|
The Modern Antiquarian Forum » Ness of Brodgar » 'MUST READ' article on the Ness of Brodgar |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
|
Evergreen Dazed 1881 posts |
Jan 16, 2017, 22:34
|
||
|
CianMcLiam wrote: tiompan wrote: 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 ? Yeah it will be interesting to see what kind of monument stood there originally, nevertheless a narrow strip of land with a natural moat on each side is a pretty good site to defend. I'd be inclined to think of raiding rather than all out war. For the thickness of the walls to be of some defensive significance you'd have to have a very high wall, castle like, a wall you couldn't climb. And for roofed structures, why build such thick walls when the roof would make the building vulnerable. And, as George has mentioned, look at Barnhouse just across the way, and Skara Brae. The fortress thing doesn't ring true at all. I'd imagine the strip of the ness would be a terrifying place to be if under attack.
|
|||
CianMcLiam 1067 posts |
Jan 16, 2017, 22:54
|
||
|
Evergreen Dazed wrote: CianMcLiam wrote: tiompan wrote: 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 ? Yeah it will be interesting to see what kind of monument stood there originally, nevertheless a narrow strip of land with a natural moat on each side is a pretty good site to defend. I'd be inclined to think of raiding rather than all out war. For the thickness of the walls to be of some defensive significance you'd have to have a very high wall, castle like, a wall you couldn't climb. And for roofed structures, why build such thick walls when the roof would make the building vulnerable. And, as George has mentioned, look at Barnhouse just across the way, and Skara Brae. The fortress thing doesn't ring true at all. I'd imagine the strip of the ness would be a terrifying place to be if under attack. I was thinking the outer walls would have a batter, 6m thick at the base is a pretty formidable wall that would be difficult to appreciate except from above. Since there was nothing as strong as cement, thinner walls would have been easy enough to breach for a persistent attacker or siege situation, unless they used massive blocks. They seem to be suggesting the roofing was stone tiles, perhaps some were corbelled. The chamber of Maeshowe shows that making a pretty indestructible roof was not unfamiliar. It's actually not too unlike the arrangement around cliff forts and ring forts, they had relatively small interiors with groups of undefended houses surrounding it. If you are holed up in a cliff fort or promontory fort during an attack there's not a lot of places to escape to, hence they were so heavily fortified that most opportunistic raiders would just move along. The outer ditch seems to underline a defensive role for this outer wall. Here in Ireland we have a formidable hill fort on Baltinglass Hill that has been dated to the Neolithic. It had a strong wooden palisade and stone revetted ditches. It was burned to the ground shortly after it was built, something it has in common with many of the Bronze Age hill forts.
|
|||
tiompan 5758 posts |
Jan 16, 2017, 23:01
|
||
|
CianMcLiam wrote: tiompan wrote: 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 ? Yeah it will be interesting to see what kind of monument stood there originally, nevertheless a narrow strip of land with a natural moat on each side is a pretty good site to defend. I'd be inclined to think of raiding rather than all out war. I find the historical aspect of monuments intriguing e.g. Stonehenge . I think they are hopeful that the earliest monument was funereal , at the Ness. War as was uncommon in the period and there is no evidence of it that I know of in Orkney . It appears that interpersonal violence was common for the period and here too , but you don't need big walls to put a stop to that or raiding which was more suited to mainland areas where you get in and out easily and quickly , not easily achieved on Orkney . The earliest defensive structures on Orkney look to be have been promontory forts and brochs ,both much later than the Ness .
|
|||
|
CianMcLiam 1067 posts |
Jan 16, 2017, 23:19
|
||
|
tiompan wrote: CianMcLiam wrote: tiompan wrote: 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 ? Yeah it will be interesting to see what kind of monument stood there originally, nevertheless a narrow strip of land with a natural moat on each side is a pretty good site to defend. I'd be inclined to think of raiding rather than all out war. I find the historical aspect of monuments intriguing e.g. Stonehenge . I think they are hopeful that the earliest monument was funereal , at the Ness. War as was uncommon in the period and there is no evidence of it that I know of in Orkney . It appears that interpersonal violence was common for the period and here too , but you don't need big walls to put a stop to that or raiding which was more suited to mainland areas where you get in and out easily and quickly , not easily achieved on Orkney . The earliest defensive structures on Orkney look to be have been promontory forts and brochs ,both much later than the Ness . I think there's something going on on islands in the Neolithic that seems to ramp up the evolution of the society. Just look at the highly formal temple culture and art of Malta, there's nothing else quite like it during the same period. Just like in Polynesia, in some groups like the Society Islands and Hawaii it was the small, more marginal islands that rose to dominate other areas that had more open space for communities to expand. What they lacked in sheer numbers they made up for in mobilisation and sophisticated organisation with their denser populations.
|
|||
Howburn Digger 986 posts |
Jan 19, 2017, 16:11
|
||
|
tiompan wrote: War as was uncommon in the period and there is no evidence of it that I know of in Orkney . It appears that interpersonal violence was common for the period and here too , but you don't need big walls to put a stop to that or raiding which was more suited to mainland areas where you get in and out easily and quickly , not easily achieved on Orkney . The earliest defensive structures on Orkney look to be have been promontory forts and brochs ,both much later than the Ness . You need big thick, strong walls to keep out the prevailing wind. Nice tight drystone walling a few courses thick, get the kids to pack it tight with moss in the cracks. Keeps out the draughts great. Thousands of years later, they ended up building their new social housing scheme Skara Brae intae a massive midden heap tae keep the draughts oot. Why wouldn't you?
|
| Pages: 3 – [ Previous | 1 2 3 ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index | |
