Partible, Permeable, and Relational Bodies in a Maya Mass Grave

Duncan, William N.; Schwarz, Kevin

doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-7560-6_9

Cited by 37 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Indeed, in her discussion of what she terms body love , Nancy Scheper‐Hughes (:173) prefers to use the term person rather than body , “to emphasize that death does not destroy personhood but often intensifies it.” Scheper‐Hughes () provides powerful examples drawn from modern contexts of the continued significance of the dead and in particular the manner in which the fragmentation of the body is equated with the fragmentation of the person. Archaeological (e.g., Chapman ; Jones ) and bioarchaeological (e.g., Duncan and Schwarz ; Geller ) research also emphasizes the fragmentary, relational, dividual body and the idea that continued social existence or significance is not predicated upon an intact body.…”

Section: Structural Violencementioning

confidence: 99%

The Bioarchaeology of Structural Violence and Dissection in the 19th‐Century United States

Nystrom

2014

American Anthropologist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Structural violence is harm done to individuals or groups through the normalization of social inequalities in political-economic organization. Researchers working in both modern and prehistoric contexts focus on the lived experiences of individuals and the health disparities that arise from such violence. With this article, I seek to contribute to this literature by considering how skeletal evidence of dissection from the 19th-century United States reflects structural violence. I focus on "death experiences" and suggest that studies of structural violence must consider not only how inequality may be embodied as health disparities in the living but also "disembodiment" and the treatment and fate of the dead body. [bioarchaeology, dissection, autopsy, structural violence, United States] RESUMEN Violencia estructural es el daño hecho a individuos o grupos a través de la normalización de desigualdades sociales en una organización político-económica. Investigadores trabajando en contextos tanto modernos como prehistóricos se centran en las experiencias vividas por individuos y las disparidades en salud surgidas de tal violencia. Con este artículo, busco contribuir aésta literatura a través de considerar cómo evidencia esqueletal de disección del siglo XIX en los Estados Unidos refleja violencia estructural. Me enfoco en las "experiencias de muerte" y sugiero que estudios de violencia estructural deben considerar no sólo cómo la desigualdad puede ser corporizada como disparidades en salud en el viviente, sino también en "descorporización" y el tratamiento y destino del cuerpo muerto. [bioarqueología, disección, violencia estructural, Estados Unidos] S tructural violence is harm done to individuals or groups through the normalization of inequalities that are intimately, and invisibly, embedded in political-economic organization (Farmer et al. 2006). Research on modern groups (Farmer 2004;Farmer et al. 2006;Holmes 2013) and bioarchaeological skeletal collections (Harrod et al. 2012; Klaus 2012) that employ the concept of structural violence have focused on the lived experiences of individuals and the resulting health disparities. The former have considered the relationship between embedded social inequalities and chronic infectious diseases such as HIV/AIDS and tuberculosis, while the latter have examined skeletal markers of systemic physiological stress (e.g., linear enamel hypoplasias, porotic hyperostosis) and traumatic injury. Here I focus on skeletal evidence of postmortem examination (i.e., dissection and

show abstract

Section: Structural Violencementioning

confidence: 99%

The Bioarchaeology of Structural Violence and Dissection in the 19th‐Century United States

Nystrom

2014

American Anthropologist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Dismemberment of figurines releases the powerful essences of the body parts of the person or entity represented by the image, allowing them to permeate and animate the area where they are left. These concepts are applicable to Classic and Postclassic lowland Maya views of the body (Duncan 2014;Duncan and Schwarz 2013;Geller 2012;Houston et al 2006;Martínez González 2007) and also aid in understanding the functions of Formative figurines.…”

Section: Interregional Interactions and ''The Olmecs''mentioning

confidence: 96%

“…Analogous ritual damage is known from removal of opponents' mandibles and maxillae in the Classic and Postclassic periods (e.g., Duncan et al 2009;Duncan and Schwarz 2013;Spence et al 2004). On the other hand, partibility is evidenced not only by the removal of the figurines' heads but also from the many recovered limb fragments.…”

Section: Figurine Contexts and Meaning-full Functionsmentioning

confidence: 98%

Middle Preclassic Interregional Interaction and the Maya Lowlands

Rice

2014

J Archaeol Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The lowland Mayas are seldom mentioned in discussions of early Mesoamerican interactions, which commonly focus on the Gulf coast Olmecs. But such connections are evidenced by the occurrence of anthropomorphic fired-clay figurines and other artifacts (including obsidian, greenstone, bark beaters, and shell), reviewed herein. Figurines co-occur with a distinctive architectural complex in the southern lowlands but are absent in the north; other artifacts are variably present north-south and east-west. These goods relate to the development of societal complexity and cosmopolitical power, and helped support the roles of nascent elites, particularly in linkages with ancestors. Their variable distributions suggest that the lowland Mayas participated, but selectively, in early interaction spheres.

show abstract

“…By acknowledging that burial reflects social memory of the deceased and that it is the living who bury the dead, the contextualized extrapolation of social information from mortuary contexts is often an essential aspect of bioarchaeological identities research (Goodenough 1965(Goodenough , 1968Hodder 1980Hodder , 1982Hodder , 1987Hodder and Cessford 2004;Parker Pearson 1982Thomas et al 2006). More recently, the physical body has emerged as an essential source of data on identity, one integrated into the overall funerary context (see Duncan and Hofling 2011;Duncan and Schwarz 2014;Geller 2009b;Parker Pearson 1999;Rakita et al 2005;Sofaer 2006).…”

Section: Kinship As Social Identitymentioning

confidence: 97%

Bioarchaeology and Kinship: Integrating Theory, Social Relatedness, and Biology in Ancient Family Research

Johnson

Paul

2015

J Archaeol Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Theoretical developments in sociocultural anthropology have transformed the study of kinship. Here, we review these theoretical developments, consider their influence on bioarchaeological kinship research, and propose an alternative framework for studying relatedness in antiquity. We find that broader, more flexible conceptions of relatedness have grown increasingly prevalent in 21st-century bioarchaeology, but kinship research largely continues to emphasize methodological improvement and identification of biological kin in archaeological contexts. By approaching kinship as a multiscalar dimension of social identity, bioarchaeologists can leverage complex conceptions of relatedness with diverse types of data to gain nuanced perspectives on family-based social organization in the past.

show abstract

Partible, Permeable, and Relational Bodies in a Maya Mass Grave

Cited by 37 publications

References 32 publications

The Bioarchaeology of Structural Violence and Dissection in the 19th‐Century United States

The Bioarchaeology of Structural Violence and Dissection in the 19th‐Century United States

Middle Preclassic Interregional Interaction and the Maya Lowlands

Bioarchaeology and Kinship: Integrating Theory, Social Relatedness, and Biology in Ancient Family Research

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About