|
|
|
Report of the Specialists' Discussion Session Saturday, December 1, 2001 (Recorded by Horacio González Moncada and Emmanuel Robles Mellín) A roundtable discussion of 25 researchers was held after the presentation of papers at the Second Binational Symposium on "Evaluation and Prospects: the Anthropology and History of Baja California." The purpose of the session was to identify and propose possible solutions to diverse problems affecting the development of the peninsula’s anthropology and history. The moderators were Patricia Aceves of the National Institute of Anthropology and History (INAH) and Michael Wilken-Robertson of the Native Cultures Institute of Baja California (CUNA). General issues included problems in conducting investigations, the lack of uniformity in the use of archaeological and anthropological terminology, and the Internet as a tool to create a network of investigations on the archaeology, cultural and physical anthropology, linguistics, and native history of Baja California, among other themes. To begin the session, each of the specialists introduced himself or herself to the group and commented on some of the topics. Mike Wilken stressed that a significant advance in Baja California archaeology was being sought in the coming year’s work. He proposed that coordinators and working groups for the topics be named, along with the creation of a network of investigations and the formulation of proposals for the next meeting of the group in one year. He also recommended that discussion themes be chosen, that a list of participants be prepared, that agreement be reached on topics, that a signup list for forming working groups be prepared, and that issues to be resolved be identified. He made clear that the aim is to work for a year to get the results of this collaboration into operation. Ken Hedges commented on the rock art of the peninsula, suggesting that the international border is irrelevant in this type of study. He also suggested that the recording of sites on both sides of the frontier should be coordinated and unified, to create a regional inventory of rock art and a uniform format for records. Don Laylander, for his part, argued that it would not be possible to address all of the issues in a single discussion session. For that reason, he suggested finding better means of communications between investigators, and he proposed to use the Internet to maintain contact between Baja California researchers, to create databases, to share information with non-specialists, and to make individual research more effective. César González Mendoza, for his part, welcomed assistance in the investigation of the missions of Santo Domingo and San Vicente. Equally, he offered his help in the field of mission archaeology to whoever might ask for it. Aída Anchondo Ibarra of the Camino Real Misionero Foundation, Inc. (CAREM) considered as important points the protection and conservation of cultural patrimony. To that end, she suggested the development of simple, clear means for popularizing scholarly information and directing it to the Baja California community. Mario Alberto Magaña Mancillas, director of the Museum of the Californias, spoke on the importance and effectiveness of popularizing history, archaeology, and anthropology by means of museums. Dr. Michael Mathes indicated his concern about the absence of new generations of historians and investigators specializing in Baja Californa’s mission period, and the need to make historic documents available. Julia Bendímez Patterson, INAH state delegate in Baja California, spoke about strategies for the conservation of cultural patrimony, extending from native communities to research institutions. She also suggested the use of adequate archaeological terminology, information management by means of the Internet, standardization of record forms to facilitate binational communication, and the creation of a Geographic Information System (GIS) for the preservation and use of resources. Alfonso Rosales López, from INAH Baja California Sur, specializes in the study of past populations, physical anthropology, the growth and development of communities, and their genetic relationships. He indicated his concern with legislation affecting cultural patrimony and the repercussions of changes in the law, now that there is an extreme conception of cultural patrimony on the Mexican government’s part. He also proposed linking archaeological and anthropological concerns with the environmental question to get a more integral perspective and to create viable projects for sustainable use of the patrimony. He advised becoming informed about the meeting of INAH investigators concerning legislation. The other participants in the discussion session proposed that he coordinate work on cultural patrimony. José Luis Aguilar, representing the Office of Environment and Natural Resources (SEMARNAT), was in agreement as to the link between archaeological and anthropological projects and environmental ones, as well as getting funding to develop projects. Dr. Jerry Moore, who has studied human adaptations at San Quintín and El Rosario, spoke about creating a binational archaeological inventory, and suggested improving communication among academic specialists as well as the quality and type of information shared among them. He also encouraged taking advantage of the nearness of the United States and the availability of information offered by North American institutions. He mentioned that there are evident needs, not only scientific but also for assistance in planning. He mentioned that it is necessary to be creative in seeking resources and in implementing interdisciplinary projects with an environmental perspective. Finally, he argued that it is necessary to be innovative in the ways information is sought. Pedro Sosa and Jorge Serrano commented on the need to propose and develop more binational projects. María de la Luz Gutiérrez commented on the archaeology of hunter-gatherer groups, as well as on planning strategies to conserve and protect cultural patrimony, and the revision of record forms for rock art sites. Pedro Francisco Sánchez Nava of the National Register expressed his concern about the future of archaeological sites in Mexico, many of which remain unrecorded. He wanted these to be seen as not just coordinates on a map. He also spoke about the revision of site record forms, which are needed for a system of references and as a means of protecting the sites. He proposed that the references be done in a consistent manner, which would help in site protection. He also spoke about records for the Archaeological Council. Harumi Fujita proposed the correction of existing record forms and the use of geographical coordinates to locate archaeological sites. She also recognized the need to be more precise in the use of terminology. She recommended the use of the Internet to exchange opinions and information between researchers and international colleagues. She indicated her concern about the lack of adequate libraries and up-to-date references. Finally, she suggested adapting the archaeological record form to the types of materials that are common in this region: lithics, shell, and bone. Judith Bravo Contreras, instructor in ethnology at the National School of Anthropology and History (ENAH), commented on the importance of studying and incorporating the new directions within anthropology into the study and treatment of native communities. She also referred to studies of identity as new ways of understanding “otherness.” Finally, she recognized the need for interdisciplinary projects. Rosa Elba Rodríguez Tomp proposed that the peninsula be studied as a whole, and that when regions are considered, they be defined on a cultural rather than a political basis. She suggested that access to up-to-date references be sought in order to bring together anthropological, archaeological, and environmental perspectives. She also encouraged unified efforts to promote publication and to bring forward the investigations so that they do not remain unpublished and unused. Miguel Téllez recognized the lack of coordination among investigators and institutions, and the need to unify efforts for interdisciplinary projects. As a benefit, he mentioned that such coordination and cooperation would facilitate the search for financial resources. He added that interdisciplinary approaches can help to solve real problems. For those ends, he suggested creating a directory of participating investigators, in order to be able to know the work being done by each of them and to establish channels of communication for seeking financial resources. Finally, he mentioned the need for a greater number of qualified archaeologists in order to undertake the tasks of recording, excavating, and documenting sites. For his part, Loren Davis mentioned the need to preserve sites of Baja California; he saw it as an opportunity to avoid what happened with California's sites. He spoke of the evolution of the peninsula from the geologic perspective and its relation to the preservation of sites. He suggested seeking resources to discover the distribution of submerged sites. He felt that, in order to make intelligent decisions about where to look for archaeological sites, it is important to take into account erosion, ecological diversity, and an understanding of human lifeways. He suggested the use of longer time perspectives, in order to explain why sites no longer exist. Dr. Alan Bryan and Dr. Ruth Gruhn expressed their concern that there are not sufficient personnel authorized to collect archaeological artifacts such as projectile points, and that no one is protecting the sites, as a result of which they are continually being vandalized and destroyed by the same people who live near them. Because of that, they suggested that the responsible institutions should obtain or give more economic support to safeguard these sites. They spoke of the importance of educating the people of Baja California about the importance of archaeological remains. They indicated that there is no site designation system for Baja California and that a uniform format is needed, as well as careful inventorying of sites. They also spoke of improving the manner of designating sites, since it is not uniform in Baja California. The possibility of using the Canadian format in Baja California was mentioned. It is proposed to set up a mapping grid system, to label a site on a map and record it. This is a system created in the 1950s. It is proposed to update the site maps. All of this would require coordination between INAH and other institutions for the management of information and materials, excavations, site designation, and methodology. They asked: who are the ones who identify bones and shells? And they answered: environmental specialists. For these reasons, they proposed to create a register of specialists in each field, and they mentioned the need for coordination between archaeologists and environmental specialists. Claudia Leyva Aguilera spoke about the possibility of using technical tools, such as the Internet and Geographic Information Systems (GIS), and the advantages in looking for common options in conserving natural and cultural resources. Lucila Leon proposed to leave the subject of history for another time, since all the suggestions of the researchers were concerned primarily with archaeology. To conclude the presentations, Dr. Michael Mathes expressed his dissatisfaction about the lack of familiarity on the part of the archaeologists and anthropologists with historical references concerning the archaeological sites where they find remains. To deal with that, he suggested reviewing the documents in which the missionaries recorded many events. With the presentations and suggestions concluded, the session continued with some discussion. Mario Magaña spoke of the need to share information between all scholars. Dr. Moore spoke about designing the new record forms, which should facilitate the work and make it possible to go directly into a database. Pedro Sánchez Nava mentioned the need for strict control and precise rules. He noted that there is no official mapping system for archaeological sites, and that updating is needed in that area. He reported the formation of an interdepartmental commission to create an ArcView system for the national archaeological register in conjunction with the National Institute for Statistics, Geography, and Computing Science (INEGI). He also addressed the need for uniformity in mapping systems, since there are different ones. He spoke about good criteria for handling information and the fact that the record forms must agree with the laws that are in force. He proposed providing statistical data, exchanging information among institutions and investigators, and bearing in mind the fragility of archaeological sites in northern Mexico. Claudia Leyva talked about an ethic of collaboration, and about maintaining control over information but at the same time making it public. She mentioned that information systems can have different levels of security and public access, and she proposed using a format similar to the one utilized by INEGI. Julia Bendímez for her part proposed to coordinate the revision of record forms. A group to work on this task was formed, consisting of Jerry Moore, Harumi Fujita, Alfonso Rosales, María de la Luz Gutiérrez, Alan Bryan, Ruth Gruhn, Pedro Sánchez Nava, Ken Hedges, Loren Davis, and John Foster. With the establishment of that working group, Michael Wilken suggested that another group be formed to deal with the question of the Internet. In a discussion on the general outline for an Internet page, Don Laylander suggested that it could create a better flow of information, address basic questions on the anthropology of Baja California, list bibliographical sources, define archaeological and anthropological concepts, and deal with current issues. He offered to make available an electronic bibliography that he was already compiling. Moore felt that the webpage ought to involve access to different levels of information, with corresponding bibliographical citations and links to other worthwhile sites. He also warned that agreement would need to be reached as to what should be made public, and care should be taken about what was published. Mathes proposed a bibliography of new items that would provide basic information concerning databases and catalogs. He suggested that there should be links to the Melvyl system, which has material on Baja California and is used by the California universities. He also proposed that the catalog be revolving, that is, that the page should be updated with new materials. He recommended defining for whom the bibliography would be made, seeking specialized articles which do not have copyright problems, having the page be bilingual, and including works that people want to share, and news about support and events. Finally, he proposed that space be given to the dates of different programs, a directory of participants, links to other sites of interest, and information on establishing contacts with related disciplines. During the discussion on the general outline for the webpage, there were many comments and suggestions as to how to carry it out; for example, defining for whom the page is intended, the articles that would be online, the importance of its being bilingual, and the publication of news, new features, links to other sites, a directory of participants, and catalogs. It was decided that these matters would be discussed later in more detail by the group of researchers charged with developing this webpage. There was a proposal on the part of the photographer Rafael Zeta Flores to host the website for free. The subject was then changed to the theme of the conservation of cultural patrimony. Claudia Leyva suggested meeting to work on identifying those agreements that are not being implemented in practice, as well as joint projects between non-governmental organizations (NGO’s) and the government, to see that they are carried out. The representative of the SEMARNAT, José Luis Aguilar, commented on projects for environmental legislation and the ignorance of its legal side. Pedro Sanchez Nava also thought that practical measures needed to be taken with respect to archaeological patrimony, reclassifying sites according to their use and fate. He also said he would send reports concerning experiences in other regions of the country. On the subject of terminology, Julia Bendímez proposed to create a database of terms to be used. Mike Wilken proposed that studies on terminology should be produced during the year 2002. For his part, Mario Alberto Magaña spoke of the connection between the late prehistoric period and the beginnings of history in Baja California. He emphasized the differences between the chronologies of the peninsula’s archaeologists and historians and the need to reach agreement concerning the periodization of the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries, as well as for prehistory. María de la Luz Gutiérrez commented that there definitely were connections between terminology, processes of adaptation, and complexes, as well as artifacts. She also pointed to problems with understanding the terminology for artifacts in English-language references, as well as in matters concerning rock art. In trying to make concrete proposals concerning terminology, Julia Bendímez expressed the view that first this issue had to be documented. Mike Wilken proposed that a jointly-authored work be prepared on the question of terminology. For her part, Rosa Elba Rodriguez recalled that a scheme of periods is something that is constructed, so that each person may make use of it as he or she chooses. She observed that defining periods is as difficult as defining regions. Jerry Moore thought that, based on evidence from 300 archaeological sites, the scheme of La Jolla and San Dieguito periods is not relevant for Baja California archaeology, in that there are few sites documented with diagnostic artifacts. One ought to be cautious about extending these periods 100 miles south of the border, especially if there is no systematic basis of doing so. His proposal was that this be done in the field. Ken Hedges, for his part, felt that this was an issue that could not be resolved in this discussion session. Cesar González also commented that only through advances in research would this matter be opened up and new evidence on periodization generated. Julia Bendímez suggested getting more specific on this subject, proposing that an analysis be made of the advances that have taken place and the status of discoveries, in order to determine how the early societies should be designated. To conclude the discussion, Loren Davis said that Baja California still has the chance to avoid what happened in California with its archaeological sites. He thought that it was an excellent idea to see what we have and to compare it. He suggested writing something on it as a position statement concerning site conservation. He also commented that it is necessary to recognize the differences between languages that exist in terminology and the difficulties in a matter of differentiating identities. He recalled that at times there are contradictions, and consequently there is disagreement in terminology simply because of linguistic and semantic differences. With this final contribution, the specialists' roundtable discussion was ended, and the meetings were adjourned. LIST OF PARTICIPANTS IN THE DISCUSSION SESSION Patricia Aceves, archaeologist (Translated by Don Laylander) |