Ancient Mesoamerica

http://journals.cambridge.org/ATM

Additional services for Ancient Mesoamerica:

Email alerts: Click here

Subscriptions: Click here
Commercial reprints: Click here
Terms of use : Click here

WHY THE HEAD? CRANIAL MODIFICATION AS PROTECTION AND

ENSOULMENT AMONG THE MAYA

William N. Duncan and Charles Andrew Hoing

Ancient Mesoamerica / Volume 22 / Issue 01 / March 2011, pp 199 - 210

DOI: 10.1017/S0956536111000162, Published online: 05 October 2011

Link to this article: http://journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S0956536111000162

How to cite this article:

William N. Duncan and Charles Andrew Hoing (2011). WHY THE HEAD? CRANIAL MODIFICATION AS PROTECTION AND
ENSOULMENT AMONG THE MAYA. Ancient Mesoamerica, 22, pp 199-210 doi:10.1017/S0956536111000162

Request Permissions : Click here

Downloaded from http://journals.cambridge.org/ATM, IP address: 130.237.122.245 on 29 Jan 2015

Ancient Mesoamerica, 22 (2011), 199–210
Copyright © Cambridge University Press, 2011
doi:10.1017/S0956536111000162

WHY THE HEAD? CRANIAL MODIFICATION

AS PROTECTION AND ENSOULMENT AMONG
THE MAYA

William N. Duncana and Charles Andrew Hoflingb

a
Department of Sociology and Anthropology, East Tennessee State University, 223B Rogers-Stout Hall, PO Box 70644, Johnson City,
TN 37614–1702
b
Department of Anthropology, Southern Illinois University Carbondale, Carbondale, IL 62901–4502

Abstract
Recent attempts to study cranial modification have suggested that the practice was a part of embodiment and socialization among the Maya.
Comparison of colonial and modern Maya childbirth and socialization practices supports these arguments. We suggest that the next
question to be asked is: “Why was the head specifically targeted for modification among the Maya?” This paper argues that one of the
motivations behind cranial modification among the Maya was to protect newborns from injury. We present evidence from colonial
documents and ethnographic studies on midwifery showing that animating essences resided in the head and that newborns were
particularly at risk for soul loss and injury from evil winds. Further we present data on metaphoric polysemy between the human body and
houses to argue that newborn humans were much like newly constructed houses in their susceptibility and that both required ritual
ensoulment. The construction of the house roof parallels cranial modification. This likely has parallels in Classic Maya times, with some
temple dedications and the construction of vaulted roofs with capstones, and suggests that the need to guard against soul loss has pre-
Columbian roots.

Most research on cranial modification may be classified under one
of four headings (after Torres-Rouff 2003): (1) description and
classification; (2) the impact of the practice on health; (3) assess-
ment of the morphological repercussions of cranial modification;
and, (4) attempts to understand the practice as one aspect of embo-
diment. The last approach has proved the most fruitful in advancing
our understanding of the meaning of cranial modification. Authors
working in the Maya area, such as Tiesler (1999), have suggested
that cranial modification was an important part of the social con-
struction and lived experience of the body. Indeed in many cultures,
continual modification of different aspects of the body ranging from
cranial modification, to scarification, to less permanent forms, such
as cutting the hair in a certain style, helps mark realization of certain
social roles or statuses (Joyce 2000, 2001). We agree with these
arguments, and believe that the next question to be asked about
cranial modification is: “Why the head?” Why was the head a
locus of modification? There are surely different answers for differ-
ent cultures, and this paper focuses primarily on the area in which
we work, Mesoamerica, and the Maya in particular. This paper
has four parts and reflects a four-field anthropological approach to
the problem. First, we review the study of cranial modification,
paying particular attention to Mesoamerica and the Maya area.
Second, we compare colonial Yukatek, modern Yukatek, and
modern Tzotzil practices associated with childbirth and socializa-
tion. This agrees with the aforementioned studies and strongly
suggests that in pre-Columbian times head shaping was a normal
part of rituals designed to help embody social roles into which
E-mail correspondence to: duncanwn@etsu.edu
children would grow. Third, we provide evidence from Mexican
colonial documents and contemporary midwifery studies suggesting
that the head was targeted because it was at risk for soul loss and
injury from evil winds. Animating essences were located in the
head, and young children in particular were at risk for losing
those substances or having them harmed. Finally we consider meta-
phoric polysemic associations between the human body and archi-
tecture among the Maya. The polysemic associations suggest that
both buildings and children needed to be ensouled and have those
animating essences protected or risk losing them. We argue that
this has implications for Maya archaeology because it reflects one
motivation for temple dedications with fire rituals and the sub-
sequent use of vaulted roofs with capstones.
PREVIOUS STUDIES
Descriptive and Classificatory Works
Prior to the first half of the twentieth century the majority of the
works on cranial modification asked a variety of basic questions con-
cerning how and why it was done, and as such were generally
descriptive and or classificatory (see Torres-Rouff [2003];
Gerszten and Gerszten [1995]; Goodrich and Tutino [2001]; or
Tubbs et al. [2006] for general reviews). At roughly 400 B.C.,
Hippocrates (Hutchins 1952) was among the earliest to describe
the practice, noting that a group he calls the Macrocephali used ban-
dages to shape children’s heads. Similar isolated descriptive reports
were made by Herodotus, Aristotle, and Pliny (McGibbon 1912),
and continued through to relatively recent times (Blackwood 1939;

199
200
Goldstein 1940; Hewitt and Lawrence 1911; Wilson 1876). With the
exception of Girolamo Cardono’s attempts in 1557 though (Gerszten
and Gerszten 1995; sometimes spelled Cardano [Dingwall 1931]),
comparative analyses would have to wait until the 1800s when a
number of authors attempted to categorize different types of
cranial modification. Gosse (1855, cited in Dingwall [1931])
created 16 categories. Lunier (1869, cited in Dingwall [1931]) and
Magitot (1885) each separately made classifications of 10 types.
Topinard (1879) argued that there were four primary types with sub-
types for a total of nine categories. Researchers have continued
attempts to categorize or assess types of cranial modification into
the 1900s (Allison et al. 1981; Comas 1960; Hrdlička 1912;
Neumann 1942; Stewart 1948), however the most frequently cited
early work of this type among Mesoamerican researchers is that of
Dembo and Imbelloni (1938). The goal of all of these classifications
and descriptions is to identify differences in shape and the techniques
that would have caused them (Buikstra and Ubelaker 1994).
The earliest works on the subject in Mesoamerica were also
descriptive. The first known observations of cranial modification
in Mexico were from the 1830s, from Mitla, Oaxaca (Romano
1974). Soon thereafter, in 1843, Stephens described a modified
cranium from Ticul in Yucatan. Romano (1974:202) notes that
other publications describing isolated finds continued through the
1800s from elsewhere in Yucatan. The description of isolated
finds and calculation of frequencies for assemblages continued
throughout the 1900s (e.g., Dávalos 1944, 1946, 1965). Given the
considerable time depth for the practice in Mesoamerica—as far
back as 7,000 years ago at Tehuacan (Tiesler 1998)—authors were
also interested in documenting spatial, temporal, and demographic
trends in the use of different types of modification (e.g., Alva et al.
1987; Peña Gomez and Lopez Wario 1989; Romano 1972, 1973a,
1973b). Romano (1974) found that the tabular erect form was the
most common prior to contact in Mexico overall, with oscillations
rising in frequency during the Preclassic (2500–300 b.c.) and
Postclassic (a.d. 900–1500) periods relative to the Classic (a.d.
300–900) (Romero Molina 1970). Annular forms of modification
appear in Oaxaca, Mexico, in the Middle Preclassic period (which
Romero Molina [1970] dates to 1200–300 b.c.). More recent
works have considered similar questions. Tiesler (1998, 1999)
found multiple varieties of modification present from the
Preclassic through the Classic periods, although tabular oblique
modification appears to have been discontinued in the Postclassic.
Implications for Health
The second line of inquiry for researchers interested in cranial modi-
fication was whether cranial modification influences health, intelli-
gence, or psychology. In their review of early works, Dembo and
Imebelloni (1938) noted that there was an initial association
between culturally modified crania and pathological ones—such as
those exhibiting microcephaly. This line of thought likely gave rise
to opinions, such as that of French physician Achille-Louis-
Francois Foville, who argued that cranial modification caused ail-
ments ranging from meningitis to epilepsy to insanity (Dembo and
Imbelloni 1938). Others, such as Gustav Retzius (Dembo and
Imbelloni 1938) and Hrdlička (1912) argued that there was no differ-
ence in intelligence between individuals with modified and unmodi-
fied skulls. Hunt (1965) found that the degree of cranial modification
does not seem to influence the length of the femur in infants.
The debate has continued for some time with varying arguments
and cases for and against the negative impact of modification,
Duncan and Hofling
although the most recent papers on the subject found no evidence
for increased osteological (Allison et al. 1981; Gerszten 1993) or
neurological pathology among individuals with modification
(Blackwood and Danby 1955; for reviews in different time periods
see also Dembo and Imbelloni 1938; Flower 1882; Tommaseo and
Drusini 1984; Torres-Rouff 2003). The notion that cranial modifi-
cation might have pathological repercussions is only marginally rel-
evant to the Maya, though Feindel (1988:218) speculated that
resulting brain damage could have contributed to the Maya collapse.
Morphological Effects
A third line of inquiry has been to assess how cranial modification
influences skull morphology. Some studies have discussed the
general biological impact of cranial modification on the skull as a
whole (Björk and Björk 1964; Moss 1958; Rogers 1975; Tiesler
1995). Other researchers have focused on specific aspects of
growth and development in the context of modification. Early
studies by McGibbon (1912), Otteking (1924), and McNeill and
Newton (1965) considered how the temporal bone and cranial
base were influenced in particular by the practice. Later studies
have followed up on these works (Antón 1989; Schendel et al.
1980). Cranial modification’s influence on cranial suture closure,
complexity and wormian bone frequency (Antón et al. 1992;
Bennett 1965; Gottlieb 1978; O’Loughlin 2004; White 1996), dis-
crete traits (Ossenberg 1970), and endocranial vascular pattern
(Dean 1995; O’Loughlin 1996) have all been examined. Other
studies considered the effects of cranial modification experimentally
in animals (Pucciarelli 1978) and craniometrically (Falkenburger
1938). This topic was pursued in Mesoamerica in particular by
Comas and colleagues (Comas 1966, 1969; Comas and Marquer
1969; Tiesler 1998). More recent inquiries into the morphological
repercussions of cranial modification by Cheverud (Cheverud
et al. 1992; Cheverud and Midkiff 1992) and Kohn and colleagues
(Kohn et al. 1993; Konigsberg et al. 1993; see also Frieβ and Baylac
[2003]) have applied more sophisticated mathematical analyses to
determine how different styles of cranial modification influence
the overall growth of the skull, including the face and mandible.
Embodiment
Although all three of the aforementioned lines of inquiry have shed
light on various aspects of cranial modification, we still do not fully
understand the motivation behind the practice for most areas,
including Mesoamerica (Buikstra 1997). Historically, the two
most common answers are for aesthetics and for vertical and hori-
zontal social differentiation. Torquemada (1943:581, 583), com-
menting on this practice among various indigenous groups of the
New World, reported that it is associated with nobility, suggesting
that variation may have reflected social status—at least in some con-
texts. Landa reported the custom of head-binding was widespread,
and at pre-contact Chichen Itza, Mayas with flattened foreheads
were distinguished from Mexicans without this trait (Tozzer 1941:
88). This is supported by iconography in which Maya figures
(seen, for example, in the Oval Palace Tablet from Palenque in
Figure 1a) have differently shaped heads than outsiders (seen, for
example, in Stela 11 from Seibal in Figure 1b). Tiesler (1998,
1999) also considered intrasite variability in terms of social
factors. She found that individuals buried in what are thought to
be elite burials exhibited no erect varieties of cranial modification
at Copan. Burials on the periphery of the site were much more
Cranial Modification as Protection and Ensoulment among the Maya
Figure 1. (1a) Maya figures seen in the Oval Palace Tablet from Palenque (after Schele and Freidel 1990:Figures 6 and 7); (1b) Non-Maya
figures represented in Stela 11 from Seibal. Contrast the different representations of the Maya and non-Maya individuals’ head shapes
(after Graham 1996:34).
likely to exhibit erect varieties. In Patio D in the 9N-8 group of the
Las Sepulturas residential district of the city, an area thought to have
been inhabited by outsiders (Lenca speakers) (Gerstle 1988), only
one of 14 crania were modified in a fashion similar to burials else-
where in the patios (Tiesler 1999).
Such intrasite patterns, along with the high percentage of modi-
fied crania throughout the Maya area and absence of sex-based
differences, led Tiesler (1999) to several conclusions. There was
no clear pan-Maya association between cranial modification and
hierarchical social status, although within some sites the type of
modification reflected social status (Tiesler 1999). However,
cranial modification reflected and drew horizontal social lines,
such as those between different ethnic groups. In light of the
absence of sex-based differences and, since cranial modification
must occur in infancy, it was likely performed exclusively by
females. Finally, head shaping was a common part of growing up
in Maya society. Cranial modification was a way of influencing
the individual’s body and lived experience to embody and display
all of the appropriate messages that were part of being Maya. This
last point is important because it is one more grounded in cultural
theory than earlier avenues of inquiry and thus opens up the discus-
sion to the full range of possibilities that may be relevant to the
causes and effects of cranial modification.
Changing the biological body (in the largest sense including all
forms of covering and altering) is done for a variety of reasons cross-
culturally, including “propriety, sacrality, beauty, or status” (Turner
1980:112). As Turner (1980:112) notes “the body, as the common
frontier of society, the social self, and the psycho-biological individ-
ual, becomes the symbolic stage upon which the drama of socialisa-
tion is enacted.” Body modification not only reflects but also creates
aspects of an individual’s identity, whether they are related to age,
gender, or horizontal or vertical social status within or between
groups. Indeed Turner’s (1980) description of divisions in Kayapo
society between the sacred and secular, more and less prestige,
the social and the natural are all created (“played out” in Turner’s
words [1980:139]), in part, by dress and body modification. Thus,
the lived experience and development of bodies is so fundamentally
social that bodies cannot simply be regarded as a biological canvas
on and through which social realities are constructed. Rather, some
authors have argued that that bodies only exist as current potential-
ities of a constituting social ‘labor’ (Haraway 1991:10; see also
Csordas 1994; Sofaer 2006:23–29). The open-endedness of this
view makes constructing and testing comparative statements about
201
body modification difficult, but Scheper-Hughes and Lock (1987:6)
identify three common perspectives: (1) the body as individual experi-
ence; (2) the body as a social canvas and symbol; and, (3) the body as
a political “artifact.” These divisions may or may not reflect emic rea-
lities depending on the cultural context, but heuristically the schema is
useful. Archaeologists interested in mortuary practices have increas-
ingly begun to take advantage of these viewpoints (see Hollimon
2001; Meskell 1994, 2001; and Raharijaona and Kus 2001 for com-
mentary on the respective foci) including those studying cranial modi-
fication. Geller’s (2004:387) suggestion that cranial modification may
have been used to mold individuals for gender and later occupational
roles in northern Belize, by placing “the modifiee down a path of
social identification predetermined by the modifier,” is one such
example. Joyce’s (2000:474–475) view that Aztec children were
“[p]resented at birth as raw materials … that were shaped into body
ornaments,” is another such example.
The notion that the body is always in a dynamic state of potential
is relevant to questions about cranial modification because there
were no universal patterns across the Maya area. Tiesler’s work in
particular indicates that cranial modification was used to create
and transmit multiple messages at different times and spaces in
the Maya area. Each of the aforementioned social reasons identified
as motivations for cranial modification have data to support them.
Thus in addition to social reasons, there may be a host of other poss-
ible motivations for the practice. Houston and colleagues (2006:45;
see also Taube 2000) recently suggested that the head was shaped to
make it look like corn, reflecting the fact that the human body was
made of maize. It is easy to envision a scenario in which a child of
ascribed rank had his or her head modified to make it look like corn,
to place a headdress and diadem on it at the time of accession
(Houston et al. 2006), and to make it symbolically easier to wear
a tumpline (tumplines were used by gods to carry time, which is
one of the burdens of rulers) (Rice 2004:53, 60–63, 149). This
would also, then, involve an attempt to reflect social status and
mold an individual for an occupation later in life. It would also be
difficult to discern attempts to influence occupation and gender as
described by Geller (2004) in northern Belize since they are both
part of an individual’s social development. Each of these scenarios
has merit, but they also fail to explore why the head was used in the
first place. Comparing ethnohistoric and modern descriptions of
childbirth and socialization sheds light on why the head was tar-
geted for modification. The notion that children were vulnerable
and needed to be protected from soul loss and evil winds is not
202 Duncan and Hofling

exclusive to any of the aforementioned scenarios, but it does Tzotzil Maya children of Chiapas underwent a very similar
provide insight as to why the head was initially targeted for sequence of events. Midwives assisted in childbirth, after which
manipulation. the child was immediately bathed, censed, and dressed in clean
clothes (Vogt 1993:20). The rite that followed established the
gender identity of the child, initiated the socialization process, and
CHILDBIRTH AND SOCIALIZATION
helped fix the innate soul into the new body. The midwife rubbed
Descendents of the lowland Maya speak languages of the salt twice on the top of the baby’s mouth, and presented the child
Yukatekan and Ch’olan-Tzeltalan branches of the Mayan language with three red chilies, giving much needed "heat" to the still
family. Therefore ethnohistoric and ethnographic documentation of "cold" body (emphasis added; Vogt 1993:20). Stross (1998:35)
these groups is especially relevant for interpreting archaeological mentions that the closely related Tenejapa Tzeltal Maya placed a
data relating to their ancestors. From Diego de Landa’s early colo- bit of beeswax on the top of a newborn’s head soon after birth so
nial accounts of the Maya Indians of Yucatan, we learn that mid- that evil spirits would not bother it. The Tzotzil next performed a
wives (female shamans) assisted in childbirth and babies were rite similar to héetz-méek’, in which tools associated with gender
washed immediately after birth (Landa 1959:58; Tozzer 1941: roles are touched to the infant’s hands in order to establish gender
129). He further states that four or five days after they were born, identity and begin socialization and the fixing of the child’s soul
the mother put the baby’s “head between two small boards, one in the body. Baptism, the most important childhood ceremony,
on the back of the head and the other on the forehead, between was performed by a priest and involved godparents. Baptism was
which they compressed the head tightly,” until “the head remained believed to fix the innate soul in the infant’s body. The three
flat and molded, as was the custom of all of them” (Landa 1959:54; systems are compared in Table 1.
Tozzer 1941:125; see also von Winning 1968). Tiesler (1998: Table 1 demonstrates strong parallels within these systems which
30–31) noted that a pre-contact Mayan clay whistle appears to rep- involve purification, ensoulment and socialization of children as the
resent a child with head boards straddling its mother’s hip, a pos- beginning of embodiment in Maya society. Head molding occurs at
ition called héetz-méek’ in modern Yukatek. After the head was a period early in the child’s life when the child’s soul is not firmly
molded, the children were taken to a priest in order to determine fixed in its body and before the child is a full social being. It is only
the child’s destiny and future profession, as well as to receive its after head binding that the child is named by the priest, marking a
childhood name (Landa 1959:54; Tozzer 1941:129). Mayas rite of passage in Mayan personhood. Bonavides Mateos (1992:
received different names later in life, after a rite similar to baptism 404) also interprets head molding as a rite of passage. However,
was performed between ages 3–12 for girls and perhaps at the strongest parallel among modern Maya appears to be the
roughly the same ages for boys (Tozzer 1941:102). After baptism Yukatek héetz-méek’ ceremony, which marks a transition from a
they could be married (Landa 1959:54; Tozzer 1941:102, 129; relatively unformed social being in infancy, to the fixing of
Roys 1940). Boys wore a white bead stuck to the hair on the top gender and occupational roles. Development of gender and work
of their head until the baptism ceremony, when it was cut off by roles continues to be emphasized throughout the Maya area.
the priest (Tozzer 1941:102). Baptism was an important ceremony Among contemporary Tzutujil for girls, sticks from a loom are
involving a priest and four old male assistants called Chaks, as well placed over the child’s head. Also after birth, mothers wrap their
as godparents. Baptism took place in a sponsor’s house, which was newborns tightly “with arms at the sides and legs stretched out”
ritually purified with sweeping and offerings of maize and incense to make them strong for work (Paul 1974:284). The question
(Tozzer 1941:102–106). During the ceremony the Chaks put a piece
of white cloth on top of the children’s heads, their foreheads were
anointed with sacred water, and then the priest removed the cloth.
Table 1. Comparison between colonial and modern Maya childbirth and
Twentieth-century accounts of childbirth and socialization
socialization practices.
among the Yukatek Maya are similar in many respects (Redfield
and Villa Rojas 1934:182; Villa Rojas 1945:140). Midwives Colonial Yukatek Modern Yukatek Modern Tzotzil
assisted the mother at childbirth, after which the child was immedi-
ately washed and clothed. Next, the child was named after the patron Midwife assists in Midwife assists in Midwife assists in
saint of its birthday according to the Catholic calendar (Redfield and childbirth childbirth childbirth
Villa Rojas 1934:182; Villa Rojas 1945:140). In Quintana Roo, it Baby immediately Baby immediately Baby immediately
was the godparents’ duty to consult the town scribe to determine washed washed washed
Head molded Baby carried in arms Gender and
the child’s name. Baptism was an extremely important rite per-
occupational roles
formed during infancy by a priest with the assistance of godparents. fixed, begin fixing soul
In Quintana Roo, baptism occurred at the age of one month (Villa Patron saint determines Patron saint determines
Rojas 1945:144). Special care was taken to protect newborns and name name
their mothers from sickness-bearing evil winds. Babies were Baptism with priest and Baptism with priest and
carried across the arms for the first three or four months of life, godparents (one month) godparents, fixing soul
after which a ceremony called héetz-méek’, occurred, in which the Priest determines Héetz-méek’ ceremony to
child was handed to its godparent of the same sex, who placed name and future encourage future gender
the child straddling one hip. The godparent then placed different profession roles (5 months)
objects associated with adult gendered work roles in the child’s Baptism with priest,
assistants and
hand to encourage its future aptitudes. For example, a machete
godparents
was placed touching the hands of a boy, and a grinding stone in
Marriage Marriage Marriage
the hand of a girl. After the héetz-méek’ ceremony the child was
carried straddling the mother’s hip. Marriage occurred after puberty.
Cranial Modification as Protection and Ensoulment among the Maya
remains, though, as to why the head needed to be shaped in order to
carry the appropriate messages.
PROTECTION FROM SOUL LOSS AND EVIL WINDS
There are a variety of reasons that the head could have been and
likely was targeted for manipulation (see above). One reason that
has not received very much attention is the need to protect recently
ensouled newborns. The Mesoamerican worldview was constantly
in motion, in cycles of birth and death, termination and regeneration
(Mock 1998). Everything that came to be needed to be animated or
ensouled, and would eventually be terminated. This includes indi-
viduals, caves, mountains, houses, some ceramics, etc. (Mock
1998). Stross (1998) notes that when buildings were constructed,
one of the last things that occurred prior to building the roof was
killing a chicken and placing it in the hole under the center pole
for the roof. This animated or ensouled the building, after which
the roof was placed on the building. Humans were no different in
their need for ensoulment.
For the Maya, and indeed across Mesoamerica, the head was the
seat of some portion or aspect of what we might call a soul (Furst
1995). Mesoamericans did not have one specific concept that corre-
sponds to the Western notion of the soul (Furst 1995; Geller 2004;
Hinojosa 1999; for specific case descriptions in the Maya area see
Guiteras Holmes 1961; Vogt 1965; Watanabe 1989). Rather there
were a number of soul-related substances involved in animation
(Duncan 2005). Houston and Stuart (1998; Houston et al. 2006)
have argued that the translation for the Maya b’a(h) or baah
glyph can mean ‘self’, ‘person’, or ‘head.’ Baah can literally refer
to the body or head; it can refer to the highest ranking status individ-
ual in an organization; or it can be used as a signifier of the “essen-
tial identity” of a person in Maya society (Houston et al. 2006:
58–72). The last sense is most important here because it relates to
the larger point that this animating essence or essential identity
may be harmed, lost, or even taken and manipulated (Furst 1995;
Read 1998).
A clear example of the potential for manipulation of animating
essences and need to protect newly ensouled infants is found
among the Mexica. The Mexica have a concept called tonalli, a sub-
stance which resides in the head. Tonalli does not translate directly
into Spanish concepts for soul (la alma or la ánima), but rather is
associated with heat and destiny (Furst 1995; see also López
Austin 1988). For example, hot wind is called tonal ehecatl (Furst
1995). Furst (1995) makes the significance of the relationship
between heat, destiny and newborns clear in her description of the
manner in which Nahuatl children are animated. When Nahuatl
children are born, the gods:
[s]imultaneously breathed the tonalli into the child and ignited a
fire in its chest in an action analogous to making fire with a drill.
This implement consists of an upright wooden piece twirled
rapidly on a flat base …. It produces heat through friction,
although this seemingly simple instrument requires considerable
skill to make anything but smoke. As a fire maker blows on an
ignited spark to fan it into a vigorous flame while whirling the
upright, both breath and friction in the chest animate an infant.
[Furst 1995:65]
When the child drops significantly in the womb (which is normally
the day of birth), the animation is said to have occurred. This was
significant enough that children are named for that day (Furst
1995). Since days and day names have particular meanings, on
203
the day of animation, when the child gained tonalli, a part of the
child’s destiny is also created—ranging from potential for authority,
to wealth or health (Furst 1995). Ultimately it is difficult to demon-
strate the pre-Columbian origin of concepts like evil winds.
However, the parallels between the human head and architectural
components as portals for animating essences as well as related fire-
drilling ritual in architecture have clear antecedents in the
pre-Columbian record (Grube 2000; Stuart 1998). These strongly
suggest that Mesoamerican concepts of heat precede European
contact, at least in part. Similarly, ideas concerning the deleterious
effect of evil winds have non-European roots, as indicated their
presence among traditional shamans throughout Mesoamerica,
which is not to deny syncretism with European humoral medicine
(Dow 2001:74–76).
Another characteristic of tonalli though, is that it could be
manipulated or diminished. Furst (1995) and López Austin (1988)
demonstrate how newborns in particular were at risk for loss of
tonalli through the top of the head. This may stem from the fonta-
nelle being open in newborns. After birth, newborns were kept
near a torch to add to their heat. Lighting something from this
torch would have had the effect of diminishing the tonalli of the
child (Furst 1995). López Austin (1988:221) also notes that “[t]he
hair of sick children was allowed to grow as a head cover to avoid
the tonalli’s departure … [i]n a similar way, one of the severest pun-
ishments meted out to delinquents was to cut off their hair, thus
exposing them to a loss of tonalli.” When the tonalli left, it “pro-
duced an empty space they thought could be observed in a cranial
depression” (López Austin 1988:227). This was rectified in part
by pushing up on the roof of the mouth, a practice which is still
done by some immigrants from Guatemala and Honduras in the
United States today (FitzSimmons et al. 1998).
Do the Maya have exactly the same concept as the Mexica
tonalli? Perhaps not, as Geller (2004:240) notes; however, there
are clear similarities between tonalli and Maya soul concepts. The
head was often used as a signifier for the animating essences or
essential identity of an individual. Maya souls could also leave
the body or be diminished. The soul leaves Totzil speakers
through the tongue after death (Nash 1985:131). Ch’ulel, or “indes-
tructible soul” (Houston et al. 2006:35; Plank 2004:138) leaving the
body was associated with sickness (Guiteras Holmes 1961).
Similarly way, a co-essence that may be associated with disease,
left the body during sleep (Houston et al. 2006). In Comalapa, in
the Guatemalan highlands, boys’ hair could not be cut before
their first birthday (girls’ hair was not to be cut), lest “they
become mute,” and even then the hair must be collected and
saved (Hinojosa 1999:186). In nearby Iximche, others argued that
cutting the hair of a boy prematurely would diminish “knowledge
and reason” (Hinojosa 1999:186). Thus the head was a potent
symbol in a variety of iconographic and archaeological contexts
(for relevant discussions of skull iconography see also Houtson
et al. 2006; Miller 1999; Moser 1973).
Tzompantli skull racks were a common example of this. These
are most well known among the Mexica and in Oaxaca
(Wilkinson 1997), however they are found in iconography in the
Maya area at sites like Chichen Itza, and actual skull rows are
known from the site of Ixlu (Duncan 2012), as well as skull deposits
from Iximche (Whittington 2003), Colha (Massey and Steele 1997)
and other sites (see Mendoza 2007 for a recent review). The tzom-
pantli were frequently juxtaposed with ball courts because they were
both cosmic portals (Mendoza 2007). The ball courts were associ-
ated with passage to the underworld, while the tzompantli were
204
associated with passage to the heavens. The skull row at Ixlu is
telling because it consisted of adolescent and adult males buried
immediately prior to constructing a floor and a small temple
(Duncan 2012) and appears to be an attempt to ensoul the building
in a way similar to that found in Tenejapa. As Houston et al. (2006:
72) note, the severed heads “contained the … essences of the way, or
companion spirits.” However, skulls were not only used in attempts
to violate enemies. Landa (Tozzer 1941) noted that among the
Cocom lineage, the face would be cut off from the deceased rela-
tives’ skulls and the ashes from the postcranium placed inside the
skull. The face would then be built up again with bitumen and there-
fore preserved. Thus the animating essences associated with the
skull could be manipulated in a variety of ways.
Pregnant women and newborn babies were particularly vulnerable
to soul loss and evil winds (Hinojosa 1999:71–75; Kunow 1996:90).
Winds have beneficial and harmful properties in Mayan languages and
cultures. In its positive sense, ik’ may be glossed as ‘wind’, ‘breath’,
‘animacy’ (see Hofling and Tesucún [1997:251] on Itzaj Maya;
Wisdom [1940:317] on Ch’orti’; Hanks [1996:250] on Yukatek)
and is an animating force, entering infants at birth. Tedlock (2005:
214, 320) citing Taube (1994) notes that birthing ropes used by mid-
wives to help the mother with childbirth were hung from house rafters
and represent the passage of a child’s spirit from the sky into the
child’s body (see also Paul and Paul 1975:709). Jordan (1993:37)
notes that in Yucatan someone will blow onto the top of the pregnant
woman’s head to give her strength. As a negative force, evil winds are
primary causes of disease. Consequently in Yucatan, all doors and
openings in the house are closed or sealed by stuffing them with
rags during birth (Jordan 1993:42; Sargent and Bascope 1996:219).
Also in Yucatan, people hang certain plants over doorways, to
combat dangers to pregnant women posed by witches (Kunow
1996:69). It is worth noting that this need to seal houses for protection
clearly has pre-Columbian roots. Plank (2004:46) notes that lintels
over doorways at the sites of Chichen Itza and Xkalumkin often
include the verb k’al, which means “to bind, fasten, [or] enclose”
for protection after animation. Additionally, the mother’s pelvis and
head are tied to return them to their original state because of the
need “to close up the bones that opened during childbirth” (Jordan
1993:22). Sargent and Bascope (1996:221) note that among Maya
in Yucatan, after cutting the umbilical cord the midwife “molded
the baby’s head until she approved of its shape.” Among Tzutujil
speakers in the Guatemalan highlands children are bathed “with a pro-
tective infusion of rue” and fennel eight days after birth (Cosminsky
2001; Paul 1974:284). Similarly the Tzeltal believe that swaddling
newborns for 15 days and avoiding contact with outsiders for 20
days limits the potential of soul loss as well as wind and heat-
related illnesses (Cosminsky 1982:244, 2001:196). Such attempts to
guard against soul loss and illness among newborns are widespread
throughout the Maya region.
Considering metaphoric polysemy between the human body and
houses is a final link suggesting that cranial modification is analo-
gous to placing the roof on a building. It seals the newly animated
construction, and likely relates to the desire to maintain the levels
of this soul-stuff for newborns, thereby keeping them from harm.
As Stross (1998) and Vogt (1993, 1998) have pointed out for
Tzeltal and Tzotzil Maya, respectively, the birth and socialization
of infants have strong parallels with the construction and dedication
of houses. Houses have parts much like human bodies have parts,
and humans are shaped much like houses are built. The metaphori-
cal use of body part terms for house parts is extensive. Itzaj Maya
terms (Hofling 1997, 2004) indicative of this parallelism are
Duncan and Hofling
Table 2. Polysemic associations between the human body and houses
among the Maya.
b’äk’el ‘(human) body’ naj ‘house’
jo’ol ‘head’, pol, ‘head’ ujo’ol naj, ‘(peak of) roof’, upol
naj, ‘(peak of) roof’
tz’u’ pol, chumuk pol, ‘crown chumuk upol naj, ‘the center of the
of head’, center of head’ roof peak’
ch’ala’at, ‘ribs’ uch’ala’at naj, ‘lit., ribs of house’,
front and back roof poles’
ich, ‘face’, ‘eye’ ich naj, ‘inside of house’
chi’, ‘mouth’ ujol naj, uchi’ naj, ‘the doorway of
the house’
taan, ‘front of body’ utaan naj, ‘front of house’
pach, ‘back’ tupach naj, ‘at the back of the
house’, ‘the exterior walls of house’
tzeel, ‘side’ tutzeel naj, ‘at the front and back
sides of house’
näk’, ‘belly’ näk’ naj, ‘lower part of inside wall’
n’ak’ xa’an ‘inside slope of roof’
shown in Table 2 and Figure 2. Moreover, new house dedications
share a number of features with the early childhood practices
described above. Information on house ceremony practices in colo-
nial Yucatan is sketchy, but Cogolludo (1957 [1688]:IV:184) men-
tions that new houses could not be occupied until they were blessed
by a shaman. Landa’s (Tozzer 1941:103–105) description of purify-
ing the house for baptismal rites by driving out an evil spirit also
shows many similarities to modern new house ceremonies. The
twentieth-century New House Ceremony at Chan Kom, Yucatan,
was performed by a shaman to make the house safe for its future
occupants, keeping evil winds out (Redfield and Villa Rojas
1934:146–147). The shaman hung gourds with food offerings to
the house from each corner-post and put food offerings on an
altar in the center. A live hen, candles, rum, tortillas, and other
foods were also offered. Thompson (1930:69) describes a very
similar New House Ceremony performed by the Mopan Maya of
Belize. Candles were lit at each corner post and in the center, and
food offerings were made for the spirits of the corner-posts and
for the Forest spirit to repay it for the house materials. Vogt
(1993:52–55) offers an elaborate description of the New House
Ceremony of the Tzotzil Maya of Zinacantan. The ceremony was
called hol chuk, literally “binding the head of the roof” (Vogt
1993:52), or ridge pole ceremony and was conducted after the
ridge pole is in place at the peak of the roof (Laughlin 1975:157).
Four chickens, one for each corner post, were suspended by a
rope tied to the ridge pole in the center of the house. After the chick-
ens were sacrificed and made into broth, the house builders offered
the broth and liquor to the four corners and the head (peak) of the
roof. Stross (1998:32–33) explains that sacrificial offerings were
made to animate the house and that continued feeding maintained
animacy. After the completion of the house, a shaman performed
a second rite offering candles (symbolic food) to the Earth Lord
to summon ancestral gods to ensoul the house. The house was
ritually purified and carefully attended for the next three days
because it now had an innate soul, just as infants and the sick
were attended.
Additional possible evidence of the antiquity of beliefs linking
winds and roof peaks is found in the hieroglyphs. The hieroglyph
for the number three, also the patron of the month Mak has an
Cranial Modification as Protection and Ensoulment among the Maya
Figure 2. Parts of a Maya roof that correspond to words for head (after Wauchope 1938:Figures 10a and 41a).
interesting head variant (T1082) (Figure 3). The head sign has
several diagnostic features. He has a tau or ik’ sign, usually on his
cheek or at his ear. There is some agreement that the god of the
number three is a wind god (Macri and Looper 2003:146; Taube
1992:58–60; Thompson 1971:132–133). The link between the
number three and wind might be based on the homophony or
near homophony of the words for ‘three’ and ‘steam’ (ox and oox
respectively in Itzaj Maya). The portrait of this god has a unique
woven binding around his head which, as Montgomery (2002:60)
has noted, resembles the glyphic sign for thatch on the roof of a
house (Figure 4). Thus there seems to be parallel treatment of the
top of the wind god’s head and the top of a thatched roof, both of
which are bound to prevent harm to a newly formed being.
Generalizing meaning between architectural features across
space and time is difficult because a given building may be concep-
tualized and used in multiple ways (McAnany and Plank 2001).
Additionally, emic categories associated with architecture may be
extended to non-architectural fields (Houston 1998; Plank 2004:
236–237). That said, the conceptualization of the house as described
above may have implications for interpreting Classic Maya architec-
ture and suggests that the idea of soul loss and the need to protect
against it was in fact pre-Columbian. That the relationship
between the human body and architecture can be extended to the
past is well documented. The doors of buildings are often portrayed
as mouths (often of monster’s), especially in the Rio Bec, Chenes,
Figure 3. Number 3, Ik’ glyph (after Thompson 1971:Figure 24; see also
Macri and Looper 2003:146).
205
and Puuc regions (Figure 5) (Plank 2004:222; Schele 1998:482). In
the Codex Mendoza an Aztec lord’s house and administrative center
is depicted with a headdress (Evans 2005). Also, like modern house
roofs, corbelled vaults with capstones at their peaks appear to be
analogs of heads. Doorway lintels may be considered to be the
“door’s roof” (Plank 2004:206). These parallels between specific
architectural elements and heads do not diminish the analogy
between a house and a body. Rather, they highlight the point that
each of these elements was a potential portal through which animat-
ing essences could pass and in each case care needed to be taken to
ensure that did not happen.
Recent discussions of temple dedication and fire rituals has bol-
stered this point, strongly suggesting that part of the dedication of
temples also involved animation through a fire ritual (Rice 2004
246–251; Stuart 1998:373–425). (Although we note that the cat-
egory of “temple” is likely an etic category [Plank 2004].) As part
of the ritual dedication "fire entered" or "was drilled" in the struc-
tures, which Stuart (1998) interprets as "ritual activation", anima-
tion, or ensoulment of the structure, based on much of the same
Figure 4. Maya house glyph (after Montgomery 2002:Figures 1214a; see
also Macri and Looper 2003:253).
Figure 5. Hochob, Structure 2. Stylized mouths encircled (after Andrews
2001:348).
206
Figure 6. Corbelled vault from Palenque (House K of the Palace) with
capstone showing the maize god passing through it (redrawn from
Carrasco and Hull 2002:29).
ethnographic evidence discussed above. The rulers performing
these fire rituals are associated with the Jaguar God of the
Underworld, who is also prominent in censer iconography and
perhaps the patron of fire (Stuart 1998:407–408).
Capstones at multiple sites, such as Ek Balam and Chichen Itza
(Carrasco and Hull 2002), include statements associated with the
verb k’al, which means to close or bind and is associated with pro-
tection after animation. Carrasco and Hull (2002) use iconographic,
epigraphic and archaeological data to argue that the capstone of cor-
belled vaults was a portal oftentimes associated with a turtle cara-
pace. Such iconography is seen at multiple locations at Chichen
Itza (Plank 2004), as well as in the Madrid Codex (Carrasco and
Hull 2002), Dresden Codex, and the Borgia Codex (Plank 2004).
RESUMEN
En este artículo se analiza la importancia de la modificación craneal en el
proceso de socialización entre los mayas. Sugerimos que entre los mayas la
modificación craneal es un elemento central en la constitución de los individuos.
Estas modificaciones están relacionadas no solo con la constitución corporal del
individuo sino también con a la protección contra fuerzas sobrenaturales (en
especial aires malignos). La modificación craneal es parte de la protección nece-
saria para garantizar que el individuo mantenga su alma o fuerza vital.
Basándonos en documentos coloniales y observaciones etnográficas, sugerimos
que la cabeza es el lugar donde residen las esencias de animación del individuo.
Por eso su modificación es necesaria para garantizar la protección del alma. Por
último, argumentamos que existe una relación metaforico-polisémica entre el
cuerpo humano y las casas recién construidas. Las casas recién construidas
requieren ser ensalmadas para prevenir la pérdida de su esencia vital. Estos es
un proceso que se puede vincular con la modificación craneal a nivel
metafórico pues ambos son procesos de modificación destinados a la
protección y contención del alma. En este sentido, la modificación craneal
actúa como la construcción del techo de una casa encapsulando el alma
dentro de la casa y el cuerpo y evitando que esta se escape.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Juan Rodriguez, Martha Black, and Dr. Kathleen Costello kindly provided
input on the Spanish translation of the abstract. Yuki Tanaka
provided assistance in redrawing figures. Dr. Joel Palka and our reviewers
provided particularly cogent criticisms and comments for which we are
Duncan and Hofling
Examples of the maize god and or other deities moving through
this portal are seen at Palenque and Uxmal (Figure 6) (Carrasco
and Hull 2002). In some cases the way (or co-essence) of the
maize god passes through the capstone mimicking a larger creation
story in which the maize god is born and emerges through a crack in
a roof caused by Chaak, the rain god (Carrasco and Hull 2002). The
same phenomenon has been pointed out for the capstones of tombs
(Fitzsimmons 2006), and Gillespie (2002) notes that the tubes above
the two tombs in Palenque have been interpreted as “psychoducts”
for the soul to leave. This kind of function may not be true for all
capstones but minimally those that have references to carapaces
appear to have been conceptualized as a portal that needed to be
sealed. Thus it appears that at least some vault peaks and capstones,
like modern house roof peaks, were loci for the potential passage of
animating essences or winds into or out of the structure.
CONCLUSION
Comparing child-rearing practices among different Maya groups
supports earlier authors’ assertions that cranial modification was a
part of embodiment and socialization among the Maya. We have
argued that modifying the head was necessary because newborns
and infants were at risk for soul loss through their heads.
Polysemic associations between Maya bodies and houses suggest
that both need to be animated and that cranial modification was tan-
tamount to building a roof on a new building—both help seal up the
animating essences and prevent soul loss. This is relevant for
archaeologists because vaulted roofs, capstones, and cranial modifi-
cation have roots stretching back into the Preclassic period and their
construction and associated rituals may reflect at least some overlap-
ping motivations.
Este artículo presenta un resumen de las investigaciones en el estudio de
la modificación craneal. Las corrientes que se analizan son la descriptivo-
clasificatoria, los estudios sobre las implicaciones de salud, los efectos
morfológicos y las razones sociales. Privilegiamos esta última forma de
estudio y se concentra en las razones simbólicas y sociales sin menospreciar
los aportes de las otras aproximaciones. El estudio simbólico y social es
apoyado por evidencias históricas, etnográficas, arqueológicas y
lingüísticas. A través de estas evidencias se establece la importancia general-
izada de la cabeza en el contexto general de las prácticas de socialización de
diversos grupos mayas. Esta comparación establece que la idea que la cabeza
de un infante es el lugar por el cual el alma puede escaparse es ampliamente
reconocida por diversos grupos mayas. El individuo necesita cerrar el
espacio de su cabeza en una forma específica para evitar la pérdida de su
alma. Esto implica una conexión metafórica y polisémica entre entidades
que deben ser encapsuladas para no perder la fuerza vital. Es por tanto evi-
dente que la modificación craneal es el reflejo de un concepto básico en la
cosmología maya que afecta la construcción de casas así como la
constitución de individuos.
very grateful. Dr. Steve Whittington also provided clarification on
points in the article and Dr. Anthony Cavender kindly provided editorial
comments and feedback. All remaining errors remain entirely the authors’
responsibility.
Cranial Modification as Protection and Ensoulment among the Maya
REFERENCES
Allison, Marvin, Enrique Gerszten, Juan Munizaga, Calogero Santoro, and
Guillermo Focacci
1981 La práctica de la deformación craneana entre los pueblos andinos
precolombinos. Chungará 7:238–260.
Alva R., Gabriel, Josefina Bautista M., Mario Ceja M., Luis García N.,
Emma Limón C., Miguel A. Murillo M., José Luis del Olmo C., Carmen
Maria Pijoan A., and Dolores Saavedra O.
1987 Malformaciones cráneo-faciales. Avances en Antropología Física
2(3):59–64.
Andrews, George
2001 Hochob Structure 2. In Archaeology of Ancient Mesoamerica and
Central America: An Encyclopedia, edited by Susan Toby Evans and
David L. Webster, pp. 348. Garland Publishing, New York.
Antón, Susan C.
1989 Intentional Cranial Vault Deformation and Induced Changes of the
Cranial Base and Face. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 79:
253–267.
Antón, Susan C., Carolyn R. Jaslow, and Sharon M. Swartz
1992 Sutural Complexity in Artificially Deformed Human (Homo
sapiens) Crania. Journal of Morphology 214:321–332.
Bennett, Kenneth A.
1965 The Etiology and Genetics of Wormian Bones. American Journal
of Physical Anthropology 23:255–260.
Björk, Arne, and Lise Björk
1964 Artificial Deformation and Cranio-Facial Asymmetry in Ancient
Peruvians. Journal of Dental Research 43:353–362.
Blackwood, Beatrice
1939 Artificial Cranial Deformation in New Britain. In Proceedings of
the International Congress of Anthropology, Ethnology, and Science.
Compte Rendu de la Deuxiéme Session, pp. 293–294. Copenhagen.
Blackwood, Beatrice, and P.M. Danby
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.
Bonavides Mateos, Enrique
1992 Rito de pasaje entre los mayas antiguos. Estudios de Cultural
Maya 19:397–425.
Buikstra, Jane
1997 Studying Maya Bioarchaeology. In Bones of the Maya: Studies of
Ancient Skeletons, edited by Stephen L. Whittington and David M.
Reed, pp. 221–228. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC.
Buikstra, Jane, and Douglas Ubelaker
1994 Standards for Data Collection from Human Skeletal Remains:
Proceedings of a Seminar at the Field Museum of Natural History.
Arkansas Archaeological Survey Research Series, No. 44. Arkansas
Archaeological Survey, Fayettville.
Carrasco, Michael David, and Kerry Hull
2002 The Cosmogonic Symbolism of the Corbeled Vault in Maya
Architecture. Mexicon 24(2):26–32.
Cheverud, James M., Luci Ann P. Kohn, Lyle W. Konigsberg, and Steven R.
Leigh
1992 Effects of Fronto-Occipital Artificial Cranial Vault Modification
on the Cranial Base and Face. American Journal of Physical
Anthropology 88:323–345.
Cheverud, James M., and James E. Midkiff
1992 Effects of Fronto-Occipital Cranial Reshaping on Mandibular
Form. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 87:167–171.
Cogolludo, Diego López de
1957 [1688] Historia de Yucatán. Colección de Grandes Cronicas
Mexicanas de la Editorial Academia Literaria, No. 3. Mexico City.
Comas, Juan
1960 Datos para la historia de la deformación craneal en México.
HistoriaMexicana 9:509–520.
1966 Manual de antropología física. Cuadernos: Serie Antropológica
No. 10. Instituto de Investigaciones Históricas, Universidad Nacional
Autónoma de México, Mexico City.
1969 Algunos cráneos de la región maya. Anales de Antropología 6:
233–248.
Comas, Juan, and Paulette Marquer
1969 Cráneos deformados de la Isla de Sacrificios Veracruz, México.
Cuadernos: Serie Antropológica No. 23. Instituto de Investigaciones
Históricas, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Mexico City.
207
Cosminsky, Sheila
1982 Knowledge and Body Concepts of Guatemalan Midwives.
Anthropology of Human Birth. In Anthropology of Human
Birth, edited by Margarita Kay, pp. 233–252. F.A. Davis Co.,
Philadelphia.
2001 Maya Midwives of Southern Mexico and Guatemala. In
Mesoamerican Healers, edited by Brad R. Huber and Alan R.
Sandstrom, pp. 179–210. University of Texas Press, Austin.
Csordas, Thomas J.
1994 Introduction: The Body as Representation and Being-in-the-World.
In Embodiment and Experience: The Existential Ground of Culture and
Self, edited by Thomas J. Csordas, pp. 1–24. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge.
Dávalos Hurtado, Eusebio
1944 Tlatelolco a través de los tiempos: La deformación craneana entre
los Tlatelolca. Memorias de la Academia Mexicana de la Historia
Correspondiente de la Real de Madrid 4:111–130.
1946 Las deformaciones craneanas. In México prehispánico: Culturas,
deidades, monumentos, edited by Jorge A. Vivó, pp. 831–840.
Editorial E. Hurtado, Mexico City.
1965 Temas de antropología física. Instituto Nacional de Antropología
e Historia. Secretaría de Educación Pública, Mexico City.
Dean, Valerie L.
1995 Sinus and Meningeal Vessel Pattern Changes Induced by Artificial
Cranial Deformation. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 5:1–14.
Dembo, Adolfo, and José Imbelloni
1938 Deformaciones intencionales del cuerpo humano de carácter
étnico. J. Anesi, Buenos Aires.
Dingwall, Eric
1931 Artificial Cranial Deformation: A Contribution to the Study of
Ethnic Mutilations. J. Bale, Sons and Danielsson, London.
Dow, James W.
2001 Central and North Mexican Shamans. In Mesoamerican Healers,
edited by Brad R. Huber and Alan R. Sandstrom, pp. 66–94. University
of Texas Press, Austin.
Duncan, William N.
2005 Ritual Violence among the Postclassic Maya: A
Bioarchaeological Analysis. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of
Anthropology, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale. University
Microfilms, Ann Arbor.
2012 Bioarchaeological Analysis of Sacrificial Victims from a
Postclassic Maya Temple from Ixlú, El Petén, Guatemala. Latin
American Antiquity (in press).
Evans, Susan Toby
2005 The Aztec Palace under Spanish Rule: Disk Motifs in the Mapa de
México de 1550 (Uppsala Map or Mapa de Santa Cruz). In The
Postclassic to Spanish-Era Transition in Mesoamerica, edited by
Susan Kepecs and Rani T. Alexander, pp. 13–34. University of New
Mexico Press, Albuquerque.
Falkenburger, Frédéric
1938 Recherches Anthropologiques Sur la Déformation Artificielle du
Crâne. Journal de la Societe des Americanistes 30(1):1–70.
Feindel, William
1988 Cranial Clues to the Mysterious Decline of the Maya Civilization:
the Hippocampal Hypothesis. América Indígena 48:215–219.
Fitzsimmons, James
2006 Classic Maya Tomb Re-entry. In Jaws of the Underworld: Life,
Death, and Rebirth among the Ancient Maya, edited by Pierre R.
Colas, Geneviève LeFort, and Bodil L. Persson, pp. 35–42. Acta
Mesoamericana 16. Markt Schwaben, Verlag Anton Sauerwein.
FitzSimmons, Ellen, Jack H. Proust, and Sharon Peniston
1998 Infant Head Molding: A Cultural Practice. Archives of Family
Medicine 7:88–90.
Flower, William H.
1882 On a Collection of Monumental Heads and Artificially
Deformed Crania from the Island Of Mallicollo, in the New
Hebrides. Journal of the Anthropological Institute of Great Britain
and Ireland 11:75–81.
Frieβ, Martin, and Michel Baylac
2003 Exploring Artificial Cranial Deformation Using Elliptic Fourier
Analysis of Procrustes Aligned Outlines. American Journal of
Physical Anthropology 122:11–22.
208
Furst, Jill Leslie McKeever
1995 The Natural History of the Soul in Ancient Mexico. Yale
University Press, New Haven.
Geller, Pamela
2004 Transforming Bodies, Transforming Identities: A Consideration of
Pre-Columbian Maya Corporeal Beliefs and Practices. Unpublished
Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of
Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
Gerstle, Andrea I.
1988 Maya-Lenca Ethnic Relations in Late Classic Period Copán,
Honduras. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of
Anthropology, University of California. Santa Barbara.
Gerszten, Peter C.
1993 An Investigation into the Practice of Cranial Deformation among
the Pre-Columbian Peoples of Northern Chile. International Journal
of Osteoarchaeology 3:87–89.
Gerszten, Peter C., and Enrique Gerstzen
1995 Intentional Cranial Deformation: A Disappearing Form of
Self-Mutilation. Neurosurgery 37:374–382.
Gillespie, Susan
2002 Body and Soul among the Maya: Keeping the Spirits in Place. In
The Space and Place of Death, edited by Helaine Silverman and David
B. Small, pp. 67–78. Archeological Papers of the American
Anthropological Association No. 11, Arlington, VA.
Goldstein, Melvin
1940 Cranial Deformation in Texas Indians. American Journal of
Physical Anthropology 27:312–314.
Goodrich, James Tait, and Matteo Tutino
2001 An Annotated History of Craniofacial Surgery and Intentional
Cranial Deformation. Neurosurgery Clinics of North America 12:
45–68.
Gottlieb, Karen
1978 Artificial Cranial Deformation and the Increased Complexity of
the Lambdoid Suture. American Journal of Physical Anthropology
48:213–314.
Graham, Ian
1996 Corpus of Maya Hieroglyphic Inscriptions. Vol. 7, Pt. 1: Seibal.
Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard
University, Cambridge.
Grube, Nikolai
2000 Fire Rituals in the Context of Classic Maya Initial Series. In The
Sacred and the Profane: Architecture and Identity in the Maya
Lowlands, edited by Pierre Robert Colas, Kai Delvendahl, Marcus
Kuhnert, and Annette Schubart, pp. 129–136. Acta Mesoamericana
10. Markt Schwaben, Verlag Anton Saurwein.
Guiteras Holmes, Calixta
1961 Perils of the Soul: The World View of a Tzotzil Indian. The Free
Press of Glencoe, New York.
Hanks, William F.
1996 Language and Communicative Practices. Westview Press,
Boulder, CO.
Haraway, Donna
1991 Simians, Cyborgs, and Women: The Reinvention of Nature.
Routledge, New York.
Hinojosa, Servando
1999 Spiritual Embodiment in a Highland Maya Community. Ph.D. dis-
sertation, Department of Anthropology, Tulane University. University
Microfilms, Ann Arbor.
Hewitt, John, and A.E. Lawrence
1911 Head Pressing among the Milanos of Sarawak. Journal of the
Straits of the Straits Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society 60:69–70.
Hofling, Charles Andrew
2004 Fieldnotes on Itzaj Maya. Manuscript on file, Department of
Anthropology, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale.
Hofling, Charles Andrew, and Félix Fernando Tesucún
1997 Itzaj Maya-Spanish-English Dictionary. University of Utah Press,
Salt Lake City.
Hollimon, Sandra
2001 Death, Gender, and the Chumash Peoples: Mourning
Ceremonialism as an Integrative Mechanism. In Social Memory,
Identity, and Death: Anthropological Perspectives on Mortuary
Ritual, edited by Meredith S. Chesson, pp. 41–55. Archaeological
Papers of the American Anthropological Association No. 10,
Arlington, VA.
Duncan and Hofling
Houston, Stephen
1998 Finding Function and Meaning in Classic Maya Architecture. In
Function and Meaning in Classic Maya Architecture, edited by
Stephen D. Houston, pp. 519–538. Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, DC.
Houston, Stephen, and David Stuart
1998 The Ancient Maya Self: Personhood and Portraiture in the Classic
Period. RES 33:73–101.
Houston, Stephen, David Stuart, and Karl Taube
2006 The Memory of Bones: Body, Being, and Experience among the
Classic Maya. University of Texas Press, Austin.
Hrdlička, Aleš
1912 Artificial Deformation of the Human Skull with Special Reference
to America. In Actas del XVII Congreso Internacional de
Americanistas, edited by R. Lehmann-Nitsche, pp. 147–149.
International Society of Americanists, Buenos Aires.
Hunt, Edward E.
1965 Cranial Deformation and Femur Length in Pecos Pueblo, New
Mexico: A Comment on “Infant Stimulation and Adult Stature of
Human Males by Landauer and Whiting.” American Anthropologist
67:997–999.
Hutchins, Robert Maynard (editor)
1952 On Airs, Waters, and Places. In Hippocratic Writings, pp. 9–18.
Translated by F. Adams. Great Books of the Western World, Vol. 10.
Encyclopaedia Britannica, Chicago.
Jordan, Brigitte
1993 Birth in Four Cultures. 4th ed. Waveland Press, Prospect Heights,
IL.
Joyce, Rosemary
2000 Girling the Girl and Boying the Boy: The Production of
Adulthood in Ancient Mesoamerica. World Archaeology 31:473–483.
2001 Negotiating Sex and Gender in Classic Maya Society. In Gender
in Pre-Hispanic America, edited by Cecelia F. Klein, pp. 109–141.
Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, DC.
Kohn, Luci Ann P., Steven R. Leigh, Susan C. Jacobs, and James
M. Cheverud
1993 Effects of Annular Cranial Vault Modification on the Cranial Base
and Face. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 90:147–168.
Konigsberg, Lyle W., Luci Ann P. Kohn, and James M. Cheverud
1993 Cranial Deformation and Nonmetric Trait Variation. American
Journal of Physical Anthropology 90:35–48.
Kunow, Marianna Appel
1996 Curing and Curers in Pisté, Yucatan, Mexico. Ph.D. dissertation,
Department of Anthropology, Tulane University, New Orleans.
University Microfilms, Ann Arbor.
Landa, Diego de
1959 [sixteenth century] Relación de las Cosas de Yucatán. Octava
Edición. Edited by Angel Maria Garibay Kintana. Porrúa, Mexico City.
Laughlin, Robert M
1975 The Great Tzotzil Dictionary of San Lorenzo Zinacantán.
Smithsonian Contributions to Anthropology No. 19, Smithsonian
Institution Press, Washington, DC.
López Austin, Alfredo
1988 The Human Body and Ideology: Concepts of the Ancient Nahuas.
University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.
McAnany, Patricia, and Shannon Plank
2001 Perspectives on Actors, Gender Roles, and Architecture at Classic
Maya Courts and Households. In Royal Courts of the Ancient Maya,
Volume 1: Theory, Comparison and Synthesis, edited by Takeshi
Inomata and Stephen D. Houston, pp. 84–129. Westview Press,
Boulder, CO.
McGibbon, Walter
1912 Artificially Deformed Skulls with Special Reference to the
Temporal Bone and its Tympanic Portion. The Laryngoscope 22:
1165–1184.
McNeill, R. William, and George N. Newton
1965 Cranial Base Morphology in Association with Intentional Cranial
Vault Deformation. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 23:
241–253.
Macri, Martha J., and Mathew G. Looper
2003 The New Catalog of Maya Hieroglyphs. University of Oklahoma
Press, Norman.
Magitot, E.
1885 Essai sur les Mutilations Ethniques. Bulletin de la Société
d’Anthropologie de Paris 8(3):21–25.
Cranial Modification as Protection and Ensoulment among the Maya
Massey, Virginia K., and D. Gentry Steele
1997 A Maya Skull Pit from the Terminal Classic Period, Colha, Belize.
In Bones of the Maya, edited by Stephen L. Whittington and David M.
Reed, pp. 62–77. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC.
Mendoza, Rubén G.
2007 The Divine Gourd Tree: Tzompantli Skull Racks, Decapitation
Rituals, and Human Trophies in Ancient Mesoamerica. In The
Taking and Display of Human Body Parts as Trophies by
Amerindians, edited by Richard J. Chacon and David H. Dye,
pp. 400–443. Springer, New York.
Meskell, Lynn
1994 Dying Young: The Experience of Death at Deir el Medina.
Archaeological Review from Cambridge 13(2):35–45.
2001 The Egyptian Ways of Death. In Social Memory, Identity, and
Death: Anthropological Perspectives on Mortuary Ritual, edited by
Meredith S. Chesson, pp 27–40. Archaeological Papers of the
American Anthropological Association No. 10, Arlington, VA.
Miller, Virginia
1999 The Skull Rack in Mesoamerica. In Mesoamerican Architecture
as a Cultural Symbol, edited by Jeff Karl Kowalski, pp. 341–360.
Oxford University Press, New York.
Mock, Shirley
1998 The Sowing and the Dawning: Termination, Dedication, and
Transformation in the Archaeological and Ethnographic Record of
Mesoamerica. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.
Montgomery, John
2002 How to Read Maya Hieroglyphs. Hippocrene Books, New York.
Moser, Christopher
1973 Human Decapitation in Ancient Mesoamerica. Dumbarton Oaks,
Washington, DC.
Moss, Melvin L.
1958 The Pathogenesis of Artificial Cranial Deformation. American
Journal of Physical Anthropology 16:269–286.
Nash, June
1985 In the Eyes of the Ancestors: Belief and Behavior in a Maya
Community. Waveland Press, Prospect Heights, IL.
Neumann, Georg K.
1942 Types of Artificial Cranial Deformation in the Eastern United
States. American Antiquity 3:306–310.
O’Loughlin, Valerie Dean
1996 Comparative Endocranial Vascular Changes Due to
Craniosynostosis and Artificial Cranial Deformation. American
Journal of Physical Anthropology 101:369–385.
2004 Effects of Different Kinds of Cranial Deformation on the
Incidence of Wormian Bones. American Journal of Physical
Anthropology 123:146–155.
Ossenberg, Nancy S.
1970 The Influence of Artificial Cranial Deformation on Discontinuous
Morphological Traits. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 33:
357–372.
Otteking, Bruno
1924 Declination of the Pars Basilaris in Normal and Artificially
Deformed Skulls. Indian Notes and Monographs 27:1–25.
Paul, Lois
1974 The Mastery of Work and the Mystery of Sex in a Guatemalan
Village. In Woman, Culture, and Society, edited by Michelle
Zimbalist Rosaldo and Louise Lamphere, pp. 281–300. Stanford
University Press, Palo Alto, CA.
Paul, Lois, and Benjamin D. Paul
1975 The Maya Midwife as Sacred Specialist: A Guatemalan Case.
American Ethnologist 2:707–726.
Peña G., Rosa M., and Luis A. Lopez W.
1989 Un cráneo deformado del preclásico de Ecatepec, Estado de
Mexico. Estudios de Anthropología Biológica 4:609–616.
Plank, Shannon
2004 Maya Dwellings in Hieroglyphs and Archaeology: An Integrative
Approach to Ancient Architecture and Spatial Cognition. BAR
International Series 1324, British Archaeological Reports, Oxford.
Pucciarelli, Héctor M.
1978 The Influence of Experimental Deformation on Craniofacial
Development in Rats. American Journal of Physical Anthropology
48:455–462.
Raharijaona, Victor, and Susan Kus
2001 Matters of Live and Death: Mortuary Rituals as Part of a Larger
209
Whole among the Betsileo of Madagascar. In Social Memory, Identity,
and Death: Anthropological Perspectives on Mortuary Ritual, edited
by Meredith S. Chesson, pp. 56–69. Archaeological Papers of the
American Anthropological Association No. 10, Arlington, VA.
Read, Kay
1998 Time and Sacrifice in the Aztec Cosmos. Indiana University Press,
Bloomington.
Redfield, Robert, and Alfonso Villa Rojas
1934 Chan Kom: A Maya Village. Carnegie Institution of Washington
Publication No. 448, Washington, DC.
Rice, Prudence M.
2004 Maya Political Science: Time, Astronomy, and the Cosmos.
University of Texas Press, Austin.
Rogers, Spencer L.
1975 Artificial Deformation of the Head: New World Examples of
Ethnic Mutilation and Notes on its Consequences. San Diego
Museum of Man Papers No. 8, San Diego.
Romano Pacheco, Arturo
1972 Deformación craneana en Tlatilco, México. In Religión en
Mesoamérica, edited by Jaime Litvak and Noemi Castillo,
pp. 415–419. 12 Mesa Redonda de la Sociedad Mexicana de
Antropología, Mexico City.
1973a Deformación cefálica intencional en la población prehispánica de
Cholula, Puebla. Comunicaciones Proyecto Puebla-Tlaxcala 8:49–50.
1973b Los cráneos deformados de Zapotal I, Veracruz. In Balance y
Perspectivas de la Antropología de Mesoamérica y Norte de México,
2, pp. 57–64. XIII Mesa Redonda de la Sociedad Mexicana de
Antropología, Antropología Física, Mexico.
1974 Deformación cefálica intencional. In Antropología física: Época
prehispánica 3, edited by Javier Romero Molina, pp. 195–227.
Colección México, Panorama Histórico y Cultural, Instituto Nacional
de Antropología e Historia, Mexico City.
Romero Molina, Javier
1970 Dental Mutilation, Trephination, and Cranial Deformation. In
Physical Anthropology, edited by T. Dale Stewart, pp. 50–67.
Handbook of Middle American Indians, Vol. 9, Robert Wauchope,
general editor, University of Texas, Austin.
Roys, Ralph L.
1940 Personal Names of the Maya of Yucatan. Carnegie Institution of
Washington Publication No. 523, Contribution No. 31, Washington, DC.
Sargeant, Carolyn, and Grace Bascope
1996 Ways of Knowing about Birth in Three Cultures. Medical
Anthropology Quarterly NS 10:213–236.
Schele, Linda
1998 The Iconography of Maya Architectural Facades during the Late
Classic Period. In Function and Meaning in Classic Maya
Architecture, edited by Stephen D. Houston, pp. 373–425.
Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, DC.
Schele, Linda, and David Freidel
1990 A Forest of Kings: The Untold Story of the Ancient Maya. William
Morrow and Company, New York.
Schendel, Stephen A., Geoffrey Walker, and Arthur Kamisugi
1980 Hawaiian Craniofacial Morphometrics: Average Mokapuan Skull,
Artificial Cranial Deformation, and the “Rocker” Mandible. American
Journal of Physical Anthropology 52:491–500.
Scheper-Hughes, Nancy, and Margaret M. Lock
1987 The Mindful Body: A Prolegomenon to Future Work in Medical
Anthropology. Medical Anthropology Quarterly 1:6–41.
Sofaer, Joanna R.
2006 The Body as Material Culture: A Theoretical Osteoarchaeology.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Stewart, Thomas
1948 The True Form of the Cranial Deformation Originally Described
Under the Name ‘Téte Trilobéte’. Journal of the Washington
Academy of Sciences 38(2):66–72.
Stross, Brian
1998 Seven Ingredients in Mesoamerican Ensoulment, Dedicaiton and
Termination in Tenejapa. In The Sowing and the Dawning:
Termination, Dedication, and Transformation in the Archaeological
and Ethnographic Record of Mesoamerica, edited by Shirley Boteler
Mock, pp. 31–46. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.
Stuart, David
1998 “The Fire Enters His House”: Architecture and Ritual in Classic
Maya Texts. In Function and Meaning in Classic Maya Architecture,
210
edited by Stephen D. Houston, pp. 479–517. Dumbarton Oaks,
Washington, DC.
Taube, Karl A.
1992 The Major Gods of Ancient Yucatan. Dumbarton Oaks,
Washington, DC.
1994 The Birth Vase: Natal Imagery in Ancient Maya Myth and Ritual.
In The Maya Vase Book, Vol. 4, edited by Justin Kerr, pp. 650–85. Kerr
Associates, New York.
2000 Lightning Celts and Corn Fetishes: The Formative Olmec and the
Development of Maize Symbolism in Mesoamerica and the American
Southwest. In Olmec Art and Archaeology in Mesoamerica, edited by
John E. Clark and Mary E. Pye, 297–338. Center for Advanced Study
in the Visual Arts and the Publishing Office, National Gallery of Art,
Washington, DC.
Tedlock, Barbara
2005 The Woman in the Shaman’s Body: Reclaiming the Feminine in
Religion and Medicine. Bantam Books, New York.
Thompson, J. Eric S.
1930 Ethnology of the Mayas of Southern and Central British
Honduras. Field Museum of Natural History Publication No. 274.
Field Museum Press, Chicago.
1971 Maya Hieroglyphic Writing. University of Oklahoma Press,
Norman.
Tiesler Blos, Vera
1995 La deformación cefálica entre los mayas: Aspectos neurofisiológi-
cos. Memorias del Segundo Congreso Internacional de Mayistas 2:
662–679.
1998 La costumbre de la deformación cefálica entre los antiguos
mayas: Aspectos morfológicos y culturales. Instituto Nacional de
Antropología e Historia, Mexico City.
1999 Head Shaping and Dental Decoration among the Ancient Maya:
Archaeological and Cultural Aspects. Paper presented at the 64th
Annual Meeting of the Society of American Archaeology, Chicago.
Tommaseo, Mila, and Andrea Drusini
1984 Physical Anthropology of Two Tribal Groups in Amazonic Peru
(with Reference to Artificial Cranial Deformation). Zeitschrift für
Morphologie und Anthropologie 74:315–333.
Topinard, Paul
1879 Moulages d’un Crâne Macrocephale et d’un Crâne de L’époque de
la Pierre Polie. Bulletins de la Societie de Anthropologie de Paris 3(2):
116–121.
Torquemada, Juan de
1943 [1613] Manarquía Indiana. 3 vols. Tercera Edición. Edited by
Salvador Chavez Hayhoe, Mexico City.
Torres-Rouff, Christina
2003 Shaping Identity: Cranial Vault Modification in the Pre-
Columbian Andes. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of
Anthropology, University of California, Santa Barbara.
Tozzer, Alfred M.
1941 Landa’s Relación de las Cosas de Yucatán. Memoirs of the
Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology, Vol. 18.
Harvard University, Cambridge.
Duncan and Hofling
Tubbs, R. Shane, E. George Salter, and W. Jerry Oakes
2006 Artificial Deformation of the Human Skull: A Review. Clinical
Anatomy 19:372–377.
Turner, Terence
1980 The Social Skin. In Not Work Alone: A Cross-Cultural View of
Activities Superfluous to Survival, edited by Jeremy Cherfas and
Roger Lewin, pp. 112–140. Sage Publications, Beverly Hills.
Villa Rojas, Alfonso
1945 The Maya of East Central Quintana Roo. Carnegie Institution of
Washington Publication No. 559, Washington, DC.
Vogt, Evon Z.
1965 Zinacanteco ‘Souls.’ Man NS 29:33–35.
1993 Tortillas for the Gods: A Symbolic Analysis of Zinacanteco
Rituals. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman.
1998 Zinacanteco Dedication and Termination Rituals. In The Sowing
and the Dawning: Termination, Dedication, and Transformation in
the Archaeological and Ethnographic Record of Mesoamerica, edited
by Shirley Boteler Mock, pp. 21–30. University of New Mexico
Press, Albuquerque.
von Winning, Hasso
1968 Process of Head Deformation Shown by Mesoamerican Figurines.
The Masterkey for Indian Lore and History 42(2):53–58.
Watanabe, John M.
1989 Elusive Essences: Souls and Social Identity in Two Highland
Maya Communities. In Ethnographic Encounters in Southern
Mesoamerica: Essays in Honor of Evon Zartman Vogt, Jr., edited by
Victoria R. Bricker and Gary H. Gossen, pp. 263–274. University of
Texas Press, Austin.
Wauchope, Robert
1938 Modern Maya Houses: A Study of their Archaeological
Significance. Carnegie Institution of Washington Publication No.
502, Washington, DC.
White, Christine D.
1996 Sutural Effects of Fronto-Occipital Cranial Modification.
American Journal of Physical Anthropology 100:397–410.
Whittington, Stephen L.
2003 Descriptions of Human Remains and Burial Structures. In
Archaeology and Ethnohistory of Iximché, edited by C. Roger Nance,
Stephen L. Whittington, and Barbara E. Borg, pp. 205–240.
University Press of Florida, Gainesville.
Wilkinson, Richard G.
1997 Appendix B. Human skeletal remains from La Coyotera.
In Archaeology of the Cañada de Cuicatlán, Oaxaca, edited by
Charles S. Spencer and Elsa M. Redmond, pp. 614–619.
Anthropological Papers No. 80, American Museum of Natural
History, New York.
Wilson, Daniel
1876 Prehistoric Man: Researches into the Origin of Civilization in the
Old and the New World, Vol. 2. MacMillan Publishers, London.
Wisdom, Charles
1940 The Chorti Indians of Guatemala. University of Chicago Press,
Chicago.