Society for American Archaeology

Returning to the Source: Social Archaeology as Latin American Philosophy

Author(s): O. Hugo Benavides
Source: Latin American Antiquity, Vol. 12, No. 4 (Dec., 2001), pp. 355-370
Published by: Society for American Archaeology
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/972084 .
Accessed: 16/06/2014 10:53

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. 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 Latin
American Antiquity.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 62.122.77.83 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 10:53:18 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 -

RETURNINGTO 1HE SOURCE:

SOCIALARCHAEOLOGYAS LATINAMERICANPHILOSOPHY

0. Hugo Benavides

school of thought within Latin

Thefollowing article proposes reconsidering the social archaeology paradigm as a worthwhile
its supposed methodological limitations, I argue that this
Americanphilosophy. Rather than critiquing social archaeologyfor
has already had an enormous contribution to the anthropological and political thoughtof the region.
LatinAmericanapproach
archaeologists and others influenced by their ideas have
Insteadof assuming that archaeology is a neutral enterprise, social
interdisciplinary and socially relevantresearch in the historical understanding of thepast. Archae-
alreadycarried out important
in Ecuador have benefitted significantly from a more
ologicalsites such as those of Cochasquiand Agua Blanca (among others)
histories than those routinely carried out in the positivistic paradigm of the United States.
refinedpolitical analysis of their
the committed assessment of the continent's
Finally,social archaeology also points to a much needed and useful link between
being of LatinAmerica's people.
past with the varied and importantpolitical transformationessential for thefuture well
propuestade la arqueologfacomo cien-
Elsiguientearticulopropone una seria discusionsobre la imporatanciay relevanciade la
nada que envidiar a las corrientespositivistas del
cia social. De esta manera, esta particular escuela LatinoAmericanano tiene
como ciencia social ha desarrollado un amplio esquema de trabajo que va muchomas alla de
norte.Al contrario,la arqueologia
dentro de un plano academico. Esta contribucion,
lo meramentearqueologico, o de lo que se podrfa definircomo antropologico
de la corriente, es su clara incorporacion del quehacer politico como una realidadesen-
una de las caracteristicasmas positivas
arqueologicas y antropologicas realizadas
cial del estudio y analisis historico de nuestraspropias naciones. Las investigaciones
Blanca, y Real Alto en Ecuador proponen una manera diferente de entender el pasado y de la
en sitios como Cochasqui,Agua
recuperar el pasado, estas investigaciones bus-
contribucionde este a nuestra realidad contemporanea.En vez de simplemente
este pasado y como este pasado en si mismo toma un lugar tan hegemonico y esencial en
can entendercual es el significado de
destacar que las limitaciones tecnicas o (mal
el desarrollo nacional de nuestrosestados. De esta maneraes tambienimportante
priorizacion de preguntasde fondo
entendidas)metodologicas no deberian ser vistas como un problema sino como una clara
discusiones cronologicas, tipologicas o
sobre el destino historico del continentemas que de un simple interes de quedarnosen
de la arquelogfacomo ciencia social
meramentedescriptivas.Por eso discute que es mas quefactible el proponerel largo alcance
yfilosoffa anti-imperialistadel
como un desarrolloparadigmaticoen colaboracion con la tradicionalantropologiacoprometida
como ciencia social (como bien lo intufan sus iniciales progenitores)ha escapado
continente.Las contribucionesde la arqueologfa
necesarios cambios sociales en nuestras
el ambito arqueologico y esta claramente enmarcaadacon la lucha por profundosy
sociedad neo-coloniales: luchas en las que la historia es de una importanciafundamental.

r Nhe questionof dominationis aprevalentissue thinkersand artistshave engagedpoliticaland cul-

in LatinAmericanculture,both in popular
_ - culture (e.g., Flores 1997; Garcia Canclini
1982;Rowe andSchelling l991;Yudice et al.1992)
or in thatreifiedwithinthe social sciences, human-
ities, and otheracademicdisciplines(e.g., Burgos-
Debray 1985; Dorfman 1998; Joseph and Nugent
1994; Viezzer 1977; Wolf 1969). Latin American
tural domination from varied social perspectives
(e.g., Fanon1963,1965,1967; Freire1992;Guevara
1966; Kincaid 1997; Mariategui 1955; Marti
1977[1891]; Ribeiro 1971). In one way or another
thecolonialexperiencethatlastedforacoupleofcen-
turiesunderthe controlof Iberianand otherEuro-
peanpowerscreateda particularway of lookingnot

441 East FordhamRoad, Bronx, NY

O. Hugo Benavides * Departmentof Sociology and Anthropology,FordhamUniversity,
10458-9993

LatinAmericanAntiquity, 12(4), 2001, pp. 355-370

2001 by the Society for AmericanArchaeology
Copyright(C)

355

This content downloaded from 62.122.77.83 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 10:53:18 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
356 LATINAMERICAN
ANTIQUITY
only at the world,but, more importantly,at oneself
withinLatinAmericaandtheglobalorder.Evenafter
the initialliberationof the LatinAmericanrepublics
at the beginningof the nineteenthcentury,domina-
tion was an essential characteristicthatcolored all
indigenouspoliticalandculturalprojects(Zea 1971;
see also Arguedas 1989a, 1989b; GarciaMarquez
1971;Rodo 1922[1900]).In this articleI wouldlike
to examine some of these thinkersunder a post-
coloniallight,particularly thosethataresignificantly
recognizedas creatinga new formof anthropologi-
cal thoughtknownas social archeology,or "Arque-
ologia como ciencia social" (see Lumbreras1981).
It became clear in the early Latin American
republicsthat the essential questionof what Latin
Americawas, and whatLatinAmericanswere as a
people,was farfromhavingan obviousanswer.The
issue of dominationimmediatelybroughtwith it the
dilemmaof authenticity,particularlythatof cultural
authenticity.Was (or is) this new culturallycreated
space European,Indian,Mestizo, African, and/or
Western(occidental);or was it a symbiosisof these,
like the one proposedby Vasconcelos(1997), as a
new superior"cosmicrace?"Or,is LatinAmerican
identity somethingcompletely different,inscribed
underlevelsandcenturiesof culturaldenialandpolit-
ical oppression(see Garcia Canclini 1995; Weiss
l991;Yudiceetal. 1992)?
The discourseof the ideology of mestizajeis a
primeexampleof this culturalambiguity.The idea
of a mestizorace superiorto its black, Indian,and
even white Europeanconstituentcomponentswas
initially put forwardin the late 1800s in Mexico
(Smith 1996). Vasconcelos(1997) and other ideo-
logues proposeda "cosmicrace"thatservedto legit-
imize the aspirations of the local elite against
EuropeanandNorthAmericanintruders,andto dis-
tance themselves from the rest of the non-white
nationalcitizens. Soon afterwardsthis concept of
the mestizoideal swept throughthe southernpartof
the continentand by the beginningof the twentieth
centurywas an essentialpartof LatinAmericanide-
ology (Quintero1997;Quinteroand Silva 1991). In
this sense, as Hale (1996:2) elaborates,"mestizaje
has been a remarkablyeffective ideological tool in
the handsof elite in manypartsof LatinAmerica,a
unifyingmyth put to the service of stateand nation
building.A pervasiveeffect of this process,in turn,
is for alternativeor contestedmeaningsto be down
played or even erased.Mestizajeas an elite gener-
This content downloaded from 62.122.77.83 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 10:53:18 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
[Vol. 12, No. 4, 2001]
atedmythof nationalidentity,it couldbe said,tends
to obscuretheconditionsof its owncreation,to cover
its own tracks."
In this same mannerthe mestizaje processserves
not only as a pillarfor the constructionof a national
identity,but also as a viable ideologicaltool for the
maintenanceof the statusquo andoppressionof the
majorityof the continent's population(Stutzman
1981). Morethana literalreality,the mestizaje ide-
ology is an ideal, a wish, and a rhetoricalrecourse
to hide the differences racial, ethnic, economic,
religious, sexual, etc. in LatinAmerica. "Differ-
ence" is seen as dangerousand thereforeits mere
presencecould,anddoes, questionandthreatenany
constructionof a nationalidentity.This is evidentin
the fact that in many Latin Americancountriesa
mestizo ideology has been traditionallyemployed
by the elite to maintainpower over the indigenous
populationsand other national groups. It is as if
throughthe actual inventionof a nationalidentity
thereis a homogenizingattemptandneedto hideand
silence "theother."Up to now LatinAmerica'shis-
tory has been based on the exclusion of difference,
on the negationor denialof "another,"especiallyof
theIndianas thepossibleethnicmajorityof thenation
(Silva 1995:34).
However,Mallon(1996) andseveralotherschol-
ars(Anzaldua1987;Cypess1991;Morraga1986and
1994) (most of whom are women) striveto empha-
size theliberatingorcounter-hegemonic elementsof
thistraditionallyexploitativestateideology.Theydo
this by appreciatingthe contradictorynatureof a
mestizo ideology thatbothcreatesinequality(Smith
1996:149) and liberatesus from absoluteidentities
(Anzaldua 1987). It is this essential contradictory
natureof mestizaje that becomes a source of con-
tention and that allows for a thoroughcritiqueof
manyof the traditionallyacceptedsocial categories
throughthe vantagepoint of a "strategicmarginal-
ity" (Mallon 1996:173).
During the last two centuries Latin American
intellectualshavebeeninvolvedin similarsocialpro-
jects to createthe new LatinAmerican:a being that
would be truthfulboth to its historyand to a future
of economic achievement.However,what none of
theseintellectualsortheirpoliticalventureshas ever
been ableto sufficientlyaddressis, first,how to cor-
rect a legacy of povertyand exploitation,an unre-
solved historicalproblemto this day; and second,
how to negotiatethe politics of culturalauthenticity
 FORUM 357

andtheestablishmentof a stableculturalidentitythat is the mainfocus of this paper.In manyregardsthe

could supportviablepoliticaldevelopmentprojects. following is a continuationof the discussionintro-
InLatinAmerica,theseconstantlyfrustratedpro- ducedto theAmericanacademicscene by Patterson
jects of politicalliberationandculturalauthenticity (1994) andOyuela-Caycedoet al. (1997) in the last
havesufferedfromthelackof a viablehistoricalcon- decade.Althoughthese articleswere significantin
tributionofferedby its archaeologicalestablishment. initiatingan anglophonedebateregardingan impor-
Thisdoes notmeanthatarchaeologyhasbeenabsent tanttheoreticaltrendthathad been evolving in the
from politicaldebates,but ratherthatit has formed Americasfor over two decades, they neglected to
partof a subtlerdiscourseto empowerthe different incorporatea whole differentrangeof processesand
nation-statesin theirfumbledprojectsof economic realitiesimplicitin social archaeology.Particularly
liberation,andin doing so, activelyhas contributed limited in this regardwas Oyuela-Caycedoet al.'s
to the continueddominationof the majorityof the (1997) piece that,in a reactivemode,questionedthe
populations of the continent (see Patterson and full impactof socialarchaeologyas a whole because
Schmidt 1995). The cases of Mexico and Peru are of its limited methodological contribution and
the ones most consistently used to express how offeredquitesimplistictheoreticalmodelsforunder-
archaeologicalsymbols and prehispanicelements standingthedevelopmentof LatinAmericanarchae-
have been used to sustain a near-sacredsense of ology (see also Oyuela-Caycedo1994).Towardthis
each nation-state'shistoricalaura.Forexample,the end I will incorporateboth my experienceworking
Mexicanarchaeologicalestablishmentfound itself withinthisparadigmas well as a discussionof Latin
strongly supportedby a centralizedsocial revolu- AmericananthropologythatsupportswhatI believe
tion controlledby a state interestedin exploiting a to be social archaeology'ssignificantphilosophical
pastthatlegitimizedits claim to politicalpowerand contributions.
national pride (Gandara 1992). As Castaneda's
(1996) work in the Yucatanpeninsulaand my own Archaeological Training in a
work in Ecuador(Benavides 1999; see also Patter- Postcolonial World
son andSchmidt1995;Poole 1997) reflect,archae- Social archaeologyin Ecuadoris farfrombeing the
ology has been an essentialandnecessarydiscourse dominantarchaeologicalparadigm.Rather,it reflects
in shaping what Latin Americans believed about the concerns of a small yet significant group of
theirown past,andtold themselves,or not, through archaeologists.Its initial center of developmentin
their own histories or those of engaged foreign the country was Guayaquil'sCentro de Estudios
archaeologists(see also Florescano 1994; Sullivan Arqueologicos y Antropologicos, located at the
1991). Escuela SuperiorPolitecnicadel Litoral(ESPOL).
Basedon recenttheoreticalanalyses,it is evident The school was originallyfoundedin 1980by Jorge
that all archaeological work has an implicit and Marcosanda cohortof otherLatinAmericanarchae-
sometimesexplicit political subtext thateven the ologists (Marcos 1986). It was a naturaloutgrowth
mostrigorouslypositivisticandempiricalarchaeol- oftheUNESCO-sponsoredParacas meetingin 1970
ogists are contributing,knowinglyor not, to a par- on LatinAmericaneducation,wherethe need for a
ticularpoliticalagendaoutsideof theircontrol(Kohl local(or"native")professionalarchaeologicalschool
andFawcettl995;Trigger 1989;Wylie1992,1995). wasoutlined.Thetheoreticalinclinationof theschool
Withinthis scenario,in the last two decades there was very clear from the outset;thatis, the curricu-
hasevolved withinLatinAmericananthropological lumand initialstaff reflecteda strongadherenceto
thoughta communityof archaeologistswhohavedis- therecenttheoreticaladvancesputforwardin Latin
engagedthemselvesfrom pretendedscientificneu- Americaunderthe aegis of a social archaeology.
tralityandactivelyconnectedtheirprofessionalwork Until then the threemajorcentersfor the devel-
with their political involvement. This group of opmentof thisparadigmhadbeenMexico andPeru,
archaeologistshas establisheda limited,yet signif- andto a lesser degreeVenezuela.Mexico hadbene-
icant,contributionto understanding,carryingout, fittedfrom the influx of radicalarchaeologistswho
andinfluencingarchaeologicalandanthropological abandonedtheircountriesaftermilitarytakeovers,
researchin LatinAmerica. suchas theChileansLuisFelipeBateandJulioMon-
Itis thisparticularschool,socialarchaeology,that tane,and the SpaniardJose Luis Lorenzo.Peru,
on

This content downloaded from 62.122.77.83 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 10:53:18 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
358 LATIN AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 12, No. 4, 2001]

the otherhand,had its own Luis Lumbreras(1981), nationalconferences and meetings. In the United
the authorof the groundbreakingL,aarqueologia States the situations seem reversed. Despite the
como ciencia social (Archaeology as Social Sci- greaterwealthof resources,it is notsurprisingto find
ence), which initially circulatedas an unpublished archaeologists who have never heard of a social
manuscriptin various anthropologydepartments archaeology,even among archaeologistswho carry
aroundthe continent,and in manyways servedas a out their researchin Latin America. This lack of
catalystfortheformationof themovement.Thepub- awarenessof foreign paradigmshas serious impli-
licationof thejournal,GacetaArqueoZogicaAndina, cations for the interactionbetween scholars from
also contributedsignificantly to providing social differentcountriesandpointsto the need to createa
archaeologistswith a mediumto expressand circu- setting for some form of dialogue between
late manyof theirinitialideas.Finally,theVenezue- researchers.
lans MarioSanojaand IraidaVargas(1978) offered As I stated,thedifferencesin archaeologicaltrain-
a re-interpretationof their country'spast in their ing between Ecuador and the United States are
Antiguasformacionesy modosde produccionvene- shaped by the particularpost(neo)-colonial rela-
zolanos (Ancient Formationsand Modes of Pro- tionshipin which these two countriesare engaged.
ductionin Venezuela),which operationalizedmany Ecuador,as a postcolonialpossession,offersa very
of the key concepts thathad been proposedby the differenteducationthanthat given in the centerof
paradigm. power. Not only is one taughtalternativeways to
As a past studentin the archaeologyschool at approachrealitybuttheseapproachesarecontrasted
ESPOLandrecentgraduateof theanthropologydoc- to the ever-imposingviews coming in fromthe out-
toral programat CUNY, I have a unique vantage side (see McGuire 1997). This political reality is
point from which to assess archaeologicaltraining verydifferentfromtheone experiencedin theUnited
in both Ecuadorand the United States. One of the Stateswhereone'spoliticalcentralitymakesit harder
main differencesthatcan be seen is the contrasting to criticallyappreciateandrelateto knowledgepro-
archaeologicalparadigmsof these two countries, duced in the periphery.Because of this particular
social archaeology and new archaeology,respec- structurethe nationalliberationandpostcoloniallit-
tively,whichhaveopposingagendasandtheoretical erature(Fanon 1963, 1965, 1967; Freire1992) can
implications.However,I would arguethatit is not be instrumentalin assessing the widerimplications
only anissue of contrastingparadigmsbutratherone of anapproachsuchas a socialarchaeology,notonly
of widerdiscoursesthatarerelatedto thenorth-south forLatinAmericanarchaeology,butforarchaeology
interactionwithinour modernworldsystem (Amin in the United Statesand worldwide.
1989;Wallerstein1974).Itis truethatthenewarchae- Archaeologicalresearch,as anyothertypeof sci-
ology programhad specific principlesthatcontrast entific researchin Ecuador,is done in a contextof
with the propositionsof a theoreticalarchaeology social,economic,andpoliticalinequality.Thatis, an
(see Klejn 1977,1980). But its pragmaticor empiri- Ecuadoriandoingresearchhasa seriesof constraints
cist approachis notonly a resultof thispositivistpar- uponhim/herthatarea resultof thewidernorth-south
adigm, but also of the generalsocial and academic relationshipsof the modernworld system. This is
climateof the UnitedStatesin this century(see Pat- reflectedin limitedfundingand few grantingagen-
terson 1995). cies, scarce bibliographicresources,few teaching
The level of criticalawarenessof foreignarchae- positions,difficultyif not impossibilityof attending
ological paradigmsalso differs in these two coun- internationalmeetings,and often the need to work
tries (see McGuire 1997; McGuireand Navarrete two or more jobs to survive. This set of circum-
1999; and Newell 1999 for furtherinsights on dif- stancesimmediatelydisadvantagesnationalarchae-
feringacademicandprofessionalstandardsbetween ologicalresearch.As a result,foreignarchaeologists,
AngloandLatinAmericanarchaeology).InEcuador althoughthey also have some economicconstraints,
we were introducedto the postulatesand relevance are in a much betterposition to carryout archaeo-
of the new archaeologyas well as otherforeignpar- logical researchin LatinAmerica.Therefore,it is
adigms.This occurredunderthe seriouslimitations only logical thatthe foreignarchaeologistsandtheir
of few bibliographicresourcesand of the minimum programwouldbe highly influentialin termsof set-
availabilityor even impossibilityof attendinginter- ting professionalstandardsand objectives.

This content downloaded from 62.122.77.83 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 10:53:18 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 FORUM
Butwhydo somearchaeologists,especiallysocial
archaeologists,worry about these political issues?
This politicalrelevanceis crucialbecauseone of the
strongestcritiquesagainst social archaeologyhas
beenits shortcomingsin dealingwiththeactualprac-
tice of archaeological fieldwork. This critique, I
believe,is validevenwhenattemptsto breachthegap
betweentheoryandmethodwithintheparadigmhave
been made (Bate 1981; Vargas1990). Many social
archaeologists themselves would agree with this
appraisal,and because of it have seriously turned
theirattentionto the continueddevelopmentof more
adequatefield methodsandtechniquesto be morein
tune with their theoreticalelaborations(e.g., Bate
1982, 1992; Lumbreras1981:15, 1982). For them,
social archaeologyis a paradigmstill very much in
evolution,andtheyarestrivingto provideanddefine
the best methodologicalstructureto sustainits theo-
reticalbody. Contraryto many of the assumptions
held by new archaeologypractitionersin the conti-
nent,social archaeologistsbelievethatmoresophis-
ticated scientific methods by themselves will not
answertherelevantquestionsabouttheregion'spast.
Rather,an appropriatemethodologycan only result
fromtheongoingconflictandlimitationsexperienced
in the relationshipbetweentheoryandpractice.
But, diverging somewhat from this imperative
held by the majorityof social archaeologypropo-
nents, I would arguethatthe core of the issue does
not lie in the appropriatenessor obsoletenessof the
field methodsperse, butratherin the factthatsocial
archaeologyhas consistentlyprivilegedwhy we do
archaeology,ratherthanhow we do it. At no point
does it arguefor a purelytheoreticalor a non-field-
work approachto archaeology,but it does reflect a
preferencefor theoreticalquestions over method-
ological ones. And even in this sense, methodology
itself is understoodin the much wider definitionof
the word.This does not mean thatthe gap between
theoryandmethodis not a seriousone or shouldnot
be addressed.Rather,it means that there are spe-
cific rationalesfor the concernsof a social archae-
ology, whichproposesthatthe reconstructionof the
past is of utmost priorityfor the political futureof
the continent.In otherwords,the futureof ourcoun-
tries and continent is intimatelytied to a realistic
understanding of our own past, and, above all,
archaeologyis a politicalundertaking.It is political
not in the limited sense of the word,but in the real-
izationand acceptanceof the complex social inter-
This content downloaded from 62.122.77.83 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 10:53:18 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
359
action that analyzing and understandingthe past
entails.
All of these concernswere presentin the con-
struction of a social archeology at ESPOL in
Guayaquilduringthe 1980s. However,because of
economicconstraintsandthe impossibilityof main-
taininga permanentfaculty,the futureof the school
was seriouslyquestioned.However,in thelasttwenty
yearsit was ableto traina new generationof archae-
ologistsin thisapproach,regardlessof whetherornot
all of its graduatesexplicitlyhave identifiedwith it.
Latin American Social Archaeology
It can be arguedthatthe specificpolitical(post)neo-
colonialsituationof thecontinenthas led to an alter-
nativeformof archaeology,whichhas establisheda
scientific paradigm very different from the one
offered by NorthAmericansdoing researchin the
area.This alternativeapproachwas informedby the
particularLatinAmericansocioeconomicrealityof
dependency and underdevelopment.At the same
time, this new archaeologicaldiscoursehas rooted
itself deeply in the social science traditionof the
region.Inthelastcentury,archaeologicalknowledge
in thecontinenthasbeen"objectified"andseparated
from the social context in which it was produced,
both historicallyand currently.Consciouslyor not,
this has had the political effect of alienatingLatin
Americansfrom their own history.Archaeological
knowledgehasbeendiscussedin theacademicarena
but has played little partin the centralconcernsof
LatinAmericansociety.As severalLatinAmerican
archaeologistshavekeenlydiscussed(Politis 1995),
archaeologyhas always permeatedsociety's con-
ceptionof its own history,buthas failed to do so in
an explicit, committed engagementwith the pro-
ductionof thatpast as an elementof its own politi-
cal transformation(see Benavides 1999:356-386).
In this "scientific"framework,LatinAmerica has
become an unlimitedsource of dataand anthropo-
logical knowledge,but not of "real"scientistsor of
informationinherentlyvaluableto the transforma-
tion and/ordevelopmentof the region.
Forthe lasttwo or threedecades,LatinAmerican
archaeologistshavestruggledwiththiscentralissue:
how to incorporatescientific knowledge into the
strugglesof everydaylife, withoutallowingresearch
to contribute to the increasing inequality and
exploitation of its people. In 1975, several Latin
American archaeologists met at Teotihuacan
360 LATIN AMERICAN ANTIQUITY
(Declaracionde Teotihuacan1983:48) to re-evalu-
ate the discipline'scontributionto society and the
continent's history. The document they produced
declared"thatthe Latin Americanarchaeologist's
taskis to recoverthe sense of historicaldevelopment
thatwill enableus to strugglealong with the destiny
of our respectivepeople."It is this social approach
thatwill be reviewedin thefollowingpages(see Pat-
terson 1994 for a reviewof the theoreticaldevelop-
ments in LatinAmerica's social archaeology;and
also McGuire1992).
There are two primary factors on which this
approachis based:the first is the strongsocial and
political commitment that an archaeologist, as a
social scientist,feels towardthe community;andthe
second is the historical materialistparadigmthat
manyarchaeologistsembraceas a toolto analyzeand
understandhistory(Montane1980). These two fac-
tors enable social archaeologiststo reconstructhis-
toryandsee its continuityandvaluein contemporary
society. This alternativeform of archaeologypro-
poses to destroy the false theory-praxis,science-
advocacy dichotomies, and argues that the
archaeologisthas an importantresponsibilityand
plays a pivotalpartin situatinghistoricalknowledge
at the centerof LatinAmerica'ssocial struggle.In
essence, social archaeologyproposesa morepoliti-
cal and socially relevant way of addressing our
inquiriesinto the past.
Socialarchaeologysees societynotas a simplesum
of all thedifferentpartsbutratheras a resultof a com-
plex interactionthat creates a whole differentand
unique totality.To understandthis totality, social
archaeologistsmakeuse of Marxistsconceptssuchas
social formations,mode of production,labortheory,
etc. However,these concepts are not mechanically
applied,butratherarereworkedto fittheconcretehis-
toricrealityof eachcase, as is continuingworkon the
conceptof cultureby Bate (1977, 1978) andLumbr-
eras(1981)orModode Hda(Modeof Life)byMeloz-
Maggiolo(1984), andSanojaandVargas(1978).The
focus of the approachis on historicallyconstituted
processesof social development,and it aligns itself
withanyotherdisciplineor approachthatwill further
thissocialendeavor.Inthisway,socialarchaeologists
aspireto transcendtheartificialdivisionby whichaca-
demicdisciplinesareroutinelyconstrained,allowing
it to communicateto differentgroupsof society in a
dialecticaldialogueaboutour past (Patterson1994;
see also McGuire1992).
This content downloaded from 62.122.77.83 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 10:53:18 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
[Vol. 12, No. 4, 2001]
Furthermore,social archaeologistsengaged in
this approachsee themselveslinkedto the past that
theyareinterpreting.Ratherthanseeing themselves
removedfrom their research,they see themselves
as theendproductof thishistoricalprocess.Not only
does this not interferein the study of the past, due
to some limited,ethnocentric,ornationalisticclaim,
but it demandsan even more objectiveunderstand-
ing of it. This objectivityis of utmost importance
because the past is directlytied to who we are as a
people, and this knowledge is needed for the his-
torical constructionof the continent'spresentand
future.
This interconnectedness of human societies
throughouttime,precludinganybreakbetweenpre-
historyandhistoryas absoluteentities,butatthemost
as colonial reconstructions(Patterson1994), frees
them to look at any society or social formationas
equally valid for understandingand assessing the
particularissuesin theirresearch.Italso allowsthem
to uniteday-to-dayexistencein a morefruitfulway
withtheobjectivesof theirprofessionalwork,avoid-
ing a schizophrenicdivisionbetweenwho we areout-
side of our offices andclassrooms,and whatwe do
inside them.
Because of the extremedifferencesin access to
powerandto resourcesin LatinAmerica,it is easier
to see the inequalityand exploitationon which the
class structureis based. It is in this social milieu of
class and culturalconflict, vividly expressedin the
political situationsof the continent,that the social
scientistis immersed.Foreveryintellectualin Latin
Americatherearethousandswho do nothaveaccess
to the most basic elements of culture:education,
books, media,and arts.Thatis why archaeologists,
as well as all intellectuals,are the "beneficiariesof
anunequalsocialandculturalstructure" (Zubizarreta
1983:20).For example,a 1980 editonalin Ame'rica
Indigenastatesthatarchaeology,as a social science,
"is partand mirrorof the social processesto which
it aligns itself as a criticalconscience andpotential
instrumentfor an autonomousand positive devel-
opment of our societies" (America Indigena
1980:201).
Theobviousinequalityin the social structureand
in the access to knowledgehas led manyarchaeolo-
gists to align themselveswith the strugglefor social
justice. As many of the editorials of the Gaceta
Arqueolo'gicaAndina express, archaeology is an
importantelementin the transformation of oursoci-
 FORUM
361
ety. "Wethinkthatarchaeologyas a scientificdisci- interdisciplinarynature because it looked to the
pline. . . hasa fundamentalplacein theunderstanding developmentof Cochasquinot only as an archaeo-
of thisprocess,in thesearchandanalysisof newways logical site, but also as an autochthonouscommu-
of transformation anddevelopment.... Wearerefer- nity with many other needs, such as agricultural,
ring . . . fundamentallyto the role thatarchaeology socioeconomic,medical,etc. (Paredesand Estrella
must carryout as a social science in the complex 1989;ProgramaCochasqui1991). It also strovefor
process of a searchfor our identityand in the gen- a future situation wherein the local communities
eralprojectionof ourfuture"(1987-88:2). Thisview would become responsiblefor andcapableof man-
has permittedLatinAmericanarchaeologiststo see agingthearchaeologicalsitedirectly.Thisinitialcul-
both themselvesand the communityas equal sub- turalobjectiveis stillprevalentamongthetourguides
jects in theirscientificendeavor.Both are partof a today: "Thatis why the preoccupationof the Pro-
historictraditionandareactivelyresponsiblefor its grama is not only with restoring or rescuing the
formulations."Andeanist[need] to address,in an pyramids,but with everythingthat is culture,with
autonomousand specific manner,the tasksthatour alltheculture"(Virgilio,TourGuide,212197,in Bena-
conditionsof buildersof a historythatinterestsand vides 1999).
affectsus directlydemand,in termsof the necessary Thus,the main concernsof the projectwere not
integrationof ourcountries,as well as in the acces- to makethesiteeconomicallyself sufficientorlucra-
sibility and diffusionof our work"(GacetaArque- tive, since that would limit its accessibilityto the
ologica Andina 1990:2). As a result, social majorityof Ecuadorians,who live at povertylevel.
archaeologyis findingexpressionin LatinAmerica At thesametime,thepeoplein chargeof thesitewere
throughthe archaeologist'ssocial commitmentto worriednot about re-excavatingit or maintaining
the communitywith which it is working. exclusivecontroloverscientificinformation,buthow
to makethe scientificandhistoricalinformationthey
ThePractice of Social Archaeology
alreadypossessedaccessibleto the people who they
ThereareseveralEcuadoriancaseswhosediscussion saw as the originalinheritorsof the site.
mayprovideexamplesof thepraxisof socialarchae- In the end, the Programa'smain preoccupation
ology. For instance,the ProgramaCochasqui,car- was to understandhow it was thatthe involvement
ried out aroundthe prehispanicsite of Cochasqui, with the local communityand public participation
puts into practice several of social archaeology's had missed its initialgoals, especially when it was
principlesof social commitmentandautochthonous one of the mainobjectivesfrom the very beginning
development.Themostrelevantobjectiveof thePro- of the project.These findingsled us to understand
grama,in its centralconcernfor thehistoricalrecon- thatthe role of the publicandlocal communitywas
structionof the site, has beenits interestin including of centralimportancein assessingthe successor not
thecomuna(thelocalcommunity)in thesite'spreser- of the maintenanceof the site. The primacyof the
vation.Fromthe outset,it proposeda dynamiccon- communityover the site, of seeing the publicas the
cept of culture, similar to that offered by Bate rightfulheirs to the site, is a stancefar from thatof
(1977:9), as the essential element for any possible the majorityof otherprojectsadministeredby either
modelof autonomousdevelopmentof the area(Pro- "traditional"or"new archaeologist"scholars all
gramaCochasqui1991).Influentialin thisregardwas aroundthe globe, includingthe United States.(See
the presenceof the archaeologistLenin Ortiz,who, McGuireand Navarrete1999 for a discussion and
althoughneveranexplicitlyrecognizedideologueof comparisonof two very interestingU.S. sites in this
social archaeology,hadalwaysbeen in close contact regard,AnnapolisandWilliamsburg;see also Han-
withits works.Interestinglyenough,Ortizhasalways dler and Gable 1997;Leone 1988.)
been activelyinvolvedin nationalpolitics, occupy- I would also like to offer my own researchat
ing the positionsof consejeroprovincial(provincial Cochasqui(Benavides 1999) as an extensionof the
councilman)severaltimes, from which positionhe programmaticobjectives,and as an exampleof the
has been able to fight consistentlyfor fundsfor the diversityof contemporaryimplications,of the social
maintenanceof the site and guaranteefree admis- archaeologyagenda.I spent most of the year 1997
sion to the public. carryingouta detailedstudyof the site of Cochasqui
The initial structureof the Programawas of an with the main objective of understanding how

This content downloaded from 62.122.77.83 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 10:53:18 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
362
LATINAMERICAN
archaeologicalknowledgewas producedat the site,
and how this knowledge was represented and
actively consumed by the public at large. For this
endeavorI interviewedarchaeologists,sociologists,
anthropologists, and other professionals who at
some point had collaboratedwith the site, present
membersof the Program,the local community,and
tourists.I foundthatit was clearthatarchaeological-
historicalknowledge was not static at Cochasqui,
that over the years it had undergone significant
changes thatdid not necessarilyresultin historical
error,butratherevidencedthe power of the present
social and political milieu in constructinga viable
past for nationalconsumption.
In this regardmy worktied in closely with find-
ings by otherscholarsworkingon the socio-histor-
ical aspects of archaeological knowledge (e.g.,
Castaneda1996;Pattersonand Schmidt1995), but,
more importantly,I maintainit is indebtedto the
socio-historicalstance inherentin social archaeol-
ogy's platform.Even thoughmany social archaeol-
ogists, in logical alliance with scientific Marxism,
still seem willingto privilegetheempiricaldata,their
own workcan be interpretedto the contrary.Thatis,
thearchaeologicalenterpriseis a socio-historicalone
that, far from biasing the research, significantly
enrichesour understandingof the undeniablycom-
plex dynamicsinvolvedin the productionof a past
reality from the socioeconomic and culturalpro-
ductionof the present.My work'scentralfindingis
stronglyindebtedto years of readingthe worksand
practicingsocialarchaeology,andprovidesanexam-
ple of the mannerin which this school broadensour
understandingof whatdoing archaeologyimplies.
It is also interestingto note that the Programat
Cochasquihas neverexplicitly affiliateditself with
any of social archaeology'sguidelines,even though
two of its exponents,Luis Lumbreras(1990) and
LuisF.Bate (1986, 1992),werechargedwithassess-
ing the site's chronology,andcarryingoutfieldwork
to addressthe question of pre-ceramicoccupation
just northof the site, respectively.However,thislack
of explicitalignmentdoes not denythe social objec-
tives thatthe Programat Cochasquiis interestedin
implementing,butratherspeaksto the widerimpli-
cationsof manyof social archaeology'smainpolit-
ical andculturalgoals. This same featureis inherent
in otherarchaeologicalprojectsin the country(e.g.,
Real Alto, Salango, etc.), which do not necessarily
derive from a social archaeologyschool, yet have
This content downloaded from 62.122.77.83 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 10:53:18 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
ANTIQUITY
[Vol. 12, No. 4, 2001]
been ableto putintopracticequitesuccessfullysev-
eralof the discipline'smain ideas.
MarceloVillalba's(1988) workin Cotocollaoand
Colin McEwanet al.'s(1994) collaborationwiththe
Agua Blancacommunityaretwo moreexamplesin
this regard.Villalba's (1988) excavationsat Coto-
collao arguablyprovidesome of the most compre-
hensiveMarxistanalysesof anypre-Hispanicsite in
the continent.Meanwhilethe workin the comuna of
Agua Blanca has triggeredthe local communities'
interestin their pre-Hispanicpast and has helped
them validatetheirpresentpolitical struggles.The
sitemuseumandculturalcenter,as well as theyearly
culturalfestivalthatbringstogethergroupsfromall
overthe country,havehelpedthe communityunder-
standits historicroots,andhasbeena dynamicforce
in forgingits identityandrealizingits creativecapac-
ity (McEwanet al. 1994).
The work carriedout at Agua Blanca has been
discussedat some lengthby the main collaborators
of the site and could easily be a focus of an article
in itself. But for the presentpurposeit is important
to note how the patientworkof the archaeologistat
the site-through continuous presentations,daily
interactionswith the community,and providingfor
the comuna's activeinvolvementin the excavations,
site maintenance,building and control of the site
museum has slowly allowed the community to
identify and value the archaeologicalremainsthat
they had initiallypillaged.Throughthis systematic
process of interactiveparticipation,the community
was able to find alternativemodes of subsistence
throughthe maintenance,andnotthe destruction,of
the site of Agua Blanca, and become actively
involvedin indigenouscomuna organizingthrough-
out the coast, andthe country.
As at Cochasqui,the archaeologistsinvolvedat
Agua Blancahave neverfiguredprominentlyin, or
even explicitly advocatedtheir inclusion within, a
social archaeologyparadigm.This is not surprising
considering that Ecuadoritself has never figured
prominentlyin any representationof social archae-
ology in SouthAmerica.But this has not excluded
the countryfrom being impactedby social archae-
ology's radicalproposals.At the same time I would
arguethat these examples from Ecuadorare testa-
mentsto socialarchaeology'swideimpacton thecul-
tural environmentof the continent and its viable
legacy beyondthe reductivedefinitionof archaeol-
ogy as simply an enterpriseaboutthe past.
 FORUM
Mexico and Venezuela, as well as other Latin
Americansettings, have also had several projects
thattry to integratethe social and scientificaspects
into a single interpretivescheme. One of the best
examplesis the CuchumatenProject,which had as
an objectiveto "writethe history of the struggling
peoples, to show theirroots andtheirhistoricconti-
nuity"(Navarretein Gandaraet al. 1985:12).There
are severalotherprojectssimilarto this, which are
strivingto offeranalternativeto thetraditionalempir-
icalpracticeof archaeology(see Gandaraet al.1985).
Manyof the traditionalproponentsof social archae-
ology are still actively engaged in the continuous
elaborationof this paradigm(Bate 1992 and 1993;
Gandara1992 and 1993; Vargas1995; Vargasand
Sanoja 1993), as well as a new generationof schol-
ars that are actively using the paradigmto explore
new theoreticaland practicalventures(e.g., Ensor
2000; Lopez 1984; Navarrete1999).
Most importantly,these projects,and manyoth-
ers throughoutthe continent,reflect the essential
concernsthat social archaeologyexpressesin rela-
tion to the studyof the past.In this manner,the prin-
cipal tenets of this approach give expression to
wide-level concernsthat are presentin committed
archaeologistsand communitiesthatdo not neces-
sarilylimitthemselvesto a social archaeologymode
of practice.Social archaeologyis relevant,notexclu-
sively becauseof its numberof ideologuesor prac-
titioners,but because of its range of influence and
power in capturingmany of the pervasive philo-
sophicalandhistoricalquandariesinherentin Latin
America'shistoricalreconstruction.
Cause and Effect:
Anthropology in Latin America
Theappearanceof a social archaeologyentailsa dis-
cussion that is of centralconcern to the anthropo-
logical community at large. Third World
anthropology(in the absence of a betterterm) has
questionedmany of the traditionalassumptionsof
Westernscience, andhas contributedto the reexam-
inationof the disciplineandits traditionalrole (Gor-
don 1991). For many, neocolonial domination is
servedby the pretenseof scientific objectivityand
academicpurity.As Starn(1994) hasoutlinedforthe
Andes,anthropologists'self-portrayalas "goodout-
siders"in the areamight be misleading,and result-
ing froma lackof criticalawarenessof extantpower
relations.He statesthatmanyquestionsareleft unex-
This content downloaded from 62.122.77.83 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 10:53:18 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
363
plored,suchas, "underwhathistoricalconditionsand
by what moralright a small corps of mostly light-
skinnedurbanprofessionalscan arrogateto itselfthe
privilegeof speakingfor the mostly brown-skinned
poorAndeanmajorities.... [or]the largerunexam-
inedethicalquestionof ouracceptanceof fundsfrom
the same governmentthat has supportedcoups in
Bolivia and Chile and the dirty war againstleftist
guerrillasin Colombia"(Starn1994:17-18).
However,the main objective of a non-Western
anthropologyis not merely to "accuseanthropolo-
gists of having collaboratedwith colonialism...."
(Mead in Nash 1975:228), because that would not
only be unfairbutalso untrue.Rather,non-Western
anthropologyproposesto destroythe false research-
actiondichotomy,and arguesthatinsteadof negat-
ing one's role as a power broker in society, the
anthropologistshould strugglealongside the com-
munityto validatesocial knowledgeand elaborate
its full implication for society. Latin American
anthropologistshave been an importantpartof this
non-Westernendeavor. In the following pages I
wouldlike to considertwo mainelementsin the for-
mulationof a LatinAmericananthropology:West-
ern vs. non-Westernanthropology,and "liberation
anthropology."
In recent literature,Latin Americananthropol-
ogy has beenplacedwithina widerWesternvs. non-
Westernframework.Lomnitzsees LatinAmericans
as focusing on the known (replanteandolo cono-
cido). LatinAmericananthropologists,in contrastto
Westernanthropologists, do notreconstructtheother
(el otro)as muchas theyfocus on theirown (lo nue-
stro) (Lomnitz 1995). Colson (1982) summarizes
manyof the characteristicsof non-Westernanthro-
pology, such as the lack of fundingor government-
controlledjobs. But the essence of a Non-Western
anthropologyis the common experience of colo-
nialism and neocolonialismthat creates "a fear of
economic and political dominationfrom Western
.
EuropeorAngloAmerica"(1982:258).Asad(1982)
considers it importantto question the traditional
asymmetrypresentin anthropology, where,whilethe
Western world has traditionally focused on the
other's society, non-Westernanthropologistshave
continuedto studytheirown society.ForAsad, this
over-emphasison theThirdWorldis a productof cul-
tural imperialism.Is it not possible, he asks, for
"Westernanthropologists [to] apply the insights
gainedfrom theirstudyof otherculturesto a study
364 LATINAMERICAN
ANTIQUITY
of theirown?"Are notWesternacademics"asinter-
ested in how people fromnon-Westernculturessee
Westerncultureas they arein studyingnon-Western
culturesforthemselves?"(Asad 1982:286-287).But
most problematicis the possibility that non-West-
ernershave been presentedwith the idea "thatit is
their own culture which needs to be studied and
explained because it is these that are problematic
(howeverthismayberationalized)"(Asad 1982:287;
parenthesisin original).
The Peruvianwriter/anthropologist Jose Maria
Arguedas(1989b:186)also saw culturalimperialism
as a majorobstacleto the developmentof a national
culturein LatinAmerica.He considers"thatthepow-
ers that dominatethe weaker countries,both eco-
nomicallyandpolitically,will tryto consolidatetheir
controlthroughthe applicationof a process of cul-
turalcolonization."The Westernworld will try to
impose their culturalsupremacyby alienatingthe
masses fromtheirown historyandintellectualcom-
munity(Arguedas1989b).The social sciences have
helpedin thisendeavorby consolidating"theprocess
of getting the colonized to colonize themselves"
(Sorbo 1982:152). As Haraway(1986:85) argues,
the Westernworld"is aboutdifference,it is the pol-
itics of the civilizationof the 'primitive',the domi-
nationof natureby culture."The "West"itself is a
politicalconstructthatordersthe differencescentral
to the collectively enforced reality of culture vs.
nature.
The contrastbetweenWesternand non-Western
anthropologyhas also contributedto a re-evaluation
of the traditionalpositivistepistemology.It is clear
thata positivistapproachfails to incorporatemany
of the complexities of social reality. However it
seems thatscientificrelativism,which is offeredas
a solution by many postmodernists,is even more
problematicthanthe positivistparadigm(Harrison
1991; Trigger1989). Relativismfails to assess the
"relativemeritsof differentinterpretations of human
behavior,"and"isincapableof providingevena lim-
ited objective understandingof society" (Trigger
1989:778).ManyWesternscholarshaveproposeda
qualifiedobjectivismto solve thepresentcrisisin the
discipline(Trigger1989;Wylie 1989, 1992; Sorbo
1982). However,for many LatinAmericananthro-
pologists,anyformof empiricistpositivismis by def-
inition reactionary and limits our scientific
understandingof the world.This has led to the use
of a dialectical historical epistemology by social
This content downloaded from 62.122.77.83 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 10:53:18 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
[Vol. 12, No. 4, 2001]
archaeologiststhatcombinesboththe scientificele-
mentsandthe socioeconomicaspectsin whichthey
areembedded(Bate 1977).
The specific characteristicsof Latin American
anthropologyhave led many to characterizeit as a
"liberationanthropology"(Gordon 1991). For the
lasttwo decadesmanyscholarshavetriedto develop
a coherent discipline that could contributeto the
transformation of the unequal social structure
(Declaracion de Teotihuacan 1983; Zubizarreta
1983). Fals Borda(1985) was one of the initialpro-
ponentsof a liberatingsocial science, which would
permita "criticalethic"positionandthe destruction
of the neutralscience myth (see Friedemann1984).
Ramos(1990; see also 2000) presentsus with a sim-
ilarpictureof anthropologyin Brazil,sinceformany
Braziliananthropologists"thereis no purelyacade-
mic research;what thereis, is the rhetoricalpossi-
bilityandpersonalinclinationto excludefromone's
writtenworksthe interactive,political,moralor eth-
ical aspectsof fieldwork"(Ramos 1990:454).
This positionis sharedby many anthropologists
throughoutthe continentwho believe it is naive to
talk aboutneutralityin the social sciences (Friede-
mann1984). It was the actualconditionsof the con-
tinent'sunderdevelopmentthat promotedmany of
theideasandanalysesto whichI havereferredabove.
The specific social conditionsof poverty,malnutri-
tion,highinfant-mortality rates,informaleconomies,
etc. conditioned(as they inevitablydo) our anthro-
pological and archaeologicalresearch.An initial
approximationof this problem,statedover 24 years
ago, is, unfortunately,still an appropriatecontem-
porary portrayalof the relationshipbetween the
social sciences and society in LatinAmerica:
LatinAmerica is a continentfull of incongruen-
cies and social contradictions caused by its
underdevelopment.As a result of this it is a
region of conflicts and crises that are its objec-
tive historicalreality,the reason why tkis reality
is closer to the working of social sciences than
the naturalsSiences. The scientific objectivityof
the social sciences is placed before real-life sit-
uations and participates in society's own con-
flicts and disjunctions, making of this
objectivity the acknowledgmentthat there is an
essential relationshipbetween empirical knowl-
edge and social conflict. The development of
future social scientists, therefore, is a matterof
preparingthe citizens needed with the scientific
training for the analysis and transformationof
these societies (Valencia 1970:122).
 FORUM
Thearticlethatincludestheabovequotation,pub-
lishedin thegroundbreaking critiqueDe eso quella-
man antropologiamexicana(Of ThatWhich They
CallMexicanAnthropology) (seeBonfil 1970;Oliv-
eradeVasquez1970;Valencia1970),synthesizesone
of the positions Latin American anthropologists
facedwiththedailyrealitythattheybothanalyzeand
area partof. In the book, anthropologistsareclearly
committedto participatingin thedevelopmentof the
continent,andsee theirrole as essentialin thispolit-
ical project.Commitmentfor these anthropologists
meansa re-questioningof the whole class structure
of society.It also meansthe liberationof the indige-
nous communitieswithin society, and also of the
nationalsocietyas a whole,fromthepresentunequal
structureof theworldsystemandtheresultingalien-
atingconditions.
Yet,at the same time, these anthropologistsseri-
ously questionedthe feasibility of such an anthro-
pology. How could such an anthropologyexist if it
questioned the very foundationsof the country's
class structure.Wouldthedominantsectorsjuststand
by as enlightenedsocial scientistsdefinednew ways
of development?Furthermore,who was the domi-
nant sector, and was not anthropology directly
alignedwith it (Oliverade Vasquez1970)?None of
these questions was actually answeredin the text.
Nevertheless,throughoutthebookthereis animplicit
optimismthat,by statinganddiscussingthem,these
contradictionswill begin to be resolved.
Within this initially optimistic framework,the
authorsfound it necessary to apply the anthropo-
logical methodto anthropologyitself, thatis, if the
discipline was going to participatein LatinAmer-
ica' s development. For Olivera de Vasquez
(1970:117), "the object of study would be, in the
ultimateinstance,to work at all levels to reachthe
neededdevelopment."Anthropology'sparticipation
in the autonomousdevelopmentof LatinAmerica,
however,was clearlyseen as a processthatinvolved
bothnationalandinternationalissues.Thehighlevel
of povertyin which not only the indigenouscom-
munitiesbut a greatpartof the continent'spopula-
tion lived, in contrastto a small nationalelite, was
the specific model in which north-southrelations
were mirrored.The developmentof LatinAmerican
nation-statesmeantnotonly theendof a social struc-
turethatsubordinatedgroupswithintheirown soci-
eties, but also, ultimately,a critique of their own
countries'subordinationto the all powerful north.
This content downloaded from 62.122.77.83 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 10:53:18 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
365
Thisparticularsocioeconomicreality,of living in an
"underdeveloped" andneocolonialcontext,waswhat
gave the authorsof this book, as well as many oth-
ers since then, the particularunderstandingof a
socially committedor "liberation"anthropology.
Thesewerethe basicpremisesor ideasthatLatin
Americananthropologyand archaeologysharedin
their continual reassessment of the relationship
between the social sciences and society. Within
archaeology this led to the formulation of an
approachnow continentallyknownas socialarchae-
ology. However,therehas been little change in the
neocolonialrelationshipbetween North and South
Americasince the initialpublicationof manyof the
seminal articles.In many respectsLatinAmerican
anthropology,even when its intentionhas been oth-
erwise,has failedto finda way out of colludingwith
the mechanismsof power in re-creatingmany of
theseunevenpowerrelationships.Inthisregardsome
progressiveanthropologistshaveeven becomecon-
servativepoliticalleaderswho havequestionedtheir
own initialresearch,including,forexample,Enrique
Cardoso,who, beginningas a left-leaningacademic,
has become the presidentresponsiblefor a neolib-
eraleconomicshiftin Brazil.It mustbe stated,how-
ever, that although challenged, many of these
committedanthropologistsmaystillhavesignificant
contributionsto offerto thedisciplineandsocial sci-
ences in general.
Conclusion
All too often in LatinAmerica,nationalistpolicies
have meant greater forms of domination for the
indigenouscommunities,and ultimatelyincreased
alienationfor the nationalsociety.This has not been
lost on thestrong"Indianist" movement,whichsince
the 1970s has replaced traditionalIndigenismo.
Unlike the latter,Indianismois a movement,orga-
nizedandrunby the indigenouscommunitiesthem-
selves, which has formed national level
confederations, e.g., CONAIE (Confederacion
Nacionalde Indigenasde Ecuador),andparticipated
in pan-continentalmeetings (Barre 1983; Docu-
mentosde la SegundaReunionde Barbados1979).
Therefore,archaeologyas a disciplinenot only has
a role in the actualinvestigationof oursociety'shis-
tory,butit also has the potentialto empower,as well
as disempower,its own impoverishedmasses and
society as a whole. Ultimately,in this contemporary
context,whatis archaeology'sspecific role or form
366 LATIN AMERICANANTIQUITY
of participationin an autonomousdevelopmentof
LatinAmerica?
As one can imagine, thereis no clear answerto
this question;rather,it is an issue thatdemandsseri-
ous attentionand assessment.Any model of devel-
opment demands a firm groundingin a country's
own history.It is particularlythis aspect of society
that has been ravished over and over again in
(post)neocolonialcountries.In a way,theinitialcon-
questof thecontinent500 yearsago notonly marked
the genocide and ethnocideof indigenouspopula-
tions, butit also initiatedthe processof usurpingthe
continent'shistory from its own people (CONAIE
1997 and 1998).
Any formof politicalprojectimplicitlycontains
an understandingof history,thatis, a totalpictureor
completeview of thecontinent'shistoricaltradition.
Archaeologyhas been seen as the primemediumto
obtainthis "history"as objectivelyandtruthfullyas
possible (Silberman1995). However,recentepiste-
mological reassessmentin the discipline has chal-
lenged the reliabilityand/orpracticalityof such an
endeavor(Trigger1995;Wylie 1995 and 1989). In
a sense, historicalnarrativesimply a legitimization
of the particularprojectthattheysupport.Thislegit-
imizationcarriesimplicitnotions of validity,truth-
fulness,andreality.However,its "reality"cannotbe
groundedexclusivelyin empiricalevidence,butalso
mustincludenegotiationwiththe sociopoliticalcon-
text in which it is constructedand expressed a
negotiationthatis constantlypresent,bothat a com-
munaland nationallevel (Benavides1999).
At the same time, its validityis not only defined
in termsof the politicalor social objectives,be they
communalor national,thatit legitimizes.Rather,the
validationcomes from a real and expandedpartici-
pationof allthesocialactorsimmersedin andaffected
by the reconstructionof the past. This demandsa
constantnegotiationof allthepartsinvolved,to define
theboundarieswithinwhicheachactorcancontribute
to and assess the differentmotivesfor this contribu-
tion.Therefore,its validityis not so mucha resultof
supportinga particular,narrowpolitical agenda,as
much as it is a result of the negotiationof all the
groupsinvolved,andthedifferentdiscoursesinvolved
in its construction(Benavides1999). Social archae-
ology's claim of a positivist Marxisttraditionhas
beenquiteambiguousin thisregard:whileit hascon-
tinuedto strivefor a strictempiricalfield of opera-
tion within its epistemologicaltradition,it has also
This content downloaded from 62.122.77.83 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 10:53:18 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
[Vol. 12, No. 4, 2001]
providedan implicit opening to understandingthe
sociohistoricalcontingenciescontainedwithin the
politicalproductionof the past.In manyregardsthis
would seem an interestingandfruitfulendeavorfor
futurescholarsto pursue.
CommittedLatinAmericanscholarslike Frantz
Fannon(1963, 1965, 1967), DarcyRibeiro(1971),
Luis Felipe Bate (1977, 1978, 1986), OrlandoFals
Borda(1985), andPauloFreire(1992),just to men-
tion a few, have expressedhow a neocolonialcon-
textconditionstheunderstanding of ourworldvision,
includingthe perceptionsof our humancondition,
whichviews theself as a dominatedbeing.Anypolit-
icalendeavor,theobjectiveof whichis to breakdown
this neocolonial structure,that does not take into
accountthispsychologicaldimensionwill undoubt-
edly fail. It is this factorof the neocolonialstructure
thatactivelypromotesdifferenttypesof internalcolo-
nialism. These forms of internalcolonialismoper-
ate at an individuallevel but,ultimately,also forma
discursive body of knowledge from which every
politicalprojectobtainsits theoreticalandpractical
modes of action.
The social archaeologyprojectrespondsto many
of these widerpsychological,political,andcultural
dilemmasconfrontingLatinAmericanintellectuals.
As such, social archaeology'sprogramescapes the
merearchaeologicalenterpriseto which manyof its
critics wish to limit it. Instead,this culturalproject
clearly inscribes itself in a much broaderphilo-
sophicalendeavorthatis tryingto developa body of
theoryto constitutethe LatinAmericansubject,and
is strivingto offerthis new subjecta viablepolitical
liberationandculturalidentity.
As partof this broaderLatinAmericanexisten-
tial philosophy,the contributionsandramifications
of socialarchaeologyareeasilyinscribedin whatZea
(1970, 1971, 1974, 1978) has describedas the con-
tinent'sphilosophicallegacy. Because of this char-
acteristicI maintainit is inappropriate to judge the
school's contributionmerely within archaeological
parameters.To this effect I believe projectslike the
ones I have mentioned above, including my own
researchatCochasqui(Benavides1999),alongwith
the continuousintellectualdebatewithinthis para-
digm (Bate 1993;Ensor2000; Navarrete1993;Var-
gas and Sanoja1993), pointto the fertilemannerin
which social archaeologyhas contributedto, and
continuesto contributeto, the dynamicunderstand-
ing of the continent'spast.
 FORUM
Thus,socialarchaeologystandsas a meansof pro-
viding historicalvalidityto a continentbrutallycol-
onized into Westernexistence over five centuries
ago. Obviouslyit cannotprovideintegralsolutions
to theproblemsproducedby a colonialrealityof cap-
italismand Westernexpansion,since no single the-
oretical school ever will. But despite its own
fieldwork shortcomings and personality incon-
gruities, social archaeology has provided for a
dynamicnew mannerof understandingthe archae-
ological past,andthroughit new ways of doinghis-
torical,anthropological,andculturalresearchon the
continent.This, I sustain,is the rightfullegacy of
social archaeologyin the utopic searchfor a "liber-
ated"LatinAmerica,and probablyalso its greatest
challengein theface of a postmodernturnin thecon-
structionof postcolonialidentitiesandsociety (Fou-
cault 1980;GarciaCanclini1982,1992,1993,1995;
Weiss 1991;Yudiceet al. 1992).
Acknowledgments.I am grateful to the dialogue established
over the years with many colleagues that has significantly
enriched my understandingof social archaeology. Special
thanks to the faculty and students at the Centro de Estudios
Arqueologicos y Antropologicosof the ESPOL in Guayaquil, Burgos-Dabray,Elisabeth(editor)
Ecuador, as well as the following colleagues in particular:
Silvia Alvarez, Jorge Marcos, Mike Muse, and Maria
AuxiliadoraCordero. I am also indebted for the suggestions Castaneda,Quetzil
offered by Katharina Schreiber, Patricia Fournier, Erika
Wagner, Randall McGuire, Tom Patterson, and Cristobal
Gnecco, as well as to two other anonymous reviewers of the
manuscript.Bernice Kurchinhas also contributedto my think-
ing of many archeological problematics expressed in this
paperas well as generously renderedinvaluableeditorialsug- CONAIE (Confederacion de Nacionalidades Indigenas del
gestions. Finally I wish to thankG. Allen who has been instru-
mental in providing me with the space to genuinely think
aboutanthropologyandculturein LatinAmericaand the Third
Worldin general.
References Cited
AmericaIndigena
1980 Editorial:la antropologiaenAmericaLatinay el Caribe.
Ame'ricalndigena 40: 199-205.
Amin, Samir
1989 Eurocentrism.MonthlyReview Press,New York.
Anzaldua,Gloria
1987 Borderlands/LaFrontera:TheNewMestiza.AuntLute
Books, San Francisco.
Arguedas,Jose Maria
1989a La cultura:un patrimoniodificil de colonizar.In For-
macio'nde una culturanacional indoamericana,edited by
Angel Rama,pp. 183-188. Siglo XXI, Mexico.
1989b Razonde ser del indigenismoen Peru.In Formacio'n
de una culturaindoamericana,edited by Angel Rama,pp. Fannon,Frantz
189-197. Siglo XXI, Mexico.
Asad, Talal
1982 A Commenton theIdeaof Non-WesternAnthropology.
This content downloaded from 62.122.77.83 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 10:53:18 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
367
In lndigenous Anthropologyin Non- WesternCountries,
editedby HusseinFahim,pp.28F287. NorthCarolinaAca-
demic Press,Durham.
Barre,Marie-Chantal
1983 ldeologfas indigenistasy movimientosindios. Siglo
XXI, Mexico.
Bate, Luis F.
1977 Arqueologfay materialismohisto'rico.EditorialNueva
Imagen,Mexico.
1978 Sociedad,formacion econo'mico-socialy cultura.Edi-
torialDe CulturaPopular,Mexico.
1981 Relaciongeneralentreteoriay metodoenArqueologia.
Boletfnde AntropologfaAmericana4:3-54.
1982 Hacia la cuantificacion de las fuerzas productivas.
BoletEndeAntropologfaAmericana6:17- 24.
1986 Cultura,clasesy cuestionetnico-nacional.JuanPablos
Editora,Mexico.
1992 Las sociedadescazadoras-recolectoras pre-tribaleso el
'Paleolitico Superior'visto desde Suramerica.Boletfn de
AntropologfaAmericana25:105-155.
1993 Teoria de la cultura y arqueologia. Boletfn de
AntropologfaAmericana27:75-93.
Benavides,O. Hugo
1999 TellingStories, Producingthe Nation: Archaeology's
Role in the Constructionof ContemporaryEcuador.Ph.D.
Dissertation,CityUniversityof NewYork,UniversityMicro-
films, AnnArbor.
Bonfil, Guillermo
1970 Del indigenismo de la revolucion a la antropologia
critica.In De eso que llaman antropologfaMexicana,pp.
39-65. EditorialNuestroTiempo,Mexico.
1985 Me llamo RigobertaMenchu'y asf me nacio'la con-
ciencia. Siglo XXI, Mexico.
1996 ln theMuseumof Maya Culture:TouringChichenltza.
The Universityof MinnesotaPress,Minneapolis.
Colson, Elizabeth
1982 AnthropologicalDilemmasin the LateTwentiethCen-
tury.InlndigenousAnthropology inNon-WesternCountries,
editedby H. Fahim,pp. 253-262. AcademicPress,Durham.
Ecuador)
1997 Proyectopolftico de la CONAlE.CONAIE,Ecuador.
1998 Lasnacionalidadesindfgenasyel estadoplurinacional.
CONAIE,Ecuador.
Cypess, SandraMessinger
1991 La Malinche in MexicanLiterature:FromHistory to
Myth.Universityof TexasPress,Austin.
Declaracionde Teotihuacan
1983 Declaracionde Teotihuaca'n. ESPOL,Ecuador.
Documentosde la SegundaReunionde Barbados
1979 lndianidady descolonizacionen Ame'ricaLatina.Edi-
torialNuevaImagen,Mexico.
Dorfman,Ariel
1998 Heading South, Looking North. Farrar,Straus and
Giroux,New York.
Ensor,BradleyE.
2000 Social Formations,Modo de Vida, and Conflict in
Archaeology.AmericanAntiquity65:1542.
Fals Borda,Orlando
1985 Conocimientoy poderpopular.Siglo XXI, Mexico.
1963 TheWretchedof the Earth.GrovePress,New York.
1965 A Dying Colonialism.GrovePress,New York.
1967 BlackSkin,WhiteMask.GrovePress,New York.
 LATINAMERICAN
ANTIQUITY
368 [Vol. 12, No. 4, 2001]

Flores,Juan
1997 La venganza de cortijo y otros ensayos. 1994 EverydayFormsof StateFormation:
Editorial Revolutionandthe
Huracan,PuertoRico. Negotiation of Rule in ModernMexico. Duke
University
Florescano,Enrique Press,Durham,NorthCarolina.
1994 Memory,Myth,and Timein Mexico: From Kincaid,Jamaica
the Aztecs 1997 My Brother.Farrar,Strausand Giroux,New
to lndependence.Universityof TexasPress, York.
Austin. Klejn,Leo S.
Foucault,Michel
1980 Powerand Knowledge.PantheonBooks, 1977 A Panoramaof Theoretical
New York. Archaeology. Current
Freire,Paulo Anthropology18:1-42.
1992 Pedagogy of the Oppressed.Continuum 1980 On the Buildingof Theoretical
Publishers, Archaeology.Current
New York. Anthropology21:521-525.
Friedemann,Nina Kohl,Phillip,and ClareFawcett(editors)
1984 Etica y politica del antropologo: 1995 Nationalism,Politics,and the Practiceof
compromisoprofe- Archaeology.
sional.InAntropologfaen Colombia,editedby Nina CambridgeUniversityPress,Cambridge.
Friede- Leone,Mark
man, pp. 383X28. Bogota.
GacetaArqueologicaAndina 1988 The GeorgianOrderas the Orderof
MerchantCapital-
1987/88 Editorial. Gaceta Arqueologica Andina ism in Annapolis,Maryland.ln TheRecoveryof
4(16):2. Meaning:
InstitutoAndinode EstudiosArqueologicos,Lima. HistoricalArchaeologyin the EasternUnitedStates,edited
1990 Editorial.GacetaArqueologicaAndina by MarkLeone and BarbaraPotter,pp.
5(17):2. Insti- 263-292. Smith-
tutoAndinode EstudiosArqueologicos,Lima. sonianInstitutionPress,WashingtonD.C.
Gandara, Manuel LomnitzAdler,Claudio
1992 LaarqueologiaoficialMexicana:causasy 1995 El problemade escalaen la antropologia
efectos.Insti- cultural.In La
tuto Nacionalde Antropologiae Historia,Mexico. heterodoxiarecuperada:en tornoaAngel Palerm,edited
by
1993 El analisis de posiciones teoricas: Sidney Mintz,pp. 597-616. Siglo XXI, Mexico.
aplicaciones a la Lopez,Fernando
arqueologia social. Boletfn de Antropologia Americana
27:5-20. 1984 Superficiesy volumenes:aspectosde la
construccion
Gandara, Manuel,FernandoLopez, and IgnacioRodriguez teoricaen arqueologia.Boletinde Antropologia
Americana
1985 Arqueologia y marxismo en Mexico. 10:1-32.
Boletin de Lumbreras, Luis
AntropologfaAmericana11:5-17. 1981 La arqueologiacomo ciencia social.
Garcia Canclini,Nestor EdicionesHistar,
1982 Las culturaspopulares en el capitalismo. Lima.
Siglo XXI, 1982 La arqueologiacientificasocial: 3
Mexico. principios,3 crite-
1992 Culturashibridas:estrategiaspara entrary rios y 3 factores.GacetaArqueologicaAndina
salirde la 1(4-5):3,10.
modernidad.EditorialSuramericana,BuenosAires. InstitutoAndinode EstudiosArqueologicos,Lima.
1993 TransformingModernity:PopularCulture 1990 Cronologia arqueologica de Cochasqui.
in Mexico. Honorable
Universityof TexasPress,Austin. ConsejoProvincialde Pichincha,Quito.
1995 Culturay pospolftica: el debate sobre la Mallon, Florencia
modernidad 1996 ConstructingMestizajein LatinAmerica:
en AmericaLatina.ConsejoNacionalparala Authenticity,
Culturay las Marginality,and Genderin the Claimingof Ethnic
Artes,Mexico. Identi-
GarciaMarquez,Gabriel ties.Journalof LatinAmericanAnthropology 2(1):170-181.
1971 OneHundredYearsof Solitude.AvonBooks, Marcos, Jorge
NewYork. 1986 La investigaciony ensenanzade la
Gordon, EdmundT. arqueologiaen el
l991 AnthropologyandLiberation.In Ecuador.In Guia historica informativa,pp. 41-48.
DecolonizingAnthro- Centro
pology: MovingFurtherTowardan Anthropologyof de EstudiosArqueologicosy Antropologicos
Liber- (ESPOL),E.Q.
ation, edited by Faye Harrison,pp. 149-167. Editorial,Guayaquil.
American Mariategui,Jose Carlos
AnthropologicalAssociation,WashingtionD.C.
Guevara,Ernesto"Che" 1955 Sieteensayosde interpretacionde la
realidadperuana.
1966 Condiciones para el desarrollo EditorialUniversitaria,Santiago.
economico lati- Marti,
Jose
noamericano.Montevideo.
Handler,Richard,andEric Gable 1977[1891] Nuestra Ame'rica. Biblioteca
Ayacucho,
1997 TheNew Historyin an Old Museum.Duke Venezuela.
University McEwan, Colin, CharlesHudson,andMariaIsabelSilva
Press,Durham.
Hale,
Charles 1994 ArchaeologyandCommunity:A Village
CulturalCen-
1996 Introduction.Journalof LatinAmerican ter and Museum in Ecuador. Practicing
Anthropology Anthropology
2:2-3. 16:3-7.
Haraway,Donna McGuire,Randall
1986 PrimatologyIs Politicsby OtherMeans: 1992 A MarxistArchaeology.AcademicPress,
Women'sPlace New York.
Is in the Jungle.In FeministApproachesto 1997 Crossingthe Border.In Prehistoryof the
Science, edited Borderlands:
by RuthBleier,pp. 77-118. PergamonPress, Recent Research in the Archaeologyof Northern
London. Mexico
Harrison,
Faye and the SouthernSouthwest,editedby John
Carpenterand
1991 Anthropologyas an Agent of GuadalupeSanchez, pp. 130-137. ArizonaState
Transformation:Intro- Museum
ductoryCommentsand Queries. In Decolonizing ArchaeologicalSeries 186, Universityof Arizona,Tucson.
Anthro- McGuire,Randall,and RodrigoNavarrete
pology: Moving Further Toward an
Anthropology of 1999 Entremotocicletasy fusiles:las
Liberation,edited by F. Harrison,pp. 88-109. arqueologiasradicales
American anglosajona y latinoamericana.Boletfn de Antropologia
AnthropologicalAssociation,WashingtonD.C.
Joseph,
Gilbert,and Daniel Nugent (editors) Americana34:89-1 10.
Montane,
Julio

This content downloaded from 62.122.77.83 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 10:53:18 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 FORUM
1980 Marxismoy arqueologfa.Edicionesde CulturaPopu-
lar,Mexico.
Morraga,Cherrie
1986 Froma LongLineof Vendidas:ChicanasandFeminism.
In FeministStudies/CriticalStudies, edited by Teresade
Laurentis,pp. 173-190. IndianaUniversityPress, Bloom-
ington.
1994 ArtinAmericacon acento.InNegotiatingPerformance:
Gender,Sexuality and Theatricalityin Latin/o America,
editedby DianaTaylorandJuanVillegas,pp. 3s36. Duke
UniversityPress,Durham,NorthCarolina.
Nash, June
1975 NationalismandFieldwork.AnnualReviewof Anthro-
pology 225-245.
Navarrete,Rodrigo
1999 LatinAmericanSocialArchaeology:One Goal, Multi-
ple Views. UnpublishedMaster's Thesis, Departmentof
Anthropology,State Universityof New Yorkat Bingham-
ton.
Newell, Gillian
1999 Americanand Mexican Archaeology:Differences in
MeaningandTradition.Bulletinof theSocietyforAmerican
Archaeology17(5):29-31.
Oliverade Vasquez,Mercedes
1970 Algunos Problemasde la InvestigacionAntropologica
Actual.In De eso que llaman antropologfaMexicana,pp.
9>118. EditorialNuestroTiempo,Mexico.
Oyuela-Caycedo,Augusto
1994 HistoryofLatinAmericanArchaeology.Aldershot,Ave-
bury,England.
Oyuela-Cayceo,Augusto,ArmandoAnaya,CarlosG. Elera,and
Lidio M. Valdez
1997 Social Archaeologyin LatinAmerica?:Commentsto
T. C. Patterson.AmericanAntiquity62:365-374.
Paredes,Domingo, and EduardoEstrella
1989 Cochasquf:aspectos socio-economicos y nutritivos.
ProgramaCochasqui, Honorable Consejo Provincial de
Pichincha,Quito.
Patterson,ThomasC.
1994 SocialArchaeologyin LatinAmerica:AnAppreciation.
AmericanAntiquity59:531-37.
1995 Towarda Social History of Archaeological Thought.
HarcourtBraceCollege Publishers,New York.
Patterson,ThomasC., and PeterSchmidt
1995 Introduction: FromConstructingto MakingAlternative
Histories.In MakingAlternativeHistories:ThePracticeof
ArchaeologyandHistoryin Non-WesternSettings,editedby
ThomasC. Pattersonand PeterSchmidt,pp. 1-24. School
of AmericanResearch,SantaFe.
Politis, Gustavo
1995 The Socio-Politicsof the Developmentof Archaeology
in Hispanic South America. In Theoryin Archaeology:A
WorldPerspective,editedby PeterUcko,pp.197-235. Rout-
ledge, London.
Poole, Deborah
1997 Vision,Race, and Modernity:A VisualEconomyof the
Andeanlmage World.PrincetonUniversityPress,Princeton,
New Jersey.
ProgramaCochasqui
1991 Replanteamientoprogramattico.Honorable Consejo
Provincialde Pichincha,Quito.
Quintero,Rafael
1997 Identidad nacional y estado nacional. In ldentidad
nacional y globalizacion, pp. 139-164. ILDIS, FLACSO,
and Institutode Altos EstudiosNacionales,Quito.
Quintero,Rafael,andErikaSilva
This content downloaded from 62.122.77.83 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 10:53:18 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
369
1991 Ecuador:una nacion en ciernes, Volumenes1, 2, y 3.
FLACSOandAbya-Yala,Quito.
Ramos,Alcida
1990 Ethnology Brazilian Style. CulturalAnthropology
5:452X72.
2000 Anthropologist as PoliticalActor.JournalofLatinAmer-
ican Anthropology,4/5:172-189.
Ribeiro,Darcy
1971 El dilema de Ame'ricaLatina: estrategiasde poder y
fuerzas insurgentes.Siglo XXI, Mexico.
Rodo,Jose Enrique
1922[1900] Ariel. HoughtonandMifflin,Boston.
Rowe,William,andVivianSchelling
1991 MemoryandModernity: PopularCultureinLatinAmer-
ica. Verso,London.
Sanoja,Mario,and IraidaVargas
1978 Antiguasformaciones y modos de produccion Vene-
zolanos. MonteAvila,Caracas.
Silberman,Neil
1995 PromisedLandsand Chosen People:The Politics and
Poetics of ArchaeologicalNarrative.In Nationalism,Poli-
tics, and the PracticeofArchaeology,editedby PhilipKohl
and Clare Fawcett, pp. 249-262. CambridgeUniversity
Press,Cambridge.
Silva, Erika
1995 Los mitos de la ecuatorianidad:ensayo sobre la iden-
tidadnacional.Abya-Yala,Quito.
Smith,Carol
1996 Myths, Intellectuals,and Race/Class/GenderDistinc-
tions in the Formationof LatinAmericanNations.Journal
of LatinAmericanAnthropology2(1):148-169.
Sorbo,Gunnar
1982 Anthropologyat Home and Abroad:A Discussion of
Epistemologicaland EthicalIssues. In lndigenousAnthro-
pology in Non-WesternCountries,editedby HusseinFahim,
pp. 152-163. NorthCarolinaAcademicPress,Durham.
Starn,Orin
1994 Rethinkingthe Politics of Anthropology:The Case of
the Andes. CurrentAnthropology35:13-38.
Stutzman,Ronald
1981 El Mestizaje:An All-InclusiveIdeology of Exclusion.
In Cultural Transformationsand Ethnicity in Modern
Ecuador,editedby NormanWhitten,pp.45-93. University
of Illinois Press,Urbana.
Sullivan,Paul
1991 Unfinished Conversations: Mayas and Foreigners
Between TwoWars.Universityof CaliforniaPress, Berke-
ley.
Trigger,Bruce
1989 Hyperrelativism,Responsibility and the Social Sci-
ences. Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology
26(5):776-97.
1995 Romaticism,Nationalism,andArchaeology.InNation-
alism, Politics,and the Practice of Archaeology,edited by
Philip Kohl and Clare Fawcett, pp. 263-279. Cambridge
UniversityPress,Cambridge.
Valencia,Enrique
1970 La formacionde nuevos antropologos.In De eso que
llamanantropologfamexicana, pp.119-153.EditorialNue-
stroTiempo,Mexico.
Vargas,Iraida
1990 Arqueologfa, cienciay sociedad. EditorialAbreBrecha,
Caracas.
1995 The Perceptionof History and Archaeology in Latin
America.InMakingAlternativeHistories:ThePracticesof
Archaeologyand Historyin Non-WesternSocieties, edited
370 LATIN AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 12, No. 4, 2001]

by Thomas C. Pattersonand Peter Schmidt, pp. 47-68. icalApproachesto Culturalldentity,editedby StephenShen-

School of AmericanResearch,SantaFe.
Vargas,Iraida,y MarioSanoja
1993 Historia,identidad,y poder.FondoEditorialTropykos,
Caracas.
Vasconcelos,Jose
1997 TheCosmicRace. JohnHopkinsUniversityPress,Bal-
timore.
Veloz-Maggiolo,Manuel
1984 La arqueologiade la vida cotidiana:matices,historiay
diferencias.BoletfndeAntropologiaAmericana10:5-21.
Viezzer,Moema (editor)
1977 "Sime permitenhablar":testimoniode domitila,una
muderde las minasde Bolivia. Siglo XXI, Mexico.
Villalba,O. Marcelo
1988 Cotocollao: una aldea formativa del valle de Quito.
Museo del Banco Centraldel Ecuador,Quito.
Wallerstein,Immanuel
1974 TheModernWorldSystem:Agricultureand the Origin
of the EuropeanWorldEconomyin the SixteenthCentury.
AcademicPress,New York.
Weiss, Rachel
1991 BeingAme'rica:Essays onArt, Literatureand ldentity
FromLatinAmerica.White Pine Press,New York.
Wolf, Eric
1969 PeasantWarsof theTwentiethCentury.HarperandRow,
New York.
Wylie,Alison
1989 Mattersof FactandMattersof Interest.InArchaeolog- August30, 2001.
nan, pp. 9F109. Unwin Hyman,London.
1992 The Interplayof EvidentialConstraintsand Political
Interests:RecentArchaeological
Researchon Gender.Amer-
ican Antiquity57:15-35.
1995 AlternativeHistories:EpistemicDisunityand Poltical
Integrity.In MakingAlternativeHistories:ThePractice of
ArchaeologyandHistoryinNon-Western Settings,editedby
Thomas C. Patterson and Peter Schmidt, pp. 255-272.
School of AmericanResearchPress,SantaFe.
Yudice,George,JuanFlores,andJeanFranco(editors)
1992 On Edge: TheCrisisof ContemporaryLatinAmerican
Culture.Universityof MinnesotaPress,Minneapolis.
Zea, Leopoldo
1970 Ame'ricaen la historia.EditorialCastilla,Madrid.
1971 Precursoresdelpensamientolatinoamericanocontem-
poraneo. Secretariade EducacionPublica,Mexico.
1974 Dependenciay liberacion en la cultura latinoameri-
cana. EditorialJoaquinMortiz,Mexico.
1978 Filosofia de la historia americana.Fondo de Cultura
Economica,Mexico.
Zubizarreta,Armando
1983 La aventuradel trabajo intelectual:como estudiare
investigar.FondoEducativoInteramericano, Mexico.
SubmittedJanuary17, 2001; acceptedJune 8, 2001; revised

This content downloaded from 62.122.77.83 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 10:53:18 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions