Why do Archaeology?

Why do we do archaeology? To preserve the past? To find some new meaning to the present? To learn about diet and disease in an area? Or is it just our curiosity getting to the best of us. I love archaeology but this class, Archaeological Practice and Public, has got me thinking. If the indigenous people don't like what we're doing, then why do it? I've thought about this a bit and I just can't come up with a good answer. Maybe because there isn't one. We are curious. We want to know what happened and why. What did they eat? Where did they sleep? What did daily life look like? We have to know! But I don't want to do it if the natives don't want me to. I want to respect what they think and feel.

This really got me thinking when we had to read two articles by Traci Ardren and Timoteo Rodriguez. These  articles were about the Kochol community in Mexico and the archaeological site in their farm lands. Traci had suggested a museum to be built at the site so that the locals could earn income from tourism and promote their past. This doesn't sound like a bad idea but how Traci wrote about the time and how Timoteo wrote about the time are completely different. In Traci's article the locals were eager to learn about their history and to start the museum. Timoteo writes that there were many who didn't even identify with the history the archaeologists were teaching and they were afraid the museum would be a way for the gringos to take over their land. These articles are completely different yet what ultimately made me side with Rodriguez's article was when Ardren suggested the museum to be a living museum. I actually gasped at the thought of that. No! Really? You think it's a good idea to have people dress up and farm "like their ancestors" for tourists to watch? It's like a zoo! I would be furious if someone suggested something like that to me.

Another part of the articles that interested me was about the papaya tree. In Ardren's article she claims that the locals suggested planting papaya trees in the museum since they were grown by their ancestors. Rodriguez, on the other hand, says that the locals planted papaya trees in spite of the archaeologists because of how destructive trees can be to sites. That the papaya tree was a symbol of what the locals wanted. Their land to farm on. He also suggested that the museum was a symbol of what the archaeologist wanted. A validation of their work and of the place.

Whether I would have still sided with Rodriguez's view if there had been a more neutral tone to the articles, I'm not sure. But I do know that if I ever do archaeology with a native population, I will be aware of their cultural identity and their feelings of the land and artifacts before I make assumptions of what they want.