SearchOptions

Search
Menu
AlejandroHaber
English
Academicedition
Skipto:MaincontentSidecolumn

Home

ContactUs
ClaireSmith
EncyclopediaofGlobalArchaeology
10.1007/9781441904652_1558
SpringerScience+BusinessMediaNewYork2014
InterculturalityandPoliticalActioninUndisciplinedArchaeology
AlejandroF.Haber1
(1)
EscueladeArqueologa,UniversidadNacionaldeCatamarca&ConsejoNacionalde
InvestigacionesCientficasyTcnicas,Catamarca,Argentina

AlejandroF.Haber
Email:afhaber@gmail.com
WithoutAbstract
Introduction
MultivocalityandInterculturality
Multivocality,asanorientationwithinpostcolonialarchaeology,isbasedupon
severalkeyassumptionsofmulticulturalrelativism.Thecalltomultivocalityoften
failstoaddresskeyunderlyingproblematicsrootedwithinthehegemonic
epistemicframeworkfromwhicharchaeologicalpracticeisethicallyjustifiedasa
pluralisticpractice.Byencouragingpractitionerstoembracedifferencewithout
alsonecessarilyacknowledgingthemutuallyconstitutiverelationshipsbetween
frequentlyunequalpartners,thisrisksproducingaformofinclusionthat
potentiallyhindersboththecounterhegemonicvocalityofdissidentvoicesand
politicalagencyoutsideoftheframeworkofmulticulturalism.Insuchaway,
archaeologicalpracticerisksreproducingtheveryprivilegedposition
multivocalityattemptstoundo,reproducing,inturn,epistemologicalsuppositions
aboutwhatinclusionnecessarilyentails.InthisentryIintendtodigdeeperinto
thecharacteroftheinterculturalrelationshipofarchaeologicalknowledgeand
disciplinarypractice.Focusingupontheconditionsofpoliticalactionresistantto
postcolonialinterventionandtheconstructionofcounterhegemonic
intersubjectivities,Iwilldiscussthemutuallyconstitutivecharacterofthoughtin
thecontextofworkintheKollaterritoryofCatamarca,inthenorthwestof
Argentina.
KeyIssues/CurrentDebates

SocialandScientificistArchaeologies
Itmightseemusualthatanarchaeologistwondersaboutthesenseofarchaeology,
particularlyaboutitssocialsense.Whatisitusefulfor,theresearcherasks
her/himself,eagertofindawaytojustifyher/hisscience,her/hispractice,and
her/hislife,intermsofutilityforthesocietyinwhichshe/helives.Thevalueof
knowledgebyitself,ofhistoryasteacheroflife(magistravitae),andofthe
archaeologicalasculturalpatrimonyandsignificantidentity,thetransformationof
thepastand/orthearchaeologicalinthepursuitofdevelopment,orthepureand
simpleamusementofthosewhopracticeitandthecuriousinterestofthepublic
arevarious.Andthesevaluesareindependentofthereasons,senses,orutilities
thatarchaeologistshaveelaboratedtogivetheirscienceaplaceinthepresent
time,asifitdidnotyetwellbelonghereasasocioculturalartifact.Thosemore
compromisedwiththepresentsocietyqualifytheirsciencewithsomevery
appropriatephrases:social,sociallyuseful,andwithsocialcommitment.Inmy
opinion,everyjustificationofsocialarchaeologycharacterizedbyapplyingthe
sciencetoaprojectofsocialinterventionwithanostensiblyaltruistgoal
frequentlyrecapitulatestheverycoloniallogicsitseekstoelude,becausethe
interventionsintonewsocialcontextsworkstoconcealandultimatelynaturalize
itsownformersocialrelationships.Aswithsocialarchaeologies,alsoscientificist
archaeologies,justifyingscienceasavalueinitselfpreyonthedenialofthesocial
relationshipsfromwhichtheyinevitablyemerge,althoughtheydonotdeform
suchdenialbypretendingacommitmenttothesocietywithwhichtheywere
alreadyrelatedbyhidingtheirstructuralrelationships.Thesescientificist
archaeologiesproducecolonialdiscourseswhich,putintoprojectsbyother
archaeologiesorbynondisciplinaryagents,endupinjoiningtheirpolitical
practicetothealreadymentionedsocialarchaeologies.
Beyondthegoodorbadintentionsofthearchaeologist,andbeyondmoreorless
explicitoractivesocialcommitments,thearchaeologicalprojectcarriesthe
violenceofplacingintheobjects,thearchaeologicalthing,withinthespaceof
metaphysicalruptureaccordingtowhichcolonialsubjectivityisconstitutedas
hegemoniceventinculturallyheteroglossiccontexts(Haber1999).Thatis,
archaeologyreproducesitsbasicassumptionobjectandmethodthroughwhich
thecolonialdifferenceinthesubjectivityofthearchaeologist,butalsoofthe
descendantsandthepublic,istakentotheobjectiveworld,consolidatinga
divisionbetweenknowledgeandsocialrelationships(Haber1999).Colonial
difference(Walsh2006),apowerdifferentiatorattendanttothedifferenceinthe
natureofpeoples,isplacedwithinthenatureofobjectsparticularlythoseobjects
thatsignifyandmarkthenatureofpeoples.Colonialepistemicviolenceoriginally
exertedoverpeopleistransposedtotheworldofobjects,objectified,naturalized,
manipulated,andmethodologicallymodulated.
Colonial/ModernEpistemesandKnowledge/Power
Asanexample,Itranscribesomeparagraphsfroma1904fieldreportbyCarlos
Bruch,entomologistinLaPlataMuseum,Argentina,detailingan1898
archaeologicalexpeditiontoHualfn,intheprovinceofCatamarca(Bruch1904).
ThisisthefirsttextpublishedonthearchaeologyofHualfn,latertobecomean
areaofchoiceofArgentinearchaeologists,beingintimereferredtoasthevalle
maestro(mastervalley)because,duetotheseriationofthesepulchersexisting
there,ahistoricalculturalsequencewaselaboratedthatwas,atitsturn,the

mastersequencethenextendedtotherestoftheAndeanprovincesinArgentina
(Gonzlez&Cowgill1975).
Bruchslanguageischaracteristicofthearchaeologyoftheearlytwentieth
century.Forinstance,descriptionsaboundandsomeexpressionsnowconsidered
politicallyincorrectarenothidden.Butbehindtheappearances,whatIfindof
interestinBruchstext,aswithanyearlytextingeneralwrittenwhenthe
disciplinaryhabitushadnotyetbeeninstitutionalizedisthattheyshowwith
certainclaritytheliteraryproceduresthroughwhichobjectsofknowledgeare
incorporatedintospecificsemanticnetworks,which,later,turnedintoa
formalizeddisciplinarylanguage,surviveinmorenaturalizedways(Haber1995).
Thatis,inthistextthereisanantiquatedflavor,butthatisnotwhatstrikesmy
attentionhere.Whatisactuallyofcriticalimportance,behindtheanachronistic
language,isthekernelofpresentdiscourse:therelationshipsbetweenobjectsand
agentsthatexistherearethesameonesthatexistbetweenknowledgeandsociety
incurrentarchaeology.ReturningtothereportofBruch,Bruchwrites:
Onthe18thJanuaryIarrivedforthesecondtimeinHualfn.Thepoplarsandthe
willows,characteristicofCatamarcastowns,formtherethefencesofvast
propertiesandfarmsextendingbothsidesoftheriver;thefaroffhillsandthe
Coloradohillshowingitselfoverthefluvialterracesasanimmensefortress;
everythingcontributestogivethearidandmonotonouslandscapeapicturesque
aspectwhichthetravelerremembersinaweafterhisvisit.
Andifyoulaterlookatthepropertiesaround,yousoondiscovertheruinsand
cemeteries,lastvestigesoftheprimitiveowners;remainsofanumeroustribe:old
Hualfines.
Helpedbyalabourer,myguideandcompanionduringthetrip,Istarted
excavationonthefollowingday,theresultsofwhichIwillmentionintheorderin
whichtheyhappened.
OverthesmallterraceontherightandnexttothehouseofMr.Leguizamn,there
aresomeruinsofstonewalls,nexttowhichIobservedvariousovals,formedby
stonelinesofregularsizehalfburied.Assumingtheycouldbetombs,Iexcavated
thefirstandItrippedonthesurfaceofaquantityoffragmentsofclaypots,mixed
withrocksandthebonesofaskeleton,theskullofwhichIfound50cmbelowthe
surface.ThenIdiscoveredabigclaypotandnexttoitawellpreservedskeleton.
Thesepulcherwas80cmdeepandhadbeenlightlybuiltofawallofovalshaped
stonesmarkedinthesurfacebyotherstones(Fig.I).
Thepot(N1)is60cmtall;itssurfaceisrough,notwellpolished,madeofwell
cookedbrickcoloredclay,withtwosmallroundedandwidehands,and
horizontallyplacedalmostinthetopthirdportion.Belowthemouththereisaface
representedinrelief:thestripsrunningirregularlyinverticaldirectionarepainted
inblack.Ifoundanemptypotcoveredwithalidwhichmusthaveprobablybeen
thebottompartofanotherverysimilartothisIdescribed,thatis,apucoorbowl
(Bruch1904).
Bruchthenfollowswiththerestofhisfindings,sepulcherbysepulcher,potbypot.
Asasampleperhapsthiswasenough.ThedescriptionofwhatBruchfindsinthe
sepulchersishiswaytogettoknowthepastofHualfn,withanoldfashionedstyle
butamodernepistemicframe:materialremainsareameanstoknowthepast:a
pastalreadygoneandwhichcanbeknownwiththestudyofitslastvestiges,the
remainsandruins.TheseremainsandruinsallowBruchtoknow,theyarehere
tellinghimthat,inthepast,therestoodtheformerpopulatedtribeofthe

Hualfines,ownersofthelandofHualfn.TherelationshipoftheHualfineswith
Hualfn,whichBruchenunciatesasthatofpastinhabitationandownership,turns
outtobeanalogoustoanothersuchrelationship,theoneBruchseesfromthetop
ofahill,andwhichissignaledbytherowsofpoplarsandwillows,limitsofthe
propertiesinHualfnwhenBruchconductshisfieldresearch.Twosocial
relationshipshappenoneaftertheotherintime,althoughBruchdoesnottellus
howorwhy.Asuccessionintimedoesnotmeananythingbutthetimepassing;
thereisnothingtoindicatetheinfluencelinkingBruchwiththeHualfn,andthere
isnorelationshipofknowledgearticulated,nomatterthesocialrelationshipswith
theownersandbetweenthem.LetusobservetheendofBruchstext:
InordertograspatleastatinygraphicideaoftheQuechuapopulationinhabiting
theCalchaquiregionstoday,apopulationwhichcanbeconsidereddescendantsof
thatcivilizednation,werepresent,inpictureIV,twosketcheswhichIhadoccasion
todrawinHualfn,inthehouseofMr.Leguizamn.
Number1isawelldevelopedthirteenyearoldgirl.Theheadisprettybigand
round,thehairisblackandstiff,irregularlycutandextendinglongthroughthe
forehead,whereitformsanirregularlimit.Noartificialdeformationofeitherthe
foreheadortheocciputisnoticed,orofthescalpingeneral.Thegrooveoftheeye
issmall;themongolicfoldwellpronounced,thelacrimalcarunclebeingthemost
partoftheuppereyelid.Thebaseofthenoseisverywide,butnottoolow;theside
wideandstraight;thetipquitewide,rounded;nostrilsvisiblefromthefront.The
mouthandthejaw,ingeneral,aresalient;lipssomewhatthick.Oftheearwecan
distinguishonlyalittle,beingquitedisfiguredbyamangeeruption.
Number2isamiddleagedman,robustandwelldeveloped.Thescalpisof
interest,mainlyduetoitcharacteristichypsicephalicshape.Theforeheadgoes
obliquelybackwards;occiputquiteperpendicularupwards.Thenarrownessofthe
cerebralcapsuleandofthewholescalp,comparedtohisheight,issurprising.Itis
alwaysinterestingtoobserveinthelivingthisscalpshape,whichweareusedto
seeonlyinthedeadmaterial.Nottakingthisintoaccount,theconsiderableheight
andthepronouncednarrownessareadistinctivefeatureofthisindividualshead.
Goingthroughthedetails,thehairisblack,welldeveloped;theforeheadisvery
narrowandrelativelyhigh;thelimitofthehairisirregularlylost.
Supraorbitalarchesofthefrontalbonedonotcomeout.Thegrooveoftheeyesis
oblique,verynarrow,thusthepupil,verydeepintheorbit,isnotsovisible.This
impressionisevenmorepronouncedinthebaseofthenosewhichisveryhigh
andbytheverysalientzygomaticarches.
Thenoseisofmediumtosmallproportion,therightsidewithalittleelevationat
thehalf.
Themouthpartisnotsalient;lipsbeingnarrowandtheupperlipverywellarched.
Cheeksaredeepset.
Overtheupperlipthereisaslightinflammationandinthemiddlepartofthe
inferiorlip,asmalllockofhair(mosca);overthechinatruegoatbeard.
Theearistotallystuckinthescalpandtheantehelixcomesoutalittleinthe
middle;butapartfromthistherearenospecificities.
Reserved,taciturnphysiognomy(Bruch1904).
Almostattheendofhisreport,Bruchbringsotherobjects,thistimesubjects
objectsthat,inBruchswords,arerelatedtothepastinadifferentwayto
knowledge:theyarethedescendantsoftheformerowners.Arethese,then,the
inheritorsofHualfn?Well,notexactly,andhereisanunspokenrelationship.

Descendantsappearinthetextasobjectsassistingknowledgeofthepastinorder
togiveusatleastahintofwhattheywerelike(Bruch1904),thatis,theirlink
withHualfnisintheorderofknowledge,notintheorderofsociety.Theyarenot
theagentswhoownthelandsdividedbytherowsoftrees,buttheobjects
appearingtohelpusknowtheirancestors,theformerowners.Thatiswhytheydo
notspeak,andtheydonotevenhaveaname,becauseBruchsinterestinthemis
notinwhattheysayasagentsofhistory,butinwhattheyareasobjectsofhistory,
ahistorythatcanbeknownandtoldbyobservinganddescribingtheremainsand
ruinsoftheirancestors,asBruchsays,thelastvestiges.
Betweenmutedescendantsandancestorowners,thereisagap,ametaphysical
rupture,whichcanonlybemediatedbyknowledgeor,morespecifically,bya
particularkindofknowledge,thestudyofthemutematerialremains.This
metaphysicalrupturebetweenhistoryandthedescendantsiswhatmakesthem
irrelevantasagentsofhistoryorasagentsofsociety:thelandoftheirancestors
takenbycolonialviolence;theyarealsodeprivedofthewordabouttheir
relationshiptotheirancestors,totheremainsandruins,byanepistemicviolence
(Spivak1988)thatBruch,andthistraditionofarchaeologyasawhole,
institutionalized.
KnowledgeofthehistoryofHualfnthatBruchbeginsisheirtoatraditionthat,25
centuriesbefore,wasstartedbyHerodotusofHalicarnassus,whoestablishedasa
theoreticalmethodologicalbasisofWesternhistoriography,ahierarchyofthe
sourcesofknowledgeinwhichthetestimonyintheirownlanguageonthegaze
overothersprevails(Abercrombie1998).ForHerodotus,onlythosetestimonies
basedondirecteyewitnesswerevalidandwouldbeconsidered,subordinating
thusothersourcesofknowledge,suchasoralmemory.Historywas,moreover,a
businessrunbymembersofthesamelinguisticculturalregion(alsoapolitical
militaryregion);ithadtodowithwarrelationshipsbetweenthisandthe
barbariansthat,byvirtueoftheirlinguisticandculturaldifference,weretheobject
ofwarratherthandialog,thepeopleswithoutlanguage.Combiningthesetwo
structures,thelogicalresultisthatthehistoryofthewaragainstthePersians
excludedthevoice,thelook,andthememoryofthePersiansandthathistory
inhabitedaparticulardwelling,ours,thatofthevictoriousconqueror,andfrom
thisdwellinghistorywaswritten,evenwhenitwasostensiblywrittenasamere
knowledgerelationshipofthefactsofthepast.
Bruchrelateshimselftotheremainsandruinsinthesamewayasherelateswith
descendants:materialremainsanddescendantremainsarethere,andBruchis
heretoknowthepastthroughthem.ThefactthattheremainsareinHualfn,as
wellasthedescendants,doesnotaffectBruchexceptasaknower,thatis,bytaking
theroleofaknowerhedeniesanyotherontologicalorsocialrelationshipbetween
thelivingandthedead(Haber2009).ItisnotthatBruchshouldbeheld
responsibleforthecolonialviolenceexertedovertheancestorsofthedescendants,
butthathisdelimitationoftherelationshipintermsofaknowledgerelationship,
thatis,notasocialone,alsodelimitsthesocialrelationshipbetweenancestorsand
descendants:betweenthosewhosuffertheconsequencesofcolonialhorrorthat
hedescribesasmute,reserved,andtaciturnobjectsandthosewhoenjoythe
benefitsofthosesameconsequences,thelandowningelitewhohostedhimintheir
houses,whosedividingtreerowsheobserves,andwhoselaborersposedforhis
photographsandexcavatedthesepulchersoftheirancestors.Thisisadelimitation
thatarchaeologynaturalizesnotinitstheoriesoritsthematiccontents,butinits

disciplinaryframes:thesubjectmatterthelonggonepastandthemethod,
materialremains,mute,andinertmatter.Thismarksadelimitationwhich
excludesthesocialandontologicalrelationshipexistingbetweenancestorsand
descendantsandwhichultimatelyperpetuatesthepresentconsequencesof
colonialism.
Bruchseemssafefromthemachinerythatbuildssubjectivitiesdividedfrom
history.Isayseemsbecausethesinofhubrisissoondiscoveredbythe
inhabitantsintheOlympus,whoclaimwhichallmortalsshouldknow:
archaeology,evenasabusinessaimedatknowledge,mustbejustifiedforthe
presentsociety.Bruchslastphraserevealshimselftrappedinthehegemonic
erasureofhistory:Ofcoursethereisalottobefoundoutaboutthoseregions,
whichyethidetherichnessofourprehistory(Bruchop.cit.,italicsadded).
Bruchenunciatesprehistoryinthefirstpersonplural,includinghimselfinawe
thatrelatesthen,tothepastofHualfn,inwayswhich,delimitedornotby
knowledge,areenoughtodefineacollectivewe,anagentofprehistory,unveiling
thusthemetaphysicalcharacterofthefracture,thatis,thecolonialsubjective
differencetransposedtotheobjectiveworld,becauseacollectiveofknowersthe
collectiveofarchaeologistsisnotunderconsiderationhere,butofasocial
collective,theArgentinians,whoconsiderthemselvesagentsofahistorythey
describeasobject.ThesameasHerodotuswithhismethodologicalpremises,
Bruch,andarchaeologyafterhim,useshispremisesinsuchawaythat,underthe
pretextofknowingapast,heconstituteshisownidentity,hisownhomeaddress:
archaeologyunveilsthehistoricalrichnessoftheliberalArgentinenationthat,at
thesametime,recapitulatesEuropeancolonizationandWesterncivilization.
WhatBruchstextillustratesistheprocedurebywhichthemodernarchaeological
disciplineincorporatesandreproducesthespecificplacefromwhichitdevelopsas
adiscursivepracticeofthehistoriesandculturesoftheothers;thisisnotjustin
thechoiceofoneoranothertheory,oneoranotherparadigm,butinthe
delimitationofitssubjectmatteranditsbasicmethodology.Aplacewhose
representationunderuniversalinterestsofknowledgeisnothingbuta
mystificationofconcretesocialrelationships,acaredforblindnesstowardstheir
ownsocialandhistoricalconditions.Thefactthat,fromthenon,archaeologyis
consideredapurelyscientificpracticeisnothingbuttheremarkofthismodern
discipline.Fromthispoint,fromthatparticularsocialandhistoricalplaceofwhich
itisblind,archaeologyintendstoinstrumentalizeitselftowardsinterveninginthe
transformationofsocialsituations,thustheactivationofsuchdiscourseina
colonialproject.Butinordertounderstandthecircumstancesinwhichsucha
processofpostdisciplinaryinstrumentalizationofarchaeologyworks,itis
necessarytoresearchdeeperintothepostcolonialcontextinwhichlifesdiscipline
givesbirthtoitsregulation,becausestateandsciencedonotdisciplinesocial
relationshipsnowsomuchastheymodulatethem(Lazzarato2006).Thatwhich
modernityhadenthronedastheprimaryrelationshipwiththeworld,thatis,
knowledge,isreconsideredinpostcolonialmomentsasthepoleofhegemonic
normalityfromwhichscienceandstatemodulatesocialrelationships.Life,
permeatednowmorethanever,facesthepenetratingstrengthofthefreemarket.
Archaeology,ineffect,functionstodisciplinetherelationshipwithhistoryandthe
ancientworld;solongasitispositedintermsofrigorousknowledge,the
metaphysicalandessentialbreakbetweenhistoryanditsconsequenceshas
producedagentsestrangedfrommemoryaswellasmute,methodologicallyeasy

tomanipulatematerialobjects,notlinkedtosocialrelationships.Agentsand
objectsdistancedfromeachotherthroughaCartesiandisciplinearereconnected
whenincorporatedasagentsandobjectsofanemergentneoliberalfaith,
accordingtowhichthefreemarketreplacesChristandthereasonaspolesof
hegemonicnormality,remagnetizingandreorientingprecedingdiscursiveand
disciplinaryregimes.
Archaeologiesorientedtotourismdevelopment,totheproductionofnewmarket
goods,andtothegrowingmarketintegrationoffarmingand/orindigenous
peoples,andtheadministrativeregulationundertheschemeofimpact
assessmentsofcolonialmegaprojectssuchasthoseoftheminingandextractive
industries,proliferatenowadaysintheeverexpandingfieldofsocial
archaeologies,aspacewhichwasformerlytakenbyarchaeologiesoriented
towardsspreadinginsocietythecreedofdisciplinaryknowledge.Itisnotthat
archaeologyhasstoppeditstributetotheexpansionofcolonialborders,butit
renewsitsservicesasthisborderrearticulatesundernewmechanismsdirectedto
oldgoals:thelandofthebloodandthebloodoftheland.
Havingreachedthisseemingendpoint,thequestionarises:overwhatandwhomis
thatbordergrowing?Ifuponeachsideofthisemergentborderthesame
denominationexisted,therewouldnotbeanysenseintalkingaboutaborder,
aboutnewmarketsordifferentdevelopments.Ontheothersidethereisthat
whichmaintainsmoreorlessmanageablelinkswiththeforcesofthefreemarket,
thatwhichistoagreatextentdominatedandcontained,andthatwhichis
designatedbythehegemonicplaceofpowerandscience,whichBruchdescribesas
reservedandtaciturn.Whatknowledgeisitthatthereservedoneskeepto
themselves?Fromwhat/whoaretheywithholding?Iftheyaretaciturn,whatisthe
implicitmessageinthissilence?ForcolonialfiguressuchasBruch,whatcould
barbarianstalkabout,cantheyenterwithintheepistemicfield,andwhentheir
speechmanifestsasnoise?Thistacitplaceofwithholdingisadiscursivespace
markingacriticalpointofentryforthegenealogicalexaminationofpoweratwork
inarchaeologicalpractice.
UndiscipliningArchaeologyinthePunadeAtacama
Fromthemid1980s,IstartedresearchintheregionofAntofagastadelaSierra,in
thePunaofAtacama.Earlyresearchconcentratedonunderstandingthe
ethnographyoftherelationshipsbetweenlocalpopulation(mainlyadultmales)
andflockanimals(sheepandllama),pastures,aswellasvegetationandlandscape.
Backthenmyaimwastopursueethnographyasameansforarchaeological
interpretation,insertedintowhatprocessualarchaeologyunderstoodasethno
archaeology(Haber2001).Onlyafewoftheassumptionsguidingthisinitial
programremainedinthewakeofbeingconfrontedwithlocalknowledge.Noneof
theavenuesfortheobservationofreality(e.g.,economicstrategies)orthe
enunciationofcategoriesfortheobjectsunderresearch(e.g.,shepherds)
manifestedintheconversationsIhadwithmyfieldteachers.Wastemanagement,
forinstance,wouldhaveonlybeensuperficiallyandacceptablyconsideredwithin
thepatternofbonedisposal,objects,people,andtheirmovementsseemedtoobey
tologicscompletelyunrelatedtothestrategiesandlogisticsIwasinitially
determinedtodiscoverasacontributiontomydiscipline.Allofthismademe,
progressively,leaveasidetherestrictiveaspectsofarchaeologicalpracticewhich
hadbeenimposeduponme.Thedisciplinewasnotintheleastpreparedtolisten
tothepeopleortoquestiondisciplinaryassumptionsfromthelocalperspective

and/orindigenousknowledgethatconfrontedagreatdealofinstitutional
disciplining.IwasforcedtoacademicallydistancemyselfonceIbegantoquestion
theassumptionsthenheld(andstillexisting)onthedomesticationandpasturing
ofllama,takingintoconsiderationinsteadthemeaningframesprovidedbythe
AymaraandQuechualanguagesandbythesemiosisoflocalpracticeinrelating
withtheseanimals(Haber2001).
Throughthe1990sIundertookmydoctoralresearch,inthesameregionbutina
differentareaAntofalla.Iintendedtoexaminethepastbyputtingintoplay
theoreticalmethodologicalresourceswhichwouldnotpresumeaneconomic
liberallogic,anevolutionistlinearity,orahistorydeterminedbyexternalforces
suchasevolutionandempires.Ibelievethemostvaluablefeatureofthisresearch
wastoput,inahouseIexcavatedin,theplacefromwheretolookattheworldand
tellthehistory.Andhistory,seenandtoldfromthathouse,hadaverydifferent
flavortothatwithwhichwasbeingtoldatthetime.Thehistoriesofthattime
highlightedthecontinuitiesoffarminglifeoverthesuccessionofcultures,periods,
andstagesofgrowingcomplexity.Fromthehouse,thesmelloffood,theshovel
withwhichditcheshadbeendugtowatercrops,andwhatthetalkonthe
neighborswasweremoreimportantthanthedominationofhumansoveranimals,
empiresovertowns,andfunctionsovermeanings.Thiswasalso,toagreatextent,
adisciplinaryresearch,inthatitsaimwastoknowtheremotepastthroughits
muteobjectsandtheirrelationships.WhenIputthoseobjectsinconversation,I
didit,whenIcould,throughmydialogswithlocalknowledge,butIalsokept
withinmyselfandtookstrengthasinterpreterandmediator,intentionallynot
listeningtolocalmemorytechniques.Thisresearchalsohadthevirtueof
incorporatinglocaltheoriestotherelationshipsbetweenbeingsintheworld
confrontedbyWesterntheories,butevenso,Icontinuedasamediatorbetween
localknowledgeandthearchaeological.IobtainedmyPh.D.withthisresearchand
thenIwasreadytolearn.
OneofthemainsitesoflearningformewasthepublichearingheldinAntofagasta
delaSierrainOctober2002,inwhichthegovernmentoftheprovinceof
CatamarcaputforwardtheprojectforthecreationofLasParinasNationalParkfor
theconsiderationofthelocalpopulation.Acoupleofyearsbefore,theprojectof
creatingtheparkwasbeingprepared,butIdidnottakepartinitnorwasIinvited
todoso,asIbelieve,becauseIdidnotclearlyexpressmyselfinfavoroftheidea
whenIwasconsultedbythesenatorwhopromotedtheinitiative.Someweeks
beforethepublichearinginAntofagastadelaSierra,therewasameetingatthe
NationalUniversityofCatamarcainwhichtechniciansandofficialsoftheSecretary
oftheEnvironmentoftheProvinceofCatamarcapresentedtheproject.Agroupof
studentsfromAntofagastalivinginthecityhadbeeninvitedtothemeeting,and
mysuspicionabouttheprojectanditsfuturegrewwhenIcouldconfirmthatin
Antofagastanoonewasawareofit.
Severalresearcherswereinvitedtothepublichearing,includingthefourdirectors
ofarchaeologicalresearchteamsintheareawheretheparkwastostand;some
biologists,ecologists,andornithologists;aswellasofficialsfromtheNational
ParksAdministration.Inthegroupoftechniciansandacademics,voiceswere
heardclearlyfromthoseinfavorofthepark,tothoseworriedaboutthelackof
awarenessonthepartofthelocals.Amongthelocals,ontheotherhand,therewas
greatmistrustexpressedinfearsastolandownershipandthepossibilityofthe

fieldbeingfenced.AsIsawit,thesefearswereeasilydefusedbytheproject
creators,butthedistressremainedwithoutthepeoplebeingabletoexpressit.
Withtwocolleagues,Itookpartinaninformalmeetingheldinaprivatehouse,
wheresomeofthemostwellknowneldersintownwerecongregated.Theysaid
theydisagreedwiththeprojectandmistrustedit:ifwearetheoneswhogive
protection,whydowehavetoseethemcomeandtellashowwehavetodo
things?Theplacefromwheretheirrejectionoftheparkemergedwasthesame
localtheoryofrelationalitythatappearedinmyongoingresearch.Accordingto
suchatheory,appropriaterelationshipsbetweenbeingsarealwaysreciprocaland
asymmetricalandconsistofacomplexmixtureofupbringing,respect,love,and
fear,alloccurringatonce.Thus,ownershipandlove,caretakingandbreeding,and
agricultureandritualareenactedaspartofthesamekindofappropriate
relationships.Conversationsevolved,comparingthelocalvisiontothevisionof
thepromotersofthepark(whichcouldbecalledamodernone),accordingto
whichthelandistheretobeknownbythescientists,whodeterminehowto
manageit.Thistransformationthatcanseemobviousforanacademiccontext,so
naturalasahegemonicpractice,isnotasintuitiveforthosewhoaredebating
resistancetomodernizingdiscoursesfromtheothersideofthecolonialborder.
Revealingandmovingastheknowledgeaboutthelocaltheoryofupbringingoflife
seemedtome,inthatcontext,puttingintowordsacademicassumptionsastotheir
linktotheenvironmentintermsofatheorywasalsoenlightening,because
enunciatingthehegemonicpositioncanproduceitsdetachmentfromitspresumed
siteofnormality(CastroGmez&Grossfoguel2007).Protectionandbreeding
(local)relationshipswerecomparedtobiopoliticalhegemonic(state)
relationships,thesebeingtheonesthatgavesubstancetoprojectscentered
aroundtheproductionoflife.
Localvocalitywasstronglyexpressedinthefollowingpublicmeeting:thepark
wasrejectedbythepopulation,whichadopted,apartfromthat,othermeaningful
politicalgesturessuchasspittingattheFrenchambassadorwhohadpolitically
promotedtheNationalPark,becauseofaninternationaltouristicprojectinvolving
hisowncompany,andultimatelythrowinghimoutofthetown.Itwaswitnessing
these2002eventsthatallowedmetounderstandtheextenttowhichlocal
frameworkswereintimatelyintertwinedwiththereproductionoflocallifeandthe
particularqualityofsufferingwhenlifewasatriskduetocolonialprojects.Ialso
examinedhowpoliticallypositionedacademicdisciplinesare,andamongthem
archaeology,certainlyfunctioningasakeypartofthecolonialarsenal.Fromthere,
Inoticedtheurgentneednotjusttodeconstructthedisciplinaryframeworkin
termsofacritiqueofpossibleknowledgeconditionsasIhaddonethusfar,butthe
needtotakesuchadeconstructiveprojectinthedirectionofmycurrentwork,a
positiveprojectofdisablingthecolonizingaspectsofdisciplinarypracticeand
knowledge(seeHaber2009).Andthisisacollectivetask,notsimplybecauseof
thequantityofpeopleinvolved,butbecauseitisataskofdecolonialactivation
sinceitiscollaborativelydonewithpopulationsaffectedbycolonialprojects.
Wheredoesarchaeologystandinthesepostcolonialencounters?AsIhavestated
sofar,archaeologyoccupiesaprivilegedplaceinthecolonialarsenal.Thatiswhy
itisnecessarytodeactivateit,inadditiontolocatinganddelimitingitswork.And
forarchaeology,thereisnobettermedicinethanlocalinterlocution,thatis,to
makearchaeologyhaveaconversationwiththesilencedvoicesoverwhichithas
beenbuilt.ThatispreciselywhatIintendtodoindifferentfieldsofactivity.With

mystudentsofresearchdesign,wetrytostructurearchaeologicalresearchas
havingdialogswithlocalcontextsandvoices,havingthearchaeologists
communicatewiththelocalsintheirterrain,butfirstlywiththeirowntown.Inthe
2006editionofthecourse,IwasguidingmystudentDanielaFernndeztobegin
researchingmethodologicalproceduresandassumptionsinthestudiesof
archaeologicalimpact.Myguidingrationaleinthecontextofbestfieldpractices
wasthatbyraisingthequalityandstandardsofsuchprojectstothelevels
equivalenttothoseofthehomecountriesofminingcompanies,includingethnic
relevancecriteriaandnotjustacademiconesfortheconsiderationoftheaffected
culturalpatrimony,andmakingimpactstudieseasilycontrollablebythe
interestedparties,thenatleastoneoftheaspectsoflargescaleminingcouldbe
controlledthatwhichisconcernedwithculturalpatrimony.Danielathengaveher
visionoftheissueasaninhabitantofAndalgal,thetownsoontobesignificantly
impactedbyalargescaleminingprojectwhose3.6kmwideopenpitwillbeset
only20kmfromthetown:thesenseofculturalpatrimonydisappearsiftheheirs
ofthatpatrimonydisappear.Whoisthearchaeologisttosaywhereourpatrimony
islocated,Danielaasked,tosaywhatisworthsavingandwhatisnot?Whoisthe
archaeologisttointerveneinsafeguardingourpatrimonyintheprocedureby
whichhegivesapermittoaproject,thesamethatwillleadustodeath?Whydo
theymeasuretheimpactovermypatrimonyofaprojectthatwillterminatemy
offspring?Archaeologicalpatrimonyandculturalpatrimonyarenotdifferentfrom
thelandorthecommunity;youcannotsaveoneofthembydestroyingtheother.
Againarchaeology,construedfromthelocalviewpoint,losesthecommonsensical
autonomythatjustifiesitsmodesofintervention,beitasdiscourseorasproject,in
locallife.Thiscircumstance,asWilhelmLondoosuggests,isthestartingpointof
analternativedefinition(pers.comm.2012),anotherwayofcallingwhatIam
naminghereintercultural.
AsthereadingofBruchstextinformedbylocalconversationsshowsus,the
discourseofculturalpatrimonygoeshandinhandwiththedenialofthe
patrimonialrelationshipbetweenancestorsanddescendantsofthesameland.
Thatiswhytheepistemicdelinkingwork(WalterMignoloandCatherineWalsh)
aswellasthetaskofdistinguishingthethoughtnotfromthecontentsbutfromthe
termsinwhichWesternthoughtiscontained;Irepeat,theepistemicdelinking
workisjustthevisibletipoftheiceberg.Suchadelinkingexistsonlyifitoccursin
conversationwithlocalknowledge,becausetheyaretheonesintimidating
epistemicsafety,shakingthebasis,andquestioningnotjustofthoughtcategories
(thecolonialityofknowledge)buttheontologicalplaceofthought(thecoloniality
ofbeing).However,knowledgepresupposesadelinkingfrommoderncategories,
asaleapintothevoid,anditisathoughtlocatedfromplacesother,already
attachedtotheplace,totheland.Thus,delinking,ifitoccurswhilelisteningtothe
Otherinthefield(developingsocialrelationships)andnotjustinterpretingthe
Otherinanoffice(developingknowledgerelationships),impliesarelinkingfroma
placewhichisnottheborderitselfbuttheothersideofit,theothersideofthe
metaphysicalrupture.
Thearchaeologicalit,forexample,isontheOthersidesomethinglinkedtolocal
vitalrelationships,althoughbyfollowingarelationshipofnetworksandtheories
completelydifferenttothedisciplinaryones.Withthoseassumptions,my
relationshiptoAntofallaadvancedalonglocalpoliticalstrategiesofpresentation
beforethegovernmentasanindigenouscommunitywhichclaimedthecommunal

propertyoftheirland.Followingthis,whatarchaeologyconsidersitssubject
matterofstudy,andthatinaninterculturaldialogwouldleadtodelinking,is,in
Catamarcaslocalcommunities,alreadylinkedtolifeinrelationship;itisan
integralandvitalpartoftheterritory,thislasttakennotonlyasageographical
spacewhereacommunityislocatedbutasthetimespacethatinteractsasan
agentwhichissensitive,protective,powerful,anddemandingofhierarchical
reciprocityobligationswithacollectiveofpeople.
Isawmyselfinvolvedinlocalpoliticalstrategies,neitherasresearcherormilitant,
becausebothrolesinstrumentalizetherelationship,thelink,followingtheirown
aims,ofknowledgeandideology.Thishappenedmoreduetothefactthatmyrole
ofinhabitantmakesmeapartoftheserelationships,andfromtheremyinterest
couldbeputwith(i.e.,composedtogetherwith)thoseofthecommunity,asIaman
activepartoftheprocesses.Thetimesoftheseprocessescannotentirelybe
managedbyme;theyare,onthecontrary,asinanyrelationshipformedby
differentpeople,veryuncertain.Thecommunityhasitsowntimesandprocesses,
manytimesdifferenttomineandevenoppositetomyownpoliticallogic.
CanIsayIhaveasocialcommitmenttothiscommunity?No.WhatIhave,or,
better,whatwehave,aresocialrelationships.Ofmutualknowledge,ofinterests
sometimesshared,ofcomradeship,mostlyoffriendship.Ifeelthatfriendshipwith
actualpeopleiswhatmovesme,morethantheobjectiveofimprovingthepeoples
life.Ido,instead,feelpoliticallycommittedtodecolonizemyownplace,to
decolonizemyself,orsubordinate,aswellassubordinatingrelationships.Inthis
wayIunderstandarchaeologyasapoliticalpractice.Iamnotinterestedinmoving
myacademicandintellectualresourcestoreachpoliticallydefinedaims,but
interculturalinterlocutionpoliticallymovesmyacademicandintellectual
resourcestothepointofdemandingpolitical,cultural,andontologicalpositions.
Manyoftherelationshipsofthecommunitieswiththemeaningfullivesintheir
territorieshavesufferedcolonialextirpationpolitics.Thejudicialapparatusofthe
state,withitsregulationsforminingandforfauna,environment,andcultural
patrimonyprotection,togetherwithmigratoryandcustomspolitics,establishesas
afelonytherelationshipsofAntofallapeoplewithminerals,vicua,birdsandtheir
eggs,theancient,andtheChileanandBolivian,recapitulatingthelegaland
politicalcontextofSpanishdominion,whenrelationshipswiththegodsandthe
languagewerealsorepressed.Takingallofthisintoaccount,almosteverything
peoplepracticeasculturallymeaningfulengagementswithlocalcosmologiesand
landscapesnecessarilyentersintowhatthestatetypifiesasafelony.Sincethe
phoneticresemblancebetweentheEnglishlanguagedelinkingandtheSpanish
languagedelinquir,i.e.,tocommitanoffencepunishedbylaw,Iwouldliketoplay
herewithapossiblealternativemeaningofepistemicdelinking.SomeyearsagoI
metoneofmypeasantteacherswhilehewasgoldpanninginanabandonedmine
whosearchaeologyIwasresearching.EvenasIwastheintruderinhisland,Ihad
statepermitsfortheexcavation,whilehehadntanylegalprotectionforthegold
panning.Asitisthecasewhensomeonehuntsforavicuaeithertomakean
offeringtoPachamamaorHolyMotherEarth,orfeedtheearth,orreceivethe
soulsandfeedthem,orcelebratetheancientsthatgranttreasure,thiswasa
situationinwhichdelinkingimpliedtheseparationofthejudicialandthe
disciplinarycategoriesfortheenunciationoftheworld,fromthethingsastheyare
presentedintheworldwhichimpliedacrimeor,atleast,anactivecomplicityin
theillegal.Acoupleofyearslater,IcameacrossAndrs(Fictitiousname)andwe

hadaconversationinwhichheaskedmeifIcouldtellhimthetruthgiventhe
factthatIwasanarchaeologistanduniversityprofessorwhetherornottheore
veingrewatnight.Hisquestiondemandedfrommeapolitical,epistemic,and
ontologicalrepositioning.Beinganacademicandthusforcedtobepermanently
servingthetruth,Iunderstoodtheenormousdegreeofdemandthequestion
implied.Theappropriatecareandfeedingrelationshipswiththeoreveintomake
itdevelop,andatthesametimegiveorigintorightsthat,farfrombeingmade
objectsintitles,areintersubjectivelyconstituted:theprotectoristheowner,that
is,heloveshiscreature,whoatthesametimebreedsthebreederandis,finally,his
owner.Andrswasaskingmeaboutmypositioninrelationtolocaltheoryandas
tothecolonialdifferentialinthattheorywhoserightsaresubordinate,and
anothertheory,thestateandsciencetheory,whichestablishesphysicalchemical
andpropertyrelationships,sustainedinmercantileacquisition.Ioftenremember
thissituationbecauseiteloquentlyexemplifiesthecircumstancebywhichthereis
noneutralplaceforarchaeology,andthatbeingalreadyconstitutedinthefieldof
power,itcannotbeseparatedfromitsoriginwithoutlinkingitatthesametimeto
anetworkofmeaningfulrelationships.These,evenwhenlocal,canalsobemineto
theextenttowhichtheinterculturalpracticehasasapreconditiontheopening
towardstransformation,toinhabitingtheconversation.Theimmenseliterarytask
ofarchaeology,perhapsthemostpoliticallysignificantofallthatcanbeproposed,
consistsinnarratingthedeparturefromonesownhomeaddressofthoughtand
writing.
Anditcouldnotbeotherwise.Becauseundoingthatwhichhadbeensustainedin
thedenialofintersubjectivecommunication,asinthecaseofarchaeology,means
enteringtheconversation,havingadialogwiththeobjectiveworldwherethe
differencethatconstitutescolonialsubjectivityhadbeentransposedasifitwerea
metaphysicalrupture,soonerorlater,movesthatsubjectivity.Intercultural
researchconsistsinaconversationaboutbiopoliticaltechniquesforthe
discipliningofrelationshipswiththegodsandpeople,andthatiswhyitisa
conversationthatmovesourrelationshipwiththem.Tomovethehomeaddressof
writingisasmuchaneffectasaneffectuationofinterculturalarchaeology,as
muchadescriptionoftheplaceofthethoughtandthepracticeasapolitical
provocationofmyownignorance.
Inadditiontodescribingmyplaceinarchaeology,Icoulddescribeitas
undisciplined,intercultural,andsubjunctive.Itisundisciplinedofitsmostbasic
andpermanentdisciplinaryassumptions,itsobjectsandmethods.Itis
undisciplinedwithregardtoitsassumptionsaboutinertmaterialityandtemporal
linearityastheprimeorganizingmodalitiesofthearchaeologicalpast.Itis
interculturalbecauseitdevelopsinopentransformativeconversationbetween
framesofmeaningandculturalassumptions,inaconversationwhichisincharge
ofthepowerdifferentialhistoricallybuilt,aconversationasmuchinterasintra
subjective,becauseinpostcolonialcontextswearealldiglossic.Itissubjunctive
becauseitdoesnotintendfortheindicativedescriptionofanexternalreality,but
itactsonasmuchinternalasexternalareality.
FutureDirections
NowIwouldliketofinishasIstarted,andforthatIwouldhavetoemphasizethat
thedescriptionofsomeofmypracticesdoesnottrytobeajustificationofmy
archaeologyintermsofacommitmenttothewellbeingofanyone,butnorismy
fieldpracticebasedinanasepticcommitmenttoanimaginedtruthoftheobject.If

suchacommitmentexists,itdoessowithinhabitation.Inhabitingisalways
alreadylocalandrelational;ithappensinaplaceandinconversation.The
necessarylocationofinhabitationmakesitimpossibleformetotheorizebeyond
thelocalityofmyhomeaddress,butitisinthatscalethattheconversationseems
relevanttome.Aconversationinwhichothertimesandotherspacesknittheir
voices,theyarelocated.Beinganinhabitant,beingthere,bringingupthelocallife,
allthesedefinetoagreatextentmywayofdoingarchaeology.Nosciencecanask
foracompletejustificationinanunfairworld.Imaybeinterestedinother
mythologies;theycanproposeversionsoftheworldtomethatoriginatetheinside
ofthingsandgivemyselfandmyworldsomegoodandnecessarysubversions.At
momentsinwhichfaithinthefreemarketseemstoreplacefaithinreason(which
intimereplacedfaithinsalvation),areturntothelandfeelsnecessary.
Interculturalarchaeologybecomesaconversationwhichfeedsanemergent
counterhegemonic,decolonial,andanticapitalistsensibility.Anoldfashioned
conversationemerges,oneoutsideanyonenormalframework,onefundamentally
constitutive,aconversationwiththatthirteenyearoldgirlandthatmiddleaged
manwhoseteachingsBruchdidnotacknowledgeinHualfn,withtheirancestors
andancientgods,thosewhosurvivedprotectedbytheshadows,buriedinsands
andbushes,namedinsilence,andfedinsecret.
CrossReferences
CultureinArchaeology
MulticulturalArchaeology
PostcolonialArchaeologies
References
Abercrombie,T.1998.Pathwaysofmemoryandpower.Madison:Universityof
WisconsinPress.
Bruch,C.1904.Descripcindealgunossepulcroscalchaqusresultadodelas
excavacionesefectuadasenHualfin(provinciadeCatamarca).RevistadelMuseode
LaPlataXI.
CastroGmez,S.&R.Grosfoguel.2007.Elgirodecolonial.Bogot:Siglodel
HombreEd.
Gonzlez,A.R.&G.Cowgill.1975.CronologaarqueolgicadelValledeHualfn,
ProvinciadeCatamarca,Argentina.Obtenidamedianteelusodecomputadoras.
ActasPrimerCongresodeArqueologaArgentina.(Rosario):383404.
Haber,A.1995.Supuestostericometodolgicosdelaetapaformativadela
arqueologadeCatamarca(18751900).PublicacionesCIFFyH47:3154.
1999.Caspinchango,larupturametafsicaylacuestincolonialenlaarqueologa
sudamericana:elcasodelnoroesteargentino.RevistadoMuseudaArqueologae
Etnologia.Suplemento3:129142.
2001.Observations,definitionsandpreunderstandingintheethnoarchaeology
ofpastoralism,inL.Kuznar(ed.)EthnoarchaeologyofAndeanSouthAmerica
(InternationalMonographsinPrehistory,Ethnoarchaeologicalseries4):3137.
Michigan:InternationalMonographsinPrehistory.
2009.Adndeestnlos99tficos?Notasdecampodearqueologasubjuntiva,in
SednonsatiataII:103120.Catamarca/Crdoba:FacultaddeHumanidades,
UniversidadNacionaldeCatamarcaEncuentro.
Lazzarato,M.2006.Polticasdelacontecimiento.BuenosAires:TintaLimn.

Spivak,G.1988.Canthesubalternspeak?,inC.Nelson&L.Grossberg(ed.)
Marxismandtheinterpretationofculture:271315.Chicago:UniversityofIllinois
Press.
Walsh,C.2006.Interculturalidadycolonialidaddelpoder,inC.Walsh,A.Garca
Linera&W.Mignolo(ed.)Interculturalidad,descolonizacindelestadoydel
conocimiento:2170.BuenosAires:EdicionesdelSigno.
FurtherReading
Mignolo,W.2006.Eldesprendimiento.Pensamientocrticoygirodescolonial,inC.
Walsh,A.GarcaLinera&W.Mignolo(ed.)Interculturalidad,descolonizacindel
estadoydelconocimiento:920.BuenosAires:EdicionesdelSigno.

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