Future Funding: Disabled Students Allowance in the UK

21 Apr

There are some quietly dramatic changes ongoing in higher education in the UK currently, but there is one issue that is particularly close to my heart that, as I scanned newspapers and current affairs magazines over the past few weeks, seems to have received scant media coverage or attention.  On the 7th of April David Willetts, the Minister for Universities and Science, released a ministerial statement on future changes to the Disabled Student Allowance (DSA) that will affect students from the 15/16 academic year on-wards.  The Disabled Student Allowance are non-repayable grants available to part-time and full-time undergraduate or postgraduate students that assist with additional costs that a disabled student incurs in relation to their study in higher education, such as when a disabled individual may need a note taker during lectures, a library helper to find and handle books or require specialist equipment for studying and for producing written work.  Those disabled students who are currently enrolled and agreed DSA will not be affected by the new changes, but students who start in 15/16 academic year will be.

The aim, Willetts declares in the statement, is to modernise Disabled Students Allowance (DSA) by reviewing the £125 million-a-year support given to thousands of disabled students in the UK.  Essentially the Student Loans Company, the not-for-profit company that provides student loans and DSA in the UK, will be limiting the support types and equipment allocation that they currently fund for disabled students who attend higher education.  Willetts states that he would expect the higher education institutions (HEI’s) to pick up the slack, and provide and pay for the more general support types needed by individual students with disabilities.  Thus the limited public funds available for DSA will support and supply disabled students applying for higher education with a core allocation for certain complex types of support (such as specialised software), whilst hoping that the individual institutions will have the frameworks in place for providing more generalised support types for disabled students in conjunction with support suppliers.

The only mainstream magazine that I have seen mention or discuss the announcement is the ever reliable Private Eye magazine (current edition No. 1364, page 9) and online independent bloggers such as Assist Tech.  Private Eye quote the fact that the National Association of Disability Practitioners (the providers of support that invoice the Student Loan Company for support given) have stated that the move as described by Willetts would create an enormous disincentive for universities to recruit disabled students because of the costs involved.

The value of having a centralised loan company that can collect information, review procedures and investigate providers of equipment and support will surely be lost if individual HEI’s have to rely on a  binary system of dealing with both the Student Loans Company and the individual practitioners, during the providing of support for disabled individuals in higher education.

Following the ministerial statement by Willetts, Paul Higgs, as a part of the Higher Education Student Funding Policy in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, also released a more in-depth Student Support Information Note in April 2014 (SSIN, fully accessible here).  In it the nuts and bolts of the modernisation program is highlighted, and it makes for depressing reading:

  • The bulk of the non-specialist non-medical helpers (NMH) support that is currently funded by DSA will no longer be funded by the Student Loan Company.  This includes library or laboratory assistants, note takers, personal helpers, mentors or specialist helpers.
  • The majority of the equipment that is currently funded by DSA will no longer be funded from 15/16 on-wards, only specialist equipment that is specifically needed by the student will be funded.
  • No assistive technology support or related non-medical helper support is expected to be funded either.
  • Funding will no longer be provided for consumable items (paper, ink etc).
  • No funding will be given for additional costs regarding accommodation changes where the accommodation is funded by the HEI, if this is to be a problem the HEI itself is expected to meet the cost.

There is, of course, core funding that will remain in place and accessible for disabled students from the Student Loan Company itself in complex situations (although complexicity in this instance is not defined further).  The HEI should hopefully have core support ring-fenced from its own allocation of funding and have such frameworks in place for the support of disabled students from the 15/16 academic year on-wards.  The aim of the statement and proposals from Willetts and Higgs is to ensure that the DSA is up to date, consummate with the use of public funds and its spending, and to make sure that HEI’s are abiding by the 2010 Equality Act, which ensures that disabled individuals have an equal playing field, in both academia and in employment, compared to the average non-disabled individual.  This is an honourable view certainly.

Yet I retain deep reservations about this latest move by the government.  Yes it has only just been announced and yes it is not currently in practice, but I worry for disabled students access to higher education and to academia generally.  This move will force a greater financial burden onto educational institutions throughout the country.  The economic worth of study, and of the place of academia within a national economy generally, is not in dispute but the availability of access to academia by every sector of society is.  The move is also slowly breaking down the great vision that study is worth it for its own sake as limitations are further placed on the value of access to education.  Furthermore it is another demoralising move towards eroding the individual freedom of disabled people by dismantling core government support, and fanning it out instead to a variety of organisations and companies.

Needless to say I will be interested to see the development and implementation of the modernisation of DSA in the upcoming years ahead.  I will also keep an eye out for further information as and when it becomes available.

Further Information

  • Read the ministerial statement by Rt Hon. David Willetts, MP for Universities and Science, here.
  • Read Paul Higgs SSIN statement on the changes in DSA for 15/16 here.
  • Read Assist Tech’s personal view and more detailed response to Willett’s and Higgs’s statement here.
  • Read the legislation for the Equality Act 2010 here.

My DVAD 2014 Abstract

16 Apr

As mentioned in a recent post on upcoming archaeology conferences, the community archaeology group Elmet Archaeology are meeting up for their annual Dearne Valley Archaeology Day in late May (tickets available from £14 to £18, book now).  The one day conference is open to archaeologists, amateur archaeologists and the public alike and will cover a wide range of topics during the course of the day.  Speakers will be coming from across the archaeology divide with talkers coming from academia, commercial and the community archaeology spheres including among them one David Connolly of BAJR and Past Horizon fame, Brendon Wilkins of DigVentures, and Professor Joann Fletcher from the University of York.

Also along these luminaries presenting is yours truly!  I am somewhat nervous and apprehensive about giving a public talk, but I am very much looking forward to it.  In a way I am bringing this blog out into the public sphere in person, a somewhat daunting task of trying to make the digital physical.

So here are the details of where to head to and when, along with the abstract of my talk:

Date/Location: Saturday 31st of May at the Dearne Valley College in Wath-Upon-Dearne, South Yorkshire.

Title: Blogging Archaeology Online: Thoughts and Reflections on the Rise of Internet Archaeology.

Key Words: Amateur archaeology, archaeology, blogging, digital media, human evolution, human osteology, internet archaeology, online research, open access, technology.

Abstract:

This paper will discuss the vibrant online world of archaeological blogging.  In particular the paper will focus on the These Bones of Mine blog, the author’s own blog, outlining the site’s inception and subsequent growth in promoting the fields of archaeology, human osteology and human evolution.  The value of archaeology blogging will be framed and discussed through a personal lens in relation to the above site.  The recent growth in the amount of archaeology blogs is reflected in the diversity and the independent nature of the sites themselves – no two archaeology blogs are alike, either in tone or in style.  Both professional and amateur archaeologists use blogs to explore diverse research topics, engage in public outreach, and highlight topics not often discussed in more scholarly publications.  By blogging, professionals and amateurs alike are producing a publicly available record on the value of archaeology.  As such this paper will highlight how my blog, These Bones of Mine and others, are making and promoting inclusive open access to archaeology.  It will also encourage others to engage with digital media, to either start producing their own content or to take a look at archaeology online.  The rise of Open Access, the drive to make academic and research documents available to all, will also be discussed as this matters to many archaeology bloggers.  The paper will conclude with some thoughts on the future of blogging, both of my own personal site and on blogging as an outreach format in general.

Word Count 246

Further Information

  • Full details of the day long conference and how to contact the organisers of DVAD 2014 can be found here, as well as further reading about the past DVAD events.
  • To learn more about the work that Elmet Archaeology carry out, read away here.

Blogging Archaeology: Future Goals of Blogging

14 Apr

This is the fifth and final entry in a blogging carnival that Doug Rocks-Macqueen, of Doug’s Archaeology, started back in November last year.  Just another quick recap: the whole idea of this blog carnival was started by Doug after he saw that the Society for American Archaeology are having their 79th annual conference in Austin, Texas, this month (in fact only a week or two away).  Doug specifically noticed that they are including a session on the rise of blogging in archaeology and, since he cannot be there himself, he thought it was pertinent to start a blogging carnival online to get the archaeology blogosphere alive with monthly questions.  The questions were posted on his site in the first week of each month, and can still be viewed for anybody interested in taking part still.

blogging-archaeology111133333333

Are all blogs the same? The beauty of blogging lies in both versatility and the independence of the format. (Image credit, remixed with MS Paint).

Last month a total of 13 wonderful bloggers took part in February’s entry for the carnival.  The question was actually open-ended and as Doug’s states he thought he had almost killed the carnival!  But I think we can all say that February was a pretty busy month all round for most people.  My entry, which can be read here, tackled the meaning of the blog, and blogging in general, because I’d largely felt that this whole carnival has been a wonderful exercise in self-reflection.  And I have to admit I do enjoy writing about the ecology of blogging, it really is a wonderful world of diversity in the archaeology blogging area with all manner of topics tackled and approaches used. Remember that if you are an archaeology blogger (in any way whatsoever) then feel free to jump right in and join.  Answering the past blogging questions is very much welcomed at any time.  The previous months questions can be found here, jump in and join – I highly recommend it!

For month’s topic Doug has asked about the future of blogging, of goals and aims we’d like to achieve or changes we’d like to see implemented.  45 fantastic archaeology bloggers have already replied so far and Doug has done a very nice little round-up of the final entries.  I finish as I started, as once again I am pretty late with my entry!  So let’s get this final blog arch carnival entry on the go…

Blogging the Future

This blog has recently passed 1 million views, which is pretty cool I think for something that I started in my bedroom whilst thinking about the forthcoming Masters degree, and more specifically about what I could do to try to improve my knowledge before I started the degree.  Now I am post-Masters, looking towards a few possible futures on the horizon.  My email inbox for this blog has started to ping a bit more than usual recently, with various different requests or offers starting to arrive.  Everything from students wanting to know more about the human skeleton and asking questions on essays and research, publishing houses informing me of their latest open access journals, to offers of review books for exhibitions or novels.  It is pretty interesting and I am very much enjoying helping out where I can, especially in being able to help share knowledge and advice, or to inform a reader on what collections or museums to check out for human osteological collections.  This is something that I should probably write a post about, now I come to think about it.

But I think the future for the blog is pretty obvious at the moment.  I want to do more, where and if I can.  I repeat my clarion call for guest blog entries.  I want to interview more archaeologists and bioarchaeologists, so if you are interested get in touch.  I also need to revisit a fundamental pillar of the blog and finish the Skeletal Series blog entries.  Those entries in the draft folder that don’t extend beyond a half-finished bibliography and a choice selection of key words?  I should finish those!  One of my recent previous posts, Future Steps, preempted last month’s blogging archaeology carnival question and highlights some thoughts on the future of this blog, including trying to gather together the skeletal series posts in a PDF or a printout form, and the possible use of photoessays for some future blog entries.

Other bloggers have mentioned that they see the future of blogging utilizing the integration of video blogging and podcasts into primarily written word blogs.  Whilst I can definitely see the future potential and audience for this, it is not something that I am currently considering or pursuing for a variety of reasons just yet.  What I do think is important is to approach the topic of archaeology in a variety of ways, interacting with an audience using various formats.  Bloggers, as a rule of thumb, are quite individual and diverse in their use of style, presentation and technology.  This is their strength in maintaining both their independence and in their means of communication to a diverse and open audience.

Standing Alone

Bioarchaeology and human osteology are generally well represented within the ecology of archaeology blogging, offering as it does an often intimate portrait of the human being within archaeology itself.  This, though, is a fairly recent trend, but it is certainly a trend on an upward surge at the moment.  It can be pretty hard to get noticed if you are blogging about archaeology and a specialism within archaeology, therefore I would always suggest that you try to pin point a unique selling point if possible.  Something slightly different that other bloggers have not tackled or have only briefly touched upon.

Bloggers are also essentially stand alone operations, where the blog is often tied to that one individual.  Plenty of bloggers use their real names and include photographs of themselves, while some just use their blog name as their identity.  For a long time I withheld my full name on the blog as I wanted it to truly stand alone, to be attached only to itself.  Partly this was due to just outright curiosity as to how it would be received, if at all, and to the fact that I had some privacy concerns.  Personal thoughts aside, there has been real strides with regards to the acceptance and value of blogging.  But I don’t think funding bodies or academic institutions value the blog format enough as a form of education outreach, and I hope that this is something that changes in the future.

Brief Thoughts

I’m currently re-reading The Rebel by the French philosopher Albert Camus, and in his 1951 essay Camus touches upon a point that I think is pertinent to blogging as a whole:

“In our daily trials, rebellion plays the same role as does the cogito in the category of thought: it is the first clue.  But this clue lures the individual from his solitude.  Rebellion is the common ground on which every man bases his first values.  I rebel – therefore we exist.”

Blogging archaeology is a form of the  individual freedom of expression, one that is not typically constricted or gagged by contract or institution.  As such it is both an addition to the individual’s expression of educational outreach, but importantly it is also a subversion of the normal mode of delivery for such information and news.  Perhaps especially so when blogging bioarchaeology as many of the most widely read bloggers are affiliated with academic institutions.  Bloggers can talk to the audience directly- they bypass the formal apparatus normally associated with academia and often reach a far wider audience by doing so.  It is mass communication, although it is purely up to the blogger themselves as to how they promote their blogs and interact with their audience.

It is also acknowledgement of the sharing of information of which only a few are privy, or have the access to.  In this way it the rebellion of the individual.  Jess Beck, over at Bone Broke, highlights the fact that blogging allows her to maintain her interest in bioarchaeology and provide content to others who are interested in osteology and palaeopathology.  In a way blogging validates our passion and cements the feeling that we exist, our passion exist and the audience for the information exists.  As such by blogging we are offering first hand accounts from specialists to an interested audience.  Especially at a time when public outreach and engagement is a foundation that is fundamentally needed to provide the validation of the value and worth of our fields in the face of ongoing cuts and funding issues.

Bioarchaeology and human osteology blogs differ in their approach to topics, but all largely adhere in discussing the latest research published in pay-walled journals, often offering summaries or alternative sources to access the information.  By the very vitality of the format, blogging can also challenge the very structure and foundation of formalised academic institutions.  However, there must be careful considerations of how far we either stray or maintain the relationships between the two forms of information dispersal.  As Doug himself notes it is the very freedom of blogging that makes it so special, that if it were mainstreamed to fit the academic mould then the magic from blogging would probably be gone.  It is an analysis that I can definitely agree with, but I do also think that there is some wiggle room for communication between the two.  Speaking of blogging generally, I do believe that there must be dialogue, there must be critical analysis, there must be a frankness and a openness in the way we (the bloggers) produce content.  But this does not mean that we can not be funny or make jokes, as many bloggers do to great effect.

This also leads me onto my next brief point, the demography of bloggers themselves.  In the online bioarchaeological world the bloggers themselves are largely western, English speaking individuals that dominate the discussion and the main attention of the audience.  In the future I’d like to see further diversity in the representation of bioarchaeology bloggers worldwide (1).  Language is of course a problem – English is the lingua franca of the world, but there is immense scope for the views of the many bioarchaeologists and human osteologists worldwide.  Blogging is, after all, largely a free format in which to produce content.  Identity is also an important topic to discuss when considering the future of blogging as a majority of bioarchaeology bloggers tie the blog name and identity to their own name, twitter account and/or professional career.  Whilst this is to be expected in a particularly competitive field, I am wary of doing this myself.  This blog, after all, is just one facet of my personal being- it is not the whole.

Although I have raised the idea that blogging is rebellion, it is also trapped within a conditioning of legitimacy.  Particularly in that of academic institution affiliation offered as a proxy for the legitimacy of the information presented and discussed.  As far as I am aware I am one of the few bioarchaeological bloggers not currently a doctoral student, a researcher attached to or teaching at a university, or a commercial unit employee.  I do, of course, have the academic background, experience and knowledge to understand the technical terminology within bioarchaeology, and I am actively applying for archaeological jobs and looking at further research.  But I think it may also actively discourage amateur archaeologists or interested members of the public from engaging with blogs or make them think twice on starting a blog themselves.  So I think we have a slight disconnect here between what we think we represent, to what we are and to how others may perceive us.  Market saturation and the dominance of fields are definitely things that should be considered and discussed when trying to understand blogging ecology.  Diversity, for me, is the key to a healthy and developing blogosphere and I encourage debate and critical analysis.

Archaeology is a powerful tool in helping to understand both the human past and to engage critically with our own cultural perceptions (Joyce 2008, Pluciennik 2005).  As such I will continue to blog about archaeology and bioarchaeology as they are subjects that are close to my heart both professionally and personally.  Blogging can (and has) made a difference both inside and outside of academia and, as an active blogger, I would encourage others from around the world to start their own archaeology blogging journey to see where it takes you.

A Fond Farewell

And so it is with a heavy that I bid farewell to the blogging archaeology carnival as hosted by the fantastic digital curator Doug Rocks-Macqueen.  I shall certainly miss the monthly chances to write an introspective post on blogging from the perspective of an archaeology blogger, but I shall miss more the opportunity afforded by the carnival to meet new archaeology bloggers online, to hear views and opinions I had not thought of or considered.  This, for me, has been the true beauty of the blogging archaeology carnival and I for one hope it returns, in some form, in the near future.  So thank you to all the bloggers who have taken part – it has been a joy to read your entries and to be able to focus some thoughts of my own in my entries.

The final review for the blogging archaeology carnival can be found here on Doug’s fantastic website, as can all the bloggers who have taken part in the last session of the carnival.

Notes

(1).  Of course there may well be a wide range of foreign bioarchaeology blogs that I am simply unaware of and cannot read because of the language used.  If you know any, please leave a comment below as I’d be interested to hear about them!

Bibliography

Camus, A. 2013. The Rebel. London: Penguin Modern Classics.

Joyce, R. A. 2008. Ancient Bodies, Ancient Lives: Sex, Gender and Archaeology. London: Thames and Hudson Ltd.

Pluciennik, M. 2005. Social Evolution, Duckworth Debates in Archaeology Series. London: Gerald Duckworth & Co. Ltd.

White, T. D. & Folkens, P. A. 2005. The Human Bone Manual. London: Elsevier Academic Press.

 

A Stone to Throw II: Upcoming Archaeology Conferences

7 Apr

A few dates for the diary as this year sees some pretty exciting archaeology and bioarchaeology themed conferences rolling towards us in the next four months of 2014 or so.  Conferences are fantastic places to learn about new techniques or research approaches in archaeology.  It can also be a thrill watching famed archaeologists and professors speak in the flesh about topics which they are passionate about.  Conferences, depending on their target audience, can sometimes be open to the public and members of academia alike, but they can also vary widely in cost depending on their location, size and prestige.

mixxxxxxx

Without further ado here are a few conferences that have peaked my interest and some that I hope to attend myself (although Istanbul may have to be missed due to an unfortunate clash with BABAO):

Dearne Valley Archaeology Day 2014, Wath-Upon-Dearne

The community focused Elmet Archaeology group, who were recently mentioned here as a part of an interview with their osteoarchaeologist Lauren McIntyre, are hosting their annual Dearne Valley Archaeology Day in Wath-Upon-Dearne, South Yorkshire, on Saturday the 31st of May.  Open to the members of the public and archaeologists alike, the day long conference costs £18 (£14 unwaged) to attend and boasts a host of speakers on a variety of topics.  The full list of speakers has yet to be announced but so far includes British archaeological stalwarts such as David Connolly of BAJR fame, Prof Joan Fletcher of the University of York and a range of speakers from archaeological units across the country.  There will also be a number of stalls on the day, including information booths on how to illustrate archaeology style by Kate Adelade, Dearne Valley Archaeology Group and a stall with Jenny Crangle detailing the medieval Rothwell Charnel Chapel Project (which has been previously discussed on this blog).   

Exploring Changing Human Beliefs About Death, Mortality and the Human Body, Invisible Dead Project Conference, Durham

The University of Durham is playing host to the Invisible Dead Project conference from Friday 6th of to the Sunday the 8th of June.  The conference has two lectures on the Friday and Saturday nights which are open to the public and two full days of talks for students and academics during the Saturday and Sunday daytime.  The conference is, quite wonderfully, completely free to attend.  The ongoing Invisible Dead Project is a large-scale international collaboration aimed at studying the prehistoric and historic attitudes to death and burial of Britain and the Levant areas.  Information and details of sites under study can be found here at the University of Durham webpage.

The conference welcomes anthropologists, archaeologists and members of the public interested in death and  human remains in prehistory and up contemporary society to attend.  The first public speaker is Prof. Peter Pfälzner, from the University of Tübingen, explaining work carried out on long-term royal funerary processes at Qatna, Syria, on Friday night (6.30pm), whilst Prof Mike Parker Pearson discusses problems and perspectives in funerary archaeology on the Saturday night (6.30pm).  If you are interested in attending the conference forms should be completed before the 30th of April.

British association of Biological Anthropologists and Osteoarchaeologists, Durham

The British Association of Biological Anthropology and Osteoarchaeology are holding their annual conference at the University of Durham in September, from Friday 12th to the Sunday 14th.  The three-day conference will feature a broad range of presentations, talks and posters on the great range and wealth of  osteoarchaeology in Britain and beyond.  The call for papers has just been announced and is open until the 9th of June.  Last year’s conference program can be found here.  Although details have not been released just yet of the costs of attending the conference, it is likely that it will upwards of £140 to attend (based on 2013 BABAO member rates).  The information concerning the 4 sessions has just been released and are based around the following clusters:

1) The body and society: past perspectives on the present

2) Biological anthropology and infectious disease: new developments in understanding from bioarchaeology, palaeoanthropology, primatology, and archaeozoology

3) New developments in biomolecular methods

4) Open session

Details on the key-note speakers for each session can be found here, as can further information on conference guidelines for following abstract guidelines and submission dates.  The BABAO conference is the foundation stone of conferences in the UK osteology calendar as it really does represent the best in current research in the UK and beyond.  Although I have yet to attend one (due to costs), I have high hopes of attending this year’s event in the lovely historic (and local to me) city of Durham.

European Association of Archaeologists, Istanbul

The European Association for Archaeologists host their conference in September, from the Wednesday the 10th to the Sunday the 14th, in Istanbul, Turkey.  The call for papers and posters has now closed, but they did receive a very healthy 2400 submissions in total.  The broad topics of discussion for the 2014 session are categorised into 6 different focus areas including:

1) Connecting seas: across the borders

2) Managing archaeological heritage: past and present

3) Ancient technologies in social context

4) Environment and subsistence: the geosphere, ecosphere and human interaction

5) Times of change: collapse and transformative impulses

6) Retrieving and interpreting the archaeology record

The fees for attending the EAA conference ranges in price from €40 to €180 dependent on category of the applicant (see here for the full extensive list, you are enrolled as a member of the EAA on purchase of conference tickets), but all are welcome to join the conference.  It promises to be an interesting conference with the attendance of some of the most important archaeologists in Europe discussing a wide variety of topics, including a number of speakers discussing human osteology related topics.  Istanbul is also a fantastic place to host a conference positioned as it is between the crossing of the West into the East and vice versa, and boasting a city full of heritage, archaeology and art.

No doubt there will be more archaeology and osteology based conferences going on so please feel free to leave a comment below.

Excavating the War Dead of WW2: The Eastern Front

31 Mar

It is a grim tally.  By the end of the Second World War in 1945, an estimated total of around 70 million people had been killed world-wide as a result of the conflict.  On the Eastern Front alone an estimated 26 million individuals perished, and a further 4 million individuals were listed as missing in action after the devastation and ferocity of the battles between the Nazi and Soviet armies and assorted armed factions (Applebaum 2013, Merridale 2013).

Unlike the war in Western Europe, the war in the East was total.  A large percentage of the Eastern Front dead were the civilians of various countries caught, as they so often were, between the invasions or incursions of Nazi or Soviet forces.  Whole landscapes were decimated of any economic functionality (as a part of the scorched earth policy), populations were wiped out or moved en-mass, and the savagery of the conduct of the armies poised against each other was truly horrifying.  Further to this the bulk of the Nazi extermination camps used in the Holocaust were located in Eastern Europe, and the majority of the camps were often used after the destruction of the Nazi regime by the Soviets for imprisoning political and war prisoners for many years (Applebaum 2013).  It was not simply a war of clashing ideologies but a conflict that was deeply fractured along racial, ethnic, national and international tensions.

For anyone seeking an overview and understanding of the final years of the conflict in Eastern Europe, and the subsequent communist takeover, I highly recommend historian Anne Applebaum’s (2013) Iron Curtain: The Crushing of Eastern Europe book.  It is a highly researched and detailed account of the differing methods used by the Soviet Union throughout the 1940s, in Eastern Europe, to subjugate populations and countries to the communist political and moral system.

The excavation and retrieval of the many fallen civilians and soldiers that still lie in the soil of various Eastern European countries is a subject that one should treat with caution and the utmost respect, as one should with excavating any victims of human rights violations or any archaeological skeletal remains.  The Second World War is also still within living memory, as many individuals who fought and lived throughout the war are still alive themselves.

Therefore it is with some consternation, sadness and anger that I learnt about National Geographic Channel’s latest archaeology based program Nazi War Diggers, a particularly damaging show that promotes dubious ethical standards in the digging up and removal of human remains and WW2 era artefacts.  Many archaeology, metal detectorists and bioarchaeology bloggers have already helped highlight the fury that many feel on reading the preview information for the show, for the supposed ‘experts’ used in the show and for the footage that highlights the disrespectful removal and handling of human remains from a WW2 context.  A number of researchers have also highlighted the possible infringement of European legal standards and the likely illegal exportation and selling of WW2 artefacts by one of the show’s main presenters.  Further to this a number of institutions that should have been contacted and informed of the work beforehand (National Museums in Latvia and Poland, for example) have not been contacted or have been ignored when they tried to intervene.

Further to the above, as Dr Sam Hardy of Conflict Archaeology is currently documenting, in detail, an enlightening and frankly horrifying series of posts of the whole sorry charade.  National Geographic themselves have backtracked, removed public comments from their social media websites and have removed suspect and dubious video footage of the show from their online website (including the use of Neo-Nazi language during the unearthing of human remains).  This is frankly very disappointing behaviour.  National Geographic is a large organisation, one where the magazine, TV show, research foundation and online forms are all independent from each other but retain the National Geographic brand.  The Nazi War Diggers program is deeply disappointing and infuriating, as are the National Geographic responses to queries by specialists and non-specialists alike.

The companies involved in the making of this program include the following: the National Geographic television channel, Legenda (the specialist company used in the Latvia based digging), production company ClearStory and the Fox Entertainment Group.

The three presenters involved are not trained archaeological excavators or trained field anthropologists in the recording and removal of human remains, yet video footage explicitly shows the removal of human skeletal material from a war grave with the use of inappropriate and damaging tools, no recording of the context of the remains nor any respect or care taken in identifying the bone elements post immediate removal.  The principal three presenters of the show (Kris Rodgers, Stephen Taylor and Craig Gottlieb, alongside Adrian Kostromski) are curious choices to front such a show.  In particular Craig Gottlieb has a record for selling WW2 artefacts for profit and has stated in online websites that he has no problems getting artefacts past customs or finding artefacts to sell.  This raises all sorts of ethical problems and probable clashes of interest during his involvement with Nazi War Diggers.

Indeed Gottlieb had been quoted as saying: “(I) feel that by selling things that are Nazi related and for lots of money, I’m preserving a part of history that museums don’t want to bother with”.  A quote which was quickly retracted by the National Geographic Channel on their website.

The company behind the so-called excavation of human remains in WW2 contexts in Latvia, Legenda, have numerous Youtube videos up of their work – please be aware this is strictly not how trained archaeologists or anthropologists excavate and record human remains, especially those that likely still have living relatives.  As can be evidence in the videos no care or attention is paid to the remains uncovered, no ethics are abided by and no respect is paid to the fallen that have been uncovered.  It is some of the most upsetting scenes of desecration  of war graves that I have seen.  There must have been an awful lot of contextual information lost purely because of the approach used by Legenda.  Bear in mind that individuals from WW2 graves can often still be identified and returned to places of rest.  This will not be the case when desecration and destruction of evidence happens on a scale that is the outcome of the approach Legenda use (1).

For National Geographic to actively work with such companies and individuals is a shock, it disastrously promotes the profane practice of war grave robbing.  It is extremely disappointing and disturbing.  There are no other words to describe it.  Personally I having trouble articulating my thoughts on this subject because I am so surprised and disheartened that such a program could be made for entertainment purposes.  Furthermore it gives archaeology, bioarchaeology and human osteology a bad name when in fact these fields of study and inquiry are vital to understanding the people, the cultures and the landscapes of the past.  Quite proactively it seems that this is not the case with the Nazi War Diggers show.  I am also worried that this show will produce a monochrome view of the Eastern Front.  I am deeply worried that the individuals exhumed during the production of the show may be misidentified or cast aside.  I, for one, await evidence from National Geographic on the osteological reports and deposition of the skeletal remains excavated (excavation generally implies recording of the archaeological context, something that this show lacks) during the course of the show.

The website for the program (linked above) states that ‘misinformation’ has already been spread about the show, and that the show will explicitly state the difference in the work that it supposedly conducts and the work of ‘black digging’, i.e. grave robbing for the selling of artefacts.  Yet the damage has surely already been done by the way in which National Geographic has conducted the work already.  By associating with known sellers of WW2 relics, for profit, and by using companies that have a documented and explicit history of desecrating war graves, the National Geographic Channel has itself already condemned its own show from the start.  For me there is no argument – Nazi War Diggers is an abhorrent show, both morally and ethically.

A part of me cannot help but wonder what news the National Geographic Channel is holding back before the airing of Nazi War Diggers – will the show include the respectful identifying or re-burial of the individuals who have been dug up on the show, are the artefacts associated with WW2 contexts preserved, documented and stored in museums?  So far the news from the channel, the production company and the companies associated with the show do not provide hope in the methods that they been shown to have used.

I want to highlight something else though, something positive from an article that appeared in the BBC online magazine a few months ago, something that provides a different perspective on excavating and exhuming the individuals who died on the Eastern Front in WW2.

In a recent article Ash (2014) highlighted the work of the volunteers throughout the Russian Federation that have dedicated their time and efforts to locating and excavating the missing soldiers of the Red Army on the Eastern Front.  Documenting one such group, Exploration, which is one of a suspected 600 groups or so, the article details the work that they do in excavating, identifying and re-burying the Soviet war dead of WW2.  In contrast to the above show by the National Geographic Channel, the Exploration group have had some success in carefully excavating, recording and identifying the individuals that they have uncovered where they fell, during the German offensive code named Operation Barbarossa, in the forests around St Petersburg (formerly known as Leningrad).

Intriguingly there is evidence of the cover up of the graves in this area during the 1950s and 1960s by the communist regime, by planting trees to help cover the physical remains of battle and thus prohibit any chance discovery.  The priority was instead to re-build a shattered country.  The largely independent volunteer groups described in the BBC article receive no initial help in recovering the bodies of the fallen, but do seem to be able to help fund an honourable reburial once documenting, recording and removal of the bodies have taken place, although it is unclear to me if the Russian Federation provides funding or materials for this.  Importantly it is by giving back the unknown soldiers their identifies (if they can be identified by their ID tags or personal belongings) that the volunteer groups are able to bring closure to some families today by helping to return and re-unite long lost loved individuals.

In a quick last mention I recently received a copy of Clea Koff’s book The Bone Woman in the post, a book detailing the forensic anthropologist’s work with the United Nations in helping to exhume and identify modern victims of genocide.  The book has a particular focus on her work in Rwanda, Bosnia, Kosovo and Croatia, detailing the information that her team helped to collect and recover and how it was used in trials against the people who helped order or carry out the killings in these countries in the 1990s.  It was on reading Osteoadventures post on the National Geographic debacle that I came across Koff’s book, and I highly recommend giving it a read.  There are many many people, both individuals and organisations worldwide, that conduct thorough investigations into human rights violations (such as recovering evidence and human remains from genocide contexts or discovering and investigating clandestine graves) that deserve our support and acknowledgement.  The National Geographic Channel’s Nazi War Diggers program is not among these.  The damage that the show has already caused, in part evidenced above, should be protested against.  Human remains deserve better treatment.

Update 01/04/14

According to the New York Times (via Dr Sam Hardy) the National Geographic Channel has pulled the Nazi War Diggers program indefinitely.

Notes

(1). Once again Dr Sam Hardy has updated his excellent blog with some salient remarks regarding Legenda and their techniques.  In particular he highlights the fact that the people behind the company want to help and that, at times, they cannot do as much of a professional job as one would hope.  This does not excuse all of their actions in the videos linked to above, but it does explain some to a degree.  I heartily recommend readers to check Dr Hardy’s blog for regular updates on the situation and for further information.

Further Reading

Bibliography

Applebaum, A. 2013. Iron Curtain: The Crushing of Eastern Europe. London: Penguin Books.

Ash, L. 2014. Digging For Their Lives: Russia’s Volunteer Body Hunters. BBC Online Magazine.

Merridale, C. 2013. Red Fortress: The Secret Heart of Russia’s History. London: Allen Lane.

Interview with Lauren McIntyre: Handful of Bones

24 Mar

Dr Lauren McIntyre is an osteoarchaeologist based in Sheffield, England.  Having recently completed her PhD at the University of Sheffield on analysing the Romano-British human population of York, she is currently working as a project officer and osteoarchaeologist for Elmet Archaeology.  Volunteers for Elmet’s ongoing projects are welcome and Lauren can be contacted at l.mcintyre at elmetarchaeology.co.uk for further information.  As well as her fascination for all things archaeology and bone related, Lauren has a particular passion for horror films and can often be found at Sheffield’s own Celluloid Screams film festival.

—————————————————————————————————————————–

These Bones of Mine:  Hello Lauren, welcome and thank you for joining me at These Bones of Mine!  For those that don’t have the pleasure of knowing you, please could tell us a little bit about yourself and your archaeological research?

Lauren McIntyre: Hi David, it’s nice to be asked!  OK, so I finished my undergraduate degree in Archaeology and Prehistory at the University of Sheffield in 2004.  I returned there to do an MSc in Human Osteology and Funerary Archaeology in 2005.  I started my PhD there in 2010, which I’ve just completed.  I’ve spent the time between completing degree courses working as a professional field archaeologist and osteoarchaeologist.  I’ve worked for a number of commercial field units such as ARCUS, Mike Griffiths and Associates and On-Site Archaeology, and I’ve also done a lot of work supervising and teaching on student fieldschools and community archaeological projects.

I got my osteological “big break” as it were with On-Site Archaeology in 2008.  I’d already worked as field staff of their excavation of the medieval All Saints Fishergate cemetery the previous year.  This was right at the beginning of all the economic problems in the UK, and there were problems with the developer who owned the site and trying to establish a budget for post-excavation analysis of the vast quantity of human skeletal remains that we’d already removed from the site.  I helped put together a funding bid to the AHRC for post-excavation osteological analysis with Andrew Chamberlain (then University of Sheffield, now University of Manchester).

Lauren at Rothwell.

Lauren analysing some of the crania of the  charnel material at the medieval Rothwell crypt in Northampton, England.

Fortunately we won it, so I spent a year analysing about 750 Roman, medieval and post-medieval skeletons.  We’d had a big surprise on the site in that as well as the medieval cemetery, we also found ten post-medieval mass graves that no-one knew existed.  Research showed that they might have been Parliamentarian soldiers killed by infectious disease during the 1644 siege of York.  So as well as the osteological report we did an article for Current Archaeology, a (rather ill-fated) TV programme for the BBC and a ton of other media output.

Since I finished writing up the Fishergate assemblage, I suppose my next big move was conducting and completing my PhD.  Again, I was funded by the AHRC to conduct a comprehensive analysis of all the Roman skeletal material from York.  My aim was to reconstruct the population in terms of size and composition, diet and health status.  I collected data for nearly 800 individuals, either by using data from modern osteological reports or analysing the bones myself.  It was a really tough job, but I’m pleased with the results!

I finally had my PhD signed off in February this year, and I’m now working for Elmet Archaeological Services, organising their conference and workshops series, and putting together funding proposals for new osteological projects.

TBOM: That certainly sounds like you have studied a large number of individuals in some pretty interesting assemblages!  How important has it been that you have had both the academic experience and the professional field experience of excavating and studying human skeletal material?

Lauren:  I think it’s very important to get both.  There are plenty of researchers (and not just in osteology) who go straight through University from one degree to the next, and never go out in the field to get excavation experience.  I’ve even heard people saying that they don’t want to try excavation because they don’t think it’s relevant to their work!

The long and short of it is that yes, academic work and experience is important, and helps you learn to construct a sound research design, formulate research questions, learn the methodologies and so on.  But working in the field, even for just a few weeks, makes you learn about the process by which remains are dealt with before they get to the lab, and also helps you to understand how important the other site data is to any project you may be working on.

Researchers sometimes have a habit of getting stuck in their own tiny niche, and forget that much of the work they’re doing may be rendered completely pointless if they don’t consider other information from the site that will help both interpret and put their own work in context.  I think working in the field is highly beneficial to anyone who wants to work as an archaeological specialist, and also gives you a healthy appreciation and respect for the field archaeologists without whom specialists would have no material to work on!

TBOMIndeed, I have to agree with you on the benefit of working in the archaeological field if you can.  Just to take a quick step back to the basics – what was it that made you want to study human skeletal remains?  What were your inspirations, and has it been anything you thought it may have been like?

Lauren:  I’d never really thought about taking on an archaeological specialism – I always intended to stick with field archaeology.  I never even studied osteology during my undergraduate degree!  I had done some work on prehistoric funerary practices (my undergraduate dissertation was supervised by Mike Parker Pearson, investigating post-mortem treatment of the dead in Bronze Age Britain), but nothing directly involving human bones.

Then, when I was working for ARCUS (University of Sheffield’s commercial field unit), I got asked if I’d mind working on the Sheffield Cathedral cemetery excavation for a week because they were short staffed.  I said yes, and I’m so glad I did.  I totally fell in love with human skeletons!

I think the thing that gets me most is how amazing the human body is – how much we can learn from just the bones, how much stress the skeleton can put up with, and how it responds to different stimuli.  Some of the pathological specimens I’ve seen are absolutely incredible – in this age of sophisticated medicine, we don’t often encounter gross pathological cases, but looking at archaeological examples you can get an idea of just what the human body can cope with if it needs to.

laurenfieldarch

Lauren working on an archaeological site in England. The field archaeologist has to work in all weather conditions, often where wet mud is a perennial friend.

There are some really inspirational, hard working people in human osteology, who always work to a very high standard.  Charlotte Roberts in particular is a great researcher, who has conducted some invaluable work in this field.  Malin Holst is another researcher who works really hard and has produced some great work.  I think Jo Appleby has done exceptionally well with the Richard III study.  Work produced to such a high standard continually motivates me to improve myself and become a better researcher.

It can be very competitive working in human osteology, because there are so many talented osteologists and only a limited amount of new finds or jobs in osteology every year.  I didn’t really expect it to be such a competitive field when I first got into it – but you soon learn!  Having said that, I have been fortunate enough to work on some great material, so it just goes to show that if you continue to work hard, you can maintain a career in this subject.

TBOM: For readers who are interested, what happens to a human skeleton once you have found an individual on an archaeology site?  How is it processed? 

Lauren: Well, the skeleton will be cleaned, recorded and lifted from the excavation site. Once it is bagged up and labelled, it will be sent either to be cleaned and analysed by the osteologist, or it will be put into storage (in some cases bones will be stored until the excavation has finished so that all the bones can be sent to the osteologist at the same time).

Once the bones have arrived at the lab, they will be carefully cleaned by the osteologist – either dry brushed or washed in water over sieves so that any small fragments will be caught during the washing process. If the bones have been washed they will then be left to dry for a few days. It’s very important that bones are left to dry at room temperature – extreme temperatures (either very warm or very cold) are not good for the bones and can cause them damage. Room temperature should also be monitored if bones are being stored long term, for the same reason.

Once the skeleton had dried it will undergo osteological analysis. Once analysis is complete, it may either return to storage, if the bones are being curated for educational or research purposes. In some cases, the bones will be reburied instead of being stored.

TBOM:  It is well known within the archaeology sector that, at least in the UK, human osteology can be a very competitive field, but I think it is that core attraction of studying the skeletal remains our of past ancestors that draws so many to study the subject of archaeology as a whole.  Would you have any advice for someone starting out in archaeology who perhaps has an interest in pursuing human osteology or bioarchaeology?

Lauren: Absolutely, people are fascinated by the physical remain of our ancestors – despite occasional controversies, human skeletons and mummies and suchlike are usually the most frequently visited archaeological remains in museums.  So it’s unsurprising that it’s such a popular area of study.

I would say that if you’re wanting to pursue a career in human osteology or bioarchaeology, at first have a good think about it – as I said before, it is a very competitive field, and will require a lot of dedication and hard work.  There is a lot of competition for jobs, so you have to be good at what you do.

The next step would be to acquire suitable training   – usually a masters degree in the subject.  You can visit the BABAO (British Association of Biological Anthropology and Osteoarchaeology) website to see a list of institutions that offer degrees in human osteology.  Joining BABAO is also a good step to take, as they set the professional working standards for human osteology in the UK.

As well as a degree, it’s necessary to get a lot of experience in handling and identifying human skeletal remains.  This is where a lot of people tend to fall down – they think that because they have a degree, or maybe attended a couple of courses, that they’re all set to go.  There is no substitute for practical experience.  I usually recommend to students that they start off getting handling experience with helping to do things like bone washing or cleaning.  When you’re processing hundreds of tiny fragments, you soon learn how to identify where in the skeleton they’re from.  You really start to notice the diversity in shape and size of bones in different individuals, as there’s a massive spectrum of normal variation (inexperienced osteologists sometimes tend to interpret features on bones as pathological, when often the features just have a slightly different appearance to what the person has observed before and are actually completely normal).  It also helps to get you used to distinguishing post-mortem and taphonomic damage from genuine osteological features.

Lastly, I’d recommend that you put yourself out there and talk to people!  As with any job, nobody is going to offer you work if you don’t put yourself out there.  So go to conferences, do talks for community, student and any other interested groups and get to know people.  Once people start to know your name you can build yourself a reputation, and hopefully this will lead to work.  Be positive and keep trying!

TBOM: Great answer, I thoroughly agree that you have to continually handle skeletal material to get a feel for natural variation in remains.  To add to your point I also took a short course in animal remains, as I think it is important to be able to identity different species as well.  Speaking of studying skeletal populations, as a part of your PhD research you studied the human skeletal remains of Roman period York  (71AD to 410AD), what was your main project aim and how did you achieve this?

Lauren:  Well, I wanted to see how far I could use skeletal material to reconstruct the population.  More specifically, I wanted to look at population size and composition, diet and health.  This came out of my frustration at the situation in archaeology whereby academic and commercial archaeologists rarely talk to each other.  So there is a lot of skeletal (and other archaeological material) that’s been excavated by commercial archaeologists, but is completely unknown to the academic sector.

At York, there was a load of Roman skeletal material that had come up on commercial excavations, and in particular, a lot of piecemeal burials all scattered around the city.  Nobody had put the information for all these burials together to make a bigger assemblage – instead, anyone examining the population of Roman York tends to rely on one or two larger assemblages (Trentholme Drive and the Railway cemetery).  I wanted to see how our perception of the population would change once I’d factored in the piecemeal burials.

Data collection was difficult, but I’m happy that I got a decent sample, even though I didn’t quite get hold of all the material I wanted.  I got hold of a couple of human skeletal databases from City of York Council, I bugged commercial units for reports, nagged every museum I could think of about their collections, spent a long time trawling online archaeological databases such as ADS and Heritage Gateway.  But it paid off!  I think persistence was the key.

massgravefishergate

An archaeologist (one Alex Sotheran, founder of Elmet Archaeology) and Lauren’s hand excavating the unexpected discovery of ten mass burials, which dated from the English Civil war period in the 17th century. A lack of trauma wounds on the mostly male individuals in the mass graves could have pointed to the effect of an infectious disease taking its toll on hard pushed soldiers. Read more here.

Once I had the data, it was just a matter of synthesising it in a way that made sense, quantifying everything, applying lots of statistics (I have so many SPSS and Excel documents now it’s not even funny), and then comparing the results to other known data ad evidence to come up with an interpretation.  Being methodical and systematic helps.

Although it’s a very broad study (I had problems with dating because a lot of the material has never been dated specifically, or even approximately – this meant I had to lump everything together instead of doing an earlier/later comparison and examination of change), I did get results that I’m very happy with.  I am the first person to systematically estimate the size of a Romano-British urban population, and it’s looking as though there were more people living there (on average) than we originally thought.  I’d like to have a go at re-estimating population size in a few other towns from the same period, to see how thy compare to York and also to other previous population size estimations.  The demographic composition part of the study pretty much confirmed what people thought anyway, about the military having a huge bearing on the composition of the population, but at least there is now some tangible evidence to base this on!

TBOM: The fact that you are the first person to study the whole Romano-British human population of York highlights, to me, the value that osteoarchaeology can bring to a wider archaeological perspective in understanding past populations, especially in historic periods that we think are already largely well known or studied.  For anyone that is interested in the results of your research, is there a publication being considered or any resources that you can recommend?

Lauren:  Well, I’ve not had much chance to publish anything yet, although that is something I’m thinking about doing.  I have been giving talks to local groups about my results over the last few months, and I’ll also be speaking at this years’s TRAC (Theoretical Roman Archaeology Conference) at the University of Reading at the end of March.  Hopefully I’ll do some more conferences over the coming year.  If anyone’s interested in the subject in general, I highly recommend Patrick Ottaway‘s book “Roman York“, which was a crucial text in terms of my background research.  Patrick has spent a lot of his career collating archaeological and historical data from Roman York.  Other than the work I’ve been doing, Patrick’s book is the main source that explores the town as a whole rather than focusing on one site or theme.

TBOM: As you noted at the beginning of this interview you are currently working for Elmet Archaeology, who are noted for having a strong community and educational outreach background.  How has this experience of working for them, helping to organise workshops and a conference for example, differed to the academic, and the purely commercial environments of archaeology, that you had worked in previously?  Do you see them as shades of one colour or as different facets of the same dice?

Lauren:  I think that commercial, academic and community archaeology are very much like different sides of a dice – part of the same whole but distinct from each other.  I love community engagement and outreach, as you get to work with very enthusiastic people who are very passionate about the subject, even if that subject is a minor part of a small scale project.  I think community archaeology (which is definitely on the rise - Elmet were one of the first – maybe even THE first – community archaeology units, being established in 2009) has the potential to combine the best parts of academic and commercial archaeology.  Community projects that are adequately funded enable us to conduct great quality research within a realistic time frame, and using experienced field staff who really know what they’re doing, with the added bonus that the local community can get involved.

Although academic fieldwork projects usually have the luxury of lots of time, they are not always funded well enough to be able to employ supervisors and teachers that can work to commercial field standards, and may have to rely on post-graduate students who themselves have little field experience.

bilhamkatironageskellie

Students excavating an archaeological site in Yorkshire help to uncover an individual found near an Iron Age deposit. You can read the report of the osteological analysis of this individual (SK 1022) by Lauren here.

Commercial archaeology, on the other hand, has a wealth of amazing, talented field archaeologists who are excellent at their jobs, but tendering for contracts between companies often means undercutting each other in terms of time and cost.  The things that suffer as a result are job time frames – so the archaeology may not necessarily get the time, care and attention it deserves in order to met developer deadlines – and field staff wages, which are notoriously low.

I really think that community archaeology is only going to grow in popularity over the next few years – this has certainly been aided by an increase in public awareness and interest in archaeology, as a result of all the television and other media coverage it gets nowadays.  The public are starting to realise that archaeology doesn’t have to involve large scale excavations that dusty old academics do in far away places like Egypt and Greece!  Local archaeology groups and communities are increasingly starting to tell us what they want to know about the areas that they live in, and we as community archaeologists can help them find out.

As a cheeky aside to this, I should also say that if there are any community (or other) group out there that would like to get involved in archaeology in any way, or have archaeological projects that they would like to undertake but don’t know how, get in touch with us at Elmet and we’ll see what we can do for you!

TBOMI never knew that Elmet were possibly the first community archaeology group!  I have taken part in a few local community digs myself and know the value of engaging the local community.  I very much encourage readers to get involved with their local archaeology group.  Thank you very much for agreeing to be interview Lauren, and good luck with your osteological projects and keep up the good work with Elmet archaeology.

Learn More

  • You can catch Lauren talking about the Roman population of York at the 24th Theoretical Roman Archaeology Conference, which will take place at the University of Reading on the 28th to the 30th of March 2014.
  • Lauren and Isabelle Heyerdahl-King are teaching an intense open to all one-day introductory course on Human Osteology at Oxford Brookes University on the 11th of April 2014.
  • Lauren, with Elmet Archaeology, will also be helping host the Dearne Valley Archaeology Day 2014 on the 31st of May 2014.  The one day conference will feature a range of papers on a variety of topics in a friendly setting.
  • You can also learn more about the work that Elmet Archaeology conduct with local communities here.  They conduct a broad range of projects taking in everything from exploring WW2 prisoner camps to reminiscence groups, find out more here!

Select Bibliography

McIntyre, L. 2009. SK 1022, Bilham Farm, Brodsworth. Human Bone Assessment Report. Unpublished report. The  University of Sheffield. (Open Access).

McIntyre, L. & Bruce, G. 2010. Excavating All Saints: A Medieval Church RediscoveredCurrent Archaeology. 245: 30-37. (Open Access).

McIntyre, L. 2011. Osteological Analysis of the Stanwick Skull. Unpublished report. The University of Sheffield. (Open Access).

McIntyre, L. & Harvey, L. 2012. Non-Comformist Chapel Crypt Survey, General Cemetery, Sheffield.  Report No. GCNC01. Unpublished report. The University of Sheffield. (Open Access).

Ottoway, P. 2004. Roman York. Stroud: The History Press.

Ottoway, P. 2013. Roman Yorkshire: People, Culture & Landscape. Stroud: The History Press.

Bone Benefits of 3D Printing

24 Mar

Recently there has been some extraordinarily interesting articles in the press on the value of 3D printing in surgical procedures.  In particular the UK seems to be leading the way in producing and using 3D printed implants for use in reconstructive surgeries, as recent articles in the BBC, the Daily Telegraph and The Independent highlight.

Mr Craig Gerrand, a consultant orthopaedic surgeon in an NHS hospital in Newcastle-Upon-Tyne, England, recently announced the success of producing and fitting half of a 3D printed titanium hip into an unnamed patient who was suffering from chondrosarcoma.  Chondrosarcoma is a cancer of the cartilage cells and typically tends to affect the axial skeleton.  In this case the unnamed patient suffered severe damage to one half of his hip due to the effect of the destructive cancer.  In an effort to stop the spread of the cancer, which rarely responds to radiotherapy or chemotherapy, the surgeon was forced to remove half of the patient’s hip (termed an hemipelvectomy, which can be external or internal dependent on if the leg is to be amputated as well).

Before this, however, Mr Gerrand was able to construct and print a 3D titanium half model of the patient’s  hip which, along with the added attachment of a hip socket replacement, he was then able to implant into the patient following the removal of the chondrosarcoma affected bone.  The fake hip was based on scans and x-rays of the patient’s own hip for anatomical reasons and was fully produced using a 3D printer.  The printer used lasers to fuse together titanium powder, which slowly built up a model of the hip layer by layer.  The fake hip was then coated in a mineral into which the remaining bone in the patient’s healthy hip could fuse with, providing long-term stability during recovery and mobility.  Although the news articles on the case were only recently produced, the actual surgery itself was carried out over 3 years ago.  Wonderfully the patient continues to manage to walk with mobility aids, something that would be unthinkable if the surgeon had not been able to print and implant the titanium hip.

In other news recently, as reported by the BBC, the Welsh victim of a vicious motorcycle accident was able to benefit from the 3D printing of custom parts for use in maxillofacial reconstruction.  The use of 3D printing was used at each stage of the procedure, including the planning of the surgery and the reconstruction itself, by using titanium parts to stabilise or replace parts of the patient’s own facial bones.

Following the motorcycle accident, which severely damaged both of the patient’s zygomatic bones as well as sustaining damage to the maxilla, frontal and nasal bones, the patient’s face was reconstructed in a series of operations.  To achieve the aim of improving the patient’s face to almost pre-accident standards the surgeons scanned the skull of the individual using a CT scanner and printed the results using a 3D printer, the results of which helped to produce a symmetrical model of his skull to help plan the surgery in detail.  By using cutting guides and by being able to measure the facial skeletal anatomy directly, they managed to print titanium plates to match the symmetry of the patient’s face originally, and likely minimised the time the patient spent under anesthetic.  In the article the patient, from the city of Cardiff in Wales, movingly states how he now looks as he did before the motorcycle accident, adding that he was able to go out in public once again following the reconstructive surgery.

titaniummodelskullprinted

A model example of how the surgeons helped plan the surgery to improve the motorcycle accident man’s face with 3D printed titanium implants. The image shows the left zygomatic arch with the titanium implants in white against the model of the cranium. (Image credit: The BBC 2014).

The two innovative procedures above are fine examples of the value of integrating the latest technology into the operating theatre, but they also highlight some themes of the body and surgical intervention that interest me.  The benefits of being able to 3D print specific and specially made parts offer a ‘continuation’ for the patient of their own bodies, even with the distinct disconnect (and often intrusive procedures) between the effect of the trauma or disease process and the reconstructive attempts at re-structuring the body, as highlighted in the above orthopaedic cases.

3D printing is a fast-moving technology in the medical world, where even the possibility of being able to bioprint human organs and tissue is fast becoming a possibility for the future.  Perhaps most significantly it offers the option for the patient to use their own bodies (or, more specifically, their cells) to help cultivate a ‘second chance’ organ or tissue in the lab using artificial scaffolds to grow the tissue needed.  To a small degree this has already been carried out with certain tissues, but further work is needed to be able to bioprint human organs properly.  But back to the use of 3D printing in orthopaedic surgery.

Reconstructive orthopaedic surgery generally aims to improve the quality of life for the individual through physical manipulation and internal or external fixation of an implant onto, or into, the bone directly.  The benefits of this are not just anatomical but often also psychological, perhaps more so in maxillofacial procedures.  The patient may feel that their appearance has improved dramatically, or that they have been made to look more normal.  This can increase the positive social perception of the patient themselves and boost self-confidence.  Of course there are always risks associated with reconstructive orthopaedic surgery, the first and foremost being the fact that more damage may occur as a result of the often intrusive procedures, particularly the risk of implant fatigue and possibility of macro/micro fracture of surrounding bone material.

Internal and external fixations also often run the risk of infection, more so when there is the risk of repeated surgical interventions.  Internal fixation (such as intramedullary rodding) has the possibility of deep bone infection, whilst external fixation (such as the use of the Ilizarov frame) often results in small localised infections.  Nevertheless the risk of infection by implant is often controlled for by using clean surgical rooms, sterilised medical equipment and the infusion of antibiotics during and post-surgery.  Further to this, antibiotic laden cement is also often used during the surgical fixation of an implant as an added protector against infection through the introduction of foreign bodies.

I am also interested in the after effects of surgery in the perception of the self.  Titanium implant parts are typically manufactured for general use, although there is a dizzying variety of screws, plates and rods available to the orthopaedic surgeon.   Of course they are also shaped and made to fit the patient to a certain degree.  Titanium is a fairly hefty metal, with the patient often being able to tell that something heavy has been implanted into the body upon awakening from surgery.  It also often hammered or screwed into the bone, sometimes causing the bone to fracture or microfracture during the process, or afterwards as the patient starts to weightbear.  (As a side note orthopaedic surgeons are often built like rugby players because of the demanding physical aspect of orthopaedic surgery).

The new generation of 3D printed parts are often made of different materials than purely consisting of titanium.  Importantly there is the option to help improve the post surgical integration of existing bone and ceramic implants (such as hip replacements, which often use ceramic femoral heads) through the ability to print intricate designs to help meld with bone, and the ability to seed the ceramic scaffolds with the patients own cultured cells to promote  healthy bone growth (Seitz et al. 2005).  This is purely speculation and conjecture, but I wonder if the newer materials used, are of a much lighter material than titanium and are, as a result, less intrusive to the person undergoing the surgery?

What the 3D printing of implants offer is the opportunity to make identical and specifically made models of the  patient for their own use (Fedorovich et al. 2011), by either basing the custom build on an existing bone of the patient or by specifically making a part to improve what has either been lost to a disease process or a traumatic incident, to name the two main causes for orthopaedic reconstructive surgery.  There are also opportunities to help promote wound healing and prevent infection during and post-surgery (Lee et al. 2012), a step that is needed considering the rise of drug resistant germs, the general decline in pharmaceutical companies producing new antibiotics, and the widespread misuse of antibiotics in general (Mayo Clinic release).  3D printing then, I believe, is an important step in advancing and improving the techniques, approaches and materials used in and during orthopaedic surgery.

Learn More

  • Watch Ben Garrod’s Secrets of Bones BBC TV series to learn more about just how wonderful the skeleton is.  Learn more about the remarkable 3D print of his skull here.
  • Kristina Killgrove, over at Powered by Osteons, has a series of posts on her attempts to integrate 3D printing with teaching human osteology, check it out here.
  • The frankly amazing news of Netherlands surgeons who were able to produce a 3D model of a patient’s cranium which was successfully implanted, more information can be found here.

Bibliography

Fedorovich, N. E., Alblas, J., Hennink, W. E., Oner, F. C. & Dhert, W. J. A. 2011. Organ Printing: The Future of Bone Regeneration? Trends in Biotechnology29 (12): 601-606.

Lee, J-H., Gu, Y. Wang, H. & Lee, W. Y. 2012. Microfluidic 3D Bone Tissue model for High-Throughput Evaluation of ound-Healing and Infection-Preventing Biomaterials. Biomaterials. 33 (4): 999-1006.

Seitz, H., Rieder, W., Irsen, S., Leukers, B. & Tille, C. 2005. Three-Dimensional Printing of Porous Ceramic Scaffolds for Bone Tissue Engineering. Journal of Biomedical Materials Research Part B: Applied Biomaterials. 74B (2): 782-788.

Guest Post: The Rise of BAJR Part II by David Connolly

20 Mar

David Connolly is the founder of the British Archaeological Jobs and Resources (BAJR) website and runs, along with archaeologist Maggie Struckmeier, the Past Horizons website, a web portal specialising in the reporting of archaeological news and projects from around the globe.  Formerly a guitarist and key member of punk band Oi Polloi, David left to pursue a career in archaeology and worked the British field circuit for a number of years.  He has also excavated and surveyed sites in far-flung places such as Croatia, Turkmenistan, United Arab Emirates and Jordan.  His experiences at York helped him form a keystone in his belief of the use of methodologies in archaeological practice.  Currently residing in Scotland, David specialises in archaeological surveys and regularly partakes in community archaeology projects.

Part 1 in this series, detailing David’s background and the inception of BAJR, can be found here.

————————————————————————————————————————————-

BAJR II

BAJR was founded on the same campaigning and irreverent principles as that of the Digger newsletter, but with added radical bite.

Alongside advertising job opportunities, it was also an important part of that founding principal that BAJR stood up for field archaeologists whose conditions of employment were at that point pretty dire, with most wages just above the poverty line. This sometimes meant that BAJR had to face an aggressive attitude from various companies, as they tended to perceive they were being forced to change against their will by a somewhat dictatorial individual.

bajrmodern

The modern face of BAJR, the first port of call and main site for job advertisements, news and course for archaeologists.

BAJR was and still is prepared to put ethics over income and therefore refuses to accept job adverts that pay below the 9 minima grades. This was set up around 10 years ago to try to institute a fairer system that recognised skills over job titles.

Along with the issue of pay and conditions, BAJR is willing to phone up any company and negotiate a way forward, and to discuss perceived or real issues. BAJR often intervenes informally on behalf of an individual or group in an effort to resolve a situation.

Information Station

BAJR is also an important source of accurate information directories that can be accessed by all. Currently there are details of circa 650 archaeological contractors across Europe, with full contact details, allowing the possibility for anyone to get in touch with a company without having to search through individual websites.

The same is true of the lists of active archaeology societies, Portable Antiquities services, re-enactment groups and archaeological curators. Universities, courses and training are all integrated into a fully searchable or accessible resource.

It is true to say that information is power, and BAJR is always driving to keep that information up to date and as accurate as possible for the benefit of everyone.

Co-operation Ahead

There are many rumours and half-truths about the relationship between BAJR and the IfA, and it is fair to say that we have had our differences in the past. However, we are now developing a more positive attitude towards one another and this new-found spirit of co-operation may enable some very positive future benefits for the industry as a whole, so watch this space.

bajrmodernaca

As well as jobs BAJR offers links and information on university courses and short courses on a fantastic scale, helping you find the courses that you want to do.

One thing for sure is that BAJR is not going anywhere and will always be there for anyone who needs advice on any level along with access to good quality information.

The forum has been strengthened with a Facebook and Twitter presence, so discussion has become even more interesting and far-reaching. What is black and white and read all over? Why BAJR of course…

Stay tuned for Part III which deals with snapping trowel crisis of 2006 and the binary budding of BAJR into the butterfly that is Past Horizons…

Blogging Archaeology: What Does It All Mean To Me?

15 Mar

This is the forth entry in a blogging carnival that Doug Rocks-Macqueen, of Doug’s Archaeology, started back in November last year.  Just another quick recap: the whole idea of this blog carnival was started by Doug after he saw that the Society for American Archaeology are having their 79th annual conference in Austin, Texas, next month (just shy of the SXSW festival).  Doug specifically noticed that they are including a session on the rise of blogging in archaeology and, since he cannot be there himself, he thought it was pertinent to start a blogging carnival online to get the archaeology blogosphere alive with monthly questions.  The questions are posted on his site in the first week of each month.

blogging-archaeology3333

Displaying the slightly softer anatomy of the human body with the skeletal tissue in this months blog banner. (Image credit, remixed with MS Paint).

Last month a total of over 50 amazing bloggers joined in answering the December topic of the Best and Worst of blogging archaeology.  This is an awesome number of people involved in spreading the word about the joys and sorrows of blogging about archaeology.  My entry for January can be read here.  Remember that if you are a blogger writing and posting about archaeology and you want to take part then go right ahead!  Feel free to join at any point, answering the past questions is very much encouraged.  The previous past few months questions can be found here, please do jump in and join us!

This month (although I realise it is already March and not quite February any more) Doug has decided to do something a little bit different.  This time it is up to us bloggers to chose our own topic to discuss.  As I have cunningly already missed the deadline for this entry you can also go ahead and read other peoples entries here.

What Does It All Mean?

Well first let me define that for you.  What does it all mean is a question I often find myself asking when I look at my blog, when I think about the hours I have spent researching and writing posts.  But let’s take a minute to think how we got here in the first place.

I am writing this now on a free service that is hosting words and images that I post, and you are now reading this for free.  I do not get paid in any way to produce this content (although I could in a small way I don’t think I will), and I do it of my own free volition.  You decide in roughly ten seconds or so whether you will stay and read any articles that I have produced, or if you will click off the site and go on to search for something else instead.  We often have multiple browsing windows open at once: currently I am watching an episode of the Flight of the Conchords as I type this post, while open in other windows I am logged into a social networking site, one of my email accounts and I also have open a few news articles ready to digest.  For good measure I further have a program lined up and ready to watch on the BBC Iplayer as well.

The world wide web, as we know it, is a grand 25 years old this year.  There is a pretty astounding 2.3 billion pages on the surface web at the current time, although no one really knows how many pages or sites there are on the web as a whole, or are on the deep web in total (Naughton 2014).  The deep web is, largely, only accessible when using certain pieces of software to access it (Tor, for example) and it is full of sites that are not indexed by any search engine.  It is also often, but not always, used for nefarious practices.  By far the biggest engine browser is Google, a powerful broker in how the internet is interacted with, and how it is indexed and searched.  Every once and a while it re-configures its search algorithms to disrupt any sites that try to play the search engine optimisation game (by setting up dummy sites with links towards a selling site, for example).  This can sometimes permanently disrupt a normally regular flow of visitors to online businesses and entrepreneurs (and, dare I say it, blogs as well) (Naughton 2014).

The blogging platform that this site uses is called WordPress, a self hosting blogging site which was created in 2003.  Wordpress is a free open source blogging tool which supports and boasts some 60 million+ sites on the web today and is host to a very active community (read more here).  It is a peer supported and fully customize-able platform where help is often provided by other users.  Alongside this there is the wordpress.org site, which acts as a primary support network.  Wordpress can, if it feels it necessary, shut down your blog instantly with little to no warning (largely due to backlinks, so be careful of this).  This though, to the best of my knowledge, rarely happens although all users of WordPress or other such hosting sites should read carefully the terms and conditions of the service that they are signing up for.  (And also make copies of posts if you want to have them stored safely elsewhere).  It has been stated that WordPress is perhaps vulnerable to SQL injection attacks, though security is regularly updated .

The quick figures above are a snapshot of the current time and a very short chronology of how young this technology is.  Although I have raised my concerns about the long term staying power of blogs before, there are plenty of efforts ongoing that are helping to actively archive the websites that litter the internet.  The maxim ‘blog often’ also seems to hold weight for long term bloggers.  The utterly beguiling Wayback Machine has managed to archive an incredible 398 billion web pages over the current period of the webs life.  Quite wonderfully this has included 20 ‘snapshots’ of this blog.  Much like WordPress itself with its active community, the internet archive site mentioned above works with a large volunteer community to help store and archive digital cultural artefacts from across the web in a repository of knowledge.

At this point all of this somewhat randomly asserted bits of information may seem trivial, but I hope to show that the internet is, largely, a community of like-minded people who seek to strive to learn from each other.  As such the interface between the internet, knowledge and academia (particularly archaeology blogging) is something that I think about fairly often.  Also as a blogger I know that we (that is, in this instance, archaeology bloggers) are all vying for the attention of an audience that has the broadest possible range of distractions at their fingertips.  A key thing to remember here of course is the fact that the majority of bloggers write because they want to write.

Digital Witnesses

But the question remains: what does it all mean to me?  I have partly answered this question on a personal level before (here), but I think this question can be approached again from a different angle with help from a few friends.

This blog first took digital form in 2011 and has since been regularly updated with short and some not so short posts (to a degree).  What was the urge to start publicly writing (for it is deeply public, no matter if you get 1 view or 1 million)?  In part, and at large still, it was to improve my own knowledge.  To make myself sit down and take stock of what I know, what I thought I knew and what I definitely didn’t know but thought I maybe knew (to paraphrase Rumsfeld).  Of course it soon became more than that, primarily because I became part of an active online community.  This, I believe, is vital as a part of blogging generally, a dynamic that can vitalise the blogger to change, adapt and evolve during the course of their own work.  Related to this is Tim Berners-Lee’s original and sustained idea that to have a great open online expanse where it is not who shouts the loudest that counts but having the freedom to shout at all that really matters, to have that utter online freedom to take part in something.

“What’s the point of even sleeping, if  I can’t show it if you can’t see me, What’s the point of doing anything?”

Digital Witness, by St. Vincent.

As such shouldn’t we take this opportunity to present our own voices, our own knowledge and our own experiences of who we are, what we do and why we do it?  Could we, in effect, ignore the call of public interaction when it could offer so much?

In my own view now is the time that will test for future generations what direction the world wide web will ultimately head in and in what direction.  Will it retain its original liberty, freedom and privacy?  Or will it be slowly squeezed of its freedom of use?  Yet this is perhaps too simple a view of a very complex and amorphous question, after all you can have different webs, different connections and different servers (or you know, send a letter).  There are always ways and there are always means to communicate.  The web just happens to be able to reach a lot of people awfully fast.

Personal Academia

By personal academia I mean an on-going independent interaction with education and interaction in a field of study, specifically in this case in the realms of archaeology, human osteology and human evolution.  Because at the end of the day that is what this is, for both you and me.  However I think it is also pertinent to take a brief look at the context of this blog, because context in archaeology plays a decidedly vital part of our interpretation of the material evidence.  (As a side note it is always worth remembering that although a blog isn’t a physical object that one can handle it does rely on servers, which eat up both physical space and energy).

So lets take a quick case study to highlight just how blogging and academia can fit together.

Recently my blog was mentioned by name in an article by Stojanowski & Duncan (2014) who examined public engagement in bioarchaeology in the American Journal of Human Biology.  The authors briefly examined the rise and history of bioarchaeology as a field, and then moved onto discussing popular topics discussed in the public outreach of bioarchaeology.  Importantly they highlight that bioarchaeology is, like blogging, a young and developing field.  However blogging itself came in from some criticism as the authors believed that bioarchaeology bloggers represented the “perspectives of insiders writing largely (we would argue) for other specialists and students”  (Stojanowski & Duncan 2014: 5).  Stojanowski & Duncan also asserted that “despite this professional vibrancy, it is clear that bioarchaeologists are (to some degree) marginalising themselves from public discourse because popular presentations of their work are not representative of the field as a whole” (2014: 6).

The first instance that I had heard that my blog had been mentioned in the article was through a message from Alison Atken, of Deathsplanation, on a social media site.  There was a second when I logged onto Kristina Killgrove’s site, Powered By Osteons, and read her article on the value in response to Stojanowski & Duncan.  This discussed detailed examples that her blog had had on the public’s perception of bioarchaeology and examples of her own outreach, whilst lambasting the article authors about their negation of the effects of blogging archaeology.  At this point you could consider me intrigued and amazed that my blog had been mentioned by name in an academic article (although annoyed it was negatively framed).

I couldn’t personally access the article at the time though, which was published in the American Journal of Human Biology, because it is pay-walled as the majority of academic journal articles tend to be.  (Although the list of open access publishers in archaeology is growing).  So I emailed Kristina Killgrove to see if I could get a copy of the article.  Wonderfully she duly replied and I managed to read an article referencing my own site, but which failed to actually name the people behind the blogging sites despite being a fairly prolific.

At this point I wrote my own quick reply (here).  At this junction the wonderful Bodies and Academia blog highlighted to me in the comment section that the second author, Duncan, had made the article publicly available on academia.  I also became aware of the recently released Meyers & Killgrove’s (2014) article in the Society for Archaeological Sciences Bulletin on bioarchaeology outreach.  Although not directly in response to Stojanowski & Duncan’s article, Meyers & Killgrove (2014) highlighted the value of blogging and possible future directions, which included the greater use of video and audio resources.  The article was similar to Rakita’s (2011) article in the same publication, espousing the use of social media and blogging as an educational force of outreach for good.

Bodies and Academia, in response to Doug’s question of the month for February, discussed the gap between academic and blog writing in regards to the above mentioned Human Biology article and the various blogging responses to it.  

As the Bodies and Academia post highlights:

This also highlighted the gap that exists, in most cases, between those involved in ‘real academic’ work and the ones doing the popular science stuff, often through blogging. More precisely,’real’ science is still associated with the classic means of communication- journal articles, intended for one’s peers, while ‘popular’ science is associated with the more modern means of communication, like blogging, media etc” (from here).

This is an interesting comment and one that has riled the academic community for some time.  Many academic bloggers used either hide their blogs or do not mention to their supervisors or departments their blogs.  It has been well documented that some bloggers in the commercial archaeological sector have even lost their job over blogging exploits.  The tide though, I feel at least with academic blogging (if we must label ourselves as such), is turning.

Kristina Killgrove will be arguing in her tenure case that her expansive blog provides an important means of education outreach, as will Katy Meyers, of the ever popular Bones Don’t Lie, during the course of her PhD studies.  Scott Haddow, of A Bone to Pick, has some fantastic posts on what it is like to work in the (bioarch) field, and highlights some very interesting burials at the legendary prehistoric site of Çatalhöyük in Turkey.  Scott is also a great photographer and his shots of field life make me itch to get back in a trench (though I’ve no idea when that will be).  Jess Beck, over at Bone Broke, has an excellent blog discussing various anatomical and physiological aspects involved in bioarchaeology research.  In particular I enjoy reading her summaries of the Evolution and Human Adaptation lectures that she has attended, and her posts on human physiological adaptation.  Jamie Kendrick, a recent graduate of the MSc in Palaeoanthropology at the University of Sheffield, has a blog called The Human Story which discusses various aspects of human evolution.  He asks some of the bigger questions that archaeology and palaeoanthropology can offer such as who are we?  Where did we come from?  What changes happened along the way?  We round off this part with two other Sheffield bloggers, namely Alison Atkin of Deathsplanation and Alexandra Ion of Bodies and Academia, who share a similar focus in discussing the attitudes to the human body, archaeology and death.  Both tackle subjects that surround the periphery of academia and mainstream topics.

If the above examples are not examples of public outreach, then I am not entirely sure what is.

Is This Social?

Navigating my post post-graduate life (before a fabled PhD, if that is the path I am to tread) I quite often feel like a ship without a rudder, nor destination in mind.  Simply put I am my own and online I am this, in this guise (this is an important caveat).  Through this blog then I am anchored to a greater whole, partly though my own choosing and partly through lumping.  I’ve positioned this blog as a starter, a prompt into the world of human osteology and bioarchaeology.  It is still a journey I am travelling and I am happy to have you along for the ride if you care to join.  Could this, then, be considered social anthropology as well?  Possibly a social anthropology of me, a reflection of the self?  Before we get to metaphysical here let me just say that if this is a blog detailing my own dalliance in bioarchaeology, the core underpinning must always be how I position myself to those around me and how I interact with them.  I recognise that I manage to get a fair few views (although not every blog is open to discussing statistics) as such I feel that I should highlight other blogs of note.  This is just a personal view.

“Cause we’re all sons of someone’s, we’re all sons of someone’s, I wanna mean more than I mean to you”

Prince Johnny, by St. Vincent.

 Another aspect should probably be mentioned here.  Blogging, or any social media interaction, is profoundly personal yet it is also a two way mirror.  What you think you may get out of it, the reader may get something else out of it.  Generally the blogger is in control of the personal information that they write and distribute online.  It is up to the writer themselves then how much, or to what scale, that they do this.  It can be easy to get carried away.  Many of my blog entries mention the fact that I have a bone disease, I do this because the disease is little known outside of the medical world or of people who are diagnosed with it.  Thus my blog, as well as the more academia archaeology/osteology, has a profoundly personal aspect to it yet I am inherently aware of the danger of exposing myself too much online.  For a long time I did not have my name displayed on the blog and it is only recently that I added it again to assert ownership of the content of this blog (via Creative Commons).  As for contact it is again only recently that I set up a dedicated email contact.  The blog isn’t linked to a social media account in any way nor it is linked to an academic profile.  Far too many social media sites are advertisements, I do not want to become an advert.

The drawbacks of this are the fact that the blog may, or may not, have been overlooked by researchers looking to critically assess the ‘health’ of academic archaeology blogging.  The flipside of this is that this may mean it appeals to a broader audience, an audience which is not immediately intimidated by the academic overtone on first view.  This is an assumption however and should be treated as such.  I also hope that it invigorates a person to email me and think about what they are going to say (1) – there isn’t the instant backlash of social media.

In effect then the site becomes my own personal academic environment, the above blogs often highlighting to me new research, studies and popular pieces.  The refrain that bounces around my head becomes not ‘what does it all mean?’ but ‘this is what it means’, that I belong to an online community where I know that my work (or at least some bits of it) are appreciated by both my peers and by a lay audience, especially in an arena where (for now) I know I lack a voice.  To become a part of the vanguard of the online bioarchaeological world.  To make others appreciate the great, good and real value of archaeology and the stories that are oft hidden in bone.  To know the value of your own body.

The final blogging carnival question is already up at Doug’s Archaeology for April 2014 and it is about the future of blogging, so please do jump aboard and join in!  The summary of this month’s questions are available at Doug’s site together with links to all the wonderful bloggers who took part.

Notes

(1).  Please note that although I am not active on certain social media sites I always happy to answer any and all questions, and I am happy to take part in questionnaires, interviews or offer views on archaeology and human osteology.  Contact thesebonesofmine at hotmail.com.

P.S. If you have made it this far, congratulations!

Bibliography

Meyers, K. & Killgrove, K. 2014. Bioarchaeology. Society for Archaeological Sciences Bulletin37 (1):  23-25. (Open access).

Naughton, J. 2014. 25 things you might not know about the web on its 25th birthday.  The Guardian. Accessed 09/03/14.

Rakita, G. 2011. Bioarchaeology. Society for Archaeological Sciences Bulletin. 34 (4): 27-28. (Open Access).

Stojanowski, C. & Duncan, W. 2014. Engaging Bodies in the Public Imagination: Bioarchaeology as Social Science, Science, and HumanitiesAmerican Journal of Human Biology. In Press. (Open access on Academia.edu).

St. Vincent. 2014. Produced by John Congleton.  St. Vincent. Republic Records. [Music CD].

Help Wanted: Call for Feedback on the Online Index of Care Application

14 Mar

Any regular reader will know that I am particularly interested in physical impairment in the archaeological record, and the implications of this for the individual themselves and for the society that the person lived in.  Too often in the archaeological and osteological literature the individual care needs of those with physical impairments are cast aside.  As such it is with great pleasure that I highlight here the launch of a new online application entitled the Index of Care, as a key part of Tilley’s new Bioarchaeology of Care methodology (2011).

A recent article (1) by Tilley (2014) in the International Journal of Paleopathology introduces the Index of Care – an instrument still in the early testing phase which has been designed to help people think through the identification and interpretation of skeletal evidence for health-related caregiving in the archaeological record.

The Index, which leads the user through the four stages of bioarchaeology of care analysis, is the brainchild of Australian National University researcher Lorna Tilley (who was interviewed on the methodology for this blog last year).   Tilley says that, while she has tried to embody the theory of the bioarchaeology of care approach in the instrument and has found it useful in her own work (2011, 2012), she considers the Index itself an experiment.  ‘As far as I’m aware, this is the first time in bioarchaeology that an instrument for examining a behaviour as sophisticated as caregiving has been attempted.’  This is, in my eyes, what is very much needed when the osteologist considers what implications evidence of pathology may mean for the individual and society.

Man Bac Burial 9 in situ

The individual who helped kick start it all: the burial of M9 in-situ at the Vietnamese Neolithic site of Man Bac.  This male individual, who has been diagnosed with juvenile-onset quadriplegia, is indicative of an active caregiving environment during his lifetime. (Tilley & Oxenham 2011: 37).

In particular Tilley emphasises the fact that the Index offers a framework for analysis –  it is not a formula.  The researcher works through the stages of the Index to help produce a framework of care.

Tilley states that ‘the Index is designed for flexibility, users decide what parts of the Index are relevant to their specific case study – and ignore the rest.  They decide how they want to use the Index - whether as a prompt to remind them of variables they could be considering in their research, or for detailed recording of evidence and conclusions reached, or anything in-between.’

The  Index of Care can be found online here and Tilley encourages all archaeological researches to give the Index a go.  The Index of Care is currently in active development and feedback is highly sought after to improve its design and operation.  Those contributing to this project will be acknowledged in subsequent versions for their help and efforts.

Notes

(1). It should be noted that I am named in the acknowledgments of the article for providing some early feedback on the article.

Bibliography

Tilley, L. & Oxenham, M.F.  2011.  Survival against the odds: modeling the social implications of care provision to seriously disabled individualsInternational Journal of Palaeopathology. 1: 35-42.

Tilley, L. 2012. The Bioarchaeology of CareThe SAA Archaeological Record: New Directions in Bioarchaeology, Part II12 (3): 39-41. (Open Access).

Tilley, L., & Cameron, T. 2014. Introducing the Index of Care: A web-based application supporting archaeological research into health-related careInternational Journal of Palaeopathology. 6: 5-9.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 313 other followers