You are on page 1of 12

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 (, Sarah Neusius (

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 1

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. Valcrcel, 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.

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 communitys 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 Universitys 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

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 universitys diverse problems. Therefore, scholars have proposed to assess its present day goals and transform its relationship to society. To 4

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.

In addition, Uhle organized the national Museum, and Tello the San Marcos University Museum of archaeology. Tellos 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 todays 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 Per. 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 Per showed several problems. For example, by mid 1980s R. Matos (1986: 7, 8) stated that archaeology in Per 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 Per, 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.

The above mentioned sequence is as follows: Institute of Ethnology and Archaeology In 1946, just one year before Tellos 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 students 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 7

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 Universitys 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, 8

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 dont 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 Perus 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 Perus 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 todays Peru. Second, being aware of the state of the art of the discipline, 9

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 nonconflictive interrelationship. References (selected) Bonavia, Duccio and Ramiro Matos 1992 Enseanza de la Arqueologa en el Per. Informe Evaluativo. Fomciencias, Lima. Castillo, Luis Jaime 2000 El Patrimonio Cultural y la Misin de las Universidades, In Patrimonio Cultural del Peru I, pp. 289-296. Fondo Editorial Congreso de la Repblica, Lima.


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 Formacin Profesional del Arquelogo en el Per. In Boletn 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 dnde 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 Arqueologa en el Per. Propuestas. In BIRA 22: 283-296. Boletn del Instituto Riva Agero, Pontificia Universidad Catlica, Lima. 1996 Arqueologa en el Per: Por qu, para qu? In Universidad y Sociedad 6(4): 38-40. Imprenta Muoz, Lima. 1997 Algunas Reflexiones sobre la Arqueologa en el Per. In Nueva Sntesis, 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,, submitted November 30, 2011.


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.