Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Archaeological Heritage in a Modern Urban Landscape pp 73–94Cite as

Why Preserve the Minor Sites? Identity, Heritage, and Urban Life Quality

  • Chapter

  • 681 Accesses

Part of the book series: SpringerBriefs in Archaeology ((BRIEFSARCHHERIT))

Abstract

The loss of archaeological heritage results in a doubly adverse factor. On the one hand, it prevents further study of the sociopolitical evolution of past populations. In addition, the further destruction of ancient places can lead to the acceptance of a landscape lacking tangible evidence of the past and (consequently) opportunities to implement a sustainable development based on the management of local heritage. A new approach to the preservation of archaeological heritage in the outlying areas of Trujillo leads us to reconsider the role of monuments in improving the education and living conditions of the local population. To achieve this goal will require multiple stakeholders to develop new and better avenues for dialog on cultural heritage policy, but also regarding the benefits of the study, preservation and management of cultural heritage. From this perspective, the archaeological sites at risk could be subject to research and presentation to the inhabitants of peripheral urban areas, respecting the value and inherent symbolism of their heritage status but expanding their meaning to become meeting places for the local citizenry. The chapter also examines several cases of Pre-Columbian settlements affected by the growth of modern Latin American cities.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Peruvian archaeological projects developed during the last decades in Túcume, Huaca Chotuna-Chornancap , El Brujo, Huacas de Moche , and Chan Chan have driven—to greater or lesser degree accordingly to their specific modalities of interaction with neighboring communities—the participation of young students from nearby urban and rural areas in conservation and research works. In the case of Túcume, this approach to local communities dates back to the early 1990s and is characterized by a close relationship between the archaeological project and the local popular associations.

  2. 2.

    The PLANDEMETRU 1995–2010 noted the possibility of developing a “vía integradora paisajística” (integrative landscape route) at some sections of the Vichanzao canal (MPT 1995: 63), indicating that this space could reconcile the preservation of archaeological heritage with the operation of a recreational area. The need of Trujillo to include ecological reserves justifies the proposal that the San Idelfonso’s ravine and the nearby Cerro Piedra Parada (Standing Stone Hill) be protected through joint actions of research, legal sanitation, and social use, thereby preserving the mixed character of wildlife refuges and archeological reserve that those areas still present. The protection of that sector would also contribute to preventing the urbanization of areas at risk for alluvial disaster.

  3. 3.

    Huaca Arco Iris (La Esperanza district) and Huaca Esmeralda (sector Mansiche) are two Chimú platform buildings peripheral to Chan Chan. These sites form a tourist and cultural circuit focused specifically on Chimú architectural heritage.

  4. 4.

    During 2009 and 2010, the Unidad Ejecutora Chan Chan began the creation of a line of trees at the limit between the archaeological complex and the Huanchaquito urban sector. This initiative has not been continued.

  5. 5.

    Armatambo is a site from the Inca period (AD 1450–1532) that started to be affected by the periurban growth of Lima in the 1960s (Agurto 1984). The growth of dwellings in Armatambo led to the modern occupation of more than 80 % of the site, with several Pre-Columbian platforms still being visible between streets and residential blocks. As other sites of metropolitan Lima, the transformation of this heritage site into a residential zone motivated a number of archaeological rescue projects sponsored by local populations (Bragayrac 1982; Díaz and Vallejo 2005; Ruales et al. 1983).

  6. 6.

    The Wari period (AD 600–900) site of Conchopata was impacted in 1962 by the highway leading to the Ayacucho city airport and later by its partial occupation by dwellings (Cook 1984; Pozzi-Escot 1985; J. Ochatoma, personal communication, 2014). Modern occupants opposed the attempts of authorities to relocate them outside of the archaeological zone; in the 1990s, their strategies also included the bulldozing of several excavated structures in an attempt to eliminate the evidence of the heritage condition of the site (Ochatoma and Cabrera 2001: 486). In spite of the repeated legal proceedings conducted by the Ministry of Culture , these settlers have remained inside the archaeological sector. The development of Ayacucho as a tourist destination has also implied the renewal of its road network, which includes the highway that cuts through Conchopata.

  7. 7.

    It is realistic to assume that not all the Pre-Columbian sites in the metropolitan area of Trujillo will survive the urban pressure in the coming years. Part of the response to this situation should be directed to the execution of archaeological rescues articulated with a solid practice of diffusion for the results of the excavations.

  8. 8.

    Information regarding these experiences in the protection of heritage sites can be found at https://sites.google.com/site/colectivocolli/ (accessed: February 11, 2014) and http://fortalezadecampoy.blogspot.com/ (accessed: February 13, 2014).

  9. 9.

    The “Guía para la Gestión Pública de Monumentos Arqueológicos de la Región Lima” can be downloaded in http://www.regionlima.gob.pe/guiagestionarqueologia.pdf (accessed: October 25, 2013). The “Lima Milenaria” Web site presents updated information on Peruvian archaeological heritage with a special focus on the city of Lima. See http://www.limamilenaria.blogspot.com/2014/02/somos-capaces-de-tomarnos-en-serio.html (accessed: February 19, 2014).

  10. 10.

    See http://www.savethemoche.org/ (accessed: March 14, 2014) and http://sustainablepreservation.org/projects/pampas-gramalote-peru/ (accessed: March 16, 2014).

References

  • Agurto, S. (1984). Lima Prehispánica. Lima: Municipalidad de Lima. S.A: Perugraph Editores.

    Google Scholar 

  • Allen, J. S. (1998). A ‘cultural mosaic’ at Palmares? Grappling with the historical archaeology of a seventeenth-century Brazilian quilombo. In P. Funari (Ed.), Cultura Material e Arqueología Histórica (pp. 141–178). Campinas: Instituto de Filosofia e Ciências Humanas, Universidade Estadual de Campinas.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anawak, J. (1996). Inuit perceptions of the past. In R. Preucel & I. Hodder (Eds.), Contemporary archaeology in theory: A reader (pp. 646–651). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Asensio, R. H. (2010). Arqueología, museos y desarrollo territorial rural en la costa norte de Perú. Instituto de Estudios Peruanos and Centro Latinoamericano para el Desarrollo Rural. http://www.rimisp.org/wp-content/files_mf/1378404630ArqueologiamuseosDTRHernandezAsensioRauloct11.pdf. Accessed 31 Jan 2014.

  • Asensio, R. H. (2012a). Nosotros los muchik. Turismo, arqueología, antropología y discursos de identidad colectiva en la costa norte del Perú (1987–2009). In R. H. Asensio & B. Pérez (Eds.), ¿El turismo es cosa de pobres? Patrimonio cultural pueblos indígenas y nuevas formas de turismo en América Latina (pp. 35–60). Lima: Instituto de Estudios Peruanos.

    Google Scholar 

  • Asensio, R. H. (2012b). Las piedras suplican auxilio. Arqueólogos, huaqueros y autoridades locales en Chavín de Huantár (1870–1945). Histórica, XXXVL, 113–138.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ayala, P., Avendaño, S., & Cárdenas, U. (2003). Vinculaciones entre una Arqueología Social y la comunidad indígena de Ollagüe (Antofagasta, Chile). Chungara, 35(2), 275–285.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bragayrac, E. (1982). Investigaciones arqueológicas en Armatambo (Chorrillos): Huaca Marcavilca. Lima: Centro de Investigación y Restauración de Bienes Monumentales del Instituto Nacional de Cultura.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bravo, A. (2003). Arqueología aplicada al desarrollo de las comunidades atacameñas. Chungara, 35(2), 287–293.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cardona, K., & Magnoni, A. (2007). Manejo de sitios arqueológicos en el área Maya: El caso del Parque Arqueológico Kaminaljuyu, Guatemala, y el de Chunchucmil, Yucatán. In J. Laporte, B. Arroyo & H. Mejía (Eds.), XX Simposio de Investigaciones Arqueológicas en Guatemala, 2006. Guatemala: Museo Nacional de Antropología y Etnología.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carrasco, C., Agüero, C., Ayala, P., Uribe, M., & Cases, B. (2003). Investigaciones en Quillagua: Difusión del conocimiento arqueológico y protección del patrimonio cultural. Chungara, 35(2), 321–326.

    Google Scholar 

  • Castillo, L. J. (2004). Arqueología y desarrollo comunitario sostenible en San José de Moro. In L. J. Castillo (Ed.), Programa Arqueológico San José de Moro. Temporada 2004 (pp. 168–193). http://sanjosedemoro.pucp.edu.pe/descargas/reportes/INFORME2004.pdf. Accessed 17 Oct 2013.

  • Chirikure, S., Manyanga, M., Ndoro, W., & Pwiti, G. (2010). Unfilled promises? Heritage management and community participation at some of Africa’s cultural heritage sites. Journal of Heritage Studies, 16(1–2), 30–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cook, A. (1984). The middle horizon ceramic offerings from Conchopata. Ñawpa Pacha, 22–23, 49–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crasborn, J., Marroquín, E., Urízar, A., Hernández, E., & Luin, C. (2004). La agonía del Cerro de los Muertos: Kaminaljuyú hacia el siglo XXI. In J. P. Laporte, B. Arroyo, H. Escobedo, & H. Mejía (Eds.), XVII Simposio de Investigaciones Arqueológicas en Guatemala, 2003 (pp. 188–202). Guatemala: Museo Nacional de Arqueología y Etnología.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crespo, C. (2005). ¿Qué pertenece a quién?: Procesos de patrimonialización y pueblos originarios en Patagonia. In Cuadernos de Antropología Social (Vol. 21, pp. 133–149). Universidad de Buenos Aires. http://www.redalyc.org/pdf/1809/180913910008.pdf. Accessed 15 Feb 2014.

  • Cross, J. (2001). What is sense of place? Paper presented in the 12th Headwaters Conference, Western State College, 2–4 Nov 2001. http://lamar.colostate.edu/~jecross/pdf/presentations/Sense_of_Place_Cross_2001.pdf. Accessed 15 Feb 2014.

  • Díaz, L., & Vallejo, F. (2005). Clasificación del patrón funerario Yschma en Armatambo y Rinconada Alta. In C. Olaya & M. Romero (Eds.), Corriente Arqueológica (pp. 223–322). Lima: Universidad Nacional Federico Villarreal.

    Google Scholar 

  • Doering, T., & Collins, L. (2008). The Kaminaljuyú sculpture project: An expandable three-dimensional database. FAMSI. http://www.famsi.org/reports/07007/07007Doering01.pdf. Accessed 13 Jan 2014.

  • Dunell, R. C. (1984). The ethics of archaeological significance decisions. In E. L. Green (Ed.), Ethics and values in archaeology (pp. 62–74). New York: The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Escobedo, H., Ponciano, E., & del Águila, P. (2009). Síntesis de los talleres del Plan de Gestión de la Zona Arqueológica de Kaminaljuyú 2009–2013. In Kaminaljuyu. Edición Especial. Serie de Estudios Arqueológicos (Vol. 5, pp. 109–115). Guatemala: Dirección General del Patrimonio Cultural y Natural. Ministerio de Cultura y Deportes.

    Google Scholar 

  • Farajat, S. (2012). The participation of local communities in the tourism industry at Petra. In D. Comer (Ed.), Tourism and archaeological heritage management at Petra (pp. 145–165). New York: SpringerBriefs in Archaeological Heritage Management.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fernández-Maldonado, A. (2006). Barriadas and elite in Lima, Peru: Recent trends of urban integration and disintegration. Paper presented in 42nd IsoCaRP Congress. http://www.isocarp.net/Data/case_studies/848.pdf. Accessed 14 Feb 2014.

  • Funari, P. (2003). Conflict and interpretation of Palmares, a Brazilian runaway polity. Historical Archaeology, 37(3), 81–92.

    Google Scholar 

  • Funari, P., Manzato, F., & Prado Alfonso, L. (2013). El turismo y la arqueología en el Brasil: una mirada posmoderna. In A. Herrera (Ed.), Arqueología y desarrollo en América del Sur. De la práctica a la teoría (pp. 35–54). Lima: Universidad de los Andes and Instituto de Estudios Peruanos.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herrera, A. (2013). 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 

  • Herrera, A., & Hallowell, J. (2007). The process is the outcome. Archaeologies. Journal of the World Archaeological Congress, 3(3), 384–389.

    Google Scholar 

  • ICOMOS (International Council of Monuments and Sites). (1990). Charter for the Protection and Management of the Archaeological Heritage. http://www.international.icomos.org/charters/arch_e.pdf. Accessed 25 March 2014.

  • ICOMOS (International Council of Monuments and Sites). (2008). Ename Charter for the Interpretation and Presentation of Cultural Heritage Sites. http://www.enamecharter.org/. Accessed 25 March 2014.

  • Inokuchi, K. (2011). Catálogo. In Y. Onuki & K. Inokuchi (Eds.), Gemelos prístinos: el tesoro del templo de Kuntur Wasi (pp. 139–144). Lima: Fondo Editorial del Congreso del Perú.

    Google Scholar 

  • Imparato, I., & Ruster, J. (2003). Slum upgrading and participation. Lessons from Latin America. Washington, D.C.: The World Bank.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Jameson, J., & Baugher-Perlin, S. (2007). Past meets present. Archaeologists partnering with museum curators, teachers, and community groups. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jofré, D. (2003). Una propuesta de acercamiento al patrimonio arqueológico de la comunidad de Belén (Tarapacá, Chile). Chungara, 35(2), 327–335.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Lima, M. (2003). Participación comunitaria, desarrollo sostenible y arqueología: El caso de Quila-Quila (Chuquisaca, Bolivia). Chungara, 35(2), 361–365.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lowenthal, D. (1985). The past is a foreign country. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meskel, L. (2010). Human rights and heritage ethics. Anthropological Quarterly, 83(4), 839–860.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miles, S. (1963). Informe sobre Kaminaljuyú rendido al Instituto de Antropología e Historia. Antropología e Historia de Guatemala, 15(2). Guatemala.

    Google Scholar 

  • Montenegro, M., & Rivolta, M. C. (2013). Patrimonio arqueológico y desarrollo: Pasados que se hacen presente. Experiencias desde el noroeste argentino. In A. Herrera (Ed.), Arqueología y desarrollo en América del Sur. De la practica a la teoría (pp. 17–34). Lima: Universidad de los Andes and Instituto de Estudios Peruanos.

    Google Scholar 

  • MPT (Municipalidad Provincial de Trujillo). (1995). Plan de Desarrollo Metropolitano de Trujillo (PLANDEMETRU) 1995–2010. Trujillo. http://www.plandet.gob.pe/images/PLANES_DE_ORDENAMIENTO_TERRITORIAL/DESCARGAS/PLAN_ACONDICIONAMIENTO_TERRITORIAL/PLAN_DE_DESARROLLO_METROPOLITANO_AL_2010.pdf. Accessed 15 Oct 2012.

  • Noreña, S., & Palacio, L. (2007). Arqueología: ¿Patrimonio de la comunidad? Boletín de Antropología, 21 (38): 292–311. Universidad de Antioquía. Medellín. http://www.redalyc.org/pdf/557/55703814.pdf. Accessed 15 Feb 2014.

  • Ochatoma, J., & Cabrera, M. (2001). Arquitectura y áreas de actividad en Conchopata. Boletín de Arqueología PUCP, 4, 449–488.

    Google Scholar 

  • Onuki, Y. (2006). The Kuntur Wasi Museum in Northern Peru. In H. Silverman (Ed.), Archaeological site museums in Latin America (pp. 64–71). Gainesville: University Press of Florida.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ortega, V. (2003). El patrimonio arqueológico de Teotihuacán. Responsabilidad Social. Arqueología Mexicana, 9(64), 58–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ortega, V. (2005). La reconfiguración del espacio urbano: Sociedad actual e investigación arqueológica en la periferia de la Zona Arqueológica de Teotihuacán. In M. E. Ruiz & J. Torres (Eds.), Arquitectura y urbanismo: pasado y presente de los espacios en Teotihuacán (pp. 703–723). México D.F.: Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ortega, V. (2012). Teotihuacán, México. Del contexto local al entorno global en materia de manejo. Paper presented in the ICAHM 2012 Annual Meeting. 27–30 Nov 2012. Cusco.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ortega, V. (2013). Teotihuacán. Nueva mirada al pasado. Arqueología de salvamento. Zona de Monumentos Arqueológicos de Teotihuacán. Saarbrücken: Editorial Académica Española.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pacifico, D., & Vogel, M. (2012). Archaeological sites, modern communities, and responsible tourism. Annals of Tourist Research, 20(20), 1588–1611.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pozzi-Escot, D. (1985). Conchopata, un poblado de especialistas durante el Horizonte Medio. Bulletin del I’Institut Français d’Études Andines, 14(3–4), 115–129.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quispe, W., Espinoza, G., Santoro, C., Gonzáles, H., & Córdova, J. (1998). Participación de la comunidad aymara en la conservación y manejo del patrimonio arqueológico de las provincias de Arica y Parinacota. In X. Navarro (Ed.), Patrimonio Arqueológico Indígena en Chile. Reflexiones y Propuestas de Gestión (pp. 113–124). Temuco: Universidad de la Frontera and UNESCO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robles, N., & Corbett, J. (2009). Carrots and sticks: Reconciling stakeholders interests in cultural landscapes. Proceedings of the 2009 George Wright Society Conference. http://www.georgewright.org/0951robles.pdf. Accessed 30 March 2014.

  • Rodríguez García, I. (1991). Teotihuacán: la cultura, la sociedad, el INAH y los investigadores. Cuadernos de Arquitectura Mesoamericana (Vol. 13, pp. 55–60). Facultad de Arquitectura. UNAM. México D.F.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruales, M., Tosso, W., & Vallejo, F. (1983). Informe de excavaciones de rescate en el Sector D1 de Armatambo. Report presented to the Instituto Nacional de Cultura, Lima.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Sanches, B. (2013). Eligiendo identidades: arqueología pública y colonialismo en Brasil. In A. Herrera (Ed.), Arqueología y desarrollo en América del Sur. De la práctica a la teoría (pp. 55–71). Lima: Universidad de los Andes and Instituto de Estudios Peruanos.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schavelzon, D., & Rivera, V. (1987). La destrucción de Kaminaljuyú. Mesoamérica, 14, 535–551.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, M. (1996). Popular participation and the World Bank: Lessons from forty-eight case studies. In J. Reitbergen-McCracken (Ed.), Participation in practice: The experience of the World Bank and other stakeholders (pp. 21–25). Discussion Paper No. 333. Washington, D.C.: World Bank.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seki, Y. (2013). Rethinking the participation of local communities in the cultural heritage management. In The reports of the management research symposium for cultural sites “archaeological sites and cultural heritage in public” (pp. 4–9). Nara National Research Institute of Cultural Properties.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trivelli, C., & Asensio, R. H. (2009). Apostando por el desarrollo territorial rural con identidad cultural: La puesta en valor del patrimonio prehispánico de la costa norte de Perú. In C. Ranaboldo & A. Schejtmann (Eds.), El valor del patrimonio cultural. Territorios rurales, experiencias y proyecciones latinoamericanas (pp. 201–236). Lima: Instituto de Estudios Peruanos.

    Google Scholar 

  • Valdés, J. (2003). El Museo Miraflores: un punto de encuentro en Kaminaljuyú. In J. P. Laporte, B. Arroyo, H. Escobedo, & H. Mejía (Eds.), XVI Simposio de Investigaciones Arqueológicas en Guatemala, 2002 (pp. 863–870). Guatemala: Museo Nacional de Arqueología y Etnología.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wester, C. (2010). Chotuna-Chornancap: Templos, rituales y ancestros Lambayeque. Lima: Unidad Ejecutora Naylamp and Museo Brüning de Lambayeque.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woynar, M. (2003). Arqueología y problemática social: Hacia un manejo de los recursos arqueológicos con mayor colaboración de las comunidades. In J. P. Laporte, B. Arroyo, H. Escobedo, & H. Mejía (Eds.), XVI Simposio de Investigaciones Arqueológicas en Guatemala, 2002 (pp. 36–47). Guatemala: Museo Nacional de Arqueología y Etnología.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zabala, M., & Roura, I. (2008). La investigación arqueológica en relación con la comunidad. Reflexiones acerca de una experiencia en educación patrimonial en el Departamento Minas. Arqueoweb, 10. http://www.ucm.es/info/arqueoweb/pdf/10/zabalaroura.pdf. Accessed 20 Oct 2013.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Universidad Nacional Santiago Antunez de Mayolo, Huaraz, Peru

    Jorge Gamboa

Authors
  1. Jorge Gamboa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jorge Gamboa .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Gamboa, J. (2015). Why Preserve the Minor Sites? Identity, Heritage, and Urban Life Quality. In: Archaeological Heritage in a Modern Urban Landscape. SpringerBriefs in Archaeology(). Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-15470-1_4

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation