Historical Archaeology as Modern-World Archaeology in Argentina Author(s): Charles E. Orser Jr.

Reviewed work(s): Source: International Journal of Historical Archaeology, Vol. 12, No. 3, Historical Archaeology in Argentina (September 2008), pp. 181-194 Published by: Springer Stable 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 of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

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

http://www.jstor.org

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

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

Historical

inArgentina
Charles E. Orser

Archaeology

as Modern-World

Archaeology

Jr.

Published online:4 March 2008 Science+ Business ? Springer 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 inArgentina playing a large role in thematuration of the discipline on the continent. Much of this archaeology can be characterized as "modern-world archaeology" because of the archaeologists' Columbian cultural history. Modem-world interest in issues relevant to post

Keywords

archaeology Argentina

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

Nowhere has the growth of historical archaeology been more important than in South America, including inArgentina, 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 thepotential to become a major contributor to thiskind of archaeology. It ismy hope thatwith time, theworks of South American historical
C. E. Orser Jr. (M) and Collections

offer courses in the discipline.

Research

NY 12230, USA Albany,

Division,

New York State Museum,

3140 Cultural Education

Center,

e-mail: corser@mail.nysed.gov

Springer

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

182

Int JHistor Archaeol(2008) 12:181-194

archaeologists will become as widely read as those of theircolleagues in theAnglo American world, because their insights are centrally important to our expanding knowledge of the history of theworld inwhich 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 terms: "historical "modem-world

archaeology," "global historical archaeology," and archaeology." These terms initially appear interchangeable but the of is actually quite distinct. each meaning in the 1930s in the United States, historical archaeology was mostly Beginning distinct 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 tourismmarket 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 firstargued byWalter 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 the combination of excavated and textual information?and as archaeol cally?as is ogy that exclusively focused on post-Columbian history. The second meaning is

historical information. The second meaning, however, need not include the first. An archaeologist can practice what theymay wish to call historical archaeology in by combining excavated materials with Maya pre-Columbian central Mexico inscribed texts.Under the firstdefinition, thismethodology can be considered an example of historical archaeology, even though the findings from classic-period Maya sites have littleor 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 startedusing it in the mid-1990s, (for example, as the titleofmy edited book series "Contributions toGlobal Historical Archaeology" begun in 1996), I envisioned itas representing a specific perspective for historical archaeology. This perspective would

more restrictive than the first,but it necessarily includes themethods of the first meaning. All historical archaeologists combine their excavated findings with

have broad application throughout theworld and help to link together archaeologies of the post-Columbian era wherever theywere being conducted. Archaeologists adopting this view would be particularly mindful of the many inter- and intra territorialand trans-cultural connections thathad 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

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

IntJHistor 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

in which theprofession of historical archaeology has been nationally and continentally Organizers of historical archaeology's professional societies designed them represented. Historical Archaeology largely represents tobe open to all, but in reality theSociety for British Isles, and North America, theSociety forPost-Medieval Archaeology covers the theAustralasian Society forHistorical 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 theirmembership locally. Extra-nationally conceived global historical archaeology most recent centuries explicitiy encompasses every place archaeologists investigate the of human history. Based on the recent, worldwide development of historical term "global historical archaeology" has archaeology?under whatever guise?the come to be regarded as representing the discipline's all-inclusiveness rather than a

a significant historical presence by members of Britain's colonial empire. For this reason, the institutionof new journals, like the Revista de Arqueologia Historica Argentina y Latinoamericana perfectly conforms to the needs of a broadly based, truly internationalhistorical archaeology. One reason fordie need for an overtly internationalist way perspective stems from the

refer to a truly inclusive historical archaeology that encompasses all parts of the globe, not simply thosewith European connections (i.e., Schmidt andWalz 2007). inclusion is centrally important for the maturation of historical Full-scale as a meaningful endeavor because the field has too often been archaeology United States and other English-speaking countries thathad associated only with the

impossible to disagree with the popular meaning of "global historical archaeology" as an archaeology that truly represents the entire world. Global representation, a always the explicit intent of this journal, is definitely positive development for historical archaeology, however one chooses to define it. Itmust 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

discrete subject matter. An all-inclusive historical archaeology serves scholarship and deflates the idea thatonly American- or British-trained archaeologists know how to interpretthe 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 theworld. After working for over a decade to promote the cause of a globally inclusive historical archaeology, I find it

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 thediscipline, but itdoes not present a cogent theoretical outlook. By itself, itdoes not offer a way to see how the modem with Faced the and world operates. (and subsequent post-modem) developed 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

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

184

IntJ Histor Archaeol (2008) 12:181-194

2007). The term "modem-world archaeology" better represents what I believe is possible forhistorical archaeology as a serious and ultimately importantarchaeology. 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 themeaning of theword "modern." In a recent critique, only with Europe is necessarily euroeentric. Goody notes, in linewith die thinkingof other notable scholars (e.g., Frank 1998; Pomeranz 2000), that"east," and especially modern world. The mention of China, must be considered in any examination of the a will China strike familiar chord with any knowledgeable historical archaeologist

Jack that is linked anyfocusonmodernity Goody (2006) arguesthat anthropologist

because of the trans-national importance of Chinese export porcelain. What is especially interestingabout Goody's attack on the fallacy of eurocentrism is thathe draws much of his counter-evidence from the Near Mediterranean and the East. Interestingly, I specifically included these places when I originally began to

European history, but, whether or not the claim is justified in certain cases, the label most certainly does not apply tomy formulation ofmodern-world archaeology. This discussion necessarily leads directly tomodem-world archaeology, the third meaning for "historical archaeology."

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 formulatemore complete understandings of colonialism, capitalism, and the genesis of themodern age. Thus, the charge of eurocentrism can be leveled at any archaeologist who chooses to investigate

Modern-World

Archaeology, Microhistory,

and Local-Global

Connections

One of the central tenets ofmodem-world

archaeology is itsglobal 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 inhabitantsmaintained with the "outside world," however one might wish to define or contextualize this "world." Because the "outside world" is understood multi modem-world dimensionally, archaeology rejects the idea that historical archae to the study of single sites as the end product of should restrict themselves ologists 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 theydo itquite 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 itsown sake to enrich humanity's knowledge of itself and itshistory. But inmodern-world archaeology, the single site does not constitute the end of the analysis. The interconnectedness of theworld, enacted through a series of temporal and spatial scales, is an importanthallmark of the on-going globalization process. To ignore it in thename of exclusive, site-specific analysis ignores the realities of post

al Springer

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

Archaeol (2008) 12:181-194 IntJ Histor

185

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 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 affinitybetween comment because of archaeological research and microhistorical analysis deserves construe some modem-world readers may the possibility that archaeology as not concerned with the local. In other words, that in their eagerness to look toward the modem-world archaeologists would ignore the trees for the forest. Such a global that view, however, is unsustainable because, as noted above, all archaeological research or even feature-level. The issue at hand is must begin locally?at the site-, intra-site-, whether the research must terminate at the spatial limits of the site. Our a brief foray into understanding of this issue can be further presented by microhistory. Carlo Ginzburg, a name familiar to anyone interested in historical analysis, is micro widely credited as being one of most proficient practitioners of "cultural a Sixteenth Cosmos The the Worms: Cheese and The famous In his of history." to CenturyMiller, Ginzburg uses the 16th-centuryrecords of theRoman Inquisition

1998; Goody 2006).

world of a singlemiller named Domenico Scandella (Ginzburg 1992). interrogate the The careful recording of the inquisitors* interrogationsof Scandella has provided an unusually rich textual record, but one that is clearly biased. Ginzburg folly to recognizes the subjective nature of the documents, but nonetheless proceeds times. context of Scandella's demonstrate their analytical value for illuminating the 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 theyhave the oprx>rtunityto 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 theywould understand them), theymust depend almost

evidence)" entirely on written sources (and possibly archaeological (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 to initially appear insignificantbut which upon reflectionmay be uniquely important Niccoli the telling of history (Egmond and Mason 1991, p. 93). 1997, p. 2; Microhistorians unabashedly work to link historical and anthropological ways of knowing to address questions of family structure, network relationships, popular

Springer

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

186

IntJ Histor Archaeol (2008) 12:181-194

society's "haves" and themonuments 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? a as research their historical express agenda sociology of the everyday, an

advocates, microhistory, like much archaeology, seeks "to open history to peoples who would be leftout by othermethods" (Muir 1991, p. xxi). with theproposition thathistorymust not be written only by Microhistorians start recounting grand events or by addressing the actions of powerful elites. The role of a

may help to produce what has religious beliefs, and other features of the past that 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

"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 theirhistory to social groups who may have thought that theyhad lost it,or who were unaware that theirhistory existed" (Sharpe 2001, p. 37). We may well argue that all peoples recognize that they have a history (though may not always be in control of it),but thepoint is nonetheless well-taken. One they of the lasting strengths of historical archaeology is its practitioners' ability to investigate the lives of people ignored by official history.

examination of a mundane world inwhich 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,"

hoods), both openly reject the artificial boundaries of the academic disciplines, and both frequently focus theirattention on sources that may be incredibly particularistic. Even though thework of microhistorians by definition is focused on the small, theynonetheless face the charge of trivialization.As one critic has asked, "When we

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

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 theworld in which this one miller lived, we must understand the

examine something in great detail and at close range, do we understand itbetter?" (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 theirresearch has few ifany implications for the larger

social, intellectual, and spiritual world in which all 16th-centurymillers lived. Ginzburg's microhistory simply does not make sense without such this context. If thehistorical account stood in isolation, it would have the status of historical fiction, where the action takes place in a de-spatialized world that iswholly 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 thepast did not exist, that

4^ Springer

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

IntJ Histor Archaeol (2008) 12:181-194

187

all present-day constructions are entirely fabricated. Ifwe 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 theyhave 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

inwhich the subject of themicrohistory lived. The contextualization can be presented in a series of different-sized scales in a manner that iswholly consistent with thegoals ofmodem-world archaeology, including thatcurrentlybeing practiced in South America.

South American Historical Archaeology Excellent

and Modern-World

Archaeology

American

overviews of historical archaeology in South America have already for example, Funari 1996, 1998, 2007; Funari and Brittez 2006; (see, appeared Gomez Romero 2005a, and theirbibliographies; also see Politis 2003, pp. 257-258), and so a similar treatmenthere is unnecessary. Rather, my intention is simply to explore a few research issues that put the practice of South American historical archaeology in theframework of modem-world archaeology. My comments should not be construed as attempting to provide a complete assessment or analysis of South

historical archaeology, but rather only to explore a few topics that I development of modern-world archaeology. personally find important to die further For the sake of brevity, I will restrictmy examples to projects undertaken in Argentina, with the caveat that the projects I use are entirely selective, being based

Buenos Aires and elsewhere stand out as important examples

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 (Schavelzon 1991,

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 theNew 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 were familiar and comforting. The Columbian era: the replication of landscapes that Buenos in documents the Aires both archaeology unique aspects of the founding and

The late 18th-century map of Buenos Aires attributed toCharlevoix (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 theworld." At die same time, a

2000; Zarankin1994, 1995, 1996).

Springer

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

188

IntJ Histor Archaeol (2008) 12:181-194

What is particularly noteworthy about Schivelzon's (2000) book, at least in termsof modem-world archaeology, is his use of the intriguingphrase "A City at the End of the World.** This evocative phrase indicates thatthe archaeology of Buenos Aires, and by extension other urban centers throughoutSouth America, constitutes fertileground

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.

molded

creamware and blue shell-edged plates, engine-turned bowls, and banded pitchers?even considered outside theirhistorical context?tangibly demonstrate that Buenos Aires, thoughperhaps at the"end of the world," was still an importantnode 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 consistentwith the goals of modem-world archaeology.

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 theworld, and theirpresence in theBuenos Aires collections is not makes these ceramics however, it is itsvery commonness that surprising. Importantly, stand out as significant within a modern-world archaeology paradigm. The presence of

archaeologists, a key the idea is that the inexorable expresses concept "globalization," 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 themultiscalar links that were created, maintained, and re-created in the post-Columbian era by diverse inter connected actors all over theworld. 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 tomodel different scales of social interaction in the past, raises theneed 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 itsmost 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 tenetof social network theory is thatpeople 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 the different relational connections, in ascending order, as: actor-dyad-triad network (Wasserman and Faust 1994, pp. 17-20). For subgroup-group-social Springer

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

model

&

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

IntJ Histor Archaeol(2008) 12:181-194

189

archaeological purposes, and thinking strictlyspatially,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 thatof other urban archaeologists), also must add at least one more link to the conceptual chain: the transcontinental and trans-oceanic Chase-Dunn connections thatconstitute thepost-Columbian world-system (e.g., Chase-Dunn 1989; and Anderson 2005; Wallerstein 1974, 1979, 1980). Modem-world archaeologists also must recognize thatsocial connections extend through time as well as across space. Many social interactionshave historical meanings that transfer from

generation to generation. The significance of social connections enacted at various levels iswell expressed in archaeological studies of urban environments, but frontiers also are well suited to multiscalar analyses. Such siteswere usually places of diverse inter-culturalcontacts. The fortletoffers an excellent cultural environment to investigate the social contacts

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 was enacted and pressed in certain locales throughout the colonization as it 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 itspresence (Orser 1996, pp. 58-66). How each of us chooses to confront the colonial process will help to

and connections forged and maintained in themodem era. The archaeology of fortlets on Argentina's southern frontier thus is pertinent to the further development ofmodem-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, theirvery presence provides tangible evidence for the spread

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 differentcultures interacted.This conclusion seems commonsensical because of their placement on the inter-culturalfrontier. Much of the resultant interactionwas 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 territoryfor settlement and resource exploitation. But this simple reading of the colonial process is only partial. As Gomez Romero (2005b) demonstrates, the power exerted at was not simplymeant to be used against indigenous people. Fortlet also were fortlets places of internalpunishment. Gaucho-soldiers living in fortletswere 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

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

190

IntJ Histor Archaeol(2008) 12:181-194

Miriana Fortlet studied by Gomez Romero (1996, 1999; Gomez Romero and Ramos 1994) was occupied for less man a decade. Such short-termhabitation is especially intriguing formodern-world archaeology because themultiscalar approach encom

basic archaeological principle. Inmodem-world archaeology, however, sites of short termoccupation can increase our knowledge about how rapidly networks, bom social and economic, can be established. Recent research (Landa et al.,mis volume) carefully

passes both time and space. One of the great strengthsof archaeology is its admitted ability to examine large segments of time, so excitement over sites briefly inhabited seems to run counter to a

frontier. The nature of die connections created and maintained between places we might refer to as "urban" and "frontier," or conversely "European" and "native," modem-world archaeologists. provides tremendous research opportunity for 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 itoffers thisopportunity 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 fortletsalong Argentina's southernfrontier in the 19th century, for example, helps us to conceptualize some of

documents theways in which military outposts were supplied. The presence of consumer goods at frontiermilitary sites (such as pieces of the globally omnipresent transfer-printedpearlware) provides a tangible link to urban life far beyond the

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 toMiriana Fortlet as an example, we must

the historical elements of state formation as they appear today. Their presence equally helps to explain thepresent-day conditions faced by indigenous cultureswho 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

history is viewed in this bidirectional manner, it becomes clear that the of modem-world archaeology does not necessarily terminate at 1492, 1600, purview or even 1950. World history is far too complex to permit easy periodization, even When 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

learn to look before 1861?when native peoples surrounded Buenos Aires and controlled the countryside using time-tested patterns of traditional interaction?and was abandoned. The conscious recognition of the need to after 1870?when the fort look forward and backward from a site's initial and terminaloccupation dates, rather than simply forward from it to the present, gives modem-world archaeology a special perspective on the development of themodem world.

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

showhow itsdevelopment thissubjectis entirely history bridges (though legitimate

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

IntJHistor Archaeol (2008) 12:181-194

191

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 inBuenos Aires dating from 1790 to modem-world archaeologists would seek tomove into thepast from 1790 1830, the and into thepresent 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 world used to bridge history in both directions. Their study is not an example of modem 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

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 itneed 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

with thepresent,meant in temporal interestofmodem-world archaeology terminates the literal sense of term, meaning "this day." (The word "today" is not applicable because archaeologists often use it tomean "the present") As a result, modern-world can examine have that archaeologists topics profound significance to our

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

after 1983. In Argentina specifically, this investigationwould be an interesting way to link tortureduring the recent dictatorship with thephysical abuse enacted against frontier.To move from 1983 forward, gaucho-soldiers on the nation's 19th-century
Springer

Zarankin and Niro's study is not an example of modern-world archaeology, though it definitely represents the best tradition of historical archaeology. To transformthe study intomodem-world archaeology theywould have to begin with "El Club Atletico" and from there explore the nature of torture both before 1976 and

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 importantuse for historical archaeology, and illustrateswhy 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.

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

192

IntJ Histor Archaeol (2008) 12:181-194

they could consider linkages with atrocities elsewhere inLatin 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 at sites of many types working throughout the continent, and their research is our dramatically increasing knowledge about the past South American historical

archaeologists are exploring issues of colonization, settlement, interaction,develop ment, and consumerism. Modem-world archaeology requires a differentperspective than traditional historical archaeology while remaining true to itsmany 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.

Iwish to acknowledge my debt of gratitude to Pedro Paulo A. Funari and Facundo Acknowledgments Gomez Romero for themany 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 inLatin America 3:85-107 Chase-Dunn C (1989) Global formation: structures of theworld-economy. Blackwell, Oxford Chase-Dunn York De Certeau M Berkeley (1984) The practice of everyday life. Kendall S (trans.). University of California Press, C, Anderson EN (2005) The historical evolution of world-systems. Palgrave Macmillan, New

life. J Eckert A (2002)Historical abouteveryday AfrCult Stud 15:5-16 A, Jones writing mouse:microhistory andmorphology. Johns and the F,Mason P (1997)Themammoth Hopkins Egmond
University Press, Baltimore Frank AG (1998) ReOrient global economy in theAsian age. University of California Press, Berkeley in Brazil, Uruguay, and Argentina. World Archaeological Funari PPA (1996) Historical archaeology Bulletin 7:51-62 In: Funari hist6ria e arqueologia historica no contexto sul-americano. Funari PPA (1998) Arqueologia, 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 JHist Archaeol 11:183-191 Historica en America Latina: Temas y Discusiones Funari PPA, Brittez FR (eds) (2006) Arqueologia Recientes. Ediciones Suarez, Mar del Plata

Ginzburg C (1992) The cheese and the worms: the cosmos of a sixteenth-century miller. Tedeschi Tedeschi A (trans.). Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore marketplace. In: Muir E, Ruggiero G (eds) Microhistory Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, pp 1-10 and the lost peoples of Europe.

Bar.AU'Insegnadel town: the2005 projectinStari of an abandoned Gelichi S (2006)The archaeology Giglio,Venice

J,

GinzburgC, Poni C (1991) The name and thegame: unequal exchangeand the historiographic
Johns

Springer

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

IntJ Histor Archaeol (2008) 12:181-194193

Gomez Gomez G6mez Gomez Gomez Romero Romero F (1996) 14:137-142 F (1999) Un piso de ocupacion lo Arado: del Fortin Minana. Arqueologia Historical Historica Archaeology in Latin del Int J

America

"Sobre

Fortin Minana (1860-1869).Editorial Biblos,Azul

Romero Romero Romero F (2005b) The archaeology

El Pasado,"

en los alrededores inArgentina.

HistArchaeol9:135-141 9:143-164
Archaeology

F (2005a) A brief overview of the evolution of historical archaeology of the gaucho: "vago y mal entretenido". archaeology

Int JHist Archaeol research. Historical

ofhistory. Press, University Cambridge Goody J(2006)The theft Cambridge

Gregory BS

F, Ramos M (1994) "Minana" in Latin America 2:15-30

Fortlet: historical

110

(1999)

Is small beautiful? Microhistory

and the history of everyday life.Hist Theory 38:100

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

Muir E (1991) Introduction: In: Muir E, Ruggiero G (eds)Microhistory and thelost trifles. observing London of globalization. WE (2006)Geographies Murray Routledge, battlefields ofAgnadello. In: Muir E, Ruggiero NiccoliO (1991) The kingsof the dead on the 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 themodern 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 peoples of Europe. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, pp vii-xxviii

(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

In: Jr (2004a) The archaeologies of recent history: historical, post-medieval, and modem-world. 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, Orser CE theory and the archaeology of themodern world. In: Funari PP, Zarankin A, (eds) Global archaeological theory: contextual voices and contemporary thoughts. Kluwer Academic/Plenum, New York, pp 77-95 Stovel E Constructing Politis GG Jr (2007) The global and the local inmodern-world archaeology. In: Gelichi S, Librenti M (eds) in Italy: a new agenda. Universita Ca* Foscari Venezia, post medieval archaeology

Philadelphia

Jr (2005) Network

Orser CE

(2003) The theoretical landscape and themethodological development of archaeology in Latin America. Am Antiq 68:245-272 Pomeranz K (2000) The great divergence: China, Europe, and themaking of themodern world economy. Princeton University Press, Princeton Schavelzon XVIII D y XIX. (1991) Arquelogia Historica de Buenos Aires, I: La Cultura Material Corregidor, Buenos Aires Portefia de Los Siglos

Venice (inpress)

Academic/Plenum, New York JR (2007) Re-representing Schmidt PR, Walz 72:53-70

D (2000)The historical ofBuenosAires: a cityat the endof the Schavelzon world.Kluwer archaeology
African pasts through historical archaeology. Am Antiq on historical writing. 2nd edn.

Sharpe J (2001) History from below. In: Burke P (ed) New perspectives Pennsylvania State University Press, University Park, pp 25-42 Silberman NA

(1948) A study of archaeology. Washington, D.C. I (1974) The modem world-system: Wallerstein

Taylor WW

(1995) Sultans, merchants, and minorities: the challenge of historical archaeology in the modem Middle East Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society forHistorical Archaeology, Washington, D.C. American anthropological association memoir 69.

capitalist agriculture and the origins of the European in the sixteenth century. Academic, New York world-economy Wallerstein I (1979) The capitalist world-economy. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

Springer

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

194
Wallerstein

IntJ Histor Archaeol (2008) 12:181-194

I (1980) The modern world-system II: mercantilism and the consolidation of the European 1600-1750. Academic, New York world-economy, 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

in Latin America 2:31-40 Archaeology Zarankin A (1995) Arqueologia historica urbana en Santa Fe La Vieja: in Latin America 10:1-114 Archaeology Zarankin A (1996) Una aproximacion 14:161-167 Latin America teorica al trabajo en arqueologi

el final del principio. Historical urbana. Historical Archaeology in

Zarankin A, Niro C (2006) La materialization del sadismo: arqueologia de la arquitectura de los Centros In: Funari PPA, Zarankin A Clandestinos de Detention de la dictadura militar Argentina (1976-1983). de la Represion y la Resistencia en America Latina. Encuentro, Cordoba, pp 159 (ed) Arqueologia

182

Springer

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