Luke, C. 2012 “The Science behind U.S. Smart Power in Honduras: Archaeological Heritage...

This article was downloaded by: [Boston University]On: 05 March 2012, At: 06:55Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Diplomacy & StatecraftPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/fdps20

The Science behind United States SmartPower in Honduras: ArchaeologicalHeritage DiplomacyChristina Luke

Available online: 02 Mar 2012

To cite this article: Christina Luke (2012): The Science behind United States Smart Power inHonduras: Archaeological Heritage Diplomacy, Diplomacy & Statecraft, 23:1, 110-139

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09592296.2012.651965

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representationthat the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of anyinstructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primarysources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/fdps20

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09592296.2012.651965

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Diplomacy & Statecraft, 23:110–139, 2012Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 0959-2296 print/1557-301X onlineDOI: 10.1080/09592296.2012.651965

The Science behind United States SmartPower in Honduras: Archaeological

Heritage Diplomacy

CHRISTINA LUKE

The cultural heritage of Honduras offers a critical platformfor United States heritage diplomacy under the United StatesDepartment of State, Bureau of Educational and CulturalAffairs, Cultural Heritage Center. Of specific note is the for-mal 2004 Honduran–American Memorandum of Understandingfor the preservation of cultural property and, beginning in2001, periodic projects under the Ambassadors Fund for CulturalPreservation. The diplomatic efficacy of American cultural her-itage policy and the Ambassadors Fund comes from long-term,sustained funding from the National Science Foundation, theNational Endowment for the Humanities, and the FulbrightProgram. Established networks by archaeologists have enabledthe successful re-entry of United States cultural diplomacy inHonduras in the last decade.

As a hot bed of political struggle that has frequently attracted United Statesinterest through business and political intrigues over the years, CentralAmerica faces immense challenges in how to establish long-term, consis-tently positive, working relationships with its most powerful neighbour tothe north. In 2005, American interests focused on the Central American FreeTrade Agreement (CAFTA). Robert Zoellick, then Deputy Secretary of State,in a speech to the Heritage Foundation, called for increased attention tothe region: “Our domestic debate pays slight attention to the historic oppor-tunity to stabilize and support Central America while promoting America’sstrategic interests and values.”1 This “transformational diplomacy” offered away to “strengthen the role of civil society groups and individual citizens,the threads that weave the modern democratic fabric.”2 Absent in Zoellick’sspeech was discussion of the rich cultural heritage that forms the back-bone of community identity and a framework for national discourse andinter-regional diplomacy in Central America. The coup d’état of 28 June

110

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Bos

ton

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

6:55

05

Mar

ch 2

012

Archaeological Heritage Diplomacy 111

2009 placed Honduras and the region of Central America back on the inter-national radar. Amongst groups with vested interests in the political stabilityand growth of civil society in Honduras are archaeologists, amongst the keypractitioners of heritage diplomacy in-country.3

In Central America, heritage forms a vital core in social life as wellas economic opportunities and political muscle.4 In recent years the UnitedStates Department of State Cultural Heritage Center has taken an active inter-est in the cultural heritage of Honduras through a formal Memorandum ofUnderstanding (MoU) focused on the preservation of pre-Columbian mate-rials and archaeological sites. In addition, the Center also administers theAmbassadors Fund for Cultural Preservation, which has funded a num-ber of projects in Honduras. Both the MoU and the Ambassadors Fundare part of the renewed commitment to increase American cultural diplo-macy abroad. The MoU and various projects under the Ambassadors Fund,however, are made possible by established research programmes and net-works of social scientists, including field archaeologists, who have beenworking in Honduras for many years. The initial support for this researchcame not from the State Department’s Cultural Heritage Center, but from theDepartment’s Fulbright Program and, more importantly, from the NationalScience Foundation (NSF) and the National Endowment for the Humanities(NEH). These programmes promote on-going educational exchanges, facili-tate sustained commitments in-country at local, regional, and national levels,and maintain an American commitment to science-driven research. Thediplomatic efficacy of United States-funded educational programming andscientific research in Honduras provides the nodes upon which formalAmerican heritage policy and diplomacy are based.

Post-9/11 public diplomacy experts in the United States have returnedto the age-old struggle of where to place cultural issues within Americanforeign policy. Of critical importance is how to understand better culturalsensitivities, identities, and pluralities that make up nation states and toexplore options for collaborative opportunities for reaching across culturaland national boundaries.5 The strategy parallels the “smart power” andnew diplomacy discourse of the Barack Obama Administration, which hasreformed the American diplomatic landscape by opening consulates andcultural centres and by expanding the Foreign Service.6 Such initiatives,according to Oglesby, will require “hard slogging grassroots work”7 anda focus on “authentic dialogue, relationship building and exchange . . . soas to create an overlap with activities of international cultural relations.”8

Moreover, “Americans should not contribute by singing our own praises.This self-referential focus works against American credibility as moral lead-ers in an age of globalization.”9 One way that governments achieve thisgoal is through long-term relationships via exchange programmes that seekto provide a “three-dimensional image.”10 Educational exchanges provideopportunities for long-term, daily encounters over a sustained period of time.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Bos

ton

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

6:55

05

Mar

ch 2

012

112 C. Luke

Student exchange programmes are amongst the most important elements infostering mutual understanding. As Lima explains, such programmes allowstudents to understand a host country and “to develop sympathy with itspolitical system, culture and values,” which may limit future “cross-culturalfriction” and promote inter-cultural dialogue.11

Under the former United States Information Agency (USIA), the UnitedStates “adopted a hybrid cultural diplomacy model that combined (1) exe-cution by universities and private agencies, which fought to preserve liberalnorms of peer selection and academic integrity; (2) funding by Congress; and(3) a succession of U.S. agencies that struggled to manage the process.”12

The push to excel in the educational, scientific, and art sectors—the culturaldiplomacy of America—resulted in spotlights for “private institutions and,apart from a consistent desire for more public funding, a minimal role forgovernment.”13 The USIA folded in the late 1990s and most of the existingprogrammes were moved into the relatively small Bureau of Educational andCultural Affairs (ECA) in the Department of State.

The Cultural Heritage Center, located in ECA, overseas cultural heritageprogramming abroad—for instance, in-country—through the AmbassadorsFund For Cultural Heritage Preservation, which complements the pol-icy and legislation of MoUs implemented under the Cultural PropertyImplementation Act (CPIA), the implementing legislation for the 1970United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO)Convention in the United States. The Ambassadors Fund and the MoUs—like the 2004 Honduran-American CPIA MoU—support definable projectsof heritage in hopes of contributing to long-term preservation. Also locatedwithin ECA is the Fulbright Program, which over the years has supportedarchaeologists who require time in-country to study material.

The 28 June 2009 coup in Honduras made clear that sovereignty is notsomething to be presumed. It made clear also that Central America remainsvolatile. Analyses of the months leading up to the coup have suggestedthat the United States military, Supreme Court, and Congress conspired tohave President Manuel Zelaya removed from office.14 The following monthswere a period of turmoil in Honduras, recalling the political unease of the1980s and memories of the “Banana Republics.” The Porfirio Lobo Sosagovernment struggles to present a legitimate image, whilst pro-democracymovements try to find a stage upon which to push forward. Honduras, how-ever, remains amongst the poorest countries in the region, and corruptionand crime make access to civil society seem a far-off dream.15 The focus onthe Honduran coup has highlighted high-profile political and economic con-sequences, and international research agendas have been compromised.16

Shortly after the 2009 coup, the leading Honduran archaeologist,Dario A. Euraque, was relieved of his post at the country’s Institute ofAnthropology and History, something described in his recently publishedmemoir, El Golpe de Estado del 28 de Junio de 2009, el Patrimono Cultural

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Bos

ton

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

6:55

05

Mar

ch 2

012


y la Identidad Nacional de Honduras.17 His account discusses the frac-tured place of archaeological heritage in Honduras and commitments toredefine the practice of archaeology between 2002 and 2009. The Instituteof Anthropology and History sought to broaden the role of archaeologi-cal heritage, promoting engagement with academia, community educators,and economic developers—especially in the tourism and museum sectors.Furthermore, the period marked renewed interest in Honduras from theUnited States Department of State. An MoU between the United States andHonduras was signed in 2004 under the CPIA, effectively re-introducing for-mal State Department heritage diplomacy to Honduras.18 This MoU and anumber of grants under the Ambassadors Fund for Cultural Preservation—launched in 2001—marked a renewed interest in how archaeologicalheritage was to be a part of the diplomatic tool kit.

The CPIA represents the most important visible component of Americanforeign policy when it comes to the Department of State engaging directlywith cultural heritage preservation efforts abroad. The CPIA is the imple-menting legislation for the 1970 UNESCO Convention in the United States.The legislation hinges on the idea that quelling the illicit trade in archaeolog-ical and ethnological materials will reduce plunder in-country and, hence,protect archaeological sites and scientific context from wanton destruction.Under the CPIA, Washington implemented only two articles of the UNESCOConvention: Article 7(b) refers to goods stolen from public, documented col-lections; this provision applies to all 1970 UNESCO parties; Article 9 refersto plunder, or undocumented materials. In addition to implementing thesetwo articles of the 1970 UNESCO Convention, the CPIA has additional imple-menting legislation: a formal diplomatic relationship must be establishedbetween countries under a MoU, or a bilateral agreement. Under a for-mal bilateral agreement, there are several articles: historically Article I andArticle II have constituted the meat of an agreement. The United States andHonduras entered into an MoU for pre-Columbian materials in March 2004,renewing it in 2009.19

Article I of the MoU is the “hard power” article that imposesimport restrictions at the American border. Specified categories—increasinglyexhaustive categories—are covered under Article I. Import restrictions arecivil, not criminal, and they complement the menu of criminal and civilUnited States smuggling statutes and other legal instruments such as the 1946National Stolen Property Act that may also apply at the American border. Theformal “list” of designated materials covered under the import restrictions iscompiled based on archaeological excavations that focus on context and/oron research that focuses on scientific approaches to objects in museumcollections. It is precisely through this context that the geographic distri-bution of specific types of objects is known; and it is through the fundingof projects under the NSF that scientific research in Honduras has providedcritical information about cultural context. Article II of the MoU, in contrast,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Bos

ton

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

6:55

05

Mar

ch 2

012

114 C. Luke

is the “soft power” initiative. Here programmes aimed at people-to-peoplerelationships, especially through training programmes and the exchange ofideas through museum exhibitions, promote an open and fluid approach tothe management of cultural heritage.

Complementing the CPIA is the Ambassadors Fund for CulturalPreservation, also administered by the Cultural Heritage Center. The Fund isa Congressional earmark under “influence” in the Diplomatic and ConsularPrograms. It was launched in 2000 with $1 million:

Too often, U.S. assistance to underdeveloped nations is either invisi-ble to all but a handful of bureaucrats or appears to benefit us at theexpense of the recipient country. The Committee believes that culturalpreservation offers an opportunity to show a different American faceto other countries, one that is non-commercial, non-political, and non-military. By taking a leading role in efforts to preserve cultural heritage,we show our respect for other cultures by protecting their traditions. TheCommittee recommendation includes $1,000,000 out of available funds tocreate an Ambassadors Fund for Cultural Preservation. U.S. Ambassadorsfrom underdeveloped countries may submit competitive proposals forone-time or recurring projects with awards based on the importance ofthe site, the country’s need, and the ability to make a meaningful con-tribution to the preservation of a site, object, or form of expression. TheDepartment is directed to submit a report to the Committees on winningprojects on an annual basis.20

Since 2000, the Fund has grown significantly, now operating to the tuneof $7 million annually. Respective American embassies nominate projectsby somewhat idiosyncratic selection procedures, with some openly callingfor proposals whilst others implement funding based on internal pro-cesses. For Central America, under the Western Hemisphere component ofthe Department of State, Honduras has received a number of grants, ashave the neighbouring countries of Nicaragua, Guatemala, and El Salvador(Appendix 1). The “Western Hemisphere,” as it appears in official documen-tation from 2000 to 2007, or the “Americas,” as it appears from 2007 to thepresent, receives 16–20 percent of monies allotted for the Fund.21

Of strategic contrast is the history of funding for projects in Honduras,Nicaragua, and El Salvador compared to those in Guatemala. Until 2010, fund-ing for projects in Guatemala had two foci, the National Museum in GuatemalaCity and sites with pre-Columbian heritage in the northern areas of the coun-try; in fact, one of the large “special project” grants under the AmbassadorsFund ($575,251) went to conservation of the Early Classic San Bartolo murals,as mandated in the American Senate Report 109–277 109th. In contrast, ini-tiatives in Honduras, Nicaragua, and El Salvador have spread funding overa variety of projects that focus on well-known archaeological sites such asCopan in Honduras; new areas of development, such as the archaeological

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Bos

ton

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

6:55

05

Mar

ch 2

012


site of Curruste, also in Honduras; and intangible aspects of heritage, like thetraditional practices of the Garifuna22 in Honduras, the photographic archivesat the Instituto de Historia on the campus of the Universidad Centroamericanain Nicaragua, or the Manuel Gallardo Library in El Salvador.

In Honduras between 2001 and 2004, the Fund supported the record-ing of Garifuna traditions, narratives, and languages, and also an indigenousgroup, Tawanka teachers. In 2005, 2006, and 2007, the Fund focused onpre-Columbian archaeological sites in Honduras, especially interesting giventhe implementation of the 2004 Honduran–American MoU under the CPIAfor pre-Columbian materials. Charles A. Ford’s comments in the annual2006–2007 Ambassadors Fund report demonstrate that the Department ofState sees the MoU as the initial development of Honduran–American net-works: “I am very proud that the selection of ‘our’ proposal—I say ‘our’because this is an example of the close relationship that characterisesthe bilateral relationship between our nations—facilitates [the develop-ment of the Curruste archaeological site].” The Ambassadors Fund andthe Honduran–American MoU did not start in a vacuum, however. Ratherboth drew—and continue to draw—heavily on the work of Americanarchaeologists backed by funding from the NSF and its sustained commit-ment to supporting American archaeologists and anthropologists conductingscientific research in Honduras. All three areas that received funding fromthe Ambassadors Fund between 2005 and 2008 had previous NSF funding.In turn, much of the groundwork that went into NSF-funded research hasalso been supported over the years by NEH and Fulbright.

In the wake of the Second World War, European countries wanted toput into place measures to help avoid future conflicts. Amongst the manyinitiatives was the establishment of UNESCO in 1945. The mission state-ment of the organisation pledges to contribute “to the building of peace, thealleviation of poverty, sustainable development and intercultural dialoguethrough education, the sciences, culture, communication and information.”In order to compete on the international stage, America established the NSFin 1950. At the core of the NSF Congressional initiative is knowledge: “Nosingle factor is more important to the intellectual and economic progress ofsociety, and to the enhanced well-being of its citizens, than the continuousacquisition of new knowledge.”23 NSF will

[f]oster the interchange of scientific information among scientists andengineers in the United States and foreign countries . . . [p]rovide a cen-tral clearinghouse for the collection, interpretation and analysis of dataon scientific and technical resources in the United States . . . provide asource of information for policy formulation by other federal agencies . . .

[and i]nitiate and support specific scientific and engineering activities inconnection with matters relating to international cooperation, nationalsecurity and the effects of scientific and technological applications uponsociety.”24

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Bos

ton

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

6:55

05

Mar

ch 2

012

116 C. Luke

The basic NSF principle is “bottom up.” Its mission includes “keeping closetrack of research around the United States and the world, maintaining con-stant contact with the research community to identify ever-moving horizonsof inquiry, monitoring which areas are most likely to result in spectac-ular progress and choosing the most promising people to conduct theresearch.”25

Archaeology constitutes a vital component of UNESCO programmesas well as of the NSF, today most visibly in the Behavioral and CognitiveSciences division. Two initial UNESCO conventions set the stage for futureheritage studies, the 1970 UNESCO Convention and the 1972 World HeritageConvention. The 1972 Convention has gone on to shape how archaeolog-ical work defines places of “universal value,” and it has, in many respects,become a linch-pin in tourism development and the “public face” of manyarchaeologically rich countries. The 1970 UNESCO Convention, in contrast,shaped the study of cultural property law and cultural heritage policiesin-country. The 1970 Convention stresses clearly—Article 5(d)—the needto “[organise] the supervision of archaeological excavations, ensuring thepreservation in situ of certain cultural property, and protecting certain areasreserved for future archaeological research.” UNESCO’S platform has contin-ued to stress the importance of “evidence-based policies,” yet the explicitreference to archaeological context has fallen away.26

In contrast, the NSF’s approach to the understanding of archaeologicalheritage has remained steadfast in its commitment to “science.” Since 1954,when NSF launched the Anthropology and Related Sciences Program,27 ithas funded archaeological projects handsomely. The emphasis on detailedmethodological approaches has necessitated that researchers have a firmacademic background, and most grantees are based in the academy. To jug-gle research opportunities with teaching and service duties, the practice ofarchaeological research generally functions on a multi-year research frame-work with scholars and students engaging in long-term research that mayinclude the study of art history, ancient literature, craft production throughgeological and chemical analysis, paleo-environmental reconstruction, geo-graphic information systems (GIS), aerial imagery—satellite and historicimages—and remote sensing techniques, as well as community outreachand presentations at museums and on-site. In this way, archaeology sits atthe juncture of the hard sciences, social sciences, and humanities.28 From theperspective of in-country networking, this multi-pronged approach ensuresinteraction with multiple different communities.

The NSF has strategically funded archaeology in Latin America, includ-ing projects in Honduras.29 Based on public data posted in the on-linedatabase for NSF, from 1961 with a single award for “ArchaeologicalExploration in Honduras” to the present, over 42 percent of the awardsgiven for scientific research in Honduras have been for research related toarchaeology (Appendix 2).30 The NSF-engine has funded multiple projects in

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Bos

ton

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

6:55

05

Mar

ch 2

012


the northwest—Cacaulapa, Copan, Naco, and Ulua valleys—and northeast—Mosquitia; and whilst project teams vary, the principal investigators, seniorscholars, and graduate students involved in these projects often overlap orhave worked together on other NSF-funded programmes. Funding has cov-ered archaeological excavation, as one might expect, as well as studies ofmaterial remains, such as ceramics, zoological remains, chocolate, and stone.And, more recently, support has been provided for innovative research onairborne synthetic aperture radar, a remote sensing technique that is particu-larly helpful in jungle areas where archaeological sites are frequently hiddenby layers of vegetation.

Most NSF awards are for multi-year periods: three years is the stan-dard NSF-grant term for advanced/senior research in archaeology. Generally,projects run for several months each year in-country—that is, for fieldarchaeology—and include a team of students and experts. The long-termdiplomacy established by senior colleagues, often NSF dissertation grantees,has served over the years to set the groundwork for sustained cultural diplo-macy. Not surprisingly, doctoral students often conduct research in the sameregion as their advisers. Just as the scientific research builds on previous datasets so, too, does the social fabric that supports research in-country. That isto say, the “grassroots” diplomacy that was established by a senior colleaguebecomes the platform from which a junior colleague works. The success ofone’s diplomacy may, perhaps, be measured by the relative future successof junior colleagues. The scientific and social linkages that develop amongstforeign scholars and students with local communities after many years of sus-tained research exemplifies what the State Department calls “the multipliereffect,” literally a mosaic of relationships amongst different communities:local, regional, national, and international.

By the nature of the scientifically grounded work, NSF fosters a dynamicresearch agenda of highly skilled and dedicated colleagues. These spheresof knowledge propel an ever-expanding citizenship engaged with archae-ological research that transcends national boundaries. The engagement ofgraduate and undergraduate students with faculty members and Hondurancolleagues in-country fosters an on-going global conversation that movesthe traditional classroom into a dynamic, contemporary setting that asksstudents to consider not only the archaeological record, but also the mean-ing of the past in the present. This work has not gone unnoticed by theHondurans, as indicated on Harvard University’s website: “William [Fash]and his wife Barbara [Fash] recently received the Hoja de Laurel de Oro, alifetime achievement award, conferred by the [Honduran] Minister of Cultureand the Arts, and the Office of the President. It recognises 30-plus years ofservice in preserving and documenting Honduras’ cultural heritage.” Underthe former Zelaya administration, Rosemary Joyce and Russel Sheptak wereto receive the Hoja de Laurel de Oro in 2009 for their long-term commitmentto the history and archaeology of Honduras.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Bos

ton

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

6:55

05

Mar

ch 2

012

118 C. Luke

In addition to large-scale excavation and survey projects given to seniorresearchers as well as those awarded to graduate students, the NSF pro-vides funding for undergraduate participation. Ed Schortman and PatriciaUrban have both been highly successful at securing funding for a number ofdifferent types of scientific research projects in the Naco and Cacaulapa val-leys involving excavation, craft production, and geomorphology. In additionto the senior grants for research, Schortman and Urban have both securedNSF funding for undergraduate research in archaeology and cultural anthro-pology. The experience of being in Honduras exposes students not only toarchaeology but also, as Urban comments on the Kenyon University website,“a much deeper understanding of Latin America than they would get in apurely classroom setting in the US.” Undergraduates working with RosmearyJoyce and Julia Hendon have also received support under this initiative,pointing to the effectiveness of the programme for engaging many UnitedStates undergraduates in different in-country Honduran projects.

Whilst none of the NSF-sponsored projects purports to be an active,politically driven arm of the United States government and, in particular,none is framed as an initiative aimed at cultural diplomacy, all of the projectshave contributed to a prolonged presence of American archaeologists andtheir students in Honduras. The sponsoring institutions and the academicrigour of scholarship propel this work, and the Honduran landscape pro-vides an engaging workplace. The science behind these projects acts asa catalyst for people-to-people networking that, in theory, should fostermutual understanding. But how do NSF projects correspond to other UnitedStates government grants that purport to focus on cultural diplomacy anddemocracy?

Whilst NSF provides consistent funding for archaeological research inHonduras, it is not the only source of federal funds for this purpose. Alsosignificant is the NEH established by President Lyndon Johnson in 1965.The NEH is an independent federal agency that operates under the premisethat the humanities constitute a critical aspect of a democratic society.The primary grantees are cultural institutions, including universities and,from its inception, archaeology has constituted an important part of NEHfunding.31 Awards have gone to a variety of museum exhibitions—notablythe 1965 blockbuster “Treasures of Tutankhuamen”—and archaeologicalprojects abroad. NEH funding can run through American research centres,public and private partnerships abroad, or through American institutions.The latter is the case with most grants given for archaeological-relatedprojects in Central America.

Since 1982, NEH has given a number of grants for work inHonduras broadly related to archaeology, culture, and heritage studies (seeAppendix 3). Similar to the NSF, NEH funding has supported researchrelated to Copan, the most developed and celebrated archaeological sitein the country; yet researchers working in other areas of Honduras have

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Bos

ton

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

6:55

05

Mar

ch 2

012


also been supported. The focus of the work has varied considerably: fam-ily histories and race relations; preservation of archives; documentation ofcollections, especially ceramics; the survey and excavation of archaeolog-ical sites; and, most recently, the preservation and management of thesesites, notably the work of von Schwerin at Copan.32 A unique part of theNEH mandate is the preservation of archives and monuments for futurescholarship; this focus on archives is not part of the broader NSF researchagenda and, thus, NSF and NEH complement each other. Because NSFand NEH grants are often long-term and multi-year, they offer sustainedopportunities for diplomatic efficacy that are impossible under the relativeshort-term, project-specific programmes under the Ambassadors Fund andthe Honduran-American MoU.

Whilst NSF and NEH funds projects—ideally for interdisciplinary archae-ological excavations, surveys and preservation initiatives—the FulbrightProgram supports individual researchers and lecturers. Established by UnitedStates Senator J. William Fulbright in the aftermath of the Second World War,the Fulbright Program has grown to be amongst the largest programmesof the Department of State. Established in 1953 as part of USIA’s missionabroad,33 Fulbright funding waxes and wanes subject to political batter-ing over what many believe is a relatively inexpensive and highly effectivepublic diplomacy programme. And, until recently, funding for Fulbright hasbeen flush. Over the years Fulbright recipients have conducted a variety ofactivities in Central America, with archaeology and anthropology favoureddisciplines. As stated in the materials sent to Fulbright recipients, the grantis inherently a diplomacy outreach programme: “As you know, the basicpurpose of this program is to increase mutual understanding between thepeoples of the United States and the people of other countries through theexchange of students, teachers, lecturers and research scholars.” In additionto the proposed scholarship, grant winners are chosen based on their “lead-ership potential.” Formal guidelines for “What It Means To Be a Fulbrighter”ask that the scholar converse frequently with people in different types ofsettings and “continue to learn about the history and culture of their hostcountries.” Upon the completion of the grant, Fulbrighters are requested“to speak and write about their experience as widely as possible.” The finalpitch reads: “Remember, you are a Fulbrighter for life!”34 Archaeologists oftenapply for—and are awarded—Fulbright grants.

A number of scholars who received previous or later NSF or NEH fund-ing were selected for Fulbright awards to study archaeology in Hondurasin the 1980s and 1990s: William Fash, Rosemary Joyce, Ed Schortman,and Patricia Urban, amongst others. More recently Fulbright scholars havefocused on issues of preservation and sustainability and, from 1993 to2010, the period for which public data is available, almost 28 percent ofFulbright fellowships given for study in Honduras were awarded for politi-cal science, archaeology, anthropology, tourism, and/or geography projects

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Bos

ton

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

6:55

05

Mar

ch 2

012

120 C. Luke

broadly focused on the study of archaeology, contemporary culture and/orthe management of heritage resources in Honduras (see Appendix 4).

A comparison of NSF, NEH, and Fulbright-supported research inHonduras over time illustrates a sustained American presence in-country.For example, research in the Naco and Cacaulapa regions is based on anetwork of students working with senior colleagues at Kenyon College; andresearch in the Ulua Valley is built on a network of students working withsenior scholars at the University of California Berkeley, Harvard University,and Cornell University. The repeated success in awards reflects not only thequality of research, but also the underpinning success of diplomatic skillsin-country: field research is dependent on permits as well as the supportof local hosts. A researcher unable to maintain open channels of commu-nication will be unable to secure the support both official and unofficialnecessary to complete a project.

By the nature of their work and the necessity to be in-country,archaeologists must return to a region year-after-year. Researchers who havereceived funding from two or more agencies, such as Joyce, Schortman, andUrban, are America’s most successful, yet unofficial, cultural ambassadors.Their long-term commitment to in-country projects has generated an engineof sustained cultural diplomacy—their scientific research is only part of theequation. The people-to-people exchanges of student programmes are atthe heart of successful diplomacy and, as reflected in Schortman’s summaryof what he has found most rewarding, the opportunity to work with and tolearn from local communities constitutes much of the underlying reward ofarchaeological field research:

Supported by seminar classes in anthropology and archaeology, studentsare integrated into all aspects of the research process, from [defining] aquestion for investigation, to overseeing the fieldwork needed to addressthat issue, culminating in the analysis of finds and writing up the resultsin a publishable form. The five months spent in the field are challengingand demanding but the rewards are great. . . . During 1995 and 1996,students had the option of pursuing ethnographic investigations, com-plementing the traditional archaeological focus of the program. Thisopportunity has been enhanced in our new research setting, in thearchaeologically unknown lower Cacaulapa Valley adjoining Naco onthe southwest. As in the past, student participants have the chance tomake substantial contributions to our knowledge of Honduran prehistoryand modern social processes while learning about archaeology, a foreignculture, and themselves.35

The NSF, NEH, and Fulbright have all enabled successful culturaldiplomacy to take place in Honduras. Examples of how NSF projects(Appendix 2) have contributed to the designated list of materials underthe CPIA are my own study of Ulua marble vases36 and the work of John

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Bos

ton

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

6:55

05

Mar

ch 2

012


Henderson, Marilyn Beaudry-Corbett, and Rosemary Joyce on ceramics.37

In addition, Fulbright and NSF-funded excavation and survey research con-ducted by American faculty and graduate students in the Ulua Valley, Naco,and Copan regions of northwest Honduras, as well as in the north-easternand south-eastern areas of the country, document the location of settle-ments on the ground and from the air that are worthy of protection.38

Federally funded scientific research in Honduras provided the data to sup-port known, contextual information of ancient history of the Maya world,reflected in the primary textbooks on the Ancient Maya written by NSF,NEH, and Fulbright-supported researchers.39 The Copan Film Project—“Outof the Past”—was also supported by NEH and NSF and informed the gen-eral public about the archaeology of this region in Honduras. Understandingcontext means that informed arguments can be made about the dam-age that results from looting; and thus, one can further argue that marketdemand may contribute to destruction of contextual information. It is thisdataset that was used to make the argument for the Honduran MoU andthe designated list of object categories for import restrictions. Yet, importrestrictions alone will not ensure sustainable preservation of archaeologicalsites.

In the case of Honduras, building on the long-established networks ofAmerican archaeologists and their students, Article II of CIPA has tended tofocus on museums and heritage security. The first American MoU with ElSalvador included a provision for El Salvador to build a national museum.In 1987 the El Salvador–American MoU represented amongst the first, if notthe first, formal relationship between the United States and El Salvador in aperiod when the Washington was trying desperately to build positive rela-tions. The construction of a museum allowed for a tangible display of anational narrative;40 and it also provided space for public events and stor-age of collections. By promoting the preservation of heritage under the1987 agreement and especially pushing for the establishment of a nationalmuseum, the United States effectively orchestrated a visual display of thepre-Columbian past.

Another key aspect of Article II is the provision for long-term loanswith museums, first implemented in the Italy–American MoU. Whilst thelong-term loan provision has yet to enter the diplomatic language of theHonduran–American MoU, there is a call for improving recording meth-ods and inventories. One cannot exchange material until one knows whatmaterial there is to exchange; furthermore, thefts from museums and otherinstitutions are more likely to be tracked down if there are known invento-ries. Therefore, the call for national inventories likely sets the stage for futurelong-term loan opportunities. Under the recent El Salvadorian–AmericanMoU, there is a call for “people-to-people” networks; and under theHonduran–American one, there is a call for networking with local NGOsand urban development.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Bos

ton

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

6:55

05

Mar

ch 2

012

122 C. Luke

In 2009, 2010, and 2011, Ambassador Fund awards were not given toHonduras, perhaps reflecting the on-going political crisis of 28 June 2009 fol-lowing the coup d’état. The lack of funding for projects in Honduras inrecent years illustrates that the success of cultural diplomacy is subject topolitical considerations. Many countries need support for heritage preserva-tion, yet relatively few countries have experienced a coup d’état in recentyears. As the United States looks to promote democracy abroad through avariety of initiatives, the sustained presence of funding for heritage projectsthat have the potential to unite a variety of different communities and fostercivil society is extremely important. An unstable Honduras poses a securitythreat. But does it pose a security threat equal to that of Iraq or Afghanistan?Through multi-million dollar projects, these areas have been funded hand-somely by the Ambassadors Fund and other initiatives through the CulturalHeritage Center. The diplomatic wisdom of focusing in contested areas,such as Iraq and Afghanistan, is linked to active, on-going American-ledmilitary initiatives in these countries. Whilst recent American involvement inHonduras may not be as intense as in Iraq or Afghanistan, United States inter-est in the region has certainly shaped the political fabric of Central America.41

If the Ambassadors Fund is supposed to offer a new face of the UnitedStates abroad, what about the role of the NSF, NEH, and Fulbright? Fulbrightaims to support “mutual understanding” to win the “hearts and minds” offoreign audiences through people-to-people in-country research for a yearor less. Ambassador Fund initiatives are also limited in time: only a hand-ful for awarded projects support multi-year initiatives. Efforts to promotedemocracy through supporting heritage preservation initiatives appear to beinconsistent when funding is cut during periods of civil crisis and whenefforts to foster civil society are desperately needed. The MoUs of the CPIAare long-term, but they are not aimed at specific projects; but rather theysupport targeted, achievable, short-term initiatives, whether in-country work-shops or border checks for illicit antiquities. If cultural diplomacy is aboutthe long-haul, it will require much longer, in-country programmes. Whilstthe Department of State sees Fulbright as a long-term programme, a yearoffers little time to conduct research, especially for archaeologists workingwithin a set permit and academic structure and relying on student involve-ment from their respective institutions. Rather a Fulbright year offers time toconnect with the local communities in ways not afforded during excavationseasons and, in this way, provides a valuable piece of the archaeologicalenterprise abroad.

Archaeological projects and archaeologists tend to work in given areasfor many years. NSF and NEH funding for multi-year projects ensures thatpeople return to regions year after year to conduct research. Archaeologicalwork in Honduras is no different. United States archaeologists are amongstthe steadfast American commitment to Honduras and its people. Yetarchaeologists’ work as cultural ambassadors has not and continues not

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Bos

ton

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

6:55

05

Mar

ch 2

012


to be a focus of Department of State initiatives in any planned or sus-tained manner. The diplomacy involved in running a field project concernsfar more than scientifically documenting the past—no small undertakingitself. American archaeologists work with local communities on educationalprogramming in museums and in the field, and they provide a sustainedeconomic presence. Through archaeological projects, American scholars andtheir students implement cultural diplomacy to the fullest extent possible.

NOTES

Acknowledgements. I would like to thank Rosemary Joyce, Christopher Roosevelt, Edward Schortman,Patricia Urban, and John Yellen for their comments on earlier versions of this manuscript. It was pre-sented in preliminary form at the 2010 Society of America Archaeology meetings in St. Louis. The titleof the paper was “Smart Power and Cultural Diplomacy in Honduras: Heritage and people-to-peopleexchanges” and it was presented in the session, “Every Place is a Node: Rethinking Centers, Peripheries,and Patrimony in Honduras.” Due to an unexpected event, I was unable to attend the conference, andMorag Kersel graciously read the paper for me. She also provided valuable feedback. In addition I wouldlike to thank two anonymous reviewers for their encouragement to move forward with publication.

1. Robert Zoellick, “From Crisis to Commonwealth: CAFTA and Democracy in Our Neighborhood,”Heritage Foundation (16 May 2005).

2. Ibid.3. For a fuller analysis of archaeology and diplomacy, see Luke, C. and Kersel M. forthcoming

U.S. Cultural Diplomacy and Archaeology: Soft Power, Hard Heritage. London: Routledge.4. Heritage tourism is also amongst the fastest growing components of the economy. In Honduras,

tourism is “the second largest source for foreign exchange, and is now a national development prior-ity.” See Keri Vacanti Brondo and Laura Woods, “Garifuna Land Rights and Ecotourism as EconomicDevelopment in Honduras’ Cayos Cochinos Marine Protected Area,” Ecological and EnvironmentalArchaeology, 3/1(2007), pp. 2–18. Also see Lena Mortensen, “Assessing the Local, National, andTransnational Values of Honduran Heritage,” Practicing Anthropology, 31/3(2009), pp. 36–39.

5. Donna Marie Oglesby, “Statecraft at the Crossroads: A New Diplomacy,” SAIS Review,24/2(2009), pp. 3–106.

6. Smart power is defined as the blending of hard—military and economic—with soft—culture—power. See J. Nye, “Public Diplomacy and Soft Power,” Annals of the American Academy of Politicaland Social Science, 616/1(2008), pp. 94–109. See also Oglesby, “New Diplomacy.” For recent dis-cussions of the importance of cultural diplomacy, see J. Melissen, The New Public Diplomacy: SoftPower in International Relations (Basingstoke, 2005); Kevin Mulcahy, “Cultural Policy: Definitions andTheoretical Approaches,” Journal of Arts Management, Law and Society, 35/4(2006), pp. 319–30; CynthiaP. Schneider, “Culture Communicates: US Diplomacy that Works,” Discussion Papers in Diplomacy 94(Clingendael, 2004); idem., “Diplomacy that Works: ‘Best Practices’ in Cultural Diplomacy,” CulturalDiplomacy Research Series (2003).

7. Oglesby, “New Diplomacy,” p. 98.8. Antônio F. de Lima, “‘Students’ Corner: The Role of International Educational Exchanges in

Public Diplomacy,” Place Branding and Public Diplomacy, 3/3(2007), pp. 234–51. There is a large bodyof literature that covered the importance of cultural diplomacy in the 1960s. Cf. I. Eide, ed., Studentsas Links Between Cultures (Oslo, 1970); G.H. Fisher, Public Diplomacy and the Behavioural Sciences(Bloomington, IN, 1972); C. Frankel, The Neglected Aspect of Foreign Policy: American Educational andCultural Policy Abroad (Washington, DC, 1965); T. Marshall, “The Strategy of International Exchange,”in Eide, Students as Links, pp. 3–31. Charles A. H. Thomson, Overseas Information Service of the UnitedStates Government (Washington, DC, 1948); C.A. Thomson and Walter H.C. Laves, Cultural Relations andU.S. Foreign Policy (Bloomington, IN, 1963). And, for an earlier discussion, see Walter Lippmann, PublicOpinion (New York, 1922 [1997]).

9. Oglesby, “New Diplomacy,” p. 101.10. Lima, “‘Students’ Corner,” p. 237.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Bos

ton

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

6:55

05

Mar

ch 2

012

124 C. Luke

11. Ibid., pp. 239–40; Bruce Gregory, “Public Diplomacy: Sunrise of an Academic Field,” Annals ofthe American Academy of Political and Social Science, 616(2008), pp. 274–90.

12. Ibid., p. 277. See also Richard T. Arndt, “Rebuilding America’s Focus on Cultural Diplomacy,”Foreign Service Journal (October 2006), pp. 39–43; idem., The First Resort of Kings: American CulturalDiplomacy in the 20th Century (Dulles, VA, 2005).

13. Gregory, “Public Diplomacy,” p. 279. See also Don Michael Randel, “The Public Good:Knowledge as the Foundation for a Democratic Society,” Dædalus (Winter 2009), pp. 8–12.

14. See Daniel Altschuler’s comments, “Wikileaks and the Honduran Coup,” BLOG (29 November2010); Daniel Hernandez, “La Plaza, News from Latin America and the Caribbean, WikiLeaks on LatinAmerica: Honduras Coup ‘Illegal’,” Los Angeles Times (29 November 2010),

15. Mark J. Ruhl, “Honduras Unravels,” Journal of Democracy, 21/2(2010), pp. 93–107.16. For discussion of Tiusinte conservation efforts, see Daniel A. Graham, Mark A. Bonta, and

Rafael Ulloa, “Cycad Conservation, Peasant Subsistence and the Military Coup in Honduras,” Society &Natural Resources, 24/2(2010), pp. 193–200.

17. Dario A. Euraque, El Golpe de Estado del 28 de Junio de 2009, el Patrimono Cultural y laIdentidad Nacional de Honduras (San Pedro Sula, 2010). The long-term commitment of archaeologicalfieldwork in Honduras and the pivotal importance of the MoU as a symbol of this commitment wasreflected in the statements submitted by the Society of American Archaeology, the Archaeological Instituteof America, and the American Anthropological Association regarding the coup and the dismissal of Dr.Euraque.

18. For discussion of the history of heritage diplomacy in Honduras, see Christina Luke, “Diplomats,Banana Cowboys, and Archaeologists in Western Honduras: A History of the Trade in Pre-ColumbianMaterials,” International Journal of Cultural Property, 13/1(2006), pp. 25–57.

19. MoUs last for five years and can be renewed indefinitely.20. 106th Congress Report 2001, p. 138.21. The percentage is troubling when considering the number of eligible countries and the relative

level of poverty throughout Latin America compared with other areas of the world.22. The Garifuna are a community with descendants from West Africa and the greater Caribbean

(Carib) and West Indies (Arawak).23. National Science Foundation: http://www.nsf.gov/about/.24. Ibid.25. Ibid.26. UNESCO, Medium-term Strategy 2008–2013 (Paris, 2008). See Objective 11 on pages 28–29 for

discussion of cultural heritage protection. Its focus is on institutions, especially museums, and the role ofobjects in fostering “social cohesion, innovation and peace by raising awareness of a shared heritage anda common past.” The emphasis on an object’s find spot is no longer stressed as a primary goal. In fact, theword “heritage” has replaced “archaeology.” In his way, cultural objects have become tools for fosteringdialogue, a valuable contribution of archaeological objects to the establishment and maintenance ofsociety. However, the context of such objects is not to be forgotten and the process of understandingthat context is most often an international, collaborative effort. The 2011 Audit report for UNESCO WorldHeritage stresses the need to return to a more objective, scientific set of protocols and approaches. See,2011 Evaluation of the Global Strategy and the PACT Initiative. 35th Session of the UNESCO Conventionconcerning the protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage. World Heritage Committee.

27. John Yellen and Mary W. Greene “Archaeology and the National Science Foundation,” Antiquity(Golden Anniversary Issue), 50/2(1985), pp. 332–41. For more general discussions of NSF, see Thomas F.Gieryn, “The U.S. Congress Demarcates Natural Science and Social Science (Twice),” in idem., ed., CulturalBoundaries of Science: Creditability on the Line (Chicago, IL, 1999), pp. 65–114; Daniel Lee Kleinman,Politics on the Endless Frontier: Postwar Research Policy in the United States (Durham, NC, 1995).

28. For discussion of disciplinary boundaries and the sciences, see Jerrold Meinwalk and John G.Hildebrand, Science and the Educated American: A Core Component of Liberal Education (Cambridge,MA, 2010); J. Kagan, The Three Cultures: Natural Sciences, Social Sciences, and the Humanities in the21st Century: Revisiting C. P. Snow (Cambridge, 2009).

29. Michael Potashnik and Bryce Wood, “Government Funding for Research in Latin America,1970–71,” Latin American Research Review, 8/1(1973), p. 6.

30. Geologic, linguistic, ecology, and environmental policy grants have not been included in thisanalysis, even though the results of these fields—and perhaps part of the active research—are used bythe archaeological community.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Bos

ton

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

6:55

05

Mar

ch 2

012

cluke

Highlight


31. See Potashnik and Wood “Government Funding.”32. Jennifer Ahlfeldt, On Reconstructing and Performing Maya Architecture: Structure 22, Copan,

Honduras (AD 715) (PhD Dissertation, Columbia University, 2004).33. Wilson P. Dizzard, Inventing Public Diplomacy: The Story of the U.S. Information Agency

(Boulder, CO, 2004).34. I would like to thank Christopher H. Roosevelt for sharing his Fulbright award letter.35. Emphasis added, from Schortman (2010) http://www.kenyon.edu/x41145.xml).36. Christina Luke, Ulua Marble Vases (PhD Dissertation, Cornell University, 2002); Christina Luke,

R.H. Tykot, and Bob Scott, “Petrographic and Stable Isotope Analyses of Late Classic Ulúa MarbleVases and Potential Sources,” Archaeometry, 48/1(2006), pp. 13–29; Christina Luke, and R.H. Tykot,“Asserting Regional Preeminence through Luxury Production: Travesia and Ulua Style Marble Vases,”Ancient Mesoamerica, 18(2007), pp. 315–28.

37. John S. Henderson and Marilyn Beaudry Corbett, eds., Pottery of Prehistoric Honduras, Instituteof Archaeology, Monograph 35 (Los Angeles, CA, 1993). John S. Henderson, Irene Sterns, AnthonyWonderley, and Patricia A. Urban, “Archaeological Investigations in the Valle de Naco, NorthwesternHonduras: A Preliminary Report,” Journal of Field Archaeology, 6(1979), pp. 169–92; Rosemary A. Joyce,“The Construction of the Mesoamerican Frontier and the Mayoid Image of Honduran Polychromes,” inMark Miller Graham, ed., Reinterpreting Prehistory of Central America (Niwot, CO, 1993), pp. 51–101;Rosemary A. Joyce, “Intraregional Ceramic Variation and Social Class: Developmental Trajectories ofClassic Period Ceramic Complexes from the Ulua Valley,” in Eugenia J. Robinson, ed., Interaction on theSoutheast Mesoamerican Frontier: Prehistoric and Historic Honduras and El Salvador (Oxford, 1987),pp. 280–303.

38. Marcello Canuto, E. Bell, and R. Sharer, eds., Understanding Early Classic Copan (Philadelphia,PA, 2004); William Fash, Scribes, Warriors, and Kings: The City of Copán and the Ancient Maya, revisededition (London, New York, 2001); Julia Hendon, Houses in a Landscape: Memory and Everyday Life inMesoamerica (Durham, NC, 2010); Rosemary Joyce, Cerro Palenque: Power and Identity on the MayaPeriphery (Austin, TX, 1993); Ed Schortman and Patricia Urban, The Southeast Maya Periphery (Austin,TX, 1986); idem., Resources, Power, and Interregional Interaction (New York, 1992).

39. John S. Henderson, World of the Ancient Maya, second edition (Ithaca, NY, 1997); Robert Sharerand Loa Traxler, The Ancient Maya, sixth edition (Palo Alto, CA, 2005); David Webster, The Fall of theAncient Maya (London, 2002).

40. For discussion of the national museum, see R.M. DeLugan, Re-imagining National Belongingin Post-Civil War El-Salvador (Tucscon, AZ, 2012).

41. For discussions of the Honduran–American relationships outside of heritage and archaeology,Alison Acker, Honduras: The Making of a Banana Republic (Cambridge, MA, 1989); Sigfrido Burgos-Cáceres, “Honduras and the United States of America: a Short Case on Empire-Building Features,”Latin American Journal of International Affairs, 3/1(2011), pp. 26–51; idem., “Honduras, CAFTA, andAgricultural Trade: Impacts and Outcomes,” Latin American Journal of International Affairs, 3/2(2011),pp. 51–74; Mark Rosenberg, Toward a Redefinition of US-Honduran Relations? Alternatives and Options(Miami, FL, 1988); Donald E. Schulz and Deborah Sundloff Schulz, The United States, Honduras, and theCrisis in Central America (Boulder, CO, 1994). For a recent discussion of democracy initiatives in LatinAmerica, excluding archaeology or heritage, see Dinorah Azpuru and Carolyn M. Shaw, “The UnitedStates and the Promotion of Democracy in Latin America: Then, Now and Tomorrow,” Orbis, 54/2(2010),pp. 252–67.

42. The on-line NSF database is very good, but not comprehensive. I believe that the majority ofthe awards given are listed.

43. As with the NSF and Fulbright datasets presented, this table is not intended to be comprehen-sive. My on-going research explores, amongst other sources, long-term NEH, NSF, and Fulbright supportfor projects in Central America and Mexico directed by American researchers. A parallel project exploresa similar dataset for American research conducted in the eastern Mediterranean.

44. The on-line Fulbright database begins in 1998 and may not include all awards. According tothe Fulbright Program, there is no central, easily accessible archive of this information. The informationpresented in this table is only a sample.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Bos

ton

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

6:55

05

Mar

ch 2

012

126 C. Luke

Appendix 1 Honduran and neighbouring countries (Guatemala, Nicaragua, and ElSalvador) from the Ambassadors Fund for Cultural Preservation website, Cultural HeritageCenter, Office of Policy and Evaluation, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, U.S.Department of State, on-line database

YearAmountUSD ($) Title of Project Country Project Description

2001 15,000 The Garifuna:Rescuing CulturalRoots ThroughLanguageProtection

Honduras This project will make a majorcontribution toward thepreservation of the Garifunaculture (Amerindian languagespoken by 90,000 people).Mathematics and Spanishtextbooks written in Garifuna willbe illustrated, published anddistributed and 120 teachers willbe trained and assigned toelementary schools in Garifunacommunities.

2002 18,920 Educating TawahkaTeachers

Honduras The project’s purpose is to preservethe indigenous language of theTawahka by improving the level ofeducation and quality of life of theapproximately 1,000 survivingmembers of this nearly extinctethnic group. Teacher training andimprovement of educationalmaterials will ensure the continuedexistence of the endangeredTawahka language and culture.

2003 No award

2004 21,134 The Voice and Imageof the Indigenousand GarifunaPeople ofHonduras

Honduras To support production of aninteractive CD that captureslinguistic and cultural informationthrough interviews aboutnarratives, songs, and ceremoniesof the native communities ofMiskito, Pech, Garifuna, andTawahka. The CD, along with atranscript and Spanish languagetranslation, will be distributed toschools, libraries, and universities.

2005 30,000 Protection andDevelopment ofthe Rock ArtCultural Itinerary ofHonduras

Honduras To support the documentation andcondition assessment of 17 rockart sites in Honduras. The projectwill also include workshops toinform the local communitiesabout the importance of the sites,conservation, management, andpromotion. Rock art provides atestament of pre-Hispanic culturesin Honduras.

(Continued)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Bos

ton

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

6:55

05

Mar

ch 2

012


Appendix 1 (Continued)


2006 30,000 Preservation of theArchaeological Siteof Curruste, SanPedro Sula

Honduras To support the preservation andsustainable development of theCurruste archaeological site,which dates to the Late ClassicPeriod (650–950 AD). The sitereveals evidence of a complexcultural settlement that was notMaya, but maintained relationswith Maya groups in neighboringcountries, as well as other culturesin Nicaragua and Costa Rica. Theproject will serve as a model forecotourism that can be usedthroughout the country asHonduras works to developtheir tourism industry.

2007 30,000 Development ofCerro Palenque:The NorthCoast-SantaBarbara CulturalCircuit

Honduras To support the development of acultural circuit comprising13 pre-Columbian archaeologicalsites. This project, which includesinterpretive materials and signage,marks the beginning of along-term cultural tourism effortto develop managementregulations, increase publicawareness, establish aconservation training program,and stabilise and conserve eacharchaeological site along thecircuit.

2008 31,288 Preservation ofCultural Patrimonyin Comayagua andSanta Rosa deCopan

Honduras To document traditions, uses, andcustoms associated withecclesiastical cultural propertyand related institutions, and towork with local communities torevive and sustain these practicesin churches that are vulnerable tolooting. The project involvesworkshops on establishingmeasures to control and protectproperty and the publication ofthe project findings.

2009 No award Honduras



(Continued)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Bos

ton

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

6:55

05

Mar

ch 2

012

128 C. Luke



2001 20,720 Needs Assessment ofNational Museumof Archaeologyand Ethnology

Guatemala A comprehensive needs assessmentand mission analysis ofGuatemala’s National Museum ofArchaeology and Ethnology arebeing conducted in this project.The team is completing athorough review of the Mayancollections, reviewing preservationand conservation procedures,examining the administration,examining exhibits, consideringthe educational mandate of themuseum, and developing anexternal fundraising strategy.

2002 22,000 Construction of anEnvironmentallyControlled StorageSpace at theNational Museumof Archaeologyand Ethnology

Guatemala The first year of this project involveda survey of the National Museumof Archaeology and Ethnology andidentified the need forenvironmentally controlled exhibitspace. Funds are awarded to thesecond phase of this project forimplementation of therecommendations from the initialneeds assessment survey.

2004 28,635 National Museumof Archaeologyand Ethnology

Guatemala To provide equipment that willenhance preservation of andenable public access to thecollections. Many objects arestolen from museums and fromarchaeological digs. An essentialpart of protecting Guatemalanpatrimony is to provide auser-friendly place where museumcurators and educators make theconnection between the abstractconcept of national patrimony andthe importance of preserving it.

2005 41,200 Museum ofArchaeology andEthnology

Guatemala To provide equipment for theregistration of objects in theMuseum of Archaeology andEthnology. Founded in 1931, it isthe oldest museum in CentralAmerica. Over 20,000 archaeologicaland ethnological pieces, mostrelevant to Guatemala’s culturalpatrimony, will be registered. Thecollection continues to grow andthe register will allow publicaccess to the collection.

(Continued)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Bos

ton

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

6:55

05

Mar

ch 2

012




2006 32,571 Consolidation andPreservation ofthe Maya SanBartolo Murals

Guatemala To support the consolidation andpreservation of Maya murals inSan Bartolo, El Peten, dating backto the first century BC. Theseextensive wall paintings wereexecuted several centuries earlierthan any other known Mayamurals. The discovery of thesewalls was the most significant findin Meso-America this generation.The walls urgently require newbuttressing supports to preventtheir collapse.

2007 34,619 Documentation,Conservation,and Analysis ofMaterial Culturefrom El Peru-Waka

Guatemala To facilitate the documentation,conservation, and analysis ofartifacts from an importantpre-Columbian site. A largeamount of material alreadyrecovered through excavationneeds immediate preservation andanalysis before site excavationscan continue.

2008 575,251 Conservation of LatePreclassic Muralsat San Bartolo andthe Temple of theHieroglyphicStaircase at Yaxha-Nakum-NaranjoNational Park,Ancient Maya Sitesin the EasternPetén

Guatemala To conserve Late Preclassic periodMaya murals at San Bartolo, aswell as to conserve the Classicperiod Maya Temple of theHieroglyphic Staircase anddocument plundering atYaxha-Nakum-Naranjo NationalPark, sites of great importance inunderstanding the ancient Mayacivilisation in the eastern Petén.The murals are in urgent need ofstabilisation, and the temple andnational park are currentlyattractive targets for looters.

2009 $71,400 Preservation of anAncient MayaTomb and Stelein El

Mirador-RíoAzul National Park

Guatemala

2010 $94,827 Restoration of theHigh Altar andCloister of the Late18th-CenturyConvent of LaMerced inGuatemala City

Guatemala

(Continued)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Bos

ton

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

6:55

05

Mar

ch 2

012

130 C. Luke



2001 14,300 Restoration of theShrine of OurMiraculous Lord,El Sauce,Nicaragua

Nicaragua Funds are being used for roofrebuilding and support beams,restoration of the wood columnsand restoration of electricity to theShrine of Our Miraculous Lord, ElSauce. The shrine belongs to asmall cluster of baroque stylechurches of the 18th century andhas played an important part inNicaragua’s social, cultural, andreligious history.

2003 15,200 Restoration of thePhotographicArchives of theInstituto deHistoria

Nicaragua The Instituto de Historia, on thecampus of the UniversidadCentroamericana (UCA), is hometo a vast archive of materialsdetailing the history of Nicaragua.The photographic archivespanning the entire 20th centuryconstitutes one of the mostexpansive collections in thecountry and provides a glimpseinto the turbulent history of anation afflicted by natural disastersand war. Funds will be used toconserve and protect thecollection.

2005 16,208 Restoration of theNandaime ChurchAltarpeice

Nicaragua To support the restoration of one ofa few remaining Baroquealtarpieces in Nicaragua.Nandaime church dates from theearly 18th century and wasdeclared a national monument in1970. Due to its artistic andcultural value, the church receivesmany visitors.

2006 26,587 Inventory andProtection ofNicaraguanPre-HispanicPatrimony

Nicaragua To enable the preservation of sites inthe central region of Nicaraguathrough inventory and raisingawareness in the local community.Nicaragua is rich in archaeologicalresources but there is no formalinventory of sites, and those in thecentral region have never beenstudied formally. Unregulatedtourism is putting archaeologicalsites at risk. This project will createtools for the properimplementation of laws to protectpatrimony.

(Continued)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Bos

ton

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

6:55

05

Mar

ch 2

012




2007 23,451 Restoration ofMaria MagdalenaChurch inTotogalpa

Nicaragua To support the restoration of an18th-century colonial church innorthwestern Nicaragua. Thechurch is an important source ofpride for the community, whichuses it as a cultural and educationalcentre. Restoring the pieces, naves,and tower will enable its continueduse and encourage tourism.

2008 41,014 Preservation ofNicaragua’sArchaeologicalPatrimony

Nicaragua To identify, inventory, and registerimportant sites and archaeologicalartefacts of cultural interest in thenorthern parts of the countrythat areatveryhigh riskofdamageorloss, and to strengthen local capacityfor cultural preservation. The projectinvolves the direct participation oflocal communities in the effort.

2009 10,000 Preservation andProtection ofCultural Heritagein the SebacoValley

Nicaragua

2010 90,243 Restoration of theMid-18th-CenturyChurch of MaryMagdalene inTotogalpa

Nicaragua

2001 17,275 Preserving aHistoricalCollectionThrough Digitisation:La BibliotecaGallardo (TheGallardo Library),Santa Tecla, ElSalvador

El Salvador Grant funds are being used for athree-part project in which theManuel Gallardo Library willdevelop an on-line catalog of itsvast collection of cultural andhistorical materials. Simultaneously,the library is digitising itscollection and using the digitalrecords to create e-books andestablishing an Internet database.

2002 30,000 La BibliotecaGallardo:Creating anInformationTraining Center,Phase II

El Salvador Funds support the second phase of athree-part project in which theManuel Gallardo Library willdevelop an on-line catalog of itsvast collection of cultural andhistorical materials. Simultaneously,the library will digitise itscollection and use the digitalrecords to create e-books andestablish an Internet database.

(Continued)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Bos

ton

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

6:55

05

Mar

ch 2

012

132 C. Luke



2004 29,817 Restoration of theCathedral of theCity of Santa Ana

El Salvador To support the restoration of theCathedral built in 1906 andcompleted in 1913. The Cathedral,decalered a national moument bythe National Assembly, is a symbolof the city of Santa Ana, a majorpart of the cultural heritage, and asignificant attraction.

2005 28,920 Conservation of theCollection of theGuzman NationalMuseum ofAnthropology

El Salvador To provide equipment for improvingstorage conditions and climatecontrol for the Museum. Thecollection includes 11,500archaeological and ethnographicpieces from pre-Columbian timesto the present. Many artifacts wereexcavated from World Heritagearchaeological sites of Tazumel,San Andres, and Joya de Ceren.

2006 13,925 Preservation ofReligiousWooden PolychromeImagery of the 16th

and 17th Centuries

El Salvador To support the preservation ofwooden, polychrome religiousimages dating from the 16th to 19th

centuries. Most pieces date fromthe 16th–17th centuries, a timewhen Spanish and indigenouscultures began to merge. Althoughthe images are Catholic figures,they also reflect pre-Hispanicdeities. The project will establish asystem for the management, care,and security of inventoried pieces.The indigenous population of ElSalvador will also benefit fromthis project, a group oftenoverlooked by other fundingopportunities.

2008 20,184 Conservation of theCollection of theMuseum of Art ofEl Salvador

El Salvador To improve the conservationenvironment for 225 works ofSalvadoran art by providingequipment, furniture, and suppliesfor their proper storage, handling,and documentation. Ultimately,this project benefits not only thisparticular collection but alsoartwork and other objects on loanto the museum.

(Continued)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Bos

ton

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

6:55

05

Mar

ch 2

012




2009 30,000 Preservation ofPrehistoric RockArt at El EspirituSanto Cave

El Salvador

2010 $43,430 Restoration of theEarly 20th-CenturyCathedral of SantaAna

El Salvador

Appendix 2 Sample of U.S. National Science Foundation senior research awards toarchaeological research and graduate research fellowships focused on the archaeology ofHonduras.42

NSF Award Number andStart Date Principal Investigator(s) Project Title/Topic

6111388, January 1961 Not listed (TulaneUniversity)

Archaeological Exploration inHonduras

Graduate ResearchFellowship, 1974

Webster, David

75-21232 A02, 1976 Webster, David Archaeological Study of ThreeFortified Lowland Maya Sites


Fash, William

7721523, January 1978 Horne, Gregory Scientists and Engineers inEconomicDevelopment–Travel ToHonduras


Hendon, Julia

8219421, March 1983 Webster, David andWilliam T. Sanders

Settlement Survey in the CopanValley, Honduras: Excavationof Rural Sites

8419933, 1986 Webster, David The Copan Rural SettlmentSurvey: The Rural Excavations

8720027, 1987 Webster, David and AnnCorinne Freter

Copan Pocket Test-pitting andObsidian Hydration Project

8712979, September 1987 Urban, Patricia REU: Student Research on theNaco Valley ArchaeologicalProject, NorthwesternHonduras

8720027, February 1988 Webster, David Copan Archaeological Project8718654, April 1988 Fash, William Mayan Site Excavation8808063, June 1988 Joyce, Rosemary The Archaeology of Yoro,

Honduras (with REUSupplement)

8818864, February 1989 Sanders, William (andWhittington)

Excavation at Copan

(Continued)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Bos

ton

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

6:55

05

Mar

ch 2

012

134 C. Luke



8900360, August 1989 Urban, Patricia REU: Student Research on theNaco Valley ArchaelogicalProject NorthwesternHonduras

8919272, February 1990 Schortman, Edward (andUrban, Patricia )

Craft Production andSociopolitical Hierarchy inSouthern Mesoamerica

9022247, April 1991 Schortman, Edward (andUrban, Patricia)


9100569, June 1991 Urban, Patricia Student Research on the NacoValley Archaeological Project,Northwestern Honduras

9121386, January 1992 Schortman, Edward (andUrban, Patricia)

Geomorphological Investigationsin the Naco Valley, NWHonduras

9123390, January 1992 Sharer, Robert(dissertation grant toTraxler, Loa)

Dissertation Research: Evolutionand Cultural Meaning ofCourts in the CopanAcropolis

9310671, June 1993 Joyce, Rosemary and JuliaHendon (dissertationgrant to Fung,Christopher)

Dissertation Research: SocialPower and Domestic Labor inYoro, Honduras

9319784, November 1993 Buikstra, Jane(dissertation grant toBegley, Christopher)

Dissertation Research: ThePrehistory of the Miskito Coastof Honduras: Interaction andthe Rise of Complexity in aFrontier Area

9403700, May 1994 Andrews, E. Wyllys(dissertation grant toBill, Cassandra)

Dissertation Research:Classic-Period CeramicProduction at Copan,Honduras: A BehavioralApproach to CeramicChange

9322330, August 1994 Urban, Patricia Research Experiences forUndergraduates (Site) inArchaeology

9407751, November 1994 Schortman, Edward (withUrban, Patricia)


9514267, September 1996 Webster, David Residential CompoundExcavation at Copan

9900908, March 1999 Sharer, Robert(dissertation grant toCanuto,Marcello-Andrea)

Doctoral Dissertation: TheStructure and Organisation ofRural Settlement: The RioAmarillo Region of Copan,Honduras throughout theClassic Period

(Continued)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Bos

ton

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

6:55

05

Mar

ch 2

012




9819550, April 1999 Joyce, Rosemary Social Dynamics of EarlyFormative Honduras:Excavations at PuertoEscondido (CR-372), LowerUlua River Valley

9904025, June 1999 Urban, Patricia (withShortman, Edward)

Power, Craft Production, andExchange in SouthernMesoamerica

9908680, November 1999 Henderson, John(dissertation grant toLuke, C.)

Dissertation: Social Change inthe Ulua Valley of Honduras:A Scientific Study of theMarble Vases and Sources

9912296, March 2000 Urban, Patricia REU SITE: The Lower CacaulapaValley Project, NW Honduras:A Program for UndergraduateResearch in Archaeology andCultural Anthropology

108742, June 2001 Nelson, Ben (dissertationgrant to Wells,Christian)

Doctoral DissertationImprovement Grant:Communal Feasting and theSocial Order at Late Classic ElCoyote, NorthwesternHonduras

109952, July 2001 Urban, Patricia (withSchortman, Edwardand Ausec, Marne)

Power, Craft Production, andExchange in SouthernMesoamerica

101071, September 2001 Urban, Patricia REU: The Lower CacaulapaValley Project: NW Honduras:A Program for UndergraduateResearch in Archaeologyand Cultural Anthropology

139214, January 2002 Joyce, Rosemary (withHastorf, Christine)

The Archaeoethnobotany ofTheobroma cacao inMesoamerica

207405, May 2002 Sharer, Robert(dissertation grant toStockett, Miranda)

Doctoral DissertationImprovement Grant:Excavating Community andIdentity in the Borderlands ofLate Classic (A.D.650–900) NW Honduras

207114, July 2002 Hendon, Julia RUI: Economic Relations andSocial Inequality in TerminalClassic Honduras

210924, August 2002 Braswell, Geoffrey(dissertation grant toMcFarlane, William)

Doctoral DissertationImprovement Grant: PowerStrategies at Early PostclassicSitio El Coyote, Sta. Barbara,Honduras

(Continued)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Bos

ton

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

6:55

05

Mar

ch 2

012

136 C. Luke



233057, February 2003 Joyce, Rosemary(dissertation grantto Blaisdell-Sloan,Kira)

Doctoral Dissertation Research:The Archaeology ofCulture Contact inNorthern Honduras

313943, July 2003 Price, T. Douglas (andBurton, James)

Laboratory Support for theLaboratory forArchaeological Chemistry

243644, September 2003 Urban, Patricia REU Site: The Lower CacaulapaValley Project, NW Honduras:A Program for UndergraduateResearch in Archaeology andCultural Anthropology

406472, February 2004 Sharer, Robert Archaeological Applicationof Airborne Synthetic ApertureRadar Technology in SouthernMexico and Central America

413047, July 2004 Price, T. Douglas Human Migration in AncientMesoamerica

439711, October 2004 Drennan, Robert(dissertation grant toMartinez, Eva)

Doctoral Dissertation Research:Exploring the Bases of SocialHierarchy in the JamastranValley, SoutheasternHonduras

453868, February 2005 Emery, Katherine Human Impact on the AncientAnimals of the Maya World:The Regional MayaZooarchaeology Project

512967, July 2005 Ostrom, Elinor Doctoral Dissertation Researchin DRMS: Examining theResilience and Adaptation ofTraditional ResourceManagement Institutionsin the Mosquitia Corridor ofMesoamerica

1003431, August 2010 David Webster (withHirth, Kenneth andNewsom, Lee)

Dating El Gigante

1064648, July 2011 Richards-Rissetto, Heather Information Technology and 3DModeling for use at Copan,Honduras

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Bos

ton

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

6:55

05

Mar

ch 2

012


Appendix 3 Sample of National Endowment for the Humanities funding for archaeological-related projects in Honduras.43

NEH Award Numberand Start Date Researcher Project Description

FT-58112-10, 2010 Bell, Ellen No description availableHD-50975-10, 2010 von Schwerin,

Jennifer(formerlyAhlfeldt)

This project brings together aninternational team of archeologists,technologists, and cultural heritage sitemanagers to develop a testimplementation of a new onlineplatform for virtual environments ofsignificant cultural sites, using theUNESCO World Heritage Site of Copan,Honduras as a testbed

HD-50583-09, 2009 von Schwerin,Jennifer(formerlyAhlfeldt)

Two planning workshops for an onlinedatabase of Maya architecture, with along-term goal of developing a platformthat curates 3-D virtual objects andenvironments linked to GIS data

EH-50068-05, 2005 Scheper, George A six-week institute for twenty-fourcollege and university teachers on theMaya of Chiapas and in Guatemala,Honduras, and Belize, to take place onsite in Mexico, Honduras, Belize, andGuatemala

FA-36827-01, 2001 Johnson, Paul No description availableRO-22827-95, 1995 Gould, Jeffrey To support the research for two

volumes— one of family testimonies,the other apolitical and culturalhistory—on the historical process ofrace mixing from 1920 to the present inGuatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, andNicaragua

FE-24909-90, 1990 Black, Nancy Historical Archaeology in the Departmentof Santa Barbara

GN-22833-90, 1990 Webster, David,William T.Sanders, and J.Baldwin-Mallory

New Directions in Archaeology: ATelecourse

EG-20068-89, 1989 Webster, David,William T.Sanders, andJ.Baldwin-Mallory

New Directions in Archaeology: Pilot

FE-23913-89, 1989 Weeks, John Historical Archaeology in the Departmentof Santa Barbara

RO-21897-89, 1989 Urban, Patricia To support archaeological excavation of aMaya site in northwestern Hondurasthat was near the paramount politicalcapital and economic centre during thelate postclassic period, 1300–1532

(Continued)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Bos

ton

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

6:55

05

Mar

ch 2

012

138 C. Luke


NEH Award Numberand Start Date Researcher Project Description

RO-20862-85, 1985 Schortman,Edward

To support the continued archaeologicalinvestigation of the pre- and earlypost-Contact settlement of the Rio Uluaregion of west-central Honduras. Re-search will focus on evidence ofoccupation extending to the contactperiod (ca A.D. 1532) and constructionof a sequence from 400 B.C. toA.D. 1632

1984 Joyce, Rosemary To support research on archaeologicalceramics of Honduras.

RY-21032-85, 1985 Joyce, Rosemary To support research on archaeologicalceramics of Honduras.

FT-24915-84, 1984 Joesink-Mandeville Archaeological research in ComayaguaRC-20478-83, 1983 Feldman,

LawrenceTo support the completion of a

computerised index for all extantmanuscripts, 1523–1821, in eighty-sixtowns of Guatemala and Honduras forthe benefit of historians, linguists, andanthropologists

RO-20544-83, 1983 Schortman,Edward

To support an archaeological survey andtest excavations in the area of SantaBarbara, Honduras. The research willlead to the writing of a cultural historyof an unstudied area of Mesoamerica atthe junction of trade routes betweenwell-documented ancient culturespheres

RC-20270-82, 1982 Hudson, John To support microfilming of the Hondurangovernmental archives for addition tothe Latin American research collectionsin the University and to prepareappropriate finding aids to themicrofilms

Appendix 4 Sample of Fulbright awards for archaeological-related research in Honduras44

FulbrightAward Year Discipline Researcher Project Title/Topic

1981 Archaeology Joyce, Rosemary Field research in Honduras1984 Anthropology Kennedy, Nedenia C. Field research in El Cajon1985 Anthropology Beaudry-Corbett,

MarilynCeramic research in Honduras

1985 Anthropology Creamer, Winifred Field research in the UluaValley

(Continued)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Bos

ton

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

6:55

05

Mar

ch 2

012



FulbrightAward Year Discipline Researcher Project Title/Topic

1987 Fash, William Copan Mosaics Project in closecollaboration with theHonduran Institutionalsponsor, el InstitutoHondureno de Antropologiae Historia

1988 Anthropology Urban, Patricia Research in Honduras1993 Anthropology Carrelli, Christine W. Utilisation of current tunneling

excavations beneath theMain Acropolis at Copan

1994 Archaeology Starratt, Harold E. Population growth and socialchange at late classicCopan, Honduras

1995 Anthropology Anderson, Mark D. The politics of identity and theeducation of Garifuna inHonduras

1995 Anthropology Schortman, Edward Research in Honduras1995 Archaeology Bell, Ellen E. The material culture of Copan:

ritual deposits at a Mayacentre

1996 Archaeology Canuto, Marcello A. Settlement research at RioAmarillo

1996 Anthropology Herlihy, Laura H. Identity, alterity and resourcecontrol: being Miskito inHonduras

1997 Archaeology Sanchez, Carleen D. Classic period interaction inthe southeastern Mayaregion

1997 Archaeology Canuto, Marcello Fellowship for Honduras1997 Geography Tillman, Benjamin F. The Miskito Moravian cultural

landscape2000 Geography Cochran, David M., Jr. Agricultural sustainability and

protected area management2000 Archaeology McNeil, Cameron L. The ritual use of plants by the

Maya in the early classicperiod at Copan

2001 Anthropology Brondo, Keri A. Honduran tourismdevelopment andAutocthonous mobilisation

2005 Political Science Hill, Benjamin W. Local Responses to OutsideEncroachment in the RioPlatano Biosphere Reserve

2008 Ecology/EnvironmentalStudies

Merril A. Putnam Developing the Copan TouristEconomy to Maximise LocalBenefit

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Bos

ton

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

6:55

05

Mar

ch 2

012

Luke, C. 2012 “The Science behind U.S. Smart Power in Honduras: Archaeological Heritage...

Documents

Transcript of Luke, C. 2012 “The Science behind U.S. Smart Power in Honduras: Archaeological Heritage...