1

Past is Present: The Production and

Consumption of Archaeological Legacies
in Mexico
Dylan J. Clark
Harvard University
and
David S. Anderson
Roanoke College

ABSTRACT
The material expressions of the powerful symbols and cultural traditions of ancient Mesoamerican civilizations
have long played vital roles in constructing social and political discourses, collective identities, and worldviews in
the Mexican present. In this chapter, we provide the theoretical background for this volume, highlighting the early
history of archaeological representation and patrimony in Mexico prior to the 20th century and situating these studies
within the current phase of anthropological research in the related areas of public archaeology, heritage studies, and
community (engaged) archaeology. [public archaeology, heritage, identity politics, community archaeology, tourism]

I n this volume, we explore the contemporary life of Mex-

ico’s ancient cultures at home and abroad by bringing
together fourteen essays that examine the multiple uses of
archaeological heritage in the realms of identity narratives,
politics, education, cosmology, economics, sustainable de-
velopment, sport, media, tourism, migration, museums, and
participatory research—all of which contribute to crafting
the social landscape from which material legacies are mar-
shaled to shape the present and future.1 Broadly positioned
within the field of public archaeology, this volume repre-
sents an interdisciplinary forum that cross-cuts perceived
theoretical and methodological boundaries in anthropology,
archaeology, history, and cultural studies to bring multi-
ple approaches and perspectives to bear on the complex
dialectic employed in the production and consumption of
the pre-Hispanic past in current contexts. As archaeological
practice has become more applied and collaborative with
local communities, and archaeological–historical represen-
tation increasingly important vis-à-vis the prominence of
cultural tourism in economic development strategies, we are
challenged by the need to consider the wider dimensions
of our research, critically assess our strategies of commu-
nication and engagement with stakeholder groups and the
new directions in which public and social archaeology are
moving in Mexico.
Monumental Heritage: Public Archaeology
and Mexico
There is nothing new in the observation that modern
archaeology is an inherently public enterprise—it is always
conducted under the gaze of various stakeholders who have
a vested interest in the past. It is most often conducted
under the auspices of governmental bodies who, in theory,
protect public interests (McGimsey 1972). Archaeology is
also an expensive undertaking and is typically funded by

ARCHEOLOGICAL PAPERS OF THE AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION, Vol. 25, pp. 1–18, ISSN 1551-823X,
online ISSN 1551-8248. 
C 2015 by the American Anthropological Association. All rights reserved. DOI: 10.1111/apaa.12042.
2 Dylan J. Clark and David S. Anderson
governmental bodies, private donors, or other interested
parties. As a result, archaeologists have a responsibility to
report the results of their work to these funding sources,
and to the public writ large (Zimmerman 2003).
The phrase public archaeology means many things
to scholars, ranging from public works, e.g. contract
archaeology conducted to comply with federal legislation
and/or by federal institutions (Ford 1973), to public
education and public rights to access, interpret, and identify
with archaeological data (Skeates et al. 2012). Beginning
in the 1990s, public archaeology developed as a subfield
within archaeology concerned with the “processes by
which meaning is created from archaeological materials
in the public realm” (Merriman 2004:5), as well as the
method and means by which archaeological information is
communicated to non-archaeologists through educational
programs, museum exhibitions, site tours, and other
forms of interpretation. One of the most broadly inclusive
descriptions from the SAA’s Archaeology for the Public
website refers to “the theory and practice of reaching out”
(Society for American Archaeology n.d.).
This subfield was born out of postmodern critiques
prevalent in the social sciences and humanities in the 1980s
and 1990s that called for archaeologists to be more explicitly
self-reflexive about our position in the interpretive process
and our relationship with stakeholders (Carman 1995; Hod-
der 1999; Shanks and Hodder 1995). Public archaeology,
concomitantly with museum and heritage studies, developed
steadily through the next two decades, most predominately
in the United Kingdom (Carman 1995, 2002; Holtorf 2005;
Lowenthal 1985; Merriman 1991, 2004; Schadla-Hall 2006;
Skeates 2000; Smith 2006; Smith and Waterton 2009; Walsh
1992) and in historical archaeology of the U.S. (Jameson
1997; Leone 2010; Potter 1994).
In Latin America, the social commitment and political
dimensions of archaeological practice have been more ex-
plicit in response to the colonial and neocolonial historical
contexts in which the discipline evolved. Latin American
social archaeology is partly rooted in Spanish colonialism
and an effort to construct and provide public access to a
shared heritage in extremely culturally diverse countries
where, for centuries, indigenous and African cultural
traditions have been suppressed (Funari and Berraza
2012:110; Politis and Pérez Gollán 2007). In Mexico and
other Central American countries, archaeological research
was carried out primarily by state-sponsored agencies or by
foreigners, and influenced by nationalism and socialism in
the early years of the professionalization of the discipline
(Vargas Arenas and Sanoja 1999). A critical and reflexive
consciousness, related to Marxist philosophy and V. Gordon
Childe’s perspectives, inclined research towards questions
of social organization, production, and economy, while
critiquing the theoretical hegemony and asymmetrical
relationship with European and North American archaeol-
ogy (Politis and Pérez Gollán 2007:358–60). Even as the
“scientific objectivity” of Processualism was integrated into
archaeological praxis in Latin America, the production of
archaeological knowledge was always positioned to affect
social change and align with public interest.
In Mexico, all archaeology is carried out under the
auspices of the Instituto Nacional de Antropologı́a e
Historia (National Institute of Anthropology and History,
hereafter INAH), the federal agency charged with the
investigation, protection, and public dissemination of
archaeological patrimony since 1939 (Olive Negrete and
Castro-Pozo 1988). INAH continues to be a world leader
in archaeological research, conservation, and museology,
reaching out to a variety of specialist and non-specialist
audiences alike. The historically close tie between state
archaeology and the changing sociopolitical goals of the
nation means that public education considerations have been
integral to prioritizing archaeological projects, particularly
the consolidation and restoration of monumental architec-
ture. In this public context, the past has traditionally been
presented and consumed as a complete, final product—it
is not the process but the results that are socially relevant.
Also, public archaeology and heritage studies were not
taught as specific sub-disciplines within archaeology in
Mexico, where “educational diffusion” was already part of
the mission of larger state institutions, including museums,
and the National School of Anthropology and History
(ENAH) (Funari and Bezerra 2012:111).
In contrast, other public archaeology programs have
been established as components of archaeological projects
where multiple stakeholders could learn about or even par-
ticipate in the process of excavation and interpretation as a
means of social engagement (e.g., Hodder 1999; Jameson
1997; Potter 1994). Both theoretical and practical consid-
erations hindered the development of these kinds of ap-
proaches in Latin America (cf. Errington 1998; Garcı́a Can-
clini 1995). Thus, Mexican projects rarely appeared in the
“public archaeology” literature of the 1980s–1990s, which
dealt primarily with practical methods and critiques. In-
stead, the emphasis of critical social archaeology at this
time was the complicity between state sponsored archae-
ology and nation-building in the post-Mexican Revolution
20th century (Bonfil Batalla 1989; Kohl and Fawcett 1995;
Lorenzo 1981; Patterson 1995; Robles Garcı́a 1996; Schmidt
and Patterson 1995; Trigger 1984; Vázquez León 2003).
Indigenismo philosophy promoted in anthropology and pub-
lic education in Mexico beginning in the 1920s relied, in part,
on ancient cultural patrimony to acknowledge and celebrate
The Production and Consumption of Archaeological Legacies in Mexico
the contribution of “the Indian” to a national mestizo (mixed
race) culture (Gamio 1916). An exalted indigenous past and
continuing folk traditions fit well into a national narrative of
identity featuring an idealized blend of two great ancestral
civilizations, the European and Mesoamerican, that unified a
diverse Mexican citizenry (Bonfil Batalla 1989; Florescano
1994, 1997; Gamio 1916; Garcı́a Canclini 1995; Vasconce-
los 1925). Aztec culture, in particular, became the symbol
par excellence of this Mesoamerican legacy, while historical
contributions of Africa and Asia to mestizaje were expunged
from the discourse. At the same time, the nationalist indi-
genist project explicitly promoted the assimilation of mod-
ern indigenous communities into the dominant (Western)
cultural, linguistic, political, and economic paradigm. The
hegemony of Aztec culture in Mexican heritage politics has
generated significant critical analysis and debate in the liter-
ature (Errington 1998; Garcı́a Canclini 1995), and features
in some of the cases discussed in this volume. Anthropolo-
gist Guillermo Bonfil Batalla (1989:41) cogently argued that
the use of cultural patrimony in this way contributed to de-
Indianization, or the denial of Native American (as well as
African) identities in the present in favor of a homogenizing
mestizo identity.
Over the past two decades, new archaeological practices
and participatory research models, eco-and cultural tourism
strategies, increasing commodification of culture, heritage
ideologies, and emigration have altered both the sociopol-
itics of the Mesoamerican past and scholarly approaches
to understanding them. Research from Mexico positioned
within the genre of public archaeology from a world ar-
chaeology perspective, emerged out of two related phenom-
ena: the rise in cultural tourism as a means of sustainable
economic development (Giraudo and Porter 2010; Loewe
2010; Mortensen 2001; Nash 1981; Pi-Sunyer et al. 1999)
and post-colonial calls for community collaboration and co-
management in archaeological research (Derry and Malloy
2003; Pyburn 2003, 2004; Robles Garcı́a and Corbett 2006).
INAH is no longer the sole source of archaeological
representation and heritage discourse in Mexico. The min-
istries of tourism in individual state governments now play a
significant role, funding and managing tourist infrastructure
and performances in archaeological zones, and in at least
one case, purchasing the land on which an important ar-
chaeological site is located. Private investors also purchase
and alter archaeological landscapes, creating tourist theme
parks and private museums where cultural patrimony and
simulacra are exhibited in ways quite distinct from exhibi-
tion strategies employed by INAH museums.
Some indigenous communities have successfully nego-
tiated for the right to interpret the archaeological past and
indigenous present in community museums and at archae-
3
ological sites that form part of larger eco-tourism routes.
The professional archaeological community employed by
INAH and in Mexican Universities are also increasingly
multicultural with some archaeologists speaking indigenous
languages and/or self-identifying with the descendant com-
munities directly connected to the archaeological resources
they study, adding an insider’s voice to the dialogues between
the various stakeholders (Robles Garcı́a 2010:283).
Increasing multivocality in archaeological research
and interpretation indicates that identity politics have not
remained static, even since the first critical analyses of the
sociopolitics of archaeological resource management in
Mexico appeared in the literature in the 1980s. Heritage dis-
course at the national level in Mexico is moving away from
assimilation narratives and toward pluralistic recognition of
cultural difference within a broader concept of mestizaje,
emphasizing multiethnic transculturation. While the most
common ethnic self-identification in Mexico continues to
be mestizo, it is not necessarily the automatic or sole way
people conceptualize cultural identity or historical descent.
It is clear today that a critical analysis of nationalist agendas
in Mexican archaeology is no longer sufficient when the
dialectic of the production and consumption of archaeo-
logical heritage in the contemporary world is “not vaguely
national, [but] instead, tangibly local” (Morehart 2012:270).
Past is Present
We organized the chapters of this volume thematically
into five sections. In the first section, Enduring Legacies of
Mexico’s Ancient Cultures, we situate the volume in the theo-
retical and historical context of public archaeology and trace
the early history of archaeological heritage representation in
Mexico. Following this introductory chapter, Nancy Peniche
provides a historical analysis of how the archaeological past
was integrated into nationalist projects and discourse during
the three decades of rule by Porfirio Dı́az. The use of ancient
ruins and material culture in identity politics has a deep his-
tory that pre-dates the Revolution and even the formation of
Mexico as a nation. This early historical context is important
for understanding how narratives of identity and concepts
of patrimony have developed and continue to evolve over
time and the ramifications for indigeneity and strategies of
archaeological practice and representation in the present.
Nestor Garcı́a Canclini (1995:108) argues that for
Mexico, cultural patrimony is “central to the construction of
modern identities” and that through public commemoration,
cultural patrimony generates a “metaphysical, ahistorical
view of the ‘national being’, whose superior manifestations,
deriving from a mythical origin, supposedly only exist today
4 Dylan J. Clark and David S. Anderson
in the objects that recall it.” At least as early as the colonial
period (Table 1), people made regular visits to the ruins of
monumental Mesoamerican cities, and as Peniche points
out, Porfirio Dı́az made the investigation and restoration of
pre-Hispanic architecture a priority for public ceremony.
Visitors touring ruins or museums consume “sensually
stimulating heritage” (Skeates et al. 2012:6), just as archae-
ologists who excavate, interpret, restore, and exhibit the
material remains of the past “transform” this heritage (Pace
2012:279), producing new representations for further con-
sumption (Holtorf 2005:295). In this sense, specialists and
non-specialists alike can both be producers and consumers
of archaeological knowledge. Thus, a complex dialectic
is at work between the production and consumption of
archaeological interpretation, whereby significations of the
past are shaped by the present, while the past simultaneously
plays roles in shaping the present and building the future.
We echo our colleague Traci Ardren’s (2006:34) suggestion
that it is increasingly important to examine processes
of archaeological knowledge production and patterns of
consumption among the various stakeholders—specialist
and non-specialist—that ultimately influence not just how
ancient cultures are perceived, but how the archaeological
past was, is, and potentially may be used in modern social,
cultural, economic, and political contexts.
In the second section, four chapters address Ar-
chaeological Heritage and Narratives of Contemporary
Mexican Identity by bringing multiple perspectives and
analytical methods to bear on the continuing social life of
the Mesoamerican past. Cultural anthropology recognizes
the inherently social and political nature of archaeological
practice (Castañeda and Matthews 2008; Edgeworth 2006;
Mortensen and Hollowel 2009). Mexico has been at the
forefront of the development of the ethnographic study of
archaeology, analyzing the positions of researchers, descen-
dant communities, and other stakeholders vis-à-vis material
culture (Breglia 2006; Castañeda 1996; Geurds 2007;
Pyburn 2008; Robles Garcı́a and Corbett 2006). The
authors of these four chapters utilize ethnographic and
ethnohistorical approaches to analyze the relationship
between Mesoamerican traditions and collective identity at
the local level, which in many ways is more tangible in a
globalized context than any national identity affiliation.
In Chapter 3, Marijke Stoll’s ethnographic study ana-
lyzes the cultural meanings of the famous Mesoamerican
ballgame as both sport and tradition in Mixtec communities
of Oaxaca as well as migrant Mixtec communities. While the
modern ball game is most commonly studied as an analog for
the ancient game, this essay focuses on how understanding
and playing the game reifies ethnic identity in the context
of labor migration outside of Oaxaca. Only very recently
have anthropologists and historians considered the use of
Mesoamerican cultural symbols and traditions in the con-
text of transnational migration. This is an important issue
just beginning to be explored in the literature and has yet
to be thoroughly developed in public archaeology (cf. Car-
rasco 2006). This chapter thus makes a significant contribu-
tion to a growing area of study.
Two additional essays in this volume grapple with the di-
aspora of Mexican archaeological legacies and their roles in
constructing identities and affecting social change outside of
Mexico. In Chapter 4, Nezahualcoyotl Xiuhtecutli examines
the importance of narratives of migration in building and
maintaining Mesoamerican communities past and present.
He argues that immigrants unite around communities of
origin and destination, and in doing so bridge distances be-
tween social groups and homelands to protect interests and
human rights. Migration stories inspire people to identify
with indigenous Mesoamerican heritage or reify a cultural
or ethnic identity previously suppressed. Later in Chapter
12, Geoffrey McCafferty returns to this issue, examining
how archaeological interpretation influences and is influ-
enced by migration narratives that have been integral to the
construction of shared heritage in Nicaragua. It is interest-
ing to compare these cases to the historiography presented
in the first section to consider how conceptions of indigene-
ity are affected by migration, and how narratives of identity
in the “center” are juxtaposed with those emerging beyond
Mexico.
An important foundational concept in the study of the
contemporary public life of the archaeological past is the
fact that archaeologists are also storytellers who produce
narratives that are consumed by various publics and uti-
lized by them to produce their own (hi)stories (Ardren 2004,
2006; Holtorf 2005; Joyce 2002; Meskell 2002; Morehart
2012:268; Wylie 1995). In Chapter 5, Margarita Vargas-
Betancourt examines one such narrative in the form of the
mythical figure of Tepozteco, who is celebrated in the annual
patron festival of the town of Tepoztlán, Morelos. This study
shows how a transculturated figure related to an Aztec deity
and sacred place is, over time, adopted by community mem-
bers as a sacred ancestor, a symbol of unity used to mobilize
resistance to outside forces threatening local identity.
In Chapter 6, Lilia Fernández explores how children
attending a secondary school in San Antonio Sihó, Yucatán
conceptualize the Maya past as a result of formal and in-
formal education, as well as their experiential relationship
with a Maya archaeological site (Sihó) located near their
homes. This reminds us that educators, parents, and children
are consumers of archaeological and cultural narratives of
the ancient past, but also producers who pass on percep-
tions to subsequent generations. Again, indigeneity comes
The Production and Consumption of Archaeological Legacies in Mexico
to the foreground in this chapter as differential perceptions
of descent affect how Yucatec children perceive their rela-
tionship to Maya archaeological resources. The proximity
of archaeologists to the community influences these percep-
tions, as it is in their interest to encourage local residents
to embrace descent and promote stewardship. This chap-
ter makes clear that modes of archaeological representation
are culturally situated and determined, and meaning is gen-
erated through the “social practice of discourse,” which is
also affected by culturally embedded “signifying practices”
(Skeates 2012:82).
In the third section, Tourism, Development and the
Commodification of Mexican Heritage, three chapters ad-
dress how archaeological sites and museums “constitute part
of an ‘exhibitionary complex’ in which spectacle, discipline,
and state power become interlinked with questions of enter-
tainment, education, and control” (Appadurai and Breck-
enridge 1992:51). With the growth of heritage-tourism, in
contrast to beach-tourism, archaeological sites are touted as
economic resources with broad potential impact. Anthropo-
logical interest in tourism and heritage has generated criti-
cal ethnographic and sociological analyses of the multiple
meanings and values of cultural patrimony in various con-
texts (Breglia 2006; Castañeda 1996; Mortensen 2001, 2007,
2009; Pi-Sunyer and Thomas 2005; Walker 2005, 2009). In
Chapter 7, Carmen Muñoz carries this forward from a cul-
tural studies perspective, analyzing the ways in which Maya
cultural heritage has been transformed into a commodity
drawing on the iconography, architecture, and dress of Maya
archaeological patrimony and ethnic identity to create what
she calls a “Maya imaginary” to fuel the tourism industry.
Since most archaeological sites are located near,
if not directly beneath, modern communities, “the re-
lationship between the past and the present immediate
and intense” (Pyburn 2003:179). When sites are restored
and restructured for tourism in their dual roles as both
archaeological space and performance space, we consider
how this process contributes to the commodification of
culture. In Chapter 8, Marcie Venter and Sarah Lyon
address the politics of Mesoamerican heritage in the
growing tourism industry of the Tuxtla Mountains of
Veracruz. Here historical narratives are multivocal and,
at times conflicting, as a result of the various motivations
and strategies of representation that diverse interest groups
employ in managing, promoting and conserving archae-
ological resources. The authors compare and contrast the
approaches to representing heritage of professional archae-
ologists, municipal government, and private entrepreneurs
with local residents’ interpretations and narratives of iden-
tity. In contrast to the case of Sihó, Yucatan, the added layer
of touristic promotion and discourse in the Tuxtlas brings
5
another external mode of heritage construction into dia-
logue and conflict with local perceptions and management,
though not completely obscuring it, as seen in Cancun.
In Chapter 9, Alejandra Alonso’s ethnographic work
with the Yucatec Maya communities near the archaeolog-
ical zone of Ek Balam focuses on how local residents’
participation as employees in a long-term archaeological
project affects the various meanings the associated site and
the pre-Hispanic past have for them. This work highlights
the significant impact that participation and collaboration in
archaeological projects has on public conceptualizations of
cultural identity and community members’ relationship to
the site and its conservation (cf. Derry and Malloy 2003;
B. Fash 2011).
The emphasis of Alonso’s work on the impact of archae-
ological practice on Mesoamerican peoples’ experiential re-
lationship with material heritage serves to transition the vol-
ume to Section IV, in which three chapters engage with
the Role of Archaeological Practice in the Construction of
Heritage and Cultural Patrimony; each examining how col-
laboration and conflict with the producers of the past affect
public perceptions of that past. As archaeological knowl-
edge production and communication are integrated into the
politics, economics, and management of heritage, what can
and should professional archaeologists be doing ethically in
the arenas of social justice and cultural empowerment?
The professionalization of archaeology in Mesoamerica
during the 20th century created a hierarchical structure in
which control over data, practice, interpretations, and the-
ory was restricted to those few credentialed professionals,
mostly considered outsiders in the locations in which they
worked (Yaeger and Borgstede 2004:270). At the same time,
local community members, many of whom were laborers on
archaeological projects, were used as analogs for interpret-
ing the archaeological record (Gamio 1923; Redfield 1934;
Sullivan 1989).
The past decade has seen community archaeology
projects throughout the world attempting to disman-
tle these power inequalities through collaboration and
co-management with various publics in the process of
archaeological knowledge production (Ardren 2002; Derry
and Malloy 2003; Little 2012; Marshall 2002; McAnany
et al. 2006; Pyburn 2003, 2004; Pyburn and Wilk 1995;
Robles Garcı́a and Corbett 2006; Smith and Waterton 2009).
Community involvement in the archaeological production
process promotes accessibility and multivocality, moving
from critical theory to practice (Little 2012:398; McGhee
2012:214). This has also been termed “participatory action
research” (McGhee 2012:213) and “action archaeology,”
when the focus is on applying archaeological practice
and insights from within contemporary communities to
6 Dylan J. Clark and David S. Anderson
face current challenges such as sustainable development
(Sabloff 2008; cf. Little 2012:403).
The growing dialogue between archaeologists and pub-
lic stakeholders elucidates the multiple roles the archaeolog-
ical process and interpretations play in local communities
with regard to economic development, land tenure issues,
identity politics, and ownership claims, along with archaeol-
ogists’ responsibilities to these communities (Ardren 2002;
Geurds 2007; Magnoni et al. 2007; Morehart 2012; Pérez
Rodrı́guez 2002; Stephen 2002). In Chapter 10, J. H. An-
derson discusses the seven decade tradition of collaboration
between local residents living near the archaeological site
of Tula, Hidalgo, emphasizing the early cooperative rela-
tionship between the archaeological project under Mexican
archaeologist Jorge Acosta and the multigenerational con-
tinuity in participation by several local families. As an ar-
chaeologist from the most recent generation of researchers
at the site, J. H. Anderson identifies several factors involved
in how collaboration between local residents and archaeolo-
gists at Tula evolved into a relationship of mutual benefit and
support. He further demonstrates that ethnography and oral
history can give voice to the local community’s experiential
relationship with the ruins.
The state of Oaxaca is at the forefront of commu-
nity archaeology and heritage studies in recent years and
is a major draw for cultural tourism. Several archaeological
projects have sought collaboration with local communities
to mitigate potential conflicts stemming from differences
in how various stakeholders conceptualize the value and
appropriate use of archaeological heritage (Geurds 2007;
Matadamas 2002; Rivera 2002). Recognition of the multiple
and, at times, competing values that various social groups
within the same community may attribute to archaeologi-
cal resources is now essential in order to effectively manage
these resources over time and communicate the methods and
results of archaeological research (Pérez Rodrı́guez 2002;
Robles Garcı́a 2010:283). In Chapter 12, Ronald Faulseit
provides a case study of the development of a community
museum in the town of San Mateo Macuilxóchitl, Oaxaca.
Community museums are open to the public and permit-
ted by INAH, but managed independently at the local level,
such that the thematic content, design, financing, curation,
and staffing is controlled by members of the community
(Hoobler 2006:443). Faulseit’s experience as a foreign re-
searcher asked to consult on the curation of archaeologi-
cal materials at this communitarian museum illuminates the
on-going challenges in negotiating co-management between
the national institute and the descendant community seek-
ing control over how their heritage is presented, exhibited,
conserved and displayed.
The final chapter of this section by Geoffrey McCaf-
ferty discusses challenges archaeologists face when the in-
terpretation of archaeological data does not corroborate the
historical record or popular origin narratives embraced by
the public. In this case, a widely held belief that indigenous
ancestors of the contemporary population in Nicaragua were
Nahua-Mexica (Aztec) in origin and migrated from central
Mexico in the 15th century. There are several points of in-
terest in this case study in terms of contemporary issues in
public archaeology. One thematic thread running through
the chapters of this volume is looking beyond nationalism
in heritage studies to consider the local and the global con-
texts (Olsen 2001). Globalization affects how heritage is
perceived with sites that meet certain criteria deemed to
have significance, not just for the culture that produced them
or the nation in which they are located, but for the whole
of humanity. Site status designations such as UNESCO’s
World Heritage list elevate sites to “humanity’s patrimony,”
increasing the stakes and stakeholders involved. Of the his-
torical/archaeological sites on the World Heritage list, 26 are
located in Mexico and represent intellectual cultural heritage
and creativity at the scale of all humanity—a level that super-
sedes any particular historical or cultural context (Hermann
1989:33). This opens the door for a broader “international
community” to directly engage with heritage management
at sites that were previously conceptualized only in terms of
local and national patrimony.
One might ask “Why is an Aztec ancestral origin
preferred in Nicaragua’s national heritage narrative?” The
ancient Aztecs have long been characterized in popular
mythology as a New World analog to the Roman Empire,
and their historical movements and modern prestige have
carried their ideological and symbolic weight well beyond
the Basin of Mexico. In this case, McCafferty shows how
archaeologists often must navigate between the global and
the local, investigating questions of broad anthropological
significance with material culture that has salient implica-
tions for local identity. This requires careful negotiation
between multiple stakeholders. Like Christopher Morehart’s
(2012) recent study from the community of Xaltocan in
central Mexico, McCafferty’s project demonstrates the
importance of evaluating archaeological data, historical
sources, and local identity constructs together as a way of
integrating public interests directly into research questions
and practice. Here the focus of the long-term research
project by “outsider” archaeologists on questions of
ethnicity and population movements accomplishes this, but
is complicated by the results of the archaeological analysis,
which challenge established understandings about Aztec
ancestors, not just in the popular imagination and public
The Production and Consumption of Archaeological Legacies in Mexico
interpretations, but also among Nicaraguan scholars with
whom McCafferty’s team regularly collaborates.
One of the foundational assumptions of this volume is
that archaeology and the production of historical narratives
consumed by the public never occurs in a vacuum. This is
true in terms of the sociopolitical context in which the ar-
chaeological past is interpreted, as well as the relevance of
the material past for other areas of research in the social
sciences and humanities. While the volume emphasizes the
material (i.e., archaeological), the chapters represent the in-
terplay of a variety of perspectives and methods that bring
different aspects of the “on-going social life” (Jones 1997)
of archaeological heritage in Mexico to the foreground, in-
cluding ethnographic interviews and participant observa-
tion, historical analysis, museology, sociology, literary and
cultural studies’ perspectives on text and image, tourism
studies, and ethnohistory.
The Legacy of Archaeological Heritage
Representation in Mexico
Archaeological representation has a very long history
in Mexico. Ancient places and objects have always been
active and integral parts of community life and the public
presentation of the past a key force in driving archaeologi-
cal knowledge production and conservation. While heritage
scholars such as John Carman (2012:14) draw a sharp dis-
tinction between the curation of archaeological relics by
ancient cultures and modern “archaeological practice” or
“heritage management,” the idea of conserving and using
ancient objects within a particular cultural context in the
present always involves the instilling of social meaning and
value to these materials. The signification is culturally and
historically contingent, but there is commonly a delineation
of these objects as meaningful. As renowned Mexican his-
torian Enrique Florescano (1994:58) points out, unlike the
western historical tradition that considers the past as some-
how disconnected from the present, Mesoamerican societies
have always represented the past “as a living past, a reality
that is constantly reactualized in the present.”
In Table 1.1 we summarize a selection of key histori-
cal benchmarks in archaeological heritage representation in
Mexico. This is in keeping with our effort to situate this vol-
ume before and then after 20th century nationalism, which
has been the primary period in which Mexican archaeol-
ogy is otherwise considered in the public archaeology and
heritage studies literature. As D. S. Anderson echoes in his
discussion of conflicting views in Chapter 13, Mexico’s com-
plicated cultural history has created numerous stakeholders
with vested interests in archaeological heritage, as well as
7
various modes of marshaling the pre-Hispanic past to affect
social change in the present, many of which are directed
toward entirely different ends.
Arguably the first Mesoamerican archaeologists were
ancient Mesoamericans themselves, especially the Aztec
from whom we have the most evidence, who excavated ru-
ins of earlier societies and carefully curated antique material
culture. They also recreated past events in ritual, song, and
dance amidst a powerful spatial-material setting, and in this
way “reconstituted themselves” by unifying disparate identi-
ties, traditions, and remote origins, encoding material traces
of the past with significance (Florescano 1994:57; Appadu-
rai 1986). This is not so different in form or function from the
collective performances that take place in restored archae-
ological zones today (Castañeda 1996; Clark and Muñoz
2009; Muñoz this volume) and the incorporation of sacred,
animate artifacts into contemporary religious practices in
Mesoamerican communities (Brown and Walker 2008).
Even in the early colonial period, visits to ancient ruins
were common, and among the earliest historians of New
Spain, Carlos Sigüenza y Góngora (1645–1700) and Fran-
cisco Javier Clavijero (1731–1787) incorporated material
culture and architecture into their studies and archival col-
lections, combining them with written records to promote a
shared historical consciousness and refute European social
and political domination. Sigüenza excavated portions of the
Pyramid of the Sun at Teotihuacan to investigate construc-
tion techniques and linked culture with place, cultivating a
form of territorialism that downplayed cultural, linguistic,
and ethnic differences between Creoles and Mestizos for a
shared and uniquely Mexican remote cultural past, rivaling
that of Europe (Bernal 1980:77). Clavijero combined his-
torical information from various sources including books,
papers, indigenous painted manuscripts, hieroglyphic texts,
and descriptions of archaeological monuments to write the
Historia Antigua de México (1780) and dismantle Enlight-
enment criticisms of the Americas as innately inferior to
Europe as expressed in such ideas as the “Black Legend.”
This represents an explicit re-casting of native cultural pro-
duction as something both valuable and pertaining directly
to Creole society. This is, perhaps, the earliest form of what
Pamela Frese in Chapter 14 refers to as archaeological lega-
cies of knowledge used to bolster collective identity and
empower subaltern groups to resist, in this case, colonial
hegemony.
The year 1790 was pivotal in the history of archaeolog-
ical representation in Mexico when two monumental (and
today iconic) Aztec sculptures, the Aztec Sun Stone and
the image of Coatlicue, an Aztec goddess, were discovered
in the main plaza of Mexico City. Spanish Viceroy Revil-
lagigedo called for the monuments to be displayed at the
 8

Table 1.1. Benchmarks in the History of Archaeological Heritage Representation in Mexico. (References: (1) Bernal (1980); (2) Lorenzo (1981); (3) Umberger (1987); (4)
Florescano (1994:58); (5) Appadurai (1986); (6) Florescano (1994:57); (7) Florescano (1994:33); (8) Bernal (1980:8); (9) Bueno (2010:61); (10) Bernal (1980:50); (11) Bernal
(1980:61); (12) Bernal (1980:60); (13) Clavijero (1780) Historia antigua de México; (14) Bernal (1980:70); (15) Lorenzo (1981:195); Nalda (2005:33); (16) Nalda (2005:32);
(17) Florescano (1993:84); (18) Nalda (2005:33); Politis and Pérez Gollán (2007:355); (19) Wauchope (1965); (20) Florescano (1993:86–89); (21) Clark (2008:212); (22)
Lorenzo (1981:201); (23) Bueno (2010:58); (24) Gamio (1923)

Heritage Activities and

Year Key Agents Benchmarks
? – 1519 Indigenous cultural actors, e.g., Curation; and caching of material
Culhua-Mexica (Aztecs), Maya, remains of earlier cultures in new
Zapotec, Mixtec, Olmec contexts of display and ritual.1,2, 3
Scribes Painted manuscripts and writing on
other media.
1519–1600 European and Mesoamerican nobility, Ruins at Teotihuacan and other deserted
missionaries, antiquaries, Juan de cities, painted manuscripts, finely
Torquemada (1564–1624)8 crafted objects.
1600–1700 Fernando de Alva Cortés Ixtlilxochitl Brought historical manuscripts and
(ca.1570s–1648), Carlos Sigüenza y relics into archival collections;
Góngora (1645–1700) Sigüenza y Góngora drilled into the
Pyramid of the Sun (Teotihuacan) to
examine its manner of construction.
Diego López de Cogolludo (1613–1665), Published descriptions of
Augustı́n de Vetancourt (1620–1700) archaeological ruins in different
regions, including the Yucatan
Peninsula.
1700–1750 Lorenzo Boturini Benaduci (1702–1753) Amassed a large collection of
indigenous painted manuscripts in
Mexico.
Social Significance
Delineation of ancient objects as socially and
religiously meaningful. Objects are used to
evoke the past and legitimize present
actors.4 Material traces of the past are used
to make disparate identities, origins, and
traditions common. 5, 6
Written records of past events are
commissioned, recovered, reinterpreted,
and/or defamed by governing groups.7
Ruins are regularly visited9 and material
culture shipped back to Spain as treasure
and/or curiosities; Indigenous nobility use
as records of sociopolitical status and
territory, historical information collected for
Church and Spanish crown.
Creoles and mestizos begin to systematically
collect and conserve historical documents
that demonstrate the antiquity of human
settlement in New Spain; excavations
conducted to resolve historical questions.10
Drew European attention to less
acknowledged indigenous cultures outside
central Mexico; recognized continuity of a
local past that pre-dated Spanish rule.11
Promoted Mesoamerican civilizations as on
par with, if separate from, Old World
civilizations and integrated into the whole
of human history.12

(Continued)
Dylan J. Clark and David S. Anderson
Table 1.1. (Continued)
Year Key Agents
1750–1800 Francisco Javier Clavijero (1731–1787)
Antonio Bernasconi, Captain Antonio del
Rı́o (ca.1745–1789)
José Antonio Alzate y Ramı́rez
(1737–1799)
Viceroy Revillagigedo, Royal and
Pontifical University of Mexico, Antonio
de León y Gama (1735–1802)
Colonial elites of the Enlightenment period
(ca.1650s–1800)
1800–1810 King Charles IV (1748–1819), Captain
Guillermo Dupaix (1750–1818), José
Luciano Castañeda
Heritage Activities and
Benchmarks
Combined various sources (papers,
painted manuscripts, books,
descriptions of ruins, and
hieroglyphic texts) to write Ancient
History of Mexico (1780).13
Bernasconi (in 1784–85) and del Rı́o (in
1786–87) conducted the first formal
excavations at Maya site of Palenque.
A student of Clavijero, Alzate published
a descriptive study of the ruins at El
Tajı́n (1788) and Xochicalco (1791).
Aztec Sun Stone (depiction of the fifth
age) and Coatlicue (Aztec mother
goddess) sculptures are discovered in
Mexico City (1790).
Historical documents, archaeological
objects, and monuments recast as
collective patrimony
Dupaix’s and Castañeda’s Royal
Antiquities Expeditions in central
and southeastern New Spain
(1805–09).
Social Significance
Attempted to dismantle Enlightenment
criticisms of the Americas as innately
inferior to Europe, connecting culture with
place (country).14 Cultivated an incipient
form of nationalism by re-casting Native
cultural production as valuable and
pertaining to Creole society of New Spain.
Goal was not strictly collection, but to learn
about past construction techniques.15
His observations were used to infer site
function, and he explicitly related material
remains to culture as expressions of
Mexico’s early inhabitants’
activities—similar to modern
archaeological methods.16, 17
Monuments immediately put under protection
The Production and Consumption of Archaeological Legacies in Mexico
of Viceroy Revillagigedo and displayed to
the public. Documents from the Boturini
collection exhibited in the Royal and
Pontifical University courtyard, the first
public museum in Mexico. León y Gama
publishes a study of the monuments in
1792.18
Mesoamerican material culture is integrated
into the formation of symbols of a shared
historical consciousness, increasingly
juxtaposed with European identity.
Visual and scientific documentation and
collection of ancient monuments in Mexico
patronized by Spanish authorities; first
drawings of Maya architecture are
published.19
(Continued)
9

Table 1.1. (Continued)
Year Key Agents
Spanish colonial authorities
Alexander von Humboldt (1769–1859)
1810–1821 Mexican War of Independence
(1810–1821)
1821–1831 The Mexican Empire, Triumvirate
government, and later federal republic
1831–1860 Juan Galindo (1802–1839), John Lloyd
Stephens (1805–1852), Frederick
Catherwood (1799–1854)
Heritage Activities and
Benchmarks
Council of Antiquities (Junta de
Antigüedades) is created in 1808.
Expedition to Central and South
America, resulting in Views of the
Cordilleras and Monuments of the
Indigenous Peoples of the Americas
(1810).
Pictorial depiction of the founding of
Tenochtitlan; the apparition of the
Virgin of Guadalupe at the sacred hill
of Tepeyac: both incorporated into
insurgent military standards and
flags, among other symbols.
First federal law passed prohibiting the
export of antiquities and historic
monuments; University antiquities
collection converted into the
Mexican National Museum (1825)
and instated by congress in 1831.
Expeditions by foreigners to
archaeological ruins in recently
independent Mexico and Central
America document and illustrate
cultural resources in these new
nations.
10
Social Significance
Council charged with stewardship and study of
ancient monuments and historical
documents, demonstrating that cultural
resource management and the concept of
patrimony pre-dates the nation of Mexico.
Helped introduce Mesoamerican antiquities to
a European public; first of travel accounts to
gain international fame. He argued for the
existence of ancient civilization in the
Americas on par with the Classical World
and Egypt, but preferred diffusionist
theories to connecting them with
contemporaneous indigenous peoples.
Pre-Hispanic iconography, especially Aztec, is
appropriated for visual symbolism of the
nativism movement propelling the armed
revolution against Spain.
By 1827, the National Museum had
professorships in antiquities and natural
history and began publishing studies. The
newly established federal government made
the continued protection, collection, and
exhibition of cultural resources one of the
legal priorities of the new nation.20
Following Humboldt and others’ explorations
in the late Colonial period, Galindo’s
descriptions of Copán and Palenque (1834)
and Stephens and Catherwood’s expeditions
in 1839–40 and 1841–42 in Central
America and Yucatán popularize
Mesoamerican culture history in Europe
and the U.S.A., generating foreign interest
in visiting and studying these cultures.
(Continued)
Dylan J. Clark and David S. Anderson
Table 1.1. (Continued)

Heritage Activities and

Year Key Agents Benchmarks
Désiré Charnay (1828–1915) Visited ruins and collects
archaeological material from several
sites in Mexico 1857–61, 1880–83.
1860–1876 The French Scientific Expedition Combined study of ruins with natural
(1862–67) history in Mexico during the French
Intervention.
Social Significance
These publications also presented the idea that
contemporary indigenous people were
descendants of the ancient civilizations,
rather than disconnected from the past.21
Inspired by Stephens and Catherwood, his
travelogues and expedition reports were
published in French. He promoted the
diffusionist view that Mesoamerican
civilizations were Asian in origin.
Would help establish some of the positivist
principles upon which the discipline of
archaeology would be built, and Mexico is
at the forefront of the professionalization of
this science in the late 19th and early 20th
centuries.
The Production and Consumption of Archaeological Legacies in Mexico

Archduke Maximilian and the Napoleonic
imperial government
1876–1911 Prior to and during the presidencies of
Porfirio Dı́az (1876–1911)
National Museum and its collections
separated from the University in
1867 and combined with the archival
library collection; physically moved
to the main plaza in Mexico City next
to the National Palace.
Public tours of pyramids and
monumental architecture at
archaeological sites become very
popular activities among elites.23
The strong connection between archaeological
heritage and raising shared historical
consciousness as part of nation building
continued, even in the political context of
foreign intervention.22
Public interest in and engagement with ruins
and material culture of the Mesoamerican
past were integral to shifting identity
politics prior to the Mexican Revolution. It
was also instrumental in the
professionalization of archaeology in
America, prompting the first formal
scientific excavations of sites like
Teotihuacan, Monte Albán, and Cempoala
in the early 20th century.24
11
12
Royal and Pontifical University of Mexico, essentially cre-
ating the first public museum exhibition in Mexico (Politis
and Pérez Gollán 2007:355). Here we see that prior to the de-
velopment of the formal discipline of archaeology and even
the formation of Mexico as an independent nation, histori-
cal interpretation and the public presentation of the ancient
material remains were intertwined en route to the valoriza-
tion of the past in a present social and political context. Not
long after it was installed in the courtyard of the university
building, the Coatlicue statue was reburied after offerings
were presented to the image of the goddess, drawing the
ire of the Catholic Church which feared that the indigenous
population would return to their pagan practices (Florescano
1993:86; Nalda 2005:33). This is indicative of the multiple
roles archaeological materials play within different social
groups. On the one hand, these objects are active agents in
continued religious practice (Brown 2004) and, on the other,
they were symbols appropriated by the aspiring dominant
culture as collective patrimony stemming from an exalted
history.
These early developments underlie the character of pro-
fessional Mexican archaeology as it evolved out of the
projects undertaken at Monte Albán, Cempoala, and Teoti-
huacan by Manuel Gamio (1923). By the late 19th century,
public tours of pyramids were popular activities that at-
tracted and inspired future professional archaeologists and
non-archaeologists alike (Bueno 2010:58). As José Lorenzo
(1981:201) explains, Mexican archaeology has always been
characterized by its “historical and social commitment” to
“the formation of historical awareness” in contemporary so-
ciety, drawing on ancient textual sources, material culture,
and ethnography to integrate the public into a shared history.
The public presentation and consumption of archaeo-
logical heritage in Mexico goes beyond what some call mere
educational entertainment. The audiences are greater in
number than ever before and growing, and material culture
and symbols are being routinely transmitted virtually over
great distances and integrated into on-going social and
political struggles, as well as international politics. As
Frese (this volume) explains, archaeological knowledge
production is, therefore, positioned and engaged, tacitly or
explicitly, in these struggles. While this volume features
critical analyses and reflections about the various ways
in which the production of heritage as a public enterprise
shapes people’s beliefs, understandings, experience, and
engagement with the Mesoamerican past, we also en-
courage moving on to the logical next step, namely the
integration of new approaches into archaeological practice
that facilitate conservation, community collaboration, and
social empowerment. Interrogation is necessary regarding
what scholars’ roles and responsibilities are, who deter-
Dylan J. Clark and David S. Anderson
mines what kinds of heritage discourse are appropriate
or beneficial, and what stakeholders, if any, should be
privileged (D. S. Anderson, this volume). We present this
volume not as the definitive answer to any one of the many
research questions posed here, but rather a next phase in
the on-going transition in archaeological discourse from
critical awareness of theoretical and methodological issues
in public and community archaeology in Mexico, toward
the inclusion of pragmatic applications in research designs.
Archaeological practice is not a passive activity detached
from processes of heritage-patrimony-identity construction,
representation, and use. Rather, these are dialectically
related processes that influence and build upon each other
to enrich the discipline and its impact as a whole.
The practice of archaeology and the historical interpre-
tation of the material past may or may not be consciously
directed toward the construction and maintenance of
heritage-based ideologies, historical narratives, or identity
claims, but it is always implicated in these processes. By
bringing the material traces of Mesoamerican ancestors
back into the present social world of stakeholders and
publics who incorporate these legacies into their lives in
distinct manners, archaeology is actively involved in the
contemporary social life of the distant past with significant
potential to empower and impact the future. The next step
is to consider how the producers and presenters of the past
can best accomplish this. The authors of the subsequent
chapters offer many compelling paths to doing so.
Acknowledgements
We are grateful to a number of people who have con-
tributed to making this volume come together. First, we
thank Cathy Costin and Lynne Goldstein for their support
and patience in the process of transforming this from a con-
ference session into print. We would also like to thank Aline
Magnoni, Victoria Beltrán Kuhn, Travis W. Stanton, and
Alanna Cant who participated in the Legacy of Mesoamer-
ican Ancestors AAA session and discussion in 2011 and
subsequently provided invaluable input as we began to put
this volume together. Even though they were unable to sub-
mit to the publication, their insights are greatly appreciated.
We also benefited from the advice of Charles Golden in
developing the conference session. Dylan Clark would also
like to thank Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collec-
tion, Victoria R. Bricker, J. Heath Anderson, and Bayla Os-
trach. Two anonymous reviewers provided valuable insights
to guide us, and any shortcomings here may be attributed
solely to the authors.
The Production and Consumption of Archaeological Legacies in Mexico
Note
1. We use the terms “heritage” and “patrimony” in-
terchangeably, acknowledging the inherent complexities of
both (Carman 2002, 2012; Pace 2012:285; Smith 2004;
Smith and Waterton 2009, 2012) and the fact that patrimony,
or patrimonio, is preferred in Mexico.
References Cited
Alzate y Ramı́rez, José Antonio 1791 Descripción de las
antigüedades de Xochicalco. Suplemento a No. 31
de Gaceta de Literatura. México, D.F.
Appadurai, Arjun
1986 Introduction: Commodities and the Politics of
Value. In The Social Life of Things: Commodities
in Cultural Perspective. Arjun Appadurai, ed.
Pp. 3–63. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Appadurai, Arjun, and Carol Breckenridge
1992 Museums are Good to Think: Heritage on View in
India. In Museums and Communities. Ivan Karp,
Christine M. Kreamer, and Steven D. Lavine,
eds. Pp. 34–55. Washington, DC: Smithsonian
Institution Press.
Ardren, Traci
2002 Conversations about the Production of Archae-
ological Knowledge and Community Museums
at Chunchucmil and Kochol, Yucatán, Mexico.
World Archaeology 34(2):379–400.
2004 Where are the Maya in Ancient Maya Archaeolog-
ical Tourism? Advertising and the Appropriation
of Culture. In Marketing Heritage: Archaeology
and the Consumption of the Past. Yorke Rowan
and Uzi Baram, eds. Pp. 103–113. Walnut Creek:
Altamira Press.
2006 Mending the Past: Ixchel and the Invention of a
Modern Pop Goddess. Antiquity 80:25–37.
Bernal, Ignacio
1980 A History of Mexican Archaeology: The Vanished
Civilizations of Middle America. London: Thames
and Hudson.
Breglia, Lisa
2006 Monumental Ambivalence: The Politics of Her-
itage. Austin: University of Texas Press.
13
Bonfil Batalla, Guillermo
1989 México profundo: una civilización negada.
México, D.F.: Grijalbo.
Brown, Linda A.
2004 Dangerous Places and Wild Spaces: Creating
Meaning with Materials and Space at Contem-
porary Maya Shrines on El Duende Mountain.
Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory
11(1):31–57.
Brown, Linda A., and William H. Walker
2008 Prologue: Archaeology, Animism and Non-Human
Agents. Journal of Archaeological Method and
Theory 15:297–299.
Bueno, Christina
2010 Teotihuacan: Showcase for the Centennial. In Hol-
iday in Mexico: Critical Reflections on Tourism
and Tourist Encounters. Dina Berger and Andrew
Grant Wood, eds. Pp. 55–76. Durham: Duke
University Press.
Carman, John
1995 Interpretation, Writing, and Presenting the Past.
In Interpreting Archaeology: Finding Meaning
in the Past. Ian Hodder, ed. Pp. 95–99. London:
Routledge.
2002 Archaeology and Heritage: An Introduction. Lon-
don: The Continuum International Publishing
Group.
2012 Towards and International Comparative History
of Archaeological Heritage Management. In The
Oxford Handbook of Public Archaeology. Robin
Skeates, Carol McDavid, and John Carman, eds.
Pp. 13–35. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Carrasco, Davı́d
2006 Moctezuma’s Conquest: Eduardo Matos and the
Opening of the Aztec Imaginary in the United
States. In Arqueologı́a e historia del cen-
tro de México: Homenaje a Eduardo Matos
Moctezuma. Leonardo López Luján, Davı́d
Carrasco, and Lourdes Cué, eds. Pp. 23–34.
México, D.F.: Instituto Nacional de Antropologı́a e
Historia.
Castañeda, Quetzil E.
1996 In the Museum of Maya Culture: Touring Chichén
Itzá. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
14
Castañeda, Quetzil E., and Christopher Matthews, eds.
2008 Ethnographic Archaeologies: Reflections on Stake-
holders and Archaeological Practices. Lanham:
Altamira Press.
Clark, Dylan J.
2008 Frederick Catherwood. In Encyclopedia of Latin
American History and Culture, 2nd edition. Jay
Kinsbruner, ed. Pp. 211–212. Farmington Hills:
Thompson-Gale.
Clark, Dylan J., and Carmen Muñoz-Fernández
2009 Sights, Sounds, and Spectacle: The Palimpsest
of Archaeonarratives at Xcaret (P’ole’), Quintana
Roo, Mexico. Paper presented at the 108th
Annual Meeting of the American Anthropological
Association, Philadelphia, PA, December 4.
Clavijero, Francisco Javier
1945 [1780] Historia antigua de México, 4 vols. Cesna,
Italy.
Derry, Linda, and Maureen Malloy, eds.
2003 Archaeologists and Local Communities: Partners
in Exploring the Past. Washington, DC: Society
for American Archaeology.
Edgeworth, Matthew, ed.
2006 Ethnographies of Archaeological Practice: Cul-
tural Encounters, Material Transformations.
Lanham: Altamira Press.
Errington, Shelly
1998 The Death of Authentic Primitive Art and Other
Tales of Progress. Berkeley: University of
California Press.
Fash, Barbra W.
2011 The Copan Sculpture Museum: Ancient Maya
Artistry in Stucco and Stone. Cambridge:
Peabody Museum Press and David Rockefeller
Center for Latin American Studies, Harvard
University.
Florescano M., Enrique
1993 The Creation of the Museo Nacional de
Antropologı́a of Mexico and its Scientific,
Educational, and Political Purposes. In Collecting
the Pre-Columbian Past: A Symposium at Dumb-
arton Oaks, 6th-7th October 1990. Elizabeth Hill
Dylan J. Clark and David S. Anderson
Boone, ed. Pp. 81–103.Washington, DC: Dum-
barton Oaks Research Library and Collection.
1994 Memory, Myth and Time in Mexico: From the
Aztecs to Independence. Albert G. Bork and
Kathryn R. Bork, trans. Austin: University of
Texas Press.
1997 Etnia, estado y nación: Ensayo sobre las iden-
tidades colectivas en México. México, D.F.:
Aguilar.
Ford, Richard I.
1973 Archaeology Serving Humanity. In Research and
Theory in Current Archaeology. Charles Redman,
ed. Pp. 83–93. New York: Wiley and Sons.
Funari, Pedro Paulo A., and Marcia Bezerra
2012 Public Archaeology in Latin America. In The
Oxford Handbook of Public Archaeology. Robin
Skeates, John Carman, and Carol McDavid, eds.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Gamio, Manuel (ed.)
1916 Forjando Patria. Mexico, D.F.: Editorial Porrúa.
1923 La población del Valle de Teotihuacán. México,
D.F.: Departamento de Antropologı́a.
Garcı́a Canclini, Nestor
1995 Hybrid Cultures: Strategies for Entering and Leav-
ing Modernity. Christopher L. Chiappari and
Silvia L. López, trans. Minneapolis: University of
Minnesota Press.
Geurds, Alexander
2007 Grounding the Past: The Praxis of Participatory
Archaeology in the Mixteca Alta, Oaxaca, Mexico.
Leiden: CNWS Publications.
Giraudo, Rachel F., and Benjamin W. Porter
2010 Archaeotourism and the Crux of Development.
Anthropology News 51(8):7–8.
Hermann, Joachim
1989 World Archaeology—The World’s Cultural Her-
itage. In Archaeological Heritage Management
in the Modern World. Cleere, H., ed. Pp. 30–37.
London: Unwin Hyman.
Hodder, Ian
1999 The Archaeological Process: An Introduction.
Oxford: Blackwell Press.
The Production and Consumption of Archaeological Legacies in Mexico
Holtorf, Cornelius
2005 From Stonehenge to Las Vegas: Archaeology as
Popular Culture. Walnut Creek: Altamira Press.
Hoobler, Ellen
2006 To Take Their Heritage in Their Hands: Indige-
nous Self-Representation and Decolonization in
the Community Museums of Oaxaca, Mexico.
American Indian Quarterly 30(3/4):441–460.
Jameson Jr., John H.,ed.
1997 Presenting Archaeology to the Public: Digging for
Truths. Walnut Creek: Altamira Press.
Jones, Sian
1997 Archaeology and Ethnicity: Constructing Identi-
ties in the Past and Present. London: Routledge.
Joyce, Rosemary
2002 The Languages of Archaeology: Dialogue, Narra-
tive, and Writing. Malden: Blackwell.
Kohl, Phillip L. and Clare Fawcett, eds.
1995 Nationalism, Politics, and the Practice of Ar-
chaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Little, Barbara J.
2012 Public Benefits of Public Archaeology. In The
Oxford Handbook of Public Archaeology. Robin
Skeates, Carol McDavid, and John Carman,
eds. Pp. 395–413. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Leone, Mark
2010 Critical Historical Archaeology. Walnut Creek:
Left Coast Press.
Loewe, Ronald
2010 Maya or Mestizo?: Nationalism, Modernity and
its Discontents. Toronto: University of Toronto
Press.
Lorenzo, José L.
1981 Archaeology South of the Rio Grande. World
Archaeology 13(2):190–208.
Lowenthal, David
1985 The Past is a Foreign Country. Cambridge: Cam-
bridge University Press.
15
Magnoni, Aline, Traci Ardren, and Scott Hutson
2007 Tourism in the Mundo Maya: Inventions and
(Mis)Representations of Maya Identities and
Heritage. Archaeologies: Journal of the World
Archaeological Congress 3(3):353–383.
Marshall, Yvonne
2002 What is Community Archaeology? World Archae-
ology 34(2):211–219.
Matadamas, Raúl
2002 La arqueologı́a y el presente en las comunidades
oaxaqueñas. In Sociedad y patrimonio ar-
queológico en el valle de Oaxaca: Memoria de
la Segunda Mesa Redonda de Monte Albán.
Nelly M. Robles Garcı́a, ed. Pp. 113–126.
México, D.F.: Instituto Nacional de Antropologı́a e
Historia.
McAnany, Patricia, Shoshaunna Parks, and Satoru Murata
2006 The Conservation of Maya Cultural Heritage:
Searching for Solutions in a Troubled Re-
gion. Journal of Field Archaeology 31(4):
425–432.
McGhee, Fred L.
2012 Participatory Action Research and Archaeology.
In The Oxford Handbook of Public Archaeology.
Robin Skeates, Carol McDavid, and John Carman,
eds. Pp. 213–229. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
McGimsey, Charles R.
1972 Public Archaeology. Taradale: Seminar Press.
Merriman, Nick, ed.
1991 Beyond the Glass Case: The Past, the Heritage,
and the Public in Britain. Leicester: Leicester
University Press.
2004 Public Archaeology. London: Routledge.
Meskell, Lynn
2002 The Intersections of Identity and Politics in Ar-
chaeology. Annual Review of Anthropology
31:279–301.
Morehart, Christopher T.
2012 What if the Aztec Empire Never Existed? The Pre-
requisites of Empire and the Politics of Plausible
Alternative Histories. American Anthropologist
114(2):267–281.
16
Mortensen, Lena
2001 Las dinámicas locales de un patrimonial global:
Arqueoturismo en Copán, Honduras. Mesoamérica
42:104–134.
2007 Working Borders: Contextualizing Copán Ar-
chaeology. Archaeologies: Journal of the World
Archaeological Congress 3(2): 132–152.
2009 Copán Past and Present: Maya Archaeological
Tourism and the Ch’orti’ in Honduras. In The
Ch’orti’ Region, Past and Present. Brent Metz,
Cameron McNeil, and Kerry M. Hull, eds. Pp.
246–258. Gainsville: University Press of Florida.
Mortensen, Lena and Julie Hollowell, eds.
2009 Ethnographies and Archaeologies: Iterations of
the Past. Gainsville: University Press of Florida.
Nalda, Enrique
2005 Mexican Archaeology and its Inclusion in the
Debate on Diversity and Identity. Museum
International 57(3):32–43.
Nash, Dennison
1981 Tourism as an Anthropological Subject. Current
Anthropology 22(5):461–481.
Olive Negrete, Julio César and Arturo Urteaga Castro-Pozo,
eds.
1988 INAH: una historia. México, D.F.: Consejo Na-
cional para la Cultura y las Artes.
Olsen, Bjornar J.
2001 The End of History? Archaeology and the Politics
of Identity in a Globalized World. In Robert
Layton, Peter G. Stone, and Julian Thomas,
eds.Destruction and Conservation of Cultural
Property. One World Archaeology. London:
Routledge.
Pace, Anthony
2012 From Heritage to Stewardship: Defining the Sus-
tainable Care of Archaeological Places. In The
Oxford Handbook of Public Archaeology. Robin
Skeates, Carol McDavid, and John Carman, eds.
Pp. 275–295. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Patterson, Thomas C.
1995 Toward a Social History of Archaeology in the
United States. Fort Worth: Harcourt College
Publishers.
Dylan J. Clark and David S. Anderson
Pérez Rodrı́guez, Verónica
2002 Modelo de reporte arqueológico para comunidades
del estado de Oaxaca: El caso de la Mixteca Alta
Central. In Sociedad y patrimonio arqueológico
en el valle de Oaxaca: Memoria de la Segunda
Mesa Redonda de Monte Albán. Nelly M. Robles
Garcı́a, ed. Pp. 383–408. México, D.F.: Instituto
Nacional de Antropologı́a e Historia.
Pi-Sunyer, Oriol, and R. Brooke Thomas
2005 Tourism, Environmentalism, and Cultural Survival
in Quintana Roo. In Environmental Sociology:
From Analysis to Action. Leslie King and Deborah
McCarthy, eds. Pp. 43–60. Lanham: Rowman and
Littlefield.
Pi-Sunyer, Oriol, R. Brooke Thomas, and M. Daltabuit
1999 Tourism and Maya Society in Quintana Roo, Mex-
ico. Occasional Papers 17. Center for Latin
American and Caribbean Studies. Storrs: Univer-
sity of Connecticut Press.
Politis, Gustavo G., and José Antonio Pérez Gollán
2007 Latin American Archaeology: From Colonialism
to Globalization. In A Companion to Social
Archaeology, 2nd edition. Lynn Meskell and
Robert W. Preucel, eds. Pp. 353–373. Malden:
Blackwell Publishing.
Potter, Parker B., Jr.
1994 Public Archaeology in Annapolis: a Critical Ap-
proach to History in Maryland’s Ancient City.
Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.
Pyburn, K. Anne
2003 Archaeology for the New Millennium: The Rules
of Engagement. In Archaeologists and Local
Communities: Partners in Exploring the Past.
Linda Derry and Maureen Malloy, eds. Pp.167–
184. Washington, DC: Society for American
Archaeology.
2004 We Have Never Been Postmodern: Maya Archae-
ology in the Ethnographic Present. In Continuities
and Changes in Maya Archaeology: Perspectives
at the Millennium. Charles W. Golden and
Greg Borgstede, eds. Pp. 287–293. New York:
Routledge.
2008 The Pageantry of Archaeology. In Ethnographic
Archaeologies: Reflections on Stakeholders and
Archaeological Practices. Quetzil E. Castañeda
The Production and Consumption of Archaeological Legacies in Mexico
and Christopher N. Matthews, eds. Pp. 139–155.
Lanham: Altamira Press.
Pyburn, K. Anne, and Richard R. Wilk
1995 Responsible Archaeology is Applied Anthropol-
ogy. In Ethics in American Archaeology:
Challenges for the 1990s. Mark J. Lynott and
Alison Wylie, eds. Pp. 71–76. Washington, DC:
Society for American Archaeology.
Redfield, Robert
1934 Culture Changes in Yucatan. American Anthro-
pologist 36(1):57–69.
Rivera, Ángel Iván
2002 Trabajando con el pueblo: Una experiencia de la
conservación del patrimonio arqueológico en San
Pedro y San Pablo Tequixtepec. In Sociedad y
patrimonio arqueológico en el valle de Oaxaca:
Memoria de la Segunda Mesa Redonda de Monte
Albán. Nelly M. Robles Garcı́a, ed. Pp. 157–176.
México, D.F.: Instituto Nacional de Antropologı́a
e Historia.
Robles Garcı́a, Nelly M.
1996 El manejo de los recursos arqueológicos de
México: El caso de Oaxaca. Ph.D. dissertation,
Department of Anthropology, University of
Georgia.
2010 Indigenous Archaeologies in Mexico: Recognizing
Distinctive Histories. In Being and Becoming
Indigenous Archaeologists. George P. Nicholas,
ed. Pp.277–286. Walnut Creek: Left Coast
Press.
Robles Garcı́a, Nelly M., and Jack Corbett
2006 Carrots and Sticks: Reconciling Stakeholder In-
terests in Cultural Landscapes. In Protected Areas
in a Changing World: Proceedings of the 2009
George Wright Society Conference on Parks,
Protected Areas, and Cultural Sites. Samantha
Weber and David Harmon, eds. Pp. 291–296.
Hancock: The George Wright Society.
Sabloff, Jeremy A.
2008 Archaeology Matters: Action in the Modern World.
Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press.
Schadla-Hall, R. Tim
2006 Public Archaeology in the Twenty-First Century.
17
In A Future for Archaeology. Robert Layton,
Stephen Shennan, and Peter Stone, eds. Pp. 75–82.
London: Cavindish Publishing.
Schmidt, Peter R. and Thomas C. Patterson, eds.
1995 Making Alternative Histories: The Practice of
Archaeology and History in Non-Western Settings.
Santa Fe: School of American Research Press.
Shanks, Michael and Ian Hodder
1995 Processual, Postprocessual, and Interpretive Ar-
chaeologies. In Interpreting Archaeology: Finding
Meaning in the Past. Ian Hodder, ed. Pp. 3–29.
London: Routledge.
Skeates, Robin
2000 Debating the Archaeological Heritage. London:
Duckworth.
2012 Making Sense of the History of Archaeological
Representation. In The Oxford Handbook of Pub-
lic Archaeology. Robin Skeates, Carol McDavid,
and John Carman, eds. Pp. 82–99. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Skeates, Robin, John Carman, and Carol McDavid, eds.
2012 The Oxford Handbook of Public Archaeology.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Smith, Laurajane
2004 Archaeological Theory and the Politics of Cultural
Heritage. London: Routledge.
2006 Uses of Heritage. London: Routledge.
Smith, Laurajane and Emma Waterton
2009 Heritage, Communities, and Archaeology. Lon-
don: Duckworth.
2012 Constrained by Commonsense: The Authorized
Heritage Discourse in Contemporary Debates. In
The Oxford Handbook of Public Archaeology.
Robin Skeates, Carol McDavid, and John Carman,
eds. Pp. 153–171.Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Society for American Archaeology
n.d. Archaeology for the Public. http://www.saa.
org/publicftp/public/home/home.html, accessed
September 13, 2012.
Stephen, Lynn
2002 Ejidatarios y los patrimonies arqueológicos en
Oaxaca: Contexto cultural y la tenencia de la
18
tierra. In Sociedad y patrimonio arqueológico
en el valle de Oaxaca: Memoria de la Segunda
Mesa Redonda de Monte Albán. Nelly M. Robles
Garcı́a, ed. Pp. 325–336. México, D.F.: Instituto
Nacional de Antropologı́a e Historia.
Sullivan, Paul R.
1989 Unfinished Conversations: Mayas and Foreigners
Between Two Wars. New York: Knopf.
Trigger, Bruce
1984 Alternative Archaeologies: Nationalist, Colonial-
ist, Imperialist. Man 19(3):355–370.
Umberger, Emily
1987 Antiques, Revivals, and References to the Past
in Aztec Art. RES: Anthropology and Aesthetics
13:62–105.
Vargas Arenas, Iraida, and Mario Sanoja
1999 Archaeology as a Social Science: Its Expression in
Latin America. In Archaeology in Latin America.
Gustavo G. Politis and Benjamin Alberti, eds. Pp.
57–73. London: Routledge.
Vasconcelos, José
1925 La raza cósmica. Mexico, D.F.: Espasa-Calpe,
S.A.
Vázquez León, Luis
2003 El leviatán arqueológico: Antropologı́a de una
tradición cientı́fica en México. México, D.F.:
Editoriales Porrúa.
Walker, Cameron J.
2005 Archaeological Tourism: Looking for Answers
Along Mexico’s Maya Riviera. Theme issue
Dylan J. Clark and David S. Anderson
“Tourism and Applied Anthropologists,” NAPA
Bulletin 23(1):60–76.
2009 Heritage or Heresy? Archaeology and Culture
on the Maya Riviera. Tuscaloosa: University of
Alabama Press.
Walsh, Kevin
1992 The Representation of the Past: Museums and
Heritage in the Post-modern World. London:
Routledge.
Wauchope, Robert
1965 They Found Buried Cities: Exploration and Ex-
cavation in the American Tropics. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Wylie, Alison
1995 Alternative Histories: Epistemic Disunity and
Political Integrity. In Making Alternative Histo-
ries: The Practice of Archaeology and History
in Non-Western Settings. Peter R. Schmidt and
Thomas C. Patterson, eds. Pp. 255–272. Santa Fe:
School of American Research Press.
Yaeger, Jason, and Greg Borgstede
2004 Professional Archaeology and the Modern
Maya: A Historical Sketch. In Continuities and
Changes in Maya Archaeology: Perspectives at
the New Millenium. Charles W. Golden and
Greg Borgstede, eds. Pp. 259–285. New York:
Routledge.
Zimmerman, Larry J.
2003 Presenting the Past. Walnut Creek: Altamira
Press.