Discussion response

The Porfiriato I discussion 10
1st part respond to discussion below 
Last week, we discussed campesino repertoires of collective action. This week, we’ll look at the operations of the Porfirian government in a very different sector: the development of Mexican archaeology and heritage management.
Task: Compare the discussion of the Porfirian state in Chassen-López Ch. 8/the lecture this week to the discussion of archaeology and heritage management in Bueno. Why did archaeology become such a preoccupation for the Porfirian state? In response to a class, just agree or disagree with a classmate and explain why, citing evidence from course materials.*
Note: this time, the difference between a pass and high pass has to do with evidence, rather than following some elaborate prompt.
Specifications
• Posts demonstrate a careful reading of, and engagement with, the assigned readings
• Historical claims backed with evidence cited from course materials

2nd part agree or disagree to classmates response below  
For the Porfirian state, one reason archaeology was a critical aspect of state-building was because it offered legitimacy for Mexico in the international community. As Chassen-López describes, Mexico wanted to use their diverse, longstanding cultural history to represent its place and longevity on the world stage, participating in the “1889 World’s Fair in Paris, that grand festival of modernity and progress, with an Aztec Palace” (Chassen-López, 2004, 388). Similarly, Bueno details that archaeology provided Porfirio a way to construct a historical narrative that would “shape and defend the nation’s image as they constructed an official history rooted in pre-Hispanic times” and offer “a common origin” for Mexican people (Bueno, 2016, 40). Overall, archaeology allowed the Mexican elite to shape a history for Mexico that was not rooted in its prior European colonization, but rather its extensive pre-Hispanic peoples and civilizations.