TEBENQUICHE CHICO ON THE SURFACE OF TIME

Main Article Content

ALEJANDRO HABER
MARCOS QUESADA
MIGUEL RAMOS

Abstract

To study an archaeological landscape through non-destructive surveying procedures implies that the landscape is like a fragile thing lying there to be directly seen by the archaeologist. It also implies that it is the archaeologist who should display over space his/her set of techniques, with the aim of capturing that would-be object; and that s/he can manage her/himself to be soft enough not to destroy the surface in which the landscape can be seen. But the archaeological landscape could be a different one. The landscape could be not a thing, an object of reality that waits to be seen, but it could be understood, at least in part, as a representation. In that case, it would not be through non-destructive techniques that the landscape could be seen, but through a constructive and dialogic methodology that entails the creation of observations, interpretations and representations, both as an imagined reality as in the imagination of reality. In the first place, we present a historic reconstruction of the representations of the same archaeological site, Tebenquiche Chico (Antofagasta de la Sierra, Catamarca, Argentina). During the last eighty years these representations were implied in a variety of surface dialogues, including and producing characters, techniques and interpretations. Surfaces thus created represent the landscape in terms of its active past existence, with the risk of reifying the possibilities and modes of approaching landscape. In second place, with the aim of reducing that risk we examine the implication of every landscape construction, that is, how the landscape is lived in time. The tensions created between structures and practices, replaced in time from the static of landscape, help to understand the hybridism (it is representation and, at the same time, it is not) and one-dimensionality (it is mainly about spatialization of practices) of landscape. Thus, an archaeological landscape as a past reality –theory- and as a present construction –methodology-re-gains its political dimensions when it is understood as mapping the future inside the flux of dialogues in the surface of time.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

How to Cite
HABER, A., QUESADA, M., & RAMOS, M. (2020). TEBENQUICHE CHICO ON THE SURFACE OF TIME. Cuadernos FHyCS-UNJu, (29), 61–79. Retrieved from https://revistas.fhycs.unju.edu.ar/revistacuadernos/index.php/cuadernos/article/view/786
Section
Original articles

References

BARCELÓ, M (1996) El diseño de los espacios irrigados en al-Andalus: un enunciado de principios generales. En: El agua que no duerme. Fundamentos de la arqueología hidráulica andalusí. M. Barceló, H. Kirchner y C. Navarro (Eds.), pp. 49-71. Sierra Nevada 95/El legado andalusí, Granada.

BATEMAN, J (2004) Wearing Juninho´s shirt: record and negotiation in excavation photographs. En Envisioning the past: archaeology and the image. S. Smiles y S. Moser (Eds.), Blackwell, Oxford.

BERGGREN, A & HODDER, I (2003) Social practice, method, and some problems of field archaeology, American Antiquity 68(3).

GOODWIN, C (2003) The body in action. En: Discourse, the body and identity, J. Coupland y R. Gwyn (Eds.), 19-42, Palgrave/Macmillan, Nueva York.

HABER, AF (1991) Investigación metodológica en arqueología: el caso del pastoreo de llamas. Cuadernos de Humanidades 5:69-81.

HABER, AF (1996) El temprano en perspectiva. Investigaciones arqueológicas en Tebenquiche. Actas y Memorias del XI Congreso Nacional de Arqueología Argentina (11º parte). Revista del Museo de Historia Natural de San Rafael XXVII (1/4):77-81.

HABER, AF (1999) Una arqueología de los oasis puneños. Domesticidad, interacción e identidad en Antofalla, primer y segundo milenios d.C. Tesis doctoral inédita. Facultad de Filosofía y Letras, Universidad de Buenos Aires.

KRAPOVICKAS, P (1955) El yacimiento de Tebenquiche (Puna de Atacama). Publicaciones del Instituto de Arqueología III. Universidad de Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires.

KRAPOVICKAS, P (1958-1959) Arqueología de la Puna argentina. Anales de arqueología y etnología XIVXV: 53-113.

KRAPOVICKAS, P (1968) Subárea de la Puna argentina. XXXVII Congreso Internacional de Americanistas. República Argentina - 1966. Actas y Memorias. Vol. II, pp. 235-271. Buenos Aires.

KRAPOVICKAS, P (1984) La economía prehistórica de la Puna. Runa. Archivo para las Ciencias del Hombre XIV: 107-121.

KRAPOVICKAS, P, CASTRO, AS y MERONI, M (1980) La agricultura prehispánica en la Puna. Actas y Publicaciones del V Congreso Nacional de Arqueología Argentina. Tomo I:139-156. San Juan.

MARCUS, G (1995) Ethnography in/of the world system: the emergence of multi-sited ethnography. Annual Review of Anthropology 24, pp 95-117. Palo Alto.

MENECIER, MA y BARRIONUEVO, OA (1978) Prospección arqueológica en el departamento de Antofagasta de la Sierra, provincia de Catamarca. Cuadernos de antropología catamarqueña. Dirección General de Extensión Universitaria, Universidad Nacional de Catamarca, San Fernando del Valle de Catamarca.

QUESADA, MN (2001) Tecnología agrícola y producción campesina en la Puna de Atacama. I milenio d.C. Tesis de licenciatura inédita. Escuela de Arqueología, Universidad Nacional de Catamarca, San Fernando del Valle de Catamarca.

YARROW, T (2003) Artefactual persons: the relational capacities of persons and things in the practice of excavation. Norwegian Archaeological Review 36:1, 65-73.

Similar Articles

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 > >> 

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.