Conclusion: multiple associations of Teotihuacan
A single archaeological site forms the nexus for a diverse set of associations. Teotihuacan, or indeed any large ‘heritage’ site, may be better thought of as circuitry, a complex set of networked actions enervated by the ‘processor’ of archaeological material (Figure 7.64). Obdurate materials and monumental places serve as a nexus through which multiple, diverse courses of action are enabled. Put another way, a site such as Teotihuacan forms an ‘ecosystem’ of associative niches. Visitors and nearby residents come to Teotihuacan to be financially remunerated, to secure health and conduct rituals, to entertain themselves and their families, to learn about archaeology and the past, and to meld themselves with a larger, collective identity of the nation and world civilization.
We have always known this, right? Most archaeologists working at large sites routinely come into contact with visitors, nearby residents and employees who engage with the very same site through networks of actions which are not always, not even routinely, archaeologically related. ‘Social archaeology’, a shorthand for a reflexive awareness on the part of archaeologists to consider the larger social and political ramifications of relating the present to the past, ended the myopic tendency, if not to be totally unaware of these dimensions, then at least not to consider them an integral part of what archaeologists do. This ‘opening’ of the discipline has been a great boon and burden. But however justified or vilified, the ethical and responsible disclosure of our actions as archaeologists seems appropriate given archaeology itself generates and perpetuates these associations.
Following this ethical imperative (Chapter 1) to open archaeology in accommodating non-archaeologists nonetheless engaged with the archaeological imaginary, the goal of this chapter has been to systematically identify the major associations at a single site and assess some of the causal factors responsible for their formation. Even at one site, the situation is sufficiently complex. Not only do the various constituent associations vary with regard to the others, but breaking the sample down into sub-groups revealed the manner in which visitors, workers, students and locals variably form these associations based upon their heterogeneous mix of goals.
As had been implemented in this study, any investigation of this complexity of engagements with a heritage site ought to be both specific and detailed, as well as capable of being usefully general and explanatory. To do this a complementary mix of descriptive, qualitative information and quantitative, statistical exploration has been presented. And, as was particularly the case with heritage associations, a singular focus on just one type information is inadequate – or even misleading. Looking back to Figure 3.7 of Chapter 3, the forms of evidence utilized to bolster an argument tend to be artificially split into two poles of what are a continuum: a reduction to locality, particularity and multiplicity; or the amplification to standardization, compatibility and universal circulation of information. As Latour (1999:ch.3) describes real reasoning practice, information circulates between these poles, only temporarily stabilized for purposes of representation and demonstration of argument. As I argued in Chapter 2 with specific regard to archaeology, the favoring of one pole of representation or the other is due to the confines of a theory of representation based upon correspondence. Archaeologists, because of the longstanding tradition of correspondence theory, have opted for ‘amplification’, or just one pole of rallying representations of archaeological material for argumentation. Generally this was encouraged by the advocates of a processual archaeology. With an opposite reaction and movement along this spectrum of evidence on the part of postprocessualists. More recent epistemology ‘mediators’ have proposed ‘fitting’ (Hodder 1999) or ‘tacking’ (Wylie 2002) to describe such movement back and forth along this spectrum. And drawing upon the two erudite traditions in philosophy attending to reasoning presented in Chapter 3, these styles of reasoning in the discipline, often presented as incompatible, can be usefully combined. This chapter, I hope, goes some way in promoting the usefulness of bridging sources of evidence for understanding archaeological topics.
This being said, even further refined and detailed analysis would have revealed additional discrepancies and points of comparison. Indeed, looking back at the examples of this chapter, we could even begin to trace single connections or circuits comprised of humans and things of the Teotihuacan network. Therefore, one shortcoming of this study has been to present a static assessment of these interwoven associations, and a productive line of inquiry in the future would be to follow any single circuit of humans and the things of Teotihuacan in the detailed and idiosyncratic negotiation of these associations. For example, a craftsman of the obsidian workshop (Figure 7.48) procures the same obsidian utilized by teotihuacanos, visits the site museums to learn from the archaeological information about authentic designs, crafts replicas which he then sells to vendors, who station themselves at the foot of the pyramids where tourists collect, sells a piece to a visiting ‘new age’ dancer who wears the totem of Teotihuacan during performances, which Mexican families watch as a spectacle for diversion during their visit to experience their culture and origins. In this manner, the stuff of Teotihuacan circulates through and is driven by each of the associations. The stuff of archaeology truly forms an ‘archaeological imaginary’. But an imaginary generated, hardened and made real(time) by the material of Teotihuacan.
As it is, this chapter has dealt with the multiplicity of associations by artificially separating them out for detailed consideration. Part of this has been for analysis sake; to avoid lumping the various engagements with Teotihuacan under the ambiguous term ‘heritage’. Teotihuacan, as designated world heritage, is ‘heritage’, but what does this exactly mean? Rather than assume the utility of this concept, the chapter broke the concept down into more meaningful constituents. ‘Heritage’ at Teotihuacan is comprised of these primary associations: the archaeological, the economic, the diversionary, the spiritual, as well as heritage in a more restricted sense of symbolic identity. Additionally, more than simply identifying the primary associations, tentative causal factors have been offered as how and why individuals take part in these associations. How do personal variables relate to the goals that individuals form with archaeological sites? For many of the associations, simple ‘exposure’, to the material of the site and artifacts themselves, to archaeological information and experts, and to popular media plays the most determining role. For others, factors such as gender and education are paramount. These factors and their corresponding association are recapitulated in Table 7.7, and the relative strength of each association in Figure 7.63.
Table 7.7: Summary of associations and determining variables.
Figure 7.63: Boxplot of all scale score distributions.
But above all else, it must be borne in mind that these associations operate inter-connectedly and to varying degree depending upon how they are operationalized through the goal-driven activity of individuals at the site. And indeed, a better visualization of this network of associations and the relative strength of the respective variables is presented in the circuit-like diagram of Figure 7.64. So the associations varied in their relative strength (Figure 7.63), with some showing marked divergences. As the box plots visualize and the correlations mathematically articulate (Table A2.47), several even held moderate to strong linear inverse relationships. Compared to the archaeology scale score, diversion (correlation of -0.147) and ‘irrational’ spirituality (-0.671) held moderate and very strong inverse correlations. The stronger the archaeological association, the weaker the values for these scales. The scatter plot in Figure 7.65 gives a snap shot of this mix of association that are heritage at Teotihuacan.
Figure 7.64: Multidimensional representation of the ‘circuitry’ comprising Teotihuacan: relative importance of variables in relation to associations determined by where variable lines (vertical) intersect respective association lines (diagonal) (heritage not given for simplicity)
This might be expected, as these associations sometimes draw upon opposing goals for engaging with Teotihuacan, specifically in regards to visiting the site for educational purposes. As we saw in the preceding analyses, those individuals who held high diversion or ‘irrational’ spiritual scale scores tended to be motivated in visiting the site by very non-archaeological reasons – such as to gather energy or simply for entertainment. This apparent incompatibility between diversionary, spiritual and archaeological goals for an archaeological site lends quantitative weight to the angst created by the ethics-epistemology debate discussed in Chapters 1 and 3.
Figure 7.65: Scatter-plot of archaeology, ‘irrational’ spirituality, and diversion scales
Several associations, however were not necessarily incompatible and indeed demonstrate a high degree of inter-relation. This is particularly the case with the archaeological, heritage and economic (both personal and general) associations. Heritage and general economic co-vary according to a correlation of 0.583, demonstrating a very strong relationship and suggesting that the two associations may not be meaningfully disentangled – instantiating the ‘economic heritage’ of Teotihuacan for visitors and residents alike. Indeed, the triumvirate association of archaeology, heritage and economics are all inter-related above the moderate to substantial correlation of 0.282, suggesting that for Mexicans, whether visitors, students or workers, Teotihuacan should not be disaggregated into distinct foci of understanding. Again, the visual metaphor of circuitry inter-connecting associations formed through the site offers a better heuristic of understanding this constitution (Figure 7.64). To a confident degree, the archaeological is the economic, which is heritage. Therefore ‘inheritage’, tagging a financially valuable resource inherited from the past and valorized through archaeological estimation, might be a more apt label for this clustering of associations at Teotihuacan – and at other sites of the world archaeological imaginary.
Return to Spiritual Associations
Containments
Forward to Dissertation Conclusions
