 Good afternoon to everyone. I'm going to talk about the construction of ambient otherness from American archeological collections in European museums. I'm Barbara Molina. I'm from the University of Barcelona. So let's begin. Well, the representation of cultural otherness in European museums through the non-archeological European collections is important because in theory it promotes multiculturalism, intercultural dialogue, and social inclusion. Nevertheless, these issues become complicated when we consider the broader context of Europe as a diverse continent that has to deal with complex issues such as immigration, otherness, and the colonial legacy. To understand how and then otherness is constructed in such a context, this work focused on the exhibits of the archaeological artifacts of the Andean region through time in European museums. In order to understand with what aesthetics, themes, and narratives, Europe has been constructing the historical and contemporary image of this region and also how they link the past with the present. The subject we'll be discussing today is not a simple one as it is a complicated cultural heritage because of the historical relationships between Europe and the rest of the world during colonial times. For this reason, from the theoretical point of view, the study was based on the debate on representation in museological theory using works that have focused on the treatment of colonialism in the history of museums, especially dealing with issues such as ownership, authority, and representation of otherness, and also based on the UNESCO and ICON documents on authority, ethics, representation, and dissemination. From outside the field of museology, the study followed the work of the Latin American decolonialist and the postcolonialist from Africa and Asia. The research also focused on the formation of the Latin American archaeological collections in Europe and the construction of its image from different disciplines through time. Based on the number of archaeological artifacts from the Indian region, nine museums of seven European countries in the Schengen territory were selected to be studied during 2015. As you can see in the slide, there is the list of them. The field work consisted in visiting the permanent and temporary exhibits of these museums and their archives when possible. The photographs, catalogs, and narrative reports of past exhibits were crucial in order to contrast and set the difference between the past and new representation of the Indian region cultures. In addition, several interviews were conducted with curators and museum managers. And other interviews also were held to professionals and experts from the humanities, especially those related to the multiculturalism perspective, whose contribution comes from outside the museological discipline in order to compare the different approaches to the subject. The results, considering that most of the European museums that held collections from other cultures have their origins in colonial times, the current museological practice as a consequence has been driven to renewable movements that seeks to negotiate the colonial aspect within the current context of cultural representation. Nevertheless, none of these museologic paradigms or museum typologies developed in Europe over time has been able to completely remove the stereotypical image of the primitive otherness. This fact is reflected on the general themes regarding the Indian otherness that focus on war, death and human sacrifice, the Incas and their treasures, the epic adventures of the collectors and their explorations, and the biased colonial fact. These themes respond on one hand to the available of objects of certain cultures, which are arriving great quantity to Europe through the American excavations, the donations of American Creoles and European immigrants who were seeking for social prestige, and also because of the religions missions and the illicit traffic that seek mostly for pre-Hispanic objects of the Indian region. On the other hand, the themes respond to the stereotypic image of Latin America implanted in the European museological tradition by the colonial chroniclers and the Americanism of the first half of the last century that exalted both the glory and riches of the pre-Hispanic world, especially the Inca culture and the violence of the Indian cultures in general. This argument was later support by the anthropological narratives of the so-called primitive forms of life that focused on this and still focus on the idea of violent cultures. In some cases, artifacts such as the head trophies both in their archeological or ethnographic version are presented as the massing objects of the exhibits. And even if the treatment of narratives ranges from universalist, relativist, or formalist perspective, these practices with some nuances of each museological perspective still represent a stereotypic image of savagery and primitivism, which means that the theme of representation over time keep the same ideas only changing the way of representing, using different aesthetics that range from the original imperialist style of the 19th century cabinet, as we can see in this slide, passing through the museum of man style to more dramatic settings that played with light and darkness, especially formalist museums better known as primitive arts museums. Regarding the colonial fact, this is presented in different forms as a process of cultural mix that makes visible the syncretism and cultural contributions of all cultures. As a critique to foreign colonial processes and not the own colonial enterprise or as an epic exploration process, these narratives of the colonial fact support some of the arguments that used to justify the illicit appropriation of an important numbers of Andean archeological artifacts. Also, with important gaps and biases, some of these museums avoid to refer to the implications of the Latin American colonial practice in the case of Spain and the imperialist appropriation in the case of the rest of Europe with the repercussions that this event have had on the Andean cultures and realities. With regard to the connections between the past and the present through the archeological collections, we can conclude that the narratives in general don't link the past with the present. Even today, even when today, there are several pre-Hispanic practices that communities continue to carry on, like for example, the Interimis celebration. In this regard, an interesting example of the amazing connections we can do in the present through archeologic objects was the so-called exhibit with Bala, identity in conflict of the Gothenburg world called Cher Museum. The exhibit was planned for the very beginning with the local community of Bolivia in Gothenburg and the communities in Bolivia, being one of the few examples of a museum doing so in Europe. From this collaboration, they got to know that the so-called Nino-Korin collection from Tiawanaco were medical instruments, very similar to some instruments that are still used today by the indigenous doctors called Kayawayas. But they also learned how a symbolic object from the past, like the Gwipala that we can see, sorry, in this slide, is a symbolic object from the past that there is still a powerful symbol in the present. Another example, although very different, is the one of the rest-restituted Pucata culture, a Keco figure. When the Historic Museum of Verna gave back the Keco to the Bolivia government, one of the conditions was to put it in a museum to guarantee its integrity. But the reality was that once it was returned to Bolivia, it was taken out to the streets in order to bring good fortune to the villages, like we can see in this picture. So in those situations, what is the authority that matters in the end? The one of the museum curators or the one given by the people in the places from where these objects come from? We have to consider those questions because at the anthropologist Masao Yamaguchi said, objects can say something, but for others, they mean something. But also, if we talk about reinterpretation, there are several different forms of doing so. For example, through art, not primitive art, but exalting how these archaeological artifacts still influencing aesthetics in crafts or even contemporary art, or analyzing the meaning of these objects in the present from the perspective of the Andean communities as the Wipala exhibit did. So if we acknowledge the fact that there are options to make connections with these archaeological artifacts in the present then, why is a lack of voices from the Andean region in the ways of representing its cultures in the present in the European museums? Trying to answer these questions, the conclusion I propose is that the treatment of Andean archaeological heritage in European museums imply approaches to the collections and other conceptual forms that European ethnologic museums fear because on one hand, they would imply greater demands for restitution and on the other because it implies giving equal value to the knowledge of the others until now called ethno. Also because of the political background, because these museums helps to the construction of the national identity, which implies the construction of otherness as well. This means that the shameful part of colonialism is still a taboo, one that prevents this institution to address properly other issues such as acculturation, cultural appropriation, the legacy of scientific racism and mental colonialism, the indigenous claims for restitution, the restriction of the Andean audiences for getting involved with their cultural heritage because of their migratory status and other complicated issues. In this regard, Europe has to open to as many dimensions as possible so that the real meaning of an open museum can be taken for granted because until now, ethnological museums in Europe have been exalting over and over again the most brutal differences in order to strengthen the difference with Andean otherness. At this point of view, the objective of museums to make audiences more democratic becomes imperative because the statistics of visitors from many European museums show well-defined public profiles that do not include very often the other one, they want to represent the one that came that come from those cultures. And when they do, they are themselves part of the exhibits or programming of performance, not as visitors because perhaps it would mean that these audiences would make their own demands that would put some pressure over the museum authority and this could cause the museum to change. I have a minute. Which would be good? The change would be good because if they do not, they would be revisiting their own perspective which is the reason why these museums continue to be reinvented cyclically. At this point, some of you are probably thinking that there is in fact some collaboration with Latin American professionals and academics but you need to consider that they are only one voice if we consider the broader context of the Latin American communities here in Europe and back there. Because making a Latino or an Indian festival in a museum with food and other amenities are not a good way to include them in what is the real reason to be of a museum, is collections and how they are represented. So a difficult but not impossible solution would be to try to develop more collaborative projects between Europe and the Indian region in order to create interdisciplinary approaches and inviting cultural diverse stakeholders to work in identification and reinterpretation of these archeological artifacts. So that, okay. So that when the time of the inevitable and cyclical renovation of this museum come, they could represent narratives supported by a collaborative process. Thank you.