|
The Modern Antiquarian Forum » Robbed cairns. Another myth? |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
ryaner 679 posts |
Mar 25, 2012, 13:17
|
||
|
Anecdotal 'evidence' says that many of the cairns and mounds that were 'robbed' in Ireland were done so during the famine – desperate times = desperate measures, hence a treasure hunt where there was little evidence that anything might be found. Also, the road/wall building material theory is an actual fact, one that I reckon continues today.
|
|||
Lubin 509 posts |
Mar 25, 2012, 13:23
|
||
|
What about the Rillaton Round Barrow there was a gold cup found in there. What's to say others haven't had objects inside that have been taken and not reported.
|
|||
thesweetcheat 6216 posts |
Mar 25, 2012, 13:58
|
||
|
ryaner wrote: Also, the road/wall building material theory is an actual fact, one that I reckon continues today. Yes, this is the way I would generally understand the use of the term "robbed" cairn, i.e. robbed of its stone material, not robbed of treasure. Also, much of the robbing occurred back in prehistoric times. I suspect many an iron age rampart/reave/pound etc re-used material from nearby cairns, once the original significance of the mound was forgotten over a couple of thousand years.
|
|||
|
wideford 1086 posts |
Mar 25, 2012, 15:21
|
||
|
depends upon your definition of treasure, to some it simply requires a certain amount of monetary return. For instance in the Tankerness area of Orkney several mounds were excavated over time because one farmer had found what he termed treasure under one on his own land. And certainly it lay behind at least some of the 'barrow-diggers' work in Britain as a whole. But, as the others say, mostly robbed cairns are simply robbed of stone in the same way as archaeologists talk of robber trenches.
|
|||
|
blossom 180 posts |
Mar 25, 2012, 16:49
|
||
|
Is it possible that because "treasure" had been found under burial mounds that following on from that it might have been buried under cairns. Then there is natural curiosity..."ere there's a big pile of stones over there...wonder what's under that then?" (that kind of thing) http://www.britishmuseum.org/explore/highlights/highlight_objects/pe_prb/t/the_mold_gold_cape.aspx
|
|||
|
GLADMAN 950 posts |
Mar 25, 2012, 17:18
|
||
|
thesweetcheat wrote: Also, much of the robbing occurred back in prehistoric times. I suspect many an iron age rampart/reave/pound etc re-used material from nearby cairns, once the original significance of the mound was forgotten over a couple of thousand years. Not so sure about this, SC. There are quite a number of examples - Foel Dygarn in the Preselis being perhaps the most obvious I've seen - where the preceding monument has been scrupulously respected within the Iron Age ramparts.. you'd have thought in Foel Drygarn's case that three great piles of stone would have been a touch for the builders of drystone ramparts. Also, retaining cairns and long/round barrows (e.g within Hambledon, Cley Hill etc) would have been detrimental to the area of available living space... so it follows that there must have been a very good reason to leave them as they were. Did Iron Age people see these monuments as representing the old gods who were not quite obsolete, as something to respect so as to placate vengeance from the past. Or perhaps did they want to harness supernatural protection for their fortress by retaining the ancients (literally) within their home. Or perhaps even to assert that 'this is ours, always has been... I mean, look who we've got living here?' Questions, questions, questions.
|
|||
Sanctuary 4670 posts |
Mar 25, 2012, 17:28
|
||
|
cerrig wrote: Some cairns have been robbed of the stone they re made of, especially any that are near very old roads. I was here yesterday. The damage done to the eastern side is enough to make you weep and the lack of respect for the person who's cremated remains were discovered a sad refection of man's indifference toward our great ancestors. The building material strewn all around was just tossed there without a care in the world. I took my own photos of course and the westen part of the cairn that is intact is something to see and when I learn how to attach them to Forum posts I'll send some in. A few days up there with half a dozen willing workers would 'soon' get it back into shape but of course to the wreckers of our heritage that would be the last thing they would consider doing the bastards! http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Cairn_on_Ridge_hill,_East_Moor_-_geograph.org.uk_-_526064.jpg
|
|||
|
thesweetcheat 6216 posts |
Mar 25, 2012, 18:11
|
||
|
GLADMAN wrote: Did Iron Age people see these monuments as representing the old gods who were not quite obsolete, as something to respect so as to placate vengeance from the past. Or perhaps did they want to harness supernatural protection for their fortress by retaining the ancients (literally) within their home. Or perhaps even to assert that 'this is ours, always has been... I mean, look who we've got living here?' Questions, questions, questions. Yes, it's true that there are plenty of examples of cairns, etc left intact (for example the cairns inside the Clwydian hillforts of Penycloddiau and Foel Fenlli). But I'm not so sure that this was the case everywhere. Perhaps I need to come up with some examples though! As ever your post makes me question things I have thought previously. The idea of IA people using the presence of earlier burial monuments to assert or valdate their "ownership" is interesting isn't it? In previous decades, this would have run contrary to the old "diffusionist" ideas that suggested this big wave of a so-called Celtic people invading Britain and briging their iron weapons and hillfort ideas with them. Not so now. So, there is certainly much more evidence to suggest that they were, largely anyway, the same "people" as the ones buried in their midst. Alternatively, there are plenty of examples throughout history of invaders re-writing (pre-)history to legimitise their presence in an invaded country, so I guess it could be an equally possible reason for leaving the older monuments in place as proof of a "continuity" that was in fact entirely fictitious. Fascinating stuff anyway.
|
|||
|
thesweetcheat 6216 posts |
Mar 25, 2012, 18:39
|
||
|
One other thing that occurs is that is a very large difference between a deliberately hidden "hoard" and grave goods. Such a hoard would inevitably not been put in an "X marks the spot" location, because you're presumably hoping to come back and retrieve it once the danger or whatever has passed. These sorts of deposits will often only be turned up by an accident of ploughing, or as you say, someone with a metal detector. Whereas the burial of a revered cheiftain/hero/elder etc might be accompanied by grave goods. The burial was in plain sight, not with an intention to hide anything but to honour the person by leaving them the objects. For an extreme example, I think the pyramids would be a pretty big "X marks the spot", yet the occupants were buried with lavish amounts of what most people would consider "treasure".
|
|||
|
blossom 180 posts |
Mar 25, 2012, 19:15
|
||
|
thesweetcheat wrote: . Whereas the burial of a revered cheiftain/hero/elder etc might be accompanied by grave goods. The burial was in plain sight, not with an intention to hide anything but to honour the person by leaving them the objects. For an extreme example, I think the pyramids would be a pretty big "X marks the spot", yet the occupants were buried with lavish amounts of what most people would consider "treasure". Clever clogs...that's just what I was trying to say only a whole lot clevererer...
|
| Pages: 4 – [ Previous | 1 2 3 4 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index | |
