Returning to the Source: Social Archaeology as Latin American Philosophy

O. Hugo Benavides

Latin American Antiquity, Vol. 12, No. 4. (Dec., 2001), pp. 355-370.

Stable URL:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=1045-6635%28200112%2912%3A4%3C355%3ARTTSSA%3E2.0.CO%3B2-C

Latin American Antiquity is currently published by Society for American Archaeology.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/about/terms.html. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained
prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in
the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/journals/sam.html.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.

The JSTOR Archive is a trusted digital repository providing for long-term preservation and access to leading academic
journals and scholarly literature from around the world. The Archive is supported by libraries, scholarly societies, publishers,
and foundations. It is an initiative of JSTOR, a not-for-profit organization with a mission to help the scholarly community take
advantage of advances in technology. For more information regarding JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

http://www.jstor.org
Tue Oct 30 13:46:13 2007
 RETURNING TO THE SOURCE:

SOCIAL ARCHAEOLOGY AS LATIN AMERICAN PHILOSOPHY

0. Hugo Benavides

The following article proposes reconsidering the social archaeology paradigm as a worthwhile school of thought within Latin
American philosophy. Rather than critiquing social archaeology for its supposed methodological limitations, I argue that this
Latin American approach has already had an enormous contribution to the anthropological and political thought of the region.
Instead of assuming that archaeology is a neutral enterprise, social archaeologists and others influenced by their ideas have
already carried out important interdisciplinary and socially relevant research in the historical understanding of the past. Archae-
ological sites such as those of Cochasquiand Agua Blanca (among others) in Ecuador have benejitted signijicantly from a more
refined political analysis of their histories than those routinely carried out in the positivistic paradigm of the United States.
Finally, social archaeology also points to a much needed and useful link between the committed assessment of the continent's
past with the varied and important political transformation essential for the future well being of Latin America's people.

El siguiente articulo propone una seria discusidn sobre la imporatancia y relevancia de la propuesta de la arqueologia como cien-
cia social. De esta manera, esta particular escuela Latino Americana no tiene nada que envidiar a las corrientes positivistas del
norte. A1 contrario, la arqueologia como ciencia social ha desarrollado un amplio esquema de trabajo que va mucho mas alla de
lo merarnente arqueoldgico, o de lo que se podria dejinir como antropoldgico dentro de un plano acadimico. Esta contribucidn,
una de las caracteristicas mas positivas de la corriente, es su clara incorporacidn del quehacerpolitico como una realidad esen-
cia1 del estudio y analisis histdriio de nuestras propias naciones. Las investigaciones arqueoldgicas y antropoldgicas realizadas
en sitios como Cochasqui, Agua Blanca, y Real Alto en Ecuador proponen una manera diferente de entender el pasado y de la
contribucidn de este a nuestra realidad contempora'nea. En vez de simplemente recuperar el pasado, estas investigaciones bus-
can entender cual es el signijicado de este pasado y como este pasado en si mismo toma un lugar tan hegemdnico y esencial en
el desarrollo nacional de nuestros estados. De esta manera es tambiin importante destacar que las limitaciones tecnicas o (ma1
entendidas) metodologicas no deberian ser vistas como un problema sino como una clara priorizacidn de preguntas de fondo
sobre el destino histdrico del continente m's que de un simple interes de quedarnos en discusiones cronoldgicas, tipoldgicas o
merarnente descriptivas. Por eso discute que es mas que factible el proponer el largo alcance de la arquelogia como ciencia social
como un desarrollo paradigmatico en colaboracion con la tradicional antropologia coprometida yjilosofia anti-imperialists del
continente. Las contribuciones de la arqueologia como ciencia social (cornobien lo intuian sus iniciales progenitores) ha escapado
el ambito arqueoldgico y esta claramente enmarcaada con la lucha por profundos y necesarios cambios sociales en nuestras
sociedad neo-coloniales: luchas en las que la historia es de una importancia fundamental.

T
he question of domination is a prevalent issue
in Latin American culture, both in popular
culture (e.g., Flores 1997; Garcia Canclini
1982; Rowe and Schelling 1991;Yudice et al. 1992)
or in that reified within the social sciences, human-
ities, and other academic disciplines (e.g., Burgos-
Debray 1985; Dorfman 1998; Joseph and Nugent
1994; Viezzer 1977; Wolf 1969). Latin American
thinkers and artists have engaged political and cul-
tural domination from varied social perspectives
(e.g., Fanon 1963,1965,1967; Freire 1992; Guevara
1966; Kincaid 1997; Mariitegui 1955; Marti
1977[1891]; Ribeiro 1971). In one way or another
the colonial experiencethat lasted for a couple of cen-
turies under the control of Iberian and other Euro-
pean powers created a particular way of looking not

0. Hugo Benavides 8 Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Fordham University, 441 East Fordham Road, Bronx, NY
10458-9993

Latin American Antiquity, 12(4), 2001, pp. 355-370

Copyright0 2001 by the Society for American Archaeology

356 LATIN AMERICAN ANTIQUITY
only at the world, but, more importantly, at oneself
within Latin America and the global order. Even after
the initial liberation of the Latin American republics
at the beginning of the nineteenth century, domina-
tion was an essential characteristic that colored all
indigenous political and cultural projects (Zea 1971;
see also Arguedas 1989a, 1989b; Garcia Mkquez
1971; Rod6 1922[1900]). In this article I would like
to examine some of these thinkers under a post-
colonial light, particularly those that are significantly
recognized as creating a new form of anthropologi-
cal thought known as social archeology, or "Arque-
ologia como ciencia social" (see Lumbreras 1981).
It became clear in the early Latin American
republics that the essential question of what Latin
America was, and what Latin Americans were as a
people, was far from having an obvious answer. The
issue of domination immediately brought with it the
dilemma of authenticity, particularly that of cultural
authenticity. Was (or is) this new culturally created
space European, Indian, Mestizo, African, and/or
Western (occidental);or was it a symbiosis of these,
like the one proposed by Vasconcelos (1997), as a
new superior "cosmic race?'Or, is Latin American
identity something completely different, inscribed
under levels and centuries of cultural denial and polit-
ical oppression (see Garcia Canclini 1995; Weiss
1991;Yudice et al. 1992)?
The discourse of the ideology of mestizaje is a
prime example of this cultural ambiguity. The idea
of a mestizo race superior to its black, Indian, and
even white European constituent components was
initially put forward in the late 1800s in Mexico
(Smith 1996). Vasconcelos (1997) and other ideo-
logues proposed a "cosmic race" that served to legit-
imize the aspirations of the local elite against
European and North American intruders, and to dis-
tance themselves from the rest of the non-white
national citizens. Soon afterwards this concept of
the mestizo ideal swept through the southern part of
the continent and by the beginning of the twentieth
century was an essential part of Latin American ide-
ology (Quintero 1997; Quintero and Silva 1991). In
this sense, as Hale (1996:2) elaborates, "mestizaje
has been a remarkably effective ideological tool in
the hands of elite in many parts of Latin America, a
unifying myth put to the service of state and nation
building. A pervasive effect of this process, in turn,
is for alternative or contested meanings to be down
played or even erased. Mestizaje as an elite gener-
[Vol. 12, No. 4, 20011
ated myth of national identity, it could be said, tends
to obscure the conditions of its own creation, to cover
its own tracks."
In this same manner the mestizaje process serves
not only as a pillar for the construction of a national
identity, but also as a viable ideological tool for the
maintenance of the status quo and oppression of the
majority of the continent's population (Stutzman
1981). More than a literal reality, the mestizaje ide-
ology is an ideal, a wish, and a rhetorical recourse
to hide the differences-racial, ethnic, economic,
religious, sexual, etc.-in Latin America. "Differ-
ence" is seen as dangerous and therefore its mere
presence could, and does, question and threaten any
construction of a national identity. This is evident in
the fact that in many Latin American countries a
mestizo ideology has been traditionally employed
by the elite to maintain power over the indigenous
populations and other national groups. It is as if
through the actual invention of a national identity
there is a homogenizing attempt and need to hide and
silence "the other." Up to now Latin America's his-
tory has been based on the exclusion of difference,
on the negation or denial of "an other," especially of
the Indian as the possible ethnic majority of the nation
(Silva 199534).
However, Mallon (1996) and several other schol-
ars (Anzald6a 1987;Cypess 1991;Morraga 1986 and
1994) (most of whom are women) strive to empha-
size the liberating or counter-hegemonic elements of
this traditionally exploitative state ideology. They do
this by appreciating the contradictory nature of a
mestizo ideology that both creates inequality (Smith
1996:149) and liberates us from absolute identities
(Anzaldfia 1987). It is this essential contradictory
nature of mestizaje that becomes a source of con-
tention and that allows for a thorough critique of
many of the traditionally accepted social categories
through the vantage point of a "strategic marginal-
ity" (Mallon 1996:173).
During the last two centuries Latin American
intellectuals have been involved in similar social pro-
jects to create the new Latin American: a being that
would be truthful both to its history and to a future
of economic achievement. However, what none of
these intellectuals or their political ventures has ever
been able to sufficiently address is, first, how to cor-
rect a legacy of poverty and exploitation, an unre-
solved historical problem to this day; and second,
how to negotiate the politics of cultural authenticity
 FORUM
and the establishment of a stable cultural identity that
could support viable political development projects.
In Latin America, these constantly frustrated pro-
jects of political liberation and cultural authenticity
have suffered from the lack of a viable historical con-
tribution offered by its archaeologicalestablishment.
This does not mean that archaeology has been absent
from political debates, but rather that it has formed
part of a subtler discourse to empower the different
nation-states in their fumbled projects of economic
liberation, and in doing so, actively has contributed
to the continued domination of the majority of the
populations of the continent (see Patterson and
Schmidt 1995). The cases of Mexico and Peru are
the ones most consistently used to express how
archaeological symbols and prehispanic elements
have been used to sustain a near-sacred sense of
each nation-state's historical aura. For example, the
Mexican archaeological establishment found itself
strongly supported by a centralized social revolu-
tion controlled by a state interested in exploiting a
past that legitimized its claim to political power and
national pride (GQndara 1992). As Castaiieda's
(1996) work in the Yucatan peninsula and my own
work in Ecuador (Benavides 1999; see also Patter-
son and Schmidt 1995; Poole 1997) reflect, archae-
ology has been an essential and necessary discourse
in shaping what Latin Americans believed about
their own past, and told themselves, or not, through
their own histories or those of engaged foreign
archaeologists (see also Florescano 1994; Sullivan
1991).
Based on recent theoretical analyses, it is evident
that all archaeological work has an implicit and
sometimes explicit political subtext-that even the
most rigorously positivistic and empirical archaeol-
ogists are contributing, knowingly or not, to a par-
ticular political agenda outside of their control (Kohl
andFawcett 1995;Trigger 1989;Wylie 1992,1995).
Within this scenario, in the last two decades there
has evolved within Latin American anthropological
thought a community of archaeologistswho have dis-
engaged themselves from pretended scientific neu-
trality and actively connected their professional work
with their political involvement. This group of
archaeologists has established a limited, yet signif-
icant, contribution to understanding, carrying out,
and influencing archaeological and anthropological
research in Latin America.
It is this particular school, social archaeology, that
357
is the main focus of this paper. In many regards the
following is a continuation of the discussion intro-
duced to the American academic scene by Patterson
(1994) and Oyuela-Caycedo et al. (1997) in the last
decade. Although these articles were significant in
initiating an anglophone debate regarding an impor-
tant theoretical trend that had been evolving in the
Americas for over two decades, they neglected to
incorporate a whole different range of processes and
realities implicit in social archaeology. Particularly
limited in this regard was Oyuela-Caycedo et al.'s
(1997) piece that, in a reactive mode, questioned the
full impact of social archaeology as a whole because
of its limited methodological contribution and
offered quite simplistic theoretical models for under-
standing the developmentof Latin American archae-
ology (see also Oyuela-Caycedo 1994).Toward this
end I will incorporate both my experience working
within this paradigm as well as a discussion of Latin
American anthropology that supports what I believe
to be social archaeology's significant philosophical
contributions.
Archaeological Training in a
Postcolonial World
Social archaeology in Ecuador is far from being the
dominant archaeologicalparadigm. Rather, it reflects
the concerns of a small yet significant group of
archaeologists. Its initial center of development in
the country was Guayaquil's Centro de Estudios
Arqueol6gicos y Antropol6gicos, located at the
Escuela Superior PolitCcnica del Litoral (ESPOL).
The school was originally founded in 1980 by Jorge
Marcos and a cohort of other Latin American archae-
ologists (Marcos 1986). It was a natural outgrowth
of the UNESCO-sponsoredParacas meeting in 1970
on Latin American education, where the need for a
local (or "native") professional archaeologicalschool
was outlined.The theoreticalinclination of the school
was very clear from the outset; that is, the curricu-
lum and initial staff reflected a strong adherence to
the recent theoretical advances put forward in Latin
America under the aegis of a social archaeology.
Until then the three major centers for the devel-
opment of this paradigm had been Mexico and Peru,
and to a lesser degree Venezuela. Mexico had bene-
fitted from the influx of radical archaeologists who
abandoned their countries after military takeovers,
such as the Chileans Luis Felipe Bate and Julio Mon-
tank, and the Spaniard JosC Luis Lorenzo. Peru, on
358 LATIN AMERICAN ANTIQUITY
the other hand, had its own Luis Lumbreras (1981),
the author of the groundbreaking La arqueologia
como ciencia social (Archaeology as Social Sci-
ence), which initially circulated as an unpublished
manuscript in various anthropology departments
around the continent, and in many ways served as a
catalyst for the formation of the movement. The pub-
lication of the journal, Gaceta Arqueoldgica Andina,
also contributed significantly to providing social
archaeologists with a medium to express and circu-
late many of their initial ideas. Finally, the Venezue-
lans Mario Sanoja and Iraida Vargas (1978) offered
a re-interpretation of their country's past in their
Antiguasfomciones y modos deproduccidn vene-
zolanos (Ancient Formations and Modes of Pro-
duction in Venezuela), which operationalized many
of the key concepts that had been proposed by the
paradigm.
As a past student in the archaeology school at
ESPOL and recent graduate of the anthropologydoc-
toral program at CUNY, I have a unique vantage
point from which to assess archaeological training
in both Ecuador and the United States. One of the
main differences that can be seen is the contrasting
archaeological paradigms of these two countries,
social archaeology and new archaeology, respec-
tively, which have opposing agendas and theoretical
implications. However, I would argue that it is not
only an issue of contrasting paradigms but rather one
of wider discourses that are related to the north-south
interaction within our modem world system (Amin
1989;Wallerstein 1974). It is true that the new archae-
ology program had specific principles that contrast
with the propositions of a theoretical archaeology
(see Klejn 1977, 1980). But its pragmatic or empiri-
cist approach is not only aresult of this positivist par-
adigm, but also of the general social and academic
climate of the United States in this century (see Pat-
terson 1995).
The level of critical awareness of foreign archae-
ological paradigms also differs in these two coun-
tries (see McGuire 1997; McGuire and Navarrete
1999; and Newel1 1999 for further insights on dif-
fering academic and professional standards between
Anglo and Latin American archaeology). In Ecuador
we were introduced to the postulates and relevance
of the new archaeology as well as other foreign par-
adigms. This occurred under the serious limitations
of few bibliographic resources and of the minimum
availability or even impossibility of attending inter-
[Vol. 12, No. 4, 20011
national conferences and meetings. In the United
States the situations seem reversed. Despite the
greater wealth of resources, it is not surprising to find
archaeologists who have never heard of a social
archaeology, even among archaeologists who carry
out their research in Latin America. This lack of
awareness of foreign paradigms has serious impli-
cations for the interaction between scholars from
different countries and points to the need to create a
setting for some form of dialogue between
researchers.
As I stated, the differencesin archaeologicaltrain-
ing between Ecuador and the United States are
shaped by the particular post(neo)-colonial rela-
tionship in which these two countries are engaged.
Ecuador, as a postcolonial possession, offers a very
different education than that given in the center of
power. Not only is one taught alternative ways to
approach reality but these approaches are contrasted
to the ever-imposing views coming in from the out-
side (see McGuire 1997). This political reality is
very different from the one experienced in the United
States where one's political centrality makes it harder
to critically appreciate and relate to knowledge pro-
duced in the periphery. Because of this particular
structure the national liberation and postcolonial lit-
erature (Fanon 1963, 1965, 1967; Freire 1992) can
be instrumental in assessing the wider implications
of an approach such as a social archaeology,not only
for Latin American archaeology,but for archaeology
in the United States and worldwide.
Archaeological research, as any other type of sci-
entific research in Ecuador, is done in a context of
social, economic, and political inequality.That is, an
Ecuadorian doing research has a series of constraints
upon himlher that are a result of the wider north-south
relationships of the modern world system. This is
reflected in limited funding and few granting agen-
cies, scarce bibliographic resources, few teaching
positions, difficulty if not impossibility of attending
international meetings, and often the need to work
two or more jobs to survive. This set of circum-
stances immediately disadvantages national archae-
ological research. As a result, foreign archaeologists,
although they also have some economic constraints,
are in a much better position to carry out archaeo-
logical research in Latin America. Therefore, it is
only logical that the foreign archaeologists and their
program would be highly influential in terms of set-
ting professional standards and objectives.
 FORUM
But why do some archaeologists,especially social
archaeologists, worry about these political issues?
This political relevance is crucial because one of the
strongest critiques against social archaeology has
been its shortcomings in dealing with the actual prac-
tice of archaeological fieldwork. This critique, I
believe, is valid even when attempts to breach the gap
between theory and method within the paradigm have
been made (Bate 1981; Vargas 1990). Many social
archaeologists themselves would agree with this
appraisal, and because of it have seriously turned
their attention to the continued developmentof more
adequate field methods and techniques to be more in
tune with their theoretical elaborations (e.g., Bate
1982, 1992; Lumbreras 1981:15, 1982). For them,
social archaeology is a paradigm still very much in
evolution, and they are striving to provide and define
the best methodological structure to sustain its theo-
retical body. Contrary to many of the assumptions
held by new archaeology practitioners in the conti-
nent, social archaeologists believe that more sophis-
ticated scientific methods by themselves will not
answer the relevant questions about the region's past.
Rather, an appropriate methodology can only result
from the ongoing conflict and limitationsexperienced
in the relationship between theory and practice.
But, diverging somewhat from this imperative
held by the majority of social archaeology propo-
nents, I would argue that the core of the issue does
not lie in the appropriatenessor obsoleteness of the
field methods per se, but rather in the fact that social
archaeology has consistently privileged why we do
archaeology, rather than how we do it. At no point
does it argue for a purely theoretical or a non-field-
work approach to archaeology, but it does reflect a
preference for theoretical questions over method-
ological ones. And even in this sense, methodology
itself is understood in the much wider definition of
the word. This does not mean that the gap between
theory and method is not a serious one or should not
be addressed. Rather, it means that there are spe-
cific rationales for the concerns of a social archae-
ology, which proposes that the reconstruction of the
past is of utmost priority for the political future of
the continent. In other words, the future of our coun-
tries and continent is intimately tied to a realistic
understanding of our own past, and, above all,
archaeology is a political undertaking. It is political
not in the limited sense of the word, but in the real-
ization and acceptance of the complex social inter-
359
action that analyzing and understanding the past
entails.
All of these concerns were present in the con-
struction of a social archeology at ESPOL in
Guayaquil during the 1980s. However, because of
economic constraints and the impossibility of main-
taining a permanent faculty, the future of the school
was seriously questioned.However, in the last twenty
years it was able to train a new generation of archae-
ologists in this approach, regardless of whether or not
all of its graduates explicitly have identified with it.
Latin American Social Archaeology
It can be argued that the specific political (post)neo-
colonial situation of the continent has led to an alter-
native form of archaeology, which has established a
scientific paradigm very different from the one
offered by North Americans doing research in the
area. This alternative approach was informed by the
particular Latin American socioeconomic reality of
dependency and underdevelopment. At the same
time, this new archaeological discourse has rooted
itself deeply in the social science tradition of the
region. In the last century, archaeologicalknowledge
in the continent has been "objectified" and separated
from the social context in which it was produced,
both historically and currently. Consciously or not,
this has had the political effect of alienating Latin
Americans from their own history. Archaeological
knowledge has been discussed in the academic arena
but has played little part in the central concerns of
Latin American society. As several Latin American
archaeologists have keenly discussed (Politis 1995),
archaeology has always permeated society's con-
ception of its own history, but has failed to do so in
an explicit, committed engagement with the pro-
duction of that past as an element of its own politi-
cal transformation (see Benavides 1999:356-386).
In this "scientific" framework, Latin America has
become an unlimited source of data and anthropo-
logical knowledge, but not of "real" scientists or of
information inherently valuable to the transforma-
tion andlor development of the region.
For the last two or three decades, Latin American
archaeologists have struggled with this central issue:
how to incorporate scientific knowledge into the
struggles of everyday life, without allowing research
to contribute to the increasing inequality and
exploitation of its people. In 1975, several Latin
American archaeologists met at Teotihuacan
360 LATIN AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 12, No. 4, 20011

(Declaraci6n de Teotihuac5n 1983:48) to re-evalu- Furthermore, social archaeologists engaged in

ate the discipline's contribution to society and the this approach see themselves linked to the past that
continent's history. The document they produced they are interpreting. Rather than seeing themselves
declared "that the Latin American archaeologist's removed from their research, they see themselves
task is to recover the sense of historical development as the end product of this historical process. Not only
that will enable us to struggle along with the destiny does this not interfere in the study of the past, due
of our respective people." It is this social approach to some limited, ethnocentric, or nationalistic claim,
that will be reviewed in the following pages (see Pat- but it demands an even more objective understand-
terson 1994 for a review of the theoretical develop- ing of it. This objectivity is of utmost importance
ments in Latin America's social archaeology; and because the past is directly tied to who we are as a
also McGuire 1992). people, and this knowledge is needed for the his-
There are two primary factors on which this torical construction of the continent's present and
approach is based: the first is the strong social and future.
political commitment that an archaeologist, as a This interconnectedness of human societies
social scientist, feels toward the community; and the throughout time, precluding any break between pre-
second is the historical materialist paradigm that history and history as absoluteentities,but at the most
many archaeologistsembrace as a tool to analyze and as colonial reconstructions (Patterson 1994), frees
understand history (Montank 1980). These two fac- them to look at any society or social formation as
tors enable social archaeologists to reconstruct his- equally valid for understanding and assessing the
tory and see its continuity and value in contemporary particular issues in their research. It also allows them
society. This alternative form of archaeology pro- to unite day-to-day existence in a more fruitful way
poses to destroy the false theory-praxis, science- with the objectives of their professional work, avoid-
advocacy dichotomies, and argues that the ing a schizophrenicdivision between who we are out-
archaeologist has an important responsibility and side of our offices and classrooms, and what we do
plays a pivotal part in situating historical knowledge inside them.
at the center of Latin America's social struggle. In Because of the extreme differences in access to
essence, social archaeology proposes a more politi- power and to resources in Latin America, it is easier
cal and socially relevant way of addressing our to see the inequality and exploitation on which the
inquiries into the past. class structure is based. It is in this social milieu of
Social archaeology sees society not as a simple sum class and cultural conflict, vividly expressed in the
of all the different parts but rather as a result of a com- political situations of the continent, that the social
plex interaction that creates a whole different and scientist is immersed. For every intellectual in Latin
unique totality. To understand this totality, social America there are thousands who do not have access
archaeologists make use of Marxists concepts such as to the most basic elements of culture: education,
social formations, mode of production, labor theory, books, media, and arts. That is why archaeologists,
etc. However, these concepts are not mechanically as well as all intellectuals, are the "beneficiaries of
applied,but rather are reworked to fit the concrete his- an unequal social and cultural structure" (Zubizarreta
toric reality of each case, as is continuing work on the 1983:20). For example, a 1980 editorial in Ame'rica
concept of culture by Bate (1977, 1978) and Lumbr- Indigena states that archaeology, as a social science,
eras (1981)orModo de fida (Mode of Life) by Veloz- "is part and mirror of the social processes to which
Maggiolo (1984), and Sanoja and Vargas (1978). The it aligns itself as a critical conscience and potential
focus of the approach is on historically constituted instrument for an autonomous and positive devel-
processes of social development, and it aligns itself opment of our societies" (America Indigena
with any other discipline or approach that will further 1980:201).
this social endeavor. In this way, social archaeologists The obvious inequality in the social structure and
aspire to transcend the artificial division by which aca- in the access to knowledge has led many archaeolo-
demic disciplines are routinely constrained, allowing gists to align themselves with the struggle for social
it to communicate to different groups of society in a justice. As many of the editorials of the Gaceta
dialectical dialogue about our past (Patterson 1994; Arqueoldgica Andina express, archaeology is an
see also McGuire 1992). important element in the transformation of our soci-
 FORUM
ety. "We think that archaeology as a scientific disci-
pline. . .has a fundamentalplace in the understanding
of this process, in the search and analysis of new ways
of transformation and development. . . .We are refer-
ring . . . fundamentally to the role that archaeology
must carry out as a social science in the complex
process of a search for our identity and in the gen-
eral projection of our future" (1987-88:2). This view
has permitted Latin American archaeologists to see
both themselves and the community as equal sub-
jects in their scientific endeavor. Both are part of a
historic tradition and are actively responsible for its
formulations. "Andeanist [need] to address, in an
autonomous and specific manner, the tasks that our
conditions of builders of a history that interests and
affects us directly demand, in terms of the necessary
integration of our countries, as well as in the acces-
sibility and diffusion of our w o r k (Gaceta Arque-
oldgica Andina 1990:2). As a result, social
archaeology is finding expression in Latin America
through the archaeologist's social commitment to
the community with which it is working.
The Practice of Social Archaeology
There are severalEcuadorian cases whose discussion
may provide examples of the praxis of social archae-
ology. For instance, the Programa Cochasqui, car-
ried out around the prehispanic site of Cochasqui,
puts into practice several of social archaeology's
principles of social commitment and autochthonous
development. The most relevant objective of the Pro-
grama, in its central concern for the historical recon-
struction of the site, has been its interest in including
the comuna (the local community) in the site's preser-
vation. From the outset, it proposed a dynamic con-
cept of culture, similar to that offered by Bate
(1977:9), as the essential element for any possible
model of autonomous development of the area (Pro-
grams Cochasqui 1991). Influential in this regard was
the presence of the archaeologist Lenin Ortiz, who,
although never an explicitly recognized ideologue of
social archaeology, had always been in close contact
with its works. Interestinqy enough, Ortiz has always
been actively involved in national politics, occupy-
ing the positions of consejeroprovincial (provincial
councilman) several times, from which position he
has been able to fight consistently for funds for the
maintenance of the site and guarantee free admis-
sion to the public.
The initial structure of the Programa was of an
361
interdisciplinary nature because it looked to the
development of Cochasqui not only as an archaeo-
logical site, but also as an autochthonous commu-
nity with many other needs, such as agricultural,
socioeconomic, medical, etc. (Paredes and Estrella
1989; Programa Cochasqui 1991). It also strove for
a future situation wherein the local communities
would become responsible for and capable of man-
aging the archaeological site directly. This initial cul-
tural objective is still prevalent among the tour guides
today: "That is why the preoccupation of the Pro-
grama is not only with restoring or rescuing the
pyramids, but with everything that is culture, with
all the culture" (Virgilio, Tour Guide, 2/2/97, in Bena-
vides 1999).
Thus, the main concerns of the project were not
to make the site economically self sufficient or lucra-
tive, since that would limit its accessibility to the
majority of Ecuadorians, who live at poverty level.
At the same time, the people in charge of the site were
womed not about re-excavating it or maintaining
exclusivecontrol over scientificinformation, but how
to make the scientific and historical information they
already possessed accessible to the people who they
saw as the original inheritors of the site.
In the end, the Programa's main preoccupation
was to understand how it was that the involvement
with the local community and public participation
had missed its initial goals, especially when it was
one of the main objectives from the very beginning
of the project. These findings led us to understand
that the role of the public and local community was
of central importance in assessing the success or not
of the maintenance of the site. The primacy of the
community over the site, of seeing the public as the
rightful heirs to the site, is a stance far from that of
the majority of other projects administered by either
"traditional" or "new archaeologist" scholars all
around the globe, including the United States. (See
McGuire and Navarrete 1999 for a discussion and
comparison of two very interesting U.S. sites in this
regard, Annapolis and Williamsburg; see also Han-
dler and Gable 1997; Leone 1988.)
I would also like to offer my own research at
Cochasqui (Benavides 1999) as an extension of the
programmatic objectives, and as an example of the
diversity of contemporary implications, of the social
archaeology agenda. I spent most of the year 1997
carrying out a detailed study of the site of Cochasqui
with the main objective of understanding how
362 LATIN AMERICAN ANTIQUITY
archaeological knowledge was produced at the site,
and how this knowledge was represented and
actively consumed by the public at large. For this
endeavor I interviewed archaeologists, sociologists,
anthropologists, and other professionals who at
some point had collaborated with the site, present
members of the Program, the local community, and
tourists. I found that it was clear that archaeological-
historical knowledge was not static at Cochasqui,
that over the years it had undergone significant
changes that did not necessarily result in historical
error, but rather evidenced the power of the present
social and political milieu in constructing a viable
past for national consumption.
In this regard my work tied in closely with find-
ings by other scholars working on the socio-histor-
ical aspects of archaeological knowledge (e.g.,
Castaiieda 1996; Patterson and Schmidt 1995), but,
more importantly, I maintain it is indebted to the
socio-historical stance inherent in social archaeol-
ogy's platform. Even though many social archaeol-
ogists, in logical alliance with scientific Marxism,
still seem willing to privilege the empirical data, their
own work can be interpreted to the contrary. That is,
the archaeological enterprise is a socio-historical one
that, far from biasing the research, significantly
enriches our understanding of the undeniably com-
plex dynamics involved in the production of a past
reality from the socioeconomic and cultural pro-
duction of the present. My work's central finding is
strongly indebted to years of reading the works and
practicing social archaeology, and provides an exam-
ple of the manner in which this school broadens our
understanding of what doing archaeology implies.
It is also interesting to note that the Program at
Cochasqui has never explicitly affiliated itself with
any of social archaeology's guidelines, even though
two of its exponents, Luis Lumbreras (1990) and
Luis F. Bate (1986,1992), were charged with assess-
ing the site's chronology, and carrying out fieldwork
to address the question of pre-ceramic occupation
just north of the site, respectively. However, this lack
of explicit alignment does not deny the social objec-
tives that the Program at Cochasqui is interested in
implementing, but rather speaks to the wider impli-
cations of many of social archaeology's main polit-
ical and cultural goals. This same feature is inherent
in other archaeological projects in the country (e.g.,
Real Alto, Salango, etc.), which do not necessarily
derive from a social archaeology school, yet have
[Vol. 12, No. 4, 20011
been able to put into practice quite successfully sev-
eral of the discipline's main ideas.
MarceloVillalba's (1988) work in Cotocollao and
Colin McEwan et al.'s (1994) collaboration with the
Agua Blanca community are two more examples in
this regard. Villalba's (1988) excavations at Coto-
collao arguably provide some of the most compre-
hensive Marxist analyses of any pre-Hispanic site in
the continent. Meanwhile the work in the comuna of
Agua Blanca has triggered the local communities'
interest in their pre-Hispanic past and has helped
them validate their present political struggles. The
site museum and cultural center, as well as the yearly
cultural festival that brings together groups from all
over the country, have helped the community under-
stand its historic roots, and has been a dynamic force
in forging its identity and realizing its creative capac-
ity (McEwan et al. 1994).
The work carried out at Agua Blanca has been
discussed at some length by the main collaborators
of the site and could easily be a focus of an article
in itself. But for the present purpose it is important
to note how the patient work of the archaeologist at
the site-through continuous presentations, daily
interactions with the community, and providing for
the comuna's active involvement in the excavations,
site maintenance, building and control of the site
museum-has slowly allowed the community to
identify and value the archaeological remains that
they had initially pillaged. Through this systematic
process of interactive participation, the community
was able to find alternative modes of subsistence
through the maintenance, and not the destruction, of
the site of Agua Blanca, and become actively
involved in indigenous comuna organizing through-
out the coast, and the country.
As at Cochasqui, the archaeologists involved at
Agua Blanca have never figured prominently in, or
even explicitly advocated their inclusion within, a
social archaeology paradigm. This is not surprising
considering that Ecuador itself has never figured
prominently in any representation of social archae-
ology in South America. But this has not excluded
the country from being impacted by social archae-
ology's radical proposals. At the same time I would
argue that these examples from Ecuador are testa-
ments to social archaeology's wide impact on the cul-
tural environment of the continent and its viable
legacy beyond the reductive definition of archaeol-
ogy as simply an enterprise about the past.
 FORUM
Mexico and Venezuela, as well as other Latin
American settings, have also had several projects
that try to integrate the social and scientific aspects
into a single interpretive scheme. One of the best
examples is the CuchumatCn Project, which had as
an objective to "write the history of the struggling
peoples, to show their roots and their historic conti-
nuity" (Navarrete in Gindara et al. 1985:12). There
are several other projects similar to this, which are
striving to offer an alternativeto the traditional empir-
ical practice of archaeology (see Gindara et al. 1985).
Many of the traditional proponents of social archae-
ology are still actively engaged in the continuous
elaboration of this paradigm (Bate 1992 and 1993;
G5ndara 1992 and 1993; Vargas 1995; Vargas and
Sanoja 1993), as well as a new generation of schol-
ars that are actively using the paradigm to explore
new theoretical and practical ventures (e.g., Ensor
2000; Ldpez 1984; Navarrete 1999).
Most importantly, these projects, and many oth-
ers throughout the continent, reflect the essential
concerns that social archaeology expresses in rela-
tion to the study of the past. In this manner, the prin-
cipal tenets of this approach give expression to
wide-level concerns that are present in committed
archaeologists and communities that do not neces-
sarily limit themselves to a social archaeology mode
of practice. Social archaeology is relevant, not exclu-
sively because of its number of ideologues or prac-
titioners, but because of its range of influence and
power in capturing many of the pervasive philo-
sophical and historical quandaries inherent in Latin
America's historical reconstruction.
Cause and Effect:
many of the characteristics of non-Western anthro-
Anthropology in Latin America
pology, such as the lack of funding or government-
The appearanceof a social archaeology entails adis-
cussion that is of central concern to the anthropo-
logical community at large. Third World
anthropology (in the absence of a better term) has
questioned many of the traditional assumptions of
Western science, and has contributed to the reexam-
ination of the discipline and its traditional role (Gor-
don 1991). For many, neocolonial domination is
served by the pretense of scientific objectivity and
academic purity. As Starn (1994) has outlined for the
Andes, anthropologists' self-portrayal as "good out-
siders" in the area might be misleading, and result-
ing from a lack of critical awareness of extant power
relations. He states that many questions are left unex-
363
plored, such as, "under what historical conditionsand
by what moral right a small corps of mostly light-
skinned urban professionals can arrogate to itself the
privilege of speaking for the mostly brown-skinned
poor Andean majorities. . . . [or] the larger unexam-
ined ethical question of our acceptance of funds from
the same government that has supported coups in
Bolivia and Chile and the dirty war against leftist
guerrillas in Colombia" (Starn 1994:17-18).
However, the main objective of a non-Western
anthropology is not merely to "accuse anthropolo-
gists of having collaborated with colonialism. . . ."
(Mead in Nash 1975:228), because that would not
only be unfair but also untrue. Rather, non-Western
anthropology proposes to destroy the false research-
action dichotomy, and argues that instead of negat-
ing one's role as a power broker in society, the
anthropologist should struggle alongside the com-
munity to validate social knowledge and elaborate
its full implication for society. Latin American
anthropologists have been an important part of this
non-Western endeavor. In the following pages I
would like to consider two main elements in the for-
mulation of a Latin American anthropology: West-
ern vs. non-Western anthropology, and "liberation
anthropology."
In recent literature, Latin American anthropol-
ogy has been placed within a wider Western vs. non-
Western framework. Lomnitz sees Latin Americans
as focusing on the known (replanteando lo cono-
cido).Latin American anthropologists, in contrast to
Western anthropologists,do not reconstruct the other
(el otro) as much as they focus on their own (lo nue-
stro) (Lomnitz 1995). Colson (1982) summarizes
controlled jobs. But the essence of a Non-Western
anthropology is the common experience of colo-
nialism and neocolonialism that creates "a fear of
economic and political domination from Western
Europe orAnglo America" (1982:258).Asad (1982)
considers it important to question the traditional
asymmetry present in anthropology, where, while the
Western world has traditionally focused on the
other's society, non-Western anthropologists have
continued to study their own society. For Asad, this
over-emphasis on the Third World is a product of cul-
tural imperialism. Is it not possible, he asks, for
"Western anthropologists [to] apply the insights
gained from their study of other cultures to a study
364 LATIN AMERICAN ANTIQUITY
of their own?'Are not Western academics "as inter-
ested in how people from non-Western cultures see
Western culture as they are in studying non-Western
cultures for themselves?'(Asad 1982:28&287). But
most problematic is the possibility that non-West-
erners have been presented with the idea "that it is
their own culture which needs to be studied and
explained because it is these that are problematic
(howeverthis may be rationalized)" (Asad 1982:287;
parenthesis in original).
The Peruvian writer/anthropologist Jose Mm'a
Arguedas (l989b: 186)also saw cultural imperialism
as a major obstacle to the development of a national
culture in Latin America. He considers "that the pow-
ers that dominate the weaker countries, both eco-
nomically and politically,will try to consolidate their
control through the application of a process of cul-
tural colonization." The Western world will try to
impose their cultural supremacy by alienating the
masses from their own history and intellectual com-
munity (Arguedas 198913). The social sciences have
helped in this endeavor by consolidating "the process
of getting the colonized to colonize themselves"
(Sorbo 1982:152). As Haraway (1986:85) argues,
the Western world "is about difference, it is the pol-
itics of the civilization of the 'primitive', the domi-
nation of nature by culture." The "West" itself is a
political construct that orders the differences central
to the collectively enforced reality of culture vs.
nature.
The contrast between Western and non-Western
anthropology has also contributed to a re-evaluation
of the traditional positivist epistemology. It is clear
that a positivist approach fails to incorporate many
of the complexities of social reality. However it
seems that scientific relativism, which is offered as
a solution by many postmodernists, is even more
problematic than the positivist paradigm (Harrison
1991; Trigger 1989). Relativism fails to assess the
"relative merits of different interpretations of human
behavior," and "is incapable of providing even a lim-
ited objective understanding of society" (Trigger
1989:778). Many Western scholars have proposed a
qualified objectivism to solve the present crisis in the
discipline (Trigger 1989; Wylie 1989, 1992; Sorbo
1982). However, for many Latin American anthro-
pologists, any form of empiricist positivism is by def-
inition reactionary and limits our scientific
understanding of the world. This has led to the use
of a dialectical historical epistemology by social
[Vol. 12, No. 4, 20011
archaeologists that combines both the scientific ele-
ments and the socioeconomic aspects in which they
are embedded (Bate 1977).
The specific characteristics of Latin American
anthropology have led many to characterize it as a
"liberation anthropology" (Gordon 1991). For the
last two decades many scholars have tried to develop
a coherent discipline that could contribute to the
transformation of the unequal social structure
(Declaraci6n de Teotihuacin 1983; Zubizarreta
1983). Fals Borda (1985) was one of the initial pro-
ponents of a liberating social science, which would
permit a "critical ethic" position and the destruction
of the neutral science myth (see Friedemann 1984).
Ramos (1990; see also 2000) presents us with a sim-
ilar picture of anthropology in Brazil, since for many
Brazilian anthropologists "there is no purely acade-
mic research; what there is, is the rhetorical possi-
bility and personal inclination to exclude from one's
written works the interactive, political, moral or eth-
ical aspects of fieldwork" (Ramos 1990:454).
This position is shared by many anthropologists
throughout the continent who believe it is naive to
talk about neutrality in the social sciences (Friede-
mann 1984). It was the actual conditions of the con-
tinent's underdevelopment that promoted many of
the ideas and analyses to which I have referred above.
The specific social conditions of poverty, malnutri-
tion, high infant-mortality rates, informal economies,
etc. conditioned (as they inevitably do) our anthro-
pological and archaeological research. An initial
approximation of this problem, stated over 24 years
ago, is, unfortunately, still an appropriate contem-
porary portrayal of the relationship between the
social sciences and society in Latin America:
Latin America is a continent full of incongruen-
cies and social contradictions caused by its
underdevelopment. As a result of this it is a
region of conflicts and crises that are its objec-
tive historical reality, the reason why this reality
is closer to the working of social sciences than
the natural s~iences.The scientific objectivity of
the social sciences is placed before real-life sit-
uations and participates in society's own con-
flicts and disjunctions, making of this
objectivity the acknowledgment that there is an
essential relationship between empirical knowl-
edge and social conflict. The development of
future social scientists, therefore, is a matter of
preparing the citizens needed with the scientific
training for the analysis and transformation of
these societies (Valencia 1970: 122).
 FORUM
The article that includes the above quotation, pub-
lished in the groundbreaking critique De eso que lla-
man antropologia mexicana (Of That Which They
Call Mexican Anthropology) (see Bonfil1970; Oliv-
era devasquez 1970;Valencia 1970), synthesizes one
of the positions Latin American anthropologists
faced with the daily reality that they both analyze and
are a part of. In the book, anthropologists are clearly
committed to participating in the development of the
continent, and see their role as essential in this polit-
ical project. Commitment for these anthropologists
means a re-questioning of the whole class structure
of society. It also means the liberation of the indige-
nous communities within society, and also of the
national society as a whole, from the present unequal
structure of the world system and the resulting alien-
ating conditions.
Yet, at the same time, these anthropologists seri-
ously questioned the feasibility of such an anthro-
pology. How could such an anthropology exist if it
questioned the very foundations of the country's
class structure. Would the dominant sectorsjust stand
by as enlightened social scientists defined new ways
of development? Furthermore, who was the domi-
nant sector, and was not anthropology directly
aligned with it (Olivera de Vasquez 1970)? None of
these questions was actually answered in the text.
Nevertheless, throughout the book there is an implicit
optimism that, by stating and discussing them, these
contradictions will begin to be resolved.
Within this initially optimistic framework, the
authors found it necessary to apply the anthropo-
logical method to anthropology itself, that is, if the
discipline was going to participate in Latin Amer-
ica's development. For Olivera de Vasquez
(1970:117), "the object of study would be, in the
ultimate instance, to work at all levels to reach the
needed development." Anthropology's participation
in the autonomous development of Latin America,
however, was clearly seen as a process that involved
both national and international issues. The high level
of poverty in which not only the indigenous com-
munities but a great part of the continent's popula-
tion lived, in contrast to a small national elite, was
the specific model in which north-south relations
were mirrored. The development of Latin American
nation-states meant not only the end of a social struc-
ture that subordinated groups within their own soci-
eties, but also, ultimately, a critique of their own
countries' subordination to the all powerful north.
365
This particular socioeconomic reality, of living in an
"underdeveloped" and neocolonial context, was what
gave the authors of this book, as well as many oth-
ers since then, the particular understanding of a
socially committed or "liberation" anthropology.
These were the basic premises or ideas that Latin
American anthropology and archaeology shared in
their continual reassessment of the relationship
between the social sciences and society. Within
archaeology this led to the formulation of an
approach now continentally known as social archae-
ology. However, there has been little change in the
neocolonial relationship between North and South
America since the initial publication of many of the
seminal articles. In many respects Latin American
anthropology, even when its intention has been oth-
erwise, has failed to find a way out of colluding with
the mechanisms of power in re-creating many of
these uneven power relationships. In this regard some
progressive anthropologists have even become con-
servative political leaders who have questioned their
own initial research, including, for example, Enrique
Cardoso, who, beginning as a left-leaning academic,
has become the president responsible for a neolib-
era1 economic shift in Brazil. It must be stated, how-
ever, that although challenged, many of these
committed anthropologists may still have significant
contributions to offer to the discipline and social sci-
ences in general.
Conclusion
All too often in Latin America, nationalist policies
have meant greater forms of domination for the
indigenous communities, and ultimately increased
alienation for the national society. This has not been
lost on the strong "Indianist" movement, which since
the 1970s has replaced traditional Indigenismo.
Unlike the latter, Indianismo is a movement, orga-
nized and run by the indigenous communities them-
selves, which has formed national level
confederations, e.g., CONAIE (Confederacibn
Nacional de Indigenas de Ecuador), and participated
in pan-continental meetings (Barre 1983; Docu-
mentos de la Segunda Reunibn de Barbados 1979).
Therefore, archaeology as a discipline not only has
a role in the actual investigation of our society's his-
tory, but it also has the potential to empower, as well
as disempower, its own impoverished masses and
society as a whole. Ultimately, in this contemporary
context, what is archaeology's specific role or form
366 LATIN AMERICAN ANTIQUITY
of participation in an autonomous development of
Latin America?
As one can imagine, there is no clear answer to
this question; rather, it is an issue that demands seri-
ous attention and assessment. Any model of devel-
opment demands a firm grounding in a country's
own history. It is particularly this aspect of society
that has been ravished over and over again in
(post)neocolonialcountries.In a way, the initial con-
quest of the continent 500 years ago not only marked
the genocide and ethnocide of indigenous popula-
tions, but it also initiated the process of usurping the
continent's history from its own people (CONAIE
1997 and 1998).
Any form of political project implicitly contains
an understanding of history, that is, a total picture or
complete view of the continent's historical tradition.
Archaeology has been seen as the prime medium to
obtain this "history" as objectively and truthfully as
possible (Silberman 1995).However, recent episte-
mological reassessment in the discipline has chal-
lenged the reliability andlor practicality of such an
endeavor (Trigger 1995; Wylie 1995 and 1989). In
a sense, historical narratives imply a legitimization
of the particular project that they support. This legit-
imization carries implicit notions of validity, truth-
fulness, and reality. However, its "reality" cannot be
grounded exclusively in empirical evidence, but also
must include negotiation with the sociopolitical con-
text in which it is constructed and expressed-a
negotiation that is constantly present, both at a com-
munal and national level (Benavides 1999).
At the same time, its validity is not only defined
in terms of the political or social objectives, be they
communal or national, that it legitimizes. Rather, the
validation comes from a real and expanded partici-
pation of all the social actors immersed in and affected
by the reconstruction of the past. This demands a
constant negotiation of all the parts involved,to define
the boundaries within which each actor can contribute
to and assess the different motives for this contribu-
tion. Therefore, its validity is not so much a result of
supporting a particular, narrow political agenda, as
much as it is a result of the negotiation of all the
groups involved, and the different discourses involved
in its construction (Benavides 1999). Social archae-
ology's claim of a positivist Marxist tradition has
been quite ambiguous in this regard: while it has con-
tinued to strive for a strict empirical field of opera-
tion within its epistemological tradition, it has also
[Vol. 12, No. 4, 20011
provided an implicit opening to understanding the
sociohistorical contingencies contained within the
political production of the past. In many regards this
would seem an interesting and fruitful endeavor for
future scholars to pursue.
Committed Latin American scholars like Frantz
Fannon (1963, 1965, 1967), Darcy Ribeiro (1971),
Luis Felipe Bate (1977, 1978, 1986), Orlando Fals
Borda (1985), and Paulo Freire (1992), just to men-
tion a few, have expressed how a neocolonial con-
text conditionsthe understanding of our world vision,
including the perceptions of our human condition,
which views the self as a dominated being. Any polit-
ical endeavor, the objective of which is to break down
this neocolonial structure, that does not take into
account this psychological dimension will undoubt-
edly fail. It is this factor of the neocolonial structure
that actively promotes different types of internal colo-
nialism. These forms of internal colonialism oper-
ate at an individual level but, ultimately, also form a
discursive body of knowledge from which every
political project obtains its theoretical and practical
modes of action.
The social archaeology project responds to many
of these wider psychological, political, and cultural
dilemmas confronting Latin American intellectuals.
As such, social archaeology's program escapes the
mere archaeological enterprise to which many of its
critics wish to limit it. Instead, this cultural project
clearly inscribes itself in a much broader philo-
sophical endeavor that is trying to develop a body of
theory to constitute the Latin American subject, and
is striving to offer this new subject a viable political
liberation and cultural identity.
As part of this broader Latin American existen-
tial philosophy, the contributions and ramifications
of social archaeologyare easily inscribed in what Zea
(1970, 1971, 1974, 1978) has described as the con-
tinent's philosophical legacy. Because of this char-
acteristic I maintain it is inappropriate to judge the
school's contribution merely within archaeological
parameters. To this effect I believe projects like the
ones I have mentioned above, including my own
research at Cochasqui (Benavides 1999), along with
the continuous intellectual debate within this para-
digm (Bate 1993; Ensor 2000; Navarrete 1993;Var-
gas and Sanoja 1993), point to the fertile manner in
which social archaeology has contributed to, and
continues to contribute to, the dynamic understand-
ing of the continent's past.
 FORUM
Thus, social archaeology stands as a means of pro-
viding historical validity to a continent brutally col-
onized into Western existence over five centuries
ago. Obviously it cannot provide integral solutions
to the problems produced by a colonial reality of cap-
italism and Western expansion, since no single the-
oretical school ever will. But despite its own
fieldwork shortcomings and personality incon-
gruities, social archaeology has provided for a
dynamic new manner of understanding the archae-
ological past, and through it new ways of doing his-
torical, anthropological, and cultural research on the
continent. This, I sustain, is the rightful legacy of
social archaeology in the utopic search for a "liber-
ated" Latin America, and probably also its greatest
challenge in the face of apostmodern turn in the con-
struction of postcolonial identities and society (Fou-
cault 1980;GarciaCanclini 1982,1992,1993,1995;
Weiss 1991;Yudice et al. 1992).
Acknowledgments. I am grateful to the dialogue established
over the years with many colleagues that has significantly
enriched my understanding of social archaeology. Special
thanks to the faculty and students at the Centro de Estudios
Arqueoldgicos y Antropoldgicos of the ESPOL in Guayaquil,
Ecuador, as well as the following colleagues in particular:
Silvia Alvarez, Jorge Marcos, Mike Muse, and Maria
Auxiliadora Cordero. I am also indebted for the suggestions
offered by Katharina Schreiber, Patricia Fournier, Erika
Wagner, Randall McGuire, Tom Patterson, and Cristobal
Gnecco, as well as to two other anonymous reviewers of the
manuscript. Bernice Kurchin has also contributed to my think-
ing of many archeological problematics expressed in this
paper as well as generously rendered invaluable editorial sug-
gestions. Finally I wish to thank G. Allen who has been instru-
mental in providing me with the space to genuinely think
about anthropology and culture in Latin America and the Third
World in general.
References Cited
AmCrica Indigena
1980 Editorial: la antropologiaen AmCrica Latina y el Caribe.
America Indigena 40: 199-205.
Amin, Samir
1989 Eumcentrism. Monthly Review Press, New York.
Anzaldua, Gloria
1987 Borderlands/La Frontera: The New Mestiza. Aunt Lute
Books, San Francisco.
Arguedas, Jose Maria
1989a La cultura: un patrimonio dificil de colonizar. In For-
macidn de una cultura nacional indoamericana, edited by
Angel Rama, pp. 183-1 88. Siglo XXI, Mexico.
1989b Razdn de ser del indigenismo en Peni. In Formacidn
de una cultura indoamericana, edited by Angel Rama, pp.
189-1 97. Siglo XXI, Mexico.
Asad, Tala1
1982 A Comment on the Idea of Non-Western Anthropology.
367
In Indigenous Anthropology in Non- Western Countries,
edited by Hussein Fahim, pp. 284-287. North Carolina Aca-
demic Press, Durham.
Barre, Marie-Chantal
1983 Ideologias indigenistas y movimientos indios. Siglo
XXI, Mexico.
Bate, Luis F.
1977 Arqueologia y materialismo histdrico. Editorial Nueva
Imigen, Mexico.
1978 Sociedad, formacion econdmico-social y cultura. Edi-
torial De Cultura Popular, Mexico.
1981 Relacidn general entre teona y mCtodo en Arqueologia.
Boletin de Antmpologia Americana 4:3-54.
1982 Hacia la cuantificacidn de las fuerzas productivas.
Boleti'n de Antmpologia Americana 6: 17- 24.
1986 Cultura, clases y cuestidn etnico-nacional. Juan Pablos
Editora, Mexico.
1992 Las sociedades cazadoras-recolectoras pre-tribales o el
'Paleolitico Superior' visto desde SuramCrica. Boletin de
Antmpologi'aAmericana 25: 105-155.
1993 Teoria de la cultura y arqueologia. Boletin de
Antmpologia Americana 27:75-93.
Benavides, 0. Hugo
1999 Telling Stories, Producing the Nation: Archaeology's
Role in the Construction of Contemporary Ecuador. Ph.D.
Dissertation,City University of New York, University Micro-
films, Ann Arbor.
Bonfil, Guillermo
1970 Del indigenismo de la revolucidn a la antropologia
cntica. In De eso que llaman antropologia Mexicana, pp.
39-65. Editorial Nuestro Tiempo, Mexico.
Burgos-Dabray, Elisabeth (editor)
1985 Me llamo Rigoberta Menchi y asi me nacid la con-
ciencia. Siglo XXI, Mexico.
Castaiieda, Quetzil
1996 In the Museum ofMaya Culture: Touring Chichen Itza.
The University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis.
Colson, Elizabeth
1982 Anthropological Dilemmas in the Late Twentieth Cen-
tury. In Indigenous Anthropology in Non- WesternCountries,
edited by H. Fahim, pp. 253-262. Academic Press, Durham.
CONAIE (Confederacidn de Nacionalidades Indigenas del
Ecuador)
1997 Proyecto politico de la CONAIE. CONAIE, Ecuador.
1998 Las nacionalidades indigenasy el estado plurinacional.
CONAIE, Ecuador.
.. Sandra Messinger
Cv~ess, -
1991 La Malinche in Mexican Literature: From History to
Myth. University of Texas Press, Austin.
Declaracidn de Teotihuacan
1983 Declaracidn de Teotihuaccin.ESPOL, Ecuador.
Documentos de la Segunda Reunidn de Barbados
1979 Indianidad y descolonizacidn en America Latina. Edi-
torial Nueva ImBgen, Mexico.
Dorfman, Ariel
1998 Heading South, Looking North. Farrar, Straus and
Giroux, New York.
Ensor, Bradley E.
2000 Social Formations, Modo de Vida, and Conflict in
Archaeology.American Antiquity 65: 15-42.
Fals Borda, Orlando
1985 Conocimiento y poderpopular. Siglo XXI, Mexico.
Fannon, Frantz
1963 The Wretched of the Earth. Grove Press, New York.
1965 A Dying Colonialism. Grove Press, New York.
1967 Black Skin, White Mask. Grove Press, New York.
368 LATIN AMERICAN ANTIQUITY
Flores, Juan
1997 La venganza de cortijo y otros ensayos. Editorial
Huracin, Puerto Rico.
Florescano, E ~ q u e
1994 Memory, Myth, and Time in Mexico: From the Aztecs
to Independence. University of Texas Press, Austin.
Foucault, Michel
1980 Power and Knowledge. Pantheon Books, New York.
Freire, Paulo
1992 Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Continuum Publishers,
New York.
Friedemann, Nina
1984 Etica y politica del antropdlogo: compromiso profe-
sional. In Antropologia en Colombia, edited by NinaFriede-
man, pp. 383-428. Bogota.
Gaceta Arqueoldgica Andina
1987188 Editorial. Gaceta Arqueoldgica Andina 4(16):2.
Instituto Andino de Estudios Arqueologicos, Lima.
1990 Editorial. Gaceta Arqueoldgica Andina 5(17):2. Insti-
tuto Andino de Estudios Arqueologicos, Lima.
Gbdara, Manuel
1992 La arqueologia oficial Mexicana: causas y efectos. Insti-
tuto Nacional de Antropologia e Historia, MCxico.
1993 El anilisis de posiciones teoricas: aplicaciones a la
arqueologia social. Boletin de Antropologia Americana
27:5-20.
Gindara, Manuel, Fernando Lopez, and Ignacio Rodriguez
1985 Arqueologia y marxismo en MCxico. Boletin de
Antropologia Americana 11:5-17.
Garcia Canclini, Nestor
1982 Las culturas populares en el capitalismo. Siglo XXI,
Mexico.
1992 Culturas hibridas: estrategiaspara entrar y salir de la
modernidad. Editorial Suramericana, Buenos Aires.
1993 Transforming Modernity: Popular Culture in Mexico.
University of Texas Press, Austin.
1995 Cultura y pospolitica: el debate sobre la modernidad
en Amtrica Latina. Consejo Nacional para la Cultura y las
Artes, Mexico.
Garcia Marquez, Gabriel
1971 One Hundred Years of Solitude.Avon Books, New York.
Gordon, Edmund T.
1991 Anthropology and Liberation. In Decolonizing Anthm-
pology: Moving Further Toward an Anthropology of Liber-
ation, edited by Faye Harrison, pp. 149-167. American
Anthropological Association, Washingtion D.C.
Guevara, Ernesto "Che"
1966 Condiciones para el desarrollo econdmico lati-
noamericano. Montevideo.
Handler, Richard, and Eric Gable
1997 The New History in an Old Museum. Duke University
Press, Durham.
Hale, Charles
1996 Introduction. Journal of Latin American Anthropology
2:2-3.
Haraway, Donna
1986 Primatology Is Politics by Other Means: Women's Place
Is in the Jungle. In Feminist Approaches to Science, edited
by Ruth Bleier, pp. 77-1 18. Pergamon Press, London.
Harrison, Faye
1991 Anthropology as an Agent of Transformation: Intro-
ductory Comments and Queries. In Decolonizing Anthro-
pology: Moving Further Toward an Anthropology of
Liberation, edited by F. Harrison, pp. 88-109. American
Anthropological Association, Washington D.C.
Joseph, Gilbert, and Daniel Nugent (editors)
[Vol. 12, No. 4, 20011
1994 Everyday Forms of State Formation: Revolution and the
Negotiation of Rule in Modem Mexico. Duke University
Press, Durham, North Carolina.
Kincaid, Jamaica
1997 My Brother. Farrar, Straus and Giroux, New York.
Klejn, Leo S.
1977 A Panorama of Theoretical Archaeology. Current
Anthropology 18:1 4 2 .
1980 On the Building of Theoretical Archaeology. Current
Anthropology 21 :52 1-525.
Kohl, Phillip, and Clare Fawcett (editors)
1995 Nationalism, Politics, and the Practice ofArchaeology.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Leone, Mark
1988 The Georgian Order as the Order of Merchant Capital-
ism in Annapolis, Maryland. In The Recovery of Meaning:
Historical Archaeology in the Eastern United States, edited
by Mark Leone and Barbara Potter, pp. 263-292. Smith-
sonian Institution Press, Washington D.C.
Lomnitz Adler, Claudio
1995 El problema de escala en la antropologia cultural. In La
heterodoxia recuperada: en torno a Angel Palerm, edited by
Sidney Mintz, pp. 597-616. Siglo XXI, Mexico.
Upez, Fernando
1984 Superficies y volumenes: aspectos de la construccion
tedrica en arqueologia. Boletin de Antropologia Americana
1O:l-32.
Lumbreras, Luis
1981 La arqueologia como ciencia social. Ediciones Histar,
Lima.
1982 La arqueologia cientifica social: 3 principios, 3 crite-
nos y 3 factores. Gaceta Arqueoldgica Andina l(4-5):3,10.
Instituto Andino de Estudios Arqueologicos, Lima.
1990 Cronologia arqueoldgica de Cochasqui. Honorable
Consejo Provincial de Pichincha, Quito.
Mallon, Florencia
1996 Constructing Mestizaje in Latin America: Authenticity,
Marginality, and Gender in the Claiming of Ethnic Identi-
ties. Journal ofLatin American Anthropology 2(1): 17G181.
Marcos, Jorge
1986 La investigacibn y ensefianza de la arqueologia en el
Ecuador. In Guia histdrica informativa, pp. 41-48. Centro
de Estudios Arqueoldgicos y Antropoldgicos (ESPOL), E.Q.
Editorial, Guayaquil.
Mariategui, Jose Carlos
1955 Siete ensayos de interpretacidnde la realidadperuana.
Editorial Universitaria, Santiago.
Marti, JosC
1977[1891] Nuestra Amtrica. Biblioteca Ayacucho,
Venezuela.
McEwan, Colin, Charles Hudson, and Maria Isabel Silva
1994 Archaeology and Community: A Village Cultural Cen-
ter and Museum in Ecuador. Practicing Anthropology
16:3-7.
McGuire, Randall
1992 A Marxist Archaeology. Academic Press, New York.
1997 Crossing the Border. In Prehistory of the Borderlands:
Recent Research in the Archaeology of Northern Mexico
and the Southern Southwest, edited by John Carpenter and
Guadalupe Sanchez, pp. 13G137. Arizona State Museum
Archaeological Series 186, University of Arizona, Tucson.
McGuire, Randall, and Rodrigo Navarrete
1999 Entre motocicletas y fusiles: las arqueologfas radicales
anglosajona y latinoamericana. Boletin de Antropologia
Americana 3439-1 10.
MontanC, Julio
 FORUM
1980 Marxismo y arqueologia. Ediciones de Cultura Popu-
lar, Mexico.
Morraga, Cherrie
1986 From a Long Line ofvendidas: Chicanas and Feminism.
In Feminist Studies/Critical Studies, edited by Teresa de
Laurentis, pp. 173-190. Indiana University Press, Bloom-
ington.
1994 Art inAm6ricacon acento. In Negotiating Performance:
Gendec Sexuality and Theatricality in Latin/o America,
edited by Diana Taylor and Juan Villegas, pp. 3G36. Duke
University Press, Durham, North Carolina.
Nash, June
1975 Nationalism and Fieldwork. Annual Review of Anthro-
pology 225-245.
Navarrete, Rodrigo
1999 Latin American Social Archaeology: One Goal, Multi-
ple Views. Unpublished Master's Thesis, Department of
Anthropology, State University of New York at Bingham-
ton.
Newell, Gillian
1999 American and Mexican Archaeology: Differences in
Meaning and Tradition. Bulletin of the Societyfor American
Archaeology 17(5):29-3 1.
Olivera de Vasquez, Mercedes
1970 Algunos Problemas de la Investigacion Antropoldgica
Actual. In De eso que llaman antropologia Mexicana, pp.
9 4 1 18. Editorial Nuestro Tiempo, Mexico.
Oyuela-Caycedo, Augusto
1994 History of Latin American Archaeology.Aldershot,Ave-
bury, England.
Oyuela-Cayceo, Augusto, Armando Anaya, Carlos G. Elera, and
Lidio M. Valdez
1997 Social Archaeology in Latin America?: Comments to
T. C. Patterson. American Antiquity 62:365-374.
Paredes, Domingo, and Eduardo Estrella
1989 Cochasqui: aspectos socio-econdmicos y nutritivos.
Programa Cochasqui, Honorable Consejo Provincial de
Pichincha, Quito.
Patterson, Thomas C.
1994 SocialArchaeology in Latin America: An Appreciation.
American Antiquity 59:53 1-37.
1995 Toward a Social History of Archaeological Thought.
Harcourt Brace College Publishers, New York.
Patterson, Thomas C., and Peter Schmidt
1995 Introduction: From Constructing to Making Alternative
Histories. In Makina" Alternative Histories: The Practice of
Archaeology and History in Non- WesternSettings, edited by
Thomas C. Patterson and Peter Schmidt, pp. 1-24. School
- -
of American Research, Santa Fe.
Politis, Gustavo
1995 The Socio-Politics of the Development of Archaeology
in Hispanic South America. In Theory in Archaeology: A
World Perspective,edited by Peter Ucko, pp. 197-235. Rout-
ledge, London.
Poole, Deborah
1997 Vision, Race, and Modernity: A Visual Economy of the
Andean Image World.Princeton University Press, Princeton,
New Jersey.
Programa Cochasqui
1991 Replanteamiento programatico. Honorable Consejo
Provincial de Pichincha, Quito.
Quintero, Rafael
1997 Identidad nacional y estado nacional. In Identidad
nacional y globalizacidn, pp. 139-164. ILDIS, FLACSO,
and Instituto de Altos Estudios Nacionales, Quito.
Quintero, Rafael, and Erika Silva
369
1991 Ecuador: una nacidn en ciernes, Volumenes 1, 2, y 3.
FLACSO and Abya-Yala, Quito.
Ramos, Alcida
1990 Ethnology Brazilian Style. Cultural Anthropology
5:452-472.
2000 Anthropologist as Political Actor. Journal of Latin Amer-
ican Anthmpology, 415: 172-189.
Ribeiro, Darcy
1971 El dilema de AmPrica Latina: estrategias de poder y
fuerzas insurgentes. Siglo XXI, Mexico.
Rodb, JosC Enrique
1922[1900] Ariel. Houghton and Mifflin, Boston.
Rowe, William, and Vivian Schelling
1991 Memory and Modernity: Popular Culture in LatinAmer-
ica. Verso, London.
Sanoja, Mario, and Iraida Vargas
1978 Antiguas formaciones y modos de produccidn Vene-
zolanos. Monte Avila, Caracas.
Silberman, Neil
1995 Promised Lands and Chosen People: The Politics and
Poetics of Archaeological Narrative. In Nationalism, Poli-
tics, and the Practice ofArchaeology, edited by Philip Kohl
and Clare Fawcett, pp. 249-262. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge.
Silva, Erika
1995 Los mitos de la ecuatorianidad: ensayo sobre la iden-
tidad nacional. Abya-Yala, Quito.
Smith, Carol
1996 Myths, Intellectuals, and RaceIClasdGender Distinc-
tions in the Formation of Latin American Nations. Journal
of Latin American Anthropology 2(1): 148-169.
Sorbo, Gunnar
1982 Anthropology at Home and Abroad: A Discussion of
Epistemological and Ethical Issues. In Indigenous Anthro-
pology in Non- WesternCountries, edited by Hussein Fahim,
pp. 152-163. North Carolina Academic Press, Durham.
Starn, Orin
1994 Rethinking the Politics of Anthropology: The Case of
the Andes. Current Anthropology 35: 13-38.
Stutzman, Ronald
1981 El Mestizaje: An All-Inclusive Ideology of Exclusion.
In Cultural Transformations and Ethnicity in Modern
Ecuador, edited by Norman Whitten, pp. 45-93. University
of Illinois Press, Urbana.
Sullivan, Paul
1991 Un$nished Conversations: Mayas and Foreigners
Bemeen Two Wars. University of California Press, Berke-
ley.
Trigger, Bruce
1989 Hyperrelativism, Responsibility and the Social Sci-
ences. Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology
26(5):776-97.
1995 Romaticism, Nationalism, and Archaeology. In Nation-
alism, Politics, and the Practice of Archaeology, edited by
Philip Kohl and Clare Fawcett, pp. 263-279. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.
Valencia, E ~ q u e
1970 La formacion de nuevos antropologos. In De eso que
llaman antropologia mexicana, pp. 119-1 53. Editorial Nue-
stro Tiempo, Mexico.
Vargas, Iraida
1990 Arqueologia, ciencia y sociedad. Editorial Abre Brecha,
Caracas.
1995 The Perception of History and Archaeology in Latin
America. In Making Alternative Histories: The Practices oj
Archaeology and History in Non- Western Societies, edited
370 LATIN AMERICAN ANTIQUITY
by Thomas C. Patterson and Peter Schmidt, pp. 47-68.
School of American Research, Santa Fe.
Vargas, Iraida, y Mario Sanoja
1993 Historia, identidad,y poder. Fondo Editorial Tr6pykos,
Caracas.
Vasconcelos, JosC
1997 The CosmicRace. John Hopkins University Press, Bal-
timore.
Veloz-Maggiolo, Manuel
1984 La arqueologfa de la vida cotidiana: matices, historia y
diferencias. Boletin de Antropologia Americana 10:5-21.
Viezzer, Moema (editor)
1977 "Si me permiten hablar": testimonio de domitila, una
mujer de las minus de Bolivia. Siglo XXI, Mexico.
Villalba, 0.Marcelo
1988 Cotocollao: una aldea f o m t i v a del valle de Quito.
Museo del Banco Central del Ecuador, Quito.
Wallerstein, Immanuel
1974 The Modem World System: Agriculture and the Origin
of the European World Economy in the Sixteenth Century.
Academic Press, New York.
Weiss, Rachel
1991 Being Amirica: Essays on Art, Literature and Identity
From Latin America. White Pine Press, New York.
Wolf, Eric
1969 Peasant Warsof the Twentieth Century.Harper and Row,
New York.
Wylie, Alison
1989 Matters of Fact and Matters of Interest. In Archaeolog-
[Vol. 12, No. 4, 20011
icalApproachesto CulturalIdentity,edited by Stephen Shen-
nan, pp. 94-109. Unwin Hyman, London.
1992 The Interplay of Evidential Constraints and Political
Interests: Recent ArchaeologicalResearch on Gender. Amer-
ican Antiquity 57: 15-35.
1995 Alternative Histories: Epistemic Disunity and Poltical
Integrity. In Making Alternative Histories: The Practice of
Archaeology and History in Non- Westem Settings, edited by
Thomas C. Patterson and Peter Schmidt, pp. 255-272.
School of American Research Press, Santa Fe.
Yudice, George, Juan Flores, and Jean Franco (editors)
1992 On Edge: The Crisis of ContemporaryLatin American
Culture. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis.
Zea, Leopoldo
1970 AmCrica en la historia. Editorial Castilla, Madrid.
1971 Precursores del pensamiento latinoamericanocontem-
poraneo. Secretaria de Educaci6n Wblica, Mexico.
1974 Dependencia y liberacidn en la cultura latinoameri-
cana. Editorial Joaquin Mortiz, Mexico.
1978 Filosofa de la historia americana. Fondo de Cultura
Econ6mica, Mexico.
Zubizarreta, Armando
1983 La aventura del trabajo intelectual: como estudiar e
investigar. Fondo Educativo Interamericano, Mexico.
Submitted January 17, 2001; accepted June 8, 2001; revised
August 30, 2001.
http://www.jstor.org

LINKED CITATIONS
- Page 1 of 2 -

You have printed the following article:

Returning to the Source: Social Archaeology as Latin American Philosophy
O. Hugo Benavides
Latin American Antiquity, Vol. 12, No. 4. (Dec., 2001), pp. 355-370.
Stable URL:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=1045-6635%28200112%2912%3A4%3C355%3ARTTSSA%3E2.0.CO%3B2-C

This article references the following linked citations. If you are trying to access articles from an
off-campus location, you may be required to first logon via your library web site to access JSTOR. Please
visit your library's website or contact a librarian to learn about options for remote access to JSTOR.

References Cited

Social Formations, Modo de Vida, and Conflict in Archaeology

Bradley E. Ensor
American Antiquity, Vol. 65, No. 1. (Jan., 2000), pp. 15-42.
Stable URL:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-7316%28200001%2965%3A1%3C15%3ASFMDVA%3E2.0.CO%3B2-F

A Panorama of Theoretical Archaeology

Leo S. Klejn
Current Anthropology, Vol. 18, No. 1. (Mar., 1977), pp. 1-42.
Stable URL:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0011-3204%28197703%2918%3A1%3C1%3AAPOTA%3E2.0.CO%3B2-%23

On the Building of a Theoretical Archaeology

L. S. Klejn
Current Anthropology, Vol. 21, No. 4. (Aug., 1980), pp. 521-526.
Stable URL:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0011-3204%28198008%2921%3A4%3C521%3AOTBOAT%3E2.0.CO%3B2-6

Nationalism and Fieldwork

June Nash
Annual Review of Anthropology, Vol. 4. (1975), pp. 225-245.
Stable URL:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0084-6570%281975%292%3A4%3C225%3ANAF%3E2.0.CO%3B2-3
http://www.jstor.org

LINKED CITATIONS
- Page 2 of 2 -

Social Archaeology in Latin America: An Appreciation

Thomas C. Patterson
American Antiquity, Vol. 59, No. 3. (Jul., 1994), pp. 531-537.
Stable URL:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-7316%28199407%2959%3A3%3C531%3ASAILAA%3E2.0.CO%3B2-W

Ethnology Brazilian Style

Alcida Rita Ramos
Cultural Anthropology, Vol. 5, No. 4. (Nov., 1990), pp. 452-472.
Stable URL:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0886-7356%28199011%295%3A4%3C452%3AEBS%3E2.0.CO%3B2-X

Rethinking the Politics of Anthropology: The Case of the Andes [and Comments and Reply]
Orin Starn; Olivia Harris; David Nugent; Stephen Nugent; Benjamin S. Orlove; S. P. Reyna; Gavin
Smith
Current Anthropology, Vol. 35, No. 1. (Feb., 1994), pp. 13-38.
Stable URL:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0011-3204%28199402%2935%3A1%3C13%3ARTPOAT%3E2.0.CO%3B2-T

The Interplay of Evidential Constraints and Political Interests: Recent Archaeological

Research on Gender
Alison Wylie
American Antiquity, Vol. 57, No. 1. (Jan., 1992), pp. 15-35.
Stable URL:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-7316%28199201%2957%3A1%3C15%3ATIOECA%3E2.0.CO%3B2-G