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.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)