Theoretical Perspectives in Peruvian Archaeology

This article explains the development of theoretical perspectives in Peruvian archaeology from the end of the 19th century to the first decades of the 21st century. These perspectives have been characterized by having been influenced, mainly from Western Europe and United States of America, in various ways due to the nature of the Peruvian archaeological remains and their sociopolitical context. Likewise, in Peru, there is an important diversity in the use of hegemonic archaeological theories and the particular use of theories by Peruvian and even foreign archaeologists. Therefore, in this entry, we will refer to the most relevant archaeological theoretical perspectives recognized in Peru and which are evolutionary, culture-historical, Marxist, processualist, and postprocessualist. However, no one archaeologist is a “pure example” of each theory. In fact, many archaeologists have used different theories in archaeological explanations. Because a significant number of archaeologists have focused on the study of the Andes, mainly from the pre-Hispanic era, in this article a series of significant periods and themes of Peruvian archeology have been selected in which a significant number of studies have been carried out. In this way, archaeological perspectives have developed in the concrete practice of such archaeologists. Thus, in this article, we will see how archaeological theoretical perspectives in Peruvian archaeology have been developed in relation to the following areas, social phenomena, and periods: the Norte Chico area and the Late Preceramic Period (3000–1800 bc), Chavín de Huántar and the Early Horizon (1000–200 bc), the North Coast and Moche Society (200–800 ad), Huari and the Andean Imperial Phenomenon (600–1000 ad), and Cusco and the Inca Empire (1300–1532 ad).