The Middle Holocene was a time of change in both the Pampas and Patagonia. In some way, these changes were the prelude to the demographic expansion, regional diversification, economic intensification, and social complexity that characterized the following period, the Late Holocene. During the Middle Holocene times, archaeological evidence in the Pampas was scarce until a decade ago or so, but recent research increased information significantly (e.g., Ávila 2011; Ávila et al. 2011; Bonomo et al. 2013; Donadei Corada 2020; Gutiérrez et al. 2010; Mazzanti et al. 2015; Messineo et al. 2019a, b, c; Politis et al. 2012; Scheifler 2019). This period is characterized by global warming, known as the Hypsitermal or Holocene Thermal Maximum (Renssen et al. 2012). As a result, in the Pampas, the sea level raised above the current level at around 7000 BP. However, there is no agreement about the magnitude of this raising (between 2.2 to 6 masl depending on the author) and the chronology of the maximum ingression (see revisions in Aguirre and Whatley 1995; Melo et al. 2003). For Isla and Espinosa (1995), it began at the onset of the Holocene, reaching its maximum height (around 2 masl) around 6500–6000 BP. This resulted in the coast having sometimes a transgressive position, such as in the east of the Salado Depression and the Paraná Delta (Cavallotto et al. 2004, 2005; Iriondo and Kröhling 2008), while in other cases, it was very close to the present according to the variations of the littoral morphology.

During the Late Holocene time, regional differentiation, which became visible during the Middle Holocene, produced a wide variety of historical trajectories and adaptive patterns in the Pampas and Patagonia. It is clear that around 4000 BP human populations were selectively using all the diverse, available habitats. In this period, the archaeological visibility increased significantly, a fact that also suggests a rise in the population density of both regions (see discussion in Chapter 7).

This book summarizes the current archaeological and ethnographic knowledge regarding the indigenous people who inhabited the South American Southern Cone since the end of the Pleistocene (Figure 1.1). This land, roughly between 32° and 56° S latitude, comprises the Pampas and Patagonia. Since the beginning of the European conquest in the sixteenth century, both regions have attracted the attention of conquerors and explorers even though there were no precious rocks or metals within them, nor were they inhabited by indigenous populations who could be easily exploited or subjugated to slavery or encomiendas. This is not to say that there were no fabulations – notably, the legend of the Ciudad de Los Césares, or Trapalanda, where supposedly fabulous riches could be found. This legend originated around the sixteenth century when stories after the inland trip by Francisco César, a captain from the Sebastian Gaboto expedition, began to circulate. Also, the castaways from the shipwreck of one of Francisco Camargo’s expeditions fueled these legends. The sad reality was that no evidence existed about the fate of those castaways.

As we show in Chapter 2, there has been a long tradition of the archaeological research in both the Pampas and Patagonia since the end of the nineteenth century. From the very beginning of the investigations, the Late Pleistocene human occupation was at the top of the research agenda in both regions. Giant ground sloth skins from Cueva del Milodón and human skulls supposedly found in very ancient (Tertiary) layers in the Pampas seashore ignited the imagination of scientists of those times, and fieldwork looking for spectacular findings as well as reckless interpretations abounded. Since then, the first human occupation has been the main focus of the archaeological investigation in both regions. This chapter summarizes and discusses the results of this almost continuous, intense, and fertile archaeological research.

The conclusion proposes alternative ways to think about Christian normativity, drawing on the concepts of polydoxy and religious autonomy from Alvin Reines, with additional support from Catherine Keller and Laurel Schneider, and the concept of theological disobedience, derived from Louis Michael Seidman’s notion of constitutional disobedience.

The conservative side of the quest for true Christianity – what traditionalists call the “rule of faith” – can also be organized in terms of doctrine, culture, and politics. The second chapter begins by looking at the doctrinal quest, which focuses on the retrieval of “historic Christianity.” John Henry Newman, Karl Barth, and C. S. Lewis represent key moments in the rise of retrievalism among Protestants.

This chapter examines the liberal approaches to Christian prescriptivism, which have typically fallen under the label of the “essence of Christianity.” The quest for the essence has its origins in the Reformation but becomes a widespread theological concern in the Enlightenment. This first chapter examines liberal, historicist, dialectical, and liberationist versions of this quest. Using Schleiermacher’s rubric, I organize different versions of the essence along the lines of reason (doctrine), experience (culture), and morality (politics).

Doctrine became increasingly less important, giving way to the second form of the conservative quest: the turn to culture as the defining feature of Christianity. The third chapter traces the development of postliberalism through the lens of mainline Protestantism’s interest in the authority and interpretation of scripture, beginning with biblical theology and concluding with the postliberal project of theological interpretation of scripture. This development explains how the norms of Christianity became understood as cultural norms, thus paving the way for orthodoxy becoming a form of culture war.

The last chapter recapitulates the arguments in a normative, rather than historical, mode, examining the underlying logic of orthodoxy implicit in each version of conservative Christianity’s pursuit of authentic, historic faith. The chapter argues that orthodoxy is an inherently ambiguous concept that requires an authoritarian leader to determine arbitrary boundaries by policing and punishing the heterodox. So long as orthodoxy remains the normative goal, the culture-war politics of the Christian Right will remain.