Entre o Museu Nacional e o IPHAN : a problemática da classificação e da proteção do patrimônio arqueológico no Brasil (1937-1961)

Abstract

When analyzing the processes of listing archaeological sites and the listed archaeological collections during the early period of the National Historic and Artistic Heritage Institute (IPHAN), that is, from 1937 onwards, we reflect on IPHAN‘s treatment of national archaeological heritage and identify some issues related to preservation, valuation, and classification in the listings of sites and collections. Therefore, in investigating this period, the present research emphasizes the analysis of the listing processes for archaeological sites such as the Sambaqui do Pindaí (MA), Itacoatiaras do Ingá (PB), Sambaqui Itapitangui (SP), and Gruta Lapa da Cerca Grande (MG), as well as the archaeological collections of the Museu Paulista, Museu Júlio de Castilhos, Museu Paraense Emílio Goeldi, Museu da Escola Normal Justiniano de Serpa, Museu Coronel David Carneiro, Museu Paranaense, and the Balbino de Freitas archaeological collection (Museu Nacional). Among the main sources used for this research, I highlight the aforementioned listing processes, as well as the use of various national periodicals, selected to demonstrate the relationship between the Museu Nacional and IPHAN, or between these institutions and national archaeological heritage. In addition to an extensive bibliographic review, including works from the relevant time period. This thesis aims to analyze the institutionalized preservation of Brazilian archaeological heritage through the relationship between the IPHAN and the Museu Nacional, in a period preceding the creation of the main law for the preservation of Brazilian archaeological monuments, Law No. 3,924 of July 26, 1961. The thesis draws on Pierre Bourdieu‘s theoretical perspective of the scientific field, scientific capital, and scientific authority, as well as his notions about science and the field in general. These concepts are essential for understanding not only the relationship between the two institutions (Museu Nacional and IPHAN) but also the actions of agents who were defining boundaries between the scientific and heritage fields within each of these institutions. Considering that the scientific field revolving around archaeological heritage was constructing the classifying and supervisory power of IPHAN, an institution commonly associated with the technical expertise of architects, we recognize that there was a struggle for scientific authority among those shaping the field of archaeology at the Museu Nacional. This competitive struggle would determine whether Brazilian archaeological heritage would take center stage during the early years of IPHAN and in the future enactment of Law No. 3,924/61, which emerged in this context and was championed by representatives of the archaeological scientific field. In conclusion, without the scientific field‘s involvement in the heritage field concerning archaeology, Brazilian archaeological heritage would not have been firmly established within the national heritage institution during its initial period, nor would it have achieved the necessary legal protection beyond listing.