Paper short abstract:

Philosophy has had remarkably little to say about death, while ethicists have remained oddly muted on the subject of the dead and their treatment within Archaeology - thus, a study of our "obligations" to the dead, through comparison of Kantianism and Utilitarianism, are the ambitions of this paper.

Paper long abstract:

Considerable though the cultural, social and palaeopathological legacy of Forensic Archaeology may be, the irony of how minimal ethical considerations regarding human remains excavation and exhumation have been is especially pronounced given the emotivism of a number of aspects of the discipline. The purpose of this paper, then, is two-fold - acknowledging the paucity of scholarship unifying these areas, to (a) illuminate the rich inter-disciplinary potential of Moral Philosophy and Forensic Archaeology, and (b) proffer a viable theoretical model for undertaking such applied work through comparison of Kantian and Utilitarian Ethics. More specifically, and with that latter aim in mind, my research promotes a cultural-metaphysical rather than empirical-hedonistic personhood that takes into account the "needs, views and desires" of the dead, viewing them as formerly sensate agents rather than mere relics to be analysed.

Of the two schools of moral thought cited, I defend Kant's Doctrine of Ends, arguing that treatment of the dead as Ends rather than purely as an investigative Means more ably caters for and tempers social, religious and epistemic controversies bound up in human remains excavation. By contrast, I contend that Utilitarianism can scarcely ensure the happiness of the greatest number if its implied sympathy for perception and experience satisfies only living beneficiaries.

Philosophy has had remarkably little to say about death, while ethicists have remained oddly muted on the subject of the dead and their treatment within Archaeology - thus, a study of our "obligations" to the dead, through comparison of Kantianism and Utilitarianism, are the dual ambitions of this paper.

Paper short abstract:

The period between 2600-2200 B.C. saw the development at Troy of a newly established culture which manifests itself through the monumental representations of free-standing buildings, intensive use of metals in conjunction with the long distance exchange and trade of commodities. Around 2200 B.C. the cultural progress seems to underwent a clear decline and resignation.The aim of this paper is to identify the different factors behind this general process of decline and to analyse the contributory ideological factors.

Paper long abstract:

Throughout the changes at Early Bronze Age Troy, although there seems to be a remarkable continuity and a gradual development, it is obvious that with the introduction of Troy II culture around 2500 BC some major changes occur both in the material culture and in the architecture. All of these developments and changes observed with the raise of Troy II culture seem to come to a sudden and abrupt end by a big conflagration which eventually caused the total destruction of the site. A severe burning is attested in every part of the citadel. Not only the monumental structures of the inner citadel are covered by destruction debris of more than one meter thick but the fortifications as well. Interestingly enough very few findings were recovered under the debris and on the floors of the buildings. This extraordinary situation is significant in that it brings to mind a deliberate act of ‘getting rid of the evidence’. Whether this is a symbolic act of some political manifestation or whether this is a reflection of some inner conflict needs to be sought after. The issue at stake is to be able to discover the dynamics behind such a vast scale culture change.

In understanding the nature and meaning of EBA Trojan collapse, my focus will be on social networks and their material representation as reflected by archaeological data.