Peniche, Nancy (2015).

Arqueología Patria: Mexican Archaeology and the Nation-Building Process during

the Nineteenth Century. En Constructing Legacies of Mesoamerica: Archaeological Practice and the Politics
of Heritage in and Beyond Mexico. Anderson, D., Dylan Clark y J. Heath Anderson (eds.), pp. 19-25.
Archeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association, 25.

2
Arqueologı́a Patria: Mexican Archaeology and
the Nation-Building Process during the
Nineteenth Century
Nancy Peniche May
University of California, San Diego

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

S tate-sponsored archaeological research in Mexico can

be considered a clear example of nationalist archae-
ology. Historically, the government has both supported ar-
chaeological practice and displayed its results, which in-
clude artifacts and other archaeological remains, in order to
strengthen a sense of national pride and unity (Earle 2007;
Kohl 1998; Trigger 1984). Traditional narratives have held
that this practice began after the Mexican Revolution (1910).
Nevertheless, the process of institutionalizing and—perhaps
more importantly—professionalizing archaeology overseen
by the state actually began in the 19th century, during the
period of the Porfiriato (1876–1911) (Bueno 2004). During
the Porfiriato, archaeology and archaeological remains were
appropriated by the country’s intellectual elite to construct
a national identity, invoking ideas and myths formulated on
the eve of Independence. This chapter describes the process
through which archaeology was institutionalized during the
Porfiriato and how this nationalist archaeology was used as
a nation-building tool and contributed to creating a Mexican
national identity.
The Porfiriato: The Enduring Link between
Archaeology and State
From 1876 to 1911, Mexico was ruled by General Por-
firio Dı́az. One of the main goals of his regime was to consol-
idate the Mexican state. During that process, the intellectual
and political elite sought to demonstrate that Mexico could
become a stable and civilized nation. The Mexican terri-
tory was inhabited by a diverse population with different
historical, cultural, and linguistic backgrounds. The intel-
lectual elite realized that they needed to forge a national
identity to erase differences among the Mexican popula-
tion and to awaken a nationalistic sentiment (Earle 2007).
In order to construct the national identity they required a
comprehensive, homogeneous, and continuous narrative that
reconciled multiple pasts and dilemmas of the present. With
this in mind, from the 1880s on, the intellectual elite that
surrounded General Dı́az started a centralized program of
state-sponsored education (Bueno 2004; Earle 2007:105;
Florescano 2006:290; Rodrı́guez Garcı́a 1996:86).

ARCHEOLOGICAL PAPERS OF THE AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION, Vol. 25, pp. 19–25, ISSN 1551-823X,
online ISSN 1551-8248. 
C 2015 by the American Anthropological Association. All rights reserved. DOI: 10.1111/apaa.12043.
20
As part of this educational program several works were
published, such as Lecciones de historia patria (Lessons in
National History) written by Guillermo Prieto (1896) and
Catecismo de historia patria (Catechism of National His-
tory) by Justo Sierra (1894). But the best-known example
is México a través de los siglos (Mexico Through the Cen-
turies), a five-volume compendium written on government
commission by a team of liberal authors headed by Vicente
Riva Palacio (1887) and including Alfredo Chavero, Julio
Zárate, Juan de Dios Arias, Enrique de Olavarria y Fer-
rari and José Marı́a Vigil (Tenorio-Trillo 1996:68). México
a través de los siglos presented the history of Mexico as
a fully integrated vision, linking pre-Hispanic times to the
evolution of the modern nation and ascribing to Mexico a
lengthy and cohesive past.
The intellectual elite of the Porfiriato also incorporated
the Conquest and Colonial eras into the national heritage of
Mexico. In fact, according to this argument, both the pre-
Hispanic and the Colonial eras were inherent components of
the Mexican nation: beginning with the Spanish Conquest,
people of mixed heritage or mestizos emerged as a natural
fusion between the European conquerors and the conquered
indigenous peoples (Earle 2007:105; Florescano 2006:294;
Lombardo de Ruiz 1993:37; Tenorio-Trillo 1996:69). By
fusing indigenous and Spanish heritages, the Porfirian elite
presented the solution to the long-standing conflict implicit
within Mexico’s Creole identity (Tenorio-Trillo 1996:66).
This newfound sense of pride in a pre-Hispanic past was
also manifested at the international level. For instance, dur-
ing the Universal Exposition held in Paris in 1889, Mexico
housed its exhibition in an Aztec-style palace—apparently,
an idea historically supported and inspired by the narrative
of México a través de los siglos (Tenorio-Trillo 1996:70).
According to Antonio Peñafiel, one of the architects who
designed the Mexican pavilion, adornments, symbols, and
allegoric figures of the building were authentically taken
from Mexican archaeology with the goal of reviving the
true national civilization—that of the Aztecs (Lombardo de
Ruiz 1993:38). This emphasis on the Aztecs, or Mexicas,
over other ancient Mexican cultures was also present in the
volume of México a través de los siglos written by Alfredo
Chavero (1887), which was dedicated to the pre-Hispanic
era. It is worth mentioning that this exhibition at the in-
ternational level had the purpose of presenting Mexico as
a sovereign nation-state with a lengthy and sophisticated
past, but at the same time as a modern state that was eager
to participate in the international economy (Tenorio-Trillo
1996:64).
The birth of a sense of pride in the pre-Hispanic past
led to a process of reevaluation of pre-Hispanic remains, a
process in which archaeological practice took an important
Nancy Peniche May
role. In turn, archaeology was deeply affected by this pro-
cess. Legal and institutional measures taken by the regime
of Dı́az profoundly changed archaeological practice in Mex-
ico, forging a link between this discipline and the study of
the past and the state—a link that Leopoldo Batres called
“arqueologı́a patria” (Bueno 2004:174).
The late nineteenth century witnessed increasing in-
ternational interest in archaeological research on ancient
Mexican cultures. Foreign archaeologists and institutions
typically requested permits to export pre-Hispanic artifacts
recovered during their explorations in order to exhibit them
in their museums. Nevertheless, some foreigners exported
artifacts without the consent of the National Congress.
On October 28, 1880, a heated debate was held in the
Mexican National Congress about the attempts by French
archaeologist Desirée Charnay to export archaeological ar-
tifacts recovered during his excavations at Palenque (see
Gallegos Tellez Rojo 2001; Rutsch 2001). Some national-
ist intellectuals such as Vicente Riva Palacio alleged that
the exportation amounted to treason (Gallegos Tellez Rojo
2001; Rutsch 2001). The debate prompted the promulga-
tion of the Law of 1880, which was aimed at protecting and
keeping pre-Hispanic remains within the national territory
(Earle 2007:137; Rutsch 2001:311). The permit requested
by Charnay was denied and the artifacts were delivered to
the National Museum (Gallegos Tellez Rojo 2001; Rustch
2001).
The National Museum had been inaugurated in 1825
by Lucas Alamán during the government of President
Guadalupe Victoria (Bernal 1980:138). During its first years
of existence, only a few artifacts had made their way into
the institution. This situation changed during the Porfiriato,
when the National Museum underwent several reforms as
part of the nationalistic program of the Dı́az regime. Through
these reforms, it acquired an extremely important role in the
construction of national identity by exhibiting archaeologi-
cal remains coming from diverse areas of the national terri-
tory (Earle 2007; Florescano 1993; Rutsch 2001). In fact, it
was stated that the National Museum was the nation’s “his-
tory book” where national memories were put on display so
that citizens could visualize the national past (Earle 2007;
Rutsch 2001).
In 1882, a special section of Archaeology and History
was inaugurated in the National Museum. This section was
tasked with exhibiting the pre-Hispanic artifacts recovered
during the increasingly frequent explorations sponsored by
the federal government. In 1887, the Galerı́a de los Monoli-
tos (Gallery of Monoliths) was inaugurated with the aim
of displaying the sculptural achievements of the ancient
cultures of Mexico (Rico Mansard 2002:21). Nevertheless,
the room was dominated by items associated with Aztec
Mexican Archaeology and the Nation-Building Process during the Nineteenth Century
culture, reinforcing the idea that Mexican identity was an
Aztec identity. Soon some of the monoliths exhibited in
the room would become the symbols of Mexican identity
(Florescano 1993:154). For instance, the huge carving
known as the Piedra del Sol or Aztec Calendar Stone
appeared regularly on commemorative medals during the
Porfiriato and was especially prominent in school history
manuals, where it was presented as evidence for the high de-
gree of civilization achieved by the Aztecs (Earle 2007:140).
Apart from its functions of storage and display of ar-
chaeological monuments, the National Museum was also
the first scientific institution with a full complement of aca-
demic resources: collections, docents, researchers, and a
printed journal. Most importantly, it was the institution in
charge of conducting archaeological explorations (Bueno
2004). The functions of the National Museum as the center
of archaeological practice were disrupted in 1885 when the
Porfirian government enacted a law to create the Inspección y
Conservación de Monumentos Arqueológicos (Office of In-
spection and Conservation of Archaeological Monuments)
with Leopoldo Batres as its permanent chief (Gallegos Tellez
Rojo 2001; Lombardo de Ruiz 1993).
According to the law, the inspector’s task was to monitor
all of the archaeological and historical sites and monuments
of the nation. In addition, the inspector had as his duty to reg-
ulate excavations and the moving of monuments, as well as
taking written evidence and inventory of antiquities remitted
to the National Museum and those confiscated at customs.
Finally, it was the inspector’s prerogative to appoint guards
for archaeological sites (Lombardo de Ruiz 1993:39–40).
From the Office’s inception, the personnel of the National
Museum and Leopoldo Batres had serious conflicts, which
reached their peak in 1896 and 1897, when the law of Pro-
tección de Bienes Arqueológicos e Históricos (Protection of
Archaeological and Historical Goods) and the Ley de Monu-
mentos (Law of Monuments) were enacted (Bueno 2004:87;
Gallegos Tellez Rojo 2001).
With these laws, Inspección y Conservación de Mon-
umentos Arqueológicos assumed absolute control over the
exploration of archaeological sites, the removal and restora-
tion of archaeological monuments, and permits given to for-
eign and national archaeologists to conduct excavations. In
addition, the law established that excavations carried out by
foreigners had to be supervised by a special government
agent. Most importantly, through this law, all pre-Hispanic
ruins and artifacts become federal property. In doing so, the
government prohibited the trade and export of pre-Hispanic
artifacts and declared the right of the government to ex-
propriate particular pieces of land if they were occupied by
pre-Hispanic sites. The law also established that archaeolog-
ical findings had to be turned over to the National Museum,
21
after undergoing classification and inventory by the Inspec-
tor (Bernal 1980:140; Rico Mansard 2002:23).
Although the research functions of the National Mu-
seum were undermined by the promulgation of the 1897 law
(Lombardo de Ruiz 1993:39–40), the museum did acquire
new functions. With the 1901 appointment of Justo Sierra
as the Secretary of Public Education, and in 1905 as the
Secretary of Public Instruction and Arts, the National Mu-
seum found a champion who would support its status as an
academic institution (Rutsch 2001). In 1910 an agreement
was signed between the National Museum and Columbia
University, Harvard University, and the University of Penn-
sylvania, as well as the governments of the United States,
France, and Germany in order to create the Escuela Inter-
nacional de Arqueologı́a y Etnografı́a Americana (Interna-
tional School of American Archaeology and Ethnography),
which was inaugurated by General Porfirio Dı́az (Lorenzo
1981). The main archaeologists of the Revolutionary and
post-Revolutionary periods, such as Manuel Gamio, were
educated at this school. Sierra supported the study of the
ancient history of Mexico and, therefore, archaeological
knowledge. Sierra thought that the ancient past gave Mex-
ico a special dignity that other Latin American nation-states
lacked (Rutsch 2001:311). Aztec culture was emphasized in
the School’s educational program. The study of Nahuatl, the
language of the Aztec empire, was mandatory, and the ar-
chaeology, anthropology and ethnography of Aztec culture
were recommended as primary topics of research (Bueno
2004:116).
Inspección y Conservación de Monumentos Ar-
queológicos nearly monopolized archaeological practice in
the first decade of the twentieth century. In performing
his constitutional functions, Leopoldo Batres conducted
over 40 explorations at sites located mainly in the Mex-
ican Highlands—the heartland of “true” ancient Mexican
culture—and Oaxaca, the birthplace of General Dı́az. He
visited many sites across the nation and supervised the ex-
plorations of many foreign researchers as well as those of
Mexicans archaeologists working for the National Museum.
Batres’ activities were sponsored by the federal government,
which was interested in promoting archaeological practice
(Lombardo de Ruiz 1993). As Earle (2007:139) has stated,
the exploration and reconstruction of archaeological sites
were aimed to turn them into national monuments to be ad-
mired by the public and to demonstrate the magnificence of
the Mexican past.
From 1906 to 1910, Batres conducted explorations at
Teotihuacan, a site that was incorporated into the calendar
of national events in 1905, when the commemoration of
the Battle of Puebla (May 5th) was performed in this
site (Bueno 2004:162). The archaeological explorations
22
carried out at Teotihuacan had the goal of clearing and
reconstructing the Pyramid of the Sun for the celebration of
the centennial of Mexican Independence (Lombardo de Ruiz
1994:283). In addition, Batres proposed turning the site into
an open-air museum for education and tourism (Gallegos
Tellez Rojo 2001). The importance of Batres’ works in
Teotihuacan lay in the fact that the federal government
expropriated the lands on which Teotihuacan rests (Gallegos
Tellez Rojo 2001:266). According to Gallegos Tellez Rojo
(2001:266), through the expropriation of those lands the
federal government declared its control over the past of the
nation and asserted its authority over local governments.
The National Museum was also reformed in preparation
for the celebrations. In 1909, the Museum of National His-
tory was divided into two different institutions: the Museum
of Archaeology, History, and Ethnology and the Museum
of Natural History (Earle 2007). In 1910, a few months
before the revolutionary movement started, the new Mu-
seum of Archaeology, History, and Ethnology was finally
re-inaugurated by Porfirio Dı́az (Bueno 2004).
In summary, the celebration of the centennial of Mex-
ican Independence symbolized the culmination of the in-
stitutionalization of archaeology as a function of the state
and the ideological exploitation and appropriation of pre-
Hispanic ruins and artifacts by the Porfirian elite (Bueno
2004; Lombardo de Ruiz 1993; Rodrı́guez Garcı́a 1996:86).
Metanarrative of Mexican National Identity
Like any nation-state, the intellectual and political elite
in Mexico had turned to the past to construct national
identity—a common component of nationalism (see Earle
2007; Kohl 1998; Morris 1999; Trigger 1984). “Construc-
tion of national identity” is the correct phrase here in the
sense that, although the past was not invented, it was manip-
ulated to fit with the political purposes of the elite.
The Creole elite without any indigenous background
appropriated the Aztec past—one Postclassic culture among
the myriad of Mesoamerican and Aridoamerican cultures
that inhabited the national territory. They presented them-
selves as heirs of the Aztecs in order to have a past other than
the European one, and thus to allege a lengthy occupation
of and rights over the Mexican territory. This was the
rhetoric they used to justify their claims of independence.
The neo-Aztec element of Creole patriotism can be clearly
observed in the choice of the name for the modern nation
itself. The name Mexico was derived from the Nahuatl term
mexica—the ethnic group that the people we call the Aztecs
self-identified with. After the independence movement,
however, other narratives continued to exist. Regionalism
Nancy Peniche May
prevailed in many parts of the country along with a diverse
population in terms of language, culture and historical
background.
The Porfirian elite realized that they needed to sup-
press regionalism and cultural diversity in order to cre-
ate an integrated nation. The education program spon-
sored by the federal government supported the creation of
a historiography designed to erase regional memory and
unify the multiple contradictions that had divided the na-
tion (Bueno 2004:59 Lombardo de Ruiz 1994:34). This
narrative used the pre-Hispanic past as an ideological and
political resource to be shared by the entire Mexican pop-
ulation. From the perspective of this narrative, both the
pre-Hispanic and Spanish past became inherent compo-
nents of Mexican national identity, solving in this manner
the problem of conflicted Creole identity. Mexicans were
neither indigenous nor Spanish, but Mestizos—mixed peo-
ple. Thereby, as descendants of past indigenous people, the
Mestizos had rights over the pre-Hispanic past and its re-
mains. In this way, the Porfirian elite claimed legitimacy
before the diverse groups of Mexican population and the
world. Like any appropriation of the past, the Porfirian
elite did not use the pre-Hispanic past in a straightfor-
ward manner but manipulated it according to their political
purposes.
The Porfirian elite selected certain memories to con-
struct the national past, choosing the elements to be remem-
bered and forgotten. They emphasized Aztec culture as the
national ancient culture, claiming that the true Mexican na-
tion was Aztec in nature. The Porfirian elite deliberately
picked some Aztec elements as national symbols, such as
the national seal on the Mexican flag that was copied from
a Mexica symbol; the Piedra del Sol on which the Aztec
cosmos is depicted; and Teotihuacan, thought to be the
Mexican archaeological site par excellence (Bueno 2004;
Florescano 2006; Fowler 1987:234). The Porfirian narrative
intentionally neglected other Mesoamerican cultures, deny-
ing their role in the formation of the modern Mexican culture
(Lombardo de Ruiz 1994:38). The selection of the Aztec
past as the national past was completely political, in the
sense that it gave power to the political elite that inhabited
central Mexico.
Likewise, the Porfirian elite transformed contemporary
ideas about the Spanish heritage of the nation. They did not
claim to be Spanish in origin but they alleged that the impor-
tance of the Spanish background lay in the fact that it per-
mitted the emergence of Mestizos, the true Mexicans. Like
the choice of Aztec culture as the Mexican national past,
the selection of mixed people as true Mexicans was also
political. Most of the Porfirian elite were Creoles. Nonethe-
less, as stated above, the Porfirian elite defined themselves
Mexican Archaeology and the Nation-Building Process during the Nineteenth Century
as Mestizos in order to claim rights over the pre-Hispanic
past and obtain legitimization.
While archaeology helped to debase contemporaneous
indigenous groups, representing them as lacking historical
traditions and a past (Bueno 2004; Earle 2007), it helped
in the process of the re-valuation of pre-Hispanic material
remains. Archaeology and its findings began to be promoted,
controlled, and institutionalized by the federal government
in order to achieve integration of the Mexican population
through the construction of nationalism and legitimiza-
tion. Integration of the Mexican population through the
construction of nationalism was achieved through two
main mechanisms: (1) recovering monumental architecture
and “special” pre-Hispanic objects and (2) displaying
pre-Hispanic remains to demonstrate the roots of national
identity (Bueno 2004). Legitimation was accomplished by
showing that Mexico had as great and sophisticated a past
as any European nation. Likewise, Mexico was presented
as a modern, scientific, and sovereign nation that was
concerned with the study and protection of the past.
The educational program enforced by the intellectual
elite during the Porfiriato gave Mexico the first unified
archaeological policy in its history. Through this policy,
archaeology became inseparable from the nation-building
process. That is why Mexican archaeology has been con-
sidered as an example of nationalistic archaeology (see
Trigger 1984). The Porfirian state controlled all aspects of
archaeological practice in Mexico. All Mexican archaeolo-
gists worked for federal institutions—the National Museum
or the Inspección—and foreign archaeologists had to work
under the supervision of federal agents. Moreover, the ed-
ucation and training of new professionals was at the be-
hest of the National Museum. Even the type of the remains
explored was controlled by the Porfirian regime. Official
archaeologists only explored monumental ruins located in
central Mexico and Oaxaca. Finally, the selection of arti-
facts for exhibition in the National Museum was a political
decision—Aztec remains that showed the greatness of the
past of Mexico were preferentially displayed.
Epilogue
The Revolution started in November, 1910, culminat-
ing with the overthrow of General Dı́az in May of 1911. The
changes in the political environment also brought changes in
the intellectual elite. In the arena of archaeology, Leopoldo
Batres was removed from the office of Inspection and Con-
servation of Archaeological Monuments. Although the peo-
ple in charge were replaced, the diverse institutions cre-
ated by the Porfirian elite—such as the National Museum
23
and the Inspección y Conservación de Monumentos Ar-
queológicos—were left untouched and laws enacted by the
Porfirian congress to protect and control pre-Hispanic re-
mains were enhanced.
During the post-Revolutionary period, the archaeologi-
cal policies originally formulated by the Porfirian elite were
also enhanced. Archaeology remained under the control of
the state and continued to be geared towards the reinforce-
ment of national identity. In fact, the archaeological past
began to be systematically studied, especially through the
efforts of Manuel Gamio, Alfonso Caso, Jorge Acosta, and
Ignacio Bernal (Fowler 1987; see J. H. Anderson, this vol-
ume). Teotihuacan, Monte Alban, Tula, Chichén Itzá, and
other major pre-Hispanic sites were the focus of numerous
archaeological explorations in order to increase the knowl-
edge and public awareness of the pre-Hispanic past and to
integrate the diverse groups of the population through the
construction of a national identity. In addition, archaeology
was to aid in the construction and dissemination of the cul-
tural distinctiveness of Mexico to the rest of the world. In the
same vein, the model of major archaeological sites as open
air museums for the entertainment and education of Mexi-
cans and tourists begun by Batres in Teotihuacan also con-
tinued during the post-Revolutionary period (Bernal 1980;
Lorenzo 1981). The exploration of pre-Hispanic sites even
came at the expense of the nation’s colonial heritage. For in-
stance, the state-sponsored exploration of the Aztec Templo
Mayor destroyed part of the colonial center of Mexico City
(Kohl 1998:235).
The difference vis-à-vis the Porfiriato lay in the fact
that contemporaneous indigenous peoples were re-valued
through the indigenism movement started by Manuel Gamio
during 1920s (see Earle 2007; Gamio 1916; Lorenzo
1981; Urı́as Horcasitas 2002). Following the indigenism
movement, the national myth of miscegenation or mesti-
zaje constructed during the Porfiriato was strongly echoed
during the post-Revolutionary period, though it under-
went some modifications. Indigenous people were to be-
come Mexicans through integration (Urı́as Horcasitas
2002). By the mid-1930s, the mestizo had been en-
throned as the cultural icon of the Mexican Revolution.
They were the true Mexicans or the cosmic race, as José
Vasconcelos named them (Earle 2007; Urı́as Horcasitas
2002).
Porfirian institutions still endure today, although with
different names (Lorenzo 1981). For example, the office
of Inspection became the Direction of Archaeological and
Ethnographic Studies in 1917. In 1939, the legacy of the
inspection finally took shape as the Instituto Nacional de
Antropologı́a e Historia, the institution that today offi-
cially oversees archaeological practice in Mexico and sets
24
guidelines about the protection and display of archaeological
remains (see Faulseit, this volume).
In summary, this paper describes how nationalist ar-
chaeology began in Mexico as early as the Porfiriato, instead
of the subsequent post-Revolutionary period. Archaeology
was institutionalized in order to control and manipulate ar-
chaeological practice and the pre-Hispanic material vestiges
in order to exalt the pre-Hispanic past, a vital component of
Mexican identity. Through the creation of a national iden-
tity, the Porfirian elite sought to bring together the diverse
Mexican population and thereby to build a nation.
Acknowledgements
I want to thank D. S. Anderson, D. J. Clark, and J.
H. Anderson for their kind invitation to participate in this
volume. I also express my gratitude to R. A. Fagoaga
for his assistance on the search of pertinent bibliographic
references. Raquel Pacheco and Beniamino Volta deserve
special recognition for their comments on the grammar of
this paper. Any mistake, nevertheless, is my responsibility.
References Cited
Bernal, Ignacio
1980 A History of Mexican Archaeology. London:
Thames and Hudson.
Bueno, Christina M.
2004 Excavating Identity: Archaeology and Nation in
Mexico, 1876–1911. Ph.D. dissertation, Depart-
ment of Anthropology, University of California at
Davis.
Chavero, Alfredo
1887 Historia Antigua y de la conquista, vol. 1: Mexico
a través de los siglos: Historia general y completa
del desenvolvimiento social, polı́tico, religioso,
militar, artı́stico, cientı́fico y literario de México
desde la antigüedad más remota hasta la época
actual. Vicente Riva Palacio, ed. Barcelona:
Espasa y Cia.
Earle, Rebecca
2007 The Return of the Native. Indias and Myth-Making
in Spanish America, 1810–1930. Durham: Duke
University Press.
Florescano, Enrique
1993 La creación del Museo Nacional de Antropologı́a
Nancy Peniche May
y sus fines cientı́ficos, educativos y polı́ticos.
In El patrimonio cultural de México. Enrique
Florescano, ed. Pp. 129–144. Mexico, D.F.: Fondo
de Cultura Económica, Mexico.
2006 National Narratives in Mexico. A History. Norman:
University of Oklahoma Press.
Fowler, Don D.
1987 Uses of the Past: Archeology in the Service of the
State. American Antiquity 52(2):229–248.
Gallegos Tellez Rojo, José R.
2001 Teotihuacan: la formación de la primera zona
arqueológica en México. In Patrimonio histórico
y cultural de México. IV Semana cultural de la
Dirección de Ethnologı́a y Antropologı́a Social.
Ma. Elena Morales Anduaga and Francisco J.
Zamora Quintana, eds. Pp. 255–279. México, D.F.:
Instituto Nacional de Antropologı́a e Historia.
Gamio, Manuel
1916 Forjando Patria. Mexico, D.F.: Editorial Porrúa.
Kohl, Philip L.
1998 Nationalism and Archaeology: On the Construc-
tions of Nations and the Reconstructions of the
Remote Past. Annual Review of Anthropology
27:223–246.
Lombardo de Ruiz, Sonia
1993 La visión actual del patrimonio cultural y ar-
quitectónico y urbano de 1521 a 1990. In El
patrimonio cultural de México. Enrique Flores-
cano, ed. Pp. 165–218. Mexico, D.F.: Fondo de
Cultura Económica, Mexico.
1994 El pasado prehispánico en la cultura nacional:
Memoria Hemerográfica 1877–1911.Vol. I. Mex-
ico, D.F.: Instituto Nacional de Antropologı́a e
Historia.
Lorenzo, José Luis
1981 Archaeology South of the Rio Grande. World
Archaeology 13:190–208.
Morris, Stephen D.
1999 Reforming the Nation: Mexican Nationalism in
Context. Journal of Latin American Studies
31(2):363–397.
Prieto, Guillermo
1999 [1896] Lecciones de historia patria. México, D.F.:
CONACULTA.
Mexican Archaeology and the Nation-Building Process during the Nineteenth Century
Rico Mansard, Luisa F.
2002 Proyección de la arqueologı́a mexicana (1880–
1910): Descubrir, ordenar y mostrar nuestro
pasado. Arqueologı́a Mexicana 10(55):18–25.
Riva Palacio, Vicente, ed.
1887 México a través de los siglos: historia general y
completa del desenvolvimiento social, polı́tico,
religioso, militar, artı́stico, cientı́fico y literario
de México desde la antigüedad más remota has
la época actual, obra única en su género. Mexico,
D.F.: J. Ballescá y Compañı́a.
Rodrı́guez Garcı́a, Ignacio
1996 Recursos ideológicos del estado mexicano: El
caso de la arqueologı́a. In La historia de la
antropologı́a en México: Fuentes y trans-
misión. Mechthild Rutsch, ed. Pp. 83–103.
México, D.F.: Universidad Iberoamericana, In-
stituto Nacional Indigenista and Plaza y Valdes
Editores.
25
Rutsch, Mechthild
2001 Enlazando al pasado con el presente: reflexiones
en torno a los inicios de la enseñanza de la
antropologı́a en México (primera de dos partes).
Ciencia Ergo Sum 7(3):308–317.
Sierra, Justo
1894 Catecismo de Historia Patria. Mexico, D.F.: Li-
brerı́a de la viudad Bouret.
Tenorio-Trillo, Mauricio
1996 Mexico at the World’s Fairs: Crafting a Modern
Nation. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Trigger, Bruce G.
1984 Archaeologies: Nationalist, Colonialist, Imperial-
ist. Man 19(3):355–370.
Urı́as Horcasitas, Beatriz
2002 Las ciencias sociales en la encrucijada del poder:
Manuel Gamio (1920–1940). Revista Mexicana
de Sociologı́a 64(3):93–121.