Teotihuacan as Gathering

As discussed at the beginning of Chapter 6, a host of values determine engagement with Teotihuacan. This is not atypical for a monumental, world heritage site. How values give rise to alternate understandings of the same archaeological material, including but not restricted to archaeological interpretation, involves, as argued in Chapter 3, pragmatic criteria. That is, knowledge of archaeological material is deemed adequate when it satisfies specific goals and facilitates practical purposes; be these the goals of archaeological scholarship or, increasingly with the acknowledgment of heritage issues, the continuation of traditional or local cultural traditions. But heritage is an ambiguous concept. While the issues and problems involved with ‘heritage’, as assayed in Chapter 1, are increasingly important for a discipline engaged with the public, the question becomes: what is heritage and how may it be broken into its constitutive components in order to archaeologists to better understand how heritage sites should be managed as interfaces with the public?

These two issues, heritage and epistemology, dovetail: alternate values on the part of archaeologists and the public concretize into definite associations through practical activity at archaeological sites. It is quite nebulous to say that spiritual beliefs or economic needs or belief in aliens or whatever foster different knowledge. The obdurate materiality of a site such as Teotihaucan cannot be packaged into whatever fanciful conception. Instead, practical routines, driven by these alternate values of spirituality or economics, develop through archaeological material and, when reinforced through the fulfillment of practical goals, develop into definite associations. This chapter, therefore, moves away from an all encompassing consideration of heritage at the site of Teotihuacan and begins to define some of these specific associations which have formed through practical engagement with this very public archaeological site.

A baseline for the study is to ask: who visits Teotihuacan and why? What interest does the site hold visitors and residents alike? What level of engagement, as assessed through visitation patterns, takes place? Are there appreciable differences in visitation between residents of the valley, Mexican tourists and students? How differences in background correlated with alternate associations? And can we ascertain what factors account for different levels of engagement in their lives? The majority of respondents (51.9%) had visited Teotihuacan seven or more times (Figure 7.1). Only five respondents of the total valid number of 470 reported that they had never visited the archaeological zone. Considered against the backdrop of respondents sampled while visiting the site, this may be unsurprising. But this negligible frequency, contrasted with the high rate of visitation, underscores the centrality of the zone for the residents of the neighboring pueblos. This high level of visitation to the zone deserves closer examination. Not differentiating between residents and visitors we might expect that these percentages reflect nearby residents’ more frequent visits. In cross-tabulating the number of visits by where respondents live in terms of approximate distance from Teotihuacan, there is a statistically significant, moderate to substantial inverse correlation (Table A2.7) between these variables. Respondents living closer to the zone tend to visit more often (Figure 7.2). Given that it has been estimated (Delgado 2005) that roughly 6% of the valley residents derive some form of remuneration from directly or indirectly, from the zone, this increased visitation on the part of valley residents may be economically motivated. Indeed, Figure 7.3 underscores the zone as a source of employment, either for the respondent or for a family member. 25.9% of respondents work at the site in various capacities, and 35.7% of respondents have family members who do so (Table A2.9). As we might expect, there are moderately significant relationships when correlating the number of visits with whether the respondent or a member of the respondent’s family works at Teotihuacan (Table A2.8). Selecting for only those respondents who answered ‘yes’ to working at the site, 17.24% of these individuals also had family members working at Teotihuacan (Table A2.9). While these figures cannot be compared directly to Delgado’s estimate as they are based upon personal assessments of ‘work at Teotihaucan’, which (Figure 6.5) ranges widely from official employment to on-site vendors and artisans to off-site, roadside food vendors, they do indicate that Delgado’s definition of ‘employment’ may be conservative, and that in fact more than 20.4% of the residents residing in the valley receive some income from the zone in official or unofficial capacity.

Figure 7.1: Number of Visits to Teotihuacan

cross-tabulating the number of visits by where respondents live in terms of approximate distance from Teotihuacan, there is a statistically significant, moderate to substantial inverse correlation (Table A2.7) between these variables. Respondents living closer to the zone tend to visit more often. Given that it has been estimated (Delgado 2005) that roughly 6% of the valley residents derive some form of remuneration from

Figure 7.2: Number of visits by location of residence (pueblos located in the Valley of Teotihuacan are named)

directly or indirectly, from the zone, this increased visitation on the part of valley residents may be economically motivated. Indeed, Table 6.3 underscores the zone as a source of employment, either for the respondent or for a family member. 25.9% of respondents work at the site in various capacities, and 35.7% of respondents have family members who do so. As we might expect, there are moderately significant relationships when correlating the number of visits with whether the respondent or a member of the respondent’s family works at Teotihuacan (Table A2.8). Selecting for only those respondents who answered ‘yes’ to working at the site, 17.24% of these individuals also had family members working at Teotihuacan (Table A2.9). While these figures cannot be compared directly to Delgado’s estimate as they are based upon personal assessments of ‘work at Teotihaucan’, which (Figure 6.5) ranges widely from official employment to on-site vendors and artisans to off-site, roadside food vendors, they do indicate that Delgado’s estimate may be conservative, and that in fact more than 20.4% of the residents residing in the valley receive income from the zone in official or unofficial capacity.

Figure 7.3: Employment at Teotihuacan: respondent works at Teotihuacan by member of respondent's family works at Teotihuacan

If economic association with the archaeological zone partly accounts for visitation rates, then the role of residency needs to be pinpointed. From common sense we would expect that there is an indirect relationship between residency and visitation, with economics serving as an intervening variable. To determine the strength and nature of the overall relationship, the variable for where the respondent lives was standardized so that partial correlations could be run. Controlling for whether the respondent or a member of the respondent’s family works at the site, the inverse correlation with between number of visits and where the respondent lives decreased slightly (Table A2.8). Assuming that residency in the valley directly affects whether respondents work at the zone rather than the inverse, the relationship between residency and visitation is partly due to the indirect influence of employment. The relationship may be summarized as follows:

Figure 7.4: Indirect causal relationship residency with visitation controlling for economic motivation

Economics as a strong factor in associations will be further explored later on. Here we can say that visitation is more frequent amongst valley residents, but that economic considerations play a low to moderate role (correlation of only –0.185) making the linkage an indirect one. To better discern how economics is a factor in visitation, it would be useful to discriminate between respondents who reported being ‘employed’ at the site from students and visitors. Indeed, breaking the sample down according to these criteria may draw out useful comparisons for the remainder of the study as large proportions of each type of respondent were collected by the survey. These proportions are given in Table 7.1. These categories are drawn from the total sample and its proportions discussed last chapter (Table 6.1). The category of ‘students’ was arrived at by looking at open-responses to question 30 (Appendix 1, Figure 3, question 30). Classifying individuals as ‘workers at the site’ results from responses to answer to question 27 (Appendix 1, Figure 3, question 27). Finally, the number of ‘visitors’ was based upon my classification. Those individuals who answered negatively to question 27 (‘do you work (or have you worked) in the archaeological zone or immediate vicinity?) and did not identify themselves as ‘students’ (question 30) were grouped as ‘visitors’. These ‘visitors’, then, are comprised of locals and non-locals. The large proportions of individuals who indicated they were ‘students’ or were ‘workers’ at the site must be tempered by the imprecise nature of these classifications. As already alluded to, ‘workers’ includes those officially employed at the site as custodians, ticket vendors and collectors, restaurant employees, guards, administrative personnel and archaeologists and excavation laborers; but it also lumps with these those of unofficial occupations. These include wandering vendors of crafts, crafts stall operators, unofficial ‘guides’, restaurant operators and workers along the fenced perimeter of the site, and craft artisans from around the zone who sell their wares to wandering vendors or sell them directly at ‘shops’ [talleres de artesanías].

Table 7.1: Proportions of ‘students’, ‘visitors’ and ‘workers’ from the total survey

One informant who ‘worked’ as a wandering vendor of primarily textiles (produced outside of the valley) described this ‘grey area’ of employment (Figure 7.4). “I earn a small part of my living [recursos para vivir] by selling to tourists here [at the site]. But I have to work a lot in my family’s business for the rest. But, yes, I think I am a worker here. . . my situation is similar to many of the other wandering craftspeople [vendedores ambulantes]. Many of us do not even have a permit from INAH to work here. And I am not a member of the union [local union for craftspeople]. But I come when it is busy, especially weekends. . . I know the guards and when I have a good day I give a little to them for letting me in” (vendedore on the site).

Figure 7.5: Craftsperson who ‘works’ unofficially at Teotihuacan

A similar inexactitude as to occupation may signal why ‘students’ comprised such a large proportion of respondents. While many individuals may actually be ‘unemployed’ or only part-time students working in family trades, the questionnaire itself, due to the academic letterhead (‘Stanford University’), may have predisposed them to be perceived more ‘academically’. As an INAH archaeologist explained when I raised concerns over ‘acquiescence bias’(see below), “education in the high schools [escuela secondaria] has given more emphasis to understanding archaeology and Mexican heritage [patrimonio cultural] from an archaeological perspective. . . and most local and Mexico City schools plan regular visits to various heritage sites. All this gives importance to being educated in relation to heritage. . .when asked about Teotihuacan, some young people know quite a lot and I think this is an important part of INAH’s reformulation of the federal law [la ley general del patrimonio cultural de la nación; see (Franco y González Salas 1999) for a report of this initiative for INAH]. . .but many people will want to appear educated and give educated responses. This is the case with your questionnaire. People know you are an archaeologist and you work here – you are tall gringo. They want to be seen as worldly and intelligent [percibido como listo y del mundo]“ (INAH archaeologist).

Such a possible preference for self-classification as a ‘student’ speaks to the desire of being seen as educated in the context of an academic study, but it also may indicate a general economic outlook in Mexico which conjoins education with financial opportunity. Another part-time, seasonal employee of INAH, who helped with GIS and other software applications, described himself as a student, although he only went part-time to a computer science school in Mexico City. He did not identify with being an INAH employee, because “this is temporary to help out. . .after my vocational school, I will be able to earn much more and will easily find permanent work in computers. . .maybe even in the United States” (student and INAH seasonal employee).

Irrespective of these suppositions as to why so many respondents declared themselves to be students, the survey results would have benefited from being much more specific as to occupational status. But breaking down the respondents according to these classifications brings out differences with regards to visiting Teotihuacan.

Figure 7.6: Number of visits by ‘workers’

Figure 7.7: Number of visits by visitors

Figure 7.8: Number of visits by ‘students’

Figures 7.6-7.8 visualize the differences in visitation patterns amongst these sub-groups. Compared to visitation on the part of all respondents (Figure 7.1), workers, as we might expect, clearly demonstrate frequent visitation. Figure 7.9 displays this pattern, with the greatest majority of workers who regularly are on site coming from the proximate pueblos in the surrounding valley (with a significant percentage also, it must be noted, coming from locations in the encompassing state of Mexico). 71.07% of workers have visited Teotihuacan nine or more times, as compared to an overall rate of 40.3%. Students and visitors, on the other hand, show a much more even distribution, with 33.6% of visitors and 21.1% of students coming nine or more times to the site. The majority of students have visited 3-4 times (27.4%).

Figure 7.9: Number of visits by workers by where respondent lives (pueblos located in the Valley of Teotihuacan are named)

Compared to the same stacked graph for students (Figure 7.10) two key differences emerge: the greatest numbers come from outside of the valley (Mexico City or the state of Mexico) and these students tend to visit approximately as frequently as those students who live locally. Visitors, in contrast to both groups, are fairly evenly divided in terms of both how often they tend to visit and from which locality in Mexico. The only surprises are the relatively few coming from outside of the valley or the surrounding state of Mexico. While distant states such as Chiapas and Chihuahua are represented, exceptionally few come from Mexico City, in contrast to students, (Figure A2.1).

Figure 7.10: Number of visits by students by where respondent lives (pueblos located in the Valley of Teotihuacan are named)

Unexpectedly, while workers clearly visit the site more frequently, no pronounced linear relationship exists between where workers reside and how often they visit to work. Compared to the overall low to moderate correlation of -0.211 (Table A2.8, discussed above) between where individuals live and their frequency of visits, workers exhibit a slightly less substantial correlation (-0.155, Table 7.2). That is, while visually apparent that workers from the surrounding valley visit the site most frequently, there is not an overall linear trend between living closer the archaeological zone (see map of the pueblos in Figure 6.5) and visiting (to work) more frequently. Looking at Figure 7.9, what most likely accounts for this surprising result are the large number of frequently visiting workers from San Juan (geographically located further from the archaeological zone in comparison to San Sebastían, San Francisco and San Martín) and from outside of the Valley (particularly from the state of Mexico). Additionally, while few in number, those workers who travel the roughly 45km from Mexico City and from the state of Hidalgo visit on average nine or more times. Double checking this result with correlation coefficients designed to detect non-linear relationships (Lambda, Goodman and Kruskal Tau; see discussion in Chapter 6, ‘unidimensionality and reliability’) likewise resulted in low correlation values (0.037 and 0.039 respectively; Table A2.10). Finally, using a Gamma correlation, which typically gives higher linear coefficient values than other ordinal coefficients (De Vaus 2002:Table 14.7), resulted only in a correlation of –0.204 (less than the correlation for the entire sample of –0.294; Table A2.7). Overall, despite dividing the sample into sub-groups which clearly demonstrated distinctive visiting habits, proximity to Teotihuacan, indirectly influenced by economic motivation amongst workers, most greatly influenced (albeit demonstrating only a low to moderate relationship) why individuals came to the archaeological zone.

Table 7.2: Correlation: Number of visits by workers by where respondent lives

Based upon the results of other heritage studies, though, we might expect that in addition to economic livelihood and geographical proximity, other demographic variables such as age (Watkins 2000) and notions of ‘status’ (Merriman 1991) predispose visiting Teotihuacan. So, for example, we may expect a linear association between higher education status and the number of visits to the zone. However, the results suggest that, in fact, education level plays little role in influencing the visitation (Figure 7.11). The great majority of respondents reported an education level ranging from secondary school to preparatory or bachelor’s degrees. And these individuals are fairly evenly spread across the categories of visitation ranging from 3-9 times. Even the small number (five) respondents who reported never visiting the site come from educational backgrounds distributed from no formal education at all to preparatory or bachelor’s degree. There is only a weak, non-linear relationship present, but this is counterbalanced by the absent (slightly negative) correlation between education level and visitation in general that can be attributed to sampling error (large significance value, Table A2.11).

Figure 7.11: Number of visits by education level of respondent

Workers and students may likely bias these frequencies, as students tend to have higher education levels and workers, as a matter of course, visit more frequently. Focusing only upon visitors, however, does not illumine any definite relationship between these variables (Figure 7.12). While the majority of visitors who visit Teotihuacan possess secondary (high school) or college educations, they tend to visit the site with frequency (nine or more times) regardless of their educational status, with visitation rates roughly proportional to the number of individuals in each category of educational status. The notable exception, of course, are the two individuals who possess no formal education and report never having visited the archaeological site. Linear and non-linear correlations corroborate the visual inspection. This suggests, somewhat surprisingly, that the rates for visiting Teotihuacan do not co-vary in any substantive way with educational status.

Figure 7.12: Number of visits by visitors by education level of respondent

The survey did not compile a variable to approximate ‘status’. However, if in addition to education we account for both age, income and job we can get at a reasonable assessment of status level, with those respondents possessing greater education and income at a younger age having a higher inferred ‘status’. Associating a person’s type of employment with ‘status’ is a subjective and value-laden endeavor. I did utilize the coding scheme of the International Labour Statisticians 1987 International Standard Classification of Occupations (ISCO) which ‘ranks’ occupations according to a measure of status (see Appendix 3). So an occupation deemed ‘semi-professional’, such a ‘technicians and associate professional’ are coded higher (in the 700-800 range of values) than, say ‘craft and related trade workers’ (in the 300-400 range of values). But I had to make subjective adjustments to account for unique occupations encountered during this survey which were not explicitly denominated by the United Nations’ scheme (such as ‘prostitutes’, whom I lumped under ‘black market occupations’ within the ‘service workers and shop and market sales’ United Nations’ category). Nevertheless, no meaningful relationships were identified when running linear correlations between visitation and job (I excluded the sub-group of ‘students’ as these individuals were all coded identically with respect to occupation).

Furthermore, while age and income were associated in a linear manner (increased income with increased age), education did not correlate with these variables. This was due to education level, on average, being far higher amongst younger individuals with lower income. Students account for 20.2% of the respondents, yet fall within the lowest two tiers of income level (less than 2,000 pesos/month and 2,000-4,000 pesos/month). Filtering out students improved the correlation, producing a moderate to substantial relationship (0.475) between age and income. And both age and income did correlate with number visits in a linear relationship. Figure 7.13 portrays this relationship for all respondents between visitation rates and age. A correlation of 0.256 (Table 7.3) indicates that the greater the age, the greater the number of visits to the zone. This is, though, only a weak to moderate association, suggesting that the relationship is minor and visitation might better be explained by other factors such as residency and economic motivation. Especially given the indirectly causal relationship of residency, the correlation might better be explained by the commonsense conclusion that those living in proximity to the archaeological zone have had occasion over time to visit more regularly. This might better account for why greater age (more opportunities over greater time) is weakly associated with greater visitation.

Figure 7.13: Number of visits by age of respondent

Table 7.3: Correlation: Visitation with age of respondent

Figure 7.14: Number of visits by visitors by income of respondent

Using the multivariate technique of regression analysis, the influence of the multiple variables of age, income and job (independent variables), or, collectively, ‘status’, can be assessed upon rates of visitation (dependent variable). Table A2.12 presents the results for such a model. The regression analysis of all of these variables at once supports the previous, visual comparisons groups of two variables (bivariate). With a R square (statistic indexing the amount of change of the dependent variable accounted for by the independent variables; column 2, Table A2.12) of 0.63, and a very large residual value (calculating the amount of change in the dependent variable not ‘explained’ by the independent variables), the analysis strongly suggests that age, income and job (the ‘status’) of individuals do not predispose greater visitation to the site.

In total, the relationship between ‘status’, or accounting for the influences of age, income and education level, and visitation to Teotihuacan is weak and certainly does not present itself as a useful explanatory factor as it has in other large studies of public attitudes to heritage (cf. Merriman 1991:74). Furthermore, this determination holds even across sub-groups with different background attributes, such as ‘students’, ‘visitors’ and ‘workers’. This was a surprising result as I expected one or more of the background measurements of ‘status’ to correlate with visitation practices. But with proximate residency and economic motivation being the most influential factors for visiting Teotihuacan, especially for visitors who receive some form of remuneration for being on site, it is interesting to compare this to the reasons given by respondents for why they visit the heritage site. The frequency table (Table 7.4) is based upon a multiple dichotomous question, where all respondents were asked to select the three and only three most important reasons for visiting.

Table 7.4: Frequencies: reason for visiting

Clearly, convenience of visiting the zone may largely account for the frequency of visits, but the interests in coming to site were quite varied. Curiously, ‘for work’ represents only 4.7% of the responses, with the largest tallies falling under ‘my culture and origins’ (24.4%), ‘scientific explanations’ (16.9%) and ‘enjoyment’ (11.7%). Archaeological, heritage and diversionary interests accounted for the majority of their reported motivations. Later on we will see how strongly these interests relate to Teotihuacan’s major associations and how they interrelate with one another. In addition to the closed-questions, respondents specified under ‘other’ reasons not pre-formulated. They are listed in no particular order (single response rates for each).

• ‘patrimony of ancestors’
• ‘to understand world truth’
• ‘to conduct ceremonies’
• ‘for economic reasons’
• ‘live in area’
• ‘learn information from museums’
• ‘to exercise’

Each of these open-responses, though, may be subsumed under the primary associations outlined for the study, except for ‘live in area’. This adds some weight to the significance of proximity for visiting the site discussed above, but as single responses little more may be said in the way of statistical exploration.

Table 7.5: Frequencies: workers’ reasons for visiting

There is an apparent discrepancy between respondents who report coming to Teotihuacan to work (Table 7.4) and how many later identified (Table 7.1; Appendix 1, Figure 3, question 27) themselves as ‘workers’ at Teotihaucan (122 respondents). This may have to do with the problem of ‘acquiescence response’ bias. That is, while receiving some form of economic benefit from being at the site, individuals apparently did not want showcase such a motivation when asked directly about their reasons for visiting. This methodological difficulty presented by the disjuncture between what respondents say they do, and what they in fact do, is common to social science fields (e.g. Bourdieu 1984). Several tentative conclusions may be proposed. Respondents may have come to Teotihuacan for other background reasons (such as economics), but they did not wish to report this. Within the context of a scholarly survey, respondents may not have wanted to be perceived as motivated by ‘base’ reasons. Secondly, both the presence of the questionnaire administrator and the content of the pre-defined options may have played a large part in choosing responses deemed appropriate. This is related to ‘acquiescence responses’ (Fowler 1990, Foddy 1993:ch.10). Stanford University letterhead and my association with archaeologists may have biased these response rates. While personally administering questionnaires has many benefits over telephone, internet, or postal surveys (specifically in reducing non-response rates), the potential effects on the survey results due to personal administration must be borne in mind (De Vaus 2002: 123-132), particularly as the remaining analyses focus on these attitudinal associations.

Dividing all respondents according to ‘workers’, ‘visitors’ and ‘students’ did reveal some differences in these motivations for visiting. Table 7.5 lists the frequency of responses for ‘workers’, where visiting ‘to work’ increases from 4.7% to 14.8%. This is a much larger percentage than for either students (1.1%) or visitors (3.4%), yet is still disproportionately low compared to an expected percentage of 100% for ‘workers’. Indeed, a total of seventy-five respondents reported that they did not come to the zone ‘for work’, yet said they are employed at the site in various capacities (Table A2.14). Their occupations run the gamut from crafts vendor (vendedores, 24.0%), maintenance (13.3%) and security (16.0%), to administration (6.7%), guide (6.7%) and archaeologist or excavation laborer (4.0%). Two conclusions may be drawn from such a discrepancy. ‘Acquiescence bias’ may provide part of the explanation or, taking the response rates for ‘workers’ at face value, ‘workers’, while clearly coming to the site for employment of whatever form (Table 7.5), prioritize other reasons. So that an underlying interest in learning about ‘culture and origins’ (22.0%) and ‘scientific explanations’ (15.8%) may account for their decision to seek employment at the archaeological zone.

Figure 7.15: Seasonal excavation labourer with the Feathered Serpent Temple Restoration Project

‘Lorenzo’, a local resident and long time seasonal excavation laborer who has worked for all of the most recent large excavation projects at Teotihuacan, discussed just such a combination of motivations that confounds any simple division between economic and other interests. “I work here when there is work. For the past years there has been a lot of work. First the excavations in the Pyramid of the Moon with Sugiyama [Saburo Sugiyama, co-director of the long-running Pyramid of the Moon Project] and now here in the Ciudadela [location of the Feathered Serpent Temple]. . .When there is no work here, I work doing construction or repair or whatever there is [cualquiera que cosa hay]. . .I like working, excavating because I like the stuff [la materia], the obsidian and ceramics. So it is a good job for me, and I am good at it, I know what I am doing. I am not lazy [un güevon] because I am very interested in it [me lo interesa mucho]” (‘Lorenzo’). ‘Culture and origins’ and ‘scientific explanations’ my denote too abstractly such a keen interest in the actual ‘stuff’ encountered while working at the archaeological site, but if this expressed motivation for excavating extends beyond ‘Lorenzo’, than reasons for ‘working’ at Teotihuacan cannot simply be equated with economic need.

Figure 7.16: Workers’ occupations at Teotihuacan

Looking at the specific occupations of ‘workers’ in Figure 7.16, this may indeed by true of occupations that are not specific or limited to the zone. This might include those employed in ‘maintenance’ (16.4%) ‘restaurants’ (4.9%), the various types of store ‘attendants’ (cumulative 6.6%) and other types of jobs not specific to an archaeological zone, such as ‘storage’ or ‘ticket sales’ (2.4%). These individuals could, theoretically, find similar employment outside of the archaeological zone. Yet totaling just under a third of all ‘workers’ (30.3%), even if these individuals sought out employment at the site because of intellectual reasons (e.g. archaeology and heritage) this number is still unable to satisfactory explain the low reportage of economic motivation. To this figure of 30.3%, one may tentatively add the percentage of those employed in occupations, such as guide services, archaeology, excavation and restoration (16.3%), which, while specific to the site, would be sought after due to intellectual motivations not subsumable to purely economic considerations. However, such a scenario is highly speculative, and would have to assess the economic opportunities of the entire valley in order to ascertain whether these positions could in fact be obtained without the employment generated by the site. A conclusion regarding this discrepancy between being employed at the zone and reporting this as a motivation for coming to Teotihuacan must be that ‘acquiescence bias’ plays an undetermined role, but that for individuals who earn or supplement a living by working at the zone, an interest in the archaeology and heritage of Teotihuacan, and not solely economic opportunity, greatly influences their decision to work there.

A look at another measurement of the intersection of visitation rates and interest indicates a deepening of engagement with Teotihuacan with increasing visits. Figure 7.17 displays the increasing levels of interaction with the zone’s edifying dimension. These levels are somewhat arbitrary, but they are based upon distinct areas of the site with differential amounts of displayed information in terms of volume, detail, and complexity. The ‘ceremonial center’, or centralized urban zone, is the most touristed portion consisting few signs and large ‘attractions’ – the temple complexes and pyramids along the main avenue. The palace compounds are more remote from the tourist parking lots and ceremonial center, and tend to be infrequently visited. They do, however, display more carefully excavated household contexts. The two principal museums are located, respectively, near the base of the pyramid of the sun and the pyramid of the moon, at a considerable distance from one another (about 1.5 kilometers). Obviously they display the greatest concentration of information and materials for visitors. The bar chart suggests that there is a moderately strong linear relationship between the number of visits and the greater likelihood that areas with more information are sought after – culminating in reporting that respondents visit, and are interested in, the entirety of the site. The moderate to substantial correlation coefficient of 0.361 (Table A2.15) confirms this linear association. While 44.7% of initial visitors tend to visit or express interest only in the ceremonial district, this percentage drops to 15.8% for those who have visited nine or more times. In sum, both visitation to, and depth of engagement with, the archaeological zone are substantial.

Figure 7.17: What area of site respondents are interested in by number of visits

This is particularly true with ‘workers’, who, as may be expected, demonstrate a far greater interest in, and visitation to, the entirety of the archaeological zone (Figure 7.18). However, this general pattern of visitation practices holds across the sub-groups of ‘students’, ‘workers’ and ‘visitors’. 56.2% of ‘workers’ who have visited the zone nine or more time report being primarily interested in all of the site. The only odd exception is the single respondent who reported never visiting the site yet expressed an interest in and ‘all of the site’. A vendedor, or wandering crafts seller, this local from San Martín also answered several other questions on the questionnaire with erratic responses. The response may be, then, erroneous, or it may allude to his status as an ‘unofficial’ (not licensed by INAH) vendedor. These frequencies for ‘workers’ contrast somewhat with the interest in just the ‘ceremonial center’ on the part of visitors (Figure A2.2). A third (31.1%) of all visitors who had on average visited the site less frequently (3-4 times for the majority) expressed greatest interest solely in the centralized zone. Yet even amongst visitors, the largest proportion had both visited nine or more times and expressed interest in knowing the entire site.

Figure 7.18: What area of site workers are interested in by number of visits

Positively these associated patterns should reinforce confidence with the remainder of the survey results, indicating a pronounced level of exposure on the part of respondents to the subject matter of the questionnaire. Yet overall, the results for determining why individuals come to Teotihuacan were somewhat disappointing. No unequivocal and pronounced relationships emerged between background attributes and motivations for being at Teotihuacan. While living in close proximity to the site, with the indirect influence of economic motivation, does influence frequency of visits, this is, at best, only a moderately strong factor. Moreover, while the factor of proximity influences visitors, students and workers, it is particularly relevant when combined with the intervening influence of economic benefit for those who work officially or unofficially at the site. Adding to the difficulty in clarifying the role of economics for visitation is the role that ‘acquiescence response’ bias played in the survey. Individuals, when asked directly about their reasons for visiting, simply did not acknowledge economic considerations. Part of the problem is with the research design itself, which demarcates too strongly between the various associations (such as economics and archaeology). What is already becoming clear is the inadequacy, much like that a research design looking for discreet associations, of thinking of an archaeological site as a substratum for the imposition of several or multiple conceptions. Archaeological material is not viewed as though through an archaeological, economic, diversionary or spiritual lens. Rather than this top-down viewing, attempting to sieve out the socially or politically determining factors or ‘diagnostics’, these associations are ‘mixed’ in the practices of the public at Teotihuacan. So that Teotihuacan, more properly conceived, forms a material node wherein various values and goals on the part of the public converge. And in this convergence, archaeological interest may drive economic considerations, or vice-versa, but not without considering the constraints of others’ alternate goals. It is this interaction, how various associations stabilize or disrupt one anther, which forms the stuff of heritage at an archaeological site. Each association and their inter-relationships will now be investigated in more detail.

Forward to Archaeological Associations

Containments

Return to Chapter 6: Inheritage: Design and Analytical Methods of a Case Study