Archaeological Practice and Political Change
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Archaeological Practice and Political Change: Transitions and Transformations in the Use of the Past in Nationalist, Neoliberal and Indigenous Bolivia By Donna Yates Trinity Hall This dissertation is submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Archaeology University of Cambridge September 2011 Summary Archaeological Practice and Political Change: Transitions and Transformations in the Use of the Past in Nationalist, Neoliberal and Indigenous Bolivia By Donna Yates This study will explore how major governmental changes in Bolivia affected both archaeological practice and the socio-political use of archaeological resources. Spanning the years between 1979 and 2010, and contextualised by a complete analysis of archaeological law passed since 1906, this dissertation will present a broad discussion of changes within Bolivian archaeology and politics and will follow targeted aspects of archaeological practice and governmental use of the past during several distinct periods in Bolivia’s history. Through this, I will clarify how changes in the national politics of Bolivia have affected the use of archaeological resources by governments, citizens and descendant groups. In the narrowest sense, this research will identify how major political shifts affect both Bolivian archaeology and the use of the past in Bolivian identity politics. Few in- depth historical analyses of Bolivian archaeology have been produced and none of these have the beneft of incorporating the actions of the current Indigenous-led administration. This is the frst time that all historic Bolivian archaeological laws have been collected, analysed individually and evaluated collectively for evidence of long- term trends. Also, this project represents the frst time that word frequency analysis tools have been used to gain information about a large body of Bolivian archaeological texts. The information gleaned from this study can be used to better inform the formulation and continuation of archaeological projects within Bolivia. In a broader sense, this project demonstrates the effectiveness of a new methodology through which signifcant changes in a particular state, national or international archaeology program can be evaluated over time. Moreover, the Bolivian case study, being clearly defned, can prove to be a signifcant comparative model to which other situations involving modern Indigenous issues, nationalism, identity politics and archaeology can be related. Due to the worldwide economic realities of archaeology-based tourism and the effectiveness of past-based political rhetoric, I assert that such research is necessary if we are to continue to practice archaeology in a modern globalised context. ii Declaration This dissertation is the result of my own work and includes nothing which is the outcome of work done in collaboration except where specifcally indicated in the text. This thesis meets all the requirements of page length and word count as set forth by the Department of Archaeology. iii Acknowledgements So many thanks go to my supervisor, Dr Marie Louise Stig Sørensen who not only supported this research and provided expert commentary and guidance, but who took me on as a student without question when unforeseen circumstances arose. I am also grateful to Dr Neil Brodie for supervision during my frst year and my master’s. Thanks also to Dr Elizabeth DeMarrais, my advisor, for keeping everything South American focused. Grateful thanks goes to the Cambridge Overseas Trusts, the JB Trend Fund, and Trinity Hall who provided the funding that made this research possible. I am extremely grateful to the Bolivian archaeologists who responded to my questionnaire: your responses were so amazing that they were humbling. Sincerest thanks to those who responded to my random emails: Dr Karen Olsen Bruhns, Dr David Browman, Dante Angelo, Jose Capriles Flores, Dr Francisco Valdez, among others. Many thanks to Dr Ron Lippi and Dr Alejandra Gudino of the Palmitopamba project and everyone in the Ecuadorian Ministry of Cultural Patrimony. Thanks to everyone involved in the Proyecto Arqueologico Pumapunku Akapana for showing me Bolivia. Much thanks to Dr Clark Erickson, Dr. Sonia Alconini, and Dr. John Janusek for recent encouragement and keeping me focused on what is next for this type of research. A special thanks goes out to Tera Pruitt: I couldn’t dream of a more insightful, creative and inspiring friend and colleague. Also thanks to Pía Spry-Marqués for bearing with my terrible written Spanish and helping me produce something readable. Thank you to the committee of the Archaeological Review from Cambridge from 2007–2010. You all made me feel welcome at a time when I felt most tangential. Thank you to my fellow grad students, especially to Nisha Doshi, Naomi Farrington, Lindsey Friedman, Jennifer Goddard, Robyn Inglis, Morag Kersel, Carla Lancelotti, Emma Lightfoot, Mark Sapwell, and Dom Walker for your academic and social support; to Elizabeth Gilgan; to the Historic Environment Record offce of the Cambridgeshire County Council; the the Paul Revere House; to Dr Cameron Petrie; and to Lenore Muskett and the Amnesty International Bookshop staff; to my oldest, dearest, and bestest friend Lauren Bradshaw; and to my glorious former housemates Christina Littlefeld, Nathan Eng and Scott Stevens. I wouldn’t have made it without you guys. Thank you to Antona, Zona and Blyss Wagstaff, Sabrina Malcolm, and Phil and Callum Garnock-Jones. You took in a crazy person near the end of her dissertation and that was brave! Thank you for making me feel at home in New Zealand. To Tony Garnock-Jones, I owe you two tickets to Silver Apples, homemade pizza, an extra year of work and my love. I can’t imagine doing this without you. I promise to be there for you like you were here for me. Most of all I thank my parents, Paul and Lina Yates and my brother, Steven Yates. You have supported me literally to the ends of the earth and words cannot describe how grateful I am for it. I love you. iv Table of Contents Summary........................................................................................................................................i Declaration...................................................................................................................................iii Acknowledgements....................................................................................................................iv Table of Contents......................................................................................................................... v List of Figures............................................................................................................................... x 1. Politics, Archaeological Resources and Archaeological Practice in Bolivia.....................1 1.1 Objectives........................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Relevance............................................................................................................................2 1.3 Dissertation Structure....................................................................................................... 3 1.4 Original Contribution....................................................................................................... 4 2. Archaeology, Heritage and Latin America........................................................................... 7 2.1 The Term Indigenous........................................................................................................8 2.1.1 To be Indigenous in Bolivia......................................................................................9 2.2 Archaeology: A Public Good for all Publics?...............................................................12 2.2.1 Who Does Archaeology Help?...............................................................................13 2.2.2 Non-Archaeological Past-Based Identity............................................................. 15 2.3 Archaeology and Poverty...............................................................................................17 2.3.1 Tourism: Sustainable or Unsustainable? Free or Fair?.......................................18 2.3.2 Tourism and Protest ............................................................................................... 23 2.3.3 Poverty and Education Barriers............................................................................ 26 2.3.4 Section Summary.....................................................................................................29 2.4 Archaeology and Legitimacy.........................................................................................29 2.4.1 Archaeology and the State in Latin America....................................................... 30 2.4.2 Indigenous Archaeology in Latin America..........................................................34 2.4.3 Legitimacy Beyond Archaeology: Other Indigenous Claims to the Past........39 2.4.4 Section Summary.....................................................................................................44 2.5 Bolivia............................................................................................................................... 44 3. Bolivia: A Case Study............................................................................................................ 47 3.1 Geography and Demographics....................................................................................