Ba Shilov 1990

Society for American Archaeology
A Bibliography of Soviet Studies of the Ancient Cultures of Latin America

Author(s): V. A. Bashilov and V. I. Gulyaev
Source: Latin American Antiquity, Vol. 1, No. 1 (Mar., 1990), pp. 5-22
Published by: Society for American Archaeology
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/971707 .
Accessed: 18/06/2014 12:15
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Society for American Archaeology is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Latin
American Antiquity.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 185.44.78.113 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 12:15:32 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
A BIBLIOGRAPHYOF SOVIET STUDIES OF THE ANCIENT
CULTURES OF LATIN AMERICA
V. A. Bashilovand V. I. Gulyaev
Thestudy in the Unionof SovietSocialist Republicsof the earliesthistoryof nativeLatin Americansfalls into
two distinctperiods. Thef rst, associatedwith an interestin the ancientMexican and Peruviancivilizations,can
be dividedinto two stages: the 1920s to the early 1940s, when Soviet scholarsfirst acquaintedthemselveswith
antiquitiesfrom the regionand usedthemfor historicalparallels;and the late 1940s and early 1950s, whenSoviet
historiansturnedto an analysis of Latin Americanmaterials. The secondperiod went throughthreestages:the
first,from the early 1950s to the early 1960s, mainly was dominatedby YuryKnorozov,who was engaged in
decipheringthe language of the Maya, and RostislavKinzhalov,who studiedtheir art and culture.During the
secondstage, the early 1960s to the mid-1970s, morescholarsand researchinstitutionsundertookstudiesof the
early culturesof Latin America. The thematicrange became wideras well, covering-besidesMesoamericaand
the centralAndeanregion-the Intermediateregionand the Caribbean.The thirdstage, whichstartedin the late
1970s and continuesto thepresentday, witnessesethnographersand archaeologistspoolingtheireffortsin studying
the region.Therewereseveralconferencesin whichspecialistsengagedin variousf elds of Latin Americanstudies
participated.Theircontacts withforeign colleaguesbecame wider;Soviet archaeologistsand ethnologiststook
part in feldwork in Latin America. The primary aims today are to introduceSoviet readersto archaeological
materialsfrom a numberof cultural-historicalregions(suchas the southernfringes of Mesoamerica,Amazonia,
the southernAndes,etc.),to detailSovietstudiesof culturalcomplexesand historicalprocessesin ancientAmerica,
and to comparethem to the processesthat took place in the Old World,with the aim of establishingshared
historical"laws"and patterns.
Es posible dividirlos estudiosescritosen la Union Sovieticasobre la prehistoriaindigenalatinoamericanaen
dos distintosperiodos.El primer,asociadocon el interesen las civilizacionesmexicanasy peruanasantiguas,se
puededividiren dosfases. Entre 1920 y los primerosanos de los cuarenta,los arqueologosy los etnologossovieticos
se conocieroncon las antiguedadesde la regiony las usaronpara hacer las comparacioneshistoricascon otros
areas culturales.Entonces, durantelos anos ultimos de los cuarentay los primerosanos de los cincuenta,los
historiadoressovieticosempezaronanalizar las materialeslatinoamericanas.
El segundoperiodo incluyotresfases. La primer, desde el comienzo de los cincuentahasta la decada de los
sesenta,fue dominadopor YuryKnorozov,quedescifrarabala lengua maya,y RostislavKinzhalov,queestudiaba
el artey la culturamaya. Durantela segundafase, desdelos primerosanos de los sesentahasta aproximadamente
la media de los setenta, mas investigadoresy institutosacademicosy cientificosempezaronestudiarlas culturas
latinoamericanasprecontactas.La alcance de temas se hizo mas general,tambien,y cubriola regionintermedia
y el Caribe,ademas de mesoamericay la region andina central.La tercerafase, que comenzo en las ultimas
anos de los setenta y continuaal presente,es caracterizadapor las investigacionescooperativasentre los etno-
historiadoresy los arqueologospara estudiarel area. Las especialistasque trabajanen diversosfondos cientifcos
hanparticipadoen variasconferenciasy sus contactoscon sus colegasen otraspaises han aumentado.Arqueologos
y etnologossovieticostambienhan participadoen trabajode campo en latinoamerica.
Hoy dia, el interesde los sovieticosen latinoamericatiene diversospropositos.Ellos quisieranfamiliarizar el
publico sovieticocon las materialesarqueologicasde distintas regionesculturales-historicas(como la periferia
surenade mesoamerica,la amazona, y la regionandina surena).Tambien,ellos quisierancompilarlos estudios
sovieticossobrelos complejosculturalesy los procesoshistoricosde latinoamericaprehistoricay compararestos
con los procesos que occurieronen el mundo antiguo para que sea posible establecerlas patronesy las leyes
historicasmutuas.
Russell H. Bartley,an Americanhistorian,wrote in 1978: "Twentyyearsago very few specialists

in the United States would have thought to look to the Soviet Union for senous scholarshipin
V.A. Bashilovand V.1. Gulyaev,Instituteof Archaeology,Moscow117036, Unionof SovietSocialistRepublics

CCCP, Mocxsa 117036, yn. ,gM. ynDsHoBa 19, iIHCTlfTyT apxeonorwz AH CCCP
Latin AmericanAntiquity, 1(1), 1990, pp. 5-22.

Copyrightt<31990 by the Society for AmericanArchaeology

6 LATIN AMERICANANTIQUITY [Vol. 1, No. 1, 1990
LatinAmericanhistory"(Bartley1978:3).This partlywas true, even thoughtwo decadesago Soviet

Latin Americanistshad some thought-provokingworks to their credit. The study of culturespre-
dating the Spanishconquest, however, is much younger.
It should be remembered,nevertheless, that Soviet scholars have exhibited an interest in the
aboriginalcultures of Latin America since the first years of Soviet power. It was spurredon, to a
greatdegree,by the 1914- 1915 expeditionto the New Worldorganizedby the Russianethnographer
GenrickhManizerand his colleagues.A Society for the Study of South Americawas establishedin
1918 to analyze the materialbroughtback by that expedition. The Civil War and the blockade of
Soviet Russiathen interruptedthe traditionof ethnographicand historicalstudiesof LatinAmerican
Indians. Nevertheless, some works dealing with ancient America appearedas early as the 1920s,
includingthe firstfree translationinto Russian of the chronicleby the Spanishconquistador,Bernal
Diaz del Castillo, who participatedin the conquest of Mexico (Egorov 1924-1925). A number of
articlesdealingwith various subjectsof ancient Americanhistory and cultureappearedat the same
time (Machinsky1937; Popov 1923; Zorina 1935). Some ofthem retaintheir scientificvalue, such
as Sidorov's (1929) article on the ancient Mexican iconographyof the gods of water and rain.
In the immediate pre- and post-WorldWar II years Soviet scholarsmainly were concernedwith
a more general description of ancient American cultures and regions (Kosven 1941; Kovalevsky
1939;Machinsky1938,1940b; Sharevskaya1936;Sidorov 1937;Sobolevsky 1947).It is only natural
that they turnedtheir attention to the culturesamply covered by written sourcesor representedby
splendidartisticobjects,like the Inca empire in the centralAndes or Maya culturein Mesoamerica.
Noted Soviet ethnographerM. Kosven (1941) was the firstto providea generaldescriptionof ancient
Peru, though it was limited to the Inca state as characterizedin written sources. He used the term,
"Megalithicperiod,"then current,for all pre-Incaantiquites,and wrote in generalterms about the
most prominentculturalhallmarkssuch as pyramids,pottery,etc. Sharevskaya's(1936) articledealt
with ancient Maya culture.Its evident shortcomingsand generalizednaturedid not preventit from
being the first noticeable step in Soviet studies of the Maya.
Some scholars turned their attention to what already had been collected and kept in Soviet
museums (Chicherov 1947; Machinsky 1940a). Machinsky studied a collection of great scholarly
value presentedby Mexican scholarsto the LeningradMuseum of Anthropologyand Ethnography
in the 1930s. It consisted of systematicallyarrangedarchaeologicalfindsfrom the Valley of Mexico,
spanningthe time from the earliest agriculturalvillage period (first millennium B.C.) to the later
stages of Aztec culture (the thirteenththroughsixteenth centuriesA.D.).
At that period earlyAmericanmaterialsoften were used to place in bolder relief some aspects of
worldwidesignificanceor to bringinto comparisonmaterialsfrom otherregions.Thus, academician
N. Vavilov, a prominentSoviet biologist,took note of them while studyingthe originsof agriculture
on a global scale (Vavilov 1932, 1935, 1939, 1960). He identifiedfour initial centersof agriculture
in the New World: the south Mexican (including Central America), the South American (Peru,
Bolivia, and Ecuador),the Brazilian-Paraguayan,and the Chilean. Vavilov was definite about the
first two being associated with the most developed Precolumbiancivilizations. He also dwelt on
the correlationbetween the primaryand secondarycenters, emphasizingthe secondarynature of
agriculturealong the Peruviancoast and looked for the originsof some plants cultivatedin the New
World.Recent archaeologicaldiscoveries have specifiedsome aspectsof the origin and agricultural
development on the continent and bear out the truth of Vavilov's fundamentaltheoreticalpropo-
sltlons.
Soviet ethnographerA. Zolotarev used ancient Maya epic songs and materialspertainingto the
Inca in his definitive work, The Dual Organizationof PrimitivePeoples and the Originof the Dual
Cosmogonies,startedbefore World WarII and publishedmuch laterunderanothertitle (Zolotarev
1964). In one of the chaptersthe author deals with dualism in Inca society, and the myth about
twins currentamong the Peruvian Indians. ArchaeologistN. Zamyatnindrew on data about "ec-
centric flints" and on similaritiesamong the obsidian implements of the ancient Maya to present
his conclusionsaboutthe cult-relatedflint artifactsfound in the northwestpartof EuropeanU.S.S.R.
(Zamyatnin1948).
Russian translationsof works by foreign authors and reviews of their publicationswere an im-

Bashilov and Gulyaev] SOVIETSTUDIESOF LATINAMERICA 7
portantinstrumentin popularizingknowledgeaboutancientAmerica.In 1934 thejournalSovetskaya

etnografiyacarrieda bibliographicalsurvey of mesoamericanantiquities,concentratingmainly on
Maya materials(Machinsky 1934). In 1937, the Za rubezhommonthly published an article by a
prominent student of Maya civilization, S. G. Morley, which discussed the cultureof this ancient
people (Morley 1937). Later,two more translationscame offthe press. They were generalworkson
Mexicanhistoryand geographycontainingchapterson Precolumbianantiquities(Parkes1951;Vivo
1951).
Aztecs of Mexico by G. C. Vaillant, a highly regardedAmerican archaeologist,published in
Russian in 1949, attractedmuch attention (Vaillant 1949) since it was the first Russian-language
specialist descriptionof the central Mexican archaeologicalmaterials, the earliest of which came
from the oldest agriculturalvillage sites. The Russian-languagepublication was introduced by a
well-knownSoviet historian, Vassily Struve, who offeredhis assessments of some of the ideas set
forth by his Americancolleague.He wrote about the generaldevelopmentallevel of Aztec society
and surmisedthat in the fifteenthcenturyit had been not at the middle stage of barbarity,as Lewis
Henry Morganbelieved, but had begun the transitionto a higher stage. Another Soviet historian,
R. Kinzhalov (1949a), supplied the book with a conclusion that provided an overview of later
archaeologicaldiscoveries in central Mexico that revealedto the world the splendorof the Olmec,
Toltec, and other cultures.This was Kinzhalov'sfirstventurein Latin Americanstudies. In the late
1940s and early 1950she reviewedsome foreignpublicationson ancientAmerica(Kinzhalov 1949b,
1949c, 1951).
In the firstperiod from 1917 to the early 1950s of Soviet studies of Latin Americanarchaeology,
interest in the subject grew considerably though it failed to produce very many works. Soviet
researchersmainlywereattractedto Mesoamerica(centraland southernMexico, Guatemala,western
regionsof E1Salvadorand Honduras)and the centralAndes (the mountainousand coastal areasof
Peruand the Bolivian highlands).That was only naturalsince these two regionsof nuclearAmerica
had scored considerable successes in their historical development and were the home of social
organismscomparable,as far as their developmental stages are concerned, with ancient Oriental
states. This fact alone demonstratesthe significanceof the materials on ancient America for the
study of generalhistoricalpatterns.
In that period Mesoamericaand the well-studied Maya civilization were the focus of attention.
The centralAndes were representedby materialsrelatedto the Inca. This situation quite naturally
arose from the fact that the ancient American cultureswere studied, in this period, by historians
and art studentswho lacked the necessaryskills in dealing with archaeologicalmaterials,many of
whom had no special trainingin Latin American studies. In their work, therefore,they relied on
written sources and artistic memorials exclusively and were inclined to state facts ratherthan to
analyze them. The last circumstancedominated the entire period, when Soviet historians first
undertookto study ancient American material.
Although the above descriptionis fully applicableto the period from 1917 to the early 1950s,
some works publishedtoward its end divide it into two stages:pre- and post-WorldWar II. In the
post-war stage Soviet scholarstended to analyze and offer a critical appraisalof works by foreign
archaeologistsand to presenttheir conclusions from the point of view of Marxistphilosophy.
This trend gained ascendancyin the second period of Soviet studies. In its first stage (the early
1950ssarly 1960s)they wereconcentratedin the Departmentofthe AmericanPeopleofthe Institute
of Ethnography,U.S.S.R. Academy of Sciences.This decade is foreverassociatedwith two glorious
names in Soviet Latin American studies:Yury Knorozov and Rostislav Kinzhalov.
Knorozov'seffortto decipherMaya writingand his successeswon him broad recognitionamong
his Soviet and foreigncolleaguesand secured Soviet Latin American studies a place on the inter-
national scene. Knorozov first expounded the general principles of his innovative method of de-
cipheringMaya hieroglyphicsin 1952 (Knorozov 1952). This was a riddle that had attractedar-
chaeologistsand linguiststhe world over for more than a century.Severalyearslater Knorozovwas
able to publishhis firstresultsand presentthem to the TenthHistoricalCongressin Rome (Knorozov
1955a, 1955b, 1955c, 1957). He summarizedhis work in the fundamentalstudy, Writingof the
Maya Indians (Knorozov 1963).

8 LATIN AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 1, No. 1, 1990
This monographcrownedKnorozov's long years of dedicatedwork. He demonstratedthat Maya

writing was based on hieroglyphicsand elaboratedthe "position statistics." This was an entirely
new approach to decipheringancient writings, applicable to other languagesas well. Knorozov
proved its correctnessby using it to interpretcertain hieroglyphsfound in diffierentcontexts. He
suppliedhis book with a vocabularyand a grammarofthe Mayalanguageand facsimilereproductions
of the threeextantMayamanuscriptsdatedbetweenthe twelfthand fifteenthcenturies:the Dresden,
the Paris, and the Madrid manuscripts.Their complete interpretationwas still hampered by an
inadequateknowledgeof the ancient Maya language,the absence of dictionariesand, finally, the
considerabledifferencebetween the ancient Maya languageof the tenth to eleventh centuriesand
the language,known to scholars,used in the sixteenth to eighteenthcenturies.
In a lengthy introduction to this book Knorozov described in detail ancient Maya culture. In
generalhis worksexhibit a high degreeof historicism,that is, he never divorcedhis immediate task
of decipheringthe ancient writing from studyingthe specific historical situation in which it func-
tioned. His early publication of Diego de Landa's chronicle of 1566 (de Landa 1955) carried a
concise yet ample descriptionof Maya cultureand society on the eve of the Spanish conquest. Its
authordrew a parallelbetween the Maya and early class societies in the ancient Orient (Knorozov
1955d).This was a very significantpublication,introducingSoviet readersto a detailedand extremely
interestinghistoricalsource. Combined with other documents, Maya texts, and archaeologicalma-
terials,Landa'sRelacionde las cosas de Yucatanclarifiedthe Mayalifestyle,throwinglight on some
of its aspects not covered by written sources.
Rostislav Kinzhalov, a Leningradart student and ethnographer,concentrated,in the 1950s, on
the publicationof early American artistic objects kept in the Hermitage(Kinzhalov 1954, 1956a,
1956b, 1957, 1959b, 1960). Later he turned his attention to ancient American art in a broader
context (Kinzhalov 1958). He crowned his multiyear studies with a generalizingwork embracing
artistic achievements of more prominent cultures of the ancient civilizations in the New World,
covering the area from central Mexico to the Bolivian altiplano (Kinzhalov 1962a).
His other tangible contribution to Soviet Latin American studies was his translation, with a
commentary,ofthe Popol Vuh,the epic ofthe Quiche Maya Indians(Kinzhalov 1959c), one ofthe
few literary works of the Latin American indigenous population that have come down to us.
Kinzhalov (1959a) was also the first to look at the epic as a literaryscholar, drawingattention to
its literary merits, its composition, genre, and its social message. Together with the Popol Vuh
Kinzhalov published Totonicapan, a historicalchronicle of the CakchiquelMaya Indians.
In the 1950s the Instituteof Ethnographyof the U.S.S.R. Academy of Sciencespioneereda series
of generalizingworks dealing with the New World autochthonouspopulation. It was launchedby
a collection of articles, The Indians of America (Indeitsy Ameriki) (Tokarev and Zolotarevskaya
1955). Composed mainly of ethnographicmaterials, it also touched on Mexican and Peruvian
archaeology.In their study, "The Maya Indians,"Knorozov and Shprintsindescribedthe ancient
culture of this people. Zubritskydwelt on archaeologicalmaterials in his article, "The Quechua
Indians." On the whole, the collection mainly dealt with the Inca. There were, however, short
descriptions of some pre-Inca cultures (Chavin, Mochica, Tiahuanaco, and Chimu). The fourth
volume of the World History offered its readers a section on American Prehispanic antiquities
(Sharevskaya1958). Its subject range was much wider and included, besides the Maya and the
Inca-traditional in that sortof scholarlypublication-other peoplesand cultures(Zapotecin Mexico
and Mochicaand Tiahuanacoin Peru).The volume contained,for the firsttime in Soviet literature,
a survey of the Intermediatearea antiquities(betweenMesoamericaand the centralAndes).
The two-volume The Peoples of America (NarodyAmeriki) (Efimovand Tokarev 1959), published
by the Instituteof Ethnography,containeda more-or-less-completehistoricalpanoramaof the zone
of AncientCivilizationsofthe New Worldpresentedby leadingSoviet experts.Exceptfor the section
on the ancient systems of writing devoted to Knorozov's studies, this was a detailed account of
what archaeologistsabroadworkingin Latin America had achieved (e.g., Debets 1959; Kinzhalov
et al. 1959; Knorozov 1959; Sharevskaya 1959). Thanks to its detailed and highly systematic
exposition, the publicationretains its relevancetoday.
Russian translationsof works by foreignscholars,especiallyLatin Americans,held a prominent

Bashilov and Gulyaev] SOVIET STUDIES OF LATIN AMERICA 9
place among scholarlypublicationsin the period under review. In 1958 two articlesby Dick Edgar
IbarraGrasso, a prominentBolivian archaeologist,appearedin Soviet journals. One of them dealt
with the highly specificrelict system of writingofthe altiplanoIndians(IbarraGrasso 1958a),while
the other detailed the stone implements from Viscacha(Bolivia) (IbarraGrasso 1958b). A Russian
translationof a thought-provokingwork by Miguel Leon-Portilla,a scholar from Mexico, on the
philosophic systems of an early population of central Mexico (Leon-Portilla 1961) came off the
press a little later. It containedtranslationsof some Aztec documents.About the same time a book
by the founderof the PeruvianCommunist Party,J. C. Mariategui,Sieteensayosde interpretacion
de la realidadperuana,appearedin Russian (Mariategui1963). The book offeredsome important
comments on the Prehispanicsocial system.
In 1960 Moscowand Leningradwitnessedan exhibitionof Mexicanart includinga vast collection
of archaeologicalmaterial (Vipper 1960). This event spurred interest in the ancient cultures of
Mesoamerica.
The first stage of the currentperiod of Soviet studies of Latin American antiquitiesmainly was
dominatedby scholarsfrom the Instituteof Ethnography;of them, Knorozov and Kinzhalov were
the two most inspiringfigures.By force of circumstancesthey limited their researcheither to one
ethnic group (such as the Maya) or to certain culturalaspects. There was another trend, inherited
from the previousperiodwhen it was extremelypopular,which tendedto summarizearchaeological
discoveries in Latin America and aimed at presentinga historicalpanoramaof the region prior to
the Spanishconquest.Suchcompilationsnecessarilyreliedheavily on conclusionsdrawnby scholars
abroadand offeredno critical investigationof the archaeologicalmaterialused by them.
The new stage involved an appreciablygreaternumber of institutions and scholars engagedin
studies of Latin American antiquities. In 1961 the U.S.S.R. Academy of Sciences established an
Instituteof Latin America to deal mainly with the region'scurrentsituation. Some departmentsof
the new institute, however, such as the Ideology and CultureSector, undertookresearchinto the
Precolumbianperiod. In 1962 a Group of Foreign Archaeologywas founded at the Institute of
Archaeology,U.S.S.R. Academy of Sciences;it engagedin studyingancient America directly.
In the 1960s and 1970s scholars in Leningradcontinued their fruitfulwork. Based on his deci-
pheredMaya hieroglyphs,Knorozov translatedfour manuscriptsand crownedhis multiyeareffiort
with the monographMayaHieroglyphic Manuscripts (Knorozov 1975).Thatwas the firsttranslation
of these historical sources and provided a valuable addition to our still meager knowledgeof the
PrehispanicMaya Indians.The manuscriptsKnorozov translatedwere highlydetailedprayerbooks
containing"a detailed descriptionof rites, sacrificesand propheciesassociated with all economic
branches. . . and relatedto everybody.All instructionsare wordedas concise accounts of the gods'
activities. The priestrelied on these descriptionsto performrites, demand sacrifices,fix favourable
moments for certain actions and predict future events" (Knorozov 1975:228). These documents
provide information on Maya perceptions of reality, economic life, sociopolitical structure,and
religiousbeliefs.
Knorozovsuppliedhis translationswith commentariesunfoldinga sweepingpanoramaof ancient
Maya life. They can be regardedas an independent piece of research that extracted historical
informationfrom these extremely involved religious texts. The monograph,as well as a series of
articleswritten at the same time, bear witness to their author'sinterest in the historicalcontext of
these relicsof earlyideologies(Knorozov 1964,1966,1967,1971,1973). The above studiesbrought
Knorozov the U.S.S.R. State Prize in 1977.
These years were no less successful for another prominent Soviet specialist in Latin American
antiquities, Rostislav Kinzhalov. A pithy article and two definitive monographsexpounded his
views on the arts and cultureofthe ancient Maya (Kinzhalov 1963a, 1968, 1971). The latterbook
offers an exhaustive discussion of these subjects. Kinzhalov looked at all the available histoncal
sources, written materials,archaeologicaland ethnographicdata, meticulously studied diverse ar-
tistic patterns,and offereda profoundanalysis of the PopolVuhand other Indian texts. He failed,
nevertheless, to clarify his views concerning Maya statehood and its affiliation with a definite
socioeconomic formation(Gulyaev 1972d).
Kinzhalov, a scholarwhose primaryresearchinterest has been the Olmec, also has displayedan

interestin generalaspects of ancient American art, mythology, and early epics and folklore (Kin-
zhalov 1962b, 1963b, 1963c, 1964, 1970a, 1970b). In addition, he has several works on ethnic
history (Kinzhalov 1967c, 1974). His article "Ethnic History of Ancient Guatemala,"based on a
detailedstudy of many kinds of sources, is, in fact, a history of the GuatemalanIndian population
from the second millennium B.C. to the Spanish conquest.
Zubritsky(1968) publishedan interestingworkdealingwith the earliestsocieties in Mesoamerica.
He comparedMayacivilizationwith the earliestAsian and Africanstatesand came to the conclusion
that each Maya city-statehad been, in fact, "a small slaveowningdespotate."He also definedAztec
society as "an embodiment of a wide-scale process leading to the emergence. . . of a mighty, vast
and centralizedslaveowningdespotate."He emphasized,at the same time, that Aztec society, being
still in the formative period, had just entered the road to class formation and was far from its
completion.
Soviet archaeologistV. Gulyaev has concentratedon the social interpretationof materialsrelated
to the classicalculturesof Mesoamerica.In his earlierworks,however,he probedinto the possibility
of an independent development of the New World in the earliest period (Gulyaev 1966a, 1967,
1968), which was a subject of wide discussion in the 1950s. After making a thoroughstudy of the
premises advancedby scholarsabroad, Gulyaev drew the conclusion that the ancient civilizations
of America had been locally based and experiencedno appreciableculturalinfluence by the Old
World.About the same time V. Bashilov undertookan investigationinto the ties between the two
centers of the earliestAmericancivilizations (Bashilov 1966b).
In a number of articles and a monographGulyaev discussed the origin and development of the
mesoamericancivilizations of the firstmillenniumA.D. (Teotihuacan,the Zapotec,the Maya, etc.)
that stemmed from the local earlieragriculturalcivilizations (Gulyaev 1966b,1966c,1966d, 1969a,
1969b, 1972b). The 1972 monographwas the first Soviet effortto provide a generalpictureof the
region'shistory built on a vast body of archaeologicalmaterial.These works paved the way for a
more profoundstudy of the socioeconomic and political structureof Maya society, completed with
the publicationof Gulyaev's book, Maya City-States(Gulyaev 1969c, 1972a, 1976b, 1977, 1979).
He drew a parallelbetween Maya cities and the urban centers in ancient Mesopotamiaand drew
attention to their similarities and differences.He guided himself by the proposition that these
phenomena,though separatedby millennia, were, nevertheless,at the same developmentalstage.
Soviet researchersalso displayed an interest in the worldview of the early Mexican population.
In her article Baglai (1977) analyzed the ideas on world eras as presentedby Aztec myths. She is
of the opinion that the wide diversity of such ideas derived from their intensive use in the political
and ideological struggle.Goncharova(1973) took as her subjectthe ideology of the Quiche Maya
Indians as revealedby the Popol Vuh.
Today there is a markedinterestin South Americanmaterials,invoked to discuss problemsof a
wider significance.L. Fainberg(1963) pointed to the American Indians' contributionto the agri-
culturalmethods used in the world today. His article was the first Russian-languageinvestigation
of the traces of crop raisingat the preceramicHuaca Prieta site in Peru.
Well-knownSoviet archaeologistV. Masson (1964, 1967) comparedthe emergenceof agriculture
on the Peruvian coast with similar processes in the Near Eastern agriculturalcenters. He used
materialsfrom westernAsia, Mesoamerica,and the centralAndes to hypothesizethree patternsof
the "Neolithicrevolution"in the respectiveregions(Masson 1968,1971). Archaeologicaldiscoveries
at the turn of the 1970s failed to substantiatehis assumptionsand showed that the processeswhich
took place along the Peruviancoast were of a secondarynature.
In a book which summed up a generalhistorical discussion on the Asiatic mode of production,
Nikiforov also discussedsome problemsrelatedto ancient America.A collection of articlesdealing
with the primitive-communalfringes of the ancient class society carried a section on America
(Fainberg1978; Nikiforov 1975).
Beginningin the mid- 1960s Bashilov (1966a,1967a,1967b) publishedarticleson the archaeology
of the centralAndes that served as the foundationfor a monographon the ancient civilizations of
this region,publishedin 1972. He criticallyanalyzedarchaeologicalmaterialsfrom Peruand Bolivia
and dealt with the earliest history of this part of Latin America. He offered his own original

Bashilov and Gulyaev] SOVIETSTUDIESOF LATINAMERICA 11
interpretationsof some problems,includingthe ethnic affiliationof the Tiahuanacoculture.In later

years Bashilov concentratedon the emergenceof the producingeconomy in the centralAndes and
assumed that the coastal people in Peru had lived throughthe Neolithic Revolution while at the
food gatheringstage (Bashilov 1979a, 1979b, 1980, 198Sb; Bashilov and Gulyaev 1974).
In his firstarticleBerezkin(1969) also looked at the origins of agricultureon the Peruviancoast.
Later,however,he turnedhis attentionto the richand variedartofthe Mochicacivilization(Berezkin
1972, 1973, 1978a, 1978b, 1980c, 1981a). His consistent and detailed analysis of Mochica art,
which has no precedencein world Latin Americanstudies, enabledhim to reconstructthe Mochica
pantheonand the content of some myths. His studies led to a numberof importantconclusionson
the social structureof Mochicasociety. The inconsistencyof some of his conclusionsdid not prevent
him from demonstratingthat the Mochica had reached the early class stage and that they had
possibly one or two state alliances in some period of their development.
Berezkinused his methods of decipheringmythology with the help of fine arts to study the art
of the Nasca civilizationin SouthAmericaand sites of the coastalearlyagriculturalcultures(Berezkin
1975,1980b). Somewhatearlier,Uvarova (1964) offeredheranalysisof Nasca artfromthe viewpoint
of art criticism. Berezkin'sworks, convincinglydemonstratingfundamentaldifferencesbetweenthe
Nasca and Mochica religious systems, were a promisingbeginningthat has not been pursuedany
further.Other authorslooked at individual aspects of centralAndean archaeologyand recreateda
general panorama of early Peruvian culture (Narskikh 1972; Popova 1963; Rostotskaya 1975;
Zubritsky1975a).
In the 1960s and 1970s Soviet scholarsmade noteworthyprogressin studyingthe history of the
Incas, mainly due to the efforts of Zubritsky,who dedicated many years to the study of Quechua
languageand culture.In 1963 he publishedhis researchon Apu Ollantay, a remarkabledramadated
to the late sixteenth or early seventeenth centuries, directly associated with the Inca tradition
(Zubritsky1963). His Russian translationof the dramawas publishedin 1974 (Zubritsky1974). In
some of his worksZubritskyforwardedhis opinion on the debatableissue of the natureof the Inca
empire. He consideredit to be a slaveowningdespotate resemblingthe ancient Oriental states of
that kind (Zubritsky1966, 1975b, 1975c).
Samarkina(1974), in her extremelyinterestingmonographdealing with an early Peruviancom-
munity, voiced a different opinion. She saw no grounds to believe the Inca state had been a
slaveowningformationand wrotethat the social systemof Tawantinsuyuhad been of an antagonistic
naturealbeit with an amorphousclass structure.The main form of exploitationwas exploitationof
the communities by the state. The slaveowning and feudal remnants came into existence within
this form of exploitation.
Kuzmishchevoccupiedan intermediateposition on the issue. He assertedthat Inca society rested
on the "collectiveslavery"of the Inca communitiesand classedTawantinsuyuamongthe slaveown-
ing stateswith prominentsurvivalsof the primitive-communalsystem. Drawingon writtensources,
principallyInca Garcilaso de la Vega's commentaries,Kuzmishchev (1973, 1974, 1975a, 1975b)
vividly describedInca society. He undertookthe enormoustask of translatinginto Russian, for the
first time, the chronicle of Inca Garcilasode la Vega, a promisinghistorical source on early Peru
(Garcilasode la Vega 1974). Not limiting himselfto translation,Kuzmishchev(1979) looked into
Garcilaso'slife and his writings, offered some interestinghypotheses on what had prompted the
"Commentaries"and how they had affectedcontemporaneoussocial thought. Kuzmishchev also
studied in detail the life and work of Guaman Poma de Ayala, anotherancient Peruvianchronicler
(Kuzmishchev 1974, 1975c).
AnotherSoviet specialistin LatinAmerica,Svet (1967) wrotea workdevoted to Spanishchronicler
Sarmientde Gamboa. In his two other works he dwelt on the history of the last Inca empire in the
mountains of central Peru, which survived the Spanish conquest of the main part of Peruvian
territoryand fell as late as 1672 (Svet 1964, 1972). Svet considered Machu Picchu, a town in an
inaccessiblemountain region, to be the capital of the last Inca empire. Today, however, another
opinion is currentamong scholars. They believe that this town, together with other independent
urban centers, predatedthe heyday of Cuzco. Following their unification under the Cuzco Inca,
MachuPicchuhad been abandonedand, by the time of the Spanishconquest,had sunk into oblivion

(Bashilovand Serov 1975). While analyzingthe ethnogeneticmyth of the Inca, Serov (1977) also
touchedupon the earlierperiod, precedingthe emergenceof Tawantinsuyu.He convincinglydem-
onstratedthat thereweretwo variantsofthe same myth associatedwith the earliestand the "Empire"
periodof Inca history. In the 1960s and 1970s Soviet scholarsstudied the ancient Peruviansystem
of record-keepingand the destinies of the Quechualanguage(Knorozov 1972; Knorozov and Fe-
dorova 1970; Kuzmishchev 1971; Tsarenko 1977). Pichugin (1979) also wrote an interestingwork
on Inca music.
The 1960s and 1970s saw studies of antiquities from other regions of Latin America. For the
most part, works on this subject contained information mainly related to the Intermediatearea
(Arutyunov 1967; Bashilov 1979a; Sheleshneva 1974; Sozina 1974). Sozina (1969), however, pub-
lished some extremelyinterestingresearchon the ancient Muisca in which she used data obtained
from written sourcesand archaeologicalmaterialsto compile an exhaustivedescriptionof a highly
maturecultureof PrehispanicColombia.She set out to defineits placeamongotherancientAmerican
cultures.Her relative inconsistencywhere Muisca social-developmentallevel was concerned(Gu-
lyaev 1970) stemmed from an inadequateelaborationof theoreticalaspects of the transitionperiod
from primitive-communalto class society.
Duringthe same decadesSoviet researchersturnedtheir attentionto the Caribbeanas well. They
delved into the Precolumbianperiod in the history of the largestGreaterAntilles islands, Cuba and
Haiti (Alexandrenkov1968, 1969a, 1969b; Popova and Fradkin 1967; Sheinbaum 1956). In his
monographon the indigenous population of the GreaterAntilles, Alexandrenkov(1976) devoted
considerablespaceto the archaeologyof the region.Russianpublicationsof ChristopherColumbus's
documents (Magidovich 1961) and of the History of the Indies by Bartolome de las Casas (de las
Casas 1968) became a weighty contributionto Latin American studies in the U.S.S.R.
This work was coupled with a great number of translationsfrom foreign languages,mainly of
popular books and articles (Gallenkamp 1966; de la Hara 1972; Meggers 1967; Metraux 1963;
Peissel 1969; Stingle 1977; Wauchope 1966). This period saw a number of well-written Soviet
popularworkson ancientAmerica(Berezkin1977;Gulyaev 1972c,1976a; Kinzhalov 1967a,1967b;
Kuzmishchev 1968; Sozina 1972). Archaeologicalcollections from New World museums exhibited
in Moscow and Leningrad(Ancient American Gold from Museums of the United States-1976;
Maya Cultureand Art-1977; Colombian Gold-1979) undoubtedlypromotedthe Soviet public's
interestin the past of the westernhemisphere.Researchon the subjectbecame more frequent,and
its quality improved markedly.More scientificinstitutions and specialistscontributedto scholarly
effiortswhich, during that period, embraced other regions beyond Mesoamerica and the central
Andes.
Closercooperationamong Soviet specialistsin Latin Americanstudies usheredin a new stage of
Soviet researchin the late 1970s. A collection of articlesby Soviet archaeologistsand ethnographers
was published in Spanish in 1978 (Grigulevich 1978). An encyclopedic referencebook on Latin
America,comprisingmany entries on Precolumbianantiquitieswrittenby leading Soviet scholars,
also appearedin the early 1980s (SovetskayaEntsiklopediya1979, 1982). An article by Bashilov
and Gulyaev(1981) summarizedthe researchdone in the U.S.S.R. followingthe OctoberRevolution.
Cooperationin Soviet studies of the New World Native Americans was promoted greatly by the
symposium "AmericanIndians:Past and Present"(1983) sponsoredby the Sector of the Peoples
of America,Instituteof Ethnography,U.S.S.R. Academyof Sciences.The discussioncenteredmainly
on one of the key topics, "The EarliestHistory of the Latin American Peoples" (Alexandrenkov
1983; Tishkov 1985). The second symposium, "EthnicEcology of the IndigenousAmericanPop-
ulation,"held in 1985, also included paperson the Precolumbianperiod (Tishkov 1988).
The new stage brought new developments in the form of broader contacts between Soviet ar-
chaeologistsspecializingin Latin America and their colleaguesin other countries. These contacts
were facilitatedby translationsinto Spanish of works by Soviet scholars(Gngulevich 1978, 1984)
and by publicationsof Soviet works in other countries(Berezkin 198lb; Gulyaev 1984e). In 1981
Bashilov and Gulyaev presentedpapers at the X Congresode la Union Internacionalde Ciencias
Prehistoricasy Protohistoricas,held in Mexico (Bashilov 1982b; Gulyaev 1982b). Later they at-
tendedthreeSoviet-Americansymposiaon archaeology.In 1985, Moscow and Leningradwelcomed

the round-tableof the Vienna UNESCO Center on "The Pre-ColumbianCollections in European

Museums,"dealingmainly with andeanantiquities.It attracteda greatnumberof Soviet specialists.
In 1980, archaeologistsfrom the Institute of History, Philology, and Philosophy of the Siberian
Branchof the U.S.S.R. Academy of Sciences,togetherwith Cubanarchaeologists,conductedsmall-
scale excavations in Cuba (Vasilevsky and Molodin 1983). These were the first field studies by
Soviet archaeologistsin Latin America. They were followed, in 1983, by joint Soviet-Colombian
excavations in the west of Colombia in which Bashilov participated(Bashilov 1985a).
In the late 1970s and early 1980s Soviet researchcontinued in the same direction. Early Maya
culturedominatedthe studiesof Mesoamerica,with Knorozovand his pupilErshovamakinganother
significantstride in reading Maya hieroglyphics.They now are engaged in reading hieroglyphic
inscriptionsdated to the first millennium A.D., found on vessels, stone stelae, and other artifacts
(Ershova1982, 1984, 1985; Knorozov and Ershova 1982, 1983a, 1983b). Borodatova(1984, 1985)
turnedherattentionto imagesfound on Mayaceramicsthat she regardedas a historical-ethnographic
source.
Gulyaev continued his analysis of the sociopolitical structuresof PrecolumbianMesoamerica
(Gulyaev 1976c, 1982b, 1984c, 1984d, 1985b) and simultaneouslyengagedin a study of ancient
Maya ideology (Gulyaev 1980, 1984b). He also publisheda monographon Maya architectureand
art (Gulyaev 1984a), looked into the origins of agriculturein Mesoamerica(Gulyaev 1984c), and
reviewed works by colleaguesabroad(Gulyaev 1985a).
The distantpastofthe Andes regioncontinuedto attractthe attentionof Soviet scholars.Bashilov's
worksdealt with more generalaspectsof the "Neolithic Revolution"(Bashilov 1982a, 1983, 1984a,
1984b).He offieredsome propositionson the chronologicalframeworkof this processand compared
its ratesin the Old and New worlds.Berezkincontinuedhis investigationof Mochicaartisticsources.
His monographspresentinga detailed reconstructionof the mythology and social structureof this
ancient Peruvian civilization were a successful completion of his work (Berezkin 1979a, 1979b,
1979c, 1980a, 1980b, 1983).
Berezkin(1982) also published a popular book about recent archaeologicaldiscoveries in Peru
and Bolivia. Kuzmishchev(1982) recountedthe history ofthe Inca empire and describedits system
of governmentin an interestingand popular format. Gulyaev (1982a, 1983) made a contribution
to the popularizationof knowledgeabout ancient America.
Soviet studies of ancient culturesin Latin America continue with noteworthyresultsdespite the
many difficultiesand unsolved problems;there are few archaeologistsand ethnographersengaged
in this subject,and their effortsare still coordinatedpoorly. This has led to a situation where there
are several more-or-less thoroughly studied topics, such as Maya writing and culture, Mochica
iconography,and Inca history, together with vast regions (the southern fringes of Mesoamerica,
Amazonia, the southernAndes, etc.) totally ignoredby Soviet scholars,in spite of the fact that their
archaeologyhas been studied extensively.
What are needed are summarizingworks on antiquitiesof such regions as the Intermediatearea
or the peripheryof nuclearAmerica. It is no less important to study in greaterdetail the major
culturalcomplexes and historical processes that occurredin Latin America and to compare them
with analogous processes in the Old World with the aim of discovering common developmental
patterns.
REFERENCESCITED
Alexandrenkov,E. G.
1968 IstoriyaizucheniyakubinskimiuchenymikorennogonaseleniyaKuby(The Historyof Studyby Cuban
Scholarsof Cuba'sIndigenousPopulation).Sovetskayaetnografiya5:153-160.
1969a Review of Las culturasaborigenesde Cuba,by M. Rivera de la Calle. Sovetskayaetnografiya4:18>
182.
1969b Review of Prehistoriade Cuba,by E. Tabio and E. Rey. Sovetskayaarkheologiya4:293-296.
1976 Indeitsyantilskikhostrovovdo evropeiskogozavoevaniya(Indiansof the AntillesPriorto the European
Conquest).Nauka, Moscow.
1983 Simpoziumpo problemamindianistiki(Symposiumon the Studiesof AmericanIndians).Sovetskaya
etnografiya3:149-151.

Arutyunov,S. A.
1967 Drevnie transtikhookeanskiesvyazi: mif ili realnost?(TranspacificContacts in Antiquity:Myth or
Reality?).Sovetskayaetnografiya4:143-150.
Baglai,V. E.
1977 Priroda,bogi i chelovek v drevnemeksikanskoimifologii (Nature,Gods, and Man in EarlyMexican
Mythology).LatinskayaAmerika4: 166-183.
Bartley,R. H. (editor)
1978 SovietHistorianson Latin America.University of WisconsinPress, Milwaukee.
Bashilov, V. A.
1966a Nekotoryevoprosy etnicheskoiistorii BoliviiskogoAltiplano(Some Aspectsof the EthnicHistory of
the Bolivian Altiplano).Sovetskayaetnografiya5:81-90.
1966b Svyazi drevneishikhtsivilizatsij Novogo Sveta (ContactsBetween the EarliestCivilizations of the
New World).In ArkheologEya Starogoi NovogoSveta (Archaeologyof the Old and New Worlds),edited by
N. Morpertand P. Kozhin, pp. 270-290. Nauka, Moscow.
1967a PeriodizatsiyakulturyMollo y Bolivii 11-16 vv (Periodizationofthe Moljo Culturein Bolivia from
ElevenththroughSixteenthCenturies).Sovetskayaarkheologiya1:99-110.
1967b Ethnicheskayaistoriya naseleniyaPeru i Bolivii (Istoriografiavoprosa) (EthnicHistory of the Pop-
ulationof Peruand Bolivia:HistoriographicalAspects).In Etnicheskayaistoriyai sovremennoenatsionalnoe
razvitienarodovmira (Ethnic History and the Present-DayNational Development of the Peoples of the
World),pp. 7-10. InstitutetnografiiAkademii nauk SSSR, Nauka, Moscow.
1972 DrevnietsivilizatsEi Peru i Bolivii (Ancient Civilizationsof Peru and Bolivia). Nauka, Moscow.
1979a DrevnyayaKolumbiya-Strana metallurgovi yuvelirov (AncientColombia-The Countryof Metal
Workersand Jewelers).LatinskayaAmerika6:17X182.
1979b Obshchie zakonomernostii spetsifika"neoliticheskoirevolutsii" v Peru (GeneralRegularitiesand
Some SpecificFeaturesof the "NeolithicRevolution"in Peru).In DrevniekulturySibirii Tikhookeanskogo
basseina (Ancient Culturesof Siberiaand the Pacific),edited by R. S. Vasilievsky, pp. 10X109. Nauka,
Novosibirsk.
1980 Poyavleniekulturnykhrasteniiv drevneishikhzemledelcheskikhtsentrakhAmeriki(The Appearance
of Cropsin the EarliestAgriculturalCentersin America).LatinskayaAmerika5:92-101.
1982a Poyavlenieproizvodyashchegokhozyastvav TsentralnykhAndakh (The Emergenceof a Producing
Economyin the CentralAndes). In ArkheologiyaStarogoi NovogoSveta (Archaeologyof the Old and New
Worlds),edited by V. I. Gulyaev, pp. 146-152. Nauka, Moscow.
1982b "Neolithic Revolution" in Peru: Some General Aspects of the Historical Process. In Actas del X
Congresode la Union Internacionalde CienciasPrehistoricasy Protohistoricas,pp. 46S478. Comite or-
ganizadordel X CongresoUISPP, Mexico, D.F.
1983 Periodizatsiyai tempy istoricheskogoprotsessa"neoliticheskoirevolutsii"na PerednemVostoke i v
Novom Svete (Periodizationand the Rates of the Historical Process of the "Neolithic Revolution" in
WesternAsia and the New World).In ArkheologiyaSredneiAzii i Blizhnego Vostoka:II sovetsko-ameri-
kansky simpozium (The Archaeologyof Central Asia and the Near East: The Second Soviet-American
Symposium),pp. 23-27. Fan, Tashkent.
1984a "Neoliticheskayarevolutsiya"v drevnum Peru ("Neolithic Revolution" in Ancient Peru). Kratkie
soobshcheniyaInstitutaarkheologiiAN SSSR 180:91-95.
1984b Nekotoryeaspekty"neoliticheskoirevolutsii"(SomeAspectsofthe "NeolithicRevolution").Kratkie
soobshcheniyaInstitutaarkheologiiAN SSSR 180:99-101.
1985a Sovetsko-kolumbiiskiearkheologicheskieissledovaniyav doline reki Kalima (Soviet-ColombianAr-
chaeologicalInvestigationsin the CalimaValley).In Arkheologicheskie otkrytEya1983 goda (Archaeological
Discoveries in 1983), edited by R. M. Munchaev,pp. 581-583. Nauka, Moscow.
1985b Tempy istoricheskogoprotsessav vazhneishikhtsentrakh"neoliticheskoirevolutisii"Novogo i Star-
ogo Sveta (The Rates of the Historical Process in the Main Centersof the "Neolithic Revolution"). In
Istoricheskiesudby amerikanskikhindeitsev:Problemyindeanistiki(HistoricalDestinies of American In-
dians:Problemsof Indian Studies),edited by V. A. Tishkov, pp. 42-64. Nauka, Moscow.
Bashilov, V. A., and V. I. Gulyaev
1974 Stanovlenieproizvodyashchegokhozyastvav Mezoamerikei TsentralnykhAndakh(Consolidationof
the ProducingEconomy in Mesoamericaand the CentralAndes). In KonferentsEya "Formyperekhodaot
prisvaivayushchego k proizvodyaschemukhozyaistvvi osobennostirazvitEyaobshchestvennogo stroya"(The
Conferenceon "Formsof Transitionfrom the Food Gatheringto ProducingEconomyand Some Specific
Featuresof Social Development"),pp. 9F99. Tezisy Dokladov, Nauka, Moscow.
1981 IzucheniedrevnikhkulturlatinskoiAmerikiv sovetskoiistoricheskoinauke(Studyof AncientCultures
in LatinAmericaby Soviet HistoricalScience).In Sovetskayalatinoamerikanistika posle pobedykubinskoi
revolutsii(Soviet Latin AmericanStudies Following the Victory of Revolution in Cuba),edited by V. V.
Volsky, pp. 138-158. Institut LatinskoiAmerikikAkademii nauk SSSR, Moscow.
Bashilov, V. A., and S. Y. Serov
1975 Novye knigi po istorii kultury inkov (New Books on the History of the Inca Culture).Sovetskaya
ethnografiya4:184-187.

Berezkin,Y. E.
1969 Nachalozemledeliyana peruanskompoberezhie(TheOriginsof AgricultureAlongthe PeruvianCoast).
Sovetskayaetnografiya1:3-12.
1972 Mifologiyamochika (Mochica Mythology).Sovetskayaarkheologiya4:171-192.
1973 Sotsialnayastrukturaobshchestvamochika (The Social Structureof the Mochica). In Konferentsiya
"Vozniknovenie ranneklassovogoobshchestva"(TheConferenceon "TheEmergenceof EarlyClassSociety"),
pp. 86-90. Akademii nauk SSSR, Moscow.
1975 Rospisi kultovogosoderzhaniyana sosudakhNaska(Peru)(ReligiousDrawingson Vesselsofthe Nasca
Culture,[Peru]).In Iz kulturnogonaslediyanarodovAmerikiiSfriki: SbornikMuseyaantropologiii etnografii
AN SSSR (From the CulturalHeritageof American and African Peoples: Collection of the Museum of
Anthropologyand Ethnographyof the AS [Academy of Sciences] USSR), vol. 31, pp. 69-93. Nauka,
Leningrad.
1977 DrevneishayatsivilizatsiyaYuzhnoi Ameriki(The EarliestCivilizationof South America).PrEroda9:
96-107.
1978a Iz istorii drevnegoPeru:sotsialnayastrukturamochika skvoz prizmumifologii (Fromthe History of
Ancient Peru:Mochica Social Structureas Constructedfrom Myths). VestnikdrevneiistorEi3:38-59.
1978b Khronologiyasrednegoi pozdnegoetapov kulturymochikaPeru(The Chronologyof the Middle and
Late Periods of Mochica Culture,Peru).Sovetskayaarkheologiya2:78-95.
1979a Identifikatsiyatrekhantropomorfnykhpersonazheina izobrazheniimochika(Peru)(Identificationof
Three AnthropomorphicFigures in Mochica Drawings [Peru]).In ProblemyistorEii etnografiiAmeriki
(Problemsof AmericanHistory and Ethnography),pp. 142-155. Nauka, Moscow.
1979b Morskie plavaniya v mifakh mochika (Peru) (Sea Voyages in Mochica Myths [Peru]).In Strany i
narody Vostoka(The Countriesand Peoples of the East),issue 20, pp. 162-171. Nauka, Moscow.
1979c Novyi shagina putyizucheniyadrevneperuanskikh rospisei(Progressin the Studyof AncientPeruvian
Drawings).Sovetskayaetnografiya1:158-166.
1980a Lyudi-stervyatnikiv ritualeyuzhnoamerikanskikh indeitsev (People-Birdsof Preyin SouthAmerican
Indian Rituals).In Kratkoesoderzhaniedokladovgodichnoi nauchnoisessii InstitutaetnografiiAN SSSR
(Summariesof AnnualPapersofthe Instituteof Ethnographyofthe AS USSR),pp.83-84. Nauka,Leningrad.
1980b Rannie zemledeltsy poberezhiyaPeru (Early Agriculturistsfrom the Peruvian Coast). In Rannie
zemledeltsy:Etnograficheskieocherki(EarlyAgriculturists:EthnographicEssays),pp. 86-109. Nauka, Len-
ingrad.
1980c Sosud iz peruanskoikollektsii MAE (dar Natsionalnoi akademii nauk Kuby) (A Vessel From the
PeruvianCollectionof the Museum of Anthropologyand Ethnography[Gift of the National Academy of
Scienceof Cuba]).SobranEyaMuzeya antropologEi i etnografiiAN SSSR 35:183-187. Nauka, Leningrad.
1981a Bozhestvo-pokrovitelzemledeliya na izobrazheniyakhmochica (Peru)(Mochica Depictions of the
God of Agriculturse).SobraniyaMuzeyaantropologzi AN SSSR 37:3953. Nauka,Leningrad.
i etnogra.fii
1981b An Identificationof AnthropomorphicMythologicalPersonagesin Moche Representations.Nawpa
Pacha 18:1-28.
1982 DrevneePeru:Novyefacty-Novye gipotezy(EarlyPeru:New Facts-New Hypotheses).Znanie,Mos-
cow.
1983 Mochika:TsivilizatsfyaindeitsevSevernogopoberezhEya Peru v I-VII vv. (Mochica:An Indian Civi-
lization of the NorthernPeruvianCoast Betweenthe First and Seventh Centuries).Nauka, Leningrad.
Borodatova,A. A.
1984 Proritsatelii zhretsyu drevnikhmaya (Prophetsand Priests of the Ancient Maya). Sovetskayaetno-
grafiya 1:72-89.
1985 Izobrazheniyana keramike maya kak istoriko-etnograficheskiiistochnik (Representationon Maya
Ceramicsas an HistoricalEthnographicSource).In Istoricheskiesurlbyamerikanskikhindeitsev:Problemy
indeanistiki(HistoricalDestiniesof AmericanIndians:Problemsof IndianStudies),editedby V. A. Tishkov,
pp. 6X84. Nauka, Moscow.
Chicherov,V.
1947 Dar meksikanskikhuchenykhMuseu antropologiii etnografiiAN SSSR ( A Gift of MexicanScholars
to the Museum of Anthropologyand Ethnographyof the AS USSR Sovetskayaetnografiya2:216-217.
Debets, G. E.
1959 ProiskhozhdeniekorennogonaseleniyaAmeriki(The Originsof the AmericanIndigenousPopulation).
In NarodyAmeriki(The Peoples of America),vol. 1, edited by A. V. Efimov and S. A. Tokarev,pp. 9-24.
IzdatelstvoAkademii nauk SSSR, Moscow.
de la Hara, V.
1972 Deshifrovkapismennostii problemakipu (DecipheringInca Writingsand the Problemof the Quipu).
LatinskayaAmerika5:165-181.
de Landa,D.
1955 Soobshchenieo delakh v Yukatane(Relacion de las cosas de Yucatan).Izdatelstvo Akademii nauk
SSSR, Moscow-Leningrad.
de las Casas, B.
1968 IstorEyaIndii (Historyof the Indies).Nauka, Leningrad.

LATIN AMERICANANTIQUITY [Vol. 1, No. 1, 1990
16
Efimov, A. V., and S. A. Tokarev(editors)

1959 NarodyAmeriki(The Peoples of America).2 vols. IzdatelstvoAkademii nauk SSSR, Moscow.
Egorov,D. N.
192X1925 ZapiskisoldataBernalyaDiaza (Notes Writtenby SoldierBernalDiaz). 2 vols. Brokgauz-Efron,
Leningrad.
Ershova,G. G.
1982 Lirikadrevnikhmaya (LyricalWorksby the Ancient Maya).LatinskayaAmerika9:108-133.
1984 Formulavozrozhdeniya(A ResurgenceFormula).LatinskayaAmerika5:12o136.
1985 PesnopeniyaMaya:Po materialamtetradiAlfredo BarreyVaskesa(Maya Religious Songs:Research
Based on AlfredoBarreraVasquez'sNotebook). In Istoricheskiesudbyamerikanskikhindeitsev:Problemy
indeanistiki(HistoricalDestiniesof AmericanIndians:Problemsof IndianStudies),editedby V. A. Tiskov,
pp. 85-90. Nauka, Moscow.
Fainberg,L. A.
1963 Vklad amerikanskikhindeitsev v mirovoe zemledelie(The ContributionMade by AmericanIndians
to AgriculturalMethods).In Kulturaindeitsev(The Cultureof AmericanIndians),edited by A. V. Efimov
and I. A. Zolotarevskaya,pp. 11-32. Izdatelstvo,Akademii nauk SSSR, Moscow.
1978 Amerika.InPrimitivnayaperiferEya klassovykhobshchestvdonachalavelikikhgeograficheskikh otkrytEi
(PrimitiveClass Societies Prior to the Beginningof the Great GeographicalDiscoveries), edited by A. I.
Pershitzand A. M. Khazanov,pp. 199-228. Nauka, Moscow.
Gallenkamp,C.
1966 Maya: Zagadka ischeznuvsheitsivilizatsii(Maya:The Riddle and Rediscoveryof a Lost Civilization).
Nauka, Moscow.
Garcilasode la Vega, I.
1974 IstorEyagosudarstvainkov(Historyof the Inca Empire).Nauka, Leningrad.
Goncharova,T. V.
1973 O topologii mifologicheskikhmotivov "Popol Vuh" (On the Typologyofthe MythologicalMotifs in
Popol Vuh). LatinskayaAmerika6:108-120.
Grigulevich,I. R. (editor)
1978 Las antiguascivilizacionesde America.AmericaLatina:Estudiosde cientificossovieticos 4. Relacion
CienciasSociales Contemporaneas,Academiade Cienciasde la URSS, Moscow.
1984 Los pueblosautoctonosde AmericaLatina:Pasado y presente.AmericaLatina:Estudiosde cientificos
sovieticos 18-20. Relacion Sociales ContemporaneasAcademiade Cienciasde la URSS, Moscow.
Gulyaev, V. I.
1966a K voprosu ob aziatskikh vliyaniyakh na drevnie tsivilizatsii Tsentralnoi Ameriki (sovremennoe
sostoyanievoprosa)(Onthe AsianInfluenceon AncientCivilizationsin CentralAmerica:CurrentResearch).
In ArkheologEya Starogo i Novogo Sveta (Archaeologyof the Old and New Worlds),pp. 251-269. Nauka,
Moscow.
1966b Novye dannyeo proiskhozhdeniizemledelcheskikhkulturMezoameriki(New Findingson the Origin
of AgriculturalCulturesin Mesoamerica).SovetskayaetnograJiya1:146-151.
1966c Novye otkrytiyav arkheologiiMaya (1959-1963) (Recent Discoveries in Maya Archaeology).In
Maya: Zagadka ishcheznuvsheitsivilizatsii(Maya:The Riddle and Rediscoveryof a Lost Civilization),by
C. Gallenkamp,pp. 189-200. Nauka, Moscow.
1966d Problema proishozhdeniyatsivilizatsii Maya (The Problem of Origin ofthe Maya Civilization).
Sovetskayaarkheologiya3:17-31.
1967 Neizvestnye Kolumby (UnknownColumbuses).Priroda5:1S23.
1968 Amerikai Staryi Svet v dokolumbovuepokFu(Americaand the Old Worldin the PrecolumbianEra).
Nauka, Moscow.
1969a Gorod, postroennyrasoi gigantov (A City Built by Giants). VoprosyistorEi5.
1969b Nekotorye voprosy stanovleniyaranneklassovogoobshchestvau drevnikhmaya (Some Aspects of
the Emergenceof EarlyClass Society Among the Ancient Maya).SovetskayaetnograJiya4:86-98.
1969c Gibel gorodov Maya (The Maya Cities' Collapse).In VoprosyistorEi5.
1970 Review of Muiski:Eshche odna tsivilizatsiyadrevneiAmeriki(The Muisca:One More Civilizationin
Ancient America),by S. A. Sozina. Sovetskayaarkheologiya4:307-310.
1972a Atributytsarskoivlasti u drevnikhmaya (AncientMaya Royal Insignia).SovetskayaarkheologEya 3:
116-134.
1972b DrevneishietsivilizatsEi Mezoameriki(The EarliestCivilizationsof Mesoamerica).Nauka, Moscow.
1972c Idoly pryachutsyav dzhunglyakh(Idols in a Jungle).MolodayaGvardiya,Moscow.
1972d Review of Kulturadrevnikhmaya (Cultureof the Ancient Maya), by R. V. Kinzhalov. Sovetskaya
1976a O kharakteretorgovli u drevnikhmaya (On the Nature of Trade of the Ancient Maya). Sovetskuya
arkheologEya 3:58-72.
1976b Po sledam konkistadorov(Followingthe Conquistadors).Nauka, Moscow.
1976c Problemastanovleniyatsarskoivlasti u drevnikhmaya (The Emergenceof Royal PowerAmong the
Ancient Maya).In Stanovleniyaklassov;gosudarstva(The Emergenceof Classesand State),edited by A. I.
Pershitz,pp. 191-248. Nauka, Moscow.

1977 GorodaMaya (Maya Cities). Sovetskayaarkheologiya4:7o93.

1979 Goroda-gosudarstva maya:Strukturaif unktsfigorodav ranneklassovomobshchestve(MayaCity-States:
The Structureand Functionsof the City in the EarlyClass Society).Nauka, Moscow.
1980 Ideologiyadrevnikhmaya v kontseptsiyakhzarubezhnykhissledovatelei(Ancient Maya Ideologyas
Seenby ScholarsAbroad).Konferentsiya"Ideologicheskiepredstavleniyadrevneishikhobshchestv":Tezisy
dokladov (Abstracts:The Conference"IdeologicalNotions of Ancient Societies"),Moscow.
1982a Bogi drevnikhmaya (Ancient Maya Gods). AteisticheskieChteniya12:36-51. Politizdat,Moscow.
1982b Insigniasrealesde los mayas antiguas.In Actasdel X Congresode la UnionInternacionalde Ciencias
Prehistoricasy Protohistoricas,pp. 479488. Comite organizadordel X CongresoUISPP, Mexico, D.F.
1983 DrevnieMaya (The Ancient Maya). Znanye,Moscow.
1984a Zabyte goroda maya: Problemyiskusstvai arkkitektury(ForgottenMaya Cities: Some Artistic and
ArchitecturalAspects). Iskusstvo,Moscow.
1984b Kult predkovu drevnikhmaya (AncestorCult Among the Ancient Maya).In ReligEimira (Religions
of the World),edited by I. R. Grigulevich,pp. 65-80. Nauka, Moscow.
1984c Stanovlenieproizvodyashchegokhozyastvav dokolumbovoiMezoamerike(Consolidationof a Pro-
ducing Economy in PrecolumbianMesoamerica).KratkiesoobshchenEya Instituta arkheologEiAN SSSR
180:85-90.
1984d Strukturavlasti v drevneishikhgosudarstvakhMezoameriki(Maya):Genesis i kharakternyeosoben-
nosti (The Structureof GoveInment in the Ancient States of Mesoamerica[Maya]:Genesis and Specific
Features).Konferentsiya"Prichinyprevrashcheniyapervobytnogoobshchestvav rabovladelcheskoei feo-
dalnoe":Tezisy dokladov (The Conference"The Causes for the Transformationof Primitive Society into
Slaveowningand FeudalSocieties":Abstractsof Papers),Moscow.
1984e Tipologia e estructurade los estados antiguos de mesoamerica.Revista espanola de antropologla
americana 14:3346.
1985a Novye zarubezhnyepublikatsii o drevnikh maya (Recent Works on the Ancient Maya Abroad).
LatinskayaAmerika 1:133-140.
1985b Tipologiyai strukturadrevnikhgosudarstvMezoameriki(The Typologyand Structureof the Earliest
States in Mesoamerica).In Istoricheskiesudbyamerikanskikhindeitsev:Problemyindeanistiki(Historical
Destinies of AmericanIndians:Problemsof Indian Studies),edited by V. A. Tishkov, pp. 52-63. Nauka,
Moscow.
IbaxTaGrasso, D. E.
1958a Ieroglificheskayapismennostindeitsev andskogonagorya(Hieroglyphicsof the Andes Indians). Vo-
prosyyazykoznanEya1:6672.
1958b Nizhnii paleolit v Amerike(The LowerPalaeolithicin America).Sovetskayaetnografiya1:58-74.
Kinzhalov,R. V.
1949a ArkheologicheskoeizuchenieMeksikiza posledniegody(AnArchaeologicalStudyof Mexicoin Recent
Years).In IstorEyaatstekov(Aztecsof Mexico),edited by G. Vaillant,pp. 219-233. InostrannayaLiteratura,
Moscow.
1949b Novye raboty po istorii i kultureplemen maya (Recent Works on the History and Cultureof the
Maya).Sovetskayaetnografiya2.
1949c Review of IndianischeKunst und Kultur:Ein Jahrtausendim Reiche der Chime (Indian Art and
Culture:A Millenniumof the Empireof Chimu),by H. Leicht. Sovetskayaetnografiya2.
1951 Review of An Introductionto the Archaeologyof Cuzoo,by J. H. Rowe. Sovetskayaetnografiya1:238.
1954 OlmekskayastatuetkaEnnitazha(An Olmec Figurinefrom the Hermitage).SoobshchenEya Gosudar-
stvennogoErmitazha6:64-67. Leningrad.
1956a Drevnekolumbiiskayazolotaya statuetka(An Ancient Colombian Gold Figurine).SoobshchenEya
Gosudarstvennogo Ermitazha 10:113-117. Leningrad.
1956b Statuetka"Boginiv izumrudnoiodezhde"("FigurineGoddess in the EmeraldDress").Soobshche-
nEyaGosudarstvennogo Ermitazha 9:32-36. Leningrad.
1957 Drevneperuanskykeramicheskysosud iz Chankaya(An EarlyPeruvianVessel from Chancay).Soob-
shchenEyaGosudarstvennogo Ermitazha 12:89-94. Leningrad.
1958 PamyatnikiKulturyi iskusstvadrevneiAmeriki(Ancient AmericanArtistic and CulturalTreasures).
Leningrad.
1959a Kniga naroda Kiche (A Book of the Quiche Indians). In Popol Vuh [see 1959c belowl. Izdatelstvo
Akademiinauk SSSR, Moscow-Leningrad.
1959b Toltekskayamaska (A Toltec Mask). SoobshchenEya Gosudarstvennogo Ermitazha 15:5s56. Len-
ingrad.
l959c Popol Vuh.Translatedby R. V. Kinzhalov. IzdatelstvoAkademii nauk SSSR, Moscow-Leningrad.
1960 Atstekskoezolotoe nagrudnoeukrashenie(k voprosu o yuvelirnom iskusstve drevnei Meksiki) (An
Aztec Golden BreastPlate ConcerningJewelryin Ancient Mexico). SobranEyaMuzeya antropologEi i et-
nografEiANSSSR19:206-220. Nauka, Leningrad.
1962a IskusstvodrevneiAmeriki(Art of Ancient America).Iskusstvo,Moscow.
1962b Sovremennoesostoyanie olmekskoi problemy(The Olmec Problem:The CurrentState of Affairs).
Sovetskayaetnografiya2:72-81.
1963a Iskusstvomaya klassicheskogoperioda(III-IX vv n.e.) (MayaArt of the ClassicalPeriod:The Third-

LATIN AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 1, No. 1, 1990
18
Ninth CenturiesA.D.). In Kulturaindeitsev(The Cultureof American Indians),edited by A. V. Efimov

and I. A. Zolotoretskaya,pp. 33-158. IzdatelstvoAkademii nauk SSSR, Moscow.
1963b Iskusstvoplemennahuana Meksikanskomnagoriev XIV-XVI vv (Artof the Nahua of the Mexican
High Plateauin the Fourteenth-SixteenthCenturies).SobranEya MuzeyaantropologEi AN SSSR
i etnograMii
21:185-251. Nauka, Leningrad.
1963c Novye raboty po kulturedrevnei Ameriki (New Workson Ancient AmericanCulture).Sovetskaya
1964 Osnovnye problemy v izuchenii drevnemeksikanskogoiskusstva (Key Aspects in StudyingAncient
Mexican Art). Doklad na VII Mezhdunarodnomkongresseantropologicheskikhi etnograficheskikhnaulc
(PaperPresentedat the 7th InternationalCongressof Anthropologicaland EthnologicalSciences),Nauka,
Moscow.
1967a Den v drevnem gorode maya (One Day in an Ancient Maya City). Sovetskayaetnografiya2:145-
155.
1967b Den v stolitse drevnikhmochika(One Day in the Ancient MochicaCapital).Sovetskayaetnografiya
6:103-117.
1967c Indeiskieistochniki po istorii i etnografiinarodov Gvatemaly v X-XVI w (Indian Sourceson the
History and Ethnographyof Peoples in the MountainousAreas of Guatemala Between the Tenth and
SixteenthCenturies).In Ot Alyaskido OgnennoiZemli (From Alaskato TiexTadel Fuego),edited by I. R.
Grigulevich,pp. 222-233. Nauka, Moscow.
1968 Iskusstvodrevnikhmaya (Art of the Ancient Mayas).Iskusstvo,Leningrad.
1970a MifologicheskiesystemyMezoameriki(MythologicalSystemsin Mesoamerica).Kratkoesoderzhanie
dokladov godichnoi konferentsiinauchnoi sessii Instituta etnografiiAN SSSR (CondensedPapersof the
Annual Session of the Instituteof Ethnography,AS USSR), Leningrad.
1970b "Pesni iz Ts'itbalche"kak istoricheskiiistochnik ("Songsfrom Ts'itbalche"as a HistoricalSource).
In Folklori etnografiya(Folkloreand Ethnography),pp. 83-90. Nauka, Leningrad.
1971 Kulturadrevnikhmaya (Cultureof the Ancient Maya).Nauka, Leningrad.
1974 Etnicheskayaistoriya drevnei Gvatemaly (Ethnic History of Ancient Guatemala).In Natsionalnye
protsessyv TsentralnoiAmerikei Meksike(National Processesin CentralAmericaand Mexico, pp. 87-97.
Nauka, Moscow.
Kinzhalov, R. V., Y. V. Knorozov, and I. F. Khoroshaeva
1959 NaselenieMeksikii TsentralnoiAmerikido ispanskogozavoevaniya(Populationof MexicoandCentral
AmericaPriorto the SpanishConquest).In NarodyAmeriki(The Peoples of America),vol. 2, pp. 55-10.
IzdatelstvoAkademiinauk SSSR, Moscow.
Knorozov, Y. V.
1952 DrevnyayapismennostTsentralnoiAmeriki(AncientWritingSystemsin CentralAmerica).Sovetskaya
1955a Kratkieitogi izucheniyadrevnei pismennostimaya v Sovetskom Soyuze (BriefReporton the Study
of the Ancient Maya WritingSystem in the Soviet Union). Doklady sovetskikhdelegatovna X Mezduna-
rodnomkongresseistorikovv Rime (Soviet Reportsat the 10thInternationalHistoricalCongressin Rome).
Moscow.
195Sb Pismennostdrevnikhmaya(opytrasshifrovki)(The WritingSystemof the AncientMaya:The Process
of Decipherment).Sovetskayaetnografiya1:9F125.
l 955c Systemapismennostidrevnikhmaya (The WritingSystemofthe AncientMaya).IzdatelstvoAkademii
nauk SSSR, Moscow.
1955d "Soobshchenieo delakhv Yukatane"Diego de Landakakistoriko-etnograficheskii istochnik(Relaclon
de las cosas de Yucatanby Diego de Landa as a Historicaland EthnographicSource).In Soobshchenieo
delakh v Yukfltane(Relacion de las cosas de Yucatan),edited by Landa, pp. 3-96. IzdatelstvoAkademii
nauk SSSR, Moscow-Leningrad.
1957 Problemaizucheniyaieroglificheskoipismennostimaya(The Studyofthe MayaHieroglyphs).Voprosy
yazykoznanEya No. 5.
1959 PismennostkorennogonaseleniyaAmeriki (The System of Writingof the IndigenousAmericanPop-
ulation).In NarodyAmeriki(The Peoples of America),vol. 1, edited by A. V. Efimov and S. A. Tokarev,
pp. 24-52. IzdatelstvoAkademii nauk SSSR, Moscow.
1963 Pismennostindeitsevmaya (Writingof the MayaIndians).IzdatelstvoAkademiinaukSSSR,Moscow-
Leningrad.
1964 Panteon drevnikh maya (The Ancient Maya Pantheon).Doklad na VII Mezdunarodnomkongresse
antropologicheskikhi etnograficheskikhnauk (Paper presentedat the 7th InternationalCongressof An-
thropologicaland EthnologicalSciences),Nauka, Moscow.
1966 Religioznyepredstavleniyaindeitsev maya po dannym Las Kasasa i drugikhistochnikov (Religious
Beliefs of the Maya Indiansas Presentedby Las Casasand OtherSources).In Bartolomede las Casas, pp.
11F124. Nauka, Moscow.
1967 Pozdnyayaistoriya Yukatanapo khronikamMaya (The LaterYucatan History Accordingto Maya
Chronicles).In OtAlyaskido OgnennoiZemli (FromAlaskato Tierradel Fuego),editedby I. R. Grigulevich,
pp. 23F240. Nauka, Moscow.

1971 Zametkio kalendaremaya. Obshchiiobzor (Notes on the Maya Calendar.A GeneralOutline).Sovet-

skaya etnografiya2:77-86; 3:33-39.
1972 O statie Viktoriide la Khara(On the Articleby Victoriade la Hara).LatinskayaAmerika5:182-184.
1973 Zametkio kalendaremaya (MonumentE v Tres Zapotes)(Notes on the Maya Calendar.Monument
E in Tres Zapotes).LatinskayaAmerika6:81-90.
1975 Ieroglificheskierukopisimaya (Maya HieroglyphicManuscripts).Nauka, Leningrad.
Knorozov, Y. Y., and G. G. Ershova
1982 Praviteli polkovodetsiz Brodayaguara(A Rulerand MilitaryLeaderfromthe JaguarFord).Latinskaya
Amerika6:112-122.
1983a Zhretsy-astronomymaya (Maya Priest-Astronomers).LatinskayaAmerika6:127-137.
1983b Proritsaniezhretsa(A Priest'sProphesy).LatinskayaAmerika3:123-127.
Knorozov, Y. Y., and I. K. Fedorova
1970 Drevnee peruanskoepismo: Problemyi gipotezy (The Ancient Peruvian WritingSystem: Problems
and Hypotheses).LatinskayaAmerika5:83-94.
Kosven, M. O.
1941 Drevnee Peru (Peruin Ancient Times). Istoricheskiizhurnal3:3-25.
Kovalevsky,G.
1939 Novye pamyatnikikultury maya (New Maya CulturalMemorials). In Izvestiya Gosudarstvennogo
geograficheskogoobshchestva71(4):117-135. Leningrad.
Kuzmishchev,V. A.
1968 Taina zhretsovmaya (A Secretof Maya Priests).MolodayaGvardiya,Moscow.
1971 Govoryashchieuzly Tauantinsuyu(The Quipu of Tawantinsuyu).LatinskayaAmerika6:10s122.
1973 Eshcheraz ob inkakh(Once More About the Inca). LatinskayaAmerika2:129-150.
1974 Inka Garsilasode la Vega i ego literaturnoenasledstvo (Inca Garcilasode la Vega and His Literary
Heritage).In Inka Garsilasode la Vega:IstorEyagosudarstvainkov(Inca Garcilasode la Vega:History of
the Inca State),p. 683-711. Nauka, Leningrad.
1975a Garsilasode la Vega. In KulturaPeru (The Cultureof Peru),edited by V. A. Kuzmishchev,pp. 58-
75. Nauka, Moscow.
1975b Kampanellai Garsilaso:Vliyanie, zaimstvovanieili sluchainost?(Campanellaand Garcilaso:Influ-
ence, Borrowingor ChanceCoincidence?).LatinskayaAmerika4:198-216; 5:177-201.
1975c FelipeHuamanPoma de Ayalai ego "Khronika"(FelipeGuamanPoma de Ayalaand His Chronicle).
In KulturaPeru (The Cultureof Peru),edited by V. A. Kuzmishchev,pp. 76-94. Nauka, Moscow.
1979 U istokovobshchestvennoimysli Peru: Garsilasoi ego istorEyainkov(The Sourcesof PeruvianSocial
Thought:Garcilasoand His History of the Incas). Nauka, Moscow.
1982 Tsarstvosynov Solntsa (The Empireof the Sons of the Sun). MolodayaGvardiya,Moscow.
Leon-Portilla,M.
1961 Filosofiya nakua (The Nahua Philosophy).Moscow.
Machinsky,A. V.
1934 Noveishaya literaturapo arkheologii Meksiki i Gvatemaly (Recent Publications on Mexican and
GuatemalanArchaeology).Sovetskayaetnografiya3:114-118.
1937 Yashma v tsrastvemayev (Jasperin the Maya Empire).Nauka i tekhnika 11:25-32.
1938 Drevnie meksikanskiepiramidy(AncientMexican Pyramids).Nauka i tekhnika4:11-18.
1940a Arkheologicheskayameksikanskayakollektsiya(MexicanArchaeologicalCollection).Sovetskayaar-
kheologiya5:305.
1940b Drevnee Peru (Peru in Ancient Times). In Bolshaya SovetskayaEntsiklopediya(The Great Soviet
Encyclopedia),vol. 45. 1st ed. Moscow.
Magidovich,I. P. (editor)
1961 PuteshestvEya KhristoforaKolumba:Dnevniki,pisma, dokumenty(Voyagesof ChristopherColumbus:
Diaries, Letters,Documents).Geografgiz,Moscow.
Mariategui,J. C.
1963 Sem ocherkovistolkovanEya peruanskoideistvitelnosti(Siete ensayos de interpretacionde la realidad
peruana).IzdatelstvoInostrannoiLiteraturi,Moscow.
Masson, V. M.
1964 SrednyayaAziya i Drevnii Vostok(CentralAsia and the Ancient Orient).Nauka, Moscow-Leningrad.
1967 Pervobytnoezemledeliei zemledelieranneklassovykhobshchestv(Agriculturein Primitive-Communal
Society and in EarlyClass Societies).In Vozniknoveniei razvitiezemledelEya(The Emergenceand Devel-
opment of Agriculture),edited by V. D. Blavatskiand A. V. Nikitin, pp. 33-66. Nauka, Moscow.
1968 Problemaneoliticheskoirevolutsii (The Question of the Neolithic Revolution). Tezisy dokladov na
zasedaniyakh,posvyashchennykhitogam polevykh issledovanii 1967 goda (Abstractsof PapersPresented
at the Meetings Summarizingthe 1967 Field Season), Institut arkheologii,Institut etnografiiAkademii
nauk SSSR, Moscow.
1971 PoselenieIetun:Problemastanovleniyaproizvodyashchei ekonomiki(The JetunSettlement:Emergence
of a ProducingEconomy).Materialyi issledovaniapo arkheologiiSSSR (Materialsand Researchinto the
Archaeologyof the USSR) No. 180. Nauka, Leningrad.

20 LATIN AMERICANANTIQUITY [Vol. 1, No. 1, 1990
Meggers,B.
1967 Ktoprines iskusstvokeramikiv Ekvador5000 let nazad?Yaponskierybaki?(Who Introducedthe Art
of MakingCeramicsin Ecuador5000 YearsAgo? WereThey JapaneseFishermen?).KuryerUNESCONo.
12. United Nations Educational,Scientificand CulturalOrganization,Paris.
Metraux,A.
1963 Bylaya kulturaostrovaMarazho (Cultureof the Past on Marajo Island). KuryerUNESCO No. 11.
United Nations Educational,Scientificand CulturalOrganization,Paris.
Morley,S. G.
1937 V stranemaya (In the Countryof the Maya).Za rubezhomNos. 4-6.
Narskikh,R. S.
1972 Sistemyzemledeliyav dokolumbovoiYuzhnoi Amerike(AgriculturalSystemsin PrecolumbianSouth
America).LatinskayaAmerika3:145-160.
Nikiforov,V. N.
1975 Vostoki vsemirnayaistoriya(The East and WorldHistory).Nauka, Moscow.
Parkes,H.
1951 IstorEyaMeksiki(A History of Mexico). InostrannayaLiteratura,Moscow.
Peissel, M.
1969 Zateryannymir Kintana-Roo(The Lost Kingdom of QuintanaRoo). Mysl, Moscow.
Pichugin,P. A.
1979 Muzykalnayakulturaandskikhnarodov(MusicalCultureof Andean Peoples).Nauka, Moscow.
Popov, G. N.
1923 Kulturatochnogo znaniya v drevnem Peru (The Cultureof Exact Knowledgein Ancient Peru). In
Ocherkipo istorEirazvitEya matematicheskoimysli (Essayson the Historyof MathematicalThought).Petro-
grad.
Popova, T. A.
1963 Kamennyeorudiyaiz Viskachani(Stone Implementsfrom Viscacha).Sovetskayaetnografiya3:177-
180.
Popova, T. A., and E. E. Fradkin
1967 Drevnie kulturyKuby (Ancient Culturesin Cuba). In Kulturai byt NarodovAmeriki (Cultureand
EverydayLife of the Peoples of America), pp. 147-179. SobraniyaMuzeya antropologiii etnografiiAN
USSR vol. 24. Nauka, Leningrad.
Rostotskaya,L. V.
1975 Zoloto Peru (PeruvianGold). In KulturaPeru (The Cultureof Peru),edited by V. A. Kuzmishchev,
pp. 46-57. Nauka, Moscow.
Samarkina,I. K.
1974 Obshchinav Peru. Ocherksotsialno-ekonomicheskogorazvitlya(The Community in Peru. Social-
EconomicProgress).Nauka, Moscow.
Serov, S. Y.
1977 Dinamika etnogeneticheskogomifa inkov (The Dynamics of the Inca EthnogeneticMyth). In Etni-
cheskayaistoriyai folklor (EthnicHistory and Folklore),pp. 33-61. Nauka, Moscow.
Sharevskaya,B. I.
1936 Kulturanarodamaya (TsentralnayaAmerika)(The Cultureof the Maya. CentralAmerica).Nauka i
zhizn 7:24-29.
1958 NarodyAmerikido nachalaevropeiskoikolonizatsii(Peopleof AmericaPriorto SpanishColonization).
In VsemirnayaistorEya(WorldHistory),vol. 4. IzdatelstvoAkademiinauk SSSR, Moscow.
1959 Kulturadrevnikhnarodov oblasti And: Kulturadrevnikhchibch-muiskov(The Culturesof Ancient
Peoples of the Andes Area: The Culture of the Chibcha Muiscas). In Narody Ameriki (The Peoples of
America),vol. 2, edited by A. V. Efimov and S. A. Tokarev, pp. 261-310. Izdatelstvo Akademii nauk
SSSR, Moscow.
Sheinbaum,I. S.
1956 Indeitsy-tainyostrova Haiti do ispanskogozavoevania (The Taino IndiansPriorto the SpanishCon-
quest).SovetskayaetnografiyaNo. 4.
Sheleshneva,N. A.
1974 Muzei zolota (The Gold Museum).In KulturaKolumbEi(The Cultureof Columbia),edited by V. A.
Kuzmishchev,pp. 12F133. Nauka, Moscow.
Sidorov, A. A.
1929 ObraztsyvodnykhbozhestvdrevneiAmeriki(Some WaterSpiritsin AncientAmerica).In Rossdiskaya
assotsiatsEyanauchno-issledovatelskikhinstitutovobshchestvennykhnauk:TrudysektsEiarkheologEi Instituta
arkheologfii iskusstvoznanEya (The Russian Associationof the ResearchInstitutesof Social Sciences:Pro-
ceedingsof the ArchaeologySector at the Instituteof Archaeologyand Art Studies),vol. 4, pp. 462-471.
Moscow.
1937 IskusstvodrevneiAmeriki(Art of Ancient America).Iskusstvo,Moscow-Leningrad.
Sobolevsky,N. I.
1947 Kulturatsentralno-amerikanskikh indeitsevmayado pokoreniyaikh ispantsami(Cultureof the Central

AmericanMaya Indians Prior to the Spanish Conquest). Uchenyezapiski Moskovskogooblastnogopeda-

gogicheskogoinstituta9(4):135-156.
SovetskayaEntsiklopediya
1979 LatinskayaAmerika:Entsiklopedicheskiispravochnik(Latin America:A Handbook),vol. 1. Sovetskaya
Entsiklopediya,Moscow.
1982 LatinskayaAmerika:Entsiklopedicheskii spravochnik(LatinAmerica:A Handbook),vol. 2. Sovetskaya
Entsiklopediya,Moscow.
Sozina, S. A.
1969 Muiski:Eshche odna tsivilizatsiyadrevneiAmeriki(The Muisca:One More Ancient AmericanCivi-
lization). InstitutLatinskoiAmeriki Akademii nauk SSSR, Moscow.
1972 Na gorizonte-Eldorado (Eldoradoon the Horizon). Mysl, Moscow.
1974 Strana drevnikh Kultur (The Country of Ancient Cultures).In KulturaKolumbEi(The Culture of
Colombia),edited by V. A. Kuzmishchev,pp. 349. Nauka, Moscow.
Stingle,M.
1977 Tainy indeiskikhpiramid(Secretsof AmericanIndians'Pyramids).Progress,Moscow.
Svet, Y. M.
1964 PoslednfiInka (The Last Inca). Geografgiz,Moscow.
1967 Vstranu Ofir(To the Countryof Ofir).Mysl, Moscow.
1972 Tragediyav Vilkambambe.400-letie padeniyaposledneitsitadeliinkov (The Tragedyin Vilcabamba.
The 400th Anniversaryof the Fall of the Last Inca Citadel).LatinskayaAmerika4:96-109.
Tishkov, V. A. (editor)
1985 Istoricheskiesudbyamerikanskikhindeitsev:Problemyamerikanistiki(HistoricalDestiniesof American
Indians:Problemsof AmericasStudies).Nauka, Moscow.
1988 Ekologiyaamerikanskihindeitsev(Ecologyof the AmericanIndians).Nauka, Moscow.
Tokarev,S. A., and I. A. Zolotarevskaya(editors)
1955 IndeitsyAmeriki(The Indians of America).Trudy Institutaetnografii,vol. 25. IzdatelstvoAkademii
nauk SSSR, Moscow.
Tsarenko,E. I.
1977 Lingvisticheskiedannye k etnicheskoi istorii kechua (What LinguisticsCan Add to QuechuaEthnic
History).Sovetskayaetnografiya4:18-28.
Uvarova, I.
1964 Iskusstvo naskov (o stile keramiki)(Art of the Nasca. On the Style of Their Pottery). Iskusstvo5:
27-31.
Vaillant,G. C.
1949 Istoriyaatstekov(Aztecs of Mexico). Izdatelstvoinostrannoiliteratury,Moscow.
Vasilevsky,R. S., and V. I. Molodin
1983 Sovetsko-kubinskiearkheologicheskieissledovaniya(Soviet-CubanArchaeologicalStudies).Izvestiya
SibirskogootdelenEya AN SSSR, serEyaobshchestvennykh nauk (The News of SiberianBranchof Academy
of Sciencesof the USSR, Social Sciences Series) 1(1):98-102. Novosibirsk.
Vavilov, N. I.
1932 ProblemaproiskhozhdenEya mirovogozemledelEyav svete sovremennykhissledovanfi(The Origin of
Agriculturein the Worldin the Context of Recent Data). Moscow-Leningrad.
1935 Botaniko-geograficheskie osnovyselektsEi(Uchenieob iskhodnommaterialev selektsEi)(BasicBotanical
and GeographicalElementsin Selection:The Teachingon the PrimarySelection Material).Leningrad.
1939 Velikie zemledelcheskiekulturydokolumbovoi Ameriki i ikh vzaimootnosheniya(The Great Agri-
culturalCulturesof PrecolumbianAmericaand Their Interrelationships).IzvestEyaGosudarstvennogo geo-
graficheskogoobshchestva71:1487-1515.
1960 Meksikai TsentralnayaAmerikakak osnovnoi tsentr proiskhozhdeniyakulturnykhrasteniiNovogo
Sveta (Mexico and CentralAmericaas the Main Centerof New World Crops).In Selected Works,vol.2,
pp.136-158. Nauka, Moscow.
Vipper,B. R. (editor)
1960 IskusstvoMeksiki(Art of Mexico). Sovetskii rudozhnik,Moscow.
Vivo, G. A.
1951 GeografiyaMeksiki(The Geographyof Mexico). Moscow.
Wauchope,R.
1966 Zatonuvshiematerikii tainy ischeznuvshikhplemen (Lost Tribesand SunkenContinents).Miz, Mos-
cow.
Zamyatnin,S. N.
1948 Miniaturnyekremnevyeskulpturyv neolite severovostochnoiEvropy(MiniatureFlint Sculpturesin
the Neolithic of NortheasternEurope).In SovetskayaarkheologEya(Soviet Archaeology),vol. 10, pp. 85-
123. Institutistorii materialnoiKultury,Moscow.
Zolotarev,A. M.
1964 Rodovoistroi i pervobytnayamifologEya (The Clan Systemand Mythologyof the Primitive-Communal
Formation).Nauka, Moscow.

22 LATIN AMERICANANTlQUITY [Vol. 1, No. 1, 1990]
Zorina,A.
1935 Indeiskayaobshchinav Peru (The Indian Communityin Peru).RevolutsionnfiVostok4:17-28.
Zubritsky,Y. A.
1963 ApuOllyantai-Pamyatnik kulturynarodakechua(A Site ofthe QuechuaIndians).In Kulturaindeitsev
(Cultureof AmericanIndians),edited by A. V. Efimov and I. A. Zolotorevskaya,pp. 25F270. Izdatelstvo
Akademiinauk SSSR, Moscow.
1966 Indeiskiivopros v trudakhMariategi(The Indian Question in Mariategui'sWorks).In KhoseKarlos
Mariategui-Plamennfi boretsza torzhestvoidei marksisma-leninismav Latinskoi Amerike(Jose Carlos
Mariategui-An ArdentFighterfor the Triumphof Marxism-Leninismin Latin America),edited by I. R.
Grigulevich.Moscow.
1968 IndeitsyMeksiki (istoricheskiei ethnograficheskiezametki)(MexicanIndians:Historicaland Ethno-
graphicalNotes). In Meksika:Politika, ekonomika,kultura(Mexico:Politics, Economics,Culture),edited
by A. F. Shulgovsky,pp. 159-197. Nauka, Moscow.
1974 Apu Ollantay.In Inka Garsilasode la Vega:IstorEyagosudarstvainkov (Inca Garcilasode la Vega:
Historyof the Inca State),pp. 651-682. Nauka, Leningrad.
1975a Drevneishieperuanskietsivilizatsii(TheEarliestPeruvianCivilizations).In KulturaPeru(TheCulture
of Peru),edited by V. A. Kuzmishchev,pp. 10-27. Nauka, Moscow.
1975b Inki-kechua:Osnovnyeetapy istorEinaroda (The Quechua Inca: Main Stages of History). Nauka,
Moscow.
1975c KulturaTauantinsuyu(The TawantinsuyuCulture).In KulturaPeru(The Cultureof Peru),edited by
V. A. Kuzmishchev,pp. 2845. Nauka, Moscow.
ReceivedJune 25, 1989; acceptedNovemberl3, 1989
We are gratefulto John F. Hoffecker,Chris Pulliam, and W. Raymond Wood for the considerableaid and
advice they provided as we were preparingthis manuscriptfor publication.-EDS.


Ba Shilov 1990

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ba Shilov 1990

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Society for American Archaeology

A Bibliography of Soviet Studies of the Ancient Cultures of Latin America

This content downloaded from 185.44.78.113 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 12:15:32 PM

Russell H. Bartley,an Americanhistorian,wrote in 1978: "Twentyyearsago very few specialists

V.A. Bashilovand V.1. Gulyaev,Instituteof Archaeology,Moscow117036, Unionof SovietSocialistRepublics

Latin AmericanAntiquity, 1(1), 1990, pp. 5-22.

This content downloaded from 185.44.78.113 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 12:15:32 PM

LatinAmericanhistory"(Bartley1978:3).This partlywas true, even thoughtwo decadesago Soviet

This content downloaded from 185.44.78.113 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 12:15:32 PM

portantinstrumentin popularizingknowledgeaboutancientAmerica.In 1934 thejournalSovetskaya

This content downloaded from 185.44.78.113 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 12:15:32 PM

This monographcrownedKnorozov's long years of dedicatedwork. He demonstratedthat Maya

This content downloaded from 185.44.78.113 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 12:15:32 PM

This content downloaded from 185.44.78.113 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 12:15:32 PM

This content downloaded from 185.44.78.113 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 12:15:32 PM

interpretationsof some problems,includingthe ethnic affiliationof the Tiahuanacoculture.In later

This content downloaded from 185.44.78.113 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 12:15:32 PM

This content downloaded from 185.44.78.113 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 12:15:32 PM

the round-tableof the Vienna UNESCO Center on "The Pre-ColumbianCollections in European

This content downloaded from 185.44.78.113 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 12:15:32 PM

This content downloaded from 185.44.78.113 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 12:15:32 PM

This content downloaded from 185.44.78.113 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 12:15:32 PM

Efimov, A. V., and S. A. Tokarev(editors)

This content downloaded from 185.44.78.113 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 12:15:32 PM

1977 GorodaMaya (Maya Cities). Sovetskayaarkheologiya4:7o93.

This content downloaded from 185.44.78.113 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 12:15:32 PM

Ninth CenturiesA.D.). In Kulturaindeitsev(The Cultureof American Indians),edited by A. V. Efimov

This content downloaded from 185.44.78.113 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 12:15:32 PM

1971 Zametkio kalendaremaya. Obshchiiobzor (Notes on the Maya Calendar.A GeneralOutline).Sovet-

This content downloaded from 185.44.78.113 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 12:15:32 PM

This content downloaded from 185.44.78.113 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 12:15:32 PM

AmericanMaya Indians Prior to the Spanish Conquest). Uchenyezapiski Moskovskogooblastnogopeda-

This content downloaded from 185.44.78.113 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 12:15:32 PM

ReceivedJune 25, 1989; acceptedNovemberl3, 1989

This content downloaded from 185.44.78.113 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 12:15:32 PM

You might also like