SKYBURIALS

So, I found this really interesting website. This is probably the most interesting way I have seen people be disposed of after they die. As you'll see on the webpage, the people of Tibet do something called a sky burial. Because the ground in Tibet is too hard to dig up to put bodies in the ground and they don't have much timber to make fires for cremation, and they also feel no need to preserve their bodies, so they usually will cut up a body and put it on a mountain top where vultures and other birds can eat it. Sounds pretty eco friendly if you ask me. Here is the website showing how they do it. I warn you! There are some very graphic photos!


Sky burials. Click Here!


Someone brought something very interesting up about how they thought a bunch of these photos shouldn't be on the website. I assumed their reasoning would be because it was disturbing, but they pointed out that this is someone's funeral and we have no right to be posting these pictures, especially because they have no say in it. I totally agree with this. Although, these photos are extremely fascinating and really bring the image in your mind to life, it is not completely necessary for them to be there. 

My collection of goods

As much as I don't want to think about dying, I guess I can for this blog. In this blog, I'm going to discuss what I would want my grave goods to be. I would like to point out that I do not want to be buried. I totally respect people who make that choice, but personally I feel as though it's a bit creepy that my body would be rotting in the ground. Just thinking about it kind of creeps me out a bit… ANYWAY, what I would want to do is is body farming (Ps. I just watched a video about body farming, and I started to rethink my decision). So yeah, let's just say I don't know what I want to do with my body when I'm dead yet. 


So, instead of just listing a bunch of things I would want in my grave, let me make this easier by showing you.

So, this is Todd. He's pretty much like my boyfriend. He's a plush of my favourite Disney character, and I bought him for an expensive price on Ebay because he was limited edition. 

Best book in the world. Enough said. If you haven't read it.. I pity you, but I'm also extremely jealous of you because you have yet to experience something brand new and beautiful. Quite in love with this book. 

This is what I'd partly be wearing. This is a Mockingjay pin (yes, I know, Hunger Games again). I just think it's so beautiful and it would add a nice fancy touch. It symbolizes a rebellion, and I love that. It would be awesome if people found this in the future and thought I was part of a rebellion. 

So, if you're wondering whether I'd be naked or not- I wouldn't be. I would wear my grad dress. Originally, I was going to sell my dress so I could get some money, but I couldn't let it go. I feel like a princess in it, and I'd hope that if people found me, they'd think that I was a princess.

LASTLY

This is my flying cat. I know it's weird, but I really wanted it. It's from the clothing store Artizia and it was in the display case. So, I saw them and my mom went in and asked them if we could buy one and they told us the only way we could is if we came super early when they opened on a specific day. So I skipped class and got to the mall. 5 minutes before the mall even opened, they had already sold all six of them. I had a breakdown and my mom e-mailed them and they ended up sending one to the store from somewhere else and I got it for free of charge. Amazing story. 

I hope you got a little taste of my life through this. These are the things that are symbolic to my life. If I ever choose to get buried, I will definitely have an interesting casket. 

DetailedResearch

The interesting thing about archaeological research is that a researcher can be so precise with research, but it's still debatable whether they make the right assumptions about what it means. There are some days I sit and think to myself and just wonder if everything archaeologists have found is actually wrong. What if we're actually completely off on what we find. It's so hard to tell, especially since gender can be interpreted in so many ways, and there are so many different kinds of cultures out there. We honestly have no idea. But that's not what I'm going to look at in this blog. I want to look at detailed research and how important it is for other researchers, as well as University students. 


It's important to look closely at someone's data because if you want want to conduct your own research, you're going to need to compare it to someone else's research. When you're comparing your research to other peoples', you need to be as precise as possible to see if the results are similar or differ. The more precise the research, the more you can analyze it and infer things. I really admired how much work Howell & Kintigh (authors of Archaeological identification of kin groups using mortuary and biological data: an example from the American Southwest) put into finding out the dental information of the people they were looking at because it provided an opportunity for them to find something that someone has not found before. 


I believe that Howell and Kintigh wanted to be extremely clear about how their data was collected so that it was easier for other researchers to repeat what they have done to test their hypotheses and see if they get the same results. It also provides a good source for other researchers to draw from. If someone is writing about the topic then they have something to draw from which is precise and looks good for evidence. 


The benefits of examining the mechanics of an article instead of just talking about the content in class is that you can really pick apart the areas you enjoy of the article and use them later on for something like a project. It allows you to go more in depth of a subject if you enjoy it, and it allows you to interpret it your own way, so when we do discuss it in class, you have something unique to say. Also, sometimes if you're not engaged in the conversation happening in class, you aren't in the present moment. If you're taking your time to go through an article and analyze it, then it allows you to be more engaged on your own terms. 


Howell and Kintigh did a really good job of getting to their point of research right away in their essay. I really enjoyed this essay, even though it may have been because I'm a little biased and enjoy biological anthropology. I admired their attention to detail and I believe this is a really throughly detailed research that will provide a good base for other researchers to work off of. 

Bibliography


Howell, Todd L. and Keith W. Kintigh (1996) Archaeological identification of kin groups using mortuary and biological data: an example from the American Southwest. American Antiquity 61(3): 537-554. 


Photo from: http://www.hpedsb.on.ca/ec/services/its/HPEDSBExternalResearch.html

The Rubric Test

The blog this week involves me finding a website generated for the public, to which I will then "mark" according to my group rubric. I chose this interesting little website about historical sites associated with Germany's Third Reich. The website's title appears to be "Third Reich in Ruins." Anyway let's start this off. 


Our first pillar is organization and presentation. I'd say that the website homepage does not contain a very good balance of visual aids and writing (far more writing). Seems like a little too much writing for a home page. However, the information is easy to find and the visual aids do have captions and references. I'd give the organization and presentation of this website a 5 points. So "good."They could have either taken away some of the unnecessary writing they had on their table of contents or added some more pictures to balance it out. 


Our second pillar is sources. I found this website a bit difficult on how they referenced things. They definitely do have many sources, but it seems like most of them are just pictures. Sources are heavily websites and not cited in any specific way. So under poor it fits with not having enough scholarly sources, sources are improperly referenced and the bibliography is really lacking (it's just a page labeled "links) and it's definitely not cited in Harvard style. I'm going to have to give the website 2 points for this one. They could have made a bibliography page with properly referenced websites. They also could have found a more variety of sources, not just websites. 


Our third pillar is research questions. This pillar is barely applicable to this website, since there are no research questions anywhere. So since they don't have any, I guess I'll have to give them a 0. They could have maybe put the objectives of their research at the top of the page, or some questions in regards to it before they put up all the other information. It would show their viewers that they have a clear path of what they want to learn about the monuments they're showing. 


Our fourth pillar is written communication. It's excellent in the sense that there are barely any grammar/spelling mistakes. The writing also flows well and is coherent. It's good in the sense that what is supposed to be communicated is a little unclear since their are "miscellaneous" sections, but overall you can tell. There are no in-text citations which makes it poor. I'll give this 4 points. They could have done some in text citations and grouped the miscellaneous into some category somehow. 


The fifth pillar is content and data. It is poor because the information is merely presented, and not thoughtfully analyzed. There is also no sort of "conclusion." No opposing information is acknowledged. However, it's excellent because all the information is relevant and on topic. I'll give this one 4 points. They could have possibly written how different people interpret the monuments differently and the correlation they saw between monuments. 


Our last pillar is method and approach. This project shows little to no understanding of archaeological concepts and does not use primarily archaeological methodology. It focuses too much on historical information without looking at the archaeological interpretations of the monuments. They could have made it less factual, and more about the interpretation of the monuments/buildings. I'll give it 2 points. 


So out of 45 points, this website got…. 17. Well I do feel bad for completely destroying this website, but our rubric is pretty hardcore. I understand now how difficult it really is to mark something so precisely with a rubric since a project can have some really great parts and some parts that don't work as well. 


Reference:
The website I marked: http://www.thirdreichruins.com/index.htm
My rubric:

CATEGORY
	Poor (N/A)	Good (N/A)	Excellent (N/A)
Organization and Presentation	Poor Layout is confusing, navigation is difficult. Lacking any or enough visual aids OR too many of these with not enough writing (balance not achieved). Information is not easily accessible/is hard to find. (1-3 points)	Good Some information cannot be found easily. Layout may not make complete sense. May sacrifice some academic quality for aesthetics or vice versa. Some, but not all, visual aids may be lacking captions or references. (4-6 points)	Excellent Easy to navigate. Style does not distract from communication. Balance between visual aids and text. Information is easily accessible/easy to find. Visual aids do not detract from written information or vice versa. Visual aids have captions and references. Site is aesthetically pleasing. (7-9 points)
Sources	Poor Does not have enough sources or not enough sources are scholarly. OR Relies far too heavily strictly on sources that are not relevant to archaeology. Sources are improperly referenced or not referenced at all. Bibliography is missing or done improperly (i.e. not Harvard or improper Harvard). (1-2 points)	Good Most, but not all, sources are relevant. May rely on too many non-academic sources. Most, but not all, sources are cited or listed properly. (3-4 points)	Excellent All sources are relevant to the topic and are all archaeologically/historically sound sources. All sources are cited and listed properly. Sufficient amount of sources and sufficient amount of scholarly sources. (5-6 points)
Research Questions	Poor Research questions are either too broad or too narrow. Questions may be too obvious or too easy to answer. Not a lot of thought was put into the question. Questions may not be fully relevant to mortuary archaeology. (1-2 points)	Good Questions could be further developed, and show some depth of thought but not a lot. Questions are largely relevant to mortuary archaeology. (3-4 points)	Excellent Research questions are neither too broad nor too narrow (scope is reasonable). Goes beyond the obvious and clearly shows depth of thought and are clearly relevant to mortuary archaeology. (5-6 points)
Written Communication	Poor Writing is rife with grammatical errors, spelling mistakes, etc. In-text citations are missing or incorrect. Writing does not flow well and is not easy to follow or is incoherent and/or inarticulate. (1-2 points)	Good Some grammatical, spelling, etc. mistakes are present but not pervasive. Some mistakes are present in citations. What is supposed to be communicated is mostly articulated well, but may not be clear in all instances. (3-4 points)	Excellent Grammar, spelling, etc. are mistake free (or very close to). Writing flows well, is easy to follow, and is coherent. Sources are cited properly in the text. What is supposed to be communicated is clearly articulated. (5-6 points)
Content and Data	Poor Content is minimal or missing important key components. Information is merely presented, not thoughtfully analyzed. There is a large disconnect between evidence and conclusions. Opposing information is not acknowledged or refuted (where applicable). Content or data may be irrelevant or not focused enough on the topic. (1-3 points)	Good Information is used for thoughtful analysis, but there may be too much simple reiteration and not enough analysis. There may be a slight disconnect between evidence and conclusions. It may acknowledge opposing information but this information is not convincingly refuted if refuted at all (where applicable). (4-6 points)	Excellent Sources are not just used for information but are used as a starting point for insightful analysis and conclusions. Evidence clearly supports the conclusions reached. All information is relevant and on topic. The project acknowledges opposing information and refutes it convincingly (where applicable). (7-9 points)
Method and Approach	Poor Project shows little to no understanding of archaeological concepts and does not use a primarily archaeological methodology (e.g. may focus too much on historical methods and information without looking at this information through an archaeological lens). (1-3 points)	Good The project shows a fair grasp on archaeological concepts and uses an archaeological method but not to the extent that it could. Methods from other disciplines may be employed a little more than is appropriate for the topic chosen. (4-6 points)	Excellent The project demonstrates a firm and thoughtful understanding of archaeological concepts and consistently employs an archaeological method. If an archaeological approach cannot be maintained 100% because of the topic and sources available, the archaeological method is employed to the greatest extent it can be while presenting information of a non-archaeological nature. (7-9 points)

Mommy, Is She Sleeping?

The topic of this blog this week involving how children learn about death really inspired me since it was something that actually really applied to my life. I think I was around 6 or 7 year old when my cousin Tony (who was 14 at the time) fell off the back of a truck and had such severe brain damage that she passed away in the hospital. This was the first death I had ever experienced in my life. I remember wanting to cry at the funeral, but being too embarrassed to do so. I felt as though I didn't want people to think I was weak, or that this would make a huge impact on my life. The most vivid part of that day though was when one of my younger cousins who had to be 2 or 3 saw Tony and asked if she was sleeping. She also kept asking her mom why everyone was crying. Although, I was pretty young myself, that scared me so much that she didn't understand death.

Personally, I believe in Western society, a big way that kids learn about death is when they experience it. Whether it be with an animal or a family member. However, some children don't experience death until they're older, but they still understand it. I'm currently looking at a Hospice webpage for patients and families facing life-threatening illnesses. Apparently, it says that children who are aged born-3 don't understand death, but absorbs the emotions around them. From ages 3-6 a child believes that death is reversible. From 6 to 9 years old is when a child starts finally understanding death and how it is irreversible. Maybe I just don't remember what it's like to be a young child, but I feel as though I would have understood death by 5.

There was a psychological research done in China in a preschool. Researchers interviewed the children to see their views on death based on the comments they made and noticed 4 different patterns among the children: "causality, emotional reaction, death-related sociocultural practices and character status" (Wong 2010, pg. 63). This article also stresses how children in China recognize death as being irreversible by the age of about 5-6. This is pretty similar to the Western children. When the researchers asked the children about the causality of death, the children asked the researchers to read the tombs and then the kids would usually talk about the cause of death based on what they had seen in the media. Kids also talked about how they emotions they felt associated with death. Obviously, there were lots of emotions expressed about how sad someone was about people dying. The interesting thing I found in this article was that in the interviews the researchers asked the children if they were sad when someone they knew passed away and they said yes. When the researcher asked them if they cried, the children usually say no. They said that they felt uncomfortable crying at the funeral. This is interesting since it was exactly the same way I felt. However, the difference here was that the children expressed that when they did cry, their parents told them to leave the room or to stop crying. If I cried at my cousins funeral, everyone would have comforted me and accepted my tears. This could potentially be a cultural thing. Lastly, the children expressed how they understood their sociocultural practices. They knew that people left gifts for the deceased, but they weren't exactly sure why. This makes sense since the children may not yet understand the symbolism behind it. 

So in conclusion, I feel as though there's a possibility in most cultures that most children start to understand death around the same age- ranging from 5-9. It's definitely interesting to see how people mourn their deceased differently. I feel as though there would not be too much research on this though just because it's just a sensitive subject for children. Nonetheless, it's a very interesting topic. It would be cool to look at how other countries experience death as well.

Bibliography: 

Hospice [online] Available at: <http://www.hospicenet.org/index.html>.

Wong, M., 2010. Chinese children's understanding of death. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood 35 (2) Available through: Academic Search Complete database.

GAY CAVEMAN (Bet I caught your attention)

Gay cavemen! Yes, you heard me right. Anthropologists' claimed to have found a gay caveman. Czech archaeologists say that they found a skeleton that "they believe, is that of a he, not a she: a man apparently buried not like other men — head facing west, cache of weapons — but like a woman" (McDowell, 2011). To me, this does not imply that this caveman was "gay." This could imply so many things. Perhaps this person was a shaman who was sacred, and therefore; buried in a different way from other men. Perhaps he was a criminal or deviant, and people wanted him to be turned in a certain way so that when he was in the after life he was confused. It's so difficult to come at this in a culturally relativistic way because we have no idea how many different genders a certain society in a certain time period. I felt this topic came to a conclusion too easily. Theories about these kinds of things don't just appear over night, they take lots of time with lots of data and research. I feel like it was unnecessary for a newspaper to take set of data and turn it in a big thing.

I did some research and noticed that, like myself, many people were disagreeing with the newspaper article about the "Gay Caveman." In one of the articles I read, a researcher with the Czech Archaeological Society, Kamila Remisova Vesinova, stated that the following: "we think, based on data, that it could be a member of a so-called third gender, which were people either with different sexual orientation or transsexuals or just people who identified themselves differently from the rest of the society" (Barber, 2011). Like I imagined, it is impossible to count how many genders there are among cultures. There is no universal number since gender is culturally constructed. I believe this was the best explanation and conclusions these Anthropologists could derive from the amount of information they had. I'm glad that there were many articles articulating the problem with the original article because people should should be informed that based on that particular set of data, it's impossible to draw such distinct conclusions. It's too bad we can't just go back to the past and ask them ourselves.

Bibliography
McDowell, A., 2011. Gay caveman probably not gay or a caveman. National Post, Aug. 7.


Barber, M., 2011. 'Gay Caveman' not definitely gay nor caveman, say archaeologists. Postmedia News, April 8.

Ross Bay Cemetery

It was extremely interesting going down to Ross Bay Cemetery to conduct our monument analysis. I had no idea how huge the cemetery was, as well as how old it was. My group chose to do our analysis in the Anglican part of the cemetery because we found an interesting area that had a lot of variation in the monuments/tombstones associated with the graves. 


The research question I chose to look at was how much the gravestones varied according to the death date, especially the difference of the 1800s to 1900s. I want to explore why, for example grave one is a fairly large monument, while grave 2 is a flat stone, but these people were related, so you'd assume they would want the same thing. 


In my cultural anthropology course (ANTH 310- Anthropology of Religion) I read a very interesting article about how after the first World War, people didn't make as big of a deal of burying someone with luxurious monuments, but started using flat grave stones. In this article, the main point they're saying is that in our modern society today "each generation tends to think more of itself than of other generations, previous or subsequent; and individuals increasingly care very little about what happens to their bodies after they have shuffled off this mortal coil" (Gill 1996, 251). Although this is talking about the United States, I feel like there was a similar trend that happened in Canada. It's true that people are spending less money on funerals and it makes sense since people are spending more money on keeping people alive longer. I also believe that since after the First World War there were so many deaths, people started to become more desensitized to death, which made them put less effort into the grave. So, in grave 1, this is a family monument of people who died from 1884-1905. This was before World War I. Grave 2 was buried right beside this monument, and was closed in by a cement surrounding it and grave 1, but was a completely different looking grave. This person also died in 1936, which means it was after the war. This supports my hypothesis. Another example is grave 9, in which the person died in 1925 and their stone is in the ground and not very detailed. With grave 10, the person died in 1882, but doesn't have an upright monument. However, you can still notice a big difference between 9 and 10 comparing how much more detail grave 10 has. 


I found another article titled American Attitudes to Death. They claim that a reason why tombstones may be less detailed and small and in the ground rather than out of the ground is demonstrated in the following quote: "The consequence has been to reduce and make impersonal the impact of the great majority of deaths which will touch individuals in their lifetime" (Jackson 1977, 306). This is implying that because our society is started to feel as though death is impersonal, that people are less likely to spend as much money on things like details in a gravestone. In my personal opinion, I feel like this is happening because it seems like there's a decrease in beliefs in a higher power. It seems as though there are more atheists today than back in the early 1900s. On grave 14, there is a lot of inscription that says things like "united with the infinite The Eternal and All-Wise" and "She has crossed the shining River and has gained the radiant shore." These quotes sound religious and spiritual, whereas with grave 9, the person died later (1925 compared to 1892) and it only says "In loving memory of."


I enjoyed how this project made me not only think about the material aspect of death, but also what was happening in society at this time. Although I did find some trends within these graves, there are still some mysterious graves that stray away from this pattern. It's too bad we weren't able to gather all that information. 

"This is grave one and two side by side. Notice how different they are, but they are both surrounded by the same square of cement!"




Bibliography: 


The map for our group project:

http://www.google.com/mapmaker?ll=48.411378,-123.339638&spn=0.000846,0.001918&t=h&z=19&hl=en&lyt=large_map

Richard T. Gill, "Whatever Happened to the American Way of Death?" in Sacred Realms, 248-252. New York: Oxford University Press, 2009.


Charles O. Jackson, "American Attitudes to Death," Journal of American Studies 11 (1977), 297-312. accessed February 13, 2012.