From Social Archaeology to National Archaeology: Up from Domination

Abstract

Patterson (1994) offers a history of the development of Social Archaeology and five points that, according to him, constitute its theoretical ground. Oyuela-Caycedo et al. (1997) provide significant new evidence that questions the actual importance of the intellectual current and theory described by Patterson. While the former gives an inflated perspective of Social Archaeology, the latter leads the reader into a post-Social Archaeology limbo. Providing facts ignored by both Patterson and Oyuela-Caycedo et al., I elaborate a third argument, centered in Peru, which recognizes National Archaeology as a response to the failures of Social Archaeology. Taking into account the century-long search for identity—key to any understanding of twentieth-century Peru—the concept of National Archaeology, as developed in four national institutions, laid the ideological and political ground for the end of the terrorism in Peru.