Engaging local communities in archaeology: Observations from a Maya site in Yucatán, México

Abstract

How do we-whether cultural resource managers, heritage professionals, museum curators, educators, or archaeologists-measure either the significance or success of a public archaeology outreach project? Further, to what degree and upon what terms do the differently constituted "publics" of archaeological work engage in outreach endeavors? In this chapter, I present the case of a developing archaeological site, Chanmula, located in the northwest of Mexico' Yucatan Peninsula.1 The account I give is drawn from my ethnographic research in the site's neighboring communities over the course of their increasing involvement in the excavation work of a US-based archaeological team over the past several years. At this site, archaeologists have made great efforts toward maintaining a high degree of transparency in their motives and methods. They have reached out to the affected public by seeking local participation in the production of archaeological knowledge and the creation of tourism development plans centered on the site. Yet as these archaeologists strive toward a reciprocal engagement with the local Yucatec Maya community, a series of miscommunications and misunderstandings have arisen due in part to the complexities of cross-cultural differences in legal, ethical, and ideological realms. While local residents called into question the motives of foreign archaeologists as well as legalities of work on their communal agricultural land, researchers assume that locals would (and indeed should) welcome archaeological development-and its promises to rejuvenate the weak local economy-with open arms. While archaeologists see their work as strengthening local cultural identity by using the site as a pedagogical tool to link ancient and contemporary Maya populations, Chanmula's neighboring residents challenge the expediency and appropriateness of this cultural continuity model. For them, "heritage" is a modern, not ancient, assemblage of events, experiences, beliefs, and collective memory. Theirs is a heritage that lives on the surface of everyday life, not buried under ancient ruins (Breglia, 2006). Thus, how can archaeology present "heritage" to this public? Further, what happens when, despite its best efforts toward community collaboration, archaeology finds within its most intimate sphere of influence an ambivalent local public? Should archaeology be made relevant for them? This case is instructive for two reasons. From experiences at Chanmula, we learn that archaeology and its attendant interpretive hermeneutic does not always neatly coincide with or fully account for what local communities count as their "heritage." Additionally, this case gives us pause to consider the possibility that public or community outreach-though practiced with the best of intentions-may reassert rather than challenge the boundaries between archaeology and the public interest. More than a documentation of a single outreach project, the case study I discuss here points to a generalized public nature of archaeological work, especially of large-scale excavation projects on monumental structures situated within living landscapes. Additionally, this case study may productively contribute to a more generalized discussion of the factors to consider in the dissemination and engagement between archaeology and its publics across cultural and national borders.