RESEARCH Archaeologies: Journal of the World Archaeological Congress ( 2012) DOI 10.1007/s11759-011-9184-6 Inclusion in Public Archeology in Brazil: Remarks on Collaborative Practices Pedro Paulo Funari, History Department, Center for Advanced Studies, State University of Campinas (Unicamp), São Paulo, Brazil E-mail: ppfunari@uol.com.br Aline Vieira de Carvalho, Laboratory of Public Archeology, State University of Campinas (Nepam/Unicamp), São Paulo, Brazil E-mail: alinev81@gmail.com ABSTRACT ARCHAEOLOGIES Volume 7 Number 3 December 2011 ________________________________________________________________ 554 There are several experiences of Public Archaeology in Brazil. In this paper, we will focus our attention on an experience developed by the Public Archeology Laboratory Paulo Duarte (LPA), located in the Center of Environmental Studies and Research (Nepam), University of Campinas, Brazil. Four main concepts have been used in this work: collaboration, inclusion, conflict, and subjectivity. We will develop the experiences between archaeologies and communities, and how these relations are linked with archaeological practice and interpretation. ________________________________________________________________ Résumé: Plusieurs expériences d’archéologie publique sont en cours au Brésil. Dans cet article, nous nous intéresserons à une expérience développée par le Laboratoire d’archéologie publique Paulo Duarte (LPA), situé dans le Centre des Études environnementales et de la recherche (Nepam), Université de Campinas, Brésil. Quatre concepts principaux ont été utilisés dans cette étude: collaboration, inclusion, conflit et subjectivité. Nous développerons les expériences entre archéologies et communautés, et comment ces relations sont liées à la pratique et à l’interprétation archéologiques. ________________________________________________________________ Resumen: Existen varias experiencias de Arqueologı́a Pública en Brasil. En este documento, centraremos nuestra atención en una experiencia desarrollada por el Laboratorio de Arqueologı́a Pública Paulo Duarte (LPA), situado en el Centro de Estudios Medioambientales e Investigación (Nepam), Universidad de Campinas, Brasil. Se han utilizado en este trabajo cuatro conceptos principales: la colaboración, la inclusión, el conflicto y la  2012 World Archaeological Congress Inclusion in Public Archeology in Brazil 555 subjetividad. Desarrollaremos las experiencias entre las arqueologı́as y las comunidades, y cómo estas relaciones se vinculan con la práctica y la interpretación arqueológica. _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ KEY WORDS Public archaeology, Brazil, Collaboration _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Introduction In Brazil, archaeologists have had several experiences with communities, most notably: 1. Archaeological interaction with communities concerned with AfricanBrazilian and Native Brazilian interests, such as the study of the 17th c. maroon, Palmares (Carvalho and Funari 2010); 2. Interaction with local communities, notably slum and shanty town inhabitants (Funari et al. 2009); 3. Several archaeological studies of areas inhabited by Indians (Oliveira 1998; Silva 2002; Funari and Robrahn-Gonzalez 2008); 4. Archaeological studies aiming at recovering remains and evidence of political repression (1964–1985) and interacting with relatives of missing people (Oliveira 2002; Funari et al. 2009); We will focus our attention in this paper on an on-going experience we are in charge of, aiming at social inclusion and feedback learning, so that not only community relations are changed in the process but also archaeological practice and interpretation. In order to understand these relationships created by the actions of Public Archeology, we work with four main concepts: collaboration, inclusion, conflict, and subjectivity. In the field of practical actions, we will explore two pieces of Public Archeology work developed by the Public Archeology Laboratory (LPA), located in the Center for Environmental Studies and Research (Nepam), at University of Campinas: the project Excav-action and the Paulo Duarte project. Collaboration, Inclusion, Conflicts, and Subjectivity: Points for Reflection in Public Archeology Collaboration and inclusion are two key concepts in our understanding of public archaeological practice. Collaboration refers to working together, as 556 PEDRO PAULO FUNARI AND ALINE VIEIRA DE CARVALHO archaeologists and lay people interact and implies production of knowledge as a result of this interaction. As put long ago by the late Brazilian educator Paulo Freire (1989), lay and scholar learn with each other. Several archaeologists now regard public archeology, particularly addressing the lay public, as an essential part of their social responsibility (Mazel and Stewart 1987:169), not as just a way of producing archaeological knowledge. Furthermore, archeology can play a meaningful role in revealing diversity, showing poverty in the past, and celebrating ordinary architecture, (i.e., walls that are dirty rather than clean). This way, ordinary people can recognize themselves in the archaeological discourse, thus using the past to create alternative texts for the present (Hall 1994:182). Public archeology is understood in this essay as all the public aspects of archeology, including such topics as archaeological policies, education, politics, religion, ethnicity and archeology and public involvement in archeology (Ascherson 1999). We consider that pasts are produced in the present and are inevitably blended into the present, so that the past is no longer only past, but it entails a multitude of relations in the present (Witmore 2007:195, 220). This is an explicitly postmodern approach, considering we produce openended narratives about the past, plural by definition (Matthews 2002:3). These strands are ultimately inspired by Walter Benjamin: History is the subject of a structure whose site is not homogeneous, empty time, but time filled by the presence of the now (Jetzzeit) (14th thesis, translated by the authors)1. Jetzzeit is difficult to translate into English, different from Gegenwart (‘‘present’’), so much so that the French use à-présent. As Laurent Olivier stresses (2008: 157), this is directly related to archeology: The material memory of the past is the subject of archeology and the archaeological endeavour is to study this memory through time. If so, the present as the presence of now is at the core of the interpretation of the past. This is what Benjamin proposes to overcome: the impasse of historicism2 (translation by the authors). The presence of now is a complex concept as opposed to a positivist passing of time (khronos) that is a full critical time (kairos) (Funari 1993:51; Löwy 2005:119). Whatever the translation of this Greek term, though, it refers to engagement with the present, with people, with interpretation. This means commitment to interaction with common people, indigenous groups, interest groups, and community members, among a plethora of social agents. It also means critiquing the uses of the past for oppression and submission. The World Archaeological Congress is understood in this context as breaking with neutrality and positivism (Funari 2006). Anne Pyburn emphasizes Inclusion in Public Archeology in Brazil 557 that ‘‘perhaps the most important reason for archaeologists to engage with the public is to encourage practitioners to develop a greater reflexivity about what they are doing and why’’ (Pyburn 2008: 202). Epistemologically, the interaction with people is thus relevant. Interaction serves both archaeologists and communities in their common concern with the presence of the now. Social conflicts and inner contradictions and violence are at the root of Jeztzzeit and archeology plays a role in fostering and not suppressing discussion about tensions (Zarankin and Funari 2008; Starzmann et al. 2008): Local interaction and engagement may not be what archaeologists have focused on traditionally, but they should become priorities, as should reflexivity and introspection in analyzing our own actions and how these actions (our physical presence and publications and reports) have direct consequences on economic systems and social networks. The involvement of communities is thus an epistemological move, to learn with people (Freire 1989). It is no surprise that such practices and their epistemological consequences developed early and fast in Brazil, for peripheral contradictions and conditions are prone to produce critical knowledge, and social conditions favored several innovative practices over the last few decades, such as the archeology of missing people and dictatorships (Funari et al. 2009). Social memory, public memory and archeology (Little 2002; McDavid 2004; Delle 2008:86–88) are here at work, fulfilling Benjamin’s warning not to accept void time and an empty future. Contradictions within society, conflicts, diversity of interests and perspectives are rooted in those activities, aiming at a better, more diverse, future. As stated by Christopher Matthews, the struggles of the past are in the present (Matthews 2002:6–7). Dignifying the standpoints of a variety of people is again a way of better understanding archeology as inevitably concerned with power relations (pace Shanks and Tilley 1987). The interaction with natives is an innovative feature of archeology in the periphery. At Xingu, in the Amazon Basin, archaeologists and other social scientists have been learning with natives. Empowering initiatives—such as Xingu Cultural Workshop (http://oficinaxingu.ning. com/)—show that working with people enlightens archaeologists, as we have proved ourselves. The first native Brazilian heritage sites registered as national monuments, as late as 2010, are the result of a joint undertaking of archaeology, sponsored by Unicamp, and the Indian communities (http:// portal.iphan.gov.br/portal/montarDetalheConteudo.do?id=15201&sigla= Noticia&retorno=detalheNoticia). Society is always characterized by conflict and, grounded in a dialectical epistemology, the experience of past peoples is considered as part of an on-going social confrontation between social actors (McGuire and Saitta 558 PEDRO PAULO FUNARI AND ALINE VIEIRA DE CARVALHO 1996:198–204). Archaeologists deal with societies split by class divisions, whereby the producers of surplus labor are distinct from the appropriators. Exploitation generates a continuous, open conflict and inner contradictions in society (Saitta 1992), and the forces of domination and resistance are ever-present (Frazer 1999:5). The interpretation of these conflicts is malleable and subjective (Rao 1994:154), and historical archaeologists can view the past as a set of complex texts, intertwined to form a discourse (Hall 1994:168). If conflict and subjectivity are part of both evidence and the interpretation of evidence, a variety of views are inevitable, and archaeologists cannot avoid taking a position. There are different ways of knowing the past, and archaeologists must address the question of who is entitled to know, who can participate in the process of giving meaning to the past. Archeology can be a powerful tool for uncovering subaltern histories (Franklin 1997:800), and to empower people. As is usual with archaeological research, this chapter probably poses as many questions as it answers, but rather than proposing a supposedly correct interpretation, we prefer to foster a pluralist discussion of social inclusion in public archeology in Brazil. Attempting to describe and interpret what occurred in past cultures requires the incorporation of texts and artifacts (McKay 1976:95; Ober 1995:111; Orser 1987:131). To cope with the task of interpreting conflict within society, a multidisciplinary approach is necessary in order to combine textual analysis with such disciplines as sociology, anthropology, among others (Small 1995:15). Conflict has been traditionally been interpreted by the dominant groups in a society (Molyneaux 1994:3). Until forty years ago, archaeologists directed their attention almost exclusively toward the wealthy and the famous, contributing to the maintenance and reinforcement of conservative ideologies (Orser 1997:662). Gradually, archaeologists began to follow their colleagues in the humanities and the social sciences in turning their attention to subordinate groups (Orser 1998:65). Examining the material evidence of subordinate groups offered the opportunity to have a more comprehensive access to traditionally underrepresented groups (cf. Guimarães 1990; Funari 1993). How to interpret conflict in society depends directly on how we understand society itself. Traditionally, archaeologists considered that cultures are neatly bounded homogeneous entities (Mullins 1999:32). This idea comes from the well-known and by now classic definition created by Childe (1935:198): ‘‘Culture is a social heritage; it corresponds to a community sharing common institutions and a common way of life [emphasis added]’’. This definition implies harmony and unity within society, a commonality of interest and thus a lack of conflict (Jones 1997b:15–26). The roots of this understanding of social life lies on the one hand with Aristotle and his Inclusion in Public Archeology in Brazil 559 definition of society as a koinonia, that is, as a partnership (cf. Aristotle, Politica 1252a7). Sharing values in a homogeneous culture means accepting generalizing features and common traits shared by everybody (cf. Aristotle, Politica 1328a21). Homogeneity is a concept informed by capitalist nationalist movements (Handler 1988). Cultures and nations were seen by bourgeois ideology as bounded, unified entities, and history was conceived as the product of the actions and events associated with such homogeneous entities. In this context, generalizing implies homogenizing, and there is a growing dissatisfaction with using this normative approach to interpret social life (cf. Skidmore 1993:382). The holistic, monolithic nature of cultures and societies has been questioned by several empirical and theoretical studies in the last decades (Bentley 1987; Jones 1997a). Homogeneity, order, and boundedness, have been associated to a priori assumption that stability characterizes societies, rather than conflict. However, a growing body of evidence and critical scrutiny of social thought has challenged this traditional view, considering society as heterogeneous, with oftenconflicting constructions of cultural identity. Heterogeneity, fluidity and continuous change imply also that there are multiple entities that often change within society. Experiences from the Laboratory of Public Archeology (LPA)—Unicamp: Excav-action and Paulo Duarte Projects The questioning of archeological science: the Excavation-action project. Two years ago, the Laboratory of Public Archeology (LPA)—Unicamp was opened. The laboratory’s goal is to offer academic support to state and private archeological management and consulting companies, to broaden the dialogue between the research developed by undergraduate and graduate students and society as a whole, and, especially, to act responsibly in the field through the democratic sharing of scientific knowledge. In this context, the LPA consolidated a partnership with the Museum of Exploratory Sciences (MES), which belongs to the same university. The partnership’s goal, aligned with Unicamp’s political project, is to consolidate a space for conversation, discussion and work connected to the sciences with various publics (which vary both in terms of age and family income). Its proposal is to create spaces for the construction of critical knowledge which allow respect for diversity and subjectivity as well as the valuing of complex thought and collaborative action. MES, among other goals, aims to act upon a situation reported by Roberto Bartholo: 560 PEDRO PAULO FUNARI AND ALINE VIEIRA DE CARVALHO We live in a time in which the confrontation with powers and techno-scientific accomplishments is constitutive of our daily lives. The belief in technoscientific intervention’s omnipotence for Good, a basic element from technocratic salvation ideologies, supposes a certainty in the technological vector’s permanent self-corrective capacity in the case of eventual undesirable external effects, without it being imperative to have any review of its parameters and criteria of efficiency and effectiveness (2005, p. 3). This way, there would be a cultural tradition of seeing scientific knowledge as neutral and capable of solving any socio-environmental problem. In this line, emblematic questions of our present world, such as climatic changes, would not scare, worry or provoke reflection among the populations. Individuals, in a general way, believe that sciences can solve all human problems. Disasters like the one in New Orleans (USA) and Rio de Janeiro (Brazil) have become symbols of great accidents (and not the results of tortuous and complex relations between humans and nature). Inserted in this cultural tradition, the belief that in the present and future science is capable of solving all of our difficulties and avoiding new disasters is perpetuated and there should be no reasons for us to worry about our actions. The MES acts under a different worldview: sciences are not neutral, they are not objective and they are not omnipresent. In order to work with all sciences as human products (made by human beings) and, especially, as political actions, the MES creates strategies for dialogue with different publics, among other publics of low, medium or high income, children, teenagers, teachers. Since May of 2009, in a partnership between LPA-MES, archeological science has been included in this field of work and reflection. Inserted in the proposals for public archeology are activities’ to awaken the curiosity and pleasure in reading about the materiality that surrounds us in the target public, always emphasizing that these readings are always subjective and beneficial to specific groups of people. The proposal is to lead the public to think: ‘‘Cui Bono?’’ (Latin expression used to ask about who benefits from something). This question is asked both to narratives built from material culture about the past as well as to those made about our present. Working with archeological science becomes a way to understand the social relations and the transformations in society, allowing for the analysis of power relations (i.e., of negotiations, conflicts, and subjectivities). With students of public and private schools, for example, we analyze, among other things, the materiality of the school universe. Reflections about the disposition of the classrooms, students’ desks, teacher’s table, and building architecture, among other elements are shown to lead teachers and students to adopt socially accepted behaviors (Funari and Zarankin 2005). When we work with the subjectivity of archeological interpretation, the Museum’s publics participates in discussions about: (1) the relations Inclusion in Public Archeology in Brazil 561 between the interpretations and their contexts; (2) the process of choosing the objects and memories to be celebrated and, finally, (3) the politics that are inherent to scientific activity. The works developed in partnership with MES propose the democratization of the science of archeology, of memory and of heritage through dialogue with communities, who are seen as active subjects in the construction and preservation of heritage (Cerqueira et al. 2007). Together with these communities, we work with the construction of the past as a political choice and the constant possibility of reading materialities in the present. Although we have other Public Archaeology activities planned for development by the MES, in this essay we present the Excav-action Workshop. The workshop has the following structure: 1. The mediators (students from different undergraduate courses at Unicamp) participate actively in the process of building archeological interpretations. Besides going through a theoretical formation, they act daily on the improvement of the workshops: they do evaluations about strategies that work or not according to certain groups, they make suggestions for new activities and participate in the elaboration of the material for teachers, and students of public and private schools, among others. Some of the names proposed for the Public Archeology activities developed in the Museum were suggested by the mediators themselves. This is the case for the workshop Excav-action. The name is a reference to the process of excavating—‘‘escavar’’, in Portuguese, and, at the same time, it refers to the participative activity of thinking about the act of excavating, about the objects found, and about the hypotheses formulated (action—‘‘ação’’, in Portuguese). All of the activities in Public Archeology, done at the Museum, are never considered fully structured and finalized. Fluidity characterizes the work. According to the public, the workshops can be altered, re-thought, and re-directed. The activities are fluid because they are built in partnership with the public always in a collaborative way. 2. In the Excav-action workshop, students of different ages and various family incomes are welcomed by the mediators. With these mediators they build a concept of archeology—that is, in its genesis, plural, democratic, and political. This is a very surprising moment. Many times the mediators themselves find readings and interpretations about material culture that they had never imagined. In a workshop held in July of 2010, for example, a mediator was surprised by a tenyear-old student who said a mug, usually destined for drinking liquids, could also be used to help in shaving: the mediator smiled and 562 PEDRO PAULO FUNARI AND ALINE VIEIRA DE CARVALHO said she had never imagined this function (more common for the male gender). 3. The students are divided into teams that start to experience archeological science, particularly the field steps. All that the student has heard and discussed beforehand is materialized in a playful and challenging way. The students take turns in the tasks: in a collaborative and participative way, all performing the same functions. 4. Each team is challenged to interpret the material culture that is found. It is in this moment that the concept of scientific subjectivity is dealt with. Attentively, representatives from all groups present the group’s artifacts, the explanations, and doubts. Later, the group as a whole tries to find solutions and to discuss the situations found (like an archaeological puzzle). This is also a very surprising moment. The mediators find unusual doubts and solutions. The activity generates learning both for the students and for the mediators. 5. The students are invited to produce material about the process of excavation and interpretation. They are making produced knowledge public (an essential activity to archeological work). In this moment, the concept of political uses of archeological knowledge and, particularly, the proposal to analyze critically the materiality of the students’ everyday life are explored. They are awakening about the subjectivity of the material world. In other words, we understand that the exercise of critical reading of the material universe must be taken into the daily life of each person that goes through that workshop. This way, archaeology contributes to an awareness of the now, to go back to Benjamin’s tenets, as the student’s reconsider the relationship of past and present, in its materiality. Pupils usually start the experience stating that the past has nothing to do with them but rather with present concerns and issues and then they change their understanding after their archaeological experience.—We stress ‘‘archaeological’’, for it is the concreteness of the experience that is instrumental to their shift of perception about the past. Jetzzeit is in action. The Excav-action Workshop is the first ongoing activity in the MES that is a result of the partnership with the LPA. Many other proposals for the Museum are in the phase of elaboration and testing. Paulo Duarte Project: Strategies for Valuing Diversity The ‘‘Paulo Duarte Project’’, developed by the LPA—Unicamp with the support of the Brazilian National Science Foundation (CNPq), has two main axes of activities: Inclusion in Public Archeology in Brazil 563 1. The cataloguing and publication of documents referring to archeology, heritage and memory produced and/or selected by the intellectual Paulo Duarte. 2. Activities with low-income high school students from public schools in the city of Campinas and surrounding region aiming to bring the exercise of research (in heritage issues) and the students’ daily lives closer. Paulo Duarte (1899–1984) was a humanist. His trajectory, marked by political fights in the defense of national heritage, exiles, and even moments of expressive financial poverty, seems to have made him a relentless fighter. He integrated a group of modernists (whose members participated in the elaboration of the policies of the National State), and was politically persecuted during the Getúlio Vargas government (1930– 1945). Paulo Duarte’s ideological positions led him to constant political exiles. Away from his country, Duarte started to dedicate himself to the studies of Pre-History in the Musée de l’Homme, located in Paris and operating under the direction of Paul Rivet. On top of providing him with knowledge for the future installation of the Pre-History Institute, the internship at the institution also brought him into great closeness with French researchers in the humanities and a long-lasting friendship with Rivet. Duarte became an active participant in the founding of the University of São Paulo (1934). In order to do so, the intellectual researched several models of European and American universities. In 1945, with the end of the Vargas Dictatorship (1937–1945), Paulo Duarte accomplished the creation of the Pre-History Institute (initially dedicated to the study of the shell middens or sambaquis) and the Oceanographic Institute of São Paulo. These institutions became linked to the University of São Paulo in 1962. With the transfer of the Pre-History Institute (PHI) to USP, Duarte became an employee of the University. Formally linked to the institution, the intellectual started to fight against the power relationships marked by ‘‘patronage’’ (and not related to personal merit) and the parochialism crystallized in the country’s public and private institutions. His always acid criticism put him in a number of confrontations with deans and other lectures from USP. In the political trenches, Duarte was able to participate in the elaboration of the Heritage Protection Law (law 3924/61); which is still valid today. His relationship with French intellectuals made it possible for countless professors and archeologists from that country to come to Brazil. At the same time, it became possible for Brazilian archeologists to go to France (as is the case of Niède Guidon). This political and social 564 PEDRO PAULO FUNARI AND ALINE VIEIRA DE CARVALHO engagement paved the way for the professionalization of Brazilian Archeology and for the creation of numerous museological institutions in the country. Duarte worked actively toward changing the devaluation of heritage found within the educational realm both in museuological instutions and even reading. As Class Sponsor of the 1966 class of the College of Philosophy of Presidente Prudente, Duarte proffered the following words: BODY WITHOUT SOUL AND SOUL WITHOUT BODY – Mario de Andrade used to say that we are a country full of writers who don’t know how to write. We could paraphrase him saying that we are a country full of newspapers and teachers who don’t know how to manage the language in which they preach or teach. (…) It has become notorious that the times of total indifference are outdated, as repeated demonstrations and attitudes by the young spirits of Brazil have proved. And I refer to the young spirits not just to the young. These will end up imposing a necessary sanction against those public men who remain adverse and impermeable to the meaning of museums, libraries, the University. They will give new light to that desolate landscape to which I referred (…) (Os caminhos da autenticidade – Unidade Arquivı́stica: Documentos, notação det PI 157 – ‘‘Speech proffered by the Class Sponser of the 1966 class of the College of Philosophy of Presidente Prudente’’). Believing in the ‘‘young spirits’’, Duarte had his compulsory retirement decreed in 1969. Even away from the University, he continued to act in the defense of national heritage and, in particular, of archeological heritage. While still alive, Paulo Duarte donated all of his archive of work and his books to Unicamp. The books were distributed among the University’s libraries and the documents were archived in the Alexandre Eulálio Center for Cultural Documentation (CEDAE). Since 2008 the Paulo Duarte documentation has become a strategy for elaborating work in Public Archeology for social inclusion. In that year, the Brazilian National Science Foundation (CNPq), a federal agency that supports Brazilian scientific research, started to develop actions aiming at inserting High School students from public schools into the daily activities of the country’s Public Universities. The project’s goal is to create a passion for study, research, and academic lifeamong students, who suffer a number of socio-economical or cultural exclusions. The project aims to seed the belief within these students that it is possible to break established barriers, creating new self-esteems about their own potentials and opening up other possibilities for not only individual but also collective accomplishments. In this context, the LPA consolidated the Paulo Duarte Project with a goal to insert the students chosen by CNPq into Professor Paulo Duarte’s Inclusion in Public Archeology in Brazil 565 archive. To begin with, the Paulo Duarte CNPq Jr project’s proposal is for students to catalogue this archive’s documents relative to memory, heritage, and archeology. In order to fulfill this task, which seems relatively simple, the students go through a discussion network related to the concepts of public goods, memories, heritages, and the actions of archeology. The students talk to specialists on the theme, question and debate the exposed concepts, relate the concepts to their daily lives, and are introduced to the Unicamp’s Archives and the Archeology laboratory. This way, they are guided to reflect, in an autonomous way, about the world that surrounds them and the possibilities of reading this world in a critical way, looking for ways of altering it. Therefore, despite the project’s first goal of cataloguing documents related to archeology, heritage and Brazilian culture, the competences that the project develops go much beyond the cataloguing of files: the students feel proud of themselves for being in the University, stand out in their schools for being able to form new readings and interpretations of texts, and feel more competent to read the material that surrounds them. This is why we can say that the project is a part of what we believe is the purpose of public archeology: to transcend the academic universe and dialogue with a broad public, valuing the diversity of points of view and of goals that generate reflection. The dialogues happen in a plural and democratic way respecting the world views that each person brings, but also highlighting those openings for reflection and choices. To date, two groups of four students have gone through the Project. Each student receives a research grant (called Scientific Initiation) and a university card that allows them access to the restaurants and libraries on campus. Some of the students’ statements about the project allow us to understand the work’s social dimension: I like being a part of the Paulo Duarte Project because I’m here at Unicamp! This is incredible. At the same time, with the discussions we make here, I feel that I have started to pay more attention to the reason as to why things are built, what it means, for example, for something to be considered a heritage. I feel that we start to try to learn more about things. Tamara Yoshie S de Andrade (Antônio Vilela Jr. State School) I am at Unicamp and this awakens the teachers’ and other students’ curiosity. Everybody asks me what I do here! I answer that I’m a researcher. It’s very cool! At the same time I have become more critical about things. I think I question everything much more. Daphne Caroline Prado (Barão Ataliba Nogueira State School) I started to think more about what heritage means and, more importantly, to notice things in my city. I notice and I start to think: who made that? Why? 566 PEDRO PAULO FUNARI AND ALINE VIEIRA DE CARVALHO When? What’s its importance? To whom is it important? Besides, I think it’s really cool to recover Paulo Duarte’s memory. You are in touch with the history of a ‘guy’ who was very important for the history of Brazil, who helped found one of the country’s biggest universities and was forgotten!. Rafaela de Melo Pereira (Prof. Celso Henrique Tozzi State School) I feel more important after I joined this project. I look at everything with more interest. I follow the history and philosophy teachers and besides, saying that you spend the afternoon at Unicamp is very cool! Being a researcher is great! About heritage and archeology, I learned many things! And with Paulo Duarte I started to pay more attention to politics. He was very political. Estela Fernanda Freitas Requel (Miguel Vicente Cury State School). The pupils participating in this archaeological project have a swift change of perception of themselves, showing that archaeology is able to foster an awareness of the now. The past is no longer void, distant and irrelevant, for these students but a way of introducing themselves in the present as relevant social actors. Coming from humble and even humiliated social settings, the youngsters change their understanding of their place within society. Jetzzeit is again in action, in a somewhat vengeful way. Benjamin fled the Nazis and committed suicide in the desperate land between the Nazis and the Spanish fascists. The Brazilian pupils come from dangerous social situations and find themselves in, of all places, archaeology! This reminds us of another Benjamin image, that of the angel of history and the messianic aspect of the past. Conclusion Archeology for the students and their families prior to our workshop and archive project was considered either as a foreign, adventurous practice (Indiana Jones and Laura Croft!), or as something relating to boring elite splendor. The former is the direct result of mass media exposure and the latter is due to upper crust heritage practices in Brazil in general and in Campinas, in particular. As a result of our interaction and the workshop, students and their families consider archeology relevant as something close to them, down to earth, and related to their values. They came to more positively value native remains, formerly ignored or reject as too barbarian. They improved their understanding of their own community and valued more positively common material culture that was previously considered as too banal. The community involved in the workshop includes families and children of staff, students and servants in general, and in the archive project the community includes people of humble social background. This means that Inclusion in Public Archeology in Brazil 567 this public archaeology effort includes a wide range of social classes, ethnic groups and even regional origins as most of the staff and students come from outside the city of Campinas (with a population now comprising more than one million people). Furthermore, there are several ethnic groups, both national and foreign. The project is planned to include in the first phase only those linked to the university and in a second phase, later in 2010, it will reach the wider community, including most notably children from the middle class university quarter and from slums in the surrounding area. The involvement of this public characterized by its diversity has been immensely productive for the workshop activities, as the archaeologists learns the limits of traditional scholarly reasoning (such as in relation to typology). Archaeologists are used to referring to artifacts within a shallow but established terminology and several times the students challenge the usefulness of such typological criteria, for instance, the concept of homogeneous material culture shared by a people of the past, implied in a term like ‘‘Umbu’’ lithics and an invented Umbu people. The archive project contributed to our scholarly and archaeological reevaluation of the potential of archeology for social inclusion and allowed us to consider how heritage issues are at the heart of our discipline, even when we are not aware of it. The involvement of people in both projects is voluntary and this is an important strategic decision, so that people are encouraged to participate, but are free to apply as they wish. As far as we can gather, the main reason people take part in this project is to experience science and to discover how things work. And this is probably a bias, given that all the participants are directly linked to the university. In a second phase of workshop activities, when others will be included, we will find out how and why people from outside the university are interested in taking part. In the case of the archive project, already in its third year, the participation of students reveals the interest of youngsters in heritage issues, something probably counterintuitive, but revealing of their enthusiasm for social change through the use of the past. Conflicts are also a common feature in the project, mainly in relation to class, ethnicity and gender issues relating to the archaeological workshop. Socially, the mix of people of different backgrounds and other features constantly challenges the archaeologists, as the relevance of such features as native remains is a disputed issue within the overall society. Again, gender issues do arise, particularly as most of the archaeologists and educational personnel are women, but social power in Brazil and in the university itself is still overwhelmingly male. This means that females are assigned to servant status, while males are presumed as bosses and leaders and our activities challenge those social stereotypes fostering conflict and discussion. We consider this conflict as a positive side effect of our workshop project. The archive project reveals that social conflicts in the recent past, in terms of 568 PEDRO PAULO FUNARI AND ALINE VIEIRA DE CARVALHO archaeological heritage issues, resonate with poor students in the twentyfirst century, and may serve present-day purposes, to use an expression inspired in Walter Benjamin. Our archaeological projects are thus changing as a result of conflict and interaction within society and between archaeologists and the public. The social tensions enable us to reconsider our goals and strategies and to include those challenges in our workshop activities. We anticipate that those challenges and learning processes will widen up a lot, when we include the community outside the university setting in the workshop activities, for then we will have social extremes interacting. The archive project produces a series of social interactions between poor students and archaeologists leading to an on-going reevaluation of our understanding of the role played by archeology in social inclusion strategies. Sustainability, or continuity, of public archaeological projects depends on the successful implementation of self-rule strategies, so that communities can themselves organize their heritage management. Of course, this is not necessarily in the hands of archaeologists, for it depends on legal and political decisions. Sometimes, or most times, it is very difficult to maintain the continuity of a project. There are exceptions though, such as the Native Heritage Xingu Project. In the case of the current projects, they are planned as institutional endeavors, so that we do not plan to sever activities, even though we must plan for a moment when the interaction with the community will foster its renewal, towards new and unforeseen possibilities. We thus consider that the potential for a dialogic archeology is huge. Community building issues must be included and we consider this a main challenge, for as archaeologists we cannot envision the potential usefulness of the archaeological past for concrete communities. In this respect, our aim in this project is to transcend our previous experiences with maroons, Indians and relatives of missing people, in a long-term, institutional pledge to work with the community. We are still in the beginning of our activities, but we know that long marches start with small steps. Acknowledgements We owe thanks to, James A. Delle, Barbara Little, Michel Löwy, Christopher Matthews, Carol McDavid, Laurent Olivier, Anne Pyburn, Melisa Salerno, Michael Shanks, Andrés Zarankin. We must mention the institutional support of the Center of Environmental Studies and Research and Laboratory of Public Archeology – Unicamp, World Archaeological Congress, São Paulo Science Foundation (FAPESP) and the Brazilian Inclusion in Public Archeology in Brazil 569 National Science Foundation (CNPq). The responsibility for the ideas is our own and we are solely responsible for them. Notes 1. (Benjamin 1974) 2. In the original: ‘‘On considère que c’est la mémoire matérielle du passé qui est en question dans l’archéologie, et que la demarche archéologique consiste à étudier la construction de cette mémorie, à travers le temps. Dans ce cas, le present, comme à-present, devient effectivement le lieu central de l’interpretation du passé. C’est précisement l’approche que préconise Benjamin comme une solution à l’impasse à laquele conduit l’historicisme’’. References Ascherson, N. 1999. Editorial. Public Archaeology 1(1):1–4. Bartholo, R. 2005. Ainda sobre a ciência como vocação. Ciência e Cultura 57(1). São Paulo January/March 2005. Available at the site: http://cienciaecultura.bvs.br/ scielo.php?pid=S0009-67252005000100021&script=sci_arttext. Accessed on 07/01/2010. Benjamin, W. 1974. Über den Begriff der Geschichte. In Gesammelte Schrı́ften, vol. I, tome 2, edited by Rolf Tiedeman e Hermann Schweppenhauser, pp. 691–704. Frankfurt, Suhrkamp. Bentley, G.C. 1987. Ethnicity and Practice. Comparative Studies in Society and History 29:24– 55. Carvalho, A.V., and P.P.A. Funari 2010. O Direito à diversidade: patrimônio e Quilombo de Palmares. Revista REID. v. 06. Cerqueira, F.V., J.K. Scwnz, L.L. Maciel, and M. Zorzi 2007. Entre o passado e o presente: um encontro com a memória através dos objetos. Cadernos do Centro de Memória do Oeste de Santa Catarina 20(26):19–54. Childe, V.G. 1935. Changing Methods and Aims in Prehistory, Presidential Address for 1935. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 1:1–15. 570 PEDRO PAULO FUNARI AND ALINE VIEIRA DE CARVALHO Delle, J.A. 2008. A Good and Easy Speculation: Spatial Conflict, Collusion and Resistance in Late Sixteenth Century Munster, Ireland. International Journal of Historical Archaeology 3(1):11–35. Franklin, M. 1997. Why Are There So Few Black American Archaeologists?. Antiquity 71(4):799–801. Frazer, B. 1999. Reconceptualizing Resistance in the Historical Archaeology of the British Isles: an Editorial. International Journal of Historical Archaeology 3(1):1– 35. Freire, P. 1989. Educação como prática para liberdade. Paz e Terra, Rio de Janeiro. Funari, P.P.A. 1993. Graphic Caricature and the Ethos of Ordinary People at Pompeii. Journal of European Archaeology 1(2):133–150. 2006. The World Archaeological Congress from a Critical and Personal Perspective 01/07/2006. Archaeologies. World Archaeological Congress, vol. 2, no 12006, pp. 73–79, Blue Ridge Summit, USA. Funari, P.P.A., N.V. Oliveira, and E. Tamanini 2007. 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 (Org.), pp. 217–228. Springer, New York. Funari, P.P.A., and E. Robrahn-Gonzalez 2008. Arqueologia Pública: comunidades indı́genas, mı́dia e ciência aplicada. Arqueologia pública (UNICAMP) 3:3–4. Funari, P.P.A., A. Zarankin, and M. Salerno (editors) 2009. Memories from Dakrness, Archaeology of Repression and Resistance in Latin America (1st ed.). . New York, Springer. Funari, P.P.A. and A. Zarankin 2005. Cultura material escolar: o papel da arquitetura. Pro-Posições. 16(1):135– 144. Campinas. Guimarães, C. M. 1990. O Quilombo do Ambrósio: Lenda, Documentos e Arqueologia. Estudos Ibero-Americanos 16:161–174. Porto Alegre, Brasil. Hall, M. 1994. Lifting the Veil of Popular History: Archaeology and Politics in Urban Cape Town. In Social Construction of the Past, Representation as Power, edited by George C. Bond, and Angella Gilliam. Routledge, London, pp. 167–184. Inclusion in Public Archeology in Brazil 571 Handler, R. 1988. Nationalism and Politics of Culture in Quebec. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison. Jones, S. 1997. The Archaeology of Ethnicity. Constructing Identities in the Past and Present. Routledge, London. 1997. Nationalism, Archaeology and the Interpretation of Ethnicity in Ancient Palestine. Boletim do CPA 3:49–80. Campinas, Brazil. Little, B.J. 2002. Archaeology as a Shared Vision. In Public Benefits of Archaeology, edited by B.J. Little. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. Löwy, M. 2005. Mundialização e Internacionalismo: a atualidade do Manifesto Comunista. In Ensaios sobre o Manifesto Comunista, edited by Caio Navarro de Toledode. Xamã, São Paulo, Brazil, pp. 115–126. Matthews, C. 2002. An Archaeology of History and Tradition. Moments of Danger in the Annapolis Landscape. Kluwer, New York. Mazel, A.D., and P.M. Stewart 1987. Meddling With the Mind: The Treatment of San Hunter-Gatherers and the Origins of South Africa’s Black Population in Recent South African History Text-Books. South African Archaeological Bulletin 42:166–170. McDavid, C. 2004. Towards a More Democratic Archaeology? The Internet and Public Archaeological Practice. In Public Archaeology, edited by N. Merriman. Routledge, London, pp. 159–187. McGuire, R.H., and D.J. Saitta 1996. Although They Have Petty Captains, They Obey Them Badly: the Dialectics of Prehispanic Western Pueblo Social Organization. American Antiquity 61(2):197–216. McKay, J. 1976. The Coalescence of History and Archaeology. Historical Archaeology 10(1):93–98. Molyneaux, B.L. 1994. Introduction: The Represented Past. In The Presented Past, Heritage, Museums and Education, edited by Peter G. Stone, and Brian L. Molyneaux. Routledge, London, pp. 1–13. Mullins, P.R. 1999. Race and Affluence. An Archaeology of African America and Consumer Culture. Kluwer/Plenum, New York. 572 PEDRO PAULO FUNARI AND ALINE VIEIRA DE CARVALHO Ober, J. 1995. Greek Horoi: Artifactual Texts and the Contingency of Meaning. In Historical and Archaeological Views on Texts and Archaeology, edited by David Small. Brill, Leiden, pp. 91–123. Oliveira, N.V. 1998. Projeto História Viva: Patrimônio, Cultura e Educação. Cadernos de Extensão, UERJ—Rio de janeiro 1:149–151. 2002. Escavando Desaparecidos em Cemitério no Rio de Janeiro. Fronteiras (Campo Grande), Universidade Federal de Mato Grosso 6(11):79–86. Olivier, L. 2008. Le sombre abı̂me du temps. Mémoire et archéologie. Seuil, Paris. Orser, C. Jr. 1987. Plantation Status and Consumer Choice. A Materialist Framework for Historical Archaeology. In Consumer Choice in Historical Archaeology, edited by Suzanne M. Spencer-Wood. Plennum Press, New York, pp. 121– 137. 1997. Historical Archaeology as Modern-World. Harvard University Press, Cambridge. 1998. The Challenge of Race to American Historical Archaeology. American Anthropologist 100(3):661–668. Pyburn, A. 2008. Public Archaeology, Indiana Jones, and Honesty. Journal Archaeologies 04(02). Rao, N. 1994. Interpreting Silences: Symbol and History in the Case of Ram Janmabhoomi/Babri Masjid. In Social Construction of the Past, Representation as Power, edited by George C. Bond, and Angella Gilliam. Routledge, London, pp. 154–164. Saitta, D.J. 1992. Radical Archaeology 66(4):886–897. and Middle-Range Methodology. Antiquity Shanks, M., and C. Tilley 1987. Reconstruting Archaeology. Routledge, London. Silva, F. A. 2002. Mito e Arqueologia. A Interpretação dos Asurini do Xingu sobre os Vestı́gios Arqueológicos encontrados no Parque Indı́gena Kuatinemu-Pará. Horizontes Antropológicos 17:175–187. Porto Alegre. Skidmore, T. 1993. Black Into White: Race and Nationality in Brazilian Thought. Duke University Press, Durham, London. Inclusion in Public Archeology in Brazil 573 Small, D. 1995. Introduction. In Historical and Archaeological Views on Texts and Archaeology, edited by David Small. Brill, Leiden, pp. 1–24. Starzmann, M., S. Pollock, R. Bernbeck 2008. Imperial Inspections: Archaeology, War and Violence. Journal Archaeologies 04(03). Witmore, C.L. 2007. Landscape, Time, Typology: an Archaeological Account of the Southern Argolid, Greece. In Envisioning Landscape Situations in Archaeology and Heritage, edited by D. Hicks, G. Fairclough, and L. McAtackney. Walnut Creek, Left Coast, pp. 194–225. Zarankin, A., and P.P. Funari 2008. Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind: Archaeology and Construction of Memory of Military Repression in South America (1960–1980). Archaeologies. World Archaeological Congress 5:74–91.