Impacto de cambios macro estructurales en la estructura y dinámica de los hogares

The pragmatic Kolata/Friedrich formulation of ideology relates to the thrust of the study not only with respect to the latter part of the transition to sedentism where social

differentiation at group/community level comes into play with the appearance of elites and heterarchy, but also at the beginning with emergence of charismatic individuals seen to be at the helm of developments and in control of the social groups involved, either directly or indirectly. Similarly aligned is Tilley’s argument that past people should be viewed in that same light as ourselves; and of the need in dealing with cultural

development to take account of ideology and its reflection in the actions of individuals and groups in cultural development.

Throughout time, attempts have been made to dominate economically valuable

resources, principally labour and territory. In this, ideology has functioned as a kind of production technology, motivating and regulating the mobilisation of labour, and providing the rationale and rules for distribution and redistribution of surplus produce. Assessment of its effect on a social system, as political ideas in action in terms of on-the- ground economic effects, is considered possible (Price 1982:725). From this perspective, ideology, in the channeling of knowledge and information into directions by dominant individuals, furnishes a practical armature for the organisation of the political economy; and justification for, or legitimisation of, the status quo (Kolata 1992:71). This study identifies archaeological evidence of shamanistic strategising evident in such activities.

2.3.2 Specific

The AS papers present a number of perspectives on the role played by ideology in cultural evolution. These (underlined) and the study responses (in red) are set out below.

The AS rejected ideology as the prime mover or even a major factor in cultural evolution. The study, to the contrary, sees religious views embedded psychologically within the process of social, economic and political factor interaction. They are of causal significance and can be used to influence all aspects of human behaviour which ideology can be used to exploit. There was AS concern that few large-scale archaeological studies have tried to explore the role of ideology in cultural change, most addressing this in terms of ethnohistorically and historically known societies rather than those prehistoric; similarly, that the most conceptually elegant studies of symbolic systems and ideology in the material record have been ethnographic and ethnoarchaeological studies. As stated earlier, value is seen in the research leads such studies provide.

Ideology is a means by which competing classes and interest groups present their views and justify them so as to manipulate and control others. Agreed, but the study begins its consideration of egalitarian groups within which accepted individuality would have been restricted to kin/family elders and not generally tolerated. While such interest groups are seen to have emerged during the transitional process leading to sedentism, manipulation and control is seen to have been achieved initially by particular individuals. The AS saw a dynamic role for ideology involving belief in supernatural abilities shared by all, dominated and dominating alike. Yes, ideology is considered a dynamic element in

culture change, encompassing societal belief and value systems. It is viewed as an

effective mechanism for manipulative regulation of information (i.e., structuring, presentation and dissemination) and for influencing decision-making processes with

respect to behavioural alternatives. Ideology includes less formalised and explicit symbolic systems and behaviours (e.g., art styles and iconography) recording and

providing information about the ways people have codified their worldview and behaved.

There is also concurrence with the view that theoretical and interpretative frameworks centring around the concept of political legitimisation emphasise the role of ideology in legitimisation of political power and exploitive economic arrangements. Ideology as a powerful agent in culture change is central to the study. Similarly, it is agreed that interpretation of prehistoric evidence of ideology must be considered beyond narrowly focussed studies of patterning in iconography or artefacts, and in terms of critical cultural transformations. The study does so in relation to sedentism by examining its interplay with ecological, economic, social and political forces and institutions.

With regard to the AS view that ideology merely legitimates the status quo, and dupes the masses into accepting the dominance of their masters, and treats humans as

automatons bereft of creativity and incapable of independent thought, the study response

is yes and no behaviour can run counter to overarching ideopolitical control of

communities. The approach taken in this study strongly reflects the view of a number of prominent researchers (e.g., Drennan 1976:347; Sahlins 1985:138; Hodder 1986:13) that the relationship between perception and behaviour provides a way of understanding culture change. Ideological systems are not merely derivative of other aspects of culture, nor are they static: they are constantly redefined and transformed by the dialectical processes involved in fitting the constructed order of existence to actual historical events. When processes of culture change are being examined, the role of ideology cannot be ignored simply because causes will not have social effects “except via human perception and evaluation of them” (Hodder 1986:13). This understanding, that behaviour is perception related, sits well with the proposition that people could be ideologically manipulated into adopting sedentism despite its inherent disadvantages.