Instead of looking around the blogging prompts or for something archaeologically related, I though, instead, that it might be nice to ruminate on the class. It's been a good term, and that deserves due note and credit. I think, first it would be best to thank Dr. Erin McGuire for being such a great professor, very helpful and willing to help all year.
With that said, this course often challanged me and my opinions. Often times being blunt in this challenge with tooth and nail, and for that I give thanks. It's hard to ignore things flat in our faces or heavy in our laps, and it tends to get us going. This course teaches and motivates, and that's a rare thing. Let alone learning things I'd never really considered or come across, such as the particular means to burial posture. I mean I understood that people are laid to rest differently based on circumstance or culture, but I never took deviants into the equation or compaired them with others.
I've also never really associated ethics with much of archaeology. Not on a conciously callous level, but simply because it never really crossed my mind that the issues wouldn't be in respecting the dead, but in the desires of the living, either in making sure the dead are seen too properly or in their issue with the dead being exhumed/shown.
I had some issues with time, other classes take precedent occasionally, and that I am not embarassed to admit, although slightly saddened by the fact. But the knowledge I gained is worth that and any bumps I may have faced along the way, the way being the important puzzle and, I think, where Erin meant to take us. Not to a test, or a paper, or a mark, but to an understanding, to draw some knowledge from this experience. Thanks again, now for a scotch to end the term.
Thursday, March 31, 2011
A Return
I'd actually like to return to my second post. I believe it being the blog prompt about what I would want in my own grave. It hasn't changed that much, although in thinking about it my idea's have become more substantial and defined. Cremation would be acceptable if my first option could not be met. The first option being, burial in surrounding layers of salt with a wax-sealed bottle of Talisker and a laminated note explaining why and gifting the scotch in my name.
However, the second option to this prompt was what would someone else place in my grave, be it a family member or friend. Yet, the options there are too broad and to varied depending on who's doing the burial. My mother may place in my baby blanket, my father may place in his teddy bear, Brownie Bear, that he gave me, and friends are antoher matter entirely. However, I wonder instead if the issue here shouldn't be on what they place in, but as to whether or not I would be buried following my own desires.
Burial is a cultural act carried out by the living, partly associating me with the bad ethical archaeologist in that dead people are dead so burial isn't really their thing anyway. So, would my family, friends, or laws allow me to be buried in salt with these particular items? Salt would harm the environment, make it difficult for plants and grass to grow above the grave (and god[s] forbid that the cemetery would have patchy grass), and perhaps it would just be too unsightly. Perhaps they would consier that the second option of cremation would make more sense, it's certianly cheaper and more practical to the living...
Even if we know the people doing the burial, that doesn't mean that they will act at a burial as they would have acted towards us in life. Does it matter than how I want to be buried or what I think someone may place in my grave? Not on a practical level. But on the off chance that it will come to pass that way, why wouldn't we -- talking on a practical level -- not do it? That and I am a cheeky bastard, but have a drink in my name.
However, the second option to this prompt was what would someone else place in my grave, be it a family member or friend. Yet, the options there are too broad and to varied depending on who's doing the burial. My mother may place in my baby blanket, my father may place in his teddy bear, Brownie Bear, that he gave me, and friends are antoher matter entirely. However, I wonder instead if the issue here shouldn't be on what they place in, but as to whether or not I would be buried following my own desires.
Burial is a cultural act carried out by the living, partly associating me with the bad ethical archaeologist in that dead people are dead so burial isn't really their thing anyway. So, would my family, friends, or laws allow me to be buried in salt with these particular items? Salt would harm the environment, make it difficult for plants and grass to grow above the grave (and god[s] forbid that the cemetery would have patchy grass), and perhaps it would just be too unsightly. Perhaps they would consier that the second option of cremation would make more sense, it's certianly cheaper and more practical to the living...
Even if we know the people doing the burial, that doesn't mean that they will act at a burial as they would have acted towards us in life. Does it matter than how I want to be buried or what I think someone may place in my grave? Not on a practical level. But on the off chance that it will come to pass that way, why wouldn't we -- talking on a practical level -- not do it? That and I am a cheeky bastard, but have a drink in my name.
...Ethics...
I have the feeling that I'll be a bad archaeologist. Or perhaps a good archaeologist, but a bad ethical archaeologist. This may be my mother's fault for letting me study bones in the University of Winnipeg labs when I was a child and she a student. But anyhow.
I entirely agree, first of all, that the dead should be treated with respect, even the remains of animals, but I know too that they are dead. Personally I am not religious, which is a different conversation, and find the dead fascinating in their complexity and the complexity of their lives. And, so, I have a difficult time viewing certain concerns as ethically correct of incorrect.
With that said, on the subject of repatriation or of reburial my concern, on an ethical basis, is not on the idea itself but in terms of respect for the dead. The new law for England and Wales pisses me off a little in the two year time period, the absolute. If reburial is that... necessary than it should be agreed upon to be done as soon as analysis is complete. What I mean to say is that the study should be given enough time to at least study the remains sufficiently, yet within a fair time frame (without the option of renegotiation). Certainly not until after the record is published as that can take decades.
In terms of reburial, I would suggest that the archaeologists/anthropologists be on board. If I recall the new law (see vikingsatweymouth.weebly.com for a discussion on this subject), it does not state how or where the remains must be reburied, only that they are at some point. So, theoretically wouldn't we be doing more harm than good, to the dead, if we reburied them elsewhere or under a different ritual. One might even argue, depending on how old the deceased is (are) that one may not be repatriated. Just because remains are found in a modern geographical local does not make that person a part of those people.
This raises many arguments, on both sides. I would say that if it were possible to reconstruct a burial -- such as a thirteenth century Roman Catholic grave in Italy -- than by all means return the person. Reburial in this way, in respecting the dead, may not have, or may have less harm upon, the deceased in whatever context one believes it may have, be it the afterlife or not. However, if we simply toss these remains into a pit out back than it's simply idiotic, selfish, and hypocritical, and above all disrespectful.
There are still further issues, such as the First Nations in Canada. Many archaeologists and museums desire to work with these nations, sometimes in returning artifacts or remains and sometimes in allowing these nations to perform the proper rituals connected with these artifacts being studied or shown. We need to construct a structure in which reburial and repatriation can be viewd and practiced in contemporary times, between various groups, and yet, most importantly, recognize that the deceased should be respected to the best of the abilities of the living.
I entirely agree, first of all, that the dead should be treated with respect, even the remains of animals, but I know too that they are dead. Personally I am not religious, which is a different conversation, and find the dead fascinating in their complexity and the complexity of their lives. And, so, I have a difficult time viewing certain concerns as ethically correct of incorrect.
With that said, on the subject of repatriation or of reburial my concern, on an ethical basis, is not on the idea itself but in terms of respect for the dead. The new law for England and Wales pisses me off a little in the two year time period, the absolute. If reburial is that... necessary than it should be agreed upon to be done as soon as analysis is complete. What I mean to say is that the study should be given enough time to at least study the remains sufficiently, yet within a fair time frame (without the option of renegotiation). Certainly not until after the record is published as that can take decades.
In terms of reburial, I would suggest that the archaeologists/anthropologists be on board. If I recall the new law (see vikingsatweymouth.weebly.com for a discussion on this subject), it does not state how or where the remains must be reburied, only that they are at some point. So, theoretically wouldn't we be doing more harm than good, to the dead, if we reburied them elsewhere or under a different ritual. One might even argue, depending on how old the deceased is (are) that one may not be repatriated. Just because remains are found in a modern geographical local does not make that person a part of those people.
This raises many arguments, on both sides. I would say that if it were possible to reconstruct a burial -- such as a thirteenth century Roman Catholic grave in Italy -- than by all means return the person. Reburial in this way, in respecting the dead, may not have, or may have less harm upon, the deceased in whatever context one believes it may have, be it the afterlife or not. However, if we simply toss these remains into a pit out back than it's simply idiotic, selfish, and hypocritical, and above all disrespectful.
There are still further issues, such as the First Nations in Canada. Many archaeologists and museums desire to work with these nations, sometimes in returning artifacts or remains and sometimes in allowing these nations to perform the proper rituals connected with these artifacts being studied or shown. We need to construct a structure in which reburial and repatriation can be viewd and practiced in contemporary times, between various groups, and yet, most importantly, recognize that the deceased should be respected to the best of the abilities of the living.
Archaeological Minors
Dr. McGuire left a blogging prompt a while ago about the burials of non-elites. I wanted first to look at Aztec's or some New World group as I haven't really looked through those societies, fascinating as they are. But looking around a little I found an article about prehistoric children/children in the archaeological record. While I admit to not reading it as thoroughly as I should have, it fascinated me.
The argument here isn't so much the funerary rites or material culture of children, in fact Kamp notes that children are perhaps harder to see as they may leave fewer signs in the archaeological record or are harder to discern their passage from those of adults (Kamp 2001: 2). This latter part is what interests me here. My childhood was of course very different from historic children, living in an era of cement and cars, but I made little carvings, helped cook or carry firewood. As Kamp mentions (Kamp 2001: 2), there is an economic factor to children in the household/family that may help build towards success. In my case, of course, it was simply a little less stress not a necessary aspect to subsistence. However, if that were the case than perhaps the latter part of this issue is true, that children aren't separable from adults in the tracks that they leave.
To divulge a little, my grandfather owned a pig farm for about ten years before deciding to go to school -- in which he eventually became a professor of archaeology -- but the farm is typical of children providing substantial assistance towards the family economy. This is generally why rural families tend towards a larger number of children (there are of course other reasons, and I do not have a citation for this), because more can be done with more people. The family economy is more likely to survive with more anchors. This is also why it is so difficult to determine the work of children instead of the work of adults.
We consider childhood as a time to play and generally not do much but complain about school in the morning and complain about going to bed early, but when it matters we're there to offer our two good hands. Perhaps that's too simplified a justification, but I remember spending hours keeping myself amused playing useless games yet working very hard on every canoe trip. Every trip to the Whiteshell National Park, or elsewhere, culminated in me getting off my ass and fishing, retrieving firewood, building or stoking the fire, watching the food, raising the tent, fetching water, etc... Yet, had I not helped these would have still been completed, because they're necessary.
Perhaps Kamp is right in pointing out the lack of evidence for child involvement, but I feel as if her latter point really strikes true. In considering what children have today to play with and to leave in the archaeological record, toys of plastic and metal and rubber, it would seem like they'd be more apparent in the material culture. But in considering the past I imagine -- and yes, imagine is very broad -- toys of wood or cloth or string, perhaps stone and metal in some societies, yet mostly objects of decay. Perhaps, than, children -- particularly children in prehistory -- should be considered less invisible and more alike to adults. Yes, they play, but they're also important buttresses to a people, where they learn how to act and how to survive. Play simply is a part of childhood, but the archaeological record they leave should, perhaps, be viewed closer to that of an adult.
Kamp, Kathryn A. 2001. Where Have All the Children Gone?: The Archaeology of Childhood. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory. Vol 8 (1). PP 2.
The argument here isn't so much the funerary rites or material culture of children, in fact Kamp notes that children are perhaps harder to see as they may leave fewer signs in the archaeological record or are harder to discern their passage from those of adults (Kamp 2001: 2). This latter part is what interests me here. My childhood was of course very different from historic children, living in an era of cement and cars, but I made little carvings, helped cook or carry firewood. As Kamp mentions (Kamp 2001: 2), there is an economic factor to children in the household/family that may help build towards success. In my case, of course, it was simply a little less stress not a necessary aspect to subsistence. However, if that were the case than perhaps the latter part of this issue is true, that children aren't separable from adults in the tracks that they leave.
To divulge a little, my grandfather owned a pig farm for about ten years before deciding to go to school -- in which he eventually became a professor of archaeology -- but the farm is typical of children providing substantial assistance towards the family economy. This is generally why rural families tend towards a larger number of children (there are of course other reasons, and I do not have a citation for this), because more can be done with more people. The family economy is more likely to survive with more anchors. This is also why it is so difficult to determine the work of children instead of the work of adults.
We consider childhood as a time to play and generally not do much but complain about school in the morning and complain about going to bed early, but when it matters we're there to offer our two good hands. Perhaps that's too simplified a justification, but I remember spending hours keeping myself amused playing useless games yet working very hard on every canoe trip. Every trip to the Whiteshell National Park, or elsewhere, culminated in me getting off my ass and fishing, retrieving firewood, building or stoking the fire, watching the food, raising the tent, fetching water, etc... Yet, had I not helped these would have still been completed, because they're necessary.
Perhaps Kamp is right in pointing out the lack of evidence for child involvement, but I feel as if her latter point really strikes true. In considering what children have today to play with and to leave in the archaeological record, toys of plastic and metal and rubber, it would seem like they'd be more apparent in the material culture. But in considering the past I imagine -- and yes, imagine is very broad -- toys of wood or cloth or string, perhaps stone and metal in some societies, yet mostly objects of decay. Perhaps, than, children -- particularly children in prehistory -- should be considered less invisible and more alike to adults. Yes, they play, but they're also important buttresses to a people, where they learn how to act and how to survive. Play simply is a part of childhood, but the archaeological record they leave should, perhaps, be viewed closer to that of an adult.
Kamp, Kathryn A. 2001. Where Have All the Children Gone?: The Archaeology of Childhood. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory. Vol 8 (1). PP 2.
Thinking about Death
So I was thinking about death, and to be perfectly honest it fascinates me, and wondered about the remembering of the dead. We talked about it in class Teusday I believe. Anyway, my grandfather fought in WW2 and it made me think of the war memorials that crop up time and again. Particularly the WW1 memorial at Australia, with the man laying on his shield and the three women beneath him, caught my attention.
However, it was the contrast to the first version of the memorial that made me really think about it. I understand why the first version was not shown, a woman crucified over the dead soldiers (If I remember correctly) is certianly... shocking. But I feel, personally, that while it's vivid, it is not inappropriate. In fact, one might argue that it is more appropriate in its representation. The shock value helps to present the war as a horrible thing.
With that said, I do not mean to endorse one over the other. I understand that the one would be considered inappropriate to be endorsed as a war memorial. However, I do think that the woman's sacrific in the original is more emphatic and shows the understanding better. The sacrific of soldiers should always be recognized, however I feel that in remembering them we should also be remember the war itself and the effect that has on everyone else and the future. The original shows... while the second tells, and it's the showing that scares us and makes us react. It's that reaction that should be remembered too.
Rayner Hoff's two images can be found easily on google images. Rayner Hoff Crucifixation of Civilization is the original.
However, it was the contrast to the first version of the memorial that made me really think about it. I understand why the first version was not shown, a woman crucified over the dead soldiers (If I remember correctly) is certianly... shocking. But I feel, personally, that while it's vivid, it is not inappropriate. In fact, one might argue that it is more appropriate in its representation. The shock value helps to present the war as a horrible thing.
With that said, I do not mean to endorse one over the other. I understand that the one would be considered inappropriate to be endorsed as a war memorial. However, I do think that the woman's sacrific in the original is more emphatic and shows the understanding better. The sacrific of soldiers should always be recognized, however I feel that in remembering them we should also be remember the war itself and the effect that has on everyone else and the future. The original shows... while the second tells, and it's the showing that scares us and makes us react. It's that reaction that should be remembered too.
Rayner Hoff's two images can be found easily on google images. Rayner Hoff Crucifixation of Civilization is the original.
Better than You
Status. This is a big section of Anthropology in general, everyone carries with them a place within their culture, community, family, friends, and on and on. Some of us are upper middle-class, a label with which we are ranked in society, some of us are students, or go to daycare rather than home after school. Some of us are fathers, or uncles, sisters, grandmothers. Status is simply a multitude of possibles, but what is it in archaeology?
Archaeology is forced, I think, to measure status through the grave goods and burial practice. We therefore tend to think of archaeological status as a cultural thing, not so much a personal measure of a person -- something that they've taken with them or had imposed upon them by the living. I mean, unless one can do DNA testing on several deceased buried together or close together or find a very specific record (birth/death certificate, tombstone/headstone, etc...) than we have little to no context for their life. We could assume that because a deceased may be an adult male, between 30 and 45, that he was a father, but we can't tell precisely. However, if he's buried beneath large stones than perhaps he was, powerful, dangerous or the living believed him malevolent in death.
However, while occasionally we do know enough to make precise guesses, such as the Sutton Hoo ship burial which would be that of a prestigious and rich -- high status -- individual, sometimes we can't. Again, at Sutton Hoo there is a gallows and various execution graves. Now, as executions the deceased are buried with very little to indicate status, however that doesn't mean that they may not have been high-status individuals that due to political or other reasons found themselves decapitated or hanged. Now, that in itself may be a bit of a stretch but if status is earned either by wealth or the acquisition of wealth (say, a high-profile actor) it can also be lost. Take a look at Brian Mulroney, Bill Clinton, and a whole host of others -- from footballers to hockey players. I think that politicians tend to lose prominence more often, or at least we're more acquainted with their rise and fall.
My point here, I think, is that Archaeology is forced to look at an individual through their grave -- which only makes sense -- but I feel like status is a much larger thing to the living than the dead. Death itself is a much larger thing to the living than the dead; while, we look at the grave goods and skeletal positioning we can interpret and infer much, we should attempt to take what we find, and our genius, with skepticism.
Carver, Martin. 1998. Sutton Hoo: Burial Ground of Kings? University of Pennsylvania Press. New York.
Archaeology is forced, I think, to measure status through the grave goods and burial practice. We therefore tend to think of archaeological status as a cultural thing, not so much a personal measure of a person -- something that they've taken with them or had imposed upon them by the living. I mean, unless one can do DNA testing on several deceased buried together or close together or find a very specific record (birth/death certificate, tombstone/headstone, etc...) than we have little to no context for their life. We could assume that because a deceased may be an adult male, between 30 and 45, that he was a father, but we can't tell precisely. However, if he's buried beneath large stones than perhaps he was, powerful, dangerous or the living believed him malevolent in death.
However, while occasionally we do know enough to make precise guesses, such as the Sutton Hoo ship burial which would be that of a prestigious and rich -- high status -- individual, sometimes we can't. Again, at Sutton Hoo there is a gallows and various execution graves. Now, as executions the deceased are buried with very little to indicate status, however that doesn't mean that they may not have been high-status individuals that due to political or other reasons found themselves decapitated or hanged. Now, that in itself may be a bit of a stretch but if status is earned either by wealth or the acquisition of wealth (say, a high-profile actor) it can also be lost. Take a look at Brian Mulroney, Bill Clinton, and a whole host of others -- from footballers to hockey players. I think that politicians tend to lose prominence more often, or at least we're more acquainted with their rise and fall.
My point here, I think, is that Archaeology is forced to look at an individual through their grave -- which only makes sense -- but I feel like status is a much larger thing to the living than the dead. Death itself is a much larger thing to the living than the dead; while, we look at the grave goods and skeletal positioning we can interpret and infer much, we should attempt to take what we find, and our genius, with skepticism.
Carver, Martin. 1998. Sutton Hoo: Burial Ground of Kings? University of Pennsylvania Press. New York.
Thursday, March 17, 2011
Ancients
I recently read a National Geographic, you can find it online but I'm not sure as to the volumn number, about the Coelacanth, a fish that was thought to have gone the way of the dodo more or less with the Dinos. Anyway, it made me wonder about the idea of evidence -- the evidence of absence isn't necessarily the absence of evidence. If the Coelacanth isn't dead, what else is out there. In terms of the ocean that's a huge area in which to never discovery a thing, but for Archaeology... well how much have we missed simply without digging another inch, let alone sites yet to be discovered.
But -- not to leave this on a negative, overwhelming plethora of worry about what's missed -- isn't that why we want to dig in the first place?
But -- not to leave this on a negative, overwhelming plethora of worry about what's missed -- isn't that why we want to dig in the first place?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)