Talk:Newgrange/Archive 1

Archive 1

Metric measurements

Would anyone object if the measurements were changed to metric, with Imperial in paretheses following? Official units in the ROI are metric; at the very least, metric should be included.

They may officially be in metric but I know very few people in Ireland who use metric alone and many who never use it. FearÉIREANN^(talk) 21:14, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Indeed. But as I said, "at the very least, metric should be included". It is by far the most commonly used measurement system in the world, and billions of people (including me) have no intuitive idea of what 60 feet or 20 feet looks like. Would you mind if I put metric in parentheses after the Imperial, if you prefer to give the Imperial priority?

Actually, I've gone ahead and done that. You can revert if you don't like it, but it surely can't hurt to have metric as well.

I am reminded of the time when Barry Desmond signed the "order for the abolition of imperial measures" --ClemMcGann 19:38, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Newgrange / Brú na Boinne

The article currently gives Brú na Bóinne as the Irish version of Newgrange. My understanding is that Brú na Bóinne is the area which incorporates the passage graves of Newgrange, Knowth, Dowth and other monuments.

Also, the UNESCO World Heritage Site inscription applies to the "Archaeological Ensemble of the Bend of the Boyne". I would suggest that we need to rework this series of articles and recategorise accordingly. --Ryano 11:38, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, Brú na Bóinne has a lot more monuments in it beyond the big 3. adamsan 18:48, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Does the (much rarer) name Caiseal Aonghusa (= Cashel Angus or Óengus's Castle) refer to Newgrange specifically, or to Brú na Bóinne? QuartierLatin1968 19:49, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Good article but could do with some improvement

If I might add a few comments on things to improve this article, firstly the formatting of the page is pretty bad and needs to be fixed.

Secondly, certain things that need to be added are, its uses, i.e. was it a Calendar? Was it just a burial tomb? Was it a place where rituals were preformed or was it always sealed?

Other things are when was it in use? And by who? It is mentioned that people were still adding to it in the Bronze-age, 1,000 years after first construction. Did the Celts revere it? Did they use it for rituals? I've heard that Roman coins have been found at Newgrange, does this mean Roman visitors revere it?

Also, it says that Newgrange was excavated in 1962, but I've seen pictures of people in the passage in the early 1900's any idea about this?

--Hibernian 18:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Burials or commitals were usually done yearly. Throw some remains in the tomb, clean them out the next year, they may have been devout but were practical

Oldest surviving building

Is it true that newgrange is the oldest surviving structure in the world today?--Richy 01:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I wondered about that, too. Dowth and Knowth close to it are most likely older. And what about Göbekli Tepe, thats about 11,000 years old 217.231.210.46 22:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Guess it comes down to what is meant by "surviving". Newgrange is still waterproof, Göbekli Tepe isn't. --Vinsci 11:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not sure wether Göbekli Tepe ever had a roof. Newgrange had a lot of restauration over the times thought. Also, it is compared to Stonehenge as a building and you can't talk about that being waterproof, too. -- 217.231.228.136 17:38, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

There are mesolithic/neolithic barrows in England which are just as old. The West Kennet Long Barrow and Wayland's Smithy are arguably older than Newgrange, and Wayland's Smithy has the distinction of being continuously visible and accessible throughout much of its history, whereas Newgrange was buried for the best part of 4000 years. Newgrange is much more visually impressive than the other two, but it certainly isnt the oldest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.187.106.57 (talk) 23:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Error in Translation

The mound itself is not a "sidhe". Sidhe is a general term for the fairy folk themselves. The mound is a "noc" in which sidhe may live. Pardon my poor Irish - my little bit of Gaelic is Scots. (Spelling of "noc" is wrong as it is now often spelled with a "k" at each end, which is not a Gaelic letter and I cannot remember what it should be.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.100.241.86 (talk) 21:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Not so. While sídhe (plural) is used to mean the fairy folk, the singular sídh (Old Irish síd, reformed modern Irish sí) means a fairy mound. The Aos Sí, the "folk of the mound(s)", are the fairies. --Nicknack009 (talk) 19:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Dowth Henge

I'm puzzled by the reference to "Dowth Henge" - the article on Dowth describes it as a passage tomb, while the henge article seems to describe a different structure. As my archaelogical knowledge is mainly from reading books on the topic and watching Time Team, I wondered if someone could clarify whether Dowth would be considered a henge by archaeologists. Autarch (talk) 16:29, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd suggest that it's reasonable to take out the "henge" suffix from the sentence in question. As you point out, the Dowth article makes no mention of the structure being a "henge" (nor - having visited it several times - have I ever heard it described as such). It doesn't add much anyway. Guliolopez (talk) 16:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Quotation

There is a quotation in the text here which asserts that the entrance slab is "one of the most famous stones in the entire repertory of megalithic art". I don't doubt the validity of this statement, but - as a quote - it needs a citation/source. Any ideas where this quote is sourced from? Guliolopez (talk) 12:27, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Word for word from [1] "New Grange and the Bend of the Boyne By Seán P. Ó Ríordáin, Glyn Edmund Daniel, Glyn Daniel" 1964 --Doug Weller (talk) 13:37, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Cheers. Well spotted. Will add a book cite. Guliolopez (talk) 13:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Sliabh na Caillí

This article really should mention Sliabh na Caillí/Loughcrew, also in Meath, which is older than Newgrange, a fact unknown to most people in Ireland. 86.44.1.115 (talk) 12:41, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and someone should expand the article on Slieve na Calliagh, perhaps you might consider doing so? ClemMcGann (talk) 12:49, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

New Grange Bluegrass Band

There is also a band named New Grange. Allison Brown et al. Should have a redirect.

I don't think a unknown band is quite as important as a pre historic structure that pre dates the egyptian pyramids. Let's keep things in perspective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.152.211.116 (talk) 02:44, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Lightbox feature

Isn't the article a little dismissive of newgrange's "lightbox"? I know a NPOV is a rule and to try and make it sound like tourism-bait is equally wrong and daft, but a unique architectural feature predating the Giza pyramids is being breezed over here! Any objections to me doing some rewriting if I get the time later this week? (A5y 20:19, 13 March 2006 (UTC))

I dont know if i would call it dismissive, more like it's under/downplayed. As for rewriting, give it a shot, i dont have a problem with ot, as long as it does not sound like a tourist advert. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 07:07, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I hope nobody minds, I added the sentence about the light appearing at your feet when you reach the inner chamber. I didn't see mention of this feature anywhere else. <Cailín Sásta> —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cailín Sásta (talk • contribs) 20:07, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

The entrance to Newgrange in 1905

If you look at this page, you have to square it with the 1905 photo of the entrance with only one lintel, not two. Of course adding the second higher lintel allowed the lightbox to be constructed in the 1980s. If you did that and aimed your lightbox at the winter solstice, then hey presto it's lit up by the solstice sun. But it's not archaeology.86.42.205.28 (talk) 14:12, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Reconstruction

I am surprised that neither in this article nor in the one on Michael O'Kelly, is there any mention of his reconstruction of the exterior of the mound at Newgrange, in which he was forced to use reinforced concrete construction which was certainly not available to the original builders. I believe many people dispute its authenticity. Peter Bell (talk) 23:49, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Also the interior - even the solstice sun hitting a particular mark which was lined up in the 1980s. Ever stopped to wonder why it lines up so well? When the original building was lined up (if it was lined up) in accord with the earth's then position, before 4,000 years of perturbation? The passage, the carved stones and the quartz rocks were all there, but have been entirely rebuilt. The site was bronze age, the building is 1980s. If someone demolished and rebuilt the White House in 2013, would that make it a 1790s house or a 2013 house?86.42.216.179 (talk) 13:29, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

This is wrong. The roofbox wasn't rebuilt nor was it 'lined up' in the 1980s. There is controversy over the facade, and also over the sequence of its original construction and its relationship to the stone circle, but not over the alignment. Dougweller (talk) 14:48, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Have another look at the 1905 photograph on the article page, there was no "lightbox" opening above the main door lintel. What was left of the interior passage was high, and there were many reasons for that. I remain a great fan of historic Newgrange, just hope the visitors don't confuse what they see with the original. As for the wonderful stones with the Triple spirals, were they original to the mound or later? this 2008 paper suggests several mounds, not one that collapsed outward.86.42.212.239 (talk) 09:56, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

The Griffith observer - Volumes 47-48 - Page 15 "Then Michael O'Kelly discovered the roof box. Excavations of the entrance of Newgrange revealed a kind of window built right above the entrance doorway. Until O'Kelly dug it out, it had been lost in the turf."

Clive Ruggles [2] "Before Michael O'Kelly began excavations at the site in the early 1960s, visitors were perplexed by what appeared to be an additional roof slab above the entrance, apparently a false lintel about one meter (three feet) higher than the level of the main roof of the passage. This turned out to be the top of a roof-box above the passage entrance. It is through this roof-box"

Brian Fagan [3] "When O'Kelly excavated the mound's entrance, he uncovered what he called a "roof box," a niche built just above the door lintel. He speculated that the niche had served as a container for offerings to the dead, but was puzzled by a three-foot-long rectangular slit cut into its floor."

I'm sure there are journal articles as well. The photo only shows what could be seen, this was excavated. Dougweller (talk) 10:46, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

This[4] should help also, both with the discovery of the roof box and the stones. Dougweller (talk) 10:50, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Needs some rewriting about the wall, relationship to stone circle, multi-mound hypothesis, etc

I agree that Eriksen's ideas should be in the article, and I recommend "Newgrange-A View from the Platform" By: Cooney, Gabriel | Antiquity, September 2006, but I don't have time now to rewrite it. Dougweller (talk) 11:07, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Eriksen wrote in response " In short, there was first a passage-tomb, which may have expanded once or twice, ending up with the quartz/granite layer in front of it. Later in prehistory--perhaps in the Beaker period--the mound with the passage tomb and the quartz/granite layer in front of it was incorporated and hidden by a new mound. The platform dealt with by Gabriel Cooney moved outwards following the new limit of the mound. You could no longer see the quartz-granite platform. The entrance to the passage-grave became and remained closed and hidden until three hundred years ago, and therefore O'Kelly to his great surprise did not find artefacts in the chamber or passage later in date than the first use of the passage-grave (O'Kelly 1982: 126)." That was in 2006, I haven't read his 2009 article but see [5]. Dougweller (talk) 11:14, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Whirlpools and spirals

The original kerbstones were quarried at Clogherhead with special attention given to an area with a natural Equinox alignment -

Clogherhead alignment

The following image was taken close to the Equinox down by the cave at sea level -

http://imgur.com/8wx48U4

I have noticed that on days with a slight wave motion and close to full tide that whirlpools/spirals are created in front of the entrance to that cave with the effect perhaps captured in the designs before the entrance of Newgrange. The headland itself is ringed by Greywacke rocks around its perimeter while little clusters of stones are visible on the headland when the furze bushes are burned away every decade or so with this feature imitated at Newgrange by the grey granite cobbles dotted on its quartz face. There is also the large field of ferns on the North facing side with this motif present inside the Newgrange chamber and outside on one of the Greywacke stones. For all the world Newgrange looks like an inland imitation of a natural formation but a spectacular one at that. (talk) 08:52, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Metrics revisited

I've been trying to clean up the article a bit, and part of that includes making sure that measurements are notated in a consistent form throughout. Right now, the article is part metric, part Imperial, and part metric with Imperial noted in parentheses. The last is my preference, but it is a bit cumbersome both to the editor and the reader. Would anyone care to weigh in here? Kafka Liz (talk) 19:49, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

UNESCO World Heritage Sites

There are only TWO UNESCO World Heritage Sites in Ireland, not SIX. It is both confusing and deceptive to readers to place Dowth, Knowth, Newgrange and Townleyhall passage grave under the "World Heritage Sites in the Republic of Ireland" category. They are NOT individual world heritage sites but fit under Brú na Bóinne. Please remove the World Heritage categories from the bottom of these four pages. I think a good idea would be to leave links to the four pages in the Brú na Bóinne page. Jaw101ie 02:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I saw Irish historian Conor Cruise "O'Brien speak about the "restoration" of Newgrange. Pointing out the re-inforced concrete and iron bars used in the "reconstruction" he stated " We are not sure what Newgrange looked like in old times but I am absolutely sure it did not look like this"

There are sevearal smaller less spectacular mounds in the Boyne Valley some undisturbed. Dowth and Lowth when i was there 30 years ago were untouristed.

Grouping sites together like this is a common way to allow sites that would not normally be fit for listing as individual monuments to be included in the list of World Heritage Sites. And it is also a way for sites that were fit to be listed when originally listed, but which no longer fill the required criteria for listing (such as due to their historical integrity being damaged or destroyed), to remain listed as World Heritage Sites. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:12, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

O'Kelly has been discredited, even in the many references.

Prof O'Kelly was discredited in the very citation he is referred to 14 times. From a newspaper... He did not follow that idea at ALL. Can you remove the "Egyptians built Newgrange" part...or add "citation needed/says whom" please. Did the Egyptians build Stonehenge and Angkor Wat too? Maybe use his own words and reference? http://www.knowth.com/new_grange.htm Thanks. Unless they flew Newgrange to England, built Stonehenge, then flew to Giza, built their pyramids, then flew Newgrange to Cambodia and did a world pass finishing in Machu Pich? Job done... It's a celestial clock built by the old pagans. This is propaganda guys. Take it seriously. It's our history. Do you wan't me to write it? I live around the corner from it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.192.7.85 (talk) 07:26, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

References