Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-mp689 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T17:11:30.345Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Prospects: archaeological research and practice in Peru

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 February 2012

Kevin Lane
Kevin Lane*
Affiliation:
Institut für Prähistorische Archäologie, Freie Universität Berlin, Altensteinstrasse 15, Berlin 14195, Germany (Email: kevin.lane@cantab.net)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The following comments reflect on the present state of Peruvian-led research archaeology and its prospects for the future, from the viewpoint of a friend, colleague but notably as an outsider. As such this piece is informed by both personal experience and the informed opinions of local Peruvian investigators who, for reasons that will become apparent, have opted for anonymity. The essential premise here is that the intellectual and financial basis of archaeology in Peru is at a critical stage, and a major part of this article is to see how the next generation can negotiate this quagmire; and believe me for all the myriad problems there are important rays of light that could significantly and positively alter the state of Peruvian archaeology. With this in mind, in this brief essay I consider the research environment, the theoretical basis, and the means by which research projects and resource mitigation are carried out, and summarise some of the challenges that archaeologists living and working in Peru now face. A recent, thorough treatise of the history and state of Peruvian archaeology can be found in Shimada and Vega-Centeno (2011).

Type
Research article
Information
Antiquity , Volume 86 , Issue 331 , March 2012 , pp. 221 - 227
Copyright
Copyright © Antiquity Publications Ltd 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bayliss, A. 2009. Rolling out revolution: using radiocarbon dating in archaeology. Radiocarbon 51(1): 123–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benavides, H. O. 2001. Returning to the source: social archaeology as Latin American philosophy. Latin American Antiquity 12: 355–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biddle, M. 1994. What Future for British Archaeology? Oxford: Oxbow.Google Scholar
Burga, M. 2003. La actualidad de una larga historia: la responsabilidad ética y política de la Universidad, in García Zaŕate, Ó.A. (ed.) Hacia una nueva universidad en el Perú: 19–32. Lima: Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos/UNESCO/Universidad Ricardo Palma.Google Scholar
Camise, A. 2002. Proyecto Camisea. Lima: CAMISEA. Available at: http://www.camisea. pluspetrol.com.pe/esp/project.asp (accessed 14 June 2011).Google Scholar
Carroll, R. & Barker, M.. 2011. Looters strip Latin America of archaeological heritage. The Guardian 21 March 2011. Available at: http://www. guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/21/looters-latin-america-archaeological-heritage (accessed 26 July 2011).Google Scholar
CIA. 2011. The world factbook. Washington (DC): CIA. Available at: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/theworld-factbook/geos/pe.html (accessed 14 June 2011).Google Scholar
COARPE. 2009. Colegio Professional de Arqueólogos del Perú. Lima: COARPE. Available at: http://www.coarpe.org/index.php (accessed 14 June 2011).Google Scholar
Dangerfield, W. 2007. Saving Machu Picchu. Smithsonian 1 May 2007. Available at: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/peopleplaces/10024436.html (accessed 26 July 2011).Google Scholar
Figini, A. J. 2007. Mesa 2: estado actual de los marcos cronológicos del NOA y problemáticas derivadas en la arqueología surandina: comentario de Aníbal J. Figini, in Williams, V. I., Ventura, B. N., Callegari, A.B.M. & Yacobaccio, H. D. (ed.) Sociedades precolombinas surandinas: temporalidad, interacción y dinámica cultura; del NOA en al ámbito de los Andes centro-sur: 299–302. Buenos Aires: De Los Autores.Google Scholar
Guaman Poma De Ayala, F. 1993 [1615]. Nueva Crónica y Buen Gobierno. Translated by Pease, F.G.Y.. Volumes 1-3. Lima: Fondo de Cultura Economica.Google Scholar
Harlan, J. R. 1971. Agricultural origins: centres and noncentres. Science 174: 468–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Higueras, A. 2008. Cultural heritage management in Peru: current and future challenges, in Silverman, H. & Isbell, W. H. (ed.) Handbook of South American archaeology: 1073–1088. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
INC. 2000. Reglamento de Investigaciones Arqueológicas, in Resolución Suprema No 004-2000-ED. Lima: Instituto Nacional de Cultura, Gobierno del Perú.Google Scholar
Matos Mendieta, R. & Bonavia, D.. 1992. La ensenanza de la arqueologia en el Peru. Lima: FOMCIENCIAS.Google Scholar
de Cultura, Ministerio. 2010. Cultura: Decreto Supremo que aprueba fusiones de entidades y órganos en el Ministerio de Cultura, in Decreto Supremo No 001-2010-MC. El Peruano, Lima: Gobierno del Perú.Google Scholar
Monteverde Sotil, L.R. 2008-2009. Estudiantes de arqueología, Perú: dilemas y perspectivas. Apachita 14: 1–3.Google Scholar
Patterson, T. C. 1994. Social archaeology in Latin America: an appreciation. American Antiquity 59(3): 531–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Politis, G. G. 2003. The theoretical landscape and the methodological development of archaeology in Latin America. Latin American Antiquity 14(2): 115–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ponte, V. 2000. Transformación Social y Politica en el Callejón de Huaylas, siglos III-X d. C, in Kaulicke, P. & Isbell, W. H. (ed.) Huari y Tiwanaku: modelos vs. evidencias (Boletín de Arqueología PUCP 4): 219–53. Lima: PUCP.Google Scholar
Ponte, V. 2006. Recuay burial practices: rank differentiation and ceremonies beyond death. Arkeos: Revista Electrónica de Arqueología PUCP 1(2 [Mayo]): 47–55.Google Scholar
Sandoval López, P. 2002. Modernización, democracia y violencia política en las universidades peruanas (1950-1995). Buenos Aires: Programa Regional de Becas CLACSO.Google Scholar
Shimada, I. & Vega-Centeno, R.. 2011. Peruvian archaeology: its growth, characteristics, practice and challenges, in Lozny, L. R. (ed.) Comparative archaeologies: a sociological view of the science of the past: 569–612. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Silverman, H. 2004. Introduction: space and time in the Central Andes, in Silverman, H. (ed.) Andean archaeology: 1–15. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Tantaleán, H. 2006. La arqueología marxista en el Perú: génesis, despliegue y futuro. Arqueología y Sociedad 17: 33–47.Google Scholar
Tantaleán, H. 2008. Las miradas andinas: arqueologías y nacionalismos en el Perú del siglo XX. Arqueología Suramericana/Arqueologia Sul-americana 4(1): 34–52.Google Scholar