Página 60 - Pyrenae46-1

Gustavo G. Politis Reflections on Contemporary Ethnoarchaeology
58 PYRENAE, núm. 46 vol. 1 (2015)ISSN: 0079-8215 EISSN: 2339-9171 (p. 41-83)
In addition to these tendencies, some ethnoarchaeological studies in Latin America
have been developed in comparison and relation to the archaeological record of another
region, without assuming historical continuity, but presuming certain conditions of com-
parability. The results of research by José López Mazz (2004, 2006) draw attention to the
formal similarities and differences between the Matis villages of the Vale do Javari, in the
Brazilian Amazon, and the set of archaeological cerritos of the Uruguayan lowlands (López
Mazz, 2008, 2010). The information provided by the Matis village is used to interpret and
discuss the genesis and function of the set of mounds found in Merin Lake. Although this
archaeological record of the Uruguayan territory was related to Pampean hunter-gatherer
communities, there are different elements that enable association to the “Amazonian
mundi system” (López Mazz, 2008).
Another less represented approach is that which explores the contemporary use and
perception of the landscape in reference to the archaeological data, but without assuming
any historical continuity. One example is the study made by Yépez Regalado (2007) about
resignification of the archaeological landscape in Laguna de la Ciudad (Ecuador) by the
Afro-descendants and the Manabí peasants. This short review should also mention a latent
and varied ethnoarchaeological production, but of which there is very little published,
that can be found in Master theses especially in Brazil (i.e., Stuchi, 2008) and Mexico
(i.e. Vargas, 2010).
The general review of South American contributions to ethnoarchaeology could also
include the work being done by the Dutch in the Caribbean in the last few years, inclu-
ded in wider archaeological projects, such as the research by J. Mans (2012, 2014) about
the Trio and the Waiwai of Southern Guiana and Surinam. The contributions by Siegel,
working among the same groups and the Wayana in the Guiana highlands (2014) should
be included as well.
The so-called Latin American Social Archaeology, one of the schools of thought
original to Latin America, has not made incursions into the field of ethnoarchaeology,
despite acknowledging its central role in analogical argumentation and accepting its
importance for archaeological interpretation (Gándara, 2006). The exception are the
works by Patricia Fournier (1990, 1995) in Mexico, who is, at the same time, one of
the more critical authors of this school of thought (Castillo et al., 2008). Perhaps this
lack of interest in ethnoarchaeology has to do with the fact that, in this school, “pro-
duction modes” (for instance, hunter-gatherer or tribal) have been generated deducti-
vely and function as stereotypes. Thus, Latin American social archaeologists have not
corroborated or contrasted these analytic categories against the ethnographic informa-
tion available and, as a result, have eroded the variability, richness and complexity of
every one of these “production modes”. In this context, it is not difficult to understand
why almost none of the Latin American social archaeologists have not embarked on
an ethnoarchaeological project neither used nor debated the models generated from
ethnoarchaeology.