+- BAJR Federation Archaeology (http://www.bajrfed.co.uk)
+-- Forum: BAJR Federation Forums (http://www.bajrfed.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: The Site Hut (http://www.bajrfed.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=7)
+--- Thread: The visibility of sub adults in the record (/showthread.php?tid=1875)
The visibility of sub adults in the record - Digger - 23rd May 2005
Hey deep, What I'm saying is that their are many factures that effect decomp of neo-nates(background PH included) I just have a strong sus that many archaeologists miss them altogether through their small size, mis identification or machined out.
The visibility of sub adults in the record - Arkybones - 28th May 2005
I thought I would answer a few of the posted questions from an osteological point-of-view.
One person asked 'why are the foot and hand bones rarely recovered in sub adult remains'. To fully understand, we must remember than carpal and tarsal bones have NOT formed in infant and in young children. The osseous development starts around 2-4 months after birth and the 'bones' are the size of a large grain of sand! Fully recognizable bones occur in older children (you can refer to Scheuer and Black's Developmental Juvenile Osteology p. 324 for a figure of the development stages).
In terms of cremated remains; yes they have a better survival rate than inhumed bones... especially in acidic soil. This is due to the chemical changes in the skeletal elements when heated at a high temperatures. Unfortunately, the amount of remains left from a cremation of a sub adult is smaller than that of an adult. In a modern crematorium, an infant will leave 1 tablespoon of material behind!!! Diagnostic features such as unfused diaphyseal ends or developing teeth are needed to make a age estimates.
If I've missed some questions or you want to debate what I've said, please let me know!!!!
The visibility of sub adults in the record - troll - 28th May 2005
Hi and welcome Arkybones! The small size of new-born baby bones is simply no excuse. The grain of sand parallel seems a bit over theatrical but, I see your point. In my view, there is no excuse for missing Human remains-in minature or otherwise. In my experience, hand/feet bones are missed through a variety of reasons including ignorance, arrogance and bloody-mindedness in commerical archaeology.Size does not mean everything! An excavator would spend time picking about to extract small finds that shine- a paradigm shift in the perception of field archs` would help-as would a project manager that writes into the project design, a paragraph or two about identifying sub adults during the project. Keep it coming Arky!
The visibility of sub adults in the record - Arkybones - 29th May 2005
I agree with you... there simply is NO excuse for missing human remains; juvenile or adult! I've seen femur fragments sticking out of spoil heaps and large cranial fragments left in the grave cut becuase the archaeologist thought it would make my life easier! [xx(]
I think there should be strict regulations concerning the units excavating skeletal remains and the experience of the archaeologists who dig them. Too many mistakes are made and not enough attention or respect is given to the dead.
The visibility of sub adults in the record - BAJR Host - 29th May 2005
OOOOh the things I could say.
The problem is there are clear guidlines.. and laws regarding Human Remains and their excavation... it is just that they are often not adhered to.
On the bright (ish) side... a developer who thought they could get away with machining out a late iron age cist burial... " ah well says he.... too late now ... really sorry...."
Ah well say I... perhaps not..... 780 tonnes of seiveed soil later and we have c. 4 individuals.. and the police were very pleased...
}
The visibility of sub adults in the record - mercenary - 30th May 2005
Fantastic! What a creative punishment. More please from all you curator types.
The visibility of sub adults in the record - MikeL - 3rd June 2005
Hi, am glad that the conference sparked further debate! One thing you haven't yet considered is that the under representation of infants can also match an under representation of other age groups, e.g. during prehistory. Especially during the Iron Age, infants, older children and adults are all under represented within visible burial. Inhumation appears to have always been a selective rite during this period, so we shouldn't be surprised to find absence as well as inclusion.
The visibility of sub adults in the record - troll - 3rd June 2005
Twas a good conference Mike and should be followed up with another one! I look forward to being able to buy a copy of the proceedings from BAR- any ideas when that may be? Would be excellent if we could persuade those who gave papers to join in here.........Hope your recent move was un-eventful, excellent conference!
The visibility of sub adults in the record - MikeL - 21st June 2005
Hi everyone, just to let you know that I am considering running a small website with forum dedicated to the archaeology of childhood. Would be open to any related issues from around the world and could incorporate wider anthropological and osteological issues. What do you think? Would you be interested?
The visibility of sub adults in the record - deepdigger - 21st June 2005
"If you build it they will come"(Costner,K)
deep