Littlestone wrote:
But getting back to speculation on the presence of the sarsen boulders found within Silbury, we could just say that they were placed there for structural reasons - then again (given their size) we might also say they were carried there (perhaps from all over the country) in a final gesture of respect for a departed one. And in so doing adding to an accumulated statement of a unified identity - something like a cenotaph perhaps?
Non utilitarian aspects of monuments need explaining and sometimes the explanations become reified until new information confirms or negates the idea . radio carbon dating on a gross scale transformed the conjectural world that had a Mycenean inspired Stonehenge and standing stones and tumuli being the graves of danes .It's not, after all, dissimilar to what we do today at Westminster Abbey where the remains of the good, famous and fallen are laid together in a unified statement of 'us'.
Better quality dating and use of Bayseian stats produces dates that are accurate to less than a generation ,in the circumstances this info is starting to make the “ancestors “ a bit creaky and something more appropriate may have to replace it ,certainly for the sites that have the necessary dates and possibly for others that fit into the original paradigm. If there is a rethink on the ancestor idea in relation to chambered tombs etc Silbury would not be affected as it is different type of association ,the other are all deposits not anthromorphisation .A bit late now but it's worth considering what might have confirmed or refuted the idea ? e.g. faces would help a pro vote .
