Human bones – is this news?
CBC reports on the discovery of 18th‑century human bones near a cemetery in Quebec City. Archaeologists are treating this as a great find.
I simply do not get it. The 18th century is not so long ago. The lives and existence of those people is documented, it’s part of history, not a prehistoric conundrum to be elucidated. There is no reason to disturb their graves and crow about it.
Blork 12:13 on 2024-06-29 Permalink
I tend to agree. Although in this case the bones are linked to two important battles (Plains of Abe and Ste-Foy) so that makes them a bit interesting. If they were just randos then whatev.
Kate 13:31 on 2024-06-29 Permalink
Interesting how, though? The article says they’ve found evidence of injuries, but these men were active soldiers so that’s no surprise. What else do they think they can find out?
If the bones have to be moved because of construction, they should be moved respectfully to some cemetery in the area. They shouldn’t be pounced on to give archaeologists something to do, and to confirm things we already know.
Blork 16:37 on 2024-06-29 Permalink
Fair point. But you find fonts and typesetting interesting, and those archaeologists would probably be just as perplexed as to why. Point being that archaeologists have their niche interests that are unknown to non-archaeologists in the same way that most professions and hobbies to. So who are we to judge.
Blork 16:42 on 2024-06-29 Permalink
… and hobbies DO. And that was supposed to end with a lighthearted shrug but FFS commenting on phones! ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Kate 17:53 on 2024-06-29 Permalink
Fonts and typesetting are not dead human beings. We have a general principle of respecting the dead. If these were Indigenous remains, Indigenous people would be all over this, making sure they were not desecrated, and we’d respect that. I don’t see why dead British soldiers are due less reverence.
Also, and this is an unrelated point, there’s often a big deal made about archaeologizing the remnants of European settlers here, as if they were from the ancient Egyptian Middle Kingdom or something. But they are not, and digging up bits of broken china, glass bottles and clay pipes from the 19th century may be interesting in a hobbyish sort of way, but they don’t demonstrate anything we didn’t already know about life here at the time. Archaeology should be about understanding human lives and settlements before historical records, to reconstruct ways of life we have no other references for.
Tim S. 19:25 on 2024-06-29 Permalink
Kate, there’s a lot that material evidence can tell us that written documents do not. For example, we have a more precise understanding of disease than pre-20th century people did, being able to test remains to figure out what they died of could be pretty important. For example, during the medieval and early modern period, “plague” occurred fairly frequently, but here’s still a fair bit of uncertainty about what diseases were actually circulating, where and when. The one caused by Y. Pestis? Typhoid? A severe flu? We have plenty of written records from the period, but they don’t help us answer this particular question.
Same thing goes for the various artifacts you mention: sure, many finds will be unremarkable, but some of them will be surprising and can be used to fill in gaps in the written records.
I could be wrong, but based on my quick reading of the article I suspect they were doing rescue archaeology: basically doing an excavation before the land is developed and any evidence destroyed forever. If there are human remains there, then they will have to be excavated and removed according to whatever Quebec law is.
Kate 20:49 on 2024-06-29 Permalink
Tim S., that’s reasonable. But when’s the cutoff between letting dead people rest in peace, and allowing them to be dug up and analyzed?
Marc R. 00:47 on 2024-06-30 Permalink
I suppose that the line is drawn by funding; if no-one is willing to pay for folks to dig them up and analyse them, they’ll be left in peace. What justifies funding and how those decisions are made is a matter for the funding bodies, who surely have a helpful mission statement on their website
Kate 09:00 on 2024-06-30 Permalink
Tim S., on thinking about it – what kind of histopathological information could you get from old bones? I can imagine being able to say “this man had a mild case of rickets when he was a kid” but is there enough left to say “this man survived smallpox, but it was cholera that killed him”?
Tim S. 10:57 on 2024-06-30 Permalink
Kate: I’m not an expert, but techniques for recovering DNA are becoming more and more sophisticated. I think it depends on which kinds of disease leave traces in bones and marrow. As you point out, some disease can leave a specific kind of scarring or deformity on bones.
I just so happens that I’m reading a book about Stonehenge this weekend, and the author (an archaeologist) made the point that remains in ‘ordinary’ cemeteries are dug up all the time, either because the lease on the plot expires or because the whole cemetery is getting built over, and for the most part no one cares. But when it comes to archaeological digs people can get very exercised over remains that are thousands of years old. Personally, I do incline a little to your position, but there are real answers to be found, and this kind of excavation is probably preferable to being crushed into the foundation of a skyscraper.
Marc R. I can’t quote you the Quebec law, but generally if you’re doing any kind of construction work in a historic area you’ll need some kind of archaeological observation. On their website, the organization doing the dig lists as one of their services:
La supervision par un archéologue permet de repérer et d’enregistrer les données archéologiques lors de travaux mécaniques qui sont susceptibles de perturber des sites archéologiques.
Keep this in mind when thinking about construction costs!