You are on page 1of 9

T

The Decolonization of understanding the pasts and approaching materiali-


Venezuelan Archaeology ties, at the same time that disrespected other cosmol-
ogies. Moreover, practices in archaeology more
Elis Meza broadly rarely assume critical perspectives to the
Universidade Federal de Pelotas, Pelotas, Rio cross-linking of past and present or human and
Grande do Sul, Brazil nonhumans. Nevertheless, the scant attempts to
forge alternatives procedures and epistemologies in
Venezuelan archaeology in spite of adverse contexts
are worth underlining, since it collaborates to dis-
cuss logocentrism and its deconstruction.
Introduction

How does Venezuela situate itself in terms of world- Definition


wide movement towards decolonizing archaeology?
The relevance of such a query is that since the last Venezuelan archaeology has experienced diverse
two decades, Venezuela has been receiving influences concerning international debates on
increased attention due to the political process theory and methodology, but there has also been
claiming a radical transformation of society. There- an interesting local production of knowledge and
fore, one of the central discourses in the government specific practical experiences. Nevertheless, it has
supporter scholarly field has been the potentiality of not always been attention directed to what the
current scenario for a decolonial approach to knowl- colonial ballasts of disciplinary archaeology are,
edge production. Certainly, diverse ideological posi- neither how can researchers contribute to ongoing
tions from nineteenth century onwards have debates on cultural heritage, communities, and
influenced archaeology and current events are not ethics. The decolonization of Venezuelan archae-
an exception. In this trajectory, despite multiple ology is a task to accomplish.
changes in approaches, some elements of coloniality
are still present, such as racism and inequality. Pub-
lic policy in Bolivarian Revolution has not provided Historical Background
mechanisms to accomplish in practice what dis-
course offered. Neither state-driven archaeological Modernity was the ideal to achieve by Venezuelan
projects nor Cultural Heritage management initia- elite at the end of nineteenth century. Venezuelan
tives have included local communities in assertive country was seen as belated, especially due to the
ways. It actually supported Western models for several wars effects at the Independence period.
# Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018
C. Smith (ed.), Encyclopedia of Global Archaeology,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-51726-1_3402-1
2 The Decolonization of Venezuelan Archaeology

Therefore, European values were promoted and and Ethnology Museum in Harvard University,
all past-related references were crossed by a the American Natural History Museum in
necessity of overcoming. One of the salient New York, Yale Peabody Museum, the University
aspects of this times that continues even now is of California, and Quai Branly Museum in Paris,
the idea of Venezuelan prehispanic cultures’ sim- holding as well ethnographical collections.
plicity. Comparisons with other countries monu- In the context of United States policy of Good
mentality, such as Peru and Mexico, brought a Neighbor, there were wide funding for archaeo-
conception of a local primitivism. logical research. The diffusionist interpretations
There were Venezuelan intellectuals interested produced at that period served to promote a vision
in the historical aspects of the nation, who articu- of Venezuelan past as underdeveloped, useful to
lated the extraction of past artifacts and its collec- support ideological framework of north-American
tion. Also, foreign explorers set forth approaches economic expansion (Meneses and Gordones
to investigate archaeological vestiges. Therefore, 2009). The main discussion was the “H” hypoth-
expropriation of archaeological objects is esis of Cornelius Osgood and George Howard,
commented as early as 1887, when Adolf Ernst explaining Venezuelan territory being a space for
described Andean pottery and said that valuable migration in prehispanic times.
findings were carried to the Washington Museum This debate was maintained by the work Chro-
and San José de Costa Rica Museum. Also, early nological Archaeology of Venezuela, authored by
in twentieth century, Alfredo Jahn organized J.M. Cruxent and Irvine Rouse, which is a
archaeological excavations funded by the Berlin descriptive regional account of archaeological
Ethnological Museum (Meneses and Gordones remains from all around the country. It classified
2009). At that time, with Nation-state consolida- objects and cultures as “simple” or “complex”
tion, there was a greater interest in official spon- according to their perceptions of complexity
soring of archaeological research and the (Scaramelli 2016).
organization of public collections to be exhibited Venezuelan Miguel Acosta Saignes was an
in national museums. insightful critic of these archaeological interpreta-
President Guzman Blanco started an official tions by expressing his concern about history in
cult of Simon Bolivar’s image. Bolivar is the education, when children were presented Venezu-
republic “founding father,” also called “the Liber- elan prehispanic past as nonrelevant and the idea
ator,” concerning his role in Venezuela’s Indepen- that history started with Columbus’s “discovery”
dence from being a Spanish colony. There was a of this land. Therefore, several connections were
promotion of restoration of historical buildings established with an apology of colonialism.
related to Bolivar family. Also, in that context, Local research through a positivist perspective
the first legislation on historical heritage was related to the modernizing enterprise in Ven-
appeared: the 1917 Decree on Protection of Offi- ezuela and the political structure that attempted to
cial Documents and Historical Objects. As Molina overpass indigenous past (Vargas 2005).
(2007) shows, from that time onwards, Heritage Scaramelli’s quotes of one of the most prominent
legislations had two characteristics: they did not ideologues advising President Perez Jiménez, in
contemplate the dynamism of cultural phenomena 1957, explains this position: “the country would
and took heritage management to be a State pre- be better off if the ‘insignificant bits of ceramic
rogative. State interest was more notable in the plates and idols’ were turned under by a tractor
historical period, and prehispanic research was and replaced by real cities and agriculture”
generally a camp of foreign researchers. (Vallenilla Lanz 1957, in Scaramelli 2016: 70).
Archaeological collections from Venezuela In a confrontation with that ideological context
were sold to the National Museum of the Ameri- arises the movement of the Latin American Social
can Indian, at the Smithsonian Institute. Other Archaeology, a theoretical line based on Histori-
institutions holding archaeological artifacts from cal Materialism that had VenezuelansMario
Venezuelan territory are: American Archaeology Sanoja and Iraida Vargas among their central
The Decolonization of Venezuelan Archaeology 3

thinkers. The proposal was considering archaeol- Western neoliberalism, government ideologists
ogy as an oppression weapon when serving to designed a set of central nodes that could collab-
justify exploration of indigenous and peasants, orate with their popular legimitization. One of
through theories that show their “historic inferior- those discourses is that of a “government of the
ity” in front of European (Lumbreras 1974: 6). So, people,” where grassroot organizations were sup-
they intended to produce a different dialectic posed to work in conjunction with centralized
archaeology that recognized political activity in political powers to produce a re-distribution of
past and present. power and resources.
During Bolivarian Revolution, these The Community Archaeology Project devel-
researchers have focused on linking the produc- oped by the Cultural Heritage Institute (IPC) has
tion and accumulation of labor in precolonial and been an initiative for “empowering” communities
colonial periods, the long-term trajectories of as a public policy, conforming a proposal for a
class fights, and subaltern solidarity. In that “social management of archaeological heritage.”
sense, they place a linkage between an “original Through the assistance of archaeological work-
indigenous socialism” and nineteenth-century shops, ministered by IPC functionaries, local
“proto-socialist organizative forms,” as the basis groups are “trained.” The Project explicitly states
for the construction of present socialism (Vargas its participation in the government’s national pro-
2008). This work has resulted in an un-critical ject, the Plan Bolívar 2007–2013, and attests to
perspective on the continuation of power inequal- affirm the socialism values, through the non-
ity in Venezuela and the adjustment of historical academic formation in archaeology by communi-
and archaeological research to provide an ideo- ties “interested in knowing their cultural past”
logical foundation of a predetermined nationalist (IPC 2011: 2).
conception. Moreover, there was a development IPC’s workshops were to proportionate techni-
of an idea of homogenization of all “subaltern” cal tools for archaeological recollections, registra-
subjects, such as indigenous, blacks, peasants, tion, conservation, and exhibition. People were
and urban poor people, agglutinated from the supposed to learn about cultural tourism and
class-fight perspective. how to build community museums. In that sense,
By another side, critics against miscegenation this program shares some of the philosophical
theories were strongly established from the basis about community archaeology discussed in
decade of 1980, as Miguel Acosta Saignes settled the international literature, but it is sui generis,
a tough position questioning Venezuelan dis- due to several own notions about community
course about the population to be a mixture of management integrating archaeological tech-
Spanish, Indians, and black people, from colonial niques. It is certainly paradoxical the promotion
times, then blurring any possibility for a distinc- of local decision-making coming from the state
tive ascendency. Even though there is no much and overtly linked to government’s structure. As
debate on race in Venezuela, some researchers like Ferreira (2013: 80) states: “without civic move-
Kelly (2016) re-actualize the current understand- ments, there would be no critic to the Western
ing of social dynamics regarding ethnicity in canon and to the logocentrism in heritage rhetoric,
national society framework. the archaeological legislations and the research
ethics codes, would stay stopped.” But what
does it happen if transformations come with a
Key Issues/Current Debates community rhetoric, parting from a strongly insti-
tutionalized ideological project, disarticulating
The political context in Venezuela has had a great the possibilities of politic plurality? Following
impact on the disciplinary becoming of archaeol- Ferreira, this inserts itself into a pretended demo-
ogy. Bolivarian Revolution displayed a public cratic intonation that serves to better control and
discourse of the country’s transformation towards repress cultural diversity. This is so because there
decoloniality. Situating themselves against was a possibility for a nonorthodox model of
4 The Decolonization of Venezuelan Archaeology

public policy concerning archaeological manage- Another aspect to discuss is the contradiction
ment, where local people could have had a central at the State’s heritage policy since they claim a
role, but their pedagogic stance of technical discourse of local power without enabling it, and
knowledge and ideological propaganda achieved at the same, they wholly support the idea of “Uni-
no real local participation. It was not comprising versal Heritage” as proposed by the UNESCO.
local heterogeneity, rather “community” in Vene- Internationally, there have been pointed out how
zuela is a category directly associated with gov- the inventory scheme of UNESCO’s projects
ernment supporters. Several researchers institutes a rationality of “exemplarity,” producing
worldwide attest to the diverse ways in which in parallel non-recognized heritage (Hafstein
people interact with past materialities, and those 2014). Even more, the relevance of this perspec-
other logics are highly important for a transforma- tive of Cultural Heritage as a governmental tech-
tion of disciplinary archaeology. In that sense, nique (in a Foucauldian sense) contributing to
IPC’s project wasted a great opportunity for a population management is clear.
radical move to decolonize. It is important to underscore how during the
Continuing this argumentation, Venezuelan Cul- last decades, there has been a salient State’s spon-
tural Heritage laws promote local recognition and soring of historical and archaeological research
conservation of cultural and historical heritage, but about the Independence period (nineteenth cen-
no real possibilities of local management of archae- tury) and the spaces where “national heroes”
ological sites are being established. This is related to developed their actions and quotidian life. For
the fact that state discourse declares a turn from example, the project “Bolivarian Archaeology”
elite-centered constructed heritage (as colonial led by Professor Rodrigo Navarrete between in
houses, catholic churches, or military fortifications) 2006 was designed to present an “evocative” view
to the understanding of heritage from a popular of Simon Bolivar’s daily life context through
perspective. But there was no attention given to material, historical, and oral sources.
alternatives to top-down strategies in public policy, Representing Bolivar as a social agent highlighted
neither to the importance of the dynamic preserva- him as a human being and not as a mythical figure,
tion of cultural heritage, away from state-related so it could be closer to people (Scaramelli 2016).
projects. National Constitution in its Chapter VI, Therefore, a museological exhibition in Caracas
Articles 99, designates the protection of tangible city served to publicly establish an ideological
and intangible cultural heritage as a State function. association of past dynamics with the current
Therefore, specific initiatives such as the I Census of political process. It is not by chance that one of
Venezuelan Cultural Heritage (by the Institute of the most popular mottos of Bolivarian Revolution
Cultural Heritage) are in a cloudy legal position. is “the fight continues,” and Chavez considered
This Census included a declaration of heritage status himself as the twenty-first-century Liberator. Fur-
to objects and places identified by local communal thermore, the activation of heritage process of
councils and promoted that these instances function Mapoyo people as the first indigenous cultural
as stewards (IPC 1997). But besides this attempt to heritage proposed by Venezuelan State to one of
develop an alternative heritage approach, no further UNESCO’s list is closely related to Mapoyo’s
movement was put into action. Moreover, initiatives possession of a sword owned by Simon Bolivar
to promote cultural heritage in local communities in nineteenth century (Meza and Menezes Ferreira
are not granted support. For instance, a museologi- 2016).
cal exhibition by Yara Altez’s team concerning By another side, Gender Archaeology has been
“Osma Memories,” including historical, anthropo- actively promoted by Professor Rodrigo Navarrete.
logical, and archaeological research of an afro- Constituting cross-disciplinary study group
descendant community in central coast Venezuela, Contranatura, he explored sexual diversity, ideol-
was closed by state representatives from the ogy, and the political perspectives of research
National Library Foundation. focused on gender and queer theories. Several pub-
lications and seminars have been organized as well
The Decolonization of Venezuelan Archaeology 5

as the promotion of anthropology student’s critical being able to cope with Comunas Popular Power
education. Professor Navarrete has also been a Ministry’s procedures and exigencies. In that
pioneer in approaching an archaeology of present sense, a discourse of nonhegemonic inclusion
in Venezuela. One of his main contributions is a ends up promoting the continuity of the
study of discourses crossed by gender, ethnicity, establishment.
race, and class, as present in material manifesta- In the same vein, within national Constitution,
tions like street graffiti (Navarrete and Lopez there should be a previous consultation with com-
2009), and more recently on material culture asso- munities affected by natural resources exploita-
ciated to the practice of prostitution in Caracas’ tion, but no indigenous community was
night. In spite of current discourses in Venezuela consulted concerning the establishment of a
affirming the openness of spaces for this discus- mega-mining military industry, with mixed trans-
sion, it has been occurring due to groups and indi- national capital, the Orinoco Mining
viduals interested and not because of official Arc. Actually, the government banned protesting
support. against this project, because it is considered as
Similarly, beyond symbolic manifestation, strategic to the nation development. Government
Venezuelan State has not done significant actions representatives argue that they are doing an “eco-
to collaborate with contemporary indigenous logical mining,” but at the same time, their policy
resistance or with the respect of their perspectives does not unlink itself from a neo-liberal project.
on the past. At his candidate discourse, Hugo This is having an enormous effect on indigenous
Chavez expressed the need of reparation towards communities and their territories, including
the “pueblos originarios” (first nations), due to a archaeological and memory sites.
historical debt from Venezuelan state. Neverthe- This context of generalized disrespect of indig-
less, as several research works indicate, that debt enous peoples and ecosystems can be related to
was not paid. Bolivarian Revolution identifies the fact that in terms of archaeological repatria-
itself with a “multicultural rhetoric” that presented tion, there are very few experiences to relate. That
a better panorama for indigenous peoples rights, debate has not been actively incorporated into
through the creation of several institutional and universities discussions and local communities
juridical instances specifically directed to attend request for archaeological materials rarely take
them. But highly partidized and bureaucratic pro- public dimensions. One exception is the case of
cedures produced bigger inequality in the access Pemón indigenous people, who during two
of resources and exclusion of indigenous groups decades requested to Venezuelan authorities to
or individuals who do not claim support of ask German government to return the “Piedra
Bolivarian ideology, for example, the Indigenous Kueka,” considered by them an ancestor, a grand-
Communal Councils. These are state-produced mother, who should not be in an artistic foreign
local organizations that were created to articulate public exhibition. The stone was not returned yet;
local needs and public policy, but their actual however, it rekindled the national government
characteristics have dismantled the “popular interest in requesting the devolution of archaeo-
power” discourse. Political science scholars have logical and ethnographical collections that were
criticized communal councils due to state taken away in different moments and are part of
clientelism and corruption cases. Also, it is European and Northamerican Museums, also
remarkable that the government presentation of without the appropriate measures to make this
communal councils as an advanced popular orga- possible. This idea of archaeological repatriation
nization takes as the reference for its constitution, was developed by archaeologists Lino Meneses
indigenous ancestral organization. Nevertheless, and Gladys Gordones from Los Andes University
there is no evidence of a real relationship with in one of their books, where they propose the
indigenous sociability, since several indigenous creation of a History Museum Network, working
communities that have tried to propose communal locally, regionally, and nationally, and where
councils to achieve needed resources have not those artifacts could have a social use, advancing
6 The Decolonization of Venezuelan Archaeology

the knowledge on the Republic’s origin (Meneses More generally, the deficiency in financial sup-
and Gordones 2009). Up to this moment, there is port of research centers promoted from Chavez
no History Museum in Venezuela. There was a government onwards has had a strong influence in
project to the construction of a National Museum, the almost total paralyzation of archaeological
but it was not finally accomplished. work in Venezuela. For instance, the archaeolog-
In another path, an interesting case of repatriation ical precolonial site “Taima-Taima,” which was
took place close to the inauguration of Murükuní musealized to be an outdoor in situ exhibition of
Community Museum. Mapoyo people received lithic artifacts and megafauna, now is practically
archaeologists Kay and Franz Scaramelli closed.
(Venezuelan Institute of Scientific Research (IVIC)
and Central University of Venezuela) and supported
their research during several years. One of the International Perspectives
results was the documentation of Mapoyo ancestral
territories as part of state exigencies to demarcate Nation-state formation in Latin America took var-
indigenous land. But also, Mapoyo people declared ious references from European perspectives around
an interest in a local stewardship of materials found historical and archaeological objects, for example,
in their territory, one of the reasons for the construc- the idea of the role of State in institutionalizing
tion of the museum. Therefore, researchers agreed to what would become a common patrimony and
return archaeological collections as well as copies of how is managed its conservation (Molina 2007).
written articles and dissertations developed in Enlightenment influences on conceptualizing mon-
Mapoyo’s territory to be part of a local library uments and antiquities, served as the basis for the
adjacent to the museum. Nevertheless, besides this constructions of museums with state financial. But
experience, there is a shouting inexistence of collab- it also promoted cultural artifact spoliation as a
orative projects and theoretical thinking towards common practice. And that is a history uniting
decolonization of archaeological practices in the Europe and the Americas. Nevertheless, the con-
country. ception of the “need of more information” from
This discussion can be crossed with the actual those artifacts and claims of the universal character
understanding of archaeological collections’ state of Cultural Heritage makes difficult serious think-
of affairs. According to a systematic overview of ing on repatriation, clearly an ethical-political
most archaeological collections in Venezuela car- endeavor (Lowenthal 2005). Of course, bad condi-
ried out in 2011, research centers are not having tions in archaeological objects deposits, as it is the
the adequate conditions for material conservation. case for Venezuela, but also for many countries,
One paradigmatic case is Archaeology Depart- also contribute to a debate on artifacts conserva-
ment in the Central University of Venezuela, tion. In that sense, it is important to remark that
where in spite of internal attempts to organize archaeological fieldwork continuously produces
the deposits, there is a fragile infrastructure that more and more accumulation of fragments, in a
allowed the entrance of animals and humidity. way that even impedes its real processing, registra-
Those conditions are very common in archaeolog- tion, and analysis, and that panorama should take
ical repositories in Venezuela (Díaz 2006). into consideration the quantities of objects from
Another relevant problem is the lack of documen- past research that may even lack “contextual
tation of most of the archaeological materials, information.”
producing a de-contextualization of the artifacts. There has been a relatively little discussion
Both issues are especially worrying considering about these themes in Latin America, for instance,
the presence of human remains from the past that comparing to countries as United States,
were excavated and translated to museums or Australia, New Zealand, mostly promoted by
universities, without any sensibility, interest in indigenous groups. For instance, Smith (2005)
reburial or even preservation of their physical comments on the construction of the exhibition
integrity. at the National Museum of the American Indian
The Decolonization of Venezuelan Archaeology 7

(Washington) according to diverse indigenous National Park, safekeeping “rehue” which is a


cosmologies, challenging the racial hierarchy ritual monument and a space with rock paintings
implicit in hegemonic cultural discourses. Even (Endere et al. 2010).
presenting particular challenges, these initiatives This kind of initiatives is almost inexistent in
contribute to transforming the unequal power rela- other Latin American contexts. This is so even
tionships permeating colonial practices in cultural though since the decade of 70 there was a devel-
heritage processes. This discussion goes hand in opment of the movement of Latin American
hand with the statements of Atalay (2006) regard- Social Archaeology that strongly discussed theo-
ing the decolonial approach, which question what retical perspectives “from our realities.” Their
are the “valid” views and actions with respect to critics of imperialism, capitalism, and class
the past. Archaeological and museological prac- inequalities did not move them or their scholarly
tices grounded on Western values have generally descendants to worry about communities relation-
privileged material and scientific interpretations, ships with objects from the past. In fact, historical
instead of spiritual and sensorial dimensions. In materialism approach with its evolutionary per-
that way, indigenous scholars and activists put the spective has little contributed to developing
focus on native intellectual contributions and decolonial archaeologies. In cases like Venezuela,
rights to stewardship. this current has been more attracted to support
One interesting experience is from Argentina, nationalistic enterprise than producing transfor-
where a collection of human skeletons from mations of the disciplinary colonial conventions
Pampa and Patagonia region, attributed to of archaeology.
Tehuelches and Araucano peoples, were being Notwithstanding, archaeology development in
requested by indigenous associations since Venezuela can be understood in terms of what
1970s. These groups were massacred in nine- Gnecco (2002) calls an “indigenization of
teenth century in order to conquest their territories national archaeologies.” Above comments on
and their bodies were exhibited in La Plata Bolivarian Community Archaeology present a
Museum, from La Plata National University. different setting of what is called “community
This institution refused to repatriate the human archaeology” in other parts of the world, for
remains in the base of the public property of the instance, as part of Cultural Resources
State and the impossibility of probing consan- Management.
guineous kinship (Endere et al. 2010). Most Latin American countries share the ideo-
In 1991, the first repatriation law allowed the logical construction of a history where European
reburial of Tehuelche cacique Inakayal. The sec- descent is valorized and indigenous people are
ond one took one more decade. A recent more considered as savages from the past. Likewise,
general legislation establishes that museums must afrodescendant communities still face official
put into the disposition of indigenous people the denials of their contributions to the History of
human remains from their collections. But a lack these nations.
of specific procedures has difficulted its actual In that sense, indigenous and afro-descendants
implementation. Even so, it has also promoted have been systematically removed from decision-
that researchers are compelled to request a per- making processes concerning their Cultural Heri-
mission to indigenous people to excavate. Also in tage, underscoring for our debate, archaeological
Argentina, there have been some examples of remains. Therefore, the relevance of Collabora-
conjunct projects with indigenous communities tive Archaeology projects performing a political
for archaeological site management, as Neuquén engagement with communities’ rights or to the
Province site-museum Añelo, under Mapuche fight against prevailing racism and discrimination,
Painemil stewardship. As well, the National Park rather than with State projects, is clear.
Administration returned to Mapuche community
of Ñorquinco the guard of a sacred site in Lanín
8 The Decolonization of Venezuelan Archaeology

Future Directions and with artifacts, from other cosmologies and


from other political epistemologies. Then, it will
The preterization of indigenous and denial of gain relevance an archaeology of the present and
black people is probably the most important task further attention to other types of materialities
to de-construct with archaeological research in beyond “traditional” sources for archaeological
Venezuelan scenario. There is a clear continuity research. This has the potential to question the
in historical processes that have led to a profound policies of conservation of collections from other
disparity between groups’ possibilities to, among points of view, not only the technical perspective
other things, participate in the production of that until now prevails all over the world. As well,
knowledge about the past. A decolonization of it is possible to consider digital technologies for
archaeology necessarily goes through an under- implementing more accessible, editable treat-
standing of diverse discourses, with a lucid rec- ments of research products. A bigger compromise
ognition of past and present relationships. with alternative narrative constructions for
But unidirectional efforts would not achieve archaeology can enable cross-borders projects,
any transformations. In that sense, there is an and so, more complex understandings of dia-
urgent need for collaborative projects in Venezu- chronic dynamics.
elan archaeology. Following Atalay’s (2012) dis- At last, it is important to mention non-
cussions, this implies close conjunct works, where anthropocentered archaeology as a potential per-
local communities, understood in their heteroge- spective for a decolonization of archaeological
neity, may debate the interpretations of archaeo- methods and theories. The only work to the
logical artifacts and contexts, in a partnership moment dealing with human–nonhuman relation-
level. There is no call for an unsophisticated ships in Venezuelan archaeology is the recent PhD
claim of a vanishing of power relationships, rather research by Konrad Anctzack (2017), about things
a conscious position to promote a moving of those and seafarers in Los Roques Island. Hopefully, this
positions. also would be a prolific field for re-thinking archae-
The work of/with native people has been a ology broadly in the future.
major engine of disciplinary transformation of
archeology, showing strongly how much it is a
political endeavor (McGuire 2008). We consider
Cross-References
that decolonization “is not a naive abandonment
of canonical epistemologies, but rather a gradual ▶ Archaeology and Anthropology
exercise of reinvention and critical revision,
▶ Heritage and archaeology
breaking the insularities of knowledge-producing
spaces” (Silva and Falcão 2017: 166). Thus, it
urges us to review the theoretical and methodo-
logical bases that constituted what we know as References
archeology, as well as the references it values, its
Anctzack, K. 2017. Entangled by salt: Historical archae-
forms of social circulation, and the dialogues
ology of seafarers and things in the Venezuelan Carib-
(or lack thereof) established with descendants bean, 1624–1880. Doctoral Dissertation in
communities. This perspective is fundamental in Anthropology. College of William and Mary.
the postcolonial world because the intersection of Atalay, S. 2006. Indigenous archaeology as decolonizing
practice. American Indian Quarterly 30: 280–310.
national, colonial, and racial modernity consti-
Atalay, S. 2012. Community-based archaeology. Los
tuted the foundations from which we established Angeles: University of California Press.
a specific relationship with the past (Hamilakis Díaz, N. 2006. La documentación de las colecciones
2018), which functions as a mechanism of (de) arqueológicas del Lago de Valencia: documentación y
nueva museología. Valencia: Alcaldía de Valencia.
authorization of specific knowledge.
Endere, M., P. Cali, and P.P. Funari. 2010. Arqueología y
On the other hand, this attitude opens opportu- comunidades indígenas. Un estudio comparativo de la
nities to explore diverse ways to relate to the past legislación de Argentina y Brasil. In Pueblos indígenas
The Decolonization of Venezuelan Archaeology 9

y Arqueología en América Latina, ed. C. Gnecco and Meza, E., and L. Menezes Ferreira. 2016. La espada de la
P. Ayala. Bogotá: Ediciones Uniandes. independencia: agencia de los objetos, materialidad y
Ferreira, L.M. 2013. Essas coisas não lhes pertencem: recursos políticos en el proceso de patrimonialización
relação entre legislação arqueológica, cultura material entre los Mapoyo (Venezuela). Revista de Arqueología
e comunidades. Revista de Arqueologia Pública 7: Pública 10 (3): 91–113.
87–106. Molina, L. 2007. La conservación del patrimonio cultural
Gnecco, C. 2002. La indigenizacón de las arqueologías en Venezuela: Nuevas oportunidades a partir de 1999.
nacionales. Convergencia 27: 133–149. Revista Venezolana de Economía y Ciencias Sociales
Hafstein, V. 2014. Protection as dispossetion. Government 13 (3): 129–141.
in the vernacular. In Cultural heritage in transit. Intan- Navarrete, R., and A. Lopez. 2009. Scratching behind the
gible rights as human rights, ed. D. Kapcha. Philadel- walls; graffiti and symbolic political imagination at
phia: University of Pennsilvanya Press. Cuartel San Carlos (Caracas, Venezuela). In Memories
Hamilakis, Y. 2018. Decolonial archaeology as social jus- from darkness: Archaeology of repression and resis-
tice. Antiquity 92: 518–520. tance in Latin America, ed. P.P. Funari, A. Zarankin,
Instituto del Patrimonio Cultural. 1997. Proyecto and M. Salerno. New York: Springer.
Inventario Nacional del Patrimonio Cultural: Scaramelli, K. 2016. Historical archaeology and the poli-
plataforma conceptual. Caracas: Instituto del tics of empowerment in Venezuela. In Archaeologies of
Patrimonio Cultural. early modern Spanish colonialism, ed. Sandra Montón-
Instituto del Patrimonio Cultural. 2011. Taller de Subías, María Cruz Berrocal, and Apen Ruiz Martínez,
arqueologia comunitaria. Caracas: Instituto del 61–91. New York: Springer.
Patrimonio Cultural. Silva, L., and I. Falcão. 2017. Colonialidade na dança e as
Kelly, J. 2016. Sobre a Antimestiçagem. Curitiba: Species- formas africanizadas de escrita de si: perspectivas
Núcleo de Antropologia Especulativa. sul–sul através da técnica Germaine Acogny.
Lowenthal, D. 2005. Why sanctions seldom work: Reflec- Conceição Concept 6 (2): 162–173. Campinas.
tions on cultural property nationalism. International Smith, C. 2005. Decolonising the museum: The national
Journal of Cultural Property 12: 393–423. museum of the American Indian in Washington,
Lumbreras, L. 1974. La Arqueología como Ciencia Social. DC. Antiquity 79: 424–439.
Lima: Ediciones Histar. Vargas, I. 2005. Visiones del pasado indígena y el proyecto
McGuire, R. 2008. Archaeology as political action. Berke- de una Venezuela futura. Revista Venezolana de
ley, CA: University of California Press. Economía y Ciencias Sociales 11 (2): 187–210.
Meneses, L., and G. Gordones. 2009. De la arqueología en Vargas, I. 2008. Bases históricas para la creación de la
Venezuela y las colecciones arqueológicas Participación Democrática en Venezuela. Arqueología
venezolanas. Colección Bicentenario. Caracas: Centro Social e Historia Regional. Boletín de Antropología
Nacional de Historia. Americana 41.

You might also like