The Right to Land

The topic covered in class today on repatriation and determining what archaeological finds should be put on display had me thinking of a childhood experience. It may not be a single grave good, but an entire piece of property that was under fire between the Cowichan Tribes and a local developer George Schmidt.

I grew up in what began as a small neighbourhood where a total of 5 streets were built during the '70s and remained undeveloped until the mid '90s. There was a massive forest, field, and plenty of mischief for a kid to get up to. In other words a child's mecca. Needless to say I spent most of my childhood roaming with the local suburban gang on our bikes discovering what we considered unchartered territory. Who knew that the area we considered a Indiana adventure would turn into a real life archeological discovery.

In 1992, Schmidt discovered remains of what was described as an ancient Native burial ground (Click here for more information). In the eyes of a seven year old girl who spent every summer in that very spot, it was both magical and annoying. I thought they were digging up dinosaur bones and had recurring dreams (that I still remember to this day) of finding massive t-rex skulls and showing my impressive assemblage to my mom in our kitchen. However, the discovery of the burial ground was not so magical, but definitely controversial. Initially the excavators discovered 11 sets of individuals remains; in 1994 there was a second excavation that uncovered another 25 individuals.

Layers uncovered during excavation.
From: http://www.yeyumnuts.net/category/primaryvocab/images

Now this area remains untouched by the developer as the Cowichan Tribes had declared that no further disturbance of the area was permitted. Twenty years later, the developer George Schmidt demands that the Provincial or Federal Government pay for the loss he has incurred, or the Cowichan Tribes buy back the land (who declared they cannot afford the 3 million bill associated with the property). George Schmidt goes as far as complaining to the media about the $500,000 bill associated with the archaeological digs that he had to pay for. This complaint made me particularly angry, these costs are within the hazards of buying a piece of property anywhere in B.C. and it would be stated in the contract that any excavations would have to be covered by the owner. Even if this property was purchased before this was law, the developer should remain up to date on property law.

I am also in complete compliance with the tribes barring Schmidt development of the land. This is an area that was considered extremely important by Cowichan Tribe's ancestors as well as becoming integrated into their current heritage. Including respecting the local belief system of not disturbing those who have passed because in many ways they are still present. But, also for the preservation of a gorgeous piece of land next to Somenoes creek. However, the costs associated with excavations are within the costs associated with buying a piece of property anywhere in B.C. and should have no bearing on the cost of the land.

By the time I left Timbercrest had become a grotesque development. A pimple on a once pristine land. The area had become so developed that there was barely any forest left, and certainly no massive field with the scariest hill a child could take her bike down. As said before, this discovery was a blessing, especially to my inner child who is comforted by the thoughts of the past and joys of summers spent in the forest next to my home.

Call me sentimental but this should not be disturbed.
From: http://www.yeyumnuts.net/category/primaryvocab/images

Egocentrism: a Rant of Sorts.

         Over the past few classes I have caught myself thinking something I have come to consider maladaptive. When discussing case studies I often find myself wondering, is this what their culture has intended for our culture to find 100's (and in some cases 1000's) of years down the road? My first thought was: I would make an awful archaeologist. Second thought was: I am a westerner. For some reason this status alone allows a tendency to rely on egocentric thinking. But to me the idea that I have become so engaged in a question that does not seem plausible is almost fascinating.

         I have found it increasingly difficult to disengage myself from the fact that archaeologists are digging up graves to interpret how a past society may have operated. I keep wondering if this is how they wanted us to find them. I understand in this weeks reading of Gillespie's, Personhood, Agency and Mortuary Ritual: A case study from the Ancient Maya, the Ancient Maya could have manipulated their written record in order shine a favourable light onto a particular leader. But I find myself applying that to graves as well. Would the Mayan culture, and others, also engage in placing grave goods and shrines for the purpose of foreigners to see how amazing they were?


        Surely there would not have been burial procession so long ago with even a slight intention of a foreign culture digging up their loved ones for the purpose of interpretation. This issue has created conflict between the archaeological community and ancestors of excavated graves. I believe that archaeology is just a reason to understand how the people of the past (who archaeologists believe are connected to us through collective identity) somehow is being compared to our lives today. This connection is long gone. Cognitive thinking has evolved and the reasons for people of the past engaging in burial is not for our benefit. Has anyone ever informed the archaeological community that dwelling in the past has potentially negative impacts in the future? This makes me question the first blog prompt we received this semester, asking what would be in our graves. This becomes an even more egocentric view of what we want people in the future to perceive our society or us as an individual. In the end, practicing the placing of grave goods today, puts food on the plates of starving archaeologists tomorrow.


       However, this could just be my own personal misinterpretation of the entire field of archaeology.

From: http://www.ahajokes.com/cartoon/future.gif

Analyzing the United States Holocaust Museum Website

            When analyzing sites pertaining to the holocaust and mass burials why not look at a high standard set by the United states Holocaust Museum. This web site is full of useful information pertaining to the horrendous time during WWII when the lives of many Jewish families were turned upside down, followed by a country in denial for decades after the fact. As a counter attack to ignorance, a memorial project was created and this website was its product.

 Presentation        
             To receive top marks for Organization and presentation the website should be easy to navigate while not distracting from the material being presented. Presence of visual aids are essential but should not detract from text content, and all visual aids should have captions and references. The information should be easily accessible. Overall, an aesthetically pleasing site should be presented.

           The presentation of the website was overall very accessible as well as easy to navigate. There was just the right amount of images placed on the introductory page and most of the visual aids throughout the website relevant to the subject being discussed. The only issue with the visual aids was on the introductory or navigational page, there was a .gif image that was in rotation and the constant flashing distracted me from wanting to explore the text on the page. This would be one piece that I would preferentially not want on the WWII website.

           

Overall Oraganization and Presentation – 8/9

Sources


            For a site to be considered academic the presence of scholarly sources should be present. To excel in this dimension the site should have all sources that are relevant to the topic and are archaeologically or historically sound sources. The sources must be cites and listed properly while maintaining a sufficient amount of sources and sufficient amount of scholarly sources.

            Sources for this website almost seem irrelevant. This is the source. As described on the website, many scholars have partaken in this project conducting longitudinal research in order to inform the public that is accessible for everyone. There is also access to resources that have been published by, and outside of the Holocaust Museum.

Sources – 6/6 (If considering the sources are relevant)

Research Questions

            Research questions should be neither too broad or narrow and they need to go beyond the obvious and clearly present depth of thought while being clearly relevant to mortuary archaeology.

            Although the topics the Holocaust museum covers is vastly more broad than the scope my group is covering, they are able to cover the breadth with well researched material including links to other sites or material that a visitor could access without a fee. Although according to our rubic is must be relevant to mortuary archaeology, this web site is mainly historical information. But after a search there appears to be a fair amount of interaction between the historical and archaeology community for what excavations have and are currently taking place relevant to the holocaust.

Research Questions – 5/6

Written Communication

            Grammer and spelling are imperative to a well written web site and should be mistake free. Writing should flow well, is easy to follow, while being coherent. The scope presented should be communicated and articulated. All sources should be sited properly in the text.

            The written communication on this web site is clear, consice and created in such a way that an audience of a vast spectrum can easily access and understand the material. The writing has also been approached in a sensitive manner while still  relevant and can draw the reader in. There are almost no mistakes present on this web site creating a flow that is easy to follow including redirection to further research other material.

Written Communication – 6/6

Content and Data

            For content and data sources are not just used for information but are used as a starting point for insightful analysis and conclusions. Evidence needs to clearly support the conclusions being reached with relevant information. The web site needs to acknowledge opposing information and refutes it convincingly.

            The Holocaust Museum is a strong starting point to reach insightful analysis and conclusions. Although the information can appear to be clear cut when pertaining to the Holocaust, their website is able to communicate all arguments in a clear manner.

Content and Data – 9/9

            Overall this website is an excellent source covering a wide range of topics related to the Holocaust. It was very difficult to mark this website since I feel I have a personal bias. However, I tried to view it from a third party and take all material into consideration. I do not think there is much room for growth on this website as it offers everything from research projects, to information for students and the public of any age, maybe some more material related to archaeology as it is becoming more common to excavate sites surrounding the Holocaust. While my team may not be able to reach the excelled stylizing of a trained web site expert, I hope we can take the flow and appeal of this web site and apply it to our project.

Overall Score – 34/36 = 94%

Love, Death, and Childhood Understandings.

Children and death could be a very sensitive subject to touch on. Does a child actually know what is going on? I would definitely think they do, but of course considering the cognitive development of a child, it would not be a way that we would think of first.

I was a very fortunate as a child not to experience death. However, before I was born my family had. My mother had lost her first born about three weeks after her birth. Kira-Lynn looked like a perfectly healthy baby however her heart was basically on the wrong side of her body meaning that her time on earth would be limited.

Growing up my parents never hid the fact that there was a child before my sister and I. Her baby photos where on display and my mom always left any topic open for discussion. I remember being completely fascinated that I had a sister in heaven. To me she was an angel in my life, she always had my back and looked out for her younger sister. I remember fascinating over what she would be like if she was still alive. What would she look like? Would I have a better relationship with her than I did with my sister?

I remember a day when I was brought to see her grave in Port Hardy. Seeing where she was buried had not impacted me nearly as much as the open discussions I had with my mother. To me the plaque was just a stone in the ground that marked a name. Maybe I was a little nervous about the idea that there was dead bodies everywhere in the cemetery there may be a chance that they would come through the earth to get me (I had an odd fascination with scary movies, and a very vivid imagination). But to me the idea of her presence took precedence over a marker in the ground. She will always be with me, we will always be hanging out as sisters do.

Today I can only imagine the heartbreak that could accompany what happened to my parents 29 years ago.  I do not think a day goes by without my mom thinking about her. What mother could not? For me, since she was not physically in my life, I do not. But since I was a child, death to me meant another person who could somehow be closer to me.

Gay Cavemen?

First thing that came into my mind when given a blog prompt to google "gay caveman" was: what is the relevance? Then, an image close to the one below popped into my mind. Really, lets think about this. Burials are already ambiguous, so to draw a conclusion such as a gay caveman is fairly far fetched. Sexual orientation as far as I know, is NOT a pathology. So was it two men buried together? Does this mean that they are gay? Or is it, once again, North American cultural rose coloured lens being drawn over this idea?

Gay Caveman? or North American Lens perpetuated stereotype? Slightly hilarious either way...
from: http://www.disclose.tv/forum/gay-caveman-found-t48768.html

A quick google confirmed some of my questions. It was a Corded Wear Culture burial of a man in a way that archaeologists consider to be exclusively reserved for women. Surprise, surprise. As I have already learned from this class, there are so many ways to bury the dead. Sometimes (okay, most of the time), these lines according to burial are not clearly cut. There are many exceptions to many situations, cultures, and status; especially when it comes to burials. So google's findings on 'gay cavemen' leaves an awful taste in my mouth.

That being said. Every archaeologist is entitled to their opinion. An opinion does not mean it is right, or wrong. Archaeology is a science! So this also does not mean I have any sort of right of tearing him a...um...slightly larger supraorbital torus?

Who knows, maybe this is a sign of possibly a different gender status of this individual? Either way, 'gay cavemenn' could lead to some lovely scholastic "my point is bigger and more complex than yours" debate. But really, who doesn't love a good show.