Ancient and Archaeology permalink
Cremation - Why?
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Â
Posted by RainbowFfolly (U3345048) on Thursday, 25th October 2007
Hi all,
Just a really quick double-question: why and when did cremation of the dead start? I can think of hygiene reasons (e.g. disease) and maybe also space-limitations (e.g. large settlements), but off the top of my head nothing else. It doesn't seem to me any more an obvious "religious" method than burial, and if anything it seems even less so. Wouldn't it also use up more resources (e.g. wood for burning) than a grave a few feet deep? OK, that was a third question, so I'll stop and just ask if anyone can help?
Cheers,
RF -
Message 2
Posted by Backtothedarkplace (U2955180) on Thursday, 25th October 2007
Err dont quote me on this but dont some religions have a thing that the soul (or its equvalent) staying with the body until it completely decayed. You burn it and its a quick way to get granny into paradise rhather than having her haunting the cow shed.
-
Message 3
Posted by RainbowFfolly (U3345048) on Thursday, 25th October 2007
Kind of makes sense to me - a "fast-track" to paradise, like the 5 items or less tills in supermarkets. I can see that knowing the physical body was still underground might make people believe that granny hadn't yet boarded her final flight.
You burn it and its a quick way to get granny into paradise rhather than having her haunting the cow shedÂ
I think this fear may have been caused by people confusing their "Wooooooooo"s and their "Mooooooooo"s. I think it's even still common nowadays, as I can remember as a boy watching my Mum running away in terror when a herd of cows came over to inspect our picnic...
Cheers,
RF -
Message 4
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Thursday, 25th October 2007
Hi RF
I can only answer for Britain. Urn cremation is well atested in the Bronze Age. Iron Age dead disposal is somewhat mysterious. We have evidence of some very high status inhumations but most of the population are 'missing'. Cremation with scattering of the ashes is at least possible.
Early Roman's in Britain were cremated but the burial rite largely changed to inhumation at the end of the 1st C, during which time there was no apparent change of religious ritual. Early Saxon arrivals in East Anglia are urn cremated. Thereafter the rite changed to Pagan inhumation and then Christian inhumation.
I believe that cremation was then unknown for centuries and actually required a change in the law to make it legal at the end of the 19th C. Since the second world war it has become very common, again without any change of ritual.
Why it is done is a much deeper question.
Best wishes,
TP -
Message 5
Posted by Sambista (U4068266) on Thursday, 25th October 2007
Take a look at
I worked with one of his descendants. -
Message 6
Posted by RainbowFfolly (U3345048) on Thursday, 25th October 2007
Hi Urnungal,
I'm well impressed - a proto-hippie!
Believing burial to be damaging to the environment, he cremated the dead body of his five-month-old son, Iesu Grist Price (Jesus Christ Price).Â
This confuses me, as I would have thought the complete opposite was true i.e. that being worm-food is of more benefit to the environment.
Great name for his kid - he must have been like the Frank Zappa of his day...
Cheers,
RF -
Message 7
Posted by RainbowFfolly (U3345048) on Thursday, 25th October 2007
Hi TwinProbe,
Thanks for the reply and great stuff. The fact that cremation died out for so long, came as quite a surprise to me, as I thought it was a traditional method that had survived through the centuries.
I really appreciated the info about the Iron Age disposal of the dead and that most of the population are 'missing'. Are there any other theories other than the cremation and scattering of ashes (it sounds plausable to me) to account for the lack of evidence? Oh, and I'm not expecting exact figures (a guess will do!), but what population range are we possibly looking at?
Cheers,
RF -
Message 8
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Thursday, 25th October 2007
Hi RF,
As you can imagine population figures are difficult to calculate. The population of Roman Britain is usually said to be 2-4 million. Would you think it reasonable to view the Iron Age population as half that? Obviously in pre-history you don’t have the huge urban populations seen in medieval and modern times, but the rural population may have been denser than now. Consider the numerous amazing Neolithic and Early Bronze Age monuments on Orkney. It has been quite seriously suggested that the pre-historic population there was comparable in number to the modern. In no pre-historic era does the number of burials recovered represent more than a small fraction of the population, but the Iron Age seems particularly under-represented.
The lack of Iron Age inhumations is very inconvenient since the lack of grave goods for study means that the technological boundary between the Bronze Age and Iron Age is not at all clear (although iron corrosion would blur it in any case). There are some Iron Age burial traditions known, for example the high status inhumations like the Square Barrow and Chariot burials in East Yorkshire. There are also bog bodies of course and a series of inhumations in the South-west. An Iron Age funerary complex has been found recently in Orkney. Occasional inhumations have been excavated elsewhere.
What else might they have done? One possibility would be resumption of the excarnation practiced in the Neolithic but without the Long Barrows. Even in the Neolithic only a small fraction of the bodies were preserved. There may have been ‘Towers of Silence’ like the modern Parsi tradition. Burial in large rivers or cremation with ash scattering on water are distinct possibilities; again there are ethnographic parallels. Burial on the foreshore, or in mudflats, or even at sea are possible.
Best wishes,
TP -
Message 9
Posted by Backtothedarkplace (U2955180) on Thursday, 25th October 2007
Or the other option is they ate them.
-
Message 10
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Thursday, 25th October 2007
I'm not very good on irony. Is that a serious suggestion? I mean you still have to dispose of the bones.
TP -
Message 11
Posted by Backtothedarkplace (U2955180) on Friday, 26th October 2007
Hi Twinprobe.
Oddly enough its a little bit of both. Cooking would as you say leave the bones but havent some bones with pot scouring on turned up from this period?
I realise its a bit unlikley that our ancestors were running round eating everyone then hiding all the traces. Something would have turned up if it was wide spread.
I think the problem is we cant be sure of the exact size of the population. It may have been a lot bigger than we think, or thought at one time. It may have been a lot smaller though.
Or, larger but more subject to disease?
We also dont really know what their attitude to death was. Alright we have the prestige burials, but its possible that a lower class body might just be dumped in the nearest river to get rid. especially if they died of an infectious disease? -
Message 12
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Friday, 26th October 2007
Hi BTTDP,
I suppose anything is possible but there aren't many ethnographic instances of the routine ingestion of the dead. The Gunderstrup cauldron displays a man being lowered into a large pot, but this is normally take as a symbolic not a culinary act. Anyway the cauldron is not British. Modern archaeological science can analyze the contents of porous ancient pottery. Dairy products, animal fat and cabbage have all been detected. I'll try to find out if human remains could be recognized!
Again it is hard to find a precedent for 'dumping lower class bodies in the nearest river'. Burial ritual is something that most societies and most time periods seem to have taken very seriously. It is fairly likely that in IA Britain springs and rivers were sacred. But again I may be struggling with you creative employment of language. Perhaps you mean that the 'bodies of the non-elite made their final journey to the gods after being reverently consigned to the healing waters of the sacred rivers'.
But I really don't know if that is what actually happened.
Best wishes,
TP -
Message 13
Posted by RainbowFfolly (U3345048) on Friday, 26th October 2007
Hi BTTDP,
but its possible that a lower class body might just be dumped in the nearest river to get rid. especially if they died of an infectious disease?Â
Wouldn't this possibly risk polluting the water supply? On the other hand, it would be a great method for annoying any other tribes a few miles downstream...
Cheers,
RF -
Message 14
Posted by RainbowFfolly (U3345048) on Friday, 26th October 2007
Hi TwinProbe,
BTTDP's point about disease made me think - could a serious and long-term infectious disease have forced the practice of cremation on Iron Age people through necessity, and is there any evidence of plagues around this time in Europe? I can imagine that in this case the burning of the infected wouldn't necessarily have been too reverential, and their remains may have just been left in the ash of the pyre rather than put into urns.
Dairy products, animal fat and cabbage have all been detectedÂ
It sounds to me that they were eating the forerunner of that well-known Liverpool delicacy "Bubble and Squeak"...
Cheers,
RF -
Message 15
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Friday, 26th October 2007
Hi RFf,
Well it's a point but the Black Death and the Great Plague of London promoted plague pits not pyres. Why should the Iron Age be different?
In view of what we know of medieval and Roman history intermittent epidemics in IA Britain would seem quite likely. It's difficult to see what evidence we would find at this stage. The plague bacillus DNA extraction story is quite controversial still. I think to switch from one form of disposal to another on hygienic grounds (even if erroneous) would require a degree of medical sophistication beyond that likely to be available in the ancient world.
By the way I'm not suggesting that the foodstuffs were all cooked simultaneously, in fact I rather hope not.
Best wishes,
TP -
Message 16
Posted by Backtothedarkplace (U2955180) on Friday, 26th October 2007
Hi RF, TP
Re Plague Pits.
IMO, the difference between the Black death and the Iron age is no central authority?
The "Government" can order people to dig pits and even have the resources to do so. An iron age village might only have a hand full of people left to take care of the dead. At that point digging a hole big enough might be beyond their strength. Piling the bodies in one spot and burning them using the timber from the unneeded huts as fuel is a possibility or, burning the hut down with the bodies inside?
The snags with this are
1, Does an iron age hut contain enough wood to completely cremate a human body, (otherwise we're back to cooking granny again) For that matter can you completely cremate a body with wood? to the extent that even the smallest of bone fragments are lost.?
2, what sort of timescale does it take for a body/skeleton to decay? Its occurred to me that going on a program on TV about the research done by the university of Tennessee that a body just dumped on the ground can decay bones and all in about 3 years. In some ways burying it actually preserves it. given a big enough plague and there was one in Europe about the 550's I think, maybe the bodies were just left to rot? -
Message 17
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Friday, 26th October 2007
Hi BTTDP,
Some of your questions can be answered, and some not. All things being equal burned bone survives in the soil better than unburned bone. There may be trouble recognizing it if it is not confined in a pot or urn.
The timescale for a body to decay depends on the burial environment. Leaving out the special cases of Icemen, mummies and bog bodies the bones disappear quickly in acid soils (like Sutton Hoo) but survive well in alkaline conditions. In Britain plenty of Neolithic and Bronze Age bones and cremation deposits are known. Scarborough's Gristhorpe Man was a Bronze Age tree trunk burial and that skeleton looks as if it died yesterday. Actually there are some stubborn cynics who say it did die yesterday but that is another story...
IA roundhouses come in many sizes but almost certainly contain ample fuel to cremate a body. This is not to say that they were in fact used in this way. It's not impossible; since the main wooden support posts of a roundhouse were seated in the soil they would eventually rot. The unsafe fabric of an old house had to be disposed of somehow; fire seems as good a method as any.
I can't see that burial is much more trouble than cremation (and both seem more probable than canibalism), and if you believe in druids there might have been a religious and ritual central authority in IA Britain.
The IA in Britain is full of interest and excitement. The best IA craftsmanship was absolutely superb. And then along came the Romans....
Best wishes,
TP -
Message 18
Posted by Backtothedarkplace (U2955180) on Monday, 29th October 2007
Hi TP,
I apreciate what your saying but it is intresting to wonder where they all went to though. Ohh by the way whats the issue with Gristhorpe. Theres a little on line but the only thing I could see said that because of the way the bones had been preserved they couldnt extract any DNA?
Canabilisim, I did a bit of reading on this over the weekend, mainly net based so doubtfull if its of any use. Having said that on a very superfical glance it does seem possible that some form of canabilisim may have been practiced at some time in parts of the UK and it may have lingered onfor a while . It hinted on a couple of sites that it may have continued in the appalachians up untill the 1930's. Certainly in the north and west of Britain there used to be a custom as part of the wake called sin eating, where either a member of the family or a community outcaste ate a symbolic meal of the chest of the body at he wake alledgedly to take on the sins of the departed. I'm probably streatching the point to say its a remnant, but it might be. he says frantically clutching at straws. LOL As I said before I think its extrememly unlikley. If it had been as wide spread as it would have had to be to get rid of the numbers we are talking about then there would be a lot more traces, and possibly more local stories about it. Its interesting thogh that its still a powerful thing to accuse a people of. In the days of the Empire its often the accusation of this that is taken as being the absolute proof of a peoples being beyond any kind of civilization.
As for burning/cremation. given a small village which alledgedly was all the UK had at that time and a big enough Plague/ epedemic there may not actually be enough survivors to bury the dead. At that point rather than a religious matter its a health problem? and burning the huts with the bodies inside would be the quickest way of disposing them. Certainly I've read some where that in afrcia this is done as it was belived to get rid of the evil in the house? Given one of the more infetious diseases, its possible that handling the dead or thier belongings might pass the infection along, if this is noticed, then you dont really have to have an understanding of germs, viruses just that handling the dead is a bad idea and the best thing to dispel the evil is to clense it with fire?
Having said that I am guessing. What would be your theory on it? -
Message 19
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Monday, 29th October 2007
Hi BTTDP,
The issue with Gristhorpe Man is than the skeleton is so perfect; even the small digit bones survive. The authenticity of most of the material has never been questioned, but there is the story that a Victorian local surgeon 'wired' the bones up as they would be in an anatomical skeleton. Understandably there are those who claimed that he might have substituted an actual anatomical specimen when the original bones fell apart.
Early accounts said that the bones were so fragile that they were 'boiled in glue' to preserve them; well they don't look fragile now! Fortunately the skeleton is being intensively studied at the University of Bradford. They plan to perform radiocarbon dating on dental material so then we shall know for sure.
I don't dispute that cannibalism has occasionally been practiced, but I'm not aware of its use for routine disposal of dead bodies.
I'd sooner not guess at which methods of disposal were practiced in the Iron Age, although listing the possibilities (as we have done) is fine. Further evidence may become available - you never know.
One custom that may well have survived from the IA is the veneration of springs, rivers and lakes. Offerings to the gods then; wishing wells for luck now!
TP -
Message 20
Posted by Mutatis_Mutandis (U8620894) on Monday, 29th October 2007
I may be misinformed, but as far as I know a decaying corpse does not pose a big risk in terms of spreading infectious disease, unless the person died of it -- end even then. The organisms that cause decomposition are mostly different from those that cause disease, if only because of the significant temperature difference that can exist (either way) between a living body and a dead one. The risk of contaminating water supplies is probably real.
One reason I could imagine for cremation is the protection of the death against what we could call, for lack a much better term, magic manipulation. The belief that possessing the a part of an enemy (deceased or not) gives you some power over him or her is old and widespread, and was a big part of many animistic beliefs. Cannibalism was an extreme form of that, headhunting another. Remember that as late as 1661, the corpse of Oliver Cromwell was formally unearthed to be ritually executed, and his head was passed around as a grisly souvenir for quite a while.
Cremation might be an effective way for a nomadic or semi-nomadic people to keep its dead out of the hands of the enemy. Or of animals, as being devoured by scavengers might be considered an even worse fate in some religions (while being adopted as the normal burial ritual in others).
It may also have been a way to enable the group to carry the remains of a powerful deceased with them. Gathering the bones is usually part of the ritual of cremation, and it would have allowed them to believe that the dead were, in a way, still part of the family. A nomadic group could not have carried a decomposing corpse very far, but could cope with a small urn. Other methods that were used later, such as boiling the corpse to separate flesh from bones, or storing the body in a barrel of alcohol, were probably out of reach for stone age people. Settled groups could leave bodies in the open and gather the bones afterwards to bury them in house, but this is not practical for nomads.
And this is actually still part of our practice today. People can carry away the ashes of deceased family members and keep them at home, while modern laws tend to frown on burials in the garden. -
Message 21
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Monday, 29th October 2007
Beyond any religious interpretation (and few religions directly dictated one and only one burial method), it is all a matter of style. Simply for many people around the world fire seemed a more proper way to pass to the other world than being buried 10 feet under and left to rot.
We also see that the very same culture altered between the two main burial methods. Myceneans buried their deads, then in Â鶹ԼÅÄr's time the fashion was burning them (hence the descriptions in Heliad), then for no other major cause burying was back into fashion and largely remained in place till nowadays. Similarly in so many other cultures. -
Message 22
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Monday, 29th October 2007
Hi M-M,
Very good points. I should add that not everyone has believed that 'death' occurs when the heart stops beating. Many cultures believe that an interval occurs before the animating soul or spirit is free of earthly attachment. Some ancient burial customs, like excarnation, and revisiting burial sites, have to be interpreted in that light.
There was an interesting article by Dr Tim Taylor in this Sunday's 'Independent' on recent Rumanian burial customs which are, shall we say, a bit different from Surrey's!
TP -
Message 23
Posted by Backtothedarkplace (U2955180) on Tuesday, 30th October 2007
Hi, TP.
Thanks for the stuff on Gristhorpe Man. Fascinating. I must admit it never really occured to me that complete skeletons are fairly rare. I do remember a film on the Sutton Hoo excavation where they were left with a sand image of the body they were excavating. Nothing else remained apart from the tooth enamal.
So a complete one is most odd. In away I hope its right though. Cant really put a finger on why. Just it would be shame if its just a hoax of sorts.
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or  to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Â鶹ԼÅÄ iD
Â鶹ԼÅÄ navigation
Â鶹ԼÅÄ links
Â鶹ԼÅÄ Â© 2014 The Â鶹ԼÅÄ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.