Versión de HTML Básico
53
G
ustavo
G. P
olitis
Reflections on Contemporary Ethnoarchaeology
PYRENAE,
núm.
46
vol.
1
(2015)
ISSN: 0079-8215 EISSN: 2339-9171 (p. 41-83)
Varela, 2003, 2005a), food conservation (Vázquez Varela, 2001, 2002), and the domes-
tication and use of horses (Vázquez Varela, 2005b, 2006a, 2006b). In addition, the
ethnoarchaeology of Spain’s rural populations has been the object of study of several
researchers, such as Torres and Sagardoy (2006). Recent interesting contributions also
include the ethnoarchaeological study of the Asturias’ cattlemen (González Álvarez, 2007;
López Gómez and González Álvarez, 2013).
Finally, there are other regional ethnoarchaeological traditions, such as the German
(Struwe, 2013) or the Scandinavian, which have concentrated their fieldwork basically in
northern Scandinavia and Siberia (Gron and Kusnetzov, 2003; Gron, 2005, 2012). These
traditions are quite new and have no recognizable influence on the ethnoarchaeology of
Latin America.
Ethnoarchaeology in Latin America
Ethnographic research in Latin America was pervaded by a great interest in material cul-
ture and the description of production and use processes, especially since the late nine-
teenth century. In some cases, there was an interest in the social and ideational contexts
these processes involved (see among others, Hyades, 1885; Hyades and Deniker, 1891;
Nordenskiöld, 1912; Schmidt, 1905, 1914; Gusinde, 1931; Koch-Grünberg, 2005 [1909]).
In these works, there are clear references to the researchers’ awareness of the usefulness
of their ethnographic rescue for archaeological interpretation. Barbosa Rodrigues (1876,
1892), for instance, inspired by the “uniformitarianism” theory that prevailed at the time,
believed in analogy, assuming that “as geology, in ethnography, modern data explains old
data” (Barbosa Rodrigues, 1876: 102; see Silva, 2009: 28-29). Another clear reference to
the usefulness of current observations for archaeological interpretation can be found in the
work by Goeldi (2009 [1904]), who after a detailed description of the use of stone axes by
current Amazonian indigenous people stated: “I believe I do not deceive myself by thinking
that this small contribution to South American ethnography will be welcomed by prehis-
tory experts as well, inasmuch as it can stimulate a more careful comparison and revision
of the Old and the New World stone ages” (Goeldi, 2009 [1904]: 133). With this statement,
Goeldi was trying to adjust and set limits to the use and abuse of ethnographic analogy in
archaeological interpretation. Although all of these authors lacked a subdisciplinary self-
consciousness, their approaches constitute a sort of regional proto-ethnoarchaeology, and
are its direct predecessors.
Ethnoarchaeology emerged in Latin America during the foundational period of the
1970s and contributed to the development of the discipline. There were two main lines
of ethnoarchaeological research, one performed by North Americans, and the other by a
variety of local and French archaeologists. In the first group, several contributions can be
included: a) the early work carried out by Lyon (1970), who observed the action of dogs