In the article we reviewed for this module Archaeology of the Body by Rosemary A. Joyce, what really pushed my discussions I brought into class was the concept proposed that bodies are not just biological facts but are shaped by cultural meanings and daily practices. Joyce explains that the body can be seen as something that is created through given social interaction, ritualistic burial, dress, and performance. For example, the discussion we had in class about how gender is interpreted in burials and the significance of each portion of the burial. It was a unique experience learning that sometimes even archaeologists are affected by modern-day bias that affects their finding such as the gender assumptions based on the objects buried with the corpse upon death, weapons for men, and jewelry for women, or mirrors. It pushed me to think more critically about how identity is constructed rather than simply discovered in the archaeological record.
In the next article Relationality, Corporeality and Bioarchaeology by Pamela L. Geller and Miranda Stockett Suri, the idea that bodies only have meaning within social and material contexts was compelling to me and really fired up my ideas for our Thursday discussions. Instead of treating skeletal remains as isolated biological specimens, as some archaeologists have before, the authors argue that bodies should be understood through their relationships to the environment of burial, the community of the dead, and power structures relative to the corpse. Even after this class, I find the desire to look into how bioarchaeologists balance scientific analysis with these more theoretical perspectives. In the end, I found it incredibly important to find ways to integrate hard data and findings with interpretations about lived experience and social identity, not just a baseline of one or the other.