I forgot about something really important: Nabta Playa henge in southern Egypt. It is radiocarbon dated to c. 3500 BCE, what makes it apparently the oldest henge on Earth. It is older than Boleraz and Stonehenge certainly. Does anybody know of an older henge elsewhere?



The site seems to be of astronomical function and AFAIK had no burials of any kind.

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

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.

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.

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.

Clay flooring outside and open to the elements??

A single fragment of human skull was found amognst 'debris' in one of the cells in the nineteenth century excavations, according to the books I have which mention the contents...

The clay floor is indeed unusual.

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

I am writing a short dissertation for school on Minimalist art.
Minimalism is a rather elastic description for a NY art movement from the 1960s. Groups of artists tried to make (mainly) sculpture that possessed ‘minimal art content’.
Minimalists wanted austerity and employed the productive capacity of postwar manufacturing industries. Readymades (bricks timber) were ideal, items with no history, no individuality, no emotional content, just ‘things’. They took them and stacked them in such a way as to disguise the presence of the hand of the artist. They wanted the piece they had made to be seen for what it actually was.

The movement did not last long and was highly controversial (just go to the Tate Modern and read the blurbs). Even the major players realised that it was impossible to totally isolate a work from having some sort of relationship to its surroundings, and changing aspects as the viewer walked around (or even on) it.

Apologies for the long preamble. I will get to the point.
I have been exploring the possibility that the impulses that drove the NY minimalists, and what they did, has a long history.

This leads me to megaliths: Putting aside the symbolic, religious, astronomical aspects of stone circles and dolmens, can anyone tell me if any of these originate from materials actualy found on site, ie: dug up and stood up.
I note that the Avebury circle is composed of local, quarried, undressed stones. This would certainly make them 'readymades' or found objects. Until they were collected and erected, they had no (known) history, no individuality, no emotional content. They were just 'things'.
But, just by moving them, they became something remarkable.
I also read that Stonehenge stones were transported from Wales and shaped. But my interests, if anyone can tell me, are other sites like Avebury, in which the stones were retrieved 'on site' and raised without further intervention, dressing, treatment, carving etc.
I would appreciate facts or literature on this specific issue.
Regards and 1000 thanks in advance
Philip