Deriv; Silbury Hill, Avebury, UK. Inset, the humble earthworm

Was Neolithic Silbury Hill Designed as a Welcoming Home for Omnivorous, Upwardly-Mobile Earthworms?

(Read the article on one page)

Silbury Hill, said to be the largest prehistoric man-made mound in Europe, looms over the landscape. Yet so little is understood about this enigmatic British site. However, surprising as it may seem, evidence supports the idea that it was intended to be a specialized funereal mound, a veritable processing plant, intending to free souls trapped within their mortal bodies.

Let’s start our story on what, for the writer, was a breezy elevated ridge on southern England’s North Wiltshire Downs at the West Kennet Long Barrow in March 2016.

Fig. 1: Entrance to the West Kennet Long Barrow.

Fig. 1: Entrance to the West Kennet Long Barrow. ( CC BY-SA 3.0 )

Fig. 2: From inside the West Kennet Long Barrow looking towards entrance.

Fig. 2: From inside the West Kennet Long Barrow looking towards entrance. (Photograph courtesy writer).

Neolithic Defleshing Released Trapped Souls

The barrow, south of Avebury in Wiltshire, England, with its chambered tombs constructed of megaliths, was reckoned to be in use as a repository for bones and largely disarticulated skeletons up until about 2400 BC. 

West Kennet Long Barrow

West Kennet Long Barrow (Ben Cremin, Flickr/ CC BY 2.0 )

The underlying belief seems to have been that upon death of a human, the soul was trapped with the mortal body. Any process – natural or assisted – that consumed the flesh served to release the soul.

Thus we have the ‘difficult,’ not to mention repellent (to modern eyes) literature on “excarnation” – or the defleshing of the newly deceased, which could either be passive (e.g. by primary burial assisted by soil microorganisms and earthworms, or scavenger-assisted, as with birds in sky burial) or by active excarnation (separate harvesting of bone from soft tissue using sharp implements).

Barrows only tell us that the bones were revered.  But was soft tissue (heart and other vital organs especially) so appreciated?

Swing around from the Long Barrow and another iconic site greets one, a mere half mile away. It’s Silbury Hill, claimed to be the largest man-made mound in Europe.

The iconic Silbury Hill, as seen from the West Kennet Long Barrow.

Fig. 3: The iconic Silbury Hill, as seen from the West Kennet Long Barrow. (Photograph courtesy writer).

Despite its impressive size (31 meters or 101 feet high) it’s reckoned that Silbury Hill was constructed in a relatively short time, variously estimated at between a decade and a century. It’s believed that Silbury began when the nearby Long Barrow was finally abandoned and the entrance sealed up. Was this a change in mind-set and funereal practice? Maybe. Let’s take a closer look at what’s inside Silbury Hill.

Silbury Hill, Enigmatic Mound

First let’s join our fellow tourists near the visitor car park, where one is greeted by a helpful, open air display board.

Fig. 4: Silbury Hill: visitors’ observation area with display board, summarizing results of centuries of archaeological investigation.

Fig. 4: Silbury Hill: visitors’ observation area with display board, summarizing results of centuries of archaeological investigation. (Photograph courtesy writer).

Fig. 5: Close up of display board artwork

Fig. 5: Close up of display board artwork (Judith Dobie).

The three panels above show the initial stages in the Silbury construction, as inferred from the various tunneling and excavation operations, starting with the first (vertical) shaft in 1776, ending in most recent 2007 probing by English Heritage archaeologist Jim Leary and archaeological investigator David Field and their fellow researchers.

It may help to consult this writer’s own schematic cross-sectional diagrams. Beware: they are based on interpretation of sentences from archaeologists Leary and Field and are not to scale regarding relative dimensions, precise ordering of soil layers etc.

“Silbury 1” is the name of the first small mound made of layers of gravel and dark layers of turf and soil. “Silbury 2” was built up over this first mound, and was composed of chalk rubble and soil. “Silbury 3” was the final phase, wherein ditches were filled in, others were created, and the mound was finished off, creating a 60-degree sloping, pyramidal structure.

Fig. 6: Left: initial site with topsoil. Center: removal of topsoil.  Right:  Silbury 1 - adding heap of gravel.

Fig. 6: Left: initial site with topsoil. Center: removal of topsoil.  Right:  Silbury 1 - adding heap of gravel. (Image courtesy writer)

The third diagram on the right corresponds with the first on the display board, showing the initial gravel mound. Note that the gravel was NOT deposited on original soil and turf, which had first been removed (see below for later use). Many questions stem from this revelation.

Why bother to remove the topsoil if one is building a mound, even if planning only a modest-size one initially?

  Fig.7: The seemingly ever-more perplexing steps. Mounds upon mounds, and then pits dug in and backfilled.

Fig.7: The seemingly ever-more perplexing steps. Mounds upon mounds, and then pits dug in and backfilled. (Image courtesy writer)

In Figure 7 we see at left that the top soil has now been added back, together with turves—turf or sod — (some still green after 4,500 years!) and residents such as ants and other insects (as well still visible after 4,500 years!)


Colin Berry's picture

Now that my recent Silbury Hill posting has finally fallen off the bottom of the main  (pictorial) listings, I decided to do a posting on my own long neglected Silbury site (abandoned  2012).

Here's a link to the new posting, basically describing how the ideas evolved, starting with Valdar's thought-provoking December posting on this site  with its references to freeing the Neolithic soul from mortal remains.It was good to get away from the grisly details of excarnation, and adopt a more positive perspective.





Colin Berry's picture

This “thesis” of mine achieved almost zero impact here, as judged by the absence of comments. But that was not surprising or unexpected, given the role proposed for Silbury Hill as a side show to a much larger operation, one that is described in the specialist archaeological literature as “excarnation” (defleshing of a corpse by one or other means), or the more popular description “sky burial. I’ve coined  what I consider a more informative technical term, a midway compromise between excarnation and sky burial,  which I call  AFS – avian facilitated skeletonization. It’s usually associated with vultures in central Asia and the subcontinent, but may well have been mediated by smaller birds in Britain – crows and gulls being prime candidates.

The purpose of this comment is to say that the real “show”, as distinct from sideshow has now been addressed, and takes in 10 major archaeological  sites – from Seahenge and Stonehenge in Britain to Rujm el-Hiri in the Golan Heights  and Gobekli Tepe in  SE Turkey. All involve elevated timber or stonework that can and in my opinion SHOULD be regarded as bird perches that would have been grouped around  a central feeding station (“table”) whether surviving or not.


While obtaining absolute proof of the theory, dare one say paradigm, is difficult if not impossible, it can explain a number of details that would otherwise be tricky to accommodate within conventional thinking, e.g. the existence of large accumulations of cremated bones at Stonehenge. I say that was end-stage cleanup of partially skeletonised remains (UK scavenger birds being less efficient than Continental vultures), NOT the result of whole-body cremation (needing large amounts of dry timber, not available year round in a damp maritime climate, or with difficulty, especially pre-Bronze Age flint-axe based Neolithic Britain). The bottom line was a horror of disposing of the dead in deep graves, considered to trap the soul, preventing its exit to the heavens and afterlife. Thus the inherent logic of sky burial, sense (Neolithic sense that is) taking precedence over sensibility.

For details of the unifying sky burial narrative, based on a simple recurring template of central feeding station within enveloping protective circle(s) see my latest posting:


Register to become part of our active community, get updates, receive a monthly newsletter, and enjoy the benefits and rewards of our member point system OR just post your comment below as a Guest.

Our Mission

At Ancient Origins, we believe that one of the most important fields of knowledge we can pursue as human beings is our beginnings. And while some people may seem content with the story as it stands, our view is that there exists countless mysteries, scientific anomalies and surprising artifacts that have yet to be discovered and explained.

The goal of Ancient Origins is to highlight recent archaeological discoveries, peer-reviewed academic research and evidence, as well as offering alternative viewpoints and explanations of science, archaeology, mythology, religion and history around the globe.

We’re the only Pop Archaeology site combining scientific research with out-of-the-box perspectives.

By bringing together top experts and authors, this archaeology website explores lost civilizations, examines sacred writings, tours ancient places, investigates ancient discoveries and questions mysterious happenings. Our open community is dedicated to digging into the origins of our species on planet earth, and question wherever the discoveries might take us. We seek to retell the story of our beginnings. 

Ancient Image Galleries

View from the Castle Gate (Burgtor). (Public Domain)
Door surrounded by roots of Tetrameles nudiflora in the Khmer temple of Ta Phrom, Angkor temple complex, located today in Cambodia. (CC BY-SA 3.0)
Cable car in the Xihai (West Sea) Grand Canyon (CC BY-SA 4.0)
Next article