Privatising the Public Past:The Economics of

Archaeological Heritage Management

Daniel D. Kreutzer, University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee,
Wisconsin, United States

ABSTRACTS

Resumen: Los yacimientos prehisp~nicos de Canada de la Virgen y Teoti-

huacan, en M~jico, se hayan en el centro de una contienda que mantienen ac-
tualmente la arqueologia publica, el estado y los intereses privados. Las leyes
que protegen el patrimonio cultural de M~xico estan siendo pasadas por alto
por las polfticas de privatizaciOn que imponen un valor economico a los
yacimientos arqueolOgicos argumentando que deben aportar un beneficio
econ6mico. Las obtigaciones de los gobiernos nacionales hacia los yacimien-
tos arqueologicos estan siendo socavadas a medida que aumenta el riesgo de
privatizacion de los yacimientos. El pOblico se halla cada vez mas desam-
parado cuando el gobierno, que custodia el patrimonio arqueologico, pone el
pasado a la venta. Como evidencian los conflictos de Canada de la Virgen y
0
0
Teotihuacan estos temas van m~s alia de Io local, ya que afectan a la globali-
tN
dad. Los arque61ogos, responsables de proteger el pasado, deben desarrollar
una estrategia para frenar esta tendencia, basandose en un mensaje clara-
O~
mente articulado que transmita la urgencia de la crisis que amenaza a los
yacimientos arqueol6gicos.
rN

Resume: Les sites pr~-hispaniques du Caffada de la Virgen et Teotihuacan au

Mexique sont au centre d'une lutte continuelle entre I'arch~ologie publique,
I'~tat et les int~r~ts prives. Les lois prot~geant I'h~ritage culturel du Mexique
rN
sont detourn~es par des programmes de privatisation qui imposent une valeur
economique sur les sites archeologiques, avec pour but de r~aliser un profit fin-
ancier. Les devoirs des gouvernements envers les sites archeologiques sont
sap,s alors que les sites sont de plus en plus abandonnes aux aleas des
d~veloppeurs priv~s. Le public perd ses droits de concession Iorsque les gou-
vernements, agissant en tant que gardiens du patrimoine culturel permettent
,,,,,,I
la vente du passe. Les conflits du Canada de la Virgen et Teotihuac~n d~mon-
trent bien que ces probl~mes vont au-dela de la communaut~ locale ~ la com-
munaut@ mondiale. Les archeologues a quiil est donne de prot~ager le pass~
~C
doivent d~velopper une strat~gie pour aller ~ I'encontre de ces tendances,

52
 The Economics of Archaeological Heritage Management 53

strat~agie bas~e sur un message clair portant sur I'urgence de la crise qui men-
ace les sites arch~ologiques.
De nos jours, les sites archeologiques encourent de plus en plus de risques
aux mains des gouvernements. Les programmes economiques de privatisation
menacent la perte des droits du public sur son propre pass& Ce pass~ est un
capital symbolique pour le public. Pourtant, c'est le gouvernement qui profite
de I'~change de ce capital symbolique contre un capital economique.
Cettecommunication illustre deux etudes recentes Lamanant du Mexique oO
ont lieu de tels ~changes. L'~tude de ces cas se termine par un appel aux
archeologues pour travailler plus activement avec le peuple en vue de pro-
t~ger le pass&

Archaeological sites worldwide are increasingly at risk from national govern-

ments. The economics of privatisation policies threaten to disenfranchise the
public from its own past. The past serves as symbolic capital for the public, yet
it is the government that benefits from the exchange of this symbolic capital
for economic capital. This article illustrates two recent case studies from Mex-
ico, where this exchange is occurring in related, albeit differing, ways. The
study then concludes with a charge to archaeologists to work actively with the
public in protecting the past.

The Cafiada de la Virgen Project

The Cafiada de la Virgen Project was a pilot project for the National Institute
for Anthropology and History (INAH) in Guanajuato State, Mexico, con-
ducted from 1983 to 2000. The site at the Cafiada de la Virgen contains several
pre-Hispanic, colonial, and present-day features, including a pre-Hispanic
ceremonial center (Nieto Gamifio 1997). In 1996 the ceremonial center was
selected for excavation and restoration, as part of a plan to develop it for
tourism. An architect was hired to formulate plans for such structures as a
parking lot and other tourist facilities. The plan was to place these buildings
at some distance away from the site so that visitors would have to walk to the
pyramid and thus would be more impressed by what they saw. It should be
noted that the tourist base was conceived of as catering more along the lines
to school groups and organised tours rather than individual visitors making
their way to the site alone. The project archaeologists were also in the process
of training representatives from the hotels and travel agencies in the history of
the site in the hopes of making them sensitive to the rules and special care
needed for the local environment.
The project team worked with the local community from the earliest stages
of the project. The project was financed by private donations and public fund-
ing. It was agreed that in exchange for public money, the project would
54 DANIEL D. KREUTZER

eventually be developed as a key element of the local tourist industry. The first
years of the project were dedicated to clearing vegetation and doing some pre-
liminary restoration of the pyramid. Some damage had been caused by the
passage of time, looters, and the property owner's cattle. Excavations began in
earnest in 1996, and from 1995 to 1999 the project received nearly two million
pesos in public monetary funds (Don Patterson, personal communication 8
August 2004). In addition, the local community donated equipment and
clothing, and local businesses granted credit and discounts to the crew for the
purchase of equipment and supplies.
From the beginning, the project crew was engaged in active dialogue with
the public, the government, and the owner of the property at the time. The
needs of the property owner were addressed by such issues as the placement
of the tourist facilities and road construction for access to the site. The ar-
chaeologists set up a number of meetings in San Miguel de Allende. They cre-
ated an exhibit in the San Miguel de Allende Museum for the purpose of
showing the community what they had discovered at the site and also held
several meetings at the museum to inform the public about the project and
keep them updated. Government involvement was sought from the commu-
nity level to the state and national governments. Although this was a local
INAH project, the archaeologists met with the directors of Pre-Hispanic Mon-
uments and Colonial Monuments and obtained their support for the project.
In 1996 Guanajuato Governor Vicente Fox pledged to match the project's
funding, peso for peso.
In 1999 the property was sold. Meetings were set up to acquaint the new
owner with the project and the interested parties involved. Despite Mexican
law and the public money that had been dedicated to the project, the new
owner determined that she was the proprietor of the site and therefore had
control over the project. She then suspended excavations and prevented access
to the site by the project archaeologists. It was suggested by others that the only
means of protecting the site and the community's investment in it would be
through appropriation. Although the city attempted to appropriate the prop-
erty, the case never made any headway in the courts, and the issue still remains
unresolved. Continued excavations at the Cafiada de la Virgen site might have
provided further information on the pre-Hispanic history of the area.

W a l - M a r t at T e o t i h u a c ~ i n

This case can be contrasted with the recent news concerning the construction
of a Wal-Mart at Teotihuac~in, a site that was inscribed on the UNESCO World
Heritage List in 1987. Technically, the store, which opened early in November
2004, is a subsidiary of Wal-Mart called Bodega Aurrer~i, and it is not precisely
at Teotihuac~in itself but at the nearby present-day community of San Juan de
 The Economics of Archaeological Heritoge Management 55

Teotihuac~tn. Nevertheless, Wal-Mart, INAH, and the local government have

been accused of corruption and misleading the public. It has been claimed
that construction began illegally, before an archaeological impact study could
be done. It is true that the construction project was approved in the absence
of any public meetings, and it is equally true that some archaeological evi-
dence has already been discovered during the construction process (McKinley
2004; Ross 2005). The exact nature of these features and artefacts is disputed,
however, by opponents who challenge the official stance taken by INAH's ar-
chaeologists (McKinley 2004).
It is also true that Wal-Mart is now the largest private employer in Mexico,
with over 700 stores that employ more than 112,000 employees. On the other
hand, the presence of a Wal-Mart store tends to have a negative impact on the
business of local merchants, Of course, Wal-Mart's position is that the store
brings jobs to the community and offers cheap prices for basic goods (McKin-
ley 2004; Ross 2005). Naturally, these prices are cheaper than those found in
the local marketplace. Opposition to the store seems to come mainly from in-
tellectuals and local merchants, where the latter fear losing their iobs while the
former fear loss of heritage; on the other hand, the local public seems to be
more interested in one-stop shopping and the ability to make purchases using
credit cards (Ross 2005). According to one of the local vendors, "the ruins and
us go together. We are part of this culture" (McKinley 2004:4). While this may
not explicitly be an instance of privatising archaeological sites, it is indicative
of how the Mexican government's neoliberal agenda can have and has had an
impact o n Mexico's heritage resources, including its archaeological sites.

Archaeological Sites in Mexico

INAH estimates that there are over 110,000 historic monuments and 200,000
archaeological sites in Mexico, along with 107 museums, and INAH bears the
burden of responsibility for all of these. Several laws defining and protecting
archaeological and historical sites in Mexico predated INAH's creation, in
1939. In 1897, for example, the first law was passed that made all archaeologi-
cal sites national property, and their protection and custody were the responsi-
bility of the federal government. This position was reiterated in a new law
passed in 1933, which added that it was the duty of private owners of the ar-
chaeological heritage to register their property with the government. In light of
this, one must consider the expense and effort involved for the Mexican gov-
ernment in maintaining these sites. Additionally, one should also reflect on the
differences between the consistent funding and support for the Cafiada de la
Virgen project and the accusations of corruption at San Juan de Teotihuac~n.
Certainly there are significant differences between the Cafiada de la Virgen
site and the World Heritage Site of Teotihuac~in. Teotihuac~in is arguably the
56 DANIEL D. KREUTZER

most visited of all of the pre-Hispanic sites in Mexico, and excavations there
began decades ago, whereas the Cafiada de la Virgen project is of more recent
origin and never had the opportunity to be developed as a tourist attraction.
Nevertheless, the level of community support for further development at
Teotihuac~in has not been sought after in the same way that it was at Cafiada
de la Virgen. As heritage tourism grows in popularity worldwide, heritage pro-
fessionals need the cooperation of local communities for continued access to
resources (Slick 2002). Additionally, economic motivations are in operation at
both sites, albeit for different reasons. San Miguel de Allende was seeking to
improve its economic condition through archaeological tourism, whereas
Teotihuac~in, already a site known for its tourism, sought improved access to
less expensive goods. Both sites demonstrate two sides of the current eco-
nomic conditions in Mexico.
The period from 1917 to 1982 marked a time of intensive and extensive
government intervention in the Mexican economy. This began with govern-
ment control over such industries as banking, petroleum, and the railroads,
but by the 1970s the government was also assuming ownership of failing busi-
nesses. The public sector expanded further throughout the 1970s and into the
1980s through increasing government expenditures. The federal government
was not only involved in regulating the economy but was also an active par-
ticipant in the production of goods and services. In fact, by constitutional law,
the state was obligated to pursue these policies in the interests of national de-
velopment (MacLeod 2004).
In 1983 the situation began to change. The state could no longer afford to
participate in the various industries it was now a part of. Mexico began privati-
sation in earnest, cutting back dramatically the scale of its involvement in the
production of goods and services. The plan was to improve the economy by
eliminating the enormous drain on the state's resources and by increasing effi-
ciency in those industries that had previously been owned by the state, the as-
sumption being that private ownership would take more appropriate measures
to improve the profitability of these industries, whereas the state's main concern
had been with protecting jobs (MacLeod 2004). While one may argue pro and
con the appropriateness of privatising such industries as petroleum or telecom-
munications, the state (and not just in the case of Mexico) still has obligations
to the public that it serves that ideally should not be sold for profit, namely, cul-
tural patrimony and the public past (Hamilakis and Yalouri 1996; Skeates 2000).

Places That Have Meaning:

Assessing Global and National Significance
The World Heritage Convention was adopted by the UNESCO in 1972. For
UNESCO this statute covers both natural and cultural heritage; for the pur-
 The Economics of Archaeological Heritage Management 57

poses of this article, we focus on its cultural heritage category. By cultural her-
itage, UNESCO means "monuments, groups of buildings and properties with
historical, aesthetic, archaeological, scientific, ethnological or anthropological
value" so long as they are "of outstanding value to humanity" UNESCO is
therefore interested in cultural patrimony as a global phenomenon and not as
an issue in local identity politics. Individually, these places are all examples of
local landscapes and as such are meaningful to the local community in ways
that may be quite different from their significance for the global community.
This produces a tension between the universal global and the particular local
definition of spatial significance that is also present in the Teotihuac~in versus
Cafiada de la Virgen comparison (Little 2002).
The World Heritage Commission reviews sites for inclusion on the World
Heritage List. As of 2004 there were 788 sites inscribed on the list, of which
611 are considered cultural sites and 23 are mixed cultural and natural sites.
The commission has some basic criteria for consideration of inclusion in the
list, which are essentially that the site must "be a masterpiece of creative ge-
nius; have exerted great architectural influence; be associated with ideas or be-
liefs of universal significance; or it may be an outstanding example of a
traditional way of life that represents a certain culture." The site does not have
to meet all of these criteria, but it must meet at least one of them. Addition-
ally, the site must be "authentic" and have "integrity" (Fowler 2004:5).
Peter Fowler (2004) admits that these are difficult terms to define, although
they are "relatively easy to recognize" when seen (5). An authentic site with in-
tegrity would generally be viewed as one with minimal development, either
on-site or nearby, that is relatively structurally sound, although reconstruc-
tion, done properly, is allowable. Certainly, one could view the construction of
a Wal-Mart-type store at Teotihuac~in as a situation that could potentially di-
minish both the authenticity and the integrity of the site. Construction within
one of Teotihuac~n's archaeological zones threatens previously unknown fea-
tures of the site, and increased commercial traffic could also be damaging to
the site's integrity. The mere presence of a large modern-day store in close
proximity to the site would definitely detract from the overall aesthetics of
Teotihuac~in.
While the inclusion of particular sites on the World Heritage List may be
politically motivated, the World Heritage Commission has certain expecta-
tions that should ideally be met by those states seeking inclusion on the list.
Some of these expectations are rather abstract and are more a reflection of the
philosophy behind the concept of a World Heritage List than they are indica-
tive of the concrete needs behind maintaining these sites. For example, the
commission expects the site to have "outstanding universal value" and to "re-
flect a specific spiritual relation to nature." There is, of course, no way to
specifically define what "outstanding universal value" means, and the case
could probably be made for most sites that they embody this value in some
58 DANIEL D. KREUTZER

way. Fortunately, the commission does have other criteria for potential appli-
cants to meet.
For our purposes, the most important of these is that the state actually has
the means to manage the site, that it has a management plan in place for do-
ing so, and that the public will have access to the site. These could be consid-
ered both positive and negative criteria. While it is positive in that the state is
required to effectively manage the site, this criterion is also negative because
many states may not have the resources necessary for management, and there-
fore their sites might not be included on the World Heritage List. However, if
one looks at the list, or at least at the states represented on it, one finds that a
sizable number of underdeveloped nations are in fact represented, even
though developed nations, particularly those in Europe, are decidedly over-
represented. Curiously, the United States is rather underrepresented, given its
cultural history, overall size, and wealth. Unfortunately, despite this require-
ment, the World Heritage Commission does not have the ability to enforce
management and protection of these sites; that task is left to the state itself.
When exploring how places have meaning, it can be difficult to keep
abreast of the various phrases and terms. By focussing on the local and ignor-
ing, for the moment, the global, we encounter the concept of the local land-
scape as a traditional cultural property (TCP) (King 2003). A TCP is a place
that has significance for the local community, although it may be meaningless
for the regional, national, or global community. This is in direct opposition to
UNESCO's position of defining a World Heritage Site as having universal or
global importance. This means that, while a World Heritage Site may also be
a TCP, a TCP will not necessarily qualify as a World Heritage Site. For exam-
ple, Teotihuac~n is listed with the World Heritage Centre, but a place like the
Cafiada de la Virgen would not qualify, because its meaning is more restricted
to the local community.
Does this mean that the Cafiada de la Virgen does not "count;' that it is
somehow less significant than Teotihuac~n? The answer depends on the con-
text of the question. Certainly in terms of global heritage, Teotihuac~n may
very well be a more obvious example of pre-Columbian art and architecture
than the more remote, less-developed site of the Cafiada de la Virgen. For the
local community, however, both Teotihuac~n and the Cafiada de la Virgen site
hold a great deal of meaning. The issue is not primarily one of unbroken cul-
tural continuity but how the local communities connect with these places as
symbols of their own identities. That economic factors might be a prime force
of motivation, such as through tourism, is irrelevant. Even UNESCO recog-
nises that World Heritage Sites can be useful for promoting both tourism and
national identity (Fowler 2004).
Unfortunately, there is no clearly defined means of assessing the signifi-
cance that any given archaeological site may hold. Part of this problem stems
from the fact that every nation has its own standards and protocols regarding
 The Economics of Archaeological Heritage Management 59

the importance of archaeological sites and how these should be managed

(Pickard 2001). Another substantial obstacle toward determining significance
lies in the ambiguity of what is meant by a site's significance. That decision
could be based on any number of factors, the least of which being the age of
the site, the types and amount of artefacts recovered, or even its overall re-
search potential (Lynott t 980). Mark Lynott (1980) also notes that "signifi-
cance is not a static, universally applicable set of values," which only adds to
the difficulty (120).
Although hardly claiming to be the definitive word in determining signifi-
cance, for the purposes of this article the remainder of this section mainly fo-
cuses on how other national governments perceive site significance. While all
developed nations face similar issues regarding the preservation and protec-
tion of cultural resources, as mentioned, there are no universal, coherent stan-
dards of practise, not just from nation to nation, but frequently within each
individual nation itself. The discussion that follows is restricted to just a few
of the more prominent examples, which should not be taken to be indicative
of the world as a whole. This is more in the interest of space rather than in giv-
ing primacy to this particular position, which is only one of many. However,
as these cases are drawn from North America, Europe, and Australia, they
could be viewed as typifying the kinds of issues that the national governments
of the so-called developed nations face, including in particular the govern-
ment of Mexico. Certainly, developing nations are also grappling with these
concerns, albeit in other ways (Brent 1996).
In the United States, the National Register, under the supervision of the
National Park Service, is the official list of all significant sites, both prehistoric
and historic (National Park Service 1991). To be eligible for inclusion on the
National Register, a site must demonstrate significance through association
with particular historic events or important people, possess distinctive physi-
cal characteristics, or have the potential to provide important information
about the past, and the site must be at least 50 years of age and possess par-
ticular qualities of integrity (National Park Service 1991). The National Reg-
ister is designed to protect public and privately held properties. The federal
government has additional responsibilities under the National Historic
Preservation Act, which outlines the government's stewardship role toward
the federal properties it manages. However, a recent study by the Advisory
Council for Historic Preservation (2001) found that no federal agency meets
all of the requirements established by the act. The advisory council's report
suggests that inadequate funding and the lack of a clear understanding of his-
toric preservation by agencies are much to blame.
Not so many years ago, the Australian government actively pursued a pol-
icy of limiting the rights of the public to question how the government man-
aged natural and heritage resources. The assumption was that, as a
representative government, the Australian government was capable of acting
60 DANIEL D. KREUTZER

in the public's best interests without actually needing to engage in a dialogue

with the public over what those interests actually were (Bonyhady 1993). To-
day the public has many more rights in the decision-making process, although
the government tends to treat those resources in ways that are largely incon-
sistent overall (Bonyhady 1993). Added to the confusion is the contradictory
position that the government frequently holds regarding how the Aboriginal
heritage should be conserved (Lewin 1984). Tim Bonyhady (1993) caustically
points out that in Australia the "government cannot be trusted to protect even
those areas identified as the common heritage of mankind" (146). Therefore,
the issue of significance in Australia is one that is perhaps needlessly over-
complicated by socioeconomic factors.
The French government recently passed a law designed to protect all ar-
chaeological sites, although its implementation remains in question (Audouze
2001). Previously, the French position was that rescue archaeology fell into the
category of public works proiects and, as such, were subject to the caprices of
the market. In response to protests by public and university archaeologists, the
French government drafted and passed a new law that reaffirmed "that [all]
archaeology was a research activity;' wherein the government acknowledged
its responsibility for the protection of the past. In fact, a counterproposal was
briefly debated, and ultimately rejected, that would bring all archaeological
sites into the public domain, following the Scandinavian model (Audouze
2001). Nevertheless, the current law makes all sites significant, at least to some
degree, and forces the government to be more aware of its responsibilities to
the national patrimony.
The site of Stonehenge, perhaps a textbook example of a site with diverse
levels of significance, serves as an illustration of the sometimes bizarre ways in
which the public past is regarded in England. Stonehenge arguably holds a
place of prominence as a place of symbolic meaning to England in much the
same manner as Teotihuac~n does in Mexico. As for managing the site, Eng-
lish Heritage is in charge of the site itself, while the National Trust is respon-
sible for 1,500 acres of land surrounding the site (Bender 1998). As Barbara
Bender (1998) puts it, English Heritage and the National Trust "own" the site
"in the interests of the nation" (116-117). On the other hand, when members
of that nation attempt to access the site as part of its ongoing significance to
them, the result is the debacle of the summer solstice of 1985 (Chippindale
1986). There can be a tyranny to preserving the past in such a way that it ef-
fectively disenfranchises the public as effectively as if the site was sold to pri-
vate interests.
The status of archaeological sites in Europe is probably in a state of flux
currently. As the nations in Europe seek to consolidate themselves more se-
curely into the European Union, issues such as the laws defining how heritage
management is practised will come to the forefront. The French example
would appear to be moderately placed between Scandinavia at one end and
 The Economics of Archaeological Heritage Management 61

the minimalist laws of the United Kingdom at the other (Audouze 2001). The
question is, which way will the EU go in the future? Will there be a recogni-
tion that the protection of the past is a national or, in this case, a transnational
responsibility, or will the potential short-term economic gains of privatising
the past hold sway? The future of archaeology globally may very well be de-
cided by events in Europe.
The situation in Mexico serves perhaps as a warning to the rest of the
world, most notably to the EU, about some of the pitfalls involved in assessing
site significance. As of 2004, Mexico has a healthy collection of 24 sites on the
World Heritage List, out of the more than 300,000 sites and monuments
recognised by INAH, not including Mexico's parks, preserves, and other nat-
ural resources. World heritage notwithstanding, all sites in Mexico are consid-
ered to be significant because the national government is recognised as legally
owning all objects and sites of cultural patrimony. With ownership comes re-
sponsibility, and in Mexico that responsibility includes not just recognising
and cataloguing sites but conserving and developing them in the interests of
the public, which has become a financial burden to the government. Thus far
it would appear that privatisation has failed when sites like the Cafiada de la
Virgen are closed to the public and economic motivations override concern
for preserving the past at Teotihuac~in.

Protecting the Past

What, then, are some of the practical ramifications of recognising that places,
particularly archaeological sites, have significance? How do we protect these
places for the future, particularly when their political protection is at times
uncertain? These are difficult questions to answer. There seems to be a general
consensus that these places need protection, but there is little advice on how
to protect them (Fowler 2004; King 2003). Thomas King (2003) does suggest
that it should be the responsibility of professionals in cultural resource man-
agement to try to "make the cultural concerns of all communities the center-
piece of our practice" (129). There may not be a consensus within the
community as to what these concerns are, but nevertheless it would be far bet-
ter for archaeologists to attempt a dialogue with local communities rather
than to ignore them (Little 2002).
One alternative to state stewardship is the private organisation dedicated to
preserving cultural patrimony, which on the face of it would be further pri-
vatising the past. However, there are ways to accomplish preservation without
overt privatisation. In the United States, the Archaeological Conservancy was
formed in 1979 as a nonprofit organisation "dedicated to acquiring and pre-
serving the best of our nation's remaining archaeological sites" According to
the conservancy, it has acquired more than 290 sites across the country. The
62 DANIEL D. KREUTZER

main goal of the conservancy is to protect sites from development by holding

these properties until such time as they can be excavated, if excavations are not
already ongoing (Ford 1983). In 1981, Mark Barnes (1981 ) stated that the con-
servancy had no intention of actually curating its sites, preferring instead to
leave that task to some other group or agency; that is, rather than rely on pri-
vate organisations to manage the past, the conservancy chose to assist the pub-
lic by privately acquiring sites that would then be transferred back to the
public. Although a few of the Archaeological Conservancy's properties have
been incorporated into national and state parks, it is unclear how successful
the organisation has been overall in assigning control of its properties to gov-
ernmental agencies or universities. It is true that the conservancy has been
steadily acquiring sites with funds derived from memberships, donations,
fund-raising activities, and foundations.
The closest analogue to the Archaeological Conservancy in the United
Kingdom is Rescue, the British Archaeological Trust. Rescue's goals are more
far reaching than those of the Archaeological Conservancy, however. The or-
ganisation seeks to take a more active role in protecting the past through such
initiatives as better funding and employment opportunities for archaeologists.
Rescue is also concerned with maintaining museums and their curation of
artefacts. Although Rescue does not appear to have site acquisition as one of
its goals, clearly the organisation views site preservation as an essential func-
tion of government.
It remains to be seen whether these endeavours in the United States and the
United Kingdom will be successful or not. Each organisation attempts to pro-
tect the past using different methods; while the Archaeological Conservancy is
working within the present system, Rescue is trying to effect legislative
changes. Further inquiry into their methods and goals is needed, but some
preliminary concerns and questions can be asked. For the conservancy, how
are sites selected for acquisition? Not every site can or should necessarily be
saved, so what criteria are used to determine site significance? What happens
to a site if no organisation accepts responsibility for it? Additionally, working
within the system means fewer available resources for changing that system. If
acquisition of a significant site is unsuccessful, then what? With the current
laws that are in place, private development of these sites could be carried out
in ways that violate the principle of stewardship of the public past.
By the same token, what steps are being taken by Rescue to ensure that
proper archaeological methods are in place at sites that are currently under
private development? It takes time and resources to bring about changes in
legislation, which places all of its hopes in the future. What is being done for
the present? By focussing on museums, archaeology, and all of the profession-
als within these fields, might Rescue be spreading itself too thin? How does the
organisation assign priority to its concerns? What is it willing to give up in or-
der to advance its agenda? Ideally, a combination of each organisation's goals
 The Economics of Archaeological Heritage Manugement 63

would be best suited to preserving the past, but limited resources and mem-
bers make this a truly daunting task.
Above all else, communication with the local community is probably the
m o s t important task that archaeologists need to undertake. Certainly, there is
little excuse for not attempting to do so. The least that archaeologists can do
is educate the public about the importance of the archaeological record and
the need for protecting and preserving the past. There have been reported suc-
cesses in Ecuador and Peru, where archaeologists have communicated this
need to the local communities (Howell 1996; Renfrew 2000). Of course, there
is more to this than simple education; communities need to be convinced that
it is to their economic benefit and best interest in other ways to protect sites,
for example, through the increased tourism that those sites may generate.
As long as viable alternatives are not in place, sites will continue to be at
risk of destruction. In this case, education may actually prove to be harmful,
if individuals within the local community are convinced that artefacts from
the sites might be valuable. Additionally, without legislation in place to pro-
tect these sites or to prosecute those who violate them, sites are further en-
dangered. The extensive looting and vandalism of Slack Farm, Kentucky, in
1987 is illustrative of this particular threat (Arden 1989). The positive out-
come of this case was that it brought some of these problems to the attention
of the general public and effected changes in legislation in several states re-
garding looting and site destruction.

"The Ruins and Us Go Together"

As we can see, in Mexico, as elsewhere, people have a tendency to associate

themselves with particular places. The aforementioned quote, "The ruins and
us go together;' is significant because the community may be imagined, but it
is nonetheless rooted in very real places. In Mexico, archaeological projects
sponsored by INAH are by extension state-sponsored pro)ects. It would seem
to be an ideal situation when the archaeologists are willing and able to work
with the local community, as at the Cafiada de la Virgen site. When archaeol-
ogy is viewed as being a tool of private interests, as in the case of the con-
struction of a Wal-Mart store at Teotihuac~n, there can be conflict with the
public. Never mind how far removed that public in 2004 is from the height of
Teotihuac~in in the first centuries CE; they identify with it because it has
meaning for them (King 2003). When they feel betrayed by the government
and, by extension, those archaeologists employed by the government, those
feelings are quite real to them.
Archaeology has, in this modern age, frequently been called to task regard-
ing its colonialist roots (Trigger 1984). At Teotihuac~in (and throughout Mex-
ico) we see the new colonialism of the global economy through the incursion
64 DANIEL D. KREUTZER

of Wal-Mart and similar institutions. At the Cafiada de la Virgen site, there

were underlying economic motivations for developing the site for tourism.
Minimally, development of the site was advantageous for the property owner,
as the state and local governments paid to have a road upgraded through the
property, which increased its value. It is extremely unlikely that the project
would have received the funding it did if tourism had been rejected as a pos-
sibility for the site. In both of these cases, the economic needs of the local
community came first; it was only at the Cafiada de la Virgen site that the ar-
chaeology of the place was given proper attention, at least for a while.
It has been noted elsewhere that the past and, by extension, the archaeolog-
ical record serve as symbolic capital that can then be exchanged "for economic
capital.., or for national profit" (Hamilakis and Yalouri 1996:119). What has
gone unsaid about the presence of a Wal-Mart-affiliated store located near a
major tourist attraction is its impact on the tourists. Will American tourists
find the familiar presence of the store comforting, or will they disdain its exis-
tence against the backdrop of antiquity? The local government of San Miguel
de Allende attempted to cash in on the symbolic capital of the Cafiada de la
Virgen site for its use as a tourist attraction, but just how far was the commu-
nity willing to go to promote it? Would the location of a Wal-Mart there ulti-
mately be welcomed? Unfortunately, these are questions that can only be
answered once sufficient time has passed.

Condusion

Given these circumstances, it seems clear that archaeologists need to work

harder on two tasks (possibly more, but this would be a start). The first is to
remind governments of their responsibilities as stewards of the public past.
INAH's mission explicitly states that the government is responsible for all as-
pects of cultural patrimony, yet in each of these cases, this obligation ended up
falling by the wayside, a victim to economic pressures. The second is to involve
the local community to a much greater extent in archaeological projects. Ar-
chaeologists will more usually be working in areas where they are not neces-
sarily insiders; nevertheless, the attempt must be made to make the public an
active part of the site. When governments are allowed to conveniently forget
their duties and archaeologists cannot be bothered to reach out to the public,
everybody loses out in the long run.

References Cited
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
2001. Caringfor the Past, Managingfor the Future: FederalStewardship and America's
HistoricLegacy.AdvisoryCouncil on Historic Preservation,Washington, DC.
 The Economics of Archaeological Heritage Management 65

Arden, H.
1989. Who Owns Our Past? National Geographic 175:376-393.
Audouze, F.
2001. A New Rescue Archaeology Law in France. European Archaeologist 15:4-8.
Barnes, M.R.
1981. Preservation of Archaeological Sites through Acquisition. American Antiquity
46:610-618.
Bender, B.
1998. Stonehenge: Making Space. Berg, Oxford.
Bonyhady, T.
1993. Places Worth Keeping: Conservationists, Politics, and Law. Allen and Unwin, St.
Leonards, Australia.
Brent, M.
1996. A View inside the Illicit Trade in African Antiquities. In Plundering Africa's
Past, edited by P. Schmidt and R. Mclntosh, pp. 63-78. Indiana University
Press, Bloomington.
Chippindale, C.
1986. Stoned Henge: Events and Issues at the Summer Solstice, 1985. World Ar-
chaeology 18:38-58.
Ford, R.I.
1983. The Archaeological Conservancy, Inc.: The Goal Is Site Preservation. Ameri-
can Archaeology 3:221-224.
Fowler, P.
2004. Landscapes for the World: Conserving a Global Heritage. Windgather Press,
Bollington, United Kingdom.
Hamilakis, Y., and E. Yalouri
1996. Antiquities as Symbolic Capital in Modern Greek Society. Antiquity
70:117-129.
Howell, C.L.
1996. Daring to Deal with Huaqueros. In Archaeological Ethics, edited by K.D.
Vitelli, pp. 47-53. AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek, California.
King, T.E
2003. Places That Count: Traditional Cultural Properties in Cultural Resource Man-
agement. AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek, California.
Lewin, R.
1984. Extinction Threatens Australian Anthropology. Science 225:393-394.
Little, B.J.
2002. Archaeology as a Shared Vision. In Public Benefits of Archaeology, edited by
B.J. Little, pp. 3-19. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.
Lynott, M.J.
1980. The Dynamics of Significance: An Example from Central Texas. American
Antiquity 45:117-120.
66 DANIEL D. KREUTZER

MacLeod, D.
2004. Downsizing the State: Privatization and the Limits of Neoliberal Reform in
Mexico. Pennsylvania State University Press, University Park.
McKinley, J.C., Jr.,
2004. No, the Conquistadors Are Not Back. It's Just Wal-Mart. New York Times 28
September 2004:A4.
National Park Service
1991. National Register Bulletin 16: Guidelinesfor Completing National Register of
Historic PlacesForms. U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, DC.
Nieto Gamifio, L.F.
1997. Centro Ceremonial Cafiada de la Virgen, Guanajuato: Arquitectura de la Cul-
tura Hibrida Tolteca-Chichimeca. Arqueologia 17:99-110.
Pickard, R. (editor)
2001. Policyand Law in Heritage Conservation. Spon Press, London.
Renffew, C.
2000. Loot, Legitimacy, and Ownership. Duckworth, London.
Ross, J.
2005. Teoti-Wal-Mart. Progressive69(3):28-30.
Skeates, R.
2000. Debating the ArchaeologicalHeritage. Duckworth, London.
Slick, K.
2002. Archaeology and the Tourism Train. In PublicBenefits of Archaeology, edited
by B.J. Little, pp. 219-227. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.
Trigger, B.
1984. Alternative Archaeologies: Nationalist, Colonialist, Imperialist. Man
19:355-370.

Daniel D. Kreutzer is a doctoral candidate in the Anthropology Department at

the University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee. His degrees in anthropology are from the
University of Texas, Austin (B.A., 1999.) and the University of Texas, San Anto-
nio (M.A., 2003). A version of this article was presented at the seventieth annual
meeting of the Society for American Archaeology on 1 April 2005.