Archaeology of the Body Author(s): Rosemary A. Joyce Source: Annual Review of Anthropology, Vol. 34 (2005), pp. 139-158 Published by: Annual Reviews Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25064880 . Accessed: 03/10/2011 21:46
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact
[email protected].
Annual Reviews is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Annual Review of Anthropology.
http://www.jstor.org
Archaeology
Rosemary A. Joyce
Department 94720-3710;
of the Body
of California, Berkeley, California
of Anthropology, University email:
[email protected]
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2005. 34:139-58 First published online as a Review inAdvance on June 14, 2005 The Annual Review of Anthropology is online at anthro.annualreviews.org doi: 10.1146/ annurev.anthro.3
Key Words
embodiment, costume, representation, identity, personhood
Abstract
Under the influence of phenomenological approaches, a semiotic
perspective on the body is being replaced in archaeology by analysis of the production and experience of lived bodies in the past through
the juxtaposition and evidence practices that social of traces of the on of body effects practices, idealized gestures, On representa postures, and 729 tions, of habitual body.
3.070203.143
2005 by Copyright Annual Reviews. All rights reserved 0084-6570/05/1021 0139$20.00
consumption assumption reproduced
the corporal
the basis were
of a shared created archaeology as a and
through
associations
understandings with
of the body material
culture,
of the body has proceeded from two theoretical positions: the body
as the scene of display and the body as artifact. Today, the body
site of lived experience, a social body, and site of embodied agency, is replacing prior static conceptions of an archaeology of the body
as a public, legible surface.
I39
that
Contents CONTENTS. 140 142 144 145 147
to "Interior" As
pretations
archaeologists of material
have they
long offered recover that
inter imply a re
body practices, body ideals, and differential
experiences of the body. Introducing
FROMBODYORNAMENTSTO
ORNAMENTED BODIES. the Body's Surface. Inscribing
cent edited volume, Rautman & Talalay (2000, senses of p. 2) identify two well-established
the the fine "physical archaeological or the human diet, body: skeletal species" health, and which on the life on the one hand, that de of components "seen span,
THE PERFORMING
BODY... ARCHAEOLOGICAL the Archaeological Experiencing Body.
Is "Surface"
as a record and physical
ancient activities,"
other,
representations and
"Public" is to "Private"?.
149 .. 150 150
through femaleness, played
"cultural
ideas of maleness and
OF ARCHAEOLOGIES
EMBODIED PERSONHOOD
masculinity
out." Neither body works as
of these is particularly regularly ornaments uses
are femininity, senses of the ar new. Classic cer
THEORIZINGTHE BODY IN
ARCHAEOLOGY.
chaeological archaeological tain objects the potential
identified
body or actual
and discussed in objects on repre inter signs aspects of of rou whose bodies
of other drew
CONTENTS
The body strument of as metaphor for lived experience, to occupy has come social as in society, as and surface a cen
body practices. Archaeologists sentations of human beings pretations age, status, of idealized gender; beauty; and
to propose social other
and
embodiment. tinely brought identification
of
inscription in contemporary tral place although to make
Archaeological to light human as sexed, aged,
excavations remains, and raced
chaeology, has begun
coming critical
theory. Ar late to this topic, to contributions
in fact dominated
the archaeological
literature
of the body through the 1980s.
Starting during the in past the five 1990s, years, and the concerned At on the topics accelerating of ar with same em time,
writing
chaeology
about the body. With
of human to scholarship offers
its grounding
experience, on the ar body a
in the materiality
unique perspective anchored in bodily phys
a that emphasizes repe icality. As discipline over as the basis tition time for recognizing culturally outlines ment and ogists between human those intelligible ways practices, archaeology forms of embodi
chaeological bodiment the pace
publications have of diversified.
publication
long-established over
topics in archaeology of the body has inten
sified. First, Three a dramatic trends rise are evident time. of ar in the frequency
that different
were
transformed. are
historically At
the
produced, reproduced, same time, archaeol
chaeological articles explicitly concerned with the body in a sample of anthropological jour
nals, 1990 from to an average almost of one year per after year that before date, six per
aware of the gap that exists intensely the materiality of the traces of past and they the interpretations Archaeologi of
experience traces that
is evident (Table
attributed sual
1). This
increase may be
of postproces that of of emphasized attention identity, to such re
propose.
cal inquiry into the body thus foregrounds the challenges for wider scholarship, both within
anthropology and outside it, inherent in the
to the development in archaeology critiques previous and lack
the redressing human agency as gender,
aspects tied to
move from apparently solid physical facts to
social and cultural Explicit bodiment archaeological is relatively understandings. discussion recent, despite of em
closely
archaeological
search on the body (Brumfiel 1992).However,
simultaneously, the frequency of articles con the fact
cerned with
the body, considered from
the
H
J yce
TABLE
1
Journal
articles
from
1965
to 2004 Main
on
archaeology emphasis
of the body1
thematic
Physical
anthropology Ornament, dress Representation Body practices
Total N
Explicit
theory
16 12 15 64 13 30
25 25 38 16 24
114
" aBased on a sample of journal articles yielded by a search of the key words "body," "embodi*" and "archaeolog* on Anthropology Plus, an index Tozzer Literature and the of Index the Institute. This sample was combining Library's Anthropological Anthropological Royal Anthropological compared with results from a similar search ofWeb of Science/Web of Knowledge, which resulted in the addition of two more recent articles to the sample. Individual articles were classified according to the dominant thematic concerns, and a separate count was made of articles proposing theoretical approaches to embodiment. Some of the latter articles did not have an obvious thematic emphasis other than theoretical discussion. Although the selection of publications that are indexed means that this is not a complete survey of the literature, it is a uniform sample of major journals in the field over time and so does serve to show trends over time. These data should not be used as indications of the total number of articles on these topics.
perspective creased, obvious and
and way
of bioarchaeology, has these contributions postprocessual. archaeologists Both have
in sharply are in no positivist found the
and experience those ma perception through terial traces that survive over time, contributes a unique dimension to anthropologies of
interpretive
embodiment. This review of connects the body the contemporary to earlier archaeologi ar
body to be an increasingly compelling subject
during What cent body the past ismost 15 years. distinctive literature to which about the most re the are
chaeology cal concern of identity
with
archaeological is the degree
concerning interpretations
through
the symbolic communication ornaments and cos body
tume. Following Grosz
the body as a "concrete, of and flesh, organization tal structure
(1995, p. 104), I view
material, nerves, which through of are animate skele given organs,
being grounded
within
in social theory, both from
and outside it. Articles engage common af archaeological become
anthropology that explicitly theorize ment with embodiment
substances,
a
unity
and
cohesiveness inscription interest
psychical
ter 1990 (Table
nist theory, and
1). Phenomenology,
the work of Foucault
femi
have all
and
social
been influential in archaeology of the body (Fisher & Loren 2003, Golden & Toohey 2003, Hamilakis et al. 2002, Meskell & Joyce
2003, Montserrat 1998, Rautman other 2000). anthropo In creasingly, as is the case with
Archaeological was to the rise of archae linked body closely sex and seen as inscribed of ologies gender, in dress, and ornamentation, body modifi
the body's surface." in the surface of the
cation (Marcus 1993, 1996; Sorensen
2000). of The demonstration bodies of that are age, has to sexed/gendered constructions always class, shifted a wider
1991,
simul ethnic the at
constructions
on embodiment, logical work archaeologists are to it the assump necessary finding clarify tions in make from they moving theorizing perception rience. to attempting which to understand approaches expe both
taneously
status ity, race, and social tention of archaeologists
gamut
Archaeology,
of practices
shaping embodied personhood
Archaeology of the Body 141
www.annualreviews.org
(Joyce 2004, Meskell 2001). Some archaeo logical analyses reflexively relate bodily prac
tices to representational practices through
of were tion
origin.
Many
of with
those
assumed This
meanings assump
concerned continues in
identity. part of For
to be archaeology.
contemporary example, Lee
which images were produced that served both
as models ration for embodiment experiences and as commemo of embodiment of selected
research
(2000, pp. 114-15) explicitly bases her discus
sion of Minoan representations of masculine
(Clark 2003, Hill
archaeological
2000, Joyce
argue
1998). Some
that represen
and feminine bodies on the assumption that
"dress verbal complex functions as a primary means of non "constant, have been communication" social messages emitting that would
analyses
tational practices literally expanded the site of the embodied person, incorporating rep
resentations, the person, spaces, even when and items these of costume items were in re
intended by the wearer and understandable by the viewer" (p. 114).
From understood this perspective as marking body ornaments are aspects already-given
moved from direct bodily contact (Gillespie 2001, 2002; Houston & Stuart 1998; Looper 2003a,b).
Contemporary archaeological considera
of social status of the individual person, or
as media social for identities. the communication of given that spe assumption to different cat cific costumes corresponded a meant of in the that persons past egories The person's "read nection off" social the status body. and There history is a of could strong costume be con and
tion of the complex relationships between body practices and practices of representation shows that the concept of an easily defined
body "surface" at the boundary between an
interiorized person and exteriorized society is problematic (Looper 2003a). Archaeologi cal exploration, using bioarchaeological tech niques, of theways inwhich habitual practices and dispositions literally shape flesh and bones (Boyd 1996) further questions the isolation
of a public, inscriptional body surface cover
between
discussions
identity and the archaeology of economically and socially stratified societies (Anawalt 1981,
Kuttruff 1993). As a result, some of the most
significant discussions
marking of the body
in archaeology of the
surface originated in
ing an uninterpreted physical interior because the biological person is both themedium and
product of social archaeology in question son, and an to invoke Today, is to place of the body's surface the body, the per automatically action. between embodied persons
studies of political economy, tracing links be
tween the relations of costume fectiveness status. of production in marking and the ef differential
Peregrine
archaeological of costume
(1991) reviewed the history of
arguments ornaments for the significance as indications of spe
relations
in society.
cific social statuses in societies with "prestige
FROM BODY ORNAMENTS TO ORNAMENTED BODIES
Costume, body ornaments, and representa
economies." goods were naments
Noting commonly
that
costume
or
employed
in cer
emonies
stated an
of social reproduction,
interpretation interested between social shared by in pursuing reproduction
Peregrine
other the and ar con the
tions of costume in artworks have long been used by archaeologists as evidence of distinct
statuses on the basis of an implicit understand
chaeologists nection
ing of the surface of the body as public. As Robb (1998, p. 332) notes, under the "in
formation transnlission,, view of the symbolic
persons. Hayden production (1998) suggested that such objects were par ticularly important in societies at this level of integration because of the significance of social displays in building individualized sta
tus for "aggrandizers," the minority of peo
of embodied
functions of artifacts (Wobst 1977), archae
ologists atively assumed clear that objects within conveyed their rel meanings cultures
ple
in a society who
seek to distinguish
142
Joyce
themselves nomic shell these
from A
others recent
for analysis thus
their
own
eco
benefit. body were
of Hohokam concludes of group that mem
were suggested feather cloaks. These
made
by wearing
Hawaiian
ornaments "material
long-established
assumptions
about
symbols
bership and identity" and "insignia of office," simultaneously signifying identification with a group and distinctions within it (Bayman 2002, p. 70).
All these authors replicate, and several ex
the relation of body ornament and identity continue to be influential in archaeological re
search. More lationships as recent products work considers these re of active construction
plicitly cite, the logic of Earle's (1987) ground breaking work on specialization and wealth
in Hawaiian and Inka societies, which con
of identity, not simply as signaling of inde pendently existing identities (Fisher & Loren 2003). Attention is focused on the degree of
intentionality of costume that and can be assumed in the use serves to the way that costume
sidered the links between precious materials incorporated in distinctive costume items like
Hawaiian feather cloaks and the social statuses
perpetuate embodied identities. Stone (2003) notes that archaeologists today are divided
about the use nic tive the degree of material Personal can of consciousness culture as required for symbols or ornaments of eth distinc
and roles signified by such costume. Earle ar
gued that Hawaiian cloaks were in fact mate
rial signs of status. Commenting on Inka use of cloth and of metal and shell ornaments in
costume, he argued that different costumes vi
identity. costume
be understood
as desirable
media of identity when self-consciousness is assumed because they could be displayed or
not ilar as situations warranted. Taking a sim perspective, of body intergenerational ornaments in Mesoamerica as a means of transmis has
sually distinguished different rankswithin this
complex society.
Discussions
on the
of costume and identity based
transmission model are
sion been
information
interpreted
recreating
not limited to studies of chiefdoms and early states.White (1992, p. 539) explicitly consid ered why objects like body ornaments were products of theUpper Palaeolithic inEurope, a period of innovation in "the material con
struction and representation of meaning" (see
embodied personhood within a line of re lated persons (Joyce 1998, 2003a; Meskell & Joyce 2003). Exemplifying such recent work, Bazelmans (2002) argues that differences in dress represented inmedieval burials index a
complex intentions body interplay and of religious and class-based the Treating Bazelmans (2002, understandings. project,"
alsoWhite
Wobst 1989).White (1992), like that in visible marks (1977), argued highly
in costume within a would community. in be widely In his view, more than record, into any are the
as a "cultural
corporated terpretable
p. 73) attends closely to the use in burial ritu
als of "items the body" which not feed, intoxicate, as reflections as informative and dress of a co about simply but "identity," of
ornaments, "personal perhaps other aspect of the archaeological a for archaeologists of access point
herent the
enactment
embodiment
in mortuary
of the past" (White 1992, p. 539). Following Weiner (1992),White (1992, p. 541) drew attention to the potential for or social world
naments made of durable materials to persist
contexts.
The assumption that the visibility of items of dress contributes to the public legibility
of part a personal of history remains a productive analy contemporary archaeological
beyond a single human life span, creating in tergenerational continuity in identities and
social distinctions, and to exteriorize asser
tions about social identity thatmight be more
controversial or contested as verbal state
sis (Isaza Aizpurua & McAnany 1999; Joyce 1999,2002a; Loren 2003). The textualization of the body's surface is increasingly viewed as a
more or less deliberate social strategy through
ments, like the claims of power and veiled threats of military might that Earle (1987)
which embodied simply signaled.
identities were shaped, not
www.annualreviews.org
Archaeology of theBody
143
Inscribing
the Body's
Surface
junction
between
the
body
surface
and
in
Citing Turner's (1980) concept of "the so cial skin,"White (1992) identified archaeo
logical body ornaments as demarcating and
teriority (Arnold 1991, Stone 1991). Thus, although framed initially in terms of the sig
naling of a stable, preexisting, essential iden
inscribing the body's surface as the point of
articulation exterior between society, between transformed work was an interior a physical social influential self and an and body
tity, work published and presented at confer ences during this period quickly raised key
issues that required archaeologists interested
its symbolically tion. Turner's
presenta on many
in embodied identity to rethink their analytic
frameworks.
archaeologists who began in the early 1990s
to explore the way sites that could of the artifacts be used social archaeological an understanding in preserved to construct processes of
Yates (1993) used a detailed study of an thropomorphic images in Scandinavian rock
art as a platform for an early attempt to the
embodiment in past human societies (Fisher & Loren 2003, Joyce 1998, Loren 2001). Work on the social inscription of the body's
surface eventually led to archaeological cri
orize the body. The norm then (and even today) was to identify as masculine figures with apparent phallic features, and as feminine
those that lacked such marks. Yates under
scored that this view of sexual identity as based
on having or contemporary lacking western a phallus was rooted in European understand
tiques of an easy assumption of a distinction
between collapse tation skin of and what body" of concern lies into "beneath," surface of represen the "the
ings of sexed subjectivity.Wanting
stand might how be other represented understandings in schematic
to under
of gender anthro
in place
with
the experience
of embodiment (compare Csordas 1994, pp. 9-12; Grosz 1994, pp. 115-121). One reason
for the early dominance of studies of the ar chaeological as an inscribed surface was body on visual in the dependence images, literally as a proxy for living bodies scribed surfaces,
pomorphic figures, he found it necessary
reconsider resentation. the ontology His resolution of the of subject the challenge
to
of rep
he faced was to view the body as "a plain over which the grid is laid in order to mark
focus and intensity_the a as a featureless life plateau begins body... or without of organs' consistency 'body plane terms onto to use Deleuze and Guattari's points which gans onto are written signs and their associated this plain by or by culture_The are meanings applied of cultural inscrip certain of
(Joyce 1996, Shanks 1995). As analyses pro gressed, researchers identified difficulties with
gular that equated the original model identities with categorical surface. ings of the body's stable sets and sin of mark
Sorensen (1991) exemplifies the initial ap proach to archaeological understanding of the
body as a product of costuming acts. In her
a process
influential analysis, she proposed that gen der difference was signaled through standard ized forms of dress. The implication that gen der identity was preexisting, expressed in, but
not formed by, acts of dressing, was unset
tion" (Yates 1993, p. 59). This proposal neatly made the data available (inscribed rock sur faces) homologous with the theorized body. It exposed the inadequacy of archaeological views shaped by engagement with inert im ages and dead bodies, of the body as a pas sive thing waiting
meaning. In contrast a uniform, with approaches role dress work as that of body signal, to seeks assumed mark more situate
tled by the framing of the argument as about
the "construction" of gender. An assumed sta
to be marked with signs of
bility of bodily identity, broadly endorsed in
archaeology cussions across of lines at the time, cross-dressing of gender-specific also or supported impersonation costuming that dis
transhistorical
and ornament, ings, recent archaeological
produced a contradictory implication of a dis
body practices and representational practices historically in relation to the production of
144 J yce
different
(2002) derstood the not the
embodied
experiences.
needs of a
Rainbird
to be un
that tattooing argues as the inscription a "wrapping but Tattooing, in
In a similarly critical study of standard practices in burial analysis, Gilchrist (1997,
pp. dieval 47-50) noted that in men in a sample of me were stature cemeteries with "weapons England with the tallest
body,
on history that does images" forms the skin mod of
just mark person.
actually an
associated
irreversible
and strongest physique" (p. 49). She suggested
that weapons of male ied gender here make less sense of the as than of as traces certain effects men signals embod
ification of the skin identified archaeologi cally both directly (Alvrus et al. 2001, Barber 1999) and indirectly (Green 1979, Rainbird 2002, Thompson 1946), raises interesting
questions tation about on the archaeological surface. interpre Literally body of marks the body's tattoos
experience whose
as warriors,
experience bone. ingly an
Archaeological can evident,
analysis, tell us about
to the penetrated as it is increas the embod
demarcating
the skin,
and related
ied life of deceased persons, but only through
understanding body among of practices, persons. the reflexive relations and ex ar between perience perceptions, Contemporary
or (such as scarification practices body pierc create permanent the use of unlike marks, ing) or ornaments, can be which adopted clothing or more tattoo Practices like changed easily. ing require explicit consideration of the sig
chaeologists move beyond the textualization of the body's surface and call attention to the
discernable styles effects on of the use the experience of ornaments of the person or of dress
nificance to bodily identity of the interplay of
permanence and impermanence (Grosz 1994,
pp. 138-44). The fluidity of embodiment has
been cussions rience addressed of that in recent bodily consider archaeological and dis expe impact performance the substantive
whose body is literally shaped by amanner of
dress.
that archaeologically
such ment, as habitual would have
invisible body practices,
of dress on the and orna of experience
PERFORMING THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL BODY
Archaeologists
media, including experience ied
patterns had
interested in linking material
have to embod representations, on Butler's built analy are so
embodiment.
Boyd
marized
(2002, p. 142) has critically sum
the implications research of much on body traditional ornamenta
ses (1990, 1993) of the ways that the physical
characteristics of the body given
archaeological
tion: "[B]ody decoration
is seen as part of
the body. represent mean
a of formulation representational Decorative elements symbolically particular ideas, particular subjective
cial meaning through repetitive performance (Perry& Joyce 2001). Contrasting fundamen tallywith the beginning point of the informa
tion signaling model of dress, analyses draw
ings, which are materially
body in order to convey the body meaning he notes, ings. However, ject, only given As
inscribed'
ideas itself remains
on the
an ob of of
ing on Butler's work begin from the position
that "there is no atemporal, .outside fixed the acts 'core' and to a ges person's identity..
those
and mean
decoration."
the use through the limited view
tures that constitute it" (Alberti 2001, p. 190).
From body bodied this perspective representations can be seen as records of stereotyped that performances terms citational served of the em or
inscription here ignores the already-existing history of the embodied person. Acknowledg ing this prior history, he suggests that the ar raying of the dead body inNatufian
in the Levant be viewed as "a practice
as models,
in Butler's
precedents,
for the
burials
relating
to perceptions of the body.. .bodily action by the living on the bodies of the dead" (Boyd 2002, p. 142).
embodied gestures of living people (Bachand et al. 2003; Joyce 1993,1998, 2001b,c, 2002a, 2003a,b; Joyce & Hendon 2000). The fleeting performativity of living bod ies can be traced archaeologically through
www.annualreviews.org Archaeology of theBody 145
reflexivity
between
representations
and
the
pp. human Age
102-4) form
asks on could
how seals
representations from us the
of
the
use in body practices of objects like those represented floyce 1993,1998,2001b). An ex
tended analysis of stereotyped human repre
late Bronze the cor
Aegean
inform
about
in small, hand-modeled figurines the of Honduran Playa de losMuertos cul sentations
ture culminated in the proposal that these
poral bodies of human subjects. Noting that despite the inclusion of highly specific details, the bodies depicted are ultimately not real istic in proportion,
presentation of
and are selective in their
architecture, she un
highly detailed, individualized images would have served as intimate sources of bodily
precedents for the young women who are the
bodily
derlines the homogeneity of classes of bodies in representation. Citing Butler (1990), she
suggests bodied that actions these seals present as conventional specific gender em per
majority of identified subjects (Joyce 2002 a, 2003 b). By relating ornaments depicted at particular bodily sites (the hair, ears, neck,
wrists, and ankles) to durable objects recov
formances seen in details of differential body
positioning tivities each as much gender as was ac specific to carry presumed in the
ered archaeologically, including from burials, it was possible to argue that specific figurai images were likely idealized representations of persons of different ages.What could not be discerned from the durable traces in ar
chaeological tures associated or dancing sites were with young the different women, stereotyped ages, pos standing pos
out (German 2000, pp. 104-5). Palka (2002) builds on a scrupulously detailed analysis of
visual representations of human figures to ar
gue for both experiential and symbolic di mensions of handedness among the Classic
Maya. on Emphasis to more critical dress that previously performativity examination have been contributes of items of sim
with
seated
tures with older individuals. Nor
chaeological serve the remains diversity of include treatment
did the ar
to ob
any way
viewed
of hair within
each age-related group of figures. By tacking
back and forth between the representations
ply as reflections of categories of people. Thus Danielsson (2002) denaturalizes the singling
out the of use the head of helmets in Scandinavian and head traditions ornaments, of re
and the archaeologically recovered durable objects, this study argued for both citation ality of age-specific bodily postures and prac tices of dress, and for individuality within even
the highly stereotyped representations. Bas
lating the use of these items to the isolation of the face as a figurai motif in art. Arguing
that and the use the of helmets and of in terms head ornaments faces need as a representation isolated of
ing this analysis on the framework provided by Butler (1993), itwas argued that both the fig urines and the living bodies that surrounded children were sources of bodily ideals against which they would have measured their own
embodied performances. The greater dura
to be understood
"masking"
cultural practice, Danielsson
suggests disembodied mances during that "masks states," the enable
(2002, p. 181)
embodiment perfor on Cen of
transformative life course. Work
bility of the figurai representations, and the differential durability of some body practices,
would have made these more of effective specific in the forms generations of long-term embodiment, reproduction even over
societies also identified a rela between emphasis on the head as the tionship site of identity in representational images and tral American
actual practices of dress and ornamentation,
multiple
(Joyce 2000a, 2001c, 2003a). Other archaeological analyses
tion, juxtapose now
including masking, through which the head was shaped and inflected in life (Joyce 1998). Explicitly grounding the analysis in the the oretical work of Butler (1990, 1993), these studies argued that specific body practices
were part of a repertoire of charged perfor
similarly
but
performance bodily seen not as documentary simply
and representa
as disciplinary or normative. German
146 Joyce
(2000,
mances thatmarked transitions during the life
course in prehispanic Central America (Joyce 2000a). Beginning with concern with the body as
a site of representation and working ornament, to engage a object, tions of archaeologists costume, have represented on the rela and with body more
& Taube (2000) presented an overview of epigraphic and iconographie evi iment. Houston
dence for sensory perception among the Clas
sicMaya nobility, and Houston
on human representation
(2001) drew
codes of
to propose
practices
body been led
phenomenological ence of the persons
approaches whose
to the bodies were
experi liter
decorum typical of the same group. Sweely (1998) considered in detail the possible im plications for intervisibility, and thus differ ential knowledge, of persons who might have
been at work in one sector of ancient Ceren,
ally shaped by these practices (Joyce 2003a, Meskell & Joyce 2003). Under the influence
of approaches the importance identity to archaeology that emphasize of of so of cross-cutting and the active scholars begun to draw dimensions negotiation
El Salvador, a site whose burial by volcanic eruption allows a finer-grained modeling of everyday interaction than is ordinarily possi ble in archaeology. Dornan (2004) draws on
neuro-phenomenology to propose interpre
social
cial positions, ment have
interested on other
in embodi lines of evi
tations of individual religious experience
Classic Maya society.
in
dence to flesh out flat and Stereotypie views of
bodies tive in past societies derived from norma of representations. Through examination
Models
sometimes here
of
relied
embodied
on assuming research
experience
universals, has been
have
and criti
traces of body modification that would have affected the exteriority of the body, evident in
human begun skeletal to raise remains, questions archaeologists about varied have embod
archaeological
cal in reinforcing
perceptual, sensory,
the historicity
and experiential
of specific
regimes
ied experiences. Moving
sions begun of normative to include
away from discus
(Meskell & Joyce 2003). Constructing cred ible models of past experiences of embod
iment becomes more difficult once univer
have bodies, archaeologists ex consideration of sensory impossible to de
once considered periences tect archaeologically.
sality is questioned because the archaeologist cannot begin by assuming the position of a iconographie or lit typical person. Where
erary sources are available, Classic of the as for the clas sical Mediterranean, Egyptians, by historic models and many Maya, societies ancient studied to such not
Experiencing
the Archaeological
Body
Kus (1992) issued an early call for the neces
sity of including sensory experience as part of
archaeologists, approaches have been productive, although
any archaeology of embodiment. Building on
her ethnographic experiences, she argued that
without points of disagreement (Houston & Taube 2000, Meskell 2000a, Meskell & Joyce 2003).
Representational media, whether texts or
archaeological interpretations that did not di
rectly cant aspects experiences particular address the senses would miss signifi of human experience people in the past, to act in
that motivated ways. research has
images, bring with them an additional set of interpretive challenges. They must be viewed not simply as reflections of existing concepts
of embodiment, but as part of the mate
Archaeological rience since then Drawing tral on
on
sensory varied
expe forms. Cen
rial apparatus through which
were sive tions naturalized. archaeological where extensive Analysis materials, textual provides or of
such concepts
less even discur in situa
taken texts in
European concepts
recording the
Mexican
sixteenth
(1988), Ortiz de century, L pez Austin rst (1995) detailed F Montellano and (1989), models of indigenous physiology and embod
sources
are available,
iconographie a valuable way
to tack from acknowledged
bodily experiences that
bodily ideals to
were in
sometimes
www.annualreviews.org
Archaeology of theBody
147
conflict with expressed ideals. For example, examining medieval British society, Gilchrist (1999, pp. 109^45) adopts a phenomenolog
ical perspective, of considering castles and the the spatial or of ganization persons experiences for understand
in Brittany "the physical body... has gone from a living whole of flesh and bone, to a
chaotic lated, The mass to a new of bone rearranged and whole sinew, partly as stacks articu of ribs. the body
figure...
is the social whole,
in them
as the bases
of the social collectivity, intowhich individual
egos have ety or one that as well merged.. can die as the through .one can be part can the message of actual of soci alone_One artwork, the use imagine was re
ing gendered experiences of embodiment. Morris & Peatfield (2002) use representations of bodily gestures inscribed in figurines recov ered from hilltop sanctuaries in Crete to ex plore the "feeling body" experiencing ritual,
entering into altered states of conscious
conveyed
human
mains" (Thomas & Tilley 1993, pp. 269-70). In a particularly striking study of material from Neolithic
challenges
ness.
with
Explicitly
ethnographic
grounded
research, using states, that the
in comparison
particularly controlled their on pos
Scotland, MacGregor
bias of much
(1999)
archaeo
the visual
shamanic ture to
induce
experiences trance assumes
argument they as
essentially study sumed
figurines postures the
logical analysis and demonstrates how objects that in no way can be directly linked to bod ies (either as body parts or representations)
may provide a basis to conceptualize em
iconically by ritual
represent participants
actual at
sanctu
ary sites (compare T te 1996). Tarlow (2002, p. 87) explores how the physicality of the body
in nineteenth century England was experi
bodiment. He considers in detail the sensory experience of decorated stone balls, which oc
cupants of these sites may have enjoyed, as an
enced by those who survived the deceased per
son, simultaneously illuminating the sensory
alternative to functionalist explanations of the production and use of these objects, explicitly
relating these bodily experiences to the cre
affect of the dead body for the living (com pare Kus 1992) and the existence of a philoso phy of incorruptibility of the body that shaped
the loved For lives one. archaeologists working sources, be one of in areas lack of survivors and their now-deceased
ation and re-creation of social identities. He
argues ileges that most visual archaeological over priv analysis the use of other
experience
senses (compare Hamilakis
emphasizes the tactile
2002). Instead, he
of the artifacts
qualities
he
is examining
(compare Ouzman
that archaeologists
2001).
em
ing documentary approaches even begin of publications may to
phenomenological the only ways to In a series contexts
MacGregor
advocates
ploy "haptic analysis" in addition to themore
common visual analyses of material culture to
explore
embodiment. excavated
juxtaposing
in Neolithic
disarticulated with which picted analyses human in visual
Britain and Europe,
human of formal body remains were constructed
in which
deposited, spaces in
remain attentive to the likelihood that other cultures in the past elaborated distinctive sen sory regimes. As Csordas (1994, p. 61) notes, "work on haptic touch is useful in develop ing a sense of the agency of the body in both
individual and social existence, and may thus
sometimes de parts were a number of archae images,
ologists have suggested lines of approach to both an experiencing body and the body as experienced by others (Fowler 2002; Richards 1993; Thomas 1993, 2000, 2002; Thomas & Tilley 1993). Emphasizing the fragmentation of the remains of human bodies across dif
ferent contexts, for partible these an researchers of have argued embodiment Thus, in sites
contribute to the elaboration of the model of embodied feeling."
Other routes for archaeological under
standing of embodied experience come from the application of biological techniques to
reconstruct health, work patterns, and body
vigorously that was
experience and collective.
modifications throughout the life course (Boyd 1996, Cohen & Bennett 1993, Cox & Sealy 1997). Differential access to dietary
148
Joyce
resources
can
provide
information
about
site where preserved.
traces
of practices of teeth,
during filing,
life
are
status identities reflected in living bodies as
differences construction in of stature repetitive and body size. Re activity constitutes
Extraction
inset
ting materials,
dental
and supplementing
are specific
teeth with
that
"appliances"
practices
evidence of habitual adoption of postures,
sometimes specific to gender or other iden
tities. Far more
to their
than skin deep, the biologi cal experiences of people in the past, similar
experiences any attempt of defy and person identity to separate surface and
hood, interior.
have begun to be viewed as evidence of bod ily experience and the cultural shaping of em bodied personhood (Becker 2000; Boyd 2002, pp. 145-46; Joyce 2001c; Robb 1997, 2002). Just as bioarchaeological studies of bod ily interiority yield understandings of embod
ied experience do reexaminations so also and public appearance, of costume and represen
Is "Surface" to "Interior" "Public" is to "Private"? Following
p. 91) argues
As
tation challenge the equation of the body with
a public surface. Rissman (1988), in a contex
tual analysis comparing the contents of buried (2000,
consider hoards to human argued interments that civilization, costume in the Harappan ornaments
Grosz
(1995), Gilchrist
materialist
for "amore
ation of the body, one which would examine how the processes of social inscription on the
exterior surface coalesce to construct a psychi
worn by the dead, traditionally viewed by ar
chaeologists private, as evidence of the internalized, of the per uncontestable "identity"
cal interior" through "the inclusion of the di mensions of time and space." Peterson (2000) exemplifies the work of bioarchaeologists
whose studies of human skeletal remains chal
son, were viewed by a wider public during
mortuary status rituals of dead as part of contestation the groups of the persons and to which
lenge the dichotomy of surface and interior in precisely theway predicated by social analyses such as those by Grosz (1994, 1995). Bioar
chaeologists trace the evidence in the more
they belonged. Sweely (1998), citing Joyce (1996), suggests that experiences of the in
habitants of ancient Ceren in more and less
intimate spatial settings served to naturalize
their sense of their own position and rela
durable parts of the human body of habitual
patterns of movement and action and of dif
tions to others as they grew from childhood to adulthood. Gilchrist (2000, p. 91) proposed to
examine sexuality, the "interior, experiential qualities the ma of as it was expressed through
ferential life experiences (Agarwal et al. 2004, Becker 2000, Boyd 2002, Cohen & Bennett 1993, Robb 2002). In traditional physical an
such traces of individual embod thropology, were to character ied experience abstracted ize categories groups, vations pretation for of people (sexes, the races, same or age
teriality of space and visual imagery" among celibate medieval women (see also Gilchrist
1994). In these and similar studies, the bound
aries of "the body" and of the spatial context
"around" it are shown to be inextricably re
example). Today, are open to more as evidence
obser inter
idiographic
of diverse
experiences
lated (Potter 2004). The products of such new approaches in
archaeology are no longer categorical expres
of embodied persons (Robb 2002). Particu larly interesting from such an osteobiograph ical perspective are studies of the dramatic manipulation
skeletal In many remains times
of the living body, reflected in
as well and places, as in artistic human canons. populations
sions of preexisting identities. Instead, con temporary archaeology of the body, moving beyond the dichotomy of surface and interior, considers the ways that body practices and
representations of bodies worked together to
have shaped the stillmalleable head of infants and young children (Boyd 2002, pp. 145^46; is another bodily Joyce 2001a,c). Dentition
produce experiences of embodied personhood differentiated along lines of sex, age, power,
etc.
www.annualreviews.org
Archaeology of the Body
149
ARCHAEOLOGIES OF EMBODIED PERSONHOOD
Meskell
cussed was plicit almost
of a kind of hyperbolic masculinity (Winter 1996). Analyses of Classic Maya images in
which young men's active, vigorous bodies are
(1996), noting
in then-current always the
that "the body" dis
archaeological female body, urged to masculinity, writing ex
presented as objects for the admiring gaze of
older males of for these and women alike offer as an analysis images simultaneously performances as inscriptions precedents of
archaeological
attention
a theme addressed most directly by Knapp (1998). Scott (1997, p. 8) noted the irony that
critiques of the common archaeological use of
the embodied men and
of cohorts of an idealized
young
amasculine
subject position had done little to theorize explicitly masculinity itself, instead
on delineating feminine experience.
young male body (Joyce 2000b, 2002b). Broadening the scope of embodied per sonhood beyond the feminized body has also involved radically questioning the indivisi bility of embodied persons. Thomas (2002) suggests that the archaeology of Neolithic
Britain a form can best be understood distinct as evidence from His of contem argument, contexts and artifacts in of of personhood
focusing
Although she suggested that "preoccupation with the body as a defining force is a peculiarly
late modern argued from social ancient development" Roman (p. 8), and Greek "not and data in fact
that masculinity
in the
past was
porary Western based which on careful
individuality. examination elements
measured by levels of direct sexual activity or
paternity.. 9), a number .nor of bodily prowess, nor dress" archaeological were analyses (p. have
human
skeletal
were split and rearranged, is that in Neolithic
Britain the embodied person may not have
productively traced discourses through which
embodied masculinities shaped.
Gilchrist
archaeologists
(1997, pp. 47-50)
who have,
is among the
ways,
in different
been bounded by the skin, but extended sub stantively by objects of various kinds (Thomas 2002, p. 41). "Both artefacts and bodies were governed by the principles of partibility and
circulation. general volved Both economy other could formed of elements substances' Both down made in a more which artefacts into parts, in and and
underscored
expressed difference male and
the production of masculinities
strength subjects a suite as often as between of objects a among male Relating
as differential
female.
materials. be broken
placed
Europe
in burials of males
to cultivation of the
in Bronze Age
body and par
bodies artefacts
at least were together"
by putting 2002,
differ p. 42;
ticipation
in warfare, Treherne
(1995) pro
masculin of this
ent substances
(Thomas
warrior that an exemplary posed was a circumstances of ity product
time and place. Yates (1993, pp. 35-36, 41 48), in his analysis of human images in Scan dinavian rock art, identified representational schema depicting distinct masculinities, con trasting in their degree of phallicism and ag
gression, with prominent calf muscles act
of compare Fowler 2002). Understandings as and dividual have been personhood partible employed by other archaeologists in analyses of the extension ofmaterial culture of the body
in a number of ancient societies (Fowler 2003,
Looper 2003a, Meskell & Joyce 2003). To un derstand the body in the past, archaeologists are increasingly engaging broader theories of
embodiment and materiality.
ing as a marker of a particular kind of male (1989) pursued an analysis of body. Winter the way that the able body in texts describing
a Mesopotamian visual emphasis ruler was referenced through of on musculature in portraits
THEORIZING THE BODY IN ARCHAEOLOGY
A central assumption, often left inexplicit in
archaeological social work on were in respect embodiment, "created, to is that ordered, understandings perpetuated
the seated ruler. She further proposed that the
body visual of another ruler was of viewers sexualized as a for the consumption production
and
associations
ISO
Joyce
with material
These out childhood,
culture" (Lesick 1997, p. 38).
shape contributing experience to the through production
Related common
arguments since Meskell
have
become her
more discus
associations
formulated
sion, which although published in 2000 com
ments on a conference held in 1996. Boyd
of adult social positions (Joyce 2000a). Sofaer Derevenski (1997, pp. 196-97) argues that
"the developing ascribes gendered actively transforms child imports, to into transfers, objects the and and meanings them
(2002, p. 137) criticizes archaeologists work ing on sites in the Levant for a lack of attention
to "the social that, noting and body as is generally embodied the case agency," in archae
gendered
world inwhich s/he lives."Although her anal Western childhood, ysis is based on studies of
she with assumes other that gender children constructs, in other would societies, nonethe
ology, the body ismainly approached as "an an objectified entity in physical/biological thropological studies" or, as the dead body of
mortuary zation, ments studies, as an index of much of social His or as a focus characterize symbolism. organi com ar
less have passed through similar stages of
development, content. tural understandings culture which albeit processing distinct sharing of cul such Archaeologists call workfs] for analysis to structure
contemporary
"material ex
chaeological practice. To move forward, Boyd (2002, p. 138) proposes a shift to examine
together "food consumption, treatment of
cultural
perience" (Lesick 1997, p. 38). Archaeolog ical explorations of embodiment, distinct as
they may derstanding archaeology ence, and be of in other respects, share an un that experi a point the material as environment past shaping as potentially past experiences.
the dead body, treatment of the living body
and body representation." Hamilakis and col
leagues (2002, p. 13) propose that such dis
tinct strands of archaeological research on
delineates consequently, with such
the body may begin to be integrated in an
emerging emphasis on what they call "the ex
of connection
periencing body," "in which
sensory may as and phenomenological to enrich be used existing anthropology, archaeology."
critically-aware
archaeologies traditions such studies, and
(2000b) has argued that archaeo logical writing on the body needs to be more
rigorously theorized. She describes archae
Meskell
physical
gender They as
ology of the body as proceeding from two theoretical positions. In the first position she
identifies perspective the body as "the scene she traces to reliance a of display," on the work
mortuary appraisal attention
include
in their
such developments to the incorporation
archaeological into the body of
of Foucault (see alsoMeskell
sees with this line of work gesture, (p. "the as "posture, costume, 15). The body
1998b).Meskell
concerned sexuality, second and
primarily
representation" which sociates theory. cerned she with She with calls
as artifact,"
project, she as
structuration Giddens' Anthony sees "the as artifact" as con body as "normative "sets of bodies"
food and drugs (Boyd 2002, Hamilakis 1999, 2002,Wilkie 2000) and concern with material technologies as shaping the body [in theman ner captured byMauss's (1992) elucidation of "techniques of the body"] and as bodily exten sions, or what Hayles (1999) calls prostheses. An archaeology of the body as site of lived
experience of agency and as the site of "the articulation and mean structure, causality
representatives of larger social entities fulfill ing their negotiated roles, circumscribed by
powerful social forces," passive bodies "de
ing, rationality and imagination, physical de
terminations and symbolic resonances" is a
scribed in relationship to [the] landscape or
as spatially experiencing (p. 16). the phenomenon She was strongly as criti of monuments"
cal of both archaeological approaches, seeing
them, as practiced the body to that date, lacking con cern with as a site of lived experience.
(2000b, p. 18) aligns with the and with phenomenology of Merleau-Ponty feminist theory.Meskell is careful to separate her call for attention to lived experience from an equation of an archaeology of the body with
the reconstruction of biography of named,
project Meskell
historical
individuals,
something
that
is
i$i
www.annualreviews.org
Archaeology of theBody
possible
where
archaeological
data
are
suffi
ciently rich and particularistic (Meskell 1998a, 1999, 2000a). Instead her proposal, illus
trated sonhood burials, by her own work on and on Egyptian of data per from is drawing houses, a range documentary
rial site of identity, from body and tradition ally understood itself to be limited to address ing the body as a public site or object of social action (Grosz 1994, pp. 3-10; Knapp & Meskell 1997, pp. 183-87; Meskell 1996, Turner 1998b, 2000b, 2001; 1984, pp. 30-59). Phenomenological approaches adopted by ar chaeologists offer instead a perspective on the body as "the instrument by which all infor
mation and knowledge is received and mean
sources,
that archaeologists take up the challenge of "a search for the construction of identity or self (Meskell 2000b, p. 20) thatwould include but
not be There restricted are to embodiment. points of intersection between
studies of embodiment and subjectivity in the
social sciences at large and archaeology in
ing is generated" (Grosz 1994, p. 87, com 1962). Csordas menting on Merleau-Ponty that (1994, pp. 10-11) suggests contemporary
approaches nomenology to embodiment an rooted in require emphasis on "lived phe ex
particular (Joyce 2004). Grosz (1995, p. 33) discerns two lines of discussion of the body
in contemporary social theory, one "inscrip
tive" and one dealing with the phenomeno logical "lived body": "[T]he first conceives the
body as a surface are on which inscribed, social the law, moral second refers ity, and values
perience." He sees this shift from analysis of an objectified "body" to understanding of ac
tive "embodiment" as involving replacement
of semiotic approaches with hermeneutic in terpretive perspectives. Under the influence
of phenomenological temporary semiotic archaeology perspective in the con approaches, of embodiment, the of the information trans
largely to the lived experience of the body, the body's internal or psychic inscription. Where the first analyzes a social, public body, the
second anatomy takes the body-schema as its Most object(s)." or imaginary archaeology,
until recently, has treated the body solely as
inscriptive.
mission and identity signaling models and the description of inert (often literally dead) bodies are being replaced by analysis of the
production and surface experience and interior of lived are no bodies, longer in which separated.
Archaeology
tradition that
Western developed from the
separated mind, the nonmate
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Beyond the debts evident from the work I cite, I acknowledge themany generous scholars who have shared the development of these ideas with me. I thank Geoffrey McCafferty, Veronica
Kann, Cheryl Claassen, and Mary Weismantel, who separately but almost simultaneously sug
own gested I read the work of Judith Butler. For invitations that allowed me to develop my at various points, I additionally thank Rita Wright, Jeffrey Quilter, Meredith Chesson, ideas Cecelia Klein, Roberta Gilchrist, Barbara Voss and Robert Schmidt, Genevi ve Fisher and Diana Loren, and Lynn Meskell and Robert Pruecel. It is traditional to absolve all such ac knowledged persons from responsibility of my errors, which I do; but they certainly deserve credit for anything I have achieved here and elsewhere.
LITERATURE CITED
trabecular bone Agarwal SC, Dumitriu M, Tbmlinson GA, Grynpas MD. 2004. Medieval architecture: the influence of age, sex and lifestyle. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 124:33^44 Alberti B. 2001. Faience goddesses and ivory bull-leapers: the aesthetics of sexual difference at late bronze age Knossos. World Archaeol. 33:189-205
i$2 Joyce
Alvrus A, Wright D, Merbs CF. 2001. Examination of tattoos on mummified tissue using infra-red reflectography. J. Archaeol. Sei. 28:395^400 Norman: Mesoamerican CostumesFrom theCodices. Anawalt P. 1981. Indian Clothing Before Cortez:
Univ. Okla. Press
Arnold B. 1991.The deposed princess of Vix: the need for an engendered European prehistory. SeeWalde &Willows 1991, pp. 366-74 Bachand H, Joyce RA, Hendon JA. 2003. Bodies moving in space: ancient Mesoamerican
human sculpture 2002. and embodiment. Camb. Archaeol. J. 13:238-47
Barber EW.
Bayman J.
1999. TheMummies
Hohokam craft
of r mchi. New York: Norton
economies and the materialization of power. J. Archaeol.
Methods Theory 9:69-95 Bazelmans J. 2002. Moralities of dress and the dress of the dead in early medieval Europe. See Hamilakis et al. 2002, pp. 71-84 Becker MJ. 2000. Reconstructing the lives of south Etruscan women. See Rautman 2000, pp. 55-67 Boyd B. 2002.Ways of eating/ways of being in the laterEpipalaeolithic (Natufian) Levant. See Hamilakis et al. 2002, pp. 137-52 Boyd DC. 1996. Skeletal correlates of human behavior in the Americas. J. Archaeol. Methods Theory 3:189-251
Brumfiel show. EM. Am. 1992. Breaking and entering the ecosystem gender, class, and faction steal the Anthropol. 85:261-84
Butler J. 1990. Gender Trouble:Feminism and the Subversion of Identity.New York: Routledge Butler J. 1993. Bodies ThatMatter: On theDiscursive Limits of "Sex."New York: Routledge Clark SR. 2003. Representing the Indus body: sex, gender, sexuality, and the anthropomorphic terracotta figurines from Harappa. Asian Perspect. 42:304-28 Cohen MN, Bennett S. 1993. Skeletal evidence for sex roles and gender hierarchies in pre history. In Sex Roles and Gender Hierarchies, ed. B Miller, pp. 273-96. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press Cox G, SealyJ. 1997. Investigating identity and life histories: isotopic analysis and historical
documentation of slave skeletons found on the Cape Town foreshore, South Africa. Int. 1:207-24 J. Hist. Archaeol. Csordas 1994. Introduction: TJ.
the body
as
representation
and being-in-the-world.
In Embod
iment and Experience: The Existential Ground ofCulture and Self, ed. TJ Csordas, pp. 1-24. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press Danielsson IB. 2002. (Un)masking gender gold foil (dis)embodiments in late Iron Age Scan dinavia. See Hamilakis et al. 2002, pp. 179-99 Doman JL. 2004. Beyond belief: religious experience, ritual, and cultural neuro
phenomenology 36 in the interpretation of past religious systems. Camb. Archaeol. J. 14:25
Earle TK. 1987. Specialization and the production of wealth: Hawaiian chiefdoms and the Inka empire. In Empire, Exchange, and Complex Societies, ed. EM Brumfield, TK Earle, pp. 64-75. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press Fisher G, Loren DD. 2003. Introduction: embodying identity in archaeology. Camb. Archaeol. J. 13:225-30 Fowler C. 2002. Body parts: personhood in theManx Neolithic. See Hamilakis et al. 2002, pp. 47-69 Fowler C. 2003. The Archaeology ofPersonhood:An Anthropological Approach. London: Routledge F rst JM. 1995. The Natural History of the Soul inAncient Mexico. New Haven, CT: Yale Univ.
Press
www.annualreviews.org
Archaeology of the Body
153
German
SC. 2000. The human form in the Late Bronze Age Aegean. See Rautman 2000, pp. 95-110 Gilchrist R. 1994. Gender andMaterial Culture: The Archaeology ofReligious Women. London: Roudedge Gilchrist R. 1997. Ambivalent bodies: gender andmedieval pp. 88-112 archaeology. SeeMoore & Scott,
Gilchrist R. 1999. Gender and Archaeology. London: Roudedge Gilchrist R. 2000. Unsexing the body: the interior sexuality of medieval Schmidt & Voss 2000, pp. 89-103
Gillespie SD. 2001. Personhood, agency, and mortuary ritual: a case
religious women.
study from the
See
ancient
Maya. J. Anthropol. Archaeol. 20:73-112 Gillespie SD. 2002. Body and soul among theMaya: keeping the spirits in place. In The Space and Place of Death, ed.H Silverman, DB Small, pp. 61-IS. Archeol. Pap. No. 11.Arlington,
VA: Am. Anthropol. Assoc.
Golden M, Tbohey P, ed. 2003. Sex and Difference inAncient Greece and Rome. Edinburgh: Edinburgh Univ. Press Green RC. 1979. Early Lapita artfrom Polynesia and island Melanesia: continuities in ceramic, barkcloth and tattoo decorations. In Exploring the Visual Art of Oceania, ed. SM Mead, pp. 13-31. Honolulu: Univ. Hawaii Press Grosz E. 1994. Volatile Bodies: Toward a CorporealFeminism. Bloomington: Indiana Univ. Press Grosz E. 1995. Space, Time and Perversion: Essays on thePolitics ofBodies.New York: Roudedge Hamilakis Y. 1999. Food technologies/technologies of the body: the social context of wine and oil production and consumption in bronze age Crete. World Archaeol. 13:38-54
Hamilakis Y. 2002. The past as oral history: towards an archaeology of the senses. See Hamilakis
et al. 2002, pp. 121-36 Hamilakis Y, Pluciennik M, Tarlow S, eds. 2002. Thinking Through the Body: Archaeologies of
Corporeality. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum
Hamilakis Y, Pluciennik M, Tarlow
Hamilakis et al. 2002, pp. 1-21
S. 2002. Introduction:
thinking through the body. See systems. J.
and
Hayden B. 1998. Practical and prestige technologies: Archaeol.Methods Theory 5:1-55
Hayles NK. Informatics. 1999. How We Became Posthuman: Press Virtual Chicago: Univ. Chicago
the evolution of material
Bodies in Cybernetics,
Literature,
Hill E. 2000. The Houston
among
embodied sacrifice. Camb. Archaeol. J. 10:317-26 bodies and disordered passions: representations
Archaeol. 33:206-19
SD. 2001. Decorous
the classic Maya.
of emotion
World
SD, Stuart D. 1998.The ancientMaya self: personhood and portraiture in the Classic period, ito 33:73-101 Houston SD, Taube KA. 2000. An archaeology of the senses: perceptual psychology inClassic Houston
Maya art, writing, and architecture. Camb. Archaeol. J. 10:261-94
Isaza Aizpurua II, McAnany PA. 1999. Adornment
tive K'axob. Anc. Mesoam. 10:117-27
and identity: shell ornaments from Forma MA: Davis Mus.
Joyce RA. 1993. Embodying Personhood in Prehispanic Costa Rica.Wellesley,
Cult. Cent.
Joyce RA. 1996. The construction of gender inClassic Maya monuments. In Gender inArchae Essays in Research and Practice, ed. RWright, pp. 167-95. Philadelphia: Univ. Penn. ology:
Press
Joyce RA. 1998. Performing i$4 J yce
the body in prehispanic Central America. Res 33:147-65
Joyce RA. 1999. Symbolic dimensions of costume inClassic Maya monuments: the construction of gender through dress. In Mayan Clothing andWeaving Through The Ages, ed. B Knoke de Arathoon, NL Gonzalez, JMWillemsen Devlin, pp. 29-38. Guatemala: Museo Ixchel del Traje Ind gena Joyce RA. 2001a. Burying the dead atTlatilco:
spectives Assoc. Joyce RA. 2001b. Gender and Power in Prehispanic Mesoamerica. Austin: Univ. Tex. Press on Mortuary Analysis, ed. M Chesson,
socialmemory and social identities. InNew Per
pp. 12-26. Washington, DC: Am. Anthropol.
Joyce RA. 2001c. Negotiating
America, ed. C Klein, pp.
sex and gender inClassic Maya society. In Gender inPre-Hispanic
109-41. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks
Joyce RA. 2000a. Girling
Mesoamerica. Joyce RA. 2000b. World
the girl and boying the boy: the production of adulthood in ancient
Archaeol. 31:473-83 gaze: male sexuality among the ancient Maya. See Schmidt
A Precolumbian
& Voss 2000, pp. 263-83
Joyce RA. 2002a. Beauty, sexuality, body ornamentation and gender in ancient Mesoamerica.
In In Pursuit of Gender, ed. SNelson, M Rosen-Ayalon, pp. 81-92. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Joyce RA. 2002b. Desiring women: Classic Maya sexualities. InAncient Maya Gender Identity and Relations, ed. L Gustafson, A Trevelyan, pp. 329-44. Westport, CT: Greenwood Joyce RA. 2003a. Concrete memories: fragments of the past in the Classic Maya present (500 1000 AD). InArchaeologies of Maiden, MA: Memory, ed. S Alcock, R van Dyke, pp. 104-2 5. Blackwell Joyce RA. 2003b. Making
Muertos, Honduras.
something of herself: embodiment
Camb. Archaeol. J.\3:248-61
in life and death at Playa de los
Joyce RA. 2004. Embodied subjectivity: gender, femininity, masculinity, sexuality. In^4Compan ion toSocialArchaeology, ed. LM Meskell, RWPreucel, pp. 82-95. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Joyce RA, Hendon JA. 2000. Heterarchy, history, andmaterial reality: "communities" in Late Classic Honduras. InThe Archaeology ofCommunities, ed.MA Canuto, JYaeger, pp. 143-60. Kampen N,
Knapp AB.
London: Roudedge ed. 1996. Sexuality inAncient Art. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
1998. Who's come a long way, baby? Archaeol. Dialogues 2:91-106
Knapp AB, Meskell 7:183-204
Kus S. 1992. Toward
LM.
an
1997. Bodies of evidence on prehistoric Cyprus. Camb. Archaeol. J.
archaeology of body and soul. In Representations in Archaeology, ed. JC
Gardin, C Peebles, pp. 168-77. Bloomington: Indiana Univ. Press Kuttruff JT. 1993.Mississippian period status differentiation through textile analysis: a Cad
doan example. Am. Antiq. 58:12 5^45
Lee MM. 2000. Deciphering gender in Minoan dress. See Rautman 2000, pp. 111-23 concerns on Lesick KS. 1997. Re-engendering gender: some theoretical and methodological a burgeoning archaeological pursuit. SeeMoore & Scott 1997, pp. 31-41 Looper MG. 2003 a. From inscribed bodies to distributed persons: contextualizing Tairona
figurai images in performance. Camb. Archaeol. J. 13:25^40
Looper MG.
Press
2003b. Lightning Warrior: Maya Art andKingship at Quirigua. Austin: Univ. Tex.
L pez Austin A. 1988. The Human Body and Ideology:Concepts of theAncient Nahuas. Transi. T Ortiz de Montellano, B Ortiz de Montellano. Salt Lake City: Univ. Utah Press (From Spanish) Loren DD. 2001. Social skins: orthodoxies and practices of dressing in the early colonial lower Mississippi Valley. J. Soc.Archaeol. 1:172-89
www.annualreviews.org Archaeology of theBody lyy
Loren DD. 2003. Refashioning 37
MacGregor G. 1999. Making
a body politic in colonial Louisiana.
sense of the past in the present: a sensory
amb.Archaeol. J. 13:231
analysis of carved stone
balls. World Archaeol. 31:258-71 Marcus MI. 1993. Incorporating the body: adornment, gender, and social identity in ancient
Iran. Camb. Archaeol. J. 3:157-78
Marcus MI.
1996. Sex and the politics of female adornment in Pre-Achaemenid Iran (1000-800 See BCE). Kampen 1996, pp. 41-54 Mauss M. 1992. Techniques of the body. In Incorporations, ed. J Crary, SKwinter, pp. 454 77. New York: Zone Books Merleau-Ponty M. 1962. The Phenomenology ofPerception.Transi. C Smith. London: Routledge Meskell and Kegan Paul LM. 1996. The
Archaeol.
somatization of archaeology:
Rev. 29:1-16
institutions, discourses, corporeality.
Norwegian
Meskell LM. 1998a. Intimate archaeologies: the case of Kha and Merit. World Archaeol. 29:363 79 Meskell LM. 1998b. The irresistible body and the seduction of archaeology. See Montserrat 1998, pp. 139-61 Meskell LM. 1999. Archaeologies ofSocial Life: Age, Sex, and Class inAncient Egypt. Oxford: Basil Blackwell Meskell LM. 2000a. Cycles of life and death: narrative homology and archaeological realities. World Archaeol. 31:423-41 Meskell LM. 2000b. Writing the body in archaeology. See Rautman 2000, pp. 13-21 Meskell LM. 2001. Archaeologies of identity. In Archaeological Theory Today, ed. I Hodder, pp. 187-213. Cambridge, UK: Polity Meskell LM, Joyce RA. 2003. Embodied Lives: Figuring Ancient Maya
London: Routledge
and Egyptian Experience.
Montserrat
D, ed. 1998. Changing Bodies, Changing Meanings: Studies on theHuman Body in Antiquity. London: Routledge Moore J, Scott E, eds. 1997. Invisible People and Processes:Writing Gender and Childhood into
European Archaeology. London: Leicester Univ. Press
Morris C, Peatfield A. 2002. Feeling through the body: gesture inCretan Bronze Age religion. See Hamilakis et al. 2002, pp. 105-20 Ortiz deMontellano BR. 1989. Body, ethics and cosmos: Aztec physiology. In The Imagination Mesoamerican Traditions, ed. D Carrasco, pp. 191-209. Matter: Religion and Ecology in of Oxford: BAR Int. Ser.Vol. 515 Ouzman S. 2001. Seeing is deceiving: rock art and the non-visual. World Archaeol. 33:237-56 Palka JW. 2002. Left/right symbolism and the body in ancient Maya iconography and culture. Lat. Am. Antiq. 13:419-43 Peregrine PN. 1991. Some political aspects of craft specialization. World Archaeol. 23:1-11 Matter: Judith Butler's impact on Perry EM, Joyce RA. 2001. Providing a past for Bodies that
the archaeology of gender. Int. J. Sex. Gend. Stud. 6:61-76
Peterson JD. 2000. Labor patterns in the southern Levant in the Early Bronze Age. See Raut man 2000, pp. 38-54 Rainbird P. 2002.Marking the body, marking the land: body as history, land as history; tattooing and engraving inOceania. See Hamilakis et al. 2002, pp. 233^47 Rautman AE, ed. 2000. Reading theBody: Representations and Remains in the Archaeological Record. Philadelphia: Univ. Penn. Press
i$6 Joyce
Rautman AE, Talalay LE. 2000. Introduction: Diverse
See Rautman archaeology. C. 1993. Monumental Richards 2000, pp. 1-12 architecture choreography:
approaches to the study of gender in
and spatial representations in late
Neolithic Orkney. See Tilley 1993, pp. 143-78 Rissman P. 1988. Public displays and private values: a guide to buried wealth inHarappan archaeology. World Archaeol. 20:209-28 Robb JE. 1997. Intentional tooth removal in neolithic Italian women. Antiquity 71:659-69 Robb JE. 1998. The archaeology of symbols. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 27:329-46 Robb JE. 2002. Time and biography: osteobiography of the Italian Neolithic lifespan. See Hamilakis et al. 2002, pp. 153-71 Schmidt RA, Voss BL, eds. 2000. Archaeologies of Sexuality. London: Roudedge Scott E. 1997. Introduction: on the incompleteness of archaeological narratives. SeeMoore & Scott 1997, pp. 1-12
Shanks M. 1995. Art and archaeology of embodiment: some aspects of Archaic Greece. Camb.
Archaeol. J. 5:207^4
Sofaer-Derevenski J. 1997. Engendering children, engendering archaeology. See Moore &
Scott 1997, pp. 192-202 Sorensen MLS. 1991. Construction of gender through appearance. SeeWalde & Willows 1991, pp. 121-29 SerensenMLS. 2000. Gender Archaeology. Cambridge, UK: Polity Stone AJ. 1991. Aspects of impersonation in Classic Maya art. In Sixth Palenque Round Table, 1986, ed. V Fields, pp. 194-202. Norman: Univ. Okla. Press Stone T. 2003. Social identity and ethnic interaction in the western Pueblos of the American southwest. J. Archaeol.Methods Theory 10:31-67 Sweely TL. 1998. Personal interactions: the implications of spatial arrangements for power relations at Ceren, El Salvador. World Archaeol. 29:393-406
Tarlow S. 2002. The aesthetic corpse in nineteenth-century Britain. See Hamilakis et al. 2002,
pp. 85-97
T te CE. 1996. Shaman's stance: integration of body, spirit and cosmos in Olmec sculpture. In
Eighth Palenque Round Table, 1993, ed.M Macri, JMcHargue,
Pre-Columbian Art Res. Inst.
pp. 425-39.
San Francisco:
Thomas J. 1993. The hermeneutics of megalithic space. See Tilley 1993, pp. 73-98 Thomas J. 2000. Death, identity and the body in neolithic Britain. J. R. Anthropol. Inst. (ns) 6:653-68 Thomas J. 2002. Archaeology's humanism and the materiality of the body. See Hamilakis et al. 2002, pp. 29^5 Thomas J, Tilley C. 1993. The axe and the torso: symbolic structures in the Neolithic of Britain. See Tilley 1993, pp. 225-324 Middle American Thompson JES. 1946.Tattooing and scarification among the Maya. InNotes on 63. and MA: No. Inst. Wash. Div. Hist. Res. Cambridge, Carnegie Archaeology Ethnology ed. 1993. Oxford: Tilley C, InterpretiveArchaeology. Berg Treherne P. 1995. The warrior's beauty: the masculine body and self-identity in Bronze-Age
Europe. J. European Archaeol. 3:105-44
Turner BS. 1984. The Body and Society. Oxford: Basil Blackwell Turner T. 1980. The social skin. InNot Work Alone, ed. J Cherfas, R Lewin, pp. 112-245. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Walde D, Willows ND, eds. 1991. The Archaeology of Gender: Proceedings of the Twenty-Second Annual Conference of the Archaeological Association of theUniversity ofCalgary. Calgary: Univ.
Calgary Archaeol. Assoc.
www.annualreviews.org
Archaeology of theBody
157
Weiner
AB. Calif.
1992. Press 1989.
Inalienable
Possessions:
The Paradox
of Keeping-While-Giving.
Berkeley:
Univ.
White
R.
Toward Modern of
a contextual Humans:
Emergence
understanding Biocultural Adaptations
of
the
earliest
body Pleistocene,
ornaments.
In The
in the Later
ed. E Trinkhaus,
pp. 211-31. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press White R. 1992. Beyond art: toward an understanding of the origins of material representation
in Europe. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 21:537-64
Wilkie L. 2000. Magical passions: sexuality and African-American archaeology. See Schmidt & Voss 2000, pp. 129-42 Winter IJ. 1989. The body of the able ruler: toward an understanding of the statues of Gudea. InDumu-E-Dub-Ba-A: Studies inHonor ofAkeW Sjoberg, ed. H Behrens, D Loding, MT Roth, pp. 573-83. Occas. Publ. No. 11. Philadelphia: Samuel Noah Kramer Fund
Winter IJ. 1996. Sex, rhetoric and the public monument: the alluring body of Naram-Sin of
Agade. See Kampen 1996, pp. 11-26 Wobst HM. 1977. Stylistic behavior and information exchange. In For theDirector: Research Honor of James B. Griffin, ed. C Cleland, pp. 317-42. Ann Arbor: Mus. Anthropol., Essays in
Univ. Mich.
Yates T.
1993. Frameworks for an archaeology of the body. See Tilley
1993, pp. 31-72
i$8
Joyce