HISTARCH Archives

HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY

HISTARCH@COMMUNITY.LSOFT.COM

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Mime-Version:
1.0
Sender:
HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:
From:
"William H. Adams" <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Fri, 1 May 1998 18:42:43 +0930
Content-Type:
text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Reply-To:
HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (21 lines)
To add a different flavor to the discussion, Larry McKee remarks about
the bones being deposited after being clean or in the post-abandonment of
the building. This may account for some of the bones. But my observation
of dogs is that they are less likely to chew on the bones after the
marrow and grease are gone. Rats and other rodents, however, may be the
vectors for dry bones, as they use these to obtain calcium and wear down
their ever-growing incisors.
 
As to the stench, given that for many, the people, the clothes, bedding,
and rest of the house environment would, well, offend our modern senses a
bit. Modern restorations like Colonial Williamsburg provide a VERY
sanitized version of history. The first visit I had there I smelled
flowers from the gardens, not the horse manure and decomposing household
waste or outhouses which would have been there in colonial times. Not
very realistic!
 
So, the question becomes "Would someone notice a stinky bone under their
house when they themselves had not bathed in a week?"
 
Bill Adams

ATOM RSS1 RSS2