• 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

Chapter 7

Social Actors in Archaeological Zones

It is possible to argue that the principal cause for the absence, inadequacy, or delay of archaeological conservation projects in Mexico is the lack of economic resources, a traditional argument for explaining inadequate development spending in the Third World. Nevertheless, field experience suggests other factors have equal or more weight in building community support for such projects. These factors in turn become significant in the formation and involvement of social groups in relation to heritage issues. Among the most important concerns:

1. the security of tenure over the land where one lives or works, with an individual or collective guarantee, independent of whether or not there are archaeological remains;
2. economic interests stemming from a view of archaeological sites as exploitable resources from the standpoint of tourist development;
3. political interests associated with the potential of these spaces as land for urban development, commercial transactions, or symbolic behavior;
4. institutional or personal interest in conserving archaeological sites within a specific organizational structure;
5. popular beliefs regarding the sacred qualities and character of the sites.

In short, efforts to conserve cultural heritage take place in the context of and must be understood with reference to interests represented by social groups with differing degrees of organization, who are inclined to defend their rights and interests. In many cases these groups find themselves in open opposition to the actions of institutions charged by law with the conservation of archaeological resources or those dedicated to the exploitation of those resources.

The organizational capacity of communities seeking to defend their customary or legal rights to ownership, possession, and use of land, as well as to defend their rights to economic exploitation of collective resources has been passed over or ignored in the preparation of "ideal" conservation projects by official experts and institutions. However, the consequence of this exclusion is that it has not been possible to secure the compliance which would make effective the presidential decrees of December 7, 1993, protecting Monte Alban and Mitla. We need to note the reason this organizational capacity tends to weigh in on the side of interests opposing conservation, protection, or rescue of cultural heritage is that such efforts tend to affect the interests enumerated above. Protecting archaeological resources generally means limiting generalized access to them and reducing individual opportunities for exploitation.

For this reason the current research takes as a methodological priority the study of organized social actors in order to under stand the nature of their interests vis-a-vis archaeological sites, levels and processes of organization, and their attitudes toward conservation, public institutions, and other factors affecting their behavior as a group. In turn this leads to the study both of groups identified with different points of view regarding conservation and of groups totally opposed or for whom conservation of archaeological heritage means nothing.

As used here the terms GROUP or SOCIAL GROUP refer a self-aware relationship of two or more people who share common goals, common motivations, some degree of interdependence, structured relationships, and mutual influence. By SOCIAL ACTOR I refer to a group which actively enters the public arena to articulate, advance, or defend group interests in relation to similar actions by others. Not all social groups are social actors but as we will see in this chapter, the shared sense that government actions create, undermine, promote, endanger, or otherwise affect group interests generates a tendency to move toward the category of "social actor", especially as groups come to understand the mechanisms and values which move decision-making. Here research centers on groups whose goals are related to the dynamics of conservation or destruction of the archaeological zones of Monte Alban and Mitla.

This is not an effort to engage in precise structural analysis or quantify patterns of behavior; at this point the primary concern is still description and plotting of groups in reference to the subject of archaeological conservation. For example, a major interest has to be their bases of power and influence, on the premise that by understanding these, either individually or in concert with other groups, we will be able to appreciate how they approach the contemporary context of archaeological heritage. Here we recognize groups as social actors according to their primary interests, keeping in mind that these interests may change over time, according to the nature of the issues, or group leadership. The analysis which follows is structured around the five concerns identified earlier, with particular attention to the first two due to their levels of development and complexity, and for their capacity to illuminate the utility of such research in fostering archaeological heritage protection.