Society for American Archaeology 2012 77th Annual Meeting, Memphis, TN Session: Lessons from the Trenches: The

Pedagogy of Archaeology and Heritage

Cultural Heritage Management Education in Brazil Paulo DeBlasis and Cristina Bruno Museu de Arqueologia e Etnologia, Universidade de So Paulo deblasis@usp.br mcobruno@uol.com.br

Although CHM has become a legal and effective concern in Brazil since the end of the 1980s, professional training as regards its legal and methodological specificities is still at its beginnings, mostly due to an apartheid between archaeological (that is, Native-American) and historical (colonial or more recent) heritages. While historical heritage has long been recognized and explored, usually by means of historical and architectural perspectives (with museological/educational resonances), most of nativeAmerican heritage remained within the academic research circuit and under specific legal protection background. This has promoted little concern for issues such as site management and collections curation, as well as its use for educational approaches. This historical/prehistoric split has been largely responsible for the timid development of heritage management as regards pre-colonial archaeological sites and settings.

Perspectives on CHM in Brazil The development of an official Brazilian history, culture and heritage (since independence days) has segregated Native American societies (and their material record) into the ghetto of the exiled memories, that is, their existence is known, but from a very exogenous and diffuse perspective (Bruno 2007). Thus, native cultural contents have been systematically kept outside formal education, as well as from the first legal diplomas (from 1937) regarding national heritage, focused, as they were, on historical heritage. But both archaeological and ethnographical materials, as well as other aspects of the exuberant Nature from a huge and diversified Brazilian territory, have interested many a traveler and chronicler since the XVIII century until the beginning of the XX century, and reports and narratives of contact situations with different native societies, including groups extinct today, have been published throughout this period. Also, these societies were the focus of several scientific expeditions that have crossed the country, conducted and illustrated by naturalists such as Langsdorff and Richard Burton. Unfortunately, the collec-

tions produced (and the knowledge amassed along these expeditions) have never remained in the country, but rather enriched many European museums. As a matter of fact, the first national museums, appearing by the end of the XIX th century, were historical in nature, devoted also to Natural History and Ethnology. There was interest in archaeological research, but it has never been considered mainstream at any official institution, the first formal archaeologist been hired only in the 1920s. But, interestingly enough, these museums have gathered, since their very beginnings, several archaeological collections assembled by amateurs or naturalists, usually treated as of secondary importance.

As in most American countries (and also elsewhere, in Africa and Asia), colonial mentality (and, later, the building of a national identity) has devalued the native societies and their culture. An emphasis on written records has led to the dismissal of oral traditions and knowledge, thus making native societies devoid of history, without a past. Even if Romanticism has called attention to the Indians usually in a rather idealistic, savage (or close to Nature) perspective, XIX century (and early XX) authors have never understood their rich cultural traditions, historical trajectory and belonging in the country. This estranged ideology, still alive in popular media, prefers to assign sophisticated ceramic production, or even elaborate rock art, to others, a diversified category that includes Phoenicians, Armoricans, lost Jewish tribes and Extraterrestrials. From the 1950s on systematic archaeological research developed, but the predominance of research interests led by foreign initiatives (French missions de rechrche and North American research programs) prevented adopting the notion of collection management as a priority. In the following decades (up to the 90s), most archaeological investigations were performed by research groups housed at universities, usually more concerned with scholarly scientific research perspectives than collection management and educational and/or museological approaches (Funari 2004). Academic research programs, field directed and turned to big questions (such as the antiquity of the human presence in South America, and from where these first people came), usually lacked the focus on curatorial management of archaeological collections and their exhibition. University museums and repositories all across the country still suffer from many years of inadequate curatorship and loss of information.

The Instituto do Patrimnio Histrico e Artstico Nacional - IPHAN (National Historical and Artistic Heritage Institution) was established in the 1930s and, through the following decades, has been responsible for the protection and management of archaeological sites and collections. A strong focus on historical

heritage has predominated, though; in fact, the IPHAN has always been a product of architects and historians, the first archaeologists being hired only in the 1980s. Furthermore, the legal and operational apparatus usually applied to prehistoric sites apart from historical/architectural sites, as the first heritage laws (from the 30s) did not consider, or privilege, the former. Prehistoric sites were left outside legal protection (until 1961) and mostly forgotten by movements of cultural revaluation, such as those that have taken place with vernacular architectural remains, Baroque colonial art, etc., thus becoming estranged from general national politics on museums and historical heritage management. As a consequence, prehistoric archaeological remains, and all references they might entail concerning the Native cultural heritage of the country, have been excluded from the construction of the Brazilian identity, relegated to the oblivion what Bruno (2007) has called exiled memories.

Heritage management in Brazil, outside the scope of the historical/architectural heritage, appeared as a way to cope with the increasing destruction of archaeological remains due to fast economic development. This was the spirit of the first archaeological protection law, from 1961: to preserve, it is necessary to prevent/punish the destruction. As a matter of fact, as a developing country, Brazil has always been painfully dealing with the dichotomy development vs. preservation, and it still holds true today. With a few exceptions, until recently there was no concern as regards management or education. Also, until very recently, criteria as regards preservation and management (environmental included) have never been discussed with society at large, thus failing to incorporate a plural, multivocal, perspective. In this regard it is worth noticing the work of pioneers that, since the 1960s, related salvage of the heritage with scientific research, environmental preservation and education. Among others (such as Loureiro Fernandes and Joo Alfredo Rohr), Paulo Duarte epitomizes this posture: besides being responsible for writing the heritage protection bill from 1961, as director of the Institute of Prehistory of the University of So Paulo, he extensively sponsored scientific research and education, not only conducting excavations and taking school groups to it, but also writing copiously in papers and journals, as well as promoting academic meetings and symposia. The formidable expansion of preventive (or contract) archaeology (CRM projects) since the end of the 1980s, and the overwhelming multiplication of recorded archaeological sites, have evinced the need for developing heritage management plans and strategies in three different levels: legal (with more specific guidelines regarding how to proceed as regards archaeological contexts), educational (law-enforced inclusion of heritage education programs into CRM projects) and museological (regarding the organization and management of the archaeological sites and collections). Again, it must be stressed that these policies

have been developed with no formal connection with established national heritage and museum programs, having a legal and operational apparatus of their own, apart from educational and museological networks (for a more comprehensive review see DeBlasis 2010).

Heritage Management and Archaeology in Brazil: The Status of Art As stated above, the inception of education in archaeological professional and academic career is recent and law-enforced in Brazil, becoming mandatory in every single research project since 2002. Legal guidelines, albeit well intentioned, have created a sort of cake recipe, a report formula that (re)produces rather innocuous results from a scientific and educational standpoint, unfortunately tolerated, and even supported, by regulating agencies.

Education through, or for, heritage has long been an important concern in museums relationships to the public (especially art education), as have been other means of scientific diffusion and interpretive communication (such as well informed touristic tours). This is particularly true as regards historical heritage. At first, educational intervening was inherent in research and preservation, thus the saying (much repeated through the 90s) research to know, know to preserve. A corollary to this is the regular circuit from research to museological exhibitions, understood as a privileged arena for environmental and cultural education, as well as for gaining feedback from the public.

These programs have strongly benefited from the development of robust pedagogical approaches such as the well known liberation education, essentially based in learning and enhancing critical consciousness from the concrete experience of the surrounding reality (Freire 2000, 2005) and educational city, enhancing urban identity and citizenship. There is also a strong focus on environmental education and sustainability, as well as education towards social inclusion, mostly among at-risk groups. Museological pedagogy, exploring communication through collections/landscapes and using memory indicators (and the so-called places of memory), has also seen an impressive development, together with heritage education through material/cultural evidence (Hooper-Greenhill 1995, Horta 1984).

Particularly as regards archaeology, educational efforts have been confined to a few museums (usually linked to universities), focusing on the scientific perception of the discipline and exploring, occasionally, experimental archaeology. Through the last ten years a bigger concern with public archaeology has emerged, due to the growing awareness, by archaeologists, of the social, ethnical and political problems involved in the praxis of their profession (DeBlasis 2010). A very interesting case came out within a pro-

ject near the Xingu indigenous reservation, located in the southern Amazonian area, where archaeology (and archaeologists), with the support of the IPHAN, has led local community interests to be considered in the scope of the project outcome, including recommendations for the creation of additional reservation territories based on traditional indigenous knowledge, a pursuit which is eventually becoming a reality.

Final Remarks

Although it is possible to recognize the existence of advanced heritage legislation in Brazil, well tuned to environmental and sustainability perspectives, it is still poorly connected to formal education. Curiously enough, the management of archaeological heritage has taken an alternate path, apart from the mainstream educational tendencies and divorced from national museums politics. The protection of archaeological collections is a core management problem today, due to impressive accumulation in regional museums everywhere, with few curatorial concerns. Despite the recent multiplication of grad schools of archaeology all over the country, the attention given to these and other management problems is still very timid. The distance between standard research procedures and effective management initiatives, on one side, and formal heritage education, on the other, needs urgent bridging. This rather peculiar situation, that is, the absence of site and collections management issues in the school curricula, as well as the overwhelming expansion of CRM projects all over the country, jeopardizes the continuity of adequate curatorial procedures and acquisition of higher standards in heritage education in Brazil.

Besides these difficulties, public outreach of the archaeological heritage studies, whether academic or CRM based, is slowly growing, and in fact archaeologists themselves have become aware and much more attentive to it. Several advances have become perceptible lately. For instance, multidisciplinarity has been greatly enhanced, with the need to relate closely to other environmental sciences like Geology, Biology, Paleontology, etc. Also, the educational emphasis on CHM has led to the need of developing new strategies (museological, communicational, etc) to access the general public. Academic production has increased, as well as scientific publishing, and public agencies like IPHAN are, nowadays, much more aware of the need to respond to the public interest, both from a legal standpoint, but also to the genuine hunger for archaeological information in the media. Cultural sections of the most important newspapers show full-page texts on brand new discoveries, ecological TV programs bring in archaeological reports every now and then, and easy reading books for the general public have also been published. People are, slowly, beginning to take part on decisions regarding their own heritage.

Public education has become one of the forefront activities on recent archaeological research projects, and archaeologists now go to local schools and community centers to speak about the past, the environment, the things they find, history and material culture after all, what the hell are they (we) doing? It also has become common to see flocks of school kids visiting archaeological excavations, often guided by trained personnel. Important to remember, public education has become mandatory in CRM projects from 2002 on, and these activities also must be reported at the project outset. But very often, unfortunately, the lack of prepared personnel brings, to these opportunities for effective educational contact and interaction, a rather deceptive outcome.

To overcome this situation, CHM education must be expanded to encompass a fully humanistic, as well as technical, professional formation for archaeologists and heritage managers. Archaeological practitioners need to go beyond descriptive standards and normative interpreting categories. They must dare to incorporate the living landscapes into their imaginary and cartography, and realize that their work makes a difference for a more encompassing, socially and environmentally diversified future. References Cited Bruno, Maria Cristina Oliveira 2007 Museology as a pedagogy for Heritage. In Bruno, Cristina, Mario Chagas e Mario Moutinho (eds.) Sociomuseology. Lisbon, Edies Universitrias Lusfonas, p. 129144. DeBlasis, Paulo 2010 Twenty years of heritage resource management in Brazil: a brief evaluation (1986 -2006). In: Messenger, Phyllis Mauch & George S. Smith (eds.) Cultural Heritage Management: A Global Perspective, p. 38-47. Gainesville, University Press of Florida. Freire, Paulo 2000 Pedagogy of the Oppressed. London, Continuum (originally published in 1970). 2005 Education for critical consciousness.London, Continuum. Funari, Pedro Paulo de Abreu 2004 Public archaeology in Brasil. In Merriman, Nick (ed.) Public Archaeology. London, Routledge, p. 202-210. Hooper-Greenhill, E. (ed.) 1995 Museum, Media Message. London, Routlege. Horta, Maria de Lourdes Parreiras 1984 Educao patrimonial. Rio de Janeiro, SPHAN/ProMemria. Robrahn-Gonzlez, Erika Marion (org.) 2006 Programa de Patrimnio Cultural e Estudos de Complementao dos Impactos Socioambientais PCH Paranatinga II. Carapicuba, Documento Antropologia e Arqueologia S.A.