Girling the girl and boying the boy: the production of adulthood in ancient Mesoamerica

Joyce, Rosemary A.

doi:10.1080/00438240009696933

Cited by 165 publications

(44 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Within the Aztec system, young women were also dedicated to either a calmecac or telpochcalli , brought to schools as babies and offered up in service by their parents. But the female child then grew up in her family home (not within the institution like the males), learning those abilities culturally gendered as female in the home (Berdan 2014, 203; Joyce 2000; Sahagún 1969, 211). The time actually spent by young women living in service to the temple as part of the calmecac was apparently only a year (Durán 1971, 84–6).…”

Section: Discussion: Gender Divides and Class Stratification In Precomentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although there was a clear trend in which social classes attended which institution, this was not a formalized policy and sources strongly suggest that the choice of whether a child attended the telpochcalli or the calmecac lay with his father and his abilities, regardless of whether or not the child was common or noble-born (Calnek 1988; Sahagún 1978). This has led to a commonly accepted idea that, although highly gendered (Joyce 2000), Aztec state education was meritocratic at least to some degree.…”

Section: Insights From Aztec Educationmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Pedagogy and State: An Archaeological Inquiry into Classic Maya Educational Practice

Rossi

2017

CAJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Education is notoriously difficult to identify archaeologically, but crucial for understanding the inner workings of any society. Strikingly, in Mesoamerican archaeology, more seems to be known about the transmission of crafting skills than about practices of statecraft. Elsewhere in the ancient world, much evidence speaks to various social and institutional contexts in which specialized knowledge of histories, literacies, civics, and sciences was generated and taught as vital to state-making projects. Yet these same contexts among the Classic Period Maya (ad 200–900) remain poorly understood and under-theorized. Pulling from comparative research alongside recent work at the site of Xultun, Guatemala, this article explores how educational systems may have worked in Classic-era Maya polities—assessing evidence for educational loci, the different forms that education might assume, and the varied curricula that likely existed across different cities and particular demographics. Through this discussion, I seek to shed some light on the actors, gendered exclusions and diverse arrangements of pedagogy in Maya society, and grant further insight into how specialized bodies of knowledge (transmitted within formal educational institutions) were built into the very fabric of the Classic Maya states of which they were part.

show abstract

Section: Discussion: Gender Divides and Class Stratification In Precomentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Insights From Aztec Educationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Pedagogy and State: An Archaeological Inquiry into Classic Maya Educational Practice

Rossi

2017

CAJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In the context of Butler-inspired approaches, the body's ontology has emerged in recent years as a domain of interrogation. A focus on embodied experience has dislodged the body as a neutral ontological fact, orienting inquiry to performative engagement, relational intersections, and "lived lives" throughout the life course (Alberti 2001(Alberti , 2005Belcher 2016;Borić and Robb 2008;Fuglestvedt 2014;Geller 2009a;Hamilakis et al 2002;Joyce 2000Joyce , 2004Joyce , 2005Joyce , 2008Meskell1996;Meskell and Joyce 2003;Rebay-Salisbury et al 2010;Sofaer 2006). Case studies have indicated that the anatomical configuration of the body does not guarantee a trajectory toward man/woman as either/or (Joyce 2008;Yates 1993), highlighting the contextual emergence of bodily difference, ability, and corporeal boundaries (Arwill-Nordbladh 2012;Matić 2016;Meskell and Joyce 2003) and disrupting the ontological stability of a naked "sexed" body in the absence of performative deployment (Alberti 2005).…”

Section: Destabilizing the Binary Binds: Approaches To Differencementioning

confidence: 99%

“…This is often due to the centrality of the material remains of the skeleton in these analyses. Challenges to the physical:social dichotomy as well as an emphasis on antiessentialist ontological process, characteristic of sexuality and performativity studies, have been more readily implemented in contexts where textual or iconographic data are available (e.g., Alberti 2001Alberti , 2005Joyce 2000). Although inquiry has moved away from an either/or reduction of sex to biological fact and gender to malleable construct, Butler-inspired approaches have also been criticized, with some archaeologists claiming that the discursive emphasis neutralizes the material vitality of the corporeal and insufficiently historicizes the somatic context of bodily becoming (Alberti 2013: 100-102;Fuglestvedt 2014;Sofaer 2006:e.g., 64-69, 90-105).…”

Section: Material:discursive Tensions In Category-the Constitution Ofmentioning

confidence: 99%

Introduction to “Binary Binds”: Deconstructing Sex and Gender Dichotomies in Archaeological Practice

Ghisleni

Jordan

Fioccoprile

2016

J Archaeol Method Theory

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Gender archaeology has made significant strides toward deconstructing the hegemony of binary categorizations. Challenging dichotomies such as man/woman, sex/gender, and biology/culture, approaches informed by poststructuralist, feminist, and queer theories have moved beyond essentialist and universalist identity constructs to more nuanced configurations. Despite the theoretical emphasis on context, multiplicity, and fluidity, binary starting points continue to streamline the spectrum of variability that is recognized, often reproducing normative assumptions in the evidence. The contributors to this special issue confront how sex, gender, and sexuality categories condition analytical visibility, aiming to develop approaches that respond to the complexity of theory in archaeological practice. The papers push the ontological and epistemological boundaries of bodies, personhood, and archaeological possibility, challenging a priori assumptions that contain how sex, gender, and sexuality categories are constituted and related to each other. Foregrounding intersectional approaches that engage with ambiguity, variability, and difference, this special issue seeks to "de-contain" categories, assumptions, and practices from "binding" our analytical gaze toward only certain kinds of persons and knowledges, in interpretations of the past and practices in the present.The interpretation of sex and gender in archaeology has long been contained by the social polarity of "man" and "woman" as well as the confinement of sex in biology and gender in culture (Joyce 2008;Sofaer 2006;Yates 1993)-what we term the "binary binds." The aim of this special issue is to critically engage with and move beyond the limitations of sex and gender dichotomies in archaeological narratives, with an emphasis on developing approaches that respond to the complexity of theory in practices. The 2 articles emerged from the Archaeology and Gender in Europe 1 (Dommasnes and Montón-Subías 2012: 374, 382) sponsored session at the 2014 Annual Meeting of the European Association of Archaeologists in Istanbul, Turkey. Contributors were challenged to rethink the analytical categories that frame archaeological reconstructions of sex, gender, and sexuality, exploring how binary starting points and methodological practices condition and constrain interpretations of sex and gender variability.We recognize that a call to critically interrogate sex and gender dichotomies is not new. The binary binds and their hierarchical confinement of biological and social difference have been loci of contestation since the emergence of gender as an analytical category in archaeology (e.g., Claassen ). In the past three decades, gender archaeology has made significant strides toward deconstructing the imperatives of these dichotomies, informed by poststructuralist, feminist, and queer

show abstract

“…However, through its association with the body, the jewel becomes a sign (index) of ritual. Indexical functions of jewelry also come into play as jewelry is alternately attached to and removed from the body ( Joyce 2000b; see also Joyce 2007). Another example of the phrasing of symbolic content as embodiment appears in Classic Maya art, where overlords receive textiles and other items of regalia as tribute from men wearing white capes and Spondylus shell necklaces (Houston, Stuart, and Taube 2006:244-47;Reents-Budet 2006:114).…”

Section: Phenomenological Approachesmentioning

confidence: 99%

More Than Skin Deep: Gestalt Ways of Seeing Formative Olmec and Postclassic Huastec Body, Iconography, and Style

Faust¹

2014

Wearing Culture: Dress and Regalia in Early Mesoamerica and Central America

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Girling the girl and boying the boy: the production of adulthood in ancient Mesoamerica

Cited by 165 publications

References 4 publications

Pedagogy and State: An Archaeological Inquiry into Classic Maya Educational Practice

Pedagogy and State: An Archaeological Inquiry into Classic Maya Educational Practice

Introduction to “Binary Binds”: Deconstructing Sex and Gender Dichotomies in Archaeological Practice

More Than Skin Deep: Gestalt Ways of Seeing Formative Olmec and Postclassic Huastec Body, Iconography, and Style

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About