Re: Newgrange

From: Joerg Baumgartner <joe_at_toppoint.de>
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2000 23:11:48 +0000


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.

> Actually, I'd think that megalithic structures would fit in
> perfectly well for Orlanthi, especially if you're emphasizing
> the Celtic aspect.

Once again: the Celts may have (mis-) used megalithic structures they have found, but these structures predate the arrival of the Celts by a millennium at least.

> Remember that many burial bounds become megaliths after the dirt
> 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.


Powered by hypermail