Governance and conservation of the rapaz khipu patrimony

Abstract

In the village of Rapaz, high in the Andes Mountains of Peru, villagers have preserved a unique walled precinct containing the only known functioning Andean temple. Inside it is a remarkable collection of khipu or "cord records" (Ruý́ z Estrada 1981; Salomon et al. 2006). There is also a disused communal storehouse, whose contents were controlled by the ceremonial chamber. The village has cared for this heritage on its own, without dependence on national cultural institutions. The Rapaz ceremonial precinct and its contents have fascinated anthropologists and archaeologists who are struck by its apparent relevance to khipu use in various pre-Hispanic societies of the Central Andes, especially the Incas. The village of Rapaz has gained regional fame among Peruvians through media coverage and has become a minor tourist destination for Lima-area weekenders. For visitors, the Rapaz precinct has become an emblem of Peruvian or regional authenticity. But to Rapaz villagers, the "khipu house," the old community storehouse, and other features comprise an active ceremonial and political venue, not an extinct archaeological site. The ceremonial precinct is used for ritual service to wakas (Andean superhuman beings). Ritual is fused with regulation of land and water use, and civil authority. The buildings of the precinct are accordingly revered and restricted, cherished and feared. The precinct and its contents are "sacred," taking that term in a sense that the Oxford English Dictionary attests from 1548 onward: "Secured by religious sentiment, reverence, sense of justice, or the like, against violation, infringement, or encroachment." Outsiders might assess the ceremonial precinct's activities as "intangible heritage" in the meaning of the 2003 United Nations Convention for the Safeguarding of Intangible Cultural Heritage. But villagers never treat their practice as a reified "genre" or "performance" that ought to be "preserved." Rather, they see the use of the tangible patrimony as a pragmatic way of getting things done. It is sacred, but its sacred power is part and parcel of the local web of politics and economy. Dealing with it is part of practical know-how rather than a special domain sealed off and objectified as unchanging heritage. Some villagers are optimistic, while others are anxious, about reconciling the scientific, touristic, and sacred uses of the Rapaz patrimony. What does the encounter between researchers and villagers suggest about the means of doing so? This chapter reports on a scientific inquiry into the archaeology and ethnography of the precinct. As a precondition to scientific work, the village required an initiative to conserve patrimonial objects and buildings so as to assure their continued communal functions. The patrimonial objects are tangible elements of inward-looking self-knowledge and cultural continuity. But at the same time they are resources for outward-looking ventures: tourism and the search for an acceptable public identity at regional and national levels. We hope to convey an ethnographic idea of the paradoxes involved in such a complex conservation context. Villagers themselves are involved in three different projects converging on the same materials. First, Rapacinos (except the Protestant minority) are committed to protecting traditionalistic and inward-looking ritual use of the patrimony. Second, they also want to make outward-looking, pragmatic use of it. And third, they, like the conservators, are concerned to stabilize and protect the khipu material fabric, despite the stresses of the first two. These three cultural frames make different material demands on the Rapaz legacy. Our experience was not that of solving a conservation problem but rather of learning to work through an imperfect, open-ended practice so as to achieve a modus vivendi among irreducibly different, equally legitimate frameworks and interests. © 2009 Springer Science Business Media, LLC.