How to model Resting Place

[stephenhart8]

Resting Place pattern in TM 2.1

For the moment, in the Target Model 2.1, the resting place of individuals (or, in other words, grave locations) have been modelled as follows:

The post-death move of the E21_Person to their grave is represented through an E9_Move event. It is the simplest modelling solution to the representation of the intentional moving of human remains.
It is an approach similar to the one taken by Linked art:
“ After death, people are still instances of Person which is a subclass of Actor, even though they can no longer carry out activities. People in comas or otherwise completely incapacitated also cannot carry out activities, but are not temporarily non-Actors. The modeling that death is a transformation from an instance of Person to an instance of Thing adds complexity for the sake of purity, but does not add any actual value. Thus a burial activity (aat:300263485) buries a Person, not a Thing-that-used-to-be-a-Person. However if the skeleton is then dug up and exhibited, it is exhibited as a Thing. There is, therefore, a transition at some undetermined point.”
However, it is conceptually problematic since the remains of the dead person are technically no longer fully this E21_Person instance.

Dead Person according to CIDOC CRM

The logic of CIDOC CRM dictates the creation of a E20_Biological_Object instance to replace the E21_Person instance through an instance of E81_Transformation as follows:

Rationale for the simple Resting Place pattern

We can see that this longer and more precise modelling is quite complex and would create nodes that would considerably weigh down the model. Querying burials would be significantly complexified (as it would mean searching the location of the Biological Object, and not the Person), which would burden users.
Because Linked art adopted the same solution, and because there are very few examples of alive people being buried that are recorded (especially as such) in heritage collections, it seems preferable to compromise on semantic preciseness and adopt a simpler model, assuming actors will be buried whilst dead. This is why it is the simple solution that has been adopted in the TM 2.2.

Issue with the simple Resting Place pattern, and example of Ramses II

However, the first, simpler solution used in the TM 2.2 can be problematic in two cases: when multiple moving events of the body of an individual are documented, and when the remains of the individual themselves are documented.
The well-known example of the mummy of Ramses II covers those two cases. Ramses II died around 1213 BCE according to the egyptian chronology. His body was embalmed and deposited in tomb KV7 in the Valley of Kings, but was soon moved and transferred into the tomb KV17 then TT320 by Egyptian priests to protect it from looting. The body was rediscovered in the tomb TT320 in 1881, and then exposed in the Museum of Egyptian Antiquities in Cairo.
The different moves of the body of Ramses II, first in the Ancient Egyptian period, and then in the modern era, would imply the modelling of multiple instances of E9_Move, moving the body from one resting place to the other, before finally arriving at the Museum of Egyptian Antiquities in Cairo (but this resting place is still not final, as the body can still be moved in the future).
The body of Ramses II discovered, studied and recorded in the collections of the museum by archaeologists should be considered as an instance of E20_Biological_Object. The transformation of the person of Ramses II (instance of E21_Person) into an object (instance of E20_Biological_Object) must have occurred at some time between his death and the discovery of his remains.
Following CIDOC CRM’s scope note of E81_Transformation, the transformation of the person into the biological object happens at the moment of the death of the person, through double instantiation.
This example would then be modeled as follow:

If the case of the mummy of Ramses II is unique in how well documented it is, museums nonetheless often record human remains in their collections. In such cases, the use of a more complex post-death pattern would also be needed.
However, most of the cases of Resting Place documented in heritage databases concern simpler examples of the location of the grave of an individual, especially in genealogical databases or census records. Those numerous cases would benefit a more simple pattern to simplify queries.

Use of a Type on the Resting Place

In the TM 2.2, the resting place node, an instance of E53_Place, has the type “Burial Place”. The issue is that this type would apply to the instance of the place itself (for example “Montréal”) in every context, and not just the context of the burial of a specific individual. This means that, in the Knowledge Graph, the place “Montréal” would always be associated with the type “Burial Place”.
Is this generalization problematic?
To avoid this generalization, there are two options:
Avoid any E55_Type on the E53_Place. This means the location will not be characterized as a burial place
Have a sub-place: create a instance of E53_Place, specific to the location of the grave, type it with an instance of E55_Type”burial place”, and link it to the documented instance of E53_Place with the property P89_falls_within. For example, if the location of the grave documented is “Rose Bay Cemetery”, then an instance of E53_place, type with “burial place” would fall within the instance of E53_place for “Rose Bay Cemetery”. Similarly, if the location is not well known (for example just documented within a city), the same procedure will apply. An instance of E53_place, type with “burial place” would fall within the instance of E53_place for the more general location (like a city).

Questions

A few questions should therefore be answered:

• How to account for moves of remains that are in and of themselves the important cultural element (e.g. discovery of mass graves, etc.)
• Is the categorization of human remains as “object” problematic in some cases (e.g. human remains that still have cultural significance)?
• Concerning the moves and use of biological objects, is the more complex pattern needed? Are there sufficient cases to justify the development and use of a complex pattern?
• If the first answers are yes, how to handle the simple cases?
  • Should there be 2 patterns, one for the complex case, one for the simple ones?
  • Could there be some sort of shortcut for the more simple cases? Would this shortcut involve instances of E20_Biological_Object?
• Concerning the Type on the location, is it an issue? If so:
  • What solution is the best? Removing the type or creating a sub-place?
  • Are there other solutions to this problem?

[marielmat]

Je m'éloigne un peu du sujet, mais je trouve qu'il est en lien avec la présence de matière organique ou de restes humains dans nos collections. Les "restes" d'une personne ne se retrouvent pas nécessairement à un seul endroit.

Exemples :

scalp - image non diffusée

momie - image non diffusée

parure frontale - Cet exemple soulève la question des "matériaux"/éléments d'origine animale (plumes d'oiseau, becs de canard, etc.) qui entrent dans la composition des objets.

chandail et chaussettes

perruque - Chevelure de soeur Saint-Calixte (Malvina Dagneau, 1862-1936), s.c.q., lors de son entrée au Noviciat en 1883, à 21 ans. Cette chevelure a coiffé aussi la statue de sainte Laurentia, statue en cire, revêtue de velours et d'or, dont le gisant reposait sous la table du maître-autel du Couvent de Lévis, avec une relique insigne de la jeune martyre. Après environ 37 ans (1930-1967), l'autel ayant été transformé pour des raisons d'adaptations liturgiques, la statue, sa relique et la chevelure dorée de soeur Saint-Calixte, sont revenus au musée des Soeurs de la Charité de Québec.

reliques

Commentaires émis par Stephen lors d'une discussion que nous avons eue à ce sujet sur Slack le 12 juillet 2021 :

• Que dire des personnes (types saints) qui ont des os ou restes aux 4 coins du monde

• Ou même des restes supposés (comme certains saints qui se retrouve à avoir 4 tibias)

• L’avantage avec le biological object, c’est qu’on peut plus facilement le décomposer en plusieurs éléments

• Cela dit, le cas du chandail est intéressant: ici il ne s’agit pas des restes d’un défunt, mais des restes d’une personne bien vivante (comme certaines oeuvres modernes composées d’ongles). Comment documenter cela? Que l’oeuvre est composée de E20_Biological_object qui provient d’un E21_Person. Mais quels liens entre E20 et E21?