Int J Histor Archaeol (2015) 19:775790

DOI 10.1007/s10761-015-0311-8

Neoliberal Multiculturalism and Contract Archeology

in Northern Chile

Patricia Ayala Rocabado 1

Published online: 3 September 2015

# Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Abstract In this article I intend to contribute to the discussion of the social and
political consequences of contract archeology in Chile, showing how the practice
participates in the construction and reproduction of the logic and values of the market.
I shall show how a neoliberal logic is reproduced in the everyday practices and
discourses of both the state and archeology. In the case of San Pedro de Atacama
(northern, Chile), I shall demonstrate that the link between contract archeology and
heritage archeology and the mining and tourism industries forges a disciplinary practice
that constructs and is constructed by the neoliberal multicultural state and its
ethnodevelopment policies.

Keywords Multiculturalism . Neoliberalism . Contract archaeology . Indigenous people .

Chile

Introduction

There are few studies in Chile that explore the role of archeology in constructing
multiculturalism, and the mechanisms through which this occurs. Research is also scant
on the repercussions of the politics of difference in archeological practices and dis-
courses (Ayala 2011). Although some authors have written about theoretical-
methodological approaches to archeology within this political context (Troncoso
et al. 2008; Salazar et al. 2012), there are no reflections that address how one particular
expression of multicultural archeologycontract archeology, also called environmental
impact archeologyadopts and reproduces the neoliberal logic. Indeed, since contract
archeology came to prominence in the 1990s, many debates have arisen on its legal and
methodological aspects, as well as its advantages and limitations. Reflections are

* Patricia Ayala Rocabado

payala_rocabado@hotmail.com; procabado@coa.edu

1
Sociedad Chilena de Arqueologa, 17 Roberts Av., Bar Harbor, ME 04609, USA
776 Int J Histor Archaeol (2015) 19:775790

lacking on its ethical, political and social dimensions, and discussions of its linkages
with private enterprise and its differentiation from scholarly archeology are exception-
ally rare (Cceres 1999; Carrasco 2007; Gonzlez 2005), comprising a single study by
Salazar (2010) on the relationship between indigenous communities, mining and
archeology, along with some preliminary references to relationship of contract arche-
ology to neoliberalism (Ayala and Vilches 2012; Salazar et al. 2012).
In this article I intend to contribute to the discussion of the social and political
consequences of contract archeology in Chile, showing how the practice participates in
the construction and reproduction of the logic and values of the market. I also wish to
draw attention to the close relation that exists between contract archeology and heritage
archeology (sensu Carrasco 2007) by examining an ethnographic description of two
sitesthe Council of National Monuments (Consejo de Monumentos Nacionales) and
the locality of San Pedro de Atacama, in Northern Chilefrom the mid-1990s to 2009,
though without losing sight of the larger historic background. I shall show how a
neoliberal logic is reproduced in the everyday practices and discourses of both the state
and archeology. In the case of San Pedro de Atacama, I shall demonstrate that the link
between contract archeology and heritage archeology and the mining and tourism
industries forges a disciplinary practice that constructs and is constructed by the
neoliberal multicultural state and its ethnodevelopment policies.

Neoliberal Multiculturalism and Archeology

In the late 1980s, archeologists celebrated the advent of multiculturalism as a way out
of ethnocentrism and logocentrism that promoted Bthe return of the native^ and
recognition of their rights and cultural demands. One result of thiswhich in turn also
fed into this new political scenariowas an opening up of the debate around a series of
issues, including the democratization of knowledge, pluralism, multivocality, the in-
clusion of other voices, and self-reflection in different fields of knowledge; other
discussions focused on authority, relations of power, representation, and repatriation
at the global level. Although this discussion was relatively late to emerge in Chile, the
political discourse of multiculturalism diversified relations between archeologists and
indigenous peoples, opened new opportunities for local participation, and increased the
dissemination of scientific discourses and responses to indigenous demands.
Archaeologists also became increasingly involved in projects focused on environmental
impacts and heritage value enhancement (Ayala 2008, 2011). This shift was tied to
institutional and legal innovations through which the Chilean state recognized the
countrys cultural diversity and began to reorganize itself into a democratic,
pluricultural nation following the dictatorship (Boccara 2007; Bolados 2010).
However, a critical assessment of the power relations and power struggles occurring
in spaces of participation that were opened by multiculturalism in Chile makes it clear
that archeologyand archeology in the Atacameo region in particularcontinues to
reproduce colonial relations of domination, no longer through negation and exclusion,
but now instead by inclusion. Archeologys power and authority as an expert discourse
for constructing, authenticating and legitimizing identities has not only changed but has
been strengthened by its active role in patrimonialization processes, from which
position it produces and represents the multicultural state. Added to this is the
Int J Histor Archaeol (2015) 19:775790 777

predominance of culturalist and positivist approaches in Chilean archeology, which

determine how material culture is interpreted and generate the vision and division of the
social world. The authority invested in these theoretical currents has translated into an
essentializing view of cultural differences that is produced and promoted by multicul-
turalism and a reaffirmation of the scientific nature of the discipline. In this way
archeological discourse is used to conceal the social and political repercussions of
environmental megaprojects, within the framework of which archeologists produce
reports characterized by technical excellence and scientific neutrality.
Paradoxically, Chiles renewed nationalism allows the country to define itself as
multicultural. Although new internal and external differences and territorializations are
produced (Boccara and Ayala 2011), the state continues its nationalist discourse on the
theme of heritage by referring to the Bheritage of the Chilean nation^ and by celebrating
the BNational Heritage Day.^ The indigenous past is incorporated under the banner of
Bnational heritage^ and tends to spread a new regime of truth about what is and is not
cultural, national and patrimonial, and in this way the notion of culture/heritage is fixed,
materialized, monumentalized, naturalized and restricted. Via patrimonializationthe
processes through which cultural diversity is appropriated, authenticated and legiti-
mized for the benefit of the multicultural statearcheologists exercise their power and
authority as experts in the production of cultures, identities and territorializations as
they prospect, excavate, analyze, classify, interpret, and map archeological sites for
research and heritage and environmental projects.
To understand patrimonialization and multicultural archeology, and how culture has
become a central category in the public discourse because it is crucial to the construc-
tion of social and political identities, we must conceive of multiculturalism as the
government of the ethnic (sensu Boccara 2007), as a new forman ethnic formof
governmentality that tends to extend the states mechanisms of intervention and
generate new subjectivities, new spaces of power, new fields of knowing and new
markets of exotic symbolic goods. And multiculturalism cannot be understood without
understanding its close connection to neoliberalism (Hale 2004): It is based on a
neoliberal logic that tends to place responsibility upon social agents and to treat
communities like micro-enterprises, to generalize market relations until they become
essential elements of the social fabric, to make labor more flexible and precarious, and
to make society subordinate to the economy. This political context gives rise to the
figure of the Bproject Indian,^ the Bexotic client^ or Bmarket citizen^ who must find his
or her place among the new market niches. And along with this figure comes the
archeologist-consultant and archeologist-entrepreneur who works with governmental
and quasi-governmental agencies and/or with national and transnational enterprises
involved in large capital investment projects in indigenous territory.
Neoliberal multiculturalism encourages indigenous peoples to become entrepre-
neurs, to administrate and Bmarket^ their cultural practices and products as a source
of value and as intellectual property. Through patrimonialization, they are encouraged
to become managers and administrators of their archeological sites and to integrate
them into the transnational tourism market as exotic goods and symbols of their own
cultural authenticity and legitimacy. This process leads to the essentialization and
differentiation of communities, and in the Atacameo case to disputes over the
propriety of marketing the archeological heritage as an emblem of aboriginality and
nationality. As a technology of government, neoliberalism extends and disseminates the
778 Int J Histor Archaeol (2015) 19:775790

values of the market to social policies and institutions. Indeed, the universal imposition
of the neoliberal logic on sectors suited to capitalist developmentand where the
interests of transnational corporations come up against indigenous demands, as they do
in the Atacameo regionhas led Bolados (2010, p.16) to propose that in Chile, and in
other countries of the region, what exists is Bmulticultural neoliberalism^ rather than
neoliberal multiculturalism. In these disputed spaces of cultural and natural resources,
archeologists intervene as consultants in the market of environmental impact archeol-
ogy by recovering, protecting and enhancing the value of the indigenous past to make it
available to the cultural market, where it is consumed by local and transnational agents.
Indigenous traditions suited for this kind of participation must be functional within
new ethnodevelopment projects, meaning they must be reconstructed, reinvented and
reworked in accordance with multicultural criteria. The mechanisms through which
new social agents are legitimized, authenticated, represented and enshrined operate
within the ethno-bureaucracy and their role is to determine who is authorized, who is
indigenous, and what authentic indigenous culture is; they also impose a new logic for
the legal exercise of Bindigeneity^. Mechanisms that legitimize and normalize tend to
result in the standardization of indigenous cultures and the professionalization of those
who produce it, as well as the delegation of political representation. With the commu-
nity and the culture configured as new objects of government, multiculturalism inves-
tigates indigenous reality through the work of social science professionals. By means of
surveys, censuses, meetings, focus groups, interviews and polls, it seeks to build an
accurate picture of the society and culture of the indigenous populations that live in
Chile. Multicultural archeologists, who possess significant social and symbolic capital
in the ethno-bureaucracy, also engage in research to produce a faithful picture of the
culture, the past and indigenous territory. Government agencies such as the National
Monuments Council (Consejo de Monumentos Nacionales, CMN) and the National
Indigenous Development Corporation (Corporacin Nacional de Desarrollo Indgena,
CONADI), engage the services of consulting archeologists to prepare site surveys,
carry out value enhancement, conservation and protection projects, offer training and
perform recovery. Multicultural archeology helps to construct a standardized and
essentialized version of indigenous culture that is further entrenched by a linear
timeline stretching far back into the past.
Post-dictatorship neoliberal democracy in Chile has opened up new opportunities for
participation. The new methods of state intervention through which indigenous peoples
are governed require the presence of field agents responsible for implementing multi-
cultural policy and motivating the local population to act, participate, express their
opinions and think about their own ethnodevelopment. They seek to establish a kind of
Bpartnership^ between indigenous communities, government and quasi-government
agencies and/or private enterprise. Instead of intervening from the outside in a discre-
tionary or welfare-based way, patrimonialization seeks to involve indigenous peoples in
their own ethnodevelopment through the implementation of cultural resource
managament projects and through their participation in environmental impact projects.
Within this context, indigenous voices become part of the public participation mandate,
which addresses the need to separate acceptable demands from those deemed inappro-
priate, recognizing the former and closing off the latter. This is how multiculturalism is
managedby eliminating any radical or threatening imprint (Hale 2004). As a corol-
lary of this process, the state recognizes acceptable indigenous demands in regard to
Int J Histor Archaeol (2015) 19:775790 779

heritage and makes indigenous groups responsible for caring for archeological sites
under their administration and for implementing heritage recovery projects. The state
also approves environmental impact projects in which indigenous people are used as
manual labor for archeological excavations and/or in laboratory work. In the
Atacameo case, the situation has also involved the professionalization of indigenous
individuals at the expense of national and international agencies such as CMN,
CONADI, the Orgenes Program and the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB).

Multicultural Patrimonialization and the National Monuments Council

The CMN was created in 1925 and up to the 1990s was essentially responsible for
declaring National Monuments and playing a leading role in building the monocultural
national identity (Ayala 2011). The reconfiguration of the Council in the mid-1990s
shows how the logic of neoliberal multiculturalism is reproduced within the state, and
also demonstrates how the state is constructed by different heritage agents, with
archeologists foremost among them. These changes came about from the enactment
of the Environmental Framework Law in 1994 and the Indigenous Law in 1993, which
not only bureaucratized CMNs regulations and procedures even more but also ex-
panded its powers, responsibilities and activity. Cultural heritage provisions included in
both of these laws led to a deep institutional reorganization in the CMN, as the
Environmental Framework Law made this institution an Bentity of the public admin-
istration with environmental authority^. This area of responsibility was strengthened
and expanded when the rules governing the Environmental Impact Assessment System
came into effect in 1997. To satisfy these new legal provisions the CMN had to
establish its own internal and external procedures and regulations, which led to tension
and disputes with archeological professionals, who were among the most heavily
involved sectors. The Councils new environmental role profoundly changed its day
to day work, which was expanded to include the reception, review and evaluation of
environmental impact studies and statements and their associated addenda, along with
requests for provisional authorization, the production of consolidated environmental
reports and the issuing of environmental approval rulings. The internal procedures
developed by the CMN include norms for everything ranging from receiving a
Bsubmission^ sent from the National Environmental Commission (now the Ministry
of the Environment), assigning it to a technical or geographic body, assessing,
reviewing and signing off on it, and so on, all the way to the dissemination of a ruling
among other government agencies. The Councils Archeological Commission and
members of the Chilean Archeological Society established a set of basic guidelines
for the archeological reports that were required for environmental impact submissions.
Cases associated with the National Environmental Impact Assessment System
(SEIA) have grown exponentially within the CMN. The 12 projects analyzed in
1995 had grown to 237 environmental impact statements and studies by 2004, not
counting addenda, environmental assessment reports, and environmental approval
rulings (Gonzlez 2005). Such projects have increased even more in recent years
between September 9, 2008 and March 22, 2009, 503 Bsubmissions^ were received,
meaning (by extrapolation) that more than 1600 environmental impact assessment
cases are dealt with each year. Indeed, the CMNs role as an agency with environmental
780 Int J Histor Archaeol (2015) 19:775790

authority has so affected its operation that environmental assessment is now one of its
primary activities. BI can tell you that 70 %, 6070 % of the work that the National
Monuments Council does is related to environmental assessment, and all archeology
carried out in Chile has been affected by this activity^ (Angel Cabeza, pers. comm.).
This has been confirmed by the quantity of Bsubmissions^ linked to the Councils
Archeology Area: out of a total of 2614 cases received in 2008, 62 % (1510)
corresponded to Environmental Impact Projects that included contracted archeologists
and 38 % (1004) to research projects, permit applications, recovery projects, trafficking
in antiquities and dissemination. Furthermore, the Council operates as a regulatory
market for national and transnational investment projects. This activity has
depoliticized the social and economic problems associated with these kinds of invest-
ment projects through high quality technical reports that take a politically neutral
stance. It has also had an effect on the emergence of a multicultural archeology that
has deepened its dependency on the public administration for employment, as
archeologists increasingly work with and for government agencies involved in cultural
and natural heritage matters, as well as with both Chilean and transnational private
companies.
These changes have caused an increase in National Monument designations and
engendered a more diverse idea of heritagethrough the states discourse of Bpublic
participation^that incorporates Bindigenous heritage^ and Benvironmental heritage^.
Although the Council has been working with CONADI on projects involving the
administration and surveying of archeological sites in the Atacama region (Ayala
2008) since the enactment of the Indigenous Law, in 2000 some major changes came
about with the creation of the CMNs Indigenous Cultural Heritage Area, as well as
with the creation of BNational Heritage Day^ and the strengthening of the World
Heritage Site Program. At the same time, the neoindigenist intercultural policies
(sensu Bolados 2010) initiated in the previous decade deepened with the inauguration
of the Orgenes Program, funded by the Chilean government and the IDB and
implemented with the direct objective of demobilizing and calming the Mapuche
conflict that had intensified in the late 1990s (Bolados 2010). In this period a shift
was proposed from state indigenism (the successor to Latin American indigenism) to a
transnational neoindigenism, related to a new understanding of the states intervention-
ist role in relation to indigenous people. According to Bolados (2010, p. 50), Bclassic
indigenism^, which was based on an essentially welfare-oriented development model,
changed in the decade following 1995 to reflect a new intercultural policy that
introduced a more modern, technocratic understanding via Bethnodevelopment^ pro-
grams funded transnationally through partnerships and contracts between states and
multilateral entities. At the same time, segments of the indigenous movement were
incorporated into the framework of intercultural programs that were promoted by the
state. The construction of the Ralco hydroelectric dam on Pehuenche territory by a
Spanish corporation brought to the forefront the weaknesses and contradictions be-
tween the indigenous and environmental policies of Chiles post-dictatorship demo-
cratic administrations and generated discussion among archeologists and anthropolo-
gists. For the construction of the hydroelectric dam the company purchased 3750 ha of
land in Ralco, in the Alto Bo-Bo zone, which forced the displacement of 500
Pehuenche people; after a long, hard battle with the Chilean state, and under enormous
pressure from the company, the lands were finally ceded in exchange for land of little
Int J Histor Archaeol (2015) 19:775790 781

agricultural value that was ceded by the government (Bolados 2010; Gonzles 2005).
This conflict marked a milestone in the indigenous patrimonialization approach, and
after this the government began focusing its actions in Mapuche territory and more
forcefully disseminating the states heritage discourse.
This process also draws attention to the privatization of what was considered in the
past to be a realm under state jurisdiction. Along with the multicultural
patrimonialization, private funding sources were sought out to protect and conserve
national heritage sites, a trend that is closely linked to mining, hydroelectric, tourism,
forestry, roadways and other megaprojects implemented by Chilean and/or transnation-
al interests that recruit archeologists to prepare their environmental impact statements
and studies. The same logic is also what drove, in part, the creation of the World
Heritage Program, aimed at accessing funding from multilateral agencies such as the
IDB, which has given major sums of money for value enhancement, conservation,
protection and restoration of heritage in Chile. The inclusion of tangible or intangible
heritage on the list of World Heritage Sites is considered by international agencies to be
a factor in development, and this discourse is reproduced by the CMN by means of
patrimonialization processes enacted throughout the country, and through
ethnodevelopment, too, within indigenous territories. In this case, mechanisms for
authenticating and legitimizing are in the hands of states and transnational agencies
that authorize and define who will represent a nationand humanity in generalby
installing a regime of universal truth (Ayala 2011).

Contract Archeology, Tourism and Mining in the Salar de Atacama

San Pedro de Atacama is one of the top tourist destinations in Chile, receiving nearly
50,000 visitors from around the world each year. The Salar de Atacama (Atacama Salt
Flats) is in Loa Province, Antofagasta Region, where more than 60 % of all ore mined
in Chile is produced and there is constant, intense national and international migration
related to this activity (Bolados 2014). This scenario has not only led to the emergence
of heritage and contract archaeology but to a growing number of investment projects
that require their services. Contract archeology in particular is rejected, questioned, and
challenged by indigenous leaders but also used in negotiations and considered a useful
tool against the overwhelming advance of mining and tourism. Through market
relations, archaeologists consolidated their role as experts on the past and protectors
of cultural heritage, while at the same time strengthening the technical-scientific and
culturalist discourse. These archaeologists are in the service of development, and
generally steer clear of political debates on the social and environmental impact of
tourism and mining in the Salar de Atacama; they also remain silent on their own
contribution to reproducing asymmetrical power relations and exploitation.
The configuration of the Salar de Atacama as an Bindigenous, mining and tourist
region in the new cartography of contemporary capitalism^ (Bolados 2014, p. 232)
cannot be understood without considering the role of archeology. Before the advent of
this trilogy in regional representations, the town of San Pedro de Atacama was already
being promoted as the BArchaeological Capital of Chile^. In this region, the emergence
of contract archeology is linked to the growth of the mining and tourism industries from
the 1990s onward, with adoption of a political discourse of multiculturalism and the
782 Int J Histor Archaeol (2015) 19:775790

insertion of market values into social policy and pertinent institutions, as I will explain
after providing a brief historical overview.
During the nineteenth century, the scientific, geopolitical and mineral importance of
the Atacama region grew until the territory became a point of strife between the new
republics of Bolivia, Peru and Chile. After the War of the Pacific (187983), the
Atacama Puna region was annexed to Northern Chile, which had begun to change
profoundly as a result of the expansion of the mining and nitrate industries and
increased domestic and private transnational capital investment. Atacamas indigenous
population shifted from an agro-pastoral economy to a more diversified economy with
a capitalist base. At the time, archeology in this region was associated with the
expeditions and adventures of naturalists, geographers, travelers and antiquity-hunters,
but the situation shifted in the twentieth century when foreign scholars arrived to
conduct the first archaeological and ethnographic studies (Ayala 2008).
Throughout the twentieth century, the Atacama people were the workforce of the
mining industry, which resulted in their migration to the urban-industrial centers of
Calama and Antofagasta. Some remained in their traditional territories, where they
continued and intensified their artisanal mining of salt and Bllareta^ or joined the local
sulfur industry, all subsidiary to the burgeoning large-scale mining industries (Vilches
et al. 2015). The states presence was evident as the nitrate boom drew to a close and
copper mining expanded with the opening of the Chuquicamata mine (Bolados 2014).
Archeology gained stature through prominent Chilean and international figures, one of
the most noteworthy being the Belgian priest and amateur archaeologist Gustavo Le
Paige, who became the pastor of the Chuquicamata chapel and then moved to San
Pedro de Atacama. Oral tradition associates the archaeological practice of those years
with the Bgringos^ of Chuquicamata, like the engineer Emil De Bruyne in Caspana,
who carried out digs at indigenous burial sites in the Loa River basin and in the Salar de
Atacama. Amateur archeologists from Chuquicamata even used dynamite to excavate
the pre-Columbian cemeteries of Chiu Chiu (Ayala 2008). Le Paige is not only
remembered for his scientific contributions and for founding the local museum but
also for introducing the oasis to the national and international tourism market. His
modernization efforts were supported by other archaeologists of the time, among them
Jorge Serracino (1973, p. 5), who, as editor of the journal Estudios Atacameos, wrote:
BThe idea is not to preserve the Atacameo people as living examples of past cultures
but to develop the Atacama culture with modern means adapted to the environment in
which we live. Planning their development is the principal reason for publishing this
new journal^.
In the 1970s and 80s, the military dictatorship strengthened the states development
discourse and promoted the neoliberal economic model. The state presence became
official with the creation of the Municipality of San Pedro de Atacama and the arrival of
new transnational actors that came to the Salar de Atacama, drawn by new legislation
that encouraged foreign investment and the privatization of natural resources. Added to
this was the advent of lithium mining in Chile, through the Chilean Lithium Society
(Sociedad Chilena del Litio) and the Chemical Mining Association of Chile (Sociedad
Qumica Minera de Chile). At the same time, the Explora hotel holding made large land
purchases in several parts of the salt flats (Bolados 2014), to later build San Pedro de
Atacamas first five-star hotel. In the 1980s, state tourism and mining agencies
including the Tourism Office of Antofagasta and Santiago and the National Copper
Int J Histor Archaeol (2015) 19:775790 783

Corporation (Corporacin Nacional del Cobre de Chile, CODELCO)financed the

construction and renovation of the Archaeological Museum of San Pedro de Atacama
(Ayala 2011). The First Symposium on Archaeology in the Atacama was held in 1983
to discuss topics such as heritage protection and conservation, its relationship to
tourism, and BAndean development guidelines^. At the national level, archeology
continued to have a strong empirical orientation focused on the construction of
historical and cultural sequences, identifying temporal and cultural relationships be-
tween zones and among classes of material culture, although a few explicitly theoretical
studies did appear at this time as well (Troncoso et al. 2008). In this context, some
research was influenced by the New Archaeology from the United States or by Marxist
archaeology, later known as Latin American Social Archaeology: from different per-
spectives they also endorsed a development discourse.
The 1990s saw the states intense deployment of indigenous and heritage policies
and the incorporation of global stakeholders from the transnational mining and tourism
sectors into the Salar de Atacama. At that time, the Chilean copper boom had led to the
heaviest mining investment of the century anywhere, which increased domestic pro-
duction of this metal threefold (Salazar 2010). The tremendous importance of copper
mining to the national economy produced some of the greatest social, economic,
cultural and environmental impacts of the twentieth century in these communities.
The enactment of the Indigenous Law in 1993 and the Environmental Framework Law
in 1994, coupled with the favorable domestic and international scenario, helped draw
attention to historical conflicts between mining companies and the indigenous popula-
tion over water and land rights (Carrasco 2014). It was even suggested that the
processes of ethnogenesis experienced by the Aymara and Atacama peoples of
Northern Chile were related precisely to disputes with mining companies over water
resources, rights and usage (Gundermann 2000; Rivera 2006).
Considered by many to be a necessary ingredient in the race towards progress
and social welfare, mining was contested by indigenous communities. In response,
mining companies reproduced the multicultural rhetoric of Bsocial responsibility,^
Bcitizen participation,^ and Bcommunity relations^ as a way to improve their
relations with these groups (Salazar 2010, p. 230). For Carrasco (2014, p. 248),
this change in relations came about because mining went from ignoring the com-
munities in their areas of influence to incorporating them as stakeholders or as
actors with recognized influence. As required by Chiles Environmental Framework
Law and by international legislation, mining companies must submit their intended
projects to the Environmental Impact Assessment System; to this end, they recruit
teams of archaeologists through different contractual arrangements. In some cases,
archaeological consultants are responsible for specific projects for a limited period
of time, while in others, they maintain a long-term employment relationship, as is
the case with Sociedad Contractual Minera El Abra, which has financed the project
BResearch, Rescue and Recognition of Archaeological Heritage in El Abra^ since
1996 (Salazar 2010). Fulfilling legal requirements and following CMN protocols,
the archaeological reports reconstruct and reproduce the cultural history of a given
territory and are remarkable in their technical quality and use of scientific jargon,
not to mention the cutting-edge technology that the archaeological knowledge/
power employs on site, in the lab, and in writing up the results. The participation
of archeology in projects of this sort has placed the discipline at the center of
784 Int J Histor Archaeol (2015) 19:775790

community debates, as some Atacama leaders criticize contract archaeologists,

especially those working in the local museum:

They should know the feelings of the community in which they are working and
with which they are supposed to have a closer relationship or, as we propose here,
greater communication and involvement....There should be a ethical commitment
that the archaeologists of this museum should support the community and not
provide services to those who want to oppose what the community wants
(Gregorio Ildefonso, Tercera Mesa de Dilogo del Museo Arqueolgico de San
Pedro de Atacama, pers. comm.)

Archaeologists have had a mixed response to challenges from the indigenous

communities. While some take refuge in silence and distance, others justify their
participation in environmental projects with arguments such as, Someone has to do it,
Better that we do it than someone else, If not us, then who? As archaeologists, we are
responsible for protecting and saving this heritage, We are required by law to do this
work, and We have to make a living somehow. Still, after much internal debate that took
into account conflicts with the local community and despite the absence of a unanimous
agreement, in mid-2000 the Archaeological Museum of San Pedro de Atacama decided
that archaeologists from this institution should not be involved in environmental impact
projects. At the same time, archaeological consultants from other parts of the country
employed members of Atacama communities as field workers and laboratory assistants,
a form of participation that has been demanded by the Atacameo people ever since the
construction of the Gas Atacama pipeline and the San PedroPaso Jama bypass in the
late twentieth century. In both cases, indigenous leaders complained to the state and the
businesses involved about the destruction of archaeological sites, which was considered
an attack on their cultural heritage, and called for compensation and mitigation
measures, in addition to the participation of Atacameo representative at all stages of
implementation (Ayala 2008). In parallel, Atacameos were also being brought into
ethnodevelopment projects focused on heritage tourism that were being promoted by
government and international agencies (Ayala 2008). This involvement was associated
with a gradual return to their communities of origin, where tourism and associated
services were translating into paid employment that allowed the Atacameo population
to access economic benefits previously obtained only from mining. In this sense, what
the Atacameo people initially had rejected as the appropriation of their lands and
resources (sometimes manifesting their disapproval by abandoning or not visiting the
center of town) became a stable and profitable job opportunity in their own ancestral
territory.
Another way in which the Atacameo people have been integrated into local
development initiatives are projects to survey, enhance the value of, protect and manage
tourism in archaeological sites, which are sponsored by government agencies like
CONADI, CMN and the Ministry of Public Works. In this context, archeology in the
Atacama has brought a focus to heritage, working with government and indigenous
actors to incorporate archaeological sites into the tourism market. This process has not
been without power struggles, as archaeologists became entangled in political factions
that debated what kind of projects should be undertaken, who could access the sites,
and under what conditions (Ayala 2008). The conflicts related to the indigenous
Int J Histor Archaeol (2015) 19:775790 785

management of archaeological heritage were seen by CMN and CONADI as problems

with specific Atacameo communities, and attention was focused on disagreements
between certain archaeologists and indigenous leaders or among the archaeologists
themselves, which minimized such conflicts. By tying these conflicts to pre-existing
issues between certain communities, or between archaeologists and certain indigenous
individuals, or as a dispute within the discipline itself, the underlying problem was
swept under the rug. And that underlying problem was the ownership of archaeological
heritage in indigenous territories, especially considering that the community manage-
ment of these assets was a way to redirect or channel the Atacameo peoples demand
for land and cultural rights (Ayala 2008). Archeology has played the part of technical
and scientific authority in assessing the feasibility of these initiatives, thereby helping to
depoliticize and divert attention away from unresol.ved issues between the state and
indigenous peoples (with heritage being only one of many such issues). In effect, the
states legitimizing of archaeologists expert discourse has served the dominant system
of power relations because the scenarios in which they have been called to participate
conceal ongoing social inequalities.
The states development discourse is linked in a similar way to hotel projects, which
are also associated with the emergence of an environmental specialty within multicul-
tural archeology in the Salar de Atacama. One example of such environmental impact
archeology repeatedly mentioned in local oral history is the construction of the Explora
Hotel in the mid-1990s. Although the hotel was presented as an employment opportu-
nity for the Atacameo people, its location on a sensitive archaeological site was
followed by tales of looting, desecration and other accounts related to the findings,
some of which allude to agreements between archaeologists and private enterprise that
infringe upon indigenous interests. This situation caused conflicts among archaeolo-
gists from the local museum and professionals from outside this institution, and
between research archaeologists and consulting archaeologists. The participation of
the Atacameo people in archeological surveys and excavations within environmental
impact projects also came to light, and has been increasing within contract archeology
in the salt flats. The Btourism boom^ and the proliferation of hotels in San Pedro de
Atacama since the early 2000s has required significant input from archaeological
consultants, several of whom have hired local labor for their fieldwork, thus fulfilling
the multicultural development discourse of Bindigenous participation^ (Ayala 2011).
Criticized by some Atacameo leaders, environmental impact archeology is another
source of work related to the heritage tourism market, though it is more sporadic and
unstable than housekeeping, food services and maintenance work in hotels. In addition,
the incorporation of the Atacameo people as guides must also be considered. Hotel
Explora was a pioneer in training and hiring local guides through its Escuela de Guas,
which included archeology courses. The purpose of these and other forms of
Bparticipation^ and Bcollaboration^ with the Atacameo population is to reverse the
perception of this hotel as violating local cultural values and practices and generating
unequal and exploitative labor relations. According to Bolados (2014, p. 236), these
initiatives helped to defuse tensions up to 2007, when the Council of Atacameo
Peoples (Consejo de Pueblos Atacameos) decided to take legal action against the
Explora for taking over the ancestral healing waters in the Puritama hot springs. Faced
with this conflict, the hotel expanded its operations and deployed public relations strate-
gies within the communities, establishing a protected area within Puritama hot springs by
786 Int J Histor Archaeol (2015) 19:775790

creating a foundation aimed at preserving the area as a reserve to help Bprotect the natural
and culture heritage of the Atacameo people^.
The training of Atacameo guides offered by the hotel is related to two primary
aspects of multicultural patrimonializationthe participation and professionalization of
indigenous peoples, funded by government and multilateral agencies, hotel companies
like Explora and mining operations such as Escondida and El Abra. Archaeologists
have also been integrated into the training and workshop market, with the Escuela
Andina of the Archeological Museum of San Pedro de Atacama being a systematic,
longstanding example of such programs. For the state and for multilateral agencies,
Btrained indigenous peoples^, and Bstrengthened indigenous peoples^ are a tool for
development, and this is why the heritage projects associated with tourism and mining
require Atacameo people trained in local history and archeology. In a paradox typical
of the multicultural era, the Atacameo people must demonstrate knowledge of their
own culture by being certified by state-based or private training programs, and this
official seal of approval gives them a comparative advantage in the labor market when
seeking employment with archaeological consultants on environmental impact or
heritage projects. This situation has been raised by some indigenous leaders, who
believe that students from the Escuela Andina should fill these positions (Ayala 2011).
An unexpected repercussion of neoliberal multiculturalism is that these spaces of
indigenous participation, such as the Escuela Andina, have been precisely where
indigenous students and leaders have confronted and rejected contract archeology.
From their perspective, the participation of instructor-archeologists in environmental
impact projects that go against the interests of the communities demonstrates a lack of
consistency, and so they question the ties that this program has forged between the local
museum and the indigenous community. In recent years, the Atacameo people have
been more active in instances of public participation within the Environmental Impact
Assessment System, occasionally seeking advice from archaeologists to evaluate
reports that have been submitted to the SEIA. In fact, some leaders view archeology
as a tool that is useful for opposing mining, road and hotel projects, whether public or
private.

Multicultural Archeology

Multicultural archeology has stretched the boundaries of the field toward management,
cultural recovery, and environmental impact through the participation of its profes-
sionals in development programs driven by both states and multilateral agencies.
Archeologists participation in heritage administration has also increased as more and
more join public and private agencies as consultants on cultural and environmental
projects. One of the most visible features of multicultural archeology is its role in the
definition, administration and legislation of Chiles heritage, a field known as cultural
resource management (Smith 2004). In this context, archeology is valued as a nation-
alizing enterprise and for its expert, technical and scientific knowledge, as a legacy of
procesualism and its links to monocultural nationalism. Archeologists self-appointed
rolelegitimized by the stateas guardians of the past and protectors of heritage
means they are increasingly in demand by government agencies working with cultural
goods. Although these institutions also worked with archeologists prior to the advent of
Int J Histor Archaeol (2015) 19:775790 787

multiculturalism, today it is much more prevalent to find them working in the public
service, where they define and judge, along with other state-contracted professionals
and agents, what constitutes Chilean heritage and indigenous heritage, who can have
access to it, and what the requirements are for doing so. Patrimonialization continues to
reproduce its nationalist discourse, so that indigenous heritagealong with local
heritage, historic heritage and that of the nitrate industryare subsumed into the
broadest conception of national heritage (Ayala 2011).
Through archeologists participation in this administrative process, the state mea-
sures the legitimacy of indigenous demands against the Bobjective^ pronouncements of
experts. Archeology is thus used to govern the indigenous population and control social
conflicts over heritage, behind which are hidden other outstanding issues that the state
has not resolved, despite its multicultural political discourse. Following Smith (2004, p.
102), who defines archeology as a Btechnology of government^ through cultural
resource management, the institutionalization of archeology facilitates not only its
mobilization as a technology of government but also its integration into the bureaucracy
and the legality of heritage. The mobilization of archeological knowledge within
government institutions cannot be understood as simply a technical response to the
need to preserve material culture, but rather as part of a process in which the popula-
tionwhose identity is in part defined by its links to those cultural goodsis identi-
fied, classified and governed.
The visibility and expansion of patrimonialization in recent years has not only led to
the incorporation of an increasing number of archeologists into the state; it has also
brought an increase in the number of archeology programs, and a markedly
patrimonialist orientation within those programs. The strengthening of neoliberal
policies and their impact on the discipline has driven archeologists to abandon their
research and become involved in projects oriented to value enhancement, conservation
and protection of heritage sites related to the tourism industry, where their expertise is
called upon to evaluate feasibility and control disputes that may arise (Ayala 2008).
Something similar occurs with environmental impact projects, where archeological
knowledge plays a major scientific and technical role in assessing the environmental
damage provoked by mining, hydroelectric, forestry, housing, hotel, and tourism
projects. The emphasis on objectivity, technical rigor, and political neutrality in
archeological work of this nature depoliticizes these kinds of projects by reducing the
social problems that they cause to mere technical issues. In the case of mining
investment projects, the cutting edge technology and scientific rigor used to study
archeological sites shifts attention from the underlying social disputes and centers it on
the production of enormous quantities of unpublished information and the accumula-
tion of archeological collections. This shift reinforces the role of archeologists as
guardians of the past, while the same social inequalities and the same exploitation
continue to be reproduced, indigenous peoples continue to be criminalized for making
land claims, and police violence is ongoing despite our supposed recognition of cultural
differences. This dynamic is nowhere more apparent than among the Mapuches of
southern Chile.
Moreover, all of the above is related to a development-driven discourse through
which indigenous peoples have been encouraged to implement projects that will gain
them entry into the cultural market and obtain international funding, assistance and
political validation. BCultural authenticity^ is more in demand than ever. The
788 Int J Histor Archaeol (2015) 19:775790

ethnodevelopmentalist paradigm requires Bnative empowerment^ because it needs

indigenous peoples for development, just as the multicultural state needs them to secure
international funding and to represent itself as pluricultural, while remaining successful
and safe for foreign investors. Cultural difference is viewed as yet another commodity
to be consumed through heritage, environmental and tourism projects backed by the
state and private enterprise. And the indigenous administration of archeological sites is
seen as an economic development option for these groups, while at the same time it
gives the impression that cultural rights are being recognized and creates exotic,
authentic subjects ready to enter into and compete in the market of difference. Added
to this is that the new environmental discourse conceives of culture as yet another
resource that needs protection to enable its insertion into the market. For Villa (2003, p.
337), who investigated the Columbian case, this political situation inscribes archeology
within the technical-economic reality of this country and within the global economic
order, given that archeological heritage protection, as part of sustainable development,
falls under the new concept of environmental transformation. This process is expressed
in contract archeology and in references to archeological heritage as a cultural re-
sourcein other words, a capital good. According to Villa (2003, p.339), the practice
of archeology contributes to the construction of a hegemonic order structured around
the development, modernization and globalization of culture, all emerging concepts
within the economy.
Environmental impact studies, for their part, are coherent with Chiles neoliberal
system and are imposed by centers of power through the protocols of multinational
corporations that set up shop in the country, or by free trade agreements with the United
States and Europe (Troncoso et al. 2008, p. 134). The repercussions of this close
relationship between archeology and neoliberalism are reflected in the limited interest
in theoretical discussions and a tendency toward the revival of positivist approaches
that prioritize quantitative, physical-chemical methods above reflexive ones, coupled
with the deepening trend toward micro-archeologythe popularization and expansion
of archeological practices that rely heavily on new information technologiesand the
increasing gap between scholarly archeologists and those engaged in environmental
impact studies. Carrasco (2007, p. 39) proposes that in this kind of archeology, Bthe
approach is not based on a problem to be investigated, and so the practice becomes
more about the application of basic methodological principles derived from that stage
of regular archeological practice that is focused merely on obtaining information, which
leads primarily to the preparation of localized historic and cultural analyses.^ As a
result, archeology is useful to neoliberal multiculturalism not only because of its
contribution to identity-building, but also because of the technical expertise it provides
to public and private investment projects that demand and reproduce culturalist inter-
pretations historically linked to nationalism. But the implementation of this new art of
government is not without its tensions and contradictions. New political opportunities
can be found not only in large-scale opposition but also in the interstices of emerging
power structures and in new political and social spaces currently under construction.
These are the unexpected, undesired effects of multiculturalism that nonetheless persist
because indigenous peoples are not merely objects of government and
ethnodevelopment. Through the process of patrimonialization they question the multi-
cultural state from within and participate in new struggles to define, classify, and own
their heritage. They also take advantage of the process of professionalization to
Int J Histor Archaeol (2015) 19:775790 789

appropriate that heritage and the scientific discourses, and use them in their political
struggles against the state and its archeologists, to occupy spaces formerly forbidden to
them, to take possession of old and new demands and to seek recognition of local
knowledge on a par with scientific knowledge. The politicization of culture and the new
regime of multicultural truth that claims to define what is cultural, national and
patrimonial is a disputed process of construction of signifiers by indigenous, state,
scientific, and private agents, at both the local and global level.

References

Ayala, P. (2008). Polticas del Pasado: Indgenas, Arquelogos y Estado en Atacama, Universidad Catlica
del Norte, San Pedro de Atacama.
Ayala, P. ( 2011). La Patrimonializacin y la Arqueologa Multicultural y las Disputas de Poder por el Pasado
Indgena. Tesis doctoral, Universidad Catlica del Norte-Universidad de Tarapac, San Pedro de
Atacama.
Ayala, P., and Vilches, F. (2012). Introduccin. In Ayala, P., and Vilches, F. (eds.), Teora Arqueolgica en
Chile: Reflexionando en Torno a Nuestro Quehacer Disciplinario, Lnea Editorial IIAM-UCN, Ocho
Libros, Santiago, pp. 924.
Boccara, G. (2007). Etnogubernamentalidad: la formacin del campo de la salud intercultural en Chile.
Chungar 39(2): 185207.
Boccara, G., and Ayala, P. (2011). Patrimonializar al Indgena: Imaginacin del Multiculturalismo Neoliberal
en Chile. Les Cahiers des Ameriques Latines 67(2): 111202.
Bolados, P. (2010). Neoliberalismo Multicultural en el Chile Democrtico: Gubernamentalizando la Salud
Atacamea a Travs de la Participacin y el Etnodesarrollo. Tesis doctoral, Universidad Catlica del
Norte-Universidad de Tarapac, San Pedro de Atacama.
Bolados, P. (2014). Los conflictos etnoambientales de BPampa Colorada^ y BEl Tatio^ en el Salar de Atacama,
norte de Chile: procesos tnicos en un contexto minero y turstico transnacional. Estudios Atacameos 48:
229248.
Cceres, I. (1999). Arqueologa y sistema de evaluacin de impacto ambiental. Boletn de la Sociedad Chilena
de Arqueologa 28: 4754.
Carrasco, C. (2007). La prctica arqueolgica y la actual construccin del conocimiento arqueolgico en
Chile. Boletn de la Sociedad Chilena de Arqueologa 39: 3549.
Carrasco, A. (2014). Entre dos aguas: identidad moral en la relacin entre corporaciones mineras y la
comunidad indgena de Toconce en el Desierto de Atacama. Chungar 46(2): 247258.
Gonzlez, P. (2005). Acerca del Consejo de Monumentos Nacionales como rgano con competencia
ambiental. Institucionalidad Pblica y Fiscalizacin (CONAMA, Consejo de Monumentos Nacionales
y Consejos Asesores). In Fernndez, G., and Gonzlez, P. (eds.), Actas del Primer Seminario de Minera y
Monumentos Nacionales, Editorial EDITEC, Santiago, pp. 8697.
Gundermann, H. (2000). Las organizaciones tnicas y el discurso de la identidad en el norte de Chile, 1980
2000. Estudios Atacameos 19: 7592.
Hale, C. (2004). Rethinking indigenous politics in the era of the indio permitido. NACLA Report on the
Americas 38(2): 111.
Rivera, F. (2006). Entorno neoliberal y la alterida tnica antiflexibilizante de los atacameos contemporneos.
Revista Chilena de Antropologa 18: 5989.
Salazar, D. (2010). Comunidades indgenas, arqueologa y mineras en el norte de Chile: hacia un dilogo
posible? In Gnecco, C., and Ayala, P. (eds.), Pueblos Indgenas y Arqueologa en Amrica Latina, FIAN-
Universidad de los Andes, Bogot, pp. 221250.
Salazar, D., Jackson, D., and Troncoso, A. (2012). Entre dos tierras: reflexiones sobre la arqueologa chilena
en el siglo veintiuno. In Ayala, P., and Vilches, F. (eds.), Teora Arqueolgica en Chile: Reflexionando en
Torno a Nuestro Quehacer Disciplinario, Lnea Editorial IIAM-UCN, Ocho Libros, Santiago, pp. 4171.
Serracino, J. (1973). Editorial. Estudios Atacameos 1: 5.
Smith, L. (2004). Archaeological Theory and the Politics of Cultural Heritage, Routledge, New York.
Troncoso, A., Salazar, D., and Jackson, D. (2008). Ciencia, estado y sociedad retrospectiva crtica de la
arqueologa chilena. Arqueologa Suramericana 4(2): 122145.
790 Int J Histor Archaeol (2015) 19:775790

Vilches, F., Garrido, C., Ayala, P., and Crdenas, U. (2015). El pasado contemporneo en San Pedro de
Atacama, norte de Chile: arqueologa pblica? Manuscript in process.
Villa, F. (2003). Arqueologa de rescate y desarrollo sostenible en Colombia: crtica a un vnculo instrumental.
In Gnecco, C., and Piazzani, E. (eds.), Arqueologa al Desnudo: Reflexiones Sobre la Prctica
Disciplinaria, Universidad del Cauca, Popayn, pp. 327344.