Roybal 1

Irina Roybal

Julia Crisler

WP2

22 2 March 2023

The Revitalized World of Stingless Beekeeping

Meliponiculture is a term that few are familiar with, which is shocking considering that it

has been widely practiced in Central and South America for millennia. Otherwise known as

stingless beekeeping, meliponiculture originated in ancient Maya civilizations and became a

crucial resource that contributed to a variety of technological advancements. The hives, honey,

and wax held important cultural significance and had a diverse set of applications. The most

commonly “domesticated” stingless bee species in Mayan civilizations, Melipona beecheii, has

an unlikely immunity to a threat that many other pollinators have been met with in our modern

era —rapid population decline. Although this species is known to yield comparable amounts of

honey to the European honeybee, melipona beecheii remains marginalized by researchers who

tend to focus their studies on the latter. Two disciplines have begun to study the viability of

stingless bee keeping, anthropology and agroecology. This intrigue is unsurprising bearing in

mind the rich history of this practice in Central and South America and the growing interest in

indigenous knowledge systems.

While these disciplines may overlap in some areas of study, there are distinct differences

between them both. Two articles from each field that I feel capture this distinction are “The

Organization of Stingless Beekeeping (Meliponiculture) at Mayapán, Yucatan, Mexico” by

Elizabeth Paris, Carlos Peraza Lope, Marilyn A. Masson, Pedro C. Delgado Kú, and Bárbara C.

Escamilla Ojeda and “Saving the Other Bees: The Resurgence of Stingless Beekeeping in the
 Roybal 2

Zona Maya” by Eve Bratman. By examining the modes in which each discipline approaches

meliponiculture–namely their use of jargon, their respective discourse communities, and on their

forms of evidence–we can discern why the agroecological paper is more compelling both

articles’in its goal of promoting stingless beekeeping as a sustainable alternative to traditional

honeybee propagation.

While these disciplines may overlap in motive, there are distinct differences between

their strategies. Two articles from each field that I feel capture this distinction are “The

Organization of Stingless Beekeeping (Meliponiculture) at Mayapán, Yucatan, Mexico” by

Elizabeth Paris, Carlos Peraza Lope, Marilyn A. Masson, Pedro C. Delgado Kú, and Bárbara C.

Escamilla Ojeda, which serves as the anthropological study, and “Saving the Other Bees: The

Resurgence of Stingless Beekeeping in the Zona Maya” by Eve Bratman, which focuses on the

agroecological aspects of meliponiculture:

From scribal writing to metal casting, the traditional use of stingless bee products is

heavily documented in the first second article, “The Organization of Stingless Beekeeping

(Meliponiculture) at Mayapán, Yucatan, Mexico”. As a study based in anthropology, which is

somewhat of an interdisciplinary field itself, findings in this article center around the significance

of beekeeping to the historical Mayan economy and societal hierarchies. As a genre, conventions

of anthropological studies make the assertion that this field is relatively exclusive. This discipline

also places an emphasis on the past, using what is known about history to contextualize the

findings of their study.

In contrast, the forefront of contemporary agriculture is rooted in future innovations and

solutions. However, agroecology offers a unique perspective in that we may already possess the
 Roybal 3

solutions we seek. These solutions are can be uncovered by considering perspectives from

modern practitioners and reflecting on lessons from the past —such a principle certainly applies

to beekeeping. The article, “Saving the Other Bees: The Resurgence of Stingless Beekeeping in

the Zona Maya” by Eve Bratman, makes this case through their paper in agroecology. Although

agroecology is a relatively novel term, its values have been practiced in indigenous communities

for generations. These values These ideals include environment function, biodiversity, and

ecosystem services in agricultural practices, all of which are communicated to the reader in a

variety of tactics aimed at conveying a sense of approachability.

To reemphasize, an agroecologist’s primary motive is to streamline and advance current

systems, typically by prioritizing sustainable farming that works with nature. Jargon used in

agroecological studies is intentional in that theits goal, even when exploring historical farming

methods, is to tie into modern times and applications. For example, Bratman cites an account

about historical hive-keeping processes as evidence for a contemporary agroecological principle.

Lenny, a meliponiculturalist, provided a background on the indigenous practice of growing

hives, “‘Those jobones are ancient and from those we used to breed mother colonies because

from those we can extract daughter colonies.’”1. This quote is used to support Bratman’s claim

that “A broader concern with forest preservation is articulated by Lenny, who draws upon the

agroecology principle of situating agricultural interventions within broader challenges of forest

protection and habitat protection. Lenny describes hollow log hives and the colony splits derived

from them,”2. In their article, Bratman transforms a straightforward explanation of indigenous

hive cultivation into a metaphor for how we should protect our environment: use natural

1
Bratman, Eve Z. “Saving the Other Bees: The Resurgence of Stingless Beekeeping in the Zona Maya”.
Conservation and Society 18, no. 4 (2020). 393.
2
Bratman “Saving the Other Bees: The Resurgence of Stingless Beekeeping in the Zona Maya”. 393.
 Roybal 4

processes to queue the expansion of agriculture. In this case, wait until the hive is ready to

multiply.

Anthropology doesn’t have an inherent desire to connect to our contemporary world,

unlike agroecology. This feature iscan be observed throughout the anthropological article. For

example, when the work is discussing the commodification of stingless bee products, “Honey

and wax were considered alienable goods in Pre-Columbian northern Yucatan; they could be

sold commercially, given as gifts, and used in tribute payments.”3, Paris makes no mention of

modern day buying and selling practices. This convention is in direct contrast with the

agroecological work that documented the thoughts of such an act by several indigenous

meliponiculture practitioners, “These sentiments echo a broader agroecological critique against

neoliberal privatization and private capital accumulation, which often come at the expense of

peasants and indigenous peoples.” 4. By informing the reader on current debates surrounding the

topic, I think that the discipline of agroecology is more successful in bringing the audience into

the conversation.

To keep the reader engaged, Bratman’s article ensures accessibility of language despite

using terminology specific to agriculture. “Native bees play a central role in pollination, which is

critical to food production, seed quality, fruit abundance, and human nutrition.”5. However

distinct these terms may be to this discipline; approachability is not compromised. Unfamiliar

terms, especially words from indigenous languages, are defined. For “Traditionallyexample,

“Traditionally kept in jobones, or hollow log hives, they are horizontally stacked above

ground.”And again, is one example of this phenomenon, “nine site visits took place at

3
Paris, Elizabeth H., Carlos Peraza Lope, Marilyn A. Masson, Pedro C. Delgado Kú, and Bárbara C.
Escamilla Ojeda. “The Organization of Stingless Beekeeping (Meliponiculture) at Mayapán, Yucatan,
Mexico”. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 52 (2018). 4.
4
Bratman “Saving the Other Bees: The Resurgence of Stingless Beekeeping in the Zona Maya”. 393.
5
Bratman, “Saving the Other Bees: The Resurgence of Stingless Beekeeping in the Zona Maya”. 389.
 Roybal 5

meliponarios (locations where stingless beehives are managed).” 6 Is further example of this

pattern.is another.

The anthropological article, too, uses jargon unique to the discipline. One such sentence

relating to low-density Mayan urbanism is a prime example of this, “This view of agrarian

activity derives in part from segmentary state models of sociopolitical organization,”7. One may

not inherently know what is implied when a term like “segmentary state models” is used, and no

further elaboration is made following its employment. The jargonis verbiage used in

anthropological writing is geared towards individuals with a familiarity in anthropology,

specifically the history of Latin America. When talking about the ethnohistoric models of

meliponiculture in Yucatan, the author includes an aggressively summarized recount of the

events that have shaped stingless bee keeping into its current state, “The collapse of Mayapán as

a political capital, the decimation of Maya populations in the Early Colonial period due to

warfare and disease, the imposition of the hacienda system, and the introduction of foreign crops

and domesticates, including European honeybees, wrought significant changes to ecological and

economic systems,”8. The typical person may not know what “the imposition of the hacienda

system” is, and the authors make no effort to define and explain the system’s significance.

Instead, it is assumed that the article is reaching the targeted discourse community: other

anthropologists.

Conversely, the typical person is precisely who agroecologists are targeting. It is worded

best Iin the conclusion of the article, the author makes clear who their discourse community is,

“Emotional components, traditional practices, and youth engagement may all be brought to bear

6
Ibid. 388.
7
Paris, “The Organization of Stingless Beekeeping (Meliponiculture) at Mayapán, Yucatan, Mexico”. 2.
8
Paris, “The Organization of Stingless Beekeeping (Meliponiculture) at Mayapán, Yucatan, Mexico”. 3.
 Roybal 6

upon conservation efforts in ways that uplift and recognize indigenous traditions, underpinned by

agroecology and feminist practices that ultimately foster interspecies kin-making. Such efforts

offer a window into how biodiversity conservation may be reimagined, challenged from within,

and strengthened.”9. The authors of the agroecological study imply that their target audience,

their discourse community, are those that have just learned and are now curious about the

practice of meliponiculture and the environmental consciousness that it presents.

To communicate their agroecological findings to this discourse community, evidence

takes the form of ethnographic interviews. There are several subheadings throughout the study

that center around agricultural and/or ecological processes of meliponiculture, and each section

has an interview (or multiple) from a stingless beekeeper that supports their corresponding

agroecological title. Take the section, “Toward an Ethics of Intergenerational and Inter-Species

Care ''. Lenny, the aforementioned 24-year-old meliponiculturalist, was the interviewee of this

portion of the study. The inclusion of Lenny’s comments on the emotional connection a

beekeeper makes with their bees is very intentional in my opinion, “‘But I know that the bees

feel my presence. I know they understand what I communicate with them. Every time that I

arrive at my garden, I feel the presence of many people--it is a very special way that I feel.’”10.

The author also adds details about Lenny’s life, like how she started a women’s cooperative in a

field that “traditionally is considered a male activity” and that “she (Lenny) narrated while

checking hives alongside her three nieces, all under the age of ten.”11. This is a deliberate attempt

on the author’s behalf to appeal to the reader’s pathos to stress the importance of maintaining

9
Bratman, “Saving the Other Bees: The Resurgence of Stingless Beekeeping in the Zona Maya”. 395.
10
Bratman, “Saving the Other Bees: The Resurgence of Stingless Beekeeping in the Zona Maya”. 394.
11
Ibid, 394.
 Roybal 7

stingless beekeeping and bring attention to gender disparities in the practice. Partisanship is

emerging in newer disciplines, agroecology is a prime example of this phenomenon.

Anthropologists , especially in the branch of cultural archeology, use predominantly

photographic evidence of artifacts as well as oral reports to convey their discoveries as opposed

to oral reports. The difference lies in the fact that anthropology, as a more traditional and well-

established discipline, doesn’t try to spark sympathy for the interviewees in their study by using

divisive language. To focus on the photographic evidence, as it is the most utilized in this

anthropological study, Figure 7 in the anthropological article describes four types of excavated

artifacts: “a. Group of 22 of the 42 tripod feet excavated from Structure Q-99, showing a range

of sizes, shapes, and breakage patterns; b. A perforated truncated cone and tripod feet from

Structure Q-40a, c. A solid, rectangular ceramic bar from Structure Q-93; d. Pestles made from

metallurgical ceramic, from Structures Q-65 and Q-95.” 12. This highly specialized form of

evidence reiterates the discussion of jargon in that the applicability of these artifacts is likely

unclear to a reader that doesn’t fall into the intended discourse community. “Truncated”,

“metallurgical”, even the naming system for each structure is confusing for a reader with no prior

experience in anthropology. This weakens their argument that, “models of Maya agro-urbanism

challenge us to look at cities as multifunctional and multi-faceted spaces that include agrarian

activities such as gardening, beekeeping, animal husbandry, and arboriculture.”13 . Without

accessibility to the greater public, it will be difficult for people will likely find it difficult to

reexamine modern attempts at agro-urbanism under the lens established in this study. This leaves

the reader to wonder why the argument was ever included. The claim seems out of place in the

sea of neutral figures and descriptions.

12
Paris, “The Organization of Stingless Beekeeping (Meliponiculture) at Mayapán, Yucatan, Mexico”.
12.
13
Ibid, 19.
 Roybal 8

I believe tThe agroecological discipline is more successful in communicating the

importance of contemporary meliponiculture to average people through its use of personable

interviews, along with defining specialized terminology and specifically keeping the public in

mind when composing their article. The anthropological article is not to be overlooked, as it does

provide valuable insight on the innovation of historical Mayan stingless beekeeping. It is

important to note that while the goal of each paper is the same, the difference in their respective

audiences results in this disparity of accessibility. By combining the unique perspectives of

scientific research with traditional knowledge, much like examining meliponiculture from two

different fields of study, we can work towards a more sustainable future by propagating these

lesser-known pollinators and preserving the legacy of Mayan ingenuity that they represent.

Works Cited

Bratman, Eve Z. “Saving the Other Bees: The Resurgence of Stingless Beekeeping in the
Zona Maya”. Conservation and Society 18, no. 4(2020): 387–398.

Paris, Elizabeth H., Carlos Peraza Lope, Marilyn A. Masson, Pedro C. Delgado Kú, and
Bárbara C. Escamilla Ojeda. “The Organization of Stingless Beekeeping (Meliponiculture) at
Mayapán, Yucatan, Mexico”. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 52 (2018): 1–22.