren el nacimientode la Civilizacidn
pology, edited by M. Spriggs, pp. 161-76. BAR SuppleAndina.EdicionesINDEA, Lima.
mentarySeries 19, Oxford.
2002 La arqueologiatestimonial.GacetaArqueologicaAnLitvak,Jaime
1997 MexicanArchaeology-Challenges at the End of the
dina 26:5-12.
McGuire,Randall
Century. Society for American Archaeology Bulletin
1992 A MarxistArchaeology.AcademicPress,New York.
15(4):10-11.
LlanosVargas,Hector
McGuire,Randall,andRodrigoNavarrete
1995 Los chamanesjaguares de San Agustin:gdnesis de un
1999 Entremotocicletasy fusiles:las arqueologiasradicales
pensamiento mitopoe'tico.H. Llanos Vargas, Santaf6 de
anglosajona y latinoamericana.Boletin de Antropologia
Americana34:89-110.
Bogota.
Lleras-Perdz,Roberto
Manzanilla,Linda
2000 The Iconographyand Symbolism of Metallic Votive
1997 Teotihuacan. Urban Archetype, Cosmic Model. In
Offerings in the Eastern Cordillera, Colombia. In PreEmergenceand Changein Early UrbanSocieties,editedby
columbianGold.Technology,Styleand Iconography,edited
L. Manzanilla,pp. 109-131. Plenum Press, London-New
York.
by Colin McEwan, pp. 112-131. British Museum Press,
London.
1999 TheEmergenceof ComplexUrbanSocietiesin Central
Mexico. InArchaeologyinLatinAmerica,editedby G. PoliLondofio,Eduardo
1992 Guerrasy fronteras:los limitesterritorialesdel dominio
tis and B. Alberti,pp. 93-129. Routledge,London.
Manzanilla,Linda,andLeonardoL6pez Lujan(editors)
prehispanicode Tunja.BoletinMuseodel Oro32-33:3-20.
1994 Historiaantiguade Mexico, vol. 3. INAH,M6xico.
L6pez Aguilar,Fernando
1990 Elementospara una construcci6nte6rica en arqueo- Marcos,Jorge
1988 RealAlto.La historiade uncentroceremonialValdivia.
logia. InstitutoNacionalde Antropologiae Historia,M6xico, D.F
Corporaci6nEditorial Nacional-Escuela Polit6cnica del
Litoral,Guayaquil.
L6pez Austin,Alfredo,and LeonardoL6pez Lujan
1999 Elpasado indigena.Fondode CulturaEcon6mica,Me- Maridtegui,JosdCarlos
xico.
1952 Siete ensayosde interpretacidnde la realidadPeruana.
BibliotecaAmauta,Lima.
L6pez Castaio, Carlos
1999 Ocupacionestempranasen las tierrasbajas tropicales Martin,Fabiana,andLuis A. Borrero
del valle medio del Rio Magdalena, sitio OS-YON-002,
1997 A PumaLair in SouthernPatagonia:Implicationsfor
the Archaeological Record. Current Anthropology
Yondd,Antioquia.FIAN, Santafdde Bogota.
38:453-461.
L6pez Lujdn,Leonardo
1994 TheOfferingsof theTemploMayorofTenochtitlan.
Uni- Martinez,Gustavo
1999 Tecnologia, subsistenciay asentamientoen el curso
versityPressof Colorado,Niwot.
medio del Rio QuequenGrande:un enfoquearqueol6gico.
L6pez Mazz, Jos6 M.
1999 SomeAspectsof theFrenchInfluenceuponUruguayan
UnpublishedPh.D. dissertation,Facultadde CienciasNatand BrazilianArchaeology.InArchaeologyin LatinAmerurales,UniversidadNacionalde La Plata,La Plata.
ica,editedby G. PolitisandB.Alberti,pp. 38-58. Routledge, Martinez,Gustavo,andJos6 Luis Lanata(editors)
London.
2002 Perspectivasintegradorasentre arqueolog(ay evolu2001 Las estructurastumulares(cerritos)del litoralatlantico
cidn. teorfa, metodo y casos de aplicacidn. Ediciones
INCUAPA,Serie Teorica1, Olavarria.
uruguayo.LatinAmericanAntiquity12:231-256.
Lorandi,Ana M.
Massone,Mauricio
1988 Los Diaguitasy el Tawantinsuyu:
unahip6tesisde con1996 Hombre tempranoy paleoambienteen la Regi6n de
flicto. In Proceedings45 CongresoInternacionalde AmerMagallanes:Evaluaci6ncritica y perspectivas.Anales del
icanistas. Las Fronteras del Estado Inca, edited by T.
Institutode la Patagonia24:81-98.

268

AMERICAN ANTIQUITY

Matos Moctezuma,Eduardo
1993 Programade Arqueologia Urbana. Antropol6gicas
8:34-44.
MatosMendieta,Ramiro
1993-1995 Los Inkasde la SierraCentraldel Perd.Revista
de ArqueologiaAmericana2:159-190.
Incade la Punade Junin.
1994 Pumpu:Centroadministrativo
EditorialHorizonte,Lima.
Mazzanti,Diana,and CarlosQuintana(editors)
2001 CuevaTixi:Cazadoresy Recolectoresde las Sierrasde
TandiliaOriental.1 Geologia,Paleontologiay Zooarqueologia. Laboratorio de Arqueologia, Facultad de
Humanidades,UniversidadNacionalde Mardel Plata,Mar
del Plata.
Meggers,Betty (editor)
1992 PrehistoriaSudamericana:nuevasperspectivas.Taraxacum, Santiagode Chile.
Meggers,Betty,and CliffordEvans
1957 ArchaeologicalInvestigationat the mouthof theAmazon. Bulletin No. 167. Bureau of American Ethnology,
SmithsonianInstitution,Washington,D.C.
1969 Comointerpretarellenguajede los tiestos.Manualpara
arquedlogos.SmithsonianInstitution,Washington,D.C.
Meggers,Betty,and CliffordEvans (editors)
1963 AboriginalCulturalDevelopmentinLatinAmerica:An
InterpretativeReview.SmithsonianMiscellaneousCollectionVol 140 (1). SmithsonianInstitution,Washington,D.C.
MengoniGonialons,Guillermo
1982 NotasZooarqueol6gicasI:fracturasen hueso. VIICongreso Nacional de Arqueologfa,pp. 87-91. Montevideo.
1988 El estudio de huellas en arqueofaunas:una via para
reconstruirsituaciones interactivas en contextos arquey t6cnicasde analiol6gicos:aspectoste6rico-metodol6gicos
sis. InDe Procesos, Contextosy OtrosHuesos, editedby N.
RattoandA. Haber,pp. 17-28. ICA (Seccion Prehistoria)
FFyL, UBA, Buenos Aires.
1999 Cazadores de guanaco de la estepa Patagonica.
SociedadArgentinade Antropologia,BuenosAires.
Mengoni Gofialons,GuillermoL., Daniel E. Olivera,and Hugo
D. Yacobaccio(editors)
2001 El uso de los camelidosa travesdel tiempo.Ediciones
del Tridente,BuenosAires.
Miller,George
1977 An Introductionto the Ethnoarchaeologyof Andean
Camelids. UnpublishedPh.D. dissertation,University of
California,Berkeley.
Miller,Tom,Jr.
1979 Stoneworkof the Xeta Indiansof Brazil.In Lithic Usewear Analysis,edited by B. Hayden,pp. 401-409. Academic Press,New York.
Miotti,Laura
1998 Zooarqueologiade la Meseta CentralyCostade Santa
Cruz.Museo Municipalde HistoriaNatural,San Rafael.
Miotti,Laura,andM6nica Salemme
1999 Biodiversity,TaxonomicRichnessand Specialist-Generalist duringLate Pleistocene/ Early Holocene Times in
PampaandPatagonia(Argentina,SouthernSouthAmerica).
QuaternaryInternational.ThePleistocene/HoloceneTransition and Human Occupation in South America
53-54:53-68.
Miotti,Laura,VazquezMartin,and DarioHermo
1999 PiedraMuseo, un YamnagooPleistoc6nicode los colonizadoresde la Meseta de SantaCruz.In Soplandoen el
viento...Actas de las TercerasJornadasde Arqueologiade
la Patagonia,pp.113-136. San Carlosde Bariloche(1996).

[Vol. 68, No. 2, 2003

Mondini,Nora M.
1995 ArtiodactylPreyTransport
by Foxesin PunaRockShelters. CurrentAnthropology
36:520-524.
Mondini,Nora M., andAndrdsS. Mufioz
1996 El desarrollo de la tafonomia en la Arqueologia
Argentina.EstadoActualy Perspectivas.Comunicaci6nde
la II Reuni6nde Tafonomiay Fosilizacion:255-258.
Murra,JohnV.
1954 The EconomicOrganizationof the Inca State.Unpublished Ph.D. disseration,Universityof Chicago,Chicago.
1978 La organizacidnecondmicadel estadoInca. Siglo XXI
Editores,Mdxico.
Nami, Hugo G.
1997 Investigacionesactualisticasparadiscutiraspectostecnicos de los cazadores-recolectores
delTardiglacial:el problemaClovis-CuevaFell.Analesdel Institutode la Patagonia
6:151-186. PuntaArenas.
1997-1998 Arqueologiaexperimental,tallade la piedracontemporanea,artemodernoy tdcnicastradicionales:observacionesactualisticasparadiscutirestiloen tecnologialitica.
Relacionesde la SociedadArgentinadeAntropologiaXXIIXXIII:363-388.
Nasti, Atilio
1991 Tafonomiade vertebradosen contextossedimentarios
modernosde la PunaSur:chances de enterramientoy formaci6ndel registroarqueol6gico.Shincal3:234-251.
2000 Modificationof Vicufia Carcasses in High-Altitude
Deserts. CurrentAnthropology41:279-283.
Nelson, MargaretC.
1992 The Studyof TechnologicalOrganization.InArchaeological Methodand Theory,vol. 3, edited by M. Schiffer,
pp. 57-100. Universityof ArizonaPress,Tucson.
Neme, GustavoA., andAdolfo F. Gil
2002 La explotaci6n faunistica y la frecuencia de partes
esqueletariasen el registroarqueol6gicodel surMendocino.
In Entremontaias y desiertos:arqueologfadel sur de Mendoza, edited by A. F Gil and G. A. Neme, pp. 141-155.
SociedadArgentinade Antropologia,BuenosAires.
Neves, EduardoG.
1999a ChangingPerspectivesinAmazonianArchaeology.In
Archaeologyin LatinAmerica,editedby G. Politis and B.
Alberti,pp. 216-243. Routledge,London.
1999b Arquelogia.hist6riaindigenae o registroetnografico:
exemplos do alto rio Negro. Revistado Museu de Arqueologia e Etnologia,Suplemento3:319-330
Nielsen, Axel
El trafico caravanerovisto desde La Jara. Estudios Atacamenos 14:339-371.
1997-98 Traficodecaravanas
enel surdeBolivia:observaciones
etnogrsficase implicanciasarqueol6gicas.Relacionesde la
SociedadArgentinadeAntropologiaXXII-XXIII:139-178.
Noelli, Francisco
1996 As hip6teses sobre o centro de origem e as rotas de
expansaodos Tupi.Revistade Antroplogia39(2):7-53.
1998 The Tupi:ExplainingOriginand Expansionin Terms
of Archaeology and Historical Linguistics. Antiquity72
(277):648-663.
Nogueirade Queiroz,Alberico
2001 Introduqaoa tafonomia: vertebradosholocenicos e
bioantropologiade terreno.Paperpresentedat the XI Congresso da Sociedade de Arqueologia Brasileira, Rio de
Janeiro,Brasil.
Nufiez,Lautaro
1988 Haciala producci6nde Alimentosy la VidaSedentaria
(5000 a.C. a 900 d.C.). In Culturasde Chile: Prehistoria,

Gustavo G. Politis]

IN LATINAMERICA
ARCHAEOLOGY

edited by J. Hidalgo, V. Schiappacasse,H. Niemeyer, C.

Aldunatedel Solar,and I. Solimano,pp. 81-105. Editorial
Andr6sBello, Santiago.
Nufiez,Lautaro,JuanVarela,RodolfoCasamiquela,VirgilioSchiappacasse,HansNiemeyerF, andCarolinaVillagran
Chile:El ambientedel Pleis1994 Cuencade Tagua-Taguaen
toceno y ocupacioneshumanas.Revista Chilenade Historia Natural67:503-519.
Nunez, Lautaro,MartinGrosjean,and IsabelCartajenaF.
1999 Un ecorefugio oportunisticoen la puna de Atacama
duranteeventos aridosdel Holoceno Medio. EstudiosAtacamenos 17:125-174.
Oliv6 Negrete,Julio Cdsar
1958 Estructura y dindmica en Mesoamerica. Acta
Antropol6gica,Epoca 2, Vol. 1, No 3. M6xico.
Oliver,Jos6 R.
1998 El centroceremonialde Caguana,Puerto Rico: simbolismo iconogrdfico,cosmovisi6n y el poderfo caciquil
tainode Boriqudn.Fundaci6nArqueol6gica,Antropol6gica
e Hist6ricade PuertoRico, San Juan,PuertoRico.
2000 Gold Symbolism among CaribbeanChiefdoms: Of
Feathers,(ibas, and GuanfnPoweramongTainoElites. In
PrecolumbianGold. Technology,Style and Iconography,
editedby C. McEwan,pp. 196-219. BritishMuseumPress,
London.
Olivera,Daniel
2000 Perfiletarioy rendimientoecon6micode Lamaglama.
In El uso de los camelidosa travesdel tiempo,editedby G.
Mengoni Gofialons, D. Olivera, and H. Yacobaccio, pp.
179-202. Edicionesdel Tridente,BuenosAires.
Olivera,Daniel,AtilioNasti,MariaJ.deAguirre,andAlex Horsey
1991-92 Tafonomiaen desiertode altura.Analesde Arqueologia y Etnologia46-47:75-106.
Olivera,Daniel, and PabloTchilinguirian
2000 De aguasy tierras:aportesparala reactivaci6nde camRelaciones
pos agricolasarqueol6gicosen la PunaArgentina.
de la SociedadArgentinade AntropologfaXXV:99-118.
Orquera,Luis, andErnestoPiana
1999 La vida material y social de los Ydmanas.Instituto
Fueguino de InvestigacionesCientificas,Eudeba, Buenos
Aires.
2000 Composici6nde conchalesde la costadel canalde Beagle (Tierradel Fuego, RepfiblicaArgentina).Relacionesde
la SociedadArgentinade AntropologiaXXV:249-274.
Orser,Charles
1997 A Historical Archaeology of the Modern World.
Plenum/Kluwer.New York.
Oyuela-Caycedo,Augusto,ArmandoAnaya,CarlosG. Elera,and
Lidio Valdez
1997 SocialArchaeologyin LatinAmerica?Commentsto T.
C. Patterson.AmericanAntiquity62:365-374.
Patterson,ThomasC.
1994 SocialArchaeologyin LatinAmerica.AnAppreciation.
AmericanAntiquity59:531-537.
Pedrotta,Victoria,andFacundoG6mez Romero
1998 HistoricalArchaeology:An Outlookfrom the ArgentineanPampas.InternationalJournalof HistoricalArchaeology 2(2):113-121.
Perera,M. A.
2000 Oro y Hambre. Guayana Siglo XVI. Antropologia
histdricay ecologiaculturalde unmalentendido1498-1597.
Consejo de DesarrolloCientificoy Humanistico,Facultad
de CienciasEcon6micasy Sociales,UniversidadCentralde
Venezuela,Caracas,Venezuela.
PerezGollan,Jos6
1981 Presenciade VereGordonChilde.InstitutoNacionalde

269

Antropologiae Historia,Mexico.
2000 El jaguaren llamas (la religi6nen el antiguoNoroeste
Argentino)In Nueva Historia Argentina,edited by M. N.
Tarrag6,pp. 229-256. Editorial Sudamericana,Buenos
Aires.
PintosBlanco, Sebastian
1996 Analisisarqueozool6gicodel sitioCasadelGoberador.
HistoricalArchaeologyin LatinAmerica16:19-26.
PifiaChdn,Roman
1955 Las culturalPrecldsicasen la CuencadeMexico.Fondo
de CulturaEcon6mica,M6xico.
1963 CulturalDevelopmentin CentralMesoamerica.InAboriginal CulturalDevelopmentin LatinAmerica:An InterpretativeReview,edited by B. Meggersand C. Evans, pp.
17-26. SmithsonianMiscellaneousCollectionVol. 140 (1).
SmithsonianInstitution,Washington,D.C.
Politis, Gustavo
1995 The Socio-politics of Archaeologyin HispanicSouth
America. In Theoryin Archaeology.A WorldPerspective,
editedby P.Ucko, pp. 197-235. Routledge,London.
1996a Moving to Produce:Nukak Mobilityand Settlement
Patternsin Amazonia.WorldArchaeology27:492-510.
1996b Nukak.InstitutoSINCHI,Santafede Bogota.
1998 Arqueologiade la Infancia:una perspectivaetnoarqueol6gica. Trabajosde Prehistoria55(2):5-19.
1999 PlantExploitationamongthe NukakHunter-Gatherers
of Amazonia:Between Ecology and Ideology.In ThePrehistoryof Food:Appetitesfor Change,editedby C. Gosden
and J. Hather,pp. 99-126. Routledge,London.
2001 OnArchaeologicalPraxis,GenderBias andIndigenous
Peoples in SouthAmerica.Journalof Social Archaeology
1(1):90-107.
Politis, Gustavo,andPatriciaMadrid
1988 Un hueso duro de roer: analisis preliminar de la
tafonomiadel sitio LagunaTres Reyes 1 (Pdo. de Adolfo
GonzalesChaves).In De Procesos Contextosy OtrosHuesos, editedby N. Ratto,andA. Haber,pp.45-52. ICA (Secci6n Prehistoria),FFyL, UBA, BuenosAires.
Politis, Gustavo,andGustavoMartinez
1996 La caceria,el procesamientode las presasy los tabues
alimenticios.In Nukak,edited by G. Politis, pp. 231-280.
InstitutoSINCHI,Santafede Bogota.
Politis, Gustavo,andJos6A. PerezGollan
2004 LatinAmericaArchaeology:
FromColonialismtoGlobalization. Blackwell Companionfor Social Archaeology,
editedby R. Preuceland L. Meskell. Blackwell,in press.
Politis, Gustavo,andM6nica Salemme
1990 Pre-HispanicMammalExploitationandHuntingStrategies in theEasternPampaSubregionofArgentina.InHunters
of theRecentPast,editedby L. B. DavisandB. O. K. Reeves,
pp. 352-372. Unwin Hyman,London.
Politis, Gustavo,andNicholas Saunders
2002 ArchaeologicalCorrelatesof IdeologicalActivity:Food
TaboosandSpirit-animalsin anAmazonianHunter-gatherer
Society. In ConsumingPassion and Patternsof Consumption, edited by P. Miracle and N. Milner, pp. 113-130.
McDonaldInstitute,Cambridge.
Porras,PedroF
1980 Arqueologiadel Ecuador.Quito,Ecuador.
PradillaRuedas,Helena,GermdnVillateSantander,
andFrancisco
OrtizG6mez
1992 Arqueologia del cercado grande de los santuarios.
BoletinMuseo del Oro 32-33:21-148.
Rambelli,Gilson
2002 Arqueologiaate debaixod'agua.EditoraMaranta,Sao
Paulo.

270

AMERICAN ANTIQUITY

Raedeke,Kenneth
1976 El guanaco de Magallanes, Chile. Distribucion y
biologia. Corporaci6nNacionalForestal,Chile.
Raffino,Rodolfo
1993 Inca,Arqueologia,Historiay UrbanismodelAltiplano
Andino.EditorialCorregidor,BuenosAires.
Raffino,Rodolfo, and RubenStehberg
1999 Tawantinsuyu.The Frontiersof the Inca Empire. In
Archaeologyin LatinAmerica,edited by G. Politis and B.
Alberti,pp. 167-181. Routledge,London.
Reichel-Dolmattoff,Gerardo
1978 DesanaAnimalCategories,Food Restrictions,andthe
Conceptof ColorEnergies.Journalof LatinAmericanLore
4:249-291.
1985 Los Kogi. Nueva Biblioteca Colombianade Cultura.
Procultura,Bogota.
1986 Desana. Simbolismode los indios Tukanodel Vaupes.
Procultura.Presidenciade la Repdblica,Bogoti.
1988 Orfebreriay chamanismo.Un estudioiconogrdficodel
Museo del Oro.EditorialColina,Medellin.
Renfrew,Colin, and PaulBahn
1991 Archaeology:Theories,Methodsand Practice.Thames
and Hudson,London.
Rick, John
1980 PrehistoricHuntersof theHighAndes.AcademicPress,
New York.
Rodriguez,JorgeA.
2001 Nordeste Prehispanico.In HistoriaArgentinaPrehispdnica,Tomo2, editedby E. E. BerberianandA.E. Nielsen,
pp. 693-736. EditorialBrujas,Argentina.
Rodriguez,Alfonso, JuanCervantes,and PatriciaFoumier
1999 Las relacionesentreel centroy la periferia:el caso de
las comunidadesdel clasico en la regi6n de Tula,Mexico.
Boletin de AntropologiaAmericana35:73-94.
Rostworowski,Maria
1953 PachacutecInca Yupanqui.TorresAguirre,Lima.
1978 SenoriosIndigenasde Limay canta. Institutode Estudios Peruanos,Lima.
2nd. ed. Institutode Estu1988 Historiadel Tahuantinsuyu.
dios Peruanos,Lima.
Rovira,BeatrizE.
2001 Presenciade may6licasPanameiiasen el mundocolonial: Algunas consideracionesacerca de su distribuci6ny
cronologia.LatinAmericanAntiquity12:291-303.
Rowe, JohnH.
1960 CulturalUnity andDiversificationin PeruvianArchaeology. In Men and Cultures,SelectedPapers,5th International Congress of Anthropological and Ethnological
Sciences, editedby A. F. C. Wallace,pp. 627-631. University of PennsylvaniaPress,Philadelphia.
Salemme,M6nica
1987 Paleoetnozoologiadel sectorBonaerensede la Regi6n
Pampeana.Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,Facultad de
Ciencias Naturales,UniversidadNacional de La Plata,La
Plata.
Sanoja,Mario,and IraidaVargas
1978 Antiguasformaciones y modos de producci6n Venezolanos. MonteAvilaEditores,Caracas.
1995 Gente de la Canoa. EconomiaPolitica de la Antigua
del Norestede Venezuela.FondoEdiSociedadApropiadora
torialTropykos,Caracas.
1999 Origenesde Venezuela.Regionesgeohistdricasaborigenes hasta 1500 d.C. Comisi6nPresidencialV Centenario
de Venezuela,Caracas.
Saunders,Nicholas
1998 Architectureof Symbolism:TheFelineImage.InIcons

[Vol. 68, No. 2, 2003

of Power:Feline Symbolismin the Americas,edited by N.

Saunders,pp. 12-52. Roudedge,London.
Schaan,Denise
2001 IntotheLabyrinthsof MarajoaraPottery.StatusandCulturalIdentityin PrehistoricAmazonia. In UnknownAmazon, edited by C. McEwan,C. Barreto,and E. Neves, pp.
108-133. The BritishMuseumPress,London.
Schavelzon,Daniel
1999 Arqueologiade BuenosAires. Una ciudaden elfin del
mundo1580-1880. Emec6Editores,BuenosAires.
Schiavini,Adrian,M.
1993 Los lobos marinoscomorecusoparacazadores-recolectoresmarinos:el caso de Tierradel Fuego. LatinAmerican
Antiquity4:346-366.
Schiffer,MichaelBrian
1995 BehavioralArchaeology:
FirstPrinciples.Universityof
UtahPress,Salt Lake City.
Shepard,Anna
1956 CeramicsfortheArchaeologist.CarnegieInstitutionof
Washington,Washington,D.C.
Silva, FabiolaA.
2000 As Tecnologias e Seus Significados. Um Estudo da
Ceramicados Asurinido Xingu e da Cesteriados Kayap6Xikrinsob umaPerspectivaEtnoarqueol6gica.
Unpublished
Ph.D. dissertation,Departamentode Antrop6logia,Facultad de Ciencias Humanas,Universidadde Sao Paulo, Sao
Paulo.
Silveira,Mario
1995 Analisis de Restos Faunisticosen Sitios Hist6ricosde
la Ciudadde BuenosAires.HistoricalArchaeologyin Latin
America7:43-56.
Simonetti,JavierA., andLuis E. Corejo
1991 ArchaeologicalEvidence of Rodent Consumptionin
CentralChile. LatinAmericanAntiquity2:92-96.
Stehberg,Ruben
1995 Instalacionesincaicas en el norte y centrosemidrido
de Chile.Colecci6nAntropol6gicaIII,Centrode Investigaciones Diego BarrosArana,Santiagode Chile.
Steward,Julian
1946-1950 TheHandbookofSouthAmerican
Indians.6Vols.
Bureauof AmericanEthnology,Washington,D.C.
TabioEresto, andEstrellaRey
1966 Prehistoriade Cuba.Academiade Cienciasde Cuba,
La Habana.
Taddei,Antonio
1964 Un yacimiento preceramicoen el Uruguay.Bassler
Archiv12:317-372.
Tilley,Christopher
1991 TheArtofAmbiguity:MaterialCultureandText.Routledge, London.
Tochetto,Fernanda
1996 Possibilidadede interpretaao do conteudosimb6lico
da artegraficaGuarani.Revistado Museude Arqueologiae
Etnologia6:33-45.
Tomka,Steve
1992 Vicufiasand Llamas:Parallelsin BehavioralEcology
andImplicationsforthe Domesticationof AndeanCamelids.
HumanEcology 20:407-433.
Torrence,Robin.
1983 Time Budgetingand Hunter-Gatherer
Technology.In
Hunter-Gatherer
Economyin Prehistory:A EuropeanPerspective,edited by G. Bailey, pp. 11-22. CambridgeUniversityPress,Cambridge.
Trigger,Bruce
1989 A HistoryofArchaeologicalThought.CambridgeUniversityPress,Cambridge.

Gustavo G. Politis]

ARCHAEOLOGY IN LATINAMERICA

Uceda, Santiago,RicardoMorales,R. CanzianiandM. Montoya

1994 Investigacionessobrela arquitectura
y relievespolicromos en la Huacade la Luna,vallede Moche.In Moche:Propuestas y perspectivas, Travaux de l'lnstitut Francais
d'EtudesAndines79, editedby S. Uceda andE. Mujica,pp.
251-303. Lima.
Uceda, Santiago,andElias Mujica(editors)
1994 Moche: Propuestasy perspectivas.Travauxde l'lnstitut Francaisd'EtudesAndines79. Lima.
Uceda, Santiago,Elias Mujica,andRicardoMorales(editors)
1995 Investigacionesen la Huaca de la Luna. Universidad
Nacionalde Trujillo,Peru.
Ucko, Peter(editor)
1995 TheoryinArchaeology.AWorldPerspective.Routledge,
London.
Valadez Azua, Raul, Blanca Paredes Gudiiio, and Bernardo
RodriguezGalicia
1999 Entierrosde perrosdescubiertosen la antiguaciudad
de Tula.LatinAmericanAntiquity10:180-200.
Valcarcel,Luis E.
1959 Etnohistoriadel PeruAntiguo.Historiadel PeruInca.
UniversidadNacionalMayorde San Marcos,Lima.
Vargas,Iraida
1990 Arqueologia,CienciaySociedad.EditorialAbreBrecha,
Caracas.
Vargas,Iraida,and MarioSanoja
1999 Archaeologyas a Social Science. In Archaeologyin
LatinAmerica,editedby G. PolitisandB. Alberti,pp.59-75.
Routledge,London.
Vargas,Iraida,MarioSanoja,M. Montilla,and G. Alvarado
1998 Arqueologfade CaracasII:Arqueologiade SanPablo.
Sitioarqueol6gicoTeatroMunicipal.Bibliotecade laAcademia Nacionalde la Historiade Venezuela.Serie Estudios,
Monografiasy Ensayos 178, Caracas.
Var6nGabai,Rafael,andJavierFloresEspinoza(editors)
1997 Arqueologfa,Antropologiae Historia en los Andes.
Institutode EstudiosPeruHomenajea MariaRostworowski.
anos, Peru.
Vazqu6zLe6n, Luis
1996 El LeviatdnArqueoldgico:Antropologiade una Tradicion Cienttficaen Mexico.ResearchSchool CNWS,Leiden,
The Netherlands.
VazquezSanchez,Victor,TeresaRosales Than,and Luis CoronadoTello
2001 Evidenciasarqueol6gicasde crianzade camelidosen
los siglos V y VI en la CostaNortede Peri. In El uso de los
camelidos a traves del tiempo, edited by G. Mengoni
Gofialons,D. Olivera,andH.Yacobaccio,pp.241-260. Ediciones del Tridente,BuenosAires.
Velandia,Cesar
1994 San Agustin:Arte, Estructuray Arqueologia.Modelo
para unaSemioticade la IconografiaPrecolombina.Banco
de Tolima,Bogota.
Popular-Universidad
1999 TheArchaeologicalCultureof SanAgustin:TowardsA
New Interpretation.
InArchaeologyin LatinAmerica,edited
by G. G. PolitisandB. Alberti,pp. 185-215. Routledge,London.
Veloz Maggiolo, Marcio
1992 NotassobrelaZaimaen la prehistoriadel Caribe.Revista
de AntropologiaAmericana6:125-140.
Veloz Maggiolo,Marcio,andE. Ortega
1992 La Fundaci6nde la Villade SantoDomingo.Comisi6n
Dominicana Permanentepara le Celebraci6ndel Quinto
Centenario del Descubrimiento y Evangelizaci6n de
America,serie Historiade la Ciudad 1, Colecci6n Quinto
Centenario,SantoDomingo.

271

Wachtel,Nathan
1976 Los vencidos.Los indiosdel Peru'frentea la conquista
espaiiola (1530-1570). AlianzaEditorial,Madrid.
1990 Le retourdes ancetres.LesindiensurusdeBolivie,XXeXVIesiecle. Essai d'histoireregressive.Gallimard,Paris.
Wheeler Pires-Ferreira,Jane,EdgardoPires-Ferreira,and Peter
Kaulicke
1976 PreceramicAnimal Utilizationin the CentralPeruvian
Andes. UchcumachayCaveFaunalRemainsDocumentthe
Processof CamelidDomesticationin the Punaof Junin.Science 194:483-490.
Willey, Gordon
1958 EstimatedCorrelationsand Dating of Southand Central American Culture Sequences. American Antiquity
23:353-378.
vol. 1. Pren1966 AnIntroductiontoAmericanArchaeology,
tice-Hall,EnglewoodCliffs, New Jersey.
1971 An Introductionto AmericanArcheology,vol. 2. Prentice-Hall,EnglewoodCliffs, New Jersey.
Williams,Eduardo
1994 Organizaci6n del espacio dom6stico y produccion
ceramicaen Huancito,Michaoacan.In Contribucionesa la
arqueologiay etnohistoriadel Occidentede Mexico,edited
by E. Williams, pp. 189-225. El Colegio de Michoacan,
Morelia.
1999 The Ethnoarchaeology of Salt Production at Lake
Cuitzeo, Michoacan, Mexico. Latin American Antiquity
10:400-414.
Williams,Eduardo,and PhilipC. Weigand(editors)
2001 Estudioscerdmicosen el occidentey norte de Mexico.
El Colegio de MichoacanandInstitutoMichoacanode Cultura.Morelia.
Williams,Ver6nica
1995 ArqueologiaIncaicaen la regi6ncentro-oestede Catamarca(RepublicaArgentina).UnpublishedPh.D. dissertation, Facultadde CienciasNaturalesy Museo, Universidad
Nacionalde La Plata.
Wing, ElizabethS.
1972 AppendixIV. Utilizationof Animal Resourcesin the
PeruvianAndes. In Excavationsat Kotosh,Peru.A Report
on the Thirdand FourthExpeditions,editedby I. Shimada
and K. Terada,pp. 327-351. TokyoUniversity,Tokyo.
Wiist, Irmhild
1975 A CeramicaCarajadeArauana.Anuariode Divulgagao
Cientifica11(2)2:95-168.
1981-82 Observacoessobrea tecnologiacerfamicaKarajdde
Aruana. Arquivos do Museu de Historia Natural VIVII:311-322.
1998 ContinuitiesandDiscontinuities:ArchaeologyandEthnoarchaeologyin the Heartof the EasternBororoTerritory,
Mato Grosso,Brazil.Antiquity72:663-675.
Wiist, Irmhild,and CristianaBarreto
1999 The Ring Village of CentralBrazil:A Challengefor
10:3-23.
AmazonianArchaeology.LatinAmericanAntiquity
Yacobaccio,Hugo
1995 El aportede la Etnoarqueologiaal conocimientodel registroarqueol6gicopastorilandino.ActasdelXIIICongreso
Nacional de Arqueologfa Chilena, Hombre y Desierto 9
(1):309-316. Antofagasta,Chile.
Yacobaccio,Hugo, and CelinaMadero
unaherramienta
1994 Etnoarquelogiade
pastoresSurandinos:
paraconocerel registroarqueol6gico.Jornadasde Arquede
ologia e Interdisciplinas:203-236. CONICET-Programa
EstudiosPrehist6ricos,BuenosAires.
Yacobaccio,Hugo D., Dolores C. Elkin,and Daniel Olivera
1994 LEl fin de las Sociedades Cazadoras?El proceso de

AMERICAN ANTIQUITY

272

Domesticaci6nAnimal el los Andes CentroSur.In ArqueLimites,Casos y Aperologia de Cazadores-Recolectores.

turas,edited by J. L. Lanataand L. A. Borrero,pp. 23-32.
ArqueologiaContemporanea5, Buenos Aires.
Yacobaccio,Hugo, CelinaMadero,and MarcelaMalmierca
1998 Etnoarqueologiade PastoresSurandinos.GrupoZooarqueologiade Camelidos,BuenosAires.
Yacobaccio,Hugo D., Celina M. Madero,MarcelaMalmierca,
and Mariadel CarmenReigadas
1997-98 Caza,domesticaci6ny pastoreode camelidosen La
Puna Argentina.Relaciones de la Sociedad Argentinade
AntropologiaXXII-XXIII:389-418.
Zarankin,Andr6s
1999 Casa tomada,sistema,podery viviendadomestica.In
Sed Non Satiata, Teoria Social en Arqueologia Latieditedby A. ZarankinandF.
noamericanaContempordnea,
Acuto, pp. 239-272. Edicionesdel Tridente,BuenosAires.

[Vol. 68, No. 2, 2003]

Zeidler,James.
1984 Social Space in ValdiviaSociety: CommunityPatterning andDomestic Structureat Real Alto, 3,000-2,000 B.C.
Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Illinois,
Urbana.
Zucchi,Alberta
1991 Las migracionesMaipures:diversaslineas de evidencia para la interpretaci6narqueol6gica. America Negra
1:113-138.
1993 Datos recientesparaun modelo sobrela expansionde
los GruposMaipuresdel Norte.AmericaNegra6:131-148.

ReceivedAugust27, 2002; RevisedDecember 13, 2002;

AcceptedDecember 17, 2002.

WE CAME NAKED AND BAREFOOT

THE JOURNEY OF CABEZA DE VACA ACROSS NORTH AMERICA
BY ALEX D. KRIEGER * EDITED BY MARGERY H. KRIEGER
FOREWORD AND AFTERWORD BY THOMAS R. HESTER

Kriegerplots out the most probableroute of the 2,800-mile journeyof Cabezade Vacafrom the
Texas coast,where he was shipwrecked,to Mexico City.Thomas R. Hester'sforewordand
afterwordset Krieger'spreviouslyunpublished1955 work in the context of more recent scholarship and archaeologicaldiscoveries.
and EthnohistorySeries,ThomasR. Hester,Editor *$39.95cloth
TexasArchaeology

THE NATIVE AMERICANS

OF THE TEXAS EDWARDS PLATEAU,

1582-1799
BY MARIA F. WADE * FOREWORD BY THOMAS
MAPS BY DON E. WADE

R. HESTER

"Thisis trulyan exceptionalwork... It makesa significantcontributionto ourunderstanding

of the
Nativepeopleof Texasby introducingnew informationfrom
previouslyunusedsourcesandfreshEnglish
translationsof knowndocuments."
-William C. Foster,authorof SpanishExpeditionsinto Texas,1689-1768
and EthnohistorySeries,ThomasR. Hester,Editor *$39.95cloth
TexasArchaeology

Now availableinpaperback

CLOVIS BLADE TECHNOLOGY

BY MICHAEL

B. COLLINS,

WITH A CHAPTER BY MARVIN

KAY

in thefieldof lithic
oneof theleadingresearchers
"MichaelCollins... demonstrates
why he is considered
with lucidproseand
analysis.Theworkoffersa masterfulreviewandsynthesisof Clovisbladetechnology
interested
lavish illustrations... I recommend
this bookforallprofessionaland avocationalarchaeologists
in Paleoindianoccupations
-IllinoisArchaeology
of theNew World."
and EthnohistorySeries,ThomasR. Hester,Editor *s29.95 paper
TexasArchaeology

Browseourcompletearchaeology
catalogonlineat www.utexas.edu/utpress/subjects/archeo.html

Vm UNIVERSITY
800-252-3206

OF
WWWW.UTEXAS.

TEXAS

PRESS

EDU/UTPRESS