From Ruins to Heritage Places

  • Jorge GamboaEmail author
Part of the SpringerBriefs in Archaeology book series (BRIEFSARCHAE)


For specialists in cultural resource management and investigation of archaeological sites, the concept of heritage incorporates the expression of collective memory in tangible symbols. Within the academic discourse the existence of links between the (re)presentation of the past and the negotiation and legitimation of ideological references and cultural practices is recognized. On the other hand, when asked about their assessment of the concept of heritage, most adult residents of rural or urban areas indicate that it is the set of goods and traditions, inherited from their ancestors and used for the survival and welfare of new generations. These forms of assessment of the meaning of heritage lead to divergent positions on the preservation of archaeological remains but also to different perceptions of identity, community, and development. This section of the volume starts with a review of information relevant to the conceptions of cultural heritage and the role of archeology in contemporary society. The main objective of the chapter is to show how sites commonly called ruins have become known as heritage sites, through a complex process of ascription of meanings to places where the encounter between the public and the materiality of the past occurs.


North Coast of Peru Archaeological heritage Cultural landscape Identity Belonging Place Cultural resources Development 


  1. Abercrombie, N., Hill, S., & Turner, B. (1980). The dominant ideology thesis. London: George Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
  2. Agbe-Davies, A. (2010). Concepts of community in the pursuit of an inclusive archaeology. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 16(6), 373–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Agurto, S. (1984). Lima Prehispánica. Lima: Municipalidad de Lima. Perugraph Editores S.A.Google Scholar
  4. Brumfield, E. (1992). Breaking and entering the ecosystem: Gender, class, and faction steal the show. American Anthropologist, 94, 551–567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Buttimer, A., & Seamon, D. (Eds.). (1980). The human experience of space and place. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  6. Comer, D. (Ed.). (2012). Tourism and archaeological heritage management at Petra. New York: Springer Briefs in Archaeological Heritage Management.Google Scholar
  7. Cornell, P. (2000–2001). La externalización de la memoria. La arqueología y el subalterno. In Anales. Nueva Época. Gothenburg: Instituto Iberoamericano, 3–4: “Historia y Memoria”. University of Gothenburg. Accessed 28 Mar 2014.
  8. Cross, J. (2001). What is Sense of Place? Paper presented in the 12th Headwaters Conference, Western State College, November 2–4, 2001. Accessed 15 Feb 2014.
  9. Erickson, C. (1998). Applied archaeology and rural development: Archaeology’s potential contribution to the future. In M. Whiteford & S. Whiteford (Eds.), Crossing currents: Continuity and change in Latin America (pp. 34–45). New Jersey: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  10. Erickson, C. (2006). El valor actual de los Camellones de cultivo precolombinos: Experiencias del Perú y Bolivia. In F. Valdez (ed.), Agricultura ancestral. Camellones y albarradas: Contexto social, usos y retos del pasado y del presente (pp. 315–339). Quito: Ediciones Abya-Yala.Google Scholar
  11. Feld, S., & Basso, K. (Eds.). (1996). Senses of Place. Santa Fe: School of American Research Press.Google Scholar
  12. Florescano, E. (1993). El patrimonio cultural de México. México D.F: Fondo de Cultura Económica.Google Scholar
  13. Garcia Canclini, N. (2004). Diferentes, desiguales y desconectados. Mapas de la interculturalidad. Barcelona: Gedisa.Google Scholar
  14. Handelman, D. (1990). Models and mirrors: Towards an anthropology of public events. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Herrera, A. (2013a). Introducción. De la práctica a la teoría en la arqueología latinoamericana. In A. Herrera (ed.), Arqueología y desarrollo en América del Sur. De la práctica a la teoría (pp. 1–10). Lima: Universidad de los Andes and Instituto de Estudios Peruanos.Google Scholar
  16. Herrera, A. (2013b). Arqueología y desarrollo en el Perú. In A. Herrera (ed.), Arqueología y desarrollo en América del Sur. De la práctica a la teoría (pp. 73–95). Lima: Universidad de los Andes and Instituto de Estudios Peruanos.Google Scholar
  17. Herrera, A. & Hallowell, J. (2007). The process is the outcome. Archaeologies Journal of the World Archaeological Congress, 3(3): 384–389.Google Scholar
  18. Hummon, D. (1992). Community attachment: Local sentiment and sense of place. In I. Altman & S. Lowe (Eds.), Place attachment (pp. 253–278). New York: Plenum Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. ICOMOS (International Council of Monuments and Sites). (1990). Charter for the Protection and Management of the Archaeological Heritage. Accessed 25 March 2014.
  20. INC (Instituto Nacional de Cultura, current Ministerio de Cultura del Perú). (2004). Ley General del Patrimonio Cultural de la Nación. Accessed 30 May 2014.
  21. Jackson, J. (1994). A sense of place, a sense of time. New Haven: Yale University Place.Google Scholar
  22. Jofré, D. (2003). Una propuesta de acercamiento al patrimonio arqueológico de la comunidad de Belén (región de Tarapacá, Chile). Chungara, 35(2), 327–335.Google Scholar
  23. Kellett, L. (2006). Public archaeology in an Andean community. The SAA Archaeological Record, 6(2), 8–11.Google Scholar
  24. King, T. (1983). Professional responsibility in public archaeology. Annual Review of Anthropology, 12, 143–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lane, K. (2013). Entre el agua y la pared: patrimonio, desarrollo, campesinos y arqueólogos en la Cordillera Negra, Perú. In A. Herrera (ed.), Arqueología y desarrollo en América del Sur. De la practica a la teoría (pp. 97–117). Lima: Universidad de los Andes and Instituto de Estudios Peruanos.Google Scholar
  26. Little, B., & Shackel, P. (Eds.). (2007). Archaeology as a tool of civic engagement. New York: AltaMira Press.Google Scholar
  27. Lohse, J. (2007). Commoner ritual, commoner ideology: (Sub-)alternate views of social complexity in Prehispanic Mesoamerica. In N. Gonlin & J. Lohse (Eds.), Commoner ritual and ideology in ancient Mesoamerica (pp. 1–32). Boulder: University of Colorado Press.Google Scholar
  28. Londoño, W. (2013). Arqueología para el desarrollo y arqueología del desarrollo. Una visión desde Colombia. In A. Herrera (Ed.), Arqueología y desarrollo en América del Sur. De la práctica a la teoría (pp. 147–167). Lima: Universidad de los Andes and Instituto de Estudios Peruanos.Google Scholar
  29. Low, S. (1992). Symbolic ties that bind. Place attachment in the plaza. In I. Altman & S. Lowe (Eds.), Place attachment (pp. 165–186). New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
  30. Low, S., & Lawrence-Zúñiga, D. (Eds.). (2003). The anthropology of space and place: Locating culture. Malden: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
  31. Lowenthal, D. (1985). The past is a foreign country. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Lowenthal, D. (1998). The heritage crusade and the spoils of history. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Mamani Condori, C. (1996). History and prehistory in Bolivia: What about the Indians? In R. Preucel & I. Hodder (Eds.), Contemporary archaeology in theory: A reader (pp. 632–645). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
  34. McGuire, R. (1983) Breaking down cultural complexity: Inequality and heterogeneity. Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, 6: 91–142.Google Scholar
  35. Marshall, Y. (2002). What is community archaeology? World Archaeology, 34(2), 211–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Matos Mar, J. (1968). Urbanización y barriadas en América del Sur. Lima: Instituto de Estudios Peruanos.Google Scholar
  37. Meskel, L. (2002). The intersection of identity and politics in archaeology. Annual Review of Anthropology, 31, 279–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Meskel, L. (2007). Falling walls and mending fences: Archaeological ethnography in the Limpopo. Journal of Southern African Studies, 33(2), 383–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Meskel, L. (2010). Human rights and heritage ethics. Anthropological Quarterly, 83(4), 839–860.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Moore, J. (1996). Architecture and power in the ancient Andes: The archaeology of public buildings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Mortesen, L. (2001). Las dinámicas locales de un patrimonio global. Arqueoturismo en Copán, Honduras. Mesoamérica, 22(42), 104–134.Google Scholar
  42. Pacifico, D. (2008). Archaeology and the Public’s Interests at El Purgatorio, Casma, Peru. Master Thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Chicago, Chicago.Google Scholar
  43. Pacifico, D., & Vogel, M. (2012). Archaeological sites, modern communities, and responsible tourism. Annals of Tourist Research, 20(20), 1588–1611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Piminchumo, V. (2001). Evidencias Salinar en el sector sur de la Iglesia de Huanchaco. Sian, 10, 20–24.Google Scholar
  45. Salomon, F., & Peters, R. (2009). Governance and conservation of the Rapaz khipu patrimony. In D. F. Ruggles & H. Silverman (Eds.), Intangible heritage embodied (pp. 101–125). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Sanday, P. (Ed.). (1976). Anthropology and the public interest. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  47. Silverman, H., & Ruggles, D. F. (2007). Cultural heritage and human rights. In H. Silverman & D. F. Ruggles (Eds.), Cultural heritage and human rights (pp. 3–22). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Sinamai, A. (2003). Cultural shifting-sands: Changing meaning of Zimbabwe sites in Zimbabwe, South Africa and Botswana. In 14th ICOMOS General Assembly and International Symposium: “Place, Memory, Meaning: Preserving Intangible Values in Monuments and Sites”. October 27–31, 2003, Victoria Falls. Accessed 22 February 2014.
  49. Smith, A. (2003). The political landscape: Constellations of authority in early complex polities. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  50. Smith, K. (2005). Looting and the politics of archaeological knowledge in Northern Peru. Ethnos, 70(2), 149–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Trigger, B. (1984). Alternative archaeologies: Nationalist, colonialist, imperialist. Man, 19, 355–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Tunbridge, J., & Ashworth, G. (1996). Dissonant heritage: The management of the past as a resource in conflict. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  53. Uceda, S. & Morales, R. (Eds.) (2010). Moche. Pasado y Presente. Trujillo: Patronato Huacas de Moche, Fondo Contravalor Perú-Francia, and Universidad Nacional de Trujillo.Google Scholar
  54. Valle, L., Horna, N., & Lozano, J. (2014). Rescate Arqueológico en “La Virgen”. Trujillo: Sitio de agricultores y pescadores. Qetzal SAC and Grupo OHL.Google Scholar
  55. Waterton, E. (2005). Whose sense of place? Reconciling archaeological perspectives with community values: Cultural landscapes in England. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 11(4), 309–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Wester, C., Martinez, J., & Tandaypan, A. (2000). La Granja. Investigaciones arqueológicas. Chiclayo: Sociedad Minera La Granja and Museo Brüning de Lambayeque.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Universidad Nacional Santiago Antunez de MayoloHuarazPeru

Personalised recommendations