Versión de HTML Básico
63
G
ustavo
G. P
olitis
Reflections on Contemporary Ethnoarchaeology
PYRENAE,
núm.
46
vol.
1
(2015)
ISSN: 0079-8215 EISSN: 2339-9171 (p. 41-83)
is some kind of agreement for the ethnoarchaeologists to accompany, observe, and record
in a particular way some of their everyday activities, but by no means does this imply that
the observed people are fully aware of what the ethnoarchaeological research in question
really means (fig. 8). This is a latent ethical dilemma that is hard to solve.
The asymmetrical relation between the “other” that is being studied and the ethnoar-
chaeologist is another important issue that has been hardly discussed as well. Even in the
common cases of the emergence of leaders that embrace the values of modern society
at the expense of their own traditions, the result still creates an asymmetrical situation
(Etienne and Leacock, 1980; Leacock and Lee, 1982; Lee, 1982: 50-51; Stearman, 1989).
Owing to the logic of Western society, its representatives in many contact situations (reser-
vation guards, priests, ethnologists, linguists, adventurers, etc.) have traditionally been
patriarchal minded males who considered other males as their sole valid interlocutors.
Thus, the Westerners’ interaction with the indigenous group created or reinforced gender
differences that may have not existed before, or not in that degree (Hernando
et al
., 2011).
In fact, not only are many of the accounts supported by allegedly objective observations
biased, they also reflect behavior and relationships conditioned by the Western researcher’s
very presence (Flanagan, 1989: 252). I am sure that part of the observed actions and
Fig. 8.
The author among the Hotï of the High Parucito river (Venezuela), trying to explain (unsuccessfully) the purpose of the
ethnoarchaeological research with them 2003. Photo of the author.