The Religion and Philosophy of the Veda and Upanishads v1.c11.s4.10

v1.c11.s4.10

Again, much reliance has been put on the mode of disposal of the dead as a sign of change of belief and of race. But, though it is often regarded as obvious that a change from burial to burning must accompany a new view of the dead, it is quite impossible to prove anything of the kind: neither the theory that changes of culture denote change of race, nor the view that change of culture has nothing to do with change of race, though both have distinguished exponents, has any real validity as a general proposition.¹ There is, however, much primitive evidence that burial and burning were means of disposing of the dead adopted by peoples without change of culture or recorded change of belief: thus the primitive neolithic tribes of Britain both buried and burned their dead, as did also the tribes of Tasmania, and the Romans in those periods of which we have records. Moreover it is probable that burial was always regarded as the normal and more primitive way: at least the fact that in the Rigveda burial seems to be contemplated as quite normal, and that in the later ritual, when burning was normal for all save sages and children under two years of age, it was considered proper to bury the bones left from the burning, stands in curious accord with the rule in Rome by which the burial of one bone was normal despite the burning of the body. The evidence in fact leaves the impression that it is quite impossible to treat burial and burning of the dead as marks of racial distinction: indeed it is not even possible to treat the two modes as indicating a different view of the position of the dead in every case: the Rigveda treats the two principles as one, and it has been argued that the same meaning must be seen even in Greek religion, where the distinction of burning and burial has been generally held to be fundamental as indicating change of race and religious belief alike.²