Pets and Kinship: Does the Definition Stop at Human Relations?

 Image Source: http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/pets-pet-owners-allowed-buried-article-1.1455809

I had a strange thought today whilst reading the news.  The article I was looking at was about the amount of money people spend on their pets.  It was attempting to justify the billions of dollars spent every year in what is essentially a nonsense industry of frills and gimmicks. Now don't get me wrong, I love animals as much as the next guy, and am all about treating my pets (when I have one). Yet, I was having a hard time swallowing the argument that dog slippers are a necessary thing.

Anyways,

This, as many things do these days, got me thinking about the archaeology of death.  People love their pets.  People consider their pets family. People get buried with their families. There was no doubt in my mind people would get buried with their pets.

This of course immediately led me to think the horrific thought that people would have their pets killed when they die to so their animals can be buried with them.  So I set to Google to assuage my fears and to put my suspicions to rest. As usual, trusty ol' Google didn't let me down. A deluge of articles arose from my search "burial with pets."

Now you can click on the link at the top to see my favourite article  I found (and not only because it's full of great puns ie "fur all eternity"),or I you can just allow me to extract the pertinent details.

 

"Pet cemeteries will now accept human remains for burial alongside beloved family pets"

Source: http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/pets-pet-owners-allowed-buried-article-1.1455809

The article revolves around a dispute over state legislation that bans the burial of human remains in a pre-established pet cemetery. Apparently, the state of New York denied an ex-NYPD cop the request to have his ashes buried with his 3 beloved, and already deceased, Maltese dogs.   The man's neice took up the case pro-bono, and this resulted in a two year dispute which ended in victory and the fulfillment of his wishes.  His niece was pleased, saying “people do get a sense of comfort from knowing they can lie for eternity with their beloved pet, that they can be loved and protected in the afterlife just as faithfully as when they were alive.” More interestingly, the pet-cemetery had been burying human remains with their pets for the better of a century anyways; it had never been a problem before this particular case sparked contention from the state.  In fact, this man's wife's ashes were already buried with their puppies.

Now this brings up all sorts of interesting questions about the ethical and legal concerns and restriction about dealing with human remains.  I'd love to address those issues in this blog.  For now, however,  I'm going to keep with the recent class discussion, and focus on how this relates to our understanding of kinship.

According to the man's niece this couple “didn’t have any children,” and “Each (Maltese), was their pride and joy.” The owner of this particular pet cemetery claimed he gets multiple requests a year from people for burial with their pets, and intends on being buried with his pet as well. Another dog owner interviewed claimed "I’d rather be buried with my dog than with my family." In other words, many people consider pets aa family. Pets are kin.

Now when we discuss kinship in anthropology, it almost solely revolves around the family and the social group.  I think archaeological study of human remains with pets, could lend credence to the idea that pets can be considered members of a kin group.  Lest we think this is an isolated case of a twisted modern world, Science Daily reports a 16,500yr old grave being found in northern Jordan that has the remains of a suggested pet fox contained in it, the archaeologists working this site  hypothesized, 

"'What we appear to have found is a case where a fox was killed and buried with its owner,' says Maher, who directs excavations at the site. "Later, the grave was reopened for some reason and the human's body was moved. But because the link between the fox and the human had been significant, the fox was moved as well.'" 
Source: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/02/110202132609.htm

So apparently not a modern conception.  People have been buried with their pets evidently as long as people have had pets.  Pets fill an important social and emotional role in peoples lives, and are often considered family.  People imagine and desire an afterlife which contains there pets, and want to buried amongst them to ensure this relationship.  Thus remaining together, faithfully furever.....
Pets are kin, and archaeology of death can help us understand that.

Unless of course, people want to be faithfully remembered like this lady

Image Source: http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/pets-pet-owners-allowed-buried-article-1.1455809

“I want some of my ashes to be fed to my dog, like mixed up with his food or something,” said Kerry Vera, 33, of Harlem.
 Now that would be some interesting coprolite analysis...........

Flight MH370 and Questions I Hope Never Have to be Answered......

Image Source: http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/malaysia-airlines-flight-mh370-not-tracked-to-malacca-air-force-1.2567697

        I can't ever remember following a news story as intensely as I've followed this one.  The fact that a modern jet airliner can simply disappear fills me with a sense of morbid fascination.  Every time I check the news, I'm expecting to see the headline that flight MH370 has been found.  I feel like finding the plane would allow me to put the story behind me,and when I get that feeling, I realize the  unfathomable grief people with loved ones on the missing flight must be going through.
      Now that I've been rooted in this class for the better part of three months, my mind is also forced to wonder what might be done if the remains of those lost on this flight are never found.  How does this effect funerary rituals? Also, what evidence can be left in a memorial of a person mourned in absentia? Will there be any?  These question become vastly more complicated when we take into account that there are people of 14 different nationalities missing with the plane.

Here's a breakdown of nationalities:

1. China - 152 plus 1 infant
2. Malaysia - 38
3. Indonesia - 12
4. Australia - 7
5. France - 3
6. United States of America - 3 plus 1 infant
7. New Zealand - 2
8. Ukraine - 2
9. Canada - 2
10. Russia - 1
11. Italy - 1
12. Taiwan - 1
13. Netherlands - 1
14. Austria - 1
Source: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-26503469

"Rescue workers from a Buddhist organisation pray during multi-religion mass prayers for the passengers of Malaysian Airlines flight MH370 at Kuala Lumpur International Airport in Sepang, March 9, 2014"
Image Source: http://usa.chinadaily.com.cn/2014-03/10/content_17335895.htm

      With this much cultural diversity on board, and I imagine their is also smattering off religious, and spiritual beliefs that divide the nationalities. The mourning and funerary events that will occur in the next while will be interesting to follow. A possible (but perhaps ethically questionable) project would be to document and describe these rituals as they occur.  Some research questions I would ask might be:

1. Are there distinct funerary rituals for missing body funerals that can be grouped by geographic region?
2. What is the most common practice in this case in memorializing a body in absentia?
3.  Are there any cases of substitutes for bodies used in a funerary practice?
4.  Is there some cases where the funeral cannot take place until corporeal remains are found?

Although I ask these questions, I hope the opportunity for them to be answered never comes.  The best case scenario would be for this plane, and the people who were with it when it went down, to be found as soon as possible. This way, the people who are trapped in this horrible mystery can begin their process of closure.  

To Have a Gay Caveman you First need a Caveman, and Proof that he was Gay. This Story has Neither!

 

Image Source: http://thebacklot.mtvnimages.com/uploads/2011/04/gaycavehead%20copy.jpg?quality=0.7

Ahhh, nothing like a dose of sensationalist media to start the day.  Although this story is getting a little outdated (2011), it's a valuable lessons on why we shouldn't trust media to report scientific discoveries. There is a score of websites reporting this discovery that seem to interpret ambiguous language from the original researcher as evidence of a "gay caveman." Yet, there is some redemption, as other outlets cover the response form the rest of scientific community who resoundingly deny this conclusion. Here is some highlights in three categories: The good, the bad, and the just plain ugly.  

The Bad:

"First Homosexual Caveman Found":

A great example of sensationalist headlining. As the tagline starts to use the phrase "may have found," and the rest of the article gets more ambiguous about this supposed "find."  The headline draws people in with a an outright lie, and then uses vague and non-definite language in an attempt to justify itself.  Hack journalism at its finest. 
Article Source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/8433527/First-homosexual-caveman-found.html

"Gay Caveman Found by Archaeologists Near Prague":

The intro to this article reads, "A team of Czech archaeologists claim to have unearthed the remains of an early gay man from around 2900-2500 B.C. outside Prague".  It's not true, though. The researcher claims it may have been a homosexual, transgendered, or transvestite individual, and nowhere claims that it is definitely a gay caveman.

Article Source http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/07/gay-caveman-found-prague_n_846246.html

"The Oldest Gay in the Village: 5,000-year-old is 'Outed' by the way he was Buried"
What?? I'm not even going to dignify this one with an explanation. Just read that headline over and over again and continually shake your head.....

Article Source: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1374060/Gay-caveman-5-000-year-old-male-skeleton-outed-way-buried.html#ixzz2v7PBbshn


The Good

Now it would be easy to just continually face-palm at the bad headlines and reporting, but luckily we have articles such as this  "Scientists speak out to discredit 'gay caveman' media reports" to try and set things straight.  Let's see how the sources in this article refute the gay caveman argument..

1. I like this quote from a University of Wisconsin Prof, "Dudes! I could be wrong, but I think that to have a 'gay caveman,' you need a skeleton that is both gay and a caveman. And this ain't either."
what we commonly define as "cavemen" lived around 25-30,000 years ago.  This burial was dates to around 5,000; which is 5,000 years after the beginning of the agricultural revolution.  This is not a caveman. He is not even close to being one.

2. " There is no way you can tell someone is homosexual by examining a skeleton," end of story.  The idea that this individual is "gay" because he has been buried like a female is present day society imparting our cultural assumptions on a 5,000 year old grave.  The truth its we may never know why this individual was buried this way.  Perhaps this was a great compliment, perhaps he had lost his status as a male, perhaps he was gay!WHO CARES?  There is now way we can be certain of his sexual orientation through archaeological remains.

3.  The original authors of the research never said this was a gay caveman.  Anthropologists say "news media misinterpreted the findings," which honestly shouldn't come as a big surprise.

4. Probably the most important response to this story, is the fact he was buried with others in the cemetery.  This shows cultural acceptance of whoever he was.  With all the buzz and hype this news story generated, there is no sign of this man being ostracized from his community. Maybe these tabloid newspapers could focus on that as a news story, and maybe some people could learn valuable lesson about the past...

Response Source: http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/europe/04/10/czech.republic.unusual.burial/


The Just Plain Ugly: A Look at some of the images attached to this story.... 

Apparently, according to this image, rainbow's have been a symbol of Gay pride since ancient times.

Image Source: http://a.abcnews.com/images/Health/abc_itn_gay_caveman_110407_wg.jpgtion 

Image Source: https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjs4dHXmKXKc3BF8vZ5e6LSc38dGuElJqwYPZNTaDXinBOvkEqzCbWdEiVQUbsg2D6z5RdjnWU4SNuCjbTwzRvGrrj9hZfJ1HG40J0CQkUD2n7BDbGrFkkSkEBl7fr2bLjo5j6HHx_EN5OY/s1600/GayCaveman.jpg

Not Content to settle with a Rainbow, the New York Daily news needed to throw the two male symbols linked into the back ground to reiterate their point.

Image Source: http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.114639!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/article_1200/alg-gay-cave-man-jpg.jpg

Looking at these, all I can think it "Really now? I mean REALLY?"  This is why we don't go to the "news" to interpret science... Go to the source. 

Sarah Burke Goes "Home"

See this article:

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/02/22/sarah-burke-ashes-sochi-halfpipe_n_4836532.html

Now look at the language used by friends and family members of Sarah Burke.  There is much talk of bringing her to rest in a place she wanted and deserved to be.  I think this is one of the most fascinating aspects in the livings relationship with the dead.   The way her coach describes the process of bringing her ashes to the Olympics so that she could be a part of them, and how he says “I know Sarah wanted to get some hits in the pipe so she got those," demonstrates the connection the living can have with the dead’s corporeal remains.

I have no problem seeing the heart in this gesture, and I often consider what I might do with my loved ones remains; where I might take them.  However, when I think about it in a cold logical way, what’s the point?  The ashes of someone do not represent an experience for him or her.  Once again, we see that the gesture is done for the survivors.  This is a way for them to put closure on a tragic part of their lives.  For them to take Sarah to slopes, and deposit her ashes on a pipe she helped build the demand for, they can feel like they hounored the wishes she had before her life was cut short. 

Doctors and death: what do we make of this?

If there is one profession that is inherently tied to death, it is certainly the medical profession.  While browsing the internet, I came across an photo collection that highlighted an interesting case of doctors and their treatment of the dead in late 19th century America.
Take a look here:
http://www.funisforassholes.com/2013/07/fun-with-corpses.html#.UvXJVZGNghc
What do we make of this? i find it interesting that the author of this website (not to take the author of an article on a website "fun is for as*holes" to seriously..) suggests these "turn-of-the-century medical students had a fairly strong constitution and a healthy attitude toward death."  Personally I agree, but Only to a degree though.  Clearly this people are treating this cadavers as simple objects with now connection to the "real" world.  I suppose this reflects a healthy understanding of the implications of death, however,there is no respect for the dead here.  Does this imply a good relationship to death ? If this is disrespectful, does it matter? I reckon these questions and the answers will change from person to person....
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhnwkcAWzBsEZ9GsZtpJ85-CqPziK3sWWP6RZBq67Ozmkk9EnJPP5F0BgdhvzKkram5xsGpYEUAvDWZ2qq9wOPGGWnLIsaWfswsWxPaWTSm2THnrRPWn32UOKwPALUaVjsg3hVuVTlKKbc/s1600/%C2%A9_Burns_Archive_Dissecton_3.jpg

Levi-Strauss and Today's Relationship between the Living and the Dead

Something that struck me as interesting in this week’s readings was Pearson’s allusion to Claude Levi-Strauss’s description of the relationships between the living and dead.  Strauss argued that “the wide variation of power relationships between living and dead [fall] somewhere between two poles, epitomized by stories of the 'grateful corpse' and the 'enterprising knight.'  These two metaphors represent two worlds in which one is shared with the dead, and in the other the dead play little part as long as they are respected.  This interpretation of relationship to the dead set me thinking.  What does our society represent? Perhaps more importantly, what do I believe?  It seems that today our society may have become so secular that even the latter interpretation is redundant.  However, the more introspection I did on the topic, the more I came to realize this is not so cut and dry.  All around us are monuments to the dead.  People still feel that no ill will should be said of the recently deceased.  This is probably not the best example, but when a famous figure or celebrity passes away, it is frowned upon to joke on the subject.  Is this because we believe the dead should be respected? Does this respect come out of a fear of retribution? Probably not.  What I find interesting though, is that it is done out of a sense of avoiding harm to the recently deceased.  It is almost as if they can still be present and have feelings in the living and tangible world. 

            Personally, I can relate to the second interpretation of Strauss’s.  Although, I would argue that I respect the memories of those close to me, not because I fear retribution, but because I feel that allows them to continue partially in my life.  If I recall the lessons from my grandfather, and I imagine him there telling me how to live and what to do, in a way his memory is contributing to my world today…

Using Access and Excel

How do you find using Access and Excel for working with this kind of data? What is the difference for you between wading through a cemetery in a database, versus wandering through it in real life?

   As a visual person, I find using Access and Excel for working with this kind of data to be detrimental to the study of the graves.  We must consider what we are working with here.  There is more to these graves than sets of data and information for us to mine. These are real sites of remembrance for people who did once live, and turning their memories into a spreadsheet to me feels a slight bit sacrilegious.  I do recognize that  this is often the only viable option when we cannot visit the cemetery ourselves, and for the purposes of learning how to manipulate data relating to the archaeology of death we need this sort of information.  In the only way I can describe, it still does not feel right...
   I think it is undeniable that there are certain feelings that one feels when entering a cemetery or burial site. There is also a certain amount of respect afforded to the monuments, the atmosphere, and the memories enclosed in the land.  I feel that if I were to walk around the St Stephen’s Cemetery, and personally deal with the monuments and burial sites, I would have a better understanding of the people that were buried there.  So much information is not included in the database that could shed light on their lives.  Condition of the graves, the landscaping around them, their location within the burial ground.  All could prove interesting and relevant to further research on the cemetery and some of this is impossible, or too convoluted, to include in a database.