Out of the Ashes

Back Again.

This week's blog prompt urged us to consider alternative methods of dealing with the remains of the departed. As for me I want to be cremated, the purity and simplicity of the fire appeal to me. But what about after that? What to do with the ashes, I'm not keen on being kept on some musty bookshelf or mantel piece and if I wanted to be in a grave yard I might as well just skip cremation and spring for the full coffin funeral. That leaves me with scattering, which is OK.... I wouldn't mind being scattered from atop my favourite mountain or left along my favourite trails. But is that really my only option?

                                          View from Juan de Fuca Trail.
As it turns out no.

I could be launched into space (somewhat interesting but as an archaeologist I have always been more interested in the ground than the sky). I could be mixed into some fireworks and literally go out with a bang, along the same lines I could be put into a series of memorial bullets. I could even be put into an hour glass to remind those that survive me that life is short. This last option seems a little bit morbid but I do like the idea of making a lasting impression. So now what?

As it turns out there is a process that superheats and then compresses cremains into actual certified diamonds, and what could be more lasting than that right? "Life Gem" is a company that specializes in creating diamonds of different sizes, cuts and even colours out of cremated remains (and locks of hair). They will even put the stone into a memorial ring. You could actually become your own grave good.

 This process is pricy and can run upwards of $14,000 but then again traditional casket burial and funeral these days can cost anywhere between 7000-15,0000 dollars. (http://www.canadianfunerals.com).

I'm not certain I would want to become a diamond (I have never be fond of jewellery) but the idea is intriguing and certainly makes one think about the staggering array of options that are out there. We often think of funerals and death as a fairly standard thing with some variation over time. This is certainly a problem in archaeology, when we lump cemeteries spanning hundreds of years into a general, over-arching theme and give it a label. "That is a Catholic cemetery, that is a Protestant Cemetery, that is a Victorian graveyard". These labels and themes have their place but we need to remember that the ways in which people choose to be treated after death are just as individual as the ways they choose to act in life.

Sources and additional links:
Life Gem:
http://www.lifegem.com/?gclid=CMOo0cnHk7UCFQfhQgodGz4Afg

Funeral Pricing:
http://www.canadianfunerals.com/funeral-related-articles/differences-in-cost-between-burial-and-cremation-in-canada.html

Things To Do With Cremains:
http://www.budgetlife.com/blog/weird-cremations/

Huffington Post Article Concerning Space Burial:
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/05/25/ash-scattering_n_1545627.html

The Scrooge McDuck Supposition

Hello again,

Lets talk about Scrooge McDuck.

For those of you who are unaware, Scrooge McDuck is the exceptionally wealthy uncle of beloved (if somewhat under medicated) Disney character, Donald Duck.

 He lives in the penthouse suite of his own high rise building and frequently dives head first into a pool full of gold coins and jewels. He treats human life (well in this case animated anthropomorphic animal life) as completely expendable and will do anything to further his business enterprises. This is certainly strange behaviour, but because he is wealthy is not crazy, merely eccentric. Now if an ordinary person were to dive into a pool full of nickles and dimes we might think something was wrong.

                                          Disney's Scrooge McDuck

                                          http://bowalleyroad.blogspot.ca/2012/06/monstous-power.html

When I researched “deviant burials” I came across an article describing the excavation of a slave cemetery in Barbados dating from the 17^th century (Handler 1996). While excavating the team came across an unusually large mound that contained a single body, a woman of roughly 40 years with extremely high levels lead in her bones, lying prone and after some ethnographic research it was decided that the grave belonged to a witch(Handler 1996). But what if the grave was known to have belonged to a wealthy person and not a slave? Would we still look for connections to witchcraft? Would we still assume the person was undesirable? Would we refer to the grave as “deviant? Who knows.

Frustrated by the one sided results from my search I changed to looking for “unusual burials” and came across a fascinating article entitled “Eccentric or enlightened? Unusual burial and commemoration in England, 1689 – 1823” by Clare Gittings (2007). Gittings describes a series of burials that are out of the ordinary and though she remarks that deviant refers to graves that are “statistically uncommon or unique” (Gittings, 2007:323) she never once refers to the burials in question as deviant. One of the graves described belongs to Susanna Carteret Webb, a very wealthy woman. She requested that a cave be built in her garden with a long passage ending in a lamp lit chamber where her coffin would rest alongside her two young children (Gittings, 2007). If we were to uncover this tomb without knowing the social status of its occupant we might well think of it as deviant. After all she was not buried in consecrated ground and the ceremony was not conducted by a priest as was the custom of the time.

What if Scrooge McDuck were to be buried in a dollar sign shaped tomb in the middle of a private cemetery, or in the middle of a parking lot for that matter? Would we call his tomb deviant? Of course not. Strange perhaps, eccentric certainly but almost certainly not deviant, there are just too many negative connotations with that word.

                          http://www.wolfgnards.com/index.php/2009/08/27/how-rich-is-scrooge-mcduck

So perhaps we should abandon “deviant” and find a better word that can encompass individuality and creativity without casting a negative light on the subject in question.

Sources:

Gittings, C. 2007. "Eccentric or enlightened? Unusual burial and commemoration in England, 1689 – 1823." Mortality 12: 321-349.

Handler, J.S. 1996. "A Prone Burial from a Plantation Slave Cemetery in Barbados, West Indies:    Possible Evidence for an African-Type Witch or Other Negatively Viewed Person." Historical Archaeology 30:76-86.
 

All that Glitters

Goal for today is to be done in 300 words or less.

                The blog prompt this week really got me thinking about the difference between who we think we are and what others see and I feel that this is clearly reflected in the significance we ascribe to grave-goods.

                          

                 As a case in point let me get somewhat morbid for a few minutes and describe what I would want in my grave.

                There is really only one thing I would want to be buried with. My simple silver necklace in the shape of a Celtic Cross.

                 It is not valuable or a family heirloom but it does represent what is most important to me. Not religion, faith or spirituality but tradition and heritage. In case you hadn’t guessed by this point my family comes from the British Isles, more specifically from Scotland, Ireland and Wales and my necklace is really the only connection I have to my roots. But is that what others would see?

                If I were to be excavated in a thousand years what would the archaeologists think? Would I be seen as a Christian? Would I be put into a low socio-economic class because of its low value? Would they ascribe significance to the fact that it is silver and not gold? My sister wears a similar cross but hers is a reminder of the time she spent as a nanny in Ireland and bears no family significance, would we be interpreted in the same way? Ultimately, the significance I ascribe to the cross will likely be lost.

                So perhaps (to get somewhat anthropological for a moment) we should use caution when ascribing too much meaning to grave goods as we can never really know their original significance.  What do you think?

Awesome.  300 words exactly.

Cheers,

 

A Leap Too Far?

Its blog time once again (please bear with me as I work out an intro).

During lecture on Friday Dr. Erin McGuire challenged us to read and reflect on an interview with Malagasy anthropoligst Ramilisonina (a colleague of Mike Parker Pearson) (http://www.archaeology.org/1001/etc/conversation.html).

The interviewer questioned Ramilisonina about the possible connections between Stonehenge and its associated structures and the megaliths of Madagascar. Put simply Ramilisonina believes that there is a connection between the megaliths of Neolithic-Bronze Age Britain and the much more modern stones in Madagascar. When asked about how he came draw a connection between the modern and ancient megaliths Ramilisonina responds the he could see a "similar element of magic" in the structures of Britain and Madagascar. Ramilisonina also states that in Madagascar, stone is used exclusively for the dead and wood for the living. He then goes on to suggest that there may be a similar relationship in the stone structures of Stonehenge and Blue Stone Henge and the nearby wooden structure creatively dubbed Woodhenge.

http://www.nationalufocenter.com/artman/publish/article_239.php

We were also given a critical response to this interview, "Sacred Stones and Madagascar", that was posted on a blog by Luciano Aimar (http://lucianoaimar.blogspot.com). This response attacks the validity of taking the meaning and symbolism from the Madagascar stones and ascribing it to the British megaliths. Aimar takes particular umbrage with the idea of stone monuments as a bridge between the world of the living and the "Domain of the Dead".

Though Aimar is critiquing an isolated, case study his arguments got me thinking about the validity of ethnoarchaeology in general. What is it that makes an archaeologist think they can ever presume to ascribe meaning to a monument or artifact when anyone that may have ever known the real meaning behind it has been dead for thousands of years? Is it arrogance? Hubris? Pride? Or perhaps they (or should I say we?) are simply overwhelmed by the crushing ambiguity and uncertainty that makes up the bulk of archaeological enquiry. Regardless of motivation no archaeologist can ever "know" the meaning behind an artifact, they can only ever guess. But guessing is not a bad thing, especially when it is educated and informed through appropriate analogies.

Ethnoarchaeology is a field focused on analogy but there is a substantial difference between an illustrative analogy and a comparative analogy. An illustrative analogy draws a one to one connection between artifacts or cultures. It copies the meaning from one artifact and pastes it to another.

Comparative analogies on the other hand are just like the sound, they are comparisons. They look at the similarities and differences between artifacts and draw hypothetical connections between them while still allowing for the fact that no two cultures are ever exactly the same.

Aimar sees an illustrative analogy where there isn't one and is justifiably sceptical about the validity of the connection. However, Ramilisonina only remarks on the similarities between the practices at Stonehenge and those in Madagascar saying "The bodies might have been cremated at the site and [Bluestonehenge] then taken to Stonehenge for burial. We see the same sort of practice today in Madagascar." Aimar takes this as an "anthropological leap too far."

Is it? I don't think so.

Of course I am not saying that the practices were exactly the same and we can never know one way or another without a time travel. While we wait for time machines to be invented (and heres hoping we won't have to wait long) we must be satisfy ourselves with interesting theories like those put forward by Ramilisonina and Mike Parker Pearson.

I fear I have rambled a bit. I am new to this whole blogging and I am still trying adjust to the format.  Let me finish with this. When ever we try to find meaning in an ancient artifact we open ourselves up criticism, but what is the alternative? Without analogy and informed hypotheses we would be left with mere description and that would make for a very dry and uninteresting field with no chance for advancement. We need to make leaps but through the scope of comparative analogy not illustrative. We have to put our egos aside and accept and appreciate the criticism. It is all to easy to go too far but if we set our egos aside we can more easily make ammends and further advance our knowledge and understanding of the past.


 

Lets Get Started.

Alright then it is Blog time.

Let me begin by apologizing to any ardent zombie fans out there that may have been misled by my oh so clever title. Unfortunately, there will be little discussion of zombies, well next to no discussion of zombies really.... Alright fine there will be NO zombies what so ever, I am putting my foot down. Sorry but it had to be done.

I am writing this for "The Archaeology of Death" (coincidentally the best course title I have seen since Anthropology of Zombies which, lets face it is kind of hard to top) and as such I will be writing on death and funerary practices from around the world and from different time periods. Though I hope to entertain and maybe get a few laughs let me assure you that I will be approaching this material with the utmost respect and decorum as it is a deeply personal and often sensitive subject for many people.

I think that enough business for one day. On to introductions:

First the title: "The Talking Dead". I thought I was being clever (I will let you be the judge) but there is a serious reason for it as well. We are often told that "Dead men (or women) tell no tales", but this is simply not true and the overarching purpose of this blog is to tell those stories and discuss the ways in which we can interpret them and learn from them.

Now a brief introduction of myself and I will be done.

My name is Ethan. I am a born and bred Victoria boy and I have lived within 500 meters of the same spot for my entire life. I went to Belmont Secondary school and it was there that I took my first Comparitive Civilizations class and that was my first real foray into the world of Anthropology though I would not revisit this world for several years. Originally I was an English major but Anthropolgy was always knocking around the back of my mind and finally I abandoned English and dove in head first. I have not looked back since. I am primarily interested in paleaoanthropology and osteology but archaeology and Greek and Roman Studies are right up there.

One day I would like to work in faunal analysis in the lab and on digs (I love being in the field) but until then as long as I get to work with bones I will be happy. Grad school (and perhaps even a PhD one day) is certainly in my future though I have absolutely zero idea on what I want to study there just yet.

My interest in mortuary practices (and thus this course) was piqued in Dr. Burke's "Bronze Age Aegean" course last semester and I would love to get to look at the Lefkandi horse burials in the Heroon. I am also very interested in the differences in burials based on social status and socio-economic position. Once again Lefkandi is too blame, the difference between the shaft graves in the Toumba cemetery versus the domestic cist burials fascinates me.

In terms of intersting things about me... Well I spent a month last summer as the only male student at a dig in South Africa looking for hominin fossils (alas no such luck though baboon fossils and getting to meet the Taung child is still pretty cool). Aside from that I can usually be found on a mountain or beach or in some cave somewhere (often accompanied by my dog Seamus) and when not outside I am usually writing, reading or sleeping (when I can find the time).

Thats about it. We shall see how this whole blogging thing works out.
Cheers,