the layout of Newgrange and similar

silverharp

was there yesterday, one of the points made was the layout is similar to later built cathedrals. The site on Orkney is the same (from memory). What are the main guessed/known reasons for the "cross" layout. And how or why did the design features get incorporated into medieval cathedral design?

Wibbs

Better qualified types than me will pitch in, but I'd say the later church design is a separate development. Very early churches didnt follow the cruciform shape. Then again the cross as symbol took longer to catch on.

Funny enough the early churches and buildings in ireland followed the earlier bronze age building tradition. Mortarless drystone corbaled roofs etc. More rounded in form like the beehive dwellings of monks. In europe the square was more in play. Even when mortar is used its in concert with the earlier ancient way of doing things. Round towers could almost be newgrange etc style in building just with the addition of roman mortar to go higher. A very long history of vernacular building style in stone in Ireland. Other than egypt I actually cant think of another culture with such a long unbroken history in building technique?

In the founding myth of the Irish celts they describe the earlier inhabitants, the tuatha de danaan as being masters of stone construction. This seemed to resonate and stand out for these new peoples from europe as a notable thing. When you see newgrange(even with its bloody stupid reconstruction) and knowth(slightly less daft reconstruction) and dowth and all the stuff in the area of the boyne and elsewhere going even further back* you can only imagine how such structures looked to the mostly wood based and migratory celts who first saw it. It still has a raw power today. Ditto with the Scots Orkney lads and lasses.


* we are so bloody lucky we have so much of that stuff still around too. Thank the fear of the little people for that

silverharp

Cheers, having been in the Orkney site as well, it is impressive that at a time when many people would never have travelled more then 50km in their lifetime that culture could travel between remote, low density societies.
Interesting that there isnt a specific connection between between the pre and post christain layout. Obviously the guide was trying to leave a bit of mystery in the air.

* we are so bloody lucky we have so much of that stuff still around too. Thank the fear of the little people for that

dont get me started, my uncle's farm had one of those stone circles with some kind of openeing to it. My mother was brought up on stories about "fairies" and was never 100% sure if she didnt give it some credence:D
not to sure if it was ever documented

Wibbs

Silverharp2 wrote: »

Cheers, having been in the Orkney site as well, it is impressive that at a time when many people would never have travelled more then 50km in their lifetime that culture could travel between remote, low density societies.

Or maybe we judge such peoples of the past by our own viewpoint? I suspect there was a lot more contact than we give them credit for. Especially on sea routes. OK they couldnt send emails but a trip to northern france or spain or britain was a few days away. The stones structures and the similarities of same of so much of north western europe would tend to show that.

Interesting that there isnt a specific connection between between the pre and post christain layout. Obviously the guide was trying to leave a bit of mystery in the air.

IMHO the guides can be less than informative and often follow either a narrow idea or a daftly broad one. Like the Newgrange site itself, there is an element of both the disney and the unknown to it.

dont get me started, my uncle's farm had one of those stone circles with some kind of openeing to it. My mother was brought up on stories about "fairies" and was never 100% sure if she didnt give it some credence:D
not to sure if it was ever documented

Well Id thank her as those stories preserved a neolithic and later heritage better than most of the rest of europe. and they're good stories too I agree with Columcille, when so long ago asked to adjudicate on the value of bards, he said ireland would not be ireland without stories and poetry. Dead right was the oul feck.

guinnessdrinker

Silverharp2 wrote: »

was there yesterday, one of the points made was the layout is similar to later built cathedrals. The site on Orkney is the same (from memory). What are the main guessed/known reasons for the "cross" layout. And how or why did the design features get incorporated into medieval cathedral design?

I attended a lecture recently given by Professor George Eogan about the Knowth excavations where he mentioned that the right hand recess in the passage tomb is larger in size than the other two recesses. I don't know what the significance of this was though but it was an interesting point.

I am in agreement with Wibbs though and I would guess that the design of cathedrals was a separate development.

Smartypantsdig

While I am not even going to speculate as to why passage tombs are cruciform, I will share the following.

The right chambers are almost always the more decorated and largest ones.

The left is more than often unadorned and is smallest.

The rear or centre chamber may or may not be decorated but is usually the area where most finds have been found.

I know that there are anomolies (is that a the word ) to this; I can think of the largest cairn in Loughcrew for instance, but generally this is the pattern.

I am more at home with medieval archaeology, that said!

mikhail

Wibbs wrote: »

... When you see newgrange(even with its bloody stupid reconstruction) and knowth(slightly less daft reconstruction) and dowth and all the stuff in the area of the boyne and elsewhere going even further back* you can only imagine how such structures looked to the mostly wood based and migratory celts who first saw it.

Is there a bluffer's guide to how the reconstructions are stupid?

Wibbs

Im sure there must be online somewhere. Mostly from books and articles I've gleaned this. The facade itself is held in place by concrete at way too steep an angle for a start. It wouldn't be self supporting. Look at the diffs in the old photos of the place compared to the look today. http://www.ballybegvillage.com/old_newgrange_photos.html

OK the 1000's of years took their toll, but the reconstruction is more fantasy than fact. They dialed it back for knowth and put a white stones courtyard kinda thing which makes a little more sense. Even still, try walking on that in bare feet or moccasins. Bugger your ankle and no mistake.

So what should it look like? In my humble, if you look at the old photos you'll notice a pathway up the side of the entrance worn by people and animals. The white stones found at the front are just as likely to have come from a top covering and carried down by weathering and footfall(and quarrying) to concentrate at the front. I'd reckon the whole thing was covered by a top layer of white and the entrance was smaller.

robp

Wibbs wrote: »

Im sure there must be online somewhere. Mostly from books and articles I've gleaned this. The facade itself is held in place by concrete at way too steep an angle for a start. It wouldn't be self supporting. Look at the diffs in the old photos of the place compared to the look today. http://www.ballybegvillage.com/old_newgrange_photos.html

OK the 1000's of years took their toll, but the reconstruction is more fantasy than fact. They dialed it back for knowth and put a white stones courtyard kinda thing which makes a little more sense. Even still, try walking on that in bare feet or moccasins. Bugger your ankle and no mistake.

So what should it look like? In my humble, if you look at the old photos you'll notice a pathway up the side of the entrance worn by people and animals. The white stones found at the front are just as likely to have come from a top covering and carried down by weathering and footfall(and quarrying) to concentrate at the front. I'd reckon the whole thing was covered by a top layer of white and the entrance was smaller.

The people who reconstructed it were quite aware the original facade was far less steep. It's incline was raised to accommodate tourism. A steeper slope would discourage climbing onto the mound its self. As far as modifying it for the sake of the benefit of tourism revenue it sure did work! Such a bold reconstruction probably wouldn’t be allowed nowadays.

Wibbs

robp wrote: »

Such a bold reconstruction probably wouldn’t be allowed nowadays.

God I'd hope not. I'd replace "bold" with "amateur hour fcukup" TBH. How it looks after that botch job sends the wrong impression of how these things may have looked originally(some claiming it looks like a horned animal from above based entirely on this reconstruction). How did they know there was even a distinct facade? The recontruction of Knowth looking at a similar debris field went for the pathway approach.

While it will always be subject to some sort of conjecture and debate there were better ways of going about it. I also recall in the 70's that the reconstruction was publicly at least considered an accurate enough reconstruction.

The stopping people climbing the monument argument doesnt hold much water either. The white concrete bit is only towards the front. Having an overhang(which also protects the kerbstones) like at the back would dissuade mound climbers.

While the Knowth reconstruction may not be original either and up for debate, its far more sensitive and less "disney" and a much better example of proper archaeology and interpretation.