Articulo para Tezontle: Boletín del Centro de Estudios Teotihuacanos Coordinador: Jesús Torres Peralta Centro de Estudios Teotihuacanos Carretera México Pirámides Km.46 Zona Arqueológica de Teotihuacan Circuito empedrado frente a la puerta 5 C.P. 55800, Estado de México

Presentado por: Timothy Webmoor Departamento de Antropología Social y Cultural La Universidad de Stanford Stanford, California 94305 Estados Unidos Tim.Webmoor@stanford.edu

Cultural Patrimony: a study of multiple conceptions of heritage at Teotihuacan, Mexico in its preliminary stages

Introduction

Cultural heritage forms the fulcrum for a variety of interests in the past and present. A resource mobilized for identity construction on the nationalist, diasporic, or purely personal scale, it is also increasingly being framed within international, universal interests appropriate to an inter-connected, mobile and globalized world context. As a purveyor of the past, the discipline of archaeology would seem to be bolstered by such concerns with a universal, global past. The rapidly accelerating pace of founding new museums in both European and North American metropolises and local communities worldwide, the international attention to the destruction of heritage resources in Afghanistan, Iraq or elsewhere, the burgeoning of ‘popular’ media (television programs, internet sites, magazines, etc.) and the vitality of ‘archaeo-tourism’ attest to the current importance of cultural heritage and to archaeology as its arm of exploration and presentation.

Nevertheless, these very engagements with a broadening range of interests, uses and desires of the past on a global scale poise challenging and fundamental questions for the discipline of archaeology. Among the most important, I would argue, include the questioning of a past-present divide, an operating assumption that partly defines archaeology as the ‘study of past peoples’. For many communities, particularly indigenous groups worldwide, there is often a more integrated and actively ‘present’ view of their ‘past’, and ethnocentric frameworks which consign such groups and archaeological sites to being representatives of ‘past life-ways’ may often be offensive. Weakening such a distancing conceptual ‘barrier’ has catalyzed legal debates concerning intellectual property rights to a universal past, with many stakeholder groups advocating non-archaeological justification of control over access to, and interpretation and representation of, ‘their’ past. Other consequences of an archaeology increasingly engaged with disparate views and claims of the past may be mentioned, but these assertions represent the most potentially challenging result of an often increasingly litigious context within which archaeology operates.

My project begins from the premise that while such challenges may alter archaeology as currently formulated, even questioning the role of the intellectual, they simultaneously present a productive opportunity to make archaeology relevant for a 21st-century globalized (for better or worse) world. My central question derives from the idea of a ‘multi-vocal’ archaeology, or an archaeology which integrates non-disciplinarian stakeholders in archaeological interpretation (ej. Gnecco 1999; Hodder 2000). Conforming to the practically based, adjudicating model of legal debate, such a democratizing theory has been suggested as a way forward in addressing the consequences of alternate conceptions and uses of cultural heritage. And well-documented, nascent programs in multivocal archaeology have been implemented by projects in Australia, Canada, England, North America, New Zealand, and Turkey. At the general level, I am asking whether a multivocal approach would be viable and appropriate in the particularly salient context of Teotihuacan, Mexico.

Teotihuacan, a Living Site

The archaeological zone of Teotihuacan represents one of the best examples in the world of a ‘living site’. The zone has been one of the primary concerns for the cultural patrimony of Mexico and the world (Dirección de Monumentos Históricos 1985, Marini 2000, Decreto 1988), and has historically been the focus of both Mexican and international archaeological research. Simultaneously the zone has been the center of contemporary community life in terms of economic, political and social processes. As Jaime Delgado (2005) has estimated, an increasing percentage of the burgeoning population of the valley (now more than 69,000) depends economically upon the site through tourism activities. Socially and politically, the zone has figured prominently (and contentiously) in the local communities through activities ranging from the expropriation (via decretos) of inhabitants away from the zone, to INAH’s overview of construction within the zone’s A, B and C perimeters of protection, to, most recently and prominently, the debate over the construction of ‘TeotihuaWalmart’ (eg., among many, Gálvez 2004; y Beristain Bravo 2005) in San Juan and its effects upon both archaeological resources and local traditions. In sum, Teotihuacan is a nexus for a variety of local interests and issues. As such, it represents a forum for investigating what Teotihuacan as cultural patrimony signifies for both archaeology and these diverse interests. In the context of ‘global heritage’, the question presents itself: how to productively investigate these interests, especially those not normally represented in the archaeological literature?

Building upon a precedent already established at Teotihuacan by Manuel Gamio (1922), my project attempts to study the significance of the zone both from an archaeological perspective and from the perspective of the local populations of the valley. To do this, a systematic, statistical study has been devised which consists of an extensive questionnaire to ascertain the various structuring factors which determine the conceptions – archaeological and non-archaeological - of Teotihuacan (see figure 1).

These questionnaires are being distributed within the pueblos of the valley, as well as to Mexican tourists, vendors, archaeologists, and other employees and professionals working at Teotihuacan. These primary questions measure the respondents’ ideas regarding the zone in terms of: archaeology, cultural patrimony, economics, diversion, and spirituality. As well, a set of background measures of age, sex, education, income, place of birth and place of residence, form a background against which the above primary questions can be statistically compared. Though the project is still in its preliminary phase of gathering questionnaires (to date more than 460 have been collected), the continually updating results, as well as the data archive can be viewed at http://traumwerk.stanford.edu:3455/Teotihuacan/Home (with an overview in español). As part of a tandem project of developing new media resources for Teotihuacan (see Webmoor 2005) through the Metamedia laboratories at Stanford University, this internet site is an open forum and designed to allow posting of comments and open-editing.

The results of the study will help us in understanding what factors determine how Teotihuacan is understood and why it is important for the people who work at and live near the site. It is commonsense that education, especially exposure to archaeological science, determines how archaeological sites are viewed. But can we say something more subtle than this by getting at a broader and deeper range of social, political and economic issues which determine what type of knowledge of a site such as Teotihuacan is important for people. Likewise, is variation in interest and understanding due solely to economic substructures? The results of the study will hopefully provide a more complete understanding of the interest of society in cultural patrimony for professionals in directing programs at archaeological sites. It is part of a movement towards an ‘anthropological archaeology’.

Conclusions

Largely following from the reflexive criticism emerging initially from anthropology, archaeology has only begun to develop new methodologies and theories to accommodate its 'loss of innocence' while retaining a measure of credibility and authority in constituting knowledge of the past. The primary methodology advanced to remedy the purported lack of accountability on the part of archaeologists to those invested in ‘the past’ has been multivocality. However, where such programs have been attempted (particularly in Australia, North America, New Zealand and South Africa) there often results a ‘stasis of dialogue’ stemming from the controversy over integrating discrepant frameworks for understanding the past. This is particularly true in the United States with the passage of the Native American Graves Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) of 1990. As a result, the discussion has been largely confined to litigious contexts or to ‘top-down’ applications emphasizing theoretical desirability and feasibility. Replete with calls for ethical practice, the literature is arrested on the ethical ‘surface’ of integrating disparate and perhaps intractable frameworks for knowledge constitution.

As ethical principles are inextricably bound-up with more thorough-going epistemologies, my project will be an exploration of what I am calling ‘structural reflexivity’. I propose that such difficulty as well as hesitation to operationalize multivocal archaeology has been partly due to the lack of attention to the structuring relations which inform such disparate, situated knowledges. I believe that such a program will theoretically develop the impractical notion of multivocality by getting at the more fundamental factors driving alternate engagements with cultural heritage. In doing so, a more practical way-forward for ethical archaeology entrusted with global heritage may be advanced.

Bibliography

Beristain Bravo, Francisco, et al. 2005 “La Construcción de Wal-Mart en Teotihuacan”. Delegación DII-IA-1, México.

Delgado, Jaime 2005 Presentación en el seminario “Qué el patrimonio cultural”, 28 de Abril. Centro de Estudios Teotihuacanos, México.

Dirección de Monumentos Históricos 1985. “Primera Reunión Para Definir una Política Nacional de Conservación de Monumentos”. INAH, México.

Franco, Iván 2005 “Transformaciones del Proyecto Cultural en México: educación, cultura y patrimonio cultural ante el neoliberalismo”. Delegación DII-IA-1, México.

Gálvez Hernández, Alejandro 2004 “Teoihuamart: nuestra identidad”. La Reforma, México.

Gamio, Manuel 1922. “La Población del Valle de Teotihuacán. Vol. 1-5. Poblaciones Regionales de La Republica Mexicana”. Instituto Nacional Indigenista, México.

Gnecco, C. 1999. “Multivocalidad Histórica: hacia una cartografía postcolonial de la arqueología”. Universidad de los Andes, Bogotá.

Hodder, Ian. Coordinador. 2000 “Towards Reflexive Methods in Archaeology: the example at Catalhoyuk”. Cambridge, Inglaterra

Marini, C. 2000. “ICOMOS Mexicano, AC: seis años en la conservación del patrimonio monumental”. CONACULTA, México. Decreto 1988 “Decreto por el que se declara zona de monumentos arqueológicos el área conocido como Teotihuacan” en: Diario Oficial de la Federación Núm. 22, Tomo CDXIX. Órgano del gobierno constitucional de los Estados Unidos Mexicanos, México.

Webmoor, Timothy 2005 “Mediational Techniques and Conceptual Frameworks in Archaeology: a model mapwork at Teotihuacan, Mexico” en: The Journal of Social Archaeology Vol. 5, No.1; Londres, Inglaterra.

Acknowledgments

Gracias a los arqueólogos Sergio Gómez Chávez y Julie Gazzola, al Centro de Estudios Teotihuacanos y a la gente del valle de Teotihuacan por su cooperación y interés.

_____

Return to Teotihuacan Social Survey

Return to Home

---

Forum Home  -  Site Home  -  Find Pages: