 |
| lololol |
Thursday, 28 March 2013
Silly Stones
I found this interesting site online called Grave Humor - Funny, Ironic and Ridiculous Tombstones, where people post pictures of weird stones that they see. If your humor can get as morbid as mine, you may appreciate this site. I think my favourite is the one that reads "I made a lot of deals in my life but I went in the hole on this one" (I SERIOUSLY love a good pun...), with this one being a close second. Some of the pictures are of tombstones of people who's names are a little silly, such as "Worm" and that kind of thing, which I don't find particularly funny. I appreciate the ones that are purposefully engraved in a manner to make you chuckle, because I would like to do something similar when I die. In our culture, at least the way I see it, the tombstone stands as a marker of not only the individual's body, but of their life as well. We put names and phrases on the stone that remind us of who the dead were in life, to preserve our memory of them. So I appreciate when someone makes a conscious effort to create the best memories of themselves after their passing by having an interesting phrase put onto their tombstone, or having the tombstone itself depict something original like Mickey Mouse, a computer or a parking meter. Flip through the photos and enjoy!
Friday, 22 March 2013
Response to: Speakers for the Dead
I wanted to post a brief reply to the film we watched the on Tuesday titled "Speakers for the Dead." (It will be brief, as we discussed a lot of themes about the movie in class)
One thing I wondered about the movie, and maybe I'm misunderstanding this because of the way the movie was structured, but why it did not occur to the committee in charge of commemorating the African-Canadian cemetery to first ask the former owners of the land where the stones were before excavation... it seems like a logical thing to do. I also found it interesting that in the debate as to whether excavation should take place or not, it was predominately the voices of white individuals who were the loudest. Those who did not have any claims of ancestry to the buried individuals in the cemetery were making judgements and decisions about what was "proper" treatment of the ground and what was not. For a while residents of the town allowed their neighbor to dig up the ground to plant potatoes and to allow their animals to wander over the patch. But when digging was in search for tombstones, there seemed to be more of an appreciation for the "sacred" nature of the spot. I do think that it was because of racial tensions within the community, and that those who claim a privilege over others based on their race were frightened that somehow a part of their identity would be tarnished. I especially found that statement from the one elderly woman about how "it was not a racial issue because she was participating in the committee" (not a direct quote) and so on to have a weird, "I'm not racist because some of my closest friends are black" kind of undertone to it...weird.
Anyway, those were some of my thoughts. I groaned when the video was put in and was ready to leave at any moment, but ended up staying the entire class because it was actually and interesting and education video, go figure!
Have a great weekend everyone!
One thing I wondered about the movie, and maybe I'm misunderstanding this because of the way the movie was structured, but why it did not occur to the committee in charge of commemorating the African-Canadian cemetery to first ask the former owners of the land where the stones were before excavation... it seems like a logical thing to do. I also found it interesting that in the debate as to whether excavation should take place or not, it was predominately the voices of white individuals who were the loudest. Those who did not have any claims of ancestry to the buried individuals in the cemetery were making judgements and decisions about what was "proper" treatment of the ground and what was not. For a while residents of the town allowed their neighbor to dig up the ground to plant potatoes and to allow their animals to wander over the patch. But when digging was in search for tombstones, there seemed to be more of an appreciation for the "sacred" nature of the spot. I do think that it was because of racial tensions within the community, and that those who claim a privilege over others based on their race were frightened that somehow a part of their identity would be tarnished. I especially found that statement from the one elderly woman about how "it was not a racial issue because she was participating in the committee" (not a direct quote) and so on to have a weird, "I'm not racist because some of my closest friends are black" kind of undertone to it...weird.
Anyway, those were some of my thoughts. I groaned when the video was put in and was ready to leave at any moment, but ended up staying the entire class because it was actually and interesting and education video, go figure!
Have a great weekend everyone!
Friday, 8 March 2013
So... this happened
I'm sure there are a lot of students in the class who love viking archaeology, so I'm posting this for your judging pleasure!
Tuesday, 5 March 2013
Our Case Study Project: Taxidermy
The submission of our project proposals last weekend has got me thinking more and more about this final project, so for this week's post, I want to talk a little bit about our project outline. I would love to get feedback and suggestions from anyone reading this post, all constructive criticism is welcome!
Our project centers around the Victorian to modern taxidermy in Western society; we are comparing this practice to the intentional mummification behaviors of past pre-industrial societies, making the argument that taxidermy is a type of "modern-day mummification" based on the motivations behind both practices.
We suggest that what motivated mummification of human individuals and what also motivates the taxidermy of animals is either affection for the individual or a sense of conquest or ownership over the individual. We will support this argument with examples and academic literature concerning both taxidermy and mummification.
Another facet to our argument is that both taxidermy and mummification are utilized by participants to formulate either an individual or a group identity, and that this identity represents a relation with the taxidermied or mummified individual, again, either an affection for or conquest of said individual. For example, the use of taxidermied exotic animals in museums, particularly by early colonial explorers, could represent the identity of the conquering Western power and their abilities to "tame" the exotica.
Our project will be presented in a series of blogs. I think this works well because a) everyone in the class knows how to use Blogger (I hope), b) it will allow us to engage in a discussion of the topic and present our argument in structured, linear format, and c) we can hopefully receive feedback and questions from our classmates directly on our project, and elaborate on the comments we receive.
I'm starting to get quite excited about this project because I have never done such a large assignment in this web format, nor have I done any study of taxidermy, so I'm bound to learn something. If anyone has any suggestions about what we should or should not include or, even better, any suggestions for sources or visual media that we could include for our blog, I'd love to hear them!
Our project centers around the Victorian to modern taxidermy in Western society; we are comparing this practice to the intentional mummification behaviors of past pre-industrial societies, making the argument that taxidermy is a type of "modern-day mummification" based on the motivations behind both practices.
We suggest that what motivated mummification of human individuals and what also motivates the taxidermy of animals is either affection for the individual or a sense of conquest or ownership over the individual. We will support this argument with examples and academic literature concerning both taxidermy and mummification.
Another facet to our argument is that both taxidermy and mummification are utilized by participants to formulate either an individual or a group identity, and that this identity represents a relation with the taxidermied or mummified individual, again, either an affection for or conquest of said individual. For example, the use of taxidermied exotic animals in museums, particularly by early colonial explorers, could represent the identity of the conquering Western power and their abilities to "tame" the exotica.
Our project will be presented in a series of blogs. I think this works well because a) everyone in the class knows how to use Blogger (I hope), b) it will allow us to engage in a discussion of the topic and present our argument in structured, linear format, and c) we can hopefully receive feedback and questions from our classmates directly on our project, and elaborate on the comments we receive.
I'm starting to get quite excited about this project because I have never done such a large assignment in this web format, nor have I done any study of taxidermy, so I'm bound to learn something. If anyone has any suggestions about what we should or should not include or, even better, any suggestions for sources or visual media that we could include for our blog, I'd love to hear them!
Tuesday, 26 February 2013
Meaning and Purpose at Ogden Point
(I'm doing another post so quickly after my last because we're watching a movie in class today, and I'll fall asleep if I don't do something productive.)
I want to discuss the monument analysis project that my group conducted, and some of the experiences we had during our research.
We chose to look at the memorial benches at Ogden Point and figure out who was being commemorated there. Initially we had a much longer route planned, but upon arrival we realized that there were far more benches at Ogden Point than we had anticipated.
Here's the link to our map of the monuments:
One thing that became apparent as we began recording the bench plaques and taking the photos was, quite frankly, how bleak the area was. We started with the crier statue and the three benches on the edge of the parking lot of Terminal B. The parking lot... was a parking lot. It was a grey day and the whole setting seemed quite gloomy, not in the way that a small churchyard cemetery can seem gloomy. There was nothing seemingly special about the area that we could tell; it looked like an other parking lot. The view of the water from these three benches was dreary as well, nothing like the view one sees when visiting the harbor near the Empress. The grey sky was reflected in the water, and the docks and buildings that framed the view were gritty with use, not at all monumental or decorative. When we examined the crier statue, we noticed that it was painted specifically to look aged, and as we scanned it further, the brush strokes and feigned antiquity of the statue, which had been erected only a couple of years ago, become more and more apparent. So we asked ourselves: why would anyone memorialize a family member in a place like this? Our disenchantment with the area was gratified by the presence of unmarked benches among the memorial ones, making the monuments seem more and more functional, and less and less personalized.
As we moved away from the parking lot, to the area closer to the breakwater, we began to come across benches that specifically referenced the area that they were placed in. The plaques spoke of how fond the deceased was of Dallas Road and of the breakwater. We also found a bench with a fresh rose tied to the backrest; it had obviously been visited recently by a loved one, in a manner strikingly similar to how one visits and pays respect to a grave. For me, this changed the whole picture of the space. Rather than being an unromantic area with a very functional purpose, the space became imbued with meaning, meaning that I perhaps didn't understand and didn't share with the residents, but meaning nonetheless. I have areas that I find special, and to others these areas may not seem particularly special, but they hold a certain significance to me. So why couldn't this pier hold a similar significance to another? Many of the deceased commemorated by the benches were employed by the navy, and perhaps being remembered so close to the sea helped those that survived them to keep their memory alive. For the locals in this area, there is a purpose to the pier beyond the functionality of the harbor.
The point of this analysis is to demonstrate how space may be imbued with meaning and how one cannot assume the significance of a space based on their own ideas of what is meaningful and what is not. Our project demonstrated this for me and allowed me to see Ogden Point using a more emic perspective than I initially had.
(All the Neanderthals are dying in the movie, it's getting dramatic!)
I want to discuss the monument analysis project that my group conducted, and some of the experiences we had during our research.
We chose to look at the memorial benches at Ogden Point and figure out who was being commemorated there. Initially we had a much longer route planned, but upon arrival we realized that there were far more benches at Ogden Point than we had anticipated.
Here's the link to our map of the monuments:
One thing that became apparent as we began recording the bench plaques and taking the photos was, quite frankly, how bleak the area was. We started with the crier statue and the three benches on the edge of the parking lot of Terminal B. The parking lot... was a parking lot. It was a grey day and the whole setting seemed quite gloomy, not in the way that a small churchyard cemetery can seem gloomy. There was nothing seemingly special about the area that we could tell; it looked like an other parking lot. The view of the water from these three benches was dreary as well, nothing like the view one sees when visiting the harbor near the Empress. The grey sky was reflected in the water, and the docks and buildings that framed the view were gritty with use, not at all monumental or decorative. When we examined the crier statue, we noticed that it was painted specifically to look aged, and as we scanned it further, the brush strokes and feigned antiquity of the statue, which had been erected only a couple of years ago, become more and more apparent. So we asked ourselves: why would anyone memorialize a family member in a place like this? Our disenchantment with the area was gratified by the presence of unmarked benches among the memorial ones, making the monuments seem more and more functional, and less and less personalized.
As we moved away from the parking lot, to the area closer to the breakwater, we began to come across benches that specifically referenced the area that they were placed in. The plaques spoke of how fond the deceased was of Dallas Road and of the breakwater. We also found a bench with a fresh rose tied to the backrest; it had obviously been visited recently by a loved one, in a manner strikingly similar to how one visits and pays respect to a grave. For me, this changed the whole picture of the space. Rather than being an unromantic area with a very functional purpose, the space became imbued with meaning, meaning that I perhaps didn't understand and didn't share with the residents, but meaning nonetheless. I have areas that I find special, and to others these areas may not seem particularly special, but they hold a certain significance to me. So why couldn't this pier hold a similar significance to another? Many of the deceased commemorated by the benches were employed by the navy, and perhaps being remembered so close to the sea helped those that survived them to keep their memory alive. For the locals in this area, there is a purpose to the pier beyond the functionality of the harbor.
The point of this analysis is to demonstrate how space may be imbued with meaning and how one cannot assume the significance of a space based on their own ideas of what is meaningful and what is not. Our project demonstrated this for me and allowed me to see Ogden Point using a more emic perspective than I initially had.
(All the Neanderthals are dying in the movie, it's getting dramatic!)
When you assume, you make an ass out of u and me
(I know, she's writing another blog post about gender... *sigh*)
After today's introductory lecture on gender archaeology, I would like to address a major problem I see with many traditional interpretations of gender when looking at past peoples. Throughout the history of archaeology, cyclical reasoning has prevailed in the determination of how artifacts are gendered, and only in the past thirty or so years have archaeologists begun to deconstruct this reasoning. This is particularly problematic in situations where sexing based on the skeletal remains is not possible. Using the "sword = male" assumption as an example, the reasoning basically goes as follows:
If you find a sword with an individual, one can safely determine that this individual is male.
But how does one know that swords indicate a masculine identity?
Because they are found with men.
But how does one know that swords are found only with men, if you cannot sex the skeleton?
Because swords indicate a male individual.
But how does one know that swords indicate a masculine identity?
Because they are found with men.
(and so on and so on)
This reasoning was used for a great span of archaeology's history, until researchers began to recognize the flaws with this thinking, to address the complexity of gender identity beyond "sword = man" and to recognize that gender identity is largely culture-determined, as well as individual-determined, and not universal.
Another aspect of gender interpretation that I find particularly troubling is the double standard that has existed for some time concerning the function and purpose of certain artifacts and what they say about identity. For example, using the "sword = man" assumption again:
One finds a sword in a grave and under examination, the body is determined to be of a male individual. Why is the sword there?
Because the individual was a warrior, hunter, chief, etc. and so it was appropriate for him to be buried with his sword.
One finds a sword in a grave and under examination, the body is determined to be of a female individual. Why is the sword there?
Because it was placed in the grave by a loving husband, father, or other patriarchal individual who was a warrior, hunter, chief, etc. and so the sword is his, and this is an indication of his love and generosity, and one can assume her faithfulness and dutifulness as a wife, daughter, or other typically female role that relates her to a male.
Why isn't it assumed that the sword is a gift to the man? Why do we assume that it is an indicator of an active behaviour on the part of the man, but of a relationship on the part of the woman? Perhaps the woman really liked to use swords. Perhaps she made swords. Perhaps the man's wife or sibling or other relation used swords and thought it an appropriate gift to give him in death. Perhaps the presence of the sword is not an indicator of gender, but rather an indicator of group identity.
The point of this post is to address the complexity of gendering an artifact and the importance of addressing one's own assumptions about gender roles before interpreting the gender roles of another people. It is refreshing to study the alternative explanations for the presence of grave goods beyond "sword = man" but these assumptions still exist in the literature today. One final point to consider is that identity itself is complex, and gender is one small piece of the identity pie. Other factors, such as age, ethnicity, occupation, religious affiliation, etc. affect how an individual perceives themself and how their larger community perceives them as well. The presence of a grave good may have very little to do with the deceased individual's gender. It may have something to do with the gender of the individual that placed it there, or perhaps it has to do with other aspects of identity. I am not simply female; there is much more to my identity beyond my gender, so why would we assume that gendering an individual is a cut-and-dry way to determine their identity and life story?
 |
| zzzzzzz... |
After today's introductory lecture on gender archaeology, I would like to address a major problem I see with many traditional interpretations of gender when looking at past peoples. Throughout the history of archaeology, cyclical reasoning has prevailed in the determination of how artifacts are gendered, and only in the past thirty or so years have archaeologists begun to deconstruct this reasoning. This is particularly problematic in situations where sexing based on the skeletal remains is not possible. Using the "sword = male" assumption as an example, the reasoning basically goes as follows:
If you find a sword with an individual, one can safely determine that this individual is male.
But how does one know that swords indicate a masculine identity?
Because they are found with men.
But how does one know that swords are found only with men, if you cannot sex the skeleton?
Because swords indicate a male individual.
But how does one know that swords indicate a masculine identity?
Because they are found with men.
(and so on and so on)
 |
| The wheels on the bus go round and round... |
This reasoning was used for a great span of archaeology's history, until researchers began to recognize the flaws with this thinking, to address the complexity of gender identity beyond "sword = man" and to recognize that gender identity is largely culture-determined, as well as individual-determined, and not universal.
Another aspect of gender interpretation that I find particularly troubling is the double standard that has existed for some time concerning the function and purpose of certain artifacts and what they say about identity. For example, using the "sword = man" assumption again:
One finds a sword in a grave and under examination, the body is determined to be of a male individual. Why is the sword there?
Because the individual was a warrior, hunter, chief, etc. and so it was appropriate for him to be buried with his sword.
One finds a sword in a grave and under examination, the body is determined to be of a female individual. Why is the sword there?
Because it was placed in the grave by a loving husband, father, or other patriarchal individual who was a warrior, hunter, chief, etc. and so the sword is his, and this is an indication of his love and generosity, and one can assume her faithfulness and dutifulness as a wife, daughter, or other typically female role that relates her to a male.
 |
| Relevant I think... |
Why isn't it assumed that the sword is a gift to the man? Why do we assume that it is an indicator of an active behaviour on the part of the man, but of a relationship on the part of the woman? Perhaps the woman really liked to use swords. Perhaps she made swords. Perhaps the man's wife or sibling or other relation used swords and thought it an appropriate gift to give him in death. Perhaps the presence of the sword is not an indicator of gender, but rather an indicator of group identity.
The point of this post is to address the complexity of gendering an artifact and the importance of addressing one's own assumptions about gender roles before interpreting the gender roles of another people. It is refreshing to study the alternative explanations for the presence of grave goods beyond "sword = man" but these assumptions still exist in the literature today. One final point to consider is that identity itself is complex, and gender is one small piece of the identity pie. Other factors, such as age, ethnicity, occupation, religious affiliation, etc. affect how an individual perceives themself and how their larger community perceives them as well. The presence of a grave good may have very little to do with the deceased individual's gender. It may have something to do with the gender of the individual that placed it there, or perhaps it has to do with other aspects of identity. I am not simply female; there is much more to my identity beyond my gender, so why would we assume that gendering an individual is a cut-and-dry way to determine their identity and life story?
 |
| Identity is complex, simple as that. |
Tuesday, 5 February 2013
If Found, Return To Sender
When I die, I would like to be placed in a patch of earth covered with tulips, where my loved ones that survive me can walk through and feel no sadness. Tulips are one of my favourite flowers. I love the different shades of pinks and whites swirling around together in the breeze. They are the botanical embodiment of delight in my eyes. I don't mind being put in the ground; I wouldn't want any part of me blowing around in the wind, disappearing into nothing and eventually forgotten. I want my body to be in a place that my loved ones can visit in happiness, and where maybe one day a stranger can find my grave and ask questions about me. I would like my resting place to be marked with a small figure of a house cat, resting in the sun and wearing a sweater, and at the base of this figure I would like the words "Amina Chergui: Buried Alive" to be engraved in the stone. Even if my loved ones feel sadness at my passing, I would still like them to smile even for a second when they see my grave. I wouldn't mind being excavated and put on display; in fact, I think I'd rather enjoy it. I would love to know the different theories that people would create about who I was and what my life was like, and how they would interpret my gravestone. I would have myself buried with things like animal bones, silver and yarns, thinks that I think make up part of my identity, but I would also throw in some arrow heads, alcohol bottles and figurines of various religious figures, just to perplex anyone studying my grave, maybe even have a brick jammed in my mouth.
Growing up, my father was Muslim and my mother was Christian. Neither faith ever stuck with me, and I see pros and cons with both, but I could never rid myself of spirituality, and the importance of thinking about the meaning of things. I don't believe there is a patriarchal god or a cloudy heaven after death, but I believe that there is something more that I don't know and can't really understand. I believe life was made for living, not worrying about death. But when one does die, I do believe that a certain amount of respect for their remains is necessary, and that they should be treated in death the way they were in life. I like to think that humor is a dominant motivator in the way I interact with people, as is respect and the search for peace. So I would like my burial to incorporate these factors; I don't want a funeral where everyone is sad, but rather a gathering where everyone is happy, celebrating what I have accomplished and the relationships I have formed. Some people organize celebrations of their lives while they are still living, so that they can enjoy the memories that they have created with people and see the impact that they have made. I might do something like that when I'm older, if my loved ones are willing. I also believe that funerals and burial is in a lot of ways primarily for the living. I have an idea about what I would want, but ultimately I would just want those who survived me to grieve as painlessly as possible. As long as my loved ones are taken care of emotionally, in reality what becomes of my remains is not important to me.
Unless those boat-burning funerals become legal. That would be sweet.
Wednesday, 30 January 2013
Gay Caveman?
(sorry for the long post today!)
I would like to highlight the issues with this article, as well as others of its kind, concerning the excavation of a "gay caveman," a highly problematic interpretation of the find and a demonstration of the ways in which popular media and culture can misinterpret archaeology for the purpose of popular entertainment.
I would like to make it clear that as someone with queer and transgender friends and as one who has had to grapple with gender discrimination my entire life, this type of topic is close to my heart. I encourage people within academia, regardless of discipline, and people outside of academe to broaden their understanding of the concepts that I will outline. I write this post from a particular viewpoint with certain beliefs in regards to sexual and gender diversity, and understand that not everyone shares these opinions.
On with the post...
First, it is important to understand the differences between the terms "sex," "gender" and "sexual orientation." The sex of an individual is the biological assignment of their bodies to male, female, and anything between (ie intersex). When osteological remains are recovered from a site and "sexed," they are sexed not on a binary basis of male or female, but rather on a scale of male, probably male, unknown, probably female, female (this does not involve the diagnosis of intersex conditions; if a body is labelled as unknown, that does not mean that the person was neither male nor female when they were alive, just that the specialist cannot adequately determine the sex from their skeleton).
An individual's gender is a culturally constructed identity usually perceived to have some basis in biology (ie the person's sex), but because it is not biologically inherent, it is much more fluid and variable than sex. It is a common misconception that there are only two genders, man and woman, but depending on the group in question, more may be recognized. What traits characterize these categories are also dependent on the group in question. So while we can sex skeletons to a certain degree based on skeletal features such as the pelvis and the skull, one cannot assume the gender of the individual simply by the osteological remains.
Sexual orientation refers to the sexual preferences of an individual, who they deem to be attractive and to be appropriate sexual partners for themselves. Sexual orientations are also culturally bound, as different cultures view sexual activity in different ways. For example, in ancient Greek society, the idea of a "homosexual" would not be applicable, as sex was viewed as an activity between an active agent, usually a citizen male, and a passive receiver, which could include a woman, a slave, regardless of gender, etc. Certain men may prefer to engage in sexual activity with certain genders, but it did not divide them into specific categories of sexual orientation.
To address the specific problems with titling this archaeological find as a "gay caveman," I will first quickly address the fact that this individual was not a caveman; they were not a Neanderthal, an early Anatomically Modern Human, or any other species of Homo that may be associated with the term "caveman." They lived during the Copper Age, which although was thousands of years ago, does not make him a caveman; this is a popular term used most likely to increase the suggested antiquity of the individual to create more excitement about the find in the public's eye. Secondly, what made this particular excavation so interesting was the context of the body; it was oriented in a manner normally reserved for women, with grave goods assumed to belong to women as well. There is no indication of sexual orientation in these finds; a body sexed male in a supposedly female context does not provide us with any information about the individual's sexual preferences. What is being discussed is sex and gender and whether or not they "match" in this case, not sexual orientation, making "gay" an inappropriate label for the individual, at least based on the material evidence. Finally, the news reports discussing this discovery do not indicate how certain the researchers are about the determination of the sex of the individual based on the skeleton. If, for example, the individual is categorized as "probably male" or something similar, we could have a case of just a female skeleton with some "masculine" features. (I myself am 5'11", and, although I'm aware that it's much more than height that is considered in the sex determination process, I've always wondered if I would be sexed as male if my skeleton was recovered in an archaeological context... I'd lol from the grave.)
This conflation of gender roles with sexual orientation is largely based on our own society's definition of what constitutes masculine and feminine. If a man is not perceived to be "masculine" enough, we often make assumptions about his sexual preferences and stigmatize him for certain behaviours. Perhaps there was a more fluid definition of different genders in the excavated individual's social environment; perhaps the sexing was not performed to absolute perfection. We can come up with many explanations as to why this individual seems to deviate with what we have identified as normal behaviour, but first we must recognize our own assumptions associated with such definitions as "man," "woman" and "gay." To paint the past with the brush of our own cultural biases is to ignore the very purpose of archaeology, which is to learn about how past human groups lived and behaved, regardless of how it corresponds with our own behaviours now.
I would like to highlight the issues with this article, as well as others of its kind, concerning the excavation of a "gay caveman," a highly problematic interpretation of the find and a demonstration of the ways in which popular media and culture can misinterpret archaeology for the purpose of popular entertainment.
 |
| Skeletal remains of the excavated individual in question from Prague |
I would like to make it clear that as someone with queer and transgender friends and as one who has had to grapple with gender discrimination my entire life, this type of topic is close to my heart. I encourage people within academia, regardless of discipline, and people outside of academe to broaden their understanding of the concepts that I will outline. I write this post from a particular viewpoint with certain beliefs in regards to sexual and gender diversity, and understand that not everyone shares these opinions.
 |
| *shrug* |
On with the post...
First, it is important to understand the differences between the terms "sex," "gender" and "sexual orientation." The sex of an individual is the biological assignment of their bodies to male, female, and anything between (ie intersex). When osteological remains are recovered from a site and "sexed," they are sexed not on a binary basis of male or female, but rather on a scale of male, probably male, unknown, probably female, female (this does not involve the diagnosis of intersex conditions; if a body is labelled as unknown, that does not mean that the person was neither male nor female when they were alive, just that the specialist cannot adequately determine the sex from their skeleton).
 |
| This is Caster Semenya, and runner who's sex was continuously questioned during her athletic career, and a reminder that sex, not simply gender, is a diverse aspect of our identity. |
An individual's gender is a culturally constructed identity usually perceived to have some basis in biology (ie the person's sex), but because it is not biologically inherent, it is much more fluid and variable than sex. It is a common misconception that there are only two genders, man and woman, but depending on the group in question, more may be recognized. What traits characterize these categories are also dependent on the group in question. So while we can sex skeletons to a certain degree based on skeletal features such as the pelvis and the skull, one cannot assume the gender of the individual simply by the osteological remains.
 |
| This movie had a bad influence on me. |
Sexual orientation refers to the sexual preferences of an individual, who they deem to be attractive and to be appropriate sexual partners for themselves. Sexual orientations are also culturally bound, as different cultures view sexual activity in different ways. For example, in ancient Greek society, the idea of a "homosexual" would not be applicable, as sex was viewed as an activity between an active agent, usually a citizen male, and a passive receiver, which could include a woman, a slave, regardless of gender, etc. Certain men may prefer to engage in sexual activity with certain genders, but it did not divide them into specific categories of sexual orientation.
 |
| This is a gay caveman (hawhaw) |
To address the specific problems with titling this archaeological find as a "gay caveman," I will first quickly address the fact that this individual was not a caveman; they were not a Neanderthal, an early Anatomically Modern Human, or any other species of Homo that may be associated with the term "caveman." They lived during the Copper Age, which although was thousands of years ago, does not make him a caveman; this is a popular term used most likely to increase the suggested antiquity of the individual to create more excitement about the find in the public's eye. Secondly, what made this particular excavation so interesting was the context of the body; it was oriented in a manner normally reserved for women, with grave goods assumed to belong to women as well. There is no indication of sexual orientation in these finds; a body sexed male in a supposedly female context does not provide us with any information about the individual's sexual preferences. What is being discussed is sex and gender and whether or not they "match" in this case, not sexual orientation, making "gay" an inappropriate label for the individual, at least based on the material evidence. Finally, the news reports discussing this discovery do not indicate how certain the researchers are about the determination of the sex of the individual based on the skeleton. If, for example, the individual is categorized as "probably male" or something similar, we could have a case of just a female skeleton with some "masculine" features. (I myself am 5'11", and, although I'm aware that it's much more than height that is considered in the sex determination process, I've always wondered if I would be sexed as male if my skeleton was recovered in an archaeological context... I'd lol from the grave.)
 |
| Perhaps this is in poor taste... |
This conflation of gender roles with sexual orientation is largely based on our own society's definition of what constitutes masculine and feminine. If a man is not perceived to be "masculine" enough, we often make assumptions about his sexual preferences and stigmatize him for certain behaviours. Perhaps there was a more fluid definition of different genders in the excavated individual's social environment; perhaps the sexing was not performed to absolute perfection. We can come up with many explanations as to why this individual seems to deviate with what we have identified as normal behaviour, but first we must recognize our own assumptions associated with such definitions as "man," "woman" and "gay." To paint the past with the brush of our own cultural biases is to ignore the very purpose of archaeology, which is to learn about how past human groups lived and behaved, regardless of how it corresponds with our own behaviours now.
 |
| We study diversity, so let's embrace it. |
Wednesday, 16 January 2013
"Exploring the connection between Stonehenge and Madagascar's modern-day megaliths"
This post is in response to the suggestion posed by Mike Parker Pearson and his colleague, Ramilisonina, and the blogger reply to their proposition that one could look at the use of stone monuments inn Madagascar to create an understanding of Stonehenge and similar structures found in the area dating to the Neolithic period. In response, the blogger expressed his disagreement with this type of methodology, accusing Parker Pearson of making claims "that there is some sort of universality to the belief system involving 'ancestor stones'" and of creating too fanciful and interpretation of Stonehenge based on irrelevant evidence.
I think perhaps the responding blogger is misunderstanding the purpose of such comparative work that seeks to examine belief systems of other cultures in order to better understand behaviors in the distant past. It does not seem to me that Parker Pearson and Ramilisonina or arguing for some direct connection between the two cultures' belief systems and their use of rock formations, but rather attempting to create a wider of understanding of possible uses for stone beyond the simple idea of secular construction. In order to prevent our own culturally biased assumptions about the purpose of construction monuments, Parker Pearson thought it was valuable to explore different uses of stone in different parts of the world, and he found the uses in Madagascar to be especially intriguing. He is not suggesting that he has discovered the purpose for Stonehenge, but has looked at similar behaviors in a different cultural and temporal context and suggested that there may be a similar reasoning behind them.
I also question the source that the blogger utilizes; although he of course is not writing an academic piece of any sort, one must take into account that his source of knowledge about the people he is discussing is a "good friend" who visited the region for missionary work. This friend has their own biases, their own motivations for their visit, and their own agenda, whether conscious or not, concerning how he interprets his observations. So it seems inappropriate to use this type of source as evidence against a scholar who has done academic work in this field, not to say that the missionary was incorrect in his observations or not capable of objective understanding of the Madagascar people. But one must consider the value of one's sources before making use of them in an argument against another's evidence.
While I do agree that there is no direct correlation between the Madagascar practices and the construction of Stonehenge, I do believe there is some value in this cross cultural comparison in order to broaden our range of possibilities for the motives behind this behavior. There is no evidence to disprove this possible explanation, nor is there any evidence to identify it as the ultimate truth. This is just one more possible reason for the construction of the site that we can consider, and perhaps never completely be able to affirm as accurate.
I think perhaps the responding blogger is misunderstanding the purpose of such comparative work that seeks to examine belief systems of other cultures in order to better understand behaviors in the distant past. It does not seem to me that Parker Pearson and Ramilisonina or arguing for some direct connection between the two cultures' belief systems and their use of rock formations, but rather attempting to create a wider of understanding of possible uses for stone beyond the simple idea of secular construction. In order to prevent our own culturally biased assumptions about the purpose of construction monuments, Parker Pearson thought it was valuable to explore different uses of stone in different parts of the world, and he found the uses in Madagascar to be especially intriguing. He is not suggesting that he has discovered the purpose for Stonehenge, but has looked at similar behaviors in a different cultural and temporal context and suggested that there may be a similar reasoning behind them.
I also question the source that the blogger utilizes; although he of course is not writing an academic piece of any sort, one must take into account that his source of knowledge about the people he is discussing is a "good friend" who visited the region for missionary work. This friend has their own biases, their own motivations for their visit, and their own agenda, whether conscious or not, concerning how he interprets his observations. So it seems inappropriate to use this type of source as evidence against a scholar who has done academic work in this field, not to say that the missionary was incorrect in his observations or not capable of objective understanding of the Madagascar people. But one must consider the value of one's sources before making use of them in an argument against another's evidence.
While I do agree that there is no direct correlation between the Madagascar practices and the construction of Stonehenge, I do believe there is some value in this cross cultural comparison in order to broaden our range of possibilities for the motives behind this behavior. There is no evidence to disprove this possible explanation, nor is there any evidence to identify it as the ultimate truth. This is just one more possible reason for the construction of the site that we can consider, and perhaps never completely be able to affirm as accurate.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)