Springer International Journal of Historical Archaeology

Ethics and Archaeological Tourism in Latin America
Author(s): Margarita Díaz-Andreu

Source: International Journal of Historical Archaeology, Vol. 17, No. 2, Special Issue: The
Ethics of Archaeological Tourism in Latin America (June 2013), pp. 225-244
Published by: Springer
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/24572354
Accessed: 05-02-2020 01:04 UTC
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
Springer is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to International
Journal of Historical Archaeology
This content downloaded from 201.245.162.126 on Wed, 05 Feb 2020 01:04:10 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Int J Histor Archacol (2013) 17:225-244
DOI 10.1007/s 10761-013-0218-1
Ethics and Archaeological Tourism in Latin America
Margarita Diaz-Andreu
Published online: 17 April 2013

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013
Abstract Archaeological tourism and ethics are two fields that, with exceptions,
scholars have been reluctant to combine. There is, however, an increasing concern on
the general subject of tourism and ethics and this article will draw examples from
Latin America to explore the intersection between both. An overview of the history of
archaeological tourism in Latin America will be provided. A growing number of
archaeologists all over Latin America are becoming active in promoting or assisting
the conversion of sites into tourist attractions. For some, it is a way of protecting sites
in the face of the dangers brought about by uncontrolled tourism and for others
helping locals to earn a living is a humanitarian question. Yet, archaeological remains
are not neutral, but powerful means of creating historical memory and identity.
Tourism becomes a means of advertising and even of legitimizing the existence of
groups and that politicizes archaeologists' engagement with tourism. This politiciza
tion represents an ethical challenge for the profession. Also, the conversion of
archaeological ruins into tourist attractions can only be made through the commod
ification of culture. This has been denounced by some scholars as another
postcolonial appropriation and neoliberal method of controlling indigenous groups,
but hailed by others as a good thing for indigenous communities as it provides them
with a living.
Keywords Heritage · Ethics · Archaeological tourism ■ Latin America ·

Commodification of culture · Indigenous groups
Introduction
Archaeological tourism and ethics are two fields that, with exceptions (Meskell
2005), scholars have been reluctant to combine. There is, however, an increasing
M. Diaz-Andrcu (Σ3)
ICREA, Département de Prehistôria, H. Antiga i Arqueologia, Facultat de Geografia i Histôria,
ICREA-Universitet de Barcelona, Carrer de Montalegre 6, 08001 Barcelona, Spain
e-mail: m.diaz-andrcu@ub.cdu
ô Springe:
226 Int J Histor Archacol (2013) 17:225-244
concern on the general subject of tourism and

the field of archaeology both terms are implied
be referred to in this article and those that follow in this issue of the International
Journal of Historical Archaeology. They are the result of a session on the subject of
"The Ethics of Archaeological Tourism" organized by César Villalobos Acosta and
the author of this article and held at the Theory Archaeology Congress (TAG) at
Durham University in December 2009. Our aim was to discuss the wide range of
theoretical issues relating to archaeological tourism. These included the changing role
of archaeology in heritage tourism; the creation of memory through visits to archae
ological monuments and museums and ethical issues related to it; and the role of
archaeologists in the heritage industry. We also included discussions about the
tensions in the ownership and stewardship of archaeological heritage; the role of
archaeological tourism in the construction of identity; the commoditization of archae
ological sites and museums; the role of conservation, authenticity and representation
in the face of mass tourism; and the potential of heritage tourism as an institutional
ized state activity to promote national identity. Finally, we examined the potential of
heritage tourism to empower regional and local identities and we appraised the impact
of colonialism and decolonization on the formation of a historical discourse that
includes archaeological information. The thinking behind these issues is the reason
for writing this and the following articles.
Archaeological tourism is defined here as the practice of visiting an archaeological
site to experience the place and learn about the stories and people of the past (cf.
Hoffman et al. 2002, p. 30). Archaeological tourism deals with the consumption of
archaeology as a leisure activity. However, for this consumption to take place, the
material remains of past cultures have necessarily gone through a process of corn
modification (i.e., they have acquired value in the market economy). Archaeologists
are key actors in this process. They find and study the archaeological objects and past
landscapes, whose meaning is then translated for consumption, a translation in which
they sometimes play an active part. The ownership—and economic exploitation—of
what is revealed by archaeologists may however be a contentious issue that has in
many cases led to tension. The ethical issues involved in the actual discovery,
excavation, study, preservation and, especially, the display and creation of discourses
for tourist consumption will be analyzed here. Although archaeologists have recently
become more aware of the ethical implications of fieldwork and the analysis of
human and cultural remains (Brunk and Young 2009; Henriette 2011; Sayer 2010;
Scarre and Scarre 2005; Vitelli 2006), their lesser involvement in the tourism industry
has meant that the discussion regarding the ethics of the consumption of archaeology
have not been covered as well in the literature. This discussion is pressing, as the
tourism industry is one of the fastest-growing economic activities in the world. This is
also the case in Latin America, the area of the world from which this article and the
following ones will draw examples to illustrate the discussion. Although international
bodies like the World Tourism Organization have established a Global Code of Ethics
for Tourism (WTO 1999), the expansion of the sector is bringing new challenges in
which archaeologists should also engage.
First coined by the Greek philosopher Aristotle (384-322 BCE), the concept of
ethics came from ethos, meaning "custom." Today it denotes moral behavior and a
discussion of ethics entails finding ways of distinguishing "good" from "evil." In the
Springer
Int J Histor Archacol (2013) 17:225-244 227
field of archaeology the concern about ethics em

the one hand, there was some alarm about the pr
archaeological sites, which made archaeologists t
ities towards them. This was linked to the appe
ment and the drawing up of international agre
(ICOMOS 1964). On the other hand, the emergen
also made archaeologists realize that there were a
of the past should be perceived and treated. Th
1970s in the US (Johnson 1973; also see Wylie 2
the early 1980s by a handful of books (Green 19
increase in the 1990s (some examples are Bray a
Vitelli 1996) and beyond (see, for example Scarre
included debates on archaeologists' duties and r
cultural objects and the physical remains of
communities that have a connection to the past
of the past is an ethical concern (Layton and W
tourism is clearly implicated.
In contrast to the US and other English-sp
speaking world the issue of ethics has been taken
community. One of the earliest concerns was relat
not to indigenous communities, but from muse
national museums of countries such as Mexic
Congress of Americanists in Munich passed a res
in pre-Columbian antiquities. Soon after, Cleme
Harvard, wrote an article on the extent of the illic
Mayan sites of Mexico, Guatemala, and Beli
November 14, 1970 UNESCO adopted the
Prohibiting and Preventing the Import, Exp
Cultural Property". However, this did not brin
seen from subsequent cases (see, for exampl
countries in Latin America have made claims re
(Curtoni and Chaparro 2007-08; Endere 2011)
collections (Aguilar Diaz 2011) or moved from t
urban furniture (Scarborough 2008). Also in
cemeteries is being halted out of respect for lo
278). One should also point out that each country
whereas in some indigenous communities claim
process is much less marked (Gnecco and Herna
However, it would be possible to say that conce
not completely unknown in Latin American arc
archaeologists such as Gamio in México and
definitive step forward in the fight to include t
history (Diaz-Andreu 2007, pp. 182-184). These
framework of indigenismo, which accepted the
national heritage. However, this heritage related
appreciation of the country's contemporary indi
criticized today for its paternalistic and essentia
Ô Springer
(Tantaleân 2013). In indigenismo, the nation-state

was still seen as the main beneficiary of the wri
into the pre-Columbian past. Despite current cri
multi-cultural basis of the country, something t
Argentina and Chile, where this movement was
took place in Latin America in the 1970s, with t
did not affect the status quo in this respect, as t
concern for indigenous communities. Social arc
Marxist approach and in maintaining a firm ant
issues (Lumbreras 1974). This top-down approach
"in Latin America archaeological practice sho
1976, p. 85). Living indigenous communities we
ison (Lorenzo 1976, p. 91). Even today, many arc
the indigenous component of their country's pop
articles on ethics in archaeology with no mentio
Goyzueta and Lopez Aguilar 2010).
In contrast to the situation described in the p
number of Latin American archaeologists are loo
new light. Discussions of archaeologists' ethical r
began in the 1980s. The example set by the deba
Archaeology related to the Code of Ethics, w
American archaeologists with members of the
key to this process (Funari, pers. comm.; Politi
series of publications by scholars who had be
American Archaeology (SAA) and the World Ar
trates the change they had gone through (Funar
Politis 1992). It was also in the 1990s that the f
different national archaeological societies, in so
codes proposed by the SAA in 1994. This wa
later Chile (Ayala et al. 2003, p. 277), while i
approved but is of voluntary observance (AAPR
in Bolivia a code of ethics is currently under d
the INAH in Mexico and the Professional Bod
mention indigenous communities (CPAP 2005; I
Colombia and Guatemala, have yet to organize t
The tardy concern with ethics issues in some c
emergence of the indigenous movement in Latin
in the late 1980s and the 1990s (Ayala et al.
Hernandez Ramirez 2010, p. 203), three decades
series of changes in international legislation
Organization Convention 169 (1989), which deal
tribal peoples, played a key role in this transfor
changes at a national level. In Colombia, the
recognition of special rights for ethnic groups
(Gnecco 2008, p. 1110; Gômez Montânez 2011
Act (Ley Indigena) 19,253 of 1993 included the
(Ayala 2007, p. 133; Ayala et al. 2003, p. 276) an
â Springer
give ownership of heritage to the indigenous co

enous claims to manage it and control archaeolog
those of pre-Hispanic burial grounds (Ayala et al.
to the Incise 17, Article 75 of the constitution led
tural basis of the Argentinean nation (Nielsen an
recent laws favor indigenous claims (Endere a
writing of Article 1 of the constitution in 1994 c
mation that has given basic rights to the indige
other key legislative changes, such as the Po
Participation Popular) that gave economic contro
ities and recognized the Indigenous Districts, ter
(Lima Tôrrez 2003, p. 361).
Archaeological Tourism in Latin America: A H
Latin America has been a relative newcomer to t

tourism grew from the elitist travels of the Gr
(Chaney 1998) and the nineteenth-century develop
(Urry 2002, p. 16-30) to become a mass activity f
with the increase in air transport (Papatheodoro
ically in Latin America, tourism began in the late
Mexico (Berger 2006, p. 26) and Cuba (when the f
arrive (Goeldner and Brent Ritchie 2012, p. 46)). I
in other countries such as Puerto Rico (Pérez 1974
major increase in planning and this is when area
developed (Ardren 2004, p. 104) and archaeologica
Adentro and Ciudad Perdida (Colombia) were pre
(Forero Lloreda 2007, p. 177).
Tourism, of course, has an extensive typology
forms: sun and beach, ethnic, cultural or heritage
tional and business. Archaeological tourism is on
moment when archaeological tourism appeared in a
the development of other types of tourism depen
factor was the very nature of its archaeological re
archaeology are more likely to have experienced
from early on in the history of tourism. In Latin A
areas where the Mesoamerican and the Andean
perhaps the Latin American country with the lo
tourism. One of the earliest promoters of tourism
considered to be the founder of modem anthropo
advocates of indigenismo. Gamio, who studied un
and, more importantly in this case, became a high
and enhanced Leopoldo Batres' earlier efforts
tourist destination (Sarabia Gonzalez 2008; Mu
tourism through state policies, such as the recov
tourists. In the very first issue of a new journal ded
£) Springer
230 lnt J Histor Archacol (2013) 17:225-244
Mexico Guia de Turismo, he argued that, in addi

country and the ancient tradition of pre-Colum
would be able to observe "another extremely im
in Europe and that, however, is never mentioned."
of "visualizing the phases of civilization that h
hundreds of centuries ago until the present day
ruins to the contemporary Mexican population (
In Peru tourism also started in the 1920s, when
activity with modernity and supported indigenis
tity in a positive fashion. A key moment was th
Cusco's re-foundation by the Spanish conquistad
the "Archaeological Capital of South America" at
Americanists held in 1933 in La Plata (Argentina
possibility of turning Machu Picchu into a touri
was considered at that time and a description of
tourist guides (Gabriel Cosio 1924; Rosario Zârate
definitively integrated into the tourist circuit when
(Mendoza 2008).
However, the national nature of archaeology in
in neither country did local communities directly
were left to take advantage of the commodificatio
cheap reproductions of artifacts for sale. In the
found inspiration in the motifs on the stone re
designs. As Deirdre Evans-Pritchard (1993a, p. 22
decades, Pre-Columbian god-figures, Aztec calen
were among the many new designs produced by
adaptation to tourist taste and tourist requests fo
reproduction of antiquities for the tourist marke
attempt to halt the trade in fakes and actual anti
1970s, an exhibition of Olmec-style modem art w
local people to produce their work as such (Evan
The mass expansion of heritage tourism that b
significant social and economic impact. It also bro
of sites, although not much of what happened a
historical analysis. The explosion of tourism at thi
state, as can be seen from the son et lumière set u
1968 Summer Olympic games in Mexico, follo
Uxmal and Chichen Itza (see Villalobos this volum
have been state initiatives that have either damag
the negative side we have Costa Rica. The high gro
1992) made it the country's second largest foreig
1993b, p. 778) and it is currently the first. This,
archaeology. The heritage legislation of 1981 was
modernization and development, removing most
ical resources in order to facilitate economic dev
On the positive, it was precisely at this time when
strengthened the measures for the protection of
Springer
The last few years have been marked by divers

increase in tourists in many Latin American reg
of new types of tourism, including cultural tour
adventure tourism, mystical tourism, rural tour
visitable archaeological sites into economic reso
munities expect to profit from. In some countr
tourism is seen as a source of wealth. There, th
Arts (Consejo Nacional para la Cultura y las
Methodological Guide for Projects and Products
in which the basis for organizing a project a
practical advice for the planning stage is given. T
about heritage tourism, stating, for example, t
intangible heritage (Guia 2012, p. 73). Archaeolo
increasingly conscious of their active role in tour
discourse used by tourist leaders (see Joyce in th
the touristic exploitation of archaeological si
volume, Forero Lloreda 2007, pp. 178-180; Juan
and community initiatives such as local muse
Changes in international legislation have been a
resulted in some countries giving more rights
affected archaeological tourism in so far as i
destinations are now managed by local group
not yet been completed.
Since 2008, archaeological tourism has been
crisis, but how this has filtered down to the dif
for study. Whereas Mortensen indicated that nu
tenfold from 1975 (12,500) to 2001 (Mortensen
commented on how these numbers had fallen
reached at the peak of the tourism boom (Pa
between recent trends in the global economy a
that needs further study.
Archaeologists and Heritage: A Changing Re
As everywhere else in the world, archaeologists

their profession as a research-led activity that w
devoid of any connection to the present (see
symbolic political value that led to the professi
Andreu 2007) has turned the physical object of
economic assets, although without detriment to
been several consequences of this transformation
archaeology and the emergence of archaeologica
growth in the number of stakeholders claiming
nous communities. The impact of contract arch
seen as key to recent changes in Peruvian archa
2011, p. 590) and to a large extent this may be
£) Springer
development of archaeological tourism is not ful

had a key influence on the adjustment of the pr
success of heritage tourism has commodified the
and has compelled archaeologists to face up to n
which archaeologists have reacted are analyzed
A growing number of archaeologists all over La
promoting or assisting the conversion of sites into
way of protecting sites in the face of the dang
tourism (Hoffman et al. 2002, p. 32; Jennings 20
to earn a living is a humanitarian question. The
that highlight, among other factors, inadequate
archaeology university degrees (see coments on
Among the success stories one can point to the
is a community-based tourism initiative in which
tourist activities, regulating and organizing them.
the 1970s and 1980s uncovered remains dating f
surrounding Agua Blanca, one of the Manteno v
National Park, thus preventing the exploitation o
munities (Morse 1994, pp. 178-179). The com
McEwan's excavations in the 1980s led it to cons
of income. To attract tourists they decided to se
opposition of the park authorities. Having built it
own labor, they filled it with objects that they
market; they also managed to retrieve a valuable
sold, which they made the star display (McE
Ballesteros and Hernandez Ramirez 2010, pp. 220
to be the Chilean Coyo community's project of
problems in the process of making the site visita
a successful business, now the Tulor Archaeolog
Other countries with success stories include Peru,
assisted in the exploitation of the Huaca de la Lu
and Brazil, where the University of Sào Paulo has
for the Erasmo sugar plantation (see Funari et al. t
mentioned in Argentina (Corbalân et al. 2012; Ko
124-125), Belize (Ishihara-Brito et al. 2008; Magno
between Guatemala and Belize (UCSB 2009), E
Honduras (see information about the Los Naranjo
volume) (Mortensen 2009). Of course, archaeolog
ties goes beyond tourism and in some cases is ma
reinforcement (Lino and Bruhns 2011). These pr
funds and/or the local communities themselves
sponsorship, such as crowdfiinding, are being lau
archaeological sites such as San Jose de Moro (Pe
necessarily a component in these developments.
However, not all projects have met with succes
tourism resources competes with more profi
community is not interested in exploiting their
Ô Springer
it extremely difficult to make a lucrative business

Examples of lack of success can be seen in the fa
the Offagia rock art sites of Tarapacâ (Chile) (R
case of limited success is that of the district of
ologists from the Universidad Mayor de San And
route. This included the thermal waters of Talu
purposes by the local population, the petroglyp
and dated to provide contextualization, and some
1996 (Lima Tôrrez 2003, p. 364). The communit
few archaeological objects and an archaeologi
petroglyphs was planned. Unfortunately, in 20
vandalized, presumably as a way of stopping th
from happening again, a guard was hired and w
were organized by experts from the nation
However, internal tensions within the commun
pers. comm.). In another area of the countr
participated in the creation of an archaeologica
from the locals, who do not belong to any o
forthcoming, as it was detrimental to the exploi
(Lima Tôrrez 2003, p. 364). The locals' lack of ent
with the sad news in 2009 of the deterioration o
Another project in which archaeologists att
that of Ollagiie in Chile. In this case, the in
towards their archaeology encouraged arch
strengthen the links between the museum, the
selves. In meetings held between these three
came up was for the local community to be
exploitation of archaeology (Ayala et al. 2003
archaeology guides were organized, but a lack o
10 years most of those trained had moved on
The attempt to exploit the archaeological site o
has also only been partially successfiil. Local iden
process of converting the site into a tourist resou
place, tourist numbers have never been high. As
larger villages who take tourists to the site are n
which most tourists learn about the Lakaya arch
transport to actually make a visit possible. This pu
in exchange for local guides getting a chance to
request favors that range from a meal to accomm
drivers also profit from the tension resulting f
boring villages with archaeological sites to v
advantage (Nielsen, pers. comm.) This leaves a
their help in creating the resource may lead to
lack the control of the means by which tourists
A very different case scenario is when archaeol
local communities, but are compelled to realize th
themselves. The demands made on archaeolo
Springer
communities include keeping archaeological obj

outside it, obtaining information about the resu
them to participate in the management of the ar
management and tourism exploitation), and havi
this includes in many cases not exhibiting huma
p. 369). These demands have led to a redefin
archaeologists and other communities.
One case of a local community that has made
past is that of San Pedro de Atacama in Chile,
have been proactive in demanding of archaeolo
with regard to archaeological remains. These com
at the entrance to the Archaeological Museu
October 12 (the Dia de la Hispanidad, the da
Americas) in the late 1980s and early 1990s to cl
time when tourism was gaining in importance
were first met with indifference by the museum
suffered an arson attack by persons unknown
things worse, the local population accused the m
destruction of a cemetery in order to build a h
resolve this situation a "dialogue table" (mesa d
museum curators and representatives of the A
(Ayala 2007, p. 152). A so-called Escuela Andi
ologists and someone was hired to ensure good
museum into local cultural life. The museum also decided to remove the human
remains from the exhibition in 2006 (Ayala 2007, 2008). Nevertheless, although the
tourism exploitation of the archaeological sites is now in the hands of the community,
archaeologists continue to be in control of archaeological projects in which a dialogue
with the indigenous communities is largely lacking (Ayala 2007-08, pp. 41, 51-52).
Another case is that of the excavations carried out by a Japanese-Peruvian team in
Kuntur Wasi. Soon after the excavations had started, the local authorities of San
Pablo, the town with administrative responsibility for the local village, accused the
excavation directors of working in an area that belonged to them. Although permits
had been obtained, to calm the tension created by the demands it was agreed that
whatever was found would be kept in the town. After the unexpected find of several
gold objects, a local Kuntur Wasi villagers committee was formed and charged with
protecting the objects between excavation seasons. The threat of terrorism and
political instability led to the decision to take the objects to Lima, although the
villagers only agreed to this on the condition that the objects were taken to Japan
to be exhibited in order to raise funds to build a museum in the village. The museum
was finally opened in 1994 and today it is a moderately successful business that has
revitalized the area (Onuki 2007).
Whose Cultural Heritage? The Ethics of Identity in Archaeological Tourism
Archaeology is a powerful means of creating identity. Through their work, archaeol

ogists are assisting in the creation of historical memory. Archaeology developed
Ô Springer
Int J Histor Archacoi (2013) 17:225-244 235
professionally in the nineteenth century in the con

be credible if they were sustained by a nation an
the discourse of origins became accepted as a pow
political reality of an identity group as a nation
resource to legitimize their own existence. In th
groups will be discussed: the nation, humanity, an
communities. The reason this discussion is needed is
advertising and even of legitimizing the polit
politicizes archaeologists' engagement with touri
an ethical challenge for the profession.
National Identity
Historians of archaeology now widely accept tha

century, archaeology was used to validate the very
professionalization of the discipline was connect
America were no exception to this use and w
particularly in Mexico and Peru (Diaz-Andreu
symbols to make it visible and it also needs to be
all this: the physicality of archaeological sites an
populated them makes the past—and therefore t
nation becomes naturalized through daily experie
of archaeological motifs on banknotes, school
books and crafts (Evans-Pritchard 1993a, p. 25
makes use of these symbols and feelings. The disc
only encouraged by nations, but is also expected
means by which the nation becomes popularized an
own citizens and people from other countries. H
rightly argued that in many cases the way tour
populations is not authentic. Ardren (2004) demonst
recreation of Mayan culture by tourism agents.
The close connection between nationalism and t
control over the major archaeological sites on a coun
of the site of Copân in Honduras (Mortensen 200
INAH, an institution founded in 1939, is in char
archaeological sites. Written information, pamphl
in the sites open to the public reminds visitors, where
are in Mexico and that they are stepping into th
Mexican past. Discourses are not devoid of politica
at Chichén Itzâ, the Toltec traits that indicate a p
Central Mexico "no matter how weakly based on e
nation building and nationalist ideology too well"
Beyond interpretations, Mexican nationalism is also
serving as tourist attractions in so far as the funds o
be poured into the state fiscal system (Vazquez Leon,
in Peru (Tantaleân, pers. comm.) This means that ne
communities—indigenous or otherwise—directly ben
Ô Springer
of archaeological sites. At Machu Picchu the manag

and local communities are mostly excluded from t
forthcoming). The exclusion of local communities
economic, but also physical; this is a process that h
although the data on it are only occasionally fou
Clifford on the exclusion of the local Chamulan fro
Palenque (México) in the early 1990s (Clifford 1
of the management of archaeological sites fo
consideration of the views of local communitie
in Mexico due to the financial problems of the g
The national state appropriation of sites has no
as can be seen from the invasion of archaeolog
Tiwanaku in Bolivia and Chincultik in Mexico. C
the Chorti Maya in 1998 (Joyce 2003, 2005, p
remains high (Paz 2011). In 2000 local communi
its management being passed to the local comm
The final case took place in Chiapas, Mexico, wh
site of Chincultik in September 2008. This prot
controlling access to the site and charging entr
reaction and the ensuing kidnap of seventy poli
in which six protestors were killed (Henriquez
60-61). In 2010 an Ecotourism Centre was o
community became the main beneficiary of the
archaeological site (SRN/LDL 2010).
Common Heritage of Humankind?
There are several instances in which archaeol

supra-national bodies. On the one hand, there i
that imposes a series of criteria and carries out
followed. On the other hand, in some cases i
signed to brand sites in different countries unde
Many of the major archaeological sites in Latin
UNESCO World Heritage List. These are sites
universal value (UNESCO 2005). The understan
lematic, as it is very much related to Western id
and this creates a clear geographical imbalance. O
are located in Mexico and more than a fifth in Peru. Other countries with archaeo
logical sites have only one or two or even none listed. The idea of the World Heritage
List was that archaeological resources should "serve as symbols not of nations, but of
the common human interest" (Lipe 1984, p. 10). When it was established in the early
1970s, the World Heritage concept was revolutionary, as it challenged the national
appropriation of cultural heritage. However, from the 1990s the concept has been
challenged on behalf of local and indigenous communities, who have denounced it as
an appropriation, a new form of colonization (Omland 2005, p. 248). It has only been
since 1995 that the World Heritage Committee has stressed the importance of local
people both in the nomination process and in the care of sites.
Φ Springer
A different type of supra-national use of heritage

such as the Mundo Maya (Maya World) and the Qh
first proposed in 1988 and has been supporte
Organization (OMM). This project coordinate
Guatemala, Belize, Honduras, El Salvador, and the
The early proposals explicitly stated that an ancien
"shared cultural heritage" (see Joyce, this volume
Argentina, Chile, Bolivia, Peru, Ecuador and Colom
Andean Highway which is now nominated for in
(UNESCO, n.d.). As these projects are promoted by
communities has been minimal (Korstanje and Gar
Indigenous Communities and Ethnic Identity
Whereas national identity has been making use of t

and supra-national identity emerged in the 1970
indigenous communities started to lay claim to th
increasing number of local communities have shown
used to be understood by many groups in ways dis
(these alternative views are still are largely maint
perceived as unconnected to them. In San Pedro de
"before the process of ethnic emergence of the last
stop being considered indigenous" (Ayala 2007-08
78-81). This process was inverted in the 1990s whe
as a way of rebuilding and reinforcing group iden
The change has been so profound that ethnic
currently in flux, probably more than during any
giving political rights to recognized indigenous co
gence of some new ethnic groups in a process to w
including "ethnogenesis, new ethnicities, fictitiou
ties" (Gômez Montânez 2011, p. 171). Thus, in Co
after the 1991 Constitution are the Kankuamo
(Gômez Montânez 2011, p. 171), whereas in Ch
(Boccara 1999), in Brazil the Tapuios (Ossami de M
Mantas, a new ethnic group bom in 2005 (Hernan
2011, p. 161). In addition to the new groups,
reinforced, thus reversing the process of declin
experiencing. This is the case of the Mayan pe
where the ruins of Xunantunich are located (
Parallel to the new celebration of ethnic identity
pride and the construction of racial identities, as
Quilombo dos Palmarès shows (see Funari et al. t
the examples mentioned above have used the past
The new access to archaeological resources given
devoid of problems. Some communities have enc
the new access to the tourism resource. One of th
(this volume) has been the definition of who bel
£) Springer
benefit financially from the tourism exploitatio

situation she has analyzed for the site of Tiwanak
done for the case of Copan in Honduras (Morten
The creation and/or reinforcement of ethni
by the retrieval and invention of traditions
There are many examples of this. In this
enactment of the Inti Raymi ceremony at t
and of the failed Raymi Killa festival. In Ecu
be used again to illustrate this issue. In 1992, on
of Columbus' arrival in America, indigenous
proposed celebrating the five hundredth annive
this context, the Festival of the Manteno raf
Agua Blanca in Ecuador, whose identity had
above, through the exploitation of archaeolo
festival, now a newly established annual tra
attraction. The continuous reinforcement of
Manteno group to formally apply to be consi
(<comunidad originaria) in 2005. For this the
taken by archaeologists (Hernândez Ramirez
171-174).
Another example is the festival of the Huan or, as some Muisca communities call
it, Zocân, in Sogamoso, Colombia (Gômez Montânez 2011). The ceremony had been
discontinued for many years before it began to be celebrated again in recent years.
There is fragmentary information about the old ceremony recorded during the
colonial period. It is open to tourists and is held in a modem reconstruction of the
Temple of the Sun that has been built in the grounds of the Sogamoso archaeological
museum. In fact, the reconstmction was built in the wrong place. Archaeologist
Eliécer Silva Celis sited it there in the 1940s thinking that the basement of some
houses were those of the original temple that had been burnt down in 1537 (Gomez
Montânez 2011, p. 173). Local schools started to use the temple to perform dances
and plays about myths and rituals. From 1997, however, the celebration completely
changed in character. Since then spiritual leaders from several ethnic groups have
been invited to perform ethnic rituals relating to the winter solstice (Gômez Montânez
2011, p. 178). Archaeologists are getting involved in these celebrations by offering
lectures and organizing workshops (Fiesta del Huan 2011) (see Silverman 2002, p.
896) for another case of the invention of tradition in Nazca, Peru).
The use of spaces that are supposed to be old and of ceremonies that are also felt to
be ancient can only be understood as an appropriation of a (refashioned, recreated) past
in a process of "ethno-geneisation." Macarena Hernândez Ramirez and Esteban Ruiz
Ballesteros argue that ethnogenesis can be seen as an adaptive strategy, one of
resistance and creativity (Hernândez Ramirez and Ruiz Ballesteros 2011, p. 169).
This positive view is, however, nuanced for scholars who also see all these de
velopments as a triumph of neoliberalism and the commodification of culture (Ruiz
Ballesteros and Hernândez Ramirez 2010, p. 163). Boccara and Ayala argue that
multiculturalism represents a new technology of power, a way of nationalizing these
communities, converting them into something comprehensible to the capitalist eco
nomic system (Boccara and Ayala 2011). As they put it:
<£) Springer
A real business model is adopted for the design

evaluation of policies that one could barely call
experts multiply, precarious jobs come to repr
public agents and "voluntary work" of "lazy" co
indigenous peoples to help themselves" followin
by multilateral development agencies. . . . We c
alism is the realization of the economic and pol
in the sociocultural sphere.
Conclusion
Archaeologists used to consider archaeological tourism as an activity not directly

connected to their work. Many still think in this way, but in Latin America it is
increasingly difficult to do so. On the one hand tourism is one of the most important
sources—if not the major source—of income in many countries. On the other hand,
indigenous communities are increasingly asking for control of archaeological tourism
resources and also other activities such as research traditionally considered the
exclusive field of archaeologists.
Discourses about the past are changing and through their work archaeologists are
providing the raw material for a range of alternative appropriations of the past. Indeed
they are part of the process of transformation from data to interpretation, using
typologies, vocabulary and perspectives that are never politically innocent. In the
current fluid world of identities in Latin America the archaeologist is never neutral, as
a lack of political overtness is already a political stance. This article has drawn from
the work of many archaeologists who are politically engaged and sympathetic to the
claims of indigenous communities, but there are many others who still think about
their work in a national framework. A series of codes of ethics has emerged in many
countries in the region in these past few years, which shows a willingness to maintain
standards and usually also to identify the professional body of archaeologists as one
of the many stakeholders in the past.
Several questions have been raised in these pages. Regarding archaeologists, one
could ask whether they should indeed encourage the transformation of archaeological
remains into economic tourism assets, and whether it is responsible to train better
archaeologists for this possible activity in their professional lives. It may also be
considered necessary to follow up the development of projects years after archaeol
ogists initially became involved in them, to make good practice known. The lack of
published analyses of this type was already commented on by Endere (2002, p. 74).
Regarding ownership, we have distinguished the national, the supra-national
and the local. Each has its own ethical challenges, with national ownership still
widely accepted and with the supranational version linked to the previous one
despite the philosophy of universalism that was behind institutions such as
UNESCO when they were set up in the 1970s. Local identity is the most
recent to emerge and the one with the most potential to cause problems. Should
archaeology, or a recreation of the past, be used to invent new ethnic groups and new
traditions? Should specific indigenous groups—or sectors within them—have more
rights to particular remains? What happens when more than two groups claim rights?
Springer
Do indigenous groups have more rights to sites t

world?
Last but not least, tourism has been mentioned as one of the ways in which the
commodification of culture is promoted. Is the commodification of culture a good
thing for indigenous communities as it provides them with a living or is it just another
postcolonial appropriation and neoliberal method of controlling them? These are
some of the ethical questions that Latin American archaeologists, as well as archae
ologists elsewhere in the world, are currently confronting.
Acknowledgments This work has its roots on my introductory talk for the session on "The Ethics of
Archaeological Tourism" organized together with Cesar Villalobos Acosta at the Theory Archaeology
Congress (TAG) at Durham University in December 2009. For this session we received funding by
Santandcr Universities, the World Archaeological Congress and Durham University. 1 thank ICREA (Institucio
Catalana dc Reccrca i Estudis Avançais) for the opportunity it has given me to have time to complete this
project. This article would not have been possible without the help of many Latin American colleagues: Patricia
Ayala, Oswaldo Chinchilla, M. Luz Endcre, Pedro Funari, Alexander Herrera, Pilar Lima Torrez, Linda
Manzanilla, Zoila Mcndoza, Axel Nilsen, Gustavo Politis, Daniel Schâvclzon, Henry Tantalcân, Amilcar
Vargas, Luis Vazquez Leon and César Villalobos. All of them provided invaluable insights for this work.
Needless to say, all mistakes arc my own. I have written this article in part benefiting from my status as a
Visiting Scholar of the MacDonald Institute in Cambridge during the academic years 2011-12 and 2012-13.
References
AABA (2007). Declaraciôn de la Âsociaciôn de Antropologia Biolôgica Argentina (ΛΑΒΑ) en relaciôn con
la ética del estudio de restes humanos [Salta, Argentina, octubre del 2007], Unpublished.
AAPRA (2010). Côdigo de Etica Profesional [Asociaciôn de Arqueôlogos Profesionales de la Republica
de Argentina aprobado en Asamblea General Ordinaria del 23 de septiembre de 2010], Unpublished.
Aguilar Diaz, M. (2011). Entre diâlogos y rcpatriacioncs: rcparaciôn colonial por la memoria y
prcscrvaciôn de Machu Picchu. Antipoda 12: 211-234.
Ardrcn, T. (2004). Where arc the Maya in ancient Maya archaeological tourism? Advertising and the
appropriation of culture. In Rowan, Y., and Baram, U. (cds.), Marketing heritage: archaeology and the
consumption of the past, Altamira, Walnut Creek, pp. 103-113.
Ayala, P. (2007a). Rclacioncs entre atacamcnos, arqueôlogos y Estado en Atacama (nortc dc Chile).
Estudios Atacamenos: Arqueologia y Antropologia Surandinas 33: 133-157.
Ayala, P. (2007-08). Mcmorializacion cstatal del pasado indigena y las politicas de la mcmoria Atacamcfia.
Revista Chilena de Antropologia 19: 37-62.
Ayala, P. (2008). Politicas del pasado: Indigenes, arqueôlogos y estados en Atacama. Linca Editorial
HAM, Universidad Catôlica del Nortc, San Pedro dc Atacama.
Ayala, P., Avendafio, S., and Cardenas, U. (2003). Vinculacioncs entre una arqueologia social y la
comunidad indigena dc Ollagiic (Region dc Antofagasta, Chile). Chungarà 35: 275-285.
Beltrân, Ε., and Rojas, M. (1998). Discriminaciôn dc precios en biencs culturalcs: la arqueologia en Mexico.
Gestion y Politico Pùblica [Centro de Investigation y Docentia Econômicas, Mexico City] 7: 85-114.
Bcnavidcs, Ο. H. (2001). Returning to the source: social archaeology as Latin American philosophy. Latin
American Antiquity 12: 355-370.
Berger, D. (2006). The development of Mexico's tourist industry: pyramids by day, martinis by night,
Palgrave Macmiilan, New York.
Boccara, G. (1999). Etnogcncsis mapuche: rcsistcncia y rccstructuraciôn entre los indigenas del centro sur
de Chile (siglos XVI-XVIII). Hispanic American Historical Review 79: 425^161.
Boccara, G. and Ayala, P. (2011). La nacionalizacion del indigena en tiempos de multiculturalismo
neolibcral. Journal of the International Association of Inter-American Studies (IAS) 4: http://
www.intcramerica.de/volumc-4-2/boceara_ayala/.
Bravo Gonzalez, A. (2003). Arqueologia aplicada al dcsarrollo dc comunidadcs Atacamcnas - archaeology
applied to the development of Atacamcno Communities. Chungard 35: 287-294.
<£) Springe:
Bray, T. L., and Killion, T. W. (cds.) (1994). Reckoning with t

Smithsonian Institution, Smithsonian Institution Press, Wa
Brcglia, L. (2009). "Walking around like they own the plac
world heritage archaeological sites. In Mcskcll, L. (cd.), Cos
Press, Durham, pp. 205-227.
Brunk, C. G., and Young, J. O. (eds.) (2009). The ethics of
Calvo Mora, M., Arias Quiros, A. C., and Ttoyo Vargas, E. (200
del patrimonio arqueolôgico: El caso de Costa Rica. Revista
Camarcna, C., and Morales, T. (2009). Manual para la creac
Fundaciôn Interamcricana de Cultura y Desarrollo (1CDF
Chancy, E. (1998). The evolution of the grand tour: Anglo-It
Routledgc, London.
Clifford, J. (1997). Palenquc. In Clifford, J. (ed.), Routes:
century, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, pp. 220-23
Coggins, C. (1969). Illicit trafic in prccolumbian antiquities.
Congrcso (2011). I Congrcso lnternacional de Ética y Turis
http://eticayturismo.com/.
Congrcso (2012). II Congrcso lnternacional de Ética y Turis
Quito, Ecuador, http://amcricas.unwto.org/es/cvent/ii-con
Corbalân, M., Rodriguez Curletto, S., and del Bel, E. (201
Ovcijcria Petroglyph Tourist Trail (San Pedro de Colalao
CPAP (2005). Côdigo de ctica [Colcgio Profcsional de Arqucôlog
org/content_files/file/ct/82. pdf.
Curtoni, R. P. and Chaparro, M. G. (2007-08). El Re-ent
Patrimonio, Politica y Mcmoria de Picdra en la Pampa A
19:9-36.
Diaz-Andreu, M. (2007). A world history of nineteenth-centuiy archaeology: nationalism, colonialism, and
the past, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Endcrc, M. L. (2002). Arqucologia, politica y globalizaciôn: ^Quién se ocupa del patrimonio arqueolôgico?
Revista Cuadernos [Facultad de Humanidades y Ciencias Sociales de la UNJU. San Salvador de
Jujuy] 18: 69-76.
Endere, M. L. (2011). Cacique inakayal. La primera restituciôn dc rcstos humanos ordenada por ley.
Corpus. Archives virtuales de la alteridad americana 1. http://ppct.caicyt.gov.ar/index.php/corpus.
Endere, M. L., and Ayala, P. (2012). Normativa legal, recaudos éticos y prâctica arqueolôgica: un estudio
comparativo de Argentina y Chile. Chungard 44: 35-53.
Evans-Pritchard, D. (1993a). Ancient art in modem context. Annals of Tourism Research 20: 9-31.
Evans-Pritchard, D. (1993b). Mobilization of tourism in Costa Rica. Annals of Tourism Research 20:778-779.
Fiesta del Huan (2011). Programaciôn Fiesta del Huan 2011. http://fiestadelhuan2011.blogspot.co.uk/).
Forero Lloreda, E. (2007). Turismo cultural: patrimonio, identidad, tctritorios y sustcntabilidad una mirada
desdc las ciencias de la complejidad. Revista ΕΑΝ 60: 165-182.
Funari, P. P. (1991). Archaeology in Brazil: politics and scholarship at a crossroads. World Archaeological
Bulletin 5: 122-132.
Gabriel Cosio, J. (1924). El Cuzco histôrico y monumental, n. p., Lima.
Gamio, M. (1929). El trasccndcntal aspecto del turismo en México. Revista México Gula de Turismo 1(10—
11): 58-59.
Gnccco, C. (2008). Modernity and politics in Colombian archaeology. In Silverman, H., and Isbell, W. H.
(eds.), Handbook of South American archaeology, Springer, New York, pp. 1103-1113.
Gnecco, C., and Hernandez, C. (2008). History and its discontents: stone statues, native histories, and
archaeologists. Current Anthropology 49: 439-466.
Goeldncr, C. R., and Brent Ritchie, J. R. (2012). Tourism: principles, practices, philosophies, John Wiley,
Hobokcn.
Gomez Goyzucta, F., and Lopez Aguilar, F. (2010). La arqucologia mcxicana: rcflcxiones sobre la ética y
las practices académicas. In Foumicr, P., and Lopez Aguilar, F. (eds.), Patrimonio, identidad y
complejidad social: enfoques interdisciplinarios, ENAH-INAH-PROMEP, México City.
Gomez Montâncz, P. F. (2011). Patrimonio y etnopoliticas de la memoria: el pasado como aparato
ideologico en la fiesta del zoeân en el templo del sol de Sogamoso. Antipoda 12: 165-190.
Green, E. L. (cd.) (1984). Ethics and values in archaeology, Free Press, New York.
Guia (2012). Guia metodolôgica para proyectos y productos de turismo cultural sustcntable. http://
www.portalpatrimonio.cl/mcdia/docs/guia-mctodologica-turismo-cultural.pdf.
Springe
Henriette, H.-T. (2011). Ethical implications of salvage arc

archaeologists and local people in Dar al-Manasir. Suda
Henriquez, E. (2008). Scis Mucrtos en cl dcsalojo policiac
[Mexico City] October 5. http://www.jornada.un
politica&articlc=003n 1 pol.
Hcrnândez Ramirez, M., and Ruiz Ballcstcros, E. (201
turismo en el Pueblo Manta (Ecuador). AI BR. Revista
Higucras, A. (2008). Cultural heritage management
Silverman, H., and Isbcll, W. H. (cds.), Handbook o
New York, pp. 1073-1088.
Hobsbawm, E. J., and Ranger, T. (eds.) (1983). The inven
Cambridge.
Hoffman, T. L., Kwas, M. L. and Silverman, H. (2002).
Archaeological Record March: 30-32 (www.saa.org/Po
Mar0230-32.pdf).
1COMOS (1964). International Charter for the Conserva
(The Venice Charter).
1NAH (2012). Côdigo de ética y conducta de! Institute N
[Ultima actualizaciôn el Miércoles, Il de Julio de 2012], h
ctica-y-conducta.
Ishihara-Brito, R., Coc, M., McAnany, P., Parks, S., an
Heritage Initiative (MACHI) in Belize: bridging the past
program in the Toledo District, Bclizcmorc. In Morris,
Archaeological investigations in the eastern Maya Low
symposium, Institute of Archaeology, Belmopan, Belize
Jennings, J. (2002). Seducing adventure tourists by dama
ical Record 2: 21-23.
Johnson, E. (1973). Professional responsibilities and the American Indian. American Antiquity 38:
129-130.
Joyce, R. A. (2003). Archaeology and nation building: a view from central America. In Kane, S. (cd.), The
politics of archaeology and identity in a global context, Archaeological Institute of America, Boston,
pp. 79-100.
Joyce, R. A. (2005). Solid histories for fragile nations: archaeology as cultural patrimony. In Mcskcll, L.,
and Pels, P. (cds.), Embedding ethics, Berg, Oxford, pp. 253-273.
Juan Trcsscrras, J. (2006). Jornada sobre la Gestion del Turismo Arqucologico. http://www.ub.edu/eultural/
monumcntos/monumcntos.htm.
Korstanje, Μ. Α., and Garcia Azcâratc, J. (2007). The Qhapaq-Nan project: a critical view. Archaeologies
3:116-131.
Layton, R., and Wallace, G. (2005). Is culture a commodity? In Scarrc, C., and Scarrc, G. (cds.), The
of archaeology: philosophical perspectives on archaeological practice, Cambridge University
Cambridge, pp. 46-68.
Lima Torrcz, P. (2003). Participation comunitaria, dcsarrollo sostcniblc y arqucologia: cl caso d
Quila (Chuquisaca, Bolivia). Chungard 35: 361-367.
Lino, J. T., and Bruhns, K. (2011). Os arqueôlogos c os indios... vivos! Rcflcxôcs sobre arqu
publica, politicas publicas c socicdadcs indigenas. Cademos do CEOM 25: 95-115.
Lipe, W. D. (1984). Value and meaning in cultural resources. In Clccrc, H. (cd.), Approaches
archaeological heritage: a comparative study of world cultural resource management syste
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 1-11.
Lorenzo, J. L. (1976). Hacia una arqucologia social. In Lorenzo, J. L. (coord.), Reunion de Teotih
Institute Nacional de Antropologia c Historia, Mexico City, pp. 65-92.
Lumbrcras, L. G. (1974). La Arqueologia como ciencia social, Histar, Lima.
Magnoni, Α., Ardrcn, T., and Hutson, S. (2007). Tourism in the Mundo Maya: inventio
(mis)rcprcscntations of Maya identities and heritage. Archaeologies 3: 353-383.
McEwan, C. (2006). Using the past to forge the future: the genesis of the community site museum
Blanca, Ecuador. In Silverman, H. (cd.), Archaeological site museums in Latin America, Univ
Press of Florida, Gainesville, pp. 187-216.
McEwan, C., Hudson, C., and Silva, M. I. (1993). Archaeology and community: a village mus
Ecuador. Museum International 45: 3-59.
Ô Springer
Mcndoza, Ζ. (2008). Creating our own: folklore, performance a

Press, Durham.
Mcskcll, L. (2005). Sites of violence: terrorism, tourism, and
Mcskcll, L., and Pels, P. (cds.), Embedding ethics, Berg, O
Morse, M. A. (1994). Seeking an ethical balance in archa
Anthropological Research 50: 169-182.
Mortcnscn, L. (2006). Structural complexity and social conflic
In Brodic, N., Kcrscl, M. M., Luke, C., and Tubb, K. W. (cds
antiquities trade, University Press of Florida, Gainesville, p
Mortcnscn, L. (2009). Copân past and present: Maya archaeolog
In Metz, B„ and McNeil, C. (cds.), The Ch'orti' region, past a
Gainesville, pp. 246-257.
Muriel, A. M. (2001). Archaeological research in Mexico's monu
S. (cds.), Archaeological research and heritage preservation
Archaeology, Washington, DC, pp. 121-136.
Newell, G. (2002). Vistas of Mexican archaeology, visions of
archaeology in the public realm. Public Anthropology www
MichiganStatc/Ncwcll.htm.
Nielsen, Α., and Quispc, B. (2003). Arqucologia, turismo y c
Nor Lipcz (Potosi, Bolivia). Chungard 35: 369-377.
Omland, A. (2005). The ethics of the world heritage concept. In
of archaeology: philosophical perspectives on archaeologic
Cambridge, pp. 242-259.
Onuki, Y. (2007). The archaeological excavations and the protect
local society: experiences in Peru. Archaeologies 3: 99-115
Ossami de Moura, M. C. (2008). Etnogcncsis de un grupo indlgc
16: 41-62.
Papathcodorou, A. (2004). Exploring the evolution of tourism resorts. Annals of Tourism Research 31:219-237.
Paz, T. (2011). Copân Ruinas extrana cl auge turistico de antano. LaPrensa http://archivo.laprcnsa.hn/
Apcrtura/Edicioncs/2011/07/16/Noticias/Copan-Ruinas-cxtrana-cl-augc-turistico-dc-antano.
Pctez, L. A. (1974). Aspects of underdevelopment: tourism in the West Indies. Science and Society 37:473-480.
Podgorny, I. and Politis, G. (1990-92). Que succdio en la historia? Los csquclctos araucanos del Musco dc
la Plata y la Conquista del Dcsicrto. Arqueologia Contemporanea 3: 73-79.
Politis, G. (cd.) (1992). Arqueologia en América Latina hoy, Blibliotcca del Banco Popular, Bogotâ.
Politis, G. (2013). Peter J. Ucko Memorial Lecture given at the WAC Conference in Jordan. Unpublished
manuscript.
Quilombo. (n. d.) Quilombo dos Palmares. http://www.quilombodospalmarcs.com.br/index.php?scc=
historia serra barriga.
Rodrigucs, M. (2001). Prcscrvar c consumir: ο patrimonio historico c ο turismo. In Funari, P. P. Α., and
Pinsky, J. (cds.), Turismo e patrimonio cultural, 3rd cd, Contcxto, Sào Paulo, pp. 15-24.
Romero Guevara, A. L., Ajata Lopez, R., Espinosa Valdcbcnito, G., and Brioncs Morales, L. (2004).
Arqucologia pùblica y comunidadcs rurales: un proccso dc puesta en valor en cl vallc dc Codpa, region
dc Tarapacâ. Boletin del Museo Gabriela Mistral de Vicuna 6: 42-63.
Rosario Zâratc, R. P. (1921). El Cuzco y sus monumentos: Guia del viajero. n. p., Lima.
Ruiz Ballcstcros, E., and Hcrnândcz Ramirez, M. (2010). Tourism that empowers?: commodification and
appropriation in Ecuador's Turismo Comunitario. Critique of Anthropology 30: 201-229.
SAB [Socicdadc dc Arqucologia Brasilcira] (1997). Côdigo dc ctica. http://www.sabnct.com.br/download/
download?lD_DOWNLOAD= 12.
SALP (2012). Rcglamcnto intcrno de la Socicdad de Arqucologia de La Paz. http://www.arqucologialapaz.
org/2012/07/salp-en-la-claboracion-dcl-plan-dc.html.
Sarabia Gonzâlcz, A. (2008). Mâs de cicn anos dc cxploracioncs en la Pirâmidc del Sol. Arqueologia
Mexicana 92: www.arqucomcx.com/S2N3nTcotihuacan92.html
Saycr, D. (2010). Ethics and burial archaeology, Duckworth, London.
Scarborough, 1. (2008). The Bennett Monolith: archaeological patrimony and cultural restitution in Bolivia.
In Silverman, H., and Isbcll, W. H. (cds.), Handbook of South American archaeology. Springer, New
York, pp. 1089-1101.
Scarrc, C., and Scarrc, G. (cds.) (2005). The ethics of archaeology: philosophical perspectives on
archaeological practice, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Springei
Scligman, T. Κ. (1988). An unexpected bequest and an e

serpents and flowering trees: reconstructing the mura
Francisco, San Francisco, pp. 15-23.
Shimada, I., and Vcga-Ccntcno, R. (2011). Peruvian archaeo
challenge. In Lozny, L. R. (cd.), Comparative archaeolo
past, Springer, New York, pp. 569-612.
Silverman, H. (2002). Touring ancient times: the prese
American Anthropologist 104: 881-902.
SPI (2013). Sustainable preservation initiative, http://susta
SRN/LDL (2010). Inaugura gobemador Sabincs cl Centra
Chiapas http://www.jornada.unam.mx/2008/10/05/indc
Swidlcr, N., Dongoskc, K. E., Anyaon, R., and Down
archaeologists, Altamira, Walnut Creek.
Tantaleân, H. (2013). Arqucologias y comunidadcs ind
cxpcricncia. Unpublished paper for the Presidential For
Tantaleân, H. and Aguilar Diaz, M. (forthcoming). Estado
Machu Picchu y la historia de una diâlogo asimctrico. In
L. (cds.), Multivocalidad y activaciones patrimon
Sudamérica. Institute Intcrdisciplinario Tilcara, Facul
Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires.
Terrazas Hcrbas, I. V. (2010). Parque arqucolégico de Cal
Dominical http://www.lapatriacnlinca.com/?nota= 19446
Tresserras, J. (2009). Patrimonio, turismo y dcsarrollo
patrimonio arqueolôgico a debate: su valor cultural y
en Huesca, los dias 7y 8 de mayo de 2007, Institute de
UCSB (2009). Action archaeology [The Mcsoamcrican Re
clpilar/archcology/rcscarchAction%20Archacology.ph
UNESCO (2005). The criteria for selection, http://whc.uncs
UNESCO (n. d.). Main Andean road: Qhapaq Nan. http://
Urry, J. (2002). The tourist gaze, 2nd cd, Sage, London.
Villalobos Acosta, C. (2011). Archaeology in circulation:
Mexican coins, notes, stamps and guidebooks, Durham U
Vitelli, K. (1996). Archaeological ethics, Altamira, Lond
Vitelli, K. (2006). Archaeological ethics, 2nd cd, Altamir
WTO ( 1999). Global code of ethics for tourism [of the Wor
ethics/indcx.php.
Wylic, A. (2002). Thinking from things: essays in the phil
Press, Berkeley.
Ô Springer

Springer International Journal of Historical Archaeology

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Springer International Journal of Historical Archaeology

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Springer International Journal of Historical Archaeology

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ethics and Archaeological Tourism in Latin America

Author(s): Margarita Díaz-Andreu

Ethics and Archaeological Tourism in Latin America

Published online: 17 April 2013

Keywords Heritage · Ethics · Archaeological tourism ■ Latin America ·

concern on the general subject of tourism and

field of archaeology the concern about ethics em

(Tantaleân 2013). In indigenismo, the nation-state

give ownership of heritage to the indigenous co

Archaeological Tourism in Latin America: A H

Latin America has been a relative newcomer to t

Mexico Guia de Turismo, he argued that, in addi

The last few years have been marked by divers

Archaeologists and Heritage: A Changing Re

As everywhere else in the world, archaeologists

development of archaeological tourism is not ful

it extremely difficult to make a lucrative business

communities include keeping archaeological obj

Whose Cultural Heritage? The Ethics of Identity in Archaeological Tourism

Archaeology is a powerful means of creating identity. Through their work, archaeol

professionally in the nineteenth century in the con

Historians of archaeology now widely accept tha

of archaeological sites. At Machu Picchu the manag

Common Heritage of Humankind?

There are several instances in which archaeol

A different type of supra-national use of heritage

Indigenous Communities and Ethnic Identity

Whereas national identity has been making use of t

benefit financially from the tourism exploitatio

A real business model is adopted for the design

Archaeologists used to consider archaeological tourism as an activity not directly

Do indigenous groups have more rights to sites t

Bray, T. L., and Killion, T. W. (cds.) (1994). Reckoning with t

Henriette, H.-T. (2011). Ethical implications of salvage arc

Mcndoza, Ζ. (2008). Creating our own: folklore, performance a

Scligman, T. Κ. (1988). An unexpected bequest and an e

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.