#Opinion
Historically, Peruvian archeology has been a fundamental part of the identity construction of society. For this reason, it is important to explain two mechanisms on which this discipline operates: machismo and colonialism. In the academic field, it is known that both the practice and the construction of archaeological knowledge and, therefore, of our past, has historically been in the hands of men, both Peruvians and foreigners. Thus, archeology is a discipline that has promoted masculine personalities and qualities. In this way, the price that those of us with feminine qualities and personalities have had to pay has been exposure to uncomfortable comments in the least of cases and, in the worst of them, to humiliating and violent treatment in the professional sphere. Despite this, thanks to the effort and resilience of all the competent and passionate women who have decided to stay in this profession and others who have left due to exhaustion, but have expressed their uncomfortable experiences; these practices have been changing step by step, classroom after classroom, one space, one talk, one article, one proposal, at a time. However, we are still far from the goal of equality, since these dynamics refuse to disappear because they are rooted in the very foundation of archaeological practices.
On the other hand, colonialism in archeology has had its own historical dynamics. Since the arrival of the Europeans, it was the colonial subjects, that is, both Iberians and indigenous curacas (also criollos), who robbed pre-Hispanic tombs using the labor of rural indigenous people in order to extract treasures and enrich themselves. The same dynamic continued during the 19th-20th centuries, when various Peruvian landowners and also foreign explorers used peasant and indigenous labor to extract ancient pieces from tombs and form collections that are now in private museums or were sold to cover personal expenses. One of the best-known cases is that of the landowner Emilio Montez from Cusco who, in 1890, sold his collection of looted archaeological pieces from all over Peru to the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago to cover his travel expenses abroad.
Colonialism involved in the management of material and immaterial goods looted from pre-Hispanic sites has been the subject of research, reflection, and debate. For example, in an article recently published in the newspaper La República, a basic and dichotomous perspective of colonialism is used, contrasting “Peruvians” versus “foreigners”. Also using an example of a contemporary archaeological project co-directed by two women, a Peruvian archaeologist and a foreigner. The problem with this position is that overlaps and hides the contribution of Peruvians in the colonialist mechanism of archeology and, furthermore, it contradicts recent research that has shown that reality was, and continues to be, more complex and less dichotomous.
The practices of coloniality of the archaeological discipline have to do, although not exclusively, with 1) the unequal relationships established between the professionals in archeology and the members of the communities of the places where we excavate. 2) the unequal relationships between foreign and Peruvian archaeologists and, 3) the academic interests of archeology professionals and access to information published as a result of research and who benefits.
Archaeological practice, regardless of the nationality and even the gender of those who direct it, is colonialist, since uses “cheap” labor in temporary and short days of work without economically fair remuneration and, despite some commendable efforts, neither in education. That is, they occur in communities where cultural assets are extracted that are later transformed into information and build academic careers for both Peruvian and foreign researchers. The definition of an archaeologist is closely linked to the practice of digging in previously unremoved (or virgin) places; practice commonly taught in universities that is now being arduously discussed for being invasive with the territories of the communities, impacting the meanings of said territories and their materialities, and damaging intra-community social, political and identity relations. For this reason, it is not enough to discuss the colonialism exercised by foreign researchers, but rather It is also necessary to question the colonialism exercised by our Peruvian academic elites.. Or, do we Peruvians have a greater right to colonize the work of other Peruvians because we have the same nationality?
According to the Regulation of Archaeological Investigations (RIA) that was in force from 2009 to December 2022, the Peruvian State only allowed Peruvian professionals in archeology to excavate an archaeological site because it had the status of Cultural Heritage of the Nation. According to this regulation, a foreigner could only be a co-director but never a director. On the other hand, in the new RIA it can be, but with a Peruvian co-director, both collegiate. In other words, this co-direction was and still is a legal requirement. One of the purposes of this figure, both in the old and in the current regulation, has been promote horizontal and collaborative relationships between Peruvian and foreign researchers. It is in these negotiations that the dynamics of collaboration, co-research and work are established. And, it is at this point where you have to be careful with the contracts that are made so that cooperation is promoted and not just a hierarchy that perpetuates colonialist relations.
We have to be aware that archaeologists in our investigations continue to make use of these colonialist and sexist practices; taking into account that machismo intertwined with coloniality in archeology are present from our practice to the research questions we ask to interpret the past. One would have to ask ourselves if the criticism made of the project co-directed by two young archaeologists, one Peruvian and the other foreign, should not also be extended to all archaeological projects historically directed by male archaeologists, members of our academic elite. If we are also aware that we do not have adequate parameters that allow us to evaluate the amount of dissemination that we must carry out according to the time that our investigations last, and thus, ensure access to information from the various Peruvian communities. This critique hides the dynamics of coloniality that archaeological projects have in general, including that of Peruvians. This aforementioned article is not a good starting point for a critique of coloniality, but it is a good example of machismo in archeology..
It is necessary to question the colonialist and macho practices in Peruvian archeology to create a more equitable future in our field of research. We archaeologists must face these two components (colonialism and machismo) not only to have a more participatory practice with the collaborators who work in archaeological projects, but also to transmit the germ of knowledge about the past of the territory and can bloom a a more just, egalitarian and less violent Peruvian society. Without that exercise, we will continue circulating in the same. Our text is an exercise that seeks to examine this situation and how to generate debate on this complex issue that requires enriching itself with a multiplicity of perspectives and points of view.
More at LaMula.pe:
Nugent: “Encinas states that democracy is a set of habits and the school is essential”
An embrace of poetics: The I Think group organizes a meeting of creative women
Minister Becerra: “I do not understand why I am expected to apologize to the Aymara mothers”
