CALL FOR PAPERS:



ARCHAEOLOGY IN THE AMERICAS DURING THE XXth CENTURY: SEVERAL DIFFERENT HISTORIES
(Gordon R. Willey Symposium in the History of Archaeology)

71th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology
San Juan de Puerto Rico (April 26-30, 2006)



Call for papers for the first meeting of the Society for American Archaeology to be held in a location out of the United States' mainland. This event, which customarily takes place during the Society for American Archaeology's meetings dedicated to Gordon R Willey, for his paramount contribution to the history of archaeology. The purpose, this year, is to discuss, reflect and rethink the development of this discipline throughout the 20th century in the Americas. The subject to be addressed at this time will refer to:  "Several different histories". The attendance of Latin American experts is particularly encouraged.

Chair: Dr. Daniel Schavelzon (University of Buenos Aires, Argentina)
[log in to unmask]     [log in to unmask]     [log in to unmask]

Deadline for abstracts: agost 15, 2005   see registration forms at www.saa.org

---------------------------------

On Some Major Issues Concerning History of Archaeology in the Americas Today

Archaeology, as opposed to many other disciplines in the world of science, needs to constantly source from the knowledge generated in the past. Its interest is not only focused on the very last breakthroughs -an excavation, a theoretical reflection-, but rather, due to its own destructive nature and to the fact that sites change or are transformed, the neeed arises to work with what others have done before, and at times, way back in the past. As a result, it has become customary for archaeologists to work with earlier texts, photographs or plans, something that a medic, a chemist or a biologist would never do. Even historians source from already published documents, though they rarely use past interpretations and descriptions, even if these were originated in the past century. For an archaeologist, on the contrary, it is indispensable to explore every previous progress made on his subject of study, and to provide a description and a discussion, as well as a detail which should be presented at the beginning of his publication. Clearly, it is valid to use such documents, as whatever other researchers had the chance to witness so long ago, now no longer exists, or does not exist in the same way. 

As a consequence of destruction or restoration, changes have been so sudden that each subsequent generation, in fact, has seen different things in one and the same place. Noone will ever see again Structure E7 from Uaxactún, noone will see again the surface of La Venta, or Pachacamac as Max Hule saw it when he work at the site, or the countless structures that covered other earlier ones and that had to be removed. How many sites have vanished, devoured by cities? Kaminaljuyú is one such example. Several books have explored the different approaches throughout time to a similar object such as a prehispanic city, a building, a territory, or a mere ceramic ware. The development of epigraphy shows how a single glyph has been interpreted in many different ways along the XXth century. 

This phenomenon of proximity with the pioneers has represented one of the gateways to history of archaeology in the Americas, followed shortly after by a second, different one: the first generation of scholars who elaborated great histories on the subject, presenting a vision which from the very beginning, and following Glyn Daniel, caused a strong impact by endowing it with a venerable genealogy. By the 1970's, and with one hundred years upon its shoulders, Americanistic archaeology already had a history of its own. Shortly after, however, criticisim gradually appeared, based on the fact that those histories were not only inserted in a debatable institutionalistic vision, but were also reinforcing what was deemed as a typical Anglo-Saxon, North American, mechanical manner to see the past: the history of archaeology was being presented as the development of new paradigms (both theoretical and methodological) and the dispersion thereof throughout the continent, always in a north-south direction, where those who more readily accepted them would very quickly become the champions of a struggle against the obscure minds of those who favored the notions of earlier stages. A history which, in extreme, some would consider both diffusionistic and Darwinistic in nature.

This history began to be gradually confronted by a different one, originated in territories where publishing and diffusion faced serious difficulties, and where chances were scarce as far as translations and publications was concerned. The claim was that together with a pure research archaeology, such as the one funded by U.S. museums and universities, one that allowed travels to other countries and the collection of relevant information -and much too often the collection of the archaeological objects themselves-, there was another archaeology engaged in a tremendous effort in the field of preservation, restoration, tourist attention, and diffusion. Thus, archaeology had switched from being simple, pure science, to become a heritage that was to be protected. René Millon represented the best possible example of this stand, with his remarkable mapping effort in Teotihuacan, while simultaneously México chose to invest a much larger amount in the restoration and touristic adequation of the site, which was already receiving about one million visitors per year. When comparing scientific results, the difference is overwhelming; the issue here is that the past was being used      -and recreated- in two different ways. The comparison was not valid.

Such alternative history was impressive, both in terms of achievements and handicaps, and exposed one of the reasons why there wouldn't be a coincidence in the way archaeological developments were considered. What was being written, for the most part, were books on the research efforts accomplished by U.S. and several European archaeologists and institutions in Latin America, together with the acceptance and collaboration of local archaeologists in front of that way of doing science, and disregarding any effort directed to prevent lootings, to preserve and restore, to build museums, and to make people aware of the significance of their heritage. Perhaps the example of Eduard Thompson, hailed as a pioneer in international bibliography, and simultaneously considered a looter and a contractor who exploited his laborers, and an individual who enjoyed diplomatic immunity may be valid, in spite of the time elapsed.

History of archaeology in the Americas, once the study of the most important pioneers was completed, led the way to an additional broad issue. This consisted in the search of  "second-liners", in the pursuit of new interesting histories. Potentially, they were outstanding individuals who due to the momentary situation, or their social ascription, or for working out of the large cities, were not allowed to interact and compete with those who were a part of the institutional front. Such fronts were extremely rigid and shut any different line of thinking, while their political stand, at times -exacerbated Nationalism in México, or Nazism and Fascism in Argentina- represented the only valid alternatives. Thus, many scholars with the capability to produce important contributions in their fields of expertise were left aside, whenever reality prevented them to occupy a position of privilege. The formation of institutional "corporations" at the core of each country remains a subject to be debated, and has just begun to be studied. There are already a few gender histories that allow us to catch a glimpse on the feminine interpretation of the past. We face as well challenges concerning the first non-Catholic archaeologists in countries where religion is dominant, and concerning the first scholars of an indigenous or Afro-American origin. There is still plenty to elaborate about the history of the long-existing controversy between archaeologists from different countries and with different ideologies.

An additional subject of interest has to do with archaeologists working in large cities and museums from Latin America, and with those who lived and worked more modestly in smaller cities within the hinterlands, who usually suffered a scarcity of literature and resources. We have observed with interest how science in each country has enhanced the image of those who acted in large cities, while in each state or province, on the contrary, those who chose to stay are considered local champions and even the museums carry their names, disregarding the fact that the work produced probably was not considered a leading effort at the time.

Finally, we have come to understand the role archaeology has played in the construction of the national identity in different territories. In countries with a strong indigenous tradition this is quite easy to understand, and was a reality since earlier times (Guatemala, Peru, Bolivia, and others), but in built countries, with artificial boundaries defined by the prevailing politics of the XIXth and XXth centuries (Panama, Belize, Uruguay), the most sophisticated maneuvers were put in practice so that they could exhibit some sort of national cohesion. Archaeology, in many ways, has played a crucial role in these definitions, undoubtedly related to the collective imaginary, the constructed memory and a newly-fabricated identity. 


The Present Symposium at the Dawn of the XXIth century

This Symposium, which hold the name of a pioneering personality for the history of archaeology in the Americas, will be held for the first time out of the United States' mainland. This is an important advancement towards honest discussion, held at a scientific level, between experts of the entire continent and elsewhere, who have plenty to say in this regard. Notions will be compared, as also different lines of thinking, and progress will be made in the knowledge of our field of expertise. The XXIst century has brought about the possibility, following the collapse of grand paradigms and absolute truths, to produce knowledge of a rather more open, flexible and critical nature, tha chance to set foot on some blurry territories which were perhaps considered as "politically incorrect".

Marxist-originated notions produced in Latin America an opening in the archaeological thinking of the 1960's and 1970's, and have been properly interpreted as a highly social line of thought strongly committed with the unjust situation of marginality and underdevelopment in which a large part of the continent is submerged. That is why it has referred -and still has plenty to say- to the insertion of arcaheology in a social and political reality of its own: excavations are not carried out in a void, but on the contrary, in specific countries. It has has referred as well to the relevance of those factors we all acknowledge nowadays: economy, production, social asymmetry and the opression some individuals inflict on others.

More than ever, here, today, archaeologists from an entire continent have a forum to discuss how we have come to create ourselves.