68 replies to this topic

[seanachai]

FourWinds, on 27 September 2007, 12:43, said:

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.

The Tara Project conducted by The Discovery Programme revealed numerous monuments based on "topographic survey, geophysical survey, geochemical survey, as well as aerial photography"  If they were capable of locating monuments that they did not know existed, then they're certainly capable of locating monuments, or voids indicating burial chambers in monuments that are depicted on the orthostat/map.  Take for example the ring barrow east of Raith Laoghaire.  That area was not included in the survey.  The area that was covered, is seen on the geo-survey, which included "only about one-fifth of the core area"   Failing that, there's always excavation.  "There is not much evidence of sites of that time or earlier on the hill, though of course some might be discovered through excavation." Dr. Elizabeth Twohig  So contrary to your unsupported opinion, my hypothesis is very provable.

What "huge ditch" and what "original feature" are you referring to?  If the "original feature" is the Mound of the Hostages, then you missed the point of my paper, that the monuments depicted on the orthostat/map PREDATE the Mound of the Hostages. If you're referring to the ditch associated with the henge, it predated the carvings on the orthostat/map, and as I discussed in my paper, they came after the henge posts rotted away or were removed.  The carvings are of the ramparts and mounds, not the ditches, so even if the ditch was visble at the time the Mound of the Hostages was constructed, it has no bearing on its construction.  If it's the internal ditch within Raith na Rig, I discussed that in item 7 of my paper:

"During Professor O’Riordain’s excavation of Duma na nGiall, a trench was dug into Ráith na Ríg, revealing a ditch within the rampart, “Reaching a depth of up to 3m and with the underlying bedrock stepped” Helen Roche, Director – Tara Project (see photo, page 28)  While it can be argued that this was an enclosing ditch, based on the historical records, it’s actually the fosse between the 5th and 6th ramparts.  The existence of the two ramparts was reported in the 1837 essay “On the History and Antiquities of Tara Hill” by Dr. George Petrie  They were also mentioned by P.W. Joyce, LL.D. in his book “A Smaller Social History of Ancient Ireland” Chapter XVI (5) “The circumvallation [of Ráith na Ríg] can still be traced all round; and consisted originally of two walls or parapets with a deep ditch between.”  By the time Professor O’Riordain excavated the area, a mere 50 years after Dr. Joyce’s book, the 5th rampart had been erased from the landscape, due to agriculture in the area."

You stated "To me it suggests that the stone was probably reused from an earlier site."  Gee, why didn't I think of that!!!  Wait, I did!!!  As a matter of fact I discusssed that in item 1 of my paper. The fact that the stone has a cup and ring carved on the back, proves that it was reused, and therefore does not "collapse" my hypothesis, rather it proves my point that the monuments seen on the orthostat/map PREDATE the Mound of the Hostages!!!  As to their meaning, they may be the "signature" of the artist.

"The reason the orthostat is not oriented with the monuments, vertically, is that it was originally a standing stone located somewhere else within Ráith na Ríg.  The cup and ring carved on the rear of the orthostat, testify to that."

As for which came first, the carvings of the monuments or the monuments themselves... been there... thought of that ten months ago!  First off, that would be impossible to prove!  Moreover, it's irrelevant, as the carvings would, for all intents and purposes, still be a map of the site.  No, the carvings were not uncovered when the tomb was reused later on, and used as a blueprint for "laying out the other sites on the hill!!!  Why, because the monuments depicted on the orthostat/map PREDATE the Mound of the Hostages!!!  I discussed that issue in great length in item 18 A, B & C of my paper.

"The following are some additional reasons why Duma na nGiall could not predate the other monuments on the site:"

A] "If it predated the monuments depicted on the orthostat, the carvings would have been oriented to the site, vertically.  Moreover, Duma na nGiall would have been depicted and incorporated into the 5th rampart."

B] "If it was the first monument on the hill, and was of such importance, it would have been constructed in the center."

C] "If it existed at the time of the henge, then here again it would have been constructed in the center, because located where it is, the henge would have interfered with the alignment of the passageway to the winter solstice."

Ignoring the foregoing for the moment, let's look at your scenario.  The stone was possibly a "blueprint" for the other monuments on the hill, though none of them are constructed until centuries later.  The Mound of the Hostages is built and the stone used to line the passageway.  Several hundred years later it falls into disuse and the passageway covered over, either intentionally or by silting.  Then a couple hundred years later, the tomb is reopened for more burials, and the orthostat exposed. At which point the inhabitants of Tara, realizing that the symbols are a "blueprint", construct the monuments they represent.  First off, explain why the monuments weren't built at the time the "blueprint" was carved?  Secondly, why were they constructed on a north-south or vertical axis, rather than an east-west or horizontal axis?

Lastly, you stated as an aside that "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."  Don't you think that in ten months of researching and writing my paper that I at some point came across that information?  My question regarding the Lia Fail stone has nothing to do with it being the "Stone of Destiny".

As I've mentioned, my paper took ten months to research and my hypothesis is a bit complicated, so in order for you or anyone else reading it, a certain amount of thought is required.  So please, before you offer your opinion again, go back and study it in depth.  After giving your opinions considerable thought, come up with some sort of information to support your argument.  Once you've done that, then get back to me.  Otherwise, your just wasting your time and mine.

[FourWinds]

Good to see you being so passionate about your ideas. I have far better things to do than commit every point you make to memory, so you'll have to forgive me forgetting that you addressed a few of them (no matter how scantily).

Quote

What "huge ditch" and what "original feature" are you referring to?

Erm ... the very large rock-cut ditch that was lined with a huge timber henge. It encircled the top of the hill before everything else was built ... making it an 'original feature'.

Clearly, I've been wasting my time from the beginning of this conversation and it is probably about time I did stop. You can't see past the end of your pen and you never will, so I'll shut up now. There's no arguing or reasoning with someone who is so selective in choosing their evidence. I sincerely wish you luck with the theory, which, whether you like it or not, is practically unprovable.

And please, don't come out with comments like "my hypothesis is a bit complicated". Superiority complexes are so unattractive.

[Cian McLiam]

I'm sorry but I've read the paper at least five or six times now and I'm very much reminded of the review of Samuel Huntington's 'Clash of Civilisations' which noted '(the text is) noisy with the sounds of sawing and stretching as the facts are forced into the bed prepared for them'.

You make some odd rationalisations that seem to show a certain lack of a wider perspective on neolithic passage tombs:

Quote

The time frame cited by Dr. Twohig for the construction of Duma na nGiall, is also that assigned to Newgrange and Knowth. Given the tomb's rather crude construction as compared to those, it stands to reason it was built after they had fallen into disuse

It does not stand to reason at all, a satellite of Knowth is of cruder construction but the main tomb was built to avoid it. Now, the MOTH was likely built after Newgrange/Knowth or perhaps contemporary but your reasoning here is flawed. O'Kelly in his excavation report states baldly that if anything the tombs evolved from the simple forms to the more complex, which agrees with the early dates from Carrowmore and the more basic styles of art from passage tombs at Loughcrew which lack the later and more elaborate 'plastic' style found at Knowth and Newgrange. The plastic style is only found above ground level ie. after stones were in position and is often superimposed on more basic stlyes such as found at sites like Tara/Loughcrew/Dowth which lack 'plastic' art, the more basic styles are not found overlying the plastic styles or wide dispersed picking.

Quote

A)  If it predated the monuments depicted on the orthostat, the carvings would have been oriented to the site, vertically. Moreover, Duma na nGiall would have been depicted and incorporated into the 5th rampart.

Circular argument.

Quote

  If it was the first monument on the hill, and was of such importance, it would have been constructed in the center.

No-one says it was the first, and there's no reason to think if it had it would have been constructed in the centre, Maeve's Cairn in Sligo is one of many examples where the centre was not chosen for placement.

Quote

C) If it existed at the time of the henge, then here again it would have been constructed in the center, because located where it is, the henge would have interfered with the alignment of the passageway to the winter solstice.

There is a gentle but significant gradient in front of the MOTH and it faces the cross-quater sunrise, not the winter solstice.

Regarding the rest of point 18: There were 58 radiocarbon dates taken from the MOTH, analysed by AMS as well as traditional counting methods. To say that Groningen, one of the most repected labs in the world, would not calibrate their dates properly is quite extraordinary. All of the effects you detail have been known about for some time and the reservior effect is so well understood that you can even use an online calculator to get rough calibrations yourself: http://calib.qub.ac.uk/marine/ and these guys do it on every sample with data that has been available since 1993: http://www.physics.a...ion/correct.htm
AMS dating is also extremely accurate and many of the drawbacks of traditional carbon dating are avoided:

Quote

A 1.5% sodium hypochlorite solution was used to remove organic material (48 hrs, 20oC), and 1†M acetic acid to remove the more soluble carbonate ions (such as calcite and adsorbed carbonates)

(my bold)
http://www.rug.nl/ee...g/crematedBones

I have to ask if you read the excavation report to check the radiocarbon dating methods, results and calibrations since the only references to it in your paper are from Twohigs review of it (http://www.rsai.ie/i...play&obj_id=164) and if you have not then perhaps you can check if your arguments against the dating still hold or if we should believe the experts:

Quote

The development of high-precision dating (up to �2.0 per mille or �16 yr) in a number of gas and liquid scintillation facilities has been of similar importance (laboratories at Belfast (N.Ireland), Seattle (US), Heidelberg (Ger), Pretoria (S.Africa), Groningen (Netherlands), La Jolla (US), Waikato (NZ) and Arizona (US) are generally accepted to have demonstrated radiocarbon measurements at high levels of precision)

: http://www.c14dating.com/int.html (check out their cross-referenced carbon dating and historical records from Egypt, impressive!).
This could settle the whole matter in a few minutes.

As for the double court tomb... what can you say, they were made of cairns of stone with large orthostats and sometimes drywalling, if a large double court tomb was built, then removed, it would not leave large earthen remains. Many ruined court tombs would be invisible if it were not for the large orthostats and sills still remaining, if these were removed you would never have know there was anything on the site without excavation.

[seanachai]

Cian,

You stated that "a satellite of Knowth is of cruder construction but the main tomb was built to avoid it. O'Kelly in his excavation report states baldly that if anything the tombs evolved from the simple forms to the more complex."  No argument there.  The evolution from crude to elaborate is quite logical.  However, even if that satellite tomb was constructed prior to the main tomb, that doesn't mean the argument holds true in the case of the Mound of the Hostages, which is a point I discussed in item 18.

I stated in my paper "If it predated the monuments depicted on the orthostat, the carvings would have been oriented to the site, vertically. Moreover, Duma na nGiall would have been depicted and incorporated into the 5th rampart." You feel that's a "Circular argument".  If in fact the symbols depict the major monuments on the site, then explain to me why the Mound of the Hostages isn't depicted?

"and there's no reason to think if it had it would have been constructed in the centre, Maeve's Cairn in Sligo is one of many examples where the centre was not chosen for placement."  That's a supposition on my part, based on the location of An Forradh, the 25m enclosure within the henge etc. The definition of a hypothesis is "a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation."

You argue that "It does not stand to reason" that the Mound of the Hostages was constructed after Newgrange etc. fell into disuse.  As I stated in my paper "While it could be argued that Duma na nGiall was the first step in the evolution of passage tomb construction, i.e. prior to Newgrange and Knowth, here again that means it would have to have been constructed prior to the enclosure."  “The construction and original use of the tomb has now been radiocarbon dated to 3350 - 3100 BC.” from the review by Dr. Twohig  However, “The earliest identifiable monument is a postulated enclosure [henge]… radiocarbon dated to between 3030-2190 B.C.” “The construction of… Duma na nGiall… occurred sometime after the enclosure had fallen into disuse or was burned down.” The Discovery Programme  In view of this, Duma na nGiall had to have been constructed between 3030 - 2190 BC, not 3350 - 3100 BC.  "We think it probably dates from 2500 to 2300 BC"  Conor Newman  

There has to be some reason for the rather large discrepancy in dates, which is what led me to the idea that it might be due to the reservoir effect.  So I contacted Dr. Higham at RLAHA.  One of the quotes of his is from an email he sent me. “If the dates from Tara are of these materials, [a terrestrial reservoir]  I would be very confident in the results, as long as short-lived material like seeds or leaves or twigs were selected for dating.”   He also cited the work by Cook, G.T, Bonsall, C, Hedges, R.E.M, McSweeney, K, Boroneant, V., Pettitt, P.B.   I then contacted Dr. Richard Morlan at CARD.  Though he was unavailable due to his health, one of his colleagues, Matthew Betts, cited Dr. Morlan's work on the reservoir effect.  From there, it was just a matter of finding a few additional sources to support my hypothesis.

Having said all that, if you have a better explanation for the discrepency in dates, let me know.

As to the issue of the radiocarbon dates that A.L. Brindley, J.N. Lanting and J. van der Plicht at Gronigen arrived at.  I'm not questioning their results, nor am I questioning the "high level of precision" of AMS dating.  What comes into question, first and foremost, is whether the samples of the remains and artifacts were properly chosen, cleaned and handled by the archaeologists.  Don't forget, some of the remains and artifacts were lost for a significant period of time.  Where were they?  How were they stored?  Were they contaminated?  Secondly, were Brindley, Lanting and van der Plicht made aware of those issues, and more importanly were they alerted to the possibilty of the reservoir effect?  I intentionally avoided getting into the issue of artificial contamination etc., as I didn't want to offend those involved in the research on the mound, namely Dr. O'Sullivan.

You said that with respect to testing for the reservoir effect "these guys do it on every sample with data that has been available since 1993"  Nowhere on that website does it say anything to that effect. What it does say is "Another type of correction that we apply is when the reservoirs differ in specific 14C content from the atmosphere."  The only mention of the date 1993, is in a caption of a graph (Stuiver and Braziuna, 1993) So while they may apply the correction for the reservoir effect, they have to be made aware of conditions that might exist that would involve that anamoly.  If it were done on every sample, without question, then Dr. Higham and Matthew Betts would have pointed that out and dismissed the possibility of the reservoir effect playing a role.  They didn't.

"A 1.5% sodium hypochlorite solution was used to remove organic material (48 hrs, 20oC), and 1†M acetic acid to remove the more soluble carbonate ions (such as calcite and adsorbed carbonates)"  That article has nothing to do with the reservoir effect. It deals with testing cremated bones, which I acknowledged in my paper “Both regular and AMS dating were used as appropriate (AMS of necessity for cremated bone, and also for the unburnt bone, to avoid destruction of large quantities of it in advance of any further anatomical research)” from a review by Dr. Elizabeth Twohig

"check out their cross-referenced carbon dating and historical records from Egypt, impressive!"  If you're referring to the Djoser; 3rd Dynasty, ca. 2700-2600 BC, that was for one site, not to mention the tests were done in 1949 when radiocarbon dating was in its infancy. So no, that will not "settle the whole matter in a few minutes".  There are hundreds of other instances where the radiocarbon dating didn't match up with the historical records, which is why I stated in my paper "Often, those records raise questions as to the validity of radiocarbon dates, which can prove to be inaccurate."  Google "radiocarbon dating errors".  You'll find thousands of articles.  Check out this site, which discusses the Djoser results from 1984 among others:  

http://cat.he.net/~a...s/pyramids.html

With regards to your comment on the Mound of the Hostages, "No-one says it was the first..."  I beg to differ with you!  "The construction of the passage tomb known as Duma na nGiall (the Mound of the Hostages), possibly during the first-half of the third millennium B.C., represents the onset of the second phase of development which occurred sometime after the enclosure had fallen into disuse or was burned down."  The Discovery Programme   According to their list of phases, the next two earthen structures to be constructed were Tech Midchuarta and Raith Maeve.  Given the dates cited in Dr. O'Sullivan's book, it was the first monument, earthen or timber, on the site.

As for your comment regarding court tombs "As for the double court tomb... what can you say, they were made of cairns of stone with large orthostats and sometimes drywalling"  There's a problem with that, that even the Discovery Programme acknowledges "The most problematic aspect of the analysis of the monuments on Tara, however, concerns the comparative analysis of Irish barrows, in all their various forms. There is no corpus study of Irish barrows and although well over a hundred specimens have been excavated, only the most tenuous patterns can be teased out of the evidence."  That raises a couple possibilities:

1) The forecourts could easily have been earthen structures, with only the two chambers lined with stone and capped with an earthen mound.

2) The forecourts may have been constructed of stone and covered over when Raith na Senad's earthen ramparts were constructed.

Given the fact that the double court tomb, or "causeway" that Professor O'Riordain refers to, was never excavated, we don't know whether there's a stone structure there or not.  Yes, the vast majority of court tombs that have been identified appear in northern Ireland and are constructed of stone.  Does that mean that all court tombs have to have been constructed from stone?  To get a better idea of how "problematic" the situation is in identifying monuments in England, check out the following website. Under the definitions, general descriptions and distribution you'll note that many of the same type of monuments can be constructed either of stone or earth, or both depending on the location.

http://www.eng-h.gov...mcd/mcdtop1.htm

Given your argument, the quote in Samuel Huntington's 'Clash of Civilisations' "(the text is) noisy with the sounds of sawing and stretching as the facts are forced into the bed prepared for them" applies to you.

Thank you for corrrecting me on the cross-quarter sunrises versus the winter solstice.  On the issue of the "gentle but significant gradient in front of the MOTH".  The henge posts would in all likelihood have been significantly taller than the gradient you refer to.  The post holes alone were 2 meters in diameter. (6.5 feet)  Furthermore, the gradient was probably not present when the tomb was constructed, as it would have channelled water into the tomb when it rained.  If anything, the builders would have constructed a gradient that sloped away from the entrance.  A logical explanation is that the gradient is due to silting from the 5th rampart that Dr. Petrie and P.W. Joyce noted in their research in 1837 and 1907 respectively.

The bottom line here is that we don't know enough about Tara.  In an email from Mike Pitts, the editor of British Archaeology, he stated "Tara is a rich, complex historic landscape, whose chronology and construction details are still poorly understood. To make a good case for the stone map, we would need a better knowledge of the contemporary ancient landscape. It would be more than likely that features were mapped on the stone, about which we currently have no knowledge (so the presence of, say, a ring on the stone that could not be matched on the ground would not in itself be a difficulty)."

While I'm here, I might as well mention another piece of information I came across today regarding the carving I identified as a ring barrow with an incorporated barrow located east of Raith Laoghaire and below Raith na Rig. “Below from the Rath of the Kings (it is not false) are the Grave of Cu, the Grave of Cethen, the hill of the Ox” The Metrical Dindshenchas Temair III (23)  In view of the foregoing, the carving on the orthostat fits the description and location of the monument. The only other monument mentioned in the Dindshenchas as being below or south of Ráith na Ríg, is Ráith Laogháire, “There remains south of the Rath of the King the Rath of Loegaire and his Keep” Temair III (24)

[Cian McLiam]

seanachai, on 30 September 2007, 7:41, said:

The evolution from crude to elaborate is quite logical.  However, even if that satellite tomb was constructed prior to the main tomb, that doesn't mean the argument holds true in the case of the Mound of the Hostages, which is a point I discussed in item 18.

I was commenting that some of the reasoning supporting your argument is faulty reasoning, this was just one example. You said it stands to reason that it was built after Newgrange and Knowth because it was cruder, that cannot be supported by any evidence, perhaps you should remove it from your paper?

Quote

I stated in my paper "If it predated the monuments depicted on the orthostat, the carvings would have been oriented to the site, vertically. Moreover, Duma na nGiall would have been depicted and incorporated into the 5th rampart." You feel that's a "Circular argument".  If in fact the symbols depict the major monuments on the site, then explain to me why the Mound of the Hostages isn't depicted?

But I don't believe the symbols are a map, so I dont need to explain why there is no symbol for the MOTH. In much of the argument you forget that the burden of proof rests solely on you to prove your case, not for others to refute your speculations with their own speculations. You want to turn the entire chronology of the site on it's head because of a missing cup mark, a chronology deduced by people who have actually excavated this site and others and have formed expert opinions. You're going to need some pretty compelling evidence to support this but I can't see it anywhere in the paper.

Quote

"and there's no reason to think if it had it would have been constructed in the centre, Maeve's Cairn in Sligo is one of many examples where the centre was not chosen for placement."  That's a supposition on my part, based on the location of An Forradh, the 25m enclosure within the henge etc. The definition of a hypothesis is "a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation."

But there's plenty of evidence if you look for it, evidence contrary to your theory is evidence nonetheless. A quick survey of passage tomb location, especially lower-lying tombs such as at Tara would be easily done.

Quote

You argue that "It does not stand to reason" that the Mound of the Hostages was constructed after Newgrange etc. fell into disuse.  As I stated in my paper "While it could be argued that Duma na nGiall was the first step in the evolution of passage tomb construction, i.e. prior to Newgrange and Knowth, here again that means it would have to have been constructed prior to the enclosure."  “The construction and original use of the tomb has now been radiocarbon dated to 3350 - 3100 BC.” from the review by Dr. Twohig  However, “The earliest identifiable monument is a postulated enclosure [henge]… radiocarbon dated to between 3030-2190 B.C.” “The construction of… Duma na nGiall… occurred sometime after the enclosure had fallen into disuse or was burned down.” The Discovery Programme  In view of this, Duma na nGiall had to have been constructed between 3030 - 2190 BC, not 3350 - 3100 BC.  "We think it probably dates from 2500 to 2300 BC"  Conor Newman  

There has to be some reason for the rather large discrepancy in dates, which is what led me to the idea that it might be due to the reservoir effect.  So I contacted Dr. Higham at RLAHA.  One of the quotes of his is from an email he sent me. “If the dates from Tara are of these materials, [a terrestrial reservoir]  I would be very confident in the results, as long as short-lived material like seeds or leaves or twigs were selected for dating.”   He also cited the work by Cook, G.T, Bonsall, C, Hedges, R.E.M, McSweeney, K, Boroneant, V., Pettitt, P.B.   I then contacted Dr. Richard Morlan at CARD.  Though he was unavailable due to his health, one of his colleagues, Matthew Betts, cited Dr. Morlan's work on the reservoir effect.  From there, it was just a matter of finding a few additional sources to support my hypothesis.

Having said all that, if you have a better explanation for the discrepency in dates, let me know.

Are you sure the Tara Discovery Programme had access to the radiocarbon dating from the MOTH or were they working in supposition? According to the Discovery Programme website, their archaeological survey began in 1992 and was completed in 1997. The AMS and radiocarbon dating of artefacts from the mound of the hostages was completed in 2001 so there is no way the Discovery Programme could have known these dates if it completed it's work in 1997. The wording Conor Newman uses supports this 'we think it probably dates from 2,500 to 3,50 BC' and seems to be confirmed by Twohig's statement in her review of the excavation report 'The construction and original use of the tomb has now been radiocarbon dated to 3350 - 3100 BC.”. This makes it sound like you are creating a false controversy but since you don't have a bibliography or footnotes I can't determine what materials you are using. Sounds like a more reasonable explanation.

Quote

As to the issue of the radiocarbon dates that A.L. Brindley, J.N. Lanting and J. van der Plicht at Gronigen arrived at.  I'm not questioning their results, nor am I questioning the "high level of precision" of AMS dating.  What comes into question, first and foremost, is whether the samples of the remains and artifacts were properly chosen, cleaned and handled by the archaeologists.  Don't forget, some of the remains and artifacts were lost for a significant period of time.  Where were they?  How were they stored?  Were they contaminated?  Secondly, were Brindley, Lanting and van der Plicht made aware of those issues, and more importanly were they alerted to the possibilty of the reservoir effect?  I intentionally avoided getting into the issue of artificial contamination etc., as I didn't want to offend those involved in the research on the mound, namely Dr. O'Sullivan.

Getting items radiocarbon dated is a very expensive process, if you were having 58 samples done these matters were surely discussed between the archaeologists, the museums and the labs, you don't simply post off the samples and hope for the best. You dont seem to have consulted the O'Sullivans excavation report, which may clear up these matters for you.

Quote

You said that with respect to testing for the reservoir effect "these guys do it on every sample with data that has been available since 1993"  Nowhere on that website does it say anything to that effect. What it does say is "Another type of correction that we apply is when the reservoirs differ in specific 14C content from the atmosphere."  The only mention of the date 1993, is in a caption of a graph (Stuiver and Braziuna, 1993) So while they may apply the correction for the reservoir effect, they have to be made aware of conditions that might exist that would involve that anamoly.  If it were done on every sample, without question, then Dr. Higham and Matthew Betts would have pointed that out and dismissed the possibility of the reservoir effect playing a role.  They didn't.

Were they involved with the dating, if not they are just guessing, like you seem to be.

Quote

"check out their cross-referenced carbon dating and historical records from Egypt, impressive!"  If you're referring to the Djoser; 3rd Dynasty, ca. 2700-2600 BC, that was for one site, not to mention the tests were done in 1949 when radiocarbon dating was in its infancy. So no, that will not "settle the whole matter in a few minutes".

Read the paragraph again, I asked if you read the excavation report and if so what information does it have on the preparation and dating of the materials and any corrections, that would indeed settle the whole matter in a few minutes.

Quote

There are hundreds of other instances where the radiocarbon dating didn't match up with the historical records, which is why I stated in my paper "Often, those records raise questions as to the validity of radiocarbon dates, which can prove to be inaccurate."  Google "radiocarbon dating errors".  You'll find thousands of articles.  Check out this site, which discusses the Djoser results from 1984 among others:  

http://cat.he.net/~a...s/pyramids.html

They seem to discuss old wood problems and reuse of old materials, not problems with the dating per se. They also do not discuss the AMS method used for the MOTH on bone that was contemporary with the monuments primary use, hence the old wood and reused material problems do not arise. Again, AMS is a much higher precision method of dating and bones are a much more reliable artefact than old wood or reused materials. Google AMS radiocarbon errors and you far fewer results, many of the problems with carbon dating within the last 15,000 years or so were pretty much resolved with the tree-ring corrections.

Quote

With regards to your comment on the Mound of the Hostages, "No-one says it was the first..."  I beg to differ with you!  "The construction of the passage tomb known as Duma na nGiall (the Mound of the Hostages), possibly during the first-half of the third millennium B.C., represents the onset of the second phase of development which occurred sometime after the enclosure had fallen into disuse or was burned down."  The Discovery Programme   According to their list of phases, the next two earthen structures to be constructed were Tech Midchuarta and Raith Maeve.  Given the dates cited in Dr. O'Sullivan's book, it was the first monument, earthen or timber, on the site.

We are back to whether the Discovery Programme had access to the new date for the MOTH, I've seen no indication that they did.


As for your comment regarding court tombs "As for the double court tomb... what can you say, they were made of cairns of stone with large orthostats and sometimes drywalling"  There's a problem with that, that even the Discovery Programme acknowledges "The most problematic aspect of the analysis of the monuments on Tara, however, concerns the comparative analysis of Irish barrows, in all their various forms. There is no corpus study of Irish barrows and although well over a hundred specimens have been excavated, only the most tenuous patterns can be teased out of the evidence."  That raises a couple possibilities:

1) The forecourts could easily have been earthen structures, with only the two chambers lined with stone and capped with an earthen mound.

2) The forecourts may have been constructed of stone and covered over when Raith na Senad's earthen ramparts were constructed.

Given the fact that the double court tomb, or "causeway" that Professor O'Riordain refers to, was never excavated, we don't know whether there's a stone structure there or not.  Yes, the vast majority of court tombs that have been identified appear in northern Ireland and are constructed of stone.  Does that mean that all court tombs have to have been constructed from stone?  To get a better idea of how "problematic" the situation is in identifying monuments in England, check out the following website. Under the definitions, general descriptions and distribution you'll note that many of the same type of monuments can be constructed either of stone or earth, or both depending on the location.

http://www.eng-h.gov...mcd/mcdtop1.htm


The English monuments, especially Longbarrows, appear to have been built using wood, earth and stone depending on the materials available, there are no remains of any court tomb in Ireland that I am aware of (especially the double court variety peculiar to the north and north west) that had been made primarily from earth, they may have had wooden precursors (quoting from Weir) but we simply don't know for sure and there is no evidence of earthen double court tombs. It's simply the wrong monument, in the wrong place and made of the wrong materials.



Thank you for corrrecting me on the cross-quarter sunrises versus the winter solstice.  On the issue of the "gentle but significant gradient in front of the MOTH".  The henge posts would in all likelihood have been significantly taller than the gradient you refer to.  The post holes alone were 2 meters in diameter. (6.5 feet)  Furthermore, the gradient was probably not present when the tomb was constructed, as it would have channelled water into the tomb when it rained.  If anything, the builders would have constructed a gradient that sloped away from the entrance.  A logical explanation is that the gradient is due to silting from the 5th rampart that Dr. Petrie and P.W. Joyce noted in their research in 1837 and 1907 respectively.

I am talking about the natural downwards sloping of the hill in front of the MOTH, it is quite substantial.

[i]The bottom line here is that we don't know enough about Tara.

Quite, but we can only reconstruct it through examination of the features above and below the ground. Not through interpretation of carvings of symbols that are standard across passage tomb art that need to be squashed, stretched and rotated to match features for which no evidence exists, together with a radical re-interpretation of the evidence that does exist. Most of the archaeologists that you have contacted take a scientific approach to their studies, it 's really no wonder they can't find merit in such a wildly speculative approach that refutes existing evidence in favour of imaginative distortion and vague interpretations.

(I had to abandon proper quoting of text due to the restriction on the number of quotes in a reply!)

[kevin.b]

With upmost respect to all,
        Can you not see the problem?
You are all scrabbling to establish whatever evidence you can, but with the wrong senses.
You are all passionate and care, that stands out , but again I say, listen to the dwarf.

This place is A typical of thousands of similer, you cannot with the senses available to You see Tara.
All the scientific brilliance in the world will simply tie you all in knots and have you throwing cow pats at each other.

The invisable to your senses knows the reasons and adjusments made.

Why do I feel like I am talking to a bunch of people that think lumps of rocks are merely that?
That which made all of the materials is positioned precisely, and never moves, though what flows upon it varies over the years, constant variation occurs, thus constant alteration is required, sadly this knowledge is also now forgotten.
Stuff stick a road over it.
Kevin

[seanachai]

Cian McLiam  (aka Ken Williams)

Yes, I’ve known it was you since your first post on this site, but I figured I’d play along.  As I told you on The Megalithic Portal, “… as much as I love a lively debate, I keep having to repeat, correct or clarify what I've already stated in my paper.”

In your posts here, you’ve made statements that are unfounded, such as your comment regarding construction of the Mound of the Hostages “No-one says it was the first…”  Yes, there are, such as the Discovery Programme, Dr. O’Sullivan, Dr. Twohig and no doubt dozens of other archaeologists around the world.  Then there was your statement with respect to testing for the reservoir effect “these guys do it on every sample with data that has been available since 1993…”  No they don’t, according to the directors of RLAHA and CARD.  To top it off, you post a website in support of your statement that says nothing to that effect.  There was also your comment "check out their cross-referenced carbon dating and historical records from Egypt, impressive!"  No it’s not impressive, since that took place 1949, when dating was in its infancy.  

Your most recent post contains similar remarks.    

1)  “You said it stands to reason that it [The Mound of the Hostages] was built after Newgrange and Knowth because it was cruder, that cannot be supported by any evidence”   Yes, it does stand to reason, as there is evidence to support that.  “The earliest identifiable monument is a postulated enclosure [henge] 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 construction of… Duma na nGiall… occurred sometime after the enclosure had fallen into disuse or was burned down.” The Discovery Programme   In view of this, Duma na nGiall had to have been constructed between 3030 - 2190 BC, not 3350 - 3100 BC.”  Newgrange and Knowth are dated to around 3200 BC, which is prior to 3030 – 2190 BC for construction of the Mound of the Hostages.

2) “you forget that the burden of proof rests solely on you to prove your case, not for others to refute your speculations with their own speculations.  No, I haven’t forgotten the burden of proof rests with me, which is why with each statement I made, I supported it with facts and evidence from the experts and the historical records.

3)  You stated “Are you sure the Tara Discovery Programme had access to the radiocarbon dating from the MOTH or were they working in supposition? According to the Discovery Programme website, their archaeological survey began in 1992 and was completed in 1997. The AMS and radiocarbon dating of artefacts from the mound of the hostages was completed in 2001 so there is no way the Discovery Programme could have known these dates if it completed it's work in 1997”   Only the dating of the remains took place in 2001.  The Discovery Programme during its 1992-1997 survey had access to the material (part of the enclosure) that was unearthed in the pre-tomb levels of  The Mound of the Hostages which was “radiocarbon dated to between 3030-2190 B.C.”  So, no they were not “working in supposition” when they stated “The construction of… Duma na nGiall… occurred sometime after the enclosure had fallen into disuse or was burned down.”  Moreover, it doesn’t matter that the Discovery Programme didn’t have access to the radiocarbon dates for the remains.  Their statement was not dependent upon the dates for the remains.   The part of the henge that was uncovered was beneath the remains.  And no I’m not creating a “false controversy” as you suggest.

4) “Getting items radiocarbon dated is a very expensive process, if you were having 58 samples done these matters were surely discussed between the archaeologists, the museums and the labs, you don't simply post off the samples and hope for the best. You don’t seem to have consulted the O'Sullivan’s excavation report, which may clear up these matters for you.”  The reservoir effect was discussed in detail in my paper, which I emailed directly to Dr. O’Sullivan and Dr. Twohig.  I also raised the issue in an email to each of them.  In their replies neither commented on that matter.  If the samples had been tested for the anomaly, they would have stated that and ended the debate right then and there.

5)  Regarding you’re comment “Were they [Dr. Higham and Matthew Betts] involved with the dating, if not they are just guessing, like you seem to be.”  My response regarding them was in pointing out to you that testing for the reservoir effect has not been routinely done since 1993.  So no, neither they nor I am guessing about that.

6)  You also stated “Quite, but we can only reconstruct it [Tara] through examination of the features above and below the ground. Not through interpretation of carvings of symbols that are standard across passage tomb art that need to be squashed, stretched and rotated to match features for which no evidence exists, together with a radical re-interpretation of the evidence that does exist”.  Apparently you don’t feel that the historical records and facts I’ve cited meet your criteria for evidence.  That being the case, please take it up with the experts. Interpretations of the symbols whether on this orthostat or other stones are not “standard”.  In one of my posts to you on the Megalithic Portal I stated “If in fact the carvings; rings, cups etc. only have one meaning, then go to the following website and use the interpretations of N.L. Thomas and decipher those on the orthostat.”

http://www.mythicali...oart/index.html

You wrote back saying “Just my opinion, but I don’t have much faith in these interpretations” At which point I challenged you to find someone’s interpretations that you do have faith in.  You never did.  The orthostat, like thousands of other stones throughout the world, was reused in constructing the passageway.  Simply because it is not oriented (north to south) with the monuments on the site, does not mean it isn’t a map of the area.  If you were planting a tree in your backyard and came across a document, and after unfolding and rotating it, the features on it matched the buildings and streets in your home town even if some no longer existed, would you not consider it a map?  Of course you would.  The orthostat is no different than that document, with the exception that one is stone and the other paper.

7) Lastly you stated “Most of the archaeologists that you have contacted take a scientific approach to their studies, it 's really no wonder they can't find merit in such a wildly speculative approach that refutes existing evidence in favour of imaginative distortion and vague interpretations.”   First off, all the archaeologists I’ve contacted take a “scientific approach to their studies. That doesn’t mean that they don’t, from time to time, ignore facts and evidence that do not fit their theories.  As a matter of fact, Dr. Twohig stated in her review of Dr. O’Sullivan’s book that he is “The author is hesitant to assign the large oval enclosure detected recently through Discovery Programme gradiometry programme to this period”.  Why is he hesitant?  Probably because the dates for the henge, part of which was found beneath the remains within the Mound of the Hostages, show that there is a problem in reconciling the dates he got for the remains.  As to why they can’t find merit in my hypothesis is best summed by the following, which I believe I’ve cited before "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

You stated in your first post that you’d read my paper “five or six times now”.  There’s a difference between reading something, and actually comprehending what you’ve read.  You’re posts clearly demonstrate that you don’t.

[seanachai]

For those of you who are interested, I teamed up with Maireid Sullivan, an award winning documentary filmmaker and musician, for a short film based on my paper “Orthostat, The Mound of the Hostages” and the current controversy surrounding construction of the M3 Motorway in County Meath, Ireland.

The film can be viewed at:
Tara, Voices From Our Past

The link to the paper is:
Orthostat, the Mound of the Hostages

[Cian McLiam]

seanachai, on 5 November 2007, 4:39, said:

Cian McLiam  (aka Ken Williams)

Yes, I’ve known it was you since your first post on this site, but I figured I’d play along.  As I told you on The Megalithic Portal, “… as much as I love a lively debate, I keep having to repeat, correct or clarify what I've already stated in my paper.”

I dont have time now to respond to everything that you have re-stated but I would like to make a few points now:

What is the major hang up on criticism and requests for clarification? Why personalise a disagreement over interpretation of neolithic rock art? I know you're probably not implying there is anything sinister about me using a screen name on this site different from another, only a very paranoid person would suggest that, but I fail to see why it's relevant to the discussion. Let's stick to the issues please.

I don't mind in the least since most people know me by either screen name (and I caption all my photos with my name anyway) but it is very discourteous to disclose information about people that you have good reason to believe they wish not to be disclosed (by using a screen name). Please bear that in mind.

Quote

In your posts here, you’ve made statements that are unfounded, such as your comment regarding construction of the Mound of the Hostages “No-one says it was the first…”  Yes, there are, such as the Discovery Programme, Dr. O’Sullivan, Dr. Twohig and no doubt dozens of other archaeologists around the world.

Funnily enough I was at Dr. O'Sullivan's lecture on the excavation of the Mound of Hostages and he described the pre-tomb features on the hill in detail.

Quote

Then there was your statement with respect to testing for the reservoir effect “these guys do it on every sample with data that has been available since 1993…”  No they don’t, according to the directors of RLAHA and CARD.

From the webpage I linked to:
There are two correction factor that we apply on every sample:

Background Correction

Reservoir Correction
http://www.physics.a...ion/correct.htm

Quote

1)  “You said it stands to reason that it [The Mound of the Hostages] was built after Newgrange and Knowth because it was cruder, that cannot be supported by any evidence”   Yes, it does stand to reason, as there is evidence to support that.

Then show the evidence that demonstrates that cruder tombs were built after more elaborate ones, and this could be determined because they were cruder, which was your claim after all.

Quote

6)  You also stated “Quite, but we can only reconstruct it [Tara] through examination of the features above and below the ground. Not through interpretation of carvings of symbols that are standard across passage tomb art that need to be squashed, stretched and rotated to match features for which no evidence exists, together with a radical re-interpretation of the evidence that does exist”.  Apparently you don’t feel that the historical records and facts I’ve cited meet your criteria for evidence.  That being the case, please take it up with the experts. Interpretations of the symbols whether on this orthostat or other stones are not “standard”.  In one of my posts to you on the Megalithic Portal I stated “If in fact the carvings; rings, cups etc. only have one meaning, then go to the following website and use the interpretations of N.L. Thomas and decipher those on the orthostat.”

http://www.mythicali...oart/index.html

You wrote back saying “Just my opinion, but I don’t have much faith in these interpretations” At which point I challenged you to find someone’s interpretations that you do have faith in.  You never did.

Is it now a requirement to have faith in at least one interpretation? Sorry, but I don't have faith in any present literal interpretations.

Quote

You stated in your first post that you’d read my paper “five or six times now”.  There’s a difference between reading something, and actually comprehending what you’ve read.  You’re posts clearly demonstrate that you don’t.

I dont agree.

[seanachai]

Cian,

You commented in your previous post about the testing of 58 samples by Gronigen in 2001. In that same paragraph you went on to say that “these guys do it on every sample with data that has been available since 1993…” First off, the date 1993 only appeared in a caption of a picture on that page.  Secondly, to me your comment implied that all radiocarbon dating labs perform the tests routinely.  However, it appears that the "these guys" you were referring to is only the lab at the University of Arizona, which has nothing to do with the tests performed at Gronigen.  You're quite right, the website does say that the Arizona lab performs those corrections routinely, however "when the reservoirs differ in specific 14C content from the atmosphere."  The operative word is when, as in when they know or have reason to suspect the reservoirs differ, which I covered in an earlier post.

You ask "Then show the evidence that demonstrates that cruder tombs were built after more elaborate ones, and this could be determined because they were cruder, which was your claim after all."  I did that in item 1 of my previous post, but I'll repeat it here:

1)  Around 3200 BC the elaborate passage tombs of Newgrange and Knowth were constructed.
2)  3030-2190 BC the henge at Tara was constructed.  The Mound of the Hostages was built "sometime after the henge fell into disuse or was burned down."
3)  So sometime between 3030 - 2190 BC the crude passage tomb The Mound of the Hostages was constructed.

3030 to 2190 BC is 170 to 1,010 years after Newgrange and Knowth were constructed.

[kevin.b]

Seanachai,
               Thank you, wonderfull, and it is good to hear the different names around this area spoken in their correct prenunciation.
I cannot imagine an obnoxious roaring motorway, snarling its way through all of this, what are we heading for?
Kevin

[seanachai]

kevin.b, on 6 November 2007, 1:15, said:

Seanachai,
               Thank you, wonderfull, and it is good to hear the different names around this area spoken in their correct prenunciation.
I cannot imagine an obnoxious roaring motorway, snarling its way through all of this, what are we heading for?
Kevin

Kevin,

Thank you for the compliment on our film, especially with regards to the narration.  Maireid was a bit hesitant about that, as she felt her Irish had become a bit too Aussie over the years.  Hopefully, our next film will be about the Tara complex being saved from destruction by the M3, thanks to the hard work of the campaign organizers, the people who attended the vigils, demonstrations and rallies, those who donated money or simply their time by writing letters and signing the petitions.

As stated in the film "The Tara complex is a major part of the cultural heritage of the Irish people, yet it's being destroyed by those in the government who have been entrusted with protecting it.  In stark contrast, governments of third world countries are going to great lengths to excavate, restore, preserve and protect their monuments, and prosecute those who injure or deface them."

Sean Moriarty

[FourWinds]

seanachai, on 6 November 2007, 0:53, said:

You ask "Then show the evidence that demonstrates that cruder tombs were built after more elaborate ones, and this could be determined because they were cruder, which was your claim after all."  I did that in item 1 of my previous post, but I'll repeat it here:

1)  Around 3200 BC the elaborate passage tombs of Newgrange and Knowth were constructed.
2)  3030-2190 BC the henge at Tara was constructed.  The Mound of the Hostages was built "sometime after the henge fell into disuse or was burned down."
3)  So sometime between 3030 - 2190 BC the crude passage tomb The Mound of the Hostages was constructed.

Those dates just tell us that MotH was built after Newgrange, not that all cruder tombs were built after Newgrange. Dates from Carrowmore clearly show they were built much earlier than the Boyne monuments and they're much cruder than Newgrange. So the statement, "and this could be determined because they were cruder," is a duff one. And don't forget, the cruder satellite tombs at Knowh predate the main mound, too, again invalidating the statement on a much more local level. I think the same applies for the satellite tombs at Newgrange, but don't have the dates handy to check.

The theory that Newgrange is the original and all the rest are crap copies is one that was put forward by the Anglo-centric antiquaries of the Victorian and pre-Victorian eras, because the Irish peasantry couldn't possibly have built something as architecturally advanced as Newrange. Hence, to their eyes, the Danes must have built Newgrange and the Irish tried to copy it, but could only manage degenerate forms that regressed as the style travelled west. It is now accepted that the movement was in the other direction (and obviously happened well before the Danes.)

The nicely produced film makes the amazing statement that we have 'the oldest observatory in the world" at Tara. I'd like to see the evidence for that statement, please. Sounds like quite a find.

Anyone been to the NMI yet to see the MotH finds exhibition?

[seanachai]

FourWinds, on 9 November 2007, 23:43, said:

seanachai, on 6 November 2007, 0:53, said:

You ask "Then show the evidence that demonstrates that cruder tombs were built after more elaborate ones, and this could be determined because they were cruder, which was your claim after all."  I did that in item 1 of my previous post, but I'll repeat it here:

1)  Around 3200 BC the elaborate passage tombs of Newgrange and Knowth were constructed.
2)  3030-2190 BC the henge at Tara was constructed.  The Mound of the Hostages was built "sometime after the henge fell into disuse or was burned down."
3)  So sometime between 3030 - 2190 BC the crude passage tomb The Mound of the Hostages was constructed.

Those dates just tell us that MotH was built after Newgrange, not that all cruder tombs were built after Newgrange. Dates from Carrowmore clearly show they were built much earlier than the Boyne monuments and they're much cruder than Newgrange. So the statement, "and this could be determined because they were cruder," is a duff one. And don't forget, the cruder satellite tombs at Knowh predate the main mound, too, again invalidating the statement on a much more local level. I think the same applies for the satellite tombs at Newgrange, but don't have the dates handy to check.

The theory that Newgrange is the original and all the rest are crap copies is one that was put forward by the Anglo-centric antiquaries of the Victorian and pre-Victorian eras, because the Irish peasantry couldn't possibly have built something as architecturally advanced as Newrange. Hence, to their eyes, the Danes must have built Newgrange and the Irish tried to copy it, but could only manage degenerate forms that regressed as the style travelled west. It is now accepted that the movement was in the other direction (and obviously happened well before the Danes.)

The nicely produced film makes the amazing statement that we have 'the oldest observatory in the world" at Tara. I'd like to see the evidence for that statement, please. Sounds like quite a find.

Anyone been to the NMI yet to see the MotH finds exhibition?

FourWinds,

Those dates not only tell us that "MotH was built after Newgrange", they also tell us that it is was built after the henge fell into disuse, burned down or was removed.

I never stated or implied that "all cruder tombs were built after Newgrange". What I did say, was that based on the dates, the Mound of the Hostages, which is cruder than Newgrange and Knowth, was constructed after those two monuments. You're quite right, the tombs at Carrowmore do predate Knowth and Newgrange. As interesting as that information may be, it has no bearing whatsoever on the issue.

http://www.britarch....a82/feat2.shtml     (scroll to bottom of the page)

As for the satellite tombs at Knowth, based on the information I've read all of them are cruder than the main mound and only two, Site 13 and 16, are suggested to have been built prior Site 1.  If you have evidence to the contrary, then please post it here? So the evidence supports my hypothesis, rather than invalidate it.  In view of the dates from Tara, even if all the satellite tombs at Knowth predate the main mound, that would not invalidate my hypothesis.  Furthermore, simply because what is true at one site, would not necessarily hold true for all sites.

I never made the statement "Then show the evidence that demonstrates that cruder tombs were built after more elaborate ones, and this could be determined because they were cruder, which was your claim after all."  That was Cian McLiam, so you can take that up with him.

I never stated or implied that "Newgrange is the original and all the rest are crap copies", but thank you for sharing that theory.

The comments by Alexis Gilbride in the film were not scripted, so I can't tell you, nor am I willing to speculate, what she based her statement on regarding Tara being the "the oldest observatory in the world", so you'll have to take that up with her.

[FourWinds]

seanachai, on 11 November 2007, 1:21, said:

FourWinds, on 9 November 2007, 23:43, said:

seanachai, on 6 November 2007, 0:53, said:

You ask "Then show the evidence that demonstrates that cruder tombs were built after more elaborate ones, and this could be determined because they were cruder, which was your claim after all."  I did that in item 1 of my previous post, but I'll repeat it here:

1)  Around 3200 BC the elaborate passage tombs of Newgrange and Knowth were constructed.
2)  3030-2190 BC the henge at Tara was constructed.  The Mound of the Hostages was built "sometime after the henge fell into disuse or was burned down."
3)  So sometime between 3030 - 2190 BC the crude passage tomb The Mound of the Hostages was constructed.

Those dates just tell us that MotH was built after Newgrange, not that all cruder tombs were built after Newgrange. Dates from Carrowmore clearly show they were built much earlier than the Boyne monuments and they're much cruder than Newgrange. So the statement, "and this could be determined because they were cruder," is a duff one. And don't forget, the cruder satellite tombs at Knowh predate the main mound, too, again invalidating the statement on a much more local level. I think the same applies for the satellite tombs at Newgrange, but don't have the dates handy to check.

The theory that Newgrange is the original and all the rest are crap copies is one that was put forward by the Anglo-centric antiquaries of the Victorian and pre-Victorian eras, because the Irish peasantry couldn't possibly have built something as architecturally advanced as Newrange. Hence, to their eyes, the Danes must have built Newgrange and the Irish tried to copy it, but could only manage degenerate forms that regressed as the style travelled west. It is now accepted that the movement was in the other direction (and obviously happened well before the Danes.)

The nicely produced film makes the amazing statement that we have 'the oldest observatory in the world" at Tara. I'd like to see the evidence for that statement, please. Sounds like quite a find.

Anyone been to the NMI yet to see the MotH finds exhibition?

FourWinds,

Those dates not only tell us that "MotH was built after Newgrange", they also tell us that it is was built after the henge fell into disuse, burned down or was removed.

I never stated or implied that "all cruder tombs were built after Newgrange". What I did say, was that based on the dates, the Mound of the Hostages, which is cruder than Newgrange and Knowth, was constructed after those two monuments. You're quite right, the tombs at Carrowmore do predate Knowth and Newgrange. As interesting as that information may be, it has no bearing whatsoever on the issue.

http://www.britarch....a82/feat2.shtml     (scroll to bottom of the page)

As for the satellite tombs at Knowth, based on the information I've read all of them are cruder than the main mound and only two, Site 13 and 16, are suggested to have been built prior Site 1.  If you have evidence to the contrary, then please post it here? So the evidence supports my hypothesis, rather than invalidate it.  In view of the dates from Tara, even if all the satellite tombs at Knowth predate the main mound, that would not invalidate my hypothesis.  Furthermore, simply because what is true at one site, would not necessarily hold true for all sites.

I never made the statement "Then show the evidence that demonstrates that cruder tombs were built after more elaborate ones, and this could be determined because they were cruder, which was your claim after all."  That was Cian McLiam, so you can take that up with him.

I never stated or implied that "Newgrange is the original and all the rest are crap copies", but thank you for sharing that theory.

The comments by Alexis Gilbride in the film were not scripted, so I can't tell you, nor am I willing to speculate, what she based her statement on regarding Tara being the "the oldest observatory in the world", so you'll have to take that up with her.

I'm sorry I attributed the wrong quote to you.

However, you did say -

Quote

Given the tomb's rather crude construction as compared to those, it stands to reason it was built after they had fallen into disuse. While it could be argued that Duma na nGiall was the first step in the evolution of passage tomb construction, i.e. prior to Newgrange and Knowth, here again that means it would have to have been constructed prior to the enclosure.

, which says the same thing really, so my comments still apply.

I never said that the above invalidated your theory. I simply said it invalidates that particular argument. As you use that statement to support your theory, it weakens your case instead of supporting it.