Tierradentro: visiones y tensiones en torno al patrimonio arqueológico

Abstract

Objective/context: Based on the study “Tierradentro: visiones y tensiones sobre el patrimonio arqueológico (San Andrés de Pisimbalá)” - (Tierradentro: Visions and Tensions Surrounding Archaeological Heritage (San Andrés de Pisimbalá) - this article aims to understand the role of archaeological heritage, some of its meanings and the way in which it is inserted in the political, cultural, and economic perspectives pertaining to the Tierradentro region (specifically in the village of San Andrés de Pisimbalá), of the communities that inhabit it, and the conflicts that are generated from it. The processes that the establishment of a monolithic vision protected by the State and archaeology has generated in the archaeological park are detailed, as is the difficulty, but also the necessity, of creating a common space that allows the encounter of the different visions on the “archaeological”. Methodology: The article is based on an ethnographic research on archaeological heritage that sought to highlight the different political, cultural and economic positions of the actors in the region vis-à-vis the issue and the Tierradentro Archaeological Park (World Heritage). Conclusions: The different positions of the actors involved - peasants, indigenous people and the State - in terms of the archaeological heritage and the archaeological park converge in a scenario in which approaches to dialogue have not been positive, to the extent that the perspectives historically and culturally configured by the local communities are ignored or disregarded, and an attempt has been made to establish a single sense of the “archaeological”, when the latter represents much more than scientific information. Originality: Reflection on this type of process, which reveals the existence of conflicts linked not only to the heritage issue but that are also rooted in the inequalities and historical conditions of exclusion of local communities, invites us to continue our efforts to open common spaces that foster new understandings of the “archaeological”.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 6 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.