- Time of past OR future Camino
- 23:Valença Var Espiritual Apr; Norte Cudillero Oct
For 2024 Pilgrims: €50,- donation = 1 year with no ads on the forum + 90% off any 2024 Guide. More here. (Discount code sent to you by Private Message after your donation) |
---|
Nice comments. I have no research to back this up but I imagine human nature hasn’t changed much and those neurotic impulses you mention were probably alive and well centuries ago. I’m curious if there’s any research that indicates otherwise.Thanks for posting this... have just been reading more in the anthropology of pilgrimage and returned Turner and Turner (1974) that one source for the estimate for how many people made pilgrimage to any of the great sites in the medieval period rests on tchotchkes buried with them (tourist souvenirs as well as signs of having arrived at the place). The scallop shell, sand, holy water in a vial, bits of bone bought/sold as "relics" etc. So important to them that they went to the grave. A kind of medieval "power flex" if you will.
We have *always* been tourigrinos.... thankfully for those who have for 1000 years relied on pilgrims opening their perceptions to *all* the blessings (new foods, foreign languages, different styles in artistic and architectural representation, etc etc) on the paths.
The (rather tedious and perennial) effort to separate the pilgrim from the tourist, the effort to map onto camino culturally distinct and external practices...
I do enjoy the repeated arrival of evidence that these neurotic impulses to separate the pure from the impure are very, very contemporary.
Humans....
[footnote: on the issue of the "flex" or the boast of power through material goods: the prevalence of non-native species of tree in Northern Spain (various palms, large cacti, and the Surinam Paintbrush) arrived in the 20th C. to signal that that particular landowner had travelled that far away, to that 'exotic' a location for leisure and adventure.]
The title scares me.Most interesting article first published online Journal of Archeological Science 1 February, 23.
Highlights
•
The radiocarbon dating results corroborate the use of the pilgrim's shell since at least the 11th century CE.
•
The data suggest that the pilgrimage was mainly an urban phenomenon for populations from the northern Iberian Peninsula.
•
The pilgrimage was conducted equally by women and men.
•
Female pilgrims may have had greater access to animal protein than their male counterparts.
•
The individuals buried with the scallop shell had δ15N and δ13C indicative of a heterogeneous group.”
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2023.103847
The desire to separate people into the pure and the impure? See Mary Douglas 1966 _Purity and Danger_.Nice comments. I have no research to back this up but I imagine human nature hasn’t changed much and those neurotic impulses you mention were probably alive and well centuries ago. I’m curious if there’s any research that indicates otherwise.
Fear not, just skip over the technical data and digest what you can.The title scares me.
So let me ask the community: What are your three favorite books about the culture and beliefs and lifestyles (etc) of the pilgrims who have walked the Camino, from pre-history to modern times. No scholarly tomes, please, just interesting and (more or less) factual accounts.
The study appears to use this as a premise, but I couldn't see where it either established this nor pointed to earlier academic work that had established this linkage. It might be a plausible explanation, but it didn't appear to have any scientific rigour. It made me wonder, perhaps, whether this is a truism of the the archaeology of the Camino. To me, archaeology appears full of fairly creative interpretations based on very limited evidence. This just might be one more instance of that.Interesting that scallop shells were the grave goods that served to distinguish the subjects as SdC pilgrims.
I loved "The Way of the Wild Goose" by Beebe Bahrami, I think written in 2019. She walks 3 different Camino routes, including the Camino Frances, tracing pre-Christian symbols honoring ancient Earth mother, nature & the cosmos, that are today still found in the oldest churches. She has also written a guidebook for the Camino Frances, featuring sacred sights, historic villages, and local food & wine. It's published by Moon travel guides.The title scares me.
So let me ask the community: What are your three favorite books about the culture and beliefs and lifestyles (etc) of the pilgrims who have walked the Camino, from pre-history to modern times. No scholarly tomes, please, just interesting and (more or less) factual accounts.
Did you just declare an entire scientific field invalid? That’s a pretty sweeping claim without the evidence to support the view. Yes, the use of the scallop shell is a “truism”, but that truism comes from so many sources at this point that within the field one would look quite silly repeatedly verifying a premise long established in historical documents, in burial records, in excavations across Europe (what with many cemeteries being dug up and moved as a way of trying to address both new waves of plague and of urban development etc). There are also cooperations with other disciplines such as marine biology which helps to identify scallop shells acquired from the Bay of Biscay and various estuary sources in Iberia as compared to say… off the coast of Amalfi or the English Channel etc.The study appears to use this as a premise, but I couldn't see where it either established this nor pointed to earlier academic work that had established this linkage. It might be a plausible explanation, but it didn't appear to have any scientific rigour. It made me wonder, perhaps, whether this is a truism of the the archaeology of the Camino. To me, archaeology appears full of fairly creative interpretations based on very limited evidence. This just might be one more instance of that.
I questioned one article, based on a general concern that there are either branches of the discipline or individual practitioners whose conclusions seem to lack the rigour of other branches of science. The particular article that was linked above appears to assert that every burial with a scallop shell is that of a pilgrim. Perhaps there is evidence of that, but what is it? Are there other plausible explanations for the presence of the scallop shell, presumably because it is a prized object, being interred with the body? Was there corroboration in writings of the time, not only of the prized nature of the scallop shell, but that it was only buried with a known pilgrim and not with some other person to whom the shell had been passed, eg as a gift. How does one account for individuals who might have had someone travel to Santiago on their behalf and return with a scallop shell, now no longer associated with the actual pilgrim? Was this practice even present in the time period of the burials being examined? I suggest that to a reasonably inquisitive reader, all of these things would go to weaken the strength of any conclusions based on a assertion that everyone buried with a scallop shell was a pilgrim.Did you just declare an entire scientific field invalid?
The short answer is that one ought to avoid pronouncing on the research and methods outside one’s area of expertise.I questioned one article, based on a general concern that there are either branches of the discipline or individual practitioners whose conclusions seem to lack the rigour of other branches of science. The particular article that was linked above appears to assert that every burial with a scallop shell is that of a pilgrim. Perhaps there is evidence of that, but what is it? Are there other plausible explanations for the presence of the scallop shell, presumably because it is a prized object, being interred with the body? Was there corroboration in writings of the time, not only of the prized nature of the scallop shell, but that it was only buried with a known pilgrim and not with some other person to whom the shell had been passed, eg as a gift. How does one account for individuals who might have had someone travel to Santiago on their behalf and return with a scallop shell, now no longer associated with the actual pilgrim? Was this practice even present in the time period of the burials being examined? I suggest that to a reasonably inquisitive reader, all of these things would go to weaken the strength of any conclusions based on a assertion that everyone buried with a scallop shell was a pilgrim.
As an aside, there is one Australian university where the Archaeology Department is in the Arts Faculty, and not in the Science Faculty. Given my clearly cynical views about this, I thought that this was entirely justified! It's not that I think that the practitioners don't apply themselves with due diligence to their work, but for all that they establish as fact about a matter, they are still faced with creating an interpretation of those facts that cannot be tested in the same way that can be done with other fields of scientific study.
This completely misses the point. As for your longer post, TLDR. If you don't address the fundamental rhetorical logic and the need to establish the rigour of that in an academic paper even to an ordinary reader, you and I are not discussing the same issues. This is a matter easily determined without specialist knowledge. Any academic who relies on specialists knowing the sources justifying the postulates to an argument, and feeling that they don't need to reveal how those postulates have been established by previous research or the current work, isn't making their conclusions open and transparent.The short answer is that one ought to avoid pronouncing on the research and methods outside one’s area of expertise.
Thanks again for posting the article, your summary and comments.Hello all! I have re-read the article and find it utterly fascinating.
This study has looked at the remains of 82 humans from 8 different burial/archeological sites as well as 42 fauna specimens.
Using accepted isotope and carbon dating they have found interesting correlations. It is a multicenter and multidisciplinary study. This is the largest presumed number of Peregrino remains studied to date. It evaluated medieval people from Aragon and Navarre from the 11th-15th century. They assumed those buried with the shell were Peregrinos, were Peregrinos undercounted? The shell, representing having completed the Camino, reportedly came into use in the 11th century. Perhaps some Peregrinos were not buried with their shell? They have explored diet and hierarchy of grain as relating to social and economic groups. They have considered the historical impacts of pilgrimage, the need and creation of settlements, infrastructure, urban development. They have explored the social structure of those who could embark on such a pilgrimage.
Striking to me is that the number of women walking was equivalent to the men. It talks about protein intake and how the higher protein intake for Peregrinas was likely due to a higher social status. Women were free to walk until after the 15th century when religious constraints/restrictions were subsequently placed on women who walk. Striking!
I find all of this utterly fascinating. In modern times, we too experience multiple and different ways to walk, that are also related to socio-economic individual and characteristics as well as pandemics and wars.
In that case, this forum is not the place to continue this debate, since nobody is an authoritative/recognized expert on anything, here.The short answer is that one ought to avoid pronouncing on the research and methods outside one’s area of expertise.
This is inaccurate. No short peer-reviewed scholarly article (which is joining a conversation in progress at a dinner table of disciplinary ideas) has the mandate to rehearse the entire history of its field. If the authors were writing a popular piece, they'd need to give more context and the genre would be quite different. Specialist to specialist, the bibliographic trail is quite clear. As to dismissing a measured, thoughtful, and yes, expert response in the genre of a forum discussion post as TL;DR, that's super unfortunate because I took the time to read the responses and they are very, very interesting and edifying. I see such writings from (yes) experts on Camino history or anthropology to be as interesting and edifying as the practical expertise on here from our modern pilgrim colleagues and friends. I think there is room in our capacious hearts and minds for both, and generosity of spirit in this regard always wins, in academia just as in lay discourse.This completely misses the point. As for your longer post, TLDR. If you don't address the fundamental rhetorical logic and the need to establish the rigour of that in an academic paper even to an ordinary reader, you and I are not discussing the same issues. This is a matter easily determined without specialist knowledge. Any academic who relies on specialists knowing the sources justifying the postulates to an argument, and feeling that they don't need to reveal how those postulates have been established by previous research or the current work, isn't making their conclusions open and transparent.
ps I don't think suggesting that the underlying postulates have been justified somewhere or somehow in one or more of the items in a lengthy bibliography is a replacement for making such references clear in the text itself.
Thank you for commenting and validating El Cascayal’s efforts to share interesting lines of attention. I have enjoyed reading it and following up on the parts unfamiliar to me. With the internet as both an instant dictionary and encyclopedia, there are fewer excuses for giving up on sampling challenging reading.This is inaccurate. No short peer-reviewed scholarly article (which is joining a conversation in progress at a dinner table of disciplinary ideas) has the mandate to rehearse the entire history of its field. If the authors were writing a popular piece, they'd need to give more context and the genre would be quite different. Specialist to specialist, the bibliographic trail is quite clear. As to dismissing a measured, thoughtful, and yes, expert response in the genre of a forum discussion post as TL;DR, that's super unfortunate because I took the time to read the responses and they are very, very interesting and edifying. I see such writings from (yes) experts on Camino history or anthropology to be as interesting and edifying as the practical expertise on here from our modern pilgrim colleagues and friends. I think there is room in our capacious hearts and minds for both, and generosity of spirit in this regard always wins, in academia just as in lay discourse.
You could print that on the stationery!In that case, this forum is not the place to continue this debate, since nobody is an authoritative/recognized expert on anything, here.
Thank you for sharing the article and for your follow ups!With some spare time this week, I was lucky to be able to read some of the citations that were available online. Once more these kinds of studies have been ongoing for a long time, this one used acceptable methodology and is peer reviewed in an archeological journal. Though a healthy dose of skepticism is welcome when reading these articles by no means does it negate the research and its conclusions.
So many discussions may be generated from this source, for instance, one could argue what is the overall significance in that of 80 subjects, 20 or 25% of them presumed Pilgrims because of the Vieira found with them compared to the population of that time?
To me, I wonder, how many modern day Peregrinos would even want to be buried (if they are planning to be buried at all) with their shell for those who even carry a shell at all? I think it poses lots of interesting questions based on their research that is built on prior well cited scholarly work.
Some modern Pilgrims may be interested in the trajectory of Pilgrimage over time and some may not. Those of us who are interested in a particular topic should be free to enjoy a civil discussion/exploration in this forum of passionate Peregrinos.
often found in replies to my posts.PS: someone please enlighten me, I still have no clue what “TLDR” means.
Most interesting article first published online Journal of Archeological Science 1 February, 23.
"To the field of stars: Stable isotope analysis of medieval pilgrims and populations along the Camino de Santiago in Navarre and Aragon, Spain"
Highlights
•
The radiocarbon dating results corroborate the use of the pilgrim's shell since at least the 11th century CE.
•
The data suggest that the pilgrimage was mainly an urban phenomenon for populations from the northern Iberian Peninsula.
•
The pilgrimage was conducted equally by women and men.
•
Female pilgrims may have had greater access to animal protein than their male counterparts.
•
The individuals buried with the scallop shell had δ15N and δ13C indicative of a heterogeneous group.”
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2023.10384
"Complicated and not in my area of expertise." and way outside my confort zone too. However, it is amazing what you can find on Google. This is something I find via Jstor (but I then had to go to Google to find an open access version). It is also very technical but the abstract and intro are comprehensible to us laypeople. It is an account of an excavation in Winchester, Hants of the tomb of a young man in a lepers' hospital which contained a scallop shell. The chemical analysis revealed he was not local.Way above my pay grade, but it is what dick bird said.
“Carbon isotopic composition (δ13Corg) and nitrogen isotopic composition (δ15N) are indicators of organic matter sources and paleoproductivity.
Definition. Biological productivity involves the synthesis of biogenic materials (skeletal and nonskeletal). Paleopro- ductivity refers to the record of synthesis in the past. Generally, the term is applied to production that occurred prior to times when direct measurements are available.
A common indirect approach to reconstructing paleoproductivity is the analysis of components that reflect changes in nutrients.”
Complicated and not in my area of expertise.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?