Gomez Romero, F. 2002 Philosophy and Historical Arch in Argentina

Journal of Social Archaeology A R T I C L E

402

Copyright © 2002 SAGE Publications (London,Thousand Oaks, CA and New Delhi)Vol 2(3): 402–429 [1469-6053(200210)2:3;402–429;027914]

Philosophy and historical archaeologyFoucault and a singular technology of power development atthe borderlands of nineteenth-century Argentina

FACUNDO GOMEZ ROMERO

Museo Etnográfico y Archivo Histórico ‘Enrique Squirru’ de Azul, Buenos Aires,Argentina

ABSTRACTThis article addresses the application of a series of key concepts ofFoucault’s thought, as developed in Discipline and Punish and otherworks, in the context of interior frontiers with Indians in nineteenth-century Argentina. It tests the premise that a particular technologyof power existed in this historical context that operated on everysocial level, impacting strongly on the lower classes that inhabited theincorrectly named ‘desert’. Its implementation in the military fieldenabled the existence of an array of micro-powers that surroundedthe gaucho-soldiers and their women’s lives. This schema was adoptedin different areas: in the enrollment and discipline of the gauchos, inlife in the fortlet-prisons and in the ritualism of power. The alterna-tive chosen by soldiers to evade this technology of power and thefortlet-panopticons was escape through desertion. The utility of theseobservations is demonstrated with reference to the archaeology of theborder regions in Argentina, and their wider applicability noted forother contexts with similar problems.

06 Romero (JG/d) 1/10/02 2:14 pm Page 402

http:\\www.sagepublications.com

403Gomez Romero Philosophy and historical archaeology

KEYWORDSdesert ● desertion ● discipline ● fortlets ● gauchos ● micro-powers ● panopticon ● technology of power

■ INTRODUCTION

An important part of the area of research of historical archaeology that hasdeveloped with the greatest impetus in Argentina has taken fortlets as itssubject of study (see Austral et al., 1997; Gomez Romero, 1999; GomezRomero and Ramos, 1994; Goñi and Madrid, 1998; Langiano et al., 2000;Mugueta and Anglada, 1998; Ormazábal et al., 1998; Pedrotta, 1999;Pedrotta and Gomez Romero, 1998; and Roa and Saghessi, 1998). Fortletswere fortified military structures used in the Indian wars from the mid-eight-eenth century until the end of the following century. Nevertheless, none ofthe previous work – my own included – has considered fortlets as the fieldwhere a particular technology of power (sensu Foucault, 1992), perpetratedby hegemonic sectors of society, was implemented. This article argues forthe existence of a framework of power, dramatized in the fortlets, thatpresented a particular discipline that operated through the arbitrariness ofthe levy system and affected the rural-poor social class most forcefully.

The purpose of this article is to explain the essential operational charac-teristics of the technology of power perpetrated by the dominant classes onthe internal frontier with the Indians in nineteenth-century Argentina.Some of the key themes dealt with by Foucault (1977, 1992, 1996) in hisanalysis of power will be used to try to characterize the above-mentionedtechnology of power and its specific manner of implementation in themilitary field. Thus, in this article, brief and most probably incompletecomments on references that use Foucault’s ideas in the archaeologicaldiscipline and a synthesis of the main characteristics of the nineteenth-century historical context in which the fortlets existed will be made. Theworkings of this technology of power will be analyzed, based on the follow-ing indicators: (a) discipline in the levy system, (b) the fortlets as a prison,(c) bodily torment, and (d) desertion as a means of escape. The coexistenceof these methods of discipline and surveillance will also be discussed,together with practices of bodily torment.

■ ARCHAEOLOGISTS AND MICHEL FOUCAULT

The search for ideas, concepts and analytical frameworks in Foucault’swork on the part of archaeologists is already more than a decade old.


404 Journal of Social Archaeology 2(3)

Patterson (1989: 556) argued for three currents in postprocessual archae-ology, the second of which corresponded to studies grounded in the writingsof Foucault. Contributions of Miller and Tilley (1984) used concepts of hisphilosophy, in Ideology, Power and Prehistory. Subsequently, Shanks andTilley (1987) examined the many ways in which power is manifested, andascribed to Foucault’s idea that western societies are disciplinary societiesthat are based on institutions that control the handling of time as well asindividual spaces. Miller et al. (1989) pointed out the usefulness of thedifferentiation Foucault makes between surveillance and punishment, theformer being the way in which power was applied that was established withthe arrival of capitalism. In his study of penal history, he brilliantly contrastsforms of domination in the absolutist and capitalist Western state. Thecontrast Foucault draws is that between pre-modern and modern modali-ties of the exercise of power and social domination. In the emergingindustrial societies of the capitalist West, disciplinary procedures andsurveillance of the population provide the primary modes of social subjec-tion (Miller et al., 1989: 14).

Most of the chapters in Bapty and Yates (1990) discuss Foucault’sthought from the perspective of postprocessual archaeology. One of thedefining characteristics of postprocessual archaeology has been its interestin the work of the most important thinkers in the contemporary socialsciences, such as Althusser, Derrida, Foucault, Freud, Marx, Nietzsche andWeber; thinkers who had always been ignored by processual archaeology.Tilley (1998) described this phenomenon as the insertion of the disciplineof archaeology into the enriching field of the social sciences.

Paynter and McGuire (1991) discuss the heterogeneous nature of power,the dialectic of domination and resistance and its visual manifestation inmaterial culture. They further discuss Foucault’s work as related to theabove-mentioned subjects, as well as the physical space built by power: ‘thenew buildings associated with the disciplinary tactics of capitalism – theasylum, prison, and school. The buildings themselves are based on para-digmatic form, Bentham’s panopticon’ (Paynter and McGuire, 1991: 8). InTilley (1993), several authors discuss Foucauldian ideas in their analysesof the British Neolithic (see Chs 2, 3, 5, 7 and 8). Among these, Kirk’sdiscussion (1993) of the forms of knowledge and power created by earlyNeolithic Breton society, based on the works of Foucault, stands out. Someauthors in Hodder et al. (1995) also make reference to Foucault’s ideas.

Meskell (1996: 9) acknowledges the fascination that Foucault’s work hasheld for archaeologists, but considers that Foucault’s ideas on power havegenerally only been applied as a ‘simplistic and formulaic binary equationthat is in conflict with the original paradigm Foucault proposed’. She refersto a rigid application by archaeological theorists of models such as theoppressors versus the oppressed, or domination/resistance, withoutconsidering, for example, the operation of micro-powers. These reveal aseries of individual, alternating and multiplural relations that refer to the



stratifications, the interlining that the exertion of power supports, an aspectof power that will be drawn out in this article. Meskell (1996: 8) also makesan interesting criticism of Foucault’s concept of the body, where the bodyis considered a mere recipient, a malleable and docile receptacle whererelations of power are registered and appropriated. In her opinion ‘thebody is not merely constrained by or invested with social relations . . . italso forms a basis for these relations and contributes for them’ (see alsoKnapp and Meskell, 1997; Meskell, 1999). Hill (2000) has also criticized thenotion of body conceived of by Foucault in a similar fashion to Meskell.Nevertheless, Hill continues to use Foucault’s concept of body in heranalysis of the sacrificed bodies of males and females in Moche iconogra-phy. In short, the few positions that attempt to reflect on the ‘seduction’that Foucault has exercised on archaeologists have been adopted bywomen.

Recently, Leone (1999) has applied concepts developed in Discipline andPunish (Foucault, 1977) to historical archaeology. He focused on Foucault’sexplanation of the changes that popular consciousness suffered as a resultof the implementation of the new disciplinary regulations that led to theadvent of the capitalism system. Leone relates this to ceramic types – corre-sponding to that time period – found in excavations in various housesinhabited by people of different social classes in Annapolis, MD. He statesthat the temporal routines and work discipline characteristic of capitalismmight be reflected in the archaeological record. In Leone’s words: ‘Throughthe materials we excavate, people once learned to work productively, go toschool, watch the clock, and eat with a fork and spoon from a mass-produced, modular plate’ (Leone, 1999: 211). Brumfiel (1998) also drewfrom Discipline and Punish in an article on the ideological characteristicsof the Aztec Empire. She considers that the dominant ideology of this typeof state was based on reaffirming its power using coercion and publicpunishment ‘state-sponsored spectacles of human pain and death’(Brumfiel, 1998: 11).

Singleton’s summary (2001: 105) of Delle’s study of plantations inJamaica takes into consideration Foucault’s analysis of panopticism: ‘Delledemonstrates how the placement of the overseer’s house served as a centralpoint in the surveillance in much the same way a guard tower does’. In herstudy of Angerona and El Padre, two Cuban coffee plantations, Singletonargues that ‘the bell tower . . . possibly served as a panoptic surveillancedevice at Angerona. Panoptic surveillance is less obvious at El Padre’(Singleton, 2001: 106). Thomas (1998) also draws upon Foucault’s ideas inhis adoption of a dialectic of power in analyzing slave archaeology at theHermitage Plantation. Two volumes of the International Journal ofHistorical Archaeology (Spencer-Wood, 2001; Spencer-Wood and Baugher,2001), refer to archaeological projects carried out on eighteenth-, nine-teenth- and twentieth-century asylums and hospices. Some of thecontributions use various theoretical precepts developed by Foucault in

06 Romero (JG/d) 1/10/02 2:14 pm 05


their investigations (see, for example, Casella, 2001; De Cunzo, 2001;Spencer-Wood, 2001; Spencer-Wood and Baugher, 2001).

While the above works correspond to Foucault’s ideas used by archae-ologists, I consider that he derived his momentum with the publication ofthe article Michel Foucault: Towards an Archaeology of Archaeology(Tilley, 1990). Tilley defends the validity of Foucault’s ideas and their appli-cation in archaeology. He refers to the main topics in Foucault’s work: hisuse of archaeology as a metaphorical concept; his genealogy of westernknowledge; his ideas about power, ideology and Marxist theory; his notionof an episteme and his history of sexuality, etc. In short, Tilley covers all thetheoretical scaffolding that enables us to recognize Foucault as a keythinker who has rendered the last 500 years of western culture transparent.

■ HISTORICAL SYNTHESIS

The encampment of General Rosas is close to the river . . . the soldiers arenearly all cavalry. I believe such a villainous banditti-like army was neverbefore collected together.

The greater number of men are of a mixed race, between Negro, Indian andSpaniard. I know not the reason, but men of such origin seldom have goodexpressions . . . (Charles Darwin, 1934)

During most of the nineteenth century, the plains of the ArgentineanPampas were called a ‘desert’, a metaphor which ignores two obvious facts.First, a large extent of this territory was fertile, a vast tract of grasslandsuitable for agriculture and livestock. Second, it was inhabited by variousethnic aboriginal groups and by the gauchos, the free rural inhabitants, whowere of mixed race and had limited economic resources. Thus, ‘desert’ forthe Argentinean political class stigmatized an image of emptiness, of a spacethat could be potentially occupied and conquered. This image denied theexistence of its inhabitants, branding them as useless and thus dispensable,conforming to the ideals of a country that grew with its gaze fixed on Europe.Through the concept of ‘desert’, power delineated a geography of absences.

This territory extended east to the Atlantic Ocean, west to the Andes,while the southern boundary was marked by a frontier that began inBuenos Aires and terminated in Mendoza, and corresponded to the bordersof the Argentinean state-in-formation (during most of the nineteenthcentury, the country was merely a collection of sovereign and independentprovinces; see Figure 1). Beyond this ‘tierra adentro’ (‘the interior’), as itwas called, extended a vast territory of green plains, hills, salt mines anddunes, broken by rivers, streams and small lakes with patches of forests,consisting either of talas (celtis spinosa) in the wet Pampas, carob trees andcaldenes (prosopis caldenia) in the dry Pampas, or araucarias in the Andes.

This region was the epicenter for the articulation of complex inter-ethnic



relations between Indians, gauchos, farmers, soldiers, criollo merchants,blacks descended from African slaves and European immigrants. This terri-torial space can be considered a typical borderland, in the sense of Cusick(2000). He specifies the types of social relations that took place in suchspaces: ‘Social identities in border areas are constantly in flux becauseborderlands themselves are subject to ever-changing conditions. Negoti-ation between people of different cultural background is a daily fact of lifein border areas’ (Cusick, 2000: 46). Thus, these areas ‘are subjects to theconstant influence of immigration and the periodic effects of political turn-over . . . . Borderlands tend to be multicultural because previous populationare continually combined with new settlers’ (Cusick, 2000: 48). Thesecharacteristics are apparent in the case of Argentina through the greatimmigratory waves of the nineteenth century – especially during the secondhalf of that century – and the new arrivals’ contact with local elements, whowere connected by the flow of goods and human groups between Argentinaand Chile through the so-called ‘desert’.

This phenomenon manifested itself through the trade in livestock on thehoof. After being brought and subsequently abandoned by the Spaniardsduring the initial foundation of Buenos Aires in 1536, livestock, both bovine

Figure 1 Aboriginal southern frontier during the nineteenth century



and equine, represented the main source of wealth in the Pampas. Itspossession and control was also the main cause of the struggles betweenIndians and criollos. By the early eighteenth century, the indigenous popu-lation had already organized an intensive livestock trade with Chile thathelped bring about the ethnic fusion of Araucanian Indians that crossedthe mountain range with the local Native Americans, the Pampeans, aprocess known as the ‘Araucanization of the Pampas’ (see Crivelli Montero,1994a, 1994b, 2000; Mandrini, 1992).

The gauchos organized vaquerias, large-scale slaughters of cattle whosemain goal was to remove the hide and fat to sell, and some meat toconsume. These indiscriminate hunts decimated the herds in the country-side around Buenos Aires and compelled the incipient commercial bour-geoisie of Buenos Aires to try to appropriate the land situated to the southof the city to control the flow of cattle. Nevertheless, the appropriation ofland to the south of Buenos Aires did not reach geographically significantdimensions during the period of Spanish domination.

After independence from Spain in 1816, the Argentinean state decidedthat the material progress of the nation was intimately related to theconquest and colonization of the desert, due to the fact that Argentineaninsertion into international markets depended on the sale of agriculturalraw materials to the industrialized nations, especially England (see Ferns,1978). This project was accompanied by the notion that the barbarism ofgauchos and Indians should be brought to an end in order to populate thePampas with European immigrants, emphatically considered ‘civilized’.Thus, this mechanism of domination based its modus operandi on aseamless adoption of the antinomy ‘civilization or barbarity’, the ideo-logical medulla that explained and justified the very essence of that power.I agree with Rotker (1999), who declares that the essence of the attempt atArgentinean modernity during the nineteenth century was encased in thatdichotomy, as simple as it is arbitrary. Rotker (1999: 24) points out that,‘history stops being a very complex process of social negotiations to becomesimplified in a moving binomial of political practice: “civilization or barbar-ity” ’. This process is known in Argentinean historiography as ‘the conquestof the desert’, and finally ended during the 1880s (Walther (1964) presentsa revision of the conquest of the desert, giving it the flavor of a ‘civilizingheroic deed’, while Martínez Sarasola (1992) offers an indigenist perspec-tive and more realistic view of the same historical process).

The conquest and colonization of the desert took shape in the estab-lishment of military camp structures placed to create a defensive cordon,known as ‘the Indian frontier line’. These constructions were fortletsdefended by gaucho cavalry squadrons (known as Blandengues during theSpanish period, and then Guardias Nacionales after independence).According to a vivid description by Slatta (1998: 85), ‘these crude,makeshift sod huts (fortines) were an attempt to push back the frontier line.Poorly armed frontier troops warned ranches and villages of Indian attack,


danteangelo

Highlight

danteangelo

Line

danteangelo

Highlight

danteangelo

Highlight


often by cannon shot. Soldiers manned rickety watchtowers to afford alonger view across the flat, treeless plains’. These cavalry units made up anarmy that was neither professional nor voluntary, as the troops were levies,sent to the fortlets by force. This particular technology of power, whosemain function was to make itself into the instrument of domination of oneclass, rested on the reciprocity between the landowning class and politicalpower, and ensured that the land that was slowly taken away from the ‘wildnative’ would quickly fall into the hands of the dominant elite. As Tilley(1990: 285) has stated: ‘Social relations are dependent on power. It worksthrough them, in them and on them’.

■ LEVY – DISCIPLINE

When by favour of none the gaucho rodeo’er the rolling pampas wide;but now alas, he grows sour and grim,for the law and the police they harry him,and either the Army would rope him in,or the sheriff have his hide.

(Hernández, 1935)

As mentioned previously, the technical procedure of this system of theapplication of power on the frontier was the levy of the ‘poor paisanaje’ (aname for gauchos used at the time). This system was established through adecree that considered that the political-juridical powers could conscriptany gaucho that was not employed, calling him, in the colorful language ofthe time, ‘vago y mal entretenido’ (‘a vagrant and lingerer’). According toSalvatore (1992: 41), ‘The army imposed the obligation of the compulsoryservice over a social class, the farm laborers’. The law ensured their adjust-ment and insertion into a system of production. This meant the applicationof a very particular juridical structure, aimed at the incipient proletarian-ization of the male workforce of the Pampas, a sine qua non condition forthe formation of a capitalist economy in Argentina, and submitting thegaucho to a dominant will (for detailed studies on this matter, seeGaravaglia, 1987; Halperín Donghi, 1968; Mayo, 1987; Salvatore, 1992;Slatta, 1983; for a detailed analysis of the genesis and development of nine-teenth-century Argentinean cattle capitalism, see Sabato, 1989).

The word proletarianization encompasses the transformation of an inde-pendent worker – farmer, craftsman, small landowner – into a salariedworker, dependent for his sustenance on the sale of his labor. In short, theinhabitant of the countryside either worked under a landowner’s orders onthe large cattle farms (the estancias), a fact that had to be recorded onarticle by the patron, as gauchos were mostly illiterate, or they were labeledvago, and sent to the fortlets on the frontier.


danteangelo

Highlight


This procedure was usually put into practice in an unsubtle, arbitraryfashion, implemented with the old arrogance of royal justice that was neverindependent from relations of property. In fact, the embryo of the vago ymal entretenido category as an disciplinary element in legal power derivesfrom the mid-eighteenth century, at the pinnacle of Spanish colonial domi-nation (Rodriguez Molas, 1982: 101), and was related to existing Europeanlaws of the same period aimed at ‘the most nomadic elements’ (Foucault,1992: 61), beggars, tramps and idlers (see Berlinger and Colao, 1990;Sharpe, 1983; Thompson, 1968; Weisser, 1979). The strong similaritiesbetween the latter and the gauchos were not merely coincidental.

The person in charge of putting this disciplinary policy into practice wasthe Justice of the Peace, a post created in 1821 with the goal of filling thevacancy that the lack of the colonial institution of the Town Council hadleft. The Justice of the Peace was the administrative and judicial represen-tative of the state, and often also acted as a police chief and tax collector(regarding the duties and detailed activities of the Justice of the Peace, seeDíaz, 1959; Salvatore, 1992, 1998; Szuchman, 1987). Likewise, the army hada relevant role in this disciplinary framework. The historian Salvatore(1992: 28–9) writes, ‘The development of a technology of power in areasoutside its production reinforces the discipline of the social body and giveslegitimacy to the political body. . . . The army, like the prison, or thehospital, presents an idea of discipline to instill on the body and in the mindof the conscripts. . . . Through confinement, surveillance and hierarchy theytry to produce obedient, active, qualified and patriotic subjects’. However,the same author considers that the army functioned imperfectly as a disci-plinary institution, due to organizational errors, internal corruption and theexistence of several ‘mechanisms of resistance’ used by the gauchos forcedto serve in it. I concur with the arguments developed by Salvatore (1992),and consider various practices, such as desertion, as instances of ‘resistance’by the soldiers to the model being imposed upon them. I examine these indetail below.

This system, based on coercion and injustice, was not free of criticismand received the condemnation of a certain part of society. The seminalpiece of Argentinean ‘gauchesque’ literature, El Gaucho Martín Fierro(1872), written by the journalist and legislator José Hernández, testifies tothe abuse of power perpetrated by the hegemonic sectors through thedeclaration of vago y mal entretenido. However, the practice of this tech-nology of power was not the exclusive property of the ruling classes, sincein spite of its strong impact on one social sector, its daily work extendedbeyond class differences and moved throughout the social structure. Hereit is useful to consider what Foucault called the ‘microphysics of power’,that is, the existence of micro-powers practiced individually and indepen-dent from, for example, the state system. These are small, personalinstances of power which spread molecularly throughout society, that actthrough it layer by layer, fold by fold, filling in the interstices that general


danteangelo

Highlight

danteangelo

Line

danteangelo

Highlight


power cannot cover. For Foucault (1975, as cited in Gordon, 1980: 39), thisis one of the main characteristics that power has: ‘But in thinking of themechanisms of power, I am thinking rather of its capillary form of exist-ence, the point where power reaches into the very grain of individuals,touches their bodies and inserts itself into their actions and attitudes, theirdiscourses, learning processes and everyday lives’.

In the present study, the microphysics of power becomes evident in thelevy system, since its operation revealed a number of faults, ambiguitiesand non-compliances that became visible in everyday practice. Amongthese was a certain tolerated illegality that the relatives, friends and‘favorites’ of the Justice of the Peace enjoyed. Their combined actioncreated a complex mixture that included corruption, embezzlement, accu-sation and the purchase and sale of political favors. The dynamics of imple-menting this law were corrupted by arbitrariness from the very juridicalnucleus of its conception, because according to the Rural Code of BuenosAires Province (edited in 1865), verbal testimony was enough for theJustice of the Peace to discipline a rural inhabitant, considering him as vagoy mal entretenido and so eligible to be sent to the frontier to serve in thearmy for three years. Article No. 289 of this code established the require-ments to be met in order to be considered as vago: ‘Anyone without apermanent address and well-known livelihood that has offended moralitydue to his misbehavior or bad habits will be declared vago’ (cited in Sarra-mone, 1997: 32). These arrangements enabled the implementation – oftendeliberately unfair – of suspicious conduct tinged with a blurred andsuperficial patina of justice. As Foucault (1977: 222) argued: ‘The generaljuridical form that guaranteed a system of rights that were egalitarian inprinciple was supported by these tiny, everyday, physical mechanisms, byall those systems of micro-power that are essentially non-egalitarian andasymmetrical that we call the disciplines’.

The disciplinary plan within the army as an institution naturally had itshistorical ups and downs. One of the most critical moments of its appli-cation occurred during the so-called ‘expedition to the desert’ conductedby Brigadier General Rosas in 1833. The following were some of the rulesdictated by him to control the gaucho-soldiers:

■ Any man who mistreated with a firearm, iron bar, stone, or hit apriest, religious man or any of God’s ministers who were in habitwhile receiving sacred orders was to receive capital punishment.

■ For proven theft, the accused deserved the death penalty [during theexpedition, for example, the soldier Simón Duarte was executed fortheft on 29 November 1833].

■ Any man who took a married woman, widow or single woman was toreceive capital punishment. But when his attempt to assault her wasnot deliberate or extreme he was punished by 10 yearsimprisonment.


danteangelo

Highlight


■ Any man who was proven to have taken weapons or munitions fromhis comrades, the warehouse, or stores would receive capitalpunishment.

■ Any man who was the first to turn his back on the war, involved or tothe enemy’s sight looking for it or waiting on the defensive, wasexecuted on the spot, in the presence of the troops (CGE, 1976: 418,419).

A key aspect in understanding the operation of this discipline is that thesame struggle to get the gaucho-soldier subjugated and to the fortlet wasinvolved in holding him there, to establishing a presence that marked out aterritory that quickly reverted to the hands of the ruling classes (those whocalled themselves ‘civilized’). It was a disciplinary plan that created its owndramatizing area: the fortlet, a fenced structure enclosed by a palisade ofsunken posts (palos a pique), a barrier that defended and held, isolated andsubdued, divided and enclosed the fortlet that was also, in a way, a prison.

Nevertheless, this discipline was in many other respects flexible and mild.For example, there was no rule that specified what should be done with thewaste that fortlets generated daily. Thus, rubbish was discarded inside aswell as out, with no distinction between glass, ceramic ware, faunal remains,except for the precaution of not throwing sharp objects where the horseswere kept (verified by archaeological excavations at Miñana Fortlet, seeGomez Romero, 1999). Another example, where evidently the disciplinehad cracks – in this case cracks that showed the resistance of the soldiers toserving in the army – refers to the eating habits of the garrisons quarteredat the fortlets. Archaeological research at Miñana Fortlet, as well as in LaParva fortlet and Cantón Tapalqué Viejo, has revealed the presence of gin,beer, wine and receptacles for other alcoholic drinks (Gomez Romero andBogazzi, 1998; Langiano et al., 2000; Mugueta and Anglada, 1998).

It is possible that this weak, lax, eclectic and improvised disciplinemanifested itself as such because it had yet to present the omnipresentcharacter that it would assume under the working conditions of full-blowncapitalism. These aspects are clearly observable in Gaudemar’s work (1981),who emphasized the absolute importance that this has within the capitalistwork process. The author shows that discipline itself is historically deter-mined, and dependent on the social and economic formation of its time. Iconcur with this argument, which could, in this case study, explain the flexi-bility of the disciplinary schema of the fortlets. Regulations that strictlycodified the tasks and activities that were to be developed inside these ruralmilitary structures did not exist until 1876, three years before the permanentconquest of the desert and during a period when relations of productionwere largely organized along capitalist lines. The historical character of thedisciplines is emphasized by Nievas (1999: 76), who argues that ‘the disci-plines are techniques to exert power and thus are the results of givenrelations of power for a determined period and concrete situation. It is


danteangelo

Highlight

danteangelo

Highlight

danteangelo

Sticky Note

So, the bodies themselves marked/constituted the territories (another way to put this would be that the territory was inscribed in the bodies of these gauchos and conscripts drafted to the frontier because they not only represented the state's institutions but also a specific behavior and discipline that marked/defined the frontier zone that "capitalism" wanted to permeate)

danteangelo

Highlight

danteangelo

Highlight


essential that we see their exhibition not as a sclerosed practice of power,but as an applied, evolutive, continuous and uninterrupted political science’.

In summary, a legal power existed that acted to discipline the availablemale labor force in the borderlands, where the will of several hegemonicsectors of society to establish a particular technology of power did not passunnoticed. The free gaucho was a useless body, and law and state neededuseful, manipulable bodies; these they obtained with discipline, control andsurveillance, stigmatized through the coercion of the levy and subjected tothe fortlet-prison.

■ FORTLET – PRISON

He tested his knife in a thick clump of grass and, to keep from entangling hisfeet, took off his spurs. Choosing to fight it out rather than be taken, he gothimself wounded in the forearm, in the shoulder, and in the left hand. Whenhe felt the blood dripping between his fingers, he fought harder than ever,badly wounding the toughest members of the search party. Towarddaybreak, weak with loss of blood, he was disarmed. The army in those daysacted as a kind of penal institution; Cruz was sent off to serve in an outposton the northern frontier. (Borges, 1970)

A consideration of physical space is essential to understand the modusoperandi of any technology of power. As Foucault stated, ‘space is funda-mental in any exercise of power’ (Rabinow, 1984: 252). Orser (1988: 320)emphasized that ‘the interrelation between space and power provides a keyto the archaeological study of the past’. He also proposes that, ‘Years ofresearch are needed before a firm understanding of the relationshipbetween power and archaeological remains will be attained. Nonetheless,plantations seem to provide a perfect arena in which to begin the search’(Orser, 1988: 321). I believe that the fortlets can be informative on thismatter, which is one of the purposes of this article.

In the current case, the fortlets comprised the space. The idea that thesesmall outposts were prisons is demonstrated by relating two of theirelements: architectonic and functional. Evidence for the former includes thepresence of structures, such as the isolating palisade, the wide ditch and themangrullo (watch tower), from where both the outside and the inside werewatched (the descriptions of different fortlets coincide regarding the exist-ence of these basic architectonic features (see Alsina, 1977; Daireaux, 1945;Ebelot, 1968; Memorias del Ministerio de Guerra, 1873; Racedo, 1965;Ramírez Juárez, 1968; Raone, 1969; Ruiz Moreno, 2000; Sarramone, 1997;Walther, 1964), although some variations may exist in terms of the generalmorphology of the floor plans – square, round, rectangular, etc.). Function-ally, the gauchos were compelled to live in the fortlets, deprived of theirfreedom and taken there against their will, having been labeled ‘vagos y malentretenidos’ by those in power and so held guilty of that ‘crime’.


Omar_

Nota adhesiva

Probó el cuchillo en una gruesa mata de hierba y , para no enredar su pies, se quitó las espuelas . La elección de pelear en lugar de ser tomado , se puso el propio herido en el antebrazo , en el hombro y en la mano izquierda . ¿Cuándo él sintió que la sangre goteaba entre sus dedos , él luchó duro que nunca , hiriendo gravemente a los miembros más duros de la partida de búsqueda . hacia amanecer, débil, con la pérdida de sangre , fue desarmado. El ejército en esos días actuado como una especie de institución penal ; Cruz fue enviado a servir en un puesto de avanzada en la frontera norte . ( Borges, 1970 ) Una consideración de espacio físico es esencial para entender el modus operandi de cualquier tecnología del poder. Como Foucault afirmó , " el espacio es fundamental en cualquier ejercicio de poder" ( Rabinow , 1984 : 252 ) . Orser ( 1988 : 320 ) subraya que " la interrelación entre el espacio y la energía proporciona una clave para el estudio arqueológico del pasado" . También propone que , " se necesitan años de investigación antes de que se logrará un firme entendimiento de la relación entre el poder y los restos arqueológicos . Sin embargo , las plantaciones parecen proporcionar un escenario perfecto para comenzar la búsqueda ' ( Orser , 1988 : 321 ) . Creo que los fortines pueden ser de carácter informativo sobre este asunto , que es uno de los propósitos de este artículo. En el caso actual , los fortines componen el espacio . La idea de que estos pequeños puestos de avanzada se prisiones se demuestra al relacionar dos de sus elementos: arquitectónicos y funcionales. La evidencia de la antigua incluye la presencia de estructuras, como la empalizada de aislamiento , la gran zanja y la mangrullo ( torre de vigilancia ) , de la que tanto el exterior y el interior fueron observaban ( las descripciones de los diferentes fortines coinciden respecto a la exis- cia de estas características arquitectónicas básicas ( ver Alsina, 1977 ; Daireaux , 1945 ; Ebelot , 1968 ; Memorias del Ministerio de Guerra, 1873 ; Racedo , 1965 ; Ramírez Juárez , 1968; Raone , 1969 ; Ruiz Moreno , 2000 ; Sarramone , 1997 ; Walther, 1964), aunque puede haber algunas variaciones en cuanto a la general, morfología de los planos de planta - cuadradas , redondas , rectangulares , etc.) Funcionalmente , los gauchos se vieron obligados a vivir en los fortines , privados de su libertad y llevados allí en contra de su voluntad , después de haber sido etiquetados ' vagos Y entretenidos mal ' por el poder y por lo tanto considerados culpables de ese "crimen"


One also sees the operation of a very particular, perhaps unique, tech-nology of power at the fortlet. The soldier who kept watch from themangrullo was also a comrade, the friend who could oversee the prelimi-naries of a nocturnal desertion, because he may have been the next one totry. In effect, there was no guard. It is valid, therefore, to wonder whetherthe fortlet was, in fact, a type of functionally imperfect panopticon. Thepanopticon of Bentham described by Foucault (1977: 200) presents aperipheral construction divided into cells in the form of a ring with a towerin the center from where it is possible to control everything. Foucault (1977:204) describes it as follows: ‘Hence the major effect of the Panopticon: toinduce in the inmate a state of conscious and permanent visibility thatassures the automatic functioning of power. So to arrange things that thesurveillance is permanent in its effects, even if it is discontinuous in itsaction’. According to Maley (1990: 67), the panopticon functioned as anauthentic cyclopean eye. In this manner, the panopticon plan is applicable‘– necessary modifications apart – to all establishments whatsoever, inwhich, within a space not too large to be covered or commanded by build-ings, a number of persons are meant to be kept under inspection’ (Foucault,1977: 205–6), a quality that a fortlet evidently possessed. At the same time,some architectonic elements reinforce this analogy because both the panop-ticon and fortlet had a ditch, palisade and central tower (Bentham, 1989:40, 76), the latter replaced by the mangrullo in the fortlet (see Figure 2).

It is possible, therefore, to think of the fortlet as an imperfect panopti-con. The guard on duty was a comrade who was not ‘power’, but its momen-tary, incidental vehicle, and was thus a defective form of power. Watchingover apparently ‘criminal’ actions that he himself may be incited to commitwas the interstice through which the apparent monolithic homogeneity ofpower was dissolved, a trick that enables desertion – that most commonform of escape – to occur.

In the fortlets, where observation was carried out by non-professionalagents of power, was the existence of a power that in praxis was neitherparticularly strict, monolithic, nor brutal, permitted? The answer again liesin what Foucault called the ‘microphysics of power’, a concept that, asmentioned above, refers to the relations of power established amongpeople that are relatively independent of the power used by the state.These relations have their own shape and a level of autonomy, and developa series of conditions that enable the acting out of micro-powers. Theyhave a taste of the homemade, the familiar, dark, ambiguous, transient;occasionally awkward, eager, or voracious, and often unobservable, yetinexorably present.

They prove that not all the devices of power derive from the state, norare they exclusive to it, a condition which guarantees an infinitesimal distri-bution of the relations of power. Foucault (1976, cited in Gordon, 1980: 72)describes this point succinctly and clearly: ‘There is a sort of schematismthat needs to be avoided here . . . that consists of locating power in the state


Omar_

Nota adhesiva

También se ve el funcionamiento de un quizás único, la tecnología muy particular, de poder en el fortín. El soldado que vigilaba desde el mangrullo era también un compañero, el amigo que podría supervisar los preliminares de una deserción nocturna, ya que puede haber sido el siguiente en intentarlo. En efecto, no había ningún guardia. Es válido, por lo tanto, preguntarse si el fortín era, de hecho, un tipo de funcionalmente imperfecta panóptico. El panóptico de Bentham descrito por Foucault (1977: 200) presenta una construcción periférica dividida en células en forma de un anillo con una torre en el centro desde donde se puede controlar todo. Foucault (1977: 204) lo describe de la siguiente manera: "De ahí el efecto mayor del Panóptico: inducir en el interno un estado de visibilidad consciente y permanente que asegura el funcionamiento automático del poder. Así que para arreglar las cosas que la vigilancia es permanente en sus efectos, incluso si es discontinua en su acción ». Según Maley (1990: 67), el panóptico funcionaba como un ojo ciclópeo auténtico. De esta manera, el plan panóptico es aplicable '- modificación necesaria de diferencia - a todos los establecimientos de ningún tipo, en los que, dentro de un espacio no demasiado grande para ser cubierta o mandado por edificios, un número de personas que tienen el propósito de mantener bajo control' ( Foucault, 1977: 205-6), una cualidad que un fortín evidentemente poseía. Al mismo tiempo, algunos elementos arquitectónicos reforzar esta analogía porque tanto el panóptico y fortín tenía un foso, empalizada y torre central (Bentham, 1989: 40, 76), este último sustituido por el Mangrullo en el fortín (ver Figura 2)

Omar_

Nota adhesiva

Es posible, por tanto , pensar en el fortín como un panóptico imperfecto. El guardia de turno fue un compañero que no era "poder" , pero su vehículo momentánea , incidentales, por lo que era una forma defectuosa de poder. Velar por parecer acciones "criminales" que él mismo puede ser incitados a cometer era el intersticio a través del cual se disolvió la homogeneidad monolítica aparente de poder, un truco que permite la deserción - que la forma más común de escapar - que se produzca. En los fortines , donde la observación se llevó a cabo por no profesionales agentes del poder , fue la existencia de un poder que en la praxis no era ni particularmente estricta , monolítica , ni brutal , permitida ? La respuesta se encuentra de nuevo en lo que Foucault llama las " microfísica del poder ", un concepto que , como se mencionó anteriormente , se refiere a las relaciones de poder que se establecen entre personas que son relativamente independientes de la energía utilizada por el estado. Estas relaciones tienen su propia forma y un nivel de autonomía , y se desarrollan una serie de condiciones que permiten a la actuación de los micro- poderes. ellos tienen un sabor de la casera, lo familiar , oscuro , ambiguo, transitoria ; en ocasiones incómodo , ansioso , o voraz , y con frecuencia no son observables , pero inexorablemente presente . Ellos demuestran que no todos los dispositivos de poder se derivan del estado, ni son exclusivos de ella, una condición que garantiza una distribución infinitesimal de las relaciones de poder. Foucault ( 1976 , citado en Gordon, 1980 : 72 ) describe este punto sucinta y clara : " Hay una especie de esquematismo que hay que evitar aquí . . . que consiste en la localización de poder en el aparato del Estado , lo que hace esto en el principal , el privilegio , el capital y casi único instrumento del poder de una clase sobre otra . En realidad , el poder en su ejercicio va mucho más allá, pasa a través de canales mucho más finos , y es mucho más ambigua , ya que cada individuo tiene a su disposición un cierto poder, y por esa misma razón también puede actuar como vehículo para la transmisión de un poder más amplio ' . No obstante, es posible ver sus efectos como sujeto a un cierta intermitencia que resulta en discontinuidades e irregularidades , porque las pasiones individuales , heterogeneidades personales y el comportamiento que surge por el contexto particular de un ejercicio del poder están todos mezclados en su aplicación . Como Tilley ( 1990 : 285-8 ) ha argumentado , en base a Foucault concepción del poder , " el poder está en todas partes , ya que viene de todas partes . . . el funcionamiento del poder están en todas partes . Nadie escapa ...


apparatus, making this into the major, privileged, capital and almost uniqueinstrument of the power of one class over another. In reality, power in itsexercise goes much further, passes through much finer channels, and ismuch more ambiguous, since each individual has at his disposal a certainpower, and for that very reason can also act as the vehicle for transmittinga wider power’. Nonetheless, it is possible to see its effects as subject to acertain intermittency that results in discontinuities and irregularities,because individual passions, personal heterogeneities and behavior arisingfrom the particular context of an exertion of power are all mixed up in itsapplication. As Tilley (1990: 285–8) has argued, based on Foucault’sconception of power, ‘power is everywhere because it comes from every-where . . . the workings of power are everywhere. No one escapes’.

This microphysics of power impregnated all segments of society with aparticular force, a phenomenon made possible by the context of the border-land areas in which it acted. These are places where it is possible, as noted,to observe laxness in the action of power, an aspect that favors the practiceof micro-powers. Guy and Sheridan (1998: 15) explain this with referenceto frontiers: ‘they were shifting membranes of contact between differentpeoples, where power was constantly being contested and negotiated andwhere relations of race, class and gender were different than in areas whereempires or nation-states did indeed exercise a monopoly on violence’.

Nevertheless, the weight of the rudimentary Argentinean state as anagent of power made itself felt on the gaucho-soldiers. Thus, for example,the punishment for a guard for not fulfilling certain disciplinary rules wasmerciless (although this would hardly have been more humanitarian in anyarmy of the time). In 1833, Brigadier General Rosas established the follow-ing punishments:

Figure 2 Fortlet Miñana’s stockade post holes


Omar_

Nota adhesiva

Este microfísica del poder impregnan todos los sectores de la sociedad con un fuerza particular, un fenómeno hecho posible por el contexto de la zona fronteriza áreas en las que actuó. Estos son lugares donde es posible, como se ha señalado, observar laxitud en la acción del poder, un aspecto que favorece la práctica de micro-poderes. Guy y Sheridan (1998: 15) lo explican con referencia a las fronteras: "ellos estaban cambiando las membranas de contacto entre diferentes pueblos, donde constantemente se disputó el poder y negociado y donde las relaciones de raza, clase y género eran diferentes que en las zonas donde imperios o naciones-estado, efectivamente ejercen el monopolio de la violencia ". Sin embargo, el peso del estado argentino rudimentaria como un agente del poder se hizo sentir sobre los gauchos-soldados. Así, por ejemplo, el castigo por un guardia por no cumplir con ciertas normas de disciplina era sin piedad (aunque esto difícilmente habría sido más humanitaria en cualquier ejército de la época). En 1833, el brigadier general Rosas estableció la siguiente castigos:


■ A guard who abandoned his post without an order was to beexecuted.

■ A guard could not talk to anybody while at his post. He had todevote his attention to his watch. He was not permitted to smoke, sit,sleep, eat or drink.

■ A guard who saw someone climb or jump over the wall, ditch orfence, either entering or leaving the fortress or enclosure, and whodid not fire or issue a warning was to be executed (CGE, 1975: 416).

The idea of the defective panopticon, of a prison with particular charac-teristics, is established by the fact that women were allowed to live in somefortlets. Therefore, the women as companions to the soldiers entered‘voluntarily’ to be part of this technology of power, carrying out thecleaning, cooking, mending uniforms, gathering food, and some also foughtin combat, receiving military commendations (see Figure 3). Historicalresearch (see Malosetti Costa, 2000; Mayo, 1999; Rotker, 1999; Socolow,1998; Vera Pichel, 1994) has established the validity of the subject, re-evaluing the historical importance of women as significant actors in ahistorical process in which, for many people, men would appear to havestarred exclusively. The inclusion of the study of women is still pending infrontier archaeology, and I argue that we must begin to develop the concep-tual tools necessary to observe the presence of women in the archaeologicalevidence recovered from the fortlets.

■ TORTURE

Poor paisanos, whose crime is having been born in the humble condition ofthe gaucho, are taken away from their houses to serve without salary, nakedand many times without the necessary food, because for them the fortlet isthe prison and if they are arrested, the free hours they have won are givenback in lashes.

Councillor N. Oroño (Santa Fé) Chamber of Deputies, 1864.

In a recent paper, Farnsworth (2000: 154) argued that the systematic use ofphysical violence has to be considered in archaeological analyses of socialcontexts in which it occurred, even if evidence is weak and barely ‘visible’in the archaeological record, as ‘artifacts that speak directly to violence andpunishment are rare in the archaeological record . . . . Skeletal material maynot demonstrate the kinds of physical abuse most commonly employed’. Ifthis is not taken into account then one of the key factors in understandingthe logic of these contexts in the past is ignored. Even though the aboveauthors refer specifically to slave plantations in the south of the USA, thisobservation is perfectly applicable to the Argentinean fortlets during theconquest of the desert. Rodriguez Molas (1983) produced a detailed study


Omar_

Nota adhesiva

Un guardia que abandonó su puesto de trabajo sin una orden era ser ejecutado . ■ Un guardia no podía hablar con nadie , mientras que en su puesto. Tuvo que dedicar su atención a su reloj. Él no estaba permitido fumar , sentarse, dormir, comer o beber. ■ Un guardia que vio a alguien subir o saltar sobre la pared, zanja o valla, entren o salgan de la fortaleza o lugar cerrado, y que no disparar o emitir una advertencia iba a ser ejecutado ( CGE , 1975 : 416) . La idea del panóptico defectuoso, de una prisión con características particulares , se establece por el hecho de que las mujeres se les permitía vivir en algunos fortines . Por lo tanto , las mujeres como compañeros a los soldados entraron "voluntariamente" a ser parte de esta tecnología de poder , llevar a cabo la limpieza, la cocina , uniformes remendando , la recolección de alimentos , y algunos también lucharon en combate , recibiendo elogios militares ( véase la Figura 3 ) . La investigación histórica (ver Malosetti Costa, 2000 ; Mayo, 1999 ; Rotker , 1999 ; Socolow , 1998 ; Vera Pichel , 1994) ha establecido la validez de la asignatura , reevaluing la importancia histórica de las mujeres como actores importantes en un proceso histórico en el que , para muchas personas , los hombres parecen haber protagonizado exclusivamente . La inclusión del estudio de la mujer aún está pendiente en la arqueología de la frontera, y sostengo que tenemos que empezar a desarrollar las herramientas conceptuales necesarias para observar la presencia de la mujer en la evidencia arqueológica recuperada de los fortines

of the bodily torments and mechanisms of torture used in Spanish Americaand in independent Argentina.

Foucault has argued that the ‘body has become an essential componentfor the operation of power relations’ (Dreyfus and Rabinow, 1982: 112). Inreference to body punishment as a military practice, Foucault also considersthat this is an explicit way to carry out justice in the military; it is armedjustice, a demonstration of physical strength. In the case of the fortlets, thismechanism was put into practice in a particular way, comparable to theprevious example of the comrade-guard in the mangrullo, because the onewho dealt out the punishment was a comrade or superior – a brother-in-arms and not an agent that performed that function exclusively and waspaid by the state to do so (as the executioner was). Power was in the handsof someone who could be shoulder to shoulder with one tomorrow in battle,and shared daily life in the camp.

Despite this, the brutality of the punishments appeared to be guaran-teed, a fact that can be explained by the workings of the micro-powersdeveloped by the common person, referred to above, and to the existenceof ‘repressive power’ (Shanks and Tilley, 1992: 129). According to Shanksand Tilley (1992: 129), ‘Repressive power works within institutions andmechanisms which ensure subservience to the social order (forms of legiti-mate authority) and ultimately rests on a sanction of violence, directphysical coercion’. The operative mechanisms of these two kinds of powerresulted in the millimetrical practice of a micro-power based at an indi-vidual level being the cause, while the effect showed in the resounding crackof the lash, that is, in the torture of the body. They are both expressions ofpower, or rather its demonstration, but they differ because the former wasgenerated individually and therefore has to do with the conscience of thosewho put it into practice. The latter referred to the hegemonic workings ofthe state and its need for laws to be fulfilled. Thus, the workings of bothresulted in a combination that shaped an authentic ‘trade mark’ of thisborderland technology of power that extended to people’s bodies, as willbe illustrated by the following examples.

References to torture and bodily punishment are plentiful for thefrontier army. Two French engineers who traveled through the borderlandsat different times made almost identical observations. Parchappe (cited inGrau, 1975: 54), in 1827 or 1828, declared that ‘punishments are corporaland very cruel’. Fifty years later, Ebelot (1968: 91) stated that ‘discipline iscruel . . . one, two thousand lashes was nothing’. Rodriguez Molas (1982:170) mentions that some of the deserters detained in 1836 were given threehundred lashes, two of them were shot and the rest were sent to serve inthe frontier for three more years. Mansilla (1994: 32–3) remarked that thetortures the soldiers suffered were usual in the militia, and refers to over-hearing the following order in quarters in Buenos Aires: ‘give them twothousand blows’, to which he asked, ‘who to?’, and he was answered, ‘tosome poor gauchos appointed to the army service’ (Mansilla, 1994: 32–3).



Omar_

Nota adhesiva

A pesar de esto, la brutalidad de los castigos parece estar garantizada, un hecho que puede explicarse por el funcionamiento de los micro-poderes desarrollados por la persona común, antes mencionado, y para la existencia de "poder represivo '(Shanks y Tilley , 1992: 129). De acuerdo con Shanks y Tilley (1992: 129), "obras poder represivo dentro de las instituciones y mecanismos que garanticen la sumisión al orden social (formas de autoridad legítima) y, finalmente, se apoya en una sanción de la violencia, directa coacción física ». Los mecanismos de funcionamiento de estos dos tipos de poder resultado en la práctica milimétrica de un micro-poder basado en un individuo nivel que es la causa, mientras que el efecto demostrado en el sonoro crack de el látigo, que es, en la tortura del cuerpo. Ambos son expresiones de poder, o más bien su manifestación, pero difieren porque el primero se generó de forma individual y por lo tanto tiene que ver con la conciencia de los que la ponen en práctica. Este último se refirió a los trabajos hegemónicas del Estado y de su necesidad de leyes que deben cumplirse. Por lo tanto, el funcionamiento de ambos resultaron en una combinación que dio forma a una auténtica 'marca' de esta tecnología de frontera de la energía que se extendió a los cuerpos de las personas, al igual que ser ilustrada por los siguientes ejemplos.

Omar_

Nota adhesiva

Las referencias a la tortura y los castigos corporales son abundantes para la ejército frontera. Dos ingenieros franceses que viajaron a través de las fronteras en diferentes momentos hecho observaciones casi idénticos. Parchappe (citado en Grau, 1975: 54), en 1827 o 1828, declaró que "los castigos corporales son y muy cruel ". Cincuenta años más tarde, Ebelot (1968: 91), declaró que "la disciplina es cruel. . . uno, dos mil azotes había nada '. Rodríguez Molas (1982: 170) menciona que algunos de los desertores detenidos en 1836 se les dio tres cien azotes, dos de ellos fueron fusilados y el resto fueron enviados a servir en la frontera durante tres años más. Mansilla (1994: 32-3), comentó que el tortura a los soldados sufridas eran usuales en la milicia, y se refiere a oír el siguiente orden en cuartos en Buenos Aires: "darles dos mil golpes ', a la que preguntaron, "¿A quién?', y se le respondió," para algunos gauchos pobres designados para el servicio militar "(Mansilla, 1994: 32-3


Other testimonies are equally significant. Gutierrez (1956: 241) points outthat the soldier of the fortlets ‘is made to endure staking, the Colombianstocks’. Salvatore (1992: 30) states that, ‘A long time in the stocks or enoughblows could change rebel recruits into obedient soldiers – at least this wasthe general belief’.

Figueroa (1999: 151) describes in detail the method of torture enduredin the army: ‘staking consisted of making the accused lie on the ground,limbs spread open and tied to stakes or bayonets stuck in the ground, whichproduced great pain in the joints’. Darwin (1934: 164; see Figure 4), in histrip across the Pampas in 1833, described the torture of staking: ‘This is avery severe punishment; four posts are driven into the ground, and the manis extended by his arms and legs horizontally; and there left to stretch forseveral hours. The idea is evidently taken from the usual method of dryinghides’. At the same time, the stocks (cepo), Figueroa (1999: 147) continues,

Figure 3 A comic scene showing the welcome given to a gaucho-soldier byhis woman (taken from the Argentinian ‘gauchesco’ comic Martín Toro byJorge Morhaím and illustrated by Carlos Magallanes, 1981–1985 (Mayo, 1983)



‘had two boards joined by a hinge, with three semi-circular cavities in eachone. They were locked with a padlock, and when together three circularholes were formed which trapped the accused by the neck and ankles orneck and wrists’ (also cited in Becco and Dellepiane Calcena, 1978: 322).The Colombian stocks were a version that, according to Figueroa (1999:148), were used in the field, where ‘the prisoner was seated with his kneesfolded, under which they put a stick or rifle. He then was made to place hisarms under the ends and his wrists were tied in front of his shins. This lefthim in a strained position that produced intense exhaustion and possiblyunconsciousness’.

The arbitrariness with which these punishment were dealt out isexemplified by Santiago Avendaño’s comments (as cited in Hux, 1999:302), who, in 1851 served in quarters in Palermo, near Buenos Aires, wherecaptured deserters were taken: ‘. . . they dealt the most atrocious blowson the poor devils. The colonel who watched the scene from one endthought corporal Vieytes, a black man, did not deal the blows with all hisstrength. He approached and stopped the punishment, and pointing tonegro Vieytes he said: “This scamp seems to feel pity for them. Give him25 strong blows so he knows how he has to punish”. When corporalVieyte’s punishment ended the colonel asked him: “Do you like it now?Have mercy again and you’ll see!” ’ Thus, the moment of public punish-ment generated a not at all moderate or mitigated but brutally carried outrepresentation, an authentic ritualization of power that aimed at produc-ing an exemplary impact on its audience. The implacable strength of thisritual lay in the belief that ‘their example must be deeply inscribed in thehearts of men’ (Foucault, 1977: 49), turning the torture of the body intoone of ‘the ceremonies by which power is manifested’ (Foucault, 1977: 47).The cruel and bloody reaffirmation of power was thus generated througha pretentiously symbolic ritual, where the workings of micro-power weremanifested; in this case, through the racial hatred of the black soldier bythe colonel. Mixed-race soldiers such as the gauchos experienced similartreatment.

In the fort at Azul, where the military headquarters of the front lines ofthe southern section were located, a military decree was written on 7 July1857 that revealed the inhumanity of the punishments imposed on the troopsthat garrisoned the frontiers. This document refers to ‘the pernicious effectsof the use of a knife inside the fortlets in view of the fights that were evidentbetween the men’. For this reason, the decree ordered, ‘As from today everyindividual soldier in whose belt a knife is found will be punished with twohundred blows in front of all the troops’, adding that if the infractor was asergeant, ‘his rank will be stripped without applying the punishment’. In thefollowing article it was ordered that, ‘Every individual soldier that woundsanother army man in a fight with a knife, stone or blow will be irremissiblypunished with eight hundred blows in front of his regiment’. And finally, thelast article of the decree established that, ‘If [the victim] died because of the



wound the aggressor will suffer the punishment of being shot in front of thearmy instead of the blows’ (cited in Luna, 1996: 122).

This example shows the cruelty of the tortures inflicted upon the victim’sbody, as well as their ritual and exemplary nature, since they were publicand it was public representation that this mechanism of power needed. Thispower was ‘. . . a power that not only did not hesitate to exert itself directlyon bodies, but was exalted and strengthened by its visible manifestations;. . . a power that asserted itself as an armed power whose functions of main-taining order were not entirely unconnected with the functions of war; . . .a power that presented rules and obligations as personal bonds, a breach ofwhich constituted an offence and called for vengeance’ (Foucault, 1977: 57).

‘In physical torture, the example was based on terror: physical fear,collective horror, images that must be engraved on the memories of thespectators’ – thus Foucault (1977: 109–10) described this aspect of power,which believed deeply in the coercive power of the exhibition. In the caseof the penalties applied for the use of knives, the punishment is a ritual, aswell as being a political act, that has a deep social significance, since itimpacts strongly on a determined class and obeys social hierarchy. The non-commissioned officer, in this case the sergeant, was to be punished in a

Figure 4 Gaucho staked in the fortlet. Drawing by Augusto Gómez Romero(note the palisade and the gin bottle, which is similar to archaeological onesfound in several excavations of fortlets)



different way to the soldier. In general, among the troops in the fortlets theofficers belonged to the bourgeois families from the cities, primarily BuenosAires. On the whole, the white officers did not hesitate to exert despoti-cally the superiority of their race and position, imposing brutal punishmentson the mixed-race gaucho-soldiers repeatedly. One of the few documentalreferences on Fortlet Miñana (Gomez Romero, 1999: 24) refers to thedesertion of a sergeant because of the beatings the commander had givenhim (AMEA, Document No. 1, 1863). Joaquín Granel, representative forSanta Fé Province, confirmed this practice: ‘Punishment by blows is onlyapplied to soldiers, and in no case is it extended to superiors or officers,although they had committed the same crime’ (cited in Rodriguez Molas,1983: 30). Thus, the ritualization of these body tortures plainly showed theunequal relation of strength that gave power to the law, a law that wasalways attentive, in praxis, to the management, consolidation and survivalof certain privileges.

■ ESCAPE – DESERTION

He understood that his shoulder braid and his uniform were now in his way.

He understood that his real destiny was as a lone wolf, not a gregarious dog.

He understood that the other man was himself. Day dawned over the bound-less plain. Cruz threw down his kepi, called out that he would not be party tothe crime of killing a brave man, and began fighting against his own soldiers,shoulder to shoulder with Martín Fierro, the deserter. (Borges, 1970)

To imagine a prison implies imagining a method to escape from it. Escapeis fundamentally associated with the prison, and one escaped the fortlet-prison by deserting. Desertion was perhaps the gaucho-soldier’s mostimportant form of resistance against the coercive mechanism of an authori-tarian state, and constituted a constant fact and permanent problem forpower. During the Rosas period (1829–1852) this was the most commoncrime (Salvatore, 1998: 346). Furthermore, it was the topic of many debatesthat examined its causes and looked for a solution (e.g. the report byMinister of War, Gelly y Obes, to the Chamber of Deputies in 1864, relatedin detail the magnitude of the problem). As mentioned above, a traditionalconcession aimed at reducing desertions was to allow female companionsfor the soldiers, who could, if they so desired, live in the fortlet. Ebelot(1968: 184) wrote that, ‘A regiment without women, dies of boredom andof dirtiness, and the number of desertions increases remarkably’.

Another possible ‘solution’ to the problem of desertion was to increasethe severity of the penalty, eventually punishable by death. The writtenreferences are eloquent in this respect. Marcos Paz, a colonel assigned tothe Chaco frontier, stated: ‘The conscripts give me a lot of trouble. They



are unparalleled outlaws, and some of them have already deserted . . . . I’vegiven them a good dose of beatings and I’ve chained them again. TomorrowI’ll shoot Benjamín Bradán, and from now on I’ll do the same to those Icatch deserting’ (cited in Rodriguez Molas, 1982: 219). Daza (1975: 51)described how the soldier Mardonio Leiva from the Puán fortlet was caughtby his own comrades, who were ordered to shoot him. Upon the Reming-tons being aimed at him, his shout tore through the Pampas: ‘shoot fellows,for you kill a man!’ (Similar references can be found in Barros, 1957;Ebelot, 1968; Mansilla, 1969; Prado, 1970.)

The bureaucratic scribes, the cagatintas (pen pushers), secretaries of theJustice of the Peace, in service to this technology of power, wrote up theso-called filiaciones (posted descriptions of deserters). These were circum-scribed, brief, and obviously police descriptions of the captured desertersor those still at large. However, some present certain exceptional charac-teristics as they do not comply with the usual aridity that a military textapparently should possess. The details of these descriptions are vivid, lyricalportraits of people that really existed, of anonymous gauchos whose liveswere destined to pass by in the margins of the official discourse. Never-theless, as in the case of The Life of Infamous Men (Foucault, 1996), theywere temporarily examined and superficially dissected by the pen of power.Because, as Foucault argued, ‘For some of these lives to come to us it wasnecessary that a light beam, during at least an instant, laid on them, a lightthat came from outside: what pulled them out of the night in which theycould have and maybe should have stayed, it was its meeting with the power. . . that marked them with a lash of a claw’ (Foucault, 1996: 124–5). Onesuch description is as follows:

Dated 14 October 1846, Chascomús (Buenos Aires Province). Classificationof Juan Aguirre, deserter. Age 14, single. Address: San Vicente district;farmer; illiterate. Brown, curly hair, belongs to the farm-laborer class. Horserider, suitable for cavalry. Dressed in a scarf tied around his head, old flannelponceau undershirt, woolen ponceau chiripa, underpants and barefoot. Signsof a beating on chest and back that he received at Melincué Fortlet (Santa FéProvince), from where he supposedly deserted. (AMEA, Document No. 9,1846, emphasis added)

The next is an uncommon filiación, as the deserter escaped with a womanwho is also described.

Dated 15 January 1847, Monte (Buenos Aires Province). Particulars of thedeserter Eugenio Galván, age about 30. Married. Average height. Plump.Indian-like olive-skinned. Straight black hair. Sparse beard without amoustache, black eyes, average nose, average mouth. Dressed in plush whitehat, woolen coffee-colored jacket, long underpants, chiripa and ‘botas depotro’ [colt-leather boots]. Description of Romualda Acosta, who istravelling with Galván. Daughter of Gregorio Acosta and Petrona Gongora,resident of Ranchos district. Age about 15. Olive-skinned, straight blackhair, black eyes, snub-nosed, small thick lips. Dressed in a chali, purple dress



with black buttons with ponceau little flowers, taking a woolen bedspread,white, ponceau and green socks. (AMEA, Document No. 129, year 1846)

As can be seen, a distinctive characteristic of these filiaciones was thedescription of the deserter’s dress. This was essential because it determinedboth the social status of the recruit or deserter, and whether he belongedto an urban or rural environment. The gauchos carried on themselves thesigns of their social identity that showed their potential culpability. Theydressed in chiripa, botas de potro, native ponchos; while dress coats andfrock coats – the basic distinctive elements of urban clothing, the naturalattire of ‘decent people’– were missing. This fact, of course, was recordedin detail in the filiación, as it was an important part of the identification ofthe deserter. In short, these brief accounts refer to real people; theirfreedom, misfortune and at the very least their destiny were perhapsdecided on these words. As Foucault has stated: ‘The most intense point ofthose lives, that in which its energy focuses, lies precisely there where itcollides with the power, fight with it, try to reuse their strength or escapefrom their traps’ (Foucault, 1996: 125).

■ CONCLUSION

In this article, I have given an account of the many state-level and personaldevices of power that operated on popular sections in the rural areas of theso-called Indian frontier in nineteenth-century Argentina. The mostreliable representatives of these areas, the gauchos, were compelled – notwithout resistance on their part – to interweave their lives with a compli-cated framework of power which was entirely beyond their will and madethem the target of a series of relations of domination. When the ‘conquestof the desert’ finally ended and the dominant groups no longer needed thegaucho-soldiers, they sentenced them to marginalization and oblivion.

The marginalization of these mixed-race soldiers is understandablestarting from the perspective of the model of nation that the Argentineanleading class aspired to, and into which the gauchos did not fit. They werethe bearers of traditions and modes of life that differed from the ones theyhad imposed upon them; in short, they were unassimilable. They were thefaces that a white, pro-European Argentina was not inclined to tolerate.This was an ideology that conditioned the development and putting intooperation of a coercive technology of power that controlled Argentina inthe nineteenth century. The marginalization also worked on the memoryof the gauchos, as Argentinean liberal historiography has made relative thecontribution of the gauchos and their women as significant social actors inthe history of the country; an example, as such, of one of Foucault’s argu-ments, that the manipulation of collective memory is an essential factor inthe fight for power.



In this respect, the action of a number of micro-powers, minute requestsfor individual power, an uninterrupted drainage of power that often actedunder the umbrella of state power like autonomous parasites, becameessential in the development of this historical process, as has been shownthroughout this article. Its image becomes diffuse and distorted, an alter-ation generally produced by the action of different gradations of authoritytemporarily in the service of various aspects of personal power. This isdetectable in the pseudo-surveillance of the sentry at the fortlet, the brutal-ity of the ‘executioner’ on duty, or the insidious meticulousness of the secre-tary of the Justice of the Peace; in short, minimum bifurcations of theexertion of power that yet can be transcended in an understanding of theessence of its domination. These were tiny mechanisms of power whosecombined effects form a generally abject facet of the technology of general-ized power.

This was how punishment and observation worked during this period inArgentina, through the implementation of a technology of power that wasdeeply imbricated with class interests. This power determined that one ofthe duties of the fortlets (overlooked by the archaeologists who excavatethese structures) was to function as actual prisons, defective panopticonswhere the imposition of a mixture of repressive power of mainly stateaction, and micro-powers manipulated in a personal way, was articulated.In other words, they were fruitful fields for relations of power to prosper.In conclusion, it would be interesting to evaluate the potential applicationof these arguments and their implications through future archaeologicalwork, as well as their ability to broaden the spectrum of extant analyses ofthese particular problems. This argument is equally relevant in analyseswhere physical spaces were involved in the generation of an authenticreality by power, and where the technologies of power that changed menand women’s lives at a given time and place can be uncovered.

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank the archaeologists Benjamín Alberti, Carmen Curbelo, VickyPedrotta and Gustavo Politis for their helpful comments, criticism, and discussion.Special thanks go to the entire research team of The Miñana and Otamendi FortletsProject and my colleagues of The Museo Etnográfico ‘E. Squirru’ in Azul for theircontinuous comments on various points in this article. I owe a debt of gratitude tomy cousin, the noted artist Augusto Gómez Romero, who produced the illustra-tions. My friend Roxana Meléndez translated the text from Spanish to English andBenjamín Alberti also helped with the translation. Finally, thanks to the JSA Editor,Lynn Meskell. I take full responsibility for the opinions expressed in the text.

References

Alsina, A. (1977) La nueva Línea de Fronteras. Memoria especial del Ministerio deGuerra y Marina, año 1877. Buenos Aires: EUDEBA.



AMEA (1846) Archivo del Museo Etnográfico y Archivo Histórico ‘E. Squirru’ deAzul.

Austral, A., A.M. Rocchietti, M. Tamagnini, A. Loderseto, L. Gili, E. Olmedo, M.V.Fernández and R. Criado (1997) ‘Arqueología del Fuerte de Las Achiras(1832–1869) en la Línea de la Frontera del sur, Córdoba’, paper presented at theActas del XII Congreso Nacional de Arqueología Argentina, Tomo III: 395–404,La Plata.

Bapty, I. and T. Yates (1990) Archaeology after Structuralism. London: Routledge.Barros, A. (1957) Fronteras y Territorios Federales de las Pampas del Sud. Buenos

Aires: Hachette.Becco, J. and C. Dellepiane Calcena (1978) El Gaucho, Documentación-Icono-

grafía. Buenos Aires: Plus Ultra.Bentham, J. (1989) El Panóptico. Madrid: Ediciones de La Piqueta.Berlinger, L. and F. Colao (1990) Le Politiche Criminali Nel XVIII Secolo. Milán:

Giuffré.Borges, J.L. (1970) The Aleph and Other Stories 1933–1969. New York: Dutton.Brumfiel, E. (1998) ‘Huitzilopochtli’s Conquest: Aztec Ideology in the Archaeo-

logical Record’, Cambridge Archaeological Journal 8(1): 3–13.Casella, E. (2001) ‘To Watch or Restrain: Female Convict Prisons in 19th-Century

Tasmania’, International Journal of Historical Archaeology 5(1): 45–72.CGE. Comando General del Ejército. Dirección de Estudios Históricos (1975)

Política Seguida con el Aborigen, Tomo II (3). Buenos Aires: Círculo Militar.Crivelli Montero, E. (1994a) ‘Indian Settlement System and Seasonality in

the Pampas during the Equestrian Stage. The Colonial Period’, Quaternaryof South America & Antartic Peninsula 10: 279–309. Rotterdam: BalkemaPublishers.

Crivelli Montero, E. (1994b) ‘Araucanos en las Pampas’, Todo es Historia 323(4):8–32.

Crivelli Montero, E. (2000) ‘La Región Pampeana’, in Nueva Historia de la NaciónArgentina, pp. 181–208. Buenos Aires: Academia Nacional de la Historia.Planeta.

Cusick, J. (2000) ‘Creolization and the Borderlands’, Historical Archaeology 33(3):46–55.

Daireaux, G., ed. (1945) El Fortín: Tipos y Paisajes Criollos. Buenos Aires: Agro.Darwin, C. (1934) Diary of the Voyage of HMS Beagle, (ed.) N. Barlow. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.Daza, E. (1975) Episodios Militares. Buenos Aires: EUDEBA.De Cunzo, L. (2001) ‘On Reforming the “Fallen” and Beyond: Transforming Conti-

nuity at the Magdalen Society of Philadelphia, 1845–1916’, International Journalof Historical Archaeology 5(1): 19–43.

Díaz, B. (1959) Juzgados de Paz de la Campaña de la Provincia de Buenos Aires,1821–1854. La Plata: Universidad Nacional de La Plata.

Dreyfus, H. and P. Rabinow (1982) Michel Foucault: Beyond Structuralism andHermeneutics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Ebelot, A. (1968) Recuerdos y Relatos de la Guerra de Fronteras. Buenos Aires:Hachette.

Farnsworth, P. (2000) ‘Brutality or Benevolence in Plantation Archaeology’, Inter-national Journal of Historical Archaeology 4(2): 145–58.

Ferns, H. (1978) Gran Bretaña y Argentina en el Siglo XIX. Buenos Aires: Hachette.



Figueroa, L. (1999) El Gaucho, sus Tradiciones y Costumbres en el Campo ArgentinoVistas Desde Mediados del Siglo XIX. Buenos Aires: Ediciones Casa Figuero.

Foucault, M. (1977) Discipline and Punish. The Birth of the Prison. Harmondsworth:Penguin.

Foucault, M. (1992) Microfísica del Poder. Madrid: Ediciones La Piqueta.Foucault, M. (1996) La Vida de los Hombres Infames. Buenos Aires: Altamira.Garavaglia, J.C. (1987) ‘¿Existieron los gauchos?’, Anuario del IEHS 2: 42–52.Gaudemar, J. (1981) La Movilización General. Madrid: La Piqueta.Gomez Romero, F. (1999) Sobre lo Arado: El Pasado, Arqueología Histórica en los

Alrededores del Fortín Miñana 1860–1869. Azul: Biblos.Gomez Romero, F. and M. Bogazzi (1998) ‘Mensajes dentro de la botella: análisis

de los materiales vítreos del sitio Fortín Miñana (1860–1869)’, paper presentedat the I Jornadas Regionales de Historia y Arqueología del Siglo XIX:pp. 111–123, Tapalqué.

Gomez Romero, F. and M. Ramos (1994) ‘Miñana’s Fortlet: Historical ArchaeologyResearch’, Historical Archaeology in Latin America 2: 15–30.

Goñi, R. and P. Madrid (1998) ‘Arqueología sin Hornear: Sitios ArqueológicosHistóricos y el Fuerte Blanca Grande’, Intersecciones 2: 1–24.

Gordon, C. (ed.) (1980) Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings1972–1977 by Michel Foucault. New York: Pantheon.

Grau, C. (1975) El fuerte 25 de Mayo en Cruz de Guerra. Buenos Aires: EUDEBA.Gutierrez, E. (1956) Croquis y Siluetas Militares. Buenos Aires: EUDEBA.Guy, D. and T. Sheridan (1998) ‘On Frontiers: The Northern and Southern Edges

of the Spanish Empire in the Americas’, in D. Guy and T. Sheridan (eds)Contested Ground: Comparative Frontiers on the Northern and Southern Edgesof the Spanish Empire, pp. 3–15. Tucson: The University of Arizona Press.

Halperín Donghi, T. (1968) ‘La Expansión Ganadera en la Campaña De BuenosAires (1810–1852)’, in T. Di Tella and T. Halperín Donghi (eds) Los Fragmen-tos del Poder, pp. 23–73. Buenos Aires.

Hernández, J. (1935) The Gaucho Martín Fierro. Oxford: Blackwell.Hill, E. (2000) ‘The Embodied Sacrifice’, Cambridge Archaeological Journal 10(2):

317–26.Hodder, I., M. Shanks, A. Alexandri, V. Buchli, J. Carmen, J. Last and G. Lucas

(1995) Interpreting Archaeology. London: Routledge.Hux, M. (1999) Memorias del ex Cautivo Santiago Avendaño. Buenos Aires:

Elefante Blanco.Kirk, T. (1993) ‘Space, Subjectivity, Power and Hegemony: Megalith and Long

Mounds in Earlier Neolithic Britany’, in C. Tilley (ed.) Interpretative Archae-ology, pp. 181–223. Oxford: Berg.

Knapp, B. and L. Meskell (1997) ‘Bodies of Evidence on Prehistoric Cyprus’,Cambridge Archaeological Journal 7(2): 183–204.

Langiano, C., J. Merlo and P. Ormazábal (2000) ‘Modificaciones en el Basural delFuerte San Martín o Sauce Corto (Cnel. Suárez, Buenos Aires)’, paper presentedat the I Congreso Nacional de Arqueología Histórica Argentina, Mendoza.

Leone, M. (1999) ‘Ceramics from Annapolis, Maryland: A Measure of TimeRoutines and Work Discipline’, in M. Leone and P. Potter, Jr (eds) HistoricalArchaeologies of Capitalism, pp. 195–216. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.

Luna, M. (1996) Delitos y delincuentes. Historia de ilícitos en el Azul del siglo XIX.Azul: Biblos.



Maley, W. (1990) ‘Undermining Archaeology: From Reconstruction to Decon-struction’, in I. Bapty and T. Yates (eds) Archaeology after Structuralism, pp.62–77. London: Routledge.

Malosetti Costa, L. (2000) ‘Mujeres en la Frontera’, in Historia de las Mujeres enArgentina. Tomo I: 87–111. Buenos Aires: Taurus.

Mandrini, R. (1992) ‘Indios y Fronteras en el Área Pampeana (Siglos XVI–XIX)Balance y Perspectivas’, Anuario del IEHS, Vol. VII: 59–73.

Mansilla, L. (1969) Una excursión a los indios ranqueles. Buenos Aires: CulturalArgentina.

Mansilla, L. (1994) Rozas, Ensayo Histórico-Psicológico. Buenos Aires: A–Zeditora.

Martínez Sarasola, C. (1992) Nuestros Paisanos los Indios. Buenos Aires: EMECÉ.Mayo, C. (1987) ‘Sobre Peones, Vagos y Mal Entretenidos: el Dilema de la Economía

Rural Rioplatense Durante la Época Colonial’, Anuario del IEHS 2: 25–32.Mayo, C. (1999) ‘La Frontera; Cotidianidad, Vida Privada e Identidad’, in Historia

de la Vida Privada en Argentina. País Antiguo de la Colonia a 1870. Tomo 1,pp. 86–105. Buenos Aires: Taurus.

Memorias del Ministerio de Guerra (1873) Memorias del Ministerio de Guerra.Buenos Aires: Imprenta Americana.

Meskell, L. (1996) ‘The Somatization of Archaeology: Institutions, Discourses,Corporeality’, Norwegian Archaeological Review 29(1): 1–16.

Meskell, L. (1999) Archaeologies of Social Life: Age, Sex, Class et cetera in AncientEgypt. London: Blackwell.

Miller, D. and C. Tilley (eds) (1984) Ideology, Power and Prehistory. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

Miller, D., M. Rowlands and C. Tilley (1989) ‘Introduction’, in D. Miller, M.Rowlands and C. Tilley (eds) Domination and Resistance, pp. 1–26. London:Unwin Hyman.

Mugueta, M. and C. Anglada, (1998) ‘Informe preliminar del basural secundario enel Cantón Tapalqué Viejo’, paper presented at the I Jornadas Regionales deHistoria y Arqueología del siglo XIX: 83–87, Tapalqué.

Nievas, F. (1999) El Control Social de los Cuerpos. Buenos Aires: EUDEBA.Ormazábal, P., C. Langiano and J. Merlo (1998) ‘Arqueología de puestos fortifica-

dos en el camino a Salinas’, paper presented at the I Jornadas Regionales deHistoria y Arqueología del siglo XIX: 12–17, Tapalqué.

Orser Jr, C. (1988) ‘Toward a Theory of Power for Historical Archaeology: Planta-tions and Space’, in M. Leone and P. Potter, Jr (eds) The Recovery of Meaning:Historical Archaeology of the Eastern United States, pp. 313–43. Washington DC:Smithsonian Institution Press.

Patterson, T. (1989) ‘History and the Post-processual Archaeologies’, Man 24:555–66.

Paynter, R. and R. McGuire (1991) ‘The Archaeology of Inequality: An Introduc-tion’, in R. McGuire and R. Paynter (eds) The Archaeology of Inequality,pp. 1–11. London: Basil Blackwell.

Pedrotta, V. (1999) ‘Caracterización de los Procesos Naturales de Perturbación delSitio Fortín Miñana (Azul. Pcia de Bs As)’, Arqueología 9: 131–61.

Pedrotta, V. and F. Gomez Romero (1998) ‘Historical Archaeology: An Outlookfrom the Argentinean Pampas’, International Journal of Historical Archaeology2(2): 113–31.



Prado, M. (1968) La Guerra al Malón. Buenos Aires: EUDEBA.Rabinow, P. (ed.) (1984) The Foucault Reader. New York: Pantheon.Racedo, E. (1965) La Conquista del Desierto. Buenos Aires: Plus Ultra.Ramírez Juárez, E. (1968) La Estupenda Conquista. Buenos Aires: Plus Ultra.Raone, J. (1969) Fortines del Desierto, Mojones de Civilización. III Tomos. Buenos

Aires: Biblioteca del Suboficial.Roa, M. and M. Saghessi (1998) ‘Investigaciones Arqueológicas en el Fortín Recom-

pensa, Partido de Guaminí, Provincia de Buenos Aires’, paper presented at theI Jornadas Regionales de Historia y Arqueología del siglo XIX: 89–93, Tapalqué.

Rodriguez Molas, R. (1982) Historia Social del Gaucho. Buenos Aires: CentroEditor de América Latina.

Rodriguez Molas, R. (1983) ‘Torturas, Suplicios y Otras Violencias’, Todo esHistoria 192: 8–46.

Rotker, S. (1999) Cautivas, Olvidos y Memorias en la Historia Argentina. BuenosAires: Ariel.

Ruiz Moreno, I. (2000) Los Ingenieros en el Ejército Argentino. Buenos Aires:Patria armada, Paz honrada.

Sabato, H. (1989) Capitalismo y Ganadería en Buenos Aires: la Fiebre del Lanar1850–1890. Buenos Aires: Sudamericana.

Salvatore, R. (1992) ‘Reclutamiento Militar, Disciplinamiento y Proletarización enla Era de Rosas’, Boletín del Instituto de Historia Argentina y Americana ‘Dr E.Ravignani’, Tercera Serie No. 5: 25–47.

Salvatore, R. (1998) ‘Consolidación del Régimen Rosista (1835–1852)’, in NuevaHistoria Argentina. Tomo III. Cap IX, pp. 323–80: (Sudamericana).

Sarramone, A. (1997) Historia del Antiguo Pago del Azul. Azul: Biblos.Shanks, M. and C. Tilley (1987) Social Theory and Archaeology. London: Polity

Press.Shanks, M. and C. Tilley (1992) Re-Constructing Archaeology, Theory and Practice.

London: Routledge.Sharpe, J. (1983) Crime in Seventeenth Century England. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.Singleton, T. (2001) ‘Slavery and Spatial Dialectics on Cuban Coffee Plantations’,

World Archaeology 33(1): 98–114.Slatta, R. (1983) Gauchos and the Vanishing Frontier. Lincoln: University of

Nebraska Press.Slatta, R. (1998) ‘Spanish Colonial Military Strategy and Ideology’, in D. Guy and

T. Sheridan (eds) Contested Ground: Comparative Frontiers on the Northern andSouthern Edge of the Spanish Empire, pp. 83–96 Tucson: The University ofArizona Press.

Socolow, S. (1998) ‘Women of the Buenos Aires Frontier, 1740–1810 (or the GauchoTurned Upside Down)’, in D. Guy and T. Sheridan (eds) Contested Ground:Comparative Frontiers on the Northern and Southern Edges of the SpanishEmpire, pp. 67–82. Tucson: The University of Arizona Press.

Spencer-Wood, S. (2001) ‘Introduction and Historical Context to the Archaeologyof Seventeenth and Eighteenth Century Almshouses’, International Journal ofHistorical Archaeology 5(2): 115–22.

Spencer-Wood, S. and S. Baugher (2001) ‘Introduction and Historical Context forthe Archaeology of Institutions and Reform: Part I, Asylums’, InternationalJournal of Historical Archaeology 5(1): 3–17.



Szuchman, M. (1987) Order, Family and Community in Buenos Aires, 1810–1860.Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Thomas, B. (1998) ‘Power and Community: the Archaeology of Slavery at theHermitage Plantation’, American Antiquity 63(4): 531–51.

Thompson, I. (1968) ‘A Map of Crime in Sixteenth-century Spain’, EconomicHistoric Review 21: 244–67.

Tilley, C. (1990) ‘Michel Foucault: Towards an Archaeology of Archaeology’, inC. Tilley (ed.) Reading Material Culture, Structuralism, Hermeneutics and Post-structuralism, pp. 281–347. London: Basil Blackwell.

Tilley, C. (1993) Interpretative Archaeology. Oxford: Berg.Tilley, C. (1998) ‘Archaeology: The Loss of Isolation’, Antiquity 72: 691–3.Vera Pichel (1994) Las Cuarteleras. Buenos Aires: Planeta.Walther, J.C. (1964) La Conquista del Desierto. Buenos Aires: EUDEBA.Weisser, M. (1979) Crime and Punishment in Early Modern Europe. Sussex:

Harvester Press.

FACUNDO GOMEZ ROMERO graduated in AnthropologicalSciences with a major in Archaeology from the Universidad de BuenosAires, Argentina; he received a Masters in Archaeology from the Univer-sidad Autónoma de Barcelona, Spain. He is a researcher with the MuseoEtnográfico y Archivo Histórico ‘Enrique Squirru’, Azul, Buenos AiresProvince, Argentina, and CADIC (Centro Austral de InvestigacionesCientíficas, CONYCET, Ushuaia, Tierra del Fuego, Argentina). He is Directorof the ‘Fortín Miñana and Fortín Otamendi Historical ArchaeologyProject’, Buenos Aires Province, Argentina. His work focuses on inter-ethnic relations between indigenous groups and gauchos on the internalfrontier of the Argentinean Pampas during the nineteenth century, andthe archaeological examination of the diverse technologies of powerthat operated in the military structures (fortines). His book is entitledSobre lo Arado: El Pasado, Arqueología Histórica en los Alrededores del FortínMiñana (1860–1869), Editorial BIBLOS, Azul (1999).[email: [email protected]]


Gomez Romero, F. 2002 Philosophy and Historical Arch in Argentina

Documents

Transcript of Gomez Romero, F. 2002 Philosophy and Historical Arch in Argentina