The piece of writing that I would like to complete during the course of this class is a conference paper that I am scheduled to present at the Paleopathology Association meeting in early April. The paper is entitled Quantitative analysis of perimortem trauma in a fragmented, disarticulated, and commingled skeletal sample: success and failure at Smith’s Knoll. It aims to outline the approach taken toward quantifying the traumatic skeletal lesions observed in the Smith’s Knoll collection, and to place this analysis within the context of previous attempts that have been made at quantitative analysis of trauma in other similar skeletal assemblages.
The Smith’s Knoll collection, which consists of the remains of soldiers killed during the battle of Stoney Creek in the War of 1812, is particularly challenging for paleopathological analysis because it contains severely fragmented, disarticulated, and commingled skeletal material. Currently accepted and widely used techniques for the quantitative representation of lesion prevalence in skeletal assemblages are unsuitable in many ways for application to collections like Smith’s Knoll; certain assumptions inherent to these techniques are incompatible with materials that differs from complete individuals excavated from clearly differentiated burials. Despite the fact that there are major difficulties in the application of standard quantitative analytical techniques to fragmented, disarticulated, and commingled skeletal material, these techniques are often applied to such samples with little or no acknowledgement of the ways in which these assemblages may not conform to the assumptions associated with the methods used. The small numbers of researchers who have published on such collections and who have attempted quantitative analyses of the traumatic lesions observed are often not specific in describing the methods that they have used, or about whether these methods have been adapted in any way to account for the condition and preservation of the skeletal remains. I would like for this paper to serve as a starting point for what I see as a much-needed discussion about both the possibilities and the limitations of applying quantitative techniques to the analysis of traumatic lesions in fragmented, disarticulated, and commingled skeletal remains.
The abstract, which has been accepted for the conference, runs as follows and provides a basic outline of what the paper sets out to accomplish:
Recent attention to perimortem trauma has increased its recognition and subsequent examination in archaeological human remains. Evaluation of potential perimortem lesions formed an important part of the analytical work completed for the Smith’s Knoll skeletal collection. Analysis of this War of 1812 assemblage from southern Ontario, Canada was particularly problematic as the collection was disarticulated and commingled, with the bone in a severely fragmented and damaged state. The postcranial elements of the collection were examined for evidence of perimortem traumatic injury, and fractures, sharp force, and musket lesions recorded were then both qualitatively and quantitatively analyzed. Prevalence values were calculated for each type of lesion by element and by individual when possible. These calculations utilized several different methods in order to attempt to account for variability in the completeness of fragments, both those that did and those that did not display lesions. The results of this analysis indicate that lesion prevalence in this sample does differ significantly if calculation methods are altered to account for potential variance in fragment completeness. Given this demonstrable effect of methodological choice and adjustment, specific discussion of the methods used in a given analysis is extremely valuable for allowing accurate and nuanced interpretation of the results obtained. Greater discussion of attempts to undertake difficult quantitative analyses on problematic skeletal samples, such as that completed for Smith’s Knoll, will greatly help in moving these developing areas in the study of perimortem trauma forward.
I will use this paper to outline the approach that was applied in the analysis of the Smith’s Knoll skeletal material, highlighting both the useful information that was gained through quantitative analysis and the substantive difficulties that we encountered in attempting to apply standard methods to an unusual sample. In my thesis, I explored several different ways of quantitatively representing the traumatic lesions observed in the Smith’s Knoll postcranial skeletal material, and found that the method used and the various ways in which methods could be adapted for fragmentary samples did significantly change the prevalence values obtained. This illustrates the importance of specificity in the description of quantitative methods used during analysis, which is not commonly provided in publications dealing with these types of skeletal samples. I would like to summarize what other researchers in this field have done, and to outline the ways in which discussion of both the successes and failures of any attempts at quantitative analysis is both useful and necessary to moving forward with the evaluation of trauma in analytically difficult skeletal collections.
This paper is based upon ideas that I began to explore in my Master’s thesis, but have not yet fully developed. As such, I have all of the data necessary to begin writing the paper, and the first aspect that I will explore, the quantitative analytical approach applied to the evaluation of traumatic lesions at Smith’s Knoll, has already been fully fleshed out in my thesis. The second aspect of this paper, concerning the strengths and limitations of the work that has previously been done in the field and the discussion of what direction quantitative analyses can and should move in, will form a major portion of the discussion; these are concepts that I touched upon in my thesis but have yet to explore in detail.
My paper will need to be presented in class a week earlier than scheduled, because I will be at another conference on April 3. The paper will be presented at the PPA meeting on April 9th. I would therefore like my drafts to be finished a little ahead of the schedule set for the class. I would like to have additional research for the second portion of the paper together by February 13th. I plan to start writing at this point whether research is complete or not, and to work on this paper in daily sessions for the next month. I will have a first draft of the paper and presentation materials completed by March 13th, and a second draft by March 20th. I can then present a nearly final version of the paper on March 27th.
The second part of this paper, as outlined above, will be somewhat critical of paleopathological analyses that have already been completed, potentially by some of the researchers in attendance at the meeting. I am therefore particularly concerned with how this discussion is worded so as to initiate a productive dialogue about how techniques may be improved without putting any of these more established researchers on the defensive. I will therefore need to find a way to insert myself into a “canonical” discussion in order to present my critical analysis in a way that suggests change from within the existing structure. How best to, and how well I am managing to, accomplish this is something that I would like other members of the class to give me some guidance on as I begin writing and as I work through this conference paper. As well, I am much more confident in my writing than in my presentation abilities; I would therefore also appreciate some directed suggestions regarding maximizing the effectiveness of the performance aspect of my paper and its associated presentation materials, which will be Powerpoint slides.
Laura, I have nothing particularly helpful to add to your post with respect to the way you’ve decided to portray your data. I have nothing to add because I think (in my humble and non-biased opinion) that what you’re considering is a brilliant step in the right direction, and especially challenging to those who will be in attendance at the conference. This reminds me of Luker’s marathon story in Chapter 7, with Sam (the Doberman), wanting to follow the marathon runners when they veered off course. Don’t follow! Cheesy analogy, I know, but exemplary of the fact that resistance is likely to surface, and when it does, you will conquer it with one good dose originality. Cheers!
Hi Matt,
Thanks so much for your comments! I am hoping that this will be just the right amount of challenge.
Also, you would bring up Sam the Doberman.
I could not agree more with the point that analytical methods should always be clearly explained, or at least referenced, and should briefly note any major limitations. It sounds like a great paper and certainly a discussion that needs to happen. I will do the best I can to help you craft something that makes sense. I guess one way is to let the experience and data speak for itself. That might help remove the sense of accusation. Good luck with the presentation!
Hi Annabelle,
Thank you for your comments! I am definitely in the camp that supports very clear description and cautious application of methods. I was really surprised at the lack of clarity in the literature with regard to the application of quantitative methods to these types of samples, and so I am hoping that others who work in this area have also noticed the lack and will be supportive of starting this discussion.
Hello Laura,
I think what you’re suggesting here is a great approach and definitely something that needs to be addressed in this field of research. I can understand that you will be immersing yourself in a potential hostile environment, but if you are able to frame it in such a way that does not disprove previous methods, merely illustrates a limitation to their means, it may be better received. If anything, academics should be happy that a ‘new’ field of research (and publication) will be moving forward. You’re supplying them with more to discuss (and potentially bicker) about. I think it’s also good that you will be able to present your information to us prior to the PPAs. If you’re concerned about the presentation we can provide you with feedback after you present to us. Also, if you’re unsure of the physical slides, you can also post some of them to this public forum for us to provide feedback. If it’s talking in front of a crowd, perhaps the practice will help!
Hi Kat,
Thank you for your feedback! I agree that one of the better ways to frame the discussion is around the limitations of the methods rather than a criticism of the ways in which they have been applied by specific researchers. I will also try to emphasize our own experience and difficulties in attempting to apply these methods as much as possible, since I am trying to illustrate the lack of a clear answer rather than the value of an approach that we took over others.
Hi Laura,
The key here is going to be tone, and how you frame it all…the narrative structure of your presentation. I would suggest you bookend your presentation with your critical perspective, rather than leaving it at the end. If you leave it to the end you are both downplaying your findings and disarticulating (excuse the pun) your bigger argument. I’d suggest you place it in a bigger picture of methodological debates. That way you are not accusing anyone of anything, but rather positioning your work in a larger body of critical work in your field. But again, the tone will be key.
Hi Dr. Roddick,
Thank you for your feedback! I agree that tone is going to be very important, and this is something that I will definitely want to use the class as a sounding board for before presenting this paper at the conference. I will also need to put more thought into the organization of the presentation, especially as I conduct some further research into methodological debates in the field since this is something that I touched on only briefly in my thesis. I really like your suggestion that the critical perspective be used to bookend the discussion of the methods that we used, and I will be thinking about ways to implement this.
Hi Laura,
As for the presentation part, I write everything I am going to say in a Microsoft Word document. I highlight areas where I have carefully worded (for tone, emphasis, humour etc) and I will actually read those parts from the paper directly. To help me memorize, I practice in front of a mirror or stand in front of a wall and rehearse my presentation with the powerpoint slides and a stop watch over and over. Tone and the placement of sentences (like a sandwich: good statement – critical statement – good statement) can help with presenting your critical analysis…that way you don’t sound like you are attacking anyone, just making observations with evidence to back it up.
Color and style on powerpoint means everything; the text, the font, the alignment of text, pictures and the colours. A light background makes if effective for the audience to focus on text, whereas a red background has been found to make audiences agitated and distracted. I try to include a picture on every slide that is relevant to the text because in my opinion, there is nothing more boring than long sentences on a slide with no pictures to engage the audience. I took two classes on the presentation of anthropological and forensic data at U of T so I don’t mind discussing powerpoint more with you in person.
Hi Lia,
Thanks so much for your suggestions! I also write out a “script” for the presentation, and have it with me in case my mind goes blank while I’m presenting. Usually by the time I actually give the presentation I have practiced enough that it is mostly by memory, but it is definitely nice to have the script for those portions for which wording is crucial.
I try to have as many pictures and as few words as possible on my slides, but colour choice is always something I struggle with – I would really like to discuss this more later if you wouldn’t mind!