nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Do you think the passageway at Newgrange is a recent addition

completedit

I heard the iconic passageway which lights up on the solstice was an accident that was created during the excavation of the site in the 1960's.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

CrankyHaus

Highly unlikely as similar alignments are a feature of associated passage tombs. For instance the one at Loughcrew does the Equinoxes. No doubt that the authenticity of much of Newgrange is dubious as it was added to in the 20th century.

Aint Eazy Being Cheezy

It is recent. I remember objecting to the planning permission but the fcukers went ahead with it anyway.

mickuhaha

We have photos from 1910 that shows its layout. Not much has changed I think you mean Stonehenge.

un5byh7sqpd2x0

This answers that question. https://boynevalleytombs.wordpress.com/

What Newgrange looks like now is a figment of the OPWs imagination

murpho999

Aint Eazy Being Cheezy wrote: »

It is recent. I remember objecting to the planning permission but the fcukers went ahead with it anyway.

Did it block your natural light?

Wibbs

The facade of white stones is a modern reimagining that's for sure. It has to be held up by concrete and would not have looked like that originally*. The whole structure was rebuilt from the ground up in the 60's and the passageway was lined above in a concrete shroud. However during the excavation they found the light box above the lintel and the same lintel is present in the earliest photos of the site so that was its original position. Plus the entrance way was not moved and is aimed at the solstice point. Indeed is aimed at the original contemporaneous solstice point. Due to procession this point drifts over time, that's why today the light doesn't fully illuminate the furthest depths of the interior as it would when it was first built. That's all a it too coincidental.

There's also a Greek(IIRC) text that mentions a temple of the sun in the northern lands, a text that has been linked with Stonehenge, but it doesn't fit as it has a summer solstice connection not a winter one. In that text they say the sun moves into this temple in midwinter and that every 20 years or something so does the waning full moon, so that fits Newgrange far more. I'll try and dig up a link to the text. It seems the later Roman world may have heard tell of it as there have been a fair number of Roman artefacts, coins, broaches, rings and the like found around the place which seem to have been deliberately placed around the entrance and entrance stones. Maybe tourists?

Stonehenge was well enough known when in use that they have found visitors from as far away as Germany who came to pay their respects. Newgrange was older again and like Stonehenge part of a much larger religious and cultural site. We can forget that people then did travel far further and more than we imagine today.

*it could have been a pavement of white stones outside as has been suggested more recently, but I don't buy that myself. For a start try walking on that in thin soled shoes or bare feet. Ouch. My wholly personal notion is that maybe the entire top of the structure was originally covered in white stones, to stand out from afar and maybe reflect the lights of the heavens on the ground. That the material is found more towards the entrance is not a barrier to that. If you see the first photos of the site there are animal and human tracks concentrated around the entrance/front and such traffic will move stones from higher to lower along those tracks. Plus the site had been mined for stone in its history and the top flattened off.

KevRossi

Killian Obnoxious Mail wrote: »

This answers that question. https://boynevalleytombs.wordpress.com/

What Newgrange looks like now is a figment of the OPWs imagination

The exterior is not original and it's highly unlikely that it looked anything like that back 7,000 years ago.

But the main chamber, it's alignment and function would be correct. It would be some huge coincidence (365/1) if it was not designed as such.

The 8 equinoxes were the most important dates in the year back then, this one stands for the shortest. It could be argued that we have more significant sites than Newgrange, but for some reason no government has ever shown the passion to do fund long term excavations and studies of them.

EmmetSpiceland

The passage, itself, isn’t a new addition. The outside, however, is a different story altogether.

Neil Oliver described its, rather, brutalist recreation as ‘a sort of Stalin does the Stone Age’.

seamus

I've heard the allegation, but I don't know enough about the history of Newgrange or its excavation to say definitively. The allegation is that the roofbox was added in the mid-1900s to make Newgrange more mysterious. As far as I can tell this is basically a conspiracy theory because in earlier photos you can't see the roofbox; it's buried under dirt and overgrown bushes.

The fact that the entrance passage to the chamber faces the rising sun on the Winter solstice would seem to me to be a decent indicator that they knew what they were doing. That alignment wasn't an accident. And other portal tombs have roofboxes too.

It's a shame that the surrounds were put up in a restoration attempt rather than just leave it alone, but it's done now.

Bannasidhe

Killian Obnoxious Mail wrote: »

This answers that question. https://boynevalleytombs.wordpress.com/

What Newgrange looks like now is a figment of the OPWs imagination

I'm no fan of the OPW but 'imagination' is to do a huge disservice to Professor Kelly who oversaw the work.
https://www.newgrange.com/michael-j-okelly.htm

But sure what would a man with a lifetime of experience know like :rolleyes:

Wibbs

seamus wrote: »

As far as I can tell this is basically a conspiracy theory because in earlier photos you can't see the roofbox; it's buried under dirt and overgrown bushes.

True S, but you can see the lintel that supports it and that is reported and represented in the earliest drawings of the site.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I'm no fan of the OPW but 'imagination' is to do a huge disservice to Professor Kelly who oversaw the work.
https://www.newgrange.com/michael-j-okelly.htm

But sure what would a man with a lifetime of experience know like :rolleyes:

Yes Kelly had the lifetime of experience etc, however it was a lifetime in very different times and techniques. We've seen other reconstructions in the past that would be laughed out of it today. The facade we see today simply couldn't have existed in that form in the neolithic. It's too vertical and like I say requires concrete to support its form. That alone shows a major blunder on his part. Now there is evidence of some neolithic structures in France where they have a nearly vertical wall, but the material and the techniques used are quite different.

un5byh7sqpd2x0

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I'm no fan of the OPW but 'imagination' is to do a huge disservice to Professor Kelly who oversaw the work.
https://www.newgrange.com/michael-j-okelly.htm

But sure what would a man with a lifetime of experience know like :rolleyes:

I said what it looks like, the exterior of the thing with the white stones. And it's Professor O'Kelly.

:rolleyes::rolleyes:
If you read the blog post I made, you'd note that the roof box is not a new invention.

Bannasidhe

Wibbs wrote: »

True S, but you can see the lintel that supports it and that is reported and represented in the earliest drawings of the site.

Yes Kelly had the lifetime of experience etc, however it was a lifetime in very different times and techniques. We've seen other reconstructions in the past that would be laughed out of it today. The facade we see today simply couldn't have existed in that form in the neolithic. It's too vertical and like I say requires concrete to support its form. That alone shows a major blunder on his part. Now there is evidence of some neolithic structures in France where they have a nearly vertical wall, but the material and the techniques used are quite different.

Absolutely Kelly's interpretation was, and still is, the subject of debate and controversy.
My quibble is with the statement 'the OPW used their imagination' as if they just got the lego blocks out and said off you go Paddy, put down the shovel, we're promoting you from culvert digging for the day.

Bannasidhe

Killian Obnoxious Mail wrote: »

I said what it looks like, the exterior of the thing with the white stones. And it's Professor O'Kelly. :rolleyes::rolleyes:
If you read the blog post I made, you'd note that the roof box is not a new invention.

In which case it was a figment of O'Kelly's imagination.

I don't know if he was right or wrong. No-one does.
I do know Peter Woodman was of the opinion O'Kelly was correct as I heard him deliver a lecture on it some 25 years ago where he specifically dealt with the vertical wall.

Personally I think it 'looks' wrong but I am not an expert in the neolithic era- or building.
And if it was the OPW itself who was responsible I'd be completely convinced it was wrong. But Woodman said otherwise and gave his reasons. With slides. Many many slides.

Pkiernan

It was added in the 20th century

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/newgrange-sun-trap-may-be-only-50-years-old-says-archaeologist-1.2913483?mode=amp

The Tetrarch

I went there on a CIE school tour in the late 1960s.
The modern version looks strange.

Wibbs

Well Kelly certainly used his imagination with the facade as there was and remains zero evidence for it. Quite the opposite, the evidence shows it to be a complete fabrication on the part of the reconstructors and there's no decent debate to refute that. On top of that the let in entrance area of black stones was a complete invention to facilitate tourism and someone signed off on that too, Kelly, OPW whomever. His achievements of being the foremost archaeologist in Ireland at the time and the main excavation and interpretation aside, which was well done and kudos there, but the same top spot it seems allowed him a leeway with the OPW and the powers that be to create a fantasy. A fantasy he'd not get away with today nearly so easily as many just as qualified experts would be quick to call BS. Not nearly so much in the 1960's when forelock tugging to one's "betters" was still in full swing.

I can understand fantasies being held up as correct in the past. Stonehenge was reconstructed too in various phases during the 20th century and much of it is held together with concrete.

Wibbs

Bannasidhe wrote: »

In which case it was a figment of O'Kelly's imagination.

I don't know if he was right or wrong. No-one does.
I do know Peter Woodman was of the opinion O'Kelly was correct as I heard him deliver a lecture on it some 25 years ago where he specifically dealt with the vertical wall.

Personally I think it 'looks' wrong but I am not an expert in the neolithic era- or building.
And if it was the OPW itself who was responsible I'd be completely convinced it was wrong. But Woodman said otherwise and gave his reasons. With slides. Many many slides.

If it were correct it wouldn't require a metal framework and reinforced concrete to keep it in situ. Plus the building materials themselves don't lend themselves to such a construction. Where vertical or near vertical surfaces are found in neolithic structures they use more stable, blocky and flat stones to build the wall. And they tend to be lower in height, because once you go above a certain height they're not sustainable, or you have to corbel inwards at a cant. Those people back then were intimately aware of dry building with stone and wouldn't make such a rookie mistake, or at least only the once. Hell you can see that in action with the bent pyramid of Egypt. It was a new approach for them and halfway through they realised the angle was too steep though Feck! and canted it in.

You can see how it was done in the Gavrinis passage grave in Brittany.

Again canted inwards once it reaches a certain height when it becomes unstable(and their materials is flatter and more brick like, not more rounded cobbles).

Pkiernan wrote: »

It was added in the 20th century

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/newgrange-sun-trap-may-be-only-50-years-old-says-archaeologist-1.2913483%3fmode=amp

Nope. It most certainly wasn't as both pre excavation and excavation photos and descriptions of it show. Never mind that it's not the only such neolithic site with such alignments. Most of them have one, some have more than one.

Muahahaha

seamus wrote: »

The fact that the entrance passage to the chamber faces the rising sun on the Winter solstice would seem to me to be a decent indicator that they knew what they were doing. That alignment wasn't an accident. And other portal tombs have roofboxes too.
.

For me thats always the amazement of Newgrange, the fact that they lined it up to light up on sunrise of the shortest day of the year is remarkable.

Anyone know how they did it? I get they were an agrarian society who were conscious of the seasons and daylight but how did they work out what we now know as 21st December as being the shortest day of the year? Has there ever been any evidence of them scraping rocks with lines as a kind of rudimentary calander? Also any evidence of them observing the cycles of the moon?

topper75

KevRossi wrote: »

The 8 equinoxes were the most important dates in the year back then, ...

The what now? Sure it is not bank holidays you are on about Kev?

EmmetSpiceland wrote: »

Neil Oliver described its, rather, brutalist recreation as ‘a sort of Stalin does the Stone Age’.

How rude this snivelling Scot! Next he'll be telling us that Jim Fitz's pics of Cúchullain and Fionn are photoshopped.

KevRossi

Muahahaha wrote: »

For me thats always the amazement of Newgrange, the fact that they lined it up to light up on sunrise of the shortest day of the year is remarkable.

Anyone know how they did it? I get they were an agrarian society who were conscious of the seasons and daylight but how did they work out what we now know as 21st December as being the shortest day of the year? Has there ever been any evidence of them scraping rocks with lines as a kind of rudimentary calander? Also any evidence of them observing the cycles of the moon?

They were very good astronomers back then. No TV or internet and no light smog helped

The working of the stars, the seasons, the planets has been documented for thousands of years, Halley's comet being one of the better examples.

It was vital to them as their planting and harvesting depended on them.

Badly Drunk Boy

Muahahaha wrote: »

For me thats always the amazement of Newgrange, the fact that they lined it up to light up on sunrise of the shortest day of the year is remarkable.

Anyone know how they did it? I get they were an agrarian society who were conscious of the seasons and daylight but how did they work out what we now know as 21st December as being the shortest day of the year? Has there ever been any evidence of them scraping rocks with lines as a kind of rudimentary calander? Also any evidence of them observing the cycles of the moon?

I get the impression that you might want one particular answer. ALIENS!

I like that idea too, but there may have just been some clever people. Or Stargate was real too?

It's all very interesting, though...

seamus

Muahahaha wrote: »

For me thats always the amazement of Newgrange, the fact that they lined it up to light up on sunrise of the shortest day of the year is remarkable.

Anyone know how they did it? I get they were an agrarian society who were conscious of the seasons and daylight but how did they work out what we now know as 21st December as being the shortest day of the year? Has there ever been any evidence of them scraping rocks with lines as a kind of rudimentary calander? Also any evidence of them observing the cycles of the moon?

The history of time - as in how people measured the passage of time, hours, days, weeks, months, and how we ended up with a base 6 system and 24 hours in a day - is all pretty fascinating. It's worth looking in to.

For most of human history, ordinary Joe down on the farm didn't track time in any formal way. He got up when it was bright, took shelter when it was hot and went to bed when it started to get dark. Certain members of society would have been considered the experts on telling everyone else when to expect it to get hotter or colder and had responsibility for marking the passage of the days and the years.
But there was a lot of cultural knowledge as well; responding to changes in animal behaviour to tell them when winter or summer were coming.

"Scraping rocks with lines" is probably not far off how a lot of the early observations were made. While life was busy, it was also simpler. There was plenty of time for observations, for making marks on the ground to examine the movement of celestial bodies and such. Clerics being the authorities on the supernatural (of which the sun, moon and stars were part), would dedicate their time (of which they had plenty) to studying them and cataloguing it all.

You'd be surprised just how early on humans were aware of the fundamental cycles; 28(ish) days in the lunar month, 12(ish) lunar months in a year, 1,461 days every four years, etc. They knew all of these things when people were making crude drawings in some caves in France.

Kylta

I always preferred Knowth to Newgrange.

harry Bailey esq

I remember when it was all fields. .

castletownman

I did the tour last year (ah the good old days of freedom of movement and breaks away

) and they make no bones about the fact that the outside is "newer".

But jesus it is amazing inside. Genuinely one of the most spiritual experiences of my life. And its free. As usual, we'd be raving how great it is if it was in SE Asia or South America.

anplaya27

castletownman wrote: »

I did the tour last year (ah the good old days of freedom of movement and breaks away ) and they make no bones about the fact that the outside is "newer".

But jesus it is amazing inside. Genuinely one of the most spiritual experiences of my life. And its free. As usual, we'd be raving how great it is if it was in SE Asia or South America.

Free? It's about 18e for an adult to visit.

Muahahaha

seamus wrote: »

The history of time - as in how people measured the passage of time, hours, days, weeks, months, and how we ended up with a base 6 system and 24 hours in a day - is all pretty fascinating. It's worth looking in to.

For most of human history, ordinary Joe down on the farm didn't track time in any formal way. He got up when it was bright, took shelter when it was hot and went to bed when it started to get dark. Certain members of society would have been considered the experts on telling everyone else when to expect it to get hotter or colder and had responsibility for marking the passage of the days and the years.
But there was a lot of cultural knowledge as well; responding to changes in animal behaviour to tell them when winter or summer were coming.

"Scraping rocks with lines" is probably not far off how a lot of the early observations were made. While life was busy, it was also simpler. There was plenty of time for observations, for making marks on the ground to examine the movement of celestial bodies and such. Clerics being the authorities on the supernatural (of which the sun, moon and stars were part), would dedicate their time (of which they had plenty) to studying them and cataloguing it all.

You'd be surprised just how early on humans were aware of the fundamental cycles; 28(ish) days in the lunar month, 12(ish) lunar months in a year, 1,461 days every four years, etc. They knew all of these things when people were making crude drawings in some caves in France.

Thanks seamus, I must look into it more as it does indeed sound facinating.

Have always wondered who was the guy in Stone Age times that came up with the theory that Dec 21 was the shortest day in the year. And how did he feel then when he relaised he would have to wait another full year to confirm his theory. And how really did they pinpoint the exact shortest day compared to all the other short days, I think there is only about three minutes difference in daylight from the 21st to the 22nd so it was a remarkable achievement for them to get that spot on.

EmmetSpiceland

castletownman wrote: »

I did the tour last year (ah the good old days of freedom of movement and breaks away ) and they make no bones about the fact that the outside is "newer".

But jesus it is amazing inside. Genuinely one of the most spiritual experiences of my life. And its free. As usual, we'd be raving how great it is if it was in SE Asia or South America.

If you get the chance, you should check out Lough Crew on the equinox. Found it very impressive.

Clarence Boddiker

KevRossi wrote: »

It could be argued that we have more significant sites than Newgrange, but for some reason no government has ever shown the passion to do fund long term excavations and studies of them.

Which sites are more significant?
Are there any major Irish sites that have not had much excavation or any at all?