Peruvian rock art, some comments about the Macusani – Corani case 1 . By Gori Tumi Echevarría López The conservation of the archaeological sites in Peru, especially of the rock art sites, struggles today in a general crisis. Sites as those of Macusani - Corani fight for its survival mainly because the legal regulation that observes the Peruvian archaeological sites is structurally weak to protect them. The main law that states the legal situation of the Peruvian cultural patrimony, the Ley General de Patrimonio Cultural de la Nación (Law 29286,) exhibits for example serious legal emptiness that surreptitiously generate problems of patrimonial defense and conservation; part of these emptiness include the concept of "presumption" and the private property of the patrimony (Echevarría 2008). Additionally since 2007 new laws came in to increase the danger to the archaeological patrimony, like the law that wants to put on concession to privates or individuals persons the Cultural Patrimony (Law 29164,) or the Legislative Decree 1003 destined to speed up the proceedings of public work execution. The President of Peru has recently expressed that the public works can even be made without making the normal procedures of legal regulation (Press Note No. 2021 of the Palace of Government. Lima, 20/2/09,) as the obtaining permissions form the local municipalities, or from the “Colegio” of Peruvians Architects, or from the National Institute of Culture (INC,) existing a legal pressure that liberalizes, by laws at several administrative levels, the responsibilities of the State with its cultural patrimony with the intention of alienating it or to destroying it. The Macusani - Corani case is just the tip end of an iceberg than also includes famous archaeological monuments with rock art as “Santo Domingo”, “Toro Muerto” or “Checta.” In this context the defense of the archaeological sites can become true campaigns, as the campaign undertaken to save the geoglyphs of Santo Domingo in the Moche valley (Melissa Massat 2008, Corcuera and Echevarría 2008) and this also can be the Macusani - Corani case. For several years the rock art of these zones in the province of Carabaya, Puno, Peru, have been debated in a severe dilemma of conservation since its mayor archaeological area are find on a zone with extensive uranium reserves whose systematic exploration, at least from year 2001, would have generated a true local fever by its obtaining (Peralta 2008;) what would give origin to the main actual problems of rock art conservation and for all the archaeological complex that this zone implies. Article submitted to Rock Art Research in April 2009, published in the journal “Boletín APAR” in November 2009.
1
Until recently, however, the situation of the rock art and other associated archaeological materials in Macusani - Corani, already recognized from beginnings of 20th century, has been altered negatively by the favorable conditions of Peruvian government, since 2005 principally, for the investment and mining operation protected by a suitable legislation to these industries. Although the mining operation seems to be imminent, the inappropriate conditions to this activity include social aspects like the local population behavior (Peralta ob cit,) and other cultural aspects, especially the presence of rock art in the zone. In the year 2005 the National Institute of Culture (INC) declared to the Corani and Macusani paintings as National Cultural Patrimony with which it has begun, legally, a struggle by the defense and protection of these archaeological sites, which also has generated media campaigns like the one we are commenting. In order of establish minimum parameters to understand the treatment of the Peruvian archaeological goods like the rock art that help to understand the problems of these sites, I am going to examine the most relevant aspects of the legal protection of the archaeological patrimony that involves directly this case. The declaratory of "National Cultural Patrimony" of the rock paintings of Corani and Macusani done by the National Culture Institute (INC) was emitted on December of year 2005 by National Resolution No. 1658 and published in the official Newspaper “El Peruano”. The declaration of “Cultural Patrimony” or “Archaeological Monument,” that is the regular type of resolution emitted in this case, is in general a simple procedure that only requires an information formulary, photos, references and the field supervision and technical evaluation of an archaeologist. The declaration, however, only establish a legal situation of nominal protection and it does not establish the definitive protection of the archaeological site, that must still be made by means of the declaration of an “intangible area,” that is to say, by means of the physical delimitation of the archaeological zone declared patrimony. The declaratory of intangible area that not yet exist for the Macusani - Corani zone, is a crucial step for the defense of the Peruvian archaeological sites because establishes definitively the separation of areas with distinct uses by the placing of physical landmarks identifying the cultural patrimony that in this way can not be violated. The physical delimitation is so important that if it is not made, the State can not defend the patrimony against destructions or lootings, when those who destroy it or loot it argue ignorance of the patrimonial area; even when this area has been declared “Archaeological Monument” or “National Cultural Patrimony”.
Nevertheless that, this procedure is the most troublesome and difficult to make since it implies a high cost, an extended bureaucratic proceeding and the accomplishment of a technician dossier; dossier that must include an approved project of archaeological delimitation, the elaboration of area plans (topographic and perimetrical geo-referenced with differential GPS equipment,) a specification sheet, and a descriptive memory, to which we must adds the excavation of pit test for the physical establishment of polygonal of the area and the definitive location of the landmarks. All this work must be directed and supervised by a competent archaeologist and approved by the INC by means of a National Resolution published in the Official Newspaper “El Peruano.” Additionally this zone must be registered in the Office of Public Records like a state property including its validated coordinates, geophysical aligned with the official geographic points of the Geographic National Institute (IGN). In Peru only an archaeologist legally qualified (a professional recognized by the INC) can assert, by means of a technical report, of the existence and characteristics of an archaeological good for aims of legal value; nobody can propose the declaration of an archaeological cultural patrimony and even less the physical delimitation of an archaeological site if this proposal is not based on systematic observations of a professional archaeologist enlisted in the National Register of Peruvian Archaeologists and associate to the “Colegio” of Peruvian Archaeologists; and this is an unquestionable regulation. As it is evident an extensive chain of action exists before considering an archaeological site fully protected, and the Macusani - Corani case is just in an initial stage of this process. Based on this regulation I’m about to comment two reports on the of Corani Macusani problem published by the engineer Rainer Hostnig (Hostnig 2008a, 2008b) who details an intense campaign to save these sites from the menace of mining exploitation. Both reports are very similar and they are centered on several aspects related to the treatment of cultural goods and normative references, lamentably some of the affirmation on the matter are not precise and generate wrong perspectives regarding to the problematic of the sites and its protectionist intervention, reason why it is important to clarify some of this affirmations for a better external appreciation about the problems that affect the Peruvian rock art. Preliminarily we have to precise that given the extraordinary archaeological value of these paintings is not surprising that these sites has been declared cultural patrimony by means of an archeological endorsement of the INC. Nevertheless, the initial affirmation of the engineer Hostnig stand up with respect to the treatment of this cultural patrimony arguing have been “explored systematically” between the years 2000 and 2004 those archaeological zones and to have carry out, sponsored by the Regional Government of Puno and the
Provincial Government of Carabaya, a “final rock art exploration” to “locate and register sites in areas not covered by my [his] previous surveys” (Hostnig 2008a: 231, Cf. Hostnig 2008b: 48); what according to the author helped him to design a “delimitation proposal” of the area. These assertions are unsustainable by several reasons, first because nobody can carry out systematic explorations or surveys under the account of any institution without the express permission and authorization of the National Culture Institution (INC), previous evaluation of the Project for the National Technical Commission of Archeology. A work of this type must be framed in an Archaeological Project approved by the INC that includes the systematic recognition of that evidence; project that according to the Art. 7 of the “Regulation of Archaeological Investigations” (Supreme Resolution 004-2000ED) would allow the location and registry of sites with rock art of the zone. This same regulation specifies the obligatory mandate of the INC authorization to effect these activities, establishing that only will be able to direct these projects in the Peru “The individuals, nationals or foreigners, who have scientific preparation credited with titles or grades in archaeology and enlisted in the National Register of Archaeologists” (Art. 28, b. my translation.) Secondly, the engineer Hostnig cannot, under any argument, propose a delimitation of an archaeological area on the base of his own observations, because they lack legal value for any question that implicates the Peruvian cultural patrimony. This person committed serious omissions in this case when not taken into account the INC authorization, previous presentation and approbation of a project, and when he excluded from between his collaborators qualified archaeologists enabled in recognizing rock art and other materials which had given an initial credit to his observations, especially considering that all the area presents other archaeological evidences between monumental and movable (Cardenas 2008.) Although in other publication this author says that in 2007 “an archaeologist from the Capaq Ñam Project of the INC Puno” accompanied him (Hostnig 2008b: 48. My translation,) whose name avoids to mention, Hostnig establish very clear that it is him, without no authorization, who makes the surveys and explorations, which the Peruvian Criminal Code, in its article 226, categorizes like a crime. Up to here there is an evident irregular procedure and an exclusivist participation in the exploration of the zone, which could be justified considering, from the year 2005, the imminent menace of destruction of the rock art sites; nevertheless other aspects of the reports are also incoherent and put to consideration the tendency of this author to minimizes the performance of other investigators in these sites, and we refer specifically to the Project of Archaeological Investigation: “Inventory of Archaeological Sites with Rock Art
in Macusani and Corani 2007 – 2008” directed by the Peruvian archaeologist Patricia Vega Centeno. In one of his reports Hostnig negatively appreciates the official approval of the Investigation Project of Vega Centeno, that does not favor the execution of a cadastre of the paintings (Hostnig 2008b:49,) probably because he does not take in consideration that the INC lacks resources to make cadastres and in the best of the cases delimitations of intangibles areas what would protect the sites more efficiently. From the year 2000 to year 2006 the INC has declared in Peru more than 4500 monuments as National Cultural Patrimony but very few archaeological monuments count with effective protected areas. The INC’s approbation of the Inventory Project of this archaeologist, with experience in rock art studies, constituted in the year 2007 the more fortunate historical event in the technical documentation of the rock art of Puno and without a doubt in the history of the Peruvian rock art studies, and therefore a transcendental step for the protection of these sites. A Project of Archaeological Investigation (which is very different from to an Evaluation Project, or an Emergency Project, or an Rescue Project, Art. 6 of the Regulations of Archaeological Investigations) are based fundamentally on a scientific premise, search of knowledge, and in the explicit methodological proposal to approach this search; otherwise it would not be approved by the INC, and this is one of the most standing out aspects of this intervention. In the investigation directed by Vega Centeno nineteen archaeologists from five Peruvian universities participated, managing to document more than 200 archaeological sites with rock art besides other monumental and superficial sites associates in an area of more than 70 thousand hectares (Cardenas 2008); what it does not have precedent in the Peruvian archaeological investigation. Despise this; the affirmations of the engineer Hostnig against this project are suspicious. For example this author states that the inventory made by the Archaeologist Vega Centeno are based on a documentation with “detailed information” that the “INC officials did not hesitated to furnish her” to make her work (Hostnig 1998: 232); however, in his following publication he affirms that this archaeologist "using her good contacts with the Office of Archaeology of the INC - Lima, (…) seems to have obtained access to the dossier with geo-referenced information about the sites that I [Hostnig] had given to the INC – Lima in 2005 …" (Hostnig 2008b: 49. My translation) Why exists a contradiction between the affirmations of Hostnig regarding to the use of his supposed “detailed information” (2008a) or “geo-referenced information” (2008b)? In communication with the referred archaeologist she affirms not knowing this “dossier”, and even she questions its existence since in previous works in the archives of the INC she
did not find any references to this document (Vega Centeno, Personal Communication 2009.) On the other hand, the engineer Hostnig states that his sponsored “exploration” in Macusani and Corani of 2007 allowed him “in five days of intensive survey” to add eighteen new places to the “inventory” that served him to elaborating his delimitation proposal (Hostnig 2008a: 231,) arguing that, since he never had access to Vega Centeno’s inventory, he does not know which sites coincide with the “previous inventory” or which sites are new. It is obvious that this author suggests that he made a rock art sites “inventory” before the work of the official project of inventory, and this is another tendentious affirmation. Asides Vega Centeno’s work any rock art “inventory” of Macusani – Corani does not exist, and any related information developed by this author or by any other person does not constitute more than a lists of sites. Hostnig clearly confuses the “inventory” concept with the one of “relation” or “list,” and that is evident, for example, in his 2003 publication entitled “National Inventory”, where only for the department of Puno he realized the “inventory” of twenty seven “not located sites”, that is to say, nonexistent sites. The “National Inventory” of Peruvian rock art (Hostnig 2003) mentions seventy nine sites with rock art for all the department of Puno, in addition to the twenty seven “not localized” sites, and nevertheless Hostnig questions the count of Vega Centeno that reaches the number of 200 sites only for Macusani - Corani. In a previous publication this author says to have registered and documented “a hundred” of “rupestrial stations” (Hostnig 2003: 17) which is the generic count that could be considered of him, since in his last reports (2008a, 2008b) the maximum mentioned number of sites is eighteen; anyway it is clear that Hostnig confuses “stations” with “sites,” and that proves once more, besides his methodological deficiency, that his affirmations are not reliable. The evident fact is that Hostnig never made available to the archaeologist Vega Centeno his dossier with “detailed information,” and criticizes the unique academic and professional intervention authorized by the State in the zone. It is clear that this author try to discredit, especially in his Spanish report (2008b,) the only legal proofs that can be used to verify the existence of the sites with rock art in case of a trial for the defense or protection of those sites. Although the opposite can be say, the law estates that the report of the archaeologist Vega Centeno has character of public domain after one year of its delivery to the INC (Art. 59, j. Regulation of Archaeological Investigations,) which occurs independently of the desires of the company that financed these studies for its own aims or not.
It is important to stress that the Vega Centeno report is at present the most reliable information, and probably the only one, about the archaeological sites of the zone, besides the rock art, that can be used for legal aims, cadastre or archaeological delimitation. For the first time the INC, from this project, can estimate the cultural value of Macusani - Corani archaeological deposits which would be a primary official base for the protection of the sites; and it is possible to add in case are carried out, the Projects of Archaeological Evaluation for the emission of the “Certificate of Nonexistence of Archaeological Remains” (CIRA,) that is made before any public or private work execution. The CIRA can not be issue without an “Evaluation Project,” which can, and in this specific case must, include archaeological excavations. It is not true that the CIRA “only states that on the surface of a specific area no archaeological remains exist” as affirm Hostnig (2008a: 232, 2008b: 48) which are established by Law (Art. 8 and Art 65 Regulation of Archaeological Investigation.). The CIRA in addition implies obligations like the need of monitoring and reports to the INC if archaeological evidence were find during the execution of the work. At the present time the political and legal conditions of Peru make difficult the real protection of all the Peruvian archaeological sites and many archaeologists are fighting with their own means to defend the cultural patrimony of Peru following the “game rules” that establish the valid legal norms and without interfering the efforts and achievements reached mutually. Although it is true than the State is still far from assume integrally the defense of the archeological patrimony, personal and institutional efforts exist that approach to that mission (Gordillo 2001: 49). The effort of the engineer Hostnig is remarkable when calling the international attention on these Peruvian ancestral relics, but he cannot, under any circumstance, diminish the national archaeological work, especially of a project that meant the golden opportunity for saving these sites and that today appears internationally like an obstacle to the efforts of this author. Hostnig has committed illegal acts and has published fallacies in name of saving an archaeological zone without taking in consideration the Peruvian archaeologists nor to support its efforts. If we did not commenting this kind of reports we would be accepting certainly, at international level, the fact that any person interesting on rock art (an archaeological evidence officially recognized by Peruvian laws) can explore, survey or remove archaeological sites with rock art in the most unpunished way. This is not possible. Surreptitious activities like the “systematic explorations” that the engineer Hostnig says to have carry out between year 2000 to 2004 are causing serious problems of conservation in the sites with rock art in all Peru, sites that always include other archaeological materials associates that these empirics persons cannot recognize. The example of intervention of this author, exposed clearly in his own reports, is a bad preceding for the Peruvian rock
studies that must advance with clear methodological premises and with more technical and scientists programs and overall with the formality that the Peruvian State demands. All those researchers that want to study the Peruvian cultural patrimony can do it following the established legal proceedings and respecting the respective professional field areas. Additionally exist an International Code of Ethics (IFRAO 2000) and in Peru the own APAR’s Code of Ethics (2007) establishes certain minimum parameters for the visit to rock art sites. At present there are not excuses for the surreptitious interventions in the Peruvian archaeological sites with or without rock art, and today the Peruvians archaeologists are progressing in the technical approach to the sites with this cultural material. The observance of the legal norms and the coordinate work with the archaeologists and the institutions that protect the national patrimony (INC) is a minimum guarantee for the protection and conservation of this archaeological relic, and all we must be conscious of this reality. We support the campaign by the defense and protection of the sites with rock art in Macusani and Corani, and we hope that the appropriate legal steps for its definitive safeguard occur, in behalf of the native communities and of all the Peruvian nation.
Gori Tumi Echevarría López San Marcos University Peruvian Rock Art Association (APAR) Plaza Julio C. Tello 274 No 303 Torres de San Borja. Lima 41 Peru E-mail: goritumi@gmail.com.
References ASOCIACIÓN PERUANA DE ARTE RUPESTRE (APAR). El Código de Ética de APAR. In: http://groups.google.com/group/apar_peru CORCUERA, V. and G. T. ECHEVARRÍA. 2008. Arte Rupestre en la Quebrada Santo Domingo, Valle de Moche. Resultados de la Salida conjunta entre la Asociación Guías Sin Fronteras (GSF) y la Asociación Peruana de Arte rupestre (APAR). In: http://groups.google.com/group/apar_peru/web/artculogeoglifos-de-la-qda-santo-domingo
ECHEVARRÍA, G. T. 2008. Rock art in Peru, problems and perspectives. Man in India 88 (2-3): 261-274. CARDENAS M., M. 2008. Una gran galería rupestre. El Comercio, p. a37. 11 de mayo del 2008. GORDILLO, Jesús. 2001. Patrimonio Cultural, Pensamiento Andino y Medio Ambiente. 202 pp. Ceticos – Tacna. HOSTNIG, R. 2003. Macusani, repositorio de arte rupestre milenario en la cordillera de Carabaya, Puno-Perú. Boletín, SIARB. 17: 17-35. HOSTNIG, R. 2003. Arte Rupestre del Perú, Inventario Nacional. CONCYTEC. Lima. HOSTNIG, R. 2008a. Rock art heritage of Macusani-Corani in the Carabaya Province of Perú, under increased threat of destruction. Rock Art Research 25 (2): 229-233. HOSTNIG, R. 2008b. El Patrimonio Rupestre de Macusani-Corani en la Provincia de Carabaya, Puno, no está a salvo. Campaña en curso para evitar su destrucción. Boletín, SIARB. 22: 46-56. INTERNATIONAL FEDERATION OF ROCK ART ORGANIZATIONS (IFRAO). 2000. The IFRAO Code of Ethics. El Código de Ética de IFRAO. In: http://mc2.vicnet.net.au/home/auraesp/web/index.html or, http://groups.google.com/group/apar_peru/web/el-cdigo-de-etica-de-ifrao INSTITUTO NACIONAL DE CULTURA. 2000. Reglamento de Investigaciones Arqueológicas. Resolución Suprema No 0004-2000-ED (El Peruano, 25 de Enero del 2000). Lima MASSAT, M. 2002. Santo Domingo Rock Art in Danger. A Peruvian Treasure Needs Support. In: http://archaeology.about.com/cs/rockart/a/massat.htm PERALTA L. N. 2008. La verdad sobre el uranio en Puno. El Comercio, p. a24. 20 de abril del 2008.