How do we think and represent human groups in the Pampean region (Argentina)? An analysis of the archaeological discourse
We understand archeology as one of the main disciplines that produces social images about the past. Therefore, in this work we analyze the representations about human groups in the Pampean region constructed through the archaeological discourse. The study is based on a literature review of 290 publi...
Guardado en:
| Autores principales: | , |
|---|---|
| Formato: | Artículo publishedVersion |
| Lenguaje: | Español |
| Publicado: |
Instituto de Arqueología, Facultad de Filosofía y Letras, Universidad de Buenos Aires
2022
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | https://revistascientificas.filo.uba.ar/index.php/Arqueologia/article/view/9951 https://repositoriouba.sisbi.uba.ar/gsdl/cgi-bin/library.cgi?a=d&c=arqueo&d=9951_oai |
| Aporte de: |
| Sumario: | We understand archeology as one of the main disciplines that produces social images about the past. Therefore, in this work we analyze the representations about human groups in the Pampean region constructed through the archaeological discourse. The study is based on a literature review of 290 publications. We recorded categories used to refer to people, sex-gender mentions, age groups, food, and hunting and gathering practices in different study areas and temporalities. We then reflect on their implications for issues such as the complexity of human groups, diversity, and past[1]present relationships. Results show that 60% of the papers use the hunter-gatherer category, regardless of the temporality and the area studied, while 10% do not refer to people at all. In addition, when referring to people in the earliest periods, there is a recurrent and limited use of terms, linked to temporal ascriptions, in contrast to a greater terminological diversity used for the Late Holocene and Post-Conquest. In general, time-space labels are applied to name the groups, thus contributing to a breakdown between past and present. Also, the topics studied contribute to the discussion about the complexity of the groups but dilute their diversity. The activation of meanings about the human past mobilizes current processes that enhance or limit the recognition of social diversity and inequality. Here we seek to reflex on the construction of knowledge that the archaeological discourse enables (or restricts). |
|---|