The Modern Antiquarian. Stone Circles, Ancient Sites, Neolithic Monuments, Ancient Monuments, Prehistoric Sites, Megalithic MysteriesThe Modern Antiquarian

Head To Head   The Modern Antiquarian   Eire Forum Start a topic | Search
Eire
Re: UPLAND LANDSCAPE ALTERATION IN SOUTH EAST IRELAND.
83 messages
Select a forum:
rockhopper wrote:
The desecration of many upland cairns is possibly due to the misplaced idea that "treasure" of some sort could be found there. The ones that I've seen that seem to be in their original condition are far from the beaten track. The one I mentioned on Deelish requires some effort to reach, involving wading through waist high heather which covers an ankle breaking litter of moss covered rocks. That is in itself a deterrent to those intent on elusive riches. There may be in some people an inate desire to just shift stuff around, something I've never shared.
As for the Irish Dlomen s? (What exactly is the plural of dolmen??!)
I've always had a problem with the idea that these were covered with mounds. If they were, and I've seen no evidence to prove conclusively that this was so, why did the mounds covering the dolmen vanish when other mounds did not? And if they were covered with mounds, how would anyone know what was underneath? It seems strange to me that if these mounds existed in the first place, why should they have exclusively vanished, whilst all other mounds (i.e. Knowth, Dowth, the English long barrows) have remained in place? Once a mound is in place, it seems to remain so.
To me it seems to be an oft repeated piece of conjecture, dreamt up by some academic in the last century, with no supporting evidence whatsoever. But because it was forwarded by some luminary or another, it has never been challenged, and remains "accepted" wisdom.
No evidence has ever been produced to support the mound theory, and in my opinion, limited though it may be, they never existed. The dolmens are a striking feature in the landscape, and were meant to be seen. To go to the considerable effort to build them in the first place (and if you ever get to see the example at Kilmogue in Co. Kilkenny, one of the most remarkable pieces of balancing in western Europe, and one that would defy the most modern structural engineer) and then to cover them with earth, seems ridiculous.
But then, so is the proposition that the stones at Arbor Low were blown over by a wind. It was a remarkable class of a wind that arranged the stones thus. Its clearly a recumbent, and has always been, despite the nonsense spouted by Burl. But archaeology, and that conducted by upper class twits inparticular, who were obviously unfit for any meaningful employment, needs a reappraisal on many fronts. Something that the present occupants of the ivory tower are reluctant to do.


It has to be pointed out that a couple of Arbor Low's stones are not actually fully prostrate, suggesting they may once have stood upright... the felling of orthostats by christian nutters is perhaps a possibility.

There are also many examples of portal tombs throughout the UK with remnants of mounds existant, albeit to varying degrees. Therefore, although we can not be at all certain they once covered the entire monument, since none survives intact.... perhaps the capstone - at least - was left rising above to show off its size... it would appear to me a fair bet that a mound/cairn formed an integral part of such monuments. The key for me is whether the capstone was covered. Sadly, I assume this is something we will never know.


Reply | with quote
GLADMAN
Posted by GLADMAN
11th February 2012ce
01:41

Messages in this topic: