Abstracts related to the project will be published here.

Thinking a dialogical project with the Comunidad India de Quilmes (CIQ). Limits and possibilities in the articulation between anthropologists and communities.

Becerra, Florencia; Crespo, Carolina; Pierini, María Victoria; Ramírez,Violeta; Rodríguez, Lorena; Sidy, Bettina; Tolosa, Sandra


This presentation is the result of the interaction between the CIQ and a group of anthropologists. Its aim is to reflect, from the social anthropology perspective, on the academic practices and university extension that, as a group, we have been developing with this community in relation to the processes of historical consciousness formation they are living, and to their struggles over cultural heritage and territory, and also to their demands to the “academics”. This presentation is organized in two axes. The first one is related to the conformation and development of the CIQ, and how these dynamics impacts on the heritage management and on the relationships established with other agents. In the second part, we problematize about the relationship between the CIQ and our group, seeking to propose wider methodological problems related to epistemological issues and the relationship between indigenous communities and the academy.

Archaeologists, ‘native dwellers’ and la confrontation avec le terrain.

Ian Lilley (ATSIS Unit, University of Queensland / Leverhulme Professorial Fellow, Oxford)


My presentation will explore two related issues, the limits of ‘translatability’/mutual intelligibility between archaeologists and local communities on the one hand, and, on the other,  the conceptual and ethical questions entailed  in attempts to use such translations to historicise (re-)emergent indigenous identities. My specific case study concerns Tiga Island in the Loyalty Islands Province of New Caledonia, a semi-autonomous part of the French Pacific. Archaeologists there have long had difficulties getting indigenous people to understand what archaeology is “for”, especially because recent findings are dramatically at odds with the simple pre- and post-European division that most local people (indigenous and non-indigenous) have internalised despite strong oral historical and mythological evidence concerning the dynamism of local long-term history. I will suggest we can facilitate greater mutual understanding by focusing on shared ‘meta-interests’ rather than just trying to translate the details of the archaeological record into local languages and hoping local people will find it interesting.