I've been thinking about Solzhenitsyn lately, so I decided to search for an article on rather old siberian burials (those were not my search terms, though they bring up interesting articles concerning similar material). I wanted to know about the burial of animals, for that is, as the authors suggest, rather overshadowed by anything else.
This article is about the burial of dogs and wolves in neolithic Siberia. Though many people don't realize that dogs are willful, sentient people too. I know, you are probably thinking "Nonsense, dogs are obviously people. They bring you gifts and get revenge!" The sad truth is, this just doesn't seem to click with some people. (Not having animal friends as a child has been shown to lead to decreased levels of empathetic development (no reference but the literature is out there). Fortuntely, there are people like this to put things straight.
They took their data from a few rather large neolithic cemeteries located near rivers in Siberia. There were many human graves in the cemeteries included in the study and they had interesting burial traditions. Common themes were large oval pit, repeated grave additions, modified and unmodified animal parts (canids, ungulates, bears, etc.), ochre, and disarticulation. The dogs studies were in both graves of their own and in graves they shared with humans. While some dogs in their sample were treated with little regard (like strangers, perhaps?), some were treated as though they were one of the other people around. Burial goods and even one case of a fancy stone lined grave all to itself.
The most interesting case was that of a stranger wolf. This wolf, a rather old one missing teeth, was not showing evidence of living with the people of the area. Using stable isotope analysis, they determined that the wolf was eating a normal wolf diet (for the area. The opposite patterns would show in some places around here) of ungulates (for protein, that is) while the humans relied heavily on fish. A diet in fish leads to a higher ratio of heavy to normal nitrogen. The wolf was buried in a grave with the head of a human between his legs, near his belly. I say "his" because they were able to sex him in the fashion that can make a zooarchaeologist's job much easier, namely, finding of an os penis. Why can't every male have and extra bone for finding (that is actually a serious and much argued point)? The human's radio-carbon date differed from that of the wolf but the rest of the circumstance implied they were buried together. This, they argue, is due to old carbon contamination from the water around. Others
have suspected this water before.
As many dogs receive burials equivalent to contemporaneous humans, they conclude that these people realized that dogs are people too. The authors urge researchers to consider dogs in findings more seriously. They state that more studies of similar detail need to be done in the region. I say, similar focus must be employed everywhere for all animals, for all animals, except mosquitoes, are people too.
READ!:
Losey, R.J. et al., 2011. Canids as persons: Early Neolithic dog and wolf burials, Cis-Baikal, Siberia. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 30(2), pp.174–189.
Thursday, 29 March 2012
Friday, 16 March 2012
Cremation Identification.
I have just read a paper concerning cremation on the Island of Teouma in Vanuatu. It is primarily about methods used for identification of cremation and I decided to read it because it seemed to fit the theme of today's class readings. Up until this point (2009) there had been no contemporary findings of cremated remains. Every other incident of human remains was a variation of inhumation. While they talked about cannibalism (my original search term), there are no mentions of it's contemporary presence in this paper. Interestingly, almost every body found in this area at this time (2850 bc) is without a skull. This, I would say, is a rather strong indication of interesting head removal.
The methods they used are too detailed and not interesting enough to put here entirely. Thus, I shall do it in a short fashion. The first set of evidence they pursued was that of macroscopic alteration. They looked for wear marks from either anthropogenic (cannibalism was their main suspect in this regard) or animal sources. In this regard, they only found evidence of animal gnawing. This they found in limited quantities on bones that were most likely to have meat remaining after burning. It was in a limited fashion, indicating that the post burning bones were only left to the animals a short time before being placed in the cemetery. They suggest that it was during the cooling period that they were gnawed upon, though without any conviction. The second piece of evidence they draw attention to is the colouration of the bones. This is more important information, as the colour of the bones is determined, in a predictable manner, by the temperature, age, and preparation of the bones. The third piece of evidence is in the same vein, that of heat relate and cracks. Both of these come to the same conclusion. The bones were burned while they still had flesh on them and, rather obviously, before they were old and dried out (I know, you must be thinking "what about mummification?" but the obvious part is that mummified flesh does not protect bones quite so well as new flesh. Mummified flesh = dry and rich in lipids and other carbon sources.).
In the end, they conclude that the burial is a unique occurrence of cremation in this area for this time. They make it seem as though there are other cremations when they are discussing reasons for there being a cremation but I am inclined to think they are just being ambiguous with the timelines. They are rather adamant about there being no contemporaneous cremations. The colours and conditions of the bones indicate that they were not butchered or burned in an accidental fire. As they were located in the cemetery for friendly people, it is likely that the person of interest (a.k.a. the bone fragments) was not a cannibalized or otherwise mistreated enemy. Where they err in their conclusion is in regard to the head of the corpse. In this case they use absence of evidence as evidence of absence. There were no remains of the skull in the burial and they attribute this to head removal. While this is likely the case, considering the friendly location and very common practices, they don't have much evidence for it being so. As some portions of the skull often survive cremation processes (supra orbital torus, etc.) they imply that the fragments should be present in the sample, even though many things can happen to a few pieces of burnt bone over 5000 years that render it invisible to the archaeological record. This is the main area in which they don't do a very good job. Otherwise, their methodology seems sound and their area of interest interesting. Future work of these authors, the ones that can spell "colour" at least, is likely worth having a bit of a read over.
Reference:
Identification of the first reported Lapita cremation in the Pacific Islands using archaeological, forensic and contemporary burning evidenceJournal of Archaeological Science , v.37 (5) , p.901 , 2010 , Scott R. et al.
The methods they used are too detailed and not interesting enough to put here entirely. Thus, I shall do it in a short fashion. The first set of evidence they pursued was that of macroscopic alteration. They looked for wear marks from either anthropogenic (cannibalism was their main suspect in this regard) or animal sources. In this regard, they only found evidence of animal gnawing. This they found in limited quantities on bones that were most likely to have meat remaining after burning. It was in a limited fashion, indicating that the post burning bones were only left to the animals a short time before being placed in the cemetery. They suggest that it was during the cooling period that they were gnawed upon, though without any conviction. The second piece of evidence they draw attention to is the colouration of the bones. This is more important information, as the colour of the bones is determined, in a predictable manner, by the temperature, age, and preparation of the bones. The third piece of evidence is in the same vein, that of heat relate and cracks. Both of these come to the same conclusion. The bones were burned while they still had flesh on them and, rather obviously, before they were old and dried out (I know, you must be thinking "what about mummification?" but the obvious part is that mummified flesh does not protect bones quite so well as new flesh. Mummified flesh = dry and rich in lipids and other carbon sources.).
In the end, they conclude that the burial is a unique occurrence of cremation in this area for this time. They make it seem as though there are other cremations when they are discussing reasons for there being a cremation but I am inclined to think they are just being ambiguous with the timelines. They are rather adamant about there being no contemporaneous cremations. The colours and conditions of the bones indicate that they were not butchered or burned in an accidental fire. As they were located in the cemetery for friendly people, it is likely that the person of interest (a.k.a. the bone fragments) was not a cannibalized or otherwise mistreated enemy. Where they err in their conclusion is in regard to the head of the corpse. In this case they use absence of evidence as evidence of absence. There were no remains of the skull in the burial and they attribute this to head removal. While this is likely the case, considering the friendly location and very common practices, they don't have much evidence for it being so. As some portions of the skull often survive cremation processes (supra orbital torus, etc.) they imply that the fragments should be present in the sample, even though many things can happen to a few pieces of burnt bone over 5000 years that render it invisible to the archaeological record. This is the main area in which they don't do a very good job. Otherwise, their methodology seems sound and their area of interest interesting. Future work of these authors, the ones that can spell "colour" at least, is likely worth having a bit of a read over.
Reference:
Identification of the first reported Lapita cremation in the Pacific Islands using archaeological, forensic and contemporary burning evidenceJournal of Archaeological Science , v.37 (5) , p.901 , 2010 , Scott R. et al.
Wednesday, 7 March 2012
Applying the Rubric to The Viking Lady
As a test for the project rubric we have made for ourselves, I shall apply it to the following website:
http://www.vikinganswerlady.com/vik_pets.shtml
This is the website of The Viking Answer Lady. It appears as though people send her questions and she makes a webpage in response. The main page I shall focus on is the one concerning Viking pets and domesticated animals. This is for three reasons, all being of approximately equal weight. First, I like animals very much. More, perhaps and depending on the reader of this, than Vikings. Second, it is the only page which discusses burials. This is odd, for there is a myth and religion section. I am no expert but I think religions often tend to have a significant impact on the burials that happen around them. Finally, the website is quite to large to read and this page seems much the same as the other I have looked at, except for matters of length. This one seems to be a particularly long one, likely due to the many subsections.
Before I get started, here is the most recent version of the Rubric.
This was not an easy one to paste in here, but in it has squeezed (Squoze? Is that only for piglets?)
Introduction
0/12
The introduction to this page is very short. It would have been more appropriate if she had introduced topic of Scandinavian animal husbandry beyond two mildly contradicting sentences. A brief history and general trends, which pop up occasionally throughout, would have been well placed here.
Quality of Writing
7/12
The procession of her explanations and arguments is sensible, though there does not seem to be much reasoning behind it. It has the feel of "what is thought first is written first." Spelling seems to be good but the grammar makes it hard to follow at times. A few sentences take a bit of translating before their English comes out. All told, it is possible to read and fully understand but the writing is not very good.
Presentation
1/6
She has two complicated patterns as her background. The edge between them is uncomfortable to look and and scrolling is a bit like watching a train pass from up close after a tiny bit too much candy. This distracts greatly from the words that are on top. The pictures are nice, though not all of them have an obvious purpose or place. A second opinion on the patterning behind the text, when borrowed from her rewiring job, has it as "that's pretty bad."
Quality of Evidence
6/12
To be honest, I am judging most of these by the information given in the references and google. There are no publications from scholarly journals listed. Though this is likely due to lack of access, this does limit the information base she draws from. She uses a combination of popular and more scholarly books. The one magazine is not a scholarly publication. Unfortunately, she has no referencing throughout for to know where she got her information from. For some things she seems to have research behind but many are seeming to be speculation on her part. She seems to have done some research but I wouldn't reference her.
Quality of Analysis
3/12
She seems to take everything as fact and seems pretty far reaching at times. Her passage on the lynx being the cat and not the lynx because it resembles the lynx had reasoning that I fail to decipher. There were many parts that did not seem to have any purpose, being placed because they had only been come across. I would say she used more uncritical gathering and regurgitation in combination with speculation than proper analysis.
Total: 17/54 (31.5%)
This is about what I was thinking when I first read it. It wasn't an entirely unpleasant website to look through, but I shan't recommend it to any friends. The patterning really was a problem for me. I had to look away every once in a while to reset my eyes. I don't trust this any more than I would wikipedia. Any emulation on my part shall be accidental and unfortunate, especially if this grade follows.
http://www.vikinganswerlady.com/vik_pets.shtml
This is the website of The Viking Answer Lady. It appears as though people send her questions and she makes a webpage in response. The main page I shall focus on is the one concerning Viking pets and domesticated animals. This is for three reasons, all being of approximately equal weight. First, I like animals very much. More, perhaps and depending on the reader of this, than Vikings. Second, it is the only page which discusses burials. This is odd, for there is a myth and religion section. I am no expert but I think religions often tend to have a significant impact on the burials that happen around them. Finally, the website is quite to large to read and this page seems much the same as the other I have looked at, except for matters of length. This one seems to be a particularly long one, likely due to the many subsections.
Before I get started, here is the most recent version of the Rubric.
|
CATEGORIES
|
Sophisticated
6
|
Highly Sophisticated
4
|
Fairly Competent
2
|
Not Yet Competent
0
|
Total
|
|
Introduction
x2
|
-Clearly presents the
arguments.
-Provides all the
necessary background information for understanding the arguments.
-Fully explains the scope
of the project.
-Explains the structure of
the website.
|
-Presents the arguments.
-Provides most of the
necessary background information for understanding the arguments.
-Explains the scope of the
project.
-Explains most the
structure of the website.
|
-Presents some of the
arguments.
-Provides some of the
necessary background information for understanding the arguments.
-Explains part of the
scope of the project.
-Explains some of the
structure
|
-Barely presents the
arguments.
-Provides no necessary
background information for understanding the arguments.
-Fails to the structure of
the website.
|
/12
|
|
Quality of Writing
x2
|
-Well organized.
-Easily understandable.
-Grammatically sound.
|
-Organized.
-Quite clear.
-Understandable.
-Very few grammatical and
spelling errors.
|
-Lacks organization.
-Sometimes confusing.
-Sometimes hard to
understand.
-Some grammatical and
spelling errors.
|
-No organization.
-Unclear.
-Hard to understand.
-Many grammatical and
spelling errors.
|
/12
|
|
Presentation
x1
|
-Pages are very easy to read.
-Real effort was made in
terms of colors, highlights, pictures...
|
-Pages are readable.
-Some effort was made in
terms of colors, highlights, pictures...
|
-Pages are sometimes hard
to read.
-Some color, or highlight,
or pictures is used.
|
-Pages are very hard to
read.
-No effort was made in
terms of colors, highlights, pictures...
|
/6
|
|
Quality of Evidence
x2
|
-Evidence used is relevant
for this project.
-Evidence is reasonably
balanced
-Evidence has been well
connected to arguments.
|
-Most of the evidence used
is relevant for this project.
-Evidence is rather
balanced
-Evidence has been fairly
connected to arguments.
|
-Some of the evidence used
is relevant for this project.
-Evidences is not balanced
-Evidence has been badly
connected to arguments.
|
-Evidence used is
irrelevant for this project.
-Evidence has not been
connected to arguments.
|
/12
|
|
Quality of Analysis
x2
|
It shows reflection and a
critical eye.
Anthropological methods
were clearly understood and applied.
|
It shows some reflection
and a critical eye.
Some anthropological
methods were understood and applied.
|
It lacks more reflection
and a critical eye.
Anthropological methods
need more depth.
|
It does not show
reflection and a critical eye.
Anthropological methods
were not understood and applied.
|
/12
|
|
Total
|
|
|
|
|
/54
|
This was not an easy one to paste in here, but in it has squeezed (Squoze? Is that only for piglets?)
Introduction
0/12
The introduction to this page is very short. It would have been more appropriate if she had introduced topic of Scandinavian animal husbandry beyond two mildly contradicting sentences. A brief history and general trends, which pop up occasionally throughout, would have been well placed here.
Quality of Writing
7/12
The procession of her explanations and arguments is sensible, though there does not seem to be much reasoning behind it. It has the feel of "what is thought first is written first." Spelling seems to be good but the grammar makes it hard to follow at times. A few sentences take a bit of translating before their English comes out. All told, it is possible to read and fully understand but the writing is not very good.
Presentation
1/6
She has two complicated patterns as her background. The edge between them is uncomfortable to look and and scrolling is a bit like watching a train pass from up close after a tiny bit too much candy. This distracts greatly from the words that are on top. The pictures are nice, though not all of them have an obvious purpose or place. A second opinion on the patterning behind the text, when borrowed from her rewiring job, has it as "that's pretty bad."
Quality of Evidence
6/12
To be honest, I am judging most of these by the information given in the references and google. There are no publications from scholarly journals listed. Though this is likely due to lack of access, this does limit the information base she draws from. She uses a combination of popular and more scholarly books. The one magazine is not a scholarly publication. Unfortunately, she has no referencing throughout for to know where she got her information from. For some things she seems to have research behind but many are seeming to be speculation on her part. She seems to have done some research but I wouldn't reference her.
Quality of Analysis
3/12
She seems to take everything as fact and seems pretty far reaching at times. Her passage on the lynx being the cat and not the lynx because it resembles the lynx had reasoning that I fail to decipher. There were many parts that did not seem to have any purpose, being placed because they had only been come across. I would say she used more uncritical gathering and regurgitation in combination with speculation than proper analysis.
Total: 17/54 (31.5%)
This is about what I was thinking when I first read it. It wasn't an entirely unpleasant website to look through, but I shan't recommend it to any friends. The patterning really was a problem for me. I had to look away every once in a while to reset my eyes. I don't trust this any more than I would wikipedia. Any emulation on my part shall be accidental and unfortunate, especially if this grade follows.
Saturday, 18 February 2012
Monument Analysis
The monuments which make up the data set are nine monuments from the south-east section of Pioneer Square, Victoria B.C.. These monuments are located closest to the church, Christ Church Cathedral, and separated from the rest of the square by a path. A link to the map of the study site is posted below. While examining the graves, it was
hypothesized that the approximate materials from which the grave monuments were
constructed, as well as the design thereof, were indicative of the status of
the person or family represented. Using the assumption that stone indicated
greater status than composite materials (brick or concrete), and large apparent
size indicated greater status than small, the following, ranking was predicted.
From highest status to lowest: C.W. Wallace, J.S. Helmcken, Charles Dodd = John
Work, David Cameron, and James Murray Yale. The Military monuments were not
included due to their impersonal and public nature, as well as their being so
far removed, chronologically, from the others. The Lucy Sanders monument was
not interpreted as a grave monument, as the inscription made it clear that it
was made for the purpose of being a bench. The Cridge grave was not included,
as it was not for those whose names were most prominent upon it, but for their
children and a sister.
C.W. Wallace
The monument is an obelisk, exact height
unknown but much taller than a standing person, and made of stone. It is
inscribed on three sides and dedicated to C.W. Wallace and his wife, father,
sister, and children. To judge by the dates inscribed, the monument was likely
erected in the middle of the nineteenth century.
Unfortunately, no historical information
was found concerning this Wallace family. As a result, the status of those upon
the monument, particularly that of C.W. Wallace, is unknown.
J.S.
Helmcken
The J.S. Helmcken monument is, externally,
made of multiple large pieces of stone. Visually, it is a solid block,
approximately waist high and more than two paces long. The inscriptions are on
the upper surface and it is the tied for being of the largest above ground
volume with that of David Cameron. The date of death inscribed is 1920.
J.S. Helmcken likely had high status in the
community. He was son in law of the Governor of the Colony of Vancouver Island
and significantly involved in politics (Marshall, 2000). He was one of three
chosen to discuss terms of confederation in Ottawa. He was, most notably,
founding president of the British Columbia Medical Association, president of
the board of directors at Royal Hospital (now Royal Jubilee Hospital), and a Chief
Trader with the Hudson’s Bay Company (Marshall, 2000). It is likely that he had
a higher status in life than that the others included in this set of graves.
Charles Dodd
The Charles Dodd monument is a stone table
monument. The top stone slab, over two paces long, is supported at the two
ends, about waist high, with the space underneath being left open. The date of
death given is 1860.
While alive Charles Dodd was a reasonable
successful Employee of the Hudson’s Bay Company, achieving promotion to the
position of Chief Factor the day before he died (Smith, 2000). Though Dodd
Rock, Dodd Passage, and Dodd Narrows are named after him (Smith, 2000), he was
likely of somewhat lower status than John Work.
John Work
The John Work monument is of the same
description as that of Charles Dodd. The date of death is 1861.
In life, John
Work was a Chief Factor in the Hudson’s Bay Company (Sampson, 2000), though the
inscription on the monument only describes him as being of the lower position
of Chief Trader. He was a member of the Legislative Council of Vancouver Island
and at one point the largest landowner on the island (Sampson, 2000). His
status was likely higher than that of Dodd and lower than that of Helmcken.
David
Cameron
The David Cameron monument is of the same
proportions and shape as that of J.S. Helmcken. The main difference being in
that the majority of the monument is comprised of brick, only the inscribed top
being stone. The date of death is 1872.
In life, David Cameron was the first Chief
Justice of the Supreme Court of the Colony of Vancouver Island (Sampson, 2000).
He was very much involved in local politics and he had the support of several
prominent figures, including J.S. Helmcken and the Governor Douglas.
Financially, he was far less successful, declaring bankruptcy the year before he
died, losing part of his pension, much of his property, and all of his life
insurance policy (Sampson, 2000).
His monument appears to reflect his
position well. Being of the largest monuments, similar to that of one of his
political associates, it reflects his public standing, while the cheap
materials reflect his rather miserable financial situation. He likely had
higher status than that of John Work, lower than that of Helmcken, but lower
financial status than everyone else in the set.
James Murray
Yale
The James
Murray Yale monument is now only a portion of a stone slab protruding from the
ground. It is very much the smallest
monument in the set. The date of death is 1871.
In life, Yale
was a prominent employee of the Hudson’s Bay Company (Lamb, 2000). Though only
attaining the position of chief trader, he was an important actor in trade in
what is now the lower mainland and had Fort Yale named after him (Lamb, 2000).
He had little political presence and, as such, had likely little status in
Victoria, where he came for retirement.
Conclusion
Taking
historical information into account, the revised list of statuses, from highest
to lowest, is as follows: J.S. Helmcken, David Cameron, John Work, Charles
Dodd, and James Murray Yale. The Wallace monument, though visually pronounced,
was left out of considerations for the revised list of social statuses due to
the lack of available historical evidence to factor in. The historical evidence
indicates that the design of the monument, particularly the size, is more
indicative of the social status of the primary name upon the monument than the
materials from which it is made. The materials appear to be more indicative of
the financial status of the primary name than of social status. Further
research into the financial situations of those to whom the monuments are
dedicated would be necessary for any conclusions to be made in that regard.
During the
historical research, several accounts of church affiliations were mentioned. In
further studies, it would be interesting to research why those who had left
Christ Church had proximal monuments with regard to the Church.
References
Lamb, W.K., 2000. Yale, James Murray. [online] Available at: <http://www.biographi.ca/009004-119.01-e.php?&id_nbr=5330>[Accessed 15 Feb 2012].
Marshall, D.P.,
2000. Helmcken, John Sebastian. [online] Available at: <http://www.biographi.ca/009004-119.01-e.php?&id_nbr=7436
>[Accessed
15 Feb 2012].
Sampson, W.R., 2000.
Cameron, David. [online] Available at: <http://www.biographi.ca/EN/EN/009004-119.01-e.php?id_nbr=4873>[Accessed
15 Feb 2012].
Sampson, W.R., 2000.
Work, John. [online] Available at: <http://www.biographi.ca/009004-119.01-e.php?&id_nbr=4783>[Accessed
15 Feb 2012].
Smith, S.A., 2000. Dodd, Charles. [online] Available at: <http://www.biographi.ca/009004-119.01-e.php?&id_nbr=3874>[Accessed 15 Feb 2012].
Follow This
Link to view a map of the monuments.
Relevant Links:
Cameron
Cridge
Dodd
Helmcken
Work
Yale
Sunday, 12 February 2012
New Post! (or searching for the imaginary)
I didn't read any paper for this one. I tried, but I could not find anything even remotely like I had searched for. I tried tea out of a lucky tin mug, even out of mom cat mug (with a chip), but to no avail. I am forced to conclude that I do not have the necessary access or clever search terms needed to find records of the use of bones of the dead in medicine (excluding the boring sort that happens these days). The thought sparking this search occurred to me when reading about the Vatya burials. The comment about storage allowed for and interesting thought to bloom. I immediately pictured a sealed top being opened and the contents taken out for some use. At this point I drifted off into daydreamy speculation.
I started to invent a culture. This culture I invented saw a separation between life and a soul. The soul was (still is in this place in my head) one thing and life and body were together in another. (This was influenced by Winnie-ther-Pooh, where the name Pooh was taken from a swan when he left as they did not think he would want it anymore). When a person dies, their soul leaves but there is still some life left in the body. The life that was in the flesh has mostly gone, hence it's rotting away, but there is still some left in the bones. That they keep holding together for so long after death is evidence of it. The bodies are thus placed in accessible urns and the flesh is allowed to rot away. The urns are then sealed tight and kept for later use. Periodically, when one gets sick, the medicine practitioner goes to the urn of a relative, for compatibility's sake, and takes a portion of bone. The bone is then ground and used as a component in whatever preparation comes about.
Such a belief system seem pretty reasonable to me, as well as the use of bone in medicine probably being innocuous enough not be a deterrent, so I did some searching for it. First, I went through my head map of places where there is mummification, but nothing there hinted at use of the body as a material. "Post-mortem body use" (including postmortem and post mortem) brought up nothing of much interest, though it did teach me that there is a journal of objects. "Use of human bone in medicine" also brought up nothing outside of modern medicine. Nothing cultural or old. Taking another route, I set the search refinements to:
-Scholarly Journals
-Journal Articles
-Archaeology,
and entered "death medicine." 380 results isn't bad, but I narrowed it a bit further with include human remains and exclude medicine, legal. That brought it down to sixteen, but none of them were of particular use. The following caught my eye, so I gave it a quick read.
(The internet is failing me and the birds are of no help whatsoever. They can hardly see beyond their morning seed.)
They think the woman may have been sacrificed, with her tongue and throat removed, for the man and buried with him. Unfortunately, it is only a preliminary report and they conclude that they don't know anything yet, except that the hyoid bone in the offerings box might be the woman's. Rather disappointing.
Back to the relevant bit, after a good bit more research, I decided to give up on the topic for now. I like the idea of looking for something that would be interesting if it existed, for it allows for one's imagination be a resource for things to learn about in reality. Otherwise, one is limited to the narrow field of one's experiences and chance encounter. If all (one) of those that read this encounter anything that is related to the topic, Mongolian burial practices, or anything interesting, the sending word of which would be much appreciated on this side.
I started to invent a culture. This culture I invented saw a separation between life and a soul. The soul was (still is in this place in my head) one thing and life and body were together in another. (This was influenced by Winnie-ther-Pooh, where the name Pooh was taken from a swan when he left as they did not think he would want it anymore). When a person dies, their soul leaves but there is still some life left in the body. The life that was in the flesh has mostly gone, hence it's rotting away, but there is still some left in the bones. That they keep holding together for so long after death is evidence of it. The bodies are thus placed in accessible urns and the flesh is allowed to rot away. The urns are then sealed tight and kept for later use. Periodically, when one gets sick, the medicine practitioner goes to the urn of a relative, for compatibility's sake, and takes a portion of bone. The bone is then ground and used as a component in whatever preparation comes about.
Such a belief system seem pretty reasonable to me, as well as the use of bone in medicine probably being innocuous enough not be a deterrent, so I did some searching for it. First, I went through my head map of places where there is mummification, but nothing there hinted at use of the body as a material. "Post-mortem body use" (including postmortem and post mortem) brought up nothing of much interest, though it did teach me that there is a journal of objects. "Use of human bone in medicine" also brought up nothing outside of modern medicine. Nothing cultural or old. Taking another route, I set the search refinements to:
-Scholarly Journals
-Journal Articles
-Archaeology,
and entered "death medicine." 380 results isn't bad, but I narrowed it a bit further with include human remains and exclude medicine, legal. That brought it down to sixteen, but none of them were of particular use. The following caught my eye, so I gave it a quick read.
(The internet is failing me and the birds are of no help whatsoever. They can hardly see beyond their morning seed.)
They think the woman may have been sacrificed, with her tongue and throat removed, for the man and buried with him. Unfortunately, it is only a preliminary report and they conclude that they don't know anything yet, except that the hyoid bone in the offerings box might be the woman's. Rather disappointing.
Back to the relevant bit, after a good bit more research, I decided to give up on the topic for now. I like the idea of looking for something that would be interesting if it existed, for it allows for one's imagination be a resource for things to learn about in reality. Otherwise, one is limited to the narrow field of one's experiences and chance encounter. If all (one) of those that read this encounter anything that is related to the topic, Mongolian burial practices, or anything interesting, the sending word of which would be much appreciated on this side.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)