Overview
- Editors:
-
-
William H. Isbell
-
Department of Anthropology, State University of New York, Binghampton, USA
-
Helaine Silverman
-
Department of Anthropology, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, USA
- As the third volume in the Andean Archaeology set, the focus is on the strong cultural differences between the northern and southern regions of the Central Andes and to consider the under which differences evolved and which were diminished
- As we currently see in any large geographic and/or political region (the United States, the European Union) the identification and understanding of the different cultures within the area is important to understanding the history, the choices and the conflicts within that region
- Includes supplementary material: sn.pub/extras
Access this book
Other ways to access
Table of contents (20 chapters)
-
-
Introduction
-
-
- William H. Isbell, Helaine Silverman
Pages 3-19
-
The North
-
-
- William H. Isbell, Helaine Silverman
Pages 23-27
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
The South
-
-
- William H. Isbell, Helaine Silverman
Pages 199-209
-
-
- Aimée M. Plourde, Charles Stanish
Pages 237-257
-
-
-
- William H. Isbell, Patricia J. Knobloch
Pages 307-351
-
-
- Johny Isla, Markus Reindel
Pages 374-400
About this book
Andean Archaeology III represents a continuation in our effort to highlight the ?nest of current archaeological scholarship conducted in the Central Andean c- ture area. Each paper contributes in a signi?cant way to understanding prehistoric processes in the Central Andean culture tradition, adding importantly to the rich base provided by Andean Archaeology I and II. As in those former volumes we do not seek a balanced presentation of the entirety of the Andean past, but instead showcase what is new, what is innovative, and what is controversial in thinking about and investigating the great sweep of Andean cultural development. We wholeheartedly agree with Pauketat (2001:xiii) that it is “more satisfying to compare how cultural phenomena happened,” than for researchers to hasten to answer “why questions” that tend more to “reify their initial assumptions” than to inform us about prehistoric people and their embodied, cultural practices. We supporttherevitalizedstudyofsocioculturalevolution,especiallythatchampioned by Bruce Trigger (e.g., 1998, 2003), which has bene?ted by several decades of valuable critique. Ontheotherhand,explanationsofthepastnotbasedoncomparisonsofhistorical processes carefully argued from well-studied archaeological records sacri?ce the rigor that was such an important part of the ?rst processual archaeology advocated byLewisBinford(1962,1964,1972;Sabloff1998;seealsoYoffee2005interalia). In some recent and current Andean archaeology we ?nd explanatory conclusions, especiallyprocessualevolutionarytransformations,andclimatechange-basedrise or collapse accounts, to have been reached too hastily, constituting more of a reading of material remains in terms of theoretical expectations than a rigorous interrogation of thearchaeological record.
Editors and Affiliations
-
Department of Anthropology, State University of New York, Binghampton, USA
William H. Isbell
-
Department of Anthropology, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, USA
Helaine Silverman