Paper Writing Servicehttp://StudyHub.vip/Altering-Identities--Body-Modifications

1. 18. Altering Identities: Body Modifications and the
Pre-Columbian Maya
Pamela L. Geller
Introduction
Historically, body modifications have received ample
attention in popular and scholarly literature. I would argue
that this attention has been fraught with what are now
seen as misrepresentations or denigrating attitudes.
Descriptions of ‘artificial cranial deformation’ and ‘dental
mutilation’ abound, shaping reception and understanding
of rich, informative data sets. Tracing Western responses
to modified bodies yields interesting insights. Comparison
of modern investigators’ descriptions and attitudes reveals
little divergence from those of sixteenth and seventeenth-
century chroniclers. As a result, complex and nuanced
meanings encoded by practices of body modifications
remain obscured.
To think about bodies and their transformation in a
less ethnocentric light, the pre-Columbian Maya serve as
an important case study. Maya peoples possessed a
penchant for indelible body modifications. Fortunately
for bioarchaeologists, Maya corporeal transformations
possess observable, material dimensions. Buikstra (1997,
227) has noted, ‘Although various explanations have been
posited, ranging from social status to ethnic markers, we
are still far from appreciating the reasons why the Maya
chose to alter their appearance.’ More than just an act of
beautification or idiosyncratic behavior, Maya peoples’
indelible body modifications speak to a connection
between identity constitution and embodied experience.
Society’s molding of bodies, in both ritual and quotidian
affairs, generates social identity, a forging of historical
connections, aesthetic ideals, and future outlooks. Elabor-
ation of practices of social identity construction is
complemented by a discussion of practices for con-
structing self-identity. This second endeavor is indeed
difficult for bioarchaeologists, since material and human
remains are privileged in their work. Decidedly more
phenomenological, reconstructing practices of self-
identity constitution looks to sensual dimensions of
modification, such as pain. Hence, the construction and
reconstruction of identity, whether in public ritual venues
or the individualized space of the body, possesses not just
a conceptual, but material and corporeal dimensions.
A particularly salient example is the practice of dental
modification. As a member of the Programme for Belize
Archaeological Project (PfBAP), I joined other
investigators in excavating burials containing dental
remains, which were within and adjacent to the 250,000
acres owned by the Programme for Belize (PfB) in the
Rio Bravo Conservation and Management Area (Fig.
18.1). Since its inception in 1992, the PfBAP has explored
this previously little known and thickly forested area in
northwestern Belize. Investigations have revealed dense
settlement at sites ranging in size from major centers to
house ruins. It is from these contexts that the materials
discussed here derive. Moreover, as my perspective is a
bioarchaeological one, dental data are better understood
by also looking at mortuary contexts, individuals’
osteobiographies, and ethnohistoric accounts.
The PfBAP burial sample consists of the remains of
132 individuals, who lived from the Late Preclassic to the
Terminal Classic period [c.400 BC – AD 900]. The sample
is composed of a cross-section of society; everyone from
ruler to rural farmer is represented. Investigators have
encountered the majority of burials in association with
commoner and elite residences at 14 different sites. Maya
peoples generally buried their deceased kin beneath or
within their domestic structures; the individuals that
comprise the sample are not an exception. From this
configuration, we can recognize that Maya peoples literally
lived with their ancestors, per McAnany (1995; see also
Gillespie 2000, 2002). Just as manipulation of decedents’
bodies facilitated transformation from liminal corpse to
venerated ancestors, irreversible modification during life
similarly signaled a shift in individuals’ identities. As I will
argue here, dental modification may have been carried
out in the context of a rite of passage, and that associated
pain and permanence may have signified an individual’s
transition from one identity to another.

2. Pamela L. Geller
280
Figure 18.1. Programme for Belize property, showing Barba Group, Chan Chich, Dos Hombres, La Milpa, and adjacent sites (Reproduced
courtesy of Brett Houk).

3. Altering Identities: Body Modifications and the Pre-Columbian Maya 281
The modified body in western discourse
Sixteenth and seventeenth-century perceptions
Writings from the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries
contain numerous reflections about the human body.
Study of “Others’” bodies (i.e. native, non-Western
bodies) grew out of Western medical tradition in which
the “theatrical display” of bodies provided anatomists
with the resources for dissection lessons as well as
authoritative claims (Laqueur 1990, 74–75). As ana-
tomical or native non-Western specimens, bodies and
their mutability were objects of curiosity and ambivalence,
if not outright aversion.
The writings of John Bulwer, a London physician who
also developed an interest in rhetoric, psychology, and
ethnology, serve as case in point. Woven through Bulwer’s
works is a fascination with the corporeal and its
communicative capabilities. Body modifications as
inscriptive practice provide the focus for his fourth and
final work, Anthropometamorphosis, man transform’d; or, The
artificiall changeling (1650). Written in the style of an
armchair ethnography, the text provides a temporally and
spatially sweeping consideration of the body’s malleability,
somewhat akin to a literary cabinet of curiosities.
According to Bulwer, the natural body represented a
flawless blueprint designed by God, and its “deformation”
resulted from mental depravity and renunciation of Judeo-
Christian beliefs. In fact, Bulwer viewed all alterations
with equal distaste, whether as extreme as nose removal
or inconsequential seeming as hair styling. Condemning
English youths, effeminate gallants, and “cosmetic-ed”
women for their corporeal transgressions, Bulwer none-
theless asserted that cultural modifications of flesh and
bone, indeed crimes against God, were at their worst in
the Americas.
Of course, historically contingent religious, political
and ideological contexts are what framed Bulwer’s
secondary gleaning of corporeal inscriptions. Anthro-
pometamorphosis emerged from an epoch of conquistadores
and Cartesian thinkers. His work was born of the necessity
to clarify and categorize burgeoning knowledge of the
world’s flora, fauna, geography, and people, which
occurred during this ‘Age of Discovery’. Admittedly,
Bulwer does not represent seventeenth-century European
society’s sentiments indiscriminately. His voice did,
however, resonate with literate and multi-lingual intellects
dispersed throughout the continent (Campbell 1999, 15–
16). The writings of Europeans chronicling the New
World similarly find a place in this developing dialogue,
as well.
During this time, vehement opposition to somatic
alterations and differences delved into the longstanding
issue of human constitution and nature. How to conceive
of Amerindians – so dramatically different in form, style,
custom, and belief – remained a continuing problem for
missionaries, conquistadores, colonizers, and European
recipients of information removed from first-hand
experiences. European unease with religious incongruities
went hand in glove with corporeal disparities – skin color,
costumes, and permanent body modification. Chroniclers
of the New World detailed the artificially changed bodies
of native peoples as visibly distinct from God’s intended,
Christian design, the thread of which Bulwer picked up
and entwined through his own treatise (e.g. Tozzer 1941;
Cortés 1960; Diaz del Castillo 1963; Sahagún 1971). In
trying to understand the ‘Other’, chroniclers in fact bred
misunderstanding, which subsequently contributed to
fallacious and denigrating representations of New World
natives. As visual cues, corporeal alterations added further
support to presumed savagery, technological failings,
cultural inferiority, and Godless-ness. For missionaries in
their quest to civilize and convert native peoples, the
continuing presence of indelible body modifications
justified their noble enterprise, and subsequent abolition
of these marks highlighted their success.
Contemporary perception and perpetuation
Almost four centuries later negative perceptions and
responses persist, further obscuring the complex
meanings encoded in the puncturing of skin, the
modifying of dentition, and the reshaping of cranial bones.
Reactions to the recent resurgence of body modifications
within contemporary Western society provide ample
evidence of such attitudes.
In their investigations of body modifications, physical
anthropologists are not exempt when it comes to
disparaging attitudes, as evidenced by their invocation of
value-laden language. While there are notable exceptions
(e.g. Jacobi 2000; F. Saul 1972; F. Saul and J. Saul 1991;
Havill et al. 1997; J. Saul and F. Saul 1997), many
bioarchaeologists still commonly use phrases like ‘artificial
cranial deformation’ and ‘dental mutilation’ (e.g. Owsley
and Guerin 1982; Cocilovo and Garrett 1988; López
Olivares 1997; Tiesler 1998; Alt et al. 1999; Costa-
Junqueira 2001; Özbek 2001). While these terms are likely
the result of historical convention, it is important to
advocate usage of ‘cranial shaping’ and ‘dental
modification’, as pointed out early on by Frank Saul
(1972). Less ethnocentric descriptions lend themselves to
productive interpretations of past modifiers’ marks.
Furthermore, contemporary body modifiers are viewed
with similar negative attitudes. Popular, medical, and
scholarly sources level vehement opposition at counter-
cultural ‘modern primitives’, who reference the styles and
techniques of non-Western body modifiers in their own
alterations. These sources often identify extreme
modifications practiced by modern primitives as not only
disfiguring, but symptomatic of latent psychological
disorders (e.g. Favazza 1996; Koenig and Carnes 1999;
Milner and Eichold 2001). As Bulwer espoused so vocally
more than 350 years ago, the body is still conceived as a
space whose boundaries should not be dissolved. Despite
proclamation by ‘modern primitives’ that their alterations
are designed to recreate the ideal, natural, beautiful, and

4. Pamela L. Geller
282
primal body (Musafar 1996; Rosenblatt 1997), critics still
assert that corporeal modification undermines the body’s
unity. Corporeal alterations remain visually discordant and
unsettling to mainstream communities. The subtext of
contemporary, disparaging responses mirrors Enlighten-
ment attitudes mentioned earlier – corporeal modification
undermines the body’s integrity, giving rise to psycho-
logical imbalance and anti-social behavior.
Putting aside the suggestion of mental illness, counter-
cultural reinterpretations of body modifications by
‘modern primitives’ are not without interpretive
problems. First, conflation of these practices into a single
corpus of bodily transformations fails to recognize often
subtle historical shifts in artistry and meaning. Second,
many modern primitives assert that body modifications
are personal, thereby reinforcing creation and control of
one’s self-identity. However, Orlan, a French perfor-
mance artist, who uses extreme body modifications as a
key component in her work, recognizes indeed that the
opposite is true:
It’s quite obvious that the majority of people who are into those
things are liberating themselves from the dictates of a certain
society, but in fact it all boils down to the same thing because
they are conforming to the dictates of a smaller, mini-society.
(Orlan in Ayers 2000, 182)
In fact, the increasing trendiness of body modifica-
tions, such as multiple piercings and tattoos, in Western
society has demystified these corporeal alterations to a
certain extent. In turn, these practices have in fact become
more accessible and accepted by mainstream comm-
unities. Moreover, a certain degree of shock value
provides an intrinsic motivation for modifications, as
Orlan also recognizes and uses to her benefit.
Extraordinary, seditious, and individualized performances
downplay the fact that such practices and permanent
marks may be quite prosaic and accepted when situated in
their original cultural contexts. Finally, in their glossing
of all native peoples as primitive and immutable
(Rosenblatt 1997, 322), practitioners neglect or mis-
construe the specific cultural meanings that underlie
corporeal alterations.
As a counterpoint to the ‘modern primitive’ move-
ment, I now reflect upon practitioners of plastic surgery.
In the United States and Latin America, plastic surgeries,
generally intrusive and bloody acts of corporeal
transformation, are not regarded with similar derision,
though very few extreme cases do provide exceptions (e.g.
Michael Jackson). The linguistic usage of ‘deformation’,
‘hazard’, ‘deviance’, and ‘mutilation’, is not part of that
domain. Instead, cosmetic surgeries are conceived of as
acts of beautification, designed to produce bodies which
appear seemingly natural, or unmarked by culture. In these
instances, the corporeal ends are socially acceptable ones,
regulated by an aesthetic ideology. In conducting ethno-
graphic work at a plastic surgery center in the United
States, Huss-Ashmore (2000, 27) has recognized that the
aim of cosmetic surgery is to produce ‘a new and better
person’, and consequently, an internalized sense of self is
realized on an exterior façade. She presents plastic surgery
as a healing system within the field of medicine.
In irreversibly modifying the body to approximate a
cultural, or counter-cultural ideal, how different are
practitioners of cosmetic surgeries and ‘modern
primitives’? Many would argue that while the means of
modification are similar, the ends are not. I, however,
assert that the ends are more similar than most might feel
comfortable admitting. Drawing from my discussion of
‘modern primitives’ and plastic surgery proponents, I have
identified two significant dimensions of corporeal alter-
ation, which I believe were also at issue for the pre-
Columbian Maya. First, one important end of body
modifications is to facilitate identity (re)constitution.
Second, many, though not all, body modifications produce
painful sensations. These characteristics are interrelated,
and may further enlighten interpretations about case
studies distanced in space and time, such as the pre-
Columbian Maya and their practice of dental modification,
as I now discuss.
The study of pre-Columbian Maya body
modifications
Physical anthropologists’ early scholarship centered on
irreversible body modifications, especially those of the
pre-Columbian Maya (Buikstra 1997, 224). However,
mounting information about shaped crania and modified
dentition led not to robust interpretations, but rather to
the creation of enduring classificatory systems (e.g. Dembo
and Imbelloni 1938; Dingwall 1931; Romero Molina
1951, 1952, 1960, 1965, 1970; Cifuentes Aguirre 1963).
In fact, Maya bioarchaeologists still reference Romero
Molina’s taxonomic system for dental modification, and
in this discussion, I do not take exception.
Referencing American dental collections housed at
Mexico’s Museo Nacional de Antropología, Romero
Molina classified modifications according to design and
location on the tooth (Fig. 18.2). Design distinctions
included the following: engraving labial surfaces; inlaying
labial surfaces with semi-precious stones, such as
hematite, jade, and turquoise; and filing or removing
incisal edges or corners. These designs could either be
displayed singly or in simultaneous combinations. From
his analysis of 1212 modified teeth, Romero Molina
organized designs into seven types (A through G); within
these types he numbered smaller sub-types. Altogether,
he documented a total of 59 variants. While exceedingly
useful, Romero Molina’s categorizations are beginning to
show their age; five decades of subsequent excavation
and analysis have uncovered several dental modifications
that do not fit neatly into these categories. Later, I discuss
the exigency of regarding dental designs not as categories,
but rather as single stages in a larger decorative process.
Several Romero types seem to be foundational signs upon
which modifiers elaborated. Examination of connections

5. Altering Identities: Body Modifications and the Pre-Columbian Maya 283
Figure 18.2. Romero Molina’s classification of modified dentition (adapted from Romero Molina 1970, 51).
between designs facilitates understanding of the social
processes that motivated modification.
While categorization was invaluable for establishing
basic evaluative criteria, analyzed human remains were
often not contextualized with respect to geography and
chronology in early studies. Analysis of human remains
generally occurred in settings far removed in time and
space from excavations. In situ examination was a rarity,
and skeletal analysts were provided with little background
information about archaeological contexts and/or
associations (but see Agrinier 1964; Stewart 1953). These
lacunae were brought into sharp relief by emerging
investigative interests in the 1960’s. Spatial distribution of
modificationtypeswasbecominganincreasinglyimportant
concern (e.g. Romero Molina 1952, 1965; Comas 1969).
The study of deliberate corporeal transformation as an
area of bioarchaeological concern has not fallen out of
fashion. It has, however, remained quiescent. The vast
majority of work is descriptive – an absorption with ‘what’
(type) and ‘how’ (process) (e.g. Havill et al. 1997).
Suggestions as to ‘why’ modification was undertaken
appear less frequently in the literature (though see López
Olivares 1997). Past researchers have ventured tentative
interpretations, such as beautification (Linné, 1940; Havill
et al. 1997), markers of sex differences (Linné 1940),
magical motivations (Linné 1940; Romero Molina 1951,
50–51), ethnic distinctions (Boas 1890; Dembo and
Imbelloni 1938), occupational specialization (Becker
1973), or elevated socioeconomic status (Romero Molina
1958; Comas 1969). This last explanation has had

6. Pamela L. Geller
284
considerable longevity. Such an interpretation was not
entirely unfounded, as archaeologists in the late-
nineteenth and early-twentieth centuries were preoccupied
with elite tombs, in which preservation was kinder to
skeletal materials. Artistic representations portraying elites
with elaborate body modifications provided further
evidence that elevated social status dictated the alteration
of bodies, indelible sumptuary laws as the case may be.
However, an increase in excavations of commoner
residences – from mid-twentieth century onward –
necessitates rethinking representations of Maya body
modifiers’ identities and positions within society.
I consider the practice of dental modification as a
means for constructing identities. As support, I look to
individuals with dental modification who were excavated
from graves associated with elite and commoner
residences in PfB. Seeing that dental modifications make
one aware of his or her body, I also argue that they afford
ingress for discussing issues of embodiment in addition
to the constitution of identity.
Dental modifications of the Maya
Unlike their Zapotec neighbors, pre-Columbian Maya
portraiture rarely portrays individuals with mouths agape
and dentition modified. Yet, from dental remains and
historical documentation, we know that Maya peoples
long practiced dental modification. At the site of Cuello
in northwestern Belize, Saul and Saul (1997, 45–46) have
uncovered the earliest known evidence of dental
modification, a type of filing that dates to ca. 900 BC.
Documented by Landa (Tozzer 1941, 125) at the time of
Spanish conquest, the practice of modifying dentition
occurred with less and less frequency following adamant
Church prohibition (Havill et al. 1997, 103; Jacobi 2000,
175).
Burial data from northwestern Belize
The PfBAP burial sample serves as a case study in this
discussion of dental modification. Of the sample’s 132
individuals, the dentitions of 72 individuals were not
sufficiently preserved to examine evidence for modifica-
tion (Table 18.1). Unfortunately, preservation in the
tropical Maya lowlands is very poor. Various taphonomic
forces leave human remains in a highly fragmented and
incomplete state. Teeth, the most durable component of
the human body, also fall victim as root acids strip them
of enamel. Moreover, the small size of teeth may prevent
their archaeological recovery, as they go unnoticed in situ
or slip through screens. With this being said, the number
of modified teeth per individual may be the result of
factors aside from those cultural activities that occurred
during an individual’s life.
Despite this, 60 individuals could be assessed for the
presence or absence of dental modification. Twenty-six
individuals possessed at least one modified tooth, and
one individual displayed fully eight modified teeth (see
Table 18.1). The majority of individuals modified their
maxillary teeth, which are more visible than mandibular
teeth when mouths are open. In the case of maxillary
dentition, central incisors (N=27) were modified more
often than were lateral incisors or canines (N=12 and
N=13, respectively). There is also one individual with a
modified premolar. Prevalence of designs on the visually
prominent maxillary anterior teeth seems to be in keeping
with the larger Maya pattern (Fastlicht ,1962; Havill et al.,
1997; Jacobi, 2000, 175).
Stylistically speaking, 16 different Romero types are
evidenced on maxillary and mandibular teeth in the
PfBAP sample (Table 18.2). I will discuss several of these
types in greater detail later. There were three instances in
which a modified tooth could have been categorized as
two different types. Several individuals also displayed
more than one type of modification. For example, one
individual with a total of eight modified teeth had
maxillary right and left mesial incisors and canines with
Romero type B-2, maxillary right and left lateral incisors
with Romero type A-4, and mandibular right and left
mesial incisors with Romero type A-2.
With information about dental modification
encountered at PfB sites in hand, I will make inferences
about the PfBAP sample. Before proposing explanations
for dental modification, I first consider pain as an intended
effect of dental modification, and how the Maya may have
made pain meaningful culturally. Discussion of the painful
dimensions of dental modification is followed by
demographic reconstruction. The ‘whos’ of dental
modification are considered with respect to age, sex,
‘ethnicity’, and social position. For the PfBAP sample,
individuals were aged and sexed using standard and well-
No. of
Individuals
Unknown 72
Dental modification absent 34
Represented by 6 teeth or more 30
Represented by 5 teeth or fewer 4
Dental modification present 26*
Mandibular modification 4
Maxillary modification 23
Total individuals in PfBAP sample 132
Table 18.1. Occurrence of dental modification in PfBAP sample.
*One individual had both maxillary and mandibular dental
modification.

7. Altering Identities: Body Modifications and the Pre-Columbian Maya 285
established techniques (i.e. Krogman and İşcan 1986, 51–
52; Brooks and Suchey 1990; Saul and Saul 1991; Buikstra
and Ubelaker 1994; White 2000). These data were
correlated with information gleaned from mortuary
contexts and materials, specifically grave types, locations,
and materials, and goods, to make inferences about social
relationships. I conclude with a metaphoric reckoning of
the body as an alternative writing surface.
Dental modification and pain
By all accounts dental modification seems to be an
exceedingly painful process, seeing that it involves the
permanent dissolution of a corporeal boundary via filing,
engraving, or drilling. In fact, altering dentition generates
pain that is very real and experimentally replicable. In a
recent conversation with my family dentist, Dr. Feinhals
emphasized the excruciating pain that would result from
all of the aforementioned dental procedures without
modern day novocain or anesthesia. “It would hurt like
hell,” he said to me. And, judging from the discomfort
incurred from my minor scraping of plaque build up, I
believe him.
This is not to say that the pre-Columbian Maya had no
effective analgesic against dental pain. Surrounding
tropical environments contained abundant and readily
available natural resources quite feasibly utilized for
Table 18.2. Number of PfBAP individuals by sex with Romero
types. *Male and Female are the sum of Male+Male? and
Female+Female?, respectively.
Romero
Types
Male* Female* Sex ? Total
A-1 1 1
A-1 or B-7 1 1
A-2 1 1
A-4 4 1 5
B-2 1 1 2
B-2 or B-4 1 1
B-3 1 1
B-4 5 2 7
B-4 or B-5 1 1
B-5 2 2 4
B-? 1 1
C-3 1 1
C-5 1 1
E-1 3 3
F-1 1 1
F-4 2 2
F-9 1 1
G-3 1 1
G-15 1 1
brewing up pain relievers. In fact, Landa (Tozzer 1941,
198) recorded “a tree [Thevetia peruviana] whose milk is an
especial medicine for curing teeth,” though its direct
application to modified dentition is not noted. None-
theless, we all know from our own experiences at the
dentist, technologically and medically savvy in comparison
to the pre-Columbian Maya, that pain and discomfort
typify filing, engraving, and drilling. Anesthesia and
analgesics do not completely eliminate these sensations;
they only dull them. Nonetheless, consideration of pain
resulting from dental modifications has only received
passing consideration in the literature (Linné 1940, 8).
The experience of pain, especially as a result of
intentional dental modification, raises some intriguing
questions about its cultural construction and neurological
transmission: Can we talk about physiological unity? Is
pain primal? Or, are encounters with pain strictly mediated
by culture and history? I would advance that certain
occurrences produce pain regardless of one’s cultural and
historical circumstances; to name a few, there are child-
birth, torture, circumcision, and – relevant for this
discussion – dental modification. As Turner (1984, 38–
39) states, ‘The body is simultaneously an environment
(part of nature) and a medium of the self (part of culture).’
In other words, there exist universal physiological needs
and responses, though ascribed symbols are often con-
tingent upon culture and history. Moreover, psychiatric
studies have demonstrated that pain threshold, the
neurophysiologic detection of pain, does not vary cross
culturally, but pain tolerance, which reflects behavioral
responses to pain, is profoundly influenced by culture
(e.g. Zatzick and Dimsdale 1990). Thus, pain presents a
universal human sensation, though one that is channeled
via specific cultural constructs.
In arguing for pain as culturally mediated, how did the
Maya make the pain of tooth modification meaningful? I
believe that modification of teeth figured into a process
of becoming. I would suggest that the experience of pain
during dental modification facilitated identity change. In
the Absent Body, Leder (1990) has eloquently articulated
that we are not really aware of our bodies unless they hurt
or function improperly. Bodies are absent in their normal
functioning. Pain brings individuals back into their bodies
and transforms their experience of the world. Similarly, a
shift in individuals’ identities also changes how they
experience and interact with the world. Thus, it is possible
to argue that painful transformations of bodies provide
the impetus for transformations of selves.
Admittedly, the experience of pain is a very personal
one in that it allows for an exploration of one’s self
through the body (e.g. Honkasalo 2001). Yet, I also believe
that painful body modifications, like dental alteration,
were meant to be shared, either through empathy or
simultaneous experience. Morinis (1985) has argued that
pain produced in the moments of corporeal altering is
central – not ancillary – to the successful enactment of
becoming, as in the case of group initiation rituals. The

8. Pamela L. Geller
286
importance of pain, whether experienced personally or as
a product of empathy, is undeniable. In these instances,
construction of pain becomes a joint venture, and
corporeal inscriptions are experienced as a social body.
‘Feeling someone’s pain’ becomes very appropriate in this
situation, and a sense of belonging to a select group is
fostered.
The dual occurrence of painful corporeal alteration
and empathy figures prominently in non-Western rites
associated with identity change. As numerous ethno-
graphic cases detail (e.g. Blackwood and Danby 1955;
Seeger 1975; Rubin ed., 1988; Kapchan 1993), it is often
during rites of passage that changes are wrought to the
body – foreskins are excised, nasal septa are pierced, body
parts are tattooed, dentition is modified. The individual is
emotionally, mentally, and physically stressed. Perfor-
mative rites of passage reintegrate the individual from his
or her liminal, disembodied state into a newly acquired
identity. To complete the process of becoming, the
individual is reintroduced into the community during the
final stage replete with a newly constituted identity and
changed body. And while painful memories fade, visible
body modifications offer an enduring connection for
participants and a permanent reminder for viewers.
Permanent marks are iconic not only for unique cultural
meanings encoded in, but also for pain generated by,
transformative practices. Following from this, I now
consider more closely the modified teeth of individuals in
the PfBAP sample with respect to age, sex, ethnicity, and
social status. Consideration of demography perhaps offers
greater illumination about the connection between dental
modification and identity constitution. Access to both
dental and demographic dimensions of the pre-
Columbian PfBAP populace draws on the continuing
research under direction of Frank Saul and Julie Saul.
Demography and dentition
Because individuals’ age ranges represent ages at death,
rather than the age at which modifications occurred, I
consider it only briefly in this discussion. It was neither
possible to determine for individuals at what ages dental
modifications occurred nor the ages at which additional
modifications were made. However, all dental modifica-
tions were found on permanent, adult teeth (N=26
individuals, 26.8% of total number of adults in the
sample). Not one incidence of dental modification was
identified on deciduous dentition. The youngest individual
with dental modification of permanent teeth was 14–20
years at death. This age range was based upon dental
development; the second mandibular molar had complete
roots and slight wear, but the third molar had not erupted
yet. Of the 97 adults in the PfBAP sample, 25 individuals
(25.8%) did not have any signs of dental modification on
their permanent teeth. Thus, there does not appear to be
any significant difference between those who did have
their teeth modified and those who did not. Although the
sample is small, PfBAP evidence suggests that modifica-
tion of teeth was perhaps linked to an identity that could
occur only after an individual was socially perceived as a
viable adult.
The second demographic dimension considered is
variation according to sex. In the sixteenth century, Diego
de Landa (in Tozzer 1941, 125) observed, ‘The Indian
woman of Yucatan are generally better looking than
Spanish women and larger and well made…they had a
custom of filing their teeth leaving them like the saw, and
this they considered elegant.’ He does not mention
whether or not men modified their teeth. In the PfBAP
sample, 71 individuals (53.8%) in the sample could be
assessed as to sex. Table 18.3 summarizes PfBAP
individuals by sex. The 71 sexed individuals include those
with dental modification, those without dental modifica-
tion, and those for whom it was unknown whether dental
modification was present or absent.
Table 18.4 specifically deals with the 41 sexed
individuals who could be assessed for the presence
(N=22) or absence (N=19) of dental modification. Not
included in Table 18.4 are four individuals with dental
modification but unknown sex. Of those individuals who
do not display dental modification, sex could not be
determined in the case of 15 individuals, but 9 of them
were immature individuals. Immature individuals are
generally “designated unknown or uncertain as to sex
because sexual dimorphism usually becomes distinct only
in late adolescence” (Saul and Saul 1991, 135).
In the PfBAP sample, bodies sexed as males and
females are both dentally modified. Recognizing that the
sample is a small one, it seems that females were more
likely to have their teeth modified than not, while males
were just as likely to have their teeth modified as they
F F? F+F? M M? M+M? ?
N= 10 11 21 21 29 50 61
% of total (N=132) 7.5 (?) 15.9 15.9 (?) 37.9 46.2
Table 18.3. PfBAP individuals by sex.

9. Altering Identities: Body Modifications and the Pre-Columbian Maya 287
were not. For the most part, the sample is too small to say
whether or not certain dental designs were restricted to
different sexes. The one exception is Romero E-1, which
only occurred on elite males’ dentition, as I will discuss
later (see Table 18.2).
Past investigators have argued that dental modification
marked ethnic differences, or, in the case of the more
homogenous pre-Columbian Maya, community identity.
If this was the case, I would expect to find specific types
limited to certain sites. However, I found no evidence for
this argument. Analysis of modified individuals’ spatial
distribution revealed that particular modification types
did not appear to be site-specific for non-elite members
of society. However, as I will discuss next in my con-
sideration of social status, elite members of society from
spatially distant sites did display similar types of dental
modification.
Long thought to be, and popularly perpetuated as, a
marker of social status, dental modification did in fact
occur among all assessable individuals of elevated status
in the PfBAP sample. However, as I will consider
following my discussion of modified elite individuals, the
teeth of commoners were also so marked. The distinction
between elite and commoner was determined by con-
junctive consideration of graves’ types, goods, locations,
and building materials, as well as information learned from
human remains (Geller, 2004). Unlike traditional Maya
studies of burials, I do not take socioeconomic status,
predicated upon wealth with respect to grave goods, labor
expenditure, or sacrificed human lives, as the primary or
most interesting constituent of social identity (e.g. Rathje
1970; Welsh 1988; Krejci and Culbert 1992). Rather, a
bioarchaeological approach is highly useful for con-
sidering the variable and vibrant lives of analyzed
decedents (e.g. Saul and Saul 1989; Fitzsimmons et al.
2003; Buikstra et al. 2004). Identity is interconnected with
gender, age, occupation, religious affiliation, health status,
and a host of additional factors that may or may not be
relevant to a Maya case study.
PfBAP excavators encountered a total of four
architecturally laborious tombs with a rich and varied array
of grave goods. These were located at spatially disparate
sites in PfB (see Fig. 18.1). No teeth were recovered from
the Barba Group rock-cut tomb and the occupant of the
La Milpa tomb exhibited extreme ante-mortem tooth loss,
as evidenced by an edentulous mandible.
In the case of individuals of elevated status with dental
modification, the sample is admittedly a small one (N=3).
Tombs housing dentally modified individuals were
encountered at the sites of Chan Chich and Dos Hombres.
The Chan Chich rock-cut tomb housing one individual
dated to the Protoclassic (ca. AD 150–250), and was
situated beneath the site’s central platform. The Dos
Hombres stone-lined tomb was Early Classic (ca. AD
250–550) in date, contained two individuals, and was
encountered beneath the floor of an elite house group
100 m to the southwest of the site’s center. The Chan
Chich tomb contained a single male with three modified,
maxillary teeth – Romero G-15 on the right canine,
Romero C-5 on the left canine, and Romero E-1 on the
right lateral incisor (see Fig. 18.2). The right canine’s and
incisor’s inserts were hematite. The Dos Hombres tomb
housed the remains of two males?, both of whom
displayed dental modification. These individuals both
possessed Romero E-1 with hematite inlays on their
maxillary teeth.
Individuals interred within these tombs were the
sample’s primary recipients of inlays, suggesting abidance
of sumptuary laws and/or perhaps a stylistic sign of the
times. There is, however, one exception, a Late Classic
burial from Dos Hombres. The individual in question
was in fact interred in a pit situated above (and later in
time than) the elite house group’s aforementioned stone-
lined tomb. His maxillary canines both had a Romero G-
3 design with hematite inserts, the singular example of
this type in the sample. Despite his grave type, other
mortuary data – grave location, grave goods, associated
architectural features – and presumed familial ties suggest
he was a socially prominent person.
When assessable, tomb individuals displayed an
interesting pattern of modification, hinting that dental
modification perhaps mark cumulative processes rather
No. with dental
modification
% of total
sexed
(N=71)
No. without dental
modification
% of total
sexed
(N=71)
F 4 5.6 2 2.8
F? 2 (?) 0 (?)
F+F? 6 8.5 2 2.8
M 5 7.0 10 14.1
M? 11 (?) 7 (?)
M+M? 16 22.5 17 23.9
Table 18.4. PfBAP individuals by sex with and without dental modification.

10. Pamela L. Geller
288
than single, discrete events. These individuals all have
Romero E-1 type with hematite inlays, and they only
appear on maxillary teeth. No one else in the entire PfBAP
sample had this type of modification. Dos Hombres
individuals exhibited no additional types. The Chan Chich
individual, however, also displayed Romero G-15 and C-
5 (see Fig. 18.2). Interestingly enough, Romero G-15
shares stylistic elements with Romero E-1 and Romero
C-5. In both cases, Romero G-15 represents a more
advanced stage of modification. After filing the incisal
edges of the right and left canines into a point (Romero
C-5), a circular hematite inlay was later inserted into the
right canine (Romero G-15). It is also possible that the
right canine was first inlaid, like the adjacent lateral incisor
(Romero E-1), and subsequently its sides were filed into
a point (Romero G-15). All other maxillary teeth that
were present retained no traces of either dental filing or
inlaying. Admittedly, we do not know the order in which
these modifications were undertaken. However, stylistic
overlap between these types possibly indicates that
intricate dental modifications did not occur in one fell
swoop. Conception of decorative types as works in
progress, rather than static classificatory types, suggests
that for some prominent individuals dental modification
perhaps was an ongoing process and exercise in extension
of one’s pain threshold.
It is possible that addition of designs to a previously
modified tooth signified promotion from one political or
religious office to a more prestigious position. Sustenance
of painful procedures, not once but twice, perhaps
stressed the modified individual’s worthiness, as
evidenced by the occupant interred within the Chan Chich
tomb. Irreversibility of dental modification provided a
lasting image and reminder of moments of performative
filing or inlaying. Sharing of stylistic types by these
individuals perhaps signal a specific, restricted kind of
identity, likely related to rulership and/or socio-religious
prominence. Moreover, it is possible that females were
excluded from such identity constitution, seeing that
individuals displaying these distinctive types were males
or males? Finally, specific dental types displayed by PfB’s
individuals may have linked them with similarly decorated
and powerful others at spatially distant centers, such as
Copan, Tikal, Nakbe, and Lubaantún (Hammond et al.
1975; Buikstra et al. 2004).
Findings in tombs indeed offer a point of contrast with
the remainder of the PfBAP sample, which as I mentioned
earlier contained both males and females with dental
modification. As I now discuss, the grave types, locations,
and dental designs of modified commoner males and
females suggest they filled important positions within their
communities, though perhaps not the larger society like
modified, elite individuals.
Non-elites and dental modification
As evidenced by the PfBAP sample, modification was not
simply performed on the dentition of individuals worthy
of tomb interment. Dentally modified individuals were
also interred in other grave types, which included cists,
pits, and simple graves. All of these graves were
encountered in association with structures primarily
residential in function. Further challenging the restriction
of dental modification to individuals of high-status is the
fact that grave goods were not recovered from the graves
of eleven individuals in the sample. Although given the
combined archaeological adversaries of humidity, insects,
and burrowing animals, it is possible that grave goods
were interred but failed to preserve.
The most prevalent dental design in the PfBAP sample
corresponds to the Romero B category (Fig. 18.3). Teeth
exhibiting Romero B types, the exception being Romero
B-7, have notched lateral corners. Several researchers have
deliberated over the connection between Sun God
imagery and dentition with Romero B designs (Blom et
al., 1934, 10–11; Coe 1959, 136; Linné, 1940, 14).
Notching the lateral corners of maxillary central incisors
produces a “T”-shaped pattern similar to that sported by
a stylized Sun God (Fig. 18.4). Houston and Taube (2000,
268) identify this design as the ik sign, which denotes
wind, breath, and aroma. In the PfBAP sample, there are
11 individuals who have at least one tooth with Romero
B designs. Lateral notching on both upper, central incisors
occurs in 4 of these 11 individuals. With respect to sex,
Figure 18.3. Some of examples of PfBAP teeth modified the Romero
B style (Drawn by Jenifer Bryan).
0 1 2cm

11. Altering Identities: Body Modifications and the Pre-Columbian Maya 289
both males and females displayed Romero B types. It is
possible to infer that identities associated with dental
modification were not contingent upon sexual differences.
I suggest that individuals with notched lateral incisors
(particularly Romero B types), regardless of sex, were
distinct and perhaps central figures within their
communities, though perhaps not on par with tomb
occupants. As mentioned earlier, not all individuals had
their teeth modified, suggesting that certain select
individuals within communities achieved specific social
identities distinguishing them from other members that
comprised the larger community. Despite the relative
paucity of their mortuary materials, inasmuch as grave
types, materials, and goods are concerned, dental modifi-
cations perhaps signaled their prominence. Selection of
specific dental designs that alluded to the divine perhaps
could have legitimated these individuals’ standing within
their communities.
Romero B designs, as well as other designs which
involved filing, are also more accessible – technically,
materially, and socially – than the Romero E, C, and G
types worn by tomb occupants. Indeed, Maya peoples
were most likely familiar with dental wear given their
coarse diet. Drilling and inlaying of semi-precious stones,
however, may have necessitated specialized training and
access to limited resources. Thus, it is possible that similar
to tomb occupants, endurance of painful modifications
facilitated a shift in one’s identity, but a shift in identity
that was less socially significant than those of elite
individuals. This reconstitution of identity was visible on
an exterior surface for all to see and empathize with, as
well as suggested a more subtle realignment in one’s sense
of self.
Conclusion
Fortunately, for bioarchaeologists several varieties of
intentional body modification remain conspicuous after
millennia. In the case of the pre-Columbian Maya, dental
remains retain the evidence of inlays and filings. In this
discussion, I have argued that Maya dental modification
represented an important cultural practice through which
identities may have been reconstituted. Painful modifi-
cations suggest a subtler shift in one’s sense of self, as an
individual attempts to cohere their external surface and
internal image. Refashioning an individual’s body was also
enacted according to socially acceptable norms that
referenced culturally potent and widely understood
symbols. Select modified individuals, perhaps prominent
members of their respective communities, appropriated
different designs and techniques at different levels of
society, Romero E, C, and G types for individuals of
elevated social positions and Romero B for commoner
members of society. However, we do see similarities
inasmuch as modifications were painful for all and only
adults, or possibly individuals with newly acquired adult
status, were modified. Ultimately, conceiving of body
modifications as a means through which to reconstitute
identity underscores the importance of considering
modified bodies in a less ethnocentric light.
Acknowledgements
For the opportunity to participate in the PfBAP and
permission to draw on its data, I thank Project Director
Fred Valdez, who also served as a member of my
dissertation committee. My four seasons in Belize
prominently included apprenticeship to Frank Saul and
Julie Saul, whom I also thank for permission to cite
skeletal analyses from human remains whose study was
under their direction. Critical comments by Miranda
Stockett, Wendy Ashmore, and Jane Buikstra throughout
the fomentation of these ideas significantly improved this
manuscript, though I am responsible for any incon-
sistencies or inadequacies in the final product.
References
Agrinier, P. (1964) The Archaeological Burials at Chiapa de Corzo and
their Furniture. Papers of the New World Archaeological
Foundation no. 16, publ.12. Provo, Brigham Young University
Press.
Alt, K. W., Parsche, F., Pahl, W. M. and Ziegelmayer, G. (1999) La
deformación de la detadura como “decoración corporal”:
distribución, motivos y aspectos culturales. Antropológicas 15, 51–
58.
Figure 18.4. Stylized Sun God sculpture from Copan. Notice the
notched central incisors in the style of Romero B (Photograph taken
by author).

12. Pamela L. Geller
290
Ayers, R. (2000) Serene and happy and distant: An interview with
Orlan. In M. Featherstone (ed.) Body Modification, 171–84. SAGE
Publications Ltd, London.
Becker, M. J. (1973) Archaeological evidence for occupational
specialization among the Classic period Maya at Tikal,
Guatemala. American Antiquity 38, 396–406.
Blackwood, B. and Danby, P. M. (1955) A study of artificial cranial
deformation in New Britain. Journal of the Royal Anthropological
Institute of Great Britain and Ireland 85(1/2), 173–191.
Blom, F. F., Grosjean, S. S. and H. Cummins (1934) Maya skull
from the Uloa Valley, Republic of Honduras. Tulane University
Middle American Research Institute 5, 1–24.
Boas, F. (1890) Cranium from Progreso, Yucatan. Proceedings of
the American Antiquarian Society 6, 350–357.
Brooks, S. T. and Suchey J. M. (1990) Skeletal age determination
based on the Os Pubis: A Comparison of the Acsadi-Nemeskeri
and Suchey-Brooks methods. Human Evolution 5, 227–238.
Buikstra, J. E. (1997) Studying Maya bioarchaeology. In S. L.
Whittington and D. M. Reed (eds.) Bones of the Maya: Studies of
Ancient Skeletons, 221–228. Washington, D. C., Smithsonian
Institution Press.
Buikstra, J. E. and Ubelaker, D. H. (1994) Standards for Data Collection
from Human Skeletal Remains. Fayetteville, Arkansas Archaeological
Survey Research Series No. 44.
Buikstra, J. E., Price, T. D., Wright, L. E., and Burton, J. A. (2004)
Tombs from the Copan Acropolis: A life-history approach. In
E. E. Bell, M. A. Canuto and R. J. Sharer (eds.) Understanding
Early Classic Copan, 191–212. Philadelphia, PA, University of
Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology.
Bulwer, J. (1650) Anthropometamorphosis: Man Transform’d; or, the
ARTIFICIAL Changeling. Historically Presented, In the mad and cruel
Gallantry, Foolish Bravery, ridiculous Beauty, Filthy Finenesse, and
loathsome Lovelinesse of most NATIONS, Fashioning & altering their
Bodies from the Mould intended by NATURE. With a
VINDICATION of the Regular Beauty and Honesty of NATURE.
AND An APPENDIX of the Pedigree of the ENGLISH
GALLANT. London, J. Hardesty.
Campbell, M. B. (1999) Wonder & Science: Imagining Worlds in Early
Modern Europe. Ithaca, Cornell University Press.
Cifuentes Aguirre, O. (1963) Odontología y Mutilaciones dentarias mayas.
Colección Editorial Universitaria no. 46. Guatemala, Editorial
Universitaria.
Cocilovo, J. A. and Costa-Junqueira, M. A. (2001) La deformación
artificial en el período Arcaíco de Arica. Latin American Antiquity
12(2), 203–214.
Coe, W. R. (1959) Piedras Negras Archaeology: Artifacts, Caches, and
Burials. Philadelphia, The University Museum, University of
Pennsylvania.
Columbus, C. (1960) The Journal of Christopher Columbus. New York,
Clarkson N. Potter.
Comas, J. (1969) Algunos cráneos de la región maya. Anales de
Antropología 6, 233–248.
Cortés, H. (1960) Five letters, 1519–1526. New York, Norton.
Dembo, A. and Imbelloni, J. (1938) Deformaciones intencionales del
cuerpo humana de carácter étnico. Biblioteca Humanior, Argentina,
Buenos Aires.
Díaz del Castillo, B. (1963) The Conquest of New Spain. New York,
Penguin Putnam Inc.
Dingwall, E. J. (1931) Artificial Cranial Deformation: A Contribution to
the Study of Ethnic Mutilations. London, John Bale, Sons &
Danielsson, Ltd.
Fastlicht, S. (1962) Dental inlays and filing among the ancient Mayas.
Journal of the History of Medicine and Allied Sciences 17, 393–401.
Favazza, A. R. (1996) Bodies under Siege: Self-mutilation and Body
Modification in Culture and Psychiatry. Baltimore, The John Hopkins
University Press.
Fitzsimmons, J. L., Scherer, A., Houston, S. D., and Escobedo, H.
L. (2003) Guardian of the acropolis: the sacred space of a royal
burial at Piedras Negras, Guatemala. Latin American Antiquity
14(4), 449–468.
Garrett, J. (1988) Status, the warrior class, and artificial cranial
deformation. In R.L. Blakely (ed.) The King site: Continuity and
contact in sixteenth-century Georgia, 35–46. Athens, University of
Georgia Press.
Geller, P. L. (2004) Transforming Bodies, Transforming Identities: A
Consideration of Pre-Columbian Maya Corporeal Beliefs and Practices.
Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Anthropology,
University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA.
Gillespie, S. (2000) Maya “nested houses”: the ritual construction
of place. In R.A. Joyce and S.D. Gillespie (eds.) Beyond Kinship:
Social and Material Reproduction in House Societies, 135–60.
Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania Press.
Gillespie, S. (2002) Body and soul among the Maya: keeping the
spirits in place. In H. Silverman and D.B. Small (eds.) The Space
and Place of Death, 67–78. Washington, D.C., American
Anthropological Association.
Havill, L. M., Warren, D. M., Jacobi, K. P., Gettelman, K. D.,
Colllins Cook, D. and Pyburn, K. A. (1997) Late Postclassic
tooth filing at Chau Hiix and Tipu, Belize. In S. L. Whittington
and D. M. Reed (eds.) Bones of the Maya: Studies of Ancient Skeletons,
89–104. Washington, D. C., Smithsonian Institution Press.
Honkasalo, M. L. (2001) Vicissitudes of pain and suffering: chronic
pain and liminality. Medical Anthropology 19(4), 319–353.
Houston, S. D. and Taube, K. A. (2000) An archaeology of the
senses: Perception and cultural expression in ancient
Mesoamerica. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 10(2), 261–294.
Huss-Ashmore, R. (2000) “The Real Me”: Therapeutic narrative in
cosmetic surgery. Expedition 42(3), 26–37.
Jacobi, K. P. (2000) Last Rites for the Tipu Maya: Genetic Structuring in
a Colonial Cemetery. Tuscaloosa, The University of Alabama Press.
Kapchan, D. A. (1993) Moroccan Women’s Body Signs. In K.
Young (ed.) Bodylore, 3–34. Knoxville, University of Tennessee
Press.
Koenig, L. M. and Carnes, M. (1999) Body Piercing: Medical
concerns with cutting edge fashion. Journal of General Internal
Medicine 14(6), 379–385.
Krejci, E., and Culbert, T. P. (1995) Preclassic and Classic burials
and caches in the Maya Lowlands. In N. K. Grube (ed.) The
Emergence of Lowland Maya Civilization: The Transition from the
Preclassic to the Early Classic, a conference at Hildesheim, Germany,
November 1992, 103–116. Möckmühl, Germany, Verlag Anton
Saurwein.
Krogman, W. M. and İşcan, M. Y. (1986) The Human Skeleton in
Forensic Medicine. Springfield, Illinois, Charles C. Thomas
Publisher.
Laqueur, T. W. (1990) Making Sex: Body and Gender from the Greeks to
Freud. Cambridge, Harvard University Press.
Leder, D. (1990) The Absent Body. Chicago, University of Chicago
Press.
Linné, S. (1940) Dental modification in aboriginal America. Ethnos
5, 2–28.
López Olivares, N. M. (1997) Cultural odontology: dental alterations
from Petén, Guatemala. In S. L. Whittington and D. M. Reed
(eds.) Bones of the Maya: Studies of Ancient Skeletons, 105–115.

13. Altering Identities: Body Modifications and the Pre-Columbian Maya 291
Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D. C.
McAnany, P. A. (1995) Living with the Ancestors. Austin, University of
Texas Press.
Milner, V. and Eichold II, B. H. (2001) Body piercing and tattooing
perspectives. Clinical Nursing Research 10(4), 424–441.
Morinis, A. A. (1985) The ritual experience: pain and the
transformation of consciousness in ordeals of initiation. Ethos
13, 150–174.
Musafar, F. (1996) Epilogue. In A. R. Favazza (ed.), Bodies under
Siege: Self-mutilation and Body Modification in Culture and Psychiatry.
Baltimore, The John Hopkins University Press.
Owsley D. W. and Guerin, B. L. (1982) Cranial deformation – a
cultural practice of the 18th century Overhill Cherokee. Journal
of Cherokee Studies 7(2), 79–81.
Özbek, M. (2001) Cranial deformation in a subadult sample from
Degirmentepe (Chalcolithic, Turkey). American Journal of Physical
Anthropology 115(3), 238–244.
Rathje, W. L. (1970) Socio-political implications of Lowland Maya
burials: methodology and tentative hypothesis. World Archaeology
1:359–373.
Romero Molina, J. (1951) Las mutilaciones dentarias prehispanicas
de America. In J. Romero Molina and S. Fastlicht (eds.) El Arte
de las Mutilaciones Dentarias, 9–58. Mexico, Ediciones Mexicanas.
Romero Molina, J. (1952) Los patrones de la mutilación dentaria
prehispánica. Anales del Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia
4, 177–221.
Romero Molina, J. (1958) Mutilaciones Dentarias Prehispanicas de Mexico
y America en General. Mexico, Instituto Nacional de Antropologica
e Historia.
Romero Molina, J. (1960) Ultimos hallazgos de mutilaciones
dentarias de México. Anales del Instituto Nacional de Antropología e
Historia 12, 151–215.
Romero Molina, J. (1965) Recientes adiciones a la colección de
dientes mutilados. Anales del Instituto Nacional de Antropología e
Historia 17, 199–256.
Romero Molina, J. (1970) Dental mutilation, trephination, and
cranial deformation. In T. D. Stewart (ed.) Handbook of Middle
American Indians: Physical Anthropology, 50–67. Austin, University
of Texas Press.
Rosenblatt, D. (1997) The antisocial skin: structure, resistance, and
“Modern Primitive” adornment in the United States. Cultural
Anthropology 12(3), 287–334.
Rubin, A. (1988) Marks of Civilization: Artistic Transformation of the
Human Body. Los Angeles, UCLA, Museum of Cultural History.
Sahagún, B. D. (1971) A History of Ancient Mexico: Anthropological,
Mythological and Social. Detroit, Ethridge Books.
Saul, F. P. (1972) The Human Skeletal Remains of Altar de Sacrificios: An
Osteobiographic Analysis. Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology
and Ethnology, vol. 63, no. 2. Cambridge, Massachusetts, Harvard
University.
Saul, F. P. and Saul, J. M. (1989) Osteobiography: A Maya Example.
In M. Y. Iscan and K. A. R. Kennedy (eds.) Reconstruction of Life
from the Skeleton, 287–302. New York, Alan R. Liss, Inc.
Saul, F. P. and Saul, J. M. (1991) The Preclassic population of
Cuello. In N. Hammond (ed.) Cuello: An Early Maya Community
in Belize, 134–158. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Saul, J. M. and Saul, F. P. (1997) The Preclassic skeletons from
Cuello. In S.L. Whittington and D. M. Reed (eds.) Bones of the
Maya: Studies of Ancient Skeletons, 181–195. Washington, D. C.,
Smithsonian Institute Press.
Seeger, A. (1975) The meaning of ornaments: A Suya example.
Ethnology 14(3), 211–224.
Stewart, T. D. (1953) Skeletal Remains from Zaculeu, Guatemala.
In R. B. Woodbury and A. S. Trik (eds.) The Ruins of Zaculeu
Guatemala, vol. 1, 295–311. Richmond, The William Byrd Press.
Tiesler Blos, V. (1998) La Costumbre de la Deformación Cefálica entre los
Antiguos Mayas: Aspectos Morfológicos y Culturales. Instituto Nacional
de Antropología e Historia, México.
Tozzer, A. M. (1941) Landa’s Relación de las cosas de Yucatán. Papers
of the Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and
Ethnology no. 18. Cambridge, Harvard University.
Turner, B. S. (1984) The Body and Society: Explorations in Social Theory.
New York, Basil Blackwell Inc.
Welsh, W. B. M. (1988) An Analysis of Classic Lowland Maya Burials.
Oxford, England, BAR International Series 409.
White, T. D. (2000) Human Osteology. San Diego, Academic Press.
Zatzick, D., and Dimsdale, J. E. (1990) Cultural variations in
response to painful stimulus. Psychosomatic Medicine 52, 544–57.