Historical Archaeology as Modern-World Archaeology in Argentina

Historical Archaeology as Modern-World Archaeology in ArgentinaAuthor(s): Charles E. Orser Jr.Reviewed work(s):Source: International Journal of Historical Archaeology, Vol. 12, No. 3, Historical Archaeologyin Argentina (September 2008), pp. 181-194Published by: SpringerStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20853160 .

Accessed: 04/02/2013 19:55

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Springer is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to International Journal ofHistorical Archaeology.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded on Mon, 4 Feb 2013 19:55:20 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=springer

http://www.jstor.org/stable/20853160?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


Int J Histor Archaeol (2008) 12:181-194 DOI 10.1007/sl0761-008-0052-z

Historical Archaeology as Modern-World Archaeology in Argentina

Charles E. Orser Jr.

Published online: 4 March 2008 ? Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2008

Abstract Historical archaeology has grown at a remarkable pace in the last decade. South America has seen a major growth in historical archaeology, with archae

ologists in Argentina playing a large role in the maturation of the discipline on the continent. Much of this archaeology can be characterized as "modern-world

archaeology" because of the archaeologists' interest in issues relevant to post Columbian cultural history.

Keywords Modem-world archaeology Argentina

Introduction

Over the past three decades, the field of historical archaeology has expanded dramatically as increasing number of professional archaeologists turn to the field. In accordance with this growth, greater numbers of students are acquiring classroom and fieldwork experience in historical archaeology as more academic archaeologists offer courses in the discipline.

Nowhere has the growth of historical archaeology been more important than in South America, including in Argentina, the subject of this special issue. As in so

many other places, the initial development of the discipline in that continent has rested with a handful of dedicated professionals. Their numbers may have been small at the beginning, but these scholars* unceasing labors and long hours have created a sustainable tradition of historical archaeology throughout South America,

The purpose of this short article is to present a few, brief personal thoughts about an explicit modern-world archaeology and to explore reasons why South American historical archaeology has the potential to become a major contributor to this kind of

archaeology. It is my hope that with time, the works of South American historical

C. E. Orser Jr. (M) Research and Collections Division, New York State Museum, 3140 Cultural Education Center,

Albany, NY 12230, USA e-mail: [email protected]

Springer



182 Int J Histor Archaeol (2008) 12:181-194

archaeologists will become as widely read as those of their colleagues in the Anglo American world, because their insights are centrally important to our expanding knowledge of the history of the world in which we live.

A Brief Explanation

Some explanation is required at the outset because of the confusion that has arisen over die term "historical archaeology." Archaeologists wishing to describe the

discipline as they practice it at the beginning of the 21st century can use three distinct terms: "historical archaeology," "global historical archaeology," and "modem-world archaeology." These terms initially appear interchangeable but the

meaning of each is actually quite distinct.

Beginning in the 1930s in the United States, historical archaeology was mostly practiced on die federal level for die expressed goal of architectural reconstruction of

properties important in the American national ideology. These properties would become the centerpiece of the growing heritage tourism market then developing in concert with the increased ownership of automobiles and the improvement of the nation's highway system. In the 1960s, historical archaeology first became

legitimized as an academic pursuit largely because of the temporal open-mindedness of processual archaeology, as first argued by Walter Taylor (1948). Developments in social history and attitudes about ethnic awareness also had a strong impact on the

thinking and research foci of historical archaeologists in the late 1960s and ever

since. As the discipline developed, then, archaeologists have tended to define historical archaeology in two related, but actually distinctive, ways: methodologi cally?as the combination of excavated and textual information?and as archaeol

ogy that is exclusively focused on post-Columbian history. The second meaning is more restrictive than the first, but it necessarily includes the methods of the first

meaning. All historical archaeologists combine their excavated findings with historical information. The second meaning, however, need not include the first. An archaeologist can practice what they may wish to call historical archaeology in

pre-Columbian central Mexico by combining excavated materials with Maya inscribed texts. Under the first definition, this methodology can be considered an

example of historical archaeology, even though the findings from classic-period Maya sites have little or no relevance to post-Columbian archaeology (Orser 2004b, pp. 6-14). Under the second definition, an archaeologist investigating the ancient

Maya would not be considered a historical archaeologist. The second term, "global historical archaeology," has a more recent origin. When

I started using it in the mid-1990s, (for example, as the title of my edited book series "Contributions to Global Historical Archaeology" begun in 1996), I envisioned it as

representing a specific perspective for historical archaeology. This perspective would have broad application throughout the world and help to link together archaeologies of the post-Columbian era wherever they were being conducted. Archaeologists adopting this view would be particularly mindful of the many inter- and intra territorial and trans-cultural connections that had extended through time and across

space after about 1500 or so. The precise beginning date of the purview of global historical archaeology is open to investigation because of the possible continuation

Springer



Int J Histor Archaeol (2008) 12:181-194 183

of pre-Columbian processes after 1500.1 had intended to use this term in a particular way, but soon saw it as problematic because it also can refer to archaeology that is

globally represented. In other words, "global historical archaeology" need not be

defined in terms of a subject matter. Rather, archaeologists can legitimately use it to

refer to a truly inclusive historical archaeology that encompasses all parts of the

globe, not simply those with European connections (i.e., Schmidt and Walz 2007). Full-scale inclusion is centrally important for the maturation of historical

archaeology as a meaningful endeavor because the field has too often been

associated only with the United States and other English-speaking countries that had a significant historical presence by members of Britain's colonial empire. For this

reason, the institution of new journals, like the Revista de Arqueologia Historica

Argentina y Latinoamericana perfectly conforms to the needs of a broadly based,

truly international historical archaeology. One reason for die need for an overtly internationalist perspective stems from the way

in which the profession of historical archaeology has been nationally and continentally

represented. Organizers of historical archaeology's professional societies designed them to be open to all, but in reality the Society for Historical Archaeology largely represents

North America, the Society for Post-Medieval Archaeology covers the British Isles, and

the Australasian Society for Historical Archaeology concentrates on Australia, New

Zealand, and the surrounding area. Other professional archaeological societies tend to

be national or even regional in concentration. This kind of exclusion was never

consciously intended, but simply developed because professional societies tend to draw

their membership locally. Extra-nationally conceived global historical archaeology

explicitiy encompasses every place archaeologists investigate the most recent centuries

of human history. Based on the recent, worldwide development of historical

archaeology?under whatever guise?the term "global historical archaeology" has come to be regarded as representing the discipline's all-inclusiveness rather than a

discrete subject matter. An all-inclusive historical archaeology serves scholarship and deflates the idea

that only American- or British-trained archaeologists know how to interpret the past

(Orser 1999, pp. 274-277). I founded the present journal in 1995 to provide a venue

for the publication of research from all over the world. After working for over a

decade to promote the cause of a globally inclusive historical archaeology, I find it

impossible to disagree with the popular meaning of "global historical archaeology" as an archaeology that truly represents the entire world. Global representation,

always the explicit intent of this journal, is definitely a positive development for

historical archaeology, however one chooses to define it. It must be noted, however, and from a purely theoretical point of view, that the

more commonplace use of the term "global historical archaeology" does not provide for a globally focused archaeology. Viewed from the perspective of theory

development, the term "global historical archaeology" is merely descriptive. It

portrays the spatial scope and topical breadth of the discipline, but it does not present a cogent theoretical outlook. By itself, it does not offer a way to see how the modem

(and subsequent post-modem) world developed and operates. Faced with the

looseness of this term, it appears that the term "modem-world archaeology" is

ultimately more useful. This term is designed to refer to a post-Columbian

archaeology that openly searches for global connections (Orser 1999, 2004a,

Springer




2007). The term "modem-world archaeology" better represents what I believe is

possible for historical archaeology as a serious and ultimately important archaeology. My position on modern-world archaeology is not without controversy, however,

as the charge of eurocentrism has been made against this perspective. Part of the

disagreement derives from the meaning of the word "modern." In a recent critique, anthropologist Jack Goody (2006) argues that any focus on modernity that is linked only with Europe is necessarily euroeentric. Goody notes, in line with die thinking of other notable scholars (e.g., Frank 1998; Pomeranz 2000), that "east," and especially China, must be considered in any examination of the modern world. The mention of China will strike a familiar chord with any knowledgeable historical archaeologist because of the trans-national importance of Chinese export porcelain.

What is especially interesting about Goody's attack on the fallacy of eurocentrism is that he draws much of his counter-evidence from the Mediterranean and the Near East. Interestingly, I specifically included these places when I originally began to formulate modem-world archaeology. In keeping with earlier ideas presented by Silberman (1995), I argued, as does Goody, that the linkage of the "old" and the "new" worlds would better help us to formulate more complete understandings of

colonialism, capitalism, and the genesis of the modern age. Thus, the charge of eurocentrism can be leveled at any archaeologist who chooses to investigate European history, but, whether or not the claim is justified in certain cases, the label most certainly does not apply to my formulation of modern-world archaeology. This discussion necessarily leads directly to modem-world archaeology, the third meaning for "historical archaeology."

Modern-World Archaeology, Microhistory, and Local-Global Connections

One of the central tenets of modem-world archaeology is its global focus, rather than

merely its global scope. This distinction means that the practitioners of modem world archaeology are constantly aware of the extra-site connections a site's inhabitants maintained with the "outside world," however one might wish to define or contextualize this "world." Because the "outside world" is understood multi

dimensionally, modem-world archaeology rejects the idea that historical archae

ologists should restrict themselves to the study of single sites as the end product of research. The research program of modern-world archaeology begins with the examination of single sites but proceeds from there.

This last point seems counter-intuitive, and I am not suggesting that archae

ologists do not study discrete sites?such a position would be ridiculous; of course,

archaeologists study single sites, and they do it quite well. Many of the site-specific studies archaeologists conduct provide important unique information, offer new

insights, break new methodological ground, and present ideas that perhaps have never been expressed before. As scholars, archaeologists must also pursue serious

scholarship for its own sake to enrich humanity's knowledge of itself and its history. But in modern-world archaeology, the single site does not constitute the end of the

analysis. The interconnectedness of the world, enacted through a series of temporal and spatial scales, is an important hallmark of the on-going globalization process. To

ignore it in the name of exclusive, site-specific analysis ignores the realities of post

al Springer




Columbian history. The transnational connections that are being pressed around the

world today have antecedents in die earliest days of multicultural, global expansion, and, as such, are worthy of serious archaeological study in their own right (Frank

1998; Goody 2006). The subject of reaching beyond the single site (or even group of sites) to the

wider world necessarily foregrounds the connection between the global and the

local. The idea that archaeologists focus on the minuria excavated from one site

leads to the easy association of archaeology with microhistory. The affinity between

archaeological research and microhistorical analysis deserves comment because of

the possibility that some readers may construe modem-world archaeology as not

concerned with the local. In other words, that in their eagerness to look toward the

global that modem-world archaeologists would ignore the trees for the forest. Such a

view, however, is unsustainable because, as noted above, all archaeological research

must begin locally?at the site-, intra-site-, or even feature-level. The issue at hand is

whether the research must terminate at the spatial limits of the site. Our

understanding of this issue can be further presented by a brief foray into

microhistory. Carlo Ginzburg, a name familiar to anyone interested in historical analysis, is

widely credited as being one of most proficient practitioners of "cultural micro

history." In his famous The Cheese and the Worms: The Cosmos of a Sixteenth

Century Miller, Ginzburg uses the 16th-century records of the Roman Inquisition to

interrogate the world of a single miller named Domenico Scandella (Ginzburg 1992). The careful recording of the inquisitors* interrogations of Scandella has provided an

unusually rich textual record, but one that is clearly biased. Ginzburg folly

recognizes the subjective nature of the documents, but nonetheless proceeds to

demonstrate their analytical value for illuminating the context of Scandella's times.

There can be no more microhistory than one focusing on a single individual, and

even archaeologists interested in the "big picture" must admit that the bulk of their

research activities will occur on a small, and sometimes extremely small, scale.

Historical archaeologists typically excavate on the household level, and only

occasionally do they have the oprx>rtunity to link together several households in the

same village or town (Gelichi 2006). Rarer still are studies of several villages in one

contextualized study. In this sense, historical archaeology and microhistory are

closely related. The philosophical connection between microhistory and archaeology was not lost

on Ginzburg, who, when describing his method for attempting to illuminate the

historical reality of 16th-century life among the faceless majority, states "Since

historians are unable to converse with the peasants of the 16th century (and, in any

case, there is no guarantee that they would understand them), they must depend almost entirely on written sources (and possibly archaeological evidence)"

(Ginzburg 1992, p. xv; emphasis added; also see p. 58). Other microhistorians also

have compared themselves to archaeologists by arguing that their comradeship derives from their common interest in the "trifles" of daily life, those things that

initially appear insignificant but which upon reflection may be uniquely important to

the telling of history (Egmond and Mason 1997, p. 2; Niccoli 1991, p. 93). Microhistorians unabashedly work to link historical and anthropological ways of

knowing to address questions of family structure, network relationships, popular

Springer




religious beliefs, and other features of the past that may help to produce what has been called a "prosopography from below" (Ginzburg and Poni 1991, p. 7; Levi

2001), or more prosaically, personal descriptions from the bottom up. To its

advocates, microhistory, like much archaeology, seeks "to open history to peoples who would be left out by other methods" (Muir 1991, p. xxi).

Microhistorians start with the proposition that history must not be written only by recounting grand events or by addressing the actions of powerful elites. The role of a

society's "haves" and the monuments they built to themselves (including politico legal structures of dominance) will continue to attract the attention of many historians, in the same way that archaeologists traditionally have been drawn to the monuments of die rich and powerful). Microhistorians?like social archaeologists? express their research agenda as a historical sociology of the everyday, an

examination of a mundane world in which thousands of individuals interacted in various-sized networks and thus made history through their daily practices (De Certeau 1984; Orser 2004c, pp. 119-140). In this sense, microhistory snares much in common with the "history from below" approach developed by historians in the 1960s and 1970s, an approach that is variously referred to as "grassroots history," "the history of the common people," or Alltagsgeschichte (Eckert and Jones 2002; Hobsbawn 1985; Ludtke 1995). As one historian has observed, this approach "provides a means for restoring their history to social groups who may have thought that they had lost it, or who were unaware that their history existed" (Sharpe 2001, p. 37). We may well argue that all peoples recognize that they have a history (though they may not always be in control of it), but the point is nonetheless well-taken. One of the lasting strengths of historical archaeology is its practitioners' ability to

investigate the lives of people ignored by official history. Similarities thus exist between microhistorians and historical archaeologists. Both

examine the lives and actions of past individuals and social groups, both investigate small entities (individual people and small groups, individual sites and neighbor hoods), both openly reject the artificial boundaries of the academic disciplines, and both frequently focus their attention on sources that may be incredibly particularistic.

Even though the work of microhistorians by definition is focused on the small, they nonetheless face the charge of trivialization. As one critic has asked, "When we examine something in great detail and at close range, do we understand it better?"

(Gregory 1999, p. 100). Because microhistorians examine the past in small social units?and frequently in short periods of time and in tiny geographical places? some critics have argued that their research has few if any implications for the larger sweep of history.

The charge of trivialization is potentially damning, but on reflection it is apparent that it can only be sustained by completely decontextualizing the subject of the

microhistoric analysis. Ginzburg's examination of Scandella shows this quite well. To understand the world in which this one miller lived, we must understand the

social, intellectual, and spiritual world in which all 16th-century millers lived.

Ginzburg's microhistory simply does not make sense without such this context. If the historical account stood in isolation, it would have the status of historical fiction,

where the action takes place in a de-spatialized world that is wholly of the author's creation. Just how much creating historians and archaeologists do is a subject of intense philosophical debate, but none of us can argue that the past did not exist, that

4^ Springer




all present-day constructions are entirely fabricated. If we are willing to believe that the historian's goals are honest, we also must be willing to accept that die

microhistory he or she presents has some degree of validity. Accepting that the historian cannot consider all facets of past reality, we must be willing to conclude that the picture they have created is at least plausible.

In any case, it is clear that microhistory, though focused on the small, must be

contextualized enough to provide a framework for understanding the sociohistorical

milieu in which the subject of the microhistory lived. The contextualization can be

presented in a series of different-sized scales in a manner that is wholly consistent with the goals of modem-world archaeology, including that currently being practiced in South America.

South American Historical Archaeology and Modern-World Archaeology

Excellent overviews of historical archaeology in South America have already appeared (see, for example, Funari 1996, 1998, 2007; Funari and Brittez 2006; Gomez Romero 2005a, and their bibliographies; also see Politis 2003, pp. 257-258), and so a similar treatment here is unnecessary. Rather, my intention is simply to

explore a few research issues that put the practice of South American historical

archaeology in the framework of modem-world archaeology. My comments should not be construed as attempting to provide a complete assessment or analysis of South American historical archaeology, but rather only to explore a few topics that I

personally find important to die further development of modern-world archaeology. For the sake of brevity, I will restrict my examples to projects undertaken in

Argentina, with the caveat that the projects I use are entirely selective, being based

solely on my limited, personal knowledge. As is true elsewhere, urban archaeology has been of major concern to historical

archaeologists in South America for many years, with many projects adding significantly to our understanding of urbanization in that continent Projects in Buenos Aires and elsewhere stand out as important examples (Schavelzon 1991, 2000; Zarankin 1994, 1995, 1996).

The late 18th-century map of Buenos Aires attributed to Charlevoix (Schavelzon 2000, p. 22) presents a picture of urban development that is today familiar. The map

depicts the classic bastioned fort characteristic of European colonialist expansion surrounded by the neat, linear arrangement of the city's most densely settled blocks. This map, when juxtaposed with the picture of present-day Buenos Aires

(Schavelzon 2000, p. 26), amply demonstrates the power of colonialism, even at

places we may consider being located at the "end of the world." At die same time, a

second map, also produced in the late 18th century (in fact, only 6 years earlier than the Charlevoix plan), demonstrates the power of maps to convey and mask

(Schavelzon 2000, p. 49). That Spanish settlers in the New World would attempt to construct cities that

mimicked what they knew in Europe is not surprising. Their constructions simply represent another element of superpower conquest that characterized the post Columbian era: the replication of landscapes that were familiar and comforting. The

archaeology in Buenos Aires documents both the unique aspects of the founding and

Springer




development of this major city, but at die same time provides comparative mformation for all urban centers around the globe. As a result, any large-scale archaeological overview of post-Columbian urbanization necessarily would be

incomplete without considering Buenos Aires. What is particularly noteworthy about Schivelzon's (2000) book, at least in terms of

modem-world archaeology, is his use of the intriguing phrase "A City at the End of the World.** This evocative phrase indicates that the archaeology of Buenos Aires, and

by extension other urban centers throughout South America, constitutes fertile ground for the explicit investigation of modern-world connections. The fine earthenware ceramics excavated by Schavelzon mirror those found at similarly dated archaeolog ical sites around the world, and their presence in the Buenos Aires collections is not

surprising. Importantly, however, it is its very commonness that makes these ceramics stand out as significant within a modern-world archaeology paradigm. The presence of

molded creamware and blue shell-edged plates, engine-turned bowls, and banded

pitchers?even considered outside their historical context?tangibly demonstrate that Buenos Aires, though perhaps at the "end of the world," was still an important node in a vast intercontinental, multi-national trade network. Seemingly identical artifacts excavated in diverse locales around the world provide testimony to the growing interconnectedness of the modem world and provide wonderful opportunities for

investigations consistent with the goals of modem-world archaeology. But the interconnectedness demonstrated by the presence of mass-produced and

widely marketed consumer goods only begins the task of the modern-world

archaeologist. The many meanings embodied in the connection between diverse

peoples must be explored with a clear emphasis on the sociohistorical contexts within which all actors were embedded. For modem-world archaeologists, a key concept is "globalization," the idea that expresses the inexorable linkage between the local and the global (Murray 2006, pp. 54-55). In the past, I have modified a well

worn phrase for archaeological purposes as "think globally, dig locally" (Orser 1996, p. 183). Modern-world archaeologists are always aware of the multiscalar links that were created, maintained, and re-created in the post-Columbian era by diverse inter connected actors all over the world.

To mention multiscalar links foregrounds the concept that modem-world

archaeology proceeds through the understanding of various social interactions enacted at different scales. The conceptualization of diverse scales of analysis, intended to model different scales of social interaction in the past, raises the need for a conscious understanding of network theory. The concept of the network is inherent in Schavelzon's analysis of Buenos Aires, but the conscious use of network theory, as a conceptual tool, requires further explanation. Elsewhere, I have explored network theory at length (Orser 2005), so here I wish only note its most salient

points. Network theory constitutes a body of thought that has developed through a

confluence of many disciplines, including many in the social sciences. A central tenet of social network theory is that people and social groups are connected to other

people and groups in various ways. "Social distance" is thus an expression of the

space between nodes in a network. Formal network analysts working in sociology model the different relational connections, in ascending order, as: actor-dyad-triad subgroup-group-social network (Wasserman and Faust 1994, pp. 17-20). For

& Springer




archaeological purposes, and thinking strictly spatially, we might conceptualize this

sequence on the ground as: site-dyad (two sites)-triad (three sites)-area (neighbor hood)- region-nation. Modem-world archaeologists, as demonstrated by SchAvelzon's research in Buenos Aires (and that of other urban archaeologists), also must add at least one more link to the conceptual chain: the transcontinental and trans-oceanic connections that constitute the post-Columbian world-system (e.g., Chase-Dunn 1989; Chase-Dunn and Anderson 2005; Wallerstein 1974, 1979, 1980). Modem-world

archaeologists also must recognize that social connections extend through time as well as across space. Many social interactions have historical meanings that transfer from

generation to generation. The significance of social connections enacted at various levels is well expressed

in archaeological studies of urban environments, but frontiers also are well suited to multiscalar analyses. Such sites were usually places of diverse inter-cultural contacts. The fortlet offers an excellent cultural environment to investigate the social contacts and connections forged and maintained in the modem era.

The archaeology of fortlets on Argentina's southern frontier thus is pertinent to the further development of modem-world archaeology (Gomez Romero 1996, 1999, 2005b; Gomez Romero and Ramos 1994). As military installations, the strategic locations and defensive designs of fortlets have significance for purely historical reasons. For one thing, their very presence provides tangible evidence for the spread of state power to be used against indigenous peoples. As archaeological sites, fortlets have the potential to provide unique, site-specific information about the process of colonization as it was enacted and pressed in certain locales throughout the world at various times in history.

The unfolding process of colonialism?its historical elements and its contempo rary implications?is a constant companion of modem-world archaeology, whether or not any particular archaeologist chooses to acknowledge its presence (Orser 1996, pp. 58-66). How each of us chooses to confront the colonial process will help to determine how historical archaeology is perceived outside the narrow confines of the academic world. Colonialism is not something that just "happened"; it has clear historical roots and present-day ramifications.

The subject of colonization suggests that fortlets, like all frontier settlements, were places wherein members of different cultures interacted. This conclusion seems commonsensical because of their placement on the inter-cultural frontier. Much of the resultant interaction was designed around peaceful trade, but much also was intended to be hostile. Both war and peace represent discrete elements of national

development and each foregrounds the colonizers' desire to acquire territory for settlement and resource exploitation. But this simple reading of the colonial process is only partial. As Gomez Romero (2005b) demonstrates, the power exerted at fortlets was not simply meant to be used against indigenous people. Fortlet also were

places of internal punishment. Gaucho-soldiers living in fortlets were exposed to a number of serious punishments, including execution, for infractions of the installation's regulations. The punishments meted out were often arbitrary, and so the fear of the soldiers inside the fortlets may have equaled that experienced by the

indigenous peoples who lived outside these tiny outposts of the nation-state. The archaeology of fortlets also has significant potential to advance modem

world archaeology because many were occupied for short periods. For example,

& Springer




Miriana Fortlet studied by Gomez Romero (1996, 1999; Gomez Romero and Ramos

1994) was occupied for less man a decade. Such short-term habitation is especially intriguing for modern-world archaeology because the multiscalar approach encom

passes both time and space. One of the great strengths of archaeology is its admitted ability to examine large

segments of time, so excitement over sites briefly inhabited seems to run counter to a

basic archaeological principle. In modem-world archaeology, however, sites of short term occupation can increase our knowledge about how rapidly networks, bom social and economic, can be established. Recent research (Landa et al., mis volume) carefully documents the ways in which military outposts were supplied. The presence of consumer goods at frontier military sites (such as pieces of the globally omnipresent transfer-printed pearlware) provides a tangible link to urban life far beyond the frontier. The nature of die connections created and maintained between places we

might refer to as "urban" and "frontier," or conversely "European" and "native,"

provides tremendous research opportunity for modem-world archaeologists. Another guiding principle of modern-world archaeology involves adopting a

special perspective on time. For many years, archaeologists have sought to

demonstrate, with varying degrees of success, the connection between past and

present Many archaeologists have argued that their discipline is socially relevant because it offers this opportunity for linkage. The connection seems to rest solely on common sense because the present clearly did not simply appear, today's world is the result of centuries of development. The construction of fortlets along Argentina's southern frontier in the 19th century, for example, helps us to conceptualize some of the historical elements of state formation as they appear today. Their presence equally helps to explain the present-day conditions faced by indigenous cultures who have been subject to external pressures, many of which have been devastating in their lasting effects.

Attempts to connect the past with the present are admirable and important, but modern-world archaeologists must think a bit differently. Rather than attempting to link the past with the present, modern-world archaeologists must overtly engage in a

bidirectional temporization. Returning to Miriana Fortlet as an example, we must learn to look before 1861?when native peoples surrounded Buenos Aires and controlled the countryside using time-tested patterns of traditional interaction?and after 1870?when the fort was abandoned. The conscious recognition of the need to look forward and backward from a site's initial and terminal occupation dates, rather than simply forward from it to the present, gives modem-world archaeology a

special perspective on the development of the modem world. When history is viewed in this bidirectional manner, it becomes clear that the

purview of modem-world archaeology does not necessarily terminate at 1492, 1600, or even 1950. World history is far too complex to permit easy periodization, even

though such conventions have great heuristic value. One aim of modem-world

archaeology is not to take a subject like the urbanization of Buenos Aires and to show how its development bridges history (though this subject is entirely legitimate and worthy of investigation as traditional historical archaeology), but rather to argue from the vantage point of an archaeological site to the present and into the past. Historical archaeologists too often only provide a brief overview of the prehistory of a site area or, if conducting urban archaeology, present the early history of the city

Q Springer




under study and then explain die excavated archaeological findings as if they are

detached from history. This approach is unpalatable to modern-world archaeology because it should proceed in both temporal directions from the occupation dates of the site or sites under study. How far the archaeologist must go in either temporal direction will be determined by the subject matter at hand and should be based on

relevance. For example, when excavating a site in Buenos Aires dating from 1790 to

1830, the modem-world archaeologists would seek to move into the past from 1790 and into the present from 1830. This analytical method, however, is not open-ended because the archaeologist should not feel compelled to investigate the entire human

history of urbanization.

Ballent and Podgorny (1994) have provided an example of the promise of the bi

directionality of perspective. Their examination of urban housing as presented in

Argentina's school books, though focused on a certain period of history, could be used to bridge history in both directions. Their study is not an example of modem world archaeology because they do not actually construct the bridges in both directions?and because they do not actually use archaeological information?but their research intent is entirely consistent with the concept of temporal bi

directionality. Unlike many definitions of historical archaeology, modem-world archaeology

does not establish a terminal date of interest. In a theoretical sense, the purview of modern-world archaeology does not end at the year 1750 or 1850. hi fact, die

temporal interest of modem-world archaeology terminates with the present, meant in the literal sense of term, meaning "this day." (The word "today" is not applicable because archaeologists often use it to mean "the present") As a result, modern-world

archaeologists can examine topics that have profound significance to our

contemporary lives. This element of modem-world archaeology is not meant to

imply, however, that this kind of archaeology is synonymous with "modern material culture" studies. The study of modem material culture certainly can be conducted within modem-world archaeology, but it need not be.

Many archaeological examinations of roughly contemporary events and processes are controversial simply because they are too close in time to the present day. As a

result, archaeological research conducted in relation to subjects and places that are

roughly contemporaneous with our own time is often courageous. An extreme

example of this type of effort is Zarankin and Niro's (2006) investigation of the

archaeology of detention during Argentina's military dictatorship. This study? focused on a subject that is profoundly painful to victims and horrifying to all caring individuals?indicates a practical and important use for historical archaeology, and illustrates why the discipline has an importance that extends beyond archaeology itself. Archaeologists have the ability to investigate subjects (literally "uncover the

truth") that some people would rather see unexamined. Zarankin and Niro's study is not an example of modern-world archaeology,

though it definitely represents the best tradition of historical archaeology. To transform the study into modem-world archaeology they would have to begin with "El Club Atletico" and from there explore the nature of torture both before 1976 and after 1983. In Argentina specifically, this investigation would be an interesting way to link torture during the recent dictatorship with the physical abuse enacted against gaucho-soldiers on the nation's 19th-century frontier. To move from 1983 forward,

Springer




they could consider linkages with atrocities elsewhere in Latin America and perhaps even explore more recent cases of torture.

Conclusion

Modern-world archaeology has tremendous potential in South America to enlighten and to educate. Numerous skilled and insightful historical archaeologists are

working at many types of sites throughout the continent, and their research is

dramatically increasing our knowledge about the past South American historical

archaeologists are exploring issues of colonization, settlement, interaction, develop ment, and consumerism. Modem-world archaeology requires a different perspective than traditional historical archaeology while remaining true to its many methodo

logical and interpretive strengths. The future of historical archaeology in South

America, however practiced, offers tremendous potential and promise to a truly

global historical archaeology. The papers that follow in this special issue provide windows into this promise.

Acknowledgments I wish to acknowledge my debt of gratitude to Pedro Paulo A. Funari and Facundo

Gomez Romero for the many discussions I have had with both of them. They have helped me understand

the nature and promise of historical archaeology in South America. Though I have learned a great deal

from both of them, the comments expressed here are entirely my own.

References

Ballent A, Podgomy I (1994) How Argentinian urban children learn to live in the city: the image of town and

domestic life in Argentinian school-books, 1910-1955. Historical Archaeology in Latin America 3:85-107

Chase-Dunn C (1989) Global formation: structures of the world-economy. Blackwell, Oxford

Chase-Dunn C, Anderson EN (2005) The historical evolution of world-systems. Palgrave Macmillan, New

York

De Certeau M (1984) The practice of everyday life. Kendall S (trans.). University of California Press,

Berkeley Eckert A, Jones A (2002) Historical writing about everyday life. J Afr Cult Stud 15:5-16 Egmond F, Mason P (1997) The mammoth and the mouse: microhistory and morphology. Johns Hopkins

University Press, Baltimore Frank AG (1998) ReOrient global economy in the Asian age. University of California Press, Berkeley Funari PPA (1996) Historical archaeology in Brazil, Uruguay, and Argentina. World Archaeological

Bulletin 7:51-62 Funari PPA (1998) Arqueologia, hist6ria e arqueologia historica no contexto sul-americano. In: Funari

PPA (ed) Colecao Ideias: Cultura Material e Arqueologia Historica, Institute de Filosofia e Ciencias

Humanas. Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Campinas, pp 7-34

Funari PPA (2007) A report on historical archaeology publications in Latin America. Int J Hist Archaeol

11:183-191

Funari PPA, Brittez FR (eds) (2006) Arqueologia Historica en America Latina: Temas y Discusiones

Recientes. Ediciones Suarez, Mar del Plata

Gelichi S (2006) The archaeology of an abandoned town: the 2005 project in Stari Bar. AU'Insegna del Giglio, Venice

Ginzburg C (1992) The cheese and the worms: the cosmos of a sixteenth-century miller. Tedeschi J, Tedeschi A (trans.). Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore

Ginzburg C, Poni C (1991) The name and the game: unequal exchange and the historiographic marketplace. In: Muir E, Ruggiero G (eds) Microhistory and the lost peoples of Europe. Johns

Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, pp 1-10

Springer




Gomez Romero F (1996) Un piso de ocupacion del Fortin Minana. Historical Archaeology in Latin

America 14:137-142 Gomez Romero F (1999) "Sobre lo Arado: El Pasado," Arqueologia Historica en los alrededores del

Fortin Minana (1860-1869). Editorial Biblos, Azul G6mez Romero F (2005a) A brief overview of the evolution of historical archaeology in Argentina. Int J

Hist Archaeol 9:135-141 Gomez Romero F (2005b) The archaeology of the gaucho: "vago y mal entretenido". Int J Hist Archaeol

9:143-164 Gomez Romero F, Ramos M (1994) "Minana" Fortlet: historical archaeology research. Historical

Archaeology in Latin America 2:15-30

Goody J (2006) The theft of history. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Gregory BS (1999) Is small beautiful? Microhistory and the history of everyday life. Hist Theory 38:100

110 Hobsbawn EJ (1985) History from below: some reflections. In: Krantz F (ed) History from below: studies

in popular protest and popular ideology in honour of george rude. Concordia University, Montreal, pp 63-73

Levi G (2001) On microhistory. In: Burke P (ed) New perspectives on historical writing, 2nd ed.

Pennsylvania State University Press, University Park, pp 91-119

Ludtke A (ed) (1995) The history of everyday life: reconstructing historical experiences and ways of life.

Templer W (trans.). Princeton University Press, Princeton

Muir E (1991) Introduction: observing trifles. In: Muir E, Ruggiero G (eds) Microhistory and the lost peoples of Europe. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, pp vii-xxviii

Murray WE (2006) Geographies of globalization. Routledge, London Niccoli O (1991) The kings of the dead on the battlefields of Agnadello. In: Muir E, Ruggiero G (eds)

Microhistory and the lost peoples of Europe. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, pp 71-100

Orser CE Jr (1996) A historical archaeology of the modern world. Plenum, New York

Orser CE Jr (1999) Negotiating our "familiar" pasts. In: Tarlow S, West S (eds) The familiar past?:

archaeologies of later historical Britain. Routledge, London, pp 273-285

Orser CE Jr (2004a) The archaeologies of recent history: historical, post-medieval, and modem-world. In:

Binthff J (ed) A companion to archaeology. Blackwell, Oxford, pp 272-290

Orser CE Jr (2004b) Historical archaeology, 2nd edn. Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey Orser CE Jr (2004c) Race and practice in archaeological interpretation. University of Pennsylvania Press,

Philadelphia Orser CE Jr (2005) Network theory and the archaeology of the modern world. In: Funari PP, Zarankin A,

Stovel E (eds) Global archaeological theory: contextual voices and contemporary thoughts. Kluwer

Academic/Plenum, New York, pp 77-95

Orser CE Jr (2007) The global and the local in modern-world archaeology. In: Gelichi S, Librenti M (eds)

Constructing post medieval archaeology in Italy: a new agenda. Universita Ca* Foscari Venezia, Venice (in press)

Politis GG (2003) The theoretical landscape and the methodological development of archaeology in Latin

America. Am Antiq 68:245-272

Pomeranz K (2000) The great divergence: China, Europe, and the making of the modern world economy. Princeton University Press, Princeton

Schavelzon D (1991) Arquelogia Historica de Buenos Aires, I: La Cultura Material Portefia de Los Siglos XVIII y XIX. Corregidor, Buenos Aires

Schavelzon D (2000) The historical archaeology of Buenos Aires: a city at the end of the world. Kluwer Academic/Plenum, New York

Schmidt PR, Walz JR (2007) Re-representing African pasts through historical archaeology. Am Antiq 72:53-70

Sharpe J (2001) History from below. In: Burke P (ed) New perspectives on historical writing. 2nd edn.

Pennsylvania State University Press, University Park, pp 25-42

Silberman NA (1995) Sultans, merchants, and minorities: the challenge of historical archaeology in the

modem Middle East Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Historical Archaeology, Washington, D.C.

Taylor WW (1948) A study of archaeology. American anthropological association memoir 69.

Washington, D.C.

Wallerstein I (1974) The modem world-system: capitalist agriculture and the origins of the European

world-economy in the sixteenth century. Academic, New York

Wallerstein I (1979) The capitalist world-economy. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

Springer




Wallerstein I (1980) The modern world-system II: mercantilism and the consolidation of the European

world-economy, 1600-1750. Academic, New York

Wasserman S, Faust K (1994) Social network analysis: methods and applications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

Zarankin A (1994) Arqueologia urbana: hacia de desarrollo de una Nueva Especialidad. Historical

Archaeology in Latin America 2:31-40 Zarankin A (1995) Arqueologia historica urbana en Santa Fe La Vieja: el final del principio. Historical

Archaeology in Latin America 10:1-114

Zarankin A (1996) Una aproximacion teorica al trabajo en arqueologi urbana. Historical Archaeology in

Latin America 14:161-167

Zarankin A, Niro C (2006) La materialization del sadismo: arqueologia de la arquitectura de los Centros

Clandestinos de Detention de la dictadura militar Argentina (1976-1983). In: Funari PPA, Zarankin A

(ed) Arqueologia de la Represion y la Resistencia en America Latina. Encuentro, Cordoba, pp 159 182

Springer



Documents

Historical Archaeology as Modern-World Archaeology in Argentina