Continuing the conversation - debate initiated in a previous post, the archaeologist Maria de los Angeles Muñoz Collazos, Director of Research Institute of Anthropological and Archaeological Museum of the Universidad Mayor de San Simón , sent us these comments about what was discussed about the "Farmer Field Schools" to national regulations and advances in Cochabamba for improving the management of the Archaeological Heritage:
"I welcome the exchange that took place in the Facebook move to this wider space, because allows me to express some opinions and proposals from Cochabamba.
agree with Carlos Dante and that continuation of the field school and research, then do not help to change the status of "incipient Bolivian Archaeology" and Dante in which interpretative problems and limitations have nothing to do with them. But I do not agree on some central conception, ethnocentric (and some attitudes of internal colonialism as well, why not), that little favor they do to our archeology and institutionalization.
perceive this (and this from some previous comments of the blog and the latest news in the press), when the problem becomes practically Tiahuanaco UNAR = Tiahuanacu, when Carlos says "SALP not accept undergraduate field schools in Bolivia "(SALP = Bolivia), where archaeologists investigating La Paz wander through the different departments (with foreigners and with and without field schools), ignoring existing institutions (or grumbling from certain regulations that are required for those) or good people concerned about our heritage, or when Dante says "that" the university as an alternative is little or no consistent "and that" there is a pole of anything now, the UMSA?, UMSA = Bolivia?, or when speaking professionals (La Paz?), "most of which are on the hunt for archaeological projects from contract to survive."
I admit that some of the latter are real problems of Archaeology of Bolivia, but I think they are especially La Paz, which must be added, among others, factionalism among several institutions that have to do with it, it really does not we can speak of an archeology of each Department, should rather help to create. Moreover
and returning to the issues that apparently we are all concerned, I would see no deep contradiction between the positions of the debate, and instead I am delighted this alert on our own institutional situation, I believe that that sense "the incipient Bolivian Archaeology" by not being so contaminated, it could result in a strength that must underpin all.
Dante's position is not radical, it is worth, and apparently is not against the field school and insists that "what is it that these (and other) projects to spend at least some basic requirements ..., set the rules of the game, where you respect the rights of all and properly weighted powers and responsibilities. " Meanwhile
Sonia defends "all students interested in research should be welcome in Bolivia and" supervised "(according to basic rules, I guess).
While in a sense is true Carlos, the University has limited capabilities (funding for research, laboratories), in many others, has enormous potential not exploited just by professionals themselves. Not only "is normatively possibilities ... (of) to participate in the management of archaeological research in any institution, not only Tiwanaku ", but that institutional support is crucial, among many others - to generate and promote serious political research that ultimately could result in national policies. 3 years ago I wrote to you and Claudia Rivera with all these ideas to a forum together, but never materialized as we had to walk independently.
In this sense, the "University" of Cochabamba, with years of experience representing the State in the archaeological and be subject to both the "U" (springs that allow us to display more fully from the "periphery" of national problems of our science) and a position clear ideological respect to internal and external scientific colonialism and the abuses that have been subjected for many years, in early 2009 we developed "than others, of a Protocol External Research Projects, which signed up as the paper" Towards a greater institutionalization and a more dignified archeology. Research Project Protocol of INIAM-UMSS "(with the corresponding theoretical pre), last year at the Second Congress of Bolivian Archaeology and unfortunately for reasons that some people very well know, I was obliged to withdraw and referring to Carlos about the interventions and the benefit of CV Co-Chairs, the need for an Academic Council and other issues, also withdrew the paper "Reflections on the Social Uses of Archaeology and the role of the archaeologist" I very much regret this situation, it just took them for a constructive debate, which we have allowed almost a year ago and started this discussion.
But this is not biography, but much deeper issues and proposals, I tell you that yesterday I uploaded to our new website www.museo.umss.edu.bo mentioned protocol ( Please do not criticize our fledgling site, same as we are under construction and we will gradually spawning), so that, should they see, "can be a starting point in all that we have to build toward institutionalization (and dignity) of the practice of our science and as a response to Dante, of course! you can do many things together ourselves, for our country. The parts highlighted in red in our protocol, I did not delete, as they were added in late 2009, but this protocol has already worked last year and has been signed by Tim Mc Andrews, Claudia Rivera and Christian Isendahl-Walter Sanchez.
Moreover, I disagree with Sonia in the universities are in charge of archaeological issue should be a strong national body that regulates it, but an instance that we seriously propose, Dante, I think a small Academic Council assist with this is not so difficult to visualize, composed of professionals with a minimum degree of skill, and / or representative institutions and relevant sectors, to assess such parties in our protocol (without this being understood as we want to impose) are called "To start the project" and "previous output field, then for example, Co-Director appointed by the Council, in coordination with it will monitor "field" and "at end of field, so, end, together, together with the ombudsmen of this new institution, evaluate the entire project, including "a compulsory" and season. The institution also regulate (for example) to archaeologists that while studying in La Paz, are from another department and to exercise, according to the Constitution-in Prefectures and / or local governments in their department, at least until there are no institutions specific department, thereby encouraging a coordinated and supervised decentralization, because anyway these projects would be evaluated and archaeologists may be the respective Co-Chairs. All this as humble suggestions and thousands of seeing things that could go ...., again if you believe. A time to ask
apologize for the length of this writing, I remind you that not good to leave all the State and / or authorities, which is not good policy development unilaterally, it will become sterile, that the issues before us are not just shysters or academicians, but go for the epistemological and why not repeat that ideology. "
agree with Carlos Dante and that continuation of the field school and research, then do not help to change the status of "incipient Bolivian Archaeology" and Dante in which interpretative problems and limitations have nothing to do with them. But I do not agree on some central conception, ethnocentric (and some attitudes of internal colonialism as well, why not), that little favor they do to our archeology and institutionalization.
perceive this (and this from some previous comments of the blog and the latest news in the press), when the problem becomes practically Tiahuanaco UNAR = Tiahuanacu, when Carlos says "SALP not accept undergraduate field schools in Bolivia "(SALP = Bolivia), where archaeologists investigating La Paz wander through the different departments (with foreigners and with and without field schools), ignoring existing institutions (or grumbling from certain regulations that are required for those) or good people concerned about our heritage, or when Dante says "that" the university as an alternative is little or no consistent "and that" there is a pole of anything now, the UMSA?, UMSA = Bolivia?, or when speaking professionals (La Paz?), "most of which are on the hunt for archaeological projects from contract to survive."
I admit that some of the latter are real problems of Archaeology of Bolivia, but I think they are especially La Paz, which must be added, among others, factionalism among several institutions that have to do with it, it really does not we can speak of an archeology of each Department, should rather help to create. Moreover
and returning to the issues that apparently we are all concerned, I would see no deep contradiction between the positions of the debate, and instead I am delighted this alert on our own institutional situation, I believe that that sense "the incipient Bolivian Archaeology" by not being so contaminated, it could result in a strength that must underpin all.
Dante's position is not radical, it is worth, and apparently is not against the field school and insists that "what is it that these (and other) projects to spend at least some basic requirements ..., set the rules of the game, where you respect the rights of all and properly weighted powers and responsibilities. " Meanwhile
Sonia defends "all students interested in research should be welcome in Bolivia and" supervised "(according to basic rules, I guess).
While in a sense is true Carlos, the University has limited capabilities (funding for research, laboratories), in many others, has enormous potential not exploited just by professionals themselves. Not only "is normatively possibilities ... (of) to participate in the management of archaeological research in any institution, not only Tiwanaku ", but that institutional support is crucial, among many others - to generate and promote serious political research that ultimately could result in national policies. 3 years ago I wrote to you and Claudia Rivera with all these ideas to a forum together, but never materialized as we had to walk independently.
In this sense, the "University" of Cochabamba, with years of experience representing the State in the archaeological and be subject to both the "U" (springs that allow us to display more fully from the "periphery" of national problems of our science) and a position clear ideological respect to internal and external scientific colonialism and the abuses that have been subjected for many years, in early 2009 we developed "than others, of a Protocol External Research Projects, which signed up as the paper" Towards a greater institutionalization and a more dignified archeology. Research Project Protocol of INIAM-UMSS "(with the corresponding theoretical pre), last year at the Second Congress of Bolivian Archaeology and unfortunately for reasons that some people very well know, I was obliged to withdraw and referring to Carlos about the interventions and the benefit of CV Co-Chairs, the need for an Academic Council and other issues, also withdrew the paper "Reflections on the Social Uses of Archaeology and the role of the archaeologist" I very much regret this situation, it just took them for a constructive debate, which we have allowed almost a year ago and started this discussion.
But this is not biography, but much deeper issues and proposals, I tell you that yesterday I uploaded to our new website www.museo.umss.edu.bo mentioned protocol ( Please do not criticize our fledgling site, same as we are under construction and we will gradually spawning), so that, should they see, "can be a starting point in all that we have to build toward institutionalization (and dignity) of the practice of our science and as a response to Dante, of course! you can do many things together ourselves, for our country. The parts highlighted in red in our protocol, I did not delete, as they were added in late 2009, but this protocol has already worked last year and has been signed by Tim Mc Andrews, Claudia Rivera and Christian Isendahl-Walter Sanchez.
Moreover, I disagree with Sonia in the universities are in charge of archaeological issue should be a strong national body that regulates it, but an instance that we seriously propose, Dante, I think a small Academic Council assist with this is not so difficult to visualize, composed of professionals with a minimum degree of skill, and / or representative institutions and relevant sectors, to assess such parties in our protocol (without this being understood as we want to impose) are called "To start the project" and "previous output field, then for example, Co-Director appointed by the Council, in coordination with it will monitor "field" and "at end of field, so, end, together, together with the ombudsmen of this new institution, evaluate the entire project, including "a compulsory" and season. The institution also regulate (for example) to archaeologists that while studying in La Paz, are from another department and to exercise, according to the Constitution-in Prefectures and / or local governments in their department, at least until there are no institutions specific department, thereby encouraging a coordinated and supervised decentralization, because anyway these projects would be evaluated and archaeologists may be the respective Co-Chairs. All this as humble suggestions and thousands of seeing things that could go ...., again if you believe. A time to ask
apologize for the length of this writing, I remind you that not good to leave all the State and / or authorities, which is not good policy development unilaterally, it will become sterile, that the issues before us are not just shysters or academicians, but go for the epistemological and why not repeat that ideology. "
Regarding the comment of Dante (see below comments),
Los Angeles writes:
At the risk of this becoming a dialogue, let me say again that the University System's "National", for example, from the INIAM-UMSS, the Plan of Management and Director to present to my candidacy, including "Master of Anthropology: Plural Identities in Bolivia", which structure, curriculum, etc., we are already building for some months, with members of the "Permanent Seminar in Anthropology", which establishes a number of researchers in early 2009 as a space for reflection and debate, and that works permanently as its name suggests, we plan to launch Masters next year. Dante also and I am glad that mention ", later the plan includes training in Archaeology, in terms of-NO to open a career as such, is not to exclude competition or even less-UMSA, but two programs (two-or three-year) special International Degree in Archaeology (not free the labor market, dozens of professionals in the situation you referred previously), designed with teachers in Bolivia, Mexico, Peru, Chile, Colombia and Argentina hope, and scholars who have done remarkable work in our country and with students (hopefully) across the country.
These are, from the UMSS (of the University System), the purposes short and medium term, which, if there are no major obstacles and financing arrangements permitting - we would also count for this concrete form, with the help of all of you and professionals who in good faith, wish to become full participants. Carlos Lemuz http://arqueobolivia.blogspot.com
At the risk of this becoming a dialogue, let me say again that the University System's "National", for example, from the INIAM-UMSS, the Plan of Management and Director to present to my candidacy, including "Master of Anthropology: Plural Identities in Bolivia", which structure, curriculum, etc., we are already building for some months, with members of the "Permanent Seminar in Anthropology", which establishes a number of researchers in early 2009 as a space for reflection and debate, and that works permanently as its name suggests, we plan to launch Masters next year. Dante also and I am glad that mention ", later the plan includes training in Archaeology, in terms of-NO to open a career as such, is not to exclude competition or even less-UMSA, but two programs (two-or three-year) special International Degree in Archaeology (not free the labor market, dozens of professionals in the situation you referred previously), designed with teachers in Bolivia, Mexico, Peru, Chile, Colombia and Argentina hope, and scholars who have done remarkable work in our country and with students (hopefully) across the country.
These are, from the UMSS (of the University System), the purposes short and medium term, which, if there are no major obstacles and financing arrangements permitting - we would also count for this concrete form, with the help of all of you and professionals who in good faith, wish to become full participants. Carlos Lemuz http://arqueobolivia.blogspot.com
0 comments:
Post a Comment