Should Human Remains Be Displayed?

A topic that we've been grappling with in class has been the ethics of displaying and uncovering human remains. Ethically, it is ok? What are our moral obligations? If we choose to display, how do we? I've found all of these questions very compelling, and somewhat unanswerable.

In class our professor drew us to this following quote:

"We do no harm to those poor chaps. When I am dead you can dig me up ten times for all I care"

-Sir Mortimer Wheeler

From my understanding, these sentiments used to be fairly common place in archeology. Today, however, discourse on topics of digging human remains, studying human remains and displaying human remains has become incredibly more complex and intricate. So many voices are involved today: the people claiming ownership to the remains, the research team that wants to study the remains, the public that has varying opinions on the remains, and the museum that wants to display the remains. Everyone seems to have a vested interest in how the remains are treated, and coming to a solution which takes an understanding of all interests seems impossible. I find this issue especially interesting in the context of Native American remains. The Native American people believe that a dead person should not be disturbed - that is, they should not be dug up, and they should certainly not be studied upon. And if a person is unburied, then they should be reburied expediently. This belief is meaningful in a greater context of their world belief systems, and their ideology. Scientific inquiry directly challenges these beliefs, unfortunately. But, on the researchers' side, not studying or digging up the remains would represent a huge loss to the body of scientific knowledge that they are building. Studying these remains would tell scientists about the environment, culture, and diet of ancient North American civilizations. This all becomes more muddeled up when you look at the legal context of which you are operating in. In Canada, matters of reburial and study are dealt with on a case-by-case basis. In America, there is NAGPRA, the Native American Grave Protection and Repatriation Act, that legally states that remains are to be given to the North American populations, and scientific inquiry is only to be employed upon permission by that particular Native group.

I can't decide how I feel about this - it's something that I have been struggling with the past week. I don't want some groups to see archeology as destructive to belief systems, or disrespectful to ideologies. But I also don't think it's right to forgo scientific inquiry. There is so much more left to know!

Last semester, I took a really great course about the peoples of the Amazon. In one class, we were discussing the contradictory origin beliefs between the peoples of the Amazon and of the archeologists studying in the Amazon. My professor noted that as an archeologist, you need to remember that there are multiple ways of knowing something. You don't need to employ binary definitions of right and wrong on difficult topics like origins. There can be a spiritual way of knowing something, and a scientific way of knowing something. And they don't need to be ranked - one way of knowing something is not better than another. Although this concept is somewhat abstract, and difficult to employ, I think it's meaningful to think about when considering the problems of remains human repatriation that are currently occurring in North America.

Giving Back

Although this blog is technically supposed to be about mortuary archeology, I'm going to talk about something a little different today. In class we have been talking about the ethics and obligations of archeology. Additionally, we've discussed the context of archeology - the impact that it can have, and the importance of interpretations. I really love this topic - I often forget the everyday importance and significance of archeology. It's easy to, it's not usually discussed in most of my classes. For me, discussions on ethics like the ones we've been having in class really help me remember that archeology doesn't occur in a vacuum - it holds social, cultural, political and economic significance for certain interest groups, or perhaps for entire nations.

About two summers ago, I had the wonderful opportunity to spend about three weeks in Greece. It was an incredible trip - Greece is an amazing country. There's so much history everywhere! What really interested me about contemporary Greece was the importance of their ancient history. Although I cannot speak for every Greek individual, I was given the impression that contemporary Greek identity was strongly informed by ancient Greek identity. Notions of the Greek "Self" were strong.

In particular, I was struck by Greek discourse of the Elgin Marbles. The Elgin Marbles have continued to be a controversial topic in repatriation discourse. The Elgin Marbles are greek sculptures that were originally part of the Parthenon in Athens. When Greece was under Ottoman Rule, they were (supposedly) given to Lord Elgin, a British Ambassador. However, the legality of the Ottoman's "gift" to Elgin has been questioned. The marbles are currently housed at the British Museum, much to the Greeks dismay. Greek politicians and museum officials have repeatedly requested the repatriation of the marbles. To them, the marbles were taken illegally, and the marbles represent an important feature of Greek identity. Of course, the issue is more complex than I am describing it, but it is not within the scope of this blog to fully delve into the nuances of this controversy.

A Frieze of the Marbles.

Image via content-time.com

The East Pediment

Image via wikipedia

Perhaps somewhat unsurprisingly, the British Museum has refused to repatriate the marbles. They claim that the marbles have come to inform British identity, they were obtained legally and that Athens does not have the infrastructure to properly hold the marbles. Recently, in regards to the British Museum's suggestion that Athen's does not have the proper infrastructure to hold the marbles, the Greek government funded the building of the "Acropolis Museum". It's state of the art: there are numerous preservation technologies in place.

Image via mytimes.com

When I was in Athens, I visited the "New Acropolis Museum". It was really beautiful - part of it is laid out in the plan of the parthenon. In a way, it almost feels like you are walking throughout the Parthenon as you make your way through the museum. The museum has recreated duplicates of the Elgin marbles in the new museum. They were incredibly poor duplicates. A large part of me wonders if this is on purpose - perhaps they feel that it draws attention to the missing gap in their museum, and attracts greater awareness to the controversy. It was an obvious sore thumb - and it certainly made you sympathize with the Acropolis museum. Symbolically, I suppose you could have perceived it as a missing part of Greek identity.

The Acropolis Museum, Athens

The Elgin Marbles represent more than the ethics of repatriation - arguably, they've come to represent debate of colonialism, and identity. Although I don't necessarily think that the marbles will make it back to Athens (the British Museum is really digging their heels in), I hope that inroads can be made for perhaps rotational ownership, or at least a temporary Marble visit to Athens.

Let's get ethical

Throughout my anthropology course-work, a topic that has particularly piqued interest is the ethics of archeology. I find it fascinating - to me, topics of archeological ethics represent the collision of the past and the present, and settlements on ethical disputes can have a large impact on the resulting interpretation of the archeological site.

 Mortuary archeology presents an incredibly interesting field of ethical study. Almost always, mortuary archeologists are dealing with human remains. Depending on the area that they are studying in, the age of the remains, or the context in which the individual died there can be dramatically different ethical ramifications which can alter potential scholarship and interpretations of the remains. Aside from doing research on remains, the ethics on how to display remains is incredibly provocative. You're dealing with a person's remains! How do you represent them in a way that both respects the deceased, but also aids in creating an educational and informative display? It's a very difficult question, and I don't really think that there is a right answer. I know I really struggle answering any of these questions - my morals, emotions, and respect for academic research collides, and makes quite the convoluted mess. 

I think my favourite ethical case-study revolves around the Kennewick Man. This seems to be the classic archaeology ethics case-study, but I find it fascinating. The interplay of religious belief, academic scholarship and legal climate make for a very engrossing to me. So many interests are represented! Developing and understanding the relationships between these interest groups presents enormous challenges.

But back to the Kennewick Man. Discovered in Washington State in 1996, the Kennewick Man was deemed to date to pre-European contact. The remains are considered to be some of the oldest complete skeletal remains found in the Americas! What makes this case so compelling and controversial is that the archeologist that initially studied the remains claimed that the Kennewick Man may not be of Native American descent. This notion was hugely controversial - it implies that aboriginal people may not have been the first people in the Americas. Whether this is true or not, the implication holds enormous political and social ramifications. It also creates a large rift into scientific notions of being and Native notions of being. In this case, the two contradicted each other, which again has both political and social implications.

Facial Reconstruction of the Kennewick Man

Image via www.ancient-origins.net

The Kennewick Man, to archeologists, represents a huge piece of the "peopling of the Americans" puzzle. But, to the Umatilla, the aboriginal group that hold claim to the land that the Kennewick Man was found upon, the remains represented those of an ancestor - and under the Native American Graves and Repatriation Act, if the Kennewick Man is proven to have cultural affiliation with the Umatilla it is within their right to refuse scientific study on the Kennewick Man's remains, and lay claim to the remains. Unfortunately, a lengthy legal battle ensued. It provoked questions of how to treat remains, and who owns the past. Ultimately, following a 9 year legal battle (!!) it was decided that the Umatilla did not have a cultural link to the Kennewick man. It wasn't until 2005 that researchers were able to study the remains. 

Time Magazine cover about the Kennewick Man

Image Via Time Magazine Archives

I find this really fascinating. I'm not completely sure what I think about it either. I shudder at the thought of legal battles ensuing over remains - of course, I'd much rather a case where parties could compromise and come to an agreement that all are happy with. I completely understand that the Kennewick Man represented a crucial piece of study to researchers. It's hard to know what to do when the research you are producing will undoubtedly challenge beliefs and norms. It becomes even more convoluted when your finding have huge implications on the everyday lives of living individuals. I don't know what the right thing to do is - how to marry social concerns with scientific concerns - but I'm sure like many things, there is no one right answer.

Further Reading on the Kennewick Man:

http://www.burkemuseum.org/kennewickman

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/oct/11/nation/la-na-nn-kennewick-man-20121011

http://archaeology.about.com/od/kennewickman/a/introduction.htm

You shall find me a grave man

Throughout my mortuary archeology course I have been introduced to a wide variety of how different cultures, and different people within one culture, choose to treat the deceased. In some cases, I have been admittedly weirded-out (but in a good way!), awed, and saddened. This week, I’m going to compile 5 different mortuary rituals, or particular mortuary events  that have interested me. I’ve either learned about these mortuary practices in class, or come upon them on my own internet research.

1)      Cremation Diamonds

I was in complete awe when I heard about these. Right away I texted my mom and my boyfriend and told them that if anything happened to me I wanted to be turned into a diamond (Sidenote: is it just me or am I perhaps far too comfortable with talking about death after taking this course). I don’t think they were super impressed, but at least they know! In short, there are several companies that will take carbon extracted from the cremated ashes and GROW A DIAMOND. Admittedly, it’s quite unnatural and perhaps somewhat forced, but you can’t deny that it would be pretty cool to be a diamond.

2)      Rosalia Lombardo

Ok, this one broke my heart. Rosalia was an Italian girl that died when she was 2. Her father, wracked with grief, took her body to embalmers to preserve her. Her preservation is remarkable – in the photos that I have seen of Rosalie, she looks as though she is sleeping. Apparently, her father came to visit preserved Rosalie every day . If that doesn’t break your heart you are probably made of stone.

3)      Tibetan Sky Burial

When I first learned of Tibetan sky burial, it made me feel somewhat uncomfortable. The thrust of this practice is that the deceased, after being dismembered, is left outside (in a natural place, not near homes or whatnot) to be consumed by birds of prey. I felt uneasy when first learning this because of my conventionally western upbringing – it’s a particularly western notion to conceive a connection between the “self” and the “body”. To Tibetan monks that practice sky burial, it represents providing sustenance to nature, and the acknowledgement that the body is nothing more than a “shell” for the “self”. Sky Burial acts as a meaningful reminder for me to look past my per-conceived notions of mortuary practice and self-conception.

4)      Viking Burials

In class Viking burials have been discussed on a couple of occasions. Although it’s difficult to create a full, accurate picture of what a Viking burial would have looked like (and as usual, it’s usually the noblemen or upperclassmen that have a greater presence on the archeological record), sources indicate that it was a dramatic affair. Ibn Fablin and archeological findings indicated ship-burning, sacrifices, numerous grave goods, and feasting. 

5)      Green Burials

So it turns out that western burials and cremation practices are actually incredibly bad for the environment. In particular, traditional burial practices (embalming, pouring concrete around the grave borders, un-biodegradable casket materials) are damaging to the environment. In Canada and the U.S. there has been a recent movement to “green burials”. This means not embalming the deceased individual, using a biodegradable casket which result in the deceased decomposing into the ground. In a way, I would argue that green burials are somewhat similar to sky burials – there is an acceptance of the destruction of the body and a wish to be connected to the earth.

Paleo Schmaleo

Recently, in order to address some of my possible food sensitivities, I have been following a strict "Paleo Diet". I'm only doing this for the short term - the idea is that by cutting out non-Paleo compliant foods for 30 days, I'll be able to "heal" my digestive system, and then while slowly re-introducing non-Paleo foods, I'll be able to gauge my food sensitivities. I'm not going to get into the nutritional aspect of the Paleo diet here (I do feel better than ever though!), or necessarily the legitimacy of the modern-day Paleo diet (Paleo eaters eat things like coconut pancakes and cauliflower-pizza -- they don't seem to be emulating our Palaeolithic ancestors whole-heartedly). But I am really interested in how archeological findings are construed and interpreted by the public. First, I'll quickly explain exactly what the Paleo-diet is, and then I'll dive into the "culture" that has been constructed around a pre-occupation with the Palaeolithic era.

The Paleo diet is somewhat of a new diet fad. Technically, it's not really "new" since the crux of the diet is to eat how Palaeolithic ancestors ate. A "hunter-gatherer" diet (without actually hunting and gathering) is considered, by Paleo-dieters, to be the best diet for humans*. Hard core Paleo eaters believe that our bodies are not equipped or developed to consume any post-agricultural foods. This means that processed foods, grains, legumes**, dairy, sugar, alcohol, and soy are no-nos. Animal proteins, vegetables, fruits, nuts and seeds and fats (avocado oil, olive oil, coconut oil, ghee) are a-ok. It sounds pretty limiting, but I have learned that Paleo-eaters are some of the most creative cooks out there: they can pretty much "paleo-ify" anything.

What's interesting is that most descriptions of the Paleo-diet really skim over the biological and archeological evidence for the Paleo-diet being the most healthy diet for us - all of the Paleo-diet books and websites that I've read allude to these studies, but none cite the scientific legitimacy of the diet outright. Nor do any seem to account for the variation of diet in the Palaeolithic period - it is as if there everyone in the Palaeolithic period followed the exact same diet in these books!

To me, the Paleo-diet isn't even really a Palaeolithic diet. I've almost gathered a nostalgic aspect from diet-books and websites about the Paleo-diet: what happened in the past was better and we've lost our way. It seems to romanticize the past, but perhaps construct it in a way that it wasn't. For instance, "Paleo chocolate cake". Of course our ancestors didn't eat chocolate cake. We've repackaged what was a very simple diet into something far more complex (and something that may miss the point). I'm not sure what this says about us as a society - the need to take the wholesome ingredients that make up the Paleo-diet, and repackage them into cakes, pizzas, pancakes and other decidedly junky foods.

To an archeology student, some of the publications on the Paleo-diet are quite amusing. To see the diet of Paleolithic person be surmised in titles like "NomNom Paleo", "OMG, Is That Paleo?" and "The Paleolista" seems hare-brained. But people really love it -- I suppose it is a way of making making something like the incredibly-far past relevant today. We will in a very fast-paced stimulating world - there is a certain appeal for the simplicity of a hunter-gatherer society. I don't think the modern Paleo-diet will fade out anytime soon. Paleo-eaters love the Paleo-diet with the same ferocity that Vegans love their diets. I understand why - I feel amazing while eating Paleo. I cringe though, when reading recipes online that make reference to eating the way our ancestors ate.



* The idea that the Paleo-diet is the healthiest for humans is hugely contested. HUGLEY CONTESTED.

**From what I can tell, legumes seem to be a sticky-issue in the Paleo-diet world. You can read more about it here: http://whole9life.com/2012/09/the-legume-manifesto/

Re: Looting

Last Friday, I had the great opportunity to listen to a guest-lecturer speak about his PhD research. His research is very interesting - it's difficult to encapsulate an hour-long talk (which was condensed from his Phd thesis) in a sentence, but generally, his lecture revolved around the relationship between the living and the dead on southern Vancouver Island. His research concerns aboriginal groups, and he adopts a visual method of archeology (meaning that he doesn't excavate anything) when studying burials. I would give more details on his talk and research, but maintaing my anonymity, as well as the anonymity of students or speakers in the class is important to me. 

After his lecture, I was really compelled by the ethics and politics of B.C. archeology that impacted his research. So far, my anthropology course-work has largely been theoretically or methodologically focused, so the discourse on ethics and politics was quite interesting to me. When you're bogged down with papers and readings it is hard to remember the everyday meaning and importance of what you're studying!

The guest lecturer made one comment that was particularly striking - when showing us maps of the site, he claimed he was only comfortable showing us the maps because the site is on Department of National Defence property, and there are "burly guys with guns between you and the cemetery sites". I hadn't realized before that secrecy and covertness when dealing with a public audience may be important. Archeology has quite an "armchair" following - and the threat of amateur archeologists (ahem, Heinrich Schliemann), collectors, or people looking to loot an archeological site is very real. It's a serious issue all over the world. Not only does it deplete the full picture of the site, it also destroys in context of what remains. This, of course, can serious consequences on academic interpretations of the site. 

Unfortunately, looting happens everywhere. It often occurs to a greater degree in turbulent areas that are experiencing upheavals of sorts. Recently, during Egypt's political turmoil, several notable archeological sites have been looted or disturbed. In particular, the ancient pharoinc-occupation site of El Hibeh has been devastated. The context of the site has been utterly destroyed: skeletal remains have been strewn about, walls have been destroyed, and looters pits are everywhere. The looters stole artefacts and treated human remains like trash, seriously and irrevocably diminishing scholarship and research that could have taken place. According to several news sources (I'll link you to them at the end of this post), the looting has primarily been undertaken by a local gang. Additionally, reports have claimed that policing forces are cooperating with the local gang, and allowing them to continue their looting. Due to safety reasons, the archeological team that was originally working on the site is unable to return until the gang that is responsible for the looting moves on. 

Pictures of the "Looting Pits" at El Hibeh. 

Photo via popular-archeology.com

These looters have destroyed an incredible amount of scholarship in El Hibeh. It's devastating - so much information is lost, and there is no chance of the information ever being properly recovered. Dr. Redmount, an archeologist involved with El Hibeh notes the importance of the archeological remains, claiming:

"Hibeh is vitally important to understanding the character of ancient Egypt in the Third Intermediate Period, a very confusing and confused historical era for which only limited archeological resources exist. Looting is obliteration, it destroys an irreplaceable, non-renewable cultural resource that belongs to humanity"

(quote via http://pasthorizonspr.com/)

Additionally, the clear disrespect for the bodies and artefacts is equally discomforting. Bodies are being strewn about, and discarded like trash. These are peoples bodies! Despite thoughts on the separation of the "self" and the "body" at death, I think many could agree that treating human remains like trash is wrong. It upsets me - what if my grave was looted and I was treated this way? What if one of my family members was treated this way? It seems so wrong - it strips away the buried individuals' dignity.  

Picture of mummified remains, discarded while looting for valuables
Photo via http://www.pasthorizonspr.com/

Of course, looting and the deliberate destruction of archeological sites are devastating. Although measures can be taken to discourage looting, stopping it all together is a difficult task. Often, drastic looting takes place in areas that are experiencing political crises, or in areas without a legitimate police force. It's an issue that has no clear solution, and unfortunately seems to be a product of larger systemic problems.

On a side note: Spike TV is releasing a cable-TV show "American Digger" which chronicles Amateur-archeologists digging through historically-rich areas in hopes of finding artefacts for auction. The Society for American Archeology has vehemently opposed this show, claiming that it glamourizes looting. You can read more about this issue here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/02/archaeologist_n_1315867.html

Further Reading:

http://www.pasthorizonspr.com/index.php/archives/03/2012/massive-looting-at-el-hibeh-egypt

http://www.pri.org/stories/2012-03-27/egypt-looters-ransack-archaeological-sites

http://globalheritagenetwork.ning.com/profiles/blogs/extensive-looting-at-el-hibeh-egypt

Field Workin' it

A couple weeks or so ago my class group and I had the opportunity to partake in some field work. The assignment was to do a monument analysis of a local cemetery. My group and I elected to study the Jewish Cemetery. It's a intriguing place - there is a great mix of historic monuments and newer monuments. It's actually the oldest Jewish Cemetery in Western Canada. According to Dr. Kool, a member of the Jewish congregation who was nice enough to show us around, when the cemetery land was originally purchased, it was in a rural area of Victoria. However, today it is tightly surrounded by numerous residential streets. 

Image via Van. Isle Masonic History

Anyways, the Field Work. At first, it was somewhat intimidating. Dr. Kool and Jeffery (the cemetery caretaker) treated us like "real" researchers. They were incredibly nice and helpful. I think they may have called us "the researchers" at several points, which almost made me feel somewhat nervous. 

At the beginning, the research was seamless. I was really enjoying being outside, and the monuments themselves were fascinating. Dr. Kool and Jeffery were great to be around - they told us a lot of interesting stories about the monuments, and the individuals who were buried there. My favourite had to be about the man who was known for always talking on his phone. According to Dr. Kool he was a huge networker. When his coffin was being put into the ground a mourner's phone slipped out of her hand, and became wedged beneath his coffin. In the end they couldn't get the phone out! So the man that was constantly talking on his phone was buried with a phone. I thought that was great. 

Image via Van Isle Masonic History

We were at the cemetery for about three hours. And it was REALLY cold. And I was REALLY not prepared for the cold. At the half way point of the field work it really started to take its tole on me. I was shaking, chattering and I couldn't properly write anymore because I was so cold. If I was to do field work again I'd make sure to be properly dressed. 

All in all, I'd say field work was successful. It was fun, and there is certainly something to be said for being outside researching, as opposed to behind the computer. 

My Grave, My Identity

In my Mortuary Anthropology class we’ve been focusing a lot on identity – what the graves say about the people in them, and what the graves say about those that buried the dead. Archeologists tend to focus on grave goods when studying identity in a funerary context. It’s really interesting what information Archeologists are able to interpret from grave goods – they can draw conclusions on the deceased’s preferences, social status, profession, familial role or where they may have travelled. It all gets a bit messy though when you really consider that the deceased did not bury themselves. It seems really obvious – but those burying the dead could represent the dead in a way that was not attune to their living identity. 

The professor of my Mortuary Archeology class posed a question asking us what we would like to be included in our burial, and what our friends and family may choose to include in our burial. I had never thought about my own burial – I found this question difficult! How can I properly express my identity in a few material items? It was sobering – I realized that I have developed the habit of making absolute deductions about the identity of the deceased that I’ve studied, based on their grave goods. It’s important for me to remember that I am analyzing complex and unique individuals.

Even though I have my doubts about completely expressing my identity to future archeologists through grave goods, I am up to the challenge. I asked friends and family what they would include in my grave:

My mother: after her initial alarm about my question, she said she would include my running shoes, cinnamon sticks and a world map because of my love of travel. I loved all of her suggestions. I really enjoy running (I’m training for my first half-marathon right now!) and I feel like it is a big part of my identity now – I consider myself a runner. I am cinnamon obsessed (my portions of cinnamon will burn your tongue) and I love to explore new places – I’ve always been travel obsessed. All of her suggestions said something about my aspirations, preferences and past times. Good job mom!

My father: He was not alarmed by my question, which to me is alarming in itself. Anyway, he said he would bury me with “those weird seedy things you eat that look like bird food” (I think he means chia seeds), Disneyland entrance passes and books.  These are fabulous suggestions too – I am quite health conscious, and the chia seeds represent that (super food!). Some of my happiest memories with my family are at Disneyland. My dad and I would ride the Matterhorn for hours. The books are a great suggestion too. I am a vicarious reader (well, as much as my University work load will allow) and I’d like to somehow represent my love for reading in my grave. My dad nailed it.

My boyfriend: I think he thought this was a test or something when I asked him what he would bury me with. I think he thought I had read in a magazine that told me this question would provide insight to our relationship. Too funny. He said he would bury me with my yoga mat, dark chocolate, and some of the pictures that he’s drawn for me. I was really fond of his suggestions. I practice Bikram yoga and I really enjoy it. I also absolutely love dark chocolate so including it in my grave is a must. The pictures were a wonderful suggestion too – I love them so much.

My roommates/best friends: I’m live with four girls, and they are some of my best friends. I posed the question to all four of them, and they seemed way too into it (which is worrisome). Aside from their silly suggestions, they said they would bury me with white wine, tea, coffee (but the coffee has to be buried with me in some way so the archeologist know that I drink it black) and my big scarves that I love so much. Their suggestions were very liquid focused, but spot on. I drink countless cups of tea a day, and I pretty much consume a trough of coffee every morning. I do love my scarves, but I am not sure I would want to be buried with them. I think I’d rather go for a nice dress or something.

All in all, my friends and family seemed to hit the nail spot on. I don’t know what else I would include in my grave to express my identity. Except for sushi – I would include sushi. A lot of sushi. It wouldn’t keep well of course, but having it in there is a must. It will be a full grave – but I don’t want to part with anything that my family and friends suggested. 

I don’t know how much these grave goods would express my identity. They certainly show what I love to do with my time, and what some of my aspirations are. It’s just weird to express something as complex as identity in grave goods. I’m also concerned about how this will all be interpreted by future archeologist – maybe they’ll think that I’m an aritist-extraordinare,  yoga-guru, with strong Japanese ties when I’m really a leisurely yogi with a nice boyfriend that eats too much sushi. We will see though. I don’t want my apprehensions come off as me having little faith in archeological interpretation – I think what archeologists do is amazing, critical and incredibly important. I believe that archeologists make correct and astute interpretations from mortuary finds. But I think it’s natural to feel a little nervous when it is your own identity that is being interpreted. This thought exercise has delivered an important archeological lesson for me – I so often so at grave goods and think about them in a group context (e.x. what does this say about the society that this individual is part of?) rather than analyzing grave goods in an individual context and really thinking about what the grave goods say about the person. I’ll work on that though – I am sure there is a happy medium between group and individual interpretations.

Weekend Warrior

I recently completed a class project that involved researching local cemeteries. I knew nothing about any of the cemeteries in my area (and it turns out there are a lot). Cemeteries, to be honest, really creep me out. In a cemetery death is so apparent. It always made me feel a little unsettled - I'm constantly being reminded of my own impending (but hopefully far-off) death. Which is not super fun, in my humble opinion. 

This weekend I was on a walk and I realized that I was right the Ross Bay cemetery, which I had just been researching online. It is a Victorian-era cemetery, often celebrated for its natural beauty and impressive monuments. It has some unsavoury history too -- the cemetery is largely segregated on the basis of race and income. 

Ross Bay Cemetery
Image via flickriver user wild prairie man

As I approached the entrance to the cemetery I knew I had to go in a take a look around. I would have been such a missed opportunity if I hadn't - it was literally right in front of me, and internet research can only get you so far. In a way, going into the cemetery was a tool of self-betterment. If I want to be an archeologist, I should probably work on becoming more comfortable with death. 

Image via flickr user ai.dan

At first, I found the cemetery quite eerie. It was also incredibly foggy this weekend, which only contributed to the ghostly atmosphere. However, after walking around I felt myself feeling far more calm and peaceful. It really is a beautiful place -- the Victorian monuments are stunning, and the natural beauty of the cemetery is impressive. Although it is a place of death, it doesn't necessarily feel "deathly". Being there conjured up feelings of remembrance and commemoration. The deathly aspect of the cemetery felt like a side-thought: it seemed like remembering and respecting life was of key importance.

 Something that surprised me was the obvious segregation in the cemetery - of course I knew it was segregated by my online research, but for some reason the transparency of the segregation shocked me. Sections of the cemetery were clear: Anglican plots over here, Chinese plots over there, and so on. The Ross Bay Cemetery is a celebrated landmark, and it is discomforting that more attention is not paid to addressing discriminatory aspects of the cemetery. Most of the online sources I consulted about Ross Bay Cemetery speak about it's beauty and tranquility. It's difficult to come to terms with the colonial outlook and the discrimination that the cemetery was established upon. It made me feel uncomfortable at an individual level for almost enjoying walking through the cemetery, and at a more societal level, as the Ross Bay Cemetery is quite celebrated.

Image via access Victoria

Despite my feelings of unease, I am happy that I walked through the cemetery. Critical reflection is important. Additionally, I certainly feel less creeped out by cemeteries now! Perhaps in the future I'll return to the Ross Bay Cemetery and analyze it in a more critical manner. 

What I'm dying to know

I fully apologize for the terrible pun in the title. I just can’t help myself sometimes. 

As I alluded to in a previous post, this blog was created for an “Archeology of death and burial” course I am currently taking. It is an incredibly interesting topic, and I am really looking forward to learning more about other culture’s funerary practices, as well as examining my own culture’s with greater detail. We will be studying a vast array of topics, including theoretical frameworks to study burial remains, treatment of the dead, Anglo-Saxon cremations, Egyptian funerary practices, Neanderthal burial patterns, the ethics and politics regarding human remains, and much more.

I am especially looking forward to analyzing Egyptian burial practices. When I was younger, I went through a bit of an “Egypt phase,” and I’ve since then I have been interested in Egyptian culture. I saw an IMAX program on King Tut, and I quickly spiralled into a full-blown obsession (two weeks later I moved onto sharks). To me, ancient egyptian culture was exotic, mysterious and enthralling. My knowledge of their funerary practices is incredibly fragmentary -- it’ is mostly amalgamated from grade four research, the odd discovery program, and museum visits.  Today I am particularly interested in learning about the reasoning behind the Ancient Egyptian’s funerary practices, and how they evolved throughout time. 

Ancient Egyptian archeology finds have been in the news lately, check out these links if you’d like to do a bit of reading on the latest research!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-25593526

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/10/131025-tomb-abusir-discovery-physician-ancient-egypt-archaeology-science/

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/05/100519-science-ancient-egypt-cleopatra-tomb-marc-antony/

Did you know...

That it was common in Mayan funerary practices to place a piece of maize in the deceased's mouth. Researchers speculate that this ritual was carried out for two reasons. Firstly, the maize was considered nourishment for the dead during their passage to the afterlife. Secondly, maize was a highly important crop to the mayans - a lot of meanings were attributed to it, including rebirth.

Mayan Maize God

Image via the British Museum 

Of course, this particular burial behaviour cannot be attributed to all Mayans - at their peak, they represented a huge population! 

Neanderthals, Neanderthals, Neanderthals

About a month ago, the popular media widely published finding from a 1999-2012 re-excavation of a Neanderthal grave site in La Chapelle-aux-Saints, France. Neanderthal news usually stirs up a lot of media attention, but this site in particular really seemed to capture the public's attention. What was, and is, so interesting about this Neanderthal grave site was the presence of intentional burial. According to researchers, the 50,000 year old skeleton was intentionally buried by his companions. The study of symbolic thought, cognition, and culture of Neanderthals  have been big topics in Palaeolithic archeology. These findings present some pretty hard hitting evidence that the Neanderthals were capable of complex thought -- something which is (very unfairly) not often attributed to them by the popular media.

La Chapelle-aux-Saints grave site

Image via "Liberty Voice"

I love how this finding shows the true universality of concern for the deceased. Although I cannot speculate on why the Neanderthals in this case chose to bury their deceased counterpart (perhaps they were worried about scavenging animals, maybe the site of death left them feeling uncomfortable, or possibly it was an action of care) this finding, for me, hi-lights that processing the dead is a trans-cultural and trans-historical process, and can lead to postulations about cultural and symbolic nature.

Reconstruction of the La Chapelle-aux-Saints burial

Image via National Geographic

What are your thought on the findings of this intentional Neanderthal burial? 

If you are interested in reading more on this topic, check out these news articles:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/12/131216-la-chapelle-neanderthal-burials-graves/#

http://www.isciencetimes.com/articles/6532/20131217/neanderthal-funerals-ritualistic-burial-la-chapelle-aux-saints-1908-skeleton.htm

http://www.examiner.com/article/first-conclusive-evidence-that-neanderthals-buried-their-dead-unearthed