The Qhapaq Nan Project. a Critical View

The Qhapaq Nan Project: A Critical View

M. Alejandra Korstanje, Universidad Nacional de Tucuman, Leloir

582, 4107, Yerba Buena, Tucuman, ArgentinaE-mail: [email protected]

Jorgelina Garcıa Azcarate, Universidad Nacional de Tucuman, Av.

Independencia 1800T4002BLS, San Miguel de Tucuman, Tucuman,ArgentinaE-mail: [email protected]

ABSTRACT________________________________________________________________

The Qhapaq-Nan Project promotes the integration of shared cultural values

among six countries: Argentina, Chile, Bolivia, Peru, Ecuador and Colombia.

These countries are collaborating to nominate the Main Andean Road or

‘‘Qhapaq-Nan’’ for inclusion on UNESCO’s World Heritage List. Although the

participants envision local and Indian communities as the true beneficiaries

of the project, and the archaeological effort is already under way,

communities associated with the road have not been involved. (At the very

moment we are editing this article (March 2007) Argentina is holding the

first meeting about a project that is already five years old, with some of the

Indian communities of the territories where the project will be carried out.

The participation, however, was far below what we expected.). Following

the guidelines of the World Archaeological Congress and the current

emphasis of many heritage professionals on community participation, we

strongly advise that these dynamics must be changed and that the program

must be developed jointly with affected communities from the beginning of

the project and not in subsequent steps, or (even worse) once the project

already taken shape.________________________________________________________________

Resumen: El Proyecto Qhapaq-Nan promueve la integracion de los valores

culturales compartidos entre seis paıses: Argentina, Chile, Bolivia, Peru,

Ecuador y Colombia, que preparan la candidatura del Camino Principal

Andino, ‘‘Qhapaq-Nan’’, para que sea declarado ‘‘Patrimonio Cultural de la

Humanidad’’ por UNESCO. Si bien, el proyecto busca asociar a las

comunidades de la region, las cuales seran las beneficiarias directas de la

puesta en valor de los bienes, hasta ahora la participacion en el mismo de

las comunidades indıgenas y otras comunidades locales asociadas al mismo

han sido nulas. En el momento en que se esta editando este artıculo (marzo

RE

SE

AR

CH

AR

CH

AE

OLO

GIE

SV

olu

me

3N

um

ber

2A

ug

ust

20

07

116 � 2007 World Archaeological Congress

Archaeologies: Journal of the World Archaeological Congress (� 2007)

DOI 10.1007/s11759-007-9018-8

2007) Argentina ha realizado su primera reunion de este tipo -en un

proyecto que lleva ya cinco anos- con algunas de las comunidades indıgenas

de los territorios donde este proyecto se llevara a cabo. La participacion, sin

embargo, no ha sido disenada del modo que esperabamos. Desde la

perspectiva de trabajo del WAC y desde otras experiencias de participacion

comunitaria, advertimos que esta dinamica debe ser llevada adelante

conjuntamente con las comunidades y no en pasos sucesivos donde se les

de intervencion cuando el proyecto ya tenga forma.________________________________________________________________

Resume: Le projet Qhapaq-Nan fait la promotion de l’integration de valeurs

culturelles partagees par six pays: l’Argentine, le Chili, la Bolivie, le Perou,

l’Equateur et la Colombie. Ces pays collaborent presentement a la possibilite

de faire reconnaıtre la principale route des Andes, connue sous le nom de

« Qhapaq-Nan », sur la liste du patrimoine mondial de l’UNESCO. Malgre le

fait que les participants considerent que ce projet est principalement

profitable aux les communautes locales et autochtones, et alors que les

travaux archeologiques sont deja entames, les communautes associes a

cette route n’ont pas ete implique dans ce projet. Au moment d’editer cet

article (mars 2007), l’Argentine a tenu la premiere rencontre avec les

communautes indiennes a propos de ce projet qui en est deja a sa

cinquieme annee. La participation fut cependant bien en dessous de ce a

quoi nous nous attendions. Suivant les lignes directrices du Congres

mondial de l’archeologie ainsi que l’emphase sur la participation des

communautes pronee par de nombreux specialistes du patrimoine, nous

insistons sur le changement de cette dynamique au profit d’un programme

developpe conjointement avec les communautes concernees des le debut

du projet et non dans une etape subsequente, ou (encore pire), lorsque le

projet a deja pris forme.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

The Qhapaq Nan Project

In developing countries, doing ‘‘Archaeology across the border’’ is not verycommon. While it is not uncommon to share research projects with for-eign scholars who carry on their work in South America, the opposite situ-ation—South Americans working in other parts of the world—is rare. Inmost cases archaeologists pursue research within their own country, andmany of us even work in the same region for most of our lives. Althoughsome of us are trained and complete degrees abroad, only a very smallnumber actually carry out research abroad. This pattern results from thefact that most funding is provided by national government agencies that

The Qhapaq Nan Project 117

encourage national projects. Nevertheless, academic globalization hasstarted to open opportunities through improved avenues of communica-tion, thereby promoting the involvement of local archaeologists in researchprojects that cross national borders. This is the case of the Qhapaq Nan1

or ‘‘Camino Principal Andino’’ project, where both authors are currentlyinvolved in different roles. It is important to point out however that eventhough both of us are archaeologists working in this international project,we are not involved as ‘‘foreign’’ professionals that will make decisions in acountry other than our own, or even in a different province2 from wherewe usually work. We are both local archaeologists, working locally on aninternational heritage project.

What is the Qhapaq Nan Project About?

The Qhapaq Nan was the main Andean road during the time of the Inkas,who developed a widespread Andean road system by integrating their ownconstructions with road networks built by previous cultures. An estimated6,000 km long, this main route linked a coordinated network of roads andinfrastructure constructed over the more than 2,000 years of pre-InkaAndean culture. The complete network of roads, over 23,000 km in all,connected several production, administration and ceremonial centers.Bridges and ferries were built to connect trails along the rugged geographyof the Andes. Besides the roads themselves, the transportation systemincluded ‘‘tampus’’ (lodging places with storage facilities); ‘‘kanchas’’ (rect-angular spaces surrounded by walls enclosing several structures); ‘‘kallan-kas’’ (large rectangular buildings within the kanchas, probably used as restareas); warehouses; ‘‘apachetas’’ (sacred sites); ‘‘chaskiwasis’’ (control pointsfor travellers and goods); landmarks; boundary markers; and ‘‘huancas’’(fortified outposts).

The Qhapaq Nan project began in 2001 as a Peruvian government ini-tiative proposing the Inka Road System for the UNESCO’S World Heritagelist. Consequently the project has the important distinction of havingbegun as the cultural policy of one nation that was later adopted by othercountries with a common heritage. Of course, since governors have theoption to initiate any programme to promote and protect the cultural heri-tage, this is a good start, but by current standards of heritage managementsuch programs must promote real participation, assessment, acceptance,and interest from the local and indigenous population. How such partici-pation takes place is the challenge we discuss in this article.

1This is the quechua name for the main Inka road system.2In Argentina, a ‘‘province’’ is the larger political unity within the country, in a federal

system.

118 M. ALEJANDRA KORSTANJE AND JORGELINA GARCIA AZCARATE

The initiative to promote the Multilateral Postulation of the Qhapaq Nan(or ‘‘Andean Main Road’’) as a cultural landmark arose in 2002. It was for-malized in a joint declaration among the governments of Peru, Chile, Argen-tina, Bolivia, Ecuador and Colombia. In the document named ‘‘Pre-Hispanic Andean roads and the routes of Tawantisuyu’’, they summarizedthe importance of promoting the Inka Road as part of human cultural heri-tage in recognition of its natural and cultural significance and associated tan-gible and intangible heritage. All participating countries have archaeologicalevidence of ancient roads and Andean culture. However, in this documentpatrimony is considered beyond its historical-anthropological meaning andits material existence in Andean geography. Heritage is also seen an excep-tional opportunity for the integration and sharing of cultural values and thepromotion of regional development among these six countries.

On 2003, at the UNESCO Headquarters in Paris, the Permanent Delegatesof the Andean countries unanimously requested that the World Heritage Cen-tre take charge of the overall coordination of the project and assist them in theprocedure for placing heritage property on the World Heritage list. This wasthe first time the World Heritage Center’s Latin American and Caribbean unithad to design a process for nominating a site common to six State Parties.

For the last two years, UNESCOS’s World Heritage Centre had beenassisting these countries in a pioneering project: the drafting of a singlenomination for the inclusion of Qhapaq Nan in the World Heritage List,which entailed an original and innovative regional cooperation process.

Several national and international technical meetings were organized toallow different social actors. These meetings were held in Lima (April2003); Cuzco (October 2003); La Paz (April 2004) and Buenos Aires.

Networks started to be organized at these international meetings. Forexample, participants agreed that a series of proposals would be made by twocountries to make the proposal process more efficient: Argentina and Chile;Peru and Bolivia; Colombia and Ecuador, and that each country would placethe Qhapaq Nan on their national list. The importance of this initiative as astate policy became apparent at the MERCOSUR meeting of Ouro Preto,December 2004, when the presidents of the state parties (Argentina, Brazil,Uruguay and Paraguay) and associated states (Bolivia, Chile, Peru, Colombia,Ecuador and Venezuela), signed a document containing the following article:

27. They [the presidents] support the Andean Cultural Itinerary/QhapaqNan, which involves four countries of the block, since it constitutes an integra-tion project that has a high impact on the regional development given the factthat culture mediates as an articulation axis3

327. Apoyan el Itinerario Cultural Andino / Qhapaq Nan, que involucra cuatro paıses del

bloque, por tratarse de proyecto de integracion que supone un alto impacto sobre el desarrol-

lo regional, teniendo la cultura como eje articulador.


The document also states that the Interamerican Development Bank(BID) is already investing in this project, at least in Peru, as: ‘‘TC0209054:Action Plan Development Qhapaq Nan (Principal Andean Way)’’, where itis currently in an initial phase, connected to tourism and technical imple-mentation. (See WHC-03/27.COM/13 at World Heritage’s web page)

The international aspects of this project were complemented by nationalpolicies; therefore simultaneous national meetings were held in the partici-pating countries. In Argentina, for example, meetings were organized withtechnical teams (consisting only of archaeologists) and governmental repre-sentatives of the seven provinces involved: Jujuy, Salta, Tucuman, Catamar-ca, La Rioja, San Juan, and Mendoza. The Secretary of Culture of thePresidency of the Nation led the organization. National government offi-cials signed Resolution No 1979/04, in which the Program ‘‘Andean Cul-tural Itinerary’’ was created as the legal frame for the development andoperations of the Qhapaq Nan Project. At this stage, the internationalproject became national state policy.

At these national meetings, provincial representatives asked technicalteams to select which sections of the Inka road were valuable for the pro-ject and needed to be preserved. The requested information includeddetails of the related Inka facilities and their geographic location, registerdata, national governmental resolutions declaring them historical monu-ments (when available) and the constitution of the local and Indigenouscommunities related to the chosen sections of the road. Representatives ofvarious government agencies and universities participated at these meet-ings. The idea was to first identify the loci that the archaeologists consid-ered to meet the universal values set by UNESCO, and later to initiateconversations with the communities (Indigenous or otherwise) involved inthese sections and sites. The ultimate goal was to incorporate the intangiblepatrimony of the entire region and jointly organize the management plansfor these communities. However, it is clear that national agendas werebeing promoted over local goals and interests.

An example of this occurred during a consultation in which the authorsparticipated. The team working on the province of Tucuman proposed thefollowing to be incorporated in the general Argentinean project:

(1) ‘‘La Ciudacita’’ (within the main jurisdiction of Los Alisos NationalPark with no local or Indigenous communities involved);

(2) ‘‘Los Cardones’’ and ‘‘El Remate’’ (within the main jurisdiction ofthe Indigenous Community of Amaicha of the Valley);

(3) ‘‘Quilmes’’ and ‘‘El Pichao’’ (within the main jurisdiction of theIndigenous Community of Quilmes).


This decision was made taking into consideration local interests, tradi-tions, and ideas about heritage and the past. Since Tucuman was only rep-resented by a single site with unambiguous Inka characteristics (‘‘LaCiudacita’’), it was appropriate (and the national Project agreed) to includetwo Indigenous communities directly bound to that past (Amaicha andQuilmes). Both communities have long histories of settlement in the areawhich is crossed by Tucuman’s portion of the ancient main Inka road andthey inhabit a space that includes a series of archaeological sites associatedwith this past. By making this decision, Tucuman’s team supported theidea that collaboration with the communities would begin as soon asarchaeologists start working in the area. Since there is a substantial recordof the places and areas through which the ancient road passed, it was rela-tively simple to know in advance which communities would be involved.At least in the case of Indigenous communities, which tend to be moreengaged with the pre-Hispanic past and heritage, this cooperation shouldhave started with the selection of the heritage sites. However, the generalopinion of the organizers was that technical work should lead the process.Therefore we opted to draw on our experience and the knowledge gatheredthrough our ongoing interaction with indigenous communities to selectthose we believed they would want included. This led us to choose sitesthat did not completely match UNESCO’s standards, but coincided withour own understanding of the historical moment in which the Inkasarrived in northwestern Argentina, which was very late considering thelong history of the region. The following statement shows the Tucumanarchaeology team’s position:

Brief note regarding our position as Archaeologists on the QhapacNan Project:

The archaeological team of Tucuman has participated in the Qhapac Nanmeetings, debating the methodology chosen by the National Culture Secretaryfor the inclusion of the tracks and sites of each province. We want to state inthis document the reasons that motivated us to collaborate on it, in spite ofthe multiple professional and social inconveniences that it may create.

In the first place, not all projects organized from the high echelons of thegovernment have the possibility of being successful when they involve local val-ues that must be respected (see Belli and Slavutzky 2005, Haber 2005; Endere2005). In this particular case, involving six countries with different laws, cul-tures, languages and attitudes to heritage, the probability of success may beeven less. In any case, we consider that if the project is carried out seriouslyand the stated objectives are accurately followed, its application as a valuablestrategy for the protection of cultural patrimony and the development of theassociated communities is possible.


Although we think that participation of the affected and interested commu-nities should have occurred parallel to our efforts, the Nation technical direc-tives stated that we alone should evaluate and choose the ancient road sitesthat best fit UNESCOs nomination standards.

However, although here we presented the ancient road sites and tracks thatfrom a technical-academic point of view should be included in the project, wewant to stress that these must only be incorporated if the Indigenous or ruralcommunities associated agree that this will bring them benefits and not increasedestruction or disputes. We have taken the position in many public meetingspointing that should any community, for any reason, not want to participate,then the sites included in their territory should be excluded from the project.

At the end of this report we raise some considerations about how rela-tionships with the communities mentioned might be effected in the nextsegment of inter-institutional work (Korstanje et al. 2006: 3).

The Nomination of the Inka Road to the Unesco Listof World Human Heritage Sites

The objectives of the project are to:

• Promote the local and regional sustainable development of the com-munities associated with the Andean Main Road in Argentina throughtheir empowerment.

• Obtain the designation of the Qhapaq Nan as a Cultural Landscapeon the UNESCO World Heritage list.

• Encourage research and a promotion and conservation plan for theAndean main road.

• Persuade numerous social, actors including involved Andean commu-nities, authorities at various levels, and representatives of nongovern-mental organizations the private sector, to participate actively.

As a heritage site the Qhapaq Nan fulfils a each of the established crite-ria of universal value for cultural goods. According to the UNESCO’s Con-vention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and NaturalHeritage, these requirements are:

(1) to represent a masterpiece of human creative genius;(2) to exhibit an important interchange of human values, over a span

of time or within a cultural area of the world, on developments inarchitecture or technology, monumental arts, town-planning orlandscape design;


(3) to bear a unique or at least exceptional testimony to a cultural tra-dition or to a civilization which is living or which has disappeared;

(4) to be an outstanding example of a type of building, architectural ortechnological ensemble or landscape which illustrates (a) significantstage(s) in human history;

(5) to be an outstanding example of a traditional human settlement,land-use, or sea-use which is representative of a culture (or cul-tures), or human interaction with the environment especially whenit has become vulnerable under the impact of irreversible change;

(6) to be directly or tangibly associated with events or living traditions,with ideas, or with beliefs, with artistic and literary works of out-standing universal significance.

But Qhapaq Nan offers new challenges: it is the first project proposedfor the UNESCO’S list involving a human achievement that spans overmore than 23.000 km. and more than 2000 years of culture history whileinvolving a large number of communities through the coordinated effortsof six countries.

This is why we discuss some crucial aspects of the development of aparticipative cross-border archaeology and heritage management plan. Inlight of the results achieved by similar projects of smaller magnitude, wecannot help but wonder how the necessary participation of indigenous andlocal communities will be implemented. This clearly should be the primarygoal of the project, but the methods and strategies to achieve it remainunclear. The large scale of the project may certainly conspire against inclu-sion of indigenous and local communities at every step of the decision-making process, with the undesirable yet likely result that such participa-tion will be more nominal than constitutive. Thus we may ask, how canarchaeologists contribute to the public awareness and respect for Andeanheritage without letting private or external operators be the principal bene-ficiaries of this project?

Institutional Disagreements

One of the greatest difficulties we experienced with the Qhapaq Nan pro-ject has been the misunderstanding among the different organizationsinvolved. On one side were the teams of archaeologists, who selected thearchaeological sites that would comprise the project, and on the other,were the national and provincial institutions in charge of linking the pro-ject with other areas of government and public practice, such as tourism,environment, education, social development. Although not all of the mem-bers of these groups were present in all the different meetings, according to


government directives, the members of the indigenous communities andlocal stakeholders had not been asked to participate in the discussions.

The richness of this Program is that it offers the invaluable chance tomake decisions that include a truly diverse cultural web, by consideringinternational opinion and moreover that of the people of each involvedcountry. Consequently the challenge is to plan involvement of interestgroups (communities, researchers, authorities, the public, etc.) throughoutthe different dimensions of the program. This means that the strategy mustinclude the participation of not only national and provincial institutionsbut also the communities associated with the road.

Traditionally, decisions about cultural policy programs are made in highlevel government agencies, and these can be valid to certain extent sincethey reflect international values. However, from our perspective, the deci-sion-making process must also respond to community requirements. Bothinternational and the Argentinean National government objectives give pre-cedence to communal and regional development. But how is it possible tomeet these objectives when the principal actors are excluded from the plan-ning? How can we incorporate their ideas, feelings and initiatives once theproject has reached its final form?

The Quebrada4 de Humahuaca (Jujuy, Argentina) is a World Heritagecultural destination that shows the difficulties of these processes. UnlikeQhapaq Nan, Quebrada de Humahuaca was originally a project requestedby the local communities of the Quebrada, and it was later incorporated instate legislation. For a while, this seemed to be an exemplary case of heri-tage conservation. A few years ago, the building of a high voltage electricalduct in the Quebrada prompted indigenous and local communities to pro-test what seemed a unilateral government decision. This protest consisted(among other things) of people making night incursions to the tower con-struction site to move landmarks and survey points (Nestor A. Jose, com.pers. 2005).

Later on, pamphlets were circulated petitioning the government to con-sider the reasons why the population did not want electrical towers in theQuebrada. Among the many issues raised, some of which were environ-mental, there was the rather astonishing consideration that if the towerswere constructed, the Quebrada would never have the chance to beincluded in the UNESCO World Cultural Heritage list.

The government decided to change the route of the electrical duct andstarted work on the project for UNESCO recognition. But once again, thedecisions were not appropriate. Despite good intentions, the governmentdid not succeed in developing local participation of the communitiesinvolved. The results were like those for many other sites on UNESCO’s

4‘‘Quebrada’’ means narrow valley.


list: the appropriation of the project by private capital attracted by the dra-matically increased land value, instead of the actual protection of the sites.Worst of all, none of these changes improved the living and labor condi-tions of local communities.

Unfortunately, failing to achieve community involvement may lead tothe failure of the project in general, so that something created for people’swell-being (as was UNESCOS’s list) becomes discredited, as local peopletend to feel that such projects merely pay lip service to their needs. Conse-quently, neither heritage preservation, nor economic developments arebrought about by such projects. We think that our experience could be usedto improve the aspects that we consider key to such programs, namely localparticipation as opposed to merely ‘‘local agreement’’ (Meskell 2005).

We think an interesting point in this discussion could also be the lackof interaction or integration among institutions with similar purposes.WAC (World Archaeological Congress) enhanced our understanding ofcommunity and indigenous rights and participation in the management ofheritage. But are WAC and UNESCO really working side by side to spreadthis view to cultural policy makers, taking into account the many differentlocal views of the same problem?

Browsing the huge and complicated UNESCO’S website we find the var-ious projects in which this institution (‘‘our’’ institution, if UNESCO isreally international) is involved to be amazingly rich and diverse. Yet wecould not help but wonder to what extent these projects, designed inbureaucratic offices by highly trained people, have been planned with localpeople’s needs in mind, in concert with local people’s aims and expecta-tions. It is unclear whether UNESCO really tries to identify such aims andexpectations by interacting with local people directly, or whether this is leftin the hands of governments.

Given the prestige of UNESCO as an organization of the discreditedUnited Nations, these questions might seem irrelevant. But as the Spanishsaying goes, ‘‘de buenas intenciones esta lleno el camino al infierno.’’5 Howcan UNESCO make their heritage projects (since the World Heritage Listis itself a UNESCO’S project) available to local people if they are not reallyacting locally? In this sense, WAC understanding of public heritage policiesseems much more democratic and also more effective. The difference isthat WAC does not promote asking for local opinion, but argues for devel-oping genuine understanding between local people and technicians in anegalitarian and cooperative way.

Let’s quote, for example some WAC ideals:‘‘(…) Archaeology can no longer afford—or even consider reason-

able—a belief that archaeologists are the primary stewards of the past and

5The way to hell is full of good intentions.


somehow the only ones who have access to the ‘‘truth’’ about the past.Many archaeologists have come to realize that all past is collaborativelyconstructed—it is a community ‘‘invention’’. Communities also maintaintheir own pasts, which are as adaptative as any element in their ideology’’(Zimmerman 2006: 86). ‘‘In many ways, the discussions in WAC were notjust about indigenous people’s rights to their legacy they claimed as theirown, but were actually more about the rights of any stakeholders to thesepasts’’ (Zimmerman 2006: 91).

We agree that nobody can ‘‘throw the first stone’’ about colonialideas and practices. Most of decisions about heritage were born as apart of colonial and authoritarian government practices, including thoseof the governments of independent republics, national parks administra-tions, international organizations, archaeologists and archaeological asso-ciations. As has been widely acknowledged, these institutions were allborn in the same spirit of finding scientific truth and neglecting orunderestimating indigenous knowledge. Things seem to be slowly chang-ing, not least as a consequence of indigenous peoples having moreopportunity to promote wider acceptance of different views of the past,and of management of the archaeological sites themselves. What hasbecome clear for all of us in government and academic bodies in recentyears is that we have to broaden and deepen our involvement withindigenous actors and their worldviews in order to have concrete resultsbeyond our good intentions or ‘‘goals’’. Good intentions are neverenough.

Modern states, in Latin America in particular, now have a uniquechance to prevent further denial of indigenous peoples’ identity, culture,language and ways of life (including their land rights) by implementingreal policies of inclusion and participation, instead of merely demandingthem to reconstitute themselves as natives, performing an Andean indige-nous stereotype ‘‘for export.’’ This is not the same as saying that such aperformance may be less real than other cultural identity performances, aspeople adapt and manage their cultural pool of resources in creative waysall the time. Yet we argue against the demands placed on communities tore-shape themselves as suitable citizens of an apparently new ‘‘multicultur-alism’’ with the promise of reconstructing their economies, which reallyonly give them the crumbs from the profitable enterprises that are onlycover-ups for new ways to encroach on traditional lands. Participationmust be equal, with communities retaining control of their resources andwith workshops that would train actors of both sides in order to achieve abetter understanding.


Achieving Genuine Communication and Participation ofLocal Communities in a Large Project

We have said the participation of local communities and Indigenous groupsmay cause problems for a project when such participation shouldstrengthen it. For example, Indigenous groups in north-western Argentinaare doubtless the predecessors and inheritors of ancient heritage in theregion, nevertheless the Independent Republic policies led them to refusefor centuries to be part of an Indigenous collective, since Indians were con-sidered ‘‘lazy’’, ‘‘brainless’’, and ‘‘drunk’’, and given all kinds of negativeand discriminative labels. Most groups dropped their original names, chan-ged their traditions, and most importantly, lost their languages and theirland. This dramatic decomposition of the Indigenous social tissue started tobe mended—at least in national law—only in the 1994 Constitution, inwhich the 75th article recognizes the ‘‘precedence of the Indigenous groups’’and gives them the legal frame to collectively reclaim their land. Since then,‘‘Indigenous Communities’’ with legal rights have been able to organize,and some new opportunities have arisen as a result of this new status.

Therefore, much reconceptualization and resignification of identitiescame after 1994, and many Argentinean Indigenous groups are onlyrecently organized as such. This generates conflicts, misunderstandings,power struggles and situations that are not common to other archaeologistsin Latin America who are accustomed to working with Indigenous peoplesthat have been organized as such for a long time. Although archaeologistswere not initiators of the project, since we have been invited to work in it,it is our responsibility to make sure that the nomination is done with fullrespect to indigenous and local communities. Our own professional stan-dards as defined by AAPRA6 also require this respect, and for this reasonwe cannot limit our intervention to technical advise (see WAC codes ofethics, for example).

In Argentina there are some successful programs that incorporate thissort of participation. They are mostly related to organizations that work ineconomic areas, as it is the case of the Farming Social Programme7 of theNational Secretary of Agriculture, Cattle, Fishing and Feeding.8 Their pur-pose is to improve the quality of life of small producers and peasants byincreasing their income and promoting their organized participation. Theseprograms aspire to elaborate the projects with the producers, as opposed tothose which work for people in a charitable or paternalistic way. Othersuccessful experiences have demonstrated that it is possible to reach the

6Asociacion de Arqueologos Profesionales de Argentina.7Programa Social Agropecuario (PSA).8Secretaria de Agricultura, Ganaderıa, Pesca y Alimentacion de la Nacion.


proposed objectives when participation of project members is done in soli-darity, as has been the case for the programs for construction of commu-nity housing (Haedo com.pers. 2004).

We must also consider that current approaches to local Indigenous orpeasant communities consist of ‘‘face to face’’ communication. Theseencounters might be to explain what archaeologists’ work is, or to involvethe teachers and students in an archaeological education project, or todevelop participatory Indigenous archaeologies. Although specifics dependon the spirit of the professionals involved, the most important efforts arealways made in personal meetings with different, but always small, com-munities (Chambers 1997; Calvelo 1988).

This now customary system has proved to be unsuccessful in larger heri-tage management projects. Indigenous communities in Latin America arerequesting a different kind of participation; they want real participationbased on the control of heritage. Therefore, new communication tools areneeded when projects involve larger active native populations as in the caseof Qhapaq Nan. Since the early 70’s the Food and Agriculture Organization(FAO) developed ‘‘Massive Audiovisual Pedagogy’’, a video based multi-media methodology for the sharing of knowledge and skills (Calvelo 1994,1995, FAO 1989). This communication strategy is aimed at ‘‘listening topeasants’’, in the first place. After a period of participatory research to selectthe contents, communicators design and produce a communication toolsuited to share knowledge with people (usually people without formal edu-cation). The production of this kind of material and its massive dissemina-tion through workshops allows the facilitators to serve as conduits betweenthe scientific and peasant universes making cross-cultural communicationpossible. This also broadens the participation limits, extending comprehen-sion of the problems not only to community leaders but to the larger popu-lation, a process that enhances the discussion, participation, production andresults, avoiding local conflicts. This participatory approach shows its fullpotential when one or more of these conditions are present:

(a) Very large populations(b) Extreme cultural differences, including multiple languages(c) Illiteracy(d) Complex contents

A peasant proverb summarizes the pedagogic strategy: ‘‘What I hear, Iforget. What I see, I remember. What I do, I know.’’ (Korstanje et al.1999)

This methodology has significant precedents in the national and interna-tional arena over the last forty years. At the international level trials havebeen made in countries with diverse socio economic conditions such as


Mexico, Honduras, Dominican, Cuba, Peru, Bolivia, Brazil, Argentina andChile (FAO 1987a, 1987b). In Asia the strategy was tried in China, Koreaand India. In Africa (Mali) a CESPA9 is dedicated to communication topromote development. These programs have been developed with FAOsupport, which has documentation on their results. Perhaps UNESCOfunctions somewhat like a developing nation, since its programs are disar-ticulated making it difficult projects to learn from each other.

Conclusions

The Qhapaq Nan cross-border archaeological and heritage project, whichincludes six nations and a large but still unidentified number of affectedcommunities, presents new challenges to indigenous and local participa-tion. Although it is interesting and important that the initiative is comingfrom the governments of these six nations, participation in decision mak-ing must be broader. The election of the sites should not be determinedsolely on technical criteria, but should be responsive to local traditions andinterests. Achieving consensus requires time and money, but it also savestime, money and preserves the dignity of all people involved. This criterionis not always understood by government agencies, but is essential to anyconservation programme.

How do we meet these challenges? The actions undertaken by the differ-ent sectors of participation have a common objective: to nominate theMain Andean Road for UNESCO World Heritage status. But there has notyet been an effective dialogue among all those involved. This results induplicated efforts and in goals not reached. We lack a holistic vision of theproject with well articulated components. As long as we have a segmentedvision of the project and each organization faces the project alone, its fra-gility will be a threat. We consider it urgent to reorient the generalapproach to an holistic perspective (Savory 1999) in which all the partici-pants can celebrate their participation for a sustainable outcome.

References

Belli, E., and R. Slavutzky2005. Patrimonio: Territorio, Objetos, Sımbolos, Personas. ¿Cual es la disputa?.

Mundo de Antes 4:13–19. Instituto de Arqueologıa y Museo (UNT),Tucuman.

9Centre de services de production audivisuelle.


Calvelo, M.1988. Algunos problemas en la construccion del conocimiento campesino. Proyecto

FAO-PNUD PER 073, Peru.1994. Pedagogıa Masiva Audiovisual para la Capacitacion. Proyecto FAO GCP/

RLA/114/ITA, Chile.1995. Manual de Produccion Pedagogica Audiovisual. Proyecto FAO GCP/RLA/

114/ITA, Chile.

Chambers R.1997. Whose Reality Counts? ITDG, London ISBN 1 85339 386 X.

Endere, M.L.2005. Discusion a ‘‘Patrimonio: Territorio, Objetos, Sımbolos, Personas. ¿Cual es

la disputa?’’ (por Belli y Slvutzky). Mundo de Antes 4:18–20. Instituto deArqueologıa y Museo (UNT), Tucuman.

FAO1987a. Estudio de caso de comunicacion para el Desarrollo. Un nuevo enfoque para

la comunicacion rural: La experiencia peruana en video para la capacitacioncampesina. Subdireccion de Comunicacion para el Desarrollo, Roma.

1987b. Estudio de caso de comunicacion para el Desarrollo. Un sistema de Com-unicacion Rural para el Desarrollo del Tropico Humedo Mexicano. Subdi-reccion de Comunicacion para el Desarrollo, Roma.

1989. Directrices sobre comunicacion para el desarrollo rural. Subdireccion deComunicacion para el Desarrollo, Roma.

Haber, A.2005. Discusion a ‘‘Patrimonio: Territorio, Objetos, Sımbolos, Personas. ¿Cual es

la disputa?’’ (por Belli y Slvutzky). Mundo de Antes 4:21–22. Instituto deArqueologıa y Museo (UNT), Tucuman.

Korstanje M.A., C. Angiorama, A.R. Martel, and O. Dıaz2006. Qhapac Nan, tramo Tucuman. Informe a la Secretarıa de Cultura de la

Provincia de Tucuman, inedito.

Korstanje, F.D., J. Villanueva, C. Herrscher, J. Schonwald, and S. Marcos1999. La Pedagogıa Masiva Audiovisual, una Propuesta de Integracion del Saber

Popular y el Saber Academico. La experiencia de Capacitacion en Tuc-uman. Universidad Nacional de Tucuman. Facultad de Filosofıa y Letras.Numero extraordinario de la Revista Humanitas N�28- Fac. de Filosofıa yLetras - UNT (ISSN 0041 - 4217) Tucuman.

Meskell, L.2005. Archaeological ethnography: Conversations around Kruger National Park.

Archaeologies. Vol. 1(1):81–100. World Archaeological Congress. Altamirapress.

Savory A.1999. Holistic Management: a New Framework for Decision Making. Island

Press, 2nd Edition, Washington Tejiendo los lazos de un legado Qhapaq


Nan. Camino Principal Andino: hacia la nominacion de un patrimoniocomun, 2004 rico diverso de valor universal. Representacion de la UNE-SCO en Peru ISBN N�9972-841-05-7.

Zimmerman, L.2006. Liberating Archaeology, Liberation Archaeologies, and WAC. Archaeologies

Vol. 2(1):85–95. World Archaeological Congress. Altamira press.


The Qhapaq Nan Project. a Critical View

Documents

Transcript of The Qhapaq Nan Project. a Critical View