68 replies to this topic

[seanachai]

ABSTRACT

Theories abound as to the meaning of the rock art found on standing stones, orthostats and kerbstones in Ireland and Britain, yet no one has been able to decipher an entire panel by applying those theories. One problem is that each symbol has been deciphered individually and assigned one definition, ignoring the fact that the symbols are likely to have multiple meanings depending on their context, just as words do in our language today. More often than not, they’ve been regarded as being abstract or highly stylized patterns. However, as the following evidence demonstrates, they in many instances depict man-made structures. In the case of the symbols on orthostat L2 within the passage mound Duma na nGiall, the Mound of the Hostages, the panel depicts a map of the Hill of Tara as it existed during the late Neolithic Age, nearly 3,000 years prior to the monuments receiving the names they now bear.

A PDF of the full article can be downloaded at:

Orthostat, the Mound of the Hostages

[FourWinds]

seanachai, on 10 June 2007, 20:14, said:

... based on facts already in evidence, ...

A new definition of facts, obviously. As the Mound of the Hostages pre-dates many of the monuments how can it contain a map of those monuments?

I've read your arguments elsewhere and they don't stand up (please don't repeat them here for my benefit - writing them again won't make them any more convincing). Trying to re-write the accepted timeline to fit your idea simply doesn't work.

Where is the enormous buried wood henge on the orthostat? Its ditch was huge and would have still been visible when the MotH was built. It's just about visible today if you know where to look for it.

And what of the other monuments that are known to have existed, but have now gone?

And the suggestion that Ráith na Senad was a double court tomb is, frankly, quite bizarre. That comment alone illustrates that the whole idea is, well, words escape me. Now, if you'd have said that the Dwarf's Grave (the missing tomb that probably stood where the graveyard is) was possibly a court tomb, then it would've shown that you might have thought it through just a little bit.

Don't think that I don't want your theory to be correct. I've often thought similar things about other stones before. It would be great if someone could finally say, "this particular piece of rock art means such and such," and be right. Unfortunately, this isn't that time.

[seanachai]

"A new definition of facts, obviously."  No, the information and authors that I cited in my paper, I found on the internet.  As such, they are the facts already in evidence.  

Regarding the "timeline", I didn't write that to fit my theory, rather it was dictated by the historical record and the facts.

You asked "As the Mound of the Hostages pre-dates many of the monuments how can it contain a map of those monuments?"  I addressed that issue in item 1 of my paper.  Perhaps you skipped over that section.

“The earliest identifiable monument is a postulated enclosure of Neolithic date, part of which was uncovered in pre-tomb levels during excavation of Duma na nGiall and radiocarbon dated to between 3030-2190 B.C..”  The Discovery Programme  Those dates are narrowed down even further "We think it [the temple] probably dates from 2500 to 2300 BC and still had a big physical presence even after the posts were taken out or rotted."  Conor Newman  According to Dr. O'Sullivan though “The construction and original use of the tomb [Duma na nGiall] has now been radiocarbon dated to 3350-3100 BC.”  The obvious issue here is that since the enclosure was “uncovered in pre-tomb levels” Duma na nGiall could not have been built prior to the enclosure.  That places it being built sometime around 2000 BC or later.  The monuments depicted on the orthostat predate the mound, which I already explained it detail in my paper.

Why is the henge not carved on the orthostat?  Simple, because the double court tomb was constructed after the posts were taken out or rotted  

If as you say, the ditch for the henge was so "huge" and still visible, then how could Professor O'Riordain missed discovering it in 1952 during his excavation and the Discovery Programme only discovered it by geo-survey?  I guess they just should have called you, since you knew where to look.

I never said Raith na Senad was a double court tomb.  What I did say, was the double court tomb was incorporated into what we now know as Raith na Senad, and that area referred to as the causeway by Professor O'Riordain.  Given that the monument was used both in the pre-earth works and earth works activity, it's not "bizarre" at all that a double court tomb would have been constructed, incorporating the earlier burials.  “At Tara there are at least seven cases where barrows have been incorporated into… later monuments”  The Discovery Programme  

The dwarf you refer to, may have been unearthed by Professor O'Riordain during his excavation.  What led you to believe that his "missing tomb... probably stood where the graveyard is" is unclear, as there is nothing in the Metrical Dindshenchas (Volume 1,Temair III) that describes exactly where he was buried.  As the Dindshenchas are variously described as part fact, part mythology, folklore and legend, to have theorized that his grave may have been a court tomb, if in fact he was a real, would have been bizarre.  

The dwarf came, to his sorrow,
to interpose between them,
so they killed the dwarf
under their feet, through their dimness of sight.

Westward from the Grave of this dwarf
are Mael, Bloc, and Bluicne - foolish their wisdom!
over them are the three stones
that the Prince of great Macha flung.

As for those monuments that are known to have existed, but don't appear on the orthostat, the answer is quite simple.  They hadn't been constructed at the time the orthostat was carved.  If you were to look at a map of Paris from 1799, would you expect to find the Arc De Triomphe or the Eiffel Tower?  No, because the the Arc wasn't built until 1806 and the Eiffel Tower until 1887.

If some of the archeologists that I've been in contact with, who are far more knowledgeable than you or I on this site, are at least entertaining the possibility that the orthostat is a map, then why can't you?  All I can suggest is that you reread the article with an open mind.  Think outside the box.

[FourWinds]

seanachai, on 17 June 2007, 15:59, said:

If some of the archeologists that I've been in contact with, who are far more knowledgeable than you or I on this site, are at least entertaining the possibility that the orthostat is a map, then why can't you?  All I can suggest is that you reread the article with an open mind.  Think outside the box.

I (nearly) always read articles with an open mind. I did say at the end that I'd love for such a theory to be true and that I'd often considered other carvings in the same light. Sadly, it just doesn't stand up as it is.

How do you know how much I've studied Tara? I've read practically everything written about Tara for a book I was writing a few years back. I have a huge pile of notes and books on the subject. I've spent more hours than I care to remember in the National Library studying Tara. I wouldn't be so bold as to say I know as much as some of the archaeologists you mention, but I've studied Tara far more than most. Saying that, new things turn up all the time, so it's a never ending process.

As for the possible interpretation of the siting of the Dwarf's grave (if it ever existed, but a lot of the other stuff does, so why exclude it just because we can't see it?), read O'Donovan & Macalister (amongst others). Many dismiss Macalister due to him going into his bull-roarer rant at the end of the book, but this last little lapse shouldn't automatically deny the rest of the book. In the same way, the few improbable parts of your idea do not mean it's all wrong. Then again, the idea that rock art could be a map isn't a new one.

The problem is that the 'plan' misses out monuments that are probably contemporary with the MotH and includes ones that were probably later. If anything it would describe a set of monuments we know nothing about, which is where your double court tomb would enter the conversation. I still maintain that it ain't court-tomb country, nor is it a likely location for one. I've visited 123 court tombs, which is more than most archaeologists have been near, so I have some feeling for the type of locations they are built in.

One day some one will come up with a feasible explanation for such markings. I will be among the first to embrace anything that seems so. I do tend towards the map idea myself and keep on looking for examples that back it up. I'll also gladly eat my hat & words if one of the ideas I don't believe turns out to be the correct one. Sometimes you have to do that.

[seanachai]

Since my original post back on June 10th, some new facts and evidence have come to light, in particular regarding Raith na Senad An Forradh and Raith Chailchon. For those who have not read the article yet, the link to it is posted below.  For those who have, it’s worth a reread.

Orthostat, the Mound of the Hostages

[seanachai]

Fourwinds,

I love a lively, intelligent debate, however, in a debate an individual or group presents their argument with supporting facts and evidence, which I've done.  It's then up to the second party to counter that argument with supporting facts and evidence, but you haven't done that.  You've simply offered your opinion.  So, if you have some facts or evidence based on your knowledge of Tara, then please post that information.

[FourWinds]

It isn't really worth it, to be honest. No matter what anyone says, you are convinced that your opinion (and that's all it is - your opinion and speculation based on some selected facts) is correct. If I say, "What about such and such a missing monument?", you can just counter with, "That obviously wasn't there when the 'map' was carved." If someone asks where a monument that's on the map but not on the ground is, or where its traces are, you can say "It's obviously been ploughed away."

It's a win/win situation from your side, even though you are probably very wrong. I'll just leave you to get on with it. It would be wonderful if your theory turned out to be true, but sadly I don't think it will turn out to be so. I've had similar thoughts about several stones before. For a while I was convinced a stone in Wicklow marked the nearby mountain peaks, the number of rings even seemed to be proportional to the heights, but there were several extra motifs and I'm sure a couple of hills hadn't disappeared since the stone was carved.

[seanachai]

FourWinds, on 13 September 2007, 11:49, said:

It isn't really worth it, to be honest. No matter what anyone says, you are convinced that your opinion (and that's all it is - your opinion and speculation based on some selected facts) is correct. If I say, "What about such and such a missing monument?", you can just counter with, "That obviously wasn't there when the 'map' was carved." If someone asks where a monument that's on the map but not on the ground is, or where its traces are, you can say "It's obviously been ploughed away."

It's a win/win situation from your side, even though you are probably very wrong. I'll just leave you to get on with it. It would be wonderful if your theory turned out to be true, but sadly I don't think it will turn out to be so. I've had similar thoughts about several stones before. For a while I was convinced a stone in Wicklow marked the nearby mountain peaks, the number of rings even seemed to be proportional to the heights, but there were several extra motifs and I'm sure a couple of hills hadn't disappeared since the stone was carved.

FourWinds,

The problem you and the archaeological community are having with my hypothesis, can best be summed up by the following quote:

"I know that most men...can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabrics of their lives."  Leo Tolstoy

I fail to see the point of you're statement "you are convinced that your opinion (and that's all it is - your opinion and speculation based on some selected facts) is correct."  A hypothesis by definition is "a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation"!!!  Based on the facts and evidence I cited, the vast majority of which came from noted academics in the field of archaeology with Ph.d's, yes I'm convinced my hypothesis is correct, otherwise I wouldn't have spent ten months researching and writing the paper.

You go on to say "If I say, "What about such and such a missing monument?", you can just counter with, "That obviously wasn't there when the 'map' was carved."  I stated twice at the opening of my paper that the map predates Duma na nGiall.  I can't make it any clearer than that.  So whatever monuments you feel are contemporary with The Mound of the Hostages, would not have been carved on the orthostat!!!  I already explained that in a previous post,  "As for those monuments that are known to have existed, but don't appear on the orthostat, the answer is quite simple. They hadn't been constructed at the time the orthostat was carved. If you were to look at a map of Paris from 1799, would you expect to find the Arc De Triomphe or the Eiffel Tower? No, because the the Arc wasn't built until 1806 and the Eiffel Tower until 1887."

If you feel that there are monuments that predate Duma na nGiall and the henge, then describe their location on the map. While you're at it though, provide proof that they do predate the mound and henge... oh and the carvings on the orthostat.  Given the fact that only two monuments at Tara (Raith na Senad and Duma na nGiall) have been excavated, you'll find that impossible, as the Discovery Programme already found out.  In the introduction to their publication, they repeatedly use words like "possibly" "suggested" and "proposed".  

As for your statement "If someone asks where a monument that's on the map but not on the ground is, or where its traces are, you can say "It's obviously been ploughed away."  I'd be correct.  Look at any aerial photo of Tara, and what do you see?  Plow marks!!!  In it's definition of ring ditches, The Discovery Programme states, "Circular or near circular ditches, usually seen as cropmarks. Ring ditches may be the remains of ploughed out round barrows, round houses, or of modern features such as searchlight emplacements."  If you Google "ring ditches cropmarks"  or "archaeological cropmarks" there are thousands of pages that discuss this issue, with photographic evidence.  Look at the geo-survey and the two aerials of Raith Chailchon, and you'll see several examples.

[FourWinds]

Nice Tolstoy quote. Sadly, it doesn't apply to me does it? What have I got to lose if you are correct? I haven't been teaching anything that your theory would destroy or undermine. I can only gain through extra knowledge.

[seanachai]

FourWinds, on 16 September 2007, 11:05, said:

Nice Tolstoy quote. Sadly, it doesn't apply to me does it? What have I got to lose if you are correct? I haven't been teaching anything that your theory would destroy or undermine. I can only gain through extra knowledge.

I think to a certain degree the quote does apply.  After all, you do run a Irish monuments website, which teaches people about those sites. (An excellent website by the way) On top of which you vehemently attacked my hypothesis without supporting your argument, despite the fact that you presented yourself as being quite knowledgeable when it comes to Tara.  And while you have nothing to lose from a professional stand point, if my hypothesis is proved correct, as Graham Nash so eloquently put it, "Humble pie is always hard to swallow with your pride."  Perhaps a more appropriate quote would have been:

"All truth passes through three stages: firstly it is ridiculed, secondly, it is violently opposed, and thirdly, it is accepted as self-evident."  Arthur Schopenhauer

My hypothesis has weathered the first two stages, so my hope is that it can now move on to the final stage, though that's going to require further investigation by the archaeological community.  I fully expected that my hypothesis would be criticized, but when people do so without any basis, then I get defensive.

With regards to the archaeological community, I find it rather mystifying that most have dismissed my hypothesis, despite the fact that it's based on information they themselves have put out there in the form of books, essays etc.  All I've done is take those pieces of the "puzzle" that they've chosen to ignore for whatever reason, and assemble them into a complete picture of Tara.  A prime example of this is Conor Newman.  He took part in the Discovery Programme's survey of Tara, which relied not only on non-invasive techniques, but a literary survey as well.  As such, he had to have known about Dr. Petrie's and P.W. Joyce's description of Raith na Rig's two (2) ramparts.  On top of which, he himself described the other enclosure seen on the geo-survey.  Based on that evidence, why did he dismiss my hypothesis?  Remember what Leo Tolstoy said.

Even more amazing, was Joe Fenwick's dismissal of my hypothesis.  In an email to me he wrote “The Raith of the Synods was extensively excavated/damaged in the late 19 and early 20 century and Professor O Riordain conducted a more scientific excavation there in the 1950's. There is no court tomb recorded or even a suggestion of any megalithic tomb at this site. At the risk of disappointing you further, a geophysical survey of a fully excavated site would shed no light on the issue.” Joe Fenwick works with Conor Newman, who wrote about Professor O'Riordain's discovery of human remains within both the 16m timber enclosure and the "barrow".  He obviously knew about the excavation and therefore had to have known about the remains. While it's true there is no record of a court tomb on the site, that was one of the main points of my paper!!!  

As for Dr. Elizabeth Twohig, she dismissed it on the basis that "Briefly, as we now can date the passage tomb and its carvings definitively to c. 3300-3100 BC, there is no way the carvings can be a map of sites that were built several millennia later."   First off, she probably never actually read my paper, because when it was pointed out to her that there was an issue regarding the radiocarbon dating, she responded "if it were a map, [it] could only be a record of the sites which were on the hill by that time. There is not much evidence of sites of that time or earlier on the hill, though of course some might be discovered through excavation."  

My purpose in writing the paper and contacting the academics was not to prove them wrong.  The reason I wrote it was threefold.  First and foremost, my hope was that it would prove that Tara was far more important and complex than previously believed, and that it's reach extended beyond the boundaries of the hill, to sites like Lismullin.  As such, I hoped that information could be used in furthering the argument that the M3 Motorway should be rerouted.  Secondly, that it be used to further the case with UNESCO that Tara be declared a World Heritage Site.  Lastly, that it would prompt the archaeological community into excavating, restoring and preserving one of the most important sites in Ireland, which for the most part has been ignored.  With that in mind, why is it that the three academics I mentioned earlier, who are the most out spoken opponents to the M3, would ignore information that was meant to help bolster their argument?  I think I know why, but I won't discuss that here.

I'll be the first to admit that my hypothesis runs counter to all that we've known about Tara for probably the past 3,000 years or more, but it's not about some sort of celestial alignment, but something far more, pardon the expression, down to earth.  "All things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be the best one." Occam's Razor

[kevin.b]

Seanachai,
             Loud applause from one who can see a bright light amongst so much dimness.
Stay on your path it is to the truth.
The tears of Tara are from the eyes that cannot see, look to the hands to show the light.

Light upon light, God guides whom he/she will to his/her light.

It's a very narrow and straight pathway, easy to stumble off, especially if you can't see it with your eyes, it is there though under your feet, where the dwarf tried to tell you.
kevin

[seanachai]

kevin.b, on 18 September 2007, 3:45, said:

Seanachai,
             Loud applause from one who can see a bright light amongst so much dimness.
Stay on your path it is to the truth.
The tears of Tara are from the eyes that cannot see, look to the hands to show the light.

Light upon light, God guides whom he/she will to his/her light.

It's a very narrow and straight pathway, easy to stumble off, especially if you can't see it with your eyes, it is there though under your feet, where the dwarf tried to tell you.
kevin

Kevin,

Thank you very much for your words of encouragement.  They're deeply appreciated.

Sean

[seanachai]

With regards to my hypothesis, there was one item that I wish I had been able to include in my paper. According to several websites, there's a legend that the Lia Fail was one of four stones that marked the four cardinal points of the compass.  What I haven't been able to find, is in what text, or texts, that legend is mentioned.  If any of you know, please post that information.

The reason I bring it up, is that if my hypothesis is correct, it would lend some credence to that legend.  When you look at any map, somewhere on it are the four cardinal points. That being the case, then the orthostat would have been located in the center of those four stones.  Is there any evidence that anyone is aware of, that might point to the location of where they once stood? If not, does anyone have any thoughts as to where they might have been located on the hill?

[FourWinds]

"Humble pie is always hard to swallow with your pride."

You see, I have no problem with saying,"you were right and I was wrong", when the need arises. Prove your theory to be correct beyond a shadow of a doubt and I'll be the first to shake your hand and praise you publicly.

Sadly, I don't think this one is actually provable. I think the best you can hope for is a shift of chronology that moves towards a better fit. Obviously, the worst that could happen is a confirmation of dates that disproves elements or the whole of your idea.

My main issue is with the omission of the huge ditch around the original feature on the top of the hill. We can't be sure, but it was almost certainly visible to some degree when the MoH was constructed.

I can't remember, but do you consider the purpose/meaning of the rock art on the rear of the orthostat? To me it suggests that the stone was probably reused from an earlier site. If that were the case then you theory does collapse.

Now, there's actually a different slant that could be taken. If the stone is earlier than the monuments on the hill, the correlation could still be valid - perhaps the sites were laid out to match the carvings. Chicken and egg time? The tomb was definitely reused after the initial period of use, so the carvings would have been exposed at a later date. Perhaps at this time it was used as a blueprint for laying out the other sites on the hill. Just a thought.

Just as an aside. It is extremely unlikely that the stone known today as the Stone of Destiny actually is the real thing. Several tales tell of its destruction (its heart flying to Teltown) and it is almost unimaginable that the real thing would have been left intact by the incoming religious powers.

(Thanks for the kind comment about megalithomania, by the way. It's little comments like that that keep me doing it.)

[kevin.b]

Seanachai,
               Most people are locked into their five senses, this relates to the material world.
those that are masters of this five senses world are those that have the greatest problem with only viewing stone as stone.
I understand their difficulty, their ego is dominant and craves to be correct.
This does not mean their heart is not true and cannot actually feel the sites.
Rise above the dominant hold that your five senses hold so strongly.
The point is Tara, not anyones ego.

That which is there , will always be there, whether they bulldoze through it or not.
To truely SEE Tara, look with other senses than those so often used and proven false.
Think of nothing but Tara, forget all else , and just truly comprehend the area.
The truth is not in the physical realm, if you really mean it though, it will be there.
And it will match the map left, by those who are now dust.( or at least their physical bit is, but their spirit is still alive )
Their spirit , is in all Irish peoples around the world.
kevin