Newgrange - megalithic marvel or modern monstrosity?

[lovelytigress]

What royburns said...

and....I've been there twice. I don't recall ever hearing any claims to the authenticity of the outside structures. The inside though... does indeed take you to the ancient world. The whole valley is under assault by development. Please consider the real 'lies' that have been told to enable this irreplaceable heritage to be disgraced. If you want to point your mic at a real miscarriage of integrity take a look at the HIll of Tara, Newgrange is next.

[cool2kitty]

It was intuitively obvious to me when I visited Newgrange that the river stones were placed on the ground by the original builders. They were meant to reflect the Milky Way (the "River of Stars" above), expressing the ancient Hermetic teaching, "As Above, So Below." The location on the Boyne River is likewise an intentional placement reflecting the correspondence between the earthly river and the heavenly one.

[royburns]

Rupert Soskin also asserts in this clip that neolithic people would not have built 'such a monstrosity'.

How does he know, was he there taking notes during the construction of this magnificent building?

[royburns]

The dismissive attitude to the work needed to restore this ancient structure should be seen as nothing more than peevish, archeological jealously. Of course the outside structure is secured with concrete to prevent a collapse of the building so that future generations can visit this unique and wonderful Irish site. His other videos of places like Stonehenge in England leave out the fact that every stone on that site was re-erected, straightened or embedded in concrete between 1901 and 1964.

[seonidh]

concrete its a travasty they did that here 

[tigerspuds]

"A 1970's piece of nonsense"....... And what is stonehenge???? A few stone standing up...... Piece of shite!!!

[sonofherne]

@tigerspuds .The facade of Newgrange is incorrect, any Irish archaeologist will tell you that. It doesn't detract from its true history or magnificent structure! The people who built both Newgrange and Stonehenge were the megalith builders of the Atlantic fringe, so were all interelated and connected people. No point in slagging one or other off. They worshipped the same thing and had similar ideas such as aligning their monuments on the solstices!

[john37309]

The now deceased Professor Michael J. O'Kelly excavated Newgrange for 13 years. He published his work on Newgrange in 1982 in a book called "Newgrange, archeology, art and legend".

Professor O'Kelly clearly explains in his book that, from the archaeological evidence, the quartz stones were originally part of the revetment wall and Not "intentionally layed" on the ground. So Michael Bott's final comments in this video were wrong and an uneducated, opinionated corruption of the true facts.

[seonidh]

@john37309 still neolithic man lacked the technology to create the mound in the way depicted today it would never have stood up. I have to agree with the video inside is perfect, outside is a tourist trap.

[john37309]

@seonidh Hi Seonidh, - Professor O'Kelly said in his publication that the evidence suggested the original wall was about 3 meters high and the quartz was on the front of the wall.

Maybe the original builder never intended for the wall to stay standing for thousands of years. Maybe they built the monument to serve its function bury one High King and his family. And after that, maybe the monument was intentionally left to naturally decay over time.

John.

[seonidh]

@john37309 Sure, but the structure isnt neolythic if you look at similar sized examples like Maes Howe they didnt pour concrete on it because one man said so. Then they used metal pins, morter and modern studies like Palle Eriksen (2004) says it was dome-shaped and hence there never was a vertical wall the quartz may have been either laid on the face of a less steeply sloping mound or as a deposit on the ground in front of the monument. Its only O'Kelly who says the wall was vertical.

[seonidh]

@seonidh then studies like van Wijngaarden-Bakker 1986 say the beaker people (who built the mounbd) were described as having a lower standard of living with food production concentrated chiefly on cattle and pig herding. The extravagance of the construction of the tomb/house for the dead had wrecked the economy. There is no way neolithic man could ever have taken the time to build the mound like that in the way O'Kelly states. His ideas belong in the 1970s when he published that claim.

[john37309]

@seonidh Its kinda like the Irish version of "Who shot J.F.K". I suppose we will always be debating if it was right or wrong. Professor O'Kelly had to make a decision what to do at the time and, having read the man's publication, i respect the decision he made. I understand that many people don't like what he done. But either way, i think the end result is mysterious and enchanting and brings in flocks of tourists to Ireland to explore our history. Thats a good thing Seonidh! ---John.

[seonidh]

@john37309 true it brings in much needed money and tourism but its hardly mysterious to pour concrete over a world heritage site and call it restoration. You dont get the scots doing that at Neolithic Orkney. It makes a lovely photo opportunity but at the cost oif vandalism. Best to have left it the way it was just like the inside.

[john37309]

@seonidh Maybe, maybe your right! I would have done the same thing as Michael O'Kelly. If the archaeological evidence suggested to me that the revetment wall was originally 3 meters high and almost vertical, i would have restored it that way. As opposed to bowing to the majority of people who think the Newgrange builders were simple people who built simple plain structures. Today Knowth fits the preconceived notion but its just as artificial. These people were master builders, Kelly was spot on

[john37309]

@seonidh Were you at the Brú na Bóinne conference in Drogheda there about a month ago? I was, it was very good. George Eogan gave the opening speech --John.

[seonidh]

@john37309 sadly no Im in asia working but would have loved to have gone. It always amazes me that the beaker people of Scotland, Ireland and Britain could build these monuments to align with the sun and moon while the Romans and classical Greeks called us savages. I also want to go to Skara Brae as it proves we wernt celtic savages but rather sophisticated with flushing toilets, and home comforts that look straight out of the flintstones.

[john37309]

@seonidh If your interested in Skara Brae, subscribe to this youtube channel; /user/360Production . They have loads of videos of their current dig in Orkney. They are posting almost daily updates! Its great, i love it!

Seonidh i agree with you. I think in time people will come to understand just how advanced these people were. They were way ahead of what current archeology tells us. --John.

[sonofherne]

@seonidh .Beaker people only arrived about 2500 BC. These monuments are older than that. Certainly megalith building began another great phase at the time of beaker arrival, no doubt spurred on by the quest for metals, but it seems to be a fushion of native and new ideas.

[sonofherne]

@john37309 .There may be something in that. Often neolithic societies would build a structure in wood then let it decay and fill it with something else. Or break objects deliberately tto make them 'die.' Or burn down great wooden temples.

[sonofherne]

@john37309 .Yes, they were part of the revetment, but the angle of the wall is too severe and it is already collapsing.

[AjunkoMilitak]

With all of these other beautiful sites, how is it that Stonehenge is the most famous?

[sb81282]

Regardless of how Newgrange looks it should never be studied in isolation. Other monuments exist in this region which form part of the collection. Looking at the information that the collection together give us dwarfs the question of whether or not the entrance is original.... This is just more British propaganda dismissing one of the most important civilisations in the history of man as being non-significant.

[GundisalusMenendiz]

before he even finished that's exactly what I was saying to myself, it looks added on absolutely,, but I think these megaliths are older than they think......

[thedirtyfecker]

Well your argument is a good one but it should also be noted that the work done was to preserve the tomb from further delapidation. As for the quartz front that is a matter of debate. The stone itself is origional and while it may be debatable if it were on the front as it is depicted in Knowth it is laid on the ground out side like a carpet to present both sides of the scenario as to which is the origional. It is left to the observer to make their own mind up...

[hanmwah]

yes i agree, i love the site but i hate the entrance, it is very 70's looking!

[newmediaformat]

*****

[maryswilde]

Must agree with you there, all I will say though, all the 97 kerbstones are in their original sockets, so we know the diameter is original. Also the mound was rebuilt using the original river rolled boulders. The quartz and granite on the revetment wall have been there for 5,000 years.