Archaeologists in action: challenges and problems in the daily practice
María Florencia
Becerra
(Instituto de
Arqueología y Museo. Universidad Nacional de Tucumán. Argentina)
WAC Student Committee
The archaeological practice has been modifying itself through time, according to the conditions and needs of the historical and geographical contexts in which the production of knowledge is situated. The practice involves much more than research itself and nowadays this is showed in an explicit way. Archaeology is being pushed to be closer to society, to communicate their results and even to plan their research projects together with the communities.
External processes to the archaeological practice but closely connected with it, are related to this change: the conformation and/or consolidation of ethnic identities and the arising of the so called cultural or scientific tourism (Nielsen et al. 2003).
Due to these changes and especially to the need of a greater social commitment of the archaeology, the archaeologist should assume different roles that usually is not prepared for. These roles involve the relationships established inside the scientific community, with the society in general and with the specific communities, related to the research work.
This paper tends
to give a general view about the challenges which nowadays the archaeologists
deal with, in countries of South America and, especially, in
THE TRADICIONAL CHALLENGE: ARCHAEOLOGY AND SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY
Since we are undergraduate students we are exposed to the game of the scientific research, from the recent theoretical and methodological discussions to the challenges that we will deal with as professionals. Bourdie summarizes this clearly (2003) when he talks about the scientific camp. It is presented like a fierce game, which a clear objective for the researcher: get a better position inside this academic circle. That status will allow him/her to consolidate a certain prestige very related to the acceptance of his/her own production on the part of his/her colleagues (clear fallacy of authority). It also gives better chances to get financial support for researching and, in general, makes different advantages possible, benefits denied to those who have not still established themselves in the academy. The researchersf course (personal, academic, professional) turns into a crucial factor, because it is our card of presentation to the others (our colleagues) and it strongly conditions our own production of knowledge (our themes, methodology, theoretical framework, etc).
Unfortunately, we are not exempt from the competition of the scientific career, especially those who study and work in perpherical countries. From the selection of the researchfs topic, we are restricted and limited by those professionals who will guide us during our first steps, essentials for our introduction in the academy.
Other important conditionings are the governmental and private financial politics which define what it is interesting or important to study: these topics of research will receive financial support and those which are not considered necessary at the moment, will be left aside. The incomes in researching depends from this selection; and that is why our topics of research are not always the ones we like most, but the ones dictated by the system, generally unfairly. However, it is the only (or almost the only) way for researching.
Outside the academy, the researcher does not generally find possibilities to work (except in archaeological impact studies or archaeological rescue, matters on which we are going to write about later).
Another limitation for the young researcher is his/her own geographical localization: inside the international context (country in the periphery) and inside the national one (because there also are center and periphery inside the countries or regions). The mobility of the researcher is only affordable for the established ones and not for the ones who are young: they have to afford travels and academic formation with their salary (and rarely with money from the projects who are involved with). However the same system which does not give the means to young researchers (generally because it itself does not have resources), is the one which requires the presence and participation of the students in as many congress and scientific meetings as possible, an important point in the evaluation system of their scientific production.
When we say that archaeology should have a relationship more fluent with the whole society and the local community, we are talking about an archaeology which needs periods of time longer than the ones set by the academy. To really work together with a community (and not only announcing the beginning of the archaeological work, and in the end, giving the publication as a gift to the community), it is necessary an amount of activities, meetings, gnegotiationsh, and the development of strong and mature relationships. Summarizing, it needs time and dedication from both sides. Projects with prearranged terms, asking for immediately published papers, are not sensitive to these new initiatives researchers-communities.
Finally, the issue of publishing is problematic even for them who are already professionals. The academic system asks papers published in well-known magazines, in English and because of that, with restricted circulation inside our spanish-speaker countries. Students read papers of south American archaeologists in English! How do we make these matters compatible with the need of reaching at the most people and of promoting the debate and discussion?
Moreover, in some countries there is an arising of the contractual archaeology or rescue archaeology. On the one hand, this kind of archaeology allows researching in areas where there is not a governmental promotion and/or financial support. Besides, it shows the concern in protecting the cultural heritage, which was absence in the past. However, we have to be careful because we take the risk of being only an employee of that company, which generally prefers protecting its own gfinancial heritageh than the cultural one.
So, what we do now? Is it really impossible to be a successful researcher and at the same time, be a commitment one? How we could make both roles compatible? Maybe, the professional researchers could have more freedom of action and choice for suppress this dichotomy (which should not exist), but, and coming back to Bourdie, the already established and mature ones, those revolutionaries during their youth or beginnings, generally, become in reactionaries. We have to wonder what it is going to be our position, now and in the future...
A PROPER CHALLENGE: ARCHAEOLOGY AND SOCIETY AS A WHOLE.
The scientific production in general and in this case, the archaeological one, is most of the time, far away from the society. The works published in National Geographic Magazine, in History and other general magazines, allow that archaeological researches reach a limited not specialized readership, but they are not read by the most of the population.
In 2005, we made
a research with a sample from different cities of
However, this stereotypes were not fixed, but were combined ones with the others, even, in the same questionary.
The images are diffuse and the sources of these knowledges are, indeed, more obscures (common sense, ggeneral cultureh, etc). In general, the people who know really what archaeology is and what it does, are students or professionals (educated in the university). However, not everyone who has a degree knows the difference between paleontology, geology and archaeology, for example. So, why is not archaeology a career who everybody knows, as others more traditional?
On the other hand, many people think they know what archaeology is, but really, they are wrong and mix different careers and researchs (in case they have a scientific vision of the discipline).
These results are worrying. Archaeologist, as the other scientists from different disciplines, communicate their researchs in the academic community. However, when we define archaeology we generally relate it to the society, to its importance as a source of knowledge about the past and in many cases, the present. How archaeology could be important if the society does not know about its existence? Why are we so restricted to the scientific community and if we are lucky, to the local community? Why the knowledge we are producing do not reach schools? How is it possible that we are working with national fundings and in the primary and secondary education of our countries they are still teaching history (or gprehistoryh) with statements long ago left aside by archaeologists? There should be a real connection between scientific production and society, especially in the educational area.
Here, we come back again to the main problem: the system of evaluation of research production. Is really important for the system that an archaeologist works on a book for children at school or is it more valuable to have a paper published in an american magazine (in english of course) which only reaches a very specialized readership? In my opinion, the system of values should be changed. Of course, we have to show our results to the other archaeologists, because it is the way to share knowledge, to evaluate our work, but why is not so important communicating it to the rest of society?
THE NEW CHALLENGE (OR NOT SO NEW?): ARCHAEOLOGY AND LOCAL COMMUNITY
When we talk about cultural and archaeology heritage, we have to think also who the legitimate authority is to select what must be preserved, protected or studied, which system of values we are considering to evaluate it, and which groups and interests we are representing to. The protection of heritage has a political and social dimension, and not only a technical one. The society must be not only informant of its cultural heritage, but an interpreter of it. (Nordenflycht Concha, s/f).
This relationship between the cultural heritage and society becomes even closer when there are local communities which recognize that heritage as part of their past (and many times of their present), the living testimony of their ancestors. The work of the archaeologist is connected with this and other issues, frequently very difficult to analyze.
In this paper, we are going to talk, only, about those cases when the community agrees with the archaeological work on the heritage and, eventually, ask for it in order to promote the tourism in the area. The issue about the legitimacy of the archaeological work and the different positions of the communities to excavation and so, deserves another specific paper.
Gassiot Ballbé
and Palomar
Archaeology of communication is interested in the communication of the knowledge produced by archaeology but it generally involves the circulation of a finished product produced by the scientist and received by a passive actor. This actor can or cannot incorporate that knowledge.
The third category is praxis archaeology and it is based on the joint between community and archaeology during all the stages of production of knowledge. This means that even the definition of the problem to study is made by both of them, archaeologist and community, with the active participation of the local people. The social action is the main objective and that it is why it is necessary that both actors negociate and act together. This option, which is the best if we are tending to make an archaeology closer to the community, needs time, patience, resources. A real commitment to this kind of practice, however, is not compatible with the academic activity as it is organized nowadays, because its requirements are completely different, as we have already analyzed.
The projects with the community which do not realize that they have to be side by side with the local people, knowing their needs and their own knowledges, are destined to fail. It is impossible that the community feels that is part of the project when nobody has asked them if they wanted or not to participate in it. The situation is even worse when it includes the arrival of tourists, invading sites which might be considered sacred, taking pictures from everything, even from the local inhabitants (as if they were also part of the landscape), and leaving money but only for the big company which organizes the package tour. Tourism can be very positive but only if it is made by and for the community and not at the cost of it.
Moreover, the community is frequently considered as a homogeneous group, when actually it is not: there are also negotiations, fights, divisions inside it, as in any other group of people, and that, must be taken into account when we start working with a community.
CONCLUSIONS
As I have already said, this paper tends to give a first look of the context of archaeological production, more a way to discuss this topic than a complete analysis of it. There are many pressures on the archaeologists nowadays and we are expected to represent all these roles perfectly. How? It is a question that we have to answer soon but that needs a deep reflection and, especially, a clear definition of what we want from the archaeological practice. The changes are not going to be immediate, but gradual and it is responsibility of all of us to make an archaeology, which could be successful inside the scientific world and at the same time be useful for the society.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Ballbé, e. y Puebla, B.
2000. Arqueología de la Praxis: información histórica de la acción social. El
caso de la unión de cooperativas agropecuarias de Miraflor, Nicaragua. En:
Complutum 11. Universidad Complutense de Madrid. pp. 87 – 99.
Becerra, M.F.,
Del Bel, E. y Rodríguez Curletto, S. 2003. La práctica arqueológica y el
imaginario social: aportes para una reflexión. Presentado en el IX
Congreso
Nacional y II Latinoamericano de Estudiantes de Arqueología. Córdoba,
Argentina.
Bourdie, P. 2003. La
objetivación participante. En: Oficios y Prácticas. pp. 87 – 101.
Nielsen, A. Calcina, J. y
Quispe, B. 2003 Arqueología, turismo y comunidades originarias: una experiencia
en Nor Lípez (
Nordenflycht Concha, José
de. Patrimonio y desarrollo Local: una práctica entre el saber y el poder.
En: http://www.campus.oci.org/pensariberoamericano
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to thank to Lucas Massaccesi, who helps me a lot with the translation of this paper and to Liliana Gassa for her useful commentaries.