Versión de HTML Básico
57
G
ustavo
G. P
olitis
Reflections on Contemporary Ethnoarchaeology
PYRENAE,
núm.
46
vol.
1
(2015)
ISSN: 0079-8215 EISSN: 2339-9171 (p. 41-83)
“indigenous history” (in the sense of Oliveira, 2001) or with a conception of archaeology
as a long-lasting history. In this approach, the emphasis is on understanding the process of
cultural continuity using ethnographic, ethnoarchaeological, and archeological data from
the same area, where a connection between contemporary people and the people who
produced the archeological deposit under investigation can be proven. It is argued that the
cultural continuity of the chronological sequence from pre-Hispanic periods to the present,
based on a “marked conservatism”—not only in the spatial organization of the villages
but also on ceramics technology, subsistence, and the placement of settlements—“permits
fairly detailed direct historical comparisons” (Heckenberger
et al
., 1999). This approach
has had greater development among the Arawak ethno-linguistic groups (Heckenberger,
1996) and the Tupi (Silva
et al
., 2008; Stuchi, 2008). Although the results obtained by
this kind of research could be considered historically restricted, the potential for understan-
ding general cultural patterns in past Amazonian societies —such as village configuration
and size, village occupation and abandonment, formation of black soils, and so on— is
enormous. While this third trend is strong in Brazil, the colossal long-term archaeological,
ethnohistorical, and ethnoarchaeological research carried out by Tom Dillehay among the
Mapuche in their land in southern Chile can be placed in this set (Dillehay, 2007, 2014).
Fig. 5.
Argentine ethnoarchaeologist Axel Nielsen, resting in one stop during the trip, when he was traveling with llama herders in
Lípez (Potosí highlands, Bolivia), 2000. Photo courtesy of Axel Nielsen.