Maya of the Past, Present, and Future: Heritage, Anthropological Archaeology, and the Study of the Caste War of Yucatan

Abstract

This paper examines the relationship between the past, present, and future of Maya heritage and archaeology. We trace some of the background of Maya archaeology and Maya heritage studies in order to understand the state of the field today. We examine and demonstrate how an integrated and collaborative community heritage project, based in Tihosuco, Quintana Roo, Mexico, has developed and changed over time in reaction to perceptions about heritage and identity within the local community. We also describe the many sub-programs of the Tihosuco Heritage and Community Development Project, showcasing our methods and outcomes, with the aim of presenting this as a model to be used by other anthropologists interested in collaborative heritage practice.

Community Engagement around the Maya Archaeological Site of Ceibal, Guatemala

“…After the introduction of these programs, the people of Hualcayán prevented gold mining and looting activities that threatened the local archaeological site, arguing that the site belongs to the whole community and is a valuable part of its heritage and way of life. In the Maya community of Tihosuco, Quintana Roo, Mexico, a collaborative heritage project resulted in the Caste War Museum, accompanying digital and printed resources, an oral history project, educational comic books, and an annual exhibition [53,54]. Guided by the goals of local people, archaeologist Anne Pyburn has collaborated on multiple successful heritage programs in Belize and Kyrgyzstan [39].…”

Introduction

“…Of late, Indigenous, African diasporic, and community‐centric approaches in archaeology have led the charge in attempts to right the abuses archaeologically oriented heritage practices have long perpetuated (see, for example Smith, 2006). The growing number of projects taking these approaches as their central ethos (Colwell, 2016; Wylie, 2014, 2019) is causing what might be the most significant paradigm shift in the field since the postprocessual movement (e.g., Acabado and Martin, 2020; Cipolla and Quinn, 2016; Cowie, Teeman, and LeBlanc, 2019; Diserens Morgan and Leventhal, 2020; Flewellen et al., 2022; Fryer and Raczek, 2020; Gonzalez, 2016; Lyons, 2013; McAnany and Rowe, 2015; Schmidt and Pikirayi, 2016; Sesma, 2022; Surface‐Evans and Jones, 2020). There's ample overlap between those projects utilizing community collaborative methodologies and those projects whose aims center on repairing injustices and combating the epistemic violence permeating our field—a result often of our tendencies to prioritize archaeological understandings of the past while excluding other voices and perspectives (Gnecco, 2009; Schneider and Hayes, 2020).…”

Photographic Insights from Engaged Archaeology: Yucatan and Beyond

“…Other projects have used photography to make archaeology a more inclusive endeavour. In one instance, project members requested copies of historical photographs from community members for local distribution and inclusion in publications (Diserens Morgan & Leventhal 2020). In another instance, outside the Yucatan peninsula, project members used 360° panoramas to facilitate interviews and collaborations with individuals who, for various reasons including decreased mobility, were unable to travel to the archaeological site or view the archaeological materials in person (Sesma 2021).…”