Non Obliviscaris Mortuus...

Hello for the last time, my fellow 397 classmates!

For my final blog post, I wanted to get a little personal, and ending the semester's class (and this blog) with memory is the perfect route to go. I recently read Wilson's "Community, Identity, and Social Memory at Moundville" (2010), and what really caught my attention were the descriptions of Inscribed memory and Incorporated memory:

Inscribed Memory: explicit acts of memory depiction and 

transmission (ie. monuments, cemeteries, museums, etc.)

Incorporated Memory: embodied in and transmitted through routinized 

bodily practices (ie. watching and mimicking actions/mannerisms)

Wilson goes on to explain how a society's alteration of a landscape or place can act as inscribed memory as monuments and places of memoriam are constructed. These places of memory can aid in forming communities and developing personal identities, crucial to resource allocation in certain societies, as well as linking the community to its past as a whole. 

I tried to think of what forms the ideas of Inscribed memory and Incorporated memory take in my own life, and how I consciously and subconsciously continue those memories and traditions, possibly for my descendants too. But first for the backstory... A lot of my personal interest in this class comes from my having to deal with a great deal of death (I suppose for a western-world white girl) at a young age. In the year 2003, my grandmother, father, and eleven other family friends and friends of friends passed away (all unrelated). I was still a young girl, and so of course this was all very confusing to me. I attended only one funeral, my father's, as my grandmother's was in Germany, and I couldn't take MORE time off to mourn and travel. The death of a family member is always difficult (that is a severe understatement), but growth can comes from all wounds as they heal, and memories can bring you smiles once more. 

My father's wake was held on the shuswap lake at sundown, on the top of a forested mountain plateau, covered in sunflowers. We danced, sang, and shared stories, as his friend's band played all night. The next day, at sundown, we walked down to his favourite fishing spot and spread his ashes with rose petals down a river embellished with forget-me-nots. These are the memories that I carry and represent both Inscribed and Incorporated memories: every spring, I buy forget-me-not seeds and attempt to grow my very own patch in honor of my father (and I do mean 'attempt'.. I am not a very good gardener), and  his photograph on my wall both represent my own personal Inscribed memories; tangible forms of memorial I can pass down and which link me to my father. As for Incorporated memories, these are the little sayings and sassy quips of his that I have carried on, and hope to pass on to my future children too.

As archaeologists, or future archaeologists, it is important to remain objective while we interpret and theorize what we find. However, there is equal importance in remaining human, and allowing ourselves to truly understand what is left behind, and why, both those who chose to remember, or be remembered.

Thank you for reading my blog this semester! Happy schooling! 

(Both images from flickr.com)

Sensitive Subjects...

Upon reading some of my fellow student's blog entries, I realized a strong trend in the mention of cannibalism. Last semester, I wrote a paper for Research and Methodology which analyzed two papers with differing opinions regarding the same archaeological evidence from an archaeological site in the American South West. The Puebloan site in question was named 5MT10010, and is located in southwestern Colorado. The opposing views were presented by Dongoske, et al. (2000), with the opinion of NO cannibalism, and Billman, et al. (2000), with the opinion of YES for cannibalism having occurred at the site. As this was an emotionally heavy issue that had the potential for affecting the descendants of those buried in the archaeological sites, the interpretation of the bones had to be sensitive and well argued. For the purposes of this blog post, I will summarize the opposing opinions and some of the archaeological evidence, and then provide my opinion on the issue and its place within the archaeological of death. 

Billman, et al. (2000) focussed on archaeological data to support their opinion of cannibalism having occurred in at least one instance at site 5MT10010. For this team of researchers, too many anomalies were present in the osteological data to ignore. The evidence included: burnt and boiled human remains (patterned burning), human blood residue on tools, human bones which had been disarticulated and processed, and a human coprolite which tested positive for human myoglobin (evidence of ingesting human protein). The seven individuals remains found at the site all showed signs of perimortem breakage and processing, typical of butchering practices. Furthermore, many bones showed signs of burning or boiling, typical of being cooked for consumption. The authors argued that this "patterned burning" is not apparent in bush fires, but rather in slowly cooked remains. Finally, the human coprolite discovered at the site was tested for human myoglobin which can be found in muscle tissue. This molecule is only present in a coprolite upon ingesting muscle tissue. Though it paints a rather horrific picture, it seems evident that cannibalism took place at the Puebloan site of 5MT10010. 

Dogoske, et al. (2000) take an interesting approach to this issue. Whereas Billman, et al. (2000) place their findings in logic, Dongoske (2000) uses wild "what-if" scenarios to argue that, due to a lack of the knowledge of the site's taphonomy, WHO KNOWS what happened! I hope it is evident by my diction and capitalization that I do not agree with this tactic, or Dongoske et al.'s views at all. The main points of argument used include: lack of taphonomic history, lack of comparison for bone breakage, lack of cultural knowledge, and lack of secondary tests on the human coprolite. All in all, the paper was rather useless and incredibly personally written for an academic paper. 

The seven individuals recovered from 5MT10010 showed signs of being processed, disarticulated, broken for marrow, boiled and burned, and then haphazardly thrown onto the floor of a residential site with the tools used to dismember them. The authors for both sides of the arguments provided theories as to why this would occur in the first place. Billman et al. (2000) suggested that a combination of starvation due to drought, sociopolitical upheaval, and terrorizing neighbouring communities with violence all lead to this occurrence of cannibalism; due either to starvation, terrorizing your enemies, or both. Billman, et al. (2000) argue that these are the most likely reasons not only because of the evidence of cannibalism, but also because of the lack of care of the burial of the bones and associated tools. Dongoske et al. (2000) offered an interesting counter-point regarding the burial of these remains: they proposed that it could be just as likely that the funerary practices of the Puebloan people in that area consisted of processing the remains, and then having a secondary burial. It raises many questions within the archaeological context of this site... 

How are we to truly know what happened at an archaeological site? Cannibalism is such a taboo subject that quite often, the option is left in the dust, simply to avoid controversy. Though it is important to respect that descendants of the prehistoric Puebloan people, the archaeological truth of that time and place is just as knowledgable to Puebloan descendants today. Knowledge of a site's taphonomy can provide vital information regarding a culture's practices in their funerary rites. How would the burial sites of a culture that DID dismember, process and secondarily bury their dead look different in an archaeological context than one which came of violence and cannibalism? Is there a difference aside from reason and intention? Though I cannot answer these questions, I like to think that because I was forced to read these papers, I will have an open mind to different possibilities and not be so quick to assume a past culture's rites while I'm digging. 

Billman, Lambert & Leonard. (2000). Cannibalism, Warfare, and Drought in the Mesa Verde Region during the Twelfth Century AD. American Antiquity: 179-187.

Dongoske, Matin & Ferguson. (2000). Critique of the Claim of Cannibalism at Cowboy Walsh. American Antiquity: 145-146.

(First photo: site of 5MT10010)

(Second photo: Puebloan ruins in Southwestern Colorado)

DONT OPEN- DEAD INSIDE

Good evening, 397!

As a long time reader of the Walking Dead graphic novels, I knew I'd need to write about them eventually. For personal context... When I met my partner, I also accepted the fact that I would have to face my fear of zombies. I started out slow by watching Day of the Dead and 28 Days Later, which contrary to intuition, were easier to watch due to their dedication to gore. I started reading comics a couple of years later, and over the last few years, I've kept up with the Walking Dead graphic novels. 

Why did I get hooked? Why does everyone get hooked? I believe it is the intense personal connections built by the authors between the reader and the characters. Sure, the novels (and now TV show) are chalk full of brutal gore scenes, but the point of the story is to understand and witness the disintegrating social factor. How would we survive in a zombie apocalypse? And if we did survive.. Would our hearts and souls? Our mental states? Would some of us revel in the idea of our loved ones walking once more? Would any of our culture survive?

In the image to the right, Jim, a short-lived character in the graphic novels, is bitten, and as his health deteriorates, asks to be left to die on his own. He wonders if he will be reunited with his family, who also walk the streets as the undead.

What does this perspective regarding death do to society as we live? I can't help but wonder if it is simply another grasp at cheating death; simply another way to carry on, regardless of the state. Is this the modern-day variation of having a tormented means of carrying on? Is it any different from the Egyptian's belief of reawakening? It is interesting to consider the effects that such cultural crazes have on the interpretations of archaeological sites.

Something I found very interesting in The Walking Dead graphic novels was the fact that the surviving groups still chose to bury their dead, given the dire situation all of humanity found themselves in. Despite the necessity of either decapitation or brain puncturing to ensure the loved one would remain dead, many deceased group members still received a proper, albeit improvised, burial. I specifically wanted to talk about this point, because I remembered a class discussion regarding the phenomenon of burial tradition changes linked with mass death and tragedy.

What would these post-apocolyptic, zombie-land burials look like, years down the road, in an archaeological context? Here are some characteristics I believe would be similar between most burials of that time:

- Decapitation or severe wound to the brain

- Skeletal evidence of severe stress (malnutrition,     improperly healed breaks and fractures)

- Irregularly shaped graves (great variation in depth/shape)

- Most likely not located in distinguished "cemeteries"

- Lack of similarity between graves in orientation

- Possibility of simple grave goods such as personal items (jewelry, memorabilia, etc.) 

It is interesting to try to view such a scene from the future, and attempt to explain these peculiar occurrences. For example, some cemeteries belonging to the Kitoi people in the Cis-Baikal region of Siberia have revealed a high rate of intentionally decapitated remains, with the majority of the heads unaccounted for. I realize this is a huge stretch, but is it a possibility that the Kitoi people believed it  necessary to remove the head after death to avoid "reanimation"? Would this be a logical inference for archaeologists to make, were they to find the makeshift cemeteries of the survivors of The Walking Dead?

.......Let's hope we never find out.

Cultural phenomenon like The Walking Dead series provide contemporary society with a means to deal with issues surrounding death. Perhaps it is the fact that most of us (at least those of us reading this), here sitting cozily in the developed western world, are out of touch with true tragedy, horror, and loss, so we create it in a manageable context to allow ourselves to feel these issues, or even to judge our reactions. In class, we spoke of how the living bury the dead, and often it is their interpretation of that person's life that is reflected in the burial. This concept of planning "what I would want" in the event of death is ever-present in The Walking Dead, especially regarding the haunting spectre of inevitable reanimation. All of these themes common to the gravesite archaeologist are now presented in The Walking Dead. What is the purpose? Surely, it isn't just about the gore and the drama. The real strength of the graphic novels comes from the personal connection you build with each person struggling page after page, bearing their heart and everything they are to the reader. They are made human, and in that creation, so is their fear of death made real, and so are their attempts at holding onto a shred of human culture in the form of proper burial. As seen in today's post-disaster cultures, honouring the dead in a way that is the closest to "normal" (achievable for that time), may be what holds a struggling people together in the wake of tragedy.

So what can we learn from The Walking Dead phenomenon and its glimmer into the human condition? We will always carry on, and find a way to continue to do what makes us, us, regardless of the situation and resulting hardship.

Kinship....

JUST KIDDING!

Hello, fellow archaeology students...

I have a wonderful article that I had remembered incorrectly and had convinced myself that it had to do with kinship, but alas, it does not. Regardless, I will present and discuss this most wonderful Upper Paleolithic burial and why it is oh-so wonderful. Can it relate to kinship? I'm sure I could find a way to swing that, though it may be a bit of a stretch. Either way, I hope you enjoy this discussion regarding:

The Double Child Burial from Sunghir (Russia): 

Pathology and Inferences for Upper 

Paleolithic Funerary Practices

(Formicola & Buzhilova, 2004, p.189-198)

This particular burial is absolutely stunning and one of my personal favourites. Located in Sunghir, Russia, the Sunghir site resides in open tundra-like conditions with multiple burials, though there is one of particular interest: the burial of two children, lying head to head, covered in thousands of beads, and buried with many important and peculiar grave goods. Sunghir dates to the Upper Paleolithic, approximately 24,000 BP.

(Burial of Sunghir 2&3, head to head)

The two children a part of this simultaneous inhumation will be henceforth referred to as Sunghir 2, a boy near the age of 12-13 and Sunghir 3, a girl near the age of 9-10 (according to dentition). The peculiarities surrounding this burial are many, beginning with the simple fact that this lavish burial contains children (not common during the Upper Paleolithic), the way the children were laid in the burial, and the extreme amount of grave goods for that time. A peculiarity which further mystified archaeologists is the pathology present in the long bones of Sunghir 3, which displayed Congenital Bowing of the Long Bones or (CBLB), a condition which shortens and significantly bows the long bones of an individual. This pathology has been linked to diabetes of the mother in contemporary times.

(Artists rendition of the burial of Sunghir 2&3. Note the long mammoth spears and thousands of beads)

One of the most spectacular aspects of the Sunghir burials is the sheer amount of beads which were most likely sewn to the clothing the children were buried in. Thousands of beads made of ivory and fox canines littered the children. The burial also contained "long spears of straightened mammoth tusks (one of which is 240 cm long), ivory daggers... pierced antler rods, bracelets, ivory animal carvings, ivory pins, and disc-shaped pendants" (Formicola & Buzhilova, 2004, p.189). 

Sunghir is differs in many ways from other Upper Paleolithic burials in that, a) this lavish burial was for children, b) the mass amounts of grave goods (especially beads which would have taken many hours to make), c) the positioning of the children (as most double burials were side-by-side), and d) the congenital condition suffered by Sunghir 3. Formicola and Buzhilova discuss the importance of the congenital deformity in the long bones of Sunghir 3 in the preparation of such an elaborate burial. It is suggested by the authors that "those associations reassert the possibility of ideological connections between “abnormality” and extraordinary funerary patterns" (Formicola & Buzhilova, 2004, p.189). 

My opinion? I find the authors conclusions very possible, but also wonder if the children could have represented some form of sacrifice, given the high level of importance signified by such an elaborate burial. Cause of death is not discussed in the paper, though disease or an "accident" was given as a possible reason why the children died at the same time (Formicola & Buzhilova, 2004, p.189). I suppose ritual sacrifice would have to be further explored in burial practices for that time and area. It is also possible that such an elaborate burial could signify KINSHIP (I did it) of sorts, possibly linking these children to high ranking individuals within their society. I find this also very plausible, especially when one considers that burial goods such as spears were not necessarily yet useful to children of such young ages, therefore could have been the possession of a high ranking father or family member. 

(Artists rendition of an Upper Paleolithic household at Sunghir, making beads and decorating clothing)

Thank you for reading my blog! I hope you enjoyed the treasure that is Sunghir. 

Primary paper used:

Formicola, V., & Buzhilova, A.P. (2004). The Double Child Burial from Sunghir (Russia):                 Pathology and Inferences for Upper Paleolithic Funerary Practices. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 124, 189-198.

@Real_GayCaveman

Hello again fellow archaeologists!

Today in class Erin asked us to check out the social media frenzy surrounding "The Gay Caveman", and immediately, I WAS SOLD. Not only is this a prime example of the constant shenanigans that the majority of society and social media are pulling (and stalling the expansion of knowledge, I might add), but who hasn't had to answer to these kinds of biases while attempting to explain their major? Come on. I know you have. I HAVE. This blog post is going to be much more of a rant than an informational entry, but it is an issue within archaeology nonetheless, and needs to be addressed. Also, I have to admit that I giggled while reading these. I hope you do too.

While searching for popular information regarding "The Gay Caveman" I came across this gem and simply could not resist. It is an entire twitter account dedicated to the gay caveman and his prehistoric cave-man life problems. 

Shall we?

"I'm the world's first gay man and I knows I look good."

@Real_GayCaveman: "I was at a party last night and this one *jerk* 

wouldn't stop with all this "I invented the wheel" bull***"

@Real_GayCaveman: "Cavemen are portrayed as wearing shaggy animal hides, 

armed with rocks or cattle bone clubs and unintelligent-Screw you Wikipedia"

@Real_GayCaveman: "I have to go to a gay wedding in NYC, and 

I can't find shoes that will match my leopard skin singlet."

@Real_GayCaveman: "The wheel is probably the most important

 mechanical invention of all time...And the feather boa."

Pretty hilarious, I have to admit, but what are the implications of this kind of media attention and false betrayal of Holocene peoples for archaeology? This discipline requires a great deal of respect and understanding- of open mindedness and careful deliberation. We tend to turn the bones we dig up into artifacts and nothing more, but regardless of grave goods, orientation and amount of time since burial, these were people, with beliefs and customs of their own, who deserve a level of respect that this particular individual has been robbed of. "Gay Caveman" is so far from accurate, scientific or respectful that it should hardly be considered an appropriate or worthy title for the skeleton unearthed. Science tests out ability to remain objective and unbiased, a challenge which, obviously according to the aforementioned twitter account, most fail. The case of the "Gay Caveman" fiasco is cautionary for us all to be weary of what interpretations we make. 

Ritualistic prehistERIA!

Taking up the latest blog prompt, I came across Krystal's post regarding the possibility of early ritualistic practices at the site of Sima de Los Huesos in Spain, boasting H. heidelbergensis skeletal remains associated with various carnivore remains, all set in illustrious cave settings. Krystal mentioned the ritualistic potential of the site, discussed by the authors of the paper, a common theory for unusual sites set during the Paleolithic. I recently began reading the book "The Woman in the Shaman's Body" written by Barbara Tedlock, PhD. Tedlock begins the book by introducing the reader to the site Dolni Vestonice, located in Spain, and the beautiful and auspicious artifacts discovered there.

A photograph of the excavation of the burial of a female shaman underneath

 mammoth scapulae at Dolni Vestonice. 

Excavated within Dolni Vestonice was a burial of particular significance: the burial of a 40-year old woman clasping arctic fox remains, placed beneath two mammoth scapulae which leaned against each other to form a shelter. To many, this burial signifies an individual of great importance and high status within the community, especially when one considers the presence of fox remains which are often associated with ritual significance. Tedlock's interpretation of the woman's burial is that the way in which she was buried, as well as the significance of the fox remains clasped in her hands, indicates that her position within the community was shamanic. 

Artist's rendition of the burial of the female shaman clasping arctic fox skeletal remains.

What allows the archaeologist, or the author, to make these claims? In class, we spoke of indicators of high status such as burial goods, body placement and treatment, but can the presence of fox remains placed within the burial truly be an indicator across time and space of shamanic influence?  Tedlock's book discusses the tendency for society (that includes archaeologists) to assume that indivuduals of high  status or shamanic standing within the community are all male, but argues that status markers within burials disprove this assumption, were we to look more closely at the morphological sex of the skeletal remains. The importance of attempting to keep open minds in archaeological interpretation cannot be stressed enough, as we have all seen the consequences of narrowing our vision. How much could we really discover regarding the ritual or ceremonial practices of these people? How much should we?

Personally, I have no doubt in mind that this woman held an important, possibly spiritual, position within her community. The effort and intention put into her burial displays this. I suppose my questions are "What can we truly know regarding ritual or ceremonial practices within a paleolithic community? Are there truly universal indicators of shamanism or ritual? Are many of these individuals women but assumed to be men and is this relevant to further understanding social structure within these communities?"

I intend to research this further! I hope you enjoyed this little intro to Dolni Vestonice and the topic :)

An artist's rendition of what the Paleolithic village of Dolni Vestonice 

would have looked and functioned like. 

Graveyard.... Adventure?

Hello all... It's been awhile since I've posted, but now it's time to do some reflecting on the monument analysis trip and work so far. First off, I'd like to say that I am infinitely grateful for being a part of a kind, competent and entertaining group; it made our cold visit to the graveyard a little more bearable :)

For our monument analysis, our group chose St. Luke's graveyard; a small and old graveyard which now only has room for cremation burials. Upon reaching the graveyard, we immediately questioned the protocol. "What do we do? Should we ask to be here and especially do we ask to take photos? What if we get in trouble?" We decided to go ahead and deal with challenges as they arose. We began by wandering through the rows to get a general idea of the landscape and feel of the area. Immediately we noticed date ranges, grave types, and associated patterns. From these observations, we decided to look specifically at grave markers which were unfinished. This means that the markers generally had room left for a spouse or other family member who hadn't died yet, and thus hadn't been inscribed onto the marker (or their death date hadn't). Though I did my best to focus on the task at hand, there was an uncomfortable feeling looming over the entire experience. Personally, I have no religious beliefs which effect my presence there, but my concern came from those who do. What if someone came and found what we were doing disrespectful? I kept thinking to myself, "Thank god it isn't sunday" (Which, given my previous statement is purely an expression).

While filling out our monument sheets, I frequently made faces as if I was Indiana Jones surrounded by snakes and unable to discern where to step. Like this:

and questioned... "What is the protocol here?". I found myself unsure of where to step, what to touch, where to kneel, and what to think. There was an uninvited internal struggle which demanded attention and thought towards answering these questions and contemplating my personal judgements and preconceptions upon entering the graveyard. This struggle came to its peak when a couple arrived to place flowers at a relatively recent cremation grave (late 2012) in the yard. Though we weren't near that side at the time, it put the monument analysis sheet in my hand into perspective, and honestly, I found it hard to continue.

A few noteworthy moments from the experience:

-Pete found the "first white baby to be born in Victoria"'s grave

-I drew a great cat (from a monument)

-Bonding time with the group over where to step

-An older man wandering the graveyard asked us what we were doing and upon answering he told us he too was being scholarly and looking for interesting things growing amongst the graves

-I literally found a bone (I think it may have been deer)

All in all, visiting St. Luke's for the monument analysis was an interesting experience to say the least. Although the focus was meant to be towards the monuments themselves, I think I learned more about myself and my own issues towards death in this society, and how better to deal with the discomfort and awkwardness of lurking in a cemetery. Turns out the key to surviving any situation is humour.

What would YOU want? (And a lesson from Royal Tenenbaum)

Hello again, fellow archaeology students. This weeks blog prompt really got me thinking (as I suppose it is meant to) and immediately reminded me of all of the times we, as kids, would ask each other what we would want if, or rather when, we died. I realize this sounds pretty morbid for kids to discuss, but having known many people who had passed on, death was something I pondered as a kid and much more as a teenager. At one point, I even wrote a will. Just in case. Needless to say, it is horribly out-dated and didn't need to be used.

To attempt to answer the first point, I will have to try to explain my personal opinion regarding burial and funerary practices. Of all of the loved ones I have known to pass, I have only attended one funeral, and though there was grieving and mourning, it was a party! We danced, there was a trampoline, plenty of drink (naturally), and everyone was able to bring themselves to share laughs and happier memories. This all happened because "it was what he would have wanted". And ever since that experience, I have wondered that same thing, and made it quite clear what I would want. This is probably the most personal blog entry I have ever written, but at least now the internet knows what to do with me when I go. C'est la vie!

To make this more interesting, and to answer question two, I have decided to test my partner's and my sister's knowledge of me and ask them what they think I would want and would properly represent me. Here's the comparison...

Arielle's Funeral and Related Grave Goods: According to My Sister

"I would include the pendants and rings you wear every day and put them in a leather pouch you keep crystals in. Feathers. Crystals. An acorn branch with oak leaves, a gingko leaf, and a lock of my hair to give you a part of me"

(I have tattoos for the aforementioned leaves. Pretty thoughtful sister, huh? *tear*)

Arielle's Funeral and Related Grave Goods: According to Danny

"I would bury you with your crystals and something of me to take with you, but really I know you wouldn't want to buried. I'd cremate you in the woods."

Arielle's Funeral and Related Grave Goods: According to Arielle

As I am guessing it is illegal to simply be buried in a hole in the woods without a casket, I would want to be cremated and spread in the forest or in a stream. I suppose to include grave goods, I would be buried in the forest at the base of a large tree, with trinkets buried with me. To be honest, I didn't expect this to get quite so personal, but here we go:

My grave goods would contain assorted crystals and gems from my collection. There are certain stones I would want passed on, and others could return to the earth with me. Apart from these stones, the only material items I possess that really identify me as me would be my jewelry; a long chain with 5 silver pendants which I have worn nearly every day for 6 years, but a part me would want those passed on too. The only other things I would want with me would be a bushel of forget-me-nots, though I don't think those would preserve very well. Sorry, archaeologists, I'm not giving you much to work with, but then again, I'm sure some people don't want to be found once they've moved on.

I feel like, at least for those places and cultures that are experiencing disintegration of traditional values and religious customs, the number of traditional burials containing those few trinkets locked away in caskets will decline. Or is it in our nature to want to be remembered? Somehow solidified in that moment in time, with pieces left of you to prove you were there and what you did was real. Whatever the case for the future, it seems more of me will be left by others than what I'd leave for myself. So, to end this very long blog post, I turn to Royal Tenenbaum, to remind us that what we find isn't always true, but maybe it's what they wanted :)

Sacred Stones and Incredibly Cranky Blogs

Where to begin with the comparison of these two texts... Maybe I'll grade them.

A+ to Ramilisonina for answering the interviewers questions with some poise while remaining engaging. As an archaeologist, Ramilisonina presents his findings clearly and cohesively, but does stray a bit into inference from the get-go. As a student of archaeology, I've been forewarned time and time again of just how much of this discipline is interpretation. While I can follow Ramilisonina's train of thought in linking stone megaliths in Madagascar to "Bluestonehenge, and would love for that story to be true (it's more fun to weave a story), I believe a bit more caution could be used in interpreting this site. For instance, what else was found at "Bluestonehenge" to lead to this interpretation? Was it simply the stones themselves? Personally, I want to know more about the primary findings at this site, though I hope this response was much more pleasant (and polite) than the blog response below:

C- to Luciano, whose blog response was basically what I said above, only an order of magnitude less polite. Let's start here: "Clearly it is incredibly difficult to transpose or import a belief system from Madagascar into a UK-based neolithic community, but this appears to be what Mike Parker Pearson has done, in conjunction with Ramilisonina." Though in the past year of my studies I have been shown the ugly face of academia, also known as academic papers, I personally believe that much of the emotion found in this particular text is unnecessary. To further my point, here's another reminder of a little gem: "...has invented the Stonehenge "domain of the dead" as an explanation for what he as found (or imagined)..." WHAT. Though part of me agrees with Luciano from an archaeological point of view, his means of expressing it take away from his point. 'Nuff said.

I realize I probably should have been focussing more so on the archaeological evidence shown by these two texts, but THIS is how academic arguments SHOULD be...

Introductions!

Hello fellow archaeologists! Welcome to my blog. Though I'm sure many people were dreading this portion of the class, I hoo-rah-ed at the opportunity to get a little creative and share my thoughts and experiences within the world of archaeology with the rest of you!

Although I've already done the intro post for this class, what better way to begin a blog by introducing yourself further! I'm Arielle! I am still fairly new to the island and to UVic, as I moved here from Calgary (yes, I'm a prairie gal) just last summer for school and love. I began my Anthropology degree at UofC, focussing mainly on primatology, but after diving deeper into archaeology and particularly, faunal analysis, I was swayed! Currently, I live with my partner and my puppy in a house with a great big garden and shelves dedicated to my bone collection. Most of my days are spent playing with the dog (year and a half pup), going on hikes, and finding forest treasures. I also love to knit and make art and costumes for summer festivals.

As for an academic future.. I'd love to continue on to grad school but who knows where I'll go. My main focus and love is in faunal analysis, so really, all I want is a lab where people send me bones and I get to hang out with them all day, getting cabin fever, trying to solve the mystery that are bone fragments. That's the dream.

This class was irresistible to me for many different reasons.. First, because human bones actually freak me out a little, and I think taking a class in which I have to stare at them a lot is a good way to move past that. Second, prehistoric ceremonial practices intrigue me and I think there is a lot more to these ancient people than we give credit. Archaeology can be a frustrating field, because really, how do we ever know anything? We can never ask.. We must infer. This freedom of interpretation is inviting to me and I hope to get great feedback on my own hypothesis through this blog!

Thanks for reading all of this! I hope to meet you all soon and can't wait to creep on all of your blogs too.


--Arielle HB

Here I am on a bone-hunt. SUCCESS! This was a deer skeleton in good old Alberta.

Here is one of the first skulls I ever found.. Decorated with dried leaves and flowers.

This is my puppy Piko. She also goes by Piko-chu, Pikomonster, Piko-de-Mayo, and Machu-Piko.

These are my two favourite creatures. My partner and my pup on a hike!