THE IMPACT OF LANDSCAPE INTERPRETATION ON THE MANAGEMENT OF
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES IN MODERN URBAN CONTEXTS: A CASE STUDY OF
PRE-HISPANIC MEXICO CITY
By
EDUARDO ANDRÉS ESCALANTE CARRILLO
XPFD3
Dissertation submited in partial fulfilment of
the requirements for the degree of MA in Managing Archaeological Sites
of University College London in 2013
UCL INSTITUTE OF ARCHAEOLOGY
ABSTRACT
This dissertation examines the role of the interpretation of the historic urban landscape in
the development of strategies for the management of archaeological sites within the
Historic Centre of Mexico City. I discuss the current situation of fragmentation in
interpretation and management among the archaeological sites open to the public within
the protection perimeter of the Historic Monuments Zone “Historic Centre of Mexico City”,
situation determined by the lack of coordination between authorities and the lack of
common objectives. The dissertation highlights the reliability and adaptability of a wider
approach on a level of context rather a level of individual sites and the impact that this
approach has for the development of interpretation strategies and scope of management.
The urban context studied includes several cultural layers that have been recognized by
UNESCO outstanding example of landscape transformation through time. The
archaeological sites now possible to visit represent “historical windows” from where the
public can appreciate the pre-Hispanic past of the city. I use two main research strategies:
a case study approach for holistic collection of data and multivariable comparisons within
the single case study, and social survey as a tool for recording quantitative and qualitative
data from surveys and interviews. Data have been collected from several sources:
observation, photo-documentation, archives, digital research, interpretative resources,
questionnaires and interviews. This dissertation calls for attention to consider that Mexico
City has potential for the implementation of new approaches around the management of
archaeological heritage in a wider context through considerations of urban landscape,
which will complement each other with current protection policies, management
strategies, and urban development and preservation.
Cover images:
Arqueología Mexicana No. 86. “La Cuenca de México Ayer y Hoy”. Comisión Nacional para el Conocimiento y
uso de la Biodiversidad (2003). México. “Ciudad de México en imagen de satélite” México. Editor: CONABIO,
Mosaico de Imágenes Landsat Path-Row 26-47 y 26-46, BANDAS 3, 2, 1 (RGB).
Row of photographs. Left to right:
“Zona arqueológica de Tlatelolco y Plaza de las Tres Culturas”, photo by the author, June 2013.
“Pirámide de Ehécatl en la estación de metro Pino Surárez”, photo by the autor, May 2013.
“Zona Arqueológica del Templo Mayor”. Source: Google.
“Museo de Sitio del CCEMx”, photo by the autor, May 2013.
ii
AKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This dissertation is the result of an imaginable amount of soul, disposition, effort and
research that have marked my life forever, both personal and professional. This is the
outcome of the best decision that I have done in my life: study at the Institute of
Archaeology, University College London.
I would like to express my eternal gratitude to the National Council of Science and
Technology (CONACYT), Santander and to UCL for providing me with the resources from
which I was able to make possible my MA studies at the Institute. I would like to extend
this gratitude to those that gave me all the support I needed in order to be awarded with
the mentioned scholarships, to Dra. Lilia Fernández Souza, Dr. Christopher Gotz, Dr.
Marcos Noé Pool Cab and Mtro. Josep Ligorred Perramon, who also guided me through
my first experiences within the archaeological practice in the Autonomous University of
Yucatan (UADY).
For the planning of this dissertation since a few words that came to an idea and
then came to reality during field work I had the honor to be supervised by Tim Williams,
who expertise in the practice of managing archaeological sites is admirable. Without his
thoughts and suggestions this dissertation wouldn’t be able to take shape. He made me
believe in my research interests. To him my total gratitude.
I would like to specially thank to Kirsty Norman for the support through all the
process for the choosing and decision of internships along my studies at the Institute.
Thank you, Kirsty, to introduce me to the world of heritage management in London making
possible my placement experience at the Greater London Archaeology Advisory Service,
on English Heritage, and more specially thank you for all the guidance through the
process to be able to achieve one of my professional experience goals in life, to
collaborate with the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
(UNESCO) at the UNESCO Office in Tashkent, Uzbekistan.
Special gratitude to Ona Vileikis and Sanjar Allayarov for making me feel welcome
in a country that will stay in my thoughts forever, and for believe in my potential within the
Management Plan of Bukhara Project. Thank you to the entire amazing group that made
this experience unforgettable: Tanya, Nasim, Negin, Delphine, Eugenia, Nishant, Martin,
Sirojidin, Maxsud and Mekhrangiz and family.
This dissertation wouldn’t be possible without the support of the National Institute
of Anthropology and History during my field work season in Mexico City, specially the
Rescue Archaeology Direction, Sites Operation Direction, the Museum of Templo Mayor
and the National Coordination of Archaeology. I don’t have words to express my
thankfulness to Dr. Salvador Pulido Méndez, Mtro. Luis Alberto López Wario, Arqlga.
iii
Susana Lam, Alejandro Bustamante Álvarez, Arqlgo. Luis Antonio Huitrón Santoyo and to
Dr. Pedro Francisco Sánchez Nava. Thank you to the Sites Operation Direction for let me
work using resources from the Documental Centre for the Management of Archaeological
Sites, who person in charge Rosaura Mitra for all the guidance and attentions to explore
the available resources in the Centre.
I would like to express my gratitude to Alfredo Narváez, Daniel Reynoso, Jorge
Pedro Uribe, Claudio Hernández and José Carlos Barranco for the time they spended with
me during my interviews and interesting discussions for my research. I would like to
extend this gratitude to Dra. Elizabeth Baquedano for the comments on my topic and for
introduce me to Don Miguel León-Portilla in Mexico City.
The research process wouldn’t be possible without the amazingly moral support
from my beloved friends who helped me through this emotional and exciting journey.
Infinite thanks to my neneítos Alberto Castro and Enrique Torre Molina for opened me the
doors of their homes and providing me shelter during my stay in Mexico City. My menthal
health was preserved with the intervention of my beloved MAS team Liz, Stacy, Sarah,
Yuki, Isabelle and to the one that make me realize that I actually need to improve my
English writing, Jesse. Thank you, Agathe, for take care of me during the last stages of
this process. I don’t have to say more than thank you, Jimena, my companion in our
archaeological adventure, and life.
I don’t have words to express my entire gratitude to Ailie and uncle and aunt,
Pauline and Mike, for all the unconditional support, for making me feel more than welcome
in a place that I can call my British home, and for making my experience in London (and
Scotland!) unforgettable.
Thank you to all the 120 people that helped me with my survey from where a big
part of this dissertation is supported.
To my mom and brother my unconditional love. Thank you for believe in me.
This dissertation is dedicated to Mexico City and to my dad, Silvio.
iv
LIST OF CONTENTS
Abstract…………………………………………………………………………………………….ii
Acknowledgements……………………………………………………………………………...iii
Contents…………………………………………………………………………………………....v
List of Appendices………………………………………………………………………………vii
List of Figures…………………………………………………………………………………...viii
List of Tables……………………………………………………………………………………..xii
List of Graphs……………………………………………………………………………………xiii
Abbreviations……………………………………………………………………………………xiv
1. INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………………………….....1
1.1. Research question: aims and objectives…………………………………………………..4
1.2. Research structure…………………………………………………………………………...5
1.3. Research justification………………………………………………………………………...7
2. BACKGROUND AND CASE STUDY. The Historic Centre of Mexico City…………...9
2.1. Archaeology and management of cultural resources in Mexico……………………….10
2.1.1. National strategy: Federal and local framework……………………………....12
2.1.2. Global strategy: the World Heritage Convention……………………………...14
2.2. Mexico City: archaeological sites in modern urban contexts…………………………..15
2.3. The Historic Centre…………………………………………………………………………17
2.3.1. The management plan…………………………………………………………..20
2.3.1.1. Background and planning process…………………………………..20
2.3.1.2. Management plan aspirations………………………………………..22
2.3.1.3. Key issues around archaeological heritage………………………...23
3. CONCEPTUAL FRAMWORK. Cultural landscape, Historic Urban Landscape
(HUL), Interpretation and Management……………………………………………………..25
3.1. The human space conceptualized: cultural landscape………………………………….27
3.2. Understanding the historic space: landscape interpretation in archaeological sites
……………………………………………………………………………………………………..30
3.3. “Historic Centres” and the Historic Urban Landscape (HUL): conceptualizing urban
space………………………………………………………………………………………………32
4. METHODOLOGY……………………………………………………………………………..36
4.1. Research strategy…………………………………………………………………………..38
4.1.1. Observation and photo-documentation………………………………………..40
4.1.2. Interpretation resources: collection and evaluation…………………………..41
4.1.3. Archives and libraries……………………………………………………………43
4.1.4. Surveys……………………………………………………………………………44
4.1.5. Interviews…………………………………………………………………………45
4.2. Research limitations and advantages…………………………………………………….46
5. DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS…………………………………………………………49
5.1. Analysis strategy……………………………………………………………………………50
5.1.1. Databases………………………………………………………………………...51
5.1.2. Deconstructive analysis and data triangulation……………………………….52
v
5.2. Results……………………………………………………………………………………….53
5.2.1. Archaeological sites and public behavior……………………………………...53
5.2.2. Current interpretation and available resources……………………………….55
5.2.3. Archives and the availability of documentation……………………………….57
5.2.4. Interviews and current management…………………………………………..58
5.2.5. Public perception and engagement: the survey………………………………62
6. DISCUSSION………………………………………………………………………………….69
7. FINAL CONSIDERATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS………………………………79
7.1. Recommendations………………………………………………………………………….81
REFERENCES…………………………………………………………………………………...87
APPENDICES……………………………………………………………………………………98
vi
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A. Detailed plan of the Historic Monuments Zone
Appendix B. List of interpretation material about the pre-Hispanic background available
today in Mexico City, with summary.
Appendix C. Profile of main archaeological sites in the Historic Centre that may provide
an understanding of the wider landscape if managed as a whole.
Appendix D. Baseline questions for interviews and discussion meetings with
professionals.
Appendix E. Survey questionnaire
vii
LIST OF FIGURES
Chapter 1
Figure 1. Top, the “island-city” of Mexico-Tenochtitlan and Tlatelolco around 1519 ("Vista
de Tenochtitlan y Tlatelolco" by Luis Covarrubias with the collaboration of Iván Cuevas,
located today in the National Museum of Anthropology's Mexica Gallery, Mexico City.
Source: Google);
Figure 2. Bottom, Mexico City today (Source: Google). These two images, both looking to
the East, show the transformation of the landscape by constant human occupation
through time.
Figure 3. The research process.
Chapter 2
Figure 5. Research drawings of the “Coatlicue”, by Francisco Agüera, XVIII century
(Source: García-Bárcena 2009).
Figure 6. The “Piedra del Sol” or misnamed “Aztec Calendar”, in 1910. Source: Google.
Figure 7. Ubication of the archaeological sites in relation with the boundaries of the
Historic Centre of Mexico City (Perimeter A, red, and Perimeter B, blue). Source: Google
Earth.
Figure 8. Left. Archaeological Zone of Tlatelolco (photo by the author, June 2013).
Figure 9. Right. Archaeological Zone of Templo Mayor (Source: Google).
Figure 10. Left. Archaeological Zone of Pino Suárez (Metro Station. Photo by the author,
June 2013).
Figure 11. Right. Site Museum of the Cultural Centre of Spain (CCEMx. Photo by the
author, May 2013).
Figure 12 and 13. Boundaries of the Historic Centre protection area (perimeters A and B)
which also defines the World Heritage Property (top: Guzman 2011; bottom: the
boundaries transferred to Google Earth, oriented to the North, after Guzman 2011; INAH
2011, 2013d).
Figure 14. The administrative context of the management plan.
Figure 15. The management plan of the Historic Centre within the development process of
archaeology and cultural heritage management practices (after Díaz-Berrio 1986; GarcíaBárcena 2009; Gobierno del Distrito Federal 2011; Guillem 2009; INAH 2013f; López
1994, 2007; Lorenzo 1984; Matos 2009a, 2012; Muñoz 2010; Robles 2000, 2006; Robles
and Corbett 2010; Sánchez 2009).
viii
Figure 16. The archaeological sites currently open to the public visit in relation with the
boundaries of the protected Monuments Zone of the Historic. The archaeological site of
Tlatelolco is located 700 meters outside the Perimeter B or buffer zone, to the North (after
Guzman 2011; INAH 2011, 2013d).
Chapter 3
Figure 17. The review of the conceptual framework of landscape within the research
process.
Figure 18. Contemporary international charters and recommendations for the
conservation and management of Historic Centres and Historic Urban Landscapes
Figure 19. Superimposed image of the pre-Hispanic city-island of Tenochtitlan-Tlatelolco
(hypothetical) with surrounding towns on the urban area of Mexico City today (Source:
Filsinger 2012).
Chapter 4
Figure 20. The methodology within the research process.
Figure 21. The research strategy (methodology) determined by the research topics and
concerns (conceptual context and literature review). The management plan of Mexico
City’s Historic Centre has the role of both the “case study” and as a topic discussion. The
cultural landscape has the role of both the “conceptual approach” and as a topic
discussion.
Figure 22. The case study method (based on de Vaus 2002), developing a wider
understanding of the case through the comparative data scope.
Figure 23. Visited places around Templo Mayor (Source: Google Earth).
Figure 24. NVivo software data interface.
Figure 25. IBM SPSS software data interface.
Chapter 5
Figure 26. The analysis within the research process.
Figure 27. The analysis process (after Bonacchi 2013).
Figure 28. IBM SPSS interface. The row on the top shows the identified variables for each
question, the column on the far left shows the number of questionnaire or “individual”. The
answers for each question and each individual is coded with numbers and transcribed into
the software.
Figure 29. Example of the deconstructive analysis on an interpretative panel in the Site
Museum of Tlatelolco. The red squares are highlighting reference to the urban setting
while the map illustrates the idea (photo by the author, June 2013).
ix
Figure 30. The archaeological zone of Pino Suárez, within an intersection metro station
(photo by the author, May 2013).
Figure 31. Surroundings of the Pino Suarez metro station are overcrowded with informal
businesses using the public space (photo by the author, May 2013).
Figure 32. Archaeological window showing colonial remains in the front entrance of the
Metropolitan Cathedral (photo by the author, May 2013).
Figure 33. Using the information collected in archives concerning recent archaeological
research for the creation of interpretative layers on Google Earth (screen capture by the
author).
Figure 34. The “island-city” of Tenochtitlan (yellow) and Tlatelolco (green), highlighting the
Sacred Enclosure of Tenochtitlan (blue). Main archaeological sites are shown as a
reference (after Sánchez et al 2007).
Figure 35. The questionnaire design and topics of information (after Bonacchi 2013).
Chapter 6
Figure 36. The comparative discussion within the research process.
Figure 37. Plan of the Historic Centre installed by the World Heritage Centre and the
Historic Centre Authority along the streets in the area. It is important to notice that the
Archaeological Zone of Templo Mayor is the only archaeological site located in this plans
(number 130), which is not particularly defined as archaeological in the plan rather seems
to integrated to the rest of historic monuments (photo by the author, June 2013).
Figure 38. Central section of the “Reconstructive plan of the Tenochtitlan Region” created
by González Aparicio in 1968.
Figure 39. Close up to the “island-city” of Tenochtitlan-Tlatelolco. References to modern
streets and archaeological findings can be found on this map (Source: Google).
Figures 40, 41, 42, 43. A sample sequence of Filsinger’s interpretation work (2005).
Chapter 7
Figure 44. The recommendations within the research process.
Figure 45. Location of the archaeological sites open to public in relation with the Historic
Centre perimeter A (red) and B (blue). A layer below the perimeters shows the
interpretation of the “island-city’s” limits according archaeological research. The green
area in the North corresponds to what could been the Tlatelolco area which is completely
outside the boundaries. The Archaeological Zone of Tlatelolco is located about 700
meters from the North boundary of the Perimeter B (blue).
x
Figure 46. Proposal of modification of Perimeter B boundary on the North West with
location of archaeological sites open to the public. The proposal follows at the West limit
the Eje Central Avenue, passing through the “Three Cultures Square”, going right on Eje 2
Norte (Manuel González), then right on Tenochtitlan Street, then right on Rivero Street
and finally left on Jesús Carranza Street until one of the vertices of Perimeter B
(modification by the author on Google Earth, after Guzman 2011; INAH 2011, 2013d;
Sánchez et al 2007).
Figure 47. Proposal of modification of Perimeter B boundary on the North West without
sites located (modification by the author on Google Earth, after Guzman 2011; INAH
2011, 2013d; Sánchez et al 2007).
Figure 48. Top. Proposal of modification of Perimeter B boundary on the North West
without the interpretative layer of the “island-city” (modification by the author on Google
Earth, after Guzman 2011; INAH 2011, 2013d; Sánchez et al 2007).
Figure 49. Detail of the proposed area of extension of the Perimeter B. The green polygon
is locating the Archaeological Zone of Tlatelolco. The boundary will enhance not only the
archaeological heritage but also the colonial compound –with one of the first Franciscan
monastery in the New World- the University Culture Centre UNAM and the habitation
complex characteristic of the architecture from the 1960s (modification by the author on
Google Earth, after Guzman 2011; INAH 2011, 2013d; Sánchez et al 2007).
xi
LIST OF TABLES
Chapter 2
Table 1. World Heritage Site Criteria of the Historic Centre of Mexico City and Xochimilco
Table 2. The management plan framework (after Gobierno del Distrito Federal 2011).
Chapter 3
Table 3. Comparison of landscape concepts
Chapter 4.
Table 4. Identification of places in Google Earth
Table 5. Interpretation resources collected in each area/site (further information on
Appendix H)
Table 6. Archives and libraries consulted
Table 7. Survey specifications (based on Bonacchi 2013)
Chapter 5
Table 8. Interpretation resources collected in each area/site (further information on
Appendix H)
Chapter 6
Table 9. Summary of interviews
Table 10. Key discussion topics from interviews
xii
LIST OF GRAPHS
Chapter 5
Graph 1. Frequencies of perception.
Graph 2. Relating the archaeological sites with the pre-Hidspanic city.
Graph 3. Associating archaeological sites with Tenochtitlan-Tlatelolco.
Graph 4. Sites visited for the public.
Graph 5. Accessing information about archaeology of the city.
Graph 6. Available interpretation satisfaction degree.
Graph 7. Amount of interest in archaeology.
Graph 8. Degree of visit satisfaction.
Chapter 6
Graph 9. Sites visited for the public.
Graph 10. Accessing information about archaeology of the city.
xiii
ABREVIATIONS
ACH
AD
CCEMx
CCUT
CONACULTA
FCH
GDF
HUL
ICOMOS
INAH
LFMZAAH
PAU
STC Metro
UN
UNAM
UNESCO
WHS
WHC
Autoridad del Centro Histórico (Historic Centre Authority)
After Death or Common Era
Centro Cultural de España en México (Cultural Centre of Spain in
Mexico)
Centro Cultural Universitario Tlatelolco (University Cultural Centre)
Consejo Nacional para la Cultura y las Artes (National Council for
Culture and Arts)
Fideicomiso del Centro Histórico (Historic Centre Trust)
Gobierno del Distrito Federal (Historic Centre Government)
Historic Urban Landscape
International Council of Monuments and Sites
Insituto National de Antropología e Historia (National Insititute of
Antrhopology and History)
Ley Federal de Monumentos y Zonas Arqueológicos, Artísticos e
Históricos (Federal Law of Archaeological, Artistic and Historic
Monuments and Zones / Sites)
Proyecto Arqueología Urbana (Urban Archaeology Project)
Sistema de Transporte Colectivo Metro (Colective Tranport System
Metro)
United Nations
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (National Autonomous
University of Mexico)
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
World Heritage Site
World Heritage Convention
xiv
1. INTRODUCTION
Here, Tenochcas, you will learn how it started,
the renowned, the great city,
Mexico-Tenochtitlan,
in the middle of water, in the marsh,
in the reedbed, where we live,
where we are born,
us, the Tenochcas.
Aquí, tenochcas, aprenderéis cómo empezó
la renombrada, la gran ciudad,
México-Tenochtitlan,
en medio del agua, en el tular,
en el cañaveral, donde vivimos,
donde nacimos,
nosotros los tenochcas
- Tezozómoc, Crónica Mexicáyotl,1598.
Founded in AD 1325, taken and afterwards destroyed by the Spanish army during the
conquest in AD 1521, the pre-Hispanic city (‘cities’) of Mexico-Tenochtitlan and Tlatelolco1
located in central Mexico was once the capital of the Mexica Empire (Bernal 1984, Matos
2011, UNESCO 2013). Today, for those who live in, or visit, Mexico City it is difficult to
imagine, or be aware, that below the streets and colonial buildings of the Historic Centre,
a city on an island, in the middle of a lake, connected to the mainland and surrounding
settlements by straight causeways, existed just a few centuries ago (León-Portilla 2001,
Matos 2001). Since the foundation of Mexico-Tenochtitlan until modern Mexico City today,
the human occupation in the urban area has been permanent and constantly growing
(Figures 1 and 2).
1
Mexico-Tenochtitlan is considered the pre-Hispanic name of Mexico City, although the overall
island covered completely by the Mexica settlement was composed of two ‘different’ cities:
Tenochtitlan in the South founded in AD 1325, and Tlatelolco in the North founded in AD 1337 and
conquered by Tenochtitlan’s tlatoani (ruler) Axayácatl in AD 1473, integrated into the whole islandcity (Matos 2011: 50).
1
Figure 1. Top, the “island-city” of Mexico-Tenochtitlan and Tlatelolco around 1519 ("Vista de
Tenochtitlan y Tlatelolco" by Luis Covarrubias with the collaboration of Iván Cuevas, located today
in the National Museum of Anthropology's Mexica Gallery, Mexico City. Source: Google);
Figure 2. Bottom, Mexico City today (Source: Google). These two images, both looking to the East,
show the transformation of the landscape by constant human occupation through time.
The pre-Hispanic archaeological remains of Mexico-Tenochtitlan-Tlatelolco have
been identified and excavated in particular areas within the Historic Centre of Mexico City,
from the first findings in 1790 of the ‘Coatlicue’ and ‘Piedra del Sol’2 during reformation
works of the city’s main plaza3, to the discovery of the ‘Coyolxauhqui’ monolith in 1978,
which marks the beginning of the research and excavations of the Templo Mayor next to
the Metropolitan Cathedral (Brading 2001; León-Portilla 2001; López 1994, 2007; Matos
2001, 2012; Robles 2012).
Archaeological research within urban contexts was a new approach in the first half
of the 20th century, when the Mexican administration was keen on the research directed
to the study and reconstruction of the most prominent and monumental archaeological
sites around the country (e.g. Teotihuacan; Brading 2001, López 2007). The constantly
growing development and urbanization of Mexican cities brought a new concern with
archaeological practice, reflected in the increasing implementation of archaeological
2
Also known as ‘Calendario Azteca’ (‘Aztec Calendar’). Today, both monoliths are in permanent
exhibition in the Aztec Gallery of the National Museum of Anthropology, in Mexico City (Brading
2001; Matos 2012).
3
‘Plaza de la Constitución’ (Constitution Square), commonly known as ‘Zócalo’.
2
strategies to rescue and preserve the archaeological heritage under threat of damage or
destruction by the new urban developments, which was (and still is) more evident in
Mexico City and the metropolitan area (López 1994).
Current research strategies to approach the archaeological heritage within urban
areas in the last 25 years in Mexico City and other Mexican cities around the country have
been determined by pressure of the constant use of spaces within the city. The
archaeological activity is restricted in time and space, and precise and holistic strategies
are needed and have to be improved, which sometimes are influenced by the political
context (López 2007).
Accordingly, the result of these 223 years of archaeological research in Mexico
City is the understanding of past stages of the city and its development, and the definition
and establishment of specific areas or archaeological sites where the public can see and
perceive the material remains of the city’s past, its archaeological-cultural heritage. Then,
the city can be understood as the material expression and accumulated layers of a
complex society, which gathered thousands of people within a specific space. The urban
dynamics of the city interacts with the cultural heritage and its inhabitants and at the same
time it is the principal threat of damage or destruction of the cultural heritage together with
the lack of management.
This dissertation is about the management of archaeological sites in modern urban
contexts and how it is impacted by the interpretation of the wider context, the cultural
landscape. Mexico City, like London and Rome, is a city in constant transformation
alongside the preservation of the archaeological heritage of the past stages of its
development, which after appropriate professional intervention and management is
integrated to the present dynamic of the city. The Historic Centre encloses the main
archaeological remains of the pre-Hispanic Tenochtitlan beneath the streets, and its
established boundaries, jurisdiction and administrative particularities within the city makes
this area an appropriate case study to explore the cultural resource management practice
in a broader perspective.
Thus, the concern within Mexico City’s Historic Centre is similar to what Marc
Antrop recognized on the Flemish landscape (2003: 106):
Modern landscapes are highly dynamical and many changes affect or destroy the
traditional cultural values (archaeological heritage). In most cases the identity of the
traditional landscape becomes lost due to processes of fragmentation caused by
urbanization […]. As a result, the traditional rural landscapes (historic urban landscape)
3
became fragmented into rather small patches of relics and scattered elements. The loss of
the coherence between the composing parts is important.
4
The archaeological evidence within Mexico City’s Historic Centre represents the
only accessible ‘archaeological windows’ to the past stages of its development (the preHispanic layer) and because the administrative particularities that regulate the
archaeological heritage management in the city, it is likely that the management
undertaken among these sites is fragmented and leaves behind the wider relationship that
these sites have within the changing cultural landscape (Boyd 2012). Therefore, the
disjointed administration of archaeological sites which does not also consider the wider
landscape perspective and keeps the information in isolated archaeological units lost
inside today’s colonial centre and surrounding suburbs, could affect the interpretation and
presentation of the information to the public. This research sets out to examine how these
issues relate to each other in the context of historic urban landscape.
1.1. Research question: aims and objectives.
The aim of this dissertation is thus to analyze and evaluate the current interpretation of the
wider context of the archaeological sites and the presentation of that information to the
public within Mexico City’s Historic Centre in order to identify aspects on the management
of the archaeological heritage where these approaches could have an impact for the
development of further and well thought integrative management strategies, bearing in
mind the constraints that the Historic Centre World Heritage Site management implies as
a baseline.
This dissertation is based on the following research question: How, and to what
extent, the interpretation of archaeological sites of pre-Hispanic Mexico City as a
historic urban landscape could impact on the management strategies of the
network of archaeological sites within the Historic Centre and immediate related
surrounding areas?
Further discussion will be guided by the following objectives:
-
To identify the current strategies for the management of archaeological sites in the
Historic Centre.
-
To identify to what extent the landscape is interpreted and presented to the public.
-
To set out the relationship between the interpretations available with the current
management approach of the archaeological sites.
4
Parenthesis supplied.
4
-
To analyze the conceptual issues and the practical difficulties in the development and
the management of the archaeological sites in Mexico City.
-
To enhance both the perceived relevance of the archaeological sites and the wider
context of the historic urban landscape within the Historic Centre of Mexico City.
-
To highlight the opportunities for management strategies to add to the current Integral
Management Plan of the Historic Centre of Mexico City concerning the preservation,
integration and interpretation of archaeological sites.
The research question that guides this dissertation is approached through the
social context directly related to the case study. As for this matter, I consider the public
awareness and understanding of the pre-Hispanic past of the city crucial to take account
as an elemental part of the archaeological heritage management, thus considered as an
integral component of the historic urban landscape enhancement and preservation.
The interpretation of archaeological data and its presentation to the public can be
evaluated not only through recording of the environment and available interpretative
resources but also by taking into account that it is the public who engage with archaeology
through those resources: they interact directly with the cultural heritage within the historic
environment of the city. Thus, understanding the social context within the cultural
landscape and its interpretation alongside assessing the current presentation strategies
provides the basis for assessing the management plan that will guide this research into
discussion and recommendations for the wellbeing of the archaeological heritage and its
wider context.
1.2. Research structure
In this research, the discussion of the difficulties on the integral management of the
archaeological heritage within the administration of the Historic Centre is followed by the
assessment of the social understanding and awareness of the historic urban landscape
through a public survey and its data analysis, which would constitute a tool that aims to
enhance management of the archaeological sites on a wider perspective for an integral
urban landscape conservation and public awareness through public engagement.
To fulfill the objectives of the dissertation, the following structured process has
been adopted:
5
CASE STUDY: Archaeological sites within the Historic Centre of
Mexico City
Conceptual framework
Methodology
Conceptualizing human
space: landscape.
Conceptualizing urban
space: historic centres.
Management strategies:
interpretation,
presentation and
preservation.
COMPARATIVE
DISCUSSION
Analysis
Case study approach:
management background,
recording of heritage and Deconstruction of
interpretative data.
landscape, archives.
Triangulation analysis of
Social survey: Interviews
data and sources.
and questionnaires.
Comparision and critique.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Codification of interviews
and survey data.
Figure 3. The research process.
This process leads to definitions of current issues for management and future
change, to evaluation of priorities or levels of protection, and to the formulation of
management strategies.
The dissertation structure is composed of six chapters which summarize recent
and emerging approaches to understanding and managing archaeological sites in modern
urban contexts, their interpretation and perception of the public, considering the wider
perspective of the historic urban landscape in Mexico City’s Historic Centre.
Chapter 2 is integrated by the background overview of the archaeological heritage
management in the Mexican context, landing on the definition of Mexico City’s Historic
Centre and considering the summarized assessment of the current management plan
(2011-2016), recently published in 2011.
In chapter 3, a review of the main concepts that embody the research approaches
are discussed through comparison of the variety of resources. These concepts are
presented and compared following three main topics: 1. Conceptualizing human space; 2.
Landscape interpretation and presentation of the archaeological heritage; and 3. “Historic
Centres” and the conceptualization of urban space.
Chapter 4 is about the research strategy and methodological approaches to the
case study and research question, describing the methodology for data collection in
Mexico City during May and June 2013, followed by chapter 5 where the analysis strategy
is explained and the results are presented.
6
Finally, in chapter 6 the discussion and comparative approach to the results are
described and chapter 7 details the final conclusions and recommendations for the
management of archaeological sites within the Historic Centre of Mexico City.
1.3. Research justification
From the idea of this research as an output of the personal mental process under
academic discussion, this dissertation reflects a convergence of three significant streams
of interest and contextualized concerns. One is the assumption that from a series of
archaeological sites integrated within today’s urban structure it is possible to understand
and interpret the wider context, the historic landscape, which brings the archaeological
heritage of Mexico City into a space-time context, essential for the preservation of its
value as a stage in development history of the city; another is the management of
archaeological sites as a necessary practice within the archaeological research in Mexico
and the adaptation of strategies into modern urban context, which can be both aiming to
preservation of archaeological heritage or an advantage to engage with the public; and
the third one, my biggest concern, is the lack of consideration for the archaeological
heritage in the management plan of Mexico City’s Historic Centre, which could be a
consequence of the fragmented management of the network of archaeological sites in the
city.
This dissertation is important for two reasons: 1. previous research has focused on
conservation and management of single archaeological sites as isolated units trapped in
the modern urban environment, as remains of a destroyed legacy. Nevertheless
perceptions are changing, new connections are being forged, and this research aims to
contribute to this important process. 2. Robles (2000) claim itself the first contribution to
the research of management of cultural resources in Mexico, particularly the social aspect
of the management practice among archaeological sites. Although several are
discussions around the applicability and research potential of rescue archaeology
strategies within modern cities (amongst the threat of constantly landscape changing by
use of space), this research could be considered as a pioneer contribution to the
discussion of the management of archaeological sites in modern urban contexts in
Mexico.
What I want, in presenting this dissertation, is to take a significantly broader
perspective and explore these archaeological sites as distinct places “of the past”
inseparably tied to their larger spatial and temporal settings and which are recognized to
be in constant change and approachable through the planning of management strategies
amidst the archaeological heritage.
7
This research also seeks to contribute to the international framework of managing
archaeological sites within modern urban contexts by showing one of the most important
qualities of management strategies: adaptability.
8
2. BACKGROUND AND CASE STUDY. The Historic Centre of Mexico City
Let us start from a statement speaking about the city of the
ancient Mexicans: Mexico-Tenochtitlan has been and still
is the root of all that has happened in this enormous
metropolis, it is the substratum of the nation’s capital.
Vamos a partir de una afirmación al hablar de la ciudad de
los antiguos mexicanos: México-Tenochtitlan ha sido y es
la raíz de todo lo que ha acontecido en esta enorme
metrópolis, es el sustrato de la capital del país.
- Miguel León-Portilla, 2001
An important step in the research process was the establishment of a background
baseline where the case study and its management plan are framed (Figure 4). This
background is essentially composed of an overview of the archaeological (research and
management) practice in Mexico City and its regulation context.
CASE STUDY: Archaeological sites within the Historic Centre of
Mexico City
Conceptual framework
Methodology
Conceptualizing human
space: landscape.
Conceptualizing urban
space: historic centres.
Management strategies:
interpretation,
presentation and
integration.
COMPARATIVE
DISCUSSION
Analysis
Case study approach:
management background,
recording of heritage and Deconstruction of
interpretative data.
landscape, archives.
Triangulation analysis of
Social survey: Interviews
data and sources.
and questionnaires.
Comparision and critique.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Codification of interviews
and survey data.
Figure 4. The case study background within the research process.
It is not purpose of this dissertation to show all the historical processes of the
archaeology in Mexico1, which are vast and complex2, rather it is presented as a revision
1
Mexico City status as the capital of the country plays a transcendental role in the definition of
contemporary national strategies for the protection of archaeological heritage. Because the
development of the archaeological practice in Mexico City and all the broader transformation of
cultural resource regulations (academic and political), it is considered that archaeology in Mexico
was born in the city (López 2007).
9
of the contemporary conditions that have defined current research regulations relevant for
the discussion of the role of the management of archaeological sites as a new tendency to
approach the urban cultural heritage within the changing sociocultural context of Mexico
City.
2.1. Archaeology and management of cultural resources in Mexico City
The management of cultural resources, in the archaeological practice in Mexico, is a new
approach that is taking more importance following the new research trends and taking into
account the constantly changing environment, from where the management is
considered? as a response to protect the archaeological heritage and its attached values
(Robles 1998, 2000; Robles and Corbett 2010).
To understand how the management of archaeological sites has been actioned in
Mexico, and Mexico City in particular, it is crucial to consider alongside the archaeological
practice in general under the development of administrative regulations that precede
today’s strategies for the implementation of management plans.
In summary, the emergence of archaeological practice and regulation of the
cultural heritage protection in Mexico coincided with a certain attention to indigenous roots
and revaluation of the past through nationalism (Robles 2006). In 1790, during
renovations to Mexico City’s main plaza, the “Coatlicue” and “Piedra del Sol” monoliths
(Figures 5 and 6) were found, providing physical authentication of the pre-Hispanic past of
the on-going Mexican nation (López 1994, 2007).
2
A detailed account of the development of Archaeology in Mexico can be referenced in Brading
(2001) García-Bárcena (2009), López (1994, 2007) and Matos (2012).
10
Figure 5. Research drawings of the “Coatlicue”, by Francisco Agüera, XVIII century (Source: García-Bárcena
2009).
Figure 6. The “Piedra del Sol” or misnamed “Aztec Calendar”, in 1910. Source: Google.
Both monuments were carefully recorded and studied, then taken into custody and
exhibited (García-Bárcena 2009). This important moment in Mexican archaeology can be
considered as the first official attempt to protect and investigate the archaeological
heritage of the city and the country.
Afterwards, the interest in the past was constant and increasing in the quest to
justify and understand the pre-Hispanic roots of the country. This situation was
determined by the independence movements (Brading 2001).
11
Mexico City, as the capital of the new independent nation, was a spatial witness of
several social, economic and political transformations that affected directly the attitudes to
the archaeological heritage of the city. As an early example, the country was
experimenting with new reformations of the international relations with other countries: in
the first half of the 19th century and under the Maritime and Border Custom Tariff
Schedule, article 1 was the first official regulation for the protection the Mexican cultural
heritage, which forbade the exportation of “monuments and antiques” (García-Bárcena
2009: 42; Lorenzo 1984: 40).
Between the end of the 19th century and early 20th century, following the context
of political reformations and the approaching of the centenary of Independence, the
protection of archaeological heritage had a major improvement in terms of regulation and
professional practice: Leopoldo Batres, as the main cultural adviser of the Presidency of
Porfirio Díaz during 1876-1911, was designated “Inspector and Curator Archaeological
Monuments of the Republic” in 1885 with the responsibility to regulate and assess all
archaeological excavation mainly in Mexico City and Teotihuacan, and 11 years later in
1896 the Office of Archaeology was established under the Ministry of Public Education,
being the first official agency in the field in Mexico. One year later, archaeological
monuments were recognized as “national property” in 1897 (García-Bárcena 2009;
Lorenzo 1984; Matos 2009).
Further reference to the ongoing improvement of strategies for the cultural heritage
protection can be understood in two different panoramas: national strategies and the
institutionalization of the archaeological practice; and global strategies within international
cooperation for the preservation of world heritage.
2.1.1. National strategy: Federal and local framework
The regulations for both research and management of archaeological heritage start to
take place in the urban context of Mexico City through the institutionalization of the
archaeological practice starting in 1917 with the creation of the Direction of Ethnographic
and Archaeological Studies, in 1921 the foundation of the National School of Anthropology
and History, and culminating in 1939 with the creation of the National Institute of
Anthropology and History (INAH, for its acronym in Spanish) by the President Lázaro
Cárdenas, making an institutional unification of Museums and Cultural Heritage legislation
in the nation and placing control of archaeological research and protection in the hands of
the state. The national strategy of cultural resource management then took the form of a
monopoly, conferring absolute jurisdiction for research and conservation on a single
12
institution without the possibility of sharing responsibilities with other entities (López 1994,
2007; Lorenzo 1984; Robles 2000, 2006; Robles and Corbett 2010).
With the archaeological heritage of the nation now protected by a legal body, a
State agency that would take control and enforce laws was still lacking. Within this
context3, the urban area of Mexico City was experiencing a huge transformation with the
increasing population, triggering, between 1945 and 19674, several projects of rescue
archaeology in an attempt to prevent the total destruction of the archaeological heritage.
This situation brought the necessity to develop regulation strategies for the threatened
heritage, for which in 1972 the Direction of Rescue Archaeology and the Federal Law of
Archaeological, Artistic and Historic Monuments and Zones (LFMZAAH, for its acronym in
Spanish) were created, providing a specific framework of conceptual understanding for
what the state must take care of (Díaz-Berrio 1986; López 1994, 2007; Lorenzo 1984).
Thus, the authorizing legislation on cultural heritage in Mexico defines clearly the
heritage for protection by temporal features5: 1) archaeological heritage, from the origins
of human occupation until the Spanish Conquest in 1521; 2) historical heritage, from the
Conquest until the end of the nineteenth century; and 3) artistic heritage, since the start of
the twentieth century (Congreso de los Estados Unidos Mexicanos 2012; Lorenzo 1984;
Robles and Corbett 2010).
Also, with the LFMZAAH the cultural heritage can be now managed through the
designation by the President of protected areas regulated by the state, denominated
Monuments Zone6, either archaeological, artistic or historic, accordingly (Congreso de los
Estados Unidos Mexicanos 2012; Guzmán 2011). This conceptual framework brings into
concerns the mismanagement influenced by giving priority to the preservation of one
period over another.
Last but not least, in 1994 the Direction of Sites Operation was created within
INAH for the administration and assessment of the archaeological sites open to the public.
The term “archaeological resource management” was first used in Mexico in 1996 during
the planning for the management of Monte Albán, Oaxaca: the Direction took the
responsibility to coordinate and develop the management plans and operation strategies
of the heritage sites open to the public under INAH’s custody, for the achievement of the
3
After the creation of INAH and around 1945, the archaeology in Mexico was characterized by two
types of approach to the archaeological heritage: the monumentalist one with archaeological
projects concentrated on the big monuments and archaeological sites, and one in respect of
specific issues concentrating archaeological projects on the rescue of threatened heritage within
limited spaces in development areas (López 2007).
4
The construction of the metro transportation system started in 1967, and the first line was
inaugurated in 1969 (Sánchez et al 2009).
5
LFMZAAH, chapter III, articles 28, 28bis, 33 and 35 (Congreso de los Estados Unidos Mexicanos
2012)
6
LFMZAAH, chapter IV (Congreso de los Estados Unidos Mexicanos 2012).
13
integral conservation and sustainable use of these sites (INAH 2013a; Robles and Corbett
2010; Valadez and Huitrón 2011).
More recently, as an important initiative to institutionalize this focus, the National
Institute of Anthropology and History, in collaboration with the National Council for the
Culture and Arts (CONACULTA for its acronym in Spanish) published in 2006 a technical
guide for the management of cultural heritage as an attempt to regulate and enhance the
creation of management plans nationwide (CONACULTA-INAH 2006; Robles and Corbett
2010).
2.1.2. Global strategy: the World Heritage Convention
With the ratification in 1984 of the World Heritage Convention of 1972, cultural
heritage in Mexico is now understood not only as property of the nation, but also as the
responsibility, with the world, of preserving the heritage value of outstanding universal
value. This responsibility is being actioned through international multilateral cooperation7
(INAH 2013b; UNESCO 2013c).
Although international cooperation is invited, the protection of cultural property
rests in the hands of the State in which it is found. This is not only due to practical reality
but it is also considered under Article 4 of the Convention, and article 5 provides a
tentative outline of a number of measures which, if implemented, will enhance the
protection of the cultural heritage in each State (Forrest 2010: 241-244; INAH 2013c;
UNESCO 1972).
It is important to consider that the conceptual understanding of what is cultural
heritage is now taken into a broader perspective adopting, for the nomination of World
Heritage Sites, the definition stipulated in the article 1 within the Convention 8 (UNESCO
1972). In this context, Mexican authorities started to develop the first nominations, and in
1987 the first World Heritage Sites of the country were declared: five in total. The Historic
7
About the international community and global strategy, article 6 provides that “the States Parties
to this convention recognize that such heritage (Defined in article 1) constitutes a world heritage for
whose protection it is the duty of the international community as a whole to co-operate”, where the
“international community” is in terms of international law restricted to the collective States Parties to
the Convention, and because the amount of 186 States, it is almost the international community in
its widest sense. (Forrest 2010: 245).
8
For the purposes of this Convention, the following shall be considered as "cultural heritage":
monuments: architectural works, works of monumental sculpture and painting, elements or
structures of an archaeological nature, inscriptions, cave dwellings and combinations of features,
which are of outstanding universal value from the point of view of history, art or science; groups of
buildings: groups of separate or connected buildings which, because of their architecture, their
homogeneity or their place in the landscape, are of outstanding universal value from the point of
view of history, art or science; sites: works of man or the combined works of nature and man, and
areas including archaeological sites which are of outstanding universal value from the historical,
aesthetic, ethnological or anthropological point of view (UNESCO 1972, Article 1).
14
Centre of Mexico City together with Xochimilco was one of them9 (INAH 2013b; UNESCO
2013b).
2.2. Mexico City: archaeological sites in modern urban contexts
As previously discussed, first approaches to archaeological heritage were originated in the
city as a response to the search for the destroyed pre-Hispanic past and the attempts to
protect the heritage from the constant transformations of the use of space within the urban
area. Thus, archaeology in Mexico was born in the city, and considering current
approaches to the protection of cultural heritage in the international context through
management, it is of primary importance to consider new attitudes to the archaeological
heritage in the urban context of Mexico City.
The archaeological practice within the urban area of the city makes it possible to
perceive the city in its interior through the most common non-intentional material findings.
It is understood that a constant re-occupation of urban space exists, and consequently
there is a concern of fragmentation of the archaeological record, determining the
interpretation, presentation and perception (López 2007).
The review of the development of the archaeological practice in Mexico City
demonstrates that archaeological heritage protection has been effectuated amongst
different criteria and approaches, under situations of improvisation and lack of academic,
economic, social, political and legal strategies, which is avoiding to confront the social
compromise that the management of cultural heritage should take into account. The
improvisation of the archaeological practice responds to an institutional inertia tendency,
composed of activities under an immediate principle and bureaucracy solutions (López
1994).
Particularly in the area of study of this research, there are four important
archaeological sites that are in constant interaction with the modern urban context of the
Historic Centre of Mexico City and immediate surroundings and thus represent an
interesting and innovating study approach (Figure 7): The Archaeological Zone of
Tlatelolco (Figure 8), declared Archaeological Zone in 1953 (INAH 2000); the
Archaeological Zone of Templo Mayor (Figure 9), opened to the public in November 1982,
together with the museum, inaugurated in October 1987 (INAH 2013e); the smallest
archaeological site in the country, the pre-Hispanic structure of Ehécatl within the metro
station Pino Suárez (Figure 10) which was opened to the public in august 1970 with the
9
The other four are The pre-Hispanic City of Teotihuacan, the pre-Hispanic City and National Park
of Palenque, the Historic Centre of Puebla, and the Historic Centre of Oaxaca and Archaeological
Site of Monte Albán (UNESCO 2013b).
15
inauguration of the line 2 of the metro system (Montiel 2012); and the last archaeological
site formally open to the public, the “Calmécac”, integrated within the building of the
Cultural Centre of Spain (CCE for its acronym in Spanish) in January 201210 (Figure 11.
See Appendix C).
Figure 7. Ubication of the archaeological sites in relation with the boundaries of the Historic Centre
of Mexico City (Perimeter A, red, and Perimeter B, blue). Source: Google Earth.
Figure 8. Left. Archaeological Zone of Tlatelolco (photo by the author, June 2013).
Figure 9. Right. Archaeological Zone of Templo Mayor (Source: Google).
10
I personally was present at the inauguration ceremony.
16
Figure 10. Left. Archaeological Zone of Pino Suárez (Metro Station. Photo by the author, June 2013).
Figure 11. Right. Site Museum of the Cultural Centre of Spain (CCEMx. Photo by the author, May 2013).
2.3. The Historic Centre of Mexico City
Mexico City is the capital of the United Mexicans States11 and the third most populated
city in the world12 (UN 2012). Its historical background plays an important role within the
history of European colonization, being an expression of continuity of human occupation
though time and accumulation of cultural layers by landscape transformation, where its
World Heritage value lies.
In the historic context of Mexican urban areas, most of the cities with colonial
background follow a common layout composed by a central district where the older
colonial Spanish-style buildings concentrate, with a typical European-renaissance squaregrid street planning (González 1997: 76), and normally built among the conquered preHispanic settlements; Mexico City is the best example as the capital of the New World.
Archaeological-resources management in Mexico responds, in the first instance, to
demands by international entities for better attention toward sites declared by the
UNESCO to be on the World Heritage List. Nevertheless, the development of this subject
has tended to become generalized, and today it constitutes an important aspect of
research for the social management of archaeological heritage (Robles 2012: 52). This
panorama in compound with the LFMZAAH and the regulation of the protection of cultural
heritage areas through the designation of Monuments Zone brings into context the
normativity behind the case study area/property.
Mexico City’s Historic Centre was designated as a Historic Monuments Zone13 in
1980 by the Federal Government14 (Díaz-Berrio 1986; Gobierno del Distrito Federal 2011;
11
Constitutional official name of Mexico.
Ranking third with 20.45 million inhabitants (UN 2012).
13
Zona de Monumentos Históricos.
14
Designation ordered by the President of the Mexican United States (Article 37 of the LFMZAAH,
Congreso de los Estados Unidos Mexicanos 1972).
12
17
Presidencia de la República 1980, Appendix A) and inscribed on the World Heritage List
in 1987 along with the southern lakeside colonial town of Xochimilco (identification no.
412), under the World Heritage Operational Guidelines (UNESCO 2012a) criteria ii, iii, iv
and v, as one of the world's outstanding urban landscapes, which illustrates the historic
transformation of the environment and the great periods in the history of the Mexican
capital (Table 1. ICOMOS 1987, UNESCO 2013).
Table 1. World Heritage Site Criteria of the Historic Centre of Mexico City and
Xochimilco
Criterion Justification
th
th
There is no doubt that, from the 14 to the 19 century, Tenochtitlan, and
subsequently, Mexico City, exerted decisive influence on the development of
(ii)
architecture, the monumental arts and the use of space first in the Aztec kingdom
and later in New Spain.
With its ruins of five temples erected before the Templo Mayor, and in particular the
enormous monolith of Coyolxauqui, which symbolized the end of the old cosmogony
and the advent of Huitzilopochtli, the tribal god of the Aztecs, the monumental
(iii)
complex of the Templo Mayor bears exceptional witness to the cults of an extinct
civilization.
The capital of New Spain, characterized by its checkerboard layout, the regular
spacing of its plazas and streets, and the splendour of its religious architecture
(iv)
(Cathedral, Santo Domingo, San Francisco, San Jerónimo, etc.) and civil
architecture (palace of the Marqués de Jaral de Berrio), is a prime example of
Spanish settlements in the New World.
Having become vulnerable under the impact of environmental changes, the
lacustrine landscape of Xochimilco constitutes the only reminder of traditional
(v)
ground occupation in the lagoons of the Mexico City basin before the Spanish
conquest.
Bearing in mind that today the Historic Centre of Mexico City is situated on what
was the pre-Hispanic settlement of Tenochtitlan (and Tlatelolco, further north outside the
Historic Centre boundaries [Aguirre 2005, Gobierno del Distrito Federal 2011, Matos
2011]), it is with knowledge of the existence of archaeological remains under the modern
colonial city. It is a city built over another city; its value is acknowledged for being an area
of culture encounters. Thus the shape of the urban settlement is material evidence of the
transformation of the city through about 700 years of history, and encompasses a variety
of cultural heritage expressions by the accumulation of layers within a living city (Gobierno
del Distrito Federal 2011; ICOMOS 1987; Matos 2010; Sánchez et al 2007; UNESCO
2013).
The dimensions and structure of the protected area of the Historic Centre are 10.2
hectares divided into two zones identified as “perimeter A” or core zone of 2.97 hectares,
and “perimeter B” or buffer zone of 7.31 hectares (Figures 12 and 13).
18
The boundaries of the Historic Centre’s protection area were defined according to
the geographical settlement and limits of the city during the 19th century, adopting a major
extension getting over the previous consideration of the historic area just as “the 16th
century city trace” (Díaz-Berrio 1986).
Figure 12 and 13. Boundaries of the Historic Centre protection area (perimeters A and B) which
also defines the World Heritage Property (top: Guzman 2011; bottom: the boundaries transferred to
Google Earth, oriented to the North, after Guzman 2011; INAH 2011, 2013d).
19
2.3.1. The management plan
Following the exhort from UNESCO for the creation of a management plan for the World
Heritage property in 2008, the Government of the Federal District together with the
Historic Centre Trust (created in 1990) and the Historic Centre Authority (created in 2007)
established a commitment to its coordination and planning.
Bearing in mind that Mexico City is a complex entity in legislative, administrative,
cultural, economic and urban terms, the Historic Centre experiments with the same
complexity being a space of permanent transformation, and because of that the
management plan follows a policy of permanent action. The planning process took about
three years, published in 2011 confronting the complexity of the regulation context that
covers the management plan and its action strategies (Figure 14, Gobierno del Distrito
Federal 2011).
Legislation and Institutional background
Historic development of
the archaeological practice
in the country and the city.
Legal framework for the
protection of cultural
heritage.
Designations and execution
Historic Monuments
Zone (1980)
World Heritage Site,
(1987)
National Institute of
Anthropology and History.
Federal Law of
Archaeological, Historic and
Artistic Monuments
(LFMZAAH)
Federal District
Government
Historic Centre
Trust and Authority
Management Plan
Protection of the
cultural heritage
(archaeological,
artistic and historic
monuments)
Urban development
and social
rehabilitation
Figure 14. The administrative context of the management plan.
2.3.1.1. Background and planning process
As previously discussed, the development of the management plan of the Historic Centre
responded to demands by UNESCO, to be in the World Heritage List.
From this situation, the planning process was determined by the several
transformation stages of the social and political context of the city. Key events for the
consideration of a management plan were the constant transformation of the use of space
20
within the historic area since 1945; the creation of the Archaeological Project of Templo
Mayor in 1978 bringing the interest for the pre-Hispanic tangible past of the city centre to
the fore; its designation as Historic Monuments Zone in 1980 highlighting its importance
for protection and awakening particular political and economic interests around the
cultural heritage; and the damage of the historic monuments after the earthquake of 1985,
which enhanced the development of preservation strategies which culminated with the
World Heritage designation in 1987 (Figure 15, Díaz-Berrio 1986; Gobierno del Distrito
Federal 2011; Urrieta 2003).
1790. Findings
of monoliths,
"Coatlicue" and
"Aztec
Calendar".
2006. Exhort for
a declaration of
Archaeological
Monuments
Zone for
Tlatelolco.
1972. Direction
of Rescue
Archaeology,
LFMZAAH and
UNESCO WHC.
1978. Templo
Mayor Project.
2004. General
Law of National
Assets.
1827. Article 1
of the Maritime
and Border
Custom Tariff
Schedule.
1945. Rescue
archaeology.
1980. Historic
Monuments
Zone Historic
Centre of
Mexico City.
2000. Partial
Programme of
Urban
Development of
the Historic
Centre.
1839-1846. First
excavations in
Tlatelolco.
1939. INAH.
1982.
Declaration of
Mexico.
1999-2002.
Management
plan of
Tlatelolco.
2007. Historic
Centre
Authority.
1984.
Ratification of
the World
Heritage
Convention.
1996-1998. First
management
plans, Sierra de
San Francisco
and Monte
Albán.
2008. UNESCO
exhorts the
state party to
create the
Management
Plan for the
WHS.
1987. WHS
Historic Centre
of Mexico City
and Xochimilco.
1994-2000.
Direction of
Sites Operation.
2010. Urban
Development
Law.
1885. Leopoldo
Batres is
designated as
Inspector of
Archaeological
Monuments.
1897.
Monuments as
property of the
nation.
1900. First
excavation in
the nonidentified
Templo Mayor
by Leopoldo
Batres.
1917. Direction
of
Archaeological
Studies.
1913. Manuel
Gamio
identifies the
Templo Mayor.
1905-1911.
Excavations and
restoration of
Teotihuacan for
the centenary
of the
Independence
1990. Historic
Centre Trust.
1991. Urban
Archaeology
Programme
PAU.
2006. Technical
Guidelines for
the
Management of
Cultural
Heritage.
2011. The
managemen
t plan of the
Historic
Centre of
Mexico City.
Figure 15. The management plan of the Historic Centre within the development process of
archaeology and cultural heritage management practices (after Díaz-Berrio 1986; García-Bárcena
2009; Gobierno del Distrito Federal 2011; Guillem 2009; INAH 2013f; López 1994, 2007; Lorenzo
1984; Matos 2009a, 2012; Muñoz 2010; Robles 2000, 2006; Robles and Corbett 2010; Sánchez
2009).
21
The planning process, begun with the establishment of a Consultative Council of
the Historic Centre in 2001 as an administrative body of consultancy and promotion for the
rescue and preservation of the site amongst the concern of abandonment, directed to
habitation concerns. It was composed by the Federal Government and the social sector.
With the creation of the Historic Centre Trust back in 1990 and the task to
coordinate the Partial Programme of Urban Development of the Historic Centre in 2000,
the Historic Centre Authority created in 2007 came into context taking the overall
responsibility and control of the process (Gobierno del Distrito Federal 2011).
2.3.1.2. Management plan aspirations
The management plan comes into consideration as a result of the major knowledge and
understanding of the processes that have an impact on the Historic Centre, developing
within this framework the tools and strategies for the achievement of positive balance
between historic monuments and the social life, between past and today’s conditions.
Within this consideration, the management plan structure and action plan considers two
attributes, authenticity and integrity, that give heritage value to the Historic Centre and
defines the strategies for implementation aiming to the fulfillment of the overall objectives
(Table 2).
22
Table 2. The management plan framework (after Gobierno del Distrito Federal 2011).
Heritage value justification
Authenticity:
- The Historic Centre as a
living city, non-falsified.
- Its attributes of shape
and composition are
preserved even when
the urban functions have
changed or the
economic and social
context have
transformed.
General objectives
Strategic action plan
-
Contribute to the
recuperation of the
urban, social and
Urban and economic
economic balance of the
revitalization
Historic Centre, ensuring
the permanency of the
cultural values and the
efficiency of the urban
Habitability
system.
- Identify opportunities for
preserve and increase
the compound of cultural
Heritage
Integrity:
values that give character
- The urban complex is
to the site, specifying
preserved with quality;
strategic actions and the
the effort for its adequate
schedule of prompt
Mobility
use has being prolonged
indispensable actions.
for several years.
- To establish the
- Spaces that had kept its
mechanisms for
original functions until
coordination between
Risk prevention
today are preserved.
federal and local public
dependencies, social
agents and the private
sector.
Civic life.
- To develop tools for the
plan implementation and
the performance of the
specific objectives.
Participation, coordination and correlation of agents
Instruments
Funding
Monitoring and evaluation
2.1.3. Key issues around archaeological heritage
The recognition of a specific cultural heritage (archaeological, historic and artistic)
is notorious for determining the priority of a particular period in the history of the
city over another.
The management plan is not clear about actions concerning the protection of the
archaeological heritage or the role of the archaeological sites within the Historic
Centre boundaries, this maybe being determined by the complexity of the
archaeological heritage regulation in general, administered by several different
23
dependencies within INAH. The archaeological heritage seems to be assumed
referring to the attention and measures that new infrastructure development should
take considering the potential damage to underground archaeological remains
characteristic of the area for the high archaeological potential (Gobierno del
Distrito Federal 2011: 102).
Although Tlatelolco was part of the wider pre-Hispanic urban landscape of the city,
the archaeological site is located outside the protected area boundaries of the
Historic Centre (Figure 16).
Figure 16. The archaeological sites currently open to the public visit in relation with the boundaries
of the protected Monuments Zone of the Historic. The archaeological site of Tlatelolco is located
700 meters outside the Perimeter B or buffer zone, to the North (after Guzman 2011; INAH 2011,
2013d).
24
3. CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK. Cultural landscapes, Historic Urban Landscapes
(HUL), Interpretation and Management
The city centre created to host people develops, ages and
regenerates but always, consciously or unconsciously,
shows part of its heritage in the layout of its streets, the
shape of its buildings and the capacity of these to adapt
with time, surviving the selection of what is esthetic,
useful or “memorable”.
La ciudad como núcleo creado para acoger seres vivos
crece, envejece y se regenera, pero siempre consciente o
inconscientemente mostrando parte de lo heredado en el
trazado de sus calles, la forma de sus edificios y la
capacidad de éstos para adaptarse al paso del tiempo,
sobreviviendo a la selección de los bello, lo útil o lo
“memorable”.
- Gonzalo Díaz de Recasens, 1997.
Different approaches to the management of archaeological sites in modern urban contexts
have been recently discussed in order to contribute to the integration of heritage spaces
(e.g. archaeological sites) into urban development planning and to mitigate damage or
destruction by the accelerating and disorganized use of spaces (Araoz 2008; López
2007). These approaches are considered in this research for Mexico City, bearing in mind
the important role that the understanding of living space has on the interpretation of the
wider context from which archaeological sites are directly related.
The aim of this chapter is to discuss the opportunities for managing cultural
heritage enabled by the idea of landscape and its interpretation, which has become
increasingly important in archaeology, not only from the academic perspective but also in
relation to the protection and management of sites and areas.
Approaching archaeological sites in a modern urban context through the idea of
landscape allows an understanding of individual sites that seem to be isolated within the
modern city as part of a wider context. The concept of landscape “it is a helpful scale at
which (to) conceptualize and comprehend the historic environment, giving context to its
component parts (archaeological sites)1 and making an understanding of larger, longerterm processes of change easier to grasp” (Schofield et al 2010: 296).
The study of landscape in archaeology attracts diverse theoretical and
methodological approaches or viewpoints in order to evaluate potentially significant places
and sites, perhaps determined by increasing development and rapidly changing
1
Parenthesis added by author for clarification.
25
landscapes. 2 It is a conceptual scale that allows us to consider a wider context in the
management of modern urban archaeological sites. Archaeological sites in Mexico City
relate directly with the space and with other chronologically associated sites.
Referring to the management of archaeological sites in Mexico, in the context of
Mexico City, particularly the area designated as the Historic Centre, the archaeological
sites open to the public or with access available for visitors, the interpretation provided
seems to affect the perception of the public about the wider panorama that is the preHispanic city of Tenochtitlan-Tlatelolco, which can have an impact on the management of
the sites as part of a bigger perspective within a similar modern context (same issues,
same opportunities, same outreach effects).
Approaching the Historic Centre as a dynamic urban area constantly changing
since the 14th century, the concept of landscape allows a better understanding of the
context as a space transformed by human occupation through time. It is suggested in this
research that landscape (cultural or historic urban) awareness depends on the
interpretation and its presentation, which will determine the public perception of it. It is for
this reason that the central conceptual discussion within this research will focus on the
definition of these ideas, while looking at the impact and relationship between them,
aiming to understand the particular context of Mexico City and its applicability as a
proposed approach to the management of archaeological sites in urban contexts (Figure
17).
2
Previous discussions have been developed around the approaches to understand ancient
landscapes in archaeology, such as an idea of public engagement with their historic environment
(Schofield et al 2012); as a narrative (Jones 2003); looking to the landscape as a compound of
interfaces within the changing environment (Palang and Fry 2003); looking for an analysis of
landscape through a value based approach (Antrop 2003); landscape as a social space modified
by change through time (Boyd 2012; Schofield and Szymanski 2011); landscape as an artifact or
human product (Fairclough 1999); among others.
26
CASE STUDY: Archaeological sites within the Historic Centre of
Mexico City
Conceptual framework
Methodology
Conceptualizing human
space: landscape.
Conceptualizing urban
space: historic centres.
Management strategies:
interpretation,
presentation and
integration.
COMPARATIVE
DISCUSSION
Analysis
Case study approach:
management background,
recording of heritage and Deconstruction of
interpretative data.
landscape, archives.
Triangulation analysis of
Social survey: Interviews
data and sources.
and questionnaires.
Comparision and critique.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Codification of interviews
and survey data.
Figure 17. The review of the conceptual framework of landscape within the research process.
3.1. The human space conceptualized: cultural landscape
The concept was first considered in order to understand how humans and societies
interact with and adapt to their environment, which determines the cultural expressions
and development of civilization. In archaeology the concept of landscape started to be
considered within environmental studies (Renfrew 1973, cited in Knapp and Ashmore
1999), and the concept is now an important tool for the understanding of cultural heritage
and its interactions with modern contexts.
Landscape has been considered as a concept external to perception but capable
of description. The landscape being the context forged by human activity, as the
expression of an idea, which the archaeologist must try to understand and, as far as
possible, translate into the terms of his or her own discourse, to interpret.
Within the study of the human past, archaeologists have been interested in space
and thus in landscape. From conceptual thinking about space, the idea of landscape has
been changing in archaeological practice, leading to discussion about the role of the study
and understanding of landscape on archaeological inquiry. The cultural landscape
concept has been explored within natural-science and social-science traditions, giving the
concept a range of meanings (Table 3).
There is no single definition of landscape in archaeology, although the main idea of
it has been used as a tool for the management of cultural resources (Fairclough 1999).
27
Mulk and
Bayliss-Smith
1999
Table 3. Comparison of landscape concepts
Knapp and
Fairclough
Darvill 1999
Ashmore 1999
1999
1.
The
environment
as
modified by the
cumulative effect
of
human
activities,
(the
landscape as an
ecosystem).
1. Landscape seen
as a provider of
resources
and
modified by human
activity.
2.
The
landscape
produced by a
particular culture
in a particular
period, and what
survives of it at
the present day,
(the landscape
as a material
form).
2. Landscape as
“the
material
manifestation of the
relation
between
humans and the
environment”
(Carole
Crumley
1994: 6, cited in
Knapp
and
Ashmore 1999: 6)
3. The cultural
meanings
associated with
a
landscape,
and
the
metaphors,
symbols
and
artifacts through
which
these
meanings
are
expressed (as a
human
cognition).
3. Landscape is an
entity that exists by
virtue of its being
perceived,
experienced, and
contextualized by
people
(sociosymbolic
dimension)
1.
Historical
process
approach,
analytical tool for
exploring
explanation and
causality.
Historical
processes.
2.
Time-depth
approach,
appreciation
of
the combination
of change and
continuity
that
create the historic
landscape.
Focuses
rather
more
on
description.
3.
Complexity
with diversity or
the
English
approach, historic
landscape
assessment
based
on
a
number
of
assumptions
about the idea of
historic
landscape.
1. Landscapes as
objects,
as
a
physical
phenomenon that is
essentially
of
human
construction:
an
object that can be
measured
quantified
and
understood.
2. landscapes as
subjects,
reconstructing
earlier states of
existence, creating
an image of a
landscape as it
might
have
appeared at some
defined stage in its
past.
Garden 2012
1. Landscape as a
compound
of
spaces
which
individuals
are
able
to
understand
and
identify with.
2. Landscapes as
Heritage sites that
have come to be
recognized
as
important loci of
identity
construction
brought about by
the interaction of
individuals
with
the
material
culture of a past
time.
3. Landscape as
context,
understanding
space as the result
of the relationship
between
space,
time
and
the
constitution
and
archaeological
manifestation
of
social action.
The first definition of the concept “landscape” was given by Sauer in 1925, distinguishing between
natural and cultural (Anschuetz et al 2001, 164):
The cultural landscape is fashioned from a natural landscape by a culture group.
Culture is the agent, the natural area is the medium and the cultural landscape is the
result. Under the influence of a given culture, itself changing through time, the
landscape undergoes development, passing through phases, and probably reaching
ultimately the end of its cycle of development. With the introduction of a different—
that is, alien—culture, a rejuvenation of the cultural landscape sets in, or a new
landscape is superimposed on the remnants of an older one.
28
The table above provides an interesting comparison of the various definitions of
landscape, which attempt to define it from a single perspective, in contrast to Sauer’s first
definition. More recently, there is reference to three stages or approaches to understand
and explain landscape, as an environment, as a constructed material space, and as an
ideological concepti, although Darvill (1999: 105-110) doesn’t consider the environmental
approach but rather makes the
distinction of a more complex and holistic approach
considering the social context, similar to Fairclough’s assumption of landscape as a
cultural aspect of human society (1999: 120-126), which means landscapes as a space
constructed by human activity combined with the complexity of time and scale.
These are the approaches to landscape that have major relevance for this
research, providing a conceptual framework to understand the “living landscape”
(Gobierno del Distrito Federal 2011; UNESCO 2013b) of Mexico City’s Historic Centre.
From the global perspective, the major challenge of traditional landscape
archaeology is to study the landscape as a whole, where individual sites have significance
only as components of the area in which they lie, dealing with questions of change and
continuity, using a multidisciplinary approach for a more systematic and dynamic
perspective to integral study and management (Maaranen 2003).
In this context, the development of knowledge and the process of reflection within
the international scientific community since the creation of the World Heritage Convention
in 1972 has led to evolution in the content and the extension of the concept of cultural
heritage, and to the abandoning of a basically “monumental” vision for a far more
anthropological and global conception of material evidence of the different cultures of the
world. This material evidence is no longer considered out of context, but in its multiple
relationships to its physical and non-physical environment (Plachter and Rössler 1995:
21).
As a result, the concept of landscape was internationally accepted within the
management of cultural heritage practice after the World Heritage Convention added the
new category of world heritage in 19923, from where several discussions took place into
the fast transformation of space and its repercussions on the preservation of cultural
heritage (UNESCO 2013a; Withby-Last 2008). Thus, the creation of this new category in
UNESCO’s World Heritage List crystallized the urgent need for a clear definition and
criteria for recognizing and protecting cultural landscapes, a concept and methodology
also applicable on the national and regional level (Cleere 1995; Jones 2003; Knapp and
Ashmore 1999; Plachter and Rössler 1995; Rössler 1995; UNESCO 2012a).
3
The first cultural landscape to be added to the World Heritage List was Tongariro National Park, in
New Zealand, 1993 (UNESCO 2013a).
29
3.2. Understanding the historic space: landscape interpretation in archaeological
sites
Interpretation for the public involves development of communication strategies between
the archaeologist and the non-specialized audience. Interpretations and representations
of archaeological sites and landscapes produced by scholars affect our common
knowledge concerning the past people and society and interactions between man and
nature (Maaranen 2003).
Landscape, as discussed before, it is a conceptualized idea through the material
remains that form part of the space. In this sense, landscape is not directly related to how
it has been constructed materially, in archaeologically detectable ways, from where the
interpretation is a challenge (Knapp and Ashmore 1999: 2). Considering not only the idea
of constructed environment but also the transformations and living context, Fairclough
(1999: 121-128) noted that the historic landscape needs to be read, interpreted and
perceived in terms of two dimensions: time (temporal change and continuity) and space
(design at various scales).
According to the particularities on the historic landscapes, with more attention in
modern urban contexts, academics have noted the necessity to develop strategies for the
interpretation of cultural heritage or archaeological sites. Goodey (1998, 2006) discussed
that the interpretation in urban contexts could be facing a generational crisis, which can be
perceived in Mexico. Its major techniques have derived from an age where explanation of
the past was sufficient to engage a population interested and involved in urban
transformation. A new generation of visitors, local or not, is now emerging with few, if any,
personal relationships to the dominant forces that shaped historic cities. In this situation,
interpretation strategies have to be evaluated considering the city as a living space, the
everyday cultural landscape that has historical and environmental contexts.
With other perspective, Schofild and Szymanski (2011) have a very interesting
proposal to look at ways to build connections between the past and the urban
transformation and to encourage the public to think of new development as just the latest
chapter in an ongoing story (the latest, not the last of many layers, in archaeological
terms).
A third well-thought-out strategy in this dissertation is the one stated by Baker
(1999) who considers the best option to interpret the landscape and the historic
environment, is through an holistic view, taking into account the important complementary
relationship between preservation and presentation of the archaeological heritage. The
30
fundamental purpose of the whole process is to communicate understanding about the
human past in a widening range of elements in the historic environment.
Within a modern urban context, archaeological sites that have been integrated into
new developments or accidental transformations should be perceived by the public,
directly or indirectly, as part of the social context that gives heritage value and historical
significance to these sites; i.e. enhance archaeological heritage awareness through
interpretation. Therefore, interpretation strategies for archaeological heritage allow access
to the specific meanings that characterized the pre-Hispanic settlement and thus depend
on engagement of the public with archaeology to keep these meanings on the identity of
the historic urban landscape of the city. The archaeological research and interpretation
removes the site from anonymity (Layton and Ucko 1999; Robles 2006).
Taking up the Historic Centre of Mexico City, there are few other? archaeological
sites chronologically and spatially related within a defined protected area by regulation of
management and administration, thus there must be an understanding of the relation of
those archaeological sites within? the context. One way to reach that understanding is
through visiting the sites and taking some knowledge from the interpretation provided, but
in order to recognize if the message is being received by visitors it is then considered
necessary to assess to what degree that interpretation reaches the social context.
Archaeologists more often are considering the possibility of participant observation
attempting to understand the lived experience of cultural landscapes and archaeological
sites (Layton and Ucko 1999). On this matter, Robles (2006: 114) states:
Social research tends to document the relationship between the public with the cultural
heritage in general and the archeology in particular; social considerations in the broadest
sense include a wide array of societal environment. Thus we can find an extensive
assortment of challenges linked to urban, city-country, modern, traditional, political, or other
interests that form part of the mix that has been put into play. In this sense I understand the
need for social research focused on heritage matters, as it permits a more reliable
assessment of the range of conditions that characterize the relationship between a site and
the larger society of which is part of it, […] whether is the engagement with the site or the
understanding of its interpretation, or the assumptions of the wider context and
enhancement of the historic urban landscape identity […] considering the particular case of
the interpretation and perception of the wider context of the archaeological heritage.
This research strategy will be a key approach in this dissertation, for the evaluation
of landscape interpretation, if there is any, obtaining the social information needed through
survey and participatory observation, as explained in the next chapter.
31
3.3. “Historic Centres” and the Historic Urban Landscape (HUL): conceptualizing
urban space
Recognizing the features of a landscape or a group of monuments as “historic” has
constantly been discussed after several European cities with architectural heritage
suffered damage during World War II. Thus, interest for the conservation of cultural
“urban” heritage has been developing within the international community, as a response to
the need for acknowledgement of how cultural diversity and landscape transformation
affects values and approaches to the urban space. The new challenges brought about by
rapid social and economic changes are enhancing concern for the conservation of the
historic values of the old parts of modern urban areas (cities) and then, in order to achieve
protection of its significance, regulations are created and new cultural properties are
debated (Bandarin and van Oers 2012; Rodwell 2007).
At a certain point, society starts to take an interest in the “ancient” heritage or the
culturally valued monuments and buildings. In the context of today’s urban century4,
heritage is now associated with modernity and thus the preservation of historic value
interacts with the modern and wider landscape. Within this context, cultural heritage has
assumed an important role, both as factor of identity and social stability, which have to be
preserved (Bandarin and van Oers 2012).
Around this subject and generalized concern in urban areas around the world, in
Mexico City the designation of the city centre as Zone of Historic Monuments (Chapter 2)
pulls into debate the role of the regulated protected area defined by its degree of cultural
value. The international community has been discussing the important definition of areas
for preservation and searching for standardization of the concept in order to encompass
the apparently common concern around ancient cities in the world, represented by their
thriving old centres. As a result, several charters and recommendations have been
published as suggested guidelines adaptable to regional regulations for the preservation
of the historic urban heritage (Figure 18), recently gathered in the Recommendation on
the Historic Urban Landscape (UNESCO 2011).
4
With more than half of world’s population now living in urban areas (UNESCO 2011).
32
Operational
Guidelines for the
Implementation of
the World Heritage
Convention
UNESCO 2012
Recommendation
on the Historic
Urban Landscape
UNESCO 2011
The Valleta
Principles for the
Safeguarding and
Management of
Historic Cities,
Towns and Urban
Areas ICOMOS
2011
International
Charter for the
Conservation and
Restoration of
Monuments and
Sites (Venice
Charter) ICOMOS
1964
Historic
Centres &
Urban
Context
Vienna
Memorandum on
World Heritage and
Contemporary
Architcture:
Managing the
Historic Urban
Landscape UNESCO
2005
Recommendation
concerning the
safeguarding and
contemporary role
of historic areas
UNESCO 1976
Charter for the
Conservation of
Historic Towns and
Urban Areas
(Washington
Charter) ICOMOS
1987
Xi'an Declaration
on the
Conservation of the
Setting of Heritage
Structures, Sites
and Areas ICOMOS
2005
Figure 18. Contemporary international charters and recommendations for the conservation and
management of Historic Centres and Historic Urban Landscapes
The UNESCO World Heritage Convention, in its Operational Guidelines, has
considered since 1987 specific cultural heritage designations for historic towns, from
where the Zone of Historic Monuments in Mexico City can be considered as an “Historic
Centre”, a category of inhabited town defined as that city centre that covers exactly the
same area as ancient towns and are now enclosed within modern cities. The definition
considers “it is necessary to determine the precise limits of the property in its widest
historical dimensions and to make appropriate provision for its immediate surroundings”
(UNESCO 2012a: Annex 3). Thereafter, the historic urban conservation has become a
specialized field of practice focusing on a sector of the city (Bandarin and van Oers 2012).
Further into the debate of urban development and cultural heritage protection, the
need for an integrated view of urban management was noted, one that harmonises
preservation of what is defined as “historic” and management of urban development and
regeneration processes, thus the wider context around Historic Centres (Bandarin and
van Oers 2012; Rodwell 2007). The concept of cultural landscape is now used to
33
understand and enhance awareness of the environment among cities and their heritage
areas designated as historic centres. The Historic Centre of Mexico City pulls out as an
exceptional example of a constructed landscape, “referring to landscapes constructed by
human activity, transforming the space with monuments which then constitute the material
remains and important element of landscapes as culturally constructed” (Knapp and
Ashmore 1999: 10-13). This kind of landscape could be placed on UNESCO’s “clearly
defined” and “organically evolved” landscapes (UNESCO 2012a: Annex 3).
Amongst these considerations, at this important moment in urban heritage
conservation policies development, it is eminent that urban environments require an
approach to conservation similar to those adopted for individual monuments or areas, a
broadening perception of cultural heritage and the need to integrate it into a broader urban
development framework. The first international attempt for the standardization of this
broader idea resulted in The Vienna Memorandum on World Heritage and Contemporary
Architecture proposing the notion of Historic Urban Landscape (HUL):
“The historic urban landscape, building on the 1976 UNESCO Recommendation
concerning the Safeguarding and Contemporary Role of Historic Areas, refers to
ensembles of any group of buildings, structures and open spaces, in their natural and
ecological context, including archaeological and paleontological sites, constituting
human settlements in an urban environment over a relevant period of time, the
cohesion and value of which are recognized from the archaeological, architectural,
prehistoric, historic, scientific, aesthetic, socio-cultural or ecological point of view. This
landscape has shaped modern society and has great value for our understanding of how
live today. The historic urban landscape is embedded of how current and past social
expressions and developments that are place-based […]” (Bandarin and van Oers 2012:
5
62; UNESCO 2005: articles 7-8) .
Conservation of the built environment has therefore a plurality of meanings: the
preservation of memory, the conservation of artistic and architectural achievements, the
conservation of pre-Hispanic settlements that have influenced the configuration of the
urban landscape and the valuing of places of significance and collective meaning. This
approach culminates with the UNESCO Recommendation on the Historic Urban
Landscape in 2011, specifying that “the HUL is the area understood as the result of
historic layering of cultural and natural values and attributes, extending beyond the notion
of “historic centre” or “ensemble” to include the broader urban context and its
geographical setting” (UNESCO 2011: article 9).
5
Emphasis added by author.
34
It is important to consider that the concept of HUL formalizes the link between
physical forms and social evolution of cities, defining historic cities in an historical
continuum representing layering of expressions throughout history. HUL does not
constitute a separate heritage category, although the concept adds a new perspective to
the practice of urban conservation, a broader view of heritage and its environment. The
HUL approach is a new perspective to include several aspects of conservation in an
integrated framework; it can be of crucial utility promoting integral development bearing in
mind the evolution of the urban landscape and the integration of policies and practices of
conservation of the built environment (Bandarin and van Oers 2012; Guzmán 2011).
Mexico City and its Historic Centre can be understood at the conceptual approach
of HUL (Figure 19) as a landscape which has typically evolved over a period of time, and
may include multiple properties (e.g. archaeological sites, scheduled historic monuments,
modern and artistic architecture, social actors), but share a geographic setting, features
and an historical narrative (Painter 2011: 491-492).
Figure 19. Superimposed image of the pre-Hispanic city-island of Tenochtitlan-Tlatelolco
(hypothetical) with surrounding towns on the urban area of Mexico City today (Source: Filsinger
2012).
35
4. METHODOLOGY
Remain patents these last words about the death of the
cities. Why the cities have died? Dust to dust, ashes to
ashes.
“Queden patentes estas últimas palabras en torno a la
muerte de las ciudades ¿Por qué han muerto las
ciudades? Polvo eres y en polvo te convertirás.”
- David Pisano, El Último Libro del Mundo
The overall methodological baseline of this research is divided into two main aspects: a
comparison of theoretical issues (bringing the research topic into context), and the
research strategy for data collection and analysis1 (bringing the specific research question
into context). The first aspect has already been discussed, as a theoretical background, in
chapters 2 and 3.Under this section it is complementary to reconsider some of the
concepts and ideas of landscape interpretation and their role within the management of
archaeological sites, in order to contextualize and justify the data collection. The concepts
and theory reviewed are sources of approach and are integral to the research process
(Figure 20).
CASE STUDY: Archaeological sites within the Historic Centre of
Mexico City
Conceptual framework
Methodology
Conceptualizing human
space: landscape.
COMPARATIVE
DISCUSSION
Analysis
Conceptualizing urban
space: historic centres.
Management strategies:
interpretation,
presentation and
preservation.
Case study approach:
management background,
recording of heritage and Deconstruction of
interpretative data.
landscape, archives.
Triangulation analysis of
Social survey: Interviews
data and sources.
and questionnaires.
Comparision and critique.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Codification of interviews
and survey data.
Figure 20. The methodology within the research process.
1
The strategy implemented for the analysis of the data will be explained on chapter 5 accordingly.
36
Thus, to achieve adapted methodological strategies planned for the assessment of
current landscape interpretation approaches among archaeological sites in Mexico City’s
Historic Centre, the management of those sites within the urban context have to be based
over a conceptual understanding of the wider context from where the management
strategies will be developed at the outcome of this dissertation.
Accordingly, the concept “landscape” is considered within this research as a
functional and practical tool-approach for the management of archaeological sites within
modern urban contexts. It is a helpful spatial scale which conceptualizes and
comprehends the historic environment, giving place to the wider context of the
archaeological sites of Mexico City’s Historic Centre and enhancing the relationships
between them, making a more adequate understanding of larger areas and longer-term
processes of change (Boyd 2012; Schofield et al 2012). For some professionals it could
be easier to manage single archaeological sites, but managing the wider landscape allows
us to have a bigger perspective of social engagement of the population with the space
where they live or commute and a wider administration scope of the archaeological
heritage. Understanding the wider context, the landscape, considering the relationship
between archaeological sites, could bring new opportunities for management unification.
The archaeological sites open to the public within the Historic Centre and
surroundings represent the most important material insight to the pre-Hispanic past, the
historic layer where the archaeological sites are geographically and conceptually located,
within the understanding of the city’s historic urban landscape. Thus the interpretation
provided to the public is crucial for the enhancing of the wider context of Historic Centre’s
pre-Hispanic archaeological sites.
Thereafter, the data collection for this research was planned tounderstand how the
landscape interpretation is presented and perceived by the visitors (local or not), and
identify through comparison of information sources and analysis strategies the impact that
landscape interpretation can have on the management of archaeological sites in modern
urban contexts.
Methodologically, this research could be considered as a starting point for further
research of landscape and archaeological heritage management within the Mexican urban
context. It is also a suggestion on how the authorities or institutions responsible for the
management of archaeological sites might proceed when assessing the historic urban
landscape.
37
4.1. Research strategy
In view of what was previously discussed, that is the understanding of the context around
the management of archaeological sites practice in Mexico, and the key issues within the
management plan of Mexico City’s Historic Centre, a methodology for data collection was
planned in order to produce the baseline information for the particular research concerns
of this dissertation (Figure 21).
The historic urban landscape
Management of archaeological sites in
modern urban contexts
Conservation
Management strategies for implementation
Interpretation
Social context (Stakeholders)
Awareness
Research strategy
Social Survey
+
Case Study Approach
Management Plan of Mexico City's Historic
Centre
Key issues
Assessment
Cultural landscape
Space
Time
Social context
Figure 21. The research strategy (methodology) determined by the research topics and concerns
(conceptual context and literature review). The management plan of Mexico City’s Historic
Centre has the role of both the “case study” and as a topic discussion. The cultural landscape has
the role of both the “conceptual approach” and as a topic discussion.
The selection of the methodology strategy was determined particularly by the
research approach to the social aspect of the landscape that encompasses the
archaeological sites in the Historic Centre. In order to assess the interpretation of the
wider context (landscape), if there is any, and its impact on the management of
archaeological sites in the urban context of Mexico City, it is essential to have first-hand
data from the social context, the individuals and groups engaged and related to the urban
space and its cultural heritage.
To a certain point, the research strategy was influenced by the conception of the
historic urban landscape as a dimension of Mexico City’s cultural heritage that can be
read, assessed, interpreted, perceived in terms of time and space, and accommodated in
the continuous process of managing change. Thus the methodology evaluation takes
38
baseline ideas from the characterization and recording of landscape which considers a
broader range of sources to an understanding and appreciation of the wider context of the
Historic Centre’s archaeological sites (Fairclough 1999).
Bearing in mind these considerations, the methodological approach was wellthought-out in view of the scope of social surveys as a technique for collecting
information, and it was decided to approach the concept of landscape through the case
study method because of its applicability to this research (de Vaus 2002: 5):
2
The case study method focuses on particular cases and tries to develop full and rounded
understanding of the case. The case study method does not fundamentally rely on
comparing cases but on fully understanding the ‘wholeness’ of a particular case and
understanding particular attributes of a person within the context of the case’s other
characteristics and history (Figure 22).
Archives and
libraries
Interpretation
resources:
Interviews
(Professionals)
Collection
Social
survey
Evaluation
Recording heritage:
Observation
Photodocumentation
CASE STUDY
METHOD
(Mexico City's
Historic
Centre)
Questionnaires
(Public)
Figure 22. The case study method (based on de Vaus 2002), developing a wider understanding
of the case through the comparative data scope.
An important feature of this research is the holistic approach of resources using
mix methods (Quantitative and Qualitative data) resulting into the comparison of data from
different sources and comparative set of issues.
2
Italics provided.
39
Sought to record and understand the heritage landscapes associated with the
archaeological sites within Mexico City’s Historic Centre, for the assessment of both,
landscape interpretation provided/presented and the public understanding of the wider
context of archaeological sites, this research employed a methodology that follows stages
of recognizing, documenting, understanding and taking account of what local people
perceive (and value) about the pre-Hispanic past (the historic urban landscape) within the
Historic Centre, as well as assessing the degree to which these archaeological sites and
its wider context can be preserved amongst the inevitability of a fast-changing world
(Schofield and Szymanski, 2011).
4.1.1. Observation and photo-documentation
In order to identify the interpretation elements available on presented resources for the
public, observation and photo-documentation were the main tools used for the coverage
of the study area, from where the recognition of the key aspects, where the further
strategies had place, was possible. On one side, observation intended to understand the
everyday dynamics between people and heritage (archaeological sites and the
landscape), on the other, photo-documentation using a camera, Nikon Model P500, to
record different aspects of the landscape and surroundings in context with the cultural
heritage.
As Boyd (2012) has shown researching the cognitive ownership of landscapes, it is
fundamental as a management tool observing behaviour and drawing categorization of
individuals and groups engaging in a cultural place, in order to identify the modern social
context that surrounds and interacts with the cultural heritage in question.
Before the field work, it was necessary to establishthe places in the Historic Centre
to be visited and recorded, using the computer software Google Earth to locate the
different recorded spots, identifying each point with a legend in order to have a control and
characterization of places (Table 4). The archaeological site of Tlatelolco and the site
museum were the only two places outside the Historic Centre boundaries (Figure 23).
40
Table 4. Identification of places in Google Earth
Symbol
Place category
Archaeological site
Museum
Historical reference
Archaeological remain
Archaeological window
Point of interest
Figure 23. Visited places around Templo Mayor (Source: Google Earth).
4.1.2. Interpretation resources: collection and evaluation
Archaeological sites and museums around Mexico City normally offer a wide range of
educational and interpretative resources for the public, although a preference could be
41
noticed about the kind of information, amount of material and the presentation strategies,
depending on the site, city area or museum approach. For the interests of this research,
the interpretative resources and its ways of presentation were assessed to identify
approaches or attitudes to the wider pre-Hispanic landscape of Tenochtitlan-Tlatelolco.
The variety of resources gathered and described were divided according to the
source or context where the information is presented: archaeological sites, museums,
Historic Centre’s streets, websites, non-free resources3 and key academic diffusion
books4. The original idea was to consider a specific category for leaflets: for practical
reasons the information leaflets are referred according to where they were collected,
considering they were available in more than one category. This classification responds
mainly to a geographical criteria, meaning places (Table 5).
Table 5. Interpretation resources collected in each area/site (further information on
Appendix B)
Archaeological
sites
Museums
Historic Centre’s
streets
Non-free
resources
Pino Suárez Metro Station Archaeological Site
Templo Mayor Archaeological Site
Tlatelolco Archaeological Site
“El Calmécac del Centro Cultural de España” archaeological site and in situ
museum
Archaeological windows
Metropolitan Cathedral
Marquez del Apartado Palace
National Museum of Anthropology
Templo Mayor Museum
Tlatelolco Site Museum
Tourist Information booths (Historic Centre and National Museum of
Anthropology)
Manuel Gamio Square
Main Square and surroundings (Zócalo)
Avenida Pino Suárez
“City neighborhood” maps in metro stations.
World Heritage Site and Autoridad del Centro Histórico information maps.
Historic Centre interpretative-historic signage.
Zócalo metro station
Copilco metro station
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (Main Library building)
“Templo Mayor” official leaflets
“Archaeology of Tenochtitlan” non-official leaflets (Manuel Gamio Square)
Official Map of Mexico City 2013
Arqueología Mexicana magazine (arqueomex) Special Edition No. 33
Algarabía magazine Special Edition No. 100
3
During the first days of field work it was planned to consider only those interpretative resources
available for free, although for sampling concern it was decided to consider some non-free
resources as well in order to have a major coverage of the information.
4
The variety of academic-scientific publications about archaeological research in Mexico City is
vast and well known on the community, nevertheless some research results were edited on the
shape of divulgation books presenting scientific-kind of interpretations in a friendly way to reach
wider audiences, known for be “basic readings” to have an insight to the archaeological past of the
city.
42
Other resources. These interpretation resources are not considered on the research mainly
because it had to be a limitation of amount of information and nature of the source. Online
resources are vast and should be considered in a separate topic, although a list of websites and
basic readings are recommended for further information material about the archaeology and
historic monuments in Mexico City.
Web sites
Key academic
diffusion books
Secretaría de Turismo: Ciudad de México
Secretaría de Cultura del Distrito Federal
Autoridad del Centro Histórico
Fideicomiso del Centro Histórico
Guía del Centro Histórico
Sistema de Transporte Colectivo Metro
Museum of the City (Museo de la Ciudad)
Centro Cultural Universitario Tlatelolco
Templo Mayor Archaeological Site and Museum
National Museum of Anthropology
National Institute of Anthropology and History (INAH)
National Coordination of Archaeology (sites and museums)
Direction of World Heritage
“Virtual Tours” and “Google Earth’s Street View”
UNESCO’s World Heritage Centre
Mexico City and Xochimilco World Heritage Site
Organization of World Heritage Cities
Ciudades Mexicanas Patrimonio Mundial
México Desconocido
Arqueología Mexicana magazine (arqueomex)
Academia Mexicana de la Historia
Los Barrios Antiguos de Tenochtitlan y Tlatelolco (Alfonso Caso
1956)
Fondo de Cultura Económica (FCE)
Seis siglos de la Ciudad de México (Salvador Novo 1974)
De Tenochtitlan a México (Luis Suárez 1974)
Tenochtitlan en una isla (Ignacio Bernal 1984)
Tenochtitlan (Eduardo Matos Moctezuma 2010)
Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia (INAH)
Plano Reconstructivo de la Región de Tenochtitlan (Luis González
Aparicio 1973-1980)
Ciudad Excavada: veinte años de arqueología de salvamento en la
Ciudad de México y su área metropolitana (Luis Alberto López Wario
2007)
4.1.3. Archives and libraries
The management of archaeological sites is a recent approach within the archaeological
practice in Mexico; therefore first-hand information was needed to establish a starting
point with previous work and research on the subject.
The visit to different archives and specialized libraries was an essential part of the
research process for the gathering of background information in context with the case
study. The access to these archives was organized and coordinated with the relevant
authorities. Divided in theory review and context background, the following is the list of the
different archives and libraries consulted during the fieldwork season (Table 6):
43
Table 6. Archives and libraries consulted
Theory review
and analysis
Context
background
University College London:
UCL Databases (Explore)
Institute of Archaeology Library
Bartlett Library
Main Library
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
Central Library
National Institute of Anthropology and History (INAH):
Dirección de Salvamento Arqueológico Library
Dirección de Operación de Sitios (Centro Documental para la Gestión
de Sitios Arqueológicos –Documental Centre for the Management of
Archaeological Sites-)
National Museum of Anthropology Library
4.1.4. Interviews
A fundamental part of understanding the context of management in Mexico City is what
the professionals in archaeology, as significant stakeholders, have to say about the case
study key issues. For this matter, in order to understand today’s management
circumstances and concerns, a set of questions were designed to use as a baseline and
to open space for discussion (see Appendix D).
The audio and paper information recorded from the interviews were transcribed
and digitalized into NVivo Version 10, computer software for (mostly) qualitative data
organization, coding and comparative analysis. A summary of the main aspects during the
talks are referenced in Chapter 5 (Figure 24).
Figure 24. NVivo software data interface.
44
4.1.5. Surveys
Social survey in archaeology, have being recently considered in research, as discussed
by Boyd (2012) on his discussion on landscape ownership, bringing up Merriman's survey
of public attitudes towards the past in Britain during the early 1990s, as one of the first
examples of this kind of approach; Merriman identified several forms of connection
between people and their knowledge of the past. Another social approach was the study
of Tilley (1994, cited in Knapp and Ashmore 1999): 4) about perception of landscape and
landscape as experience. More recently a survey in England carried out by Bradley et al
(2009 cited in Schofield and Szymanski 2011) emphasized the importance of the historic
environment as contributing to sense of place, but equal if not more important, it
demonstrated the extent to which people in the UK first, understand their local
environment, and second, take opportunities for engagement with it.
Within the Mexican context, social survey in archaeology has been recently
considered. Mexican archaeologist Nelly Robles (1998, 2000, 2006) has been a pioneer
researching the social context of archaeological heritage management in the Valley of
Oaxaca, southern Mexico.
To approach the public perception and recognition of the archaeological
interpretation of the historic urban landscape in Mexico City, it is important to consider a
survey and social assessment in order to establish strategies of interpretation and
presentation, important within management of Mexico City’s Historic Centre. Various
archaeological sites spatially and chronologically related could be interpreted as a whole.
Thus approaching the social context, the public, would help to identify to what degree the
pre-Hispanic city, Tenochtitlan-Tlatelolco, is recognized or understood by the population,
and would provide a baseline for more appropriate integral management strategies.
A semi-structured (open and closed questions) questionnaire was designed with
the guidance of Chiara Bonacchi and Jimena Rivera (see Appendix E for questionnaire
example) during early May 2013, aiming for questions from which the public would provide
useful information about how they get closer to archaeology and personal insights to the
interpretation of the wider context of archaeological sites in Mexico City, specifically the
Historic Centre. The idea is not only to be able to measure understanding, but also
allowing participants to contribute to the research through open questions, in order to
have an insight to the interactions between archaeology and Mexico City’s local or nonlocal visitors and inhabitants (Table 7).
The structure of the questionnaires was composed of 19 questions, organized from
a general to a particular perspective of the historic environment, structured in order to
acquire different kinds of information from the public (further insight in next chapter).
45
Table 7. Survey specifications (based on Bonacchi 2013)
Sampling procedure:
Simple random sampling
Sample size:
120 responses
Survey type:
Archaeological visitors, commuters and online.
Tool:
Questionnaire (open/close questions).
Application:
Face to face interview and self-completion.
Analysis:
Quantitative analysis and selection of qualitative
information.
The quantitative data collected from the survey was defined into variables and
entered through codification into the computational software IBM SPSS Version 21, a tool
for statistical and data analysis, which will be discussed further in the next section (Figure
25).
Figure 25. IBM SPSS software data interface.
4.2. Research limitations and advantages
The field work procedure took place during May and June 2013 in Mexico City. The
methodology had to be planned and organized in order to take advantage of the limited
time in the area and the particularities of the context.
Choosing the case study for this research was the result of a process of evaluation
of
possibilities and time-resources availability. Between internship programmes
46
applications and the finalization of academic lectures, resources were available to afford
travel expenses to Mexico City without affecting other extracurricular activities. For the
practical side of the research’s strategies and methods, the dimensions of the case study
implied the adequate planning within realistic time lapses and the amount of data
necessary that would be possible to collect in order to have enough information to take
along the research.
A limitation, and advantage at the same time, was the strict control of research
within the archaeological or heritage practice in Mexico, mostly because of the institutional
regulation of the National Institute of Anthropology and History. On one side as a limitation
it was needed to ask for permissions to use questionnaires in archaeological sites
(Templo Mayor) and federal establishments (Metro) which meant bureaucracy process
and waiting for permissions, on the other, as an advantage was my job experience
background within the Institute which facilitated approaching the authorities. Also, my role
as a student from a foreign university was significant in the accessibility of the Institute to
cooperate with a research supported for a well-known university.
Interesting to note was the wide accessibility of professionals for interview. In
particular, the information collected during the interview with the Director of INAH’s Sites
Operation was rewarding and celebrated by the interviewee given the fact that the
information provided was possible only because I am a student and not a journalist (L. A.
Huitron, pers. comm., 2013). Thus my status as a student was an important element
among the context of trust and participation.
The possible difficulty of using questionnaires, given the general social
circumstances in Mexico City, was taken into account. It is common to encounter
responses by the participants influenced by fear and embarrassment. It would be possible
for people to feel they are being evaluated in terms of knowledge, and although they do
not mind providing personal information even if anonymous, the answers may not be
completely honest.
Probably the major considerations of the research were the nature of the case
study and the language. Mexico City can be overwhelming and stressful, which was taken
into consideration bearing in mind that the research was developed within the almost
chaotic urban environment that characterizes the Historic Centre. The advantage of being
an inhabitant of the city and as a Spanish speaker helped with the collection of data ,
although it was time consuming to translate the data into English, and some information
could be understood differently according the language, for which this research is aware
of.
Since the source of the information implied a social survey, it was necessary to
follow the internal university procedures for research approbation following the Ethical
47
Guidelines for Students Dissertations of the Institute of Archaeology UCL. Ethical
clearance was unnecessary.
.
48
5. DATA ANALYSIS AND SUMMARY OF RESULTS
Because life walks and while walking creates “the
past”, it is precise to someone responsible to collect
this marvelous creation of humanity, which is his own
history.
Porque la vida camina y al caminar crea “el pasado”,
es preciso que haya quien se preocupe de recoger
esta creación magnífica de la humanidad que es su
propia historia.
- J. Floch i Torres, 1933.
Following the research structure, the analysis of data is the main step from where it is
possible to transform the data into information for interpretation, discussion and
comparison with other resources. As the analysis approach concerns, this dissertation has
the characteristic of considering the wider scope of data within the case study, having as a
starting point the overview of different resources around research topics (Figure 26).
CASE STUDY: Archaeological sites within the Historic Centre of
Mexico City
Conceptual framework
Methodology
Conceptualizing human
space: landscape.
Conceptualizing urban
space: historic centres.
Management strategies:
interpretation,
presentation and
preservation.
COMPARATIVE
DISCUSSION
Analysis
Case study approach:
management background,
recording of heritage and Deconstruction of
interpretative data.
landscape, archives.
Triangulation analysis of
Social survey: Interviews
data and sources.
and questionnaires.
Comparision and critique.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Codification of interviews
and survey data.
Figure 26. The analysis within the research process.
In this section the data and information collected during the field work season is
presented in a descriptive manner. Complementary data can be found in Appendices B, D
and E.
About the use of social data as a research tool for the development of this
dissertation, previous research on the explanation and understanding of cultural
49
landscapes has been conducted by Robert Layton and Peter Ucko (1999: 1-20) showing
that recording statistical regularities in human behaviour and perception can provide
potential to broader actions into the management of cultural heritage in relation to its
context, which is suitable for the case of Mexico City.
It is important to outline in this dissertation the concern that this is a relatively new
area for heritage practitioners in Mexico City who, until fairly recently, have focused their
attention on the physical remains of the historic environment rather than trying to tease
out and negotiate the values associated with such places (Robles 1998, 2006).
5.1. Analysis strategy
As already discussed in the methodology, the implementation of a case study research
strategy allows the data to be approached through a wider perspective and comparative
set of sources. Thus the data collected is both quantitative (surveys) and qualitative
(recording, observation, interpretation resources, and interviews), bearing in mind the
limitations and aims of the research to avoid saturation of data. On one side the analysis
of quantitative data will provide certain types of factual and descriptive information, and
from the other the analysis of qualitative data provides diverse perspectives of data
drawing out the understanding of public behaviour, points of view, interpretative scope of
information in archaeological sites and puts together the information into a wider context,
although qualitative data is criticized for being too reliant on the subjective interpretation of
research (de Vaus 2002).
The use of a multivariate technique is a factor affecting the way the data is being
analyzed, meaning the use of multiple variables into consideration considering that the
research question seeks to set up the relationship between interpretation of
archaeological sites, the public perception and the management plan scope and key
issues.
The overall analysis process consisted of two parallel stages: 1. Analyze the data
collected from the application of questionnaires, codifying the information for the data
recording into IBM SPSS software, as well as classifying the type of information recorded
according to the questionnaire structure. 2. Approaching the overall interpretation data
recorded from archaeological sites and within the Historic Centre implementing
deconstruction and triangulation of sources (Figure 27).
50
Comparative and diverse sources of data
Quantitative data
Qualitative data
Follow up surveys
Recording, interpretation
resources and interviews
Databases and descriptive analysis
Triangulation and deconstruction
RESULTS
Information
Figure 27. The analysis process (after Bonacchi 2013).
5.1.1. Databases
The recorded data from both questionnaires and interviews with professionals was
transferred into two software databases in order to apply descriptive analysis and
classification of information: IBM SPSS Version 21 for questionnaire’s data and NVivo 10
for interviews and questionnaire open questions. For the interpretation resources
evaluation the use of Microsoft Office Word was adequate. The software used in this
research was provided for University College London, Information Services Division.
For the statistical (descriptive) analysis through IBM SPSS numerical data is
needed and because of that the various responses from the closed and semi structured
questions from the survey questionnaire were codified replacing the answers with
numbers (e.g. Yes = 1, No = 0; or Tenochtitlan = 1, Tlatelolco = 2, etc. Figure 28)
51
Figure 28. IBM SPSS interface. The row on the top shows the identified variables for each
question, the column on the far left shows the number of questionnaire or “individual”. The answers
for each question and each individual is coded with numbers and transcribed into the software.
5.1.2. Deconstructive analysis and data triangulation
Data deconstruction refers to the approach of interpreting resources through the
assessment of specific topics of content, “deconstructing” what is said and presented to
the public (Figure 29). This technique was used to evaluate the content referring to the
wider context of Tenochtitlan-Tlatelolco (the historic urban landscape) on interpretative
panels, leaflets, signage, reading material and maps (e. g. identifying the number of times
the reference to Tenochtitlan as the wider context is referred in the interpretation panels in
the Archaeological Zone of Templo Mayor). This approach was used just to identify the
broad idea of landscape rather than make a detailed assessment of each interpretative
panel.
52
Map where is
possible to identify
the causeways
refered in the text.
Figure 29. Example of the deconstructive analysis on an interpretative panel in the Site Museum of
Tlatelolco. The red squares are highlighting reference to the urban setting while the map illustrates
the idea (photo by the author, June 2013).
Data triangulation refers to the approach to information resources in a wider
perspective through the comparison of information and different sources in order to
contrast ideas. This approach is also used for the discussion section (chapter 6). This
approach was suitable for the case study considering the widespread of resources
available and considered through research.
5.2. Results
The results of the analysis are now information for discussion and comparison. This
information was classified by subjects where certain aspects were relevant. Under this
section a summary of the main results are provided, while the main core of data is
presented in the Appendices B, D and E.
5.2.1. Archaeological sites and public behaviour
From the sites properly open to the public visited during the field season, the
Archaeological Zone of Pino Suárez stands out from the rest being an archaeological
structure integrated within a metro station which basically is a public facility and thus the
site is accessible for visiting, although the interaction between the visitor and heritage is
53
limited. It seems to be hardly appreciated by the public because it is settled in the middle
of an intersection between two metro lines, which makes the movement of people
constant all day long. Few people decide to stand on the protection fence to use the open
air space as a rest or merely for curiosity about the archaeological remains (Figure 30).
Figure 30. The archaeological zone of Pino Suárez, within an intersection metro station (photo by
the author, May 2013).
A different perspective from above the ground, outside the metro station, where
the amount of informal businesses settled in the square makes it almost impossible to
perceive the site (Figure 31).
Figure 31. Surroundings of the Pino Suarez metro station are overcrowded with informal
businesses using the public space (photo by the author, May 2013).
54
Templo Mayor and Tlatelolco Archaeological Zones are the idea of archaeological
sites as public parks, while in Templo Mayor there is an entrance fee, in Tlatelolco the
access is free with specific opening hours. Interpretation panels are installed along the
suggested visit route path between the archaeological structures. In both sites it is
forbidden to climb or walk into the structures. Both sites have a museum, where people go
after they visit the archaeological remains. Templo Mayor is evidently the most visited site
between both and in the entire city (further insight in Appendix B).
The Spain’s Cultural Centre has recently opened the site museum, situated in the
basement, to the public after the finding of archaeological remains during construction
works in 2006. This museum does not have an entrance fee, although people rarely visit it
because it remains hidden within the Cultural Centre and there is a lack of awareness of
the free access.
The archaeological windows in the front entrance of the Cathedral are widely
visited although people wonder what they are showing because of the lack of
interpretation or information panels (Figure 32).
Figure 32. Archaeological window showing colonial remains in the front entrance of the
Metropolitan Cathedral (photo by the author, May 2013).
5.2.2. Current interpretation and available resources
Several references bring up the wider context. Reference to Tenochtitlan-Tlatelolco or, as
I call it, the “island-city”, is frequent in several resources, but the preference is to highlight
the ideological aspects of the Sacred Enclosure rather than making the relationship with
55
the wider urban context of the pre-Hispanic city. It seems to be a particular kind of
discourse reflecting
how the Mexica people related to their beliefs and mythological
identity by building “sacred” temples and planning the city according to their gods’ wishes.
References about urbanism and landscape can be found mainly in the site museum of
Tlatelolco and in the Mexica Gallery of the National Museum of Anthropology and History.
The most significant interpretative material about the wider context of the
archaeological record was identified in the site museum of Tlatelolco. The use of maps to
visually create sense of space was widespread used amongst the galleries.
Detailed insight on these resources can be found in Appendix B (Table 8).
Table 8. Interpretation resources collected in each area/site (further information on
Appendix B)
Archaeological
sites
Museums
Historic Centre’s
streets
Non-free
resources
Pino Suárez Metro Station Archaeological Site
Templo Mayor Archaeological Site
Tlatelolco Archaeological Site
“El Calmécac del Centro Cultural de España” archaeological site and in situ
museum
Archaeological windows
Metropolitan Cathedral
Marquez del Apartado Palace
National Museum of Anthropology
Templo Mayor Museum
Tlatelolco Site Museum
Tourist Information booths (Historic Centre and National Museum of
Anthropology)
Manuel Gamio Square
Main Square and surroundings (Zócalo)
Avenida Pino Suárez
“City neighbourhood” maps in metro stations.
World Heritage Site and Historic Centre Authority information maps.
Historic Centre interpretative-historic signage.
Zócalo metro station
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (Main Library building)
“Templo Mayor” official leaflets
“Archaeology of Tenochtitlan” non-official leaflets (Manuel Gamio Square)
Official Map of Mexico City 2013
Arqueología Mexicana magazine (arqueomex) Special Edition No. 33
Algarabía magazine Special Edition No. 100
Other resources. These interpretation resources are not considered in the research mainly
because there had to be a limit on the amount of information and nature of the source. Online
resources are vast and should be considered in a separate topic, although a list of websites and
basic readings are recommended for further information material about the archaeology and
historic monuments in Mexico City.
Web sites
Secretaría de Turismo: Ciudad de México
Secretaría de Cultura del Distrito Federal
Autoridad del Centro Histórico
Fideicomiso del Centro Histórico
Guía del Centro Histórico
Sistema de Transporte Colectivo Metro
Museum of the City (Museo de la Ciudad)
Centro Cultural Universitario Tlatelolco
56
Key academic
diffusion books
Templo Mayor Archaeological Site and Museum
National Museum of Anthropology
National Institute of Anthropology and History (INAH)
National Coordination of Archaeology (sites and museums)
Direction of World Heritage
“Virtual Tours” and “Google Earth’s Street View”
UNESCO’s World Heritage Centre
Mexico City and Xochimilco World Heritage Site
Organization of World Heritage Cities
Ciudades Mexicanas Patrimonio Mundial
México Desconocido
Arqueología Mexicana magazine (arqueomex)
Academia Mexicana de la Historia
Los Barrios Antiguos de Tenochtitlan y Tlatelolco (Alfonso Caso
1956)
Fondo de Cultura Económica (FCE)
Seis siglos de la Ciudad de México (Salvador Novo 1974)
De Tenochtitlan a México (Luis Suárez 1974)
Tenochtitlan en una isla (Ignacio Bernal 1984)
Tenochtitlan (Eduardo Matos Moctezuma 2010)
Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia (INAH)
Plano Reconstructivo de la Región de Tenochtitlan (Luis González
Aparicio 1973-1980)
Ciudad Excavada: veinte años de arqueología de salvamento en la
Ciudad de México y su área metropolitana (Luis Alberto López Wario
2007)
5.2.3. Archives and the availability of documentation
Relevant sources were consulted during visits to the archives. It was important to gather
information about current management in the Historic Centre as well as background
information about recent archaeological research and management in the area.
The most relevant information was found at the Documental Centre for the
Management of Archaeological Sites (INAH). Two kinds of information were recorded: 1.
Archaeological research in the area of Tenochtitlan-Tlatelolco trying to find attempts of
interpretation, where the work by Sánchez et al (2007) is a significant contribution to the
interpretation of the pre-Hispanic landscape of the city. In this work the authors follow the
most recent archaeological research on the quest to define the limits of the pre-Hispanic
island-city and present a new re-interpretation of the dimensions and limits, which were
translated manually into Google Earth in order to have a perspective amongst today’s
urban area (Figures 33 and 34).
57
Figure 33. Using the information collected in archives concerning recent archaeological research
for the creation of interpretative layers on Google Earth (screen capture by the author).
Figure 34. The “island-city” of Tenochtitlan (yellow) and Tlatelolco (green), highlighting the Sacred
Enclosure of Tenochtitlan (blue). Main archaeological sites are shown as a reference (after
Sánchez et al 2007).
5.2.4. Interviews and current management
The information recorded from the discussions-interviews with professionals in the
archaeological practice in Mexico City shows the general panorama about the current
58
situation concerning the management of archaeological sites and archaeological research
within the area of the pre-Hispanic Tenochtitlan-Tlatelolco. In that respect, three of the
interviewees recognize that the management of the archaeological sites within the Historic
Centre (and the city in general) is fragmented, which affects how they are interpreted and
how the sites relate with the wider context (Huitrón, López, Sánchez, pers. Comm. 2013).
A summary of the main ideas discussed with each of the interviewees are
presented in the Table 9 below. and the baseline questions during interviews can be
consulted in the Appendix D.
Table 9. Summary of interviews
Date
22 May
2013
03 June
2013
04 June
2013
Name
Dr. Salvador
Pulido Méndez
Director of
Archaeological
Rescue, INAH
Dr. Pedro
Francisco
Sánchez Nava
National
Coordinator of
Archaeology,
INAH
Mtro. Luis
Alberto López
Wario
Main discussion ideas
Each of the sites has different qualities and different approaches,
which determines the management strategy.
Not all people will be interested in re-interpreting the pre-Hispanic
past in the Historic Centre: they are too concerned with their
everyday lives.
Templo Mayor is the most popular site among visitors and the
World Heritage designation meant more tourism.
The interpretation of the pre-Hispanic landscape is complicated
because of the complicated social context of Mexico City today. It is
important to consider the variety of perspectives that people may
have.
A consequence of the streets being overcrowded with infrastructure
and vendors isthe lack of attention to signage about the history of
the Historic Centre.
There is a lack of policies encouraging common objectives among
the network of archaeological sites. Unity in the management of the
sites is needed.
The communication of archaeology to the public in the city needs to
be re-evaluated.
A big concern is the lack of interpretation panels on archaeological
windows.
New interpretation panels need to be developed to present the
context and the chronology (diachronic and synchronic perspectives
of the environment).
There is a project under construction to enhance integral
interpretation of the wider context.
Archaeological information can be presented through new
strategies to develop leaflets and digital content on the internet.
Understanding the space and locating yourself in the geography is
important, and need to be considered on the re-interpretation of the
Historic Centre.
Interpretation material to adapt the pre-Hispanic landscape with the
modern trace of the city.
With the designation of World Heritage Site, people developed a
new perspective of the heritage. It not only belongs to the
inhabitants of the city, it also belongs to the world: awareness for
59
Ex director of
Archaeological
Rescue, INAH
06 June
2013
Arqlgo. Luis
Antonio
Huitrón
Santoyo
Director of
Sites
Operation,
INAH
preservation.
In past years the decisions concerning the protection of cultural
heritage were political, now those decisions have to be more
democratic and considerate of the public.
Relevant to bear in mind the transformation of the city after the
earthquake in 1985.
Management of archaeological sites and the communication of
Tenochtitlan are fragmented, there are no integral policies.
The perspective of management in the INAH is about reaction
rather than administration or integral policies.
The archaeological heritage in the Historic Centre is an assumption.
The discourse in the interpretation of Templo Mayor is ideological or
the destruction of our roots.
Management strategies of INAH seek the revalorization of
something already valorized.
The Urban Archaeology Programme of the Templo Mayor provides
policies in technical and legal protection.
The archaeological sites in the city are managed individually.
There is no correlation between sites.
Priorities in the Historic Centre are protection and
diffusion/communication.
There is a project under construction to link the archaeological
windows through an integral approach, looking to develop
interpretation with associative discourse.
In Mexico City we do not think about landscape when talking about
archaeology.
Relevance in Latin America of the Documental Centre for the
Management of Archaeological Sites, created in 2012.
A management plan of the Templo Mayor does not exist.
A thematic interpretation is complicated because of the
methodology.
Maps are important to provide context and the pre-Hispanic history
for the visitor in the city.
Tlatelolco is a good example of continuity and living spaces
transforming through time. There is an idea or sense of built
landscape.
The Museum of Templo Mayor is a precedent for the archaeological
management in the Historic Centre.
The World Heritage designation does not include pre-Hispanic
remains.
The Management Plan of the Historic Centre: the archaeological
heritage is considered as an extra element rather than a priority
axis.
Reviewing the discussions and the different topics and concerns expressed by the
interviewees, some ideas where common among them, which facilitated the identification
of topics relevant for this research and source of discussion in the next chapter (Table 10).
60
Table 10. Key discussion topics from interviews
Issues in
management
Fragmented management among sites.
Links between sites are not considered.
The management plan of the Historic Centre does not consider
archaeological heritage as a priority or as an action strategy.
Lack of interpretation on archaeological windows, making no relation at all
with the context or with the big archaeological sites.
Lack of policies with common objectives.
Aspirations for
the management
of archaeological
sites to consider
in Mexico City
Maps are a useful tool that could be implemented to contextualize sites for
the public with the wider context.
Provision of interpretation material that relates the pre-Hispanic past with
the modern city e.g. in Manuel Gamio Square.
Unity in management needed.
Important to consider what people are interested in.
Consider specifics of each site in order to develop management strategies.
Interpretation of
the wider context
There is currently no perspective about landscape in Mexico City’s
archaeology and management strategies: this has not been considered
yet.
Interpretation should explain the relationship between sites that are
culturally, spatially and chronologically related and also explain their
relationship with the landscape.
One needs to be realistic of the difficulties of interpreting in the changing
city.
Institutional
strategies
Templo Mayor is an example of management of archaeological heritage in
the Historic Centre, monitoring a wide range of research around the area
of Tenochtitlan.
Protection and communication are the main tasks of current management
regulation. The approach taken to archaeological heritage is through
reaction and not through management.
There is a current project underway about interpretation of archaeological
windows, creating a network among them.
61
5.2.5. Public perceptions and engagement: the survey
The structure of the questionnaires was organized under three specific kinds of
information relevant for the research in question. A fourth one referred to “personal profile”
was not considered in the descriptive analysis (Figure 35).
Spatial and historical understanding of the landscape.
To have a perspective of the degree of understanding and perception people have
about the spatial and historical background of Tenochtitlan-Tlatelolco.
Experiences and triggers
Understand the degree of satisfaction the public have about their experiences and
interest with archaeology in Mexico City.
This information will provide an insight to how people engage with archaeology.
Public participation and expectations
Provide the public with the opportunity to express their point of view and to
collaborate with the research process.
Personal profile
This information will not be used for further analysis, although it provides a first
baseline insight about education and background of visitors.
Figure 35. The questionnaire design and topics of information (after Bonacchi 2013).
62
Three questions on the survey were in a multiple choice format and participants
were able to choose more than one answer. These specific questions (nos. 2, 9 and 10,
see Appendix E) were analyzed separately using IBM SPSS multiple responses
command.
Landscape perception
Looking to what people perceive today about the past of Mexico City considering the
changing space since the conquest: 49.1% of the audience perceive the idea of
Tenochtitlan, 14.5% the idea of an ancient lake, and 12.7% consider both the lake and
Tenochtitlan (Graph 1).
What people perceive in the landscape before Mexico City
Other
1.8
Civilization/AncientCulture/PrehispanicCulture
Lake & Templo Mayor
10.9
1.8
Lake & City/Tenochtitlan
12.7
Lake/Texcoco
14.5
Templo Mayor
4.5
Pyramids/Ruins/Monuments
4.5
Tenochtitlan
49.1
Graph 1. Frequencies of perception.
Associating archaeological sites visited for the public: 46% of the audience make
the relation between those sites (Templo Mayor, Pino Suárez, Tlatelolco and the CCEMx)
and the idea of a single city, Tenochtitlan (Graph 2).
63
The archaeological sites in the Historic Centre are
related to a single city?
No
28%
Does not know
26%
Yes
46%
Graph 2. Relating the archaeological sites with the pre-Hidspanic city.
Exploring whether the public make the connection between the archaeological
sites visited with the wider city of Tenochtitlan-Tlatelolco (“The Great Tenochtitlan”): an
outstanding 86.7% relate Templo Mayor with the city, 41% Pino Suárez and a similar
number relateTlatelolco (35%) and CCEMx (30.8%) (Graph 3).
Archaeological sites that are recognized as part of
Tenochtitlan
Don't know
Myths
Colonial buildings
Other
Teotihuacan
Xochimilco
Cerro de la Estrella
Tlatelolco
Ventanas arqueológicas
Templo Mayor
CCEMx
Pino Suárez
9.2%
0.8%
3.3%
3.3%
0.8%
0.8%
0.8%
35.8%
32.5%
86.7%
30.8%
41.7%
Graph 3. Associating archaeological sites with Tenochtitlan-Tlatelolco.
64
Experience with archaeology
Exploring which archaeological sites are most visited by the public: Templo Mayor was
clearly the most popular with 95% of the total participants, followed by Pino Suárez and
Tlatelolco each with 54.2% (Graph 4).
Archaeological sites within the Historic Centre known by
the participants
Don't know
XIX-XX centuries
Colonial buildings
Other
Teotihuacan
Xochimilco
Tenayuca
Cerro de la Estrella
Cuicuilco
Tlatelolco
Ventanas arqueológicas
Templo Mayor
CCEMx
Pino Suárez
1.7%
5.0%
4.2%
10.0%
7.5%
4.2%
3.3%
5.0%
10.0%
54.2%
30.8%
95%
25.0%
54.2%
Graph 4. Sites visited for the public.
Visiting archaeological sites is an important consideration in analyzing experience
with archaeology, but also relevant are the ways people have access to archaeological
information about Mexico City: 85.8% of the audience accesses information by visiting the
museums and 67.5% by visiting archaeological sites and through the internet (Graph 5).
65
How participants have access to information about
archaeology
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Graph 5. Accessing information about archaeology of the city.
From another perspective, the interpretation material available on the archaeological sites
and museums is evaluated as satisfactory experience (Graph 6).
Degree of satisfaction concerning
available interpretation on site
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Insatisfactory
Not very
Satisfactory
Very
satisfactory
satisfactory
Graph 6. Available interpretation satisfaction degree.
66
More than half of the audience (54.2%) is very much interested in archaeology
(Graph 7).
Amount of interest in archaeology
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Not at all
Not very
much
Fair
Very much
Graph 7. Amount of interest in archaeology.
People also feel very satisfied or satisfied after visiting archaeological sites (Graph 8).
Degree of satisfaction concerning
visiting experience
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Insatisfactory
Not very Satisfactory
Very
satisfactory
satisfactory
Graph 8. Degree of visit satisfaction.
Public interest
A wide range of suggestions on the presentation of information to the public and
interpretation management was collected, which was collected for further insights.
67
Demographics.
The age range of the 120 responses collected is between 16 and 69 years old, with an
average of 29 years old.
The degree of effort put into consulting the public in the course of this research is
considered noteworthy, seeking to associate a wider audience with the affairs of “their”
archaeological heritage.
68
6. DISCUSSION
A society is defined not only by it attitude to the future
but to the past; its memories are not less revealing tan
its projects. Even that we Mexicans are concerned –or
better to say, obsessed- about our past, we don’t have
a clear idea of what we were. And the worst thing: we
don’t want to have it. We live in between myth and
denial, we glorify certain periods, we forget others.
Una sociedad se define no sólo por su actitud ante el
futuro sino frente al pasado; sus recuerdos no son
menos reveladores que sus proyectos. Aunque los
mexicanos estamos preocupados – mejor dicho:
obsesionados - por nuestro pasado, no tenemos una
idea clara de lo que hemos sido. Y lo que es más
grave: no queremos tenerla. Vivimos entre el mito y la
negación, deificamos a ciertos periodos, olvidamos a
otros.
- Octavio Paz; “El peregrino en su patria”, 1987
Evaluating the results obtained in the Historic Centre of Mexico City brings into discussion
the series of issues that arise among archaeological sites within the modern urban
context, a particular context of management which is the baseline of this dissertation and
essential background for proposals (Figure 36).
CASE STUDY: Archaeological sites within the Historic Centre of
Mexico City
Conceptual framework
Methodology
Conceptualizing human
space: landscape.
Conceptualizing urban
space: historic centres.
Management strategies:
interpretation,
presentation and
integration.
COMPARATIVE
DISCUSSION
Analysis
Case study approach:
management background,
recording of heritage and Deconstruction of
interpretative data.
landscape, archives.
Triangulation analysis of
Social survey: Interviews
data and sources.
and questionnaires.
Comparision and critique.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Codification of interviews
and survey data.
Figure 36. The comparative discussion within the research process.
69
The
fragmented
perspective
of
management
strategies
in
unrelated
archaeological sites in Mexico City is now clear. In cities with a long historical background
and thus with recognition of a broad heritage, a process of fragmentation could affect
landscapes in areas with modernization and population growth (Swensen 2003: 275-276).
This fragmentation is clearly recognized within the institutional archaeology in the city
(Huitrón Santoyo, López Wario, Sánchez Nava pers. comm. 2013) and is also reflected in
fragmentation of the interpretation of these sites (see Appendix B). Interpretation is also
determined, not only by the lack of common objectives in management policies, but also
by the differences between sites, which makes it difficult to think on a contextual level
rather than an individual site level, within the Historic Centre (Darvill 1999; Pulido pers.
comm. 2013) This means many details of information are not recognized, or at least are
not interpreted (Maaranen 2003: 257; Sánchez Nava pers. comm. 2013).
This spatial fragmentation is also one of the limitations of archaeological practice
within cities; this is the non-intentional delimitation of sites, which at the management
practice could be an advantage providing clearly defined areas for action plans, control of
the information and integrative interpretation.
Consequently, between archaeological sites open to the public in the Historic
Centre and surrounding areas the discourse of interpretation panels is different. For
example in o Templo Mayor Archaeological Zone the main idea of the interpretation is the
Sacred Enclosure and the ideological perspective of the urban past from the mythological
origin of the Mexica people and the city itself (see Appendix B and C). The public seems
to react to this discourse and express its interest to know more about the lifestyle of the
pre-Hispanic people and more historical facts. Wider context is sometimes addressed to
justify the importance of the building rather than to relate the site to others. The situation is
completely different in the Site Museum of Tlatelolco, where the wider perspective is
present in practically all the museum discourse, as a way to enhance the importance of
Tlatelolco within the “island-city”, which sometimes may be neglected from the importance
of Templo Mayor and the greatness of Tenochtitlan. In Tlatelolco the idea of continuity
through time is brought to the interpretation perspective from where the site is a good
example of the understanding of landscape as a built space (Huitrón Santoyo, pers.
comm. 2013). In other cities with similar situations and in Mexico City in particular,
landscape must be understood as a concept that allows an understanding of the wider
context from a diachronic and synchronic perspective (Layton and Ucko 1999, Sánchez
Nava pers. comm. 2013).
This fragmentation between archaeological sites is the result of a prevalencepreference of one period over another, which also affects preference for a single site
rather than considering the context between sites (Garden 2012; Huitrón Santoyo, Pulido
70
Méndez pers. comm. 2013). This is a delicate issue of integral management (Sánchez
Nava pers. comm. 2013). The World Heritage denomination could have an impact making
more relevant the idea of “Mexico City, the city of palaces” which covers the colonial and
virreynal architecture of the Historic Centre, and thus a lack of management strategies
allocated to the pre-Hispanic archaeological heritage is evident. The Management Plan of
the Historic Centre doesn’t consider archaeology as an action-plan-research axis
(Gobierno del Distrito Federal 2011; Huitrón Santoyo pers. comm. 2013). There is an
imminent necessity to clarify what is considered as cultural heritage, define them in the
objectives, to understand the actual protection scope of the Management Plan
considerations (Figure 37).
Figure 37. Plan of the Historic Centre installed by the World Heritage Centre and the
Historic Centre Authority along the streets in the area. It is important to notice that the
Archaeological Zone of Templo Mayor is the only archaeological site located in this plans (number
130), which is not particularly defined as archaeological in the plan rather seems to integrated to
the rest of historic monuments (photo by the author, June 2013).
The analysis of the quantitative data from the social survey shows that Templo
mayor is the most well-known archaeological site in the area (Graph 9), which may be
responding to the fact that sites and/or museums that are long-established and which are
generally recognized at a wider level have a bigger proportion of the work that has been
conducted on extant heritage sites, which tends to cause the rest of the site or its
surroundings to fade into the background (Garden 2012). Thus the importance of Templo
Mayor among management strategies in the Historic Centre lies in its contribution as a
pioneer archaeological project in the development of urban archaeology in the city and
general archaeology in the country. The site also may be thought of as the materialization
71
of what we should consider as archaeological heritage of outstanding universal value,
being one of the key elements that influenced the World Heritage Nomination (Gobierno
del Distrito Federal 2011; ICOMOS 1987).
Archaeological sites within the Historic Centre known by
the participants
Don't know
XIX-XX centuries
Colonial buildings
Other
Teotihuacan
Xochimilco
Tenayuca
Cerro de la Estrella
Cuicuilco
Tlatelolco
Ventanas arqueológicas
Templo Mayor
CCEMx
Pino Suárez
1.7%
5.0%
4.2%
10.0%
7.5%
4.2%
3.3%
5.0%
10.0%
54.2%
30.8%
95%
25.0%
54.2%
Graph 9. Sites visited for the public.
As for the wider context concern, people seem to perceive the concept of
Tenochtitlan as the great capital of the Mexica Empire and ideological centre of the preHispanic México referring to Templo Mayor, understanding the building as the
materialization of the greatness of Tenochtitlan, which we could make the most of to
communicate the wider idea of landscape through the site, if the impact would be relevant.
The planning interpretative strategies should also bear in mind that people get access to
archaeology by visiting museums (Graph 10) and then implement action plans in, for
example, the Templo Mayor Museum, responding to its relevant importance.
The degree of satisfaction with the experience may be related to the amount of
interest that people have in archaeology and thus respond to the preference to visit
museums and archaeological sites, although if visitors are having a satisfactory
experience and find the interpretation of information provided adequate, further research
may be conducted to analyze if that satisfaction is related with what they know about the
site (Templo Mayor) and what are they expecting to see. Considering that management
and interpretation don’t connect the site with the landscape, then the public is not
expecting to have information about the wider context, which seems to be assumed.
72
How participants have access to information about
archaeology
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Graph 10. Accessing information about archaeology of the city.
Comparing the fact that the interpretative discourse in Templo Mayor has as a
main topic the symbolism among the Mexica people and the mythical origin of the building
and the city, the site museum of Tlatelolco is remarkable, oriented to the interpretation of
the archaeological zone within the main idea of the “island-city”. The museum enhances a
geographical contextualization and identity to the site (see Appendix B and C). This
interpretative perspective complements the single-building/site approach expressed in the
domain of Templo Mayor, although Tlatelolco is not located within the Historic Centre
protected area and is not even mentioned in the World Heritage Nomination, which
determines the fragmentation of the interpretation of the “island-city” and keeps the site in
symbolic abandonment.
Its integration
to standard
protection
policies
through
management and development of share interpretations will have an important impact on
the understanding of the wider perspective of the island-city from both, Templo Mayor
(Tenochtitlan) and Tlatelolco (which after Templo Mayor is the most recognized site by the
public).
As was discussed in previous sections, the social survey approach for
management planning studies is starting to be considered in Mexico, and archaeology has
to improve engagement with the public, starting with strategies that consider their
particular points of view about heritage. Salvador Pulido (pers. comm. 2013) refers to this
recognizing of the differences in public interests, which came into consideration at the
73
moment to evaluate audiences for interpretation improvements. Also, the transformation
of the city brings to the issue the idea of the public as the most affected or the most
related with the transformation of the city, which then is crucial to consider how they think
and how they engage with their urban heritage (Lopez Wario pers. comm. 2013).
Approaching the public in this research allows consideration of how the wider
context of Tenochtitlan is perceived at the moment, although the implemented sample
may be not much relevant for making generalized considerations, for what a broader
coverage will be needed further on.
An interesting observation at this point is that, apart from the preference to visit
museums and archaeological sites to access information about archaeology, the use of
the internet seems to be relevant, which may be considered in the planning process for
developing interpretation strategies, for understanding the audience is crucial.
All these consideration come into discussion among management strategies for
archaeological sites in modern urban contexts. As it was mentioned by Sánchez Nava and
Huitrón Santoyo (pers. comm. 2013) development of interpretative projects is being
recently discussed in response to the fragmentation between sites and mostly because
the lack of interpretation material concerning the archaeological windows spread around
the Cathedral and Templo Mayor, noticing the practically non-existent link of sites, or
fragments of them, with the wider contextual idea (see Appendix B).
Understanding then the social and practical context of the archaeological sites
within the Historic Centre (and Tlatelolco), opens a window to address the management of
these sites, holistically well planned and related with the wider context. The archaeological
site interpretation and meanings, as well as their management are fragmented, thus
approaching these issues from the landscape perspective could represent an ideal
strategy to enhance the common archaeological heritage of the Historic Centre and be a
starting point for understanding the pre-Hispanic landscape. Any contextual evaluation
requires a characterization of the object or objects in question with regard to specific
qualities (Plachter 1995).
A frequent aspect within the research on the discussion of management strategies
is the scope of using maps as interpretation resources. The lack of overall maps linking
the archaeological heritage in general with today’s Historic Centre or with urban history is
notorious. Huitrón Santoyo, Pulido Méndez and Sánchez Nava agree that maps would be
a possible solution to enhance the idea of the pre-Hispanic city integrated to the Historic
Urban Landscape of Mexico City (pers. comm. 2013). Regular street plans within the
Historic Centre locate the main touristic attractions (historic monuments) and Templo
Mayor is located without any context, even with the Sacred Enclosure. An exceptional
example noticed by Sánchez Nava (pers. comm. 2013) is the model of Tenochtitlan74
Tlatelolco located in the middle of Manuel Gamio Square, next to the entrance to the
Archaeological Zone of Templo Mayor. It is a formidable visual reference to how the city
looked in pre-Hispanic time, but no spatial reference is provided (e.g. modern roads),
which limits the understanding of scale and urban transformation (see Appendix B).
For the development of management strategies in Mexico City it has to be
recognized the power that maps may hold as mediators of knowledge, to assist navigating
the multiple senses of landscape and their constructions. Important contributions in
landscape interpretation through maps have been developed by Luis González Aparicio
(1968, 1973) and Tomas Filsinger (2005). Aparicio took the task of compiling all the
existent archaeological and historical information and by his architectural experience and
cartography research developed one of the most (if not the most) authentic approximation
of how the Valley of Mexico looked before the arrival of the Spanish. Since then, this
contribution has been the point of reference to the pre-Hispanic landscape (Figures 38
and 39).
Figure 38. Central section of the “Reconstructive plan of the Tenochtitlan Region” created by
González Aparicio in 1968.
75
Figure 39. Close up to the “island-city” of Tenochtitlan-Tlatelolco. References to modern streets
and archaeological findings can be found on this map (Source: Google).
From another perspective but with a similar baseline, Tomás Filsinger (2005)
started a project that seeks to interpret the changing landscape through time using a
variety of resources. The innovation of these projects lies in availability as a multimedia
computational resource1, using different maps as layers from where the user can have a
perspective of how Mexico City has transformed from 1325 to the 21st century (Figures
40, 41, 42 and 43).
1
My gratitute to Tomás who very kindly allowed me to use his work as a reference of good practice
and provided me with the software after I contacted him via email after I found a reference of his
work on the Internet.
76
f
Figures 40, 41, 42, 43. A sample sequence of Filsinger’s interpretation work (2005).
Finally, some relevant management issues were identified. The fragmented
perspective of archaeological sites in the Historic Centre is related not only by the urban
delimitations but also by the many responsible Institutions and organizations responsible
for direct management of the sites. The Archaeological Site of Templo Mayor as an
archaeological monument belongs to the nation and thus it is the responsibility of the
INAH to regulate its protection, although management and research is run by the Museum
of Templo Mayor, a separate body within INAH. This body also regulates research and
further action among sites in the Historic Centre through the Urban Archaeology Project,
which seeks to the research and understanding of the Sacred Enclosure mostly. An
exception is the archaeological site of Pino Suárez, which is maintained for the STC
Metro.
This organizational context and the lack of projects with common objectives have
an impact on the interpretation of the archaeological sites considering design, content and
a wider context approach making connections between sites and the landscape. Thus,
interpretation, fragmentation and management of archaeological sites are closely related
in the context of the Historic Centre: A fragmentation of the wider landscape perspective
exists because the lack of reference of the relation between archaeological sites; the
fragmented understanding of the landscape can be a cause of the fragmentation of
77
management and objectives. At the end, the fragmented management is imminent
because of the differences between responsible organizations.
Last but not least, it is important to recognize the unclear definition of the
archaeological heritage within the management plan of the Historic Centre of Mexico City
which may have an impact on how to create connections between management strategies
and current regulation. There is uncertainty about the non-visible archaeological remains,
even though they are assumed (Huitrón Santoyo pers. comm. 2013) and is of knowledge
the existence of pre-Hispanic archaeological remains by historical association and
archaeological research through time.
The World Heritage Site description considers the archaeological remains of
Templo Mayor and recognized archaeological structures as exceptional evidence of an
extinct civilization and the ICOMOS advisory nomination document recognizes the
historical continuity that has been transformed the environment, but Huitrón Santoyo
(pers. comm. 2013) confirms that the World Heritage Designation doesn’t include preHispanic archaeological remains, which remains unclear. At the local side, the
Management Plan of the Historic Centre refers to both Templo Mayor as a trigger factor to
development of protection policies and awareness of preservation in the Historic Centre,
and archaeological remains that may be affected by infrastructure development and that
should be preserved, but the archaeological heritage is not considered within the strategic
axes of implementation.
Archaeological heritage should be considered within different scales of
understanding of the landscape. Landscapes are sometimes described as layered
constructions caused by the transformation of cities through time, a layered structure that
can be compared to layers or deposits of archaeological sites, such as Tlatelolco (Huitrón
Santoyo pers. comm. 2013). Although those cultural landscapes that contain non-visible
material remains promise to remain particularly problematic, on management action and
interpretative levels, like the Historic Centre of Mexico City.
78
7. FINAL CONSIDERATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The historic environment is like a glacier rolling down
the centuries, gathering and discarding as it goes. Its
destination is the future, but it’s safe arrival depends
upon effective preservation in the present.
- David Baker, 1983
Living in an urban century, archaeological sites management practice has shown its
capacity to adapt to specific contextual issues, such as the constantly changing
landscape, and development and infrastructural needs within the social environment
where cultural heritage represents the material expression of society’s quality of space
transformation and adaptation.
As shown throughout this research, during recent years the management of
cultural heritage on a landscape scale has gained acceptance within scientific-academic
and political communities, and is calling for new planning tools related to the wider context
rather than being restricted to specific sites. This new management approach calls for
new methods of identifying and defining boundaries of cultural landscapes or heritage
areas, bearing in mind the clarification of what is an archaeological or historic site and the
scope of landscape approaches involves a well thought-out strategy, which often faces
the inquiry of boundaries agreeing with specific cultural elements or merely an
administrative way of policy control following particular criteria for definition.
The HUL1 approach has been discussed as an ideal conceptual framework for the
development of management strategies for archaeological sites and the integration of
policies and practices of cooperation, aiming to an integral planning process by assessing
many different aspects of urban landscape and bringing together the fragmented
archaeological heritage in Mexico City.
Dynamic
developments within
landscape
are
rarely integrated into
the
management and protection of the sites. Rapidly changing economic and social systems
have led to a new interest in the management of landscapes (Plachter and Rössler 1995)
as properties, which can be adapted to the local context of Mexico City, requiring different
and innovative conservation and management strategies.2 Thus, the use of the concept
1
Historic Urban Landscape (Bandarin and van Oers 2012).
As considered by Layton and Ucko (1999), further consideration on the management of the wider
context (Darvill 1999, Fairclough 1999) in the British context institutions and organizations
responsible for the preservation and management of cultural heritage (e.g. English Heritage,
European Landscape Convention) recognize the advantages in management strategies
2
79
landscape brings a particular opportunity to understand and manage a bigger context
emphasizing relationships instead of having different sites managed and interpreted
separately. There is not an attempt to generalize, rather it is to have in consideration the
relationship between archaeological sites with the wider environment between them and
develop holistic strategies for the whole area of landscape influence.
This dissertation calls for attention to consider that Mexico City has great amount
of potential for the implementation of new approaches and schemes around the
management of archaeological heritage in a wider context through considerations of
urban landscape, which will complement each other with current protection policies,
management strategies, and urban development and preservation. What I intend in
presenting this piece of work, is to take a wider perspective over the current perception of
archaeological sites within the Historic Centre protected area as a strategy to approach
the management of those sites (Appendix B) somewhat historically related with the
outstanding historic transformation of the landscape, which has been recognized by
UNESCO (UNESCO 2013b, Figure 44).
CASE STUDY: Archaeological sites within the Historic Centre of
Mexico City
Conceptual framework
Methodology
Conceptualizing human
space: landscape.
Conceptualizing urban
space: historic centres.
Management strategies:
interpretation,
presentation and
integration.
COMPARATIVE
DISCUSSION
Analysis
Case study approach:
management background,
recording of heritage and Deconstruction of
interpretative data.
landscape, archives.
Triangulation analysis of
Social survey: Interviews
data and sources.
and questionnaires.
Comparision and critique.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Codification of interviews
and survey data.
Figure 44. The recommendations within the research process.
considering schedules and protection of large areas and concentrations of monuments, and work
on the scale of ‘landscapes’.
80
7.1. RECOMMENDATIONS
1. The interpretation of the pre-Hispanic (urban) landscape of Tenochtitlan-Tlatelolco,
achieved thanks to the constant archaeological research in the center area of
Mexico City has allowed geographical assumptions about how the pre-Hispanic
city looked and thus the re-construction of the “island-city’s” limits can be now
established (with ongoing discussions about the reliability of this interpretation
clearly justified considering the difficulties that doing archaeology in the city
implies). This landscape interpretation can have an impact on the development of
new protection and management strategies within current policies (e.g. The
Integral Management Plan of the Historic Centre of Mexico City) in the matter of
the following recommendation:
According to archaeological and documented evidence, following current
considerations of the pre-Hispanic environment of Mexico-Tenochtitlan-Tlatelolco,
perimeter B of the Historic Centre should be modified in order to also enclose the
northern area of Tlatelolco, or develop a particular boundary designation but
always keeping the relationship with the centre, as a measure to keep both the
relationship between sites and the integral management strategy, for the
archaeological record.
This modification on the north boundaries of Perimeter B should consider
the delimitation of the perimeter following the archaeological potential of the area
(feasibility study, López 2013) (Figures 45, 46, 47, 48 and 49).
81
Figure 45. Location of the archaeological sites open to public in relation with the Historic Centre
perimeter A (red) and B (blue). A layer below the perimeters shows the interpretation of the “islandcity’s” limits according archaeological research. The green area in the North corresponds to what
could been the Tlatelolco area which is completely outside the boundaries. The Archaeological
Zone of Tlatelolco is located about 700 meters from the North boundary of the Perimeter B (blue).
Figure 46. Proposal of modification of Perimeter B boundary on the North West with location of
archaeological sites open to the public. The proposal follows at the West limit the Eje Central
Avenue, passing through the “Three Cultures Square”, going right on Eje 2 Norte (Manuel
González), then right on Tenochtitlan Street, then right on Rivero Street and finally left on Jesús
Carranza Street until one of the vertices of Perimeter B (modification by the author on Google
Earth, after Guzman 2011; INAH 2011, 2013d; Sánchez et al 2007).
82
Figure 47. Proposal of modification of Perimeter B boundary on the North West without sites
located (modification by the author on Google Earth, after Guzman 2011; INAH 2011, 2013d;
Sánchez et al 2007).
Figure 48. Top. Proposal of modification of Perimeter B boundary on the North West without the
interpretative layer of the “island-city” (modification by the author on Google Earth, after Guzman
2011; INAH 2011, 2013d; Sánchez et al 2007).
83
Figure 49. Detail of the proposed area of extension of the Perimeter B. The green polygon is
locating the Archaeological Zone of Tlatelolco. The boundary will enhance not only the
archaeological heritage but also the colonial compound –with one of the first Franciscan monastery
in the New World- the University Culture Centre UNAM and the habitation complex characteristic of
the architecture from the 1960s (modification by the author on Google Earth, after Guzman 2011;
INAH 2011, 2013d; Sánchez et al 2007).
This recommendation considers the modification of perimeter B on the
basis of respecting the fact that perimeter A is based on the criteria of the virreynal
city of the 19th century and as such its baseline principles should be preserved on
this matter, although management strategies for the archaeological sites within this
perimeter should be considered under the same idea of landscape interpretation
and clarify the relationship between the sites.
2. The addition/clarification of the archaeological heritage within “strategic streams”
of the Historic Centre’s management plan, considering its importance as a specific
layer of the landscape. The concept of urban landscape and urban development
should be determined by the idea of a landscape of several historic layers.
3. Further research should be taken into the case. It is possible to identify other key
issues that may complement this research, such as the role of education on the
general understanding of archaeology and history of the city and the country in
general.
More issues can be addressed through a specialized implementation of
social survey. More than the research of the human use of space as an
exploitation of resources and constructed space, landscape can be understood as
84
the context where heritage relates to the public and their use of urban spaces, thus
research about public engagement could provide with information concerning use
of space and more specific experience behavior and perception of particular
archaeological sites.
4. The definition (and landscape identification and understanding) of the Historic
Centre boundaries is clearly with visible functions but not for invisible cultural
landscapes, like all the archaeological remains of pre-Hispanic Tenochtitlan under
the streets of Mexico City’s Historic Centre. The invisible cultural heritage is less
easy to map.
The older the site and less complete the material evidence, the less likely
we are to be able to interpret or delimit the cultural landscape, although if the
documental historical records are extensive, it could be possible consider a holistic
wider interpretation.
Based on attainable data such as maps, local historical literature and
archaeological research, there is the possibility of carrying out a landscape
analysis that “draws the picture” (consider the wider context) of the landscape in
the way research has appeared at different time periods. The results of this
analysis can be linked to the planning procedure. By stating what elements are lost
and what elements are preserved in different time periods, the management plan
can gain a tool to help read and interpret the landscape (Swensen 2003).
5. There is not a conceptual framework about landscape on Mexican regulation for
the protection of cultural heritage which could represent a methodological issue,
but is primarily a conceptual issue that can be solved through the ratification of an
already established international common understanding of the concept.
6. If protection criteria can’t be defined by the difficulties and lack of social
significance of the archaeological heritage/sites, the regulatory bodies in charge of
the management of cultural heritage in Mexico City should at least consider using
the development criteria to manage the sites around the idea of threats by urban
landscape transformation.
Management strategies can conceive Mexico City as an Historic Urban
Landscape, not considering a separate category of heritage but rather adds a new
lens for the urban conservation, a broader territorial view of heritage accompanied
by the idea of development as cause of change, enhancing the preservation of
archaeological sites as the only witnesses of the pre-Hispanic past of the city. It
must be holistic.
7. A series of profiles for 5 archaeological sites are provided on Appendix C. These
sites are considered on this dissertation as key sites from where interpretation
85
strategies could have a big impact on the interpretation of the HUL and the preHispanic environment. The main objective is to create clear connections between
the sites and with the cultural landscape.
8. It is important to bear in mind that landscape can be understood and approach at
different scales of characterization and specific research aims, which can be
considered for both levels of analysis and levels of management.
This dissertation needs to be translated into practical action, for which further research
will be needed.
86
REFERENCES
Aguirre, M. 2005. Evolución de la Gran Tenochtitlan [Online]. México. Available:
http://www.mexicomaxico.org/introTenoch.htm [Accessed 04/02/2013].
Alcántara, S. 2003. Use and Management of Cultural Landscapes in Mexico. In: UNESCO
(ed.) World Heritage Papers 7. Cultural Landscapes: the Challenges of
Conservation. Paris: UNESCO World Heritage Centre, 89-91.
Alcaraz, A. 2010. Los paisajes culturales en la Lista del Patrimonio Mundial. Hereditas,
(14), 45-55.
Anschuetz, K. F., Wilshusen, R. H. & Scheick, C. L. 2001. An archaeology of landscape:
perspectives and directions. Journal of Archaeological Research, 9(2), 157-211.
Antrop, M. 2003. The role of cultural values in modern landscapes: the Flemish example.
In: Palang, H. & Fry, G. (eds.) Landscape Interfaces: Cultural Heritage in Changing
Landscapes. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 91-108.
Araoz, G. F. 2008. World-Heritage Historic Urban Landscapes: Defining and protecting
authenticity. APT Bulletin, 39(2/3), 33-37.
Arroyo, R. 2011. La adhesión mexicana a la Convención del Patrimonio Mundial: afinidad
a los principios de la cooperación internacional. Hereditas, (15-16), 90-95.
ASLA 2010. Interview with Francesco Bandarin, Director, UNESCO World Heritage.
American
Society
of
Landscape
Architects
[Online].
Available:
http:
www.asla.org/ContentDetail.aspx?id=25842 [Accessed 03/09/2013].
Baker, D. 1983. Living with the Past: The Historic Environment, Bedford: David Baker.
Baker, D. 1999. Introduction. Contexts for collaboration and conflict. In: Chitty, G. & Baker,
D. (eds.) Managing Historic Sites and Buildings. Reconciling, Presentation and
Preservation. Abingdon: Routledge, English Heritage, 1-21.
Bandarin, F. & van Oers, R. 2012. The Historic Urban Landscape: Managing Heritage in
an Urban Century, Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
Birabi, A. K. 2007. International urban conservation charters: catalytic or passive tools of
urban conservation practices among developing countries? City & Time, 3(2), 3953.
Blanchard, P. 2013. Conversation with Director of UNESCO's World Heritage Centre
Francesco
Bandarin.
B
Beyond
[Online],
2013(2).
Available:
http:
bbeyondmagazine.com/PDF/bandarin.pdf [Accessed 03/09/2013].
Bonacchi, C. 2013. Going into the Digital World and the Future. ARCLG056 Public
Archaeology. London: Institute of Archaeology, University College London.
Boyd, W. E. 2012. 'A frame to hang clouds on'. Cognitive ownership, landscape, and
heritage management. In: Skeates, R., McDavid, C. & Carman, J. (eds.) The
87
Oxford Handbook of Public Archaeology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 172198.
Brading, D. A. 2001. Monuments and Nationalism in modern Mexico. Nations and
Nationalism, 7(4), 521-531.
Campo, X. 2001. Tenochtitlan: ciudad de los designios. In: Sánchez, C. & Benítez, C.
(eds.) De Tenochtitlan al Siglo XXI. Memorias del Primer Encuentro de Cronistas
de la Ciudad de México. México: Instituto Politécnico Nacional, 83-91.
Chandler, J. 2000. The discovery of landscape. In: Hooke, D. (ed.) Landscape: the richest
historical record. Amesbury: Society of Landscape Studies, 133-141.
Clark, J., Darlington, J. & Fairclough, G. 2004. Using Historic Landscape Characterisation:
English Heritage's review of HLC Applications 2002-03 [Online]. Lancashire:
English Heritage, Lancashire County Council. Available: http://www.englishheritage.org.uk/publications
using-historic-landscape-characterisation
using-
historic-landscape-characterisation2004.pdf [Accessed 01/09/2013].
Cleere, H. 1995. Cultural landscapes as World Heritage. Conservation and Management
of Archaeological Sites, 1(1), 63-68.
Cleere, H. 2012. Management plans for archaeological sites: a World Heritage template.
Conservation and Management of Archaeological Sites, 12(1), 4-12.
Cohen, N. 2001. Urban Planning, Conservation and Preservation, New York: McGraw-Hill.
CONACULTA-INAH 2006. Guía técnica: La planeación y gestión del patrimonio cultural
de la nación, México: INAH.
Congreso de los Estados Unidos Mexicanos 1972 (reviewed version 2012). Ley Federal
sobre Monumentos y Zonas Arqueológicos, Artísticos e Históricos. Diario Oficial
de la Federación, DOF 09-04-2012.
Congreso de los Estados Unidos Mexicanos 2004 (reviewd version 2013). Ley General de
Bienes Nacionales. Diario Oficial de la Federación, DOF 07-06-2013.
Council of Europe 1992. European Convention on the Protection of the Archaeological
Heritage
(Revised)
[Online].
Valletta:
Council
of
Europe.
Available:
http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Treaties/Html/143.htm [Accessed 03/12/2012].
Council of Europe 2000. European Landscape Convention [Online]. Florence: Council of
Europe.
Available:
http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Treaties
Html/176.htm
[Accessed 03/12/2012].
Darvill, T. 1999. The historic environment, historic landscapes, and space-time-action
models in landscape archaeology. In: Ucko, P. J. & Layton, R. (eds.) The
Archaeology and Anthropology of Landscape: Shaping your Landscape. London:
Routledge, 104-118.
88
Darvill, T. 2007. Research frameworks for World Heritage Sites and the conceptualization
of archaeological knowledge. World Archaeology, 39(3), 436-457.
de Vaus, D. A. 2002. Surveys in Social Research, Crows Nest: Allen & Unwin. DíazBerrio, S. 1986. Protección del Patrimonio Cultural Urbano, México: Instituto
Nacional de Antropología e Historia.
Dobson, S. 2012. Historic landscape characterisation in the urban domain. Urban Design
and Planning, 165(DP1), 11-19.
Fairclough, G. 1999. Protecting time and space: understanding historic landscape for
conservation in England. In: Ucko, P. J. & Layton, R. (eds.) The Archaeology and
Anthropology of Landscape: Shaping your Landscape. London: Routledge, 119134.
Fernández, B. 2013. Los planes de manejo en zonas arqueológicas como herramienta
para el desarrollo social. Encrucijada. Revista electrónica del Centro de Estudios
en
Administración
Pública
[Online],
13.
Available:
http:
ciid.politicas.unam.mx/encrucijadaCEAP/arts_n13_01_04_2013
art_ineditos13_3_fernandez.pdf [Accessed 11/09/2013].
Filsinger, T. J. 2005. Atlas y Vistas de la Cuenca, Valle, Ciudad y Centro de México a
través de los siglos, México: Cooperativa Cruz Azul.
Forrest, C. 2010. International Law and the Protection of Cultural Heritage, Abingdon &
New York: Routledge.
Fry, G. 2003. From objects to landscapes in natural and cultural heritage management: a
role for landscape interfaces. In: Palang, H. & Fry, G. (eds.) Landscape Interfaces:
Cultural Heritage in Changing Landscapes. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic
Publishers, 237-253.
García-Bárcena, J. 2009. Los gobiernos de México y la arqueología (1810-2010).
Arqueología Mexicana, XVII(100), 36-45.
Garden, M.-C. E. 2012. Living with landscapes of heritage. In: McDavid, C. & Carman, J.
(eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Public Archaeology. Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 199-212.
Genis, J. 2006. El patrimonio cultural de México y su defensa. Trabajadores, 55, 33-38.
Gili, M. L. 2013. Bienes culturales, arqueología y responsabilidad social. Red Patrimonio
[Online],
1(1).
Available:
http://redcolmich.michoacan.gob.mx
[Accessed
21/08/2013].
Gobierno del Distrito Federal 2005 (reviewed version 2011). Reglamento para el
Ordenamiento del Paisaje Urbano del Distrito Federal. Gaceta Oficial del Distrito
Federal, 15(102 Ter), 2-46.
89
Gobierno del Distrito Federal 2011. Plan Integral de Manejo del Centro Histórico de la
Ciudad de México. Gaceta Oficial del Distrito Federal, 17(1162), 3-125.
González, A. 1997. La traza del Centro Histórico: Huella de la evolución urbana de la
Ciudad de México. In: Barros, C. (ed.) El Centro Histórico Ayer, Hoy y Mañana.
México: Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia, Departamento del Distrito
Federal, 75-82.
González, F. 2011. ¿Qué es el patrimonio cultural? Hereditas, (15-16), 96-99.
González, L. 1973. Plano Reconstructivo de la Región de Tenochtitlan, México: Instituto
Nacional de Antropología e Historia.
Goodey, B. 1998. Mediating the shock of the new: interpreting the evolving city. In: Uzzell,
D. & Ballantyne, R. (eds.) Contemporary Issues in Heritage and Environmental
Interpretation. London: The Stationery Office. Goodey, B. 2006. Interpreting urban
heritage. In: Hems, A. & Blockley, M. (eds.) Heritage Interpretation. Abingdon:
English Heritage, 9-29.
Guillem, S. 2009. Diálogos con el pasado. Tlatelolco, Distrito Federal, México: Instituto
Nacional de Antropología e Historia, CONACULTA.
Guzmán, P. 2011. Las zonas de amortiguamiento, instrumentos para la conservación y
gestión del Patrimonio Mundial. Hereditas, (15-16), 42-49.
Haber, W. 1995. Concept, origin and meaning of "landscape". In: von Droste, B., Platcher,
H. & Rössler, M. (eds.) Cultural Landscapes of Universal Value: Components of a
Global Strategy. New York: Gustav Flischer, World Heritage Centre, UNESCO, 3841.
Hall, C. M. 2006. Implementing the World Heritage Convention: what happens after
listing? In: Leask, A. & Fyall, A. (eds.) Managing World Heritage Sites. Oxford:
Butterworth-Heinemann, 20-34.
Harrison, R. 2011. 'Counter-Mapping' Heritage, communities and places in Australia and
the UK. In: Schofield, J. & Szymanski, R. (eds.) Local Heritage, Global Context.
Cultural Perspectives on Sense of Place. Surrey: Ashgate, 79-98.
Henson, D., Stone, P. & Corbishley, M. (eds.) 2004. Education and the Historic
Environment, London: Routledge, English Heritage.
Hodder, I. 1990. Interpretative archaeology and its role. American Antiquity, 56(1), 7-18.
Howard, P. J. 2011. An Introduction to Landscape [Online]. Farnham: Ashgate. Available:
https://www-dawsonera-com.libproxy.ucl.ac.uk/abstract
9781409403838
[Accessed 19/08/2013].
ICOMOS 1964. International Charter for the Conservation and Restoration of Monuments
and Sites (The Venice Charter 1964) [Online]. Venice: ICOMOS. Available:
http://www.international.icomos.org/charters/venice_e.pdf [Accessed 03/12/2012].
90
ICOMOS 1987. Advisory Body Evaluation: World Heritage List No. 412 [Online]. ICOMOS.
Available:
http://whc.unesco.org/archive/advisory_body_evaluation
412.pdf
[Accessed 28/08/2013].
ICOMOS 1987. Charter for the Conservation of Historic Towns and Urban Areas
(Washington Charter 1987) [Online]. Washington: ICOMOS. Available: http:
www.international.icomos.org/charters/towns_e.pdf [Accessed 03/12/2012].
ICOMOS 2005. Xi'an Declaration on the Conservation of the Setting of Heritage
Structures,
Sites
and
Areas
[Online].
Xi'an:
ICOMOS.
Available:
http:
www.international.icomos.org/charters/xian-declaration.pdf [Accessed 03/12 2012].
ICOMOS 2008. The ICOMOS Charter for the Interpretation and Presentation of Cultural
Heritage
Sites
[Online].
Quebec:
ICOMOS.
Available:
http:
www.international.icomos.org/charters/interpretation_e.pdf [Accessed 22/08 2013].
ICOMOS 2011. The Valletta Principles for the Safeguarding and Management of Historic
Cities,
Towns
and
Urban
Areas
[Online].
Paris:
ICOMOS.
Available:
http://www.international.icomos.org/Paris2011
GA2011_CIVVIH_text_EN_FR_final_20120110.pdf [Accessed 03/12/2012].
ICOMOS-ICAHM 1990. Charter for the Protection and Management of the Archaeological
Heritage
[Online].
Lausanne:
ICOMOS-ICAHM.
Available:
http://www.international.icomos.org/charters/arch_e.pdf [Accessed 03/12 2012].
INAH 2000. Plan de manejo para la Zona Arqueológica de Tlatelolco, México: Instituto
Nacional de Antropología e Historia.
INAH 2011. Zona de Monumentos Históricos. Centro Histórico de la Ciudad de México
[Online]. México: Coordinación Nacional de Monumentos Históricos. Available:
http://www.mener.inah.gob.mx/archivos
cnmh_zmh_centro_historico_cd_de_mex.pdf [Accessed 11/09/2013].
INAH 2013a. Dirección de Operación de Sitios [Online]. México: CONACULTA,
Coordinación
Nacional
de
Arqueología.
Available:
http:
arqueologia.inah.gob.mx/index.php [Accessed 12/09/2013].
INAH 2013b. México en el Patrimonio Mundial [Online]. México: CONACULTA, Dirección
de
Patrimonio
Mundial.
Available:
http:
www.patrimonio-
mexico.inah.gob.mx/index.php [Accessed 12/09/2013].
INAH 2013c. Red de Zonas Arqueológicas [Online]. México: CONACULTA, Coordinación
Nacional de Arqueología. Available: http://www.inah.gob.mx zonas-arqueologicas
[Accessed 12/09/2013].
INAH 2013d. Servicio de mapas de las Zonas de Monumentos Históricos Declaradas
[Online]. México: Coordinación Nacional de Monumentos Históricos. Available:
http://www.monumentoshistoricos.inah.gob.mx index.php [Accessed 12/09/2013].
91
INAH 2013e. Templo Mayor, Museo y Zona Arqueológica [Online]. México: CONACULTA,
Coordinación
Nacional
de
Arqueología.
Available:
http:
www.templomayor.inah.gob.mx/index.php [Accessed 12/09/2013].
INAH 2013f. Zona Arqueológica de Tlatelolco [Online]. México: CONACULTA,
Coordinación
Nacional
de
Arqueología.
Available:
http:
www.zatlatelolco.inah.gob.mx/index.php [Accessed 12/09/2013].
Isaza, J. L. 2011. Ordenamiento urbano en centros históricos: algunas ideas para
compartir. Hereditas, (15-16), 60-73.
IUCN 2008. Guidelines for Applying Protected Area Management Categories [Online].
Norwich: IUCN Publications Services. Available: http: cmsdata.iucn.org/downloads
guidelines_for_applying_protected_area_management_categories.pdf
[Accessed
29/08/2013].
Jones, M. 2003. The concept of cultural landscape: discourse and narratives. In: Palang,
H. & Fry, G. (eds.) Landscape Interfaces: Cultural Heritage in Changing
Landscapes. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 21-51.
Knapp, A. B. & Ashmore, W. 1999. Archaeological landscapes: constructed,
conceptualized, ideational. In: Ashmore, W. & Knapp, A. B. (eds.) Archaeologies of
Landscape: Contemporary Perspectives. Malden: Blackwell Publishers, 1-30.
La Regina, A. & Querrien, M. 2012. How can we live in a historic city? What should we do
with its archaeological heritage? (1985). In: Sullivan, S. & Mackay, R. (eds.)
Archaeological Sites: Conservation and Management. Los Angeles: Getty
Conservation Institute, 103-104.
Layton, R. & Ucko, P. J. 1999. Introduction: gazing on the landscape and encountering the
environment. In: Ucko, P. J. & Layton, R. (eds.) The Archaeology and
Anthropology of Landscape: Shaping your Landscape. London: Routledge, 1-20.
Leask, A. 2006. World Heritage Site designation. In: Leask, A. & Fyall, A. (eds.) Managing
World Heritage Sites. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann, 5-19.
Leon-Portilla, M. 2001. La ciudad de los antiguos mexicanos. In: Sánchez, C. & Benítez,
C. (eds.) De Tenochtitlan al Siglo XXI. Memoria del Primer Encuentro de Cronistas
de la Ciudad de México. México: Instituto Politécnico Nacional, 21-29.
Litvak, J. 1997. Mexican archaeology: challenges at the end of the century. SAA bulletin
[Online],
15(4).
Available:
http://www.saa.org/Portals/0/SAA
publications/SAAbulletin/15-4/SAA7.html [Accessed 09/09/2013].
López, L. A. 1994. De los fragmentos urbanos. Una revisión de la arqueología en la
Ciudad de México. In: Arqueológico, S. d. S. (ed.) De fragmentos y tiempos.
Arqueología de Salvamento en la Ciudad de México. México: Instituto Nacional de
Antropología e Historia, 9-20.
92
López, L. A. 2007. Presentación. In: López Wario, L. A. (ed.) Ciudad excavada: veinte
años de arqueología de salvamento en la Ciudad de México y su área
metropolitana. México: Instituto Nacional de Antropología de Historia, 11-16.
López, L. A. 2013. Los estudios arqueológicos de factibilidad, una alternativa para el
patrimonio
arqueológico.
Red
Patrimonio
[Online],
1(2).
Available:
http:
redcolmich.michoacan.gob.mx [Accessed 21/08/2013].
López-Luján, L. 2013. Viaje arqueológico por las entrañas de nuestra ciudad. Algarabía,
(100), 78-86.
Lorenzo, J. L. 1984. Mexico. In: Cleere, H. (ed.) Approaches to the Archaeological
Heritage: A Comparative Study of World Cultural Resource Management Systems.
Cambridge: Cambirdge University Press, 89-100.
Maaranen, P. 2003. Landscape archaeology and management of ancient cultural heritage
sites. In: Palang, H. & Fry, G. (eds.) Landscape Interfaces: Cultural Heritage in
Changing Landscapes. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 255-271.
Matos, E. 1990. Trabajos arqueológicos en el centro de la Ciudad de México, México:
Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia.
Matos, E. 2001. La arqueología y la crónica. In: Sánchez, C. & Benítez, C. (eds.) De
Tenochtitlan al Siglo XXI. Memoria del Primer Encuentro de Cronistas de la
Ciudad de México. México: Instituto Politécnico Nacional, 77-82.
Matos, E. 2009a. Diálogos con el pasado. Tenochtitlan, Distrito Federal, México: Instituto
Nacional de Antropología de Historia, CONACULTA.
Matos, E. 2009b. Tenochtitlan y Tlatelolco. De cronistas, viajeros y arqueólogos...
Arqueología Mexicana, XVII(99), 40-47.
Matos, E. 2011. Tenochtitlan, México: El Colegio de México, Fideicomiso Historia de las
Américas, Fondo de Cultura Económica.
Matos, E. 2012. El descubrimiento del Templo Mayor. Mexico Desconocido [Online].
Available: http://www.mexicodesconocido.com.mx el-descubrimiento-del-templomayor.html [Accessed 04/09/2013].
McGlade, J. 1999. Archaeology and the evolution of cultural landscapes: towards an
interdisciplinary research agenda. In: Ucko, P. J. & Layton, R. (eds.) The
Archaeology and Anthropology of Landscape: Shaping your Landscape. London:
Routledge, 458-482.
Montiel, C. A. 2012. Arqueología en el metro de la Ciudad de México [Online]. México:
Gobierno Federal, Secretaría de Educación Pública, Instituto Nacional del Derecho
de Autor. Available: http://www.slideshare.net edamuralismo/arqueologa-en-elmetro-de-la-ciudad-de-mxico [Accessed 06 09/2013].
93
Mulk, I.-M. & Bayliss-Smith, T. 1999. The representation of Sámi cultural identity in the
cultural landscape of northern Sweden: the use and misuse of archaeological
knowledge. In: Ucko, P. J. & Layton, R. (eds.) The Archaeology and Anthropology
of Landscape: Shaping your Landscape. London: Routledge, 358-396.
Muñoz, I. 2010. El Centro Histórico de México hoy: un espacio democrático de diversidad
cultural, identidad e innovación. Café de las Ciudades [Online], 9(93). Available:
http://www.cafedelasciudades.com.ar planes_proyectos_93_1_p.htm [Accessed
30/08/2013].
Painter, D. 2011. The historic built environment: preservation and planning. In: King, T. F.
(ed.) A Companion to Cultural Resource Management. Malden: Blackwell
Publishing, 488-514.
Palang, H. & Fry, G. 2003. Landscape interfaces. In: Palang, H. & Fry, G. (eds.)
Landscape Interfaces: Cultural Heritage in Changing Landscapes. Dordrecht:
Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1-13. Pereira, A. & van Oers, R. 2011. World
Heritage cities management. Facilities, 29(7-8), 276-285.
Platcher, H. 1995. Functional criteria for the assessment of cultural landscapes. In: von
Droste, B., Platcher, H. & Rössler, M. (eds.) Cultural Landscapes of Universal
Value: Components of a Global Strategy. New York: Gustav Flischer, World
Heritage Centre, 393-404.
Platcher, H. & Rössler, M. 1995. Cultural landscapes: reconnecting culture and nature. In:
von Droste, B., Platcher, H. & Rössler, M. (eds.) Cultural Landscapes of Universal
Value: Components of a Global Strategy. New York: Gustav Fischer, World
Heritage Centre, UNESCO, 15-18.
Presidencia de la República 1980. Decreto de Zona de Monumentos Históricos "Centro
Histórico de la Ciudad de México". Diario Oficial de la Federación, DOF 11-041980.
Puczkó, L. & Rátz, T. 2006. Managing an urban World Heritage Site: the development of
the Cultural Avenue project in Budapest. In: Leask, A. & Fyall, A. (eds.) Managing
World Heritage Sites. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann, 215-225.
Robles, N. M. 1998. Management of archaeological resources in Mexico. SAA bulletin
[Online],
16(3).
Available:
http://www.saa.org/Portals/0/SAA
publications/SAAbulletin/16-3/SAA11.html [Accessed 30/08/2013].
Robles, N. M. 2000. The management of archaeological resources in Mexico: Oaxaca as
a
case
study
[Online].
Society
of
American
Archaeology.
Available:
http://www.saa.org/AbouttheSociety/Publications
TheManagementofArchaeologicalResourcesinMexi/tabid/1047/Default.aspx
[Accessed 30/08/2013].
94
Robles, N. M. 2006. Social landscapes and archaeological heritage in Latin America. In:
Agnew, N. & Bridgland, J. (eds.) Of the Past, for the Future: Integrating
Archaeology and Conservation. Los Angeles: The Getty Conservation Institute,
113-124.
Robles, N. M. 2012. Mexico's national archaeology programs. In: Nichols, D. L. & Pool, C.
A. (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Mesoamerican Archaeology. New York: Oxford
University Press, 47-54.
Robles, N. M. & Corbett, J. 2010. Heritage resource management in Mexico. In:
Messenger, P. M. & Smith, G. S. (eds.) Cultural Heritage Management: A Global
Perspective. Gainesville: University Press of Florida, 111-123.
Rodwell, D. 2007. Conservation and Sustainability in Historic Cities, Oxford: Blackwell
Publishing.
Rössler, M. 1995. UNESCO and cultural landscape protection. In: von Droste, B.,
Platcher, H. & Rössler, M. (eds.) Cultural Landscapes of Universal Value:
Components of a Global Strategy. New York: Gustav Flischer, World Heritage
Centre, UNESCO, 42-49.
Sánchez, M., Mena, A. & Carballal, M. 2009. Diálogos con el pasado. Investigación
arqueológica en la construcción del metro, Distrito Federal, México: Instituto
Nacional de Antropología e Historia, CONACULTA.
Sánchez, M., Sánchez, P. & Cedillo, R. A. 2007. Tenochtitlán y Tlatelolco durante el
Posclásico Tardío. In: López Wario, L. A. (ed.) Ciudad excavada: veinte años de
arqueología de salvamento en la Ciudad de México y su área metropolitana.
México: Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia, 145-187.
Scheffler, N., Ripp, M. & Bühler, B. 2010. Cultural Heritage Integrated Management Plans
[Online].
Saint
Denis:
URBACT,
HerO,
European
Union.
Available:
http://urbact.eu/fileadmin/Projects/HERO/projects_media
Vilnius_Thematic_report04.pdf [Accessed 29/08/2013].
Schofield, J., Kiddey, R. & Lashua, B. D. 2012. People and landscape. In: Skeates, R.,
McDavid, C. & Carman, J. (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Public Archaeology.
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 296-318.
Schofield, J. & Szymanski, R. 2011. Sense of place in a changing world. In: Schofield, J. &
Szymanski, R. (eds.) Local Heritage, Global Context: Cultural Perspectives on
Sense of Place. Surrey: Ashgate, 1-11.
STCMetro 2013. Arqueología en el Metro [Online]. México: Sistema de Transporte
Colectivo
Metro,
Gobierno
del
Distrito
Federal.
Available:
http:
www.metro.df.gob.mx/cultura/arqueologia.html [Accessed 14/09/2013].
95
Stone, P. 2004. Introduction: education and the historic environment into the twenty-first
century. In: Henson, D., Stone, P. & Corbishley, M. (eds.) Education and the
Historic Environment. London: Routledge, English Heritage, 1-10.
Swensen, G. 2003. Pressure on the fringe of the cities. In: Palang, H. & Fry, G. (eds.)
Landscape Interfaces: Cultural Heritage in Changing Landscapes. Dordrecht:
Kluwer Academic Publishers, 273-293.
UN 2012. World Urbanization Prospects, the 2011 Revision [Online]. United Nations,
Department
of
Economic
and
Social
Affairs.
Available:
http:
esa.un.org/unup/index.html [Accessed 12/09/2013].
UNESCO 1972. Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural
Heritage
[Online].
Paris:
UNESCO.
Available:
http://whc.unesco.org
en/conventiontext/ [Accessed 04/04/2013].
UNESCO 1976. Recommendation concerning the safeguarding and contemporary role of
historic areas [Online]. Nairobi: UNESCO World Heritage Centre. Available:
http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0011/001140
114038e.pdf#page=136
[Accessed 12/09/2013].
UNESCO 2005. Vienna Memorandum on World Heritage and Contemporary Architecture:
Managing the Historic Urban Landscape [Online]. Paris: UNESCO World Heritage
Centre. Available: http://whc.unesco.org/uploads activities/documents/activity-6666.pdf [Accessed 29/08/2013].
UNESCO 2010. Managing Historic Cities. World Heritage Papers No. 27 [Online]. Paris:
UNESCO World Heritage Centre. Available: http://whc.unesco.org/en series/27/
[Accessed 22/08/2013].
UNESCO 2011. Recommendation on the Historic Urban Landscape, including a glossary
of definitions [Online]. Paris: UNESCO World Heritage Centre. Available:
http://portal.unesco.org/en
ev.php-
URL_ID=48857&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html
[Accessed
22/08/2013].
UNESCO 2012a. Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage
Convention
[Online].
Paris:
UNESCO World
Heritage
Centre. Available:
http://whc.unesco.org/en/guidelines/ [Accessed 09/10/2012].
UNESCO 2012b. New recommendation on the Historic Urban Landscape. World Heritage
Centre News & Events [Online]. Available: http://whc.unesco.org/en news/873/
[Accessed 30/08/2013]. UNESCO 2013a. Cultural Landscape [Online]. Paris:
UNESCO
World
Heritage
Centre.
Available:
http://whc.unesco.org/en/culturallandscape [Accessed 30 08/2013].
96
UNESCO 2013b. Mexico [Online]. Paris: UNESCO World Heritage Centre. Available:
http://whc.unesco.org/en/statesparties/mx [Accessed 12/09/2013].
UNESCO 2013c. Ratified Conventions. Mexico [Online]. UNESCO, Legal Instruments.
Available:
http://www.unesco.org/eri/la
conventions_by_country.asp?contr=MX&language=E&typeconv=1
[Accessed
12/09/2013].
Urrieta, S. 2003. Cinco versiones del Centro Histórico. Hereditas, (7), 14-17.
Uzzell, D. 1998. Interpreting our heritage: a theoretical interpretation. In: Uzzell, D. &
Ballantyne, R. (eds.) Contemporary Issues in Heritage and Environmental
Interpretation. London: The Stationery Office.
Valadez, M. & Huitrón, L. A. 2011. Balance y perspectiva de los planes de manejo en el
INAH. Hereditas, (15-16), 50-59.
Vidargas, F. 2010. México en la Convención de Patrimonio Mundial. Hereditas, (14), 5664.
von Droste, B. 1995. Cultural landscapes in a global World Heritage strategy. In: von
Droste, B., Platcher, H. & Rössler, M. (eds.) Cultural Landscapes of Universal
Value: Components of a Global Strategy. New York: Gustav Fischer, World
Heritage Centre, UNESCO, 20-24.
Whitby-Last, K. 2008. Article 1: Cultural Landscapes. In: Francioni, F. & Lezerini, F. (eds.)
The 1972 World Heritage Convention. A Commentary. Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 51-62.
97
Appendix A
Detailed plan of the Historic Monuments Zone
Appendix B
List of interpretation material about the pre-Hispanic background available
today in Mexico City, with summary
Interpretation material about the pre-Hispanic archaeological heritage of
Mexico City (available today).
*All the photos illustrating this appendix are from the author, May-June 2013.
Interpretation resources
Pino Suárez Metro Station Archaeological Zone
The archaeological zone consists of a single archaeological structure dated in the
Posclasic Period (AD 1400), restored and preserved in an open air space in an
intersection between lines 1 and 2 of the Metro system. The structure was
discovered during the construction of this station, between 1967 and 1970. The
archaeological site was identified as an “open air” site.
There is only one interpretation panel, which is rarely noticed by the thousands of
people in transit every day through the Metro.
Archaeological
sites
On the interpretation panel, the information presented is related to the particular
findings during the archaeological excavations and to the description of the building,
highlighting the most important objects. There is only one reference to the wider
context, highlighting the proximity to the Templo Mayor, and one mention to
Tenochtitlan making chronological reference to its foundation and the time the
building was built.
There is reference to the ideological interpretation of the building, relating the
building with the pre-Hispanic Mexica beliefs.
Metro stations in Mexico City are identified by name and by a symbol regularly
referred to in the name of the station, although the logo attached to the station Pino
Suárez is the silhouette of the pre-Hispanic building, enhancing the importance of
the finding for the city.
No leaflet or signage was identified.
Centro Cultural de España en México Site Museum
The most recent archaeological site opened to the public, was discovered during
the construction of the underground parking lot of the Cultural Centre in 2006. The
authorities, because of the relevance of the finding, decided to preserve the
archaeological remains, developing the first site museum with in situ remains, as an
interpretation centre rather than museum. The archaeological site consists in a
fragment of a bigger building associated with an academic social building,
“calmécac”, a school for the aristocracy.
The interpretation resources available in this site are divided into panels,
multimedia and leaflets:
There are several interpretation panels referring to specific topics related to the
building, but important to notice is the relevance of the history of the finding in
context with the archaeological practice in the Historic Centre, contextualizing the
site with the constant task of “digging” the city. There are mentions to
Tenochtitlan describing the nature of the Urban Archaeology Programme
coordinated by the Templo Mayor Museum since 1991. The aim of this project is
the rescue and research of the archaeological evidence in the area that confirmed
that the Sacred Enclosure of the pre-Hispanic city is directly related. The
interpretative information is merely descriptive about the architecture and functions
of the building within the aristocracy and religious Mexica society, enhancing the
importance of the site for being empirical evidence of the Sacred Enclosure.
The use of multimedia resources for the interpretation in this site is the most
relevant feature of this site museum. There are two visual resources, one screen
projecting 3D digital reconstructions of the building and the Sacred Enclosure; and
one projection on the back wall showing images of historical maps and drawings
of the city in order to contextualize the finding of the site with the
transformation of the city. Some images are dedicated to locate geographically
the museum within the Sacred Enclosure, combining 3D digital reconstructions
of colonial buildings with superposed pre-Hispanic buildings.
The site museum provides the visitors with a free single leaflet, where the origin of
the archaeological project is explained together with chronological information about
the building and an interesting timeline contextualizing the archaeological
objects in time, considering the foundation of Tenochtitlan in 1325 as starting
point. The leaflet has a discourse, considering the site museum as a “time
capsule”. A location map of the site museum is available on the back, also pointing
out Templo Mayor.
Reference to the site outside the museum is only present in the entrance of the
Cultural Centre, showing just the logo with the name.
Templo Mayor Archaeological Zone
The archaeological zone administratively belongs to the Templo Mayor Museum. It
is composed by the archaeological remains of the main building of the pre-Hispanic
city of Tenochtitlan and religious centre of the Sacred Enclosure and other
important buildings in the north face of the building. The building was completely
destroyed during the conquest after 1521 and what we see today is the base of the
building, being able to identify the different stages of construction and understand
the historical process of the single building.
Visitors can walk within the Templo through adapted paths following a single route,
with interpretative panels along this route in chronological order, showing the
different stages of the building construction contextualizing specific construction
stages with historical facts known from the historic documentation available about
the building and the pre-Hispanic city, although the only references to
Tenochtilan are related to the Sacred Enclosure, pointing out that the
ideological significance of the building during pre-Hispanic time are the
Sacred Enclosure and Templo Mayor, the centre of the Mexica universe and
the heart of the pre-Hispanic city. There are two types of panels, one showing
descriptive information about certain parts of the building or buildings next to it, and
the panels that make reference to a historical event related with the archaeological
remains (complemented with mythical assumptions).
There are two particular interpretation panels that present information about the
surrounding context where the Templo Mayor is located. One contextualizes the
pre-Hispanic building with the archaeological remains below the Metropolitan
Cathedral, and the second one makes reference to the importance of the
Sacred Enclosure as the religious center of Tenochtitlan with an interpretative
image of the pre-Hispanic island where Tenochtitlan and Tlatelolco were
settled (the original image, a mural, is located in the Mexica Gallery of the National
Museum of Anthropology).
A particular panel can be seen at the entrance of the archaeological zone, in one of
the boundary walls of the site. This panel seems to introduce the visitors, and in this
way defining the discourse of the whole interpretation, to the ideological
meaning/value that this building had during the pre-Hispanic past, relating the
construction of the Templo Mayor with the mythical origin of the city. Also a
summary of the archaeological practice among the site can be read. There is an
absence of mages
.
There are five leaflets available in the site. Three of them non-free ($10MXN
(approximately/ £0.50), or $25MXN (approximately £1.10) for the three leaflets).
The three non-free leaflets conform an information kit: one leaflet covers the
archaeological zone, one for the museum, and one for wider information about
the Sacred Enclosure. 1. The first one offers the visitor descriptive information
about the archaeological structure and its chronology with only one reference to
the wider context of Tenochtitlan referring to the Templo Mayor as the most
important building in the city. 2. The leaflet dedicated to the museum has
information about every gallery in the museum with a brief description of the topic
and contents on each of them (which will be presented under the Templo Mayor
Museum in this Appendix). 3. The third leaflet dedicated to the Sacred Enclosure
brings together the spatial context of the ideological meaning of the building
and the area in general (not the city). Reference to the overall city of
Tenochtitlan can be found in the introductory text, describing briefly the
urban planning and the meaning of the Sacred Enclosure as the centre of the
city-universe. There is major reference to the wider context with mythological
information about the foundation of the city.
The two free leaflets are available at the entrance of the museum. 4. One of them is
directed at children, referring to the Templo Mayor through a tale about a journey
to the past after visiting the museum, 5. Te second free leaflet refers to a single
object, the monolith of Coyoulxauhqui, detailing the finding within the Historic
Centre.
A map with the location of the Archaeological Zone is available on the back of the
three non-free leaflets, without showing other sites.
Tlatelolco Archaeological Site
The second most important archaeological site in Mexico City after Templo Mayor.
The archaeological remains provide similar evidence to Templo Mayor, also
referring to the main temple of Tlatelolco (also called Templo Mayor) and several
surrounding structures that formed part of the main enclosure of Tlatelolco. Similar
to Templo Mayor, the visit of the site is possible through a causeway with a single
route. The site was discovered in the late 19th century and the archaeological
research was continuous until 1968 when, after the social instability of the city the
archaeological remains were covered, and the excavations have been continuous
again since 1987.
Interpretation panels are provided along the single visitor route, without any specific
order rathershowing the information of the building you are looking at. The overall
information is descriptive with references to particular features on the buildings.
There are two particular panels with references to the wider context: the first panel,
with the introductory information about the site in the entrance contextualizes
Tlatelolco within the island-city as the twin city of Tenochtitlan. The second
panel is the one located in the north limit of the archaeological site, where the
reference is dedicated to the ancient causeway that communicated Tlatelolco
with the shoreline settlements of the north, although it does not have any
image or map.
The Historic Urban Landscape value of Tlatelolco lies in its condition of constant
transformation of the urban context, showing expressions of the pre-Hispanic
past, colonial settlement and modern architecture from the 20th century, from where
the name “Square of the Three Cultures” came from.
At the end of the route, a major panel makes reference to the last fight to defend the
island from the Spaniards during the conquest, which, according to the historic
documents, happened here.
Leaflets are not available.
Archaeological windows
As part of the Urban Archaeology Programme, from 1991 until today several
archaeological windows were installed to allow the public to see archaeological
findings after reformation works in specific areas of the Historic Centre, to give the
idea of the Historic Centre being a space resulting from the accumulation of layers,
showing that below the modern streets the past of the city is retained. These
windows can enclose archaeological remains of different chronology, which
makes possible the distinction between the different cultural heritages of the
city. Two windows were visited during field work: the archaeological windows
outside the Metropolitan Cathedral where it is possible to see archaeological
remains from the early years of the colonial city; and the archaeological window at
the entrance of the Marquez del Apartado Palace (now offices of the National
Coordination of Archaeology and the National Institute of Beautiful Arts) from where
is possible to see archaeological remains of a pre-Hispanic structure cementation.
None of these windows have interpretation panels or leaflets available.
Museums
National Museum of Anthropology
This is the most important museum in Mexico. It is divided into an archaeological
museum on the ground floor and ethnographic museum on the second floor. This
museum keeps archaeological artifacts from all around the country, divided in
galleries according to the region.
The Mexica Gallery keeps archaeological artifacts mainly from excavations in
Mexico City but also from other regions within the Valley of Mexico. In this gallery it
is possible to see the most important archaeological heritage from the city with
important nationalistic value.
The interpretation panels available in this gallery are arranged according to the
subject of the specific section within the gallery, divided in the empire territory, the
mythological origin of the Mexica people, warfare, urbanism and architecture, the
Sacred Enclosure of Tenochtitlan, the island of Tenochtitlan-Tlatelolco, natural
resources, economy and commerce, everyday life, the Mexica society, religion,
cosmogony, arts and handcrafts, and the Conquest.
References to interpretation of the wider context of the city Tenochtitlán-Tlatelolco
can be found in the sections “urbanism and architecture”, “Sacred Enclosure”, and
“the island of Tenochtitlan-Tlatelolco”. 1. In the first section references are made
about the city structure following an urban planning determined by ideological
factors. Such urban planning was the most physical characteristic of the overall
city-island. In this panel is discussed the transformation of the original islands,
from the two islands of Tenochtitlan and Tlatelolco separately, to the single island
with both cities when the Spaniards arrived. 2. About the Enclosure the
information is similar to what is available in Templo Mayor Archaeological
Zone and Museum, with the particularity that in this museum the Sacred
Enclosure of Tenochtitlan is contextualized with the wider perspective of the
island-city with a mural painting of a visual interpretation of how the island
looked like in the 16th century; 3. Further in the gallery, next to the Sacred
Enclosure section, one panel has an explanation of how the environment was
around Tenochtitlan-Tlatelolco, in the Basin, and a second panel makes a
specification about the twin city Tlatelolco.
Two mural paintings in the Mexica Gallery provide the visitors with visual
interpretations of the wider environment and historic urban landscape of
Tenochtitlan-Tlatelolco.
A plan of the museum is available for free. Leaflets with specific information about
the galleries are not available.
Templo Mayor Museum
This museum was created in order to present to the public the vast variety of
findings between the excavations from 1978 until today. After the National Museum
of Anthropology, this is the museum with the most important collection of objects
related to the Mexica culture and Mexico City.
The museum is divided into eight galleries, each of them with a specific subject
related to the Templo Mayor archaeological understanding: history of
archaeology; the offerings of the Templo Mayor; commerce; the god of the Sun
Huitzilopochtli; the god of water Tlaloc; natural environment; agriculture; and historic
archaeology.
Interpretations of the wider landscape are available in the first gallery and the
gallery about the natural environment. In the first one we can see how the
archaeological practice in the site has been related to the transformations
that the Historic Centre has suffered through time, with a model relating the
archaeological findings to the colonial trace of the Historic Centre today, as well as
several pictures of the excavations processes. Also, because the Templo Mayor
Museum coordinates the archaeological research in the Historic Centre, there is a
section where the information from the CCEMx is presented, making the
connection between both archaeological sites. An interpretative reconstruction
of the Templo Mayor can be found in this gallery.
The other gallery, the natural environment one, has an interesting diorama where
the island-city of Tenochtitlan-Tlatelolco is shown in relationship with the
Valley of Mexico and villages from the shores of the now extinct lake, although
no further information about the island is provided.
At the end of each gallery, multimedia screens allow the visitor to have further
interaction with the museum collections thematically. The last screen located in the
gallery eight gives to the visitor a summary of the transformation of the
landscape, with a visual interpretation of how the island looked like before the
Conquest.
Leaflets are available. For details see the “Archaeological Sites” section on this
Appendix.
Tlatelolco Site Museum
The museum has the role of safeguarding the archaeological heritage from the
archaeological site, although the museum is part of the University Cultural Centre of
the National University of Mexico. This museum among the others has the more
relevant interpretation material about the wider context of the island-city of
Tenochtitlan-Tlatelolco, with a variety in the presentation strategies. This section will
present the identified information not through galleries but rather from each of the
interpretation resources by order of apparition.
1. Within the museum there are a few multimedia screens from where visitors can
have access to a variety of resources in a user-friendly way of display. One of these
screens narrates the mythological origin of the Mexica people, relating both
cities, Tlatelolco and Tenochtitlan, with images of the environment according
to the historic documents from the Colonial period.
2. The main interpretation resource concerning the broader context of TenochtitlanTlatelolco can be appreciated in this museum. On a big section in the first gallery,
the floor is covered by a massive map of modern Mexico City with
superimposed interpretations of the pre-Hispanic landscape, with names of
places, ancient causeways, giving a clear idea of the spatial relationship that
the pre-Hispanic settlement has with the modern city which allows the visitor to
develop the idea of landscape transformation and continuity.
3. An interactive touch screen next to the floor map presents the reconstruction of
the main temple of Tlatelolco in context with the surrounding structures, bringing the
idea of transformation of the built environment.
4. Following the gallery route, the windows that enclose the south side of the room
have a perspective view of the pre-Hispanic landscape of Tenochtitlan
attached, in colour, as if the visitor is actually looking at the pre-Hispanic city from
Tlatelolco, during the day and during the night.
}
5. On the second gallery on a different building, one of the division walls inside the
room have another perspective of the pre-Hispanic landscape, as if looking from
above from the south east to Tlatelolco.
6. At the same gallery, following the topic of the Conquest, one of the rooms is
covered by the first map of Tenochtitlan ever published, by Hernán Cortés. This
would be the most complete explanation of how the city was physically
organized and connected with the water channels, causeways, square-grid
pattern and the division of the island-city in neighbourhoods. On this
interpretation approach the overall city, both Tenochtitlan and Tlatelolco, are
related with each other and with the surrounding context of villages and lakes.
It is possible in this section to compare how the pre-Hispanic city was perceived by
the Spaniards and how the landscape was interpreted.
7. The spatial approach that this museum implemented to explain the Conquest of
the island-city is exceptional. Next to the Hernán Cortes’ map, an interactive touch
screen provides the visitor with historical information of the Conquest process,
where the visitor can touch specific sections of the visually interpreted pre-Hispanic
landscape and images will pop up, contextualizing the historic record in space and
time during such important cultural transition that defined the transformation of the
city to what we see today.
8. Finally, the last section of the museum is dedicated to the traditional cultural
landscape of Xochimilco, particular for the manipulation of the water environment
that the lakes had during pre-Hispanic time and that now is still preserved in that
southern area of Mexico City, which was (and still is) one of the main criteria for the
World Heritage designation of both the Historic Centre of Mexico City and
Xochimilco.
Leaflets are not available on this museum.
Tourist Information booths (Historic Centre and National Museum of
Anthropology)
Two were the tourist information booths consulted during the field work season.
Historic
Centre’s
streets
From the National Museum of Anthropology I got the most recent free guide book
published for Mexico City, in a convenient size to carry around, divided into sections
of the city in Historic Centre, Chapultepec-Polanco-Reforma, San Ángel, National
University of Mexico, Coyoacán, Xochimilco and Tlalpan. Reference to the
Archaeological Zone of Templo Mayor can be found in the Historic Centre
section. As an introduction to the Historic Centre, the guide book gives details of
the changing cultural landscape, continuity and pre-Hispanic identity of the
city today. “With a great legacy of pre-Hispanic witnesses that can be found here,
this area is ancient and modern at the same time. It’s the place where it all started
in this great city”. It also has a reference to the number of museums and
archaeological sites within the urban area: “…more than 100 museums, about 50
galleries and 7 archaeological sites.” Further at the end it provides the visitor with
a list of places with cultural interest, considering the Archaeological Zone of
Cuicuilco, not included in this research for reasons of different temporality than
Tenochtitlan-Tlatelolco and because it is located at the southern area of the city, far
from the study area.
From the Historic Centre booth I got a general map of the city divided into sections,
where at the Historic Centre section it is possible to locate the Archaeological
Zones of Templo Mayor and the metro station Pino Suárez.
Also from the Historic Centre booth, a cultural guide edited by the National Institute
of Anthropology and History is available. This guide offers to the visitor a series of
thematic tours around the city. Three of them are tours with archaeology as the
topic: two tours are designed to visit the archaeological windows of the Historic
Centre and the Templo Mayor Archaeological Zone, and the third one has been
designed to visit Tlatelolco.
Manuel Gamio Square
A fountain with a big interpretative model of the island-city TenochtitlanTlatelolco is located in the centre of this square and is considered a “must-see” in
the Historic Centre, which gives to the visitor a wide perspective of how Mexico
City looked in the pre-Hispanic period. This square located next to the Templo
Mayor brings to the environment a characteristic sense of pre-Hispanic past.
Around this square a few people provide guided tours to visitors around the main
areas of the Historic Centre, providing free interpretation material when they offer
you the service. These two pages have basic information about the Templo
Mayor and its relationship with the Sacred Enclosure; the same kind of approach
as was seen inside the Archaeological Zone of Templo Mayor. An interesting
section within this material makes the link between the pre-Hispanic causeways
with the actual roads that still follow the pre-Hispanic way.
It also important to consider today’s social context around the areas with high
heritage value. At the Manuel Gamio Square it is possible to witness “traditional”
Mexica cleanings for the bad eye, handcrafts bazars, and “traditional” pre-Hispanic
Aztec dances, which together bring a peculiar sense of place.
Main Square and surroundings (Zócalo)
The main square, officially named “Constitution Square” and normally known as
“Zócalo” plays an important role as the centre of the Historic Centre. With the
Templo Mayor Archaeological Zone, the Metropolitan Cathedral and the National
Palace it is the political, cultural and heart of the city.
Important to notice is the top of the main façade of the National Palace, where it is
possible to identify, through the architecture decoration, the encounter between two
societies, the Spanish and the pre-Hispanic Mexica.
At one of the corners, next to the Historic Centre Authority building, a monument
commemorates the mythical foundation of the city: after the Mexica people
found an eagle eating a snake on the top of a nopal in the middle of the Texcoco
Lake, where Tenochtitlan and Tlatelolco were built further north and is where
modern Mexico City now lies. This brings an ideological perspective of the
landscape, contributing to the enhancing of pre-Hispanic culture among the
Colonial or Virreynal Historic Centre.
Avenida Pino Suárez
This avenue is one of the most important roads in the whole city. It follows the
exactly same path of the pre-Hispanic causeway that communicated the centre
of Tenochtitlan with the towns in the south of the lake, called “Calzada de
Iztapalapa”, which plays (or should play) an important role in the interpretation of
the historic urban landscape.
Alongside this road, it is possible to identify two main archaeological remains and
one historic reference now integrated to the modern urban context:
1. The Archeological Zone of Pino Suárez, discussed already in this Appendix,
which was located where the south limit of the island-city was.
2. At the left side going to the north (to the mains square), two blocks away the
metro station of Pino Suárez, a stone panel attached to the back of the first hospital
in America, the “Hospital de Jesús” (ordered to build by Hernán Cortés)
commemorates the first encounter between Cortés and the Mexica emperor
Moctezuma II in 1519. Although it is not an archaeological feature, it is an important
commemoration of an event that can bring both a sense of historical fact in what
was the pre-Hispanic Tenochtitlan-Tlatelolco, or landscape perceptions, this being
an important pre-Hispanic causeway that was crossed by Cortés on his arrival to
the city for the first time.
3. At the front of this stone panel at the Museum of the City, in a colonial house that
belonged to Cortés’ nephew, a pre-Hispanic snake head made of stone is located in
the bottom of the corner (Pino Suárez avenue and República de El Salvador street)
which can be perceived as an evidence of the dramatic change in the city after
the Conquest.
“City neighbourhood” maps in metro stations.
All the metro stations in the city have at the exit access a map with the surrounding
neighbourhood where the station is located, showing places of interest and
services according a key code that identifies the places. The specific example taken
from the metro station Allende shows the location of the Archaeological Zone of
Templo Mayor, contextualizing the site with today’s Historic Centre.
World Heritage Site and Autoridad del Centro Histórico information maps.
More recently, at the end of 2012, the Historic Centre Authority, the Government of
Mexico City and the World Heritage Centre installed a series of localization plans
around the mains streets of the Historic Centre, identifying places of touristic
interest as well as the main historic monuments of the World Heritage Property.
There are two kinds of plans: 1. General Historic Centre plan, located in the main
intersections, where the Archaeological Zone of Templo Mayor is identified with
the number 130; and 2. Street plans, showing specific transects of principal streets
with surrounding monuments and points of interest. Templo Mayor is the only
archaeological site located on these maps, which the apparent basic function is to
locate.
Historic Centre interpretative-historic signage.
Alongside the Historic Centre’s streets, some particular signs in red or green
installed by the Government of Mexico City can be seen frequently, with a similar
format, with particular phrases about the pre-Hispanic past or the historic
environment, normally without any reference to a particular building but rather a
reference to the historic place. The red signs normally have messages to enhance
awareness of protecting the cultural heritage. It is important to notice the
relatively small size of these signs.
Zócalo metro station
This is the metro station located exactly in the centre of the main square of the city.
Inside this station, there is a long hallway that communicates the different accesses
to the station alongside below the sidewalk of the National Palace. In this hallway
there is in permanent exhibition three big interpretative models of the Main
Square through time, from the Sacred Enclosure of the pre-Hispanic city,
passing through the independent Mexico to the main square during the first half of
the 20th century. Around the station can be seen several historic photographs of the
main square, providing the opportunity to appreciate how the centre of the city has
changed through time. Although the Sacred Enclosure of Tenochtitlan is not
located exactly below where the main plaza is (it is actually located north the
square; the Cathedral is located above the south site of the Enclosure) this
exhibition communicates the wrong idea of the location of this important place.
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (Main Library building)
The National University of Mexico complex is not located in the Historic Centre, not
close at all. At the very far south, this educational complex from the 20th century
has been recently added to the World Heritage List. The main library building,
covered by one single mural, has attached several pre-Hispanic symbols
referring to the pre-Hispanic origins of Mexico. At the centre of the mural the
main element is the mythical reference to the foundation of Mexico-Tenochtitlan,
the eagle eating a snake standing in a nopal, related to several elements referring
to the natural environment.
“Archaeology of Tenochtitlan” non-official leaflets (Manuel Gamio Square)
At this important place next to the Cathedral, already discussed in this Appendix,
regularly on Sundays, when Mexicans and residents do not pay for accessing the
Archaeological Zone of Templo Mayor, a more detailed version of each of the two
informative sheets provided for free can be purchased for $15MXN (about £0.70).
This reading material has detailed descriptions of the different galleries of the
Templo Mayor Museum as well as descriptions of the buildings that comprise the
archaeological site.
The discourse is similar to the rest of the interpretative material available in the
area, with references of the Templo Mayor as the main building in the Sacred
Enclosure and the ideological value of the space, although in some of the pages
there are references to the location of the Templo Mayor in relation to the early
colonial buildings that no longer exist because of the archaeological excavations. In
the last six pages the information relates to the archaeological findings below the
Metropolitan Cathedral and the role of the Templo Mayor within the Sacred
Enclosure, pointing out the complementary images as a good spatial reference of
the enclosure, but there is no reference to the wider landscape.
Other non-free
resources
Official Map of Mexico City 2013
This official map of the whole city can be purchased in all departmental stores
(about £3.50) around the city. The main section of the map is covered by the
massive extension of Mexico City and in the other side the city is divided into
sections, similar to the other touristic maps already discussed.
In the main section the map locates the Archaeological Zones of Cuicuilco in
the south, Templo Mayor and Pino Suárez, referred to as “Aztec Pyramid”. On
the specific section of the Historic Centre, Templo Mayor and Pino Suárez, are
again located as “Aztec Pyramid”.
During the field work, this map was used to draw the main side of the interpretative
limits of the island-city Tenochtitlan-Tlatelolco following recent archaeological
research referred in Sánchez et al (2007).
Arqueología Mexicana magazine (arqueomex)Spetial Edition No. 33
Arqueología Mexicana is a well-known Mexican scientific magazine published for
the communication of recent research in the field. Although the narrative in the
articles within it is academic, the magazine has a broad audience. The magazine is
published periodically every two months, and every two regular issues one special
edition with a particular topic is released. The special edition number 33 was
published in 2009 with the archaeology of Mexico City as a topic. The magazine
was published as an “archaeological” guidebook through the archaeological sites
open to the public or able to perceive all around the city and metropolitan
surroundings. The structure of the issue is organized by chronological stages,
where the Posclasic period (AD 900-1521) is related with the main Mexican
archaeological sites such as Templo Mayor, Tlatelolco, Pino Suárez, Cerro de la
Estrella, Mixcoac, Xochimilco, CCEMx, among others. This periodical issue seems
to be the first attempt to compile all the archaeological information available in
the city and to make it appeallingto a wider audience.
The section that makes reference to the archaeological evidence of TenochtitlanTlatelolco is illustrated with interesting wider interpretations of the pre-Hispanic
landscape, compared with today’s roads and metro lines, which provides the reader
with a variety of interpretative material to locate itself within the historic urban
landscape and recognize the archaeological heritage and its dynamic
relationship with the modern urban context.
The standard cost of each Arqueología Mexicana magazine (regular or special
edition) is about £3.00.
Algarabía magazine Special Edition No. 100
Algarabía is a magazine of general topics of knowledge, which as well as
Arqueología Mexicana, each issue is dedicated to a specific topic. The issue
number 100 published in early 2013 was edited under the topic of “Mexico City”.
Special attention to this issue was the addition of an article about the archaeology
practice in the city and considerations about the role of archaeological sites
within the still changing city, written by Leonardo López Luján (2013), director of
the Templo Mayor Archaeological Project.
Other resources. These interpretation resources are not considered in the research mainly because
there had to be a limit on the amount of information and nature of the source. Online resources are
vast and should be considered in a separate topic, although a list of websites and basic readings are
recommended for further information material about the archaeology and historic monuments in
Mexico City.
Web sites
Secretaría de Turismo: Ciudad de México
Secretaría de Cultura del Distrito Federal
Autoridad del Centro Histórico
Fideicomiso del Centro Histórico
Key academic
diffusion
books
Guía del Centro Histórico
Sistema de Transporte Colectivo Metro
Museum of the City (Museo de la Ciudad)
Centro Cultural Universitario Tlatelolco
Templo Mayor Archaeological Site and Museum
National Museum of Anthropology
National Institute of Anthropology and History (INAH)
National Coordination of Archaeology (sites and museums)
Direction of World Heritage
“Virtual Tours” and “Google Earth’s Street View”
UNESCO’s World Heritage Centre
Mexico City and Xochimilco World Heritage Site
Organization of World Heritage Cities
Ciudades Mexicanas Patrimonio Mundial
México Desconocido
Arqueología Mexicana magazine (arqueomex)
Academia Mexicana de la Historia
Los Barrios Antiguos de Tenochtitlan y Tlatelolco (Alfonso Caso 1956)
Fondo de Cultura Económica (FCE)
Seis siglos de la Ciudad de México (Salvador Novo 1974)
De Tenochtitlan a México (Luis Suárez 1974)
Tenochtitlan en una isla (Ignacio Bernal 1984)
Tenochtitlan (Eduardo Matos Moctezuma 2010)
Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia (INAH)
Plano Reconstructivo de la Región de Tenochtitlan (Luis González
Aparicio 1973-1980)
Ciudad Excavada: veinte años de arqueología de salvamento en la
Ciudad de México y su área metropolitana (Luis Alberto López Wario
2007)
Appendix C
Profile of main archaeological sites in the Historic Centre that may provide an
understanding of the wider landscape if managed as a whole.
4
1
2
3
(after Guzman 2011)
5
© 2005 Tomás Filsinger
4
1
2
3
5
Appendix. Archaeological sites within the Historic Centre of Mexico City and immediate surroundings
Official name
Location / Historic Centre perimeter
Images
Landscape interpretation
Source: Google
(after Guzman 2011)
Source: Google
1
Templo Mayor
Archaeological
Zone and
Museum
Source: Google
(Perimeter A)
© 2005 Tomás Filsinger
Archaeological
Zone satellite
plan
(Photo by the autor, 2013)
Source: Google
Regulation of
protection
Management
Archaeological Zone declaration 1982
Historic Centre of Mexico City and Xochimilco World
Heritage Site 1987
Museo del Templo Mayor / Civil Association / INAH
Appendix. Archaeological sites within the Historic Centre of Mexico City and immediate surroundings
Official name
Location / Historic Centre perimeter
Images
(after Guzman 2011)
Landscape interpretation
(Photo by the autor, 2013)
Source: Google
2
Centro
Cultural de
España en
México Site
Museum
(Perimeter A)
(Photo by the autor, 2013)
(Photo by the autor, 2013)
Archaeological
Zone satellite
plan
(CCEMx 2013)
Regulation of
protection
Management
Site Museum inaugurated in 2012, financed by the
Spanish Embassy in Mexico.
Museo del Templo Mayor / INAH
Agencia Española de Cooperación Internacional para el
Desarrillo
(CCEMx 2013)
Appendix. Archaeological sites within the Historic Centre of Mexico City and immediate surroundings
Official name
Location / Historic Centre perimeter
Images
(after Guzman 2011)
Landscape interpretation
(Photo by the autor, 2013)
(Montiel 2012)
3
Pino Suárez
Archaeological
Zone
(Metro Pino
Suárez)
(Photo by the autor, 2013)
© 2005 Tomás Filsinger
(Perimeter B)
Archaeological
Zone satellite
plan
Source: Google
Regulation of
protection
Management
Open to the public with the inauguration of the line 2 the
Metro System, 1970.
Sistema de Transporte Colectivo (STC) Metro
INAH
(Photo by the autor, 2013)
Appendix. Archaeological sites within the Historic Centre of Mexico City and immediate surroundings
Official name
Location / Historic Centre perimeter
Images
Landscape interpretation
(Photo by the autor, 2013)
4
Tlatelolco
Archaeological
Zone
(World Digital Library)
(Outside the
Historic Centre
protection area)
(Photo by the autor, 2013)
© 2005 Tomás Filsinger
(after Guzman 2011)
(INAH 2013f)
Archaeological
Zone satellite
plan
Regulation of
protection
Management
Source: Google
Archaeological Zone declaration 1953
Museo del Templo Mayor / Tlatelolco Department / INAH
Appendix. Archaeological sites within the Historic Centre of Mexico City and immediate surroundings
Official name
Location / Historic Centre perimeter
Images
Landscape interpretation
Source: Google
© 2005 Tomás Filsinger
(after Guzman 2011)
5
Cerro de la
Estrella
National Park
and
Archaeological
Zone
(Outside the
Historic Centre
protection area)
Source: Google
Archaeological
Zone satellite
plan
(González 1973)
Source: Google
Source: Google
Regulation of
protection
Management
National Park declaration 1938
Protected Natural Area, Federal District Government
Gobierno Federal de la República
Gobierno del Distrito Federal
Delegación Iztapalapa
INAH
Appendix D
Baseline questions for interviews and discussion meetings with professionals
Baseline questions for interviews and discussion meetings with professionals.
1. What do you think about the strategies of management of archaeological sites in
the Historic Centre that the INAH had implemented so far?
World Heritage Site denomination had an impact on the archaeological heritage?
2. How do you consider the difusion and communication to the public of the
archaeological sites interpretations as a unity (single city) is being done?
If you consider that a communication exists, do you think the interpretation is
appropriate? How this interpretation could be improved? Any suggestions? Why?
3. How do you consider could be increased the emphasis on the pre-Hispanic time
within the urban dynamic of the Historic Centre?
4. How do you think the integral management of the Historic Centre should be?
Appendix E
Survey questionnaire
The information you provide will help carrying out a master research on the interpretation
of cultural landscapes and management of archaeological sites in modern urban contexts.
The research is undertaken by Eduardo A. Escalante Carrillo (MA student at UCL).
1. ¿Qué había donde ahora está la Ciudad de México antes de la llegada de los españoles?
1. What was where now is Mexico City before the arrival of the Spaniards?
...............................................................................................................................................................
.
2. ¿Qué sitios arqueológicos del Centro Historico o de la ciudad conoces?
2. Which archaeological sites within the Historic Centre do you know?
Pino Suarez
Centro Cultural de España
Templo Mayor
Ventanas arqueológicas de la Catedral y alrededores
Tlatelolco
Otros......................................................................................................................................................
.
3. ¿A qué cultura pertenecen esos sitios?
3. To which culture this sites are associated?
...............................................................................................................................................................
.
No sé.
Don’t know.
4. ¿Cuándo fueron construidos?
4. When this sites and buildings were built?
...............................................................................................................................................................
.
No sé.
Don’t know.
5. ¿Estos sitios pertenecieron a una misma ciudad?
5. Does these sites were part of a single city?
Si
No
No sé
6. ¿Cómo se llamaba la Ciudad de México antes de la llegada de los españoles?
6. How was Mexico City called before the arrival of the Spaniards?
...............................................................................................................................................................
.
7. ¿Qué tan intersado estás en México-Tenochtitlán/México-Tlatelolco?
7. How interested are you in Mexico-Tenochtitlan-Tlatelolco?
Nada
Not at all
Muy poco
Not very much
Poco
Fairly
Mucho
Very much
8. ¿Te parece que la información arqueológica (interpretación) sobre México-Tenochtitlán
disponible en estos sitios es?
8. In general, do you think that the archaeological information (interpretation) about MexicoTenochtitlan provided in these archaeological sites is?
Muy
satisfactoria
Very
satisfactory
Satisfactoria
Satisfactory
Poco
Satisfactoria
Not very
satisfactory
Insatisfactoria
Unsatisfactory
9. ¿De los sitios arqueologicos del Centro Historico cuáles formaron parte de MéxicoTenochtitlán?
9. From the archaeological sites within the Historic Centre, which ones were part of MexicoTenochtitlan?
Pino Suárez
Centro Cultural de España
Templo Mayor
Ventanas arqueológicas de la Catedral y alrededores
Tlatelolco
Otros......................................................................................................................................................
.
10. ¿De qué manera obtienes información sobre la arqueología de la Ciudad de México? (1 o
más respuestas)
10. How do you access information about archaeology of Mexico City? (1 or more answers)
Visitando museos/exhibiciones
Visiting museums/exhibitions
Leyendo periódicos/revistas
Reading newspapers/magazines
Visitando sitios arqueológicos
Visiting archaeological sites
Atendiendo a cursos/conferencias
Attending courses/lectures
A través del internet
Through the internet
Leyendo placas/letreros en la ciudad
Reading signage around the city
Viendo programas de TV
Watching TV programmes
Leyendo libros o revistas especializados
Reading specialized magazines/handbooks
Escuchando la radio
Listening to the radio
Other …………………………
11. ¿Qué tan interesado estás en la arqueología de la Ciudad de México (Centro Histórico)?
11. How interested are you in the archaeology of Mexico City (Historic Centre)?
Nada
Not at all
Muy poco
Not very much
Poco
Fairly
Mucho
Very much
12. En general ¿qué tan satisfecho estás con tu experiencia respecto a la arqueología del
Centro Histórico de la Ciudad de México?
12. In general, how satisfied are you with your experience about the archaeology of Mexico
City’s Historic Centre?
Nada
Not at all
Muy poco
Not very much
Poco
Fairly
Mucho
Very much
13. ¿Consideras que obtendrías un mejor entendimiento del tiempo prehispánico de la
Ciudad de México con más información al respecto en los sitios arqueológicos del Centro
Histórico?
13. Do you consider that you would have a better understandingof the pre-Hispanic time of
Mexico City with more information about it in the archaeological sites of the Historic Centre?
...............................................................................................................................................................
.
14. ¿Qué tipo de información te gustaría leer/tener en los sitios arqueológicos del Centro
Histórico?
14. Which kind of information you would like to read or have in the archaeological sites of the
Historic Centre?
...............................................................................................................................................................
.
...............................................................................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................................................................
..
15. ¿Vives en la Ciudad de México?
15. Do you like in Mexico City?
Si / No
Delegación: …………………….
Estado: …………………………
16. Nacionalidad: …….…………
17. Género: M F
18. Edad?
16. Nacionality
17. Gender
18. Age
19. Education (1 respuesta)
19. Education (1 answer)
Primaria
Elementary school
Secundaria
High school
Preparatoria
College
Universidad
University (BA degree)
Eduardo Escalante