Belonging: The Kennewick Man

In the spirit of repatriation this week I thought I'd mention my favourite case. I first learned about the Kennewick Man senior year in Washington State History class when we had to watch a movie about him.  So even though it's kind of old news, maybe because it's close to home for me or because finding the surprise date on remains like that would be so cool, but I am still pretty partial to Mr. Kennewick Man.

Kennewick Man skeleton

So first, a little background/review:


He was found in 1996 by accident in the Columbia River near Kennewick, WA( hence his name). Kennewick Man was assumed to be from settlers of the 19th century. James Chatter was the lead archaeologist on the case and imagine his surprise when the radio-carbon dating from part of a bone estimated the remains of the 50 year old man to be over 9,000 years old. It is believed that he was formally buried and that the erosion from the water tumbled his remains into the river (Gugliotta, 1999). Though, personally, this is extremely speculative with the evidence they have.


The Problem:


From a scientific and archaeological point of view the Kennewick Man provides insight into the prehistory of North America. He has provided evidence for humans living in this area of the country thousands of years before scientists had previously thought. From this new theories of migration have been studied and his remains still leave many possible discoveries of how people lived in this area so long ago.

Kennewick Man facial reconstruction

But with the discovery of the Kennewick Man came the issue of ownership.


The Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation claimed that the Kennewick Man was their ancestor and that the scientific study of his body was "not appropriate for his and other Native American  remains"(Glover, 2000).

Map of Eastern Washington

The Army Corps (whose land the remains were found on) took possession of the remains and gave them back to the tribes. With NAGPRA if the Native American tribes could prove their connection to Kennewick man they are free to bury him however their culture would like.


Eight scientists sued for the rights of Kennewick Man to continue more testing and to try and prove his true connection to current Native American tribes.
In February 2004 the courts rejected the Native American's appeal on the grounds that they were unable to show any evidence of kinship(Durkee, 2004).

Kennewick Man

This case was extremely controversial and was an excellent example of modern problems with repatriation. In the case of Kennewick Man I agree more with the scientists and the courts, although I totally understand the Native American's claims. Proving kinship would be very difficult in a time of prehistory and especially when the presence of ancestors in that area was already questionable. After our discussion in class today, in the case of the skeleton having no legitimate ancestors and with the information it can continure provide us about humanity, the lack of repatriation of Kennewick Man (in this case) I believe was the right choice.


Bibliography:

Durkee, E. 2004, BONNICHSEN v. UNITED STATES, http://archive.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/AAFB80F54839DD2D88256E300069CF95/$file/0235994.pdf?openelement edn.

Glover, W. 2000, , KENNEWICK MAN AND THE STORY OF THE SETTLEMENT OF THE NEW WORLD. Available: http://www.lauralee.com/glover2.htm. 

Gugliotta, G. 1999, Kennewick Man Debate Heats Up, The Washington Post. 

Images: 

Kennewick Facial Reconstruction. Photo. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/first/images/kmanskele.jpg

Map of Washington. Photo. http://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com/bluemountaineagle.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/4/cd/4cded5f1-c8d4-571b-8000-f3b4ad242fb5/4d6108165d43a.image.jpg

Pompeii: Explosion of Information

In one of my GRS classes we talked briefly about the famous city of Pompeii. My professor mentioned the excavation but only enough to leave me hanging. 


In 62 AD the cities surrounding Mt. Vesuvius experienced a extremely damaging earthquake and were in the process of rebuilding as the volcano exploded in 79 AD. The volcano had two stages, first the huge column of ash and smoke which continued for several hours(allowing for most of the population to evacuate) and then the pyroclastic flow of lava and rock that engulfed the city( UNESCO, 2011). 

Mt. Vesuvius today

Carlo di Borbone, King of Naples, began excavations in 1748 as a way to bring prestige and fame to his kingdom. From that time until the mid-19th century there were periodic findings. It was many years after di Borbone when the city was actually identified as Pompeii. It was not until  Giuseppe Fiorelli was appointed director of the excavation in 1861 that major turning points and findings were made(Archaeological Heritage, 2008). 

Plaster cast of dog

The most interesting and well known part of the excavation are the plaster casts. Fiorelli filled the empty cavities he came upon while excavating with plaster. These empty spaces were left by decomposition of organic material (humans,animals, wood, plants, etc.) and by filling in these spaces with the plaster, Fiorelli was able to capture the last moments of the people and life of Pompeii. From these plaster casts they have been able to recreate furniture from living spaces of the Ancient world. In an interesting twist, researchers can identify the plaster casts of plant roots in order to recreate the gardens the ancient citizens of Pompeii would have possessed(Archaeological Heritage, 2008). 

Plaster cast  of a person found at Pompeii

The volcanic explosion provided an insight to the economic situation and social strata that is not commonly seen from an Ancient city. The preservation of buildings and the plaster casts are extremely rare in archaeology. But the techniques used in this excavation have opened new doors in other Ancient discoveries, such as the other cities affected by Mt. Vesuvius' eruption. 

Excavated city of Pompeii

Discovery News provides a video of the Pompeii casts exhibit: 

Bibliography:

Archaeological Heritage of Naples and Pompei 2008, , The History of Excavation . Available: http://www.pompeiisites.org/Sezione.jsp?titolo=History%20of%20the%20Excavation&idSezione=1769&idSezioneRif=1165 [2012, March/27].

UNESCO: World Heritage Organization 2011, ,
Archaeological Areas of Pompei, Herculaneum and Torre Annunziata. Available: http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/829 [2012, March/27].


Photos:


City of Pompeii. Photo. http://cdn.enjoyourholiday.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Exploring-Pompeii-1.jpg


Mt. Vesuvius. Photo. http://volcanogeek.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/mount-vesuvius-italy_thumb.jpg.


Pompeii Dog Cast. Photo. http://urbantitan.com/wpcontent/uploads/2010/04/Plaster_Citizens_of_Pompeii_2.jpg


Video: 
Discovery News. Pompeii Exhibit. http://news.discovery.com/videos/history-pompeii-body-casts-invade-new-york.html#mkcpgn=snag1

 

Rubric Evaluation

Our group project is a comparison of WWII mass graves of both the Soviets and the Nazis and the memorialization of those sites. The website I chose to evaluate based on the rubric we created was called "World War II Database". One aspect of the website focused specifically on the Katyn Massacre (one of the sites from our project) and other similar atrocities. 


The sources on this website  are "Good", though that may be generous. They are present but not cited in a scholarly way and lack easy availability if they wanted or needed to be looked up. 


In terms of organization the website would receive an "Excellent". It is easy to navigate and offers a wide variety of topics are available to be chosen about the war. They provide a timeline of the massacre's key dates at the bottom of the article and also give several photos. As far as presentation goes the advertisements (though I'm sure are necessary) detract from the quality of the website and the comments at the bottom provide questionable excess information. The colours used are not distracting but and very bland and the the main photo constantly pictured may not have enough significance to the average reader. Because of this the presentation of this website would receive a "Good".  


Content and data of the website cannot be judged in terms of how our scholarly, academic website would be. But on the whole, for its own purpose, the facts seem correct and are easy to understand. The website and the articles within it are quality writing and are very interesting and it would be given an "Excellent" by me. 


Written communication is "Excellent" within the website. The writing flows well and makes sense with no obvious errors.  It is presented with the scholarly in mind and portrays itself as a reliable non- academic quick source on World War II. 

Tree of Life?

It wasn't too hard to find  interesting non-standard funerary practices. Apparently society has gotten very creative in how they would like to be remembered!  I hadn't thought too much about my own memorialization. It might be irresponsible but I like to think as a 19 year old I'll have some time to finalize my plans. I think, personally I would choose cremation and have my ashes being spread somewhere. On the other hand, if one of my own close family members did that I would feel slightly cheated. As much as I hate the idea of rotting in the ground, I like the idea of having a headstone to come and visit. I have thought about my parents death and (although even thinking about life without my mom makes me hyperventilate) I have trouble imagining either one of them placed in a cemetery along with a lot of other deceased strangers. It's traditional but kind of impersonal. I've been to a couple funerals over my years but two summers ago at my Grandma's was my first time at an open casket funeral. I tried to keep my cool but both my brother and I went nowhere near that casket to say our goodbyes. Emotionally, I didn't need that physical kind of closure. But I felt a little immature not being able to deal with the made-up body of my recently deceased loved one. The whole thing just seemed too weird and honestly a little gross. So when looking at all these alternative funerary practices I was intrigued. Usually I picture a bizarre rich man taking part in a lot of these. But one caught my eye. 
A company called Biopresence is calling it “Living Memorials” or “Transgenic Tombstones”. Scientists have come up with a way to transcode the essence of a human being into a tree by entwining your DNA with the one of a plant. 

At first I rolled my eyes. But compared to the other non-standard techniques like ashes being turned into pencil carbon, or the more well known option of Cyronics (freezing the body after death), this one didn't seem so bad. I'm no scientist, so for all I know these claims of combining DNA may be wild and just a scam. But of all the ways to be remembered and kept after life, this one seemed oddly poetic. Being apart of something living and beautiful long after your death and giving family members a place to grieve, kind of hits the best of both standard options in a very non-standard way.
Plus, in all seriousness it reminded a lot of that tree from Forrest Gump. 

And I would not mind being that tree. 

References:

Pictures:

1. http://totallytop10.com/current-affairs/odd-news/top-10-weird-burials

2. forrest_gump_oak_tree_by_elemento188-d34xjkw.jpg

Kore's and Korai's, Oh My!

For this blog I chose to answer the question if I  could do my monument analysis somewhere else where would it be and why. During our monument analysis project I was fascinated by all the headstones at Ross Bay Cemetery. They seemed such intimate items for us strangers to be looking and analyzing in a very non-personal way. I've probably been watching way too many crime shows on TV but while we were completing our project the inscriptions brought up a lot of lingering questions for me. Mostly concerning the more detailed aspects of the deceased's life and their cause of death. The more I thought about the person(s) in each grave the more I thought of another grave monument that left me feeling unsettled. 


One of my favourite pieces of Ancient Greek 'art' is one that I learned about last semester, which I somewhat regrettably chose to write a paper on. It is the archaic kore statue called Phrasikleia. 

Phrasikleia is one of many kore(the female version) and korai( the male version) of these kinds of statues found in Attic Greece and on the Acropolis. Scholars have classified several of the statues as grave markers. Only a few of the inscriptions have survived throughout the several thousand years but luckily Phrasilkelia's had both a name and a purpose. The inscription on the base of the statue says: "Grave marker of Phrasikleia. I shall ever be called maiden (kore), the gods allotting me this name in place of marriage."(Sculpture Collection of the National Archaeological Museum)
 It is debated by some but most widely accepted that Phrasikleia was a young girl at marrying age, who died before she she could be married and so she is forever a "kore" or a maiden. The statue is dressed in traditional wedding garb and is said to be holding an acorn or lotus bud symbolizing her eternal youthfulness and maidenhood. I just love the potential history of a single piece and the "what-could-have-beens" about this young girl's life and the purpose of a family in creating such an elaborate grave marker. I would instantly and happily choose this kore statue as a topic for a monument analysis. 


References: 



Funerary statue of the kore Phrasikleia (4889) [Homepage of Sculpture Collection of the National Archaeological Museum], [Online]. Available: http://nam.culture.gr/portal/page/portal/deam/virtual_exhibitions/EAMS/EAMG4889/Funerary%20statue%20of%20the%20kore%20Phrasikleia%20(4889)?_template=/deam/deam_template_printer [2012, March/7].
 
Photo:
http://www.eveandersson.com/photo-display/large/greece/athens/national-archaeological-museum-phrasikleia-statue-550-540-bc.html

Monument Analysis

For our monument analysis we chose to head to Ross Bay Cemetery. After doing a quick walk through of different parts of the cemetery we ended up using 14 monuments from what was a small part of the Anglican section. These monuments were a mixture of family plots and single burials, all created around the late 19th to early 20th century. All of our chosen monuments were spaced relatively close together although many of the family plots were marked off by a stone boundary line to indicated their space. None were kept up in recent years, indicating that remaining family lineages have moved on or are unaware of their presence. This made reading many of the inscriptions difficult. 


Research question 1:
 Notice the differences in the dates of the standing monuments and the flat stones for individual burials (and even monument 6, which is standing but much simpler than the other standing ones, and has a similar date to the flat ones). What  happened in this time gap of about 40 years that could have changed attitudes towards, and therefore practices surrounding, death and burial? Do you think these changes could simply be attributed to the passing of time?


Answer: 
These changes might indicate a gradual shift in funerary preferences. The standing family monuments that occurred roughly in our monuments between 1880- 1900, were large marked plots that often had more details inscribed on them. This includes, on many occasions, a quote from a religious passage. 

These can be compared to the individual burials that used flat stones, also made within the same 20 year time period of 1880- 1900. 

This grave in particular is curious because the deceased(June Casmir Ragazzoni) died at the young age of 21 in the year 1885. The year of her death strikes very closely to a number of other deaths within our monuments accuring between 1880-1885, all of young adults or children. June's grave was one not marked by the stone boundary line, perhaps indicating an unprepared family not from the area(her name itself was an outlier within the Anglican cemetery).  Though it was a flat stone, this grave marker was more elaborate then the ones seen even just 40 years later. 

Many of the grave stones seen after 1900 (except in burials where family large standing stones were already in place) the design is more simple in both standing and flat monuments. This made me think back to our lecture on the Victoria cemeteries in Cambridgeshire where Dr. Aubrey Cannon's work was discussed(McGuire, 2012). Although his observations were taking place from graves around roughly the same time period, the grave stones would be from a different culture, economic, and historical standing. But to get an idea of where to start it is very helpful. The flat stone monuments would be assumed cheaper than the larger more elaborate standing ones in the 1880s and before. Perhaps as time went on it was considered more ostentatious to make them so decorated. Much like in Cannon's Victorian grave markers there might have been an elite class that set the trend for the styles of the monuments. More intense research would be needed to know the local culture between the late 1800s and the early 1900s. It would also be beneficial to compare the designs and inscriptions from the same time period in the Catholic or Jewish part of the cemetery. 


Research Question 2:
For monument 1, the dates of the deaths of younger (under 20 years old) family members are close together (1884-5). Could something specific (e.g. disease, etc.) have happened to these individuals that could have caused their deaths to occur so close together?


Monument 1: 

Answer:
This was the monument that fascinated me the most. It was a grave stone that was shared by two families: the Leigh's and the Holloway's. The plot itself was surrounded by the stone boundary line and was marked by the name Holloway. It is assumed that the families are related. Several children(ages 16months-16years) and young adults of the family( ages 20-30) died within the years of 1884-5, but within different months of those years. My group and I wondered what could have been the cause of their death, especially considering our other monuments with several young people dying around the same years. We are assuming disease, maybe there was an outbreak at that time. From this it would make sense that there would also be numerous graves of elderly people as well from this time period, as disease often affects the young and the old. These elderly graves might be harder to distinguish than the graves of children or younger adults because the typical age of people most often found in cemeteries is that of an older age bracket. To make an accurate analysis, more in-depth research will need to be done on the history of the area and maybe the history of the families as well if possible. 


Works Cited:


McGuire, E., 2012. Anth392StatusHandouts2, University of Victoria. Moodle. [Accessed date 19 February 2012).  

Introduction

Hey there,

I'm Sam. I am in my second year at UVIC and I plan on majoring in Anthropology (archaeology) with a minor in Greek and Roman Studies. I took this course because it sounded really interesting and because I had Dr.McGuire for Anthro 100 last year and enjoyed her teaching.

have a good day!