Introduction
Since the 1960s, urban archaeology has been the subject of many conferences and debates in the European context.Footnote 1 Concern for the archaeological history of many cities in old Europe also framed the beginnings of the great preoccupation with the handling of archaeological heritage in generalFootnote 2 and of what is now called preventive archaeology.Footnote 3 This concern, part of a much broader context of protection and revaluation of cultural properties, was also evident in the Spanish-Latin-American community in the case of monumental or traditionally recognized archaeological sites associated with pre-Hispanic cultures. These sites have been the principal objects of protective measures, covered by the oldest legislation in some of these nations (see below). However, the other archaeology, the one associated with work sites and which has in great part allowed for the professional development of the archaeological science in European contexts, has been taking on greater weight in Latin America and the Caribbean over the last two decades. This has been increasingly reflected in regulations as well (e.g., see the further developed case of Colombia). Nonetheless, the particularities of the case call for legislation that, in every shade of its meaning, takes into account other aspects that differentiate Central and South American archaeology, even its entire vision of heritage, involving its particular economic and social development and with the living existence, even today, of indigenous societies.
At the same time, within the wider context of international cultural heritage treatment legislation, from the outset, UNESCO refers to archaeological heritage protection, such as the 1956 recommendations on archaeological excavations (Recommendation on International Principles Applicable to Archaeological Excavations, 5 December 1956. UNESCO) and to the handling of the properties subject of these excavations. Another milestone was reached in 1972 with the Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage of 1972 (hereinafter, World Heritage Convention), addressing the need for international cultural and natural heritage protection in general. The spirit of the World Heritage Convention, and its Operational Guidelines, were approved not only with the intention of pointing out the exceptional universal value of an asset or its authenticity, but also of striving continuously toward making these inscribed sites models of management and of the preservation of their value. Archaeology can obviously contribute to this, providing insight and intervention methodology, and in fact, it has been the object of more than one critical reflection.Footnote 4
Thus, as an approach to urban Spanish-Latin-American archaeological heritage, we have selected as case studies cities that have been recognized as World Heritage Sites, and we have analyzed concrete examples of how archaeological and heritage management is carried out at these sites.Footnote 5 The aim is to recognize best practices in urban archaeology management and at the same time to assess what is happening in urban archaeology management practices and what can be improved in the future.
In this research, a double perspective of world heritage is followed: as a guide for the management and handling of other cultural properties and of archaeological science and, at the same time, as a body of knowledge that enriches and reassesses these assets. The aim is to show, through different case studies examined principally in legal terms, what is happening in the Latin American urban archaeology context.
Starting from an ideal model of essential preventive archaeology measures development in the urban context, this study approach ranges from the international framework of the Paris Convention to the national, regional, or local cultural heritage regulations in the World Heritage Sites chosen for this study.
The first surprise, as it will be seen, is that there are hardly any archaeological protection measures in urban contexts. This, in some ways, evidences an inadequate legislation in force, reflecting itself a lack of development on the matter, as well as a lack of mechanisms for its treatment and understanding; the idea that universal management or treatment of cultural properties is difficult has been criticized from various points of view. Nonetheless, we adopt a proactive approach—going further than only just identifying or stating problems and suggesting feasible solutions—believing that the existing inscriptions and mechanisms afforded by the application of international law, such as the World Heritage Convention itself, would be enough to improve the urban archaeology situation at these sites.Footnote 6
From Preventive Urban Archaeology to Latin American Cultural Heritage Management
The starting point of this analysis is the notion that applying archaeology as a science is basic in practically any context involving work with material cultural properties. Archaeological heritage refers to all cultural assets that can be studied by archaeological methods; hence, with all the topics covered by today’s archaeology, almost all cultural heritage could be considered “archaeological.” From this perspective, it is difficult to find an inscribed world heritage city without archaeological properties. In spite of urban areas, which have traditionally held archaeological heritage as a value to be protected (Rome is the best representative example), there are others where this type of heritage has received less recognition and where, nonetheless, archaeological research exists. These research works aid in restoring the principal protected properties and in understanding them better, even learning more about the history of the city as a whole. Archaeological work serves to reinforce all that gives value and meaning to a cultural heritage inscription, thus fulfilling part of the ultimate social aim of any archaeological investigation.
We believe that unless there is a strong reason for performing excavations, in most circumstances it is preferable to avoid them in order to preserve the remains for future investigations.Footnote 7 Although this issue has been the subject of several publications,Footnote 8 to help clarify the situation, a model of what we understand preventive archaeology to be has been developed:
Preventive Archaeology comprises a series of activities before any type of incident may affect it. In cases when this is impossible, the aim will be to reduce the impact as much as possible, preventing that the elements are excavated or destroyed.Footnote 9
To carry out these activities, four actions are necessary: Footnote 10
1. To gain knowledge of the sites (in the case of a city to be understood in its totality, including all the areas of greater interest), and rank them by importance.
2. To process this information before ground planning and zoning in general begins.
3. To correct, at point of origin, the impact of projects on archaeological heritage.
4. To avoid destructive archaeological intervention.
The basic archaeological method is excavation, and its application always means the destruction of the archaeological record.Footnote 11 Therefore, the objectives and needs for this archaeological practice must be highly defined. The way in which archaeological management models are developing now, especially in Europe, entails a multitude of ongoing excavations, many of which could be avoided, since no scientific use is made of their results. We even run the risk of leaving no archaeological records for the future to allow new research and stimulate innovative, presently unknown, questions about the past.
But the purpose of this article is not to dwell on theoretical discourse on conservation, which some persons have questioned, rightly so, in the context of world heritage itself.Footnote 12 In practice, indeed, the rules of the game are inevitably adopted for archaeology in urban contexts. In fact, work performed with cultural properties needs to be coordinated with that in urban planning, environmental studies, and zoning, since the site ground—whether above or below—is subject to measures and policies specific to these fields which must be taken into account. This study therefore considers these measures not only on the national or international scale, but also on the local, planning scale.
This theoretical model is based on archaeological practice, since these types of measures have produced the best results in urban archaeological heritage management. An approach to their development within the Latin American context could come from the study of the regulations and legal framework regarding preventive archaeology actions, as well as their practical application.
To start, it is necessary to look at the general cultural heritage context in which it should develop.
Through years of diverse experience, the concept of cultural heritage has taken on new meanings. Its new dimension transcends cultural reification and widens the field for its treatment and protection (the international charters will suffice as an example of this transformation). Besides historical, archaeological, artistic, architectural, and anthropological values, also contemplated are landscape and environment, the relationship between human beings and nature, their direct actions upon the environment, and the way in which this has affected its development. Seen in another way, according to the cultural policies drawn up in each case, a real property, its ornamentation, the techniques and raw materials for its construction, its supply source, its former and current uses, and the customs and habits of the human group that was/is related with it, are all subject to heritage status.
Furthermore, in referring to cultural heritage, the subject of social responsibility needs to be recalled, as well as the safeguarding or management of social valuesFootnote 13—particularly emphasized in the case of Latin America (as will be seen below). In this way, cultural heritage management takes on an extra dimension:
The study of cultural and natural heritage is a practice with pedagogical and political intentions, pedagogical in that it procures socialization through integrated development of people and social groups, and political because it means to generate strategies against social imbalance and inequality.Footnote 14
A glance at the legal treatment given in the region, specifically at laws on cultural heritage protection established in Central and South American countries, reveals that nations such as Mexico, Brazil, and Costa RicaFootnote 15 were pioneers in organizing and legislating their cultural values in the 1930s through the promulgation of rules aimed at protecting and preserving, and that the second half of the 20th century has seen a legislative boom, coinciding with a nationalist awakening in some countries, also resulting in the defense and preservation of cultural heritage in general. This is identified in diverse ways, encompassing prehistoric, historical, artistic, archaeological, and paleontological legacies as well as regulations for intervention.
In Latin America, the strong indigenous organizing element connected to some historical and social contexts has defined in many cases the ethical and scientific framework of archaeological practice, at least by those committed to the historical environment.Footnote 16 Thus, archaeological heritage in some countries of this geographical region is not only that which is discovered, but also that which, once uncovered, conflicts with living communities, conveyers of a tradition that signals a living socio-cultural inheritance with its own voice. An example of this can be found in the archaeological work carried out in the 1990s at Huaca Cao Viejo, in the El Brujo Archaeological Complex of Peru’s Ascope province. Personnel in the area refused to begin work for fear of reprisals that the “child eating” Huaca would take on them and their children if they worked without permission. The regional shaman was called in, and only once he had performed the relevant ceremony did archaeological work begin.Footnote 17
In this way, different rationalities—critical, mythological, traditional—come to the fore, contradicting each other if the specific social conditions of each group are not taken into account. Hence, every proposal related to the handling, protection, and diffusion of cultural heritage must be carried out within a framework that is mindful of regional socio-historical and political particularities. Not only state regulation or scientific vision counts in generating knowledge, but also communities should actively participate in the process as well. At the same time, cultural heritage management implies a social impact, which may or may not be beneficial, which may give rise to contradictions and to provoke conflict. In this sense, heritage, as an object of study,
is a socially constructed system, historically unstable, with infinity of referents or representations such as archaeological or historical spaces or ecosystems, rites and festivals, gastronomy, clothing or persons.Footnote 18
When the planning takes into account only a heritage perspective, ignoring the social environment, an inadequate social situation may occur, as it was the case with the Chichén Itza Archaeological Zone in the Yucatán. Its execution and revaluation have brought benefits to the region, but the local population has experienced a radical transformation of their rural customs and activities, passing from farming to craftsmanship and cheap labor in the tourist complexes that have grown up in the area. On the one hand, this situation ensures that the population has minimal sustenance, although without great improvement in quality of life; on the other hand, it promotes and stimulates the knowledge of the ancient Mayan civilization while obscuring, to an equal degree, the living Mayan culture.Footnote 19 This has created new social conflicts and paradoxical situations, such as the rejection felt by the Mayan guides at archaeological sites with respect to other Mexican citizens who feel that Chichén Itza is theirs.Footnote 20 To control such situations, the need for social impact studies has been raised as part of any restoration and revaluation project of a determined site, just as environmental studies are executed prior to any infrastructure work.Footnote 21 Also, in recent decades, there have been public archaeology interventions involving clear social commitment on the part of those who practice archaeology in these contexts.Footnote 22
Despite the complexity of this framework, one prevalent characteristic of archaeological heritage management policies in some Latin American nations is a clear demarcation between archaeological or pre-Hispanic zones, and historical or colonial zones, favoring the former. Archaeological zones, which include, generally speaking, the great architectural monuments of ancient civilizations, have received a different level of attention (and have also been more extensively plundered) than sites exhibiting a more recent past. Their monumental buildings, ornaments, and accompanying burial objects are clearly defined, and derive great value from the intersubjectivity of the society that inherits them. This is made clear in the regulations established for their protection and safeguarding, as will be seen. The distinction is very important, given that the archaeological heritage we refer to is located in areas understood to be historical: the cities. Furthermore, unlike earlier mentioned sites, cities function as living sites, more active in their physical formation and historical revaluation than most archaeological zones, which are treated as “dead places.”
In this sense, three case studies have been selected, keeping in mind the previously described cultural medium in which Latin American cultural heritage is managed, in an attempt to show the role urban archaeology has played, from state legislation to the most local sphere, including examples of relevant practices or results.
The Case Studies
Oaxaca, Mexico
Mexico is one of the continent’s richest nations in terms of archaeological heritage. At present, it occupies first place in Latin America and the Caribbean in the number of inscribed World Heritage Sites: of 31 sites, 27 are cultural and four are natural.
Laws and legal rules for the protection of cultural properties began during the 19th century, and they settled the definition of heritage, which up to that time referred exclusively to the tangible properties. Elementary for their time, these provisions were the platform for the issuing of laws that are adapted according to the time and circumstances, up to the legislation that we know today. After the revolution, laws and regulations for the conservation of monuments, buildings, temples, and historical properties were issued. And also added as subjects of conservation were artistic properties and natural beauties. In addition, the Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia (INAH; translation: National Institute of Anthropology and History), a Mexican federal government bureau, was established in 1939 to guarantee the research, preservation, protection, and promotion of the prehistoric, archaeological, anthropological, historical, and paleontological heritage of Mexico. Its creation has played a key role in preserving Mexican cultural heritage.
With antecedents from the 1930s,Footnote 23 it was, however, not until the second half of the 20th century when more complete laws were passed. The federal Law on Monuments and Archaeological Zones (1972) declares in Article 28:
Moveable and real estate properties, products of cultures prior to the establishment of Hispanic culture in national territory, as well as human remains, and of the flora and fauna related to these cultures, are archeological monuments.
Colonial period zones are defined in articles 35 and 36:
Historical monuments are properties connected with the nation’s history beginning with the establishment of Hispanic culture in the country....
Thus, in practice, when cultural heritage management plans are designed, the chronological period makes the difference between what is and is not archaeological heritage. Although important steps are being taken toward the protection and diffusion of historical zones, archaeological administration is not as well defined as in pre-Hispanic zones.Footnote 24
The historical center of the city of Oaxaca and the Monte Albán Archaeological Zone were together listed as World Heritage in 1987. The urban area is an outstanding example of a 16th century colonial city and Monte Albán, four kilometers away, is a notable example of a pre-Columbian ceremonial center in the region. An administrative plan was proposed for the Monte Albán Archaeological Zone (2005–15), the first archaeological zone planning scheme put into practice in Mexico:
the Monte Albán Administration Plan was a new experience in terms of applying a work system designed to revise old schemes regarding archaeological zones open to the public under the stewardship of the INAH.Footnote 25
Conservation, prevention, protection, and investigation programs have been based on the Monte Albán Administration Plan, and foundations have been laid for dissemination of the archaeological heritage protection program in schools in the state of Oaxaca. Also, Oaxacan communities and institutions have been involved in the development of the plan, albeit facing implementation problems, which were detected from the origin and elaboration of the plan itself.Footnote 26 Thus, the plan is faced with great challenges, including those of a structural nature, such as those picked up by the local press relating to more effective fire prevention and protection strategies for the site, and water shortages in neighboring communities.Footnote 27 At the same time, tourism has grown, attracted mainly by the archaeological zone. This has created settlements on the Monte Albán hills of people seeking economic sustenance.
Due to the nearly total lack of industry in the State, to paltry agriculture and livestock production which does not even manage to cover local levels of self-subsistence, tourism becomes, apparently, the solution to the economic problems of the region and of the city itself.Footnote 28
Thus, any planning must include the participation of this outlying population, as only by their involvement in archaeological site protection programs a responsible use of the place can be made.
Other problems are also present in the historical center of Oaxaca. With the displacement of people to the areas adjoining the archaeological zone, a transient population has arisen, also attracted by tourism, and has settled in the historical center. As a consequence, there has been a rising real estate speculation with civil buildings in the protected area.Footnote 29
The wording of the General Regulations of the Historical Center for the Protection of Oaxaca de Júarez’s Municipal Cultural Heritage delineates in minute detail the limits of the historical center and the treatment of built heritageFootnote 30; equally, it lays out the procedures to be followed for its execution through a partial plan. Various sections of these regulations address the field of urban/historical archaeology, although it is not mentioned by name. Nonetheless, the fact that this practice is not explicitly regulated works against planning and raising awareness. Thus, in the approach laid out in the Partial Conservation Plan of the Historical Center of Oaxaca (1998), a set of regulations for intervention in the city were established, but it does not regulate archaeological intervention. This is not the first time this subject has surfaced; other specialists have brought it up, declaring that
the differential application of regulations in Historical Centers and neo-Hispanic sites undermines the foundation of a heritage asset, the failure to take account of which permits its destruction in the name of modern restoration.Footnote 31
The partial plan is a management plan for architectural resources and urban land, with conservation and restoration of constructed heritage among its objectives, but it omits urban archaeology as a discipline to understand and manage. It contains a categorized inventory of built heritage and its state of conservation. This inventory is the database used by the INAH for the later development of more detailed studies related to the Heritage Catalogue of the Historical Center of Oaxaca.
We hold that, within its particularities, the management of the “pre-Hispanic” site and of the historical center should be put forward with a shared focus, not only for pure archaeological interpretation,Footnote 32 but also because both form part of the same social milieu. Urban planning and zoning programs should keep archaeological research in mind as one more discipline among those involved in cultural heritage management, whether for pre-Columbian sites or historical monuments. On the other hand, although heritage is understood to be a vehicle between people and their history and participatory plans are carried out at some sites, more work should be done in creating programs that link civic co-responsibility to the projection and execution of heritage protection and safeguarding plans, promoting their comprehension and diffusion and integrating purposes and actions.Footnote 33
Cartagena de Indias, Colombia
The policy directions for the management and conservation of the Colombian cultural heritage can be found in the political Constitution of 1991, Law 397 of 1997 (General Law of Culture), and in the 1185 Act of 2008 (which modifies, among others, Title II of Law 397 of 1997, which addresses issues related to cultural heritage). This law reorganizes and updates the regulation of archaeological heritage, which is the responsibility of the Colombian Institute of Anthropology and History. It also states that heritage property is unique to the state, in accordance with Articles 63 and 72 of the Constitution, which enshrine the concept that the archaeological heritage properties belong to the nation, and are inalienable, imprescriptible, and indefeasible. In addition, the National Council for Cultural Heritage was created, replacing the National Monuments Council as the body responsible for advising the government on the safeguarding, protection, and management of the cultural heritage of the nation.
General Law of Culture (2008) and Decree 763 (2009), included in the “Legal Scheme and Technical Guidelines of Preventive Archaeology Programs in Colombia” (Instituto Colombiano de Antropología e Historia, 2010), define a special framework for archaeological heritage. This framework sets out the obligatory application of preventive archaeology programs before any project or work takes place, creates the concept of archaeological protection areas, establishes tax stimuli for state entities that collaborate in the planning and execution of archaeological management plans, and promotes the implementation of these plans as part of zoning plans, among other notable achievements.
The city of Cartagena de Indias was one of the first historical sites in Colombia to begin promoting heritage conservation. Its long trajectory of recognition and conservation culminated in 1984 with the inscription of the city’s monumental sites, as well as its port and fortresses, in the World Heritage List.Footnote 34 The Zoning Plan of the Tourist and Cultural District of Cartagena de Indias (Plan de Ordenamiento Territorial, or POT from here on), adopted by Decree 0977 in 2001, explains that, though watchdog measures began to be taken in the second decade of the 20th century for the conservation of the city’s monumentsFootnote 35; contradictorily, it was during this time that the most significant demolition of its walls took place. Around 1940 the oldest part of the walled city was recognized as a national monument, under the guardianship of the Colombian Academy of History. This entity performed conservation work on several colonial façades, but had no defined policy to regulate interventions within the protected area, with the result that during those years modifications were also carried out that disharmonized the urban center. In 1959, Law 163, which would be the foundation for the nation’s cultural heritage legislation, came into force, stating that
monuments, pre-Hispanic tombs, as well as colonial buildings and those which are linked to the struggles for Independence and the Republic’s early organizational period, are considered national historical and artistic heritage. The old quarter of Cartagena is expressly declared a national monument. The National Council on Monuments is incorporated as controlling entity.Footnote 36
Despite this, the city continued to lack precise local rules to organize and regulate intervention and conservation. In later years regulatory plans were conducted and decrees dictated that, generally speaking, did not define work criteria and laid weak foundations for intervention, prioritizing treatment and conservation of façades.Footnote 37
The most important event, a milestone in heritage building management, took place in 1968, when the Center for Aesthetic Research of the University of the Andes carried out a closely detailed study that included an
inventory of buildings, particular rules for the grounds, precise regulations for intervention, and recommendations on many buildings, controlling entities and incentives to stimulate restoration. Its structural principles were valuation of buildings by levels of importance, according to their age and architectural value, and conserving the general image of the urban center.Footnote 38
This project had a positive impact, generally speaking, and set in motion criteria favoring restoration.
The challenge represented by the implementation of plans, and the integration of neighborhoods, fortifications and port areas since then, is expressed in POT, Chapter 2.2.21, Archaeological and Built Heritage:
The city today tends to be acknowledged as the historical area where multiple and contradictory cultural expressions emerge. Cultural heritage properties were of fundamental value in shaping the city. The current concept of cultural heritage is the result of a process unified with the development of modern society, its values and needs, in a wider sense, encompassing all evidence that documents the activities and achievements of human beings from the beginning of time.
This plan defines the areas of heritage value that follow: the historical center, consisting of the walled area and neighborhoods within the walls, the coastal area, peripheral area, and subsectors. It also grants prioritized protection to the visual axes that constitute the cultural landscape of the city of Cartagena.
With all this, the treatment of cultural and, particularly, archaeological heritage has confronted grave problems in its management. For one thing, the historical center concentrates services, which are scarce on the periphery, harmfully saturating the area. This has caused considerable alterations in buildings that have been arbitrarily transformed to cover necessities (office divisions, businesses, dwellings). The urban landscape has also been modified with taller buildings, new roofing replacing traditional roofing, electrical installations, and commercial advertising. There is a lack of control over interventions and use of architecture in the historical center, as well as an absence of civil participation in actions aimed at the protection and conservation of heritage.
With the creation of the Institute of Heritage and Culture of Cartagena (formerly the District Cultural Institute) in 2003, new foundations were established for the projection and execution of plans that take into account the multiethnic and multicultural character of the city and promote the decentralization of services and the generation of cultural proposals with social participation. Campaigns have been carried out to control public and private works within the historical center; to regulate the use of advertising within the historical zone; and to ensure the conservation of traditional architecture—in some buildings restoring architectural elements that have been altered. The Special Plan for Management and Protection of the Historical Center (Plan Especial de Manejo y Protección del Centro Histórico, or PEMP), whose diagnostic and development phases had been stalled in previous years, was taken up again and revitalized. This entity has also promoted agreements with academic institutions that develop study and inventory programs on built heritage, zoning in the historical center, and real estate. All of this indicates a favorable change in the assimilation, management, and protection of heritage values in the city.
Despite this, the World Heritage Center continues to demand certain measures within the PEMP, motivated by the state of conservation of the walls, which the World Heritage Committee insists be included and well defined by the city as object of the declaration (2011 Decision: 34COM 7B.107).
At the national level, in May 2010 the Colombian Institute of Anthropology and History’s scientific division issued a document, Scheme for the Promotion of Research and Management of Archaeological Heritage in the Regions of Colombia, setting out the foundations for orienting and developing management and administration of archaeological heritage. Its proposals include programs preventive archaeology, social participation and dissemination, the introduction of archaeological research into territorial and social dynamics, and the like. We must assume that, in the long run, these measures will have some positive impact, and the city of Cartagena will have privileged heritage treatment.
Old Havana, Cuba
The first antecedents for the safeguarding of Cuban cultural heritage—regulations for the protection and conservation of heritage value—were established in 1928.Footnote 39 In 1937, with the creation of the National Archaeology Commission (later the National Board of Archaeology and Ethnology), two fields were defined within the practice of archaeology: aboriginal or pre-Columbian archaeology, and colonial or historical archaeology, thus delineating chronological ranges for research, which would later be maintained as a scheme to follow in formation and in specialized work.Footnote 40
With the announcement in 1977 of Law 1 (Cultural Heritage Protection Law) and Law 2 (National and Local Monument Law), each province would list its local and national monuments, as well as protected zones, according to the regulations in effect; in this way, urban historical centers, constructions, sites, and objects would be declared. Three entities belonging to the Ministry of Culture were created for this purpose: the National Commission of Monuments, the Cultural Heritage Department, and the Registry of Cultural Properties.
The study of the heritage legacy in Old Havana is carried out by the Office of the City Historian of Havana (Oficina del Historiador de la Ciudad de La Habana, or OHCH), an institution with a long history, founded in 1938. With the 1978 declaration of the historical center and its system of fortifications as a national monument, a new stage of state-financed research and rehabilitation began. Four years later came its registration by UNESCO in the World Heritage List.Footnote 41
In 1993, coinciding with a deep economic crisis in the country, a new regulation, Decree Law 143, was issued by the government, granting financial and legal powers to the OHCH and giving it legal status, which resulted in its having greater freedom of action in obtaining resources for the sustainability of restoration work in the city. Essential for these purposes was the 1994 creation of the Master Plan for the Comprehensive Revitalization of Old Havana. Its objectives, channeled toward the preservation of inherited heritage, also considered the residential character of the zone, a rapprochement between socio-economic development and cultural value, and the creation of auto-financing strategies, which gave a boost to the local economy and stimulated sustainable development.Footnote 42 In this way, the urban center is presented as a living entity and not as a museum city. It is also worth pointing out that the limits of the protected urban area were amplified to encompass the walled area of the historical center as well as areas outside the walls, a totality declared a Prioritized Conservation Zone. Archaeological labor under the protection of the OHCH is mainly performed by the Department of Archaeology. At first, archaeology practiced in Old Havana responded to emerging questions related to restoration, but the city also became an object of research through study of its evolution, on both social and urban levels.Footnote 43 Nonetheless, archaeological intervention strategies that were valid in the beginning must be modified in order to manage archaeological heritage more efficiently. It is no longer possible to conceive a comprehensive plan from the urban architectural perspective alone; it is necessary to design the project with an archaeological perspective as well and to assume a favorably cautious attitude toward intervention in, and understanding and diffusion of, archaeological heritage.
Currently, the Department of Archaeology is developing a Preventive Urban Archaeology program that will attempt to alleviate these problems and generate a model of historical archaeological interpretation for the city, as well as greater protection and management of all archaeological properties. It has the Master Plan’s collaboration in this, and furthermore it has tried, since its inception, to promote the administrative protocols included in the existing legislation. Likewise, efforts have been made in coordination with the country’s other historical centers to put strategies with similar purposes into practice.
Conclusion
From these three World Heritage Center cities, it is clear that with respect to the archaeological dimension, there is still a way to go as far as urban archaeology planning is concerned, oriented as it is toward a better handling of archaeological heritage properties, one that envisages the cataloguing, protection, and divulgation of sites.
If our desire has been to link up with the World Heritage Center on an international scale, it is because we agree, from another perspective, with the many criticisms that cling to these sites and their treatment, criticisms that reoccur from the perspective of archaeological management.
Our main conclusion is that the legislation also shows how Western heritage vision is imposed for the understanding of the past in these places, and how there has been no local adaptation, but instead the implantation of administrative technical measures. These measures are questioned today even in European contexts and undoubtedly conflict even more in Latin American cases. Not for nothing did the majority of Latin American and Caribbean countries express in the summary of periodical reports from the first cycle published by the World Heritage Center, the opinion that change or legal modification was necessary (72.3% of the states that answered the reports. Piras and van Hooff 2004: 19. Figure “Measures for heritage protection”).
This assessment of the regulations also has an effect on archaeological practice: interventions in urban contexts follow distinct, far more arbitrary channels than those carried out in spaces declared for archaeological motives. Although some countries, such as Colombia, are changing their legislation and bringing it up to date, the fact is that so-called historical archaeology—the study of socio-historical processes through the material evidence left by past societies from the 16th century to the industrial ageFootnote 44 and applied to the urban milieu—remains in some countries, such as Mexico, in a legal limbo, in which it is difficult to administer, and its practice depends on circumstances.
Making comparisons between the cities is a complex task, outside these countries’ social contexts. However, from an architecture-derived perspective or, better said, from a traditional architectural vision, it seems apparent that each city has a traditional vision that should be valued and protected.Footnote 45 We believe that the UNESCO registrations and their focus reinforce an image that is more devoted to the monumental aspects or to urban design, than to other heritage aspects of the city. This is justified by the datedness of some of these inscriptions and by changes in the concept of cultural heritage administration and treatment. It also invites serious reflection as to what is “supervised” by UNESCO;Footnote 46 what is assumed by the state or local administrative body (i.e., governments); or just what the object of this supposed “supervision” could be; or, even worse, what kind of economic efforts are being made on behalf of World Heritage and to what ends they are directed, beyond the usual call of tourism. Studies, such as that coordinated by Salmerón and Sanz (Reference Salmerón and Sanz2009) from the perspective of sustainability indicators of historical urban landscapes, speak of efforts in this direction, even giving weight to social participation and anthropology and other similar bodies of knowledge that should be taken into account in urban administration in general (32–35). However, their implementation in the planning stage is focused on creation of new supervision bodies to sustain administrative plans already in progress (14–16). Apart from being difficult to put into practice, this, in our view, means creating additional spaces for a new bureaucracy of doubtful efficiency, since if the global crisis we are immersed in has made anything clear, it is the loss of credibility and efficiency of many supposedly administrative loci, and the excess of technocracy. Furthermore, as reflected in this same study:
The existence of an administrative plan is considered a positive fact that distinguishes the conservation and revitalization process of places inscribed as World Heritage, but evidence shows that the necessary implementation tends to be missing or has serious flaws. Through questions posed to the entity responsible for administering the site in the different reports produced by UNESCO, the lack of verification/monitoring of actions using indicator formulation or any equivalent procedure is deduced with some frequency.Footnote 47
If adequate plans have not been made, how are we to have indicators of how they work? If they do exist, they will only be the first phase of hypothetical, future planning. Despite that, the idea of monitoring administrative plans is a positive one, but it, too, must be based in the population who live in and perceive changes in the area.
Although a big step with long-term consequences would be a revision giving more weight to international regulations over those of the state,Footnote 48 the fact is that we must get past the eternal planning stage and move into action. The experience acquired in many places is now sufficient for the generation of new working mechanisms, which must be planned with civic involvement. We do not mean to imply that world heritage has no place in all this. On the contrary, beyond reflecting on the social function and use of World Heritage, especially from the archaeological perspective, this study has a constructive criticism focus and assumes that, while cultural asset administration may be the product of a Western world vision exported and translated to other spaces, it does not always, on account of this, have to be a negative contribution or one that implies the lack of productivity in, or of contributions from, these other places or people.
We maintain a proactiveFootnote 49 and, perhaps, somewhat naïve posture, but one which is indispensable for making sense of the World Heritage inscriptions in these contexts. We know that examples of best practices of social participation exist, and in places like Havana there is a long regional history of this approach.Footnote 50 But we think that many legal tools could be better used, and that at least in the case of archaeology, it would not be too difficult to create mechanisms to place them in motion.
We also ask ourselves how the identity conflicts depicted with relative frequency in scientific literature on sites or monumental spaces will evolve in the archaeological milieu. In the urban case, they are barely studied from the cultural heritage perspective beyond defining sources of conflict such as property and urban speculation, not going in-depth into the different social strata, or into the value of knowing what this thing called heritage is, and to whom it matters, or into its place in a city’s social scale of values and resources. We think that the historical and archaeological dimension is important in raising awareness of these types of values.
Cities are the perfect symbol of modern societies even in poor countries. From a committed scientific position, the study of these contexts may help better understand past societies, or to understand how current ones adjust to the urban atmosphere.Footnote 51 Although many Latin American cities were built from scratch, indigenous groups existed and lived in them. The history of the Americas is written alongside the history of those who found and populated these colonies, just as the history of Spain or other countries is incomprehensible without understanding the phenomenon of colonization, the presence of Rome, or the reactions of different conquered peoples to them. When history has been “inherited,” these readings, so evident from the historical perspective, have been hidden under nationalist values and by the exaltation of the concrete periods and epochs that World Heritage Sites reflect so well. Thus, the problem is not only invisibility or conflict with the interests or values of the current indigenous populations with which we introduced this article, but also the invisibility of the “other” postcolonial history, of urban society’s present, and the recovery of adjacent historical roots that are clearly no longer found in the great archaeological sites turned museums. These were abandoned by the greater part of this population centuries ago, and can be found now in plots of land, buildings, parks, and the urban landscape. The people who live there are the majority, but these people are also ignored—and are ignorant of, or simply want to ignore their most recent history.
If we find, when looking over our theoretical model of archaeological administration, that in the European context the weight of preventive archaeology is given to protection, in Latin America it should be in fomenting urban archaeological research to define what must be, or needs to be, valued and consequentially protected. At the same time, studying the Latin American case has reminded us not only that the conflict with urban archaeology manifests itself in urban or territorial problems, but also that these are in reality only a reflection of social problems—problems of understanding and evaluating supposedly universal cultural heritage. This should make us redraft our preventive models so that they include active and participative civic vision, of which “community archaeology” has already supplied some experience, perhaps, as other authors have pointed out, pending a review of its effectiveness and objectives.Footnote 52
Some believe that what drives the interest of some of us in preventive archaeology is “preservation.” In certain situations of high material destruction, this is the only possible option, if we truly wish there to be archaeological readings of the disappearing record. Of course, we recognize our formative deficiencies as archaeologists in terms of generating heritage projects that lead to economic and social growth and that today’s society sees as a guarantee of long-term social benefit, given the exploitation of other values or resources that supposedly allow this, and that therefore compensate for the destruction of cultural assets. Footnote 53 But we also know that, within the idea of heritage, archaeology and its administration simply provide one more perspective, which must be complemented by other visions and interests in the mediation of solutions. This is particularly acute in the “urban jungle,” full of new, varying, urgent, and absolutely necessary socially inclusive readingsFootnote 54 that do not need to come from our hands. Our voice is just one more, collaborating and participating with other objectives and ways of understanding the city.
What we want to show with this analysis is that archaeology is not just a tool that gives meaning to cultural heritage; quite on the contrary, it is an added dimension that needs to be jointly considered with the other dimensions forming heritage assets. From the archaeological and legal perspective, applied, the heritage management analysis performed clearly surpasses the specific archaeological problems. At the same time, heritage treatment has no meaning today unless it is transversely interrelated with the other socio-cultural values. Due to them, the concept of heritage is reconsidered and should not be hidden within complex contexts, with varied interests, where the original meaning can be lost. Indeed, heritage is now perceived in a completely different manner than the one established by the experts. We believe this risk needs to be run if we want to admit that cultural heritage belongs to society altogether, and consequently, the specialist serves this purpose, and not the other way round: that is, society serving what the expert things should be done, preserved, and so forth. Keeping this reflection in mind on what heritage is today, we must not forget that our principal objective is to facilitate the best and most committed archaeology imaginable (regardless of the point of view of each science) with the heritage status most in accordance with the present needs (of those who inhabit the properties). We believe this enriches civic life and consequently represents our most socially conscious goal as scientists and students of cultural heritage.
