*POLITIS 3/26/03 5:14 PM Page 245

THE THEORETICAL LANDSCAPE AND THE METHODOLOGICAL

DEVELOPMENT OF ARCHAEOLOGY IN LATIN AMERICA

Gustavo G. Politis

Latin American archaeology has been influenced by the world theoretical context, from which it has developed original
approaches. Currently, a culture-history conceptual foundation still predominates in the region, with some modern variants
that have emphasized environmental aspects and approached specific problems. Processual archaeology, especially the North
American varieties, remains minor in the region despite many Latin American archaeologists’ belief that their work falls within
this camp. Post-processual trends are even less well represented, although a growing number of researchers focus in an eclec-
tic fashion on subject matter that corresponds to the post-processual agenda (e.g., identity, multivocality, etc.). Researchers in
certain areas within the region are producing original research linked to political economy and its relation to ideology, and
others are focusing on symbolic and cognitive aspects (in some cases within a structuralist framework). In Latin America sev-
eral interesting methodological developments are emerging, among which ethnoarchaeology and vertebrate taphonomy stand
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 Latin American archaeology’s contributions in the field of theory and methodol-
ogy, there is nonetheless sustained growth in this direction, fundamentally in the generation of models for the interpretation of
regional processes. However, these contributions are not visible at the level of international debate and are generally ignored
by archaeologists from the central countries. The multiple causes of this phenomenon are analyzed.

En este articulo se sintetizan las principales tendencias teóricas y metodológicas de las investigaciones arqueológicas en América
Latina. La arqueología de esta región ha estado influida por el contexto teórico mundial, desde donde ha generado desarrollos
originales. Actualmente aún predomina en la región una base conceptual histórico-cultural con algunas variantes modernas que
han puesto énfasis en los aspectos ambientales y en el abordaje de problemas específicos. La arqueología procesual, sobre todo
en las vertientes norteamericanas, es aún minoritaria en la región, a pesar de que muchos arqueólogos latinoamericanos creen
que sus trabajos se encuadran dentro de este enfoque. Las corrientes post-procesuales son aún mas restringidas, aunque un cre-
ciente números de investigadores está abordando de manera ecléctica temas de la agenda post-procesual (e.g., identidad, multi-
vocalidad, etc). Algunas investigaciones en ciertas áreas de la región están generando líneas originales vinculadas a la economía
política y a su relación con la ideología, y otros están enfocando aspectos simbólico y cognitivos (en algunos casos desde el estruc-
turalismo). En América Latina se están produciendo varios desarrollos metodológicos interesantes, entre los que se destacan la
etnoarqueología y la tafonomía de vertebrados. En los últimos años, la arqueología histórica ha sido una de las disciplinas que
mas ha crecido y que mas popularidad ha logrado. A pesar de que aún son limitados los aportes de la arqueología latinoameri-
cana en el campo de la teoría y la metodología, estos tienen un crecimiento sostenido, fundamentalmente en la generación de
modelos para la interpretación de los procesos regionales. Sin embargo, estos aportes no son visibles en el debate mundial y son
generalmente ignorados por los arqueólogos de los países centrales. En este artículo se analizan las múltiples causas de este fenó-
meno.

T
he term “Latin America” is commonly used
to designate a large region encompassing sev-
eral countries with some similarities in their
colonial background, language, and traditions. How-
ever, it has little utility in defining a Latin American
archaeology. Such an entity does not exist. There are
a variety of regional and national traditions of archae-
ological practices, with significant differences
between them (see Dillehay 2003). What most Latin
American countries do share are socioeconomic
dependence and a neocolonial status compared with
the developed nations. Obviously, these sociopolit-
ical conditions affect the theoretical trends in these
countries and how Latin American archaeologists
accomplish their research (Benavides 2001; Gnecco
1999; Politis 1995).

Gustavo G. Politis ■ CONICET-Universidad del Centro de la Pcia. de Buenos Aires y Universidad de La Plata, Avda. del
Valle 5737, (7400) Olavarria, Argentina, gpolitis@museo.fcnym.unlp.edu.ar

American Antiquity, 68(2), 2003, pp. 245–272

Copyright© 2003 by the Society for American Archaeology

245
*POLITIS 3/26/03 5:14 PM Page 246
246 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY
In Latin America, culture history was almost the
exclusive approach until the 1960s and remains the
dominant paradigm structuring archaeological
inquiry in the region. However, it would be unfair to
characterize the current theoretical landscape of Latin
American archaeology as dominated by a mid-twen-
tieth-century culture history. Many new develop-
ments and methodological innovations have been
transforming it into a much more dynamic and flex-
ible discipline with multiple research directions. It
also would be unjust to consider Latin American
archaeology as a passive reflection of foreign, essen-
tially North American, influences. Local archaeolo-
gists have developed original methods and generated
their own models and conceptual frameworks. Cer-
tainly archaeological practices have adopted theo-
retical questions and methods from foreign
intellectual traditions. This is simply because, as with
any research in the Western world, Latin American
archaeologists are engaged as part of open scientific
communities, exposed to intellectual movements
generated in other countries.
With the publication of the two volumes of Gor-
don Willey’s 1966 and 1971 masterpieces, An Intro-
duction to American Archaeology, the culture-
historical approach reached its peak in both North
and Latin America. This publication was probably
the most complete synthesis by a single author of the
culture-historical view of the pre-European past of
Latin America. Several previous edited volumes
(e.g., Meggers and Evans 1963; Steward 1946–1950)
were important antecedents to Willey’s influential
work. In this paper, I will attempt to show how
archaeology in Latin America evolved from this
hegemonic culture-historical theoretical framework
that led the discipline for several decades, to the cur-
rent situation. I feel that although a modern form of
culture history dominates Latin American archaeol-
ogy today, it is a very different paradigm, allied with
processual and post-processual approaches. Unfor-
tunately, I do not have the same depth of knowledge
for all parts of this vast region nor am I equally famil-
iar with the breadth of topics investigated in several
individual areas. Latin America is an immense region
with varied research interests. My coverage will nec-
essarily be uneven and the examples derive from the
areas and themes I know best. Not all relevant sub-
jects will be discussed, and neither will all the impor-
tant Latin American authors be mentioned (I
therefore extend advance apologies to many col-
[Vol. 68, No. 2, 2003
leagues whose names are not in this synthesis). How-
ever, I hope that this paper captures the diversity of
practices in the region and discusses in a balanced
fashion the main theoretical and methodological
developments in Latin American archaeology.
I will concentrate on local traditions of archaeo-
logical research in Latin America. I emphasize the
contributions and interests of local archaeologists
and their production of conceptual and method-
ological frameworks for investigation. However,
because foreign researchers have been involved in
the archaeology of the region for centuries, I also take
into account some of the most influential foreign
scholars to contextualize the issues I discuss. The cur-
rent archaeology practiced in 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
influential in the directions of local archaeological
inquiry. Individuals such as Betty Meggers and Clif-
ford Evans in Brazil, Fred Lange in Costa Rica and
Nicaragua, Richard Drennan and Warwick Bray for
Colombia, Charles Spencer and Elsa Redman in
Venezuela, Richard Cooke and Anthony Ranere for
Panama, and Tom Dillehay in Chile are intimately
associated with the contemporary development and
practice of archaeology in those countries. Addi-
tionally, many foreign (primarily North American but
also French, British, and Spanish) archaeologists
have been significant in the archaeology of
Mesoamerica and the Andes. Finally, I will avoid dis-
cussion of the sociopolitical aspects of Latin Amer-
ican archaeological practice in this paper, because I
have addressed it in detail elsewhere (Politis 1995,
2001; Politis and Pérez Gollán 2004).
The Theoretical Scenario
The North American culture-historical approach had
a direct impact on the archaeology practiced in every
country of Latin America. Archaeological finds were
organized into a temporal framework of cultures,
periods and phases. Technological divisions, such as
those focused on ceramics and lithics, placed sherds
and artifacts in seriation sequences, compartmental-
ized styles, technological complexes, and industries.
This work was done mainly by North American
archaeologists (e.g., Bennett et al. 1948 in the case
of Northwest Argentina; Meggers and Evans 1957
for the Amazon; Bennett and Bird 1949 for Peru; see
also Willey 1958 for a comparative synthesis), but
*POLITIS 3/26/03 5:14 PM Page 247
Gustavo G. Politis] ARCHAEOLOGY IN LATIN AMERICA
in some cases with the collaboration of local archae-
ologists (e.g., Cruxent and Rouse 1958 for
Venezuela; Estrada and Evans 1963 for Ecuador).
The framework for the reconstruction of the past has
been, and remains, a complex mosaic in which
regional sequences, sites, and interpretive units of
integration such as periods, traditions, subtraditions,
and horizons, are articulated within a culture-history
dominated approach. Most local archaeologists fol-
lowed trends established by the dominance of North
American culture-history paradigm. The influence of
British culture history, mainly through the work of
Gordon Childe (Pérez Gollán 1981), of the Austro-
German Kulturkreise school (Gnecco 1995; Politis
1995) and of some French trends (López Mazz 1999)
has been important in some areas. During the 1950s
and 1960s some prominent Latin American
researchers continued these temporal and spatial
organizational approaches to the archaeological
record and produced their own local or regional
sequences (e.g., González 1955, 1963; Olivé Negrete
1958; Piña Chan 1955, 1963). These had some indi-
vidual innovations, but essentially followed the con-
ceptual schemes of their North American
predecessors.
This culture-history legacy has been difficult to
replace in current Latin American archaeology. The
influence of the culture-historical approach remains
strong, partly because of its epistemological stabil-
ity, but also its ability to organize diverse archaeo-
logical records with comparable units. It provided a
powerful descriptive tool that could synthesize exist-
ing data at a regional scale and offered methods to
investigate unknown areas. The ability to incorpo-
rate information from poorly known areas into extant
schema is a key reason for the popularity of culture
history. Currently, most Latin American archaeolo-
gists see the culture-historical approach as the most
appropriate manner to initiate a research project in
a new geographical area. Within this essentialist, cul-
ture-historical foundation, Latin American archae-
ologists have developed three major strategies for
studying the past. This has involved the adoption of
new scientific methods and concerns, influenced by
recognition during the 1970s of the incomplete
explanatory power of culture history. These include
improved methods for empirical identification and
temporal and spatial organization of archaeological
remains, environmental archaeology, and problem-
oriented research. All three strategies are currently
247
integral to Latin American archaeological practice
and are often difficult to divide into separate theo-
retical-methodological trends.
The first strategy includes improved sophistica-
tion in the methods and techniques for analyzing the
archaeological record and for forming it into tem-
poral-spatial units. In most cases, direct correlations
between archaeological units (e.g., a phase or sub-
phase) and ethnographic categories (e.g., a band,
tribe, or ethnic group) were not assumed. This avoids
one of the main shortcomings of the culture-histor-
ical approach that often equated inferred archaeo-
logical variability with interpretations of
ethnographically meaningful units. The emphasis in
this approach is on development and better control
of chronology and spatial patterns of variation.
Therefore, more data were recorded to describe and
define archaeological cultures, phases, and subphases
with particular emphasis on ceramic sequences. Seri-
ation of pottery, often termed Ford’s method, has
been progressively replaced by other kinds of
ceramic analyses (i.e., functional, technological,
etc.). This strategy also took full advantage of radio-
carbon dating to more securely identify and separate
existing chronologies of phases and different cultural
components. Linguistic and ethnohistorical evidence
were fully exploited, especially in the construction
of regional models in Lowland South America (see
critiques in Neves 1999a).
Through the combination of these methods and
research tactics, a substantially expanded compara-
tive database was created for many areas of Latin
America. A good example of the improved interpre-
tations provided by this approach is the research done
in Brazil under the auspices of Betty Meggers and
the Smithsonian Institution (see papers in Meggers
1992). Most of the research in Cuba (e.g., Febles and
Rives 1991) and in northeastern Argentina (e.g.,
Rodríguez 2001) could be included in this trend.
Other examples are the synthesis of Ecuadorian
archaeology proposed by Porrás (1980), the study of
the early pottery of Costa Rica done by Fonseca
Zamora (1997), and the model for the peopling of the
Maracaibo Lake Basin, Venezuela, developed by
Arvelo (1996). In the latter case, the model was built
with an elegant integration of archaeological, ethno-
historical, and linguistic evidence. It is important to
note that under these innovations to the culture-his-
tory umbrella, some interesting and provocative mod-
els of archaeological changes have been developed,
*POLITIS 3/26/03 5:14 PM Page 248
248 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY
such as José Brochado’s explanation (under the strong
influence of Donald Lathrap) of the spread of pottery
and horticulture into eastern South America
(Brochado 1984).
The second strategy is environmental archaeol-
ogy. This approach allies culture-historical research
with a strong ecological interest. In contrast to using
broad paleoenvironmental models, environmental
archaeology focuses on creating detailed local or
micro-regional data. The integration of palynology,
paleontology, sedimentology, and isotopic analyses
has been critical in the development of this inves-
tigative strategy. Incorporating these data anchors
culture-historical units within well-defined environ-
mental settings. In addition to providing more sophis-
ticated descriptions of recognized chronological
periods, this emphasis has occasionally suggested
causal connections between particular environmen-
tal dynamics and cultural stability and change. Exam-
ples of this trend includes the recent study done by
Nuñez et al. (1999) in the Quebrada de Puripica
where they have combined archaeological analyses
(lithic, zooarchaeological, spatial, etc.) with a vari-
ety of paleoenvironmental data.
The third strategy augmenting the culture-history
approach is problem-oriented archaeology. This uses
a strong emphasis on comparative analytical proce-
dures to address questions other than chronology.
Although still situated within chronological and spa-
tial frameworks, problem-oriented archaeology com-
bines the results of detailed analyses (lithic, ceramic,
faunal, architectural, etc.) focused on addressing spe-
cific research questions about past behaviors. Per-
haps one of the best and most sophisticated examples
of this strategy is the study of early urbanism in
Mesoamerica by Manzanilla (1997, 1999). This
investigation combines some culture-historical con-
cepts (see Table 6.1 in Manzanilla 1999) with dis-
cussions of sacred urban planning, the cosmic sphere,
monumental architecture, social and economic
issues, etc. In this research Manzanilla articulates in
a fine way “hard” data from her own excavations in
Teotihuacan with social and ideational questions.
Most of the research carried out in the Central
Andes by local archaeologists—both Peruvians and
Bolivians—follows one of these three strategies (e.g.,
the majority of the articles published in Gaceta
Arqueológica Andina), although environmental
archaeology is scarcely represented. Interest is
focused on architectural and urban patterns, pottery
[Vol. 68, No. 2, 2003
styles, economic organization, and establishing the
temporal-spatial variables for the overwhelming
archaeological record of this area. Rowe’s scheme
of horizons and intermediate periods (Rowe 1960;
see also Lanning 1967) has provided a framework
to organize and interpret a variety of 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 data-
base for the Central Andes has increased signifi-
cantly in recent decades.
Some would argue that the last two strategies of
research should be considered to be processual
archaeology, since both detailed paleoenvironmen-
tal inquiry and problem-oriented research are often
central to processual investigations. I do not think
this is appropriate. In much research in Latin Amer-
ica, the use of environmental information and prob-
lem orientation has primarily served to make more
precise spatial and temporal reconstructions of the
past. Currently, more than two decades after the
adoption of elements of processual archaeology in
Latin America, it is apparent that this has not changed
the essential interpretive concerns of culture-histor-
ical investigations. The adoption of modern scien-
tific techniques, discourse, and the introduction of
some new concepts (e.g., adaptation, cultural sys-
tems, site formation process, n- and c-transforms,
etc.) were attached to the culture-historical paradigm
with minimal changes to research goals and strate-
gies. These additional methods have not substan-
tially altered the nature of explanations or
understanding of cultural processes in Latin Amer-
ican archaeological practice. I believe that most of
what is considered “processual archaeology” by its
practitioners is actually culture history with more
sophisticated analytical methods, an emphasis on
paleoenvironmental data and some fashionable
themes (for example risk and uncertainty, adaptive
strategies, technological efficiency, etc.) embedded
in the discussion or sometimes only appended to
introductions. I am not denigrating this research;
most of the investigations performed under what I
term “environmental” and “problem-oriented” cul-
ture history is good archaeology. They undoubtedly
represent qualitative and quantitative advances, but
the trappings of processual-archaeological discourse
often mask a dominant culture-history core. Ulti-
mately, “not every culture-historical archaeologist is
*POLITIS 3/26/03 5:14 PM Page 249
Gustavo G. Politis] ARCHAEOLOGY IN LATIN AMERICA
a stamp collector, and despite certain pretensions,
most processualists and post-processualists cannot
be considered grand theoreticians . . .” (Kohl and
Perez Gollán 2002:573).
Processual archaeology is still quite limited in its
applications in Latin America. Processual
approaches, emphasizing an ecological-functional-
ist orientation, were important in the work of North
American archaeologists conducting research in
Latin America (e.g., Flannery 1968, 1972; Rick
1980). It can also be clearly recognized in a gener-
ation of Latin American archaeologists who
embarked on their careers in the 1970s and 1980s.
As a result of the conceptual framework and goals
of the early processual archaeology, Latin America
became a kind of laboratory for testing models and
hypotheses developed elsewhere. Culture-historical
reconstructions were not given research priority. As
the focus shifted toward more problem-oriented
research heavily reliant on paleoenvironmental data,
there was little or no concern for refined definition
of temporal and spatial units. The principal subjects
and concepts addressed by this trend were those con-
sidered pertinent mostly to the study of hunter-gath-
erers (see review in Lanata and Borrero 1999). There
were also some minor processual influences on
archaeological research of Andean complex soci-
eties. In most countries, the work of Binford (1981,
1983, 1989) was the principal influence on archae-
ologists exploring the potential of processual archae-
ology. His organizational models were widely used
and he was undoubtedly the most influential proces-
sual archaeologist. Although his input is more clearly
recognizable in hunter-gatherer studies, it also per-
colates through most of the archaeological research
in the region in one way or another. In other coun-
tries, such as Uruguay, Brazil and Mexico, several
researchers also allude to Schiffer’s (1995) “behav-
ioral archaeology,” but rarely present empirical stud-
ies that actively employ this framework. In Mexico
there has been some critical reflection about behav-
ioral archaeology through the lens of historic mate-
rialism (Lopez Aguilar 1990).
Research agendas derived from processual para-
digms are embedded in much archaeological
research of Latin America. Most of the recent
methodological developments related to this para-
digm are offspring of middle-range theory and site
formation studies. Interest in these approaches
among Latin American archaeologists emerged after
249
Binford’s calls for the generation of a systematic
body of methodological instruments crucial to link-
ing the static presentation of the archaeological
record with the dynamic behaviors that can be
observed in living societies. These developments are
based on actualistic studies under the assumption of
uniformitarian principles. Experimental archaeol-
ogy, significantly in lithic materials (e.g., Curtoni
1996; Flegenheimer et al. 1996; Nami 1997,
1997–1998), and especially taphonomy and eth-
noarchaeology, emerged in Latin America, as else-
where, as the most promising methodological
responses to this call (see below).
Other research focused on increasing the poten-
tial of material analytical studies. This goal involved
developing instrumental concepts to extract more
and better information from the archaeological
record. Among them lithic technology and typology,
ceramic analysis, and zooarchaeology can be
addressed in greatest detail. The first two have a long
tradition in Latin America, predating processualism
(e.g., Aschero 1975; Bórmida 1960; Chmyz
1961–1963; Taddei 1964). Lithic studies have been
profoundly influenced by French analytical schools
(Bordes 1950, 1961; Brezillion 1968; Laming-
Emperaire 1967). For example, a Spanish translation
of the classic typology of the Lower and Middle
Paleolithic (Bordes 1961), published by the Univer-
sity of Buenos Aires, was widely circulated in the
Southern Cone. Similarly, Laming-Emperaire gave
a seminar in Brazil that resulted in the publication,
in Portuguese, of a guide for lithic studies in South
America (Laming-Emperaire 1967). Ceramic analy-
sis before processualism followed two main authors,
Shepard (1956) and Ford (1962). The influence of
these approaches varied according to country. Ford’s
work was later translated into Spanish, adapted for
particular regional examples and widely distributed
throughout Latin America by the Smithsonian Insti-
tution (Meggers and Evans 1969). The impact of
processual archaeology benefited both lithic and
ceramic studies tremendously, primarily through
information produced from ethnoarchaeology and
experimental archaeology. The improved scientific
rigor of these combined approaches was used to
investigate archaeological material effects and more
carefully develop inferential procedures and analytic
methods for understanding their causes. Models of
technological organization and its potential archae-
ological visibility came from Collins (1975) (also
*POLITIS 3/26/03 5:14 PM Page 250
250 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY
translated into Spanish), Torrence (1983), Nelson
(1992), and others. Binford’s (1980) discussion of
curated and expedient technologies was especially
influential in hunter-gatherer research (e.g.,Aschero
1988; Dias and Hoeltz 1997; Fogaça 1995).
Zooarchaeological research in Latin America was
directly influenced by processual archaeology. Prior
to that impetus, complete faunal studies were
extremely limited and were basically performed by
palaeontologists. With the processual input, impor-
tant zooarchaeological studies have focused on
camelids in the Andes (e.g., Bonavia 1996; Carta-
jena and Concha 1997; Vázquez et al. 2001), Patag-
onia (e.g., Mengoni Goñalons 1999; Miotti 1998)
and Pampas (e.g., Martínez 1999; Politis and
Salemme 1990; Salemme 1987). Archaeological fau-
nal research has benefited tremendously from abun-
dant information generated about modern wild and
domesticated camelid populations (e.g., Benavente
et al. 1993; Olivera 2000; Raedeke 1976) and their
current management and exploitation by traditional
societies (Göbel 1999; González 2000; Guerrero
Lara 1986; Kuznar 1995; Tomka 1992). This archae-
ological and ethnoarchaeological focus on camelid
studies is a consequence of the importance this fam-
ily holds for current and past traditional economies,
social lives, and ideational spheres among many
South American cultures for at least 10,000 years.
Studies have examined its economic utility, sym-
bolic meaning, and social significance (e.g., Men-
goni Goñalons et al. 2001). Because of these
extensive studies, this family is the best known
among the Latin American fauna. Other zooarchae-
ological studies have provided significant contribu-
tions on cervids (e.g., Belardi and Gómez Otero
1998), sea mammals (e.g., Schiavini 1993), mol-
lusks and fishes from coastal shell middens (e.g.,
Falabella et al. 1994; Figuti 1992; Figuti and Klök-
ler 1996; Jerardino et al. 1992; Orquera and Piana
2000), rodents (e.g., Simonetti and Cornejo 1991),
prehispanic dogs (e.g.,Valadez Azúa et al. 1999), and
extinct Pleistocene megafauna (e.g., Alberdi et al.
2001; Lorenzo and Mirambell 1986; Miotti and
Salemme 1999). In the last decade, detailed zooar-
chaeological studies have proliferated in most areas
of Latin America (e.g., Alves and Caleffo 1996;
Arroyo-Cabrales 1997; Arroyo-Cabrales and Polaco
1997; Mazzanti and Quintana 2001) including those
of historical periods (e.g., Pintos Blanco 1996; Sil-
veira 1995). Moreover, the combined analysis of util-
[Vol. 68, No. 2, 2003
ity index and bone density have provided a more
accurate tool to approach the faunal osteological
assemblages (e.g., Neme and Gil 2002).
Zooarchaeological research is among the best-
developed arenas of modern archaeological investi-
gation in Latin America. Initial studies answered
basic qualitative and quantitative questions about
past subsistence practices that were largely unknown
until the late 1970s. Subsequently, zooarchaeolo-
gists have addressed a number of other issues cur-
rently being explored worldwide. New topics of
intense investigation include anatomic prey econ-
omy, prey processing and consumption, bone trans-
port and discard patterns, bone technology, and a
range of taphonomic studies (see below). While the
zooarchaeology of camelids in the Andes benefited
from the work of several foreign researchers (e.g.,
Wheeler Pires Ferreira et al. 1976; Wing 1972),
research in the Pampas and Patagonia was essentially
a local development. Several aspects of these inves-
tigations, such as bone breakage patterns, achieved
international standards of innovation relatively early
(e.g., Mengoni Goñalons 1982, 1988).
Processual archaeology has stimulated several
important changes in Latin American archaeology.
It spurred refinements in the analytical approaches
to recognized classes of archaeological remains and
expanded the range of materials considered pertinent
for research on a variety of topics. Most critically, it
led to a reformulation of the kinds of archaeological
units and their components used to address questions
about change and stability in past societies. However,
as I have noted, this change has been more restricted
than in other regions because processual archaeol-
ogy in Latin America was incorporated within the
dominant culture-history framework. New directions
in materials analysis, greater ranges of variables con-
sidered relevant to research issues, and middle-range
studies were all used primarily to elaborate rede-
fined culture-historical questions of time and space
systematics.
More extreme positivist positions, such as evolu-
tionary ecology and selectionism (see Hegmon, this
issue), have been more limited in their influence on
Latin American archaeology (e.g., Laguens 1998,
1997–98; Lanata and Borrero 1994). Although these
are genuine attempts at developing more scientific
investigations that can reduce or more carefully spec-
ify ambiguity in archaeological data, many of the goals
of evolutionary ecology and selectionism, especially
*POLITIS 3/26/03 5:14 PM Page 251
Gustavo G. Politis] ARCHAEOLOGY IN LATIN AMERICA
those which require fine-grained analysis, are cur-
rently unrealized. For example, there is little com-
prehensive data on plant and animal biomass to assist
in quantitatively modeling human subsistence from
the existing archaeological and paleoenvironmental
data. These limitations have forced some studies to
make a great many assumptions and speculations
that reduce the reliability and utility of their analy-
ses and results (e.g., Laguens 1998). Discussions of
models of cultural transmission and evolutionary
ecological approaches (e.g., Borrero 1993; see papers
in Martínez and Lanata 2002) are still at an early stage
in Latin American theoretical debates.
Marxism and historical materialism have long
been common elements in Latin American archae-
ology. This is due partially to the important influence
of Spanish Republicans who emigrated to Mexico
after the Spanish Civil War (e.g.,Angel Palerm, Pedro
Armillas, José Luis Lorenzo, etc.). In recent decades
its adherents have consolidated a position as “Latin
American social archaeology” and formally pro-
posed a programmatic agenda directed toward mak-
ing the practice of archaeology socially relevant and
politically active (Lorenzo et al. 1976; Lumbreras
1974). This school of thought has been subject to
recent debate about its epistemological basis, origi-
nality, and transcendence within and outside of Latin
America (Benavides 2001; McGuire 1992; McGuire
and Navarrete 1999; Oyuela-Caycedo et al. 1997;
Patterson 1994). “Latin American social archaeol-
ogy” recognizes its source of inspiration in the works
of Gordon Childe, the papers of Peruvians E. Choy
(1960) and J. C. Mariátegui (1952), and in the book
by Cubans E. Tabío and E. Rey (1966) as the
antecedents of Marxist thinking in Latin America.
The fundamental papers detailing this paradigm are
considered the manifiesto published from the
Reunion de Teotihuacan (Lorenzo et al. 1976) and
the early books of Lumbreras (1974), Sanoja and Var-
gas (1978), and Bate (1977, 1978) (for recent and
extensive reviews see Bate 1998; Fournier 1999; Var-
gas and Sanoja 1999). A deep analysis of the con-
ceptual and epistemological foundations of this
school is not the aim of this article; I concentrate only
on clarifying its significance in the theoretical land-
scape of Latin American archaeology.
Latin American social archaeology is not a uni-
fied body of theory. The methodologies applied and
the intellectual positions held by its practitioners
vary widely. They do all recognize the historic-mate-
251
rialist method and the general principles of Marx-
ism. Beyond this basic umbrella there are concep-
tual and methodological differences among its
adherents. For example, there is no agreement on the
definitions, use, and utility of archaeological inter-
pretations of very fundamental concepts such as “cul-
ture” (Lumbreras, 2002 and personal communication
2001). Several other basic terms in their literature,
such as “mode of life” and “social formation,” also
are subject to variable uses and interpretations (see
discussion in Ensor 2000). There also are significant
differences in how Latin American social archaeol-
ogists use archaeological data in the analysis and
evaluation of their models. Some remain purely in
the sphere of theoretical production with minimal
attempts to examine the application of Marxist ideas
through case studies and empirical data. Others have
developed a more balanced approach that combines
conceptual argument with methodological develop-
ment, data collection, analyses, and interpretation
(e.g., Sanoja and Vargas 1995, 1999; Vargas 1990).
One of the most influential founding members of the
Latin American social archaeology school, Lumbre-
ras, illustrates a uniquely atypical research approach
within the Marxist paradigm. Lumbreras has actively
participated in meetings organized by the so-called
Grupo Oaxtepec (a subgroup inside the school) and
is recognized as one of the most prominent Marxist
thinkers in Latin American archaeology, especially
after his seminal paper (Lumbreras 1974). His excel-
lent archaeological work on Chavín (see for exam-
ple Lumbreras 1989), which consumed many years
of his professional career, is essentially a sophisti-
cated culture-historical interpretation. It does not
represent an example of Marxist archaeology. In
Mexico, the homeland of “Latin American social
archaeology,” Gándara et al. (1985:12) conclude that
after more than 10 years of theoretical production by
practitioners of this school, “we cannot count even
one case of Marxist archaeology.” According to
Vázquez León (1996:35), that summary remained
true at least into the mid-1990s. This demonstrates
a very uneven development of Marxist archaeology
in Latin America. There is a disproportionate empha-
sis on dense theoretical development with signifi-
cantly less effort toward growth of methodology and
empirical evaluation of archaeological data. This sit-
uation would be understandable 25 years ago, when
the school was establishing its conceptual and
methodological framework. Currently, this severely
*POLITIS 3/26/03 5:14 PM Page 252
252 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY
limits the influence of Marxist thought in Latin Amer-
ican archaeology. In agreement with this view, Lit-
vak (1997:11) recently wrote that “this social
archaeology made a clear impact in theory and in
education [in Mexico], although it was not consid-
ered important in the way archaeological research
was conducted.”
Adherents to and reviewers of Latin American
social archaeology often emphasize the importance
of an active political commitment from its members,
who consider archaeology as a means to transform
the current sociopolitical reality through engaged,
revolutionary approaches to research. For example,
McGuire and Navarrete (1999:195) state that “los
programas colectivos altamente politizados y social-
mente comprometidos definen a la arqueología social
latinoamericana.” Despite the rhetoric, such a real-
ized political agenda in the form of a concerted group
of researchers engaged in a collective enterprise does
not exist; as Fournier (1999:20) states, there are very
few Latin American social archaeologists who actu-
ally assume this responsibility. Their personal polit-
ical engagement does not differ substantially from
that of other Latin American archaeologists work-
ing under different paradigms. On this point, I dif-
fer with the view presented by Benavides (2001).
Following an acute revisionist presentation of the
neo-colonial position of Latin America and the role
that “social archaeology” should play in the trans-
formation of the current sociopolitical scene, Bena-
vides presents three examples of socially engaged
archaeological projects. These projects certainly pro-
duced positive impacts within those communities
and addressed their present political struggles. How-
ever, as Benavides himself recognizes (2001:362),
the best example has “never been affiliated itself with
any of social archaeology’s guidelines”; nor were the
other two. My feeling is that in Latin America many
archaeologists (both local and foreign) from a vari-
ety of theoretical positions may personally embrace
Marxism and are socially sensitive, without neces-
sarily being affiliated with “Latin American social
archaeology.” The logistics of fieldwork place
archaeologists in contact with the marked economic
contrasts that exist among rural populations. The
need to make their work relevant to local communi-
ties is related to these experiences with poor,
exploited, and sometimes indigenous peoples who
live in proximity to archaeological sites. This is evi-
dent in the efforts of some archaeologists to ensure
[Vol. 68, No. 2, 2003
that the knowledge they generate helps improve the
living standards of the communities with whom they
work (e.g., Erickson 1986, 1992; Olivera and Tchilin-
guirian 2000). Most of these archaeologists are not
“social archaeologists” and several are not even
Marxist. Therefore, I do not see current social archae-
ologists possessing any determined political agenda
for the practice of archaeology as a part of a revolu-
tionary process, as did happen in the past with the
indigenist archaeologists Manuel Gamio in Mexico
or Julio Tello in Peru. I am not denying the genuine
preoccupation of social archaeologists with a more
useful archaeology for the indigenous, mestizo, and
dispossessed people in principle. These concerns,
however, appear to remain largely theoretical, and
there are currently few demonstrations of their prac-
tical integration under Marxist archaeology (see also
Fournier 1999).
The last issue regarding Marxist archaeology I
discuss is the importance of social archaeology in
the theoretical landscape of Latin American archae-
ology. As far as I can see, this paradigm is not dom-
inant in any country within the region (see also
Dillehay 2003). It competes with other equally strong
theoretical positions in Venezuela and possibly the
Dominican Republic; it is secondary and mostly the-
oretical in Mexico and Peru; and is virtually nonex-
istent in the rest of Latin America. This does not
negate its originality or potential to be a viable alter-
native school of archaeological thought or practice
in Latin America. It does demonstrate, however, that
after 25 years of dense theoretical debate, it has been
adopted by only a minority of Latin American
archaeologists. As I have discussed elsewhere (Poli-
tis 1995), the unpopularity of this school in several
countries (especially in the Southern Cone and
Brazil) might at one time have been attributed to mil-
itary governments’ opposition to Marxist ideas in
any field. However, given the intellectual freedoms
enjoyed for the last 15 years in most of Latin Amer-
ica, this lack of acceptance and concrete practical
development may be attributed to failures of this
school that appear to be primarily methodological.
Post-processualism has still had only a modest
impact on Latin American archaeology that has come
basically through the work of Ian Hodder (1982, ed.
1982, 1994). Although few South American archae-
ologists recognize that their work falls within vari-
ants of this increasingly loosely defined set of
approaches (e.g., Acuto 1999; Haber 1997), many
*POLITIS 3/26/03 5:14 PM Page 253
Gustavo G. Politis] ARCHAEOLOGY IN LATIN AMERICA
more are discussing some of the ideas in the post-
processual agenda (e.g., Castro and Gallardo
1995–1996; Curtoni 2000; Gianotti García 2000;
Gnecco 1999). Several themes of post-processual
interest (e.g., symbolic study of artifacts) have long
been components in the work of many Latin Amer-
ican archaeologists (e.g., González 1977). Moreover,
in several Latin American countries (such as Peru,
Mexico, and Cuba), the explicit political and social
involvement of academia has a tradition of produc-
ing the kinds of critiques about politically responsi-
ble archaeology that have occurred only relatively
recently in North America and Great Britain
(McGuire and Navarrete 1999). The existence of
large indigenous populations and popular social
movements in several South American countries
make some post-processual concerns immediately
relevant. Issues concerning ethnicity, indigenous
rights, or multivocality are obviously pertinent to
Latin America. Other components of post-processual
critique such as the study of gender or the role of the
individual have not been considered as germane.
Archaeological research focusing on gender issues
in particular is poorly represented in Latin America
compared with North America or Western Europe.
The few studies that do address gender roles sys-
tematically have been performed mostly by foreign
researchers (e.g., Gero 1991, 1992; Hastorf 1991;
Joyce 1996, 1998).
Among many developments in Latin American
archaeology that did not embrace the ecological func-
tionalism of processual archaeology, some have
addressed symbolic and cognitive topics (in certain
cases within a structuralist framework) somewhat
independently from Anglo-American post-proces-
sualism. I will highlight only a few examples that I
consider the most interesting, notably from the
Northern Andes, which could be considered an orig-
inal regional trend. A “core” of symbolic and cog-
nitive interest can be identified in the archaeology of
metallurgy, sacred architecture, and ritual offerings
in northeastern South America (e.g., Falchetti 1999,
2000; Llanos Vargas 1995). However, many other
cases can be found in a more isolated fashion
throughout the region, from Mexico (e.g., López
Luján 1994) to the southern Andes (e.g., González
1992, 1998), including the Greater Antilles (e.g.,
Oliver 2000). The “nucleus” of this research effort
is essentially made up of Colombians and has been
clearly influenced by the ethnographic work and the
253
interpretative strategies of G. Reichel-Dolmatoff
(1978, 1985, 1986, 1988), a positive influence that
introduced an original mode of inquiry, although
simultaneously producing some bias in interpreta-
tion due to the pervasive effect of Tukano and Kogi
Indian cosmologies (the best and most-developed
ethnographic sources studied and used by Reichel-
Dolmatoff). Based on mythologies and ethnohistor-
ical sources, this research has tried to capture the
meaning of the metal objects and monumental archi-
tecture as well as understand the symbolic context
of metalworking and monumental stone work. In an
original approach, Falchetti (1999) attempted to
show how the association between cosmological and
biological cycles is the foundation of the indigenous
interpretation of the symbolism of metals and the
function of certain objects. The research by Velandia
(1994, 1999) in San Agustin, Colombia, is a good
example of an elegant application of structuralist
concepts and methodology to the interpretation of a
complex set of data from different sources. This work
combines contemporary ethnographic information
with the archaeological study of a variety of remains
such as statues, iconography, polychrome tomb orna-
mentation, and locations of funerary assemblages.
Another good example of the application of struc-
turalist principles is the study by Lleras-Pérez (2000)
of the iconography and symbolism of metallic votive
offerings in the easternmost branch of the Northern
Andes range. In this research, Lleras-Pérez used the
concept of dualism taken from Lévi-Strauss to
explore the modes of thought and the underlying
principles operating in the prehispanic societies of
the eastern Cordillera. He identified several double
oppositions depicted in the votive iconography, such
as barren versus fertile, domination versus submis-
sion, etc. (Lleras-Pérez 2000:127–129).
In addition to these Colombian examples, other
cases show an interest in cognitive-symbolic topics
in many areas in the region (e.g., Aguilera 1997;
Alconini 1995; Schaan 2001; Zucchi 1993). The
analysis of the Templo Mayor caches (some 7,000
objects, nonrandomly placed) in Tenochtitlan by
López Luján (1994) is representative. In this study,
the author shed light on the ritual meaning of the
offerings and the “language” of the gifts as they were
placed more than five centuries ago. The recent work
of A. R. González (1992, 1998) is also interesting in
this regard. Although conceived under a culture-his-
torical approach (as he explicitly acknowledges), the
*POLITIS 3/26/03 5:14 PM Page 254
254 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY
research of González attempts to discuss symbolic
and cognitive aspects of the Aguada culture and
Andean metallurgy. Although the cases presented
here could be considered closely related to British
post-processualism, they seem to have evolved inde-
pendently from this theoretical trend. However, some
overlap does exist in research topics and methodol-
ogy.
Other innovative advances have been made in
the study of complex societies under the umbrella
of political economy, which is also analyzed at
times in connection with ideology. Many of these
developments and interpretations are partly derived
from the ideas of T. Earle on the political economies
of chiefdoms. In the Central Andes, recent research
on Moche and associated cultures on the North
Coast of Peru went beyond the dominant horizon-
intermediate period chronology and explored the
role played by ideology in the consolidation and
centralization of political power and how it is mate-
rialized (e.g., Alva 1992; Alva and Donnan 1993;
Castillo 1993; Uceda and Mujica 1994). Since the
1987 discovery of the famous El Señor de Sipán
tomb (Alva 1990), Moche archaeology has devel-
oped in a new direction, characterized by the study
of political ideology, the structure of political
power, and the nature of ideology and its role in the
development of complex societies. The rich evi-
dence obtained from sites such as San José de Moro
in the Jequetepeque valley (Donnan and Castillo
1992) allowed Castillo (1993) to discuss the process
of creation of ideological mechanisms of control
by Moche elites, and to analyze the evolution of
these mechanisms as tools of domination. The
remains and murals found at Huaca de la Luna and
Huaca Cao Viejo also provided high-quality evi-
dence that fueled this dynamic and creative dis-
cussion (De Marrais et al. 1996; Uceda et al. 1994,
1995). The work of Pérez Gollán (2000) in the
southern Andes is particularly provocative. Pérez
Gollán disarticulated the cultural sequence of the
prehispanic agricultural and ceramic societies in
the Valliserrana area of northwestern Argentina and
examines the data from a very different perspec-
tive, focusing on explaining social processes of
power and inequality. He proposes that in the Val-
liserrana societies, ideological power was derived
from a process in which social inequality became
hereditary. Control of the means of production and
exchange of surplus and subsistence goods was the
[Vol. 68, No. 2, 2003
fundamental source of political power. He thinks
that ideological and military powers became sub-
ordinated to a chiefdom economy (Perez Gollán
2000:254). Other good examples of the study of the
relationship between chiefly power, social devel-
opment, and ideology come from recent work car-
ried out in Puerto Rico (Curet 1996; Curet and
Oliver 1998; Oliver 1998).
Other recent research on political economy pays
less attention to ideology, focusing rather on the
social implications of economic control (e.g., Gassón
1997, 1998). One good case is the study of relation-
ships between center and periphery in the Classic
period in Tula, Mexico, in regard to processes of
expansion and retraction of Teotihuacan in the area
(Rodríguez et al. 1999). Another example is the
research of Langebaek (2000), who has recently stud-
ied the relationship between goldworking and chiefly
organization in prehispanic Colombia in three areas:
Calima,Alto Magdalena, and Andes Orientales. After
comparing the similarities and differences in these
three chiefdoms from a temporal and regional per-
spective, he explores several different issues includ-
ing the nature of the elites, the characteristics of their
leadership, and how gold objects circulated and were
manipulated by these elites. He concludes that “los
objetos de oro no sirvieron solo para pensar; tam-
bién fueron producidos y manipulados políticamente,
esto es, consumidos en el contexto de la economía
política de los cacicazgos” (Langebaek 2000:36).
Albarracin-Jordan (1996) also produced an original
interpretation regarding emergence of the Tiwanaku
phenomenon. Based on archaeological, ethnohis-
torical, and ethnographic evidence, he proposes that
the basic principles of political and economic orga-
nization of the Aymara ayllus and markas can be
inferred to have been present during the Early
Tiwanaku period. He suggests that the emergence of
Tiwanaku culture is explained through integrational
mechanisms that incorporated local “nested hierar-
chies” into larger-order political structures (Albar-
racin-Jordan 1996:205). A final example, originally
applied to hunter-gatherers, is the reinterpretation
made by López Mazz (2001) of the “cerritos” (earth
mounds) of eastern Uruguay. In this case, López
Mazz combines concepts from political economy
with landscape archaeology and ceremonial land-
scapes (Dillehay 1990) to postulate that the “cerri-
tos” were “productos sociales útiles a la actividad
ceremonial y se vinculan con estructuras y conduc-
*POLITIS 3/26/03 5:14 PM Page 255
Gustavo G. Politis] ARCHAEOLOGY IN LATIN AMERICA
tas económicas, sociales y políticas” (López Mazz
2001:251).
Methodological Developments
In the last two decades Latin American archaeology
has attempted to develop several methodological
tools to improve the accuracy of empirical data col-
lection and lead to more sophisticated interpretation
of the material record of the past. These are partic-
ular to the concerns of research in Latin America and
to an array of very different conditions affecting the
diverse archaeological record in this region.
One central approach, derived from processual
archaeology, has targeted the development of sophis-
ticated research into site formation processes. This
has resulted in several important vertebrate taphon-
omy and paleoecological studies best exemplified by
the work of L. Borrero and his collaborators in south-
ern Patagonia and Tierra del Fuego (Borella and
Favier Dubois 1994–1995; Borrero 1988, 1989,
1990, 2001; Borrero and Muñoz 1999; Martin and
Borrero 1997). These studies have generated very
important baseline information that is systematic and
methodologically consistent, addressing natural
processes that affect archaeological deposits in the
southern portion of South America. They have sig-
nificantly advanced understanding of taphonomic
modifications of guanaco (Lama guanicoe) skeletal
elements. This was the most important large prey of
Southern Cone and Andean hunter-gatherers. This
work has focused on a variety of archaeologically
visible effects on bones including surface weather-
ing, carnivore modifications, element preservation,
and spatial patterning. These careful studies provide
crucial data necessary in addressing a variety of
archaeological site formation issues. Especially
important are their implications for the study of early
human populations of the Americas. Many open and
cave sites, especially those documented in the South-
ern Cone, demonstrate the importance of taphonomic
research to understanding human and nonhuman
agencies of material patterning.
Vertebrate taphonomy has undertaken several dif-
ferent trajectories of actualistic research. In Latin
America, this field has been developed almost exclu-
sively by archaeologists. Recently, detailed studies
of bone diagenesis have been initiated using anthro-
pogenic and non-anthropogenic accumulations of
guanaco bones from Pampean sites (Gutiérrez 2001).
In a less-systematic way, disturbance of archaeo-
255
logical sites by rodents has been studied, both in
archaeological deposits (Gómez 2000; Politis and
Madrid 1988) and experimentally (Durán 1991).
Additional detailed taphonomic research has been
developed to study cetaceans (Borella 2001), birds
(Belardi 1999; Cruz 1999, 2000), and bone density
(Elkin 1995). These sophisticated investigations
include long-term systematic research projects on a
range of agents of modification and their application
to the study of archaeological sites. With a few excep-
tions (e.g., Nogueira de Queiroz 2001), this tapho-
nomic research appears to be an Argentine
archaeological development and includes most of
the major regions of the country (e.g., Gutierrez et
al. 1997; Kligmann et al. 1999; Mondini 1995; Mon-
dini and Muñoz 1996; Nasti 1991, 2000; Olivera et
al. 1991–1992).
Another significant methodological development
directly influenced by processual archaeology is eth-
noarchaeological research. Despite the richness and
variety of indigenous societies living in many parts
of Latin America, there are still relatively few eth-
noarchaeological studies. Opportunities for signifi-
cant additional work are tremendous. However, there
is a long-standing tradition of using local ethno-
graphic information to interpret and explain several
aspects of the archaeological record. Many of these
now seem rather simplistic mechanistic analogies
that rely on assumptions of historical continuity
between archaeological phenomena and modern
ethnographic behaviors. The current approaches in
ethnoarchaeology have their antecedents in the stud-
ies of agro-pastoral societies in the Andes (Miller
1977), tropical hunter-gatherers (Laming-Emperaire
et al. 1978; Miller 1979) and horticulturists (Wüst
1975), Mexican villagers (Barba and Bello 1978) and
in the work of Deboer and Lathrap (1979), and Zei-
dler (1984) among the Shipibo and Ashuar of east-
ern Ecuador. In recent years far-reaching and
systematic research programs have followed the
interests of these pioneer studies. Local ethnoar-
chaeological studies concentrate on two main eco-
nomic strategies, Andean agro-pastoralist societies
(e.g., Cremonte 1988–1989, Nielsen 1997–1998;
Yacobaccio 1995; Yacobaccio and Madero 1994;
Yacobaccio et al. 1998; see also the recent book
edited by Kuznar [2001], where the great majority
of chapters are written by South American
researchers) and tropical lowlands horticulturists
(e.g., Assis 1995–96; Frias 1993; Heckenberger et
*POLITIS 3/26/03 5:14 PM Page 256
256 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY
al. 1999; Wüst 1998). Other areas of research include
hunter-gatherers of the tropical rainforest (Politis
1996a, 1996b, 1998, 1999) and ceramic manufac-
ture in Mexico (Williams 1994; Williams and
Weigand 2001). A wide range of ethnoarchaeologi-
cal material studies have been performed. Investi-
gations have examined ceramic technological
production (Cremonte 1988–1989; García 1988;
Williams 1994), ceramics as a vehicle of social
expression (Frias 1993; Silva 2000), bone and arti-
fact refuse in agro-pastoralist sites (Yacobaccio et al.
1998), settlement patterns and architecture of low-
land villagers (Assis 1995–1996; Wüst 1998; Wüst
and Barreto 1999), chemical composition of floors
in modern habitational units (Barba 1990; Barba and
Ortiz 1992), and the study of the material conse-
quences of food taboos (Politis and Martínez 1996;
Politis and Saunders 2002).
At least three trends can be identified in ethnoar-
chaeological research performed by Latin American
researchers. The first selects case studies to examine
the physical effects of a limited suite of behaviors.
Well-defined manufacturing or refuse-generating
activities such as ceramic production (García 1993;
Wüst 1981–1982), spatial distributions of discarded
bones (Borrero and Yacobaccio 1989), the technical
process and material culture associated with salt pro-
duction (Williams 1999), and the chemical alteration
of house floors (Barba and Ortiz 1992) can be read-
ily controlled in ethnoarchaeological observations.
Scholars working from this perspective propose that
research should be directed toward particular cases
within general theoretical models (Yacobaccio
1995). This group of investigations emphasizes
techno-economic aspects of material culture and
could be identified with what Hodder (2002) called
the analytic perspective. The second tendency is ori-
ented toward the study of more complex systems
where the variables are harder to control, but which
take into account more diverse phenomena (e.g.,
Nielsen 1997, 1997–1998). Frequently these inves-
tigations attempt to discern the non-techno-economic
meaning of objects through ethnographic case stud-
ies (e.g., Frias 1993; Politis 1998; Silva 2000). In
these approaches, archaeological artifacts are not
simply “things in themselves,” but are considered to
be polysemic in character and to carry representa-
tions of ideas (Leach 1977:16). Ethnographic stud-
ies carried out by archaeologists (e.g., Castro and
Varela 1994) who want to expand knowledge of tra-
[Vol. 68, No. 2, 2003
ditional, non-Western patterns of rationality could
also be included within this trend. This is close to a
hermeneutic perspective in the sense of Hodder
(2002). Both of these research strategies are tied to
the material effects of behavior and their physical
properties (e.g., density, variability, etc.). While the
first attempts to establish unambiguous relationships
or strong cross-cultural regularities between activi-
ties and their residues, the second is directed towards
understanding the material, social, and ideational
conditions that may result in particular variability in
the archaeological record. In this second research
strategy, the utility of establishing transcultural gen-
eralizations is recognised, but it also relies on the use
of context-specific cultural variability and explores
the continuity of cosmologies and meanings attached
to specific symbols and icons (see discussion in
Grebe 1995–1996; Saunders 1998). Research by
Tochetto (1996), although not strictly ethnoarchae-
ological, is a good example of this kind of study. She
attempts to interpret the symbolic content of designs
and icons of the precolonial Guaraní pottery by using
historical analogies. Her work explores formal sim-
ilarities between the central elements of motifs and
their mythical referents as recorded by ethnohistory
and ethnography. The ethnoarchaeological study of
social and ideational issues has been incorporated
into this form of investigation through material stud-
ies among egalitarian societies, such as Amazonian
hunter-gatherers (Politis 1996b; Politis and Saun-
ders 2002), and societies with low levels of social
hierarchy, for example Amazonian horticulturists
(Silva 2000) and Andean pastoralists (Nielsen 1997).
A third trend in current ethnoarchaeological
research is represented by a group of research pro-
jects, primarily in Brazil, that focus on gathering eth-
noarchaeological data to reconstruct the historical
events and processes affecting modern indigenous
groups (e.g., Heckenberger et al. 1999; Wüst 1998;
Wüst and Barreto 1999). These emphasize research
to understand the processes of cultural continuity,
combining ethnographic and archaeological data
obtained in the same area. This work seeks to study
cases where links between contemporary people and
those responsible for producing the archaeological
deposits under investigation can be securely identified
or proven. Arguments by formal analogy are minimal
in this approach and archaeological and ethnographic
data are used to complement data on historical cul-
ture processes. This research is probably more akin
*POLITIS 3/26/03 5:14 PM Page 257
Gustavo G. Politis] ARCHAEOLOGY IN LATIN AMERICA
to what is called “indigenous history” (e.g., Neves
1999b) than to ethnoarchaeology. The results of these
studies would be considered specific to particular cul-
tures and restricted to closely related archaeological
cases. However, the potential is enormous for under-
standing broader cultural patterns through time, such
as village configuration variability, occupation and
abandonment dynamics, formation of anthropogenic
soils, and other significant archaeological issues
about past Amazonian societies.
Continuing Concerns and New Topics
Throughout the history of Latin American archae-
ology, a series of subjects and research problems
have captured the attention of local and foreign
archaeologists. Most of these topics remain impor-
tant to contemporary archaeological investigations.
All have been approached from a range of theoreti-
cal and methodological perspectives (discussed
above) and have received various emphases by
researchers from different Latin American countries.
Among the most-studied subjects are the peopling
of the Americas (e.g., Cardich 1983; Gnecco 2000;
López Castaño 1999; Jaimes 1998; Massone 1996;
Miotti et al. 1999; Nuñez et al. 1994), the Inca Empire
(e.g., Estévez 1992; Gallardo et al. 1995; Matos
Mendieta, 1993–1995, 1994; Raffino 1993; Raffino
and Stehberg 1999; Stehberg 1995; Williams 1995),
the origins of socioeconomic complexity and the
urbanization process (e.g., Albarracin-Jordan 1996;
García Cook and Merino Carrión 1998; Lumbreras
1989, 1993; Manzanilla 1997, 1999; Marcos 1988)
and the domestication of plants and camelids (e.g.,
Bonavia 1984, 1999; Castro and Tarragó 1992;
Nuñez 1988; Veloz Maggiolo 1992; Yacobaccio et
al. 1994, 1997–1998).
History has always been a great ally of archaeol-
ogy in the region. There has been an increasing dia-
logue between ethnohistorians and archaeologists
that results in tremendous mutual benefits. In the
Central Andes, this dialogue is especially fruitful
since ethnohistory has been crucial to interpretation
of the late prehispanic periods and the life of indige-
nous societies during colonial times (e.g.,Amat Olaz-
abal 1997; Espinoza 1977, 1988; González Carré
1992; Huertas 1995). In this area, a well-established
tradition in ethnohistorical research started with L.
Valcárcel (1959) and received important input from
the work of John Murra (1954, 1978). Murra’s model
of the vertical control of multiple ecological zones
257
was without any doubt a landmark for Andean
archaeology, and for decades provided a powerful
tool with which to interpret the archaeological record
from the late prehispanic periods. The influence of
French researchers, notably Nathan Wachtel (1976,
1990) and Pierre Duviols (1977), was also signifi-
cant and helped to improve a local tradition in eth-
nohistorical research whose outstanding figure is
Maria Rostworowski (1953, 1978, 1988). Her con-
tribution to many archaeological subject areas is
overwhelming, and her work has been widely used
by archaeologists (see overview in Varón Gabai and
Flores Espinoza 1997). In Mesoamerica, the assis-
tance of ethnohistory has been equally important
(e.g., López Austin and López Luján 1999). In this
area, ethnohistorical studies were key sources for
understanding the “Post-Classic Horizon” (e.g.,
chapters in Manzanilla and López Luján 1995). In
both Mexico and Peru, intense use of ethnohistori-
cal sources reinforced the idea of continuity of
indigenous people from the prehispanic to posthis-
panic periods.
In other areas of Latin America, ethnohistorical
studies were also developed in relation to archaeol-
ogy, but less intensively (e.g., Londoño 1992;
Lorandi 1988; Lorandi et al. 1991; Orquera and Piana
1999; Perera 2000; Pradilla et al. 1992; Zucchi 1991).
In the Lowlands, a good example of the help pro-
vided by ethnohistory can be found in the study car-
ried out by Noelli (1996, 1998) on the origins and
expansion routes of Tupi populations in the Amazon.
Finally, one of the major contributions of ethnohis-
tory has been the endowment of American Indians
with social agency and the sensitization of archae-
ologists to many dimensions of native societies that
are usually invisible in the archaeological record.
In the last couple of decades several additional
fields of investigation have joined this mainstream.
Some, such as historical archaeology, although not
entirely novel in Latin American research, have expe-
rienced significant new popularity among local
archaeologists. Historical archaeology is now part of
a burgeoning proliferation of long-term research pro-
jects in almost every country in Latin America. This
explosion of research is in part the result of a new
research agenda that has taken tremendous advan-
tage of the depth of information that can be obtained
through complementary use of archaeological data
and historical documents (Carver 2002; Kern 1996;
Pedrotta and Gomez Romero 1998). In opposition
*POLITIS 3/26/03 5:14 PM Page 258
258 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY
to most other fields within archaeology (see below),
Latin American historical archaeology has had a
unique impact on shaping a worldwide definition of
the discipline in the last 15 years or so, and con-
tributes to shaping the epistemology of the disci-
pline itself (Funari, personal communication 2002).
For the first time, this approach pays as much atten-
tion to Latin America as to Europe and the United
States (e.g., Orser 1997).
Historical archaeology in Latin America has not
escaped the tendency that has led it to be character-
ized as “the archaeology of the spread of European
culture throughout the world since the fifteenth cen-
tury and its impact on indigenous people” (Deetz
1977:5). However, the discipline, previously con-
cerned with a narrow North American definition of
“post-prehistoric sites in the New World,” broadened
its scope to include a much more open perspective.
Nowadays in Latin America most historical archae-
ology addresses a variety of postcontact phenomena
and their social effects, including the agency of the
aboriginal populations (see reviews in Funari 1994
and Fournier and Miranda-Flores 1992). Interest has
focused primarily on urban studies, especially in
cities such as Buenos Aires (e.g., Schávelzon 1999),
Rio de Janeiro (e.g., Andrade Lima 1999), Colonia
(Fusco Zambetogliris 1995), Caracas (Vargas et al.
1998), Santo Domingo (Véloz Maggiolo et al. 1992),
Panama (Rovira 2001), and Mexico (where histori-
cal archaeology is closely allied with precolonial
archaeology, see Matos Moctezuma 1993). Other
research has addressed military settlements (e.g.,
Albuquerque 1996; Gómez Romero 1999) and Jesuit
missions (e.g., Curbelo 1999; Kern 1996). Concep-
tual and methodological discussions have emerged
during the last decade that move historical archae-
ology toward more reflexive perspectives (e.g.,
Andrade Lima 1999; Fournier 1995, 1999; Funari
1999a; Pedrotta and Gómez Romero 1998; Zarankin
1999).
Very recently, an interest has developed in the
archaeology of Afro-American peoples, partially as
a result of post-processual influences. This stimulus
has added an original dimension to the archaeolog-
ical study of the historical period in Latin America.
The “invisibility” of recognized African culture in
modern South American and Caribbean populations
has been noted with increasing vigor over the last
decade. In Brazilian archaeology, the material pro-
duction of Afro-American populations had been
[Vol. 68, No. 2, 2003
practically ignored until the initiation of systematic
archaeological studies in the zone where the maroon
state of Palmares was located (Allen 1995; Funari
1999b). This research was conceived from its incep-
tion as a social archaeology and was an attempt to
obtain new evidence of slave resistance and strug-
gles for freedom. In the last decade, nautical archae-
ology (considered a branch of historical archaeology
in Latin America) has received attention as a conse-
quence of the necessity of states to monitor and pre-
serve the archaeological heritage of their marine
platforms. Some countries, such as Mexico and
Argentina, have formed well-trained archaeological
teams that belong to official institutions as a strategy
to control and reduce the activities of treasure
hunters. Explicit theoretical development is not yet
part of the current research agenda of nautical archae-
ology, which focuses on the complex methodologies,
excavation strategies, and preservation of sub-aquatic
cultural resources (e.g., Elkin 2000; Rambelli 2002).
Concluding Remarks
This paper has summarized some of the wide vari-
ety of traditions, influences, and historical trajecto-
ries in Latin American archaeology. Several common
features can be identified in the current landscape of
archaeological practice across this large region. The
most ubiquitous is the shared culture-historical back-
ground and its strong persistence within several
branches of Latin American archaeology. This
approach has been extensively modified and incor-
porates several new methods and research topics.
The second common research approach is a set of
methodologies developed and/or adjusted in
response to processual archaeology, with a great
emphasis on the North American (Binfordian) style.
Behavioral archaeology (in the sense of Schiffer
1995) is much less common. When Latin American
archaeologists study nonhuman site formation
processes, they approach them via vertebrate taphon-
omy and geoarchaeology, rather than embracing the
methodological and conceptual tenets of this trend.
I doubt that any Latin American archaeologists are
working to accumulate “a corpus of well-confirmed
laws and theories (expressed in behavioral terms) for
inferring and explaining human behavior” (Schiffer
1995:253). A pervasive characteristic of contempo-
rary archaeology in the region is the importance of
environmental variability in explaining cultural
change. This is not exclusively influenced by any
*POLITIS 3/26/03 5:14 PM Page 259
Gustavo G. Politis] ARCHAEOLOGY IN LATIN AMERICA
particular theoretical position. With few exceptions
(most prominently some post-processual
approaches), most recent research in Latin America
emphasizes the role of environmental change as a
primary stimulus significantly directing transforma-
tions of past societies.
Marxist thinking is well represented by the Latin
American social archaeology school. This is a
regional theoretical development that reacted early
against processual archaeology. Despite the initial
Spanish and other influences discussed above, this
theoretical trend has emerged independently of
Marxist archaeological approaches in Europe and
North America. On the other hand, post-processual
archaeology remains marginal in most of Latin
America. This is somewhat surprising given that sev-
eral aspects of the subject matter appeal to the inter-
ests of many archaeologists in this region. Topics
such as power and the construction and legitimiza-
tion of knowledge, or reflections on whether archae-
ology can be used in the construction of ethnic and
social identities may be especially appropriate to a
number of current research questions and political
agendas. However, some elements of post-processual
interest (e.g., the radical critique, the study of the
social and ideational dimensions of technology, the
perception and conceptualization of places, etc.) are
present within several Latin American research pro-
jects. Few Latin American archaeologists seem to
agree with the extreme relativism of some post-
processual approaches (e.g., Tilley 1991). The lack
of greater interest is partly because post-processual-
ism does not seem to offer appropriate methodolog-
ical tools in the context of a very incomplete database,
often lacking complementary written documentary
sources, which is common to most areas of Latin
America. Some recent regional trends have devel-
oped in the last decade or so. Interest in the study of
the symbolic dimensions of metallurgic and sacred
architecture, sometimes through the lens of struc-
turalism, is one of the most original. Several studies
related to political economy and ideology, especially
in Andean chiefdom societies, are also promising.
This research is innovative and is evolving somewhat
independently in the region.
Ethnoarchaeology has tremendous potential in
Latin America. Numerous indigenous societies exist
throughout the region with a variety of subsistence
practices, manufacturing activities, lifeways, and
worldviews. None of them should be considered
259
“pristine” (a false expectation about any contempo-
rary society in any case), but many still practice a
range of traditional activities of great interest to
archaeology. Currently, research has focused on
recording patterns of material discard that empha-
size economic and utilitarian aspects of human
behavior. This is clearly a legacy of ethnoarchaeol-
ogy’s processual origins. Social and ideological
aspects have been overlooked in the archaeology and
ethnoarchaeology of Latin America. For example, the
possible contributions of a variety of behaviors other
than those related to subsistence and manufacturing
in structuring the archaeological record have not
been addressed. A wealth of well-reported behaviors
in ethnographic studies of indigenous societies, such
as food taboos, the existence of sacred places, the
symbolic side of utilitarian objects, or the differences
in the material culture produced by age-cohorts, may
play significant roles in site formation and distribu-
tion of archaeological sites within regions. I believe
that Latin American ethnoarchaeology can make
substantial contributions to a world archaeology in
this direction.
Latin American archaeologists are generally less
preoccupied with explicitly theoretical issues than are
their North American (but see Hegmon this issue)
and (some) European counterparts (Dillehay 2003).
However, I do not share Bate’s (2001:XIX) simplis-
tic view that “in practice, real and everyday archae-
ology [presumably in Latin America] is still over
ninety percent particularist-historical, and, at the
most, vulgarly evolutionist. In short, antiquatedly
traditional.” As I have discussed, a great variety of
archaeological traditions in Latin America today
draw inspiration from a range of recent local and for-
eign archaeological perspectives. Although perhaps
still limited in extent compared with Western Europe
and North America, an increasing number of inno-
vative methodological and theoretical developments
can be seen within these different approaches to
archaeological research. Most of the conceptual
advances in Latin American archaeology are not
directed toward development of synthetic, high-level
theory. However, in recent decades, several method-
ologies, explanatory goals, and amalgamations of a
variety of novel approaches have been elaborated that
significantly advance many aspects of archaeologi-
cal research in Latin America.
Admittedly, the output is still somewhat limited
in extent. This is unsettling given the many active
*POLITIS 3/26/03 5:14 PM Page 260
260 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY
Latin American archaeologists and the long history
of archaeological investigations in countries such as
Mexico, Peru, and Argentina. The explanation for
this is complex. It is related to a range of historical,
scientific, economic, and sociopolitical factors in
Latin America. It has been alleged that lack of sig-
nificant trends toward development of locally
inspired archaeological theory is the absence of a
“critical mass” of researchers. This position suggests
an odd mathematical rule that particular total num-
bers of archaeologists are necessary to sustain a min-
imal threshold of theory producers. I will briefly
summarize what I believe to be the most significant
factors affecting the apparent lack of emphasis on
theory production in Latin American archaeology.
Perhaps the most important primary concern for
Latin American archaeologists is the accumulation
of essential descriptive data about the archaeologi-
cal record of this vast region. Many areas have had
no systematic archaeological survey or excavation
at all and many others are poorly known from min-
imal investigation. Even areas that have been the
focus of regional research throughout the twentieth
century, such as the Central Andes, are inadequately
known. This situation has produced an anxiety about
the adequacy of existing basic archaeological infor-
mation on which innovative methodological devel-
opment and theory production might be based.
Another obstacle to creating a regional emphasis on
explanation rather than description is the conditions
under which archaeologists have had to develop their
research. The social and political stability of both
field locations and laboratory and office environ-
ments fluctuates wildly and sometimes violently in
many Latin American countries. Many military
coups during the course of the twentieth century have
often targeted either the scientific and intellectual
community or affected its output. These political
upheavals have often resulted in dramatic retrograde
effects on many aspects of Latin American cultural
life. Frequently, such events interrupt and reduce
funding available for archaeological investigations
and create an environment of inconsistent research
and educational policy. This obviously has affected
the development of archaeological research. The sub-
ordination of academic and research institutions to
political powers has generated difficult, uncertain,
and interrupted directions for many archaeology pro-
grams in Latin America. Additionally, poor libraries
and difficulties in obtaining complete and current
[Vol. 68, No. 2, 2003
publications from colleagues in other parts of Latin
America and the rest of the world plague most
research institutions. This has frequently produced
unease that concerted effort in theory development
may unintentionally ignore significant new infor-
mation, resulting in simplistic explanations or labor
that just “reinvents the wheel.”
Although the need for basic archaeological
research in many areas of Latin America and the
political instability and economic weakness of the
region have affected methodological creativity and
theory production, these are often secondary to a
more insidious set of problems. The lack of pro-
grammatic attention to theory development and
resulting modest conceptual and methodological
design among Latin American archaeologists is par-
tially a consequence of their intellectual subordina-
tion and the lack of confidence in their own research
potential. This is a scientific and social reflection of
the political and economic dependency of Latin
American countries. Most archaeologists in Mexico
and Central and South America work within intel-
lectual and political environments determined and
maintained by the neocolonial status of their coun-
tries. The intellectual products of local scholars are
afforded a peripheral position comparable to the eco-
nomic peripheralization of the region. Latin Ameri-
can countries produce raw materials and occasionally
provide cheap labor for less-complex industrial man-
ufacturing processes through the international divi-
sion of labor. The production and appreciation of
archaeological knowledge mimics this economic sit-
uation (Politis and Perez Gollán 2004).
I stated above that Latin American archaeologists
are influenced by theories and methods developed
by intellectuals in other parts of the world. However,
the reverse process is far less noticeable, and other
than the rare exceptions (for example, the case of
Latin American social archaeology and its reper-
cussions in Spain and among a small group of U.S.
archaeologists, or the recent visibility of historical
archaeology), the concepts and models proposed by
archaeologists of the region, even though fairly lim-
ited, have not entered the theoretical debate at a world
level to any extent (among the few exceptions are
D’Altroy 1997; Dillehay 2000; Ensor 2000; Laval-
lée 1995; Ucko 1995). In short, the data (when ade-
quate) enter the international debate; the ideas,
models, concepts, and methodological development
usually remain in the country where they originated,
*POLITIS 3/26/03 5:14 PM Page 261
Gustavo G. Politis] ARCHAEOLOGY IN LATIN AMERICA
and exceptionally circulate within the region. Usu-
ally, only infrequent mention is made of such work,
and these advances in explanation remain largely
ignored in regional syntheses and topical discussions
by the majority of the archaeological community
outside of Latin America.
Theoretical and methodological developments
may be limited, but they are an active component of
archaeology in Latin America. In addition to the
examples summarized above, many purely theoret-
ical papers can be found in the Boletin de
Antropología Americana (in print for over 20 years),
several other Latin American journals, and in the
recent proceedings of the International Meetings of
South American Theoretical Archaeology
(D’Agostino Fleming 1999; Martinez and Lanata
2002). These publications include not only theoret-
ical papers, but also work addressing the relation-
ships between data and interpretive models, current
thought on a variety of research problems, and the
implications of new empirical information on the
generation of archaeological theory. Unfortunately,
these contributions are virtually invisible in the world
archaeological literature. This includes theoretical
books (e.g., Trigger 1989), general archaeological
textbooks (e.g., Renfrew and Bahn 1991), and pub-
lications on specific topics of interest in Latin Amer-
ican research (e.g., Fiedel 1992; David and Kramer
2001). Commonly, reasons given for ignoring cur-
rent Latin American archaeological developments
are that the literature is in Spanish or that it is diffi-
cult to obtain work published in Latin America.
Although this may be true, this does not excuse such
survey works from making efforts for fair inclusion
of the voices and opinions of archaeologists who live
and conduct research in the areas (both geographi-
cal and epistemological) that these supposedly global
publications cover. Articles on the Central Andes
and Mesoamerica published in Latin American
Antiquity are also good examples. The great major-
ity of these articles are written by non-Latin Amer-
ican authors and rarely discuss explanations or
models proposed by local archaeologists. This over-
sight is especially relevant because the vast major-
ity of the foreign archaeologists who conduct
research in the region do read Spanish and do have
access to the literature of local archaeologists. Cer-
tainly some of the ideas generated by local Latin
American archaeologists should be of interest to
them and their intended audiences, but too few Eng-
261
lish-speaking authors appear disposed to seriously
explore the research of their Latin American col-
leagues. They are willing to scavenge data but ignore
engaging with Latin American researchers in equal
scientific debate. This situation is not reducible to
simply an attitude of personal dissatisfaction among
Latin American researchers. This attitude appears to
be the result of a complex set of historical, political,
and economic relationships among Latin America,
the more industrialized nations of Europe, and the
United States.
Addressing this subject is always a very difficult
matter. It is too easy to characterize this situation
through simplistic dichotomies of victim and vic-
timizer or reductionist stereotypes such as the impe-
rialist gringo and the pobrecito Latin American
archaeologist. Neither of these is my intention. Such
stereotypes do not actually represent anyone or the
dynamics of the problem. Neither are most gringos
imperialists, nor (although at times they may enjoy
playing that role) are Latin American archaeologists
pobrecitos. Amenable resolution of this situation
requires significant dialogue about the roles of par-
ticipants in a global field of archaeology. I have
attempted to present a diagnosis of the situation to
understand why there is a limited theoretical and
methodological production by Latin American
archaeologists, why it has low visibility in the world
debate, and to express my concern over the lack of
effort expended by Latin American archaeologists in
pursuit of higher-level theory development.
In conclusion, I believe that significant aspects of
these issues regarding research and recognition must
be understood within the context of production and
legitimization of knowledge determined by eco-
nomic and political situations. This problem has two
faces. One aspect is the lack of a drive to achieve the-
oretical syntheses and grapple with significant
explanatory questions by Latin American archaeol-
ogists. This is a consequence of the historical, polit-
ical, and intellectual factors presented above. The
other face of this problem is the invisibility afforded
the perhaps modest but dynamic work of Latin Amer-
ican archaeologists among researchers in other coun-
tries. Obviously, changing this situation will have to
be the result of mutual efforts. There must be greater
theoretical and methodological production by Latin
American archaeologists. However, these changes
will remain invisible in the world if they are not
accompanied by a greater willingness on the part of
*POLITIS 3/26/03 5:14 PM Page 262
262 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY
foreign colleagues to take notice of developments by
Latin American scholars and incorporate this grow-
ing work into bodies of international debate. Only
such mutual changes in attitude will alter the exist-
ing inequality and place the ideas and developments
from Latin American archaeology on an equal foot-
ing in international debate.
Acknowledgments. Thanks to Russell Greaves and Benjamin
Alberti for helping me with the translation and for their com-
ments; to Guillermo Mengoni Goñalons, Tom Dillehay, José
Pérez Gollán, Luis Borrero, Gustavo Martínez, Adriana
Schmidt Dias, Pedro Funari, and Verónica Williams for their
comments and suggestions; and to Clara Scabuzzo for helping
me with the bibliography. Also, thanks to the anonymous
reviewers and to Charles Stanish for their appropriate sugges-
tions during the review process. Needless to say, any remain-
ing mistakes are my own responsibility.
References Cited
Acuto, Félix A.
1999 Paisaje y dominación: La constitución del espacio social
en el Imperio Inka. In Sed Non Satiata. Teoría Social en la
Arqueología Latinoamericana Contemporánea, edited by A.
Zarankin and F. A. Acuto, pp. 33–75. Tridente, Buenos Aires.
Aguilera, Carmen
1997 Of Royal Mantles and Blue Turquoise: The Meaning of
the Mexica Emperor’s Mantle. Latin American Antiquity
8:3–19.
Albarracin-Jordan, Juan V.
1996 Tiwanaku Settlement System: The Integration of Nested
Hierarchies in the Lower Tiwanaku Valley. Latin American
Antiquity 7:183–210.
Alberdi, María T., Laura Miotti, and José L. Prado
2001 Hippidion saldiasi Roth, 1899 (Equidae, Perisso-
dactyla), at the Piedra Museo Site (Santa Cruz, Argentina):
Its Implication for the Regional Economy and Environmental
Reconstruction. Journal of Archaeological Science
28:411–419.
Albuquerque, Marcos
1996 Asentamientos militares: una perspectiva de abordaje.
Historical Archaeology in Latin America 14:19–38.
Alconini, N. Sonia
1995 Rito, simbolismo e historia en la pirámide acopana
tiawanaku: un análisis de la cerámica ceremonial prehis-
pánica. Acción, La Paz.
Allen, Scott
1995 Africanism, Mosaics and Creativity: The Historical
Archaeology of Palmares. Unpublished M.A. thesis, Brown
University, Providence, Rhode Island.
Alva, Walter
1990 New Tomb of Royal Splendor. National Geographic
Magazine 177:2–15.
1992 El Señor de Sipán. Revista del Museo de Arqueología
3:51–64. Universidad Nacional de Trujillo, Perú.
Alva, Walter, and Christopher B. Donnan
1993 Royal Tombs of Sipán. Fowler Museum of Cultural His-
tory, University of California, Los Angeles.
Alves, Marcia A., and Myria E. V. Calleffo
1996 Sitio de Água Limpia, Monte Alto, São Paulo. Estruc-
turas de combustao, restos alimentares e padrões de subsis-
tencia. Revista do Museu de Antropología e Etnología
[Vol. 68, No. 2, 2003
6:123–140.
Amat Olazábal, Hernán
1997 Arqueología y Etnohistoria de Ollaytaytambo. In XI
Congreso Peruano del hombre y la cultura Andina “Augusto
Cardich,” Tomo 1, edited by H. Amat Olazábal and L.
Guzmán Palomino, pp. 303–337. Universidad Nacional
“Hermilio Valdizán” de Huánuco, Lima.
Andrade Lima, Tania
1999 El huevo de la serpiente: Una arqueología del capital-
ismo embrionario en el Río de Janeiro del siglo XIX. In Sed
Non Satiata. Teoría Social en la Arqueología Latinoameri-
cana Contemporánea, edited by A. Zarankin and F. A. Acuto,
pp. 189–238. Ediciones del Tridente, Buenos Aires.
Arroyo-Cabrales, Joaquín
1997 Análisis de restos de vertebrados terrestres, Machomon-
cobe 1, Huatabampo, Sonora, México. Arqueología
17:63–77.
Arroyo-Cabrales, Joaquín, and Oscar Polaco (editors)
1997 Homenaje al Profesor Ticul Alvárez. Instituto Nacional
de Arqueología e Historia. Mexico.
Arvelo, Liliam
1996 Modelo de poblamiento en el lago Maracaibo. In
Caciques, Intercambio y Poder: Interacción Regional en el
Área de las Americas, edited by Carl H. Langebaek and
Felipe Cardenas-Arroyo, pp. 75–106. Departamento de
Antropología, Universidad de los Andes, Bogotá, Colom-
bia.
Aschero, Carlos A.
1975 Ensayo para una clasificación morfológica de artefac-
tos líticos aplicada a estudios tipológicos comparativos.
CONICET, Buenos Aires.
1988 De punta a punta: producción, mantenimiento y diseño
en puntas de proyectil precerámicas de la puna Argentina.
In Precirculados de las ponencias científicas presentadas a
los simposios del IX Congreso Nacional de Arqueología
Argentina, pp. 219–229. Universidad de Buenos Aires, Fac-
ultad de Filosofía y Letras, Instituto de Ciencias Antropológ-
icas, Buenos Aires.
Assis, Valeria. S.
1995–96 Um estudo da casa mbya pela perspectiva etnoar-
queológica. Coleçao Arqueologia 1(2):519–526.
Barba, Luis
1990 El análisis químico de pisos de unidades habitacionales
para determinar sus áreas de actividad. In Etnoarqueología
Coloquio Bosch Gimpera 1988, edited by Y. Sugiura and M.
C. Serra, pp. 177–200. Instituto de Investigaciones
Antropológicas, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de Méx-
ico, México D.F.
Barba, Luis, and G. Bello
1978 Análisis de fosfatos en el piso de una casa habitada
actualmente. Nota Antropológica I, 24:188–193. Instituto de
Investigaciones Antropológicas, Universidad Nacional
Autónoma de México, México D.F.
Barba, Luis, and Agustín Ortiz
1992 Análisis químico de pisos de ocupación: un caso etno-
gráfico en Tlaxcala, México. Latin American Antiquity
3:63–82.
Bate, Luis Felipe
1977 Arqueología y materialismo histórico. Editorial de Cul-
tura Popular, México.
1978 Sociedad, formación económico social y cultura. Edi-
ciones de Cultura Popular, México.
1998 El proceso de investigación en arqueología. Editorial
Crítica, Barcelona.
2001 Teorías y métodos en arqueología. ¿Criticar o proponer?
Actas del XIII Congreso Nacional de Arqueología Argentina,
*POLITIS 3/26/03 5:14 PM Page 263
Gustavo G. Politis] ARCHAEOLOGY IN LATIN AMERICA
Tomo I, pp. 17–24. Córdoba.
Belardi, Juan B.
1999 Hay choiques en la terraza, información tafonómica y
primeras implicaciones arqueofaunísticas para Patagonia.
Arqueología 9:163–185.
Belardi, Juan B., and Julieta Gómez Otero
1998 Anatomía económica del huemul (Hippocamelus bisul-
cus): una contribución a la interpretación de las evidencias
arqueológicas de su aprovechamiento en Patagonia. Anales
del Instituto de la Patagonia 26:195–207.
Benavente, Maria A., Luis Adaro, Gecele Plinio, and Claudia
Cunazza
1993 Contribuciones a la determinación de especies ani-
males en arqueología: Familia Camelidae y Taruca del
Norte. Universidad de Chile, Santiago de Chile.
Benavides, Hugo O.
2001 Returning to the Source: Social Archaeology as Latin
American Philosophy. Latin American Antiquity
12:355–370.
Bennett, Wendell, and Junius Bird
1949 Andean Culture History. Handbook Series No. 15.
American Museum of Natural History, New York.
Bennett, Wendell, Everett F. Bleiler, and Frank H. Sommer
1948 Northwest Argentine Archaeology. Publications in
Anthropology No. 38. Yale University, New Haven.
Binford, Lewis
1980 Willow Smoke and Dogs’ Tails: Hunter Gatherer Set-
tlement Systems and Archaeological Site Formation. Amer-
ican Antiquity 45:4–20.
1981 Bones: Ancient Men and Modern Myths. Academic
Press, New York.
1983 Working at Archaeology. Academic Press, New York.
1989 Debating Archaeology. Academic Press, New York.
Bonavía, Duccio
1984 La importancia de los restos de papa y camote de época
precerámica hallados en el valle de Casma. Journal de la
Société des Américanistes 70:7–20.
1996 Los camélidos sudamericanos, una introducción a su
estudio. Serie Travaux de l’Institut Français d’Etudes
Andines, Tomo 93. IFEA-UPCH-Conservation Interna-
tional, Lima.
1999 The Domestication of Andean Camelids. In Archaeol-
ogy in Latin America, edited by G. Politis and B. Alberti, pp.
130–147. Routledge, London.
Bordes, François
1950 Principes d’une méthode d’étude des techniques de
débitage et de la typologie de Paléolithique ancien et moyen.
L’Anthropologie 54:19–34.
1961 Typologie du Paléolithique Ancien et Moyen. Delmas,
Bordeaux.
Borella, Florencia
2001 Tafonomía regional y estudios arqueofaunísticos en
Tierra del Fuego y Patagonia Meridional. Unpublished Ph.D.
dissertation, Facultad de Filosofía y Letras, Universidad de
Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Borella, Florencia, and Cristian Favier Dubois
1994–1995 Observaciones tafonómicas en la Bahía San
Sebastián, Costa Norte de Tierra del Fuego, Argentina.
Palimpsesto 4:1–8.
Bórmida, Marcelo
1960 Prolegómenos para una arqueología en la Pampa
Bonaerense. Edición Oficial de la Provincia de Buenos Aires.
Dirección de Bibliotecas, Museos y Archivo Histórico. La
Plata, Argentina.
Borrero, Luis
1988 Estudios tafonómicos en Tierra del Fuego: Su relevan-
263
cia para entender procesos de formación del registro arqueo-
lógico. In Arqueología Contemporánea Argentina. Actuali-
dad y Perspectivas, edited by H. Yacobaccio, pp. 13–32.
Editorial Búsqueda, Buenos Aires.
1989 Sites in Action: The Meaning of Guanaco Bones in
Fueguian Archaeological Sites. Archaeozoologia
III(1–2):9–24.
1990 Taphonomy of Guanaco Bones in Tierra del Fuego.
Quaternary Research 34:36–371.
1993 Artefactos y evolución. Palimpsesto 3:15–32.
2001 Regional Taphonomy: The Scales of Application to the
Archaeological Record. In Animals and Man in the Past:
Essays in Honour of Dr. A. T. Clason, edited by H. Buiten-
huis and W. Prummel, pp. 17–20. ARC-Publicatie 41,
Groningen, The Netherlands.
Borrero, Luis, and Andrés Muñoz
1999 Tafonomía en el bosque patagónico. Implicaciones para
el estudio de su explotación y uso por poblaciones humanas
de cazadores-recolectores. In Soplando en el viento... Actas
de las Terceras Jornadas de Arqueología de la Patagonia,
pp. 43–56. San Carlos de Bariloche (1996).
Borrero, Luis, and Hugo Yacobaccio
1989 Etnoarqueología de asentamientos Aché. Journal de la
Société des Américanistes LXXV:7–33.
Brezillion, Michel
1968 La Dénomination des Objects de Pierre Taillés. Galia
Préhistoire IV supl. Editions du CNRS, Paris.
Brochado, José
1984 An Ecological Model of the Spread of Pottery and Agri-
culture into Eastern South America. Unpublished Ph.D. dis-
sertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Illinois,
Urbana-Champaign.
Cardich, Augusto
1983 A propósito del 25 aniversario de Lauricocha. Revista
Andina 1(1):151–174.
Cartajena, Isabel, and Ismael Concha
1997 Una contribución a la determinación taxonómica de la
familia Camelidae en sitios formativos del Loa Medio. Estu-
dios Atacameños 14:71–84.
Carver, Martín
2002 Marriages of True Minds: Archaeology with Texts. In
Archaeology: The Widening Debate, edited by B. Cunliffe,
W. Davies, and C. Renfrew, pp. 465–496. The British Acad-
emy-Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Castillo, Luis J.
1993 Prácticas funerarias, poder e ideología en la sociedad
Moche tardía: El proyecto arqueológico San José de Moro.
Gaceta Arqueológica Andina 7(23):67–82.
Castro, Victoria, and Myriam Tarragó
1992 Los inicios de la producción de alimento en el Cono Sur
de América. Revista de Arqueología Americana 6:91–224.
Castro, Victoria, and Varinia Varela (editors)
1994 Ceremonias de tierra y agua: ritos milenarios Andinos.
Fondo de Desarrollo de la Cultura y las Artes, FONDART,
Ministerio de Educación y Fundación Andes, Santiago de
Chile.
Castro, Victoria, and Francisco Gallardo
1995–1996 El poder de los Gentiles. Arte Rupestre en el Río
Salado. Revista Chilena de Antropología 13:79–98.
Chmyz, Igor
1961–1963 Prospecções arqueológicas no Vale do Rio das
Antas, Rio Grande do Sul (Brasil). Actas Praehistorica
V/VII: 35–52. Centro Argentino de Estudios Prehistóricos,
Buenos Aires.
Choy, Emilio
1960 La Revolución Neolítica en los orígenes de la civi-
*POLITIS 3/26/03 5:14 PM Page 264
264 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY
lización Americana. In Antiguo Perú, espacio y tiempo,
edited by R. Matos Mendieta, pp. 149–197. Librería Juan
Mejía Baca, Lima.
Collins, Michael B.
1975 Lithic Technology as a Means of Processual Inference.
In Lithic Technology: Making and Using Stone Tools, edited
by E. Swanson, pp. 15–34. Mouton, Chicago.
Cremonte, Beatriz
1988–89 Técnicas alfareras tradicionales en la puna: Inti-
Cancha. Arqueología Contemporánea 2:5–29.
Cruxent, José, and Irving Rouse
1958 An Archeological Chronology of Venezuela. Social Sci-
ence Monographs 1:2–39.
Cruz, Isabel
1999 Estepas y bosques: paisajes actuales y tafonomía en el
noroeste de Santa Cruz. In Soplando en el viento... Actas de
las Terceras Jornadas de Arqueología de la Patagonia, pp.
303–317. San Carlos de Bariloche (1996).
2000 Líneas tafonómicas y ecológicas para evaluar la
explotación prehistórica de aves acuáticas en la zona
cordillerana (Provincia de Santa Cruz). In Desde el País de
los Gigantes. Perspectivas arqueológicas en Patagonia,
Tomo I, edited by F. Carballo Marina, S. Espinosa, and J. B.
Belardi, pp. 203–218. Universidad Nacional de la Patago-
nia Austral, La Plata.
Curbelo, Carmen
1999 Análisis del uso del espacio en “San Francisco de Borja
del Yi” (Depto. de Florida, Uruguay). In Sed Non Satiata.
Teoría Social en la Arqueología Latinoamericana Contem-
poránea, edited by A. Zarankin and F. Acuto, pp. 97–116.
Ediciones del Tridente, Buenos Aires.
Curet, L. Antonio
1996 Ideology, Chiefly Power, and Material Culture: An
Example from the Greater Antilles. Latin American Antiq-
uity 7:114–131.
Curet, L. Antonio, and José R. Oliver
1998 Mortuary Practices, Social Development, and Ideology
in Precolumbian Puerto Rico. Latin American Antiquity
9:217–239.
Curtoni, Rafael P.
1996 Experimentando con bipolares: Indicadores e impli-
cancias arqueológicas. Relaciones de la Sociedad Argentina
de Antropología XXI:187–214.
2000 La percepción del paisaje y la reproducción social de
la identidad en la Región Pampeana Occidental. Tapa
19:115–125.
D’Altroy, Terence N.
1997 Recent Research on the Central Andes. Journal of
Archaeological Research 5:3–73.
D’Agostino Fleming, Maria Isabel (editor)
1999 Revista do Museu de Arqueologia e Etnologia. Anais
da I Reuniao Internacional de Teoria Arqueológica na
América do Sul. Suplemento 3, Universidad de São Paulo,
São Paulo, Brasil.
David, Nicholas, and Carol Kramer
2001 Ethnoarchaeology in Action. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge.
Deboer, Warren, and Donald Lathrap
1979 The Making and Breaking of Shipibo-Conibo Ceram-
ics. In Ethnoarchaeology: Implications of Ethnography for
Archaeology, edited by C. Kramer, pp. 102–138. Columbia
University Press, New York.
Deetz, James
1977 In Small Things Forgotten: The Archaeology of Early
American Life. Garden City, New York.
[Vol. 68, No. 2, 2003
DeMarrais, Elizabeth, Luis Jaime Castillo, and Timothy Earle
1996 Ideology, Materialization and Power Strategies. Current
Anthropology 37:15–31.
Dias, Adriana S., and Sirlei Hoeltz
1997 Proposta metodológica para o estudo das indústrias líti-
cas do sul do Brasil. Revista do CEPA 21(25):21–62.
Dillehay, Tom
1990 Mapuche Ceremonial Landscape, Social Recruitment
and Resource Right. World Archaeology 22:223–241.
2000 The Settlement of the Americas: New Prehistory. Basic
Books, New York.
2003 Latin American Theories and Methods. In Contempo-
rary Theory and Method, edited by Herbert Maschner and
Christopher Chippindale, Aldine Press, in press.
Donnan, Christopher B., and Luis Jaime Castillo
1992 Finding the Tomb of a Moche Priestess. Archaeology
45(6):38–42.
Durán, Victor
1991 Estudios de perturbación por roedores del género
Ctenomys en un sitio arqueológico experimental. Revista de
Estudios Regionales 7:7–31.
Duviols, Pierre
1977 La destrucción de las religiones andinas (durante la
conquista y colonia). UNAM, México.
Elkin, Dolores
1995 Volume Density of South American Camelid Skeletal
Parts. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 5:29–37.
2000 Procesos de formación del registro arqueológico sub-
acuático: una propuesta metodológica para el sitio Swift
(Puerto Deseado, Santa Cruz). In Desde el País de los
Gigantes. Perspectivas arqueológicas en Patagonia, edited
by F. Carballo Marina, S. Espinosa, and J. B. Belardi, pp.
195–202. Universidad Nacional de la Patagonia Austral, Río
Gallegos, Argentina.
Ensor, Bradley E.
2000 Social Formations, Modo de Vida and Conflict in
Archaeology. American Antiquity 65:15–42.
Erickson, Clark
1986 Waru-Waru: una tecnología agrícola del altiplano pre-
hispánico. In Andenes y camellones en el Perú Andino. His-
toria, presente y futuro, edited by C. de la Torre and M.
Burga, pp. 59–84. CONCYTEC-Perú, Lima.
1992 Applied Archaeology and Rural Development:Archae-
ology’s Potential Contribution to the Future. Journal of the
Steward Anthropological Society 20(1–2):1–16.
Espinoza, Waldemar
1977 La destrucción del imperio de los Incas. 2nd. Ed.
Retablo de Papel Ediciones, Lima.
1988 Etnohistoria Ecuatoriana. Estudios y documentos.
Abya-Yala, Quito.
Estévez, J.
1992 Pasto Grande: Centro productivo Tiwanaku e Inka en
las sud yungas Bolivianas. Gaceta Arqueológica Andina
421:109–138.
Estrada, Emilio, and Clifford Evans
1963 Cultural Development in Ecuador. In Aboriginal Cul-
tural Development in Latin America: An Interpretative
Review, edited by B. Meggers and C. Evans, pp. 77–88.
Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collection Vol 146. Smithson-
ian Institution, Washington.
Falabella, Fernanda, M. Loreto Vargas, and R. Meléndez
1994 Differential Preservation and Recovery of Fish Remains
in Central Chile. In Fish Exploitation in the Past. Proceed-
ings of the 7th meeting of the ICAZ Fish Remains Working
Group, edited by W. Van Neer, pp. 25–35. Annales du Musée
*POLITIS 3/26/03 5:14 PM Page 265
Gustavo G. Politis] ARCHAEOLOGY IN LATIN AMERICA
Royal de l’Afrique Centrale, Sciences Zoologiques Nro.
274, Tervuren, Belgium.
Falchetti, Ana María
1999 El poder simbólico de los metales: la tumbaga y las
transformaciones metalúrgicas. Boletín de Arqueología
14(2):53–82.
2000 The Gold of Greater Zenú: Prehispanic Metallurgy in
the Caribbean Lowlands of Colombia. In Precolumbian
Gold. Technology, Style and Iconography, edited by Colin
McEwan, pp.132–151. British Museum Press, London.
Febles, J., and V. Rives (editors)
1991 Arqueología de Cuba y de otras áreas antillanas. Edi-
torial Academia, La Habana.
Fiedel, Stuart
1992 Prehistory of the Americas. 2nd. ed. Cambridge Uni-
versity Press, Cambridge.
Figuti, Levy
1992 Les sambaquis Cosipa (4200 à 1200 ans BP): études de
la subsistence chez les peuples préhistoriques de pêcheurs-
ramasseurs de bivalves de la côte centrale de l’Etat de São
Paulo (Bresil). Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Institut de
Paleontologie Humaine, Paris.
Figuti, Levy, and Daniela M. Klökler
1996 Resultados preliminares dos vestigios zooarqueológi-
cos do sambaquí Espinheiros II (Joinville, SC). Revista do
Museu de Arqueologia e Etnología 6:169–188.
Flannery, Kent
1968 Archaeological Systems Theory and Early Mesoamer-
ica. In Anthropological Archaeology in the Americas, edited
by B. Meggers, pp. 67–87. Anthropological Society of Wash-
ington, Washington, D.C.
1972 The Early Mesoamerican Village. Academic Press, New
York.
Flegenheimer, Nora, Cristina Bayón, and María Isabel González
de Bonaveri
1996 Técnica simple, comportamientos complejos: La talla
bipolar en la arqueología bonaerense. Relaciones de la
Sociedad Argentina de Antropología XX:81–110.
Fogaça, Emilio
1995 A Tradição Itaparica e as industrias líticas pré-cerâmi-
cas da Lapa do Boquete (MG-Brasil). Revista do Museu de
Arqueología e Etnología 5:145–158.
Fonseca Zamora, Óscar M.
1997 La cerámica temprana de Costa Rica en el contexto del
área histórica Chibchoide (4000–2500 a.P). Revista de
Arqueología Americana 13:41–68.
Ford, James
1962 A Quantitative Method for Deriving Cultural Chronol-
ogy. Technical Manual No. 1. Pan American Union, Wash-
ington, D.C.
Fournier, Patricia
1995 Problemática metodológica en el análisis de materiales
cerámicos históricos. Historical Archaeology in Latin Amer-
ica 15:1–12.
1999 La Arqueología Social Latinoamericana: caracteri-
zación de una posición teórica marxista. In Sed Non Sati-
ata. Teoría Social en la Arqueología Latinoamericana
Contemporánea, edited by A. Zarankin and F. Acuto, pp.
17–32. Ediciones del Tridente, Buenos Aires.
Fournier, Patricia, and F. A. Miranda-Flores
1992 Historic Site Archaeology in Mexico. Historical Archae-
ology 26:75–83.
Frias, Inés
1993 Ajuar cerámico de los Piapoco: un caso de estilo como
transmisor de información. In Contribuciones a la Arque-
ología Regional de Venezuela, edited by F. Fernández and
265
R. Gasson, pp. 107–138. Fondo Editorial Acta Científica
Venezolana, Colinas de Bello Monte.
Funari, Pedro Paulo A.
1994 South American Historical Archaeology. Latin Ameri-
can Historical Archaeology 3:1–14.
1999a Historical Archeology from a World Perspective. In
Historical Archeology: Back from the Edge, edited by P. P.
Funari, M. Hall, and S. Jones, pp. 37–66. Routledge, Lon-
don.
1999b Etnicidad, identidad y cultura material: un estudio del
cimarrón Palmares, Brasil, Siglo XVII. In Sed Non Satiata.
Teoría Social en la Arqueología Latinoamericana Contem-
poránea, edited by A. Zarankin and F. Acuto, pp. 77–96. Edi-
ciones del Tridente, Buenos Aires.
Fusco Zambetogliris, Nelsys
1995 La arqueología urbana de la Colonia del Sacramento.
Revista do Museu de Arqueología e Etnología 5:39–50.
Gallardo, Francisco, Mauricio Uriberry, and Patricia Ayala
1995 Arquitectura Inka y poder en el Pukará de Turi, Norte
de Chile. Gaceta Arqueológica Andina 24:151–171.
Gándara, Manuel, Fernando López, and Ignacio Rodríguez
1985 Arqueología y Marxismo en México. Boletín de
Antropología Americana 11:5–17.
García, Lidia C.
1988 Etnoarqueología: Manufactura de Cerámica en Alto
Sapagua. In Arqueología Contemporánea Argentina, edited
by H. Yacobaccio, pp. 33–58. Editorial Búsqueda, Buenos
Aires.
1993 Qué nos cuentan las cocinas. Etnoarqueología en Inca
Cueva. Palimpsesto 3:133–138.
García Cook, Angel, and Beatriz L. Merino Carrión
1998 Cantona: Urbe Prehispánica en el Altiplano Central de
México. Latin American Antiquity 9:191–216.
Gassón, Rafael
1997 Locational Analysis and Elites Activities in a Prehis-
panic Chiefdom of the Western Venezuelan Llanos.
Antropológica 88:3–32.
1998 Prehispanic Intensive Agriculture, Settlement Pattern
and Political Economy in the Western Venezuelan Llanos.
Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pittsburgh,
Pittsburgh.
Gero, Joan
1991 Gender Lithics: Women’s Roles in Stone Tool Produc-
tion. In Engendering Archaeology. Women in Prehistory,
edited by J. Gero and M. Conkey, pp. 163–193. Blackwell,
Oxford.
1992 Feast and Females: Gender Ideology and Political Meals
in the Andes. Norwegian Archaeological Review 25(1):15–30.
Gianotti García, Camila
2000 Monumentalidad, ceremonialismo y continuidad ritual.
Tapa 19:87–102
Gnecco, Cristóbal
1995 Praxis científica en la periferia: Notas para una histo-
ria social de la arqueología Colombiana. Revista Española
de Arqueología Americana 25:9–22.
1999 Multivocalidad histórica. Hacia una cartografía post-
colonial de la arqueología. Universidad de Los Andes,
Santafé de Bogotá.
2000 Ocupaciones tempranas de bosques tropicales de mon-
taña. Universidad del Cauca, Popayán.
Göbel, Barbara
1999 Why Herd Animals Die: Environmental Perception and
Cultural Risk Management in the Andes. In Coping with
Changing Environments—Social Dimensions of Endangered
Ecosystems in the Developing World, edited by H. Geist and
B. Lohnert, pp. 205–228. Ashgate, London.
*POLITIS 3/26/03 5:14 PM Page 266
266 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY
Gómez, Gustavo
2000 Análisis tafonómico y paleoecológico de los micro y
mesomamíferos del sitio arqueológico de Arroyo Seco 2
(Buenos Aires, Argentina) y sus comparaciones con la fauna
actual. Unpublished Ph.D disseration, Departamento de
Biología Animal 1, Facultad de Ciencias Biológicas, Uni-
versidad Complutense de Madrid.
Gómez Romero, Facundo
1999 Sobre lo arado: el pasado. Arqueología Histórica en
los alrededores del Fortín Miñana (1860–1869). Editorial
Biblos, Azul.
González, Alberto Rex
1955 Contextos culturales y cronología relativa en el área
central del N.O. Argentino. Anales de Arqueología y
Etnología 11:7–32.
1963 Cultural Development in North Western Argentina. In
Aboriginal Cultural Development in Latin America, edited
by B. J. Meggers and C. Evans, pp. 103–118. Smithsonian
Institution Miscellaneous Collection, 146, No.1, Washing-
ton D.C.
1977 Arte Precolombino de la Argentina. Introducción a su
historia cultural. Filmediciones Valero, Buenos Aires.
1992 Las placas metálicas de los Andes del Sur. Contribu-
ción al estudio de las religiones precolombinas. Verlag
Phillipp von Zabern, Mainz am Rhein.
1998 Arte Precolombino. Cultura La Aguada. Arqueología y
Diseño. Filmediciones Valero, Buenos Aires.
González, Josefina
2000 Manejo de camélidos domésticos en Aiquina (norte de
Chile, II región). In El uso de los camélidos a través del tiempo,
edited by G. Mengoni Goñalons, D. Olivera, and H. Yacobac-
cio, pp. 117–130. Ediciones del Tridente, Buenos Aires.
González Carré, Enrique
1992 Los Señoríos Chankas. INDEA, Lima.
Grebe, María Ester
1995–1996 Continuidad y cambio en las representaciones
icónicas: significado simbólico Surandino. Revista Chilena
de Antropología 13:137–153.
Guerrero Lara, Raúl
1986 Los camélidos sudamericanos y su significado para el
hombre de la Puna. Diálogo Andino 5:7–90.
Gutiérrez, María A.
2001 Bone Diagenesis and Taphonomic History of the Paso
Otero 1 Bone Bed, Pampas of Argentina. Journal of Archae-
ological Science 28:1277–1290.
Gutiérrez, María, Gustavo Martínez, Eileen Johnson, Gustavo
Politis, and William Hartwell
1997 Nuevos análisis óseos en el sitio Paso Otero 1 (Partido
de Necochea, Provincia de Buenos Aires). In Arqueología
Pampeana en la década de los ’90, edited by M. Berón and
G. Politis, pp. 213–228. Museo de Historia Natural de San
Rafael (Mendoza)-INCUAPA, San Rafael.
Haber, Alejandro
1997 La casa, el sendero y el mundo. Significados culturales
de la arqueología, la cultura material y el paisaje en la Puna
de Atacama. Estudios Atacameños 14:373–398.
Hastorf, Christine
1991 Gender, Space and Food in Prehistory. In Engendering
Archaeology: Women in Prehistory, edited by J. Gero and
M. Conkey, pp. 132–159. Blackwell, Oxford.
Heckenberger, Michael, James Peterson, and Eduardo G. Neves
1999 Village Size and Permanence in Amazonia: Two Archae-
ological Examples from Brazil. Latin American Antiquity
10:353–376.
Hodder, Ian
1982 Symbols in Action. Cambridge University Press, Cam-
bridge.
[Vol. 68, No. 2, 2003
1994 Interpretaciones en arqueología. Corrientes actuales.
Crítica, Barcelona.
2002 Archaeological Theory. In Archaeology: The Widening
Debate, edited by B. Cunliffe, W. Davies, and C. Renfrew,
pp. 77–90. The British Academy-Oxford University Press,
Oxford.
Hodder, Ian (editor)
1982 Symbolic and Structural Archaeology. Cambridge Uni-
versity Press, Cambridge.
Huertas Vallejos, Lorenzo
1995 Sechura. Identidad cultural a través de los siglos. Con-
cejo Municipal de Sechura, Lima.
Jaimes, Arturo
1998 El Vano: El Jobo Traditions in Megathere Kill Site. Cur-
rent Research in the Pleistocene 15:25–27.
Jerardino, Antonieta, Juan C. Castilla, José Miguel Ramírez, and
Nuriluz Hermosilla
1992 Early Coastal Subsistence Patterns in Central Chile: A
Systematic Study of the Marine-Invertebrate Fauna from the
Site of Curaumilla-1. Latin American Antiquity 3:43–62.
Joyce, Rosemary
1996 The Construction of Gender in Classic Maya Monu-
ments. In Gender and Archaeology, edited by R.P. Wright,
pp. 167–195. University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
1998 Performing Gender in Pre-Hispanic Central America:
Ornamentation, Representation and the Construction of the
Body. RES: Anthropological Aesthetics 33:147–166.
Kern, Arno
1996 Pesquisas Arqueológicas e Históricas nas Missiões
Jesuítico-Guaranis (1985–1995). Historical Archaeology in
Latin America 13:1–47.
Kligmann, Débora, Carmen Sesé, and Javier Barbadillo
1999 Análisis tafonómico de la fauna de microvertebrados
del Alero 12 (Puna meridional, Catamarqueña, Argentina) y
sus implicancias para el comportamiento humano. Arqueo-
logía 9:9–48.
Kohl, Philip L., and José A. Peréz Gollán
2002 Religion, Politics, and Prehistory: The Life and Writ-
ings of O. Menghin and Their Lingering Legacy for Cul-
ture-Historical Archaeology. Current Anthropology
43:561–586.
Kuznar, Lawrence A.
1995 Awatimarka: The Ethnoarchaeology of an Andean Herd-
ing Community. Harcourt Brace, Forth Worth.
Kuznar, Lawrence A. (editor)
2001 Ethnoarchaeology of Andean South America: Contri-
butions to Archaeological Method and Theory. International
Monographs in Prehistory, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Laguens, Andrés
1997/1998 Valor calórico neto final y áreas de aprovision-
amiento efectivas en el valle de Copacabana, Córdoba
(Argentina). Relaciones de la Sociedad Argentina de
Antropología XXII-XXIII:271–294.
1998 Modelización mediante programación lineal de cambio
registrado arqueológicamente. Actas y Memorias del IX Con-
greso Nacional de Arqueología Argentina. 8va. Parte.
Metodología y Ciencia en Arqueología: 57–78.
Laming-Emperaire, Annette
1967 Guia para o Estudo das Indústrias Líticas da América
do Sul. Manuais de Arqueologia 2. Centro de Ensino e
Pesquisas Arqueológicas da Universidad Federal do Paraná,
Curitiba.
Laming-Emperaire,Annette, Maria José Menezes, and Margarida
Davina Andreatta
1978 O trabalho da pedra entre os Xetá da Serra dos Doura-
dos, Estado do Paraná. Coletânea de Estudos em Home-
nagem a Annette Laming-Emperaire. Coleção Museu
*POLITIS 3/26/03 5:14 PM Page 267
Gustavo G. Politis] ARCHAEOLOGY IN LATIN AMERICA
Paulista, Série Ensaios, vol 2:19–82.
Lanata, José Luis, and Luis Borrero
1994 Riesgo y Arqueología. In Arqueología de Cazadores-
Recolectores. Límites, Casos y Aperturas, edited by J. L.
Lanata and L. Borrero, pp. 129–144. Edición Especial de
Arqueología Contemporánea, Buenos Aires.
1999 The Archaeology of Hunter-gatherers in South Amer-
ica. In Archaeology in Latin America, edited by G. Politis
and B. Alberti, pp. 76–89. Routledge, London.
Langebaek, Carl Henrik
2000 Cacicazgos, orfebrería y política prehispánica: una pers-
pectiva desde Colombia. Revista Arqueología del Área Inter-
media 2:11–46.
Lanning, E. P.
1967 Peru before the Incas. Prentice Hall Inc., Englewood
Cliffs, New Jersey.
Lavallée, Danièlle
1995 Promesse D’Amerique. La préhistoire de l’Amérique du
Sud. Hachette, Paris.
Leach, Edmund
1977 A View from the Bridge. In Archaeology and Anthro-
pology, edited by M. Spriggs, pp. 161–76. BAR Supple-
mentary Series 19, Oxford.
Litvak, Jaime
1997 Mexican Archaeology—Challenges at the End of the
Century. Society for American Archaeology Bulletin
15(4):10–11.
Llanos Vargas, Héctor
1995 Los chamanes jaguares de San Agustín: génesis de un
pensamiento mitopoético. H. Llanos Vargas, Santafé de
Bogotá.
Lleras-Peréz, Roberto
2000 The Iconography and Symbolism of Metallic Votive
Offerings in the Eastern Cordillera, Colombia. In Pre-
columbian Gold. Technology, Style and Iconography, edited
by Colin McEwan, pp. 112–131. British Museum Press,
London.
Londoño, Eduardo
1992 Guerras y fronteras: los límites territoriales del dominio
prehispánico de Tunja. Boletín Museo del Oro 32–33:3–20.
López Aguilar, Fernando
1990 Elementos para una construcción teórica en arqueo-
logía. Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia, Méx-
ico, D.F.
López Austin, Alfredo, and Leonardo López Luján
1999 El pasado indígena. Fondo de Cultura Económica, Mé-
xico.
López Castaño, Carlos
1999 Ocupaciones tempranas en las tierras bajas tropicales
del valle medio del Río Magdalena, sitio OS-YON-002,
Yondó, Antioquia. FIAN, Santafé de Bogotá.
López Luján, Leonardo
1994 The Offerings of the Templo Mayor of Tenochtitlan. Uni-
versity Press of Colorado, Niwot.
López Mazz, José M.
1999 Some Aspects of the French Influence upon Uruguayan
and Brazilian Archaeology. In Archaeology in Latin Amer-
ica, edited by G. Politis and B. Alberti, pp. 38–58. Routledge,
London.
2001 Las estructuras tumulares (cerritos) del litoral atlántico
uruguayo. Latin American Antiquity 12:231–256.
Lorandi, Ana M.
1988 Los Diaguitas y el Tawantinsuyu: una hipótesis de con-
flicto. In Proceedings 45 Congreso Internacional de Amer-
icanistas. Las Fronteras del Estado Inca, edited by T.
267
Dillehay and P. Netherly, pp. 235–259. British Archaeolog-
ical Reports (International Series 442), Oxford.
Lorandi, Ana María, María Beatriz Cremonte, and Verónica
Williams
1991 Identificación étnica de los Mitmakuna instalados en el
establecimiento Incaico Potrero-Chaquiago. In Actas del XI
Congreso Nacional de Arqueología Chilena, tomo II, edited
by H. Niemeyer, pp.195–200. Museo Nacional de Historia
Natural Sociedad Chilena de Arqueología, Santiago de Chile.
Lorenzo, José Luis, Antonio Pérez Elías, and Joaquín García
Bárcena
1976 Hacia una Arqueología Social: Reunión de Teotihuacán.
Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia, México.
Lorenzo, José Luis, and Lorena Mirambell
1986 Mamutes excavados en la Cuenca de México
(1952–1980). Cuadernos de Trabajo 32:1–151. Departa-
mento de Prehistoria, Instituto Nacional de Antropología e
Historia, México.
Lumbreras, Luis
1974 La Arqueología como ciencia social. Ediciones Histar,
Lima.
1989 Chavín de Huantar en el nacimiento de la Civilización
Andina. Ediciones INDEA, Lima.
2002 La arqueología testimonial. Gaceta Arqueológica An-
dina 26:5–12.
McGuire, Randall
1992 A Marxist Archaeology. Academic Press, New York.
McGuire, Randall, and Rodrigo Navarrete
1999 Entre motocicletas y fusiles: las arqueologías radicales
anglosajona y latinoamericana. Boletín de Antropología
Americana 34:89–110.
Manzanilla, Linda
1997 Teotihuacan. Urban Archetype, Cosmic Model. In
Emergence and Change in Early Urban Societies, edited by
L. Manzanilla, pp. 109–131. Plenum Press, London-New
York.
1999 The Emergence of Complex Urban Societies in Central
Mexico. In Archaeology in Latin America, edited by G. Poli-
tis and B. Alberti, pp. 93–129. Routledge, London.
Manzanilla, Linda, and Leonardo López Luján (editors)
1994 Historia antigua de México, vol. 3. INAH, México.
Marcos, Jorge
1988 Real Alto. La historia de un centro ceremonial Valdivia.
Corporación Editorial Nacional-Escuela Politécnica del
Litoral, Guayaquil.
Mariátegui, José Carlos
1952 Siete ensayos de interpretación de la realidad Peruana.
Biblioteca Amauta, Lima.
Martin, Fabiana, and Luis A. Borrero
1997 A Puma Lair in Southern Patagonia: Implications for
the Archaeological Record. Current Anthropology
38:453–461.
Martínez, Gustavo
1999 Tecnología, subsistencia y asentamiento en el curso
medio del Río Quequén Grande: un enfoque arqueológico.
Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Facultad de Ciencias Nat-
urales, Universidad Nacional de La Plata, La Plata.
Martínez, Gustavo, and José Luis Lanata (editors)
2002 Perspectivas integradoras entre arqueología y evolu-
ción. teoría, método y casos de aplicación. Ediciones
INCUAPA, Serie Teórica 1, Olavarria.
Massone, Mauricio
1996 Hombre temprano y paleoambiente en la Región de
Magallanes: Evaluación crítica y perspectivas. Anales del
Instituto de la Patagonia 24:81–98.
*POLITIS 3/26/03 5:14 PM Page 268
268 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY
Matos Moctezuma, Eduardo
1993 Programa de Arqueología Urbana. Antropológicas
8:34–44.
Matos Mendieta, Ramiro
1993–1995 Los Inkas de la Sierra Central del Perú. Revista
de Arqueología Americana 2:159–190.
1994 Pumpu: Centro administrativo Inca de la Puna de Junín.
Editorial Horizonte, Lima.
Mazzanti, Diana, and Carlos Quintana (editors)
2001 Cueva Tixi: Cazadores y Recolectores de las Sierras de
Tandilia Oriental. 1 Geología, Paleontología y Zooarqueo-
logía. Laboratorio de Arqueología, Facultad de
Humanidades, Universidad Nacional de Mar del Plata, Mar
del Plata.
Meggers, Betty (editor)
1992 Prehistoria Sudamericana: nuevas perspectivas. Tarax-
acum, Santiago de Chile.
Meggers, Betty, and Clifford Evans
1957 Archaeological Investigation at the mouth of the Ama-
zon. Bulletin No. 167. Bureau of American Ethnology,
Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
1969 Como interpretar el lenguaje de los tiestos. Manual para
arqueólogos. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
Meggers, Betty, and Clifford Evans (editors)
1963 Aboriginal Cultural Development in Latin America: An
Interpretative Review. Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collec-
tion Vol 140 (1). Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
Mengoni Goñalons, Guillermo
1982 Notas Zooarqueológicas I: fracturas en hueso. VII Con-
greso Nacional de Arqueología, pp. 87–91. Montevideo.
1988 El estudio de huellas en arqueofaunas: una vía para
reconstruir situaciones interactivas en contextos arque-
ológicos: aspectos teórico-metodológicos y técnicas de análi-
sis. In De Procesos, Contextos y Otros Huesos, edited by N.
Ratto and A. Haber, pp. 17–28. ICA (Sección Prehistoria)
FFyL, UBA, Buenos Aires.
1999 Cazadores de guanaco de la estepa Patagónica.
Sociedad Argentina de Antropología, Buenos Aires.
Mengoni Goñalons, Guillermo L., Daniel E. Olivera, and Hugo
D. Yacobaccio (editors)
2001 El uso de los camélidos a través del tiempo. Ediciones
del Tridente, Buenos Aires.
Miller, George
1977 An Introduction to the Ethnoarchaeology of Andean
Camelids. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of
California, Berkeley.
Miller, Tom, Jr.
1979 Stonework of the Xetá Indians of Brazil. In Lithic Use-
wear Analysis, edited by B. Hayden, pp. 401–409. Acade-
mic Press, New York.
Miotti, Laura
1998 Zooarqueología de la Meseta Central y Costa de Santa
Cruz. Museo Municipal de Historia Natural, San Rafael.
Miotti, Laura, and Mónica Salemme
1999 Biodiversity, Taxonomic Richness and Specialist-Gen-
eralist during Late Pleistocene/ Early Holocene Times in
Pampa and Patagonia (Argentina, Southern South America).
Quaternary International. The Pleistocene/Holocene Tran-
sition and Human Occupation in South America
53–54:53–68.
Miotti, Laura, Vázquez Martín, and Darío Hermo
1999 Piedra Museo, un Yamnagoo Pleistocénico de los col-
onizadores de la Meseta de Santa Cruz. In Soplando en el
viento... Actas de las Terceras Jornadas de Arqueología de
la Patagonia, pp.113–136. San Carlos de Bariloche (1996).
[Vol. 68, No. 2, 2003
Mondini, Nora M.
1995 Artiodactyl Prey Transport by Foxes in Puna Rock Shel-
ters. Current Anthropology 36:520–524.
Mondini, Nora M., and Andrés S. Muñoz
1996 El desarrollo de la tafonomía en la Arqueología
Argentina. Estado Actual y Perspectivas. Comunicación de
la II Reunión de Tafonomía y Fosilización:255–258.
Murra, John V.
1954 The Economic Organization of the Inca State. Unpub-
lished Ph.D. disseration, University of Chicago, Chicago.
1978 La organización económica del estado Inca. Siglo XXI
Editores, México.
Nami, Hugo G.
1997 Investigaciones actualísticas para discutir aspectos téc-
nicos de los cazadores-recolectores del Tardiglacial: el prob-
lema Clovis-Cueva Fell. Anales del Instituto de la Patagonia
6:151–186. Punta Arenas.
1997–1998 Arqueología experimental, talla de la piedra con-
temporánea, arte moderno y técnicas tradicionales: obser-
vaciones actualísticas para discutir estilo en tecnología lítica.
Relaciones de la Sociedad Argentina de Antropología XXII-
XXIII:363–388.
Nasti, Atilio
1991 Tafonomía de vertebrados en contextos sedimentarios
modernos de la Puna Sur: chances de enterramiento y for-
mación del registro arqueológico. Shincal 3:234–251.
2000 Modification of Vicuña Carcasses in High-Altitude
Deserts. Current Anthropology 41:279–283.
Nelson, Margaret C.
1992 The Study of Technological Organization. In Archaeo-
logical Method and Theory, vol. 3, edited by M. Schiffer,
pp. 57–100. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.
Neme, Gustavo A., and Adolfo F. Gil
2002 La explotación faunística y la frecuencia de partes
esqueletarías en el registro arqueológico del sur Mendocino.
In Entre montañas y desiertos: arqueología del sur de Men-
doza, edited by A. F. Gil and G. A. Neme, pp. 141–155.
Sociedad Argentina de Antropología, Buenos Aires.
Neves, Eduardo G.
1999a Changing Perspectives in Amazonian Archaeology. In
Archaeology in Latin America, edited by G. Politis and B.
Alberti, pp. 216–243. Routledge, London.
1999b Arquelogia. história indígena e o registro etnográfico:
exemplos do alto rio Negro. Revista do Museu de Arque-
ología e Etnología, Suplemento 3:319–330
Nielsen, Axel
El tráfico caravanero visto desde La Jara. Estudios Ata-
cameños 14:339–371.
1997–98 Tráfico de caravanas en el sur de Bolivia:observaciones
etnográficas e implicancias arqueológicas. Relaciones de la
Sociedad Argentina de Antropología XXII-XXIII:139–178.
Noelli, Francisco
1996 As hipóteses sobre o centro de origem e as rotas de
expansão dos Tupi. Revista de Antroplogia 39(2):7–53.
1998 The Tupi: Explaining Origin and Expansion in Terms
of Archaeology and Historical Linguistics. Antiquity 72
(277):648–663.
Nogueira de Queiroz, Alberico
2001 Introdução á tafonomia: vertebrados holocênicos e
bioantropologia de terreno. Paper presented at the XI Con-
gresso da Sociedade de Arqueologia Brasileira, Rio de
Janeiro, Brasil.
Núñez, Lautaro
1988 Hacia la producción de Alimentos y la Vida Sedentaria
(5000 a.C. a 900 d.C.). In Culturas de Chile: Prehistoria,
*POLITIS 3/26/03 5:14 PM Page 269
Gustavo G. Politis] ARCHAEOLOGY IN LATIN AMERICA
edited by J. Hidalgo, V. Schiappacasse, H. Niemeyer, C.
Aldunate del Solar, and I. Solimano, pp. 81–105. Editorial
Andrés Bello, Santiago.
Núñez, Lautaro, Juan Varela, Rodolfo Casamiquela,Virgilio Schi-
appacasse, Hans Niemeyer F., and Carolina Villagrán
1994 Cuenca de Tagua-Tagua en Chile: El ambiente del Pleis-
toceno y ocupaciones humanas. Revista Chilena de Histo-
ria Natural 67:503–519.
Núñez, Lautaro, Martin Grosjean, and Isabel Cartajena F.
1999 Un ecorefugio oportunístico en la puna de Atacama
durante eventos áridos del Holoceno Medio. Estudios Ata-
cameños 17:125–174.
Olivé Negrete, Julio César
1958 Estructura y dinámica en Mesoamérica. Acta
Antropológica, Epoca 2, Vol. 1, No 3. México.
Oliver, José R.
1998 El centro ceremonial de Caguana, Puerto Rico: sim-
bolismo iconográfico, cosmovisión y el poderío caciquil
taíno de Boriquén. Fundación Arqueológica, Antropológica
e Histórica de Puerto Rico, San Juan, Puerto Rico.
2000 Gold Symbolism among Caribbean Chiefdoms: Of
Feathers, Çibas, and Guanín Power among Taíno Elites. In
Precolumbian Gold. Technology, Style and Iconography,
edited by C. McEwan, pp. 196–219. British Museum Press,
London.
Olivera, Daniel
2000 Perfil etario y rendimiento económico de Lama glama.
In El uso de los camélidos a través del tiempo, edited by G.
Mengoni Goñalons, D. Olivera, and H. Yacobaccio, pp.
179–202. Ediciones del Tridente, Buenos Aires.
Olivera, Daniel,Atilio Nasti, Maria J.de Aguirre, and Alex Horsey
1991–92 Tafonomía en desierto de altura. Anales de Arqueo-
logía y Etnología 46–47:75–106.
Olivera, Daniel, and Pablo Tchilinguirian
2000 De aguas y tierras: aportes para la reactivación de cam-
pos agrícolas arqueológicos en la Puna Argentina. Relaciones
de la Sociedad Argentina de Antropología XXV:99–118.
Orquera, Luis, and Ernesto Piana
1999 La vida material y social de los Yámanas. Instituto
Fueguino de Investigaciones Científicas, Eudeba, Buenos
Aires.
2000 Composición de conchales de la costa del canal de Bea-
gle (Tierra del Fuego, República Argentina). Relaciones de
la Sociedad Argentina de Antropología XXV:249–274.
Orser, Charles
1997 A Historical Archaeology of the Modern World.
Plenum/Kluwer. New York.
Oyuela-Caycedo,Augusto,Armando Anaya, Carlos G. Elera, and
Lidio Valdez
1997 Social Archaeology in Latin America? Comments to T.
C. Patterson. American Antiquity 62:365–374.
Patterson, Thomas C.
1994 Social Archaeology in Latin America. An Appreciation.
American Antiquity 59:531–537.
Pedrotta, Victoria, and Facundo Gómez Romero
1998 Historical Archaeology: An Outlook from the Argen-
tinean Pampas. International Journal of Historical Archae-
ology 2(2):113–121.
Perera, M. A.
2000 Oro y Hambre. Guayana Siglo XVI. Antropología
histórica y ecología cultural de un malentendido 1498–1597.
Consejo de Desarrollo Científico y Humanístico, Facultad
de Ciencias Económicas y Sociales, Universidad Central de
Venezuela, Caracas, Venezuela.
Pérez Gollán, José
1981 Presencia de Vere Gordon Childe. Instituto Nacional de
269
Antropología e Historia, México.
2000 El jaguar en llamas (la religión en el antiguo Noroeste
Argentino) In Nueva Historia Argentina, edited by M. N.
Tarragó, pp. 229–256. Editorial Sudamericana, Buenos
Aires.
Pintos Blanco, Sebastián
1996 Análisis arqueozoológico del sitio Casa del Gobernador.
Historical Archaeology in Latin America 16:19–26.
Piña Chán, Román
1955 Las cultural Preclásicas en la Cuenca de México. Fondo
de Cultura Económica, México.
1963 Cultural Development in Central Mesoamerica. In Abo-
riginal Cultural Development in Latin America: An Inter-
pretative Review, edited by B. Meggers and C. Evans, pp.
17–26. Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collection Vol. 140 (1).
Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
Politis, Gustavo
1995 The Socio-politics of Archaeology in Hispanic South
America. In Theory in Archaeology. A World Perspective,
edited by P. Ucko, pp. 197–235. Routledge, London.
1996a Moving to Produce: Nukak Mobility and Settlement
Patterns in Amazonia. World Archaeology 27:492–510.
1996b Nukak. Instituto SINCHI, Santafé de Bogotá.
1998 Arqueología de la Infancia: una perspectiva etnoarque-
ológica. Trabajos de Prehistoria 55(2):5–19.
1999 Plant Exploitation among the Nukak Hunter-Gatherers
of Amazonia: Between Ecology and Ideology. In The Pre-
history of Food: Appetites for Change, edited by C. Gosden
and J. Hather, pp. 99–126. Routledge, London.
2001 On Archaeological Praxis, Gender Bias and Indigenous
Peoples in South America. Journal of Social Archaeology
1(1):90–107.
Politis, Gustavo, and Patricia Madrid
1988 Un hueso duro de roer: análisis preliminar de la
tafonomía del sitio Laguna Tres Reyes 1 (Pdo. de Adolfo
Gonzáles Chaves). In De Procesos Contextos y Otros Hue-
sos, edited by N. Ratto, and A. Haber, pp. 45–52. ICA (Sec-
ción Prehistoria), FFyL, UBA, Buenos Aires.
Politis, Gustavo, and Gustavo Martínez
1996 La cacería, el procesamiento de las presas y los tabúes
alimenticios. In Nukak, edited by G. Politis, pp. 231–280.
Instituto SINCHI, Santafé de Bogotá.
Politis, Gustavo, and José A. Pérez Gollán
2004 Latin America Archaeology: From Colonialism to Glob-
alization. Blackwell Companion for Social Archaeology,
edited by R. Preucel and L. Meskell. Blackwell, in press.
Politis, Gustavo, and Mónica Salemme
1990 Pre-Hispanic Mammal Exploitation and Hunting Strate-
gies in the Eastern Pampa Subregion of Argentina. In Hunters
of the Recent Past, edited by L. B. Davis and B. O. K. Reeves,
pp. 352–372. Unwin Hyman, London.
Politis, Gustavo, and Nicholas Saunders
2002 Archaeological Correlates of Ideological Activity: Food
Taboos and Spirit-animals in an Amazonian Hunter-gatherer
Society. In Consuming Passion and Patterns of Consump-
tion, edited by P. Miracle and N. Milner, pp. 113–130.
McDonald Institute, Cambridge.
Porrás, Pedro F.
1980 Arqueología del Ecuador. Quito, Ecuador.
Pradilla Ruedas, Helena, Germán Villate Santander, and Francisco
Ortiz Gómez
1992 Arqueología del cercado grande de los santuarios.
Boletín Museo del Oro 32–33:21–148.
Rambelli, Gilson
2002 Arqueología até debaixo d’agua. Editora Maranta, São
Paulo.
*POLITIS 3/26/03 5:14 PM Page 270
270 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY
Raedeke, Kenneth
1976 El guanaco de Magallanes, Chile. Distribución y
biología. Corporación Nacional Forestal, Chile.
Raffino, Rodolfo
1993 Inca, Arqueología, Historia y Urbanismo del Altiplano
Andino. Editorial Corregidor, Buenos Aires.
Raffino, Rodolfo, and Rubén Stehberg
1999 Tawantinsuyu. The Frontiers of the Inca Empire. In
Archaeology in Latin America, edited by G. Politis and B.
Alberti, pp. 167–181. Routledge, London.
Reichel-Dolmattoff, Gerardo
1978 Desana Animal Categories, Food Restrictions, and the
Concept of Color Energies. Journal of Latin American Lore
4:249–291.
1985 Los Kogi. Nueva Biblioteca Colombiana de Cultura.
Procultura, Bogotá.
1986 Desana. Simbolismo de los indios Tukano del Vaupés.
Procultura. Presidencia de la República, Bogotá.
1988 Orfebrería y chamanismo. Un estudio iconográfico del
Museo del Oro. Editorial Colina, Medellín.
Renfrew, Colin, and Paul Bahn
1991 Archaeology: Theories, Methods and Practice. Thames
and Hudson, London.
Rick, John
1980 Prehistoric Hunters of the High Andes. Academic Press,
New York.
Rodríguez, Jorge A.
2001 Nordeste Prehispánico. In Historia Argentina Prehis-
pánica, Tomo 2, edited by E. E. Berberian and A. E. Nielsen,
pp. 693–736. Editorial Brujas, Argentina.
Rodríguez, Alfonso, Juan Cervantes, and Patricia Fournier
1999 Las relaciones entre el centro y la periferia: el caso de
las comunidades del clásico en la región de Tula, México.
Boletín de Antropología Americana 35:73–94.
Rostworowski, María
1953 Pachacútec Inca Yupanqui. Torres Aguirre, Lima.
1978 Señoríos Indígenas de Lima y canta. Instituto de Estu-
dios Peruanos, Lima.
1988 Historia del Tahuantinsuyu. 2nd. ed. Instituto de Estu-
dios Peruanos, Lima.
Rovira, Beatriz E.
2001 Presencia de mayólicas Panameñas en el mundo colo-
nial: Algunas consideraciones acerca de su distribución y
cronología. Latin American Antiquity 12:291–303.
Rowe, John H.
1960 Cultural Unity and Diversification in Peruvian Archae-
ology. In Men and Cultures, Selected Papers, 5th Interna-
tional Congress of Anthropological and Ethnological
Sciences, edited by A. F. C. Wallace, pp. 627–631. Univer-
sity of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia.
Salemme, Mónica
1987 Paleoetnozoología del sector Bonaerense de la Región
Pampeana. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Facultad de
Ciencias Naturales, Universidad Nacional de La Plata, La
Plata.
Sanoja, Mario, and Iraida Vargas
1978 Antiguas formaciones y modos de producción Vene-
zolanos. Monte Avila Editores, Caracas.
1995 Gente de la Canoa. Economía Política de la Antigua
Sociedad Apropiadora del Noreste de Venezuela. Fondo Edi-
torial Tropykos, Caracas.
1999 Orígenes de Venezuela. Regiones geohistóricas aborí-
genes hasta 1500 d.C. Comisión Presidencial V Centenario
de Venezuela, Caracas.
Saunders, Nicholas
1998 Architecture of Symbolism: The Feline Image. In Icons
[Vol. 68, No. 2, 2003
of Power: Feline Symbolism in the Americas, edited by N.
Saunders, pp. 12–52. Routledge, London.
Schaan, Denise
2001 Into the Labyrinths of Marajoara Pottery. Status and Cul-
tural Identity in Prehistoric Amazonia. In Unknown Ama-
zon, edited by C. McEwan, C. Barreto, and E. Neves, pp.
108–133. The British Museum Press, London.
Schávelzon, Daniel
1999 Arqueología de Buenos Aires. Una ciudad en el fin del
mundo 1580–1880. Emecé Editores, Buenos Aires.
Schiavini, Adrián, M.
1993 Los lobos marinos como recuso para cazadores-recolec-
tores marinos: el caso de Tierra del Fuego. Latin American
Antiquity 4:346–366.
Schiffer, Michael Brian
1995 Behavioral Archaeology: First Principles. University of
Utah Press, Salt Lake City.
Shepard, Anna
1956 Ceramics for the Archaeologist. Carnegie Institution of
Washington, Washington, D.C.
Silva, Fabíola A.
2000 As Tecnologías e Seus Significados. Um Estudo da
Cerâmica dos Asuriní do Xingu e da Cesteria dos Kayapó-
Xikrin sob uma Perspectiva Etnoarqueológica. Unpublished
Ph.D. dissertation, Departamento de Antropólogia, Facul-
tad de Ciencias Humanas, Universidad de São Paulo, São
Paulo.
Silveira, Mario
1995 Análisis de Restos Faunísticos en Sitios Históricos de
la Ciudad de Buenos Aires. Historical Archaeology in Latin
America 7:43–56.
Simonetti, Javier A., and Luis E. Cornejo
1991 Archaeological Evidence of Rodent Consumption in
Central Chile. Latin American Antiquity 2:92–96.
Stehberg, Rubén
1995 Instalaciones incaicas en el norte y centro semiárido
de Chile. Colección Antropológica III, Centro de Investiga-
ciones Diego Barros Arana, Santiago de Chile.
Steward, Julian
1946–1950 The Handbook of South American Indians. 6 Vols.
Bureau of American Ethnology, Washington, D.C.
Tabío Ernesto, and Estrella Rey
1966 Prehistoria de Cuba. Academia de Ciencias de Cuba,
La Habana.
Taddei, Antonio
1964 Un yacimiento precerámico en el Uruguay. Bassler
Archiv 12:317–372.
Tilley, Christopher
1991 The Art of Ambiguity: Material Culture and Text. Rout-
ledge, London.
Tochetto, Fernanda
1996 Possibilidade de interpretação do conteúdo simbólico
da arte gráfica Guaraní. Revista do Museu de Arqueología e
Etnología 6:33–45.
Tomka, Steve
1992 Vicuñas and Llamas: Parallels in Behavioral Ecology
and Implications for the Domestication of Andean Camelids.
Human Ecology 20:407–433.
Torrence, Robin.
1983 Time Budgeting and Hunter-Gatherer Technology. In
Hunter-Gatherer Economy in Prehistory: A European Per-
spective, edited by G. Bailey, pp. 11–22. Cambridge Uni-
versity Press, Cambridge.
Trigger, Bruce
1989 A History of Archaeological Thought. Cambridge Uni-
versity Press, Cambridge.
*POLITIS 3/26/03 5:14 PM Page 271
Gustavo G. Politis] ARCHAEOLOGY IN LATIN AMERICA
Uceda, Santiago, Ricardo Morales, R. Canziani and M. Montoya
1994 Investigaciones sobre la arquitectura y relieves polícro-
mos en la Huaca de la Luna, valle de Moche. In Moche: Pro-
puestas y perspectivas, Travaux de l’Institut Français
d’Etudes Andines 79, edited by S. Uceda and E. Mujica, pp.
251–303. Lima.
Uceda, Santiago, and Elías Mujica (editors)
1994 Moche: Propuestas y perspectivas. Travaux de l’Insti-
tut Français d’Etudes Andines 79. Lima.
Uceda, Santiago, Elías Mujica, and Ricardo Morales (editors)
1995 Investigaciones en la Huaca de la Luna. Universidad
Nacional de Trujillo, Perú.
Ucko, Peter (editor)
1995 Theory in Archaeology. A World Perspective. Routledge,
London.
Valadez Azúa, Raúl, Blanca Paredes Gudiño, and Bernardo
Rodríguez Galicia
1999 Entierros de perros descubiertos en la antigua ciudad
de Tula. Latin American Antiquity 10:180–200.
Valcárcel, Luis E.
1959 Etnohistoria del Perú Antiguo. Historia del Perú Inca.
Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos, Lima.
Vargas, Iraida
1990 Arqueología, Ciencia y Sociedad. Editorial Abre Brecha,
Caracas.
Vargas, Iraida, and Mario Sanoja
1999 Archaeology as a Social Science. In Archaeology in
Latin America, edited by G. Politis and B. Alberti, pp. 59–75.
Routledge, London.
Vargas, Iraida, Mario Sanoja, M. Montilla, and G. Alvarado
1998 Arqueología de Caracas II: Arqueología de San Pablo.
Sitio arqueológico Teatro Municipal. Biblioteca de la Acad-
emia Nacional de la Historia de Venezuela. Serie Estudios,
Monografías y Ensayos 178, Caracas.
Varón Gabai, Rafael, and Javier Flores Espinoza (editors)
1997 Arqueología, Antropología e Historia en los Andes.
Homenaje a María Rostworowski. Instituto de Estudios Peru-
anos, Perú.
Vazquéz León, Luis
1996 El Leviatán Arqueológico: Antropología de una Tradi-
ción Científica en México. Research School CNWS, Leiden,
The Netherlands.
Vázquez Sánchez, Víctor, Teresa Rosales Than, and Luis Coro-
nado Tello
2001 Evidencias arqueológicas de crianza de camélidos en
los siglos V y VI en la Costa Norte de Perú. In El uso de los
camélidos a través del tiempo, edited by G. Mengoni
Goñalons, D. Olivera, and H. Yacobaccio, pp. 241–260. Edi-
ciones del Tridente, Buenos Aires.
Velandia, César
1994 San Agustín: Arte, Estructura y Arqueología. Modelo
para una Semiótica de la Iconografía Precolombina. Banco
Popular-Universidad de Tolima, Bogotá.
1999 The Archaeological Culture of San Agustín: Towards A
New Interpretation. In Archaeology in Latin America, edited
by G. G. Politis and B. Alberti, pp. 185–215. Routledge, Lon-
don.
Veloz Maggiolo, Marcio
1992 Notas sobre la Zaima en la prehistoria del Caribe. Revista
de Antropología Americana 6:125–140.
Veloz Maggiolo, Marcio, and E. Ortega
1992 La Fundación de la Villa de Santo Domingo. Comisión
Dominicana Permanente para le Celebración del Quinto
Centenario del Descubrimiento y Evangelización de
América, serie Historia de la Ciudad 1, Colección Quinto
Centenario, Santo Domingo.
271
Wachtel, Nathan
1976 Los vencidos. Los indios del Perú frente a la conquista
española (1530–1570). Alianza Editorial, Madrid.
1990 Le retour des ancêtres. Les indiensurus de Bolivie, XXe-
XVIe siècle. Essai d’histoire régressive. Gallimard, Paris.
Wheeler Pires-Ferreira, Jane, Edgardo Pires-Ferreira, and Peter
Kaulicke
1976 Preceramic Animal Utilization in the Central Peruvian
Andes. Uchcumachay Cave Faunal Remains Document the
Process of Camelid Domestication in the Puna of Junín. Sci-
ence 194:483–490.
Willey, Gordon
1958 Estimated Correlations and Dating of South and Cen-
tral American Culture Sequences. American Antiquity
23:353–378.
1966 An Introduction to American Archaeology, vol. 1. Pren-
tice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.
1971 An Introduction to American Archeology, vol. 2. Pren-
tice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.
Williams, Eduardo
1994 Organización del espacio doméstico y producción
cerámica en Huáncito, Michaoacan. In Contribuciones a la
arqueología y etnohistoria del Occidente de México, edited
by E. Williams, pp. 189–225. El Colegio de Michoacán,
Morelia.
1999 The Ethnoarchaeology of Salt Production at Lake
Cuitzeo, Michoacán, Mexico. Latin American Antiquity
10:400–414.
Williams, Eduardo, and Philip C. Weigand (editors)
2001 Estudios cerámicos en el occidente y norte de México.
El Colegio de Michoacán and Instituto Michoacano de Cul-
tura. Morelia.
Williams, Verónica
1995 Arqueología Incaica en la región centro-oeste de Cata-
marca (República Argentina). Unpublished Ph.D. disserta-
tion, Facultad de Ciencias Naturales y Museo, Universidad
Nacional de La Plata.
Wing, Elizabeth S.
1972 Appendix IV. Utilization of Animal Resources in the
Peruvian Andes. In Excavations at Kotosh, Peru. A Report
on the Third and Fourth Expeditions, edited by I. Shimada
and K. Terada, pp. 327–351. Tokyo University, Tokyo.
Wüst, Irmhild
1975 A Cerâmica Carajá de Arauanã. Anuario de Divulgação
Científica II(2) 2:95–168.
1981–82 Observaçoes sobre a tecnologia cerâmica Karajá de
Aruaná. Arquivos do Museu de História Natural VI-
VII:311–322.
1998 Continuities and Discontinuities:Archaeology and Eth-
noarchaeology in the Heart of the Eastern Bororo Territory,
Mato Grosso, Brazil. Antiquity 72:663–675.
Wüst, Irmhild, and Cristiana Barreto
1999 The Ring Village of Central Brazil: A Challenge for
Amazonian Archaeology. Latin American Antiquity 10:3–23.
Yacobaccio, Hugo
1995 El aporte de la Etnoarqueología al conocimiento del re-
gistro arqueológico pastoril andino. Actas del XIII Congreso
Nacional de Arqueología Chilena, Hombre y Desierto 9
(1):309–316. Antofagasta, Chile.
Yacobaccio, Hugo, and Celina Madero
1994 Etnoarquelogía de pastores Surandinos: una herramienta
para conocer el registro arqueológico. Jornadas de Arque-
ología e Interdisciplinas: 203–236. CONICET-Programa de
Estudios Prehistóricos, Buenos Aires.
Yacobaccio, Hugo D., Dolores C. Elkin, and Daniel Olivera
1994 ¿El fin de las Sociedades Cazadoras? El proceso de
*POLITIS 3/26/03 5:14 PM Page 272
272 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY
Domesticación Animal el los Andés Centro Sur. In Arque-
ología de Cazadores-Recolectores. Limites, Casos y Aper-
turas, edited by J. L. Lanata and L. A. Borrero, pp. 23–32.
Arqueología Contemporánea 5, Buenos Aires.
Yacobaccio, Hugo, Celina Madero, and Marcela Malmierca
1998 Etnoarqueología de Pastores Surandinos. Grupo Zooar-
queología de Camélidos, Buenos Aires.
Yacobaccio, Hugo D., Celina M. Madero, Marcela Malmierca,
and Maria del Carmen Reigadas
1997–98 Caza, domesticación y pastoreo de camélidos en La
Puna Argentina. Relaciones de la Sociedad Argentina de
Antropología XXII-XXIII:389–418.
Zarankin, Andrés
1999 Casa tomada, sistema, poder y vivienda doméstica. In
Sed Non Satiata, Teoría Social en Arqueología Lati-
noamericana Contemporánea, edited by A. Zarankin and F.
Acuto, pp. 239–272. Ediciones del Tridente, Buenos Aires.
[Vol. 68, No. 2, 2003]
Zeidler, James.
1984 Social Space in Valdivia Society: Community Pattern-
ing and Domestic Structure at Real Alto, 3,000–2,000 B.C.
Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Illinois,
Urbana.
Zucchi, Alberta
1991 Las migraciones Maipures: diversas líneas de eviden-
cia para la interpretación arqueológica. América Negra
1:113–138.
1993 Datos recientes para un modelo sobre la expansión de
los Grupos Maipures del Norte. América Negra 6:131–148.
Received August 27, 2002; Revised December 13, 2002;
Accepted December 17, 2002.