Grant No. 08-040

Research Report
Name : SAUCEDO SEGAMI Daniel Dante
Organization (at the time of the grant): Graduate University for Advanced Studies
Title of Research: Heritage Protection and Public Archaeology in Modern Peru

Purpose of Research:
The present research was accomplished as part of my activities to gather data for my PhD Thesis A PublicArchaeology Study on the Use of Cultural Heritage in Modern Peru. This thesis belongs to the field of PublicArcheology, which intends to understand the relationships that occur when archaeology becomes part of a wider publicculture. In this specific case, my interest focuses in understanding how local communities interact with the local
archaeological heritage around their residences.

My thesis aims to propose a model for archaeologists in how to deal with local communities when involving them into
archaeological heritage protection. In order to do so, I consider important understanding how interaction between
archaeologists and local communities occur. Also important is to understand how local communities define their ownpast. In order to gather this information, with the support of the Matsushita International Foundation, I conducted afieldwork research between June and September of the year 2008 having the following objectives:

1. To Measure the influence of archaeology in the creation of a local/regional identity in the towns locatedaround the Historic Sanctuary of Poma Forest in Lambayeque Department, north coast of Peru.
Some members from local communities are taking advantage of the tourism activities related to archaeological heritage.
As a result, some economical development can be seen here. Archaeologists promote directly or indirectly theseactivities, encouraging a new local/regional identity. Direct encouragement can be seen in the activities that local
museums organize with local population to develop tourism. Indirect encouragement can be seen in how local
population develop their own initiatives to develop tourism in this area by using archaeological information publishedin newspapers, magazines or books. By analyzing this interaction between archaeologists and local communities, weexpected to understand how relationships are built between these two groups, and how these relationships can beimproved to protect archaeological heritage.

2. To understand how local communities interact with archaeological heritage in this area.
Although the use of archaeological heritage in this area for tourism development is quite recent, archaeological
heritage has been part of the imaginary of local communities always. Before archaeologists worked here, local
communities had established different relationships with this heritage through different meanings. Looting has been anactivity that has been done here for centuries, and the stories related to it are a way to understand how local
communities understand their own past. Shamanism also has been part of local customs to interpret this archaeologicalheritage, and it can be seen in how some archaeological sites are considered good or evil. Registering how this“knowledge” has been built and how it is used by local population is necessary to develop an adequate discourse thatcan reach this population to encourage archaeological heritage protection. Therefore, the present research intends toregister and analyze the different stories and beliefs related to the archaeological heritage, paying especial attention tothe origin of those beliefs and how they differ from the archaeological interpretation.

Content/Methodology of Research:
BackgroundThe Historic Sanctuary of Poma Forest in Lambayeque Department is an area where many archaeological sites arelocated. It has been very well known for the rich tombs that have been discovered around several pyramids spreadalong the forest. For this reason, this area has been target of tomb looters since the colonial period, and many gold
objects that are now part of private and museum collections in Peru come from here.

It was in this context that in 1979 the Sicán Archaeological Project, directed by Japanese Professor Izumi Shimada,
started its research in this area with the objective of understanding the society that flourished here. As a result of thisintense work, the Sicán National Museum was built in the year 2001 with economic support from Japan. This museum
is in charge of the research and protection of archaeological heritage not only in the Poma forest, but also in the whole
district of Pitipo, where this forest is located. In order to achieve that, the museum has been working with some of thelocal communities around the forest.

Although in recent years there is an increase in the support from the government and the local population towards
archaeological heritage protection, there are several situations that threat archaeological sites. Our project observed
these situations, considering possible solutions to them.

Looting, as mentioned above, has a long history in this area. Even though it is widely considered illegal and local
communities are helping to fight against it, there are still organized groups that commerce archaeological remains in
the black market.

Another situation is the illegal appropriation of land. After the agrarian reform made by Velasco’s military government
in the 1960s, land was taken from rich landowners and “returned” to local communities. In many cases, thosecommunities couldn’t manage those lands in an appropriate way due to lack of unity inside the communities, personalinterests and lack of management skills. As a result, many areas were not appropriately used for agrarian purposes, andwere left abandoned. Some communities from the Andes mountain region, where land is scarce and extremely valued,
decided to illegally appropriate vast extensions of land from the coastal communities, in many cases by force. They
occupied not only abandoned land, but also built their houses over archaeological sites, in many cases destroying them.

An inadequate use of archaeological heritage is another situation archaeologists have to face in this area. Due to lack ofinformation and interest in local history, many people living around archaeological sites gives them inappropriate usethat eventually creates damage. Some examples can be seen in the use for cattle pasture, garbage dump, chicken farms
and personal housing.

Methodology
As part of our methodology, we conducted interviews to three different groups related to the Poma Forest during ourfield season from June to September of the year 2009. First, we focused in the group of archaeologists working for theSicán National Museum. Our second group was the local population working with the archaeologists, which also
dedicates to other activities related to agriculture and tourism. Our third group was composed by the local populationthat is not directly related to the museum and it is usually not interested in its activities or criticizes them. We also
conducted a participant observation of the activities done by the staff of the Sicán National Museum, focusing
especially in those related to the work with the public and the surveillance of archaeological sites.

About our first group, we interviewed archaeologists about the projects that take place in this area to engage the local
community into heritage protection and tourism development. They work together with local leaders to elaborate
projects that will improve tourism development in the area. Also, they are or were also involved in campaigns toprotect archaeological monuments and support local schools with information about archaeology.

Our second group was interviewed about their relationship with archaeologists. We also interviewed them about theirrelationship with the archaeological heritage in this area. Most of the members of this group have lived in this area forgenerations and are related to each other. Their interest in archaeology is usually related to the fact that most of them ortheir relatives worked for the Sican Archaeological Project.

Our third group was divided into two sub-groups. One of these sub-groups refers to local people who strongly criticize
the activities of the museum. This is composed by members of other communities that are also trying to improve their
tourist development or people who consider that archaeologist are not taking economical advantage of archaeological
heritage. The other sub-group refers to those who have no relationship at all with the museum and usually consider
archaeological heritage something not useful for their everyday life. In many cases, members from this sub-group arethose that occupy illegally the land in this area.

Conclusion/Observation
During our present research we were able to observe the different groups that interact in this area. It was possible toidentify several groups with different interests about the archaeological heritage. This complex situation emphasizes
the necessity of creating specific strategies to reach each group in order to engage them into archaeological protection.
Also, archaeologists need to understand the different interests that each group has since there is some level ofconfrontation that can be expected, especially from those groups that are not directly related with them.

During our interviews it was possible to note that archaeology information is not necessarily predominant over otherways to understand the past in this area. Even the closest group related to archaeologists builds their own
understanding of the archaeological heritage by mixing some of their own traditions and beliefs with the information
provided by archaeologists. This discourse is used by local people when tourists arrive here. Archaeology becomesthen just a reference for understanding the past and it gives space to other alternative discourses, even thougharchaeologists do not intend that. Opening official spaces (like the museum) to show not only archaeologists discourse
but also local beliefs could be an interesting way to attract the interest of local communities towards protecting thearchaeological heritage.

Another observation is that those groups that are not directly related to archaeologists tend to destroy archaeological
heritage because of lack of appropriate information about what defines an archaeological site or what advantages will
give to them an appropriate use of that heritage. Although those groups understand the laws that protect archaeological
heritage, they are not interested because they see only the direct benefit they can get from the land where it is located.
Another element that influences those groups is the fact that most of them are not native to the area, and the way theytake advantage of land is different than from those that lived generations here. This element is extremely important,since any future strategy to approach them should not emphasize regionalisms but maybe a common national past.
Giving successful examples of how other communities were able to use the archaeological heritage for tourism
development could also be a good strategy.

The complexity observed in this area has strong roots in how it became populated, and how archaeologists started tointeract with local communities. Our next step will be to try to put in practice some of the strategies that we proposed
above and measure the acceptance from local communities. We expect in following seasons to establish those strategies
in a practical level and measure their success by noting the interest that local communities (especially those not related
to archaeologists) may have towards archaeological heritage protection.