Arqueologia Publica en America Latina

Public Archaeology in Latin America
Oxford Handbooks Online

Pedro Paulo A. Funari and Marcia Bezerra
The Oxford Handbook of Public Archaeology
Edited by Robin Skeates, Carol McDavid, and John Carman
Print Publication Date: Jan 2012 Subject: Archaeology, Contemporary and Public Archaeology
Online Publication Date: Sep 2012 DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199237821.013.0006
Abstract and Keywords
Latin America is a huge subcontinent encompassing a wide variety of physical landscapes

and environments, and with different peoples, languages, and cultures, such as
Portuguese, Spaniards, Hispanics, and Brazilians. This article deals with Hispanic and
Portuguese Americas in both a contrasting and integrative way. The Iberian roots of Latin
America explain many shared general traits, mores, customs, and ways of life. Perhaps
the most important shared cultural outlook is a syncretic form of Roman Catholicism, but
several others too are true, such as the Roman legal system, a Mediterranean approach
to life, even a shared mixed experience in living with Muslims and Jews, as well as in the
fight against both. There are some steps to be taken to preserve heritage and the rights
of both Indigenous peoples and humanity, considering that human heritage is of universal
interest. These efforts presuppose proximity, identification, and agreement.
Keywords: Latin America, Iberian roots, Roman Catholicism, Mediterranean, heritage
Pedro Paulo A. Funari is Professor of Historical Archaeology at the State

University of Campinas, Brazil, and research associate of Illinois State University,
USA, and the University of Barcelona, Spain. He has published several books in
Brazil and abroad, as well as more than 300 articles. He is co-editor with Martin
Hall and Siân Jones of Historical Archaeology: Back from the Edge (London,
Routledge, 1999) and with Andrés Zarankin and Emily Stovel of Global
Archaeological Theory (New York, Springer, 2005). His research interests are the
archaeology of historical societies and public archaeology. A former World
Archaeology Congress secretary, he is committed to fostering archaeological
engagement with society.
Marcia Bezerra, D.Sc. in Archaeology, is Professor of Archaeology at

Universidade Federal do Pará, in Amazon, Brazil, and Adjunct Faculty Member of
the Department of Anthropology at Indiana University. She is the current
Secretary of SAB (Society for Brazilian Archaeology) and Southern American
Page 1 of 17
PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in
Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).
Subscriber: UC - Los Angeles (UCLA); date: 26 March 2019

Junior Representative/WAC. She directs public archaeology projects in Marajo

Island, in Amazon, and is Associate Director of the Chau Hiix Archaeological
Project, in Belize (w/Anne Pyburn). She is a member of the editorial board of LAQ/
SAA, Archaeologies/WAC, and Amazonica-Journal of Anthropology/UFPA. Her
interests are Amazonian archaeology, zooarchaeology, heritage education,
Indigenous archaeology, archaeological tourism, public archaeology.
Latin America: history and features

Latin America is a huge subcontinent encompassing a wide variety of physical landscapes
and environments, and with different peoples, languages, and cultures, even if outside
observers tend to look at it as a single identifiable entity. In the first three (p. 101)
centuries of European colonization, the main division within this continent was between
those areas controlled by the Portuguese and those controlled by the Spaniards. In the
nineteenth century, with the struggle for the end of direct European rule, movements for
political independence attempted to create new national identities, almost out of the blue,
sometimes resulting in the expansion of regional identities; in the case of Brazil, a
national identity was created out of an opposition to Spanish-speaking and republican
Hispanic America, the Brazilian Empire conceiving itself as a Portuguese-speaking
kingdom in the New World.
Whatever the case may be, the very concept of ‘Latin America’ was foreign to the
subcontinent. However, there are several common features that permeate, to a variety of
degrees, South American societies, both in terms of their history and cultural
characteristics. The Iberian colonization brought with it both a specific world view and a
way of dealing with social life in general. Portuguese and Spanish conquistadores (or
conquerors) brought with them a medieval Catholic outlook, directly linked to the
Crusades and the reconquista (or recovery) of Muslim lands in the Iberian Peninsula
itself, resulting in a strongly Catholic civilization in the Americas.
A brief overview of Latin America

More than a region, Latin America is one of the many concepts resulting from the
Enlightenment and the French Revolution, a new way of understanding the world and
dividing it. Nowadays, Latin America is felt as natural a concept as the metre, a major
invention by the French in their search for universal ways of measuring the world. Latin
America is a concept used for the first time in 1856, in Spanish, and 1861, in French. It
was an attractive name, as it did not refer to the Iberian colonizers, but to a rather vague
‘Latin’ origin (Heydenreich 1995: 231–4). It took several decades for it to be adopted. In
fact, Brazil rejected the term during the nineteenth century, and to this day still a clear
separation exists between Brazil and Latin America, understood as ‘Spanish-speaking
America’. However, Latin America is now a label used in most countries by both scholars
and ordinary people as a shortcut for describing the independent countries extending
Page 2 of 17

from the southern border of the United States of America to Cape Horn, formerly part of
the Spanish and Portuguese empires, as well as the old French colony of Haiti (Pendle
1963: 13).
However, this traditional definition is not entirely consistent or satisfactory as an

analytical device. In the last five hundred years or so, the first three centuries were
characterized by the rule of two competing Iberian crowns, the Spanish and the
Portuguese, whose legacy is still very much felt to this day (Weckmann 1992, 1993;
Funari 1998). Latin America here, then, refers to Spanish and Portuguese civilizations in
the western hemisphere. the two Iberian Peninsula kingdoms spread not only their
administration, but also their language and culture to large areas and it is thus possible
to differentiate two Iberian Americas: the areas under the control of the Castilians and
those under Portuguese rule, the former being also named Hispanic, and the latter known
as Brazil.
This chapter deals with Hispanic and Portuguese Americas in both a contrasting
(p. 102)
and integrative way. The Iberian roots of Latin America explain many shared general
traits, mores, customs, and ways of life, so much so that for outside observers, Brazilians,
Mexicans, and Argentines are seen in quite the same light. Perhaps the most important
shared cultural outlook is a syncretic form of Roman Catholicism, but several others too
are true, like the Roman legal system, a Mediterranean approach to life, even a shared
mixed experience in living with Muslims and Jews, as well as in the fight against both.
The differences, however, are no less impressive, as Portugal forged its own identity, in
the first centuries of the second millennium AD, in direct opposition to the Castilians.
Common features
The divine mission of the Church and the monarchy was the basis of political doctrine in
Portugal, and it remained so for several centuries during the modern period. Iberian
kings were dutiful followers of the Church and in return the Church granted money to the
Crown, sent its knights and tenants to serve in the royal armies, and provided
experienced counsellors for the court. Iberian kingdoms, Spain and Portugal, owed their
spiritual character to the Church. Popular support for the monarchy was reinforced by
the theoretical conception of the Church on the two powers, secular and clerical.
Typically the serf tilled a plot of land owned by a lord or baron who gave him a life tenure
and military protection as long as he paid an annual rent in products, labour, or money. In
the large latifundia (vast estates) resulting from the conquest of enemy land, peasants
could be evicted at the owner's will. Around the baronial villa peasants had their village,
part of a manor. The landed proprietor was known as dominus (Lord) in Latin-language
documents, señor in Romance. The feudal law of property recognized several forms of
land possession. Unconditional ownership was reserved for the king, while lords were
considered as tenants and inheritance was through the Germanic principle of
primogeniture. Younger sons were encouraged to venture forth and carve out new estates
in conquered lands. Torture was revived in the thirteenth century, when Roman and
Page 3 of 17

ecclesiastical law were extended to large areas of the Peninsula. Out of Germanic
customs of military initiation, crossed with Muslim influences, chivalry flowered. A knight
was a person of aristocratic birth, but not all men of good ancestry were eligible. Younger
sons were normally sidelined.
Marx (1978: 52) refers to feudal relics in capitalist society, but in the Iberian world those
‘relics’ continued for centuries, hindering the development of capitalism. In feudal
society, relations which were far removed from the nature of feudalism were given a
feudal form, probably the best example being simple money relations. Even though there
was no trace of mutual personal service, as between lord and vassal, both worked under a
patronage and patriarchal framework (Marx 1978: 408). The elites were concerned with
nobility (hidalguía, fidalguia) and purity of Catholic blood (limpieza de sangre), and
disdained business and manual occupations. Most analysts of Iberian feudalism have paid
(p. 103) particular attention to the special privileges of the grandees (nobles), the growing
abyss between the rich and noble few and the poverty-stricken masses, the enormous
numbers of the clergy, the absence of an enterprising bourgeoisie, the fatalistic
acceptance of exploitation, the pervasion of the government bureaucracy by the nobility
and privileged few, the crippling effects of the sale of offices, and the formidable powers
of grandees on their latifundia.
Spanish kings gave charters of self-government to many towns and municipal

independence, a long-term feature of Spanish administration. Spanish monarchy was
imperial, encouraging the maintenance of local traditions, languages or dialects, customs.
In this respect, Spain was inspired by the Roman example. The earliest instance of
representative political institutions in Europe was the summoning of the Cortes, courts, in
1188, the Cortes de León (Merriman 1911). The courts comprised nobles, clergy, and
businessmen. At Castile, they were called for the first time in 1250. Portugal, on the other
hand, was a centralized state. In the first meeting (concilio) of León to which
representatives of cities were summoned, in 1188, King Alfonso IX promised to consult
the bishops, nobles, and ‘good men’, the three estates (or brazos, arms) of the state. In
the fifteenth century the turbulence of the nobility in both Portugal and Castile became so
great as to lead to a reaction among the towns and the clergy in favour of the Crown and
so to a fatal weakness in the power of the Cortes in the two kingdoms. Already in the late
fifteenth century, the initiative in legislation was in the hands of the royal council and the
Iberian monarchies legislated by decree. The Cortes were reduced to an assembly of
subservient flatterers.
Foreign influences and native archaeology

During the colonial period (1500–1822), there are few references in the written sources
to archaeological sites. The evidence provided by such documents, including drawings
and paintings, must be interpreted with reference to their social context, as they are
generally biased against Native Americans, Africans, and poor people (Funari 1994b). The
Brazilian Empire (1822–89) witnessed the beginning of archaeological activities, when
Page 4 of 17

Peter Wilhelm Lund came to the country, in 1825, and established a palaeontological
laboratory in Lagoa Santa, a village in Minas Gerais Province, where he found human and
animal fossils (Funari 1994a). Between 1834 and 1844 Lund surveyed some 800 caves
and collected a great deal of material, especially extinct fauna. Later, the Imperial
Museum in Rio de Janeiro was active in archaeological research, thanks to C. Wiener and
his pioneering studies of lithic material in the 1870s (Ferreira 2002, 2007). The Canadian
Charles Friedrich Hartt, Ferreira Penna, and Barbosa Rodrigues explored the Amazon
Basin, from the 1870s to the 1890s. C. Rath studied shell middens, known by the tupi
name sambaqui, while the Museum Director, Ladislau Neto, (p. 104) was the first Brazilian
to explicitly write about archaeology as such (Funari 1994a). Archaeology was also
carried out in the context of the Brazilian Geographical and Historical Institute, and its
journal, Revista do IHGB, published regularly on archaeological matters. All these
activities were due not to a small degree to Emperor Peter II and his enlightened
approach to scholarship. Isolated research was carried out also in the south of the
country, published from the 1870s in Germany and in Rio Grande do Sul Province.
The early republican period (1889–1920s) witnessed a weakening of archaeological

scholarship in the country. During the nineteenth century the scholars dealing with
archaeology were in touch with what was going on in the international academic world.
Ladislau Neto regularly exchanged letters with the leading French intellectual Ernst
Renan and the contacts with foreign experts were deemed important. The shift of the
cultural centre of Brazil from the court in Rio de Janeiro to the new coffee-producing elite
in São Paulo helps to explain the new inward-looking aspects of archaeology, even though
paradoxically the field was dominated by foreigners. Museum directors were now the
main actors, like the Swiss Emil Goeldi at Belém, where he was in charge of the Museu
Paraense (later named after him ‘Museu Emílio Goeldi’) and Hermann von Ihering,
Director of the Paulista Museum, in São Paulo, from 1895 to 1916. Von Ihering was out of
touch with modern research abroad, as he opposed the idea that shell mounds were
evidence of prehistoric human settlements. T. Sampaio, another leading scholar in the
1910s and early 1920s, contrary to what academics were proposing abroad, believed
wholeheartedly that rock scratches should be interpreted as hieroglyphic writing.
Between the 1920s and the 1940s important changes occurred in Brazil: political, social,
and cultural upheavals. Modernism and, later, fascist and communist ideas led to the
emergence of ‘the people’ in intellectual discourse. Accordingly, this period saw two new
developments: the beginning of the study of artefact collections and the publication of the
first archaeological manuals. Angyone Costa and Frederico Barata produced several
papers in those years, and the Argentine Antonio Serrano studied collections of artefacts
and thus established a whole new field of research within Brazilian archaeology.
The inception of university research (1950s–64) is related to Brazil's longest period of

democracy (1945–64). Academic archaeology was established by the leading humanist
Paulo Duarte. Due to his friendship with Paul Rivet, Director of the Musée de l’Homme,
Paris, France, Duarte created the Prehistory Commission at São Paulo State University in
1952 (Funari and Silva 2007). Duarte pushed for legal protection of the Brazilian
Page 5 of 17

heritage, and as a result of his efforts the Brazilian Congress enacted a federal law
(3537/57, approved as law 3924 in 1961) protecting archaeological sites. To this day, it is
still the only explicit federal law on the protection of archaeological heritage.
The military period (1964–85) changed the situation. The project of scholarly archaeology
as proposed by Duarte was opposed by the new authorities who used the lack of funds to
undermine his efforts. At the same time, the Americans Clifford Evans and Betty Meggers
were able to set up a National Program of Archaeological Research, (p. 105) known by its
acronym PRONAPA. The Program was sponsored by the Smithsonian Institution, in
Washington, and by Brazilian institutions, like the National Research Council (CNPq). In
the period between 1965 and 1971 PRONAPA trained Brazilian practitioners and carried
out surveys and excavations throughout the country, with few resulting publications. One
of the novelties introduced by Meggers and Evans was James Ford's method for ceramic
analyses, and it became the pièce de résistance of Brazilian archaeology. A controversial
method by then criticized in the United States, it was adopted in Brazil without any
restrictions and discussions.
Duarte, on the other hand, was expelled from the University of São Paulo in 1969 and the
Institute of Prehistory he created suffered restrictions. Archaeology suffered a lot, as a
result of authoritarian trends inside the profession. The picture gets a bit worse because,
different from other South American countries, such as Peru, for instance, approaches
generated in political theory or other social sciences had no place or space in Brazilian
archaeology. However, democracy (1985 onwards) favoured the flourishing of
archaeological interest, and freedom led to the development of a variety of new activities
regarding archaeological resources. Interpretative books have been published, as well as
a greater number of articles in scholarly journals, for the first time not only in Brazil but
also abroad.
Heritage legislation in Brazil

Even though from the nineteenth century Brazilian identity has been linked to
archaeological heritage, formal legislation was to be introduced later. In the Portuguese
Court in Rio de Janeiro, Romantic nationalism was grounded on the idealization of
natives, and archaeology played a role. After an eclipse in the beginning of the twentieth
century, prehistoric and historic archaeological heritage contributed to forging Brazilian
identity. In this context, it is natural that the earliest document relating to the official
protection of archaeological heritage, dating from the eighteenth century in Portugal,
tries to protect ‘any old building, statues, inscription in Phoenician, Greek, Latin, Gothic
or Arabic, as well as coins’, whose application in the Portuguese colony in South America
is not probable. In the nineteenth century, despite the attention paid by the court to
scholarship in general and the foundation of the Historical and Geographical Institute,
there was no law regarding the subject (Funari and Pelegrini 2006). Museum officials, as
well as amateurs and others, often collected and registered archaeological artefacts.
Archaeological resources have been the subject of several bills, the first of them in 1920,
Page 6 of 17

when the Brazilian Society for the Fine Arts, or Sociedade Brasileira de Belas Artes,
through its then President, Bruno Lobo, asked the keeper of classical antiquities of the
National Museum, Alberto Childe, to prepare a bill regarding the protection of the
national artistic heritage. Childe's proposal addressed mostly archaeological sites and
defended the nationalization of these cultural resources. The bill stated that
‘archaeological remains, buildings, sites, caves, cemeteries, shell middens are considered
(p. 106) national assets and are to be owned only by each state of the Union’ (in Funari
and Pelegrini 2006: 25). The proposal was not taken into consideration by the Brazilian
Congress, dominated as it was by representatives not interested in nationalization of
private property even if it was aimed at preserving archaeological resources (Funari and
Pelegrini 2006).
In 1923 there was another proposal regarding the subject, this time by a representative
from Pernambuco, Luiz Cedro. During the debates in the Congress, Cedro referred to
archaeological remains and their importance to building the historical identity of the
country. In 1925 another bill was proposed, but this time the prehistoric remains were
considered worthy of attention only when art was expressed. Only in 1930 was Bill 230,
by the representative José Wanderly de Araújo Pinto, explicit about the protection of
archaeological resources, but it was never approved. Outside the parliament, discussions
continued, despite the lack of proper laws regarding archaeological resources. Raimundo
Lopes, in 1935, published a comprehensive and innovative study on cultural resources,
and some of his suggestions are worth mentioning: to keep cultural monuments in their
original shape; to reconstruct the original natural and cultural environment; to forbid the
economic exploitation of shell middens; to set up educational programmes; to register
Native cemeteries; to preserve sites and Indians alike; to cooperate with religious
authorities on church heritage; to publicize the archaeological sites; among other topics.
In 1936 a bill was prepared by the leading intellectual, Mário de Andrade, and
archaeological and ethnological resources were split into four areas: artefacts,
monuments, landscapes, and folklore. Mário de Andrade, a leading intellectual from the
state of São Paulo, prepared in 1936 the draft of a bill protecting cultural assets,
appreciated by representatives in the Congress and which was almost approved as a law
when there was a coup d’état by the President himself, Getúlio Vargas. President Vargas,
who had supported the law through his Minister for Education, published the bill soon
afterwards as a decree (decree number 25, dated 30 November 1937) and from 1940 the
National Artistic and Historic Heritage Service (Brazilian Heritage) began to register and
protect archaeological sites and collections (Funari and Pelegrini 2006). These included
pottery, lithics, cemeteries, shell middens, rock art, as well as a variety of natural
resources, like rivers, fauna, caves, and even traditional paths. However, most cultural
properties continued outside the protection of the decree and another leading
intellectual, Paulo Duarte, was to become the main fighter for heritage protection in
Brazil. A new Penal Code was also issued in 1940, for the first time punishing the
destruction of cultural resources, including archaeological ones. From 1940, Brazilian
Heritage established a register of protected sites and archaeological collections. Decree
25/37 is still in force. In 1948, in Paraná state a law was passed protecting Spanish and
Page 7 of 17

Jesuit settlements, with a protected surrounding area of 100 hectares, resulting in the
later establishment of the heritage Parks of Vila Rica, Santo Inácio, and Ciudad Real.
Several judges and other officials also tried to protect shell middens in different areas of
the country.
The Commission for Prehistory, established in 1952 by Paulo Duarte, aimed to

(p. 107)
protect archaeological sites, shell middens, and other remains. Duarte, a liberal who
fought for the creation of the first university in Brazil, the University of São Paulo, early
in the 1930s, lived in exile during the dictatorship of Vargas (1937–45), and when he
returned to the country he brought with him the idea of initiating the scholarly study of
prehistory. Duarte had been influenced by French humanism, and his friendship with Paul
Rivet and his admiration of the Musée de l’Homme, in Paris, led him to propose the
constitution of the Prehistory Commission, in São Paulo, which was later renamed the
‘Prehistory Institute’. The Commission was headed by Duarte and comprised the leading
anthropologists Helbert Baldus and Egon Schaden, among others.
Duarte was very active in the years of democracy in Brazil (1945–64), organizing a series
of initiatives for the development of archaeology and heritage protection. Duarte and the
Commission's draft bill protecting archaeological sites was finally approved by the
Congress in 1961 (Law no. 3924). It was the first actual comprehensive law regulating
the protection of archaeological remains, and is still in force as the only explicit federal
law on archaeological heritage. While the decree of 1937 aimed at protecting ‘those
assets linked to the memorable facts of Brazilian history and those of exceptionable
value’ (first article), the law of 1961 was much broader in its scope, referring to
‘whatever archaeological or prehistoric monument’ (first article). Archaeological sites are
protected immediately ex ui legis (‘by the force of the law’). The Law deals with
‘archaeological and prehistoric monuments’ and establishes that they are protected by
the law and should be preserved. As such, they are to be controlled by the state and are
not subject to the general rules of private property. Archaeological sites in general, like
shell middens, mounds, any ancient human settlement, as established by experts are
considered monuments. It is thus forbidden to destroy the sites, and explicitly forbidden
to allow the economic use of ancient remains. The sites are considered as property of the
federal state. The law also mentions archaeological excavations and the necessary
registration of sites, both to be controlled by Brazilian Heritage. A report by the
archaeologist and the necessary arrangements relating to the housing of the
archaeological material is also mentioned. The export of archaeological resources must
be authorized by Brazilian Heritage. In the 1960s and 1970s, several scholars, like Duarte
in São Paulo and Father Rohr in Santa Catarina, tried to use the law to protect shell
middens, but Brazil was under military rule and it was not easy to enforce the law.
A military dictatorship was established with a coup d’état in 1964 and the humanist
approach to the past, so clearly expressed in the efforts to preserve humble shell middens
against developers, was first sidelined and later opposed by the authorities.
Page 8 of 17

The restoration of civilian rule in 1985 led to a growing activity of state assemblies and
town councils, free to legislate on a wide range of subjects, not least resource
management. Several states introduced legislation protecting archaeological sites and
establishing state registers of monuments and archaeological collections. This has been
(p. 108) particularly the case in states with strong archaeological activities, like São Paulo
and Rio Grande do Sul. Town councils also introduced legislation, and several municipal
administrations introduced town heritage offices. Urban archaeology has thus been
developing and there has been a flourishing of interest in archaeological resources. A
new primary school syllabus, introduced in the 1990s, emphasized the importance of
learning from the local reality, with the town becoming the starting point for
understanding social life. In this context, archaeology has played a special role, enabling
schoolchildren to know that their town was inhabited by natives in prehistoric times.
Furthermore, material evidence from the historic period has also been used to show that
the picture given by documents is biased and that blacks, natives, people of mixed
complexion, immigrants, migrants, and poor people in general, usually underrepresented
in official documents, left material evidence now recovered by archaeology. Local primary
school textbooks are now introducing archaeological evidence in order to give the
children a more complex view of the past, enabling them to better understand present-
day contradictions.
Besides this, in 2002, the National Institute of Historic and Artistic Heritage (IPHAN)
proposed federal legislation requiring the implementation of Heritage Education projects
as part of contract archaeology programmes. This has led, over the last six years, to a
growing number of outreach activities involving archaeology in schools, museums,
Indigenous villages, and community organizations in Brazil.
The traffic of archaeological heritage

Public Archaeology has experienced a significant growth in the last years, but the
relationship between collectors and the archaeological heritage has been largely
overlooked by the scientific community. In twenty-five years of scientific meetings of the
Society of Brazilian Archaeology, only two papers were presented (by Miranda and
Magalhães in 1985, and by Bezerra and Najjar in 2005) concerning this topic. The papers
called attention to the serious problem of the selling of archaeological objects in Brazil,
mainly of the Marajoara culture (Cíntia Magalhães and Cristina Miranda pers. comm.,
1985). In 2007 IPHAN organized a seminar considering Amazonian Archaeology. One of
the conference goals was to discuss the traffic of archaeological objects in the region. The
archaeologists attending the meeting described several cases involving the traffic and
destruction of archaeological sites in different parts of the Amazon (H. Lima 2007; T.
Lima 2007; Schaan 2007). It came as no surprise that some of the archaeologists felt
threatened by some local members of these communities who cooperate with the traffic.
Examples of this illicit practice in Brazil, even if less numerous than in other countries,
are significantly increasing in the country (Bezerra and Najjar 2005).
Page 9 of 17

The traffic of archaeological objects in South America, in general, is favoured by a series

of circumstances. These include: (1) the lack of security in museums and archaeo (p. 109)
logical sites; (2) the interest of private collectors; (3) the lack of border controls; (4) the
misery experienced by the population of several countries; (5) the absence of more
rigorous laws (or the non-observance and enforcement of the existing ones); and (6)
inefficient inspection (Assunção 2003).
Nevertheless, it is the ongoing relationship between the collectors and impoverished

sections of the population in the South American countries that we take as one of the
most complex aspects of the situation. In reality, these subjects should be considered as
the two faces of the same coin. By buying archaeological artefacts, the collector of
antiquities ends up authenticating the past, privatizing the cultural heritage which, by
definition, is public. According to Vitelli (1984: 143), the motives are very diverse: they
can relate to the experience of proximity with antique objects, or to the possibility of
studying different cultures, or the adventure in the process of discovering (plundering of
archaeological sites), or to the consideration of those objects as a good investment. In
other words, the motivations are emotional, social, and economic. We should not forget
that the act of collecting objects gives power and prestige to those who own the objects.
The question becomes more complex. On the one hand, we think of collectors as
possessing both economic capital and cultural capital (Bourdieu 1987). On the other
hand, the poor do not possess any of those forms of capital. But we can also see that both
share, a priori, some similar characteristics: both perceive the cultural heritage they
exploit as some kind of merchandise; both obtain financial gains with its
commercialization; and both contribute to the destruction of this patrimony. What we can
see, thus, is that collectors and the poor approach the cultural heritage as something
invested with private interest (including the common thief who, almost always, is not
aware of the cultural value of the object that has been ‘ordered’) (Bezerra and Najjar
2005).
We believe that this misunderstood perception has its origins in two realms: the notion of
public and private, and formal education. In Brazil, for instance, the notion of public, in
legal terms, is not related to that which belongs to all, but to that which is the property of
the state. Brazilian citizens do not recognize the archaeological heritage, or do not
recognize themselves in our country's archaeological heritage. Through this perspective,
citizens become completely dissociated from the obligation to preserve it. Thus, when
archaeological objects are no longer approached as symbols of belonging and become
items that can be owned, they turn into instruments of economic disputes that stimulate
the traffic in antiquities, instead of instruments for legitimizing identities through
symbolic disputes. Instead of being appropriated, this patrimony is subjected to
spoliation. The transformation of archaeological objects into ‘commodities’ is a complex
question, and its roots are not exclusively economic (Schaan 2006). Its motivation is
based on social inequalities, and can be translated into different forms of access to
education, and, consequently, to diverse world views.
Page 10 of 17

IPHAN launched, in 2007, a national campaign against the illicit traffic of antiquities in
Brazil, in close cooperation with Interpol. Nevertheless, dealing with the volume of this
traffic has been a great challenge to the few archaeologists who work at IPHAN. (p. 110)
Public archaeology, contract archaeology, and

archaeological training in Brazil
Reflections on the relationships between archaeologists and local communities have
increased considerably in the context of our discipline. The engagement of different
social actors as decision-makers and stakeholders reveal the benefits of these
collaborative actions and stress the urgent need for serious debates about a community-
based archaeology. Working with different communities gives us evidence of potential
conflicts, the importance of negotiations, and, especially, the paths towards an effective
public archaeology. We work from the assumption that public archaeology is not just a
research area, but rather a professional commitment, a political agenda. In this regard
we ask: does the archaeological community share this perspective? (Mortensen and
Bezerra 2007)
In general, in Brazil, it is understood that the option for ‘doing’ public archaeology is
decided by each individual researcher. We think that even though the archaeologist may
undertake research on lithics technology, zooarchaeology, or rock art, she or he also
might be committed to public archaeology. From our perspective, public archaeology is
not a sub-area of the discipline, or a specialization, but a political and ethical
commitment, regardless of the specific interests of the research. It is a responsibility to
be shared by us as a community, and not only as individuals. It is a matter of attitude that
has implications for the development of archaeology.
According to the Society of Brazilian Archaeology (SAB) there are approximately 350
archaeologists working in Brazil. This number increases if we consider the exponential
growth of contract archaeology. At this point in time, contract archaeology projects
represent the majority of archaeological research projects: as noted by Prous, ‘academic
research was almost abandoned in Brazil . . .’ (Prous 2006: 130).
The economic policy and the scarce resources for academic research have led
archaeologists to be involved in these contract archaeology projects, in many cases to
support their academic research through buying equipment for their laboratories. We can
say that the great majority of Brazilian archaeologists are, at the same time, involved in
both contract archaeology projects and academic research, as opposed to other countries
where there is a strong distinction between professionals who act in these two domains.
A brief survey of the proceedings of the last three biennial meetings of the Society of
Brazilian Archaeology reveals a major growth of contract archaeology, followed by
historical archaeology. Public archaeology itself was represented in less than 1 per cent
of presented papers. However, it is possible to observe a slight growth in the numbers of
Page 11 of 17

papers that considered issues in education, tourism, and the illicit traffic of
archaeological objects, among others—all, arguably, public archaeology concerns. The
public that attended public archaeology sessions consisted of, in general, the same group
which (p. 111) attended the three meetings. In some meetings even the physical location
of the public archaeology sessions, as well as the scheduling of them, reflected the
relative unimportance of this issue by the organizing committee of the events. It is not
unusual that these sessions are scheduled to the last day, late in the evening, and in the
smallest rooms.
In a public archaeology workshop organized at the Universidade Católica de Goiás in

2005, only 13 per cent of the participants were archaeologists. Most of them were
cultural resource managers (Pyburn and Bezerra 2006). The absence of most of the
faculty staff of archaeologists of the university was due to the fact that the topic ‘public
archaeology’ interested only those who ‘deal’ with archaeological resource management
issues. This also reflects upon archaeologists who are trained in Brazil.
In the curricula of both undergraduate and graduate programmes in archaeology in

Brazil we also see the absence of public archaeology in official course offerings. Among
the nine existing undergraduate archaeology courses in the country, only four include the
field of public archaeology. This means that there are reduced numbers of credits
compared to the other courses; moreover, public archaeology is offered only in the last
semester, along with subjects that are considered peripheral to archaeology. None of the
seven graduate programmes in archaeology offers courses that involve public
archaeology; however, the Universidade de São Paulo has registered a small number of
thesis and dissertations on the topic in the last five years (Bezerra 2008; see also Funari
1999–2000).
The Brazilian Revista arqueologia pública journal edited by Funari and Robrahn-Gonzalez,
however, shows that there are a growing number of archaeologists who are involved in
local communities and who are politically committed to society. The articles point out the
relevance and also the urgency of thinking about archaeology in a public context. Besides
this, federal regulations in Brazil, as mentioned before, require the implementation of
educational heritage activities within the communities affected by contract archaeology
projects (Act 230/2002—IPHAN). If we consider the fact that most Brazilian
archaeologists are involved in contract archaeology, we may conclude that there are a
significant number of heritage education projects under way in the country. These
projects reflect the fact that public archaeology work is being done, but they are not
synonymous with conducting public archaeology research as a serious topic in itself.
Why, then, is public archaeology still irrelevant for the majority of archaeologists in
Brazil?
The organization of the archaeological community in the country, as well as its attitude in
relation to the public, is characterized by vertical relations. The hierarchical attitude of a
large proportion of the worldwide scientific community is even stronger in the Brazilian
case. According to the analysis of Minetti and Pyburn (2005: 3), Brazilian archaeology
Page 12 of 17

presents itself as ‘extremely hierarchical with strong paternalist/patronizing component’.

This attitude is reproduced in the relation between the Brazilian archaeologists and the
public, which is characterized by distance and paternalism. Archaeology for the public in
Brazil is considered a minor activity, from which professionals seem exempt. The training
of archaeologists in the country reinforces this idea. Most of the graduate programmes in
archaeology are linked to departments of history; only two of them are located in
departments of anthropology, and only one of them—at the (p. 112) Universidade Federal
do Pará in Amazon—is established in the North American four-field academic tradition
(where archaeology, cultural anthropology, biological anthropology, and linguistics are
within the scope of anthropology domain), except for the undergraduate course at
Universidade Federal de Pelotas.
Despite the strong theoretical influence of North American archaeology on Brazilian

archaeology, the perspective of archaeology as anthropology is far from being a reality in
Brazil. In the Brazilian case, there is a clear distinction that it is not only an
epistemological issue, but also a political one with consequences for the social division of
labour. From this perspective, an archaeologist is considered to be a professional who
develops basic research. The ones that dedicate themselves to public archaeology are, in
general, included in the category of non-archaeologists, or, those that ‘do not do
archaeology anymore’!
It is interesting to notice that even the new graduate programmes in archaeology based
in departments of anthropology have been built from a public archaeology perspective.
These and other aspects allow us to say that public archaeology in Brazil is considered by
the scientific community as a specialization, of little or no relevance, which is practised
by a restricted number of professionals who, being no more archaeologists, choose to
dedicate themselves to educative projects for the lay public.
The image of the discipline for Brazilian archaeologists is constructed on the basis of a
conservative model that implies an elitist discourse where the ‘other’ does not exist,
except as a consumer of the past offered by the specialists. This perspective isolates the
academic discourse as a private domain, as an instrument for domination. Brazilian
archaeology is forged by this model, and is thus opposite to a public archaeology
perspective. The idea of a public archaeology in Brazil and in South America, in general,
is still incipient. However, we believe that this situation can change, especially if we
concentrate our concerns on the training of new archaeologists to make them conscious
of social ethics and political responsibilities. The growing participation of these countries
in global forums such as the WAC has also been important.
Conclusion: the outlook

There are some steps to be taken to preserve heritage and the rights of both Indigenous
peoples and humanity, considering that human heritage is of universal interest.
Page 13 of 17

First, cooperation between archaeologists and other professionals and institutions is

essential. For this, though, there is a need for archaeologists to be trained in heritage
issues. Several archaeology courses do not have any heritage topics in the curriculum
and rectifying this should be a priority. Every fieldwork project should also include a
heritage strategy, including both professionals and the community. Rather than the
‘general public’, there is a need to address the interests of several publics, first and
foremost the local community, but also other interested groups, especially Indigenous
peoples.
Second, education of archaeologists in the legislative process is also essential,

(p. 113)
both in scholarly contexts and at the level of professional associations, to ensure that they
keep in touch with local, national, and supranational parliaments, and especially with
select committees on heritage.
Third, cooperation between archaeologists and the community is vital. It is usually the
uneducated community and the elected officials who favour development projects
detrimental to the archaeological heritage, and the only way to intervene in this is to
enhance cooperation with community and elected officials. Cooperation with Indigenous
peoples is also essential, as they depend on the maintenance of traditional ways of life
and often oppose the destruction of the cultural heritage, but are often ignored by the
authorities and archaeologists alike.
Fourth, the education of archaeologists is usually not concerned with heritage in any
meaningful way. This should therefore become a priority. Furthermore, educational
experts are not usually aware of archaeological themes and issues. So, institutional links
should be developed between professional archaeological associations in the north and
other associations of archaeologists and associations of education scholars and teachers.
Fifth, international cooperation in heritage issues is important in the spread of successful

experiences from one area to others. The development of international committees is thus
also to be encouraged. In particular, this should imply a commitment to include North/
South and West/East scholars in forums so that they can exchange their experiences. The
World Archaeological Congress is one appropriate forum for such an endeavour (as is this
volume).
Sixth, international cooperation is also desirable in order to prevent the illicit traffic of
archaeological objects in Latin America.
Seventh, contract archaeology is important for heritage preservation, but universal

standards and commitments should be established, especially regarding the prompt
publication of research assessments, the inclusion of community interests and their
concerns, and the proper storage and exhibition of archaeological material from contract
fieldwork.
The discourse of preservation is still permeated by legal issues. These are obviously
necessary, but they establish duties and rulers, more than rights and negotiations. We
Page 14 of 17

should remember that appropriation—the keyword of preservation actions—means self-

recognition in such a heritage. It presupposes proximity, identification, and agreement. It
is not that ‘others’ should take a stake and appropriate the archaeological heritage, but
we all should do this together, working without borders, and moving towards a public
community-based archaeology in Latin America.
References
Assunção, P. de (2003). Patrimônio. São Paulo: Edições Loyola.
Bezerra, M. (2008). ‘Bicho de nove cabeças: Os cursos de graduação e a formação de

arqueólogos no Brasil’, Revista de arqueologia, 21.2: 139–54.
(p. 114) Bezerra, M. and Najjar, R. (2005). ‘Semióforos da riqueza’: Reflexões sobre o
tráfico de objetos arqueológicos no Brasil’, Anais do XIII Congresso da sociedade de
arqueologia brasileira. Campo Grande (CD-ROM).
Bourdieu, P. (1987). A economia das trocas simbólicas. São Paulo: Editora Perspectiva.
Chauí, M. (2000). Brasil: Mito fundador e sociedade autoritária. São Paulo: Fundação
Perseu Abramo.
Ferreira, L. M. (2002). ‘Vestígios da civilização: A arqueologia no Brasil imperial (1838–

1877)’, unpublished thesis, Campinas.
—— (2007). ‘Território primitivo: A inconstitucionalização da arqueologia no Brasil (1870–

1917)’, unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Campinas.
Funari, P. P. A. (1994a). ‘Brazilian Archaeology: Overview and Reassessment’, Revista de

arte e arqueologia, 1: 281–90.
—— (1994b). ‘Rescuing Ordinary Peoples’ Culture: Museums, Material Culture and

Education in Brazil’, in P. Stone and B. L. Molineaux (eds.), The Presented Past: Heritage,
Museums and Education. London: Routledge, 120–36.
—— (1998). Teoria arqueológica na América do Sul. Campinas: Instituto de Filosofia e

Ciências Humanas.
—— (1999–2000). ‘Como se tornar arqueólogo no Brasil’, Revista USP, 44: 74–85.
—— and da Silva, G. J. (2007). ‘Nota de Pesquisa sobre o Projeto Acervo Arqueológico do

Arquivo Paulo Duarte’, http://www.historiaehistoria.com.br/ accessed 6 March 2007.
—— and Pelegrini, S. (2006). Patrimônio histórico e cultural. Rio de Janeiro: Jorge Zahar.
Heydenreich, T. (1995). ‘América Latina—Lateinisches Amerika? Zur politischen Begriff

eines Adjektivs im 19 Jahrhundert’, Latein Amerika Studien, 35: 229–45.
Page 15 of 17

Lima, H. (2007). ‘Projeto Baixo Amazonas’, I seminário internacional de gestão do

patrimônio arqueológico amazônico. Brasilia: IPHAN.
Lima, T. A. (2007). ‘Sobrevivência: A face sensível do tráfico de bens arqueológicos’, I

seminário internacional de gestão do patrimônio arqueológico amazônico. Brasilia:
IPHAN.
Marx, K. (1978). Theories of Surplus-Value. Moscow: Progress Publishers.
Merriman, R. B. (1911). ‘The Courts of the Spanish Kingdoms in the Later Middle Ages’,
American Historical Review, 16.3: 476–95.
Minetti, A., and Pyburn, K. A. (2005). ‘ “Open Veins” of the Past: Cultural Heritage and
Globalization’, Habitus, 3.1: 81–106.
Mortensen, L., and Bezerra, M. (2007). ‘The Community Next Door: Reflections on the
Relationship between Archaeologists and Public Archaeology in the United States and
Brazil’, unpublished paper presented at the 4o reunión de teoría arqueológica en América
del Sur, Catamarca.
Pendle, G. (1963). A History of Latin America. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Prous, A. (2006). O Brasil antes dos brasileiros: A pré-história do nosso país. Rio de
Janeiro: Jorge Zahar Editor.
Pyburn, K. A., and Bezerra, M. (2006). ‘Arqueologia pública em 5 tempi: Reflexões sobre o
workshop “Gerenciamento do patrimônio cultural-arqueologia”, Goiânia, Brasil’, in M. F.
Lima Filho and M. Bezerra (eds.), Os caminhos do patrimônio no Brasil. Goiânia: Editora
Alternativa, 183–90.
Schaan, D. P. (2006). ‘Arqueologia, público e comodificação da herança cultural: O caso da

cultura Marajoara’, Revista arqueologia pública, 1: 19–30.
—— (2007). ‘Tráfico de material arqueológico: Marajó, Santarém, Castelo de Sonhos e

Altamira’, unpublished paper presented at the Seminário Internacional de gestão do
patrimônio arqueológico pan-amazônico. Brasilia: IPHAN.
Vitelli, K. D. (1984). ‘The International Traffic in Antiquities: Archaeological

(p. 115)
Ethics and the Archaeologist's Responsibility’, in E. L. Green (ed.), Ethics and Values in
Archaeology. New York: The Free Press, 143–55.
Weckmann, L. (1992). The Medieval Heritage of Colonial and Modern Mexico. New York:
Fordham University Press.
—— (1993). La herencia medieval del Brasil. México: Fondo de Cultura Económica.
Pedro Paulo A. Funari
Page 16 of 17

Pedro Paulo A. Funari is Professor of Historical Archaeology, Institute of Philosophy

and Human Science, State University of Campinas, Brazil.
Marcia Bezerra
Marcia Bezerra is Professor of Archaeology, State University of Pará, Brazil.
Page 17 of 17

Arqueologia Publica en America Latina

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Arqueologia Publica en America Latina

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Public Archaeology in Latin America

Oxford Handbooks Online

Abstract and Keywords

Latin America is a huge subcontinent encompassing a wide variety of physical landscapes

Keywords: Latin America, Iberian roots, Roman Catholicism, Mediterranean, heritage

Pedro Paulo A. Funari is Professor of Historical Archaeology at the State

Marcia Bezerra, D.Sc. in Archaeology, is Professor of Archaeology at

Subscriber: UC - Los Angeles (UCLA); date: 26 March 2019

Junior Representative/WAC. She directs public archaeology projects in Marajo

Latin America: history and features

A brief overview of Latin America

Subscriber: UC - Los Angeles (UCLA); date: 26 March 2019

However, this traditional definition is not entirely consistent or satisfactory as an

Subscriber: UC - Los Angeles (UCLA); date: 26 March 2019

Spanish kings gave charters of self-government to many towns and municipal

Foreign influences and native archaeology

Subscriber: UC - Los Angeles (UCLA); date: 26 March 2019

The early republican period (1889–1920s) witnessed a weakening of archaeological

The inception of university research (1950s–64) is related to Brazil's longest period of

Subscriber: UC - Los Angeles (UCLA); date: 26 March 2019

Heritage legislation in Brazil

Subscriber: UC - Los Angeles (UCLA); date: 26 March 2019

Subscriber: UC - Los Angeles (UCLA); date: 26 March 2019

The Commission for Prehistory, established in 1952 by Paulo Duarte, aimed to

Subscriber: UC - Los Angeles (UCLA); date: 26 March 2019

The traffic of archaeological heritage

Subscriber: UC - Los Angeles (UCLA); date: 26 March 2019

The traffic of archaeological objects in South America, in general, is favoured by a series

Nevertheless, it is the ongoing relationship between the collectors and impoverished

Subscriber: UC - Los Angeles (UCLA); date: 26 March 2019

Public archaeology, contract archaeology, and

Subscriber: UC - Los Angeles (UCLA); date: 26 March 2019

In a public archaeology workshop organized at the Universidade Católica de Goiás in

In the curricula of both undergraduate and graduate programmes in archaeology in

Subscriber: UC - Los Angeles (UCLA); date: 26 March 2019

presents itself as ‘extremely hierarchical with strong paternalist/patronizing component’.

Despite the strong theoretical influence of North American archaeology on Brazilian

Conclusion: the outlook

Subscriber: UC - Los Angeles (UCLA); date: 26 March 2019

First, cooperation between archaeologists and other professionals and institutions is

Second, education of archaeologists in the legislative process is also essential,

Fifth, international cooperation in heritage issues is important in the spread of successful

Seventh, contract archaeology is important for heritage preservation, but universal

Subscriber: UC - Los Angeles (UCLA); date: 26 March 2019

should remember that appropriation—the keyword of preservation actions—means self-

Bezerra, M. (2008). ‘Bicho de nove cabeças: Os cursos de graduação e a formação de

Ferreira, L. M. (2002). ‘Vestígios da civilização: A arqueologia no Brasil imperial (1838–

—— (2007). ‘Território primitivo: A inconstitucionalização da arqueologia no Brasil (1870–

Funari, P. P. A. (1994a). ‘Brazilian Archaeology: Overview and Reassessment’, Revista de

—— (1994b). ‘Rescuing Ordinary Peoples’ Culture: Museums, Material Culture and

—— (1998). Teoria arqueológica na América do Sul. Campinas: Instituto de Filosofia e

—— (1999–2000). ‘Como se tornar arqueólogo no Brasil’, Revista USP, 44: 74–85.

—— and da Silva, G. J. (2007). ‘Nota de Pesquisa sobre o Projeto Acervo Arqueológico do

Heydenreich, T. (1995). ‘América Latina—Lateinisches Amerika? Zur politischen Begriff

Subscriber: UC - Los Angeles (UCLA); date: 26 March 2019

Lima, H. (2007). ‘Projeto Baixo Amazonas’, I seminário internacional de gestão do

Lima, T. A. (2007). ‘Sobrevivência: A face sensível do tráfico de bens arqueológicos’, I

Marx, K. (1978). Theories of Surplus-Value. Moscow: Progress Publishers.

Pendle, G. (1963). A History of Latin America. Harmondsworth: Penguin.

Schaan, D. P. (2006). ‘Arqueologia, público e comodificação da herança cultural: O caso da

—— (2007). ‘Tráfico de material arqueológico: Marajó, Santarém, Castelo de Sonhos e

Vitelli, K. D. (1984). ‘The International Traffic in Antiquities: Archaeological

—— (1993). La herencia medieval del Brasil. México: Fondo de Cultura Económica.