[Clayart] funerary urns

pdp1 pdp1 at earthlink.net
Sun Jan 12 20:18:11 EST 2014


Hi Rand,



The 'Calculator' does not take into account, infants or the very young, or
the very old, or the Ostioporitic, who's refractory remains will be much
less in volume and weight 'per pound' of prior Body Weight, than those
persons or other animals who have dense, well formed Bones and Teeth...or
than those who have long Labored in actual hard Physical Labors or vigorous
activities, thus having denser, heavier Bones, vis-a-vie those accustomed to 
a sedentary life.

Not that it matters much, but...jus' sayin'...


I Cremated a very elderly, and, apparently Ostiopotritic deceased Pigeon
recently, who's decade of prior History was one of a very sedentary Life,
and, using the same small Wood Pyre I always do, all which remained were
their Thigh Bones and lower Leg Bones and Humerus Bones, all else was 
reduced to powder or as
may be, amid the fine remaining Wood Ash.

Typically, Cremating a deceased Pigeon, even an older adolescent, one ends 
up with virtually all of
their Bones intact, and a perfect intact 'Paper Thin' Skull, and Jaw and
intact Mandible-Maximal and 'Beak' and so on, on down ( if with the 'Beak' 
being
minus the Keratin sheath, of course ) , even very slender Bones within the
Mandible process ( say less than 1/16th of an inch in diameter ) remaining
strong and definite.

The same would hold true pretty much for any Species; infants or the very
young, or, the Ostioporitic/elderly/long-sedentary, there may much less
remains or hardly any 'solid' remains to speak of.


I find it disappointing, for people to be trying to cram in ALL the remains
of a Cremated person or other larger or large Animal, into one Container.

Why???

Where-in, if instead, electing a refined, tasteful Container, intentionally
elected for it's appropriateness intrinsically, as an 'Object' in and as 
itself, without worry of 'size',
and, allowing it to hold what it can, with the rest of the Refractory
Remains, being 'scattered' to poetically or other suited locations out of
Doors, or housed elsewhere...eliminating entirely then, any need for
strategic planning for an entire calculated Volume to go into one single and
hence, almost always, badly compromised, container.

To me it is a gruesome contemplation, to have to imagine some enormous,
clumsy fat Vase or 'adapted' Bean Pot, sitting on a Mantle, for housing old
Aunt what's-her-name's or anyone else's Gallon and a Half or more, of
Refractory Remains.

Yuck!

No thanks!


Lol...

Some smallish, refined form, sitting innocently where-ever...can sit there
innocently where-ever, and, never be gruesome or macabre or pejoratively
'gross'.

Anyway...


Phil
L v




-----Original Message----- 
From: Rand O'Brien
Sent: Sunday, January 12, 2014 12:43 PM
To: Clayart at lists.clayartworld.com
Subject: [Clayart] funerary urns

Hi Folks,
I have question about funerary urns.  I can't find if the cremains
are hygronomous or absorb water from the atsmosphere, i.e. like salt
or sodium hydorxide.  Thus the question if a non-vitreous clay
vessel, such as raku, can be used for the cremains. I wouldn't want
the salts, etc. to eventually effloresce on the outside of the urn,
though I know most of the remaining substance is calcium-based.  I
found a great site for sizing - a cubic inch of ashes/pound of body
weight; even with a calculator!!
http://www.mainelyurns.com/what-size-cremation-urn.html
Thanks for the info.
Peace,
Rand O'Brien


Safety is all well and good: I prefer freedom.                  Rand
O'Brien, LICSW

       86
Locust St.
         The Trumpet of the
Swan                                         Dover, NH, 03820
                 E.B.
White                                                      Ph. 603-743-6945

        FAX
603-743-6942





_______________________________________________
Clayart mailing list
Clayart at lists.clayartworld.com
http://lists.clayartworld.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/clayart 




More information about the Clayart mailing list