164 church

7/31/2019 164 Church

1/12

Archaeology and the National Park Idea:Challenges for Management and Interpretation

16 The George Wright FORUM

Warren B. Church

Loving it to Death:The Gran Pajatn Predicament

n developing nations preoccupied with the enormous challenges of po-lit ical, economic and social reorganization and recovery during the 1990s,caring prop erly for natural protected areas and archaeological h eritage isnot always a high prior ity . In Peru, the search for revenues during the past

decade has taken a significant toll on the nations natural and cultural resources,a trend that culminated in the recent controversy over the Lima governmentsplans to expand tourist infrastructure at the Inca palace of M achu Picchu,arguably South Americas greatest tourist attraction. Yet while a political stormdrawing international interest raged over M achu Picchu, a quieter but similardilemma had begun emerging decades earlier at another remarkable ancient

settl ement in the eastern A ndean cloud forests of northern Peru . T he equallyspectacular Chachapoyas site of Gran Pajatn was targeted for tourismdevelopment soon after it s 1964 di scovery.

T he site has so far been spared de-velopment by virtue of its remote lo-cation and difficult access, and its in-corporation in 1983 within a protectedarea, the Rio Abiseo National Park(Figure 1). T his is indeed for tunate, asthe poli tical for ces seeking to turn Gr anPajatn in to an economi c asset have sofar failed to understand the fragilenature of this cultural resource. Severalart icles have highl ighted thr eats to theRio Abiseo National Park as aprotected area (L eo 1992; Y oung et al.1994), bu t the following arti cle detailsproblems that distinguish theconservation status of the parksarchaeological resour ces. M yperspective is derived from par-

ticipation in archaeological investi-gations within the park since 1985, andfrom avid observation of politicaldevelopments affecting both researchand conservation. Most of Gran Pa- jatns problems epi tomize a singledilemma facing cultural resourcemanagers in national parks and pre-serves around the world . H ow can wefacilitate public access to fragile ar-chaeological sites without fatallycompromising their historical andscientific integrity?

Gran PajatnT he archaeological site of Gran

Pajatn is a prehispanic settlementperched on a high terraced ridge top

I

7/31/2019 164 Church

2/12


Volume 16 Number 4 1999 17

Figure 1. Map of the Rio Abiseo National Park.

Figure 2. Map of archaeological site of Gran Pajatn. Note the helicopter pad andcampsite used in 1966 and 1990.

7/31/2019 164 Church

3/12



overlooking the Montecristo RiverCanyon (Figure 2). T he M ontecristolies wi thin the A biseo River drainage,which empties into the H uallabambatributary of the Central H uallaga. A t2,850 m, G ran Pajatn lies deep with in

the tropical Andean cloud forest wheretemperature averages between 6 and12 degrees Celsius, and annualprecipitation ranges from 2,000 to4,000 mm. Rain and thick mists arealmost daily occurrences, even duringthe dry season between M ay andOctober. D ense forest covers masonryconstructions at Gran Pajatn andother archaeological sites within thesurr ounding valley. T his region ismostly uninhabited today, as therugged terrain, high humidity andunstable soils of the upper forests havebeen unattractive to Andean farmers.Government agencies responsible forevaluating natural resources describethe upper forests as virtually uselessfrom an economic standpoint(ONERN 1976). Consequently, bothscholars and lay persons tend toassume that the region has alw ays beenuninhabited, perhaps utilized onlysporadically by temporary or transientpopulations.

Gran Pajatn has been known toscience only since the American ex-plorer Gene Savoy (1965) publicizedits discovery by local villagers fromPataz. M ost ext raordinary about thesite was the unexpected soph isticationof its architecture given its remotelocation within one of Earths most

hostile environments. T he complex ofat least 26 stone buildings. most ofwhich are circular, crowns a crescent-shaped ridgetop hewn into ascendingterraces, skirted by staircases, andentirely paved with slate slabs (Figure

3). O rnamenting the build ing walls areinlaid slate mosaics depicting a varietyof geometric shapes, bird motifs, androws of human figures each withsculpted sandstone-tenoned heads(Figur es 4 and 5). T he mountainslopes below the settlement are alsoterraced, giving the entire builtcomplex a total extent estimated at 50ha. T he exact size of the sett lementremains unknown, but it does notexceed 2 ha.

T he interest awakened by the dis-covery of this lost city brought abouttwo government-sponsored expedi-tions during 1965 and 1966 led byhigh government officials, includingseveral from Perus tourism industrysector. T he Peruvian mil itary,especially the Air Force, had acelebrated role in clearing the forestfrom the ridgetop, building a landingsite, and providing helicopter accessfor the governm ent officials. A popularimage of Gran Pajatn subsequentlyreproduced in widely distributedposters and pamphlets shows thePeruvian flag flying atop the ridgewhere it was planted within BuildingNo. 1, the most prominent construc-tion at the site. As news of the spec-tacular discovery spread around theglobe, Gr an Pajatn became a sour ce

7/31/2019 164 Church

4/12



Figure 3. Gran Pajatns Building No. 1 and its staircase entryway in 1985. Slate-pavedplaza and stela in foreground.

of great national pride. Its discoverycoincided wi th th en-President Fernan-do Belande T errys social programsto promote colonization of the jungle.T he site was regarded as monument altestimony to the fortitude andindomitable spirit of the ancient

Peruvians who conquered anenvironment which has repeatedlythwarted contemporary attempts atcolonization.

D uring their brief visits, expedit ionpersonnel and supporting Patazvillagers cleared vegetation over anestimated area of 6,000 sq m and neatlystacked the collected masonry rubblelying wi thin and around the buildings.

T he helicopter-landi ng site was bui lton top of buildings at the north end ofthe site, and a camp with latrines wasestablished along the northeasternedge. Expedition personnel p roducedseveral magazine articles, a few briefscientific reports (Pimentel 1967;

Rojas 1967), a T V documentary by theBri tish Broadcasting Corporation, and,most importantly, one monograph(Bonavia 1968) describing the resultsof concurrent archaeological investiga-tions at the site. Always one of Perusmost outspoken scholars, Bonavia wasespecially critical of expeditionactivities that damaged the sites con-structions. T he plan to prepare G ran

7/31/2019 164 Church

5/12



Pajatn for use as a tourist attractionwas quickly forgotten in Perus shiftingpoli tical landscape.

Between 1966 and 1985, numerousexpeditions of tourists and ar-chaeologists visited Gran Pajatn and

reported other archaeological sites(Deza 1976; Kauffmann 1980; Leoand Ortiz 1982). Largely due to theefforts of Leo, Ortiz, and other dedi-cated Peruvian naturalists, the regionwas set aside as a national park in 1983.T he creation of the Rio AbiseoN ational Park provid ed a refuge for theendangered yellow-tailed woollymonkey (previously thought extinct)and for other rare and threatenedanimals and ecological systems. T he

parks area of 274,520 ha is delimitedby the natural boundaries of the AbiseoRiver watershed (M endoza andL ozano 1997). At 4,200 m elevation,its western edge coincides with thepoli tical bound ary separating L a L ib -

ertad and San M art n departments(technically referred to as Regiones),while its eastern boundary lies 70 lin-ear km distant within San M art nslowland tropical forest at 500 m ele-vation. T he W orld W ildlife Fund hashelped fund a staff of locally recruitedpark guards and an administrativedirector that succeeded in removinglivestock and discouraging the frequentburning of the forest. Although thepark lies completely wi thin San M artin

Figure 4. Stone mosaic frieze with seated anthropomorphic figures on the exteriorwalls of Building No. 1, Gran Pajatn.

7/31/2019 164 Church

6/12



Figure 5. Stone mosaic frieze of bird on the exterior walls of Building No. 2, GranPajatn.

department, its administrative head-quarters was established in thehighland village of Pias because allaccess (and therefore virtually allthreats) to the archaeological sites isexclusively through the highland vil-lages of La L ibertad. T opographicbarriers in the lower Abiseo valley haveso far thwarted twentieth-centuryattempts to create access to GranPajatn from San M art n by meansother than helicopter.

In 1985, scientists from the Uni-versity of ColoradoBoulder, YaleUniversity, the University of T ruji llo,the Asociacin Peruana para la Con-servacin de la N aturaleza (A PEC O ),

and the National Agrarian U niversity-La Molina began a much publicized,long-term multidisciplinary researchproject in the park that included theidentification of more sites, as well astest excavations at La Playa, GranPajatn, M anachaqui Cave, andseveral others (L ennon et al. 1989;Church 1991, 1994, 1996, 1999).T he new data underm ine acceptedtheories that characterize cloud forestsites such as Gran Pajatn as late-fifteenth-century agricultural coloniesestablished by highland populationswho were forced into the forest byenvir onmental or demographic stressor were seeking access to low land crop

7/31/2019 164 Church

7/12



production zones (e.g., Bonavia andRavines 1967; Bonavia 1968; Kauff-mann 1992; M oseley 1992). T here isnow overwhelming evidence that in-digenous cloud forest societies (1) h aveuti lized the forests since 8,000BC; (2)

settled deep within the forest at GranPajatn as early as 200BC; and (3) builtmany sett lements far larger than G ranPajatn, indicating that a thrivingpopulation numbered in the manythousands on the eve of the Spanishconquest. Yet despite the scientifictheories devised to explain cloud forestsettlement, an aura of mystery, mostlyperpetuated by the Peruvian media,continues to surround Gran Pajatn.

Historical PerspectiveIn response to several different

factors, a predicament began to emergeat Pajatn during the early 1990s. A nundercurrent of tension betweenscientists and admini strator s on the onehand, and local politicians anddevelopers on the other, had alreadybecome evident owing to the M inistryof Agricultures closing of the park topublic access in recognition of theregions environmental fragility.Consequently, Gran Pajatn and theColorado-led research project becamepolitical footballs. During the 1989elections, political candidates fromPataz dr ew attention to themselves bydenouncing the looting of GranPajatn by foreigners w ithbackpacks. Simultaneously, severaloriginal members of the 1960s

government expeditions publiclydecried the sites abandonm ent andclaimed that the foreign researchproject had done nothing (e.g., M eja1990). Antagonisms escalated asecotour ism entrepreneurs teamed wi th

San M art n poli ticians to undermineAPECOs credibility by publiclyaccusing the association of embezzlingresearch funds (e.g. Radio Programasdel Per 1990). Further, the pro-development faction repeatedlyclaimed that plant regrowth wasdestroying Gran Pajatns buildings,which urgently r equired cleaning.

T he mount ing clamor culminatedin a 1990 re-enactment of the con-quest of Gran Pajatn, led again bythe Air Force and facilitated by a tele-vision crew from the Peruvi an weeklytelevision news magazinePanorama .Soldiers again cleared the 1960s heli-copter pad and other portions of thesite, set up camp in the same l ocation,and scraped vegetation off of thebuilding walls with machetes, handsand fingernails. T hese loud pr o-ceedings were witnessed from a dis-tance by Peruvian biologists attemptingfield studies in the valley below GranPajatn. T he television spectacularaired on 10 August 1990. Shortlyafterward, newspapers informed by thebiologists reported the illegal intr usioninto the national park, and noted thatthe expedit ion not only lacked properauthor ization, but failed to notify parkadministrators (Expreso 1990).

T o assess the new damage done by

7/31/2019 164 Church

8/12



the 1990 expedition, the NationalInstitute of Culture (INC) office inT rujillo sent an archaeologist to joinpark administrators at the site. A mongthe damages reported at G ran Pajatn,it was observed that some sculptures

were indeed missing, and that thesandstone-tenoned heads were erodingrapidly wi thout the cover of vegetation(Briseo 1991). It was also observedthat every cleaning of the mosses andlichens removes surface grains from themoist sandstone sculptur es. T herewere, on the other hand, some positivedevelopments about the same time,most notably UN ESCOs recognitionof Rio Abiseo National Park as aW orld H eri tage Site, first in 1990 forits natural features and again in 1992for its cultural attributes. In 1991, theUniversity of Colorado and the Fun-dacin Peruana para la Conservacinde la Naturaleza (FPCN) jointlypublished a management plan for RioAbiseo National Park (University ofColorado and FPCN 1991). T his wasfollowed by an international sym-posium in L ima sponsored by APECOand the W orld W ildlife Fund. T here,scientists and administrators united todiscuss the results of the researchundertaken since 1985, and makerecommendations for the future(Aguilar 1992). Despite these devel-opments, however, Gran Pajatn wasincreasingly viewed as an untappedeconomic resource, especially bypoli ticians in San M art n who felt morestrongly than ever that their

departmental authorities should beguiding the destiny of the site and thenational p ark.

T he dismemberment in 1992 of theSendero L uminoso and T upac Amarurevolutionary movements cleared the

way for a national economic expansionthat further stimulated entrepreneursand politicians to seek access to thepark. Intense political pressure noworiginated from the departm ent of SanM art n, where the regional economyhas long been isolated and depressed.Beginning in 1996, the Ministry ofAgricultures Institute of NationalResources (I N REN A), under the aus-pices of Perus National Fund forNatural Protected Areas of the State(PROFONANPE), held a series ofmeetings and workshops in Lima andSan M artn (including both politiciansand scientists) aimed at developing aplan for public use of the park(I N REN A 1996). T he meetings wereaccompanied by fact-finding expe-ditions to examine Gran Pajatn(M endoza 1997). T hese activit iesculminated in two government-spon-sored studies conceived to analyze ofall of the factors involved with creatingresponsible, sustained public access(i.e., tourism) to the park. T hese werecontracted to the nongovernmentalorganizations AN D EST UD IO (tostudy the easternmost portion of thepark; AN D EST UD IO 1997) andAPECO (to study the westernmostportion). I participated in the latterstudy (APECO 1999) in which I

7/31/2019 164 Church

9/12



advocate a landscape conservationappr oach (Chur ch 1999).

The Pajatn PredicamentOne might hope that G ran Pajatns

dual W orld H eri tage status as a cultural

and natural site, protected by both thePeruvian INC and INRENA, wouldensure the sites integri ty in the face of awid e variety of threats. H owever, theIN C and M inistry of Agriculture havenot communicated effectively with oneanother with regard to granting accessto archaeological sites anddevelopment planning. T he Ministryof Agriculture, in the form of IN REN Awith PROFONANPE, has taken thelead in terms of planning because it issimply better equipped to do so. T hisseems appropr iate since Gran Pajatnhas certainly benefited from the parksunderdeveloped, but nominally pro-tective, infrastructure. Due to lack ofgovernmental support, Perus INCcentr al office wi th i ts appointed staff ofarchaeologists has historically beenunstable, and therefore unable tomaintain long-term conservation ini-tiatives. H owever, neither IN REN Anor the INCs San Martn officemaintain staff archaeologists, and thereis no clear legal mechanism to governthe quality of the cultural resourcemanagement so critical to the processunderway. Finally , a latent thr eat existsin Perus own M inistry of Industry andT ouri sms 1997 m andate to generaterevenue from the nations culturalresource assets.

Some conflicts that threaten siteconservation in the Rio Abiseo Na-tional Park are more imagined thanreal, yet even false perceptions caninfli ct damage. M any people and in -stitutions see the pr oblem of prohibited

public access as residing in a small,selfish group of APECO and FPCNconservationists trying to prevent thepublic from enjoying its rightful accessto the park. Actually, the founders ofAPECO foresaw the parks tourismpotential (Leo and Ortiz 1982), andconservationists now struggle mostly toprevent the kinds of thoughtlessatrocities committed by past expedi-tions. T he event wi th greatest potentialfor negative impact was the 1997relocation of the parks administrativeheadquarters from highland Pias, L aL ibertad, to Juanju, San M artn , at thebehest of San M art n poli ticians. As aconsequence of weakened vigilance atthe western boundary, consultingscientists in 1998 encountered cattlegrazing among the archaeological ruinsat 2,650 m elevation, deep within thepark (APECO 1999).

San Martn and its regional IN Coffice views itself as engaged in astruggle for control of the park wi th theIN Cs La Libertad office. T he conflictis one manifestation of the widepolitical rift between these twodepartments which were to be ad-ministratively joined in the early 1990sunder Perus regionalization plan unt il San M artn reasserted itsautonomy in a public referendum.

7/31/2019 164 Church

10/12



Opponents of the plan argued that theadm ini strative coupling made no sensegiven the lack of economic andtransportation linkages. In this politi-cized context, Mendozas (1994,1997) repeated assertions that the

ancient inhabitants of Gran Pajatnspoke the language of early historiclowland (San M artn) C holn I ndiansseems to be a reaction to the percept ionof L a Libertads historical d ominationof political, economic, and culturalaffairs. Mendozas assertion con -tradicts more popular interpretationsof cloud forest occupations ascolonization by highland Quechua-speakers (from L a L ibertad). T hedesire to lay claim to the sites ancestry,as well as to its present admini stration,reflects the intense feelings of nationaland regional pride connected withGran Pajatn. Actually, the INC LaLibertad office has traditionallyadministered projects in the RioAbiseo National Park at the request ofinvestigators because research p rojectsare based at coastal universities in L aL ibertad and L ima. Most imp ortantly,however, scientists are forced bygeographic reality to enter the parkfrom the western (La Libertad) side.From the coast i t takes four travel-daysby air, car, horseback, and foot, notcounting days necessary for stagingactivit ies in Pataz or Pias. Construct ionof a road into the park is out of thequestion for reasons well-know n to allbut the most obdurate pro-development advocates. T he upper

M ontecristo Valleys high altitude,capr icious weather, lack of appropriatelanding locations, and fragile ecologypreclude systematic helicopter access.I t remains to be seen how San M artnwi ll administer conservation activit ies

and regulate entry while being denieddirect access to Gran Pajatn by im-mutable topography.

From a technical standpoint, G ranPajatns predicament is even thornier.Pro-development factions, backed bythe popular media, have perpetuatedthe idea that it is better to cut thevegetation off of the ruins rather thanlet it recover fr om its 1965-66 shear-ing. H owever, botanist KennethYoung, who is familiar with the park,observes that the secondary regrowth isdominated by crowded stands ofbamboo and light-demanding shrubswith voluminous root systems. T hesesystems tend to penetrate and burst themasonry walls of archaeologicalstructures. Presently, Gran Pajatnspr imary constructions are in dir e needof emergency stabili zation. Subsequentmaintenance may require that aresident caretaker cut the bamboo andshrubs constantly, allowing only thegrowth of strategic tree species that wi llrestore the forest canopy. H owever,maintaining an individual and his orher family in such an isolated place forextended periods of time may not bepractical for many reasons. Stra-tegically important sectors of the sitemust be covered with roofs that canwi thstand exposure to severe weather.

7/31/2019 164 Church

11/12



W ith a slate pavement and an elaboratecovered drainage system, Gran Pajatnwas buil t to shed water efficiently. T hedrainage system might be restored, butthe sites slate covering is brittle, andthe deterioration of passages and stair-

ways is accelerating with the passage ofvisitors with heavy footgear. Furtherdamage might be avoided byconstructing alternative access or ele-vated walkw ays.

M ost troublesome of all, how wi llaccess and visitation to the sites beeffectively controlled if vigilance is notbased at the point of greatest threat tothe parks resources (i.e., highland L aL ibertad)? T he recently televisedscientific recovery of Chachapoyasmummies from cliff tombs at nearbyLake of the Condors has stimulatedgreat public interest in cloud forest

antiquities. Fortunately, looters haveso far overlooked many of the parksvulnerable antiquities that remaininsitu. W hat has kept looters at bay, andwhat will most likely keep significantnumbers of tourists away indefinit ely,

is the parks remote location. T hequestion then remains: Who willprovide the large sum of moneyrequired to deal with Gran Pajatnsurgent conservation needs given thecomplex political landscape and theunlikely probability of recovering theinvestment through a viable tourismconcession? W ithout the imm ediateimplementation of a cautious con-servation program, Gran Pajatn willsuffer inevitable disintegration througha tragic combination of neglect andmore of the same kinds of abuse thathave characterized it s recent history.

ReferencesAguilar, P. (ed.) 1992.Program a y Resum enes de los T rabajos Presentados. Symposio Biod iversidad,

H istoria Cultur al y Futuro del Parque Nacional Rio Abi seo. 17-20 August 1992. L ima, Peru. L ima:Copy Rey.

ANDESTUDIO. 1997. Di agnstico Situacional para un Plan de Uso P blico en el Sector Ori enta l delParque N acional Rio Abiseo y sus Areas de Inf luen cia. Vols. 1 and 2. Report on file with M inisterio deAgricultur a. L ima, Peru.

APEC O [Asociacin Peruana para la Con servacin de la Naturaleza] . 1999. Di agnostico Si tuacional paraun Plan de uso Pblico del Sector Occidenta l del PNR A y Zonas de Infl uencia. V ols. 1 and 2. Report onfile with M inisterio de Agricultura. L ima, Peru.

Bonavia, D. 1968. Las R ui na s del Abi seo. Lima: CONCYT EC.Bonavia, D., and R. Ravines. 1967. Las fronteras ecolgicas de la civilizacin Andina. Amaru 2, 61-69.

Lima.Briseo, J. 1991. In form e T cni co de la Su pervi sin al Par que N aciona l Rio Abi seo. T rujillo, Per: I nstituto

Nacional de Cultura-La L ibertad.Church, W. 1991. La ocupacin temprana del Gran Pajatn. Revi sta del Museo de Arqueologa2, 7-38.

Facultad de Cincias Sociales de la Universidad N acional de T ruj ill o. T ruj illo , Per. . 1994 . Ear ly occupations at Gran Pajatn, Per u. Andean Past 4, 281-318. Cornell L atin A merican

Studies Program. Ithaca. . 1996 .Prehistoric Cultural Development and In terregional Int er action in the T ropical Montane

Forests of Peru. Ph.D . dissertation, Department of A nthrop ology, Yale University. . 1999. M as all del Gran Pajatn: Conservando el p aisaje Prehispni co Pataz-Ab iseo. Revista del

7/31/2019 164 Church

12/12



Museo de Arqueologa, Antropologa e H isto ria7(1997), 203-2 46. Facultad de Cincias Sociales de laUniversidad N acional de T rujill o. T rujillo, Per.

Deza, J. 1976. L a Playa, un comp lejo arqu eolgico de la cuenca del Abiseo. Boletn del Semin ar io de Arqu eologa del Instituto R iva AgeroNos. 17-18. Pontificia Universidad Catlica del Per. Lima.

Expreso. 1990. Jaque al Pajatn. Semana 7: Revista dominical de Expreso,Expreso 1:26, 7, 14 October.L ima, Peru.

Un iversity of Color ado and FPCN [Fund acin Peruana para la Conservacinde la Naturaleza]. 1991.PlanOperativ o 199 0-1992. Parque Nacional R io Abiseo. Vo lum en I . L ima: Parq ues Nacionales del Per.

IN REN A [ Instituto N acional de Recursos Naturales]. 1996. Bases para la Plan if icacin del Uso Pblicoen el Parque Nacional del Rio Abiseo. M emorias del taller realizado en Juanju del 26 al 28 de abri l de1996 . L ima: Di reccin General de Areas Naturales Protegidas y Fauna Silvestre, M inisterio deAgricultura.

Kauffmann, F. 1980. L os Pinchud os: Exp loracin de ruinas intactas en la selva. Boletn de Lima7, 26-31. Lima.

. 1992. H istoria del Per Ant igo: Un a Nueva Perspectiva. Vols. 1 and 2. Lima: EditorialMonterrico.

L ennon, T ., W. Chur ch, and M . Cornejo. 1989. Investigacionesarqueolgicas en el Parque Nacional RioAbi seo, San Martn. Boletn de Li ma11(62), 43-56.

L eo, M. 1992. Probl emtica del Parq ue Nacional de Rio Ab iseo. Amazon a Peruana 11(21), 109-144.Lima.

L eo, M ., and E. O rtiz. 1982. Un Parque Nacional Gran Pajaten. Boletn de Lim a4(22), 47-60.M eja, A. 1990 . Saquean tumbas del Gr an Pajatn. Do min go en Exp reso,Expreso, 28 January. L ima, Peru.Mendoza, A. 1994. Abiseo: Patr im onio Mun dial en Em ergencia. Pueblo Comun icaciones. Moy obamba,

Per. . 1997 .Paja tn En canto y Misterio: Crnica de un a Expedicin. M oyobamba, Per: Edwin VargasDvila.

M endoza, A., and A. L ozano. 1997. T he Rio A biseo National Park, Peru.T he George Wr ight Forum14(3),54-58.

Moseley, M. 1992.T he In cas and their Ancestors: T he Archaeology of Peru. New York: T hames andHudson.

ON ERN [O ficina Nacional de Evaluacin de Recursos Naturales]. 1976. Mapa Ecolgico del P er. Lima:ONERN.

Pimentel G. 1967. Pajaten.Fenix (Publicacin de la Biblioteca Nacional) 17, 34-41. Lima.Radio Programas del Per. 1990. Interview of Geno Ruiz Retegui and Jos Landeo on program

Comunicando. 31 October 31. Lima.Rojas, P. 1967. T he ruin s of Pajaten. Archaeology20(1), 9-17.Savoy, G. 1965. E l Gr an Pajaten Ex pediti on: A lo st pre-Inca civili zation in the eastern A ndes. Andean Air

Mai l and Peru vian T im es25(1294), 34. L ima.Young, K., W . B. Church, M . Leo, and P. M oore. 1994. T hreats to Rio A biseo National Park, northern

Peru. Ambio23(4-5), 312-314. Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences. Stockholm.

Warren B . Chu rch , Department of Psychology, Sociology, and Anthrop ology,Columbus State University, Columbus, Georgia 31907 USA;[email protected]

1

164 church

Documents