DEVELOPING CULTURAL TOURISM AT IZAPA: ITS POTENTIAL AND HINDRANCES (2014)

DEVELOPING CULTURAL TOURISM AT IZAPA:ITS POTENTIAL AND HINDRANCES

June 2014

Renato Johnsson and Astrid Vogel

Abstract

This study highlights the relevance of the Late Formative period archaeological site of Izapa, in Chiapas, Mexico, for cultural tourism. This is possible due to the site's strong linksto the 260 day calendar, which is the cornerstone of contemporary Maya spirituality, and also possible links to the Maya creation mythology of the Popol Vuh. Our study, conducted between 2011 and early 2014, examines the obstacles to tourism development that this site has encountered over this period. The study includes an examination of the popularity the site gained in the run up to the “end of the Maya calendar” in December 2012 and the events which were organized in relation to this date. A comprehensive literature review of the archaeological research done on the site is also included. Finally we suggest ways in which to develop the site in order to make it more attractive to cultural tourism.

1. Introduction

This paper examines the potential and the hindrances to thedevelopment of cultural tourism of an obscure Formative era (1800BCE – 200 CE) site in Chiapas, Mexico, that was thrust into thelimelight in the interest generated by the supposed end of theMaya calendar of December 21st 2012. This site, located near theborder with Guatemala, is unique in that, while the zone is aprotected archaeological site, the land is held by privatelandowners. Three ceremonial plazas are open to the public and oneof these has been restored. While this situation suggests the needfor a community-based model for tourism development (Johnsson2011), this study, using interview-based field research conductedbetween 2011 and 2013, finds that community conflicts and themismanagement of resources have hindered this outcome. The reasonfor the site's importance has also been poorly understood by thelocal population.

To begin with, the location of Izapa at 14.8o N latitude causes theastronomical phenomenon of the zenith passage of the sun, when thesun is directly overhead and casts no shadow on vertical objects,

1

to occur visibly twice a year in repeating intervals of 260 daysand 105 days. Malmstöm (1973) originally proposed the importanceof this phenomenon, arguing that the site could be the place oforigin of the 260 day ritual calendar that was used throughoutMesoamerica. However, while the tradition of the 260 day calendar,commonly called the Tzolkin (count of days), has been preservedamong the indigenous communities of Guatemala, and is the centralelement of contemporary Maya spirituality, it is not commonknowledge in Mexico. In an earlier paper (Johnsson 2011) therecommendation was made that the knowledge of this calendar be re-introduced in Izapa in order to attract cultural tourism to thesite. An additional feature of the site which makes it relevant toattracting tourists with an interest in pre-Columbian Mesoamericanculture are the narrative images on Izapa's stelae, which is theprincipal reason for the site's fame. A number of these stelaeseem to relate to the mythology preserved in the 16th centuryQuiche Maya Creation stories of the Popol Vuh (Barba, 1990). Weconsider that these two features are sufficient to attractvisitors interested in pre-Columbian culture to the site andexamine opportunities and hindrances to the development of suchcultural tourism. We shall begin with a brief overview of the site and the attemptsto preserve and promote it occurring from 2007 up to 2013. Beforeproviding an overview of the events of December 2012 we shalldiscuss the interest this site has received from the New Agespirituality movement and how this resulted in the undueexpectation of visitors to the site for the 21st of December 2012.We shall then examine the appropriations of this site by thecommunity residing in the demarcated archaeological zone and theurban residents of the nearby town, Tuxtla Chico, which is themunicipal centre of the district where Izapa is located. We thenidentify hindrances to tourism development of Izapa which include:conflicts within the community, a culture of corruption that hasprevented infrastructure development at the site, and the positionof INAH – the national authority in charge of archaeological sitesin Mexico – regarding the site and the institution’s affirmationsof Izapa's insignificance, including arguments against this last.On the other hand we also identify an existing political desirefrom the government of Chiapas to promote Izapa and the potentialtourism market that exists from across the Guatemalan border. This

2

study further includes a comprehensive literature review ofarchaeological research in Spanish and English in order tohighlight the importance that Izapa had in the development ofMesoamerican culture. Finally, we shall suggest ways to developthe site as a cultural tourism destination, including means toincrease the aesthetics of the archaeological site and increasinglocal knowledge of the cultural importance of the site.

An introduction to IzapaThe site of Izapa is located in the extreme southeast of the stateof Chiapas, Mexico, close to the city of Tapachula. It ispositioned a short distance from the frontier with Guatemala and35km away from the Pacific coast. It is situated on the westernside of the river Izapa, from which it takes its name. ThePanamerican highway between Tapachula and the frontier town ofTalismán crosses the archaeological zone, which is the largest andmost significant site on the Pacific coast of southern Mexico.While the original excavations carried out in the 1960s estimatedthe site's size at 4km², a recent study (Rosenswig, López-Torrijos, Antonelli & Mendelsohn 2013) affirms that it is largerthan that, although it is not yet possible to state with certaintythe exact size (Rosenswig, personal communication 28th of October2013). The site is located in the municipality of Tuxtla Chicowhose municipal centre is the town of the same name located twokilometers away from the archaeological site.

This Late Formative site is renowned for the artistic style thatcan be admired in the many stelae found there, known as the Izapanstyle (Quirarte 1973; Guernsey 2004; Laughton 1997). The existenceof the monuments at Izapa was revealed in 1935 by José Coffin, whotook photographs and sent them, along with a letter, to theMexican archaeological institute INAH (Lowe, Lee & MartínezEspinosa 1982). The site gained international interest followingMatthew Stirling's publication of photographs of the Izapan steleain 1943, especially of the 'tree of life' Stela 5, which wasinterpreted in 1947 by Dr. M. Wells Jakeman as a potentialrepresentation of the “Dream of Lehi” of the Book of Mormon andhence proof of the book's veracity. This brought about a long-standing interest in Izapa from the Mormon community and it wasBrigham Young University in Utah, through its New World

3

Archeological Foundation, that carried out extensive excavationsand study of Izapa in the 1960s under the guidance of the lateGareth Lowe. There results were published in the book entitledIzapa: an introduction to the ruins and monuments (Lowe, et al. 1982).

Following the archaeological excavations three (of the eight)ceremonial plazas were opened to the public, Groups A and B, whichform the core of the archaeological site of Izapa, and Group F,located on the northern extremity and which currently stands nextto the Panamerican highway. Group F is a later, Classic Periodceremonial plaza and its stone structures have been restored.Hence Group F aesthetically conforms to what people imagine a pre-Columbian site to look like, leading it to become almostsynonymous with Izapa; Group F appears in every brochure thatmentions Izapa, even though it is a later and smaller plaza thanGroups A and B. However, the latter are not visually impressive asthe mounds that enclose the plazas are overgrown and resemblehills. These cannot be restored with stone because they havealways been earthen mounds, which were a feature of FormativePeriod architecture, while building with stone is a Classic-eraarchitectural style. These two plaza groups, clearly ritualcenters of the site, are of cultural value mainly because theycontain the majority of Izapa's stelae, carved images in stone,which are still found in their original locations around theplazas (in contrast there are only two stelae in Group F, both ofwhich are in the ball-court). Unfortunately, these stelae are notvisually impressive as they have been heavily weathered and areunclear. Some stelae are accompanied by plaques that include smallline drawings and a basic description, but no theories of theyrepresent are included in this information. Stelae 50 and 52 arehoused in the INAH museum in Mexico City while Stelae 19, 20 and25 are in the INAH museum in the neighbouring city of Tapachula.These stelae are well preserved and visually striking, unlikethose found on-site.

The peculiarity of Izapa, which makes it so interesting forcultural tourism development, is that the archaeological site isnot state property, as is almost always the case of sites open tothe public, but instead consists of private properties. During the

4

excavations undertaken in the 1960s there were around 10 familiesliving in the demarcated archaeological zone. Today ourinvestigations find that there are around 90 families who livewithin the archaeological zone and the zone contains around 180properties, the non residential spaces are used for cultivation.It is important to highlight that the land of Izapa is a ruralarea located in the most productive agricultural region ofChiapas, and has been continuously in use. In the 1960s the landwas principally used for grazing cattle, then government programspromoting the production of cacao lead to the re-introduction ofcacao to the region. As this product has recently been affected bya fungal infestation, production has switched to the planting andcultivation of rambutan fruit, highlighting the local residents'need to make their land pay (Vogel 2014).

For the three groups that were open to the public INAH appointedthe land owners as custodians of their own group of monuments,they are responsible for the maintenance of the site and to allowvisitors in during designated hours. These landowners becamefederal employees, with regular income and social securitycoverage, while retaining ownership of their land, making this avery desirable situation. The original custodians have sincepassed on the job to their male heirs. Perhaps the reason forwhich INAH did not buy up the land after the excavations andsimply left custodians to keep the site open to visitors is thatMexico has historically had a centralist mentality, dominated bythe capital, while Izapa is located far-away in the periphery.This was suggested by INAH's representative in the region(personal communication with H. Olivares, August 14, 2013) as areason for the lack of attention given to the site, who furtherremarked that INAH did not have a delegation in the region untilthe opening of the museum in Tapachula in 1988.

In 2002 the archaeological zone of Izapa was declared “culturalpatrimony protected by the nation” by a presidential decreepublished on two occasions, on January 9th and December 26th 2002,which established a demarcated polygonal area covering 127hectares. This brought about difficulties with the local communityresiding in the zone as extensive regulations now governed the useof their land. The local INAH representative in 2013 questioned

5

how one can declare the zone as protected by the nation when theland does not belong to the government and which has hundreds ofowners, adding that it is unknown who promoted this federaldeclaration (ibid.). He added that while it would be convenient forINAH to purchase the land of Groups A, B and F, this has beenprevented by the lack of formal property deeds of almost all theproperties, which have been informally subdivided over the yearsas families grew and new families were formed by them. Plots havealso been sold to buyers from the nearby city of Tapachula. Asthese sales are usually not reported to INAH, the insititute doesnot know for certain how many owners there are in Izapa.Furthermore the buying price of the land set by the land registryis low, which makes it unappealing to the owners to sell to INAH,as they would also need to pay the high costs of around 10,000pesos to regularize the property deeds. Many owners also harbourthe idea that there is treasure under the land and hence set theirselling price very high.

The regulations in place in the archaeological zone mean thatresidents cannot dig holes without prior approval from INAH toensure that archaeological artefacts are not damaged. This causesimportant hindrances, for example in installing plumbing forhouses. Nonetheless, the residents have made wells and otherstructures, especially cement structures, prior to thepresidential decree and more recently without previousauthorization, especially when they know the constructions areunlikely to be authorized. These regulations have made INAH veryunwelcome to inhabitants of the Izapa archaeological zone andmakes Izapa inconvenient to INAH. Property rights also createrestrictions that make it difficult for INAH to check theconditions of archaeological.1

As Izapa is not an important tourism site, INAH does not charge an

1 If objects are damaged or moved someone has to report it to the municipal agent of the zone who will then report it to the INAH representative in Tapachula. He, in turn, must send a formal request to headquarters who will then reply with an official notification requesting that the representative be allowed to enter the property to verify the state of the monuments. Nonetheless, the landowner still needs to give permission for the INAH representative to enter his property. Such complications have prevented the site from being protected as well as it could be.

6

entrance fee to visitors, which remain few. The principal flows ofvisitors are school excursions from nearby towns, as Izapa is theonly notable archaeological site in the region. In the 1980s therewere important flows of Mormon tourists, mainly from Utah, whowere attracted to the site due to the reputation of Stela 5 as arepresentation of an event in the Book of Mormon. Internationaltourism in the region is minimal, most international tourism flowsenter Chiapas from the north with the colonial city of SanCristobal de Las Casas as the main pole of attraction, and fromthere tourists usually go up north to Palenque before crossinginto the Yucatan peninsula. The south-east region is largelyignored. Even tourists that move to or from Guatemala do so viaSan Cristobal rather than through the coastal region. As a result,international tourism into the coastal region of the Soconusco,where Izapa is located, principally derives from cruise shiptourism. Cruise ships started arriving in Chiapas in 2006. In 2011twenty two ships docked in Puerto Chiapas, near Tapachula, whilefor 2014 forty such ships are expected. These ships tend to dockat the port for around nine hours and two principal tour agenciesfrom Tapachula provide day excursions for the passengers,including a trip to Izapa. These tourists tend to be elderlyAmericans and the visit to Izapa has been described by one of thetour operators as disappointing for them as they tend to onlyvisit the restored site F because the age and expectations ofthese visitors makes it difficult for them to walk to the othertwo sites, a distance of almost 2km.Cultural Tourism and IzapaThe principal reason for Izapa's relevance as a site for culturaltourism is that it is most likely the site of origin of the 260day ritual calendar, called the Tzolkin, which consists of twentyday signs represented by ideographic symbols (commonly called‘nahuales’) and were used throughout Mesoamerica. This calendar isthe cornerstone of contemporary Maya spirituality and practices.As such, it should attract people with interest in this form ofcontemporary spirituality and should provide the resources forinterested visitors to learn more about this spirituality.Additionally, the illustrations in the stelae are considered to bethe earliest representation of the stories of the Maya CreationMyths recorded in the Popol Vuh, which was codified by the QuicheMaya of Guatemala in the 16th century: various stelae show scenes

7

clearly reminiscent of the tales of the Hero Twins (Barba 1990).Hence, this site should also enable visitors to learn more aboutMaya mythology.

The identification of this site with the 260 day calendar comesfrom Vincent Malmström who observed as early as 1973 that the daysthe sun is at its zenith (the highest point directly overhead,resulting in vertical objects casting no shadow at midday) at thelatitude of Izapa, 14.8º North, are precisely 260 days apart,occurring on August 13th and April 30th. There are three pillar-ballmonuments in the principal plaza, denominated Group B, which markthis event. August 13th is also the Maya creation date in the longcount calendar, calculated to start in 3114 BCE and whose 13th

Baktun (a period of time of 144,000 days) ended to much popularinterest in December 2012. Malmström expanded his theory in a1997 book, arguing that Izapa was the only site in all of the pre-Columbian New World that lay along the parallel 14.8º N, wassituated in a lowland tropical niche (all animals in the Tzolkinare lowland tropical animals) and that was in existence at leastas early as 400 BCE (coinciding with the earliest evidence of useof this calendar; Malmstöm 1997:4). As we shall discuss later,Izapa was also closely associated with the December 2012 Mayacalendar end-date.

Broadly speaking, the term cultural tourism applies to visitsundertaken to experience a culture distinct from that of thevisitor’s place of residence. Tylor’s 1871 definition of cultureis: “that complex whole which includes knowledge, belief, art,morals, law, custom, and any other capabilities and habitsacquired by man as a member of society”. For example, Reizinger(1994:24) considers that cultural tourism is a form ofexperiential tourism based on the search for and participation innew and deep cultural experiences of an aesthetic, intellectual,emotional, or psychological nature. Hughes (1996:707), incontrast, argues that cultural tourism tends to be applied totrips whenever cultural resources (such as museums) are visitedregardless of initial motivation, and classifies those touristswho want to "experience 'culture' in the sense of a distinct wayof life" as "ethnic tourism". As such, as Csapó (2012) highlights,cultural tourism is a very complex segment of the tourism industry

8

because its supply is diverse and versatile. On the demand side wehave those tourists who have a cultural motivation for theirtravel and on the supply side the destination which is attractiveto culturally motivated tourists. In the case of Izapa, followingReizinger's definition, we find that tourists who are interestedin pre-Columbian mythology and spirituality should be attracted tothe site due to its association with two pre- Colombian culturalartefacts, the 260 day ritual calendar and the Popol Vuh CreationMythology.

The idea of cultural tourism is a very attractive one for tourismdevelopment. Richards (2009) summarizes its appeal: “there are agrowing number of places in search of new forms of articulationbetween culture and tourism which can help to strengthen ratherthan water down local culture, which can raise the value accruingto local communities and improve the links between localcreativity and tourism.” For the purpose of archaeological sitessuch as Izapa cultural tourism has the additional value ofensuring the preservation of monuments. This possibility washighlighted as early as 1976 in the ICOMOS Charter on CulturalTourism (http://www.icomos.org/tourism/) which defines culturaltourism as “that form of tourism whose object is, among otheraims, the discovery of monuments and sites. It exerts on these last a verypositive effect insofar as it contributes - to satisfy its own ends - to their maintenance andprotection. This form of tourism justifies in fact the efforts whichsaid maintenance and protection demand of the human communitybecause of the socio-cultural and economic benefits which theybestow on all the populations concerned” (our italics).

Unfortunately this paper highlights the numerous obstacles to thedevelopment of cultural tourism in a site of great importance tothe development of Mesoamerican culture. Principally thedifficulties arise from the very little local knowledge of thesite’s importance, visitors must arrive with prior knowledge ofits importance as there is no museum nor guidebooks available, noris there local knowledge about the site’s principal culturalartefacts. Such knowledge needs to be available in order todevelop cultural tourism, especially considering Richards’ 1996definition of cultural tourism as “the movement of persons tocultural attractions away from their normal place of residence,

9

with the intention to gather new information and experiences tosatisfy their cultural needs.” Before proposing suggestions fordeveloping the site we shall examine the efforts to promotetourism in the run-up to December 2012, the appropriations of thesite by local residents and the municipality, and also hindrancesto tourism development identified during field research.

2. Izapa and 2012 Izapa has gained prominence because of its association with theDecember 2012 Maya Calendar end-date, an association made by theAmerican writer John Major Jenkins, who considers himself an“independent researcher”, in his 1998 book “Maya Cosmogenesis”published by the New Age publishing house Bear and Co. of Boulder,Colorado. This work became very popular in the New Age discourseon the Maya Calendar end-date of 2012, and is noteworthy for beingthe only interpretation based on research related to a pre-Columbian site. For most people outside the Mormon community thefirst time they heard of Izapa was from Jenkins' work. This istrue of the authors of this study and also of the founders of the“Maya Conservancy” NGO; the latter was instrumental in preventingthe widening of the highway that crosses the archaeological sitethat began in March 2007 by raising awareness about Izapa. Theirconcern was subsequently taken up by INAH, who blockedconstruction and recommended instead that the road be divertednorth of the site as “the only and best alternative” (INAH 2007:15). However, seven years later there has been no effort toundertake this deviation. (This is probably due to the objectionof the many restaurant owners who run their businesses alongsidethe existing road and who rely on the existing traffic forclients.) In the summer of 2007 the Maya Conservancy along withlocal tourism promoter Rodolfo Juan brought Jenkins to Tapachulato give a presentation to local officials who were clearly sograteful that someone explained the site to them and told them itwas important that they gave him the keys to the town of TuxtlaChico. A presentation and press conference were also held at theUniversity Valle de Grijalva in Tapachula (Jenkins 2009). As aresult Jenkins' view of the site and its relation to 2012 wasfirmly established in the region.

10

Another important milestone in the run up to the December 2012celebrations was the New Fire ceremony that was held in Izapa forthe first time in living memory in June 2010. Such fire ceremoniesare an integral part of contemporary Maya spirituality and arewidely practiced by indigenous people in Guatemala, but theirknowledge had been lost in Chiapas. The New Fire ceremony was heldin Group F and was organized by the Maya Conservancy together withRodolfo Juan, who brought in 13 Guatemalan spiritual guides to“re-ignite and re-connect the spiritual energies in ritual fireceremonies” lead by Rigoberto Itzep from Momostenago. This eventwas contentious because a fee of 200 pesos was charged toparticipate although entrance to the site is free. The fire alsoleft a soot-stain on the stones and thereafter no furtherauthorization has been granted by INAH for such events. Asubsequent New Fire ceremony organized by Juan's tour agency washeld in 2011 on a property adjacent to the site. In this manner anindigenous tradition was brought to Izapa by interested foreignerswho brought in external expertise to conduct it as such traditionshave been lost in the region of Izapa.

The reason for the loss of indigenous knowledge can be traced tothe Mexican policy of “Indigenismo” which dates from the 1930s(Hewitt 1988). Policy makers considered that the rural poor werenot indigenas (indigenous people) but campesinos (peasants) in anattempt to do away with the highly stratified caste society. Thepolicy of Indigenismo promoted the peasants' “Mexicanization” andthe use of Spanish. This was even more important for Chiapas andthe Soconusco as the former only joined Mexico from Guatemalafollowing a referendum in 1824 (fourteen years after independence)while the latter was incorporated in 1827 and an effort was madeto culturally differentiate this region from neighbouringGuatemala. Our field research has found that the nativeinhabitants look down on neighbouring guatemalans, for examplewomen consider guatemalans very poor choices for husbands.Additionally, the Indigenismo policy helps explain why indigenousknowledge and practices, for example the New Fire ceremony, theritual 260 day calendar and the mythology of the hero twins, areunknown to the inhabitants of the region. Any program to promotecultural tourism at Izapa would need to re-introduce suchknowledge to the region.

11

The popular interest generated by the so-called “Maya calendarend-date” of 21st of December 2012 was seized upon by the Mexicangovernment as an opportunity to attract tourism, and Izapa wassupposed to benefit from this through federal funding received bythe municipality for its tourism infrastructure development.Funding was provided for the paving of the road within thearchaeological zone that runs from the freeway to Groups A and Band especially for important tourism infrastructure development inthe town of Tuxtla Chico, a tourism service centre. This wasdesigned by a local architect, Jorge Gonzales Chong, who wasinfluenced by Jenkins' galactic alignment theory for the design ofthe central sculpture, a ball passing through a goal ring alignedto the winter solstice sunrise. In the first stage, this tourismservice centre was to provide parking for tour buses and a welcomecentre for visitors, and the second stage involved theconstruction of a museum, restaurant and bungalows. However, theroad was only completed a few days before the 21st of December,while the service centre, commonly known as the “Parque delChocolate” only had the central sculpture completed, work hadstopped due to the fact that the funds “disappeared”. We shallcover this situation further in Section 3.

New Age appropriations of 2012 and John Major Jenkins' interpretation of IzapaThe New Age movement is a spiritual movement that emerged duringthe second half of the 20th century. The followers of this movementlook for something beyond organized religion and intend to reach aprofound spiritual realization by their own means (Suhl & Husted-Jensen 2006). Consequently, there is no fixed doctrine or astandard conceptualization on how to define the adherence to thisspiritual movement. Ruiz Torres, López Moya & Ascencio Cedillo(2011: 295) affirm that the New Age movement is a “new form ofeclectic spiritualism, pluralist, tolerant, individualist and de-institutionalized – although it is also denounced as consumerist,mercantilist and homogenizing. Due to the personal nature of thesearch for spiritual growth and personal transformation themovement incorporates concept of countless religions and otherspiritual movements; in most cases the followers construct theircosmology from a mosaic of scattered concepts originating from

12

various different sources, especially Egyptian, Hindu and alsoMayan spirituality (Campion 2011; Jenkins 2002).

The reason why the Mayan long count, with the end of the 13th

baktun (a period of 144,000 days) in December 2012, was soattractive for the New Age movement is due to the idea of a erachange. Indeed, the very term New Age shows in itself theimportance that this concept has in the thoughts of its adherents.Campion (2011:250) identifies the movement as rooted in Christianeschatological thought, which has appropriated the idea of changesin eras through the process of the precession of the equinoxes(the slow change in the position of the stars in relation to theearth) and the imminent change from the Age of Pisces to the Ageof Aquarius. However, the Age of Aquarius will only begin inaround a hundred years and, consequently, 2012 provided the NewAge movement with an opportunity for change, or an eschatologicalmoment, within the follower's lifetime.

The association between the New Age movement and pre-ColumbianMesoamerican culture finds its origins in the publication of thebook “Lord of the Dawn” by Tony Shearer in 1971, while theassociation made by this movement with the pre-Columbian 260 daycalendar is attributed to José Argüelles who popularized itthrough his book “The Mayan Factor: Path Beyond Technology” (1987).Argüelles stated that the Maya came to Earth to establish a systemof harmonic convergence with the galaxy, for which they createdtheir calendars. Here emerges for the first time in the New Ageconceptualization the idea of a galactic center: Argüelles calledthe galactic center “Hunab Ku” and considered that, due to analignment of the solar system with the galaxy, an era oftransformartion was imminent due to a transformative energy beamthat emanates from the galactic center. According to Argüelles,spiritual illumination can only be achieved by adopting cyclicaltime, to which purpose he changed the Tzolkin, which has beenpreserved by Guatemalan indigenous people throughout thecenturies, and established a new 260 day calendar which he calledthe Dream Spell (Argüelles 1987). This became popular in the 1990sbut its repute has diminished considerably in recent years.

Nonetheless, since the beginning of this century the concept of13

the “Maya Calendar” stopped being associated with the 260 daycalendar to refer instead to the Long Count and the date at theend of the 13th baktun cycle, associated with the 21st of December2012. There was much popular interest in this theme, which wasimagined as a time of disasters or transformation, and which wasdisassociated from the pre-Columbian culture which created it (seefor example the anthology Braden et al. 2007), at least in theEnglish material. In fact, the only popular author publishing inEnglish who used pre-Columbian material for his interpretation wasthe self defined independent researcher, John Major Jenkins, whofocused on Izapa.

John Major Jenkins can be considered a follower of the New Agemovement due to the fact that he bases his work on the concept ofa New Age caused by the precession of the equinoxes and theconviction that humans are about to experience great spiritualchanges (Jenkins 2002; 2009), both aspects are of great importanceto this movement. In his book Maya Cosmogenesis 2012 Jenkins (1998)proposes that it was the astronomers of Izapa who discovered theprocess of the precession of the equinoxes in the Americas andthey created the Long Count and the Calendar Round of 52 years totrack the precessional cycle. He considers that the creators ofthe Long Count had intended the 13th baktun period to end at thewinter solstice of 2012 because they were targeting a futurealignment of the winter solstice sunrise with the galactic center– identified with the ‘dark rift’, the visible centre of the MilkyWay. Jenkins proposes that this center was venerated by the Mayaand that the conjunction of the dark rift of the Milky Way withthe sun during a solstice was conceived as the moment of creationof a new era. Jenkins considers that this alignment in 2012represents a time of transformation and renovation.

Jenkins argues that this galactic alignment was codified in theball court in Group F at Izapa, which is aligned to the wintersolstice2. In Izapa, during the three days around the wintersolstice (the 21, 22 and 23rd of December) the rising sun shines onthe throne on the western side of the ball court. The throne has a

2 In fact Jenkins interprets the Mesoamerican ball game to be a ritual representation of what he calls the ‘galactic alignment’ where the ball represents the sun and the goal rings represent the galactic center.

14

head that appears between what seem to be the legs of a woman inchildbirth. Due to the precession of the equinoxes, in the yearsaround 2012 the Milky Way lies in front of the throne beforesunrise. Because of this, Jenkins has interpreted that the throneis the representation of the rebirth of the solar god emergingfrom the ‘dark rift’ in the Milky Way, the cosmic center, and, asa result, is the representation of a new era. He considers thatthe solar god represented in the throne is also depicted in Stela11 in Group B, oriented to the winter solstice sunrise, and alsoin one of the two stelae found on the ball court, Stela 67. It wasthis interpretation that dominated in Izapa in the run up to the21 of December 2012 date, which was celebrated in the ball courtof Izapa’s Group F.

We can add that the correlation of the end of the 13th baktun withthe winter solstice of the 21st of December is accepted byconsensus but not because it was proven beyond doubt (see Aldana2011). This correlation is based on the work of threeinvestigators who independently reached a date for the start ofthe Long Count calendar in August 3114 BCE. Goodman calculated thedate to 11th of August 3114 BCE, Martínez calculated the 9th ofAugust 3114 BCE and Thompson concluded that it was the 13th ofAugust of the same year, although he revised his calculations afew decades later and concluded that the 11th of August was thebetter correlation because it coincided with the Tzolkin calendarwhich was still in use in Guatemala (Normark 2010). Inarchaeology, the GMT correlation places the date of the start ofthe long count at 11 August while the GMT +2 correlation, which isused by various renowned academics like Floyd Lounsbury, JohanaBroda and Linda Schele, places the start on the 13th of August.Therefore, the end of the 13th baktun was the 21st (GMT) or the 23rd

(GMT+2) of December 2012.

Nonetheless, a strange situation has developed in Mexico where thestart of the Long Count is placed on the 13th of August and the endon the 21st of December, thus confusing the two correlations. Dueto the fact that the Long Count is a count of days, and that onebaktun involves 144 000 days, accuracy is of great importance andone cannot lose two days. This confusion appears in the leafletpublished by the organizing committee of Tuxtla Chico for the 21st

15

of December 2012 event, from tour guides operating in the site andeven in articles published in Mexico (see Bastos, Engel & Zamora2013: 315). We can add that for Izapa the start date of the 13th ofAugust is attractive in that it coincides with the zenith passageof the sun at the site's latitude, but taking into considerationthat the 21st of December date became so prevalent in the popularperception, the use of the 23rd (for the sake of consistency) wouldcause much confusion. Nonetheless, because the socio-culturalsignificance of the Long Count has been completely lost some maythink that the loss of two days does not have major importance andcan be done with impunity in the appropriation of this pre-Columbian artefact for contemporary use.

Events to celebrate December 2012 in IzapaThe perception of Izapa as a magnet for international tourismstarted to emerge in 2007 when John Major Jenkins and the MayaConservancy started to promote the site regionally. This includesthe New Fire ceremony of 2010 and also the organization of theIzapa Round Table conference in Tapachula in June of 2011. It wasfrom the information conveyed by these people that the idea beganto emerge regarding many people arriving to witness the 21st ofDecember 2012 at Izapa. The town of Tuxla Chico attempted topromote Izapa for the 21st of December in the hope of attractingtourists to their town and, to a lesser extent, with the purposeof educating the populace on the cultural richness of the region,including Izapa; it was recognized that this topic had beendisregarded for years (personal communication, S. Armento, August15, 2013). However, the previous municipal administration endedits term in the middle of 2012 and a new administration took overwithout maintaining any continuity with the previousadministration's efforts of tourism development. In order toorganize events and promote the town for December a committee ofvolunteers (called the “Patronato Izapa de Tuxtla Chico MMXII”)was set up by the municipal president of Tuxtla Chico in Septemberof 2012. Due to the undue expectation of many visitors,particularly foreigners, interested in witnessing the sunriseevent on the 21st of December 2012 in Izapa they organized eventsfor that week, from Monday 17th to Thursday 20th of December.

The original idea was to have events within Group F, the site16

popularly associated with Izapa, and there were intentions to holdNew Fire ceremonies and to have a light and sound show. However,the intentions of the organizers were hindered by INAH'sregulations that required a deposit of half a million pesos forevents to be held within the archaeological zone, in addition to alarge amount of paperwork. Due to the inability to cover thefinancial requirement, the only event that took place in thearchaeological zone was its early opening in order to appraise thesunrise on the 21st of December 2012 in the ballcourt of Izapa’sGroup F, the importance of which derives from Jenkin’s work. INAHalso refused to give permission to set up sound systems, claimingthat these would damage the structures, an argument which did notsit well with the Patronato that pointed out that light and soundshows on a much greater scale are organized in Chichén Itzá. Thereason, instead, seems to be that INAH categorizes archaeologicalsites in three groups according to their tourism importance, andChichén Itzá is in the first category, while Izapa does notfeature even in the lowest group (personal communication, S.Armento, August 15, 2013).

The organising committee wanted to conduct New Fire ceremonies onthe 12, 17 and 21st of December but these did not take place. Theexplanation given later by the tourism department of Tuxtla Chicowas that it was too expensive to bring in the spiritual guides (ajq’ij) from Guatemala because they charged in dollars instead ofpesos (personal communication, Y. Hernandez, August 15, 2013). Theneed to import these Guatemalan spiritual guides relates to to theloss of indigenous knowledge of the sacred 260-day cycle in Mexicoand, therefore, the fact that these events were not held was not aproblem for the local Mexicans as they do not form a part of theirculture. Indeed, it is still seen as the “vile superstition of theindigenous people” which the good Christians of the Soconuscoreject. Night-time astronomical observations were also plannedduring the week of festivities; however, these did not occur dueto complications of the responsible person's agenda. It isimportant to highlight that these cancelled events were the onlyones that attempted to combine the Izapa archaeological zone withindigenous or pre-Columbian practices.

In the mornings presentations were given by Andrés Cueto and the17

late Dr Thomas Lee, archaeologist with the NWAF in the 1960s, butthe remaining events did not have any links to pre-Columbian orIzapan culture. In fact, the week-long festivities had the title“Chocolate and Rambután Festival towards Izapa by Tuxtla Chico2012 (“Festival del chocolate y rambután rumbo a Izapa de TuxtlaChico 2012”). The chocolate and rambután festival is normally heldin July or August but that year it was postponed because ofexcessive rains. There is a sense that this festival was “piggy-backing” on the interest generated by the 2012 end-date in orderto promote local producers, particularly the artisan chocolatebeverage producers whose product is a town tradition. The week offestivities included exhibits of the chocolate beverage by thechocolate artisans of Tuxtla Chico and performances by dancegroups and other shows that were hired from different parts of thecountry. These shows were held in the evenings, from 5pm onwards,from the 17th to the 20th of December in order to entertain thelocal populace. It must be added that these shows are expensiveand, thus, the justification to cancel the New Fire ceremoniesbecause of a lack of funds is a superficial one and appears toonly be an excuse. This situation further highlights that thesepractices, tied to the pre-Columbian calendar system, are not apart of local culture and that there were no efforts made to teachlocals about these cultural practices and their significance toregional cultural heritage. Consequently, it is clear that thepromotion of Izapa in itself was not of great importance to theorganizing committee which was more interested in promoting thetown.

In the end, the festival was a failure in attracting tourism tothe town, in large part due to the rivalry that exists betweenTuxtla Chico and the city of Tapachula as both entities considerIzapa “theirs”. The events held in Tuxtla Chico during the week ofthe 17th of December were not publicized in Tapachula nor on theinternational freeway and, therefore, there was scarce attendanceby tourists –even though these were staying in Tapachula. The dayof the 21st of December 2012 various tourists, national andinternational, complained that they had been in Tapachula sincethe 18th or 19th of December, where there were no events tocelebrate 2012 and they had not been aware of the festival inTuxtla Chico until it was too late to attend. We can highlight

18

that Tapachula, the regional capital, has all the necessarytourism infrastructure: hotels, tour agencies and tourisminformation, services which Tuxtla Chico does not have at itsdisposal. The town only has two motels and a small hotel, all oflow quality for tourism. In December of 2012 there was neitherrestaurant nor cafeteria in the town that tourists could have goneto.

The municipal government’s preparations had planned for 200,000visitors on the morning of the 21st of December, when INAHpermitted the early opening of the site in order for people towitness the sunrise. A security agent present in Izapa's Group Festimated that between 1,500 and 2,000 people attended the sunriseof the 21st of December 2012 in that group and there were evenfewer people in the other two groups. The great majority ofvisitors came from within the region although some had travelledfrom other parts of Mexico. There were some internationaltourists, the majority influenced by Jenkins' work. However, it isclear that the reality had nothing to do with the “thousands” ofvisitors that the local community had imagined. The director ofthe municipal tourism department accepted that the turnout wasless than expected and partially blamed INAH for not havingpermitted the organization of events in Group F (personalcommunication, Y. Hernandez, August 15, 2013).

Some of the residents of the archaeological zone also tried togain financially from the 21st of December 2012 and to this endestablished the “Cooperative Association, Ruins of Izapa Groups Aand B” in September 2011, made up of 30 of the 90 families thatreside in the site. The aim of this association was to increasethe benefits that the inhabitants could gain from thearchaeological zone as a tourism destination. For the 21st ofDecember they had set themselves up at the fork in the roadbetween Groups A and B, on top of Mound 26 where various membersof the cooperative had stalls underneath a roofed structure thatthey had recently constructed. They sold tamales, chocolate andsome souvenirs that the vendors had acquired in the two importanttourism destinations of the State, San Cristóbal de las Casas andPalenque. They organized for a New Fire ceremony at midday on the21st of December which was attended by about 200 people and which

19

was conducted by a regional spiritual guide who had learned thetrade by studying with Guatemalan spiritual guides. This ceremonyimplies the “imaginario posmoderno” (postmodern conceptualization;Hiernaux 2006) due to the fact that a cultural activity of theMayan people has been commodified for the entertainment ofvisitors to an archaeological site. Furthermore, the members ofthe cooperative did not actively participate in the sacred fireceremony that they had organized, which again highlights that thistype of ritual does not form a part of their culture and that itcould possibly signal an opposition to their identification asMexican ‘mestizos’.

Following the events of December 2012 the municipal tourismdepartment showed an interest in establishing regular events basedon the yearly calendar and Izapa, namely to promote the two zenithpassages and the two solstice dates. This desire shows therecognition that local awareness of the regional cultural heritageis not going to occur from one day to the next due to many yearsof “cultural abandonment” (personal communication Y. Hernández,August 15, 2013). The subsequent date following December 2012 wasthe August 13th zenith passage in 2013, which we attended. For the12th of August the town had organized a presentation by the localspecialist on Izapa, Avelino Becerra, who is from Tapachula, onthe Tzolkin calendar and its links to Izapa, featuring dances byhis dance ensemble influenced by the Popol Vuh mythology. (Thedancers' costumes were based on Guatemalan traditional costumesbut Becerra highlighted that historically the whole southeasternseaboard of Chiapas and Guatemala shared the same culture;personal communication A. Becerra, August 12, 2013). It isinteresting to note that this representation of pre-hispanicculture was not held during the December festivities and it isalso unfortunate that it was not well attended. For the middayzenith event of the 13th there were very few tourists; only onegroup accompanied Avelino Becerra to the gnomon marker (pillar) inGroup F while the archaeologist Garth Norman lead a small group offoreign tourists in Group B. There was no event organized by theresidents' cooperative of the site and we were told that thiscooperative was no longer functional, although they permittedBecerra to conduct a New Fire ceremony in their plot, unexpectedlyheld at 4am on the 13th of August with only about 10 people

20

participating. A year later, on the 21st December 2013, the deputydirector of Tuxtla Chico's tourism department went to witness thewinter solstice sunrise in Group F. Based on the picture he tookit is evident that no-one else was there. It also appears thatnone of the local residents went out into the archaeological zoneto witness the zenith passage on the 30th of April 2014,highlighting how the Izapan cosmology, real and imagined, has notentered the mindset of the regional inhabitants following theinterest generated by the 2012 Maya Calendar end-date.

21

3. Hindrances towards tourism development in Izapa

International tourism to Izapa and to the town of Tuxtla Chicostarted in earnest with the arrival of the cruise ships in 2006.Nevertheless, those who have mainly benefitted from this tourismare the tour agencies in Tapachula who have an agreement with thecruise ships that dock in Puerto Chiapas to take their passengerson excursions. Their program includes a visit to Izapa beforegoing to the town of Tuxtla Chico for demonstrations on artisanaldrinking chocolate. As a result Izapa in itself is not adestination but rather an additional attraction of the region. Thelarge majority of tourists only visit the small Group F and do noenter the principal zone where Groups A and B are located. This isprincipally due to the fact that the site is not visuallyspectacular. The fact that it is businesses from the neighbouringtown of Tapachula that have benefitted from the existing tourismflows has resulted in resentment from the residents of the town ofTuxtla Chico and the inhabitants of the archaeological zone whoare unable to benefit financially from the site.

Our field research has identified various conflicts in thearchaeological zone. The first is a conflict between themunicipalities of Tuxtla Chico and Tapachula, the second, aconflict between the rural residents of Izapa and the town ofTuxtla Chico, which is the municipal centre, and finally conflictsbetween the families of the inhabitants of the archaeologicalzone. As we have previously noted, the conflicts between the townsof Tuxtla Chico and Tapachula are such that the former did notpublicize the events they had organized for December 2012 in theregional capital of Tapachula. With regards to the second conflictwe find that the rural residents of the archaeological zone feelmarginalized from the urban elite of Tuxtla Chico and the eventsof 2012 further served to distance the rural community of Izapafrom the urban residents of Tuxtla Chico; the former complainedthat they felt that they were being used in that Izapa was theostensible reason for the events being organized for December 2012but that the committee instead used the opportunity to promotetheir town rather than the archaeological site. Hence it becomesevident that there exists inconformity between the inhabitants ofthe archaeological zone and the municipal centre. The residents

22

feel constantly marginalized by the residents of Tuxtla Chico andare also of the opinion that the elite of that town (whichconformed the committee Izapa 2012) is taking advantage of theinhabitants of the archaeological zone in order to promote TuxtlaChico and their tourism service providers: for them Izapa is onemore attraction in the region but not significant in itself andthey are not interested in the development of the principalarchaeological zone of Izapa.

Thirdly, and possibly most vehement is the conflict betweenfamilies in the archaeological zone. Particularly the fact that afew families benefit from the archaeological site through theirjobs as custodians causes resentment, as their standard of livingis much higher in comparison to their immediate neighbours. Thisproblem is not specific to Izapa as is is almost always the casein communities living in archaeological zones in Mexico (Castañeda2009 recounts this situation in Chichén Itzá; personalcommunication with H. Olivares August 14, 2013). Furthermore,regulations in Izapa do not permit sales in the zone and the onlypeople who can sidestep this rule are the families who live in thegroups that are open to the public, who sell from their frontporches. We must remember that the residents of the zone are poorand their principal desire is to benefit financially from thearchaeological zone. For this very reason we find that the NWAFarchaeological excavations are remembered fondly by the localcommunity as they brought much-needed income to all familieswhile, on the other hand, the fact that they see tourism agenciesfrom Tapachula bringing in tourists and making money leads toresentment in the fact that they cannot partake of what theyperceive to be a very lucrative activity.

With regard to the inhabitants of the site, they have littleidentification to Izapa as forming a part of their culturalheritage. This conclusion was drawn independently from two fieldstudies about the archaeological site and its importance to thelocal community (Gutiérrez 2012; Vogel 2014). Firstly, it isevident that Izapa has no value over and above its use value tothe community, be that through the sale of agricultural productsthey grow on their land or expressed through a desire to know the

23

'value' of the 'pretty stones', the carved stelae of Izapa. Thisclearly shows a utilitarian conceptualization of Izapa by itsinhabitants and influences their actions when interacting withother, outside entities. Besides, the archaeological site formspart of their private property which further substantiates theirutilitarian view of the archaeological artefacts and influencestheir behaviour towards organizations such as INAH.

Secondly, Vogel (2014) found that, at the local school level,children can draw the archaeological site of Izapa (most onlyincluding Group F), however, they cannot indicate where in themunicipality the site is, nor do they know where the site lies inrelation to their own homes or the town of Tuxtla Chico. Thefindings from this exercise show that Izapa lies in a conceptualvacuum which is associated with a lack of knowledge about thesite. This lack of knowledge about Izapa, the archaeologicalfindings and the theories proposed in relation to the site is alsoreflected among the adults, both living in the demarcatedarchaeological zone as well as in the broader municipality(Gutiérrez 2012; Vogel 2014).

What this shows and what propels the conflict between thecommunity of Izapa and INAH is a distinction between privateproperty and national heritage. The inhabitants of thearchaeological zone have a very utilitarian vision of their land,they want to benefit economically from it and thus have engaged insmall-scale agricultural activities, these being more important inthe southern part of the zone. If one crop does not work, such asthe current situation of the cacao that is suffering from a fungalinfestation, they change it in order to benefit from a differentcrop (for example rambután fruit). As a result this utilitarianismis confronted by the vision of cultural patrimony regulatedthrough INAH on the need to safeguard the monuments at all costsfor future generations. Tentatively we can conclude that if theinhabitants of the site do not see means of benefitingeconomically from Izapa, it will not be possible to achieve theadequate protection of the zone.

The association that was made between Izapa and 2012 raisedexpectations in the municipality, leading to the perception that

24

there were many tourists that would come to visit Izapa for the21st of December 2012 becoming a common view throughout themunicipality: the cooperative group in Izapa as well as theorganizing committee in Tuxtla Chico held the idea that many,especially foreign, tourists would come to the site. The INAHrepresentative in Tapachula in 2013 mentioned that they (the localpopulace) all “believed that they were all going to get rich”,even though selling food and beverage to visitors for a uniqueevent was never going to result in lasting wealth (personalcommunication H. Olivares, August 14, 2013). The INAHrepresentative also highlighted the undue expectations of thecommunity and of the tourism industry of nearby Tapachularegarding Izapa, as they expect to find a new Palenque underneaththe archaeological site, (Palenque being the most important pre-Columbian attraction of the state) and, like in Palenque, theywish to see the mounds restored in stone, although this isimpossible because such architecture is characteristic of theClassic Period; the Formative site of Izapa consisted of compactedearthen mounds. What this highlights is the desire of theinhabitants for their property to become an important tourismattraction, probably because this would enable them to sell theirland for a high price rather than for them to actually becometourism service providers.

This situation of resentment and conflict within the community inthe archaeological zone places serious limitations in thepotential for community development of the site. An earlier study(Johnsson 2011) highlighted the need to organize the community inorder for them to benefit from the development of the site.However, this has been hard to achieve. Although in 2010 variousfamilies in the community of Izapa came together to try to benefitmore from the increase in tourism flows their efforts were limitedto selling food and beverages when they found out that tour groupsfrom cruise ships were due to arrive. At the end of 2011 theCooperative Association, Ruins of Izapa Group A and B” was formedin order to prepare for the events of December 2012 (see Section2). However, since then the cooperative has been falling apart andwas no longer in existence by early 2014, even though in February2013 they were presented with a development proposal to constructa tourist path (see Section 5) with external funds which was to be

25

managed by the cooperative. The members of the cooperative did notaccept this proposal due to internal conflicts between thefamilies that make up this group (personal communication with thepresident of the cooperative N. Tercero, February 2, 2013).Another example to highlight the lack of trust in the site is thatthere is only one craftsperson who makes artistic creationsinfluenced by the stelae of the archaeological site and who has avending space at the entrance of Group A. As the large majority ofvisitors go to Group F, where few items and nothing specific toIzapa is sold, it was suggested to the artist of Group A to allowher wares to be sold in the stand in Group F, but as there is noconfidence between the two families the proposal was not accepted.

A severe hindrance to Izapa's development was identified by theformer INAH representative in the region, whom we interviewed inAugust 2013, which is that of multiple “community leaders” whoseek to gain economically from the zone for themselves and theirfollowers by pocketing the resources they are able to makeavailable for projects and then blaming INAH and their regulationsfor the non-development of Izapa. This practice has effectivelyturned INAH into the local scapegoat. Firstly, this informantasked how many residents could the Izapa zone have? Perhaps athousand? Then he asked how, in a community of a thousand, therecould be ten different leaders: too many people wanting to controltoo few people. He remarked that in addition to the cooperativementioned earlier many other groups exist, the “Frente Izapa”,“Ruinas de Izapa” etc, and these end up fighting with each other.These community leaders, he explained, take a group of people,fight for some development work, such as street lighting, get theresources and then keep half for themselves. He gave examples ofresources that have been received for paving a road or forinstalling street lighting where residents claimed that theleaders kept a part or all of the money, and then justified thatnothing happened by claiming it was INAH regulations thatprevented the constructions. “As they don't do anything becausethey stole all the money they then tell the people that theydidn't do it because INAH did not let them” (Personalcommunication H. Olivares August 14, 2013).

He then posed the question whether these leaders are really26

preoccupied with their cultural heritage and the wellbeing oftheir community or whether they are only interested in gainingresources and stealing half of these. He concluded that the latteris what drives the desire to develop Izapa, to siphon offresources for themselves or at least to ensure that infrastructuredevelopment benefits the community leader and their people but notthose residents who follow a separate leader. He clarified thatthe liaison between INAH and the residents of the archaeologicalzone is technically undertaken by the municipal liaison officer,who reports to the municipal presidency. However, this individualbecomes one of the different leaders who aim to promote thosepeople that follow them rather than the community as a whole. Forexample, we were told that there was a road to be built but themunicipal liaison wanted it to end at a certain spot and notcontinue, so he and his people would benefit from it but thosefurther on, who follow another leader, could not use it, as theyhad not fought for it. Hence we can conclude that the existingposition of municipal liaison, serving as a link between thecommunity and INAH, is not a practical solution.

There is also a widespread belief among the inhabitants of thearchaeological zone that their site has been ransacked byarchaeologists over the years, and thus, their cultural heritagehas been taken away from them (although anecdotal evidence claimsthat many property owners have sold artefacts found on theirlands). This includes farfetched notions of treasure that wasfound, although no gold objects were ever discovered during theNWAF excavations. There is also an awareness that some stelae weretaken by INAH and that these must be returned. The INAHrepresentative in Tapachula emphasized that these were not 'taken'and are displayed for all to see in their museums in Mexico Cityand in Tapachula. Nonetheless the inhabitants insist they must bereturned, even though their presence in the museums helps toencourage visitors to come to the site of Izapa. This desire isdriven by the belief that returning all the stelae would increasetourism to their site and not because of any concerns regardingthe actual heritage. Furthermore, the utilitarian outlook theresidents have of the site taking precedence over any desire tounderstand the history and significance of the site washighlighted through an anecdote that the regional manager of INAH

27

told: he had suggested to the community that he visit and give ashort talk about the site in order to increase local awareness, towhich the community asked how much he would pay them for theirattendance? He later discovered that some of the community leadershad told the inhabitants that they need to charge for anything todo with their heritage. Hence he concludes that the residents arenot truly interested in the history and archaeology and are onlyinterested in gaining financially from the site. This INAHrepresentative left his position in early 2014.

The culture of corruption that permeates the society is a majorimpediment for tourism development and prevented the mostimportant infrastructure development for Izapa from beingcompleted. This project was called the Service Unit for theArchaeological Zone of Izapa (“Unidad de Servicios para la ZonaArqueológica de Izapa”) but was colloquially referred to as theChocolate Park (“Parque del Chocolate”)3. The municipality ofTuxtla Chico received an important amount of federal funds forthis tourism infrastructure development in 2009 and work commencedthe following year. However, construction stopped due to the“disappearance”, most likely theft, of funds sometime after early2011, the first time we visited the site. By December 2012 thisconstruction stood uncompleted and abandoned. It remained soduring our final field visit in April 2014. When we asked thetourism representative of the municipal government of Tuxtla Chico(2012-2015) about this situation in August 2013 it was explainedthat the Chocolate Park Project had not been formally handed overto them by the previous administration, and hence they had notformally taken ownership of it, thus it does not exist in theirbooks (Personal communication Y. Hernandéz, August 15, 2013). Thissituation highlights that neither the previous nor the currentmunicipal administrations want to take formal responsibility forthis incomplete construction. The Chocolate Park stands as amonument to the failure to develop Izapa.

The importance that this construction was meant to have for

3 This in itself is revealing. Artisanal drinking chocolate is a traditional feature of Tuxtla Chico and is what they promote and try to sell to tourists, the name they give the park highlights how they imaged this space to serve the local producers of the town, rather than the archaeological zone.

28

tourism development at Izapa must be highlighted. It would haveresponded to the following problems: the lack of parking space fortour buses in Group F and in the town itself, the lack of avisitors' centre and bathrooms, and also the lack of vendingspaces where tourists can purchase food, drink and souvenirs,including the local traditional, hand-made drinking chocolate. Thefirst stage of construction intended to remedy this situation,while a second stage of construction was supposed to create amuseum, restaurant, artificial lake, and bungalows for visitors touse. The land for this second phase has not even been cleared. Weenquired with an engineer who claimed to have been working on theproject at the time and who assured us that sufficient funding hadbeen made available for both the first and second stages ofconstruction. This would have been a very sizeable sum.

The chocolate park also illustrates another difficulty for tourismdevelopment in the region: the problem caused by short termmunicipal government mandates. The park is located near the banksof the river Izapa and roughly mid-way between the centre ofTuxtla Chico and Group F of the archaeological zone. The plan wasfor visitors to disembark from their transport in the park andthen use a pathway that would lead them to Group F. However, thepath needed to cross through private lands. In March 2011, whenconstruction was underway, we enquired about this; the family thatowns Group F said they had never been consulted on this particularmatter. We also met with the owner of the land adjacent to thevisitors' centre that the path would have to cross. They told usthey had been in negotiations with the previous municipalpresident (2008-2010) but had not reached an agreement and thecurrent municipal president (2010-2012) had not restarted thenegotiations on this matter. This situation shows the difficultiesthat arise with the short-term nature of municipal governance,which was only a two year mandate, although since 2012 it has beenextended to three-year mandates.

INAH's position on the insignificance of IzapaOur proposal suggests that Izapa can become a cultural tourismcentre due to its importance with regard to the pre-Columbiancalendar system, especially the 260-day calendar. However, a majorimpediment to actually accomplishing this objective is INAH's

29

position that this is not the case. For the 13th of August zenithin 2013 the municipality of Tuxtla Chico invited Avelino Becerra,considered the regional expert on Izapa, to give a presentationabout the site and its importance. He highlighted the link betweenIzapa and the Tzolkin Calendar as a result of the zenith passagein that latitude and gave a detailed explanation of the twentyday-signs of this calendar, using the term 'nahuales' for these,which denote spiritual entities. Indeed, his presentation servedto highlight the contemporary appropriation of Maya spirituality,further highlighting that people with such interests are animportant target group that would be attracted to Izapa throughthe development of the site as a cultural tourism destination.

The INAH representative in Tapachula was present at thispresentation and was interviewed shortly afterwards. He wasdismissive of Becerra's presentation, claiming that it had nobasis in fact. According to him there is no link between Izapa andthe 20 day signs of the Tzolkin as there are no day glyphs inIzapa. “Let him show me a stela with a [day sign] glyph,” heboldly solicited. According to the INAH representative, and we canassume his position is shared widely in INAH, “Izapa did notdevelop the calendar because there are no glyphs, no writing,nothing.” (Personal communication, H. Olivares, August 14, 2013)According to INAH the earliest calendrical glyphs are from thevalley of Oaxaca during the Monte Albán I phase (500-200 BCE;Broda 1969: 77-81)

There are some arguments against this. Firstly, one must rememberthat Izapa was located in a linguistic border region, at thefurthest southern extreme of the mixe-zoque expansion and on theborder of the maya-speaking zone of Central America. Puttinglanguage, i.e. glyphs, on the stelae would favour one group overanother and hinder some peoples' understanding, especially thosewho visited from afar (personal communication V.G. Norman August14, 2013). Indeed, we must remember that the Izapan stelae arenoteworthy for their iconographic narrative style, which has madethem well known in art history studies. This contrasts with theimages produced by the Olmecs and Maya which favoured therepresentation of political leaders. Furthermore, Izapa was not somuch a city, but rather an international centre of knowledge,

30

which helps explain the reason for Izapa's tremendous longevity;as opposed to city-states like Palenque in the Classic era thatrose and fell, Izapa was already established by the Late Formativeperiod and remained active until well into the Post-classic period–even through there was a catastrophic eruption of the nearbyvolcano Tacana, around 75 BCE-. Nevertheless, the people returnedto the site, building a new centre in what is now Group F (seeSection 4). Furthermore, Garth Norman, during his lifelong studyof the site, has identified glyph dates on the stelae that pertainto the 52 year Calendar Round, which was a calendar system also inuse throughout Mesoamerica, for example 1 Imox 4 Pop on Stela 12,which is the autumn equinox in 176 BCE (Norman 2012:69).

With regard to the twenty day sign glyphs, it is generallyunderstood that religious institutions have information availableto the general public and knowledge which is only shared withdisciples. Coggins (1996) has suggested that this scenario mayhave applied to Izapa. Under the circumstances it would seem thatthe images displayed in the stelae around the ceremonial plazasare clearly for public consumption, while other knowledge,including esoteric knowledge on the day signs and their powers,was reserved for initiates who studied at Izapa before returningto their places of origin to serve as calendar priests. Finally,with regards to Monte Albán I as having the earliest calendarglyphs we can remark that there is virtually no evidence of humanpresence before this period (Monte Albán I is the first period ofsettlement, there is no previous one) and knowledge on thecalendar cannot have emerged totally formed from the outset,rather the knowledge was brought in form elsewhere. If we considerthat Izapa was settled since 1500 BCE this gave them plenty oftime to observe the heavenly bodies and develop the calendar,independent of the intensive construction of the plazas which dateto around 300 BCE.

The hypothesis that Izapa's stelae provide the earliest evidenceof the creation mythology that was preserved in the narrative ofthe Popol Vuh in the 16th century, and hence home to a mythologicalstream of thought that transcended millennia, was also dismissedby the INAH representative in Tapachula who is unconvinced byBeatriz Barba de Piña Chan's work (personal communication, H.

31

Olivares, August 14, 2013). Nonetheless, both the 260-day periodbetween the zenith passages in Izapa and the stelae's similaritieswith the Popol Vuh were mentioned in the 2007 study produced byINAH Chiapas and used to prevent the planned widening of thehighway that crosses the archaeological zone between km 10 and 12.However, besides this there is no document in which INAH spellsout its position relating to the site. Additionally, the tourismdepartment of Tuxtla Chico in 2013 mentioned that they did notknow what INAH's official position on the site is – if there isany (personal communication, A. Cueto August 15, 2013). Aninterview with the INAH director in the state capital of TuxtlaGutierrez in November 2013 confirmed that there is no officialversion regarding the theories that have been proposed in relationto Izapa.

Both the archaeologist Emiliano Gallaga, director of INAH Chiapasin 2011 who was replaced in late 2013, and his successor, MiguelRiva-Palacio (who left his post in early 2014) maintained that forINAH Izapa is a tiny, unimportant site on the periphery. When weinterviewed them they both stressed that in Chiapas there are2,400 archaeological sites that have been identified and that areprotected by federal law. Only about ten of these sites are opento the public and Izapa is the only one to be both privateproperty and have some plazas open to the public. From theperspective of tourism development it is evident that INAH has nointerest in developing the coastal region of Chiapas for tourismpurposes as Palenque, to the north, brings in large revenues andadditionally serves as a focal point for tourism flows to thesites of Bonampak and Yakxilán, among others. There is no desireto create a new tourism region because Izapa receives very fewvisitors: INAH categorizes archaeological sites of tourismimportance in three groups and Izapa does not even feature in thegroup of least importance. The INAH representative in Tapachulacompared the site to Palenque, which during holiday seasonsreceives up to a million visitors a day, all of whom pay anentrance fee, and Izapa, which receives less than a thousandvisitors a month and which is free. He stated that, in hisopinion, it would be better for the Institute to remove the stelaeand close the site (personal communication, H. Olivares August 14,2013).

32

Having said that, there does exist interest from the business andpolitical community of Tapachula to promote Izapa as the Soconuscoregion is largely excluded from tourism flows in the State andIzapa, for all its limitations, is the principal archaeologicalsite in the region and is located very close to Tapachula. Effortshave been made by the state tourism department to promote atourism route through the Soconusco and the local chamber ofcommerce, Coparmex, has called for more promotion of this region.The INAH representative in Tapachula recognized that there ispressure from the Tapachula business leaders, who complain thatINAH does not make any effort when it comes to Izapa, and countersby arguing that it is the role of the municipal governments topromote the site at the state level in order to get the stategovernor and the representatives of Chiapas in the two legislativechambers in Mexico City to promote Izapa and pressure INAH in itscentral offices in Mexico City to expand and develop the site.

4. The Importance of Izapa

This section includes a comprehensive literature review of bothEnglish and Spanish works in order to highlight the importance ofIzapa, showing that the site is an important and ancient Formativeera ceremonial centre that influenced the later Classic-eracivilizations including Teotihuacan and the Maya city states.

Excavations during the 1960s determined that the archaeologicalzone of Izapa occupies an area of 4 km² – 400 hectares, of whichonly 127 hectares, which conform the central zone of the site, areprotected by the presidential decree of 2002. Furthermore, arecent study affirms that the archaeological zone is larger thanoriginally thought; Rosenswig, López-Torrijos, Antonelli andMendelsohn (2013) found a group of eleven mounds to the east ofthe river Izapa and some twenty more to the southeast of Groups Aand E. Some archaeologists consider that it is probable that Izapawas settled even earlier than the earliest evidence which datesfrom 1500 BCE (Ekholm 1969). The construction of the monuments andof the public areas in the ceremonial centre were achieved in theLate Formative period between 300 BCE and 100 CE and the site wasinhabited until 1200 CE (Lowe et al. 1982), something that should be

33

highlighted and which contrasts to other pre-Columbian cities thatrose and fell. The fact that Izapa was continuously inhabited foralmost three millennia makes it unique in the Mesoamerican worldand this was also highlighted in the INAH Chiapas study (2007).While officially those in charge of the site maintain that it wasa small ceremonial center of little importance, the longevity ofthe ancient ceremonial center of Izapa is the principal evidencethat reveals its great cultural importance.

Izapa is strategically aligned to the two highest volcanoes inCentral America: Tacaná and Tajumulco. The position andorientation of Izapa towards these two prominent topographicmarkers helped the city achieve prominence as an important ritualcenter that attracted pilgrimages in early Mesoamerica. Asrecorded in the Popol Vuh and is represented in the base panel ofStela 5, these two volcanic peaks symbolically represent the firstlandmasses to emerge from the primeval waters of creation (Norman2012). The ancient builders of Izapa placed their sculptured stonemonuments in large rectangular plazas, with the carved part of thestelaes enclosing the plaza and placed in front of mounds made ofearth, stone and clay that are located on the four sides of eachplaza. The builders not only calibrated precisely the scale thatthe carved images of the monuments followed but also planned,regulated and oriented all of the ceremonial center of Izapa, withits mounds and monuments to sun, moon, Venus and other starcycles at their eastern horizon rising positions (Norman 2012).

The origins of IzapaA number of recent studies (Clark & Gosser 1995; Clark andCheetham 2002; Lesure and Blake 2002; Rosenswig 2006; Rosenswig2007; Rosenswig 2012a; Rosenswig et al. 2013) on the Soconuscoilluminate the situation in this region during the Formativeperiod. This is a relatively small but very fertile region,located between the coast of the Pacific Ocean and the SierraMadre mountain range. The first political centers in the regionemerged in the region of Mazatán, starting with Paso de la Amadabetween 1700 and 1400 BCE (Lesure and Blake 2002) and thesocieties that conformed these centers do not show evidence ofclass structure (Rosenswig 2007). The contact with the Olmecs from1400 BCE provoked some ideological changes during the early

34

Formative era (1500-1000 BCE), nonetheless, it was not until theemergence of La Blanca, at the other extreme of the Soconuscoregion, from 1000 BCE during the Middle Formative, that there wasa notable change in social organization (Rosenswig 2007; Rosenswig2012a) with the emergence of a tribute system and the consequentsocial stratification (Rosenswig 2005). There was a markedincrease in the urban population and construction started on largemonuments in the principal political center of La Blanca but alsoin secondary centers like Izapa where construction started onMound 30 (Ekholm 1969). It has been proposed that these cone-shaped mounds, which appear to represent volcanoes, had thefunction of representing the mountain of creation and thus servedas a ritual scene for political acts (Reilley 1999).

Nonetheless, La Blanca’s importance was fleeting and it collapsedas the primary political center around 850 BCE (Rosenswig 2012a)and, consequently, the coastal region of the Soconusco wasabandoned with the emergence of Izapa as the important regionalcenter (Rosenswig 2012a; 2012b; 2013). Rosenswig (2012b:117)affirms that “Izapa may have begun as a secondary center in the LaBlanca polity, but unlike other Conchas phase [1000-850BCE]centers such as La Blanca, La Zarca, El Infierno, and Cuauhtémoc,it grew throughout the Middle Formative [1000-350BCE] and reachedits greatest extent in the Late Formative [350BC-100CE]” with theconstruction of the principal monuments in Izapa. The fact thatthe site was continuously settled is even more surprising if weconsider that it is located in a frontier region: Izapa is locatedin the region on the south-eastern extreme of the Mixe-Zoquespeaking zone (Lowe et al. 1982), a language group related to theOlmec language, who are considered to be the mother culture ofMesoamerica. Its location places Izapa inside Olmec territory andbordering on the region of the Maya people that were forming inthe Petén region of Guatemala. This location between linguisticgroups means that it was in a region of cultural exchange betweenthe Mixe-Zoque and Maya peoples and the fact that the siteremained intact for centuries is evidence of the culturalimportance that this ceremonial center must have had for all thecultures in the region.

Coe, among others, considers that the Izapan culture formed a35

bridge between the Olmec culture and the Maya between 400 BCE andthe 3rd century (Coe 2001:218, INAH 2007:7). However, this proposalis refuted because the Maya culture was already being developed inthe Mirador basin in Guatemala from 700 BCE (Sharer & Traxler2006), during the same time that the Olmec city of La Ventaflourished. The traditional version also considers that Izapadeveloped as a result of Olmec influence that came from theAtlantic coast southward to the Pacific. However, ceramic evidenceactually signals the opposite: the earliest ceramics found inMesoamerica come from the coastal region of Chiapas and date from1600 BCE (Willey 1989:433). Girard (1949) also noted the existenceof exceptionally early material, especially ceramics found on thePacific coast of Mexico and Guatemala. This permits us to suggestthe possibilities that the earliest societies developed in thecoastal region of the Pacific and that migrations and commercialcontact to the Gulf of Mexico through the Isthmus of Tehuantepecmade possible the rise of the Olmec culture from 1200 BCE and notthe other way around (Malmström 1997:45; Piña Chán 1982).

The ceremonial plazas of IzapaIzapa is made up of eight ceremonial plazas and from theexcavations 271 sculptures have been recorded. These include 89stelae, 90 altars, and 3 thrones, all with carved motifs in lowrelief (Lowe et al. 1982:89) in an artistic style associated withthe site itself, the Izapan style (Coe 2001:99-100). These stelaeare mainly found around the plazas of Groups A and B and Guernsey(2006) adds that the ritual space was articulated via the stelaewhich had the purpose of substituting the ritual performers.According to Ekholm (1969:4) it is very probable that Izapa wasthe most important ceremonial center in the region. For Lowe et al.(1982:3269) Izapa appears to have been only a ceremonial center asthey did not find evidence of residential areas around the civic-religious monuments and consider that Izapa was a place ofpilgrimage. They highlight that they also did not find evidence ofgoverning dynasties (1982:317-318) while Rice (2007) proposes thatIzapa was a place for the initiation of priests.

Besides the five stelae which are exhibited in museums, the Izapanstelae are found in their original locations around the plazaswhich are open to the public. These stelae do not represent rulers

36

but rather narrative images. Lowe et al. (1982:225) comment that the“gods” represented in the carved stones “are non-personal and arealways shown as parts of wider themes.” Images of sacred treesthat connect the earth or the underworld to the heavenspredominate. The artistic style of Izapa is unique and is notbased on the earlier Olmecs, nor traits that manifest themselvesin the art of the Classic era Maya (Smith 1984; Quirarte 1973)which is why it has been widely studied by art historians.

The most interesting hypothesis on the Izapan stelae originatesfrom Beatriz Barba de Piña Chán who found a link between theimages represented in some of the sculptures and the stories ofthe Popol Vuh of the Quiche Maya. She proposes the possibilitythat 14 of Izapa’s stelae represent mythic events similar to thosefound in the Popol Vuh. Due to this she considers it possible thatthere exists a continuity with the Izapan myths of the Formativeperiod and the later myths of the Maya people (Barba 1990). Thisidea is supported by the work of Chinchilla (2010) and Guernsey(2006). Indeed, Stela 25 of Izapa is considered the earliesttestimony of a story that was widely known by Mesoamerican people,the most common version of which is the story of 7 Macaw in thePopol Vuh (Chinchilla 2010). Furthermore, the stories of the PopolVuh have been associated with the movements of the stars, theMilky Way and descriptions of constellations (Freidel, Schele &Parker, 1993) and hence that the observation of these heavenlyevents were codified as mythological stories (Tedlock 1997).

Garth Norman, who studies the sculptures during the excavations ofthe NWAF in the 1960s found that the stelae and the altars werealigned to the cyclical extreme declination points of the heavenlybodies on the horizon, particularly the sun and the moon. Theseare deliberate alignments implying that the majority of themonuments had calendrical functions, a hypothesis which receivedthe support of the site director Gareth Lowe. Norman (1976:4)concludes: “Izapa must have functioned as a unique ceremonialcentre designating, predicting and celebrating cyclical festivalsfor the entire Soconusco. Such a role for Izapa explains theerection and survival of such a large number of monuments thereand, in contrast, an almost complete absence of monumentselsewhere in the Soconusco region despite the presence of many

37

large mound sites of contemporaneous or overlapping date.” Normanhas continued to study Izapa all his life and finds that thenarrative stelae of Izapa tell a story of the natural yearly cycleof the earth around our sun and reflects the worship of nature andfertility, which arises from the obsession of tracking timethrough observing the cycles of the heavenly bodies, especiallythe sun, moon, and Venus (Norman 2012)4.

Although many have commented that Izapa declined around the year100 CE the reason was not obvious until it was recently revealedthat there was a violent eruption of the volcano Tacaná sometimebetween 25 and 75 CE (Macías et al. 2000) which destroyed a largepart of the region adjacent to Izapa and blocked the river Izapa;the deposits from the pyroclastic flow covered most of the areabetween the rivers Cahuacán and Suchiate and this flow stopped akilometer to the north of Group F (Rosenswig et al. 2013).Nonetheless, the site was so important that it was not completelyabandonded until much later, around 1200 CE. Lowe et al. (1982:226)found that construction on Group F, to the north of Izapa’scentral area, started in the Hato phase, between 50 BCE and 100 CEbut that there was minimal activity during the Itsapa phase (100-200 CE), which is understandable because of the volcanic eruption.Nonetheless, the site was completed and it flourished in the earlyClassic period (250 CE) as the new important ceremonial center ofIzapa. This plaza includes the only ball court in Izapa and is theonly restored plaza due to the fact that it was constructed withpiled stones, a characteristic of Classic era structures.

The fact that the volcano caused important political disruptionsis reflected in the abandonment of the southern monumental core(around Groups A and B) as an active residential centre and thesubsequent emergence of Group F. Rosenswig et al. (2013:1502-1503)mapped the surface remains of Izapan mounds in order to determineoccupation and found that mounds occupied during the LateFormative period were concentrated in the southern monumental

4 In 2010, there was an attempt to bring Garth Norman's interpretation of thesite to the local populace through the publication and circulation of abilingual booklet. However, the text was difficult to understand and poorlytranslated, which resulted in this interpretation failing to enter the popularunderstanding about Izapa.

38

core, whereas during the Early Classic period, after the volcaniceruption, occupied mounds were more dispersed across the surveyzone (between the rivers Cahuacán and Suchiate) By the LateClassic period mound occupation was concentrated around Group F,while the southern core was largely abandoned in terms of moundoccupation –although they consider that it was still used forceremonies in certain occasions.

Izapa and the Mesoamerican CalendarsIzapa was identified by Vincent Malmström as the probable place oforigin of the sacred 260-day calendar for the first time in Sciencein September 1973. The sacred calendar is commonly known as theTzolkin (“count of days” in Yucatec Maya) and cholq’ij in Quicheand consists of a combination of 20 sacred days and 13 numberswhich repeat every 260 days. This calendar system was an integralpart of the pre-Columbian cosmology and is still an important partof religious life in certain Maya communities today (Rupflin1999). Malmström (1997) argues that in the latitude of 14.8ºN,where the pre-Columbian cities of Izapa and Copán are located, thesolar zenith occurs at intervals of 260 days (from the 13th ofAugust to the 30th of April). Due to the fact that Izapa flourished800 years before Copán and that the animals represented in theTzolkin are lowland tropical animals and not highland animals theauthor concludes that the calendar was developed in the former andthe latter was established on that latitude in recognition of itssacred dimension.

Furthermore, Malmström (1997) proposes that the 365 day solarcalendar was also developed by the Izapans. He highlights the factthat from Izapa one can observe the sun emerging from Tajumulco'sridge at sunrise on the summer solstice, which provides theopportunity to fix the movement of the sun through the course ofthe year. This observation made possible the calculation of thelength of the solar year and, consequently, the author is of theopinion that the solar calendar originated in Izapa. The solarcalendar is known as the Haab (in Yucatec maya) and involves anapproximation of the exact solar year of 365.25 days. The Haab iscomprised of 18 months of 20 days with a 5 day month added on tocomplete 365 days. The Mesoamerican people used a combination ofthe Haab with the Tzolkin to be able to make calculations that

39

span longer periods of time: the combination of these twocalendars, known as the Calendar Round, entails 52 years in that adate comprising a day in the Tzolkin combined with a day in theHaab can only repeat after a 52 haab-year interval (Malmström1997; Broda 2004).

In his studies on Izapa Norman (2012) finds that all of Izapa’smonuments had a calendrical function in that they are oriented toimportant positions in the sun, moon and Venus cycle risings onthe eastern horizon. The author shows how the stelae werepositioned to track the 260-day cycle between the zenith passages(13th August and 30th April) and also to follow the 365-day solarcycle from the autumn equinox (21st of September). Norman (1976;2012) considers that the observation of the stars and thecalculation of their cycles was the principal objective at Izapa;its secondary function was to serve as a ceremonial center forpilgrimages and also for the initiation of priests.

Furthermore, the 13th of August date, commemorating the solarzenith at Izapa and the 260-day sacred calendar has also beenfound in the Mexican high plateau, reflecting its importance inthe Mesoamerican cosmology. The principal pyramid of Cuicuilco, aLate Formative site, was oriented so that it was possible to makeobservations on a horizon calendar which contained the sub-division of the year into 260 + 105 days determined by the dates12 February, 30 April, 13 August and 30 October (Broda 2004:21).These same dates and cycles are found later in Teotihuacán'sdesign – the great city of the early Classic era; its main avenue,the Way of the Dead, has a deviation of 15.5 degrees east ofnorth. The Pyramid of the Sun is located at right angles to this,which results in an alignment to the sunset on the 13th of Augustand the 30th of April, as well as toward the sunrise on the 12th ofFebruary and 30th of October (azimuth of 105° 30’). Additionally,excavations in recent years have discovered the existence ofvarious underground observatories which have been studied by RubénMorante (1995) and whose key dates also appear to have been the30th of April and the 13th of August. It is important to highlightthat these dates only correspond to one naturally occurringobservable cycle, the zenith passage in the latitude of Izapa.Broda (2004: 34) recognizes that “there exists the possibility

40

that the conceptualization of this alignment emerged from thesharing of calendrical knowledge with southern Mesoamerica. TheLate Formative center of Izapa, located on the latitude of 15° N,no longer existed in this period (2nd century CE), and whichappears to have played a key role in generating concepts ofcosmovision and the calendar in an earlier era.” (Broda seems tobe under the false impression that Izapa was no longer active inthe second century CE while, as we have seen earlier, the site wasonly abandoned definitively in 1200 CE (Lowe et al. 1982; Ekholm1969). Finally, Malmström (1997:109) finds that there are at leastthirteen ceremonial centers in Mesoamerica that containorientations to the sunset on the 13th of August, including thenotable observatory called “el caracol” in Chichén Itzá.

The Long Count has also been associated with Izapa, especially byJenkins (1998) because of the “end of the Maya calendar” inDecember 2012, corresponding to the end of the 13th batkun sincethe start of the counting of days. This calendar was used almostexclusively by the Maya people during the Classic era (200-900 CE)and permitted the use of much larger cycles of time than could bemanaged using the Calendar Round. Contrary to the idea generatedthrough the interest around the 2012 date, the important date forthe Maya was actually the start of the Long Count calendar, themoment of creation, which is mentioned in many of the Mayaceramics and stelae (Freidel et al. 1993). The Maya rulers tracedtheir descent from this primordial time in order to legitimizetheir right to rule (Rice 2007). Norman (2012) affirms on thebasis of his studies that the Izapans used the Calendar Roundinstead of the Long Count but that it is probable that they wereaware of its existence because Izapa is located between the twoplaces where stelae with the earliest Long Count dates have beenfound: Takalik Abaj in Guatemala and Chiapa de Corzo in Chiapas.Coggins (1996) also proposes that the Izapans were knowledgeableof the Long Count adding that if this had indeed been used atIzapa it would have been secret knowledge of the priest class,knowledge that was inappropriate for the stelae that wereaccessible to all visitors to the ceremonial center.

The 13th of August as the start date of the Long Count isinteresting for Izapa because this date is specifically linked to

41

the site and the sacred 260-day calendar; the 13th of August inIzapa is the day of the zenith passage in that latitude dividingthe solar year into 260 and 105 days. If the start of the LongCount corresponds to this date of the zenith passage over Izapa itimplies that Izapa was considered a place of creation, or ratherthe place where time began. Such a hypothesis was suggested byGuernsey (2006) who proposed that Izapa joined the primordial timeof Creation with the present, thus creating a political network ofcosmogenesis that provided the governors of Izapa with theirpower. Hence it is possible that Mound 60, the largest in the siteand which lies precisely in the center, could have represented theprimeval mound – the navel of the world.

We suggest that Izapa was a Mixe-Zoque ceremonial center withOlmec influences where observations of the sun, the moon, Venusand other stars were made. The site served to track the movementsof the heavenly bodies and to carry out important ceremoniesrelated to the agricultural cycle. It is possible that the sacred260-day calendar and the 365-day solar calendar were developed atIzapa and Norman (2012) has shows that the combination of thesetwo calendars, the Calendar Round, was used. Furthermore, it isvery probable that all this calendrical information wastransmitted to other Mesoamerican cultures through the function ofIzapa as an initiation center specialized in the calendars, whichwould explain why Izapa was important enough to maintain itself asa ceremonial center for almost three thousand years. 5. Developing the site of Izapa for tourism

This section provides recommendations on improving the Izapan siteas a tourism destination, seeking to redress the two principalhindrances to its appeal: the lack of locally available knowledgeon the pre-Columbian culture relevant to Izapa and the lack of anaesthetically pleasing experience. Both of these problems need tobe rectified in order to accomplish transforming the site into anappealing cultural tourism attraction.

In order to attract cultural tourism to the Formative Period siteof Izapa it is recommended to emphasize its status as one of theoldest ceremonial centres in Mesoamerica and its connection to twoof the most important vestiges of pre-Columbian culture: the

42

sacred 260-day calendar and the creation stories preserved in thePopol Vuh. If Izapa can be commonly associated with these culturalartefacts then it will attract greater numbers of visitors.However, this information is not currently available, neither on-site nor in the town, and this needs to be remedied through avisitor's centre or museum, currently there is neither. (The lackof such tourism infrastructure is the reason why INAH does notcharge for access to the site.) Such information would beavailable to visitors and also to locals interested in knowingmore about the site and for local school excursions. One of theforeign non-profit organizations promoting Izapa, the MayaConservancy, has planned the establishment of a museum andvisitors' centre for Izapa and for this purpose has purchased landin Izapa, contracting architects to design the layout for avisitors' centre and museum5. As of 2014 they were still lookingfor funding for this endeavour.

Despite INAH's assertions that Izapa cannot be the birthplace ofthe 260-day ritual calendar due to a lack of glyphs, theobservable phenomenon of the exact 260-day interval betweenIzapa's zenith passages makes this the most likely reason for thissite's importance throughout the pre-Columbian epoch. It is alsoperhaps the single most important selling point in order toattract cultural tourism to the site. Unfortunately, the 260-dayritual calendar is mostly unknown outside academic circles inMexico; it is certainly not part of the mainstream knowledge evenin Mexican indigenous communities. (This contrasts with thesituation in Guatemala where this calendar has been preserved bythe indigenous communities.) Visitors would be drawn to Izapabecause of it being the place where the sacred count of 260 dayswas observable. However, there will be distance between thesevisitors and the residents of the archaeological zone if thelatter are unaware or distrustful of the 260-day calendar.Ideally, classes should be given to residents regarding the 20 daysigns of this calendar in order to encourage some members to keepthe count of days, thus bringing back this ancestral knowledge tothe site. An additional, necessary modification to Plaza B is to

5 It is interesting to note that according to the local residents and to INAH this land is for them to set up a hotel, again showing the distrust locals haveof foreigners.

43

remove the roofs covering the three gnomons (pillars with sphereson the top). While the roofs play an important role in protectingthe carvings from the elements there is no particular need to roofover these structures as they have no carvings on them. Havingthese three pillars exposed will allow them to mark the zenithpassage overhead that occurs on the 13th of August and the 30th ofApril, the 260-day interval. This would be an impressivephenomenon for visitors to observe.

Additionally, we consider that for cultural tourism it would be ofgreat benefit if the local populace were also knowledgeable aboutthe cultural importance of their site, thus allowing for visitorsto interact with them on this subject. This would requirefamiliarity with the pre-Columbian cultural traits that wereshared in Mesoamerica that appear to originate from Izapa. Thisapproach was shared by the municipal tourism department (2012-2015) who sought to promote the solstice and zenith passage datesto gradually foment recognition of Izapa's cultural heritage inpopular consciousness (personal communication, A. Cueto August 15,2013). As we have seen above, this has not been successful.Nonetheless, we find that there is tremendous potential to developlocal understanding of this information due to the fact that themunicipal centre of Tuxtla Chico is home to a large number ofschools that provide education for all of the children in themunicipality. While research on Izapa and the 21st of December 2012found that out of ten schools only one did a project on Izapa,there is widespread interest from the schools to carry out moreactivities regarding the site. There are two academic exercisesthat would increase cultural knowledge. The first is studying thedifferent calendar systems used in pre-Columbian Mesoamerica,including, but not limited to the 260-day calendar, an activitythat should be included in the mathematics courses at secondaryschool level. The second is artistic and regards familiarizing thestudents with the illustrations on Izapa's stelae. At primaryschool level this could include colouring-in exercises; atsecondary school level it would be valuable to familiarize thestudents with the Mayan creation myths of the Popol Vuh and studysimilarities with Izapan stelae. By including such activities intothe school curricula in Izapa's municipality it would be possibleto greatly increase the cultural knowledge of inhabitants and

44

enable them to understand and appreciate the local archaeologicalsite much more.

This suggestion has been recognized by the municipal government.In the interview with the municipal tourism authorities in August2013 we were told that the desire of the municipal government wasto educate the children on Izapa and pre-Columbian culture inschools, specifically in order for them to become tourism serviceproviders. It was further stated that this would require theteachers to teach them “and that the authorities give thenecessary facilities to undertake this” (personal communicationwith S. Armento, August 15, 2013). This implies that they expectoutside assistance to deliver the learning material to them asopposed to developing the material internally, which demonstratesa very passive approach to cultural education.

Finally, it would be beneficial if two or three members of thelocal community living in Izapa receive capacitation to serve astour guides. Currently there is no-one who can undertake thatfunction within the community due to a lack of knowledge of thesite while existing tour guides work for tour agencies inTapachula. Developing local tour guides provides an opportunityfor the community to benefit directly from the archaeologicalsite, as opposed to the current situation which only benefitsoutsiders. However, we recognize that these people would only beable to provide this service for those visitors who come to thesite independently and not through the tour agencies and theservice would likely only be available in Spanish. ARCON Inc, theorganization promoting Garth Norman's research, has offered toprovide capacitation to two people who would be able to share hisfindings on the calendrical layout of the stelae in Plazas A andB.

One important hindrance to the development of Izapa as a culturaltourism destination is that the foreign tourism route misses theSoconusco region almost completely. Foreign tourist flows in thestate gravitate to the colonial city of San Cristobal de Las Casasand from there move north to Palenque on the way to the Yucatanpeninsula. It is, however, possible to include Izapa on a touristroute that goes to Guatemala, especially to the principal tourism

45

destination of Lake Atitlan, and this is important because initself the region of Izapa does not provide enough interest to bea destination in itself, and should instead serve as a stop-overpoint in a broader tourism route between Chiapas and Guatemala.However, current tourism flows from Guatemala to Chiapas do notuse the southeastern border crossing where Izapa is located andinstead use the more northern border crossing of La Mesilla asthis road brings tourists directly to the city of San Cristobal.It would require an effort from tour operators both in Chiapas andin Guatemala to encourage visitors to take a new route that goesthrough Tapachula. Of course there is a strong desire in Tapachulafor such a route and the expansion of the visitor's experience atIzapa would greatly contribute to its establishment.

Furthermore, there is a huge tourist market that exists at Izapa'sdoorstep which consists of Guatemalan visitors. This rests on thefact that the two cultural artefacts that can be traced to Izapa,the ritual calendar (through the zenith passage) and the Popol Vuhcreation myths (through the illustrations on the stelae) arepreserved in Guatemalan culture. The sacred calendar has remainedin use especially in indigenous highland communities and the PopolVuh is the heritage of the Guatemalan Quiche Maya. If it becamewidespread knowledge that Izapa has relevance to these culturalelements then this would attract visitors with an existinginterest in Maya culture. Furthermore, Izapa is also perfectlyplaced to attract Guatemalan visitors with only a passing interestin these cultural artefacts because they cross the border in orderto shop at the large subsidiaries of American department storesthat are located on the border, in the outskirts of Tapachula,specifically to sell to cross-border Guatemalan shoppers. This isfurther strengthened when the exchange rate is favourable. Suchshoppers would be attracted to visit Izapa if they were made awareof the links that Izapa has to the cultural traits of their ownpeople, i.e. the Maya heritage of Guatemala.

Developing the aesthetics of the archaeological site A major impediment to the attractiveness of Izapa is the lack ofaesthetics. The seldom visited Groups A and B are, as they stand,very disappointing. Group A looks like a park and the images onthe various stelae on display there have been heavily deteriorated

46

by the weather and are hardly visible. Some, but not all stelae,have small plaques with line drawings and some description of thescene but no explanation or interpretation of the stela. Group Bis hindered by the fact that visitors enter from the northwestcorner of the plaza and have to walk down to its southern end andturn around in order to appreciate the platform and mound thatdominate this site. It still requires a bit of imagination toappreciate the grandeur of this structure. The issue of aestheticsis not limited to having the site appeal to visitors, it is alsoimportant in order for local residents to identify with theirsite. Fortuna (1998) has detailed how the historical and culturalheritage of cities, mainly their ruins, monuments and museums, aresubmitted to the rules of aestheticization and commodification,and that this, in turn, influences the transmutation of identitiesof the local residents. Hence, by increasing the aesthetic valueof Izapa we can increase the value that is attributed to it andalso the identification towards the site by the residents of thearchaeological zone specifically and the municipality morebroadly.

At the onset it is necessary to expand the two plazas that areopen to the public. This must not be limited to the space in thecentre but also include the mounds that surround and frame theplazas on four sides. Currently the tourist space does not includethe mounds, which are part of private property and are coveredwith vegetation and commonly used for the grazing of animals orplanting of maize. Both Groups A and B require that the fourmounds around the plazas are cleared and included as an integralpart of the space so that tourists can appreciate the layout inthe manner that it is supposed to be viewed, and thus increase theaesthetic value of the site. This is especially the case of GroupB, where the space open for visitors is incomplete as it does notinclude the southern half of the plaza; the southern mound and thestelae in front of it lie several meters behind the barbed fencethat closes off the plaza. This is particularly important becausethe stelae locations around the plazas are the principal featureof the ceremonial centre and must be preserved.

Additionally, there is the problem of how to present the Formativeperiod; the image of pre-Columbian Mexican monuments is that of

47

stone structures with stucco, but this is a later buildingtechnique. In the Formative period mounds were made of packedearth and therefore they must be preserved in this way, even ifthey are considered less attractive. Nonetheless, Izapa wasestablished because of its particular location, which featuresprominent volcanoes, Tacaná to the north and Tajumulco to theeast. Volcanoes were considered primeval mounds in this period,the first land to rise from the waters of creation, and hence theyalso feature prominently in the Olmec region on the Mexican GulfCoast. These volcanoes serve as horizon markers which permit nakedeye astronomy; most notably from Izapa one can see the sun on thesummer solstice, the longest day of the year, appearing out ofTajumulco volcano. It would therefore be necessary to extendvisibility above the tree-line and to include the surroundingtopography in order to increase the aesthetics of the site.

We suggest that this increase in visibility can be accomplished byclearing two of Izapa's most important mounds and allowingvisitors to climb up them to view the landscape around the site.This proposal includes Mound 25 to the north of the central coreof Izapa, which is located to the left of the path visitors taketo go into Group B, and Mound 60 (the site core) to the south,which is located east of Plaza A. Both mounds are aligned toTacaná which is integral to the sacred geography of the site;their inclusion in the publically accessible area of the sitewould enable the re-establishment of the central axis of Izapa(Norman, 2012:198). Currently neither of these structures is opento the public as they have private owners.

Mound 60 is the largest structure on the site. It is 22 metershigh and covers a surface of one hectare. This is the largest pre-classic structure in Chiapas (and it has also been identified asthe first structure of its size in Mesoamerica). Additionally, infront of this mound there is a pond which is also from the sameperiod, a feat of technology for its time. This mound currentlycan only be visited with the owner's permission and, like the restof the site, is used to cultivate fruit trees. The pond is notvisible as it was filled up after the completion of the NWAFexcavation. Mound 25, further north, has multiple owners and onefamily resides at the slope of this structure. However, the

48

eastern side is uninhabited and it is through there that a pathcan be made for tourists to climb the mound. Visitors to Izapashould be permitted to climb these mounds, which requires that themounds be cleared of trees and vegetation and a wooden stairway becreated to reach the top and also a level viewing platformconstructed at the top of these mounds. This would permit visitorsto view the site with relation to the volcanoes in the distance.At the top of Mound 60 the viewing platform should includedisplays explaining the alignments of the site, including thealignment of the central axis through Mounds 60 and 25 pointing toTacaná to the north as well as the alignments to Tajumulco to theeast, highlighting how this marks the sun's position at the summersolstice when the sun appears to rise out of the volcano's sideand how this was used to measure the length of the solar year andto calculate the Venus cycle.

Furthermore, it would also be beneficial if the ancient pond infront of Mound 60 were restored, it is currently filled withrubble but removing the latter, it should naturally fill up withwater again. Such activities, which would greatly increase theaesthetic merit of the site, need to take into account thepreservation of the native ecology and low-cost, labour intensiveconstructions.

However, the principal aesthetic merit of Izapa should be thestelae with their narrative sculptures. Unfortunately, a principlereason for the visit to Izapa being unsatisfactory is related tothe stelae being badly weathered and not clearly visible. If onecompares the state of the carvings of the stelae on the site withthe stelae housed in the INAH museums in Mexico City and inTapachula it is clear that there has been significantdeterioration of the stelae on site. In order to both preserveIzapa's stelae and to increase the visitor's experience of thesite it is recommended that all the original stelae be removed andstored for future analysis and that replicas be placed in theoriginal positions, faithfully keeping their orientations,including replicas of the five stelae that have been moved to themuseums. Such replicas with clear illustrations would greatlyimprove the aesthetic value of the site to the casual visitor.INAH has confirmed that it is possible to make replicas of the

49

stelae, and that they have a workshop that makes reproductions ofpre-Columbian artefacts. When this was discussed with INAH'sTapachula representative in 2013 it was emphasized that for suchan effort it is necessary that the request comes from the highestlevel of the State of Chiapas, namely the governor of the stateand the parliamentary representatives of the state in bothlegislative chambers of Mexico.

With regards to Group F we can note that this site corresponds tothe popular perception of a pre-Columbian site because itsstructures are restored in stone and thus has aesthetic merit forvisitors, which it receives regularly. Its principal problem isthat it is a very small plaza and thus the visit is brief anddisappointing for visitors. Most visitors are unaware that this isbut one group on the periphery of the archaeological zone,requiring its further developed in order for tour operations notto limit their visit to Group F. However, to visit the rest of thesite it is necessary to travel by car or on foot back along thebusy highway for almost a kilometer and then take the stone roaddown into the archaeological zone. If this is accomplished onfoot, under the strong tropical sun, it is a very unpleasantexperience.

In order to avoid this we have proposed the creation of adesignated tourist walkway starting from the south side of theroad opposite the entrance to Group F that follows the river Izapasouthwards to an entrance located at the northern, or back, end ofGroup B, next to Miscellaneous Monument 2, commonly called the“serpent-jaguar” monument, which is commonly overlooked byvisitors and also happens to be one of the oldest monuments inIzapa. This would be a nature trail and would allow visitors to bein a nature-setting with local trees, especially cacao trees,providing shade and further effort can be made to beautify it byplanting native flowering plants (exotic for most visitors).Benches and garbage bins also need to be installed. The basic pathalready exists along the river; it crosses the properties of anumber of people (seven in 2013). Unless the strips of land arebought outright these owners will need to grant permission for thepath to be used by external visitors in exchange of a percentage

50

of the profits made from visitors who would pay a voluntarycontribution toward the upkeep of the path.

A problem with this proposal is that the river Izapa is not clean.Raw sewage from the nearby town of Tuxtla Chico pours into theriver on the opposite bank, visible from the Izapa archaeologicalzone. There is a treatment plant on the river that is supposed totreat the sewer water but while the building exists there is nomachinery inside it. We have been informed that the money for themachinery had “disappeared”. It would be necessary to informvisitors that the river is contaminated, not only for health andsafety reason but also to pressure the municipality to resolve theissue of the non-working treatment plant and the health risks tothe local population whose complaints have been ignored.

The proposals suggested here, including expanding the plazas ofGroups A and B, opening up Mounds 25 and 60 to visitors and thecreation of a nature trail from Group F to Group B could, intheory, be community managed initiatives with the aim ofdeveloping the site of Izapa in order to enhance visitors'experiences and to attract more visitors. However, this is veryunlikely to be a realistic proposition due to community infightingcoupled with the need to comply with onerous regulations fromINAH. For example, the nature trail was suggested to the Izapacooperative “Ruinas de Izapa Grupos A y B” in early 2013. Theywould have been responsible for the creation and up-keep of such apath and visitors using the path would have paid a voluntarycontribution. Even though they would not have had to contributefinancially to this, as external funding would have been sought,the distrust among the members of the cooperative, despite most ofthem being related to each other, resulted in the proposal notbeing taken up. The cooperative did not undertake any furtheractivities after December 2012 and became defunct.

It is also uncertain how the residents of the archaeological zonewould be able to perceive direct income from the expansion of thesite except by selling their land. While income could be gained bysoliciting voluntary contributions to visitors who use the pathand who climb up Mounds 25 and 60, INAH does not permit chargingfor access to protected archaeological zones by anyone but

51

themselves. Furthermore this would only pertain to the landownersand not to the community as a whole. There is also thecomplication caused by multiple “community leaders” who seek tobenefit themselves and their followers to the detriment of othermembers of the community. This means that it is not possible toprovide funding directly at the community level because infightingwill ensure that the benefits are withheld by certain groups whowill refuse to share with rival groups. As a result, while intheory it is necessary for local management of Izapa'sarchaeological zone to be arranged, in order to prevent resentmentfrom its inhabitants, in practice the idea of a community leaddevelopment of Izapa does not appear to be a realisticproposition.

6. Conclusions

This article considered the possibility for developing culturaltourism at the archaeological site of Izapa, in Chiapas, Mexico,which appears to have been a principal contributor to Mesoamericancultural development. This conclusion is based on the site's linksto two important artefacts of pre-Columbian culture, the 260-dayritual calendar which is determined by the two zenith passages ofthe sun at Izapa's latitude and the earliest preserved evidence inthe site's stelae of the origins of the mythology preserved in thePopol Vuh. Both of these artefacts would make this site animportant attraction to those visitors with an interest in pre-Columbian culture. However, field research has highlightedimportant hindrances to tourism development which would need to betaken into account. Izapa is a special situation in that thearchaeological zone is privately owned and yet protected bypresidential decree. This results in the land being subject torules and regulations from the federal entity in charge ofarchaeological zones, INAH, and which places restrictions andbureaucratic procedures on the use of the land, affecting notablythe building of structures on properties. INAH has hired the threelandowners in the groups open to the public as employees tomaintain the plazas and keep them open to the public. However,there is a lack of interest from INAH to develop the site as theyare unconvinced of the site's cultural importance. They also donot demonstrate any interest in developing the site for tourism

52

purposes, particularly as it lies away from the main tourist trailin Chiapas, which is based around the Classic period site ofPalenque to the north, all of which complicates the development ofIzapa.

Further hindrances to tourism development include a lack ofknowledge about the history of the site and, perhaps mostimportantly, a lack of knowledge of pre-Columbian culture amongthe local residents; neither the ritual calendar nor the mythologyof the Popol Vuh form part of the local culture. As a result thereis no real identification with the site and its culture. Insteadwhat prevails is a utilitarian approach that seeks to maximizerent from the site. This has brought about conflicts between thedifferent inhabitants in the region. These conflicts, which wereidentified through field research, include a lack of socialcohesion between the families who reside in the archaeologicalzone, foundering the attempted cooperative that was set up for2012. There is also resentment between those families who do notlive in the three monument groups open to the public and those whodo, as the latter are paid, federal employees and have betterliving standards than their immediate neighbours. Such conflictsare exacerbated by the presence of multiple “community leaders”present in the archaeological zone who seek to gain resources foractivities such as street lighting and road paving for themselvesand their followers, to the detriment of the people who followanother community leader. Anecdotal evidence reveals that theytend to pocket part or all of the resources allocated and thenexplain that it was INAH’s restrictions and regulations thatprevented progress.

Another area of conflict occurs between the inhabitants of thearchaeological zone and the neighbouring town of Tuxtla Chico,which serves as the municipal centre. The former consider that thelatter are using the archaeological site to promote their town asa tourism destination and to promote their tourism serviceproviders, to the detriment of the residents of the archaeologicalzone. Additionally, the fact that the residents are of a lowersocial standing, being rural and mainly agriculturalists, to theurban residents, further exacerbates this resentment. There isalso the conflict between Tuxtla Chico and the city of Tapachula,

53

located 12 km away; the archaeological zone is located within themunicipality of Tuxtla Chico and there is resentment of the factthat it has also been appropriated by the city of Tapachula, whichconsiders the site “theirs”. This is exacerbated by the fact thatthose who have been able to take advantage of the recent tourismflows created by the arrival of cruise ships to the region since2006 have been tourism agents from Tapachula, to the detriment ofthe development of local tourism service providers. Finally, wecan add that all these groups have negative feelings towards INAHwhom they accuse of being disinterested in the tourism developmentof the site.

As a result, our investigation has found that the potential forcommunity development of the Izapa site, as proposed in an earlierstudy (Johnsson 2011) is not a realistic proposal, and that thedevelopment of the site is instead likely to require privateinvestment in terms of purchasing property in the zone and todevelop tourism facilities. This activity would also need to bepromoted by the political actors in the state of Chiapas,including the governor and the representatives in the nationalparliament in order for INAH to facilitate the development insteadof hindering it through excessive bureaucratic procedures.

54

Bibliography

Aldana, G. 2011. “The Maya Calendar Correlation Problem” in J.M. Steele (ed.) Calendars and Years II: Astronomy and Time in the Ancient and Medieval World, Vol. 2 . Oxford: Oxbow Books.Argüelles, J. 1987. The Mayan Factor: Path Beyond Technology. Santa Fe, NM: Bear & Co.Barba de Piña Chán, B. 1990. “Buscando raíces de mitos mayas en Izapa” in B. Dahlgren (ed.) Historia de la religión en Mesoamérica y áreas afines II Coloquio, México: UNAM, pp. 9-56.Bastos, S., T. Engel & M. Zamora. 2013. “La reinterpretación del oxlajuj b'aqtun en Guatemala entre el new age y la reconstitución maya” in R. de la Torre, C. Gutiérrez Zúñiga & N. Juárez (eds) Variaciones y apropiaciones latinoamericanas del new age. México: Centro de Investigaciones y Estudios Superiores en Antropología Social; El Colegio de Jalisco, pp. 309-336.Braden, G., P. Russell & D. Pinchbeck. 2007. The Mystery of 2012: Predictions, Prophecies & Possibilities. Boulder, CO: Sounds True.Broda Prucha, J. 1969. “The Mexican calendar as compared to other Mesoamerican systems” Acta Ethnologica et Lingüística, 15. Broda Prucha, J. 2004. “La percepción de la latitud geográfica y el estudio del calendario mesoamericano” Estudios de Cultura Náhuatl, 35:15-43.Campion, N. 2011. “The 2012 Mayan Calendar Prophecies in the Context of the Western Millenarian Tradition” Proceedings of the International Astronomical Union Vol.7, Symposium No. S278: 249-254. Castañeda, Q. E. 2009. “Heritage and Indigeneity: Transformations in the politics of tourism” in Baud, M. and Ypeij, A. (eds) Cultural Tourism in Latin America: The Politics of Space and Imagery. Leiden: Brill NV, pp. 263-298 Chinchilla Mazariegos, O. 2010. “La vagina dentada: una interpretación de la Estela 25 de Izapa y las guacamayas del juego de pelota de Copán”. Estudios de Cultura Maya, 36:117-144.Clark, J.E. & D. Cheetham. 2002. “Mesoamerica's Tribal Foundations” in W.A. Parkinson (ed.) The Archaeology of Tribal Societies. Ann Arbor, MI: International Monographs in Prehistory, pp. 278-339Clark, J.E. & D. Gosser. 1995. “Reinventing Mesoamerica's First Pottery” in W.K.Barnett & J.W. Hoopes (eds) The Emergence of Pottery: Technology and Innovation in Ancient Societies . Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press, pp. 209-221.Coe, M.D. 2001.“Olmecas y Mayas: Estudio de relaciones” in L. Manzanilla & L. López Luján (eds) Historia Antigua de México Vol 1: El México antiguo, sus áreas culturales, los orígenes y el Horizonte Preclásico. México: INAH – UNAM, pp.205-218.Coggins, C.C. 1996. “Creation Religion and the Numbers at Teotihuacan and Izapa”. RES: Anthropology and Aesthetics, 29/30: 16-38.Csapó, J. 2012. “The Role and Importance of Cultural Tourism in Modern Tourism Industry” in Kasimoglu, M and Aydin, H. (eds) Strategies for Tourism Industry – Micro and Macro Perspectives, Chapter 10. Published on-line in http://www.intechopen.com/books/strategies-for-tourism-industry-micro-and-macro-perspectives [Accessed 29 May 2014]

55

Ekholm, S.M. 1969. “Mound 30a and the early preclassic ceramic sequence of Izapa, Chiapas, Mexico”. Provo, UT: Papers of the New World Archaeological Foundation, No.25.Fortuna, C. 1998. “Las ciudades y las identidades: patrimonios, memorias y narrativas sociales”. Alteridades, 8(16): 61-74.Freidel, D., L. Shele & J. Parker.1993. Maya Cosmos: Three Thousand Years on the Shaman'sPath. New York, NY: William Morrow & Co.Girard, R. 1949. Los Chortis ante el problema maya. Historia de las culturas indígenas de América, desde su origen hasta hoy. México: Editorial Cultura.Guernsey, J. 2004. “Demystifying the Late Preclassic Izapan-Style Stela-Altar 'Cult'”. RES: Anthropology and Aesthetics, 45: 99-122.Guernsey, J. 2006. Ritual and Power in Stone: The Performance of Rulership in Mesoamerican Izapan Style Art. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.Gutiérrez García, R.N. 2012. “El patrimonio arqueológico y la identidad en Izapa, Chiapas”, undergraduate thesis, Universidad Autónoma de Yucatán.Hewitt, C. 1988. “Diálogos acerca del conflicto étnico: indigenismo y funcionalismo 1950-1970” in Imágenes del campo. La interpretación antropológica del México rural. México: Fondo de Cultura Económica, pp. 71-107.Hiernaux, D. 2006. “Los centros históricos: ¿espacios posmodernos? (de choques de imaginarios y otros conflictos” in A. Lindón, M.A. Aguilar & D. Hiernaux (eds) Lugares e imgainarios en la metrópolis. Barcelona: Anthropos, Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana, pp. 27-41. Hughes, H. 1996. "Redefining Cultural Tourism". Annals of Tourism Research 23: 707-709.ICOMOS. 1976. Charter on Cultural Tourism. International Council on Monuments and Sites. Available at: http://www.icomos.org/tourism/. [Accessed on 28 May 2014]INAH Chiapas. 2007. “Izapa, Chiapas: Considerations and Alternative Proposal forthe Encroachment on the Archaeological Site by the Tapachula-Talismán Highway”. Available at: www.mesoweb.com/reports/Izapa.pdf. [Accessed on 21 December2013].Jakeman, M.W. 1958. “The Ancient Tree-of-Life Carving on Stela 5, Izapa, Chiapas, México. (The 'Lehi tree-of-life Stone'.)” University Archaeological Society, Special Publications, No. 3Jenkins, J.M. 1998. Maya Cosmogenesis 2012. Rochester, VT: Bear & Co.Jenkins, J.M. 2002. Galactic Alignment: The Transformation of Consciousness According to Mayan, Egyptian, and Vedic Traditions. Rochester, VT : Bear&Co.Jenkins, J.M. 2009. The 2012 Story: The Myths, Fallacies and Truth Behind the Most Intriguing Date inHistory. New York, NY: Jeremy P. Tarcher/ Penguin.Johnsson Núñez, R. 2011. “Developing Cultural Tourism in Izapa (Chiapas, Mexico)” Unpublished. Available at: https://www.academia.edu/1094010/Developing_Cultural_Tourism_in_Izapa_Chiapas_Mexico_-_2011Laughton, T.B. 1997. “Sculpture on the Threshold: The Iconography of Izapa and Its Relationship to

56

that of the Maya”. London: University of Essex.Lesure, R.G. & M. Blake. 2002. “Interpretive Challenges in the Study of Early Complexity: Economy, ritual and architecture at Paso de La Amada, Mexico.” Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 21: 1-24Lowe, G., T. Lee & E. Martínez Espinosa. 1982. Izapa: An Introduction to the Ruins and Monuments. Brigham Young University, UT: New World Archaeological Foundation Document No.31. Macías, J.L., Espíndola, J.M., García-Palomo, A., Scott, K.M., Hughes, S. & Mora, J.C., 2000. “Late Holocene Peléan-style eruption at Tacaná volcano, Mexicoand Guatemala: past, present, and future hazards.” Geological Society of America Bulletin, 112: 1234-1249.Malmström, V.H. 1973. “Origin of the Mesoamerican 260-day calendar.” Science, 181 (4103):939-941Malmström, V.H. 1997. Cycles of the Sun, Mysteries of the Moon: The Calendar in Mesoamerican Civilization. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.Morante López, R.B. 1995. “los observatorios subterráneos” en La Palabra y el Hombre,94: 35-71.Norman, V.G. 1976. “Izapa Sculpture. Part 2: text” Provo, UT: Papers of the New World Archaeological Foundation, No. 30.Norman, V.G. 2012. Izapa Sacred Space: Sculpture Calendar Codex. Fork, UT: Sunhew Press.Normark, J. 2010. “2012: The Maya Calendar Correlation Problem pt.8 – conclusion” Available at: http://haecceities.wordpress.com/2010/11/19/2012-the-maya-calendar-correlation-problem-pt-8-%E2%80%93-conclusion/. [Accessed 29October 2013]Piña Chán, R. 1982. Los olmecas antiguos. Villahermosa: Consejo Editorial del Gobierno del Estado de Tabasco.Quirarte, J. 1973. “Izapan-Style Art: A Study of Its Form and Meaning”. Studies in Pre-Columbian Art & Archaeology, 10: 1-47.Reilley, F.K. 1999. “Mountains of Creation and Underworld Portals: The Ritual Function of Olmec Architecture at La Venta, Tabasco” in J.K. Kowalski (ed.) Mesoamerican Architecture as a Cultural Symbol. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 14-39.Reizinger, Y. 1994. “Tourist-host contact as a part of cultural tourism.” World leisure and recreation, 36: 24-28.Rice, P.M. 2007. “Late Preclassic Izapa and Kaminaljuyú” in Maya Calendar Origins. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press, pp. 108-129.Richards, G. 1996. Cultural Tourism in Europe. CABI, Wallingford. Available at: www.tram-research.com/atlas . [Accessed 29 May 2014].Richards, G. 2009. Tourism development trajectories – From culture to creativity? Tourism Research and Marketing, Barcelona. Paper presented to the Asia-Pacific Creativity Forum on Culture and Tourism, Jeju sland, Republic of Korea, 3-5 June2009.Rosenswig, R.M. 2006. “Sedentism and Food Production in Early Complex Societies

57

of the Soconusco, Mexico.” World Archaeology, 38(2):330-355.Rosenswig, R.M. 2007. “Beyond Identifying Elites: Feasting As a Means to Understand Early Middle Formative Society on the Pacific Coast of Mexico.” Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 26:1-27.Rosenswig, R.M. 2012a. “Materialism, Mode of Production, and a Millennium of Change in Southern Mexico”. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 18:1-48.Rosenswig, R.M. 2012b. “Agriculture and Monumentality in the Soconusco Region ofChiapas, Mexico” en R.L. Burger & R.M. Rosenswig (eds) Early New World Monumentality.Miami, FL: University Press of Florida, pp. 111-137.Rosenswig, R.M., R. López-Torrijos, C.E. Antonelli & R.R. Mendelsohn. 2013. “Lidar Mapping and Surface Survey of the Izapa State on the Tropical Piedmont ofChiapas, Mexico.” Journal of Archaeological Science, 40: 1493-1507.Ruiz Torres, M.A., M. López Moya & E. Ascencio Cedillo. 2011. “Consumidores alternativos: turismo étnico y espiritualidad new age en los procesos de reinvención del imaginario urbano en San Cristóbal de Las Casas, México” in L. Prats & A. Santana (eds) Turismo y patrimonio: entramados narrativos. México: PASOS, pp. 289-305.Rupflin Alvarado, W. 1999. El Tzolkin... es más que un calendario. Iximulew, Guatemala: Fundación CEDIM Sharer, R.J. & L.P. Traxler. 2006. The Ancient Maya (sixth ed.). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Shearer, T. 1971. Lord of the Dawn: Quetzalcoatl. Healdsburg, CA: Naturegraph publishers. Smith, V.G. 1984. “Izapa Relief Carving: Form, Content, Rules for Design, and Role in Mesoamerican Art History and Archaeology”. Studies in Pre-Columbian Art & Archaeology, No. 27:1-105. Suhl, A. & L. Husted-Jensen. 2006. Secrets of the Occult; episode 1 “The Magicians”. Hidden Treasures, Inc. Available at:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_Qq2fwB_t0 . [Accessed 23 Abril 2013].Tedlock, D. 1997. Breath on the Mirror: Mythic Voices and Visions of the Living Maya, (2 ed). Albuquerque, NM: University of New Mexico Press.Vogel, A. 2014. Izapa al cierre del 13ª baktun: los discursos acerca de la zona arqueológica de Izapa por tres sectores sociales en la coyuntura del cambio de era, Masters thesis in antropology, UNAM, Facultad de Filosofía y Letras, México.Willey, G.R. 1989. “El surgimiento de la civilización maya: resumen” in R.E.W. Adams (ed.) Los orígenes de la civilización maya. México: Fondo de Cultura Económica.

58