The appropriations of the Mexican archaeological site of Izapa at the 2012 Maya calendar end date

Transcription

1 International Invention Journal of Arts and Social Sciences (ISSN: ) Vol. 4(1) pp. 8-22, February, 2017 Available online Copyright 2017 International Invention Journals Full Length Research Paper The appropriations of the Mexican archaeological site of Izapa at the 2012 Maya calendar end date Astrid Vogel National Autonomous University of Mexico Phone: Received 1 November, 2016; Accepted 11 January, 2017 In this article, the current situation of the archaeological site of Izapa in southern Mexico is analyzed and discussed. The research was conducted in relation to the baktun cycle-ending of the Maya Long Count Calendar, the 21 st of December Izapa is a Prehispanic site which was active throughout the Formative to Postclassic periods, however it is a marginal site which has been neglected for years by the Mexican archaeological establishment. Recently, the New Age hype surrounding the Long Count Calendar End-Date, which was linked to Izapa through the work of independent researcher, John Major Jenkins, brought much attention to the archaeological site. Consequently, local actors began taking an interest in Izapa as a tourism attraction. In this article, the discourses of three groups engaged with Izapa in relation to the 21 st of December 2012 are presented and analyzed, and the subsequent social representations of the archaeological site are identified. The paper serves to show how people engage with an archaeological site, giving it meaning relevant to themselves and the current times. Keywords: Izapa; Discourse analysis; Social representations; Cultural heritage; Patrimonialization. INTRODUCTION Izapa is an archaeological site that dates to the Late Formative Period (around 1500 BC to 100 AD) of Mesoamerican cultural development and is not attributed much importance by the Mexican archaeological establishment (Broda, 2004). It is located a short distance from Mexico s southern border with Guatemala in the municipality of Tuxtla Chico, Chiapas. Only three ceremonial plazas of this ancient temple complex are open to the public as the whole site is divided into privately owned smallholdings. Thus, Izapa also finds itself in a unique condition: it is both an archaeological site protected by the Mexican federal government and the private property of its inhabitants. It is the only privately owned and inhabited site, at this moment, to also be partly open to the public. This article presents the results of an anthropological field study regarding the relationship of three groups of actors with the site. These are the inhabitants of the site, members of the greater municipality, and the visitors to the site. Furthermore, the significance they attribute to it and the purposes underlying their discourses related to Izapa are taken into account. The field research was conducted in relation to the juncture offered by the 21 st of December 2012 as a specific point of interest resulting from a potential link, identified by Jenkins (1998) between Izapa and the Maya Long Count Calendar (that reached the end of a greater cycle of five thousand years on this date). This information serves to illustrate how an archaeological site can be used by different groups for the purposes of identity formation which in turn gives more information regarding the ways in which archaeological material can be protected in ways that are seen as meaningful by the current population. The Mexican National Institute for Anthropology and History (INAH) considers Izapa a marginal and unimportant site from the Formative period (personal communication with the director of INAH in Tapachula in August 2013), but in doing so, ignores the evidence that shows the site to have been continuously populated from around 1500BC to 1200AD (Lowe et al., 1982) and the indications that the site may be the place of origin of the Calendar Round the calendar system predating the Maya Long Count calendar and which was used throughout Mesoamerica (Norman, 2012; Malmström 1997). Thus, the discrepancy between the official, national perspective on the site and the information provided by US academics who have studied the site

2 Vogel 9 raises the question: what importance does the local population attribute to the site? This is particularly important when taking into consideration that the archaeological site is subdivided into roughly 180 private smallholdings, with agriculture practised on some of the land. Better understanding the local perspectives on the archaeological site may help to support INAH in their attempts to protect the cultural heritage, especially the Izapan stelae which are famous for their distinctive iconographic style, as well as to provide a better understanding regarding how modern people interact with and use their heritage for modern purposes, such as identity construction. In the subsequent sections, the theoretical framework and research methods are commented on, followed by a short reconstruction of Izapa s history based on the archaeological literature, and then an introduction to Izapa s appropriation by the New Age movement based on Jenkins' (1998; 2002; 2009) proposition. This brief literature review is necessary to situate the discourses of the three groups analyzed in this study: the local inhabitants of the archaeological site, the urban residents of the nearby town, and the visitors to Izapa. Subsequently, the research results and discussion are presented, building on and contributing to the preceding information. Cultural heritage With regards to the concept of cultural heritage, this research contributes to several aspects provided in the literature. Firstly, Castañeda s distinction between patrimony and heritage is illustrated by the results of this work. Castañeda (2009) considers that patrimony refers to an idealized cultural heritage which is used to construct a national identity and heritage refers to the governmentality of a space considered to be cultural heritage. According to Castañeda (2009) the movement towards cultural tourism involves a contradiction because a use value is attributed to the heritage allowing the identity of a group, which is based on patrimony, to influence the definition of heritage. This contradiction is illustrated in the conflicts discussed between the different actors involved with promoting and/or protecting Izapa. Furthermore, the research presented in this paper further emphasises that cultural heritage is a process of constant change, as presented by Bartolotto (2007), Hiernaux (2006) and Linck (2012). These authors discuss how modern people s interactions with cultural heritage show up a process of constant fluidity which relates to meaning being attributed to the cultural heritage. MATERIALS AND METHODS The Theoretical Framework - an overview of discourse analysis This section outlines the method for discourse analysis established by van Dijk (1985a; 1985b; 1987; 1989) which is the method used in this investigation. According to Van Dijk it becomes possible to identify social elements within discourses due to the social content which is transmitted together with the words used. Although this analytical framework is based on psychological criteria, it allows for the interpretation of social elements. Thus, the cognitive framework that is involved with discourse production is composed of various interrelated parts. Firstly, models are the basis from which an individual imagines reality. Situational models refer to the constructs people set up around particular situations that they could or have encountered. These models are both centred on a person's individual experiences, as well as on what they are aware of through social means (media, conversations with others etc.). Contextual models actually involve the context in which a person finds him/herself and the subsequent discourses that arise out of that context. Secondly, the models are interrelated through the control system which picks out which models are appropriate given the context and the discursive situation that an individual is situated in. The control system is not actually an element of the framework, however allows for various different models to feature simultaneously. Finally, scripts make up the socially shared information that is generally identified through stereotypes. Scripts are socially transmitted elements of models and are not based in personal experiences. It is possible to identify scripts by comparing the different versions given by many people on the same topic, as repeated phrases and ideas indicate social material. As a result, the main focus of this study has been to identify the scripts used by the different social groups and to discover whether there is any shared material between them. However, it is important to highlight that each individual will show personal variations due to their own experiences (Van Dijk, 1989). With regard to this theoretical model that views discourses as socially constructed elements inserted in the socio-cultural context of the speaker, it is necessary to take into consideration social representations as these are expressed through the different conceptualizations of Izapa presented in the discourses of the distinct social groups. According to MacGregor (2007: 215) social representations respond to a dual logic: the cognitive and the social. They are the constructs that individuals create to represent the reality they live in and form a combination of the individual's personal experiences together with socially shared information. Therefore, social representations can be identified through the scripts in people's discourses on a particular subject and repetitive scripts can heighten the understanding of socially shared representations of any given situation. Although Izapa is being appropriated by the three

3 10 Int. Inv. J. Arts Soc. Sci. social groups identified for this study, the extent of the appropriations will not be taken into consideration here. Only the social representations of Izapa as exposed through repetitive scripts are considered. METHODS Firstly, a literature review of both the English and Spanish sources related to Izapa was conducted in order to understand the scientific situation of the archaeological site, as well as to understand its appropriation by proponents of the New Age movement. This background information served as the basis to identify where the various elements in the discourses, which were identified through the field work, originated. Qualitative data was collected using anthropological field methods including participant observation, mapping the area and in-depth interviews. Additionally, an exercise was conducted at three local schools to collect local children s mind-maps of the archaeological site. The focus of the study was on three groups: the local inhabitants of the archaeological site who formed a cooperative Cooperativa Izapa 2012 Ruinas A y B ; members of Tuxtla Chico, the municipal capital that administrates Izapa, who were actively engaged in promoting the site for the 21 st of December 2012 under the Patronato Izapa de Tuxtla Chico MMXII ; and tourists to the site on the 21 st of December The members of the two local groups were interviewed regarding their opinions of the site and the reason for their participation in the group, and their activities in the run-up to the 21 st of December 2012 were observed by means of participant observation. A mapping survey was conducted at the site to identify the people living within the demarcated archaeological zone and interviews were conducted with a representative sample of proprietors to better understand what purpose the land served and what relation, if any, the inhabitants have with the site. The main field work period to collect qualitative data from all three participating groups was conducted in November and December The information was subsequently analyzed using the technique for discourse analysis described by Van Dijk in order to identify the scripts used by the different groups, so as to identify the social representations of the archaeological site by all three groups of participants. Two follow-up field work sessions occurred in February and April 2013 where information was confirmed and feedback was given to the local participants. Quantitative data was also collected regarding visitors to the site during November and December 2012 and January 2013 using the information provided in the visitors books at the three sections of Izapa which are open to the public. This information served to situate the information gathered at the site through interviews on the 21 st of December From an ethical perspective, all participants were informed of the purpose of the study and gave verbal consent for their participation. All of those participants who gave in-depth interviews for this study gave their informed consent regarding the use of the material for the study. RESULTS Izapa, the archaeological site The information which follows helps to situate the information which was circulated by the three participating groups. The Izapan monuments were first reported in 1935 by José Coffin and subsequently studied for a brief period by both Mexican and US authorities. The most important study of the 1940s was funded by the Smithsonian Institute and headed by Matthew Stirling (Lowe et al., 1982). Following this, the New World Archaeological Foundation (NWAF) was established by Brigham Young University and its first mission was the in-depth study of the monuments at Izapa (personal correspondence with V.G. Norman, 14 August, 2013). The NWAF research at Izapa was conducted between 1960 and 1964 and marks the seminal research of the site (Lowe et al., 1982). Since the 60s Izapa has been largely marginalized as an archaeological research site, mainly because the Mexican National Institute for Anthropology and History (INAH), which is in charge of archaeological sites and studying these, has shown little interest in it. This lack of interest relates primarily to the fact that INAH is a centralist entity and therefore focuses on sites in Central Mexico's high plateau. Secondly, there has been more emphasis on Classic period sites (100AD-900AD) and therefore Formative sites, apart from the Olmec region, have been largely ignored (Broda, 2004). Nonetheless, the NWAF study of Izapa sparked interest in the academic community, firstly due to the unique carving style which was identified in the Izapan stelae (Guernsey, 2004; 2006) and secondly due to two important proposals regarding the site and its potential religious importance for the Mesoamerican region. The first of these was put forward by American geographer V. H. Malmström in the 70s and later, more systematically, with his book Cycles of the Sun, Mysteries of the Moon (1997). Malmström considers Izapa s location on 14.8ºN latitude of utmost importance. He argues that on this latitude, in the tropics, the zenith passages of the sun divide the solar year into two portions of 260 and 105 days. This is important due to the fact that 260 days could refer to the sacred almanac of all the Mesoamerican peoples, commonly known as the tzolkin (yucatec name meaning count of days ). This calendar was unique to the Mesoamerican region and its

4 Vogel 11 existence had not been satisfactorily explained. Malmström argued that Izapa and Copán, in Honduras, are the only two Prehispanic sites situated on this latitude. Nevertheless, Copán, a Classic Period site, would not have been able to develop the calendrical system, considering that the 260 day calendar was already in use during the Formative period. Additionally, Izapa is situated in tropical lowlands, which coincides with many of the animals included in the day signs of the 260 day calendar, such as the alligator, the monkey and the jaguar animals which are not found in Honduras's highlands where Copán is situated. Malmström also proposed that the 365 day solar calendar could have been calculated at Izapa due to the fact that on the summer solstice the sun rises out of Tajumulco volcano, the highest peak in Central America, from the perspective of the Izapan temple complex. This position would have allowed for the calculation of the sun's movement throughout the year. This has been further confirmed by archaeologist V.G. Norman (1976; 2012) who has identified monument alignments throughout the Izapan temple complex that correspond to the annual sun cycle. Malmström was heavily criticized by the academic establishment, especially the Mayanists under J. Eric S. Thompson, and his work, to this day, has not been adequately recognized. This lack of recognition has also affected the position of Izapa in academia, specifically in Mexico, as its potential religious significance for Mesoamerican culture (as the 260 day sacred almanac is still in practice among Guatemalan Mayas today) is not taken into consideration. One of the main arguments to counter Malmström's hypothesis is that no glyphs have been found at Izapa (Broda 2004), ostensibly indicating that no writing had been developed and that, therefore, it was not possible to keep track of the sun's cyclical movements. This criticism has been countered by Norman (1976; 2012) who has dedicated his professional career to the study of Izapa's stelae. Norman has concluded that Izapa's nucleus served as a calendar that tracked sun, moon and Venus cycles. Each stela is oriented to a particular 29/30 day month in the 365 day solar calendar (12 thirty day months with an added short month to make up the 365 days of the solar year) starting from the autumn equinox on the 21 st of September (Norman, 2012). Additionally, he has identified that the year is divided into a 260 day segment from the solar zenith passage on 13 th of August to the second passage on the 30 th of April, thus confirming Malmström's hypothesis. The remainder of the solar year is divided into two segments of 52 days each from the 30 th of April to the summer solstice and between the solstice and the 13 th of August (Norman, 2012). Consequently, Norman concludes that Izapa formed a calendrical centre that was not only rooted to the agricultural cycle (e.g. planting is still done within a week of the solar zenith passage of 30 th of April, shortly before the heavy tropical rain season begins; Lowe et al., 1982), but also served as an initiatory and ritual centre, a pilgrimage site for many of the different peoples of Mesoamerica. Therefore, Norman (2012) argues that the stelae were erected as iconographic narratives instead of placing any one language above another (because Izapa was located in the border region between Mixe- Zoque and Mayan speaking peoples (Lowe et al., 1982)), thus making the site inclusive to peoples from different linguistic backgrounds. The second proposal regarding Izapa, put forward by Beatriz Barba de Piña Chán (1990), suggests the possibility that the Izapan stelae are the first known record of certain Prehispanic myths. Barba draws on the resemblance that nine of the Izapan stelae narrative images have with the myths recorded in the Popol Vuh, sacred text of the Quiché Maya in Guatemala. Izapa, not a Maya site itself, was situated in the border region between Maya and Mixe-Zoque speaking groups. Barba proposed that the evidence in Izapa suggests that these myths were far older than previously believed (as the only written record of the Popol Vuh dates to the 16 th century, i.e. post conquest) and that they were more widely spread than the Maya speaking region. Nevertheless, in Mexico, her proposal has not been taken seriously in the academic sphere. In an interview with a representative of INAH, her proposal was made out to be unscientific and she was criticized (or even personally attacked) for abusing her husband's good name (Román Piña Chán was a highly respected Mexican archaeologist. Personal communication with INAH representative, August 2013). This overview serves to position what follows. Firstly, it serves as a balance to the claims made by followers of the New Age interpretation of Izapa and secondly, it forms the basis for understanding the elements that make up the discourses about Izapa. The latter are presented by the inhabitants of the site and also by people from the municipal capital, Tuxtla Chico. Subsequently a brief summary of the New Age interpretation of Izapa, which is based on the proposal made by John Major Jenkins, is given. Izapa and the New Age movement Jenkins' galactic alignment The New Age movement centers on the individual's spiritual growth through the personal application of different, non-western teachings and mainly draws on ideas from Vedic and Egyptian thought (Braden 2009; Ruiz, López and Ascencio 2011; Suhl and Husted- Jensen 2006; The Mysteries of ). Additionally, the movement is based on the idea that the human race is currently in a transition period to a new age of spiritual enlightenment. This idea of the new age was sparked by knowledge of the precession of the equinoxes (Precession of the Equinoxes refers to the

5 12 Int. Inv. J. Arts Soc. Sci. slow change of the position of the stars in relation to the horizon caused by the wobble of the earth on its own axis. A full precessional cycle takes years, however 1º of change, which equals a distance), becoming mainstream during the second half of the 20 th century and the realization that the transition to the Age of Aquarius is near (Jenkins 2002; Kelch 2004; The Mysteries of ). However, the Age of Aquarius will only begin in around 200 years time and, therefore, the new age would not be experienced by anyone living today (Aveni 2009; 2012). Thus, with the discovery that the Classic Maya had set an end-date for the 21 st of December 2012, the new date was incorporated into the new agers' world view and the coming of greater spiritual enlightenment. The hype around 2012 and possible Maya prophecies has been well recorded (Argüelles, 1987; Pinchbeck, 2006; Campion, 2011; Kelch, 2004; Aveni, 2012; Jones, 2008 etc.) and will not be taken into consideration in this paper as the New Age appropriation of Izapa is the only aspect of interest here. The only author to relate the ideas surrounding the new age and the Mayan Long Count Calendar with an actual archaeological site is the independent researcher, Jenkins (1998), who suggests that the Long Count was not a calendar fixed to a random, primordial date in the past, the day of creation, but was rather intended as a calculator for precession. Jenkins argues that the Mayan people were aware of the precession of the equinoxes and considers the possibility that they were able to calculate precession accurately. Additionally, Jenkins identifies a rare alignment between the winter solstice sunrise and the visible centre of the galaxy, a dark rift which appears to be at the Milky Way's centre for naked eye observation. This alignment occurs between 1986 and Thus, he argues that the Long Count calendar's cycle ending on the solstice in 2012 could have been a deliberate artefact of the Maya's knowledge of precession and the galactic alignment, as he puts it, that it causes. Although it is possible that some Prehispanic societies were aware of the precession of the equinoxes (Aveni 1980), in academic circles Jenkins' hypothesis is not accepted. This is largely because the majority of the evidence points to the importance of the mythic creation date (correlated to 11 th of August 3114 BC in our calendar) rather than to the end date of the 13 baktun cycle of the Long Count. The mythic creation date is referred to in several stelae as well as on a myriad of pottery items identified from the Classic Maya period. In contrast, reference to the cycle ending date in 2012 is only found on two stelae, one of which was only recently discovered (Jenkins, 2010; Waugh 29 June 2012). Archaeologists are satisfied with the argument that the mythical creation date was an important tool for the justification of rule by the Classic Maya governors and consider Jenkins' proposal preposterous. However, Jenkins goes even further. Not only did the Maya identify precession and codify it in the Long Count calendar, in his book Maya Cosmogenesis 2012 (1998) he suggests that Izapa is the site where all this information was developed. Drawing on work by Aveni, Freidel and Schele (1993), Norman and others, Jenkins claims to identify a process of world-view development codified in the monuments at Izapa. He argues that the three most important groups of the archaeological site, which are also the only ones open to the public, each encode information regarding a different cosmic centre, thus showing the development of the Mesoamerican worldview. He emphasizes the winter solstice as a central event in the Izapan worldview. However, as we have seen with Norman's work (2012), the autumn equinox is also indicated in Izapa's monuments and the equinoxes have historically been accepted as the more important solar positions in the Mesoamerican worldview. Jenkins suggests that the Long Count calendar was developed in Izapa and the information was then passed on to the Maya people of the Classic period. However, Norman (2012) emphatically argues against this possibility. Firstly, because no Long Count dates have been found in Izapa and the Long Count is clearly an artefact of importance to the Classic Maya. Secondly, Norman identifies elements in the Izapan monuments that only refer to the 260 day and 365 day counts, thus implying that the Izapans used a combination of the two calendars, known as the Calendar Round, which was used by all of the Mesoamerican peoples. The combination of these two calendars allows for 52-year cycles as any combined date of the Calendar Round can only repeat every 52 years. Norman's (ibid.) discovery suggests that the Izapan's did not develop the Long Count calendar (as Jenkins suggests), as it would be unusual for a society to develop a calendar and then make no practical use of it. Additionally, Izapa is not considered a Maya site. It is classified as a Mixe-Zoque speaking site which is a very distinct linguistic group from Mayan. The Mixe-Zoque linguistic area spanned from the Olmec region on the Gulf of Mexico through the Isthmus of Tehuantepec and along the southern Pacific Coast of Mexico (Malmström 1997). It is clear that later encroachment of the Mayanspeaking peoples into the area influenced the last Mixe dialect in the region, Tapachulteco (Coe, 2001; Norman, 1974). However, tying Izapa into the Mayan worldview without any explanation of its location in a linguistic border region, as Jenkins (1998; 2002; 2009) does, is misleading. Finally, although Jenkins claims to have no ties with the New Age movement and that his work is strictly scientific, his premises are heavily based in New Age thought and he is also an exponent of a development towards increased enlightenment, as expressed in several of his books (1998; 2002; 2009). Based on the definition drawn up by Frigerio (2013) that identifies new-

6 Vogel 13 agers to be centrally preoccupied with three key elements (the sacred nature of the self and the search for personal enlightenment; the central preoccupation with sharing information through online means, thus forming a virtual community; and the belief in the inherent veracity of non-western thought, thus fostering interest in rituals and beliefs of these peoples) Jenkins is clearly an exponent of the New Age movement (not to mention the fact that all his important books were published by a recognized New Age publishing house). Despite this theory being heavily criticized for its inaccuracies and flaws in academic circles (Aveni, 2009; 2010; Bastos et al., 2013; Malmström, 2003; Norman, 2012; Pearce n.d. etc.), it was taken up eagerly by the New Age movement, especially with regard to the way that the 21 st of December 2012 was conceived and the points relating to the Mayan Long Count calendar. This appropriation of Jenkins work will be seen in greater detail subsequently. Izapa's inhabitants As mentioned previously, Izapa finds itself in a unique situation where it is simultaneously private property and an archaeological site, protected under Mexican state law. This contradiction leads to a series of complications that will be shown in the following sections. This information was obtained by mapping the Izapa archaeological zone and speaking to the local inhabitants as well as from an in-depth interview with the INAH representative in charge of the site. Izapa has undergone many changes of situation in the past century. At the turn of the 20 th century, before the archaeological monuments were discovered, this area formed part of a large, privately owned sugar plantation called Finca San Carlos. In the 30s the landowner began selling off smaller parcels of land and mostly cattle ranchers bought up tracts of Izapa. Over time these new owners subdivided their plots as part of the inheritance for their children and also sold smaller plots to other interested buyers, especially in the 60s and 70s when the production of the land changed to cacao. Currently, the cacao plantations are struggling with a fungal infestation that has lasted almost a decade. As a result, many landowners are changing production to rambutan, a highly productive Malaysian fruit that is currently in high demand. Additionally, several of the now 90 families residing in Izapa have been selling off further parcels of land. In 2006 there were 180 properties identified in Izapa and further subdivision has taken place since. Izapa only became a protected archaeological zone in Before this the site had been minimally managed by INAH and the custodians of Groups A, B and F of the site. The custodians are the landowners where these specific plazas are located and as these three plazas were deemed particularly import in the 1982 report of the NWAF (study from the 60s) they were integrated into the INAH custodian system. The custodians are employees of INAH and are tasked with caretaker duties of the archaeological monuments. They are also expected to keep their sections of the site open to visitors, according to regulated visiting hours. As a result, the custodians are financially more stable than their immediate neighbours who are mostly poor and who use their land for agricultural production to ensure an extra income over and above what they earn as labourers in Tapachula (the regional capital) and Tuxtla Chico (the municipal town). The custodians also have social benefits because they work as employees of INAH. Furthermore, the international highway from Tapachula to the border crossing at Talisman crosses the archaeological site, separating the northernmost section, Group F, from the remainder of the demarcated archaeological zone. Lucrative businesses have sprung up along the sides of the highway, even within the actual site of Izapa. These businesses include restaurants and motels providing services to the passing traders and other cross-border visitors. Roughly speaking, the Izapan community, that spans an area of about 120ha, is divided into three groups. Firstly the inhabitants that live and run their businesses on the side of the highway between km11 and km12 form an elite group with few ties, if any, to the other two sections of the archaeological site. Secondly, the inhabitants of the central section of the site, whose houses line an access road from the highway to Groups A and B, are predominantly working class campesinos. Often, their houses have been constructed on top of Prehispanic mounds (these houses predate the 2002 declaration protecting Izapa as an archaeological site). These families are often interrelated, with about four extended families making up the majority of the properties held in this section. Finally, a second access road joins the southern section of the archaeological site to the Ciudad Hidalgo highway that joins up with the Tapachula-Talisman highway. Again, there are a large number of related nuclear families; however, in this case they are predominantly large agricultural producers and do not struggle financially as much as their counterparts living in the central section of Izapa (Figure 1). This study and also a previous undergraduate study (Gutiérrez, 2012) have independently found that there is very little identification to the actual archaeological site among all three groups of inhabitants. The individuals living on the land which makes up the archaeological zone do not identify with the ruins in any meaningful way and know practically nothing about the people who lived on the same land in Prehispanic times. The only individuals who consider themselves remotely tied to the historic inhabitants of Izapa are the custodians and their family members, individuals who receive a direct economic benefit from the archaeological site due to their position as employees of INAH.

7 14 Int. Inv. J. Arts Soc. Sci. Figure 1. Map of the archaeological site of Izapa. Author's map of current houses superimposed on the archaeological map of the site drawn by Martínez (Lowe et al., 1982)

8 Vogel 15 This lack of identification with the site is probably rooted in the fact that the majority of these families have only been living on the site for one (or very rarely two) generations. The only family that has owned their land for three generations is the custodian family of Group B, on the banks of the river Izapa. By means of interviews with members of almost all of the families in the central section of the archaeological site, as well as some interviews with inhabitants of the southern section of Izapa, the following discursive elements have been identified. Firstly, the inhabitants of the archaeological site have a conflicting relationship with INAH which they represent as an impediment to local development as well as to tourism development. Primarily this perception of the Institute is based on the restrictions that are imposed on the community to avoid further damaging the monuments. For example, perforating the surface is forbidden as it may damage underlying Prehispanic structures, and no new building is permitted in order to protect the archaeological site. One should note that if the correct bureaucratic procedures are adhered to there is a possibility that construction would be allowed in areas where it is determined no Prehispanic structure could be damaged, however, this involves several payments that in many cases are beyond the means of the local inhabitants. In the words of one property owner You are the owner of the land, but you cannot touch it (personal communication, A. Damiano 30 April, 2014). Additionally, there is a noticeable tension between the custodian families and their neighbours which relates to the custodians having a fixed job with good pay that includes social benefits. The custodians have mentioned that they have faced jealousies from their neighbours, but that they have tried to maintain good relations despite the tensions. Another point of interest in the discourse of the inhabitants is that many claim complete ignorance of the existence of the Prehispanic monuments prior to the excavations done in the 1960s. It is important to note that those making this claim are not the custodians of the site nor their families, but the neighbouring families that make up the majority of the community. This claim is unusual, as knowledge of the ruins for many generations has been confirmed in Tuxtla Chico. Therefore, it is possible that this aspect of the local inhabitants' discourse is related to their distrust of INAH (and archaeologists in general). Furthermore, the claim could be linked to the fear that their property could be expropriated for forming a part of Mexico's cultural heritage. Thirdly, there appears to be a sense of pride for what is considered their site. Among the inhabitants this particular sense of ownership is important due to the fact that it relates to the conceptualization of private property. Additionally, the sense of ownership is linked to their interest in exploiting the land for personal benefit there is a strong utilitarian tendency in the way in which these landowners perceive their land. This utilitarian mind-set is also being transposed onto the potential benefits the archaeological site could bring as a tourism destination and the possible improvements that this implies for the community. In consequence, the inhabitants of the central section of the site became very interested in the hype. It was commonly believed that many tourists would visit Izapa for the Maya Long Count End Date and therefore a get-rich-quick myth circulated amongst these inhabitants who hoped to benefit from the hordes of international visitors they envisioned. This conceptualization of Izapa as a means of increasing their income also put in place a desire to keep the potential riches to themselves, thus instigating conflicts with Tuxtla Chico as well as with wealthy Tapachula businessmen who have bought up land in the archaeological zone. There was noticeable resentment toward outside attempts to capitalize on the commonly held belief that vast numbers of tourists would visit Izapa for the 21 st of December In a sense, the local inhabitants of the site were attempting to affirm their right to benefit from the archaeological site because of their ownership of the land, thus affirming that Izapa is their site and some even affirming that it is their cultural heritage, rather than the cultural heritage of Tuxtla Chico more broadly. The data collected for this study show that there is little community unity among the inhabitants of Izapa. Predominantly they identify themselves by surname, rather than as a larger group from the same municipal section or living in an archaeological site. It has become evident that the families differentiate themselves from each other, leading to conflicts between families and also attempts to encumber neighbours' from achieving their goals, while pushing forward with one's own personal goals. These tensions have evinced a very fragmented situation where each family only looks to its own benefits while attempting to obstruct everyone around it. Therefore, it is necessary to state that a community of inhabitants at Izapa does not appear to exist. Lastly, there is an indication that the inhabitants, even the custodians who take care of the archaeological monuments, know little if anything about the site. The academic information about the site is largely unavailable to them as the studies have mostly been published in English and have not been translated to Spanish. Additionally, many of the inhabitants, especially of the older generation, have very low levels of education. This study has found that information about Izapa and its history is not transmitted in local schools, although in more recent years some school excursions to Izapa have started occurring, as well as small class projects on the topic (mostly pushed forward by local teachers' personal interests). This lack of knowledge about the site and its potential importance for the development of the Mesoamerican calendrical system

9 16 Int. Inv. J. Arts Soc. Sci. further obstructs attempts to protect the site, as the local landowners are not aware of its potential significance, meaning that they cannot develop any pride for the unimpressive mounds that form the foundations of their own homes. The Sociedad Cooperativa Ruinas de Izapa In 2011 around 30 of the families of inhabitants of Izapa s central section formed a cooperative in order to combat what they saw as outsiders taking over their site. The cooperative's main purpose was to provide the community s members with a group through which to interact with visitors to Izapa. This enabled them to combat what they saw as the infiltration of outside enterprises, mainly from the regional capital of Tapachula, in the local tourist market. Members of the cooperative sold local products, such as chocolaté (to prepare hot chocolate) and coffee, and also prepared food, mainly standard Mexican cuisine like tamales and chicken stew. The cooperative also presented a front to what they considered the expropriation of their site by Tuxtla Chico (illustrated subsequently). Thus, the inhabitants were making a stand towards the municipality's activities that were using Izapa as a tool of self-promotion at the expense of the local populace. The cooperative decided to organize a Sacred Fire ceremony on the 21 st of December 2012 in a property that has been put at their disposal by one of the members, the property lies between Groups A and B. This was because the committee of the municipality of Tuxtla Chico, the Patronato Izapa 2012 had cancelled three ceremonies it had planned to hold on the cooperative's property. This Maya New Fire ceremony was overseen by a Mexican, semi-trained spiritual guide, who has attended talks and received material from Guatemalan spiritual guides. The event was mainly attended by Mexicans from the region (Tapachula and Ciudad Hidalgo), as well as some foreigners (students from the United States). None of the members of the cooperative actually participated in the event they fought so hard to set in motion, in fact, only very few observed the ritual, arms folded and a look of bemused intrigue at how these modern people could be so taken by the indigenous ritual. To better understand this perception it is necessary to understand certain political processes of the 20 th century that heavily influenced the border region of Mexico with Guatemala. The indigenismo movement in Mexico was a political policy of the 1950s that aimed to unify all Mexicans under a single culture. The idea was to do away with all the trappings of ethnic difference to propel Mexico into the modern, industrialized era. The consequences of this policy were the mexicanization of the culture and what is called castellanización, that all people speak only Spanish. As a result, indigenous customs were completely eradicated in some areas, especially in the Southern border regions where it was necessary to create a distinction from the neighbouring countries (thus making indigenous Mexicans want to give up their languages and customs; Hewitt 1988; Bonfil 1987). Consequently, there are only very few people in the region who would admit to indigenous heritage and the majority of locals look down on what they consider vile superstitious practices. Since the 21 st of December 2012 the local cooperative has almost ceased to exist. A proposal for the local development of the site, starting with a footpath to connect the different groups of the site to create easier access for tourists was rejected in late January 2013 by the cooperative and since then the cooperative has not arranged any new activities related to the site. Only two families continued with regular attendance at meetings by August 2013 and by April 2014 they had accepted that their attempts to keep the cooperative running had been futile. The main reason for this disintegration of the cooperative rests on the great disappointment the members felt after the 21 st of December 2012 as they had expected multitudes of foreign visitors to the site, when only a few hundred visitors actually showed up, most of these being Mexicans from the region who had been intrigued by the 2012-hype. In essence, the cooperative represented the hopes of many of the local inhabitants of a get-rich-quick moment for their archaeological site. I have noted previously that none of the inhabitants has much interest in the monuments or in their potential importance if there is no financial gain involved. This conclusion is further supported by the fact that the majority of the archaeological site is under cultivation. All of the landowners perceive rent from their land and, therefore, if the archaeological site itself cannot even equal that rent, it has no value. This vision is not that unexpected as the majority of these inhabitants are working class and were lucky enough to be able to buy one or two hectares of land at some time in the past 50 years. Tuxtla Chico's appropriation of Izapa Tuxtla Chico, the municipal centre, is a small colonial town situated about two kilometres north of the archaeological site, on the opposite side of the river Izapa. There is little real identification with Izapa from the majority of Tuxtla Chico's population. This conclusion was reaffirmed with an exercise I conducted at some of the local schools to identify the knowledge of Izapa that is being passed on. The only group of people that are actively promoting the archaeological site from within the municipality and who are based in Tuxtla Chico are members of the society's elite. Retired teachers, accountants and the town's architect as well as the local chronicler began to

10 Vogel 17 openly criticize the lack of interest in Izapa and Tuxtla Chico. According to this group, Tuxtla Chico is a Pueblo Mágico, literally: magical town (This is in reference to a national programme that protects historic centres of towns deemed suitably important to promote tourism and protect the historic identity of the town). They argue that it deserves to be put on the map for tourism, drawing on Izapa as one of the many interesting sights of Tuxtla Chico and emphasizing that the town should be able to benefit economically from its cultural heritage. In consequence, a conflict between this elite group, which draws on Izapa as one example of their town's uniqueness, and the regional power house, the city of Tapachula, has become apparent. Tuxtla Chico, at a political level, is illustrating that because Izapa is in that municipality, the town should benefit from any tourism to the site. However, Tuxtla Chico has no existing infrastructure, while Tapachula is well set up with hotels, restaurants and entertainment for visitors. Thus, certain people in Tuxtla Chico are using the discourse that Izapa belongs to the municipality and forms an important part of local identity to draw in any potential economic benefit that they imagine would result from an increase in international tourism to the region. This conflict between these inhabitants of Tuxtla Chico and Tapachula marks Izapa as an element for territorialization, the process of defining the (symbolic) frontiers between two geographic entities (Mançano, 2008). Additionally, this group has attempted, through local government, to promote information about Izapa at the local level in order to begin establishing Izapa as an element of Tuxtla Chico's identity. These attempts to incorporate Izapa as an integral part of local identity appear, so far, to have failed, as people largely did not participate in the Izapa-related events that were organized, with the exception of the local society s elite, which demonstrates the lack of significance of this archaeological site to the general populace. The fact that the majority of locals have very little information about the archaeological site at their disposal and have little interest in accessing what little is available must be stressed. People do not really attend events specifically related to Izapa, nor do they consider the site to be of great value. Only a small section of the monuments in Group F (the northernmost section of the site, next to the international highway) has been reconstructed, while the other two groups of monuments that are open to the public are surrounded by mounds of grass instead of impressive temples. The stelae of group A are also very weathered and not very visible. It appears that Izapa fails to live up to the expectations of what an important archaeological site is imagined to be and therefore is considered disappointing. This lack of aesthetic can be related to the fact that, in the Mexican educational system, sites from the Classic period tend to be emphasized and, therefore, Izapa, which is a Formative period site, lacks the architectural aesthetic that is associated with sites of value. The Patronato Izapa 2012 With regard to the 21 st of December 2012, in September 2012, Tuxtla Chico s elite, together with the town mayor, formed the Patronato Izapa de Tuxtla Chico MMXII, or Patronato Izapa 2012 as it was commonly called. This committee was tasked to organize a series of events related to Izapa and the Long Count Calendar end date in order to promote Tuxtla Chico and its heritage site of Izapa, using the interest that had surged regarding the Long Count Cycle-Ending Date. Nevertheless, it actually failed to achieve this ostensible main goal. Events were planned throughout December 2012, with a town festival ( Festival de chocolate y rambután rumbo a Izapa 2012 ) concluding the period of festivities between the 17 th and 20 th of December. However, only one of the events was directly related to Izapa. This was a presentation on the site given by Dr Thomas Lee, one of the directing archaeologists from the 1960s NWAF study. Three new fire ceremonies that had been planned never took place and neither did the three star-gazing sessions that had been proposed. The failure of actually promoting local knowledge in relation to Izapa was mainly related to a lack of organization within the Patronato, especially stimulated by internal conflicts due to disagreements among the volunteers. Nevertheless, it also became apparent that promoting Izapa was not actually a topic of great interest to the municipality and, additionally, fostering local knowledge about the site was not even considered necessary by many people. Locally, a noticeable disregard for Izapa became apparent, and from the Patronato s activities it was evident that promoting Tuxtla Chico and making the town look good were the overriding objectives for most members. Consequently, the events organized by the Patronato focused on entertainment, such as dance and music shows in Tuxtla Chico's central park and a focus on the local chocolate makers (this refers to drinking chocolate which is a locally prized beverage) as Tuxtla Chico is part of an internationally recognized cacao producing region. However, those individuals who had participated in the Patronato and were disillusioned by its shortcomings have since continued their attempts to promote Izapa as well as Tuxtla Chico. Over time it has become apparent that Tuxtla Chico, a small and marginalized town, is trying to get in on Mexico's tourism industry and therefore is pulling out all the stops on any attractions it has, Izapa included. There are also indications of an attempt to use Izapa to forge a unified local identity in opposition to the regional capital Tapachula, only 12km away. This identity construction is currently in progress and some aspects will be taken into consideration in the discussion section.