The Boyne Valley Revision - Martin Brennan returns to Ireland

mythicalireland

Controversial and pioneering
author to return to Ireland

Major winter solstice conference in the Boyne Valley

Pioneer on Stone Age astronomical alignments to headline event

A pioneering Irish-American American author who radically changed how we look at the sophistication of Ireland’s Stone Age monuments is to return to Ireland after a quarter of a century.

A generation ago, Martin Brennan challenged conventional opinion about the function of Newgrange and the passage-mounds of Ireland and presented overwhelming evidence showing that many of these 5,000-year-old monuments were used as complicated astronomical observatories.

His books, The Boyne Valley Vision and The Stones of Time, both published in the early 1980s, continue to hold a fascination with the public and are considered essential reading in relation to the Neolithic monuments. His revelations made headlines all across the world at the time.

Brennan will headline a conference, to be held in the heart of the Boyne Valley at Winter Solstice, to talk about his continuing research into ancient astronomical alignments and how his work in Ireland has resonance in other countries around the world, including Mexico, where he currently resides.

He will be joined by fellow speakers Jack Roberts and Toby Hall, both of whom helped Brennan make his spectacular discoveries in the 1980s, including the Winter Solstice alignment of the southern chamber at Dowth, and the equinox sunrise alignment at Cairn T, Loughcrew, Co. Meath.

Huge controversy was evoked when Brennan’s work was published, and there was a significant rift between the astronomical alignment protagonists and the archaeological establishment, who believed the great monuments of the Boyne Valley to be huge tombs.

The debate continues to rage today. Anthony Murphy, co-author of Island of the Setting Sun – In Search of Ireland’s Ancient Astronomers – is another speaker at the event, and will discuss how Brennan’s work continues to inspire research in the Boyne Valley and beyond to this day. Completing the line-up of speakers is Sig Lonegren, expert on geomancy and earth energies, who has known Martin since 1980.

Martin Brennan is a controversial and sometimes elusive character. Currently ensconced in the Mexican jungle, he lives a modest existence in a hut, from where he explores the ancient monuments of that country. He left Ireland 25 years ago and has not returned here since, despite the enormous popularity of his books and the recognition of his huge contribution to our understanding of Neolithic astronomy and achievement.

He is currently working on a new book, studying the alignments in Mexico and the Mayan calendar, to be published in 2010.

He will be the headline speaker at a conference entitled “The Boyne Valley Revision” which will be held at The Newgrange Lodge on Sunday, December 20th. Tickets for the conference are 65 euro and are available by contacting The Newgrange Lodge on 041-9882478 or by emailing sara@ebc.ie

More information:

http://mythicalireland.com/
http://mythicalireland.com/theboynevalleyrevision/

MarchDub

I'm not sure what role is being claimed here for Martin Brennan but the archaeologist who actually did the excavation work on Newgrange beginning in 1962 and discovered the astronomical design of the chamber was Michael O'Kelly of University College Cork.

http://www.knowth.eu/new_grange.htm


Quote:


By the time one of Ireland's leading archaeologists, Professor Michael O'Kelly of University College, Cork, came to excavate and restore Newgrange in the 1960s, the tomb had been a tourist attraction for more than 250 years. (It had been discovered by chance in 1699.) So it was hardly surprising that he was able to find only a handful of the bones which the tomb and its stone basins must have been designed to hold. But despite the visitors who had walked up the stone passageway into the corbelled chamber for more than two centuries, the most spectacular secret of Newgrange still awaited discovery.
As O'Kelly's team of restorers removed the grass and weeds from the mound, they came across a curious rectangular slit above the door. It was half-closed by a square block of crystallized quartz, apparently designed to work as a shutter. There were scratches on the quartz: clearly it had often been slid to and fro, providing a narrow entrance to the tomb above the main door, which was firmly sealed with a 5-ton slab of stone.
But what was the slit for? It was too small and too far from the ground to be an entrance for people. Professor O'Kelly remembered a local tradition which said that' the sun always shone into the tomb at Midsummer. Perhaps the 'roofbox', as it came to be known, was designed to admit the summer sun to the tomb without the entrance stone having to be moved. 'But it was quite obvious to us that it couldn't happen at Midsummer because of the position of the sun' says O'Kelly. 'So if the sun was to shine in at all, the only possibility would be in Midwinter.'

In December 1967, Michael O'Kelly drove from his home in Cork to Newgrange. Before the sun came up he was at the tomb, ready to test his theory. 'I was there entirely alone. Not a soul stood even on the road below. When I came into the tomb I knew there was a possibility of seeing the sunrise because the sky had been clear during the morning.' He was, however, quite unprepared for what followed. As the first rays of the sun appeared above the ridge on the far bank of the River Boyne, a bright shaft of orange light struck directly through the roofbox into the heart of the tomb. 'I was literally astounded. The light began as a thin pencil and widened to a band of about 6 in. There was so much light reflected from the floor that I could walk around inside without a lamp and avoid bumping off the stones. It was so bright I could see the roof 20ft above me'.

'I expected to hear a voice, or perhaps feel a cold hand resting on my shoulder, but there was silence. And then, after a few minutes, the shaft of light narrowed as the sun appeared to pass westward across the slit, and total darkness came once more.' Every year since 1967, O'Kelly has returned to Newgrange for the midwinter sunrise, and every year, from his vantage point lying on the smooth sandy floor of the tomb, he has seen the bright disc of the sun fill the roofbox and the shaft of light pass down the passageway, across his face, into the recess at the back of the chamber. Its precision makes him certain that the effect was deliberately engineered.

mythicalireland

You need to dig a bit deeper to get the true picture on astronomical discoveries in the Boyne Valley. Yes, Michael O'Kelly "re-discovered" the Newgrange alignment in 1967. But it was Brennan who first documented the Winter Solstice alignment of the southern chamber at Dowth plus the equinox alignment of Cairn T at Loughcrew. Numerous other alignments were also re-discovered by Brennan.

The archaeological community to this day does not accept that astronomy was a major function of the passage-mounds, but the evidence would suggest it was integral to the design of many monuments.

Martin Brennan is widely regarded as the pioneer of Irish megalithic astronomy, but regrettably does not get much (or indeed any) credit for this from the academic community, many of whom shunned his work.

And by the way, despite O'Kelly's discovery in 1967, Newgrange is still described as a passage-tomb by the archaeological community.

Data_Quest

I'm a big fan of Martin Brennan: as a result of reading his books from the 1980s (luckily I found a copy in my local library) I visited Newgrange, Knowth and Loughcrew armed with a new knowledge. I would recommend the experience to all. I will be signing up for the conference as an Xmas present to myself.

camlinhall

mythicalireland wrote: »

The archaeological community to this day does not accept that astronomy was a major function of the passage-mounds, but the evidence would suggest it was integral to the design of many monuments.

The observation of solstice didn't need the light box, so the purpose of it and the construction as a whole remains a mystery, no?

GhostInTheRuins

I'm fairly sure it did need the lightbox. Newgrange was built on a slope, so that only the light from the lightbox would reach the back wall of the chamber. Correct me if I'm wrong but that's how I understand it.

oriel36

camlinhall wrote: »

The observation of solstice didn't need the light box, so the purpose of it and the construction as a whole remains a mystery, no?

What contemporaries fail to appreciate is that you cannot keeping showing up after every 365 days and expect the Solstice to be maintained relative to the time of the year.The people who built Newgrange would have been aware within 20 years that it takes an extra day to keep everything in sync and nothing these people did indicates ignorance of the correction we now know and call a leap day .

What I discovered about Newgrange is that it tells us about ourselves rather than sitting in judgement of the ancient society and I am grateful for that.It is just one of those things where the playing field is level and there is no question of superior modern intelligence against a primitive intelligence but rather what these people did with the information they had.In a world dominated by ideologies which exist only in the imagination of mathematicians, it is enjoyable to interpret a dynamic reflection of an annual event such as light moving through and illuminating a passage and who cares whether people accepts it or not,there are people who don't like music,art or literature that others truly adore.

camlinhall

GhostInTheRuins wrote: »

Newgrange was built on a slope, so that only the light from the lightbox would reach the back wall of the chamber. Correct me if I'm wrong but that's how I understand it.

That's what I understand too.
But you can tell when the solstice happens just by noting the sunrise in relation to fixed terrestrial objects, like they did in Mesoamerica long before the Spanish conquest. They established an observation position in a valley, sighted a range of hills, and gauged the day of solstice according to where along the ridge the sun appeared.
So what extra info did they get by going to all that trouble in Meath? Or had it more to do with sun worship which seems to have been very prevalent?

oriel36

One of the great pleasures as a Catholic and Christian was a renovation of our community Church almost 30 years ago,pooling individual talents to achieve something lovely and anybody who gives their time for something bigger than themselves will have no problem with Newgrange and the purpose it serves.

I have watched a tragedy unfold as a few misguided individuals in the late 17th century decided to rewrite the ancient heritage of astronomy,its methods and insights and the results are truly astonishing for all the wrong reasons including the loss of the most basic astronomical facts.These things are not trivia but supremely important,it takes a while to see it but eventually it does dawn on people why being indifferent to our astronomical heritage comes at a terrible price.

It is in our nature to innovate rather than dwell on how we should project ourselves to the outside world,after all,it is an abiding self confidence in spite of obstacles and hostility that always shine through.

gkell1

.

gkell1

The history of astronomy and the history of humankind are invariably linked hence an appreciation of the continuity between past , present and future is so crucial for depth of understanding.

We live in an era where there are people out there who firmly believe that we can see the evolution of the Universe directly based on the idea that the further the distance out,the further into the past we can look.This 'big bang' belief is not from some minor cult but a dominant belief and it is astonishingly repulsive and should be for any intelligent person for when such a conception dominates,there can be no respect for either astronomical,human history or even personal history.

I tried to post a response on a science forum as I am familiar with the technical details of these things and how such a conceptual abomination like 'big bang' managed to make it this far and find myself blocked from doing so but no real complaints here,just the comment that people who have no sense of the continuity between yesterday and tomorrow or past to future,can't appreciate history in any shape or form.If the world wants its 'big bang' conception and promotes it as a supreme human achievement instead of the insanity that it actually is then say goodbye to all history and how it provides depth and meaning to our own lives .


So much for boards.ie.

Wibbs

gkell1 wrote: »

conceptual abomination like [the] 'big bang'

It's a theory, nothing more nothing less. It will stand or fall in time due to observation and evidence. No "abomination" required or indeed understandable.

just the comment that people who have no sense of the continuity between yesterday and tomorrow or past to future,can't appreciate history in any shape or form.

How so? And please no winding rhetoric just plain speaking if possible.

If the world wants its 'big bang' conception and promotes it as a supreme human achievement instead of the insanity that it actually is then say goodbye to all history and how it provides depth and meaning to our own lives .

Like I said it's a theory. That's all. Where "insanity" comes into it I find hard to fathom.

So much for boards.ie.

Again, plain speaking and setting out of your stall in relation to the Boyne valley and the historicity of same would help.

I find Brennans work both impressive and appealing. Certainly more than the usual archaeologist catch all of "ritual we can never understand" that is also a cop out. He has brought an interesting angle to this debate. I would agree with him on more than a few counts. The petroglyphs have meaning and that meaning is likely understandable by us today. We're the same people, so it's not alien, however distant and culturally based. I'd also agree that passage graves is a misnomer for at least some of these types of monuments.

I'd take the middle path and think that these monuments existed for a very long time and over that time the culture surrounding them and the meaning behind them changed as people and cultures will. What was once an ancestor focused structure may in time have become much more and as well as. IE both answers are correct. It's a passage tomb and an internally ritualistic site and grave.

There would also be evolution of this notion. Perhaps kicked off by one or two neolithic "einsteins" who took it to a new level. Great genius didn't start with the ability to name such persons in ways we can still read today. Before Imhotep were many shoulders he stood on. I'd see that evolution in many of the kerbstones in both Newgrange and especially Knowth. Very complex patterns of stones, seemingly raised up as walls for no real good reason. Some of these decorated stones are to be found inside the structures and hidden from any sight. IMHO these were from a previous building/culture. Brought into the new because of the kudos attached to them.

As for the look of these places in the Boyne complex, it would be my guess that rather than having white facades a la Newgrange, or white entrance walkways a la Knowth, that those white stones thinly covered the top of the structure. Why? well in both sites the stones were found at a higher concentration at the entrance end. Cool, but look at early photos of both and you'll notice human and animal track ran alongside the entrance and up on to the mound. For me that would have carried the top stones down the path of least resistence to the front along said track.

I'd also reckon they're moon worship sites rather than sun. That the sun connected with the moon once a year, but the sun wasn;t the focus. The moon also connects with newgrange once every 18(IIRC) years and precedes the sun on the solstice. My idea that they were covered in the white stones as a representation of the moon on earth comes into this. The moon is a very common theme in early religions. Marking the tides and menstrual cycles and hunting nights in the full etc..

oriel36

Wibbs wrote: »

It's a theory, nothing more nothing less. It will stand or fall in time due to observation and evidence. No "abomination" required or indeed understandable.

It is insanity,nothing more or less and when people believe they can directly see the evolution of the Universe as a timeline,it is certain that no respect for the continuity between past and future prevails.

Wibbs wrote: »

How so? And please no winding rhetoric just plain speaking if possible.

Like I said it's a theory. That's all. Where "insanity" comes into it I find hard to fathom.

Plain speaking indeed !,if common sense exists I have yet to see it and it doesn't take much of an effort to comprehend the basic astronomical facts which separate contemporary junk such as 'big bang' from genuine astronomical achievements such as how Newgrange reflects astronomical cycles in an elegantly designed way.

You see people will make the effort to 'understand' the insanity of 'big bang' and waste so much time in the process,the idea is that we are looking out at an old and very large Universe,or is it when the Universe was very small,oh wait,is the Milky Way in an old Universe that is now very large looking back at a smaller Universe at a younger time and readers get the idea of this insane runaround passed off as 'astronomy'.The fact that people entertain the stuff for more than two minutes is enough but they may wish to know where the junk actually comes from and that takes quite an effort but gives immense satisfaction in the process.

Wibbs wrote: »

Again, plain speaking and setting out of your stall in relation to the Boyne valley and the historicity of same would help.

I will tell you that Newgrange exposes just how decrepit the intellectual standard has become for if you truly believe,and there is no grey areas in this,that you can see history evolving directly as a timeline of billions of years then it is certain that you cannot appreciate the actual timeline of history,not just that of the Universe,the planet or human history but your own individual history as well.

Take it or leave it but without first affirming basic astronomical facts it is impossible to put Newgrange in context of human achievement and historical developments including the rise of late 17th century empiricism passing itself off as science.

oriel36

Wibbs wrote: »

I'd also reckon they're moon worship sites rather than sun. That the sun connected with the moon once a year, but the sun wasn;t the focus. The moon also connects with newgrange once every 18(IIRC) years and precedes the sun on the solstice. My idea that they were covered in the white stones as a representation of the moon on earth comes into this. The moon is a very common theme in early religions. Marking the tides and menstrual cycles and hunting nights in the full etc..

Simple question that is easy to answer yet empiricists get it wrong as usual -

Does the moon rotate ?.

Any intelligent person would say that it doesn't rotate yet empiricists following Newton believe the moon rotates and once that useless late 17th century numbskull suggests a conclusion,his followers run with it.I have been familiar with this blinkered phenomena for many years now and it is as astonishing today as it was when I first encountered this slavish way of thinking.

So,go ahead,if the question and answer is too difficult then no problem and I will leave it at that but if people have interpretative difficulties when they can look out at the moon,see it has an orbital motion around the Earth but doesn't rotate (as it shows the same face constantly to us) then interpreting the ancient structures which reflect astronomical knowledge would be too much to ask.

Wibbs

That's plain speaking? OK... I fear we could get locked into back and forth multiquoting while you apply the hammer of your (likely theological) pet theory to everything that looked like a nail. And it would have little to do with history or for that matter astronomy beyond the fringes(hey I like the fringes, but even I have a limit).

Yes the moon rotates. It's called tidal locking. It's not the only moon that does this. And no it doesn't show it's face to us exactly, it varies slightly. If it wasn't rotating this couldn't happen. Newton was impressive when he was being impressive, but much of his output was theological and alchemical so still hanging on to middle ages daftness while he was at it.

I'll say this about Newgrange. For all their cleverness and clear achievement they still hadn't figured out procession. Hence the sunlight never makes it to the back of the chamber any more. It does lock down it's age when you run the clock back to when the sun would have reached the back.

There's defo an evolution to the sites and a variability with it. While other structures have (or appear to have) allignments only Newgrange has the complex roofbox. Is it the last of the line after a neolithic genius came up with it, or the first and others copied it more crudely? Were the kerbstones now vertical once laid out horizontally in an earlier flatter structure or structures aligned to the sky as some of their carvings would suggest? It's a fascinating site we have in the Boyne valley and associated complexes(and throughout Ireland).

oriel36

Wibbs wrote: »

That's plain speaking? OK... I fear we could get locked into back and forth multiquoting while you apply the hammer of your (likely theological) pet theory to everything that looked like a nail. And it would have little to do with history or for that matter astronomy beyond the fringes(hey I like the fringes, but even I have a limit).

Yes the moon rotates. It's called tidal locking. It's not the only moon that does this.

You can see the Earth rotating from any point in space, including from the face of the moon that looks out on us constantly ,this is what contemporary imaging allows -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXCnxoixb-s

Yet you can convince yourself,on account of a dumb 17th century mathematician, that the moon rotates and that is about as bad as it gets !.

The planet's variations in latitudinal speeds from 1037.5 miles per hour at the equator diminishing to 0 miles at the polar latitudes is simply a statement of the Earth's daily rotation,how you are going to apply the same principles to the moon is your own business but I assure you that if you see the moon rotating you have bigger problems than figuring this out.

I know the lunar calendar at Knowth all too well including the intersection of the Sun/spiral with the moon reflecting actual observations of the number of days in a lunar cycle ,the fact that readers here can't count 1461 days across 4 years reflecting 1461 rotations across 4 orbital circuits or 365 1/4 rotations per circuit is actually linked to the same problem that empiricists managed to bury by assuming 1465 rotations for the same 4 orbital periods -

http://books.google.ie/books?id=MfU3AAAAMAAJ&pg=PA27&dq=moon+does+not+rotate&hl=en&ei=Ywt5TPu7DJDGswbJ58SyDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CFgQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q&f=false

You want to defend a late 17th century character who had no feel for astronomy while I protect my nation's astronomical heritage and one of these facts is that the moon doesn't rotate,if you doubt it then do the common sense thing and look out your window at it and if you get that far then you might consider lunar libration as having an orbital resolution based on the moon's orbit of the Earth and the Earth and the moon's orbit around the Sun.

'Big bang' indeed !,maybe readers wish to make fools of themselves by believing they can see the timeline of Universal evolutionary history but I value my own perception of the continuity between past and future and all those personal memories which fit in with that perception.Big bangers don't have respect for physical considerations or history,theirs or anyone else's.

Wibbs

*sigh* Of course we have an outstanding astronomical heritage from the Neolithic(and the odd burst afterwards). One of the earliest and the finest. Brennans research and theory if having legs and I personally believe it does, has people in this small rock on the edge of the world observing, understanding and recording astronomical events with insight far ahead of anyone else we know of at the time. Stuff the babylonians were only getting to 1000's of years later. If the Knowth K15 "sundial" is a sundial and it sure looks like and functions as one experimentally, again that's predating any other sundials by 1000's of years. That's before we get to the apparent lunar and solar calenders of the same site. I'd even be open to the idea that they were even earlier than those structures and were reused for their "power" and incorporated into the later astronomical "cult"(how much earlier is another thing of course). I'm in full agreement there.


As for the stuff better served in the astronomy forum(or the conspiracy theories forum along with the flat earthers). Proof the moon rotates and proof of tidal locking? First and foremost even without any other observation, the moon isn't perfectly locked to Earth and we see less and more of it's face by a couple of percentage points. If it wasn't rotating we simply wouldn't. Most of all if it didn't rotate we would see all of it's surface eventually as it orbited. The fact we only see one side proves it's rotating and tidally locked. Other examples? From Earth you can observe Mercury rotating. However from the sun you would observe it barely rotating depending on it's (highly eccentric) orbit. Europa one of the moons of Jupiter clearly rotates when observed from Earth, yet if observed from Jupiter it would only show the same hemisphere. Io, ganymede and Callisto the same(among others). The largest satellite in the solar system Saturns Titan, also exhibits this behaviour. From Earth it rotates, but if you could stand on Saturn again all you would see is one side of Titan. There are many many more examples in our solar system. I can PM you the list if you like. Indeed Pluto and charon are tidal locked to each other(because of their closeness in size) so an observer on either would only ever see the one face of the other, yet from earth(though the images are crap) they rotate. Al because of tidal locking. If you stood on Mars and observed the moon you would see the same thing. The satellite of earth rotating. It's all relative innit and with no Newton required.

Though a thread in here on the history of scientific discovery on this score(and others) may prove interesting.

jonniebgood1

A general point:

Please keep the discussion on the subject as per the thread. Specifically big bang theories, astrology theories and general conspiracy theories should be kept to the appropriate forums.

Thank you- moderator.

oriel36

Wibbs wrote: »

Proof the moon rotates and proof of tidal locking? First and foremost even without any other observation, the moon isn't perfectly locked to Earth and we see less and more of it's face by a couple of percentage points. If it wasn't rotating we simply wouldn't. Most of all if it didn't rotate we would see all of it's surface eventually as it orbited.

Wait up son,I have told you that the characteristics of intrinsic rotation rely on variations in latitudinal speeds with the Earth's equatorial speed 1037.5 miles per hour and turning its full 24901 mile circumference in 24 hours and something that can be seen from any point in space.Now somehow you imagine lunar rotation with the same feature that the moon rotates through 360 degrees even though observers looking out their window won't see it and never seen it.Only one person did and to read the two pages is an assault on the eyes -

http://books.google.ie/books?id=gB2-Hqdx_LUC&pg=PA580&dq=newton+moon+rotates&hl=en&ei=SQJ5TJP1FYTKswadoL2yDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CDkQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q&f=false

So lets get all this straight - empiricists refuse to accept that the Earth turns once in 24 hours or 15 degrees per hour as the value they give for daily rotation through 360 degrees is another value,they can't count 1461 rotations across 4 orbital circuits as they believe 366 1/4 rotations per circuit,they believe the moon rotates even though a person has to suspend his/her interpretative instincts when looking at it as it orbits the Earth and somehow manage to convince themselves they can see the entire evolutionary timeline of the Universe from direct observation thereby suspending the normal continuity between past,present and future.

I can show you the Earth rotating through 360 degrees from space while you don't stand a chance of showing lunar rotation for the simple reason is that it doesn't exist -

http://www.stariel.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/moon_phases.jpg

Again,Newgrange tells people just how bad things actually are at the moment as it not only applies to astronomy but to individual perceptions of what history is as a continuity between past,present and future.

I always considered the opposite of responsibility to be unresponsive,people who should know better yet choose not to protect what is good and right,although it looks like astronomy is far removed from culture and only within the realms of mathematicians or empiricist lackeys,a nation's heritage is wrapped up in accurately reflecting that knowledge with pride and eloquence.

They would be better off bulldozing Newgrange to the ground as the nation that once built a reflection of its astronomical knowledge is long since gone and what exists now is a pride in utter stupidity,you might want to console yourselves that Newton's strain of empiricism is brilliant but then again,you also believes the moon rotates 360 degrees in a month.

oriel36

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

A general point:

Please keep the discussion on the subject as per the thread. Specifically big bang theories, astrology theories and general conspiracy theories should be kept to the appropriate forums.

Thank you- moderator.

The forum and its participants rely on a clear understanding of what history is,in this case the continuity between past,present and future and as we cannot see the timeline of history directly whether it is the evolution of the Universe,planetary evolution ,that of human history or our own,it is remarkable to encounter a people who firmly believe they can see a 'younger' Universe thereby making a mockery of what history is.

The fact that there are 1461 days and rotations of the Earth from Mar 1st 2008 until Feb 29th 2012 crossing 4 years and 4 orbital circuits is not a theory but a fact that empiricists don't accept,they believe 1465 rotations over 4 years and it would not be possible to even consider a Solstice alignment with empirical notions like that never mind appreciate it.That is why Newgrange is so important,it is not an object of guesswork but an astronomical standard in this era which doesn't have any.

How easy was it for you to divert the issue to conspiracy,astrology or something else when this is flat out common sense and its possible restoration to astronomy and to education.You are about to kick me out of a forum because of what my history represents in technical details then fair enough but I assure you I am not having somebody else's history shoved down my throat and especially from the empirical myth making machine of late 17th century England.

Your call.

sensibleken

Wibbs wrote: »

I'll say this about Newgrange. For all their cleverness and clear achievement they still hadn't figured out procession. Hence the sunlight never makes it to the back of the chamber any more. It does lock down it's age when you run the clock back to when the sun would have reached the back.

.

Cairn T at loughcrew does and follows what appears to be a definte line of petroglyphs. It may be that the loughcrew builders were 'better' or maybe newgrange builders didnt intend it to reach the back. who knows

jonniebgood1

sensibleken wrote: »

Cairn T at loughcrew does and follows what appears to be a definte line of petroglyphs. It may be that the loughcrew builders were 'better' or maybe newgrange builders didnt intend it to reach the back. who knows

Could the difference be that the loughcrew chamber is quite a bit shorter. This would mean that any slight change would not be as noticeable if the light entering was through a larger gap in the chamber?

sensibleken

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Could the difference be that the loughcrew chamber is quite a bit shorter. This would mean that any slight change would not be as noticeable if the light entering was through a larger gap in the chamber?

well i dont know if that was the intention. at loughcrew its not just accross the ground like at newgrange but forms a square and is far more designed. it could be that that effect neccesitated a smaller one alright

Wibbs

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Could the difference be that the loughcrew chamber is quite a bit shorter. This would mean that any slight change would not be as noticeable if the light entering was through a larger gap in the chamber?

That would be my take too. Plus while the sunlight does follow the line of glyphs at loughcrew it doesn't quite match up. The best evidence seems to be that if you dial in the procession angle of when it was built the sunlight then hits the back.