| Author | Excarnation or Sky Burial at Stonehenge - my explanation for henges/timber/stones/cursus etc |
Andy B
Joined:
13-02-2001
Messages: 12295
from Surrey, UK
 OFF-Line
|  Posted 05-05-2016 at 21:15
Colin Berry writes: Yes, here in just 10 main points, 350 words (max) is my new theory for how and why Britain came to acquire Stonehenge, Avebury, Silbury Hill, i.e. a wealth of Neolithic-era henges, standing stone circles etc.
Main points:
1. In the Neolithic pre-copper, pre-Bronze age era, approx. 4,500 years ago or more, there were no metal tools to dig graves for the dead – only antler picks.
2. There were no metal tools to cut down trees to supply timber for cremation on funeral pyres - only flints.
3. Consequently, defleshing of the dead was standard practice, aka ‘excarnation’. It was seen as releasing the imprisoned-soul, leaving relatively clean bones for storage and veneration.
4. The preferred means of excarnation was "sky burial" – exposing the bodies to scavenger birds.
5, Britain has few if any vultures. A substitute had to be attracted. It was probably the “seagull”, better described simply as the gull, with a voracious appetite and propensity to forage and indeed nest and reproduce far inland.
6. A way had to be found for attracting gulls to an excarnation site, and encouraging them to take up residence.
7. The first sites were man-made scars in chalk uplands, either linear of circular, made by digging out the chalk and heaping it up at the edge of the ditch. Seagulls were attracted to the artificial “white cliffs”, visible from afar.
8. The tops of the “cliffs” provide perches for the gulls with some early warning of the approach of predators (foxes etc). Those “man-made” cliffs are what today we call “henges” etc (“cursus” too).
9. The next step was for the guardians of excarnation sites to install tall timber posts, moving the perches closer to the centre of the henge or cursus, closer to the laid-out offerings.
10. The final step was to replace the timber posts with standing stones, durable bird perches, no more, no less.
More at
http://colinb-sciencebuzz.blogspot.co.uk/2016/04/how-britain-came-to-possess-stonehenge.html
 Profile
 Email
 Reply
|
Feanor
Joined:
11-05-2011
Messages: 943
from Cape Cod Massachusetts, US
OFF-Line
| Posted 05-05-2016 at 23:36
Mr Berry,
I love it!
Neil
Profile
Email
Reply
|
rogeralbin
Joined:
08-10-2010
Messages: 522
OFF-Line
| Posted 06-05-2016 at 02:34
"Britain had few if any Vultures"
The Griffon Vulture became extinct before 1600 so that would appear to be incorrect, especially if there were food being left for them regularly.
I read an article a few years back that French farmers in the southwest would dispose of stillborn animal carceses etc in fields known as maladeries, leaving them as carrion. The practice was stopped in the wake of B.S.E in the 90's leading to a food shortage for Vultures.
Not that I am knocking the excarnation theory, especially given the significance of the Raven and Crow in "Celtic" mythology but Seagulls, really?
Profile
Reply
|
Runemage
Joined:
15-07-2005
Messages: 3929
from UK
OFF-Line
| Posted 06-05-2016 at 09:17
1. See what the population achieved with antler picks, check out the size and depth of the ditches at Avebury (chalk) and Ring of Brodgar (solid rock)
2. Many different types of stone were used for axes and were sharp enough to fell trees etc. as proven in tool reconstruction scenarios.
5. I agree with Roger, seagulls wouldn't have been my choice of avian for your theory either. Check out the Tomb of the Eagles, they reckon sea-eagles were used for their particular excarnation practise.
General observation 1 - more research into avian populations at the time and their behaviour, which species feed on carrion besides vultures etc. will give you a much better platform (pun intended) for your theory.
General observation 2 - your theory could explain some use at some sites, any blanket explanation of all ancient sites were used for a singular purpose is far too simplistic.
Rune
Profile
Reply
|
Energyman
Joined:
16-08-2004
Messages: 801
from Forest of Dean
OFF-Line
| Posted 06-05-2016 at 09:40
1. Perches? Possibly, but what about the sharp, pointy stones? You could only get one leg on some of them I'd have thought. If they were all perches, wouldn't they all be flat topped?
2. They certainly had wood, and fires - hence many finds of cremated remains and charcoal.
3. I agree they must have left the bodies somewhere to rot away - but what about inside a stone-walled tomb where the flies and maggots can get in but not the wolves? Then when the next one dies, but the earlier ones hadn't completely decomposed, pile them on top of one another. Hence the jumble of bones. There was some effort at order, though - babies in one part, women in another, and so on.
Profile
Reply
|
cerrig
Joined:
25-09-2009
Messages: 2819
from Brecon Beacons
OFF-Line
| Posted 06-05-2016 at 12:51
I recently saw a programme about the Himalayas, and a recent funeral that took place high up in a remote village. It is still their practice to let the birds have the bodies. Someone from the village has the task of dismembering the body and spreading it around for the birds, after the funeral proper has finished and everyone has left. Their belief is that the soul has left the body, so it's ok to give it to the birds. I can't remember what happened to the bones afterwards though, but some would have disappeared and what was left would be very jumbled. That would explain many bone burials.
We have lots of carrion eaters in Britain. The crow family, hawks and eagles all eat carrion, as will foxes, badgers, rats etc.
cerrig
Profile
Reply
|
Energyman
Joined:
16-08-2004
Messages: 801
from Forest of Dean
OFF-Line
| Posted 06-05-2016 at 13:16
I can't remember seeing any references to human remains showing teeth marks, as per being chewed by a rodent/fox etc, but maybe someone can enlighten me.
Profile
Reply
|
sem
Joined:
12-11-2003
Messages: 2816
from Bridgend,S.Wales
OFF-Line
| Posted 06-05-2016 at 14:55
I like this theory and the in the link below is a picture of the descendants of the gulls, now nesting at Stonehenge.
http://www.megalithic.co.uk/modules.php?op=modload&name=a312&file=index&do=showpic&pid=92941&orderby=
Not sure why said gulls have changed colour though.
Profile
Reply
|
ColinBerry
Joined:
03-05-2016
Messages: 14
from Herts. UK
OFF-Line
| Posted 06-05-2016 at 16:44
Initially I had assumed crows and ravens too. But then doubts set in. It’s one thing to have carrion feeders visit from time to time, maybe leaving something that is not fully skeletonized. Setting up a specialized 24/7 site that requires near certainty of efficient skeletonization in a reasonable time, hours, maybe days, rather than weeks, is something entirely different. Which species of bird best fits the bill for Neolithic SW Britain 4,500 years ago? There may well have been more vultures than we have at present (the latter an odd sighting or two, though I personally have yet to see one). The climate is not ideal for vultures that like to ride the thermals for hours on end in search of a dead or dying animal. Britain is better at doing cool, moist westerly air currents off the Atlantic, less so thermals.
Now go to a modern landfill site with food waste, and spot the dominant visitor – not just scores, but often hundreds of them, unfussy eaters that swallow anything that looks remotely like food. Yes, it’s the voracious gull, which even attacks and kills pigeons – so is not just a scavenger but occasional carnivorous predator too. Huge flocks of gulls might well achieve what fewer vultures can in approximately the same time AND maybe be encouraged to take up permanent residence if the food supply was guaranteed.
Having shortlisted the gull, it was then a case of looking whether it might explain other as yet unexplained details re Stonehenge – the henge precursor, the initial timber posts, the later standing stones, the salt-tolerant lichens etc. Answer: yes, I believe it can. More later.
[ This message was edited by: ColinBerry on 2016-05-06 16:47 ]
[ This message was edited by: ColinBerry on 2016-05-07 14:41 ]
Profile
Reply
|
cerrig
Joined:
25-09-2009
Messages: 2819
from Brecon Beacons
OFF-Line
| Posted 06-05-2016 at 17:14
Jonathon Livingstone will be turning in his grave 
cerrig
Profile
Reply
|
ColinBerry
Joined:
03-05-2016
Messages: 14
from Herts. UK
OFF-Line
| Posted 06-05-2016 at 17:30
" See what the population achieved with antler picks, check out the size and depth of the ditches at Avebury (chalk) and Ring of Brodgar (solid rock)."
Yes, it beggars belief that those henges with ditches metres deep could have been excavated with little more than antler picks. But let’s be careful to make an important distinction. It’s one thing to organize a work party supplied with plentiful picks, with no great time pressure. It’s something entirely different for a homesteader family to excavate a grave quickly when granddad suddenly passes on unexpectedly with no time for preparation. For a start, the chalk might be harder than elsewhere. It might be the dead of winter. It might be that picks are in short supply. It’s easier to dig a bank for a broad henge than a narrow compact grave a metre or two deep.
That’s not all. We’re told that early pastoralists engaged in slash and burn, and were not permanently rooted to one spot. So any grave they dug would involve having to leave the deceased behind when they moved on. That’s hardly ‘venerating the dead’ which we’re told was universal Neolithic practice. So it’s not difficult to see why they may have opted for a communal facility - to which they delivered the body, returning a few days (maybe weeks?) later for a compact package of bones, maybe economically cremated as a final cleansing step, which they could take home initially, store and later transport as part of the family’s treasured possessions (not so very different from the modern cremation urn that in some cultures sits on the mantelpiece, or so we’re told, even if I personally prefer a vase of flowers or a candlestick).
Profile
Reply
|
cropredy
Joined:
01-01-2006
Messages: 7176
from Oxon
OFF-Line
| Posted 06-05-2016 at 18:47
Fully agree with most.......but.
After the flesh was removed , then We enter into reincarnation and the shamen.
This is then when the insulated barrows were utilised to enable the return of the deceased into a new vehicle.
The hill forts and cursus been utilised to supply the required flows of consciousness at precise timings relative to sun and moon locations.
The duality of these flows been critical in centrifugal and centripetal spin vortices at the precise point where gold lozenges were kept that the deceased remains were placed upon.
Basically what spins downwards reverses spin direction to return upwards.
I assure You all that this occurs especially relative to equinox, solstice and lesser 13 times a year moon phases.
It doesn't matter what You believe, what matters is what our ancestors believed and could experience far better than our over complicated lives presently.
IMHO, they are correct, and We have forgotten.
The remaining bones will have been very important in their symbiotic interactions with consciousness flows, and the local refractions and diversions of these flows as desired.
Kevin
Profile
Reply
|
ColinBerry
Joined:
03-05-2016
Messages: 14
from Herts. UK
OFF-Line
| Posted 06-05-2016 at 19:02
Part 2 (antler picks addressed previously:
2. Many different types of stone were used for axes and were sharp enough to fell trees etc. as proven in tool reconstruction scenarios.
Yes, flints were sharp. Sharpness was not the problem. It was the brittleness that was the problem, with bits flaking off the working edge, requiring constant re-knapping. There must have been lots of street parties in Chipping-under-Foot on the day that bronze was discovered.
5. I agree with Roger, seagulls wouldn't have been my choice of avian for your theory either. Check out the Tomb of the Eagles, they reckon sea-eagles were used for their particular excarnation practise.
One can’t assume that those celebrated excarnating, i.e. skeletonising sea eagles up there on the rocky Orkneys coastline north of the Scottish landmass would have been active 700 miles further south on Salisbury Plain. The latter is 30 miles inland for a start – ok however for the resourceful foraging seagull, not entirely wedded to a maritime habitat.
General observation 1 - more research into avian populations at the time and their behaviour, which species feed on carrion besides vultures etc. will give you a much better platform (pun intended) for your theory.
Certainly, just as long as it’s appreciated that the theory does not require that the species of bird be defined with 100% or even 20% certainty. All that’s required is a species native to Neolithic Britain with a taste for flesh. Once sky burial is implicated, it’s then possible to go rationalizing aspects that are all too often simply taken for granted or dismissed as ‘ritualistic’ (read: “we haven’t a clue why they were doing it”), the construction of henges being a case in point, which I say were intended deliberately to attract seagulls (specifically!) from afar (“gleaming white man-made cliffs”)
General observation 2 - your theory could explain some use at some sites, any blanket explanation of all ancient sites were used for a singular purpose is far too simplistic.
Maybe. We shall see. It’s better in my view to have a theory that tries to be too all-embracing than to have no theory at all. Thus far, I have encountered no theory that attempts even separately to explain (a) non-defensive henges, with the bank outside the ditch (b) standing timbers (c) dolmens and standing stones (d) the presence of salt-tolerant lichens at Stonehenge.
Avian-facilitated skeletonization can account for all those and possibly more besides, e.g. preference for easy-to-keep clean igneous bluestones over porous sarsen sandstone initially etc etc.
Profile
Reply
|
cropredy
Joined:
01-01-2006
Messages: 7176
from Oxon
OFF-Line
| Posted 06-05-2016 at 19:36
http://warrenjefferson.blogspot.co.uk/2010/08/shamans-and-medicine-men.html
They think they are a little mad???
I could be one?
Kevin
Profile
Reply
|
sem
Joined:
12-11-2003
Messages: 2816
from Bridgend,S.Wales
OFF-Line
| Posted 06-05-2016 at 20:00
'General observation 1 - more research into avian populations at the time and their behaviour, which species feed on carrion besides vultures etc. will give you a much better platform (pun intended) for your theory.'
Well I'm going for Red Kites. They were actively encouraged in towns and cities during the Middle Ages as they were useful for keeping the area clear of carrion. They are also a source of endless pleasure on the long walks to some of the ancient sites of South Wales.
Profile
Reply
|
ColinBerry
Joined:
03-05-2016
Messages: 14
from Herts. UK
OFF-Line
| Posted 07-05-2016 at 06:53
1. Perches? Possibly, but what about the sharp, pointy stones? You could only get one leg on some of them I'd have thought. If they were all perches, wouldn't they all be flat topped?
If you look at Arbor Low in Derbyshire, it's essentially Avebury in miniature, but with an important difference. The stones are all on their sides. It's a 'non-standing' stone circle.
http://www.stone-circles.org.uk/stone/images/arborlow-ne.jpg
Then look closely at the stones. Only a few have pointed ends, with the opposite end generally not pointed.
Now it's claimed (whether true or not) that the stones at Arbor Low have NEVER been standing, in which case they never performed any obvious architectural role, and indeed it's then reasonable to seek a utilitarian one as suggested here ("bird tables").
Now go down to Avebury and look at the standing stones. Most are flat-topped in a manner of speaking, with just a few that look "pointy". But who's to say that was their original configuration, given they had to be re-erected after being buried out of sight by the superstitious villagers in centuries past? Who's to say those pointy ones were not erected the wrong way round, pointy side up? Who's to say that some weren't even on their sides originally, notably the awkward pointy ones, as per claims for all the stones at the present Arbor Low? Maybe we have antiquarians to thank for following the dictates of fashion...
[ This message was edited by: ColinBerry on 2016-05-07 07:44 ]
Profile
Reply
|
ColinBerry
Joined:
03-05-2016
Messages: 14
from Herts. UK
OFF-Line
| Posted 07-05-2016 at 08:42
2. They certainly had wood, and fires - hence many finds of cremated remains and charcoal.
This might be a good moment to mention some new nomenclature I’m developing on my sciencebuzz site. It’s arguably more objective than the various terms we see at present regarding ‘excarnation’ and less likely to make the reader (or as often as not, journalist) blanch or recoil in disgust on first acquaintance.
Nobody objects to the term “cremate”, derived from the Latin to burn or heat, but let’s for the moment substitute “thermally-facilitated skeletonization”, or TFS for short.
(Nor in passing does anybody object to the term burial, and subsequent decomposition in the soil that also ends with much the same end-result. Let’s call that “microbially-facilitated skeletonization” (MFS). The latter may be accompanied in some situations by earthworm participation (if only to consume the microbes), which adds the extra dimension of DFS (detritovore-facilitated skeletonization).)
Now to the real business. Let’s introduce a new term called AFS for short. That’s short for avian-facilitated skeletonization.
Returning to the question, might I humbly suggest that what happened in practice at Stonehenge, Avebury and all the other henges with their variable accompaniment of stones, standing or flat on sides, with occasional evidence of fires, charcoal, cremated bones was in most instances the end-result of initial but incomplete AFS followed by TFS of the partially-skeletonized remains. .
In other words the birds alone could not be relied upon to do a perfect job as regards “sky burial”, but that was not a reason for reverting to burial or cremation, given their problematical aspects, whether viewed from a religious or utilitarian perspective.
Summary:the stone circles (essentially bird perches or tables) provided a communal facility that can be summed up as primary AFS followed by secondary TFS.
Relatives turned up later to collect a package of odorless white bones or ash, entirely mineral, devoid of organic content, one that could be guaranteed not to attract flies of vermin etc. and were thus no risk to health. They were the equivalent of the modern day urn of cremated ashes for storage or disposal as folk saw fit.
Postscript: Thanks for your comments, folks, the majority informative and encouraging. I have tried to respond as best I can, but there's still much detail that needs to be taken on board, especially when proposing a Theory of Everything where Neolithic henges and stone circles are concerned (but I still say ALL of those sites were devoted to the business of AFS!).
Do please log in from time to time on my sciencebuzz site to see how things pan out in the coming days and weeks (it being make-or-break time!).
http://colinb-sciencebuzz.blogspot.fr/
Bye for now. (I'll be responding to further comments placed on this thread on my own site)
[ This message was edited by: ColinBerry on 2016-05-07 15:03 ]
[ This message was edited by: ColinBerry on 2016-05-07 15:06 ]
Profile
Reply
|
Energyman
Joined:
16-08-2004
Messages: 801
from Forest of Dean
OFF-Line
| Posted 07-05-2016 at 15:14
Well, yes, and if you take it a step further, the horizontal lintels of stonehenge would offer a superb 'sky burial' platform, away from ground feeders.
Profile
Reply
|
ColinBerry
Joined:
03-05-2016
Messages: 14
from Herts. UK
OFF-Line
| Posted 07-05-2016 at 15:22
Thanks Mr.Energy. You'll shortly be getting star billing for that comment on my own lowly site (see postscript above).
Profile
Reply
|
ColinBerry
Joined:
03-05-2016
Messages: 14
from Herts. UK
OFF-Line
| Posted 08-05-2016 at 17:08
See my current posting, energyman, with thanks, nay relief, that there are kindred spirits out there. willing as I am to 'go the extra mile', sorry kilometre, albeit at the risk of occasionally going in the wrong direction (nothing ventured, nothing gained).
http://colinb-sciencebuzz.blogspot.fr/2016/05/thanks-energyman-lintels-of-stonehenge.html
There's also a partial response there (OK, a tease) to Runemage re the Ring of Brodgar.
Nope, the ditch was not cut through "solid" rock. It was created by forceful delamination of stratified sandstone, deploying a patient, resourceful if somewhat slow combination of Mother Nature, read frost action, and gentle leverage. The compact uplifted small slabs then found a use nearby (thus no bank of rubble!).
You read it here first! More later.
[ This message was edited by: ColinBerry on 2016-05-08 17:10 ]
Profile
Reply
|
|
