1
SOCIETY FOR AMERICAN ARCHAEOLOGY
Annual Meeting, April 18-22, 2012, Memphis, TN
SYMPOSIUM: “Lessons from the Trenches: The Pedagogy of Archaeology and Heritage” Co-organizers: Susan Bender and Phyllis Messenger Moderator: Phyllis Messenger Discussants: Susan Bender ([email protected]), Sarah Neusius ([email protected])
Presentation:
ARCHAEOLOGY, CULTURAL HERITAGE, AND PEDAGOGY IN PERU (Abstract)
Speaker:
Jorge E. Silva, Universidad de San Marcos, Universidad Ricardo Palma
Abstract. This presentation will discuss archaeology, cultural heritage and pedagogy in Peru.
Although archaeology began as a scientific discipline by the end of the XIX Century in Peru, it was
not until the 1940s that it had become a career at San Marcos University. Today, Peruvian
archaeologists ask how useful archaeology was in understanding the past and in developing
concepts that help to recover, preserve and teach cultural heritage properly. It is suggested that in
the last two decades people developed a positive attitude toward their past.
Originally archaeology dedicated its entire efforts to “reconstruct” the past, today archaeology
faces other challenges. Such challenges are best summarized by questioning “about the future of
the past” as claimed by P. Messenger in the Preface to the second edition of her book on “the
Ethics of Collecting Cultural Property” (1999: xvii). As everyone would agree “the future of the
past” also includes the issue of conserving archaeology as a solid discipline, with a capital “S” in
the words of K. V. Flannery (1973), so that past information is properly and scientifically
documented.
The issue of cultural heritage in past and at present has become an international concern today. As
pointed out by P. Messenger (1999: 259), in recent decades agencies from around the world
including the US have been working on this topic and expect to see “significant and promising
trends in developing ethical perspectives in the treatment of cultural heritage resources”.
According to P. Messenger (1999: 236) these agencies not only deal with the looting of ancient
sites, but also show their concern for “the importance of education” and states; in the same way
we are worried about nature, she suggests that “the long-term educational process may be our
2
best hope for salvaging our past” (op. cit.: 236), and it is at this point that archaeologists should
work with educators to “create curricular units and develop museum programs that emphasize
education using objects as part of an environment rather than as objects of veneration” (op. cit.:
236).
The outcome of such efforts has been expressed through the creations of the Public Education
Committee of SAA: working and focus groups that presented several recommendations about
shaping a new professional profile regarding how education and training of new archaeologists
should be handled. As everyone knows several articles and books have been published since the
1980s by p. Messenger, S. Bender, K.C. Smith, G. Smith, and other archaeologists who have
contributed in order to establish a new agenda on this subject matter.
Establishing what and how many challenges archaeology faces today is complex when thinking
about the expectations and specific interests that archaeologists and people in general from
around the world have. While for the countries of Eastern Africa it is crucial to preserve geological
formations from 4 to 8 million years of age, for people of the central Andes it would be more
relevant to preserve adobe or stone architecture, and fabrics that go back to about 2500 years
B.C., and to conserve caves of 12,000 years of age.
Archaeologists have had their own views about the importance of the discipline and what
challenges should be addressed. In the 1930s Grahame Clark wondered “whether the study of
prehistory has any relevance for modern society” (1939: 251). He answered yes to that inquiry,
because “archaeology appeals directly to interests and concerns basic to human beings” (op. cit.:
252), and “By its power to engage attention archaeology has also the opportunity to educate and
educate in the true sense of drawing out latent interests, enhancing a sense of awareness and
stimulating the joy in living that many occupations of modern life have done so much to atrophy”
(op. cit.: 253).
By the time that Clark made that statement, which I believe remains important today, archaeology
was not a major at the universities in Peru. However, it was a time of intensive archaeological
projects that Peruvian J. C. Tello had been conducting across the country since the beginning of
the 1910s. He had a nationalistic point of view and different to Max Uhle, Tello proposed that
Peruvian civilization was unique and emerged in the Amazon basin. In his 1921 book An
Introduction to Ancient Peru, he stated that Chavin de Huantar was not only a site, but also a
culture that expanded for most of the Peruvian territory and was the matrix of Andean cultures.
He claimed that Peruvian identity could be reinforced by studying its past.
In the 1920s another Peruvian, L. E. Valcárcel, postulated similar conceptions to those of Tello, but
he concentrated his work on Inca culture. At that time a strong indigenous movement was
developing in Peru, and both, Tello and Valcarcel, considered that archaeology could demonstrate
that Indians were able to create a great civilization such as the Incas. First Tello, and then
Valcarcel, pointed out that people, society, must be aware of that ancient history.
3
Simultaneously, other archaeological projects were carried out in Peru as well. Such projects were
part of the US Boasian anthropological orientation which was mainly devoted to building cultural
areas and chronologies based on pottery typologies. Among these projects are the remarkable
studies of W. C. Bennett at Tiwanaku and the Peruvian north coast; A. Kroeber, A. Gayton, and W.
Strong, among others, worked on pottery collections from Nasca, Chincha, and the Peruvian
central coast.
These comments concerning the way archaeological research developed in Peru is relevant in
training archaeologists in Peru, and educating the Peruvian society about its heritage. For instance,
I have noticed a strong American tradition in the way archaeology has been carried out and taught
in Peru, and on the other hand, through time Peru has developed its own style of archaeology
thanks to its involvement with US, Germans, and French researchers. Therefore, I believe that
both research and education are interrelated.
However, dealing with heritage is complex given the fact that there are different opinions about
its treatment. This is to say that no matter what our concept of heritage is, either to reinforce
identity, to build up specific, selected symbols that must be remembered, or just to increase
knowledge, all points of view formulate their own educational perspective so that a common
thought is achieved and shared. As P. Shackel (2010: ix) affirms “Heritage is about power and the
control of a community’s collective memory”. I think we need to keep this aspect in mind when
dealing with educational purposes in teaching and training new archaeologists.
For the purposes of this presentation I will concentrate on some aspects of Peruvian education
and training of Peruvian archaeologists. To do so, I will present brief comments on the role of the
Peruvian university, the impact of the works of M. Uhle, J.C. Tello, and L. E. Valcarcel, a historical
background of how archaeology began as a career and what should be done in the future
concerning education and archaeology, the training of archaeologists and their role for the
country.
The Peruvian University: Roles and Goals
People and society generally agree that the University’s role is to carry out research, social
development, and the training of professionals. As such, it builds up the basis of progress and
modernity of society. It is in the universities where individuals are trained not only to learn about
the world, but also to learn how to face any aspect of the world. This is to say that the University
has the ability to produce, increase and improve knowledge. By doing so universities may help to
change or transform society. The University may elaborate scientific discourses and particular
alternatives that may contribute in the understanding of our reality.
Today, the university should take a position in front of the main national problems and propose
their solution based on criteria of examination and analyzes of facts based on scientific principles.
In other words, the university should commit to an ethics in which truth should not be subject to
political negotiation. The university and the development of a country are closely related, which
4
we can see in the corresponding correlation between university careers and demands of the job
market (see for example Piscoya 2011, Santa Cruz 2009).
In regard to Peru, some scholars are pessimistic about how much the university helps to develop
the country. Such assumption is based on a number of factors. For example, it is seen as a chaotic
administrative and academic organization that encourages an endogamous hybrid institution. Also
its scarce economic and material resources of no more than 2.9% of the Peruvian general budget
that the state provides to public universities, etc. These reasons, among others, prevent the
Peruvian university from completing its important role, which is to investigate and produce
knowledge (Piscoya 2011: 12, 30).
Such a situation has made the Peruvian university a weak institution compared to the rest of the
Latin American universities. For example, out of 1466 Latin American universities only 4 of them
were included in the ranking of universities of the period 2004-2008 published by the Jiao Tong
University of Shanghai. They are Brazil, Mexico, Argentina and Chile. Peru appears to be in a bad
position. However, in the Scimago Iberoamerican Ranking of 2003-2008 concerning scientific
production by Iberoamerican countries, Peru ranked number 12 (Piscoya 2011: 35).
There is also a problematic correlation between professionals that the job market wants and the
careers offered by Peruvian universities. A recent investigation on this topic indicates that
Peruvian universities graduate professionals that the job market does not ask for, and if they do,
such professionals are in small quantity. For example, in 2006 Peruvian universities offered 188
careers, but the job market required only 86 of them. In addition, 83 careers had no applicants
that year. To make this situation worse, in 2010 the careers offered by Peruvian universities
increased to 235 (Piscoya 2011: 47-49).
Actually, the figures already provided represent a challenge for universities that pretend to carry
out specific programs, such as archaeology and studies of cultural heritage preservation, because
in the ranking of the 86 most demanded careers in Peru, Anthropology ranks 42, Archaeology 50,
Art 73, and History 79. And according to other research, out of the 30 careers in the highest
demand in the Peruvian job market, Archaeology was not even mentioned (Piscoya 2011: 48, 49,
Chart 9; 118, Chart 52).
Even in showing our doubts about the data already cited it seems that training anthropologists and
archaeologists in Peru is not urgent today. The leading careers are accounting, business
administration, law, engineering, architecture, medicine, education, and tourism. They are the 15
most demanded careers in Peru today. This picture is surprising given the fact that Peru not only
has a long history, but also has many spectacular, large archaeological settlements across its
territory, not to mention its cultural diversity and biodiversity. What measures should be taken to
make archaeology more visible in Peru? I will try to assess this question in the final part of this
paper.
The topic discussed above is only part of the Peruvian university´s diverse problems. Therefore,
scholars have proposed to assess its present day goals and transform its relationship to society. To
5
achieve such transformation, students should be prepared with the necessary instruments to
explore and analyze reality critically by teaching them the theoretical and methodological basis of
a specific career, and the positive attitudes about their careers; through this method of teaching,
they may be able to identify for themselves the problems of their country (Santa Cruz 2009: 18). In
essence the University is not exempt of its mission to deal with particular problems of a country.
In regard to Peru, some educators wonder whether or not our educational system helps to
reinforce a national consciousness and identity or if it is just a means for graduating pragmatic
professionals without social sensitivity. Pessimists believe that many Peruvian universities show a
generalized tendency to emphasize the second aspect by producing technocrats or pragmatic
professionals based on the demands of the market system.
In order to establish a balance or to reverse this tendency some scholars propose to draw
attention to subject matters in the area of the humanities, such as Peruvian reality, past and
present, and the comparison of world civilizations, among others. By doing so, education, without
neglecting market demand, may shape professionals with the skills and critical capacity to
preserve and develop our own culture in the context of the global processes (Santa Cruz 2009: 19,
53).
In this respect it is relevant to indicate that a recent investigation conducted at the private
University of Ricardo Palma, Lima, has demonstrated that students are aware of the relevance of
courses about humanities, in particular about Peruvian history and culture. A controlled poll
among students revealed that humanity courses cover 11% of the entire curricula for all
specialties. In addition, those subjects contributed to develop a deeper identification with Peru for
about 59.9% of the students at the University of Ricardo Palma (Santa Cruz 2009: 84, 100, 141,
164, 165, Chart 26).
The Scientific Study of Ancient Peru
It has been stated that both M. Uhle by the end of the 19th Century, and J. C. Tello in the early
1910s, began the scientific study of the pre-Hispanic cultures of Peru. Also, they proposed
different interpretations about the origins of civilization and cultural complexity in ancient Peru.
Indeed, apart from their different theoretical propositions and their particular work styles, both
Uhle and Tello understood very well the significance and value of old relics for present day
cultures.
For example, Uhle protested against the Bolivian army which used to employ the Tiwanaku ruins
for military drills around the end of the 19th century. Tello also had a strong position about
preserving archaeological remains; Pachacamac and Ancon among other emblematic
archaeological settlements are good examples on this regard. Tello also worked on the 6634 Law
of Monuments and Relics of 1929, devoted to preserving and studying the archaeological remains
of Peru.
6
In addition, Uhle organized the national Museum, and Tello the San Marcos University Museum of
archaeology. Tello’s position was also linked to the ideas of the indigenous movement during the
1920s, which in turn represented a nationalistic point of view oriented to rescue indigenous values
and knowledge. In this respect, a clear political discourse was developed based on data provided
by archaeological research.
But although both of them showed a clear position about preserving past heritage, they were
mostly involved on research rather than training professional archaeologists to investigate the
past or to prepare others to protect and preserve the past. To make this situation worse, the
Peruvian government has had a very ambiguous idea of preserving cultural heritage. Of course,
this was when archaeology did not exist as a career in Peruvian universities.
However, it should be pointed out that in 1913 Tello wrote articles and essays about scientific
training in archeology in Peru, and from 1928 to 1946 he taught Archaeology of Peru and America
at San Marcos University; also, in 1931 Tello organized the National Institute of Anthropology at
San Marcos, and in 1936 he founded the Institute of Andean Studies in New York, which was
mainly devoted to research programs.
I believe that both Uhle and Tello contributed to uncovering more of ancient Peru, but their efforts
were not encouraged or supported by the State which would have been crucial for the destiny of
today´s cultural heritage in Peru. Their claims were therefore isolated voices that could not reach
the nation as a whole. Later on, and as part of personal efforts, there have been attempts to
develop good archaeology in Perú. In 1979, in order to achieve better standards L. Lumbreras
submitted to the Regional Project of the Andean Cultural Heritage of the UNESCO a project titled
“Training Program Proposal of Post Degree in Archaeology”. Not so much was achieved on this
subject because of political and funding problems.
On the other hand, it should be indicated that training archaeology in Perú showed several
problems. For example, by mid 1980s R. Matos (1986: 7, 8) stated that archaeology in Perú is still
considered as “a romantic and exotic career”, and the ones who practice it form part of a “sort of
elite” romantic people. Matos also remarked that there was no correspondence between graduate
archaeologists and available positions in archaeology. Even graduate archaeologists in foreign
universities had difficulties finding a decent salary in Perú, not to mention the almost complete
absence of state or university funds to conduct research.
The Peruvian Universities and Training of Archaeologists
Teaching, educating, and training archaeologists in Peru demonstrates some features that can be
arranged into a sequence that began in the 1940s. Before describing that sequence I consider it
relevant to indicate that early in the decade of 1990, D. Bonavia and R. Matos (1992) published
what seems to be the first conscious assessment about teaching archaeology in Peru. Their results
were negative since infrastructure problems, lack of funds, the old administrative university
system, and little support by the State, affected training of archaeology.
7
The above mentioned sequence is as follows:
Institute of Ethnology and Archaeology
In 1946, just one year before Tello´s death, L. E. Valcarcel founded the Institute of Ethnology and
Archaeology at San Marcos University within the College of Humanities. The goal was to graduate
anthropologists in the specialties of Ethnology to study living traditional communities, and
archaeologists to study only pre-Hispanic cultures. The main characteristic of such training was
that all students attended classes based on the same curricula or courses. Each specialty was
decided at the last year of studies based on the student´s election. Therefore, archaeologists had
an anthropological orientation in their formation. Training mainly encouraged research.
It was at this period that an intense educational exchange program began with the US government
through the Fulbright Commission so that students pursue Master and Doctoral degrees in US
universities. That program has established that graduate students should return to Peru after
obtaining their degrees.
Law of Education of 1969
Law Decree 17439 of 1969 transformed Peruvian education in many ways. The College of Arts and
Humanities was converted into Academic Social Programs which included the Department of
Historical and Social Sciences divided into the Sections of Anthropology and Archaeology, History,
Sociology, and Social work. Although these specialties were within the same department, each
specialty developed its own curricula, and in the long run integration was administrative rather
than academic.
Creation of the School of Archaeology
It was within the departmental system described above that the Section of Archaeology was
created in 1975 by which Archaeology separated administrative and academically from Ethnology.
The idea of gaining autonomy was based on the fact that Peru needed well-prepared
archaeologists to study Peruvian past cultures without denying its anthropological orientation.
The University College System and the College of Social Sciences
In 1985 Peruvian universities returned to the College system. The College of Social Sciences was
created and included the Schools of Anthropology, Archaeology, History, Sociology, Social Work,
and Geography, each with its own directorship. However, for awhile Archaeology depended on
Anthropology in some aspects such as its attachment to the Department of Anthropology. This
situation changed in 2008 when the Department of Archaeology was created.
Profile of Peruvian Archaeologists
During the period of time when archaeology became a professional career in Peru, archaeological
investigations conducted by Peruvians had a common claim. The claim being that archaeology has
the ability to demonstrate that pre-Hispanic Peruvian cultures were unique examples of cultural
8
evolution, which reached high levels of civilization without wheeled transport technology and a
written language system. Based on these specific features Andean civilization is frequently quoted
as a sui generis cultural manifestation.
Even though most of us are aware that such an idea might prevent unbiased interpretations about
ancient Peru, teaching and training archaeologists in Peru show such perspective. As far as I am
concerned, professors advise students to study and preserve our ruins because they are the only
material evidences supporting the idea that Andean civilization developed without external
contacts. In this respect Peruvian archaeologists establish a sort of empathetic relationship with
the past which goes beyond the so-called phrase of doing archaeology just “for the sake of
science”.
Such an idea is also attached to the formation and training of Peruvian archeologists in
emphasizing research. Why? As stated previously, we, as Peruvians aware of the long, old history
of our country, need to learn more and improve our knowledge of our past through archaeological
studies, either by exploring or excavating. As is commonly understood, ancient Peru lasted in
isolation for about 12,000 years, and during that time ancient Peruvians were able to build a
particular civilization similar to those that emerged in the Near East, Mexico, the Nile basin, etc. In
so doing, we have the obligation to conduct serious good field work, publish our results, and offer
them not only to our colleagues, but also to our society. In this respect, archaeology has a social
and nationalistic content dimension useful to reinforce Peruvian cultural identity nowadays.
Because as Peruvians we are part of that long cultural evolution, it is our duty to know the
different cultural processes that took place throughout the Central Andes, beginning from a
hunter gatherer way of life to the building up of the Inca Empire. Otherwise, it would be difficult to
understand the entire process as such. So far, San Marcos University´s School of Archaeology has
placed an emphasis on an overall perspective so that students have a complete picture of the
Andean history. The idea behind this point is that students develop their own points of view about
all pre-Hispanic periods, and can formulate problems or specific questions about any period.
Conclusions
Archaeologists are more and more aware of the need for a joint work with several state and
private agencies. In doing so, as P. Stone (2010: xi-xii) pointed out, problems can be anticipated
and dealt with “before they turn into threats or disasters”. It should be emphasized that many
archaeologists have contributed to the development of a sense of compromise with the
conservation of the past that includes a new political viewpoint about the education of new
archaeologists. As part of this viewpoint, Messenger and Smith (2010: xiv) indicated that future
education about archaeology must “include more indigenous and global perspective” since the
past is a global issue today.
Training Peruvian archaeologists has been oriented toward research of ancient Peru in order to
increase and improve knowledge about the emergence and the evolution of the Andean
civilization (Silva 1995). This trend should be encouraged in the future; As proposed by J. C. Tello,
9
L. E. Valcarcel many years ago, other archaeologists such as R. Matos show similar thoughts. He
pointed out that what Peru needs is well-prepared, hard working archaeologists in recovering and
understanding data; but also honest dealing with such data (Matos 1986: 13). He also remarked
that instead of looking for and adjusting indigenous Peruvian cultural features to non Peruvian
theoretical categories, he has asked,” Why don´t we use Andean names?”. As soon as we reach
that conception, he said, we will be in the position to talk about a “National Archaeology” (Matos
1986: 14).
However, a preliminary agenda should be prepared so that time and economic resources are best
used. With regard to this aspect, Castillo (2000: 292) proposes that the university may contribute
to preserve and study archaeological patrimony considering at least four areas, such as creating
regional documentary centers, intervention of archaeologists as soon as sites are affected by
looters or destroyed by human or nature agents, to register all sites, and present information
about preserving past. I believe that such agenda should also include other topics and regions that
need great attention either because our knowledge about them is entirely incomplete, or because
they may disappear due to development projects.
However, new challenges coming from Peru´s modernization require that training of Peruvian
archaeologists should include a solid theoretical and methodological basis to conduct
archaeological assessment projects, to know how to preserve archaeological sites, how to
preserve organic and nonorganic objects, how to manage archaeological museums, and how to
manage archaeological site museums.
An advantage that may help to deal with these challenges is the existence of 10 schools of
archaeology across the country which means that at least 250 new students will start to learn the
discipline every year. Although no data is available at this point, less than half of that figure may
obtain their University Diploma of professional Archaeologists. Such a number suggests that even
though archaeology is not in the top fifteen chosen careers in Peru, it seems that it has been
achieving a better position since there are more students pursuing archaeology as a career in Peru.
Such a tendency is also a new challenge because good, acceptable standards of training should be
maintained. On the other hand, given the increased amount of new archaeologists it is now
possible to propose several projects covering areas and research problems not yet considered.
Also, it should be emphasized that training a Peruvian archaeologist should demonstrate a
particular, specific profile. There are several reasons for this point. So far, San Marcos University
has had an overall macro tendency on the nature of archaeological training of its students. That is,
there has been a strong concern about offering a curriculum by which students cover the entire
pre-Hispanic time period of ancient Peru so that the entire cultural process is known.
Why such orientation? First, archaeology may help to build up a sense of identity that in turn
creates a collective memory based on Peru´s cultural and natural diversity. To teach bits and
pieces of Peruvian past would avoid assessing with confidence the nature of Andean civilization
and its meaning for today’s Peru. Second, being aware of the “state of the art” of the discipline,
10
he/she will be in the capacity to judge and formulate problems. Third, it would be useful to design
specific research topics for any period and region of the central Andean region.
That orientation is what marks the difference between Peruvian archaeologists and non-Peruvian
archaeologists who tend to study some specific topic of Peruvian prehistory just for the sake of
science only. Therefore, I think that a holistic orientation in the training of the future
archaeologists of Peru is the best option if we want to reinforce our sense of identification with
the entire Andean civilization.
This position does not suggest that we neglect specialization on particular problems and take them
as capsules to look at them in isolation. However, this aspect should also be encouraged so that
specific case-study projects can be carried out as well.
On the other hand, an aspect that cannot be ignored is that related to the so-called modernization
and globalization of Peru. Whether or not we take credit for the benefits of such processes, their
presence and impact are unavoidable. What does training archaeologists have to do with that
fact? There exists a relationship. Peruvian involvement with globalization has generated many
mining projects, building of high power energy plants, constructing highways, and other
infrastructure projects that have put the Peruvian heritage at risk. How can the Peruvian
government or schools of archaeologists mitigate such an impact?
The Peruvian government improved its legal system of cultural heritage protection in the1990s. As
part of this goal, it enacted specific measurements and procedures so that archaeological sites are
studied properly before they are affected by road constructions, mining explorations, etc.
According to this bylaw many archaeological assessment projects and salvage or rescue
archaeology have been conducted in Peru. In this respect it is necessary to develop a new concept
about this type of research so that past data is well documented.
Finally, we should be clear about the fact that not all sites should be rescued in the name of
progress and development of the country. Since we are aware that once a site is excavated its
integrity is damaged, we must improve our field work skills, and know how to deal with
government and private Institutions working on developmental projects so that archaeological
assessment projects are properly executed, based on international standards. It is on this issue
that education and training needs special attention so that past and present may establish a non-
conflictive interrelationship.
References (selected)
Bonavia, Duccio and Ramiro Matos 1992 Enseñanza de la Arqueología en el Perú. Informe Evaluativo. Fomciencias, Lima. Castillo, Luis Jaime 2000 El Patrimonio Cultural y la Misión de las Universidades, In Patrimonio Cultural del Peru I,
pp. 289-296. Fondo Editorial Congreso de la República, Lima.
11
Clark, Grahame 1965 Archaeology and Society. Reprinted. Barnes & Noble Inc., New York. Originally published
1939, Methuen & Co. Ltd., London. Flannery, Kent 1973 Archaeology with a capital S. In Research and Theory in Current Archaeology, edited by C.
L. Redman, pp. 47-53. Wiley-Interscience: New York. Matos, Ramiro 1986 La Formación Profesional del Arqueólogo en el Perú. In Boletín de Lima 46: 7-14. Editorial
Los Pinos E.I.R.L., Lima. Messenger, Phyllis, editor 1999 The Ethics of Collecting Cultural Property (second edition). University of New Mexico Press,
Albuquerque. Messenger, Phyllis and George Smith, editors 2010 Cultural Heritage Management: A Global Perspective. University Press of Florida,
Gainesville. Piscoya, Luis 2011 A dónde nos llevan nuestras universidades? Fondo Editorial Universidad Inca Garcilaso de l
a Vega, Lima. Santa Cruz, Margot 2009 La Identidad Nacional desde las Aulas Universitarias. Garden Graf SRL, Lima. Shackel, Paul 2010 Series Foreword: Global Perspective and World Heritage. In Cultural Heritage
Management. A Global Perspective, edited by Phyllis Messenger and George Smith, pp. viii-ix. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.
Silva, Jorge 1995 El Objeto de Estudio de la Arqueología en el Perú. Propuestas. In BIRA 22: 283-296. Boletín
del Instituto Riva Agüero, Pontificia Universidad Católica, Lima. 1996 Arqueología en el Perú: ¿Por qué, para qué? In Universidad y Sociedad 6(4): 38-40.
Imprenta Muñoz, Lima. 1997 Algunas Reflexiones sobre la Arqueología en el Perú. In Nueva Síntesis, Luis Arana, editor
4(IV): 27-35. Lima. 2010 Heritage Resource Management in Peru. In Cultural Heritage Management: A Global
Perspective, edited by Phyllis Messenger and George Smith, pp. 124-135. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.
2011 Cultural Heritage Management and Education in Peru. In Encyclopedia of Global Archaeology. Cultural Heritage Management Section, edited by George Smith and Claire Smith. Electronic document, www.springerreference.com, submitted November 30, 2011.
12
Stone, Peter 2010 Foreword. In: Cultural Heritage Management: A Global Perspective, edited by Phyllis
Messenger and George Smith, pp. x-xii. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. Tello, Julio Cesar 1921 Introduction to Ancient Peru. Seminario de Historia Rural Andina, Universidad de San
Marcos, Lima.
Top Related