"Ciência de potes quebrados": nação e região na arqueologia brasileira do século XIX

Abstract

O artigo explora as distintas expectativas criadas em diferentes lugares e instituições com as descobertas arqueológicas que ocorreram em território brasileiro na segunda metade do século XIX. Por meio de estudo de caso sobre a trajetória profissional de Domingos Soares Ferreira Penna (1818-1888), fundador do Museu Paraense em 1866 e naturalista-viajante do Museu Nacional entre 1872 e 1884, são reconstituídas a origem dos debates científicos e a disputa pelo patrimônio arqueológico da Amazônia, então em grande evidência graças à descoberta dos sítios pré-históricos da ilha de Marajó (PA). A intenção é demonstrar como o discurso em torno de uma identidade nacional, largamente utilizado por Ladislau de Souza Mello Netto (1838-1894), diretor do Museu Nacional no período, eclipsava dissensões políticas e pouco repercutia nas províncias, que, na época, também construíam suas respectivas identidades regionais e narrativas históricas - e para as quais os vestígios arqueológicos eram, igualmente, fundamentais.

Reassessing museum archaeological collections: unprecedented osteological and ceramic data for the Sucuriju site at the Urubu River, Central Amazon, Brazil

“…The two-digit notation system developed by the Special Committee on Uniform Dental Recording of the Fédération Dentaire Internationale (FDI system) was used for tooth identification as suggested by the International Association for Dental Research (IADR) (Harris, 2005;Nelson;Ash, 2010).…”

Exposições internacionais: uma abordagem historiográfica a partir da América Latina

“…It was therefore necessary to take a closer look at the process of the internal production of the "national icons" displayed to the public in Latin American pavilions and displays, a process which was perhaps rarely consensual and depended more on the fortuitous balance of political forces. This is shown, for example, by Tenorio-Trillo (1996) in his analysis of the role of José Vasconcelos in organizing the Mexican pavilion in 1922, by Zusman (2011) in considering the part of Juan Atwell in the Argentinian display at the Pan-American Exhibition in Buffalo in 1901, and by Sanjad andCastro (2015, 2016) in their examination of the role of Jacques Huber in organizing the Brazilian pavilion at the Turin exhibition of 1911. In these three cases, personal ideas and perceptions of "fatherland" and "nation" were introduced into the public domain and incorporated into the political repertoire of each country by their respective governing classes, in the midst of conflicts and disagreements.…”

“…Ferreira (2010) and Sanjad (2010Sanjad ( , 2011 called attention to the archaeological debates in Brazil in the nineteenth century, particularly to the way in which the objects were interpreted pursuant to a project for the historical construction of the nation. This project exalted the noble Indian, both warrior and worker, but extinct, as a myth of origin for a country which rejected its colonial and Iberian past.…”

“…Both were concerned with the representation of their own region and came into conflict with the plans for the general organization of the event and the other Brazilian representatives, who not only curtailed the space available for the Amazonian provinces, but also tried to show an "exotic" and "savage" Amazonia, instead of a "progressive" and "civilized" region. The controversies that occurred in connection with the Palais de l'Amazonie were ultimately part of a wider debate in Paris over the past and future of Brazil, the demands of the regions, the role intended for the Indians in national society and the significance attached to the archaeological and ethnographic collections in the museums of the time (Ferreira, 2010;Sanjad, 2010Sanjad, , 2011Dantas, 2012).…”

“…This gave rise to conflicts of interpretation, a solution to which was attempted after the proclamation of the Republic in 1889, when local oligarchies gained more space and more power to promote their respective regions independently of central government, as happened in Chicago (1893) andSaint Louis (1904). In a dialogue with these authors, Sanjad andCastro (2015, 2016) show that, even at an exhibition planned by a better organized central government, such as Turin (1911), behind-the-scenes disputes between representatives of the Brazilian states were constant, with direct consequences for the way in which the country was presented at the show. At the heart of the matter was the fact that the nation project of the Brazilian elites of the First Republic (1889-1930) was inconsistent and incoherent -and this fragility showed itself in a very obvious manner whenever the "nation" needed to be considered and represented.…”