Heritage Associations

Heritage is a concept difficult to define precisely. As used in the literature, heritage tends to be synonymous with ‘cultural heritage’. Or the received traditions of the past used for cultural identification. This is why for archaeology, cultural heritage centripetally draws around the usage of archaeological material for purposes, often politically fraught, of identity construction whether on the individual, local, national or colonial and imperialistic scale (Diaz-Andreu 1996, Meskell 1998, 2001, Smith 2004, Trigger 1984). Imbricated within such a diffuse set of processes at a multitude of scales causes the imprecision in defining heritage, and it may be better understood as a catch-all expression for the active appropriation of the archaeological imaginary on the part of the public for particular purposes: to bolster territorial claims, legitimize nation-states, solidify shifting identities of the high or post-modern world in the presumably secure sediment of past tradition (Lowenthal 1985). Thus heritage intersects with other sub-genres (equally difficult to define) of public archaeology (Merriman 2004) or indigenous archaeology (Layton 1989, Watkins 2000) or multivocality (Gnecco 1999, Hale 2002, Hodder 2002, Hodder 2004). The related burgeoning literature and its implications for archaeology was surveyed in Chapter 1. For purposes of utilizing the concept of heritage at Teotihuacan, it will be approached not from the variety of fields the concept overlaps but from the core reasoning which operationalizes a notion of heritage. This is the active appropriation of archaeological products – interpretations, texts, materials and sites – for creating particular notions of identity. This consumption of ‘products’ indeed evolves out of an anthropologically based material culture theory (Miller 1987, 2005). There are problems with viewing obdurate material, the things of archaeology, as so ‘plastic’ as to be molded by human intentionality for whatever whim of self-expression or identity construction. And as we shall see, associations forged in conjunction with the material of Teotihuacan highlight the inappropriateness of thinking of archaeological products as ready for ‘social packaging.’ Similar to the complex set of associations entwining respondents with ideas of archaeology, tracing these heritage associations involves a plethora of variables, from demographics of respondents to geographical considerations, interactions with the archaeological zone and familiarity with archaeological interpretations.

The heritage scale score was developed similarly to the archaeology scale score (Table A2.4). The final questions included on the scale to tap this explanatory concept were (see Appendix 1, Figure 3, questions 11,12,15,23):

• Teotihuacan is national identity
• Teotihuacan is world heritage
• Important to protect site for future tourism
• Teotihuacan should be respected as a place of ancestors

Figure 7.25 shows the heritage scale score distribution. With a mean of 7.60 and standard deviation (s) of 1.74, the scores of the responses tended to cluster together near the high values of between six and ten (accounting for 89.9% of all scores, Table A2.24). This gave the resultant frequency distribution a relatively high skewness of -0.375 (Figure 7.25). More than any other explanatory concepts, heritage was most highly associated with Teotihuacan. The first question was to identify whether this distribution, clustering towards the higher values, is idiosyncratic to the sample or if they reflect real tendencies in the larger sampled population. Running a one sample, Chi-square analysis (Table A2.25) indicates that the heritage score frequencies do indeed reflect real frequencies of the population at large and are not likely the result of sampling error.

Figure 7.25: Frequency Distribution: Heritage Scale Score

Investigating why heritage was so strongly associated with Teotihuacan resulted in a complex set of linear and non-linear relationships to a variety of variables. Given the imprecision of the concept and the complexity of its role with archaeology, this was to be expected. Key background demographics, such as respondents’ ages, gender, education levels, and income exhibited no significant relationships with their heritage scale scores.

Instead, correlation coefficients (Table A2.26) suggest only moderate relationships with behavioral variables of whether respondents visit the museum, speak to archaeologists, visit the center for Teotihuacan studies and read informational signs. Additionally, the level of respondents’ prior knowledge of Teotihuacan correlated with their heritage score. To infer causal relationships, partial correlations were performed (Table A2.27) between the heritage scale score by prior knowledge, controlling for the other correlated variables of reads signs, spoken with archaeologists, visit museums and visit the center for Teotihuacan studies. Intuitively, as prior knowledge measures the level of exposure to the site prior to visiting, these controlled variables should be ‘dependent’ as they tap behaviors once the respondents are on site. Thus, for example, whether a respondent reads information signs at the site would not logically affect their level of prior knowledge. Running partial correlations, alternating which variables are controlled for, indicates that prior knowledge holds the strongest correlation amongst these variables when the influence of all the others are held in abeyance. The implication is that prior knowledge most directly causes higher heritage scores, with the indirect influence of the other variables playing a secondary role. Conceptually, the chain of influence can be summarized graphically in Figure 7.26.

Figure 7.26: Indirect causal relationship: works at Teotihuacan with heritage scale

A greater level of prior knowledge of Teotihuacan leads a greater heritage association by predisposing respondents to visit the site’s museums, read the information signs, speak to archaeologists and visit the center for Teotihuacan studies. Exposure to these sources of information, for example, to the public conferences on heritage held at the center for Teotihuacan studies discussed previously, increases linking the site with ideas of heritage. In all, similarly to the archaeology scale score, a set of inter-related behaviors variables favor a higher heritage association. Unlike the archaeological association, however, the demographic attributes of age, gender and employment at the site do not play a prominent role in the heritage association.

The caveat to this assessment is the overall low correlations. While these variables, and particularly prior knowledge play a determining role in individuals’ heritage association, this role is of only moderate importance. One reason may be the countervailing tendencies of sub-groups of the sample. As we already saw for archaeology, important demographic and attitudinal differences distinguish ‘workers’, ‘students’ and ‘visitors’ from one another. Separating these constituencies out and running the same checks for significant correlations produced some interesting differences. While ‘workers’ exhibit a heritage scale score (with a mean 8.07) similar to that of the overall heritage scale (Figure A2.6), ‘visitors’ (Figure 7.27) and ‘students’ (Figure 7.28) both held slightly lower heritage scale scores (with means of 7.39 and 7.59 respectively). Furthermore, the distributions for both of these groups were much more dispersed, rather than clustered towards the higher scores.

Figure 7.27: Frequency Distribution: Heritage Scale Score for visitors

Figure 7.28: Frequency Distribution: Heritage Scale Score for students

Correlations between the heritage scores and background and behavioral attributes for each of these sub-groups flagged varying variables. These, with their correlation values, are listed below:

• ‘Workers’: education (-0.207)
• ‘Students’: where lives (0.354); number of visits (-0.222); attitude towards effect of Walmart (0.344)
• ‘Visitors’: prior knowledge (0.170); visit center for Teo. studies (0.140)

While workers held the strongest overall heritage association, this was not related to education. In fact, the correlation suggests the opposite: the lower their education level, the higher their heritage scale scores. This is not dissimilar to their high archaeological association despite lower overall education levels. Even thought the majority of workers (88.5%) reported having a secondary school education and some college experience, and that the largest portion reported that their prior knowledge of Teotihuacan came from school (40.2%, see Figure A2.4), the conclusion would be that learning about Teotihuacan in an academic setting did not predispose relating to Teotihuacan as heritage. To the contrary, such an appreciation comes from working at the site. But unlike their exposure to archaeology, equating the site with heritage cannot be tied to specific experiences (measured by the survey), such as interacting with archaeologists or reading informational signs. This ambiguity makes the causality behind their strong heritage association difficult to explain. This may, in part, be a fault of the survey in not targeting other relevant factors. But, relating it again to their archaeology association, it is apparently through physical exposure – as if by osmosis.

‘Visitors’ correlations affirmed the importance of the factors identified in Figure 7.26. Prior knowledge (0.170) and whether they visit the center for Teotihuacan studies held moderate correlations. Indeed, their prior knowledge was slightly more related to the heritage scale score, suggesting that their association of the site with heritage was inculcated elsewhere (‘off site’). And though it cannot be pinpointed where such an association developed, it was not through formal education. While the negligible role of formal education is apparent with both ‘visitors’ and ‘workers’, this conclusion contrasts markedly with the supposition for ‘workers’.

‘Students’ display some idiosyncratic correlations that may, in fact, shed some light on the ambiguity surrounding the role of ‘exposure’, in terms of prior knowledge for ‘visitors’ and on site ‘osmosis’ for ‘workers’, in fostering a heritage association. In so far as students held a fairly high scale score, the correlations point towards the opposite conclusion: a lack of exposure to Teotihuacan. That is, their scores are not related to formal education, living near the site or working at the zone, or the number of visits. Rather, students who lived further away (with a moderate to substantial correlation of 0.354) and visited fewer times (with moderate, negative correlation of -0.222) exhibited higher scale scores. The only other variable that held a linear relationship to their heritage association, and limens a potentially important source of exposure for all individuals, was their (negative) attitude towards the impact of the construction of Walmart in the archaeological protected perimeter (with a moderate to substantial correlation of 0.344).

In March of 2004, Walmart solicited INAH for permission to begin the construction of superstore (una bodega aurrerá) 2.5 kilometers from the Pyramid of the Sun and 200 meters from Gate 1, the principal entrance to the fenced portion of the archaeological zone. While this was outside of the fenced, federally owned portion of the archaeological zone, it was nonetheless within perimeter C (see Figure 6.5). This delineated ‘buffer zone’, encompassing the ‘ceremonial precinct’, designated an area which, based upon the TMP project of the 1960’s, covered much of the extent of the original city settlement and where additional structures and subsurface deposits were likely to be found. Thus permission to construct was required from INAH (see discussion in ‘archaeology associations’). In May of 2004, the overseeing INAH offices of the state of Mexico granted permission for the construction, assuring that the project complied with the federal law covering monuments and historic, artistic and archaeological zones (La Ley Federal sobre Monumentos y Zonas Arqueológicos, Artísticos e Históricos). Beginning shortly after the approval, and increasing after the 25th of August, when a typical apartment compound plaza ‘altar’ or raised platform was discovered during the excavation of the Walmart’s parking lot, a media deluge began. While sporadically covered in television reports, local and national newspapers – and international media sources (see Chapter 5) - sustained focused attention to the developments.

Between June and November (Walmart opened on the 5th) no less than fifty articles, editorial pieces and public letter appeared in the more popular and reputable local and Mexico City newspapers (an digital archive of every article can be accessed at http://humanitieslab.stanford.edu/Teotihuacan/715). These weighed the benefits and detriments of the global corporation opening a store in the valley, presented professional and public opinions, scrutinized the developments of the construction, and covered the litany of protests, hunger fasts and altercations which ensued (Figures 7.29-7.30).

Figure 7.29: Protest on highway leading from San Juan to gate 1 of archaeological zone

Figure 7.30: Protest banner reading “Walmart – out of our cultural heritage!”

Document excerpt:
“For Mexicans Teotihuacan is our greatest cultural heritage, an expression of our history and identity as a nation and people. Teotihuacan has earned the admiration of the world, as much through the development of their scientific and astronomical knowledge as for the works of art found in its soil, its murals, its architectural design and its visual command of space. For all of this it has been designated humanity’s cultural heritage. . . We cannot permit the construction of a Walmart superstore in Teotihuacan. We demand the immediate suspension of work and its relocation outside of the protected perimeter where there is a lack of archaeological remains. . . .We considerate it the unquestionable responsibility of the state to preserve the artistic heritage of Mexico. Not doing so will constitute a grave historical error.” [“Teotihuacan es para los mexicanos nuestro máximo partimonio cultural, expresión de nuestra historia y de nuestra identidad como pueblo y nación. Teotihaucan ha merecido la admiración del mundo, tanto por lo desarrollado de sus conocimientos atronómicos y científicos como por las obras de arte encontradas en su subsuelo, sus murales, su traza arquitectónica y su manejo visual del espacio. Por todo esto, ha sido designado Patrimonio Cultural de la Humanidad. . . No podemos permitir la construcción de la macrotienda de Wal-Mart en Teotihuacan. Pedimos la suspension inmediata de la obras y su reubicación fuera de Polígono de Protección, donde haya nula presencia de vestigios arqueológicos. . . Consideramos que es responsibilidad incuestionable del Estado preservar el patrimonio artístico de México. No hacerlo constituirá un grave error histórico”] (Open Letter to the President of Mexico, Governor of the state of Mexico and Municipal president of San Juan Teotihuacan, published October 16th, in The Reforma).

A grass roots organization, which formed in the late summer to oppose the construction, led most of the protests against the construction. The Civic Front for the Defense of Teotihuacan Valley (el Frente Cívico en Defensa del Valle de Teotihuacan) headed by ‘traditional elder’ Emma Ortega (Figure 6.3) and locals Emmanuel D’Herrera and Lorenzo Trujillo, lead a series of protests on the site and outside of the primary gates, blocked the roads to the site, held a hunger fast, performed ceremonies in honor of the gods of Teotihuacan, and had a ‘sit-in’ at the INAH offices in Mexico City. As one of the leaders described to me, “We’ll put a stop to this with demolition [derribo], because a transnational corporation can’t just come and trample [hollar] on our historical patrimony, . . We are prepared to take drastic measures, but sadly there are people living near the pyramids who support the store, because they say it represents progress . . . The Teotihuacan community is divided, that’s true, but those who believe in the defense of our history, culture and identity will fight to the very end to prevent a transnational corporation from stealing our history” (leader of the Civic Front).

The lines drawn around the Walmart controversy involved, really, the question of economic development at the cost of Mexican identity (Figure 7.31). With a long history of nationalism tied directly to a proud past illumined by archaeology, Teotihuacan represents, as the quotes and statistics have indicated, a core materialization of Mexican culture. Walmart taps into an equally long history of modernization in the country, and symbolizes the prosperity and luxury of modernity, but one that is foreign (American) and antithetical to any sense of tradition. Constructing a Walmart so close to Teotihuacan was the juxtaposition of a transnational symbol with a Mexican symbol. And this intersection of two potent symbols – and large scale at that - indexing a host of contentious issues, enervated the public’s attention.

Figure 7.31: Cartoon from Mexican blog: summarizes the two primary concerns: the juxtaposition of transnational (American) identity with Mexican identity; economic effect upon local markets

The controversy drew much public attention. And the struggle by the civic front drew vocal support, particularly from other grass-roots activists from outside of the valley and from public intellectuals and students from Mexico City. Such support grew to include visits by other well known Mexican grass root leaders, European and North American ‘indie-journalists’, as well as other Latin American leaders facing similar developments, such as a Bolivian contingent from Machu Picchu, and culminated in a Civic Front meeting with Subcomandante Marcos of the Zapatistas in the Spring of 2005. Tension increasingly built as the opening of the Walmart loomed and none of the politicians - Guillermo Céspedes, the mayor of San Juan, Arturo Montiel, the governor of the state of México, Vicente Fox, President of México –, who were repeatedly petitioned (see excerpt from ‘open letter’ in ‘archaeological associations’) to take action for the sake of Mexico’s heritage, intervened. Moreover, in response to direct petitions to UNESCO to monitor the situation, Francesco Bandarin, head of World Heritage at UNESCO, declared on the 15th of October that the Walmart posed no threat to archaeological materials. Finally, at an event on the 7th of November, shortly after the store finally opened its doors, a protest led by the Civic Front that was attended mostly by students from UNAM (Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México) and the Universidad de Chapingo, erupted into open hostility. Initially blocking gates one and two, the protest devolved into a physical confrontation (15 minor injuries) between the protesters and artisans of the site (vendedores), disgruntled by the impact the protest was having on tourism and their sales.

This final confrontation alludes to the appreciable impact that Walmart has had on Teotihuacan and its environs: the restructuring of the valley’s economic relationships. These practical implications remained at the forefront of individual’s minds, long after the disputatious construction in the archaeological perimeter concluded. Most people I asked, in fact, perceptively never treated Walmart as an issue solely involving heritage or the loss of archaeological material. And it would be a mistake to overemphasize the (militant) opposition against Walmart for reasons of ‘heritage incursion’. Economic considerations were always involved and, contrary to the issue of heritage, were opined about in an equivocal manner. Two valley residents described their mixed feelings thus: “It is going to really affect market people [las personas del mercado] who’s sales will decrease. But perhaps it is going to benefit us through the industrial changes [cambios industriales]. What is bad is the loss that is going to happen to the culture” (local student); “I found out about it three weeks ago when the construction called my attention to it [me llamó la atención la construcción]. I think it is good because there will be more jobs [habría mas empleos]. But it is an archaeological zone” (local resident). This, indeed, was the feeling on the part of the mayor of San Juan. “The important point is that I don’t think the archaeological zone has really been affected. The requirements of the federal law [La Ley Federal (see above)] concerning the protection of cultural heritage were fulfilled. Visually, yes, you will notice the superstore from the zone. But San Juan, and in fact, the valley, are growing rapidly. So change is already happening [ya sucediendo]. The store will bring employment and progress to this town of hope [municipio de esperanza]” (mayor of San Juan de Teotihuacan).

Figure 7.32: Walmart Teotihuacan (empty on most weekdays)

The subdued design and non-contrastive color scheme of the completed store (Figure 7.32), in fact, reflects the less than brash state of public opinion (Figures 7.33-7.34). Contrary to ‘students’, the overall attitudes to the effects of Walmart on the archaeological zone were mixed. When asked if the construction of Walmart had affected Teotihuacan, the greatest proportions of individuals (49.0%) responded that it ‘had not significantly’, or ‘not at all’. Breaking the respondents down by income level, though, produced distinction of opinion along class lines (Figure 7.34), with the wealthiest respondents almost universally affirming ‘not significantly’, while middle-class individuals, or those earning 11,000-15,000 pesos/month, answered ‘yes’ for the most part.

Figure 7.33: Frequencies: attitudes to whether the construction of Walmart has affected Teotihuacan

Figure 7.34: Line graph: attitudes to Walmart’s impact on Teotihuacan by income level

Irrespective of actual public opinion, which was much more divided along the issue then the impression lent by media attention to the outspoken critics, ‘the story’ garnered local and national attention for well over four months. Each of the numerous articles, whether for or against Walmart, equated Teotihuacan with “archaeological heritage” (La Reforma, September 8th), “symbolic heritage” (La Reforma, October 9th), or “historic heritage” (La Reforma, October 25th). A cartoon in La Reforma on September 27th dubbed the new Walmart, “Teotihualmart”, and the name stuck as a shorthand for the whole debacle. One article concisely concluded the entire episode after Walmart finally opened: “Teotihuamart, our identity.” Signaling the union of the two symbols in public consciousness. For these months and the following year, while always a source of pride, of heritage, Teotihuacan was elevated to the symbol of Mexican ‘greatness’ (Figure 7.35). Indeed, the once dominant PRI party of Mexico shrewdly used the elevated status of Teotihuacan in Mexican consciousness by tagging the Pyramid of the Sun in political posters running up to the 2006 national elections.

Figure 7.35: Metro stop in Mexico City: the Pyramid of the Sun (poster on left) appeared all over in political flyers for the PRI (Partido Revolucionario Institucional) campaign leading up to the elections of 2006

Consequently, this exposure through the media of the high profile controversy surrounding ‘Teotihualmart’ cannot be underestimated as an explanatory and contextual factor accounting for the universally high heritage association with Teotihaucan. While overall, the causal mechanism, visualized in Figure 7.28, holds for the entire sample, the correlations are low to moderate. Furthermore, this network of mechanisms, hinging upon ‘prior knowledge’, was unable to specify exactly what type of ‘prior knowledge’ was involved. In addition to asking where this prior knowledge was obtained (Appendix 1, Figure 3, question 7b), I should have developed more specific indicators to measure the concept of heritage in relation to ‘prior knowledge’. These variables, particularly ‘prior knowledge’ have influence, but without specifying what this ‘prior knowledge’ is and how, specifically it was obtained, I can say little more with the statistics. Furthermore, no additional variables demonstrated relationships with heritage. As a final check, the results of a linear regression of the heritage scale and multiple variables and a factor analysis (see Chapter 6) corroborates this conclusion (Tables A2.29, A2.31). In table A2.29, the ‘R squared’ (second column) value of 0.54 indicates that the strength of the relationships of the various variables with the dependent variable (heritage scale score) is weak, and that most of the variation of the scale score is not explained by the variation of these variables (disproportionately high residual value as compared to the regression value). Additionally, the complimentary results of the factor analysis (Table A2.31) indicate manifold loading onto six components (columns 1-6). That is, instead of commonalities being identified for all of the questions pertaining to heritage (in addition to the questions deemed reliable for inclusion on the scale), an indication of one or two ‘common denominators’ or ‘factors’ relevant to all the variables, six underlying ‘factors’ were identified. The interpretation is that, aside from those questions on the scale, no other questions (the responses) co-varied in any systematic way with the concept of heritage.

The lineaments supplied by the quantitative data only go so far. It is the qualitative information of the unique contextual circumstances of ‘Teotiualmart’ which offers the indication of what this ‘prior knowledge’ is and why it is determining of the heritage association. While not always complimentary, in this instance the quantitative and qualitative information are mutually informative. This prior knowledge helps to explain the other peculiarities identified by the quantitative evaluation of ‘students’, ‘workers’ and ‘visitors’. Students’ heritage association was wrapped up with their knowledge of, and greater participation in, the Walmart controversy. So while living further away (often in Mexico City) and visiting less frequently, their association of the site with heritage came in no small measure from media exposure and grass roots activism. The inverse role of education for ‘workers’ comes from their, overall, lower education level but higher level of exposure to Teotihuacan as heritage, both on-site, in the immediate vicinity during the protest activities, and from the ubiquitous media coverage. Finally, ‘visitors’, who exhibited ‘prior knowledge’ an even more pronounced causal factor, were probably more influenced by the media exposure ‘at a distance’. And, additionally, when visiting Teotihuacan, were exposed to discussions and information relevant to heritage through their visitation to the center for Teotihuacan studies (as discussed in ‘archaeological associations’).

I summary, I suggest that heritage is both more multifarious an idea or value and, as such, may more properly be related to conditioning factors imbedded in Mexican culture. Archaeology is heritage; heritage is archaeology. There is additional support for this conclusion in the great overlap between the two associations, to the point where they appear to be mutually enforcing and inter-embedded. The inter-relationships of the associations will be looked at later. This strong integration of the two associations received an even higher profile during the particular circumstance of 2004 and 2005. But this provocatively implies that cultural heritage in Mexico is far different from the model of individual appropriation or consumption of the past for the purposes of personal or local identity. Heritage, synonymous with archaeology in Mexico, and for a time, with Teotihuacan itself, is much more deeply embedded in nationalism; a nationalistic sentiment which contrasted itself with a transnational, global identity in the controversy over Walmart. This Mexican heritage, is so thoroughly infused with people’s idea of Teotihuacan, thanks in large part to media exposure, that no complex set of discreet variables, whether education, income or motivational behaviors, account for it being so highly identified with the past.

Forward to Diversion Associations

Containments

Return to Archaeological Associations