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...........