Você está na página 1de 9

SearchOptions

Search
Menu
AlejandroHaber
English
Academicedition
Skipto:MaincontentSidecolumn


Home

ContactUs
ClaireSmith
EncyclopediaofGlobalArchaeology
10.1007/9781441904652_1013
SpringerScience+BusinessMediaNewYork2014
SouthAmericanArchaeology:PostcolonialPerspectives
AlejandroF.Haber1
(1)
EscueladeArqueologa,UniversidadNacionaldeCatamarca&ConsejoNacional
de,InvestigacionesCientficasyTcnicas,Catamarca,Argentina

AlejandroF.Haber
Email:afhaber@gmail.com
WithoutAbstract
Introduction
ProblematicEntranceasEntrancetotheProblematic
ASouthAmericanpostcolonialperspectiveonanyprobleminvolves,firstand
foremost,aconsiderationofwhetherornotSouthAmericaisaplacefromwhichit
ispossibletohavesuchaperspective.Ifsuchperspectivesareindeedpostcolonial,
thissuggeststwopossibilities:(1)thattheywerelatertoacolonialexperienceor
(2)thattheywereinspiredbyabodyoftheoryandassumptionsdesignatedas
postcolonial.Thoseoptionsareexternalbecausetheycouldmeanthatthecolonial
experienceisathingofthepastthuspostorthatpostcolonialtheoryis
somethingthatyoucanembraceorrejectasanyothertheory.However,thatthe
colonialexperience,ontheonehand,wasnotsurpassedbypoliticalindependence
and,ontheotherhand,isconstitutiveofsubjectivitybecomesimmanenttothe
perspectiveandnotexternaltoit.Whetherwecallitpostcolonialorotherwise,the
colonialexperienceisimmanenttotheplaceofthesetheories.Thepostcolonial
world,inthiscase,ismoreapretheoreticalconditionthanatheoretical
framework,i.e.,moreaconditionofthinking,ofknowledge,thanaknowledge
aboutadelimitedfieldofcontent.Moreover,onceintroducedintotheory,that
postcolonialpretheoreticalconditionis,atthesametime,metatheory,i.e.,itis
theoreticalknowledgeabouttheoryanditsconditions.Finally,asknowledgeabout
theconditionsofknowledge,itleadsthroughtothepossibilityofovercomingthe

conditionsofcoloniality,somethingwhichhasbeendesignatedasadecolonial
option.
If,evenmore,theseSouthAmericanpostcolonialperspectivesaregiveninthe
disciplinaryframeworkofarchaeology,twootherissuesmustbeweighed:(1)the
objecthistoryofarchaeologyestablishedasprehistory,i.e.,ahistoricalnarrative
ofatimewithouthistory,i.e.,asananomaloushistory,and(2)theimportanceof
discipliningandinstitutionalizationinthedemarcationoftheboundariesofthe
objecthistory,demarcationwhichis,atthesametime,ofthesubjectivityof
history.
Finally,ifwetrytomakehistoryoftheseperspectivesasthisentrysuggestswe
couldeitherconsiderhistoryasanarrativeofwhathappenedobjectivelyand
externallyorrecognizefromthebeginningthathistoryitselfitsidea,itsmethod,
anditsscopeisanintegralandactivepartofcolonialismandtheconditionsof
possibilityofpostcolonial(andevendecolonial)archaeologiesinSouthAmerica.
KeyIssuesandCurrentDebates
ColonialDesignationsandthePlaceofTheory
Ishallbeginwiththefirstoftheassumptionsreferredtointhepreceding
paragraph:thatSouthAmericaisaplacefromwhichaperspectiveonarchaeology
canemerge.This,again,leadstothecolonialquestion,atleastintwosenses.Itis
clearthatSouthAmerica(orLatinAmerica,orIberoAmerica,orHispanicAmerica,
oranyoftheusualgeographicalcategories)istheresultofthehistoryofcolonial
designations.Americawasnotageographicalnameoritsrealreferentuntil1507
whenMartinWaldseemllerbaptizeditwiththenameofAmrigoVespucci(what
theSpaniardscalledthentheIndies).Atthispoint,itmightbethoughtthatthis
discussionisaboutamerequestionofnaming,andtosomeextentitis.Italso
happensthattheactofnaminghasimplicationswithrespecttowhatis
understoodastheexternalreferencetothename.Forinstance,Americabeganto
beonethingfromthatmoment,i.e.,athingthatwasabletobedesignatedbya
singlename.And,inaddition,thatthingthatbecameAmericacould,bythemere
factofthedesignationbyEuropeancartographers,bestatedbyitsnamefrom
Europe(Mignolo2007).
ThedesignationofAmerica,therefore,likeanycolonialdesignation,involvedthe
appearanceasonethingorcategoryofwhatthenamelawfullyrepresented,as
wellastheappearanceofalawfulenunciatorofthatthing.WhateverAmericais,
then,becomeswhatisenunciatedandwrittenassuchfromtheplaceofthe
colonialpower,andthisplacebecomestheplacefromwherethecolonyis
enunciatedandwritten.Moderncolonialbureaucracyisbasedonwriting
procedures,atechnicaldevicethatneeds,amongotherthings,namesforthingsin
theworldandpeoplegivingthenames.Thus,theexistenceofbothapropername
andaproperenunciatoroftheworldouttheretargetedforappropriationisa
materialconditionofmoderncolonialism.Thecolonialdesignation,beingamere
questionofnames,isalsoaconditionofthepossibilityoftherealizationofthe
desireofcolonialexpropriation.Thethingstoexpropriatei.e.,thecolonized
worldarelawfullyenunciatedbythecolonizerand,asitfollows,illicitlybythe
colonized,whoispossessorofafalseknowledgeandanimperfectlanguageeven
toenunciatetheworldandtheonesownbody;suchisthehistoricalmaterial
conditionofcolonialism,oritsdarkface,coloniality(Schiwy&MaldonadoTorres
2006).Thisdifferentialconstitutionofbeingandknowledgeisoneofthecentral
tenetsofpostcolonialthought.ThatAmericahasbeen,muchlater,aname

appropriatedbytheUnitedStatesforitsselfdesignationhasledtoother
designationsarisingtoqualifytheotherAmerica:SouthAmerica,Americaofthe
South,andLatinAmerica.
TheexistenceofSouthAmericaasaplaceofenunciationofatheoretical
perspectiveonarchaeologyiscloselylinkedtotheselfawarenessofSouth
Americanarchaeologistsoftheirdifferentialdesignation,i.e.,ofitsconstitutionin
thedifferencefromcolonialpowers.Butinthearchaeologicalfield,thisself
consciousnesshasnotbeenbasedinanypostcolonialperspectivebutintheso
calledLatinAmericanSocialArchaeology(LSA)ofthe1960sand1970s(Politis&
PrezGolln2004).Thiscurrent,specificallyinspiredbyhistoricalmaterialism,
hasbeenperhapsthefirsttooccur,moreorlessunified,withbothatheoretical
inspirationandapoliticalsense(hence,itissocial,beyondwhateachone
understoodassuchinpoliticalterms)andaplacefromwhichtoestablishanew
perspective(thusLatinAmerican).Thismovementwillnotbeoutlinedinanymore
detailhereasotherentriesinthisvolumedealwithitsdevelopment.
AlthoughtheLSAcontinuestobeatheoreticalreferenceinLatinAmerica(andalso
inSpainCastilloetal.2008aswellasothercountries),towardsthemid1990s
themomentumofLSAwasalreadyreasonablydilutedduetothegrowing
hegemonyofprocessualarchaeologyofNorthAmericanoriginandtheanti
MarxismoftheacademiccontextsinsomecountriesofSouthAmerica(particularly
intheSouthernConeasalonglastingeffectofthemilitarydictatorshipsofovert
antiCommunistorientationandcounterinsurgencyaction).
Also,thenotionofacommonSouthAmericanbelongingwasnotpresentanymore
asaninspirationfortheoreticalreflection.Inthemid1990sSouthAmerican
archaeologywassodispersedthatarchaeologistsfromdifferentSouthAmerican
countriesreadeachotherinEuropeanand/orNorthAmericanpublications.
Moreover,itthenseemedtobeinstalledadisciplinarycommonsenseofthe
banalityofalocalorregionalperspective.Inreactiontothistherecametheseries
ofMeetingsofArchaeologicalTheoryinSouthAmericalaterknownasTAAS
(Funarietal.1999).ThemeetingsofVitoriain1998,Olavarriain2000,Bogotin
2002,Catamarcain2007,andCaracasin2010weremilestonesintheemergence
ofexchange,research,mutualknowledge,anddiscussion,ataSouthAmerican
scale(Gnecco&Haber2005).Itwasconsolidatedwiththeappearanceof
publicationswithcontinentalscope,whichwerepublishedonthecontinentby
SouthAmericanarchaeologists,startingwiththebilingualjournalArqueologa
Suramericana/ArqueologiaSulAmericana,towhichRevistadeArqueologa
HistricaArgentinayLatinoamericanaandVestgiosRevistaLatinoAmericanade
ArqueologiaHistricawereadded.Thus,thebeginningofthetwentyfirstcentury
seestherecoveryofthenotionthatSouthAmericacanbeaplacefromwhichan
archaeologicalperspectivecanbeenunciated.Indeed,theTAASmeetingsandthe
SouthAmericanpublicationshaveprovidedtheforumfordiscussionsabout
whetherornotSouthAmericaisasingularplacefromwhichknowledgeabout
archaeologycanbegenerated.
PeripheralandCriticalTheory
In1984,Triggerpublishedaninfluentialessaythatproposedwaysinwhich
relationsamongnationsgaverisetothearchaeologiesineachcountry.Colonial,
national,andimperialarchaeologieswereinfluencedbythemannerinwhicheach
countrywasgloballyrelated(Trigger1984).Thevalueofthecartographyof
Triggerwaschallengedexplicitly(Olsen1991)andimplicitly(Funari1989)from

perspectivesthatcharacterizedthegeopoliticsofarchaeologicalknowledgein
termsofthetheoriesofdependencyandtheworldsystem,introducingthe
conceptofperipheralarchaeologies.
PedroFunari(1989)characterizedperipheralarchaeology(particularlyBrazilian)
accordingtoacademicandsocialcriteria.Fromanacademicpointofview,a
peripheralarchaeologyisbilingualandsometimespolyglotwhileacentral
archaeologyismonolingual.Multiplelinguisticcompetenceoftheperipheryalso
impliesknowledgeoftheoreticalbodiesofvariousorigins,regardlessofthe
nationalityoftheauthorsatissue.Acentralarchaeology,ontheotherhand,hasa
muchmoreinsularandselfsufficientbehavior(Funari1989).Thisvisionofthe
conditionsoftheperipheralarchaeologyincomparisontocentralarchaeology
contrastssharplywithcommonvisions,accordingtowhichthecentral
archaeologiesarerolemodelstoperipheralarchaeologies.Thereis,then,a
dislocationbetweenthescopeofperipheralknowledgeandthewayinwhichthat
knowledgeisvaluedbyagents(peripheralandcentral).Thepostcolonialsenseof
thiscanbebetterunderstoodthroughFunariscriticismfromasociopolitical
perspective:
HoddercanwriteaboutthecontemporaryWest(Hodder1986:167)onlybecause
thereisanonWest,maintainingeconomicallythesocalledalternative
perspectives,(western)indigenous,(western)feminist,and(western)working
classarchaeology.ItissymptomaticthateventhoughtheconceptofWestis
acceptedsomewhatunconsciouslybywesternarchaeologies,itimples(sic)the
existenceofThirdWorld(ornonWestern)archaeology(Funari1989:65).
Thedependencebetweencentralandperipheralarchaeologieswasframedwithin
neocolonialrelationshipsbothacademicandeconomicwhichfeaturedas
coloniality.Withincolonialitycertainknowledgeandcertainenunciatorsare
underestimatedinrelationtoamoreperfectknowledgeemanatingfromthe
centralacademies.LikeLatinAmericanpostcolonialismthatwouldspreada
coupleofdecadeslater,Funari(1989)bothestablishedcriticismofthegeopolitics
ofknowledgeasaboosttotheemancipatoraction(decolonial,asitwouldbe
calledlater)andlocatedtheplaceofliberationtotheoutskirtsoftheWest:There
arethereforetworadicaltasksforperipheralarchaeologists.First,toopposeinner
andouteroppressionandsecond,topromoteanewpast,inordertoliberate
peopleinthepresent.Inthiscontext,peripheralarchaeologycanprovidecentral
archaeologywithaverypertinentcritique,bystatingthelimitationsofwestern
archaeologyor,atleast,itsonesidedness(1989:65).
AMeetingofTimes
Towardstheendofthe1990s,CristbalGneccostextHistoricalMultivocality.
TowardsaPostcolonialCartographyofArchaeologywaspublished;itwould
becometheprimaryreferenceintheintroductionofthedisciplinetothe
postcolonialdebate.Perhapsthemostsignificantcontributionofthisworktothe
postcolonialdebateresidesinthesharpnesswithwhichGneccoexposesthe
colonialsense,orbettertheendocolonialismofthescientificprogramofthe
archaeologicaldiscipline.Hewrites:Archaeologyispartofthecognitive
apparatusoftheWestandoneoftherefinedexpressionsofitstemporarythought
andWesterntimeisatoolofpoliticaldominationandthetimethatbuildsthe
archaeologyisWesterntime,notthetimeoftheothersaswellasThese
questionsarenolongerlimitedtoreflectionscarriedtotheinteriorofthe
disciplinarypractice,ashappenedduringtheyearsofformationandconsolidation

ofthescientificarchaeology,theyinvolvethesamestatusofthedisciplineinthe
contextofotherknowledgesandwithintheframeworkofthesocialcontextsof
theirproduction;theyarerelated,inshort,withwhatIwillcallpoliticaleconomy
ofarchaeology.Inthissense,themostimportantquestionwehavetoask
ourselvesabouttheroleofarchaeologyinacontemporarycontext,twice
postmodernandunsubordinated(Gnecco1999:1718).Clearly,forGneccoitis
notjustthatarchaeologyshouldrecognizetheinheritancesofcolonialistpastto
getridofthem.Nordoeshesaythatarchaeology,onlythroughrecognizinginits
historyitscolonialistorigin,isabletodeviatefromthoseformerly
unacknowledgednegativefeatures.
Gneccosprogramiscriticalenoughtoexposethemechanismsthroughwhich
archaeologyisapartofthearsenalofWesternknowledgetosubordinateother
knowledges.Inthissense,thekeyconceptthatisintroducedistheoneof
endocolonialismorinternalcolonialism.Despitethemanymulticulturalreadings
thatithassuffered,Gneccosprogramisnotamulticulturalprogramofrecognition
andrespectfordifferences;onthecontrary,whathecallsamultivocalmeetingis
afieldofpoliticalstruggleinwhicharchaeologycanenteronlyhonestlyby
renouncingitshegemonismandopeningitselftoselftransformation.Itisnot
possibleforarchaeology(ortheWesterndiscipliningoftime,ingeneral)to
recognizeinalocusvisvisothertimes,withoutabandoning,inthefirstplace,the
universalismwhichconstitutesthebehaviorcharacteristicofWesterntime,and
secondlythealocronismwithwhichitsubordinatesothertimes.Gneccostext
meant,attheendofthe1990s,aprogrammaticstatementmuchmorethanan
alreadytransitedpath.Signsofthatcanbereadinhisprovocationstothe
openness,transformation,andrelativismaswellasintheoptimismwithwhich
postprocessualismwasthencharacterizedasunsubordinatedknowingof
Westernhegemonicpractices.Suchattitudesarecommoninothertextsofthe
1990scommentedonthisentry.
RupturesandMetaphysics
Historyobjectismarkedbythecolonialexperience,i.e.,SouthAmericanhistory
occursbeforeandafterthecolonialexperience;thereisaprecolonialhistoryof
autonomyandacolonialhistoryofsubjugation.Thepostcolonialperspective
comestostatethatthecolonialexperiencedidnotperishnorwasitdilutedwith
independence.Thecolonialexperiencehasconstitutedcolonialhistoryashistory
andprecolonialhistoryasprehistory,orasaperiodwithouthistory.Archaeology
hascomebothtoliberatetheprecolonialhistoryofthecolonialgazethat
constitutesitaswithouthistoryandtoextendthecolonialsenseofhistoryover
noncolonialtimes.
Thesubjectofhistoryisalsomarkedbythecolonialexperience,i.e.,thatboththe
historyofwhathappenedsincethecolonialexperienceasthehistoryofwhat
happenedbeforethecolony,i.e.,postcolonialandprecolonialhistories(thelatter
onwhicharchaeologyclaimsexclusivity),arefocused,studied,andnarratedfrom
postcolonialperspectives.Theobservationsofferedbyarchaeologyabout
precolonialhistoryare,inevitably,stillapostcolonialgaze.Thisisbecausethe
subjectivitiesofboththehistorianandtheprecolonialarchaeologistare
constitutedbythesamecolonialexperience.
Theconstituentcharacterofthecolonialexperienceinrelationtoarchaeologyis
indicatedinitsdisciplinarydemarcation.Additionally,itisalsointerestingto
exploreitsconstitutivecharacter,thatis,thewayinwhichcolonialityimplicitly

constitutesorshapesthefactsofexperience,andthenthescientific
understandingsofhistory.Tothefirstconstituentrelationship,calleddirect,a
constitutiverecursiverelationshipisadded,oncethematricesthatdefineand
framescientificdisciplinesareestablished,andareputintomotion,theknowledge
ofobjectsisalreadymediatedbythisdivisionoflabor,althoughitsoriginsare
unnoticed,thusfacilitatingitsreproductionwithalltheappearanceofnaturalness
(Haber1999).Haberexploredhowcolonialityactsuponarchaeology,throughthe
analysisofthetheoreticalmethodologicalmodelfortheinterpretationofthe
colonialarchaeologyofnorthwesternArgentina(calledCaspinchangomodel
followingthefactthatitwasbasedontheclassicalinterpretationofasocalled
typesite,Haber1999).TheclassicreportontheCaspinchangosite,writtenbyone
ofthefoundersofthearchaeologicaldiscipline,SalvadorDebenedetti,thusbecame
acanonicaltextforarchaeologyaboutthelongwarperiodbetweenCalchaquiand
Castile,designatedastheHispanicindigenousperiodbyarchaeology.Itenhanced
indexesofsubjection(Christianrosaryglassbeads)anddecomposition(thedecay
ofceramicmanufacturing).ClassicalexcavationsatCaspinchango,however,
offeredsomenotablestratigraphicsequencesthatcouldunderminethe
interpretationofanirreversibletrendtowardstheWest,somethingthatwas
predictedandmeticulouslyobservedbyFlixOutes(Haber1999).Despitesignsto
thecontraryofthiscritique,however,theCaspinchangomodelwonmonolithically
inthearchaeologicaldiscipline.Thequestionisnotsimplyaboutthefactsbutalso
aboutthosedeep,extrascientific,andimmanentconditionsforthecreationofthe
factsofexperience.Iftheinterpretationofthehistoryobjectfollowsan
interpretativecanonbeyondthefacts,itisbecausetheconditionsbywhichthose
factsarefactsdonotcorrespondexclusivelytothematerialityofthingsnortothe
objectivityoftherecordbuttoaculturalassumption,anepistemicunderstanding
ofhistoricaltimeasfoundedonamomentousevent,aruptureorgapthat,beyond
facts,is,asaconsequence,metaphysical.
Indigenoushistoricalarchaeologyisthereforeanimpossibleendeavor,anotime
thatshouldbemoved,eithertowardsaprehistoricalpastortoanonindigenous
ethnicgroup(Criollo,Mestizo,Christian,etc.).Preterizationoftheindigenous(past
andpresent)isnecessaryfortheconsolidationofaculturalcollectivethatneedsto
expurgateitsindigenousparaChristian,ornonChristian,anddoubtfullyWestern
content.Themetaphysicalruptureinwhichthecolonialunderstandingofhistoryis
basedbecomesthusencodedwithinthedisciplinaryframesofarchaeology,i.e.,its
demarcationofobjectandmethod.Inthisway,beinganarchaeologist,thatisto
say,exercisingknowledgewithintheboundariesdefinedbythedisciplinary
framework,isexercisingaknowledgefoundedinmetaphysicalrupture,ina
culturalformthatcolonialdifferenceadoptsinhistoryaswrittenfromthecanon
ofthenationalstate.But,ifarchaeologycarrieseveninadvertently,initsmost
basicinternalstructure,coloniality,thereisnootherwayforarchaeologythanto
reproduceandexpandthosecolonialconditionsofknowledge.
FutureDirections
AnUncertainWayOut
ThepostcolonialdebatehassomespecificareasuniquetoSouthAmerica.Long
beforepostcolonialtheorywasspreadinginglobalacademy,variousaspectsof
SouthAmericanthoughtinterrogatedsimilarissues.Thenineteenthcentury
essayists,andalsomanyanddiversecurrentsofthoughtintheearlydecadesof
thetwentiethcenturyincludingthereconstructionoftheAndeanMarxismby

Maritegui,thecannibalistcurrentinBrazil,ForjaGroupinArgentina,tonamea
fewwereofgreatinfluenceinSouthAmerica.Dependencytheoryand
developmentweretheoreticalelaborationsthatreceivedstrongimpetusinthe
middleofthelastcentury.Thetheologyofliberation,magicalrealismliterature,
andsocialmuralismaresomecurrentsthattransformedcriticalpositionsfrom
otherareasandmanytimesonaLatinAmericanscale.Theseandmanyother
thoughts,togetherwiththeexperienceofhundredsofsocialmovementsand
indigenousandpeasantmovements,contributetothefactthatthereceptionofthe
postcolonialdebatehasnotadoptedtheknownformofthesimpletranslationof
textsfromtheEnglishspeakingacademy.
Manyofthepostcolonialthinkersweregroupedintowhatisknownasthe
Modernity/ColonialityProgram,althoughthislabelleavesouthundredsof
relevantintellectuals,amongthemtheonesthatweregatheredbytheAymara
OralHistoryWorkshop.So,postcolonialSouthAmericantheory,ratherthan
aligningitselfwithanyglobalintellectualcurrent,isaparticularspaceofthought
andtheoreticalpracticethatdialogueswithvariousintellectualcurrents(including
postcolonialtheory,structuralhistory,andqueerstudies).Suchaspaceis
characterizedbyatheoreticalinterchangewithsocialmovements,indigenous
peoples,andpeasantorganizationsinanactiveanticolonialstruggle.Itiswithin
thisexperiencethatthepostcolonialprospectsinSouthAmericanarchaeology
mustbeunderstood,asparticipatingintheseconversationsratherthanthesimple
applicationofatheoreticalapproachtothefield.Atthesametime,basedonthe
historicalcontinentalexperience,SouthAmericanperspectiveswithin
archaeology,aswellastherestofthefields,maintainacommitmentbeyondthe
deconstructivecriticalmoment,inwhathasbeencalledthedecolonialturn.
Theinvolvementwithindigenousmovementshasbeenoneofthemostvisible
experiencesinthedecolonialsense.Unlikethemulticulturalistspositions,
decolonialpositionshaveattemptedtomovebeyondtheaimofrespectforthe
rightstodiversityandhistoricreparation,towardsrecognizingindigenousthought
asrealtheoreticalperspectivescapableofestablishingsymmetryandevenmove
theWestern,disciplinary,andintellectualconstructions,andnotsimplyasobjects
ofknowledgeorasubjectoflaw.Whatinothercaseshasbeendefinedinthe
contextoftherestitutionofmaterialculturetoindigenousdescendantsis
reconfiguredinSouthAmericaasanencounterbetweenarchaeologiesawareof
theirpositionsinthepostcolonialfield(Gnecco&Hernndez2008).Whatin
scienceisunderstoodasatraditionalculturefromtraditional,ethnoscientific,or
ethicperspectivesisconfiguredastheoriesofrelationalitythatcannotbeknown
withoutanepistemicpoliticalshiftthatinvolvesanopennesstomovethebroader
culturalanddisciplinarycertainties(Haber2009).
Theinvolvementwithsocialmovements(peasants,antimegamining,indigenous
peoples)leadingtheanticolonialstruggleinruralareaswherearchaeologyis
usuallypracticedhasledustoconsiderepistemicprioritiesandothervaluesother
thanthetraditionalbasic(truthoriented)andapplied(marketanddevelopment
oriented)science,suchaslifeorevenagoodlife.Inallofthesedevelopments,
archaeologynotonlyexpandsoninnovativefieldsguidedbythegoalofhelping
eachotherbutalsoentersintoatheoreticalandepistemicconversationwhich
transformsit(Curtoni&Chaparro2011;Jofre2010).
Finally,itisnecessarytomentiontheeffortsthat,evenataninitialstage,applyto
theformationofnetworksofresearchanddebatethatlinkacademicsand

movementsofvariousSouthAmericancountrieswithothercountriesofthe
geopoliticalSouth,seekingtoconfigurelocalesofthoughtandpracticethatarenot
mediatedbythecentralacademy.Acaseinthisregardistheestablishmentofthe
SouthSouthNetworkonCulturalHeritageandGlobalizationandtheformationof
SouthAmerica/SouthAfricanetworks.
ThisentrycannotbeahistoryofpostcolonialarchaeologyinSouthAmerica
withoutaddressingthehistoryofthecolonialconstitutionofhistory,archaeology,
andSouthAmericaascolonialcategories.Butthatahistoryofhistory(orbetteran
archaeologyofarchaeology)isnotamereintellectualmovementlockedinthe
campusesfromwhereitobserveswhatishappeningoutthere.IfanySouth
Americanperspectiveonthingsreallyexists,ithastobeoneaccordingtowhich
thedramaofthecollectivehistorypassesthrougheachmoleculeofthought.Thisis
acaseasdemandingforthearchaeologicaldisciplineaspromisingforthosewho
thinkitissimplyunbearabletoabandontheanticolonialyearnings.Decoloniality
andindisciplinecouldbethekeywordsofthehistorythatisyettobewritten.
CrossReferences
Funari,PedroPauloA.(HistoricalArchaeology)
LatinAmericanSocialArchaeology
PostcolonialArchaeologies
References
Castillo,S.,P.Fournier&M.J.Blackman.2008.Periodicidadypropiedad:
problemasidentificatoriosenlaArqueologaSocialIberoamericana,inF.A.Acuto&
A.Zarankin(ed.)SednonsatiataII.Acercamientossocialesalaarqueologa
latinoamericana:8192.Crdoba&Catamarca:Encuentro/Humanidades.
Curtoni,R.&G.Chaparro.2011.Polticasdereparacin.Reclamacinyreentierro
derestosindgenas:ElcasodeGregorioYancamil.Corpus.Archivosvirtualesdela
alteridadamericanaI.
Funari,P.P.A.1989.Brazilianarchaeologyandworldarchaeology.Someremarks.
WorldArchaeologicalBulletin3.
Funari,P.P.A.,E.G.Neves&I.Podgorny.1999.IntroduaoAprimeiraReuniao
InternacionaldeTeoraArqueolgicanaAmricadoSul:Questoesedebates.
RevistaDoMuseudeArqueologaeEtnologa,SaoPaulo,Suplemento3:112.
Gnecco,C.1999.Multivocalidadhistrica.Haciaunacartografapostcolonialdela
arqueologa.Bogot:Uniande.
Gnecco,C.&A.Haber.2005.Editorial.ArqueologaSuramericana1(1):34.
Gnecco,C.&C.Hernandez.2008.Historyanditsdiscontentsstonestatues,native
histories,andarchaeologists.CurrentAnthropology49(3):439.
Haber,A.F.1999.Caspinchango,larupturametafsicaylacuestincolonialenla
arqueologasudamericana:elcasodelnoroesteargentino.RevistadoMuseuda
ArqueologaeEtnologa.Suplemento3:129142.
2009.Animism,relatedness,life:postWesternperspectives.Cambridge
ArchaeologicalJournal19(3):418430.
Jofr,I.C.(ed.)2010.Elregresodelosmuertosylaspromesasdeloro:Patrimonio
ArqueolgicoenConflicto.Crdoba&Catamarca:Encuentro/Humanidades.
Mignolo,W.2007.LaideadeAmricaLatina.Laheridacolonialylaopcin
decolonial.Barcelona:Gedisa.
Olsen,B.1991.Metropolisesandsatellitesinarchaeology:onpowerand
asymmetryinglobalarchaeologicaldiscourse,inR.W.Preucel(ed.)Processualand

postprocessualarchaeologies.Multiplewaysofknowingthepast:211224.
Carbondale:CentreforArchaeologicalInvestigations.
Politis,G.&J.PrezGolln.2004.LatinAmericanarchaeology:between
colonialismandglobalization,inL.Meskell&R.Preucel(ed.)Acompaniontosocial
archaeology:353373.Oxford:JohnWiley&Sons.
Schiwy,F.&N.MaldonadoTorres.2006.(Des)colonialidadDelSeryDelSaber:
(VideosIndgenasyLosLmitesColonialesdelaIzquierda)enBolivia.BuenosAires:
EdicionesdelSigno.
Trigger,B.1984.Alternativearchaeologies:nationalist,colonialist,imperialist.
Man19(3):355370.

Over8.3millionscientificdocumentsatyourfingertips
BrowsebyDiscipline

OurContent

Journals

Books

BookSeries

Protocols

ReferenceWorks
OtherSites

Springer.com

SpringerImages

SpringerProtocols

SpringerMaterials

SpringerReference
Help&Contacts
ContactUs


FeedbackCommunity

Impressum
Springer,PartofSpringerScience+BusinessMedia
PrivacyPolicy,Disclaimer,GeneralTerms&Conditions
Loggedinas:AlejandroHaberAlejandroHaber(3001239400)190.139.50.183

<divid="jsnotice"class="promptbar"><p>JavaScriptiscurrently
disabled<span>,thissiteworksmuchbetterifyouenableJavaScriptinyour
browser.</span></p></div><divid="webtrekk"><img
src="http://springergmbh01.webtrekk.net/935649882378213/wt?p=315,rd_spri
nger_com.reference_work.entry_full_text"height="1"width="1"alt=""/></div>
FEEDBACK