Página 45 - Pyrenae46-1

43
G ustavo G. Politis Reflections on Contemporary Ethnoarchaeology
PYRENAE, núm. 46 vol. 1 (2015)ISSN: 0079-8215 EISSN: 2339-9171 (p. 41-83)
arities of ethnoarchaeology in Latin America have been overlooked. Most of the theoretical
reflections written in languages other than English or produced outside the USA-Great
Britain-Australia axis remain quite hidden outside the country or region of origin (although
the same does not happen with the data). This invisibility not only concerns the so-called
“third-world” countries but it is also evident in books written in Western Europe, such as
France (Gallay, 2011), Italy (Vidale, 2004) and Spain (González-Ruibal, 2003). Needless
to say, ethnoarchaeology from eastern countries such as China (Kong, 2013) and Russia
(Kenig et al., 2013) or the Near East (Tekkök-Biçken, 2000) remain imperceptible in global
debate about this subdiscipline.1 Without doubt, the most popular and best known ideas and
models based on ethnoarchaeology have a strong Anglo-American bias. This is justifiable
only in part. British and North American researchers have made important and sustainable
contributions to this subdiscipline and were instrumental in developing the field during the
early days. These Anglo-American groups of active researchers, supported by wealthy and
prestigious universities and foundations that funded long-term projects, have been crucial
in setting the groundwork for ethnoarchaeology and have produced methodological, con-
ceptual and theoretical contributions that have consolidated the subdiscipline (among many
others, Binford, 1978; Longacre, 1978; Kramer, 1979, 1982; Hodder, 1982a, 1982b; Gould,
1980). However, Latin Americans and other archaeologists researching in this region—Latin
Americanists—have also contributed to the growth of the subdiscipline, and, especially in
the last two decades, have produced original approaches (among many others, Hernando,
1997; Yacobaccio et al., 1998; Wüst, 1998; Silva, 2000, 2009; Nielsen, 2000; González-Ruibal,
2003; Politis, 2007; López Mazz, 2006; García Roselló, 2008; González-Ruibal et al., 2011;
Ramón, 2013), which remain quite opaque to the rest of the world. Therefore, one of
the main purposes of this article is to incorporate the voices of Latin Americans and Latin
Americanists—especially those from Spain—into the current debate, and to highlight some
of their developments and ideas.
Defining ethnoarchaeology
To put it in simple words, in order to lay foundations for the sake of understanding,
ethnoarchaeology can be broadly defined as a research strategy and a subdiscipline
of anthropology that can be placed in what Binford (1981) called actualistic studies.
Ethnoarchaeology differs from other actualistic studies (such as taphonomy or experimen-
tal archaeology) in that it includes the systematic observation of living societies. We can
distinguish this subdiscipline from other types of ethnographic research by its explicit focus
1. Fortunately, and in consonance with the goals and policies of the World Archeological Congress, the recent book
edited by Marciniak and Yalman (2013) has brought into the attention of the western world the ethnoarchaeological
developments from countries that are usually not well known.