Teaching Anthropology: SACC Notes VoL 9, No.

1 Fall 2002

Page 27
Understanding archaeology's role in the anthropological study of highland Guatemala is complicated. While an intellectual history of this endeavor is yet to be written, a few points are salient here. Cultural anthropology has always been, and continues to be, the first priority of anthropology within highland Guatemala. Archaeology is often carried out in conjunction with, or as a sub-component of, cultural anthropological study. Archaeology has been less important in and of itself than the more general "history" to which it contributes and which can be collected by other means, such as ethnohistory or oral history. On the one hand, this has produced excellent "conjunctive" studiesfour-field anthropology not privileging a single field. On the other hand, it has produced a relatively limited archaeological data set and interpretations based in archaeological theory. The result is that many understandings of highland Maya "history" used outside the academic arena rely upon the more ample literature for the lowland Maya, co-opting the "scientific" prestige that goes with that data set. In this context, cultural anthropologists have consistently addressed defining the Maya community, situating their perspectives within different theoretical paradigms and research interests. While historically divorced from this debate, it becomes increasingly important to archaeologists as they struggle to understand the relationship between the living Maya and archaeological practice. Archaeology has largely come to depend on cultural anthropology to provide a definition of community that can be applied in this context. But not just cultural anthropologists have provided definitions; the Guatemalan state, Maya public intellectuals and others have also provided them. Remaining within the discipline, archaeologists have tended to rely upon cultural anthropological definitions, many of which overlap with non-academic ones. Cultural anthropological understandings of Maya community in highland Guatemala can be roughly grouped into three categories, following an historical trajectory of research and mirroring

Defining the Descendant Community in a Non-Western Context: The Maya of Highland Guatemala
Greg Borgstede
University of Pennsylvania

Archaeologists are increasingly aware that they must include the "community" in their projects.

Within the evolving context of the role, interaction and participation of descendant communities in archaeological practice is the growing awareness among archaeologists, both foreign and indigenous, that the "community" must be included in the archaeological project. This awareness has its derivation from a number of different sources, primary among them the "social critique" developed as one strain of postprocessual archaeology in the late 1980s. This critique manifested itself in different forms, one result being the increasing focus on archaeological relevance and impact outside the academic arenaan issue that archaeologists constantly addressed in practice but rarely discussed in academic fora. Ultimately this critique has heightened academic perceptions of the role, impact, and uses of archaeology outside strictly academic concerns, particularly within the communities in which archaeology is practiced. This paper focuses on one type of community in which archaeology is practiced: the descendant community. How do we define a descendant community and when and how do we work in or with that community? Answering this question is not a simple task. We must develop a definition that balances the perspectives of a number of different groups, including archaeology, cultural anthropology, modern political science and the internal definitions of the group itself, which are not often consensual. I believe that definitions are largely dependent upon social context. Defining the community for highland Guatemala is a different task than doing the same for the American Southwest or Aboriginal Australia. I do not

adopt an extreme relativist position, however. There are common threads and we can develop a theoretical basis for a cross-cultural approach to the archaeology of descendant communities. This paper is a brief attempt to address both these issues: defining a descendant community for a particular context and suggesting threads applicable to the wider context of descendant communities. In this paper, I address the specific context of archaeology among the Maya of Highland Guatemala. This context cannot necessarily be extended to the Maya area as a whole or to Mesoamerica. However, this context contains the most diverse cultural region in the Maya area, a rich archaeological record, and the highest population density of living Maya, making the region an important arena for understanding the interaction between archaeology and descendant communities. Highland Guatemala has historically represented a unique anthropological setting, with the ongoing conjunctive study of the highland Maya in cultural anthropological, archaeological, linguistic, biological and ethnohistorical terms. The living Maya themselves were traditionally excluded from the academic arena, a situation mirroring broader social patterns of Maya exclusion from political and economic arenas as well. They were viewed largely as objects of study for anthropologists with varying topical interests. While this situation has drastically changed in recent years, the history of academic anthropological research plays a key role in defining the descendant Maya community.

Page 28
larger shifts in the social sciences and contemporary political conditions. The three categories of descendant communities include: the closed corporate community, ethnic community, and the Pan-Maya movement. I will briefly define each and then discuss the impact using this conception of community has on archaeological practice in highland Guatemala.

Teaching Anthropology: SACC Notes VoL 9, No. 1 Fall 2002

interactionist nature of culture in general theoretical terms, which resulted in a redefining of the community in highland Guatemala (e.g. Barth 1969). Rather than relying on the municipio as the basic culture-bearing unit, larger and more inter-related units were identified. The closed corporate community was still seen as fundamental in highland Maya society, but larger communities such as the ethnic group were recognized. The ethnic group, often based largely on common language with "loose" cultural affinities, was studied in terms of its boundaries and relations with other similar groups (e.g. Casaverde 1976). Unfortunately, modern anthropological studies of ethnicity relying on a constructivist model of interaction have been discarded by archaeologists as too difficult or impossible to ascertain in the archaeological record. Primordialist or essentialist models of ethnicity are more easily discernable in the archaeological record, but reflect the historical tendency to describe culture areas as independent and defined based on traits. In modern Guatemala, however, essentialist views of Maya ethnicity predominate outside the academic arena and political reform is often framed in these terms (Warren 1998; but see Fischer 1999). Most recently, the definition of the Maya community has expanded to include all the Maya of highland Guatemala, often termed the Pan-Maya Movement. This community has its roots in the growing political power of the Maya and the development of a Maya educated elite, termed Maya public intellectuals by Kay Warren (1996). Maya public intellectuals utilize cultural heritage in its broadest sense to reinforce political and economic rights within the political arena. While detractors suggest that the Pan-Maya movement is largely a constructed community in the present, its proponents insist upon the essential cultural connection of all of the highland Maya and their ties to the historical and archaeological past. The Pan-Maya movement can be understood in the Andersonian sense of an imagined community, with particular reliance on the printed media to introduce and reinforce cultural ties. The Pan-Maya movement places particular value upon archaeological interpretations where they reinforce the primacy and Classic Period ascendancy of Maya culture within the bounds of the Guatemalan state. More than merely tlwho owns the remains," the broader question is "to whom do the interpretations apply?"

At issue is whether or not the municipiothe basic political division within Guatemala also reflects a basic sociocultural division in past and present Maya society.

The first of these, the closed corporate community, reflects the most enduring tradition in cultural anthropological studies of the highland Maya. It is a form of social and cultural organization defined as consisting of an endogamous social group, occupying a delimited territory, with differentiated cultural norms, and usually with its own language. Deriving out of work in the 1930s (Tax 1937) and 1950s (Wolf 1957), it reflects a general theoretical position of the timethe presupposition that a cultural group is definable on its own terms and can be isolated from other cultural and social groups. The closed corporate community is often correlated with the municipio, the basic political organizational unit of the Guatemalan State, creating a situation where basic cultural units also are basic political units. Allied with this definition was the understanding that the histories of municipios could be isolated and investigated independently. Cultural anthropologists worked within this definition for 30 years; resulting in ethnographies of various municipios of Guatemala as socio-cultural units. Ultimately, the municipio remains the basic political division within Guatemala. At issue is whether or not it also reflects a basic sociocultural division in past and present Maya society. Beginning in the 1960s and gaining momentum in the 1970s, cultural anthropologists began to stress the

Important implications arise from these varying definitions of the Maya community. Even as new understandings of community arose with shifts in anthropological theory, older definitions were not abandoned. Rather, they provided a nested set of possibilities, varying in scale as well as in content: from the smallest and most isolated the closed corporate community, to the larger and less well definedthe ethnicity, to the largest and most politically potentthe Pan-Maya community. Archaeologists must reconcile research projects with these varying definitions of community, realizing that all three are potentially active (and reactive) in archaeological practice. Many questions arise from the complex definition of Maya community: To which of these communities is the archaeological project most responsible? Who has decision-making power concerning archaeological resources? How, or should, archaeologists control the dissemination of archaeological interpretations among the different communities? One of the most important aspects of the relationship between the archaeological project and descendant communities is the role of archaeological interpretations in the development of cultural identity. This becomes particularly salient when the descendant community is not well defined, or over-defined, as in the highland Maya case. At issue is more than merely "who owns the remains," but the broader question of "to whom do the interpretations apply." Interestingly, little research has been done in highland Guatemala to define the community from an archaeo-

Teaching Anthropology: SACC Notes VoL 9, No. 1

logical perspective. Studies have instead adopted a definition of community as a point of departure and analyzed its presence or absence in the archaeological record"upstreaming" in ethnohistorical terms. Archaeological resources and interpretations, however, help shape cultural identity among the Maya communities. Most clearly seen in the Pan-Maya movement, public intellectuals utilize archaeological interpretations to reinforce the historical continuity of the Maya community as a whole. Their involvement with archaeology and its practice, however, usually ends there; it is seen as a tool for furthering the larger political goals of the movement. There has been no call, for example, for regional archaeological studies of the smaller Maya communities, of which very few have been conducted. This is a reflection of the problem of defining the Maya community. Regional studies fall outside the purview of the PanMaya movement's interest in coordinating national Maya interests, while the closed corporate communities and ethnic groups lack either the political power or the interest to make the suggestion. As the study of cultural identity moves from a predominately cultural anthropological topic to an archaeological one as well, archaeology will provide increasingly important interpretations to the descendant communities in which they practice. Within highland Guatemala this means incorporating archaeological interpretations into the multiple definitions of community. While ethnohistorians and archaeologists have attempted to trace the community into the past, their efforts have focused primarily on the closed corporate community (e.g. Hill 1984). Broader associations, ethnicity or a Pan-Maya identity, have not been examined in archaeological terms, a situation which makes archaeology appear irrelevant to both cultural anthropologists and Maya public intellectuals utilizing newer understandings of the Maya community. Needed are focused studies addressing cultural identity, ethnicity and community from an archaeological perspective. An important realization of the "cri-

Fall 2002

Page 29
lic sphere specifically targeting the incorporation of archaeological interpretation into definitions of Maya culture and community as a whole. Understanding the nested responsibilities of archaeological practice in a complex situation such as highland Guatemala will also incorporate a number of aspects found vital in redefining the relationship in the United States. Shifting to a focus on education will be particularly important. As a result of the 1996 Peace Accords, the education guidelines for Guatemala are being rewritten. One aspect of the revision is the incorporation of regional cultural knowledge in the education curriculum, suggesting the increasing importance of regional archaeological studies and their dissemination to the communities, primarily at the ethnic level. Research and education must develop an involved relationship. A final issue is the shifting of the power base of studies of the history of descendant communities. While this has traditionally been the territory of academic, western foreigners, it is becoming increasingly clear that the Maya themselves, directed from the PanMaya level but with increasing demand from the other levels as well, desire increased control over activities of all types within their communities, including archaeology. The response of academic archaeology to this demand will go a long way to determining the future of the relationship between the various descendant Maya communities and the practice of archaeology. References Barth, F. 1969 Introduction. In Ethnic Groups and Boundaries, edited by F. Barth, pp. 9-37. Boston, Little and Brown. Casaverde, J. 1976 Jacaltec Social and Political Structure. Rochester, NY, University of Rochester. Fischer, E. F. 1999 Cultural logic and Maya identity: rethinking constructivism and essentialism. Current Anthropology 40(4):473-500. continued on page 38

sis in archaeology" in the 1980s with reference to descendant communities was that archaeology had impact beyond the academic arena, whether or not explicitly addressed by archaeologists. This realization raised the question of the social context of archaeology in general and, more specifically, the responsibility archaeologists had for their interpretations. While this issue is far from resolved, many archaeologists agree, particularly those working within descendant communities, that we are at Many archaeologists agree that we are at least partially responsible for the implications of our interpretations. least partially responsible for the implications of our interpretations, especially since those interpretations affect the political, economic, and social realities. For highland Guatemala, the problem becomes especially acute since the descendant community is not well defined. To whom are we responsible? Within the American Southwest, for example, a "covenantal archaeology" is practical (Powell et al. 1993; Zimmerman 1997); a strong and close relationship can be developed between the practitioners of archaeology and the most-affected consumers of archaeological knowledge. A covenantal archaeology is less practical in highland Guatemala, however, where the community is dispersed and difficult to define. Instead, a system of "nested responsibilities" probably reflects, or should reflect, the tenor of archaeological practice. Since archaeologists act within different spherespermissions from both the national and municipal governments, for example responsibilities shift in different spheres as well; different communities require different actions. At the municipio level, for example, of primary importance is community involvement in archaeological practice, as well as the dissemination of post-project interpretations. At the ethnic level, what are needed are regional investigations of the historical reality of these groups. At the Pan-Maya level, of primary importance is the development of a dialogue or pub-

Page 38
tors) 1997 Native Americans and Archaeologists: Stepping Stones to Common Ground. Alta Mira Press, Walnut Creek, CA.

Teaching Anthropology: SACC Notes VoL 9, No. 1 Fall 2002

Wolfe'continued from page 33 lenges of traditional polygyny in today's Missionary-infested New Guinea Highlands, while hevs doing everything he can to keep his Southern California home and hearth intact. I'm forever flying the coop in search of more amazing pictures and better data, while he's preparing food and buying special treats for all the people and pets that he loves. While I stay in touch with some of my "exes" and generate love and intensity with the new men I meet, the women in his life are much more demanding. They need money, practical assistance and a steep serving of the nurturing emotion-thick stew he's so adept at cooking up. When I first told Don I no longer wanted to be his lover, it felt like an attention-seeking angry proclamation that I wouldn't actually keep to. Then, much to my amazement, I found value in my newfound status as the emotionally unfettered public wife. Finally, I released all of the jealousy I had towards Angela; she was no longer my competitor. We now inhabited completely separate arenas. I faced that much of what had troubled me over the last five years had been that shed attempted to occupy my domain, causing me to fear displacement. Now that our domains were completely separate, I recovered my esteem and my security. I stopped scrutinizing the nature of Don's connection with Angela; it held no further interest to me. I remained Don s life partner in the areas of keeping a home, parenting (his daughter and our two cats and two dogs), and business (producing videos, photography and books). With my emotional, sexual and spiritual arenas wide open, I quickly built connections with other men. And for the first time in my nine years of relationship with Don, he actually found one of them to be acceptable! He, Jason, lives in a distant town and when he visits, Don would graciously stay at Angela's home to give us privacy. And unlike the single men I'd attempted to convert to polyamory, Jason very much lives a polyamorous life. He lives with his wife and teenage sons while maintaining a passionate connection with his lover and colleague Rachel. While it seemed that his plate was more than brimming, somehow our connection took hold. Together we taught each other about unfettered lovea love that could be kindled in spite of all of the real-life baggage busy mid-life professionals carry. Aside from the fact that marriage and owning a home together were not in our mutual futures, we could love and engage each other from the core. There were no limits to our fantasies or the real-life ways we'd manage to actualize them. Sometimes we'd madly exchange five e-mails in a day trying to plan business and professional projects or sort out a theory one of us had conjured up about how love, life and relationships work. He d traveled and lived in as many odd and remote places as I had and had complete empathy for my experiencer-mode of figuring out human behavior. While I'd never given much credence to soul mates, in Jason, I sensed I'd gotten close. I could tell him more of my truth than I'd told just about anyone else and he'd make me feel very heard. It was as if we'd grown up in the same cultural stew and serendipitously landed on the exact same lily pad. Now most Americans would be pretty unimpressed at the thought of loving someone they could never marry whilst living with someone who no longer captivated their erotic and emotional soul. The more I thought about this, the more I faced that this is exactly how humans have lived for most of civilized time. One's home base was not one's love base; there were public marriages for reputation and procreation, and then there were love and romance. In Old Europe there were the stately Lords and then the love-struck Troubadours. In Modern Europe there are proper public marriages and then the slightly more hidden mistresses. In Latin America there is the Casa Grande and the Casa Chica. How fascinating that in my search for "new" paradigms beyond Modern Western Society's embrace of monogamy, I landed in one of the oldest paradigms known to humans! Would living a day-to-day life with Don, spinning lost in paradise fantasies with Jason, and being open to the many

BorgStedeContinued

from page 29

Hill, R. M. 1984 Chinamit and Molab: Late Postclassic highland Maya precursors of closed corporate community. Estudios de Cultura Maya 15:301-327. Powell, S., C. E. Garza, and A. Hendricks 1993 Ethics and ownership of the past.the rebuna] and repatriation controversy. Archaeological Method and Theory 5:1-42. Tax. S. 1937 The municipios of the midwestern highlands of Guatemala. American Anthropologist 39:423-444. Warren, K. 1998 Indigenous Movements and Their Critics: Pan-Maya Activism in Guatemala.. Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press. Warren, K. B. 1996 Reading history as resistance: Maya public intellectuals in Guatemala. In Maya Cultural Activism in Guatemala, edited by E. F. Fischer and R. M. Brown, pp. 89-106. Austin, TX, University of Texas Press. Wolf, E. 1957 Closed corporate communites in Mesoamerica and Central Java. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 13:1-18. Zimmerman, L. J. 1997 Remythologizing the relationship between Indians and archaeologists. In Native Americans and Archaeologists: Stepping Stones to Common Ground, edited by N. Swidler, K. Dongoske, R. Anyon, and A. Downer, pp. 44-56. Walnut Creek, CA, Altamira Press.