In Mexico, the problem of cultural property and national patrimony is an old problem, much debated, and it has had, over a long period of time, many legislative outcomes. For more than a year, in both the lower and upper houses of the Mexican legislature, a bill has been debated which would modify legislation first enacted in 1972. Currently, there is no ongoing, sitting international body looking into the matter. It could be under the auspices of UNESCO, but a broader initiative under the U.N. to give a specifically legal character to an accord would be better. Now that everyone talks about globalization, there are laws that should be globally binding in the area of culture.
It's clear that in a country with such an enormous cultural inheritance as Mexico, it is extraordinarily difficult for only the state to take on the care of archaeological sites. Given that there's no question that the private sector reaps dividends from these national treasures, there should be an objective, well-planned, concerted effort to protect these assets, and it should employ "national" specialists. When I say "national," it's because in Mexico, like many countries with vast archaeological riches, too often, foreign specialists arrive and then, in their suitcases, they leave with invaluable and irreplaceable treasures. National specialists, with their logical regard for their own patrimony, should assist with and advise those efforts of the private sector, which are, more often than not, associated with foreign capital. In the era of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), these depredations are not uncommon. As it happens in business, so it happens in culture.
If there were an international convention, it should not merely review the public and private collections in the U.S., but would have to include collections found, for example, in Berlin. In the museums of Vienna, Austria, there is not only the disputed "headdress" of Moctezuma, there are other significant pieces, as well. This review must occur at the highest levels with an eye towards the twenty-first century, with a more democratic--less hegemonic--sensibility on the part of the most powerful countries, who would be made to recognize the significance of cultural patrimony to the countries of origin.
An Example of Rescuing the Past
We have seen this contestation at archaeological sites where people want to install hotels, restaurants, or businesses of different types. The most significant case of "rescue" in an attempt of this nature was headed by the artist Francisco Toledo in conjunction with a group of artists and intellectuals from Oaxaca. A plan was proposed to convert the ancient Convent of Santo Domingo, one of the largest convents ever built in Mexico, connected to a church still in use, which had in no way had its "popular-baroque" character altered--this marvelous church of Santo Domingo of Oaxaca. The governor of the moment wanted to privatize it so that he could grant a concession to create a hotel there and a large parking lot. The group headed by Toledo took on this great challenge, which convinced the cultural authorities to convert the space into a large cultural center. Happily, they effected the rescue--part restoration, part rebuilding. Today it's the great Cultural Center of Santo Domingo [recognized worldwide as a paragon of concerted public-private cultural preservation].
Indigenous Groups and Cultural Property
In Mexico, it is not common for indigenous groups to attempt to reclaim their property. Yes, this did occur in 1964 when the National Museum of Anthropology [in Mexico City] was about to be opened. They [museum curators and others involved] discovered an enormous stone piece, which is now called "Tlaloc"--actually a water-earth goddess, which now sits outside the museum. The community from whose lands this enormous piece was extracted complained on the grounds that the piece brought them good luck in their cultivation, in times of harvest, etc. The entire piece was removed and transported [to Mexico City], and there it sits today outside the Museum of Anthropology as a symbol of Precolumbian culture.
On occasion, similar things have occurred elsewhere in the country with smaller-sized pieces. I don't know of any circumstances where Mexican indigenous groups have made demands for repatriation of objects to museums in the U.S. where, after all, there are so many Precolumbian works potentially to reclaim. Why doesn't this happen? Because indigenous cultural development (in the sense of information or precedent) is still not sufficiently "modern" to handle the preservation of their traditions (their laws and customs), much less to reclaim what has been removed from their lands. For this, we'll have to wait a substantial period of time. Despite the attempts of the Mexican government to protect these assets, the follow-through has not been good.
The Zapatistas and Cultural Patrimony
Now, prompted by the Zapatista uprising, the challenge is to determine, in the most sensible way possible, what is national cultural property and what is the cultural property of ethnic groups. By the same token, there are plans (still in process) to reassess who should benefit from these cultural assets. Obviously, this plan should aim to benefit all Mexicans and all those who visit Mexico. But at issue is this: Under whose control [should Mexican cultural property be placed]? Who are its natural inheritors? This has nothing to do with "reservations." I don't believe that reservations further the preservation of cultural assets because they isolate them--they remain outside of time. What's important is that indigenous communities, the people of first ownership, should have oversight in the use and evolution of this cultural patrimony.
