From: aelarsen@facstaff.wisc.edu
Date: Sat 26 Feb 2000 - 02:00:42 EET
>From: Joerg Baumgartner <joe@toppoint.de>
>Subject: Re: Newgrange
>
>I said
>>>If so, no evidence for use as a grave has been found for Newgrange
>>>proper (dunno about Knowth and Dowth, but I suppose they were graves).
>
>and was corrected by Andrew E. Larsen:
>> Untrue. When Michael O'Kelly conducted a series of annual digs at
>> Newgrange from 1962 to 75, he found the remains of 2 bodies in the
>> main chamber, whose bones were scattered about, suggesting that
>> they might have been moved in there sometime after the site was
>> built or disturbed at some point by grave robbers. He also found
>> the cremated remains of at least 3 and possibly more people, as
>> well as several pendants and other items.
>
>This for a site which had ample space for many bodies. Do you have dates
>for these finds? It is possible that later groups used the earlier
>monument as a place to bury their dead. This still doesn't mean that
>Newgrange was primarily a grave - otherwise all of christianity's great
>cathedrals would have to be categorized as monuments to the dead buried
>within as well.
I do not know if any dates have been assigned to those bodies, but
>> Remember that many burial bounds become megaliths after the dirt
Agreed. But the vast majority of neolithic sites that I have seen
Andrew E. Larsen
------------------------------
it would be a moot point, since the dating of Newgrange itself is vague.
The size of the monument in comparison to the number of bodies is isn't a
real indicator, since the Pyramids were built to house just one body.
However, you're right that there is nothing to prove that Newgrange
was built to act as a tomb. The bodies could significantly postdate the
structure. However, this is also true of many other neolithic sites. Most
passage graves *could* have been built for other purposes. My
understanding is that most archaeologists consider Newgrange (and Knowth
and Dowth) to be cemetaries.
>> has worn away and the stone structure remains.
>
>Only if megalithic techniques were used to build the mounts, which is
>what I doubt. Mounds like that of the Oseberg ship used different
>methods, and would yield no great stone remains.
in the British Isles (excluding stone circles) originated as grave
structures, from which the dirt and burials have subsequently vanished,
leaving odd arrangements of stones.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Fri 13 Jun 2003 - 21:01:40 EEST