7/27/2019 3034640

1/3

Pampa Grande and the Mochica Culture. by Izumi Shimada

Review by: John R. TopicThe Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, Vol. 2, No. 1 (Mar., 1996), pp. 160-161Published by: Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and IrelandStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3034640 .

Accessed: 27/05/2013 23:24

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 formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Irelandis collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve

and extend access to The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 157.253.50.10 on Mon, 27 May 2013 23:24:10 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=raihttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3034640?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3034640?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=rai

7/27/2019 3034640

2/3

160 BOOK REVIEWSand mpressiveolume,anMorrismanagesoarrivet several uite oncrete istoriographicalconclusions. he most compelling f them:that hehigh istinctionhat lassicalrchaeol-ogy ould ncecommandsthe rchaeologyf'the radle fEuropeanness'cf. . 11)hasfallento thecontemporaryegion fneo-pluralists,anti-imperialists,nd post-modernist'riticsfthe erydeaof Europeanness'.rantsnd ti-pendshave onsequentlyecomemore carce,and ess dequate. cholarlyonsensus asbe-come a genuine arity. ith tsrarity,lassicalarchaeologytself as become f atenot onebutmany hings: luralnfactfnot lwaysnprinciple; fragmentedrray f competingmethodologiesnd scholarlygenda. s it time- asMichael amesonuggestsn anuneasyp-pendix othe olume p. 195) to shore p,tocleave o whateverssalvageablef theration-ale that hedisciplineould once ess contro-versially erivefrom he postulate hattheachievementsf theGreeks f the5th nd the4th centuries .C.E. were uniquelygrand,uniquely orth ecoveringnd uniquely orthknowing?ime o despair,oturnn one'sdis-ciplinary adgeand move on to more nte-grated nd less suspect pecialisms? n thecontrary,orris sserts; ime ather o refig-ure' p. 4).Morris astoo much fa taste or hegoingepistemicelativismso denounce ragmenta-tion er e.He stresseshat isfellowontribu-torsfrequentlyontradictachother' p. 45).Even so,he shareswith irtuallyll ofthemnotable ommitmento the forgingnd re-forgingf nterdisciplinarylliances. nce the'Greekmiracle's putunder rasure,lassicalarchaeologyasnoobvious uptureowhich oappeal norder o ustifyts ong-standingis-tance, ither rom he rchaeologyf theNewWorld rfrom heprehistoryftheAegeanp.14).Once the Greek enius'sputunder ra-sure,classical rchaeologymight till dwelluponthebeauty r thebrilliancef the rte-facts tclaims s itsown,but t has few f nygroundsor reatinghe rtefactshemselvessaestheticallyrintellectuallyutonomousromthe onditionsf their roduction,heirecep-tion nd their se.Morris nd hisfellowon-tributorsgree hat roperlyefigured,lassicalarchaeologyillhave eplacedtsformervorytowers ithmuchbroadernclosures,fthereareanyenclosurest all. Nor is their ccordsimply matterf blitheclecticism,f ettinga thousandmoreflowers loom.The fashionof thefragmentndthefashion fepistemicandother elativismsside,Morris ndhis on-tributorseveal systematicndrigorousedi-cation oa programmeorwhich ot rtefacts,but nstead eople nd their racticesretheultimateubjects nd ultimatebjects f re-search.Hence their ersistentuxtapositionfarchaeologicalnd historicalata. Hence alsotheir ersistentndcomplementaryttentiono

productionnd consumption,o stratificationandpoliticalconomy.amesWhitleynd Her-bertHoffmannccordinglyffer tandem fperspectivesotmerelyn the ncientmarketinsymbolicapital ut lsoonthe ncientym-bology fgeographicalnd xistentialrossings.KarimArafat nd CatherineMorgan umi-nously hallenge heapplicabilityf a world-systemicmodellingf core and peripheryothe ancient western ircum-Mediterranean.SusanAlcock, ohn herryndJack avis uc-ceed ntransformingheironcern ith n al-most omic opic themanuringypothesis'into a magisterial isplayof distributionalanalysisnd historioarchaeological'ynthesis.If theprogrammeut forwardn ClassicalGreeces byno meansentirelyovel it hasmany choesbothof the New' and of the'Post-Processualist'),t sneverthelessspiriteddisciplinaryrovocation.t also hasmuch tosayto those f uswho,neitherrchaeologistsnorhellenists,tillmanage o sneak course nGreek ntiquitynto ur curriculumow andagain. t hasmuch to sayto anyof us whomight otbe content ith urownclassicisms,ancient rnot,Greek r not. tspeaks, think,most xcitinglyfa returno thefundamental

ambitions,ot implyf rchaeologyut f n-thropologys awhole. n thepast wodecades,especiallyn theUnitedStates, ocioculturalanthropologyas increasinglyand again)restedwhateveraurelstmight till laim nthe articularisticirtuesfhavingbeen here'.It has ncreasinglyeducedtself,fnot o eth-nography'henat least to 'idiography'.hecontributorso ClassicalGreece ntertain osuchreduction;ndthey emind s withun-common ivelinessnd refreshingucidityfthevirtuesndthepromisefthe omparativeimaginationrom which anthropologyirstsprang.

JAMEsD. FAUBIONRiceUniversitySHLMADA, ZUMI. Pampa Grande nd theMochicaculture.vi,323 pp., illus.,maps, tables,bib-liogr.Austin:Univ.of TexasPress,1994.$60.00Izumi Shimada rames hediscussion f thesite fPampaGrande roadly,esultingna de-tailedompilationfmaterialn the cological,climatic nd culturalhistory f the NorthCoast of Peru overingheperiod rom bout200BC to AD 800.The datapresented ave been accumulatedovergenerationsynumerous cholars. hi-madaalternates etween hepresentationfpreviousnterpretationsnd his assessmentfthosenterpretations.hebibliographys com-prehensive,resourcen tself,ut t s used e-lectively:is assessmentselyheavilyn hisown rticlesndthepublicationsf few therscholars. ence, he ncyclopaedicresentation

This content downloaded from 157.253.50.10 on Mon, 27 May 2013 23:24:10 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

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

7/27/2019 3034640

3/3

BOOK REVIEWS 161of unsynthesizedata sometimes onfuses.Graphic xamples f thisproblemncludepair ftablesp. 42) which resentonflictingstatisticsn riversnd pair fmaps pp. 58-9)with onflictingates orMoche ites.The synthesishat oesrun hroughhe ooktreats ampaGrande s thedevelopmentalli-max of Moche culture.While extbooksypi-callypresent successionf culturesSalinarand Gallinazo) eforeMoche, himada rguesthatMoche comesdirectlyut of Salinar ndthatGallinazo s partiallyontemporaryithSalinar utpersistshroughoutheMoche pe-riod.He characterizesalinar s an upper alleyculture hileGallinazo ccupies he ower al-leys; doubt hat his patialsolationxists,tleast n theChicama oSanta rea.His cross-datingfSalinar o Recuay,atherhan he ar-lierHuarasculture pp. 65-6),contributesotheconfusion. e interpretshe stratigraphicsuperpositionfMoche overGallinazo t thesiteof Moche as a Moche conquest f Galli-nazo people p. 74); thisbegsthequestion fwhereMochedeveloped.Shimada eesparallel evelopmentandori-gins?) fMoche nat least henorthernam-bayequend the outhern oche-Chicamae-gions.The southern oche,with capital tthe ite fMoche, xpandouth uring ocheIII andIV incorporatingerritoryn eight al-leys.Although e consistentlyses words ikeintrusion,xpansionndconquest,nd nfersgeopolitical trategyo landlocked ighlandpolities p. 114),Shimada oncludeshatMo-chewarfaresritualnnaturepp. 108-10) ndthat hesouthernMochewerea paramountchiefdom,ot state.While am sympatheticwith he uandarye andwe)are n, did notfind ew nspirationere.In Moche V Shimada eels hat he outhernMoche conqueredhenorthern ochedynas-ties andGallinazo opulace). he mainevi-dencefor hissthewedge' f intrusive' o-che V sites drivennto hemiddle ectionsfthesevalleys' p. 90). Figure3.17, though,shows hat ix of elevenMoche IV sites lsohad Moche II occupation. hen,stressedydroughtndpressure rom heWari ulture,the southernalleysre lostandthedynastymoves he apital o PampaGrande.Although ampaGrandewasa city-statep.180)that ever ontrolleds much erritorysMoche, himada haracterizest s thepristineAndeantate. e seesa four-tieredocialhier-archy, redistributiveconomywith nstitu-tionalized enerosity,ispersedraft roduc-tion,and a general abourpool of ethnicGallinazo eople.He makes reasonableasefor ll thesettributes,ut he ontrastith hesite fMoche sduemore, think,o differen-tialpreservationt the wo ites han odevel-opmentalifferences.ampaGrande, e feels,sufferedn internalevoltnder ressurerom

droughtnda Cajamarca-Warilliance ndwasabandoned.He treats ocheV asco-terminousith hebrief ccupationfPampaGrande. et heWariinfluenced urals t LaMayanga nd themul-tiple l Nifhovents ecordedt Galindo othsuggesthatMocheV persistedfter he ban-donment f Pampa Grande.Moreover, heabandonmentf the outhernalleysmaynothave een s completes he mplies: ates romViru ndSanta pp. 4-5) suggesthat heMo-che Vstylemayhavepersistedhere hile heMocheV style as nvogue urtherorth.Thisbook s a valuable ompendiumf n-formationn Mocheculture hat willbego-ingback oover ndover gain.JOHN R. TopicTrent niversitySTONE, PETERG. & BRLANL. MOLYNEAux (eds).The resentedast: eritage,useumsnd du-cationOne Wld. Archaeol. 5). xxvi, 20pp., llus., ables, ibliogrs. ondon NewYork:Routledge,n association ithEng-lishHeritage, 994. 75.00Archaeology,ike so many isciplines,s cur-rentlyt whatPj. Ucko heredescribes s 'avery ifficult omentn its development'p.xxi).On the ne hand, t s attemptingo openitself p to a wider nd morediverse ange fpublics han ver efore. tthe ame ime,t sitselfncreasinglyelf-consciousbout hepo-litical nd contestableature freadingsf thepast, nd ncreasinglyautious bout resentingthe reality' hich he publicoften eems towant f t.The best haptersnthis ook reafascinatingiscussion f this dilemma; heworst reunreflectiveccounts fgettinghepublic o knowmore bout hisupposedgoodthing' archaeology.The chaptersn Thepresentedast re exam-ples of world rchaeology'.hisis concernednot so muchwith hepast in itself' s withwhat hepast an tellus about hepresentndhow the past shouldbe told n thepresent.Mostof the haptersealwith ttemptsousearchaeologyducationallynschools,museumsor text ooks.Whileweakerhaptersre ofteneither olemicsgainsthe acthat rchaeologyis notusedmore n the ducationalphere,n-critical escriptionsf particular edagogicalexperiments,r simplisticurveysfpublic g-norance,he trongernes show he omplex-ity nd politics f the ssues nvolved. heyshow, or xample, ow the inear hronologi-cal displays f archaeologynmanymuseumsrule ut, r marginalize,ertain roupsnd al-ternative,on-chronological,otions fhistory.They howhowthe mphasisn materialevi-dence'may ikewiserivilegearticularroups.They also show,however, ow archaeologymay onstituten mportantlternativeowrit-ten accountsfor peopleswithouthistory'.

This content downloaded from 157.253.50.10 on Mon, 27 May 2013 23:24:10 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

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