2 Arqueología Patria: Mexican Archaeology and the Nation‐Building Process during the Nineteenth Century

Abstract

It is currently accepted that state-sponsored archaeological practice in Mexico falls under the rubric of nationalist archaeology. The Mexican state supports archaeological research and displays its results, which include archaeological remains, in order to strengthen a sense of national pride and unity. Traditional narratives have held that this practice began after the Revolution (1910). Nevertheless, the institutionalization and professionalization of archaeology dates back to the period known as the Porfiriato (1879-1911). This chapter describes the process through which archaeology was institutionalized during the Porfiriato and how this nationalist archaeology contributed to constructing a Mexican national identity. [Nation-building process, nationalist archaeology, Mexico, Porfiriato]

Well‐being in the context of Indigenous heritage management: A Hach Winik perspective from Metzabok, Chiapas, Mexico

“…Mexican development, which includes the use of Indigenous culture and ancestral remains to form a national identity, has been a response to Eurocentrism. Nation‐building efforts in Mexico, dating back to the dictatorship of Porfirio Díaz, emphasized the documentation, collection, curation, and display of Indigenous heritage (Bueno, 2016; Clark & Anderson, 2015; Craib, 2004; Peniche May, 2015). To instantiate and spread the mythos of a modern nation with a glorious Indigenous past, Díaz and other Mexicans worked to elevate Mesoamerican art and monumental works to the international stage.…”

“…Postrevolutionary Mexican national identity centered on the idea of mestizaje , or a purported mix of European and Indigenous ancestry (Clark & Anderson, 2015; Holley‐Kline, 2022; Peniche May, 2015). With mestizaje as a justification, all Mexicans, merely via citizenship status or being recognized as part of the national community, could claim (i.e., appropriate) the archeological remains within the borders of the nation‐state as their own heritage (Magnoni et al, 2007).…”

Anthropological Archaeology in 2015: Entanglements, Reflection, Reevaluation, and Archaeology beyond Disciplinary Boundaries

“…In an effort to highlight the social relevance of our work, archaeologists in 2015 continued to analyze data relative to serious real‐world issues involving power, communication, and cultural heritage (Anderson ; Gfeller ; Lucero et al. ; Nelson and Wade ; Peniche ; Robinson and Silverman ). Disciplinary change is evident in shifts of thinking about our data.…”

“…Research focused on Mexico and ancient Mesoamerican civilizations has made impressive strides in the exploration of the history of patrimony in the region and its complex connections with topics including identity, tourism, the commodification of antiquities, community archaeology, and legacies of knowledge (Clark and Anderson ; Frese ; Peniche ). The past is fundamental to and actively manipulated in the production and persistence of identity (Robinson and Silverman ).…”

Archaeology and Heritage Management in the Maya Area: History and Practice at Caracol, Belize

“…In order to move the earth and supplies necessary to undertake this task, a railway was built to the Pyramid of the Sun [10] (p. 11). In Mexico, heritage management has thus long been tied to the creation of a national identity [11]; the stabilization of Teotihuacan's largest pyramid was the forerunner of subsequent Mexican policy focused on the preservation of its sites for both touristic and nationalistic purposes [12].…”