some time ago, Martin, I and a few others discussed burials,
and the way humans think about and relate to dead ancestors.

One question in this context was if similar behaviour can
be found in other animals. Here's a short paper on a
recently discovered "elephant graveyard" - carefully argued
I'd say, without overegging the evidence
https://theconversation.com/elephant-calves-have-been-found-buried-what-does-that-mean-225409?

and here the academic paper it's based on
https://threatenedtaxa.org/index.php/JoTT/article/view/8826

b.schafer@ed.ac.uk (Burkhard) writes:

> some time ago, Martin, I and a few others discussed burials, and the
> way humans think about and relate to dead ancestors.
>
> One question in this context was if similar behaviour can be found in
> other animals. Here's a short paper on a recently discovered "elephant
> graveyard" - carefully argued I'd say, without overegging the evidence
> https://theconversation.com/elephant-calves-have-been-found-buried-what-does-that-mean-225409?
>
> and here the academic paper it's based on
> https://threatenedtaxa.org/index.php/JoTT/article/view/8826

There might be an evolutionary advantage in burying dead, as it doesn't
assist the enemies of the elephant by giving them an easy meal. Lions
can probably smell a corps from some distance if it isn't buried.

I searched back for discussions about burial and found a rather hostile
one about Homo naledi.

On Mon, 18 Mar 2024 09:47:06 +0000, b.schafer@ed.ac.uk (Burkhard)
wrote:

>some time ago, Martin, I and a few others discussed burials,
>and the way humans think about and relate to dead ancestors.
>
>One question in this context was if similar behaviour can
>be found in other animals. Here's a short paper on a
>recently discovered "elephant graveyard" - carefully argued
>I'd say, without overegging the evidence
>https://theconversation.com/elephant-calves-have-been-found-buried-what-does-that-mean-225409?
>
>and here the academic paper it's based on
>https://threatenedtaxa.org/index.php/JoTT/article/view/8826

They have not overegged it in regard to the findings suggesting
*burial* but I see nothing to support a jump from that to *grieving*.

Martin Harran wrote:

> On Mon, 18 Mar 2024 09:47:06 +0000, b.schafer@ed.ac.uk (Burkhard)
> wrote:

>>some time ago, Martin, I and a few others discussed burials,
>>and the way humans think about and relate to dead ancestors.
>>
>>One question in this context was if similar behaviour can
>>be found in other animals. Here's a short paper on a
>>recently discovered "elephant graveyard" - carefully argued
>>I'd say, without overegging the evidence
>>https://theconversation.com/elephant-calves-have-been-found-buried-what-does-that-mean-225409?
>>
>>and here the academic paper it's based on
>>https://threatenedtaxa.org/index.php/JoTT/article/view/8826

> They have not overegged it in regard to the findings suggesting
> *burial* but I see nothing to support a jump from that to *grieving*.

That's because that was not the subject of that study, for this
you'd need to follow the links that they provide, which gets you
inter alia to Anderson JR. 2016 Comparative thanatology.
Curr. Biol. 26, R543–R556. who discusses
the emotional underpinnings of these activities. The findings
about burials support the analysis in studies like Anderson's

On Fri, 22 Mar 2024 13:09:45 +0000, b.schafer@ed.ac.uk (Burkhard)
wrote:

>Martin Harran wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 18 Mar 2024 09:47:06 +0000, b.schafer@ed.ac.uk (Burkhard)
>> wrote:
>
>>>some time ago, Martin, I and a few others discussed burials,
>>>and the way humans think about and relate to dead ancestors.
>>>
>>>One question in this context was if similar behaviour can
>>>be found in other animals. Here's a short paper on a
>>>recently discovered "elephant graveyard" - carefully argued
>>>I'd say, without overegging the evidence
>>>https://theconversation.com/elephant-calves-have-been-found-buried-what-does-that-mean-225409?
>>>
>>>and here the academic paper it's based on
>>>https://threatenedtaxa.org/index.php/JoTT/article/view/8826
>
>> They have not overegged it in regard to the findings suggesting
>> *burial* but I see nothing to support a jump from that to *grieving*.
>
>That's because that was not the subject of that study, for this
>you'd need to follow the links that they provide, which gets you
>inter alia to Anderson JR. 2016 Comparative thanatology.
>Curr. Biol. 26, R543–R556. who discusses
>the emotional underpinnings of these activities. The findings
>about burials support the analysis in studies like Anderson's

I was reacting to the summary in your first link where they say "If
this conclusion is accurate, these observations could indicate an
understanding of *death and grief* potentially unlike anything else
we've seen in the animal kingdom, revealing yet another way in which
humans are not as unique as previously thought." (My emphasis added.)

I haven't read the full paper but a quick search for grief/grieving
doesn't turn up anything in it so I assume the authors didn't make
this association, it was the person who wrote the article for The
Conversation who claim to exercise "academic rigour, journalistic
flair."

Martin Harran wrote:

> On Fri, 22 Mar 2024 13:09:45 +0000, b.schafer@ed.ac.uk (Burkhard)
> wrote:

>>Martin Harran wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 18 Mar 2024 09:47:06 +0000, b.schafer@ed.ac.uk (Burkhard)
>>> wrote:
>>
>>>>some time ago, Martin, I and a few others discussed burials,
>>>>and the way humans think about and relate to dead ancestors.
>>>>
>>>>One question in this context was if similar behaviour can
>>>>be found in other animals. Here's a short paper on a
>>>>recently discovered "elephant graveyard" - carefully argued
>>>>I'd say, without overegging the evidence
>>>>https://theconversation.com/elephant-calves-have-been-found-buried-what-does-that-mean-225409?
>>>>
>>>>and here the academic paper it's based on
>>>>https://threatenedtaxa.org/index.php/JoTT/article/view/8826
>>
>>> They have not overegged it in regard to the findings suggesting
>>> *burial* but I see nothing to support a jump from that to *grieving*.
>>
>>That's because that was not the subject of that study, for this
>>you'd need to follow the links that they provide, which gets you
>>inter alia to Anderson JR. 2016 Comparative thanatology.
>>Curr. Biol. 26, R543–R556. who discusses
>>the emotional underpinnings of these activities. The findings
>>about burials support the analysis in studies like Anderson's

> I was reacting to the summary in your first link where they say "If
> this conclusion is accurate, these observations could indicate an
> understanding of *death and grief* potentially unlike anything else
> we've seen in the animal kingdom, revealing yet another way in which
> humans are not as unique as previously thought." (My emphasis added.)

> I haven't read the full paper but a quick search for grief/grieving
> doesn't turn up anything in it so I assume the authors didn't make
> this association, it was the person who wrote the article for The
> Conversation who claim to exercise "academic rigour, journalistic
> flair."

That seems a bit unfair, There is a "could" and a "potentially" in
there, and that seems perfectly plausible. We observe a behaviour
in population A that we know is (also) a reaction to grief. We
then observe the same behaviour in population B, and there is
no obvious explanation other than grief. Concluding on that basis
that this "could" be an indicator that also population B experiences
grief seems OK - one can then reject the explanation, on all sorts of
grounds, but that does not change the fact that the case for grief is
stronger with this observation than without it.

On Fri, 22 Mar 2024 16:43:02 +0000, b.schafer@ed.ac.uk (Burkhard)
wrote:

>Martin Harran wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 22 Mar 2024 13:09:45 +0000, b.schafer@ed.ac.uk (Burkhard)
>> wrote:
>
>>>Martin Harran wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 18 Mar 2024 09:47:06 +0000, b.schafer@ed.ac.uk (Burkhard)
>>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>some time ago, Martin, I and a few others discussed burials,
>>>>>and the way humans think about and relate to dead ancestors.
>>>>>
>>>>>One question in this context was if similar behaviour can
>>>>>be found in other animals. Here's a short paper on a
>>>>>recently discovered "elephant graveyard" - carefully argued
>>>>>I'd say, without overegging the evidence
>>>>>https://theconversation.com/elephant-calves-have-been-found-buried-what-does-that-mean-225409?
>>>>>
>>>>>and here the academic paper it's based on
>>>>>https://threatenedtaxa.org/index.php/JoTT/article/view/8826
>>>
>>>> They have not overegged it in regard to the findings suggesting
>>>> *burial* but I see nothing to support a jump from that to *grieving*.
>>>
>>>That's because that was not the subject of that study, for this
>>>you'd need to follow the links that they provide, which gets you
>>>inter alia to Anderson JR. 2016 Comparative thanatology.
>>>Curr. Biol. 26, R543?R556. who discusses
>>>the emotional underpinnings of these activities. The findings
>>>about burials support the analysis in studies like Anderson's
>
>> I was reacting to the summary in your first link where they say "If
>> this conclusion is accurate, these observations could indicate an
>> understanding of *death and grief* potentially unlike anything else
>> we've seen in the animal kingdom, revealing yet another way in which
>> humans are not as unique as previously thought." (My emphasis added.)
>
>> I haven't read the full paper but a quick search for grief/grieving
>> doesn't turn up anything in it so I assume the authors didn't make
>> this association, it was the person who wrote the article for The
>> Conversation who claim to exercise "academic rigour, journalistic
>> flair."
>
>That seems a bit unfair, There is a "could" and a "potentially" in
>there, and that seems perfectly plausible. We observe a behaviour
>in population A that we know is (also) a reaction to grief. We
>then observe the same behaviour in population B, and there is
>no obvious explanation other than grief. Concluding on that basis
>that this "could" be an indicator that also population B experiences
>grief seems OK - one can then reject the explanation, on all sorts of
> grounds, but that does not change the fact that the case for grief is
>stronger with this observation than without it.

I don't think I am being unfair. Various people have commented here at
various times about writers of 'popular science' articles stretching
claims beyond what the researchers themselves claim. This is another
example of that. Acceptable, perhaps, in a newspaper article but IMO
not acceptable in a source claiming academic rigour.

Just for clarity, I don't have any issue with animal burials or animal
grieving, my issue is with unwarranted conclusions. There is
significant evidence to support animals burying their dead, but I
haven't seen anything that directly supports them grieving.

Martin Harran wrote:

> On Fri, 22 Mar 2024 16:43:02 +0000, b.schafer@ed.ac.uk (Burkhard)
> wrote:

>>Martin Harran wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 22 Mar 2024 13:09:45 +0000, b.schafer@ed.ac.uk (Burkhard)
>>> wrote:
>>
>>>>Martin Harran wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, 18 Mar 2024 09:47:06 +0000, b.schafer@ed.ac.uk (Burkhard)
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>some time ago, Martin, I and a few others discussed burials,
>>>>>>and the way humans think about and relate to dead ancestors.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>One question in this context was if similar behaviour can
>>>>>>be found in other animals. Here's a short paper on a
>>>>>>recently discovered "elephant graveyard" - carefully argued
>>>>>>I'd say, without overegging the evidence
>>>>>>https://theconversation.com/elephant-calves-have-been-found-buried-what-does-that-mean-225409?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>and here the academic paper it's based on
>>>>>>https://threatenedtaxa.org/index.php/JoTT/article/view/8826
>>>>
>>>>> They have not overegged it in regard to the findings suggesting
>>>>> *burial* but I see nothing to support a jump from that to *grieving*.
>>>>
>>>>That's because that was not the subject of that study, for this
>>>>you'd need to follow the links that they provide, which gets you
>>>>inter alia to Anderson JR. 2016 Comparative thanatology.
>>>>Curr. Biol. 26, R543?R556. who discusses
>>>>the emotional underpinnings of these activities. The findings
>>>>about burials support the analysis in studies like Anderson's
>>
>>> I was reacting to the summary in your first link where they say "If
>>> this conclusion is accurate, these observations could indicate an
>>> understanding of *death and grief* potentially unlike anything else
>>> we've seen in the animal kingdom, revealing yet another way in which
>>> humans are not as unique as previously thought." (My emphasis added.)
>>
>>> I haven't read the full paper but a quick search for grief/grieving
>>> doesn't turn up anything in it so I assume the authors didn't make
>>> this association, it was the person who wrote the article for The
>>> Conversation who claim to exercise "academic rigour, journalistic
>>> flair."
>>
>>That seems a bit unfair, There is a "could" and a "potentially" in
>>there, and that seems perfectly plausible. We observe a behaviour
>>in population A that we know is (also) a reaction to grief. We
>>then observe the same behaviour in population B, and there is
>>no obvious explanation other than grief. Concluding on that basis
>>that this "could" be an indicator that also population B experiences
>>grief seems OK - one can then reject the explanation, on all sorts of
>> grounds, but that does not change the fact that the case for grief is
>>stronger with this observation than without it.

> I don't think I am being unfair. Various people have commented here at
> various times about writers of 'popular science' articles stretching
> claims beyond what the researchers themselves claim. This is another
> example of that. Acceptable, perhaps, in a newspaper article but IMO
> not acceptable in a source claiming academic rigour.

> Just for clarity, I don't have any issue with animal burials or animal
> grieving, my issue is with unwarranted conclusions. There is
> significant evidence to support animals burying their dead, but I
> haven't seen anything that directly supports them grieving.

Sure, popular writing "can" be misleading. But the question is if this
is an example of it And you do not address the argument I made. So
to restate, I'd say if we observe in one population a behaviour X that
is explained through grieving, and we then observe the same behaviour
in a different population Y, and don't have any other explanation why
they do X, that I'd say is at least some evidence that the first
population also experiences grief - definitely enough to permit that
these "could" indicate grief. After all, if not similarity in behaviour
what other indication could there possibly be?

On Sat, 23 Mar 2024 13:06:50 +0000, b.schafer@ed.ac.uk (Burkhard)
wrote:

>Martin Harran wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 22 Mar 2024 16:43:02 +0000, b.schafer@ed.ac.uk (Burkhard)
>> wrote:
>
>>>Martin Harran wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 22 Mar 2024 13:09:45 +0000, b.schafer@ed.ac.uk (Burkhard)
>>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>Martin Harran wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, 18 Mar 2024 09:47:06 +0000, b.schafer@ed.ac.uk (Burkhard)
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>some time ago, Martin, I and a few others discussed burials,
>>>>>>>and the way humans think about and relate to dead ancestors.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>One question in this context was if similar behaviour can
>>>>>>>be found in other animals. Here's a short paper on a
>>>>>>>recently discovered "elephant graveyard" - carefully argued
>>>>>>>I'd say, without overegging the evidence
>>>>>>>https://theconversation.com/elephant-calves-have-been-found-buried-what-does-that-mean-225409?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>and here the academic paper it's based on
>>>>>>>https://threatenedtaxa.org/index.php/JoTT/article/view/8826
>>>>>
>>>>>> They have not overegged it in regard to the findings suggesting
>>>>>> *burial* but I see nothing to support a jump from that to *grieving*.
>>>>>
>>>>>That's because that was not the subject of that study, for this
>>>>>you'd need to follow the links that they provide, which gets you
>>>>>inter alia to Anderson JR. 2016 Comparative thanatology.
>>>>>Curr. Biol. 26, R543?R556. who discusses
>>>>>the emotional underpinnings of these activities. The findings
>>>>>about burials support the analysis in studies like Anderson's
>>>
>>>> I was reacting to the summary in your first link where they say "If
>>>> this conclusion is accurate, these observations could indicate an
>>>> understanding of *death and grief* potentially unlike anything else
>>>> we've seen in the animal kingdom, revealing yet another way in which
>>>> humans are not as unique as previously thought." (My emphasis added.)
>>>
>>>> I haven't read the full paper but a quick search for grief/grieving
>>>> doesn't turn up anything in it so I assume the authors didn't make
>>>> this association, it was the person who wrote the article for The
>>>> Conversation who claim to exercise "academic rigour, journalistic
>>>> flair."
>>>
>>>That seems a bit unfair, There is a "could" and a "potentially" in
>>>there, and that seems perfectly plausible. We observe a behaviour
>>>in population A that we know is (also) a reaction to grief. We
>>>then observe the same behaviour in population B, and there is
>>>no obvious explanation other than grief. Concluding on that basis
>>>that this "could" be an indicator that also population B experiences
>>>grief seems OK - one can then reject the explanation, on all sorts of
>>> grounds, but that does not change the fact that the case for grief is
>>>stronger with this observation than without it.
>
>> I don't think I am being unfair. Various people have commented here at
>> various times about writers of 'popular science' articles stretching
>> claims beyond what the researchers themselves claim. This is another
>> example of that. Acceptable, perhaps, in a newspaper article but IMO
>> not acceptable in a source claiming academic rigour.
>
>> Just for clarity, I don't have any issue with animal burials or animal
>> grieving, my issue is with unwarranted conclusions. There is
>> significant evidence to support animals burying their dead, but I
>> haven't seen anything that directly supports them grieving.
>
>Sure, popular writing "can" be misleading. But the question is if this
>is an example of it And you do not address the argument I made. So
>to restate, I'd say if we observe in one population a behaviour X that
>is explained through grieving, and we then observe the same behaviour
>in a different population Y, and don't have any other explanation why
>they do X, that I'd say is at least some evidence that the first
>population also experiences grief - definitely enough to permit that
>these "could" indicate grief. After all, if not similarity in behaviour
>what other indication could there possibly be?

I think we are maybe drifting back towards a discussion we had some
time ago about the nature of evidence - not that I have any problem
with that!

In regard to the topic at hand, I think there would have to be some
reason to think that the primary if not sole purpose of Behaviour A is
to deal with Behaviour B. I can think of various evolutionary
advantages to burial that don't involve grief; hygiene is an obvious
one and Richmond has suggested another. An example of what would
impress me far more about animal grief is if we had evidence of other
animals visiting burial sites for no physical reason in the way that
we humans visit the graves of our relatives and friends - I can't see
any evolutionary advantage in doing that.

On Sat, 23 Mar 2024 13:46:25 +0000, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com>
wrote in <h8ntvi97fq7kah1v3sslnjesum0blo5mmo@4ax.com>:

> On Sat, 23 Mar 2024 13:06:50 +0000, b.schafer@ed.ac.uk (Burkhard) wrote:
>
>>Martin Harran wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 22 Mar 2024 16:43:02 +0000, b.schafer@ed.ac.uk (Burkhard)
>>> wrote:
>>
>>>>Martin Harran wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 22 Mar 2024 13:09:45 +0000, b.schafer@ed.ac.uk (Burkhard)
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>Martin Harran wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mon, 18 Mar 2024 09:47:06 +0000, b.schafer@ed.ac.uk (Burkhard)
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>some time ago, Martin, I and a few others discussed burials,
>>>>>>>>and the way humans think about and relate to dead ancestors.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>One question in this context was if similar behaviour can be found
>>>>>>>>in other animals. Here's a short paper on a recently discovered
>>>>>>>>"elephant graveyard" - carefully argued I'd say, without
>>>>>>>>overegging the evidence
>>>>>>>>https://theconversation.com/elephant-calves-have-been-found-
buried-what-does-that-mean-225409?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>and here the academic paper it's based on
>>>>>>>>https://threatenedtaxa.org/index.php/JoTT/article/view/8826
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> They have not overegged it in regard to the findings suggesting
>>>>>>> *burial* but I see nothing to support a jump from that to
>>>>>>> *grieving*.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>That's because that was not the subject of that study, for this
>>>>>>you'd need to follow the links that they provide, which gets you
>>>>>>inter alia to Anderson JR. 2016 Comparative thanatology.
>>>>>>Curr. Biol. 26, R543?R556. who discusses the emotional underpinnings
>>>>>>of these activities. The findings about burials support the analysis
>>>>>>in studies like Anderson's
>>>>
>>>>> I was reacting to the summary in your first link where they say "If
>>>>> this conclusion is accurate, these observations could indicate an
>>>>> understanding of *death and grief* potentially unlike anything else
>>>>> we've seen in the animal kingdom, revealing yet another way in which
>>>>> humans are not as unique as previously thought." (My emphasis
>>>>> added.)
>>>>
>>>>> I haven't read the full paper but a quick search for grief/grieving
>>>>> doesn't turn up anything in it so I assume the authors didn't make
>>>>> this association, it was the person who wrote the article for The
>>>>> Conversation who claim to exercise "academic rigour, journalistic
>>>>> flair."
>>>>
>>>>That seems a bit unfair, There is a "could" and a "potentially" in
>>>>there, and that seems perfectly plausible. We observe a behaviour in
>>>>population A that we know is (also) a reaction to grief. We then
>>>>observe the same behaviour in population B, and there is no obvious
>>>>explanation other than grief. Concluding on that basis that this
>>>>"could" be an indicator that also population B experiences grief seems
>>>>OK - one can then reject the explanation, on all sorts of
>>>> grounds, but that does not change the fact that the case for grief is
>>>>stronger with this observation than without it.
>>
>>> I don't think I am being unfair. Various people have commented here at
>>> various times about writers of 'popular science' articles stretching
>>> claims beyond what the researchers themselves claim. This is another
>>> example of that. Acceptable, perhaps, in a newspaper article but IMO
>>> not acceptable in a source claiming academic rigour.
>>
>>> Just for clarity, I don't have any issue with animal burials or animal
>>> grieving, my issue is with unwarranted conclusions. There is
>>> significant evidence to support animals burying their dead, but I
>>> haven't seen anything that directly supports them grieving.
>>
>>Sure, popular writing "can" be misleading. But the question is if this
>>is an example of it And you do not address the argument I made. So to
>>restate, I'd say if we observe in one population a behaviour X that is
>>explained through grieving, and we then observe the same behaviour in a
>>different population Y, and don't have any other explanation why they do
>>X, that I'd say is at least some evidence that the first population also
>>experiences grief - definitely enough to permit that these "could"
>>indicate grief. After all, if not similarity in behaviour what other
>>indication could there possibly be?
>
> I think we are maybe drifting back towards a discussion we had some time
> ago about the nature of evidence - not that I have any problem with
> that!
>
> In regard to the topic at hand, I think there would have to be some
> reason to think that the primary if not sole purpose of Behaviour A is
> to deal with Behaviour B. I can think of various evolutionary
> advantages to burial that don't involve grief; hygiene is an obvious one
> and Richmond has suggested another. An example of what would impress me
> far more about animal grief is if we had evidence of other animals
> visiting burial sites for no physical reason in the way that we humans
> visit the graves of our relatives and friends - I can't see any
> evolutionary advantage in doing that.

I don't know if this matters, but National Geographic has published
videos of elephants coming across elephant bones and engaged in
what appears to be grieving. Search on Youtube for "elephants
mourning" or "elephants grieving" and see for yourself the
behaviors.

Coming to that conclusion is very subjective, though.
What thoughts are going through the elephants' minds?
Are they just curious, or are they "actually" mourning?

However, I believe it is now common knowledge
that animals have feelings. I once attended a talk
by Jane Goodall where she mentioned this being established
in academia, amid much skepticism, answering the
question, "do animals have feelings?" "Of course they
do!" she said, and (paraphrasing) "anyone with a pet will
tell you the same". I daresay elephants are smarter
than your average pet.

However, I suspect the best way to tell if elephant
_burials_ are mourning behaviors is to actually observe
how they go about it. I'm not sure that behavior
has been witnessed yet.

Having said all that: compared to you all, I'm just
a semi-educated and semi-literate layman. But this
subject fascinates me.

--
-Scott

Martin Harran wrote:

> On Sat, 23 Mar 2024 13:06:50 +0000, b.schafer@ed.ac.uk (Burkhard)
> wrote:

>>Martin Harran wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 22 Mar 2024 16:43:02 +0000, b.schafer@ed.ac.uk (Burkhard)
>>> wrote:
>>
>>>>Martin Harran wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 22 Mar 2024 13:09:45 +0000, b.schafer@ed.ac.uk (Burkhard)
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>Martin Harran wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mon, 18 Mar 2024 09:47:06 +0000, b.schafer@ed.ac.uk (Burkhard)
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>some time ago, Martin, I and a few others discussed burials,
>>>>>>>>and the way humans think about and relate to dead ancestors.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>One question in this context was if similar behaviour can
>>>>>>>>be found in other animals. Here's a short paper on a
>>>>>>>>recently discovered "elephant graveyard" - carefully argued
>>>>>>>>I'd say, without overegging the evidence
>>>>>>>>https://theconversation.com/elephant-calves-have-been-found-buried-what-does-that-mean-225409?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>and here the academic paper it's based on
>>>>>>>>https://threatenedtaxa.org/index.php/JoTT/article/view/8826
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> They have not overegged it in regard to the findings suggesting
>>>>>>> *burial* but I see nothing to support a jump from that to *grieving*.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>That's because that was not the subject of that study, for this
>>>>>>you'd need to follow the links that they provide, which gets you
>>>>>>inter alia to Anderson JR. 2016 Comparative thanatology.
>>>>>>Curr. Biol. 26, R543?R556. who discusses
>>>>>>the emotional underpinnings of these activities. The findings
>>>>>>about burials support the analysis in studies like Anderson's
>>>>
>>>>> I was reacting to the summary in your first link where they say "If
>>>>> this conclusion is accurate, these observations could indicate an
>>>>> understanding of *death and grief* potentially unlike anything else
>>>>> we've seen in the animal kingdom, revealing yet another way in which
>>>>> humans are not as unique as previously thought." (My emphasis added.)
>>>>
>>>>> I haven't read the full paper but a quick search for grief/grieving
>>>>> doesn't turn up anything in it so I assume the authors didn't make
>>>>> this association, it was the person who wrote the article for The
>>>>> Conversation who claim to exercise "academic rigour, journalistic
>>>>> flair."
>>>>
>>>>That seems a bit unfair, There is a "could" and a "potentially" in
>>>>there, and that seems perfectly plausible. We observe a behaviour
>>>>in population A that we know is (also) a reaction to grief. We
>>>>then observe the same behaviour in population B, and there is
>>>>no obvious explanation other than grief. Concluding on that basis
>>>>that this "could" be an indicator that also population B experiences
>>>>grief seems OK - one can then reject the explanation, on all sorts of
>>>> grounds, but that does not change the fact that the case for grief is
>>>>stronger with this observation than without it.
>>
>>> I don't think I am being unfair. Various people have commented here at
>>> various times about writers of 'popular science' articles stretching
>>> claims beyond what the researchers themselves claim. This is another
>>> example of that. Acceptable, perhaps, in a newspaper article but IMO
>>> not acceptable in a source claiming academic rigour.
>>
>>> Just for clarity, I don't have any issue with animal burials or animal
>>> grieving, my issue is with unwarranted conclusions. There is
>>> significant evidence to support animals burying their dead, but I
>>> haven't seen anything that directly supports them grieving.
>>
>>Sure, popular writing "can" be misleading. But the question is if this
>>is an example of it And you do not address the argument I made. So
>>to restate, I'd say if we observe in one population a behaviour X that
>>is explained through grieving, and we then observe the same behaviour
>>in a different population Y, and don't have any other explanation why
>>they do X, that I'd say is at least some evidence that the first
>>population also experiences grief - definitely enough to permit that
>>these "could" indicate grief. After all, if not similarity in behaviour
>>what other indication could there possibly be?

> I think we are maybe drifting back towards a discussion we had some
> time ago about the nature of evidence - not that I have any problem
> with that!

> In regard to the topic at hand, I think there would have to be some
> reason to think that the primary if not sole purpose of Behaviour A is
> to deal with Behaviour B. I can think of various evolutionary
> advantages to burial that don't involve grief; hygiene is an obvious
> one and Richmond has suggested another. An example of what would
> impress me far more about animal grief is if we had evidence of other
> animals visiting burial sites for no physical reason in the way that
> we humans visit the graves of our relatives and friends - I can't see
> any evolutionary advantage in doing that.

Couple of problems with that line of reasoning I'd say. First, even if
Richmond's or your explanation were convincing, it's still a question
of comparative evaluation of the observation. So starting with a
"one explanation could be grief ..." then leads to formulating
alternatives accounts, which is how science typically progresses.
So putting a hypothesis like this on the table seems perfectly OK
- and again the "could" in the paper doesn't commit to anything more.

(I don't think myself that your or Richmond's explanations are particularly
convincing. Elephants and lions don't compete for food, and while in
very rare circumstances, prides of lions have been seen attacking
elephants, that is exceedingly rare. Add to that the shallow grave
that would not deter a scavenger that can dig, and that it's
a baby elephant that would not provide much food, unlike adults,
I don't see that fly. And hygiene would affect more animals that
stay local, in burrows etc, not free-roaming herds).

Your problems go further than that though. Even if, arguendo, the
behaviour had the benefits you and Richmond describe, why would
that be an argument that it is not driven by grief? As long as
one accepts that emotions in general are (also) the result of
evolution, they seem to be used to motivate organisms to do
things that are beneficial for them - we feel e.g. disgust towards
rotten meat, which makes us not eat rotten meat, which is a
good thing for our health. But that it benefits our health
does not make the feeling of disgust any less real, or
means that we don't act because of that feeling (and not
because of our knowledge of the health risks from putrefaction
meat.

So when you say that you'd only accept evidence of grief
observations of behaviour that has no associated benefits,
you have already prejudged the question and decided that grief
is not an evolved behaviour. And that I'd say would need quite a
bit of evidence in support, to counter studies like those
by John Archer, "Grief from an evolutionary perspective." (2001)
or Tania Reynolds, et al: Child mortality and parental grief:
An evolutionary analysis, New Ideas in Psychology,Volume 59,
2020. While these two focus on humans, they too would face the
difficulty to meet your requirement, i.e. that there must not
be any benefits from experiencing grief, before we accept
it as real.

On Sat, 23 Mar 2024 13:46:25 +0000, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:

[...]

>I think we are maybe drifting back towards a discussion we had some
>time ago about the nature of evidence - not that I have any problem
>with that!

I'd like to go back to something from that discussion, but I'll do it
here rather than add length to the 'burial' part of the discussion - I
will refer back to this post in its own place. I also think this is
relevant to other threads here.

In the previous discussion, I referred to my own understanding of
evidence being heavily influenced by the insights I gained from the
trial of the murderer of my sister-in-law, Attracta Harron.

Attracta went missing on the morning of 12 Dec 2003 whilst walking
home from Lifford to Strabane from weekday Mass. On 28th March, 2004,
21-year-old Trevor Hamilton was charged with Attracta's murder and
trial began on 27th February, 2006. The main evidence [1] against him
was:

===========================================

Traces of Attracta's blood were found in Hamilton's car which was
burnt out at his home on the afternoon of the day she disappeared.
Hamilton claimed he didn't set fire to the car, that it must have been
an intruder but in something of a Sherlock Holme's moment, it turned
out that the family dogs in a pen alongside the car never barked! He
also initially claimed he had not left the house that day but cell
tower records of his mobile phone showed that he had been out and
about in the Strabane that day and a neighbour also came forward to
say she had seen him driving the car.

A farmer from the area reported that around the time that Attracta
disappeared, he had to give way in his tractor to a speeding red car
(Hamilton's car was red) with a woman in the passenger seat with what
looked like streaks of blood on her face. He could not identify the
driver but when he saw Attracta's photo in the newspapers the next
day, he was absolutely sure that she was the woman in the car.

The police recovered ashes from several fires in Hamilton's back
garden and among partially burnt items they found an ATM receipt for a
cash withdrawal she had made; rosary beads and a page from a religious
pamphlet, both limited circulation and matching ones carried by
Attracta; a business card matching one given to her by an architect
involved in the new library in Strabane where she worked; a plaster
which matched an open box of plasters in her home (her husband
explained that she used the plasters on her heels as he shows were
loose fitting).

Attracta's body was found buried in a shallow grave less than 200
yards from Hamilton's home. She had been buried in a large, branded
feed bag matching ones at Hamilton's home (his father drove for a
local feed company whose brand was on the bag) and was covered with
concrete slabs which matched unused ones lying around Hamilton's
house. The pathologist determined that Attracta had died from a severe
blow to her head, likely from an axe-like implement but her body was
too badly decomposed to decide whether or not she had been sexually
assaulted.

Hamilton had been released from prison just four months earlier he had
been released from prison on licence after serving half of a
seven-year sentence for rape and other offences, including threats to
kill; the risk he posed to the public, especially adult women, was
assessed as high (level 3). [2] The prosecution were allowed to
introduce this previous case due to similarities between the two
crimes [3]. For example, the car used by Hamiton in the rape for which
he had been convicted had the handle and window winder removed from
the passenger door; they were also missing on the car burnt-out at his
home.

===========================================

None of the above evidence directly tied Hamiton to Attracta's death
but the prosecution pointed out that Hamilton murdering her was the
only explanation for the evidence in its totality. Charging the jury
at the end of the six-week trial, the judge addressed the same issue.
He explained to the jury that the various elements of evidence are
like strands of a rope; individual strands might be very weak but
entwined together, they could make a very strong rope. Even if one or
two of them got broken, the rope could still be strong. He told the
jury that they should not get caught up too much in the value of
individual pieces of evidence, they should look at the overall picture
presented by the evidence in total.

Hamilton was found unanimously found guilty, a verdict with which the
judge said he totally agreed. Stating that "What you did to Mrs
Harron, a good and loving woman, was at once nauseating and
horrifying, it was the stuff of nightmares and the epitome of the loss
of innocence in our community … What that poor woman experienced as
you prepared to execute her, whatever weapon you used to accomplish
it, was so appalling that it demands retribution of the most severe
kind.", he sentenced Hamilton to the first 'whole life' sentence ever
imposed in Northern Ireland [4]

I think that *totality* of evidence is what gets ignored by posters
like Ron Dean who try to pick holes in isolated pieces of evidence
whilst handwaving away the *overall weight* of evidence from various
sources.

Each piece of evidence in Attracta's trial above can be argued against
on its own. The traces of blood were evidence that Attracta's body
had been in his car but there was no direct evidence to show that he
put it there. He could have claimed (but did not do so) that the items
from the fire were because he had found her handbag tossed into a
ditch and decided to get rid of it in case it would be associated with
him. The farmer could not identify the driver of the car and only
identified Attracta from a newspaper photo. The property around his
house was not particularly secured and anyone could have got access to
the feed bag and slabs, and so on.

In the same way, Dean and others try to build their case, for example,
on parts of the fossil record that are incomplete whilst ignoring the
overwhelming fossil evidence that conclusively shows an overall
pattern of nesting, descent and inheritance.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] More details: https://attracta.martinharran.com/openstate.htm

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trevor_Hamilton

[3] We previously discussed this briefly. The introduction of previous
conviction was the first case allowed under The Criminal Justice
(Evidence) (Northern Ireland) Order 2004 which was the NI
implementation of the UK Criminal Justice Act 2003.

[4] The Appeals Court later changed this to a 35-year tariff. For the
benefit, of those unfamiliar with the UK legal system, that does not
mean he gets out after 35 years, it means he cannot even be
*considered* for parole for at least 35 years.

On Sat, 23 Mar 2024 13:46:25 +0000, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
[…]

>I think we are maybe drifting back towards a discussion we had some
>time ago about the nature of evidence - not that I have any problem
>with that!

On Sun, 24 Mar 2024 17:02:56 +0000, b.schafer@ed.ac.uk (Burkhard)
wrote:

>Martin Harran wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 23 Mar 2024 13:06:50 +0000, b.schafer@ed.ac.uk (Burkhard)
>> wrote:
>
>>>Martin Harran wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 22 Mar 2024 16:43:02 +0000, b.schafer@ed.ac.uk (Burkhard)
>>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>Martin Harran wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, 22 Mar 2024 13:09:45 +0000, b.schafer@ed.ac.uk (Burkhard)
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>Martin Harran wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Mon, 18 Mar 2024 09:47:06 +0000, b.schafer@ed.ac.uk (Burkhard)
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>some time ago, Martin, I and a few others discussed burials,
>>>>>>>>>and the way humans think about and relate to dead ancestors.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>One question in this context was if similar behaviour can
>>>>>>>>>be found in other animals. Here's a short paper on a
>>>>>>>>>recently discovered "elephant graveyard" - carefully argued
>>>>>>>>>I'd say, without overegging the evidence
>>>>>>>>>https://theconversation.com/elephant-calves-have-been-found-buried-what-does-that-mean-225409?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>and here the academic paper it's based on
>>>>>>>>>https://threatenedtaxa.org/index.php/JoTT/article/view/8826
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> They have not overegged it in regard to the findings suggesting
>>>>>>>> *burial* but I see nothing to support a jump from that to *grieving*.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>That's because that was not the subject of that study, for this
>>>>>>>you'd need to follow the links that they provide, which gets you
>>>>>>>inter alia to Anderson JR. 2016 Comparative thanatology.
>>>>>>>Curr. Biol. 26, R543?R556. who discusses
>>>>>>>the emotional underpinnings of these activities. The findings
>>>>>>>about burials support the analysis in studies like Anderson's
>>>>>
>>>>>> I was reacting to the summary in your first link where they say "If
>>>>>> this conclusion is accurate, these observations could indicate an
>>>>>> understanding of *death and grief* potentially unlike anything else
>>>>>> we've seen in the animal kingdom, revealing yet another way in which
>>>>>> humans are not as unique as previously thought." (My emphasis added.)
>>>>>
>>>>>> I haven't read the full paper but a quick search for grief/grieving
>>>>>> doesn't turn up anything in it so I assume the authors didn't make
>>>>>> this association, it was the person who wrote the article for The
>>>>>> Conversation who claim to exercise "academic rigour, journalistic
>>>>>> flair."
>>>>>
>>>>>That seems a bit unfair, There is a "could" and a "potentially" in
>>>>>there, and that seems perfectly plausible. We observe a behaviour
>>>>>in population A that we know is (also) a reaction to grief. We
>>>>>then observe the same behaviour in population B, and there is
>>>>>no obvious explanation other than grief. Concluding on that basis
>>>>>that this "could" be an indicator that also population B experiences
>>>>>grief seems OK - one can then reject the explanation, on all sorts of
>>>>> grounds, but that does not change the fact that the case for grief is
>>>>>stronger with this observation than without it.
>>>
>>>> I don't think I am being unfair. Various people have commented here at
>>>> various times about writers of 'popular science' articles stretching
>>>> claims beyond what the researchers themselves claim. This is another
>>>> example of that. Acceptable, perhaps, in a newspaper article but IMO
>>>> not acceptable in a source claiming academic rigour.
>>>
>>>> Just for clarity, I don't have any issue with animal burials or animal
>>>> grieving, my issue is with unwarranted conclusions. There is
>>>> significant evidence to support animals burying their dead, but I
>>>> haven't seen anything that directly supports them grieving.
>>>
>>>Sure, popular writing "can" be misleading. But the question is if this
>>>is an example of it And you do not address the argument I made. So
>>>to restate, I'd say if we observe in one population a behaviour X that
>>>is explained through grieving, and we then observe the same behaviour
>>>in a different population Y, and don't have any other explanation why
>>>they do X, that I'd say is at least some evidence that the first
>>>population also experiences grief - definitely enough to permit that
>>>these "could" indicate grief. After all, if not similarity in behaviour
>>>what other indication could there possibly be?
>
>> I think we are maybe drifting back towards a discussion we had some
>> time ago about the nature of evidence - not that I have any problem
>> with that!
>
>> In regard to the topic at hand, I think there would have to be some
>> reason to think that the primary if not sole purpose of Behaviour A is
>> to deal with Behaviour B. I can think of various evolutionary
>> advantages to burial that don't involve grief; hygiene is an obvious
>> one and Richmond has suggested another. An example of what would
>> impress me far more about animal grief is if we had evidence of other
>> animals visiting burial sites for no physical reason in the way that
>> we humans visit the graves of our relatives and friends - I can't see
>> any evolutionary advantage in doing that.
>
>Couple of problems with that line of reasoning I'd say. First, even if
>Richmond's or your explanation were convincing, it's still a question
>of comparative evaluation of the observation. So starting with a
> "one explanation could be grief ..." then leads to formulating
>alternatives accounts, which is how science typically progresses.
>So putting a hypothesis like this on the table seems perfectly OK
> - and again the "could" in the paper doesn't commit to anything more.
>
>(I don't think myself that your or Richmond's explanations are particularly
>convincing. Elephants and lions don't compete for food, and while in
>very rare circumstances, prides of lions have been seen attacking
>elephants, that is exceedingly rare. Add to that the shallow grave
>that would not deter a scavenger that can dig, and that it's
>a baby elephant that would not provide much food, unlike adults,
>I don't see that fly. And hygiene would affect more animals that
>stay local, in burrows etc, not free-roaming herds).

There is a general principle regarding evolution that whilst science
can never prove the non-existence of supernatural causes, once a
plausible *natural* explanation is put forward, even if there is no
direct evidence to support it, the fact that it is plausible
eliminates the *necessity* for an intelligent designer or other divine
intervention - bacterial flagella comes to mind. I think the same
principle applies here, if other plausible explanations can be put
forward then that weakens the case for the burials being due to grief.

>
>Your problems go further than that though. Even if, arguendo, the
>behaviour had the benefits you and Richmond describe, why would
>that be an argument that it is not driven by grief?

I'm not saying that the burials are not driven by grief, only that we
have no strong evidence that they are - you are effectively accusing
me of not proving a negative!

>As long as
>one accepts that emotions in general are (also) the result of
>evolution, they seem to be used to motivate organisms to do
>things that are beneficial for them - we feel e.g. disgust towards
>rotten meat, which makes us not eat rotten meat, which is a
>good thing for our health. But that it benefits our health
>does not make the feeling of disgust any less real, or
>means that we don't act because of that feeling (and not
>because of our knowledge of the health risks from putrefaction
>meat.
>
>So when you say that you'd only accept evidence of grief
>observations of behaviour that has no associated benefits,
>you have already prejudged the question and decided that grief
>is not an evolved behaviour.

On Thu, 28 Mar 2024 13:02:41 +0000, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sat, 23 Mar 2024 13:46:25 +0000, Martin Harran
><martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>>I think we are maybe drifting back towards a discussion we had some
>>time ago about the nature of evidence - not that I have any problem
>>with that!
>
>
>I'd like to go back to something from that discussion, but I'll do it
>here rather than add length to the 'burial' part of the discussion - I
>will refer back to this post in its own place. I also think this is
>relevant to other threads here.
>
>In the previous discussion, I referred to my own understanding of
>evidence being heavily influenced by the insights I gained from the
>trial of the murderer of my sister-in-law, Attracta Harron.
>
>Attracta went missing on the morning of 12 Dec 2003 whilst walking
>home from Lifford to Strabane from weekday Mass. On 28th March, 2004,
>21-year-old Trevor Hamilton was charged with Attracta's murder and
>trial began on 27th February, 2006. The main evidence [1] against him
>was:
>
>===========================================
>
>Traces of Attracta's blood were found in Hamilton's car which was
>burnt out at his home on the afternoon of the day she disappeared.
>Hamilton claimed he didn't set fire to the car, that it must have been
>an intruder but in something of a Sherlock Holme's moment, it turned
>out that the family dogs in a pen alongside the car never barked! He
>also initially claimed he had not left the house that day but cell
>tower records of his mobile phone showed that he had been out and
>about in the Strabane that day and a neighbour also came forward to
>say she had seen him driving the car.
>
>A farmer from the area reported that around the time that Attracta
>disappeared, he had to give way in his tractor to a speeding red car
>(Hamilton's car was red) with a woman in the passenger seat with what
>looked like streaks of blood on her face. He could not identify the
>driver but when he saw Attracta's photo in the newspapers the next
>day, he was absolutely sure that she was the woman in the car.
>
>The police recovered ashes from several fires in Hamilton's back
>garden and among partially burnt items they found an ATM receipt for a
>cash withdrawal she had made; rosary beads and a page from a religious
>pamphlet, both limited circulation and matching ones carried by
>Attracta; a business card matching one given to her by an architect
>involved in the new library in Strabane where she worked; a plaster
>which matched an open box of plasters in her home (her husband
>explained that she used the plasters on her heels as he shows were
>loose fitting).
>
>Attracta's body was found buried in a shallow grave less than 200
>yards from Hamilton's home. She had been buried in a large, branded
>feed bag matching ones at Hamilton's home (his father drove for a
>local feed company whose brand was on the bag) and was covered with
>concrete slabs which matched unused ones lying around Hamilton's
>house. The pathologist determined that Attracta had died from a severe
>blow to her head, likely from an axe-like implement but her body was
>too badly decomposed to decide whether or not she had been sexually
>assaulted.
>
>Hamilton had been released from prison just four months earlier he had
>been released from prison on licence after serving half of a
>seven-year sentence for rape and other offences, including threats to
>kill; the risk he posed to the public, especially adult women, was
>assessed as high (level 3). [2] The prosecution were allowed to
>introduce this previous case due to similarities between the two
>crimes [3]. For example, the car used by Hamiton in the rape for which
>he had been convicted had the handle and window winder removed from
>the passenger door; they were also missing on the car burnt-out at his
>home.
>
>===========================================
>
>None of the above evidence directly tied Hamiton to Attracta's death
>but the prosecution pointed out that Hamilton murdering her was the
>only explanation for the evidence in its totality. Charging the jury
>at the end of the six-week trial, the judge addressed the same issue.
>He explained to the jury that the various elements of evidence are
>like strands of a rope; individual strands might be very weak but
>entwined together, they could make a very strong rope. Even if one or
>two of them got broken, the rope could still be strong. He told the
>jury that they should not get caught up too much in the value of
>individual pieces of evidence, they should look at the overall picture
>presented by the evidence in total.
>
>Hamilton was found unanimously found guilty, a verdict with which the
>judge said he totally agreed. Stating that "What you did to Mrs
>Harron, a good and loving woman, was at once nauseating and
>horrifying, it was the stuff of nightmares and the epitome of the loss
>of innocence in our community … What that poor woman experienced as
>you prepared to execute her, whatever weapon you used to accomplish
>it, was so appalling that it demands retribution of the most severe
>kind.", he sentenced Hamilton to the first 'whole life' sentence ever
>imposed in Northern Ireland [4]
>
>I think that *totality* of evidence is what gets ignored by posters
>like Ron Dean who try to pick holes in isolated pieces of evidence
>whilst handwaving away the *overall weight* of evidence from various
>sources.
>
>Each piece of evidence in Attracta's trial above can be argued against
>on its own. The traces of blood were evidence that Attracta's body
>had been in his car but there was no direct evidence to show that he
>put it there. He could have claimed (but did not do so) that the items
>from the fire were because he had found her handbag tossed into a
>ditch and decided to get rid of it in case it would be associated with
>him. The farmer could not identify the driver of the car and only
>identified Attracta from a newspaper photo. The property around his
>house was not particularly secured and anyone could have got access to
>the feed bag and slabs, and so on.
>
>In the same way, Dean and others try to build their case, for example,
>on parts of the fossil record that are incomplete whilst ignoring the
>overwhelming fossil evidence that conclusively shows an overall
>pattern of nesting, descent and inheritance.
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>[1] More details: https://attracta.martinharran.com/openstate.htm
>
>[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trevor_Hamilton
>
>[3] We previously discussed this briefly. The introduction of previous
>conviction was the first case allowed under The Criminal Justice
>(Evidence) (Northern Ireland) Order 2004 which was the NI
>implementation of the UK Criminal Justice Act 2003.
>
>[4] The Appeals Court later changed this to a 35-year tariff. For the
>benefit, of those unfamiliar with the UK legal system, that does not
>mean he gets out after 35 years, it means he cannot even be
>*considered* for parole for at least 35 years.

A few legal aspects that probably won't be of interest to others but
might be of interest to Burkhard.

When we discussed this last year, we had a brief discussion about
evidence of previous behaviour but you took yourself off to Corfus and
we never got back to it. [1] I'll respond here as it might contribute
to any ongoing discussion about the nature and/or admissibility of
evidence.

You quibbled slightly with my statement that Hamilton's trial was the
first case in the UK where a previous conviction was revealed to the
jury due to the similarity between the two crimes. It was actually the
first case allowed under The Criminal Justice (Evidence) (Northern
Ireland) Order 2004 which was the NI implementation of the UK
Criminal Justice Act 2003. Introduction of such evidence relating to a
previous offence had been considered the previous year in the trial of
Robert Howard for the murder of 15-year-old schoolgirl Arlene Arkinson
who went missing in 1994 and has never been found. Howard was already
serving a sentence for the murder of 14-year-old English schoolgirl
Hannah Williams [2]. That conviction was never disclosed to the jury
who went on to acquit him. I'm not sure whether the prosecution
decided not to proceed with the evidence or whether the judge ruled it
out. Howard later admitted before dying in jail that he had murdered
Arlene. I've read somewhere but haven't a link that one of the jurors
said afterwards that if they had heard that evidence, they would have
convicted him. In what seemed to me a somewhat unusual conclusion, the
coroner in Arlene's inquest in 2021 found that Howard was responsible
for her death. [3]