[our history or theirs?]

Who owns the rights to a culture's past? It's a simple question yet it causes so much debate around the world. For an English paper last year I tried to address the question and the best I could come up with is that when a culture, especially a First Nations community, asks for the repatriation of artifacts and items taken from them, it is unjust and unfair to hold on to these items simply in the name of science or for the recording of history. In a perfect world an agreement would be reached between the community involved and the museum where both sides would have their voices heard and their rights respected, the rights of the scientific community would not overrule the rights of the community involved, but the artifacts or in some cases the human remains would not be lost to the scientific community forever.

[the importance of data]

The data presented in a paper provides the backing and supporting evidence for the author’s argument. It helps the reader to understand what the author is trying to present and can help persuade the reader to agree with the argument of the author. It is important to look closely at the data presented because an author would be more likely to include the data which supports them rather than the data which could poke holes in their theories. Another reason would be by looking closely one could observe the methods behind the data, how the data was collected and how this could affect the reliability of the data. Howell and Kintigh would want to be clear about how the data was collected in order to show that the data they present in their paper is reliable and was collected in a manner which demonstrates what is actually present rather than simply what they wanted to support their argument.

[hierakonpolis: city of the hawk]

Map of Hierakonpolis from the website reviewed

For our group project my group is focusing on cemeteries in Hierakonpolis or the City of the Hawk in what is now southern Egypt. Using our rubric I took a look at a website on the same site (here's the link http://www.egyptorigins.org/hierakonpolis.htm).  The website has a lot of information but it's not organized in a manner that would encourage the viewer to continue reading, it's very drawn out and not broken up in a way that would draw attention to any specific section or interesting information. There is no citations at all but it does mention the Nekhen website which my group was planning to use for the more up to date information on the excavations at Hierakonpolis. The website has a two images, a map of the site and a detail of the Narmer palette, neither are really explained or used in the best manner and the website could have definitely used more images. Overall, the information on the site, the grammar and the spelling are all good just the mechanics and appearance of the page could have been done a lot better.

[gay caveman??]

Well this is interesting...

I searched in google and found a bunch of articles on the 'gay caveman' and I think the most interesting article was the one in the National Post that describes how the 'gay caveman' could quite possibly not be gay and is certainly not a caveman. The whole idea of gender and sexual orientation can be a very difficult concept for people and is still causing controversy (in terms of homosexuality) around the world.  

I think that when trying to assign gender to remains there are a lot of things that need to be considered and in the National Post article they mention that it is possible that the remains although believed to be male could have been female or intersex. The article also mentions how people may have jumped to conclusions before all the research could be completed. I also liked how the article discussed the importance and ramifications of finding a homosexual or transgender individual would have on the LGBT movement. How it could establish the biological nature of homosexuality and thus help people understand that it's not something necessarily something people chose, that is not a 'phase' or something that can be changed. The whole concept is incredibly interesting to me and I'm definitely going to follow up on the research being done on the specific site in Prague and possible other sites or individual remains.

Here's a link to the article from the National Post:

http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/04/17/gay-caveman-probably-not-gay-or-a-caveman/

[ross bay cemetery mausoleums]

Section Summary:

Roman Catholic: Wesleyan: Reformed Episcopal:

Anglican: Presbyterian: General:

Note: Both Wesleyan and Reformed Episcopal were later opened for general use.

(Courtesy of Old Cemetery Society of Victoria)

Roman Catholic:
Wesleyan:
Reformed Episcopal:

Anglican:
Presbyterian:
General:

My group chose to analyze the mausoleums at the Ross Bay Cemetery. Our two research questions were does the position of a mausoleum in the Ross Bay landscape provide any information regarding an individual’s religious affiliation? and in the Ross Bay cemetery, was mausoleum use favoured by (or limited to) a certain social group or social class? We chose to do the mausoleums based on the fact that they were easy to spot in the landscape of the Ross Bay Cemetery and due to there being a manageable number of monuments. We defined what we considered to be a mausoleum with the help of "An Introduction to Graveyard Recording" by Council for Scottish Archaeology which defines a mausoleum as "buildings used by laird and other well-doto members of the society for private family burials...are freestanding structures erected over burial vaults" (Council for Scottish Archaeology 2006, pg. 12). Using this definition we chose to focus on 15 different monuments which we classified as mausoleums.

Unfortunately because not all of the mausoleums were open to view we didn't get information on all the families nor were we able to see if each monument fell into the two functional types of mausoleums described by H.C. Mytum, one being favoured by Mediterranean families (bodies above ground) the other favoured by Northern European elites (bodies buried below ground) (Mytum 2004, pg. 72)

On the Old Cemetery Society Website for Ross Bay cemetery our group found a map which divided the cemetery into sections based on religious affiliation. For the most part the families appeared to have been buried in areas which corresponded to their religious beliefs with a few exceptions. These exceptions were found by searching British Columbia (specifically Victoria) census information from 1881, 1891 and 1901. Unfortunately some of the individuals buried in the mausoleums were not in the census, probably due to either being born later or not living in Victoria at the time. The exceptions were Harry Dallas Helmcken (census said Reformed Episcopal, buried in the Anglican section), Byron L. Johnson (census said Lutheran, buried in the Anglican section) and Charles Chislett (census said Methodist, buried in the Wesleyan section, which was later opened to other religions). Other families were buried in the General section of the cemetery but had various religious beliefs, for example the Hawkins family were in the census as Congregational.

    Most likely the map demonstrates how the cemetery was originally divided but over time these divisions could have changed due to necessity (spots only being available in a certain area) or a certain division of Christianity lost popularity and thus the cemetery chose to open the area to those of different affiliations.

[old jewish cemetery, prague]

Old Jewish Cemetery, Prague - image taken by Andreas Praefcke

This place would be amazing to visit, and even more interesting to study. Basically there is this cemetery in the Old Jewish Quarter of Prague in the Czech Republic that was in use from the early 15th century to nearly the end of the 18th. The thing is tombs have been built on top of tombs, there are over 12, 000 tombstones and an estimated 100, 000 bodies. From what I understand it seems that Judaism does not permit the destruction of Jewish graves or the movement of the tombstones by Jews and due to the fact that they were not allowed to buy other land or bury their dead anywhere else, the cemetery quickly ran out of space. This lead to how the cemetery looks now (like a huge maze of tombstones, packed tightly together). Due to the sheer mass of monuments studying this cemetery would be quite a handful but its unique character definitely would be worth the effort. 

For more information here a link to the Wikipedia article
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Jewish_Cemetery,_Prague

[grave goods]

It's awfully weird to think about what I would want my grave to look like when I'm gone, but there are definitely  a few items that I would want to include, ranging from sentimental items to gifts from family members that I cherish. First off, I would want to wear every piece of nice jewellery that anyone in my family has ever given me. Accumulating to 4 rings,  3 necklaces and 2 bracelets. I would never wear all of this in one day but each item I feel would be a nice way to connect myself, even after death, to my family. As for sentimental items, I would want items like a favourite album or book, maybe journals that I have written.

My family, specifically my parents, would probably not put all of the items that I've mentioned in my grave unless I specifically mentioned to them. They would chose maybe one or two pieces of jewellery, if any. On a side note, being slightly obsessed with mummies and Ancient Egypt I would totally want my body to be mummified, but I think my parents would probably choose cremation or inhumation.

The identity that I would chose to represent myself is more intimate and personal, centered around how I see myself and the connections I want to take with me. I believe the identity that others would chose to represent would still be a true representation of me but it would only be the aspect that I show to others rather than a more complete picture. In other words it would be more like a snapshot rather than a movie, a piece of the pie rather than the whole thing.