Tuesday, November 17, 2009



This year, the second of my career, and the final of basic cycle, I have much more in-depth anthropological discipline, but also I learned a lot about my academic preferences: subjects that I really don’t like and others which made me feel like a wild horse, eager for knowledge. I believe that 2009 was filled with a wealth of experiences, both good and bad (good and bad classes, and good and bad teachers), who have helped me in my academic training. These two terms were useful in preparation, not had much to do with archaeology, but it helped me to find the relations between this area of anthropology and the social and physical.


At the beginning of the academic year, in the first term, I must admit that my performance don’t left me nothing satisfied: I fell down my ratings and I had to give a lot of exams. I think that was very good reasons for this precarious situation: some health and personal problems produced for my soul many concerns, also the fatigue doing jobs, essays and tests left a bitter taste in my little heart.


But I would like to rescue good subjects like Anthropology III, Linguistics, Physical Anthropology and Statistics: they gave me solid theoretical bases for next year in my specialty: Archaeology. Apparently, these elements have no relation with the sub discipline, but that is a common mistake: there are a lot of good stuff from other areas and allowing development in Archaeology in Chile.


The second term, otherwise, I felt as the new energy (thanks to well-deserved vacation) through my body. I became a good student, very applied in my works, responsible, caring: an example worthy of emulation... until the second week. Well, my responsibility doesn’t last long. But my performance in this term is better than the first of this year. Probably because academic load is lower than at the beginning of the year, also because my heart is now in total equilibrium. About subjects, I don’t like most of these: Ethnology (although the teacher was really handsome), Ethnohistory, Ethnography, ethnos ethnos ethnos… really boring.


Anyway, I feel relieved now that these two terms are finally ending, I think I need a break (although I don't know if it is deserved) that allows completely renew the spirits, thus beginning the next year with a whole new vision: also that after 2010 things will change considerably. For example, I will not be with all my friend in classes because everyone will take different paths, the overchanging of specialty study will involve... so I'll have to be doubly prepared for this new challenge!


That's all... I guess
: )

Tuesday, November 10, 2009

Challenges and Levi.

(In memoriam. - Claude Levi-Strauss: 1908-2009)

Anthropology is a discipline very problematic, specially because of the fact the diversity in each area. I can mention a lot of issues with social anthropology (like relativism, or the little connection that sometimes have with the society), or physical anthropology (specificity tends to enclose this area, disconnected from the others). But I want to further the area of archaeology:
Archaeology always been surrounded of a lot of problems and challenges, so scholars of the discipline have debated for year about this topics. In my opinion, I think that one of the most important challenge in my discipline is related with the intervention on the places where archaeologists make their excavation, prospecting and, in general, all the investigate work that involved site’s analysis which is related too with our own spaces of interaction.
Thus, work with communities are essential: is very important to maintain a goo relation with natives, because the are who can contribute valuable data for the reconstruction of the past, as well as also to discover some practices that actually still conducted, which are part of an ancient legacy (since first population of an area in particular).
Also, we must to be careful with the geography of the site: is important do no harm or make a negative intervention with the structure related with flora and fauna.
On the other hand, an important challenge to highlight is inside of documents of each investigation, data recollection and their systematization. They will allow, largely, the successful development of the archaeological discipline. We must to pay attention to these elements and be aware of the importance of scientific methods. Only with these factors we can make a good argumentation and theory about places of interaction.
Finally, at the moment to write conclusions, we must to overcome the challenge of bad preconceptions and argue with rationale our theories (with strong anthropological bases adequately explain human interaction) that make a contribution to the discipline. We cannot forget that diffusion of these researches are a challenge still to surpass.