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
