One thing which I find almost sad is that there is always so much interest and speculation when people discover same sex bodies. When reading this article it almost sounded like its trying to sensationalize the discoveries. Although the people buried together may be the same sex it is quite possible that they are not the same gender. This is something which is very important for archaeologists to keep in mind, just because our culture has a binary gender system (which we may be slowly changing :)) it doesn’t mean that every culture does.
As well throughout the article it does not mention that the sexing of skeletons is not 100%. For there is always room for error.
Abrahamsen Valerie 1998. “Burials in Greek Macedonia: Possible Evidence for Same-Sex Committed Relationships in Early Christianity” Institute for Higher Critical Studies URL: http://depts.drew.edu/jhc/samesex.html Accessed on April 1, 2011.
Saturday, April 2, 2011
Friday, April 1, 2011
Animal Sacrifice
The sacrifice of animals for the deceased is a practice that is very common throughout the world. For if you died and were going to the afterlife would you not want to make sure that the animals you had in this world join you in the next? From the ancient Egyptians who sacrificed and mummified animals who were the sacred animals of their gods, or their beloved pets to the Celts and Norse who buried their horses with them. Animal sacrifice was seen as a necessity for these animals were needed in the afterlife just like they were in the present world.
As well the type of animal in the burial may also infer to us about the individual it is buried with. For in many societies to have a horse sacrificed and buried with you means that you and/or your family are wealthy and prestigious, as horses were considered to be high status animals. So animal sacrifices not made it so that you had animals with you in the after life but it also served the purpose for the family to show their importance and wealth.
Sometimes it may be hard in the archaeological record to distinguish between the natural death of an animal or the sacrificial death. One way that this may be done is by examining the throat area, for the slitting of the throat is a common way to kill the animal, though certainly the only way.
Although I personally would not want any of my animals to be sacrificed when I die, I recognize the importance of it in other cultures and periods. Even though PETA and the SPCA are against the use of animal sacrifice and are trying to ban it, one thing that is important to keep in mind is that many times (though not always) the animal is killed quite quickly and humanely.
The History Files 2011 http://www.historyfiles.co.uk/KingListsFarEast/AsiaIndoEuropeans.htm Accessed April 1, 2011.
As well the type of animal in the burial may also infer to us about the individual it is buried with. For in many societies to have a horse sacrificed and buried with you means that you and/or your family are wealthy and prestigious, as horses were considered to be high status animals. So animal sacrifices not made it so that you had animals with you in the after life but it also served the purpose for the family to show their importance and wealth.
 |
| Horse sacrifice in Turkmenistan |
Although I personally would not want any of my animals to be sacrificed when I die, I recognize the importance of it in other cultures and periods. Even though PETA and the SPCA are against the use of animal sacrifice and are trying to ban it, one thing that is important to keep in mind is that many times (though not always) the animal is killed quite quickly and humanely.
The History Files 2011 http://www.historyfiles.co.uk/KingListsFarEast/AsiaIndoEuropeans.htm Accessed April 1, 2011.
Memories & Heirlooms
I find it interesting that archaeologists have only recently begun to look at memory. Considering it is the study of what is left behind by the living for the dead, you would have thought that studying how people remember or forget the dead would have been an integral part of archaeology. I think that archaeologists have been studying memory, they just weren’t aware of it. For is that not what Egyptian monuments are? Or the large burial mounds and cairns? Are they not ways for the living to remember and commemorate the dead? These have always been studied in archaeology, it has only been recently that they have begun to recognize it.
There are numerous ways for the living to commemorate the dead which show up in the archaeological record. These include monuments, gravestone, tombs, churches and many others which are not mentioned here. Another way for the living to remember the dead is through heirlooms. These sometimes can be found in the archaeological record when grave goods are found to be a lot older than the grave and person. Although it is possible that there are other reasons for this, heirlooms may be one of the reasons that this occurs.
I think that the quote below is an interesting argument for the creation and continuation of heirlooms.
“Our ancient ancestors may have discovered that, in defending territorial claims or legitimating unequal rights to land or other critical resources, heirlooms, as tangible links to their ancestors, were their most powerful weapons of all” (Katina 1999).
Although this may be part of why the use of heirlooms started, another important aspect is that they help those left to remember the deceased and a part of their lineage. Although harder to tell through the archaeological record what is an heirloom or what isn’t it is important to try and recognize them.
Lillios Katina T. 1999. “Objects of Memory: The Ethnography and Archaeology of Heirlooms” Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory Vol. 6:3 pp. 235-262.
There are numerous ways for the living to commemorate the dead which show up in the archaeological record. These include monuments, gravestone, tombs, churches and many others which are not mentioned here. Another way for the living to remember the dead is through heirlooms. These sometimes can be found in the archaeological record when grave goods are found to be a lot older than the grave and person. Although it is possible that there are other reasons for this, heirlooms may be one of the reasons that this occurs.
I think that the quote below is an interesting argument for the creation and continuation of heirlooms.
“Our ancient ancestors may have discovered that, in defending territorial claims or legitimating unequal rights to land or other critical resources, heirlooms, as tangible links to their ancestors, were their most powerful weapons of all” (Katina 1999).
Although this may be part of why the use of heirlooms started, another important aspect is that they help those left to remember the deceased and a part of their lineage. Although harder to tell through the archaeological record what is an heirloom or what isn’t it is important to try and recognize them.
Lillios Katina T. 1999. “Objects of Memory: The Ethnography and Archaeology of Heirlooms” Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory Vol. 6:3 pp. 235-262.
Arthurian Archaeology
The legends of King Arthur and his knights of the round table at the Court of Camelot have been around for more than 1,000 years. Even during the time of Eleanor of Aquitaine the stories o King Arthur were well known, and they were in part responsible for the Court of Love which was at her castle at Poitier. Having always been fascinated by the stories of King Arthur and his knights got me wondering if there were any archaeological sites in England which are about Camelot and Arthur.
Surprisingly there is considerable information about archaeological research of King Arthur and Camelot. What I found was that most of the work appeared to have happened in the 1960s and 70s.
Tintagel Castle
Considering the writings of Monmouth from the 12th Century, Tintagel Castle in Cornwall was the place where Arthur was believed to be conceived and archaeological excavation began there in the 1930s for over 30 years. From the site shards of pottery from the period of 450-700 BCE (believed to be the time of Arthur) were found and at first thought to be a Celtic monastery but under more recent investigation was thought to be a settlement, for the pottery shards are not local and so it is linked to the higher class who could afford to have it imported. Unfortunately the graves which were found here empty. It is possible that this place may have once been a fortress for the nobles of the time preferred to have their fortresses on hilltops. So it is possible that this was a royal settlement, and maybe that of Uther.
There is another important site for the archaeological search for proof of King Arthur is in Cadbury. As the South hill has been strongly associated with the Arthurian legends. There archaeological excavation began in 1965. There was found another fortress found which would have been occupied during the time of the Arthurian Legends.
However I am with the writer of the paper on my interpretation. Just because archaeologists have found settlements in the same area and at the right period does not mean the legend is true. Instead I think that maybe part of the legend is true, it is possible that within the walls of Tintagel Castle and in the South hill of Cadbury there was a man who was a great warrior. However today the legend of Arthur and his knights of the Round Table is nothing more than a fantasy with little being accurate of who the original person was.
From researching for this it made me seriously reconsider what aspects of history we take as "true" even if there is no evidence to prove it. As well it also showed me how over 1,000 years the story of one, or possibly several individuals could be so dramatically changed. This certainty has helped me to realize that although legends have a beginning from truth, what is true may not always be the part we want to be true. For I am sure that everyone want the Knights of the Round Table to be true, but do not want the tale of Lancelot and Guinevere to be.
Biehl Michelle L. 1991. A Short History of Arthurian Archaeology, “Archaeology of Europe”URL: http://www.jammed.com/~mlb/arthur.html.
Surprisingly there is considerable information about archaeological research of King Arthur and Camelot. What I found was that most of the work appeared to have happened in the 1960s and 70s.
Tintagel Castle
Considering the writings of Monmouth from the 12th Century, Tintagel Castle in Cornwall was the place where Arthur was believed to be conceived and archaeological excavation began there in the 1930s for over 30 years. From the site shards of pottery from the period of 450-700 BCE (believed to be the time of Arthur) were found and at first thought to be a Celtic monastery but under more recent investigation was thought to be a settlement, for the pottery shards are not local and so it is linked to the higher class who could afford to have it imported. Unfortunately the graves which were found here empty. It is possible that this place may have once been a fortress for the nobles of the time preferred to have their fortresses on hilltops. So it is possible that this was a royal settlement, and maybe that of Uther.
There is another important site for the archaeological search for proof of King Arthur is in Cadbury. As the South hill has been strongly associated with the Arthurian legends. There archaeological excavation began in 1965. There was found another fortress found which would have been occupied during the time of the Arthurian Legends.
However I am with the writer of the paper on my interpretation. Just because archaeologists have found settlements in the same area and at the right period does not mean the legend is true. Instead I think that maybe part of the legend is true, it is possible that within the walls of Tintagel Castle and in the South hill of Cadbury there was a man who was a great warrior. However today the legend of Arthur and his knights of the Round Table is nothing more than a fantasy with little being accurate of who the original person was.
From researching for this it made me seriously reconsider what aspects of history we take as "true" even if there is no evidence to prove it. As well it also showed me how over 1,000 years the story of one, or possibly several individuals could be so dramatically changed. This certainty has helped me to realize that although legends have a beginning from truth, what is true may not always be the part we want to be true. For I am sure that everyone want the Knights of the Round Table to be true, but do not want the tale of Lancelot and Guinevere to be.
Biehl Michelle L. 1991. A Short History of Arthurian Archaeology, “Archaeology of Europe”URL: http://www.jammed.com/~mlb/arthur.html.
Aotearoa Archaeology
When talking about ethics last week Erin showed us a picture of the Maori warrior head and that got me thinking that I would like to do an entry about Maori culture. I have always loved New Zealand since I was there 6 years ago (time sure does fly!).
Wairau Bar is thought to be the oldest settlement in New Zealand. As well it is believed that within one or two generations of landing this area was settled. This site was discovered in 1939. During the original excavation 44 skeletons were found and examined. There were originally 3 different groups discovered at the site. Before they were reburied in 2009 they were reexamined using modern testing and it was found that the skeletons exhibited a wide variety of ages. However only one child skeleton was found.
One thing which was interesting was that only 21 of the skeletons had teeth. And those which had teeth also had stress in their childhood, yet they overcame the disease and lived quite healthy lives as adults. It was also found in the examination of the bodies that there was a difference in the health of the individuals between the 3 groups and among the sexes.
Unfortunately I was only able to gain access to the abstract of the paper, as it appears that the author has taken it off of the internet. Which means that I am only able to look at 2 of the groups which are mentioned briefly in the abstract.
It was found that Group 3 had the most skeletons of older females than the others. As well it was found that between the different groups there was contrast in health. For group 1 was found to have a higher rate of periodontal disease as well as a less extreme wear pattern. As a side note I should mention that periodontal diseases are those which affect the tissues that support and surround teeth.
I really wish that I could have accessed more information about this site, but even what I found was difficult to find. As well it appears that it is very hard to do archaeological work in New Zealand as the Maori people need to give consent and there does not appear to be many sites around New Zealand where work is taking place.
Buckley, H. R, Tayles, Nancy,. Halcrow, Siân E., Robb, Kasey., Fyfe Roger 2009. “The People of Wairau Bar: a Re-examination” Journal of Pacific Archaeology Vol 1:1.
 |
| Wairau Bar |
One thing which was interesting was that only 21 of the skeletons had teeth. And those which had teeth also had stress in their childhood, yet they overcame the disease and lived quite healthy lives as adults. It was also found in the examination of the bodies that there was a difference in the health of the individuals between the 3 groups and among the sexes.
Unfortunately I was only able to gain access to the abstract of the paper, as it appears that the author has taken it off of the internet. Which means that I am only able to look at 2 of the groups which are mentioned briefly in the abstract.
It was found that Group 3 had the most skeletons of older females than the others. As well it was found that between the different groups there was contrast in health. For group 1 was found to have a higher rate of periodontal disease as well as a less extreme wear pattern. As a side note I should mention that periodontal diseases are those which affect the tissues that support and surround teeth.
I really wish that I could have accessed more information about this site, but even what I found was difficult to find. As well it appears that it is very hard to do archaeological work in New Zealand as the Maori people need to give consent and there does not appear to be many sites around New Zealand where work is taking place.
Buckley, H. R, Tayles, Nancy,. Halcrow, Siân E., Robb, Kasey., Fyfe Roger 2009. “The People of Wairau Bar: a Re-examination” Journal of Pacific Archaeology Vol 1:1.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)