Cacao Farmers Interpret Museum Objects: Reclaiming Chocolate History from the Gulf of Mexico

Jug, vessel (with spout) made of pottery.

Cup, vessel made of pottery.

Vase, armadillo-shaped vessel with beige, white and red polychrome, made of pottery.

All photos: (c) The Trustees of the British Museum, 2026

By José López Ganem

Executive Summary

This project was funded by the British Museum’s Santo Domingo Centre of Excellence for Latin American Research (SDCELAR) and developed in collaboration with the Institute for Cacao and Chocolate Research (ICCR). It is based on the research and curatorial work led by ICCR Board Secretary Dr. Kathryn Sampeck (University of Reading/Illinois State University) and Estelle Praet (University of York/British Museum). As part of the project, Sampeck and Praet selected 19 objects from the British Museum collection associated with cacao and chocolate history, including six artifacts originating from Isla de Sacrificios, Veracruz, as well as a broader selection of Ancient Mesoamerican material culture.

To support community interpretation and educational engagement, the selected objects were photographed, 3D scanned, and accompanied by recorded curatorial explanations prepared for project participants and members.

This documentation package—including object images, 3D scans, and recorded explanations—was presented to a community of practice (PoC) assembled by Iraní Córdova at the Museo Regional La Cacaotera in Tabasco, Mexico. The PoC session convened cacao farmers and regional cultural stakeholders to collectively assess, interpret, and study the selected objects and supporting resources developed by Sampeck and Praet. The interpretation session was facilitated and led by José López Ganem on behalf of ICCR.

Cup, vessel made of pottery. Oviform, in warm buffware, ornamented externally in white, red and brown, with skull and cross design. Corresponds to a watercolour thought to have been painted by the collector himself, Capt. E. Nepean and is the left image in Am2006,Drg.272. © The Trustees of the British Museum

Interpretation Session @ Museo Regional La Cacaotera

Cacao producers arrived dressed and ready to impress, with women wearing their traje tradicional tabasqueño gala clothing, the kind reserved for community celebrations. The message was clear: we are here as cultural authorities, not as spectators.

Inside the Museo Regional La Cacaotera in Villahermosa, Tabasco, Mexico, the room is set to be a lecture hall, but it quickly becomes a community gathering, setting the stage for the purpose of our event: an interpretation session of archaeological artifacts and material culture kept in the collections of the British Museum, and provided by the research and curation of Kathryn Sampeck and Estelle Praet, at the Santo Domingo Center of Excellence for Latin American Research (SDCELAR). 

This interpretation session, organized with the Institute for Cacao and Chocolate Research (ICCR), brought cacao producers and cultural stakeholders from the Gulf of Mexico into conversation with images of cacao- and chocolate-related objects held far from this geographical demarcation. It was also a pioneering activity for ICCR and the British Museum: rather than relying solely on academic voices, the project invited cacao producers, traders, and chocolate makers — the people closest to cacao — to interpret artifacts in relation to their own lived experience. This approach reflects broader shifts in museum practice toward “shared authority,” where meaning is created collaboratively rather than imposed institutionally (Simon 2010).

At the center of the discussion were objects linked to Isla de Sacrificios, Veracruz. For museum audiences, such artifacts might feel like a sealed mystery. But in Tabasco, participants treated the objects like a tool—an artifact that had to perform work.

One cacao producer from Cunduacán focused immediately on a vessel’s shape and what it implies about preparation:

“This vessel has an elongated neck and a narrow opening, which suggests that a stirrer—something like a molinillo—may have been used to froth the beverage directly inside.”

With that observation, the artifact came alive for the gathered community members. One could imagine the liquid inside, the stirring motion, the foam rising. The vessel stopped being an archaeological object and became evidence of technique, texture, and embodied knowledge. The historical artifact is also related to other contemporary vessels that have a present, practical use for the community —precisely the kind of insight that community-based scholarship argues is often lost when interpretation remains solely academic (Atalay 2012).

As the group looked closer, the conversation shifted from function to symbolism. The animals on the vessels were not dismissed as solely decoration, for example. They were treated as meaningful signs still legible in contemporary sacred material culture. One participant explained:

“The different animals on this vase are a recurring theme we still see on our sacred vessels today. For example, the armadillo is a nahual figure—it can be associated with harvest, peace, or even sickness... The fact that it appears here tells us something about the kind of drink or food this vessel may have been used to serve, and the intention behind it.”

This kind of interpretation shows why Indigenous methodologies matter. Scholars such as Linda Tuhiwai Smith have argued that research and heritage work have historically extracted knowledge from indigenous communities, often stripping them of interpretive authority (Smith 1999). In museum studies, James Clifford and Mary Louise Pratt framed museums as “contact zones”—spaces shaped by unequal histories where meaning must be negotiated rather than assumed (Pratt 1991; Clifford 1997). Amy Lonetree further argues that decolonizing museums requires centering Indigenous truth-telling and community voice, not simply “including” them as an afterthought (Lonetree 2012).

Interpretation of object "cup, vessel made of pottery (Am1844,0720.1027), (C) Museo Regional La Cacaotera

Not all insights were solemn. One participant offered a line that made the room laugh:

“Honestly, we have better vessels like this in our community museum — no need to repatriate this one.”

It was funny, but it was also a reminder: these communities are not disconnected from heritage. They live alongside it. Their cultural archives are alive, and their authority does not depend on external validation. Additionally, it underlines the importance of debates such as repatriation and protection of intellectual property, not just for producers of commodities or economic actors in supply chains, but also for people that continue to have an active engagement with these traditions now globalized. 

As the session wrapped up, the most important outcome was not agreement on a single interpretation—it was the questions that surfaced about what comes next. The conversation quickly moved toward interaction rather than repatriation: not necessarily asking for the objects to return immediately, but asking how communities can access them meaningfully. Could farmers and museum leaders travel to see these pieces in person? Could some of the project scholars come to Tabasco and Veracruz—not only to study British Museum holdings, but to collaborate in interpreting the collections already held locally? Just as compelling were the ideas sparked by new technologies: could these objects be scanned, modeled, and 3D printed? Could local clay masters or weavers be commissioned to create contemporary replicas, not as copies, but as living continuations of tradition? And finally came the most delicious provocation of all: beyond the vessels themselves, how can we learn more about what was actually served inside them—what flavors, ingredients, or preparations might have once made these objects come alive? 

In Tabasco, cacao stakeholders did not just comment on museum objects—they reshaped their meaning. And in doing so, they reminded everyone that cacao history is not only something to be displayed; It is something to be claimed.

Family photo of the Community of Practice (CoP), (C) Museo Regional La Cacaotera

Acknowledgments

This interpretation session was made possible thanks to the generous support of the Santo Domingo Centre of Excellence for Latin American Research (SDCELAR). We are especially grateful to Louise De Mello and Danny Zborover for their commitment to making this convening possible.

We also extend deep appreciation to Kathryn Sampeck and Estelle Praet, whose thoughtful curation, scholarly guidance, and direction shaped the selection of objects and the framework for this exchange.

Special thanks are owed to the Secretaría de Cultura del Estado de Tabasco, to Secretary Aída Elba Castillo Santiago and Museum Director Irany Córdova Sastré, for their warm hosting at the Museo Regional La Cacaotera, and for welcoming participants with fresh pozol and beautifully prepared panqué de queso de bola that reminded all of the convivial nature of drinking cacao. 

Finally, we offer our sincere gratitude to all the cacao farmers, community members, and participants who contributed their knowledge, humor, and insight—making this session not only possible, but meaningful:

Denisse Pech López	Edith Torres Contreras	Juan Arturo Villarino Gonález	Ema Hernández Hipólito
Edilberto Díaz Cruz	Sandra Dominguez Cruz Morales	Daniela Wendy Hernández Ruiz	Yurline Ruiz Asencio
Remi Bourquerod	Cristina Pérez Hernández	Cristobal Enrique Córdova	Alma Rosa Peralta Morán
Raúl Ramirez García	Jacinto Gómez Hernández	Efrén Hernández Maldonado	Isaí Córdova Sastré
Saúl Córdova Sastré

References 

Atalay, Sonya. 2012. Community-Based Archaeology: Research with, by, and for Indigenous and Local Communities. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Clifford, James. 1997. “Museums as Contact Zones.” In Routes: Travel and Translation in the Late Twentieth Century, 188–219. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Lonetree, Amy. 2012. Decolonizing Museums: Representing Native America in National and Tribal Museums. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.

Pratt, Mary Louise. 1991. “Arts of the Contact Zone.” Profession (1991): 33–40.

Simon, Nina. 2010. The Participatory Museum. Santa Cruz, CA: Museum 2.0.

Smith, Linda Tuhiwai. 1999. Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples. London: Zed Books.