Archaeology at the University of Sheffield Under Threat

There is much to say and much too little time to say it all in, so let me cut to the quick – the world-class archaeology department at the University of Sheffield is at risk of closure and the staff at risk of redundancy. The results of a recent departmental review by the University of Sheffield is due Tuesday 25th May, along with a vote by the University Executive Board on the future of the department.

I found this out last night as a friend alerted me to the following screenshot:

I was guided also to the Save Sheffield Archaeology, which has further details on the departmental review and the importance of the archaeology department to the city and the academic community internationally. Most importantly it is the jobs that are at risk – the academic, postdocs, researchers and administrative staff, who all potentially face the risk of redundancy. As far as I currently understand the department itself is still fragmented physically as both lectures and staff are based across the University of Sheffield departments as the archaeology building itself is (or has been) undergoing much-needed structural repairs. Despite this, and the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic, teaching and research have still continued and student support has still been given.

You can help by reading the links below, searching out what other people and saying and what Saving Sheffield Archaeology are advising. If you are an archaeologist or know the department in any way – used to work there, studied there, are affiliated with it in any way, etc. – and are concerned for its future as I am, then please do sign the Change.org petition, email the VC and the University Executive Board, and make your voice known.

The decision on the future of the archaeology department at the University of Sheffield will be made on Tuesday 25th May. Stay tuned.

Bigger Issues

Readers of my blog will know that I attended the University of Sheffield in 2011-12 to study for my MSc in Human Osteology and Funerary Archaeology and reveled in the teaching, research and personal development opportunities that the course offered. I have friends who have studied there since and remain affiliated with the department. I am worried, I am concerned, and I will be writing to the VC and the University Executive Board with my concerns at their reviews and the three stated options available to it. I am deeply concerned at what appears to be an unforced and perhaps manufactured issue in staffing (not replacing retiring staff, which has seen current teaching staff drop from 29 to 11) and the longer-term trends of higher education being pulled in two different directions – between the demands of the market and the demands of providing, and supplying, quality education for all and the benefits of this for society and the economy. A third pressure has also made itself know in recent years at the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland wrestles control with its own myriad of identities.

HM Government have recently announced that it is considering cutting high-cost teaching supplement for undergraduate arts and archaeology courses by up to 50% in favour of more funding for STEM subjects, this along with the Government’s stated aim of simplifying planning permissions to encourage house building and infrastructure projects, puts archaeology and the archaeological record at possible risk as statutory consents are sidelined. Conversely the archaeology jobs sector has rarely been busier, with many major projects ongoing utilizing a range of archaeological specialisms, from drone operators to archaeological geomatics, from field staff to human osteologists, etc. One only needs to think of HS2 or Crossrail or road infrastructures projects in eastern England to think of how many archaeologists are currently employed in varying roles and positions. In fact archaeologists are on the Skilled Worker visa: shortage occupations for April 2021, the only social and humanities scientists category to make it.

It is a worrying time for ease of access to archaeological courses in higher education, as tuition fees remain high and are climbing for postgraduate study and research. One effect of Brexit is the annulment of EU fees category remaining the same as home fees for students and instead becoming aligned with international fees. This has a severe impact for those nearest and dearest European neighbours. For instance the 2021 MSc in Human Osteology and Funerary Archaeology tuition fee at the University of Sheffield is now priced at £11,000 for home students and £23,250 for overseas students. This is a staggering sum for higher education and one well out of the reach for many. I raise this point as archaeology in particular has a strong pull for bringing together international students and researchers, and Sheffield’s department is well known for its ties across Europe and the wider world. Fees such as this are just one more barrier to cross.

Archaeology as a topic unto itself is broad, welcoming and diverse – whoever and wherever you are, you too came from somewhere and within that is the story of ultimately both your past and mine. Archaeology is the investigation into the great human story and the department at Sheffield is one such place where we can view it. How sad it would be to see a portal on the past close.

How to Help

• As above email the Vice-Chancellor at vc@sheffield.ac.uk and the executive board in general at ueb-admin@sheffield.ac.uk to let them know your views on why the archaeology department at the University of Sheffield should be saved. Include the archaeology department (archaeology@sheffield.ac.uk) to let them know of your support
• Sign the Change.org petition here
• Read up on the Save Sheffield Archaeology Resources homepage and see how else you can help
• Search for the hashtag #SaveSheffieldArchaeology on Twitter to see what archaeologists, researchers, students and the public are saying
• Keep up to date with the Save Sheffield Archaeology Facebook page
• Read what the press are saying here – Yorkshire Post, Sheffield Telegraph, and The Star

Spotted: Introduction to Forensic Anthropology – Human Osteology Short Course @ University of Lincoln, 27-31 July 2020 – *Postponed to 2021*

*** Please note that this short course has now been postponed until 2021 due to the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic. Further information will be provided once it is available. In the meantime please keep an eye on the University of Lincoln website for updates ***

 

On the British Archaeological Jobs and Resources Facebook page recently I came across an intriguing advert for a brand new human osteology short course, which not only looks at the skeletal anatomy but also the excavation and recording methods used in forensics and archaeology to recover human remains.

Taking place over five days (27-31 July 2020), the Forensic Anthropology – Human Osteology short course takes place at the University of Lincoln and is aimed at the beginner and enthusiast level with no experience needed, though forensic and archaeology professionals will find the course useful. The hands on lecture and laboratory short course is taught by bioarchaeologist Samantha Tipper and biological anthropologist, radiographer and medical researcher Charlie Primeau.

Courses such as these are a fantastic place to learn about the skeletal anatomy and variation found within the human skeleton.  They are also a great opportunity to further your knowledge, extend your skills, or to use as a springboard into pursuing a career.  Before I undertook my own MSc in Human Osteology and Funerary Archaeology at the University of Sheffield, I participated in two short courses in human osteology and zooarchaeology (study of non-human animals within archaeology) and they helped my experience and understanding of osteological material within archaeological contexts immensely.

Check out the full Forensic Anthropology – Human Osteology University of Lincoln short course details below for more information.

Laying out a human skeletal in the anatomical position. Image credit: University of Lincoln.

Course Dates: 27 – 31 July 2020 (five days inclusive).

Fees: £400 per person (£300 for students).

Application Deadline: 20 May 2020.

How to apply: If you want to book a place, or require further information on the short course, you are advised to contact organiser Samantha Tipper via stipper@lincoln.ac.uk.

Accommodation: Not included but available on University of Lincoln campus (additional fees apply).

Please Note: Payment is due by 1 June 2020, any cancellations must be requested before 1 July 2020. Attendees must be aged over 18 years.

Poster advertising the human osteology short course taking part at the Anthropology laboratory at the University of Lincoln. Image credit: University of Lincoln.

The following information is provided by the short course website:

This five-day beginner-level introduction to human osteology is aimed at students, professionals working in archaeology, heritage or museum sectors, as well as anyone with an interest in learning about human osteology. The course will provide an introduction to human osteology and will be delivered through lectures and hands-on practical sessions.

Topics covered include:

• The application of human osteology in an archaeological and forensic context
• Ethical issues surrounding human remains
• Excavation and recording methods
• The human skeleton and basic anatomy
• Human verses non-human skeletal remains
• Estimation of sex and age at death
• Determination of stature
• Human Dentition.

A Shout Out for Other Short Courses

As ever, if you know of any other bioarchaeology, forensic anthropology, or human osteology-orientated short courses taking place in the United Kingdom, then please do feel free to leave a comment below to let me know.  Alternatively please email me at thesebonesofmine at protonmail.ch – I am always happy to highlight your course here on this blog.

Further Information

• The University of Lincoln offer both an undergraduate BSc (Hons) and a taught postgraduate MSc in Forensic Science. Check out the University of Lincoln’s past and present forensic anthropological research, news and activities here.
• Read Dr Charlie Primeau’s fascinating blog on her website here and Samantha Tipper’s research here.
• The University of Sheffield also offer a three-day human osteology short course (6-8 April 2020), costing £180 full price and £120 for concessions.

Handy Field Hint: Palpate Your Own Skeleton

My somewhat battered and muddied version of The Human Bone Manual, by White & Folkens (2005), has sadly sat unloved and unused atop of a chest of drawers over the past half year or so.  Instead my focus has been on my current employment situation working for a delightful heritage and natural environment project, which also partly explains my absence from this blog for a short while.  So if you have been a keen reader when I was a more proficient blogger, I do apologise.

As I flicked through the volume I was again reminded why it is the manual for the anatomical identification and siding of human skeletal elements in archaeological, anthropological or forensic contexts, combining as it does clear and precise descriptions with excellent photographs of each element in a largely 1:1 format.  It is built for the field but it is also incredibly useful in the lab too, fitting snugly in the hand in either situation and quite ready to sit in a rucksack as much as the shelve (or in my case atop the chest of draws).  I’ve written previously about this book throughout this blog and it has formed the basis for many of my Skeletal Series posts as well because it is so damn handy as a reference volume.

The compact Human Bone Manual by White & Folkens (2005) provides one of the bedrock identification textbooks for the fields of bioarchaeology, forensics, and human osteology. Great for the field and lab alike. Image credit: Elsevier Academic Press.

I picked up my copy earlier tonight to have a glance through it, and also to remind myself of the bony anatomical landmarks of various elements – in particular the tibia, which had been tickling my brain with the terms for the intercondylar eminence and associated anatomical landmarks!  It is all too easy to forget the intricacies of the human skeletal if you are not working with material regularly or, as in my case, are elsewhere distracted on other projects.

I came across this very useful hint early on in the manual on rereading sections of it:

In bone identification it pays to remember that the osteologist always has an intact comparative skeleton close at hand, even in remote field locations. . . that skeleton is embedded in his or her own body.

Which goes on to give the advice that it is:

Useful to visualize and even palpate (feel your own bones through the skin) the way in which an isolated skeletal element might “plug into” your own body. (White & Folkens 2005: 5).

It is an easy point to miss, especially if the osteologist wants to compare teeth (the only directly exposed-to-the-environment element in the human skeleton) in the field as this can be readily done with a willing volunteer or by using your own jaws to visualize and orient said teeth, or to compare other skeletal elements against your own body.

Check out the example below for how useful this can be when using it in conjunction with your own osteological knowledge, experience and palpation skills in helping to identify and orient fragmented skeletal elements in the field:

Palpating another person’s hand to locate and identify the carpal bones, in this case the scaphoid and trapizeum tubercles. This can be easily down on your own hand. Image credit: Musculoskeletal Key.

It may also be a useful and quick ‘rough and ready’ guide to identifying any expressions of bone affected by palaeopathological disease processes or trauma, such as misaligned healed or healing fractures, where the bone appears abnormal to the normal element expression of expected angle or length.  I’m thinking here particularly of long bones, such as the humerus, ulna, radius, femur, tibia or fibula, rather than smaller elements which could be different to contrast again palpated bones within your own skeletal system.

Bearing this in mind then, it may be best to practice palpation on yourself or a friend before heading into the field in order to familiarize yourself with skeletal palpation.  This way you can quickly identify the main skeletal elements and the major skeletal landmarks that are palpable through the skin and muscle, whilst also having a ready-made comparative skeleton on hand at all times!

Bibliography

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

Consequence and Obligation: Barry Lopez’s Horizon (2019)

I have to admit that as much as a fan of travel literature as I am, I had not read or heard of any of the Barry Lopez‘s previous writings on culture, anthropology, or ecology, including even his seminal 1986 volume Arctic Dreams: Imagination and Desire in a Northern Landscape. This happily changed recently when I came into the possession of his latest work, the more autobiographically minded Horizon (2019), earlier this month following a cracking review of it in the Guardian newspaper.  I am glad to say that I am now, in part, rectifying this gap in my knowledge and I have spent many happy hours re-reading and pondering his exquisite writing.

Horizon is a hard work to classify – it is not your typical autobiography as Lopez’s life experiences are only alluded to rather than fleshed out in detail, but the depth of his thoughts and experiences of journeying across the earth, uncovering the bonds between both humanity’s impact on the planet and co-dependency with the natural environment, are richly described and expounded upon.  This is further enriched with input from a wide range of friendships with ecologists, geographers, historians, archaeologists and artists alongside inhabitants of the places his visits.

Noted explorer and writer Barry Lopez along with the cover of Horizon (2019, his autobiographical exploration of humanity and the natural world. Image courtesy of Literary Arts.

I am struck by the syntax that Lopez uses to draw in the reader into his way of seeing the world; it is a world not riven by borders (physical or mental) between humanity’s cultural world and the natural world but by the blindingly obvious partnership and balance that is needed between the two.

In an early section of the volume Lopez discusses the material objects that act as his talismans as reminders to, or from, previous expeditions and how they link both memory and experience to inform his guiding values in interpreting the world around him.  It is a particularly moving point in which to provide the bedrock for the rest of book and into Lopez’s own evaluation of his critical thinking over time.  In the passage quoted below an Arctic artefact linked to functionality is heavily imbued with a sense of place within the give and take of humanity’s survival:

‘Next to my bed is a sand-cast silver harpoon tip, a stylized replica of a toggling implement that Eskimo hunters have used for centuries to secure and retrieve seals.  A gift from my wife.  To provide food for one’s family , whether it is seal meat or a sack of grain  or the flesh of an avocado, is to encounter again an unsettling question about the way in which death provides life.  To act here is to face one’s own complicity, to choose to take life in order that one’s own kin might continue to live.  When I lie down to sleep far from home, I place this small work of art close by on a folded scarf.  It was crafted by a man named Jimmy Nagougugalik, an Inuit artist and hunter from Baker Lake, in Nunavut, Canada.  It reminds me of the centrality of the symbolic in human life, and of both the consequence of providing and of the obligation to provide.’

– quoted from Lopez (2019: 40).

The volume is laced with an undercurrent of worry for the future generations of the world, in both the political and physical sense, as we head to unprecedented population numbers and increased stresses on the environment leading to resource depletion, unsustainable economic growth and ecological damage.  Yet there is a hint of hope, that if a balance can be achieved and stability in how we manage our resources then we can live more harmoniously in sync with each other and the natural environment.

If you are looking for a volume to read that will challenge the way you think about humanity’s impact on the earth and are curious to read about far-flung places with an anthropological slant then this may be the book for you.

Bibliography

Lopez, B. 2001. Arctic Dreams: Imagination and Desire in a Northern Landscape. Vintage: New York.

Lopez, B. 2019. Horizon. London: The Bodley Head.

Link: A Hollow Abundance – The Modern Change in International Food Production

The food writer Bee Wilson has a very interesting article in this weekend’s Guardian Review magazine regarding the quality versus quantity of modern food and the changing nature of the global diet, as identified in her new 2019 book The Way We Eat Now. With its riveting introduction Wilson’s newspaper article brings into play the cultural and industrial underpinnings of why changes, in both mass availability and the variety of food produce, is having a detrimental effect on the modern diet and food standards more generally:

‘Eating grapes can feel like an old pleasure, untouched by change. The ancient Greeks and Roman loved to eat them, as well as to drink them in the form of wine. The Odyssey describes ‘a ripe and luscious vine, hung thick with grapes’. As you pull the next delicious piece of fruit from its stalk, you could easily be plucking it from a Dutch still life of the 17th century, where grapes are tumbled on a metal platter with oysters and half-peeled lemons.

But look closer at this bunch of green grapes, cold from the fridge, and you see that they are not unchanged after all. Like so many other foods, grapes have become a piece of engineering designed to please modern eaters.’

The article is worth a read as it highlights how food standards are continually changing to meet new markets, particularly the international market, and how we as a species have made previously seasonal fruit and vegetables available year round for global consumption.  With that comes a host of other changes introduced, or designed, to increase efficiency across trading and cultural borders, such as the selection for seedless grapes and stability in flavour, as the example Wilson uses above and explores throughout the article.

The ability to produce foodstuffs year-round, in spite of seasonal variance, is a relatively new development on a stupendous scale but it is necessary to feed the now burgeoning global human population of 7.7 billion individuals.  To highlight the monumental change and increase in the human population in recent centuries, and thus pressures on providing food and impact on the environment to provide that food, check out the chart below:

World population estimates from 1800 to 2100 using United nations projections in 2015 and United Nations historical estimates for pre-1950s data. Source: Wikipedia.

Technological and industrial developments in the 19th and 20th centuries have helped to drive a chain reaction that gave our species the ability to harness agriculture and provide food produce across continents, yet as Wilson points out this glut of food isn’t always what it is nutritionally cracked up to be.  The homogenization of the international diet, through increased trade and economical bonding, can be deceptive in its nutrient value.

So what does this has to do with archaeology?

As quoted above, we often subconsciously think of food as a direct route back to the past, whether it is a way to communicate and bond with our perceived ancestors or through some fad palaeodiet that has gained attention as diet of the month which is based on flimsy scientific evidence.  Or perhaps we are celebrating our personal and familial heritage and our culinary heritage is a central tenet of our religion and/or cultural affinity.

Food itself is a direct portal to a past that we, as a species, have long valued and appreciated.  A large proportion of all archaeological remains are related to food production in some context, increasingly so the further we delve into our prehistory and osteological ecofacts (e.g. bones of butchered animals) are often our only evidence of human activity in a number of archaeological contexts.

Sometimes though a grape is not just a grape, it is a portent to the future and a harbinger for our unhealthy modern diet.

British Student Opportunity: Erasmus+ Grant Funded Placement to Alba Iulia, Romania, April-May 2019

For the second time I have the pleasure of advertising available European Union-funded archaeological placements for British students, courtesy of the British heritage organisation Grampus Heritage.  As long time readers of this site may remember I had the great pleasure of attending a Leonardo Da Vinci European Union archaeology placement in Magdeburg, Germany, via Grampus Heritage in 2011 for six glorious weeks.  (If you’re interested in reading what I got up to over there you read my review here).  Now, courtesy of the Erasmus+, a successor of the Leonardo Da Vinci programme, there are a small number of Romanian placement places still available for summer 2019).  You can snap one up if you meet the criteria.

Memories of Magdeburg. One of the photographs that I took visiting the remains of a deserted medieval village near the city in eastern Germany, as Claire and Emma walk towards me and Loretta heads off to explore the inside of what remains of the church.

This is the chance to join a fantastic placement in Romania, aimed at recruiting students in the United Kingdom and introducing them to a fascinating Romanian cultural exchange.  It is also a great introduction to Romanian Neolithic rescue archaeology and an opportunity to experience working in laboratory conditions analysing prehistoric human skeletal remains. Read on to find out more and how to apply if you are eligible . . .

Student Erasmus + Grant Funded Placements Available for Alba Iulia, Romania

Date: April-May 2019 (1), or soon as possible but returning to the UK by 31 May 2019.

Places & Experience: 2-3 places available, experience in human osteological analysis preferred.

Eligibility & Applying: This placement in the European Archaeology Skills Exchange (EASE) is offered through Grampus Heritage, based in the United Kingdom, as a part of the European Union funded Erasmus + scheme with a vast range of European partners. This placement is open to British students studying in the United Kingdom who wish to gain human osteological and archaeological excavation experience abroad. Full eligibility and application details can be found here. Please note there is only a few spaces remaining.

Funding: Funding information is available on contact.

The following placement information (in italics) has been used with permission from Grampus Heritage:

Placement Information: Ideally for forensic anthropology students, this is an 8 week practical placement that will see you working and contributing towards the work of the university. There will also be the chance of working on a rescue excavation during the 8 weeks, details still to be confirmed, so there will be a mix of excavation and post excavation work.

Site Background: The placement will be once again take place at Lumea Noua where the group will work alongside a team on a Neolithic site in the Transylvania historical region that has been going since 2002. The Neolithic settlement of Lumea Noua is located in the north-eastern part of the city of Alba Iulia, on the second terrace of the Mures River. In charge of the dig is Mihai Gligor, PhD, Head of the History, Archaeology and Museology department within “1 Decembrie 1918” University in Alba Iulia.

Discovered in 1942, there have been archaeological campaigns on the site right up until 2011. Rescue excavations focusing on recording the site have been the most recent activity, starting in 2002 and continuing in 2017. During the excavations, a site of some 40ha has been discovered, though it is estimated to be larger than this.

A range of the tasks undertaken during the Romanian placement, including human skeletal excavation and analysis in the laboratory. Image courtesy of Joanne Stamper, Grampus Heritage.

The most intensive habitation period appears to have been around 4600-4500calBC when the Foeni group used the site, a group attributed to the funerary complex that has been the focus of the most recent excavations. So far, the discovery of around 120 disarticulated individuals mainly represented by skull caps has been very interesting as there are traces of burning on the caps and no facial bones are present. This appears to indicate one of the unusual mortuary practices of the Lumea Noua community. Males, females and children are all present.

It has been suggested that the human remains were not interred during an epidemic; moreover, collective death as a result of violence is unlikely since there at no traces of interpersonal violence, such as wounds inflicted by arrows or lithic weapons. In addition, no arrow tips or axes have been found in connection with human bone material. One possible explanation of this funerary practice is that Alba Iulia was a ceremonial centre where Neolithic communities practiced organised burial rituals, including special treatment of human cranial remains.

Pottery has been found associated with the bone remains, of very good quality, made with clay with no impurities. A large quantity of well burnished black topped fired vessels have been found at the site. Pottery that has had painted decoration applied before being fired without any slip are also typical of this site.

A snapshot of the work undertaken during the Romanian archaeology placement from previous years. Image courtesy of Joanne Stamper, Grampus Heritage.

Several ditches have also been identified at the site of different shapes and sizes. At the time of the Foeni habitation of the site, the ditches appear to represent a circular concentric plan to the settlement for that time period.

Work Schedule: The group will be working with the team, continuing the excavation of this interesting site and labeling finds. Some days will be based in the labs, washing and analysing human remains and pottery. The working week is Monday – Friday. They will also do some experimental archaeology and assist with setting up an exhibition.

Conditions: For fieldwork please bear in mind that. . . as with most archaeological sites, expect a degree of physical work. As with all our placements, participants are joining partner excavations. These are not UK led excavations. The group will be learning different methods and techniques that are used for this particular site, so must expect differences in how the site is run.

Updated Notes

(1). I was mistaken in my original post as to which placement this applied to and it is the EASE not PEATS placement offered by Grampus Heritage through the Erasmus+ programme. This site was updated on 8 February 2019 to reflect the change and opportunities available.

Further Information

• Read more about Grampus Heritage and the other opportunities which are European Union funded Erasmus+ Placements in Environment, Archaeology, and Traditional Skills (PEATS) here.
• Read my own reflection on the 6 week German archaeology placement in Magdeburg here, courtesy of Grampus Heritage and the European Union back in summer 2011.
• Read a guest post by Joanne Wilkinson, from 2012, on the joys of attending and taking part in a cultural heritage scheme as promoted by the Leonardo Da Vinci and Erasmus+ schemes here.
• Try your luck guessing which anatomical landmarks I’ve highlighted on a bone from my Magdeburg placement in my human osteology quiz here.
• If you are curious about the Magdeburg placement, check out the 2019 information here.

Spotted: Early Career Human Osteologist Job(s) in London

The core source of commercial archaeological jobs in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is BAJR, the British Archaeological Jobs & Resources website.  It is the golden door to finding a foot or a rung up the greasy ladder of employment (barring knowing folks!).  Ran by David Connolly, BAJR tirelessly fights for fair wages and good working conditions on top of this.  I highly recommend joining the Facebook group for entertaining talk and top advice.  But that isn’t what caught my attention earlier today, it was this:

The badge of the advert as seen on BAJR on 09/08/2018. Image credit: BAJR.

Seeing a Human Osteologist role advertised on BAJR can be quite rare indeed as these job roles are often only available within larger commercial units who have the facilities and expertise to analyse human skeletal remains from archaeological sites, or are contracted out to sole traders or university specialists.

So the opportunity to work in central London on a major urban infrastructure project with the excavation and analysis of some of the country’s largest cemeteries looks like a once in a career chance.  Even better, they want early career human osteologists!  The job itself is contracted to run until the end of March 2019 and the lucky employees will be contracted to either MOLA (Museum of London Archaeology) or Headland Archaeology to work on the jointly ran project.

Please note the specific details, as quoted verbatim from the advert:

Working closely with a team of highly experienced archaeologists and human osteologists you will contribute to and develop understanding of the past through the excavation, identification, processing (washing and packaging) and recording of human skeletal remains.

Successful candidates will have a degree in Archaeology or a related subject and post-graduate qualification in Osteology or a related subject. Candidates with a demonstrable background in Osteology will also be considered. Proven ability in the identification of human remains and pathological bone conditions and knowledge of current legislation and guidelines are essential.

A good general knowledge of British archaeology and commercial archaeology, particularly in the excavation of post-medieval burial grounds would be an advantage.

Having looked through the application form I also noted that there would be an opportunity to pursue your own research interests – an invaluable opportunity for early career human osteologists with access to such a large collection of human skeletal remains.

The Deadline is Monday 20th August 2018 for applications, good luck to everyone applying!

If any other employment opportunities arise on BAJR specifically for human osteological or bioarchaeological positions I shall try to endeavor to mention them on These Bones of Mine.  Please do be aware that the jobs advertised from this site are generally for the United Kingdom and restrictions may apply for potential applicants from abroad.  As such I would advise would-be applicants to carefully consider the job and role specifications, alongside the essential and desired criteria, as outlined by each company individually.

Further Information

• The job application and specification details can be viewed and downloaded from the BAJR website here.
• The indefatigable David Connolly has previously and kindly produced an eye-opening and inspiring series of guest blog posts on These Bones of Mine detailing the rise of BAJR.  Check the entries out here.

British Undergraduate/Postgraduate Opportunity: Erasmus+ Grant Funded Placement to Alba Iulia, Romania, March-April 2018

As long-term readers of this site will know I had the great pleasure of attending a Leonardo Da Vinci European Union funded archaeology placement in Magdeburg, Germany, via Grampus Heritage, in 2011 for 6 glorious weeks.  If you’re interested in reading what I got up to over there please read my review here.  I now have the pleasure of highlighting a placement, courtesy of Joanne Stamper of Grampus Heritage, under the Erasmus+ banner (a successor of the Leonardo Da Vinci programme) that still has a small number of places for spring 2018.

This is the chance to join a fantastic placement in Romania, aimed at recruiting undergraduates and postgraduates in the United Kingdom and introducing them to a fascinating cultural exchange and introduction to Romanian Neolithic archaeology.  The exciting placement involves archaeological excavation of a Central European Neolithic site, human osteological analysis, and finds processing of the excavated material.  Read on to find out more and how to apply if you are eligible . . .

Student Erasmus + Grant Funded Placements Available for Alba Iulia, Romania

Date:  1st March – 29th April 2018.

Funding:  The grant will cover accommodation, so participants would need to get their own flights and budget for food (£50-70 per week depending on meals out) as well as the usual money for presents, toiletries, etc.  Participants also need to make sure they have a European Health Insurance Card (EHIC).

Placement Information:  The placement is hosted by Satul Verde with Universitatea „1 Decembrie 1918” in Alba Iulia.  The group will be assisting the team in analysing the human remains and pottery from the Neolithic excavation that has been run by the university for the past several years.

A snapshot of the work undertaken during the Romanian archaeology placement from previous years. Image courtesy of Joanne Stamper, Grampus Heritage.

The most intensive habitation period appears to have been around 4600-4500calBC when the Foeni group used the site, a group attributed to the funerary complex that has been the focus of the most recent excavations.  So far, the discovery of around 120 dis-articulated individuals mainly represented by skull caps has been very interesting as there are traces of burning on the caps, with no facial bones noted as being present.  This appears to indicate one of the unusual mortuary practices of the Lumea Noua community.  The demographic details of the site indicate that both adults and non-adults are represented, with male and female individuals present in the adult population.

It has been suggested that the human remains were not interred during an epidemic; moreover, collective death as a result of violence is unlikely since there at no traces of interpersonal violence, such as wounds inflicted by arrows or lithic weapons.  In addition, no arrow tips or axes have been found in connection with the human bone material.  One possible explanation of this funerary practice is that Alba Iulia was a ceremonial centre where Neolithic communities practiced organised burial rituals, including special treatment of human cranial remains.  Pottery has been found associated with the bone remains, of very good quality, made with clay with no impurities.  A large quantity of well burnished black topped fired vessels have been found at the site.  Pottery that has had painted decoration applied before being fired without any slip are also typical of this site.

A range of the tasks undertaken during the Romanian placement, including human skeletal excavation and analysis in the laboratory. Image courtesy of Joanne Stamper, Grampus Heritage.

The group will also be assisting in a rescue excavation, site details of which will be discussed with the group when the dates are confirmed during the placement.

Application:

Potential student applicants are advised to send in their application form as soon as possible via the Grampus Heritage website, where the form can be downloaded.  Please make note of the eligibility and conditions attached to each of the placements, including the above Romanian placement.  To contact Grampus Heritage regarding the above placement please email enquiries AT grampusheritage.co.uk or telephone on 01697 321 516.

Further Information

• Read more about Grampus Heritage and the European Union funded Erasmus+ placements here.
• Read my own reflection on the 6 week German archaeology placement in Magdeburg here, courtesy of Grampus Heritage and the European Union in 2011.
• Read a guest post by Joanne Wilkinson, from 2012, on the joys of attending and taking part in a cultural heritage scheme as promoted by the Leonardo Da Vinci and Erasmus+ schemes here.
• Try your luck guessing which anatomical landmarks I’ve highlighted on a bone from my Magdeburg placement in my human osteology quiz here.

Speaking to the Dead: A Multiple Guest Post Influenced by Svetlana Alexievich

This post and style has been influenced by Svetlana Alexievich’s Second-Hand Time: The Last of the Soviets (Время секонд хэнд) publication, which was released in 2013.  It is a work of non-fiction prose which explores the personal impact of the collapse of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) in 1991, through the recording of hundreds of interviews transcribed into monologues.  These were conducted with a wide range of individuals who experienced both life within the USSR and its modern-day constituents, including the present-day Russian Federation and surrounding independent countries.  I’ve previously mentioned the book in a blog entry here.  Alexievich, a resident of Belarus and the winner of the Nobel Prize in Literature in 2015, is no stranger to the impact of political persecution and has herself had to leave Belarus to seek sanctuary elsewhere for sustained periods of time.  The Nobel Prize committee described her works as ‘polyphonic writings, a monument to suffering and courage in our time’.

The book offers insight into the continual flux of humanity and it has moved me deeply.  If I’m not mistaken it is also the concluding chapter in a five-part cycle of work reporting on issues within the history of the USSR, although a number of the volumes have not yet been translated into English.  Those that have include Alexievich’s 1985 volume The Unwomanly Face of War (У войны не женское лицо), recently translated into English and republished, which uncovers the role of USSR females in the Second World War and the subsequent silence of their contributions, alongside 1997’s Chernobyl Prayer (ернобыльская молитва),  a volume which examines the impact of the nuclear reactor malfunction in Ukraine in 1986 and its effects on the clean up crews, physicians, and local inhabitants within Ukrainian, Russian and Belarusian territories.  That book includes material taken from over 500 interviews over 10 years, of which a revised edition was released in English in 2013.  A new reprint of an English translation of Zinky Boys (or Boys in Zinc, Цинковые мальчики) was due to be published in 2017; the volume looks at the impact of the USSR’s decade long war in Afghanistan from 1979 to 1989.  It is a volume I am now keen to read and to learn from.

This post should be seen as an attempt to convey the methods that Alexievich’s employs; it is not meant to diminish the impact and importance of the individual and personal stories contained within the volumes that she has produced.  Nevertheless, there are parallels that can be drawn out between historical events and the personal viewpoints of our field.  It is one I was keen to explore, to hear voices from friends describing their experiences of encountering human skeletal remains within archaeological contexts and how it inspires them – into careers, into dreams, into labours of love and worry.

A two-part previous edition of this series focusing on the life and thoughts of archaeologists can be read here and here.

---

The author’s monologue

– Buried and cremated, dismembered and decapitated, axial and axis, perimortem and postmortem.  The language we use to describe the dead can seem cold and clinical, a hidden distance in our lexical choices to keep the emotive at bay.  If we think of the skeletonized dead as people, with their own lives, thoughts and memories, instead of objects taking up space on the finds shelves or boxed silently away, it is perhaps then we remember that the past is not so different, not so foreign to the present.

Fragments of crania, rolled across my open palm for tactile inspection, used to remind me of the intangible border of death.  Reminded me that I too would die.  Bone, that wonderous structure of both flesh and stone, reminded me so vividly of what it is to live.  Having broken many of the elements within my own skeleton, I could feel kindred to those naturally fractured fragments before me, couldn’t I?

That decisive snap, the innervation of electric pain that contorts to dull throbs . . .  What I thought I knew, I desired to know in more depth.  My own experiences of skeletal breakages and repeated surgical interventions, my own handling of the blade cutting into flesh to show bone the sordid light of the dissection room.  The smell of my anatomical guide – the paper protected by clear plastic wallets, but the pages of which had nevertheless become permeated by the chemical smells of preservation.  These were the experiences that pushed me on.

From excavation to analysis, pulled from birth to death anew.  A whole new context of meaning imbued by the discipline of archaeology . . .  These were my dreams, the dull and long-drawn out thoughts that lay behind daily concerns and speculations.

What do others think, how do others interact with the skeletal material that represents an individual, a population, a species?

---

The illusion of mortality and the fickle nature of finality

Gabriela H.  Late twenties.  Post-doctoral researcher.

– I don’t know what drew me into studying skeletons – it was not the morbid aspect for sure.  I have never been to a funeral, and I don’t feel a pang for skull-themed aromatic candles spread around the house.  I might be ‘in search for a stable ground to step on’, as a psychologist once told me . . .  I don’t know if that is true, it might be, but it might as well have something to do with people.  I like people, and have always been interested in watching them, in understanding their passions, actions and thoughts.  But I should probably bear in mind that these are dead people.  Most of the time I try to ignore this though . . .  The image of a crime movie in which body parts are stacked in jars on shelves comes vividly to mind, and the comparison is rather worrying to be frank.

However, aren’t we (those studying the dead) caught in this eternal (no pun intended) puzzle?  Between having to acknowledge that these are dead people – that on the lab table and on the museum shelf it is death and mortality looking back at us, confronting our own fear of death.  Or seeing them as mere bones, objects that are there waiting for us to turn them into ‘high-impact’ articles?  Boundaries, and absences are unsettling: someone has forever disappeared, though some part of them has been left behind.

‘It is the living who expect insights from the dead’ a friend once told me, and he couldn’t have been more right (as you see I am trying to avoid saying ‘dead right’).  As a ‘dead bodies’ practitioner I think this line cuts to the core of the whole challenge of writing narratives about them – what are we hoping to achieve?  I think most of the times we are unsure, but it is rather hard to be sure about something like death, isn’t it?

---

On the joy of working with the hands and the truth concealed

Abigail L.  Mid-twenties.  PhD candidate.

– I often miss working with my hands.  The hours spent staring at a screen or trawling through journals are necessary for research, but they make me realise that the physicality of handling human remains, the engagement that comes with examining the material myself, is what really helps me to understand my subject best.  Carefully sorting through someone’s bones removes the abstraction of talking about statistics, trends and probabilities, and brings it back to the individual level, the only one that we can really identify with.  I gain satisfaction from the ordered and methodical work; the rest of my time is spent chaotically moving between tasks and failing to cross anything off my cluttered stacks of physical and digital to-do lists.  With the bones, I arrive early and skip lunch to give myself more time to work slowly and carefully.  I don’t feel the need for the extended walks around the park that my ‘office work’ prompts.  Almost everyone else smokes.

With long periods where I am kept in the office, the growing anticipation of these sparsely distributed tangible interactions with my subject sometimes leads to frustration.  Missing limbs (misplaced in the last decade; “I’m sure they were on display once”); a severe case of mould spreading through the axial skeleton; another “sorry it was lost in the war;” a set of misidentified and mis-catalogued remains that belong to some other site (which one, though?).

My recent osteological work has been characterised by dismay . . .  I’m concerned by the mishandling of human remains in museum and university contexts, but I can’t talk about it as I’m still relying on the goodwill of these institutions.

I can discuss general access issues and curatorial ethics in my thesis, but I can’t refer to my personal disappointment over being prevented from doing something I enjoy.  Is it even okay for me to enjoy this work?  To enjoy sorting, measuring, and recording human remains?  We are supposed to be enthusiastic about our research: engagement, outreach, impact, et cetera.  But people don’t always want to hear the specifics.  I was recently asked (by a palaeoethnobotanist) what I do to ward off all the bad Juju I must be attracting . . .  Alongside my enjoyment, if that is allowed, I also feel a deep anxiety about getting something wrong that I don’t feel in relation to other areas of my work.  It doesn’t seem to go away with experience.  Another topic with no real home for discussion.

My main anxiety at the moment, though, is in relation to my future employment prospects.  While the practical work is what sustains my interest, I also know I need to develop other research interests, other skills, other areas of expertise, in order to compete for jobs.  Most of these keep me inside.  I am increasingly realising that I will soon have little choice in the matter.

---

The search for identity in a modern context

Richard Smith.  Late forties.  Recovering field archaeologist.

– I’ve long been intrigued by the idea that for many people outside of the profession, the chief occupation of an archaeologist is digging up skeletons (at least for those who don’t think we’re looking for dinosaurs).  To be honest, that aspect probably played into my own set of disjointed reasons for wanting to become an archaeologist . . .  There is something very reassuring about seeing archaeologists carefully excavating away soil from around a skeleton – you know you’re seeing some ‘proper’ archaeology!

And yet, I had worked for more than 20 years as a commercial field archaeologist before I got the opportunity to excavate a ‘classic’ laid out flat skeleton.  It’s not that I’d not been doing much, but every site I seemed to work on was composed of pits, ditches, post-holes, and the like . . .  It’s not like I didn’t encounter human death in those years, but it was invariably in the form of cremated remains, frequently having undergone heavy comminution.  Say what you like, but it’s hard to perceive the humanity in the occasional flecks of white in a black and grey soil.

All that changed for me when I ended up working on a 19th century urban graveyard that was being cleared to allow the church to rebuild, expand, and cater for its dwindling flock into the 21st century.  For someone only used to human remains in the form of gritty powder, coming face to face with a skeleton was nothing short of shocking.  After two decades in the profession, I thought I was well beyond romantic notions of imagining myself into the lives and situations of my ‘subjects’.

But here I was, carefully scraping around a rib, an eye socket, or a femur, wondering about who this person might have been or how they lived their lives.  Admittedly, this was rather short-lived as some of the burials contained their original coffin plates that had their names and dates . . .  Some we eventually were able to track down to published obituaries only to find that they were all wonderful people who were sorely missed by all who knew them.  I wonder where they buried the bad blighters that everyone was glad to see the back of?

---

The author rejoins

– An historical aside:  ‘Do not divide the dead!’  A Soviet saying dating from the Second World War.  The blurring of lines between the immensity of the Jewish loss of life, and the death wrought across nationalities and ethnicities, versus the continuing vulgarities of Soviet antisemitism post-war which culminated, but did not end, with the Doctor’s plot of 1952-53.

Dividing the dead into known and unknown, into memory and out of time.  The question we never really ask is how much do we need to know, what can we afford not to know?  The almost intangible nature of truth, hidden within the Haversian canals and housed in osteons, each containing a multitude of experiences.

Experiences for which the individual, partitioned by plastic context bags placed among kin, friend or foe, known or unknown, remain silent; they are ready instead to be analysed by the skeletal specialist.  The step by step motions of measurements and non-metric notes taken; occurrences of presence and absences discussed; the archaeological context pondered over.  Relationships are suggested and situations hypothesized, the motivations are almost always guessed at.

An archaeological aside:  ‘The dead do not bury themselves.’  The individual, either as a single outlier or as part of a larger assemblage, become detached from their lived context and are given over to the researcher with the status of temporary ownership.  The dead have already died and their active participation in life is now over, but still they speak to the living as arbiters of the present.

We are not just analysing ourselves when we look into the empty eye sockets of the dead, we are commenting on the past and the vast variations found therein.  There is no distance greater than between the living and the dead, yet there is no closer divide.  That is the juxtaposition lying in wait, entombed within the cortical and trabecular bone, trapped within the enamel and dentine, ready to surprise the unwary.

Interview with Alexandra Ion: Introducing DivMeanBody & The Post-Mortem Fate of Human Bodies

Alexandra Ion is an osteoarchaeologist and anthropologist who specialises in Neolithic deathways, theory of (osteo)archaeological practice, and the history of anatomical/anthropological body displays.  Alexandra can be found writing about her research and thoughts on her blog at Bodies and Academia, where topics include the anthropology of the body, with specific reference to the ethics and history of body research and the display of the body.  To keep up to date on the DivMeanBody project, and the latest research goings on, check out the project blog.  Alexandra’s research profile can be found here.

---

These Bones of Mine (TBOM): Hello Alexandra, thank you so much for joining me at These Bones of Mine! We’ve known each other for a while via our own respective blogging sites and I’m always interested to see what you post at Bodies and Academia. However, for those of us who do not know you or your bioarchaeological research, could you tell us a little bit about your background and main research interests?

Guest blog interviewee Alexandra Ion admiring a number of flints. Image credit: Alexandra Ion.

Alexandra Ion (AI):  Hi David, thanks a lot for having me here!  I am trained both as an archaeologist and as an osteoarchaeologist, but along the way I came to be interested in the more reflexive approaches to the material record we encounter.  If I am to summarise, I would say that I am interested in the ethics and history of body research and display, from analyses of past Neolithic death-ways, to reflexive accounts focused on the way in which human remains are turned into an object of study and are enacted as part of the osteoarchaeological and anthropological disciplines (from contemporary excavations, to the history of anatomical/anthropological collections).

I am currently a Marie Curie postdoctoral researcher at the McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research located at the University of Cambridge, and I am also a researcher at the Cultural Anthropology Department of the Institute of Anthropology ‘Francisc I. Rainer’ of the Romanian Academy, so I can say that I am ‘butterflying’ at the cross-road of the two disciplines and perspectives.

TBOM:   It is clear that with the research positions you hold, you are able to produce an interesting perspective on both archaeology and anthropology as separate disciplines that can readily be fed from one into the other productively.

As such, and having myself come from a background where the practicalities of analyzing human skeletal remains was emphasized within an archaeological perspective, I have to ask where your interest in theorizing the human body came from within your academic and research background?

AI:  Not an easy question to answer for sure, but one which definitely goes directly at the heart of my research.  Like any exercise in self-reflection, trying to identify the ‘cause’ of something can sometimes be as accurate as the exercise of piecing back events from memory, but if I am to follow the threads back into my past I think I should start by saying that I have a BA in History.  Thus, from the beginning I have been thinking of archaeological materials as part of broader theoretical/historical processes and questions.

At the same time, I was lucky to meet and learn from a handful of archaeologists who were interested in exploring theoretical avenues, influenced by anthropological, sociological or philosophical works, and who made me question the established paradigm.  The first proper work I did where I combined the two interests was during my MSc in Sheffield, where under the supervision of Prof John Barrett I applied a sociology of scientific knowledge approach to osteoarchaeological practice – in other words, I took scientists dealing with bones as my subjects, and I tried to see what kind of interpretation they construct about past human beings through the questions and methods they follow (and the ethical implications of these practices).

Alexandra demonstrating a research poster with an study skeleton. Image credit: Alexandra Ion.

TBOM:  I think that is a really interesting perspective on the research of the actual process of osteoarchaeology.  Almost, I can imagine, a meta review of humanity reviewing itself using a standardised methodology.  In that first piece of research for your Masters, what conclusions were you able to draw with regards to this, and how has it subsequently informed your following research?

AI:  I am not sure if I could draw a straightforward conclusion after that, rather it was my intention to highlight the networks in which human remains are integrated, and following sociologist Bruno Latour, the actors which take part in shaping our understanding of them – from instruments and methods, to spaces and world-views.  I think my main aim was to bring into view how our bones analysis are the product of a series of choices (what to study, why, how), and that maybe if we chose differently, then our reading of the past were different.  Liminal case studies are perhaps the best/easiest to use as illustrations of more reflexive points such as this, and I am thinking here of a piece which has recently came out in Archaeological Dialogues in which I was trying to see what happens when the standardised osteological understanding of an individual meets in the field a completely different take on humanity – in this case, that of a Church.

Namely, I’ve been looking at how the two ways of ‘decoding’ some human remains met on the territory of one body belonging to a Greek-Catholic Romanian Bishop killed during the 1950s in a communist prison.  While for the Church, the body was seen as a sign of martyrdom, a site of embodied experiences which tied it to the community of believers, past to the present, the scientific approach applied a universal and standard methodology, whose language did not leave room for an understanding of the particulars of his situation.  Once the scientist steps out of the ‘laboratory’ and goes into the field (regardless how we define that), their world-view is confronted and challenged by complex networks of actors, each with their own agendas and interpretation of what those bodies are/should be – and this can start some interesting points for reflection.

TBOM:  That particular case study that you’ve recently published is a great example of examining the cultural and social differences as documented in testimonies, texts and historical records, compared to the strict osteological interpretation of the Bishop’s body, and associated burial context, within a fraught historic period.  It is also a period that is very well documented compared to the archaeological record as a whole.  

As such I’m wondering how you can use your approach to the skeletal remains of individuals, or populations, from prehistoric contexts where documentation is either non-existent or enigmatic in nature, i.e. structural remains that are of unknown function or use?

AI:  I think this is the challenge indeed!  Recently I took part in the Cambridge Science Festival and I have received the same question from members of the public, under various guises: what do you do with these human remains?  Of course the first level of analysis involves sexing, ageing, identifying pathologies, traumas etc. on the human remains, with the goal of piecing together their (post-mortem) biography.  However, I think that we need to go beyond the data encoded in the materiality of bodies, and think of them in the wider context of their deposition/discovery.

Of course there is not a single/simple answer to how to go about this, but ultimately it is a question of scaling: finding the right (useful) balance between the singular case study and the wider population data, between the human remains and their context, between a site and the wider cultural patterns.  Anthropology, history and even philosophy of science might provide inspiration when reaching a dead-end, leading to new questions for old materials.  Ultimately, I think one also has to accept the limits of what we can do with certain kinds of discoveries, due to the fragmentary and heterogeneous nature of the material.

TBOM:  I’m really excited by the announcement recently of your latest project, DivMeanBody, based at the McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research at the University of Cambridge, which will investigate the construction of the prehistoric body and identity from Neolithic settlements (7^th-4^th millennia BC), from around the Balkans area of southern Europe.

What is the focus area of the study, along with the bioarchaeological material, that you’ll be studying specifically?  As we’ve discussed above, I’m really keen to see how you fuse together the biological data from the human skeletal remains with the cultural material of ancient societies, in order to explore the meaning and use of the human body within funerary practices during the Neolithic period.

AI:  My research is designed as an exploration in the construction of the prehistoric body and identity, by studying the post-mortem fate of human remains discovered in Neolithic settlements in the Balkan area (between 7th-5th millennia BC).  These settlements have yielded collections of disarticulated/fragmentary/scattered human remains.  Traditionally such human remains have been either a focus of osteological studies, looking at them in a biological dimension, or subjected to cultural analysis.  My project aims at taking a multi-disciplinary comparative perspective, at the cross-road of archaeology and osteology, towards the re-interpretation of such deposits from a taphonomic perspective to answer the question of whether these are deliberate depositions or more complex, including non-cultural processes, might explain this fragmentation.

The DivMeanBody blogging page, check out the University of Cambridge project website page here. Image credit: Alexandra Ion.

Given its broad time span, apparent uniformity on a large geographical area and across multiple prehistoric cultures (from southern Romania to northern Greece), studying this depositional practice is key to understanding the context which shaped the beginnings of settlements, agriculture and the Neolithic way of life in Europe.  Thus, I hope to better understand how these past people were performing and dealing with the dynamic processes of life and death in their communities and the relation of these practices to the formation of archaeological deposits.  At the same time, it will surpass the divide present in contemporary research between a biological body (studied by osteology) and a cultural body (by archaeology).

The materials I will be looking at are of three types: skeletal materials who have already been excavated, old archaeological reports/photographs, and archaeological/osteological publications.  Of course the access to all these kinds of data is not even, especially when it involves researches from three countries (Greece, Bulgaria, and Romania)- either some of the materials are not available any more (lost, or not available for study), or the initial documentation is not present, so the bones have no context.  Beyond an interaction with these past bodies, the project turns out to be also a trip down memory lane, an archaeological investigation into storage areas, publications and academic networks.

TBOM: I’m looking forward to reading some of the outcomes of your research, so I’ll be sure to keep an eye on the dedicated website that you have for the project.

The geographic and population focus of the majority of your research has largely been in eastern and southern Europe, covering anthropological topics and the curation of historic and prehistoric human osteological collections, such as the Bucharest-based Francisc. I Rainer Anthropological Research Center, Romania, which houses one of the largest human osteological collections in Europe.  With your experience of academic work and associated field experience across a number of countries, I’m intrigued as to your views on how anthropology and osteoarchaeology is taught and if you have experienced any differing approaches in their application?

AI:  This is an important question indeed, thank you, one which I think should be more often discussed!  I am not sure though if I am the best person to answer it, as I have no extensive experience with how osteoarchaeology is being formally taught throughout the world – besides my MSc in Human Osteology and Funerary Archaeology I am mostly self-taught/ I’ve been taught the basis of osteology by my colleagues at the Institute.  In an indirect way, my answer speaks about the academic situation of the discipline in my country, and the absence of a formal qualification.  Even in the United Kingdom, there are not that many programmes offering osteology training, and even less a combined degree (with funerary archaeology)- I recall you made a list a while ago.

Furthermore, when it comes to the interest in the history of body collections and the ethics and politics of human remains research and display there does not seem to be a specific path for training either, and those interested, like myself, seem to come from various backgrounds (e.g. I have a PhD in History, Elizabeth Hallam in Social Anthropology, Tiffany Jenkins in sociology, while Liv Nilsson Stutz and Duncan Sayer have one in archaeology – and this is just to name a few; others come from the world of pathology, forensic anthropology or philosophy).  Due to this fluid nature of the discipline, each of these specialists brings their own questions and perspective on things, which in a way is just a reflection of the multi-faceted nature of the topics explored.

But if you ask me about the specific osteoarchaeological training, the only broad remarks I can make are that I have noticed that in France these studies are sometimes more closely connected to pathology and taphonomy than in other places, that there is a difference between seeing osteoarchaeology as part of a historical discipline (like in my academic background) versus seeing it as a biological science (as I’ve often encountered it in UK settings), or as part of cultural anthropological concerns (as is the case in the USA).  Of course these are very rough generalisations, but I think what is certain is that there is not just one osteoarchaeology, and would be interesting to talk more about how various traditions define the concept (even a quick glance at the names which are used in various places is indicative of the heterogeneity of practices- from bioarchaeology to archeothanatology or osteology).

TBOM:  Your observations seem to collate with my own experience of both osteoarchaeology and bioarchaeology, alongside their related fields, in other countries.  Particularly so as to where osteology fits within its confines in an archaeological or anthropological setting.  I sometimes wonder if this acts as an almost linguistic straight-jacket on respective researchers who are confined within their narrow field of study, as espoused by their department or traditional approach within their country of research.

Returning again to your new project, DivMeanBody, how did you come to focus on the Neolithic period of south-eastern Europe?

AI: Indeed, I share you concerns regarding ‘a linguistic straight-jacket’, though I would rather call it an epistemological straight-jacket.  In the same time, I think that what we witness – the cohabitation of multiple archaeologies (some taking very hard sciences approaches, while at the other end of the spectrum we have postmodern narratives and even performances – a colleague mentioned of a dance ‘presentation’ he witnessed in a conference panel) – should prompt some reflection and dialogue in respect to the kinds of basic principles that we share/should share.

But returning to your question, I think this was, like many other decisions in research, a serendipitous encounter.  Quite early in my undergrad (and even before that) I was fascinated by the Neolithic period, especially by the Vadastra pottery.  The black polished pots, decorated through deep incisions filled with white paste, and with helix or geometrical models are extremely elegant and special, and they definitely drew me in to deep time.  For a couple of years, I have also been to two different tells in southern Romania, and then it came the moment of choosing a topic for my BA thesis.  At first, I had been offered the opportunity of publishing the pottery from a late Neolithic site, but as I soon discovered I did not get too excited about drawing pot shards on millimetre paper.

An anthropomorphic vessel made of fired clay, Vădastra, Vădastra, 5500-5000 BC. National History Museum of Romania, Bucharest: 15908. Image credit: Marius Amarie, New York Times.

By this time, I was already working at the Institute of Anthropology, and one day when I was sitting at my desk by the skull shelves my colleague Andrei Soficaru popped in and said: ‘Why don’t you study the human remains from Neolithic settlements in Romania for your thesis?’.  That was to be my topic for my first Master thesis as well, and it stayed with me even when I moved more into the theoretical aspects.  Thus, when I had to choose a topic for this postdoc I went back to what I knew, and to what I have left ‘unresolved’ in a way, the interpretation of human remains discoveries from settlements from Southern Romania; then extending the area to the Balkans made sense, as in the Neolithic times this area would have shared many cultural commonalities.

TBOM: Thank you very much for joining me today Alexandra, it has been a pleasure to talk to you. and good luck with your DivMeanBody project!

At These Bones of Mine we’ll definitely be keeping a look out as to how the project develops.  I’m sure that my readers would be interested in hearing about the results as well.

AI:  Thank you David for a wonderful opportunity to talk about some of my work!

Further Information

• You can check out Alexandra’s personal blog, entitled Bodies and Academia, which features a great range of thought-provoking and interesting posts on osteoarchaeology and anthropology.  Alternatively, for bite-sized chunks, check out Alexandra’s Bodies and Academia Twitter page here.
• For all of the latest updates on the DivMeanBody project check out the website home page here.

Bibliography

Ion, A., Soficaru, A., & Miritoiu, N. 2009. Dismembered Human Remains from the ‘Neolithic’ Cârcea Site (Romania). Studii de Preistorie. 6: 47 – 79.

Dobos, C. & Ion, A. (eds.) 2015. Bodies/Matter: Narratives of Corporeality. Special Volume of Martor -The Museum of the Romanian Peasant Anthropology Review. 20. Bucharest: Martor. (Open Access).

Ion A. 2015. Breaking Down the Body and Putting it Back: Displaying Knowledge in the ‘Francisc I. Rainer’ Anthropological Collection. Martor – The Museum of the Romanian Peasant Anthropology Review. 20: 25-50. (Open Access).

Ion, A. 2016. The Body of the Martyr. Between an Archival Exercise and the Recovery of his Suffering. The need for a Recovery of Humanity in Osteoarchaeology. Archaeological Dialogues. 23 (2): 158–174. doi: 10.1017/S1380203816000209.

Ion, A. 2017. And then they were Bodies: Medieval Royalties, from DNA Analysis to a Nation’s Identity, in Premodern Rulership and Contemporary Political Power. The King’s Body Never Dies, (eds.) Karolina Mroziewicz, Aleksander Sroczyński, 217-237. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.