• What's New?
• About SAA
• Careers, Opportunities,
  & Jobs in Archaeology
• Education
  • Archaeology for the Public
• Government Affairs
  • Repatriation
• Meetings
• Membership
  • Members' Section
• Publications
  • The SAA Press
• Public Relations
• SAA Marketplace

The conservation of cultural heritage as a responsibility of the archaeologist

A serious problem confronting government archaeology since its inception is the confusion, stubbornness, or self-serving convenience of treating the disciplines of archaeology and cultural heritage conservation as the same. In this sense government archaeology seeks compliance with the four basic tasks assigned by federal law: protection, conservation, research, and dissemination, tasks with clear legal definition. Nevertheless, neither the law nor archaeological theory argues these four legal responsibilities need to be implemented by a single professional…the archaeologist!

Returning again to historical experience and the origins of the Mexican School, the team assembled by Caso for the exploration of Monte Alban included Jorge R. Acosta, who effectively took over the direction of the reconstruction team. In other sites in the Valley of Oaxaca such as Yagul and Dainzu it was Ignacio Bernal who directed restoration, while in other sites restorations have been based on early architectural surveys by Ignacio Marquina. If they were all archaeologists they also shared the characteristic of having studied architecture or having demonstrated a special talent in this area. What I am trying to make clear here is that it is not sufficient to be an archaeologist to carry out—as if by magic—good restorations, or to guarantee the conservation or archaeological or historical heritage. My argument is that this field needs to be understood and respected as a specialty of archaeology and architecture, that as a discipline which has its own philosophy, methods, techniques, and theories (Brandi 1990; Chanfon 1988; Molina 1975; Schavelson 1990)and it should not be confused with the science of archaeology. This argument is hardly new, as at the international level a range of authors (Cleere 1989; Lipe 1984; McGimpsey and Davis 1977) have shown the difference and provided research leadership on the subject.

What I am arguing here is the need to recognize what is understood elsewhere in the world, that the topic of archaeological resources protection and management is a true specialization and merits respect for its content. This issue reappears in the next chapter. One can make much the same argument for dissemination, as apart from whether or not one is an archaeologist the individual with responsibility for dissemination should have the appropriate training in communications, museum studies, and conservation of cultural materials. Sadly even today we see the directorships or regional museums allocated as political "rewards" or offered to those without preparation or insight in dissemination as payment for political services rendered. This is a topic well worth exploring, but I will continue to center my analysis on the case of archaeological heritage conservation and restoration.

The methodological frameworks inherited from the Mexican School—the same ones we continue to use, although they are now outdated—compel us to think that a "normal" consequence of research on an archaeological project is that the restoration of great monuments should be the work of the dusty, suffering archaeologists engaged in the research itself. Nevertheless, few members of the non-academic public know, and perhaps even fewer in the world of archaeology think about, the lack of preparation among archaeologists to carry out work which forms part of a different discipline. While in Mexico both archaeology and archaeological conservation share an overlapping history, share research interests and respond to certain policy paradigms (Gandara 1992: 162), in practice they have clearly-differentiated methods and theories.

It is only necessary to review the program of study at the ENAH to appreciate the alarming lack of preparation in heritage conservation. For example, during four years of study the class of 1979 had but a single course on pre-Columbian architecture and nothing on building materials or construction systems, much less the theory, methods, and techniques of restoration. Some years later the ENAH developed an elective course in the restoration of pre-Columbian architecture. As of 1989 a student in the eighth semester of archaeology has to take a course in restoration and conservation, and another in resources management and archaeological law (ENAH 1989, 1995). The first course consists of sixty hours of coursework and is essentially a technical review of the physical aspects of deterioration (natural agents, construction materials, soils, packing materials), that is, it is focused on first aid for in situ conservation. The second course—which for the first time in history makes reference to resources management—is in fact designed to address the legal issues in archaeological heritage conservation and the structure of INAH (ENAH 1989: 75, 79). These courses, nevertheless, represent less than 5 percent of the courseload in the major, as preparation for carrying out activities which in one's professional life account for more than 50 percent of the time invested.

The same criticism might be made regarding preparation to deal with social issues associated with archaeological sites. Unfortunately the encounter in Mitla summarized in the first chapter shows clearly how archaeologists and conservarion professionals need to be prepared academically to deal with conflicts with and within communities. For this it is necessary to have a profound understanding of the elements and dynamics of the social setting which interact differently at each site. This knowledge should be acquired systematically as part of the specialization in anthropology, archaeology, or heritage conservation, as part of graduate study, or part of training programs for professionals most likely to need such preparation. At the very least it will facilitate communications between INAH personnel and other social actors, and it may avoid serious problems for INAH staff, the communities, and archaeological sites.

Nevertheless, on reviewing the program of graduate study at INAH's National School of Conservation, Restoration, and Museography, one sees it is very difficult to include anthropology or sociology courses which prepare students for a reality which will be a constant of professional practice. The experience of recent years has been focused on urban aspects and on conservation planning for monumental architecture—which represents a clear advance over earlier, strictly technical topics—(Diaz Berrio 1985, 1986). But it is still a long way from a systematic approach to the social elements and concerns shaping the day-to-day setting of heritage conservation planning and management.