Burials.

[xelasnave]

Watching shows on early man and when "they" find evidence of a burial and particularly if flowers were thrown in on the body researchers jump to the conclusion this is evidence of some sort of compassion or even perhaps driven by religious motives.

Why do folk judge other folk or circumstances by their own personal norms...in a prehistoric world of roaming preditors seeking food by scent (eg the black bear) would it not be prudent to bury your dead and throw in some flowers for no other reason than to kill the stink thereby to stop animals coming into camp to eat the dead departed and maybe live folk as well.

Heck in the bush the reason you bury something once its dead is so the dogs dont keep eating it...its not about compassion or religion its only about stopping the stink.

So the practise has been ritualised but really keep in mind presumably the real reason the practise was born for practical consideration.

Yes its cloudy so no need to ask☺

Alex

[leon]

You maybe right Alex, but it sure keeps the flower growers and florists busy, regardless of the reasons.

Leon

[xelasnave]

I am not worried about these days Leon.

What I find annoying is when "they" uncover a very early grave site of early humans and assume that burial means that particular human group by doing so exhibited compassion or that the grave indicates some hint of religious practice when I say that is an opinion offerred based on circumstances of a very different time.

The pracitice of burial in my view is more likely to have been a practical consideration to eliminate odour and the resulting attraction to animals coming around.

You may notice when studying the evolution of various human species when a grave is found the assumption is that it indicates compassion or superstition with no reflection upon the need to eliminate smells that would bring in wild animals.

Moreover I detect such narrow thinking in other areas that I regard as unscientific and therefore it annoys me that although trained some let their personal background influence their ability to make rational observation.

Heck early humans may have buried bodies to preserve as a future food source. .. also a real possibility...

However what was a practise driven by practical consideration could and indeed has developed to become a ritual and as such perhaps the original need is now overlooked.

Anyways I may take the time to research burials and see if anyone has presented ideas similar to mine.
Alex

[Tropo-Bob (Bob)]

Back in the time when people bathed infrequently, bridal bouquets were to hide the personal smell of the bride. Or so I was told in my Sociology University class.

Alex, I think your idea sounds very feasible.

[sil (Steve)]

I think its an idiotic idea, let the smell attract your next meal while you sit around with spears, why bother with the effort of the hunt? And Homo couchpotatous was born

[xelasnave]

Originally Posted by Tropo-Bob

Back in the time when people bathed infrequently, bridal bouquets were to hide the personal smell of the bride. Or so I was told in my Sociology University class.

Alex, I think your idea sounds very feasible.

Thanks Bob.
I am not worried about being correct as such.
I guess I am just keen to point out how background can influence the direction speculation may take.

Folk turn the other way if you suggest for example, when the question arises, why did the Neanderthal go extinct, that our early ancestors may have hunted them for food.

Because canabalisism is frowned upon there is a failure to accept that it may have been normal...after all when you are very hungry meat is meat and a Neanderthal was probably easier to hunt than deer for example.

But the answer that is offerred due to its acceptibility is that it was mere competition for resources that saw us win...mmm a species that had been sucessful for two hundred thousand years gets beat by the new species...maybe but I bet the new humans hunted them for food...maybe not...but once reading about cut marks on Neanderthal bones consistent with butchering that was taken as neanderthal butchering neanderthal when other alternatives were not considered.

I was reading about the idea that it was our larger brains that made us human which was a popular idea for a while but the evidence suggests it was more about walking upright but that is a case where the idea that it was brain size was just an incorrect opinion happily overturned by the chronology of the evidence...and it was widely assumed that human evolution was some how special (now where would they get that idea) because of the absence of species radiation (this refers to different development with a species tied to environment and most likely to occur when an extinction event leaves a species with a new world before it)...happily evidence was found of early human radiation and the idea that human evolution was somewhat special shown to be a mere opinion.

Alex

[multiweb (Marc)]

Sounds like a plan Alex. Next time I drive past the tip in Eastern Creek I'll throw some flowers on top see if it works.

[Wavytone]

Future food ? Unlikely. The parasites within the cadaver will devour it pretty quickly if buried.

Depending on the location/civilisation/culture the main reason to bury a body was to prevent the spread of disease, notably plague and other nasties, and to prevent wild animals eating parts of it.

A few knew to choose a burial site that would not contaminate the water supply, particularly if dependent on groundwater (wells).

If you wanted to preserve it for later consumption the easiest way was to dehydrate it quickly in a cave or crevice in some high cliff face where animals cat reach it, not bury it. Or remove the internal organs and mummify the rest.

[h0ughy (David)]

While this could be a fascinating topic and the intellectual insight into the topic may be interesting, this is a forum which does have some values, so death, taxes and government policies are off the table for discussion.

[xelasnave]

I can see your point David but it was supposed to be a comment upon athropology and its assessment of findings based on modern world experience.
Close it if you wish I was only trying to present something to generate discussion that may have been of interest.
Alex

[h0ughy (David)]

Originally Posted by xelasnave

I can see your point David but it was supposed to be a comment upon athropology and its assessment of findings based on modern world experience.
Close it if you wish I was only trying to present something to generate discussion that may have been of interest.
Alex

Alex anthropology is OK as long as the other topics aren't breached

[xelasnave]

Thanks David.
I edited one post I made which in reflection I did indeed carelessly breach the rules.

Alex

[xelasnave]

When I say carelessly I mean that I did not think at the time I was breaking rules but on strict interpretation I could accept responsibility and fix things up.
Alex

[AstralTraveller (David)]

Alex, there is a widespread tendency for neophytes to cogitate on an issue for 5 minutes and then think that they have seen something which is invisible to experts who spend their lives studying the subject. It's always good for a laugh.



If you would like to be better informed you should drop down to Wollongong soon. The following seminar flyer (from which I have deleted unnecessary details) just arrived in my 'In Box'

Reconstructing funerary sequences in the Neolithic Near East: conducting forensic experiments for a better understanding of burial practices.

'X' is a post-doctoral research fellow .... Her research is focused on taphonomy of burials and lies at the interface between archaeo-anthropology and forensic sciences.

Seminar overview
Near Eastern Neolithic funerary practices encompass a range of practices, including intramural primary and secondary burials, as well as the retention, curation and re-deposition of skeletal elements. Based on current observations at several Near Eastern Pre-Pottery Neolithic B sites, it is hypothesised that more complex, multi-stage funerary practices were employed.
This talk investigates pre-burial treatment and funerary sequences in the Neolithic Near East by integrating principles from forensic science and taphonomy in archaeo-anthropological investigations. Actualistic experiments were carried out at the Australian Facility for Taphonomic Experimental Research (AFTER) to better understand Neolithic multi-stage funerary practices and their link to social organisation and ideology.

[xelasnave]

Originally Posted by AstralTraveller

[SIZE=2]Alex, there is a widespread tendency for neophytes to cogitate on an issue for 5 minutes and then think that they have seen something which is invisible to experts who spend their lives studying the subject. It's always good for a laugh.

Hi David.
Well I hope my effort gave you a laugh and perhaps you are right and laymen should resist the urge to wonder and enquire else they be seen to rise above their station in life.

I think however AFTER is concerned with times more recent and from the little I know about the organization I think they are somewhat concerned with factual interpretaions in the modern era rather than the situation and the subject of my post which I suggested was the folly of forming an opinion based merely opon the norms of the modern era and excuding or rather ognoring what would have been practical considerations for the very early humans who it was suggested buried their dead due to compassion or due to some religious considerations.

I should go over my reading and outline the specific comments so as to identify the issue with clarity but I dont regard it that important that I establish beyong doubt that even for a layman my critism holds some reasonable validity.

I suppose if we look we may find that my observation has been made by someone who has spent their life studying the matter but having already spent well beyond five minutes on the subject I feel it has already taken far too much of my time.

I note you are at Wollongong and AFTER is at Woolongong and to recoeve such a flyer suggests you are somewhat close to the folk in AFTER and if so you could ask about very early burials and if/could practical considerations have been the initial driver that laid the foundations for the rituals and proceedures observed as humans evolved.

AFTER is a rather unique organization and I dont think we find similar anywhere else in the world other than USA. I wonder if China has something like it.

OK I confess...I have been studying burial practises for a while but its something one does not mention as folk think it is odd..however I find it curious the various ways in the past and even in the modern era that humans dispose of their dead...my favorite is leaving the remains on a hill top for the birds to feed upon...that is an interesting one when you ask why is that a good idea of those who practice that approach.
Thanks for bringing some great content to the thread... certainly way beyond anything I hoped for when I first posted.

Alex

[AstralTraveller (David)]

Originally Posted by xelasnave

Hi David.
Well I hope my effort gave you a laugh and perhaps you are right and laymen should resist the urge to wonder and enquire else they be seen to rise above their station in life.
...
Alex

Now now now, Alex, don't play the victim and please don't try to turn me into the thought police. I love to wonder and enquire and esteem others who think likewise. My gripe is when it becomes a slapdown of 'experts'. I mean you have to admit that
" it annoys me that although trained some let their personal background influence their ability to make rational observation."
is a bit judgmental. Especially as that very issue would be discussed in any archaeology/anthropology 101 course.

Originally Posted by xelasnave

OK I confess...I have been studying burial practises for a while ....
Alex

Great, can you translate that abstract into English?

[xelasnave]

Originally Posted by AstralTraveller

Now now now, Alex, don't play the victim and please don't try to turn me into the thought police. I love to wonder and enquire and esteem others who think likewise. My gripe is when it becomes a slapdown of 'experts'. I mean you have to admit that
" it annoys me that although trained some let their personal background influence their ability to make rational observation."
is a bit judgmental. Especially as that very issue would be discussed in any archaeology/anthropology 101 course.




Great, can you translate that abstract into English?

Me play victim????....you must be joking but I will agree to being judgemental☺

I expressed an opinion and often opinions can be judgemental.

As to the plain English ...I have for a long time been interested in burials as part of reading about ancient civilizations...that is about as clear as I can make it.

I appologise if I sounded offensive ..I re read all I have said and it does not appear that way to me but as I said I appologise if there is something I missed which has caused you grief.
Alex

[xelasnave]

Further...perhaps you associate me with those who reject science and give it no respect.

That is not the case.

I believe my observation is reasonable...to interprete burial by early humans ( and by early humans I am thinking about Neanderthal era not early civilizations) as compassionate without any suggestion as to alternatives can only be a mere opinion in my view and really not scientific by any standard you may care to apply...given you hint at some interest in the area, what I would be interested in hearing from you is why my opinion is unreasonable...

Alex