Bodies and blood: critiquing social construction in Maya archaeology

• Published in: Journal of anthropological archaeology Vol. 22; no. 1; pp. 26 - 41
• Main Authors: Houston, Stephen D, McAnany, Patricia A
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Amsterdam Elsevier Inc 01.03.2003; Elsevier
• Subjects: Agency and personhood; American civilisations; Anthropology; Archaeology; Art and archaeology; Blood; Central America; House society; Human body; Latin America; Maya; Maya archaeology; Mayas; Mesoamerica; Mexico and Central America civilisations; Social construction; Social constructionism; American culture; Maya; Classic; Central America; Agency and personhood; House society; Maya archaeology; Social constructionism; Mesoamerica; Epigraphy; Theory; Model; Anthropology; Ethnology; House; Particular rite; Social organization; Society; Interpretation; Culture
• ISSN: 0278-4165; 1090-2686
• DOI: 10.1016/S0278-4165(03)00006-0

As a 21st century expression of idealism, social constructionism tends to repudiate the physical reality of the body and the biological duality of sexual differentiation. It has the earmarks of a totalizing discourse that permits only limited perspectives on human existence. The relevance and utility of constructionism for studying the past comes under review here. A pertinent concept, that of the individual, is discussed in light of assertions that agency models stumble upon universal assumptions of individuation and intentionality. The proposal by Gillespie (2001) that agency approaches in archaeology can only be improved by referencing Marcel Mauss’ concept of “person” as a relational entity that bridges social collectivities and personal motivation founders on the teleological, staged character of Mauss’ concept as well as factual errors in interpreting the difficult epigraphic evidence from the Classic Maya. The constructionists’ principle of sexual ambiguity ( Joyce, 2000a) meets resistance from the available data on the Classic Maya, as does their depersonalization of royal tombs in favor of collective concerns of a vaguely defined royal house ( Gillespie, 2001). Finally, the use of Lévi-Strauss’ model of “house societies” ( soci é t é s à maisons)—a schema that privileges co-residence and the physicality of the house over bloodlines—enjoys little substantive support from royal Maya contexts.