Heritage policies and social participation in Peru:
The case of the Qhapaq Ñan Project
ペルーにおける文化遺産政策と社会参加：
カパック・ニャン・プロジェクトよりUribe Chinen Claudia Hatsumi
ウリベ チネン クラウディア ハツミ
１．Introduction

however, met limiting institutional frameworks, rationales,

This dissertation analyzes the participatory paradigm

and capacities at national levels. In the specific case ofof the Qhapaq Ñan’s policy in Peru as a practiceembedded in heritage power relations. In the past decade,no novel approach to heritage management andPeru, the participatory mandate encountered, interacted
with, and evidenced the historically rooted politics ofarchaeological heritage management.

governance favored the rethinking of Peru’s heritage
policies as the participatory practices adopted by the
Qhapaq Ñan Project. During the critical turn of(1) Research problem and questions
In recent years, global scholarship on the heritage

democratic and economic recovery of the early 2000s in
Peru, policy makers and governmental authorities
reimagined the precolonial Inca system of roads -referred

participatory paradigm has advanced enough as tocritically explore its embedded politics both conceptuallyand empirically (Adell et al., 2015; Coombe & Weiss,to as ‘Qhapaq Ñan’ (Quechua for ‘royal road’)- as anational cultural heritage. For the Peruvian state, it was
not new to rely on the combined forces of national

2015; Sánchez-Carretero et al., 2019, among others).
Anthropological and ethnographic research by European
and North American scholars in global contexts especiallyarchaeology and the glorified precolonial past to maintainits sense of legitimacy and temporal transcendence.
Premises on national identity and tourism-based

shed light on the reconfiguration or persistence of power
dynamics in heritage processes, in most cases elaborating
on social theory. Over the past decade, Qhapaq Ñan’sdevelopment inspired the state policy’s attempt toextensively ‘recover’ the Qhapaq Ñan, and its
archaeological remains, which later led to an Andean

policy and politics -in Peru and neighboring countrieswere at the center of a relevant and polarized corpus ofcritical studies, especially on the dominant andtransnational UNESCO World Heritage nomination

exclusionary dynamics at play in heritage-making and its

together with the state parties of Argentina, Bolivia, Chile,
Colombia, and Ecuador. The nomination process,consequences (Gnecco, 2019, among others). Its
participatory approach was reflected in terms of practices

however, became a point of inflection for the involved
national heritage regimes due to the awareness on theand challenges in the Peruvian context (See Asensio,
2013; Marcone & Ruiz, 2016; Ruiz, 2018); however, it

exclusionary nature of heritagization and its conventional

still lacks an analysis in the light of current debates.

practices, where local communities remained in the

Therefore, this research aims at filling the gap of practicalmargins with no consultation, information, or access.
In the lead-up to the World Heritage listing of theand theoretical knowledge on the Qhapaq Ñan as a state
heritage policy in Peru harnessing a community

Qhapaq Ñan Andean Road System in 2014,‘participation’ and ‘local communities’ became central
tenets of the heritagization of precolonial roads and sites.

participation approach.
At the heart of this dissertation are the questions: why
the participatory approach of the Qhapaq Ñan Project

UNESCO World Heritage program’s recommendations
on local involvement directly influenced the constructionof heritage participatory approaches, methods, anddiffers from the conventional state-led heritage policy in
Peru? How ‘participation’ has been conceived andconceptualized in the Peruvian heritage regime? How ispractices in the six countries. Such international mandates,‘participation’ practiced? What are the effects of such

学位論文梗概集 2022‘participation’ in local involvement? The study analyzes
the construction of a participatory approach and its
underlying power mechanisms from the backgroundaround archaeological remains (Meskell, 2005; Hamilakis& Anagnostopoulos, 2009, among others). It therefore
adopted a qualitative research design, taking an

national heritage regime, and the making of the Qhapaq
Ñan policy before, during and after the World Heritage
listing.

interdisciplinary approach from the fields of anthropology,archaeology, and history. The scope of the dissertation islimited to the Qhapaq Ñan Project’s national office in(2) Theoretical framework
This dissertation explores power mechanisms in theLima, which oversees all regions except Cusco, and the
projects that emerged to manage the World Heritage
declared monuments and segments of roads. Especially

Peruvian heritage regime and how these shape theparticipatory approach of the Qhapaq Ñan’s policy
through the Foucauldian concept of ‘governmentality’,the project in Huaycan de Cieneguilla helped to observe
the Peruvian state policy’s aspirations on participatory
heritage practices.

following debates from the anthropology of policy (Shore& Wright, 1997) and anthropological studies on heritage
politics. Governmentality (Foucault, 1991, 2007) refers toData was gathered through three of the main
instruments of ethnographic research: archival research,
interviews, and observations, which flexibly adapted to

how citizens’ conducts or behaviors are conditioned bymechanisms of control and regulation ingrained in statepolicies. This government through conducts is meant tothe circumstances of the pandemic. Fieldwork consistedof a combination of multi-sited remote, virtual, andface-to-face research from April 2020 to August 2022.

achieve an ideal relationship between the state and society,or in this case, between heritage and society. Foucault(2007) defined three forms of power in governmentality:

The ‘field’ involved both physical and digital spaces: theQhapaq Ñan Project’s office, the Ministry of Culture, theneighborhood of Huaycan de Cieneguilla (in Cieneguillasovereign, disciplinary and neoliberal. Elaborating in thecontext of heritage management (see Cortés-Vásquez,2019), sovereign form relates to how the state claims

district, Lima) during the Cultural Heritage Week in June
2022, as well as online platforms, events, and databases.
Two stages defined the form and essence of thissovereignty over institutionalized heritage spaces, while
the disciplinary is expressed by policy efforts to‘sensitize’ citizens through educational programs. The

research. First, policy documents, institutional reports andpublications, internal reports, management plans andpamphlets were accessed via databases of the Peruvian

neoliberal form decentralizes and govern throughMinistry of Culture and UNESCO. Some materials were

‘empowered’ actors who undertake responsibilities
related to the state and engage in market relations.

directly requested to the Qhapaq Ñan Project. Newspaper
articles and audiovisual sources available online were also

European and North American heritage scholars
coincide in the definition of the participatory paradigm inheritage management as a form of neoliberal

thoroughly reviewed. These materials served to examine
the Peruvian heritage regime and the Qhapaq Ñan’s
policy through historical and discourse analysis.

governmentality. In the Peruvian heritage regime,
governmentalities stem from the three forms of power
defined by Foucault; however, the forms of power andSecond, through the snowball technique, the author
conducted thirteen in-depth interviews online and inperson -with prior informed consent- to officers,

modes of governance of a ‘participatory’ approach by the
Qhapaq Ñan Project are to be discussed later: whether
they behave as pointed out by previous scholarship or as a

researchers, and managers of the Qhapaq Ñan Project,and local representatives from Huaycan de Cieneguilla.
Informal conversations took place in online settings sincedifferent phenomenon.
２．Methodology

2021 or during the author’s volunteering in the Cultural
Heritage Week in Huaycan de Cieneguilla. Bothinterviews and conversations allowed to analyze

The methodology was particularly inspired by the
emerging field of archaeological ethnography to inquireon the contemporary actors, practices, and processes

testimonies, experiences, and perspectives of policy andlocal actors on the practices, procedures and processes
that enable or constrain social participation within theSummaries of Academic Theses 2022

state policy. Observations were also conducted in online
events organized by the Qhapaq Ñan Project and, more
specifically, participant observation was possible in thewhen they are identified, delimited, and declared asnational cultural heritage. The protection of their‘intangibility’ is an ultimate policy mandate with little

Cultural Heritage Week in Cieneguilla.

attention to the dynamics of populations living in or
around sites (Fig. 1). These premises lie at the core of thenorms that regulate the relationship between the state,

3. Results(1) Heritage regime and power mechanisms in the‘momentum’ of the Qhapaq Ñan Project
The study shows, from a historical perspective, that

precolonial remains and society in present-day Peru.

the Peruvian heritage regime strongly sustains
archaeological heritage preservation through sovereignand disciplinary forms of power, which are permeated bynation-building and development demands. Legislationand museums are the first mechanisms, sovereign anddisciplinary respectively, oriented to regulate the conductof citizens towards precolonial material remains; both tied
to nation-building and statecraft since the first years of the
Republican period in early 19th century. Their underlying
authorized discourses on heritage values, representation,and preservation emerged from scholars and authorities,
while remained unknown for most of the population in

Figure 1. The delimitation of declared archaeological heritage
spaces leading to the protection of its condition as ‘intangible’ andthe country. Peruvian heritage legislation mostly omitted
the social fabric in the long term, as it focused on the state
ownership, legal conditions of monuments, and

The Qhapaq Ñan Project emerged from this regime ofrestrictions of access, interventions, and use. The
consequent distance between ‘archaeological heritage’and people -or the social fabric- became more evident as

instruments and practices in the early 2000s, which are
hardly changed because both the protection ofarchaeological monuments and their ‘intangibility’ remain

the state policy increasingly applied legal protectiveat the center of the Peruvian state policy. From themeasures on delimited spaces with precolonial remains
towards the late 20th century. The state uses its sovereign

National Institute of Culture (INC) since the 1970s to the
Ministry of Culture (MINCUL) in the 2010s, the state

power to protect declared archaeological heritage sites
through punitive reactions or forced evictions when
illegal occupations or uses occur, in some cases evennotably invests in procedures to record and protect
identified archaeological heritage sites. This dynamic
came to be progressively entangled with more demands,

escalating into social conflict.
Two concepts ingrained in the Peruvian legislation
and authorized discourses are crucial to understand thislike tourism-based economic development largely
focusing on archaeological monuments as attractions.
Therefore, the state policy is compelled to declare, delimit,

heritage-social fabric rupture: First, the institutionalized
concept of ‘monument’ to categorize delimited spaces
with precolonial remains. This ‘monumentalization’and legalize archaeological monuments to approve andfinance heritage ‘enhancement’ projects. Moreover,within this ‘enhanced’ spaces, disciplinary mechanisms

creates a self-contained space belonging to the precolonial
past, which increases the distance with present-day
society. Second, the abstract notion of ‘intangible’also take place: musealized sites or site-museums serve to
educate the public on how to respect, protect, or engage
with cultural heritage as conceived by authorized(untouchable) as the nature of spaces containing
precolonial remains -or monuments-. Policy interventions
create imaginary fences around archaeological remains

discourses. The original conception and the pursuit of thedeclaration of the Qhapaq Ñan as national cultural
heritage of Peru notably traces its roots in these logics and

学位論文梗概集 2022

its ‘monumentalization’.

practices.
(2) The ‘participatory paradigm’ crafted within the
Qhapaq Ñan’s heritage-making

the declaration and delimitation of heritage spaces-namely sites and roads- with social consent and without
conflict. In a complementary range of activities of social

The Qhapaq Ñan Project, emerging from national
post-conflict recovery and neoliberal policy demands,
initially built its practice upon conventional mandates: it

participation, workshops, events, and capacity-building
aimed at raising awareness on heritage values with animmanent disciplinary purpose. These processes

began by assembling inventories of precolonial roads andsites, ethnographic data collection and heritage‘enhancement’ projects oriented to local socioeconomic

happened within the Qhapaq Ñan’s system of heritage
management based on publicly funded projects, wherearchaeological spaces are intervened through research,development. However, the transnational nomination
invitedUNESCOWorld
Heritage
Center’s
recommendation on the participatory approach. In theprotection, conservation, and presentation. Between 2007
and 2012, the Qhapaq Ñan’s policy createdComprehensive Projects to ‘enhance’ and manage

face of an absence of formal instruments allowing
participatory processes, each technical secretariat of thestates involved in the nomination interpreted the concept

selected archaeological monuments. Among those, thestudy observed the cases of Aypate (Piura region),
Huánuco Pampa (Huánuco region) and Huaycan deaccording to their existing legislation, approaches, andpractices. In principle, the involvement of local
communities was commonly understood in terms of

Cieneguilla (Lima region). Segments defined by roads
and associated sites were also addressed by the Qhapaq
Ñan Project as territorial systems. Policy actions

consultative, informative, and capacity-building processes(Republic of Argentina et al., 2014)
The national technical secretariat of the Qhapaq Ñan

responded to the priority zoning of segments of roads inthe regions of Ancash, Huánuco, Lima, Junín, and Puno.
In both types of projects, specialists focused on

Project in Peru worked intensively and extensively for a
decade to define the potential nominated property. For allsites and roads to be nominated, they had to first bebuilding long-term trust with local representatives.
Informative and consultative processes adapted to the
local social structures and decision-making systems, suchdeclared and delimited as national heritage. The Qhapaq
Ñan’s policy aligned this purpose with two mainpriorities: the sovereign mandate of heritage protection

as the Communal Assembly of peasant communities.
These became venues for dialogue and negotiations as toaddress local interests and concerns. Local interests did

and benefits for local populations. The concept of

not necessarily coincide with national heritage, but withparticipation thus adapted to them. The premise ofrespecting local voices prior heritagization became a

its affordances in terms of defense of collectively owned
lands against extractive industries, visibility andrather informal norm, especially in the wake ofhistoricallypersistentsocialconflicts
aroundarchaeological sites nationwide, and the contemporaryconnection to the state, the recognition of ancestral values,
or more importantly, development. Coordinators andspecialists of projects ultimately defined in their own

uses of precolonial roads. However, ‘communities’ ofheritage, as geographically clustered or historically boundto precolonial sites, did not preexist the arrival of theterms the lines of action to increase the needed mutual
trust and social engagement.
Interventions in monuments in line with development

Qhapaq Ñan policy. The project addressed local
populated centers around archaeological sites or in areasof influence, peasant communities owning lands aroundaims, especially sought for the creation of seasonal jobs
for local people to assist in archaeological interventions.
In heritage interventions based on segments of roads,

sites or using roads, municipalities, or social grassroots
organizations in towns near heritage spaces, and therefore
defined the Qhapaq Ñan’s heritage communities.

such as the Huánuco Pampa – Huamachuco Segment
Project, specialists tested ‘participatory delimitations’ forthe first time, where the project established the boundaries

In the lead-up to the nomination, participatory
processes essentially took the form of informative andconsultative actions with local communities as to validateof archaeological ‘intangible’ zones in consultation andwith the participation of local members. Moreover, indifferent settings of precolonial roads, it also negotiatedSummaries of Academic Theses 2022

the coexistence of heritage protective measures withimmaterial culture, local practices, and land uses.
Participatory procedures were implemented largely

empowering local actors to delegate some state
responsibilities, are only partially identified. Since 2018,
two collaborative decision-making spaces were tested inbecause of the knowledge and self-driven initiatives ofcertain specialists of the Qhapaq Ñan Project.
Bureaucratic constrains quite often prevented changes in

the Xauxa-Pachacamac Segment Project: in the provinceof Sausa (Junin region), and the districts ofCieneguilla-Antioquía (Lima region). Both were meant to

the orthodox practices and instruments of the state policy.
Only in 2011, the Qhapaq Ñan Project’s Community
Participation Unit was created to condense thebecome spaces where local representatives jointly decide
the vision, objectives, and concerns of heritage
management; however, this falls within the state policy

methodological and conceptual guidelines of participationand consolidate the state policy perspective of ‘heritagesocial use’.

and yet the supervision of heritage authorities.
(4) Visibilizing a participatory governance? A view(3) Governmentalities of participation
The state policy’s governmentalities inevitably

from Huaycan de Cieneguilla
A close-up to the context of Huaycan de Cieneguillain Lima region allowed to understand the Peruvian state

permeated the forms and nature of participatory practices.
The old sovereign and disciplinary forms of power came
to include mechanisms of consultation, information,

policy’s aspirational vision of ‘effective’ community
engagement and participatory governance. This case isespecially made visible by the state policy as a reference

negotiation, and dialogue, in ways that ideally would
avoid impositions to local communities and prevent
conflicts. While the Qhapaq Ñan’s policy developedof the participatory approach of the Qhapaq Ñan Project.
The trajectory of heritage interventions over ten years andthree emblematic activities -training programs for tour

protocols, procedures, and initiatives in the name of aparticipatory approach, legal instruments did notmaterialize as to strengthen, scale-up or further explore

guides, a cultural festival, and the renovation of theinterpretation center- born out from participatory
processes were studied. It was observed that the statepractices of participation. As noted in interviews, statebureaucracy and mentalities of experts and authorities
notably retain the conventional policy mechanisms topolicy hardly decentralizes and mostly allows
participation in forms of collaborative design andorganization of heritage education, interpretation andgovern through heritage.

dissemination activities, or more recently management

In the post-inscription context, the Qhapaq Ñan’s
policy tried to sustain the participatory practices

plans. It therefore articulates sovereign, disciplinary andsome shades of neoliberal governmentalities. The

implemented in previous years and notably directs efforts
to the growth and reinforcement of heritage education,
promotion, and dissemination. These approaches relate tolong-term presence of the Comprehensive Project’s
interventions influenced in the sustained engagement oflocal communities. The effects of disciplinary

the disciplinary form of power, which merges with local
interests on education, collective identity, or community
development. In Comprehensive Projects, expert-led

mechanisms are reflected by local members andauthorities’ consistent engagement in the protection andpromotion of local heritage. A sense of neoliberalcapacity building activities on heritage values,archaeological narratives and heritage management
intensified between 2017 and 2019, addressing school

governmentality is noticed in some policy-community
initiatives to empower local actors and create market
relations. This is especially evident in the tour guides

students, schoolteachers and social or grassroots
organizations. Heritage projects in both monuments andsegments also worked with locals on collaborative

training program to generate additional incomes, local
entrepreneurship on food or crafts, and the sponsorship oflocal businesses in heritage-related events.

initiatives for festivals, cultural events, educational
programs, and business opportunities.
Neoliberal forms of power, in the sense of

In fact, this is a type of governance that incorporates
participation, but is mostly based on the fulfillment ofstate policy mandates, supervision by experts and the

学位論文梗概集 2022

convergence of interests of heritage experts, local
authorities and local members around economic
development, social cohesion, and recognition of local
values.

References
1) Adell, N., Bendi, R., Bortolotto, C. & Tauschek, M: “Between Imagined
Communities and Communities of Practice: Participation, Territory andthe Making of Heritage”, Göttingen University Press, 2015.
2) Asensio, R. H.: “De qué hablamos cuando hablamos de participación
comunitaria en la gestión del patrimonio cultural? “, Revista Argumentos
7(3), 25-33, 2013.
3) Chirinos, R. & Borba, L: “Qhapaq Ñan, Patrimonio Vivo”, Arqueología
y Sociedad 28, 159-176, 2015.
4) Coombe, R. J. & Weiss, L. M: “Neoliberalism, Heritage Regimes andCultural Rights”. In L. Meskell (Ed.), Global Heritage: A Reader (pp.
43-69), Wiley-Blackwell, 2015.
5) Foucault, M: “Governmentality”. In G. Burchell, C. Gordon & P. Miller

Figure 2. The Qhapaq Ñan’s participatory-oriented policy remains(Eds.), The Foucault Effect. Studies in Governmentality with two lectures

as a centralized governance with mostly sovereign andby and an interview with Michel Foucault, The University of Chicago

disciplinary forms of power (Source: Author).

Press, 1991.
6) Gnecco, C. (Ed.): “Diálogos en Patrimonio Cultural, El señuelo

4. Conclusion
The Qhapaq Ñan Project’s participatory approach falls
within existing mechanisms of the state to govern througharchaeological heritage, which are readjusted to fulfill
policy mandates (Fig. 2). The visibility of participatory
processes in specific times and contexts allowed the state

patrimonial: Pensamientos post-arqueológicos en el camino de los incas”,
Maestría en Patrimonio Cultural UPTC, 2019.
7) Hamilakis, Y. & Anagnostopoulos, A.: “What is archaeologicalethnography?”, Public Archaeology (special issue) 8(2-3), 65-67, 2009.
8) Marcone, G. & Ruiz, R: “Qhapaq Ñan: El reto del uso social delpatrimonio cultural”, Quehacer 195, 114-121, 2015.

policy to contend a different paradigm. However, inessence it relies on sovereign and disciplinary
governmentalities. While studies on the heritage

9) Meskell, L: “Archaeological Ethnography: Conversations around Kruger

participatory paradigm in contexts like Europe point out“Nomination of Qhapaq Ñan Andean Road System for inclusion on thethe predominance of a neoliberal governmentality, in Peru
this is not fully observed. Existing policy instruments,

World Heritage List”, 2014

National Park”, Archaeologies 1(1), 81-100, 2005.
10) Republic of Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador and Peru:

https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1459/documents/

mentalities and the restrictive bureaucracy arguably limits
the innovation of heritage institutional practices.
The regime of the Qhapaq Ñan Project, therefore,11) Ruiz, R.: “La participación comunitaria para la puesta en uso social delmaintains a centralized governance but with mechanismsof participation to ideally prevent conflicts and benefit
local populations. Its parameters do not escape at all theInternational Conference on Best Practices in World Heritage, Integral

patrimonio mundial: Una experiencia conceptual y práctica con las
comunidades asociadas al Qhapaq Ñan”. In A. Castillo (Ed.), 3rd

Actions, 142-159, 2018.
12) Sánchez-Carretero, C., Muñoz-Albaladejo, J., Ruiz-Blanch, A. &regulatory instruments and orthodox practices to protect
heritage and to regulate people’s relationship withnational heritage. In practice, however, thisRoura-Expósito, R. (Eds.): “El imperativo de la participación en laparticipatory-oriented policy is sustained and essentiallygoverns through the convergence of interests on
economic benefits and development, heritage protection13) Shore, C. & Wright, S. (Eds.): “Anthropology of Policy. Critical

as a meeting ground for political interests, and therecognition of local values.

heritage: towards participatory approaches”. European Journal ofgestión patrimonial”, Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas,
2019.

perspectives on governance and power”, Routledge, 1997.
14) Sokka, S., Badia, F., Kangas, A. & Donato, F.: “Governance of cultural

Cultural Management & Policy 11(1), 4-19. 2021.

Summaries of Academic Theses 2022