Ness of Brodgar forum 3 room
Image by baza
Ness of Brodgar

'MUST READ' article on the Ness of Brodgar

close
more_vert
CianMcLiam C
CianMcLiam Jan 16, 2017 11:50:40
Replying to tiompan

tiompan wrote:
CianMcLiam wrote:
spencer wrote:
Just to flag up the link to this posted by tomatoman over on TMA. Moss has commented that she has learnt more from it than the current series, and, since I've managed to miss the latter so far, I no longer feel lacking. A truly excellent piece, imo. Well done, Archaeology Institute of America's feature writer .. http://www.archaeology.org/issues/61-1301/features/327-scotland-orkney-neolithic-brodgar
It's a really nice piece. Thanks for the link. I still can't fathom why no archaeologist has publicly expressed the likely function of the site as a large fortification.
Maybe it could be explained ,that , like a lot of monuments it has a history ,with buildings being built over earlier buildings , others collapsing etc .The hope /expectation seems to be that the earliest monument was a chambered cairn .
The earliest dates so far are c.3512 BC (and they are still digging ) and the first enclosing wall is believed to be about 500 years later , so a fortification description is not likely to be applicable at that point . Contemporary Skara Bare and Barnhouse have nothing suggestive of of fortification and although we know the period probably had plenty of inter personal violence there is no sign of any warfare or weaponry as was obvious at some CE 'S .
I suppose you could say the same for Jericho where walls were eventually built around a settlement that had a very long history and multiple layers of construction.

In the end, the Ness had a gigantic wall and apparently an exterior ditch. The thickness of the walls are pretty extreme for a ritual or cult site.
You wouldn't need explicit signs of warfare to explain it, it would be as much about insecurity in a remote area with presumably a significant amount of wealth on the hoof. Even if the Orkney inhabitants were all peace, love and cuddliness they still have to deal with the 'other guy problem'.

T tiompan
tiompan Jan 16, 2017 13:19:07
Replying to CianMcLiam

CianMcLiam wrote:
tiompan wrote:
CianMcLiam wrote:
spencer wrote:
Just to flag up the link to this posted by tomatoman over on TMA. Moss has commented that she has learnt more from it than the current series, and, since I've managed to miss the latter so far, I no longer feel lacking. A truly excellent piece, imo. Well done, Archaeology Institute of America's feature writer .. http://www.archaeology.org/issues/61-1301/features/327-scotland-orkney-neolithic-brodgar
It's a really nice piece. Thanks for the link. I still can't fathom why no archaeologist has publicly expressed the likely function of the site as a large fortification.
Maybe it could be explained ,that , like a lot of monuments it has a history ,with buildings being built over earlier buildings , others collapsing etc .The hope /expectation seems to be that the earliest monument was a chambered cairn .
The earliest dates so far are c.3512 BC (and they are still digging ) and the first enclosing wall is believed to be about 500 years later , so a fortification description is not likely to be applicable at that point . Contemporary Skara Bare and Barnhouse have nothing suggestive of of fortification and although we know the period probably had plenty of inter personal violence there is no sign of any warfare or weaponry as was obvious at some CE 'S .
I suppose you could say the same for Jericho where walls were eventually built around a settlement that had a very long history and multiple layers of construction.

In the end, the Ness had a gigantic wall and apparently an exterior ditch. The thickness of the walls are pretty extreme for a ritual or cult site.
You wouldn't need explicit signs of warfare to explain it, it would be as much about insecurity in a remote area with presumably a significant amount of wealth on the hoof. Even if the Orkney inhabitants were all peace, love and cuddliness they still have to deal with the 'other guy problem'.

But Jericho was originally a settlement not a chambered cairn as it is expected at the Ness . The nearby contemporaneous settlements didn't have surrounding walls eg Barnhouse and Skara Brae .
The walls of structure 10 inside the complex are probably the biggest ,more a case of conspicuous construction .
We know from the evidence of chambered tombs that the inhabitants were not about peace love and cuddliness , probably far from it but the "other guy " was probably your neighbour , not from the mainland of Europe or Scotland . That evidence suggests interpersonal violence not warfare ,DNA/isotope analysis might clarify that .The island(s) had a really useful defence in the surrounding seas , anyone attempting to attack them would need a fair few boats to carry the warriors across the Pentland Firth etc before even starting any attack . If thre was to be an attack and you wanted to build defences would you choose a low lying situation as at the Ness ?

Like all websites everywhere, we use cookies.