• 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 National Institute of Anthropology and History as the official institution of conservation archaeology

The purpose of creating a single institution which concentrates control over exploration, conservation, and dissemination related to the archaeological and historical heritage of Mexico reflects the context of nationalization of significant natural and cultural resources which was the central political doctrine at the end of the 1930s. This policy characterized the presidency of Lazaro Cardenas, a period which also saw the nationalization of electricity and petroleum, among other resources. In addition it was consistent with a long tradition, dating from the colonial period, of centralizing administrative functions and authority to assure compliance with the wishes of national leaders.

Through the creation of the National Institute of Anthropology and History via a law dated 31 December 1938, to go into effect 3 February 1939 (Olive Negrete 1995: 33), the federal government took absolute control of the management and fate of cultural resources. The law reflected a long national experience in legislating the protection of archaeological and historical monuments (Arrillaga 1864; Lombardo 1988; Olive Negrete 1995). In practice this avoided the possibility that state, municipal, or local governments could issue permits to explore or loot archaeological sites, or that they could otherwise have decision power over the use of historical or archaeological monuments. Theoretically this avoided the "official" looting to which sites in the maya area had been subjected. In addition the federal government reserved for itself the right to decide how monuments and sites might be used, a consideration which initially represented, in part, an educational concern. The strong educational orientation of the formation of INAH can be seen in its location within the Secretary of Education. Specifically, the original functions of INAH were:

1. Exploration of the archaeological zones of the country;
2. The oversight, conservation, and restoration of archaeological, historical, and artistic properties of the country, together with all objects found therein;
3. Scientific and artistic research related to archaeology, history of Mexico, anthropology, and ethnography, particularly of the indigenous population;
4. Publication of materials related to research, exploration, and related activities (Olive Negrete 1995).

Although federal law reserved these functions to INAH, one concern was to encourage collaboration by state and local government for the purpose of research, protection, and dissemination of cultural heritage. With this in mind INAH early created regional centers in Jalisco, Puebla, Veracruz, and Yucatan. Regional museums were located in Guadalajars, Michoacan, Oaxaca, Queretaro, San Luis Potosi, and Villahermosa. A recent institutional history of INAH (Olive Negrete 1995) details its development and people taking key roles across time. Its focus reflects the centralized character of INAH, with its substantive functions concentrated in Mexico City (Figure 1). The regional centers were long so small they were little more than small appendices of the central INAH bureaucracy.

Figure 1.—INAH Organization Chart (Olivé 1995:89)

The original bureaus, like the contemporary directorates (at the time this text was written there were four—Archaeology, Historic Monuments, Museums, and Research—but post-1996 reorganizations of INAH have more than doubled this number), were located in different INAH buildings in the center of Mexico City. The professional and academic life of INAH likewise was concentrated in the city. At first, to respond to urgent calls advising of destruction or looting anywhere in the country it was necessary to send someone working in Mexico City. Similarly, to carry out research the team arrived from Mexico City, worked, and finally returned to its point of origin. The "normal" depository for archaeological finds would be the National Museum, in keeping with the substantive functions of research, protection, and dissemination of the archaeological heritage. Although the expansion of INAH's representation across Mexico through the creation of state offices means much of the protection and conservation activity has been decentralized, INAH's central administration in Mexico City still exerts strong influence over research through the project approval process and budget control.

Today archaeology is managed as one of the most important areas of the INAH, and there are those who consider it the "public face" of the Institute vis-a-vis national and international publics. Internally it is organized in pyramidal fashion with vertical decision-making. For example, the Directorate of Pre-Columbian Monuments might have under its responsibility the Department of Prehistory, which in turn would have the laboratories of geology, soils, or paleobotany. Over time the inevitable reorganizations have merged some units, created others, and redistributed functions and responsibilities. In the 1960s the Archaeological Salvage Section was created, but given its workload and significance eventually it was raised to a sub-directorate. Restoration of Cultural Heritage has also moved upward on the organization chart (Garcia Barcena 1995: 130). And there is the need for administrative structures and processes to handle the day-to-day flow of work: laboratories to run, public programming, conservation and maintenance of areas open to the public, reporting and documentation, planning, and all the other tasks. In the end the entire management structure depends on and is expected to serve the Federal Law on Archaeological, Artistic, and Historical Monuments and Zones (INAH 1980) and the Organic Law of INAH (INAH 1980), and their respective regulations.

Coordination and oversight of all archaeological projects carried out in Mexico, whether by INAH archaeologists, archaeologists from other institutions (e.g.,National Autonomous University of Mexico, University of Veracruz), or by foreign archaeologists engaged in research must pass through the Council of Archaeology. This is an advisory panel with academic and technical functions charged with establishing norms applicable to all archaeological research in the country (Garcia Barcena 1995). Before research begins all projects must receive Council approval, and on-going projects require periodic and final reports. Without Council support archaeological research is virtually impossible.

Today the Directorate for Archaeology provides INAH's overall policy and administrative guidance for the field. In turn it is divided into sub-directorates by specialties: Archaeological Studies, Underwater Archaeology, Academic Services, Public Registry, and Salvage Archaeology (Figure 2). The functions supported by these offices are those with operational implications at the state level, and the expectation is that the sub-directorates provide advice, support, and guidance when solicited. This top-down flow reinforces the general idea the INAH centers at the state level are fundamentally executors of decisions made at higher levels.

Figure 2.—Archaeological Coordination Division, INAH (Olivé 1995:89)

At the very base of the organizational pyramid lie the 136 archaeological zones open to the public. The zones, dependent on their respective state offices of INAH, are "…one of the principal means to make public the archaeological heritage and also to preserve it" (Garcia Barcena 1995: 135). Projects for research, conservation, maintenance, or dissemination in a zone most be approved by the Council of Archaeology in terms of their substance, while budget approval must come from the Directorate of Archaeology and the Administrative Secretary. The archaeological zones collect admissions fees paid by visitors but turn them over to the Secretary of Finance, which then redistributes such income in the form of salaries to INAH workers or to finance projects. Unfortunately this arrangement does not always guarantee that a zone generating income will receive the minimum necessary for its operations and cleaning during the year.