The "First" Irish people

tac foley

mikhail wrote: »

, the Dutch and the Swedish retain their own languages in spite of extremely high levels of English literacy), the claim that the native Irish did so is a big one. I doubt archaeologists are arguing in a vacuum; do you know of a neat summary of the argument anywhere?

Add Norwegians and Danes to that list, please. Both are countries with small populations who retain their own version of the same basic Germanic language. Nevertheless, the chances of meeting a native of either county who does not speak English is slight.

tac

tac foley

Enkidu wrote: »

The Welsh call their language Cymraeg.

Not a million miles away from Gomeraeg, you must admit.

BTW, modern Hungarians firmly believe that their language, Mágyár, is derived from ancient Scythian...

tac

tac foley

Johnmb wrote: »

Scotland and Wales also have little mixing, and England, while it has more than us, has surprisingly little as well when you consider how many times they've been invaded and conquered.

You make it seem as though the invasion and conquest of the whole of mainland Great Britain was a weekly event.

44AD - the Romans invaded the southern end of Britanno-Celtic Britain. In spite of rumours to the contrary, what later became known as Britannia Major was not instantly pacified and Romanised - indeed, it took more than a hundred years to do it.

Then, around 440AD, the Romans that WERE Romans left. Leaving an extremely mixed-up 'native population' of British, part-British [from intermarrying of Roman soldiers from all over the Empire who chose to settle down in Britain] and Romano-British [those who were either Romanised by pursuasion, or were the off-spring of native Italian Romans of pure Mediterranean stock].

Meanswhile, to escape the marauding Scandinavians, sometime between 500AD and 600AD, a Northern Irish tribe [the Scottii] invaded the top end of Britain, supplanting the native population [the so-called Picts] of that area, and settled, giving it the name Scotland, and brought their language with them.

Thereafter, down below, there were numerous incursions between 400 and 800 or so, when there were no 'real' British left, apart from those in Wales. All the invaders at that time did was to in invade their own pre-planted populations. This 'conquest' was much more of a gradual infiltration of people and their way of life and introduction of language. Only in Wales is there a recognisably Brythonic language still spoken.

Then the very last time, in 1066 by the Normans, themselves only a couple of generations after colonising Northern France from Scandinavia, and most certainly NOT French, except by accepting the language.

In this event, Scotland was a separate country and not included, and Wales, notionally a separate country, needed almost 300 more years of 'pacification' before it became, grudgingly, under English rule.

tac

Gee Bag

tomasocarthaigh wrote: »

There is a site outside of Kilbeggan in Westmeath that is supposed to be more important than Tara... cant remeber its name now...

It's called Uisneach. Its a couple of miles west of Loughnavalley in Westmeath. It's just off the road between Mullingar and Athlone

Enkidu

tac foley wrote: »

Not a million miles away from Gomeraeg, you must admit.

If you here them both pronounced correctly in their original languages, they're pretty far from each other. Secondly, I'm sure if you take any language's name for itself, it will probably sound like something out of some mythology.

tac foley wrote: »

BTW, modern Hungarians firmly believe that their language, Mágyár, is derived from ancient Scythian...

It derives from Proto-Finno-Ugric.

owenc

Farcheal wrote: »

If you look at the historical evidence, ot makes sense, Irish scottish and manx are Giodlic langiages I believe the originate fromi Galician a language in north westwrn spain. However Wales, Brittany and maybe Cornwall were Brythonic. so was England but it was changed due to invasion. Scottish was Pictish umtil Dal raita or the scoti took over from Ireland. It seems as if Gaelic culture comes from celtic iberians, whilst brythonic from brittany, basically 2 surving isolated celt groups.

But not all of scotland was in the kingdom of dalriada. Irish people have this obsession of saying that they brought scottish culture about (which they did partially) but irish people are not wholly responsible for the development of scotland. They might have brought the language to north western scotland but their kingdom hardly covered the whole of scotland. It is always forgotten that england is right beside scotland and is actually attached to scotland so in any event they would've had their influence aswell. Infact when we look at dna results from east scotland we see alot of scandavian influence. So really the only irish influence is in the west.

sensibleken

owenc wrote: »

But not all of scotland was in the kingdom of dalriada. Irish people have this obsession of saying that they brought scottish culture about (which they did partially) but irish people are not wholly responsible for the development of scotland. They might have brought the language to north western scotland but their kingdom hardly covered the whole of scotland. It is always forgotten that england is right beside scotland and is actually attached to scotland so in any event they would've had their influence aswell. Infact when we look at dna results from east scotland we see alot of scandavian influence. So really the only irish influence is in the west.

obsession? please, stick to facts without making generalisations

dubhthach

It's considerably more complex then that tbh, you see plenty of Scandinavian influence in Western Scotland as well particulary as they mostly Gaelicised (Like Normas in Ireland). thus you see that in Irish we call the Hebrides (Stronghold of Gàidhlig) Innse Gall (The islands of the foreigns).

At it's peak in the 12th century most of modern day scotland was Gaelic speaking. For example here is a map showing the linguistic boundaries in the 14th century.



At this stage the name Scots applied to Gaelic where'as what we now call "Scots" was called Inglis. It's expansion had started with Burgh creation thus the "outposts" in North East. Likewise it expanded into the area that were historically "British speaking" (Cumbrian -- related to Welsh) which is what the Kingdom of Strathcylde had been up until it's absorption by the Kingdom of Scotland in the 11th/12th centuries. Before then it had been limited specifically to the South-East in area around Edinburgh/Lothian/Borders which had historically been part of the Anglian kingdom of Northumbria until it to was conqueored by the Kingdom of Scotland.

The actual entity the Kingdom of Scotland was a Gaelic entity at it's creation (Kingdom of Alba) the last scottish King to speak Gaelic I believe was James IV in the mid 15th century. Obviously with the spread of feudalism and the arrival of Scot-Normans (invited in by monarchy) you saw a spread of English, particulary through the process of Burgh creation which was sponsored by the Scottish monarchy.

owenc

Yes but in general scottish people and irish people are two different groups. I'm sick to the bone teeth of hearing "oh but scottish people are from Ireland" actually no they are not, it is a well known fact scotland was colonised by english and Scandinavian people.

dubhthach

owenc wrote: »

Yes but in general scottish people and irish people are two different groups. I'm sick to the bone teeth of hearing "oh but scottish people are from Ireland" actually no they are not, it is a well known fact scotland was colonised by english and Scandinavian people.

Again english input is specifically limited to South-East Scotland. The Scandinanvian input is calculated at up to about 20% of male lineages. The bulk of input is actually from native "British" (Brythonic celtic --related to Welsh/Cornish).

Here's a head-turner for you, more then likely the Irish entered Ireland via South-West Scotland. Both Ireland and all of Britain were Insular Celtic speaking at least 2,500 years ago. For example lineage attached to the Uí Néill dynasty in Ireland is also heavily found in Lowland Scotland. More then likely it originated there and migrated into Ireland about 2,000 years ago.

Anyways if you take a sample populations from Dublin, Aberdeen and SE England and do a plot of the "Principle component analysis" of there genetics you see that unsurprising the Scots cluster in the middle between the Irish and the English. The implication is that they received genetic input from both.



Population structure and genome-wide patterns of variation in Ireland and Britain

Here's a reference to an academic paper published in the European Journal of Human Genetics specifically about that:
http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v18/n11/abs/ejhg201087a.html

Abstract
Located off the northwestern coast of the European mainland, Britain and Ireland were among the last regions of Europe to be colonized by modern humans after the last glacial maximum. Further, the geographical location of Britain, and in particular of Ireland, is such that the impact of historical migration has been minimal. Genetic diversity studies applying the Y chromosome and mitochondrial systems have indicated reduced diversity and an increased population structure across Britain and Ireland relative to the European mainland. Such characteristics would have implications for genetic mapping studies of complex disease. We set out to further our understanding of the genetic architecture of the region from the perspective of (i) population structure, (ii) linkage disequilibrium (LD), (iii) homozygosity and (iv) haplotype diversity (HD). Analysis was conducted on 3654 individuals from Ireland, Britain (with regional sampling in Scotland), Bulgaria, Portugal, Sweden and the Utah HapMap collection. Our results indicate a subtle but clear genetic structure across Britain and Ireland, although levels of structure were reduced in comparison with average cross-European structure. We observed slightly elevated levels of LD and homozygosity in the Irish population compared with neighbouring European populations. We also report on a cline of HD across Europe with greatest levels in southern populations and lowest levels in Ireland and Scotland. These results are consistent with our understanding of the population history of Europe and promote Ireland and Scotland as relatively homogenous resources for genetic mapping of rare variants.

owenc

Yes so its a mix. Its not all irish.

sensibleken

owenc wrote: »

Yes so its a mix. Its not all irish.

was anyone saying it was

Enkidu

owenc wrote: »

Yes so its a mix. Its not all irish.

Yes, but it's not the naive mix between Irish and English that you're thinking, the "mix" is dominated by the Brythonic peoples, those you would know as the Welsh today. All ethnic groups on the British Isles are mostly Brythonic, except Eastern England.

(dubhthach correct me if I'm wrong)

dubhthach

I'd go further and say that modern Irish population is somewhat mixed as well. When you think about it there's been 800 years of inward/outward migration. It wouldn't surprise me that in parts of the country that some people have higher input of "non-native" ancestry. Particulary in the east of the country. Of course one has to remember that modern Irish migration to Britain over the last 200 years would also help pull population there closer to us. (At least 6 million people in Britain today have at least one Irish grandparent!)

Farcheal

owenc wrote: »

Yes so its a mix. Its not all irish.

Guys, you aren't going to get through to him, its clear he is being stubborn.

Stollaire

dubhthach wrote: »

The Genghis Khan effect indeed. Niall is generally ranked up there with him in this regard. However more then likely he isn't the originater given that families with other Connachta "dynasties" carry M222 as well (Uí Briúin, Uí Fiachra). One funny thing about M222 that most people don't know is that a very high proportion of O'Neill's (surname not dynastic group) aren't M222. It would seem there was a NPE (non-paternal event) occured sometime between the 12th and 14th century.

TBH the ruling dynasties of "Gaelic Ireland" are always going to be well represented. What potentially might happen in the future is that a new SNP is found that divides M222. For example there might be one that is only found in M222 men who have names connected with the Uí Briúin (O'Connor, O'Rourke, O'Malley, O'Flaherty etc.) so it's still worthwhile to test men who are M222. I think one thing that would be good is if we have more testing from people bearing "minor" names. What I mean is names that are not connected to kings etc. (my name would be an example: Duffy).

Here's an image from 2006 regarding Niall's purported STR signature. As you can see it reaches a peak in around Inishowen and in Connacht (Uí Briúin)

An-suimiúil, didn't know about this M222 marker until this morning.

Found out my YDNA Markers are M269+S145+M222+

"Around 20%, 660,000, carry it. Its distribution is heavily weighted to the north where 40% of all men are M222, while in Munster and Leinster, the numbers decline to 10%-15%. All of these 660,000 Irishmen are descended from one man who lived around 1,500 years ago."

Is as an iarthuaisceart dom :cool:

dubhthach

Stollaire wrote: »

An-suimiúil, didn't know about this M222 marker until this morning.

Found out my YDNA Markers are M269+S145+M222+

"Around 20%, 660,000, carry it. Its distribution is heavily weighted to the north where 40% of all men are M222, while in Munster and Leinster, the numbers decline to 10%-15%. All of these 660,000 Irishmen are descended from one man who lived around 1,500 years ago."

Is as an iarthuaisceart dom :cool:

20% might be an over-estimate. The trinity study found it reached peaks of 16% of men in Donegal. There's been a number of studies that show higher numbers however they tended to have small sample bases -- anything under 100 samples from a region is small in my book.

You mention S145. This is more commonly known as L21. It's the most common marker in Ireland making up close on 70% of all Irishmen. It looks like it probably arose in what is now france about 4,000 years ago (2000BC). In otherwords 70% of Irishmen are linearly descended from a man who lived on the continent during the Bronze Age. Ergo not descended from men who built Newgrange (on their male line -- could be on their female lines)

The Sxxx notation is standard with Ethnoancestry, did you get tested with "Ireland's DNA"/"Scotland's DNA"?

tac foley

That begs the question as to the origin of those who DID build New Grange. As you know, there has been a lot of re-thinking on the Stonehenge complex here in England in the last year or so, culminating in an astonishing theory that has Stonehenge was built as a symbol of island unity among the various tribal groups of the time. Is there any new thinking about the rationale of New Grange, who built it, and when that might have been with any more accuracy?

tac

dubhthach

tac foley wrote: »

That begs the question as to the origin of those who DID build New Grange. As you know, there has been a lot of re-thinking on the Stonehenge complex here in England in the last year or so, culminating in an astonishing theory that has Stonehenge was built as a symbol of island unity among the various tribal groups of the time. Is there any new thinking about the rationale of New Grange, who built it, and when that might have been with any more accuracy?

tac

Well some of new analysis in Stonehenge is interesting. For example they took samples of the enamel of the "Amesbury Archer" and analysed the Oxegen isotopes in it. This points to a origin in Alpine Europe. The grave dates to about 2,300BC. They haven't tried to do any "Ancient-DNA" extraction let as far as I know. Given the massive improvements in the technology I think it's gonna be alot more viable extracting viable Ancient-DNA samples. Which should lead to some eye openers.

Newgrange is quite abit older dating to about 3,200BC (5,200 years ago). Newgrange was built by stone-age farmers. An interest in "time keeping" (solstice etc.) would make sense if you are a farmer when it comes to knowing when the winter will end etc.

tac foley

Thank you, this I know already. The origin of the archer has been well-established for a few years now, as have the mixed location origins of some of the artifacts found with him that are also central European. I've been to New Grange a few times, and have seen nothing new in the thinking that you noted about it finding a use as a solstice marker. Interestingly, and apologies for thread drift, but the new thinking of Stonehenge was also based on the positive identification of the principal alignment being that of the winter solstice, and not as had previously been thought, the summer solstice. With this new thinking in place, a re-evaluation of the whole of the vast complex was possible.

AFAIAA, New Grange is a stand-alone structure, and not part of a gigantic un-natural landscape. My questions about it therefore remain unanswered.

Best

tac

Wibbs

tac foley wrote: »

I've been to New Grange a few times, and have seen nothing new in the thinking that you noted about it finding a use as a solstice marker.

Maybe I'm reading you wrong, but it's about the most obvious (winter)solstice marker in the ancient world, as dubhthach noted predating Stonehenge by a goodly margin and more sophisticated in execution. In stone at least, Stonehenge likely had earlier wooden structures on and around the site.

AFAIAA, New Grange is a stand-alone structure, and not part of a gigantic un-natural landscape.

Not quite. Outside of the large scale Knowth and Dowth passage tombs there are over 40 passage tombs, along with standing stones, henges and other structures in the surrounding area which covers nearly 800 hectares. It was/is a large scale site.

dubhthach

Newgrange is part of a complex. There are three massive passage tombs in the Brú na Bóinne complex. Namely:

• Newgrange
• Knowth
• Dowth

Knowth is surrounded by 17 satellite tombs and contains two actual passages, along with biggest collection of megalithic art in Europe. There are several other features in the complex including henges a curcus and a ceremonial pond. Basically it's a necropolis, given that the Boyne valley is an extremely fertile area it would make sense to have such a high profile site there. You also of course have another passage tomb cluster at Loughcrew also in Meath and Fourknocks 10 miles to South East.

Different tombs have different solisctis alignments. There is at least one in Loughcrew that is aligned with spring/autumn equinox likewise with Knowth.

In the field Southeast of Newgrange lies a large unexcavated tumulus, pictured right, known as Site A. This satellite site is directly in alignment with the winter solstice sunrise and has a large embankment surrounding it, but the embankment is getting more difficult to see due to farming. Site B is another tumulus. Site C and D are standing stones. Site E is another mound with some kerb stones. Other sites named F,G,H,I,J,K and L are also mounds. Sites M, N,P,Q and R are ringforts/ enclosures. Site S is a mound and Site T is a small passage Tomb at Townleyhall, Co Louth. Site U lies about 500 metres East of Newgrange and may be a ruined passage grave.

Wibbs

dubhthach wrote: »

Knowth is surrounded by 17 satellite tombs and contains two actual passages, along with biggest collection of megalithic art in Europe.

The Knowth mound alone contains over one third of all the megalithic art so far found in Europe, which is amazing for just one small site. Add in the art found on the other sites in the area and the sheer amount of artwork is incredible. The nature of the art is fascinating too. One kerbstone may even be the oldest sundial so far found in the world, predating the Babylonians by millennia.


What's interesting is how much of the artwork is hidden on the inside of the stones. Either this was part of the "magic", or is evidence of even earlier structures where the stones were reused in the building of the existing ones. Personally I'd sway more to the latter. Many of the kerbstones only seem to make sense if laid flat(like the possible "sundial").

Fascinating sites, though don't get me going on the 1970's "reconstruction" of Newgrange or other screwups over the years by various types charged with it's interpretation and preservation. :rolleyes:

tac foley

Thak you for bringing me up to date. I was in no way attempting to trivialise New Grange and its environs, let alone its part in the local ritual landscape.

Basically, what I'm getting at is that appears to have been no new thinking - according to you - about the entire area. Stonehenge is admittedly far younger than NG, and yet there has been a colossal amount of research done in the last fifty years, culminating in this 'latest and best' theory. By comparison, looking at the bookstore last time we were there, the NG complex seems to have reached an impasse in research.

And by the way, Stonehenge, and the ritual landscape in which is is located, covers over 450 relic sites and 300 square miles of that part of southern England, which goes some way toward explaining why research takes so long to come to fruition.

As for the those who built it, the question still remains - who were they and where do they fit in to the population landscape of old Ireland? Peter Harbison's excellent book 'Pre-Christian Ireland' covers this era in passage grave building in some detail, but I'm left wanting to know much more.

As you can readily see, I have nothing to contribute to this thread except a thread-drift.

My apologies for that.

tac

Wibbs

tac foley wrote: »

Basically, what I'm getting at is that appears to have been no new thinking - according to you - about the entire area.

I'd agree with you T. The thinking with a few exceptions hasn't changed much since the 70's. Certainly not when compared to the Stonehenge complex. Why? Less resources thrown at it for a start and Irish academia tends to be more rarified and more likely to follow one or two people's opinions and exclude others. It's more conservative overall. New ideas are slow in coming.

Newgrange a good example of that. It's excavation and reconstruction was mostly down to one bloke. Even though at the time people were asking questions about how daft the reconstruction was, these questions were ignored. When the whole solstice thing was discovered all objections seemed to melt away in the face of it. The white front on the building is beyond daft. The only way it remains near vertical is because the stones are set in concrete. There's simply no way it was like that originally. The entrance shape is as much to do with getting groups of tourists in as any real evidence of what it was really like. What you see today at the site is 99.9999% unlikely to be recognised by the original builders. Knowth was much more sensitively excavated and interpreted. Again by one chap, but a far better and more open minded researcher. That said at one point the office of public works poured a dirty great concrete block at one of the entrances. I kid thee not gentle reader(it may be still there, I dunno?). Fcuking amateur hour. Dowth has had little enough excavation done.

On the art itself, the general official consensus is "ah it's ceremonial" and left at that, though other researchers have pointed to some interpretations that bear some evidential weight, they've been ignored too.

GhostInTheRuins

Wibbs wrote: »

That said at one point the office of public works poured a dirty great concrete block at one of the entrances. I kid thee not gentle reader(it may be still there, I dunno?).

Yeah, that wall of concrete is still there as far as I'm aware.
Here it is

The white front on the building is beyond daft. The only way it remains near vertical is because the stones are set in concrete. There's simply no way it was like that originally. The entrance shape is as much to do with getting groups of tourists in as any real evidence of what it was really like. What you see today at the site is 99.9999% unlikely to be recognised by the original builders.

Looking at old pictures of newgrange can give you some idea of just how ridiculous the outside of it is.

1950


A few years later after removing the trees


Excavation


And then all of a sudden this

dubhthach

More then likely the quartz was laid out on the ground around the front of mound, sort of like a "cermonial plaza" I believe this is the case at Knowth as well -- luckily no daft "Reconstruction" was done there.

In general Knowth is the more impressive moument however Newgrange gets all the press. The dig at Knowth went on for years as the site was reused right up to medieval times. For example the "Síl nÁedo Sláine" branch of the Southern Uí Néill controlled the Kingdom of Bregha (Modern Meath -- Midhe was actually area now called Westmeath) which was a sub-kingdom of overall province of Mí (Midhe = Meath in english). This Kingdom spilt into two sub-kingdoms these been "Northern Bregha" whose capital was at Knowth, and Southern Bregha.

The site thus was an extrememly important political/occupational site until the arrival of the Cambro-Normans. It was then subsequently occupied by Cambro-Normans. The excavation took years as there were multiple layers of habitation from Medieval Norman to Early-medieval Irish, to megalithic.

It would be wrong, though, to imagine that the Neolithic passage tombs are the only important things at Knowth. No fewer than twelve phases can now be distinguished, from the beginning of the Neolithic to modern times, and for all the fame attached to the passage tombs, no less important are the later phases. The passage tomb was succeeded by a late Neolithic Grooved Ware phase. As well as the characteristic pottery and flints, there was also a circular wooden structure rather like those found at Durrington Walls in Wiltshire. Then there were spreads of Beaker domestic refuse, although apart from pits, no structures were found. After the Beaker period, there is little evidence for human activity for the next two thousand years and this remains one of Knowth’s unsolved problems, especially as there is ample evidence for Bronze and Iron Age activity in the area.

When activity resumed, it was again largely ritual: sixteen inhumation burials in pits dating to the early centuries AD. The skeletons were slightly crouched, although some were extended, and one was a double burial of two adult males, both decapitated and lying head to toe. Grave goods consisted mainly of personal ornaments, but there were bone dice and gaming pieces. One burial was that of a little girl of about six, with a necklace of 285 blue and amber glass beads, bone beads and bronze rings.

Around the 6th century there were a few cist burials, but this was a time of wider change and a new dynasty in the region – the Uí Neíll. In the 7th or 8th century the great Knowth mound was fortified with a ditch, and perhaps became the residence of the kings of North Brega. The site continued to play a key role in succeeding centuries as a prominent settlement where people lived in rectangular houses, used souterrains for storage or as refuges, and manufactured bronze, iron and possibly textiles, and worked stone and bone. Around the 10th and 11th centuries, Knowth was particularly important as one of its kings, Congalach, who died in 956, became High King of Ireland.

Twelfth century changes brought this settlement to an end. At that time, northern tribes from Breifne moved southward, but external events were particularly significant. In 1142 the first Irish Cistercian Abbey was founded at nearby Mellifont, the lands of Knowth became part of its possessions and a grange was built on the top of the Neolithic mound. More change came in 1169, when the Normans brought the centuries old native settlement at Knowth to an end.

Mellifont and its granges flourished up to the time of the Reformation in the mid-16th century, when the Abbey was suppressed and its lands, including Knowth, were acquired by new owners, some with an English background. The new settlement pattern continued in part down to modern times.

http://www.knowth.com/current-archaeology.htm

thecommietommy

tac foley wrote: »

That begs the question as to the origin of those who DID build New Grange. As you know, there has been a lot of re-thinking on the Stonehenge complex here in England in the last year or so, culminating in an astonishing theory that has Stonehenge was built as a symbol of island unity among the various tribal groups of the time. Is there any new thinking about the rationale of New Grange, who built it, and when that might have been with any more accuracy?

tac

Not getting off topic about Stonehenge but since you brought it up, I'd be very skeptical of that, there has been all sorts of crackpot theories for Stonehenge including a UFO landing site !!!!!!

Five theories about Stonehenge
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14011-five-theories-about-stonehenge.html

Wibbs

GhostInTheRuins wrote: »

Yeah, that wall of concrete is still there as far as I'm aware.
Here it is

Christ. Like I said, amateur hour. Imagine that at any other world heritage archaeological site.

Looking at old pictures of newgrange can give you some idea of just how ridiculous the outside of it is.

Good pics. I've seen a few pre excavation pics, but haven't seen them before.

dubhthach wrote: »

More then likely the quartz was laid out on the ground around the front of mound, sort of like a "cermonial plaza" I believe this is the case at Knowth as well -- luckily no daft "Reconstruction" was done there.

I dunno. *Personal take here* though I think the plaza idea is a much better and far less fanciful interpretation, I'd reckon the quartz was on the mound itself, thinly covering it. IMHO the reason they find large deposits of the quartz near the entrance is because of erosion processes. If you look at the old pictures of newgrange and knowth you'll notice animal and human paths go up and down around the entrances. Any heavier material on the top will tend to fall down along such pathways and concentrate around the entrance. The sites were also "mined" for material after they fell into disuse, so much of the white quartz would have been carried away because of that. One other aspect of the plaza idea that doesn't quite fit for me is practical. Try walking on such a plaza today in shoes. Not so easy, in bare feet/moccasins it'd be ankle twisting. I'd also ask if such a plaza showed evidence of regular footfall as you might expect. Clear single layer with compaction kind of thing, or more at random depths?

dubhthach

Wibbs wrote: »

Christ. Like I said, amateur hour. Imagine that at any other world heritage archaeological site.

Good pics. I've seen a few pre excavation pics, but haven't seen them before.


I dunno. *Personal take here* though I think the plaza idea is a much better and far less fanciful interpretation, I'd reckon the quartz was on the mound itself, thinly covering it. IMHO the reason they find large deposits of the quartz near the entrance is because of erosion processes. If you look at the old pictures of newgrange and knowth you'll notice animal and human paths go up and down around the entrances. Any heavier material on the top will tend to fall down along such pathways and concentrate around the entrance. The sites were also "mined" for material after they fell into disuse, so much of the white quartz would have been carried away because of that. One other aspect of the plaza idea that doesn't quite fit for me is practical. Try walking on such a plaza today in shoes. Not so easy, in bare feet/moccasins it'd be ankle twisting. I'd also ask if such a plaza showed evidence of regular footfall as you might expect. Clear single layer with compaction kind of thing, or more at random depths?

Plaza might be the wrong word that I'm grasping for here. More like a cermonial thresehold etc. Obviously not something you would be walking on.

In Knowth they went with that as can be seen here:


The concrete that is visible at Knowth mostly takes form of a "shelf" over the kerbstones. The reason for this is that due to UNESCO they have to protect the carvings on the kerbstones. The "shelf" provides a certain amount of weather protection. Obviously there wouldn't have been an overhang as a result.