The Grand Finale!

In yesterday's class we had a very cool presentation on repatriation of First Nations artefacts and remains within Canada. I found the whole subject to be really interesting, especially because our presenter was outlining reasons that Canada should not implement any overarching legislation similar to the USA's NAGPRA. While she was talking about a few examples of repatriation of Canadian First Nations Groups' ancestral remains, she mentioned a museum in Glasgow called the Hunterian Museum. The Hunterian Museum is connected to the University of Glasgow and is governed by their board of directors, and she pointed them out as a stark contrast to another museum in Glasgow which is actively seeking to repatriate any remains in collections which they possess. 

(Thanks University of Glasgow!) One of the exhibits which
The Hunterian Museum displays. 

Having started my morning with this presentation, my ears perked up when 10 hours later I was sitting in another class listening to a presentation on a different topic. (Yes you read that correctly, 10 hours passed between my first and last class of the day. Wednesdays are long). In my Skeletal Diseases course we are doing presentations, and one group told us about Acromegaly and Gigantism. There was a man name Charles Byrne who was called the "Irish Giant" who suffered from this disease. When the Byrne was on his death bed, he requested to be buried at sea; however, as soon as he died doctors rushed in and purchased his body in order to study it. His skeleton is now on display, against his wishes, in the Hunterian Museum of London. Although this Hunterian Museum is not connected to that of Glasgow, both are guilty of retaining human remains against the wishes of the people themselves, or their ancestors. 

Thanks The Londonist! Follow the link in the caption to
read an interesting piece on whether or not Byrne should
finally be given his requested burial at sea.

This is such a difficult subject to discuss, because as the Hunterian in London states explicitly that they will retain or collect specimens that are either: 

"Recent (less than 100 years) specimens illustrating normal or pathological human anatomy for specific educational purposes."

or: 

"Specimens over 100 years old illustrating normal or pathological human anatomy."

See Section 3.6 for these quotes: http://www.rcseng.ac.uk/museums/documents/RCS%20Museums%20and%20Archives%20Acquistion%20-%20Disposal%20Policy.pdf 

Is it okay to retain human remains if we can gain knowledge from them? Would there be more justification if there were doctors actively studying specimens such as Byrne's skeleton rather than leaving it permanently on display? Or as someone mentioned in class yesterday, are we simply being over sensitive? 

Surprise, surprise!!

Surprise, surprise!! I'm going to tell a story about my family!

One of my uncles, Michael, went away for a trip. When he got back to Victoria, he swung by my Grandma's house to say hello and catch up with the family. Walking into the family home that morning, he looked around and saw that the kitchen was clean and there were platters of food on every available surface. My Mom and Aunt were in the kitchen, and he turned to them saying, "there's either a Christening or a funeral, which is it?"

Thanks Gourmet Delish!

It turned out to be a funeral. My family often hosted receptions for funerals as we had a huge house, so I grew up with the belief that every funeral was followed by a large celebration of the person's life, and a lot of food! When my Grandma died, I arrived at the house and walked into the kitchen at 7 in the morning and found food already all over the table. I distinctly remember that there was an abundance of food in the house over the next few days- little sandwiches, cold pizza, etc. And the reception we held after her funeral can only be called a party. Everyone was obviously very sad, but we also all comforted each other and wanted to send my Grandma off in style. 

Reading the article by Hayden (2009), it strikes me that the one element which he never really discussed as a motivation for an elaborate funeral feast (or ELFF!) was mourning a loved one. He discusses a desire to honour the deceased, but never really delves into what is to me the most obvious reason to hold a large feast and deplete all your resources: love. 

Hayden, B. (2009) Funerals as Feasts: Why Are They So Important? Cambridge Archaeological Journal 19:29-52.

Just tell them she has gone out on the roof!

There was a movie made in the 1970's called Capricorn One, from which my family got the saying "she/he/it/they have gone out on the roof". Basically this is a euphemism for "someone has died". 

Thanks BusterMerrfield
The premise of the saying is that a man's cat dies, but his brother
 doesn't inform him in a very sensitive way, leading the first man
 to suggest a better dialogue for breaking bad news. 

Unfortunately youtube/blogger won't allow me to embed the clip of this episode where the story gets told, but if you follow this link you can watch it in all its glory!! (You can also read the transcript of the scene at the end of this post!)


Growing up it wasn't uncommon for me to overhear adults talking about one relative or another going out on the roof, and it was no secret to us kids that it meant they had died. My family never intended to be insensitive about someone we loved passing on, they just felt it was best to have a healthily positive approach to this unavoidable aspect of...well...life. I don't remember the first time I was exposed to death, but I remember the first funeral I went to at which I truly understood what was happening. I was about 6 years old and I remember some details, such as the outfit I was wearing, with great clarity, but I don't remember being told that my great aunt had died, although someone must have sat me down and explained it. 


Having grown up in a household that had an open approach to discussing death with and around children, I find it difficult to remember a time that I didn't understand that people and animals die. When I hear stories about kids who were told that their beloved pet "went to the farm" I feel sorry for them. It must have been upsetting and confusing to think of their pet living in a new home with a new family, and I know that for me part of what eases the sadness of death is that I know what has happened to them. 


As they say: Scientia potestas est ie. Knowledge is power. Or in my case, comfort! 


Of course, just because a child understands death doesn't mean they are always okay with it. I was very sad at that first memorable funeral. And I still have a vivid memory of fleeing from the kitchen tv when Bambi's mother is killed to fling myself on my parents bed in tears. 


So back to the question of when is an appropriate time to explain death to children? I don't think that there is a right or wrong answer to this. Every child is different, every family is different, every situation is different. Go figure!! Also, I think that children (at least in North America) are exposed to death at a pretty young age by a lot of different channels than their parents may think. 


For example, most of our cherished Disney movies contain references or scenes of death at one point or another (much to the 5 year old Meredith's devastation)...

Thanks Forces of Geek
There is no hiding the fact that Gaston suffers a brutal death
from a big fall. Or that we are supposed to be happy about it...

Thanks The Hunchblog of Notre Dame
Not even the good characters are always safe :(

Thanks The Lion KinG
There is no attempt to hide the fact that Simba's father is dead
in this iconic scene. 

In fact, if you start looking for it, it is easy to see blatant themes of death in many aspects of stories which are told to children at fairly young ages: almost every Disney movie ever made, the beloved holiday of Halloween, Easter which celebrates the death of Jesus, any ghost story ever, the seemingly innocent tale of the Gingerbread Man, even the beloved children's classic The Little Prince!! Not to mention the original Fairy Tales of the Brothers' Grimm.

Thanks My//Your//Our (MYOUR) Sadhana
The first time I read this I cried like a baby at the end!

There is an interesting article in British paper The Telegraph which addresses the reasons behind some parents choosing not to read their children certain stories. Even Goldilocks and the Three Bears makes the list!


As one of my classmates (Jaylene Horvath) pointed out in her blog, our society seems to have a consuming fascination with death and dying in our entertainment, yet it remains a taboo subject in many ways. I wonder if this is perhaps due to the fact that modern medicine has made it so that death affects the elderly, and the death of younger individuals is mostly either due to diseases to which there is not a completely effective cure, or to tragic accidents. I wonder if we attempt to emotionally anesthetize ourselves so as not to suffer through the pain of losing a loved one in a similar way that people in countries with hight infant mortality rates hold off on considering their children "people" until they have survived a certain amount of time? I'm not quite sure what I am trying to say here, but I feel that maybe the pain of loss, and the fear of facing one's own mortality perhaps drives people to ignore death as much as possible? I know for myself that this approach wouldn't work, but maybe that is only because of the particular environment in which I was raised. 


Unfortunately dear Readers, despite pontificating on this subject for the last 900 or so words, I am no closer to having a concrete idea of when is an appropriate age or way to discuss death with children. All I can suggest is that when the time comes, you keep in mind what euphemisms you use may be misunderstood from time to time....


For example, in the car on the way home from elementary school one afternoon, my Mom casually informed my brothers and I that one of our black labs, Chester, had gone out on the roof. A stricken silence fell over us and we sat there as she continued to explain: "Grandma must have left her window open a little wide, and he just squeezed himself out and onto the roof. The neighbours came over to tell us and we all watched as he leapt from the roof and landed in the bush growing next to the house." "Oh my God, that's awful!" I exclaimed, "poor Chester! Dermot (my Uncle who's dog Chester was) must be devastated" Much to my shock my Mom replied that he actually found the whole thing rather funny, and that Chester seemed shaken but was overall fine. I still remember sitting there and incredulously asking "if he is still alive, why did you tell us he had gone out on the roof!??" 

Thank you Metal Rat!! <3 you!

Here is the transcript of the scene which gave my family this amusing saying! Thank you http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/ Capricorn_One :)

"There’s this guy, see. He takes a trip to Europe. It’s his first vacation in a long time. Sees the sights, you know? He has a real good time. Anyway, after a while he decides to call home. He gets his brother on the phone, and the guy says to his brother, “How’s everything at home?” And his brother says, “Your…your cat died.” And the guy says to his brother, “You shouldn’t tell me bad news like that. You should…break it to me gently. You know…like…you should say something like…’The cat...crawled out on the roof...and...chasing squirrels…and…got stuck. We had to call the fire department…and when they finally got there…the fireman crawled up, he grabbed the cat, but on the way down he slipped and the cat…fell to the ground. And, they had to take the cat to the vet. They…tried to save the cat…even operated...on the cat. But it was too late. The - they couldn’t…save the cat’. That’s how you should break…bad news like that.” So the guy says to his brother…….“How’s Mom?” And the brother says…….”She’s on the roof.” Get it? She’s on the roof. [Laughing, sobbing] She’s on the roof. Get it?"

Bazinga!!

Welcome fearless followers!!!

Join me on this exciting journey as we delve into the past to examine the ever fascinating subject of Brangelina vampirism...

(Thank you Andy's Film Blog) Actor Bela Lugosi portrays 
the classic image of the most famous vampire: Dracula.

Over the last few years the growing obsession with vampires in pop culture has led to the deterioration of the classic notion of "vampires"...

(Thanks Digital Citizen) Vampires have been romanticized
in recent years with movies and shows like Twilight, True Blood,
and the Vampire Diaries. 

...leading to most websites and blogs on vampires containing very little valuable information about the actual occurance of vampire burials in the past. However, the history of vampires (or vampyre, vrykolakas, strigoi, or wąpierz depending on where you are from) is very rich, and has much archaeological evidence to back up the numerous traditions and beliefs.

Disclaimer: I am not saying that vampires as we think of them exist(ed), simply that many societies believed in the dead rising to drink the blood of the living, and thus dealt with them in various ways which have left a mark in the archaeological record.

Despite the fact that there are so many documented cases of vampire burials, finding reliable historical and anthropological information in most websites is like trying to understand Sheldon Cooper's jokes. It's improbable. (Disclaimer 2: I have been watching a lot of Big Bang theory lately.) But despair not intrepid reader, there are a few accurate and informative sites out there. Niels Petersen of Denmark is the author of the blog Magia Posthuma (Which roughly translated from Latin means "magic after death") that contains numerous posts regarding, you guessed it: Vampires!!

(Thanks Niels Petersen!) Follow the link attached to his name in the caption
to see this fantastically informative blog :)

Petersen's blog has been active since 2007 when he began posting regularly about the subject of vampires. Contrary to what is found on most websites which focus on the undead, this site is dedicated to a mix of historically and archaeologically accurate records and discoveries which pertain to this fascinating subject! Interestingly, he also comments regularly on the pervasiveness of vampire mania or "vampania" (my newly coined term!) in modern society.
Using the criteria from a marking rubric which my group has designed, I'm going to assess and grade Petersen's blog for this week's blogpost! 


Analysis 10/10: Magia Posthuma is a well written and incredibly informative site. It contains 534 posts (!!!!) which span over six years and it appears that they are all interconnected. Many of the posts he writes contain links to other related topics which he has commented on and he has many sources throughout. Despite the prolific nature of his postings, Petersen manages to connect his posts back to one another seamlessly. Making it far too easy to get drawn down the rabbit hole and into the world of vampire studies. 

(Thank you Kameron Hurley) This is the proverbial "rabbit hole"
down which I often fall when engrossed in a subject. 

Content & Background Information 9.5/10: Although Petersen uses a huge number of sources and various documents throughout each and every post, he ties them in so seamlessly that they add to, rather than detract from, the reader's understanding. Furthermore, he often provides photographs of many of the primary sources to which he refers throughout. The one thing he could improve upon is indicating who provided the translations of sources in various foreign languages. Even if he is responsible for the work himself, I feel that indicating this would be helpful as who does a translation could skew the accuracy in some instances, and it allows readers to judge the accuracy for themselves. 


Resources 5/5: The greatest strength of this blog is the sources made accessible to the public by Petersen! He tends to introduce a main article, archaeological site, or primary source document at the beginning of most posts, then proceed to discuss the research and information surrounding that item. This provides the reader with an in depth analysis of numerous interesting sources, all of which connect intimately with one another and the main vampiric theme of the site. Many of the sources he uses are in a foreign language, and he provides extensive translations and interpretations which increase the reader's understanding and appreciation of the information enormously. 


Layout, Navigation, & Presentation 4.5/5: This website is, for the most part, very user friendly and accessible to a varied audience. While academics can appreciate the numerous scholarly references and extensive quoting of primary sources, even casual vampania enthusiasts will find the site informative and entertaining! All of his explanations of material follow a consistent style, and are easily read. My one complaint is that due to the large number of blogs, it is difficult to browse through them with ease. Furthermore, there is no simple way to see what all of the posts are about based simply upon the title. While I am not one to point fingers at bloggers with catchy yet unconnected titles designed to entice reader (coughbazingacough), I feel that with a blog that caters to such a specific topic, a little bit more clarity would have increased the ease of navigation. 


Thus Petersen's blog scores a 29/30 overall! I hope my group's website does nearly as well!!

Thanks Pusparaniology!!

On a side note: I find it really fascinating that in today's day and age of electronically available information, it has never been more important to assess sources critically. As soon as I foray outside of the UVic library search engine, I become instantly wary of ever word I read! 

Thanks Sangent for this adorably suspicious puppy!

This is probably for the best, but it makes placing my trust in personal blogs and websites difficult. It is always refreshing to come across sites written by people who are clearly in the academic field, or who provide reliable sources for their information. Sites like Petersen's prove to me that providing accurate information in a way that is assessable to the wider public is not only doable, it can be a medium that is excelled in!




Petersen, N.K. (2012). Magia Posthuma. [Available at] http://magiaposthuma.blogspot.ca/ [Accessed 8 March 2012].

"Gay caveman probably not gay or a caveman"

So says Adam McDowell of the National Post in one of the few reasonable pieces of reporting on the sensational discovery of a "gay caveman" (click here for the full article). The media frenzy was generated over the discovery of a male skeleton which was buried in what was the typical burial pattern for women in the region. There are so many frustrating aspects to this discovery and it's handling in the media that I don't even know how to begin discussing it. 


I think that in all of the ridiculous comments and assertions that the numerous news articles are riddled with, the ones which focus on the "first gay caveman" as evidence for homosexuality being "natural" make me the most angry. These reporters are the ones who attempt to put a "positive spin" on this "discovery", yet their insistence that homosexuals need historical evidence to legitimize who we are is simply insulting. 

(Thanks The Skeptical Mother!!) Sir Ian McKellen
pretty much sums things up. Even assuming the remains
are male and he was gay, what does it matter!?

Furthermore, I think that throughout this course there is one fact that has made itself apparent time and time again in every aspect of funerary practices that we have studied. This one constant is that the orientation and location of burials, monuments or markers placed with the dead, clothing in which a person is buried, and grave goods all tell us more about the people who did the burying than the individual who was buried. This means that regardless of what the anthropologists and reporters who have commented on this case may believe, the fact that this apparently male individual was buried in the style characteristic of female burials says much more about those who survived him. As many of my classmates have pointed out there may be dozens of alternative explanations (Alysha Zawaduk does a great job of discussing this), ranging from a misclassification of the remains as male to the desire of the buriers to bring shame on this individual in the afterlife. Whatever the true story may be, branding unusual discoveries with blatantly wrong and sensationalized names like "the first gay caveman" does nothing to encourage openminded investigation into the past.