Archaeology of the Body

January 8, 2017 | Author: ledzep329 | Category: N/A
Share Embed Donate


Short Description

Download Archaeology of the Body...

Description

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

of the Body

Archaeology Rosemary A. Joyce Department 94720-3710;

Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2005. 34:139-58

Under

the

0139$20.00

representation,

identity,

personhood

influence

of

phenomenological

a semiotic

approaches,

perspective on the body is being replaced in archaeology by analysis of the production and experience of lived bodies in the past through the 729

and

tions,

consumption assumption

traces

of

juxtaposition

reproduced 0084-6570/05/1021

Berkeley, California

Abstract

anthro.annualreviews.org

2005 by Copyright Annual Reviews. All rights reserved

costume,

embodiment,

The Annual Review of Anthropology is online at

3.070203.143

of California,

Key Words

First published online as a Review inAdvance on June 14, 2005

doi: 10.1146/ annurev.anthro.3

of Anthropology, University email: [email protected]

of

evidence practices that

social

of body

the

effects

on

the corporal

understandings with

associations

through

idealized

practices,

of habitual body.

gestures, On

the basis

of the body material

representa postures,

were

culture,

and

of a shared created

and

archaeology

of the body has proceeded from two theoretical positions: the body as the

scene

of display

and

the body

as artifact.

Today,

the body

as a

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.

142 144

the the

145

"Public" is to "Private"?.

species"

diet,

PERSONHOOD

..

THEORIZINGTHE BODY IN ARCHAEOLOGY.

archaeological

150

as

for

metaphor

lived

inscription in contemporary tral place

critical

of human to

offers

chaeology

a cen

theory. Ar late to this topic, to contributions

about the body. With

in the materiality

embodiment.

a

body

a that emphasizes repe icality. As discipline over as the basis tition time for recognizing

outlines

and

that different

ways

historically At

ogists

are

between human those

First,

they

the

of

interpretations

propose.

and

outside

in the

it, inherent

move from apparently solid physical facts to social

and

Explicit bodiment

H

J yce

cultural

understandings. discussion

archaeological is relatively

recent,

despite

to propose

inter

social

and

other

of

aspects

rou whose

remains, and

aged,

of

signs

excavations

raced

the archaeological

the

1990s,

and

years,

the

five

past

bodies

literature

have of

accelerating of ar

topics

concerned

publications diversified.

At on

publication

the

em

with same

time,

long-established

Three

are

trends

a dramatic

over

evident

time.

in the frequency

rise

nals, 1990

an average

from to

of one

six per

almost

is evident (Table

per after

year

ar

of

sual

to the development in archaeology critiques

the redressing human agency as

gender,

previous

closely

and

to

before

that

date,

of postproces that

lack

aspects tied

year

increase may be

1). This

attributed

Archaeologi

cal inquiry into the body thus foregrounds the challenges for wider scholarship, both within anthropology

drew

chaeological articles explicitly concerned with the body in a sample of anthropological jour

produced, reproduced, same time, archaeol

and

pace

sified.

aware of the gap that exists intensely the materiality of the traces of past

experience traces that

in objects on repre

of other

beauty;

as sexed,

cer

topics in archaeology of the body has inten

archaeology forms of embodi

the

transformed.

chaeological bodiment the

practices,

intelligible

were

ment

uses

Classic

and discussed

Archaeological to light human

in

the

during

unique perspective anchored in bodily phys

culturally

new.

identified

of the body through the 1980s. Starting

ar

and

are femininity, senses of the ar

regularly ornaments

gender;

in fact dominated

its grounding experience, on the

scholarship

tinely brought identification

of

physical

representations

of these

idealized

and

status,

age,

social

coming

although to make

begun

writing

as in society, as and surface

experience, to occupy has come

of

chaeology,

of

pretations

de

ideas of maleness

body practices. Archaeologists sentations of human beings

CONTENTS body strument of

other,

and

body or actual

the potential

and

is particularly

as

tain objects

The

the

body works

hand, that

as a record

span,

masculinity

chaeological

one

the

"seen

"cultural

out." Neither

played

150

on

components

life

on

and which

a re

Introducing

body:

health,

femaleness,

OF ARCHAEOLOGIES EMBODIED

the human

through

149

body.

skeletal

activities,"

As

the

archaeological or

ancient

147 to "Interior"

of

"physical

fine

Body. Is "Surface"

imply

cent edited volume, Rautman & Talalay (2000, senses of p. 2) identify two well-established

PERFORMINGTHE BODY... ARCHAEOLOGICAL the Archaeological Experiencing

they

body practices, body ideals, and differential experiences

ORNAMENTED BODIES. the Body's Surface. Inscribing

inter

long offered recover that

140

FROMBODYORNAMENTSTO

has

have

archaeologists of material

pretations

of of

emphasized to

attention identity,

archaeological

such re

search on the body (Brumfiel 1992).However, of

em

the fact

simultaneously,

cerned with

the frequency

of articles

the body, considered from

con

the

1

TABLE

articles

Journal

from

to 2004

1965

Main

on

of the body1

archaeology

thematic

emphasis

Physical dress

Ornament,

anthropology

Representation

Body

Total N

practices

16

Explicit

theory

25

12

25

15

13

38

16

64

30

114

24

" 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. 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.

Although

of bioarchaeology, has these contributions

perspective creased, obvious and

in sharply are in no

and way

Both

postprocessual.

interpretive

archaeologists

a

positivist

have

the

found

and experience those ma perception through terial traces that survive over time, contributes

during What cent

15 years.

ismost

distinctive

archaeological is the degree

body

being grounded

literature to which

theory,

and

interpretations

and

anthropology that explicitly theorize ment with embodiment

ter 1990 (Table

concerning

outside

become

of

are

tume. Following Grosz

femi

1). Phenomenology, the work

of Foucault

af

have

all

been influential in archaeology of the body (Fisher & Loren 2003, Golden & Toohey 2003, Hamilakis et al. 2002, Meskell & Joyce 2003,

Montserrat

creasingly,

1998,

Rautman

as is the case with

other

In

2000). anthropo

on embodiment, logical work archaeologists are to it the assump necessary finding clarify tions in make from they moving theorizing perception rience.

to

attempting

Archaeology,

which

to understand approaches

expe both

with

identity

the

the symbolic communication ornaments and cos body

as

of

flesh,

and

a

cohesiveness

and

social

(1995, p. 104), I view

a "concrete,

organization tal structure

and

ar

through

body

unity

the contemporary to earlier archaeologi

the body

the

engage common

of

chaeology cal concern

it. Articles

archaeological

connects

review

This

re

the most

in social theory, both from

within

nist

about

of

anthropologies

embodiment.

body to be an increasingly compelling subject the past

to

dimension

unique

are

which through

of

skele

nerves,

organs,

substances,

inscription

animate

material,

given

psychical

the body's surface." in the surface of the

interest

Archaeological was to the rise of archae linked body closely sex and seen as inscribed of ologies gender, in dress, and ornamentation, body modifi

cation (Marcus 1993, 1996; Sorensen 2000). of

The

demonstration

sexed/gendered

taneously

that are

bodies

constructions

of

status ity, race, and social tention of archaeologists

of practices

age, has to

1991,

constructions always

simul

class,

ethnic

shifted a wider

the

at

gamut

shaping embodied personhood

www.annualreviews.org

Archaeology of the Body

141

(Joyce 2004, Meskell 2001). Some archaeo logical analyses reflexively relate bodily prac to

tices

representational

practices

ration

of selected

archaeological

of embodiment

experiences

(Clark 2003, Hill

that

argue

represen

tational practices literally expanded the site of the embodied person, incorporating rep resentations, the

even

person,

when

of costume

items

and

spaces,

were

items

these

in re

moved from direct bodily contact (Gillespie 2001, 2002; Houston & Stuart 1998; Looper Contemporary

at the

"surface"

meanings

This

of

assump

contemporary

For

Lee

example,

of masculine

representations

as a

verbal

communication"

of non

means

primary

"constant,

emitting that would

social messages

complex

have

been

intended by the wearer and understandable by the viewer" (p. 114). From

this perspective as marking

understood

are

ornaments

body

aspects

already-given

an

between

boundary

public,

inscriptional

cover

surface

body

ing an uninterpreted physical interior because the biological person is both themedium and an to invoke Today, is to place of the body's surface the body, the per automatically

of

social

archaeology in question

relations

action.

embodied

between

persons

in society.

for

the

of

communication

given

that spe assumption to different cat cific costumes corresponded a meant of in the that persons past egories social

identities.

The

social

status

person's

Kuttruff

and

part

functions

niques, of theways inwhich habitual practices and dispositions literally shape flesh and bones (Boyd 1996) further questions the isolation

son,

to be

"dress

nection

product

identity.

archaeology.

of Minoan

interiorized person and exteriorized society is problematic (Looper 2003a). Archaeologi cal exploration, using bioarchaeological tech

a

assumed

and feminine bodies on the assumption that

as media

considera

archaeological

tion of the complex relationships between body practices and practices of representation shows that the concept of an easily defined

of

in

research

those

with

of social status of the individual person, or

2003a,b).

body

continues

sion

1998). Some

2000, Joyce

analyses

concerned

(2000, pp. 114-15) explicitly bases her discus

as commemo

and

for embodiment

of

Many

origin.

tion

through

which images were produced that served both as models

of were

"read

off"

the

body.

between

and There

could

history is a

strong

of

costume

discussions

be con and

identity and the archaeology of economically and socially stratified societies (Anawalt 1981, a result,

As

1993).

significant discussions of

marking

the

body

some

of

the most

in archaeology of the surface

in

originated

studies of political economy, tracing links be tween

the

relations of costume

fectiveness

of production in marking

and

ef

the

differential

status.

(1991) reviewed the history of

Peregrine archaeological of costume

arguments ornaments

for the significance as indications of spe

cific social statuses in societies with "prestige economies." goods were naments

FROM BODY ORNAMENTS TO ORNAMENTED BODIES Costume,

body

and

ornaments,

emonies

tions of costume in artworks have long been used by archaeologists as evidence of distinct statuses

on

of an implicit

the basis

transnlission,,

view

of the

symbolic

functions of artifacts (Wobst 1977), archae ologists atively

142

Joyce

assumed clear

that

meanings

objects within

conveyed their

employed

shared

interpretation interested

between

social

by

in pursuing reproduction

or

in cer

Peregrine other the and

ar con the

of embodied

understand

ing of the surface of the body as public. As Robb (1998, p. 332) notes, under the "in formation

chaeologists nection

commonly

of social reproduction,

an

stated

representa

costume

that

Noting

rel

cultures

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

ple

for

"aggrandizers,"

in a society who

the minority

of peo

seek to distinguish

themselves nomic shell

A

for

recent

eco

of Hohokam

thus

"material

own

their

analysis

ornaments

body were

these

others

from

benefit.

that

concludes

mem

of group

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

and

replicate,

ex

several

plicitly cite, the logic of Earle's (1987) ground breaking work on specialization and wealth in Hawaiian

and

Inka

con

which

societies,

sidered the links between precious materials incorporated in distinctive costume items like Hawaiian

feather

cloaks

statuses

and the social

and roles signified by such costume. Earle ar that Hawaiian

gued

were

cloaks

in fact mate

costume,

costumes

that different

These

vi

recent

search. More as

lationships

the use

tive

can

been

struction

and representation

of meaning"

(see

1989).White (1992), likeWobst (1977), argued that highly visible marks in in costume

corporated

within

terpretable

a

would community.

in be widely In his view, more

ornaments, "personal perhaps other aspect of the archaeological a for archaeologists of access point

than

any are

record, into

the

to

for

required

symbols or ornaments

of eth distinc

as desirable

be understood

media of identity when self-consciousness is assumed because they could be displayed or

are

alsoWhite

serves

as

culture

Personal

identity. costume

of body

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

in the use

assumed

that costume

of consciousness

of material

perspective,

model

can be

the way

the degree

about

sion

transmission

re

these

construction

perpetuate embodied identities. Stone (2003) notes that archaeologists today are divided

of costume and identity based

information

considers

of active

products

and

complex

the

work

that

intentionality of costume

ilar

on

about

assumptions

of identity, not simply as signaling of inde pendently existing identities (Fisher & Loren 2003). Attention is focused on the degree of

not

society.

Hawaiian

by wearing

long-established

sually distinguished different rankswithin this Discussions

made

the relation of body ornament and identity continue to be influential in archaeological re

nic

rial signs of status. Commenting on Inka use of cloth and of metal and shell ornaments in he argued

were suggested feather cloaks.

as

situations

warranted.

a

Taking

intergenerational ornaments in Mesoamerica as

interpreted

a means

of

sim

transmis has

recreating

embodied personhood within a line of re lated persons (Joyce 1998, 2003a; Meskell & Joyce 2003). Exemplifying such recent work, (2002) argues that differences in dress represented inmedieval burials index a

Bazelmans

complex

of religious

interplay

intentions

and

understandings.

as a "cultural

body

project,"

and class-based the Treating Bazelmans (2002,

p. 73) attends closely to the use in burial ritu als of "items the

body"

which

simply but "identity,"

herent

enactment

the

feed,

not

of

and dress

intoxicate, as reflections as

of

informative

a co about

in mortuary

embodiment

of the past" (White 1992, p. 539). Following Weiner (1992),White (1992, p. 541) drew attention to the potential for or

The assumption that the visibility of items of dress contributes to the public legibility

naments

of

social world

made

of durable

materials

to

persist

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

ments, like the claims of power and veiled threats of military might that Earle (1987)

contexts.

part

a

personal of

history

contemporary

remains

a

productive

archaeological

analy

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

which embodied

social

strategy

through

identities were shaped, not

simply signaled. www.annualreviews.org

Archaeology of theBody

143

Surface

the Body's

Inscribing

Citing Turner's (1980) concept of "the so cial skin,"White (1992) identified archaeo as

ornaments

body

logical

and

demarcating

inscribing the body's surface as the point of exterior

interior a

between

society,

Turner's

was

work

self

physical

transformed

its symbolically tion.

an

between

articulation

and

body

social

an

and

presenta on many

influential

the way

explore

sites

archaeological an understanding

artifacts

that

be used

could of

the

social

of

embodiment in past human societies (Fisher & Loren 2003, Joyce 1998, Loren 2001). Work on the social inscription of the body's surface

eventually

to

led

cri

archaeological

tiques of an easy assumption of a distinction between

skin of

collapse

"the

in place

tation

lies

and what body" of concern

into

of

"beneath," surface

the

represen

the

early

of

dominance

studies

of

ar

the

as an inscribed surface was body on visual in the dependence images, literally as a proxy for living bodies scribed surfaces,

chaeological

(Joyce 1996, Shanks 1995). As analyses pro gressed, researchers identified difficulties with that equated the original model identities with categorical surface. ings of the body's

and

stable sets

gular

sin

of mark

body

product

of

acts.

costuming

In her

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

was

dressing,

unset

tled by the framing of the argument as about the "construction"

An

of gender.

assumed

sta

bility of bodily identity, broadly endorsed in at the time,

archaeology cussions across

of lines

cross-dressing of gender-specific

also or

supported

dis

impersonation costuming

that

produced a contradictory implication of a dis

144 J yce

essential

preexisting,

iden

tity, work published and presented at confer ences during this period quickly raised key issues

that

interested

archaeologists

required

Yates (1993) used a detailed study of an thropomorphic images in Scandinavian rock art as a

an

for

platform

to the

attempt

early

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

Yates

marks.

such

under

scored that this view of sexual identity as based on

or

having

contemporary

how be

might

a

lacking western

was

phallus

other

European

to under

understandings in schematic

of

gender anthro

represented

of the

the ontology

reconsider

His

resentation.

resolution

in

rooted

understand

pomorphic figures, he found it necessary subject

of

the

to

of rep

challenge

he faced was to view the body as "a plain over which the grid is laid in order to mark certain

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 which

Sorensen (1991) exemplifies the initial ap proach to archaeological understanding of the as a

of a stable,

naling

stand

of embodiment (compare Csordas 1994, pp. 9-12; Grosz 1994, pp. 115-121). One reason for

in

and

ings of sexed subjectivity.Wanting

the experience

with

surface

body

frameworks.

in preserved to construct processes

the

teriority (Arnold 1991, Stone 1991). Thus, although framed initially in terms of the sig

in embodied identity to rethink their analytic

archaeologists who began in the early 1990s to

between

junction

gans onto

points

of

are written signs and their associated this plain

by

or by culture_The are meanings applied

a process

of cultural

inscrip

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

to be marked with signs of

meaning. In contrast a uniform,

with

that

approaches

transhistorical

and ornament, ings, recent archaeological

dress work

assumed

of body

role as

signal, to seeks

mark more situate

body practices and representational practices historically in relation to the production of

different

a

body,

not

person.

but Tattooing,

to be un

needs a

on history that does images" of

in

"wrapping

just mark

the

Rainbird

experiences.

that tattooing argues as the inscription

(2002) derstood the

embodied

forms

actually an

the

of

skin

irreversible

1999) and indirectly (Green 1979, Rainbird 2002, Thompson 1946), raises interesting about

tation

the on

of marks

surface.

the body's tattoos

body

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. of

consideration

explicit

require

ing

the

sig

nificance to bodily identity of the interplay of and

permanence

1994,

(Grosz

impermanence

pp. 138-44). The fluidity of embodiment has been

in recent

addressed

cussions

of

rience

bodily

that

performance the substantive

consider

that archaeologically as habitual

such

would

ment,

and

had

of dress on

the

orna

and

of

experience

embodiment.

Boyd marized

(2002, p. 142) has critically sum of much

implications

on

research

archaeological

body

ornamenta

a of formulation representational Decorative elements symbolically ideas,

particular

to convey

in order

ings. However,

the body

ject,

meaning

only

given

decoration."

As

he notes,

the

subjective

particular

ings, which are materially

ied

those itself

ideas

body.

be viewed

as "a practice

as the

of

signals embod

certain

men

as warriors,

effects

to the penetrated as it is increas the

embod

ied life of deceased persons, but only through an

of

understanding

between

reflexive

relations and

perceptions,

persons.

among

perience

the

practices,

body

ex ar

Contemporary

chaeologists move beyond the textualization of the body's surface and call attention to the on

of dress

styles

of the use

effects

discernable

or

of ornaments of the person

the experience

whose body is literally shaped by amanner of dress.

PERFORMING THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL BODY interested in linking material

Archaeologists ied

to embod representations, on Butler's built analy

including

have

experience

of

the

are

body

so

given

cial meaning through repetitive performance (Perry& Joyce 2001). Contrasting fundamen tallywith the beginning point of the informa signaling

model

of dress,

draw

analyses

ing on Butler's work begin from the position is no

atemporal,

identity..

.outside

"there

person's

fixed the

'core'

acts

and

to a ges

tures that constitute it" (Alberti 2001, p. 190).

of

From

burials relating

to perceptions of the body.. .bodily action by the living on the bodies of the dead" (Boyd 2002, p. 142).

were stature

of

inscription here ignores the already-existing history of the embodied person. Acknowledg ing this prior history, he suggests that the ar in the Levant

as traces

analysis, tell us about

Archaeological can evident,

that

an ob

the use through the limited view

raying of the dead body inNatufian

whose

experience

tion

on the

and mean

remains

of

experience

sense

less

make

than

gender

characteristics

represent mean

inscribed'

"weapons England with the tallest

ses (1990, 1993) of the ways that the physical

traditional

is seen as part of

tion: "[B]ody decoration

body

of male

media,

the

of me

expe impact

invisible body practices,

patterns

have

dis

archaeological

here

that weapons

ingly

Literally

and related

the skin,

demarcating

in men

with

associated

in a sample

that

cemeteries

dieval

bone.

interpre

archaeological

noted

47-50)

pp.

and strongest physique" (p. 49). She suggested

mod

ification of the skin identified archaeologi cally both directly (Alvrus et al. 2001, Barber

questions

In a similarly critical study of standard practices in burial analysis, Gilchrist (1997,

body bodied

this perspective representations can be seen as records of stereotyped that performances terms citational

in Butler's

served

of

as models,

precedents,

the em or

for the

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

between

reflexivity

and

representations

the

use in body practices of objects like those represented floyce 1993,1998,2001b). An ex tended

of

analysis

human

stereotyped

repre

in small, hand-modeled figurines the of Honduran Playa de losMuertos cul sentations

ture

in

culminated

the

that

proposal

these

highly detailed, individualized images would have served as intimate sources of bodily for

precedents

the young

women

are the

who

majority of identified subjects (Joyce 2002 a, 2003 b). By relating ornaments depicted at particular bodily sites (the hair, ears, neck, and

wrists,

to durable

ankles)

recov

objects

or

with

dancing

the

ages,

tures with older individuals. Nor chaeological serve the

remains diversity

of

include treatment

pos

did the ar to ob

any way

of hair within

each age-related group of figures. By tacking back

forth

and

between

the

representations

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

Bas

representations.

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

bility of the figurai representations, and the differential durability of some body practices, would

have

long-term embodiment,

made

these more

reproduction even over

of

in the

effective

juxtapose now

tion,

Joyce

un

she

architecture,

bodily

these

seals present as conventional

that

suggests

actions

bodied

em

specific

per

gender

formances seen in details of differential body as much each

as

ac specific to carry presumed in

was

gender

the

out (German 2000, pp. 104-5). Palka (2002) builds on a scrupulously detailed analysis of of human

representations

to ar

figures

gue for both experiential and symbolic di mensions of handedness among the Classic on Emphasis to more critical dress

contributes

performativity

been

have

that previously

items

of

examination

of sim

viewed

ply as reflections of categories of people. Thus Danielsson (2002) denaturalizes the singling out

of

the

use

in Scandinavian

the head of helmets

and

head

traditions

of re

ornaments,

lating the use of these items to the isolation of the face as a figurai motif in art. Arguing that

the use

and

the

and

of helmets

of

representation

to be understood

head

in terms

of

cultural practice, Danielsson that

suggests disembodied mances

enable

transformative life course.

need as a

(2002, p. 181)

"masks

the

faces

"masking"

states,"

during

ornaments

isolated

of

embodiment

Work

perfor on Cen

societies also identified a rela between emphasis on the head as the tionship site of identity in representational images and actual

of dress

practices

and

ornamentation,

similarly

oretical work of Butler (1990, 1993), these studies argued that specific body practices

and representa

performance bodily seen not as documentary simply

as disciplinary or normative. German

and are selective in their

including masking, through which the head was shaped and inflected in life (Joyce 1998). Explicitly grounding the analysis in the the

generations

(Joyce 2000a, 2001c, 2003a). Other archaeological analyses

cor

the

of

forms

specific

multiple

about

tral American

dura

greater

us

the

late Bronze

Maya.

standing

seated

women,

young

the

derlines the homogeneity of classes of bodies in representation. Citing Butler (1990), she

positioning

pos

stereotyped

of

presentation

visual

different

from

inform

istic in proportion,

of persons of different ages.What could not be discerned from the durable traces in ar with

could

of

representations

seals

poral bodies of human subjects. Noting that despite the inclusion of highly specific details, the bodies depicted are ultimately not real

tivities

sites were

how

on

form

Aegean

ered archaeologically, including from burials, it was possible to argue that specific figurai images were likely idealized representations

chaeological tures associated

146

Age

asks

102-4)

pp. human

but

(2000,

were

part

of

a

repertoire

of

charged

perfor

mances thatmarked transitions during the life

course in prehispanic Central America (Joyce 2000a). Beginning with concern with the body as a

of

site

object, tions

archaeologists of

working

costume,

phenomenological ence of the persons

and

to engage

whose

experi

were

bodies

on human

body more

with

to the

approaches

liter

ally shaped by these practices (Joyce 2003a, Meskell & Joyce 2003). Under the influence to

of approaches the

importance

social

scholars begun

of of so

negotiation

interested on other

to draw

emphasize

dimensions

and the active

identity

cial positions, ment have

that

archaeology

of cross-cutting

in past

tive

derived

societies

representations.

skeletal to raise

begun

remains,

of normative

begun

to include

varied

embod

away from discus

have bodies, archaeologists ex consideration of sensory

once considered periences tect archaeologically.

Classic

to de

impossible

sometimes here

as part

experience

of

any archaeology of embodiment. Building on she argued

experiences,

that

the

senses

rectly cant aspects

of human

experiences

that motivated

particular

tral

miss

signifi

in the past,

experience people

to

act

in

on

Mexican

on

research has

European concepts

taken texts in

sensory

expe

iment

more

becomes

sources

are

research

has

and criti

been

of specific

experiential

regimes

once

difficult

as

available, Classic

and many

univer

of

for

the

Maya, societies

the

clas

ancient studied

archaeologists, approaches have been productive, although

to such not

without points of disagreement (Houston & Taube 2000, Meskell 2000a, Meskell & Joyce 2003). texts

whether

media,

Representational

or

images, bring with them an additional set of interpretive challenges. They must be viewed not simply as reflections of existing concepts embodiment,

but

as

were

recording

Cen

sive

archaeological

sixteenth

tions

where

naturalized.

sources

extensive

are available,

textual provides

experiences

that

www.annualreviews.org

less even

materials,

to tack from acknowledged bodily

such concepts of

Analysis

the mate

of

part

rial apparatus through which

forms.

(1988), Ortiz de century, L pez Austin rst (1995) detailed F Montellano and (1989), models of indigenous physiology and embod

assuming

universals,

and

have

experience

sality is questioned because the archaeologist cannot begin by assuming the position of a iconographie or lit typical person. Where

varied

the

in

(Meskell & Joyce 2003). Constructing cred ible models of past experiences of embod

of

ways.

Archaeological rience since then Drawing

would

interpre

the historicity

sensory,

perceptual,

archaeological interpretations that did not di address

on

archaeological

models

ethnographic

embodied

cal in reinforcing

Kus (1992) issued an early call for the neces

her

of relied

Body sensory

to propose

sical Mediterranean,

the Archaeological

including

Ceren,

society.

Maya

Egyptians, by historic

sity of

of ancient

everyday interaction than is ordinarily possi ble in archaeology. Dornan (2004) draws on

erary

Experiencing

sector

El Salvador, a site whose burial by volcanic eruption allows a finer-grained modeling of

Models

have

archaeologists

ied experiences. Moving sions

in one

at work

been

norma of

of

codes

tations of individual religious experience

examination

about

questions

to propose

representation

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

neuro-phenomenology

traces of body modification that would have affected the exteriority of the body, evident in human

(2001) drew

in embodi

from

Through

the Clas

among

perception

lines of evi

dence to flesh out flat and Stereotypie views of bodies

for sensory

dence

sicMaya nobility, and Houston

represented on the rela

ornament,

body been led

have

practices

a

and

representation

& Taube (2000) presented an overview of epigraphic and iconographie evi iment. Houston

or

discur in situa

iconographie a valuable way

bodily ideals to

sometimes

were

in

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

ganization

considering and

castles

the

or

spatial

plore the "feeling body" experiencing ritual, into

entering

research,

ethnographic

shamanic

experiences trance

to

ture

assumes

study sumed

by

ritual

their

the

pos

argument they as

figurines

actual

represent

iconically

on

controlled

states, that

conscious

particularly

using

induce

essentially

of

in comparison

grounded

Explicitly

with

states

altered

postures

at

participants

sanctu

the

ary sites (compare T te 1996). Tarlow (2002, p. 87) explores how the physicality of the body in nineteenth

century

was

England

experi

enced by those who survived the deceased per son,

simultaneously

the

illuminating

sensory

lives

loved

of

survivors

and

their

working

archaeologists

sources,

ing documentary

be

may

approaches even begin

to

one

explore

of publications

the

juxtaposing

Britain and Europe,

disarticulated

human

which

of formal

analyses human

contexts

were

in which deposited,

constructed

spaces

in

sometimes de parts were a number of archae images,

body

in visual

picted

remains

to

In a series

excavated

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,

vigorously that was

148

Joyce

for partible

these an

researchers

experience and

collective.

have of

argued

embodiment Thus,

articu

sinew,

partly as stacks

whole

of ribs. the body

is the social whole,

as well

that

.one

merged.. can die

ety or one

conveyed

can

as the

in sites

of

part can

the message

artwork, the use

through

be

alone_One

of actual

soci

imagine was re

human

mains" (Thomas & Tilley 1993, pp. 269-70). In a particularly striking study of material from Neolithic

Scotland, MacGregor

the visual

challenges

bias

(1999) archaeo

of much

logical analysis and demonstrates how objects that in no way can be directly linked to bod ies (either as body parts or representations) may

a basis

provide

to

em

conceptualize

bodiment. He considers in detail the sensory experience of decorated stone balls, which oc of

cupants

sites may

these

have

as an

enjoyed,

alternative to functionalist explanations of the production and use of these objects, explicitly these

to

experiences

bodily

cre

the

ation and re-creation of social identities. He that most

argues

visual

ileges

priv analysis the use of other

archaeological over

experience

the tactile

is examining

MacGregor

ways

only

embodiment.

in Neolithic with

have

egos

he

lack

phenomenological of

and

rearranged

figure...

emphasizes in areas

of bone

senses (compare Hamilakis

now-deceased

one.

For

new

The

relating

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

to a

of the social collectivity, intowhich individual

for understand

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

ness.

mass

chaotic lated,

of

experiences

as the bases

in them

persons

the

in Brittany "the physical body... has gone from a living whole of flesh and bone, to a

2002). Instead, he

qualities

of the artifacts

(compare Ouzman

advocates

2001). em

that archaeologists

ploy "haptic analysis" in addition to themore common

visual

of material

analyses

to

culture

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

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

modifications throughout the life course (Boyd 1996, Cohen & Bennett 1993, Cox & Sealy 1997). Differential access to dietary

resources

can

information

provide

about

status identities reflected in living bodies as in

differences construction

stature

of

and

repetitive

Re

size.

body

constitutes

activity

sometimes

to

specific

or other

gender

iden

tities. Far more

than skin deep, the biologi cal experiences of people in the past, similar to

their

hood,

of

experiences

and person identity to separate surface and

any attempt

defy

interior.

preserved.

Grosz

p. 91)

argues

a

surface

materialist

(2000, consider

a

to construct

coalesce

psychi

studies

of human

remains

skeletal

chal

lenge the dichotomy of surface and interior in precisely theway predicated by social analyses such as those by Grosz (1994, 1995). Bioar trace

chaeologists

the

in the more

evidence

durable parts of the human body of habitual patterns

of movement

and

action

and

of dif

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

"appliances"

of people

(sexes,

for

example). Today, are open to more as evidence

the

races, same

idiographic

of diverse

or

age

obser inter

experiences

of embodied persons (Robb 2002). Particu larly interesting from such an osteobiograph ical perspective are studies of the dramatic manipulation skeletal

remains

In many

times

of the living body, reflected in as well and places,

reexaminations

teeth with that

practices

specific

so also and public appearance, of costume and represen

Rissman

surface.

public

as in artistic human

to human

hoards

civilization,

cal interior" through "the inclusion of the di mensions of time and space." Peterson (2000) exemplifies the work of bioarchaeologists whose

filing,

(1988),

in a contex

tual analysis comparing the contents of buried

ation of the body, one which would examine how the processes of social inscription on the exterior

are

inset

tation challenge the equation of the body with

As

(1995), Gilchrist

for "amore

teeth,

are

life

during

and supplementing

ied experience

Following

of

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 do

Is "Surface" to "Interior" "Public" is to "Private"?

of practices

Extraction

ting materials, dental

evidence of habitual adoption of postures,

traces

site where

canons.

populations

have shaped the stillmalleable head of infants and young children (Boyd 2002, pp. 145^46; is another bodily Joyce 2001a,c). Dentition

interments

in the Harappan ornaments

costume

that

argued

worn by the dead, traditionally viewed by ar as evidence

chaeologists

of

uncontestable

private,

the

internalized,

"identity"

of

the

per

son, were viewed by a wider public during status

as part

rituals

mortuary

of dead

of contestation

and

persons

of

the

to which

the groups

they belonged. Sweely (1998), citing Joyce (1996), suggests that experiences of the in habitants

of

ancient

in more

Ceren

and

less

intimate spatial settings served to naturalize their

sense

of

own

their

and

position

rela

tions to others as they grew from childhood to adulthood. Gilchrist (2000, p. 91) proposed to the

examine

"interior,

as it was

sexuality,

experiential

expressed

of

qualities

through

the ma

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 it are

"around"

shown

to be

inextricably

re

lated (Potter 2004). The products of such new approaches in archaeology

are no

longer

categorical

expres

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

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

in then-current

almost

plicit

female

archaeological

of

a theme addressed most directly by Knapp (1998). Scott (1997, p. 8) noted the irony that of the common

critiques

use of

archaeological

amasculine

subject position had done little to theorize explicitly masculinity itself, instead on

focusing

feminine

delineating

experience.

Although she suggested that "preoccupation with the body as a defining force is a peculiarly late modern

social

from

argued

ancient

Roman

and Greek

past was

in the

that masculinity

and

(p. 8),

development"

"not

data

.nor

nor

prowess,

bodily

of

archaeological

dress"

analyses

(p. have

who

archaeologists

among

and

have,

female.

to

Europe

male Relating

of

cultivation

of

a

objects

in Bronze Age

the

and

body

par

(1995) pro

warrior that an exemplary posed was a circumstances of ity product

masculin of

this

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 with

gression,

act

calf muscles

prominent

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

on musculature

through

in portraits

visual

ISO

Joyce

of

another

consumption

ruler was of viewers

sexualized as a

for

of

of cohorts

performances as

and

analysis

precedents

of an idealized

inscriptions

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

can best

a form

of personhood

based

on

which

human

as evidence

be understood

careful

individuality.

His

examination

of

skeletal

elements

of

contem

from

distinct

argument, contexts

in

artifacts

and

were split and rearranged, is that inNeolithic the

embodied

person

not

may

have

been bounded by the skin, but extended sub stantively by objects of various kinds (Thomas 2002, p. 41). "Both artefacts and bodies were circulation.

Both

formed of

general

economy

volved

other

materials.

bodies

could

be broken

artefacts

at least were

ent substances

in a more

elements

Both

into

parts,

and

differ

by putting 2002,

(Thomas

together"

and

artefacts

down made

in

which

substances'

p. 42;

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.

THEORIZING THE BODY IN ARCHAEOLOGY

the

A central assumption, often left inexplicit in archaeological social

production

men

as

simultaneously

the embodied

young

an

offer

alike

of

the seated ruler. She further proposed that the body

are

bodies

vigorous

governed by the principles of partibility and

as between

subjects a suite

in warfare, Treherne

ticipation

ways,

as often

strength

in burials of males

placed

is among the

in different

the production of masculinities

as differential

expressed difference

shaped.

(1997, pp. 47-50)

underscored

male

were

masculinities

Gilchrist

for

images

Britain

productively traced discourses through which embodied

these

porary Western

in fact

measured by levels of direct sexual activity or paternity.. 9), a number

active,

and women

older males

body, urged to masculinity,

attention

men's

young

presented as objects for the admiring gaze of

writing ex

archaeological the

always

which

that "the body" dis

(1996), noting

cussed was

of a kind of hyperbolic masculinity (Winter 1996). Analyses of Classic Maya images in

and

on

work

understandings perpetuated

embodiment,

were in

respect

"created, to

is that ordered,

associations

with material out

culture" (Lesick 1997, p. 38).

associations

These

childhood,

experience to the

shape contributing

child

transforms

actively

imports,

into

them

she

assumes other

that

albeit

the

societies, nonethe

culture

which

of

analysis to structure

workfs]

cul such

sharing

for

"material ex

cultural

perience" (Lesick 1997, p. 38). Archaeolog ical explorations of embodiment, distinct as in other

be

they may derstanding

of

archaeology

delineates

and

consequently,

ence,

of connection

respects,

environment

the material

with

an un

share

that

as

past shaping as potentially

such

past

experi a point

experiences.

Meskell

(2000b) has argued that archaeo logical writing on the body needs to be more theorized.

rigorously

She

describes

archae

ology of the body as proceeding from two theoretical positions. In the first position she the body as "the scene she traces to reliance

identifies perspective

of Foucault (see alsoMeskell sees

this

with

representation" she

sociates

with

theory.

She

cerned

with

"the

1998b).Meskell concerned

primarily

15). The

(p.

calls

a of display," on the work

costume,

gesture,

"posture,

which

as

line of work

body

and

sexuality, second

as artifact,"

project, she as

structuration Giddens' Anthony sees "the as artifact" as con body as "normative "sets of bodies"

powerful

forces,"

bodies

passive

as

spatially

experiencing

"de

(p.

16).

the phenomenon She was

strongly

of criti

cal of both archaeological approaches, seeing them,

as

cern with

practiced the body

to that date,

as

as a site of lived

lacking

con

experience.

social that,

and body as is generally

embodied

Boyd

agency," in archae

the case

as an index

mortuary

studies,

zation,

or as a focus

ments

characterize

of

of social His

symbolism.

much

organi com ar

contemporary

chaeological practice. To move forward, Boyd (2002, p. 138) proposes a shift to examine "food

together

treatment

consumption,

of

the dead body, treatment of the living body and body

Hamilakis

representation."

and

col

leagues (2002, p. 13) propose that such dis tinct

of

strands

on

research

archaeological

the body may begin to be integrated in an on what

emphasis

emerging

they

call

ex

"the

periencing body," "in which

critically-aware

and phenomenological to enrich be used existing

archaeologies traditions such

sensory may as

physical

mortuary

archaeology."

attention

include

They

such developments to the incorporation

appraisal

studies,

gender

anthropology,

as

and

in their

archaeological into

the body

of

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 as

experience

scribed in relationship to [the] landscape or monuments"

1996.

ology, the body ismainly approached as "an an objectified entity in physical/biological thropological studies" or, as the dead body of

of

representatives of larger social entities fulfill ing their negotiated roles, circumscribed by social

"the

noting

gendered

distinct

processing

call

in

held

to

Archaeologists

understandings

a conference

and

less have passed through similar stages of development, content. tural

on

ments

and

would

constructs,

discus

objects

in other

children

gender

her

transfers,

world inwhich s/he lives."Although her anal ysis is based on studies ofWestern childhood, with

more

become

formulated

(2002, p. 137) criticizes archaeologists work ing on sites in the Levant for a lack of attention

to

meanings

have

arguments since Meskell

sion, which although published in 2000 com

production

of adult social positions (Joyce 2000a). Sofaer Derevenski (1997, pp. 196-97) argues that "the developing ascribes gendered

Related common

through

and

agency

the

of

site

structure,

"the

articulation

causality

and mean

ing, rationality and imagination, physical de terminations

and

symbolic

is a

resonances"

project Meskell

(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

historical

of

biography

individuals,

www.annualreviews.org

something

of

named,

that

is

Archaeology of theBody

i$i

where

possible

data

archaeological

are

suffi

ciently rich and particularistic (Meskell 1998a, 1999, 2000a). Instead her proposal, illus trated

by

sonhood

own

her

drawing

burials,

and

houses,

on

work on

per

Egyptian

a range

of

data

from is

sources,

documentary

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

to embodiment.

restricted are

There

of

points

at

sciences

and

large

between

in

archaeology

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

on which

are

ity, and values

law, moral

social

inscribed,

the

second

refers

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

takes

the body-schema as its Most object(s)."

anatomy

or

imaginary

archaeology,

until recently, has treated the body solely as

chaeologists offer instead a perspective on the body as "the instrument by which all infor and knowledge

Archaeology that

developed from theWestern separated

mind,

the nonmate

and mean

is received

ing is generated" (Grosz 1994, p. 87, com 1962). Csordas menting on Merleau-Ponty that (1994, pp. 10-11) suggests contemporary to

approaches

embodiment an

require

nomenology

rooted

emphasis

in

on "lived

phe ex

perience." He sees this shift from analysis of an objectified "body" to understanding of ac tive

as

"embodiment"

involving

replacement

of semiotic approaches with hermeneutic in terpretive perspectives. Under the influence in the con approaches, of embodiment, the

of phenomenological temporary semiotic

archaeology perspective

of the

information

trans

mission and identity signaling models and the description of inert (often literally dead) bodies are being replaced by analysis of the and

production

inscriptive.

tradition

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

mation

intersection

studies of embodiment and subjectivity in the social

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

in which

surface

of

experience and

interior

lived are no

bodies, longer

separated.

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 Anawalt P. 1981. Indian Clothing Before Cortez:Mesoamerican CostumesFrom theCodices.Norman: Univ.

Press

Okla.

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

Bayman

J.

and

sculpture 2002.

J.

13:238-47

of r mchi. New York: Norton

craft

Hohokam

Archaeol.

Camb.

embodiment.

1999. TheMummies

Barber EW.

economies

and

of power.

the materialization

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

Anthropol.

and

the

entering

ecosystem

class,

gender,

and

steal

faction

the

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

1:207-24 J. Hist. Archaeol. Csordas 1994. Introduction: TJ.

skeletons

found

the body

as

on

the Cape

representation

Town

foreshore,

South

Africa.

Int.

In Embod

and being-in-the-world.

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

in the

interpretation

of past

religious

systems.

Camb.

Archaeol.

J.

14:25

36

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

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:

German

Roudedge Gilchrist R. 1997. Ambivalent bodies: gender andmedieval pp. 88-112

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 SD.

Gillespie

2001.

Personhood,

and mortuary

agency,

& Scott,

archaeology. SeeMoore

a case

ritual:

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 ofDeath, ed.H Silverman, DB Small, pp. 61-IS. Archeol. Pap. No. 11.Arlington, VA:

Am.

Assoc.

Anthropol.

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 islandMelanesia: 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 Y.

Hamilakis

2002. The

as oral history:

past

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 New

Corporeality.

York:

Kluwer

Academic/Plenum

S. 2002. Introduction:

Hamilakis Y, Pluciennik M, Tarlow et al. 2002,

Hamilakis

pp.

Hayden B. 1998. Practical and prestige technologies: Archaeol.Methods Theory 5:1-55 1999.

NK.

Hayles

Informatics.

Hill E. 2000. The Houston among

How

Chicago:

We

Became

Univ.

thinking through the body. See

1-21

Virtual

Posthuman:

Chicago

the evolution of material Bodies

in Cybernetics,

systems. J.

Literature,

and

Press

embodied sacrifice. Camb. Archaeol. J. 10:317-26

SD. 2001. Decorous the classic Maya.

bodies and disordered passions: representations

World

Archaeol.

of emotion

33:206-19

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.

Isaza Aizpurua II,McAnany PA. 1999. Adornment tive K'axob.

Anc. Mesoam.

J.

10:261-94

and identity: shell ornaments from Forma

10:117-27

Joyce RA. 1993. Embodying Personhood in Prehispanic Costa Rica.Wellesley, Cult.

MA: Davis Mus.

Cent.

Joyce RA. 1996. The construction of gender inClassic Maya monuments. In Gender inArchae ology:Essays in Research and Practice, ed. RWright, pp. 167-95. Philadelphia: Univ. Penn. 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. InMayan 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

on Mortuary

ed. M

Analysis,

socialmemory and social identities. InNew Per

Chesson,

12-26.

pp.

Am.

DC:

Washington,

Anthropol.

Assoc. RA.

Joyce

2001b.

Gender

ed. C Klein,

America,

pp.

Joyce RA. 2000a. Girling Mesoamerica. RA.

Joyce

Mesoamerica.

Univ.

Austin:

Tex.

Press

sex and gender inClassic Maya society. In Gender inPre-Hispanic 109-41.

DC:

Washington,

Dumbarton

Oaks

the girl and boying the boy: the production of adulthood in ancient Archaeol.

World

2000b.

in Prehispanic

and Power

Joyce RA. 2001c. Negotiating

31:473-83

A Precolumbian

gaze: male

among

sexuality

the ancient

Maya.

See

Schmidt

& Voss 2000, pp. 263-83 RA.

Joyce

2002a.

Beauty,

sexuality,

body

and

ornamentation

in ancient

gender

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 ofMemory, ed. S Alcock, R van Dyke, pp. 104-2 5.Maiden, MA: Blackwell Joyce RA. 2003b. Making

something of herself: embodiment Camb.

Honduras.

Muertos,

Archaeol.

in life and death at Playa de los

J.\3:248-61

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. London: Roudedge ed. 1996. Sexuality inAncient Art. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press

Kampen N, AB.

Knapp

Kus

S.

come

1998. Who's

Knapp AB, Meskell 7:183-204 1992. Toward

LM. an

a

long way,

baby?

Archaeol.

Dialogues

2:91-106

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 inMinoan 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

Looper MG.

images

in performance.

Camb.

Archaeol.

J.

13:25^40

2003b. Lightning Warrior: Maya Art andKingship at Quirigua. Austin: Univ. Tex.

Press

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 1999.

G.

MacGregor

a body politic in colonial Louisiana. sense

Making

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 Camb.

Iran.

Archaeol.

J.

3:157-78

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

Marcus MI.

and Kegan Paul LM. 1996. The

Meskell

Norwegian

Archaeol.

somatization of archaeology: Rev.

institutions, discourses, corporeality.

29:1-16

Meskell LM. 1998a. Intimate archaeologies: the case of Kha andMerit. 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:

and Egyptian Experience.

Routledge

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

Montserrat

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 ofMatter: Religion and Ecology inMesoamerican Traditions, ed. D Carrasco, pp. 191-209. 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 Perry EM, Joyce RA. 2001. Providing a past for Bodies thatMatter: Judith Butler's impact on 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 theArchaeological Record. Philadelphia: Univ. Penn. Press i$6

Joyce

approaches to the study of gender in

Rautman AE, Talalay LE. 2000. Introduction: Diverse See Rautman archaeology. C. 1993. Monumental Richards

2000,

pp.

choreography:

1-12 and

architecture

spatial

in late

representations

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

some

of embodiment:

archaeology

aspects

of Archaic

Greece.

Camb.

Archaeol. J. 5:207^4 Sofaer-Derevenski

1997.

J.

children,

Engendering

See Moore

archaeology.

engendering

&

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 S. 2002.

Tarlow

The

aesthetic

corpse

in nineteenth-century

Britain.

See Hamilakis

et al. 2002,

pp. 85-97 T

te CE.

1996.

stance:

Shaman's

integration

of body,

spirit

and

cosmos

Eighth Palenque Round Table, 1993, ed.M Macri, JMcHargue, Pre-Columbian

Art

Res.

in Olmec

pp. 425-39.

sculpture.

In

San Francisco:

Inst.

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 Thompson JES. 1946.Tattooing and scarification among theMaya. InNotes onMiddle American Archaeology and EthnologyNo. 63. Cambridge, MA: Carnegie Inst.Wash. Div. Hist. Res. Tilley C, ed. 1993. InterpretiveArchaeology. Oxford: 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 theArchaeological Association of theUniversity ofCalgary. Calgary: Univ. Calgary

Archaeol.

Assoc.

www.annualreviews.org

Archaeology of theBody

157

AB.

Weiner

White

1992.

Calif.

Press

R.

1989.

Emergence

Inalienable

Toward ofModern

Possessions:

The Paradox

of Keeping-While-Giving.

a contextual Humans:

understanding Biocultural Adaptations

of

the

earliest

in the Later

Berkeley:

body Pleistocene,

ornaments.

Univ.

In The

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 Essays inHonor ofJames B. Griffin, ed. C Cleland, pp. 317-42. Ann Arbor: Mus. Anthropol., Univ.

Yates T.

i$8

Joyce

Mich.

1993. Frameworks for an archaeology of the body. See Tilley

1993, pp. 31-72

View more...

Comments

Copyright ©2017 KUPDF Inc.
SUPPORT KUPDF