UNIVERSIDAD NACIONAL MAYOR DE SAN MARCOS

FACULTAD DE CIENCIAS SOCIALES

DEPARTAMENTO ACADÉMICO DE ARQUEOLOGÍA

Arqueología de los Andes Centrales III

 PROGRAMACION DE CONTENIDOS

UNIDAD I: Variabilidad conceptual, espacial,

temporal y climática durante el Periodo
Intermedio Temprano.

SEMANA I – III.
SEMANA I

Variabilidad conceptual
Definiciones básicas:

Espacio (space): Diferentes pueblos tuvieron

diferentes contextos históricos, culturales y
geográficos y ellos han desarrollado diversos
conceptos y prácticas para definir que es espacio
(cf. Hodder y Orton 1976; Gil 2001, p.60-64;
Conolly y Lake 2006, p.3-10). El pensamiento
occidental, principalmente europeo, tiene dos
aproximaciones a espacio: primero, es
considerado como contenedor de todos los objetos
materiales (un concepto absoluto); segundo, es
considerado como una relación entre las cosas
(un concepto relativo). En ambos casos, el espacio
es una construcción cultural e histórica
relacionada a referentes (Conolly y Lake 2006,
p.3-4).
Definiciones básicas:

Espacio (space): Otras definiciones se refieren a

espacios continuos (el que permite el movimiento)
y a espacios discretos (el que restringe el
movimiento, ver Gorenflo y Bell (1991, p.80-81).
También conceptos duales acerca de espacio
sagrado y profano han sido elaborados por Eliade
([1958] 1997).

Zuidema ha planteado la necesidad de investigar

los conceptos prehispánicos andinos de espacio y
tiempo. En los Andes, el concepto de Pacha
integra espacio y tiempo, y los conceptos
espaciales de Hanan (mitad de arriba) y Hurin
(mitad de abajo) ha sido considerado como la
esencia de la organización dual que ha
caracterizado a diversos aspectos de las
Definiciones básicas:

Territorio (territory): El proceso de definir un

territorio está relacionado a la expresión de poder
y a la apropiación política de un espacio (Gil
2001, p.63, 75; Gil 2002, p.210-211), pero también
a los conceptos de propiedad.
 Etnicidad.

As expansive states incorporate new territories they

need to identify the populations that they conquer and
will later govern. This process of categorisation and
delimitation of “other” groups is frequently based on
their pre-existing social organisation and cultural
differences between the colonised and the colonizers.

In the late 19th and early 20th century, the material

identification of an “ethnic group” by the archaeologist
was guided by the concept of an “archaeological
culture” as developed by Gustaf Kossinna and refined
by Gordon Childe who defined a culture as the
recurrent presence of a range of artefacts and
structures found together in a region.
 Etnicidad.
Archaeological cultures have been considered as
indicators of Ethnicity, and also to indicate levels of
socio-political organisation, e.g. “tribes” and “ethnic
groups” (see review and critique of this idea in
Shennan 1994, Jones 1998).

Frequently, correspondence between material

evidence from prehistoric cultures recorded within a
region and material culture of present day ethnic
groups recorded by ethnographers in the same region
was considered to be evidence for the longevity of
ethnic identity. However, identifying prehistoric ethnic
groups from material evidence using ethnographic
data has been strongly criticized (e.g. MacEachern
1998, p.107, 111).
and ethnic group formation was elaborated by
Barth (1969), who introduced a subjective approach
to ethnic groups which stressed the actor’s own
perceptions and active creation of identities.[1]
Barth argued that an emphasis on ascription solved
two conceptual problems related to ethnic groups:
first, their continuity depends on maintenance of a
boundary not the cultural substance enclosed;
second, membership of a group is voluntary (op. cit.
p.14-15).

Barth’s definition of “ethnic group” gradually

undermined the use of anachronistic and pejorative
anthropological terms such as “culture area”,
“tribe”, “race”, and the traditional “…view of
culture as fixed and monolithic entities...” (Ucko
1994, p.xvi). Also the use of the term “tribe” in
Anthropology was ambiguous because it referred at
one and the same time to a stage in social
Barth’s paradigm has been widely referenced by
archaeologists since the 1980s. However, this
does not solve the problem for archaeologists,
particularly for those researching prehistoric
periods (Ucko 1994, p.xvi-xvii). The problem with
using Barth’s concept of Ethnicity is that it is
strongly linked to self-conscious identification
within a human group, and this is a problem for
archaeological research, or written sources of the
early colonial times, because it is not possible to
test their indigenous self-identification using
material remains. Similarly the application of the
Ethnicity concept to interpret prehistoric societies
has been questioned because the emergence of
ethnic groups was probably a response to
successive phases of colonial invasions and
administration.
Thus, ethnicity as a self-conscious group affiliation
may only appear in response to the challenge of
expansive neighbouring socio-political entities, in
particular empires. So, searching for ethnicities in
the past is very problematic, in particular when
archaeologists research pre-historic ethnic groups
(MacEachern 1998, p.111-113) and because
Ethnicity “…is not always synonymous with a
single language, race, location, or material
culture...” (Meskell 2001, p.190).
 Further definitions, approaches and methods for
identifying ethnic groups have appeared in the last
decade, and further archaeological studies of ethnicity
have been conducted. A new proposal from Post-
Processual Archaeology was elaborated by Jones.
Jones’ concept of an ethnic group, which follows from
Barth’s paradigm, is that their identity is the
expression of their perceptions of cultural
differentiation or common descent, frequently
identifiable through material evidence (Jones 1998,
p.84).

Emberling has also argued for the importance of

studies of production context, distribution and use, for
understanding ethnicity from material evidence;
additionally Emberling maintains that some aspects of
material culture mark ethnic differences better than
others, such as material culture of household, ritual
practice and cuisine rather than pottery styles
 Variabilidad conceptual

Fuente: Tello 1930. Fuente: Rowe [1944] 1963, p.189

 Variabilidad conceptual

Fuente: Druc 2005: 26. Ibarra 2005

Fuente: http://www.huariperu.com.htm
Variabilidad conceptual

- Etnogenesis.
- Complejidad Social.
- Diversidad cultural.
- Jefaturas o señoríos e imperios.