Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, Vol. 12, No.

3, September 2005 (⃝
C 2005)

DOI: 10.1007/s10816-005-6930-3

Linking Theory and Evidence in an Archaeology

of Human Agency: Iconography, Style,
and Theories of Embodiment
Richard G. Lesure1

Many of the theories that inspire agency approaches in archaeology identify deep
philosophical problems with other lines of thought. This creates challenges for
identifying methods: do radical theories require radical methods? Choosing as
a case study one of agency’s interpretive frameworks (embodiment) and, further,
a single class of evidence (anthropomorphic imagery), I argue that the answer
is “no.” In this case, familiar art historical methods, deliberately played off
one against the other, provide a middle range framework for linking theory and
evidence.
KEY WORDS: agency; embodiment; figurines; style.

Archaeologists interested in human agency have searched for theoretical

approaches to people as thinking, feeling, acting subjects. Of particular interest are
nuanced formulations of the complex interplay between agency and structure—
between people as creative, strategizing subjects and those forces that shape,
constrain, and even constitute their subjectivities. The human body is a recurring
theme in such formulations, particularly the notion that agency and subjectivity do
not float freely in discursive awareness but are instead more deeply embodied. The
works of mid-to-late twentieth-century theorists such as Pierre Bourdieu, Paul
Connerton, Mary Douglas, Michel Foucault, and Maurice Merleau-Ponty have
been influential in the development of theories of embodiment, as have those of
some more recent gender theorists, particularly Judith Butler (for overviews see
Shilling, 1993; Strathern, 1996; Breen and Blumenfeld, 2005).
Locating subjectivity in the body raises hopes for overcoming tena-
cious dichotomies—mind-vs.-body, thought-vs.-action, reason-vs.-emotion—that
1 Department of Anthropology, University of California, Los Angeles, 341 Haines Hall, Los Angeles,
California 90095-1553; e-mail: lesure@ucla.edu.

237
1072-5369/05/0900-0237/0 ⃝
C 2005 Springer Science+Business Media, Inc.
238 Lesure

bedevil theories of agency. Consideration of the body directs our attention to skills,
dispositions, and habits. Those can be considered forms of knowledge, but they are
not fully open to conscious reflection on the part of social actors. Their resulting
“naturalness” has implications for understandings of social relations, politics, and
the perpetuation of practices. Further, the physicality of the body can help us out
of theoretical ruts both idealist and materialist because it is not inertly material
but implies action in the world. As a consequence, gender can be conceived of as
physical and yet not reducible to morphology. It is performed—created through
actions in particular contexts.
These kinds of considerations characterize an increasingly popular theoret-
ical agenda for pursuing agency in archaeology (for overviews, see Fisher and
Loren, 2003; Hamilakis et al., 2002; Meskell, 2000). Of the many sources of ar-
chaeological evidence relevant to theories of embodiment, human representations
are of particular interest. Ancient human images provide tantalizing views from
“within”—opportunities to glimpse how ancient people represented themselves
to themselves. Images, though, are unlikely to have been simple reflections of a
social “reality.” Through a combination of iconicity and materiality, images help
create subjectivities—they shape peoples’ embodied experience by providing en-
during points of reference both discursive and affective (Hamilakis et al., 2002,
p. 4; Joyce, 2000, pp. 8–9, 15–17). Whether we begin with embodiment and take
up imagery to further our theoretical agenda or, instead, start with some collection
of representations and seize on embodiment as an interpretive tool, we run into
the same question: how is theory to be convincingly linked to evidence?
Establishing the link proves a challenge. It is not uncommon to read through
an article with the nagging sense that, during the encounter with evidence, theo-
rized propositions were never placed in serious jeopardy; a complex theoretical
language was largely imposed on ambiguous data. Why does this problem recur?
First, theories of embodiment, like others that archaeologists draw on in their
exploration of agency, tend to be dense and replete with jargon. Just what would
constitute proof or disproof of theory-laden propositions can be far from clear.
Second, theories of embodiment are often exclusivist in tone. They purport to
expose deep philosophical problems in alternative lines of thought. Cartesian di-
chotomies that rigidly separate mind and body come in for particular scorn. Such
patterns of thought turn out to be covertly political—loci, for instance, for the
perpetuation of androcentrism. In archaeological applications, theoretical exclu-
sivism often filters down to an analytical level, with alternative interpretations of
the material record exposed as hopelessly flawed. For instance, Knapp and Meskell
(1997, p. 191) find that previous interpretations of Bronze Age Cypriot figurines
as goddesses or simply generic females perpetuate “totalizing discourses.” “What
is required,” these authors suggest, “is nothing short of a paradigm shift, from the
automatic designation of deity to a nuanced consideration of the representation of
self.”
Iconography, Style, and Theories of Embodiment 239

Here, theoretical exclusivism seems to imply methodological exclusivism.

From this perspective, when we adopt embodiment—a radically new theoretical
understanding—we embrace a brand-new analytical framework. Such a move has
negative consequences. It discourages attempts to build on previous scholarship
(since that work is so hopelessly flawed). As a result, it puts rather daunting
demands on the researcher. Path breaking innovation appears to be required at
every analytical level. This may be a source of our problems: the complexity of
theory combines with its exclusivist tone to magnify the data/theory gap.
Yet exclusivism transferred from theory to analytical framework may be a
mirage. New perspectives regularly call on familiar methods to link theory and
evidence. The present paper makes that case for theories of embodiment with
anthropomorphic imagery as evidence. I begin by sketching a strategy for linking
theory and evidence in an interpretive landscape friendly to inclusion. Application
to the problem at hand identifies style as a phenomenon of considerable interest.
Long-standing interpretive debates surrounding style (in both archaeology and art
history) are manifestations of just the sort of theoretical tensions at the core of the
agenda of embodiment—but at a level of abstraction that encompasses concrete
observations on objects. Thus, for theories of embodiment, debates surrounding
style have a “middle range” quality to them. By turning to stylistic analysis for
methodological inspiration, we establish links with previous scholarship, reduce
the burdens of innovation implied by our theories, and enhance our ability to
subject theorized propositions to empirical evaluation. More specifically, for the
interpretation of anthropomorphic imagery, I argue that art historical methods of
stylistic analysis and iconography provide tools for interpreting imagery from
the perspective of embodiment. A brief example on small clay figurines of the
Mesoamerican Formative period illustrates the sorts of concrete observations and
interpretive insights I have in mind.

STRATEGIES FOR LINKING THEORY AND METHOD

Exclusivist theoretical positions identifying alternatives as hopelessly, even

dangerously wrong are a legacy of archaeology’s recent past. In the 1980s and
’90s archaeologists commonly emphasized vast gulfs between theories. Compet-
ing perspectives were rhetorically fashioned as paradigms, hierarchically orga-
nized frameworks in which theory and method were integrated with high-level
philosophical propositions. Choices among analytical procedures seemed to be
determined by very general theoretical decisions, thus generating the exclusivist
sense that radical theories required radically new methods.
In the past 15 years or so, the exclusivist bastions have gradually crumbled
(e.g., Kosso, 1991), and we have moved from a rhetoric of exclusivity towards
one of inclusivity (Hegmon, 2003, pp. 216–218; Wylie, 2000, pp. 228–229).
In such circumstances, claims of strict subservience of method to theory seem
240 Lesure

increasingly like a rhetorical chimera, a false pride of the paradigms. Now we

choose pragmatically, even eclectically, among theories and methods, our choices
dictated more by a reinvigorated empiricism than by concerns for paradigmatic
coherence.
It may be appropriate to think of the tools we enlist to link theory and
evidence as analytical resources: we draw on them to meet our needs, but they
preexist our own line of inquiry and may be used by others to further a quite
different theoretical agenda. For example, consider iconography, an analytical
framework from art history offering investigators tools for exploring what it is that
representations depict (e.g., Panofsky, 1955, pp. 26–54). I argue that iconography
is “middle range” since it links observations on objects to social insight. If the
subject matter of images is relevant to our agenda, then iconography provides
a pertinent analytical resource. Our theory may prompt us to choose it, but it
exists independently, with its own traditions, debates, and baggage. The case of
iconography is particularly striking since the “method” predates anthropological
archaeology itself as a recognizable discipline.
If we picture an interpretive field characterized not by competing paradigms,
but instead by a chaotic jumble of analytical resources all available for use,
middle range work takes on considerable challenges. The individual resources
that we mix and match are products of distinct histories. To what extent do we
need to worry about those histories as we pick our methods? Further, it would
be naive to regard our selection of resources as unfettered. There are still logi-
cal entailments between analytical resources even if these are messier and less
rigid then we imagined when we took paradigms to be advocacy positions. How
do we be sure that our analytical framework is congruent with our theoretical
agenda?
Since both theories and data are varied in nature, no simple, unified solu-
tion exists. Instead, I identify strategies for work on theory-evidence linkages.
First, it would seem useful to identify core theoretical insights and figure out
how those manifest themselves at an analytical level. That would allow us to
choose certain domains of material culture and—importantly—their associated
interpretive traditions as particularly relevant. From that point, to choose an-
alytical resources we could take up the prescriptive approach favored by the
paradigms: since theory prescribes method, we argue from theory to method.
Prescription, however, is not the sole answer. We need a bottom-up complement
to serve as an antidote to paradigmatic pride. To that end, I propose method-
ological exegesis, a scrutiny of exemplary studies for analytical procedures both
explicit and implicit. There is not space here to justify this proposal at length;
the basic idea is that there is an analytical richness to exemplary works that
goes beyond even their own methodological prescriptions and constitutes a fer-
tile source for bottom-up insight (e.g., Salmon, 1976). My strategy for work-
ing out middle range linkages thus combines methodological prescription and
exegesis.
Iconography, Style, and Theories of Embodiment 241

EMBODIMENT AND STYLE

The point of departure for theories of embodiment is an attack on approaches

that set off “meaning” from a lived world (see Csordas, 1990; Strathern, 1996). Par-
ticular antipathy is directed at Cartesian dichotomies of mind/body, but others such
as culture/nature come under assault as well. The human body—simultaneously
thinking, feeling, and acting—provides a solution to dichotomous thinking. Cen-
tral themes include the roles of nondiscursive knowledge and bodily action in
forming people as subjects. Habit and activity take on creative roles that overturn
the inherent givens posited in mind/body dichotomies and yet help reveal how
contingent relations of power are durably reproduced. Archaeologists are partic-
ularly drawn to the role given to materiality—to bodies, dressed and ornamented,
manipulating objects in diverse settings (e.g., Joyce, 2000). Material culture here
is no longer a residue. It is of direct theoretical importance, an active contributor
to the constitution of subjectivities.
All these themes are part of what I refer to as the “agenda” of embodiment
theories, and our goal is to avoid simply imposing them on the evidence. Instead,
we want to promote feedback between empirical findings and theorized proposi-
tions. In my concluding example, I will return briefly to the last theme of material
culture and subjectivities, but the question here is how all these various themes
manifest themselves at an analytical level. I am not referring to specific sorts
of objects—clearly architecture, ornaments, etc., are relevant—but rather to dis-
courses involving interpretive responses to objects. One such discourse in which
themes of great interest to embodiment theorists recur is debate over style. Relevant
here are, first, the ways in which style as such is formulated in contrast to phe-
nomena deemed not stylistic and, second, divides over the understanding of style
itself.
In archaeology, style vs. function has proven a frustrating dichotomy that
loosely echoes those attacked by embodiment perspectives. For instance,
Cunningham (2003, p. 34) links the style/function divide to idealist/materialist
tensions, while Dietler and Herbich (1998) add “technology” to make a prob-
lematic triad, then undermine it by drawing on theories of embodiment. Themes
from archaeologists’ understanding of style itself are also relevant. Styles can
be conceived of as “ways of doing” that may be inculcated in dispositions and
take on an aura of naturalness (Hodder, 1990 and, in different wording; Sack-
ett, 1990). Style communicates or signifies, but rather differently than language.
Senses, ambiguities, and intuitive graspings are particularly important (Dietler
and Herbich, 1998, p. 244; Wiessner, 1990, pp. 106–107). “Ways of doing” can
shift contextually from conscious to unconscious, thus creating a tension between
active and passive use of style (Sackett, 1990; Wiessner, 1990; Wobst, 1999). All
these themes, so relevant from the perspective of embodiment, are interwoven
in the style literature with methodological controversies over the conversion of
observations to evidence—how are style and function distributed across attributes,
242 Lesure

what are the referents of stylistic features, and how is attribute patterning generated
in sequences of productive acts?
Turning to style in art history, we find it associated with yet another long-
standing dichotomy: the opposition between form and content (Summers, 1989,
pp. 372–379). This one is loosely analogous to style/function in archaeology:
style (residing in form) becomes a vehicle for function (in tools) or subject matter
(in art). In the next section I will argue that a form/content tension, manifested
analytically in stylistic analysis and iconography, is of methodological interest in
the study of anthropomorphic imagery. Themes from art historians’ understandings
of style itself again enter the territory of embodiment. Style can signify through
nondiscursive means—the “emotional suggestiveness of forms” (Schapiro, 1953,
p. 287). Styles of individual artists consist of “acquired disposition[s]” that are “not
just psychological, but psychophysical” (Wollheim, 1979, p. 136). Bodily practices
are thus again a theme. Style is a way of making (Gombrich, 1968), and attention
to making lies at the heart of “facture,” one recent approach to the analysis of form
(Summers, 1989, pp. 397–398). Stylistic analysis is again identified as involving
a tension between discursive and nondiscursive meanings (Winter, 1998). Finally,
discourses on style are closely involved with formal analysis of art works.
Core themes from the agenda of embodiment thus appear in the literature
on style. Importantly, that literature is also richly methodological. From the per-
spective of embodiment, discourse on style is middle range since it provides
an interpretive field in which theoretical claims are regularly linked to concrete
observations on objects.

ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORKS FOR INTERPRETING

HUMAN IMAGES

The literature on style is vast; we could find there a variety of analytical

resources for linking embodiment to archaeological evidence. When the evidence
in question is anthropomorphic imagery, however, our attention will necessarily be
drawn to art historical writings on style. Two analytical resources offer important
tools: stylistic analysis and iconography.
Works interpreting anthropomorphic imagery from an embodiment perspec-
tive do not generally identify stylistic analysis and iconography as analytical
resources. This is of concern, since from the perspective I develop here, grandiose
claims of methodological innovation are to be regarded with suspicion. To advance
my argument, I take up both prescription and exegesis. I begin in prescriptive mode
by showing how the ambiguous border between these two approaches overlaps
with interests of embodiment theories. Shifting to exegetical mode, I sketch briefly
how theory-evidence linkages in one exemplary work are identifiable as iconogra-
phy, stylistic analysis, and, at higher analytical levels, a playing off of one against
Iconography, Style, and Theories of Embodiment 243

the other. Thus, successful studies can be understood as already making use of
these two analytical resources.
Iconography I have already defined for my purposes here as the study of
what representations depict (Panofsky, 1955; Roskill, 1989, pp. 94–98). A con-
sciously intended relation between image and subject matter is an important el-
ement. From the perspective of embodiment, a contrasting theme from the lit-
erature on style is striking: styles are particular ways of doing or, in the case
of artworks, ways of making (Ackerman, 1963; Davis, 1990; Gombrich, 1968).
Images in the same style were made in similar ways. Conceptualizing style in this
way and juxtaposing it with iconography raises the specter of the much-reviled
Cartesian dichotomies: iconography starts to sound like “thought” and style like
“action.”
Are iconography and style, then, to be anathematized as the hopelessly flawed
methods of our ignorant predecessors? That might be one approach in contempo-
rary art history, where legacies of the form/content divide generate much rolling
of the eyes and a visual semiotics can appear preferable. It has long been rec-
ognized that subject matter can become style (Ackerman, 1963, pp. 167–168)
and style, subject matter (Schapiro, 1953, p. 305). Semiotic approaches identify
further problems with style and iconography. Many of these are specific to art
history and not of great concern from an archaeologist’s standpoint—for instance,
evolutionary connotations of style, problems relating form to the “genius” of in-
dividuals or peoples, the narrowness of iconography’s purported insistence that
images acquire meaning through textual references, and the role of the art mar-
ket in the scholarly creation of styles (Alpers, 1979; Damisch, 1975; Summers,
1989). Other objections do resonate in archaeology, particularly those centering
on iconography’s assumption that the relations between signifier and signified are
stable and straightforward. Instability of signification and multiple meanings for
different audiences are instead themes of contemporary interest (Bal and Bryson,
1991; Damisch, 1975; Roskill, 1989, p. 98).
It would thus be possible to embrace semiotics as the analytical framework
of embodiment—and what I end up with could, I believe, be so labeled. The
problem is that we would again be championing something cryptic and jargon-
laden. From the perspective of archaeology, we would seem to be claiming radical
method as the necessary concomitant of radical theory, thus returning to where
we began. There appears, however, to be another route. If we look deliberately to
the unstable borderland between subject matter and style, it is possible to address
certain critical insights from semiotics—for example, iconography’s ignoring of
signifier in favor of signified (Damisch, 1975, p. 30) and its insufficient attention
to nondiscursive dimensions of meaning (Roskill, 1989, p. 98)—without giving
up clarity and accessibility.
A second theme from the literature on style is helpful here. Iconographic
elements of an image reference content; they allow identification of the subject
244 Lesure

matter of the image. What are the referents of stylistic elements? The answer
is that stylistic elements reference other images in the same style (Gell, 1998,
pp. 162–163). This second way of conceptualizing the relation between iconogra-
phy and style has some interesting consequences. Iconography focuses on relations
between an image and its intended subject. The focus of stylistic analysis is on
relations between objects. What we identify as a “style” is our attempt to represent
discursively certain intuitive processes prompted by confronting a series of similar
objects. That which makes the objects similar we call “style” and we assert that
it had some saliency in the lives of the original makers of the objects. In Gell’s
words, “artworks do not do their cognitive work in isolation; they function because
they cooperate synergically with one another, and the basis of their synergic action
is style” (1998, p. 163).
By conceptualizing style as both as a way of making and a synergistic coop-
eration among objects and counterposing it with subject matter, we provide much
of the analytical framework necessary to “do embodiment” in figurine studies.
Importantly, these approaches operate on multiple analytical levels to help link
theory-laden statements to concrete observations. My methodological exegeses of
works applying embodiment theories to anthropomorphic imagery—focusing, I
should admit, on ceramic figurines of prehistoric epochs but including multiple
world areas—suggest that successful studies can be understood as already making
use of these two analytical resources, irrespective of what they explicitly claim
concerning methods.
To illustrate that idea I turn to Rosemary Joyce’s book Gender and Power
in Prehispanic Mesoamerica. Joyce’s discussion is heavily influenced by embodi-
ment theories; the work of Judith Butler and Paul Connerton she finds particularly
helpful. I focused on sections in which Joyce interprets figurines of the Mesoamer-
ican Formative period. Passages in which she analyzes the formal qualities of
figurines can indeed be identified as iconographic or stylistic in character, with, in
addition, a close attention to archaeological context. Joyce is particularly attentive
to what the images depict, developing an intriguing new (iconographic) interpre-
tation of the pervasive nudity of Formative figurines (Joyce, 2000, pp. 28–30).
Relevant stylistic analyses might involve attention to techniques of fabrication
(style in the sense of making) or an attempt to group similar objects into cate-
gories (style in the sense of synergistic cooperation among objects). If synergistic
cooperation is of interest, the analyst begins with categorization, then attempts
to identify principles constitutive of those categories. When Joyce (2000, p. 42)
argues that contrasts in imagery between clay figurines and those of precious
stone would have resonated with the difference in material to create new layers of
meaning, she is making a stylistic argument concerning synergistic cooperation
among objects.
Joyce’s concrete analyses of figurines may be iconographic and stylistic (with
a strong dose of context). But what about more abstract levels of interpretation? If
iconography and stylistic analysis really provide a structure for theory-evidence
Iconography, Style, and Theories of Embodiment 245

links, they should also be at play in more theory-laden statements. To make that
case, I look at the logic of a single passage from Joyce’s book—a passage, though,
that is both convincing and representative of the sort of insight an embodiment
perspective might hope to provide in archaeology. Referring to the Playa de los
Muertos figurines of Honduras, Joyce concludes that

Body form, processing of hair, and ornamentation are combined to commemorate the
gradual production of social persons, an activity concretized in the manipulation of clay to
produce the figurines themselves. It is through the selective inscription in pottery figurines
of specific gestures as typical of persons with particular sexual organs that apparently
“natural” associations were made enduring parts of Ulua Valley concepts of gender. These
permanent media, through which gender was materialized, stood in dynamic tension with
actual performances within the settlement (Joyce, 2000, p. 38).

The passage begins with the iconographic identification of what is depicted

(“the gradual production of social persons”) and then shifts to a stylistic em-
phasis on “concretized” making. It is this materiality with its ability to tran-
scend individual situations, together with the necessarily selective emphasis on
particular gestures, which helped naturalize gender concepts. But what was it
about the materiality that had such an effect? Wasn’t it the synergistic coop-
eration among the objects—in short, style? Similarities among objects would
have prompted the intuition that individual objects had synecdochic relations to
something that made them similar. A “whole” (that we term style) would thus
have been intuited from the relations among the individual objects, its “parts.”
What Joyce’s argument implies is that this sense of a whole that was the in-
tuitive result of confrontation with figurines reflected back into social life to
naturalize the association of “specific gestures” with “persons with particular
sexual organs.” In the terms I am using here, her argument becomes a kind of
iconography in reverse in which the intuitive identification of a style determi-
native of similarities among objects prompted inferences that individual young
women were likewise parts of a whole. They were exemplars of a social cate-
gory with its own rules of comportment, its own abilities to both empower and
constrain.
In sum, what I am suggesting is that the argument in this passage moves from
iconography, to style, and back to iconography. This kind of deliberate playing
off of iconography and stylistic analysis is a means by which a central goal of
embodiment theory—the destabilizing of the mind/body dichotomy, here mani-
fested at a lower analytical level as content/form—can be pursued in empirically
rich archaeological research. Iconography and stylistic analysis provide a middle
range framework for “doing embodiment” in the study of ancient imagery. This is
particularly so when we use the two jointly to look to a tension between subject
matter and style. Following a distinction made by Winter (1998, p. 56), I will
refer to this as a tension between “meaning” and “making,” where meaning is to
be understood as “discursively manifest meaning.” The idea, of course, is not to
resurrect a dichotomy but to posit a dynamic tension.
246 Lesure

EXAMPLE: FIGURINES OF THE MESOAMERICAN

FORMATIVE PERIOD

To illustrate the kinds of interpretive insights that might emerge from explic-
itly adopting iconography and stylistic analyses as analytical resources, I turn to
figurines of the Mesoamerican Formative period. Typically 5–15 cm in height, an-
thropomorphic figurines of clay were abundant household objects across much of
Mesoamerica during Formative times, an epoch stretching from the development
of sedentary villages to the rise of urban centers (1800 BC–AD 200). Figurines
likely had a variety of uses in any one community, from household ritual objects to,
potentially, toys. While styles can be conceived at a variety of scales, both within
and across media, a fine scale of analysis centering on figurine types—“styles” in
Davis’s (1990, pp. 19–20) sense of polythetic sets of similar attributes explainable
in relation to a common production system—highlights advantages of links to
previous scholarship, illustrates the tension between subject matter and style, and
provides a basis for exploring how core insights of embodiment theories might be
subjected to greater empirical scrutiny.
My focus is on a theme from embodiment of particular interest to archaeol-
ogists: the creative role of material culture in the realm of human agency. Specif-
ically relevant here is the idea that human images help constitute subjectivities.
Because they are durable enough to transcend fleeting experience and recogniz-
able with deceptive ease as depictions of people (the argument goes), they figure
in the naturalization of arbitrary categories. First, I make use of that argument,
showing how new interpretations emerge when it is combined with traditional
typological tools to enrich an iconographic study. Second, I tried to open up the
embodiment argument to empirical assessment. The basic idea is that patterns of
stylistic variation are not the same across Mesoamerica, raising the likelihood that
the affective power of figurines varied as well. My suggestions along those lines
are a research agenda rather than a finished argument, but such efforts are essential
if agency theories are to be successful in archaeology.

Types, Style, and Subject Matter in Central Mexico

For Formative Mesoamerica, the epicenter of figurine typology is the high-

lands of Central Mexico. In the early decades of the twentieth century, Clarence
Hay and George Vaillant created a two-level, alphanumeric classification for the
Basin of Mexico and Morelos (e.g., Vaillant, 1930). With some important modifi-
cations, particularly by Reyna Robles (1971) and Niederberger (1976), the basic
scheme is still in use today over a region exceeding 17,000 km2 . Sánchez de la
Barquera (1996) identifies some 40 distinct types and subtypes among Forma-
tive figurines from the Atlixco Valley, Puebla. Theoretically focused investiga-
tors are apt to dismiss this enterprise as mechanical and uninteresting, but it is
Iconography, Style, and Theories of Embodiment 247

worth a second look. Important types have a coherence suggestive of rigid con-
ventionality. They are certainly time-sensitive, and archaeologists have exploited
them for that end. But if we look for a tension between meaning and making,
it is possible to extract social insight from what have been treated as empty
traits.
In the Apizaco region of central Tlaxcala, I have excavated over 100 figurines
of what I call the Cuatlapanga type, a manifestation of the C1 type in the Hay-
Vaillant scheme, predominant in local assemblages from 800 to 600 B.C. The type
is defined by numerous themes and traits (Fig. 1). Body and head are conceived
two-dimensionally and are coterminous, with little or no indication of neck. The
head is exaggerated in relation to the body, with the forehead soaring above the
face to provide a base for an elaborate headdress. Headdresses and other features
are built up by appliqué fillets that are not smoothed in. Eyes are indicated by
two impressions at the base of a single horizontal fillet, yielding a heavy eyebrow.
Mouths are formed by a rounded tab of clay impressed in its upper part to give the
appearance of a heavy chin. Paste color, surface treatment, and the form of noses,
legs, and ornaments also vary within a narrow range.
One avenue to social interpretation would be to focus on subject matter. The
figurines depict people as stereotyped social actors, their bodies revealed and hair
elaborately coifed in a manner generally reminiscent of the cases analyzed by
Joyce (1998, 2000, 2003). In the Cuatlapanga type, sexual attributes are stylized
and uniform (Fig. 1, top and middle rows). A pair of small balls of clay on the
upper chest I consider female breasts (78% of bodies). A single ball of clay in
the pubic area I read as male genitals (11%). Such stylization would appear to
provide little basis for age differentiation among the images, and a consideration
of other features (particularly headdresses and overall size) reinforces that idea.
Approximately 90% of the figures appear to be sexual mature (but still young?)
females and males otherwise undifferentiated as to age. Some diminutive sexless
figures are probably babies or small children. The few sexless adults do not form a
coherent grouping. A reading (based on such iconographic observations) of the role
of this assemblage in the shaping of ancient subjectivities would surely build on
the simple, stylized coding of gender/age to emphasize a sense of conventionality.
Convention among figurines, we might argue, would have promoted conformity
to stereotyped roles.
More subtle social insights emerge from a finer grain of iconographic anal-
ysis and a consideration of the potential for amplification of meaning through
synergistic cooperation among the figurines. One place to look for tension be-
tween subject matter and style is in violations of standard conventions. The eye
form of Cuatlapanga figurines is perhaps the most characteristic attribute of the
type. The eyes of figure after figure are virtually identical, giving the impression
of monotonous conventionality. There are, however, three cases in my collection
in which eye form deviates from this norm but other traits warrant assignment
to Cuatlapanga. The deviant form is the same in all three—a ball of clay with
248 Lesure

Fig. 1. Cuatlapanga figurines from Apizaco region, Tlaxcala, Mexico (ceramic, ca.
800–600 BC). Top and middle: Figures with typical traits, including “female breasts”
(top row and middle row, left) and “male genitals” (middle row, center and right).
Bottom row: Masked figure with bulbous head; image on left is top view of head. Note
the atypical eyes. Drawings by Jeremy Bloom.
Iconography, Style, and Theories of Embodiment 249

a single round punch in its center (Fig. 1, bottom row). All three of these also
have radically deviant faces. Given widespread representational conventions in
Formative highland Mexico, it is likely that these are depictions of people wearing
masks (see Coe, 1965, Figs. 151, 157; Marcus, 1998, Figs. 8.31–8.32).
Although figurines are common finds, the deviant eyes are rare. In the social
contexts in which people displayed Cuatlapanga figurines, the standard eye form
would have receded into the background beneath the elaborate headdresses, an arti-
fact of making that referenced a monotonous series of identical eyes. Nevertheless,
deviant eyes would occasionally have dragged that monotony to the foreground.
Surely, in contrast with the eyes of masked figures, the standard form took on a
discursive meaning: “human.” Figurines with masks depicted people transformed,
no longer “human.” They were given different eyes—as were the few animal fig-
urines (typically dogs or birds) found in association with Cuatlapanga figurines. In
other words, the eyes of Cuatlapanga figures would have been caught up in a ten-
sion between meaning and making, their implications amplified nondiscursively.
Eyes mainly referenced other, identical eyes, promoting intuitive identification of
a “whole,” of which individual figurines were parts. The affective power of devia-
tions would have been enhanced by the monotony of the norm against which they
stood, but their iconographic character—the fact that they systematically appeared
on masked faces—would simultaneously have shifted the intuited whole of the
style into the realm of discursive meaning.
Here, even figurine eye form—the consummate typological trait of the For-
mative, routinely treated as devoid of meaning beyond the taxonomic—takes on a
theoretical interest. Similarities among objects prompt people to sense a whole that
is style and, via the iconic relation between image and subject, intuit analogous
“wholes” in societies. Further, styles are polythetic sets: differentiated wholes.
Patterns of similarity and difference among images can promote intuitions—
ideologically charged intuitions—-of a similarly differentiated social whole. This
is particularly the case when, as in the case of Cuatlapanga eye forms, discursive
meaning is amplified nondiscursively by tensions between meaning and making.
Thus, a cognitive confrontation with Cuatlapanga figurines as a differenti-
ated whole might have provided amplification or counterpoint for more manifest
meanings. How do such considerations relate to our original iconographic reading
of Cuatlapanga figurines as a constraining force in the formation of subjectiv-
ities? Certainly, the theme of conventionality recurs—it was the rigidity of the
norm that would have given deviant eyes their power. But when we look deeper,
there appears to be no effort to harness nondiscursive dimensions of meaning
to an ideology of social constraint. For instance, masks with deviant eyes are
associated with both “female breasts” (two cases) and “male genitals” (1 case).
The affectively amplified distinction between human and transformed human did
not correlate with a distinction between female and male. Similar patterns hold
among other classes of attribute, such as gesture, posture, and the headdresses of
250 Lesure

figurines with standard eyes. There is no hint of redundant patterning that might
have given resonance to the categories “female” and “male.” Although what I read
as attributes of femaleness and maleness for this type are highly conventionalized,
and images of females greatly outnumber images of males, the affective power of
style was not employed in ways that would have promoted the inculcation of these
categories. In other words, there is no evidence for nondiscursive reinforcement of
gendered divisions of comportment or social role. The only gender ideology that
could plausibly have been affectively amplified by this sort of synergistic cooper-
ation among Cuatlapanga figurines would have been one of fluidity or inclusion.
It would be unacceptable to jump from there to a claim that figurines directly re-
flected a social “reality” in Apizaco communities. It does seem possible to argue,
though, that figurines were ambiguous and in some contexts perhaps empowering
accouterments of human subjectivity.

Stylistic Variation and the Agenda of Embodiment

The idea that images help shape embodied experience has prompted in-
triguing insights into Cuatlapanga figurines. But to what extent can this tenet of
embodiment theory itself be subjected to empirical assessment? I sketch out some
possibilities here by building directly on the discussion of figurine types in the
last section, thus furthering my claim that methodological links with previous
scholarship help promote this kind of scrutiny of theory.
Our goal is to avoid letting theoretical insights become generic claims (“all
images shape subjectivities”) by promoting feedback between theory and evidence.
It would be naive to think that such general propositions would sink or swim
based on a single archaeological case. Instead, I argue simply that we might be
able to assess the robustness or power of core insights from embodiment theory
by exploring their effectiveness as predictive tools. For instance, if embodiment
theory’s claims of feedback between images and subjectivities are sound, are there
other propositions that also should hold, perhaps at a lower level of generality?
I suggest that there are. To explore the possibility I return to the theme of
figurine types as micro-styles. The Formative period in Central Mexico is known
for its typological diversity. Much of the variation is chronological, but there is
also evidence for synchronic cooccurrence of multiple figurine types in the same
community or household. In Apizaco, we often find at least two types represented
in refuse pits from a single phase. At Tlatilco in the Basin of Mexico, figurine
offerings in a single burial were sometimes of more than one type (e.g., Burial
86 in Garcı́a Moll et al., 1991). To the south, in the Valley of Oaxaca, Marcus
(1998, p. 48) sometimes found two styles of figurine on the same house floor. The
implications are that there were social settings in which figurines of distinct styles
appeared together. Thus far I have considered only synergistic cooperation within
a type. What about cooperation between types?
Iconography, Style, and Theories of Embodiment 251

From the perspective of embodiment, such situations are intriguing because

the affective implications of styles-in-juxtaposition should have impinged on em-
bodied experience. Caution is in order here, since sloppily defined types and
residual categories are unacceptable; we seek conventionalized types with dis-
tinctive patterning involving multiple features and narrow ranges of attribute
variation for each one. If we argue along the lines followed by Joyce (2000)
that figurines helped to provide shared standards against which people’s actual
performances were evaluated, then divergent possibilities present themselves. Do
multiple styles imply multiple, contested standards, a fluidity of discourse in
which hegemony could be contested and potentially overturned? Or, alternatively,
was this fluidity of style a kind of façade in which the dramatic contestabil-
ity of certain sets of standards served to further obscure other, more insidious
ones? I do not have definitive answers. For the collection that includes Cuatla-
panga figures, I suspect that a bit of both were involved but that the first question
does get at something important about this and other assemblages from Central
Mexico. Persistent juxtapositions of internally coherent but strikingly different
types do suggest an engagement on the part of villagers with distinct “ways of
being.”
Expanding the geographic scale of inquiry raises further intriguing questions.
Formative figurines across Mesoamerica share certain broad similarities, but the
“type-ability” of assemblages differs by time and place. Central Mexico is one of
the more dramatic cases in which highly distinctive styles were in use contem-
poraneously within individual communities. The situation was different in Early
Formative Soconusco (Lesure, 1997, 1999). While there was never complete ho-
mogeneity, stylistic variation was less coherent and less extreme than in Central
Mexico and typological distinctions tend to center around differences of subject
matter. Similar patterns seem to hold at the later Middle Formative site of La
Blanca, also in the Soconusco (head types 7 and 9 in Arroyo [2002] seem likely to
correspond to variations in manifest meanings). A wider investigation might well
reveal a tendency towards synchronic stylistic homogeneity more broadly across
southeastern Mesoamerica. In Honduras, Joyce (2003, pp. 248, 251–256) notes
previous claims that Playa de los Muertos figurines were untypeable, and her own
distinctions center on subject matter. Certainly, no equivalent to the Hay-Vaillant
scheme has ever emerged for southeastern Mesoamerica. In comparison to Central
Mexico, styles are less coherent in terms of attribute patterning, more homoge-
neous at the local level, and more restricted in areal extent. We might say that the
grain of stylistic variation was different in the two areas. Further, these patterns
persisted over time as durable characteristics of the figurine-making traditions. It
is tempting to go further and argue that synergistic cooperation among figurines
should have had a different character in the two areas. With that step taken, we can
turn back and contemplate the predictive power of a core insight from embodiment
theory.
252 Lesure

If the shaping of subjectivities through images is a powerful theoretical in-

sight, it should help make sense of such variation. Surely the Highland Mexico
situation—in which figurine styles were internally more rule-bound and externally
more often in juxtaposition with other, equally rule-bound styles—would have
provided a greater scope for negotiating or contesting shared standards through
a dynamic interplay of manifest and subliminal meanings. We would expect evi-
dence that people in Central Mexico actually exploited those dimensions of their
image-making traditions; lack of such evidence would be something of a strike
against the interpretive power of embodiment theory in archaeology. Coming up
with such evidence may well prove a challenge, though I hope soon to be able
to do so at a fine grain of detail in my Apizaco collection. In the meantime, it is
possible to cite a general pattern that might support the expectations I claim based
on embodiment theory. Figurine traditions tend to peter out in the later Formative
of southeastern Mesoamerica, whereas they continue in Central Mexico during
the rise of urban centers, most famously at Teotihuacan. This could be because the
manner in which these traditions were constituted in Central Mexico made them
durably effective as material points of reference in the formation of subjectivities.

CONCLUSIONS

This paper has pursued several interlocking goals. First, I considered the chal-
lenges of method in agency approaches to archaeology. Some popular theories are
exclusivist in that they identify deep philosophical problems with other lines of
thought. A tendency to transfer exclusivism from theory to method inhibits the
development of agency approaches by creating unnecessary demands for inno-
vation and promoting a tendency to impose theory on evidence. Methodological
work should instead look favorably on areas of overlap with previous scholarship.
To further that goal, I proposed a dual approach to the identification of relevant
analytical resources involving both prescription (arguing from theory to method)
and exegesis (scrutinizing exemplary works).
My second goal was to apply this approach to the development of linking ar-
guments for embodiment theories, with human imagery as evidence. Embodiment
theories are of interest because they explore the interplay of agency and structure
in ways that destabilize tenacious dichotomies like mind/body. Their exclusivist
tone, however, brings with it all the disadvantages familiar more broadly in agency
approaches. Application of my general scheme for methodological work led to
the identification of debates over style as providing a “middle range” discourse
in which themes of theoretical importance from an embodiment perspective were
regularly linked to concrete observations on objects. For the specific case of an-
thropomorphic imagery, I identified the art historical frameworks of iconography
and stylistic analysis as relevant, particularly when they are used together to look
at a dynamic tension between style and subject matter.
Iconography, Style, and Theories of Embodiment 253

Finally, I turned to my work on Mesoamerican figurines of the Formative pe-

riod to illustrate the potential advantages of explicitly embracing iconography and
stylistic analysis as analytical resources. The overarching argument there was that
traditional typological concerns might help an embodiment approach link theory
and evidence. Typological tools proved of use in exploring the dynamic interplay
of style and subject matter in a single figurine type from the Apizaco region of
Central Mexico. But the diligent activities of traditional typologists—including
the pattern of their successes and failures mapped out across Mesoamerica—
are of more general interest. The character of variation in figurine style across
Mesoamerica should have given this material medium varying potential in the
realm of embodied experience. Such an observation challenges embodiment the-
ory to prove its worth by showing how general theoretical concepts might make
sense of variation between cases.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Excavations in Apizaco, Tlaxcala, Mexico, have been funded by the National

Science Foundation, the Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research,
the H. John Heinz III Fund of the Heinz Family Foundation, the Ahmanson Fund
for Field Research at the Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, and the UCLA Academic
Senate. I gratefully acknowledge the support of the project by the Consejo de
Arqueologı́a (Instituto Nacional de Antropologı́a e Historia), Mexico. Finally, I
thank Catherine Cameron, Marcia-Anne Dobres, John Robb, and two anonymous
reviewers for their comments on various drafts of this paper, originally presented
at the Society for American Archaeology Meetings in Montréal, Canada, April,
2004.

REFERENCES CITED

Ackerman, J. S. (1963). Style. In Ackerman, J. S., and Carpenter, R. (eds.), Art and Archaeology,
Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, pp. 164–186.
Alpers, S. (1979). Style is what you make it: the visual arts once again. In Lang, B. (ed.), The Concept
of Style, University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, pp. 95–117.
Bal, M., and Bryson, N. (1991). Semiotics and art history. The Art Bulletin 73: 174–208.
Breen, M. S., and Blumenfeld, W. J. (eds.) (2005). Butler Matters: Judith Butler’s Impact on Feminist
and Queer Studies, Ashgate, Hampshire, England.
Coe, M. D. (1965). The Jaguar’s Children: Pre-Classic Central Mexico, The Museum of Primitive
Art, New York.
Csordas, T. J. (1990). Embodiment as a paradigm for anthropology. Ethos 18: 5–47.
Cunningham, J. J. (2003). Rethinking style in archaeology. In VanPool, T. L., and VanPool, C. S.
(eds.), Essential Tensions in Archaeological Method and Theory, University of Utah Press, Salt
Lake City, pp. 23–40.
Damisch, H. (1975). Semiotics and iconography. In Sebeok, T. A. (ed.), The Tell-tale Sign: A Survey
of Semiotics, Peter de Ridder Press, Lisse, Netherlands, pp. 27–36.
Davis, W. (1990). Style and history and art history. In Conkey, M. W., and Hastorf, C. A. (eds.), The
Uses of Style in Archaeology, Cambridge University Press, New York, pp. 18–31.
254 Lesure

Dietler, M., and Herbich, I. (1998). Habitus, techniques, style: An integrated approach to the social
understanding of material culture and boundaries. In Stark, M. (ed.), The Archaeology of Social
Boundaries, Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC, pp. 232–263.
Fisher, G., and Loren, D. D. (2003). Introduction (to Special section: Embodying identity in archaeol-
ogy). Cambridge Archaeological Journal 13: 225–230.
Garcı́a Moll, R., Júarez Cossio, D., Pijoan Aguade, C., Salas Cuesta, M. E., and Salas Cuesta, M.
(1991). Catálogo de entierros de San Luis Tlatilco, México, Temporada IV, Instituto Nacional de
Antropologı́a e Historia, Mexico.
Gell, A. (1998). Art and Agency: An Anthropological Theory. Clarendon Press, Oxford.
Gombrich, E. (1968). Style. International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences 15: 352–361.
Hamilakis, Y., Pluciennik, M., and Tarlow, S. (2002). Introduction: thinking through the body. In
Hamilakis, Y., Pluciennik, M., and Tarlow, S. (eds.), Thinking through the Body: Archaeologies
of Corporeality, Kluwer Academic, New York, pp. 1–21.
Hegmon, M. (2003). Setting theoretical egos aside: Issues and theory in North American archaeology.
American Antiquity 68: 213–243.
Hodder, I. (1990). Style as historical quality. In Conkey, M. W., and Hastorf, C. A. (eds.), The Uses of
Style in Archaeology, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp. 44–51.
Joyce, R. A. (1998). Performing the body in pre-Hispanic Central America. RES 33: 147–166.
Joyce, R. A. (2000). Gender and Power in Prehispanic Mesoamerica, University of Texas Press,
Austin.
Joyce, R. A. (2003). Making something of herself: Embodiment in life and death at Playa de los
Muertos, Honduras. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 13: 248–261.
Knapp, A. B., and Meskell, L. (1997). Bodies of evidence on Prehistoric Cyprus. Cambridge Archae-
ological Journal 7: 183–204.
Kosso, P. (1991). Method in archaeology: Middle-range theory as hermeneutics. American Antiquity
56: 621–627.
Lesure, R. (1997). Figurines and social identities in early sedentary societies of coastal Chiapas,
Mexico. In Claassen, C., and Joyce, R. (eds.), Case Studies in the Archaeology of Women: North
America and Mesoamerica, University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, pp. 227–248.
Lesure, R. (1999). Figurines as representations and products at Paso de la Amada, Mexico. Cambridge
Archaeological Journal 9: 209–220.
Marcus, J. (1998). Women’s Ritual in Formative Oaxaca: Figurine-Making, Divination, Death, and
the Ancestors, University of Michigan Museum of Anthropology, Ann Arbor.
Meskell, L. M. (2000). Writing the body in archaeology. In Rautman, A. E. (ed.), Reading the Body:
Representations and Remains in the Archaeological Record, University of Pennsylvania Press,
Philadelphia, pp. 11–21.
Niederberger, C. (1976). Zohapilco: Cinco milenios de occupación humana en un sitio lacustre de la
Cuenca de México. Instituto Nacional de Antropologı́a e Historia, Mexico City.
Panofsky, E. (1955). Meaning in the Visual Arts, Doubleday Anchor Books, Garden City, NY.
Reyna Robles, R. M. (1971). Las figurillas preclásicas. Unpublished thesis, Escuela Nacional de
Antropologı́a e Historia, Mexico City.
Roskill, M. (1989). The Interpretation of Pictures, University of Massachusetts Press, Amherst.
Sackett, J. R. (1990). Style and ethnicity in archaeology: The case for isochrestism. In Conkey,
M. W., and Hastorf, C. A. (eds.), The Uses of Style in Archaeology, Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, UK, pp. 32–43.
Salmon, M. H. (1976). “Deductive” versus “inductive” archaeology. American Antiquity 41: 376–381.
Sánchez de la Barquera A., E. C. (1996). Figurillas prehispánicas del valle de Atlixco, Puebla. Instituto
Nacional de Antropologı́a e Historia, Mexico.
Schapiro, M. (1953). Style. In Kroeber, A. L. (ed.), Anthropology Today: An Encyclopedic Inventory,
University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp. 287–312.
Shilling, C. (1993). The Body and Social Theory, Sage Publications, Newbury Park, California.
Strathern, A. J. (1996). Body Thoughts, University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor.
Summers, D. (1989). “Form,” nineteenth-century metaphysics, and the problem of art historical de-
scription. Critical Inquiry 15: 372–406.
Vaillant, G. C. (1930). Excavations at Zacatenco, Anthropological Papers of the American Museum
of Natural History, New York, 32(1).
Iconography, Style, and Theories of Embodiment 255

Wiessner, P. (1990). Is there a unity to style? In Conkey, M. W., and Hastorf, C. A. (eds.), The Uses of
Style in Archaeology, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 105–112.
Winter, I. J. (1998). The affective properties of styles: An inquiry into analytical process and the
inscription of meaning in art history. In Jones, C. A., and Galison, P. (with Slaton, A.) (eds.),
Picturing Science Producing Art, Routledge, New York, pp. 55–77.
Wobst, H. M. (1999). Style in archaeology or archaeologists in style. In Chilton, E. S. (ed.), Material
Meanings: Critical Approaches to the Interpretation of Material Culture, University of Utah
Press, Salt Lake City, pp. 118–132.
Wollheim, R. (1979). Pictorial style: Two views. In Lang, B. (ed.), The Concept of Style, University of
Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, pp. 129–145.
Wylie, A. (2000). Questions of evidence, legitimacy, and the (dis)union of science. American Antiquity
65: 219–237.