 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Family Forum / Parenting / Adoption / September 2005Abandoned at birth, no doubt.
http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20050926124909990001 Updated: 12:52 PM EDT 27,000-Year-Old Infants' Remains Found in Austria VIENNA, Austria (Sept. 26) - Archaeologists have uncovered the remains of two newborns dating back 27,000 years while excavating a hillside in northern Austria, the scientist in charge of the project said Monday. The find made last week near the Danube River city of Krems is important because the newborns were buried beneath mammoth bones and with a string of 31 beads -- suggesting that the internment involved some sort of ritual, said Christine Neugebauer-Maresch, the project's leader at the Austrian Academy of Sciences. "They could be twins," she said. "They have the same (length) limbs and were buried together." The burial -- one of the oldest in the region -- is also significant in that the children were not simply disposed of after their deaths, Neugebauer-Maresch said. The burial suggests "they were members of society," she said. Archaeologists are combing the area to see if the infants' mother is nearby, as giving birth to twins in that era would have been extremely difficult and potentially fatal. 09-26-05 12:52 EDT > http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20050926124909990001 > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > nearby, as giving birth to twins in that era would have been > extremely difficult and potentially fatal. Ask the recepshunist. steve I wonder if the archaeologists have considered the possibility that they were sacrificed. I'm curious as to how many traditional societies - hunter-gatherer or agrarian - actually considered newborns as members of society. I would guess few, because infant mortality rates would be quite high. If the community had a tradition of burial with grave-goods, then it would be a drain on the resources of the community if every baby had to be so buried. Only the wealthier groups would have been able to afford it. And anecdotal evidence from existing tribal cultures suggests that infanticide as a birth-control measure wasn't uncommon - which also suggests that a newborn was not accepted as a full member of the society until some milestone was passed. Rupa > http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20050926124909990001 > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > nearby, as giving birth to twins in that era would have been extremely > difficult and potentially fatal. > I wonder if the archaeologists have considered the possibility that > they were sacrificed. Perhaps twins were something to be avoided. J. > I'm curious as to how many traditional societies - hunter-gatherer or > agrarian - actually considered newborns as members of society. I would [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Rupa > > I wonder if the archaeologists have considered the possibility that > > they were sacrificed. > > Perhaps twins were something to be avoided. > > J. It's possible, I think. Some tribal groups still have such beliefs IIRC. Rupa |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2010 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.