Alejandro López

Holbrook:

This is Jarita Holbrook. I’m at the Hilton Hawaiian Village. It’s August 11th, 2015, and I’m with Alejandro. So, we’re going to put that near you. Now, you say your name, and then you spell your last name.

López:

Okay. My first name is Alejandro, and my last name—López. 

Holbrook:

Start with your background. Start with your grandparents. Tell me about your grandparents.

López:

My grandparents. Well. My grandparent from the side of my mother was an aeronautical technician. He works in the beginnings of the military air force in Argentina. He is non-military. He is civilian part of the army, and is a specialist in aircraft. My grandmother, for the side of my mother, was a teacher of special kids. Kids with some mental problems of all kinds, and especially, she taught ceramics. And for the side of my father, my grandfather was a merchant. He had a store of all kinds of things. And my grandmother for this side also did the same work. They are from the inner part of Argentina, from the land of La Pampa, the lands of gauchos. For this branch of the family, I have some aboriginal parents. I don’t know exactly who, but probably my great-great-grandmother, I think. 

Holbrook:

So, that means that on your mother’s side, there is no aboriginal—

López:

Not that I know. My mother’s side are especially Italians, and Spaniards—immigrants. Especially from Catalonia. But, in Argentina, you don’t know, exactly. Maybe we have, but I don’t know. My father’s side, we have a parent from Galicia, in Spain, and Creole population from Argentina, and possibly aboriginal population from this part of the country.

Holbrook:

Okay. So, take me to your parents. Now, your grandparents were—you know, your grandfather on your mother’s side was a professional, so he had professional training. Did all of them, therefore, finish high school? Their secondary school?

López:

Yes.

Holbrook:

So, they were all educated? All four of them?

López:

For my father’s side, my grandfather, I think no. My grandmother, I think yes. But, for my mother’s side, yes. Also, the two of them have a high school education, and also the two of them have a superior education—professional training. 

Holbrook:

Okay. Come down to your parents.

López:

Okay, my parents. My father didn’t finish high school, because his dream was to work in the group of people that works in the national parks. But at that time, my grandmother thinks that this is not a good idea, and my father, at this moment, decides to work in commercial activities. But, in parallel, he developed a very strong concern with nature, and with nature associations, of conservation of nature, and to make many works on paleontological studies, and archaeological studies in associations. He’s an amateur learner in these issues. And, also, at the present, he rules a very big association about conservation of animal life, and especially, the good health of rivers. My mother, she is specialized in education. She has a degree in special education, and she has a lot of years of experience in teaching people in all the levels of the education system. Especially, she works on the didactics of special learning—of kids with problems—mental disorders. 

Holbrook:

So, she followed behind her mother.

López:

In one sense, yes, but she teaches the teachers that work in that specialty, and she teaches also the future teachers in kindergarten, and the school of little kids, about how to manage the diversity in the school. 

Holbrook:

Did she have a four-year degree, or did she go past four years? So, she did high school, then she had a university degree.

López:

Yes, a degree of five-year study. In Argentina it’s called Licenciatura. Yes. And she works today. She is working today. 

Holbrook:

And your father?

López:

My father just retired from the commercial activities in these years, but also he makes a big lot of activities in these associations about nature, and about—

Holbrook:

So, he still remains very active.

López:

Yes. 

Holbrook:

Okay, so that comes down to you.

López:

Oh. Well. I studied first in—

Holbrook:

You know, I’ve actually been really bad about getting year of birth.

López:

My birth.

Holbrook:

Yeah. What year were you born?

López:

I was born in 1971 in Moreno, in Buenos Aires, in the great region around the capital city.

Holbrook:

So, it’s the suburbs, or... 

López:

Eh, yes. Yes. But it’s a very populated region. It’s around 40% of the population of Argentina lives in this region. 

Holbrook:

Wow. That’s very populated.

López:

Yes. And I’m the first child of my parents, and I’m the first grandchild of my grandparents. I’m the first of the family.

Holbrook:

So, you’re spoiled rotten. They really gave you everything you wanted, huh?

López:

I suppose. But, also from the very beginning, I was very interested in science, or in knowledge in general. I’m very interested in a lot of things, and I loved, as a kid, the superhero stories, and I read too much.

Holbrook:

Comics?

López:

Yes, comics. And books about animals, especially prehistoric animals—dinosaurs, and these kinds of things. I would also go with my father to the nature, and to explore. And also, in my neighborhood, we have a very great wasteland place with a little forest, and we have a little band of boys that live in this forest and make civilizations inside. 

Holbrook:

With play.

López:

Yes. I would spend a lot of time doing these things. The school—the elementary school—I think I didn’t like very much, because I think I was bored at school. The other kids have another kind of interest, and I don’t have problem with this, but the other kids, yes, have problems with my interest, and this is not good. The teachers, I think, they don’t have the abilities to take my curiosity and give me things to think about. And for this reason, I think, I didn’t have a very fun time in elementary school. I had fun time when the school finished, and I’d go to my house, and go to the forest. This is very good. 

Holbrook:

What about the rest of your schooling?

López:

The second part of elementary school was better. I had two very good teachers. One of language, and one of mathematics, and the one of mathematics also lives for some time in Mexico, and gave to me a very interesting book—a big one—about Maya civilization. The Robert J. Sharer Book—it’s a classic. And he gave to me because in the middle of elementary school I had three surgeries—very important. First, peritonitis—when your appendix explodes and the—

Holbrook:

Toxins everywhere. That’s very painful.

López:

Yes. For the position of my appendix, for two or three weeks, the doctors don’t think -

Holbrook:

Don’t think you’re going to live.

López:

Yes. And after this I had two more surgeries that are complications of the first one. There were three years of—

Holbrook:

Not in school.

López:

No, I go to school, yes. I had the surgery, I passed some time in bed, and then go to school, and all the people think that that’s all, and the next year, another surgery. But, the final part of elementary school with these teachers was much better. And then, I go to a secondary school specialized in physics and mathematics.

Holbrook:

Why did you go there, and how did you get to go there?

López:

At that time, in Argentina, to go to high school, or secondary school, you need to take an examination, and the results of this examination decides if you can go to the school you wish or not. This school, at that time, was a very famous school in my town. I had some people of my family that went to this school, and by this time I was interested in physics and mathematics, and at that time, one of my possibilities for the future was astronomy, and I think, okay, this is a good school for me. 

Holbrook:

So, who were your other family members that went there? Because, you didn’t mention your mom and dad going there, so it must have been their brothers and sisters.

López:

I have one brother, four years younger than me, and I have a lot of—what’s the word—

Holbrook:

Cousins.

López:

Cousins. Because my father and my mother each have one brother and one sister, and they married together. My mother with my father, and the sister of my mother with the brother of my father.

Holbrook:

You’re kidding.

López:

Yeah.

Holbrook:

So, there’s three marriages between the two families.

López:

Two marriages.

Holbrook:

So, it was a brother and a sister, and a brother and a sister.

López:

We lived in next door houses, and communicated by the inner side, and my cousins are like my brothers.

Holbrook:

But you said you were the first one.

López:

Yeah, of all of them. And my cousins are five. We are only two, but they are five, so we are seven.

Holbrook:

You have one brother, right?

López:

Yes. In total, we are seven.

Holbrook:

Did they go to the school before you? Because you were sick you got held behind?

López:

What?

Holbrook:

Did your cousins go to the science school before you?

López:

No, after.

Holbrook:

And your brother?

López:

Yes. My brother went after me, also. I was the first to go to that school. But not the first of my extended family, because I have older members of the family. The cousins of my mother and father that go to this school. In my generation, yes, I was the first.

Holbrook:

Right. But in the generation above you, there were others.

López:

Yes. This portion of my family studied engineering, or other scientific or engineering careers. Engineering more than science, especially computer science. I think I was the first in a scientific career. The beginning of this school was better in the sense of knowledge, and no better in the sense of the relations with the other kids, because it’s the same thing, until the middle of the high school. In the middle, I formed a group of older kids that have similar interests, and we did—

Holbrook:

Everything together.

López:

Yeah.

Holbrook:

So, you were bad at making friends, because all your friends were at home, after school.

López:

In the school, yes. At home, it’s perfect. At school, it’s different. The rules of the kids in the school are different.

Holbrook:

Were you from different neighborhoods?

López:

No, same kinds of kids, but I think the institution reinforced certain types of behavior.

Holbrook:

And it was different from what you’re used to. So, were they just not interesting? I mean, how would you describe the difference in behavior? They were steady all the time and you wanted to play? They weren’t friendly? They didn’t talk? 

López:

I think the idea in the school is if you’re not the same as the most popular kids, you are bad. And in the neighborhood, it’s not like this. In the neighborhood, different kids have different interests and abilities, and it’s okay. But in school, it’s a different thing. And the sports at that time have a great importance, and at that time I didn’t like very much the sports of the school. I liked very much the athleticism that at my school we didn’t have, and all the abilities like climb trees or something like that, that in school nothing mattered.

Holbrook:

You didn’t have that.

López:

Yes. And I had a very good teacher of physics in the middle of high school. Very strict one, but very good one. We used, at that time, books of the university, of the first course of the university, and we had a very strong education in physics and mathematics. Yes. I think at that time, I thought about the future in terms of maybe genetics, maybe astronomy, maybe biology, maybe paleontology, history, archaeology...

Holbrook:

All kinds of things.

López:

Yes, yes, yes.

Holbrook:

Did you know where you were going to go for university?

López:

In the last two years I started to think more seriously about which career I’d like to go. I thought that I need to make science of any kind—it’s very clear for me that I like science.

Holbrook:

You were going to be a scientist.

López:

Yes. I didn’t worry at that time about the money. I think, okay, much money or not, it’s okay. I liked to do science—this is the important thing.

Holbrook:

So, this is very much middle class.

López:

I think, in part, yes. And I think in part, it is because my father never taught me about—this career is not good for money—never. Never. Always, they give me support about any of my curiosities. And I didn’t think about these issues, or I think if I don’t have much money, it’s okay.

In the last year, I visited many universities, and I went to the university to study astronomy in Buenos Aires. It’s the University of La Plata. It’s a city—is the capital of the province of Buenos Aires, but not the capital of the country, and it’s almost 70 km from my town. I went to this university, and I liked very much the city, and the people, and the place, and I decided I’d study astronomy. I thought I’d tried to study the most comprehensive astronomy of all. I thought I’d like to study cosmology. In fact, I did this. I inscribed me in this career, and this implies to move myself to this city, because it’s too far from my town. And I lived there all the years of my studies there, and it was an interesting time of my life. The career of astronomy, I think, in some way, was the kind of thing I expected, and in some ways not, because of the kind of psychological mindset that they request. At the middle of the career, I started to think that the career requests a focused mind, and I know very well that my mind is a network mind. I have forced myself to focus, and this consumes a lot of energy, and a very, very great effort, and very great displeasure, because I have many interests, especially a very strong interest in mythologies, and comparative relations, and anthropology, and this focused effort was very hard work to me at this time. But, I had a very strong mind—determined—and I thought I—

Holbrook:

You want to finish. You’re going to do it. That’s determination.

López:

Yes, I need to finish, and see if the work is like the study, because maybe the work is not the same, and the study and the work are different. So, I need to finish this.

Holbrook:

So, this was just your bachelor’s degree. Your four-year degree.

López:

Five years. In fact, in cosmology specialty in La Plata University—six years, officially, but the average length of the career is more.

Holbrook:

And that’s just to get your bachelor’s degree?

López:

Yes. We have a very, very hard and long Bachelor’s degree. In fact, in my times, in astronomy, yes, the people do a doctorate—a PhD, but in other careers, don’t. 

Holbrook:

Because it’s so long.

López:

Yes. This long degree is enough.

Holbrook:

And how did you pay for—

López:

In Argentina, the university education is free. Obviously, it’s not free for the food, and the books, but for the books we have resources to use the books of another student, and a great library of this kind, but my family makes and afforded to allow me to live in the city, and stay there. 

Holbrook:

So, they gave you money.

López:

Yes. At the middle of the career, I started to work at the university to teach practices of some courses to the students of the first years. This contributed to my economy. And, at the same time, I read about these other interests of mine, but I needed to focus on astronomy’s issues. In cosmology, I needed to go to many physics courses. I think almost all courses of the career of physics, except some of the microscopic physics that we don’t have, but, yes, I took all the courses of physics. I made my Licenciatura thesis—we had thesis—a two year thesis in my case, in theoretical cosmology, and formation of galaxies in some models of universe with a variable universal constant of gravity. 

Holbrook:

So, when you say models, are we talking computer models?

López:

No. Analytic ones.

Holbrook:

Pencil and paper.

López:

Yeah. And a lot of algebra. Pages and pages of algebra. I love the part of the ideas—the general ideas, and the design of the strategies, but the part of the algebra—I love a little, because I love this kind of using of the logics, but 200-hundred pages is enough. It’s so much algebra.

Holbrook:

But it must have been more than algebra. It must have been calculus.

López:

Yes and no, because more of the things are matrix operations and equations, and not exactly a function analysis. When I started with the thesis, I started to think that this is not the kind of work that I decide for my future. But, at this time, I also started thinking about marriage, and this is a very complex problem, because the economic things and the scientific things collapse, and I took two or three years to think about in what manner defined my professional future and survive economically, and get married, and take all this training and use this for something, and not start from the beginning.

Holbrook:

Not throw it away.

López:

And I finished my thesis, and I said, it’s okay, I have my degree. And at that time I tried on my thinking to write letters to many scientists of many disciplines to try to understand what’s the best way for me, and I thought that I needed to make my own way, because none of the existing ways fit with this—

Holbrook:

With what you want to do.

López:

Yeah. And at one moment at this time, I discovered cultural astronomy.

Holbrook:

You did?

López:

Yeah.

Holbrook:

Then there’s no going back.

López:

Yeah. A guy in Argentina, an anthropologist, a very known one in academia at that time, a good one, but a polemic one.

Holbrook:

What do you mean, polemic?

López:

Because I think he did not understand—or did not want to adapt to—academic politics and fought very hard with everyone to boost his ideas. Now he is in Bolivia doing field work and living there, but he does not have his doctorate, because he did not get a jury to evaluate his doctorate.

Holbrook:

So, he wrote his PhD and it sits because nobody knew what to do with it.

López:

Yes. And he can’t find a way to explain to others, or to link his work with the others, and make it an intermediate way. For this reason, they have finished the work for the PhD, but they don’t defend it.

Holbrook:

Tragic.

López:

Yes. But, the good part for me is that I met him and he told me about aboriginal population astronomies. He talked to me about the Aymara people he works with. At that time, I was interested in Guaraní people, aboriginal of the northeast part of Argentina, and south of Brazil. And he sent me to go to see a very famous anthropologist in Paraguay, and I went to see him.

Holbrook:

So, who is they? Who sent you? Who told you to go and visit that famous—

López:

The Argentinian anthropologist is Pedro Parodi.

Holbrook:

And so, when did you start talking to him?

López:

I started talking to him sometime around 1997.

Holbrook:

So, this is after you graduated?

López:

No, it’s before. And he gave me books, and articles, and papers, and I started to read and talk with other students of my classes, and we thought about cultural astronomy. Some of my colleagues, for example, Sixto Giménez Benítez from La Plata, I made many works with him.

Holbrook:

This is another anthropologist?

López:

No, he is an astronomer. At that time, a student, too. But he was very interested in cultural astronomy, especially in classical astronomy. Astronomy of the Romans and Greeks, but also aboriginal astronomy. With him, another student—Luis Mammana—we started to think about this field of studies.

We decided that we needed to meet people in other countries that do this work, and to know what’s the complete field of studies. We heard about the 1999 Oxford conference in the Canary Islands and we thought, “we need to go and see”. But we don’t have money.

For this reason, we turned to apply to a grant, but we don’t have any work. We started to think about work. This guy, Mammana, started to notice some references about aboriginal population and meteorites in the Chaco region, because he works with meteorites in general, and we decided to study the literature about these meteorites, and the supposed Indian knowledge about this.

Many of these first informations were in the Museum of La Plata, in front of our observatory. Very lucky. We went to this museum, and started to read the chronicles, and talk with archaeologists of La Plata, who work in Chaco. They recommended we go to Chaco and talk to the people. We said, yes okay. We didn’t have any experience in ethnographic work. I read at that time many books of anthropology, but this is not the same. But we took a bus and went to Chaco.

Holbrook:

It was three of you?

López:

Yes. 18 hours of travel, and met people. It was a very crazy travel, because we didn’t know anybody there—

Holbrook:

But they all speak Spanish.

López:

Yes, but we didn’t have any experience with aboriginal people and we didn’t have any idea where to start. But we went to the local museum of a little town and we talked with the director of the museum, and they told us that a man that works in maintenance in the museum lived for many years with the aboriginal people. We talked with him, and he led us to the aboriginal communities, and we started our study. We made a little paper and we applied to the grant for Canary Island, and we went to Canary Island.

Holbrook:

The three of you?

López:

Yes. We split the grant in three, and we put more money, and we traveled the three. There we know the people, and know the kind of science that they work. My colleagues and I decided, yes, this is a good thing, and returned to Argentina, and at that time I started to think, well, now, “in which manner can I reach this kind of research”? The people said to me the best way was a PhD in classical astronomy and after that you can work in whatever you want.

Holbrook:

So, it’s job security. But you didn’t want to do classical astronomy. My guess is it was Juan Antonio Belmonte who told you this.

López:

Yes, he was one of these, but not the only one. In Argentina, many of my teachers said the same. But the first try was to present a PhD project to the astronomy faculty in La Plata about ethnoastronomy. My advisor for the cosmology thesis advised me to this with an anthropologist, but don’t function. The faculty approved the project in principal, but they don’t give me a grant. Without a grant, I can’t do it.

Holbrook:

So, that was when you appealed to the astronomy department. So, now you moved to anthropology. 

López:

Another step.

Holbrook:

So, not yet. I jumped the gun.

López:

Another step, because many of my colleagues insist that I need to make my PhD in astronomy, and then do whatever. And, at that moment, I got married, and had my first kid, and okay, it’s a problem.

For this reason, I applied to a PhD grant for numerical cosmology. Computational simulations of universe, and I had one year of numerical cosmology in another institute in Buenos Aires, and I hated this work from the beginning to the end. I accomplished my task, I did my work, I finished my final inform of the year.

They approved me, but at the same time I started my master’s degree in the University of Cordoba, in the middle of Argentina. A master’s degree that you can make part presently, and part at distance, by internet, and it’s open to professionals of many careers. And I started to study some months later for logistic problems, but I persisted, and every minute I loved this, and I hated the computer galaxy simulations. At the end of the year, I made a decision that was a strong one, but not difficult, because this year convinced me that this is the way, and I abandoned this attempt of making a classical PhD, and I decided to take the risk of working—teaching classes to high school students, in high school. And at the same time, continued my master’s degree in anthropology, and making field work, and publishing. 

Holbrook:

And children. 

López:

And children. Yes. 

Holbrook:

How many kids did you have? Just one?

López:

Two.

Holbrook:

You had two at that point.

López:

Hard work.

Holbrook:

What did your wife do?

López:

My wife, at the beginning, supported me. She is an architect, and at the beginning, she had not much money. But we have a house because at that time in Argentina existed a credit system. You can use—I don’t know the term in English—credits—to buy your house. A long time credit—30 years. And we could buy our house, a little one, but a house. And we had an economic situation not bad for Argentina. But at the time, she made some other plans for her life, because she wants another kind of life. This is not a problem with anthropology, or astronomy, but she wants to live an expensive life, incompatible with science in general. And, for this reason, I’m divorced now, from 2008.

Holbrook:

That’s a long time you’ve been divorced. How long were you married then?

López:

Eight years. But, we have also a long time—

Holbrook:

Before you got married?

López:

Yes. 

Holbrook:

Did you have boys? Girls?

López:

A girl, the first one, and a boy, the second one.

Holbrook:

Hard on the kids.

López:

Luckily, with the kids, the situation is good, and I have a lot of time with my kids. And my kids stay with me many days in the week. 

Holbrook:

So, basically, it was financial reasons that she left?

López:

Yes, but I think it’s—

Holbrook:

Not only that, but you’re studying all the time. You’re gone all the time.

López:

Yes. It’s a financial issue, but linked with some kind of vision of life, the kind of life you want, and your values and your ideas about what’s important. 

Holbrook:

Right, you’re incompatible.

López:

Yes, for her. I don’t think it was, at that moment, so incompatible, but for her, yes. After going through the process, I effectively realized that we had decided to take incompatible paths. And, okay.

But, before this, I finished my master’s degree, and by this time, before this time also, I was in contact with a group of anthropologists at the University of Buenos Aires that work in the Chaco and works with problems of anthropology of religion in a broad sense—symbolic anthropologists.

And I start to work with this team, and I started to work not only in ethno-astronomical issues, but also in a broad spectrum of issues about symbolic anthropology, connected with political and social anthropology in Chaco. And this reinforced my studies in ethnoastronomy and made it more powerful. And at that time, I worked, not only about aboriginal people, but also Creole population, and also Christian missions in this area. And when I finished my master’s degree, I applied to a grant from the organization for financial support of the scientific research in Argentina, in anthropology. I learned the lesson. And, I was lucky, and this worked.

Holbrook:

They supported it. Okay, so what I notice is several parts of your story are gendered. So, you were three guys, who were told to go on a bus for 18 hours. Would they have done that to you if you were a woman?

López:

At that time, no. But we have many women on our team of ethnoastronomy.

Holbrook:

Now you do.

López:

No, in the middle. But all of these women are astronomers. None of them persisted in ethnoastronomy. They are interested, but they have also interests in classical astronomy—different branches. And they join us to the field many times, but different ones each time, because they like very much the experience, but the main interest is in another branch of —

Holbrook:

Yeah, astrophysics, yeah. So, that whole possibility of doing a trip on your own, only with other students—would women have been able to do that? Was it safe for them to do that?

López:

Yes, it’s possible. In fact, my actual partner…

Holbrook:

Your new girlfriend—I think I’ve met this one.

López:

Yes, Agustina. She is an anthropologist, we have been together for almost seven years now, and she does field work in Chaco, in the same region. She lives for two months alone in the field without problem. Also, Cecilia Gomez, she meets ethnoastronomy a little bit later in my history, but she is anthropology also, and she makes field work in another part of Argentina, in a very isolated place, alone. 

Holbrook:

No problems.

López:

No, it’s possible. Obviously, the females in the field have other troubles, but also, she has access to another universe of the female part of the communities that are very important and very closed for the men.

Holbrook:

But even with your opportunities that you were encouraged to do all these, I wonder, was that because you were male? You got access to all these people who are willing to talk to you with all these anthropologists.

López:

I don’t know. For the history of other female anthropologists that I know, that work in Chaco, in other kind of researches, but not very different researches, all these women don’t have trouble to make field work in aboriginal communities, and to make contact with different anthropologists, and so on. I think this is not a problem, I think. About astronomers that made anthropological work—in principal, I think it’s possible that women astronomers are more attracted to this kind of work. For example, in the career of anthropology in Argentina, there are many more females than males.

Holbrook:

Yes, in anthropology, yes.

López:

Yes. In astronomy, in Argentina, a very big proportion, not the major part, but a very important amount are female astronomers, and students of astronomy. And, I think, at first, that many of these could be interested in cultural astronomy, but in fact, at the present, this is not exactly the case. We have many programs with students of astronomy, of the university, that give them the opportunity to participate in field works, and to interact with communities. And the percentage of male and female are mainly the same. 50/50. But professionally dedicated to ethnoastronomy, I think, now we are close to—in some moment we are 50/50, Cecilia and I, but now we have Armando—he is my student—and we have more males than females, but we have very little numbers, as it is.

Holbrook:

So, I interrupted. So, you started—you went ahead and got your PhD with funding. Which university did you go to?

López:

No, it’s not a university. It’s a national council that give grants for old universities of Argentina. It’s the major provider of grants in Argentina. Not the universities. We have some grants of universities, but very few.

Holbrook:

But you had to go to one university. What school did you go to, to get your PhD?

López:

University of Buenos Aires.

Holbrook:

Okay. That’s where you went for your masters?

López:

No, my master’s is in Cordoba, in the center of the country.

Holbrook:

So, each one of your degrees is a different university.

López:

Three different universities. La Plata, Cordoba, and Buenos Aires. And the PhD—

Holbrook:

So, what was the ranking, you know, of the anthropology department? Is it the best anthropology department in the country, or—

López:

Yes, it is the University of Buenos Aires.

Holbrook:

Okay. And so, did they take a risk by bringing you?

López:

I don’t know. I think with my advisor, we construct a very suitable project, because this combined ethnoastronomy with anthropology of religion, social anthropology, and political anthropology.

Holbrook:

Things that you were interested in.

López:

Yes. I think the project was very well saw by the authorities of the department of anthropology and by the commissions. They think it’s some strange, but interesting—exotic. But by the anthropologists, exotic is not bad. But it’s exotic, and connected with social problems—social theoretical problems, and social theory. They think, okay, this is a good thing. This can work, and it may generate knowledge useful for other researchers. And, I think for this reason it functioned. And my advisor was a very, very good anthropologist of Chaco region, and symbolic anthropologist. He is Pablo Wright.

Holbrook:

Oh, so it’s like the English “Wright”.

López:

Yes, because his family is of English origin. He is a very good anthropologist, and now is the director of the ethnologist section of the university. He has his PhD in the United States, and he is a very creative man. Also, the group they formed is very creative, and we have very intense interchanges of ideas. I have the grant for the last two years of my PhD because I started to make my courses of PhD before the grant. The grant covers two years and when I finished my PhD—when I wrote my thesis—my ex-wife said to me she wants the divorce, at that time. 

Holbrook:

Were you guys living together at that time? You and your wife.

López:

Now? 

Holbrook:

At that time.

López:

At the time of the thesis? Yes.

Holbrook:

Okay. So, were you surprised?

López:

Yes. Yes.

Holbrook:

That’s hard.

López:

Yes, in the worst moment, because in the last four years I was working in the planetarium of Buenos Aires and we developed there a program of cultural astronomy, and I direct this, but the government changed, and they canceled the program, because the authorities of the planetarium changed. And they made me work three months, and after, said to me, we don’t continue the project. And I have worked three months for free.

Holbrook:

They didn’t pay you.

López:

Yes. And they don’t continue the project, and I have not work, and I have three months without payment, and—

Holbrook:

And then the wife wants a divorce.

López:

Yes. I go back to the schools to teach, and to survive and write a thesis, because I applied at that time for the next step—

Holbrook:

Post-doc.

López:

No, it’s not post-doc. For my age, I need to apply to a permanent position. It’s more hard, but because of my age, because of my professional way, I need to apply directly to this. And the results were published in November, I think, and my ex-wife said me to divorce in August, and I need to finish the thesis by April of the next year, because if I don’t do that, they take me off the position. And, in November, I know I give the position, and in April I defend my thesis, and have my PhD degree. 

Holbrook:

So, you went from your PhD straight into a faculty, permanent position.

López:

Yes.

Holbrook:

Where was the permanent position?

López:

I have a permanent position in the council of research that is independent of the faculty, and in the faculty, I have a position of auxiliary teacher of symbolic anthropology, and in another university, I have a position of teaching political anthropology. I did physics and history of mathematics in a superior school for teachers, and—

Holbrook:

So, this was your position. Your position was to do all those things?

López:

Yeah. My teaching position. And my research position is Assistant Research of this council. This research position, it’s mainly independent of the teaching positions. You make informs each year, and these are evaluated, and obviously your teaching activities are considered, but it’s not the same.

Holbrook:

They don’t care about teaching. Nobody cares about teaching.

López:

Yes, and it’s very difficult in the evaluations if you do research in an inter-disciplinary field.

Holbrook:

Oh yes, because they don’t know how to evaluate—

López:

Yes, and also, it’s a new field because you publish most on books, and they want articles on papers, on journals. And you say, well, in this field I need to publish in books, because all the other researchers read these books, and I need to help to build the field—especially in Argentina and South America—and make my position in this field. If I’m not published in these books, I don’t appear. It’s a difficult task, but I am need to doing that.

Holbrook:

So, you have a lot of teaching.

López:

Yeah. Yeah.

Holbrook:

Wow. And you didn’t think this was odd that you have to go these two, these two, these two, in all these different universities?

López:

Yes, but if I don’t work—I like teaching—but if I don’t do this work, the money is too little to the life, and I have two kids.

Holbrook:

Right. Yes. You have to put them through college sometime soon.

López:

Yes. For this reason, I have so many teaching positions. Also, I like very much to teach, and it’s important, because if you don’t teach at the university, you don’t talk with the students. The students don’t know about your research, and you don’t have students for PhD candidates. This is important.

Holbrook:

So, that’s why you teach. 

López:

Yeah.

Holbrook:

Yes. Okay, so that brings you up to today. So, more about life/work balance. Because we’re actually asking everybody about life/work balance. So, two kids, ex-wife, new partner, and the new partner is an anthropologist.

López:

Yes.

Holbrook:

And she’s permanent?

López:

No, she is a PhD student.

Holbrook:

Still? That’s too long, now.

López:

Yes, for four years. She is in the final track of the PhD studies, and she works on evangelical movements in aboriginal Chaco populations. And we do many field work together. This is very, very, very important, because if you go to the field like a couple, the people think you are not so crazy. Okay, you are a couple, you are normal people.

Holbrook:

Yes. Otherwise, when you’re by yourself they’re like, why are you alone?

López:

Yes. You are crazy, and your wife? Where is your wife?

Holbrook:

Yes. and they don’t believe you have a wife, and if you have a wife, why are you leaving your wife? Yes. And then for a woman it’s like, why are you, a beautiful woman, and you’re by yourself in the middle—why is your husband letting you—yes. I know, I’ve had it all.

López:

Yes. And we are doing work together, and this is a very good manner of doing field work. The people said to us, they want a kid for us soon. 

Holbrook:

Yes. They’re all doing rituals.

López:

Yes. But we are more normal people for the communities—and we have some projects on aboriginal Christianism. In particular, we are doing together a project in the Mennonite missions in the Chaco region. We do also work in the archives of Mennonites, doing the history of this mission—of the relations with the aboriginal communities. 

Holbrook:

Did they marry in? No...

López:

In general, they marry with other US Mennonites or creole population.

Holbrook:

The Mennonites really stuck to themselves everywhere. Anyway...

López:

And we try to make the field in South America with the SIAC.

Holbrook:

So, who started that, the SIAC?

López:

Yes, the SIAC start—the real beginning was in 2003, yes, in Santiago de Chile, with a very big congress of Americanists in Chile, and there was a symposium about ethnoastronomy, and in the symposium, all the present researchers talk about the necessity of having a professional organization in Latin America, and we construct the SIAC like that organization.

But during, I think, ten years, does not work very well. With my colleague, Sixto Giménez Benítez, we make the legal basis of the organization, but the people don’t involve in a complete manner. But by 2011, impulse by an advice of Juan Antonio Belmonte, we applied to a financial support—like a grant—from CYTED, that is an organization of Scientific Cooperation of Ibero-American countries, to support the scientific development. In particular, for a grant to construct networks for research centers, and we construct a network to support the SIAC, and this gave us some money to organize meetings, to get some people to meet each other. The people meet each other and get enthusiastic, and I think this works very well. This is the last year of this grant.

Holbrook:

Right, you have that money.

López:

Yes, but I think the results are very strong, and we have—there was a four-year grant, and I think the result are stronger links between the centers. And I think the SIAC—it’s now stronger—we have our legal basis, and we have our social payments, and the people are more involved. We have many schools for PhD students, about methodology, and to discuss theoretical issues, and the people are happy with the results. We have our meeting this year in Rio de Janeiro, in Brazil, in October, and I think it’s a very different situation than five or ten years ago. 

Holbrook:

So, that’s pretty impressive. One of the things that we’ve debated in the United States is what does it mean to have a program that grants degrees in cultural astronomy, ethno- astronomy, archeo-astronomy—do you necessarily want to do that? And so, in South America, have you guys thought about that? Do you want a school or a program that is to produce degrees in cultural astronomy or ethnoastronomy?

López:

I think the situation is very different in each country, because—

Holbrook:

Well, you know, in America, I said no. We don’t want it.

López:

Okay. I think in South America, in most of the countries, the best way today, in today’s academic field is to use the PhD programs of archaeology and anthropology. 

Holbrook:

Yeah, I think so too.

López:

I think this is the best way to prepare students, and to connect our works with the works of the other social scientists, and to gain respect. I think, maybe, in the future, it is possible to have independent Ph.Ds. But, at the moment, I think this is not the best way. One exception is Honduras. They have now a degree in cultural astronomy, from the last year. And, in Mexico, they have now a master’s program. These are new programs. I think…I don't know if it will develop in the future.

But for the rest of South America, I think now the best way is anthropology and archaeology. The anthropologists and the archaeologists are very receptive to the astronomers. Almost, in South America, it is possible, if you are an astronomer, to make a PhD, previously a masters, later a PhD, in anthropology and archaeology. I think this is the best way for now. But I think the more quantity of people interested in these issues came from anthropology and archaeology, and not from astronomy. I think it’s a good thing for the field.

Holbrook:

I think so, too. But, I think that, you know, the thing is, you started interacting with the field in North America in 2004, 2005, right? But what happens is, you know, anthropologists will do one book that has something to do with cultural astronomy, but cultural astronomy does not change in North America. It’s dominated by archaeologists—not archaeologists. It’s dominated by archaeo-astronomers. And they’re not serious.

And so, what happens is, you invite all these other people in—anthropologists, archaeologists, etc.—and they engage for maybe one book, or one paper, and then they’re like, you know, we’re done, because these guys don’t change. They’re astronomers who are doing anthropology. You tell them they’re doing anthropology wrong, or they’re doing archaeoastronomy wrong, and they don’t listen. And so they come, they engage, and they leave. This is the cycle in North America. Maybe SIAC is different, and Europe, maybe your SIAC is different, but in North America there’s like—

López:

In SIAC, I think we have different populations, but I think we have an important number of anthropologists involved. And, young astronomers, for example, in Brazil. Young astronomers are very different than old astronomers, because these young astronomers are very interested in learning anthropology and social theory.

Holbrook:

Right, whereas the old ones are not. 

López:

Yes. This is a crucial point. I think, if we don’t do social science we are in troubles, because ethno-astronomy, archaeoastronomy are social sciences. The object is social behavior, are social products, the interest are in systems of knowledge about the sky, these are social issues. If you don’t study social theories, you can’t do it. And nobody matters if you do some research without these foundations, because this research won’t make a difference for other researchers. But all the people in our field talk about the relations between astronomy and politics. Okay. Take this seriously, and try to understand the politics of astronomy. It is very interesting.

Holbrook:

Yes. But they do it in a very baby—very surface—just this deep—when there’s that much. And I think that’s what frustrates other scholars—why they don’t stay, why they don’t engage. 

López:

Yes, I think in South America, we have the opportunity for our youngest in the field to make some other engagement with the anthropologists and the archaeologists. In Argentina, I think in the last four years, these things are very good, because we have many archaeologists interested in archaeoastronomy issues, and we advise many works of archaeologists that talk to us to, “hey, I have some astronomical issues on this side. Can you tell me some things?”

Holbrook:

Right, right, so they call you up.

López:

Yes.

Holbrook:

So, you’re networked in with the archaeologists, which is really different.

López:

Yes. And in anthropology, with ethnoastronomy, I think, we have now some respect of our colleagues, and, for example, we published the news about the “Handbook of Archaeoastronomy and Ethnoastronomy” in the page of our Facebook of the ethnology section, and the people are so happy about this book.

Holbrook:

Well, good, they make very nice comments.

López:

Yes. The people are so proud about we make this. It’s very important. I think, in South America, maybe it’s possible to begin with not scars of all the old mistakes in the field.

Holbrook:

So, it’s very exciting. Okay, so let me get back to the interview—what I was supposed to ask you. Life/work balance, network—you gave me the names of people that you connected with. You went to the Canary Islands, you met Juan Antonio Belmonte. Who else did you meet that has been instrumental in your career since then?

López:

I think the meeting with Juan Antonio was very, very important. In fact, at that time, for some time, I think about to go to make my PhD with him in Canary Island, but at that time my ex-wife don’t like to go to Spain. Later, she said. 

Holbrook:

Yes. But it’s too late.

López:

The train passed. But Juan Antonio was a very strong influence because they are so enthusiastic, and they have so many contacts with many people, and he is a very strong mind. He has his own opinions—sometimes, I coincide, sometimes no. But he has a very enthusiastic way, and he learns very much. Maybe, in ethnoastronomy issues, he has an old-school kind of ethno-methodologies, but he has very nice works in this field. For example, if you read his book about the sky of the magicians—it’s a book about ethnoastronomy of Canary local population-...

Holbrook:

Is it only in Spanish, or in English?

López:

I think it’s only in Spanish. It’s a very good book, fashioned with an old-school ethno-methodology, with many interviews and qualitative method, a very good one. And you see the data are very strong. They have not so many context, and maybe little participant observation, and social theory, but—

Holbrook:

Just interview.

López:

Yes. But, in this kind of work, it’s very good. And Juan Antonio pushes us to make research. Maybe he is not so confident to make the jump to a complete ethno-astronomer career.

Holbrook:

No, he wants to do calculations. He wants to do quantitative things and show statistical things. And it’s hard to do that when you’re really into ethnoastronomy—when you’re doing research with people. Yes. I spend time, of course, presenting my research to astronomers and astrophysicists and at some point, I inevitably have to say, stop trying to turn people into numbers. Stop.

López:

Yes, yes. But I think they push us.

Holbrook:

But the thing about you, since you have a permanent job, having these international networks—has it helped you any? Does it matter? You’re still in the same position you got when you finished your PhD. In terms of your career—

López:

No, no. I think these international networks are important for the evaluation in Argentina, of my career. I go in the middle way of steps of the scientific career in Argentina.

Whenever I think to go to other country, or to have a position to another country, I think it is not a good idea for me. One, because of my family times, I need to stay in Argentina.

Second, because I think my kind of field work needs me to stay in Argentina, not only visit Argentina. And I don’t like very much the idea of going for many places around the world doing ethnoastronomy. I think this is not working very well. Almost for me not works. Because I am doing field work in Argentina for a lot of time, I can see that in many years, I go deep and deep into the compression of the system that I study.

If I go one time, one month, I don’t understand anything. For this reason, I expand my studies in a regional manner. I now study communities in other places around the region. Other linguistic aboriginal groups. Also, I do some comparative works with other scholars in the South America, or in other parts of the world, but I think the regional method is for me the best way. And the third reason is, I think the field in South America needs me to make a contribution.

Holbrook:

Yes. So, I have to go back to the interview. Other things we’ve been asking other people—which is hard for me to remember, since I know you. So, what are you most famous for, in terms of your research, vs. what do you think is your most important work, in terms of research.

López:

Ah, okay, okay. If you watch in my academia page, one of the most linked works was the first one about the Chaco meteorite. And the first one was a work very misunderstanding. 

Holbrook:

Oh, no. Tell me.

López:

Yes. Because we tried to demonstrate that the literature versions about the aboriginal knowledge about meteorites are not founded in any empirical basis but are founded in old anthropological theories and speculations about the evolution of humanity. We didn’t try to argue that there wasn’t a connection between aboriginal population and meteorites, but yes that the specific claims made in the previous literature about this relation were false. And the next step in our research was to investigate the real links between aboriginal population and meteorites. But people, for some reason—

Holbrook:

They only want the first people. 

López:

Yes. They conclude that they’re not linked. And I was very angry, because this is the opposite thing that we are trying to show. Also, we have very bad luck with this version of this article, because the editors in Argentina made many changes, and the text is a mix and don’t say the same things of the original one. I tried to fix these things every time, but it’s difficult.

Holbrook:

Yes, it’s impossible. All you can do is keep writing papers, and hope that they read the other ones. And then, the whole thing, if they come to you and say, you know, your first paper show that there is no link, you can be smug and say, did you read my second and third paper? Right? Because you’ve published them. You don’t have to argue. You need to go read my second and third paper.

López:

Right. And I put all this into the same page—web page. 

Holbrook:

And they never read the other ones.

López:

Today, it’s more balanced.

Holbrook:

But do you understand, then it’s cultural imperialism. If there’s no links, then there’s no rights to those meteorites. So, they want to take that so that they can then take the meteorites away from the people. You know that. Okay.

López:

Yes. But for now, I think other works are popular and I think especially the works about the problems with the Chaco meteorite. These works are very, very read for many people. I think this is also an important work. 

Holbrook:

So, for yourself, you think this is very important.

López:

This is very important. In the way that this work proves that our works makes some difference for the people.

Holbrook:

Yes. But do you understand the resistance to that among the archaeoastronomy community? They don’t want the research to be connected to anything political.

López:

Yes, but this is crazy. For these reason—

Holbrook:

That’s because they come from astronomy. Everything is far away. Everything is clean. There’s no people up there. But it’s wrong, because look at that the TMT and—

López:

This is an issue. I went to the protest march here, in Hawaii, about Mauna Kea. I did field work there. I spoke with many people and took pictures and tried to saw and to listen and everything. And it was very strong. You feel—when you do field work, you feel the strong and the authenticity of the people involved, because you can read the corporal language, and you can see these people really are engaged with this. And in this case, also you can look the traditional authorities, and the ritual performances that the groups made—very powerful. 

Holbrook:

Yes, it is. You know, this is where I was born.

López:

Yes. 

Holbrook:

I don’t know if you know, I was born maybe 10km from here. So, this is my home state.

López:

Wow. And I think these kinds of things are very important. I think we need to study academic astronomy in the same way we study the other astronomies. I try to encourage to all my students to do field work in academic astronomy.

Holbrook:

Yes, they should.

López:

At the final instant, they try to go another direction.

Holbrook:

So, mine is the other, right? So, you’re down in Argentina, saying you guys need to study astronomers, right? And your specialty is indigenous, right? My specialty is indigenous. I want my students to study indigenous. They all study astronomers. That was my life in North America. No matter what, I’m like, “what do you want to study”? They want to study gender issues in astronomy, women in astronomy. It’s like, okay, another one. It was the opposite, they all wanted to study astronomy culture, and I wanted indigenous culture. But it worked it. So, I think it’s funny that it switched. I should have sent my students to you. You can send your students to me, and we would have been happy. 

López:

Yes, I tried to do, myself, study in academic astronomers, and I’m interested in that, but I think it’s not easy to find a way to go to entrance to the field.

Holbrook:

You have the credentials.

López:

Yes, but the credentials I have are, in some part, made it difficult that when you study our own people. Obviously, apart from that, I have very little time.

But I try to make time to do some work of this kind, because I think it’s crucial. In my lessons in history of mathematics to the future teachers I use this lesson to learn. This is a multi-cultural program of history of mathematics—history of mathematics of different cultures around the world. The academic mathematics of western academia are one specific mathematic culture. A cultural phenomenon.

And I put very emphasis on this and use the same methodologies that I use with aboriginal people. And use the same methodologies of social studies of science, in particular, the school of Edinburgh, the Strong Program of Sociology of Science, to study aboriginal knowledge. Because it’s the same thing. It’s the same general mechanism.

Holbrook:

But even to do that is controversial. There’s resistance, especially in the science and technology studies, and history of science, you know, that they always want to elevate Europe over everything. So, with my navigation project—as you know my navigation project—it’s Fiji, Tunisia, and the USA, and they want that the USA, oh this is completely different, and I say, “no it’s not.” 

López:

I say, it’s different because the society and the politics and the institution are different. Okay, I need to study the specific political concerns with knowledge in this culture, but it’s not different in other ways.

Holbrook:

It’s not, it’s not.

López:

But if you study anthropology or sociology, you understand this in a few minutes.

Holbrook:

But is that because of our particular background? Is that because we came out of astrophysics and moved into social science? And so the social scientist, you know, even though they’re not supposed to be—

López:

Okay, yes, I understand what you’re saying.

Holbrook:

They’re studying difference, but remember anthropology came out of psychology, right? So…

López:

I think in this issue is the hierarchy of science in the western academia and some kind of religious fear in the idea of preserving some knowledge as universal and absolute. And the social scientists think, okay, it’s not our knowledge, but many mathematicians think—also many astronomers or physics—that their knowledge is pure and absolute and universal, and so on. And the people are afraid about the idea of a social nature of all knowledge. They think that this social nature implies this is not true knowledge. But all the things that we make, are social. 

Holbrook:

Absolutely. But I think that our moves to do this—to put things side-by-side is because we’re not aware of all the fights that happened within the discipline. So, we’re aware of the fights that happened in astronomy, but we’re not aware of the turf battles—the real, serious fights that people had with either putting people apart or putting them together or putting them above or below, and because we’re not privy to those fights, we don’t speak to that literature, and our work is considered to be unsophisticated because of our unawareness of those fights.

López:

Yes, yes. I suppose you are right.

Holbrook:

It’s tough. So, we see it as something that’s obvious, but that’s because we’re not aware of the history within the discipline. 

López:

Yes, I don’t know. I think it’s indeed this way, but I think we need to push in this direction. I need to—especially with the PhD students. We need to reinforce the importance of learning social theory. Especially, social theory about actions and body. Because our approach to knowledge is so much intellectual, and the knowledge—it’s in the body. 

Holbrook:

And the senses. I was in Germany—in Heidelberg—where they were making a push for archaeology of the senses. What does it sound like, how does it hear, how does it feel to be there? Again, embodying it in a way that had been missing from ethnography.

López:

Yes, and I learned very much about this. By the way, I need to do ethnography in other of my research interest, the ethnography of martial arts, especially of aikido. I am an old practitioner of akido, and some years ago I started with some colleague anthropologists that do akido too, a project about ethnography of akido, and we do a couple of works, and this field work, it’s a very, very strong, open mind for me, because I understand in the body the importance of embodied field work.

I learned so much about the politics of akido, the inner politics of a dojo, with the body, and it was an experience so strong. And then, we used this embodied perspective to my ethno-astronomic studies in Chaco and start to work about the embodied experience of the sky in the living people. I discovered that the people of the field that I worked by years thinks, in that sense, from the very beginning, and these people talked in that sense, and I didn’t listen it at that time. I didn't recognize it. And when I start to talk about the body in the sky, the people start to talk, “yes I told you! You feel something!” It’s a very, very strong experience. This is, I think, is very important to make field work in another field of experience different from—

Holbrook:

I had a project—I don’t want to actually put it on tape, so I’ll put it on pause.... Okay.

López:

In Chaco, this kind of phenomenon, like an eclipse, are a phenomenon very connected with fear.

Holbrook:

Anxiety.

López:

Yes. A very strong terror, because…

Holbrook:

…Nature’s misbehaving.

López:

Strong and powerful non-human presence are alive at this moment—at this place, and this is a gesture, a manifestation, and they are very dangerous. And people, for example, now much people in aboriginal communities have cellular phones, and I am in touch with them all the time. And when some astronomical issue occurs, they write to me: “we are a seeing something on the sky”. A very close friend of mine, a teacher, a very good and very intelligent man, wrote to me some time when Venus was very close to the moon. They saw this, and he write to me and said to me: “I am worried because this closeness. My girlfriend said to me, come here, come into the house. It’s not good thing you stay there. I’m very scared about you because you are there and this in the sky—Venus—is a lady and she could take you away from me.”

Holbrook:

Yes, so it was gendered. It was a woman, close to the womb.

López:

Yes, because the moon is a man and the moon needs women. And I think it’s interesting. Compare the cultural responses to the physiology of the body. Because maybe in some basis are the same, and in some cases are not the same. It’s very interesting.

Holbrook:

Either way, it’s interesting. So, maybe one day I’ll get money for that project. I have to finish the projects I have now first.

López:

Okay, okay, yes. I think this is thinking about the important works, I think my thesis is for me the more important work because in this long work, I can connect all these diverse aspects of the culture that are interconnected with the sky, and it’s very difficult to do this in a short paper. It’s very difficult. Of the short works, I think one of the last, I do a work about the textures of the sky in a compilation about Chaco aboriginal groups—in Spanish. I think it’s the closest to this quality of inter-connect and embody work about the experience of the sky of the aboriginal Moqoit people of the Chaco.

Holbrook:

Well, you’re about to become very famous for the archaeoastronomy handbook. You’re the second handbook on it. 

López:

Yes, it’s another kind of work, yes. I think this is a very important work, yes, in another kind of works. Especially, in the methodological articles. I wrote two. One about astronomy in the context of colonial relations. 

Holbrook:

This is not what archaeoastronomers want to hear.

López:

I think it’s a good work. We have not much space to this difficult issue, but I think it’s a good work, and I try in this work to emphasize that exists many processes of colonization, not only the western one, and that these process is a very complicated one. It’s not only a globalization of capitalism. It also exists local dynamics that rebuild this or modify this in a tactical—

Holbrook:

To give advantages.

López:

Yes, in the sense of the Marshall Sahlins paper “Cosmologies of Capitalism: The trans-Pacific sector of the ‘World System.’” I think this is a good work.

Holbrook:

Yeah, since I contributed to it, what can I say. But, you know, I was supposed to be on three articles.

López:

Yes, I have two of methodology. The other is about interpretation in ethnoastronomy. I think this is a good work because in it I tried to problematize some concepts that ethno-astronomers and archaeoastronmers take for granted.

Holbrook:

They interpret everything as if it’s a male empower.

López:

Yes. The same with concepts as “people” or “territory”.

Holbrook:

Yes, they throw it around like it’s all energy.

López:

And the third one is a short case study about Chaco astronomy. It’s very short because the case studies are very short. I think the good thing is the Chaco astronomy have an important place in the world ethnoastronomy.

Holbrook:

Yes, now it’s there. So, what about your work and how it’s been received by anthropologists?

López:

I think the anthropologists received very well my work.

Holbrook:

Okay, they didn’t say “unsophisticated, throw it out? Over-simple?”

López:

No, no, no. Also my advisor was a very powerful theoretical anthropologist and made me study very hard to make good theory. When he corrects my PhD thesis, he makes many observations, interesting observations. I think it’s very good received, and I think the most appreciated quality for the anthropologists is the connection between the symbolic aspect of culture and the politic dimension of it. I think they are interested in my intent to discuss a political economy of the sky.

Holbrook:

But that’s been done before, just you hadn’t done it, and the anthropologists weren’t aware of it.

López:

Yes, in anthropology, these fields are very split in Argentina, and I brought it together.

Holbrook:

Because you know there’s Tony Avini’s book Conversing with Planets and Empires of Time. Both of his books talk about the politics of owning the sky and celestial phenomenon and how it played out in the kingdom levels. So, it’s been done, but not widely read.

López:

Yes, I think a book that walks in the same direction in some kind is the book of Linda Schele about the cosmos of the Maya. I think this book is a very good attempt to mix, or to comprehend, the symbolic world of the Maya in terms of their political ideas. And it tries to maintain both aspects of equal importance. I tried to expand this idea. And also to go beyond the idea of how politics affects or use knowledge systems to move to the idea of a real political economy of knowledge.

Holbrook:

Yeah. Okay, so alright, you wore the hat of both an anthropologist and an astronomer. When you come to meetings like this, which are astronomy meetings, how are you moving through the spaces? How is this feeling for you?

López:

I think a lot about it after coming here, because I present one of my first works in the year 2000, in the meeting of the Astronomical Society of Argentina, with my colleague, and was very funny, because the youngest astronomers looks up at us and are happy, but the oldest one has faces—

Holbrook:

They’re so sad and angry. 

López:

Yeah, terrible. This was a very strong experience in the body. Before that, I do some courses in the University of La Plata in the faculty of astronomy, and many colleagues and old professors of mine come and are already happy, but this strange thing that…

Holbrook:

Quaint. You know that word? No. It’s essentially dismissive. It’s like, oh that’s interesting and fun, but it’s not important.

López:

Yes, it’s curious, but it’s not very—

Holbrook:

Like, oh that’s sweet. Like patting a little girl on the head.

López:

Yes, something like that. The last courses that I give there are taking it more seriously because we are able to give courses with some astronomers from other countries. People said: “ah, okay, exists another astronomer from another country, making also this work.” But after I come here, I thought a lot about my feelings in this meeting. The actual sensation was of more confidence than I expected. I feeling very well, and I know many people. I find old colleagues from astronomy. But I think I feel myself in a good position now.

Holbrook:

It’s positive.

López:

Yes. And I feel very well, at home, like in an anthropology meeting, or in an ethno-astronomical meeting.

Holbrook:

It sounds like—and you can tell me if I’m wrong—it sounds like you’re going to a place where everybody knew you as a child. So, when you have a family reunion, everybody knows you as a child, and they know your parents, but they don’t know what you’ve done as an adult. And so I wonder if it’s because you were a child still when you were an astronomer, that they welcome you like a child, and that they don’t fully see you as who you are now.

López:

Some colleagues, yes, it is like that. Others, at that time, know that I’m working in science. They know something about my work and that I have a position at the council of research, and this is an important thing. There are a few things—

Holbrook:

They have respect.

López:

Yes. I think they saw me like the old student.

Holbrook:

So, the last thing I’ll end with is, do you have advice for students? Especially since we’re talking, we’re here at an astronomy conference. Do you have advice for astronomy students?

López:

My first advice is that all astronomers need to know that they are human beings and they have produced knowledge that—as all human knowledge—is a social product, because they don’t produce this by itself, but they produce this because they are part of a society, also of the scientific community, and they have a historical and social conditions. Their knowledge is a very good one, but it’s a socially-produced knowledge. All knowledge is of this kind. The astronomical knowledge is not some kind of magically pure knowledge. And this is good. This is not a bad thing. This is good, because all we do, all we know, is in a social manner. Our brains are social. They are designed to social communication. They are designed not only to interact with the physical ambient, but also to interact with the ambient with others and to communicate with others. And our ideas are social. For this reason, all the students of astronomy need some experience in other fields, especially in social fields. 

Holbrook:

They don’t have time.

López:

I think, yes, I think they have time. Because, it’s not necessary to take a complete course. Maybe it’s necessary to involve in activities. For example, we have in Argentina this program to take students of astronomy from the university and go with them to do a week of field work, of courses, and interchange with traditional knowledge, and ancient people that are experts of this kind of knowledge of the sky, and interchange. I think this experience is good for them.

Holbrook:

But why?

López:

Because you understand that exist many manners of thinking and view the supposed same things. And these people are not children. They are serious adult persons with serious occupations and preoccupations and they think differently about the world. And I think it’s like travel.

Holbrook:

It just expands your brain.

López:

Yeah. 

Holbrook:

Okay, anything else you want to add? Otherwise I’ll turn it off. It’s a long interview.

López:

It’s a very good experience. 

Holbrook:

I’m glad. Alright, so I will turn it off now. 

[END OF RECORDING]