Between Art and Artifact: Archaeological Replicas and Cultural Production in Oaxaca, Mexico

6. Replicas and the Ambiguity of Race and Indigeneity

I stood at Monte Albán with Alberto, an artisan, and his customer. Alberto tried to close the sale as I strategically remained a few feet away as. His asking price was 100 pesos (roughly ten U.S. dollars) for two small figurines representing a Pre-Hispanic acrobat and a “jaguar god”—designs loosely based on Oaxacan archaeological motifs. I recognized the pieces from Alberto’s home workshop in Arrazola, where I had seen him firing them less than a week ago. The Mexican tourist persisted in haggling over a difference of 10 pesos; the vendor expertly split the difference and began to wrap up the pieces in crumpled newspaper before the buyer could change his mind. As the replica seller rummaged through his pocket looking for change, the tourist asked for clarification on the pieces he had just purchased. “So are these Zapotec or Mixtec?” he wanted to know, referring to the two pre-Hispanic cultures typically associated with Monte Albán. Alberto, who seemed used to this sort of inquiry, replied, “Those are Zapotec. You can tell from the faces. See?” He pointed to the face of the acrobat figure. I was not sure what stylistic elements distinguished the piece as Zapotec but the tourist did not press for details. He drew another connection instead. “Zapotecs, like you guys [vendors].” Alberto nodded and answered simply, “Yes, like us.” THIS CHAPTER EXAMINES THE MULTIPLE AND sometimes ambiguous ideas about race and indigeneity that are articulated within Oaxaca’s overlapping craft and tourism economies , and illustrated by this encounter at Monte Albán. These spaces CHAPTER SIX Replicas and the Ambiguity of Race and Indigeneity 145 | Replicas and the Ambiguity of Race and Indigeneity constitute part of a Oaxacan “touristic borderzone” (Bruner 1996; Little 2004a) where transnational processes of cultural and economic exchange related to tourism entail a reworking of ethno-racial classifications . Of concern here is how categories such as “Indian,”¹ “indigenous,” and “mestizo” and ethnic classifiers, including “Zapotec” and “Mixtec,” among others, are experienced and enacted locally by artisans, vendors, tourists, and anthropologists. Anthropologist Les Field notes that “artisanal production, the authenticity of artisan productions and indigenous peoples are historically intertwined in Latin America” (Field 2009:511). Scott Cook and Jong-Taik Joo (1995) locate Oaxacan artisans’ long-standing position more specifically, within a Mexican nationalist paradigm that equates rural craft production with indigeneity, a connection which very much comes to the service of the ethnotourism market. Taking this assertion as a point of departure, I will examine the production and circulation of ideas about ethno-racial identity vis-à-vis Arrazola. As discussed in chapter 2, Arrazola’s wood-carvers are frequently assumed by outsiders to be indigenous and, more specifically, Zapotec. However, in a contradictory fashion, residents from the same community may be marked as non-Indian or mestizo in their roles as archaeological replica makers and sellers. It should be noted that I do not seek to prove or disprove Arrazola residents’ indigeneity. In fact, that would be contrary to the point I wish to make. Rather, following de la Cadena and Starn, I wish to illustrate how community members navigate the “tense dynamics of being categorized by others and seeking to define themselves within and against indigeneity’s dense web of symbols, fantasies, and meanings ” (de la Cadena and Starn 2007:2). I first refer briefly to the institutional framings of race and ethnicity in Oaxaca today in order to situate the tendency of some anthropologists and INAH representatives to discursively cast replica makers from Arrazola as predominantly nonindigenous mestizos or campesinos (rural farmers). Next I describe how community members ambivalently identify and dis-identify with ethno-racial categories such as indigenous , indio, and Zapotec within the cultural and economic matrix of tourist encounters. I then discuss tourist notions of indigeneity and Oaxacan cultural continuity, which Arrazola residents negotiate in their everyday lives as high-profile artisans and craft vendors. The concluding portion of the chapter highlights the ambivalence of ethno-racial classifications in Oaxacan craft tourism through one artisan’s reflection on his position within this economy. 146 | Between Art and Artifact ARRAZOLA AND THE PROBLEM OF RACE AND ETHNICITY IN OAXACA Through their work in the wood-carving or replica trade, people from Arrazola are in regular contact with tourists, journalists, anthropologists , and state officials. Outsiders frequently try to pin down the ethno-racial status of Arrazola residents through direct questioning...