I could not for the life of me think of a final blog. So I decided to Google the title of the class 'Archaeology of Death' and see what popped up. The screen above is the result of my search. I decided that I will go through the first three websites and critique them to the best of my abilities. I will also attempt to determine whether they are relevant or pointless reguarding the subject matter that I have searched, as they are the first things to pop up.

1. Archaeology of Death MA Postgraduate - Courses - University of Central Lancashire
This is a website made by the University of Central Lancashire providing information on their MA course in the Archaeology of Death and how to apply. My critique of this being the first website is that it does not inform on the subject I have inquired after. I did not search any of the following words; 'MA,' 'university,' 'postgraduate,' 'learn,' 'school,' 'program,' etc. This should have not been the first result of my search. I would have liked it to be something informative, descriptive or defining. Anyway on to the next.

2. Category: Archaeology of Death - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. 
As it mentions in the title this is a 'category' within Wikipedia that supply links to several pages of specific cases of 'archaeology of death' and is not in itself a page. The best way I can put it is that this is a gateway search that directs people to specific cased of death in archaeology such as: bog bodies of Northern Europe, cheddar man, fire mummies, jade burial suit, wulfsen horse burial etc. Useful information could be derived out of this search if you want an idea of the topics that fall within this category. It is also drilled into undergrads that Wikipedia is not an academic source and thus should not be bothered to even be looked upon. My correction to that statement however is that though Wikipedia is not an academic source they do cite some of their information. Thus the references can be used as they are usually academic, that is if you can find them. The UVic library for seeming to have so many books is not as stocked as it may seem when searching for specific sources. Overall I'd say this was a decent result better than the first but still not what I'm looking for so early on in my search.

3. The Archaeology of Death and Burial - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.        
The third search (especially in regards to this class) is extremely relevant. It is a Wiki page that summarizes and breaks down Pearson's The Archaeology of Death and Burial the very textbook used in our class. It explains he explains all the approaches used to study the subject; his preferred method is post-processual, but he also explores social anthropology and processual archaeology. For people searching on Google who are not in this course this page gives them a good source to start of their research or further their knowledge as it encompasses a great deal within the subject. I would say this along with the second result were much more valuable than the first for this particular search. However I would have still preferred a definition or a small symmetrization on what the subject actually is which was highly lacking in these results. All in all I must say that I was underwhelmed by this search.     

Zombieland

I was watching the movie Zombieland yesterday and it got me thinking... why is it that humans have this obsession with the living dead?

After looking up the definition of 'living dead' on Google I came to the realization that mummies and vampires can also fall within this category. The living dead are not just limited to zombies, like the definition above may suggest but I will be focusing on zombies in particular. There are times through out history when different horrors rise in and out of popularity. They rise and fall and rise and fall in an unpredictable pattern each monster or spirit or idea having its turn in that way. These days however I must say the zombie has been dominating. It cannot be said how long Zombies will stay in popularity. However through the use of film and television, I can trace the history of their recent rise to popularity.

The zombies that have taken popularity in current popular culture are those that become zombies by being 'infected' also known as the 'zombie apocalypse'. People find this method most plausible and can most easily relate to this method, a pose to alternative of a more supernatural means. The original zombie apocalypse genre started with the Night of the Living Dead trilogy. These movie aired in sparsely form 1968 to 1985. Since then there have been zombie movies but none that I find crucial enough to mention. Then the genre of the original trilogy made a come back in the mid 2000's and made four new movies, the last of which aired in 2010. They key difference between the two ages of zombie movies that clearly defines them is that the originals focus on radioactive contamination. this contamination however is not infectious.  Thus the original source of the recent outbreak of zombie fandemonium is not due to the 2004 remake of Dawn of the Dead but established by the 2002 horror film 28 Days Later. This movie could be seen as the first bite in the recent spread of the infectious zombie drama. This genre has only picked up popularity since and is especially reinforced by movies such as Zombieland and the show The Walking Dead. The last two examples display the creative and successful depiction of Zombies outside their original genre. In the case of Warm Bodies zombies are even established as protagonists in the romantic comedy genre, though I do not know how successful this movie was. With a bigger scope of use, Zombies have kept their popularity and continue to be a popular monster today.

There are several displays of zombie culture throughout society today. UVic runs an annual game of Humans vs. Zombies that is particularly popular. There are also several books and blogs about zombie survival. The popularity of zombies is prominent in today's society. However what I find most interesting is our relationship to the dead. Yes there are still depictions of the scary 'needs to instantly be killed' zombie but with movies like Zombieland and Warm bodies there is a sense of comedy and human emotion (the latter is only in the case of Warm bodies) that has not been associated with the living dead, in this case I mean zombies (excluding the specific case of Frankenstein. For it may be argued that he was created to have more human emotion than an individual who has no control over an infection that takes over all their senses). Back to the point which is that the change in cultural depictions of zombies may correlate to a change in societies perspective of corpses. BRAINS!

      http://www.allposters.co.uk/-sp/Zombie-Brains-Posters_i7347726_.htm 

Then again... maybe not!

Cannibalism

I'm doing my project on cannibalism practiced by the Wari, a tribe that live in the forests of Brazil. They have an intricate belief system that involves ritualistic cannibalism of dead members within their society. The consumption of the body is done by the in-laws of the individual who died. Only adults consume the body; they do so as a favor to the blood relatives who beg them to eat their close kin. The eating of the body is seen as a transformation between living with the tribe and coming alive in the underwater underworld. It is this place the Wari consider to be the resting place for spirits. According to Beth Conklin, expert on all things Wari, at the very moment the first cut is made on the body of the deceased their spirit wakes in the underworld and after the body is fully consumed the spirit is complete and able to join the other spirits. The spirit of ancestors, according to the Wari belief, often return to the tribe in the form of a white-lipped peccary (a pig like animal) extremely sacred to the Wari. Conklin has testimonial from several Wari elders who were active performers of the cannibalistic act before it was stopped in the 1960's. The elders explain that when the white-lipped peccary is roasted it transforms into the flesh of their ancestor who has in this way provided them with meat (this practice can be seen as sort of mental cannibalism). They also addressed that when the actual human body is roasted, in the same manner as the white-lipped peccary, it transforms into the animal itself. This parallel according to Conklin affirms the relationship between humans and their animal food source.

Two Wari boys with a white-lipped peccary.

 http://pib.socioambiental.org/en/povo/wari/865

Another reason that the consumption of the body makes sense as a Wari practice is because they greatly morn for their dead but after the mourning stage they like to completely erase the memory of the individual. The Wari do not believe in cremation and with burial it is harder for them to forget their dead; they are constantly worried as they believe their kinsfolk are cold and alone in the ground. They also believe that the ground hold several impurities and so it is better for a body to be absorbed into the bodies of other loved ones and the memories along with the bodies. In this way the individual can disappear too.

I cannot say that I have ever sympathized with cannibalism until I studied the Wari tribe. I do not think that I could ever be compelled to eat human flesh even if it were in the context of the Wari. I do not have their cultural background and their strongly rooted beliefs. I would be indifferent to the disposal of a human body as long as it is done in an ethical manner (I am using the term 'ethical' very loosely and with to encapsulate ethics of all cultures into this scope as impossible as that may be), for I am still skeptical of the afterlife and thus do not think that specific rituals will effect the spirit of the dead (rituals and afterlife in my personal belief are for the living because we can only comprehend what we know, life is what the living know, and thus the afterlife is a way to view the dead as still living). However, for those like the Wari who do think that their actions will benefit their dead ancestors it is immensely important and can effect the lively hood of the culture. I see nothing wrong with the Wari practices and if they wish to eat their dead I say by all means eat away. In this particular case there is no violence or death involved in the act of cannibalism. In fact it is an act of sympathy and respect directed toward the dead individuals blood relatives.

My final statement will be that since the 1960's the Wari have stopped being cannibals do to colonial demand. Though one of their rituals is lost it did not effect their strong belief system for their beliefs did not depend on the act of cannibalism. The act of cannibalism simply gave them a fluent outlet for their beliefs. The Wari did not depend on human flesh for their source of protein not did they crave it. Thus the culture has thrived on, though a unique practices has died out. Many generations have passed and though there are still some discrepancies by the elders most of the Wari have adapted to burying their dead.          

Articles Used:
Beth Conklin (1993) - Hunting the Ancestors: Death and Alliance in Wari' Cannibalism. 
D. W. Miller (2001) - Love Me, Miss Me, Eat Me.

In with the new, out with the old

The video we watched in class today made me think...

Is the use of cemeteries by the living always considered desecration?

Burial is probably my least favorite of all the methods to dispose of bodies. That being said, if I were to be buried I would rather the space above my remains be used rather than preserved. I think Green burials touch on this point somewhat but I would like to elaborate on my own thoughts.

Firstly, I think that I should not want to be buried in a place designated primarily for mourning, filled with quite and sadness. A place used in horror stories as a setting for terrible fear. No thank you! I think I would want to be buried at a beach or under a children's playground. Why is it that when I said that I automatically felt like a sexual predator? Because in out society dead bodies and spirits are seen as predators who just have to torment the people surrounding their resting place. If my spirit did happen to live past the life span of my body would this 'spirit' be so very altered form the person I am now?

 I promise none of my parts would be exposed!

http://www.dreamstime.com/stock-image-two-feet-buried-sand-image17691981

I like beaches and parks and flowers and laughter and fun and a little mischief... and if any or all those things were gone I think I would feel very lost. I would not dampen the mood, I think, if I were to be buried in a more lively atmosphere. I would not care if they used my tombstone as a base ball plate; at least in that way it is getting used by someone, for I do not think my spirit will have much use for it. As for those who would argue that the loss of my monument is equivalent to the loss of my memory I would like to say this; those who will remember me will remember me and they will not need a grave stone in order to do so, I would hope. So the using of the space I feel would not only be a use of available resources but it would also make me happy.

Besides if all cemeteries are preserved, no one can use the space, which may slowly cause some problems. For eventually there may be more space allocated to the dead than to the living especially with a global population of 7 billion and growing... do we have enough burial space for all those bodies... will we in a hundred years... in a thousand? Where will the living go, once all the worlds a cemetery? And by cemetery I mean an allocated space to be used ONLY by the dead.

That is just an exaggeration obviously... I do not fear that situation becoming a reality for what a farce that would be.  

But still I fell that these are a few of the reasons that I would not be persuaded to be buried. I see it as being imprisoned in the ground with a bunch of dead inmates who are as dull and serious as corpses (for that is what they are). My spirit would die a second death without fun and laughter, and I feel claustrophobic at the very thought of being buried. It is so much more acceptable for cremated remains to be spread in more appealing locations: floating in lakes or oceans, with your family in the yard, perhaps flying of a mountain top and into the wind being everywhere and nowhere all at once.   

I think this video clip from the move Kill Bill Vol.2 sums up my thoughts on burial. I find that, I too (or my 'spirit'), would be fighting to get the hell out.

Egyptians... they go in style!

 

Egyptians have always stood out for their unique burial practices. The mummies created in the times of pharaohs date all the way back to around 3000 B.C. Not all of them have passed the test of time but the ones that have are iconic symbols in pop-culture even today. Along with highly ritualized preservation they Egyptians buried their mummies in elaborate monuments with a lot of treasure and personal goods (sometimes even including food). No one did burials as big or bad-ass in the Ancient World as the Egyptians. 

http://www.decodingtheheavens.com/blog/post/2011/01/20/Is-pharaoh-DNA-for-real.aspx

Taking about mummies in class today got me thinking... I may not be an expert on mummies but I do know quite a lot (fact and fiction) about them. However, I have never once thought about the burial rituals of modern Egyptians. This current practice is unfortunately completely overshadowed by the practice of the ancients.

It turns out the Egyptians still have style. 

A high majority of Egyptians are Islamic. Usually, Muslims are suppose to have unmarked graves, however, the Egyptians have stayed true to their roots and embedded a little Egyptian flare into an Islamic practice. Every Egyptian family own their own mausoleum. These mausoleums can usually be seen surrounding Egyptian cities. In Cairo, however, mausoleums can be found all over the city; at one time these mausoleums were located on the outskirts of Cairo but as an expanding urban city it has absorbed these tombs.     

The mausoleums are intricate and the architectural elements are very specific and filled with religious meaning. A 10 cm mound of dirt in the building covers a specific set of tiles. If these tiles are removed they revile a set of stairs that lead to an underground crypt. In this crypt there are two doors which lead to two separate chambers. This is due to the fact that men and women are buried separately. The men go into the first door and women into the second. This is not meant to represent status of men over women but respect and modesty the men (even as dead bodies) should not pass the women.   

http://ourwritedowns.wordpress.com/tag/modern-egyptian-burial-methods/

I Will Return as a Hugh Beautiful Tree!

I'm sorry if you do not like Dane Cook's comedy as this video will be very tedious to watch as he goes on several tangents. However, if you want to watch less I suggest starting at 3:30 minutes or if you want an extremely short version you can watch it form 7:24 minutes and still get the gist. Enjoy!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=utf2E-8B3TE

I used to watch a lot of Dane Cook growing up and I'll admit he still makes me laugh (but I enjoy and animated comedian who is over the top and cannot stay on topic to save his life), so sue me. However, I always remember disagreeing with his Atheist skit. I'm not too religious and I do believe in the circle of life more than I do in any form of afterlife. I would always think after watching this skit (though I usually agreed with his jokes and his observation of the human Psyche) that what is so wrong with wanting to be a tree after you die. Trees are beautiful and anyone would be lucky to be buried amongst the roots of a sturdy old tree.

This brings me to Green Burials where nature surrounds the interments of individuals and forms natural living grave markers such as trees and other plant life. This practice of Green Burials is practiced here in Victoria at the Royal Oak Cemetery. This burial ground has many specifications that other cemeteries may not however these rules are in place to protect the ideology upon which Green Burials are founded. These burials are different from other interments as they do not embalm the body, the caskets are completely biodegradable and there is no grave lining. This is a relatively natural and eco-friendly way to dispose of remains. Though this seems to be the most obvious mode of disposal and probably the first method of interment known to mankind it has recently since the 1990's slowly regained popularity.

The burials in this Royal Oak Interment Park are permanent and cannot be dug up; once buried the body and its grave become one with the landscape and the removal of the body would disturb the ecosystems surrounding it. This as well as several other protective rules are established at this Green Cemetery. There would definitely be no chance of a woodsman walking by cutting down the tree your buried under to turn it into a Bible like Dane Cook threatens.

Another rule regarding this burial site is that you may only be allocated a grave site when you are going to be using it and not before then. There is no reservation of plots where entire family lines can be buried. Which I think is a fair, first come first serve, method. There are no family plots in nature and thus that cannot be a necessity for a natural burial either.    

I do not believe in life after death but I do believe that a Green Burial Cemetery, with its abundance of plant and animal life could be a heaven on earth for the living.

This is the link to the Royal Oak (Green Burial Park) Cemetery.
http://www.robp.ca/our-services/natural-green-burial/ 

Cheating Death: The Key to Immortality

After reading the blog Death, in the Oscars by Kelsey Amos, I started to really this about the ideas of memory versus physicality in regards to how we deal with death in today's 'Western' society.

 http://kelseysneardeathexperiences.blogspot.ca/

Remembering the dead in our memories and paying them tribute in that fashion, by passing on their memory, may seem natural. It is has been practices by many cultures for hundreds and perhaps thousands of years.

(However common this action may be it should be noted that there are cultures that do not follow this practice. For example, the Wari tribe in the Amazon (who I am doing my case study on) do not to the best of their ability talk or think about their dead friends and relatives. In fact, they no longer practice this but up until the early 19th century the Wari would eat their dead to keep from preserving any physical remnant of an individual. Each identity of an individual, along with their memory, would instead be absorbed into the person eating them. In this way the memory of the individual was transformed from who they were as a human usually to an animal reincarnation. The Wari reject the idea of holding on to memories of the dead as they find it causes them long lasting grief.)

It is my personal belief that when the memories of a person are passed down in some story-esque format (orally, written in books, acted/ reenacted on film, carved into stone etc.) that individual though they may not be alive, still exist. It is when the last memory of a person is lost that they no longer exist. Therefore, death would not entail that you cease to exist in the memory of mankind. In this manner I argue that a person could achieve immortality. Celebrities of times gone by, though they are dead,  exist today in our textbooks, on the internet, in movies dedicated to their memory and in several other formats.

Humans have an innate fascination with immortality, as they do with fame. These two things, however, are not mutually exclusive for you must achieve a certain status of fame to be remembered forever. The deeper you etch yourself into human memory, the longer it will take for that memory to fade. The theory of survival of the fittest can be applied to my own theory of mortality (Apologies for butchering Darwin's theory but I like to be dramatic). Your immortal fitness would depend on the amount of people you have effected (in a good or bad way that does not matter as long as they remember you and feel the need to share that memory). If you have affected a large number of people in this manner you fitness is greater that someone who has affected less people than you have. This is important as the more people who are willing to spread your story (or a part of it) ensure a greater chance of you existing for a longer period of time. Thus if enough fitness is acquired one can exist forever in the memory of human beings. Due to this theory I believe most human who strive for fame, though fancy toys and copious amounts of money are nice, do it to be remembered. Then there are those we remember who were never appreciated in their time, who I think I will put under a miscellaneous category as they were neither in it for the money or the fame. 

The character that I have based my theory on is Homer's Achilles (yes I am aware that both these characters may perhaps be fictional but as a metaphor Achilles works best). The Iliad is an entire epic dedicated to the story of one man and his path to immortality. Achilles was given a choice between happiness and immortality. If he choose not to go to Troy he would marry and have children and live a happy life but his memory would die a few generations down the line. Achilles choose the second option where he fight at Troy and his memory will last forever in the minds of men. No one ever said immortality comes without sacrifices; Achilles made his choice and sacrificed his happiness for something that was much more appealing to him. If there is any truth behind this character any shade of reality he accomplished his goal. His memory has been fixed into human memory having lasted hundreds of years.

Here is a YouTube clip of Achilles in the movie Troy (2004)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZctCxAmzDs

My conclusion is that telling stories is the best way to keep someone you cherish alive longer because from the moment they die they exist only in memory. Thus it is easy to grasp why the spreading of memory is such a commonly used method to cope with death. 

That is all, I feel like Ive been writing... well rambling for an eternity. I'm not even sure if this blog makes coherent sense to anyone other than myself. In fact, I'm not even sure that I fully agree with my argument but it is what it is. Enjoy!