The People’s Museums

Community Museums of Oaxaca, Mexico

Master’s Degree Dissertation

International Museum Studies

Museion - Göteborg University

2006

Author: Juan Luis Burke

Supervisor: Diana Walters

Abstract

This thesis concerns community museums in the Mexican state of Oaxaca, it attempts to explore the ideas behind their conception, the way they function, the claims being made about them, their difficulties for further development and the reality of their achievements. By exploring the origin of community museums, the thesis delved into the history and conceptualization of museums in Mexico, it explored the tenets of the new museology movement which inspired community museology in Mexico, to end up focusing on the case of community museums in Oaxaca. It also analyzed and documented three examples of community museums for further interpretation and recollection of data. This thesis exposes an interesting phenomenon in the museum world while at the same time empowers the people who participate in it by making an assessment of their reality and claims. It also aims at inspiring any museum professional interested in the subject. Keywords

Community museums, new museology, communal organization, Mexico.

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank the following persons for their assistance and support: Diana Walters, Verónica Vázquez, Teresa Morales Lersch, the STINT Foundation for providing me with a scholarship to carry out my studies at Göteborg University, and my grandmother for her life-long support.

2

Contents

1. Introduction

1.1 Background

1.2 Research question

1.3 Aim and objectives

1.4 Definitions

1.4.1 Definition of Indian or indigenous

1.4.2 Definition of indigenous community

1.4.3 Definition of community museum

1.4.4 Definition of ecomuseum

1.5 Methodology

1.6 Literature review

2. Historical background of museums in Mexico

2.1 Introduction

2.2 The Colonial Period

2.3 The Independent Period

2.4 Modern Period

2.5 Conclusions

3. The New Museology Movement

3.1 Background on the new museology movement

3.2 Basic principles of new museology

3.3 New museology for the future

3.4 Conclusions

4. Social Integration Experiments and Community Museums in Mexico

4.1 Introduction

4.2 The “Casa del Museo” project

4.3 The “Museos Escolares” project

4.4 The Community Museums National Program

4.3.1 Methodology of the Program

4.3.2 Achievements of the Program

3

4.5 The Case of Community Museums in Oaxaca

4.5.1 The organizational development

4.5.2 The communal way of life in indigenous and mestizo

communities

4.6 Conclusions

5. Analysis of the In-depth Examples

5.1 Introduction

5.2 Presentation of the communities chosen for the in-depth examples

5.2.1 Santa Ana del Valle

5.2.2 San José el Mogote

5.2.3 Natividad

5.3 Conception and objectives of the museums

5.4 Structure and organization of the museums

5.5 Activities and programs of the museums

5.6 Museography of the museums

5.7 Examples of texts on labels

5.8 Comparative analysis of the in-depth examples

6. Final conclusions

7. Appendixes

7.1 Architectural sketch and photographs of the Santa Ana del Valle

community museum

7.2 Architectural sketch and photographs of the San José Mogote community

museum

7.3 Architectural sketch and photographs of the Natividad community

museum

7.4 Map of the state of Oaxaca and its community museums

7.5 Declaration of Quebec

7.6 List of interviewees and partial transcriptions of the interviews

8. Bibliography

4

1. Introduction

1.1 Background

Starting in the late 1960s and continuing on to the 1970s, many museologists worldwide began to challenge the “classic” model of the museum as an institution; the one inherited from the 18th century; ethnocentric, temple-like and, as it appeared to these critics, obsolete (and which is an on-going debate up to now). They claimed that museums were failing to provide with a social meaning to the public to whom they were supposedly devoted to (Hauenschild 1988, Hubert 1989: 196, Simpson 2001: 71-80). Community museums or community-based museums are one such type of response that has taken various shapes and paths in different parts of the world (Simpson 2001: 71-169). They have at its center the idea that museums should be run by the people, for the people, and that they should make a significant change in the lives of them. In the decade of the 1970s in Mexico, a series of experiments were carried out having to do with the social integration of museums into communities and sectors of society not considered as museum visitors (Hauenschild 1988). The legacy of these experiments eventually led to the creation of the Community Museums National Program by Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia (INAH)1 in 1983 (Departamento de Museos Comunitarios de INAH (DMC-INAH) 1990: 8). Community museums have therefore existed in Mexico for more than twenty years now and they have been created throughout the country. In this way, the term “museum” and the community-based museology seems to have been embraced by many communities, indigenous and mestizo2 alike (Barrera Bassols & Vera Herrera 1996: 129, DMC-INAH 1990: 28, Pearce Erikson 1996: 37-39, Peña Tenorio 2000, Rico Mansard 2004). 1.2 Research question

Have the community museums of Oaxaca, Mexico, met their aims as tools of empowerment, education, conservation of cultural heritage and forums of expression, after twenty years of existence?

1 National Institute of Anthropology and History of Mexico, by its abbreviation in Spanish. This institution has as its mission: “To preserve, conduct research, and divulge the archeological, anthropological, historical, and paleontological heritage of the nation, for the strengthening of the identity and memory of the society to which it belongs.” (http://www.inah.gob.mx/Normateca/index.htm, consulted on April 12, 2006), translation by the author. 2 In Mexico, the term mestizo is used to define a person of mixed heritage; most of the times of Spanish and Indigenous descent

5

1.3 Aim and objectives Aim: To describe and analyze the history, the purpose, and the impact of the community museum phenomenon in Oaxaca, Mexico The objectives are:

• To explore the origin of community museums in Mexico • To analyze the concept of new museology • To investigate the position and function of community museums in

Oaxaca • To asses if these museums make any impact on the communities that

created them using an in-depth example approach 1.4 Definitions In order to help the reader comprehend some of the concepts this work deals with, a series of definitions are needed. 1.4.1 Definition of Indian or indigenous It is well known that Columbus, when he accidentally arrived to the American continent, erroneously thought that he had come to India, hence the name for the native peoples of the American continent. O’Gorman has stated that the idea of the American Indian is a European invention, necessary in its own right for another previous invention; which was the American continent (quoted in Montemayor 2001: 24). In present-day Mexico, the term Indian is still used with a pejorative connotation to define someone who is dumb, uneducated, from a rural setting or of quaint manners. The now “official” term used amply in official documents by many researchers and by native peoples alike, has thus become indigenous. There is still much debate as to how to address the native populations, and other terms widely used are: Indian peoples, original peoples3, while other groups feel the term Indian should be recuperated and vindicated from its previous negative connotation. For effects of this work, the term indigenous shall be used to refer to the peoples that are descendants of populations that inhabited the regions of what now constitutes Mexico, previous to the coming of the Spanish settlers. And whichever the juridical or political situation in which they find themselves inserted in, still conserve their own social, economical, cultural and political institutions, or parts of them (Rendón Monzón 2003: 34). 3 “Pueblos indios” and “pueblos originarios” in Spanish

6

1.4.2 Definition of indigenous and mestizo community in Oaxaca An indigenous community can be described as a historically defined population nucleus and is characterized by the subsistence on the cultivation of corn. It organizes and resists itself by way of a communal way of life, which is in turn supported through a network of kinship. This network is based on a common identity that revolves around identity symbols and the communal knowledge about this territory and their history. It is important to mention that there are no political relations that unify these communities, despite the fact that a series of communities in a certain region may share economical or commercial relationships (Rendón Monzón 2003: 32). For this work, this is the definition of community which shall be used. The general definition of community, however, is also relevant and complements the one that defines the indigenous and mestizo communities of Oaxaca. 1.4.3 Definition of community museum A community museum could very well be characterized by this definition given by de Varine (1993):

“I define a community museum as one which grows from below, rather than being imposed from above. It arises in response to the needs and wishes of people living and working in the area and it actively involves them at every stage while it is being planned and created and afterwards when it is open and functioning. It makes use of experts, but it is essentially a co-operative venture, in which professionals are no more than partners in a total community effort.”

de Varine

The spawning of community-based museology (which encompasses both ecomuseums and community museums), as Davis (2004a: 93) suggests, has as an ideological background the concept of the so-called “integral museum”, which in turn was an outcome of the “Roundtable of Santiago”. The roundtable was organized by UNESCO/ICOM in Chile in 1972. The integral museum is basically the idea that the museum institution should try to involve the community in the museum at every stage of its operative aspect and to make the institution more democratic (ibid.). However, new museology and the community museum do not necessarily have the same characteristics in one region of the world as in another. Davis (2004b: 1), for example, when writing about ecomuseum philosophy, ascertains that a characteristic of it is that it is flexible, which means that it can be molded to suit most situations. This is something which is true also of community museums in Mexico, which may not share the same characteristics of community-based museology in Europe, North America or Asia. However, there is one characteristic that defines ecomuseums, (or any form of community-based museology), and that is that the community must

7

be identified as the major stakeholder in any form of its exercise as a museological form (ibid.). 1.5 Methodology The research for this thesis is based on a qualitative methodology. The justification to take on a qualitative methodology approach derives on a variety of reasons which rely on the nature of the research subject. In other words, the case of community museums in Oaxaca can best be approached from a qualitative research stance, because of the nature of the museums themselves:

The museums are located mostly in remote and hard-to-reach locations

These institutions survive on very limited budgets, which is also true of the whole Community Museums National Program created by INAH

The Program itself has a scant amount of published literature (a few articles in specialized journals mostly)

Institutional information is not in the public sphere No evaluations have been published by the museums or the

institutions that have promoted the creation and continuation of these museums

The existence of tacit knowledge and understanding surrounding the Oaxaca community museums phenomenon

Furthermore, it is imperative to clarify that the museums visited constitute 3 in-depth examples which provide the evidence needed in order to reach the objectives and fulfill the aim of this research document. The examples studied were not chosen randomly, but rather they were chosen from the belief that in order to obtain relevant comparative data, I needed to refer to a set of diverse examples. Thus, one museum was chosen because it was the first one created in Oaxaca and with a tradition of varied activities and for being a dynamic museum. Another museum was chosen on the grounds that it is one of the most popular and visited because of the archaeological vestiges nearby and the collection shown. The third one was chosen because of the difference on approach given to their exhibitions and novel museography. Overall, the three museums were also created at different years, so I set out to examine if there were any discernible developments due to the age difference. This community museums phenomenon is impossible to approach from a mechanical and/or predictable research. This may be referred to as constructivist approach (Hart 2005: 409-413). I believe that the examples I chose were diverse in their conceptions, characteristics, location, etc. Furthermore, I tried to construct a picture that is dependant on the place, the circumstances, and the people involved in the happening of this phenomenon.

8

When the term qualitative research is used, it is defined by the use and collection of what Yin (2003: 33) calls “soft” data, which refers in this case to ethnographical methods, mainly observation and description (ibid.) not aimed at individuals but rather a social program. I am also combining a methodology that Hart (2005: 321) labels as an exploratory type of research; I am looking to use a flexible approach combined with a revision of concepts and data, in a combined theoretical and empirical stance. The research also aims at producing a summative evaluation as Hart (ibid.) defines it, for it aims to assess the benefits and policies of the community museums in Oaxaca as a program. Furthermore, my research uses the following methods to obtain data:

Interviews: By carrying out interviews to four key representative persons involved in the organization and running of community museums at different levels, in-depth qualitative information concerning the museums was obtained. This information is related to the community involvement in the creation and everyday running of museums: it relates to the ideas, opinions, critiques and aspirations of the people involved. The interviews were done in person whenever possible, or else by telephone. The interviews are recorded in a digital format (WAV files) and all of them were done in Spanish. A transcription of the most relevant parts of the interviews is presented in the form of an appendix (7.6). The people interviewed were: - Román Bautista Sánchez: Director of the Santa Ana del Valle

Community Museum (Shan-Dany), member of the Zapotec community of Santa Ana del Valle. The interest in interviewing him was based on the fact that he exercises a position to the inside of the oldest and most “experienced” museum. The interview I conducted on him was semi-structured or open-ended.

- Verónica García Ramos: She is an employee at the Unión de Museos Comunitarios de Oaxaca (UMOC): the organization that encompasses and represents all community museums in Oaxaca. The interest in interviewing her was that she would shed some information on the way the organization works. The interview conducted on her was semi-structured.

- María Eugenia Márquez: She is an ethnologist working at the INAH office in the state of Puebla (northern neighbor of Oaxaca). She worked with community museums in that state for 4 years. My interest on interviewing her relied on the fact that the community museum phenomenon in Puebla is completely different from the one in Oaxaca. She gave me her views on why the community museums in Puebla have been a failure and she also provided with an opinion on the Oaxaca museums phenomenon. My interview on her was semi-structured.

9

- Teresa Morales Lersch: She is an anthropologist working in the INAH office of the state of Oaxaca. She has worked closely with community museums in Oaxaca from the start of the implementation of the program in Oaxaca in 1986. The reason for interviewing her lied on the fact that she, along with her husband; Cuauhtémoc Camarena (who was unavailable for an interview), are perhaps the people who have been more involved with the development of community museums in Oaxaca. My interview on her was structured.

Document analysis: I aimed at reviewing and analyzing the literature

available for the theoretical existence of community museums in Mexico, focusing later on the case of Oaxaca.

The analysis was necessary for the contextualization activity I developed by building a theoretical background for understanding the community museum phenomenon. This background consisted of reviewing the existence and role of museums in Mexico throughout the history of the country. In order to later explore some of the key issues related to the subject of museums and indigenous populations in Mexico; such as the interpretation and ownership of cultural heritage.

Observation: I visited the three examples and gathered a series of data by systematizing my visits as it will be described below.

In order to systematically approach the visitation of the museums chosen for the research, a checklist of aspects to analyze about each example was done and it was designed in such a way that it guided me in the visits in a systematic manner so as to review basically four aspects of the museums:

- Museological discourse of the exhibitions:

The tone of language of the labels – All the text labels in the museums were recorded by transcribing them or by photographing them. They are analyzed in order to try to find out whether written in the first person, for instance, or not, which might be evidence of direct intervention of INAH technicians in the writing of the texts. They are also analyzed in terms of the content of the labels as well as the target audience for the texts.

Terminology employed – This refers to the terms employed in the texts; whether simple or scientific. This is in order to find out to whom the text labels are aimed at.

Thematic lay-out of the exhibitions – To analyze the themes that the community chose to represent in their museums; if there were one or several subjects being approached, and which were granted more importance. This point would have the purpose of finding out which subjects the community takes on as being of uttermost relevance to them, and how they approach them. This was mainly carried out by examining the lay-out of the museums; an architectural sketch was done in order to determine which

10

themes in the museums were granted more space and predominance in the overall permanent exhibition space.

- The operational and functioning aspects of the museums:

Operational scheme - To find out how the community organizes itself in order to operate their museums, who guides the visits, who is in charge of attending the visitors, cleaning, repairing and giving maintenance to the building. This was found out by interviews with community members and researchers, and by analyzing the literature produced by the researchers of INAH on the subject of community museums in Oaxaca.

Organizational scheme – To find out how the museums’ committee is composed, who is the main authority, how many people compose the committee, how their members are elected, etc. This was researched by way of interviews and by reviewing the methodology of the Community Museums National Program as well as the literature produced by the researchers at the INAH branch of Oaxaca.

- Background of the museums:

Initiative of creation - In order to find out the origin of the initiative to create the museums; whether from the community or from the INAH authorities. This is a critical point because it determines whether the museums are truly an initiative of the people or an intervention of the state in a paternalistic and authoritative manner. This was done by analyzing the texts in the museums which speak about the creation of them and by juxtaposing that with the research done on the literature available on the subject, as well as by interviews to the people involved in the making of the museums.

Technical development of the museums – This aspect analyzed the source of the funding, who built the exhibits, who advised the community on technical issues, who promoted the idea among the community members, etc. This information was found out by diverse sources, form interviews, by examining the documentation available and even by examining the content in the museums (the texts themselves).

- Programs of the museums:

Activities - In order to find out whether the museums are “alive” which is to say whether they attempt to maintain the community involved in the existence of the museum by continually creating activities and programs, and not only by maintaining a permanent exhibition in the museum. Also by analyzing whether a varied array of people in the community partake on the museum’s

11

activities or just a small portion. This was done by way of interviews and by reviewing literature available.

1.6 Literature review According to Hauenschild (1988), the new museology movement is characterized by the fact that the representative authors of this movement have made only a limited amount of effort to systematize their experiences and develop definitions. Therefore, in order to study the new museology movement, one must direct oneself to the academic papers scattered in specialized journals, the internet and university libraries, along with the few books which have been written about the subject. When attempting to learn more about this movement, the writings of Rivière (1989), an acclaimed French museologist, one of the initiators of the International Council of Museums (ICOM), and creator of the concept of the ecomuseum (a cousin of community museums), along with de Varine (1989), another famous French museologist, are crucial in chartering the evolvement of ecomuseums and community-based museology. Also the works of Davis (1999; 2004a; 2004b) were essential in order to trace and delineate a background and development of the new museology movement. Some of the works of the main representatives of new museology in France were added to the list of authors researched to better analyze the new museology movement; Desvallées (Rivière 1989: 453-481), Hubert (Rivière 1989: 195-206), de Varine (Rivière 1989: 392-395). These essays define their ideology as museologists as well as the existence of ecomuseums. There are various articles that have appeared in specialized journals such as Museum, published by UNESCO, devoted to ecomuseums and community-based museums throughout the years, of which numbers 148 (UNESCO: 1985), as well as numbers 161 (UNESCO: 1989), present important perspectives on how the new museology movement arose and developed. When concerned with communities and “alternative” museum spaces for neglected sectors of society, the book edited by Karp (1992), of which the introduction by Karp himself deals with the notion of communal participation in the shaping and direction of cultural institutions. There is also an analysis on behalf of Karp about the concept and roles of civil society, which were of particular relevance when attempting to place the role that communal participation must play; not only when it deals with indigenous, native or ethnically underrepresented sections of society, but in general, by the whole of society, in order to make the cultural institutions relevant to their lives. Simpson (2001) analyses both different and various expressions of what she herself calls the ’new’ museum paradigm which is quite related to the subject of community museums. Simpson recalls a series of examples of

12

museums, culture houses and community centers mostly created by indigenous groups in North America, Australia and New Zealand. The book, however, is limited to examples in English-speaking countries and only briefly mentions examples from other parts of the world. She does acknowledge the creation of fifty-two community museums in Mexico, up to the year of the publishing of her book (Simpson 2001: 73). When referring to the history of museums in Mexico, the chronicle that Florescano (1997), (historian, and renowned author in Mexico of cultural heritage issues and museums), makes of the history of the museum institution in Mexico was quite helpful. Many authors in Mexico, which write about cultural heritage issues, agree with the fact that, in order to rightfully ascertain a most realistic and democratic national cultural policy for Mexico, it would be necessary for the federal government and thus by the institutions in charge of the keeping of cultural heritage to first acknowledge fully that Mexico is a multiethnic country. Authors such as Tovar y de Teresa (1997), and Bonfil Batalla (1997), expose their ideas in El Patrimonio Cultural de México (FCE: 1997), edited by Florescano. These works were consulted in order to build-up a scenario in which the community museum can be seen, among other things, as a counter movement that communities have taken on in order to try to re-appropriate themselves of a cultural heritage that has been denied them in the past by the social classes ruling the country. The history of the country was shortly chronicled by way of consulting historians such as Urteaga Castro-Pozo (2004), Vázquez (2004), and Villoro (2004). The communal way of life in indigenous and mestizo communities in Mexico is a widely studied phenomenon by social anthropologists, linguists and ethnologists. This is due to the fact that not only has it been an organizational structure inherent and utterly important for their way of life. But it can also be seen as a resistance and survival strategy, exercised by a large amount of indigenous groups in Mesoamerica. To better comprehend this phenomenon, the work of Rendón Monzón (2003), who analyzes the communality phenomenon in Oaxaca, as well as the research of Cohen (2001), who concentrated on the town of Santa Ana del Valle’s organizational schemes in relation to their community museum, were quite invaluable.

13

2. Historical Background of Museums in Mexico

2.1 Introduction The creation of museums in Mexico, as it will be explained, has always served the interests principally and foremost of the ruling establishment. This has been in order mainly to instill and forge a sense of nation in the population, given its multi-ethnic origin, with the consequence of leaving out certain sectors of society which are then forced into taking up a series of strategies of resistance; one of which could, in some instances, be a community museum. However, in order to better comprehend this consequence, a brief review of the history of museums in Mexico is needed, so as to contextualize the tension and contradiction existent in matters concerning cultural legislation, cultural centralization and contention of ownership, as well as the rights on behalf of all sectors of society to express, exploit and enjoy their diverse cultural heritage. 2.2 The Colonial Period The history of museums in Mexico begins during the Colonial period (1521-1821); as a European invention, it is brought along with the Spanish settlement. The official year established by historians as the date the Spanish invaders subdued the ancient Aztec city of Tenochtitlan, (now Mexico City), in 1521, is marked as the beginning of the Colonial Period (García Martínez 2004: 241-242). The first collection assembled in the country was the one belonging to the Academia de San Carlos, the old Academy of Fine Arts of Mexico City, in 1783-1785 (Rico Mansard 2004). A few years later, in 1790 (Rico Mansard 2004), King Carlos III of Spain, ordered a series of scientific expeditions that resulted in a botanical garden and the Natural History Museum in Mexico City, put together with the assemblage of specimens from the aforementioned expeditions (Florescano 1997: 148). An interesting conundrum posed by the conservation of Pre-Hispanic objects and archeological remains in Colonial Mexico, is the one that authors such as Florescano (1997: 153-154), as well as Litvak & López Varela (1997: 177) expose. The predicament lies in the fact that, unlike for example, the recollection and investigation of the archaeological remains of the Classic cultures of the Mediterranean; Greek and Roman (which began centuries after these cultures had died), the increasing interest in the remains of the indigenous past in Mexico and the whole of Mesoamerica occurred when the religious

14

beliefs of the native peoples were still alive, despite the imposition of the Catholic faith. This is to say that, towards the end of the 17th century and the beginning of the 18th, while Creoles were beginning to look at archaeological remains as objects of nationalistic inspiration (and thus they were trying to appropriate the past of the indigenous peoples). Indigenous peoples were still (in a clandestine manner mostly) adoring their old deities (Escalante Betancourt 1998: 21). This happened even when these deities were exposed as museum pieces. Such was the case of a monumental sculpture of a Pre-Columbian deity called Coatlicue, which, in 1790, was exhibited in the patio of the University of Mexico City, and to which some Indians rendered cult in the form of prayers, burning of candles and by bringing it offerings (Florescano 1997: 153). This historical contradiction has had its consequences up to the 21st Century, since even today, the legislation on the conservation of archaeological remains4 does not admit that they are religious goods, but rather historical monuments only. This is in contras to a Christian temple dating back to the 16th Century, to give an example, which would be considered to be both things, even when there are still some indigenous groups who utilize archeological sites as places in which to perform religious ceremonies (Escalante Betancourt 1998: 21-22, Ley Federal Sobre Monumentos y Zonas Arqueológicos, Artísticos e Históricos 1972). Furthermore, this phenomenon characterizes the conception of the legislation for the conservation of the Pre-Hispanic Mexican cultural heritage, along with the whole conception of the nation’s cultural identity. It is related to how it has been defined, how it has been portrayed and divulged throughout the years. It basically spells out the appropriation of the indigenous past for nationalistic inspiration and pride, while at the same time repudiating, degrading and denying the habits, lifestyles and religions of the native peoples in favor of an Occidentalized culture, the one the ruling classes of the country partake in (Bonfil Batalla 1997: 32). 2.3 The Independent Period The war for Independence (1810-1821), was led by the upper-middle class composed of Creoles (to whom the Colonial government did not give the same rights as the Spanish-born settlers and government officials). It broke out in 1810, and the independence aspirations were finally consummated in 1821 (Villoro 2004: 491-523). 4 Specifically, Article 28 of the Federal Law on Archaeological, Artistic and Historical Monuments and Sites, dating from 1972 and with a series of annotations, the latest of which dates back to 1986, defines archaeological monuments as: “…the movable or unmovable goods, product of the cultures prior to the settlement of the Hispanic culture in the national territory, as well as human remains, flora and fauna belonging to those cultures.” The translation is by the author

15

By the end of the 17th and beginning of the 18th century, Christianity among the native peoples was more deeply rooted and the rising of a nationalistic movement that needed to proclaim the glories of a young nation’s past was underway. These two elements thus led to the creation of the National Museum in 1825 (Urteaga Castro-Pozo 2003: 289). This museum can be taken as a symbol of the major fulfillments that the Mexican museum institution accomplished at this time in the history of the country (Florescano 1997b: 15 and Tovar y de Teresa 1997: 90). Despite the turbulent political period that the country went through during most of the 19th Century (a series of wars; invasions from France in 1862 (Díaz 2004: 613); from the United States in 1846 (Vázquez 2004: 578); as well as other influential political and social events), the National Museum enjoyed a great era of development from 1876 and on till 1910. This was an era in which a reorganization of the collections and incorporation of new ones resulted in the creation of the National Library, and the National Archive (Florescano 1997: 158). During the 19th century, the main cities in the country were also committing themselves to the creation of regional museums, as part of an educational campaign led by the government authorities, such as Guadalajara, Puebla, Zacatecas, Guanajuato, among others (Urteaga Castro-Pozo 2003: 289-291). 2.4 The Modern Period The so-called Modern Period in the history of the country is marked by a civil war which is known as the Mexican Revolution; which lasted from 1910 and until 1917. This movement was a reaction to an amazingly long 43 year-old governmental regime, led by a man called Porfirio Díaz, and which ended up by tiring the majority of the population -which were rather poor-, while a small minority received all the privileges of the positivistic, industrial and liberal regime (González 2004: 701-705). The Revolution marked the course of the country to the present, and one of the major and most important achievements of this social movement was

“…to have created a notion of the identity and of the national heritage, and to have it induced to the majority of the population. After the revolutionary movement of 1910, it was accepted that the Pre-Hispanic past, as well as the rural traditions and those of the working classes were the authentic national values.”

Florescano 1997b: 175

After this, a major series of reforms led to the creation of the institutions that are in charge of the safekeeping of the cultural heritage of the country, among them the National Institute of Anthropology and History (INAH), the National Institute for the Fine

5 Translation by the author

16

Arts (INBA), the National Indigenous Institute (INI), among others (Florescano 1997: 168). Furthermore, not long after the end of the Revolution, it was defined by the Ministry of Education that museums were educational tools that were to help in the upholding and diffusion of the Revolutionary ideals (Urteaga Castro-Pozo 2003: 291). These new institutions were in a way radically different from the ones that preceded them before this civil war. To illustrate this point, one needs just to recall what Manuel Gamio, an archeologist of that era, said in a speech to the newly appointed Congress soon after the Revolution had ended. He advised the Congress on how the new constitution should be composed, trying to avoid the principles of the preceding one (which dated from 1857), for he considered that the old constitution completely ignored the indigenous populations as part of the Mexican society, and on the other hand favored the lifestyle, culture and interests of the more Occidentalized governing classes. Furthermore, Gamio affirmed that the indigenous cultures were the real soul of the country (Florescano 1997: 165-168). Gamio was such an influential thinker that he revolutionized the way the anthropological sciences were taught and exercised in Mexico, and this philosophy that precedes his anthropological proposals are the foundational ideology from which the national institutions in charge of the safekeeping of the country’s cultural heritage (but especially the INAH) are founded: acknowledging the importance of the native populations in the history of the nation, the legislation for the safekeeping of this cultural heritage, the scientific study of these cultures, and the conservation and divulgation of this heritage in order to incorporate the results into the forging of the national identity (Florescano 1997: 170 and Olivé Negrete 2003: 28-29). This cultural-political ideology is evident and omnipresent in the national museums of Mexico: the National Anthropology Museum, the National History Museum, among others, in which the ancient cultures of the country are displayed as part of a glorious, intricate and multicultural world developing in the territories comprising present-day Mexico. However, inasmuch as the anthropological disciplines were modernized and scientifically updated, the fact remains that the indigenous cultures are still one of the most relegated, disdained, and economically poor fragment of Mexican society. In the museum’s displays, the indigenous groups still did not exert any influence on the way they were portrayed by the academics “studying” them. Furthermore, the “specialists” –representatives of a Westernized way of perceiving and interpreting reality-, have chosen and appropriated for themselves and for a project of a nation, the cultural heritage that they have wanted to choose, and turned it into a cultural capital, more often than not elitist, and which is not in accordance with the way the native peoples interpret their own reality (Bonfil Batalla 1997: 48-49).

17

2.5 Conclusions There are now nearly 900 museums in Mexico, with all sorts of thematic content: history, art, anthropology, science, among many others. On the other hand, the museum institution in Mexico has sought to conform to the ideals set by ICOM and UNESCO; they conserve, collect, exhibit and divulge their work, and they are struggling to meet the needs of their public on a day-to-day basis (Rico Mansard 2004). The thriving of the museum institution in Mexico makes evident the fact that the concept of museum is nowadays deeply rooted in the country. Furthermore, it is evident from the historical evidence that the museum as an institution has also, at different times and under different circumstances, served the ruling classes in the shaping of the national identity and in the conformation of the nation’s values. If, just like Florescano affirms (see page 16), the revolutionary movement of 1910 accomplished a tremendous feat in terms of inducing a series of nationalistic values to the general population, (something in itself quite admirable given the fact that Mexico is a pluralistic, multiethnic, multicultural nation), and that this social-ideological accomplishment led to the modernization and creation of a grand machinery composed of universities, institutions, technical schools and academics dedicated to the conservation, study, divulgation and safekeeping of the cultural heritage. It is also true that this heritage is in itself part of an imaginary conception, the imaginary conception of Mexico as a nation. Tovar y de Teresa affirms that the history of Mexico’s cultural policy is one of “a gradual transit towards the full recognition of the true wideness of the country’s cultural heritage”6 (Tovar y de Teresa 1997: 89), if this is true, then that transit has yet to accept the fact that the country is in need of recognizing the pluralistic nature of the population and, therefore, of its cultural heritage:

“The fact is, in a last instance, that the national culture and its corresponding cultural heritage, do not express the pluralism of Mexican society; furthermore, they deny it systematically in a centuries-long effort to uniform the population in terms of the dominating cultural model.”

Bonfil Batalla (1997: 50)7

The cultural heritage of Mexico seems to be, thus, in a rather difficult position if, being a pluralistic nation, the authorities insist on imposing a unique notion of it, for it will be impossible for the whole of the population to identify with it (Bonfil Batalla 1997: 51).

6 Translation by the author 7 Translation by the author

18

We might conclude, then, with the idea that, as García Canclini states (1997: 85-86), there is a need for a reformulated heritage, one that may consider its social usefulness in order for all sectors of society.

19

3. The New Museology Movement

3.1 Background on the new museology movement From the 1960s, museologists in the Western hemisphere began to change some of their long-established practices of the “traditional” museum, in order to relate to societal needs and placing more attention to regional heritage (Davis 1999: 57). Apparently, many museum professionals thought that the museum was failing to make a relevant cultural change in society (Hauenschild 1988). Furthermore, many museum professionals have since made a call for these institutions to open their doors and render themselves useful as “agents of social change”8 for the communities in which they find themselves inserted in (Bennett 1995: 18-25, Kinard 1985: 219-220, Sandell 2004: XVII). This realization and the actual vying for change that has continued on to the present, represents, according to van Mensch, the second biggest turning in the conceptualization of museums throughout their history (van Mensch 1996: 135); the first one being of a “modernization” kind, and which took place from 1880-1920 (ibid.). One of the products of this second radical change in museology has been the movement called “new museology”. The term in itself is not very new or recent, the first time it was used in a literary and academic medium was in the late 1950s, by G. Mills and R. Grove, in their joint participation in a book edited by S. de Borghegyi called The Modern Museum and the Community, without apparently receiving much attention (Alonso Fernández 1999: 74 and van Mensch 1996: 135). It arose again in the late 1970s in France, when the term began to be used by a new generation of French museologists (van Mensch 1996: 135), and it is made evident with the publication of an article entitled Nouvelle Museologie, in France, by André Desvallées (Alonso Fernández 1999: 74). The term also comes up in the United Kingdom when a book edited by Vergo (1989), The New Museology, is published. The book deliberates on the re-assessment of the museum as en educational tool in the post-war period (Alonso Fernández 1999: 75; van Mensch 1996: 135). However, it must be noted that, as is evident with contemporary museum authors such as Simpson (2001), Sandell (2004), Bennett (1995) or Karp (1992), who write about the integration of the museum into the community, English-speaking authors do not seem to utilize or acknowledge the term “new museology” very often, and when they do, they give it a different sense than the one French, Spanish or Portuguese-speaking authors give to it. Davis (1999: 69) acknowledges this fact and states that the majority of English-speaking authors ignore literature written on museums from the rest of the world.

8 The term should be credited to Sandell (2004: XVII)

20

In any case, that generation of museologists that van Mensch mentions (1996: 135), ideologically led by Rivière and which included de Varine, Mayrand, Hubert, among others, were the ones to actually adopt the term to define a movement that, supposedly, challenges many of the notions and practices of “traditional” museology. However, the “new” museum paradigm that this movement promotes does not necessarily mean a complete turn from the “traditional” museum. It is not, therefore, an alternative, but rather it sees itself as a supplement that opens up new dimensions (Hauenschild 1988). In other words, it uses the same tools and resources as the “old” museology. It does not abandon the use of objects for interpretation, nor does it turn away from scholarship and curatorship, nor does it abandon the educational idealism of the “traditional” museum at all (Davis 1999: 69). In 1985, the proclaimers of the movement, after a series of meetings, workshops and summits organized mainly by ICOM (Alonso Fernández 1999: 79-80, Hauesnschild 1988, Mayrand 1985: 200), created an organization called MINOM9, during a meeting in Lisbon, and which was later accepted by ICOM as a filial organization (Alonso Fernández 1999: 79-80 and Hauesnschild 1988). Like Mayrand (1985: 200) affirmed in UNESCO’s Museum, the new museology movement was not precisely well defined, nor do the subscribers all upheld the same initiatives, but rather they all shared the same dissatisfaction with the state of things at the time they proclaimed new museology as an international movement. He stated that the movement’s philosophy can be synthesized in the Declaration of Quebec, a document drafted by the participants to the First International Workshop on Ecomuseums and New Museology, celebrated in that Canadian city in 1984 (Davis 2004b: 3). From that workshop, the participants asked ICOM to create a special committee dedicated to ecomuseums and community museums and also vied for the creation of an international federation on new museology (Mayrand 1985: 201). The first proposal was refused by ICOM, the second would eventually lead to the creation of MINOM (Alonso Fernández 1989: 80). The Declaration of Quebec summarizes new museology’s principles and demanded that the movement be recognized by the international museum community (see Appendix 7.5). 3.2 Basic principles of new museology New museology’s adherents, according to Hauenschild (1988), have never taken too much concern on systematizing their experiences or with making definitions. However, it seems like the basic principles of new museology can easily be identified when reviewing various authors such as Alonso Fernández (1989), Hauenschild (1988), Mayrand (1985), Davis (1999) as well as several articles and documents like the Declaration of Quebec (1985). 9 International Movement for a New Museology, by its abbreviation in French

21

According to the Declaration of Quebec’s Universal Considerations, the traditional roles of museology are those of identification, conservation, and education. Thus, the new museology should concern itself with taking these principles further and with integrating these actions more successfully into the human environment. Primarily, in order to achieve this, the new museology would recur to interdisciplinarity, modern methods of communication and modern management. Ultimately, the concerns of the movement are scientific, social, educational and economic (Mayrand 1985: 200). However, the ultimate conceptualization through which new museology attempts to define its principles is its conception of what the “new” museum, the one shaped by the ideals of the movement, should be like. According to Hauenschild (1988), the new museum is defined

“…by its socially relevant objectives and basic principles. Its work as an educational institution is directed toward making a population aware of its identity, strengthening that identity, and instilling confidence in a population’s potential for development.”

Hauenschild (1988) It is at this stage that one extremely important concept enters into the picture of the new museum paradigm: territoriality. By attempting to make a population aware of its identity, the museum must first work at allowing people to demarcate their territory. Walsh (1992: 149), for example, when writing on museums as “facilitators of a sense of place”, argues that the locality in which the majority of the people spend their time working and interacting socially can be understood as a node in a network of relationships which crosses both time and space. Furthermore, he states that places can be understood as localities which are, at the same time, acting on, and being acted upon by other places (ibid.). Here lies the importance of people realizing that their locality is an influential element in society, because they can have a prominent effect on the ruling institutions, or even in multinational capital. Walsh unequivocally states that:

“There is no doubt that the control and manipulation of space is, and always has been, a fundamental technique of maintaining political hegemony.”

Walsh (1992: 149) The theme of a post-modern world which becomes more complex and manipulated by multinational corporations and which narrows down the population’s control over their cultural consumption is at the backdrop of Walsh’s ideas. Other authors, such as Brett (1996: 8), when writing about cultural heritage and the implications of its exploitation, share similar ideas

22

about the way the past is constantly being reinterpreted in such a way that our sense of time and space is constantly being rearticulated. In this way, Walsh (1992: 165) argues that a way to fight the complexity of the modern world must spring from developing a sense of place, an objective which is of uttermost importance for community-based museology. The way Walsh (ibid.) interprets this is that an ecomuseum (and by association a community-based museum too) should be concerned with the developing of understanding or awareness of how places are a construction of human interactions with environments over time and space. By environments it should be understood the natural landscapes as well as the constructed ones. Thus, the ultimate goal of making a community reach for the appropriation of their territory lies in the idea that people may identify and name the elements (material and non-material alike) of their environment, in order to realize their right to an identity, to then appropriate their reality and, hopefully, gain a certain control over it (Hauenschild 1988). Alonso Fernández (1989), based on the ideas of Maure (1996), created a simple diagram in which the traditional museum is viewed in contrast to the “new” museum paradigm:

The “traditional” museum and the “new” museum

The traditional museum: A building + a collection + a public

The new museum: A territory + a heritage + a community (decentralized structure) (material and non-material, (development)

natural and cultural)

Alonso Fernández (1989: 95) The notion of multidisciplinarity as a form of approaching museum work is another central factor to the new museum paradigm that, according to Hauenschild (1988), moves the traditional museum, which is object-oriented, aside in order to replace it with a theme-oriented museum. As this is decided by the community, the new museum becomes a sanctuary for collective memory. Under this light, the new museum makes use of a “heritage”, or that which belongs to the collective memory and which is directly relevant to the community. Thus, the collection, objects and subjects presented in the new

23

museum will have been decided and/or determined by the community, not by scholars, which is the usual procedure in the traditional museum (ibid.). In the specific case of the community museums of Oaxaca, the research work of Morales & Camarena (2005: 23-33) builds a case of how globalization affects directly the processes of the collective memory, thus disrupting the lines of development of a given community. In other words, if there is no clear concept of the collective past, due to a confusing present, the future becomes uncertain. Thus the justification of the existence of the community museums as appropriators of collective memory; they serve as a vehicle to legitimize values, stories and identities of a community, in short, they serve as resistance tools against globalization. The last basic element in the new museum paradigm has to do with the active participation of the community in the creation and everyday running of the museum. As de Varine (1993) affirms, the community-based museum is one that arises in response and under the needs of the people living and working in the area, but also it is the museum that involves the people in every stage while being planned, created, and once the museum is up and functioning. Furthermore, a central notion to the participation of the people has to do with the staff that runs community-based museums. Ideally, the people running the museum should come from the locality or belong to the community, first and foremost, and then, another important element lies in the fact that there should be no hierarchical structure to the inside of the institution, that is to say that the general director as well as other staff is rotating constantly and do not hold their positions for prolonged periods and, furthermore, the staff is considered to be as important in the decision-making process as would be the general public (Hauenschild 1988; see Morales & Camarena 1997 for the specific case of Oaxaca). The way the staff gains experience and basic notions of museology is by way of participating in courses or working in other community-based museums. This active engagement of the people in the whole scheme of organization and running of the institution has been deemed “people’s museography” or “community museography” (DMC-INAH 1990: 9; Hauenschild 1988). 3.3 New Museology for the Future Despite the fact that the philosophy of new museology has been criticized, (Davis 2004: 93), community museums and ecomuseums keep appearing in different parts of the world, and it is undeniable that it has become a world-wide phenomenon. The research carried out by Davis (2004b: 5-6), for instance, connects the relations between cultural tourism, ecotourism, and other forms of “new tourism”, to sustainable solutions and development practices for communities. This is added to the already existing principles behind community-based museology which advocates for the conservation of the

24

cultural heritage, as well as the exercise of cultural democracy. This type of research might indicate that it is possible for new museology to keep on evolving and take on new challenges that, apparently, did not seem to be linked before. In the specific case of Oaxaca, the development of cultural tourism as a collateral project linked to the community museums is also a reality (see 4.5.1, pp. 33-34). 3.4 Conclusions Simpson (2001: 71) states that perhaps the most significant change comprised in the creation of ecomuseums and community-based museums is that they have enabled people to become much more involved in the process of representation in museums. In general, these institutions have allowed sectors of society to enjoy that attention, never before lent to them by museum professionals. With the passage of years, the ramifications of new museology have taken different paths and many experiments have been carried out in its name and/or under its inspiration. Perhaps the most famous of these have been the ecomuseums, but authors like Simpson herself (2001: 71-169) have explored the alternative museological expressions adopted by sectors of society that, whether underrepresented or socially discriminated on historically, have taken the determination to somehow appropriate the museum concept to their own needs. This goes to show that whenever and wherever an experiment that turns away from the orthodox practices of museum institutions arises, or to put it in another way, an experiment in which the museum or cultural institution is not born from above (which is the usual way), but rather from below (a grass-roots organization), it means that a group of people or a community is vying for a change in their lives to take effect. However, and just like Walsh states (1992: 183), it would be naïve to think or expect the ecomuseum, or community-based museology to come and replace the traditional form of museum. However, perhaps the most notable trait about new museology is that it tries to offer an alternative in such a way that people might actually be able to enjoy, explore, interpret and exploit their cultural heritage in whichever form they see fit, which is in itself a great achievement if, and like Walsh (1992: 183) affirms, there seems to be a monopolized hegemony of form when it comes to the interpretation of the past, of which museums play an important part and which seems to go in clear detriment of a cultural democracy.

25

4. Social Integration Experiments and Community Museums in Mexico 4.1 Introduction The “Casa del Museo” and the “Museos Escolares” experiments which will be briefly discussed below are the predecessors of the Community Museums National Program. This program has delineated the creation of all community museums in Mexico. They all have been creations of INAH, and by chronicling the arising and development, as well as the termination of the spawning programs, it becomes apparent whence the ideas and objectives for the community museums extant today came from. After analyzing the community museums at a national level, the focus then is placed on the particular case of the community museums of Oaxaca. They present two traits that make the case special. The first one is what I deemed “organizational development”. It refers to the way the communities and their museums have created an organizational union which seeks to advance the constant development of their museums. The second trait that I point out is what I labeled as the “communality factor”. This refers to a social organization scheme present in the state of Oaxaca in the rural communities where the museums have been created. In the end, I conclude by pointing out the most relevant factors in the development of the community museums throughout roughly two decades. In the end, a series of tensions that the model of community museum presents, are introduced, in order to give way to the in-depth examples in the final part of the document and the consequent conclusions to the research. 4.2 The “Casa del Museo” project In 1971, the emblematic National Museum of Anthropology in Mexico City carried out a study which revealed a profile of the museum’s visitors indicating that the majority were students, males, followed by a portion of higher educated and white-collar workers (Hauenschild 1988). The next year, in Santiago, Chile, a round table organized by ICOM, and in collaboration with UNESCO, the subject being the “Development of Museums in the Contemporary World”. Among the resolutions the round table recommended the attendants to pursue the “integral” view of the museum (ILAM 2006). The integral museum would be one that would promote the development of the societies that shelter and uphold the museums, and, additionally, placing a certain importance on the urban medium, there was a recommendation that advocated for the museum to install and promote

26

exhibitions and museum activities in poor and segregated urban settings (ibid.). In accordance with the agreements reached in Santiago, the then Director of the National Museum of Anthropology, Mario Vásquez, created in 1972 the Casa del Museo (House of the Museum) project (DMC-INAH 1990: 9), which basically consisted of bringing the museum to the public that would not, according to the museum’s own visitor studies, go to the huge, emblematic, and imposing National Museum of Anthropology. The project consisted of two experiments. The first one was carried out in 1973, in an area located in Western Mexico City, called Observatorio. Comprised of an array of people that, socially and economically ranged between middle-class to shanty-town residents, and which was divided between several neighborhoods that are differentiated by the income of the inhabitants (Hauenschild 1988). However, the team in charge of running the museum (hired and picked by the National Anthropology Museum), did not carry out a consultation with the local population in terms of the creation of the museum. (Hauenschild 1988). The experiment came to an end three years later and an evaluation was made of it. The evaluation showed how 72% of the sample group consulted never visited the museum (Hauenschild 1988). The second experiment by the Casa del Museo project was carried out in another area of Mexico City called Santo Domingo de los Reyes. The result of a community involvement practice in this neighborhood (which lasted approximately six months, and consisted in meetings, talks and sensitization processes), was that the community was greatly involved in the everyday running of the museum. It became an active and dynamic museum responding to the interests of the people in the area through the setting up of approximately fourteen exhibitions (Hauenschild 1988). Despite the apparent success of the experiment, the Casa del Museo project ended the Santo Domingo experience in 1981 due to a lack of resources, personnel and other conflicts among the staff and the various citizen’s groups in the area (Hauenschild 1988). 4.3 The “Museos Escolares” project

As with the Casa del Museo project, which was inspired to a certain extent on the educational policies on museums that UNESCO was promoting at the time, (which were basically concerned with the museum having the potential of becoming an alternative educational tool), the INAH launched an experimental project in July of 1972 called Museos Escolares (School Museums) (Larrauri 2002: 72).

27

This project had as a mission the setting up of “a museum in every school of the country” (Larrauri 2002: 72) Additionally, the Program had as conditioners, to reach its objectives with a low budget and to extend the Program to the whole of Mexico in a relatively short period of time, without having to create a complex and operational bureaucratic apparatus (ibid.). According to Iker Larrauri, the Head of the Program, the most important aspect about the Museos Escolares program was the fact that grade-school children (between the ages of 6 and 12) were the ones required to actually build-up the museums. They would organize it, they would gather the collections, and finally they would be the ones to mount the exhibits as well. At the peak of the program, in 1975, a network of more than 400 school museums was established in 11 of the 31 states that conform Mexico (Larrauri 2002: 72). Despite the apparent success the Program had, the Ministry of Education asked for the teachers ascribed to the Program to go back to their teaching positions taking away their leave of absences from them, while at the same time the INAH decided that the Program was eminently an educational one. Added to the fact that the Ministry of Education had taken away the promoters of the Program, the INAH decided to end it in 1976 (Larrauri 2002: 72). 4.4 The Community Museums National Program

Following the termination of the Casa del Museo project in 1981, the INAH attempted to continue with their social integration and museum education policies by way of creating a department called Departamento de Servicios Educativos, Museos Escolares y Comunitarios10 (DESEMEC) in 1983. It was placed under the jurisdiction of the National Office of Museums and Exhibitions of INAH (Hauenschild 1988). This department took charge of the three public-oriented programs of INAH concerning museums and social integration strategies: 1. Educational services: It concerned itself with attending the needs of the students and non-organized public, aiding itself with educational tools such as guided tours, audiovisual aids, and complementary activities (theater, music, film, etc.) 2. School Museums Program: The program created by Larrauri and described earlier, consistent of museums organized by school children, parents and teachers together, but with the prominence of the school children in the decision-making process. 3. Community Museums Program: This was the one original item in the program, and apparently, it was the one with the most ambition too. It

10 Department of Educational Services, School and Community Museums

28

would try to combine the teachings and experience of the two other programs in order to produce a systematic new experiment that would take advantage of the already existing networks of people and collaborations.

Hauenschild 1988

The definition of a community museum for the Community Museums National Program, a central element to consider in order to better comprehend its philosophy, was

“The community museum is one in which, through the active participation of the population, the function of community service is performed, since the themes that it develops are always tied to the interests and needs of the community. [...]. It promotes the recognition of the creative and decision-making capacity of the community to resolve its needs and to recover the past common history in order to understand the current reality. The community museum disseminates the singular expressions and communication codes of the community for the purpose of preserving and conserving the social and territorial area. It strengthens the feeling of belonging to a group by integrating and bringing together its individual members. It gives impulse to the re-evaluation of its speech, traditions, customs, geographical conditions and forms of production and, in addition, promotes a happier relationship between communities, thus promoting cultural interchange. The community museum educates in the possibility of understanding and planning alternatives to everyday problems and presents the past as a function of the present. It maintains a constant dynamism and changes exhibition activities in accordance with the suggestions of the collective."

Quoted in Hauenschild (1988) Once again, as is evident from the definition of community museum given above, at the center of the new experiment laid the “integral museum” concept that sprang from the “Santiago Roundtable” in 1972. The idea of the integral museum applied to the Community Museums National Program (CMNP), had at its center the community initiative itself. Furthermore, the objectives of the Community Museums Program11 were stated as being:

• To incorporate the communities into the rescue, protection, preservation, enrichment and divulgation of the historical and cultural heritage.

• To contribute to the affirmation of our structural cultural values of our identity in its diverse levels: national, regional, local and ethnic.

11 These are the objectives according to a document authored by the Dirección de Museos Comunitarios of INAH, amply referenced in this paper. Other documents consulted such as Hauenschild (1988), or another one by Morales, Camarena & Camarena (1987: 9), list different objectives, the differences residing mostly in the number of objectives listed and in the use of the language, which leads to the possibility that they were revised and altered throughout the years, however, the impossibility of accessing official documentation does not allow confirmation of this

29

• To achieve the goal of having the museum be constituted as a space for expression and manifestation of community creativeness.

• To create dynamic museums that, without losing its basic characteristics, may propitiate the active participation of the community.

• To generate alternative processes of education that may seek the collective appropriation of knowledge, and the social transformation of the community.

DMC-INAH (1990: 10)12

From the objectives listed above, it can be inferred that the priority of the Program would be the conservation of cultural heritage. But another item to appreciate in the objectives is the fact that the Program acknowledged a series of “cultural values” at different levels: national, regional, local as well as the “ethnic” one. This item in itself is quite important given the fact that, as it was discussed before (see 2.5, pp. 18-19) the national cultural policy for Mexico does not truly acknowledge the nation as a multiethnic one. The fact that the Community Museums Program sets in its objectives the “affirmation” of ethnic values is evidence of how the initiators and promoters of the Program were ahead in terms of admitting and promoting this cultural diversity. This can be seen more clearly if one notes for example, the addition of a statement in the Constitution of the country stating the multicultural nature of the nation in 1992 to Article 4. There was another one more recent addendum in 200113 to Article 2, which guarantees indigenous peoples their freedom of diversity (CDI 2004). In the last place of the Program's objectives lied the educational function of the museums. It can be inferred then that in order for the museum to act as an alternative educational tool, a couple of conditions must first be met: the empowerment of the community through the acquisition of knowledge concerning their cultural heritage, as well as their sense of place. Concerning the educational role of the museum, the Program acknowledged that the type of education that the museum can bring to the community is that of an educational “open space”. This simply means that it was not circumscribed to the “official” educational programs. The museum, as conceived by the Program, became a ground where a series of relationships between visitor and objects in their museographical context could transmit knowledge, values, symbols, identity, sensations and emotions. The Program thus defined this relationship as dialogical, intersubjective and dialectical (DMC-INAH 1990: 18).

12 Translation by author 13 Both Articles can be consulted at: http://info4.juridicas.unam.mx/ijure/fed/9/3.htm?s=

30

4.4.1 Methodology of the Program The vertebrae column of what the Program called its “methodology”, which should be understood as the steps taken in order to create a community museum, is what they called “social promotion”. This was translated into a work of sensitization directed at the community which had shown a desire to create a community museum. This was the initial step and the primordial condition for the INAH to start a process of creation of a community museum. The promoters of the museums were initially and preferably teachers who had worked in the community before and knew the people, the conditions, and the environment under which the community found itself. These teachers would hold a series of talks with community representatives and discuss with them the relevance and the possible benefits that having a museum could bring to the community. All the questions and doubts the community may have had were answered by the promoter, and if the community’s representatives decided on creating the museum, they continued on to the next step, which was the naming of a committee (DMC-INAH 1990: 16-17). The committee would be in charge of carrying out all the work to create the museum: the promotion among the rest of the population, the research, design and mounting of exhibitions, the fund-raising labor, the preparation of the building or locale, the setting up of communication with already-existing community museums in the locality, among others (DMC-INAH 1990: 16-17). 4.4.2 Achievements of the Program According to a report presented in 2001 by the then responsible team of the Community Museums Program to the Directorships of INAH and the Dirección General de Culturas Populares, (DGCP),14 there were up to the year 2000, a total of 269 community museums in Mexico, out of which 163 are open to the public. Of the 269 institutions, 74% of them (200) were set in mestizo communities, and 24% (67) were in indigenous communities of 24 different ethnic groups; along with an African- Mexican community museum in the Pacific coast of the State of Guerrero, as well as a museum belonging to a Mennonite community in the state of Chihuahua (Peña Tenorio 2001). The report also stated that out of the 163 museums, in 94% (156) of them, the history of the community or region is presented as the most relevant issue, while the other two most frequent themes were archaeology (presented in 100 or 58% of the total), and ethnography (presented in 95 or 57% of the museums). Furthermore, the report stated that in 123 (or 74%) of

14 Stands for “General Office of Popular Culture”, a part of the National Council for the Arts (CONACULTA), which was a participating member of the Community Museums National Program along with INAH

31

the museums, some type of research had been carried out on the collections; in 72 cases the research was carried out by the teachers or chroniclers of the community, while in the rest of the cases (51) the INAH, local universities or the DGCP provided technical assistance (Peña Tenorio 2001). 4.5 The Case of Community Museums in Oaxaca

Oaxaca is one of the 31 states that make up the Republic of Mexico. It is located in the southeastern part of the country, and it is the fifth biggest state with an extension of 95,364 square kilometers. The total population of the state is 3,438,765 out of which approximately 1,100,000 (or 32% approx.) are of indigenous descent. They belong to 15 ethnic groups, out of which the most numerous are the Zapotec and the Mixtec groups (Gobierno del Estado de Oaxaca 2006). Oaxaca is therefore one of the states with the widest cultural diversities in the country, as well as the one with the highest indigenous population in Mexico (Fernández, García & Ávila 2002: 175). Presently, there are 17 communities in Oaxaca which have an open community museum or one that is in the process of being created (Camarena & Morales 2005), the first one to be created was the community museum of Santa Ana del Valle, an indigenous town in the area of Oaxaca known as Central Valleys. This museum was inaugurated in September 12, 1986, after more than a year of previous work of collaboration between the INAH and the community (Morales, Camarena & Camarena 1987: 10), and which has been followed by another 18 museums since then. There are two main elements that make the case of the community museums in Oaxaca different from the rest of Mexico and set it apart in a way that it becomes clear that there exists a development which is not seen in the rest of the country. These elements are:

First, the organization at a state-level which the communities have reached by way of creating three different associations aimed at developing further the community-based museology.

Second, the indigenous communal way of life that the community

museum phenomenon has adopted as a means of making it thrive. These two crucial elements shall be discussed separately. 4.5.1 The organizational development The organizational development that the community museums have reached in Oaxaca is marked, first and foremost, by the creation of the Unión de

32

Museos Comunitarios de Oaxaca 15 (UMCO), a civil association, of a not-for-profit nature, legally established and of a unique kind in the community museums phenomenon in Mexico. The association was founded in 1991, and it now encompasses a total of 19 communities that have created a museum (Camarena & Morales 2004). Camarena & Morales, two researchers at the INAH branch of Oaxaca and active participants in the constitution and evolvement of this organization, described it as a grass-roots organization, composed of the 19 communities with a museum (indigenous and mestizo alike), and which are represented in the UMCO by a committee that each community appoints by way of their town's general assembly (Camarena & Morales 2004). The main objectives of the organization would be:

• To act as a network which will deliver training and counseling support to the affiliated communities

• To act as a catalyst to generate collective projects that will benefit all the affiliated communities

Camarena & Morales (2004)

Each of the member committees would have as a responsibility the creation and projecting of the museums of their communities. The mission of the committees was established in a twofold manner:

• To achieve the involvement of the population in their respective communities in all the creative and technical tasks for the development of the museum.

• To identify the needs of their communities and to contribute permanently to the labors involving education, organization and communal action.

Camarena & Morales (2004)

Furthermore, the UMOC pursues three main collateral projects:

The Tourist Services Cooperative The Training Center The “strengthening” of national and international networks of

community museums and ecomuseums Camarena & Morales 2004

The Tourist Services Cooperative was created after some experiments that the UMOC carried out in the field of cultural tourism in the communities. Then the UMOC’s general assembly decided that it would be appropriate to create a true company in order to pursue entrepreneurial objectives related to cultural tourism.

15 Community Museums Association of Oaxaca

33

The Cooperative was thus created in 1996 and a series of tours are offered to visitors who come to the city and state of Oaxaca. These tours show the life, present and past as well as the natural attractions of the member communities of UMOC. This entrepreneurial adventure offers the communities the possibility of acquiring some income by way of providing temporary employment to the population, as well as activating the services sector existent in the communities. Guides are needed for the tours, as well as food and lodging for the visitors, horses and bicycles are rented, the craftsmen in the communities offer their merchandise, etc (Camarena & Morales 2004). In this respect, it might be interesting to refer to the research carried by Davis (see 3.3, pp. 24-25) concerning the possibilities that community-based museology might offer in terms of social and economical development. The second collateral project the UMOC develops is concerned with creating a Training Center, this project aims at providing with a technical team which would provide counseling and technical services to the community museums. The center offers workshops in four areas of prime interest to the affiliated members:

The creation and development of community museums The development of cultural tourism services The integral development of children The development of communal leadership.

This last item has significant importance, for it tries to aid community assemblies into acquiring further participatory practice in the wide array of community-based and non-governmental associations existent in Oaxaca (Camarena & Morales 2004). The last collateral project the UMOC is engaged in relates to promoting and developing a series of networks with community and ecomuseums at an international and national level. As a result of these efforts, two other institutions have been created that are kindred in spirit to the UMOC: the Unión Nacional de Museos Comunitarios y Ecomuseos de México, and the Coordinadora de Museos Comunitarios de las Américas, with affiliated members from countries such as: Brazil, Bolivia, Venezuela, Panama, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Guatemala, Mexico and the USA (Camarena & Morales 2004). 4.5.2 The communal way of life in indigenous and mestizo communities The second trait that the community museums of Oaxaca present has much to do with the way of life and traditions of the indigenous communities of Mexico. The model of the community museum in Oaxaca profits from a scheme of social organization that indigenous and certain mestizo communities exercise, called ‘communality’ by Rendón Monzón (2003) or what in the

34

legal and official jargon is known as usos y costumbres16 (see www.oaxaca.gob.mx). This concept is based on traditions dating back to Pre-Hispanic times. They have, throughout the history of indigenous societies in Mexico, transformed according to the needs and social conditions experienced by these groups, allowing them to exercise the continuity of their culture and welfare. Therefore, the communality of the indigenous groups in Mexico has been labeled as a resistance strategy, as much as a way of life (Rendón Monzón 2003: 32). This social scheme consists basically on the principle that every individual in a community must volunteer some type and amount of work in order for a communal project to thrive. Interestingly enough, this social organization model has been adopted by the community museum model laid down by the INAH in Oaxaca and has contributed to its apparent success (Barrera Bassols & Vera Herrera 1996: 126-130; Morales & Camarena 1997). As it was stated before (see 1.4.2 pp. 7), the indigenous community in Oaxaca is typically made up of a society of no more than five thousand inhabitants. They are independent and isolated, especially since the Colonial period, and their subsistence is supported on the cultivation of corn. The communal way of life revolves around the concept of equal rights and obligations for all members of the community (Rendón Monzón 2003: 36). There are two basic elements that come into play when attempting to comprehend the communal way of life among indigenous and mestizo communities in Oaxaca: 1. The communal territory. - It refers in general to the community's relations to nature. All of the natural resources owned, exploited, defended and developed by the community, as well as the constructions erected in the communal territory, including archaeological sites. It refers to the agricultural interests of the community as well. 2. The communal work. - This element can be divided into three categories:

a). The intra-familial organization. – When the work sought only requires a few individuals for its accomplishment. b). The inter-familial mutual assistance. – When the work needed requires more than one family's members to be carried out. In this case, one family is allowed to ask another family for help, and the family who asked for help is then obliged in its turn to provide help when the second family may so request it. c). The tequio work. - The third kind refers to the work needed for the maintenance and construction of projects which are of the

16 Usages and traditions in Spanish

35

common interest of the community; a health clinic, a road, or a school, for instance. This type of work requires of a communal approval to be carried out, as well as the participation of the whole community in order to be carried out. This type of work is known in Oaxaca as tequio. d). Communal political power. – This work is decided in a general assembly or elected board and exercised through the cargo17 system, or, as Cohen calls it civil offices (Cohen 2001), which together constitute the political infrastructure of the community. Cargos range from ones that enjoy a superior status to ones which are of lesser significance to the community. Individuals earn status for themselves and for their families by serving in a cargo; the more important the cargo, the higher the status earned. The cargo system revolves around committees established to carry out or to see after certain specific tasks.

As a complimentary note, it must be stated that the communal traits described above are present in both indigenous and in some mestizo communities alike in the state of Oaxaca. Mestizaje is a term that designates a process in which elements of both cultural traditions; in this case Western and indigenous, is constantly being mixed. 4.6 Conclusions If we look at the evolvement of the experiments carried out by INAH from 1971, we can see a clear line of evolution with highlighted key factors along the way. I consider that these key points delineate the way the community museums were conceived in Mexico. To begin with, we can see that the first experiment at the Zona Observatorio of the “Casa del Museo” project lacked any community consultation at all. This elemental factor was then integrated into the second experiment in the Santo Domingo area. The fact that community consultation was integrated into the second experiment made the affair far more successful. The “Museos Escolares” project, on the other hand, brought along two important factors into the picture:

The first one was actually placing the power on the hands of the main participants of the experiment which were the children.

The second one was the creation of a series of networks which were later to be taken advantage of by the Community Museums National Program. Added to this was the fact that many of the teachers that

17 The word cargo can be translated as “position”, as in “official position” in the government, in a company, etc.

36

worked in the “Museos Escolares” project would also later collaborate in the Community Museums Program, at least at the launching of it.

The result of the added-on experiences produced a seemingly improved scheme of a more participatory paradigm of museum institution: the community museum. This model was supposed to deliver educational, developmental and cultural benefits alike. It was to become the INAH’s biggest creation in terms of a cultural democracy museum model, and it was to be set up in the country’s rural, indigenous and poorly educated areas of Mexico. One of the most contented factors about the Community Museums Program of INAH was its centralization (Camarena Ocampo & Morlaes Lersch 2005: 72-73). From the beginning, all the decisions and planning were taken from Mexico City. This centralization could only mean clumsiness when it came to action and development in rural settings. In other words, if the Program is all about a series of museums in small communities that do not surpass 5,000 inhabitants in remote and rural areas, how could the decisions in Mexico City follow the needs of people in these neglected rural areas? The administrative and operational difficulties stemming from a centralized system led to the decentralization of the program in 2003. This means that since then, the program is run by the government of each state of the country, and dependant on an office in the capital city of each state (Méndez Lugo 2003). However, moving the decision-making hub from Mexico City to the capital of each state does not necessarily erase the paternalistic and administrative paradigm that the Program was conceived under and under which it ran for twenty years. To put it another way, perhaps the most serious implications of the centralization model that the program possessed are those concerned with the ideology behind the historical representation in the community museums. More specifically, are the communities actually the ones representing themselves? Or is the State making the representational decisions through the INAH “specialists”? And therefore, is the model of representing the “other”; the Indian, in the national museums, being replicated at a communal level? This is quite important since, as we saw when we analyzed the objectives of the Program, the community museums focus seems to have always relied on the past. The cultural heritage of the past is given tremendous importance, so it must be further analyzed if at any point the implications of representing and celebrating this past do not ever interfere with the relevance that these institutions should have for the communities in the present. It was pointed out that the Unión de Museos Comunitarios de Oaxaca was created in 1991, and I believe that this action was, by far, the most important that the community museums of Oaxaca have ever carried out. The action of founding an organization like the UMOC meant to practically

37

seize the power away from the centralized INAH. It meant taking it to a state level, and furthermore, laying the decision-making power on the people, since the organization is run by the members of the communities themselves. It must be noted also that the UMOC was created in 1991, when, on the other hand, the INAH decentralized the program in 2003. This represents a difference of twelve years of struggle for “autonomy” that the museums in Oaxaca have been practicing. Finally, it must be acknowledged that the communality factor that seems to have advanced the development and flourishing of community museums in Oaxaca can apparently present several complications and difficulties. The research carried out by Cohen (2001), (who concentrated on the Santa Ana del Valle’s museum), shows the tensions that can arise from the political-social struggles for power to the interior of the communities themselves, which are exacerbated by the intrusion of the State, represented by INAH. This, however, is a subject which should be further researched since it goes beyond the reach of this document.

38

5. Analysis of the In-depth examples 5.1 Introduction As part of my research, I set out to visit and record as much information possible concerning three distinct community museums in Oaxaca. In the methodology chapter of my document (see pages 11-13), I explained the methods by which I collected data, (which basically was observation and interviews). I have also exposed the reasons for choosing the museums analyzed in order to explore the community museum phenomenon in Oaxaca. The knowledge about them is tacit, and they were chosen on the grounds of obtaining diverse data. The Santa Ana museum, known as Shan-Dany, was the first museum to be created in Oaxaca. It has a certain reputation as a successful example of a community development initiative and the literature reflects this (Barrera Bassols & Vera Herrera 1996; Camarena & Morales 2004; Camarena & Morales 1997; Cohen 2001; Morales, Camarena & Camarena 1987; Pierce Erikson 1996, among others). San José el Mogote museum is one of the most visited community museums in Oaxaca, and with a rich collection of archaeological objects (Camarena Ocampo & Morales Lersch 2005: 72). The museum was created a couple of years after the Shan-Dany (ibid.). Natividad museum is the youngest example chosen and was created with the technical assistance of the Unión de Museos Comunitarios de Oaxaca rather than INAH, so I intended to explore the implications of the two different sources of technical advice. The objective of this analysis is to shed first-hand information by visiting the museums, and then contrast that to the theoretical research done in the previous chapters. It aims at tying-in the information and analysis done previously in order to then make some conclusions on the results obtained. I have analyzed the role of museums in Mexico (chapter 2), expounded the principles of the new museology movement that inspired the arising of community museology in Mexico (chapter 3), then delved into the communal-museology experiments carried out for thirty years now in Mexico, and then focused on the case of Oaxaca because of its specific characteristics (chapter 4). This chapter then aims at finding out how successful the program for community museums has been in terms of delivering benefits to the communities visited. However, it must be stressed that these findings apply to three museums out of seventeen (Camarena Ocampo & Morales Lersch 2005: 73), and not, at any point, to the entire assemblage of community museums of Oaxaca.

39

5.2 Presentation of the communities chosen for the in-depth examples 5.2.1 Santa Ana del Valle Santa Ana del Valle is a rural town located in the central part of the state of Oaxaca (see Appendix 7.4), in the region called Valles Centrales (Central Valleys). The population of the town is approximately 2,140 (INEGI 2003). It subsists on the cultivation of corn and the weaving of woolen textiles. There is a significant number of the male population that migrates to the United States, particularly California, to work in the service sector (Cohen 2003). The town is eminently Zapotec and roughly 90% of the population speak the Zapotec tongue (INEGI 2003). 5.2.2 San José el Mogote San José el Mogote is located in the Valley of Etla, to the Northwest of the capital city of Oaxaca, some 12 kilometers away, in the central part of the state (see Appendix 7.4). The population is approximately 600 inhabitants, and the site for this town is highly important in terms of the local archaeological heritage. The site is believed to have been inhabited for roughly 3,500 years and has been the object of some archaeological explorations in the 1960s (Camarena Ocampo & Morales Lersch 2005: 74). The actual inhabitants are descendants of the workers of a large hacienda that was at some point, in the late 19th century, owned by a Spaniard and then by a Dutchman. The workers eventually fought to obtain and gain rights to the land they inhabited and the inhabitants of the town are mostly the descendants of those workers (ibid.). 5.2.3 Natividad Ixtlán Natividad is a small town located in a mountainous range north of the city of Oaxaca called “sierra norte” or Siera Juárez (its official name). This mountainous range is recognized as an important ecosystem because of its incredibly diverse flora and fauna (WWF 2002: 59). The area supports seven different types of ecosystems within it (among them pine tree forests, live oak forests, perennifolial rainforests, etc.) and the town of Natividad benefits much from this, due to the fact that this allows the inhabitants to cultivate different crops (ibid.). The town has approximately 579 inhabitants (INEGI 2003). There is a history of mining for gold and silver in the Sierra Juárez that dates back to the 19th century. The mining still continues up to this day but to a lower level than decades ago. Now the primary economical activity is the forestry industry, however, there is quite a lot of migration of people to the north of the country and to the USA (WWF 2002: 60).

40

5.3 Conception and objectives of the museums The three museums analyzed were conceptualized for diverse reasons and for very similar ones at the same time. In other words, the initiative to create a museum may have arisen in different years and the communities may have wanted to exhibit different collections and chronicle very different stories, but all of them were created because of a need to explore the possibilities of improving their lives at a community level (Camarena Ocampo & Morales Lersch 2005: 73). In the case of the Santa Ana del Valle museum, the first of its kind in Oaxaca, the initial reason given to create the museum was the unearthing of a pre-Hispanic burial while carrying out remodeling works in the town’s main square. However, Cohen (2001) states that the community was rather more interested in advancing their woolen textiles (known as tapetes) into a more widened market. The community thus considered the museum would act as a promotional tool for this purpose (op. cit.). The museum’s official name is Shan-Dany which means “at the foot of the hill” in Zapotec. It is related (Bautista Sánchez 2006) that the community approached the INAH representatives when they carried out the archaeological activities in 1984 and asked for the archaeological pieces to remain in Santa Ana. The INAH not only agreed to this but also approached the community assembly to propose the creation of the community museum. The INAH seemed to be eager to start a community museums state program similar to others which had been launched in other states in Mexico (Cohen 2001). This speaks of how the community did not really come up with the initiative, but rather the INAH proposed it to them. However, the fact that the concept of community museum was still utterly unknown to Oaxacan communities makes this circumstance quite understandable. In the case of San José Mogote, the town already had a museum dating back to 1976. The original museum was conceived to store and maintain archaeological pieces. These had been unearthed from the locality in the 1970s by the archaeologist Kent Flannery from the University of Michigan (Camarena Ocampo & Morales Lersch 2005: 74). In 1986, when some members of the San José el Mogote community visited the Shan-Dany, they thought it was a good idea to adopt the community museum model (ibid.). In this way, the community worked in association with INAH to transform the museum. They adopted a new building, the old hacienda building, and also expanded their exhibition subjects to the history of their struggle for their land and the history of the hacienda. They re-inaugurated the museum in 1988 (ibid.). The Natividad Ixtlán museum was founded in 2000. It is the youngest of the museums explored here, and the reasons to create a museum were mainly

41

focused on the fact that the community wanted to explore the possibilities of cultural tourism. At the same time, they wanted to create a historical testimony to their mining past (García Ramos 2006). When two of the museums explored were created (Shan-Dany and San José), the community museums of Oaxaca were created under the principles of INAH’s program for community museums. The Natividad, on the other hand, was created much later, in 2000, when the UMOC had “seized” the decision making power away from INAH, and began exercising a more autonomous museology (Camarena Ocampo & Morales Lersch 2005: 73). The original objectives of the INAH’s program were:

1. To promote and safeguard the history and cultural heritage of the community

2. Contribute to the affirmation of “values” (the quotes are mine) at various levels (national, local, regional and ethnic)

3. To constitute the museum as a forum of expression for the community

4. To create a dynamic museums that will promote the participation of the community

5. To generate alternative processes of education in the community DMC-INAH 1990: 9-10

On the other hand, the UMOC has placed the emphasis on the needs of the community itself, and has, according to my views, placed a significant role on the possibilities of economical development that the museums can bring to their respective communities (see 4.5 and 4.6, pages 33-40). The three of the museums explored have been able to advance on the preservation of their cultural heritage through the act of collecting testimonies, and ultimately by collecting various objects pertinent and meaningful to the community. The Shan-Dany and the San José museums have both collected archaeological objects that were extremely important for them and which may have otherwise been taken out of their communities (Bautista Sánchez 2006; Camarena Ocampo & Morales Lersch 2005: 72-74). These collections are a source of pride and attract visitors to their communities (op. cit). The three museums have collected intangible heritage collections, in the form of testimonies and the recording of oral history. As far as the second objective goes, the museums have also been able to promote the cultural tourism in their communities and their arts and crafts by way of the Unión de Museos Comunitarios de Oaxaca (see 4.5.1). 5.4 Structure, organization and funding Both Santa Ana del Valle and the San José el Mogote museums present a model that is quite similar in its organizational structure.

42

Basically, the museum is run by a “committee”. This committee is made up of seven members (Bautista Sánchez 2006): the director, a secretary, a treasurer and four chairmen. The committee’s responsibilities are basically to run the museum in all its aspects: the maintenance and running of the museums, as well as the programming of activities. They are what one otherwise is known as the staff of the museum. Activities refer basically to:

Special guides for visitors who come in tours organized by the Union de Museos Comunitarios de Oaxaca, as well as school visits

A ‘collateral’ project. This refers to a project that each committee

should carry out during its period. The nature of the project can be manifold; it can be a new exhibition, rehabilitation work on the building, the recuperation of a typical dance, among others. Also, the UMOC has introduced the notion of organizing workshops or technical education courses as a collateral project. These subjects are always those the community require (Camarena Ocampo & Morales Lersch 2005:

These committees are elected by the general assembly of the community by a voting session in which the whole of the population participates. These committees are in office for a one year period, or more, depending on the community (García Ramos 2006). The committee of the museum is part of the more intricate system of civil offices or cargos explained in 4.5.2 (pp. 36-38). It is important to remember that the members of the committee do not receive any pay; the work is rather a service to their communities. In the case of the Natividad museum, the situation is quite serious for there is no committee to attend the museum. The reason for not having one is the high levels of migration of the population to the north of Mexico and to the USA (García Ramos 2006). This migration has caused the museum to be left to the presidente municipal (mayor of the city) and to the personnel of the city hall to attend the museum (as it was informed to me by the mayor of Natividad). In general, the museum which presents a more concise and stable organizational structure is the Shan-Dany museum. It is open everyday and has a committee that is elected every year with rotating members. The San José el Mogote museum does not open regularly but only when there are visitors announced. In the case of the Natividad museum, it remains closed unless there are visitors announced as well and furthermore, it depends on the availability of the city hall personnel to open the museum (as I was able to experience when attempting to visit the museum, for I had to make sure the presidente

43

municipal knew I was going to go so his assistant could open the museum for me). As it can be inferred, the committees which run the museums are an immensely important factor to consider because, as it was examined before (4.5.2, pp. 36-38), the reason they take up the work and carry out their tasks is because their social organization scheme dictates that they shall dedicate time to the museum (because it was decided so by the majority). Furthermore, they fulfill the tenet of community museology of the rotating staff, which was spoken of before (refer to 3.2, p. 24). If the committee is not present, then the museum is left in a position in which it becomes a dead entity, in a stagnant pool, not quite a museum, least of all a community one, but some sort of monument or testimony to the history of the community, but nothing more. This is the case of the Natividad museum. When interviewing Verónica García Ramos (2006), one of the two members of the permanent staff at the Unión de Museos Comunitarios de Oaxaca, I inquired about the nature of the funding for the museums. According to the information provided, the funding comes from four sources:

1. Entrance fees (including the fees obtained from the tours organized by UMOC) 2. Sale of souvenirs 3. Application of grants from state-run organizations 4. Aid from the community

Despite the fact that there was no access to financial information or records for the museums (the information is not open-access), I found out via interview with the Director of the Shan-Dany that the most considerable financing aid comes from the state-run organizations. 5.5 Activities and programs of the museums It was mentioned in 5.3 (p. 45) that each committee of the community museums of Oaxaca, according to the UMOC’s principles (García Ramos 2006), are supposed to take up a collateral project each year in order to maintain a dynamic relationship with the community. The project is also aimed at renewing the relevance of the museum in relation to the community constantly and not becoming apathetic. The collateral project should be something the committee sees as a need for the museum and/or for the community. They make a consultation among the population on the proposals they have for a project and then decide on the project they will take on (García Ramos 2006). In the case of Santa Ana and at the time of my research, the project the committee has taken up for their term is the promotion of a typical dance. The dance is called the “Dance of the Feather” and the town has been

44

working hard for some years at preserving it and promoting it (Bautista Sánchez 2006; Cohen 2001). The Santa Ana museum has had many other programs over the years of its existence. They have ranged from the construction of guest-houses, the organization of a partner children’s museum in the town, the training of artisans in the marketing of the textiles produced in Santa Ana, programs on hygiene, among others (Cohen 2001). These collateral projects are made possible with the aid of state-run organizations such as the INI (National Indigenous Institute), the UOPI (Union of Organizations of Indigenous Peoples), the INAH and others (ibid.). There was, however, no access to financial records or figures, due to a lack of research time. In the case of San José el Mogote, they have, at the time of research, a project concerning workshops for the children of the town’s school. This project involves the children in artistic activities by asking them to collectively paint murals for the town’s public spaces (García Ramos 2006). Previously, they have also taken up projects such as a children’s dance company which traveled to other states in the country, and the most important project that has spawned from the making of the museum has definitely been the rehabilitation of the hacienda building that houses the museum presently (Camarena & Morales 2005: 72). In Natividad there are currently no projects since there is no ground base to carry out or organize any (García Ramos 2006). 5.6 Museography issues The Shan-Dany museum approaches four subjects in its exhibitions:

1. Archaeology and pre-Hispanic origins of the area 2. The Mexican Revolution 3. Textile production 4. The Danza de la Pluma or Feather Dance

The four subjects are granted quite a similar amount of physical exhibition space (see Appendix 7.1, p. 56), this suggests, in my view, that the community grants similar importance to all subjects. The museum is also comprised of a temporary exhibitions space and a small vestibule (see Appendix 7.1, p. 56). The temporary exhibition space is currently dedicated to the showing of archaeological pieces from the region, with a highlight on the iconographical aspects of them. There is also a wall in the temporary exhibition space dedicated to the acknowledgment of all the committees that have run the museum from the beginning. In the case of the San José museum (refer to Appendix 7.2, p. 57), the subjects presented are:

45

1. Archaeology and pre-Hispanic history of the region 2. History of the hacienda 3. History of the workers’ struggle for the ownership of land 4. Oral testimonies about life in the hacienda

The two main subjects are basically archaeology and the history of the town from the founding of the hacienda. They are both dedicated a more or less equal amount of space in the exhibitions, (see Appendix 7.3, p. 58) which may also suggest, in my view, that equal importance is given to them by the community. There is a small section on the participation of the community in the building of the new and improved museum. It consists of a panel with photographs of people performing various tasks concerning the setting-up of the museum. The building that houses the San José museum is actually the old hacienda. It is quite a spacious building which houses many other rooms which have no present use, they are mostly empty and a few are used as storage of furniture or other utensils employed by the activities of the museum. The Natividad museum is the exception of the three examples, since the museum is entirely dedicated to the theme of mining. More concisely, the subjects are:

1. The history of the mine at Natividad 2. An overview and explanatory section on the process and work that

involves the mining activity 3. History of the mining union at the Natividad mine 4. Samples of minerals and a huge pump that was brought from England

in the 19th century

There is also a small section on the participation of the community in the making of the museum, and a highly creative and interesting recreation of the interior of a mine (see photo 7). Overall, it can be stated that the Shan-Dany museum possesses the most cared for and sophisticated museological resources; furniture, lightning and dioramas among them (see photos 1,2 & 3).

46

1. View of the Shan-Dany museum Photo: J. L. Burke

2. Diorama at the Shan-Dany museum Photo: J. L. Burke

3. A full-scale weaving loom, in the section dedicated to the production of woolen textiles at Shan-Dany. Photo: J.L. Burke

47

The San José museum boasts an overall effective museological display that, however interesting, and perhaps with the most impressive archaeological collection, shows signs of negligence and lack of care and renovation in the exhibitions (see photos 4 & 5). The signs and the cases are seemingly old and a bit deteriorated, as if they have never been changed or updated.

4. Signs of deterioration show in some museographical elements such as cases (humidity, in this case, has peeled off paint and contracted the wood of the case). Photo: J. L. Burke

5. One of the most impressive pieces in the collection of San José Mogote museum is this incense-burner which dates from 500-100 b.C. Photo: J.L. Burke The Natividad museum is the one that presents the most “humble” museography of the three cases. The materials are very simple and cheap (such as plywood, cardboard, vinyl paint, rocks, etc.) the manufacture is in many cases evidence of the participation of the community. For instance,

48

one can see how the paintings and dioramas lack any “academic” instruction in the making of them. The paintings, albeit their simplicity, are highly effective (photo 6). The central and most elaborated feature at the Natividad museum is a recreation of the inside of a mine (photo 7).

6. The museography at Natividad museum is an eminent product of community participation. Photo: J. L. Burke

7. The recreation of a mine at Natividad. Photo: J.L. Burke

49

5.7 Examples of texts on labels In the case of the Shan-Dany museum, more specifically in the archaeological section, the language employed is rather technical. Here is an example of a label:

The Social Importance of Ceramic in the Economical Context of the Towns The apparition of ceramic is associated with the establishing of sedentary life. Ceramics not only served to transport goods that were to be consumed, but it also served to cook these goods. In many occasions it was a commercial good. In the excavations done in 1985 many traces of petrified ceramic, which were exposed to very high temperatures, were found. This indicates that ceramics were being produced in this region at very early stages. In other areas of the valley, open-air wells were found which contained carbon, ashes and pebbles with waste ceramic material; this indicates they were used as ovens to fabricate ceramics.

I believe that this type of label is inappropriate to the Shan-Dany. As the research of Ekarv (1999: 202) has shown, reading museum labels can be tiresome and difficult (beginning by the physical conditions surrounding this: not good lightning, standing up for prolonged periods, etc.), but the situation becomes worse when we stop to look at the socio-economical context of Santa Ana. The town does not even possess a secondary school and, according to the National Statistics Office (INEGI), only 23% of the population aged 15 and more have attended secondary school and/or a higher educational degree in the state of Oaxaca (INEGI 2003). In the San José Mogote museum the situation is similar; there exists a great deal of information dealing with the history of the area dating back to pre-Hispanic times. An example of the technicality of the labels, both in text and visually, can be appreciated in this label:

The text relates the pre-Hispanic economical structures in the San José area. Photo: J.L. Burke

50

Following, the first part of the text of the label18:

The material sustenance of the inhabitants of San José Mogote came from agriculture, complemented by hunting, fishing and recollection. They cultivated corn, squash, chili and avocado; they hunted deer, wild boar and rabbit. They took advantage of wild plants such as pine kernels, nuts, mesquite, tuna, cactuses and agave. In general they had a self-sufficient economy since they procured their food themselves and obtained whatever necessary for the fabrication of their homes, clothing, and utensils which they used in their small domestic industries. (…)

According to the research done by Gilmore & Sabine (1999: 205-210), and based on the work of Ekarv (1999), such text could be translated (in my view), as follows:

The early inhabitants of San José Mogote provided for food by:

♦ Hunting deer, wild boar and rabbit. ♦ They were also known to cultivate squash, chili, corn and avocado. ♦ Also they recollected wild plants and nuts such as: pine kernels,

mesquite, tunas, cactuses and agave.

In general they provided for their own sustenance in every way, for they also made their clothing and cooking utensils for their homes.

The texts in the Natividad museum employ a different perspective. They present a more approachable employment of language which seems to correspond with the communal participation ideal. An example of a label (fragment)19:

Even though the mine existed as early back as 1785, the permanent community of Natividad was not formed until the decade of 1890. With the definitive installation of the hacienda more permanent workers moved in and began to build houses in the slopes. In the first decade of the 20th century, Natividad got the rank of a municipal district; the municipal house and the chapel were then built, and the miner in chief, Asunción Martínez, organized the first civic society. (…)

This type of label is complemented by personal testimonies from the miners which explain the activities they carried out every day, aspects about mining life and about living in Natividad at a time when the town was just a

18 Translation by the author 19 Translation by the author

51

few scattered houses in the slopes of the high mountains of the Sierra Juárez. Here is an example20:

So Natividad was a [municipal] agency, it began with the work of the [mining] company. They began building these little houses, they started to live there, that's why they called it the squad, they called [the inhabitants] the squads. From there the population started to rise, because many people from outside came, Pachuca, Zacatecas, while others left. It was an agency belonging to Xiacui, later, since the population grew and everything; it was upgraded to a municipality.

Joel Marcelo Jimenez Jimenez

The employment of different types of approach between the Shan-Dany/San José museums and the Natividad museum suggest the distinct approach given to museography and interpretation at different eras and from different advising institutions. In this case the INAH approach is technified and distant, while the UMOC approach appears more popular and approachable to the general public. 5.8 Comparative analysis of the examples Although Shan-Dany is the best kept and the most ‘sophisticated’ of the three museums, the language employed suggests how the INAH has dictated the text of this museum. The language employed is technical, and in my view, not very accessible. The museum almost seems like a rural version of an archaeological/ethnographical museum in Mexico City or any other big city in Mexico. As for San José museum with its level of technical information on the archaeological heritage of the area, also suggests the influence of INAH in the dictating of the content. The Natividad museum, on the other hand, presents such blatant and tacit “people’s museography” aspects that it becomes quite refreshing. The difference in conception may lie in the fact that the INAH did not participate in the making of it. It was from the Unión de Museos Comunitarios de Oaxaca that the technical advice came, as the date of creation of the museum suggests. The whole point of examining the texts and their accessibility has been to question the educational aspect of these museums. It has been said above (5.2, p. 44) that one of the tenets of the community museums program of INAH was serving as an alternative educational tool.

20 Translated by the author

52

Additionally, the very own principle of community participation (also) exposed in the objectives of the program (5.2, p. 44) cannot be fully met when it is observed how the INAH has interpreted the past of these communities in such a technified and distant way. Fortunately, the community still manages to appropriate their museums by portraying the subjects, objects and testimonials they see fit, besides activities, programs and workshops the museums have. Accessibility of content is, in my view related to the tenet of acquiring a sense of place (refer to 3.2, pp. 22-23), which is central to new museology and by extension, to community museums in Oaxaca. A problem will arise if the community attempts to acquire knowledge by way of elements such as text that presents, in my opinion, such barriers of interpretation. The content of the labels and the intervention of INAH might suggest how the Mexican State has attempted to exercise, at a communal level, a cultural policy that is a consequence and continuality of the national policies exercised and executed by a different social class. One that seems to decide for and in the name of the indigenous peoples in what terms they should be seen and interpreted (see 2.5, pp. 19-20). In other words, the interpretation in San José and Shan-Dany museums of the indigenous seem to reveal a source of pride and inspiration; however, there is a lack of information or evidence of the present life of the communities. There is no mention of the issues that mark the daily life of the communities, which are, among others, the high level of migration, poverty, religious conversion (which, incidentally, disrupts traditional social schemes such as the “communal” scheme), and the changing relations between the genders (Cohen 2001). This is highly important if we stop to consider other objectives once set for the community museums: the appropriation of their communal heritage and the museum as a forum for their communal expression. Granted, as Morales Lersch and Camarena Ocampo (2005) state, there is a lack of official discourses in the community museums of Oaxaca, however, the accessibility and inclusion of wider audiences cannot, in my view, be met if there is no updating of the exhibits or an attempt to facilitate the comprehension of the museums’ content to the public. Being a witness to the poverty and limited funding the museums have, I understand this may not be so easy to accomplish. There is, on the other hand, a marked difference in the Natividad museum where the museography is concerned. The exhibitions present evidence of being a product of communal cooperation (and a part of the exhibition, a mural, depicts photos and facts on this), unfortunately, there is no sign of interactivity between the museum and the community since there is no committee, and therefore, nobody to run the museum. Thus the museum has become a passive entity in the life of the town. It is only open when visitors are announced, but has no live and actual links to the everyday life of the community.

53

It must be acknowledged, however, that I was witness to the importance these museums have to their communities. In all three communities the inhabitants expressed a great amount of pride for their museums, faults and shortages aside. 6. Final conclusions From the research conducted, I can conclude that community museums of Oaxaca have, only to a certain degree, met their objectives as tools of empowerment, education, conservation of cultural heritage and forums of expression. As far as the empowerment tenet goes, the community museums program always has aimed at turning over the running of the museum to the people. One issue I came upon, which is the technicality of the texts in San José and Shan-Dany museums, suggests an intervention from INAH that, in my view, produced inaccessible texts. This type of approach, in my view, sets up a barrier that impedes the community from taking full control of their history and heritage in the form of digestible knowledge. Certainly the UMOC, as I have stressed before (see 4.5.1, p. 33-35; 4.6 p. 38), has seized control from INAH and settled a much more democratic relationship between the museums and the communities, while at the same time promoting economical development through cultural tourism. This, in my view, counteracts against a contentious relationship once existent between the centralized INAH and the communities. This was noticeable in the Natividad museum. Furthermore, the research also suggested that there is a big dependency on funding from the State when running community programs through the museums. This might be evidence of a subtle form of control in the content of the museums. However, this could only be the subject of further research since it is beyond the limits of this document to decide on this issue. The research also showed that there are a series of circumstances such as migration, poverty, the degradation of communal organization, the lack of available technical advice, among others, that can completely make communal museology a failure (refer to interview with Márquez 2006), just like in the case of Puebla, neighbour state to the north of Oaxaca. On the other hand, the research of Cohen (2001) and Camarena Ocampo & Morales Lersch (2005) indicates that certain communities like Santa Ana del Valle and others have greatly profited socially and economically from the community museum institution. The community museums in Oaxaca have, according to researchers (Cohen 2001; Morales Lersch & Camarena Ocampo 2005), carried out many initiatives to widen the educational resources of the communities in Oaxaca. This has been done by way of workshops, courses, setting an

54

emphasis on children’s education, and others, which have been varied and useful. The themes range from hygiene, marketing of handicrafts, traditional medicine, among others (ibid.). However, I would stress the accessibility barrier of labels in matters of labels as well as the lack of upgrading of information on the exhibitions witnessed in two of the examples analyzed. The cultural heritage focus has, in my view, been met halfway. I believe that community museums can create the circumstances for the appropriation of the cultural heritage of the communities. This was true of the examples shown, and is expressed by researchers as well (Cohen 2001; Camarena Ocampo & Morales Lersch 2005; Pierce Erikson 1996). Collective memories have been gathered, objects have been collected for exhibition, and thus the community acquires a notion of their place in society. When it comes to archaeological objects, however, the truth of the matter is that, as much as the communities appropriate them, the federal government still considers them their property. However, in my opinion, this is an advance in the ownership contention issue of the indigenous people’s heritage existent in Mexico (see 2.5, pp. 18-20). On the other hand, the focus on the cultural heritage as being imminently a thing of the past (refer to 4.4, pp. 29-31), was a constant situation in the three examples visited. This situation leaves no room for contemporary cultural expressions, save for handicrafts, typical dances, which, it might be argued, make for a rather pintoresque picture of indigenous and mestizo life in the communities visited. In the Natividad museum, for example, which chose to document the mining past of the community, there was no indication or sign that the contemporary way of life was ever attempted to be represented. However, the implications of viewing the cultural heritage as something primordially belonging to the past and the representation consequences that this might carry with it should be object of further research. As for the tenet of the museums as forums of expression for the communities, I was not able to gather any evidence of the exhibiting of pressing issues that the communities visited are facing, such as migration, poverty, gender relations, and religious conversion, among others. This relates in a close way to the perspective of the cultural heritage as being a part of history and the past. The implications of not showing the contemporary social issues of the community suggest that the museums analyzed, contest the view that these museums are fulfilling their role as forums for their communities. However, the matter should be researched further given the narrow view of only three examples. Finally, I would like to conclude by saying that despite the challenges that the community museums of Oaxaca may face in order to fulfill their aims, I believe they possesses the capacity of overcoming them. Furthermore, I also believe that in many ways community museology has evolved and developed greatly in Mexico. I tried to show this in the historical review of social

55

integration experiments that led to the creation of community museums (see chapter 4). I also believe that so far, the community museums in Oaxaca, or rather the communities that have embraced the concept, have much to be proud of when it comes to the achievements they have gained. In other words, I believe that, as much as I explored the conceptual and theoretical models of community-based museology, in order then to try to compare that to the actual way they are run, it is impossible to document the way that these museums constitute a source of pride and inspiration to so many of the inhabitants of the communities I visited.

56

7. Appendixes 7.1 Architectural sketch and photographs of the Santa Ana del Valle community museum

57

7.2 Architectural sketch and photographs of the San José el Mogote community museum

58

7.3 Architectural sketch and photographs of the Natividad community

museum

59

7.4 Map of the state of Oaxaca and the community museums visited

60

7.5 Declaration of Quebec, taken from Museum (148, vol. XXXVII 1985:

201, UNESCO)

61

7.6 Interviewees and partial transcriptions of the interviews

1. Román Bautista Sánchez: Director General (temporarily) of the Santa Ana del Valle Community Museum; “Shan-Dany” and member of the indigenous community of Santa Ana del Valle, Oaxaca. The interview took place in Santa Ana del Valle on February 15, 2006. Following, is a partial transcription of the interview: RB= Román Bautista JLB= Juan Luis Burke JLB –“So it was found here, the burial [a pre-Hispanic burial site was found in the main plaza of Santa Ana], when you were…?” RB –“Yeah, when the plaza out here was being remodeled…” JLB –“And the people from INAH came?” RB –“Yes, the people from INAH came; we told them to come so they would do the appropriate studies…” (…) JLB –“And all the ceramic here [pre-Hispanic, shown in the museum] …and the…?” RB – “Everything, everything has been found here, and we have tons of objects in our storage room.” (…) RB –“…the objects shown are the ones initially given by the community, but we have found more, in each house (of the community) there are objects as well…” JL –“But, so…, the burial is found, the INAH comes, hence the idea to start a museum?” RB -“Hence the idea to start a museum, but we didn’t think of a big museum, we thought of something small, a little room to keep the object while the remodeling works were taking place, in 1985, but then the authorities called for a communal meeting; a general meeting and the people decided to do it right, and we had this building, which was the old grade-school, and the people decided to donate it for the museum” RB -“An from there the process initiated, approximately on March 1985, and until September 13, of 1986 the museum was open, the works of remodeling took at least a year…” JLB –“So the building was in a bad state?”

62

RB –“Yes, the roof, especially…” (…) RB –“And every committee that comes in, that works, every committee that runs the museum has a task to carry out during the 365 days during which they have their position as committee.” JLB –“So it’s seven people in the committee?” RB –“Seven people.” JLB –“And they change every year?” RB –“Well, look, it functions this way: I open the museum on Mondays, the secretary on Tuesdays, the treasurer on Wednesdays, the first chairman on Thursdays, the 2nd chairman on Fridays… and so on, until it’s my turn again. This is a voluntary job, here we are not making any profit, this is a service to the pueblo, and to the people who visit us.” JLB –“How many people visit you approximately?” RB –“Well, we have a long way to go in terms of publicity, yes, we get visitors, huh… but …approximately, a month, we get, what could it be?…47…it varies!, sometimes 45-60, …during holiday season is when we get the highest numbers, when it’s really good, the numbers multiply…I mean they double… some 60, 70, 80 people, but those are limited periods. And with the entrance fee we ask from visitors is how we maintain the building, in terms of…the electricity, material we need, other stuff…the phone, we have a phone now…and that is expensive too…” JLB –“And the visitors are all from outside the community or also from the community?” RB –“People from nearby communities come, and from other parts of the state, outside the state; national visitors and foreigners, Germans, Americans, Canadians, are the ones that come the most… in first place Americans, then Canadians, also Italians, French, Germans, Dutch, Englishmen, but Americans are the most numerous… JLB –“And the people from here, from Santa Ana?” RB –“Yes, of course, young people, students or people who don’t study anymore, they come; they certainly give the museum importance. Yesterday, for instance, we had some students visiting…” JLB –“And do you ever do other activities, of other types?” RB –“Of course! We do many activities, we are constantly working to see what we can do, and we do cultural activities. We have mounted temporary exhibitions of many types… for example, we did one about traditional toys,

63

we had a workshop and then exhibited the results from the workshop, we had one on traditional medicine too, and we mounted that too…” (…) RB –“…but now we have this defined activity…, we are organizing the “Dance of the Feather” (…) we are going to mount the dance, we have been rehearsing now for about two months…” JLB –“So the museum is in charge of this activity?” RB –“We, as a committee, are in charge of the dance…” RB –“…we also have plans for collecting historical photographs, so they can be registered, and then put in a CD, and then maybe make posters, posters, right?, for sale, in order to make a small profit… for the maintenance of the building…” JLB –“And where else do you get money from?” RB –“Well, look, to do a “work”, it’s through a project, since all the money is channeled through the city hall, we go directly to the city hall of the community, now it’s the way it is, before we could ask directly from the government, but now it’s through the city hall, also we used to ask the now defunct INI21, also for the “Feather Dance” project, we got a grant. Also at state and federal levels; SEDESOL22 for example… we also got money from them to do remodeling work for the museum, we did many things with that money… (…) RB –“Through the community, we also raise money from the people in order to buy, for example, building material…” JLB –“And the Unión de Museos, how is it related to your museum?” RB –“Well, look, we are fully registered in the Unión, we are part of the Unión, we are the pioneering museum, of all the community museums [of Oaxaca], this is the first museum, the one first founded, the one that started activities, then others were added like San José Mogote, Zochilquitongo, San Pablo Huiztepec, this (latter) one came much later…” JLB –“So many museum are created, and then, through the years, the Unión is started?” RB –“Exactly, through the needs that came up, because there were 9 museums and others in the process of opening…” (…)

21 The National Indigenous Institute, by its abbreviation in Spanish 22 The Ministry of Social Development; a federal government ministry, by its abbreviation in Spanish

64

RB –“…in 1991 it is finally founded as a civil association… and others came, more and more, now we are talking about some 18, not that many, because it’s hard to keep a museum open, you have no assurance that people will visit you…people do not want to pay an entrance fee, sometimes the foreigners are the ones who don’t want to pay entrance fee, the national visitors are more willing, they don’t protest…” (…) JLB –“So then, the Unión is the one who, sort of… organizes all the museums, they give you assistance?” RB –“Look, unfortunately, I can’t lie about it, I am a person who likes to tell the truth, but at first everything worked like a wonder, really, we amazed many people with our organizational skills, why? Because municipal authorities participated, “Communal Goods Committees”, and other authorities from the communities. In our bi-monthly meetings there was a lot of participation, I still keep record of the activities we carried out… we exchanged experiences with other communities, if this museum did not work well on some level, then we would look at the case of another museum that did mange to work well…” JLB –“And then what happened?” RB –“It started to decay little by little, at first we had promoters, who came to give assistance and training…” JLB –“And you don’t have that anymore?” RB –“No, not anymore, but… I don’t mean to brag, but still in 2004 …we had 4 promoters…also museographers…hired ones, because we were getting grants from foundations… We also had the support of bilingual teachers…they did not get a payment but some sort of economical support…” JLB –“And you have none of that now?” No, now we only have just the support of Verónica and Blanca [the permanent staff at the UMOC], just them, I don’t know, I have always insisted that we should try to go back to the way it used to function… 2. Verónica García Ramos: Employee of the “Unión de Museos Comunitarios de Oaxaca” The interview took place over the telephone on March 29, 2006. Following is a partial transcription of the interview: VG= Verónica García JLB= Juan Luis Burke

65

JLB - Could you give a general description of how the museums work? VG –“[Inaudible]…for example, in Santa Ana del Valle, they have their own authorities, they meet and decide on who will be part of the committee for the museum, they have candidates already when they meet and decide on the members of the committee for the museum, by voting it’s that they decide, then each member gets to work each day of the week. In other communities it’s different, in others the municipal authorities decide directly on who will take up the position, the say: “well, you haven’t had a position during the last 2 years”, to put an example, “so now you could be the president of the committee.” In those instances the position can last up to 2 or 3 years. (…) VG - Other communities are run on the “volunteer dynamic”, they take up the decision, they say “well, I have the will to help the community” and so they take up a position for a year, usually that’s the way it is in those cases… JLB –“And how about the Unión, how does it function or what is its aim?” VG -At a state level, the Unión is the one that rules the activities and organizes meetings every two months, there is an exchange of experiences in those meetings and by way of the members the assembly of the Unión is decided on. It changes every two years. So they meet and they say “now in May we should decide on naming the committee of the general assembly and name new representatives”, they see and choose which communities have participated and which ones haven’t participated during the last years and then they elect the general assembly. The elected people receive a list of recommendations on what are the duties of each person in the assembly; the president, the treasurer …etc, this position is for two years.” (…) VG –“At a national level [the General Assembly] functions similarly, and in a similar way, it lasts two years, every year there is a general meeting of the committees of the museums which are in the network, at a national level. It’s around November that they have the general meetings, they decide on their representatives similarly, on a president, secretary and the treasurer and two chairmans which make up the directing board. Yeah…” JLB –“Mmhh…OK, and this is organized by the INAH o by the organizations themselves?” VG –“No, this is independent from any form of governmental institutions, INAH only counsels on technical or educational aspects; museography, archaeology, certain technical aspects that may be needed, but the organization is very independent from INAH…” (…)

66

JLB –“Another question, the money to support the museums, where does it come from?” VG –“Huh… the funding of the museums is… they should be self-sufficient in that aspect, so, when you get to a museum, first thing you see is that they charge some entrance fee, right? Ten or fifteen pesos, or else they ask for a voluntary fee from the visitor, from this money they give the basic support to the museum: cleaning, pay the light bill, buy a cabinet, or else they sell t-shirts, posters, post cards, with the logo of the community, it’s in this way that they maintain their museums, they don’t receive money from the government. Otherwise they apply for grants from the government, from PACMYC23 grants, from INI, and thus receive some support for, I don’t know, the creation of another exhibition hall, fix the toilets, etc. …” VG –“And the Unión de Museos Comunitarios supports itself in a similar way?” JLB –“Yes, the Unión de Museos Comunitarios supports itself by way of “projects” which have been funded mainly by foreign foundations, like the Inter-American Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation, now we are working with a Swiss bank, and thus the union is financed, but that money goes only to the workshops, for the education of the community committees itself, for maintenance and the support of the administrative aspects we receive volunteer grants from private persons who have the will to cooperate with the organization. JLB –“OK, well, one of the museums I visited, the one in Ixtlán, Natividad, they hardly receive any visitors really…” VG –“No, they do not get many tourists…” JLB –“…yes, perhaps because it’s rather far, and well, how do they support a museum like that, from the entrance fee?” VG –“From the entrance fees of the visitors, or through the Unión we organize visitor “communal packages” some tourists come and they say “well, I’m interested in your organization” and we offer them visitor packages, we tell them how in Natividad they can see a mine being exploited, or an abandoned mine, or take a walk by the river, or the handicraft artisans living there which make jewels, and in that way the museum has an extra income, there the tourists will pay an entrance fee to the museum, food, lodging, which they use in the maintenance of the museum and sometimes the community will cooperate with some aid, the mayor will say “I can help you out with some cleaning material, or by buying an exhibition case…” but they don’t pay any wages to the people who maintain the museum because they do it for free, they have an usos y

23 Programa de Apoyo a las Culturas Municipales y Comunitarias : A grant program from the federal government for the support of “municipal and communal cultures”

67

costumbres social organization scheme and work as a service to their community.” JLB –“OK, good, and one last question, concerning the extra activities that the museums have, besides exhibitions, are they very varied?” VG –“You mean the exhibition subjects in the museums?” JLB –“No, apart from the exhibition, I mean like in Santa Ana they have a dance group project going on…” VG –“Oh, you mean the project each committee must develop within their period?” JLB –“Yes, exactly.” VG –“Ok, yes, that varies a lot, each committee, at the beginning, they organize and see to the priorities the museum has. For example in Santa Ana they say “what we need is to save that dance”, and so they concentrate on rescuing their dance. Other communities say, “What we need is to open up a new exhibition hall because we have many objects”, and so they do that, other community will say let’s modify this exhibition hall, and they remodel the hall, put new objects in it, other will say, we should rescue our mother tongue, and through the union we look for a teacher of that indigenous tongue, to give a workshop… so every project is very different, other choose to work with school children, to have workshops in which they paint murals with the children, so yes, the activities vary a lot” JLB –“So each year the committee must propose a project?” VG –“Yes, they must propose a project for the benefit of their own community.” JLB –“And in Natividad, do they have a project going on?” VG –“No, right now they don’t have a project, because they don’t have a committee for their museum, there the city hall asks for voluntary help to look after the museum, opening and closing it basically, but because they don’t have a base committee they are losing the essence of the community museum.” (…) JLB –“Yes, when I was there the mayor told me two or three of the members of what was once the committee migrated to the US…” VG –“Yeah, they migrated…” JLB –“And in San José el Mogote, do they have the same situation?”

68

VG –“No, they actually have a project going on and there they have a committee, but…it all depends on the type of organization the communities have, they enjoy a good number of entrances there actually, many people want to visit their museum, but the problem there is that the committee members don’t have a lot of time to dedicate to the museum.” 3. María Eugenia Márquez, Ethnologist, researcher at the INAH office of the state of Puebla, worked for 4 years with community museums in the state of Puebla. The interview took place in the city of Puebla, on March 30, 2006. Following is a partial transcription of the interview: MEM= María Eugenia Márquez JLB= Juan Luis Burke MEM –“Yes, I believe there is some “contagious” effect from the Oaxaca community museums, here [in the state of Puebla], they have even come here to advise communities without even telling us [INAH personnel]. Later I heard they opened this museum in Acatlán, but to me, that is not a museum… Do you know that one?” JLB –“No, I don’t.” MEM –“Well, it’s these two rooms in the house of the town priest, which only visits the town every once in a while, there, a boy would open the place sometimes but it remains mostly closed…” JLB –“Not good…” MEM –“But that is the situation in Puebla, unfortunately, they call many museums “community museums” but they’re not, they may have opened because of a community initiative, yes. The first one was in San Matias Tlalancalecas, it was done some 28-30 years ago, by the INAH. It started off well, but then there’s no supervision, no collaboration, to me that’s a key point; that the INAH supervise, that the INAH personnel collaborates… Those are our mistakes, but on behalf of the communities, they see the success of the museums in Oaxaca, (…) but to me, the museums there are more like cultural centers, right?, they will have exhibitions on anything, like health issues…, but they see the museums in Oaxaca, and the communities think that setting up a museum will immediately produce tourism and incomes” (…) MEM –“…many of these museums [in the state of Puebla] are in the hands of these people, what I call “cultural landlords” prepared people sometimes, or not very well prepared who…they’re very astute, very keen people, especially in the Mixteca region, who are looking for a personal benefit, they want to obtain a certain kind of personal adornment, they want to say

69

“I did it, it’s my creation” (…) and well, it’s a foreign notion to these communities [the museum], how do the museums they may have seen look like? (…) Like big palaces, with caravans of tourists, right? And which leave much money… MEM –“So I had conflicts, because I told them, it’s not like this; the people thought the INAH would set up their museum, to begin with, which is not true…” MEM –“Here [in the state of Puebla], the worst thing is not that the community museum experience has been lost, something I was personally excited about; the opportunity for them to experience some cultural democracy! But actually the worst is that the cultural heritage suffers, it is not being treated the way it should be…” (…) MEM –“So here, the heritage is suffering, I don’t know about Oaxaca…” JLB –“Well, from what I saw; all the pieces they exhibited were registered by the INAH.” MEM –“Yeah, they’ve had more control, well; at least that’s what they tell you…” JLB –“Yeah, of course, I mean, there might be some trafficking [of archaeological pieces] going on but at least they are trying I suppose…” JLB –“I have another question; in Oaxaca I spoke some with Teresa Morales and have seen that the usos y costumbres social organization scheme works hand-in-hand with the community museums, is it not the same in Puebla?” MEM –“Yes, of course, here the communities also have these social organization notions, but from what I saw, I noticed that the persons asking for the community museums were thinking more of their prestige, they were outside this traditional scheme…In Oaxaca I believe they maintain their social traditions better, here [in Puebla] the social institutions do not seem to maintain their consistency, because of the poverty, because of the migration… 4. Teresa Morales Lersch, Anthropologist, researcher at the INAH office of the state of Oaxaca, has worked for 20 years with community museums in the state of Oaxaca. The interview took place in the city of Oaxaca, on March 8, 2006. Following is a partial transcription of the interview: TM= Teresa Morales JLB= Juan Luis Burke

70

JLB –“Well, OK, the first question I have is: Why do you think the communities here in Oaxaca have taken up and embraced a cultural institution that is foreign to them, the museum notion?” TM –“Yeah, good question…well, OK, I believe that in the one hand the museum has now become a more familiar concept to the communities because either they have seen the museum in other places, in trips they have taken to bigger cities; to Oaxaca city, to Mexico city, and they realize what a museum is. On the other hand, they have appropriated the museum in their own right, by initiating these museums in their communities, I think so, yes…” JLB –“In the case of the community museums here in Oaxaca, how did the initiative began? How is it that the first museum, the one in Santa Ana began? Was it an initiative from the community or from the INAH? TM- “Yes, OK, well, in the case of the Santa Ana museum, the initiative came from them, but the thing is, it all began with the discovery of this burial, in the main plaza, and well, the community wanted a place where to keep this burial, so the INAH suggested to the town assembly that they create a museum instead. We proposed to them to make a museum in accordance with the community museums program of the INAH, and they took it up for discussion, in their general assembly, and they agreed to create the museum. The museum was created in 1986, and it was done with the contribution and counseling of the INAH, but the people did all the work, they fixed the building, they made the cases and they put up the lighting, with the counseling of the INAH but they basically did all the work. (…) JLB –“So do you think these community museums have limitless possibilities, or perhaps they reach a certain point in which they just can’t continue to grow, to evolve, to develop, and they become stagnant? TM –“No, I believe that they have a great amount of possibilities. I actually think they can continue to develop all the time, I think the potential of these institutions is enormous because they have the possibility of adapting, of growing, and they can actually benefit the communities so they can develop in some way. I think institutions like these are actually necessary at times like these, in such a globalized world which threatens communities worldwide, these museums have the possibility of becoming resistance tools against the extinction of local cultures…”

71

8. Bibliography

Alonso Fernández, Luis 1998 Introducción a la nueva museología. Alianza, Madrid.

Barrera Bassols, Marco & Vera Herrera, Ramón 1996 Todo rincón es un centro: Hacia una expansión de la idea del museo.

In Cuicuilco, Vol. 3, no. 7, May-August, p. 105-140. INAH, México D.F.

Bennett, Tony 1995 The Birth of the Museum: history, theory, politics. Routledge,

London.

Brett, David 1996 The Construction of Heritage. Cork University Press, Cork.

Camarena, Cuauhtémoc & Morales, Teresa 1997 Los Museos Comunitarios y la Organización Indígena en Oaxaca. In:

Gaceta de Museos, Coordinación Nacional de Museos y Exposiciones, INAH, No 6, June, pp. 14-18.

Camarena, Cuauhtémoc & Morales, Teresa 2004 La Unión de Museos Comunitarios de Oaxaca A.C. Article available

online at : http://www.interactions-online.com/page_news.php?id_news=120 (April 2006)

Camarena Ocampo, Cuauhtémoc & Morales Lersch, Teresa 2005 Memoria comunal para combatir el olvido: los museos comunitarios

de Oaxaca. In Arqueología Mexicana, Vol. XII, No. 72, March-April 2005, pp.72-77

Cohen, Jeffrey H. 2001 The Shan-Dany Museum : Community, economics, and cultural

traditions in a rural Mexican village. Originally published in: Human Organization: Journal of the Society of Applied Anthropology, Vol. 60, no. 3, Fall. Available online at: http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3800/is_200110/ai_n8956231

(April 2006)

Comisión Nacional para el Desarrollo de los Pueblos Indígenas (Web page) 2004 Las lenguas indígenas en riesgo. Available online at:

http://cdi.gob.mx/index.php?id_seccion=1429 (April 2006)

72

Davis, Peter 2004 Ecomuseums: A sense of Place. Routledge-Continuum, London.

Davis, Peter 2004 Ecomuseums and the Democratization of Japanese Museology. In

International Journal of Heritage Studies, Vol. 10, No. 1, March, pp. 93-110

Davis, Peter 2004 Ecomuseums and the Democratization of Cultural Tourism. In

Tourism, Culture & Communication, Vol. 4 pp. 1-14

Departamento de Museos Comunitarios 1990 El Museo Comunitario: Un espacio alternativo de rescate y

preservación del patrimonio cultural. In Antropología, Boletín Oficial del INAH. Oct-Dec, p. 1-28, México D.F.

de Varine, Hugues 1993 Tomorrow’s Community Museums. Paper available online:

http://www.hdg.de/Final/deu/page508.htm (April 2006)

Díaz, Lilia 2004 El Liberalismo Militante. In Historia General de México, edited by

Daniel Cosío Villegas, p. 585-631. El Colegio de México, México D.F.

Ekarv, Margareta 1999 Combating redundancy: writing texts for exhibitions. In The

Educational Role of the Museum. Eileen Hooper-Greenhill (ed.), pp. 201-204. Routledge, London.

Escalante Betancourt, Yuri Alex 1998 Patrimonio Arqueológico y Comunidades Indígenas. In Antropología:

Boletín Oficial del INAH, no. 52, Oct-Dec, pp. 21-24.

Escalante Gonzalbo, Pablo 1998 Los Códices. Conaculta, 2ª Edición, México, D.F.

Fernández, Patricia; García, Juan Enrique & Ávila, Diana Esther 2001 Estimaciones de la Población Indígena de México. Consejo Nacional

de Población, México DF. Available online at: http://www.conapo.gob.mx/publicaciones/2002/13.pdf (April 2006)

73

Florescano, Enrique 1997 La Creación del Museo Nacional de Antropología. In El Patrimonio

Nacional de México. E. Florescano (ed.) pp 147-171. CONACULTA-FCE, México, DF

Florescano, Enrique 1997b El Patrimonio Cultural : valores, uso, estudio y difusión. In El

Patrimonio Nacional de México. E. Florescano (ed.) pp 15-27. FCE, México, DF

García Martínez, Bernardo 2004 La creación de la Nueva España. In Historia General de México,edited

by Daniel Cosío Villegas, p. 237-306. El Colegio de México, México, D.F.

Gilmore, Elizabeth & Sabine, Jennifer 1999 Writing readable text: evaluation of the Ekarv method. In The

Educational Role of the Museum. Eileen Hooper-Greenhill (ed.) pp. 205-210. Routledge, London

Gobierno del Estado de Oaxaca (Web page) 2006 Información Estatal. Available online at:

http://www.gobiernodeoaxaca.gob.mx/web/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=121&Itemid=29 (April 2006)

González, Luis 2004 El Liberalismo Triunfante. In Historia General de México, edited by

Daniel Cosío Villegas, p. 635-705. El Colegio de México, México, D.F.

Hart, Chris 2005 Doing your Masters Dissertation. Sage Publications, London.

Hauenschild, Andrea 1988 Claims and Reality of New Museology: Case Studies in Canada, the

United States and Mexico. Available online at: http://museumstudies.si.edu/claims2000.htm (April 2006)

INEGI (Instituto Nacional de Estadística, Geografía e Informática) 2003 Anuario Estadístico 2003, Oaxaca. Volumes I & II. INEGI, State

Government of Oaxaca. ILAM (Instituto Latinoamericano de Museos). 2006 Resoluciones de la Mesa Redonda, la importancia y el desarrollo de

los museos en el mundo contemporáneo, celebrada en Santiago de Chile mayo de 1972. Available online: http://www.ilam.org/ILAMDOC/ (April 2006)

74

Karp, Ivan 1992 Introduction. In: Museums and Communities: The Politics of Public

Culture. Ivan Karp (editor), p. 1-17, Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington D.C.

Kinard, John 1985 The Neighborhood Museum as a Catalyst for Social Change. In:

Museum, Vol. XXXVII, no. 4, p. 217-225. UNESCO, Paris.

Ley Federal Sobre Monumentos y Zonas Arqueológicos, Artísticos e Históricos 1972 Legislación Federal de los Estados Unidos Mexicanos. Available online

at : http://www.camaradediputados.gob.mx/leyinfo/pdf/131.pdf (April 2006)

Litvak, Jaime y Sandra L. López Varela 1997 El Patrimonio Arqueológico. Conceptos y Usos. In: El Patrimonio

Nacional de México, Tomo II, E. Florescano, (ed.), pp 172-197. CONACULTA-FCE, México, D.F.

Mayrand, Pierre 1985 The New Museology Proclaimed. In Museum, Vol. XXXVII, no. 4, p.

200-201. UNESCO, Paris. Méndez Lugo, Raúl Andrés 2003 Recuperación del Patrimonio y Función Social: Eje de los Museos

Comunitarios en México. CONACULTA. Available online: http://www.conaculta.gob.mx/saladeprensa/2003/03mar/museos.htm (May 8, 2006)

Montemayor, Carlos 2001 Los Pueblos Indios de México Hoy. Editorial Planeta, México, DF

Morales, Teresa; Camarena, Cuauhtémoc & Camarena, Manuel 1987 La experiencia de constitución del Museo “Shan-Dany”, de Santa Ana

del Valle, Tlacolula, Oaxaca. In: Antropología, Boletín Oficial del INAH, no. 14, May-June, pp 9-11. México, DF

Morales Lersch, Teresa; Camarena Ocampo, Cuauhtémoc 2005 Los Museos Comunitarios y la Memoria ante los Procesos de la

Globalización. In Cuadernos del Sur. Vol. 11, no. 21, March, pp. 23-33

Olivé Negrete, Julio César 2003 La Conservación del Patrimonio Cultural en México hasta la creación

del INAH. In INAH: Una Historia, Vol. I, edited by Julio C. Olivé Negrete and Bolfy Cottom, p. 21-31. INAH, México, D.F.

75

Peña Tenorio, Bertha 2000 Los Museos Comunitarios en México. In: Dimensión Antropológica-

INAH. Available online at: http://paginah.inah.gob.mx:8080/dAntropologica/dAntropologica_Texto.jsp?sIdArt=172&sVol=null&sTipo=1&sFlag=1 (April 2006)

Pierce Erikson, Patricia 1996 “So My Children Can Stay in the Pueblo”: Indigenous Community

Museums and Self-Determination in Oaxaca, Mexico. In: Museum Anthropology. Vol. 20, number 1, Spring-Summer, American Anthropological Association.

Rendón Monzón, Juan José 2003 La Comunalidad: Modo de Vida en los Pueblos Indios. Vol I,

CONACULTA, México, DF

Rico Mansard, Fernanda 2004 Museos Mexicanos, Usos y Desusos. In Correo del Maestro. No. 93,

February. Available online at: http://www.correodelmaestro.com/anteriores/2004/febrero/2anteaula93.htm (April 2006)

Rivière, Georges Henri 1989 La Museología: Curso de Museología/Textos y testimonios. Ediciones

Akal, Madrid.

Sandell, Richard 2004 Preface. In Museums, Society, Inequality, edited by Richard Sandell.

Routledge, London.

Simpson, Moira G. 2001 Making Representations: Museums in the Post-Colonial Era. Revised

Edition, Routledge, London.

Urteaga Castro-Pozo, Augusto 2003 Museos y Exposiciones. In INAH: Una Historia, Vol. I, edited by Julio

C. Olivé Negrete and Bolfy Cottom, p. 289-299. INAH, México, D.F.

van Mensch, Peter 1995 Magpies on Mount Helicon. In Museum and Community, edited by M.

Schärer. ICOFOM Study Series 25, Stavanger. Also available online: http://www.rwa.ahk.nl/03_onderzoek_ontwikkeling/03_publicaties/13_1996/magpies.jsp consulted on April 18, 2006.

76

Vázquez, Josefina Z. 2004 Los Primeros Tropiezos. In Historia General de México, edited by

Daniel Cosío Villegas, p. 527-582. El Colegio de México, México, D.F.

Villoro, Luis 2004 La Revolución de Independencia. In Historia General de México,

edited by Daniel Cosío Villegas, pp: 491-523. El Colegio de México, México, D.F.

World Wildlife Fund 2002 Voces de las Montañas: Testimonios Orales de la Sierra Norte de

Oaxaca. PANOS Institute. Mexico.

Yin, Robert K. 2003 Applications of Case Study Research. Sage Publications, London.

Interviews

Bautista Sánchez, Román 2006 Interview carried out in Santa Ana del Valle, Oaxaca, on February 15. García Ramos, Verónica 2006 Interview carried out via telephone, on March 29. Márquez, María Eugnia 2006 Interview carried out in the city of Puebla, Mexico, on March 30. Morales Lersch, Teresa 2006 Interview carried out in the city of Oaxaca, on March 8.

77