Mass Graves

Mass Graves and Genocide 

Warning: Due to the sensitive nature of this topic, some individuals may find the material discussed in this blog entry upsetting. Additionally, please be aware that graphic images will be used, including but not limited to: bodies of deceased children, bodies of individuals who were likely subject to torture before death and graves containing multiple bodies. 

For my last blog post of the semester, I want to take a look at mass graves with a focus on genocide; my interest in this area stems from the fact that it allows my interest in anthropology, psychology, human rights and forensics to intersect. This was originally a topic that I had intended to explore for the larger group project, but the ethical issues associated with finding/using images on this subject would have made the logistics very difficult. In turn, I decided to only use pictures from journal articles or very well recognized/respected websites for this Blogger entry, in hopes of minimizing any ethical problems. 

When I asked my friends and siblings to list all of the examples of genocide they could think of, the most common responses I received were the mass murders that took place in Rwanda (1994), and the crimes committed by the Nazis during WWII. Unfortunately, genocide is far more common than many people are aware of, with more than twenty separate instances being reported between 1951 and 2000 (“Genocides in history”, 2012). One of the more recent examples is the al-Anfal Campaign, also known as the Kurdish Genocide, which was spearheaded by Saddam Hussein’s cousin Ali Hassan al-Majid, and took place in Iraq between 1986 and 1988. Over 100,000 people were killed, including many women and children. In 2007 Al-Majid was convicted of war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide, and this was due (in part) to the evidence collected by archaeologists such as Michael S. (Sonny) Trimble, in 2007 (“Al-Anfal campaign”, 2012). 

Fantasy! (Dowdey, 2012)

  If you complete a Google image search for “archaeologist” you are generally met with images of Indiana Jones, or men in tilley hats examining very old skeletons and dinosaur bones. What most people don’t imagine are people like Trimble, who sacrificed his own safety by entering a country precipitously close to civil war because, as he recalled, “I was really interested in assisting the Iraqi people” (Pringle, 2009). His field directer, Susan Malin-Boyce, was another archaeologist that put herself in harms way in pursuit of justice for the victims of the Kurdish Genocide. 

(Pringle, 2008)

The physical excavation of the mass graves in Iraq was challenging for several reasons. The first was that even though the graves were incredibly shallow, approximately one and a half feet below the surface, each body and its associated belongings had to be removed individually and bagged to ensure identification could take place. This required rather painstaking cooperation between the archaeologists and physical anthropologists, as they were working on a 36 meter grave that contained 114 bodies using only trowels. One of the interesting, and frightening, things about this mass grave in particular was that only 30 of the bodies were adults (2 males, 28 females), and the remaining 84 were children, most of whom were under the age of thirteen. A second challenge was the 120 degree heat, which posed a challenge for both excavation, and analysis of the bodies due to the accelerated decomposition (Pringle, 2009).

(Pringle, 2009)

Over the course of Anthropology 392, two aspects of burial that we have talked about a great deal are the physical placement of a body in the grave, and grave goods. I feel like the Iraqi mass grave example is a valuable learning tool, because these two areas of analysis provided a great deal of insight into how/why the individuals were buried in the grave and they also helped to date the mass murder. For example, based on the orientation of the bodies in the grave, the anthropologists were able to determine that the adult males and adolescent boys were killed first, because they were positioned in the deepest part of the grave. The remaining children and women were then shot, and placed in the more shallow parts of the grave. The grave goods were particularly important because analysis of these artifacts revealed that 80% of the deceased were either dressed in an article of traditional Kurdish clothing, or possessed a stereotypical artifact such as Kurdish jewelry. This analysis helped the anthropologists prove, without a doubt, that the Kurdish people were specifically targeted in this attack. Furthermore, a child’s rubber boot was used to date the grave to 1988-1989, because it was imprinted with the cartoon character Hanna-Barbera, which was only popular during this time period. 

  I believe that this modern day example helps demonstrate that the techniques we learned in class are not only applicable to ancient graves, but also modern burials. It is worth noting, however, that individuals who work in this subfield of anthropology recognize that there is a lack of training and standardization in regards to mass grave excavation. As a result, the quality of investigation and reporting is often variable, and experts recommend that universities should start offering graduate programs focusing on mass grave excavation, and the United Nations needs to start examining more long term solutions and investing more financial resources into this growing field (Skinner, Alempijevic & Djuric-Srejic, 2003). 

 

References:

Al-Anfal campaign. (n.d.). In Wikipedia. Retrieved March 31, 2012, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1988_Anfal_campaign

Dowdey, Sarah. (n.d.). How archaeology works. How stuff works. Retrieved February 29, 2012, from http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/earth/geology/archaeology.htm

Genocides in history. (n.d.). In Wikipedia. Retrieved March 31, 2012, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocides_in_history 

Pringle, H. (2009). Witness to Genocide. Archaeology, 62, 28-65.  

Non-journal Link: http://www.archaeology.org/0901/etc/iraq.html 

Pringle, H. (2008, December 12). Massacre of the innocents. Retrieved from http://archaeology.org/blog/?p=155 

Skinner, M., Alempijevic, D., & Djuric-Srejic, M. (2003). Review: Guidelines for international  international forensic bio-archaeology monitors of mass grave exhumations. Forensic Science International, 134, 81-92.

Museum Displays

Museum Displays: 

  Today in class we discussed how we determine whether an artifact or remains are “appropriate” to be kept on display in a museum. My opinion deviated quite strongly from the other students’ iclicker responses, because I believed that it was acceptable to allow every item to be publicly viewed. My reasons for this aligned closely with what Devin said during class. Basically, we never know what we might be able to learn from an object in the future, and so to relinquish access to an artifact or remains may be robbing scientists of an amazing opportunity in the future. Additionally, and I should preface this by saying I am not a sentimental person, I can’t wrap my head around a person or group wanting remains or an object back from a museum. In my mind, allowing an object to be held, examined, and displayed in a museum is one of the greatest gifts an individual can give to society after death. To inspire scientific interest in children, provide researchers with insight into the past, and provide revenue for an institution that helps protect and educate the community about the past seems like a noble sacrifice. 

Paleolithic burials

Paleolithic Burials 

Photograph by Glacoma Giocobini 

Available at: http://www.modernhumanorigins.net/arenecandide.html

Sometimes all it takes is a dramatic image to spark a person’s interest in a topic. For me, the above image catalyzed my interest in Upper Paleolithic burials because I was instantly drawn to the “Young Prince” and his lavish grave goods. After doing a bit of research, I discovered that this fifteen year old male was was found in the Italian Arene Candide Cave (1942), and dated to 23,4400 +/- 190 years BP (Giacobini, 2007). His bones are extremely dramatic because they are covered with red ochre, and the artifacts around his head are actually very small shells which are the remains of a cap. If you look closely at the above image, you can also identify four elk antler batons that have been pierced, a flint blade, and four ivory pendants (Giacobini, 2007). 

(Formicola & Buzhilova, 2004)

A second grave with beautiful grave goods from the Upper Paleolithic period was found in Sunghir, near Moscow. This burial is quite different than the “Young Prince” interment, however, because it contained the remains of one juvenile girl and one juvenile boy who were positioned head to head (Formicola & Buzhilova, 2004). The bodies were covered in red ochre, and the grave contained a huge quantity of ivory grave goods in the form of beads, pins, pendants, figurines, disks and lances. In addition, a belt made of fox teeth and antler batons were found with the pair (Pearson, 1999, p. 150). 

Reflecting on this blog post so far, I am struck by how apparent it is that my value system has been shaped by Western culture. The mere fact that I chose to examine Upper Paleolithic burials because of their beautiful grave goods speaks to the fact that the individualistic and materialistic nature of our society has influenced what I value as ‘interesting’. Although I was not actively trying to be objective when constructing this entry, because it is personal and reflective in nature, this realization is still a bit unsettling. 

  On a relatively regular basis, Lindsay brings up the fact that she does not necessarily feel “right” drawing many of the conclusions from burials/grave goods that we discuss in class, because the interpretations could vary based on an individual’s perspective. I am not very fond of speaking up in class, but in the majority of cases I agree with Lindsay’s concerns. Although anthropologists try to acknowledge any biases that could influence their interpretation of the data, I often wonder how much bias goes unrecognized by the anthropologists themselves. Regardless of where we come from the social, cultural and political structure of our community plays a role in shaping our value systems from the day we are born. In turn, our community becomes a part of who we are in addition to simply a place where we live. This leads me to question how truly objective we can be when interpreting data from the distant past or different cultures, because if my value system could subconsciously influence my topic for a blog post, I am sure it influences my perspective in many other ways as well! 

References:

Formicola, V. & Buzhilova, A. P. (2004). Double child burial from Sunghir (Russia): Pathology and inferences for Upper Paleolithic funerary practices. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 124, 189-198. 

Giacobini, G. (2007). Richness and diversity of burial rituals in the Upper Paleolithic. Diogenes, 54, 19-39. 

Pearson, M. P. (1999). The archaeology of death and burial. College Station: Texas A & M University Press.  

Marking Rubric

      Applying the Marking Rubric

      Unfortunately, both the topic and format for our presentation is rather unique, so there are not very many sources to choose from! I was able to find one Prezi that addressed the topic of Hierakonpolis, however it appeared to be geared towards a less academic group of individuals than our project. Regardless, I will mark it using our seven part rubric in order to answer Dr. McGuire’s questions of “How does it measure up?” and “What would make it better?”

Screen shot of the Prezi marked using our rubric.

Analysis (8): The Prezi would receive an “Adequate” rating of 3/8 for this section, because it does not provide an analysis and critique of current interpretation(s), or includes one or more alternative interpretations based on different methodological or theoretical approaches” (McGuire, 2012), even though it does include a very brief introduction to Hierakonpolis. In order to improve the grade on this section, a far greater amount of analysis should be done, rather than simply citing facts. 

Visual Presentation (8): In this section, the fact that the creator of this project simply cited facts in relation to his images means that he technically meets the criteria for a very high grade on this section. However, because he did not address any of the author’s arguments, evidence or conclusions in any depth, I will only give him a “Good” rating of 6/8 on this section. In order to improve this grade, more images should be used and pictures should be tied into arguments and new conclusions rather than just simple facts. 

Outline/Introduction (4): The creator of the Prezi mentions very vaguely why he is interested in this topic, however the opening transitions do not address any research questions or a statement regarding the appropriate audience. Additionally, there is no indication regarding what type of evidence is going to follow. In turn, I would give this section a “Poor” rating of 1/4. Improvements would include providing a clear research question, a warning regarding the content of the Prezi, and a brief overview of the evidence that will be used in his analysis. Evidence (8): This project fails to cite any sources within the text or beside the images, and there is no bibliography! The only source chosen was accurate and of high quality, however this does not compensate for the other issues. As a result, this section would receive a “Poor” rating of 2/8. In order to improve this grade, more sources should be chosen and integrated throughout the presentation, and a bibliography must be included.  

Conclusion (4): The conclusion is completely absent, and so this section receives a “Poor” rating of 0/4. To improve, a conclusion should be included and aim to reframe and synthesizes the key points of the project, suggests new questions or perspectives, and bring closure.

Organization/Clarity (8): As this Prezi is extremely brief, it is also relatively easy to follow for the marker. There are some transitions that are not very clear, there is a complete lack of quotations and the majority of information is presented as single sentences or bullet points, rather than in paragraphs. As a result, I will award this section a “Poor” rating of 4/8. This grade would increase if paragraphs were used, quotations incorporated and cited throughout the text, and the font was easier to read. 

Mechanics (4): The short nature of this project means that there are not very many mechanical errors. As a result, this section receives a “Good” grade of 3/4. This would be improved if sentence structure was used consistently throughout the Prezi. 
Total: 19/44 

When The Bough Breaks

       So, as much as I know Dr. McGuire disliked ‘forcing’ us to read the article for Wednesday’s class, I did enjoy that it allowed us to have a more in depth group discussion regarding the material. I particularly liked that it let us address the issue of biases within the archaeological record, which in the Waterman and Thomas article manifested as automatically believing that the theory of “ancestor worship” accounted for why the massive tombs were built during the Neolithic period. As the authors point out, however, the fact that a third of the bones in these tombs were non-adults pulls this theory into question. First of all, I was really surprised that the previous article had failed to account for these bones. Doesn’t a third seem like a huge percentage to simply ignore? 

Ross Bay Cemetery: Mausoleums

Ross Bay Cemetery: Mausoleums 

(Old Cemeteries of Victoria, 2012)

Data Collection and Scope:

  Fifteen mausoleums were examined at the Ross Bay Cemetery in the Fairfield neighborhood of Victoria, BC. The low number of mausoleums made it feasible for our analysis to include all of these monuments present in the cemetery. Our first question, “Does the position of a mausoleum in the Ross Bay landscape provide any information regarding an individual’s religious affiliation?”, further necessitated including all mausoleums in the scope of our project. Several of the sections, as defined in the image above provided by the Old Cemeteries Society of Victoria website, included only one mausoleum and so it was extremely important that these examples were included for our analysis. However, it was recognized that preferentially selecting monuments based on their religious section would introduce a bias in the data that we would use to address our first research question. Favoring the mausoleums in the religious sections over the general sections may have overstated the importance of position in the landscape in relation to religious affiliation, but neglecting any of the six mausoleums in designated religious sections may have concealed whether there was a relationship because the sample size is so small. One of the limitations of our study arises from the fact that several of the religious sections of the cemetery were used for the burial of both members and non-members of that denomination, or were later opened up for general use (such as the Wesleyan section). In turn, this does not guarantee an individual’s religious affiliation aligns with their position in the Ross Bay landscape. 

     Our second research question, “In the Ross Bay Cemetery, was mausoleum use favored by (or limited to) a certain social group or social class?” also encouraged us to include all mausoleums in our sample, in an effort to ensure that we would be able to find enough historical information about individuals/families to analyze! Although we hoped to minimize bias against any social group/class by including all the mausoleums, we recognize that our investigation is limited by the fact that there simply tends to be more available historical documents for wealthy individuals and families. Even though our group member Laura spent hours looking through archives and census data it was still much easier to find primary sources, such as old newspaper articles, about the high socio-economic status individuals/families who were placed in the mausoleums. 

Our Google Map of the Ross Bay Cemetery. 

Response to Research Questions: 

1. Does the position of a mausoleum in the Ross Bay landscape provide any information regarding an individual’s religious affiliation? 

The placement of a mausoleum within the Ross Bay landscape does provide some information regarding an individual or family’s religious affiliation, because the cemetery is divided into sections based on religious denomination. As you can see in the above image, the six categories are Roman Catholic, Wesleyan, Reformed Episcopal, Anglican, Presbyterian, and General. Unfortunately, as I mentioned above, one of the limitations of our study is that several of the sections were opened up for general use or individuals were simply not buried in areas that corresponded to their religious belief; Harry Dallas Helmcken, for example, is buried in the Anglican section but our census data from 1881/1891/1901 indicates that he was a Reformed Episcopal. There were several other individuals whose mausoleum location did not align with their census denomination including Byron L. Johnson who was a Lutheran buried in the Anglican section, and Charles Chislett who was a Methodist buried in the Wesleyan section. I find Harry Dallas Helmcken’s discrepancy particularly interesting, however, because the Ross Bay Cemetery had a specific section devoted to Reformed Episcopal, whereas Chislett and Johnson did not belong to denominations with a section dedicated to their religious beliefs. Additionally, Helmcken died in 1912 making his mausoleum one of the earliest constructed in the cemetery. Although it is possible that the Helmcken mausoleum was constructed in the Anglican section simply because there was not enough space in the Reformed Episcopal portion of the cemetery, I was curious as to whether there could be another explanation. 

     The Helmcken family have British roots, as the famous John Sebastian Helmcken (father of Harry) was born in London, England. The family mausoleum follows the British trends of being modest in scale (Mytum, 2003), using granite and drawing architectural inspiration from Egyptian iconography (LeeDecker, 2009). Reviewing the history of Ross Bay Cemetery I found that there were plans to build a chapel in the Anglican section, although it never actually materialized (Old Cemeteries of Victoria, 2012). Another tradition of the British elite was to place their dead close to the church, in an effort to create a separate and privileged space away from the growing number of middle class burials (Mytum, 2003). As the Helmcken mausoleum follows several other British traditions, I am left wondering whether the location was chosen to ensure that the mausoleum would be close to the chapel if it was ever built, in an effort to reinforce their elite status. A second facet to consider is that the rural cemetery movement, with its Picturesque ideals that favored beautiful naturalistic settings, remained a guiding force in cemetery construction during the latter portion of the 1800s (Hawker, 1987); this trend contributed to the construction of Ross Bay Cemetery, as the Pioneer Square was publicly unpopular because it live up to the esthetic ideals of the time (Hawker, 1987). In turn, it is possible that the Helmcken mausoleum location was selected because the Anglican section was in a more attractive and desirable part of the cemetery.

The Helmcken mausoleum

2. In the Ross Bay Cemetery, was mausoleum use favored by (or limited to) a certain social group or social class?

Laura completed a lot of research into the history of the individuals and families associated with the fifteen mausoleums in the Ross Bay Cemetery using the website Victoria’s Victoria (Taylor and Mindenhall, 2007). She was able to find both census information and newspaper articles for many of the people related to our monuments, and it appears that the vast majority were high socio-economic status professionals, including doctors, politicians and businessmen. During the 1880s Victoria experienced a period of huge economic growth, and the population of the city during this decade increased by 184 per cent (Hawker, 2007, p. 22). This boom drew many people in the lumber, shipping and coal industries, and the Rithett family became both wealthy and socially prominent because of their successes in business; it should be noted that their accomplishments also earned them enemies, which is demonstrated by the anti colonial graffiti on the inside of their mausoleum. 

The Rithett mausoleum

     During the latter part of the nineteenth century there was a shift from an egalitarian philosophy to one that focussed on success and individual achievement, and this is represented in the grand family mausoleums and extravagant burial monuments that became very popular during this time (LeeDecker, 2009). This focus on individualism would have been very pronounced in a “boom town” like Victoria, where people moved in hopes of making a better life for themselves and their family. In turn I am not surprised that mausoleums were popular in the Ross Bay Cemetery at the turn of the century, because the social and cultural attitudes of the time would have encouraged individuals/families to display their wealth and status publicly (LeeDecker, 2009). Interestingly, the mausoleum trends my group observed aligned quite closely with the national trends, because “construction of expensive family mausoleums peaked during the 1920s and 1930s” (LeeDecker, 2009, p. 151) in North America. 

References: 

Hawker, R.W., 1987. Monuments in the nineteenth-century public cemeteries of Victoria, British Columbia. Material Culture Review, 26, pp. 19-27

LeeDecker, C., 2009. Preparing for an afterlife on Earth: The transformation of mortuary behavior in nineteenth-century North America. In: T. Majewski and D. Gaimster, ed. 2009. International Handbook of Historical Archaeology. New York: Springer Science, pp. 141-57.

Mytum, H., 2003. Mortuary monuments and burial grounds of the historic period. New York: Springer. 

Old Cemeteries of Victoria, 2012. Cemeteries-Ross Bay Cemetery-Sections. [online] Available at:  <http://www.oldcem.bc.ca/cem_rb_sec.htm> [Accessed 18 February 2012].

Taylor, L. and Mindenhall, D, 2007. Index of Historical Victoria Newspapers. [online] Available at: <http://www.victoriasvictoria.ca/> [Accessed 18 February 2012]. 

The Body Farm

The Body Farm: 

       What do you want to happen to your body when you die? Pose this question to a member of the general public, and I am sure the vast majority of individuals will respond with either burial, or cremation. Ask an anthropology student, on the other hand, and I am sure you will get a variety of unique answers! In my case, the first thought that popped into my head was donating my body to science. In an ideal world I would like all of my “usable parts” to be harvested for organ/skin donation, but another option I would consider is donating my corpse to the Body Farm at the University of Tennessee. 

(Note: If anyone reading this is interested in becoming an organ donor, you can register at the following link - http://www.transplant.bc.ca/index.asp) 

  Founded in 1981 by Dr. William Bass, the original Body Farm was opened to allow anthropologists to study decomposition. The reasoning behind creating this facility was there was very little data available to police officers regarding decomposition in different environments. For example, it was a struggle to establish the time of death of individuals who had been disposed of in uncommon ways, such as being being buried with calcium oxide to speed up decomposition. The actual Body Farm is quite large, covering two and a half acres near the medical school at the University of Tennessee in Knoxville, and approximately one hundred bodies are donated to the facility each year (“Body Farm”, 2012). 

WARNING: Before anyone clicks on the video below, I want them to be aware that it does contain graphic images. 

In the video above, Dr. Bass takes the viewer on a tour around the Body Farm, and specifically focusses on the phenomenon of skin slippage and the case of Leoma Patterson, which he discusses in his book Beyond the Body Farm (2007). Although there are many videos on youtube.com exploring the subject of the Body Farm, I really like this particular video because it provides information on both the scientific and social aspects of forensic anthropology. Skin slippage is a phenomenon that traditional archaeologists are less likely to deal with, because it occurs during the preliminary phases of decomposition, but Dr. Bass also points out remains that are being studied in order to determine how night predators interact with decaying bodies. He highlights gnaw marks along the zygomatic arches caused by animals such as raccoons and squirrels. This type of data is valuable to archaeologists because it helps them determine whether damage to a skeleton is the result of natural or unnatural processes, and as we  have discussed in class this sort of information is often used to gain insight into the past behaviors associated with burial and death. Furthermore, I enjoyed the discussion of Leoma Patterson because I believe it helps to humanize the field of archaeology. Often in this discipline we are examining remains from a very scientific perspective, and we can lose sight of the fact that these bones likely belonged to a person who was loved, and loved others. 

It was through Dr. Bill Bass’ earlier memoir Death’s Acre (2004) that I was first introduced to forensic anthropology and the Body Farm eight years ago, when I was sixteen years old. From this point onwards my interest in the this field blossomed, and it was one of my major motivations for taking this class. Often times, when I reveal to others that I am interested in death, and the processes of death, they find this morbid and slightly unsettling. I feel like this reaction arises from the fact that as a society we tend to avoid talking about death, and so it is a somewhat taboo subject; I find this especially interesting from a cultural anthropology perspective, because death is often exploited as a source of entertainment by the media - why is there such a disconnect between what we find acceptable and interesting to watch, versus talk about? As an example, I recently revealed to some of my friends that I was really interested in the Body Farm and determining the cause of death using the physical evidence associated with a corpse, and was met with joking comments like “So, are you a closet sociopath then?!” While I assume this a rather standard reaction, the fact that the Body Farm has been featured on the very popular TV series Bones (see the video below), demonstrates that there is a widespread interest in this topic/genre of material. 

Reference: 

Body Farm. (n.d.). In Wikipedia. Retrieved February 15, 2012 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_farm#University_of_Tennessee_at_Knoxville

Dr. Nowell's Presentation

Dr. Nowell's Presentation:

      After Dr. Nowell's presentation yesterday I dug up a video on the topic we were discussing if anyone is interested: 

After an absolutely crazy couple of weeks, I finally have time to update my blog. I am definitely glad we have the two ‘freebies’ to use, because I have been up to my eyeballs in work applying for Masters degrees; I honestly did not realize it was going to be such a work and time intensive process!  

So, back to death and burial. I really enjoyed Dr. Nowell’s presentation on Paleolithic burials yesterday. I am very interested in evolution, and have taken Dr. Kurki’s class, so it was nice to have evolution and early Homo tied together with the content this class. The video I posted above was absolutely heartbreaking, especially at the two minute mark where the mother returns to check on the body and then falls on her back after moving a couple of paces away. The journal article that analyzes the event you can see in the footage is titled “Behavioral Response of a Chimpanzee Mother Toward her Dead Infant” by Cronin, Van Leeuwen, Mulenga and Bodamer and was published in the American Journal of Primatology in 2011. The authors explain that following the death of an infant, chimpanzee mothers usually maintain close physical contact for a period of time where they do not allow other conspecifics to investigate, but later allow fellow group members to examine or interact with the body. The film obviously features the latter portion of this ‘mourning’ process. Researchers are interested in examining this phenomenon because it provides interesting information about how chimpanzees learn about changes in social relationships, and it demonstrates the depth of maternal bonding with an infant because the offspring is not engaging in any reciprocal behaviors after death.