I was lucky enough to already know a handful of my classmates before we all touched down in Cyprus. It was strange to see them here, even though I had been expecting them. How odd to watch each other go about our days in one country, and then be thrust together in a dusty pit together for four weeks in another? Very odd. But not unwelcome.  

Two of my classmates here in Cyprus were also my classmates in Dr. Michaela Stock’s Forensic Anthropology class at Metro. I never thought I would be interested in forensic anything, my stomach too weak for even paper cuts, but Dr. Stock is an icon and an American hero, so I registered for the class anyway.  

And I loved it. 

It’s not something I would consider for myself professionally, but the intersection between what a forensic anthropologist does and what an archaeologist does is important. I always explain archaeology to people who think I dig up dinosaurs like this: “I excavate culture. Pottery, weapons, tools. Things that people left behind. I don’t care about what dinosaurs are doing. That’s none of my business.” 

Sometimes, people follow up my explanation with a question, which is almost always: “Do you dig up bodies?” 

And while I have never dug up a body, I reply that sometimes archaeologists do.  

The conversation usually devolves from there. 

The difference between the work of a forensic anthropologist and an archaeologist is, in my opinion, a separation of intent. The intention of a forensic anthropologist is to study the remains of a person and decide how they died, when they died, and infer any information about the individual they can based on that information, as well as through gathering a biological profile. An archaeologists’ intention is to decipher what information the remains of an individual can contribute to the site in which they were discovered.  

The exhibit titled “Five” in the Nicosia Archaeological Museum is where the two intents intersect into one greater example of anthropological study.  

The exhibit chronicles the lives of five individuals from different areas of Cyprus, detailing where they were found and what the region was like at the time of their deaths. It expands on each set of remains to create a story for each person, using abnormalities in biological profile to invent anecdotes. For example, one woman had a notch in her teeth where she would have dragged a thread as she sewed. From that, we can infer that she was a seamstress.  

The things the individuals were buried with also relate to their stories. One person, a child, was found with a diadem and earrings, which means that they were likely from a well-off family.  

The locations where each individual was found help to paint the picture, like a man born in a fishing village with a healed over wrist sprain, which could have been a result of the work he was doing on boats.  

Some unhealed injuries give insight into the deaths of these individuals, like a man who had many perimortem injuries was illustrated to have been thrown from his horse. 

To see the ways in which the forensic aspect of the discovered remains helps to provide context to the cultural aspect that goes with archaeology was so incredible to see right before my eyes in a museum. 

And to get to see it with Annika and Rachel was a treat. We were geeking out and taking pictures to show Dr. Stock. It was funny to remember sitting in that classroom together, with no idea where we would be in a few short months, taking about the same things in a new place. 

-Abby