Filling in The Spaces in Irish Prehistory: Woodman"

Download as pdf or txt
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1of 20

Filling in the spaces in Irish prehistory

P.C. WOODMAN”

In this paper the Professor of Archaeology at University College Cork has undertaken a
radical re-evaluation of the traditional paradigms of Irish prehistory, which were formed
in the 1940s. He makes full use of the results of recent pipeline excavations and
radiocarbon dates to show that early settlement in Ireland need not always be associated
with monument or artefact types belonging to narrow chronological horizons.

In 1978, John Waddell’s valuable paper in the been inadvertently created in our prehistoric
pages of this journal, ‘The invasion hypothesis record.
in Irish prehistory’, addressed the role of inva- In this context, certain new evidence, as well
sions and whether they contributed to or as projects and research programmes, have
caused observed changes in the Irish archaeo- allowed us an opportunity to re-evaluate Irish
logical record. This paper left aside the more prehistory. From the author’s perspective, a
general question of whether we should exam- move from Belfast to Cork, from a rich visible
ine many other basic premises on which Irish prehistory to a region often presumed to be
prehistory is based. When the author was marginal or distinctive, has coloured this paper.
asked to contribute a lecture on what’s new in In order to appreciate how and why these
Irish prehistory, the opportunity arose to pro- changes are taking place, I feel that it is impor-
vide more than a simple gazetteer of new finds tant that the distinctive characteristics of Irish
and discoveries. In jest, the author suggested archaeology are also understood.
that there was a temptation to provide an Ireland still has a relatively low population
update of Irish archaeology since Adolf Mahr’s density: 5 million in 80,000 sq. km as against
famous 1937 address to the Prehistoric Society, England 50 million in 130,000 sq. km - a
but in retrospect, it was apparent that many of population density roughly 6 times lower for
the assumptions of Irish prehistory date from Ireland - yet we must assume that for much of
an only slightly more recent period, in parti- the past roughly the same number of archaeo-
cular the 1940s. In the 1940s, the first edition of logical monuments were created in each area
Antiquities of the Irish countryside was and these are left to be recorded, protected and
published (0 Riordkin 1943) and, along with explored. Obviously different periods will
other papers such as Davies (1948), laid down throw up variations on that basic observation
the structure of Irish prehistory which we use but at the moment a rough rule of thumb is that
today. Therefore, one theme of this paper will we have 200,000 monuments in the Republic
be a re-evaluation of the traditional paradigms alone. Yet with a small GNP we have since the
on which much of Irish prehistory is based. ’30s accepted a responsibility for archaeology as
The other theme, which is a logical extension a national resource, though in the early days
of the first, is whether there has been a ten- there were few professionals to manage and
dency to base our archaeology on a series of curate it.
highly visible field monuments or distinctive Until recently sites, prehistoric or otherwise,
classes of artefacts with the result that apparent were recorded and studied in a haphazard
large chronological or geographic gaps have manner and my own generation was often

* Dcpartmcnt of Archaeology, University College Cork, Ireland

ANTIQUITY 66 (1992): 295-314


296 P.C. WOODMAN

concerned with the production of catalogues of Raftery (Raftery 1990). At the same time, other
artefacts in museums. As an indication of the surveys, such as the Megalithic Survey, are
difference between England and Ireland, Gar- being continued, while a detailed survey of Co.
diner (1990) needed to visit 50 museums to Armagh is to be published soon'to go along with
examine all the flint axes from 3 counties in the Archaeological Survey of Co. Down.
England. As a contrast, in Ireland most of However in the mid 1980s, Irish archaeology
artefacts found their way to two institutions in was caught flat-footed by the introduction of tax
the 19th century: through the Royal Irish incentives for inner urban renewal so that
Academy to what is now the National Museum large-scale archaeological salvage projects have
of Ireland and through the Belfast Natural sprung u p in many towns. Therefore recently
History and Philosophical Society to what is much attention of archaeologists has been
now the Ulster Museum. There is only a rela- devoted to the problems of developer funding,
tively small percentage of our artefacts outside legislation etc.
these two institutions; in fact, there are prob- Obviously prehistoric research archaeology
ably more Irish archaeological objects off the has gone on side by side with these develop-
island than in local Irish museums. Their early ments, much of it funded by the Office of Public
collection, good documentary antiquarian sour- Works through the Royal Irish Academy.
ces and the key resource of national collections George Eogan has continued his major exca-
helped us create a series of corpora - George vations at Knowth, documenting the continued
Eogan on Late Bronze Age hoards (1983);Peter use of a ritual landscape (1984). Other projects
Harbison on Early Bronze Age axes (1969a), include
daggers and halberds (1969b);on the Mesolithic 1 the Swedish-led Carrowmore project with
(Woodman 1978) and Barry Raftery (1984) on La the controversial study of the megalithic
T h e objects are a few. Ireland is well on the tombs and an attempt to find their
way to a detailed national inventory. A recent settlements (Burenhult 1984);
example is the first approximation by Cooney & 2 Glencloy Project in the Glens ofAntrim with
Grogan (1990) of the number of polished stone an attempt at a prehistory of a single glen
axes on the island. (Woodman 1983);and
By the late 1970s, perhaps in part stimulated 3 the Ballylough, Co. Waterford, project
by Ireland joining the EEC, it was becoming where Marek Zvelebil of Sheffield and Stan
apparent that a period of rural redevelopment Green of South Carolina have developed
had begun and that, as was shown by Walsh perhaps our best and most systematic
(1985) in one area of Cork, more sites had been field-walking programme to document sites
destroyed in a decade than in the previous 100 which straddle the transition to agriculture
years. In fact, sites were disappearing at a rate (Zvelebil et al. 1987). In doing so, they have
similar to a period of intense pressure on land, documented several hundred scatters of
i.e. destruction rates were at a pre-famine stone tools.
(1840s) stage when Ireland had a population of However while the study of prehistory has
8 million, mostly living in a rural environment. not been moribund, there is no doubt that it is
Firstly the Historic Monuments Branch in no longer at the cutting edge in quite the same
Northern Ireland set up its Sites and Monu- way as 20 years ago. This is very obvious if we
merits Record and then throughout the early look at the change by comparing 71172 with
1980s the Office of Public Works shifted over to 88/89 licensed archaeological excavations
contracts to provide an SMR for the Republic - (FIGURE 1).While excavation numbers doubled,
this will be completed by late 1992; in fact, by the expansion has been in the urban area; in
then many areas will have also detailed inven- fact, if we assessed the role of prehistory against
tories. These surveys are actually updating our the rest by the total number of man-weeks
first unofficial archaeological survey - the excavation then the effort in prehistory would
Ordnance Survey of 183Ol4Os - which was a shrink probably to less than 10%. While this
magnificent effort for its time. Attention is now re-allocation of resources was to some extent
turning to the threats to particular environ- necessary, there is the danger that prehistory
ments and as a result the Wetland Archaeologi- will get marginalized.
cal Unit has been established, under Barry It is, therefore, not surprising that Irish pre-
FILLING IN THE SPACES IN IRISH PREHISTORY 297

30 34 3

Excavations
11/12

h\\U
37 45 Excavations
88/89

FIGURE 1. Histograms
showing shift in
emphasis in
excavations during
Prehistoric Later Rural Urban the last 20 years.

history may have continued to function within being thought of as being occupied late or quite
a set of paradigms which were more relevant to sparsely - yet parts of Munster are amongst the
the 1960s or earlier, certainly from a time when richest agricultural areas in Ireland.
I4C dating was not freely available. These para- Therefore we should try to understand the
digms may also spring from a concern for the various periods in the past and as part of that
protection and understanding of a series of discussion accept that monuments are only one
classes of monuments. This has resulted in a element, albeit a very important element, in
series of orthodoxies which has emphasized the Irish prehistory. In order to do this, we must
chronological position of a few, very visible look at the accumulation of sometimes less
types of monuments and then other elements of obvious pieces of information. These include
Irish prehistory are apportioned in relation to the archaeological investigation along several
these monuments. There is one very obvious gas pipelines (Cleary et aJ. 1988; Gowen 1988)
consequence of this approach: the creation by and a programme of several hundred 14C dates
archaeologists of several short periods of carried out in Groningen. This research, by
apparent frenetic activity surrounded by Brindley, Lanting & Mook, is in the process of
periods about which very little appears to be being finalized and will probably radically alter
known. It is, therefore, interesting to see how the way we look at Irish prehistory (FIGURE 2).
someone on the edge of Irish archaeology views
prehistory - Frank Mitchell (1986) suggested The Mesolithic
that his periods of farming activity tie in with In spite of the subheading, we should begin
some of these highly visible phases of Irish with the Palaeolithic. This is included as our
archaeology. There is a temptation, therefore, to attitude to a Palaeolithic in Ireland is an
view the gaps as periods of cultural or economic example of a dangerous attitude of mind. Its
recession. absence is one of those things which is looked
The other consequence which can be seen by upon with a stoic fatalism as an unquestionable
someone living in Munster is that a presump- absolute. The fact that a mixture of arctic and
tion of a monument-led approach results in relatively temperate faunas managed to get to
areas in the south of the country, which lack Ireland and flourish at various points in the
distinctive so-called early monument types, Upper Pleistocene is usually ignored. Recent
298 P.C. WOODMAN

39
01 4- M N
-t D M

37P
38

DPM

36

35 1
1 +RN3

a F u l a c h t a Fiadh Settlement # Field Systems + R i n g Barrows

FIGUKI:2. Selected distribution of radiocarbon dates for part of the Irish Bronze Age.
Many of 11ie radiocarbon dates have been made available by colleagues i n advance of publication.
The list offulachta fiadh dates is based 011 information in Brindley et al. Iforthcoming).
Open hachure = probable date BP of Hekla III eruption.

discoveries at Gleriavy on the shores of Lough sands of years at a time. Therefore the so-called
E mammoth and musk ox at or apparent absence of human settlement in the
Neagh ( F I G U ~3)~of
60,000 BP+ (McCabe et a ] . 1987) (recent ESR period 40-20,000 must be regarded as very
dates suggest that some of this fauna could date anomalous; in fact, a pre-Homo sapiens sapi-
to more thaii 80,000 BP (Doughty pers. comm.) ens, Neanderthal population could have occu-
as well as the rich Castlepook faunas dating to pied Ireland! In an attempt to begin an
33,000 years ago (Mitchell 1986) raises the examination of these questions, the National
question as to whether Ireland was repeatedly Heritage Council is helping fund a dating pro-
colonized by mammals throughout the Upper gramme of Pleistocene and Early Holocene
Pleistocene or even that certain animal fauna. The I4C dating will be carried out by the
populations could have existed for many thou- Oxford AMS Lab.
FILLING IN THE SPACES IN IRISH PREHISTORY 299
Settlements
LG85 Lougli G u r ’85, Co. Limerick (Cleary in preparation)
CT Curraghatoor, Co. Tipperary (Doody 1 9 8 8 ~ )
BV2 Balljweelish 2, Go. Tipperary (Doody 19880; 1988bJ
CGY Carrigillihy, Co. Cork (O’Kelly 1989)
BDB Belderg Beg, Co. Mayo (Caulfield 1990)
DPM Downpatrick Meadowlands, Co. Down (Pollock 6.Waterman 1964)
HF Haughey’s Fort, Co. Arniagh (Mallory 6.Warner I 988)
KS Kings Stables. Co. Armagh (Mallory 6.Warner 1988)
N Navan. Co. Armagh (Mallory &Warner 1988)
CL Clogher, Co. Tyrone (Pearson 1979; Warner 1979)

Field systems
BDB Belderg Beg, Co. Mayo (Caulfield 1990)
GP Garron Plateau, Co. Antrim (Glencoy Project, unpublished)
CKY Cashelkeelty, Co. Kerry (Lynch 1981)
CNAG Carrownaglogh, Co. Mayo (O’Connell 1990)
IBV Imlagh Basin, Valentia, Co. Kerry (Mitchell 1989)
BG Ballygroll, Co. Derry (Williams 1982)

Ring barrows
MN Moneen, Co. Cork (O’KelIy 1989)
DM Doonmoon, Co. Limerick (Gowen 1988)*
RN1-3 Raheens, Co. Limerick (Gowen 1988)
PB Pubble, Co. Derry (Smith et al. 1971)
MT Mitchelstowndown, Co. Limerick (Gowen 1988)
SG Shanaclogh, Co. Limerick (Gowen 1988)
CK Carnkenny, Co. Tyrone (Lynn 1974)
RA Raheenamadra, Co. Limerick (Gowen 1988)
BM Beaghmore, Go. Tyrone (Pilcher 1969)
BB Ballybeen, Co. Down (Mallory 1984)
AN Adanistown, Co. Limerick (Gowen 1988)

* “C datesjroim the ring barrows on the Limerick Gas Pipeline were made available by Ms M. Gowen.

Similarly the delayed response to the reco- have happened outside Ireland. For over a
lonization of Ireland after the Midlandian cold decade, work on the earliest phases of the Irish
spell presents us with another anomaly. Before Mesolithic existed in isolation. Mt Sandel and
9000 BP human communities skirted the mas- even Lough Boora appeared early in date in the
sive Scandinavian ice sheet and travelled up to context of known information on the other side
71”N to settle Eastern Finnmark and presu- of the Irish Sea. In Britain, Cornwall, Wales and
mably the Kola Peninsula in Russia. They lived Scotland were thought to be rather peripheral
north of the ice sheet (Sandmo 1983) and yet Mt with technological innovations either arriving
Sandel at 9000 BP still remains our earliest late or artefact types surviving on. The estab-
evidence of human settlement in Ireland - more lishment of a 9000 BP Mesolithic in Ireland with
than 3000 years after temperate ice-free condi- English ‘Later’ Mesolithic microlithic forms
tions had started in Ireland and probably 3000 made Scotland look an unlikely source for the
years after settlement at Gough’s Cave in Somer- Early Mesolithic. So-called non-geometric
set (Jacobi 1986). ‘Early’? Mesolithic assemblages from Lussa
Of course, Mt Sandel (Woodman 1985) was Wood on Jura were argued to be up to 1000 years
seen as justifying the idea of initial early later than Mt Sandel assemblage’s so-called
settlement in the north with the rest of Ireland ‘Late’Forms. Therefore in 1982 Woodman sug-
colonized later, but this view now seems a lot gested that the immediate origins of the Irish
less tenable. In fact, the major changes which Mesolithic might be found in the Isle of Man
have taken place in Irish Mesolithic studies basin at a time when sea levels were lower.
300 P.C. WOODMAN

'00 { 024

z- 25.
27 0
26.
28.

42k
290

w
e35
30038
FILLING IN THE SPACES IN IRISH PREHISTORY 301

However, such a simple explanation now seems before 8000 BP the whole of Ireland was occu-
unlikely. On publication it became apparent pied and that colonization could have started
that the Lussa Wood assemblage could not be anywhere. But ultimately and perhaps more
simply described as early (Mercer 1980).Indus- importantly, it raises another question. If such
tries of a roughly similar type to Mt Sandel are an obvious Mesolithic could be missed then
now being found all along the West Highland what else has been missed, particularly in the
coast (Woodman 1989a) including in particular rich south of Ireland - a Palaeolithic, missed,
those at 8500 BP by Wickham-Jones (1990) on like the Danes, who knew their landscape so
the Isle of Rhum. At Prestatyn in North Wales, well, missed their Hamburgian (Holm & Flem-
David (1990) has obtained a I4C date of 8700 BP ing 1984) and an extra 1000 years of prehistory.
for an assemblage which looks like Mt Sandel A Palaeolithic will not be so easy to find as a
while even earlier non-geometric assemblages Mesolithic.
have been found at earlier dates on Caldey But perhaps the most instructive Mesolithic
Island and Nab Head in South Wales. site is at Ferriter’s Cove in West Kerry
Therefore, it is hardly surprising that ideas (Woodman 1989b; 1990), an area where for
about a predominantly northern early many years even a Neolithic was discounted.
settlement in Ireland should begin to be ques- Here, due to the accidental discovery of a
tioned. In the 1970s, Ryan (1980) documented Neolithic artefact, a series of settlement loca-
the presence of a similar industry to Mt Sandel tions buried under up to 4 m of sand were
at Lough Boora in the Irish Midlands. This investigated. Essentially they turned out to be
assemblage was dated to before 8000 BP and Later Mesolithic. There were two important
possibly to 9000 BP. In the early 1980s, a good consequences of this excavation. It showed, as
Early Mesolithic - pre-8000 BP - site turned up at Oronsay in Scotland, Mesolithic commu-
at Kilcummer on the Cork Blackwater nities’ capacity to exploit a range of marine
(Woodman 1989b). This site, characterized by resources (Mellars 1987). Large numbers of
the small geometric microliths similar to Lough otoliths of whiting in one small midden show
Boora and Mt. Sandel, has been investigated by their ability to catch large numbers of fish
Elizabeth Anderson, but unfortunately so far it (McCarthy pers. comm.) while the selection of
would seem to be heavily plough damaged. small limpets seems to indicate a preference
The implications of Kilcummer are far- due to taste, and overall, as at Mt Sandel,
reaching. It showed that we can presume that demonstrated a confidence amongst hunter-

FIGURE3 . Location of sites referred to in text.


1 Mt Sandel, Co. Derry 23 Lough Boora, Co. Offaly
2 Ballymacaldrack, Co. Antrim 24 Poulnabrone, Co. Clare
3 Glencloy, Co. Antrim 25 Lough Gur, Co. Limerick
4 Donegore Hill, Co. Antrim 26 Tankardstown, Co. Limerick
5 Lyles Hill, Co. Antrim 27 Elton, Co. Limerick
6 Glenavy, Co. Antrim 28 Ballyveelish, Go. Tipperary
7 Ballyrenan, Co. Tyrone 29 Kilgreany, Co. Waterford
8 Ballynagilly, Co. Tyrone 30 Ballylough, Co. Waterford
9 Navan Complex, Co. Armagh 3 1 Castlepook, Co. Cork
10 Giants Ring, Co. Armagh 32 Moneen, Co. Cork
11 Downpatrick, Co. Arrnagh 33 Lobbacallee, Co. Cork
1 2 Bullykeel, Co. Armagh 34 Kilcumrner, Co. Cork
13 Cullyhanna, Co. Armagh 35 Drombeg, Co. Cork
14 Annaghrnare, Co. Arrnagh 36 Reenascreena, Co. Cork
1 5 Carrowmore, c o . sligo 37 Carrigillihy, Co. Cork
16 Belderg Beg, Co. Mayo 38 Cooradarrigan, Co. Cork
1 7 Ceide Fields, Co. Mayo 39 Mount Gabriel, Co. Cork
18 Ballyglass, Co. Mayo 40 Altar and Toorrnore Wedge, Co. Cork
19 Carrownaglogh, Co. Mayo 41 Cashelkeelty, Co. Kerry
20 Lough Sheehauns, Co. Galway 42 Emlagh Bog, Valentia Island, Co. Kerry
2 1 Knowth, Co. Meoth 43 Ferriters Cove, Co. Kerry
22 Newgrange, Co. Meath
302 P.C. WOODMAN

gatherers in the exploitation of their environ- Michael O’Connell has now also documented
ment. Initially it was felt that if the Mesolithic occurrences in Connemara at 7500 BP, about
was not confined to the north then the lack of 2000 years before the traditional beginning of
good quality flint or chert may effect the form of the Neolithic. At another site, he has been able
some implement type, particularly in the Later to show that a large ‘cereal’ pollen is really, on
Mesolithic. Therefore significantly at Ferriter’s careful examination, wild grass - Glycera
Cove a classic distinctly Later Irish Mesolithic pollen (O’Connellpers. comm.).Kevin Edwards
assemblage with forms such as Bann Flakes and has also been urging caution about a too ready
picks, forms unique to Ireland, was recovered. acceptance of early agriculture on the basis of
At Ferriter’s Cove, these were made in rocks presumed cereal pollen (Edwards 1989). There-
such as rhyolite and siltstone. Therefore the fore, in the question of the beginnings of the
main lesson of Ferriter’s Cove was that of total Neolithic, it may be that the archaeologists and
equivalence in artefact types from Portrush in the study of material culture still have a major
Antrim to Ferriter’s Cove in Kerry, irrespective contribution to make.
of raw materials. Rather than examining the question of when
Obviously several major questions remain. It the Neolithic began in Ireland, how it began or
may be that our known Later Mesolithic assem- even where, it would be more profitable to take a
blage of large knives, picks, axes etc. is really a hard look at how an over-concentration on these
set of wood-working equipment designed in problems has warped the way we look at one
part to produce facilities such as fish traps aspect of a Neolithic that may have lasted for
(Woodman 1990). Fish seem to have played an over 1500 years.
important role in the Irish Mesolithic and hun- We can begin with the observation that
dreds of these polished stone axes come from no-one doubts that a Neolithic existed in
rivers such as the Bann or the Shannon. Do Ireland by 5200 BP and that, aside from the early
these assemblages represent all or only part of Ballynagilly dates of 5600-5800 BP, it is difficult
the Irish Later Mesolithic? Many of the sites to identify with any confidence Neolithic
seem highly specialized or the product of very assemblages that significantly pre-date 5200 BP.
transitory occupation, e.g. Ferriter’s Cove. Are We all, of course, have relied extensively on
major settlement sites missing, or was the evidence from the tombs, admitting at the same
strategy of the final hunter-gatherer commu- time that these would belong to the Zvelebil/
nities highly mobile and based on sparsely Rowley-Conwy (1984) ‘Consolidation Phase’ of
scattered populations? If population pressure the transition to the Neolithic well after the
had anything to do with the spread of agri- establishment of the Neolithic. Therefore, we
culture, then surely the latter type of Mesolithic admit to the possibility of a Neolithic going back
settlement in Ireland would not have led to the to at least 5500 W. Somehow the tombs have
indigenous Mesolithic communities acquiring become locked in as an essential part of the
the dubious advantages of farming. Neolithic and any region which lacks a pre-
sumed early type was presumed to lack an Early
The Neolithic Neolithic. As well, a rather more subtle implicit
It is this area on which much of our research attitude developed - each tomb type has a
will have to focus in the next few years. Tradi- particular period within the Neolithic in which
tionally, the beginning of the Neolithic in it should exist. Why? Perhaps, with amazing
Ireland has been associated with the appear- foresight, Neolithic communities realized that
ance of certain monument types - namely the archaeologists needed a helping hand!
megalithic tombs. In recent years there has been With these attitudes it is not surprising that
a tendency for archaeologists to abdicate to the certain orthodoxies develop. In the north many
pollen analyst the search for our earliest agri- felt comfortable with the idea of a northern
culture. Large grass pollen grains have turned spread of agriculture into Ireland associated
up before the Elm Decline - 5100 BP - and these with the occurrence of court tombs. At the same
have been heralded, of course, as evidence of time a traditional view of megaliths was a
cereal farming - or the beginnings of the Neoli- sequence: Court Tombs, followed by Portal
thic. Lough Sheehauns (Molloy & O’Connell Tombs, Passage Tombs are Later Neolithic and
1988) is a good, believable example. However, Wedge Tombs at the junction with the Bronze
FILLING IN THE SPACES IN IRISH PREHISTORY 303

Age. Megalithic cists were also seen to belong to tombs were excavated 50 years ago and, there-
the Neolithic/Bronze Age interface. Instead of fore, the quality of information imposes certain
wondering whether or not we were even limits of its own. However, in spite of these
thinking in the right way, concern about this problems, in virtually every case we can pro-
view of the Neolithic has been raised by suggest- duce examples which date Early and Late
ing we alter the sequence but accept the premise within the Neolithic.
that a sequence existed. ApSimon (1986) sug- At Ballymacaldrack, Co. Antrim (Doey's
gested portal tombs were early, while Burenhult Cairn), there would appear to be an early
(1984) and Sheridan (1986) argued that passage wooden structure below the megalithic tomb
tombs were at the beginning. Brian O'Kelly (Evans 1938; Collins 1976). This dates to
(1981) argued for an earlier Neolithic in Mun- 4940f150 BP. At Tully in Co. Fermanagh a
ster by arguing that wedge tombs might be early. simple court tomb dates to roughly the same
In general until recently, scholars, on finding period (Waterm'an 1978) while at Ballyglass, Co.
evidence for a Neolithic in any area, seemed to Mayo, a complex central cou',f tomb must be
find it difficult to believe that it could exist later than the Neolithic house (0NuallAin 1972)
without the validation of a relevant megalithic which is probably dated to 4500 BP. The conti-
tomb in the region. However, nearly a decade nued use of court tombs is also shown by the
ago Brindley et al. (1983)noted that such simple late date for the blocking of Annaghmare in Co.
sequences could no longer be accepted, as some Armagh (4395k55 BP) (Waterman 1965).
Linkardstown (megalithic) cists could be It is possible to argue that portal tombs are of
shown to date relatively early in the Neolithic. similar age to the court tombs. At the portal
If the evidence is looked at objectively we tomb of Poulnabrone, Co. Clare, Lynch (1988)
must accept that tombs are re-used and it is very has found evidence of a series of early burials
difficult to get an estimate of age of any of them. stuck down the grykes in the Burren limestone
This is compounded by the fact that many (FIGURE 4). These fortunately were not cleared

FIGURE
4. Poulnabrone portal tomb, Co. Clare. [Photo C. Brogan, OPW.)
304 P.C. WOODMAN

out and many date to between 5100 and 4900 BP, 1 A large rectangular structure (dated to 4900
obviously an indication of primary use. These BP), followed by
dates are as early as any from the court tombs. 2 a portion of a double palisade which is over
If we look at complex portal tombs like 70 m long and contains 170 posts. This may
Ballyrenan in County Tyrone (Davies 1937), have been part of a larger ritual enclosure.
with its two pairs of chambers, and the same 3 The building of small passage tombs - simi-
material culture as the court tombs, should we lar to those at Carrowmore.
not simply see these two classes of monument 4 The large mound of Knowth, presumably
as slightly different expressions of one broad built by 4500 BP.
ritual tradition? Their overlapping distribution In fact, at Newgrange, following on O’Kelly’s
with slight local concentrations of each type work (1982),David Sweetman (1985) has docu-
would suggest, as would the 14Cdates, that they mented a large enclosure which was made up of
are simply two variants of one theme, not two several arcs, possibly rings of posts built adja-
entirely different classes of monument - an idea cent to Newgrange at about 4000 BP, and a
already suggested by Twohig (1990). This smaller similar enclosure.
would suggest that searching for a primary The continued use of a landscape is also being
monument type in the Irish Neolithic may be shown very clearly at the Giant’s Ring outside
inappropriate. Belfast. There passage tombs are known to
Obviously it has always been agreed that occur close to a large henge-like monument
there was some form of relationship between 200 m across. Barrie Hartwell (1991) of Queen’s
court and portal tombs -the argument has been University in 1989 discovered, through aerial
on the nature of the relationship. However, photography, a crop-mark of a large double ring
there is also a consensus that they are different of post pits outside the main enclosure. This is
from the passage tombs, which were regarded 94 m across (FIGURE5). Radiocarbon dates
by many as a monument type of the Late would suggest that it is contemporaneous with
Neolithic. However, the Carrowmore project the post structure at Newgrange (Hartwell pers.
has raised questions about the validity of that comm.).
type of simple chronological explanation In fact, we have frequently recognized the
(Burenhult 1984). The dates from the Carrow- difference between the single monument in the
more tombs could indicate early passage tombs. general area of settlement, e.g. court or portal
Carrowmore 4 (5750k85 BP) is often doubted as tombs, and the cemeteries of passage tombs.
other dates from what was regarded as a single Perhaps, however, we have failed to emphasize
unit monument suggest a much later date; sufficiently the difference between the passage
Carrowmore 7 (5240f80 BP) comes from pits tombs, which may be only one expression of
which could pre-date the tomb and may be a ritual, perhaps quite late, in a sacred or special
date obtained from a multiple source (Timoney landscape where ritual activities may have
pers. comm.), while Carrowmore 27 has dates taken place for over a millennium, and the other
5040+60 and 5000k65 which derive from types of megalithic tombs which may be a
mound make-up (see Caulfield (1983) and product of other factors. Forms such as court,
ApSimon (1986) for a discussion on the dates of portal and wedge tombs would seem to be built
the Carrowmore tombs). Caution should be within landscapes normally used during the
exercised but the dates may indicate ritual Neolithic and their original use may continue
activity on these sites before the megalithic for significantly shorter periods of time and be
tombs were built - particularly at Tomb 7. more particular to the sacred nature of the
Cooney (1990) has noted that some of the monument rather than the place.
passage tomb cemeteries can be argued to Therefore, instead of pushing all our mon-
develop round certain focal points and, there- uments into convenient chronological
fore, it would not be surprising if these ritual pigeonholes or, rather, creating the chrono-
landscapes were used even before the megali- logies round where we would like to think that
thic tombs were built. certain monument types belong in time, it
Eogan (1984) has clearly demonstrated the would appear that we have evidence for early
continued use of what was a ritual landscape at and late examples of virtually every type of
Knowth: megalithic tomb. We may have to look for other
FILLING IN THE SPACES IN IRISH PREHISTORY
305

FIGURE 5. The Giants Ring henge from the north containing a denuded passage grave. The crop-marks of
three ring-ditches sit in a Bronze Age flat cemetery at the right of the picture The large double-palisaded
enclosure of Ballynahatty 5 containing a smaller but similarly constructed enclosure appears as a
crop-mark in the foreground. [Photo Barrie Hartwell.]

expIanations rather than seeing these mon- change will be piecemeal and regional vari-
uments as type fossils of a particular slice of ation should be expected.
time. Other explanations are being advanced. Other factors may have contributed to the
Darvill(l979) has suggested that the difference varying regional abundance of certain classes of
between the use of court tombs and passage tomb. It has been noted by some, such as Cooney
tombs with the small territories for the former (1983) in Leitrim, that court tombs are placed on
and large areas round the latter may represent good soils which were potentially agricultur-
the difference between segmented and hier- ally workable in the Neolithic. However, is it
archical societies. Sheridan (1986) has even possible that some of these soils may have been
suggested that differences in size and magni- part of fragile ecosystems which had limited
ficence in passage tomb construction could be potential for exploitation? There has been a
in part due to competition between different tendency to presume that numerous court
hierarchical groups. tombs reflect a potentially rich Neolithic com-
If variations in monument type are a pro- munity, yet so often areas of good soil lack
duct of changes in social organization and concentration of court or portal tombs. These
perhaps belief and competition then, given the can be areas of light soil such as parts of North
absence of a strong national centralized Down while at the same time areas of impover-
authority in the Neolithic, surely we must ished soil or at higher altitudes contain numer-
accept that, unlike the traditional view of ous tombs. Thanks to the work of the Ordnance
Patrick at Tara or Paulinus at Yeavering, Survey of the 1830s and 40s, we can be certain
306 P.C. WOODMAN

that claims that recent intensive agriculture has 2 a product of particularly intense land use in
removed all the monuments from the best soils an area where the environment was deterio-
cannot be substantiated. This tendency for rating and creating a need for more organ-
certain classes of megalithic tombs to be found ized and structured land use.
in areas of poorer soil is not confined to Ireland, In other words, can we generalize about
as large numbers of megalithic tombs can be population levels for the island from particular
found on some of the poorer islands in the instances?
Orkneys (Frazer 1983). We can see other strange contradictions. Mal-
Perhaps Caulfield’s work is giving one indi- lory, excavating on Donegore Hill in Co. Antrim
cation. In his study of field systems at Ceide overlooking the Six Mile Water, discovered
(19831, he has noted numerous court tombs what would appear to be our first hill-top
which, he feels, date late in the sequence of land causewayed camp - dating to about 4700 BP
enclosure at a point in time when blanket peat (Mallory & Hartwell 1984) (FIGURE 6). He would
was already restricting the uplands and the be loath to commit himself to either the ritual or
lowest-lying ground (pers. comm.). Could it be the warfare explanation of this site. However,
that some megalithic monuments are most Simpson, in re-investigating Estyn Evans’
prevalent where stress exists - land pressure, (1953) hill-top enclosure of Lyles Hill, showed
population pressure, environmental deteriora- that the obvious bank enclosing the hill is Iron
tion etc. - and that their occurrence does not Age, as Raftery had suggested, but he also found
necessarily reflect a particular point in our two foundation trenches for a Neolithic hill-top
Neolithic chronology, nor do large numbers palisaded enclosure - reminiscent of Donegore
reflect a level of prehistoric affluence? In fact, it (Simpson & Gibson 1989). The problem is that
is possible that large concentrations in different these two enclosures, the only two known in
areas could reflect the convergence of a series of Ireland, look out at each other across the Six
social and environmental stress factors which Mile Water!
were particular to that region and not neces- So far the other theme of colonizing Munster
sarily chronologically exactly contem- has been left to one side. This is the under-
poraneous with other groups. Their prevalence privileged southwest, lacking in all the right
in a particular area may even be a product of monument types and therefore lacking a
very short episodes of time. respectable Neolithic - yet the Lough Gur exca-
In discussing population pressure and vations were pioneering work in the Neolithic
population size, one must return to Caulfield’s of these islands. Besides Poulnabrone in Co.
work at Ceide in Mayo. Dr Caulfield has pro- Clare, dated to 5000 BP, there are other indi-
ceeded over the last 20 years to document cations that this region was occupied early in
thoroughly the extent of the Ceide fields. By the Neolithic. In particular, the Mallow-
4500 BP it would appear that an organized Limerick gas pipeline (Gowen & Tarbett 1988)
enclosure of land was taking place. There exposed a large rectangular Neolithic house
would now appear to be two systems lying side which has produced emmer wheat (Monk pers.
by side, the best explored one enclosing an area comm.). This has been dated by Oxford to 4900
of one square mile (1990). There are other BP and further excavations have revealed a
systems to the east and west though there are second large house up to 16 m long running
also huge areas where none occur. How much parallel to it (Gowen & Tarbett 1988) - a
was the balmy climate of Mayo and its potential Neolithic village in the Early Neolithic of Mun-
year-round grass growth encouraging an un- ster, a region which until recently had no Early
usual population density? Mitchell (1989), in Neolithic at all!
his survey of Valentia Island, has also noted the All this without traditional early forms of
occurrence of Neolithic field walls in Emlagh megalithic tombs in much of Munster. Yet
Bog. Our quandary is whether to accept pre-bog unenclosed burials are known from below Neo-
field walls as lithic enclosures on Knockadoon at Lough Gur
1 the last remnants of a series of field walls (Grogan & Eogan 1987) and at 4800 BP at
which were built throughout the island of Kilgreany in West Waterford (Molleson 1986).
Ireland and have only survived in marginal While some megalithic cists do exist in parts of
locations, or Munster, perhaps the relative absence of
FILLING IN THE SPACES IN IRISH PREHISTORY 307

FIGURE 6. Aerial view of cousewayed camp at Donegore Hill, Co. Antrim, from the northwest. The two
interrupted ditches and the inner palisade trench show as crop-marks. (Photo Barrie Hartwell.)

megaliths is due to low population densities in which explanation is the more plausible. Essen-
the extreme southwest peninsulae, and suffi- tially it depends on how much weight one
cient good-quality land in parts of Limerick, places on the few sherds of Neolithic pottery or
Cork and Waterford obviating the various social the only slightly larger quantity of Beaker
pressures which would lead to a proliferation of material. As re-use has taken place and modern
megaliths. It is certainly not due to the absence excavations are fairly few, it remains a difficult
of a Neolithic, and we do not necessarily have to problem. Brindley & Lanting have hopes of
pull the wedge tombs back in time to create a obtaining dates from skeletal material in the
respectable Munster Neolithic, as was sug- Lough Gur wedge. Labacallee (Leask & Price
gested by O’Kelly (1981). 1936), a fine wedge tomb in Co. Cork, has
produced a date of 3800 BP (O’Kelly 1989),
The Bronze Age suggesting use early in the Bronze Age, while
So far one class of monument has been avoided 14C dates from Island of about 3100 BP could
-the wedge tombs. These have aIways been the indicate a much longer use for these mon-
enigma of Irish prehistory. They can be seen as uments throughout much of the earlier Bronze
the product of indigenous Stone Age commu- Age (O’Kelly 1989).
nities or as part of a package associated with the O’Brien felt that, as part of a larger programme
spread of copper-working and Beaker pottery. of work in the Mizen Peninsula of Co. Cork,
Here again we seem to be put in a position wedges should be looked at. His extensive
where we are reacting to a series of orthodoxies, excavation at the Altar wedge (pers. comm.)
and at the moment, looking at the problem produced a pit inside the entrance but no
objectively, there are few clear indications as to artefacts; it was filled with shellfish, fish bones
308 P.C. WOODMAN

and whale bones. The pit has produced Iron Age which modern mining did not find worthwhile.
dates!* A second wedge tomb on the same bay It is interesting that the last type of Early Bronze
has, however, produced in what he feels is a Age axe - Derryniggin, which would postdate
secondary context a Ballyvalley bronze axe Mt. Gabriel - is absent from this area. Obviously
whose relevance will become clear later other groups of mines at Killarney or on the
(O’Brien pers. comm.). Beara Peninsula could be earlier. The point is
In southwest Ireland, there has been a tradi- that they do not necessarily belong to the Beaker
tional assumption that a lot of the visible package.
archaeology belongs together. The Mt. Gabriel Even the other so-called sub-megalithic
copper mines, because they were primitive, monuments look as if they are much later.
were thought to date to the earliest periods of Lynch (1981) felt that the Cashelkeelty circle
copper exploitation - Beakers - and were con- and alignment dated to around 2800 BP.Similar
temporary with the wedge tombs. The stone dates now exist for Reenascreena stone circle
circles, boulder burials and alignments were (Fahy 1962), while an AMS date for organic
also thought to relate to this complex as a final residue on a pot from the stone circle at
Neolithic sub-megalithic floruit in a region Drombeg (O’Brien pers. comm.) would suggest a
which was hitherto thought to be empty of similar date; while at Cooradarrigan O’Brien
human settlement. obtained a date of about 2900 BP for a boulder
Even at national level, so much of our Early burial. All this is adding u p to a major complex
Bronze Age was pulled into this package. There of monuments which seem to date to the second
are numerous scatters of Beaker material - half of the Bronze Age.
Ballynagilly (ApSimon 1976), Knowth (Eogan The fact that the Drombeg pot has been dated
1984),Newgrange (O’Kelly et al. 1983)-but few so late, particularly as there was an assumption
scatters of other diagnostic pottery from the that it was Late Neolithic, further emphasizes
Bronze Age. Even much of the early goldwork - how we have been inclined to place everything
discs and lunulae - were placed in this early within certain highly visible horizons. Lough
phase (Taylor 1980). Gur has, of course, been the classic example.
The inappropriateness of this picture has Here is where the idea of Neolithic plain bucket-
been best demonstrated by O’Brien’s work on shaped pottery (Class I1 wares) originated, e.g. 6
Mizen. His major investigation at Mine 3 Mt. Riordhin (1954). In an attempt to look at the
Gabriel suggests an occupation centred on 3300 stratigraphic sequence of the material culture
BP. Making allowances for calibration and our on Knockadoon, Cleary started to excavate a
rough typological dating, this would be contem- cave but as this was too dangerous she worked
porary with the Ballyvalley-style bronze axe on a platform outside where quantities of this
(O’Brien 1989). It is of interest that Dr O’Brien’s plain pottery were found. The 14C dates range
second wedge tomb excavation produced a from 3300 to 2700 BP suggesting an occupation
Ballyvalley axe. Examination of the ores has 1000 years later than had been expected (FIGURE
also shown that the Mt. Gabriel ores are not the 2 ) . This is confirmed by dates from Phase I of
Fahlerz copper ores which characterize the Carrigillihy in West Cork where Phase I of a
earliest copper artefacts. He would suggest that simple enclosure with a hut and plain pottery is
the earliest copper exploitation may have been dated to 3100 BP (O’Kelly 1989). This type of
the oxidized surface of the sulphide ores found pottery has been found throughout Ireland,
in veins near the coast. These have since been usually in megalithic tombs where it can be
thoroughly exploited by 18thh9th century simply dismissed as intrusive, but at Ballykeel
copper mining. In fact O’Brien (1989) would portal tomb, Co. Armagh, Collins (1965) found
suggest that Mt. Gabriel was a desperation this type of pottery associated with a 14C date of
exploitation of a poor-quality upland resource 3400 BP.

* There are now numerous Iron Age I4C dates from Irish of the mystical Iron Age landscape and being incorporated
megalithic tombs. While they are often regarded as an into their rituals. Perhaps the exploration of the Neolithic
unfortunate complication, their frequency does suggest that underground by Iron Age communities is the source of the
megalithic tombs were being consciously recognized as part legend of the Sidhe.
FILLING IN THE SPACES IN IRISH PREHISTORY 309

Therefore, the apparent lack of activity in so specially flown, series of aerial photographs,
much of the Bronze Age is a figment of our has been able to increase dramatically the
imaginations. It would seem probable that the numbers found in Co. Limerick- we would now
distinctive highly-decorated types of pottery estimate that well over 1000 still survive in this
such as food vessels and urns belong to the small county alone and along the pipeline,
period before about 3400 BP and that we have Gowen (1988) found numerous destroyed
simply been placing much of our material in the examples even when cemeteries such as the
wrong place. This must, of course, wait for the Elton cemetery was avoided.
completion of the Lanting & Brindley I4C dating One other group has of course been relocated
programme. in time - the fulachta fiadh or burnt mounds
We are also beginning to recognize the impor- (FIGURE7) which were often considered Iron
tance of one other element which seems to exist Age (Herity & Eogan 1977) in spite of O’Kelly’s
through the Bronze Age - little ring barrows and (19541 suggestion that they might belong in part
related burial monuments. O’Kelly found one to the Bronze Age. They are less obvious outside
which dated to 3900 BP under the cairn at the extreme south-perhaps, as Buckley (1990a)
Moneen (1989), but their importance has been has suggested, rocks in certain southern coun-
recognized through work on the Limerick gas ties crack more quickly when heated with the
pipeline where numerous examples were exca- result that huge mounds of discarded frag-
vated - frequently producing pIain bucket- mentary burnt stones accumulate round the
shaped pottery (Gowen 1988). They seem to troughs where they were used to heat water,
occur throughout the Bronze Age. Grogan perhaps for cooking. These sites were often not
(1989) has noted their common occurrence but recorded on earlier Ordnance Survey maps, but
Doody (pers. comm.), using a low level, Power (1990) estimates that nearly 2000 are

FIGURE
7. Unexcavated fulacht fiadh at Caherbarnagh, Co. Cork. [Photo Denis Power.)
310 P.C. WOODMAN

known from Cork alone. Some of these sites may of settlement sites can be equated with a shift to
have been used 50-100 times. pastoralism. It is more probable that we have
The Groningen dating programme (Brindley failed to identify many of our Bronze Age
et al. 1990 and forthcoming) would suggest that settlements or perhaps, as noted earlier,
they are tending to concentrate in one part of the assigned them to the wrong period. A good
Bronze Age. Making allowance for those where example would be the so-called hunting camp
dates have been based on structural wood from at Cullyhanna, Co. Armagh, a palisaded enclos-
mature trees which formed the sides of troughs ure 60 ft across, where a hut and hearths
(i.e. where dates might originally appear to have produced no diagnostic artefacts, but which has
been older than they should be] (Warner forth- been dated dendrochronologically to 1500 BC
coming), it is noticeable that they concentrate (Hodges 1958; Hillam 1976; Mallory & McNeill
between 3400 and 2900 BP - in fact, two-thirds 1991).
come from one-third of the Bronze Age. Of The 8-m circular house found by Mallory at
course they continue later and the knowledge of Donegore may also fall into this class (Mallory &
their use in the Early Historic period has been McNeill 1991), although it would seem to date
well documented (O’Kelly 1954; 0 Drisceoil later in the Bronze Age. Yet whatever was going
1988).It is also a mistake to treat these sites as a on in the Early Bronze Age seems to have come
marker for a particular period. Cooking places to a dramatic end. Baillie (1988) has noted in the
are likely to be the product of a particular tree rings the effect of the Icelandic Hekla 111
activity in the same way that shell middens volcanic eruption of 1159 BC. Characteristic
reflect shellfish collection rather than relating to traces of the ash of this eruption have now been
one particular period. Fulachta fiadh are, there- found in Irish peat bogs (Pilcher pers. comm.)
fore, a product of a specialized activity carried and there is general agreement that its conse-
out by groups who were living elsewhere. quences were some form of ecological disaster.
During a particular period of time in the Bronze In Britain many authors have argued for an
Age, the economy iiicluded consistent if not abandonment of the uplands at this time (e.g.
persistent use of fulachta fiadh. Burgess 1985). In Ireland the most obvious
But where were the contemporaneous impact is the drop off in the use of fulachta
settlement sites? Other than Downpatrick (Poll- fiadh. I4C dates for Hekla 111 would come out
ock & Waterman 1964) and Caulfield’s site at about 2900 U P which is where they have been
Belderg Beg, early settlements are rare. Aerial placed on the chart of I4C dates.
photography is showing u p all sorts of sites One other noticeable event is that where it has
from upland villages in Sligo to crop-marks in been possible to date prehistoric field systems
the Blackwater Valley. Perhaps some of them many ofthem date to after Hekla 111. These range
are Early Bronze Age. Any perusal of textbooks from Carrownaglogh in Mayo (Herity 1981), to
on Irish prehistory will quicklyreveal how little Mitchell’s Emlagh Bog in Kerry (1989) and to
is known about Early Bronze Age settlement in the extensive field systems at 800-1000 ft on the
comparison with the Neolithic or Later Bronze Garron Plateau (Woodman & Hartwell in
Age. However, the consistent occurrence of preparation). This suggests an intensification of
saddle querns at the large circular house found land use which was rare earlier in the Bronze
by Caulfield at Belderg Beg (Caulfield 1990),as Age but which may have already begun as
well as their occurrence in certain Bronze Age Seamus Caulfield has a reused field system from
burial contexts, such as Moneen (O’Kelly 1989) Belderg Beg at 3100 UP.
or Ballyveelish 111 (Doody 1988a), would indi- In North Armagh, excavation in the area of
cate that farming was as likely to be as important Navan fort has demonstrated an extensive
in the Early Bronze Age as in the Neolithic. occupation from late in the Bronze Age. Exca-
Similarly the excavation at Downpatrick, which vations at Haughey’s Fort (Mallory 1988) and
revealed two small houses. could also be the Kings Stables (Lynn 1977) have shown that
regarded as no more than a narrow trench across this occupation began by 2900 BP and it has been
a larger more substantial village. Undoubtedly suggested (Mallory et al. 1989) that this intensi-
while there was a shift in known settlement fication of land use could be a by-product of
during the Bronze Age. it would be unwise to climatic and environmental change as a result
rely on the trite explanation that limited traces of Hekla 111. Perhaps this is the beginning of
FILLING IN THE SPACES IN IRISH PREHISTORY 311

events which are to lead to the development of activity can be shown to occur throughout the
the extensive hill-forts in the latest phases of the island and 14C dates show that extensive
Irish Bronze Age. activity took place throughout the Bronze Age,
while over-reliance on type fossils had created a
Summary misleading impression of a prehistory of
A limited emphasis on the early prehistory of alternating ‘Golden’and ‘Dark’ Ages.
Ireland has resulted in the continuation in the
use of well-tried paradigms. It is only within the Acknowledgements. This paper would not have been pos-
last few years that the work on the pipelines, the sible without the generous help of many colleagues. In
14C-dating programme of Lanting & Brindley particular, Dr Anna Brindley gave me access to the forth-
and other research has created potential coming paper on 14C dating of Irish fulachta fiadh. Ms M.
Gowen provided unpublished “C dates of sites found along
chronological frameworks which have the Mallow-limerick gas pipeline and Ms R. Cleary pro-
independently tested our traditional view of vided dates of her excavations at Lough Gur. Dr Elizabeth
Irish prehistory. This work has shown that Twohig provided me with a useful critique of an earlier
settlement is not necessarily always to be draft of the paper while Ms A. Desmond coped with the
typing of its many versions. Finally I would like to thank
associated with obvious classes of monuments Drs John Chapman and Frances Healy for asking me to give
or artefact types which belonged to narrow the lecture on ‘What’s new in Irish prehistory’ to the
chronological horizons. Early settlement Prehistoric Society.

References Connaught, i n Reeves Smyth & Hammond (ed.):


APSIMON, A,,1976. Ballynagilly and the beginning 195-216.
and end of the Irish Neolithic, in S.J. de Laet, 1990. Ceide Fields. Privately produced pamphlet.
Acculturation a n d continuity, Proceedings of the CLEARY, R. In preparation. Excavations ot Lough G u r
IVth Atlantic Colloquium: 15-30. = Disser- 1985-88.
tationes Archaologicae Gandenses XVI. Brugge: CLEARY, R.M., M.F. HURLEY & E. TWOHIG. (ed.). 1988.
de Tempel. Archaeological excavations on the Cork-Dublin
1986. A chronological context for Irish megalithic gas pipeline 1981-82. Cork: Department of
tombs, Journal of Irish Archaeology 3: 5-15. Archaeology.
BAILLIE,M.G.L. 1988. Irish oaks record prehistoric COLLINS, A.E.P., 1965. Ballykeel dolmen and cairn,
dust veils drama, Archaeology Ireland 2(2): 71-4. Co. Armagh, Ulster Journal of Archaeology 28:
BRINOLEY, A. & 7. LANTING. 1990. The dating offulachta 47-70.
fiadh, in Buckley (1990b): 55-8. 1976. Dooeys Cairn, Ballymacaldrack, Co. Antrim,
BRINDLEY, A.L., J.N. LANTING & W.G. MOOK.1983. Ulster Journal of Archaeology 39: 1-7.
Radiocarbon dates from the Neolithic burials at COONEY, G. 1983. Megalithic tombs i n their environ-
Ballintruer More, Co. Wicklow and Ardcrony, mental setting: a settlement perspective, in
Co. Tipperary, Iournal of Irish Archaeology 1: Reeves Smyth & Hammond (ed.): 195-216.
1-9. 1990. The place of megalithic tombs cemeteries in
BRINIILEY,A.L., J.N. LANTING& W.G. MOOK.Forth- Ireland, Antiquity 64: 741-53.
coming. Radiocarbon dates from Irish fulachta DARVILL, T. 1979. Court cairns, passage graves and
fiodh and other burnt mounds, Journal of Irish social change in Ireland, Man 14: 311-27.
Archaeology 5. DAVID, A. 1990. The Mesolithic of South West Wales.
BUCKLEY,V. 1990a. Experiments using a recon- Unpublished Ph.D thesis, University of Lan-
structed fulacht with a variety of rock types: caster.
implications for the petro-morphology of DAVIES,0. 1937. Excavations at Ballyrenan, Co.
fulachta fiadh, i n Buckley (199Ob): 168-74. Tyrone, Journal of the Royal Society of Antiqua-
199Ob. (ed.). Burnt offerings. Dublin: Wordwell. ries of Ireland 67: 89-100.
BURENHUT,G. 1984. The archaeology ofCarrowmore, 1948. The archaeology of Ulster, Ulster Journal of
Co. Sligo. Stockholm: G. Burenhults Forlag. Archaeology 11: 1-42.
Theses and Papers in North European Archaeo- DoODY, M.G. 1988a. Early Bronze Age burials,
logy 14. Ballyveelish 3, Co. Tipperary, i n Cleary et 01.
BUKGESS.C. 1985. Population, climate and upland (ed.): 10-21.
settlement, in D. Spratt & C. Burgess (ed.),Upland 1988b. Late Bronze Age settlement, Ballyveelish 2,
settlement in Britain: 195-230. Oxford: British Co. Tipperary, i n Cleary et al. (ed.): 22-35.
Archaeological Reports. British series 143. 1988c. Late Bronze Age huts at Curraghatoor, Co.
CAULFIELD, S. 1983. The Neolithic settlement of North Tipperary, i n CIeary et 01. (ed.): 36-42.
312 P.C. WOODMAN

EDWARDS, K.J. 1989. The cereal pollen record and Lough, near Newtown Hamilton, Co. Armagh,
early agriculture, in A. Milles, D. Williams & N. Ulster journal of Archaeology 21: 7-13.
Gardiier (ed.), The beginnings of agriculture: HOLM,J. & R. GLEMMING. 1984. Jels I - the first Danish
113-35. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports. site of the Hamburgian Culture. journal of Danish
International series S496. Archaeology 2: 7-11.
EOGAN, G. 1983. Hoards of the Irish Later Bronze Age. JACOIH, R. 1986. The late glacial archaeology of
Du bl i 11: U t i i vers i t y Col1ege Dublin . Goughs Cave at Cheddar, in S.N. Colcutt (ed.),
1984. Excavations at Knowth 1. Dublin: Royal Irish The Palaeolithic of Britain and its nearest neigh-
Academy. bours: 75-9. Sheffield: Department of Archaeo-
EVANS,E.E. 1938. Doeys cairn, Dunloy, Co. Antrim, logy, University of Sheffield.
Ulster Journal of Archaeology 1: 59-78. LEASK,H.G. & L. P R I C ~1936. . The Labbacallee
1953. Lyles Hill: a Late Neolithic site in County megalith, Co. Cork, Proceedings of the Royal Irish
Antrim. Belfast: Archaeological Research Publi- Academy 43: 77-101.
cations no. 2. LYNCH, A. 1981. Man a n d environment in southwest
FAHY, E. 1959. A recumbent stone circle at Drombeg, Ireland. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports.
Co. Cork. lournal of the Cork Historical and British series 85.
Archaeological Society 64: 1-27. 1988. Poulnabrone a stone in time, Archaeology
-

1962. A recumbent stone circle at Reanascreena Ireland 2: 105-7.


South, journal of the Cork Historical a n d LYNN,C. 1973-4. The excavation of a ring cairn in
Archaeological Society 67: 59-69. Carnkenny Townland, Co. Tyrone, Ulster journal
FRAZER,D. 1983. Land a n d society in Neolithic of Archaeology 3 6 3 7 : 17-31.
Orkney. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports. 1977. Trial excavations at the King's Stables, Troy
British series 1 3 7. townland, County Armagh. Ulster journal of
GAKIIINIX, J. 1990. Flint procurement and Neolithic Archaeology 40: 42-62.
axe production on the South Downs: a re- MAHK,A. 1937. New aspects and problems in Irish
assessment, Oxford Journal of Archaeology 9(2): prehistory, Proceedings ofthe Prehistoric Society
119-40. 3: 261-437.
GOWEN,M. 1988. Three Irish gas pipelines: new MALLOW,J.P. 1984. The Long Stone Ballybeen,
archaeological evidence in Munster. Dublin: Dundonald, Co. Down, Ulster Journal of
Wordwell. Archaeology 47: 1-4.
Gow+;N, M. & C. TARUE'IT. 1988. A third season at 1988. Trial excavations at Haughey's Fort, Emania
Tankardstown, Archaeology Ireland 2: 156. 4: 5-20.
GKOGAN, E. 1989. The early prehistory of the Lough MALLORY, J.P. & B. HARTWELL. 1984. Donegore, Cur-
Gur region. Ph.D thesis presented at University rent Archaeology 92: 271-5.
College, Dublin. MALLDRY, J. & T.E. MCNEILL.1991. The archaeology of
GROGAN, E. & G. COONI~Y. 1990. A preliminary dis- Ulster. Belfast: Institute of Irish Studies.
tribution map of stone axes in Ireland, Antiquity MALLORY, J.P. & R.B. WARNER.1988. The date of
64: 559-61. Haughey's Fort, Eniania 5 : 36-40.
GROGAN. E. & G. EOGAN.1987. Lough Gur excavations MCCABC,A.M., G.R. COOKE.D.E. GENNARD & P.
by Sean P. 0 Riordain: five enclosed habitation DOUGHTY. 1987. Freshwater organic deposits and
sites of the Neolithic and Beaker period on the stratified sediments between Early and Late Mid-
Knockadoon Peninsula, Proceedings ofthe Royal landian (Devensian) till sheets at Aghnadarragh,
Irish Academy 87C: 299-506. Co. Antrim, N. Ireland, Iournal of Quaternary
HARBISON,P. 1969a. The axes ofthe early Bronze Age Science 2: 11-33.
in Ireland. Munich: Prahistorische Bronzefunde. MELIARS, P. 1987. Excavations on Oronsay.
1969b. The daggers a n d the halberds of the early Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Bronze Age in Ireland. Munich: Prahistorische MERCER, J. 1980. Lussa Wood 1: the late glacial and
Bronzefunde. early postglacial occupation of Jura, Proceedings
, B. 1991. Ballynahatty. a prehistoric cere- of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 110:
monial centre, Archaeology Ireland 5(4): 12-15. 1-31.
HEKITY. M.J. 1981. A Bronze Age farmstead at Glenree, MITCHELL, F.G. 1986. Reading the Irish landscape.
Co. Mayo. Popular Archaeology 2: 36-7. London: Shell.
HI:wrY, M. & G. EOGAN.1977. Ireland in prehistory. MITCHELL, G.F. 1989. Man a n d environment in Valen-
London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. tia Island. Dublin: Royal Irish Academy.
HII.I.AM, J . 1976. The dating of Cullyhanna hunting MOLLESON, T. 1986. New radiocarbon dates for the
lodge, Irish Archaeological Research Forum 3(1): occupation of Kilgreany Cave, County Waterford,
17-20. Journal of Irish Archaeology 3: 1-3.
HOIIGES. H.M.W. 1958. A huntingcamp at Cullyhanna Mol,l,oY, K. & M. O'CONNELL. 1988. Neolithic agri-
FILLING IN THE SPACES IN IRISH PREHISTORY 313

culture - fresh evidence from Cleggan, Conne- SANDMO, A.K. 1983. Pa spor av den eldste boset-
mara, Archaeology Ireland 2: 67-70. ningen i Nord-Norge-nye funn fra Troms, Ottar
O'BRIEN,W.F., 1989. Prehistoric copper mining in 141: 10-19.
South West Ireland: the Mount Gabriel-type SHERIDAN, A,,1986. Megaliths and megalomania: an
mines, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 56: account and interpretation of the development of
269-90. passage tombs in Ireland, Journal of Irish
O'CONNELL, M. 1987. Early cereal-type pollen records Archaeology 3: 17-30.
from Connemara, Western Ireland and their pos- SIMPSON, D.D.A. & A. GIBSON.1989. Lyles Hill, Cur-
sible significance, Pollen et Spores 29: 207-24. rent Archaeology 114: 214-5.
1990. Early land use in North East County Mayo - SMITH,A.G., G.W. PEARSON & J.R. PILCHER. 1971.
the palaeoecological evidence, Proceedings of Belfast radiocarbon dates 111, Radiocarbon 13:
the Royal Irish Academy 9OC: 259-79. 103-25.
0 DRISCEOIL, D.A. 1988. Burnt mounds: cooking or SWEETMAN, D. 1985. A Late Neolithic/Early Bronze
bathing, Antiquity 62: 671-80. Age pit circle at Newgrange, Co. Meath, Proceed-
O'KELLY, M.J. 1954. Excavations and experiments in ings o f t h e Royal Irish Academy 85C: 195-221.
ancient Irish cooking places,Journal of the Royal TAYLOR, J. 1980. Bronze Age Goldwork of the British
Society of Antiquaries of Ireland 84: 105-55. Isles. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
1981. The megalithic tombs of Ireland, in J.D. TWOHIG, E. 1990. Irish megalithic tombs. London:
Evans, B. Cunliffe & C. Renfrew (ed.), Antiquity Shire.
and man. Essays in honour of Glyn Daniel: WADDELL, J. 1978. The invasion hypothesis in Irish
177-90. London: Thames & Hudson. prehistory, Antiquity 52: 121-8.
1982. Newgrange, archaeology, art and legend. WALSH,G. 1985. An archaeological survey of monu-
London: Thames & Hudson. ments i n the Cork barony and a study of the
1989. Early Ireland. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni- attitudes and opinions of the landowners to these
versity Press. sites. M.A. thesis presented at University College
~ ' K E L L YM.J.,
, R.M. CLEARY,D. LEHANE.(Ed. C. Cork.
O'KELLY.) 1983. Newgrange, Co. Meath, Ireland: WARNER, R.B. 1979. The Clogher yellow layer, Medi-
the Late NeoIithiclBeaker period settlement. eval Ceramics 3: 37-40.
Oxford: British Archaeological Reports. Interna- Forthcoming. A formal adjustment for the old wood
tional series Slog. effect, in W. Mook (ed), PACT.
0 NUALLAN, S. 1972. A Neolithic house at Ballyglass WATERMAN, D.M. 1965. The court cairn at Annagh-
near Ballycastle, Co. Mayo, Journal of the Royal mare, Co. Armagh, Ulster Journal of Archaeology
Society of Antiquaries of Ireland 102: 49-57. 28: 3 4 6 .
0 RfORDAIN, S.P. 1943. Antiquities of the Irish 1978. The excavation of a court cairn at Tully, Co.
countryside. Cork: Methuen. Fermanagh, Ulster Journal of Archaeology 41:
1954. Lough Gur excavations: Neolithic and Bronze 3-14.
Age houses o n Knockadoon, Proceedings of the WICKHAM-JONES, C. 1990. Rhum: Mesolithic and later
Royal Irish Academy 56C: 2 9 7 4 5 9 . sites a t Kinloch excavations 1984-86.
PEARSON, G.W. 1979. Belfast radiocarbon dates IX, Edinburgh: Society of Antiquaries of Scotland.
Radiocarbon 21: 274-90. Monograph 7.
PILCHER, J.R. 1969. Archaeology, palaeoecology and WILLIAMS, B.B. 1981-82. A prehistoric complex at
I4C dating of the Beaghmore stone circle site, Ballygroll and Mullaboy, Co. Londonderry,
Ulster Journal of Archaeology 32: 73-91. Ulster Journal of Archaeology 44-45: 29-46.
POLLOCK, A.J. & D.M. WATERMAN. 1964. A Bronze Age WOODMAN, P.C. 1978. The Mesolithic in Ireland.
habitation site at Downpatrick, UIster Journal of Oxford: British Archaeological Reports. British
Archaeology 27: 31-58. series 258.
POWER,D. 1990. Fulachta fiadh i n Co. Cork, in 1982. The colonisation of Ireland: the human
Buckley (1990b): 13-17. problems, in D. 0 Corrain (ed.), Irish Antiquity:
RAFTERY,B. 1984. La Tene in Ireland. Marburg: 43-110. Cork: Tower Books.
Veroffentlichung des Vorgeschichtlichen Semi- 1983. The Glencloy project in perspective, in
nars Marburg. Sonderband 2. Reeves Smyth & Hammond (ed.): 25-34.
1990. Trackways through time. Rush, Co. Dublin: 1985. Excavations a t Mt Sandel 1973-77. Belfast:
Headline. Northern Ireland Archaeological Research Mono-
REEVESSMYTH, T. & F. HAMMOND (ed.). 1983. Land- graphs. No. 2.
scape archaeology in Ireland. Oxford: British 1986. Why not a n Irish Upper Palaeolithic?, in D.
Archaeological Reports. British series 116. Roe, Studies in the Upper Palaeolithic of Britain
RYAN,M., 1980. An Early Mesolithic site in the Irish and North West Europe: 43-54. Oxford: British
Midlands, Antiquity 54: 46-7. Archaeological Reports. International series S296.
314 P.C. WOODMAN

1989a. The Mesolithic of Scotland: a plea for ZVELEBIL, M., J. MOORL,S. GREEN& D. HENSON.
normality, Proceedings ofthe Society of Antiqua- Regional survey and analysis of lithic scatters: a
ries of Scotland 119: 1-32. case study from south east Ireland, in P. Rowley-
1989b. The Mesolithic of Munster: a preliminary Conwy, M. Zvelebil & P. Blankholm (ed.), The
assessment, in C. Bonsall (ed), The Mesolithic in Mesolithic of North West Europe: recent trends:
Europe. Papers Presented a t the 3rd International 9-32. Sheffield: Department of Archaeology, Uni-
Symposium: 116-24. Edinburgh: John Donald. versity of Sheffield.
WOOOMAN,P.C. & E. ANDERSON 1990. The Irish Later ZVELEBIL,M., & P. ROWLEY-CONWY. 1984. Transition to
Mesolithic: a partial picture?, in P.M. Vermeer- farming in Northern Europe: a hunter-gatherer
sch & P. van Peer (ed.), Contributions to the perspective, Norwegian Archaeological Review
Mesolithic in Europe: 377-89. Leuven. 17: 104-28.

You might also like