The uses of the category "Archaeological site" from repression and resistance places: the perus mass grave in the city of São Paulo
[EN] This paper examines the political implications of designating a 1970s mass grave linked to Brazil’s dictatorship -an urban, contemporary, and funerary context- as an archaeological site. Through this case study, we interrogate the broader impact of granting heritage status to such spaces, explo...
| Autores: | , , |
|---|---|
| Tipo de recurso: | artículo |
| Estado: | Versión publicada |
| Fecha de publicación: | 2025 |
| País: | España |
| Institución: | Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (CSIC) |
| Repositorio: | DIGITAL.CSIC. Repositorio Institucional del CSIC |
| OAI Identifier: | oai:digital.csic.es:10261/415826 |
| Acceso en línea: | http://hdl.handle.net/10261/415826 |
| Access Level: | acceso abierto |
| Palabra clave: | Historical archaeological sites Contemporary archaeology Heritage management Forensic archaeology Mass graves Disappeared people Sítio arqueológico histórico Arqueologia Contemporânea Gestão do patrimônio Arqueologia forense Vala Clandestina Desaparecidos Sitios arqueológicos históricos Gestión del patrimonio Fosas comunes |
| Sumario: | [EN] This paper examines the political implications of designating a 1970s mass grave linked to Brazil’s dictatorship -an urban, contemporary, and funerary context- as an archaeological site. Through this case study, we interrogate the broader impact of granting heritage status to such spaces, exploring their opportunities, constraints, and limitations. Key questions guide our analysis: When is it appropriate to classify recent contexts as archaeological sites? Drawing on critical heritage studies, how can we avoid institutional rigidity, inflexibility, and the perpetuation of narrative disputes in their stewardship? How should conflicts be addressed when external narratives and priorities override local ones? By analysing the site’s history, we approach archaeology as praxis- a practice that cultivates a unique sensitivity to territory, encompassing its political, legal, ethical, material, and aesthetic dimensions. This case challenges us to rethink disciplinary boundaries and to critique the normative frameworks governing the heritagization of spaces tied to recent violence. |
|---|