Re: elephant burials

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