Archaeological Associations

To identify ‘archaeology’ as a particular association developed with an archaeological site might seem redundant. How can an archaeological understanding be relativized as just one manner of relating to Teotihuacan? As argued at length in Chapter 1, and discussed at the beginning of Chapter 6 in specific regard to Teotihuacan, the increasing public engagement with archaeological sites has lead to an effusion of interactions with archaeological locales. Where these alternate appreciations have been theorized, ‘heritage’ has come to serve as a catch-all phrase in drawing serious attention to these alternate uses and understandings of sites of the archaeological imagination. There is already an awareness of the ‘ecosystem’ of practices and values centered upon heritage sites. New age rituals and beliefs, traditional or indigenous knowledge and practices, economic livelihood and employment opportunities, social and ideological negotiation and so forth all involve, and, indeed, are often generated by, archaeology. Varying personal, political and social goals drive these diverse manners of relating to archaeological material. Yet such phenomena are often not taken seriously by archaeologists. Instead, they are regarded as epiphenomenal; not the ‘stuff’ of archaeological inquiry and activity. But as it was argued at length in Chapter 1, such ‘archaeo-systems’ should be taken seriously from an ethical standpoint. And, in some contexts, must be considered by archaeologists for legal accountability. When a single archaeological site, and public engagement with it, is studied comprehensively, the activity of archaeology and its informational products is but one facet of ‘heritage’. It is the purpose of this chapter to specify what ‘heritage’ entails at Teotihuacan by breaking it down into analyzable components to get a sense of the prevalence and strength of these ‘other’ associations. But at the outset, archaeology, or the systematic and scientific study of a site such as Teotihuacan, must itself be investigated as one of the primary manners of relating to the past.

Chapter 4 recounted the history and prehistory of Teotihuacan, highlighting how the monumentality of the site has drawn attention to it, from prehispanic times to the contemporary age. The development of archaeology in Mexico and its increasing influence over Teotihuacan through the political administration of INAH is not unproblematic. Indeed, the gaining of influence and control over the ruins by one of these associations of the ‘archaeo-system’ has created tension amongst the public involved in the other associations. A history of the professionalization of archaeology at Teotihuacan is already treated in detail elsewhere (see Ruiz 1997). This tense relationship involving the priority of archaeological values, legitimized and made manifest through governmental administration, vis-à-vis non-archaeological values, was expressed on several occasions during the survey.

Shortly after organizing and taking part in a hunger fast in protest of the construction of Walmart in the perimeter of the archaeological zone (more below), a leader of the Civic Front for the Defense of the Teotihuacan Valley explained a major source of the tension between archaeological prioritization of the site and local denizens. “With the decree [decreto por la ley] in the 1960’s, we had to move from our family property, which had been in the family for generations, to outside of new archaeological zone. INAH told us that the property was now the government’s and we must relocate [cambiar de lugar] for the protection of the archaeology. We had no choice and were not given what we should have been by the government. . . We lived in Teotihuacan, just as generations [los antepasados] before us had. We respected the site as part of our life. And we continued to conduct rituals at the site as part of tradition. Now we no longer can have these rituals, and we have to ask permission to enter the site. INAH controls what we can do. . . at the site and even with our new homes because the property is under INAH supervision. This is what makes a lot of people angry with INAH. . . And it was not just our family. Hundreds were forced to move” (local activist and businessman).

The ‘decrees’ he refers to were part of the Mexican government’s consolidation of the property containing the ruins of Teotihuacan. As a consequence, households were expropriated from the expanding federal property during the primary decrees of 1907, 1964 and 1988. It is estimated that 163 individuals were removed in 1907, 55 in 1964 and 3,381 in 1988 (Delgado 2005). Not coincidentally, these expropriations took place in conjunction with large archaeological projects, such as Leopoldo Batres’ ‘restoration’ of the Pyramid of the Sun in 1906 and the Teotihuacan Mapping Project (TMP) of the early 1960’s, which expanded the limits of the zone to incorporate significant structures and subsurface deposits.

Moreover, as alluded to by the informant, while the central or ‘urbanized’ portion of Teotihuacan is now federal property under the administration of INAH (designated ‘perimeter A’), those lands adjoining this fenced portion with significant archaeological material have been designated as ‘perimeter B’ and ‘perimeter C’ and fall within INAH supervision. That is, while no construction is permitted within perimeter A, construction of new structures or the modification of existing structures within perimeters B and C (with, respectively, decreasing oversight) must be approved by the INAH ‘salvage archaeology’ unit [arqueología rescate] attached to Teotihaucan. Unlike Cultural Resource Management in the United States where archaeological compliance is restricted to federal lands and/or federally funded projects, compliance with these regulations at Teotihuacan more closely approximates compliance in the UK where the ambit of such oversight extends even to private property involving archaeological material. As perimeters B and C extend well into the adjoining towns, especially San Martín, San Sebastian, San Francisco and San Juan, there is much resentment of the imposition of governmental control. Under question 16 (Appendix 1, figure 3), asking respondents what three services or improvements INAH ought to apportion for the archaeological zone, several respondents wrote in unsolicited comments pertaining to the INAH’s involvement in the valley as a whole, asking, for example, for “permission to build in the valley”, “more services for the valley” and “more government aid to the valley”. Ostensibly, the latter two are requests for compensation by INAH for the impact of its regulations on valley denizens. One vendedor accosted me during questionnaire sampling and berated me with unsolicited opinions. “Why are you asking us for our opinions about the zone? Do you work for INAH or for the census? Are you going to give INAH your recommendations? It won’t matter. INAH doesn’t care what we think. The always do whatever they want. I can’t build my kitchen because they say so! I can’t come to the zone to work unless they say so; when I go home, I can’t do what I want with my own house [con la casa que es mía propia]! Tell them to let us live without their permission!” (vendedor and local resident).

Figure 7.17: Main road leading from archaeological zone to San Juan with wall proclaiming that the property is ‘outside of INAH’s jurisdiction’

Public hostility towards the prioritizing of archaeology at the expense of local autonomy exhibits itself in proclamations in murals (Figure 7.17) and in public meetings (Figure 7.19). Part of the reasoning behind a series of weekly public conferences on “What is Heritage?” [¿Qué es patrimonio cultural?] at the Center for Teotihuacan Studies (Figure 7.18) from the 7th of April, 2005 to the 4th of August, 2005, was to bring together archaeologists with the local community to discuss the intricacies of economic development, social concerns and preservation of heritage at Teotihuacan. As the associate director of the center related, “Within INAH right now there is a directive to increase public participation in the country’s heritage [patrimonio del país]. So here at the center, we edit a bulletin so the public can read about what archaeologists are doing here, and we are beginning a series of conferences for the pubic to come and listen and ask questions. This is especially important here at Teotihuacan, because there are a lot of concerns about how to integrate economic growth and development in the valley with maintaining the integrity of the archaeology of the zone.”

Figure 7.18: Centro de Estudios de Teotihuacos with author (right) and INAH archaeologist

After a presentation on population growth in the valley and the impact on Teotihuacan at one weekly conference, the audience directed the questions and answer session to concerns over the process for permitting construction, INAH’s regulatory procedures and personal anecdotes about problems with obtaining clearance. “Why is it that Walmart was able to get INAH approval so quickly, when there were important structures under the ground, and I have been waiting six months for the archaeologists to come out and study where I want to enlarge my house [agrandar al hogar]?” It seems to me that there is a double standard for INAH. If there is money, then the archaeology must not be important. But if not, we have to wait” (audience member, local resident).

Figure 7.19: Auditorium of Centro de Estudios Teotihuacanos during a pubic discussion of heritage and management policies at Teotihuacan

Indeed, one reason why the construction of Walmart within the perimeter C of Teotihuacan caused such controversy on the local level was that it underscored the level of control of INAH over the future direction of the valley in terms of economic development. For many, they felt whether they wanted a Walmart or not, it was out of their control as local citizens. INAH would determine it. And while many residents such as those cited above felt frustrated with INAH’s influence over their personal or family plans for building and development, it seemed as though INAH quickly approved a project on a scale much larger (and potentially much more disturbing to the archaeology of Teotihuacan). So the standard of placing archaeological values first within the ambit of the zone was superceded by economic incentive. The following excerpt from an ‘open letter’ to then President Vincente Fox published in the national paper La Reforma evokes the dismay at the prospects of sacrificing archaeological information for the benefits of Walmart’s commercial development in San Juan.

Document excerpt:
“Teotihuacan is an enormous source of very valuable information. Thanks to the monuments, reliefs, sculptures, offerings, altars, among other objects, a greater understanding of our past has been achieved. These have helped maintain a constant dialog with our ancestors. The construction of a commercial center in zone C wipes out such dialog and destroys the possibility of sustaining continuity in the research. The source would dry up. It would exchange the wealth of archaeological remains for the poverty of aisles full of merchandise. This loss is irreparable. Thus we should all as Mexicans avoid this. . . We cannot cancel the future in exchange for a supposed modernity. We should wait until the earth reveals its secrets to us. ["Teotihuacan es una enorme fuente de información muy valiosa. Gracias a los monumentos, relieves, esculturas, murales, entierros, ofrendas, altaras, entre otros objetos, se ha logrado saber mucho más de nuestro pasado. Estos han ayudado a mantener un diálogo permanente con nuestros ancestros. La construcción de un centro commercial en la zona C cancela dicho diálogo y destruye la posibilidad de mantener la continuidad en la investigación. La fuente se secaría. La riqueza de los vestigios arqueológicos la cambiaríamos por la pobreza de los pasillos repletos de mercancías. Esta pérdida es irreparable. Por ello debemos todos los mexicanos evitarlo. . . .No podemos cancelar el futuro a cambio de una supuesta modernidad, debemos esperar a que la tierra nos revele sus secretos” ] (Open Letter to President Vicente Fox, October 9th, 2004, published in The Reforma).

This apparent double standard raised questions as to the altruism of INAH in protecting archaeological vestiges. As an INAH archaeologist stated (Figure 7.18), “it looked bad for the INAH administration and for the salvage archaeologists involved because the public knew there were structures and subsurface deposits. The newspapers covered the entire development, so locals as well as people in Mexico City knew that corruption was involved.”

One fallout of this distrust for INAH is a lack of willingness on the part of those owning large parcels of land in the vicinity of Teotihuacan to even allow archaeologists to survey or look at their property. Even if construction – and so INAH intervention – is not involved, some believe that once archaeologists take stock of what is on their property, there will be increased scrutiny and diminution of control over their holdings. Long-time Teotihuacan archaeologist George Cowgill related one such example. “There are a significant number of jobs provided by the archaeological zone: in archaeological labor or in tourist services which includes feeding them lunch or selling them authentic souvenirs which may be all too authentic, sometimes. So, on the one hand, the archaeological zone has had some positive impact in being a source of income; on the other hand the people that live in the periphery, I think, are often in fear of being expropriated. One of the issues of fieldwork in areas that are outside of the expropriated area, is, on the one hand, it is an area where looting goes on, and the looters are not too happy with archaeologists poking around in those areas. Also, there is this fear, which is not entirely unrealistic, that they may lose their lands too. . .There is a woman who owns a site near the center of the modern town which, for some reason, has never been built over. I am 90% sure it is where the Aztec governor lived in Aztec times. She just won’t let us on the property. It has a locked gate. . . I am sure she is terrified that if people found out how important it is, she will lose the property” (George Cowgill).

Figure 7.20: Valley resident showing archaeological artifacts he ‘found’ within Teotihuacan’s protected perimeter

The other side of the coin to land expropriation and developmental control is, as George Cowgill alluded to, looting. While many residents resent not having autonomy over their land, others feel they should at least have a right to the artifacts from their land. And some, such as one informant who collected artifacts to sell (Figure 7.20), believed that artifacts from land that had been part of traditional ejidos, or collective land holdings, before the governmental expropriations, rightfully belonged to the public. “I got all of these [artifacts] from a field not far from here. . . I can’t tell you where, but it used to be the land of my uncle’s family. There is a lot more too, including obsidian blades [obsidiana prismática] and points, ceramics and figurines - mostly small faces and heads. A lot of it is on the ground, but you can dig [cavar] and find much more. . . It should be OK since it was my family’s place [lugar] before the government took it. How widespread looting is at Teotihuacan is difficult to quantify, but any amount of time spent on the site and vendedores will begin, once they realize you are uninterested in their imitations, to offer supposedly authentic artifacts. While I never spoke to anyone who admitted to looting within the site’s fenced perimeter, most site archaeologists and guards discuss how it is not uncommon for looters to dig in the unexcavated peripheries. Interestingly, while looting seems common enough, the vast majority of respondents to the survey, when asked if “looting of archaeological pieces is OK”, answered negatively (86.6%), while only 4.7% responded that is was either OK or OK only when necessary to obtain economic resources (Appendix 1, Figure 3, question 24).

All told, the relationship between archaeology, as institutionalized and operationalized in INAH, and valley residents has a long history and is indeed a mixed-bag. But how strongly is Teotihuacan still valued as and for archaeology. Are there, as we might expect given the local tension with INAH, appreciable differences between residents’ association and that of students visitors and workers? Or is archaeology conceived in a more abstract, disciplinarian manner, disassociated from its institutional arm of INAH? And do ‘workers’ at Teotihaucan, who benefit from their association with INAH, more strongly associate the zone with archaeological values?

To gauge the importance of associations with Teotihuacan relating to archaeological interests and values, a series of questions were developed which were combined into an archaeological scale (see Chapter 6, ‘explanatory concepts’). The content of these questions dealt with attitudes to understanding the zone through archaeology and behaviors oriented to exposure with archaeological information (particularly through visitation to the site’s museums and the Center for Teotihuacan Studies, an INAH establishment located near the site’s Gate 5 dedicated to promoting conferences and publications relating to archaeology at the site). While additional questions aimed at tapping archaeological associations were included on the questionnaire, only those questions which were determined to tap the explanatory concept of archaeology through statistical reliability tests and factor analyses were included as part of the final scale (Table A2.3). These final scale questions are listed below.

• Visiting Teotihuacan is primarily educational
• ‘Visit museums’
• ‘Visited centro de estudios’
• ‘Archaeology is best way to understand past’
• ‘Important to protect archaeological remains for scientific understanding’

Combining a mix of dichotomous (yes/no) and Likert Scale (measuring strength of attitude) questions, the responses to these questions were coded (Appendix 3) so that responses affirming archaeological values resulted in higher scale scores (De Vaus 2002: 181-2192-4, Foddy 1993:148-52). The resulting scale was then standardized to give an lower limit of zero and an upper limit of ten (0-10). The frequencies of the responses approximated a normal distribution (Figure A2.1), with a mean of 5.5 and a standard deviation (s) of 2.1. With this moderately large standard deviation, the largest percentages of the respondents actually clustered around the slightly lower scores of 3.85 (14.0%), 4.62 (15.9%) and 5.38 (11.0%). While there are limitations to conducting statistical tests utilizing null hypotheses, a Chi-square test was performed in order to be confident that these distributions are likely to approximate the actual distributions of attitudes to archaeology at Teotihaucan in the population at large (Table A2.13). The results, with a chi-square of 212 and significance value of 0.00, the distribution very likely approximates the distribution of attitudes in the population and is extremely unlikely to be due to sampling error.

Figure 7.21: Frequencies: Archaeology Scale Score

Taken on its own, the archaeology scale score does not indicate relative strength of associations (as compared to heritage or Spirituality, for instance). These cross-comparisons will be discussed later. They do suggest that, relative to one another, the respondents’ archaeological association with Teotihuacan was of varied strength. But that, on average, archaeology tended to be a moderate, to moderately strong association with the site.

Given that, as has been argued in this dissertation, varying pragmatic goals for the archaeological imaginary are rooted in multiple, and not necessarily ‘specialist’ or archaeological, associations with the material of this imaginary, then the moderate strength of an archaeological association with Teotihaucan may not seem surprising. As discussed later, an archaeological association with Teotihuacan is in fact third in relative importance when compared to Heritage and general, Economic associations. Yet this moderate value is surprising when contrasted with other questions developed as indicators of a value for and exposure to archaeology. 68.3% of respondents reported either occasionally reading or always reading the informational signs at the site offering archaeological interpretations (Table A2.14). Additionally, combing the fact that 77.1% of all respondents came to Teotihuacan already knowing at least a little about the site, and that the overwhelming majority of this knowledge was gained in school (63.7%, Figure A2.2), we may reasonably infer that exposure to archaeological understandings of the site is relatively great.

To get at these discrepancies I looked at what factors were most responsible for respondents’ scale scores. Contrary to an expected relationship between the archaeology scale score and the variables of education and income, no statistically significant linear associations were found (coefficients were -.025 and .033 respectively). Neither increased level of education nor higher income level corresponded to higher archaeology scale scores. While these factors were not associated, a complex set of other factors demonstrated statistically significant linear relationships with the archaeology: where respondent lives; whether respondent works at the site; reading information signs; whether respondent has spoken with archaeologists; the number of visits; and the respondent’s age (Table A2.16). To clarify which of these factors accounted for the most variation in the archaeology scale score, and so ascertain which may be interpreted as influencing an archaeological association the most, a step-wise regression analysis was run after the variables were converted to standardized scores. A summary of the models is in Table A2.17. The interpretations are based upon the model (model 6) which included those variables that held the most explanatory value (measured by the R squared coefficient) and accounted for the most change in the Archaeology Scale Score (dependent variable, measured by Beta). Table 6.9 below summarizes the results for the model. Behavioral variables account influence the archaeology scale score more than attitudinal or background variables.

Table 7.6: Stepwise Regression Analysis (dependent variable Archaeology Scale Score)

Whether the respondent works at Teotihuacan (Beta=.292) accounts for the greatest predicted change (Beta) of the scale score, followed by whether respondents read the informational signs (Beta=.258). Whether respondents have spoken to archaeologists (Beta=.108) as well as their motivation in visiting the site (if they come to learn about archaeology, Beta=.095) also carry some influence. Finally, rather than education level or income status, age (Beta=.128) and gender (Beta=.092) represent the background, demographic variables carrying the most influence on the scale score. To elaborate how these primary factors influence the archaeology scale score, it is necessary to run partial correlations. As a background variable, it was investigated whether age varies symmetrically with any of the other influencing variables, particularly those that conceptually it may be causally related to. However, age did not vary systematically according to whether the respondent reads signs, whether they’ve spoken to archaeologists, or if they are employed at the site (A2.18). Therefore, age seems to be a factor operating independently in influencing the scale, with a correlation of .179 (Table A2.16). Older respondents tended to associate Teotihuacan more strongly with archaeology.

The other variables may be conceptually linked. Gender appears to influence whether a respondent works at the archaeological zone, with 75.2% of those reporting that they do work at the site being male compared to less than half (24.8%) being female (Table A2.22). If a respondent works at Teotihuacan, their likelihood for reading information signs and speaking to an archaeologist is greater. It seems plausible that reading informational signs, speaking to archaeologists and gender directly influence the archaeology scale score through their relationship to whether the respondent works at Teotihuacan. Performing a partial correlation of scale score by works at the site, controlling for these variables suggests that this model of influence is correct (Table A2.23). These multiple relationships to the archaeology scale score is summarized below:

Figure 7.22: Indirect causal relationship: works at Teotihuacan with archaeology scale score controlling for intervening variables

Similar to the primary factors underlying coming to the archaeological zone, particularly residing near the zone in the Teotihuacan Valley, physically spending more time on site (working in various official or unofficial capacities) contributes to a stronger archaeological association with Teotihuacan. This is not a direct mechanism, however, but comprises a host of indirect factors. Working at the site offers more opportunities for meeting and speaking to archaeologists and reading signs. These in turn cumulatively account for the development of a stronger archaeological association. Underlying these nested, indirectly acting factors is gender. Women comprised 45.5% of the total sample; yet only 24.8% of those reporting that they work at the site. While the survey did not explore biases surrounding the hiring of employees or the patriarchal values of Mexican society which contributes to fewer women working at Teotihuacan, it is evident that not only are there less than half as many women working at the zone, but that this disproportionate ratio predisposes men to greater exposure of archaeological information and archaeologists themselves.

However, only 25.9% of the sample reporting working at the zone, so this complex set of factors is restricted without further investigation by subgroup. For the vast majority of the sample who do not work at the zone (74.1%), age proved to be the only reliable variable contributing to greater association of the archaeological at Teotihuacan. The results are surprising in two ways: the relatively moderate value placed upon archaeology; and that the expectation that an esteem of archaeology would be related to background variables, such as education and income class (or ‘status’), was not borne out by the data.

As many of these factors may be specifically tied to whether an individual is a ‘student’, ‘visitor’ or ‘worker’, I separated out these sub-groups to compare their respective archaeology scale scores and see if the same factors were relevant. Compared to the overall mean scale score of 5.474, ‘visitors’ held a slightly lower mean of 5.054 and a greater standard deviation of 2.043. Scores for visitors tended to cluster lower between the values of 3.85 and 4.62. However, ‘students’ and ‘workers’ evinced the greatest discrepancy from the overall scale score (Figure 7.23-7.24).

Figure 7.23: Frequency Distribution: Archaeology Scale Score for workers

‘Workers’ held a mean scale score of 6.854, significantly higher than that for either ‘visitors’ or for the combined results (Figure 7.23). In fact, results clustered around the values of 6.92 and 9.23, indicating a much stronger archaeological association than the collective sample. This would appear to definitely bias the overall results by inflating the archaeology scale score. However, ‘students’, contrary to expectations, actually held the lowest archaeology scale score mean (Figure 7.24). With a mean of 4.851, the scores of students clustered between the values of 3.85 and 6.15.

Figure 7.24: Frequency Distribution: Archaeology Scale Score for students

Given that if a respondent works at the site there is more potential to speak with archaeologists (and indeed archaeologists or excavation laborers comprise 10.6% of ‘workers') and read informational signs, all factors which correlated with higher overall archaeology scale scores, the large discrepancy of 2.00 between the mean scale scores of ‘students’ and ‘workers’ might be attributable to the salience of these factors for ‘workers’. Thus we might expect that the causal inferences of Figure 7.22 are biased towards ‘workers’, overemphasizing the role played by speaking to archaeologists and reading informational signs. To disentangle these relationships, partial correlations between the archaeology scale score and potential background factors were run separately for each of the subgroups. The results for these subgroups are listed below with their correlations:

• ‘Workers’: read signs (0.244); spoken with archaeologists (0.341); age (0.333)
• ‘Students’: family works at Teotihuacan (0.225)
• ‘Visitors’: read signs (0.373); where respondent lives (-0.137)

As it turns out, the casual inferences of Figure 7.22 do indeed hold for ‘workers’. That is, as common sense would indicate, ‘exposure’ to archaeological information in the form of signage and archaeologists themselves contribute to the strong archaeological association. Age, though, was substantially correlated (0.333) with workers’ archaeological association, playing a more important role than when compared with the overall sample (correlation of 0.179). While perhaps the conclusion might be that workers tend to be older (and so the relationship between age and the scale score), the low correlation (0.168) between age and employment at the zone, combined with the above results, reaffirms the simple conclusion that increased exposure (over time and so with increasing age) to archaeological information (specifically via signs and archaeologists) contributes to a stronger association.

As visitors do not work at the zone, we might expect factors other than ‘exposure’ to be important. Yet, while speaking to archaeologists was not correlated to their scale score, neither were other background variables related ‘status’. I thought that separating out the various subgroups might clarify relationships involving ‘status’ which the combined sample results (particularly the influence of ‘workers’’ attributes) would otherwise obfuscate. Instead, the scale score of ‘visitors’ was even more strongly correlated with reading of informational signs (0.373 versus 0.244). The conclusion would be, in lieu of the contact with archaeologists which ‘workers’ are afforded, on-site media play a more important role for visitors to Teotihuacan. This, combined with the only other correlating factor of living near the site (-0.137, or those living further away tend to have lower archaeology scale scores), supports the overall ‘exposure’ thesis.

‘Students’ were more anomalous. None of the already identified factors played a role in their (much lower) scale score. Only whether a member of their family works at Teotihuacan demonstrated a moderate correlation (0.225). This suggests that indirect exposure, or a personal connection to those directly working at, and exposed to, the site, plays a role in the archaeological association of students. While less immediate, it is again ‘exposure’ to the archaeological zone itself, and not education (students exhibit the highest overall education level) which is singularly important.

As a final point of comparison, the non-exclusive grouping (comprising portions of ‘students’, ‘workers’ and ‘visitors’) of residents of the six pueblos held a mean archaeology scale score of 5.619; a score roughly splitting the difference between those of ‘students’ and ‘workers’ (Figure A2.5). In light of the acrimony towards INAH expressed by residents of the valley discussed above, this moderately high archaeology scale score for residents was surprising. With respect to attitudes of archaeology on the part of valley residents, two inferences may be made. The tension between INAH and local residents is restricted to a minority of the population who are particularly outspoken and so ‘over-represented’ in the ethnographic interviews, skewing the impression of dissatisfaction with the government’s archaeological administration. Or, the tension may be widespread, but residents do not intimately associate an archaeological understanding of Teotihuacan with INAH’s administration of the archaeological zone. As the questionnaire did not present respondents with a question to discern whether such a distinction between INAH and archaeology is indeed upheld, these tentative conclusions remain speculative and could usefully be the subject of further research.

Forward to Heritage Associations

Containments

Return to Teotihuacan as Gathering