|
The Modern Antiquarian Forum » Newgrange » Newgrange: quartz and granite wall |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
CianMcLiam 1067 posts |
Jul 17, 2016, 22:00
|
||
|
I'm not sure what the motive would be to bring extra quartz in though? All O'Kelly maintained was that the passage tomb had been drum shaped and that quartz had been used on the front facing. Whether that was for 1/3 of the diameter or almost half shouldn't matter to him. In fact he even let the tourist board decide to cut into the entrance area and he finished this in limestone rather than quartz to show it wouldn't have looked like that. Surely in all this time someone would have said 'yes, I drove the truck with all the quartz' or 'I saw a pile of quartz being dropped off'. This is the most controversial reconstruction in Irish history and O'Kelly has had more than his share of critics and character assassins, yet no one has dug up this smoking gun? The whole O'Kelly archive was opened up a few years ago, this would be a big operation to leave out.
|
|||
tiompan 5758 posts |
Jul 17, 2016, 23:29
|
||
There are a lot of rectangular slabs in there and the walls are close to vertical and holding up without the aid of concrete and steel . In contrast the Newgrange cobbles need the steel and concrete and much of the original putative components were unusable .
|
|||
|
tiompan 5758 posts |
Jul 17, 2016, 23:51
|
||
|
I just don't see how it adds up . If a "good quantity" couldn't be used because of their quality doesn't that suggest that they might not have been any good in the first place and how was the loss made up to construct something that was on an even bigger scale than suggested by O' Kelly's excavation notes ? Maybe the loss was made up of material from within the mound .
|
|||
|
CianMcLiam 1067 posts |
Jul 18, 2016, 16:08
|
||
|
tiompan wrote: I just don't see how it adds up . If a "good quantity" couldn't be used because of their quality doesn't that suggest that they might not have been any good in the first place and how was the loss made up to construct something that was on an even bigger scale than suggested by O' Kelly's excavation notes ? Maybe the loss was made up of material from within the mound . We can see there's a large area of the wall that isn't faced with quartz, the several metres each side of the entrance, and the last few metres at the extreme ends. If the quartz was smashed it might suggest that much of it had already been broken up into smaller chunks for the wall facing, leaving some of them brittle?
|
|||
|
tiompan 5758 posts |
Jul 18, 2016, 16:52
|
||
|
“ We can see there's a large area of the wall that isn't faced with quartz, the several metres each side of the entrance, and the last few metres at the extreme ends. “ O ‘Kelly said “ we found that quartz was thickest and most extensive In the area outside the tomb entrance and at each side of it . “Which is also problematic for an accurate reconstruction . It also echoes what was found at Knowth and Knockroe , i.e. an emphasis of quartz at the entrance(s), the one area where the façade is quartz free . “If the quartz was smashed it might suggest that much of it had already been broken up into smaller chunks for the wall facing, leaving some of them brittle? “ The smaller the chunks the less stable the (almost ) vertical structure is likely to be . The point is that they were "A good quantity …. and could not be used “ meaning that much of the actual material was dumped and had to be replaced .The replacements must have come from somewhere but not from the original revetment or sloping cover or platform . This might be interesting . http://www.meathheritage.com/index.php/event/hill-of-tara-lecture-series-2016-lecture-3
|
|||
|
CianMcLiam 1067 posts |
Jul 18, 2016, 21:32
|
||
|
I'm heading over for this talk, should be good and I'll report back if anything new comes up. I think the amount of Quartz used is a red herring, in his drawing of the wall in the book O'Kelly has it looking about a foot deep or so but this wasn't necessary with the concrete support. Along with the missing Quartz outside the entrance and the tapering at the sides there's no need for conspiracy theories about it. I also think when you see them up close the Quartz blocks used are not unsuitable for revetment wall building, particularly when the greatest force of the cairn is retained by the kerb. The builders knew this, the arcs of boulders within the cairn show they understood it's easier to retain the cairn layers if you secure the lowest levels.
|
|||
|
tiompan 5758 posts |
Jul 18, 2016, 23:07
|
||
|
It’s not a conspiracy theory , 0’Kelly’s comment “ we found that quartz was thickest and most extensive In the area outside the tomb entrance and at each side of it . “ was not echoed in the reconstruction ,quite the opposite ,they avoided using any quartz at all . The same applies to what was appended to that comment, “and at each side of it that it decreased gradually in amount and extent until it virtually disappeared atK21 in the west and K 81 in the east “ That is not what we see in the reconstruction either. The politics of the decision making might never be known , but there might be minutes from meetings yet to come to light from the archive . Whatever was used as a revetment, if it was a revetment , obviously didn’t work, and what we see today is not representative as it excludes the " good quantity “ that “ was shattered and could not be used " That’s just O’Kelly’s comments not being followed through in the reconstruction . There is still the major problem concerning the fact that the present wall is almost vertical and 3m high , I’d like to see that repeated experimentally with quartz blocks ,including the same type of quartz described by O’ Kelly that was dumped , without them being mortared to a concrete wall . It’s nearly a decade since Gabriel Cooney’s “View from the platform “ ,hopefully there will be some new stuff . And there is also the Ann Lynch talk too
|
|||
|
CianMcLiam 1067 posts |
Jul 18, 2016, 23:29
|
||
|
K81 is opposite GC -8, the same point at which the current Quartz wall fades out to nothing? Clearly seen here: http://www.newgrange.com/newgrange/newgrange_aerial.jpg The other side was not excavated as far around so that is understandable. On the smashed Quartz, O'Kelly only really refers to it relating to the 2m or so area that they cut into to carry out the experiment of tumbling a rebuilt wall, I don't think he says the smashed Quartz was typical of the entire spread. I agree about the entrance, it's a shame they used limestone on either side but it was a case of damned if you do, damned if you don't. They needed to scoop out the area to install stairs and if he had faced this area with Quartz it would be an undeniable piece of fabricated reconstruction that critics would use as the stick to beat him with. He chose to be upfront and direct about it instead, using an alien stone source. I don't think he had much choice on whether stairs would be installed or not, that was one of the main aims before he even got the job. I missed Ann Lynch's talk but I believe it was based on the Newgrange excavation report that is either just published or is imminent. Have you seen it? Very interesting and thorough.
|
|||
|
tiompan 5758 posts |
Jul 19, 2016, 21:34
|
||
|
He says " it decreased gradually in amount and extent until it virtually disappeared atK21 in the west and K 81 in the east “ There is no decrease , it's uniform . Yes the shattered quartz was from the cutting but they never used in the experimental wall , it wouldn't have worked otherwise . No , haven't seen the recent Ann Lynch .
|
|||
|
CianMcLiam 1067 posts |
Jul 20, 2016, 10:50
|
||
|
tiompan wrote: He says " it decreased gradually in amount and extent until it virtually disappeared atK21 in the west and K 81 in the east “ There is no decrease , it's uniform . Ah, sorry, I understand what you mean now. In the drawings he shows a section of the wall near the entrance and it's well over a foot, maybe near two feet thick so perhaps his interpretation was that the wall was mostly quartz right through at the entrance area but was only the surface layer further around, the thickness being filled out with ordinary cairn stones. It does thin out though around K81, it's not so clear in the photo above but up close you can see it does start to gradually fade into ordinary stone and by the end of K81 there's very little quartz. tiompan wrote: Yes the shattered quartz was from the cutting but they never used in the experimental wall , it wouldn't have worked otherwise . No , haven't seen the recent Ann Lynch . It's interesting that she found a 'significant' amount of quartz in front of K79, further back than K81 where it currently stops, so regardless of the above the current presentation of the quartz shows the extent of the spread as thinning out before it actually did originally, rather than the other way around.
|
| Pages: 7 – [ Previous | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index | |
