1932
0
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Annual Review of Anthropology
  4. Volume 47, 2018
  5. Article

Annual Review of Anthropology

Volume 47, 2018

Development and Disciplinary Complicity: Contract Archaeology in South America Under the Critical Gaze

Abstract

In South America, as elsewhere, development projects have to go through environmental permitting, a component of which is the archaeological assessment of the areas to be impacted. Because such an assessment is paid for by the development companies seeking such a permit, it has come to be known as contract archaeology. Given the accelerated pace of development projects in the region, it is not surprising that contract archaeology has grown exponentially. The academic literature dealing with it and related fields has also witnessed a rapid growth, which this article seeks to review. In doing so, it discusses the literature that accepts and promotes contract archaeology () as a part of environmental permitting; () as the primary stimulus responsible for widening the job market, whose structure has transformed disciplinary practice to a large extent; and () in terms of its relationship with the archaeological record and with heritage education. This article also reviews a growing literature, both supportive and critical, that assesses contract archaeology.

Keyword(s): capitalism, contract archaeology, development, environmental permitting, heritage education, South America
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-anthro-102317-045752
2018-10-21
2024-04-19
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/anthro/47/1/annurev-anthro-102317-045752.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-anthro-102317-045752&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Almansa J. 2015. Trading archaeology is not just a matter of antiquities: archaeological practice as a commodity. See Gnecco & Lippert 2015 141–57
  2. Aparicio P. 2017. La arqueología mercenaria en España: neoliberalismo, precariedad laboral y mercantilización de la historia. See Pellini 2017b 199–225
  3. Ayala P. 2015. Neoliberal multiculturalism and contract archeology in northern Chile. Int. J. Hist. Archaeol. 19:4775–90
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Beovide L, Caporale M 2009. La arqueología de contrato en el marco de la gestión integral del patrimonio arqueológico de la región metropolitana de Montevideo. Rev. Arqueol. Am. 27:7–35
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Bezerra M. 2008. Bicho de nove cabeças: os cursos de graduação e a formação de arqueólogos no Brasil. Rev. Arqueol. 21:2139–54
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Bezerra M. 2015. At that edge: archaeology, heritage education, and human rights in the Brazilian Amazon. Int. J. Hist. Archaeol. 19:4822–31
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Cáceres I. 1999. Arqueología y sistema de evaluación de impacto ambiental. Bol. Soc. Chil. Arqueol. 28:47–55
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Cáceres I, Westfall C 2004. Trampas y amarras: ¿Es posible hacer arqueología en el sistema de evaluación de impacto ambiental?. Chungará 36:483–88
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Caldarelli SB. 2015. Arqueologia preventiva: uma disciplina na confluência da arqueologia pública e da avaliação ambiental. Habitus 13:15–30
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Caldarelli SB, Cândido MMD 2017. Desafios da arqueologia preventiva: como gerir e socializar o imenso volume de materiais e documentos por ela produzidos?. Arqueol. Pública 11:2186–214
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Caldarelli SB, dos Santos M 2000. Arqueologia de contrato no Brasil. Rev. USP 44:52–73
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Calla S, Villanueva J 2017. Arqueología de contrato, estudios de impacto y gestión patrimonial en Bolivia. See Pellini 2017b 117–42
  13. Campos J, Rodrigues M, Funari P 2017. A multivocalidade da arqueologia pública no Brasil: comunidades, práticas e direito Criciúma, Braz: UNESC
  14. Chmyz I. 1986. As realidades sociais e políticas da arqueologia de salvamento no Brasil. Arqueologia 5:1–15
     [Google Scholar]
  15. CONICET 2017. Estudios de Impacto Arqueológico Buenos Aires, Argent: CONICET
  16. Demoule J-P. 2012. Rescue archaeology: a European view. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 41:611–26
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Dillehay TD. 2004. Reflexiones y sugerencias sobre la arqueología ambiental en Chile desde la perspectiva de un observador. Chungará 36:531–34
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Echeverría J. 2009. La arqueología de contrato en Ecuador: breves reflexiones. Rev. Arqueol. Am. 27:37–48
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Escobar A. 1995. Encountering Development: The Making and Unmaking of the Third World Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
  20. Everill P. 2009. The Invisible Diggers: A Study of British Commercial Archaeology Oxford, UK: Oxbow
  21. Fausto C. 2006. Ciência de contrato e o contrato da ciência: observações sobre o laudo da empresa Documento sobre a PCH Paranatinga II (rio Culuene, MT). Socioambiental http://site-antigo.socioambiental.org/nsa/detalhe?id=2317
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Fausto C. 2017. De la responsabilidad social de antropólogos y arqueólogos: sobre contratos, represas y algunas otras cosas. See Gnecco & Dias 2017 291–306
  23. Ferreira LM. 2008. Sob fogo cruzado: arqueologia comunitária e patrimônio cultural. Rev. Arqueol. Pública 3:81–92
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Ferreira LM. 2010. Arqueología comunitaria, arqueología de contrato y educación patrimonial en Brasil. Rev. Jangwa Pana 9:95–102
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Ferreira LM. 2013. Essas coisas não lhes pertencem: relações entre legislação arqueológica, cultura material e comunidades. Rev. Arqueol. Pública 7:87–106
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Filho MFL, Eckert C, Beltrão J 2007. Antropologia e patrimônio cultural. Diálogos e desafios contemporâneos Blumenau, Braz: Nova Letra
  27. Funari P. 2001. Public archaeology from a Latin American perspective. Public Archaeol 1:239–43
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Funari P, Robrahn-González E 2008. Ética, capitalismo e arqueologia pública no Brasil. História 27:211–30
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Gnecco C. 2017. Notas sobre arqueología comercial. See Pellini 2017b 5–17
  30. Gnecco C, Dias A 2015. On contract archaeology. Int. J. Hist. Archaeol. 19:4687–98
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Gnecco C, Dias AS 2017. Crítica de la razón arqueológica. Arqueología de contrato y capitalismo Bogotá, Colomb: Inst. Colomb. Antropol. Hist
  32. Gnecco C, Lippert D 2015. Ethics and Archaeological Praxis New York: Springer
  33. Gnecco C, Piazzini E 2003. Arqueología al desnudo. Reflexiones sobre la práctica disciplinaria Popayán, Colomb.: Univ. del Cauca
  34. Gonzáles A. 2010. Arqueología hoy. ¿Para qué? o ¿A costa de qué?. Rev. Investig. Cent. Estud. Arqueol. 7:129–157
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Gudynas E. 2013. Extracciones, extractivismos y extrahecciones. Un marco conceptual sobre la apropiación de los recursos naturales. Obs. Desarro. 18:1–18
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Haber A. 2015a. Archaeology and capitalist development: lines of complicity. See Gnecco & Lippert 2015 95–113
  37. Haber AF. 2015b. Contratiempo: contract archaeology or a trench in the battle for the dead. Int. J. Hist. Archaeol. 19:4736–47
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Hamilakis Y. 2007. From ethics to politics. See Hamilakis & Duke 2007 15–40
  39. Hamilakis Y. 2015. Archaeology and the logic of capital: pulling the emergency brake. Int. J. Hist. Archaeol. 19:4721–35
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Hamilakis Y, Duke P 2007. Archaeology and Capitalism: From Ethics to Politics Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press
  41. Herrera A 2013. Arqueología y desarrollo en América del Sur Bogotá, Colomb: Univ. Andes
  42. Horta M, Grunberg E, Monteiro A 1999. Guia básico da educação patrimonial Brasília, Braz: IPHAN/Mus. Imp
  43. Hutchings R, La Salle M 2013. Five thoughts on commercial archaeology. Inst. Crit. Heritage Tour. Bull. 1:1–4
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Hutchings R, La Salle M 2015. Archaeology as disaster capitalism. Int. J. Hist. Archaeol. 19:4699–720
     [Google Scholar]
  45. ICANH 2010. Régimen legal y lineamientos técnicos de los programas de arqueología preventiva en Colombia Bogotá, Colomb: ICANH
  46. Jofré C. 2015. Mega-mining, contract archaeology, and local responses to the global order in Argentina. Int. J. Hist. Archaeol. 19:4764–74
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Jofré C. 2017. Una mirada crítica de los contextos de patrimonialización en el contexto megaminero. See Pellini 2017b 143–75
  48. King TF. 2009. Our Unprotected Heritage. Whitewashing the Destruction of Our Natural and Cultural Environment Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press
     [Google Scholar]
  49. La Salle M, Hutchings R 2012. Commercial archaeology in British Columbia. Midden 44:28–16
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Lima TA. 2000. A ética que temos e a ética que queremos (ou como falar de princípios neste conturbado fim de milênio) Paper presented at the IX Meetings of the Brazilian Archaeological Society, Rio de Janeiro
  51. Londoño W. 2013. Arqueología para el desarrollo y arqueología del desarrollo: una visión desde Colombia. See Herrera 2013 147–65
  52. Londoño W. 2016. Arqueología por contrato y nuevos contratos arqueológicos. Jangwa Pana 15:117–28
     [Google Scholar]
  53. Lopes R, de Souza M 2010. Normas e gerenciamento do patrimônio arqueológico São Paulo: IPHAN
  54. Marín C, Parga E 2017. La arqueología de gestión en Madrid. Atrapados en el modelo de especulación capitalista del territorio. See Gnecco & Dias 2017 189–219
  55. Messenger PM, Smith GS 2010. Cultural Heritage Management: A Global Perspective Gainesville: Univ. Press Fla
  56. Monticelli G. 2010. Deixe estar: patrimônio, arqueologia e licenciamentos ambientais Porto Alegre, Braz: EDIPUCRS
  57. Okamura K, Matsuda A 2010. Archaeological heritage management in Japan. See Messenger & Smith 2010 99–110
  58. Oliveira JE. 2017. Arqueología de contrato, colonialismo interno y pueblos indígenas en Brasil. See Gnecco & Dias 2017 271–89
  59. Parga-Dans E. 2010. Commercial Spanish archaeology: its growth, development and the impact of the global crisis. See Schlanger & Aitchison 2010 45–54
  60. Patiño D 2001. Arqueología, patrimonio y sociedad. Popayán Colomb: Univ. Cauca
     [Google Scholar]
  61. Pellini JR. 2017a. Arqueología comercial: shock y anestesia. See Pellini 2017b 19–51
  62. Pellini JR 2017b. Arqueología comercial. Dinero, alienación and anestesia. Madrid: JAS Arqueol
  63. Pereira E. 2009. O Museu Goeldi e a pesquisa arqueológica: um panorama dos últimos dezessete anos (1991–2008). Bol. Mus. Para. Emílio Goeldi. Ciênc. Hum. 4:1171–90
     [Google Scholar]
  64. Piazzini CE. 2001. Arqueología, legislación y desarrollo: balance de los noventa y perspectivas desde la coyuntura actual. See Patiño 2001 23–40
  65. Pierro B de 2013. Negócios do passado. Cresce a participação da arqueologia empresarial em canteiros de obras de infraestrutura. Pesqui. FAPEsP 206:72–75
     [Google Scholar]
  66. Polanyi K. 1997. 1944. La gran transformación Madrid: La Piqueta
  67. Ratto N. 2009. Aportes de la arqueología de contrato al campo de la investigación: estudios de casos en Patagonia y Noroeste Argentino. Rev. Arqueol. Am. 27:49–70
     [Google Scholar]
  68. Ratto N. 2010. Arqueología y la evaluación de impacto ambiental. Xama 19–23:357–76
     [Google Scholar]
  69. Ribeiro GL. 2008. Poder, redes e ideologia no campo do desenvolvimento. Novos Estud 80:109–25
     [Google Scholar]
  70. Ribeiro L. 2010. Auto-regulação da arqueologia brasileira: responsabilização, credibilidade e fortalecimento profissional. Arqueol. Em Debate 1:8–9
     [Google Scholar]
  71. Ribeiro L. 2015. Development projects, violation of human rights, and the silence of archaeology in Brazil. Int. J. Hist. Archaeol. 19:4810–21
     [Google Scholar]
  72. Rocha B, Jacome C, Mongelo G, Stuchi F, Valle R 2013. Arqueologia pelas gentes: um manifesto. Constatações e posicionamentos críticos sobre a arqueologia brasileira em tempos de PAC. Rev. Arqueol. 26:1130–40
     [Google Scholar]
  73. Santos B. 2011. Epistemologías del sur. Utopía Y Prax. Latinoam. 16:5417–39
     [Google Scholar]
  74. Scatamacchia MC. 2009. A educação patrimonial relacionada à arqueologia de contrato no Brasil. Rev. Arqueol. Am. 27:85–99
     [Google Scholar]
  75. Schlanger N, Aitchison K 2010. Archaeology and the Global Economic Crisis. Multiple Impacts, Possible Solutions Tervuren, Belg: Cult. Lab Ed
  76. Shepherd N. 2015. Contract archaeology in South Africa: traveling theory, local memory and global designs. Int. J. Hist. Archaeol. 19:4748–63
     [Google Scholar]
  77. Silva FA. 2015. Contract archaeology and Indigenous peoples: reflections on the Brazilian context. Int. J. Hist. Archaeol. 19:4832–42
     [Google Scholar]
  78. Silveira F, Bezerra M 2007. Educação patrimonial: perspectivas e dilemas. See Filho et al. 2007 81–97
  79. Soares I. 2017. A variável arqueológica no licenciamento ambiental. See Campos et al. 2017 226–62
  80. Sousa JC de 2017. Como se tornar arqueólogo(a) no Brasil: lista de cursos. Arqueologia e Pré-História https://arqueologiaeprehistoria.com/como-se-tornar-um-arqueologo-no-brasil/
    [Google Scholar]
  81. Tantaleán H, Gonzáles A 2017. La arqueología de contrato en el Perú: surgimiento, caracterización y perspectivas. See Pellini 2017b 177–98
  82. Verdesio G. 2017. La renovación de un despojo fundacional: la compleja relación entre la arqueología de contrato, la acumulación primitiva y los indígenas. See Pellini 2017b 53–79
  83. Viana S, Bezerra M, Eremites de Oliveira J 2014. Múltiplas perspectivas sobre o ensino de arqueologia no Brasil. Habitus 12:2199–204
     [Google Scholar]
  84. Villa FA. 2003. Arqueología de rescate y desarrollo sostenible en Colombia: crítica a un vínculo instrumental. See Gnecco & Piazzini 2003 327–42
  85. Villarroya A, Barros AC, Kiesecker J 2014. Policy development for environmental licensing and biodiversity offsets in Latin America. PLOS ONE 9:9e107144
     [Google Scholar]
  86. Webley L, Vander Linden M, Haselgrove C, Bradley R 2012. Development-Led Archaeology in Northwest Europe Oxford, UK: Oxbow Books
  87. Wylie A. 2002. Thinking From Things. Essays in the Philosophy of Archaeology Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press
  88. Zanettini P, Wichers C 2014. Arqueologia preventiva e o ensino de arqueologia no Brasil. Habitus 12:2239–56
     [Google Scholar]
  89. Zarankin A, Pellini JR 2012. Arqueologia e companhia: reflexões sobre a introdução de uma lógica de mercado na prática arqueológica brasileira. Rev. Arqueol. 25:244–60
     [Google Scholar]
  90. Zhouri A. 2007. Conflitos sociais e meio ambiente urbano. Comunidades Meio Ambient. Desenvolv. 17:1–8
     [Google Scholar]
  91. Zhouri A, Oliveira R 2007. Desenvolvimento, conflitos sociais e violência no Brasil rural: o caso das usinas hidrelétricas. Ambient. Soc. 10:2119–35
     [Google Scholar]
  92. Zorzin N. 2011. Contextualising contract archaeology in Quebec: political-economy and economic dependencies. Archaeol. Rev. Camb. 26:1119–35
     [Google Scholar]
  93. Zorzin N. 2015a. Archaeology and capitalism: successful relationship or economic and ethical alienation?. See Gnecco & Lippert 2015 115–39
  94. Zorzin N. 2015b. Dystopian archaeologies: the implementation of the logic of capital in heritage management. Int. J. Hist. Archaeol. 19:4791–809
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-anthro-102317-045752
Loading
  • Article Type: Review Article

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error