Evergreen Dazed
|
Re: Cancer in the Neolithic?
Feb 14, 2017, 16:19
|
|
tiompan wrote:
An addition to the above .
Woodhenge : on the child's grave within the timber setting at Woodhenge , Cunnington commented “ the skull appears to have been cleft before burial “
Hi George, found this while looking for more info on the burial -
Excavations led by Josh Pollard (University of Southampton) show that, after the timber posts had rotted, a stone cove was constructed on the south side of the dig. The site was also subject to structured deposition of artefacts and animal remains. One inhumation grave, that of a child of around 3 years of age, was found near the centre of the site. This is now marked by a pile of flints. The EH website attributes the death to a human sacrifice but it is now postulated that the evidence that the skull was sliced might be a misinterpretation of the fragmentation of the skull due to the pressure of the soil. It is now thought to date to the Early Bronze Age, at or near the end of the site’s use.
https://howardwilliamsblog.wordpress.com/2014/03/30/woodhenge-for-the-ancestors/
|
tiompan
|
Re: Cancer in the Neolithic?
Feb 14, 2017, 16:41
|
Thanks ED .
I have the Pollard paper and that might explain why it was excluded from the original list .
Just came across an older mention this morning and should have checked .
|
Markoid
|
Edited Feb 14, 2017, 16:56
Re: Cancer in the Neolithic?
Feb 14, 2017, 16:48
|
Cancers eat bodies and even stone. There is no cure for cancer. Not yet anyway. Granted, it is on the rise as a 'so called' Western disease. The survival rates are pretty positive though.
Life expectancy in neolithic times was about 40 years old, if lucky.
|
tiompan
|
Re: Cancer in the Neolithic?
Feb 14, 2017, 16:52
|
Feel free to start another topic if you like .
It's not uncommon here for topics to sail blindly on into other areas , it happens all the time .
Why " professed research " ? The content was either genuine or not . I never used the term and wouldn't consider using , " research " in relation to it .
The original topic was quickly covered i.e. of course there was cancer in Neolithic and long before .
|
Markoid
|
Re: Cancer in the Neolithic?
Feb 14, 2017, 16:57
|
|
read up!
|
spencer
|
Re: Cancer in the Neolithic?
Feb 15, 2017, 13:51
|
|
George, I respectfully suggest that you, as well as others, should consider starting their own topics. You seem to still be unable to grasp this. You have continued this topic more than any other contributor. The evidence is there. If you can be bothered to make the even cursory scan of the threads therein. Yet you still seem unable throughout to amend the subthreads to 'injuries in the Neolithic' or whatever. The threads remain titled Cancer In The Neolithic. That subject has long gone, overtaken by your own. As mentioned in my last post, that is counterproductive if your goal is to disseminate knowledge about injury in times past. I would suggest that you take as long as you like to respond to this and reflect whether what I have politely suggested is the best course and whether it is one that you should adopt both on this topic and elsewhere in future. I repeat, all your reading from whatever source and effort taken to communicate it is very, very probably wasted should you have any aspiration to diseminate it beyond the bounds of this forum and thereby make this place a more widely and increasingly regarded place. I must try and erase the thought from my mind that all your words are but a means to beat others about the head with and demonstrate your superiority. Or 'superiority'. Perish the thought that this may be the case.
|
tiompan
|
Re: Cancer in the Neolithic?
Feb 15, 2017, 14:08
|
You are making a mountain out of a molehill . There is no wish to disseminate knowledge apart from within the confines of this forum or even within the confines of this topic . It's a chat / discussion , no more .
If you are not interested in the discussion just ignore it
|
nigelswift
|
Re: Cancer in the Neolithic?
Feb 15, 2017, 14:11
|
|
While I accept your point that there might be a research and educational benefit in thread discipline and sub threads I must register my contrary vote - that joyful meandering is much more pleasurable (and beats research and education every time).
|
spencer
|
Re: Cancer in the Neolithic?
Feb 15, 2017, 15:11
|
|
Yes, Nigel, I love a meander too. I hope though, you agree with me, that out of basic civility to topic's original posters, as a general principle those who change topics should at least take a few moments to alter subthreads within. A few moments. That is all it takes. This seems to be something that seems to be lost on George. The evidence is there. I do hope that in this instance you agree with me, and wonder how you would react on your own worthy online organ should a similar event happen there. Put yourself in an original posters position. Empathise. Despite any antipathy. For the record, I'm not in contact with Sanctuary in any way about this. My email is down. These are my own opinions, and, I hope, viewed as principled ones, All best.
|
nigelswift
|
Re: Cancer in the Neolithic?
Feb 15, 2017, 15:24
|
I must admit I never felt an unsignposted meander was uncivil, either in this or my own esteemed organ. No rules is good rules as me and my mod friends used to say. (That's a lie).
I've always found that if you want to research anything on here (and it's a massive, massive treasure chest) a google search saying modern antiquarian and (say) owls works perfick (https://www.google.co.uk/?gfe_rd=cr&ei=-cfMVpmiHObU8gfDtJS4Dw#q=modern+antiquarian+owls)
|
