PONENCIA PARA EL FORUM PRESIDENCIAL DE LA REUNION DE LA SAA, HONOLUL, ABRIL 2013 Henry Tantalen Good afternoon to everyone.

First, I want to thank Fred Limp for kindly inviting me to participate in this forum. I take this opportunity to briefly speak about how Peruvian and foreign archaeologists who work in the central Andes, have created different kinds of relationships with the traditional communities and descendant populations, including some who have gone on to become professional archaeologists. At the risk of over simplifying, we can distinguish three types of situations today: 1: Archaeologists that conduct research without any relationship with the communities. 2: Those that maintain contractual and ad hoc relationships with the communities and 3 Archaeologists that work in a true spirit of cooperation with the communities.

1: Archaeologists communities

that conduct research without any relationship with the

For many Peruvian archaeologists and some foreigners, their university training prepares them to view past societies as their object of study. As such, they see an unbreachable wall between the past and present, between the ancient and the modern world. This has clearly created a large separation between scientists and intellectuals such as archaeologists and indigenous communities, that makes any real dialog with these communities impossible.

2. Those that maintain contractual and ad hoc relationships with the communities This kind of intermediate relationship develops when archaeologists feel obligated to interact with the communities. This situation develops particularly when modern communities fully

understand their rights over the archaeological heritage and the archaeologists are, in turn, obligated to communicate and get permission to conduct their research. Likewise, under Peruvian law, foreigners are required to have a Peruvian co-director. This usually leads to the inclusion of Peruvian students and local workers. In this kind of contractual relationship, the interaction with the community ceases when the project ends. 3. Archaeologists that work in a true spirit of cooperation with the communities In this type of relationship, the archaeologists, both Peruvian and foreign, have developed a true cooperative relationship with the communities in which they do their work. For example, in Peru in the last few years, there has developed what is known in the anglophone world as Public Interest Archaeology or Public Archaeology. There are a few cases in Peru that I believe are very positive, although we need many more. Likewise, some regions of Peru have recognized the work of archaeologists, incorporating it into the construction of their history and cultural identity. The case of the Peruvian north coast is relevant here where this is substantial interaction between archaeologists and the communities. As a result, communities in the highlands of Peru are each time more open to archaeological studies, due to the success in social development and improvement in the local tourist industry. Finally, it is important to recognize how archaeologists have more closely personally interacted with these communities. As such, it is important to recognize that the relationships between archaeologists and native communities have improved in many cases. FINAL COMMENTS The relationship between archaeologists and indigenous communities is directly linked with the nature in which these communities are perceived by the Peruvian government and from the perspective of each archaeologist, whether national or foreign. The current government policy views sites and objects as resources that must be rationally managed for economic benefits. That is to say, a site must have an economic value and should be self-sustaining. This idea in fact is the classic tactic to sell the notion of a top-down intervention and protection of the archaeological heritage, imposed from above onto the communities. Machu Picchu is the classic example.

In our experience, we know that the communities or landowners near the archaeological sites are not taken into account in this type of paradigm that separates the local people from the patrimony and in which the state is the only mediator and manager of the patrimony itself. This undervalues the capacity of the communities to manage a resource that has always been part of their social landscape understood within their own cultural perceptions about what is important to them. Obviously, an underlying theme here is the contradiction that exists between traditional and western forms of understanding sites and objects produced in the past. Therefore, the good intentions of archaeologists in Peru, at the very least, should begin with deepening their knowledge and understanding of the communities where they work. More important is to value the contribution of the ancestral knowledge that exists and to promote the diffusion of that knowledge in schools, both locally and nationally. Most of all, archaeologists should open their minds and balance their academic interests with social interests. And this understanding is one that should be transmitted to their foreign colleagues. In Peru, there still exists a simplistic view that sets up an opposition between Peruvians and gringos. Nevertheless my professional experience has also demonstrated that it is not such a black and white issue. There are positive and negative elements to all social actors, and archaeologists are no different. In this regard, something very important is to break these prejudices so as to not be easy prey to other interests that take advantage of this supposed polarization to promote their own interests rather than those of archaeological research and community interest. In Peru, foreign and national archaeologists should create opportunities such as seen in this symposium to enhance our understanding and to ultimately benefit the people where we work in many different levels.

How do you think that relationship between archaeologists and descendant communities evolve in the next years? Thanks for the question. I think this relationship will be more sensitive about the claims of the communities. I think that, because increasingly the communities have more information and resources for know what are interests of archaeologists to work in its lands. In another hand, archaeologists are more engaged with communities at different levels because they are working much close with them. Also, national and local authorities are creating formal mechanisms for regulate archaeological works.