Archaeologies: Journal of the World Archaeological Congress ( 2007) DOI 10.

1007/s11759-007-9018-8

RESEARCH

The Qhapaq Nan Project: A Critical View

M. Alejandra Korstanje, Universidad Nacional de Tucuman, Leloir 582, 4107, Yerba Buena, Tucuman, Argentina E-mail: alek@webmail.unt.edu.ar Jorgelina Garca Azcarate, Universidad Nacional de Tucuman, Av. Independencia 1800T4002BLS, San Miguel de Tucuman, Tucuman, Argentina E-mail: jorgelinag@arnet.com.ar

ABSTRACT
________________________________________________________________

ARCHAEOLOGIES Volume 3 Number 2 August 2007

The Qhapaq-Nan Project promotes the integration of shared cultural values among six countries: Argentina, Chile, Bolivia, Peru, Ecuador and Colombia. These countries are collaborating to nominate the Main Andean Road or Qhapaq-Nan for inclusion on UNESCOs World Heritage List. Although the participants envision local and Indian communities as the true beneficiaries of the project, and the archaeological effort is already under way, communities associated with the road have not been involved. (At the very moment we are editing this article (March 2007) Argentina is holding the first meeting about a project that is already five years old, with some of the Indian communities of the territories where the project will be carried out. The participation, however, was far below what we expected.). Following the guidelines of the World Archaeological Congress and the current emphasis of many heritage professionals on community participation, we strongly advise that these dynamics must be changed and that the program must be developed jointly with affected communities from the beginning of the project and not in subsequent steps, or (even worse) once the project already taken shape.
________________________________________________________________

Resumen: El Proyecto Qhapaq-Nan promueve la integracion de los valores culturales compartidos entre seis pases: Argentina, Chile, Bolivia, Peru, Ecuador y Colombia, que preparan la candidatura del Camino Principal Andino, Qhapaq-Nan, para que sea declarado Patrimonio Cultural de la Humanidad por UNESCO. Si bien, el proyecto busca asociar a las comunidades de la region, las cuales seran las beneficiarias directas de la puesta en valor de los bienes, hasta ahora la participacion en el mismo de las comunidades indgenas y otras comunidades locales asociadas al mismo han sido nulas. En el momento en que se esta editando este artculo (marzo
2007 World Archaeological Congress

116

 The Qhapaq Nan Project

117

2007) Argentina ha realizado su primera reunion de este tipo -en un proyecto que lleva ya cinco anos- con algunas de las comunidades indgenas de los territorios donde este proyecto se llevara a cabo. La participacion, sin embargo, no ha sido disenada del modo que esperabamos. Desde la perspectiva de trabajo del WAC y desde otras experiencias de participacion comunitaria, advertimos que esta dinamica debe ser llevada adelante conjuntamente con las comunidades y no en pasos sucesivos donde se les de intervencion cuando el proyecto ya tenga forma.
________________________________________________________________

sume Le projet Qhapaq-Nan fait la promotion de linte : gration de valeurs Re es rou, culturelles partage par six pays: lArgentine, le Chili, la Bolivie, le Pe sentement a la possibilite ` lEquateur et la Colombie. Ces pays collaborent pre de faire reconnatre la principale route des Andes, connue sous le nom de Qhapaq-Nan , sur la liste du patrimoine mondial de lUNESCO. Malgre le `rent que ce projet est principalement fait que les participants conside s profitable aux les communaute locales et autochtones, et alors que les ologiques sont de ` entame les communaute associe a ja s, s s ` travaux arche te diter cet cette route nont pas e implique dans ce projet. Au moment de `re rencontre avec les article (mars 2007), lArgentine a tenu la premie s ` ja ` communaute indiennes a propos de ce projet qui en est de ` a sa `me anne La participation fut cependant bien en dessous de ce a e. ` cinquie `s quoi nous nous attendions. Suivant les lignes directrices du Congre ologie ainsi que lemphase sur la participation des mondial de larche s e cialistes du patrimoine, nous communaute prone par de nombreux spe insistons sur le changement de cette dynamique au profit dun programme es `s but veloppe conjointement avec les communaute concerne de le de s de tape subse quente, ou (encore pire), lorsque le du projet et non dans une e ` ja projet a de ` pris forme.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

The Qhapaq Nan Project

In developing countries, doing Archaeology across the border is not very common. While it is not uncommon to share research projects with foreign scholars who carry on their work in South America, the opposite situationSouth Americans working in other parts of the worldis rare. In most cases archaeologists pursue research within their own country, and many of us even work in the same region for most of our lives. Although some of us are trained and complete degrees abroad, only a very small number actually carry out research abroad. This pattern results from the fact that most funding is provided by national government agencies that

118

M. ALEJANDRA KORSTANJE AND JORGELINA GARCIA AZCARATE

encourage national projects. Nevertheless, academic globalization has started to open opportunities through improved avenues of communication, thereby promoting the involvement of local archaeologists in research projects that cross national borders. This is the case of the Qhapaq Nan1 or Camino Principal Andino project, where both authors are currently involved in different roles. It is important to point out however that even though both of us are archaeologists working in this international project, we are not involved as foreign professionals that will make decisions in a country other than our own, or even in a different province2 from where we usually work. We are both local archaeologists, working locally on an international heritage project.

What is the Qhapaq Nan Project About?

The Qhapaq Nan was the main Andean road during the time of the Inkas, who developed a widespread Andean road system by integrating their own constructions with road networks built by previous cultures. An estimated 6,000 km long, this main route linked a coordinated network of roads and infrastructure constructed over the more than 2,000 years of pre-Inka Andean culture. The complete network of roads, over 23,000 km in all, connected several production, administration and ceremonial centers. Bridges and ferries were built to connect trails along the rugged geography of the Andes. Besides the roads themselves, the transportation system included tampus (lodging places with storage facilities); kanchas (rectangular spaces surrounded by walls enclosing several structures); kallankas (large rectangular buildings within the kanchas, probably used as rest areas); warehouses; apachetas (sacred sites); chaskiwasis (control points for travellers and goods); landmarks; boundary markers; and huancas (fortified outposts). The Qhapaq Nan project began in 2001 as a Peruvian government initiative proposing the Inka Road System for the UNESCOS World Heritage list. Consequently the project has the important distinction of having begun as the cultural policy of one nation that was later adopted by other countries with a common heritage. Of course, since governors have the option to initiate any programme to promote and protect the cultural heritage, this is a good start, but by current standards of heritage management such programs must promote real participation, assessment, acceptance, and interest from the local and indigenous population. How such participation takes place is the challenge we discuss in this article.
This is the quechua name for the main Inka road system. In Argentina, a province is the larger political unity within the country, in a federal system.
2 1

 The Qhapaq Nan Project

119

The initiative to promote the Multilateral Postulation of the Qhapaq Nan (or Andean Main Road) as a cultural landmark arose in 2002. It was formalized in a joint declaration among the governments of Peru, Chile, Argentina, Bolivia, Ecuador and Colombia. In the document named PreHispanic Andean roads and the routes of Tawantisuyu, they summarized the importance of promoting the Inka Road as part of human cultural heritage in recognition of its natural and cultural significance and associated tangible and intangible heritage. All participating countries have archaeological evidence of ancient roads and Andean culture. However, in this document patrimony is considered beyond its historical-anthropological meaning and its material existence in Andean geography. Heritage is also seen an exceptional opportunity for the integration and sharing of cultural values and the promotion of regional development among these six countries. On 2003, at the UNESCO Headquarters in Paris, the Permanent Delegates of the Andean countries unanimously requested that the World Heritage Centre take charge of the overall coordination of the project and assist them in the procedure for placing heritage property on the World Heritage list. This was the first time the World Heritage Centers Latin American and Caribbean unit had to design a process for nominating a site common to six State Parties. For the last two years, UNESCOSs World Heritage Centre had been assisting these countries in a pioneering project: the drafting of a single nomination for the inclusion of Qhapaq Nan in the World Heritage List, which entailed an original and innovative regional cooperation process. Several national and international technical meetings were organized to allow different social actors. These meetings were held in Lima (April 2003); Cuzco (October 2003); La Paz (April 2004) and Buenos Aires. Networks started to be organized at these international meetings. For example, participants agreed that a series of proposals would be made by two countries to make the proposal process more efficient: Argentina and Chile; Peru and Bolivia; Colombia and Ecuador, and that each country would place the Qhapaq Nan on their national list. The importance of this initiative as a state policy became apparent at the MERCOSUR meeting of Ouro Preto, December 2004, when the presidents of the state parties (Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay and Paraguay) and associated states (Bolivia, Chile, Peru, Colombia, Ecuador and Venezuela), signed a document containing the following article: 27. They [the presidents] support the Andean Cultural Itinerary/Qhapaq Nan, which involves four countries of the block, since it constitutes an integration project that has a high impact on the regional development given the fact that culture mediates as an articulation axis3
3 27. Apoyan el Itinerario Cultural Andino / Qhapaq Nan, que involucra cuatro pases del bloque, por tratarse de proyecto de integracion que supone un alto impacto sobre el desarrollo regional, teniendo la cultura como eje articulador.

120

M. ALEJANDRA KORSTANJE AND JORGELINA GARCIA AZCARATE

The document also states that the Interamerican Development Bank (BID) is already investing in this project, at least in Peru, as: TC0209054: Action Plan Development Qhapaq Nan (Principal Andean Way), where it is currently in an initial phase, connected to tourism and technical implementation. (See WHC-03/27.COM/13 at World Heritages web page) The international aspects of this project were complemented by national policies; therefore simultaneous national meetings were held in the participating countries. In Argentina, for example, meetings were organized with technical teams (consisting only of archaeologists) and governmental repre sentatives of the seven provinces involved: Jujuy, Salta, Tucuman, Catamarca, La Rioja, San Juan, and Mendoza. The Secretary of Culture of the Presidency of the Nation led the organization. National government officials signed Resolution No 1979/04, in which the Program Andean Cultural Itinerary was created as the legal frame for the development and operations of the Qhapaq Nan Project. At this stage, the international project became national state policy. At these national meetings, provincial representatives asked technical teams to select which sections of the Inka road were valuable for the project and needed to be preserved. The requested information included details of the related Inka facilities and their geographic location, register data, national governmental resolutions declaring them historical monuments (when available) and the constitution of the local and Indigenous communities related to the chosen sections of the road. Representatives of various government agencies and universities participated at these meetings. The idea was to first identify the loci that the archaeologists considered to meet the universal values set by UNESCO, and later to initiate conversations with the communities (Indigenous or otherwise) involved in these sections and sites. The ultimate goal was to incorporate the intangible patrimony of the entire region and jointly organize the management plans for these communities. However, it is clear that national agendas were being promoted over local goals and interests. An example of this occurred during a consultation in which the authors participated. The team working on the province of Tucuman proposed the following to be incorporated in the general Argentinean project: (1) La Ciudacita (within the main jurisdiction of Los Alisos National Park with no local or Indigenous communities involved); (2) Los Cardones and El Remate (within the main jurisdiction of the Indigenous Community of Amaicha of the Valley); (3) Quilmes and El Pichao (within the main jurisdiction of the Indigenous Community of Quilmes).

 The Qhapaq Nan Project

121

This decision was made taking into consideration local interests, tradi tions, and ideas about heritage and the past. Since Tucuman was only represented by a single site with unambiguous Inka characteristics (La Ciudacita), it was appropriate (and the national Project agreed) to include two Indigenous communities directly bound to that past (Amaicha and Quilmes). Both communities have long histories of settlement in the area which is crossed by Tucumans portion of the ancient main Inka road and they inhabit a space that includes a series of archaeological sites associated with this past. By making this decision, Tucumans team supported the idea that collaboration with the communities would begin as soon as archaeologists start working in the area. Since there is a substantial record of the places and areas through which the ancient road passed, it was relatively simple to know in advance which communities would be involved. At least in the case of Indigenous communities, which tend to be more engaged with the pre-Hispanic past and heritage, this cooperation should have started with the selection of the heritage sites. However, the general opinion of the organizers was that technical work should lead the process. Therefore we opted to draw on our experience and the knowledge gathered through our ongoing interaction with indigenous communities to select those we believed they would want included. This led us to choose sites that did not completely match UNESCOs standards, but coincided with our own understanding of the historical moment in which the Inkas arrived in northwestern Argentina, which was very late considering the long history of the region. The following statement shows the Tucuman archaeology teams position: Brief note regarding our position as Archaeologists on the Qhapac Nan Project: The archaeological team of Tucuman has participated in the Qhapac Nan meetings, debating the methodology chosen by the National Culture Secretary for the inclusion of the tracks and sites of each province. We want to state in this document the reasons that motivated us to collaborate on it, in spite of the multiple professional and social inconveniences that it may create. In the first place, not all projects organized from the high echelons of the government have the possibility of being successful when they involve local values that must be respected (see Belli and Slavutzky 2005, Haber 2005; Endere 2005). In this particular case, involving six countries with different laws, cultures, languages and attitudes to heritage, the probability of success may be even less. In any case, we consider that if the project is carried out seriously and the stated objectives are accurately followed, its application as a valuable strategy for the protection of cultural patrimony and the development of the associated communities is possible.

122

M. ALEJANDRA KORSTANJE AND JORGELINA GARCIA AZCARATE

Although we think that participation of the affected and interested communities should have occurred parallel to our efforts, the Nation technical directives stated that we alone should evaluate and choose the ancient road sites that best fit UNESCOs nomination standards. However, although here we presented the ancient road sites and tracks that from a technical-academic point of view should be included in the project, we want to stress that these must only be incorporated if the Indigenous or rural communities associated agree that this will bring them benefits and not increase destruction or disputes. We have taken the position in many public meetings pointing that should any community, for any reason, not want to participate, then the sites included in their territory should be excluded from the project. At the end of this report we raise some considerations about how relationships with the communities mentioned might be effected in the next segment of inter-institutional work (Korstanje et al. 2006: 3).

The Nomination of the Inka Road to the Unesco List of World Human Heritage Sites
The objectives of the project are to: Promote the local and regional sustainable development of the communities associated with the Andean Main Road in Argentina through their empowerment. Obtain the designation of the Qhapaq Nan as a Cultural Landscape on the UNESCO World Heritage list. Encourage research and a promotion and conservation plan for the Andean main road. Persuade numerous social, actors including involved Andean communities, authorities at various levels, and representatives of nongovernmental organizations the private sector, to participate actively. As a heritage site the Qhapaq Nan fulfils a each of the established criteria of universal value for cultural goods. According to the UNESCOs Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage, these requirements are: (1) to represent a masterpiece of human creative genius; (2) to exhibit an important interchange of human values, over a span of time or within a cultural area of the world, on developments in architecture or technology, monumental arts, town-planning or landscape design;

 The Qhapaq Nan Project

123

(3) to bear a unique or at least exceptional testimony to a cultural tradition or to a civilization which is living or which has disappeared; (4) to be an outstanding example of a type of building, architectural or technological ensemble or landscape which illustrates (a) significant stage(s) in human history; (5) to be an outstanding example of a traditional human settlement, land-use, or sea-use which is representative of a culture (or cultures), or human interaction with the environment especially when it has become vulnerable under the impact of irreversible change; (6) to be directly or tangibly associated with events or living traditions, with ideas, or with beliefs, with artistic and literary works of outstanding universal significance. But Qhapaq Nan offers new challenges: it is the first project proposed for the UNESCOS list involving a human achievement that spans over more than 23.000 km. and more than 2000 years of culture history while involving a large number of communities through the coordinated efforts of six countries. This is why we discuss some crucial aspects of the development of a participative cross-border archaeology and heritage management plan. In light of the results achieved by similar projects of smaller magnitude, we cannot help but wonder how the necessary participation of indigenous and local communities will be implemented. This clearly should be the primary goal of the project, but the methods and strategies to achieve it remain unclear. The large scale of the project may certainly conspire against inclusion of indigenous and local communities at every step of the decisionmaking process, with the undesirable yet likely result that such participation will be more nominal than constitutive. Thus we may ask, how can archaeologists contribute to the public awareness and respect for Andean heritage without letting private or external operators be the principal beneficiaries of this project?

Institutional Disagreements
One of the greatest difficulties we experienced with the Qhapaq Nan project has been the misunderstanding among the different organizations involved. On one side were the teams of archaeologists, who selected the archaeological sites that would comprise the project, and on the other, were the national and provincial institutions in charge of linking the project with other areas of government and public practice, such as tourism, environment, education, social development. Although not all of the members of these groups were present in all the different meetings, according to

124

M. ALEJANDRA KORSTANJE AND JORGELINA GARCIA AZCARATE

government directives, the members of the indigenous communities and local stakeholders had not been asked to participate in the discussions. The richness of this Program is that it offers the invaluable chance to make decisions that include a truly diverse cultural web, by considering international opinion and moreover that of the people of each involved country. Consequently the challenge is to plan involvement of interest groups (communities, researchers, authorities, the public, etc.) throughout the different dimensions of the program. This means that the strategy must include the participation of not only national and provincial institutions but also the communities associated with the road. Traditionally, decisions about cultural policy programs are made in high level government agencies, and these can be valid to certain extent since they reflect international values. However, from our perspective, the decision-making process must also respond to community requirements. Both international and the Argentinean National government objectives give precedence to communal and regional development. But how is it possible to meet these objectives when the principal actors are excluded from the planning? How can we incorporate their ideas, feelings and initiatives once the project has reached its final form? The Quebrada4 de Humahuaca (Jujuy, Argentina) is a World Heritage cultural destination that shows the difficulties of these processes. Unlike Qhapaq Nan, Quebrada de Humahuaca was originally a project requested by the local communities of the Quebrada, and it was later incorporated in state legislation. For a while, this seemed to be an exemplary case of heritage conservation. A few years ago, the building of a high voltage electrical duct in the Quebrada prompted indigenous and local communities to protest what seemed a unilateral government decision. This protest consisted (among other things) of people making night incursions to the tower con struction site to move landmarks and survey points (Nestor A. Jose, com. pers. 2005). Later on, pamphlets were circulated petitioning the government to consider the reasons why the population did not want electrical towers in the Quebrada. Among the many issues raised, some of which were environmental, there was the rather astonishing consideration that if the towers were constructed, the Quebrada would never have the chance to be included in the UNESCO World Cultural Heritage list. The government decided to change the route of the electrical duct and started work on the project for UNESCO recognition. But once again, the decisions were not appropriate. Despite good intentions, the government did not succeed in developing local participation of the communities involved. The results were like those for many other sites on UNESCOs
4

Quebrada means narrow valley.

 The Qhapaq Nan Project

125

list: the appropriation of the project by private capital attracted by the dramatically increased land value, instead of the actual protection of the sites. Worst of all, none of these changes improved the living and labor conditions of local communities. Unfortunately, failing to achieve community involvement may lead to the failure of the project in general, so that something created for peoples well-being (as was UNESCOSs list) becomes discredited, as local people tend to feel that such projects merely pay lip service to their needs. Consequently, neither heritage preservation, nor economic developments are brought about by such projects. We think that our experience could be used to improve the aspects that we consider key to such programs, namely local participation as opposed to merely local agreement (Meskell 2005). We think an interesting point in this discussion could also be the lack of interaction or integration among institutions with similar purposes. WAC (World Archaeological Congress) enhanced our understanding of community and indigenous rights and participation in the management of heritage. But are WAC and UNESCO really working side by side to spread this view to cultural policy makers, taking into account the many different local views of the same problem? Browsing the huge and complicated UNESCOS website we find the various projects in which this institution (our institution, if UNESCO is really international) is involved to be amazingly rich and diverse. Yet we could not help but wonder to what extent these projects, designed in bureaucratic offices by highly trained people, have been planned with local peoples needs in mind, in concert with local peoples aims and expectations. It is unclear whether UNESCO really tries to identify such aims and expectations by interacting with local people directly, or whether this is left in the hands of governments. Given the prestige of UNESCO as an organization of the discredited United Nations, these questions might seem irrelevant. But as the Spanish saying goes, de buenas intenciones esta lleno el camino al infierno.5 How can UNESCO make their heritage projects (since the World Heritage List is itself a UNESCOS project) available to local people if they are not really acting locally? In this sense, WAC understanding of public heritage policies seems much more democratic and also more effective. The difference is that WAC does not promote asking for local opinion, but argues for developing genuine understanding between local people and technicians in an egalitarian and cooperative way. Lets quote, for example some WAC ideals: () Archaeology can no longer affordor even consider reasonablea belief that archaeologists are the primary stewards of the past and
5

The way to hell is full of good intentions.

126

M. ALEJANDRA KORSTANJE AND JORGELINA GARCIA AZCARATE

somehow the only ones who have access to the truth about the past. Many archaeologists have come to realize that all past is collaboratively constructedit is a community invention. Communities also maintain their own pasts, which are as adaptative as any element in their ideology (Zimmerman 2006: 86). In many ways, the discussions in WAC were not just about indigenous peoples rights to their legacy they claimed as their own, but were actually more about the rights of any stakeholders to these pasts (Zimmerman 2006: 91). We agree that nobody can throw the first stone about colonial ideas and practices. Most of decisions about heritage were born as a part of colonial and authoritarian government practices, including those of the governments of independent republics, national parks administrations, international organizations, archaeologists and archaeological associations. As has been widely acknowledged, these institutions were all born in the same spirit of finding scientific truth and neglecting or underestimating indigenous knowledge. Things seem to be slowly changing, not least as a consequence of indigenous peoples having more opportunity to promote wider acceptance of different views of the past, and of management of the archaeological sites themselves. What has become clear for all of us in government and academic bodies in recent years is that we have to broaden and deepen our involvement with indigenous actors and their worldviews in order to have concrete results beyond our good intentions or goals. Good intentions are never enough. Modern states, in Latin America in particular, now have a unique chance to prevent further denial of indigenous peoples identity, culture, language and ways of life (including their land rights) by implementing real policies of inclusion and participation, instead of merely demanding them to reconstitute themselves as natives, performing an Andean indigenous stereotype for export. This is not the same as saying that such a performance may be less real than other cultural identity performances, as people adapt and manage their cultural pool of resources in creative ways all the time. Yet we argue against the demands placed on communities to re-shape themselves as suitable citizens of an apparently new multiculturalism with the promise of reconstructing their economies, which really only give them the crumbs from the profitable enterprises that are only cover-ups for new ways to encroach on traditional lands. Participation must be equal, with communities retaining control of their resources and with workshops that would train actors of both sides in order to achieve a better understanding.

 The Qhapaq Nan Project

127

Achieving Genuine Communication and Participation of Local Communities in a Large Project

We have said the participation of local communities and Indigenous groups may cause problems for a project when such participation should strengthen it. For example, Indigenous groups in north-western Argentina are doubtless the predecessors and inheritors of ancient heritage in the region, nevertheless the Independent Republic policies led them to refuse for centuries to be part of an Indigenous collective, since Indians were considered lazy, brainless, and drunk, and given all kinds of negative and discriminative labels. Most groups dropped their original names, changed their traditions, and most importantly, lost their languages and their land. This dramatic decomposition of the Indigenous social tissue started to be mendedat least in national lawonly in the 1994 Constitution, in which the 75th article recognizes the precedence of the Indigenous groups and gives them the legal frame to collectively reclaim their land. Since then, Indigenous Communities with legal rights have been able to organize, and some new opportunities have arisen as a result of this new status. Therefore, much reconceptualization and resignification of identities came after 1994, and many Argentinean Indigenous groups are only recently organized as such. This generates conflicts, misunderstandings, power struggles and situations that are not common to other archaeologists in Latin America who are accustomed to working with Indigenous peoples that have been organized as such for a long time. Although archaeologists were not initiators of the project, since we have been invited to work in it, it is our responsibility to make sure that the nomination is done with full respect to indigenous and local communities. Our own professional standards as defined by AAPRA6 also require this respect, and for this reason we cannot limit our intervention to technical advise (see WAC codes of ethics, for example). In Argentina there are some successful programs that incorporate this sort of participation. They are mostly related to organizations that work in economic areas, as it is the case of the Farming Social Programme7 of the National Secretary of Agriculture, Cattle, Fishing and Feeding.8 Their purpose is to improve the quality of life of small producers and peasants by increasing their income and promoting their organized participation. These programs aspire to elaborate the projects with the producers, as opposed to those which work for people in a charitable or paternalistic way. Other successful experiences have demonstrated that it is possible to reach the
6 7

Asociacion de Arqueologos Profesionales de Argentina. Programa Social Agropecuario (PSA). 8 Secretaria de Agricultura, Ganadera, Pesca y Alimentacion de la Nacion.

128

M. ALEJANDRA KORSTANJE AND JORGELINA GARCIA AZCARATE

proposed objectives when participation of project members is done in solidarity, as has been the case for the programs for construction of community housing (Haedo com.pers. 2004). We must also consider that current approaches to local Indigenous or peasant communities consist of face to face communication. These encounters might be to explain what archaeologists work is, or to involve the teachers and students in an archaeological education project, or to develop participatory Indigenous archaeologies. Although specifics depend on the spirit of the professionals involved, the most important efforts are always made in personal meetings with different, but always small, communities (Chambers 1997; Calvelo 1988). This now customary system has proved to be unsuccessful in larger heritage management projects. Indigenous communities in Latin America are requesting a different kind of participation; they want real participation based on the control of heritage. Therefore, new communication tools are needed when projects involve larger active native populations as in the case of Qhapaq Nan. Since the early 70s the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) developed Massive Audiovisual Pedagogy, a video based multimedia methodology for the sharing of knowledge and skills (Calvelo 1994, 1995, FAO 1989). This communication strategy is aimed at listening to peasants, in the first place. After a period of participatory research to select the contents, communicators design and produce a communication tool suited to share knowledge with people (usually people without formal education). The production of this kind of material and its massive dissemination through workshops allows the facilitators to serve as conduits between the scientific and peasant universes making cross-cultural communication possible. This also broadens the participation limits, extending comprehension of the problems not only to community leaders but to the larger population, a process that enhances the discussion, participation, production and results, avoiding local conflicts. This participatory approach shows its full potential when one or more of these conditions are present: (a) (b) (c) (d) Very large populations Extreme cultural differences, including multiple languages Illiteracy Complex contents

A peasant proverb summarizes the pedagogic strategy: What I hear, I forget. What I see, I remember. What I do, I know. (Korstanje et al. 1999) This methodology has significant precedents in the national and international arena over the last forty years. At the international level trials have been made in countries with diverse socio economic conditions such as

 The Qhapaq Nan Project

129

Mexico, Honduras, Dominican, Cuba, Peru, Bolivia, Brazil, Argentina and Chile (FAO 1987a, 1987b). In Asia the strategy was tried in China, Korea and India. In Africa (Mali) a CESPA9 is dedicated to communication to promote development. These programs have been developed with FAO support, which has documentation on their results. Perhaps UNESCO functions somewhat like a developing nation, since its programs are disarticulated making it difficult projects to learn from each other.

Conclusions
The Qhapaq Nan cross-border archaeological and heritage project, which includes six nations and a large but still unidentified number of affected communities, presents new challenges to indigenous and local participation. Although it is interesting and important that the initiative is coming from the governments of these six nations, participation in decision making must be broader. The election of the sites should not be determined solely on technical criteria, but should be responsive to local traditions and interests. Achieving consensus requires time and money, but it also saves time, money and preserves the dignity of all people involved. This criterion is not always understood by government agencies, but is essential to any conservation programme. How do we meet these challenges? The actions undertaken by the different sectors of participation have a common objective: to nominate the Main Andean Road for UNESCO World Heritage status. But there has not yet been an effective dialogue among all those involved. This results in duplicated efforts and in goals not reached. We lack a holistic vision of the project with well articulated components. As long as we have a segmented vision of the project and each organization faces the project alone, its fragility will be a threat. We consider it urgent to reorient the general approach to an holistic perspective (Savory 1999) in which all the participants can celebrate their participation for a sustainable outcome.

References
Belli, E., and R. Slavutzky 2005. Patrimonio: Territorio, Objetos, Smbolos, Personas. Cual es la disputa?. Mundo de Antes 4:1319. Instituto de Arqueologa y Museo (UNT), Tucuman.

Centre de services de production audivisuelle.

130

M. ALEJANDRA KORSTANJE AND JORGELINA GARCIA AZCARATE

Calvelo, M. 1988. Algunos problemas en la construccion del conocimiento campesino. Proyecto FAO-PNUD PER 073, Peru. 1994. Pedagoga Masiva Audiovisual para la Capacitacion. Proyecto FAO GCP/ RLA/114/ITA, Chile. 1995. Manual de Produccion Pedagogica Audiovisual. Proyecto FAO GCP/RLA/ 114/ITA, Chile. Chambers R. 1997. Whose Reality Counts? ITDG, London ISBN 1 85339 386 X. Endere, M.L. 2005. Discusion a Patrimonio: Territorio, Objetos, Smbolos, Personas. Cual es la disputa? (por Belli y Slvutzky). Mundo de Antes 4:1820. Instituto de Arqueologa y Museo (UNT), Tucuman. FAO 1987a. Estudio de caso de comunicacion para el Desarrollo. Un nuevo enfoque para la comunicacion rural: La experiencia peruana en video para la capacitacion campesina. Subdireccion de Comunicacion para el Desarrollo, Roma. 1987b. Estudio de caso de comunicacion para el Desarrollo. Un sistema de Com unicacion Rural para el Desarrollo del Tropico Humedo Mexicano. Subdi reccion de Comunicacion para el Desarrollo, Roma. 1989. Directrices sobre comunicacion para el desarrollo rural. Subdireccion de Comunicacion para el Desarrollo, Roma. Haber, A. 2005. Discusion a Patrimonio: Territorio, Objetos, Smbolos, Personas. Cual es la disputa? (por Belli y Slvutzky). Mundo de Antes 4:2122. Instituto de Arqueologa y Museo (UNT), Tucuman. Korstanje M.A., C. Angiorama, A.R. Martel, and O. Daz 2006. Qhapac Nan, tramo Tucuman. Informe a la Secretara de Cultura de la Provincia de Tucuman, inedito. Korstanje, F.D., J. Villanueva, C. Herrscher, J. Schonwald, and S. Marcos 1999. La Pedagoga Masiva Audiovisual, una Propuesta de Integracion del Saber Popular y el Saber Academico. La experiencia de Capacitacion en Tuc uman. Universidad Nacional de Tucuman. Facultad de Filosofa y Letras. Numero extraordinario de la Revista Humanitas N28- Fac. de Filosofa y Letras - UNT (ISSN 0041 - 4217) Tucuman. Meskell, L. 2005. Archaeological ethnography: Conversations around Kruger National Park. Archaeologies. Vol. 1(1):81100. World Archaeological Congress. Altamira press. Savory A. 1999. Holistic Management: a New Framework for Decision Making. Island Press, 2nd Edition, Washington Tejiendo los lazos de un legado Qhapaq

 The Qhapaq Nan Project

131

Nan. Camino Principal Andino: hacia la nominacion de un patrimonio comun, 2004 rico diverso de valor universal. Representacion de la UNE SCO en Peru ISBN N9972-841-05-7. Zimmerman, L. 2006. Liberating Archaeology, Liberation Archaeologies, and WAC. Archaeologies Vol. 2(1):8595. World Archaeological Congress. Altamira press.