Collaborative Methodologies in Archaeology: Theoretical Reflections and Practical Advances on Heritage, Its Research, and Dissemination*

María Fernanda Ugalde

Museum Rietberg, Zürich, Switzerland ‒ Pontificia Universidad Católica del Ecuador (PUCE)

Sonia Archila

Departamento de Antropología ‒ Universidad de los Andes, Colombia

https://doi.org/10.7440/antipoda56.2024.01

Received: April 2, 2024; accepted: May 15, 2024; modified: May 25, 2024.

Abstract: Centered around the questions of “whose” and “for whom” heritage is, this article explores various approaches in South America aimed at achieving a public archaeology that is inclusive and beneficial to communities. While the reflections and most case studies primarily focus on indigenous societies, specific efforts to develop collaborative methodologies that include other groups or collectives are also discussed. To provide a comprehensive view, a general review of relevant literature from different parts of the continent has been conducted, synthesizing it to present the state of the art on collaborative methodologies in the Americas, with a focus on South America. The core concepts addressed are heritage and community, their interrelationship, and the diverse ways their connection is crucial today, particularly in terms of collaborative methodologies in various research projects. The discussion highlights how the interpretation and presentation of the past become significant aspects when transitioning from theory to the practice of collaborations. After presenting several previously published examples and the articles comprising this dossier, the article concludes that significant advances have been made in the last decades in developing collaborative methodologies in archaeology. This progress marks a positive path toward the pluralization of the discipline. As an original contribution, the article offers a comparative reflection on collaborative work with communities in museums in Europe and the Americas, evaluating approaches and advancements. It concludes that researchers in the Americas have an advantage: working with materials that are closely connected to the groups that consider them their heritage, or considering themselves the heirs, allows for a more intimate and legitimate approach.

Keywords: Collaborative archaeology, collectives, communities, heritage, methodology, museums.

Metodologías colaborativas en arqueología: reflexiones teóricas y avances prácticos en torno al patrimonio, su investigación y difusión

Resumen: con las preguntas acerca “de quién” y “para quién” es el patrimonio como cuestiones centrales, el artículo da cuenta de las diferentes aproximaciones con las que se ha buscado, en Suramérica, alcanzar una arqueología que pueda considerarse pública, es decir, que sea inclusiva y beneficie a las comunidades. Aunque tanto la reflexión como los casos de estudio, en su mayoría, se enfocan en las sociedades indígenas, se mencionan también los esfuerzos puntuales por desarrollar metodologías colaborativas que incluyan a otros grupos o colectivos. Para abordar el tema en forma panorámica se ha hecho una revisión general de la literatura relevante producida en distintos espacios del continente, y se la ha sintetizado de manera que se presenta un estado del arte sobre las propuestas de metodologías colaborativas en las Américas, con énfasis en Suramérica. Como eje central se tratan los conceptos de patrimonio y comunidad, la relación entre estos, y los disímiles modos en los que su vinculación resulta clave hoy en día en términos de metodologías colaborativas en varias investigaciones. Se discute cómo la interpretación y la presentación del pasado se vuelven aspectos importantes cuando se pasa de la teoría a la praxis de las colaboraciones. Una vez expuestos varios ejemplos previamente publicados, así como los artículos que conforman este dosier, se concluye que los avances de las últimas décadas en el desarrollo de metodologías colaborativas en la arqueología son reales, y que este es un camino adecuado hacia la pluralización de la disciplina. Como un aporte original se hace una reflexión comparativa en torno al trabajo colaborativo con comunidades en museos de Europa y las Américas, se evalúan los enfoques y avances, y se concluye que, para lxs investigadorxs en las Américas, existe una ventaja y es que, al trabajar con materiales cercanos a los grupos que los consideran sus patrimonios, o al considerarse ellxs mismxs lxs herederxs, el acercamiento a estos tiene lugar desde una posición más íntima y legítima.

Palabras clave: arqueologías colaborativas, colectivos, comunidades, metodología, museos, patrimonio.

Metodologias colaborativas em arqueologia: reflexões teóricas e avanços práticos sobre patrimônio, sua pesquisa e divulgação

Resumo: com as perguntas “de quem” e “para quem” é o patrimônio como questões centrais, este artigo apresenta um relato das diferentes abordagens que têm sido usadas na América do Sul para alcançar uma arqueologia que possa ser considerada pública, isto é, que seja inclusiva e beneficie as comunidades. Embora a maior parte da reflexão e dos estudos de caso se concentre nas sociedades indígenas, também são mencionados esforços específicos para desenvolver metodologias colaborativas que incluam outros grupos ou coletivos. Para abordar o assunto de forma panorâmica, foi feita uma revisão geral da literatura relevante produzida em diferentes partes do continente e sintetizada de forma a apresentar um estado da arte sobre propostas de metodologias colaborativas nas Américas, com ênfase na América do Sul. Como eixo central, são discutidos os conceitos de patrimônio e comunidade, a relação entre eles e as diferentes maneiras pelas quais sua vinculação é fundamental hoje, em termos de metodologias colaborativas em vários projetos de pesquisa. É discutido como a interpretação e a apresentação do passado se tornam importantes quando se passa da teoria para a prática das colaborações. Após a exposição de vários exemplos publicados anteriormente, bem como dos artigos que compõem este dossiê, a conclusão é que os avanços das últimas décadas no desenvolvimento de metodologias colaborativas em arqueologia são reais e que esse é um caminho adequado para a pluralização da disciplina. Como contribuição original, uma reflexão comparativa sobre o trabalho colaborativo com comunidades em museus da Europa e das Américas é feita; além disso, abordagens e avanços são avaliados. Portanto, para ês pesquisadories das Américas, há uma vantagem: ao trabalhar com materiais próximos aos grupos que os consideram seus patrimônios ou ao se considerarem iles mesmes ês herdeires, a abordagem a eles ocorre a partir de uma posição mais íntima e legítima.

Palavras-chave: arqueologias colaborativas, coletivos, comunidades, metodologia, museus, patrimônio.

In Latin America today, archaeology shows a clear shift toward the public sphere in its broadest sense. Much of the current work focuses on designing and applying collaborative methodologies, alongside developing public policies that engage communities more inclusively in what is—sometimes ambiguously—labeled as heritage (Baird 2017; Breglia 2006; Endere 2009; Endere et al. 2009; Gnecco and Hernández 2010b; Gnecco and Ayala 2010a; Graham, Ashworth, and Tunbridge 2005, 2000; Lumley 2005; Smith and Jackson 2006). These policies are designed to recognize the wide range of ways in which local communities, particularly Indigenous groups, relate to heritage and to the use of what is considered part of it (Benavides, Ayala, and Ugalde 2023; Bezerra 2012; Reyes and Archila 2014; Silva 2000; Smith 2009, 2007, 2006, 2004). The initiatives cover the full spectrum of archaeological practice—from fieldwork to the public display of findings and the dissemination of new knowledge in cultural spaces, especially museums.

Some of the most representative work has been undertaken in collaboration with Indigenous societies (Arthur and Ayala 2020; Ayala 2014, 2008; Ayala, Avendaño, and Cárdenas 2003; Ayala et al. 2022; Breglia 2008; Cabral 2017, 2013; Eremites 2003; Gil 2010; Gnecco and Hernández 2010b; Green, Green, and Neves 2010; Hernández et al. 2009; Jácome and Wai Wai 2020; Jofré 2012, 2003; Kalazich 2015; Londoño 2010, 2002; Machado 2017; Machado, Tschucambang, and Fonseca 2020; Montenegro 2014; Paillalef 2010; Paredes 2015; Pastana 2011; Robrahn-González 2006; Silva and Gomes 2015; Silva, Bespalez, and Forte 2011; Silva et al. 2010; Tschucambang 2015; Tuki and Arthur 2020; Urdaneta 1991, 1988; Vasco 2010; Wai Wai 2017). There are also examples of research with specific groups (Cavalcante 2010; Funari, Vieira, and Tamanini 2008; Herrera, Gómez, and De Schrimpff 2001), as well as feminist and LGBTIQ+ communities (Isasmendi 2022; Machado and Kaingang 2020; Ugalde 2019), urban populations (Escandón-Moreno 2023), and neighborhood-based groups, among others. These studies have been designed within the fields of archaeology, museology, and heritage, and in each case, collaboration is understood and practiced through different theoretical and methodological perspectives, involving varying degrees of community participation.

These trends have neither emerged at the same time nor developed with equal intensity across countries. Shaped by distinct social and political contexts, they have followed different trajectories, resulting in varied scenarios today. In South America, for instance, the adoption of collaborative methodologies shows clear contrasts, with Chile, Bolivia, Argentina, and Brazil standing out as the countries where such approaches are most frequently implemented (see the extensive reference list compiled by Ayala and Cabral [forthcoming]).

In contemporary Latin America, many archaeological projects claim to adopt collaborative methodologies and decolonial perspectives. Yet what does this actually mean in practice? And with whom are archaeologists truly collaborating in these project,1 Do these research dynamics genuinely foster collaborative processes in which communities have both a voice and a vote in concrete decisions? When such participation occurs, is it substantive—extending, for instance, to defining the objectives and methodologies of the projects? Perhaps the most fundamental question is whether the members of the communities designated as beneficiaries truly wish to engage in this collaboration and whether they feel meaningfully integrated into the projects, whether in the field, the laboratory, or museum spaces.

We affirm the significance of collaborative methodologies in archaeology, both for their capacity to expand knowledge through processes of reciprocal exchange and for the concrete social benefits they generate. Archaeology has, in many contexts, also contributed to broader struggles for the recognition of Indigenous identities and the restitution of ancestral territories (e.g., Urdaneta 1991, 1988; Vasco 2010). More than two decades after the initial articulation of the need for collaborative approaches, this dossier seeks to examine recent South American experiences in the development of such methodologies, assessing their outcomes and outlining future directions.

The next section outlines the state of the art, with specific examples, of what are considered collaborative archaeologies and related concepts. We then sketch several ideas we have recently developed regarding the treatment of archaeological heritage and its relationship with communities, from a comparative perspective between museums in Europe and South America. Finally, we introduce the articles included in this dossier and conclude with a brief reflection on the current state of the issues under discussion.

Collaborative Methodologies in Archaeology

The concept of collaborative archaeologies encompasses a broad spectrum of theoretical and methodological approaches to archaeological practice, all directed toward fostering decolonized, critical, and socially meaningful engagements (Ayala and Cabral, forthcoming; Londoño 2021). This trend is situated within broader public archaeology research programs with varied emphases, such as the valuation and protection of archaeological heritage (Moi and Morales 2010), educational and outreach initiatives for diverse audiences including schoolchildren, museum visitors, and the management of heritage sites (Endere 2009), among others. It also involves research practices that draw on nontraditional methodologies for archaeology, such as ethnography, interviews, and participatory mapping (Ayala 2008; Babidge et al. 2019; Castañeda 2009, 2008; Green, Green, and Neves 2010; Kalazich 2015; see also Novillo and Palacios 2024 in this issue).

Archaeological practice has been described in the literature using various terms that point to collaborative methodologies or approaches involving the close participation of local communities in producing knowledge about the past. Within this body of work, Indigenous archaeology—particularly prominent in Latin America—is grounded in the premise that archaeological research should be undertaken with, for, and by Indigenous societies themselves (Gnecco and Ayala 2010a; Londoño 2002). A related term is participatory archaeology, relatively common in the lowlands of Brazil and Bolivia, as noted by Ayala and Cabral (forthcoming), where it has primarily developed in collaboration with Indigenous communities (e.g., Cabral 2013; Eremites 2001; Jaimes 2020).

One of the central aims of implementing collaborative methodologies in archaeology is undoubtedly the pursuit of a decolonized practice—one that fosters more horizontal relationships with communities and encourages archaeologists to move away from positioning themselves as the sole authorities on the past. In doing so, the groundwork is laid for genuine coproduction of knowledge. This approach requires the involvement of communities in the design, development, and dissemination of research.

Archaeology practiced in this way broadens the range of perspectives on the past and enables its interpretation through Indigenous worldviews and ontologies—that is, through non-Western frameworks (e.g., Herrera and Lane 2006; Londoño 2002; Machado 2017; Machado, Tschucambang, and Fonseca 2020; Marconetto, Gardenal, and Barría 2017; Valle et al. 2018). It also involves Indigenous communities taking a leading role in decision-making about the past, including its public dissemination through museums, where co-curatorial practices are becoming increasingly common. These initiatives have had profound implications for traditional archaeology—for example, the abandonment of chronological frameworks considered incompatible with Indigenous conceptions of time, creation, and the spirit of materials (Burtenshaw et al. 2022).

Liebmann (2008) examines the role of postcolonial studies in archaeology and identifies three areas in which they intersect with the discipline: the interpretation of episodes of colonization and colonialism in the past through the archaeological record; archaeology’s historical role in constructing and deconstructing colonial discourses; and methodology as both a tool for the discipline’s decolonization and a framework for the ethical practice of contemporary archaeology. Rizvi (2008), for his part, emphasizes the importance of decolonizing archaeological methods in order to democratize the practice—a process that does not undermine the scientific validity of research, but rather entails the application of a rigorous methodology that is socially and politically engaged and that highlights the relevance and connections of the past to the present. Incorporating postcolonial critique into archaeological contexts opens the way for new strategies, including community-based collaborative research and various forms of public archaeology.

What, then, does it actually mean to decolonize methodologies? Rizvi (2008) understands decolonization as the deconstruction of the power structures embedded in archaeological methodologies—all of which are rooted in colonial history—in order to make them transparent. On this basis, she argues for the reform of methodology through an active process of decolonization and democratization of archaeological practice, a model she terms community-based archaeology. According to Rizvi (2006), community-based archaeology requires direct engagement with the concerns of local communities. These concerns may include heritage valuation, identity formation, and, in many cases, economic development initiatives such as tourism. Contemporary calls for decolonization in archaeology, particularly from Indigenous communities across Australia, New Zealand, and North America, have drawn on postcolonial critique to formulate arguments and to reinforce decolonizing processes in the production of archaeological knowledge (Rizvi 2008).

In North America, Atalay (2012) has emphasized the need to implement participatory methodologies in contemporary archaeology. She advocates for the use of Community-Based Participatory Research (CBPR) as a way of conducting research with, for, and by Indigenous peoples and local groups. Atalay reflects on how both archaeology and she herself—as an Anishinaabe woman and an archaeologist—can benefit from CBPR. Her aspiration is to develop a methodology through which archaeological science and community knowledge work together and complement one another, employing long-term sustainable practices that benefit communities in their efforts to reclaim and strengthen their connections to cultural heritage. In her view, Indigenous archaeology today seeks to address the tensions between Indigenous communities and archaeologists by moving the discipline toward a decolonized practice (Atalay 2010, 2008b, 2008a, 2007, 2006; Jackson and Smith 2005; Nicholas 2003; Smith and Jackson 2006; Smith and Wobst 2005).

However, the terms collaborative and community can at times be ambiguous (see Acuto 2024, in this issue). This leads to the question: what does collaboration actually mean in archaeology? Atalay (2008a) contends that it is neither practical nor useful to impose a single definition of collaboration within archaeological contexts. Archaeologists employ the term in varied forms, and the practices it denotes extend across a broad spectrum. Colwell-Chanthaphonh and Ferguson (2008) describe this spectrum as a collaborative continuum, emphasizing that each project occupies a distinct position along it. Community-Based Participatory Research (CBPR) is situated within this continuum, as are the critiques directed at it (e.g., La Salle 2010). Atalay further highlights that Indigenous archaeology and collaboration are not interchangeable. While Indigenous archaeology frequently relies on community-oriented methodologies, it extends far beyond them. It entails the incorporation of Indigenous concepts and cultural knowledge into the interpretation of archaeological materials (Atalay 2006; Nicholas 2008). It also considers how archaeological practices can be made more meaningful to local communities and their descendants (e.g., Atalay 2007; Nicholas 2008). Furthermore, Indigenous archaeology integrates Indigenous knowledge systems with Western approaches to archaeological research, thereby enriching research practices (Atalay 2008b, 2008a, 2007, 2006; Silliman 2008).

Museums and Collaborative Methodologies

Museums constitute a central space for the development of collaborative methodologies, as they are among the primary institutions dedicated to cultural dissemination. The new definition of the museum, issued by the International Council of Museums (ICOM) in 2022 following an extraordinary assembly in Prague, underscores the importance of community participation across the various dimensions of museum practice:

A museum is a not-for-profit, permanent institution in the service of society that researches, collects, conserves, interprets and exhibits tangible and intangible heritage. Open to the public, accessible and inclusive, museums foster diversity and sustainability. They operate and communicate ethically, professionally and with the participation of communities, offering varied experiences for education, enjoyment, reflection and knowledge sharing. (ICOM 2022)

In light of this definition, we must ask: Whose heritage is it, and for whom? These questions form the basis for considering communities and diversities, which occupy a central place in the definition itself. While the concept is not restricted to archaeological museums, we focus our discussion on this domain—not only because it is the subject of this dossier, but also because it is the field in which our own professional trajectories have unfolded. We approach these questions by contrasting general trends we have observed in museums in Europe and in northwestern South America—contexts we know in some depth through our professional work. For European museums, we concentrate on those that define themselves as world art museums, since these are the institutions that predominantly house archaeological collections from the Americas.

Although our focus here is on museums, the question of whose heritage it is—and for whom—extends well beyond that setting. Archaeology and education are equally significant in this regard. University programs shape the training of archaeologists, while schools at different levels introduce young people to knowledge about the past. Education also generates new perspectives on how communities engage with and appropriate that past. As noted earlier, the debate on decolonizing the production of archaeological knowledge holds a central place in contemporary literature and has likewise been a key part of our own professional practice.

We begin from the premise that a discernible trend has emerged: museums in the Global South are increasingly concerned with the question of for whom heritage exists, and with how to incorporate these groups into museum discourse and practice—an orientation that points toward inclusive policies. By contrast, museums in the Global North more often contend with questions of whose heritage it is, why it is located where it is, and how its presence can be justified. Despite these differences, in both North and South the notion of community remains central to the discussion.

A trend that appears fairly widespread in European museums—though with notable variation between institutions—is a strong emphasis on provenance research, framed as a decolonial effort (Tisa-Francini 2022). This focus has placed the question of whose heritage it is at the forefront, generating a range of positions. The least open to debating provenance often fall back on the argument that heritage belongs to humanity as a whole, rather than to any one country or community, thereby legitimizing their role as custodians and preservers (a stance supported by the legislation of their respective countries). The older argument that countries of origin lack the infrastructure and resources to safeguard collections is still heard occasionally, though it has steadily lost credibility in academic circles. At the same time, perspectives recognizing cultural property—including archaeological objects—as belonging to the groups that produced them or to their descendants have become increasingly common. Naturally, the older the objects, the harder it is to identify such successors; the more archaeological the material, the more complex the task of attributing it to a specific community. For this reason, provenance research frequently leads to restitution processes, typically when a cultural object can be clearly linked to a community and when its symbolic importance to that community is recognized. These processes, often lengthy and cumbersome, are usually preceded by claims advanced by governments representing the communities for whom such objects remain vital components of their worldview.

Encouraging examples, in our view, are restitution initiatives undertaken by European museums themselves, often grounded in provenance research carried out jointly with the communities concerned. The most emblematic case is that of the so-called Benin Bronzes. The Kingdom of Benin, located in present-day Nigeria, had been integrated into global trade networks since the fifteenth century. In 1897, during the colonial period, its capital, Benin City, was attacked by British colonial troops, who looted and burned the royal palace. An estimated 3,000 to 5,000 objects were taken from the palace. Through international art dealers, these objects entered public and private collections worldwide under the label “Benin Bronzes.” In 2018, French president Emmanuel Macron commissioned a report on the context and modalities of restituting African cultural heritage held in French public museums and collections. The report sparked international debate and opened the path toward restitution, first initiated by France and subsequently taken up by museums in the United Kingdom, the United States, Germany, Austria, and Switzerland (Sarr and Savoy 2018).

In South America, perspectives and challenges take on a distinct character, even as the issue of provenance gradually gains ground. Debates here are shaped by local circumstances, most often linked to huaquerismo or grave-robbing, and collecting—colonial practices established as early as the sixteenth century and later legitimized by several emerging nation-states in the nineteenth century (Botero 2006, 1996). It is therefore essential to make transparent the origins of both public and private collections now held in archaeological museums and to promote critical academic debate around these processes. Several recent cases illustrate how restitution has unfolded in the region. One example is the return of objects from Machu Picchu, taken to Yale University in the early twentieth century and repatriated to the Peruvian government after a long dispute. Another is the emblematic case of the “Ekeko,” illegally removed in the mid-nineteenth century by Swiss archaeologist Johann Jakob von Tschudi. In 2014, in a highly political act, the figurine was recovered by Bolivia and personally returned by then-president Evo Morales (Historisches Museum (2) – Cooperaxion [bern-kolonial.ch]). Colombia’s claim to the so-called “Quimbaya Treasure” is another prominent example. This collection of 122 gold objects, looted from a tomb in Filandia in 1893, was handed over by Colombian president Carlos Holguín to the Spanish crown as a gesture of gratitude for its mediation in a border dispute with Venezuela. The treasure remains in the Museo de América in Madrid. Although politicians and journalists periodically revive the debate and urge Spain to return it, indigenous communities have not been part of the discussion. In May 2024, however, the Colombian government for the first time submitted an official claim for the treasure. Still absent from these debates is a serious consideration of historical continuity between present-day indigenous populations and pre-Hispanic peoples, and the extent to which symbolic or real connections to these objects are acknowledged in museums abroad and within Colombia itself.

In our view, the main challenge facing archaeological museums in our continent is achieving greater plurality around cultural heritage: rethinking for whom museums ultimately exist, and how they can move away from exclusionary practices. National archaeological museums, in particular, continue to function as spaces that often generate distance or even mistrust rather than a sense of welcome, as they do little to foster feelings of belonging. The past and its material remains are too often presented as entities disconnected from the problems and realities of contemporary life.

One example of this disconnect emerges from a study of visitors to the Museo del Oro in Bogotá, conducted by one of us (Archila and Barona 2007). The research showed a widespread admiration for the aesthetic beauty of the artifacts and an appreciation of the societies that produced them. However, when asked whether they perceived any connection between these objects or their creators and their own lives as Colombians today, visitors generally did not. In other words, there is a clear dissociation between past societies and those of the present. Most respondents reported feeling no direct ethnic or social link to these societies, though they nonetheless expressed admiration and respect. This outcome is tied, in part, to the way the pre-Hispanic past was mobilized in the nineteenth century to construct a sense of Colombian national identity—a pattern also evident in other countries of the region (Puebla 2015). At the time the study was conducted, just over a decade ago, the narratives framing the Museo del Oro continued to reproduce this constructed identity: the idea of Colombians as descendants of a glorious pre-Hispanic past, disconnected from contemporary Indigenous, rural, and urban populations. Some visitors also associated gold with wealth and power, underscoring how such connotations shape public perceptions of heritage embodied in gold artifacts. The relationship between heritage and identity becomes even more complex when the “otherness” of the Indigenous past, as musealized, intersects with questions of non-normative gender—a theme we have addressed in a recent study (Ugalde and Benavides 2023).

In several South American countries, so-called community museums and site museums play an important role for local communities, their people, and their economic development initiatives, often supported by small-scale cultural tourism industries (see McEwan, Hudson, and Silva 1993; Stothert 2006; Weinstein 2006). Our concern here, however, is to critically examine the content and narratives of national museums. This requires asking questions such as: Who visits archaeological museums today? Who constructed the narratives on display, and with what underlying assumptions? And when we speak of inclusion, whom should museums include, and in what ways? Put differently, who truly constitutes the “communities” that occupy such a central place in heritage debates?

When considering diversity and community, it is essential to move beyond the idea that Indigenous societies are the only possible point of reference. Other groups—such as women, LGBTIQ+ communities, and others—also have the right to shape narratives about their past and their heritage (Ugalde and Benavides 2018).

In this context, we believe archaeologists have made limited use of the potential inherent in the very nature of our object of study—that is, the archaeological material itself. As a concrete example, we point to the work of one of us, who, through the reanalysis of archaeological materials from a gender perspective, has proposed new interpretations of gender relations in the past (Ugalde 2019). A provocative and innovative exhibition at the National Museum of Ecuador (Ugalde and Benavides 2023), emerging from this research, was taken up by part of the country’s LGBTIQ+ community as a means of historical legitimization. The fact that a portion of this exhibition has been incorporated into the museum’s permanent display is encouraging in terms of advancing inclusion for this community.

In sum, while for European museums the central challenge—despite the best intentions of their public policies—seems to be their distance from the communities whose heritage they safeguard, in local museums that very connection is their greatest strength. Their power lies in the sense of identification with objects that, directly or indirectly, can be understood as belonging to one’s own heritage. And although museums may at times raise issues that initially feel uncomfortable, if we recognize that such discomfort stems from colonial impositions deeply rooted in Latin America—for example, in the rejection of the Indigenous past or of sexual and gender diversity—it becomes easier to denaturalize these hegemonic conceptions, which should not dictate identity or constrain self-determination. From this more optimistic perspective, we see that when inclusion is fostered from within communities themselves, public policies of inclusion gain greater strength—because their force emerges from the material heritage itself.

By Way of Conclusion: Recent Contributions on Collaborative Methodologies in Archaeology

The contributions gathered in this dossier illustrate both the breadth of the challenges surrounding collaborative approaches in archaeology and the diverse paths through which such approaches are being pursued. They also reveal that, despite the extensive scholarship on the subject, in practice there are relatively few concrete cases where genuinely collaborative methodologies have been fully realized. The call for an activist archaeology, voiced in one of the contributions for the second decade of the twenty-first century, is striking—particularly given that, for more than half a century, archaeology in both the Global North and South, through Marxist, social, and other critical traditions, has consistently emphasized the importance of its activist dimension. This contrast underscores the persistent difficulties of reconciling theory with practice. At the same time, however, the contributions also highlight elements of self-reflection and maturity—legacies of a sustained and committed effort to build a more plural discipline.

Silva’s article (2024, in this issue) begins by situating his positionality as a “non-traditional” archaeologist, working professionally in a liminal space between archaeological practice and the field of education—an in-between position that places him at the margins of disciplinary boundaries. Drawing on Gloria Anzaldúa’s (1987) notion of the borderland, he frames this non-place as a site of creative potential for the discipline. The principles of Paulo Freire’s (2014) critical, dialogical, and ultimately liberatory pedagogy inform the methodologies he employs, which are adapted in practice together with communities and in harmony with their social structures. Based on his work in the Middle Solimões River region (Amazonas state, Brazil), Silva introduces the concept of arqueología parienta or archaeology of kinship. His research emphasizes the importance of family networks in these communities and the ways in which they relate to material culture. Here, kinship is not limited to blood relations but extends to forms of compadrazgo, where mutual support forms the basis of social ties. Within these networks, material remains from different periods—including archaeological artifacts—intermingle with more recent historical memory, such as references to the rubber boom. Silva highlights the everyday coexistence of communities with archaeological material and the multiple spaces this opens for interpretation and preservation of heritage. In schools, for example, children and teachers curate objects and later keep them in their homes. In this way, families become involved, and what he calls kinship collections are established: archaeological objects are transformed into kin within the communities themselves.

Ayala et al. (2024, in this issue) reflect on the definition and application of collaborative methodologies in archaeological projects carried out in the Atacameño Lickanantay Indigenous territory of Antofagasta, northern Chile. Their specific focus is the history of collecting and the heritage-making of Indigenous bodies. One of the aims of their work is to ensure that the use of collaborative methodologies contributes meaningfully to the political and social processes of the Atacameño people, particularly in relation to their demands for respect toward ancestors exhumed from burial sites and transferred to different institutions within and beyond Chile. The article emphasizes the role of collaborative and Indigenous archaeologies in generating knowledge that emerges from joint work, incorporating local beliefs and perspectives while fostering community benefit. At the same time, Ayala and colleagues address debates surrounding the return, repatriation, or reburial of human remains in their places of origin. Their arguments also question museums’ decision-making power, exposing the persistence of colonial dynamics that continue to deny Indigenous authority—all from a self-reflective stance on archaeological practice and its work with communities.

The challenge of combining and harmonizing local knowledge with public policy is also addressed in the contribution by Novillo and Palacios (2024, in this issue). Through a case study of the Sígsig canton in Azuay province, Ecuador, the authors confront and analyze the network of institutions and official documents concerning archaeological heritage, highlighting their frequent disconnection from communities—that is, their lack of social use. They note the institutional tendency to manage archaeological sites primarily through the lens of tourism, a priority also shared by local groups, who see it as a potential source of income. As a methodological tool, the authors identify participatory mapping as a promising way to actively involve communities and incorporate their own interpretations of heritage. They also emphasize the importance of building critical academic networks committed to fostering stronger connections with, and participation from, local society.

Acuto’s contribution (2024, in this issue) calls for a reconsideration of so-called collaborative archaeologies from the standpoint of an activist archaeology that genuinely benefits the communities involved. His position toward collaborative approaches is critical: he reflects on the ambiguity of the term collaborative and questions practices that sometimes bypass consultation with Indigenous territorial collectives, privileging instead interactions with particular individuals within communities. The article illustrates these concerns with two Argentine case studies on the intercultural production of knowledge.

In sum, we consider that over the past few decades, South American archaeology has made significant strides in both critical reflection and practical engagement, paving the way toward a more plural vision of the past and of how its interpretation is undertaken—both in the field and in museum settings. The articles included in this dossier, with their recent examples of collaborative methodologies, testify to these advances, while also shedding light on the limitations and difficulties that persist, and which continue to pose challenges that require ongoing collective effort.

References

  1. Acuto, Félix A. 2024. “Reflexiones para una arqueología activista en América Latina contemporánea.” Antípoda. Revista de Antropología y Arqueología 56: 55-78. https://doi.org/10.7440/antipoda56.2024.03
  2. Anzaldúa, G. 1987. Borderlands / La Frontera. The New Mestiza. San Francisco: Aunt Lute Books.
  3. Archila, Sonia and Fernando Barona. 2007. Informe proyecto Públicos y Construcción de Memoria Social en el Museo del Oro. Quarter 1 (November-December, 2006 y January, 2007). Bogotá: Departamento de Antropología, Universidad de los Andes; Museo del Oro - Banco de la República. Unpublished manuscript.
  4. Arthur, Jacinta and Patricia Ayala, eds. 2020. El regreso de los ancestros: movimientos indígenas de repatriación y redignificación de los cuerpos humanos. Santiago de Chile: Servicio Nacional del Patrimonio Cultural.
  5. Atalay, Sonia. 2012. Community-Based Archaeology. Research with, By, and for Indigenous and Local Communities. Berkley, CA: University of California Press.
  6. Atalay, Sonia. 2010. “‘We Don’t Talk about Çatalhöyük, We Live It’: Sustainable Archaeological Practice through Community-Based Participatory Research.” World Archaeology 42 (3): 418-429. https://doi.org/10.1080/00438243.2010.497394
  7. Atalay, Sonia. 2008b. “Pedagogy of Decolonization: Advancing Archaeological Practice through Education.” In Collaborating at the Trowel’s Edge: Teaching and Learning in Indigenous Archaeology, edited by S. Silliman, 123-144. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.
  8. Atalay, Sonia. 2008a. “Multivocality and Indigenous Archaeologies.” In Evaluating Multiple Narratives: Beyond Nationalist, Colonialist, and Imperialist Archaeologies, edited by J. Habu, C. Fawcet, and J. Matsunaga, 29-44. New York: Springer.
  9. Atalay, Sonia. 2007. “Global Application of Indigenous Archaeology: Community Based Participatory Research in Turkey.” Archaeologies 3: 249-270. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11759-007-9026-8
  10. Atalay, Sonia. 2006. “Indigenous Archaeology as Decolonizing Practice.” American Indian Quarterly 30 (3-4): 280-310. https://doi.org//10.1353/aiq.2006.0015
  11. Ayala, Patricia, Carlos Aguilar, Claudia Ogalde, and Benjamín Candia. 2024. “Reflexiones sobre metodologías colaborativas: proyecto de investigación para el retorno de los ancestros a territorio atacameño lickanantay (2021-2024).” Antípoda. Revista de Antropología y Arqueología 56: 105-130. https://doi.org/10.7440/antipoda56.2024.05
  12. Ayala, Patricia. 2014. “Patrimonialización y arqueología multicultural en San Pedro de Atacama (norte de Chile).” Estudios Atacameños 49: 69-94. https://revistas.ucn.cl/index.php/estudios-atacamenos/article/view/47
  13. Ayala, Patricia. 2008. Políticas del pasado: indígenas, arqueólogos y Estado en Atacama. Santiago: Línea Editorial IIAM; Universidad Católica del Norte.
  14. Ayala, Patricia y Mariana Petry Cabral. Forthcoming. “Indigenous Perspectives on the South American Past.” In The Oxford Handbook of South American Archaeology, edited by Mark Aldenderfer, Marcela Sepúlveda, and Eduardo Góes Neves. New York; Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  15. Ayala, Patricia, Cristian Espíndola, Carlos Aguilar, and Ulises Cárdenas. 2022. “¿Dónde están los abuelos o ancestros?, ¿cuándo y por qué salieron de la tierra y del territorio atacameño?, ¿quién los sacó?, ¿cómo están ahora?” Revista de Arqueología Americana 40: 197-213. https://doi.org/10.35424/rearam.v0i40.1376
  16. Ayala, Patricia, Sergio Avendaño, and Ulises Cárdenas. 2003. “Vinculaciones entre una arqueología social y la comunidad indígena de Ollagüe, II Región.” Chungara. Revista de Antropología Chilena 35 (2): 275-285. http://dx.doi.org/10.4067/S0717-73562003000200007
  17. Babidge, Sally, Fernanda Kalazich, Manuel Prieto, and Karina Yager. 2019. “‘That’s the Problem with That Lake; It Changes Sides’: Mapping Extraction and Ecological Exhaustion in the Atacama.” Journal of Political Ecology 26: 738-760. https://doi.org/10.2458/v26i1.23169
  18. Baird, Melissa F. 2017. Critical Theory and Anthropology of Heritage Landscapes. Gainesville: University Press of Florida.
  19. Benavides, Hugo, Patricia Ayala, and María Fernanda Ugalde. 2023. “Archaeology, Heritage and Globalization.” In Encyclopedia of Archaeology, edited by Peter F. Biehl and María Luz Endere, vol. 1, 486-493. Ámsterdam: Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-323-90799-6.00103-8
  20. Bezerra, Marcia. 2012. “‘Sempre quando passa alguma coisa, deixa rastro’. Um breve ensaio sobre patrimônio arqueológico e povos indígenas.” Revista de Arqueologia 24 (1): 74-85. https://doi.org/10.24885/sab.v24i2.328
  21. Botero, Clara Isabel. 2006. El redescubrimiento del pasado prehispánico de Colombia: viajeros, arqueólogos y coleccionistas 1820-1945. Bogotá: Instituto Colombiano de Antropología e Historia (Icanh); Universidad de los Andes.
  22. Botero, Clara Isabel. 1996. “Algunas reflexiones sobre la relación entre los museos y patrimonio el caso de museos de antropología e historia de Colombia.” Boletín de Arqueología 11 (3): 57-66. https://publicaciones.banrepcultural.org/index.php/fian/article/view/5500
  23. Breglia, Lisa. 2008. “Engaging Local Communities in Archaeology: Observations from Maya site in Yucatán, Mexico.”. In Past Meets Present. Archaeologists Partnering with Museum Curators, Teachers, and Community Groups, edited by John H. Jameson, Jr. and Sherene Baugher, 89-100. New York: Springer.
  24. Breglia, Lisa. 2006. Monumental Ambivalence. The Politics of Heritage. Austin: University of Texas Press.
  25. Burtenshaw, Julia, Héctor García Botero, Diana Magaloni, and María Alicia Uribe Villegas, eds. 2022. Portable Universe / El universo en tus manos: Thought and Splendor of Indigenous Colombia. Los Ángeles: Distributed Art Press.
  26. Cabral, Mariana Petry. 2017. “Sobre el ronquido del hacha y otras cosas extrañas: Reflexiones sobre la arqueología y otros modos de conocimiento.” In Sentidos indisciplinados: arqueología, sensorialidad y narrativas alternativas, edited by José Roberto Pellini, Andrés Zarankin, and Melisa Salerno, 221-249. Madrid: JAS Arqueología S. L. U.
  27. Cabral, Mariana Petry. 2013. “‘E se todos fossem arqueólogos?’: experiências na Terra Indígena Wajãpi.” Anuário Antropológico 39 (2): 115-132. https://doi.org/10.4000/aa.1269
  28. Castañeda, Quetzil E. 2009. “The ‘Past’ as Transcultural Space: Using Ethnographic Installation in the Study of Archaeology.” Public Archaeology 8 (2-3): 262-282. https://doi.org/10.1179/175355309X457277
  29. Castañeda, Quetzil E. 2008. “The ‘Ethnographic Turn’ in Archaeology. Research Positioning and Reflexivity in Ethnographic Archaeologies.” In Ethnographic Archaeologies. Reflections on Stakeholders and Archaeological Practices, edited by Quetzil E. Castañeda and Christopher N. Mathews, 25-62. Lanham, MD: Altamira Press.
  30. Cavalcante Gomes, Denise Maria. 2010. “Arqueología y poblaciones caboclas de la Amazonía: entre los regímenes de transformación histórica y los dilemas de la auto-representación.” In Pueblos indígenas y arqueología en América Latina, compiled by Cristóbal Gnecco and Patricia Ayala Rocabado, 487-512. Bogotá: Fundación de Investigaciones Arqueológicas Nacionales (FIAN), Banco de la República; Universidad de los Andes.
  31. Colwell-Cahnthamphonh, Chip and T. J. Ferguson. 2008. “Introduction: The Collaborative Continuum.” In Collaboration in Arhaeological Practice: Engaging Descendant Communities, edited by Chip Colwell-Chanthaohonh and T. J. Ferguson. 1-32. Lanham, MD: AltaMira Press.
  32. Endere, María Luz. 2009. “Algunas reflexiones acerca del patrimonio.” In Patrimonio, ciencia y comunidad. Su abordaje en los partidos de Azul, Olavarría y Tandil, edited by María Luz Endere and José Luis Prado, 19-48. Olavarría: Incaupa Universidad del Centro de la Provincia de Buenos Aires; Gobierno Municipal de Olavarría.
  33. Endere, María Luz, María Gabriela Chaparro, Valeria A. Palavecino, and Nora Daniela Iarritu. 2009. “Percepciones y reflexiones sobre el patrimonio de los partidos de Azul, Olavarría y Tandil.” In Patrimonio, ciencia y comunidad. Su abordaje en los partidos de Azul, Olavarría y Tandil, edited by María Luz Endere and José Luis Prado, 315-332. Olavarría: Incaupa Universidad del Centro de la Provincia de Buenos Aires; Gobierno Municipal de Olavarría.
  34. Eremites de Oliveira, Jorge. 2003. “Da pré-história à história indígena: (re)pensando a arqueologia e os povos canoeiros do Pantanal.” Revista de Arqueologia 16: 71-86. https://doi.org/10.24885/sab.v16i1.180
  35. Eremites de Oliveira, Jorge. 2001. “A história indígena em Mato Grosso do Sul: dilemas e perspectivas.” Territórios y Fronteiras 2 (2): 115-124.
  36. Escandón-Moreno, Pablo. 2023. “Cibermuseos y comunidades digitales. Reconstrucción de memoria urbana en plataformas sociales.” In Comunidades digitales, museos e historia pública: experiencias en torno a América Latina, edited by María Elena Bedoya Hidalgo, Jimena Perry Posada, and Manuel Salge Ferro, 82-108. Bogotá: USFO Press; Universidad Externado de Colombia.
  37. Freire, Paulo. 2014. Pedagogia do oprimido. Rio de Janeiro: Paz e Terra.
  38. Funari, Pedro Paulo A., Nani Vieira de Oliveira, and Elizabete Tamanini. 2008. “Archaeology to the Lay Public in Brazil: Three Experiences.” In Past Meets Present. Archaeologists Partnering with Museum Curators, Teachers, and Community Groups, edited by John H. Jameson, Jr. and Sherene Baugher, 217-229. New York: Springer.
  39. Gil García, Francisco. 2010. “Cuando vengan los turistas… ruinas arqueológicas, turismo y expectativas locales de futuro en Nor Lípez (Departamento de Potosí, Bolivia).” In Pueblos indígenas y arqueología en América Latina, compiled by Cristóbal Gnecco and Patricia Ayala Rocabado, 439-478. Bogotá: Fundación de Investigaciones Arqueológicas Nacionales (FIAN), Banco de la República; Universidad de los Andes.
  40. Gnecco, Cristóbal and Carolina Hernández. 2010b. “La historia y sus descontentos: estatuas de piedra, historias nativas y arqueólogos.” In Arqueología y pueblos indígenas en América Latina, compilado por Cristóbal Gnecco and Patricia Ayala Rocabado, 85-132 Bogotá: Fundación de Investigaciones Arqueológicas Nacionales (FIAN), Banco de la República; Universidad de los Andes.
  41. Gnecco, Cristóbal and Patricia Ayala Rocabado, comps. 2010a. Arqueología y pueblos indígenas en América Latina. Bogotá: Fundación de Investigaciones Arqueológicas Nacionales (FIAN), Banco de la República; Universidad de los Andes.
  42. Graham, Brian, Gregory John Ashworth, and John E. Tunbridge. 2005. “The Uses and Abuses of Heritage.” In Heritage, Museums and Galleries. An Introductory Reader, edited by Gerard Corsane, 26-37. London: Routledge.
  43. Graham, Brian, Gregory John Ashworth, and John E. Tunbridge. 2000. A Geography of Heritage. Power, Culture and Economy. London: Routledge.
  44. Green, Fordred Lesly, David R. Green, and Eduardo Góes Neves. 2010. “Conocimiento indígena y ciencia arqueológica. Los retos de la arqueología pública en la reserva Uaçá.” In Pueblos indígenas y arqueología en América Latina, compiled by Cristóbal Gnecco and Patricia Ayala Rocabado, 301-342. Bogotá: Fundación de Investigaciones Arqueológicas Nacionales (FIAN), Banco de la República; Universidad de los Andes.
  45. Hernández Llosas, Maria Isabel, Jorge Ñancucheo, Mora Castro, and Ramón Quinteros. 2009. “Conocimientos compartidos para la re-significación del patrimonio arqueológico en Argentina.” In El regreso de los muertos y las promesas del oro: patrimonio arqueológico en conflicto, coordinated by Carina Jofré, 31-68. Córdoba: Encuentro Grupo Editor; Editorial Brujas.
  46. Herrera, Alexander and Kevin Lane. 2006. “‘Qué hacen aquí esos Pishtaku?’: sueños, ofrendas y la construcción del pasado.” Antípoda. Revista de Antropología y Arqueología 2: 157-177. https://doi.org/10.7440/antipoda2.2006.09
  47. Herrera, Leonor, Alejandra Gómez, and Marianne de Schrimpff. 2001. “El patrimonio arqueológico al otro lado del espejo: el caso de la comunidad de El Bolo.” In Arqueología, patrimonio y sociedad, edited by Diógenes Patiño, 75-108. Popayán: Universidad del Cauca; Sociedad Colombiana de Arqueología.
  48. ICOM (International Council of Museums). 2022. “Museum Definition.” ICOM, August 4, accessed May 29, 2024. https://icom.museum/es/recursos/normas-y-directrices/definicion-del-museo/
  49. Isasmendi, María Victoria. 2022. “¿Quiénes fueron las musas?... Reflexiones sobre la necesidad de descubrir a las mujeres del pasado.” In Mujeres del pasado y del presente. Una visión desde la arqueología peruana, edited by Carito Tavera Medina and Lady Santana Quispe, 123-140. Lima: Instituto Peruano de Estudios Arqueológicos.
  50. Jackson, Gary and Claire Smith. 2005. “Living and Learning on Aboriginal Lands: Decolonising Archaeology in Practice.” In Indigenous Archaeologies: Decolonising Theory and Practice, edited by Claire Smith and H. Martin Wobst, 326-349. London: Routledge.
  51. Jácome, Camila and Jaime Xamen Wai Wai. 2020. “A paisagem e as cerâmicas arqueológicas na bacia Trombetas: uma discussão da Arqueologia Karaiwa e Wai Wai.” Boletim do Museu Paraense Emílio Goeldi. Ciências Humanas 15 (3): 1-25. https://doi.org/10.1590/2178-2547-BGOELDI-2019-0140
  52. Jaimes Betancourt, Carla. 2020. “Heritage and Territoriality: Past, Present, and Future Perceptions Among the Tacana, Tsimane’, Mosetén and Waiwai.” Institut für Archäologie und Kulturanthropologie (IAK), Universität Bonn, Alemania. https://www.iak.uni-bonn.de/de/institut/abteilungen/altamerikanistik/forschung-publikation/amazonas-anden/patrimonio-y-territorialidad-percepciones-pasadas-presentes-y-futuras-entre-los-pueblos-tacana-tsimane-moseten-y-waiwai
  53. Jofré Poblete, Daniella. 2012. “Arqueología, monumentos y comunidades en la Biosfera Lauca: posibilidades de la práctica de la arqueología social en el norte de Chile.” In Arqueología social latinoamericana: de la teoría hacia la praxis, edited by Henry Tantaleán and Miguel Aguilar, 415-432. Bogotá: Universidad de los Andes.
  54. Jofré Poblete, Daniella. 2003. “Una propuesta de acercamiento al patrimonio arqueológico de la comunidad de Belén (Región de Tarapacá, Chile).” Chungara. Revista de Antropología Chilena 35 (2): 327-335. http://dx.doi.org/10.4067/S0717-73562003000200013
  55. Kalazich, Fernanda. 2015. “Memory as Archaeology: An Experience of Public Archaeology in the Atacama Desert.” Public Archaeology 14 (1): 44-65. https://doi.org/10.1179/1465518715Z.00000000086
  56. La Salle, Marina J. 2010. “Community Collaboration and Other Good Intentions.” Archaeologies 6: 401-422. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11759-010-9150-8
  57. Liebmann, Matthew. 2008. “Introduction: The Intersections of Archaeology and Postcolonial Studies.” In Archaeology and the Postcolonial Critique, edited by Matthew Liebmann and Uzma Z. Rizvi, 109-128. Lanham, MD: Altamira Press.
  58. Londoño, Wilhelm. 2021. “Indigenous Archaeology, Community Archaeology, and Decolonial Archaeology: What Are We Talking About? A Look at the Current Archaeological Theory in South America with Examples.” Archaeologies 17: 386-406. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11759-021-09433-y
  59. Londoño, Wilhelm. 2010. “Las arqueologías indígenas o la lucha contra la tercera transformación de Fausto: reflexiones desde comunidades de Colombia y Argentina.” In Pueblos indígenas y arqueología en América Latina, compiled by Cristóbal Gnecco and Patricia Ayala Rocabado, 373-397. Bogotá: Fundación de Investigaciones Arqueológicas Nacionales (FIAN), Banco de la República; Universidad de los Andes.
  60. Londoño, Wilhelm. 2002. “La poética de los tiestos: el sentido de la cultura material prehispánica en una comunidad Nasa.” Arqueología del Área Intermedia 4: 137-158. https://publicaciones.icanh.gov.co/index.php/picanh/catalog/book/163
  61. Lumley, Robert. 2005. “The Debate on Heritage Reviewed.” In Heritage, Museums and Galleries. An Introductory Reader, edited by Gerard Corsane, 15-25. London: Routledge.
  62. McEwan, Colin, Chris Hudson, and María Isabel Silva. 1993. “Archaeology and Community: A Village Museum in Ecuador.” Museum International 45 (2): 42-45. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0033.1993.tb01104.x
  63. Machado, Juliana Salles. 2017. “Arqueologias indígenas, os Laklãnõ Xokelng e os objetos do pensar.” Revista de Arqueologia 30 (1): 89-119. https://doi.org/10.24885/sab.v30i1.504
  64. Machado, Juliana Salles. 2016. “Caminhos e paradas. Perspectivas sobre o território Laklãnõ (Xokleng)”. Revista do Museu de Arqueologia e Etnologia 27: 179-196. https://doi.org/10.11606/issn.2448-1750.revmae.2016.137298
  65. Machado, Juliana Salles and Jozileia Daniza Kaingang. 2020. “[Fag.Tar] a for-ça delas: abrindo caminho.” Fag.Tar 1 (1): 1-9. https://fagtar.org/abrindocaminho/
  66. Machado, Juliana Salles, Copacãm Tschucambang, and Jidean Raphael Fonseca. 2020. “Stones, Clay and People among the Laklãnõ Xokleng Indigenous People in Southern Brazil.” Archaeologies 16: 460-491. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11759-020-09405-8
  67. Marconetto, M. Bernarda, Guillermo Gardenal, and Patricio Barría. 2017. “Arqueología, piel y quebracho.” In Sentidos indisciplinados: arqueología, sensorialidad y narrativas alternativas, edited by José Roberto Pellini, Andrés Zarankin, and Melisa Salerno, 183-220. Madrid: JAS Arqueología S. L. U.
  68. Moi, Flavia Prado and Walter Fagundes Morales. 2010. “Arqueología y herencia cultural Paresi”. In Pueblos indígenas y arqueología en América Latina, compiled by Cristóbal Gnecco and Patricia Ayala Rocabado, 513-550. Bogotá: Fundación de Investigaciones Arqueológicas Nacionales (FIAN), Banco de la República; Universidad de los Andes.
  69. Montenegro, Mónica. 2014. “Una experiencia de arqueología pública y colaboración intercultural en el sector septentrional de Argentina.” Revista de Arqueología Pública 10: 26-43. https://doi.org/10.20396/rap.v8i2.8635637
  70. Nicholas, George. 2008. “Native Peoples and Archaeology.” In Encyclopedia of Archaeology, edited by Deborah M. Pearsall, 1660-1669. New York: Elsevier; Academic Press.
  71. Nicholas, George. 2003. “Seeking the End of Indigenous Archaeology.” Lectured presented at the 5th World Archaeological Congress, Washington, D. C.
  72. Novillo Verdugo, Miguel Angel, and Estefanía Priscila Palacios Tamayo. 2024. “Arqueología pública y cartografías participativas: institucionalidad y resignificaciones locales del patrimonio arqueológico del Sígsig, Ecuador (2022-2024).” Antípoda. Revista de Antropología y Arqueología 56: 79-104. https://doi.org/10.7440/antipoda56.2024.04
  73. Paillalef, Juana. 2010. “El mensaje de los kuviche en el Llew-Llew.” In Arqueología y pueblos indígenas en América Latina, compiled by Cristóbal Gnecco and Patricia Ayala Rocabado, 479-485. Bogotá: Fundación de Investigaciones Arqueológicas Nacionales (FIAN), Banco de la República; Universidad de los Andes.
  74. Paredes, Beatriz. 2015. “¡No estamos muertos! Voces mapuche lafkenche del Bío-Bío: valoración y efectos de la práctica arqueológica y antropológica física.” Anthropology Thesis, Facultad de Ciencias Sociales, Universidad de Concepción, Concepción.
  75. Pastana, Rufino de Castro. 2011. “A interpretação dos Galibi Marworno sobre os vestígios arqueológicos encontrados na aldeia indígena kumarumã.” Article submitted in fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Licenciatura en Educação Escolar Indígena. Facultad Ciências Humanas, Universidade Federal do Amapá, UNIFAP, Macapá, Brazil. https://www2.unifap.br/indigena/files/2021/04/2007_Rufino-de-castro_A-INTERPRETA%C3%87%C3%83O-DOS-GALIBI-MARWORNO-SOBRE-OS-VESTIGIOS-ARQUEOLOGICOS-DA-ALDEIA-KUMARUMA-1.pdf
  76. Puebla, María Florencia. 2015. “Discursos curatoriales y representación del pasado en museos de América Latina.” Revista del Museo de Antropología 8 (2): 239-250. https://doi.org/10.31048/1852.4826.v8.n2.13052
  77. Reyes, Margarita and Sonia Archila. 2014. “Teyuna-Ciudad Perdida, patrimonio arqueológico: paradojas entre lo público, lo sagrado y el turismo cultural.” In El valor del patrimonio: mercado, políticas culturales y agenciamientos sociales, compiled by Margarita Chaves, Mauricio Montenegro, and Marta Zambrano, 309-335. Bogotá: Instituto Colombiano de Antropología e Historia (Icanh). https://publicaciones.icanh.gov.co/index.php/picanh/catalog/book/119
  78. Rizvi, Uzma Z. 2008. “Decolonizing Methodologies as Strategies of Practice: Operationalizing the Postcolonial Critique in the Archaeology of Rajasthan.” In Archaeology and the Postcolonial Critique, edited by M. Liebmann and Uzma Z. Rizvi, 109-128. Lanham, MD: Altamira Press.
  79. Rizvi, Uzma Z. 2006. “Accounting for Multiple Desires: Decolonizing Methodologies, Archaeology and the Public Interest.” India Review 5 (3-4): 394-416. https://doi.org/10.1080/14736480600939223
  80. Robrahn-González, Erika Marion. 2006. “Arqueologia e sociedade no município de Ribeirão Grande, sul de São Paulo: ações em arqueologia pública ligadas ao projeto de ampliação da Mina Calcária Limeira.” Revista Arqueologia Pública 1: 63-120. https://doi.org/10.20396/rap.v1i1.8635822
  81. Sarr, Felwine and Bénédicte Savoy. The Restitution of African Cultural Heritage. Toward a New Relational Ethics. Paris: Report.
  82. Silliman, Stephen W. 2008. “Collaborative Indigenous Archaeology: Troweling at the Edges, Eyeing the Center.” In Collaborating at the Trovel´s Edge: Teaching and Learning in Indigenous Archaeology, edited by Stephen W. Silliman, 1-24. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.
  83. Silva, Fabíola Andréa. 2000. “As tecnologias e seus significados. Um estudo da cerâmica dos asuriní do Xingu e da cestaria dos kayapó-xikrin sob uma perspectiva etnoarqueológica.” Doctoral Thesis, Faculdade de Ciências Humanas, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo. https://doi.org/10.11606/T.8.2000.tde-03122013-165920
  84. Silva, Fabíola Andréa and Lorena Wanessa Gomes Garcia. 2015. “Território e memória dos asurini do Xingu: arqueologia colaborativa na T. I. Kuatinemu, Pará.” Amazônica, Revista de Antropologia 7 (1): 74-99. https://doi.org/10.18542/amazonica.v7i1.2152
  85. Silva, Fabíola Andréa, Eduardo Bespalez, and Francisco Forte Stuchi. 2011. “Arqueologia colaborativa na Amazônia: terra indígena kuatinemu, rio Xingu, Pará.” Amazônica, Revista de Antropologia 3 (1): 32-59. http://dx.doi.org/10.18542/amazonica.v3i1.629
  86. Silva, Fabíola Andréa, Francisco Forte Stuchi, Eduardo Bespalez, and Frederic Caires Pouget. 2010. “Arqueologia em terra indígena: uma reflexão teórico-metodológica sobre as experiências de pesquisa na aldeia Lalima (MS) e na terra indígena kaiabi (MT/PA).” In Arqueologia Amazônia 2, edited by Edithe Pereira and Vera Guapindaia, 775-794. Belém: MPEG/ IPHAN/ SECULT.
  87. Silva, Mauricio André da. 2024. “La centralidad de los abordajes educativos en los trabajos colaborativos de la arqueología con comunidades tradicionales en la Amazonía brasileña (2017-2022).” Antípoda. Revista de Antropología y Arqueología 56: 29-54. https://doi.org/10.7440/antipoda56.2024.02
  88. Smith, Laurajane. 2009. Archaeological Theory and the Politics of Cultural Heritage. London: Routledge.
  89. Smith, Laurajane. 2007. “Empty Gestures? Heritage and the Politics of Recognition.” In Cultural Heritage and Human Rights, edited by Helaine Silverman and D. Fairchild Ruggles, 159-171. New York: Springer.
  90. Smith, Laurajane. 2006. Uses of Heritage. London: Routledge.
  91. Smith, Laurajane. 2004. Archaeological Theory and the Politics of Cultural Heritage. London: Routledge.
  92. Smith, Claire and Gary Jackson. 2006. “Decolonizing Indigenous Archaeology: Developments from Down Under.” American Indian Quarterly 30 (3-4): 311-349. https://doi.org/10.1353/aiq.2006.0032
  93. Smith, Claire and H. Martin Wobst. 2005. Indigenous Archaeologies: Decolonizing Theory and Practice. New York: Routledge.
  94. Stothert, Karen E. 2006. “Community Onvolvement in the Development of the Museum of the Lovers of Sumpa in Coastal Ecuador.” In Archaeological Site Museums in Latin America, edited by Helaine Silverman, 101-119. Gainesville: University Press of Florida.
  95. Tisa-Francini, Esther, ed. 2022. Pathways of Art. Zürich: Scheidegger & Spiess.
  96. Tschucambang, Copacãm. 2015. “Artefatos arqueológicos no território laklãnõ/xokleng-SC.” Final project submitted for the degree of Licenciatura Intercultural Indígena do Sul da Mata Atlântica. Departamento de História, Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina (UFSC), Florianópolis. https://licenciaturaindigena.paginas.ufsc.br/files/2015/04/COPACÃM-TSCHUCAMBANG.pdf
  97. Tuki, Mattarena and Jacinta Arthur. 2020. “Kimi Ma’ara o te Tupuna, la búsqueda de los ancestros.” In El regreso de los ancestros: movimientos indígenas de repatriación y redignificación de los cuerpos humanos, edited by Patricia Ayala and J. Arthur, 147-162. Santiago de Chile: Servicio Nacional del Patrimonio Cultural.
  98. Ugalde, María Fernanda. 2019. “Arqueología bajo la lupa queer. Una apuesta por la multivocalidad.” Revista de Arqueología Pública 13 (1): 135-154. https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=7129089
  99. Ugalde, María Fernanda and Hugo Benavides. 2023. “‘DIVERS[]S’ and the Political Legacies of an ‘Experience-Exhibition’.” In Advocacy and Archaeology. Urban Intersections, edited by Kelly M. Bitt and Diane F. George, 145-167. New York: Berghahn Books.
  100. Ugalde, María Fernanda and O. Hugo Benavides. 2018. “Queer Histories and Identities on the Ecuadorian Coast: The Personal, the Political and the Transnational.” Whatever. A Transdisciplinary Journal of Queer Theories and Studies 1: 157-182. https://doi.org/10.13131/2611-657X.whatever.v1i1.3
  101. Urdaneta Franco, Martha. 1991. “Huellas de Pishau en el resguardo de Guambía: ensayando caminos para su estudio.” Boletín Museo del Oro 31: 3-29. https://publicaciones.banrepcultural.org/index.php/bmo/article/view/7018
  102. Urdaneta Franco, Martha. 1988. “Investigación arqueológica en el resguardo indígena de Guambía.” Boletín Museo del Oro 22: 55-81. https://publicaciones.banrepcultural.org/index.php/bmo/article/view/7108
  103. Valle, Raoni, Gori-Tumi Echevarría López, Poani Higino Tenório Tuyuka, and Jairo Saw Munduruku. 2018. “What Is Anthropogenic? On the Cultural Aetiology of Geo-Situated Visual Imagery in Indigenous Amazonia.” Rock Art Research 35 (2): 123-144. https://rockartresearch.com/index.php/rock/article/view/186
  104. Vasco, Luis Guillermo. 2010. “Arqueología e identidad: el caso guambiano.” In Pueblos indígenas y arqueología en América Latina, compiled by Cristóbal Gnecco and Patricia Ayala Rocabado, 399-416. Bogotá: Fundación de Investigaciones Arqueológicas Nacionales (FIAN), Banco de la República; Universidad de los Andes.
  105. Wai Wai, Jaime Xamen. 2017. “Levantamento etnoarqueológico sobre a cerâmica konduri e ocupação dos wai wai na região da terra indígena trombetas-mapuera (Pará, Brazil).” Final coursework submitted for the Bacharel em Arqueologia, Instituto de Ciências da Sociedade, Programa de Antropologia e Arqueologia, Universidade Federal do Oeste do Pará (Ufopa), Santarém, Pará.
  106. Weinstein, Elka. 2006. “Proyecto Las Costeñas: A Program for Training Tour Guides in the Cultural Heritage and Ecology of Coastal Ecuador.” In Archaeological Site Museums in Latin America, edited by Helaine Silverman, 120-129. Gainesville: University Press of Florida.

    * The article stems from a critical reflection on collaborative archaeologies, with a particular focus on South America. It presents the authors’ perspectives shaped by two decades of academic and curatorial work in museums. Produced with their own resources, the piece serves as the introductory text for the dossier “Collaborative Methodologies in Archaeology: Recent Perspectives from the Global South.” The article was translated with funds from the Office of the Vice-President for Research and Creation at Universidad de los Andes, Colombia, through its program supporting the translation of articles for publication in Uniandes Journals (2025). This article was first published in Spanish as: Ugalde, María Fernanda y Sonia Archila. 2024. “Metodologías colaborativas en arqueología: reflexiones teóricas y avances prácticos en torno al patrimonio, su investigación y difusión”. Antípoda. Revista de Antropología y Arqueología 56: 3-25. https://doi.org/10.7440/antipoda56.2024.01

  1. 1 Editor’s note: The Portuguese abstract—consistent with the Spanish abstract and with the article, which avoid binary language through the use of ‘x’—follows the ILE system for the same purpose. See Caê, Gioni Almeida. 2020. Manual para o uso da linguagem neutra em língua portuguesa, online, accessed June 17, 2024. https://portal.unila.edu.br/informes/manual-de-linguagem-neutra/Manualdelinguagemneutraport.pdf

María Fernanda Ugalde

fernanda.ugalde@zuerich.ch

Ph.D. in American Archaeology from the Freie Universität Berlin, Germany. Curator of Arts of the Americas at the Museum Rietberg, Zürich, Switzerland, and Associate Researcher at the Pontificia Universidad Católica del Ecuador (PUCE), Quito, Ecuador. https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9526-3692

Sonia Archila

sarchila@uniandes.edu.co

Ph.D. in Archaeology from the Institute of Archaeology, University College London, England. She is currently Associate Professor and Chair of the Department of Anthropology at Universidad de los Andes, Bogotá, Colombia. https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2135-5850