• 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 Preparation of Specialists

Academic programs such as those at the University of Nevada at Reno or the University of Victoria in Canada, which offer complete graduate programs in the specialty of Cultural Resources Management, reinforce awareness in those countries about this concern. It is clear the preparation of specialists in the conservation and management of archaeological sites is an urgent necessity in the Mexican context. This is true not only in terms of the academic importance of being current on new areas of research opening up around the world, but because of the tremendous loss of cultural material through the absence of management plans and programs which assure the integrity of archaeological heritage in its natural and cultural setting. As we have seen, the two principal causes of such losses are the overexploitation of archaeological sites through unmanaged mass tourism and land use decisions incompatible with the goal of conservation.

This specialty, which I propose naming Management of Archaeological Resources, should constitute a new profession in Mexico covering the pressing necessities of organizing, planning, researching, and regulating the uses of cultural heritage. Based on Mexico's long history of solid legislation on cultural heritage (Gertz Manero 1976; Bernal 1979; INAH 1980; Litvak 1980; Lombardo 1988), and on the equally long experience developed in the field of conservation and restoration, this specialty would have its own focus. This would be defined in part by the search for feasible planning solutions to the interaction of social actors and groups competing for access to archaeological resources. In this sense the broadest configuration of the new specialty would share the general format suggested by Cleere (1989), which includes four basic elements:

1. An emphasis on methods and techniques to optimize the results of salvage archaeology, as the modern world increasingly obliges us to deal with fragmented sites in danger of disappearing. Governments are less and less willing to finance "pure" research projects, and institutions responsible for development infratructure feel obligated to pay for only that research which clears the area affected by their own projects (e.g., electricity transmission lines, pipelines, highways, or irrigation projects).
2. Training in land use planning, with the ultimate objective that all infrastructure projects be subject to review by people properly trained to mitigate to the maximum the impact of modern development on archaeological sites. Archaeologists, just like other professionals involved in preservation, ought to understand the planning strategies for different land uses in different parts of the country.
3. An understanding of institutional context, as a challenge for this specialty will be to accomplish effective interactions and common policies which benefit the activities and interests of all. One of the most important elements for a resources management specialist (natural or cultural) is to understand both the internal organization of institutions which affect the subject area, and the web of external relations which create its environment. In this sense, as we have seen in the cases summarized here, it is critical to change the tendency to leave to political appointees the management of policies which affect archaeological heritage. In the same sense it is urgent to train specialists able to design and manage the implementation of these policies.
4. The importance of constant updating of knowledge related to techniques and ethics of conservation, of the philosophies governing criteria to be applied in each case, and a commitment to participation in international meetings on this subject, interchanging ideas with colleagues confronting similar problems (Cleere 1989: 12-13).

However, this does not imply simply copying the systems of advanced countries and transferring them to Mexico, a practice which in other fields has proven to be clearly damaging. Nor does it mean that those who have not studied this specialty in the first world are out of context, as Cleere has suggested (Cleere 1989: 15). In any case it means trying to take advantage of those elements which will be useful in dealing with the specific issues found at the local, state, and national levels, as we have seen through-out this study. And it means trying to adapt those elements most useful to dealing with the issues we face at the national, state, and local levels, such as those addressed in the course of this study.

In this respect I find myself in agreement with the position taken by authors from developing countries such as Raj Isar (1986), who recognize our countries are in the process of developing a real ethic of cultural heritage conservation while caught up in policies which openly favor interests which consider economic development as an ultimate objective (Raj Isar 1986: 27). From our position of marginality in the world system, only by using and reclaiming our heritage can we hope to aspire to a better future. Using materials and experience available in our immediate surroundings may offer practical, more economic solutions to problems than attempting to import them from other contexts. For example, this means giving greater attention to community participation in the processes of destruction and conservation of archaeological heritage, and in the organizational capacity demonstrated by community social actors. Both of these merit much more professional attention than current practice accepts.