PA M E L A L .

G E L L E R

Bodyscapes, Biology, and Heteronormativity

ABSTRACT The term bodyscape encourages thinking about representation of bodies at multiple scales—from different bodies as
they move through space to the microlandscape of individual bodily differences. A hegemonic bodyscape’s representations tend to
idealize and essentialize bodies’ differences to reinforce normative ideas about a society’s socioeconomic organization. But, a dominant
bodyscape is never absolute. Bodyscapes that depart from or subvert hegemonic representations may simultaneously exist. In Western
society, the biomedical bodyscape predominates in scientific understandings of bodily difference. Its representation of sex differences
conveys heteronormative notions about gender and sexuality. Because the biomedical bodyscape frames studies of ancient bodies,
investigators need recognize how their considerations of labor divisions, familial organization, and reproduction may situate modern
(hetero)sexist representations deep within antiquity. To innovate analyses of socioeconomic relations, queer theory allows scholars to
interrogate human nature. Doing so produces alternative bodyscapes that represent the diversity of past peoples’ social and sexual lives.
[Keywords: bodyscape, heteronormativity, queer theory, bioarchaeology, paleoanthropology]

T HE COMMENTARY TO follow amplifies ideas I have

already voiced about the possibility of a feminist
bioarchaeology, the use of feminist-inspired theories to as-
BODYSCAPE(S)
Nicholas Mirzoeff first used the term bodyscape to describe
Western art’s expression of the ideal body: as an “expres-
sess the categorization of sex and advance a study of iden- sion of a belief in the perfect form of the human body that
tities in terms of biocultural interactions (Geller 2008). I art enacts” (1995:19). Leonardo da Vinci’s Vitruvian Man is
alluded to but did not elaborate on the conceptual promise one vivid example. Aside from depicting idealized repre-
of ideas articulated by queer scholars. Here, I further eval- sentations, creation of a bodyscape fixates not on wholes
uate analyses of ancient skeletal and mummified remains, but fragments “assembled from various modes of identity”
stressing that researchers’ abilities or methods for discern- (Mirzoeff 1995:28). The problem with idealized and frag-
ing biological difference are not at issue. Rather, my con- mented representation is the greater likelihood that dif-
cern is with the perspectives contouring subsequent inter- ference will be essentialized, especially with regard to race
pretations about socioeconomic organization. I argue that, and gender (Mirzoeff 1995:191). Through idealized depic-
through the use of a biomedical bodyscape, many inves- tion, fragmentation, and reductive meanings, a bodyscape
tigators of ancient bodies unwittingly naturalize cultural produces and sustains cultural norms and exclusionary be-
values that are in fact modern constructs. Specifically, con- liefs (i.e., sexism, racism, heterosexism, and homophobia).
siderations of labor divisions, familial organization, and re- The bodyscape therefore is not just an abstraction but also
production often situate modern (hetero)sexist ideas deep something that has an impact on the physical body.
within antiquity. My constructive criticism applies and To expand Mirzoeff’s notion of the “bodyscape” be-
adapts the term bodyscape. This concept is a tool for think- yond its insights about the ideal and fragmented body,
ing about hegemonic representations of bodies that idealize Arjun Appadurai’s (1990, 1991) discussion of -scapes is con-
and essentialize differences, especially with regard to sex, structive. He uses this suffix to track the flow of “people,
gender, and sexuality. But the concept also allows us to machinery, money, images, and ideas” (Appadurai 1990:11)
examine the production of subversive or alternative rep- across landscapes, which he respectively labels ethnoscapes,
resentations that resist, interrogate, and queer hegemonic technoscapes, finanscapes, mediascapes, and ideoscapes.
beliefs. Although they differ from one another in important ways,

AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST, Vol. 111, Issue 4, pp. 504–516, ISSN 0002-7294 online ISSN 1548-1433. 
C 2009 by the American Anthropological Association.

All rights reserved. DOI: 10.1111/j.1548-1433.2009.01159.x

 Geller • Bodyscapes, Biology, Heteronormativity 505

these -scapes are all constructed, shifting (“fluid”), and his- ence, Catherine Lutz and Jane Collins see a correspondence
torically and politically situated (“perspectival”). Bodyscape between these fields’ representations of gendered and racial-
is perhaps a necessary addition to Appadurai’s landscapes, ized bodies, writing, “Like fine art, science attempts to frame
because physical bodies and their parts are similarly sub- the nude female body as devoid of pornographic attributes”
ject to global cultural movements. But, although Appadu- (1993:175). Yet, seemingly objective images, like the Na-
rai explores these landscapes on a large scale, the bodyscape tional Geographic’s photographs they appraise, can commu-
concept is best served by a multiscalar approach. We may nicate exclusionary and disparaging attitudes about femi-
explore a group’s—culture’s, society’s, subculture’s, field’s— ninity, sexuality, labor, and non-Western societies. These
representation of different bodies as they move within or portrayals of bodies say far more about Western cultural
through spaces. But, the term also encourages thinking norms pertaining to social interactions and economic orga-
about the body as a space unto itself, a microlandscape of nization than the differences they strive to render. As Ap-
individual bodily differences that allows for examination padurai cautioned, scapes—bodyscapes or otherwise—“are
of the objectified whole, a detachable or transferable part deeply perspectival constructs, inflected by the historical,
(e.g., organ, ova), or a distinctive fragment (e.g., gene). linguistic and political situatedness of different sorts of ac-
In this vein, anthropological work on the international tors” (1990:7). To expose the machinations of the norma-
traffic in human organs emphasizes how the flow of bod- tive bodyscape at work, then, it is essential to contextual-
ies and their parts operates on multiple scales—from the ize representations’ production in historical, political, and
global to the personal (e.g., Scheper-Hughes 2000). And social locations.
although I am unable to do so here, feminist anthropol- In contemporary Western society, the biomedical
ogists may further develop the bodyscape concept to ex- bodyscape predominates in scientific studies. Lutz and
plore how idealized and essentialized representations of Collins identify one crucial difference between art and sci-
women’s bodies work to maintain their subjugation, ex- ence’s use of imagery that idealizes the female body: “while
ploitation, dehumanization, and objectification in specific art aestheticizes it, science dissects, fragments, and oth-
social, economic, and political contexts. Global female sex erwise desexualizes it” (1993:175). Indeed, textbooks and
slavery, e-mail order brides from developing nations, and medical art are laden with segmented and sterile bodies.
the international trade in surrogacy (or “wombs for rent”) Closer examination of the biomedical bodyscape discloses
are just some instances in which the bodyscape may prove several additional messages about sex and gender. First,
edifying. That such deeply troubling practices continue to from Aristotle and Galen onward, the male body has been
flourish illustrates how a hegemonic bodyscape constructs the standard, valued body (Laqueur 1990). Second, sex
understandings of bodily difference that clearly reiterate is regarded as dichotomous, immutable, and interchange-
(hetero)sexist and ethnocentric notions. able with gender (Geller 2005). Third, modern medical
Nevertheless, a hegemonic bodyscape need not be ab- science’s discourse and practice inevitably fragment the fe-
solute. According to Appadurai, people can use group iden- male body into reproductive parts and, in so doing, disem-
tity, technology, capital, mass media, and—I would add— power women (Martin 2001)—the implication being that
bodies to create multiple imagined worlds. Consequently, the ideal, normal female body is a reproducing one. Finally,
they “are able to contest and sometimes even subvert the following from sex and gender’s equivalency, women’s pro-
imagined worlds of the official mind” (1990:7). Return- duction outside of the domestic arena, not reproduction
ing to visual representations of bodies in Western society, within, is often cause for concern in sociopolitical spheres.
we see that for every da Vinci and Vitruvian Man, there The sustained public interest in Mommy Wars (e.g., Bryk-
are several Guerilla Girls whose feminist activist art con- man 2006; Steiner 2006) signifies an especially hackneyed
tests normative representations of gender, race, sexuality, instance as well as the media’s failure to ask new questions
and ethnocentrism.1 Hence, a transgressive or alternative about labor, family, and gender.
bodyscape can provide the fodder for play, reaction, or rev- Because biomedicine grounds analyses of skeletal
olution. In my later discussion of queering, I return to the and mummified remains (Geller 2008), this hegemonic
idea that a proliferation of bodyscapes can simultaneously bodyscape also guides inquiry about ancient bodies’ dif-
exist in any socioeconomic system. Before doing so, how- ferences, leading in some cases to oversimplified and het-
ever, I will further delineate the contemporary Western nor- eronormative reconstructions of past peoples’ social iden-
mative bodyscape that undergirds scientific understandings tities and interactions. Rather than deterritorialization—
of bodies. which Appadurai (1991:192) regards as the transcending of
spatial boundaries by people (i.e., ethnoscapes), ideas (i.e.,
mediascapes), and so forth—those who use a biomedical
THE BIOMEDICAL BODYSCAPE bodyscape to study the ancient past may detemporalize it.
Although Mirzoeff examines the bodyscape concept as it re- Detemporalization occurs when analysts move from present
lates to art, the term pertains to any regulating social insti- to past (and back again) without reflecting on bodily dif-
tution that conceives and creates an ideal body, whether it ferences as made meaningful within specific environmen-
be education, sports, military, law, or science. Of art and sci- tal, historical, and socioeconomic settings. Consequently,
506 American Anthropologist • Vol. 111, No. 4 • December 2009

detemporalization often represents certain social behaviors counterproductive in light of bioarchaeologists’ acknowl-
and interactions as human nature. Under closer inspection, edgement that the complex interactions among biology,
however, we often find that arguments about human na- culture, and the environment “[are] expressed in multiple
ture in fact reiterate contemporary, Western cultural values. ways in biological tissues that are often difficult to inter-
Examples from bioarchaeology and paleoanthropology in- pret” (Larsen 2006:360). Would not the arduousness of
dicate as much. drawing social inferences from biological data necessitate
the use of all available tools—the methodological, techno-
SKELETAL ANALYSIS AND A HEGEMONIC BODYSCAPE logical, and conceptual advances of recent years?
Bioarchaeological studies of sex provide one example
As a facet of North American archaeology, Jane Buikstra
of oversimplifications wrought from a narrow conceptual
initially described bioarchaeology as follows:
commitment to positivistic evolutionary theory. Gauging
A new form of regionally based, interdisciplinary research the content of textbooks commonly assigned to students
in mortuary site archeology and human osteology . . . of human osteology is instructive. These manuals intro-
with the active participation of both archeologists and duce students to the skeletal body and therefore are instru-
physical anthropologists in all phases of research design mental in their “socialization” as analysts and intellectuals.
. . . to focus upon the investigation of biocultural change.
Osteology textbooks also incorporate several key aspects of
[1977:69]
the biomedical bodyscape. They contain standardized de-
Although important precursors existed (Buikstra and Beck pictions of skeletons and their parts in which the univer-
2006: see section 1), formalization of bioarchaeology ex- sal is often presented at the expense of human variation
tended traditional skeletal analyses by emphasizing ar- (although see White 2000:16–20). In the case of sex differ-
chaeological contextualization. To construct a dominant ences, human variation is represented as strictly dimorphic,
paradigm, practitioners also utilized theoretical frames then despite awareness that skeletal data fall along a spectrum of
available: the synthesized evolutionary theory of Sher- measurements. Sex determination involves fragmentation
wood Washburn’s (1951) “new” physical anthropology and of bodies, particularly pelvic parts, although the robusticity
archaeologists’ ecosystems approach. Both stressed adap- and gracility of specific elements also aid in categorization.
tive processes related to evolution—biological and cultural, A link is forged between sex and gender, as exemplified
respectively—and variation. Consequently, many analyses by D. Gentry Steele and Claud Bramblett’s substitutions of
of ancient bodies have addressed the variability of groups’ the latter for the former in The Anatomy and Biology of the
qualities of life, behaviors, and lifestyle as well as popu- Human Skeleton (1988). Additionally, distinguishing those
lations’ histories and interactions (Larsen 2006:361–372). who can bear children from those who cannot is a foremost
Recognition of variability as elemental in bioarchaeology, aim. Steele and Bramblett write, “One of the first pieces of
however, begs inquiry about the degree of difference prac- information sought in these studies is the gender of the in-
titioners can discern as well as how much they are comfort- dividual” (1988:5). Although he does not confuse gender
able addressing in their interpretations. Analysts do account for sex, William Bass makes a similar statement about the
for populational differences between groups, but within- primacy of sex’s assessment in Human Osteology: “When a
group differences are often categorized as “either–or”—that skeleton is discovered during excavation or observed in the
is, subadult or adult, elite or nonelite, male or female. A con- laboratory,” he writes, “one of the first questions asked is:
tinuum of categories speaks not to ambiguity but, rather, ‘Is it male or female?’” (1995:25). My first thought after
to a researcher’s degree of certainty (Geller 2005). reading this statement as a student who was concomitantly
Since its inception, bioarchaeology has proven con- taking courses in feminist theory was “Why?” Bass’s text,
structive for studying ancient bodies, as publications in nu- however, yielded no response. More recently, an American
merous peer-reviewed journals attest (Buikstra et al. 2003). Journal of Physical Anthropology article with bioarchaeology
Investigators’ application of bioarchaeological perspectives, as a keyword struck me: “The determination of sex,” ac-
however, does not mean that Buikstra’s vision guides all cording to Lynn Cowal and Robert Pastor, “is one of the
researchers’ frames and foci. Since 1977, other practition- fundamental assessments in the production of a biological
ers have offered various definitions of bioarchaeology that profile for human skeletal remains” (2008:469). Again, the
depart from its original conception. Some divergences re- authors provide no further explanation.
flect expansion of research interests and development of To clarify, I do not ask why for the sake of being
analytical techniques over three decades. The field, like any contrary. Nor do I wish to explain away biological differ-
intellectual enterprise, is most effective and informative be- ences or make ad hominem arguments. Many bioarchaeol-
cause it is dynamic. But, unlike other anthropological sub- ogists, for example, have effectively studied sex differences
fields, bioarchaeology has minimally interrogated and ex- to hone methods of categorization and reconstruct pale-
panded its theoretical frames (although notable exceptions odemographic profiles. I do think, however, that analysts
include Blakey 1987, 1998; Novak 2008; Perry 2004; Rakita of ancient remains begin with sex differences as a foun-
and Buikstra 2005; Robb 2002; Shimada et al. 2004; Sto- dation for making inferences about social organization be-
janowski 2005).2 Reticence to engage theoretically seems cause it seems like good common sense. But, to paraphrase
 Geller • Bodyscapes, Biology, Heteronormativity 507

Annamarie Jagose (1996:102), valorizing common sense producer remains an identity retained throughout every
is naive and dangerous, because the operations of ideo- woman’s life.
logical structures go unexamined. Consequently, certain Bioarchaeologists accurately discern biological differ-
ways of knowing the world—whether good, bad, intol- ences; neither the data nor their ability to do so are in ques-
erant, ignorant—become sanctioned; eventually, they are tion. However, they often do not think creatively about
fixed as truth. Inasmuch as they cite a modern biomedical what these differences mean in their interpretations. As
bodyscape, bioarchaeological studies are informed by com- an example of how using a biomedical bodyscape reiter-
mon sense that valorizes certain markers of sex differences. ates contemporary Western cultural norms about sex and
Querying “why” shakes up some of the sanctioned ways of gender, and not those of the ancient case under consid-
knowing ancient bodies, particularly with regard to socioe- eration, I consider studies of labor in pre-Columbian Maya
conomic identities and interactions. society. Although bioarchaeological studies about the Maya
have grown exponentially in past years, there are few that
address labor and gender (e.g., Cucina and Tiesler 2003;
Danforth et al. 1997; Storey 1998; Wanner et al. 2007). Inad-
Social Identities: (Re)Producer
equate preservation of bone can obfuscate the subtle marks
As aforementioned, a principal tenet of the dominant sci- of habitual activities and anatomical difference. A dearth of
entific bodyscape—that an ideal female body is a reproduc- data, however, does not preclude some analysts from mak-
ing one—often prevails in studies of ancient bodies. More ing inferences that naturalize heteronormative gender ide-
than a biological category, however, the idea of the “repro- ology. A bioarchaeological study published in AJPA offers a
ducer” and its foil of “producer” provide sufficient expla- representative example. The following passage synthesizes
nation of social identities. Some researchers presume that the authors’ main arguments:
reproductive differences dictate a minimal division of labor
(Delphy 1993; for exceptions, see Bridges 1989; Hollimon The Maya, like most societies, had a sexual division
1992, 1997, 2000, 2001b; Perry 2004; Robb et al. 2001). An of labor. Xcambó’s men were occupied with salt pro-
implicit biological determinism is at work, which derives duction, trade activities, agriculture, and construction;
little from cultural and prehistoric contexts. In several re- women took care of domestic activities, like food pro-
cessing, child care, crafts, and harvesting. Many activi-
cent studies of ancient bodies, for example, investigators
ties carried out by Maya females could be independent
surmise that robusticity marks males’ labor in the realm of from economic growth that affected primarily male work.
economics, politics, or agriculture (e.g., Eshed et al. 2004; [Maggiano et al. 2008:1–2]
Larsen 1997; Peterson 2002; Ruff 2000). Or, researchers’
analyses of pelvic differences in conjunction with behav- The authors examine pelvic, humeral, and femoral dimor-
ioral markers identify males as producers—even when dif- phism as supporting biological evidence, arguing that de-
ferences between males and females are insignificant or creased dimorphism signifies economic changes and re-
some females exhibit more “male”-like characteristics (e.g., duced mobility for men. For women, dimorphic changes
Marchi et al. 2006; Sládek et al. 2007; Standen et al. 1997). were insignificant, indicating to the authors that economic
In such cases, males are homogenized as an undifferenti- shifts did not register for (or on) women. Rather than ques-
ated group with little reflection about age or social status, tion its cultural contingency, they begin with a biologically
facets of identity that would facilitate or hinder activities deterministic, ethnocentric, and presentist notion central
related to production. to the biomedical bodyscape—that sex has an equivalency
Discussion of females’ identities and activities are min- to gender. Males universally produce and females repro-
imal in these same studies. Rather, use of pelvic differences duce. Yet, their statements about socioeconomic organiza-
to determine one’s capacity for reproduction inclines think- tion are made with minimal discussion of ancient Maya
ing about social identity. In general, females are the bio- notions about sex, gender, and sexuality and without per-
logical sum of their reproductive parts: bony pelvises, ova, tinent citation from the sizeable corpus (e.g., Ardren 2002;
wombs, and breasts. Such fragmentation produces an es- Geller 1998, 2008; Gillespie and Joyce 1997; Gustafson and
sentialized and static identity. That is, females as child bear- Trevelyan 2002; Hendon 1996; Joyce 2000a, 2000b, 2001;
ers are women inextricably bound to childcare. Their labor Pohl 1991; Robin 2002; Stockett 2005; Sweely 1997). Con-
takes place in the menstrual or birth hut or family home. textual information about social settings, historical circum-
Analysts’ focus on pelvic dimorphic markers of fertility may stances, and political milieu are lacking, and as a conse-
also suggest that all women die while still in their repro- quence we see detemporalization of and essentialization
ductive prime (although see Agarwal et al. 2004; Walker about social differences.
1995, 2005). Menopause and its concomitant physiological Normative interpretations about the Maya are remark-
changes—inability to reproduce and “masculinization” of able in light of varied data and extensive scholarly produc-
the greater sciatic notch (Walker 2005)—complicates the tion that speaks to cultural change and complexity. Archae-
normative bodyscape. Yet, developmental shifts that speak ological evidence has never validated a strict sexual division
to bodies’ dynamism throughout the life course frequently of labor for the Maya. In the wake of Iberian colonization,
remain unexplored. The impression left is that female re- which generated dramatic transformations to indigenous
508 American Anthropologist • Vol. 111, No. 4 • December 2009

gender ideology, this belief emerged and then became fixed the pelvis or its fragments highlights the potential for re-
as truth. Reconstructing Maya socioeconomic organization productive capacity. But, beyond biological function, re-
remains a work in progress. Scholarship conducted thus far searchers often articulate two implicit notions about hu-
points to the complicated nature of social interactions— mans’ social behaviors. As I show, such is the case even
gendered, sexual, and otherwise. For example, several schol- in hominid species whose degree of humanness remains
ars have described how complementarity—the notion that debated. First, everyone possesses a biological imperative
power dynamics between the genders were balanced and to procreate, especially women (Wittig 1982). In addition,
not asymmetrical—structured relations (e.g., Hendon 1997; sexual relations exclusively take place between females
Joyce 1992, 1996, 2000a). Other scholars have attended and males; same-sex relations are a “less ‘natural’ phe-
to gender’s fluidity. In certain contexts, male rulers used nomenon” (Rich 1980:632). As a consequence, the biomed-
gender-bending performances to access feminine, procre- ical bodyscape includes unspoken and detemporalized so-
ative powers, while female rulers aligned themselves with cial norms about compulsory reproduction and heterosexu-
militarism, a predominantly masculine activity (e.g., Geller ality. Suppositions about human nature make cultural and
2005; Hewitt 1999; Joyce 2000a; Looper 2002; Stockett historical contextualization immaterial.
2005). Heteronormative presumptions about social arrange-
Moreover, archaeologists’ discovery of what is argued ments and intimacies have appeared in paleoanthropologi-
to be a marketplace in northern Yucatan at Chunchucmil cal literature. Similar to bioarchaeologists, paleoanthropol-
offers further support for complex socioeconomic interac- ogists bridge subfields, utilize an evolutionary model, and
tions, likely involving the larger populace and not just a make inferences about social interactions based on biologi-
few males (Dahlin et al. 2007). The center is contempora- cal data. The repercussions of doing the latter, however, are
neous with and geographically proximal to Xcambó, and dramatic because certain behaviors can become codified as
its possible marketplace would have provided a hub for re- human nature (Hager 1997:4). Researchers have envisioned
gional economic interactions. Not only does it seems highly a hominid past replete with monogamy, heterosexual pair
improbable that men would have undertaken all exchange bonding, and division of labor (e.g., Alexander and Noonan
activities related to vending and food processing but also 1979; Lovejoy 1981). In answer, feminist-inspired paleo-
the Chunchucmil example highlights how economic inter- anthropologists have long refuted these arguments as an-
actions reverberated throughout a community. All types drocentric and presentist (Adovasio et al. 2007; Falk 1997;
of people—of varied ages, genders, ethnicities, classes— Fedigan 1986; Hager 1997; McBrearty and Moniz 1991;
flowed between the social spaces of marketplace and do- Taylor 2006; Zihlman 1995, 1997).
mestic residences, as was the case throughout precontact Yet, despite these critiques, heterosexist portrayals of
Mesoamerica. The lesson for bioarchaeology is that the pre- the human past continue to materialize in mainstream
Columbian Maya, a culture that defied dichotomous cate- scholarship. In recent publications from the Proceedings of
gorization and sex–gender equivalency, requires researchers the National Academy of Science, several paleoanthropolo-
to apply an alternative bodyscape in their discussions of so- gists have again asserted that monogamy characterized our
cial identities, one that acknowledges the analytical short- early hominid ancestors, Australopithecus afarensis (Larsen
comings of detemporalization and situates ancient bodies 2003; Reno et al. 2003). Although they do not specify,
within their local landscapes. the assumption is that monogamy occurred between in-
dividuals of the opposite sex.3 As a reproductive strategy,
monogamy entailed male provisioning for females and off-
Social Interactions: Monogamy and Heterosexuality spring (Reno et al. 2003:9408); in other words, australop-
Aside from notions about socioeconomic organization, ithecines’ ancient social arrangements were monogamous,
deeply embedded within the biomedical bodyscape are heterosexual, and organized around a patriarchal, nuclear
normative understandings about intimate, sociosexual in- family. In support, Clark Spencer Larsen comments that
teractions. Many analysts of skeletal materials presume this understanding of early hominids creates “implications
that sexuality—with whom one is intimate, whether by for social behavior and organization in later and present-
choice or societal imposition—is not biologically accessi- day humans” (2003:9103). Not interrogating the presen-
ble (but see Hollimon 2000, 2006; Perry 2004). Although tist implications of arguments put forth by P. L. Reno and
science strives to desexualize the body, as aforementioned, coauthors, Larsen proceeds to take them as truth, claim-
such an outcome is not a foregone conclusion, espe- ing that “the roots of human behavior may go deep in
cially when researchers foreground reproductive differ- time” (2003:9104). An impenetrable circular argument is
ences. Queer scholar Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick implores us created—one that is based on fossil evidence of fragmentary
“to ask how certain categorizations work, what enactments body parts representing approximately 300 individuals who
are they performing and what relations they are creating” lived roughly three million years ago. The resemblances
(2008:27). With this appeal in mind, we may consider cat- between temporally distant australopithecines’ social orga-
egorization of biological difference vis-à-vis sex determi- nization and Homo sapiens living in 21st-century United
nation. As the clearest indicator of sexual dimorphism, States are viewed as striking but not in need of querying.
 Geller • Bodyscapes, Biology, Heteronormativity 509

In this instance, several facets of the biomedical bodyscape gets published in journals, but given its audience a much
are apparent: namely, detemporalization and essentialized wider swath is cut.
representations of gendered and sexual experiences. Persistence of heteronormative presumptions is con-
Aside from the academy, mass media disseminate ideas founding because ethnographers detail humans’ varied so-
about human nature to the lay public through narrative and cial arrangements (i.e., monogamy, polyandry, polygyny).
imagined representations. In Discover, for instance, Jared Nor does mainstream scholarship or popular culture ac-
Diamond has remarked: knowledge feminist scholars’ theoretical and evidentiary
refutations. The salient question, then, is why do these
We’re exceptional animals in that human males and fe- sources continue to perpetuate heterosexist portrayals of
males stay together after mating and are both involved in the human past? Generational divide is likely not at issue
rearing the resulting child. No one could claim that men’s
because many feminist-inspired scholars of human evolu-
and women’s parental contributions are equal in most
marriages and societies. But most fathers contribute at tion are not above reproach. Although their treatment of
least something to their children, even if it’s just food or human social organization does not presume the preva-
defense or land rights. We take this so much for granted lence of patriarchy, these scholars maintain that key to
that it’s written into our child-support laws. [1995:84] woman’s human nature is a proclivity to rear children,
which itself is born of an innate maternal bond (Gowaty
Because Diamond’s larger discussion is concerned with hu- 1997; Lancaster 1991; Power and Aiello 1997). Persistent
man evolution, these practices are presented as our human use of a normative bodyscape and an inability (or disincli-
birth right. Yet, no mention is made about cultures’ roles in nation) to scrutinize this frame make for a deep chasm to
shaping practices and beliefs related to marriage, child rear- cross for all who reconstruct aspects of past social lives from
ing, monogamy, or kin organization. Rather, it is “human biological data. Because the proverbial horse remains very
nature.” Seeing that Diamond’s social science is marketed as much alive despite repeated beatings, I sadly see a sustained
popular culture, his authoritative statements are less likely critique of hegemonic assumptions about gender and sex-
to generate critical reflection by consumers, and for that uality as still necessary.
reason such generalizations are dangerous.
Similar ideas about human nature are on permanent
exhibit in a depiction of the Laetoli footprints at the Amer- TO QUEER
ican Museum of Natural History (AMNH). Marrying art Whether studying the pre-Columbian Maya or early ho-
and science, museum dioramas incorporate two norma- minids, analysts of ancient bodies have incorporated
tive bodyscapes. The familiar message communicated by a hegemonic bodyscape, reiterating commonsense ideas
the displayed male and female linked arm-in-arm, trekking about labor, family, reproduction, and sexuality. With this
across an otherwise empty landscape, is that our hominid in mind, I invoke Sedgwick’s axiom that people are differ-
ancestors were monogamous and exclusively heterosexual. ent from each other, and I am similarly astonished by the
In previous critiques, however, feminist paleoanthropol- “few respectable conceptual tools we have for dealing with
ogists have noted that evolutionary biologists’ evidence this self-evident fact” (2008:22). Queering the entrenched
for monogamous pair bonding is tenuous at best and that dominant bodyscape strives to destabilize commonsensical
australopithecines’ level of sexual dimorphism remains in notions. Other feminist scholars who stress difference not
question (Hager 1997; Zihlman 1985, 1997). Such repre- reducible to dichotomy have initiated this project (Fausto-
sentations are all the more troubling considering the Hall Sterling 1997, 2000; Haraway 1989; Roughgarden 2004). I
of Human Origin’s two-year renovation and reopening on extend their efforts by highlighting the biological and cul-
February 10, 2007. The australopithecines’ faces and bodies tural validity of alternative bodyscapes in the present and
have remained unaltered. Such stasis indicates that “despite past.
the enormous growth of knowledge on human origins the Queer ideas that conceptualize difference along a con-
basic explanatory themes have not changed” (Moser and tinuum rather than a binary signaled paradigm shifts
Gamble 1997:210). Museum curators may have imagined as feminism transitioned from the second to third
other relations based on the fact that one pair of prints is wave. Providing momentum were anthropologists’ insights
larger in length, width, and length of pace: perhaps the about performativity (Newton 1972), “sex/gender systems”
individuals were siblings or a parent–child pair. Yet, for (Rubin 1975), and nonnormative sexuality (Rubin 1984).
the four million people who visit the museum each year, Because of this fomentation, the corpus has grown as com-
the diorama does not depart from representations conveyed prehensive reviews outline (e.g., Boellstorff 2007; Weston
by the dominant bodyscape.4 Clearly, AMNH’s number of 1993). The relationship between queer studies and fem-
visitors exceeds readers of academic journals. Hence, such inism, however, is a complicated one (Weed and Schor
recreations are persuasive, educational tools for the public, a 1997). Some scholars continue to see a queer project as
point made by others that bears repeating (Hager 1997:15; one that expands feminist scholarship, while others regard
Haraway 1989; Moser and Gamble 1997; Zihlman 1997). scholarly work on queerness as an intellectual departure.
The notion that the happy couple laid the groundwork for There are also scholars who eschew queer studies. Teresa
future human behaviors is not different from that which de Lauretis (1997:315–316), for example, positions her
510 American Anthropologist • Vol. 111, No. 4 • December 2009

investigation of sexuality as a contribution to gay and les- over an eight-hour period. It takes a village to reproduce,
bian studies but one that derives impetus from feminist not just a female body. Because the ethnographic present
practices like critical writing and rhetorical strategies. Re- reveals phenomena that to our ethnocentric minds seem
gardless, such scholarship focuses on the transgressive and queer, it is not a stretch to imagine the existence of such
not dichotomous as it pertains to sex, gender, and sexual- wonders in the past. Generating multiple bodyscapes facil-
ity and recognizes that these concepts need to be disentan- itates exploration of physiological possibilities and cultural
gled theoretically. Doing so effectively makes transparent differences.
the ways in which heteronormativity structures our under-
standing and privileging of gender ideology and heterosex-
ual interactions (Smyth 1996:280). This project of destabi- ANCIENT BODIES AND ALTERNATIVE BODYSCAPES
lization requires the formulation of queer as a verb rather That being said, it is challenging to make the rather ab-
than an adjective or noun (Sullivan 2003:50). stract ideas of queer scholars applicable to the materiality of
To queer a biomedical bodyscape and engender trans- the past and the corporeality of ancient bodies. Those fore-
gressive bodyscapes, I find it useful to reflect on breasts, a queers like Sedgwick (1993, 2008), de Lauretis (1991), and
much probed fragment of the female body. Breastfeeding is Judith Butler (1990, 1993) conceived of their groundbreak-
perceived as something only an infant’s biological mother ing ideas in terms of the discursive: textual expressions,
can (or should) do. But to query this established truth, semiotic experiences, and speech acts. Use of queer ideas
Londa Schiebinger (1993) has drawn attention to Carl Lin- presents an aporia of sorts to scholars who take long-silent
naeus’ creation of the term Mammalia. Although a signif- remains as their primary evidence. To undertake the intel-
icant development in scientific taxonomy, she notes, Lin- lectual labor of deliberation and adaptation, those study-
naeus also had a political agenda that denigrated wet nurses ing human remains as the outcome of complex biolog-
and promoted women’s domestic, maternal, and mammary ical and cultural interactions may look to archaeologists
responsibilities. Hence, breastfeeding is as much a cultural who have fruitfully incorporated queer scholarship in their
practice as it is a physiological process. analyses of masculinity, labor, rock art, and pottery (e.g.,
Queering breastfeeding illumines alternative arrange- Alberti 2006; Cobb 2005; Croucher 2005; Dowson 1998,
ments (Longhurst 2008). Children can procure milk from 2000, 2001, 2006; Gero 2004; Joyce 2000b; Perry and Joyce
a variety of sources, including wet nurses, certain ani- 2001; Schmidt 2002; Schmidt and Voss 2000; Voss 2005;
mal species, and even males. Yes, males possess mam- Weismantel 2004; Yates 1993). Analysts of burials have
mary glands and have an underdeveloped, physiological also spotlighted individuals who engaged in transgressive
capability to lactate (Diamond 1995; Giles 2003:185–197; gender roles and sexual relations (e.g., Arnold 1991; Lucy
Longhurst 2008:107–109).5 Modern medical treatments are 1997; Halsall 2001; Strassburg 2000). Of note is Sandra
often a stimulus for male lactation, but starvation and nip- Hollimon’s exhaustive bioarchaeological study of prehis-
ple stimulation are also catalysts (Bartlett 2002:375). That toric Native American two-spirits (1992, 1997, 2000, 2001a,
male lactation is natural, as well as awareness that biological 2001b, 2006). From biological data, material culture, and
maternity does not necessitate maternal responsibility, con- historic documentation, she draws certain conclusions: bi-
siderably queers our understanding of norms surrounding ological differences aside from sex are crucial to consider;
breastfeeding practices. Although unusual, male lactation to disentangle sex and gender, one must attend to the pat-
is worthy of consideration. “Showing other alternatives are terned and particular in mortuary samples; dichotomous
thinkable by no means debunks our current beliefs,” his- categorizations do not capture the fluidity and situatedness
torian of science Lorraine Daston remarks, “it only exposes of gender performances; and compulsory reproduction and
as fraudulent the absolute authority with which we think heterosexuality are not the rule.
them” (Conkey 1997:197). To not presume the primacy of sex, duality, or gendered
To acknowledge difference moves us beyond narrow, essences in our bodyscapes, there are additional avenues to
unimaginative binaries where female is to male as repro- explore. Instead of the pelvis and breast, genitals filled with
duction is to production. Accordingly, child care as the ex- latent symbolic meaning, what if the seemingly neutral
clusive purview of biological mothers becomes more diffi- ulna was examined for difference? Analysts, after all, con-
cult to support. Indeed, ethnographies from preindustrial tinue to advance methods for sex determination, like mea-
societies offer cross-cultural examples of child care as a suring dimensional variation in the proximal ulna (Cowal
community responsibility shared by mothers, fathers, sib- and Pastor 2008). Granted the ulna is not as dimorphic as
lings, grandparents, and so forth (Bolen 1992; Brown 1970; the pelvis, but my intent is to propose how refocusing on
Hewlett 1989, 1991; Tronick et al. 1985). The Efe of Zaire a different fragment would alter the dominant bodyscape.
provide a compelling example. Edward Tronick and col- Might we then identify individuals deep within our ho-
leagues (1985) found that infants’ biological mothers were minid past whose exceptional waving or gesturing abilities
often not the first to nurse them. Four-month-old infants were evolutionarily innovative? Would we find that activ-
were only with their mothers 40 percent of their time, ity patterns and muscle markings highlight male and fe-
and an average of 14.2 different people cared for infants male artisans’ equal involvement in the weaving trade, as
 Geller • Bodyscapes, Biology, Heteronormativity 511

Margaret Cox (1996) has argued for the postmedieval sam- musing about the single “father” in Grave 93 or reflection
ple from Spitalfields, London? Similarly, might the ulnas of on Grave 98’s infertile “step-mother.” Ethnographic lessons
aforementioned pre-Columbian Maya peoples exhibit mus- about the community’s role in child care and social repro-
culoskeletal stress markers suggestive of women’s involve- duction go unheeded.
ment in craft production? Or would replacing one fragment Comparable reiteration of a dominant heteronorma-
for another sustain well-worn, presentist, and essentialized tive bodyscape frames interpretations of a Neolithic double
inferences about social differences? Would we, for instance, burial from Italy, which made international headlines in
reiterate the dominant bodyscape’s ancient tale about “nat- February of 2007. Like Eulau, the potential for queer in-
urally” throwing like a girl (Young 1990)? That is, would we terpretations are ripe. “Two 5,000-year-old skeletons found
allow the data to guide us toward new understandings in locked in an embrace near the city where Shakespeare set
which we recognize the pelvis’ measureable differences but the star-crossed tale ‘Romeo and Juliet’ have sparked theo-
conduct a categorization that is conjunctive so as not to be ries the remains of a far more ancient love story have been
socially reductive? found” wrote one journalist (David 2007). The accompany-
The point that I want to make with these open-ended ing image portrayed two skeletons facing each other, bodies
questions is twofold. First, bodies can be biologically differ- flexed, and arms bent. “From thousands of years ago we feel
ent from each other in ways that have nothing to do with re- the strength of this love,” said excavator Elena Menotti. To
production and yet still have social significance. Second, it preserve the decedents’ embrace, excavators removed the
is important to ask new questions before the business of re- “lovers” still intertwined and entombed within a block of
vision and reinterpretation can begin. These new inquiries earth, which was then transported to Como’s Musei Civici
can commence with categorization of difference that is not for further analysis (Urbanus 2008).
reducible to sex and does not presume the naturalness of Although excavators conceded that gaps in their
monogamy and procreative heterosexuality. knowledge would persist until further analysis, statements
Consideration of Neolithic burials from Europe demon- about the individuals’ sex, love, and embrace indicate that
strates how we might profit from a queer venture. In 2005, they have already drawn certain conclusions. Foremost is
Wolfgang Haak and colleagues (2008) uncovered a late Ne- the presumption that decedents are male and female, which
olithic burial site from Eulau, Germany, with four graves in news stories is designated as “gender.” Seeing that incom-
and 13 decedents who appear to have been interred simul- plete disinterment would have complicated in situ sex de-
taneously. Grave 99 contained a female adult, male adult, termination, it is unclear how assignment proceeded. From
and two children; Grave 98 included a female adult not re- sex differences, excavators then claimed that decedents
lated genetically to three adjacent children; Grave 93 had a were in a heterosexual relationship. Is preliminary assess-
male adult and two children; and a female adult and child ment creative license or uninspired replication of a norma-
comprised Grave 90. Several paired interments had bod- tive bodyscape? I presume that bodily fragmentation will
ies flexed, heads adjacent, and limbs intertwined. Wedding occur during the course of analysis but the question remains
body positions with molecular evidence, researchers estab- if interpretations gleaned from biological parts will sustain
lished a parental–child link between decedents in Grave heterosexist, ethnocentric, and presentist ideas about sex,
99—that is, evidence of a “classic nuclear family” (Haak sexual relations, and emotions. Whether or not they do,
et al. 2008:18229). Although they do not argue that the however, almost seems beside the point given the media’s
nuclear family is a “universal model or the most ancient in- initial coverage of the discovery and bloggers’ subsequent
stitution of human communities” (2008:18229), Haak and commentary. In the court of public opinion, (opposite-
colleagues do gloss over the heterosexist implications of sex) love is eternal. Yet, if scholarly analysis determines
positing such a familial arrangement 4,600 years ago. To otherwise—that decedents were two males or two females—
do so is not without repercussions. will alternative bodyscapes inform interpretations? Will the
Grave 99 has garnered international attention in sub- popular press disseminate the story about Romeo and Mer-
sequent news coverage. Here we might deliberate about cutio (or Juliet and the Nurse) as widely? And, without
the role that modern mediascapes have played in perpet- the archaeologists’ forceful dismissal of heteronormative
uating (hetero)sexist ideas communicated by the biomed- notions, what message will the public take from the fu-
ical bodyscape. Headlines proclaim: “DNA Reveals Stone ture display of these decedents in Mantua’s Archaeological
Age Family Took Nuclear Option” (Anonymous 2008), Museum?
“The Flintsteins? Germans Find Stone Age Family” (Schmid
2008), and “Buried in Each Other’s Arms: Scientists Dis-
cover Remains of World’s Most Ancient Nuclear Family” CONCLUSION
(Derbyshire 2008). The public views the find, displayed at In analyses of ancient bodies, technological developments
Germany’s Landesmuseum Sachsen-Anhalt, as evidence for continue to advance identification and categorization. Yet,
“natural” heterosexual relations and heteronormative gen- conceptual innovation has not kept pace. Evolutionary
der roles. Unsurprisingly, mortuary variability at Eulau is models provide a narrow frame for thinking about how
regarded as tangential or ignored altogether. There is no past peoples made bodily differences socially meaningful.
512 American Anthropologist • Vol. 111, No. 4 • December 2009

To this end, I have introduced the bodyscape concept. A 1. For information about the Guerrilla Girls as well as their activist
bodyscape can be hegemonic, and as such its representa- art, visit http://www.guerillagirls.com.
2. In the United Kingdom, where osteoarchaeology is a more ap-
tions of bodies or their parts idealize and essentialize differ- propriate designator, practitioners are more open to the integration
ences to reinforce normative ideas about a society’s socioe- of social theory, generating intellectually productive and interest-
conomic organization. But this dominant bodyscape also ing results (e.g., Gowland and Knüsel 2006; Sofaer 2006).
3. It is likely that the authors define monogamy as the “condition of
meets resistance and subversion from alternative visions of having only one mate during a breeding season or during the breed-
living, moving, experiencing. ing life of a pair,” per the American Heritage Dictionary (2000).
The hegemonic bodyscape at work in contemporary However, they do not explicitly provide a definition, which leads
to a more open-ended reading. Monogamy also means “practice
Western science is in large part informed by biomedicine. In or condition of being married to only one person at a time,” an
its representation of certain bodily differences, the biomed- inappropriate definition for the hominids under study.
ical bodyscape conveys heteronormative notions about sex- 4. Visitor information is from http://rggs.amnh.org/pages/school_
overview/amnh_education_exhibition. AMNH’s website suggests
ual divisions of labor, gendered identities, and intimate in- that a mother and child may have produced the trail of footprints.
teractions. This modern bodyscape is central in scientific But the theory of the footprints belonging to a mother and
studies of ancient bodies, and here I have critically exam- child is not on display in the museum’s diorama, nor is it any
less heteronormative in its fossilizing of females to child rearing
ined its application in bioarchaeological and paleoanthro- (www.amnh.org/exhibitions/permanent/humanorigins/history/
pological studies. Inadvertently, many analysts have nat- humans3.php).
uralized certain contemporary cultural values, which are 5. Although Diamond lends credence to male lactation, the het-
eronormative ideas he expresses suggest he does not recognize the
not without problems themselves—particularly the ideas complications to gender ideology and sexual interactions that male
that sexual dimorphism provides the most important bi- lactation produce.
ological indicators of social differences and that socioeco-
nomic organization is characterized by monogamy, hetero-
sexuality, sexual division of labor, and patriarchal nuclear REFERENCES CITED
families. Adovasio, James M., Olga Soffer, and Jake Page
Queer scholar Nikki Sullivan stresses that “deconstruct- 2007 The Invisible Sex: Uncovering the True Roles of Women in
ing . . . the ‘unnatural’ and the ‘natural’ is important be- Prehistory. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Books.
Agarwal, Sabrina C., M. Dimitriu, George A. Tomlinson, and M. D.
cause it enables us to acknowledge the constructedness of Grynpas
meaning and identity and thus to begin to imagine alter- 2004 Medieval Trabecular Bone Architecture: The Influence of
native ways of thinking and of living” (2003:51). When Age, Sex, and Lifestyle. American Journal of Physical Anthro-
pology 124(1):33–44.
those who study ancient bodies do not query this binary, Alberti, Benjamin
detemporalization frequently results. That is, researchers 2006 Archaeology, Men, and Masculinities. In Handbook of Gen-
may collapse the distant past and present day, distort- der in Archaeology. Sarah Nelson, ed. Pp. 401–434. Walnut
Creek, CA: AltaMira.
ing the former and reifying the latter. More problematic, Alexander, Richard, and Katharine Noonan
however, are misappropriations of ideas about “human na- 1979 Concealment of Ovulation, Parental Care, and Human So-
ture” in mass media, museums, and the blogosphere, where cial Evolution. In Evolutionary Biology and Human Social Be-
havior. Napoleon Chagnon and William Irons, eds. Pp. 436–
certain existences are normalized while others are stigma- 453. North Scituate: Duxbury.
tized. For this reason, I think it is imperative that we queer American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language
bodyscapes. Anthropologists’ vast knowledge about the dif- 2000 American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 4th
ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
ferent ways to be human, whether in prehistoric or modern Anonymous
settings, presents the perfect springboard for just such an 2008 DNA Reveals Stone Age Family Took Nuclear Op-
endeavor. tion. Irish Times, November 18. Electronic document,
https://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2008/1118/
breaking29.htm, accessed December 8.
PAMELA L. GELLER Department of Anthropology, Univer- Appadurai, Arjun
1990 Disjuncture and Difference in the Global Culture Economy.
sity of Miami, Coral Gables, FL 33124-2005; pgeller@mail. Public Culture 2(2):1–24.
as.miami.edu 1991 Global Ethnoscapes: Notes and Queries for a Transnational
Anthropology. In Recapturing Anthropology: Working in the
Present. Richard G. Fox, ed. Pp. 191–210. Santa Fe: School of
NOTES American Research Press.
Ardren, Traci, ed.
Acknowledgments. I originally presented a draft of this article in 2002 Ancient Maya Women. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira.
May of 2008 at the Theoretical Archaeological Group’s First An- Arnold, Bettina
nual Meeting in the United States, hosted by Columbia University. 1991 The Deposed Princess of Vix: The Need for an Engendered
I would like to thank Bryan Boyd and Kaet Heupel for coorganizing European Prehistory. In The Archaeology of Gender: Proceed-
the session and extending to me an invitation to participate. Com- ings of the Twenty-Second Annual Conference of the Archae-
ments from Wendy Ashmore, Thomas Patterson, Miranda Stockett, ological Association of the University of Calgary. Dale Walde
and Traci Ardren have provided supportive and valuable feedback and Noreen D. Willows, eds. Pp. 366–374. Calgary: University
on many drafts of this article, although they should not be held re- of Calgary Archaeological Association.
sponsible for any inadequacies or inappropriate comments. I would Bartlett, Alison
also like to thank several anonymous reviewers and Tom Boellstorff 2002 Breastfeeding as Headwork: Corporeal Feminism and Mean-
for helping me flesh out what is still an evolving understanding of ings for Breastfeeding. Women’s Studies International Forum
the “bodyscape” concept. 25(3):373–382.
 Geller • Bodyscapes, Biology, Heteronormativity 513

Bass, William Danforth, Marie Elaine, Keith Jacobi, and Mark Nathan Cohen
1995 Human Osteology: A Laboratory and Field Manual. 1997 Gender and Health among the Colonial Maya of Tipu,
Columbia: Missouri Archaeological Society. Belize. Ancient Mesoamerica 8(1):13–22.
Blakey, Michael L. David, Ariel
1987 Skull Doctors: Intrinsic Social and Political Bias in Amer- 2007 Prehistoric Romeo and Juliet Discovered. Associated
ican Physical Anthropology, with Special Reference to the Press, February 7. Electronic document, http://www.msnbc.
Work of Aleš Hrdlička. Critique of Anthropology 7(2): msn.com/id/17011786/, accessed December 9.
7–35. de Lauretis, Teresa
1998 Beyond European Enlightenment: Toward a Critical and 1991 Queer Theory: Lesbian and Gay Sexualities. Differences: A
Humanistic Human Biology. In Building a New Biocul- Journal of Feminist Cultural Studies 3(2):iii–xviii.
tural Synthesis. Alan H. Goodman and Thomas L. Leather- 1997 Habit Changes: Response. In Feminism Meets Queer The-
man, eds. Pp. 379–405. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan ory. Elizabeth Weed and Naomi Schor, eds. Pp. 315–333.
Press. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Boellstorff, Tom Delphy, Christine
2007 Queer Studies in the House of Anthropology. Annual Re- 1993 Rethinking Sex and Gender. Women’s Studies International
view of Anthropology 36:1–19. Forum 16(1):1–9.
Bolen, Kathleen Derbyshire, David
1992 Prehistoric Construction of Mothering. In Exploring Gen- 2008 Buried in Each Other’s Arms: Scientists Discover Re-
der through Archeology: Selected Papers from the 1991 Boone mains of World’s Most Ancient Nuclear Family. Mail, Novem-
Conference. Cheryl Claassen, eds. Pp. 49–62. Madison, WI: ber 18. Electronic document, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/
Prehistory. sciencetech/article-1086703, accessed December 8.
Bridges, Patricia Diamond, Jared
1989 Changes in Activities with the Shift to Agriculture in the 1995 Father’s Milk. Discover 16(2):82–87.
Southeastern United States. Current Anthropology 30(3):385– Dowson, Thomas
394. 1998 Homosexuality, Queer Theory, and Archaeology. In Inter-
Brown, Judith pretative Archaeology. Julian Thomas, ed. Pp. 283–289. Le-
1970 A Note on the Division of Labor by Sex. American Anthro- icester: Leicester University Press.
pologist 72(5):1073–1078. 2000 Special theme issue, “Queer Archaeologies,” World Archae-
Brykman, Beth ology 32(2):161–274.
2006 The Wall between Women: The Conflict between Stay-at- 2001 Queer Theory and Feminist Theory: Towards a Sociology
Home and Employed Mothers. Amherst: Prometheus. of Sexual Politics in Rock Art Research. In Theoretical Perspec-
Buikstra, Jane tives in Rock Art Research: ACRA: The Alta Conference on
1977 Biocultural Dimensions or Archaeological Study: A Re- Rock Art. Knut Helskog, eds. Pp. 312–329. Oslo: Novus.
gional Perspective. In Biocultural Adaptation in Prehistoric 2006 Archaeologists, Feminists, and Queers: Sexual Politics in
America. Robert L. Blakely, ed. Pp. 67–84. Athens: University the Construction of the Past. In Feminist Anthropology: Past,
of Georgia Press. Present, and Future. Pamela L. Geller and Miranda K. Stock-
Buikstra, Jane, and Lane A. Beck ett, eds. Pp. 89–102. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania
2006 Bioarchaeology: The Contextual Analysis of Human Re- Press.
mains. Burlington: Elsevier–Academic. Eshed, Vered, Avi Gopher, Ehud Galili, and Israel Hershkovitz
Buikstra, Jane, Jason King, and Kenneth Nystrom 2004 Musculoskeletal Stress Markers in Natufian Hunter-
2003 Forensic Anthropology and Bioarchaeology in the Ameri- Gatherers and Neolithic Farmers in the Levant: The Up-
can Anthropologist: Rare but Exquisite Gems. American An- per Limb. American Journal of Physical Anthropology
thropologist 105(1):38–52. 123(4):303–315.
Butler, Judith Falk, Dean
1990 Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. 1997 Brain Evolution in Females: An Answer to Mr. Lovejoy. In
New York: Routledge. Women in Human Evolution. Lori D. Hager, ed. Pp. 114–136.
1993 Bodies that Matter: On the Discursive Limits of Sex. New New York: Routledge.
York: Routledge. Fausto-Sterling, Anne
Cobb, Hannah 1997 Feminism and Behavioral Evolution: A Taxonomy. In Fem-
2005 Straight Down the Line? A Queer Consideration of Hunter- inism and Evolutionary Biology. Patricia Gowaty, ed. Pp. 42–
Gatherer Studies in North-West Europe. World Archaeology 60. New York: Chapman and Hall.
37(4):630–636. 2000 Sexing the Body: Gender Politics and the Construction of
Conkey, Margaret Sexuality. New York: Basic.
1997 Mobilizing Ideologies: Paleolithic “Art,” Gender Trouble, Fedigan, Linda Marie
and Thinking about Alternatives. In Women in Human Evo- 1986 The Changing Role of Women in Models of Human Evolu-
lution. Lori D. Hager, ed. Pp. 172–207. New York: Routledge. tion. Annual Review of Anthropology 15:25–66.
Cowal, Lynne, and Robert Pastor Geller, Pamela L.
2008 Dimensional Variation in the Proximal Ulna: Evaluation 1998 Analysis of Sex and Gender in a Maya Mortuary Context at
of a Metric Method for Sex Assessment. American Journal of Preclassic Cuello, Belize. M.A. thesis, Department of Anthro-
Physical Anthropology 135(4):469–478. pology, University of Chicago.
Cox, Margaret 2005 Skeletal Analysis and Theoretical Complications. World Ar-
1996 Life and Death in Spitalfields, 1700 to 1850. York: Council chaeology 37(4):597–609.
for British Archaeology. 2008 Fomenting a Feminist Bioarchaeology. Journal of Social
Croucher, Karina Archaeology 8(1):113–138.
2005 Queerying Near Eastern Archaeology. World Archaeology Gero, Joan
37(4):610–620. 2004 Sex Pots of Ancient Peru: Post-Gender Relations. In Com-
Cucina, Andreas, and Vera Tiesler bining the Past and the Present: Archaeological Perspectives
2003 Dental Caries and Antemortem Tooth Loss in the Northern on Society, BAR International Series, 1210. Terje Oestigaard,
Peten Area, Mexico: A Biocultural Perspective on Social Sta- Nils Anfinset, and Tore Saetersdal, eds. Pp. 3–22. Oxford: BAR
tus Differences among the Classic Maya. American Journal of International Series.
Physical Anthropology 122(1):1–10. Giles, Fiona
Dahlin, Bruce, Christopher Jensen, Richard Terry, David Wright, 2003 Fresh Milk: The Secret Life of Breasts. New York: Simon and
and Timothy Beach Schuster.
2007 In Search of an Ancient Maya Market. Latin American An- Gillespie, Susan, and Rosemary A. Joyce
tiquity 18(4):363–384. 1997 Gendered Goods: The Symbolism of Maya Hierarchical
514 American Anthropologist • Vol. 111, No. 4 • December 2009

Exchange Relations. In Women in Prehistory: North America ogy. Sarah M. Nelson, ed. Pp. 435–450. Walnut Creek, CA:
and Mesoamerica. Cheryl Claassen and Rosemary A. Joyce, AltaMira.
eds. Pp. 189–207. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Jagose, Annamarie
Press. 1996 Queer Theory: An Introduction. New York: Melbourne Uni-
Gowaty, Patricia, ed. versity Press.
1997 Feminism and Evolutionary Biology: Boundaries, Intersec- Joyce, Rosemary
tions, and Frontiers. New York: Springer. 1992 Images of Gender and Labor Organization in Classic Maya
Gowland, Rebecca, and Christopher Knüsel, eds. Society. In Exploring Gender through Archeology: Selected Pa-
2006 Social Archaeology of Funerary Remains. Oxford: Oxbow. pers from the 1991 Boone Conference, Monographs in World
Gustafson Lowell, S., and Amelia M. Trevelyan, eds. Archaeology, 11. Cheryl Claassen, ed. Pp. 63–70. Madison,
2002 Ancient Maya Gender Identity and Relations. London: WI: Prehistory.
Bergin and Garvey. 1996 The Construction of Gender in Classic Maya Monuments.
Haak, Wolfgang, Guido Brandt, Hylke de Jong, Christian Meyer, In Gender and Archaeology. Rita Wright, ed. Pp. 167–195.
Robert Ganslmeier, Volker Heyd, Chris Hawkesworth, Alistair Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Pike, Harald Meller, and Kurt Alt 2000a Gender and Power in Prehispanic Mesoamerica. Austin:
2008 Analysis of DNA, Strontium Isotopes, and Osteological University of Texas Press.
Analyses Shed Light on Social and Kinship Organization of 2000b A Precolumbian Gaze: Male Sexuality among the Ancient
the Later Stone Age. Proceedings of the National Academy of Maya. In Archaeologies of Sexuality. Robert Schmidt and Bar-
Science 105(47):18226–18231. bara Voss, eds. Pp. 263–286. New York: Routledge.
Hager, Lori D. 2001 Negotiating Sex and Gender in Classic Maya Society. In
1997 Sex and Gender in Paleoanthropology. In Women in Hu- Gender in Pre-Hispanic America. Cecilia Klein, ed. Pp. 109–
man Evolution. Lori D. Hager, ed. Pp. 1–28. New York: Rout- 142. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and
ledge. Collection.
Halsall, Guy Lancaster, Jane B.
2001 Material Culture, Sex, Gender and Transgression in Sixth- 1991 A Feminist and Evolutionary Biologist Looks at Women.
Century Gaul: Some Reflections in the Light of Recent Ar- Yearbook of Physical Anthropology 34:1–11.
chaeological Debate. In Indecent Exposure: Sexuality, Society, Laqueur, Thomas
and the Archaeological Record. Lynne Bevan, ed. Pp. 130–146. 1990 Making Sex: Body and Gender from the Greeks to Freud.
Glasgow: Cruithne. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Haraway, Donna Larsen, Clark Spencer
1989 Primate Visions: Gender, Race, and Nature in the World of 1997 Bioarchaeology: Interpreting Behavior from the Human
Modern Science. New York: Routledge. Skeleton. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hendon, Julia 2003 Equality for the Sexes in Human Evolution? Early Hominid
1996 Archaeological Approaches to the Organization of Domes- Sexual Dimorphism and Implications for Mating Systems and
tic Labor: Household Practice and Domestic Relations. Annual Social Behavior. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sci-
Review of Anthropology 25:45–61. ences 100(16):9103–9104.
1997 Women’s Work, Women’s Space, and Women’s Status 2006 The Changing Face of Bioarchaeology: An Interdisciplinary
among the Classic-Period Maya Elite of the Copán Val- Science. In Bioarchaeology: The Contextual Analysis of Hu-
ley, Honduras. In Women in Prehistory: North America man Remains. Jane Buikstra and Lane A. Beck, eds. Pp. 359–
and Mesoamerica. Cheryl Claassen and Rosemary A. Joyce, 374. Burlington, MA: Elsevier–Academic.
eds. Pp. 33–46. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Longhurst, Robyn
Press. 2008 Maternities: Gender, Bodies, and Space. New York: Rout-
Hewitt, Erika ledge.
1999 What’s in a Name? Gender, Power, and Classic Maya Looper, Matthew
Women Rulers. Ancient Mesoamerica 10(2):251–262. 2002 Women-Men (and Men-Women): Classic Maya Rulers and
Hewlett, Barry the Third Gender. In Ancient Maya Women. Traci Ardren, ed.
1989 Multiple Caretaking among African Pygmies. American An- Pp. 171–202. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira.
thropologist 91(1):186–191. Lovejoy, C. Owen
1991 Demography and Childcare in Preindustrial Societies. Jour- 1981 The Origin of Man. Science 211(4480):341–350.
nal of Anthropological Research 47(1):1–37. Lucy, Sam
Hollimon, Sandra 1997 Housewives, Warriors and Slaves? Sex and Gender in Anglo-
1992 Health Consequences of Sexual Division of Labor among Saxon Burials. In Invisible People and Processes: Writing Gen-
Prehistoric Native Americans: The Chumash of California der and Childhood into European Archaeology. Jenny Moore
and the Arikara of the Northern Plains. In Exploring Gender and Eleanor Scott, eds. Pp. 150–168. London: Leicester Uni-
through Archeology: Selected Papers from the 1991 Boone versity Press.
Conference. Cheryl Claassen, ed. Pp. 81–88. Madison, WI: Lutz, Catherine, and Jane Collins
Prehistory. 1993 Reading National Geographic. Chicago: University of
1997 The Third Gender in Native California: Two-Spirit Un- Chicago Press.
dertakers among the Chumash and Their Neighbors. In Maggiano, Isabel S., Michael Schultz, Horst Kierdorf, Thelma Sierra
Women in Prehistory. Cheryl Claassen and Rosemary A. Joyce, Sosa, Corey M. Maggiano, and Vera Tiesler Blos
eds. Pp. 173–188. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania 2008 Cross-Sectional Analysis of Long Bones, Occupational Ac-
Press. tivities and Long-Distance Trade of the Classic Maya from
2000 Archaeology of the ‘Aqi: Gender and Sexuality in Prehis- Xcambó: Archaeological and Osteological Evidence. American
toric Chumash Society. In Archaeologies of Sexuality. Robert Journal of Physical Anthropology 136(4):170–177.
Schmidt and Barbara Voss, eds. Pp. 179–196. New York: Rout- Marchi, Damiano O., Vitale S. Sparacello, Brigette M. Holt, and
ledge. Vincenzo Formicola
2001a The Gendered Peopling of America: Addressing the Antiq- 2006 Biomechanical Approach to the Reconstruction of Activity
uity of Systems of Multiple Genders. In The Archaeology of Patterns in Neolithic Western Liguria, Italy. American Journal
Shamanism. Neil Price, ed. Pp. 123–134. London: Routledge. of Physical Anthropology 131(4):447–455.
2001b Warfare and Gender in the Northern Plains: Osteological Martin, Emily
Evidence of Trauma Reconsidered. In Gender and the Archae- 2001 The Woman in the Body: A Cultural Analysis of Reproduc-
ology of Death. Bettina Arnold and Nancy Wicker, eds. Pp. tion. Boston: Beacon.
179–193. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira. McBrearty, Sally, and Marc Moniz
2006 The Archaeology of Nonbinary Genders in Native North 1991 Prostitutes or Providers? Hunting, Tool Use, and Sex Roles
American Societies. In Handbook of Gender in Archaeol- in Earliest Homo. In The Archaeology of Gender: Proceedings
 Geller • Bodyscapes, Biology, Heteronormativity 515

of the 22nd Annual Conference of the Archaeological Asso- Rayna R. Reiter, ed. Pp. 157–210. New York: Monthly
ciation of the University of Calgary. Dale Walde and Noreen Review.
D. Willows, eds. Pp. 71–82. Calgary: University of Calgary Ar- 1984 Thinking Sex: Notes for a Radical Theory of the Politics
chaeological Association. of Sexuality. In Pleasure and Danger. Carole Vance, ed. Pp.
Mirzoeff, Nicholas 287–319. Boston: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
1995 Bodyscape: Art, Modernity and the Ideal Figure. New York: Ruff, Christopher
Routledge. 2000 Biomechanical Analyses of Archaeological Human Skeletal
Moser, Stephanie, and Clive Gamble Samples. In Biological Anthropology of the Human Skeleton.
1997 Revolutionary Images: The Iconic Vocabulary for Repre- M. Anne Katzenberg and Shelley Saunders, eds. Pp. 71–102.
senting Human Antiquity. In The Cultural Life of Images: Vi- New York: Wiley-Liss.
sual Representation in Archaeology. Brian L. Molyneaux, ed. Scheper-Hughes, Nancy
Pp. 184–211. London: Routledge. 2000 The Global Traffic in Human Organs. Current Anthropol-
Newton, Esther ogy 41(2):191–224.
1972 Mother Camp: Female Impersonators in America. Engle- Schiebinger, Londa
wood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. 1993 Why Mammals Are Called Mammals: Gender Politics in
Novak, Shannon Eighteenth-Century Natural History. American History Re-
2008 House of Mourning: A Biocultural History of the Mountain view 98(2):382–411.
Meadows Massacre. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press. Schmid, Randolph
Perry, Elizabeth 2008 The Flintsteins? Germans Find Stone Age Family. As-
2004 Bioarchaeology of Labor and Gender in the Prehispanic sociated Press, November 18. Electronic document, http://
American Southwest. Ph.D. thesis, Department of Anthropol- www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27770938/, accessed December 8.
ogy, University of Arizona, Tucson. Schmidt, Robert
Perry, Elizabeth, and Rosemary Joyce 2002 The Iceman Cometh: Queering the Archaeological Past. In
2001 Providing a Past for “Bodies That Matter”: Judith Butler’s Out in Theory: The Emergence of Lesbian and Gay Anthropol-
Impact on the Archaeology of Gender. International Journal ogy. Ellen Lewin and William Leap, eds. Pp. 155–185. Chicago:
of Sexuality and Gender Studies 6(1–2):63–76. University of Illinois Press.
Peterson, Jane Schmidt, Robert, and Barbara Voss, eds.
2002 Sexual Revolutions: Gender and Labor at the Dawn of Agri- 2000 Archaeologies of Sexuality. London: Routledge.
culture. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira. Sedgwick, Eve Kosofsky
Pohl, Mary 1993 Tendencies. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
1991 Women, Animal Rearing, and Social Status: The Case of 2008[1990] Epistemology of the Closet. Berkeley: University of
the Formative Period Maya. In The Archaeology of Gender: California Press.
Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Conference of the Archaeo- Shimada, Izumi, Ken-Ichi Shinoda, Julie Farnum, and Robert Cor-
logical Association of the University of Calgary. Dale Walde ruccini
and Noreen D. Willows, eds. Pp. 392–399. Calgary: University 2004 An Integrated Analysis of Pre-Hispanic Mortuary Practices:
of Calgary Archaeological Association. A Middle Sican Case Study. Current Anthropology 45(3):369–
Power, Camilla, and Leslie Aiello 403.
1997 Female Proto-Symbolic Strategies. In Women in Human Sládek, Vladimı́r, Margit Berner, Daniel Sosna, and Robert Sailer
Evolution. Lori D. Hager, ed. Pp. 153–171. New York: Rout- 2007 Human Manipulative Behavior in the Central Euro-
ledge. pean Late Eneolithic and Early Bronze Age: Humeral Bilat-
Rakita, Gordon F. M., and Jane Buikstra eral Asymmetry. American Journal of Physical Anthropology
2005 Corrupting Flesh: Reexamining Hertz’s Perspective on 133(1):669–681.
Mummification and Cremation. In Interacting with the Dead: Smyth, Cherry
Perspectives on Mortuary Archaeology for the New Millen- 1996 What Is This Thing Called Queer? In The Material Queer:
nium. Gordon F. M. Rakita, Jane Buikstra, Lane A. Beck, and A LesBiGay Cultural Studies Reader. Donald Morton, ed. Pp.
Sloan R. Williams, eds. Pp. 97–106. Gainesville: University 277–285. Boulder, CO: Westview.
Press of Florida. Sofaer, Joanna
Reno, Philip L., Richard S. Meindl, Melanie A. McCollum, and C. 2006 The Body as Material Culture: A Theoretical Osteoarchae-
Owen Lovejoy ology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
2003 Sexual Dimorphism in Australopithecus Afarensis Was Sim- Standen, Vivien G., B. T. Arriaza, and C. M. Santoro
ilar to That of Modern Humans. Proceedings of the National 1997 External Auditory Exostosis in Prehistoric Chilean Popula-
Academy of Sciences 100(16):9404–9409. tions: A Test of the Cold Water Hypothesis. American Journal
Rich, Adrienne of Physical Anthropology 103(1):119–129.
1980 Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence. Signs: Steele, D. Gentry, and Claud A. Bramblett
Journal of Women in Culture and Society 5(4):631–660. 1988 The Anatomy and Biology of the Human Skeleton. College
Robb, John Station: Texas A&M University Press.
2002 Time and Biography: Osteobiography of the Italian Ne- Steiner, Leslie Morgan, ed.
olithic Lifespan. In Thinking through the Body: Archaeolo- 2006 Mommy Wars: Stay-at-Home and Career Moms Face off on
gies of Corporeality. Yannis Hamilakis, Mark Pluciennik, and Their Choices, Their Lives, Their Families. New York: Random
Sarah Tarlow, eds. Pp. 153–171. New York: Kluwer Academic– House.
Plenum. Stockett, Miranda
Robb, John, Renzo Bigazzi, Luca Lazzarini, Caterina Scarsini, and 2005 On the Importance of Difference: Re-Envisioning Sex
Fiorenza Sonego and Gender in Ancient Mesoamerica. World Archaeology
2001 Social “Status” and Biological “Status”: A Comparison 37(4):566–578.
of Grave Goods and Skeletal Indicators from Pontecagnano. Stojanowski, Christopher
American Journal of Physical Anthropology 115(3):213–222. 2005 The Bioarchaeology of Identity in Spanish Colonial
Robin, Cynthia Florida: Social and Evolutionary Transformation before, dur-
2002 Outside of Houses: The Practices of Everyday Life at Chan ing, and after Demographic Collapse. American Anthropolo-
Nóohol, Belize. Journal of Social Archaeology 2(2):245–268. gist 107(3):417–431.
Roughgarden, Joan Storey, Rebecca
2004 Evolution’s Rainbow: Diversity, Gender, and Sexuality in 1998 The Mothers and Daughters of a Patrilineal Civilization:
Nature and People. Berkeley: University of California Press. The Health of Females among the Late Classic Maya of Co-
Rubin, Gayle pan, Honduras. In Sex and Gender in Paleopathological Per-
1975 The Traffic in Women: Notes on the “Political Econ- spective. Anne L. Grauer and Patricia Stuart-Macadam, eds.
omy” of Sex. In Toward an Anthropology of Women. Pp. 133–148. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
516 American Anthropologist • Vol. 111, No. 4 • December 2009

Strassburg, Jimmy White, Tim

2000 Shamanic Shadows: One Hundred Generations of Undead 2000 Human Osteology. San Diego: Academic.
Subversion in Southern Scandinavia, 7,000–4,000 BC. Stock- Wittig, Monique
holm Studies in Archaeology, 20. Stockholm: Stockholm Uni- 1982 The Category of Sex. Gender Issues 2(2):63–68.
versity Press. Yates, Timothy
Sweely, Tracy 1993 Frameworks for an Archaeology of the Body. In Interpretive
1997 Personal Interactions: The Implications of Spatial Arrange- Archaeology. Chris Tilley, ed. Pp. 31–72. London: Berg.
ments for Power Relations at Ceren, El Salvador. World Ar- Young, Iris Marion
chaeology 29(3):393–406. 1990 Throwing Like a Girl and Other Essays in Feminist Phi-
Sullivan, Nikki losophy and Social Theory. Bloomington: Indiana University
2003 A Critical Introduction to Queer Theory. New York: New Press.
York University Press. Zihlman, Adrienne
Taylor, Timothy 1985 Australopithecus afarensis: Two Sexes or Two Species? In Ho-
2006 The Origins of Human Sexual Culture: Sex, Gender and minid Evolution: Past, Present, and Future. Phillip V. Tobias,
Social Control. Journal of Psychology and Human Sexuality ed. Pp. 213–220. New York: Alan R. Liss.
18(2–3):69–105. 1995 Misreading Darwin on Reproduction: Reductionism in Evo-
Tronick, Edward Z., Steve Winn, and Gilda A. Morelli lutionary Theory. In Conceiving the New World Order. Faye
1985 Multiple Caretaking in the Context of Human Evolution: Ginsburg and Rayna Rapp, eds. Pp. 425–443. Berkeley: Uni-
Why Don’t the Efe Know the Western Prescription for Child versity of California Press.
Care? In The Psychobiology of Attachment and Separation. 1997 The Paleolithic Glass Ceiling: Women in Human Evolution.
Martin Reite and Tiffany Field, eds. Pp. 293–322. New York: In Women in Human Evolution. Lori D. Hager, ed. Pp. 91–113.
Academic. New York: Routledge.
Urbanus, Jason
2008 Eternal Embrace. Archaeology 61(1). Electronic docu-
ment, www.archaeology.org/0801/abstracts/valdaro.html, ac-
cessed December 8. FOR FURTHER READING
Voss, Barbara
2005 Sexual Subjects: Identity and Taxonomy in Archaeological (These selections were made by the American Anthropologist Editorial
Research. In The Archaeology of Plural and Changing Identi- Interns as examples of research related in some way to this article. They
ties: Beyond Identification. Eleanor Conlin Casella and Chris do not necessarily reflect the views of the author.)
Fowler, eds. Pp. 55–78. New York: Kulwer Academic–Plenum.
Walker, Phillip Dorow, Sara
1995 Problems of Preservation and Sexism in Sexing: Some 2009 Blood and Desire: The Secret of Heteronormativity in Adop-
Lessons from Historical Collections for Palaeodemographers. tion Narratives of Culture. American Ethnologist 36(3):563–
In Grave Reflections. Shelley R. Saunders and Ann Herring, 573.
eds. Pp. 31–47. Toronto: Canadian Scholars’ Press. Everett, Margaret
2005 Greater Sciatic Notch Morphology: Sex, Age, and Popula- 2007 The “I” in the Gene: Divided Property, Fragmented Person-
tion Differences. American Journal of Physical Anthropology hood, and the Making of a Genetic Privacy Law. American
127(4):386–391. Ethnologist 34(2):375–386.
Wanner, Isabel, Thelma Sierra Sosa, Kurt Alt, and Vera Tiesler Blos Halliburton, Murphy
2007 Lifestyle, Occupation, and Whole Bone Morphology of 2002 Rethinking Anthropological Studies of the Body:
the Pre-Hispanic Maya Coastal Population from Xcambó, Manas and Bodham in Kerala. American Anthropologist
Yucatan, Mexico. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 104(4):1123–1134.
17(3):253–268. Jezernik, Božidar
Washburn, Sherwood 2008 Constructing@Identities on Marbles and Terracotta: Rep-
1951 The New Physical Anthropology. Transactions of the New resentations of Classical Heritage in Greece and Turkey. Mu-
York Academy of Sciences, Series 2, 13(7):298–304. seum Anthropology 30(1):3–20.
Weed, Elizabeth, and Naomi Schor, eds. Perry, Megan A.
1997 Feminism Meets Queer Theory. Bloomington: Indiana Uni- 2005 Redefining Childhood through Bioarchaeology: Toward an
versity Press. Archaeological and Biological Understanding of Children in
Weismantel, Mary Antiquity. Archeological Papers of the American Anthropo-
2004 Moche Sex Pots: Reproduction and Temporality in Ancient logical Association 15(1):89–111.
South America. American Anthropologist 106(3):495–505. Teman, Elly
Weston, Kath 2003 The Medicalization of “Nature” in the “Artificial Body”:
1993 Lesbian/Gay Studies in the House of Anthropology. Annual Surrogate Motherhood in Israel. Medical Anthropology Quar-
Review of Anthropology 22:339–367. terly 17(1):78–98.