Metadata of the chapter that will be visualized online Chapter Title
Marxian Arch rchaeologies Develo elopment: Peruvian ian, Lati atin Americ rican, an, and Social ial Archaeology Perspectives
Copyright Year
2013
Copyright Ho Holder lder
Spring inger Sci Scien encce+B e+Busin siness ess Med Mediia Ne New Yo York
Corr Corres espo pond ndin ing g Auth Author or
Fami Family ly Name Name
Tantaleán
Particle Given Name
Henry
Suffix
Comp. by: Prabu Stage: Proof Chapter No.: 1022 Date:29/5/13 Date:29 /5/13 Time:06: Time:06:31:44 31:44 Page Number: 1
Division/Department
French Institute of Andean Studies
Orga Organi niza zati tion on/U /Uni niv versi ersity ty
Supe Superi rio or Nati Natio onal nal Univ Univer ersi sity ty of San San Mar Marco coss
City
Lima
Country
Peru
Email
[email protected]
Title Name: EGA
Comp. by: Prabu Stage: Proof Chapter No.: 1022 Date:29/5/13 Date:29 /5/13 Time:06: Time:06:31:44 31:44 Page Number: 1
1
2 3 4 5
6 7 8
9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
Title Name: EGA
M
Marxian Archaeologies Development: Peruvian, Latin American, and Social Archaeology Perspectives Henry Tantalea´n French Institute of Andean Studies, Superior National University of San Marcos, Lima, Peru
Introduction Marxist archaeological approaches are now considered important in the history of world archaeolog ol ogic ical al th thou ough ghtt (H (Hod odde derr & Hu Huts tson on 2003 2003;; Trigger 2006 2006;; Preucel & Meskell 2007 2007). ). Such approaches have significantly impacted archaeological theories since their early exposition in the twentieth twent ieth centur century. y. Marxis Marxistt archaeo archaeologie logiess have been employed in many different national contexts tex ts in Lat Latin in Ame Americ ricaa and hav havee par partic ticula ularly rly influen infl uenced ced the dif differ ferent ent lev levels els and str struct uctura urall forms of archaeology in those countries. Additionally, though no less importantly, its practice in the contempor contemporary ary wor world ld is sig signifi nifican cant, t, as it proposes an objective knowledge of the past – in the sense that it originated from the study of social materiality – but, at the same time, it differs fe rs fr from om ot othe herr th theo eore reti tica call te tend nden enci cies es by suggesting a critique of this world with the aim of creatively transforming it. The entire development of Marxist archaeologies cannot be comprehensively covered in an entry of this length, and as such we recommend
the following texts to the reader: McGuire ( 1992 1992,, 2008 20 08), ), Var Varga gass an and d Sa Sano noja ja ( 1999 1999), ), Pat Patter terson son (2003 2003,, 2007 2007), ), Nav Navar arre rete te (2006 2006), ), an and d Tr Trig igge ger r (2006 2006). ). Rather, in this entry, we will focus our attention on a set of Marxist archaeologies from Western Europe Europe and the Americas Americas.. In particular, particular, we will assess three traditions from these regions which have resulted from the direct inspiration of the writings of Karl Marx and Fred Frederick erick Engels: Marxi Mar xist st ar arch chaeo aeolo logy gy in th thee Un Unit ited ed St Stat ates es of America, Amer ica, Marx Marxist ist arc archaeo haeolog logy y in Spa Spain, in, and Latin American Social Archaeology. Our aim is to present a succinct but meaningful pan panora orama ma of the arch archaeo aeolog logica icall tra tradit dition ionss closest to the classical Marxists and which have had implications for research about the past and for archaeology in theory and practice (also refer to Patter Patterson son 2003 2003). ). Fur Furthe ther, r, we arg argue ue tha thatt for many of the Marxist archaeologists discussed in this entry, the work of prehistorian Vere Gordon Childe has been of great importance, in particular his pub public licati ations ons sub subseq sequen uentt to 193 1936 6 (Tr (Trigg igger er 1984;; Politis 1999 1984 1999:: 6). There The re are als also o oth other er imp import ortant ant Marx Marxist ist arc archaehaeologies, olog ies, less well known in Engli English sh and Spani Spanish sh archaeo arch aeolog logica icall lit literat erature ure,, suc such h as the Mar Marxis xistt archaeological traditions developed in the USSR and China (Trigger (Trigger 2006 2006); ); how howeve ever, r, the there re are problems in accessing such research due to language barri barriers. ers. Inter Interestin estingly, gly, both persp perspectives ectives may be viewed as dogmatic approaches due to the official policies of those countries. As such, even if this research was more accessible, we can assume that these projects would not have had
C. Smith (ed.), Encyclopedia of Global Archaeology , DOI 10.1007/978-1-4419-0465-2, # Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013
32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65
Comp. by: Prabu Stage: Proof Chapter No.: 1022 Date:29/5/13 Date:29 /5/13 Time:06: Time:06:31:44 31:44 Page Number: 2
M 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74
75
76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110
Title Name: EGA
2 Marxian Archaeologies Development: Peruvian, Peruvian, Latin American, and Social Archaeology Perspectives
a si sign gnifi ifican cantt im impa pact ct in Eur Europ opee an and d Am Ameri erica ca (although see the Cuban case in Dacal & Watters 2005). 2005 ). So, even though the labels we use turn out to be reductionist, as they do not encompass the different nuances of the Marxist theoretical position, they do assist us to see the main tendencies present in America and Western Europe, which remained interrelated due to the sharing of texts, ideas, and communal aspirations.
Key Issues/Current Debates Marxist Archaeology in the United States of America Archaeology in the USA is located within the anthro ant hropol polog ogical ical tra tradit dition ion and as suc such h is oft often en located within anthropology departments at education cat ional al ins instit tituti utions ons.. It can be arg argued ued tha thatt the dev de vel elop opme men nt of Marx Ma rxis istt arch ar chae aeo olo logi gica call approaches has been marginalized in the USA, and as a result, their development in the twentieth century was quite late. Indeed, rather than groups or schools of thought, the USA has seen such approaches practiced by isolated individuals (in many cases self-taught). Hakken and Lessinger (1987 1987:: 4-5) indicate that the absence of Marxist development in North American anthropology is because bec ause “in the Uni United ted Sta States tes the int interac eractio tion n betw be twee een n an in into tole lera rant nt li libe bera rall po poli liti tics cs an and d a deeply rooted anti- communism in great part preven pre vented ted thi thiss fro from m hap happen pening ing.” .” For Mau Mauric ricee Bloch (1987 (1987), ), the late inclusion of Marxism into North Nor th Amer American ican academic academic cir circles cles can als also o be explained by the enduring evolutionary thinking of Lew Lewis is H. Mo Morg rgan an.. Mo Morg rgan an’s ’s emp empha hasi siss on social soc ial cha change nge as bei being ng tech technol nologi ogicall cally y dri driven ven was influential in non-Marxist neo-evolutionary thought in the USA after 1940s, particularly in the work of Leslie White and Julian Steward. In this way, among the first groups of anthropologists to approach Marxism in the 1940s were members memb ers of the soso-call called ed Mun Mundia diall Uph Upheava eavall Soci So ciet ety y wh whic ich h in incl clud uded ed in indi divi vidu duals als su such ch as Morton Fried, Elman Service, Eric Wolf, Robert Manners, Manner s, Daniel McCall, Sidn Sidney ey Mintz, Stanley Diamond, Rufus Mathewson, and John V. Murra. Alth Al thou ough gh man many y of th these ese pr pract actit itio ione ners rs la late ter r
abandoned abandon ed Marx Marxist ist app approa roache chess and mov moved ed to form for m par partt of the emerging emerging New or Pro Process cessual ual Archaeol Arch aeology ogy,, whi which ch fro from m the 196 1960s 0s wou would ld be the most important archaeological theory in the USA.. Desp USA Despite ite this mov movee away from Mar Marxis xism, m, one can still perceive in their writings the influence of Marxist thinking in their research. Another early Marxist influence in the USA can be observed, for example, in the book Outlines of Anthropol Anthropology ogy, by Melville Jacobs and Bernhar Bern hard d Ste Stern, rn, pub publis lished hed in 194 1947. 7. How However ever,, this th is an and d ot othe herr pr prima imary ry at atte temp mpts ts to de deve velo lop p a Marxist archaeology in the USA would be radically cut short in 1950 by the commencement of the persecution of party members and communist symp sy mpat athi hize zers rs by th thee Co Comm mmit itte teee of An Anti ti-American Activities led by Senator John McCarthy.. Thi thy Thiss per persec secuti ution, on, in whi which ch many int intell ellect ectual ualss with wit h lef leftis tistt ide ideas as fou found nd the themse mselves lves inv involv olved, ed, forced some teachers to abandon their academic posts (McGuire 1992 1992:: 39). With Wit h thi thiss int intens ensee rep repres ressio sion, n, res resear earch ch and archaeological interpretations that were explicitly Marxist were removed from North American anthropolo anthr opological gical thought and isol isolated ated from the theoretical theor etical and metho methodolog dological ical develo developments pments that th at wer weree oc occu curr rrin ing g pr prin inci cipa pall lly y in Eu Euro rope. pe. In this anti-Marxist environment, many archaeologists avoided quoting the writings of Marx or Engels; Eng els; ins instea tead, d, the they y ref referen erenced ced the wor works ks of Lewis Morgan which, as we know, had already been taken account of by Engels at the time and now were found more acceptable. Interestingly, the 1950s was a decade when neo-evolutionism began to emerge in the hands of researchers like Leslie White and Julian Steward. Despite this, in the 1960s, with the appearance of man many y dif differ ferent ent pol politi itical cal mov movemen ements, ts, esp espeecially those critical of the Vietnam War, racism, and the for formati mation on of the femi feminis nistt mov movemen ement, t, ther th eree wa wass a re resu surg rgen ence ce of Mar Marxi xist st th thou ough ght. t. Anthro Ant hropol pology ogy was not far fro from m the these se mov movemen ements, ts, and already by 1971, at the meetings of the New York Americ American an Anthr Anthropol opological ogical Assoc Association iation,, symposia sympo sia with explicitly explicitly Marxi Marxist st topics began to appear (Lewis 2009 2009:: 215). In the same way, in 1972, Dell Hymes published an anthology of texts, Reinventing Anthropology, in which many
111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158
Comp. by: Prabu Stage: Proof Chapter No.: 1022 Date:29/5/13 Date:29 /5/13 Time:06: Time:06:31:44 31:44 Page Number: 3
Title Name: EGA
Marxian Marxia n Archaeologies Archaeologies Development: Development: Peruvian, Peruvian, Latin American, and Social Archaeology Archaeology Perspectives Perspectives 3
159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205
M
entries shared a critical spirit inspired by MarxAnother researcher to be noted here is Randall ism, is m, as was also also se seen en in the fo foun undi ding ng of the McGu McGuire, ire, cur curren rently tly a lect lecture urerr at Bin Bingha ghamto mton n journal Dialectical Anthropology. University, the State University of New York, In this new atmosphere, which was more open who primar primarily ily inves investigate tigatess pre-Hi pre-Hispanic spanic societ societies ies and tolerant of Marxist discourse, some archae- in the southeast of the United States and Mexico. ologists we werre able to dev eveelop Mar arx xist As a result of his research, McGuire has been appr ap proa oach ches es.. In sp spit itee of th this is,, it al also so ha hass to be exposed to Marxist theoretical developments in mentioned menti oned that there existed archaeo archaeologis logists ts who Latin America and in the Iberian Peninsula and, used theories and concepts clearly derived from in fact fact,, has mai maintai ntained ned a dyn dynami amicc int interc erchan hange ge Marxism but who carried out their research with- with archaeology research groups such as those out declaring the original source of their ideas of the Universitat Auto` noma of Barcelona and (Spriggs 1984 1984:: 7). For example, example, Matthew Matthew Sprig Spriggs gs stud students ents of Latin America. As well as his impor impor-(1984 1984:: 2) discerned up to seven Marxist views of tan tantt syn synthe thesis sis of wor world ld Mar Marxis xistt arc archae haeolo ology gy mater mat erial ialis ism m us used ed by so some me No Nort rth h Am Ameri erican can (McGuire 1992 1992), ), his 2008 book, Archaeol Archaeology ogy as archaeologists. marks ks a mi mile lest ston onee in No Nort rth h Political Action, mar All of the afo aforeme rementi ntione oned d his histor tory y make makess it Amer American ican Marx Marxist ist arc archaeo haeolog logy, y, mak making ing cle clear ar clear that in this political scene, Marxist theoret- the political commitment that should be involved ical positions were undermined by the self-same in its praxis. State and interfered with its sustained developFor his part, Phillip Kohl carried out archaeoment. In truth, what can be noted is that the few logical research, especially in Asia, and develarchaeologists following Marxist approaches had op oped ed hi hiss int nter erpr pret etat atio ions ns fro rom m a Ma Marx rxiist to do so in a form that was not organic and in perspective (Kohl 1987 1987). ). Also important are his many cases autodidactic. critique of the “use and abuse” in archaeology of An ex examp ample le co coul uld d be th thee cas casee of Th Thom omas as the “theory of the world system” of Immanuel Patter Pat terson son who who,, whi while le con conduc ductin ting g fiel fieldwo dwork rk in Wallerstein and his critical analysis of the relaPeru in the beginning of the 1960s, met Peruvian tion tionship ship betwee between n natio nationalis nalism m and archaeo archaeology logy Marxist Marxi st archae archaeologi ologists. sts. This contac contact, t, toget together her (Kohl & Fawcett 1995 1995). ). with wit h the und underst erstand anding ing of the eco econom nomic ic and pol polititAlso deserving of mention is Glenn Perusek, ical Peruvian milieux, milieux, and Marxist readings saw who ali aligne gned d him himsel selff wit with h the “materi “materiali alism sm of him dev develo elop p a Marx Marxist ist per perspec spectiv tivee (McG (McGuir uiree Marx” (Perusek 1994 1994:: 193) as a counterpart to 1992:: 74). Patterson is one of the most developed the different materialisms existing in our time. 1992 North American archaeologists in the historical Amo Among ng the these se mat materia erialis lisms, ms, we fin find d the infl influen uentia tiall materi mat eriali alist st per perspe specti ctive ve as reg regard ardss imp import ortant ant (in North America) structuralist Marxism and the themes in Central Andean archaeology, develop- diverse strands of neo-Marxism, which borrow ing, above all, an explanation based on the dia- only some Marxist elements. Perusek analyzed lectic lec tic bet between ween the soc social ial cla classe ssess ori origin ginatin ating g the so-called factional competition which has its ther th ere. e. Li Like kewis wise, e, in th thee la last st fe few w ye years ars,, he ha hass Marxist correlation in class struggle as the engine taken it upon himself to spread the presence of of change in societies (for a broader treatment of Marrxi Ma xist st th thiink nkin ing g in glo loba ball ar arch chae aeo olo logy gy thi thiss que questi stion, on, con consul sultt the edi edited ted ant anthol hology ogy by (Patterson 2003 2003,, 2009 2009). ). One of Patterson’s col- Brumfiel & Fox [1994 [ 1994]). ]). laborators is Christine Gailey who, in turn, was As can be seen through these representative a st stud uden entt of St Stan anley ley Di Diamo amond nd.. Ba Base sed d on he her r cases, Marxist archaeology still prevails in the resear res earch ch on the Ton Tongan gan isl island andss of Pol Polyne ynesia sia USA, and the first generations of Marxist archae(Gailey 1987 1987), ), she focused her research on the ologists of the 1960s and 1970s have now been hidden hid den exp exploi loitat tation ion of men ove overr wom women en and joined by younger researchers who continue to thee wa th way ys su such ch a “g “gen end der hi hier erar arch chy” y” wa wass develop and promote this perspective (McGuire a platform for the formation of the State. 2008:: 85), proposing different topics and places 2008
206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252
Comp. by: Prabu Stage: Proof Chapter No.: 1022 Date:29/5/13 Date:29 /5/13 Time:06: Time:06:31:44 31:44 Page Number: 4
M 253 254
255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299
Title Name: EGA
4 Marxian Archaeologies Development: Peruvian, Peruvian, Latin American, and Social Archaeology Perspectives
to res resear earch, ch, alw always ays loo lookin king g to Lati Latin n Ame America rica and and,, above all, to Europe where Marxism began.
Marxist Archaeology in Spain From 1960, as occurred in other Western European countries, Spain saw renovation and growth in the discipline of archaeology, although it was not until 1975 that historical materialism would be adm admitt itted ed int into o acad academi emia. a. Thi Thiss was the cas casee because of Franco Franco’s ’s dictat dictatorshi orship p (193 (1939–197 9–1975) 5) during which time a traditional school of archaeology olo gy was mai mainta ntaine ined d and “ro “routi utine ne res researc earch h rather than technological innovation, epistemologica log icall ana analys lysis is and cre creati ative ve met method hodolo ology” gy” (Va´ zquez & Risch 1991 1991:: 25) was the order of the day. It is also worth noting that the development of Marxist archaeological approaches in the 1980s was closer in Spain to the discipline of history (and hence archaeology was focused on prehistory) than to the social disciplines such as anthropology, whose frameworks and discussions had less influence on archaeology. On the other hand, Spain’s Spain ’s close prox proximity imity to France facilitated facilitated the introduction of theory and methodology to the country, particularly within Paleolithic archaeology and fine fine-gr -graine ained d exc excava avatio tion n tech techniq niques ues.. Likewise, German archaeological research projects in Spain also exerted an influence, principally methodological, on the training of many of its archaeologists; such an influence can be seen in large-scale excavations, the gathering of large collections collect ions of archaeo archaeologic logical al objec objects, ts, detail detailed ed recording record ing of sites and artifa artifacts, cts, the devel development opment of typologies, and quantitative analysis. In this way, it was not until the beginning of the 1980s that new interpretation interpretationss appear appeared ed in Span Sp anis ish h ar arch chae aeol olog ogy. y. Th Thes esee de deve velo lope ped d as a consequence of the changed political climate, given the left’s return to power. Thus, in 1983, Vicen Vi cente te Lu Lull ll pu publ blis ished hed hi hiss do docto ctoral ral th thes esis is,, defe de fend nded ed in 19 1980 80,, ab abou outt th thee so soci ciet ety y of “El Argar”” (225 Argar (2250–150 0–1500 0 BCE) in which a materi materialist alist historical perspective was used for the first time in an explicit way (Va´ zquez & Risch 1991 1991:: 32). As can be expected, such a publication was not free from the criticisms of the established academics, who were still very conservative.
In the same vein, an important space for the discussion of Marxist perspectives was opened in Barcelo Barc elona’ na’ss 198 1986 6 Con Congre greso so de Arq Arqueo ueolog logıı´a Teo´ rica (Congress of Theoretical Archaeology) in which the majority of the papers centered on the use of Marxism in archaeology. During those years, year s, the ori origin ginal al Barc Barcelo elona na Mar Marxis xistt gro group up was formally constituted, and its appearance in the aca cad dem emiic arena at the Coloquio de Arqueologı´a de Soria (1981) (Seminar of Sorian Archaeology) confirmed the materialist historical course cou rse tha thatt wou would ld be fol follow lowed ed lat later. er. Equ Equall ally, y, in th thee sa same me de deca cade, de, th they ey car carri ried ed ou outt th thee fir first st field investigations that had materialist theoreticall fra ca rame mewo work rks, s, in wh whic ich h the hey y in incl clud uded ed colleagues from other nationalities and theoretical positions, who would later take their theoretical substance from Marxism, as in the case of Robert Chapman (2003 (2003). ). In this way, the Marxist archaeological group of Barcelona is a significant source of theoretical and met method hodolo ologic gical al pro produc ductio tion n for Mar Marxis xistt archaeology, as much in Spain as elsewhere. Its publications included many areas relating to prehist hi stor ory y an and d ha have ve be been en us used ed as re refer feren ence cess in different diffe rent academic spaces. In this sense, Vicente Lull, the lead investigator of this group, acknowledged from the first that dialectic has to exist between bet ween the theory ory and mat materi erial al evi eviden dence, ce, in thi thiss case that of archaeology. In this way, Lull distanced himself from the many mechanistic Marxist discussions that had gone on previously. During the 1990s, with his team, he developed a series of theories and social explanations from archaeological investigations based on historical materialism. In almost all of these the se pub public licati ations ons,, one of the mai main n obj object ective ivess was to ma make ke cl clear ear th that at so soci ciet ety y co comes mes ab abou outt through thro ugh praxi praxis, s, dist distancin ancing g thems themselves elves comple completely tely from abstract and normative classifications that had beco become me pop popula ularr in mech mechani anisti sticc Mar Marxis xistt studies. Lull and his associates went on to develop quite an active practice, holding conferences in different parts of Spain, Europe, and America as well as bringing to light the synthesis of theories about the origins of the State, written conjointly with Rafael Mico´ (Lull & Mico´ 2007 2007)) and a long
300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347
Comp. by: Prabu Stage: Proof Chapter No.: 1022 Date:29/5/13 Date:29 /5/13 Time:06: Time:06:31:44 31:44 Page Number: 5
Title Name: EGA
Marxian Marxia n Archaeologies Archaeologies Development: Development: Peruvian, Peruvian, Latin American, and Social Archaeology Archaeology Perspectives Perspectives 5
348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395
essay by Lull (2007 ( 2007)) on his method of viewing archaeological objects from a historical materialist perspective. It should also be mentioned that at the same PrePr e-hi hist stor ory y De Depa part rtme ment nt at th thee Ba Barc rcel elon onaa Univers Uni versita itatt Aut Auto o` no noma ma wa wass an anot othe herr Ma Marx rxis istt group led by Jordi Este´ vez and Asumcio´ Vila. This research group complemented the point of view of the Iberian Peninsula Peninsula Pre-h Pre-histo istory ry Unit with a focus on studying pre-classist societies, specifically from the Paleolithic to ethnographic hunters and gatherers. Furthermore, this group carried out archaeological investigations in America, particularly in Tierra del Fuego, closely allied with their Argentine colleagues (Este´ vez & Vila 1999 1999). ). A similar collab col labora oratio tion n with Per Peruvi uvian an col colleag leagues ues was undertaken by the team led by Pedro Castro-Martı´nez, which focused their studies on the southern coast of Peru´, car carryi rying ng out various various dig digss the there, re, with results that were beginning to be published in America and Europ Europe. e. Finally, we also wish to mention that the Prehistory hist ory Depart Department ment of Barcelo Barcelona’s na’s Unive Universitat rsitat Auto` noma initiated and promoted a Marxist feminist ini st app approa roach, ch, par particu ticular larly ly by Mar Marıı´a Enc Encarn arnaa Sanahu San ahuja ja (wh (who o has rece recentl ntly y pas passed sed away away)) tha thatt has influenced other European and Latin American Marxists as in the case of the Venezuelan Iraida Vargas. Apar Ap artt fr from om th thee Ba Barc rcel elon onaa gr grou oup, p, an anot othe her r Marxist group arose in the Humanities Faculty of Jae´n University, the principal representatives being Arturo Ruiz and Manuel Molinos. Important ta nt st stud udie iess in th this is re rega gard rd in incl clud udee th thos osee by Fran Fr ancis cisco co No Nocet cetee (1988 1988)) abo about ut pre pre-Hi -Histo storic ric State formation in Guadalquivir and his scathing criticism criti cism of the socio sociopoli political tical leadership category; also the studies of Oswaldo Arteaga and his Seville team as well as Jose´ Ramos and associates in Ca´diz deserve a mentio mention n here. As a con conseq sequen uence ce of the structur structuree of the these se Marxi Mar xist st ar arch chaeo aeolo logi gical cal gr grou oups ps in so sout uthe hern rn Spai Sp ain, n, on onee of th thee se semi minal nal pu publ blic icati ation ons, s, th thee Revista Atla´ntica-Mediterra´nea de Prehistoria y Arqueologı´a ´a Social (RAMPAS) (the AtlanticMedit Med iter erra ranea nean n Jou Journ rnal al of Pr Pree-hi hist stori oricc and Social Archaeology), has echoed their point of
M
view and, of course, has an international following in which Latin American archaeologists have featured feat ured,, giv given en tha thatt the gro group up fro from m sou southe thern rn Spain has been quite influential theoretically in Latin American Social Archaeology, especially thro th roug ugh h th thee wo work rk of Lu Luis is Fe Feli lipe pe Ba Bate te wh who o obtained his doctorate from Seville University.
Latin American Social Archaeology (ASL) After gaining independence at the beginning of the twent twentieth ieth centur century, y, parti particular cularly ly from Spain, thee ma th majo jori rity ty of La Lati tin n Am Amer eric ican an co coun untr trie iess followed socioeconomic and sociopolitical processes which soug sought ht to gener generate ate ident identificati ification on with their precolonial, precolonial, or criol criollo, lo, legacy. Such identities originated in the colonial era and from the higher classes who, once political independence den ce was ach achiev ieved, ed, even eventua tually lly lead the new nations and re-created their history. In thi thiss str streng engthe thenin ning g pro process cess,, the they y tri tried ed to form for m nat nation ional al ide identi ntitie tiess by see seekin king g ou outt the their ir ancestors, which later gave rise to the nationalisms that were established through archaeological stu studie diess (Ko (Kohl hl & Faw Fawcett cett 1995 1995). ). However However,, scient sci entific ific arc archae haeolo ology gy as suc such h did not ari arise se in these the se cou countr ntries ies unt until il the lat latter ter dec decades ades of the ninete nin eteenth enth cen centur tury y (Po (Polit litis is 1999 1999:: 19 1988-19 199) 9) although, altho ugh, paradoxically, paradoxically, they were init initiated iated by foreign forei gn inves investigat tigators, ors, prin principall cipally y from Wester Western n Euro Eu rope pe an and d th thee Un Unit ited ed St Stat ates es.. Wi With th th thes esee resear res earcher chers, s, cul cultur tural al evo evolut lution ionist ist the theory ory was inco in corp rpor orat ated ed in into to th thee in inte terp rpre reta tati tion on of pr preeHispanic societies. In addition, the influence of the USA became more noticeable at the start of the twentieth century, as its political power and economic interests grew. In the years when diffusionism and cultural histor his torici icism sm wer weree acq acquir uiring ing imp import ortanc ancee in the USA, countries such as Peru and Mexico were deve de velo lopi ping ng a so soci cial al an and d po poli liti tical cal mo movem vemen entt called “Indigenismo” “Indigenismo” (Indi (Indigenis genism) m) which was particularly influential in the 1920s. Indigenism, which began as a social vindication movement, later transformed into a type of nationalism that sought to strengthen the structure of the State by way of re-crea re-creating ting the pre-H pre-Hispani ispanicc past (Inca and Aztec, respectively) at the same time with thee ob th obje ject ctiv ivee of re reje ject ctin ing g co colo loni niali alism sm,, ev even en
396 397 398 399 400 401 402
403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442
Comp. by: Prabu Stage: Proof Chapter No.: 1022 Date:29/5/13 Date:29 /5/13 Time:06: Time:06:31:45 31:45 Page Number: 6
M 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490
Title Name: EGA
6 Marxian Archaeologies Development: Peruvian, Peruvian, Latin American, and Social Archaeology Perspectives
though the though there re wer weree dif differ ferent ent exp express ression ionss and int intererests in each country. Duri Du ring ng th thee tw twen enti tiet eth h ce cent ntur ury, y, eac each h Lat Latin in American country had a particular political trajectory, including a form that moved from leftist governments to elite US-patronized administrations to rightist military dictatorships. In this way, owing to political situations in which power was taken by military dictatorships with nationalistic policies (e.g., in Peru at the end of the 196 1960s) 0s),, left leftist ist par partie tiess (e. (e.g., g., in Mex Mexico ico), ), communist governments, as in Cuba following their 1959 Revolution, or a mix of military dictatorship and left-wing parties (as in Venezuela), a Marxist archaeology was able to establish itself and develop. In the case of Cuba, after its successful revoluti lu tion on,, an and d wi with th co comm mmun unis istt po poli licy cy al alre read ady y installed, it was not long before Marxism was a fundamental part of archaeological interpretation. In this process, Cuban archaeologist Ernesto Tabı´o published his Prehistoria de Cuba (1966) ( Prehistory of Cuba), a bo book ok th thro roug ugh h wh whic ich h Cuban archaeology was introduced to the soviet arch ar chaeo aeolo logi gical cal fr frame amewo work rk of an anal alys ysis is an and d throug thr ough h whi which ch many Lati Latin n Amer America ican n stu studen dents ts assimilated this version of historical materialism (Navarrete 2006 2006:: 24). It is interesting to note here that before the Cuban Revolution, Ernesto Tabı´o had carried out important archaeological investigations on the central coast of Peru. The usual interpretation interpretationss by archaeo archaeologis logists ts foreign to Latin American countries (and their local loc al stu studen dents ts and fol follow lowers ers)) were cou counte ntered red later, in 1974, with works such as Arqueologı´a ´a como Ciencia Social ( Archaeology as a Social Science) by the Peruvian archaeologist Luis G. Lumbreras and Antiguas Formaciones y Modos de Produccio´ n Venezolanos ( Ancient Formations Formation s and Ven Venez ezuel uelan an Met Method hodss of Pr Produ oduct ctio ion n) by Mario Sanoja and Iraida Vargas. As a consequence of these initial proposals, a series of meetings were held which invigorated the development development of the so-called Arqueologı Arqueologı´a Soci So cial al La Lati tino noam amer eric ican anaa (L (Lat atin in Am Amer eric ican an Social Archaeology). The first of these, driven by Lumbreras, occurred at the symposium entitled tle d “Fo “Forma rmacio ciones nes abo aborı rı´ge gen nes en Am Amee´rica”
(Aboriginal Formations in America) which was included in the XXXIX Congreso Internacional de Americanistas (39th International Congress of Americanists) celebrated in Lima in 1970. Later in Mexico, there was the Reunio´ n de Teotih Teotihuaca uaca´n (Meeting of Teotihuaca´ n) in 1975, organized by Jose´ Luis Lorenzo. At each of these gatherings, they the y tri tried ed to est establ ablish ish general general lin lines es of acti action on according to the perspective of historical materialism, which each of the participants went on to develop in their respective countries. After these early attempts, and dissatisfied with the previous work group, they formed the so-cal so-called led Grupo de Oaxtepe Oax tepecc (Oax (Oaxtep tepec ec Gro Group) up) in 198 1983, 3, amon among g them th em Lu Luis is G. Lu Lumb mbre rera ras, s, Ma Manu nuel el Ga´ ndara, Mario Sanoja, Marcio Veloz, Iraida Vargas, and Felipe Bate. For Peru´, Lui Luiss Gui Guille llermo rmo Lumbreras Lumbreras is the principal representative of this school of thought and has lef leftt us val valuab uable le ins insigh ights ts int into o pre pre-Hi -Hispa spanic nic societies, which he endorsed through his empirical research in various zones of the Andes, for example exam ple,, the Cha Chavı vı´n de Hua´nta ntarr sit sitee (se (seee the Lumbreras entry in this encyclopedia). Although his works have not been free from criticism, it is undoub und oubted tedly ly his fiel fieldwo dwork, rk, ext extens ensive ive bib biblio lio-graphic production, his panoramic view of social processes, and his political stance that have notably influenced archaeology in Peru and in other parts of the world. In the 1980s, Lumbreras, together with other researchers, was part of the Instituto Andino de Estudios Arqueolo´ gicos (INDEA) (Andean Institute of Archaeological Studies) which provided a space for the practice and reflection of archaeolog ol ogy y fr from om th thee Ma Marx rxis ism m po poin intt of vi view. ew. Fo For r various reasons, a solid group of Marxist archaeologists was never formed, which is made obvious by the few pub public licatio ations ns in thi thiss lin line. e. One explanation for this, in part, is that in the 1990s, during dur ing the gov govern ernmen mentt of Alb Alberto erto Fuj Fujimo imori, ri, int intololerance and persecution of left-wing thought in general made it impossible to explain and practice a Marxist-inspired archaeology. In the case of Mexico, following the foundations laid by Jose´ Luis Lorenzo and other intellect le ctua uals ls wh who o em emig igra rate ted d fr from om Sp Spai ain n du duee to Franco’s Franco ’s dictatorship, dictatorship, the work of Luis Felipe
491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538
Comp. by: Prabu Stage: Proof Chapter No.: 1022 Date:29/5/13 Date:29 /5/13 Time:06: Time:06:31:45 31:45 Page Number: 7
Title Name: EGA
Marxian Marxia n Archaeologies Archaeologies Development: Development: Peruvian, Peruvian, Latin American, and Social Archaeology Archaeology Perspectives Perspectives 7
539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583
Bate should be noted here. After his exile from Chile, as a consequence of the Pinochet dictatorship, Bate took it upon himself to form a nucleus of Ma Marx rxis istt ar arch chaeo aeolo logi gist stss wi with th th thee Es Escu cuel elaa Nacional Nacion al de Antro Antropolog pologıı´a e Hi Hist stor oria ia (E (ENA NAH) H) (National School of Anthropology and History) within which Manuel Ga´ ndara stands out, generating an important and meaningful production of archaeology which has impacted Latin America and Spa Spain in in par partic ticula ularr (se (seee Bat Batee 1998 1998). ). Likewi Likewise, se, than th anks ks to th thee pa part rtici icipa pati tion on of Lu Luis is Fe Feli lipe pe Ba Bate te an and d asso as soci ciate atess in th thee pu publ blic icati ation on of Boletı´n de Antropologı´a ´a Americana ( Bulletin of American Anthropology), an academic space was enabled for the diffusion and discussion of themes that were mostly related to Marxism. In ord order er not to ove overwh rwhelm elm the rea reader der with more individual cases, we simply wish to demonstrate that Latin American Social Archaeology still sti ll pre prevai vails, ls, pri princi ncipal pally ly in suc such h cou countr ntries ies as Mexico Mex ico,, Ven Venezue ezuela, la, and Per Peru, u, alt althou hough gh it has begun to form an autocratic viewpoint relative to its founders, though always keeping the same link between theory and praxis as its founders instituted (see Tantalea´ n & Aguilar 2012 2012). ). Likewise, in Chile, there has been a resurgence of this type of archaeology, which had been persecuted and practically disappeared from academic and political circles during the military government of Augusto Pinochet (1973–1990). After Aft er Pin Pinoch ochet’ et’ss dic dictat tators orship hip,, thi thiss kin kind d of archaeo arc haeolog logy y beg began an to acce accept pt Marx Marxism ism in bot both h its theoretical and political implications. Studies in th this is li line ne in incl clud udee th thos osee of Pa Patr tric icio io Nu´ n˜ ez, Mauric Mau ricio io Uri Uribe, be, Fra Franci ncisco sco Gal Gallar lardo, do, and new generations of young archaeologists such as Benjamı´n Bal Balles leste ter, r, Ja Jair iro o Se Sepu pu´lv lved eda, a, Al Alex ex Sa San n Francisco, and Miguel Fuentes. Thiss res Thi resurg urgenc encee of Mar Marxis xistt arc archae haeolo ology gy in Chile makes it clear that Marxism has always had an important political position in this country and tha thatt its lef left-w t-wing ing int intell ellectu ectuals als hav havee been clos cl osely ely li link nked ed wi with th th thee Pe Peru ruvi vian ans, s, de desp spit itee attempts to impose nationalisms and the political persecution of the left, particularly in the south.
M
Future Directions Final Remarks As we have been able to briefly outline, Marxist archaeology has had a presence in archaeological thought throughout the twentieth century, with signifi sig nificant cant influence influence in the first deca decade de of the twenty-first century. Further, as we have demonstrated, the historical substratum, the academic training, and the academic and political context in which Marxist archaeologists practiced were dominated by other ways of doing archaeology, e.g., e.g ., his histor torical ical-cu -cultu ltural ral and neo neo-ev -evolu olutio tionar nary y approaches. For this reason, reason, des despit pitee tak taking ing on muc much h of historical histo rical materia materialism, lism, some Marxis Marxistt archaeo archaeolologists unconsciously reproduced assumptions and epistemologies they believed they had overcome. Furthermor Furt hermore, e, natio national nal contexts and, above all, official policies slowed down or halted their natural development. The intricate and diverse political and academic trajectories of the twentieth century can, at least in part, explain the often contradictory history of Marxism in archaeology. While Marxist archaeological approaches are not dominant, they have influenced the world of archaeological thought. Marxist archaeology has also found ways to generate discussions and contributions which have transcended national borders and maintained a dynamic dialogue between colleagues. colleag ues. Thus, despite the fact that Marxi Marxist st archaeo arch aeolog logies ies are not always wel welll rec receive eived d by the dis discip ciplin line, e, the they y hav havee bee been n wel welll con connect nected ed with other forms and approaches of pract practicing icing archaeology. As Patterson (2003 ( 2003)) would say, many archaeologists have had conversations with the “Ghost” of Mar Marx. x. Ar Arch chaeo aeolo logy gy ha has, s, th there erefo fore re,, be been en enrich enr iched ed by the these se oft often en una unackn cknowl owledg edged ed and uncons unc onscio cious us con conver versati sation ons. s. We ant antici icipate pate an ongoing ongo ing develo development pment of Marxis Marxistt archaeo archaeology, logy, based on its fluent dialogues among archaeologists from diverse countries and regions of the world and with non-Marxist non-Marxist archaeo archaeologis logists ts as well. We also think that Marxist archaeologies need to keep some some distance distance from dogmatisms dogmatisms and rhetorics that often limit their creativity, in order
584
585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 609 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 625 626 627 628 629
Comp. by: Prabu Stage: Proof Chapter No.: 1022 Date:29/5/13 Date:29 /5/13 Time:06: Time:06:31:46 31:46 Page Number: 8
M 630 631
632
633 634 635 636 637 638 639
640
641 642 643 644 645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 654 655 656 657 658 659 660 661 662 663 664 665 666 667 668 669 670 671 672 673
Title Name: EGA
8 Marxian Archaeologies Development: Peruvian, Peruvian, Latin American, and Social Archaeology Perspectives
to dev develo elop p ob object jective ive and soc social ially ly mean meaning ingful ful methodologies and historical data.
Cross-References ▶ Archaeology
and Politics ▶ Childe, Vere Gordon (Political and Social Archaeology) ▶ Childe, Vere Gordon (Theory) ▶ Lumbreras, Luis Guillermo ▶ Marx, Karl ▶ Patterson, Thomas Carl
References proces ceso o de inv invest estiga igacio cio´ n en BATE, L. L.F. F. 19 1998 98.. El pro arqueologı´a ´a. Barcelona: Crı´tica. Marxism ism and anthr anthropol opology ogy. Oxfo BLOCH, M. 1987. 1987. Marx Oxford: rd: Oxford University Press. BRUMFIEL, E. & J. F OX. (ed.) 1994. Factional competition and political development in the New World . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Archaeologiess of complexity . London: CHAPMAN, R. 2003. Archaeologie Routledge. DACAL, R . & D . WATTERS. 200 2005. 5. Thr Three ee sta stages ges in thehisto thehistory ry of Cuban archaeology, in L. Curet, A. Shannon, L. Dialogues gues in Cuban Dawd Da wdy y & G. La Rosa (ed.) (ed.) Dialo archaeology: 29-40 29-40.. Tusc Tuscaloo aloosa: sa: The University University of Alabama Press. ESTE´ VEZ, J. & A. V ILA. (coord.). 1999. Encuentros en los conchales fueguinos . Bellaterra Bellaterra:: UAB-C.S.I UAB-C.S.I.C. .C. GAILEY, C. 1987. Kinship to kingship. Gender hierarchy and state formation formation in the Tonga Tongan n Islan Islands ds. Aust Austin: in: University of Texas Press. HAKKEN, D. & H. L ESSINGER. 1987. Perspectives in U.S. Marxist anthropology. Boulder: Westview Press. HODDER, I. & S. H UTSON. 2003. Reading the past. Current approaches to interpretation in archaeology , 3rd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. KOHL, P. 198 1987. 7. Theuse an and d abu abuse se of wor world ld sys syste tems ms the theory ory:: thee ca th case se of th thee ‘p ‘pri rist stin ine’ e’ We West st As Asia ian n st stat ate” e”,, in M. Schiffer (ed.) Advances in archaeological method and theory: 1-35. San Diego: Academic Press. KOHL, P. & C. F AWCETT. (ed.) 1995. Nationalism, politics, and the practice of archaeology . Camb Cambridg ridge: e: Cambridge University Press. LEWIS, H. 2009. The radical transformation of anthropology history seen through the annual meetings of the
American Anthropological Association, 1955–2005. Histories of Anthropology Annual 5: 200-228. ´a LULL, V. 2007. Los objetos distinguidos. La arqueologı´a como excusa. Barcelona: Bellaterra Bellaterra.. ´a del origen del LULL, V. & R. M ICO´ . 2007. Arqueologı´a estado. Las teorı´as ´as. Barcelona: Bellaterra Bellaterra.. MCGUIRE, R. 1992. A Marxist archaeology . San Diego: Academic Press. - 200 2008. 8. Ma Marxi rxism, sm, in A. Bentley, Bentley, H. Mas Maschn chner er & C. Chippindale (ed.) Handbook of archaeological theories : 73-93. Lanham: Altamira Press. arqu queo eolo logı gı´a so soci cial al NAVARRETTE, R. 2006. La ar latinoamericana: latinoamerica na: Una meta, mu´ltiples perspectivas. Caracas: Coordinacio´ n de Ext Extens ensio io´n de la FaCES FaCES,, Universidad Central de Venezuela Venezuela.. coercio´ n: n: la transicio´ n NOCETE, F. 1988. El espacio de la coercio´ al Esta Estado do en las campi campin n˜as ˜as del Alto Guadalquivir Guadalquivir (Espan˜ a), 3000-150 3000-1500 0 a.C. a.C . Oxford: British Archaeological Reports. Marx’ss ghost ghost.. Conv Conversat ersations ions with PATTERSON, T. 2003. Marx’ archaeologists. Oxford: Berg. - 2007. Social archaeology and Marxist social thought, in L. Meskell & R. Preucel (ed.) A companion of social archaeology: 66-81. Malden: Blackwell. - 2009. Karl Marx. Anthropologist . Oxford: Berg. PERUSEK, G. 1994. Factional Factional comp competit etition ion and histo historica ricall materialism, in E. Brumfiel & J. Fox (ed.) Factional comp co mpet etit itio ion n an and d po poli liti tica call de deve velo lopm pmen entt in th thee New World : 191-198. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. POLITIS, G. 1999. Introduction. Latin American archaeology: an inside view, in G. Politis & B. Alberti (ed.) Archaeology in Latin America: 11-13 13.. Lo Lond ndon on:: Routledge. PREUCEL, R . & L . M ESKELL. 200 2007. 7. Kno Knowl wledg edges, es, in L. Meskell Mesk ell & R. Preucel (ed.) A companion of social archaeology: 3-22. Malden: Blackwell. SPRIGGS, M. (ed.) 1984. Marxist perspectives in archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ´a TANTALEA´ N, H. & M. A GUILAR. (ed.) 2012. La Arqueologı´a social soci al lati latinoame noamerican ricana. a. De la teorı´a ´ a a la pr prax axis is. Bogota´ : CESO. Universidad de los Andes. TRIGGER, B. 19 1984 84.. Ch Chil ilde de an and d So Sovi viet et ar arch chae aeol olog ogy. y. Australian Archaeology 18: 1-16. history ory of archa archaeolo eologica gicall thou thought ght , 2nd edn. - 200 2006. 6. A hist Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. VARGAS, I. & M. S ANOJA. 1999. Archaeology as a social science: its expression in Latin America, in G. Politis Archaeolo eology gy in Lati Latin n Amer America ica: & B. Alb Albert ertii (ed (ed.) .) Archa 57-73. London: Routledge. VA´ ZQUEZ, J. & R. R ISCH. 1991. Theory in Spanish archaeology since 1960, in I. Hodder (ed.) Archaeological theory in Europe. The last three decades : 25-51. London: Routledge.
674 675 676 677 678 679 680 681 682 683 684 685 686 687 688 689 690 691 692 693 694 695 696 697 698 699 700 701 702 703 704 705 706 707 708 709 710 711 712 713 714 715 716 717 718 719 720 721 722 723 724 725 726 727
