Newgrange forum 26 room
Image by CianMcLiam
close
more_vert

Thought it best to add to an old thread rather than start a new one - hope this is the preferred way.
I have seen a lot of ancient sites which have had varying impacts on me as I observed the amazing achievents of these ancient civilisations - never before have a stood in front of an ancient monument laughing out loud. I had seen photos and thought "That doesn't look right" but seeing it for real was something else. I thought Knossos was as bad as it got in respect of "restoring" (aka Disneyfying)these things; until I saw the abomination of Newgrange. Unesco should withdraw its world heritage status until there is a commitment to do something about it. The learned Prof must have had one too many jars of the black stuff the night he came up with the concept of neolithic megalithic pebble-dash. As he watched his building contractors pouring their concrete around the steel reinforcement there must have been a little voice in his head going "Noooooo!" - but if there was, he chose to ignore it. Not only did he do pebble-dash he actually, because of the distribution differences in the ratio between the quartz and rolled granite, came up with the concept of "gradient filled" pebble-dash; outstandingly deranged by anyone's standards.
Nowhere near as deranged is the suggestion that the quartz/granite at Knowth was actually a floor paving/decoration. For me this is still unconvincing given the intelligence of these neolithic peoples - why would they pave something with seriously sharp stones when they are walking round with, at best, rudimentary animal skin protection on their feet.
It seems obvious to me that the actual original arrangement was that the quartz was embedded in the earth surface of the mound itself as a sort of large tapering "lozenge" around the doorway/window and that the water-rolled granite was used as the perimeter lining of the quartz area separating it from the earth of the mound itself. This is why the granite to quartz ratio gets larger at the extremes; there is a lot more perimeter compared to the area at the end of the "lozenge" than in the middle. It really isn't that neolithic peoples were into gradient filled pebble-dash.........
The only thing I can't quite establish, but I suspect those with access to the full size/number/distribution data could establish with some ease, is whether the granite also formed the perimeter on the lower edge where the "lozenge" met the retaining stones. I suspect it did but I cannot prove it conclusively from estimating the numbers/size data based on the photos.
This ridiculous pebble-dashed wall detracted from the wonders within - as did the guide's comments in respect of the famous triple whorl; "Oh sure I like to imagine St Patrick seeing this and saying - Oh! they had a trinity too".......
You couldn't make it up.

Unesco should withdraw its world heritage status until there is a commitment to do something about it.

Now that made me say nooooo.
Got to put all that quartz somewhere, would you prefer a neat pile at the sides of the entrance with a big question mark on it.

gjdgjd wrote:
The learned Prof must have had one too many jars of the black stuff the night he came up with the concept of neolithic megalithic pebble-dash. As he watched his building contractors pouring their concrete around the steel reinforcement there must have been a little voice in his head going "Noooooo!" - but if there was, he chose to ignore it....
I agree that Newgrange is not a fitting flag ship for the great chambered monuments of Ireland and accusations of Disneyfication are not without significant justification. Frankly, it looks false, as if it was built yesterday... which, in a manner of speaking, I suppose it was. In my opinion it should have been consolidated to minimise the rate of further decay until a consensus agreement could have been attained as to probable form.

However real life isn't like this. It would appear a dazzling prehistoric beacon was required, maybe for political reasons, following O'Kelly's reconstruction to represent to the world just what the Republic had to offer. And it has to be said that Newgrange does the job assigned to it as Ireland's primary national prehistoric monument.. bring in the punters and their cash, raise awareness of the world class nature of Ireland's ancient heritage.

So it is the statements of 'restoration' that I have issue with. It is not 'restored'... rather reinterpreted to fit a new agenda and I think this should be made clear to visitors. What's done is done.... taking it apart again would serve no purpose because (I think I'm right in saying) there is still no consensus of opinion.