Portal Tombs in the Landscape: The Chronology, Morphology and Landscape Setting of the Portal Tombs of Ireland, Wales and Cornwall 9781407302515, 9781407321141

Citation preview

l na tio ne di nli ad l o ith ria W ate m

BAR 455 2008  KYTMANNOW  PORTAL TOMBS IN THE LANDSCAPE

Portal Tombs in the Landscape The Chronology, Morphology and Landscape Setting of the Portal Tombs of Ireland, Wales and Cornwall

Tatjana Kytmannow

BAR British Series 455 9 781407 302515

B A R

2008

Portal Tombs in the Landscape The Chronology, Morphology and Landscape Setting of the Portal Tombs of Ireland, Wales and Cornwall

Tatjana Kytmannow

BAR British Series 455 2008

ISBN 9781407302515 paperback ISBN 9781407321141 e-format DOI https://doi.org/10.30861/9781407302515 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

BAR

PUBLISHING

Acknowledgements First and foremost I wish to thank my two exceptionally nice supervisors Professor Jim Mallory and Dr Finbar McCormick. My primary supervisor Jim Mallory was always patient, kept an open door policy and helped me to transform a room full of loose sheets into something that resembles data. He even managed to make me face statistics. Finbar McCormick suggested the radiocarbon dating of human bone samples and allocated the money for it. This proved to become a corner stone of the study and would not have been possible without him. Furthermore, I want to thank the numerous staff, post-graduates and students of the School of Geography, Archaeology and Paleaoecology whose encouragements, good humour, knowledge, and generous help and advice made my time in Queen’s University such a pleasurable one. I am especially indebted to Libby Mulqueeny who supplied many maps in the eleventh hour, Paula Reimer whose help and advice concerning radiocarbon dating and Bayesian modeling is very much appreciated, Eileen Murphy who identified human bone for me, Emily Murray who collected and identified some of the samples, and Rick Schulting who gave access to unpublished radiocarbon dates from court tombs. Rowan McLoughlin helped with structuring the catalogue. I also would like to thank all those who helped to locate and provide the samples for dating: Mary Cahill, Andrew Halpin, Isabella Mulholl, and Maeve Sikora of the National Museum Ireland, Dublin; Sinead McCartan and Richard Warner of the National Museums Northern Ireland, Ulster Museum, Belfast; Alison Bevan and Nicholas Thomas, Penlee House Museum, Penzance, Cornwall; Steven Burrow, National Museum & Galleries of Wales, Cardiff and Sîan Rees, Cadw, Cardiff. Sîan Rees, Ann Lynch, Carleton Jones, Gretta Byrne, Brian Williams and Charles Thomas gave generous access to unpublished excavation notes. Sîan Rees and Ann Lynch took also time off their busy schedules to give access to the numerous finds from the excavations, so did Gabriel Cooney for the finds from Melkagh. Eoin Grogan, Alison Sheridan and Henrietta Quinnell provided their time and expertise to identify pottery. Neil Carlin helped with identifying the pottery from Poulnabrone. Further assistance and advice was provided by Emmanuel Mens, V.J. Keeley, Steve Hartgroves and Angela Gallagher. I am also very grateful to Eamon Cody and Paul Walsh from the National Monument Service, Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. On a personal note I want to thank Neil Carlin, Stephen Clarke and Kieran O’Conor. Stephen gave me information from his PhD thesis about court tombs and Neil, Stephen and Kieran showed me nothing but encouragement and friendship in some difficult times. Ruth Logue, Andy de Faoite and Emily Murray were my generous hosts in Belfast and I cannot thank them enough. Fiona Beglane and Leo Leydon have to be thanked for the many days they spent doing field work with me. This book is dedicated to Jan Roman Symma

i

Contents Acknowledgements .............................................................................................................................................i Contents .......................................................................................................................................................... ii List of plates, figures and tables ........................................................................................................................vi Introduction ....................................................................................................................................................... 1 1

Chapter 1 Definitions, problems, research questions and methodology ............................................................................ 5

1.1.1 1.2 1.2.1 1.2.2 1.2.3 1.2.4 1.3 1.4 1.4.1 1.4.2

The portal tomb as a monument type: definition ............................................................................................... 5 Problems: introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 5 Problems with dating and chronology ................................................................................................................ 5 Problems with morphology, classification and distribution ............................................................................... 6 Distribution....................................................................................................................................................... 10 Problems with landscape studies ...................................................................................................................... 10 Research questions and objectives ................................................................................................................... 10 Methodology .................................................................................................................................................... 11 Methodoloregy towards a better relative and absolute chronology of portal tombs ........................................ 11 Methodology towards a better understanding of the morphology, classification and distribution of portal tombs ......................................................................................................................................................... 11 1.4.3 Methodology towards landscape assessments .................................................................................................. 12 1.4.4 Summary of methodologies employed to answer the research questions ........................................................ 19 2

Chapter 2 History of research 1: From antiquarianism and diffusionism to the excavations of the 1980s ...................... 20 2.1 Antiquarianism and Diffusionism ................................................................................................................... 20 21.1 Ireland ......................................................................................................................................................... 20 2.1.2 Wales ......................................................................................................................................................... 21 2.1.3 Cornwall ......................................................................................................................................................... 22 2.2 The 1960s ........................................................................................................................................................ 22 2.3 New work in Wales: dating and surveys ......................................................................................................... 23 2.4 1980s excavations: Poulnabrone, Melkagh and Taylorsgrange ....................................................................... 23 2.5 Portal dolmens, graves, tombs and cairns ........................................................................................................ 24 2.6 Summary ......................................................................................................................................................... 24 3 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 4 4.1 4.2 4.2.1 4.2.2 4.2.3 4.2.4 4.2.5 4.2.6 4.2.7

Chapter 3 History of research 2: Landscape archaeology and other approaches to the study of portal tombs since the 1980s ......................................................................................................................................................... 26 Landscape archaeology ................................................................................................................................... 26 Introduction into the theory of landscape archaeology .................................................................................... 26 Time, space and social action: reading a landscape ......................................................................................... 27 Landscape archaeology: general works: Edmonds, Bradley, Cooney ............................................................ 27 Regional landscape studies and the phenomenon of phenomenology: Bradley, Tilley, Cummings, and Whittle ......................................................................................................................................................... 28 Other studies ..................................................................................................................................................... 33 Summary ......................................................................................................................................................... 33 Chapter 4 Morphology ..................................................................................................................................................... 34 Defining morphological criteria ....................................................................................................................... 34 Discussion of morphological elements ............................................................................................................. 37 Portal stones .................................................................................................................................................... 37 Sidestones ......................................................................................................................................................... 37 Backstones ........................................................................................................................................................ 38 Doorstones ........................................................................................................................................................ 38 The relationship between chamber size, capstone size and the distance between portals ............................... 39 Secondary capstones ........................................................................................................................................ 41 Padstones ......................................................................................................................................................... 41 ii

4.2.8 4.2.9 4.2.10 4.2.11 4.2.12 4.2.13 4.3

Cairns ......................................................................................................................................................... 42 Elaborated entrance features, antechambers, courts and ‘flankers’ .................................................................. 44 Capstones ......................................................................................................................................................... 45 Estimation of labour ......................................................................................................................................... 47 Decorations ...................................................................................................................................................... 47 Material, shape and colour ............................................................................................................................. 54 Conclusion ....................................................................................................................................................... 57

5

Chapter 5 Classification, hybrids, sub-types, and local variants ....................................................................................... 58 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................................... 58 ‘Hybrids’ ......................................................................................................................................................... 60 Commonalities and differences between portal tombs and court tombs ......................................................... 60 Fluent boundaries: tombs with criteria of different tomb classes ..................................................................... 61 Passage x portal tomb ....................................................................................................................................... 61 Wedge x portal tomb cross?; wedge tomb x entrance tomb ............................................................................. 65 Portal x court tomb ........................................................................................................................................... 66 Portal tombs with subsidiary chambers ........................................................................................................... 69 Multi-period and multi-phase tombs ................................................................................................................ 69 Ireland ......................................................................................................................................................... 70 Wales ......................................................................................................................................................... 74 Cornwall ......................................................................................................................................................... 78 Summary ......................................................................................................................................................... 78 Other regional variations .................................................................................................................................. 79 Tombs which are not portal tombs ................................................................................................................... 79 Local variants of portal tombs ......................................................................................................................... 80 Subtypes ......................................................................................................................................................... 82 Conclusion ....................................................................................................................................................... 86

5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.4.1 5.4.2 5.4.3 5.5 5.6 5.6.1 5.6.2 5.6.3 5.6.4 5.7 5.7.1 5.7.2 5.8 5.9 6 6.1 6.2 6.2.1 6.2.2 6.2.3 6.2.4 6.2.5 6.2.6 6.2.7 6.3 6.3.1 6.3.2 6.3.3 6.3.4 6.3.5 6.3.6 6.3.7 6.3.8 6.4 6.4.1 6.4.2

Chapter 6 Finds re-evaluation: analysis, relative chronology and interpretation .............................................................. 87 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................................... 87 The evidence ................................................................................................................................................... 87 The dating evidence: Lithics v. pottery ........................................................................................................... 89 Surface and stray finds ..................................................................................................................................... 89 Excavations without finds ............................................................................................................................... 90 Antiquarian excavations .................................................................................................................................. 90 Re-excavations of spoil heaps ......................................................................................................................... 90 Excavations excluded from the statistical analysis .......................................................................................... 90 Excavations with finds suitable for relative dating .......................................................................................... 91 Analysis ......................................................................................................................................................... 94 Early Neolithic pottery: definition and classification ...................................................................................... 95 Expert assessment ............................................................................................................................................ 95 The pottery evidence ....................................................................................................................................... 96 The lithics ........................................................................................................................................................ 97 Other finds ....................................................................................................................................................... 97 Human bone .................................................................................................................................................... 97 A general impression of earliness .................................................................................................................... 97 Continuity or diachronic use of portal tombs? ................................................................................................ 98 Discussion ....................................................................................................................................................... 98 After the early Middle Neolithic ..................................................................................................................... 98 Portal tomb usage during the Late Neolithic and the Early Bronze Age ......................................................... 98

7

Chapter 7 Radiocarbon dates: towards an understanding and absolute chronology of the depositional history of portal tombs ................................................................................................................................................... 100 7.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................... 100 7.2.1 Ballykeel ....................................................................................................................................................... 101 7.2.2 Poulnabrone ................................................................................................................................................... 101 7.2.3 Carreg Coetan ................................................................................................................................................ 103 7.2.4 Ballynacloghy ................................................................................................................................................ 104 7.2.4.1 Dietary analysis .............................................................................................................................................. 104 iii

7.2.5 7.2.6 7.2.7 7.2.8 7.2.9 7.3 7.3.1 7.3.2 7.4 7.5 7.6

Sperris Quoit ................................................................................................................................................. 105 Zennor Quoit ................................................................................................................................................. 106 Ballyrenan ..................................................................................................................................................... 107 Drumanone .................................................................................................................................................... 107 Twlc y filiast .................................................................................................................................................. 109 Discussion ...................................................................................................................................................... 109 The contextual relationship between artefacts and bones ............................................................................... 109 Are inhumations earlier? ............................................................................................................................... 110 Bayesian modeling ........................................................................................................................................ 110 Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................................... 112 Portal tomb and court tomb radiocarbon dates: a comparison ....................................................................... 112

8

Chapter 8 The tomb in the micro-region ......................................................................................................................... 117 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................... 117 Definition of micro-region ............................................................................................................................. 117 Preferred and avoided locations and regions ................................................................................................. 117 Siting of the tomb in the ‘cosmos’.................................................................................................................. 119 Altitude ....................................................................................................................................................... 121 Water, water everywhere ............................................................................................................................... 123 Small streams ................................................................................................................................................ 123 Water as a source of life ................................................................................................................................ 124 Rivers and other possible Neolithic traffic routes ......................................................................................... 124 The sea ....................................................................................................................................................... 125 Rock outcrops ................................................................................................................................................ 127 Mountains ...................................................................................................................................................... 129 Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................................... 130

8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4 8.5.1 8.5.2 8.5.3 8.5.4 8.5.5 8.5.6 8.5.7 8.5.8 8.6 9 9.1 9.2 9.3 9.4 9.4.1 9.4.2 9.4.3 9.4.4 9.4.5 9.4.6 9.4.7 9.4.8 9.5 10 10.1 10.2 10.2.1 10.2.2 10.2.3 10.3 10.4 10.5 10.6 10.7 10.7.1 10.7.2 10.7.3 10.8 10.9 10.10

Chapter 9 The tomb in the macro-region: clusters of portal tombs ................................................................................ 131 Clusters, cemeteries and complexes: history of research ............................................................................... 131 Centres of settlement? ................................................................................................................................... 131 The relationship of monuments to landscapes ............................................................................................... 133 The case studies ............................................................................................................................................. 133 Malin More, Co. Donegal .............................................................................................................................. 133 Easky River area, Ox Mountains, Co. Sligo .................................................................................................. 138 Slieve Gullion, Co. Armagh .......................................................................................................................... 142 The Burren, Co. Cavan .................................................................................................................................. 148 Ballyvennaght, Co. Antrim ............................................................................................................................ 154 North-west Wales: the Dyffryn Ardudwy cluster .......................................................................................... 157 The Carn Ingli cluster, Pembrokeshire, south-west Wales ............................................................................ 163 West-Penwith, Cornwall ................................................................................................................................ 169 Conclusions ................................................................................................................................................... 172 Chapter 10 Portal tombs and settlement .......................................................................................................................... 177 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................... 176 Late Mesolithic sites and portal tomb distribution ........................................................................................ 176 Ireland ....................................................................................................................................................... 176 Wales ....................................................................................................................................................... 176 Cornwall ....................................................................................................................................................... 176 Neolithic settlement pattern and portal tomb distribution ............................................................................. 179 Single portal tomb(s) with settlement evidence in the immediate vicinity .................................................... 180 Other evidence for settlement close to single portal tombs ........................................................................... 183 Settlement evidence in macro-regions ........................................................................................................... 183 Early Neolithic settlement evidence in areas close to portal tombs ............................................................... 184 South-east of Ireland ..................................................................................................................................... 184 South Donegal/ Leitrim ................................................................................................................................. 184 North Donegal/ Derry .................................................................................................................................... 184 Nucleated settlement? .................................................................................................................................... 184 Wales ....................................................................................................................................................... 184 Cornwall ....................................................................................................................................................... 186 iv

10.11 Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................................... 186 11 11.1 11.2 11.3 11.4 11.5

Chapter 11 Summary and conclusion .............................................................................................................................. 187 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................... 187 Summary of chapter contents ........................................................................................................................ 187 The main research aims and questions: answers and interpretations ............................................................. 189 Future research .............................................................................................................................................. 195 The contribution of the study to the field of research .................................................................................... 195

Bibliography

....................................................................................................................................................... 196

Appendix A on CD 1 List of plates, figures and tables 2 Introduction 3 Catalogue of all portal tombs (Republic of Ireland) 1 Catalogue of all portal tombs (Northern Ireland) 2 Catalogue of all portal tombs (Wales) 3 Catalogue of all portal tombs (Cornwall) 4 Catalogue of all portal tombs (other sites) Appendix B on CD Main database (as Excel sheet) Finds and excavation data (as Excel sheet) Radiocarbon dates from portal tombs (as Excel sheet) Radiocarbon dates from court tombs (as Excel sheet) Copies of maps as jpeg

3OHDVHQRWHWKDWWKH&'UHIHUUHGWRDERYHKDVQRZEHHQUHSODFHGZLWKDGRZQORDGDYDLODEOHDW ZZZEDUSXEOLVKLQJFRPDGGLWLRQDOGRZQORDGVKWPO

v

List of plates Plate 3.1: Plate 3.2: Plate 4.1:

Sea bay close to Cerrig y Gof, with fresh water lagoon Carreg Samson. The rock outcrop is at the left and just before the sea on the picture; the other is not visible at all. They are also not aligned with any imaginable coastal path; the tomb is much further inland Harristown, Co. Kilkenny. A full doorstone is placed between the two portals, which are crowned by the front of the cap, whose back rests on an under-capstone, which covers the small chamber Cist Cerrig, NW Wales Taylorsgrange, ‘The Brehon’s Chair, Co. Dublin Harristown, Co. Kilkenny, the back of the capstone resting on the undercap Pawton, Cornwall, the large long cairn still surviving Zennor Quoit, the slipped capstone leaning on top of the portal side stones Legananny Dolmen, Co. Down Pentre-Ifan, Pembrokeshire, SW Wales Trethevy Quoit, Cornwall Unique small entrance in doorstone, Trethevy Knockeen, Co. Waterford

Plate 4.2: Plate 4.3: Plate 4.4: Plate 4.5: Plate 4.6: Plate 4.7: Plate 4.8: Plate 4.9: Plate 4.10: Plate 4.11: Plates 4.12, 4.13 and 4.14: Padstones at Ballykeel, Malin More A, and Trethevy Plate 4.15: Multi-phase tomb in enlarged long cairn: Dyffryn Ardudwy, NW Wales Plate 4.16: Tanrego West ‘hybrid’, Co. Sligo Plate 4.17: Lech y Dribedd, SW Wales Plate 4.18: Pentre-Ifan, SW Wales Plate 4.19: Hendre Waelod, NW Wales Plate 4.20: Tan y Muriau, NW Wales Plate 4.21: Trellyfaint, SW Wales Plate 4.22: Radergan, Co. Tyrone Plate 4.23: Cupmarks on wedge tomb in the megalithic cluster Burren, Co. Cavan Plate 4.24: Tawnatraffaun, Co. Sligo, a ‘horse-shoe’ mark is on top of the cap and a cup and U-shape on the boulder in the foreground. Plate 4.25: Tawnatraffaun, ‘horseshoe’ Plate 4.26: Tawnatraffaun, cup-and-ring Plate 4.27: Castlederg, Co. Tyrone Plate 4.28: Rathkenny, Co. Meath, top of capstone Plate 4.29: Rathkenny, inside of orthostat with triscle Plate 4.30: Circles and 6- and 9-shaped forms Plate 4.31: Malin More, Co. Donegal, decorations at orthostat at the large court tomb Plates 4.32 and 4.33: Deeply grooved caps at Ballynoe, Co. Carlow; Straheel North, Co. Donegal Plate 4.34: Pawton, Cornwall, natural quartz veins on the backstone Plate 4.35: Trethevy, Cornwall Plate 4.36: Ballykeel capstone, Co. Armagh Plate 4.37: Cloghcor, Co. Sligo, the quartz slab against the early evening sun Plate 4.38: Cloghcor, Co. Sligo, early evening sun. All stones are covered with some lichen now. Plates 5.1 and 5.2: Earth-fast tomb in grass-covered cairn at Sramore in Leitrim, 10m north of a wedge tomb Plates 5.3 and 5.4: The ‘earth-fast’ tomb, below cliff edge of limestone plateau Plates 5.5 and 5.6: Carn Wnda (Llanwnda), SW Wales Plates 5.7 and 5.8: Cashleen, Co. Galway, and Tanrego West, Co. Sligo, court/ portal tomb hybrids Plates 5.9, 5.10 and 5.11: Carrowmore tombs 13, 7 and 51, Co. Sligo Plates 5.12 and 5.13: Ballynahatty, Co. Down; Ballylumford, Co. Antrim Plates 5.14 and 5.15: Cleenrah, Co. Longford, and Twlc y filiast, SW Wales Plates 5.16; 5.17; 5.18 and 5.19: Carreg Samson, SW Wales Plate 5.20: Carreg Samson, SW Wales, detail Plate 5.21: One of several coastal views c.100m from Carreg Samson; the tomb itself was placed to avoid a direct sea view Plates 5.10 and 5.11: Earth-fast tomb in grass-covered cairn at Sramore in Leitrim, 10m north of a wedge tomb Plates 5.12 and 5.13: The ‘earth-fast’ tomb, below rock outcrop Plates 5.14 and 5.15: Carn Wnda (Llanwnda), SW Wales Plates 5.16 and 5.17: Cashleen, Co. Galway, and Tanrego West, Co. Sligo, court/ portal tomb hybrids Plates 5.18, 5.19 and 5.20: Carrowmore tombs 7, 13 and 51, Co. Sligo Plates 5.21 and 5.22: Ballynahatty, Co. Down; Ballylumford, Co. Antrim vi

Plates 5.23 and 5.24: Carreg Samson and Twlc y filiast, SW Wales Plate5.25: Streedagh wedge tomb, Co. Sligo Plate 5.26: Menlough, Co. Galway, the ranging rod links the portals. Plate 5.27: The rather un-photogenic remains of Menlough chambered tomb, Co. Galway Plate 5.28: Wardhouse 2, Co. Leitrim Plate 5.29: Tawnamachugh, Co. Leitrim Plate 5.30: Ticloy, Co. Antrim Plate 5.31: Dyffryn Ardudwy double portal tomb Plate 5.34: The six-chambered portal tomb at Malin More A, Co. Donegal Plates 5.35 and 5.36: The two opposing main tombs or chambers, both directed E Plates 5.37 and 5.38: The two western small chambers: one with the portal to the N, the other to the S Plates 5.39 and 5.40: The two more eastern chambers or tombs, even more ruined than the others Plate 5.41: Double-chambered tomb at Malin More B, note the quartz Plate 5.42: Ballyvennaght 1, double-chambered portal tomb, Co. Antrim Plate 5.43: Tan y Muriau, NW Wales. The ranging rod is beside the small subsidiary chamber Plate 5.44: Tan y Muriau, middle chamber, where the cairn changes its direction Plate 5.45: Dyffryn Ardudwy from the east, the later tomb in the foreground Plates 5.46 and 5.47: Portal tomb and additional tomb at Carneddau Hengwm South, NW Wales Plate 5.48: Trellyfaint, Pembrokeshire, SW Wales Plate 5.49: Cerrig y Gof, Pembrokeshire, SW Wales, Dinas Head in the background Plate 5.50: Lanyan Quoit, West Penwith, Cornwall, one of the large cists in the foreground Plates 5.51, 5.52 and 5.53: Chun Quoit, Mulfra Quoit and Bosporthennis Quoit, all West-Penwith Plates 5.54 and 5.55: Carreg Coetan Arthur, Newport, Pembrokeshire, SW Wales Plates 5.56 and 5.57: Maen y Bardd, Conwy Valley, NW Wales Plates 5.58 and 5.59: Bachwen, NW Wales; Lletty’r Filliast, NW Wales Plates 5.60 and 5.61: Ballyvennaght 2, Co. Antrim, the ‘invisible’ tomb in the landscape Plate 7.1: Carreg Coetan, Newport, Pembrokeshire, SW Wales Plate 7.2: Ballynacloghy, Co. Galway. The bone and tooth were found inside the chamber Plate 7.3: Token deposit of finely crushed cremated bone from Sperris, Cornwall (Penlee House Museum, Penzance, Cornwall) Plate 7.4: Axe-shaped stone amulet (c. 2.2cm by 1.2cm), Twlc y filiast, SW Wales (National Museum of Wales, Cat. No. 53.271/1) Plate 8.1: Cairn G at Midsummer, Carrowkeel, Co. Sligo Plate 8.2: Roofbox at entrance of cairn G, Carrowkeel, Co. Sligo Plates 8.3 and 8.4: Maen-y-Bard, NW Wales, Conwy Valley. Cunard, Co. Dublin, upper Dodder Valley Plates 8.5 and 8.6: Keerin, Co. Tyrone, imbedded in thick blanket bog Plate 8.7: Glenroan, Co. Tyrone, opposite the Barnes Gap through the Sperrins Plates 8.8 and 8.9: Zennor Quoit, West Penwith. The stags on the next Tor, 300m to the south of Zennor. Plate 8.10: Sperris Quoit, West Penwith, Cornwall, and the spurned building material to the south of it Plate 8.11: Lesquite Quoit, Cornwall, with the Neolithic Tor enclosure of Helman Tor in the background, photographed with zoom. Plate 8.12: Ballygraney, Co. Carlow, with Mount Leinster as background, the small stream valley in the middle ground. The chamber is underground from this side, but intact Plate 8.13: Legananny Dolmen, with the Mournes in the background, the small stream valley is to the left Plate 9.1: All six chambers of Malin More A (Dg 91) in one row, the four small chambers are along the wall, two of them west and two east of the other dividing wall. The large chamber 6 is adjacent and in front of the farm house. The view inland and to Slieve League is restricted by the small glacial ridge behind the farmhouse Plate 9.2: Cist and standing stone in pre-bog wall, from NE Plate 9.3: The most westerly tomb on the south-facing side, Malin More B (Dg 90), with two chambers, note the view. Plates 9.4 and 9.5: Malin More C (Dg 93) imbedded in a wall. Malin More D (Dg 94), the furthest east. Below Malin Mare D is a standing stone and cairn, mimicking the remains of the ruined portal tomb above it. Plate 9.6: Straleel North Plate 9.7: The capstone of Cumcuill portal tomb Plates 9.8 and 9.9: Knockanbaun from the side and N, the upright portal is to the left. Front of tomb seen from E, the upright portal is right Plates 9.10, 9.11 and 9.12: Tawnatraffaun in its landscape Plates 9.13 and 9.14: Crowagh or Dunneill Mountain Plate 9.15: The South Cairn and Calliagh Berras’ Lough Plate 9.16. Aghmakane Plates 9.17, 9.18 and 9.19: Clonlum small cairn vii

Plates 9.20 and 9.21: Aughadanove Plate 9.22: The stream connecting Aughadanove and Ballykeel Plates 9.23 and 9.24: Ballykeel Plates 9.25 and 9.26: Slieve Gullion passage tomb Plate 9.27: Moneygashel, Co. Cavan Plates 9.28 and 9.29: Burren South A, Co. Cavan. Plate 9.30: ‘The Calf-House Dolmen’, Burren North B, Co. Cavan Plate 9.31: Burren North Plate 9.32: The Shannon Pot, Co. Cavan. Thousands of liters of water come up there per hour. Plates 9.33 and 9.34: Ballyvennaght A, the double chambered portal tomb Plate 9.35: Ballyvennaght B Plate 9.36: Ballyvennaght C, the invisible tomb in the bog. Plate 9.37: Ballyvennaght C from the side. Plate 9.38: Ballyvennaght C cap resting on portals Plate 9.39: The sinkhole in the Vanishing Lake, the lake fully drained. Plate 9.40: The full Loughareema with the kerbed cairn in the foreground Plate 9.41: Dyffryn Ardudwy, the eastern chamber in foreground. Plate 9.42: Dyffryn Arduwy, the small, western chamber Plate 9.43: Bron y Foel Ysaf Plate 9.44: Bron y Foel Ysaf in mid-picture, inside the wall. On the horizon is the Lleyn Peninsula Plate 9.45: Cors y Gedol Plate 9.46: Cors y Gedol from south Plate 9.47: East chamber (portal tomb) Carneddau Hengwm South Plate 9.48: West Chamber Plate 9.49: Carneddau Hengwm North Plates 9.50, 9.51 and 9.52: The two lateral chambers and (below) the central chamber in the cairn of Carneddau Hengwm North. The peak of Moelfre is in the backgroundPlate 9.53: Carreg Coetan from the front, note the missing right portal. No socket was found during the excavation Plate 9.54: Trellyfaint, ‘the Toad’s Stool’ Plate 9.55: Trellyfaint, the cupmarked cap Plate 9.56: Llech y Dribedd Plate 9.57: Pentre-Ifan Plate 9.58: The five-chambered Cerrig y Gof Plates 9.59 and 9.60: Zennor and Sperris Quoit Plates 9.61 and 9.62: Lanyon and West Lanyon Quoit Plates 9.61 and 9.62: Bosporthennis Quoit Plates 10.1 and 10.2: The Brehon’s Chair, Taylorsgrange, Co. Dublin, in its present surroundings Plate 11.1: Malin More A, western chamber, Co. Donegal Plates 11.2 and 11.3: Different views of Creevykeel Court tomb, Co. Sligo Plates 11.4 and 11.5: The ‘vanished’ Lough Nasool, Co. Sligo. Plate 11.6: Dolmen with a short passage, Evora, Portugal

List of figures Fig. 1: Fig. 1.1: Fig. 1.2: Fig. 1.3: Fig. 1.4 Fig. 1.5: Fig. 1.6: Fig. 1.7: Fig. 2.1: Fig. 3.1: Fig. 4.1: Fig. 4.2: Fig. 4.3: Fig. 4.4:

All portal tombs in Ireland, Wales and Cornwall, the numbers correspond with the original numbers in the main database. The map is also provided as a jpeg picture in the appendix B. Simplified model of Greengraves portal tomb, Co. Down (after Shee Twohig 2004, fig. 14) Portal tombs in eight regions in the British Isles, based on the SMRs of Ireland, Wales and Cornwall. Distribution of portal tombs in Ireland, in comparison with the other main tomb classes (after Ó Nualláin’ 1989, with additions) All megalithic tombs in Wales, (information and map after Lynch 2000, Fig. 2.1, with additions) All megalithic tombs on the mainland of Cornwall (data after Mercer 1989; Barnatt 1982) County names in Ireland and Britain. This map is also provided in appendix B on CD to allow zooming in. Survey recording sheet Raftery’s scheme of degeneration. No 8 and 7a are portal tombs Cerrig y Gof, located in a stream valley which leads to a sheltered bay (crown copyright 2005) Polygonal chamber at Drumanone (after de Valéra and Ó Nualláin 1972) Frequency of right and left portal stones Doorstones Chamber size (Chasize) was plotted against capstone size (Capsize) and subjected to linear regression but the R Square value (.199) indicates that less than 20% of the variability is explained by the size of the capstone. viii

Fig. 4.5: Interior chamber size Fig. 4.6: Chamber size was plotted against Distance portals (DISTPORT) and subjected to linear regression but the R Square value (.234) indicates that less than 24% of the variability is explained by the size of the chamber. Fig. 4.7: Capstone size (Capsize) was plotted against Distance portals (DISTPORT) and subjected to linear regression, the R Square value (.034) indicates that less than 4% of the variability is explained by the size of the capstone. Fig. 4.8: Cairn sizes in cubic meters in regular bins Fig. 4.9: Size of capstones in cubic meters Fig. 4.10: Castlederg dolmen (Borlase 1897, Fig. 195, after Ferguson) Fig. 4.11: Grooves on top of sidestone, Castlederg (Borlase 1897, Fig. 196, after Ferguson) Fig. 4.12: Lennan, Co. Monaghan, (Borlase 1897, Fig. 272, after Ferguson) Fig. 4.13: Decorations on orthostat of Lennan portal tomb, Co. Monaghan (Borlase 1897, Fig. 271, after Ferguson) Figs. 5.1, 5.2 and 5.3: Bunduff, Co. Sligo; Creeveymore, Co. Sligo; Fortland, Co. Sligo Figs 5.4 and 5.5: Aghaleague, Co. Mayo; Leean, Co. Leitrim Figs. 5.6, 5.7 and 5.8: Carrigeengeare, Co. Leitrim; Tirlaydan, Co. Donegal; Crevary Upper, Co. Donegal Fig. 5.9: Killin, Co. Donegal (all after de Valéra 1960); Fig. 5.10: Carreg Samson, SW Wales (after Barker fig. 39, from Lynch 1975) Fig. 5.11: Carreg Samson, SW Wales (after Lynch 1975, fig..5) Fig. 5.12: Harristown, Co. Waterford (after Powell 1941) Fig. 5.13: Streedagh wedge tomb, Co. Sligo (plan after Ó Nuilláin 1989) Fig. 5.14: Clontygora Small, Co. Armagh (after de Valéra) Fig. 5.15: Ballyrenan, Co Tyrone (after Corcoran 1973) Fig. 5.16: Drumhallagh Upper, Co. Donegal (after Lacy 1983) Fig. 5.17: Drumgollagh court tomb, Co. Mayo (after Corcoran) Fig. 5.18: Dyffryn Ardudwy (after Lynch 1969 from Powell 1973) Fig. 5.19: Malin More A (after Cody 2002) Fig. 5.20: Kilclooney More B., double chambered tomb (after Shee Twohig 2004) Fig. 5.21: Tan y Muriau (after Lynch 1995) Fig. 5.22: Carneddau Hengym South (after Lynch 1995) Fig. 5.23: Carneddau Hengym North (after Lynch 1995) Fig. 5.24: Cerrig y Gof (after Barker 1992, from Lynch 1972) Fig. 5.25: Sketch of Lanyon Quoit, Cornwall, before re-erection (Borlase 1769) Fig. 5.26: Pentre-Ifan, showing later cairn and ‘horn’ additions (after Lynch 1976, from Grimes) Fig. 5.27: Pie-chart of subtypes, in number and percentage Fig. 5.28: Distribution map of the subtypes A, B, and D Fig 5.29: Distribution map of subtype C portal tombs. Fig. 6.1: Frequency of Early Neolithic and Middle Neolithic pottery on all sites which produced finds Fig. 6.2: Quantity of Early Neolithic and Middle Neolithic pots Fig. 6.3: Occurrences of pottery, all types, all sites Fig. 6.4: Minimum number of vessels in all portal tombs, including subsidiary chambers and cairns Fig.7.1: Portal tombs with radiocarbon dates Fig. 7.2: Ballykeel, Co. Armagh. The dated charcoal sample comes from the distal end of cutting C4 (after Collins 1965, Fig 2, with addition) Fig. 7.3: Carreg Coetan plan and section (after Barker 1992, fig. 22, from Lynch 1972, with additions). The cremated human bone sample, single entity, for the new radiocarbon date, came from the SW part of the cairn, between the kerb stones, indicated by a red dot. Fig. 7.4: Plan of Sperris Quoit, the cremated bone came from the pit (in red) partly overlain by stone 1 (Thomas and Wailes 1967, fig. 2., with addition) Fig. 7.5: Plan of Zennor Quoit (after Barnatt 1982, Fig. 7.1., with addition). The cremated bone was found in the eastern half of the chamber, in the area of the red dot. Fig. 7.6: Ballyrenan plan, the red dot indicates the find spot of the dated bone sample (after Davies 1936 fig.1, with additions). Fig. 7.7: Drumanone plan and section (from Topp 1962). The bone came from the eastern half of the chamber. The whole inside of the chamber was extremely disturbed and intermingled with modern glass at all levels. Fig. 7.8: Twlc y filiast (from Barker 1992, fig. 11). The bone came from the N and bottom of a pit just inside the chamber, south of the sill. Fig. 7.9: All the calibrated probability distributions of the radiocarbon dates from portal tombs, in cal BC 2-sigma Fig. 7.10: Bayesian modeling graph, all portal tomb radiocarbon dates. Fig. 7.11: Bayesian modeling, interval gap graph of all portal tomb dates. Fig. 7.12: Calibrated probability distributions of radiocarbon dates from court tombs, pre-1990s dates. Dates with standard deviations higher than ± 100 have been omitted.

ix

Fig 7.13: Calibrated probability distributions of radiocarbon dates from court tombs, post 1980s. Dates with standard deviations higher than ± 100 have been omitted. Fig. 7.14: Primrose Grange, Co. Sligo, classified as a court tomb (after Ó Nualláin 1989) scale 1:100 Fig. 8.1: Relationship of portal tombs to the orientation of streams Fig. 8.2: Orientation of portal tombs in County Donegal (after Cody 2002) Fig. 8.3: Orientation of portal tombs in County Sligo (after Ó Nuallain 1989) Fig. 8.4: Monument orientation diagram of the better known portal tombs in Cornwall (after Barnatt 1982, fig. 2.6) Fig. 8.5: Chart of portal tomb orientation (portal=façade side) Fig. 8.6: Chart of slope orientation Fig. 8.7: Altitude histogram of portal tomb locations, all regions Fig. 8.8: Capstone versus altitude regression plot. Capstone size (CAPSIZE) was plotted against altitude and subjected to linear regression, the R Square value (.007) indicates that less than 1% of the variability is explained by the size of the capstone. Fig. 8.9: The distance from the tomb to the next stream. Fig. 8.10: 93 of all 217 portal tomb chambers are reversely parallel to the stream in the micro-region, 64 are parallel, 18 are not parallel to the stream, and for others the orientation could not be determined or there was no stream in the micro-region. Fig. 8.11: The distance to the next river in kilometres Fig. 8.12: Rock outcrop frequency and distance Fig. 9.1: Clusters of portal tombs Fig. 9.2: Map of Malin More, Glenmalin and Glencolumbcille, south-west Donegal Fig. 9.3: Plan of Malin More A (after Cody 2002) Fig. 9.4: Malin More B (after Cody 2002) Figs. 9.5 and 9.6: Malin More C and Malin More D (after Cody 2002), scale 1: 100 (1cm = 1m) Fig. 9.7: Map of Easky River catchment area, portal tomb cluster Fig. 9.8: Cumcuill before the destruction (after Ó Nualláin) Fig. 9.9: Knockanbaun (after Ó Nualláin) scale 1:100 Figs 9.10 and 9.11 Tawnatraffaun section. Tawnatraffaun plan (after Ó Nualláin) 1:100 Figs. 9.12 and 9.13: Crowagh or Duneill Mounatin section and plan (after Ó Nualláin) Fig. 9.14: Map of Slieve Gullion area Fig. 9.15: Aghmakane (after SM7 files) scale 1:50 Fig. 9.16: Clonlum small cairn (after Evans) Fig. 9.17: Aughadanove (after SM7 files) Fig. 9.18: Ballykeel (after Collins 1965) Fig.9.19: Map of Burren, Co. Cavan (after Sherlock 1999) Fig. 9.20: Moneygashel, Co Cavan (after De Valéra and Ó Nualláin) scale 1:100 Fig. 9.21: Burren South, Co. Cavan (after de Valéra and Ó Nualláin) 1:100 Fig. 9.22: Burren North (after de Valéra and Ó Nualláin) 1:100 Fig. 9.23: Map of the Ballyvennaght cluster, Co. Antrim Fig. 9.24: Ballyvennaght A (after S. Killen 2003) Fig. 9.25: Map of Dyffryn Ardudwy region Fig. 9.26: Plan of Bron y Foel Ysaf (after Lynch 1969a) Fig. 9.27: Cors y Gedol (after Lynch 1969a) Fig. 9.28: East and west chamber Carneddau Hengwm S (after Lynch 1969a) Fig. 9.29: Carneddau Hengwm South (after Lynch 1969a) Fig. 9.30: Carneddau Hengwm North (after Lynch 1969a) Fig. 9.31: Map of Carn Ingli Region, Nevern Valley and Newport Bay, SW Wales Fig. 9.32: Carreg Coetan (after Lynch 1972) Fig. 9.33: Trellyfaint (after Lynch 1972) Fig. 9.34: Llech y Dribedd (after Lynch 1972) Fig. 9.35: Pentre- Ifan (after Lynch 1972 from Grimes) Fig. 9.36: Cairnderry in Scotland, Cerrig y Gof and Mull Hill Circle on the Isle of Man (after Daly in Burrow 2006) Fig. 9.37: Cerrig y Gof (after Barker from Lynch) Fig.9.38: Map of West Penwith region, Cornwall Fig. 9.39: Ground plans of the chambered tombs of Cornwall, no capstones are indicated (after Barnatt 1982) Figs. 9.40 and 9.41: Mulfra Quoit and Chun Quoit, West-Penwith, Cornwall (after Barnatt 1982) Fig. 9.42: Zennor Quoit (after Barnatt 1982) Fig. 9.43. Lanyon Quoit (after Barnatt 1982) Fig. 10.1: Mesolithic sites in Ireland (after Aalen . with additions, information from Anderson (1993; Woodman (1999); and McCartan (2002)). Fig. 10.2: Late Mesolithic sites Ireland (information from Anderson (1993); Aalen (1997); Woodman (1999); and McCartan (2002). x

Fig. 10.3: Portal tomb distribution (after Ó Nuillain 1989) Fig. 10.4: Map after David and Walker 2004, with additions, red dots portal tombs, black rectangulars late Mesolithic sites Fig 10.5: Mesolithic sites in Cornwall (after Hosfield 2005) Fig 10.6: Portal tombs in Cornwall Fig. 10.7: Distribution map of Neolithic houses and other settlement (Grogan 2004) Fig. 10.8: Ceidé Fields, the portal tombs are Ma 11 and Ma 12 (after Cauldfield) Fig 10.9: Distribution of megalithic tombs and stone axes (after Lynch 2000, Fig. 2.1)

List of Tables Table 4.1: Means, medians and standard deviations for right hand portal stones in metre Table 4.2: Means, medians and standard deviations for left portal stones in metre Table 4.3: Descriptive statistics for cairn sizes Table 4.4: Portal tombs with court features, court tomb/portal tomb hybrids in green; extra large and dominant tombs in red Table 4.5: Cupmarks and other decorations on portal tombs Table 5.1: Region versus Subtypes, the numbers of cases are too low for a meaningful chi-square test, but they do indicate a trend. Table 5.2: Cross tab and chi-square test with bundled regions to create a statistical valuable test. Region 1 (S Ireland + Cornwall)= 1, 2, 3, 6, 7 ; region 2 (N Ireland + Wales)=4, 5, 8 The test shows that certain Subtypes and certain Regions relate meaningful to each other. The regions are the same as in figure 1.2. Table 6.1 Portal tomb sites which produced finds Table 6.2: Table 4.2: all sites that produced finds: Early Neolithic and Middle Neolithic pottery Table 6.3: All sites that produced finds: Mesolithic, Early Neolithic and Middle Neolithic lithics Table 6.4: Main sites only, all pottery and lithics (P=pottery; L=lithics) Table 7.1: All radiocarbon dates from portal tombs, the dates obtained for this project are in bold print. Table 7.2: List of radiocarbon dates from court tomb, obtained before the 1990s. Table 7.3: List of radiocarbon dates from court tombs, post-dating the 1980s Table 8.1: Mean, median and standard deviation for the distance between tomb and water source Table 8.2: Sea distance v. region. The regions are the same as on fig. 1.1. close=20m – 3.4km; far=3.5km-9.4km; too far=>10km Table 9.1: Region versus subtypes, the numbers are too low for a meaningful chi-square test, but they do indicate a trend Table 9.2: Altitude versus acreage cross tab and chi-square test Table 9.3: Acreage v. portal tomb type cross tab and chi-square test Table 9.4: Altitude v. portal tomb type, cross tab and chi-square test Table 9.5: Table 9.5: Comparison of tomb types in discussed clusters compared with next ‘group’. There are 30 portal tombs in all 8 clusters, and an average of 3 subtypes per cluster, while there are 31 portal tombs in the other groups, with an average of 2 subtypes per group.

xi

xii

THE CHRONOLOGY, MORPHOLOGY AND LANDSCAPE SETTING OF THE PORTAL TOMBS

Introduction Portal tombs are the least researched megalithic class in Ireland, despite the fact that they have one of the widest distributions of all tomb classes. They also could be amongst the earliest still standing man-made upright structures in Britain and Ireland. Neither their morphology, classification, relative and absolute chronology, landscape setting nor depositional history are very well understood. Clearly, if even the chronology is still a contentious issue, the place of portal tombs in Neolithic society and the role these monuments might have played is quite uncertain.

material culture found in portal tomb contexts and establishes a relative chronology, and chapter 7 introduces the newly obtained radiocarbon assays and puts them into context with the previously obtained dates. The results from the finds analysis and the radiocarbon dating are also compared with the evidence from court tombs to establish whether the two tomb types are contemporary or if one could have preceded the other. Chapter 8 provides an analysis of the various landscape elements found around portal tombs and suggests several conclusions as to what role the landscape might have played for portal tomb builders. Chapter 9 looks in detail at eight case studies, macro-regions with portal tomb clusters, to see if these might provide clues as to how society was organised, if there is evidence for settlement and how portal tombs related there to other tomb classes and to the landscape. Chapter 10 looks at portal tombs and settlements, especially using Early Neolithic settlement evidence, but also comparing it with the Late Mesolithic. Finally Chapter 11 provides a summary and conclusions.

This study sets out to present a critical synthesis of the previous work on portal tombs and to investigate the chronology, morphology and landscape setting of this enigmatic tomb class. It concerns itself with all portal tombs, in Ireland, Wales and Cornwall. Because any fieldwork, finds analysis and morphological analysis was accomplished by different people, with different methods, in different regions and at different times all tombs were personally visited, photographed, measured and assessed in their landscape setting, and all still accessible finds viewed, photographed and assessed in person. Suitable bone samples were selected for radiocarbon dating, making use of the newly available possibility to date cremated bone. A database was prepared from the data collected and analysed with the assistance of Excel and SPSS.

A full catalogue is provided in Appendix A containing all 225 sites of portal tombs which had been named as such, either in the SMR or by previous authors. It consists of all the main data; a short narrative; plans, sections, and finds drawings if they had been previously published; and many photographs. There are no references in the text of the study referring the reader to the catalogue; it should be understood that further information about a site can be found there. Furthermore, plates, plans and sections which are necessary for the discussion of sites and clusters are included in the book, even if they can be found also in the catalogue where they have been reproduced for completeness. This method was chosen to relief the reader from having to handle the printed volume and volumes on CD simultaneously. A map of all sites is provided directly after the introduction (fig. 1), but it is recommended to consult this map also on CD which allows a much higher resolution. However, to allow a quick reference, the portal tomb names which belong to the numbers are listed here:

Chapter 1 defines the research methods and the main research questions and aims. Chapters 2 and 3 present the history of research in two parts. All excavations, antiquarian explorations, classification models and the theoretical concepts underlying them are discussed in chapter 2, while landscape studies, phenomenology and my own theoretical approach are discussed in chapter 3. Chapter 4 analyzes the morphology of portal tombs and the different architectural elements, i.e. capstone, portal stones, cairns and so on, and chapter 5 discusses subtypes, hybrids with other tomb classes and regional variations. Chapters 6 and 7 both deal with the chronology of portal tombs. Chapter 6 re-assesses the

1

TATJANA KYTMANNOW

1

Cloghcor

73

Claggan

145

2

Camcuill

74

Gortbrack North

146

Ballykeel Clonlum

3

Tawnatraffaun

75

Knocknalower

147

Greengraves

4

Knockanbaun

76

Kilgraney

148

Dunnanelly/Annacloy

5

Crowagh

77

Ballygraney

149

Loughmoney

6

Ardabrone

78

Ballynasilloge

150

Legananny

7

Knockatober

79

Kernanstown

151

Slievenagriddle

8

Gorteen/Ballintrillick

80

Ballynoe/Newtown

152

Wateresk

9

Springfield

81

Haroldstown

153

Goward

10

Carrickglass

82

Lissava

154

Kilfeaghan

11

Moytirra West

83

Sheskin

155

Kilkeel

12

Malin More A

84

Ballyquin

156

Glengesh

13

Malin More B

85

Whitestown East

157

Kilrooskagh

14

Malin More C

86

Gaulstown

158

Crevolea

15

Malin More D

87

Knockeen

159

Drumderg

16

Straleel North

88

Ballynageeragh

160

Tirnony

17

Sand Island

89

Savagetown

161

Tamlaght/Coagh

18

Kilclooney More A

90

Dunhill

162

Ervey

19

Kilclooney More B

91

Gurteen Lower

163

Killynaght

20

Roshin South

92

Ballindud

164

Letterbrat

21

Gilbertstown

93

Killonerry

165

Glenroan

22

Lackaghatermon

94

Owning

166

Churchtown/Castlederg

23

Toome

95

Raheen

167

Crosh

24

Ards Beg

96

Harristown/Kilmogue

168

Glenknock

25

Claggan (Dunfanaghy)

97

Newmarket

169

Ballyrenan

26

Muntermellan

98

Ballylowra

170

Keerin

27

Carrickmagrath

99

Barrowmount

171

Leitrim

28

Cloghroe

100

Glencloghlea

172

Carncorran Glebe

29

Gortnavern

101

Ballyhenebery

173

Bullock Park

30

Carnaghan (Inch)

102

Ballybrittas

174

Altdrumman

31

Ballyannan

103

Newbawn

175

Cashel

32

Eskaheen

104

Broomfields

176

Scraghy

33

Templemoyle

105

Onagh/Glaskenny

177

Cloghfin

34

Bin

106

Brittas

178

Athenree

35

Errarooey Beg

107

Cunard

179

Murnells

36

Moneygashel

108

Woodtown

180

Creggandeveskey

37

Burren A South

109

Kilmashogue

181

Radergan

38

Burren B North

110

Taylorsgrange

182

Dullaghan

39

Middletown

111

Kiltiernan Domain

183

Altcloghfin

40

Carrickclevan

112

Brenanstown

184

Ballywholan

41

Drumhawnagh

113

Ballybrack

185

Lletty'r Filliast

42

Aghawee

114

Howth Demesne

186

Maen y Bardd

43

Carrickacroy

115

Poulnabrone

187

Hendre Waelod

44

Banagher

116

Ballycasheen

188

Bachwen

45

Duffcastle

117

Moyree Commons

189

Mynydd Cefn Amwlch

46

Ballaghanea

118

Clogher

190

Tan y Muriau

47

Mayo

119

Leaguan

191

Dyffryn Ardudwy Cairn

48

Wardhouse A

120

Knockavally

192

Bron y Foel Isaf

49

Wardhouse B

121

Ballynew

193

Cist Cerrig

50

Loughscur

122

Cloonlooaun

194

Four Crosses

51

Cloonfinnan

123

Ballynacloghy

195

Gwern Einon

52

Drumany

124

Crannagh

196

Cors y Gedol

53

Fenagh Beg

125

Marblehill

197

Carneddau Hengwm S

54

Creevy

126

Lurgankeel

198

Pentre Ifan

2

THE CHRONOLOGY, MORPHOLOGY AND LANDSCAPE SETTING OF THE PORTAL TOMBS

55

Lear

127

Monascreebe

199

Cerrig y Gof

56

Annaghmore

128

Aghnaskeagh

200

Carreg Coetan, Newport

57

Sunnagh More A

129

Proleek

201

Trellyffaint

58

Sunnagh More B

130

Ardcrony

202

Llech y Dribedd

59

Aghavas

131

Arderawinny

206

Garn Turne

60

Tawnamachugh

132

Ahaglaslin

207

Mountain

61

Aughnacliff

133

Killacloghane

208

Gwal-y-Filiast

62

Cleenrah

134

Corleanamaddy

209

Twlc y Filiast

63

Drumanone

135

Garran

211

Sweyne's Howe South

64

Mihanboy

136

Lennan

212

Arthur's Stone

65

Rathkenny

137

Ballyvennaght 2

214

Zennor Quoit

66

Ervey

138

Ballyvennaght 1

215

Lanyon Quoit

67

Slievemore

139

Ballyvennaght 3

218

Pawton Quoit

68

Enagh Beg

140

Ticloy

219

Trethevy Quoit

69

Prebaun

141

Ballylumford

220

West Lanyon Quoit

70

Ballyknock A

142

Aughnagurgan

221

Sperris Quoit

71

Ballyknock B

143

Aghmakane

222

Carwynnen Quoit

72

Doogort West

144

Aughadanove

223

Lesquite Quoit

601

Menlough

224

Bearah Common

3

TATJANA KYTMANNOW

Fig. 1: All portal tombs in Ireland, Wales and Cornwall, the numbers correspond with the original numbers in the main database. The map is also provided as a jpeg picture in the appendix B on CD.

4

THE CHRONOLOGY, MORPHOLOGY AND LANDSCAPE SETTING OF THE PORTAL TOMBS

Chapter 1 Definitions, problems, research questions and methodology 1.1 The portal tomb as a monument type: definition The morphological elements and also four suggested subtypes will be discussed fully in chapters 4 and 5.

Portal tombs (or portal dolmens) were first defined as a distinct megalithic class in the 1930s, but with various morphological descriptions. The still current and most precise definition was presented in the first volume of the Megalithic Survey of Ireland in 1961:

1.2

Problems: introduction

There has been no comprehensive study of portal tombs encompassing morphology, chronology and landscape aspects for all portal tombs in Ireland, Wales and Cornwall. Most excavations of portal tombs are either very old (Aghnaskeagh A, Co. Louth (Evans 1935); Ballykeel, Co. Armagh (Collins 1965); Ballyrenan, Co. Tyrone (Davies 1937); Ballynageeragh, Co. Waterford (Mongey 1941); Clonlum, Co. Armagh (Davies and Evans 1934); Drumanone, Co. Roscommon (Topp 1962); Kilfeaghan, Co. Down (Collins 1959); Kiltiernan, Co. Dublin (Ó Eochaidhe 1957); Ticloy, Co. Antrim (Evans and Watson 1942); Pentre Ifan, Pembrokeshire, Wales (Grimes 1949); Zennor Quoit and Sperris Quoit, Penwith, Cornwall (Thomas and Wailes 1967) or unpublished (Carreg Coetan, Pembrokeshire, Wales (Barker 1992); Taylorsgrange, Co. Dublin (R. Lynch 1999). The badly destroyed portal tomb at Melkagh, Co. Longford (Cooney 1997), has produced hardly any finds and Ballygraffan, Co. Down (Collins 1957), and Radergan, Co. Tyrone (Brennan 1981), cannot be classified as portal tombs with any certainty.

‘The principal characteristics of portal tombs are, a single chamber of rectilinear design, usually narrowing towards the rear, having an entry between two tall portal stones set inside the line of the sidestones and covered by a capstone often of enormous size, poised high above the entrance and sloping down towards the rear of the chamber. The capstone is frequently raised clear of the sidestones and rests on the portal stones and backstone. Usually each side and the back are formed of single slabs. Frequently beneath the great capstone is a smaller cover resting on the sides and backstone and in this case the rear end of the principal capstone rests on the second cover rather than on the backstone. Between the portals a slab closing the entrance is present at many sites, often reaching full height, but sometimes only threequarters or half the height of the portal jambs. Occasionally, in place of the high slab a sill is found, while in many instances no evidence of closure, partial or full, appears. In a few examples high stones flanking the entrance are present. A bias towards placing the entrance eastwards is present in portal tombs. The mound shape is rarely clearly defined but both long and round forms are attested.” (de Valera and Ó Nualláin 1961: xiii).

1.2.1

Problems with dating and chronology

For dating purposes we have had to rely largely on two key sites: the well published research excavation by Powell (1973) at Dyffryn Ardudwy, Merioneth, Wales, and A. Lynch’s only partly published excavation at Poulnabrone, Co. Clare (Hedges et al. 1990; Lynch and Ó Donnabháin 1994). This is a very unsatisfactory small number. Furthermore, Dyffryn Ardudwy did not produce material suitable for radiocarbon dating; its date was determined from its very early pottery. A maximum of ten individuals of a MNI of twenty-six have been radiocarbon dated at Poulnabrone which produced dates from 4000 BC to 2900 BC (see table 5.1), but the suggestion of the excavator that all human remains had been introduced to the tomb at the latest possible date renders these dates less valuable for the chronology of portal tombs than would be desirable. In any case, for a meaningful discussion of the absolute chronology of portal tombs we would need more than one dated tomb. Furthermore, there has been no attempt at a relative chronology of portal tombs based on their contents. The last finds list was published in 1964 by Herity and was arguably already out of date in 1973 (Powell 1973). Also, Herity’s interpretation was firmly based on an evolutionary view, where portal tombs were at the end of

This definition describes an ‘ideal’ portal tomb and it should be noted that many portal tombs exist which have only some of these criteria. Essential for the definition are the load-bearing portal stones and the backstone, holding up a capstone which is nearly always larger than necessary to cover the chamber and sometimes of enormous size. A slab which covers the entrance fully occurs only at some portal tombs. A second, smaller capstone is present at a small number of portal tombs. While many portal tombs have some cairn or mound surrounding the chamber, there is no instance where a cairn covers the capstone (fig. 1.1). Portal tombs have produced human bones, cremated and inhumed; pottery; and lithics. Because the chambers are open to the elements and any intruders or explorers, the contents of the chambers are always disturbed.

5

TATJANA KYTMANNOW

Fig. 1.1: Simplified model of Greengraves portal tomb, Co. Down (after Shee Twohig 2004, fig. 14)

the line of megalithic development and degeneration. This paucity in dating evidence has led to two schools of thought: scholars are either prone to place portal tombs at the very beginning of the Neolithic at c. 4000-3800 BC, or more towards the end of the Middle Neolithic at c. 32003000 BC. But for a better understanding of the role portal tombs might have played in Neolithic society and to put the tombs in context with, for example, other tomb types, settlements, environmental studies or ritual enclosures, we need much firmer dating evidence than the one or two dated tombs (of 217) can provide.

surveyors a very small amount of loose stones is evidence for the remains of a cairn while in other cases quite prominent cairns are not mentioned. There is also no agreed methodology for the measurements of the chamber: interior or overall ground plan; both methods occur in a wide variety of possibilities. The surveys for Wales, Cornwall and Northern Ireland are different from the surveys in the Irish Republic. While the morphology of the tombs can be physically observed, the classification of them is a mental concept, an attempt to bring order into the chaos. Importantly, it is our present-day mental concept and not a Neolithic one. The classification of portal tombs describes an ideal or ‘classic’ type as it was known in 1960. At the time, most of the different tomb classes still largely stood for different waves of immigrant populations and it was assumed that they arrived at different times too. Only portal tombs were supposed to have developed (or degenerated) from court tombs. This implied that they are late in the sequence. There was no concept yet of possible multi-period tombs and ‘hybrids’ between different, contemporary tomb classes. In Ireland, unclassified tombs were defined as too destroyed to have a class assigned. Tombs which are well preserved but did not fit into the fourfold system were declared not to be megaliths, for example the ‘earth-fast’ tomb 10m from Sramore wedge tomb in Co. Leitrim (de Valera and Ó Nualláin 1972: 59-60). Because portal tombs allegedly developed from the subsidiary chambers of court tombs, it was assumed that they are rather simple structures and there has been no discussion of possible sub-types as there has been for passage tombs, court tombs or Cotswold-Severn tombs.

1.2.2 Problems with morphology, classification and distribution As stated in Chapter 2 the megalithic survey has not yet been completed and only c. 50% of all Irish portal tombs has been published in the megalithic surveys. Also, the actual surveying has been done by different individuals over more than sixty years. Every survey, every drawing and description, is also an interpretation. One un-named surveyor (see SM7 files) remarked that the capstone of the southernmost of the Ballyvennaght portal tombs is massive, while in reality it measures 2m by 1.8m and is one of the smallest capstones. The same surveyor had also a good view to Loughareema, when in reality the lake is not visible from there. One other un-named surveyor who worked for the Megalithic Survey of Ireland (de Valera and Ó Nualláin 1961; 1964; 1972) during the 1960s and 1970s estimated the height of orthostats from the bottom of their sockets underground, resulting in an additional height of 20% to 30%. Other tomb measurements seem to be translated from feet and inches into metric and mistakes have crept in. For some 6

THE CHRONOLOGY, MORPHOLOGY AND LANDSCAPE SETTING OF THE PORTAL TOMBS

Fig. 1.2: Portal tombs in eight regions in Britain and Ireland, based on the SMRs of Ireland, Wales and Cornwall.

7

TATJANA KYTMANNOW

Fig. 1.3: Distribution of portal tombs in Ireland, in comparison with the other main tomb classes (after Ó Nualláin 1989, with additions)

8

THE CHRONOLOGY, MORPHOLOGY AND LANDSCAPE SETTING OF THE PORTAL TOMBS

Fig. 1.4: All megalithic tombs in Wales, (information and map after Lynch 2000, Fig. 2.1, with additions)

9

TATJANA KYTMANNOW

Fig. 1.5: All megalithic tombs on the mainland of Cornwall (data after Mercer 1989; Barnatt 1982)

1.2.3

Cummings and Whittle 2003; Whittle and Cummings 2004). Furthermore, all of them are regional, studying either the portal tombs of Ireland, Wales or Cornwall, or some region of it. None of them focused on the microregion, the immediate surroundings of the tomb, its locales, taking all aspects of the landscape siting into account. The studies of macro-regions such as south-west Wales (Tilley 1994; Cummings 2001) or West Penwith (Tilley and Bennett 2001) are not only highly idiosyncratic, they also do not tell us much about other macro-regions or portal tomb clusters; they are after all, as all phenomenological studies, not repeatable and do not link up with other studies. They wilfully ignore or try to explain away environmental studies (Chapman and Geary 2000), especially concerning tree cover during the Neolithic (Cummings and Whittle 2003).

Distribution

It has been stated repeatedly that portal tombs share largely the same distribution with court tombs (but contra Sheridan 2004). This is only the case if we ignore the distribution of portal tombs in the south-east of Ireland and the portal tombs in Britain (fig. 1.2; fig. 1.3; fig. 1.4; fig. 1.5). A much better fit would be passage tombs, especially if we consider that there are possibly more unexcavated passage tombs in the mid-west of Ireland than are presented on the current distribution map (fig. 1.3), for example, in Mayo (G. Byrne pers. comm.), Galway (Alcock et al. 1999: 6-7), or Clare (C. Jones 2003; 2004: 42-5) (fig. 1.3). If portal tombs shared the same distribution with court tombs, one would expect to find them also in the distribution area of the close relations of court tombs, the Clyde tombs in Scotland, especially in the west of its territory. Because portal tombs have been so little investigated and discussed, it seems to be prudent to ask if there are other areas of portal tomb distribution than shown on fig. 1.2 and fig. 1. 1.2.4

1.3

Research questions and objectives

Bearing all these problems in mind, the following research questions were formulated: 1.

Were portal tombs more likely to be constructed during the Early Neolithic or towards the Late Middle Neolithic?

2.

Could portal tombs have been ritually used over a long period of time, from the date of construction in the Neolithic up to the Early

Problems with landscape studies

As will be discussed in chapter 3, landscape studies having portal tombs as a subject are either too superficial (Ó Nualláin 1983) or too phenomenological (e.g. Tilley 1994; Tilley and Bennett 2001; Cummings 2001; 2002; 10

THE CHRONOLOGY, MORPHOLOGY AND LANDSCAPE SETTING OF THE PORTAL TOMBS Bronze Age or even Iron continuously or episodically?

Age,

either

3.

Are portal tombs rather simple structures, for example, similar to the small subsidiary side chambers of court tombs or do they mostly involve a more complicated architecture? Furthermore, are sub-types or regional variations apparent?

4.

What can the landscape siting tell us about the beliefs of the builders? Are there any patterns apparent?

5.

Is there any patterning in the siting of portal tombs on a large scale (i.e. throughout their overall Irish Sea distribution area), or does it vary from region to region? How does portal tomb distribution compare with settlement and palaeoenvironmental evidence within the timeframe of their construction and use? Within the eight macro-regions, i.e. monument clusters that include three or more portal tombs, how do the portal tombs relate to each other and to the other types of monument?

Taylorsgrange, Co. Dublin, are still with the excavators. A few surface finds from Ballynacloghy, Co. Galway, were kept in the Archaeology Department of the National University of Ireland, Galway (Waddell 1976) but are now lost. The finds from the last two could not be inspected. Unfortunately, the finds from Ballybrack, Co. Dublin, and from Ballynageeragh, Co. Waterford, could not be traced. While the present author has relied on her own judgement, several scholars and specialists have provided advice, especially Eoin Grogan, Richard Warner and Henrietta Quinnell. All Irish finds in the museums and depots have been viewed, compared with the written descriptions, and photographed. Alison Sheridan’s work on Irish Neolithic pottery was consulted (Sheridan 1985; 1995) and so was Gibson’s textbook (2002). The lithics from Northern Ireland have been the subject of a study by Eimar Nelis and I have referred to her research and expertise (Nelis 2004). The textbook by Butler (2005) was also consulted. The finds from Wales (Pentre Ifan, Dyffryn Ardudwy and Carreg Coetan) have been viewed in Cardiff. Again, the original classification has been cross referenced against specialists’ reports and publications and has been discussed with Steve Burrow. The pottery classification according to Peterson (2003) has been used, who examined in detail the vessels from Pentre Ifan and Dyffryn Ardudwy. The pottery from Carreg Coetan had been examined by T. Darvill. The finds from the two Cornish tombs (Zennor Quoit and Sperris Quoit) are in Penzance Museum and have been viewed there. Professor Charles Thomas gave me access to his excavation notes, drawings and plans of Sperris Quoit and Henrietta Quinnell inspected the pottery from Zennor Quoit and confirmed that several sherds are most likely of Early Neolithic date, as suspected by the author.

The overall main aim is to try to understand what role portal tombs might have played in the societies which first constructed them, and secondly re-used them. 1.4 Methodology 1.4.1 Methodology towards a better relative and absolute chronology of portal tombs It was decided that a new finds catalogue (and database of finds) could provide the basis for a re-examination of the relative chronology of the portal tomb. The very first comparison of a pottery classification by Herity of a sherd from Clonlum, Co. Armagh, with the material held in the Armagh Museum showed that he had erred at least in this case (Eoin Grogan pers. comm.). The small sherd with smooth outer surface and comb-impressions was judged by Herity to be Carrowkeel Ware, but that is most unlikely. Therefore, it was decided not to rely too strongly on the written descriptions and instead to inspect all still available finds. Most Irish finds are kept either in the Ulster Museum or in the National Museum of Ireland, Kildare Street, Dublin. Some finds from Northern Ireland are kept in various depots of the DoENI (Department of the Environment Northern Ireland) and another few are in the Armagh Museum. Many finds from Poulnabrone are still with the excavator, but the most impressive ones are on display in Ennis Museum, Co. Clare. Most finds from Aghnaskeagh, Co. Louth, are in Kildare Street, but several flints, some food-vessels and the infamous glass bead ‘from primary context’ are on display in the Co. Louth Museum in Dundalk. The few finds from Melkagh, Co. Longford, and the numerous ones from

The finds (mainly pottery and lithics) have been recorded into a small database. If a time frame could be assigned to a find, this was according to its relative chronology: Mesolithic (8000BC to 4000BC); Early Neolithic (4000BC to 3600BC); Middle Neolithic (3600BC to 2900BC); Late Neolithic (2900BC to 2500BC); Early Bronze Age (2500BC to 1600BC); Middle Bronze Age (1600-1100BC); Late Bronze Age (1100BC to c.800BC). The onset and end of the Iron Age differs from Britain to Ireland, so does the onset of the Early Medieval period, but the finds from these time frames are extremely rare. Furthermore, drawings of the finds, as far as they have been published, can be found under the site name in the full catalogue (Appendix A). The examination of portal tomb material in the various museums also permitted the discovery of human bone for dating purposes. As part of this study, new radiocarbon dates have been obtained from cremated bones from Drumanone, Co. Roscommon; Ballyrenan, Co. Tyrone; Carreg Coetan, Pembrokeshire, Wales; Zennor Quoit, 11

TATJANA KYTMANNOW Penwith, Cornwall, and Sperris Quoit, Penwith, Cornwall. Additionally, an unburnt human phalanx from the chamber of Ballynacloghy, Co. Galway, has also been dated.

employed, and now also Cummings and Whittle (2004). For the outliers from the main regions in Britain Corcoran (1969), Darvill (1982; 2004), and Lambrick (1988) were used. For Cornwall Mercer (1989), Barnatt (1982) and Russel (1971) were consulted. After the sites were identified they were visited using a detailed field visit record sheet (fig. 1.6). The dimensions of the tomb were checked against the measurements presented in previous surveys and new measurements were taken. The surroundings of the tomb were field-walked where possible. As the fieldwork progressed more data were collected for each tomb and the surveying sheet had to be amended accordingly until it contained 82 fields. All tombs were photographed and a plan of the tomb in its environmental setting was sketched. A notebook for extended observations which went beyond the field visit sheet was kept, especially where newly discovered sites such as hutsites and pre-bog walls were recorded. To obtain the data for a representative sample of portal tombs the aim was to survey at least 80%; this has been surpassed and 212 portal tombs of 217 have been visited, i.e. 98%.

1.4.2 Methodology towards a better understanding of the morphology, classification and distribution of portal tombs It was decided to embark on substantial fieldwork as one of the primary methods for data collection. After all, the tombs themselves are still the best evidence, the unique material culture which is left to us. The work was divided into eight regions (fig. 1.2): 1. 2.

3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

The coastal stretch from NW Galway, Mayo, Sligo, Leitrim to Donegal. The inland distribution which runs parallel to the main distribution of passage tombs: Sligo, Leitrim, parts of Fermanagh and Roscommon, Cavan and parts of Meath. The north and north-east: Tyrone, Armagh, Louth, Monaghan, Derry, Down, Antrim and parts of Fermanagh and Cavan. The mid-west: south Galway, Clare and parts of Roscommon and Tipperary North. The south-east: Waterford, Wexford, Carlow, Kilkenny, Dublin, Tipperary South (and an outlier to the far south, three tombs in Cork and Kerry). North-west Wales South-west Wales Cornwall

To investigate whether there are other megalithic monuments which should be included in the study the appropriate literature was consulted. Furthermore, to enable the author to understand megaliths better in their north-western European and Atlantic context many other works were consulted too. These included Ashmore (1996); Bakker (1992); Burl (1985; 2000); Corcoran (1969); Daniels (1950; 1958); Darvill (1982; 2004); Davidson and Henshall (1989; 1991); Henshall (1963; 1972); Henshall and Richie (1995); Midgley (1992); Scott (1969); Patton (1989; 1995); Lynch (1969a; 1972; 2000); Joussaume (1988); Le Cam (1999); Giot (1997); Tilley (1999); Sprockhof (1938; 1966; 1967; 1975); Leisner & Leisner (1943; 1952; 1956); V. Leisner (1998); Kalb (1996; 1999); Scarre (1992; 2002); Soulier (1998) and Müller (1999). Many megalithic monuments (over 2000 megaliths) in Britain, Ireland, Germany, Iberia and Brittany were visited to enable the present author to form a well-informed opinion. No other areas were added to the known distribution of portal tombs. The greater geographical context of the portal tombs will be discussed in the conclusions.

For Ireland the lists of portal tombs provided by the Internet database of Dúchas the Heritage Service and the files of the DOENI (Department of the Environment of Northern Ireland) were used. These SMR (Sites and Monument Records) listings contain 184 megalithic tombs classified as portal tombs. Where possible, the relevant volumes of the survey of megalithic tombs were then consulted. For the south and east of Ireland and for a handful of newer discoveries in Leitrim and Mayo the megalithic files and the megalithic field-books in the head office of Dúchas were consulted. The SMR constraint maps and the archaeological inventories, and so far as yet published, the archaeological surveys, were used. For Northern Ireland the SM7 files were consulted in Hill Street, Belfast. For Wales initially the publications by Lynch and others (1969a; 1969b; 1972, 1995; Barker 1992; Rees 1995; Children and Nash 1997) were

1.4.3

Methodology towards landscape assessments

During the fieldwork, after completing the morphological assessment of a site, the micro-region was field-walked. The surveying sheet (fig. 1.7) contained many landscape questions.

12

THE CHRONOLOGY, MORPHOLOGY AND LANDSCAPE SETTING OF THE PORTAL TOMBS

Fig. 1.6: County names in Ireland and Britain. This map is also provided in appendix B on CD to allow zooming in.

13

TATJANA KYTMANNOW Region: Townland: S.M.R.no: Type: Alt.:

Ordnance survey discovery map: County: Nat. grid: Land use:

Tomb no: Megalithic Survey no: Name: Date surveyed:

State of Preservation: (on a scale 1 to 5, 5 being the best): Dimensions (measurements): r. portal:h: w: d: l. portal:h: w: d: backstone:h: w: d: capstone:l: w: th: no. of stones: Cairn: yes, no, Dimensions: l: w: Court or forecourt: yes, no,

distance portals: tomb:h: l: w: r. sidestone: l. sidestone : h: l: sillstone: h: l:

w: th:

2. capstone: padstones: chamber: l:

w:

maybe: h: others such as flanking stones, subsidiary chambers etc:

Orientation: Visibility: from E, W, S, N Best visual impact from where?:

better view:

View: to the E W S N Special features or monuments in view: e.g. mountains, standing stones, cairns etc.: a) in the distance (more than 1km) 1. natural: 2. man made: b) near by (less than 1km): 1. natural:

2. man made:

Rock outcrop?: Other monuments close by: a) megalithic tombs:

how far:

b)other prehistoric monuments, e.g. rock art, mounds, henges: Source of water close by: yes, spring: river: small lake:

no,

large lake:

small stream:

pond:

ford:

estuary:

sea:

other:

Distance of stream: Modern landscape:

road:

farm houses:

Field wall:

church:

threats:

Siting: valley:

drumlin:

ridge:

Direction of slope: South facing slope: yes: no: Gradient of slope: 1, 2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 14

other:

THE CHRONOLOGY, MORPHOLOGY AND LANDSCAPE SETTING OF THE PORTAL TOMBS Tomb facing what?: Facing upslope: yes: Land description:

no:

to destroyed:

View to the sea:

View to mountain(s):

Direction of stream:

Distance to large river:

Description: Doubts if portal tomb:

yes:

no:

Local information: Other: Possible traffic-route in Neolithic times near by?: esker: other:

Part of pair?: Part of group? The estimated acreage the site overlooks: More than 100:

large lake:

mountain gap:

river:

Less than 100: other:

Fig. 1.7: survey recording sheet

Field-recording sheets were prepared for each tomb to be surveyed within its micro-region, i.e., a radius of c. 1km around each tomb and/or the immediate valley the tomb overlooks. The terms employed in the field recording sheet are described below:

name or folk-name. In Wales, most tombs have original names, while the tombs in Cornwall have individual names, but these might be based on the townland they are in (e.g. Zennor Quoit is located in Zennor townland). County: simply the county name the tomb is located in. In the case of Wales the current county names are used, paralleled with the previous name. For example, the tomb Pentre Ifan is located in Dyfed, under which one would find the site in the present Sites and Monument Record, but it is referred to in the literature nearly exclusively as located in Pembrokeshire.

Region: one of the eight regions of portal tomb distribution (see fig. 1.2) Ordnance survey discovery map: Maps on a scale 1:50 000. They are called ‘discovery map’ in the Republic of Ireland, ‘discoverer map’ in Northern Ireland, ‘landranger map’ in Britain, or ‘explorer map’ in Britain if they are on a scale 1: 25 000. This gives the number of the map on which the tomb can be found.

Megalithic Survey no: Six volumes of megalithic surveys have been published in Ireland and the tombs have been given original numbers there, consisting of the acronym of the county (for example: Sligo is SL) and a number. A similar system has been employed by the RCAHM (Royal Commission of Ancient and Historic Monuments).

Tomb no: According to my original numbering system, the same as the column MYNO on the database in appendix B, in the main printed catalogue (appendix A), and in the list of sites and numbers used on Fig.1 (main map).

S.M.R. no: Sites and Monuments Record number Nat. grid: the National grid reference, giving first eastings and then northings, as it would be displayed on a hand held GPS.

Townland and Name: In Ireland the tombs are always named after the townland (i.e., part of parish) they are located in, only occasionally do they also have an original 15

TATJANA KYTMANNOW Name: as mentioned above, this would contain an original or folk-name, if it exists.

system where each tomb is rated from 1 to 5 in terms of preservation. For example, a tomb such as Burren A, which still contains a totally intact cairn, has all orthostats in situ, both capstones in place and looks virtually undisturbed, deserves the number 5, while a tomb such as Creevy, Co. Leitrim, which consists mainly of two uprights, would be rated as 1. Obviously, such judgments are impressionistic. The present author gave more points if more elements of a portal tomb were present, while another fieldworker could assign a higher rating to an aesthetically pleasing tomb such as Legananny, Co. Down, a tripod dolmen with only scarce remains of a cairn and no side or door stone.

Type: The subtype the tomb has been assigned to, as listed in column SUBTYPE in the main database, appendix B. Obviously, not all portal tombs fit into the subtype groups. Type A: a multi-chambered tomb with subsidiary chambers or cists (examples: Aghnaskeagh, Co. Louth; Lanyon, Cornwall; Tan y Muriau, NW Wales) or several tombs in one cairn (examples: Malin More A, Co. Donegal; Dyffryn Ardudwy, NW Wales). Type B: a diminutive tomb with orthostats lower than 1.5 metres and a small cap c. 2m by 1m. If a cairn survives it is round and much larger than would be necessary for constructional reasons. These tombs are so small that they could be erected by one family. They are distinguishable from cists by the fact that they have clear morphological elements of portal tombs such as a second capstone, portals, doorstones and/or a capstone which is much heavier at the front, and that they are above the old ground surface. A person who is 1.70m tall can look over it (examples: Burren A, Co. Cavan; Keerin, Co. Tyrone; Ballyvennaght C, Co. Antrim).

Dimensions (measurements): All in metric, down to the closest 5cm R. portal: Right portal, measured and recorded are height above ground, and width and depth close to base. Information if the portal stone is pointy, broken or prostrate would be also noted on the left hand margin of the sheet. L. portal: Same as above, but for the left side portal. Backstone: Same as for r. portal, occasionally a tiny sketch on the left hand margin has been included to show if and how the stone is gabled, because this fact would not be expressed by the pure metric measurements.

Type C: the ‘classic’ portal tomb in structure and size. The portal stones are between 1.5m and 2m high and the capstones are c. 2m by 3m. Cairns, if they survive, can be oval, elongated, trapezoidal or round. An average tall person cannot look over it. An extended family or group of c. 20 adults could erect a tomb such as this, but a cairn would be needed during construction. Type D: Dominant and enormous tombs. The portals would be higher than 2m (examples: Pente Ifan, SW Wales; Zennor Quoit, Cornwall; Carnaghan, Co. Donegal) and/or they would have enormous capstones (examples: Kernanstown, Co. Carlow; Garn Turne, SW Wales; Hendre Waelod, NW Wales; Brennanstown, Co. Dublin). For the erection of one of these tombs a large group of 100 to 300 adults would be needed. These tombs are surprisingly easy to distinguish from type C in the field.

Capstone: Maximum length, maximum width and average thickness. If the capstone was extremely bulky at one part (for example the proximal one, as seen from the portals) care was taken to measure the approximate mean thickness. If a cap was extremely triangular, this has to be noted and an approximate width has been estimated. No. of stones: Number of structural stones in situ (all orthostats such as portals, sidestones, doorstone, capstone), plus the other large building stones which are still present but usually of unclear original function. Distance portals: The distance between the right and the left portal, normally measured at base. This is not the same as the width of the chamber, which is measured from the inside of the sidestones, but relates to it such as a door to a room would relate to the size of the room behind it.

Alt: Altitude in metres above ordnance datum, down to five metre precision. Land use: The land use as it appears today, for example: arable, bog, mountain pasture, rocky.

Tomb: This consists normally of overall height (including capstone), overall length from the front of the portal to the back of the backstone, and width which would be from the outside of the sidestones. Because only totally intact tombs could provide all the necessary measurements, this rubric was more or less abandoned and is not included as a column in the database. Instead, the height of the portal(s) plus the thickness of the capstone, multiplied by the length of the capstone would give a good indication of the size of the tomb.

Date surveyed: The calendar date and year on which the survey took place. If a tomb has been visited several times (as, for example, all tombs in the macro-region, see chapter 9) separate sheets were kept under each date. Because the digital photographs are filed under calendar dates, this allows a quick cross-reference. State of preservation: This records the author’s impression of the state of the tomb. It employs a notional 16

THE CHRONOLOGY, MORPHOLOGY AND LANDSCAPE SETTING OF THE PORTAL TOMBS 2. capstone: The measurements of a second capstone, if one is present, in length, width and height.

Better view: Any (usually higher) point in the same micro-region (normally one valley) which allows one to overlook more land and/or provides a view to some landscape feature such as the sea, a mountain, or allround views.

R. sidestone: Length, height and thickness L. sidestone: Same as above

View: In any of the main cardinal directions. As ‘obscured’ is noted a view of less than 100m, but with the possibility of seeing some mountains or something in the far background. ‘Totally obscured’ is noted as a view if it is less than 50m and allows no possibility to see anything in the far background. A ‘wide’ view is anything above 1km, and a ‘very wide’ view is more than 5km in this direction. This data was collected to determine if portal tombs might show a preference of view in one cardinal direction or towards a striking landscape feature.

Padstones: The presence and location of still existing padstones (usually between orthostats and capstones). Sillstone: Sill- door- and halfdoor stones, height and width (the latter normally the distance between the portals). Slabs which are from ¾ to the total height of the portal stones are recorded as doorstones, half doorstones are defined as less than ¾ of the overall height of the portal stones, and sillstones are less than half the height of the portal stones.

Special features or monuments in view: Mountains, standing stones, cairns, etc.

Chamber: Interior length and width. Depending on the exact structure, but ideally measured from the inside of the sillstone to the inside of the backstone, and from the inside of the right sidestone to the inside of the left sidestone.

This rubric is divided into four parts: natural special features more than 1km distant; man-made features more than 1km in distance; natural features nearer than 1km; man-made ones nearer than 1km. Natural special features include mountains, peninsulas, mountain gaps, islands, prominent rock outcrops, rivers and others (see also Tilley 1994) especially if they dominate the view in one direction (such as the Sugarloaf Mountain seen from Oonagh/Glaskenny, Co. Wicklow). Man-made features would comprise all prehistoric monuments and (probably prehistoric) settlement evidence. This rubric is to a certain degree impressionistic and personal; not all possible features on a wide horizon are noted and a personal selection of what has been considered ‘special’ does happen.

The gap is intended to provide space for notes, e.g. the presence of additional sidestones, decorations, slippage of capstone, angle of capstone, and so on. Cairn: Presence, shape and measurements. ‘Maybe’ indicates situations where the remains could have been the result of field clearance or a mound of earth instead of stone. Dimensions: Maximum length, average width, average height of cairn. Obviously, this gives only a best estimate towards the size of the original cairn.

Rock outcrop?: As rock outcrop are noted any features which show naked bedrock (including cliff faces). The distance is measured in metres, which is estimated if it is further than 50m.

Court or forecourt: Yes or no Others such as flanking stones, subsidiary chambers etc.: ‘Flankers’, i.e. stones which stand beside one or both of the portals, subsidiary chambers, cists, adjacent enclosures (hutsites?) and other unusual structural elements. The gap underneath provides space for measurements and short notes.

Other monuments close by: Primarily burial and/or ritual monuments; close means less than 5km, and they do not have to be in sight of the surveyed portal tomb. It is divided into two fields: a) megalithic tombs: and b) other prehistoric monuments, including rock art, mounds, cairns, henges, rock art panels, standing stones. While the sub-rubric a is more or less complete, the second subrubric b contains only such monuments that are included on the 1:50 000 map.

Orientation: The cardinal direction of the portal stones, assigned to 16 possibilities: N, S, E, W, NE, NW, SE, SW, NNE, NNW, SSE, SSW, ENE, ESE, WNW, WSW. Visibility: From which cardinal direction the tomb might be visible or hidden from view. These data has been abandoned because it has nearly the same results as the rubric ‘view’. Best visual impact from where?: The cardinal direction and possible landscape feature the tomb looks a) largest, and b) most impressive against the horizon, normally the same.

Source of water close by: As ‘close’ is meant inside the micro-region, i.e., within c. 1km diameter around the tomb. All possible sources of water are noted. Distance to stream: The distance to the stream in the micro-region, usually running at the bottom of the valley the tomb overlooks. Nearly all these streams are on the 1:50 000 maps. The distance is measured in metres, physically measured with a tape up to 50m, above this it is estimated and later checked against the map. 17

TATJANA KYTMANNOW Modern landscape: Roads, farmhouses, field walls and others are noted and the distance estimated. Furthermore, modern threats such as drainage schemes, ploughing of the cairn, bulldozing, other digging closer than 200m to the tomb, and other threats are noted if present, and if necessary, they have been reported.

precision to the next 100m, and normally taken from the map.

Siting: Valley, drumlin, ridge, others such as mountain flanks, side or bottom of valley, slope or top of drumlin or ridge.

Doubts if portal tomb: Yes or no option, with space for further notes to record how many of the defining elements of a portal tomb are present or possibly absent here.

Description: Additional descriptive notes which have not been covered above, and also to give a short summary of the most important morphological elements.

Direction of slope: To the bottom of the valley, occasionally the tomb overlooks two valleys.

Local information: Information given by local landowners about, for example, the destruction of other cists or monuments in the micro-region during building work or ‘land improvement schemes’.

South facing slope: Simply by yes or no, i.e. S, SSE, SSW are counted as south facing Gradient of slope: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 (or 10 units of 9 degrees of a 90 degree quarter of a circle). The slope gradient is estimated from the tomb to the bottom of the (stream) valley.

Other: Covers references to, for example, antiquarian descriptions and information. Possible traffic-routes in Neolithic times near by?: ‘Nearby’ is defined as a distance of less than 5km, but ideally less than 1km. It is also noted if there is intervisibility between this route and the tomb. As options are given esker, large lake, mountain gap, river, and other.

Tomb facing what?: Assuming that the façade, or front, is the side of the tomb where the portal stones are located, a mental line is drawn to establish whether any ‘significant’ landmark would be hit or any other pattern might emerge.

Part of pair?: A ‘pair’ is defined as two tombs which are either in the same micro-region or less than 1km apart. Yes or no options and the type and distance of the other tomb, if present, are noted.

Tomb facing upslope: Divided into three possible answers: yes, no, or undecided because too destroyed. Land description: Contains short notes such as ‘rocky’, ‘water-logged’, ‘on island’, ‘karst’, and so on to give an impression of the variety of landscape elements in the micro-region. If more detailed notes are needed they are recorded in the gap after ‘distance to large river’ or if more space is needed, on the back side of the A4 sheet.

Part of group?: A ‘group’ is defined as megalithic tombs which are less than 5 km from each other. Recorded is the number of megalithic tombs, how many of them are portal tombs and the distance to the surveyed portal tomb. ‘Loose group’ defines a group of tombs which are located at a distance of more than 5km from each other, but less than 10km.

View to the sea: As seen from the tomb while standing on the ground (and not as seen from either the top of the capstone nor from a place somewhere above the tomb). Simple yes and no answers are recorded, but an additional ‘no beach’ would be noted if the view to the next beach is obscured. The exact distance is taken from the map.

The estimated acreage the site overlooks: The acreage adjacent to and in view of the tomb, and not the acreage visible at the distant horizon. Estimating the acreage was taught by a friend who is also a farmer. Where possible, the local landowner was asked for his estimate. As options where recorded ‘less than 100’, ‘more than 100’, and ‘other’, which meant normally notes such as ‘less than 500’, ‘more than 500’, ‘more than 1000’ and ‘much more than 1000 acres’.

View to mountain(s): As seen from the tomb while standing on the ground, simple yes and no answers are recorded. The distance is taken from the map.

All information was inserted into a database. The main database was maintained on Microsoft Excel, and the needed data converted or exported into the appropriate systems, especially SPSS. The subsequent analysis of the data is discussed in the appropriate chapters. The database with all notes will be attached as a CD (Appendix B). Furthermore, a full catalogue will be provided in Appendix A. This will contain most of the data; copies of finds drawings, plans and sections if they were available as publications; a short narrative; many photographs; and the main references.

Direction of stream: The direction of flow of the stream in the micro-region, first recording the direction of the source, given one of the following possibilities: N, S, E, W, NE, NW, SE, SW, NNE, NNW, SSE, SSW, ENE, ESE, WNW, WSW, and then given the direction of the next confluence, using the same 16 possibilities of cardinal directions. Distance to large river: As ‘large river’ is defined a river which would be navigable by boats larger than a oneperson canoe. The distance is recorded in metres, with a

18

THE CHRONOLOGY, MORPHOLOGY AND LANDSCAPE SETTING OF THE PORTAL TOMBS Several portal tomb clusters were also surveyed. These macro-regions were extensively field-walked and linked where possible to environmental evidence such as pollen analysis. 1.4.4

portal tombs cluster just by coincidence or by a planned action of the Neolithic society. It has been argued that megalithic tombs signify Neolithic settlement (Cooney 1979; 1983). This argument will be investigated against the now much more abundant settlement evidence and compared with portal tomb distribution.

Summary of methodologies employed to answer the research questions

To help to establish the relative chronology of portal tombs all still accessible finds from 42 sites, 17 of them modern excavations, have been entered into a database. The frequency and volume of datable artefacts will be analyzed to show when the first deposits occurred to indicate a likely construction period for portal tombs. The newly obtained radiocarbon dates from seven portal tombs will be also used to suggest a probable construction date. The finds database will be further analyzed to show episodes and periods of secondary use and their probable intensity. Together with the range of radiocarbon dates from nine tombs, including the older radiocarbon assays, this will permit an examination of the temporal place of portal tombs and their ritual significance. ‘Ritual deposit’ is defined here as any finds which are likely to have been deposited as part of a meaningful, formal procedure. The data which were entered into the main database will be analyzed to show the different elements of the morphology of portal tombs, e.g., portal stones, capstone, doorstones, cairns, double capstone and many more. This should show how complex or simple the architecture of portal tombs is, if there are recurring morphological elements which might constitute a subtype and if certain morphological criteria are more frequent or exclusive to a certain region. View sheds, stream distance, slope direction, stream direction, tomb orientation, rock outcrops, and many more (see surveying sheet) have been listed, entered into the database and will be analyzed to highlight commonalities. The findings will be the subject of interpretation towards the cosmology of the portal tomb builders. Detailed and extensive fieldwalking has been employed to familiarize the author thoroughly with these clusters and their present landscape. A ‘cluster’ is defined as a group of portal tombs which are in easy walking distance from each other and share the same landscape. The term ‘cluster’ is here used instead of ‘cemetery’ or ‘megalithic complex’ because it is less nuanced and more neutral. This context will be further explained and explored in chapter 9. To try to understand the changes in the landscape all available environmental surveys have been scrutinized. The results will be examined to show if

19

TATJANA KYTMANNOW

Chapter 2 History of research 1: From antiquarianism and diffusionism to the excavations of the 1980s 2.1 Antiquarianism and Diffusionism

theory defining different classes of tombs as brought by different races to Ireland’s shores, and portal tombs were soon to be declared to be the degenerated offspring of superior tombs. Apparently tombs not only bred, they also managed to degenerate in the process.

2.1.1 Ireland The second half of the 19th century, following the Ordnance Survey, saw a widespread search for ‘antiquarian truth’ (Wakeman 1891, vi) in Ireland. Several regional studies, encompassing some portal tombs, were published in the newly established antiquarian journals (Conwell 1866a, 1866b; Graves 1851; Gray 1884; Westropp 1898). Other publications dealt with finds or with megalithic cemetreies in Ireland (Buick 1895; Ferguson 1872). The first syntheses of all this scattered knowledge were attempted towards the end of the century. Wakeman (1891 [1848]) had published his Handbook of Irish Antiquities and Wood-Martin wrote several lengthy chapters describing the megalithic tombs of Sligo and Achill (Wood-Martin 1886; 1888a; 1888b). Borlase drew on these and other research for his important work The Dolmens of Ireland (Borlase 1897). He already distinguished between wedge-shaped dolmens, i.e. wedge tombs; chambered tumuli, i.e. passage tombs; giant’s graves, i.e. court tombs; and cromlechs, i.e. portal tombs (Borlase 1897: 429-39, 4378). His and his predecessors’ work are sometimes the only reference to a long destroyed megalithic tomb, early excavations and subsequent finds, or the state the tomb was in more than a century ago. How good and important his work was in terms of its detail and volume is shown by the fact that it is still unsurpassed. Until the Megalithic Survey of Ireland is completed there are still references in the megalithic files which read: for plan see Borlase.

The less politically laden antiquarian tradition of previous centuries lived on for a while in the form of regional studies in the Irish hinterland (Hobson and Hobson 1912 for Antrim and Down; Grattan Flood 1912 for Wexford; Lowry-Corry and Richardson 1937 for Cavan; and Swan and Davies 1938 for Donegal). During the 1930s the need for comprehensive archaeological fieldwork and surveying was recognised in Northern Ireland, culminating in A Preliminary Survey of the Ancient Monuments of Northern Ireland; the prehistoric monuments were the responsibility of E. Evans (Chart 1940). How far the thought of a degeneration and lateness of portal tombs had penetrated into the semi-consciousness of the archaeological community became quickly apparent. Evans had promoted the term ‘horned cairn’ for a tomb type with its point of entry at Carlingford Lough, from where the culture spread inland (Evans and Gaffikin 1935). Dolmens, described as possessing often massive ‘portals’, are ‘…best explained by a process of divergence and degeneration’ (Evans and Gaffikin 1935: 246). His belief that the more complicated tombs (court tombs and passage tombs) came first, and portal tombs and Carrowmore and Antrim dolmens developed (or ‘degenerated’) from them, contradicted the evolutionary theories of Montelius, that the simplest dolmens have to come first in the sequence. Obviously Evans’ statement ‘the dolmen myth dies hard’ (Evans and Gaffikin1935: 246) was truer than anticipated; over and over again he had to stress the point of their late, degenerate form (Evans 1938, Davies and Evans 1942). While we probably have to thank Evans and Davies (and possibly Grimes, see below) for the isolation of portal tombs as a class, their firm belief that in their degenerate state they derived from court tombs, led also to a biased selection of portal tombs to be excavated. Instead of using a ‘freestanding’ portal tomb (considered to be the last step in the process of degeneration), possessing most clearly the defining criteria, tombs with unusual features, i.e. possible links to court tombs such as long cairns or multiple chambers, were chosen.

The nineteenth-century antiquarians gave a considerable emphasis to portal tombs. The stunning, aesthetically pleasing appearance coupled with the low-lying, i.e. easily reachable, locations made portal tombs perfect objects for anything from Sunday outings to excavations. With the spread of cultural-historical, diffusionist ideas, a variant of Darwinist typology took hold of megalithic research, and would not loosen its grip in Ireland for a very long time (Herity 1991; Trigger 1989: 158-68; Wood-Martin 1888b: 9). Because the megalithic idea had allegedly spread from the Orient to the West, their earliest date had to post-date Cretan and Mycenaean tombs (Coffey 1912; Macalister et al. 1912; Mahr 1937: 340; Raftery 1951). Portal tombs as the apparently simplest and therefore most inferior class were shoved more and more to the sidelines, a place they still occupy in Irish megalithic research today. The near total neglect of scientific research into portal tombs had its origins in a

Evans’ excavation of Aghnaskeagh A, Co. Louth (Evans 1935), left him bewildered about the dating of the tomb.

20

THE CHRONOLOGY, MORPHOLOGY AND LANDSCAPE SETTING OF THE PORTAL TOMBS This tomb is unusual for a portal tomb because of its very large cairn; also the capstone is missing. The excavation produced finds that were clearly Neolithic, but the cairn also contained several cists and an iron-smelting furnace. This led Evans to the conclusion that: “If one were so minded it would be possible to make out a fairly strong case for the Iron Age dating of the megalith: there is the presence of an Iron Age bead in the primary burial area, and the abundant evidence of iron smelting at a time which need be separated by no long interval from the building of the cairn. The date must in any event be placed in the full Bronze Age. The shape of the cairn is clearly in the tradition of the long cairns of north Ireland. Aghnaskeagh is on the fringe of the distribution area of the horned cairn group. These are now known to have ‘Neolithic’ grave furniture, but many of them may date from the Bronze Age” (Evans 1935: 253). Similar reasoning permeates Davies’ excavation report (Davies 1938). Again, Ballyrenan, Co. Tyrone, was selected probably because of its unusual features; it possesses three chambers in a row, embedded in a large cairn. While the front chamber has high portals, it also has a probable forecourt. The dating, despite the evidence, cannot be truly Neolithic; other explanations have to be considered: “The early date of Ballyrenan is also surprising, unless the bronze age culture penetrated slowly into Tyrone, and panel-decorated pottery, known from Co. Down and Antrim as an intermediate stage between Neolithic ware and the developed food-vessel, never reached the interior.” And later in the same report: “It is only remarkable that neolithic pottery should appear in a monument of ‘dolmen’-type, which usually yield [sic] food-vessels. Fine megaliths certainly existed in Tyrone; but archaic pottery traditions may have lingered there, at least for sepulchral purposes” (Davies 1938: 96, 100). It seems that Evans and Davies ignored or bent their own evidence of Neolithic pottery until it fitted into the theory. This was the beginning of a dogmatism which skewed the prevailing knowledge about morphology, finds, dating, and origins of portal tombs.

Fig. 2.1: Raftery’s scheme of degeneration. No 8 and 7a are portal tombs

Lough Gara (Topp 1962). The latter produced a porcellanite polished stone axe and two lithics which were identified as Bann flakes and the excavator managed to come to the conclusion that: “The evidence, such as it is, suggests that the Drumanone Dolmen must be regarded as late in the Neolithic period.”

The only other excavation of this early period was undertaken by the OPW (Office of Public Works) for reconstruction reasons at Ballynageeragh, Co. Waterford. It did not make much impact in the academic community at the time and its only lasting legacy are ugly concrete ‘supports’ at the site; the finds were lost (Mongey 1941). Two more papers concerned with portal tombs cemented the degeneration theory even further (Evans and Watson 1942: 64; Powell 1941).

2.1.2

Wales

The first reference to a portal tomb in Wales is by Giraldus Cambrensis who described some local folklore connected with the portal tomb of Trellyfaint in Pembrokeshire. Edward Lhuyd wrote a summary of antiquarian accounts from Wales which was published as part of Camden’s Britannia in 1695. The next milestone was the launch in 1846 of Archaeologia Cambrensis (Barker 1992: 4). Barker describes the next step in megalithic research, the change from antiquarianism to archaeology as ‘a wastefully slow process’, culminating eventually in the publication of the thorough fieldwork of Grimes (1932; 1936). The major contribution of Grimes started with The Megalithic Monuments of Wales (1936) and continued with the first modern excavation of a Welsh portal tomb, Pentre Ifan, in 1936, published 1949

By 1951 portal tombs had ‘degenerated’ virtually out of sight (fig. 2.1) (Raftery 1951: 99-100, plate VII) Three excavations of portal tombs took place during the 1950s: Kiltiernan, Co. Dublin, by the OPW as part of maintenance work (Ó h-Eochaidhe 1957); Kilfeaghan, Co. Down, which was chosen because of its similarities with court cairns (Collins 1959); and Drumanone, Co. Roscommon , as part of J. Raftery’s investigation of 21

TATJANA KYTMANNOW (Grimes 1949). The survey impresses by its clear, empirical style. The excavation, its report written with the hindsight of thirteen years, confirms in Grimes’ opinion the conclusion of Evans and Davies that portal tombs derive from horned cairns, a theory already formulated by Grimes in the 1930s. Grimes had dated Pentre Ifan by the pottery evidence to the early Neolithic A phase but ignored this important fact in his conclusions. Only with the excavation of Dyffryn Ardudwy did a Neolithic date for portal tombs become accepted in Wales (Powell 1973). 2.1.3

of the fourfold classification system developed in the 1940s. Ballykeel, Co. Armagh, was excavated by Collins in 1963 (Collins 1965). The detailed report documents hundreds of sherds of pottery, including the remains of at least half a dozen plain carinated Western Neolithic bowls, and several decorated, bipartite, Neolithic bowls. The worked flint finds were few but remarkable for their finished state and included a javelin head. No bones survived in the acidic soil. Some of the discussion is difficult to follow. The evidence of early Neolithic pottery is explained away as remnants of an occupation which must have pre-dated the tomb. Overall, Collins did agree with Evans about the origins of portal tombs and he tried to link some pottery decorations to an outside influence, looking for the line of diffusion.

Cornwall

In 1872 William Copeland Borlase published Nanae Cornubiae, The Cromlechs and Tumuli of Cornwall, continuing a tradition of his ancestor Dr. W. Borlase (1769). It often makes rather sad reading, describing the excavations and explorations of the tombs by him or other antiquarians which was frequently a very destructive process. Nevertheless, at least it left us some account. H. O’Neill Hencken (1932) supplied a good synthesis for the archaeology of Cornwall and the Scilly Isles. He states that the ‘Cornish tombs are for the most part rifled and ruined’ (Hencken 1932: 49). This perception that the tombs are just too disturbed to warrant the attention of modern archaeologists meant that relatively little research was focused on them.

The early 1960s saw two important papers on aspects of portal tombs. De Valera in The Court Cairns of Ireland suggested that they developed from the subsidiary chambers of court tombs. Evans had implied that they degenerated from the main-gallery element. A basis for both these theories is the presumption that portal tombs are later then court tombs, still ignoring the fact that all portal tombs that had yielded finds had clear indications for a Neolithic dating. This became even more evident by Herity’s study on finds from portal dolmens (Herity 1964). He listed twelve sites, but Greengraves was only connected to badly provenanced finds, Ballybrack and Ballynageeragh were badly documented, and Clonlum was without datable finds. The other eight sites had produced Neolithic pottery or stone tools. According to Herity, four (Aghnaskeagh, Ticloy, Ballyrenan and Drumanone) of these eight sites had produced Bann flakes (which are now usually considered to be of Late Mesolithic date, but see Nelis 2004: 171 for a different, albeit controversial discussion of their relative dating). It is remarkable that Herity more or less ignored the Early Neolithic evidence and came to the conclusion: ‘The derivative relationship with the Court Cairns suggested on the basis of morphology and distribution is amply borne out by the finds we have been discussing, and the general lateness of date implied in this derivative relationship is also borne out by the hollow-based arrowheads and perhaps by the Clonlum pottery’ (Herity 1964: 133). This is still the only listing of finds from portal tombs. Herity went out of his way to challenge the evidence until it fitted the theory of lateness. He suspected a tiny sherd of pottery from Clonlum to be Carrowkeel ware, which it is definitely not. ‘Bann flakes’ (or what he understood under this term) are after his opinion also evidence for lateness because they are allegedly Late Neolithic fish-spears. Leaf-shaped arrowheads and carinated bowls were ignored as Early Neolithic evidence. Herity would never change his mind and still tried to make his case for the late construction of portal tombs decades later (Herity 1991). For anybody teaching or studying archaeology in both parts of Ireland it must have been a very difficult situation, considering

In 1954 a megalithic tomb, previously described by Dr. Borlase in 1754 and whose whereabouts was unknown since then, was rediscovered and excavated (Thomas and Wailes 1967: 10). The tomb, named Sperris Quoit, had escaped the “excavations” of either of the Borlases or their contemporaries and proved to be unexcavated in modern times. A small deposit of human cremation(s) was found possibly in situ in a pit, as were several pot sherds and worked flints. The authors also gave a summary of the various explorations and the finds of the neighbouring Zennor Quoit, a good example of a Cornish portal tomb, suggesting a similar material culture. The excavators argued a “general impression of lateness” (Thomas and Wailes 1967: 21). The discussion and interpretation were still based on a firm belief in the diffusion of the megalithic idea by ‘metal prospectors’. 2.2

The 1960s

The work on the Megalithic Survey of Ireland had already started in the 1940s and the first volume was published in 1961. It contained the classification of portal tombs which is still largely binding to the present day (see chapter 1, 1.1) In reality, in the field, not all tombs would match all or most of these criteria. The slow progress of the Megalithic Survey, which produced six volumes by 2002 (Cody 2002; de Valera and Ó Nualláin 1961; 1964; 1972; 1982 ; Ó Nualláin 1989), with another one still to come, is probably one reason why there has been no discussion 22

THE CHRONOLOGY, MORPHOLOGY AND LANDSCAPE SETTING OF THE PORTAL TOMBS the influence Evans and Herity had, and near impossible even to suggest that portal tombs might be actually Early Neolithic. Not surprisingly, any new investigations of portal tombs did not happen in Ireland for a very long time.

any sort of sequence; study of the distribution pattern is similarly unhelpful in this respect” (Corcoran 1969: 100). Both of these studies from 1969 supplied a valuable catalogue of megalithic tombs for north and south-east Wales and the portal tombs of the Nevern Valley figured in F. M. Lynch’s study (1972). The gaps for the rest of the south-west, Carmarthenshire and Pembrokeshire, were later filled by Barker in 1992, further elaborated in a guide book with a landscape orientated approach by Children and Nash which also included Cardiganshire (1997). A new synthesis and a full catalogue of all megalithic tombs in Wales were provided by Cummings and Whittle (2004).

2.3 New work in Wales: dating and surveys For the next thirty years, up to the present day, nearly all new research into portal tombs would happen in Britain. This is remarkable considering that a much larger number of portal tombs are after all in Ireland. The excavation of the chambered cairn at Dyffryn Ardudwy, Merioneth, took place in 1961 and 1962 (Powell 1973). This Welsh portal tomb produced early Neolithic pottery (Peterson 2003: 57-58). The whole monument was constructed in at least two phases. Powell, who was very familiar with portal tomb research in Ireland, launched a very outspoken attack on some of these findings, including his own earlier work (Powell 1941)

Only one portal tomb was excavated in Wales since Dyffryn Ardudwy: Carreg Coetan Arthur during 1979 and 1980 in Newport, Pembrokeshire. The excavation is still not fully published, but a short account was provided by the excavator (Rees 1992), the radiocarbon dates and their context have been discussed first in Barker (1992: 19-21) and the full dates were published by Peterson (2003: 169). Several distinct groups of cremated bone and four different types of pottery were present: Beaker, Grooved ware, Clegyr Boia type ware and Abingdon ware. The site also produced four radiocarbon dates, clustering around c. 3500BC (Barker 1992: 19-21; Peterson 2003: 169). This relatively late date has created some astonishment, but this might be to some extent a problem of the selection of samples.

“For long it has been assumed that this tomb type…stood late in any sequence, and was derived from the Court Cairn category. With the one exception of Collins’ work in Ballykeel, it is unfortunate that as yet no typical Portal Dolmen has been properly excavated in full in Ireland…M. Herity (1964) has abandoned all fundamentals of scientific deduction in pressing a claim for a continued belief in the derivative position of Irish Portal Dolmens by citing casual finds from a number of megalithic tombs, the majority of which could only by special pleading be accepted as of this category. The material on which Herity relies could have been placed in a burial chamber at any time subsequent to the availability of the tomb…It should be noted in passing that the blue glass bead found in the ruined chamber at Aghnaskeagh A was not, and could not, have been found in a “primary association”. (Powell 1973: 32-4).

2.4 1980s excavations: Poulnabrone, Melkagh and Taylorsgrange By the fate of synchronicity three portal tombs were excavated at the same time. Of these three excavations only Melkagh, Co. Longford, has been fully published (Cooney 1986; 1987; 1997). Unfortunately, this must have been the least eventful research excavation imaginable. It took place over three seasons in 1984-6 in the aftermath of a land-clearing scheme which destroyed the large portal tomb with cairn and lateral chamber. The site produced five retouched flints (Cooney 1997: 22527) and the possible evidence for some dry-stone revetment in the meager remains of the cairn (Cooney 1997: 213, 218).

He also did not accept de Valera’s suggestion that portal tombs might have derived from the subsidiary chambers of court tombs. He proposes the possibility that some preexisting portal tombs might have been incorporated into later court tombs (Powell 1973: 34).

The Brehon’s Chair at Taylorsgrange, Co. Dublin, is so far the only portal tomb whose environments were excavated. For three seasons the tomb itself and the surroundings were investigated (Keeley 1986; 1987a; 1987b; 1988; 1989/90). The finds included c. 400 lithics, cremated bone, a saddle quern and Neolithic pottery. A structure was interpreted by the excavator as a cremation facility and radiocarbon dated. It turned out to be a kiln of Early Christian date (V. J. Keeley pers. comm.). Further investigations of the wider environs over three more seasons produced evidence for very long lasting activity, from the Neolithic, Beaker period, Early, Middle, and Late Bronze Age, and Iron Age to the Early Christian period. No substantial structures were found; only stake

F. M. Lynch started a new drive into the survey of portal tombs in Wales. She might still talk about landing places for the newcomers, but she was more concerned with the megalithic survey of north Wales and the listing of the contents of excavated tombs (Lynch 1969). Corcoran, defining the Cotswold-Severn region rather widely, included large parts of south Wales in his study and suggested, illustrated by the artefactual evidence, that all different chamber plans (including portal tombs) might have existed contemporaneously and that there is no evidence for the derivation of one type from the other. “Study of artefacts from the cairns adds little to support 23

TATJANA KYTMANNOW holes and pits were present, but a large range of radiocarbon dates of the wider surroundings was obtained (Gowen 1995; 1996; R. Lynch 1999).

was met with approval by those attending the conference and hence a degree of uniformity was brought to megalithic studies in Ireland (see the use of standardized nomenclature in such major syntheses such as Waddell 1998, Mitchell and Ryan 1997). Other than rectifying terminological confusion, this suggestion may also have fallen on fertile ground because many megaliths did not have a ‘cairn’, ‘dolmen’ was a term which had all the flavour of antiquarianism, and ‘grave’ implied that their main function would have been the interment of human remains. Instead, a ‘tomb’ could be a monument which did or did not contain bones, reflecting the thought that the morphology was as important as the contents of the megalith. However, the term portal dolmen is still widely used outside of Ireland.

Poulnabrone, Co. Clare, was excavated in the process of maintenance work for the OPW by Ann Lynch during the 1980s (Lynch 1987, 1988, 1989; Lynch and Ó Donnabháin 1994). It proved to become the key site. A large range of artefacts of unusually high quality was found and the alkaline conditions of the karstic environment permitted the excellent survival of human bones. The minimum number of individuals was estimated between 26 (Lynch and Ó Donnabháin 1994; Beckett 2005) and 33 (Power 1993), including men, women and children. Three skeletons showed clear signs of interpersonal violence. The radiocarbon dating of nine different individuals produced a date range from c. 3880BC to 2900BC (Hedges et al. 1990). The excavator suggested that all human remains had been introduced from a different burial site at the latest possible date, around 3000BC, because younger bones were jammed below older bones (Hedges et al. 1990; Cooney 2000: 96; A. Lynch pers. comm.). Another explanation is that individuals were interred in situ and long bones were removed for circulation; in the process older bones, which were selected to be kept, were jammed into the small grykes. A recent taphonomic study confirmed the relatively large number of small bones while especially long bones were frequently absent (Robb and Beckett 2006). It is unfortunate that the only radiocarbon dating series from a portal tomb in Ireland can be interpreted in such conflicting ways. The post-excavation of Poulnabrone is still ongoing and a new animal bone report with radiocarbon dating will be available soon. The question of dating is important for placing portal tombs into the wider context of the Neolithic in Ireland and Britain, especially with respect to other tomb types and settlements.

2.6 Summary During the last two decades several syntheses have been published; either as a textbook (Flanagan 1998; Harbison 1988; Herity and Eogan 1997 [1977]; Shee Twohig 1990; Waddell 1998) or to re-evaluate the dating and connection of portal tombs with other tomb types in Ireland and/or Britain (ApSimon 1986; Sheridan 2003; 2004; Schulting and Whittle 2003). While none of them has broken any fresh ground, it is noticeable that the Britain-based authors are more willing to accept a very early date for portal tombs. There the degeneration of portal tombs from court tombs is disregarded. The Ireland-based authors either still adhere to the degeneration theory and/or the general lateness of portal tombs (Flanagan 1998: 55; Herity 1991: 40; Herity and Eogan 1997 [1977]: 85) or they regard the matter disputable and present at least the pros and cons of these theories (Harbison 1988: 54; Waddell 1998: 92; Shee Twohig 1990: 36). The research into portal tombs of the last eighty years (as little as it was) seemed to have achieved quite a lot of confusion (especially amongst Irish scholars) concerning dating, finds assemblages, morphology, and origins. The theory of the degeneration of portal tombs from court tombs, and therefore their lateness, is ultimately based on an evolutionary model. This does not necessarily mean it has to be wrong that portal tombs are late in the sequence of megalithic development. What it means is that an assumption is not good enough evidence and new methods of dating, re-evaluation of finds and a more unbiased investigation into morphology and classification should be employed to either prove or disprove the chronological position of portal tombs inside or outside the earlier Neolithic period. No real discussion of portal tombs has happened in Ireland since Powell’s attack of Herity’s finds interpretation. Instead, research driven excavations were dedicated to passage tombs (Burenhult 2003; Eogan1984; 1986; Eogan and Roche 1997), wedge tombs (O’Brien 1999); and court tombs (Byrne 1991; 1993; 1994; Jones 1998; 2003; 2004; Beckett and Robb 2006). Linkardstown cists or wedge tombs had at least new radiocarbon dates (Brindley and Lanting 1990; 1991)

2.5 Portal dolmens, graves, tombs and cairns There was a confusing mass of different terminology for basically four distinct classes of tombs still in use in the 1980s. Court cairns, wedge-shaped gallery graves, portal dolmens and passage graves are named as the main classes of megaliths in the first volume of the Survey of the Megalithic Tombs of Ireland, Co. Clare (de Valera and Ó Nualláin 1961: xii). The terms horned cairns, tripod dolmens and chambered graves added to the confusion. In 1985 a megalithic conference took place in Belfast. Unfortunately, the proceedings were never published, but two important papers resulted from this meeting: ApSimon’s still unsurpassed attempt to put the chronology of Irish Megaliths on a scientific basis (1986) and Alison Sheridan’s (1985/6) paper about the possible link of passage tomb size with their chronology. Furthermore, in his presentation Sean Ó Nualláin took the opportunity to suggest abandoning the different terms dolmen, graves and cairns in favour of the term tomb for all classes of megaliths (J. Mallory pers.comm.) which 24

THE CHRONOLOGY, MORPHOLOGY AND LANDSCAPE SETTING OF THE PORTAL TOMBS to place them into the framework of the wider Neolithic. Therefore, portal tomb research missed out on the new methods of processual and post-processual archaeology to obtain data and to interpret them in a new way. Furthermore, the rescue and development driven excavations of portal tombs of the last quarter of a century (Carreg Coetan, Poulnabrone, Taylorsgrange) have not been published in full, with the exception of Melkagh (Cooney 1997b). There is still widespread insecurity about the place of portal tombs in the relative and absolute chronology of megalithic tombs on Britain and Ireland and their duration of use. The finds assemblages have not been discussed or updated since 1964, employing the now available much better knowledge of prehistoric pottery (Sheridan 1995; Gibson 2002; Peterson 2003) and lithic classification (Woodman 1993; Nelis 2005; Butler 2005) for relative dating. Even the distribution (Schulting and Whittle 2003) is less than clear and the portal tombs of all three regions, i.e. Ireland, Wales and Cornwall, have never been investigated as a whole. The assumption that portal tombs might have developed from the side-chambers of court tombs (de Valera 1960) implies that they are rather simple structures; this statement has never been proven or disproved by an analysis of the morphology of portal tombs. In conclusion, there has been too little new scientific research, re-evaluation, analysis and synthesis of the available knowledge about portal tombs.

25

TATJANA KYTMANNOW

Chapter 3 History of research 2: Landscape archaeology and other approaches to the study of portal tombs since the 1980s 3.1 Landscape archaeology

North America, succeeded frayed tweed jackets as the uniform of the academic archaeologist” (Johnson 1999: 36). Aerial photographs, pollen analysis, computer assisted analysis, radiocarbon dating, dendro-chronology and the distributional study of monuments provided an arsenal of tools to the understanding of archaeological landscapes.

With the general move away from new excavations of megalithic tombs, there has been an increasing shift to landscape studies, i.e. the siting of the tomb in a landscape context, especially in Britain (Tilley 1994; Cummings and Whittle 2004). It could be argued that the lack of empirical research into portal tombs might make them an even more attractive subject for the more interpretative school (e.g. Tilley and Bennett 2001). The last decade has been largely dedicated to landscape archaeology as far as portal tombs are concerned. A review of landscape studies and theoretical works relating to portal tombs in particular will be the subject of this chapter. One of the main concerns will be how much of it could be viewed as reliable evidence, helpful towards the goal of a better fact-based understanding of portal tombs.

Portal tomb landscape studies in Ireland at this time took the form of distributional and topographical analysis (Ó Nualláin 1969, 1983; Cooney 1979; 1983), owing much to geography. The siting of the tombs, their altitudes, relation to soils and basic topography were the object of study. Cooney stated in his paper on the siting of megalithic tombs in County Leitrim, “in the absence of actual settlements, it is necessary to seek a distribution pattern which might be explained in terms of settlement.” Obviously, the idea of a settled Neolithic society was still predominant, “megaliths possibly closely reflecting the location of their builder’s settlement” (Cooney 1979: 74). The goal of Ó Nualláin’s “Irish Portal Tombs: Topography, Siting and Distribution” is summarized as: “The relationship of Irish Portal Tombs to topography is examined and it is established that the coast and rivers were important factors in the diffusion pattern of the tombs. An inventory of the 163 sites now known is presented and some fresh comments on tomb morphology included” (Ó Nualláin 1983: 75). As important as this work was, it was after all, and still is, the only catalogue of portal tombs in Ireland; it offers relatively little analysis of the known material. He divided Ireland into eight regions which seem to be quite arbitrary, for example, tombs in Sligo which are 10 km inland and behind a mountain range are included in a coastal distribution. The alleged diffusion along rivers is not well presented either; there are actually only three portal tombs which are close to major rivers. Overall, his analysis is quite superficial. His diffusionist approach is not only old-fashioned even for the 1980s; he also does not make a very good case for it.

3.2 Introduction into the theory of landscape archaeology Landscape, used in an archaeological sense, is not just scenery, the countryside or a pleasing prospect. Since the development of landscape archaeology in the 1960s it has become an increasingly difficult and multi-layered conceptual framework encompassing physical, social, cultural and metaphysical aspects (Keller 1997). Darvill has stated (Darvill et al. 1993: 563-4) that “there is currently no coherent body of general theory for the analysis and understanding of the archaeology of landscapes, nor indeed is there any generally accepted terminology” (see also J. Chapman 1997b: 15). This lack of an agreed theoretical framework seems to make it necessary to start many landscape studies with substantial introductions into the methodology and theory employed by the author (e.g. Darvill 1997; J. Chapman 1997b; Nash 1997; Kuna 1991; Tilley 1994). While the last decade has seen no shortage of publications dealing with landscape archaeology, theoretical, practical or both, only a handful of papers have tried to clarify, and maybe unify, the different strands of theory (e.g. Keller 1997, Muir 1999, Zvelebil and Beneš 1997).

The mid 1980s was a watershed with the ever increasing influence of post-processual, interpretative and postmodern theories upon landscape archaeology, arriving simultaneously from geography and archaeology (Meinig 1979; Tuan 1979; Johnson 1997: 102-3). Many previous studies had painted a rather one-dimensional picture of megalithic landscapes as a set of resources and the main objection was that they did not take the individual into consideration and were seeing the landscape as an object, frozen in time, instead of a continuum (Keller 1997: 87).

Landscape archaeology developed along the same lines as mainstream archaeology in general from the 1960s to the present day (Trigger 1989; Greene 1995). It saw the onset of the ‘New Archaeology’, or processualism, with its emphasis on science and anthropology (e.g. Wandsnider 1992). The aim was empirical, testable archaeology. These ideas found their way into landscape studies, when “in many universities smart white lab coats, especially in

26

THE CHRONOLOGY, MORPHOLOGY AND LANDSCAPE SETTING OF THE PORTAL TOMBS The testability of processual hypotheses was also increasingly questioned, for example, Renfrew’s territorial model of megaliths on Orkney (the megaliths as the centre of unequal territories) seemed to be very unconvincing to many. Basically, the reader either had to believe Renfrew or not (Renfrew 1976; Johnson 1999: 102-3).

landscapes. Landscapes which still contain the memories of the previous generations, for example, as monuments to the ancestors, shape in a different form the human experience and consciousness (Bradley 1993: 5). Darvill defines landscape as ‘specialized experiences of time and place’ (1999: 104). Keller states that physical, mythical and mental landscapes interact together to form our own, individual landscape. The personal experience and perception is therefore important, the individual is actively creating the landscape in his/her mind. There is now much written about the relativity of time and the different perceptions of space and place (Ingold 1993; Hirsch 1995; Darvill 1997; Chapman 1997; Barrett 1999; Johnston 1998). If we see landscape as contextualized, we have to consider also, beside time and space, social action, which manifests itself as material culture, according to Darvill.

If material culture could be read like a text, how much more could be gained ‘reading’ a whole landscape instead of the material remains of some excavation (Fleming 1990)? This hermeneutic and ontological approach did seek answers to the meaning of Neolithic landscapes, both to Neolithic people, and also to us. But certain ‘grammatical’ rules had to be agreed upon, i.e. the methodology had to be explained. Post-processual archaeologists stressed that each person would see a different landscape, no two points of view could ever be the same, and that theory and methodology are indivisible. To enable the reader to follow at least to some extent the author’s thoughts the need for very individual and often very lengthy introductions became apparent. From the early 1990s onwards, different authors attempted to lay down at least some of the ideas, essentially the theory, behind landscape archaeology (Bender 1992; Darvill et al.. 1993; Keller 1997; Darvill 1999; Fairclough 1999; Barrett 1999; Knapp and Ashmore 1999; Cooney 2000).

“landscape is a time dependant, spatially referenced, socially constituted template or perspective of the world that is held in common by individuals and groups and which is applied in a variety of ways to the domain in which they find themselves” (Darvill 1999: 109). The sometimes very individual perception not only of landscapes but also of landscape studies leads to an inbuilt problem, which is that the results are often difficult to communicate (Bradley 2000: 42). I will suggest below that the language of phenomenology makes the subject matter even more difficult to understand.

3.3 Time, space and social action: reading a landscape The term landscape is probably borrowed from the Dutch word landschap and might have arrived in the English language associated with ‘landscape-painting’ of the sixteenth century, meaning essentially scenery (Muir 1999: 3). Landschap in turn developed from the German word Landschaft (which would translate correctly as land-ship, along the lines of friendship, relationship and so on), meaning district (also in a legal sense), region, scenery or an environment which shows the interplay between human agency and nature. Landschaft is essentially man-made, there is no such term as a “natural landscape” =“eine natürliche Landschaft” in the German language. Equally Oliver Rackham argues that there is no natural landscape as opposed to a cultural landscape in Britain; any landscape carries the scars, memories and fieldworks of previous generations. Landscapes which seem to be untouched by humans are just badly surveyed, for example, large forests. The idea of a British wildscape is a chimera (Rackham 2000; Keller 1997).

3.4 Landscape archaeology: Edmonds, Bradley, Cooney

general

works:

Edmonds (1999) tries very hard to find a different approach to Neolithic landscapes. Besides pseudo-naïve little fictional narratives which take place in the Neolithic and are placed between the more factual chapters, he employs a style which interprets the facts continuously, assuming the reader automatically shares his opinions. I find this assumption sometimes patronizing; he is telling his readers what they have to think without giving them the chance to form their own opinion. Because Edmonds does not provide any references in text or footnotes it is less than clear how he himself reached many of the numerous conclusions and interpretations. The style overrides the contents and distracts negatively from his admirable knowledge of Neolithic landscapes.

Another essential thought for the understanding of a landscape is to be aware that it can be an object, meaning something to be viewed, studied or described or it can be a subject, shaping the life and experiences of the individual or his/hers society in and by this landscape, i.e. somebody living on a windswept island with wide open horizons would have literally a different outlook on life than somebody living in the shadow of high mountains. Landscapes shape people as much as people shape

But not all landscape studies have gone the same way. Many successfully integrated different strands of more traditional archaeology, such as excavation results, traditional fieldwork, and scientific techniques including phosphate analysis or radiocarbon dating among many others, with the interpretative strength of a postprocessual approach. Probably one of the most influential and productive writers of this school is Richard Bradley. 27

TATJANA KYTMANNOW Partly, his strengths lie in that he illustrates his thoughts with clearly presented case studies. One of his main ideas is that natural places can be of as much significance as monuments. In many cases, for example, through the medium of rock art, the natural place becomes the ritual place, because it was perceived by the society as a monument (Bradley 1993: 37; 1997). What happens when whole monumental landscapes get inherited by past societies and their original ritual context is lost or distorted opens up interesting avenues, not only how past societies might have perceived and interpreted the landscape, but also how we as archaeologists might do this (Bradley 2002). Together with other British archaeologists, (Thomas 1999; Whittle 1997) Bradley argues for the so-called ‘mobility-model’, i.e. that prehistoric societies in the ‘British Isles’ were not fully settled until the Bronze Age (but see Cooney 1997; 2001; or Grogan 2002; 2004). Interestingly, he sees portal tombs linked to a landscape of mobility because they are sometimes adorned with rock art (Bradley 1997: 62-3).

only for portal tomb studies (giving portal tombs the place they deserve), but also for landscape archaeology. 3.5 Regional landscape studies and the phenomenon of phenomenology: Bradley, Tilley, Cummings, and Whittle There are now a growing number of regional landscape studies, including some unpublished theses. It is not my aim to give an overview of all of them, but to select a handful which illustrate especially well the development of landscape archaeology, in particular when they refer to portal tombs. Instead of reading archaeological landscapes as a text which required the translation of the initiated, some archaeologists moved away from this linguistic approach in the 1990s and appropriated a philosophical concept for archaeology: phenomenology (Johnson 1999: 114; Tilley 1994: 1-67). The bodily experience of the monuments and their landscape leads to individual perceptions of them, a sort of ‘thinking through the body’. How people moved inside and between monuments and their sensual experience are recreated (Thomas 1990) and the experience of the landscape is essential. Consequently, fieldwork is the method of choice. It is difficult to recreate the experience of smell (the smell of corpses, burning, incense), taste (of feasting, drinking, drugs), hearing (chanting, crying, drumming) (but see Watson and Keating 1999; Devereux 2001) and touching (of the bones, corpses, other persons) (but see Cummings 2002c; Cummings and Whittle 2004: 8). Thus, it is necessary to rely largely on the visual sense in order to reconstruct the effect on the body of movement within the landscape. One or two out of five senses might seem insufficient for this task, especially if this experience is then processed through our 20th century brains, but despite these difficulties, there are many monuments where there can be little doubt that their visual impact was of utmost importance to their builders, for example, many portal tombs. Tilley (1994; 1996; Tilley and Bennett 2001) claims that there must be a significant association between the prehistoric elements in a landscape and their natural surroundings. He tries to re-construct this relationship, but in doing so he assumes that the view from the tomb is of utmost importance. Such an assumption is problematic because the views during the Neolithic would have been much more restricted by tree cover (Caseldine 1990). Furthermore, the methodology used by Tilley (1994) and others to assess the view from monuments consists of seeing whether outcrops, islands, headlands, rivers, seas, or pathways are visible (see Tilley 1994, 105 and passim; and Cummings and Whittle 2004: 28). This form of fieldwork is highly subjective and open to criticism. Glancing at a mountain top or another landmark (outcrops, islands, headlands, rivers, sea, pathways) on the horizon is a questionable approach to fieldwork. An example of this subjectivity is provided by Tilley’s decision not to include streams or anything which could not be discerned by standing beside the tomb

In Ireland Gabriel Cooney published one of the first case studies in Neolithic landscape archaeology in 1983, a development of his 1979 study mentioned above, discussing the environmental setting of megalithic tombs (including portal tombs) and their potential settlement associations. Increasingly, especially from the early 1990s onwards, a social perspective and a more interpretative approach became apparent in his numerous publications (e.g. Cooney 1994, 1997a, 1999) culminating in his Landscapes of Neolithic Ireland (Cooney 2000). Cooney is the only living Irish archaeologist who scientifically excavated a portal tomb site and subsequently published the results (Cooney 1997b). (Taylorsgrange, Co. Dublin is still unpublished by V. Keeley and R. Lynch, and Poulnabrone, Co. Clare, is also not fully published yet by A. Lynch.) Not surprisingly, he is one of the few who shows a strong interest in portal tombs and does not define a Neolithic landscape by the presence of passage tombs or settlements alone. He argues against the passage tomb centered viewpoint of many archaeologists: “…we need to consider all groups of tombs as significant not, whether they are composed of passage tombs, other tomb types or tombs belonging to more than one type…..the recognition of all tomb complexes becomes of interest, not just clusters of passage tombs” (Cooney 2000: 148-150). He demonstrates this viewpoint with a discussion of the small passage tomb cemetery at Fenagh Beg, Co. Leitrim, which is overlooked by a prominent portal tomb and has a court tomb only 500m further to the south: “Given the broad contemporaneity of these tomb types it seems very likely that their use and function were complementary”. He accepts the perceived similarities and strong links of portal tombs with court tombs as proposed by Flanagan, for instance, without questioning their origins in the cultural-historical and diffusionist models of the 1930s and 1960s (Cooney 2000: 113; Flanagan 1977). But overall Landscapes of Neolithic Ireland is a milestone not

28

THE CHRONOLOGY, MORPHOLOGY AND LANDSCAPE SETTING OF THE PORTAL TOMBS

Fig. 3.1: Cerrig y Gof, located in a stream valley that leads to a sheltered bay (Crown copyright 2005)

Plate 3.1: Sea bay close to Cerrig y Gof, with fresh water lagoon

29

TATJANA KYTMANNOW followed in his footsteps (Cummings 2001; 2002b; 2002c; 2003, 2004; Cummings and Whittle 2003; 2004; Cummings et al. 2002; Fowler and Cummings 2003). Cummings employed largely his method of presenting an individual view as evidence of a link between a natural place (especially a mountain) with a megalithic tomb. The repeatedly employed perceived similarities between the silhouettes of Pentre Ifan (plate 9.57) and Carn Ingli and between Llech-y-Dribedd (plate 9.56) and the Preseli Mountains in South-West Wales does not prove that a meaningful relationship exists between the monuments and the mountains (e.g. Tilley 1994: figures 3.17, 3.18, 3.19, 3.20; Cummings and Whittle 2003; Whittle 2004). This argument would be much more convincing if there was evidence that the building stones were quarried in the mountains or that (natural and man made) artefacts of the same material culture have been found at both places. Neither Tilley (1994) nor Cummings (2001) conducted the fieldwork necessary to clearly demonstrate the veracity of the argument and they seem to have invested little effort in investigating the mountain tops. It has been shown recently that a very multi-layered Neolithic landscape was awaiting discovery (Darvill and Wainwright 2002) and the numerous upland enclosures that did not feature in the work of Tilley (1994) or Cummings (2001) could provide some of the answers to questions about missing settlement sites in south-west Wales (see also Vyner 2001).

Plate 3.2: Carreg Samson. The rock outcrop is at the left and just before the sea in the picture; the other is not visible at all. They are also not aligned with any imaginable coastal path; the tomb is much further inland.

when he was analysing different micro-regions. His investigation of the locale of tombs appears to have been restricted to their immediate surroundings as demonstrated by the fact that he does not mention the prime location of Cerrig y Gof close (700m) to a sheltered sea bay with a stream and a fresh water lagoon (fig 3.1 and plate 3.1).

Were Tilley and Cummings right then after all, by stating that the tombs were pointing towards a meaningful relationship with the mountain tops and outcrops? They argue that the tombs mimic the appearance of the natural world around them. Cummings’ and Tilley’s landscapes are strangely devoid of human agency and human interrelationships; instead it is the tombs that engage in relationships with the natural world. The possibility is overlooked that the location of the tombs might have something to do with potential settlement or other factors of the already altered, human-made landscape. While the visibility of the natural landmarks from the tombs through a dense tree-cover is a contentious issue (Lynch 2000: 44-46; Caseldine 1990), there is the possibility that the clearings in the forest, occupied by the tombs, could have been seen from the upland enclosures. These enclosures could either have been communal settlements or fulfilled the unifying function causewayed enclosures or passage tombs might have had in other areas. Only further detailed fieldwork and excavation will bring us closer to an answer and not the gaze from a tomb to the horizon, 5000 to 6000 years after the events.

The problems inherent in this particular phenomenological approach are exemplified by the fact that for Tilley (1994: 105) Carn Ingli formed a focal point for many tombs in south-west Wales, yet despite this assertion, the numerous obvious prehistoric sites located there remained undiscovered until they were found by Darvill and Wainright (2002) nearly a decade later. Tilley’s preoccupation with the views from monuments results in him paying little attention to other aspects of the archaeology and its landscape and unfortunately the results of his fieldwork have been used as supporting evidence for the ‘mobility model’ by Whittle (1997). Tilley (1994: 99) is prone to making unverifiable statements: “These rock outcrops would have served as important landmarks and orientation points, as they do today. Paths of movement might be expected to run between them and the monuments placed by or near to them. For example, the monument at Longhouse, Carreg Samson, is located roughly equidistant between two low circular rock outcrops, with which it is intervisible…. It is not hard to suggest that these linearly related natural and cultural locales served to act together as symbolically important places on a path of movement along the coast.” It might not be hard to suggest, but it would be much harder to prove, something that Tilley does not achieve (plate 3.2).

In Cummings and Whittle’s work Places with Special Virtue: Megaliths in the Neolithic Landscapes of Wales (2004) the fieldwork was mainly done by Cummings, reusing her Ph.D. research for the south-west of Wales (Cummings 2001) and her publications resulting from it (Cummings 2002a; 2002b; 2002c; 2003; 2004; Cummings and Whittle 2003; Cummings et al. 2002; Fowler and Cummings 2003), and continuing the same

This study by Tilley (1994) proved to be highly influential; most research into megaliths in Wales 30

THE CHRONOLOGY, MORPHOLOGY AND LANDSCAPE SETTING OF THE PORTAL TOMBS methodology for the north-west. Basically, a 360 degree panorama of the view from the tomb was drawn, concentrating on the horizon. Every landmark, mountain, headland, sea and outcrop was then declared to be in a significant relationship with the tomb. This approach misjudges how much of it is only in the eye of the beholder, for example, another researcher might find the only glimpse of a speck of sea 10 miles from a tomb not as significant as Cummings does (Cummings and Whittle 2004: 82). This methodology also neglects the microregion in which the tomb is placed, its locale; it is as if there is a vacant space between the tomb and the horizon (often emphasised by photographs taken with a strong zoom, for example 2004: 29, figure 4.4, 50, figure 5.9). This approach leads to a selective look at the landscape, potentially missing many clues such as hut-sites, cropmarks, ancient field-walls and enclosures. Both authors are strong advocates of the ‘mobility model’ (Cummings and Whittle 2004: 1; 3, 4, 89) that may have unduly influenced their methodologies and their decision not to search for settlements (Whittle 1997).

passage tombs (see also Sheridan 2006a: 203). Other flaws already noticed by Sheridan are the lack of the monument orientation in the 360° drawings and an index. Phenomenology has not only monopolised megalithic and portal tomb research in Wales. Recent landscape studies in Cornwall have been heavily influenced by it too (Bender et al. 1997; Tilley et al. 2000, Tilley and Bennett 2001). Tilley et al. (2000) identify irregular stone settings in the Liskernick Bronze Age landscape as prehistoric monuments which were judged by geologists to be probably natural, according to Bender in a recent lecture. Bender et al. (1997), writing about the same project, dismiss any economic interpretations as less valuable than ritual ones; so does Tilley (1994). ‘‘Liskernick is a Bronze Age settlement where we feel that we can begin to understand another way of living, another way of engaging with the world, creating and sustaining a sense of identity, and identities. Nested identities-family, kin, community, age-set, gender, within a world of nested landscapes linking the smallest house and the furthest hill-top. Life in this settlement, 4000 years ago, was one in which every movement in and around it, and beyond, was imbued with a sense of ritual’’ (Bender et al. 1997: 174).

Cummings and Whittle strive to integrate an empiricist approach. Simple descriptive statistics are provided, i.e. percentages (for example 2004: 29; 33, 34, 46, 47, 48 and so on), but these have not been divided by tomb class. More importantly, the promised control samples (Cummings and Whittle 2004: 19-20) are never mentioned again. The authors do attempt to provide empirical evidence in the form of GIS viewsheds, but this methodology is not without problems, a fact they do address. The detail included in the viewsheds is insufficient to recreate an accurate depiction of the actual views and many obstacles that would normally prevent vision are ignored, i.e. those less than 10m in height (Cummings and Whittle 2004:17-18, 21-22). The question remains why the authors choose to continue with this method and give it considerable space in the published volume. In contrast, 360° photographic strips have been left out ‘due to the costs of adding a CD to the volume’ (2004: 23), but more photographic evidence and all GIS viewsheds are promised on the website www.cardiff.ac.uk/hisar/archaeology/reports/megaliths/. This site contains one photograph and ‘is under construction’ with the last update from February 2003. This fact was already negatively critiqued by Sheridan (2006a: 203).

It is difficult to verify the opinions of the authors as facts. If for example the authors feel that a certain stone cluster is of significance, even if it might be natural, it is then concluded that it must have been a shrine. Therefore, the next house to it must have been occupied by the guardians of this shrine (Bender et al. 1997: 172). Other connections are suggested by placing an empty doorframe into the entrance of a house foundation and interpreting the view. Whatever can be seen from there, for example, one of the tors (natural, prominent rock-outcrops) in Bodmin Moor, must be then on alignment with the house. Bender and her colleagues are striving for alternative narratives and a very individual interpretation, but it is difficult to follow their thought processes because the evidence on which their interpretations are founded was either not there in the first place or was so badly presented that it was lost to the reader. Portal tombs, which are the dominant Neolithic monument in Cornwall, have been the subject of two recent papers (Bradley 1998; Tilley and Bennett 2001). Bradley suggests that Neolithic people might have seen the impressive granite formations on the tors as ancient artefacts, monuments built by the ancestors in a distant past, and in Neolithic times often incorporated in walled enclosures. The portal tombs then were built to match the next granite tor or outcrop as closely as possible. The portal tombs of Cornwall are of course clearly linked to others in other areas by their morphology, but all that Bradley is suggesting is that we might be dealing with an interesting regional variety of how the tombs might be

The real strength of this book lies in the badly needed synthesis of megalithic research in Wales, a record of all excavations, a full catalogue and a generous bibliography. What it does not, is provide many new insights into the meaning of megaliths. There are some new and important findings contained in the book, for example that Cotswold-Severn monuments, portal dolmen, late passage tombs on Anglesey and ‘earth-fast’ tombs have different preferences for landscape settings, but that could be easily overlooked between the numerous anecdotal evidence (e.g. 2004: 51). Unfortunately, they did not tease out the differences between portal tombs and simple 31

TATJANA KYTMANNOW linked to the myths of a Neolithic society. He argues by claiming the “ruins of ancestral monuments” Neolithic people would have also claimed a source of social power. A minor problem of this original study is that Bradley did not discuss all 12-15 portal tombs and related chambered tombs in Cornwall.

to the start” of the River Western Cleddau (Cummings and Whittle 2004:139) while in reality it is 14 km apart (Fleming 2005: 922). Other mistakes are made at Coetan Arthur at St David, an earth-fast tomb. It is described as distant from the sea, while in reality it is less than 200m from it. It is also allegedly “difficult to find” (Cummings & Whittle 2004: 162), but in fact it is difficult to miss, being placed very prominently against the horizon, highly visible on every approach to St David’s promontory. As especially questionable Fleming highlights Tilley’s and Cummings’ various attempts to fit any siting into their argument as being intentional by Neolithic people. Taking the relationship of tombs and sea as an example he quotes that the tombs are seen as: “(a) built to command wide sea views, or to ‘reference’ the sea (e.g. Coetan Arthur, Carn Wanda, Carn Llidi: Cummings & Whittle 2004: 33, 82), (b) ignoring or unconcerned with it (e.g. St Elvis and Llech y Dribedd: Tilley 1994: 93; Cummings & Whittle 2004: 139) or (c) carefully positioned to have a ‘glimpse’ or restricted view of the sea (e.g. White House and Treffynnon: Cummings and Whittle 2004: 33). As well as implying disconcertingly diverse Neolithic approaches to the cosmos within a small region, this catholic approach, of course, allows phenomenologist to say something apparently meaningful about any coastal site.” (Fleming 2005: 924). Furthermore, Cummings & Whittle and Tilley are missing an opportunity to look for other commonalities, flagged by the different siting in relation to the sea.

Tilley and Bennet (2001) took up Bradley’s idea. We are first informed that: “Nature provides a fundamental resource through which we can attempt to understand culture. If we ignore the former, it is not possible to provide an adequate understanding of the latter” (Tilley and Bennett 2001: 335). Tilley and Bennett use the antiquated term dolmen for portal tombs (as does C. Richards 2004) and we soon find out why. They claim that the dolmens are built not only to resemble closely the tors, but to become tors. They first recognise that if that is the case the Cornish dolmens would have to be chronologically the first portal tombs. They declare this as unlikely (without presenting any evidence). They also argue that the dolmens in Cornwall cannot be portal tombs, because portal tombs in Wales and Ireland are not inspired by tors and try to mimic them. They argue that the similarities are only superficial and the true meaning of the dolmens (in Cornwall) lies in their resemblance with natural places. They also use only five ‘dolmens’ for their speculations. Tilley and Bennett take the problem that many regional studies are not sufficiently linked to the wider Neolithic picture a step further by artificially cutting all connections to portal tomb regions outside Cornwall.

That Tilley et al. and Bender et al. did ignore important data is the critique of Chapman and Geary (2000). The emphasis placed on visibility which plays such a prominent part in the phenomenological approach is strongly questioned considering the pollen evidence for a densely wooded landscape in the areas discussed during the Neolithic or Bronze Age. They conclude: “we wish to highlight that if ‘scientific’ sources of data pertaining to landscapes are given a low priority by landscape theoreticians, meanings gained from them will be incomplete” (Chapman and Geary 2000). Cummings and Whittle (2003; 2004: 69-72) try to make a case for the visibility from the Welsh tombs despite the evidence for a mainly forested Neolithic landscape; their speculation that it would be possible to look through the trees in winter is implausible. In my experience the view through a forest is quite impenetrable at any time of the year.

Bradley (2000: 41-3) is critical of such an approach which he sees as questionable because the links to natural places are in many cases so difficult to validate. He alerts us to the point that “it is nearly impossible to assess the insights provided by these studies without repeating them on the ground, for they have not been conducted with an explicit methodology in mind”. Somebody who did repeat Tilley’s work in Wales to a certain extent is Andrew Fleming and he is highly critical. “The critique relates to sample quality, observational rigour and failure to examine alternative hypotheses concerning the siting factors involved in the placing of the tombs” (1999: 119). Fleming is quite explicit in his criticism, listing example after example where Tilley either errs, or even worse, might have falsely presented the evidence to fit better into the theories. J. Brück (1998) criticized Tilley (1994) on his own terms, plucking every aspect of his theoretical concept apart. Additionally, he did not deliver what he promised: “a richness in meaning”. Other harsh criticisms have been received by Tilley and Cummings (and by association also Whittle) through the writing of Fleming (2005). Examining every aspect and tomb in Tilley’s and Cummings work in south-west Wales and comparing it with his own fieldwork, he questioned the quality of the studies. According to Fleming, personal impressions without any verifiable data are presented as evidence by Cummings, Whittle and Tilley in numerous cases, for example, the statement that the tomb at Colston is “close

There has been recently a resurrection (if it was ever dead) of a more empirical, scientific approach to archaeology that attempts an interpretative approach based on facts (Waddington 1999; Parker Pearson 2003; A. Jones 2004). Parker Pearson, one of the founders of ‘cognitive’ archaeology, stated that: “The postprocessualists, mostly research students, were not trained to learn the ‘science’...” (Parker Pearson 2003: 2). This could be translated as that a post-processual approach is at least sometimes the result of ignorance. Waddington argues that for his regional study: “...Detailed consideration of the environmental record is essential in 32

THE CHRONOLOGY, MORPHOLOGY AND LANDSCAPE SETTING OF THE PORTAL TOMBS developing a coherent understanding of the social context of landscape. The two are interlinked and the study of either in isolation will only allow a partial view of early human groups in the landscape.”(Waddington 1999: 18). A. Jones (2004) is making a good case for the need for co-operation between scientific archaeologists and theorists when he writes that “both groups are fundamentally engaged in the same task: an understanding of past societies through the medium of material culture.” (Jones 2004: 327).

All these articles and papers have firstly Welsh and secondly Irish portal tombs as a subject. Cornwall in Prehistory by Toni-Maree Rowe (2005) is geared towards the interested layperson and gives a very good general introduction to the subject. It does not, however, give much new insight into portal tomb studies or other Neolithic research and it falls short of Mercer (1989) and certainly cannot replace Barnatt (1982). In Ireland, the recent volume VI of the Survey of the Megalithic Tombs of Ireland by Eamon Cody (2002) gives a good overview of the main megalithic classes in Ireland, including portal tombs. However, a modern synthesis of portal tomb research in all regions is still lacking.

Overall, Cummings and Whittle’s book (2004), despite all its flaws, tries to take phenomenology further by engaging empiricist methods. While they have very well succeeded in some aspects, a second, revised edition could possibly rectify most of the problems. Cummings (e.g. 2001) has shown repeatedly that she can do very thorough fieldwork; a new edition could better represent this and also give more space to her mostly excellent photographic recordings. Currently, the gap between verifiable data and presentation on the one side, and interpretation and meaning on the other side, is just a bit too wide.

3.7 Summary As long as phenomenology and landscape archaeology in general cannot agree on a common theory or methodology, the validity of their results will be questioned. So far, phenomenology, this youngest offshoot of landscape archaeology, is still very much in vogue. It probably works best if it is used to give new meaning and interpretations to areas with high concentrations of monuments which are already well known and well documented, such as the Dorset Cursus (Tilley 1994: 170) or the Loughcrew Passage tomb cemetery (Fraser 1998), especially if they are thoroughly and traditionally surveyed before a new interpretation of the site is offered (McMann 1994). Otherwise such phenomenological approaches remain highly idiosyncratic, coherent and meaningful only to each author, but unfortunately not offering the possibility of more open discussion and interpretation. The author of the phenomenological study of a lesser known site can avoid any criticism by claiming that we, his critics, can hardly prove that he did not experience through his own body what he described. The question remains then whether we actually learn much about the prehistoric site or just about the unique impressions of the author. Cummings and Whittle (2004) try to move phenomenology forward by integrating empirical methods. While this has been not too successful yet, it is probably a step in the right direction: data without interpretation are sterile and socially meaningless, but interpretations without firm evidence are not much of an improvement.

3.6 Other studies Not all megalithic research of recent years has taken a phenomenological approach. In most cases portal tombs do not feature at all or they play the role of some minor supporting cast. There are of course exceptions. Because portal tombs so clearly occur on both sides of the Irish Sea, it is not surprising that they feature quite strongly in the volume The Neolithic of the Irish Sea, edited by V. Cummings and C. Fowler (2004). Richards (2004) and Whittle (2004) both elaborate on the construction of some portal tombs, and especially their capstones, drawing conclusions concerning the social meaning of such undertakings (see also 6.2.12 this volume), especially where capstones were dug out of the earth and the tomb had been erected in the quarry pit. (Sheridan (2004) stresses the point of their distribution and possible earlier Neolithic date, before suggesting that they ‘might represent the elaborated translation into stone of a simple, non-segmented timber chamber form that may have been in widespread currency during the early Neolithic’ (Sheridan 2004: 16). A further discussion was provided by Sheridan (2006) about non-megalithic funerary traditions. This article (Sheridan 2006) suggests strongly that portal tombs might have developed from simple timber mortuary structures, in Ireland best represented by Dooey’s Cairn, Ballymacaldrack, Co. Antrim. Charcoal from British sites had been radiocarbon dated to the earliest Neolithic (Sheridan 2006: 27). Non-megalithic funerary traditions have been much better investigated in Britain than in Ireland (e.g. Kinnes 1992). Sheridan’s suggestion might be an interesting theory, but the present author has not been convinced due to the lack of evicence for Ireland.

33

TATJANA KYTMANNOW

Chapter 4 Morphology Morphology can be observed, drawn, discussed, described or photographed. It is reality, as much for us as it was for Neolithic people. In contrast, classification is the sometimes awkward attempt of antiquarians or archaeologists to bring order out of chaos. It only exists in the landscape of our minds; it is an idea, one which was not shared in this form by Neolithic people. Neolithic societies would have had their own classification and typology. Portal tomb subtype B would have a different meaning to the societies which built them and certainly not be called subtype B, but possibly could stand for a special totem, or newcomers, or grandchildren of the first settlers. To describe the morphology of different classes and types of megalithic tombs is only the first step to try to understand the meaning they might have had for the societies who erected them, but it is a necessary step. The next two chapters are largely dedicated to this undertaking.

4.1 Defining morphological criteria We begin with a short overview to clarify which elements belong to a portal tomb while detailed discussions follow below. All morphological elements have own columns in the main database, Appendix B and have also entered the full catalogue, Appendix A. Portal tombs have first of all portal stones. These are usually in line with the chamber. There are only three exceptions which have transverse portals: Ardabrone, Co. Sligo, Loughscur, Co. Leitrim, and Ballyquin, Co. Waterford. Very importantly, some have full or half doorstones, blocking the entrance (plates 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3). This combination is so unique in megalithic design that at a chamber where only the doorstone and the portals survive the classification of portal tomb is still quite obvious.

Plate 4.1: Harristown, Co. Kilkenny. A full doorstone is placed between the two portals, which are crowned by the front of the capstone, whose back rests on an under-capstone, which covers the small chamber

34

THE CHRONOLOGY, MORPHOLOGY AND LANDSCAPE SETTING OF THE PORTAL TOMBS

Plate 4.2: Cist Cerrig, NW Wales

Plate 4.3: Taylorsgrange, ‘The Brehon’s Chair’, Co. Dublin

Most chambers are rectangular (exception Drumanone, Co. Roscommon, fig. 4.1) and often quite small for the effort of tomb building. Most portal tombs have only one chamber (exception Sunnagh More, Co. Leitrim), but there are also instances of several tombs in one cairn or one portal tomb chamber sharing a cairn with a subsidiary simple chamber or cists; these will be discussed in the next chapter as subtype A.

Beg, Co. Leitrim). A small percentage of the Irish portal tombs have two capstones (see above, plate 4.4, Harristown, Co Kilkenny), the lower part of the larger capstone resting on the under-capstone. The impression of a sloping capstone can be achieved in different ways: the heavier, thicker part of the capstone can be placed in the front, or two capstones of different heights can be employed, or the portals can be higher than the backstone. A combination of all the above, possibly also using padstones, can be used. Therefore, a true sloping angle cannot be determined; the Neolithic builders aimed just for the visual impression of weight and height above the portals.

Many portal tombs have a huge capstone (see below for discussion); they are much larger than necessary for covering the chamber. Often the heavier, larger part of a capstone is placed over the portals and the capstone is frequently sloping down to the back (exception: Fenagh

Plate 4.4: Harristown, Co. Kilkenny, the back of the capstone resting on the under-capstone

35

TATJANA KYTMANNOW also added visibility (Plate 4.5). Rectangular, trapezoidal, round and oval cairns occur, but there is not one portal tomb which has its capstone covered by a cairn and access from the side where necessary was possible. Obviously, the visibility of the capstone was part of the design. To define a portal tomb we should ideally observe all defining morphological criteria at each and every tomb. This is of course not the case; many tombs are too ruined or the builders varied the blueprint to use an especially large capstone or to fit the tomb better into the landscape. As stated above, the combination of portal stones with a full doorstone is unique to portal tombs. Equally, a capstone measuring 4m by 3m by 1m is most likely an indicative feature in the definition of a portal tomb, even if only one or two orthostats of unclear function survive. Capstones of such large size are not used for any other tomb type in the known portal tomb distribution areas (exception Carreg Samson, SW Wales).

Fig. 4.1: Polygonal chamber at Drumanone (after de Valera and Ó Nuilláin 1972)

Usually the sides of the portal tomb chambers are delineated by sidestones (details in 4.2.2), in most cases one long, slim orthostat at each side, but two sidestones at a side or even three occur. Sidestones are normally not load-bearing and access to the chamber, especially in the case of portal tombs with full doorstones, was probably from the side. Sidestones are the easiest to remove without toppling the whole tomb and some of the socalled ‘tripod dolmens’ might just have lost their sidestones at some earlier time. The frequently present large prostrate stones of unclear function could be in many cases removed sidestones, but this notion can only be clarified through excavation, by locating the stone sockets.

There are also certain landscape elements which might help occasionally with the definition. Portal tombs are in the overwhelming majority aligned along a valley and a small water-course; frequently the portals aim towards the source of this water. The view is always obscured to one side; the location is never symmetric. They are rarely found above the 300m mark, the highest is at 330m in a sheltered valley (Cunard, Co. Dublin). In seaside locations they avoid a view of the next shore. These and more landscape commonalities will be discussed in the two landscape chapters and it is only mentioned here to show that some of these landscape criteria might help to assign a morphologically more questionable portal tomb to its rightful classification. For example, the tomb ‘Slievenagriddle’ in Co. Down comprises a flat capstone on a collapsed chamber, still imbedded in a round cairn. There are not enough defining criteria visible to say which type it might be, but its location on the very top of a prominent hill would tip the balance quite firmly away from portal tombs.

The back of the tomb is delimited by a backstone, which is sometimes gabled. Normally the backstone is not as high as the portals. The only portal tomb which has a higher backstone than portals is Fenagh Beg, Co. Leitrim. Many portal tombs have cairns or mounds (see below for details, and also columns in the main database), giving the precarious stony ‘house of cards’ more stability and

Plate 4.5: Pawton, Cornwall, the large long cairn still surviving

36

THE CHRONOLOGY, MORPHOLOGY AND LANDSCAPE SETTING OF THE PORTAL TOMBS 4.2

Discussion of morphological elements

4.2.1

Portal stones

average is rather surprising, because individual tombs can show a difference in height of up to 1m between the left and the right side to use the available stones most effectively and to level undressed capstones.

The survival rate of portal stones is quite high (c.72%). Portal stones are essential for the stability of the tomb. Also, a megalithic chamber without portal stones might have never been recognised as a potential portal tomb.

The average height above ground is 1.70 cm. This nice ‘man-sized’ height is slightly misleading, as portal stones range in height from 0.4m to 3.5m on the right hand side and from 0.6 to a staggering 4.4m on the left hand side. The 4.4m high portal is from the collapsed chamber of Woodtown, Co. Dublin. Because the whole stone slipped out of its socket it is likely that ‘only’ c. 3.5m would have been visible originally. The largest still upright standing portal stones belong to the nearly perfectly preserved one at Harristown/Kilmogue, Co. Kilkenny, with 3.6 and 3.5m respectively. The other portals in the 3m range belong to two tombs in Malin More in Co. Donegal: Malin More B and the largest tomb of the long cairn comprising six tombs at Malin More A. The 3m long probable portal at Ballintrillick is prostrate and fully exposed and would have been probably 2.5m high above ground originally. The largest portal stones in Wales are found at the massive tomb of Hendre Waelod, NW Wales, and are both 3m high while the highest portals in Cornwall belong to Trethevy Quoit.

There is no statistically significant difference between the left and the right hand side of the portals: right portals number 158 in total (of 217 tombs) and average 1.72m high, while the left portals number 158 and are an average of 1.72m, i.e. the rate of survival and the height is nearly totally equal on the right and left side (fig. 4.2; tables 4.1 and 4.2). survival rate of portal stones left portal

158

right portal

158

number of portal tombs

218 0

50

100

150

200

The portals at Zennor double up as sidestones and are 2.6m high (plate 4.6). One of the most impressive doublefunction portal/side stone is the wedge-shaped left portal at Cloghcor, Co. Sligo. It comprises a white quartz block, 2.7m high, which also forms the side.

250

Fig. 4.2: Frequency of right and left portal stones RIGHTPORTAL N

Valid Missing

65

Mean

1.7200

Median

1.6500

Mode

Ballintrillick and Woodtown are totally collapsed, Malin More A, Malin More B, Cloghcor, Hendre Waelod and Zennor Quoit have slipped capstones and the only two intact portal tombs with very high portals are Harristown and Trethevy. Apparently, very high portals were not favourable for stability. Whether portal stones of heights of 0.4m or 0.6m deserve such name or are more likely orthostats of cist-like structures is a matter of debate. Some of them are miniature examples of portal tombs and form a distinct subgroup. They will be discussed in the next chapter.

153

2.00

Std. Deviation

.55168

Table 4.1: Means, medians and standard deviations for right hand portal stones in metre LEFTPORTAL N

Valid Missing

65

Mean

1.7167

Median

1.6500

Mode Std. Deviation

4.2.2

153

Sidestones

The evidence of tripod dolmens proves that sidestones might have been optional. Instead, dry-stone walling, soil, timber or other organic materials might have been employed to delimit the chamber and to protect the deposits.

2.00 .57950

As stated above, sidestones are also the easiest to remove and a tripod dolmen might be just the last surviving stones of an originally more elaborated tomb. On the other hand, some tombs might have had a sidestone on one side of the chamber and be open or defined by drystone walling on the other side. Grimes (1949: 8) found no stone sockets for the east side of Pentre Ifan and antiquarians observed sidestones only on the western

Table 4.2: Means, medians and standard deviations for left portal stones in metre

Therefore, judging by this evidence, there is no indication of any emphasis of a more dominant right side of portal tombs as, for example, in passage tomb chambers and also in Neolithic houses in Orkney (Parker Pearson and Richards 1994). This equal treatment of both sides on 37

TATJANA KYTMANNOW

Plate 4.6: Zennor Quoit, the slipped capstone leaning on top of the portal cum side stones

Plate 4.7 : Legananny Dolmen, Co. Down

38

THE CHRONOLOGY, MORPHOLOGY AND LANDSCAPE SETTING OF THE PORTAL TOMBS

Plate 4.8: Pentre Ifan, Pembrokeshire, SW Wales.

side. Because Pentre Ifan has a full doorstone, the entrance was not from the front, between the portals. Of 217 portal tombs 132 sidestones survive on the right hand side, and 121 on the left side. A second sidestone is present nineteen times on the right side, while this occurs only fourteen times for the left one. Only three tombs have a third sidestone on one or both sides. Frequently there is a gap between one sidestone and the portal stone or the backstone, just large enough to give access. 4.2.3

portal tombs and is always part of the original design; the doorstone is firmly wedged between the portals and was not fitted at a later stage. The function is probably to block access and to emphasise the entrance from the side. There are no apparent rules by which one portal tomb was chosen for this special design feature or not. Doorstones are normally rectangular slabs. The only doorstone slab with a small ‘door’ or hole is at Trethevy in Cornwall, giving access to the interior (Plates 4.9 and 4.10).

Backstones full doorstone FDS

129 backstones survive. Backstones in an intact tomb normally function to support the capstone and to define the rear end of the chamber. Low backstones might have been removed and the capstone could then rest on the ground. The back of a portal tomb is often lower than the façade (the only clear exception with a backstone higher than the portals is Fenagh Beg, Co. Leitrim) and backstones are frequently gabled or pointed. 4.2.4

40

half doorstone HDS 30

no doorstone NDS 41

Doorstones

Some form of sillstone marking the difference between interior and exterior exist in many tomb classes, in court tombs or passage tombs, for example. In portal tombs the space between the portals can be totally empty, or it can be marked by a sillstone, or a half doorstone which would certainly make access difficult, or even a full doorstone which would make access from the front impossible (Figure 4.3). The latter, the full doorstone, is unique to

Fig. 4.3: Doorstones.

39

sill stone SS 17

ruined R 64

TATJANA KYTMANNOW very largest portal tomb, at Kernanstown with 13.44 square metres. Several large tombs such as Kernanstown, Co. Carlow; Carrickglass, Co. Sligo; Crowagh, Co. Sligo; Howth, Co. Dublin; and Eskaheen, Co. Donegal, have low chambers, only between 0.2m and 1.2m high, either by design or because the chambers were pushed in by the weight of the capstone. The most common size is between 2 m2 and 3 m2 (see fig. 4.5). Overall, it seems highly unlikely that interiors of portal tombs were designed to accommodate rituals taking place inside the chamber, removed from the community. If we assume that an average adult would be c. 1.55m (female) to 1.70m (male) tall, the inside space would not accommodate the burial of many fully articulated bodies at the same time (fig 4.5). This notion is supported by the burial evidence from the only tomb which has produced inhumations of near complete bodies, Poulnabrone, Co. Clare. There the remains would have been brought to the tomb in a disarticulated state, an unknown time after the death of the individual.

Plate 4.9: Trethevy Quoit, Cornwall

60

50

40

30

20

CAPSIZE

10

Plate 4.10: Unique small entrance in doorstone, Trethevy

0

-10

4.2.5 The relationship between chamber size, capstone size and the distance between portals

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

CHASIZE

It might be expected that the size of the chamber governed the size of the capstone or the size of the entrance between the portal stones. Firstly, the relationship between the capstone size and the chamber size was investigated. To determine the size of the chamber the interior was measured by length (inside of backstone to portals or sill) and width (side to side). If the space of the interior was not apparent anymore, because the tomb was collapsed, ruined or sides were missing, no measurements were taken. The size of portal tomb chambers is quite small for the effort of tomb building and the relationship between the capstone size and chamber size (figure 4.4) is fairly weak; indeed, some tombs of enormous size can have a relatively small inside chamber, for example, the above depicted tomb at Harristown, Co. Kilkenny (Plate 4.1), was just above 5 square metres.

Fig. 4.4: Chamber size (Chasize) was plotted against capstone size (Capsize) and subjected to linear regression but the R Square value (.199) indicates that less than 20% of the variability is explained by the size of the capstone.

There is only a moderate relationship between the distance between the portals and the chamber size (fig. 4.6). The distance between the portals ranges from as little as 0.4m to 1.95m with an average of 0.88m. If this space is not taken up by a full doorstone, this might have been the most convenient access into the interior of the chamber. To compare chamber size and the distance of the portals might seem like a tautology at first glance, but in fact the distance between the portals could best be compared with the size of a door, and the chamber size as the room behind it, i.e. there is not necessarily a direct relation, a small door could lead into a large room.

The average inside space measures 3.35 square metres (Appendix B, main database), the second smallest is found at the tiny Wardhouse B with 0.24, but the smallest is at the impressive tomb of Proleek with an interior space of only 0.2 square metres. The largest is also at the 40

THE CHRONOLOGY, MORPHOLOGY AND LANDSCAPE SETTING OF THE PORTAL TOMBS

60

Frequency

50

40

30

CAPSIZE

20

10

Chamber size in square metres

0

Frequency

0.0

Cumulative %

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 13 14 More

Frequency 40 187 76 26 9 12 4 5 1 0 2 0 1 0

.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

DISTPORT

Cumulative % 11.02% 62.53% 83.47% 90.63% 93.11% 96.42% 97.52% 98.90% 99.17% 99.17% 99.72% 99.72% 100.00% 100.00%

These tests proof that there is very little relationship between the chamber size, the capstone and the distance between the portals. 4.2.6

Secondary capstone

A uniquely Irish morphological variant is the doublecapstoned portal tomb. In this case the second capstone is placed between the capstone and the backstone. This morphological variation occurs at the two large tombs at Malin More A, Co. Donegal; Burren South, Co. Cavan; Harristown, Co. Kilkenny; Greengraves, Co. Down; Knockeen, Co. Waterford (Plate 4.11); Castlederg, Crosh, Leitrim and Murnells, all Co. Tyrone; Goward, Co. Down; Ticloy, Co. Antrim; Straheel North, Co. Donegal; Muntermellan, Co. Donegal; Moneygashel, Co. Cavan; Aughnacliff, Co. Longford; Haroldstown, Co. Carlow; Ballynageeragh, Co. Waterford; Cloonloouan, Co. Galway; and Arderawinny, Co. Cork (see main database). None of the Welsh or Cornish portal tombs shows this feature, but it occurs in all areas in Ireland: north and south, west and east, coastal and inland. Under-capstones can only be identified if they are more or less in situ, similar to padstones, and they might have been even more common. The largest is at Haroldstown with more than 5 cubic metres (c. 14 tons weight) while the smallest at Burren A South has a volume of only 0.13 cubic metres; the average would be 1.38 cubic metres.

Fig. 4.5: Interior chamber size 14

12

10

8

6

CHASIZE

4

2 0 0.0

.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

4.2.7

Padstones

DISTPORT

The function of a padstone is to level the capstone properly (Plate 4.12; Plate 4.13), or, in some cases, to work as a buffer between two uprights to control the position of the uprights (Plate 4.14).

Fig. 4.6: Chamber size was plotted against Distance portals (DISTPORT) and subjected to linear regression but the R Square value (.234) indicates that less than 24% of the variability is explained by the size of the chamber.

The Neolithic builders also showed off their precision and skills in manoeuvring but, arguably, maybe not in planning.

Finally, there was no relationship indicated between capstone size and the distance between the portals (fig. 4.7).

41

TATJANA KYTMANNOW

Plate 4.11: Knockeen, Co. Waterford

Plates 4.12, 4.13 and 4.14: Padstones at Ballykeel, Malin More A, and Trethevy

4.2.8

platforms and less of a mounding and enclosing pile of stones.

Cairns

Cairns are very much a feature of portal tombs, in contrast to Ó Nualláin’s findings (1983: 89) who identified only 26 long cairns in Ireland. Shee Twohig (2004 [1990]: 29-30) upped this number by two and also acknowledged the existence of oval and round cairns. This is probably a matter of definition and perception of what constitutes a cairn. In megalithic terms some researchers seem to count only the very large ones which would cover or nearly cover the chamber. This is despite the fact that ‘court cairns’, as court tombs were known until c. 1985, often possessed not much of a cairn either. Whittle (2004: 85) argues for the likelihood of low

A cairn could be defined as an artificial heap of stones, at least 2m in diametre. Cairns are the stony equivalent to mounds. The survival rate of cairns at portal tombs is close to 50% and similar to the evidence for existing cairns at court tombs (Stephen Clarke pers. comm.). At least 86 cairns of portal tombs survive in Ireland and 117 if Wales and Cornwall are included. Not one cairn is higher than the portal tomb it surrounds; the capstone would always be visible. In areas such as the fertile valleys of the SE, the Dublin area, and for example in some parts of Tyrone and Cavan cairns are rare. The

42

THE CHRONOLOGY, MORPHOLOGY AND LANDSCAPE SETTING OF THE PORTAL TOMBS cairns there have probably been cleared away either as a source of stone or to increase the arable land surface. Because portal tomb cairns have usually no kerbstones (exceptions: Corleanamaddy, Co. Monaghan; and Cleenrah, Co. Longford), the removal of a cairn is easy.

enhancing the visual presence of the portal tomb in the landscape. Several cairns are totally obscured by overlying walls and an estimate has not been attempted. Histogram of cairn size n=96

Frequency

Possibly, nearly all portal tombs possessed a cairn during its construction phase. This would be needed to give the orthostats stability and to provide a ramp to lift, push, roll, drag, or lever the capstone into place. Afterwards the inside of the chamber would have been cleared of stones, soil or scaffolding again and the cairn modelled to the shape and height desired by the builders. Multichambered tombs and composite, probably multi-phase tombs have long cairns (only exception: Cerrig y Gof, SW Wales). In two cases there is good proof that a portal tomb started with a round cairn: Dyffryn Ardudwy was first one small portal tomb in a round cairn, before it was enlarged to accommodate a second tomb (Powell 1973), and Aghnaskeagh A was also changed from a small, oval cairn to a large elongated one during the Early Bronze Age (Evans 1935; Brindley 1988). Several small, kerbless cairns have been only revealed during excavations, for example at Poulnabrone, Co. Clare; Taylorsgrange, Co. Dublin (Brindley 1988: 396) or Carreg Coetan, SW Wales (S. Rees pers. comm.). That a long cairn can be part of the original design was suggested by Cooney (1986) who found evidence for a revetment at the long cairn at Melkagh, Co. Longford.

60

120.00%

50

100.00%

40

80.00%

30

60.00%

20

40.00%

10

20.00% 0.00%

10 0 30 0 50 0 70 0 90 11 0 0 13 0 0 15 0 0 17 0 00 19 0 21 0 0 23 0 0 25 0 0 27 0 0 29 0 00

0

cubic metres

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 2400 2500 2600 2700 2800 2900 More

Cairn sizes vary considerably (see fig. 4.8, table 4.3), from sparse plinths or the last remnants of a probably originally much larger cairn such as at Clogher, Co. Clare (2x3x0.3m=1.8 cubic metres), and Errarooey Beg, Co. Donegal (3.46 cubic metres), to huge, high long cairns of composite monuments in upland areas, the largest being Carneddau Hengwm South (2750.80 cubic metres). The largest cairns all surround multi-chambered tombs. The average cairn size is 213.39 cubic metres, more than 500 tons of stone. One interesting aspect of cairn construction is that the whole population could have taken part in the collection and transport of cairn stones and no special skills or strength were required. As already stated above, cairns could be enlarged, robbed out, or changed in shape, either in antiquity or in modern times. Several cairns have been destroyed in living memory (for example Ardabrone, Co. Sligo) to increase the size of the arable land. Furthermore, cairns might be enlarged by field clearance. However, all portal tombs had an entrance from the outside into the chamber, either from the front or from the side. Not one example of the 217 portal tombs had its capstone covered by cairn material and/or its entrance blocked. The present author would argue that this constitutes part of the design; capstones and generally the chamber should be visible, and the interior should be accessible on purpose. Whittle (2004: 82) has observed that the cairns are not concealing, and it could be argued that they are actually

Frequency 53 13 13 8 0 3 2 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0

Frequency Cumulative %

Cumulative % 54.64% 68.04% 81.44% 89.69% 89.69% 92.78% 94.85% 95.88% 95.88% 96.91% 97.94% 97.94% 97.94% 97.94% 97.94% 97.94% 97.94% 97.94% 98.97% 98.97% 98.97% 98.97% 98.97% 98.97% 98.97% 98.97% 98.97% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00%

Fig. 4.8: Cairn sizes in cubic meters in regular bins Statistics CAIRSZE N

Valid

96

Missing Mean

122 213.2539

Median

81.0000

Mode

14.40(a)

Std. Deviation

371.01988

Table 4.3: Descriptive statistics for cairn sizes

43

TATJANA KYTMANNOW

Plate 4.15: Multi-phase tomb in enlarged long cairn: Dyffryn Ardudwy, NW Wales

Plate 4.16: Tanrego West ‘hybrid’, Co. Sligo

The court at Ticloy, Co. Antrim, is not much more than an antiquarian rumour (Evans and Watson 1942) and no trace of it remains. Surprisingly, the two best courts are in Wales, at Pentre Ifan and Garn Turn in SW Wales. They are quite similar, possessing a large, funnel shaped court with high orthostats on the right hand side and lower boulders on the left hand side. The two tombs are so close

4.2.9 Elaborated entrance features, antechambers, courts and ‘flankers’ First of all, most tombs in Ireland with a clear court feature made it into the classification of court tombs and will be discussed in the next chapter under ‘hybrids’ (for example Tanrego West, Co. Sligo, plate 4.16). 44

THE CHRONOLOGY, MORPHOLOGY AND LANDSCAPE SETTING OF THE PORTAL TOMBS

Townland, Name + County Springfield, Co Sligo Malin More A, Co. Donegal Kilclooney More A, Co. Donegal Eskaheen, Co. Donegal Kernanstown, Co. Carlow Kiltiernan Domain, Co. Dublin Brennanstown, Co. Dublin Howth, Co. Dublin Leaguan, Co. Galway Ahaglaslin, Co. Cork Ticloy, Co. Antrim Goward, Co. Down Tirnony, Co. Derry Ervey, Co. Derry Hendre Waelod, NW Wales Dyffryn Ardudwy, NW Wales Pentre Ifan, SW Wales Garn Turne, SW Wales Arthur's Stone, Glamorgan Zennor, Cornwall Thethevy, Cornwall Menlough, Co. Galway

court

flanker

antechamber

other enclosure front

to

2x x x x x portico to back x x x ? 2x x x x x x x x x x

x x

Table 4.4: Portal tombs with court features, court tomb/portal tomb hybrids in bold; extra large and dominant tombs in italics

together in geography and design, that one must have influenced the other. Garn Turn possesses the largest capstone in Britain and seemed to have collapsed during the construction (Richards 2004). The only other clearly defined court was revealed during the excavation of Dyffryn Ardudwy, NW Wales. The closest to a portal tomb with court in Ireland can be found at Ahaglaslin, Co. Cork. Two flanking stones and two low stones form a small court or antechamber (table 4.4).

portal tombs are huge or have large capstones but they still possess all or many of the necessary criteria. During the fieldwork, all capstones were measured in three dimensions: length, width, and thickness. From these basic data the approximate size of the capstones in cubic metres has been determined; being aware that the capstones are usually made of uneven, unworked stone and the true volume of these might be 10% off either way (fig 4.9).

Most court features are asymmetric and only indicated by a flanker, i.e. one orthostat to one side, beside one of the portals.

The list (see Appendix B, main database, CAPSIZE) shows how little we can rely on our personal perception. Even the most ardent megalithic researcher would be hard pressed to name and describe any of the top half of this list, for the simple reason that even if they know them they would have left little impression, with the only exceptions of Dyffryn Ardudwy (2.2x1.85x0.5) because of its excavation history and Poulnabrone, Co. Clare. Poulnabrone (3.9x2.85x0.3=3.33) is not only unusually well preserved and accessible; it is the landscape siting which makes it stand out so visually impressive, a beacon of the distant past in a treeless landscape. The nearby tomb at Clogher (4.75x4.3x1.5=30.64) has a capstone which is nearly 10 times as big, but the tomb is collapsed and surrounded by trees; it is also not very well advertised, difficult to find and therefore virtually unknown, despite the fact that it has one of the largest capstones in Britain and Ireland. Pentre Ifan (plate 4.18)

Three tombs have close affinities with court tombs and are possibly not portal tombs (Menlough, Co. Galway, Ervey, Co. Derry, and Leaguan, Co. Galway), Ticloy has no evidence for a court, and Springfield has a small enclosure in front which is possibly of a later date. Thirteen tombs with court features are exceptionally large, either by far the largest in their region or possessing massive capstones (table 4.4). 4.2.10

Capstones

Not surprisingly, it is the portal tombs with the most stunning and massive capstones that attract most attention and are the best known (see main database, column CAPSIZE). This distorts the realities a bit, as not all 45

TATJANA KYTMANNOW Neolithic might not have been treeless, the huge tomb might not have been collapsed and also might have been surrounded by a clearing and not a thicket; and for all we know, the tomb might have been painted, or covered in feathers, or with freshly picked flowers.

Histogram of capstone size n=166 120.00%

50 45

100.00%

40

Freque ncy

35

80.00%

30 60.00%

25 20

40.00%

15 10

20.00%

5

58

50

54

46

42

34

38

30

26

22

18

14

6

0.00% 10

2

0

Frequency Cumulative %

cubic meters

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 More

Frequency 23 45 23 16 12 15 6 3 4 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0

Cumulative % 14.20% 41.98% 56.17% 66.05% 73.46% 82.72% 86.42% 88.27% 90.74% 91.98% 93.21% 94.44% 95.06% 95.68% 96.30% 97.53% 97.53% 97.53% 97.53% 97.53% 98.77% 98.77% 98.77% 98.77% 98.77% 98.77% 99.38% 99.38% 100.00% 100.00%

Plate 4.17: Lech y Dribedd, SW Wales

Plate 4.18: Pentre Ifan, SW Wales

Fig. 4.9: Size of capstone in cubic metres

in SW Wales has a slightly smaller capstone (4.9x2.7x0.9=11.91) than the neighbouring tomb of Lech y Dribedd (plate 4.17) (3.2x3.2x1.2=12.29), but Pentre Ifan is often reported as the biggest tomb in Wales. Thecapstone of Hendre Waelod (2.5x3.5x1.2=10.50), NW Wales (plate 4.19), seems huge, larger than the capstone at Tan y Muriau (3.75x3.2x0.9=10.80), NW Wales (plate 4.20), but the latter is part of a cairn, part of a multichambered monument and in a rocky landscape. If we compare tombs in the more phenomenological way, in terms of the visual and mental impression they make on us today, we tend to forget that the landscape in the

Plate 4.19: Hendre Waelod, NW Wales

46

THE CHRONOLOGY, MORPHOLOGY AND LANDSCAPE SETTING OF THE PORTAL TOMBS up the very steep sides of the valley to give a more commanding view, as it would be normally appropriate for large portal tombs. There is also other evidence that huge capstones were used directly where they were found. The large capstones at Pentre Ifan and the portal tomb/passage tomb ‘hybrid’ Carreg Samson were dug out of their pits and raised in situ (Richards 2004, 75-76; Whittle 2004: 82-85). During the excavation at Rathlacken court tomb the excavator decided to lift the capstone, weighing c. 5 tons, which had fallen into the chamber, with Neolithic methods, i.e. with levers, ropes and rollers (G. Byrne pers. comm.). Without prior experience four women and three men lifted the capstone out of the chamber in two days. According to Atkinson (1961) the minimum number of people needed to drag a stone on flat ground is two per ton, but even a 50 ton heavy stone can be rocked and lifted by using levers and three parties of eighteen persons, i.e. a bit more than one person per ton.

Plate 4.20: Tan y Muriau, NW Wales

4.2.11

Estimation of labour

The sometimes awe-inspiring size of portal tomb capstones has stunned and awed many observers and sparked the common folk-lore name ‘Giant’s Grave’ for this tomb type. While at other tomb types we can estimate the hours of labour needed to complete them (e.g. Parker Pearson 1993: 41), we do not know if many builders erected them in a relatively short time or only a few builders in a very long time, i.e. they are not very suitable for estimates about the size of population involved in the erection of one tomb. The stakeholders at a portal tomb can be estimated by the sheer tons of stone moved at the same time which might give an insight into Neolithic demographics and also social structure.

Many portal tombs could have been erected by an extended family. For example the capstone of the smaller, older portal tomb at Dyffryn Ardudwy weighs c. 5.7 tons and could be lifted on properly secured and cairnimbedded orthostats by six to eight adults. The handling of larger capstones, as the majority obviously are, would have needed a social organisation beyond the family group. The largest portal tomb capstones at Kernanstown, Co. Carlow, is 57 cubic metres, c. 160 tons of stone. A working party of c.200 healthy, strong adults would have been needed to lift the front onto the orthostats. To lift the whole capstone onto orthostats has not been attempted, the backstone is nearly level with the ground. Apparently, portal tomb building had reached a point of no further possible development; the builders could not get them up anymore. Only two of the super-sized capstones rest on orthostats and are still largely intact: Brenanstown, Co. Dublin, and Carrickglass, Co. Sligo. Both are supported by small, squat orthostats. The huge capstones at Arthur’s Stone, Glamorgan, and especially Kiltiernan, Co. Dublin, are supported by much larger numbers of orthostats than usual.

One cubic metre of stone weighs circa 2.8 tons. There is no area in Ireland, Wales or Cornwall, where the movement of stone overland for more than a couple of hundred metres seems likely or necessary (Thorpe and Thorpe 1991). Instead, all chosen capstones seem to be either local or part of glacial erratics occurring in the area. One should keep in mind that practicalities might not have been foremost on the agenda of the Neolithic tomb builders. After all there is good evidence that in other areas that stones were indeed moved for considerable distances of 10km or more, for example in Jersey, Channel Islands, and the Alentejo, Portugal (Kalb 1996; Patton 1992; Burl 1992). But for portal tombs there is a strong possibility that the place where the often massive capstone was found was chosen for the location of the tomb, as long as it fulfilled some of the all important landscape criteria. That means, a large boulder exposed close to the sea shore or a large stone on the summit of a dominant hill would be rejected, but a large boulder from which the immediate valley could be observed and the view to one side would be restricted was chosen instead. For example, the large capstone at Brenanstown, Co. Dublin, runs parallel to the valley and stream and the entrance faces the source of the water, but no attempt was made to move the huge capstone of 40 cubic metres (more than 100 tons) from the valley bottom

4.2.12 Decorations, rock art and human-made markings The term ‘decorations’ is used here on purpose; ‘rock art’ is used for markings on the living rock and ‘megalithic art’ has too many contextual connections with passage tomb art of the Middle Neolithic. The most common markings on portal tombs which are due to human agency are cupmarks. They are nearly always on the capstones. Only c. 7% of portal tombs has any visible human-made decorations (table 4.5).

47

TATJANA KYTMANNOW Cupmarks have a very long currency. While it is likely that some date from the earlier Neolithic (Bradley 1997: 60), others are found on cists, barrows, entrance graves and standing stones (Darvill and Wainwright 2003). However, Glyn Daniel’s (1950: 115) expressed opinion that they are of Late Neolithic or Bronze Age date seemed to have influenced many scholars in Britain and Ireland. Only in the last couple of years this chronological problem has been tackled archaeologically, by excavation (Sogness 1999). Blaze O’ Connor’s work has focussed on several rock art panels in Monaghan, where excavations around them have produced Neolithic and Bronze Age dates (Waddington 2004). This method of excavating directly underneath a panel is used now increasingly often with good results, i.e. artefacts had been placed there in antiquity and it can be concluded that the two events, the carving of the rock art and the deposition of artefacts, are related. Waddington (2004) has excavated around a cup and ring mark panel in Northumberland and produced stratigraphic evidence for Mesolithic, Neolithic and Bronze Age activity. While the Mesolithic evidence is restricted to one lithic found in the topsoil, the Early Neolithic evidence suggests that the first carvings date from this time. After a longer period of no activity the site was appropriated and substantially changed. These happened most likely during the Early Bronze Age. Another indication that simple rock carvings in Ireland predate the Late Neolithic was provided by Hartnett (1957), one orthostat inside the chamber of Fourknocks I, Co. Meath, as observed by the excavator, exhibited such carvings facing into the cairn, i.e. they are not visible and most likely predate the Middle Neolithic passage tomb.

Plate 4.21: Trellyfaint, SW Wales

Because cupmarks are such a simple, abstract and nearly universal feature, their interpretation is limitless. They

Plate 4.22: Radergan, Co. Tyrone Townland; County

cupmarks

Radergan, Co. Tyrone

2 large cups

other

Leitrim, Co. Tyrone

10 cups

Ballyrenan, Co. Tyrone

11 cups

Gortbrack, Co. Mayo

5 cups

Tawnatraffaun, Co. Sligo

1 U, 1 cup+ring

Rathkenny, Co. Meath

triscle, grooves,circles and so on

Brenanstown, Co. Dublin

2 deep depressions

Ballykeel, Co. Armagh

possible cupmarks?

Castlederg, Co. Tyrone

deep grooves in sidestone

Bachwen, NW Wales

110 cups

Dyffryn Ardudwy, NW Wales

cups on portal

Cist Cerrig, NW Wales

15 cups on outcrop

Trellyfiant, SW Wales

35

Lennan, Co. Monaghan

scratch markings, natural cups

Drumhawnagh, Co. Cavan

grooves

Ballygraney, Co. Carlow

5 cups

Table 4.5: Cupmarks and other decorations on portal tombs

48

THE CHRONOLOGY, MORPHOLOGY AND LANDSCAPE SETTING OF THE PORTAL TOMBS

Plate 4.23: Cupmarks on wedge tomb in the megalithic cluster Burren, Co. Cavan

could stand for the sun or moon, symbolising the ‘female’ form in contrast to the ‘male’ stone, or the water collecting in the cupmark could be used in rituals. That water played a part was also implied by Waddington’s findings (2004) that a trickle of fresh water would run down the carvings, enhancing its visual impression.

mark (plate 4.25) at Tawnatraffaun, Co. Sligo (plate 4.24), belongs to the same prehistoric ‘language’ as do cupmarks. The question when the cupmarks on portal tombs have been carved, before, during or after construction, cannot be solved with the available dating methods yet. All cupmarks are either on top of the capstones or on easily accessible sides of orthostats. They could have been already carved into a rock which was then used for the construction of the tomb, or the cupmarks could have been carved into the stones at any time after this, as long as the capstone, the most usual place for the decorations, was not covered by a cairn.

Structuralism has resulted in a division of rock-art motifs into the binary pair of a) male= phallic symbols, i.e. grooves and lines, and b) female= vulvas, i.e. cupmarks, a rather simplistic view which has not stood the test of time (Bahn 1998: 222-4). Only very few portal tombs have other, human-made decorations. The simple cup-and-ring mark (plate 4.26) and U-shaped (or horseshoe-shaped)

Plate 4.24: Tawnatraffaun, Co. Sligo, a ‘horse-shoe’ mark is on top of the capstone and a cup-and-ring mark on the boulder in the foreground.

49

TATJANA KYTMANNOW The grooves on the sidestone of Castlederg portal tomb, Co.Tyrone (fig 4.10 and fig 4.11), were read as ogham lines by some antiquarians. Shee Twohig (1981: 234) does not accept them as Neolithic or of any great antiquity. Ferguson and his antiquarian colleagues did see inscriptions in the decorations at Lennan, Co. Monaghan, similar to a runic alphabet or Ogham lines (fig. 4.12 and 4.13). They also thought that they recognised a boat, similar to rock art motifs in Scandinavia. Again, Shee Twohig (1981: 234) in her publication about megalithic art does not except them as ancient. The capstone has also a large number of natural cupmarks, some of them possibly artificially enhanced, and one of the orthostats has striking white quartz veins.

Plate 4.25: Tawnatraffaun, ‘horseshoe’

There are two stones as the last remains of a possible portal tomb in Rathkenny, Co. Meath (plates 4.28; 4.29; 4.30). Shee Twohig (1981: 236) interpreted them as natural cupmarks with not very ancient grooves on the capstones, possible passage tomb art on the underside of the capstone and some Iron Age style decorations such as the triscle on the inside of the orthostat. These swirling forms reminiscent of a written 6 or 9 or the letter S seem to be more familiar to decorations from the Iron Age. Similar decorations have been found on two stones at the very large court tomb in Malin More, Co. Donegal. Arguably, the central tomb no 51 at Carrowmore, Co. Sligo, has close similarities with portal tombs (plate

Plate 4.26: Tawnatraffaun, cup-and-ring

Fig. 4.10: Castlederg dolmen (Borlase 1897, Fig. 195, after sketch supplied by Ferguson)

50

THE CHRONOLOGY, MORPHOLOGY AND LANDSCAPE SETTING OF THE PORTAL TOMBS

Fig. 4.11: Grooves on top of sidestone, Castlederg (Borlase 1897, Fig. 196, after a sketch supplied by Ferguson)

Plate 4.27: Castlederg, Co. Tyrone

Fig. 4.12: Lennan, Co. Monaghan, (Borlase 1897, Fig. 272, after Ferguson)

5.11). On the front of the capstone are U-shaped, pecked decorations (Curran Mulligan 1994) and on the inside of the front orthostat (doorstone) are the vague outlines of a simple spiral or some swirling figure with three arms. There are also several faint circles on the inside of one orthostat. Again, the U-shapes and circles have a very long and wide currency and the swirling or spiralling figure is similar to peckings at Rathkenny and Malin More. Tomb 51 has been radiocarbon dated to c. 3500 cal BC (Burenhult 2003: 68). As rare as these odd megalithic decorations are, they show certain similarities. To put it into context, Iron Age deposits from portal tombs are virtually unknown (this volume, Chapter 6), but Carrowmore certainly experienced a revival as a burial

and ritual focal point during this time (Burenhult 1995: 13). Not all decorations are human made and portal tomb builders selected, where possible, the most striking stones available, preferably for the capstones, the crowning glory. Occasionally, stones with prominent quartz veins were chosen where available, for example, for the capstones of Leitrim, Co. Tyrone, which is also cupmarked, and the capstone at Crowagh, Co. Sligo. If possible, whole quartz blocks were selected, for example, at Cloghcor, Co. Sligo, and for the capstone of Pawton, Cornwall. 51

TATJANA KYTMANNOW

Fig. 4.13: Decorations on orthostat of Lennan portal tomb, Co. Monaghan (Borlase 1897, Fig. 271, after Ferguson)

Plate 4.28: Rathkenny, Co. Meath, top of capstone

52

THE CHRONOLOGY, MORPHOLOGY AND LANDSCAPE SETTING OF THE PORTAL TOMBS

Plate 4.29: Rathkenny, inside of orthostat with triscle; Plate 6.30: Circles and 6- and 9-shaped forms

Plate 4.31: Malin More, Co. Donegal, decorations at orthostat at the large court tomb

Plates 4.32 and 4.33: Deeply grooved capstones at Ballynoe, Co. Carlow; Straheel North, Co. Donegal

53

TATJANA KYTMANNOW

Plate 4.34: Pawton, Cornwall, natural quartz veins on the backstone

cupmarks and quartz veins at Lennan, Co. Monaghan, have already been mentioned. Other natural occurrences in stones were used to best effect. A hole in the capstone of Trethevy, Cornwall, lets the setting sun shine through (plate 4.35), and natural hollows, solution basins and shapes on the capstones of Ballykeel, Co. Armagh (plate 4.36), could have been used such as cupmarks, for example, the collecting of rainwater for the use in rituals. 4.2.13

Material, shape and colour

In the process of the intensive fieldwork it became obvious that stones from the locality were used nearly exclusively. Because portal tombs normally overlook a stream in the same valley, the most likely source of the building stones is quite often apparent. All of the clusters and most of the other groups are in areas abundant in suitable construction stones (chapter 9). These facts might explain why so little emphasis was placed on the materiality of portal tombs. The two most recent major publications having portal tombs as one of the subjects are Cody (2002) and Cummings (2001). Cody does not mention anything about the nature of the stone. Cummings describes the texture and the colour of the stones (trying to repeat the experience Neolithic people would have had visiting these sites), including all portal tombs of the south-west of Wales, but does not discuss the geology of the stones or if they are likely to be of local origin. Richards (2004) highlights the likelihood that the largest capstones were sourced directly where the tomb was erected, a fact which was reported for the portal tomb of Pentre Ifan, SW Wales (Grimes 1949). Richards and Whittle (2004) both emphasize that the large capstone of the portal/passage tomb ‘hybrid’ Carreg Samson was dug out of the pit on which the tomb was

Plate 4.35: Trethevy, Cornwall

Plate 4.36: Ballykeel capstone, Co. Armagh

Additionally, the backstone at Pawton has very striking white quartz veins which look such as human figures hunting or dancing, but are entirely natural. The natural 54

THE CHRONOLOGY, MORPHOLOGY AND LANDSCAPE SETTING OF THE PORTAL TOMBS subsequently erected. Furthermore, Richards (2004) and Cummings (2002c) both suggest that the massive capstone of Garn Turne was entirely local. This statement can be probably used to cover all very large capstones of portal tombs; there is absolutely no evidence to the contrary.

Loughcrew, Co. Meath, also discovered substantial quartz layers either covering the lower part of the cairn or as deposits between two cairns (Cooney 2006: 703). Quartz is an extremely common mineral. The chemical name is silica (SiO2) and it is harder than steel. Pure quartz is colourless and called rock-crystal but commonly quartz occurs as free veins in igneous rocks such as granite and gneiss and is white, pink, yellow, brown, or grey. Quartz does not split in a regular fashion and is therefore not used extensively for tool production. Quartzite consists of rearranged quartz crystals in metamorphic rocks (Bell and Wright 1985). Because of its common nature one must be cautious of considering every quartz pebble in a megalith and every quartz vein in an orthostat as of archaeological importance. However, the clearly purposeful deposition of quartz is evident if it does not occur naturally in the location, as, for example, at Billown, Isle of Man, where it has been found as deposits in several pits (Darvill 2002). Furthermore, quartz pebbles and rock-crystals have been found in the chambers of portal tombs, for example, in Pentre Ifan, SW Wales, Drumanone, Co. Roscommon, and Poulnabrone, Co. Clare. This conforms to the evidence from other tombs in Britain and Ireland, e.g. Capel Garmon, Pant y Saer, and Ty Newydd in north Wales (Lynch 1969: 150), Altar and Toormore wedge tombs in Co. Cork (O’Brien 1999: 215-16) and several court tombs in Ireland (Corcoran 1960: 107). The meaning of the use of quartz during the Neolithic has been discussed by Darvill (2002) who suggests that its shiny qualities, its ability to glow when struck, and to produce sparks could symbolise light, moon or sun. Its clarity and the similarity of free quartz veins to streams of water prompted Fowler and Cummings (2003) to argue that quartz in megaliths, either as deposits or as veins in the stones, stands for water, and its relationship to the transformation of bodies. However, quartz is also very white and resists the growth of lichen better than other stones; it could be part of colour symbolism (see below).

There has been no examination of whether the stones have been worked or not. Cummings (2002c) implies that they were not, that they are in their raw state. This seems to be the case for most portal tombs, with some notable exceptions. The clearest evidence for the shaping of some stones comes from Trethevy, Cornwall (plates 4.9 and 4.10), where one can see a small door cut into the massive doorstone; the hole in the capstone might not be entirely natural either (plate 4.35). Trethevy, Zennor Quoit and Sperris Quoit seem to have employed quarried slabs and not the naturally rounded slabs from the Tors (Emmanuel Mens pers. comm.). Some capstones (for example Tawnatraffaun, Co. Sligo, Pentre Ifan , SW Wales, Carreg Coetan, SW Wales) have a rounded upper surface and a flat lower surface, the upper one showing weathering and striation while the underside looks relatively freshly cut from the bedrock or from a huge erratic. This does not rule out that such stones occurred naturally and were just specially selected. Furthermore, the cupmarks were certainly carved into the stone at some stage. The colour of the stones employed in the structure of megaliths and also the colour of some of the deposits have been the subject of some debate in recent years (e.g. Scarre 2002, Cooney 2002; 2006; Trevarthen 2000; Jones 1999). Cummings (2001) in her thorough survey of the megaliths of SW Wales has noted the colour of the stones, but without a discussion of any eventual conclusions she might have reached. There is also no interpretation of any colour schemes and their potential meaning in Cummings’ and Whittle’s (2004) book which seems to be a bit of a missed opportunity considering the amount of fieldwork that went into this volume and the fact that Cummings had carefully noted the colours of the stones of a large assemblage of tombs previously.

Many structural stones of portal tombs contain free quartz veins, visible quartz crystals or consist of whole quartz or quartzite slabs or boulders. Only in some cases this seems to go beyond what can be expected in areas where quartzrich rocks are the dominant ones. A quartz vein in a capstone and orthostat at Crowagh, Co. Sligo, can be explained by its location in the Ox Mountains, the predominant source of quartz in County Sligo from where it would have been transported to the passage tombs in the area. This does not rule out that if all things were equal the Neolithic builders would have preferred ‘beautiful’ stones. This seems to be the case at Leitrim, Co. Tyrone, where the capstone shows a remarkable large quartz vein on its potentially purposefully broken and exposed front.

While portal tombs and colour have not been the subject of major research yet, the same cannot be said of passage tombs. To which effect colour can be used is well known from Newgrange, Co. Meath, where the façade has been either a bit too fancifully reconstructed (Cooney 2006) or truthfully recreated (O’Kelly 1982) using shiny white quartz and black or dark-grey granodiorite, both stones procured from sources c. 40-50km distant. The use of white quartz is attested for several other passage tombs, for example, Knockroe, Co. Kilkenny (O’Sullivan 1993; 1996) where a considerable quantity was found in front of the eastern chamber. There are also quartz deposits around the bottom of the passage tombs of the Carrowkeel complex in Co. Sligo. There is no natural source of quartz on the limestone uplands of Carrowkeel. Antiquarian explorations in the passage tomb complex of

The largest slab of pure white quartz has been used as the combined left portal and sidestone for the portal tomb at Cloghcor, Co. Sligo (plates 4.37, 4.38). This very 55

TATJANA KYTMANNOW

Plate 4.37: Cloghcor, Co. Sligo, the quartz slab against the early evening sun

Plate 4.38: Cloghcor, Co. Sligo, early evening sun. All stones are covered with some lichen now.

dominant tomb is located nearly on top of a spur which reaches into Sligo/Donegal bay. The other portal stone consists of grey gneiss, but with a large vein of rosecrystal. The now slipped capstone is a large, flat red sandstone slab. Remarkably, the white quartz slab is facing east, catching the light of the rising sun, while the eastern portal stone and the sandstone slab would have shone dark purple and red in the setting sun before lichen took away some of the effect. All three stone types occur naturally on the spur (Leo Leydon pers. comm.)

Similar colour schemes of white, red and grey or black have been investigated at the Clava cairns at Balnuaran by David Trevarthen (2000) and of red and white by Andy Jones (1999) at the megaliths of Arran. The Clava cairns show a structural relationship to the annual cycle and Trevarthen provides an interesting discussion of the cultural meaning of these three base colours which could be also juxtaposed to some of Jones’ findings at Arran. While each culture and society has their own colour symbolism, certain universal trends have been observed. 56

THE CHRONOLOGY, MORPHOLOGY AND LANDSCAPE SETTING OF THE PORTAL TOMBS Red often refers to fire, blood and passion, white to purity, luck and fertility, and black to decay, death and night (see e.g. table 1 in Trevarthen 2000).

gathering. However, the finds evidence does not suggest that these massive tombs were erected at a much later time and could have been a parallel development.

The colour schemes of artefacts have been discussed with the example of polished stone axes from Ireland by Cooney (2002). Certainly the most common colours of the deposits from portal tombs are the very dark, sometimes black pottery of Early Neolithic date and the light grey, sometimes nearly white flint tools and debitage. This scheme of light and dark has been expanded remarkably at Poulnabrone which has not only produced a nearly white flint or chert arrowhead, black Early Neolithic pottery with light flint temper and a black chert arrowhead, but also a piece of a bright-green axe head, a rectangular flat piece of polished light-green stone, bright-orange pottery and rock-crystal. It became apparent during the fieldwork and the finds analysis that colour symbolism does not play a large part in connection with portal tombs. Only a handful of tombs show some form of special selection of stones or material; the majority of building stones of portal tombs are plainly grey and come directly from the local area. Most stones are unworked and the Neolithic builders left them in their natural state; this is one aspect which makes many capstones so strikingly looking: they are clearly heavy, natural stones, carefully balanced on others. 4.3

Conclusion

The morphology of portal tombs is testament to the importance of the visual impression the Neolithic builders had tried to achieve. Portal tombs were meant to be seen, especially their capstones. The low cairns, leaving the capstones and part of the portals exposed to the view, the selection of striking stones, the art of placing padstones, all this was designed to be viewed by the community from relatively close up. Emphasis was given to the capstones. Their often enormous size was also testament to the size of the community which had erected the tomb. It told a story of achievement. While court tombs emphasise the empty space, the court, which only achieves its true meaning if it is filled with selected celebrants of the ritual, and passage tombs restricted severely the visual and physical access to the interior, the celebrations at portal tombs took place outside, probably at the side, close to the access for placing the deposits finally inside, clearly visible for the whole community from the valley, which formed a natural amphitheatre. The largest tombs, either in height by the size of the portals, or in sheer volume by the size of the capstone, or both, would not be the most stable ones. Possibly, the building of portal tombs had reached its zenith. The occurrence of courts, antechambers and flankers, especially in ‘court-tomb-free’ areas such as County Dublin, Cornwall, and Wales, suggests that the larger size of community that was involved in the erection of these super-sized tombs demanded a more formal area of 57

TATJANA KYTMANNOW

Chapter 5 Classification, hybrids, sub-types, and local variants 5.1

Introduction

As stated above, classification is only a tool for archaeologists to bring order out of chaos. It is a mental crutch to sort the vast variety and amount of artefact or monument class into more bite-sized portions. Any classification only exists as an idea and should be constantly revised as new evidence emerges. It becomes problematic when it gets used to try to show the development of one type, for example, a megalithic tomb, as if architectural forms could follow the same rules as biological entities. The idea that portal tombs developed or degenerated from a different tomb type is ultimately based on evolutionary theory, i.e. archaeological thought in the early 20th century was heavily influenced by Darwinism.

Nowhere in Europe did megalithic typology become as stagnant as it did in Ireland, North and South. While certain antiquarian models such as diffusionism seemed to make sense during the earlier part of the 20th century, in Ireland this approach was not slowly revised against the emergence of new absolute dating evidence. Instead, it accrued a quite obvious political dimension from the 1960s onwards, and over-shadowed the academic teaching in both parts of the island of Ireland (see also chapter 2). Evans in Northern Ireland was trying to make a case for the landfall of court tomb builders from Britain to the Carlingford area (Evans 1938), while de Valera was busy pleading for their French origin and postulated an entrance to Irish soil at Ballycastle/ Killala, Co. Mayo (de Valera 1960: 45). To further de Valera’s case, any tomb possible was classified as a court tomb; two stones in a bog became a chamber and the third stone a flanker, indicating a court (de Valera 1960: figures below).

Furthermore, Darwinism saw development as a linear process from one point of origin. Translating this concept to archaeology leaves very little room for human agency.

Figs. 5.1, 5.2 and 5.3: Bunduff, Co. Sligo; Creeveymore, Co. Sligo; Fortland, Co. Sligo

Figs 5.4 and 5.5: Aghaleague, Co. Mayo; Leean, Co. Leitrim

Figs. 5.6, 5.7 and 5.8: Carrigeengeare, Co. Leitrim; Tirlaydan, Co. Donegal; Crevary Upper, Co. Donegal

58

THE CHRONOLOGY, MORPHOLOGY AND LANDSCAPE SETTING OF THE PORTAL TOMBS

Fig. 5.9: Killin, Co. Donegal (all after de Valera 1960)

This selection of megalithic tombs classified as court tombs shows how far any classification criteria were disregarded if it suited de Valera’s purposes. Most very questionable court tombs are located on the west coast. De Valera had argued that the larger number of court tombs in the west was one of the deciding arguments for a landfall by the court tomb builders there, part of his invasion and diffusion theory. De Valera participated in the Megalithic Survey from the 1940s onwards and set down the rules which still govern it to the present day. All megaliths belong to four classes if they survived more or less intact. Any others are either ‘hybrids’, unclassifiable because too ruined, or they are not megaliths. This classification model leaves very little space for local variants or unique local developments and is still practised by the Archaeological Survey and the Megalithic Survey of Ireland where unusual tombs such as earth-fast tombs (plates 5.1, 5.2, 5.3 and 5.4) do not get listed (Moore 2003: 11; de Valera and Ó Nualláin 1972: 60). There is also no concept of multi-period tombs or multi-phase construction, a thought which affected megalithic research from the 1960s onwards in Britain (Corcoran 1972; Scott 1969: 180; Powell 1973). We should be aware that not all megaliths might fit into these categories but nevertheless need recording and protecting. However, the existing classifications are widely used and cannot just be discarded, but a discussion of sense or nonsense of these classifications is overdue to establish whether they have weathered well since the 1940s or if they need possibly amendments.

Plates 5.1 and 5.2: Earth-fast tomb in grass-covered cairn at Sramore in Leitrim, 10m north of a wedge tomb

The above pictured structure (Plates 5.1; 5.2; 5.3 and 5.4) is certainly not natural, alone the cairn speaks against such a fluke of nature. Similar structures, always close to prominent rock-outcrops, are well known from SW Wales, where they form a small, but distinct (and unfortunately undated) group at Strumble Head and St. David’s Head, Pembrokeshire. That these are indeed tombs has been attested by antiquarian explorations which produced cremated bone, ‘very rude’ pottery and charcoal (Barker 1992: 32, 33)

Plates 5.3 and 5.4: The ‘earth-fast’ tomb, below cliff edge of limestone plateau

59

TATJANA KYTMANNOW portal tomb in the distribution area of court tombs, i.e. if any court was present the tomb made it into the court tomb classification and bolstered the numbers of de Valera or Evans. 7.3 Commonalities and portal tombs and court tombs

differences

between

The main morphological criteria for a court tomb, one would assume, should be a court. Judging by the published plans this is not always the case. Already de Valera (1960: 17) had noticed that only c. 75% of the then known court tombs actually have any kind of court and he was quite ready to see any stray orthostat as an indication of such. Portal tombs have portal stones which are nearly always in line with the chamber, but many court tombs have very prominent jamb stones which form impressive portals (for example Tanrego West, Co. Sligo (plate 5.8); Cashleen, Co. Galway (plate 5.7); Cleggan, Co. Galway).

Plates 5.5 and 5.6: Carn Wnda (Llanwnda), SW Wales

Portal tombs allegedly had evolved, developed or degenerated from court tombs and therefore were very late in the sequence (Evans 1938; de Valera 1960; de Valera and Ó Nualláin 1972). Portal tomb research was hindered by two theories which shoved them into the furthest fringes of archaeological interest: a) they were the degenerate cousins of court tombs and very late; and, b) they had developed from the small subsidiary chambers of court tombs and therefore they were rather simple structures (Evans 1938; de Valera 1960, 64-9). 5.2

‘Hybrids’

The term ‘hybrid’ will be employed here because it is the most commonly used word for a megalith which shows morphological criteria of several tomb classes. The author is aware that ‘hybrid’ is of course a term which belongs rather to biology describing the off-spring of two different species. This is not a suggestion that tombs do breed. Cummings (2001) tried to solve the problem by using the word ‘cross’ as in ‘portal cross passage tomb’, which means exactly the same translated into English. Therefore, the usual term will be employed here.

Plates 5.7 and 5.8: Cashleen, Co. Galway, and Tanrego West, Co. Sligo, court/ portal tomb hybrids

Both tomb classes have normally rectangular chambers, which are sometimes slightly wedge shaped. While portal tombs have only one chamber (except Sunnagh More, Co. Leitrim), the main difference to court tombs should

Most ‘hybrids’ are between court tombs and portal tombs. But while court tombs with portal stones instead of jambs exist, there are no clear court features at any 60

THE CHRONOLOGY, MORPHOLOGY AND LANDSCAPE SETTING OF THE PORTAL TOMBS be that the latter have a gallery, i.e. at least two chambers. As is aptly illustrated by the plans below, the Megalithic Survey was quite ready to except one or two stray stones as evidence for a second chamber or just assumed if any evidence of further chambers was missing, that they had been destroyed at some stage in the past. Furthermore, it is the enormous, architecturally perfect, court tomb examples which are the ones that are well known and seemed to set the standard, while in reality they are actually the exceptions. The morphological overlap between a portal tomb such as Harristown, Co. Kilkenny (plate 4.1), and the court tomb of Creevykeel, Co. Sligo (plates 11.3 and 11.4), is nearly non-existent, but these two tombs are the extreme, not the norm.

5.4 Fluent boundaries: tombs with criteria of different tomb classes 5.4.1 Passage x portal tomb: Frequently the lines are blurred between different tomb classes. It is rather easy to turn a simple dolmen of the Carrowmore variety into a portal tomb or vice versa, either in reality during the Neolithic, or in our minds, and there are several examples which have criteria of both classes: Tombs 7 (plate 5.10) and 13 (plate 5.9) (Harbison 1988: 54) and tomb 51 (plate 5.11) in Carrowmore, Co. Sligo (Shee Twohig 2004: 34);

The thought that portal tombs and court tombs are either built by different ethnic groups or that one degenerated, derived or developed from the other (pro portal tomb to court tomb: Scott (1969; 1973: 119) and Piggott (1954: 157, 185-7) is not supported by evidence. Instead, the finds and radiocarbon dates from both tomb types suggest strongly that they are largely contemporary (see below, chapters 6 and 7). Where their distribution areas are the same, they would have probably served the same Neolithic community for two different ritual traditions. These rituals could be either in competition or complementary. For example, a tomb such as Tanrego West (plate 5.8), Co. Sligo (SL 75), which is a portal tomb with massive portal stones with a second simple chamber and a court in front, could be interpreted as an attempt to integrate two different rituals into the same structure.

Ballynahatty, Co. Down (plate 5.12); Ballylumford, Co. Antrim (plate 5.13), which is listed as a passage tomb by Herity (1974: 220) but as a portal tomb by the SMR; Cleenrah, Co. Longford (plate 5.14), which has a mushroomed shaped capstone and a round plinth with at least four kerbstones; Twlc y Filiast, SW Wales (5.15), which allegedly has a passage (Savory 1956), a fact which is disputed by Barker (1992: 14) and the present author who think that this ‘passage’ is in fact a line of outcropping natural bedrock.

Plates 5.9, 5.10 and 5.11: Carrowmore tombs 13, 7 and 51, Co. Sligo

61

TATJANA KYTMANNOW

Plates 5.12 and 5.13: Ballynahatty, Co. Down; Ballylumford, Co. Antrim

Plates 5.14 and 5.15: Cleenrah, Co. Longford, and Twlc y filiast, SW Wales

Figs 5.16; 5.17; 5.18 and 5.19: Carreg Samson, SW Wales

62

THE CHRONOLOGY, MORPHOLOGY AND LANDSCAPE SETTING OF THE PORTAL TOMBS

Fig. 5.20: Carreg Samson, SW Wales, detail

Fig. 5.21: One of several coastal views c.100m from Carreg Samson; the tomb itself was placed to avoid a direct sea view

63

TATJANA KYTMANNOW show a strong resemblance to a portal tomb (at least in the present state); however, if viewed from the other sides as on plates 5.18 and 5.19, it is clearly polygonal and the similarities with other simple passage tombs, for example, in Ireland (Burenhult 2001) are striking. It is curious that the resemblance to a portal tomb is given if viewed from the small stream valley and slightly below the tomb, which agrees with the landscape setting of most portal tombs (see below chapter 9). Cummings (2001; Cummings and Whittle 2004) and Whittle (2004: 84) have both highlighted the fact that two very different types of stones were employed in the construction of the tomb (plate 5.20), one type coming most likely from the stream valley and placed on the stream-facing side, and another coming from the rock outcrops further uphill, and used on this side. The region around Carreg Samson exhibits abundant suitable building stones and this duality of materials seems more likely intentional than an act of necessity. As most tombs in SW Wales, Carreg Samson was built to avoid a direct view of the next shore (plate 5.21), a landscape setting it shares with most portal tombs (see chapter 9). Whittle (2004: 84) stresses the point that Carreg Samson is ‘formally a passage and chamber monument rather than a portal dolmen’, first and foremost because of the original presence of a short passage and the polygonal chamber. He notices and discusses the fact that the large capstone was probably raised in situ, dug out of its pit in the ground, similar to Pentre Ifan (and Garne Turne, see Richards 2004: 78-79), the latter an undoubtable portal tomb. However, he includes Carreg Samson in his discussion of ‘portal dolmens and their landscape of memory and myth’.

Fig. 5.10: Carreg Samson, SW Wales (after Barker 1992 fig. 39, from Lynch 1975)

Carreg Samson, Pembrokeshire, SW Wales (fig. 5.10) has a portal-tomb-like capstone but also a polygonal chamber and a hint of a passage (Lynch 1975; Richards 2004; Whittle 2004). It is a fascinating variant of a probable passage tomb, but which has some (coincidental?) similarities with portal tombs, the dominant tomb type in the region. Plates 5.16 and 5.17

Lynch’s (1975) excavation added several other findings. Three possible stone sockets were located which completed the short passage. The finds included less than

Fig. 5.11: Carreg Samson, SW Wales (after Lynch 1975, fig..5)

64

THE CHRONOLOGY, MORPHOLOGY AND LANDSCAPE SETTING OF THE PORTAL TOMBS 2g of cremated bone, a microlith and about two-thirds of a hemispherical bowl of a likely Early Neolithic date. The ceramic evidence suggests a very early date for this tomb. The microlith probably came from a Mesolithic site nearby, located by Lynch during fieldwalking. This fact is quite interesting because an overlap of portal tomb locations and Late Mesolithic sites is actually a rarity (see chapter 10 for distribution maps and discussion). The predominant Early Neolithic pottery in portal tombs in general and also in Welsh ones (Peterson 2003) are simple, thin-walled, undecorated carinated bowls, and not hemispherical bowls (figure 5.11). The boundaries of classification for the ‘dolmens’ in SW Wales are so fluent that Richards (2004: 72) preferred the old-fashioned term dolmen for the tomb at Carreg Samson as even he is well aware that it is classified as ‘a polygonal chambered megalithic tomb’ and Cummings (2000) termed them all portal/ passage tomb cross. The present author would follow Lynch’s classification and see it as a passage tomb, but with a clear morphological element of portal tombs, in the form of the massive capstone, which was also sourced directly in situ as is the case for most or all portal tombs (see above). Other similarities include its landscape setting that is typical of portal tombs, overlooking a small stream valley, and avoiding good sea views. These morphological and landscape similarities could be coincidental, dictated by the presence of the large cap stone at this location. These observations do not imply that portal tombs are chronologically earlier than simple passage tombs. A duality was also expressed in the selection of two different stone types for the orthostats.

Fig. 5.12: Harristown, Co. Waterford (after Powell 1941)

Already W. C. Borlase (1897: 428) had compared Cornish entrance tombs with the unusual wedge tomb at Streedagh, Co. Sligo (plate 5.22 and fig. 5.13).

5.4.2 Wedge x portal tomb cross?; wedge tomb x entrance tomb As mentioned above, many chambers of portal tombs are wedge shaped. Also many wedge tombs have similar sized chambers as portal tombs. Despite this, there are not many tombs which show clearly criteria of both classes. The only ones which could be classified either way are two neighbouring tombs in Co. Clare: the portal tomb Ballycasheen and the wedge tomb Parknabinnia South (CL 17). Both are quite ruined simple chambers which lack sufficient criteria because of the state of preservation. Wedge tombs and portal tombs were not contemporary in their construction, only overlapped in use for a relatively short time during the Late Neolithic/EBA, and they overlap only marginally in distribution. Tramore/ Scilly entrance tombs (fig 5.12) and wedge tombs are probably contemporary (Hawks 1941; Powell 1941; Thomas 1985; Ashbee 1974; O’ Brien 1999; Brindley and Lanting 1992). Interestingly, their defining criteria have been the subject of some confusion. While Powell (1941) defined five Tramore entrance tombs, two of them were re-classified as wedge tombs (Ó Nualláin and Walsh 1986).

Plate 5.22 and Fig. 5.13: Streedagh wedge tomb, Co. Sligo (plan after Ó Nualláin 1989)

65

TATJANA KYTMANNOW Clontygora small, Co. Armagh (fig. 5.14), is a good example that the classification of tombs is not as certain as the Megalithic Survey postulates. It has been variously classified as a portal tomb (Sheridan 1985; Aalen et al. 1997: 319) or as a court tomb (de Valera 1960; SMR). The transversely placed portals, lack of capstone and the one stone which possibly indicates the former existence of a second chamber make it more likely that it is indeed the last remains of a court tomb. Similar difficulties are met at Ervey, Co. Derry, which is located close to the megalithic cluster of Ballygroll (Williams 1981/2). The high portals led Ó Nualláin (1983: 93; 1989: 124) to include it in his inventory of portal tombs, but it is now a member of the court tomb genus, according to the SMR. The chamber is quite ruined and it is impossible to be certain either way.

5.4.3 Portal x court tomb

Fig. 5.14: Clontygora Small, Co. Armagh (after de Valera)

Plate 5.23: Menlough, Co. Galway, the ranging rod links the portals.

Plate 5.24: The rather un-photogenic remains of Menlough chambered tomb, Co. Galway

66

THE CHRONOLOGY, MORPHOLOGY AND LANDSCAPE SETTING OF THE PORTAL TOMBS

Plate 5.25: Wardhouse 2, Co. Leitrim

Plate 5.26: Tawnamachugh, Co. Leitrim

There are only three other portal/ court tomb hybrids which made it onto the portal tomb list. Menlough, Co. Galway (plates 5.23, 5.24), possesses a very large chamber, low portals and no capstone or backstone, but one clear flanker. The quite wide distance between the portals and also its location so close to a large lake is very unusual. It would be impossible to classify it clearly in its present state.

least two court tombs, one portal tomb, one wedge tomb, two unclassified tombs and now this simple rectangular chamber (Cooney 1990; Cooney 2000: 148; Moore 2003: 12-13). Its close proximity to two court tombs would make it possible that it is actually a subsidiary chamber of one. In any case, too little remains to classify this structure with certainty. Another recent discovery in Co. Leitrim made it onto the portal tomb list. This extremely large long cairn with a small, quite ruined, rectangular chamber and a small cist at the other end is located high in the Benbulbin Massive at Tawnamachugh (plate 5.26). Four long cairns and a very well preserved wedge tomb, several hutsites, prebog walls and enclosures form one of the best preserved megalithic complexes in Ireland, most of it in the

A recently discovered second possible portal tomb at Wardhouse, Co. Leitrim (Moore 2003:12) is tiny, totally imbedded in a massive fieldwall, and lacks most of the defining criteria of a portal tomb, but the current classification by the megalithic survey is as a portal tomb with question mark (E. Cody pers. comm.) (plate 5.25).Wardhouse possesses a dense concentration of at 67

TATJANA KYTMANNOW

Plate 5.26a: Ticloy, Co. Antrim

townland of Aghamore. Its utter remoteness, only disturbed by the occasional sheep, led to its unusual good state of preservation. The massive long cairns are so intact that other possible chambers could be still hidden in it. The tomb which is now classified as a portal tomb lacks again most of the defining criteria; it has no real portal stones, no massive capstone and the only certainty is that it has a single rectangular chamber.

proportions in the adjacent fieldwall suggest that there used to be a more complicated structure at this place. Ballyrenan, Co. Tyrone, is a good example of a classical portal tomb with court tomb features (fig. 5.15). The two back-chambers would look entirely at home in a court tomb. The back chambers have produced early Neolithic pottery and were possibly erected simultaneously with the court tomb, but they have also produced an EBA 14C date from cremated bone (see table 7.1 for details). Similar to Tanrego West, the local community might have tried to combine two traditions in one cairn, or one element was added at a slightly later stage, replacing the other tradition.

There are several tombs which are portal/ court tomb hybrids. The aforementioned tombs at Cashleen Co. Galway (plate 5.7); Tanrego West (SL 75), Co. Sligo; and Cleggan, Co. Galway, all have unusually high jambs, or better, portal stones. The tomb at Ballynamona Lower, Co. Waterford, does not have a real court and the unusually high jambs are reminiscent of portal tombs. It is also far off the distribution of court tombs, an extreme southern outlier, deep into portal tomb country. The court tomb at Caltragh, Co. Sligo, possesses a large, very thick, capstone of 2.75x2.05x1.6m and an undercapstone, covering part of a single, elongated chamber. The evidence for a court rests on one stone in situ, a flanker to the right. The existence of an under-capstone is usually restricted to the portal tombs of Ireland.

Fig. 5.15: Ballyrenan, Co Tyrone (after Corcoran 1973)

Slightly similar in appearance is the court tomb at Drumhallagh Upper, Co. Donegal. The two chambers are separated by large portals, the back chamber is wedge shaped and the evidence for a court is indicated by one 0.35 cm high flanker (fig. 5.16). Cody (2002: 70), Corcoran (1973: 109) and de Valera (1960: 87, 106) suggested the possibility that this tomb might be a composite tomb.

There are several multi-chambered tombs which show portal tomb and court tomb elements. One of the best known is Ticloy, Co. Antrim (plate 5.26a), which allegedly used to have a low court and possibly two more chambers. The present remains look just like the sparse remains of an entirely usual portal tomb, but the antiquarian notes and the presence of stones of megalithic 68

THE CHRONOLOGY, MORPHOLOGY AND LANDSCAPE SETTING OF THE PORTAL TOMBS Tawnamachugh, Co. Leitrim; Melkagh, Co. Longford (destroyed); Ballyknock A, Co. Mayo; Ballyknock B, Co. Mayo; Corleanamaddy, Co. Monaghan; and Ballywholan, Co. Tyrone. These eleven Irish portal tombs do not include the ones with larger chambers which will be discussed in the next paragraph. They share the distribution area with court tombs. It has been suggested for many of these portal tombs that they might be court tomb ‘hybrids’. But cists have been frequently inserted into passage tombs too (e.g. Cairn B, Carrowkeel, Co. Sligo) and just show a continuation or diachronic use of a sacred place. This is probably the case here too. The bad cairn survival rate in the lowlands of the southern parts of Ireland makes the destruction of a cist more likely too. Of the above, only Carnaghan (Swan and Davies 1938) and Aghnaskeagh A (Evans 1935) have produced evidence that they were probably secondary cists. None of the tombs with subsidiaries occur in the geographically southern part of Ireland. In Britain Trellyfaint, SW Wales; Tan y Muriau, NW Wales and Lanyon Quoit in Cornwall contain cists or small subsidiary chambers. It is impossible to say how many of these fourteen tombs had subsidiaries as part of their original design or if they are just a variant of composite tombs: portal tombs which are multi-chambered and highly likely, multi-phase or multiperiod tombs.

Fig. 5.16: Drumhallagh Upper, Co. Donegal (after Lacy 1983)

5.6 Multi-period and multi-phase tombs The first very clear evidence that a multi-chambered portal tomb was indeed a multi-phase construction was produced by Powell at Dyffryn Ardudwy (Powell 1973). The smaller, more western portal tomb was erected first in the earliest Neolithic (Powell 1973; Peterson 2003: 5560) and was surrounded by a small, low round cairn. The second tomb was added later and both structures then surrounded by an elongated cairn, much larger than would have been needed for the support of the orthostats or during the placing of the capstone. The cairn unites the two tombs clearly into one structure (plate 5.27; fig. 5.18).

Fig. 5.17: Drumgollagh court tomb, Co. Mayo (after Corcoran 1973)

Drumgollagh court tomb, Co. Mayo (fig. 5.17), has again striking portals standing between the two chambers. All portal tombs with court features which were mentioned and listed in the previous chapter could be possibly classified as portal/ court tomb hybrids.

At the same time, Corcoran (1972) had suggested that multi-period megalithic tombs are in all likelihood quite common. This was literally a revolutionary thought, actually making all the hard-earned classifications quite obsolete and their usefulness for showing developments or origins more than doubtful. The whole reason of a lifetime of research for many archaeologists was cast into doubt and several individuals, especially in Ireland, chose to ignore this new evidence (see for example Herity and Eogan 1977).

5.5 Portal tombs with subsidiary chambers As stated above, the evidence for a long cairn alone is no indication of a court tomb: many portal tombs have long cairns too. Neither is the presence of small additional chambers. For example, Ballykeel, Co. Armagh, is a classic tripod dolmen with a subsidiary chamber. Like Aghnaskeagh A, Co. Louth, it was chosen for excavation because of its perceived similarities to court tombs. De Valera (1960: 66, 135) was only aware of six portal tombs with subsidiary chambers, but there are a good few more than this: Ballykeel, Co. Armagh; Aghnaskeagh A, Co. Louth (with six cists); Carnaghan (Inch Island), Co. Donegal; Ards Beg, Co. Donegal; Banagher, Co. Cavan;

Furthermore, the conclusions drawn from individual finds had to be revised too, because Dyffryn Ardudwy had clearly produced evidence for a diachronic use of an individual tomb. Not only could the construction of one tomb be a multi-period process, the ritual use of each tomb could be multi-period too. Herity’s sometimes naïve 69

TATJANA KYTMANNOW

Plate 5.27: Dyffryn Ardudwy double portal tomb

Wales) suggests that two phases of construction are evident here. Again, the geographic south of Ireland is different; there are no multi-chambered portal tombs there, but they do occur in NW Wales. 5.6.1 Ireland There are seven portal tombs which have individual tombs in one line, normally connected by one cairn, and one with an additional chamber : Malin More A; Malin More B; Kilclooney More B; Toome; all Co. Donegal; Ballyvennaght 1, Co. Antrim; Sunnagh More A; Sunnagh More B, both Co. Leitrim; and Ballyrenan, Co. Tyrone. Ticloy, Co. Antrim might have been a multichambered tomb too. Only Sunnagh More B has two directly adjacent chambers, similar to a court tomb.

Fig. 5.18: Dyffryn Ardudwy (after Cummings and Whittle 2004, fig. 863, from Powell 1973)

The unique six tombs in one cairn at Malin More A (plate 5.28 and Chapter 9, paragraph 9.4.1) has two large double-capstoned tombs with a flanker each at the opposing ends of a 92m long, but now low cairn. Between these mirror-image portal tombs are four small portal tombs (plates 5.29, 5.30, 5.31 and 5.32), all transverse to the cairn direction and off-centre to the north of it (fig. 5.19).

conclusions in his discussion of portal tomb finds have not weathered well; he usually assumed that the deposition must have been a single action and therefore the evidence, for example, of EBA finds suggested a EBA construction (Herity 1964). Any single tomb can be a multi-phase construction; cairns could be removed or re-modelled, a court added and so on. Collins (1973: 100) suggested that in all likelihood the subsidiary chambers of court tombs could be later additions. Multiple chambered portal tombs might have been planned as such from the beginning; their subsidiaries or other chambers might have been part of the design, as it is likely at Sunnagh More B. On the other hand, a portal tomb and a small passage tomb in one irregular cairn (Carneddau Hengwm South, NW

The surviving portal stones at the western small tombs (plates 5.31 and 5.32) suggest that these were indeed portal tombs, and not just subsidiary chambers. Opposite Malin More A is the double portal tomb Malin More B which is also very ruined. The little that remains of the two tombs looks quite similar and there is some remnant of a cairn surrounding both together.

70

THE CHRONOLOGY, MORPHOLOGY AND LANDSCAPE SETTING OF THE PORTAL TOMBS

Plate 5.28: The six portal tombs at Malin More A, Co. Donegal

Fig. 5.19: Malin More A (after Cody 2002)

Plates 5.29 and 5.30: The two opposing main tombs, both directed E

71

TATJANA KYTMANNOW

Plates 5.31 and 5.32: The two western small tombs: one with the portal to the N, the other to the S

Plates 5.33 and 5.34: The two more eastern small tombs, even more ruined than the others

Plate 5.35: Double tomb at Malin More B, note the quartz

On the northern side of the SW Donegal peninsula are two more double tombs: the stunning Kilclooney More B which possesses two nearly perfectly preserved portal tombs, linked by one cairn, and the less spectacular tomb at Toome, a portal tomb and another chamber close together on one small ridge. The larger tomb at

Kilclooney More B is the dominant megalith of a small cluster of four tombs: a court tomb with truly megalithic dimensions of its orthostats, a tiny megalith in a quite prominent round cairn at Kilclooney More A, and the second, diminutive portal tomb at Kilclooney More B which shares one cairn with the dominant one (fig 5.20). 72

THE CHRONOLOGY, MORPHOLOGY AND LANDSCAPE SETTING OF THE PORTAL TOMBS

Fig. 5.20: Kilclooney More B., double portal tomb (after Shee Twohig 2004)

Plate 5.36: Ballyvennaght 1, two portal tombs in one cairn, Co. Antrim

In the far NE corner of Ireland is another double portal tomb: Ballyvennaght 1, Co. Antrim. One classic portal tomb is paired with another tomb which is still enclosed by peat. Only the very large capstone and the tops of several orthostats are visible. The tombs are at opposing ends of a long cairn. This double megalith is part of a cluster again; there are two other portal tombs nearby, and a court tomb, a decorated passage tomb, a kerbed cairn and a wedge tomb (see Chapter 9, paragraph 9.4.5 for details). Clusters will be the subject of chapter 9, but a cluster is a group of megaliths in walking distance to each other and sharing the same landscape.

There are two multi-chambered portal tombs in the townland of Sunnagh More, only c. 500m apart. The larger structure, Sunnagh More A, has the remains of probably three tombs in one c.50m long cairn. While one of the tombs is probably a portal tomb, the others are too ruined to judge. The other tomb at Sunnagh More B is uniquely double-chambered, i.e. it has a small gallery of two chambers separated by a sillstone, fronted by portals with a doorstone. Again, these multi-chambered portal tombs are part of a cluster, a loose one in this case. This one is strung along a NS running esker and comprises six portal tombs.

73

TATJANA KYTMANNOW The aforementioned portal tomb Ards Beg on the Dunfanaghy Penisula, Co. Donegal, consists now of one large chamber and several large stones of a previously destroyed second tomb or subsidiary chamber. The only other evidence for its existence is a drawing from the early 19th century (Cody 2002: 10), but even then only three stones survived in situ.

5.6.2

Ballyrenan has been already mentioned (fig. 5.15). Its excavation by Davies (1936) did not shed much light on the possible sequence of construction, also hindered by his belief that large chambers had to be earlier and in general portal tombs should be considered to be late. The tomb had been pilfered on numerous occasions before which certainly did not help either. Davies suggestion that the back-chamber was built around one bone deposit could not be verified by recent radiocarbon dating; the bones produced a Late Neolithic/EBA date despite the fact that the back-chamber (or third tomb) contained only early Neolithic pottery.

The cairn was re-modelled in modern times to function as a fieldwall. This makes it difficult to asses its original shape and direction but there seems to be a kink where the large middle chamber is located (fig. 5.21). Lynch (1969) had suggested that Tan y Muriau is a multi-phase monument, the portal tomb the oldest and the others added later and linked by a cairn.

Wales

The portal tomb at Tan y Muriau, Lleyn peninsula, NW Wales, has probably one subsidiary chamber, small and transversely set. Another much larger chamber or tomb is located between this and the large portal tomb on the other end (plates 5.37 and 5.38; fig. 5.21).

Dyffryn Ardudwy has been described above (see also plate 5.39).

Fig. 5.21: Tan y Muriau (after Lynch 1995)

Plate 5.37: Tan y Muriau, NW Wales. The ranging rod is beside the small subsidiary chamber

74

THE CHRONOLOGY, MORPHOLOGY AND LANDSCAPE SETTING OF THE PORTAL TOMBS

Plate 5.38: Tan y Muriau, middle chamber, where the cairn changes its direction

Plate 5.39: Dyffryn Ardudwy from the east, the later tomb in the foreground

Fig. 5.22: Carneddau Hengym South (after Lynch 1995)

75

TATJANA KYTMANNOW

Plates 5.40 and 5.41: Portal tomb and additional tomb at Carneddau Hengwm South, NW Wales

Fig. 5.23: Carneddau Hengym North (after Lynch 1995)

Plate 5.42: Trellyfaint, Pembrokeshire, SW Wales

76

THE CHRONOLOGY, MORPHOLOGY AND LANDSCAPE SETTING OF THE PORTAL TOMBS

Plate 5.43: Cerrig y Gof, Pembrokeshire, SW Wales, Dinas Head in the background

Fig. 5.24: Cerrig y Gof (after Barker 1992, from Lynch 1972)

Just at the other end of this cluster of four portal tombs lies Carneddau Hengwm.

In SW Wales only the aforementioned Trellyfaint (plate 5.42) contains an additional chamber, but this consists of two stones only and its original form is less than clear. The only other tomb with several chambers (or small tombs) is the enigmatic monument at Cerrig y Gof, Newport. It consists of five small tombs in a nearly round cairn, arranged radially (plate 5.43).

It comprises two chambered long cairns (figures 5.22 and 5.23 and plates 5.40 and 5.41). The smaller northern one consists of a central ruined chamber and two subsidiaries and has been compared to Severn-Cotswold tombs (Lynch 1969: 137). The larger southern cairn contains at its upper end an impressive portal tomb and another tomb in its middle with a dry-stone walled passage and chamber. The substantial cairn dips between the two chambers, possibly an indication that this monument was built in two phases.

The cist-like chambers have some similarities with portal tombs and the monument is located close to a large cluster of them. Nevertheless, the tomb is undated and unparalleled, and classification is impossible (fig 5.24).

77

TATJANA KYTMANNOW

Plate 5.44: Lanyon Quoit, West Penwith, Cornwall, one of the large cists in the foreground

Fig. 5.25: Sketch of Lanyon Quoit, Cornwall, before re-erection (Borlase 1769 plate xxi before page 223)

5.25) and it can be assumed that no substantial chambers except the main tomb had survived intact to this time.

5.6.3 Cornwall There are no multiple portal tombs in one cairn in Cornwall. Lanyon has several small subsidiaries or cists (plate 5.39), but there is no pairing of tombs in a single cairn in this region. But Lanyon was re-constructed after it collapsed in 1837 and the cists were certainly dug out in antiquarian times, i.e. their original architecture is difficult to judge. They are not depicted by Borlase (fig.

5.6.4 Summary There is a definite bias towards a northern distribution of multiple portal tombs in one structure, similar to the distribution of portal tombs with subsidiary chambers. Furthermore, six of the eight multiple and/or multi78

THE CHRONOLOGY, MORPHOLOGY AND LANDSCAPE SETTING OF THE PORTAL TOMBS

Fig. 5.26: Pentre Ifan, showing later cairn and ‘horn’ additions (after Lynch 1976, from Grimes 1949)

chambered portal tombs in Ireland are located in portal tomb clusters (see chaper 9). Toome is located together with one wedge tomb and a court tomb on a small peninsula. Ballyrenan is not in a cluster. As usual in Tyrone, they are quite widely spaced from each other and the next megalithic tomb is c. 3km away and the next portal tombs c. 6.5km. Dyffryn Ardudwy and Carneddau Hengwm South are located in the same cluster, and Tan y Muriau is beside a very important ‘axe-factory’, which might explain the increased and long-sustained ritual activity.

Portal tombs with additional chambers are confined to areas which had the presence of other early Neolithic megalithic traditions in the same region, i.e. simple dolmens, Cotswold-Severn long-barrows or court tombs. In the southern part of Ireland and in Cornwall portal tombs were probably without competition in the earlier parts of the Neolithic, possibly until the Late Neo / EBA transitional phase when wedge tombs and entrance graves started to be built. In SW Wales there is evidence for later additions to the original tomb in the case of Pentre Ifan (fig. 5.26), but the only multi-chambered one is Trellyfaint.

Overall, there are at least nineteen portal tombs with several chambers and/or tombs in Ireland, i.e. more than 10% of the known 183 Irish portal tombs. This makes them still the exception to the rule: ‘portal tombs have one singular chamber’, but they are common enough that they are a distinct (northern) variant to the theme of portal tomb building.

5.7 Other regional variations 5.7.1 Tombs which are not portal tombs Corcoran (1969) and Darvill (2004) postulate that any small, single, and rectangular chamber on either side of the Severn estuary is likely to be a portal tomb, all the way up to Oxfordshire. This is not an opinion that is shared by the present writer. The lack of a full excavation of any of these structures does not allow a mental reconstruction of a portal tomb and there is not one surviving in a good enough state to possess undeniable portal tomb criteria. That means we could be very well dealing with the last remains of a Cotswold-Severn tomb chamber or some other megalithic tradition. Just because the chambers are simple, small and rectangular is not sufficient reason to enlarge the distribution area so widely; after all, many portal tombs are actually neither small nor simple. It would be also odd that the best indications for a portal tomb classification has coincidentally vanished in every case and did not even survive in a prostrate state: massive capstones, large pillar-like portals or a full doorstone in situ.

Secondary chambers and additional tombs exist at 24 portal tombs, more than 10% of a maximum number of 230 in Ireland and Britain. The distributions of multichambered and multiple tombs are exceedingly northern; any portal tombs which contain additional megalithic tombs are either in the northern part of Ireland or in NW Wales. Multiple tombs are commonly located in dense clusters of megaliths and most of them will be discussed further in the chapter 9, ‘The tomb in the macro-region’, which will investigate the interrelationships between different classes and types of megaliths in one complex. The evidence that multiple and multi-chambered portal tombs are indeed multi-period rests still on the excavation of Dyffryn Ardudwy, but kinks in the direction of cairns, dips in the height of cairns between two chambers, and the so obviously different blue-print for the other chambers suggest that they might be multi-phase. Circumstantial evidence is also provided through the excavations by Corcoran (1973) and Scott (1973) in Scotland which showed that some megalithic tombs went through different architectural stages during their life.

In SW Wales there are a small number of earth-fast tombs (see above) which are in distinctly different landscape setting from portal tombs and that lack portals, doorstones and endstones. They are a local variant whose temporal or ritual relationship to portal tombs has not been explored and many questions can only be answered 79

TATJANA KYTMANNOW

Plates 5.45, 5.46 and 5.47: Chun Quoit, Mulfra Quoit and Bosporthennis Quoit, all West Penwith

by a good, modern excavation. They are all very close to rock outcrops, two on the St. David’s headland (Coetan Arthur and Carn Llidi) and five on Strumble head (Carn Wnda; Garn Gilfach; three tombs at Garn Wen)

capstone, and/or landscape setting suggest that we are dealing with a variation on a theme. There is a clear similarity to portal tombs as classically defined but they provide a good access into the tomb where one of the portals should have been. Some of them might have just lost one or two portals during the following millennia, but the excavation of Carreg Coetan Arthur, SW Wales (plates 5.48, 5.49), did not find a socket where the portal stone was missing, i.e. it probably never had one on the right hand side (Barker 1994: 20). Other sockets of missing stones had been located during the excavation (Sian Rees pers. comm.) The tomb at Maen y Bardd in the Conwy valley, NW Wales (plates 5.50, 5.51), has the capstone resting on the full doorstone; Bachwen, NW Wales (plate 5.52), has no portals either and the capstone rests on the doorstone; and Lletty’r Filliast (plate 5.52) misses one portal and also a sidestone.

In Cornwall there are a handful of quoits, i.e. chambered tombs, which obviously owe a lot to portal tombs. Nevertheless, they lack portals, are simple square chambers and their landscape setting high up in the local region suggest that they are again a local variant, but not definitely portal tombs. Scott (1969: 208) had suggested that Chun Quoit might be a protomegalith, a very early simple chamber. Three of these tombs survive in quite a good state: Chun, Mulfra and Bosporthennis Quoit (plates 5.45, 5.46 and 5.47). Devil’s Quoit has been destroyed but plans survive while others which might have belonged to this group such as Morvah Quoit were destroyed without a trace.

A distinct northern variant in Ireland are small, but perfectly formed portal tombs in large, sometimes huge, round cairns: Burren South, Co. Cavan; Kilclooney More A, Co. Donegal; Ballyvennaght C, Co. Antrim; Knockalower, Co. Mayo: Clonlum, Co. Armagh;

5.7.2 Local variants of portal tombs Welsh portal tombs that lack portals seem to be a contradiction in terms, but the full doorstone, sloping 80

THE CHRONOLOGY, MORPHOLOGY AND LANDSCAPE SETTING OF THE PORTAL TOMBS

Plates 5.52 and 5.53: Bachwen, NW Wales; Lletty’r Filliast, NW Wales

Plates 5.48 and 5.49: Carreg Coetan Arthur, Newport, Pembrokeshire, SW Wales

Plates 5.54 and 5.55: Ballyvennaght 2, Co. Antrim, the ‘invisible’ tomb in the landscape

Plates 5.50 and 5.51: Maen y Bardd, Conwy Valley, NW Wales

81

TATJANA KYTMANNOW Aughdanove, Co. Armagh, Templemoyle, Co. Donegal, and Keerin, Co. Tyrone. These tombs did not need this amount of cairn-stones for stability, but it would have given the tomb a much more visual presence and allow the whole community to participate in the construction. They form subtype B. The small chambers would be very well protected and indeed some belong to the best preserved portal tombs which still exist, for example, Burren South and Ballyvennaght C. Ballyvennaght C (plates 5. 54, 5.55) is so imbedded in its grass and peat covered cairn that it is nearly invisible now. Originally the cairn must have made quite a statement.

one structure, i.e. society. They also imply a possible time-depth. The erection of the large cairns could have involved many members of the community over a long period of time. Type B. A diminutive tomb with orthostats shorter than 1.5 metres and a small cap c. 2m by 1m. If a cairn survives it is round and much larger than would be necessary for constructional reasons (see above, same chapter, for examples). There are fifteen of these (fig. 5.27) and the distribution is restricted to the geographical north of Ireland (fig. 5.28). The small tombs gain added visual presence by the cairn structure. Type B tombs could be even erected by the physically weakest members of society: children, pregnant women and elderly people, or the members of a small family.

5.8 Subtypes While all portal tombs are individual they are structurally variants of a very simple form and do not lend themselves easily to architectural subtyping. However, certain sociomorphological similarities are so strong that it seems appropriate to propose four different notional subtypes that combine both architectural features and certain social factors (figs. 5.27; 5.28; 5.29).

Type C. These were described in the first chapter as the ‘classic’ portal tomb in structure and size. The portal stones are between 1.5m and 2m high and the capstones are c. 2m by 3m (examples: see column SUBTYPES in the main database, appendix B). They are the largest group of subtypes with 73 examples or 46% of the portal tombs to which a subtype has been assigned (fig. 5.27). They occur in all regions (fig. 5.29). Cairns, if they survive, can be oval, elongated, trapezoidal or round. An average tall person cannot look over it. A tomb such as this could have been erected by c. 20 persons, i.e. the extended family or any other similar sized group.

18, 11% 54, 34%

15, 9%

A B

Type D. Type D has been described as a dominant or enormous tomb. There are 54 examples or 34% (fig. 5.27). The portals would be higher than 2m (examples: Pentre Ifan, SW Wales; Zennor Quoit, Cornwall; Carnaghan, Co. Donegal) and/or they would have enormous capstones (examples: Kernanstown, Co. Carlow; Garn Turne, SW Wales; Hendre Waelod, NW Wales; Brenanstown, Co. Dublin, see fig. 5.28). To erect two-metre high portals without any sockets, as in the case of Poulnabrone, would require a strong, high and dense cairn during the placing of the capstone, i.e. it would require most likely the work of more people than an extended family could provide. Without a doubt, the erection of any of the portal tombs with capstones measuring more than 10 cubic metres (see appendix B, main database, column CAPSIZE) would require the workforce of the whole macro-region and possibly beyond.

C 73, 46%

D

Fig. 5.27: Pie-chart of subtypes, in number and percentage

Type A. These comprise the above mentioned multichambered or multi-tombed, i.e. composite portal tombs (see also above, same chapter, for examples). There are eighteen in number (fig. 5.27), including structures that have subsidiary chambers and others that are clearly several portal tombs in one cairn. They occur in most regions of the distribution area (fig 5.28) and are more likely to be located in dense clusters and groups (chapter 9). All are in long cairns, with the exception of the unique tomb Cerrig y Gof in SW Wales. The direction of the largest portal tomb chamber determined the direction of the long axis of the cairn. The excavations of Dyffryn Ardudwy, SW Wales, and Aghnaskeagh A, Co. Louth, have proven that at least some are multi-period structures and the same has been argued by F. Lynch (1969a) for Carneddau Hengym South. Type A tombs integrate several chambers or tombs. The provision of even space in such portal tombs seems not to have been of great importance judging by the often intentionally small chambers and the nature and volume of the deposits. These chambers or tombs could stand for different strata or groups of the society, showing their integration into

The different types of portal tombs make a statement about the social structure of the group who erected them. The subtype also advertised the size and organisation of the group, who had erected the tomb, to outsiders. For Type C tombs, an extended family or group of c. 20 adults could erect such a tomb, but a cairn would be needed during construction. For the erection of one of the Type D tombs a large group of 100 to 300 adults would be needed. These would be extraordinary events of gathering and achievement, commemorated by the presence of the portal tomb for future generations. 82

THE CHRONOLOGY, MORPHOLOGY AND LANDSCAPE SETTING OF THE PORTAL TOMBS

Fig. 5.28: Distribution map of the subtypes A, B, and D.

83

TATJANA KYTMANNOW

Fig 5.29: Distribution map of subtype C portal tombs.

84

THE CHRONOLOGY, MORPHOLOGY AND LANDSCAPE SETTING OF THE PORTAL TOMBS REGION * Portal Tomb TYPE Cross tabulation Count

There are also other structural elements which would have played a role in defining the group identity, as for example the different height of doorstones which do not correlate with any of the four types listed above. Their meaning is difficult to read: full doorstones certainly highlighted the fact that the entrance must be from the side. Another uniquely Irish variant is the employment of double capstones. Again, this does not correlate with any of the subtypes. Which social function these and other morphological divisions could have played is unclear. The interplay of different subtypes in one cluster or macro-region will be further discussed in chapter 9.

POTOTYPE Acomposite

Region

n. part Eire S Eire

Ccommon

19

16

55

28

118

0

0

32

18

50

Wales

4

0

13

6

23

Cornw all

1

0

3

5

9

24

16

103

57

200

Total

Certain subtypes are more common in certain regions or do not occur in all regions. The two tables below (tables 5.1 and 5.2) demonstrate this. Firstly, the distribution area was divided into four geographical regions. The result showed a trend towards a meaningful relationship between regions and subtypes, but the numbers were too low to give a valid chi-square test. To circumvent this problem, the distribution area was divided into two geographical regions: Northern part of Ireland and Wales as region 1, versus the southern part of Ireland and southern England, i.e. Cornwall as region 2.

Bsmall

Total Dlarge cairn

Chi-Square Tests

Pearson Chi-Square

Value 26.378(a)

df 9

Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) .002

Table 5.1: Region versus Subtypes, the numbers of cases are too low for a meaningful chi-square test, but they do indicate a trend.

POTOTYPE * NEWESTREGION Crosstabulation NEWEST REGION 1.00 POTOTYPE

A-composite

Count Expected Count

B-small

Count Expected Count

C-common

Count Expected Count

D-large

Count Expected Count

Count Expected Count Total

Total

2.00 23

1

24

16.9

7.1

24.0

16

0

16

11.3

4.7

16.0

68

35

103

72.6

30.4

103.0

34

23

57

40.2

16.8

57.0

141

59

200

141.0

59.0

200.0

70.5%

29.5%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

70.5%

29.5%

100.0%

Chi-Square Tests

Pearson Chi-Square

Value 18.322(a)

df 3

Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) .000

Exact Sig. (2-sided)

Table 5.2: Crosstab and chi-square test with bundled regions to create a statistical valuable test. Region 1 (S Ireland + Cornwall)= 1, 2, 3, 6, 7 ; region 2 (N Ireland + Wales)=4, 5, 8 The test shows that certain Subtypes and certain Regions relate meaningful to each other. The regions are the same as in figure 1.2.

85

TATJANA KYTMANNOW 5.9 Conclusion During the last two chapters it became evident that portal tombs are far from the uniformly quite simple single chambers which could have easily evolved from the subsidiary chambers of court tombs. Instead a wide variety of designs occur over the whole distribution area which suggests strongly a constant contact between different Neolithic communities throughout Britain and Ireland, back and forth across the Irish Sea. Some local developments and variants, confined to northern or southern areas, speak for the development of regional ritual and architectural traditions. Double-capstoned, tripod, multi-chambered, small structures in huge round cairns, court features, long cairns, round cairns, all these are variations on one theme, the portal tomb. They are as variable as court tombs or passage tombs and the perception that they are rather simple should be put to rest. The only true ‘hybrids’ of portal tombs with other tomb classes occur with court tombs (possible exception: the portal x passage tomb ‘hybrid’ Carreg Samson, SW Wales), despite the fact that they have no more morphological commonalities than portal tombs and wedge tombs, or portal tombs and simple passage tombs. The latter fact that they have so clearly divergent morphological traits might have helped to identify these hybrids, i.e. if a tomb has very high portals aligned with the chamber, but a long gallery or a court, it has clearly elements of both these tomb classes. Shee Twohig (1990) suggested that the relationship of portal tombs and court tombs could be regarded as one of ‘siblings’, and not as a ‘parent- offspring’ relationship. This implies that they should have a common ‘ancestry’, for example, European long mounds (Joussaume 1988: 26-9).

86

THE CHRONOLOGY, MORPHOLOGY AND LANDSCAPE SETTING OF THE PORTAL TOMBS

Chapter 6 Finds re-evaluation: analysis, relative chronology and interpretation 6.1 Introduction

Early Neolithic plain ware (of the regional Clegyr Boia type), leading to the interpretation that the whole tomb should date to the Middle Neolithic (Barker 1992: 19-21; F. Lynch 2000: 72). Overall, there is no clarity to which period Welsh portal tombs might belong: researchers have presented alternative viewpoints, based mainly on typology or the pottery evidence from Dyffryn Ardudwy, as having equal validity (Lynch 2000: 70), while others have avoided the topic of dating (e.g. Cummings and Whittle 2004).

As stated above, the last comprehensive finds analysis was undertaken by Herity (1964). While the lists of excavations and finds are still a valuable source, especially for the finds which have been lost by now, Herity’s interpretation was based on the knowledge of the time. There is also the possibility that his pottery interpretations were tainted by his strong belief that portal tombs should be at the chronological end of the megalithic sequence (Herity 1982; 1991). Furthermore, the important portal tomb excavations of Dyffryn Ardudwy (Powell 1973), Carreg Coetan Arthur (Barker 1992) and Poulnabrone (Lynch 1990) are of course not included. Despite the richness of finds these excavations produced, they did not spark a new discussion, with the result that the dating and origin of portal tombs is still very much a matter of opinion and not of evidence and varies widely from placing portal tombs into the very Early Neolithic (Powell 1973; ApSimon 1986) to the Late Neolithic (Herity 1964; 1991; Flanagan 1977; de Valera and Ó Nualláin 1972: 168; A. Lynch pers. comm.; Thomas and Wailes 1967) and anywhere in between (Moore 1996, 3), many authors avoiding a clear statement (Waddell 1999: 88-92; Shee Twohig 2004 [1990]: 34; Cooney 2000; F. Lynch 2000: 70).

In Cornwall, there is only one excavation report from a possible portal tomb, Sperris Quoit, in modern times (Thomas and Wailes 1967). This gave thankfully also an overview of the excavations and finds of the definite portal tomb Zennor Quoit. Thomas and Wailes based their discussion on wrongly classified pottery (H. Quinnell pers. comm.) and generally took their cue from the Irish interpretations of de Valera and others. Subsequently they gave ‘a general impression of lateness’. Not one megalithic tomb of possible Neolithic date in Cornwall, the so-called Penwith chambered tombs, has been radiocarbon dated and any discussion of megalithic tombs in Cornwall has come to a standstill, starved of any new evidence and not much helped by the phenomenological discourses of Tilley and others.

In Ireland, Herity, and de Valera and Ó Nualláin both projected a general impression of lateness, basing their opinion on two hollow-based arrowheads and the small number of Late Neolithic or EBA pottery (usually from cists or subsidiary chambers), ignoring the possibility of multi-period use or multi-phase construction of megaliths, and downplaying any evidence for Early Neolithic pottery. This viewpoint was opposed by C. Scarre (2003: 66) and A. Sheridan (2003: 70), both arguing for a precedence of radiocarbon dating evidence over chronological expectations based on models of typological developments.

Overall, the newly obtained evidence from excavations of portal tombs has not received a full discussion nor has the evidence been scrutinised in the light of better pottery classifications and dating. Therefore, it was decided to view all still accessible finds in Ireland, Wales and Cornwall to try to clarify the relative chronology of portal tombs. To enable future, possibly more detailed research into the finds, especially the pottery, a database of all known finds can be found in the appendix B. The stated research aim was to establish whether portal tombs were constructed at the beginning of the earlier Neolithic or much later, towards the Late Neolithic. Furthermore, a possible sequence of events, i.e. secondary use of the tombs, has also been investigated.

In Wales, Powell’s excavation of the two-chambered portal tomb at Dyffryn Ardudwy and his subsequent report and discussion (Powell 1973) presented the evidence for an Early Neolithic origin and a multi-period use, based on the pottery. The excavation of Carreg Coetan Arthur, Newport, SW Wales, from 1979-80 is still not fully published and the sparse information in Barker (1992: 19-21) and Rees (1992: 16) gives only a very incomplete picture. The published radiocarbon dates (Peterson 2003: 169) clustered around c. 3600-3500BC, but were obtained from charcoal which was firmly associated with decorated middle Neolithic pottery (Abingdon Ware) and not with the equally numerous

6.2 The evidence There are 42 portal tombs that have either been excavated or have produced surface or stray finds (table 6.1). While this is a surprisingly large percentage (more than 20% of the less than 200 megaliths which fulfil most of the defining criteria for portal tombs), only a small number of these are full excavations, whose finds and final report were accessible for research. If the finds drawings were published copies of them have been reproduced and can be found in the full catalogue in Appendix A. 87

TATJANA KYTMANNOW

MYNO

Sitename

9

Springfield, Co. Sligo

Antiquarian

Modern x

x

80

Ballynew/Newtown, Co. Carlow

x

x

83

Sheskin, Co. Waterford

x

x

111

Kiltiernan Domain, Co. Dublin

x

115

Poulnabrone,. Co. Clare

x

x

O Eochaidhe 1957 Lynch and Donnabhain 1994

145

Ballykeel, Co. Armagh

x

x

Collins 1965

181

Radergan, Co. Tyrone

x

x

Brennan 1981

191

Dyffryn Ardudwy, NW Wales

x

x

Powell 1973

198

Pentre Ifan, SW Wales

x

x

Grimes 1948

204

Carreg Coetan, SW Wales

x

x

Barker 1992

602

Melkagh, Co. Longford

x

x

Cooney 1997b

18

Kilclooney More, Co. Donegal

x

63

Drumanone, Co. Roscommon

x

x

123

Ballynacloghy, Co. Galway

x

x

169

Ballyrenan, Co. Tyrone

x

x

Davies 1937

209

Twlc y filiast, SW Wales

x

x

221

Sperris Quoit, Cornwall

x

x

Savory 1956 Thomas and Wailes 1967

128

Aghnaskeagh, Co. Louth

x

x

Evans 1935

193

Cist Cerrig, NW Wales

x

x

214

Zennor Quoit. Cornwall

222

Carwynnen, Cornwall

x

x

603

Glengesh 2, Co. Fermanagh

87

Knockeen, Co. Waterford

88

Ballynageeragh, Co. Waterford

x

113

Ballybrack, Co. Dublin

x

x

Excav.

x

Stray f

x

x

x

This volume Brian Williams pers. comm. Topographical files, NMI Dublin

x

Clonlum, Co. Armagh

x

x

x

x

110

Taylorsgrange, Co. Dublin

x

x

140

Ticloy, Co. Antrim

x

Mongey 1941 x

Ballynahatten, Co. Down

x x

x

Herity 1964 Davies and Evans 1934 Evans 1948 Keeley 1986; 1987a; 1987b; 1988; 1989/90; R. Lynch 1999 Evans and Watson 1942 Herity 1964; B. Williams 1988

147

Greengraves, Co. Down

x

150

Legannany, Co. Down

x

Gray 1883

153

Goward, Co. Down

x

Gray 1883 x

x

Waddell 1976; none

Burrow 2003 Thomas and Wailes 1967

x

604

Herity 1964

x

x

146

This volume This volume

Topp 1962 x

x

x

Main reference This volume

154

Kilfeaghan, Co. Down

184

Ballywholan, Co. Tyrone

194

Four Crosses, NW Waleds

x

188

Bachwen, NW Wales

x

148

Dunnanelly, Co. Down

x

x

This volume

178

Athenree, Co. Tyrone

x

x

223

Lesquite, Cornwall

x

This volume Miles and Trudgean 1976

x

x

Collins 1959

x

Herity 1964 Daniel 1937

X

Table 6.1 Portal tomb sites which produced finds.

88

Hemp 1926

x

THE CHRONOLOGY, MORPHOLOGY AND LANDSCAPE SETTING OF THE PORTAL TOMBS 6.2.1

The dating evidence: Lithics v. pottery

finished lithics. Because of these difficulties, many finds, especially lithics, could only be assigned to a vague Neolithic timeframe and that only with a high percentage of probability and no absolute certainty. The finds drawing from reports can be viewed in the catalogue (Appendix A).

It was decided after consultation with several prehistoric pottery and lithics experts, that the material culture most suitable for relative dating purposes is pottery. While lithics classification is thankfully getting more precise and also quite successfully placed into relative timeframes (Nelis 2004; Woodman 1994), it is still much vaguer than pottery classification (see for example Sheridan 1986 for Tievebulliagh axes). Additionally, there seem to be insufficient comparative studies, beyond polished stone axes, between the Irish and the British evidence to make it suitable for this research. In contrast, pottery was and is often studied in a ‘British Isles’ context, as presented in Alex Gibson’s textbook Prehistoric Pottery in Britain and Ireland (2002). Additionally, the pottery of several key sites (Dyffryn Ardudwy and Pentre Ifan: R. Peterson; Ballykeel: A. Sheridan; Carreg Coetan Arthur: T. Darvill; Zennor: H. Quinnell) had been studied by leading ceramic experts and the author did not have to rely on her expertise alone.

6.2.2

Surface and stray finds

The surface finds at Ballynew, Sheskin, Springfield, Carwynnen, Athenree, Dunnanelly and Ballynacloghy were discovered by the author during fieldwork. Springfield and Ballynew contained cremated bone which had been eroded out of the chamber by animal trampling. Both finds were reported to the appropriate authorities. The uncremated human premolar and phalanx discovered in 2005 in the chamber of Ballynacloghy was recovered by the author from the disturbed surface and submitted for radiocarbon dating after a permission was obtained. There were no other finds from the tomb at this occasion, but the chamber seemed to have been dug into previously and coarse pottery and some cremated bone were recovered 50 years earlier (Waddell 1976). At Athenree, Co. Tyrone, some cremated mammalian bone was exposed. The DoENI (Department of the Environment Northern Ireland) did a site visit, but there is no immediate further action planned. The bones are in Queen’s University. At Sheskin, a large fragment of a flint scraper with fresh, white cortex eroded out of the cairn only inches from the backstone. This was recovered and subsequently donated to the NMI (National Museum of Ireland) Dublin. The tip of a large, burned, polished plano-convex knife was found in the freshly ploughed surroundings of Carwynnen Quoit, 2m from the megalithic remains which had been bulldozed into a pile recently. The find was reported to and recorded by the authorities in Cornwall. In the spring of 2006 the surroundings of the remains of the megalithic tomb at Dunnanelly/ Annacloy, Co. Down, a possible portal tomb, were very deeply ploughed, including the area where the cairn used to be. This area is still higher and stonier than the rest of the field, but was generally ploughed out a long time ago. In this cairn material a round scraper of yellow flint was found by the author, just one metre from the orthostats to the east. Several pieces of debitage were also present, up to ten metres from the chamber, in the vicinity of the former long cairn. No other worked flint was found in the rest of the field during one hour of fieldwalking, neither in the potential soil-creep closer to the stream, nor anywhere else in the field. Some lenses of charcoal and a few scraps of calcined bone were also present, but these might belong to rubbish disposal from fireplaces in relatively modern times.

It is necessary to define the timeframes I am dealing with: Mesolithic is from 8000 BC to 4000BC; Early Neolithic from 4000BC to 3600BC; Middle Neolithic from 3600BC to 2900BC; Late Neolithic from 2900BC to 2500BC; EBA 2500BC to 1600BC; MBA: 16001100BC. The LBA in Ireland ended in or about 800BC as it did in Britain. There is in fact a division between Middle Bronze Age and Late Bronze Age, but this does not show in the finds assemblages from portal tombs. Other categories are Roman/Iron Age, Medieval, and Post-medieval, but finds from the latter three are so rare that they are more of curiosity value than signifying any diachronic ritual use of portal tombs into this late time. It proved to be difficult to divide any period much further without bending the evidence; for example, it is only occasionally possible to say that a certain pottery sherd or other find belongs to the earlier part of the Middle Neolithic (3600BC-3400BC). Furthermore, the Neolithic pottery from portal tombs is never complete. Not one intact vessel has ever been found. Also, the number of vessels is always small; the remains of ten incomplete pots are already considered an exceptionally rich deposit. In reality that often means one must define a pot and its period by one or two sherds. However, the dominant pottery finds in portal tombs have been carinated bowls, fortunately a type of Early Neolithic pottery vessel which does not give too many difficulties in identification. Only one tomb, the ‘hybrid’ Carreg Samson, SW Wales, has produced a different Early Neolithic pottery type with certainty, a hemispherical bowl (Lynch 1975: 24, fig. 5) (see fig. 5.10), but this tomb has been excluded from the analysis of portal tombs because of its classification.

Other stray finds were made earlier. Two pieces of fresh looking worked flint were found in the chamber at Cist Cerrig by W. Hemp in 1926 (Burrow 2003; pers. comm.). Five Early Neolithic pottery sherds probably belonging to the same carinated, plain vessel were found in the

Similarly, finished stone tools are rather the exception; debitage is much more common and numerous than 89

TATJANA KYTMANNOW disturbed, larger chamber of Kilclooney More (Lucas 1960: 18; Herity 1964: 138; 1982: 319). The EBA bowl food vessel from the vicinity of Greengraves was found together with several others in the townland; so was a polished stone axe and other lithics (Herity 1964). The finds from Ballybrack (Herity 1964), which included a plano-convex knife, are now not much more then a rumour, neither the finds nor a report survive. All the above have been pure chance discoveries.

Legananny and Ballywholan do not provide any information which could be used for the relative chronology and the sites have been excluded from any statistical analysis. The excavation of the unusual megalith Cerrig y Gof by Fenton (Lynch 1972: 81) produced pebbles, charcoal, bone and pottery but these finds do not survive. In contrast, some of the finds from Ticloy from 1870 survive and are included (Evans and Watson 1942). They are two fine, thin potsherds and a beautiful, elongated leaf-shaped arrowhead. Finds from the early explorations of Zennor are in Penzance Museum and have been analysed.

The find from Knockeen consists of 57 very enigmatic polygonal discs. They were found just outside the chamber under a flagstone and became part of the Power collection (Topographical files, NMI Dublin). The doubtful portal tomb of Whispering Knights in Oxfordshire could be the last remains of a denuded Cotswold-Severn tomb, and is included here for comparison. It was part of an investigation into the megalithic complex of the Rollright Stones by G. Lambrick (1988) and in the process a large, ploughed area was systematically fieldwalked, showing a higher concentration of lithics close to the tomb. Doubtful portal tombs such as Carreg Samson and the Whispering Knights are excluded from the statistical analysis.

6.2.5

Obviously, such finds have lost most of any possible contexts and should be viewed with the same scrutiny as surface finds. This is the case for the excavations of antiquarian spoil heaps at Ballynahatten (Evans 1948) and of Kilfeaghan (Collins 1959). The finds from Ballynahatten are lost and comprised a sherd of Sandhills or Beacharra Ware according to Herity (1964), and some cremated bone. This is, of course, ancient terminology but because the finds are lost it would be difficult to say what they exactly were. Kilfeaghan produced some probable Bronze Age coarse ware and some flints and they have been viewed.

Of course, the only context provided by chance stray and surface finds are the one with the monument itself. 6.2.3

Excavations without finds

While the knowledge gained from surface finds is limited, the excavations which produced no finds at all provide us only with negative evidence. A small excavation during reconstruction work at Four Crosses (Daniel 1937) and a trial excavation in the direct vicinity of Greengraves (Fry 1999; B. Williams 1988) produced no finds at all. The rescue excavation at the destroyed ‘dolmen’ Glengesh 2 produced no finds but a few specks of cremated bone (B. Williams pers. comm.). The small excavation at Bachwen resulted in some blackened soil on cobbles in the chamber, interpreted as signs of a fire (Hemp 1926). A second excavation of Kilfeaghan (Collins 1959) to establish the extent of the cairn produced no finds either, except a small amount of charcoal. The excavation in the vicinity of Lesquite Quoit produced some evidence for a former cairn and the probable sockets for two more uprights, but no finds (Miles and Trudgean 1976). 6.2.4

Re-excavations of spoil heaps

6.2.6 Excavations excluded from the statistical analysis The six excavation seasons at the chamber and environs of Taylorsgrange under V. Keeley (1986; 187a; 1087b; 1988; 1989/90) and later R. Lynch (1999) had to be excluded from any detailed analysis because the finds could not be viewed and it was not possible to obtain a final report. The information that could be gained from the short excavation bulletins will be discussed in general terms in the context of settlement in the vicinity of portal tombs. Because a very large area had been excavated, it was not possible to assign, for example, the only arrowhead to any context; it could be from anywhere in an 80m radius. There is no pottery report for the V. Keeley excavations and the pottery from the chamber is only described as fine or coarse. Information such as this is of course too vague to be useful for any chronological analysis.

Antiquarian excavations The aforementioned Whispering Knights megalith is outside the study area and of unclear classification. The finds are not included in the analysis.

All megaliths in Cornwall had been explored by either or both of the Borlases (Borlase 1872) and it can be safely assumed that no portal tomb in Ireland, Wales or Cornwall escaped the inquisitions of local people and amateur antiquarians. Several antiquarian excavations had been included by Herity, but there are no reports, and no finds survive. While they have been listed for completeness, the antiquarian explorations of Goward,

The megalith at Carreg Samson is listed as a simple passage tomb. This tomb lacks important defining criteria for a portal tomb and has been excluded from the analysis. It has been already discussed in detail.

90

THE CHRONOLOGY, MORPHOLOGY AND LANDSCAPE SETTING OF THE PORTAL TOMBS 6.2.7 Excavations with finds suitable for relative dating

and charcoal was found. There is no trace of these finds now.

The excavation of the totally destroyed portal tomb at Melkagh (Cooney 1986; 1987; 1997b) produced only a handful of lithics, of which only two could be assigned to a time-frame: a hollow-based arrowhead, which dates probably from the Late Neolithic and a hollow scraper, which could date to anytime from the late Early Neolithic to the EBA, but most likely to the Middle Neolithic (Nelis 2004).

The large, multiple chambered, portal tomb at Ballyrenan, Co. Tyrone, was first excavated in 1907 by Lady A. Hamilton and again in 1936 by O. Davies (1937). Davies deals in his report with the finds from both excavations. A large number of pottery sherds from at least 17 vessels, eight polished stone beads, three flints and cremated bone were found. Nearly all the pottery is of Neolithic date and includes carinated bowls with finely crushed flint or shell grit. The Ballyrenan Early Neolithic pottery with the shoulder guttering, the slightly more expanded rims (Herity 1964: fig. 35.7 – the three rim profiles on the right) and the decoration on fig. 35.2 all suggest a late Early Neolithic (‘modified carinated bowl’, Sheridan 1995) date. There are also some sherds of Bronze Age date, containing dolerite grit (Richard Warner pers. comm.) The eight stone beads are currently on display.

The excavation at Kiltiernan Demesne produced at least two pots of Middle Neolithic decorated pottery, judged by the excavator to be of ‘Peterborough’ and ‘Lough Gur’ (Ó Eochaidhe 1957: 221) style, but one has now been identified as a large modified carinated vessel, burnished, with large even inclusions and an exaggerated rim. It dates to c. 3600BC (Eoin Grogan pers. comm.). The other has been identified as a broad-rimmed Late Middle Neolithic decorated bowl, post-dating c. 3500BC (Eoin Grogan pers. comm.). The lithics consisted of a hollowbased arrowhead, a fragment of another arrowhead, three nice flint hollow scrapers, one round scraper and one flint chip. A large polished stone axe was found, 50m below the tomb, while ploughing (topographical files, NMI Dublin).

The lithics comprise three fine flints: a hollow scraper, a blade or knife and a leaf-shaped arrowhead. The small amount of cremated bone was found together with Early Neolithic pottery in the intact and seemingly undisturbed back-chamber by Davies. The multi-chambered tomb (one portal tomb chamber and one cist) at Ballykeel produced an abundance of pottery sherds and four flints. A minimum of six carinated bowls, four decorated early Middle Neolithic bipartite and one Middle Neolithic broad-rimmed bowl were found (Sheridan 1985: 280). There are also several sherds of other Neolithic vessels. Furthermore, there are many sherds of coarse, flat bottomed pottery of post-Neolithic date, consisting of more than three hundred sherds, weighing c. 4.5 kilo. They could be of Late Bronze Age date. Some Souterrain ware was also found. Four fine flints with fresh looking cortex were found too, but no debitage.

During a small research excavation at the quite ruined tomb at Radergan several sherds of Early Neolithic pottery were found, probably from three vessels judging by the different thickness and colour (Brennan 1982). The finds have been viewed and contained sherds from an Early Neolithic carinated bowl. The limited research excavation at Clonlum small cairn, Co. Armagh, resulted only in three finds. One of the sherds and the bead are in Armagh Museum. Unfortunately, the other sherd and some carbonised grain (Davies and Evans 1934) could not be located. The other sherd was of a similar size and material, but undecorated. The carbonised grain was brought to Queen’s University Belfast. No environmental samples from that period survive in Queen’s; the paper bags had disintegrated and any old samples had to be discarded (B. Hartwell pers comm.). Herity suggested that the decorated sherd is Carrowkeel ware. The sherd was inspected and it has a very even, smooth outer surface and is decorated with a comb impression. Davies and Evans compared the sherd with Ballyalton bowls but the comb impression suggests the possibility of an Early Bronze Age date for this sherd (an opinion which is cautiously shared by Eoin Grogan). Highly polished stone beads are a feature of portal tombs and court tombs and are possibly early Middle Neolithic or late Early Neolithic (A. Sheridan 1985).

Poulnabrone was excavated during conservation work (Lynch 1987; 1988; 1989; Lynch and Ó Donnabháin 1994). The remains of 26-33 individuals were found and produced a wide range of radiocarbon dates from c. 4000 to 3200 cal BC, and one secondary burial from the Bronze Age. The excavation is still not fully published. While the bones have been the subject of further research (Beckett and Robb 2005; J. Beckett pers comm.; Roberts 1993) only a couple of the finds have been published yet (e.g. C. Jones 2004). Despite the robbed out state of the chamber, most of the finds are of exceptional quality and include a miniature polished stone axe, the part of possibly another one made from greenstone, three beautifully worked leaf-shaped arrowheads, one hollowbased arrowhead, two small perforated stone beads, two clear quartz crystals and a sizable amount of scrapers and debitage. The pottery consists of c. 60 sherds, representing at least seven or eight vessels. The pottery is quite eroded, but there are some thin-walled sherds with

The small portal tomb at Ballynageeragh, Co. Waterford, was excavated in the process of reconstruction work (Mongey 1941). The interior of the chamber had been recently robbed out and cremated bone, one worked flint 91

TATJANA KYTMANNOW limestone temper, which are probably Early Neolithic and would most likely represent at least two vessels. One piece of carination survives, so does one small rim sherd. There are also two sherds of a near black fabric with crushed flint inclusions. This large pot also dates from the Early Neolithic. Most of the sherds are from four large vessels of coarse fabric: one contains large inclusions of dolerite, one pot smaller inclusions of white quartz and one of limestone. One large rim sherd survives. They are all most likely from Middle Neolithic undecorated broadrimmed vessels (Eoin Grogan and Neil Carlin pers comm.). Because of the alkaline conditions a perforated bone pendant, a mushroom-headed (Waddell1998: 91) antler pin and a bone pin survived; so did a large selection of animal bone.

was probably too often ‘explored’ to contain much finds. Hundreds of lithics were found, including two microliths; a small, polished plano-convex knife, a very perfect, small knife blade; and a large amount of debitage. Both the Early Neolithic carinated bowls and the early Middle Neolithic impressed ware with burnishing and some rim decoration (similar in style to Abingdon ware) were associated with cremated human bone. Charcoal from the Middle Neolithic context has been radiocarbon dated and has produced, not surprisingly, Middle Neolithic dates (Barker 1992). The spectacular portal tomb at Pentre Ifan had been nearly fully robbed out and only a small amount of finds were located inside a relatively undisturbed pocket of fill. It contained nine sherds from the same Early Neolithic carinated bowl (Peterson 2003: 123) and one tiny fragment of a possible EBA pot. Just outside the chamber, mainly beside or between the portals, several flints, including a burned fragment of an arrowhead, were found. The chamber contained also quartz pieces.

The large portal tomb at Drumanone was partly excavated (Topp 1962) and produced a porcellanite polished stone axe, two ‘Bann’ Flakes (identified by P. C. Woodman), a piece of rose quartz, animal bones and c. 2.5kg of cremated bone, representing several individuals. As at Poulnabrone the good preservation of bone is due to the fact that the tomb is located on limestone. The Bann flakes were found outside the tomb and there is no guarantee that they had been placed originally in the chamber. The crannogs in the Boyle River and Lower Lough Gara have produced a sizable amount of Bann flakes, c. 1000 (Fredengren 2000: 119) and some are only 1km distant.

The small tomb at Twlc y filiast (Savory 1956) produced only one Neolithic flint knife and one Neolithic flint flake. It contained a token cremation deposit of human bones, in a pit between the portals. A curious stone pendant in axe shape dates possibly to a later prehistoric period; it resembles not a stone axe, but a metal one. The large number of other finds is of medieval/post-medieval date and consists mainly of pottery sherds.

The portal tomb at Aghnaskeagh A, Co. Louth, was one of the earliest research excavations. The large, probably secondary cairn contained a portal tomb chamber and six cists. Importantly, the well preserved food vessels were found mainly in the cists but several sherds in the chamber and one Iron Age glass bead were interpreted as being in primary context and laid the foundation for the persistent perception of lateness for portal tomb origins (Evans 1935: 253). The chamber produced some sherds of Early Neolithic pottery. Some ‘coarse ware’ was associated with iron slag. The five lithics include one ‘Bann’ flake and one hollow scraper. The cremated remains of at least four adults could not be traced.

Sperris Quoit in Cornwall was re-discovered in the 1950s and excavated over a three week period in constant rain by Charles Thomas. Because of the appalling weather conditions, the excavation was abandoned and never completed. Only a part of the chamber was excavated and produced pottery, a fragment of a saddle quern, two flint scrapers, several worked flint and some debitage. The pottery is now lost, but was described as dark, fine, hard, with a smoothed outer surface and some fine to medium gritting, and similar to the simple sherds from Zennor which are probably Early Neolithic (H. Quinnell pers comm.). In a cremation pit just outside the chamber a token deposit of cremated bone was found.

The research excavation at Dyffryn Ardudwy was very well recorded, reported and subsequently discussed. It still provides the best argument for a: an Early Neolithic origin of portal tombs and b: a multi-phase construction and a multi-period use of a portal tomb.

The same excavator did a re-assessment of the excavations and finds from Zennor Quoit, which is only 380 metres from Sperris and clearly in view. A small excavation inside the chamber found a previously undisturbed small pit close to the entrance which contained a token deposit of cremated bone, one flint and two pot sherds. Overall, twelve rough flint flakes, a flint knife, a flint scraper, two rough burnt flint flakes and sherds from at least eight pots are now in the museum. The pottery was recently reassessed first by the author and subsequently by Henrietta Quinnell from Exeter University. It was determined that two probably Early Neolithic vessels, two Grooved Ware ones, one decorated pot of uncertain date and three Trevisker pots were represented by the sherds (H. Quinnell pers. com.). The

The recent re-evaluation and refined dating of the pottery by Peterson (2003) confirmed that at least four pots, all carinated bowls, dated to the earliest phase of the Neolithic. There are also at least four pots of Late Neolithic date and one of Middle Neolithic. The other important Welsh excavation at Carreg Coetan Arthur, Newport, produced an abundance of finds, mainly from just outside the chamber at the old ground surface underneath the sparse remains of the cairn. The chamber 92

THE CHRONOLOGY, MORPHOLOGY AND LANDSCAPE SETTING OF THE PORTAL TOMBS MYNO

Sitename 9

MNEO POTS

Springfield, Co. Sligo

18

Kilclooney More, Co. Donegal

63

Drumanone, Co. Roscommon

80

Ballynew/Newtown, Co. Carlow

83

Sheskin, Co. Waterford

87

Knockeen, Co. Waterford

88

ENEO POTS 5 sherds Carinated Bowl

Ballynageeragh, Co. Waterford

110

Taylorsgrange, Co. Dublin

111

Kiltiernan Domain, Co. Dublin

113

Ballybrack, Co. Dublin

115

Poulnabrone,. Co. Clare

fine, thin walled red ware ; fine grey ware 2 pots: modified carinated vessel; broad-rimmed pot 3 pots

4 broad-rimmed vessels, large

123

Ballynacloghy, Co. Galway

128

Aghnaskeagh, Co. Louth

6 sherds, possibly chert grit

140

Ticloy, Co. Antrim

undecorated, thin walled pottery

145

Ballykeel, Co. Armagh

6 plain, carinated vessels

146

Clonlum, Co. Armagh

147

Greengraves, Co. Down

150

Legannany, Co. Down

153

Goward, Co. Down

154

Kilfeaghan, Co. Down

169

Ballyrenan, Co. Tyrone

181

Radergan, Co. Tyrone

184

Ballywholan, Co. Tyrone

191

Dyffryn Ardudwy, NW Wales

193

Cist Cerrig, NW Wales

198

Pentre Ifan, SW Wales

204

Carreg Coetan Arthur, SW Wales

209

Twlc y filiast, SW Wales

214

Zennor Quoit. Cornwall

221

Sperris Quoit, Cornwall

222

Carwynnen, Cornwall

602

Melkagh, Co. Longford

603

Glengesh 2, Co. Fermanagh

604

Ballynahatten, Co. Down

194

Four Crosses, NW Wales

188

Bachwen, NW Wales

178

Athenree, Co. Tyrone

148

Dunnanally, Co. Down

223

Lesquite

17 vessels min. plain and carinated bowls 2 or 3 pots; fine, dark ware, 1 carinated ?

thin walled decorated sherd, flint grit 4 bipartite bowls;

thinly ware

walled

decorated

at least four pots (A,B,C + D) early Neo 8 sherds of plain Early Neolithic carinated bowls at least 5 pots Carinated Bowls

E(?) Neo pottery, carinated ??pottery lost???

1

4 large pots ’Abingdon style Ware’; 1 miniature one

sherd

1 sherd of 'Beacharra' pottery ( Herity)

-

Table 6.2: all sites that produced finds: Early Neolithic and Middle Neolithic pottery

93

TATJANA KYTMANNOW Early Neolithic pots did not contain any gabbroic inclusions (H. Quinell pers comm.) as would be expected if the sherds were of Hembury Ware (Gibson 2002: 26, 49, 72, 103). This indicates that the Zennor Quoit pottery was produced locally using local clay and not imported from the Lizard peninsula nor manufactured of clay brought from those sources.

Sitename

6.3 Analysis A detailed finds table, including all finds from portal tombs, can be found in Appendix B in the form of an Excel database and can be downloaded and used for further analysis.

MESO

ENEO & MNEO LITHS

Springfield, Co. Sligo Ballynew/Newtown, Co. Carlow Sheskin, Co. Waterford Kiltiernan Domain, Co. Dublin

3 flint hollow scrapers

Poulnabrone,. Co. Clare

hollow scraper, 3 leaf-shaped arrowheads

Ballykeel, Co. Armagh

small javelin head

Radergan, Co. Tyrone Dyffryn Ardudwy, NW Wales

1 leaf-shaped arrow-head

Pentre Ifan, SW Wales Carreg Coetan, SW Wales

burnt flint arrowhead, prob. leaf-shaped 1 mesolithic blade, 1br.blade

Melkagh, Co. Longford

hollow scraper

Kilclooney More, Co. Donegal Drumanone, Co. Roscommon

1'Bann' flake; 1poss. Bann fl.

Ballynacloghy, Co. Galway Ballyrenan, Co. Tyrone

hollow scraper, 1 leaf-shaped arrowh

Twlc y filiast, SW Wales

1 neolithic blade, 1 neol knife

Sperris Quoit, Cornwall Aghnaskeagh, Co. Louth

1 probable 'Bann' flake

hollow scrapers

Cist Cerrig, NW Wales Zennor Quoit. Cornwall Carwynnen, Cornwall Glengesh 2, Co. Fermanagh Knockeen, Co. Waterford Ballynageeragh, Co. W.ford Ballybrack, Co. Dublin

plano-convex knife

Clonlum, Co. Armagh Ballynahatten, Co. Down Taylorsgrange, Co. Dublin Ticloy, Co. Antrim

1 probable 'Bann' flake

1 leaf-shaped arrowhead

Greengraves, Co. Down Legannany, Co. Down Goward, Co. Down Kilfeaghan, Co. Down Ballywholan, Co. Tyrone

leaf-shaped arrowhead (subs. chamber)

Four Crosses, NW Waleds Bachwen, NW Wales Dunannally, Co. Down Athenree, Co. Tyrnone

Table 6.3: All sites that produced finds: Mesolithic, Early Neolithic and Middle Neolithic lithics

94

THE CHRONOLOGY, MORPHOLOGY AND LANDSCAPE SETTING OF THE PORTAL TOMBS

Occurrences of pottery, all types, by site 40

36

35 30 25 20 15

12

10

7 3

3

Grooved W

Beaker

5

5

6

Food V.

BA

0 Eneo

Mneo

Total of sites with pottery

Fig. 6.3: Occurrences of pottery, all types, all sites Fig. 6.1: Frequency of Early Neolithic and Middle Neolithic pottery on all sites which produced finds

105

120 100 80 60 40 20 0

44

ot lp

BA

BA rE

ot

he

s

15

14

3

ke rW

Be a

ve d

o M ne

G ro o

En

W

4

al

25

eo

number of vessels

Minimum number of pots

type of pottery

Fig. 6.2: Quantity of Early Neolithic and Middle Neolithic pots Fig. 6.4: Minimum number of vessels in all portal tombs, including subsidiary chambers and cairns

6.3.1 Early classification

Neolithic

pottery:

definition

suggests may be put even earlier for bowls of the Ballykeel type because of stylistic affinities with late Castellic pottery from NW France (Sheridan 1995; 2000). This indicates that some of the associations in portal tombs could be valid but dating to the developed early Neolithic rather than the succeeding period.

and

According to A. Sheridan (pers. comm.) the undecorated, fine, thin-walled, carinated (or S-shaped, but usually called carinated for simplicity) ware belongs with 8085% certainty to the earliest phase of the Neolithic, i.e. 4000-3700 cal BC (Sheridan 1995; Grogan and Eogan 1987; Eogan 1984; Eogan and Roche 1997). There is no 100% certainty about the end of the production of carinated bowls, because Neolithic people probably did not stop producing them everywhere at the same time and, furthermore, carinated bowls are sometimes found together with bipartite bowls, for example, at Ballykeel or Ballyalton, Co. Down (Sheridan 1985), suggesting that their date of production overlaps. However, there can be no certainty of direct association between the vessels in the tombs under discussion here.

6.3.2

Expert assessment

All pottery was viewed by the author and subsequently compared with the opinions of the excavators, if available as publication or as a personal communication. Additionally, the conclusions of the author were compared, where possible, with the opinions of other pottery specialists. Sheridan (1985) assessed all of the known Neolithic pottery from Ireland, which included the pottery from the portal tombs at Ballykeel, Ballyrenan, Aghnaskeagh A, the court/portal tomb hybrid Clontygora Small and Kilclooney More B. The plain carinated pottery from these sites have been confirmed by her to be of the earliest Neolithic phase. In his detailed study of Welsh Neolithic pottery Peterson (2003) made a convincing case for the very early Neolithic dating of the vessels from Dyffryn Ardudwy, Pentre Ifan and Clegyr Boia. Darvill (S. Rees pers comm.) classified the Early

Nevertheless, an uncritical acceptance of association, together with the dating of bipartite bowls to the Middle Neolithic persuaded Case (1961) and Herity (1982) that some carinated bowls should also be considered later. By 1995 Sheridan had made a case for a quite early origin for some bipartite bowls (c. 3750 cal. BC) which she now 95

TATJANA KYTMANNOW

Sitename

Other Neo

MesoL

Kilclooney More Drumanone

x

Kiltiernan

x x x

x

Ticloy Ballykeel

E&M Neo L

MneoP

x

x

LNeoP

LNeoL

Other BAP

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

Clonlum

x x

x

Ballyrenan

EBAP

x

Poulnabrone Aghnaskeagh

ENeoP x

x

x

Radergan

x x

x

Dyffryn Ardudwy Pentre Ifan

x

Carreg Coetan

x

Twlc y filiast

x

Zennor Quoit

x

Sperris Quoit

x

x

x x

x x

Melkagh

x

x

Table 6.4: Main sites only, all pottery and lithics (P=pottery; L=lithics)

Neolithic pottery from Carreg Coetan as Clegyr Boia ware (after the nearby settlement site): this material has been identified and classified by Peterson (2003) who suggested a date in the earliest Neolithic (4000 BC to 3800) and it is more appropriate to refer to this material under the more general term of carinated bowl. Quinnell (pers comm.) has confirmed, with a 70% probability, the Early Neolithic date for the four small sherds from Zennor (and not Medieval and Late Neolithic as classified by C. Thomas). The Radergan tomb was excavated by Brennan, who also carried out the classification: the author would agree with his Early Neolithic dating (see above). The pottery from Poulnabrone has been assessed by Eoin Grogan and Neil Carlin, who confirmed the opinion of the author and of the excavator A. Lynch about the presence of Early Neolithic pottery, but also added some findings concerning the presence of broad-rimmed Middle Neolithic vessels. Eoin Grogan also assessed all still surviving pottery from portal tombs which is kept in the National Museum of Ireland, Kildare Street (Kieltiernan Demesne, Kilclooney More, Aghnaskeagh A). 6.3.3

Coetan , Dyffryn Ardudwy, Ticloy, Ballyrenan). The amounts are less than the Early Neolithic pots. There are small amounts of Late Neolithic pottery, such as Grooved Ware and early Beakers (e.g. Zennor Quoit, Carreg Coetan, possibly Dyffryn Ardudwy), while Early Bronze Age pottery is not common and comes usually not from the chamber, but from cists (e.g. Aghnaskeagh), secondary chambers (Dyffryn Ardudwy) or the surroundings (Greengraves). There are considerable amounts of ‘coarse’ pottery and some of it dates to the Bronze Age. That some portal tombs experienced a revival in ritual use during the Bronze Age is attested also by the radiocarbon dates from Poulnabrone and Ballykeel. There are of course no Iron Age/Roman pots from Ireland, but there are also none from British portal tombs. The sherds of medieval/post-medieval pottery found inside and around the tombs (e.g. Twlc y filiast) are possibly just waste deposits, similar to the numerous Coca-Cola cans, black-bale plastic and other rubbish now so often found inside the chambers. At least there are no burial deposits from this time and pottery sherds ended up in large numbers on fields when cesspits were emptied and the contents used as fertilizer; the pottery grog giving the fields better drainage. However, megaliths have played parts in ritual feasting in medieval and modern times. For example, a rocking stone, a megalithic structure and a huge erratic boulder at the south-side of Carrowkeel passage tomb complex, Co. Sligo, were the focal points of a Lughnasa festival (named after Lugh, the Celtic Sungod). These involved feasting, drinking, dancing, the gathering of blueberries, and especially ‘lewd conduct’ of young couples and was suppressed by the Church in the early nineteen hundreds (MacNeill 1982).

The pottery evidence

Early Neolithic pottery is the dominant find in portal tombs (figs. 6.1, 6.2, 6.3, 6.4, tables 6.2, 6.4); no other find type comes close to it in frequency and volume (Ballykeel, Ballyrenan, Carreg Coetan, Dyffryn Ardudwy, Ticloy, Pentre Ifan, Poulnabrone, Radergan, Aghnaskeagh, Kilclooney More, Zennor Quoit). This is followed in frequency by Middle Neolithic pottery, a large part of these probably belonging to the earlier part of c. 3600BC to 3450BC (Ballykeel, Kiltiernan, Carreg

96

THE CHRONOLOGY, MORPHOLOGY AND LANDSCAPE SETTING OF THE PORTAL TOMBS 6.3.4

The lithics

exception being Drumanone which produced more than 2kg from several individuals. The samples from Zennor and Sperris were too small for identification, but the other samples have been confirmed as human, identified by osteoarchaeologists (Drumanone: Dr Finbar McCormick, Queen’s University Belfast; Ballyrenan: Dr Eileen Murphy, Queen’s University Belfast; Carreg Coetan Arthur: Dr Wilkinson, Cardiff University, Dr Rick Schulting and Dr Emily Murray, Queen’s University Belfast; Twlc y filiast: Jacqueline McKinley, Wessex Archaeological Trust). The seventh sample is from a surface find of a phalanx and a tooth from Ballynacloghy. This will be discussed in detail in the radiocarbon dating chapter. The cremated bone from Athenree is from a large mammal, probable human.

The amount and frequency of lithics peak at the Early Neolithic and the Middle Neolithic (table 6.3). Lithics are less suitable for relative dating than pottery and it is very difficult to assign a more precise timeframe, for example, to plano-convex knives, hollow scrapers, leaf-and lozenge-shaped arrowheads and javelin heads beyond the fact that most of them started to appear in larger numbers during the Early Neolithic or early Middle Neolithic and most had a very long currency (Nelis 2004; Woodman 1993). The next most frequent chronological timeframe is the Mesolithic attested by four ‘Bann’ flakes from Ireland and two microliths from Wales, double the amount of the three hollow-based arrowheads from the Late Neolithic. Interestingly, there is not one barbed-and-tanged arrowhead. There are also large amounts of debitage, the most frequent lithics ‘type’. Other knives, blades, scrapers etc. have been just assigned a place in the general Neolithic. 6.3.5

6.3.7

Clearly, the concentration of finds clusters around the Early Neolithic. The handful of Mesolithic lithics finds could be either residual or are deposits from the earliest Neolithic, as token relics of the still quite recent ancestors. There is the same number of Early Neolithic pots (44) as all the other prehistoric pottery together (Middle Neolithic 25, others 19) excluding the Bronze Age vessels from Ballykeel. There is such a large amount of Bronze Age pottery from Ballykeel alone that this single site has produced more than 4 kg of sherds.

Other finds

Polished stone beads turned up in two tombs (Clonlum and Ballyrenan). They probably belong to the earlier part of the Neolithic, to c. 3600BC, but not to the very first phase (Sheridan pers comm.). The part of the saddle quern from Sperris the present author would not dare to attempt to date beyond the general Neolithic/Bronze Age. The mushroom-headed antler pin (Waddell 1998: 91) from Poulnabrone belongs probably to the Middle Neolithic, judging by the frequency they are found in passage tomb contexts, but this could be a circular argument as long we have so few good radiocarbon dates from passage tombs in Ireland. On the other hand, this bone pin could be a barbell toggle, which would date it to c. 3600-3350 cal BC (Brindley and Lanting 1990; Herity 1991). The one glass bead from Aghnaskeagh and the two from Dyffryn Ardudwy belong to the Iron Age/Roman period and are the only finds dating to this time. The considerable amount of quartz and crystals from Poulnabrone, Pentre Ifan, Dyffryn Ardudwy, Drumanone and Zennor Quoit are intriguing. The bone pendant from Poulnabrone and the amulet from Twlc y filiast are unique. The amulet is shaped such as a miniature axe. The miniature polished stone axes from Drumanone and from Poulnabrone are difficult to date. Miniature polished stone axes turn up in considerable numbers already on late Mesolithic sites, for example, Lough Kinale (C. Fredengren pers. comm; Sheridan 1986). 6.3.6

A general impression of earliness

The Impressed Ware tradition (see Gibson 1995; 2002) was certainly current in Ireland by 3650/3600BC. The bipartite bowls, including those of the ‘Drimnagh Style’ for which the main period of use is firmly dated to c. 3525-3350 cal. BC (Brindley and Lanting 1989/90, 4-5, figs 1-2) but wider associations indicate that similar pottery forms may have continued later, having a currency that runs through most of the Middle Neolithic. Later material, in a general sense at least, includes the Broad-Rimmed Bowls and wider pottery complex that includes finer vessels with simple rims (Case 1961: ‘Sandhills Ware: Goodland bowls’; Herity 1982: ‘Globular bowls’), and highly decorated coarse pots usually, but not exclusively, associated with passage tomb burials (Case 1961 and Herity 1982: ‘Carrowkeel Ware’); all three sub-types were in contemporary use during the period c. 3500-3000 BC (Eogan and Roche 1997, 51-100: ‘Decorated Pottery Complex’); despite Sheridan’s (1995, 11-5, figs 2.4, 2.5) suggestions there is little convincing evidence that this pottery continued in use into the Late Neolithic. The lithics also show a concentration in the Early Neolithic period (leaf-shaped arrowheads, at least some plano-convex knifes; Woodman 1993) and the earlier part of the Middle Neolithic (lozenge shaped arrowheads, javelin heads). After the Middle Neolithic finds become rare and sporadic, fading out in the EBA. Not one barbedand-tanged arrowhead, not one bronze object, no jet or amber beads, and no V-shaped buttons have been found in a portal tomb context.

Human bone

At seven portal tombs bone suitable for AMS dating was located by the author and submitted for radiocarbon dating as part of this project. The bone samples from Ballyrenan, Sperris, Zennor, Twlc y filiast, context 11 at Carreg Coetan and Drumanone are from cremated bone, usually just token deposits of 8gr to 27gr, the only 97

TATJANA KYTMANNOW 6.3.8

Continuity or diachronic use of portal tombs?

the chamber underneath (e.g. Eskaheen, Co. Donegal; Crowagh, Co. Sligo).

As stated above there is no convincing case to make, based on the pottery evidence, for a temporal break in ritual deposition between the Early Neolithic and the Middle Neolithic. Where we have abundance of pottery (Carreg Coetan; Ballykeel; Dyffryn Ardudwy) the Middle Neolithic pottery could belong to the earliest phase: the pottery similar to Abingdon Ware in Wales belongs to the earlier Middle Neolithic and the dating for Ballykeel bipartite bowls was already mentioned. Furthermore, large polished stone beads and hollow scrapers have also their start in the early Middle Neolithic (Sheridan 1985: pers.com.; Eoin Grogan pers. comm.; Nelis 2004), as might lozenge-shaped arrowheads. The present author would argue for a continuity of portal tomb ritual use for the first 350 years, from c. 3850 BC to 3500 BC, based on the finds evidence. This means that the tomb was used continuously for 10 to 20 generations, but probably not much longer. Deposition after the Middle Neolithic becomes very sporadic and there is no good evidence for a widespread and frequent secondary ritual use. It is likely that other monuments or locales served the ritual needs of the community from the Middle Neolithic onwards and portal tombs had only a role as a relic and reminder of the past for a small local group. The next chapter will explore if the same evidence emerges from radiocarbon dates.

While finds in portal tombs after the earlier Middle Neolithic are rare, finds before the Middle Neolithic in passage tombs in Ireland unfortunately do not exist (contra Sheridan 2000). The dates at Carrowmore (Burenhult 2001: 15; 2003: 67; 2005: 22-27) from single pieces of charcoal from underneath tombs no. 1, 4, 7 and 51 do not conform with the finds evidence, neither from the tombs itself nor from the locales, despite Burenhult’s claims for Mesolithic tomb builders (Burenhult 2005: 22). This leaves us with several unanswered questions; most importantly how the gap between the radiocarbon dates from charcoal, and the dates from bone and the finds evidence can be bridged. The dating of cremated bone from the tombs can only give us a chronology for the deposits, and possibly only the later ritual episodes (Sheridan 2003: 10). However, Sheridan (2003) is making a strong case for a very early date of simple passage tombs in Ireland (and Wales and Scotland) based on their link to simple passage tombs in Northern France, a cultural-historical chain of evidence which is not totally convincing to the present author. The so far earliest date of c. 3500 BC (4625±60BP; Ua11581, Burenhult 1998: 18) from human bone is from tomb 51, Listoghil at Carrowmore, a tomb with strong portal tomb resemblance, dating it to the Middle Neolithic. The chambers of passage tombs are per se not as easily accessible as portal tomb chambers and they show a clear preference for highly visible locations, fulfilling the desired qualifications for centralising focal points, but also a possible control of the ritual by a chosen few. That the ritual must have changed in other aspects too, is testified by the frequent presence of burnt artefacts, a rarity in a portal tomb context, despite the fact that cremation seems to be a common burial rite for the corpses who were selected to be placed into portal tomb chambers (but see table 5.1 for radiocarbon dates of cremations and discussion in 5.3.2).

6.4 Discussion 6.4.1 After the early Middle Neolithic A sizable percentage of enormous, massive portal tombs in areas lacking court tombs, i.e. in the south-east of Ireland, Wales and Cornwall (see fig. 1.2 for distribution of court tombs) have at least a hint of a court, a frontal assembly area. The very similar material culture of court tombs (Herity 1987), with possibly a slightly later apogee testified by the more frequent presence of decorated Neolithic pottery in the burial chambers and the large amount of hollow scrapers, speaks for a co-existence and not competition with portal tombs. The finds assemblages from portal tombs and court tombs are otherwise virtually identical, the only marked difference being the much higher frequency of burnt lithics (58 in court tomb contexts, in contrast to three in portal tomb contexts). Similarly to portal tombs, larger and more complicated court tombs were built towards the end of the development. Rathlacken, Co. Mayo, has as the earliest date 4640 ±80 (3635-3105; Beta-76588) (see table 5.3). These are also possibly the largest of a cluster of court tombs, for example, Rathlacken, Co. Mayo (G. Byrne pers comm.). This could be interpreted as the first signs of a centralisation and control of the ritual while portal tombs had reached a state in their development where there was nowhere to go; frequently the oversized capstones of portal tombs could no longer be raised off the ground anymore (for examples, Kernanstown, Co. Carlow; Garn Turne, SW Wales) or they have squashed

6.4.2 Portal tomb usage during the Late Neolithic and the Early Bronze Age Portal tombs experienced a kind of ‘revival’ during the Late Neolithic and the EBA after the near total lull in deposition during the later Middle Neolithic, the latter attested by the absence of highly decorated pottery of, for example, Drimnagh style (see Sheridan 1995: 10 for example) in Ireland and Impressed Ware of Peterborough style in Britain (see Gibson 2002: 78-82). Cists and secondary chambers were added and integrated in one cairn and some deposits are placed into the chambers. This could very well be caused by a movement away from the by now massive passage tombs and the desire to control the ritual on a local level again. Wedge tombs, with their presence in individual locales, most likely serving the local community, are obviously the 98

THE CHRONOLOGY, MORPHOLOGY AND LANDSCAPE SETTING OF THE PORTAL TOMBS answer to this need. The start of wedge tomb construction around 2400 BC (Brindley and Lanting 1992; O’Brien 1999: 12) and the following apogee of this tomb type during the Early Bronze Age also coincides with the start of a second phase of usage , based on the radiocarbon dates from portal tombs (see figures 7.11 and 7.12 for Bayesian modelling). While there is an apparent separation in time giving the probable construction dates of passage tombs and wedge tombs, there is also good evidence for ongoing or secondary deposition in passage tombs (Burenhult 2003: 67; Herity 1974: 144), court tombs (Herity 1987; also see below) and portal tombs. However, Late Neolithic deposits seem to be rare not only in portal tombs and there is of course the possibility that ritual activity moved away from megalithic monuments, focussing on henges and similar monuments instead. After wedge tombs were fully established, deposition into portal tombs ceased fully for a very long time, only experiencing a very sporadic use during the height of the Bronze Age (Ballykeel, Poulnabrone, Twlc y filiast). By the Iron Age portal tombs no longer played a role in any burial ritual (but one possible portal tomb has Iron Age decorations, Rathkenny, Co. Meath, see below) The situation in Britain is slightly different. Other forms of monuments fulfilled the roles passage tombs and later wedge tombs had in Ireland. In Cornwall, the Scilly entrance tombs produced finds from the Early Bronze Age during the 18th and 19th century and two of the later excavated examples might have produced some late Neolithic artefacts (S. Hardgrove pers. comm.). In southwest Wales, so called earth-fast tombs might have provided a ritual focus. Entrance tombs and earth-fast tombs urgently need some modern dating to put them into context. In north-west Wales, a small number of late elaborated passage tombs exist. Subsequently, round barrows and cairns, the latter often on dominant hills, might have taken over from portal tombs all over Wales. Despite the different developments in monumental architecture in Ireland and Britain, it is striking that the material culture and therefore probably the ritual at portal tombs did go through the same stages over a very large geographical area, with a peak in the Early Neolithic and early Middle Neolithic. This speaks for a continuous contact between different Neolithic communities, reaffirming the common belief system over time.

99

TATJANA KYTMANNOW

Chapter 7 Radiocarbon dates: towards an understanding and absolute chronology of the depositional history of portal tombs construction phase. The only sample which could be most likely associated with a tomb’s construction is the one from Sperris Quoit, where the cremation deposit was found to be clearly overlain by the doorstone. However, a similar deposit in a small pit in the (open) entrance of Twlc y Filiast turned out to date from the Bronze Age, and the cremation deposit underneath a wedge stone in Ballyrenan also produced a very late date, despite the opinion of the excavator that the chamber was built around this ‘foundation deposit’. Generally, portal tomb deposits could have been disturbed at many occasions since antiquity, and the bones from Poulnabrone were most likely curated somewhere else for a long time (Hedges 1990). Therefore, the radiocarbon dates should be interpreted together with the finds evidence.

7.1 Introduction There are 23 radiocarbon dates from portal tombs (table 7.1; fig 7.1, Appendix B). The last seven dates on this table 7.1 were obtained in 2005 especially for this project. Only single entities of cremated bone have been used by the author for the new radiocarbon assays. The calibration was done after Reimer et al. (2004) using the CALIB program (Stuiver et al. 2005) The radiocarbon dates from the wider environment of Taylorsgrange, Co. Dublin (R. Lynch 1999), have been not included in the list; they are not from the tomb but from features hundreds of metres from the megaliths. Their importance will be discussed in chapter 11. All radiocarbon dates from portal tombs can be only seen as termini ante quos and do not securely date the MNO

Site

year

material

Labcode

uncal bp

±

cal 2 sigma

į 13C

main reference Collins 1965; Radiocarbon1970: 292 Barker 1992, Rees 1995

145

Ballykeel

1969

charcoal

UB-239

3350

45

200

Carreg Coetan

1985

charcoal

CAR-392

4830

80

200

Carreg Coetan

1985

charcoal

CAR-391

4560

80

200

Carreg Coetan

1985

charcoal

CAR-394

4700

80

200

Carreg Coetan

1985

charcoal

CAR-393

4470

80

17411525 37783376 36193020 36513141 33592925

115

Poulnabrone

1989

human bone

OxA-1904

3290

80

17501412

Hedges et al, 1990,

115

Poulnabrone

1989

human bone

OxA-1913

4390

90

33462887

Hedges et al, 1990

115

Poulnabrone

1989

OxA-1908

4440

80

115

Poulnabrone

1989

human bone human bone

OxA-1907

4520

80

33462918 34972929

115

Poulnabrone

1989

human bone

OxA-1909

4550

80

35192945

Hedges et al, 1990,

115

Poulnabrone

1989

human bone

OxA-1911

4720

70

36373370

Hedges et al, 1990

115

Poulnabrone

1989

human bone

OxA-1912

4810

80

37613373

Hedges et al, 1990,

115

Poulnabrone

1989

human bone

OxA-1905

4930

80

39463535

Hedges et al, 1990

100

context

Barker 1992

bulk sample, cutting C underneath cairn underneath cairn

Barker 1992

bulk sample

Barker 1992

inside cairn chamber entrance, in gryke SE in chamber, close to base of orthostat back of chamber, in gryke NW in chamber in chamber, near entrance, in gryke SE in chamber, close to base of orthostat SE in chamber, close to base of orthostat inside chamber, near entrance

Hedges et al, 1990, Hedges et al, 1990

THE CHRONOLOGY, MORPHOLOGY AND LANDSCAPE SETTING OF THE PORTAL TOMBS

MNO

Site

year

material

Labcode

uncal bp

±

cal 2 sigma

į 13C

main reference

115

Poulnabrone

1989

human bone

OxA-1910

4940

80

39513538

Hedges et al, 1990,

115

Poulnabrone

1989

human bone

OxA-1906

5100

80

40503697

Hedges et al, 1990

123

Ballynacloghy

2005

169

Ballyrenan

63

UB-6694

4835

39

2005

human bone cr. bone, human

UB-6706

3743

36

37003525 22812033

Drumanone

2005

cr. bone, human

UB-6696

3639

37

200

Carreg Coetan

2005

cr. bone, human

UB-6751

4361

209

Twlc y filiast

2005

cr. bone, human

UB-6752

221

Sperris Quoit

2005

cr. bone

214

Zennor Quoit

2005

cr. bone

-21.00

Waddell 1976

-23.00

Davies 1937

21341905

-20.20

Topp 1962

36

30892901

-17.10

Barker 1992

3214

70

16681318

-31.00

Savory 1956

UB-6754

4712

39

36333557

-17.00

Thomas and Wailes 1967

UB-6753

4471

38

33423024

-26.20

Thomas and Wailes 1967

context in chamber, near entrance, in gryke SE in chamber, close to base of orthostat surface, inside chamber distal chamber II inside chamber, disturbed SW part of cairn, between kerb stones, ENEO pots from N edge and bottom of pit S of sill in chamber small pit just outside chamber eastern half of main chamber

Table 7.1: All radiocarbon dates from portal tombs, the dates obtained for this project are in bold print.

7.2.1

BC (see Cooney 2000: 96; A. Lynch pers. comm.). In the 1980s and early 1990s it would have still bordered on heresy to contradict a lifetime of lecturing of certain professors in Ireland which were still holding high the banner of the evolutionary theory of megaliths. The fact that some older bones were apparently on top of younger ones (A. Lynch pers comm.; Lynch and Ó Donnabháin 1994) could be explained in a number of ways. As suggested by the excavator, bones could have been moved around during later depositional episodes, their location could have changed when the underrepresented long bones and skull bones (Beckett and Robb 2006; Beckett 2005: 36) were removed as relics or for some other ritual, or the tomb could have been thoroughly disturbed by some later ‘tomb raiders’. Until the excavation is published in full it is difficult to gain a clearer picture.

Ballykeel

This was the first sample for radiocarbon dating from any portal tomb. It was obtained by the excavator, Pat Collins, in 1963 from a charcoal rich layer, c. 40cm deep and about six metres north-west from the backstone of the chamber (Collins 1965; Smith et al.. 1970). This is most likely a bulk sample but it was not possible to obtain any more specific information. This cutting contained also c. 1.5 kg of Bronze Age coarse ware pottery. It is difficult to explain why this sample was chosen instead of one from the charcoal-rich layer from inside the chamber, and it produced, not surprisingly, a Bronze Age date of 3350 ±45BP (1741-1525 cal BC 2sigma; UB-239) . Ballykeel is of course rightfully well known for its rich deposition of pottery vessels, at least six of Early Neolithic date (‘plain shouldered Western Neolithic’, i.e. Carinated Bowls) were present, so were finely decorated carinated bowls. The insertions of Bronze Age deposits are so large (4.5kg of pottery in the chamber + 1.5kg in the cairn cutting 4) that the tomb must have still played an important part during this time. 7.2.2

Ten dates were obtained. All are from adult human bone and single entities were used. Small, single bones from feet were used and it would not be possible to assign them to individual bodies or to define sex or age from these feet bones (A. Lynch pers. comm.) The recent thorough re-assessment by Beckett (2005) counted a MNI of 22 and identified 4755 bones as human among a total of 14936 bone fragments. Ten dates are c. 45% of the MNI (if all dates come from different individuals). Because this is to the present date the only

Poulnabrone

It has been suggested by the excavator that the human bones in the portal tomb of Poulnabrone, Co. Clare, were possibly deposited in the tomb together around 3200 cal 101

TATJANA KYTMANNOW

Fig. 7.1: Portal tombs with radiocarbon dates

Fig. 7.2: Ballykeel, Co. Armagh. The dated charcoal sample comes from the distal end of cutting C4 (after Collins 1965, Fig 2, with addition)

102

THE CHRONOLOGY, MORPHOLOGY AND LANDSCAPE SETTING OF THE PORTAL TOMBS

portal tomb which has produced such a large number of individuals the author would welcome additional radiocarbon dates from the other 12 or more individuals. At the moment we are not able to tell if there are any peaks of activity. Cooney (2000: 96) had mentioned that only very few individuals per generation would have been interred in the tomb, but we do not know if the number would have stayed constant. Nevertheless, the oldest date of c. 3880 cal BC (5100±80 BP; OxA-1906) is not contradicted by the finds; some of the pottery is probably of a similar date and the leafshaped arrowheads also belong to the earlier part of the Neolithic. The broad-rimmed vessels belong to the Middle Neolithic. Of the few datable finds the hollow scraper belongs chronologically in the Middle Neolithic, but the currency is a very long one, even more so is the dating of the miniature polished stone axe found at Poulnabrone. The antler pin or barbell toggle could date to the early Middle Neolithic. The hollow-based arrowhead of possible Late Neolithic or Beaker date is not well matched by the radiocarbon dates, but some could fall within the very earliest phase of the Late Neolithic. The quite obvious later insertion of the Bronze Age burial is not unique. A renewed use of portal tombs during the Middle Bronze Age is also proven by radiocarbon dates for Ballykeel and Twlc y filiast. It is likely that the human bones were introduced into the chamber in a disarticulated state (Beckett and Robb 2006), the flesh already decomposed. Hedges et al. (1990) suggested a time frame of a maximum of 50 years for the bodies to decompose and to be re-buried while the present author would be inclined to postulate a much shorter time when the children or other relatives of first degree of the deceased would still be alive. In any case, there is no good reason to put the first deposition, and therefore the construction of the tomb, later than 3800 cal BC. 7.2.3

Plate 7.1: Carreg Coetan, Newport, Pembrokeshire, SW Wales

be possibly the result of a failed tooth extraction (Wilkinson 1981). At the time of the excavation in 1979/80 the bone could not be dated and the excavator chose several charcoal samples for this purpose. Four dates are available (Dresser 1985: 381; Barker 1992: 21). No identification of species for the charcoal samples has been published. 4560±80 BP (3619-3020 cal BC; CAR391) relates to a context which the excavator judged to be undisturbed and sealed beneath mound material. It was associated with impressed ware similar to Abingdon Ware which would date normally to the earlier part of the Middle Neolithic. One sample came from within the material of the mound and gave a result of 4470±-80 BP (3359-2925 cal BC; CAR-393). One bulk sample came from a socket of a chamber orthostat and dated to 4700±80 BP (3651-3141 cal BC; CAR-394). The oldest date of 4830 ±80 BP (3778-3376 cal BC; CAR-392) came from a piece of charcoal from an area of burning beneath the kerb.

Carreg Coetan

The portal tomb with the greatest number of finds is probably Carreg Coetan (plate 7.1). Considering that this tomb is rather small and was always close to human habitation, it is astonishing how many finds have survived and were recovered by the excavator Sîan Rees, though the chamber itself had been robbed previously (Rees pers comm.). No inhumations withstood the acidic soil, but one of the largest amounts of cremated bone from any portal tomb was recovered here. While this might sound promising, these are still token deposits. Sixteen bone samples from different contexts were present, ranging in weight from 0.5 g to 19.1 g (Wilkinson 1981). All seemed to be from adults, but their fragmented state made further analysis of age or sex impossible. The bones showed different degrees of cremation, from charred to fully cremated. There is one part of a mandible which might have come from a young adult. This contained the broken fragment of a tooth imbedded in the bone which the bone specialist judged to

The new date from Carreg Coetan for the present study was obtained from cremated human bone, from specimen 11, context layer 9 (Wilkinson 1981: 3). The bone had been identified by Wilkinson as human long bone, probably from an adult, a finding which was confirmed by Dr Rick Schulting (pers. comm.). One single entity was used for the AMS date. While the area might have been slightly disturbed, the sample was found in the same context as the Early Neolithic pottery of Clegyr Boia type. The result was rather disappointing. As we will see with most of the dates from cremated bone, the association with datable finds is possibly only a spatial, and not necessarily a temporal one. The new radiocarbon date is 4361±36 BP (3089-2901 cal BC; UB-6751). This 103

TATJANA KYTMANNOW

nothing which contradicts either the radiocarbon dates or the relative dating of the finds. As we will see, all cremated bone samples from this dating series belong to the later phases of deposition. The possible reasons for and interpretations of this fact will be discussed below. 7.2.4

Ballynacloghy

Ballynacloghy, Co. Galway (plate 7.2), is located on karstic limestone, a very short distance to a small sheltered bay. While the tomb, as usual, faces towards a source of fresh water, it has a prime view over the small bay, but any further view over Galway Bay is obscured by the two small peninsulas to both sides of the cove and several islands. During a field visit in February 2005 the present author noticed a human phalanx and a human upper pre-molar on the surface in the disturbed, open chamber. These finds were retrieved to protect them from further trampling by animals and reported to the authorities. It was decided to date them despite the fact that the only context was with the tomb itself and the bones lacked any firm association and a permission was obtained. Waddell (1976) lists four pot sherds, shells, and cremated bone as coming from the chamber. Apparently they had been picked up by the late Professor Duignan in 1950 from the already disturbed chamber. Herity (1982: 320) describes them as: ‘Rim and 3 body sherds, hard wellfired dark ware w. gritting of fine crushed quartz and mica, red-brown outer surface w. grass-marks, dark inner w. deposit of carbon on surface; wall curves slightly below internally-beveled rim. T. 1.1-1.2cm.’ The finds are lost now. The cremated bone and the inhumation(s) are probably testament to at least two different episodes of burial deposition, based on the supposition that cremation and inhumation are two distinctly different funerary rites, possibly separated in time (see below).

Fig. 7.3: Carreg Coetan plan and section (after Barker 1992, fig. 22, from Lynch 1972, with additions). The cremated human bone sample, single entity, for the new radiocarbon date, came from the SW part of the cairn, between the kerb stones, indicated by a dark grey dot.

The single human phalanx was chosen for AMS dating. The result was 4835±59 BP (3700-3525 cal BC; UB6694). There is of course no indication if the tooth and the bone belonged to the same person or episode. All that can be said is that some inhumation happened sometime between 3700 cal BC and 3525 cal BC and that it was surely not the only deposition.

overlaps with the two dates from within the mound and from the old ground surface, but it is still the very latest of the five dates. The radiocarbon assays indicate that the earliest dated deposit could be from the earlier part of the Early Neolithic, close to 3800 cal BC, but given the fact that this date came from charcoal it is more probably from the late Early Neolithic or from the Early Middle Neolithic. There were several deposits inside the chamber sometime between 3650 and 2900 cal BC, and a secondary deposition in the mound between 3359-2925 cal BC. The artefactual finds include two Mesolithic microliths, a substantial and about equal proportion of Early Neolithic and Middle Neolithic pottery sherds, a plano-convex knife, and a small amount of Beaker and Grooved Ware sherds, representing several vessels. Plainly, there is

7.2.4.1 Dietary analysis The į 13C value of the collagen from the human phalanx at Ballynacloghy is -20.1 which clearly indicates a terrestrial diet (Schulting 1998a; 1998b). Woodman (2003: 49) alludes to similar į 13C results for Poulnabrone. The bone samples for this analysis, undertaken by Cathryn Power during the early 1990s, had not been dated, most of them had been inconclusive and the results were never published (A. Lynch pers. comm.). In any case, a terrestrial diet might be less of a surprise here considering that Poulnabrone is eight kilometres 104

THE CHRONOLOGY, MORPHOLOGY AND LANDSCAPE SETTING OF THE PORTAL TOMBS

Plate 7.2: Ballynacloghy, Co. Galway. The bone and tooth were found inside the chamber

from the sea. In contrast, Ballynacloghy is not only just yards from the high-water mark, it also overlooks natural mussel beds. Furthermore, shells seemed to have been deposited at some stage into the tomb, possibly by human agency, and could indicate a form of veneration of ‘the fruits of the sea’, but this respect for it was certainly not expressed through consumption of the shellfish during the earlier parts of the Neolithic. Woodman (2003: 49, 50, fig 4.7) also refers to another Neolithic bone sample within a 10km distance from the sea, from Kilgraney Cave, Co. Waterford, which also suggests a preference of a terrestrial diet (see also Molleson 1986: 1-3). Overall, any evidence for the opposite, a marine based diet during the earlier Neolithic, is entirely absent (Woodman 2003: 50, fig. 4.7). The only indication that shellfish might have played a part in the diet of some Neolithic groups in Ireland are the substantial shell-middens at Culleenamore and Cullenduff, Co. Sligo. Only two radiocarbon dates from the site have been published: 4710±100 BP (37023115 cal BC; St-7624) and 3780±60 BP (2457-2030 cal BC; Lu-1759) (Österholm and Österholm 1984: 327). These dates were obtained from charcoal samples.

7.2.5

Sperris Quoit

The partial excavation of Sperris Quoit (fig. 7.4) resulted in several finds and a token deposit of cremated bone (Thomas and Wailes 1967). No bone from a Penwith chambered tomb in Cornwall had ever been dated and a small sample was selected for AMS dating.

The author has obtained į 13C values for the six cremated bone samples, but unfortunately we are not able to ‘read’ į 13C values from cremated bone yet (P. Reimer pers. comm.). Regarding isotopic interpretation, there is a certain chance that thoroughly cremated bones in the process take a step in į 13C to stationary value, which is independent of further heating and which, allowing for a fixed step offset, may represent information on the original isotopic value (Jan Heinemeier pers. comm.). But these trials are still in an experimental state (Olsen et al. in prep.)

Unfortunately, because of its fragmented state (Plate 7.3) it could not be determined with certainty if this and the sample from Zennor were human (Eileen Murphy pers. comm.), but there is nothing which would suggest otherwise; cremated animal bone from distinct deposits have never been proven in a megalithic context (Schulting pers. comm.).

This aspect of ‘slighting the sea’ has been attested for a number of early Neolithic locations in Britain (Schulting 1998a; 1998b), but it is interesting to see that this taboo of a marine-based diet stretched to the west-coast of Ireland, and into the belief system and practices of portal tomb builders.

A single piece of cremated bone was chosen and the date was 4712±-39 BP (3633-3373 cal BC; UB-6754). This puts the deposition into the earlier part of the Middle Neolithic. That is especially satisfying because most of the finds from Sperris are not datable: the small amount of pottery could not be located, and the fragment of a

Plate 7.3: Token deposit of finely crushed cremated bone from Sperris, Cornwall (Penlee House Museum, Penzance, Cornwall)

105

TATJANA KYTMANNOW

Fig. 7.4: Plan of Sperris Quoit, the cremated bone came from the pit (in grey) partly overlain by stone 1 (Thomas and Wailes 1967, fig. 2., with addition)

saddle quern and most of the 50 lithics cannot be attributed to any timeframe. The plano-convex knife is also less useful for relative dating than it would be in Ireland; plano-convex knives in Britain have a very long currency from c. 4000 BC to 2500 BC, but in Cornwall they have been found mainly in Early Bronze Age context (A. Jones pers. comm.; Butler 2005: 170) 7.2.6

The date from the single entity of cremated bone is 4471±38 BP (3342-3024 cal BC 2 sigma). This means that the two dates from the neighbouring tombs do not overlap; the Zennor date belongs to the late Middle Neolithic. Several sherds from Grooved Ware pottery from at least two vessels have been found at Zennor Quoit (C. Thomas pers. comm.; H. Quinnell pers. comm.). There are at least eight vessels of different dates: the above mentioned two Grooved Ware ones, at least three Trevisker, one of uncertain date and two or three of probable Early Neolithic date (H. Quinnell pers comm.). This would mean a depositional history from c. 40003800 BC to the Middle Bronze Age, with a burial and an artefactual deposit during the Late Neolithic.

Zennor Quoit

Zennor Quoit is only 350m to the south-west of the pretty ruined tomb of Sperris Quoit. During the excavation by Noall in 1910 pottery sherds, some lithics and a token deposit of cremated bone were found. This is even more amazing knowing how often and how substantially Zennor had been plundered in previous centuries, even by using dynamite (Thomas and Wailes 1967). The cremation was found in the eastern part of the chamber (fig. 7.5).

These are the first dates from any Neolithic chambered tombs in Cornwall. The only other radiocarbon date of 1539±59 BP (BM-935) from Bosiliak from C. Thomas’ excavation is still unpublished and comes from a very 106

THE CHRONOLOGY, MORPHOLOGY AND LANDSCAPE SETTING OF THE PORTAL TOMBS

Late Neolithic/Early Bronze Age. There are no artefactual finds from this period in the tomb, but the coarse domestic ware could belong to nearly any period during the Bronze Age. Nevertheless, the only finds with which the cremated bone was definitely associated was the classical Early Neolithic pot F. This shows that the persons who deposited the bones must have gone to some length to secure the bone under a wedge stone of an orthostat. It is probably also its odd but protected location which contributed to its preservation in the acidic soil of this part of Tyrone. A radiocarbon date such as the above shows how little we understand of the ritual biography of most portal tombs. The disturbed state of most portal tombs obscures the picture further and even the most ardent excavator seems to be hard pressed to make sense of a stratigraphy which might have been churned over dozens of times in antiquity alone. 7.2.8

In contrast to Davies at Ballyrenan, Topp (1962) excavating Drumanone never had any illusions about the severely disturbed state of the chamber (fig. 7.7). Beside some debitage and worked flint, the only prehistoric artefact from the interior of the chamber was a miniature polished stone axe of porcellanite. Overall, 2.58kg of cremated bone were found. How disturbed the context was is clearly indicated by the fact that at a depth of 1.3m modern glass and china was intermingled with cremated and uncremated bone in one of the old stone sockets. It is largely due to the location of the tomb on limestone that the bones survived at all, despite the obvious disturbances which would normally speed up the decay of bone considerably (Beckett and Robb 2005).

Fig. 7.5: Plan of Zennor Quoit (after Barnatt 1982, Fig. 7.1., with addition). The cremated bone was found in the eastern half of the chamber, in the area of the red dot.

different (and probably later) tomb type, an entrance tomb (Mercer 1986: 60). Neither the dates nor the finds from the two portal tombs imply any difference in ritual tradition compared with the portal tombs of Wales and Ireland. 7.2.7

Drumanone

Ballyrenan

A small piece of cremated human skull (1.6g) from the eastern half of the chamber was chosen for AMS dating. Again, the date came back much later than might have been expected and nothing between the few finds would have foreshadowed it. The date is 3639±37 BP (21341905 cal BC; UB-6696), putting it again into the transitional phase from the Late Neolithic to the Early Bronze Age.

Cremated bone was found by Davies in 1936 in the back chamber II, i.e. the most distal one (fig. 7.6), which was judged by him to have been previously undisturbed; this seems to be most unlikely, considering the conspicuous size of the whole monument and its location directly beside a road. Underneath one of the wedge stones of the south sidestone were the fragments of cremated bone, a location which prompted the excavator to the statement that the tomb must have been built around the bone (Davies 1937: 93). The large amount of pottery sherds from the Early Neolithic period found as the dominant find in the same chamber led the current author to expect an equally early date for the selected sample of bone. This was certainly not the case and shows clearly that the subjective opinion of an excavator to be dealing with a secure context cannot always be trusted.

Obviously, there is still a lot of bone available from this tomb and it might be advisable to try to date several other samples at a later stage to find out if all skull fragments are from one depositional event or if bones from previous burial episodes have survived. There is also some charcoal and some unburnt bone which could be chosen to try to get a fuller picture of the ritual history of Drumanone portal tomb. That the location of the tomb had some importance early on is implied by the find of two Bann flakes 2m from the tomb. These might have come from the interior of the tomb at one of the many ‘treasure-seeking’ attempts.

A piece of skull was chosen, as the only certainly human sample. The date came back as 3743±36 BP (2281-2033 cal BC; UB- 6706), putting this deposition into the very

107

TATJANA KYTMANNOW

Fig. 7.6: Ballyrenan plan, the grey dot indicates the find spot of the dated bone sample (after Davies 1936, fig.1, with additions).

Fig. 7.7: Drumanone plan and section (from Topp 1962). The bone came from the eastern half of the chamber. The whole inside of the chamber was extremely disturbed and intermingled with modern glass at all levels.

108

THE CHRONOLOGY, MORPHOLOGY AND LANDSCAPE SETTING OF THE PORTAL TOMBS

7.2.9

pieces of bone and the first dating attempt failed because of the lack of preserved bioapatite. The second sample dated to 3214±70 BP (UB-6752) which calibrates to 1688-1318 at 2 sigma which puts it into the Middle Bronze Age. That there was a short ‘revival’ during the Middle Bronze Age has been already attested at Ballykeel and Poulnabrone. The small amulet from Twlc y filiast is certainly not a tiny miniature polished stone axe, instead it is probably depicting a bronze axe, but the amulet does not look burned and therefore is probably not from the same depositional episode as the cremated bone. At least, it was probably not burnt together with the body.

Twlc y filiast

This beautifully located site in SW Wales was very disturbed too; it is even possible that a small creek might have damaged the site at high water. The excavator kept absolutely every shred of artefact, including c.650 postmedieval and modern pottery sherds (Savory 1956). Only a Neolithic flint knife, a Neolithic flint flake and 50 plus pieces of debitage imply earlier prehistoric activity.

7.3

Discussion

One of the main research aims was to clarify whether the evolutionary approach of Herity and his contemporaries could be right which put portal tombs at the very end of the megalithic development, or if they rather belong to the earlier Neolithic. Judging by the finds from all excavations, this seemed to be quite clear-cut: the dominant finds by volume and frequency were Early Neolithic, underpinned by the datable lithics. Looking at the radiocarbon dates in isolation, one could be persuaded to believe in ‘the general impression of lateness’ of portal tombs (Thomas and Wailes 1967) which befell so many researchers during the last century, especially if we disregard the early date from Poulnabrone and ignore the date from Ballynacloghy as a stray find without any stratigraphy or finds context.

Plate 7.4: Axe-shaped stone amulet (c. 2.2cm by 1.2cm), Twlc y filiast, SW Wales (National Museum of Wales, Cat. No. 53.271/1)

The nine portal tombs that have produced radiocarbon dates are still a statistically very small number, c. 4 %. Except for Poulnabrone and Carreg Coetan, only single dates were obtained from each site. Six of the seven dates from the current dating series come from small deposits of cremated bone. These samples were not chosen because their context was so exceptionally secure, but because they were the best available. Except on limestone, the acidic conditions allow only the survival of cremated bone, and it looks increasingly as if the environmental conditions only allowed the survival of the latest deposit. The frequent new depositions of burials or ‘settlement debris’, i.e. pottery, soil, charcoal, flints and so on in the chamber have probably increased substantially the destruction of organic material. Furthermore, with any of the numerous re-uses the bone was disturbed and freshly exposed to acidic conditions, accelerating the decay. Only the last deposit survived under lucky circumstances, if it was not disturbed or cleared out by any antiquarian explorations, still resting in its small pit or under the stone where it was placed in antiquity.

Fig. 7.8: Twlc y filiast (from Barker 1992, fig. 11). The bone came from the N and bottom of a pit just inside the chamber, south of the sill.

A small stone amulet of axe-shape (plate 7.4) has not been closer dated than ‘prehistoric’ and ‘Bronze Age/ Romano-British’, but it just might fit to the exceedingly late date from the cremated human bone found in two small deposits (together 23 g) in the chamber. This research project could only obtain two of the smallest

7.3.1 The contextual relationship between artefacts and bones During the selection of the dating samples the context in which they were found and the association of prehistoric

109

TATJANA KYTMANNOW

Fig. 7.9: All the calibrated probability distributions of the radiocarbon dates from portal tombs, in cal BC 2-sigma

finds were carefully investigated, hoping that Early Neolithic finds might foreshadow Early Neolithic bone dates. This was especially the case at Ballyrenan where the bone was found together with text-book Early Neolithic carinated pottery, normally dating to 4000-3700 cal BC, and the excavator felt that the chamber had been undisturbed. Carreg Coetan was associated with Early Neolithic Clegyr Boia pottery; the only finds from Drumanone were most likely Neolithic; and Zennor had produced pottery of probable Early Neolithic date. The finds from Twlc y filiast and Sperris indicated only a prehistoric date. Astonishingly, there seems to be hardly any contextual relationship between pottery and what could be called settlement debris on one side and the bone deposition on the other side. Either we are looking at entirely different depositional traditions, not connected at all or the survival of bone is indeed so sporadic and unrepresentative that the vast majority of bone deposits have decayed. This still does not explain very well why so few finds from the Late Neolithic occur.

Ballynacloghy. However, these tombs are on karstic limestone, the ideal environment for bone survival. The only other tomb which is on limestone is Drumanone, which was so disturbed that it produced hardly any finds and even less bone. The numbers of dated inhumations and also of dated cremations are still statistically too small to come to any viable conclusion. Nevertheless, it is an idea which might be worth looking into further, i.e. that cremation generally post-dates inhumations in portal tombs. 7.4 Bayesian modeling For the whole dating sequence of all nine tombs with 14C dates (fig. 7.10), i.e. all 23 dates (see also fig. 7.9), multiset simultaneous calibration was used, i.e. Bayesian modeling, to resolve single-dating ambiguities caused by the irregular shape of the 14C calibration curves (Manning et al. 2006). Although stratigraphic information is not available for these portal tomb radiocarbon dates, the Bayesian technique can still provide a statistical test of the hypotheses built into the model. Because of the small number of dates and the lack of good contextual relationships to the monument construction, the only hypothesis tested was a simple two phase relationship

7.3.2 Are inhumations earlier? The only Early Neolithic bone dates come from inhumations, at Poulnabrone and possibly at 110

THE CHRONOLOGY, MORPHOLOGY AND LANDSCAPE SETTING OF THE PORTAL TOMBS

Fig. 7.10: Bayesian modeling graph, all portal tomb radiocarbon dates.

Fig. 7.11: Bayesian modeling, interval gap graph of all portal tomb dates.

111

TATJANA KYTMANNOW

with a potential gap between phase 1 and 2. A uniform prior distribution was assumed. No prior age limits for the start and ends of the group was assumed. The samples all relate to tomb usage rather than construction, so any modeled start date could conceivably be different than the actual construction of the tombs, while the potential gap between phases could appear longer.

7.5

None of the 23 radiocarbon dates from nine different portal tombs (five from Ireland, two from Wales and two from Cornwall) produced any sensations. Quite interestingly, in contrast to the simple dolmens of the passage tomb tradition at Carrowmore (Burenhult 1984; Burenhult 2003; Bergh 1995) or some wedge tombs (O’Brien 1999: 136), there is apparently no evidence for a ritual use during the Late Bronze Age or the Iron Age. The combined evidence from the finds analysis and the radiocarbon dating gives us a very likely terminus ante quem, the Middle Bronze Age. The latest possible date so far is 1415 cal BC. A terminus post quem of at least 3800 cal BC is well supported by the finds evidence. There seems to be a hiatus at the Late Neolithic/ Early Bronze Age, a fact which is also replicated in the finds evidence. The conclusion is that the first portal tombs were built during the earlier Neolithic, not later than 3600 cal BC and possibly, but not probably, as early as 3930 cal BC. This statement is well supported by the pottery evidence and by the radiocarbon dates.

The results indicate that portal tombs were used for a considerable period, from the Early Neolithic onwards (with the earliest and latest possible start date of 3990 BC and 3700 BC, respectively and the highest probability distribution between 3930 BC and 3770 BC) until the beginning of the Late Neolithic, without any apparent gap. This dating sequence 1 is followed by a large gap of at least 400 calendar years (700-1000 years at 95 % confidence according to the model results), and then dating sequence 2 which covers the five Bronze Age dates. Importantly, the gap spans most of the Late Neolithic, from c. 2800 BC to c. 2400 BC, a timeframe that is also badly represented by the finds evidence. Some caution has to be exercised not to overestimate the importance of these findings. After all, given the small number of good, modern excavations and radiocarbon dates, even one excavation with a couple of Late Neolithic bone and finds deposits could shift the picture significantly. Site name

County

LabCode

Conclusion

7.6 Portal tomb and court tomb radiocarbon dates: a comparison

material

context

uncal BP

±

cal 2 sigma

reference

Annaghmare

Co. Armagh

UB-241

charcoal

blocking of court

4395

55

3328-2901

O'Kelly 1989

Ballybriest

Co. Derry

UB-534

charcoal

black layer under tomb

4930

80

3946-3535

ApSimon 1986

Ballybriest

Co. Derry

UB-535

charcoal

black layer under tomb

5045

95

4037-3649

ApSimon 1986

Ballyglass

Co. Mayo

SI-1461

charc/ soil

soil inside court, structure 1

4190

100

3013-2490

ApSimon 1986

Ballyglass

Co. Mayo

SI-1462

charc/ soil

grey layer court, structure 2

4270

85

3309-2577

ApSimon 1986

Ballyglass

Co. Mayo

SI-1463

charc/ soil

grey layer court, structure 2

4270

90

3262-2581

ApSimon 1986

Ballymacdermot

Co. Armagh

UB-705

?

court

3515

85

2122-1625

ApSimon 1986

Ballymacdermot

Co. Armagh

UB-207

?

court

3660

60

2201-1889

ApSimon 1986

Ballymacdermot

Co. Armagh

UB-695

?

Chamber 3

4295

90

3326-2623

ApSimon 1986

Ballymacdermot

Co. Armagh

UB-694

?

chamber 3

4830

95

3892-3370

ApSimon 1986

Ballymacaldrack

Co. Antrim

UB-2029

charcoal

cremation passage

4940

50

3911-3639

O'Kelly 1989

Ballymacaldrack

Co. Antrim

charcoal

cremation passage

5150

90

4230-3714

O'Kelly 1989

Shanballyedmond

Co. Tipperary

charcoal

post hole at entrance

4930

60

3937-3541

ApSimon 1986

Shanballyedmond

charcoal

base of cairn spread

3475

40

1895-1690

ApSimon 1986

UB-2114

charcoal

4575

50

3501-3098

Waterman1978

UB-2120

charcoal

4785

85

3708-3368

Waterman1978

UB-2119

charcoal

under court blocking gallery, chamber 1, under stone filling chamber 1, under stone filling

4890

65

3907-3523

Waterman1978

Tully

Co. Tipperary Co. Fermanagh Co. Fermanagh Co. Fermanagh Co. Fermanagh

UB-2030 GrN11431 GrN11432

Dunloy

Co. Antrim

Tully Tully Tully

UB-2115

charcoal

surface of court

4960

85

3959-3543

Waterman 1978

UB-3533

charcoal

façade

4880

40

3935-3655

?

Table 7.2: List of radiocarbon dates from court tomb, obtained before the 1990s.

112

THE CHRONOLOGY, MORPHOLOGY AND LANDSCAPE SETTING OF THE PORTAL TOMBS

Site name

County

LabCode

material

context

Rathlackan

Co. Mayo

Beta-76588

charcoal

Rathlackan

Co. Mayo

Beta-76591

charcoal

Rathlackan

Co. Mayo

Beta-76587

charcoal

Rathlackan

Co. Mayo

Beta-76590

charcoal

Rathlackan

Co. Mayo

Beta-76583

charcoal

upper fill of pit in CH3 deposit surrounding Hearth in court spread on court surface silt in top of socket in SW end CH3 spread on court surtace

uncal BP

Rathlackan

Co. Mayo

Beta-48102

charcoal

Rathlackan

Co. Mayo

Beta-76585

charcoal

Rathlackan

Co. Mayo

Beta-63836

charcoal

Rathlackan

Co. Mayo

Beta-76584

charcoal

Rathlackan

Co. Mayo

Beta-76586

Parknabinnia

Co. Clare

GU-10570

Parknabinnia

Co. Clare

GU-10571

Parknabinnia

Co. Clare

GU-10572

Parknabinnia

Co. Clare

GU-10573

Parknabinnia

Co. Clare

GU-10574

Parknabinnia

Co. Clare

GU-10575

Parknabinnia

Co. Clare

GU-10576

Parknabinnia

Co. Clare

GU-10577

Parknabinnia

Co. Clare

GU-10578

Parknabinnia

Co. Clare

GU-10579

Parknabinnia

Co. Clare

GU-10580

Parknabinnia Primrose Grange 1 Primrose Grange 1 Primrose Grange 1 Primrose Grange 1 Primrose Grange 1

Co. Clare

GU-10581

charcoal human bone human bone human bone human bone human bone human bone human bone human bone human bone human bone human bone human bone

Co. Sligo

Ua-16967

Co. Sligo

Hearth of house N end CH3 above basal stones

cal 2 sigma

reference

4640

± 80

3635-3105

G. Byrne, pers.comm.

4570

90

3630-3015

G. Byrne, pers.comm.

4520

80

3500-2930

G. Byrne, pers.comm.

4130

80

2891-2491

G. Byrne, pers.comm.

4110

90

2889-2474

G. Byrne, pers.comm.

4110

60

2878-2495

G. Byrne, pers.comm.

4090

70

2873-2488

G. Byrne, pers.comm.

hearth of house with secondary pottery in CH3 with secondary pottery in CH3

4040

60

2867-2459

G. Byrne, pers.comm.

3640

80

2274-1771

G. Byrne, pers.comm.

3630

80

2204-1758

G. Byrne, pers.comm.

in chamber

4645

55

3630-3135

C. Jones, pers.comm.

in chamber

4235

55

3005-2625

C. Jones, pers.comm.

in chamber

4455

60

3345-2930

C. Jones, pers.comm.

in chamber

4340

75

3635-3105

C. Jones, pers.comm.

in chamber

4455

60

3345-2930

C. Jones, pers.comm.

in chamber

4195

55

2905-2620

C. Jones, pers.comm.

in chamber

4535

60

3495-3025

C. Jones, pers.comm.

in chamber

4705

60

3635-3370

C. Jones, pers.comm.

in chamber

4785

60

3690-3375

C. Jones, pers.comm.

in chamber

4315

55

3095-2765

C. Jones, pers.comm.

in chamber

4725

60

3635-3370

C. Jones, pers.comm.

in chamber

4550

60

3500-3030

C. Jones, pers.comm.

charcoal

?

5230

75

4310-3810

G. Burenhult 1998

Ua-16968

charcoal

?

5145

75

4230-3715

G. Burenhult 1998

Co. Sligo

Ua-11582

65

4225-3775

G. Burenhult 1998

Ua-12739

dark area cist A femur, young ad. Cist A

5140

Co. Sligo

charcoal human bone

4645

70

3635-3115

G. Burenhult 1998

Ua-16969

4545

80

3515-2945

3433

39

1880-1640

3446

38

1880-1670

Annaghmare

Co. Armagh

UB-6741

4556

35

3485-3105

Ballyedmond

Co. Down

UB-6742

charcoal human bone human bone human bone human bone

?

Aghanaglack

Co. Sligo Co. Fermanagh Co. Fermanagh

4737

35

3635-3375

G. Burenhult 1998 R. Schulting, comm. R. Schulting, comm. R. Schulting, comm. R. Schulting, comm.

Aghanaglack

UB-6730 UB-6731

pers. pers. pers. pers.

Table 7.3: List of Radiocarbon dates from court tombs, post-dating the 1980s.

As shown in the previous chapter, the relative dating of portal tombs and court tombs is largely contemporary, based on the finds evidence. The absolute dating, based on the 14C dates, does not show any major discrepancies either (figs. 7.9; 7.12 and 7.13). There are now 58 radiocarbon dates derived from court tombs (Müller 1999; ApSimon 1986; C. Jones pers.comm; G. Byrne pers. comm.; R. Schulting pers. comm.; Burenhult 1998). Only the older dates obtained in the 1960s and 1970s have been published. The excavations from the 1990s, Parknabinnia, Co. Clare, Rathlackan, Co. Mayo, and Primrose Grange, Co. Sligo, are still largely unpublished

and the results have not entered the discussion yet. Most radiocarbon assays for court tombs were obtained from charcoal, in the case of Ballyglass from charcoal rich soil, i.e. mixed samples. Six of the dates have such high standard variations between 100 and 300 that they are not very useful. They have been omitted from the probability distributions and the tables (table 7.2 and table 7.3). The dates from court tombs are presented here in two graphs. The first set of calibrated probability distributions depicts the 14C dates from before 1990 (fig. 7.12), while the second graph (fig. 7.13) shows the newer radiocarbon 113

TATJANA KYTMANNOW

Fig. 7.12: Calibrated probability distributions of radiocarbon dates from court tombs, pre-1990s dates. Dates with standard deviations higher than ± 100 have been omitted.

Fig 7.13: Calibrated probability distributions of radiocarbon dates from court tombs, post 1980s. Dates with standard deviations higher than ± 100 have been omitted.

114

THE CHRONOLOGY, MORPHOLOGY AND LANDSCAPE SETTING OF THE PORTAL TOMBS

Fig. 7.14: Primrose Grange, Co. Sligo, classified as a court tomb (after Ó Nualláin 1989) scale 1:100

assays obtained after 1990. This division has been done not only because it would be difficult to fit so much data on one figure, but also because there is a contextual divide. Some (but not all) of the earlier dates up to the 1980s have to be regarded with suspicion because of their sample strategy (charcoal-rich soil, i.e. bulk samples) while others came from laboratories which have ceased to exist as commercial laboratories, some not without a reason, for example the early dates from the Trinity College laboratory in Dublin obtained during the 1960s and early 1970s proved to be flawed in several cases (Eoin Grogan pers. comm.). The dates which were obtained after 1990 are all from single entities (for discussion of the importance of single entities see, for example, Ashmore 1999). Not only had radiocarbon dating changed and much smaller samples sufficed, laboratory inter-comparisons had indicated to the laboratories whether they needed to improve the accuracy of their results (Scott et al., 1990; Rozanksi et al. 1992). The archaeology had changed too: a much more detailed stratigraphy had become common practice and more dates per tomb would be obtained if in any way possible.

Late Neolithic at least. One tomb which has been discussed in more detail is Dooey’s Cairn, Ballymacaldrack, Co. Antrim (Evans 1938; Collins 1976, Cooney 2000: 99-103; Sheridan 2006); it showed different phases of construction and of ritual use, spanning 500 years from c. 4000-3500 cal BC. One court tomb which has been dated using bone samples is Parknabinnia, Co. Clare. The results have not been published in full yet, but the oldest dates are c. 3600 cal BC, the latest c. 2800 cal BC, with the main activity taking place over the 500 year period from c. 3500-3000 cal BC. All samples have been taken from uncremated human bone (C. Jones 2004: 46; pers. comm.). One other excavation of a court tomb took place during the 1990s, in the heart of the court tomb distribution area, at Rathlacken in Co. Mayo (Byrne 1991; 1993; 1994; pers. comm.). No bone survived in the acidic soil, but eleven radiocarbon dates from charcoal indicate a primary ritual use at c. 3400- 3300 cal BC. The tomb showed also at least two phases of building; the court was substantially enlarged at the time of the latest deposits, when a house was constructed and inhabited only metres from the tomb. This phase dates to c. 2700 cal BC. Secondary deposits together with pottery date to the Early Bronze Age. The third court tomb excavation during the 1990s took place in Sligo at Primrose Grange (Burenhult 1998). This is not a good example of a court tomb (fig 7.14), comprising one simple stone chamber with a side entrance. Large amounts of uncremated bone were found, producing one date of c. 3400 cal BC. The others are from charcoal and some date to the earliest Neolithic in Ireland. The finds consist of several hollow scrapers, a lozenge shaped arrowhead, Carrowkeel Ware and other decorated pottery. Four other dates from bone were obtained from old excavations from the north of Ireland, as part of a dating project run by Queen’s University using bone still

Of the 23 radiocarbon dates coming from nine portal tombs, eighteen are from bone. Of the other five, three come from inside the chamber at Carreg Coetan and were associated with cremation deposits, one was a mixed sample from a stone socket (Carreg Coetan) and one was not from a chamber (Ballykeel). All have relatively low standard deviations and give more precise date ranges than most of the dates obtained earlier from court tombs. While we have to treat the 14C dates from court tombs with some caution, they still indicate a first construction phase in the beginning of the fourth millennium BC, with a long-lasting ritual use of at least 500 years. Activity in the court area is attested for much later periods, up to the 115

TATJANA KYTMANNOW

available from the Ulster Museum (R. Schulting pers. comm.). Two of these resulted in Bronze Age dates, and two in Middle/ Late Neolithic ones. The first portal tombs and court tombs could have been constructed at around 4000-3800 cal BC, and certainly not later than 3600 cal BC. This date range is not only strongly implied by the number of early radiocarbon dates, but also from the finds assemblages. Both tomb types experienced a near continuous use for several hundred years after their construction. The dates from Rathlacken and Parknabinnia indicate that some court tombs might have been still newly constructed in the Middle Neolithic. Interestingly, the dates from human bone from court tombs are not any earlier than the bone dates from portal tombs.

116

THE CHRONOLOGY, MORPHOLOGY AND LANDSCAPE SETTING OF THE PORTAL TOMBS

Chapter 8 The tomb in the micro-region 8.1

Introduction

prime views towards the tomb and allowing all members of the group to observe and probably participate in the public ritual. The micro-region comprises c. 1km around the tomb, but this is of course dependent on the landscape. Certain portal tombs in very prominent locations are exceptions to the rule and occasionally overlook vast stretches of land; however, they also often have a small stream valley in the immediate locality.

It has been argued that the landscape surrounding a tomb can give important insights into the belief system of the societies that built the monuments. One result of the vast amount of regional landscape studies of the last decade is the awareness that the placing of a monument was probably not random but possibly carefully thought out. At the very least, the possible relationship to important landscape elements and striking landmarks should be investigated.

8.3

Portal tombs occur in a wide variety of natural landscapes: from the Irish northern midlands such as Leitrim and Cavan where they are often placed at the side of a drumlin; along the lush river catchments areas of the Barrow and Suir in south-east Ireland; extremely close to the sea as many in the northern part of the Irish west coast; or some in Wales. However, there are certain preferred locations. Many portal tombs, while in relatively low-lying locations, are in the foothills of mountain ranges and occasionally directly on the flanks of these uplands, e.g. the Ox Mountains in Sligo (Bergh 1995: 17; Ó Nualláin 1989: Fig. 82), Dublin and Wicklow Mountains (Cooney 2000: 143), the Sperrins and the Mournes (Cooney 2000: 140) in Northern Ireland, or Snowdonia in Wales (Lynch 2000: 47). Arguably, the chance of survival for a portal tomb is probably higher if it was located on marginal land or just at the edge of it, land which is now mainly used for grazing and has escaped so-called land-improvement schemes and the destructive force of the bulldozer during the last decades. For example, most of the twelve portal tombs in the Sligo region are in or very close to uplands, but the coat of arms of Sligo Town depicts a simplified portal tomb which has been destroyed in the town area centuries ago.

The present author’s attitude towards the more extreme followers of a phenomenological approach should have become apparent in Chapter 3. The methodology in these studies is mainly concerned with the views, especially towards the horizon. The immediate locale, the microregion, is often neglected. However, it is this direct environment that might have played an important part in the selection of the precise location of the tomb for cosmological and probably also for practical reasons. Because portal tombs are so often in sheltered locations in one valley it was decided that a careful survey of the existing landscape elements in the immediate vicinity could be of benefit towards a meaningful interpretation. Therefore, water sources, stream direction, gradient and direction of slope from the tomb to the valley bottom, and many more landscape elements have been carefully assessed and analysed to establish whether any obvious pattern, regional or general, can be proven. The wider surroundings, for example, the presence or absence of large rivers or the view towards the sea or mountains, have been noted. ‘Striking’ landmarks such as mountain tops have been recorded too, but the emphasis was placed on the more mundane landscape elements such as small streams. 8.2

Preferred and avoided locations and regions

Obviously, portal tombs did not occupy every suitable valley and there are large tracts of land which are entirely devoid of them: the Irish Midlands with the odd exception of Mihanboy, Co. Roscommon, which sits almost exactly in the geographical centre of Ireland on a small island of limestone outcrop; most of the south-west of Ireland; inland Wales; and the islands in the Irish Sea such as the Isle of Man (Burrow 1997) and Anglesey (Lynch 2000: 70).

Definition of micro-region

The locale has become a buzz-word which is used with inflationary regularity in landscape archaeology. It can mean an archaeological site and its immediate surroundings; the sphere of influence of the smallest unit of society, i.e. the nuclear family or the extended one, the kin; all the eye can survey; a farmstead with enough land to produce food through mixed farming; or a small mythical unit of a larger ‘landscape of the mind’ which is entirely individual. It was decided to use the term microregion for this survey. By this is meant the immediate valley, in most cases transversed by a small stream and with a view obscured in one or more directions. This micro-region forms also a natural amphitheatre giving

Portal tombs are also rarely along any of the large rivers. There is none on the Shannon (O’ Sullivan 2001: 55, 8792) or River Bann and only one close to the Suir (Gurteen Lower) and one close to the Conwy River in NW Wales (Hendre Waelod); both of these are c. 450m from the river banks. There is also one on the River Barrow, but its state of preservation is such that it is even uncertain that it 117

TATJANA KYTMANNOW

Plate 8.1: Cairn G at Midsummer, Carrowkeel, Co. Sligo

Plate 8.2: Roofbox at entrance of cairn G, Carrowkeel, Co. Sligo

is a megalith, never mind which type. The last one (Barrowmount, Co. Kilkenny) seems to be the object of a circular, but false argument: many portal tombs are close to rivers, such as Barrowmount, therefore Barrowmount must be a portal tomb, even if it really looks like fieldclearance. Portal tombs also avoid the proximity of the large lakes such as Lough Allen, Lough Key, Lough Gill, Lough Gara, Lough Neagh and many more. Not one megalithic tomb and certainly no portal tomb has been

found on any of the numerous lake islands, but five portal tombs are on off-shore islands, even if these islands are separated from the mainland only by small stretches of water: Sand Island, Co. Donegal; Inch Island, Co. Donegal; two tombs on Achill Island, Co. Mayo; and the only tomb on an island in the Irish Sea, Howth Demesne, Co. Dublin, which only became part of the mainland at a later stage.

118

THE CHRONOLOGY, MORPHOLOGY AND LANDSCAPE SETTING OF THE PORTAL TOMBS

Despite the fact that portal tombs occur on both sides of the Irish Sea the south-east coast of Ireland is nearly entirely devoid of portal tombs with only one exception at Ballybrittas, Co. Wicklow. Tombs with a sea view are an absolute rarity on the eastern side of the Irish Sea as is quite obvious from the distribution map in fig.1 (exception Kilfeaghan, Co. Down) and most portal tombs relatively close to the sea are safely tucked away in a mountain valley (Ballyvennaght, Co. Antrim, or the Slieve Gullion tombs, Co. Armagh) or are facing away from the open sea (Howth Demesne, Co. Dublin). The few exceptions will be discussed below together with the other portal tombs with a sea view and the potential meaning of it.

database: A and B are parallel, i.e. 147 of 159 portal tombs for which a stream was determined, also fig. 8.1); parallel means sharing the same cardinal direction using one of sixteen possibilities (see the explanations to the surveying sheet in chapter 1).They are best seen from below, from the valley bottom, while the best overview of the tomb, its architecture but also the ritual, would have been from a higher point in the valley. Furthermore, the capstones ‘point’ occasionally to significant landmarks such as rock outcrops or mountain tops. This means that we are spoilt for choice in deciding which part of the portal tomb might be aligned to which landmark or celestial body or cardinal point. Tilley (1994) and Cummings (2000) use this ambivalence to great effect to make their argument for a direct, significant link between tombs and landscape elements on the horizon (contra Fleming 2005). After all, in the highly scarped landscapes of Wales one can hardly miss hitting a striking landscape feature if we draw a mental line from any of the sides, front, back or capstone. Or if all else fails the tomb is ‘framed’ by the landscape feature or was placed to ‘avoid’ this feature. If everything is possible, nothing is certain.

Working under the premises that portal tombs were monuments built primarily during the earlier part of the Neolithic c.3950-3600 cal BC (see finds chapter) it is remarkable that portal tombs are not at all present in some areas that were probably hives of activity during this time frame. Most of the north-east coastal area of Ireland, i.e. counties Down and Antrim, lack portal tombs. Even if we consider that some might have been destroyed (possibly Ballygraffon, Co. Down) in the general Belfast area, the distribution is exceedingly sparse considering the richness of early Neolithic finds at, for example, Donegore Hill (Mallory and Hartwell 1984), Lyles Hill (Simpson and Gibson 1989) or Ballygalley (Simpson 1995; 1996) and especially the availability of raw stone resources such as the Antrim flint deposits and the porcellanite deposits of Tievebulliagh and Rathlin Island. This interesting discrepancy in distribution of portal tombs on one side and stone resources or Neolithic settlements on the other side will be further explored in the chapter ‘Portal tombs and settlements’. 8.4

Keeping all these caveats in mind, is there actually a preferred orientation of portal tombs to any of the cardinal directions? Roughly 45% have the portal stones facing east (see figure 8.5) This seems to be quite a significant percentage, but there are more portal tombs on the west facing coasts of Ireland and Wales which in turn have the water sources flowing overwhelmingly to the west too. Because portal tombs prefer to face up-stream (see below) with the portal stones to the source of the stream, it is possible that the picture is slightly skewed in favour of an easterly direction (see figures 8.3 and 8.4 for Donegal and Sligo, comprising most tombs from region 1).

Siting of the tomb in the ‘cosmos’

Megalithic tombs have been not only placed in the terrestrial environment but also possibly in relation to the cosmos. Famously, the passage tomb of Newgrange, Co. Meath, is aligned so that the winter solstice illuminates the chamber and other, less well known tombs show also a clear orientation to a celestial body, for example, Cairn G, Carrowkeel, Co. Sligo, is aligned to the summer solstice (plates 8.1 and 8.2).

However, all nine portal tombs in Cornwall face more or less to the east (one SSE, and one NNE, see also fig. 8.4), while the streams in the vicinity flow N-S. There is also a significant number in the eastern regions and in the midlands that prefer an easterly direction. In any case, the overwhelming westerly stream direction in one region does not explain why the tombs would be placed on a south-facing slope (fig. 8.5). After all, if the valley has a south-facing slope, in most cases it would also have a north-facing one, on the other side of the stream. If we accept that the preference for a facing of the portal stones to the east and the placing of the tomb on a south-facing slope is not some geographical fluke, then the question remains, why was the number so relatively low? 55% do not face east and 65% are not on a south facing slope. Apparently, other factors had to be considered too, in many cases overriding the desire to orientate the tomb towards certain cardinal directions.

Wedge tombs show an affinity to the setting sun; they are orientated to the west and south-west (Waddell 1998: 96). Court tombs, like many other European long cairns, show a preference for an easterly orientation. The same preference for an orientation of the façade to the east has been claimed for portal tombs (Ó Nualláin 1983: 89). One problem is that the entrance and also the visibly most impressive side of a portal tomb is not as clear cut as it would be for a passage tomb. If the entrance was blocked by a doorstone, the access would be most likely from one of the sides. Portal tombs are usually parallel to a valley (see columns STYPE and STREAMDIRECTION in main

119

TATJANA KYTMANNOW

orientation of tomb chambers in relation to small streams in the micro-region no of tombs facing source of stream

2, 1% 16, 9%

tombs facing downstream, confluence 64, 37%

93, 53%

tombs facing towards stream, usually in bend no stream or facing away

Fig. 8.1: Relationship of portal tombs to the orientation of streams

Fig. 8.4: Monument orientation diagram of the better known portal tombs in Cornwall (after Barnatt 1982, fig. 2.6)

Monument orientation N

50 45

number of cases

NE

45

NNE

40

NNW

35

NW E

30

ENE

25

ESE

20 15 10 5

17 14

12 11

11

9 5

9

6

S 12

11

SE SSE

2

4

3

SSW

2

SW

0

W

1

Fig. 8.2: Orientation of portal tombs in County Donegal (after Cody 2002)

WNW

Cardinal direction

WSW

Fig. 8.5: Chart of portal tomb orientation (portal=façade side)

Slope Direction

NE

number of cases

40

E

35

ENE

30

ESE

25

S SE

20

SSE

15

SSW

10

SW

5

S+W S+E

0 1

S+N

Cardinal direction

N+W

Fig. 8.6: Chart of slope orientation

120

NNW NW

45

Fig. 8.3: Orientation of portal tombs in County Sligo (after Ó Nualláin 1989)

N

S+NW

THE CHRONOLOGY, MORPHOLOGY AND LANDSCAPE SETTING OF THE PORTAL TOMBS

This desire for an orientation towards the east might be associated with the rising sun as a sign of re-birth, every day at sunrise. The exact point of sunrise varies considerably between winter and summer, but there is no indication in the tomb orientations that a certain seasonal sunrise was favoured. Just to play devil’s advocate, maybe the more earthly easterly direction was of some significance too, a meaning which we cannot fathom yet, but which might be linked to the old ex oriente lux in a cultural sense. These tombs are located at the western fringe of Atlantic Europe and the portals could be literally orientated towards a mythical but also very real past in more eastern parts of Europe and even Britain (also see Bradley 2001)

Histogram of altitude bands n=211 120.00%

80 70

100.00%

Frequency

60 80.00%

50

60.00%

40 30

40.00%

20 20.00%

10 0

0.00% 50

100

150

200

250

300

altitude in metres 0

The south facing slope invites also several explanations. The average of slope gradient is 3.2 (O is flat and 10 is vertical). This would just mean that the slope would be well drained, but at the same time a climb from the valley bottom would normally not be too strenuous. The showing of the most visually impressive side to the daylight-sun could just celebrate life and fertility, but in a more practical sense south facing slopes make fine habitation locations. Both explanations could very well co-exist and do not have to exclude each other.

More

It was mentioned above that the best view towards the tomb would be from a higher point in the micro-region or valley. This implies that there is a higher point in the vicinity. Stunningly, absolutely 100% of portal tombs avoid the highest point in the micro-region (see main database, appendix B, column HIGHERPOINT). This means that the view is always obscured to one side at least and the tomb is protected from being seen also from at least one side. Additionally to some privacy or exclusion issues, this highest point could be perceived as a token hill, which is to be kept free for religious reasons or for a certain function in the ritual.

Frequency

Cumulative %

50

53

25.24%

100

74

60.48%

150

38

78.57%

200

24

90.00%

250

14

96.67%

300

6

99.52%

350

1

100.00%

0

100.00%

350

More

Frequency Cumulative %

Fig. 8.8: Altitude histogram of portal tomb locations, all regions

Similar observations have been made by Tilley (1994) for the megaliths of SW Wales, and for the megaliths of Sweden. Cummings and Whittle (2004: 65) came to similar conclusions for the megaliths of Wales, but in SW Scotland this avoidance of the highest point was restricted to Clyde cairns (Cummings 2001) 8.5.1 Altitude The altitude of the tombs is determined by the underlying very earthly geography they are built on. Nevertheless, a tomb high up in the mountains might feel closer to the sky, the mountain tops, and the sun, moon and stars, and the spirits they might represent. A more down-to-earth effect is that normally the view from the tomb would be much wider and more acreage would be overlooked, and in turn, the tomb could be observed by more people, be ‘owned’ by a wider audience.

Plates 8.3 and 8.4: Maen-y-Bard, NW Wales, Conwy Valley. Cunard, Co. Dublin, upper Dodder Valley, two of only three portal tombs located above 300m altitude

121

TATJANA KYTMANNOW

Portal tombs prefer relatively low altitudes. Nearly 80% can be found below 150m OD and the most common altitude band is 55-100m. Tombs over 200m OD are quite rare, only 21 are in this altitude band. There are only 7 tombs in the altitude band 250m and above (Fig. 8.8). Only 3 tombs reach an altitude of 300m or more, (main database column ALTIT): Maen-y-Bard, NW Wales (plate 8.3), Cunard, Co. Dublin (plate 8.4), and Tawnamachugh, Co. Leitrim (plate 7.26). Tawnamachugh is not a good example of a portal tomb and Maen-y-bard and Cunard are simple dolmens which are also not very typical for portal tombs.

of 1.68 which was less than the necessary .05 probability level that would have indicated a significant difference between the means. Linear regression similarly fails to support any correlation as the R2 value (.090) indicates that less than 10% of the variability in cairn size (survival?) may be explained by altitude. Similarly, there is also no evidence that altitude relates significantly to the size of the capstones (fig. 8.8). 60

50

Maen-y-Bard has no portal stones, but a load-carrying full doorstone, and Cunard has portal stones which function also as sidestones; both play with the blueprint for portal tombs. The location of both of them is extremely similar. Overshadowed by some of the highest mountains of Britain and Ireland (Snowdonia in case of Maen-y-Bard and the Wicklow Mountains at Cunard), they are 1-2m from a small stream, close to (10-15m) a confluence into a larger stream, which in turn then flows into one of the major river systems close by. They are also virtually opposite each other, separated by the Irish Sea, a similar distance to the sea, to which they have no view. Only three tombs are located two metres or less from the next stream and only a further three are three metres or less distance. These are the only two portal tombs that share such a high location and are also so close to a stream. All this together seems to be a bit too much of a coincidence and one might have been built and placed to mirror the other and its landscape setting; i.e. their builder communities could have been in contact with each other. Their extreme height in the landscape alone puts them apart from other portal tombs.

40

30

20

CAPSIZE

10

0 -10 0

100

200

300

400

ALTITUDE

Fig. 8.8: Capstone versus altitude regression plot. Capstone size (CAPSIZE) was plotted against altitude and subjected to linear regression, the R Square value (.007) indicates that less than 1% of the variability is explained by the size of the capstone.

This test shows that there is no general evidence that the larger tombs occupied higher altitudes. Whether the same can be said about portal tombs in clusters, that size and altitude do not relate, will be examined in the next chapter.

That so relatively few (10%) of portal tombs are in higher positions of 200m OD or above seems to be surprising knowing how many are in mountainous areas or in the foothills of these mountains. There is also a personal perception of remoteness and marginality of location of many portal tombs which was established during fieldwork. In reality, climbing 100m or less in boggy areas can feel quite adventurous. Another indication that the perception of remoteness is actually quite misleading, is testified by the presence of roads, fieldwalls and farms in close proximity (50-500m, see column MODLANDSCAPE in main database) to the most (96%) of portal tombs (in contrast to many passage tombs, for example).

Relatively low mountains of about 600m OD or less on the Irish west coast, in the north of the island, in Cornwall, and in Wales often rise steeply from the sea and are covered with blanket bog or heath. The latter gives a treeless, near alpine impression which is probably far from the Neolithic reality. Even if the actual evidence for mixed farming and permanent settlement in Wales, Cornwall and large parts of Ireland is sparse (O’Connell and Molloy 2001; Monk 1993; 2000; Caseldine 1990; 1980) there can be little doubt that the location of most portal tombs would have been ideal for such undertaking. The access to a wide variety of different eco-systems would have facilitated pastoralist and horticultural activities, with access to the lighter, easily arable and well drained soils of the mountain flanks and the limestone uplands such as the Burren, Co. Cavan, Burren, Co. Clare, or Moytirra, Co. Sligo. On the other hand, many portal tombs would be just on the edge of more marginal land; tombs close to the sea are often also close to estuaries; large and small lakes are not visible, but nevertheless close by; and river systems are also easily reachable (see below). This diversity of eco-systems could originally have supported a society which might

It might be assumed that the survival rate of tombs relates to the altitude they are in, as the higher up a tomb is located, the safer it would be from destruction. In order to determine if there was differential preservation of larger cairns at higher altitudes, the sample was divided into two groups: a lower group of 1 to 100cubicm (N = 44, Mean = 157, s.d = 229) and a higher group, 101 to 2750cubicm (N = 47, Mean = 276, s.d. 476). A t-test indicated a value

122

THE CHRONOLOGY, MORPHOLOGY AND LANDSCAPE SETTING OF THE PORTAL TOMBS

have been keen to have access to good food sources for foraging. Unless we believe in a full-scale invasion and large population movements, an argument could be made that portal tombs were built where communities had been living for generations (see also Tilley 1994 for SW Wales). This subject will be further explored in chapter 10. 8.5.2

stream might have been. At the other extreme we have tombs which are in ‘improved’ farmland and regular drainage ditches and heavy ploughing have possibly obliterated some smaller streams there too. 8.5.3

Small streams

The average distance from a portal tomb to the next water source is 243m (fig. 8.9), nearly always a small stream running through the valley, but rarely another water source (table 8.1) (see columns STREAM and STREAMDIST in main database for full list).

Water, water everywhere

The widespread formation of blanket bog in the west and north of Ireland (O’Connell and Molloy 2001), Bodmin Moor in Cornwall (Chapman and Geary 2000) and of heathland in west Wales (Caseldine 1990: 55-66; Davies and Lynch 2000: 140-142) and West Penwith in Cornwall after the Neolithic during the Late Bronze Age (Caseldine 1980) means that small streams are not necessarily where they used to be during the Earlier Neolithic. This means that tombs such as the Ballyvennaght group, Co. Antrim (chapter 9, paragraph 9.4.5), or Keerin, Co. Tyrone (plates 8.5 and 8.6), which are imbedded in thick bog and have waterlogged chambers, are not in the environment in which they had been first erected.

STREAMDI STANCE N

Valid Missing

196 22

Mean

242.7092

Median

200.0000

Mode Std. Deviation

200.00 227.05335

Table 8.1: Mean, median and standard deviation for the distance between tomb and water source

Only streams which show that they are of considerable antiquity (because they have carved a channel out of the ground, a process which needs thousands of years and/or they have transported large boulders) have been counted. The overwhelming majority of portal tombs (157 of 178 (89.2 %) of which the orientation could be determined) have their long axis parallel to the stream, i.e. both tomb orientation and stream orientation share the same one of sixteen possibilities of cardinal direction, for example both would be orientated SSW to NNE. Of these, a majority (93 or 59.2%) face up-stream (fig. 8.10). It is not of major importance how close the tomb is in fact from the stream: they are in the micro-region, in the middle of the valley, visible and mostly parallel to the tomb. Because the micro-region is c. 2km in diametre, it follows that most streams are clearly less than 1km from the tomb. To do a precise control sample from the map is not really practical. Without being in the field it is not always possible to determine if the mapped stream is a drainage ditch of recent origin or a natural stream which has transported large boulders and/or carved a considerable channel into the rock and was most likely already present during Neolithic times. This is of course a variant of the old observation that many portal tombs face uphill. However, during the fieldwork it became apparent that some portal tombs are orientated exactly towards the source of the stream, which is mostly not visible and is also often not in a direct line uphill, but further right or left. Obviously, the tomb builders knew their environment and placed the monuments accordingly. A smaller number (64 or 40.8%) of portal tombs faces downhill or better down-stream, but still parallel to the stream. These are nearly always

Plates 8.5 and 8.6: Keerin, Co. Tyrone, imbedded in thick blanket bog

Small streams would have been swallowed up by the blanket bog and only the larger streams are usually still where they used to be. For this small group of tombs it was not always possible to determine where the next

123

TATJANA KYTMANNOW

streams and their source and confluence are depicted on such maps.

Stream distance histogram n=189 120.00%

80 70

8.5.4

100.00%

Frequency

60

Water as a source of life

80.00%

50

This focus on water sources invites several explanations. The pragmatic one is that these are settled communities, probably farming, who plainly need fresh, clear water for themselves and their animals close by. To know the source and be therefore safe from contamination by, for example, dead animals, is also important. As mentioned above, portal tombs avoid the banks of large rivers and the shores of large lakes and as we will see below, they avoid being visible from the next beach or shore at the sea. This avoidance goes hand in hand with the evidence for a terrestrial diet during the Early Neolithic. The unburnt human bone from Ballynacloghy, Co. Galway, showed a near total reliance on terrestrial diet, despite its location very close to the sea and an abundance of natural shell banks there (see Chapter 5). Portal tombs literally turned away from the sea and any large water mass (see also Schulting 1998). These are also probable traffic routes, and with traffic could have come strangers, and with strangers potential danger.

60.00%

40 30

40.00%

20 20.00%

10

80 0 90 0 10 00 12 00 M or e

70 0

60 0

40 0 50 0

30 0

10 0

0.00% 20 0

0

distance in metres

0

Frequency

Cumulative %

100

74

39.36%

200

44

62.77%

300

25

76.06%

400

13

82.98%

500

17

92.02%

600

4

94.15%

700

5

96.81%

800

2

97.87%

900

0

97.87%

1000

3

99.47%

1200 More

Frequency Cumulative %

1

100.00%

0

100.00%

The other level is that water is a powerful symbol for cleansing, the eternal circle of life, and of renewal. The source, the spring, is a strong symbol of birth, while a confluence of streams could very well have stood for fertility and marriage. One interpretation is that the sea, large lakes and large rivers are the realm of the dead; the exact opposite to the source of the small stream (see also Fowler and Cummings 2003).

Fig. 8.9: The distance from the tomb to the next stream.

Orientation of tombs in relation to streams

no stream, 3, 2%

8.5.5 Rivers and other possible Neolithic traffic routes

facing stream, 18, 10%

parallel with stream, 64, 36%

The average distance from a portal tomb to a large river is c. 3.1km. The rather large distance suggests that if rivers served as traffic routes, this would have happened from the inside-out, meaning that the users of the route would have known how to find the river from the valley with the tomb, but travellers along the river would not have found the portal tomb by chance, they would have needed a knowledgeable guide (fig. 8.11).

reversely parallel, 93, 52%

Several other portal tombs are aligned along eskers, such as Aughnacliff and Cleenrah in Co. Longford, or the five tombs close to Mohill in Co. Leitrim: Sunnagh More A and B, Annaghmore, Leah and Aghavas. Others are very close to mountain gaps: Glenroan, Co. Tyrone (plate 8.7), with a prime view of Barnes Gap and directly opposite it;

Fig. 8.10: 93 of all 217 portal tomb chambers are reversely parallel to the stream in the micro-region, 64 are parallel, 18 are not parallel to the stream, and for others the orientation could not be determined or there was no stream in the micro-region.

directed to a point of confluence. A number of portal tombs (16 or 9.1% of the total of 176) face the stream directly, for example, Tawnatraffaun, Co. Sligo, and Drumderg, Co. Tyrone. This is nearly always at a bend of the water course. These observations are based on the fieldwork of the present author, but can be verified by looking at the appropriate Ordnance Survey map; most

Oonagh/Glaskenny, Co. Wicklow, with access to the Sally Gap; and Straheel North, Co. Donegal, beside an old route to the Glen Malin. Maen-y-Bardd, NW Wales, is directly beside an old ‘Roman’ road, but the presence of cairns and standing stones along the way suggests strongly that this route is much older. A similar situation

124

THE CHRONOLOGY, MORPHOLOGY AND LANDSCAPE SETTING OF THE PORTAL TOMBS

Plate 8.7: Glenroan, Co. Tyrone, opposite the Barnes Gap through the Sperrins

is found at Carneddau Hengwm in NW Wales; there the route was still in use until the 18th century but is also close to cairns. Others are placed at the best route over a peninsula, for example: Bin and Gortnavern, Fanad Peninsula, Co. Donegal. However, while a large river is an unmistakable traffic route, the firm evidence for other Neolithic track ways is lacking and might be just conjecture. Or to say it in a different way, if we look long enough we are bound to find a likely pathway somewhere in the landscape, there would be the danger that this is not identical with Neolithic realities.

Histogram of river distance n=135 120.00%

40 35

100.00%

Frequency

30 80.00%

25

60.00%

20 15

40.00%

10 20.00%

5

0.00%

1. 00 0 3. 00 0 5. 00 0 7. 00 0 9. 0 11 00 .0 0 13 0 .0 00 15 .0 0 17 0 .0 00 19 .0 00

0

Distance in kilometres

0 1.000 2.000 3.000 4.000 5.000 6.000 7.000 8.000 9.000 10.000 11.000 12.000 13.000 14.000 15.000 16.000 17.000 18.000 19.000 More

Frequency 35 33 18 16 8 6 3 7 4 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0

8.5.6

Frequency

The sea

Cumulative %

Undeniably, the sea was a major highway and cattle, sheep, barley and wheat would have been originally imported, so would have been the knowledge of farming, pottery skills and probably a new belief system, which found one of its expressions in the building of megaliths. That the traffic between Britain and Ireland was frequent, and also between different regions in Ireland and Wales, is suggested by the similarities of morphological traits, sub-types and near identical landscape settings all over the distribution area of portal tombs (see also Sheridan 2004 and generally Cummings and Fowler (eds) 2004). This evidence speaks not for a unilinear development from a point of origin or landnam, but for a frequent contact and exchange of ideas (and axes, raw materials, marriage partners for humans and exchange of animals for breeding and so on).

Cumulative % 26.32% 51.13% 64.66% 76.69% 82.71% 87.22% 89.47% 94.74% 97.74% 97.74% 97.74% 99.25% 99.25% 99.25% 99.25% 99.25% 99.25% 99.25% 100.00% 100.00%

The average distance to the sea is 20.1km, i.e. there are many portal tombs for which a sea view was not an option (table 8.2). 59 portal tombs have some sea view, even in some cases this is just a glimpse in the far distance. In most cases a view to the next shore and a

Fig. 8.11: The distance to the next river in kilometres

125

TATJANA KYTMANNOW

SEADISTANCE * REGION Count REGION

Total

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Mean distance to sea

2.10

38.73

31.40

15.99

20.21

2.47

5.87

7.58

Sd SEA DISTANCE

2.23

27.01

19.83

15.79

1.61

6.35

close far too far

Total

16.65

6.97

31

0

10

5

5

10

5

4

70

5

1

8

3

11

3

2

2

35

1

32

27

6

22

0

3

3

94

37

33

45

14

38

13

10

9

199

Table 8.2: Sea distance v. region. The regions are the same as on fig. 1.2. close=20m – 3.4km; far=3.5km-9.4km; too far=>10km

view from the beach to the tomb were avoided at all costs. Tombs are carefully placed just behind low ridges, for example Malin More A, Co. Donegal, or in a small hollow or small valley just avoiding a sea view as for example Aderawinny and Ahaglaslin in Co. Cork or Ballyvennaght A, Co. Antrim. The Welsh tombs Tan y Muriau, Cist Cerrig, Bron y foel ysaf, Cors y Gedol, Carneddau Hengwm, and Gwern Einon all have sea views but no view of the nearby beach, so do the two tombs on the Gower, Sweynes Howe South and North, which would have overlooked one of the most stunning beaches in Britain, if they had been placed a bit higher up. The same can be said about the tombs in Cornwall; Zennor and Sperris have no sea view, they are tucked away behind rising ground and outcrops despite being close to the sea. None of the portal tombs in Cornwall has a good sea view, but Chun Quoit and Bosporthennis Quoit, simple dolmens, do have a distant sea view. Two tombs in SW Wales, the neighbouring Trellyfaint and Lech y Dribedd, do not have any sea view; they are on a headland very close to the sea, but have only a view inland.

Having said this, ongoing research of the SLAN (Submerged Landscapes Archaeological Network) project (Bell et al. 2006) claims that the sea was much further out at c. 4000 BC along the mid-western shores, where Galway and Mayo are now (there is no more detailed discussion available yet). Substantial sea-level changes since the Early Neolithic would put most coastal portal tombs in these regions 3-4km from the sea shore, and not on estuaries, but close to large streams. There is also evidence for large areas of submerged forests from the Neolithic period (O’Sullivan 2001: 56) which would have made any sea view from the existing portal tombs even more unlikely. This research project is still in its infancy, but if proven correct, this would mean also that any portal tombs close to the sea in early Neolithic times might be submerged now. Nevertheless, until the first portal tomb under the sea or in the intertidal zone is found (as megaliths in Finistère, Brittany, France, see Giot 1997: 38) or at least the SLAN project has produced more precise data and maps, it is difficult to adjust the available evidence. For example, it is possible that the rising of the sea level had come to a stand-still when portal tombs were built.

The best sea view is from some tombs along the western seaboard of Ireland (see table 8.3 for regional differences). Close to the North Atlantic, some tombs in Galway, Mayo and Donegal have good views of the sea, but the tombs around the Sligo-Donegal bay do not: Wardhouse A and B in Co. Leitrim are just behind a hillock; Cloghcor, Co. Sligo, manages despite its prominent position to be nearly invisible from the beach; the tombs furthest from the beach at Malin More are the ones with the sea view; Ardabrone, Co. Sligo, is hidden from the sea behind raised ground; and the others are just too far away. Good sea views can be had from Ballynaclogy, Co. Galway; three of the four Connemara tombs in Co. Galway; most of the Mayo portal tombs, especially the two on Achill; and several in North Donegal, but in most cases that would have been a small bay or estuary.

The individual regions have very different averages, regions 1, 6, 7 and 8 are coastal regions, but regions 7 (SW Wales) and 8 (Cornwall) have double or triple the average distance to the sea in km than the other two. Furthermore, the standard deviations in regions 7 and 8 indicate that a substantial percentage is not close to the sea. In Cornwall is a group of three close to Bodmin Moor in the inland, and with such small numbers this is enough to change the picture substantially. In SW Wales several tombs are actually behind the Preseli Mountains, and are certainly not in a coastal position. In these two southern British regions other tomb types are often located extremely close to the sea, in SW Wales some possible simple passage tombs such as Carreg Samson, and in Cornwall entrance tombs. This does not imply that these various tomb types are contemporary; one could have followed chronologically after the other. Region 4 (mid-west Ireland) and region 5 (SW Ireland) are both 126

THE CHRONOLOGY, MORPHOLOGY AND LANDSCAPE SETTING OF THE PORTAL TOMBS

mixed regions, with some tombs very close to the sea, but the majority placed further inland. The high standard deviations show also how diverse the distance to the sea is and the average is not very meaningful here. Region 3 (N Ireland) is a very large region encompassing the east and the centre of the geographical north of Ireland, but the standard deviation shows that there are actually two main distributions: one relatively close to the coast, and one in the inland with the widest possible distance from the sea. Finally region 2 runs parallel to the main distribution of passage tombs, basically from the west coast through the inlands to the east coast. This is reflected in the high average, but also by the high standard deviation. In summary, only regions 1 (northwest coast of Ireland) and 6 (NW Wales) could be described as truly coastal. 8.5.7

As stated above, there is no area in the distribution zone of portal tombs which does not have access to erratic boulders or other suitable large rocks for building. Nothing during the survey ever indicated that stones not naturally occurring in the immediate vicinity might have been used for the monument’s construction. Often equally nice slabs and rocks are still present in the stream or at another location close by. This might be a rock outcrop in some cases, as for example at Howth Demesne, Co. Dublin, or Garn Turne, SW Wales. However, at Zennor and Sperris in Cornwall, the nearly perfectly shaped and ready-made building blocks from the Tors have not been utilised; instead slim slabs seemed to have been quarried in situ and used for building. The Tor slabs are nicely rounded and thicker than the slabs which were used for construction.

Rock outcrops

49% of portal tombs would have a natural rock outcrop in the vicinity (Fig. 8.12). The average distance is 111m, but it would be of course the ones in 1-10m distance which would have been most likely used as potential quarries, but no rock face with clear quarrying scars from portal tomb building has ever been identified. Most capstones are rounded, natural boulders, and there is not much evidence of any shaping of stones for the construction of portal tombs; instead, in most cases naturally occurring slabs and boulders were used for the construction. Histogram of rock outcrops 35

120.00%

30

100.00%

Frequency

25

80.00%

20 60.00% 15 40.00%

10

20.00%

5 0

0.00% 5

10

20

40

80

160

320

640 1280 More

distance in metres

0

More

Frequency

Cumulative %

5

32

29.09%

10

13

40.91%

20

13

52.73%

40

9

60.91%

80

9

69.09%

160

12

80.00%

320

8

87.27%

640

8

94.55%

1280

6

100.00%

0

100.00%

Frequency Cumulative %

Plates 8.8 and 8.9: Zennor Quoit, West Penwith. The stags on the next Tor, 300m to the south of Zennor.

In the case of the Cornish Tors it might have been an affront to destroy these remarkable natural features. It has also been argued by various researchers (Bradley 1998; Tilley 1996; Tilley and Bennett 2001) that Cornish tombs are erected in a way that they would mirror the stacks on the Tors and the close proximity to these Tors was sought. The observations of the present author cannot confirm this. Neither Bradley nor Tilley were very inclusive in their surveys, they picked the ones which fitted their argument and left out the others. Only Sperris

Fig. 8.12: Rock outcrop frequency and distance, n=110

127

TATJANA KYTMANNOW

Plate 8.10: Sperris Quoit, West Penwith, Cornwall, and the spurned building material to the south of it

Plate 8.11: Lesquite Quoit, Cornwall, with the Neolithic Tor enclosure of Helman Tor in the background, photographed with zoom.

is very close to an outcrop, and Zennor is relatively close with a prominent rocking stone in view, but these are the two which go to some length to show that they are built not in the same way as the granite outcrops on the Tors. No other portal tombs mirror a Tor, which is extraordinary considering how many and how prominent these Tors are in many areas in Cornwall, where portal tombs also occur. The only other exception is the quite ruined portal tomb of Lesquite, which is located with a prime view towards the nearby Helman Tor, but the stacks are not mirrored and what would have been in

view are the ramparts of the settlement on the hill (Mercer 1997). It is the simple dolmens that lack the defining criteria for portal tombs (see Chapter 9) such as Chun, Mulfra, and Bosporthennis Quoit which are close to the hilltops or close to outcrops. Tilley (1994) and Cummings (2001) claim much significance for the rock outcrops and granite stacks in SW Wales. The flaws in their methodology have been 128

THE CHRONOLOGY, MORPHOLOGY AND LANDSCAPE SETTING OF THE PORTAL TOMBS

already discussed in Chapter 3. It is only the earth-fast tombs at St David and on Strumble Head which have a close relationship to the rocks. The Preselis are such a prominent landmark that the observation that they can be seen from a tomb is about as important as the observation that the Eiffel Tower can be seen from many places in Paris. Instead, there is good evidence that stones were used in situ, as for example at Pentre Ifan, Garn Turne, or Carreg Samson (Richards 2004).

loosely as any prominent hill over 200m, we accept mountains in the distance way out of the micro-region, and we include a totally unavoidable ‘view’ to a mountain or hill in the vicinity then about 50% of portal tombs qualify. If the categories are kept much stricter and we accept only mountains and hills above 600m, prime view to the highest (or ‘most striking’) mountain in the area and this mountain occupies at least 30% of the horizon in this direction, only a handful would make it. To say that a hill or mountain is visible for a tomb in Snowdonia is a bit like saying that there is snow in the arctic, but if the highest peak, Snowdon itself, is clearly visible that might be of significance. Interestingly, none of the three portal tombs in the Conwy Valley has such a view, but the strange Cotswold-Severn tomb of Capel Garmon does. Equally, only one of the four portal tombs in the Ox Mountains, Co. Sligo, has a view to the striking and highest mountain in the area: Tawnatraffaun, Co. Sligo, has a view to Nephin, Co. Mayo. One tomb, Ballygraney, Co. Carlow, has a prime view to Mount Leinster, the highest mountain of the region (plate 8.12). One tomb has a good view to the Sugarloaf Mountain: Oonagh/Glaskenny, Co. Wicklow. Legananny Dolmen, Co. Down, has an unavoidable nice view to the Mournes (plate 8.13), and several tombs in SW Wales have a good view of Carn Ingli or the Preselis; the latter will be discussed in more detail in Chapter 9.

In NW Wales, all building material fits with the natural environment and was probably procured in situ. In some cases, as for example for the entire Dyffryn Ardudwy cluster, rocks are in such abundance that the tombs blend somewhat into the rock-strewn background. This is also the case in many areas in Ireland. Overall, there is no evidence that rock outcrops played an important part in the belief system of the portal tomb builders. As far as can be determined, the tombs were erected exactly where the rocks were found. It is possible that the actual place where the rock was found had its own meaning and it was important not to move the stone. 8.5.8

Mountains

Views to the mountains have been recorded during the fieldwork. If the definition for a mountain is taken very

Plate 8.12: Ballygraney, Co. Carlow, with Mount Leinster as background, the small stream valley in the middle ground. The chamber is underground from this side, but intact

129

TATJANA KYTMANNOW

Plate 8.13: Legananny Dolmen, with the Mournes in the background, the small stream valley is to the left outside of this picture

If mountain views were a priority for portal tomb builders, tombs in North-East Antrim would have a prime view of Tievebulliagh and not just of one small boggy valley (see also Ballyvennaght cluster in Chapter 9, paragraph 9.4.5) and all tombs in the Conwy Valley in SW Wales would have had a view of the peak of Snowdon. Instead, portal tombs have a prime view of the small stream valley nearby and the portal tomb builders were clearly not very concerned with mountain views from their small micro-region. 8.6

from the tomb which would make it quite some challenge for a stranger to find a tomb from this route way. Overall, the assessment of the landscape setting suggests strongly that portal tomb builders were mainly concerned with the placing of the tomb in the micro-region and that certain rules had to be followed; possibly as part of their belief system. However, it is most likely that practical considerations such as access to fresh water or the benefits for settlement on a south-facing slope might have come into it too but it seems that these criteria for a siting were secondary. How the tombs related to each other in clusters and to other monuments will be investigated in the next chapter.

Conclusion

The fieldwork component of this project investigated the relationship of the tombs to their surrounding landscape. Emphasis was put on the exact landscape setting in the micro-region, i.e. a c. 1km radius around the tomb. Several elements were always or nearly always present: a stream parallel to the tomb, a higher point, a slope towards the stream, and an obscured view to one side. Many tombs had their portals facing towards the source of the stream, most tombs were close to fresh water, normally a small stream in the same valley in which the tomb was located. All things being equal, the portal tomb builders preferred a south facing slope and the portals facing to the east. Low altitudes between 5m OD and 150m OD were clearly preferred and portal tombs over 330m OD do not occur. There is no emphasis on good views towards mountains, closeness to rock outcrops or views to the sea; only c.25% of portal tombs have any sight of the sea. Furthermore, direct sea views were actively avoided, especially for the tombs close to the Irish Sea. There is no good evidence for a preference for tombs to be close to potential Neolithic route-ways, be it for ‘pilgrimage’ or trade. Rivers tend to be in some distance

130

THE CHRONOLOGY, MORPHOLOGY AND LANDSCAPE SETTING OF THE PORTAL TOMBS

Chapter 9 The tomb in the macro-region: clusters of portal tombs 9.1 Clusters, cemeteries and complexes: history of research

To try to avoid the historically laden concept of megalithic cemetery or the implied meaningful construct of a complex, the less value-laden term ‘cluster’ is used in this work. A cluster defines three or more portal tombs in the same region, in walking distance from one another (the individual tombs no more than 2-3km from each other and within a circuit of 10-15km) and not divided by some insurmountable obstacle. Being aware that there were most likely originally a larger number of portal tombs, certain tombs might be the sole survivors of a former cluster. For example, the largest portal tomb, Kernanstown, Co. Carlow, used to have two smaller dolmens in the same field, both probably portal tombs (Borlase 1897: 398).

As with most megaliths, portal tombs occur frequently in clusters, either with other portal tombs or together with tombs of different classes (Cooney 1990; 2000: 140, 143, 149; Williams 1981/2; Byrne 1991; 1993; 1994; 2000). Cooney (1990) tried to apply the term ‘cemetery’ to such clusters, analogous to the well known passage tomb complexes of Ireland. The cemetery location of passage tombs had been identified as an essential criteria for this tomb class (Ó Nualláin 1968: 16; Herity 1974: 86; O’Kelly 1981: 117; Eogan 1986: 24-9) leading to the exclusion of passage tombs from the published volumes of the Megalithic Survey of Ireland. Historically, it had been Ferguson (1872) and other antiquarians who had first used the term ‘cemetery’ for passage tomb complexes, believing that the ‘sepulchres’ contained the bones of some fabled heroes from the Irish sagas. The ‘focal’ monument would therefore be the oldest, the tomb of some famous king, and his warriors, relatives, wives or such like grouped around it. For example, the approximately twenty megalithic chambers in Malin More, Co. Donegal, had been excluded from being identified as a megalithic cemetery, because it was not linked to any of the Irish heroic tales and their battlefields (Ferguson 1872: 228). Surprisingly, the concept of passage tomb cemeteries survived nearly unchanged for a century, despite the fact that their dating to the Bronze Age (MacAlister 1912) or Iron Age (Ferguson 1872) has not withstood the test of time and radiocarbon dating of the assumed older ‘focal’ monuments proved them to be among the most recent, e.g. the central mound at Knowth (Eogan 1986) or the central tomb 51 at Carrowmore (Burenhult 1998; 2003). It had been largely due to Herity’s considerable influence in the Irish Republic that his opinion of the necessity of a location in a ‘cemetery’ for identifying a passage tomb became binding, even if that meant creating such unlikely ones as the Belmore/Finner cemetery, where passage tombs were separated by c. 20 miles from each other (Herity 1974: 83-4). It needed therefore a new generation of research archaeologists to plant the first doubts into this slightly obsolete concept (Cooney 1990; Bergh 1995; Cooney 2000: 149).

Eight separate clusters of portal tombs have been identified: five in Ireland, two in Wales and one in Cornwall (see fig. 9.1). They are Malin More, SW Donegal (fig. 9.2), Easkey upland cluster, Co. Sligo (fig. 9.7), Slieve Gullion group, SE Armagh (fig. 9.14), Burren, Co. Cavan (fig. 9.19), Ballyvennaght, NE Antrim (fig. 9.23), Ardudwy, NW Wales (fig. 9.25), Carn Ingli group, SW Wales (fig. 9. 31), and West Penwith, Cornwall (fig. 9.38). All clusters also contain other tomb types. All these small regions are in exceptionally beautiful landscape settings, framed by mountains and close either to the sea or large lakes. They are also on what we would probably define as ‘marginal’ land, i.e. agriculturally of lesser value. This location towards the edges of modern settlements has probably contributed to the survival of the megaliths. Interestingly, the highly scarped and remote landscapes of places such as the Malin More cluster in Donegal occasioned only the contempt of previous generations who looked at it more with horror than with admiration (Ordnance Survey letters for County Donegal). How much the attitude towards what we would define as beautiful has changed in two centuries should provide us with sufficient caveats towards an attempt to recreate the experience of Neolithic people through our own bodies. 9.2 Centres of settlement? As stated above, we may look at these clusters and judge their landscape for their ‘natural’ beauty. Despite all learned warnings that there is no such thing as a natural landscape in Britain and Ireland (Rackham 2000), we tend to experience megaliths as an outing into nature, with the notable exceptions of over-developed tourist attractions such as Newgrange, Co. Meath. But megaliths were the architectural apogee of the Neolithic of Northern and Western Europe, a very visual reminder of a highly

A cemetery is a spatially defined area dedicated to the formal disposal of the dead, usually by conforming to socially agreed rituals. No human settlement occurs in the same area. This definition, applied to megaliths, could describe a single tomb with the remains of more than one burial or an assemblage of several tombs.

131

TATJANA KYTMANNOW

Fig. 9.1: Clusters of portal tombs

skilled, organised and probably also stratified society. They are meant to capture one’s attention, very strongly advertising the presence of people in the vicinity. By no means are they constructed to blend into the landscape. The sometimes gravity defying constructions of portal tombs were show-pieces for the craftsmanship of an initiated group of Neolithic people.

What is visible now is certainly only a minute part of the Neolithic reality. If the monuments were the centres of settlement, there must have been a lot of evidence for such around them. These possible houses, huts, fences, pathways and pits left few traces above ground, so did any other structure built of organic material. Cooney (1979; 1983) had suggested that megaliths stood for settlement and his research into the diverse landscape of Leitrim resulted in the finding that all megaliths there 132

THE CHRONOLOGY, MORPHOLOGY AND LANDSCAPE SETTING OF THE PORTAL TOMBS

were located either on soil suitable for early farming, or close to it. If we can indeed use megaliths as a proxy for settlement evidence, than dense clusters might reveal more about Neolithic societies. 9.3

the reader. Instead, the study looked at clusters which are dominated by portal tombs. Unfortunately, none of the portal tomb clusters is located in the south of Ireland. The much better agricultural land might have led to a higher destruction rate in these areas. Another possibility is that the much better but also heavier soils of many areas in the southern parts of Ireland might have just led to a very different megalithic, and arguably settlement, pattern.

The relationship of monuments to landscapes

If we see megalithic monuments as artificial constructions denouncing nature, why look at the surrounding landscape at all? Whether the megaliths reflected or related meaningfully to the landscape as claimed by Tilley (1994; 1996) and Cummings (2001) and others, or if they celebrated the dominance of man over nature (Bradley 2000), the concept of landscape is central to both these approaches. The findings in the previous chapter strongly suggest that there are underlying rules in the exact placing of the portal tomb in the landscape, possibly as an integral part of the belief system. The surrounding landscape had significance; the placing of the monument was not just random somewhere in the wider settlement area. This implies that certain landscape elements and their relationship had special meaning for the portal tomb builders, probably beyond purely rational explanations, i.e. as part of the cosmology of the society who built portal tombs.

To discuss the differences and similarities of the morphology of the different portal tombs in one cluster, the same basic division into four subtypes will be used as in the database, column SUBTYPES (see also chapters 1 and 7): type A, B, C and D. There are also other morphological criteria which will be mentioned to clarify how similar portal tombs in one cluster are, for example, the occurrence of double capstones, full or half doorstones and tripod dolmens. Obviously, not all portal tombs are well enough preserved to assign them clearly to one of the basic types. 9.4.1

For the investigation of clusters of portal tombs several research questions were explored:

Malin More is located in south-west Donegal. This comprises a small oasis, the Glenmalin, of just about arable land surrounded by high mountains (fig. 9.2). To the south and east the view is totally obscured by mountains up to 600m high and impressive sea-cliffs of Leahan and Slieve League. To the west is a sheltered bay and to the north are lower hills, transversed by several passes leading into the next valley of Glencolumbcille and its beach at Glen Bay. The best access into the area was surely by boat or, alternatively, by following the small stream and its relatively well drained valley.

Are there any rules apparent regarding how these clusters were placed in the landscape? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 9.4

Malin More, Co. Donegal

Are there focal monuments? Is there evidence for settlements, or are these more likely ritual districts, removed from human settlements (‘cemeteries’)? Do the portal tombs in one cluster resemble each other; are they of the same type? Or are they very different from each other? Do the portal tombs belong to the same timeframe or are they built in a chronological sequence? What is the relationship of portal tombs to other tomb classes?

A landscape study by D. Keeling, K. Molloy and R. Bradshaw (1989) investigated the megalithic tomb siting in south-west Donegal. This study showed that 65% of the 50 tombs are either close to or on Brown Earth, Brown Podzolic and Grey-Brown Podzolic soils, while the heavy soils of the Drumlin belt around modern Donegal town and the high uplands are avoided. Obviously, this is not a surprising result. Equally, a south-facing location and closeness to a source of fresh water is clearly preferred. Keeling et al. interpret this as evidence for settlement. The best artefactual evidence comes from ploughing in the surrounds of the portal tomb at Straleel North, only a short distance from Malin More, where a large amount of lithics were recovered (Flanagan 1966). To investigate this further several pollen cores were obtained. The results suggest that the landscape prior to the Neolithic, i.e. before c. 3800 cal BC in this area, was only lightly wooded (c.30% tree-cover). This tree-cover was then further reduced by human agency and by 3800 cal BC the landscape was largely open and mixed farming, including the growing of cereals, was

The case studies

Every cluster of three or more portal tombs has been chosen, containing 31 portal tombs and also dozens of other megaliths. It was decided to leave out interesting case studies such as Wardhouse, Co. Leitrim; Feenagh, Co. Leitrim (Cooney 2000); or Moytirra Uplands, Co. Sligo (Stout 1994). These and others are extremely dense, mixed clusters of megaliths and certainly would be promising to investigate with respect to the interrelationships of megaliths in small regions. But this would have been beyond the scope of the study. Ireland alone has at least 1600 megaliths and many of them cluster, as a glance at an OS Discovery map will assure

133

TATJANA KYTMANNOW

Fig. 9.2: Map of Malin More, Glenmalin and Glencolumbcille, south-west Donegal

practised (Keeling et al. 1989), but Fossit’s (1994) study for west Donegal suggested that human impact on the vegetation during the earlier Neolithic was negligible. These two apparently contrasting results can be interpreted in the following way: Keeling et al. did sample as close as possible to megalithic tombs, while Fossit showed an overview of the whole SW Donegal region, i.e. small clearings of open landscape begin to appear close to settlements and megalithic tombs, but overall the density of population was not such that it left a clear signal in the pollen record away from these settlements.

five of the seven tombs in the valley are on south-facing slopes, only the two huge ones, the largest portal tomb construction of all (Malin More A), and the huge and decorated full court tomb are on the opposite side. The Malin More cluster is unique. Nowhere else are six portal tombs in one cairn (fig. 9.3). Two large, doublecapstoned portal tomb chambers are on opposing ends of the sparse remains of a 92m long cairn which runs parallel to the valley and stream (plate 9.1). Between them, set transversely and to the south of the midline of the cairn, lie four small portal tomb chambers in various states of destruction. That they were indeed small portal tomb chambers and not cists is testified by the portal stones which survive at two of the small chambers.

The environmental results of Keeling et al. imply that in the Malin More area the view from and to the tombs could have been similar to the present one. Furthermore,

134

THE CHRONOLOGY, MORPHOLOGY AND LANDSCAPE SETTING OF THE PORTAL TOMBS

Fig. 9.3: Plan of Malin More A (after Cody 2002)

Plate 9.1: All six tombs of Malin More A (Dg 91) in one row, the four small tombs are along the wall, two of them west and two east of the other dividing wall. The large tomb 6 is adjacent and in front of the farm house. The view inland and to Slieve League is restricted by the small glacial ridge behind the farmhouse

There is good evidence for the continuous ritual importance of Malin More. There are two standing stones of unknown date just west of tomb 1 at Malin More A. Also, on the ridge of glacial till which obscures the view to the east is a pre-bog wall with a cist and standing stone (plate 9.2). From a short distance to the west this monument looks perceptively such as a small portal tomb, an impression which was probably intended by the

Interestingly, the largest of the six tombs has no view to the sea and no sight of Slieve League at all. It is overlooking strictly a small, gently undulating, enclosed valley which could be anywhere, even much further inland. There is also no view of the large court tomb; a low ridge of glacial material lies between this tomb and the large court tomb.

135

TATJANA KYTMANNOW

Plate 9.2: Cist and standing stone in pre-bog wall, from NE

Plate 9.3: The most westerly tomb on the south-facing side, Malin More B (Dg 90), with two chambers or tombs, note the view.

builders, referring to the clearly visible portal tomb in the valley. The cist implies that burial customs continued into the Early Bronze Age.

The three portal tombs on the south-facing slope are in various states of ruin (figs. 9.4, 9.5, 9.6). On the same side of the valley are also two small court tombs. The only view all tombs share is the stream. This natural focal point might have been replaced by the later addition of the large tombs on the north-facing slope, if we assume that the largest, most complicated and elaborated tombs are later in date than the simpler ones.

The other portal tombs are located further up the valley, on its south-facing side (plates 9.3, 9.4 and 9.5). They are smaller but they have certainly much more spectacular views, especially of Slieve League, but also of the sea.

136

THE CHRONOLOGY, MORPHOLOGY AND LANDSCAPE SETTING OF THE PORTAL TOMBS

Plates 9.4 and 9.5: Malin More C (Dg 93) imbedded in a wall. Malin More D (Dg 94), the furthest east. Below Malin More D is a standing stone and cairn, mimicking the remains of the ruined portal tomb above it.

Plate 9.6: Straleel North

Fig. 9.4: Malin More B (after Cody 2002)

137

TATJANA KYTMANNOW

The two westerly portal tombs Malin More A and B are both multi-chambered, i.e. type A, even though they are very different from each other; Malin More C is type C, i.e. of average size; and Malin More D is too ruined to assign it to a type. Its measurements are average, but a set stone 2.5m to the north (towards the top of the plan, fig. 9.6) indicates that there could originally have been a more complicated structure, with either some court or entrance feature or a subsidiary chamber. Only excavation could clarify this. In conclusion, it is obvious that the portal tomb builders did not use the dramatic scenery of the mountains and the sea to more advantage. Apparently, the theatrical focus was on the tombs and their immediate siting. Originally, only the stream would have unified the region for all tombs and only at an, arguably, later state the stage was taken up by the large court tomb and the portal tomb complex. It is also noticeable that none of the four portal tombs in the valley look similar to each other; there is no replication of one type, as far as the ruined state of some of the tombs allows such statement. There is no true focal monument there either. Instead, one large court tomb and one extremely large portal tomb might have shared this function. The evidence for settlement is confined to prebog walls, some pollen analysis and the large amount of stone tools from the neighbouring tomb Straleel North. The interrelationship with the only other tomb class in the cluster is one of equality; court and portal tombs are well matched in size and siting. It will be seen if similar observations can be made at the other clusters. 9.4.2

Easky River area, Ox Mountains, Co. Sligo

Four portal tombs are located on tributary streams of the Easky River on the western side of the Ox Mountains: Camcuill, Knockanbaun, Crowagh and Tawnatraffaun, from north to south (fig 9.7). While these are quite closely together, many other court and wedge tombs are in the Easky Valley; at least thirteen tombs are in the vicinity. The portal tombs are on small streams that flow into the Easky River and its major tributary, Buncrowey River. The court and wedge tombs are grouped around them or further up and down the river. There is absolutely no intervisibility between the different portal tombs; each is located in its own little valley close to a small stream. Camcuill overlooks a short stretch of the main river valley, but it is Tawnatraffaun which overlooks a larger part of the Easky River valley. It is also the only one which has a view to Nephin Mountain, the striking landscape feature which is so prominent in the North Sligo/ South Mayo region. The only tomb with a small glimpse of the sea is Crowagh.

Figs. 9.5 and 9.6: Malin More C and Malin More D (after Cody 2002), scale 1: 100 (1cm = 1m)

The aforementioned tomb at Straleel North (plate 9.6) overlooks a small neighbouring valley from a southfacing slope. It is easily reachable by a still existing footpath. While it is not in the valley of Malin More, its close proximity suggests that it would have belonged to the same ‘catchment area’ and the supra-regional tombs Malin More A (Dg 91) and the large court tomb (Dg 95) could have been used for rituals and gatherings by the people from the neighbouring valley too.

It is just as well that visibility is not such a big issue here; there has been no pollen analysis done in County Sligo (O’Connell pers. comm.). A pollen profile from Lough

138

THE CHRONOLOGY, MORPHOLOGY AND LANDSCAPE SETTING OF THE PORTAL TOMBS

Fig. 9.7: Map of Easky River catchment area, portal tomb cluster

Doo just south of the county border in Mayo, c. 10km from the portal tombs, gave only a weak signal for earlier Neolithic woodland clearance and pastoral farming in the region; the evidence for pre-elm decline cereal production was not certain, but likely (O’Connell and Malloy 2001). In the same region, c. 9km from the portal tomb cluster, in the townland of Carrownaglogh, Co. Mayo, a pre-bog farmstead, enclosure and cultivation ridges were partly excavated at the western slopes of the Ox Mountains. These were dated to a 250 year time-span, around the 9th century BC (Waddell 1998, 268; Herity 1981). Pollen analysis indicated intensive farming activity around 880 BC, 50 AD and 1000 AD, but the bog profile dated only back to 1950 BC (Feehan 1996: 427; O’Connell 1986). Earlier activity is implied by the presence of the court tombs in Carrowleagh and in Carrownaglogh.

numerous hearths under the bog and probably two Fulachta Fiadh in the townland of Knockanbaun (WoodMartin 1888b: 218). Previous to the road, visiting the area was a potentially life-threatening experience, as vividly described by the antiquarian Gabriel Beranger in his diary from c. 1760, when he tried to find his way back from Finmacool’s Griddle (probably Tawnatraffaun portal tomb), using a short cut: “…all of a sudden, my horse sunk under me in the bog. This stopped us; and, as he could not get out, the guides were sent for assistance and spades to dig him out. We left our interpreter and servants on the spot; and the Colonel (Irwin, a local landowner and antiquarian), trusting to his memory, undertook to guide me, and we set forward on foot, making many zig-zags on the worst ground I ever trod on, sinking at every step half-way up my boots, and being obliged to walk, or rather run, pretty fast, for fear of sinking. After an hour’s travelling, we could see nothing but the heavens and the bog, and the ground became softer and wetter, so that we could not advance without

The whole area was nearly totally inaccessible because of thick blanket bog until the first road was built in the 1880s. The building work produced evidence for 139

TATJANA KYTMANNOW

sinking in it. We tried to the right, then to the left, and twined and twined so much that we knew not which way to go, the Colonel having lost sight of his landmark. We continued moving on, as the Colonel told me that we should be lost if we ceased moving one moment. I confess here that I thought it my last day…” Beranger had to endure hours of even more extreme conditions, before they finally reached firmer land, and Wood-Martin had a quite unpleasant experience too when he was surprised by night-fall in the middle of the bog at the Griddle-more-na-Vean and discovered that he had lost his compass (Wood-Martin 1888b: 226-7). The remoteness of the area would have contributed considerably to preserve the large number of tombs; one wedge tomb in Tawnamore (Sl 85) was only discovered during turfcutting in the second half of the 20th century. It is still largely concealed and the peat covered it to a height of 1.4m above the level of the orthostats (Ó Nualláin 1989: 54).

Fig. 9.8: Camcuill before the destruction (after Ó Nualláin)

Camcuill (fig. 9.8) is a small tomb (type B) which is currently hidden under the up-cast from an ill-advised drainage scheme. It was also driven over by a bulldozer and the tomb has collapsed. It could not be fully inspected. Presently only a part of the capstone is visible. The location is directly beside a small stream which flows into the Easky River. The main river valley is visible. Knockanbaun (plates 9.8, 9.9 and fig. 9.9) (type C) is now thoroughly overgrown. It is also beside a small stream. The tomb is located in a hollow and the view is very obscured by the high shrubbery. Despite these obstacles for a thorough landscape assessment it is evident that the neighbouring tomb (600m distant) at Camcuill would not be visible.

Plates 9.8 and 9.9: Knockanbaun from the side and N, the upright portal is to the left. Front of tomb seen from E, the upright portal is right

The furthest to the east is Tawnatraffaun (plates 9.10, 9.11, 9.12, figs. 9.10, 9.11). It is also the only one which is parallel to the Easky River and not parallel to the small stream it is located on. It overlooks a larger part of the Easky valley and has also a view of Nephin.

Plate 9.7: The capstones of Camcuill portal tomb

140

THE CHRONOLOGY, MORPHOLOGY AND LANDSCAPE SETTING OF THE PORTAL TOMBS

Tawnatraffaun is the only unquestionable portal tomb which has a decoration other than a cup mark (see Chapter 6, paragraph 6.2.11). It is subtype C, such as Knockanbaun, but very different in appearance with its slender, elegant stones. To the east and highest up lies Crowagh portal tomb (plates 9.13, 9.14, fig. 9.12, 9.13) (type D). The chamber has been damaged and flattened by the sheer size of the quartz-veined capstone (c. 16.8 cubic metres). The tomb overlooks the upper reaches of a tributary to the Easky River, and further a gap in the Ox Mountain. The large cairn is still covered by peat. The continued ritual importance of this landscape is testified by the wedge tombs in the vicinity. There are clear differences in size, reaching from the very small Camcuill (B), over the average Knockanbaun and Tawnatraffaun (both type C) to the massive Crowagh (D). There are also morphological differences: Crowagh has a full doorstone, Tawnatraffaun a half doorstone, Camcuill a sillstone and Knockanbaun is too ruined to be certain. Tawnatraffaun and Crowagh have long cairns, but Camcuill and Knockanbaun probably round ones. It is also noticeable that the highest by altitude is also the largest; the capstone is double the size of the ones from Tawnatraffaun or Knockanbaun. Given the fact that the

Fig. 9.9: Knockanbaun (after Ó Nualláin) scale 1:100

Plates 9.10, 9.11 and 9.12: Tawnatraffaun in its landscape

141

TATJANA KYTMANNOW

Figs. 9.12 and 9.13: Crowagh or Dunneill Mounatin section and plan (after Ó Nualláin)

Figs 9.10 and 9.11 Tawnatraffaun section. Tawnatraffaun plan (after Ó Nualláin) 1:100

c. 950m north-east, which is equally of true megalithic proportions. These two could be seen as a pair, relating to each other in size, altitude, location and size of building stones. There is no focal monument apparent, neither natural or man made. Instead, each portal tomb is in its own small valley. There is no direct evidence for contemporary settlement in the macro-region. A local farmer observed that two small megaliths or large cists were bulldozed during forestry work in the townland of Tawnatraffaun (P. Kilgannon pers. comm.). Potential traces of settlement would be even less likely to halt such work. There are pre-bog walls in the townlands of Tawnatraffaun and Knockanbaun, and several hutsites of unknown date close to Camcuill. None of these sites have to relate directly to the earlier Neolithic, but the pre-bog field systems were certainly built before blanket bog engulfed the area. 9.4.3

Slieve Gullion, Co. Armagh

There are four portal tombs grouped around Slieve Gullion, clockwise from the top: Aghnakane, Clonlum small cairn, Aughadanove, and Ballykeel (fig. 9.14). The small chamber at Clontygora is possibly the remains of a court tomb and is not included in this discussion of the portal tomb cluster because of its uncertain classification. Slieve Gullion is surrounded by a volcanic ring dyke of sharp and steep hills, 200 to 300m high. In the middle of this 11km wide ring rises Slieve Gullion to a height of 576m, dominating this landscape. On the summit plateau is a small lake (plate 9.15), between the passage tomb (the North Cairn), and another cairn to the south.

Plates 9.13 and 9.14: Crowagh or Dunneill Mountain

builders had the same type of stone available at all four locations, they achieved a remarkable degree of variation.

According to Aalen et al. (1997: 319) the vegetational history of the region has not been studied in detail.

The two other tomb classes in the region, wedge and court tombs, are also located along the Easky valley, but only one megalith (of uncertain court tomb classification) is located between the four portal tombs. The highest altitude in the area is taken by a wedge tomb. Crowagh has a three-chambered court tomb in the same townland,

Aghnakane (fig. 9.15, plate 9.16) has been quite ruined and its cairn stones used to build a cashel. It lies at the north of the mountain. It was built using very large slabs and would have originally possessed a cairn. Judging by 142

THE CHRONOLOGY, MORPHOLOGY AND LANDSCAPE SETTING OF THE PORTAL TOMBS

Fig. 9.14: Map of Slieve Gullion area

Plate 9.15: The South Cairn and Calliagh Berras Lough

143

TATJANA KYTMANNOW

Plate 9.16. Aghmakane

affinities. While this cannot be totally ruled out, the present author would argue that Clonlum small cairn is a representative of this distinctly northern Irish type of a smallish portal tomb given added visual presence by a large round cairn (type B). It is located east of the mountain, at about the same height as Ballykeel on the west side. It is indeed quite easy to cross the mountain from there, pass the summit and lake, and reach the west side of the mountain exactly between Ballykeel and Aughadanove. Aughadanove is located at the same stream as Ballykeel (plate 9.22), but two tombs could not be more different. Aughadanove is a diminutive portal tomb (plates 9.20, 9.21, fig. 9.17) (type B) but with a long cairn, perfect apart from its missing capstone. Ballykeel (plates 9.23, 9.24, fig. 9.18) is situated downstream. It is a ‘classic’ tripod dolmen in a long cairn with subsidiary cist (type A). Despite the short distance between both tombs there is no intervisibility. Ballykeel was excavated by Collins (1965) and produced considerable amounts of Neolithic and BA pottery. On top of Slieve Gullion is a passage tomb (plates 9.25, 9.26) with a cruciform chamber (Collins and Wilson 1963). It is the highest definite passage tomb in Ireland. On the other side of the small lake is another cairn which has produced BA finds. There are numerous other tombs in the vicinity: court tombs, wedge tombs and several hilltop cairns which might be also passage tombs. The continuation of importance as a ritual area is amply testified by the wedge tombs, cairns, linear earthworks and also the BA finds from Ballykeel and Clonlum.

Fig. 9.15: Aghmakane (after SM7 files) scale 1:50

the surviving orthostats (e.g. one intact portal stone of 2.9m height), the tomb must have been very impressive (type D). Clomlum small cairn (plates 9.17, 9.18, 9.19, fig. 9.16) has been partly excavated (Evans 1934). Its round cairn has intrigued researchers and encouraged the suggestion by Herity (1964) that this tomb has passage tomb 144

THE CHRONOLOGY, MORPHOLOGY AND LANDSCAPE SETTING OF THE PORTAL TOMBS

Plates 9.17, 9.18 and 9.19: Clonlum small cairn

Again, a wide variety of tomb types is present: Aghmakane (D), Clonlum (B), Aughadanove (B) and Ballykeel (A). The largest tomb, Aghmakane, is also the one at the highest altitude, the one that overlooks the most acreage and the one with a full doorstone. Clonlum, which falls size-wise between the tombs of Ballykeel and Aughadanove, is clearly set apart by its round cairn.

Early Neolithic (Eoin Grogan pers. comm.). This means that the use of both tombs overlaps during the later part of the Early Neolithic, but it does not tell us if all were constructed around the same time. The mountain and the summit lake itself provide natural focal points. Whether this was combined with any ritual function during the Early Neolithic is debatable. Later in the Neolithic the summit, and possibly the whole region, was taken over by a passage tomb.

As mentioned above, Ballykeel and Clonlum have been excavated. The finds from Ballykeel show ritual deposits from the Early Neolithic, the Middle Neolithic (possibly the earlier part of it) and Bronze Age, while Clonlum produced two pottery sherds, one cautiously datable to the Early Bronze Age, and a highly polished stone bead. Beads such as this date probably to the later part of the

There are no views from any of the portal tombs to the summit, and the only tomb with a wide view is Aghmakane. Clonlum, Ballykeel and Aughadanove only overlook their immediate valleys. Again, an impressive 145

TATJANA KYTMANNOW

Fig. 9.16: Clonlum small cairn (after Evans)

Plates 9.20 and 9.21: Aughadanove

146

THE CHRONOLOGY, MORPHOLOGY AND LANDSCAPE SETTING OF THE PORTAL TOMBS

Plate 9.22: The stream connecting Aughadanove and Ballykeel

Fig. 9.17: Aughadanove (after SM7 files) Plates 9.23 and 9.24: Ballykeel

147

TATJANA KYTMANNOW

Fig. 9.18: Ballykeel (after Collins 1965)

landscape is not used to greater effect, and Aghmakane does not look towards any impressive landmark, even though there is a wide choice of them.

9.4.4

The Burren, Co. Cavan

The Burren in Co. Cavan is a karstic limestone plateau, such as its much larger and more famous namesake, the Burren in Co. Clare. It is naturally delimited to the north by large lakes and to the south by Cuilcagh Mountain. The region has been carefully surveyed by Rory Sherlock for ADS on behalf of local historical and archaeological groups and the Peace and Reconciliation Program (Sherlock 1999). The central part is currently under forestation which is obscuring views from one tomb to the other. The heavy machinery used for tree felling during the last years has obliterated small surface watercourses and created new surface water puddles by blocking sinkholes, repeating the phenomenon that the surface hydrology in karstic areas can be quickly changed by tree-felling, an event which might have happened several times in the past, especially during the Neolithic (Drew 1982: 116). Interestingly, the Burren is the watershed between the Lough Erne and the Shannon drainage schemes, the latter mainly subsurface through sinkholes and cave systems. The ‘Shannon Pot’, a massive natural springwell, the source of the Shannon, is only 2km from the cluster of portal tombs. Three portal tombs are located in this inland region, amongst at least ten other megaliths, hutsites and miles of mound-walls. Mound-walls comprise a plinth of natural bedrock which developed because the underlying limestone was protected from erosion by the stones of a wall. The height of this plinth can give an estimate of the time expired since the construction of the wall (Jones 1998: 37). Two of the portal tombs are located on the upland karst, while one (Moneygashel) is located where the land starts to rise steeply (fig. 9.19). Moneygashel (plate 9.27, fig. 9.20) is a slab-built tomb (type C) in a prominent long cairn.

Plates 9.25 and 9.26: Slieve Gullion passage tomb

148

THE CHRONOLOGY, MORPHOLOGY AND LANDSCAPE SETTING OF THE PORTAL TOMBS

Fig. 9.19: Map of Burren, Co. Cavan (after Sherlock 1999)

149

TATJANA KYTMANNOW

Plate 9.27: Moneygashel, Co. Cavan

Fig. 9.20: Moneygashel, Co Cavan (after de Valera and Ó Nualláin) scale 1:100

Plates 9.28 and 9.29: Burren South A, Co. Cavan.

150

THE CHRONOLOGY, MORPHOLOGY AND LANDSCAPE SETTING OF THE PORTAL TOMBS

Fig. 9.21: Burren South, Co. Cavan (after de Valera and Ó Nualláin) 1:100

Plate 9.30: ‘The Calf-House Dolmen’, Burren North B, Co. Cavan

151

TATJANA KYTMANNOW

Plate 9.31: Burren North

The tomb at Burren South (plates 9.28, 9.29, fig. 9.21) is a diminutive, perfectly preserved, double-capstoned portal tomb in a very large round cairn (type B).

view to the south. It would not have been intervisible with the two others and it is doubtful that Burren South and North would have been intervisible with each other.

The portal tomb Burren North (plates 9.30. 9.32, fig. 9.22) c. 700m to the north is an enormous construction with one of the largest (but not heaviest) capstones in Ireland (type D). It was turned into a stable during the 19th century and carries the folk-name ‘The Calf-House Dolmen’. The more then 2m high orthostats would have given it an immense visual presence.

There are two wedge tombs and one kerbed cairn on slight eminences above the large portal tomb Burren North. These and the large cairn on Cuilcagh Mountain are on much more dominant positions than even the highest of the portal tombs, which had its view fully obscured by one of these hillocks. The megaliths are grouped in a circular fashion, encompassing the upland area with the portal tombs and the lowland area which has more court tombs. The relationship between court and portal tombs seems to be one of duality. Wedge tombs and cairns occupy the highest locations. There is good evidence for prehistoric settlements in the form of ‘mound-walls’. There are also hutsites, a large enclosure and an inland promontory fort of unknown age close to the two portal tombs in the Burren. Two excellent hutsites are on the summit of Cuilcagh, beside the large cairn.

Fig. 9.22: Burren North (after de Valera and Ó Nualláin) 1:100

Cooney (2000) has suggested that this area was a megalithic complex which had one of the wedge tombs as a focal monument, but this could have been only the case from the Late Neolithic onwards. The Shannon Pot (plate 9.32) is such an enigmatic natural landmark that it is imaginable that its presence had attracted the large amount of ritual monuments. Its circular feature, the massive spring well, might be mirrored in the circular arrangement of the megaliths.

The three tombs are about as different as they can be. The cairn at Burren South was certainly present when the chamber was built. The chamber itself rests on top and inside the cairn. Again, the largest of the portal tombs of the group is the one at the highest altitude. The view cannot be assessed properly now for Burren South and North because of tree cover, but earlier records state that they had impressive view sheds up until the 1960s when the present forest was planted. Moneygashel has a wide

152

THE CHRONOLOGY, MORPHOLOGY AND LANDSCAPE SETTING OF THE PORTAL TOMBS

Plate 9.32: The Shannon Pot, Co. Cavan. Thousands of liters of water well up every hour.

Fig. 9.23: Map of the Ballyvennaght cluster, Co. Antrim

153

TATJANA KYTMANNOW

The first four case studies show certain similarities. The tombs are very different, the largest tomb was the highest on three occasions, they are grouped around some water feature, and the tombs do not have intervisibility with each other. Because the view from and to the tombs is so often very restricted, the concept of a ‘focal monument’ seems unlikely.

9.4.5

Ballyvennaght, Co. Antrim

There are three portal tombs in Ballyvennaght townland in the far north-east of Ireland. The three portal tombs are arranged in a triangle, 0.9km apart. A large, double portal tomb (plates 9.33, 9.34, fig. 9.24) is the furthest west, Ballyvennaght A, also called Cloughananca 1 (type A).

Plates 9.33 and 9.34: Ballyvennaght A, the double portal tomb

Fig. 9.24: Ballyvennaght A (after S. Killen 2003)

154

THE CHRONOLOGY, MORPHOLOGY AND LANDSCAPE SETTING OF THE PORTAL TOMBS

Plate 9.35: Ballyvennaght B

Plate 9.36: Ballyvennaght C, the invisible tomb in the bog.

155

TATJANA KYTMANNOW

the relationship would be one of equality, the tombs are well matched in size and appearance. The area is only 3.5km from the sea, but its presence is mostly hidden. Only from the northern portal tomb is there a view to Rathlin Island to the north; there is no view to the open sea to the east; this view-shed is obscured by Carnanmore Mountain. There is a small lake (plates 9.39, 9.40), Loughareema (the Vanishing Lake), c. 0.5km to the south of the cluster. Just above its shore, to the north, is a kerbed cairn, c. 10m in diametre. It was excavated in 1957 by Proudfoot (unpublished) and has produced Neolithic finds (Fry 2001). This ‘Vanishing Lake’ is actually a large sinkhole, fed by three small streams. If fully filled up its shore reaches nearly the cairn, but it drains regularly down into the underlying chalk and totally empties. These episodes of ‘vanishing’ are unpredictable and do not correspond with the amount of rainfall. When the lake is empty the massive, deep sinkhole is clearly visible and filled with brownish- black water, the streams draining away into it. It has a very other-worldly feel to it, mysterious and aweinspiring. It is literally an access into the underworld.

Plate 9.37: Ballyvennaght C from the side.

No focal point is apparent, except the lake. A later focal monument is of course the passage tomb on the hill. There is no evidence for prehistoric settlement, but the thick bog cover could hide a multitude of features. Plate 9.38: Ballyvennaght C capstone resting on portals

It is on relatively flat ground, surrounded by bog. From there the two other portal tombs are visible; the northern one, Ballyvennaght B (plate 9.35), an average-sized classical portal tomb in bad state of repair (type C), just where the ground starts to rise steeply. The southern one, Ballyvennaght C (plates 9.36, 9.37, 9.38), a diminutive chamber in a large, round cairn (type B), is totally enclosed by bog. The latter one was not even known to the landowner and is also wrongly described and wrongly placed on the map in the SMR. After two hours of searching, it was only located by the present author on the way back, literally falling over it. It is in near perfect state of preservation, as far as it could be assessed in the surrounding peat. Again, the three tombs are of different types. All three tombs have a view of the large stream in the centre. Ballyvennaght B and C are also located beside small streams, but there is none apparent for the double tomb. The area is covered in blanket bog and any stream could be masked by it. A wedge tomb, a standing stone and the decorated passage tomb on the dominant hill Carnanmore testify to the ongoing importance of this ritual area. There is a double court tomb 2 km from the double portal tomb and

Plate 9.39: The sinkhole in the Vanishing Lake, the lake fully drained. Plate 9.40: The full Loughareema with the kerbed cairn in the foreground

156

THE CHRONOLOGY, MORPHOLOGY AND LANDSCAPE SETTING OF THE PORTAL TOMBS

Fig. 9.25: Map of Dyffryn Ardudwy region

stones and ring cairns. In contrast to the other portal tomb cluster in SW Wales, this archaeological landscape was very little investigated and discussed until recently. From 2000 to 2004 Bangor University conducted a Fieldschool in the vicinity and the results of this Ardudwy Early Landscape Project have been published as preliminary reports (Johnston and Roberts 2001; 2002; 2003; Johnston pers. comm.). The project concentrated on a 1km square in the townland of Mynydd Egryn at National Grid reference SH 615 203 where the ring cairn is located, c.500m east of the tombs at Hengwm. Several hutsites and enclosures were located during the fieldwork. One hutsite was excavated and produced c. 100 lithics and charcoal from hearths, but only one datable tool, a thumb-nail scraper (Late Neolithic/ Early Bronze Age). The lithics have been assessed by G. Warren (pers. comm.) and he cautiously suggests a Neolithic date for the assemblage, keeping in mind that the prominently blade orientated industry might be an adaptation to local circumstances, i.e. the high altitude. Pollen cores have been obtained, but until some

9.4.6 North-west Wales: the Dyffryn Ardudwy cluster The Dyffryn Arduwy cluster contains four portal tombs and one probable Cotswold-Severn type tomb (fig 9.25). Two of the four portal tombs are composite, multi-period tombs: Dyffryn Ardudwy (type A) (Powell 1973) and Carneddau Hengwm South (type D and A) (Lynch 1976). The two others are Cors y Gedol (too ruined) and Bron y Foel Isaf (type C). The locality is dominated by the very steeply rising ground of the mountains to the east, above a small stretch of fertile coastal land and extensive beaches. The area is transversed by a river which is only 7km long from its source in the mountains to the sea. It rises from a corry in the mountains which is fed by a myriad of springs, streams and streamlets. The Ardudwy region comprises one of the best preserved prehistoric landscapes in Wales. Not only the five tombs imply a very long sequence of activity, but so also do the numerous cairns, hutsites, enclosures, fieldwalls, standing 157

TATJANA KYTMANNOW

radiocarbon dates are back its value is limited, only showing that at some time the tree cover was reduced thus attesting human activity. The importance of a scheme such as this is to show that the tombs did not exist in isolation, but were part of a living, inhabited and settled landscape. The view would most likely have been obscured by trees in the fertile lowlands; at the Dyffryn Ardudwy tomb the landscape was probably secondary forest at the time of the tomb construction (Dimbleby 1973). Pollen evidence from Carneddau Hengwm close to the tombs indicates a more widespread de-forestation of the uplands; this and grazing animals could have contributed to the formation of blanket bog (Caseldine 1990: 46).

possibly to unify the two tombs. The older chamber is built out of natural, mainly rounded, glacial boulders and slabs and is quite small. The larger chamber is higher, but still a good match and built from the same type of local stone. Both chambers could have been built with the help of an extended family and the appropriate skills. Bron y Foel Ysaf (plates 9.43, 9.44, fig. 9.26) is clearly a portal tomb, but its chamber and cairn suffered when a wall was built right through it. The tomb was originally a single chambered, classic portal tomb of medium size and proportions (type C). The view is very wide to the northwest, but no beach is visible. The tomb lies at a small stream and faces the source.

Plate 9.43: Bron y Foel Ysaf

Plate 9.41: Dyffryn Ardudwy, the eastern chamber in foreground. Plate 9.42: Dyffryn Arduwy, the small, western chamber

The lowest lying tomb, Dyffryn Ardudwy (plate 9.41, 9.42) (type A), is in the village just behind the school, which obscures some of the view to the west. Its excavation history and importance for the dating of portal tombs has been discussed in detail in a previous chapter, so has its architecture. Its importance for the understanding of portal tombs cannot be over-estimated, as it is the only composite tomb where we actually have evidence for multi-period use and construction. Powell’s outstanding excavation showed clearly that the later tomb is the larger one and the one which is higher up in the landscape, and also that the cairn was constructed later,

Fig. 9.26: Plan of Bron y Foel Ysaf (after Lynch 1969a)

The third tomb, Cors y Gedol (plates 9.45, 9.46, fig. 9.27), is at a height of 175m beside a track leading to the river and a bridge. It is orientated along the same small stream as the double tomb at Dyffryn Ardudwy, but also parallel to the large river valley. Only two orthostats and a large capstone are in situ, still imbedded within the 158

THE CHRONOLOGY, MORPHOLOGY AND LANDSCAPE SETTING OF THE PORTAL TOMBS

Plate 9.44: Bron y Foel Ysaf in mid-picture, inside the wall. On the horizon is the Lleyn Peninsula

Plate 9.45: Cors y Gedol

Fig. 9.27: Cors y Gedol (after Lynch 1969a)

remains of a large cairn. Despite its advanced state of ruin, there is little doubt that this is a portal tomb; the size and form of capstones does not leave much doubt.

side by side with a laterally chambered tomb of Cotswold-Severn Type, being strangely far from its distribution area. Both tombs are orientated to the east, possessing still very large cairns despite extensive wallbuilding in the immediate area (the wall runs through the portal tomb). The portal tomb (plate 9.47) is of impressive size with a 2m high portal (type D and A), a full doorstone, one nearly 2m high sidestone, several other orthostats and a large capstone. Antiquarians had

The two cairns at Carneddau Hengwm seem to be very remote nowadays, but an old road passes nearby which was still used in the 17th and 18th century (Lynch 1995, 29). Now it can only be reached by a steep climb of 2km, to a height of 270m. A multi-chambered portal tomb lies 159

TATJANA KYTMANNOW

Plate 9.46: Cors y Gedol from south

described it in a much better state of repair and it is probably the only portal tomb outside Ireland where an under-capstone seems to be possible (Lynch 1976: 69). Its huge visual impact is considerably increased by the very high, broad and long cairn which also contains a simple passage tomb chamber (plate 9.48) with dry-stone walls mid-cairn. Lynch (1976) makes a good case for multi-period construction of this portal tomb, her arguments based on the still discernible smaller original cairn at the eastern part with visible revetment stones and the later addition of the longcairn to integrate the passage tomb (figs. 9.28, 9.29). The neighbouring CotswoldSevern type cairn contains probably three chambers (fig. 9.30, plates 9. 49, 9.50, 9.51, 9.52); the two lateral ones at the eastern end and another chamber of which only the flat capstones is visible, in the centre.

Plate 9.47: East chamber (portal tomb) Carneddau Hengwm South

Plate 9.48: West Chamber Fig. 9.28: East and west chamber Carneddau Hengwm S (after Lynch 1969a)

160

THE CHRONOLOGY, MORPHOLOGY AND LANDSCAPE SETTING OF THE PORTAL TOMBS

Fig. 9.29: Carneddau Hengwm South (after Lynch 1969a)

Fig. 9.30: Carneddau Hengwm North (after Lynch 1969a)

161

TATJANA KYTMANNOW

Plate 9.49: Carneddau Hengwm North

Plates 9.50, 9.51 and 9.52: The two lateral chambers and (below) the central chamber in the cairn of Carneddau Hengwm North. The peak of Moelfre is in the background

162

THE CHRONOLOGY, MORPHOLOGY AND LANDSCAPE SETTING OF THE PORTAL TOMBS

The whole complex contains five chambers in two cairns. There can be no doubt that a large number of people would have been needed to erect the portal tomb, probably the whole population of the Dyffryn Ardudwy macro-region would have been involved. Labour estimates for tomb erection are given in Chapter 5, but as a rule of thumb the estimate for the average tomb is a minimum number of 20-30 people, while the largest ones would need up to 200-300 people. Carneddau Hengwm south is a highly dominant tomb by size and location and it clearly kept its importance for several centuries, attracting the erection over time of a much more complicated structure with four more chambers. The other significant landscape feature is Moelfre Mountain to the SE and Cummings and Whittle (2004: 49, fig. 5.7) highlight the fact that one of the lateral chambers of the Cotswold-Severn tomb ‘points’ at Moelfre. The fact that one of five chambers ‘points’ at one hill in the surrounding mountains (without actually hitting the summit) the present author does not find especially astonishing; in this highly scarped landscape you have to hit a landmark eventually if imagined lines are drawn from the chambers, the cairns, or the capstones. Of more importance may be the scant evidence of a now destroyed passage tomb with spiral decoration at the south side of Moelfre in Llanbedr. A decorated stone is now curated at Llanbedr church and its alleged find spot (SH 62 25) would put it high in the mountains close to the summit of Moelfre. Lynch (1992) argues for the possibility of a destroyed passage tomb in the vicinity, but this tantalizing possibility would need further evidence.

are not intervisible with each other. Again, the largest tomb of the cluster is at the highest altitude. The tombs are grouped around the river, which is only 7km long from source to sea. Its source is a corry in the mountains. There is no other focal point; Moelfre is not visible from two of the tombs. The complex at Carneddau Hengwm might have fulfilled a regional ritual function at a later state. The four portal tombs in this region are very different in style and type. A double portal tomb (type A), a middle sized tomb (C), one ruined one, but which still has a large capstone, and the composite portal tomb which started out as a dominant tomb (D) and was turned into a composite tomb (A). As with the other clusters, the sheer abundance of suitable building stones in the region makes any typological differences highly likely intentional; there would be perfectly good building stone for any imaginable tomb in many locations here. Portal tombs of subtypes A and B are quite rare (see table 7.27), and they turn up preferably in clusters as will be demonstrated below (see table 9.5) This means that the clear morphological differences between individual portal tombs are much stronger in clusters. 9.4.7 The Carn Ingli cluster, Pembrokeshire, south-west Wales The portal tombs in Pembrokeshire in the Newport region have been much discussed and interpreted by Tilley (1994) and others (Children and Nash 1997; Barker 1994; Lynch 1972; Cummings 2001; 2002b; Cummings and Whittle 2003; 2004). They are just about in walking distance from each other.

The excavation history of Dyffryn Ardudwy suggests strongly that portal tombs kept their ritual importance for a very long time, even if it was possibly not continuously. The larger, eastern tomb at Dyffryn Ardudwy was certainly erected later than the smaller one. This does not mean that the present author wants to give more credibility to the old theory that portal tombs were late in the Neolithic, in fact the excavation analysis shows that most excavated portal tombs have deposits from the Early Neolithic period. It just suggests that we need to remain open to the possibility that portal tombs in one cluster could have been built in a sequence, one after the other.

There are four portal tombs grouped around the river valley, Trellyfaint and Llech y Dribedd to the north of the river, and Carreg Coetan and Pentre Ifan to the south (fig 9.31). Another enigmatic megalith, Cerrig y Gof, is at the south of the region, but on its own stream which does not flow into the Nevern in Newport Bay, but instead into the sea in a sheltered bay (plate 2.1). Tilley (1994) and Cummings (2001) have stressed the point that Carn Ingli dominates the skyline and even suggested that the capstone of Llech y Dribedd mirrors the silhouette of Carn Ingli. As usual, that implies that this fertile valley was virtually devoid of trees during the Neolithic, a very unlikely scenario (Caseldine 1990: 45). Instead, the evidence suggests only small scale clearances. The data for Early Neolithic settlements is sparse but pre-bog field-walls and hut sites are common in the mountains here. The ongoing research (Darvill et al. 2003; 2004) will probably shed more light on it, especially towards the dating of many of these structures.

The relationship with other tomb types in the cluster is one of equality. The Cotswold-Severn Cairn shares the same space and orientation with the portal tomb and the passage tomb is integrated into the portal tomb cairn. The settlement evidence is only beginning to appear. There are without a doubt a vast number of prehistoric hutsites and fieldwalls all over the hills there, but we need more dating evidence to put them into context. The landscape was not used to greater effect. A direct sea view to the beach and all over the wide, fertile lowlands is avoided. None of the tombs is placed such that it would be ‘framed’ by a striking mountain, and the portal tombs

Carreg Coetan (plate 9.53, fig. 9.32) is a small portal tomb in a low lying location. It is a member of the Welsh

163

TATJANA KYTMANNOW

Fig. 9.31: Map of Carn Ingli Region, Nevern Valley and Newport Bay, SW Wales

Plate 9.53: Carreg Coetan from the front

164

THE CHRONOLOGY, MORPHOLOGY AND LANDSCAPE SETTING OF THE PORTAL TOMBS

Fig. 9.32: Carreg Coetan (after Lynch 1972)

subtype of portal tombs which lack portal stones by design. It was excavated and produced an unprecedented richness of finds: hundreds of lithics including two microliths, pottery from the Early, Middle and Late Neolithic and from the Early Bronze Age and many samples of cremated bone.

Plate 9.54: Trellyfaint, ‘the Toad’s Stool’ Fig. 9.33: Trellyfaint (after Lynch 1972)

The tomb would probably have had a view of the river and of Carn Ingli if the tree cover allowed it. Trellyfaint (plates 9.54, 9.55) has a subsidiary chamber (type A). It has no sea view or a view of the neighbouring tomb. Llech y Dribedd is a classical tripod dolmen, its large capstone exaggerated by the pointed orthostats it is resting on (plate 9.56 and fig. 9.34) (type C). It has no seaview and no intervisibility with other tombs. Such as Trellyfaint, it is overlooking the Nevern Valley and is located on its own small tributary stream.

Plate 9.55: Trellyfaint, the cupmarked capstone

165

TATJANA KYTMANNOW

Plate 9.56: Llech y Dribedd

Fig. 9.34: Llech y Dribedd (after Lynch 1972)

Plate 9.57: Pentre Ifan

166

THE CHRONOLOGY, MORPHOLOGY AND LANDSCAPE SETTING OF THE PORTAL TOMBS

Pentre- Ifan (plate 9.57) is the most famous megalith in Britain (type D). It is a large tripod dolmen with a full doorstone and a highly asymmetric court (fig 9.35), imbedded in a cairn which started out as a round cairn but which was enlarged to a long cairn during the Neolithic (Grimes 1949). The tomb was excavated and has produced a handful of finds, only the Early Neolithic potsherds and one EBA sherd being datable. The court was probably also a later addition during the Neolithic. Cerrig y Gof is truly unique (plate 9.38 and figs. 9.36 and 9.37). Five small chambers (not cists, they are above ground) are arranged in an irregular circle and imbedded in a cairn. The chambers do not posses portal stones (in contrast to the small chambers at Malin More A) and there is no reason to assume that this tomb is some form of derivative portal tomb. It has been variously compared to Mull Hill Circle (Lynch 1972: 81; Burrow 2006: 59) which has produced carinated bowls, to Aghaskeagh B, the irregular court tomb in Co. Louth, and to Cairnderry, a Bargrennan tomb which has produced EBA radiocarbon dates from cremated bone (V. Cummings pers. comm.). Mull Hill and Cairnderry are 200 and 300km away from Cerrig y Gof. Another site with six small passage tomblike structures arranged in a circle has been recently identified on the Isles de Molène, Finistère, Brittany, France, as part of a fieldwork project which also excavated a Late Neolithic House (Yvan Pailler pers. comm.). The only thing these sites have in common is that they are either on an island or close to the sea.

Fig. 9.35: Pentre- Ifan (after Lynch 1972 from Grimes)

Plate 9.58: The five-chambered Cerrig y Gof

167

TATJANA KYTMANNOW

Fig. 9.36: Cairnderry in Scotland, Cerrig y Gof and Mull Hill Circle on the Isle of Man (after Daly in Burrow 2006)

Fig. 9.37: Cerrig y Gof (after Barker 1995 from Lynch 1972)

168

THE CHRONOLOGY, MORPHOLOGY AND LANDSCAPE SETTING OF THE PORTAL TOMBS

The antiquarian exploration of Cerrig y Gof by Fenton in 1810 produced pottery, bones, charcoal and pebbles but none of the finds survive (Lynch 1972: 81), therefore we do not know anything about its date.

focusing on the Nevern Valley. What none of the tombs has is a stunning sea view. Pembrokeshire has an abundance of beautiful secluded bays, overlooked by cliffs, including Newport Bay itself, but none of the tombs was placed in such a prominent location.

As with the other clusters, the portal tombs vary considerable: a small tomb without one portal (Carreg Coetan), a composite tomb with cupmarks (type A, Trellyfaint), a tripod dolmen of middle size (C, Llech y Dribedd) and a highly dominant tomb on the highest place in the cluster (Pentre Ifan, type D), which is also the largest structure and has an added court, probably for more elaborate ceremonies.

The continuation of ritual importance is implied by the numerous cairns in the area; there are also hutsites and stone circles in the vicinity (Darvill et al. 2003; 2004) 9.4.8

West Penwith, Cornwall

Here the smallest and the largest tomb have been excavated and they show basically contemporanity: both have produced Early Neolithic pottery and EBA ware. Of course the Early Neolithic lasted hundreds of years and carinated bowls had a long currency, i.e. the two tombs do not have to be constructed simultaneously. Both show also activity after the earliest phase: at Carreg Coetan proven through radiocarbon dates and pottery similar to Abingdon Ware and at Pentre Ifan through the added court and enlarged cairn. This offers the interesting possibility that large tombs such as Pentre Ifan did not render the other, smaller tombs obsolete.

There are seven chambered tombs in the West Penwith region (fig. 9.38). Four of them are portal tombs, while three others are simpler chambers which lack portals and some other criteria for portal tombs (fig. 9.39). There was also at least one more chambered tomb in the region, where the village of Morvah is now. There are another five portal tombs spread over the more eastern part of Cornwall, four of them loosely grouped around Bodmin Moor (fig. 1.4). The Early Neolithic settlement evidence in Cornwall is largely restricted to nucleated settlements, especially from Carn Brea and Helman Tor (Mercer 1986; 1997), but there is no direct evidence from West Penwith yet. There is also no pollen analysis from West Penwith (Hosfield and Gardiner 2005).

Again, the tombs are not intervisible with one another. While Pentre Ifan has the widest view, the vistas from Trellyfaint and Llech y Dribedd are stunning too, all three

The four portal tombs appear to be grouped in two pairs: Zennor and Sperris, and Lanyon and West Lanyon. The three other simple chambered tombs are Mulfra, Chun

Fig.9.38: Map of West Penwith region, Cornwall

169

TATJANA KYTMANNOW

Fig. 9.39: Ground plans of the chambered tombs of Cornwall, no capstones are indicated (after Barnatt 1982)

and Bosporthennis (plates 7.51, 7.52, 7.53, 9.63 and 9.64). These three are simple square stone boxes without portal stones (figs. 9.40 and 9.41).

was obtained and dates the deposit to the late Middle Neolithic (see chapter 5 for details). The neighbouring Sperris Quoit (plate 9.60) is very ruined, but from the ground plan would have been middle sized (C). Cremated bones from a deposit in the entrance were dated to c. 3450 cal BC, i.e. the earlier Middle Neolithic. Both tombs are intervisible with each other. Sperris is very close to rock outcrops and Zennor has a prime view to a stack of rocks, including a ‘rocking stone’. The most of the sea view is blocked by the rock outcrops.

Zennor Quoit is a classic, large portal tomb (D), with a portico and portal stones which double up as side stones (plate 9.59, fig. 9.42). The capstone has slipped to the back. Excavation has produced pottery which probably dates to the Early Neolithic, to the Late Neolithic and to the Bronze Age. A radiocarbon date from cremated bone

170

THE CHRONOLOGY, MORPHOLOGY AND LANDSCAPE SETTING OF THE PORTAL TOMBS

Fig. 9.42: Zennor Quoit (after Barnatt 1982)

Figs. 9.40 and 9.41: Mulfra Quoit and Chun Quoit, West Penwith, Cornwall (after Barnatt 1982)

West Lanyon (plate 9.62) is ruined and only two stones remain. It is parallel to a small stream, with no views to speak of. Lanyon (plate 9.61, fig. 9.43) was several times reconstructed and the orthostats of the main chamber shortened. It is in a large long cairn and also contains three cists and three pits (type A). It is parallel to another stream, has no intervisibility with West Lanyon and both have no sea view. Plates 9.59 and 9.60: Zennor and Sperris Quoit

The two pairs of portal tombs are a considerable distance from each other. Three different types occur: A (Lanyon), 171

TATJANA KYTMANNOW

Plates 9.61 and 9.62: Lanyon and West Lanyon Quoit

Fig. 9.43. Lanyon Quoit (after Barnatt 1982)

C (Sperris) and D (Zennor). West Lanyon is ruined. Zennor and Sperris are at the same height, 225m, higher than the two others, but Zennor overlooks more land. It is impossible to say if the tombs are contemporary or not; these were the first dated Neolithic bones from any chambered tomb in Cornwall and we are still missing a lot of context. There is plenty of evidence for a continuation of ritual importance: standing stones, cairns, entrance graves, cists, and stone circles all occur in the same area. 9.5 Conclusions Six research questions were put forward in the beginning of this chapter, with the underlying goal to try to understand more about the societies who built these portal tombs in such clusters. Seven of the eight clusters are close to the sea, in mountainous landscapes; the only other one is close to large lakes. The clusters are restricted to Wales and the

Plates 9.63 and 9.64: Bosporthennis Quoit

172

THE CHRONOLOGY, MORPHOLOGY AND LANDSCAPE SETTING OF THE PORTAL TOMBS

Chi-Square Tests

northern part of Ireland; the Cornwall cluster is a bit questionable because the tombs are quite far from each other. There is normally no intervisibility between the portal tombs, this seems to be intentional, otherwise a view of other tombs would occur coincidentally more often. The often very y scarped and naturally feature-rich landscape is not used to more theatrical effect. In six cases the largest tomb in a cluster is also the one at the highest altitude and normally also the one with the widest views. The last two seem to go together naturally and to test this a chi-square test was performed (table 9.2):

Value Pearson Chi-Square

Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)

df

48.514(a)

12

.000

Table 9.3: Acreage v. portal tomb type cross tab and chi-square test

There is also a clear trend along the lines ‘the larger the tomb, the more encompassing the view’. If that is caused by the fact that larger tombs are at a higher altitude, this would not be very meaningful. Hence, the following test (table 9.4).

ACREAGE * ALTITUDE Crosstabulation Count

ALTITUDE * POTOTYPE Crosstabulation 5m to 50m ACRE AGE

-100+

ALTITUDE 105m 55m to to 100m 200m

210m to 330m

Count Total

22

31

19

6

78

-500

9

16

8

2

35

+500

13

8

8

1

30

2

6

9

3

20

4

7

11

7

29

-1000 +1000 Total

50

68

55

19

POTOTYPE Acompos ite ALTITU DE

192

Pearson Chi-Square

to to to to

Total

Chi-Square Tests

Value

5m 50m 55m 100m 105m 200m 210m 330m

23.018(a)

12

C-common

D

5

7

27

13

52

8

4

41

18

71

7

3

26

20

56

2

2

10

7

21

22

16

104

58

200

Chi-Square Tests

Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)

df

Bsmall

Total

.028 Value

Table 9.2: Altitude versus Acreage cross tab and chi-square test

Pearson Chi-Square

5.719(a)

Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)

df 9

.768

Again, because of the small number of cases the results have to be taken as a trend only, but obviously altitude and the amount of land which can be overlooked relate.

Table 9.4: Altitude v. portal tomb type, cross tab and chi-square test

ACREAGE * POTOTYPE Crosstabulation

But the test ‘Portal tomb type versus Altitude bands’ (table 9.4) shows no correlation. This is also proven by the field experience; many very large tombs are in lowlying positions.

Count POTOTYPE Acompo site ACREA GE

100+ 500 +500 1000 +1000

Total

Bsmall

The question if there are focal monuments comes from an outdated context. This type of cemetery Ferguson and his colleagues were imagining never existed for megalithic complexes: there are no warrior kings buried in the largest tomb and their retainers or favourite wives in the smaller satellite tombs around it. While megalithic clusters such as Knowth clearly have a focal monument and so-called satellite tombs, the problem is one of chronology which could not be solved in Ferguson’s time. Portal tomb clusters normally have a higher, larger portal tomb which might have attracted different ceremonies for more people at certain times; after all, normally larger groups had invested work into it too. As far as natural focal points are concerned, portal tombs are

Total

C-common

D

7

7

53

8

75

7

7

13

8

35

3

1

14

10

28

1

0

11

8

20

3

1

6

19

29

21

16

97

53

187

173

TATJANA KYTMANNOW

grouped around streams and are also attracted to unusual water features, where water disappears or suddenly appears. As with the small streams they so much favour as a neighbour, water is possibly an important part of the cosmology of portal tomb builders.

one portal tomb is built after another, possibly by the descendents (‘younger sons’) of the builders of the previous one. There is a taboo to replicate the tomb of the ancestor, or the new builders just want to assert their own ‘fashion’ against the parent tomb builders. The previous tomb would still be used by the descendents of the ‘older sons’. Eventually a large tomb would be built by the now much larger extended family to be used at special occasions. The second scenario, b) would propose that different groups built different types of tombs. These could be totems associated with, for example, animals, as has been suggested by Jones (2004) for the Neolithic tombs in the Burren, Co. Clare, and for similar organized tribal groups from North American indigenous populations. The larger tomb would fulfill again the function of serving the whole group. Scenario c) would mean that all tombs in one cluster fulfill different social and/or ritual roles. They could be contemporary or the cluster of portal tombs could have been constructed over time. They could belong to individual family groups, each with a (slightly?) different ritual.

Whether portal tomb clusters are ‘cemeteries’, i.e. purely ritual complexes, or part of a lived-in, day-to-day landscape, is still partly unanswered. There are good indications at some of the case studies, e. g. Dyffryn Ardudwy, Easky, Burren and Malin More, that the tombs are part of a farmed landscape, but this needs further investigation and especially dating. The fourth question: do portal tombs in a cluster replicate each other or are they different? has been answered with an emphatic ‘very different indeed’. In fact, the rarer subtypes A and B are overrepresented, while the most common group C is underrepresented. To investigate this further, unclustered tombs forming eight other groups were chosen, if possible those nearest to the clusters examined (table 9.5). This was not possible at Ballyvennaght, which has no neighbouring (even loose) group; instead the tombs in the Mourne Mountains were chosen as an equivalent. The south of Ireland has been consciously avoided because only two tomb types exist there. Table 9.5 shows that the number of different tomb types in the dense portal tomb clusters is three, while the average in the control regions comprise only two types on average. This shows that a greater variety of tomb types is indeed more likely in dense clusters than those more randomly distributed. Cluster

tomb types

other Groups

tomb types

Malin More

D+A; A; C; D?(3)

Ardara reg

B; B; A; (2)

Easky

B; C; C; D (3)

Sligo Mid+S

C; D; C; C (2)

Slieve Gullion

B; B; A; D (3)

Louth

D; ?; A; D (2)

Burren

C; B; D (3)

Leitrim Mid

D; C; C; D; C? (2)

Ballyvennaght

A; C; B (3)

Mourne

C; D; D; C (2)

Arduwwy

Conwy

Sm; Sm; D; (1-2)

Carn Ingli

A; C; ?; D+A (3) small; A; C; D (3-4)

Lleyn

C; C; C; A (2)

Cornwall

D; C; A?, D? (3)

Cornw. E

D;D;D;C (2)

The relationship to other tomb classes of the presumably same time frame, the Early Neolithic, is one of equality. This is especially interesting with court tombs in Ireland, where the larger portal tombs seem to form pairs with equally large court tombs. The only other tombs between the portal tombs of Dyffryn Ardudwy and the Carn Ingli cluster are the very equally placed Cotswold-Severn tomb Carneddau Hengwm North and Cerrig y Gof which is placed like a portal tomb, in its own valley, with its own stream. In contrast, the wedge and passage tombs in Ireland seek places higher up, to dominate the whole landscape and megalithic cluster. This is a relationship of competition. It has been shown that the portal tomb clusters share certain similarities and further detailed research especially into settlement and dating would promise a much clearer picture of the societies who built them. It is especially interesting that they seem to abide by the same rules on both sides of the Irish Sea. Arguably, by investigating one cluster in much greater detail, the results could be used to understand the others.

Table 9.5: Comparison of tomb types in discussed clusters compared with next ‘group’. There are 30 portal tombs in all 8 clusters, and an average of 3 subtypes per cluster, while there are 31 portal tombs in the other groups, with an average of 2 subtypes per group.

Together with the next question, if portal tombs are likely to be contemporary this opens the avenues to different interpretations. As stated above, there is slightly conflicting evidence whether the tombs are contemporary with one another: the two tombs at Dyffryn Ardudwy were built in a sequence, but most excavated tombs have produced Early Neolithic pottery, and are therefore generally from the same timeframe (but which lasted for hundreds of years). Three scenarios are imaginable: a) 174

THE CHRONOLOGY, MORPHOLOGY AND LANDSCAPE SETTING OF THE PORTAL TOMBS

Chapter 10 Portal tombs and settlement

Fig. 10.1: Mesolithic sites in Ireland (after Aalen et al. with additions, information from Anderson (1993; Woodman et al. (1999); and McCartan (2002)).

Fig. 10.2: Late Mesolithic sites Ireland (information from Anderson (1993); Aalen et al. (1997); Woodman et al. (1999); and McCartan (2002).

Fig. 10.3: portal tomb distribution (after Ó Nualláin 1989)

175

TATJANA KYTMANNOW

10.1

Introduction

why there are no portal tombs in most of Antrim, the only cluster inland from Torr Head, in the only area which has not produced any Late Mesolithic finds. Why is there not one tomb on the Ards peninsula, or only one in the whole Lough Neagh/ River Bann area? Differential preservation does not explain these distribution patterns.

To achieve some understanding of the Early Neolithic societies who built portal tombs, the author relied mainly on three data-sets: the distribution of Late Mesolithic settlements sites, Early Neolithic settlement sites, and portal tomb locations. While the portal tomb distribution map is quite informative and complete, the other distribution maps have to be used with much more caution. The three main regions of portal tomb distribution - Ireland, Wales and Cornwall- have all good evidence in the same regions for late Mesolithic settlements, or so it seems and was especially claimed for SW Wales by Tilley (1994) and Cummings (2001).

The opposite situation is equally mysterious: the large concentrations of portal tombs in the south-west of Donegal, in Tyrone, the inland belt parallel to passage tombs, or in the south-east, are in areas that have produced very little evidence for Late Mesolithic settlement. This is just a general trend and by far from absolute, for example, Inch Island in north-west Donegal has a fine portal tomb (Callaghan) just above Late Mesolithic middens (Milner and Woodman 2001: 34).

10.2 Late Mesolithic sites and portal tomb distribution 10.2.1 Ireland

If these findings are just a fluke, caused by the patchy research history in Ireland, the distribution in Wales and Cornwall should not repeat the pattern.

A distribution map of known Late Mesolithic sites has been created (fig. 10.2), using material from Anderson (1993); Aalen et al. (1997); Woodman et al. (1999); and McCartan (2002). They still show clearly a bias towards the north-east quadrant of Ireland; for every site located in often painstaking fieldwork in the west and south of Ireland, come two new ones in the north-east corner. The Strangford Lough survey, even though not completed yet, has produced alone more Late Mesolithic sites than the south and west of Ireland together. Let us assume for the sake of argument that the current distribution map reflects the actual distribution of Late Mesolithic activity.

10.2.2

Wales

In Wales we see again (fig. 10.4) that portal tombs builders were not attracted to the same areas as Late Mesolithic populations. Except for two stray finds, at Carreg Coetan, Newport, Pembrokeshire (S. Rees pers. comm.), portal tomb location does not overlap with the distribution of Late Mesolithic settlements. This avoidance is only the case with portal tombs; earth-fast tombs and simple passage tombs are very well located at sites which have already a long history. The reason for the latter could be a time-gap of several hundred years between the abandonment of Mesolithic settlements and the re-use and potential settlement by the populations who built these other tomb types.

A curious pattern seems to emerge if one looks at the distribution of portal tombs (fig 10.3) and compares it with Late Mesolithic sites (fig 10.2). Both are mutually exclusive: where we have the densest concentrations of Late Mesolithic sites, portal tombs are sparse or lacking entirely in these regions. On the other hand, in areas where we have large numbers of portal tombs, Late Mesolithic sites seem to be missing. Even if we consider that both maps are incomplete; portal tombs have been destroyed during the last 6000 years and Mesolithic research is still in its infancy in Ireland, this is too much of a coincidence. One possible explanation is the very different needs of portal tomb builders compared with the Late Mesolithic population. Portal tombs are built close to the sources of small streams; they avoid close proximity to large rivers and lakes and they prefer locations with lighter soil, often just on the border with uplands, which would be most suitable for a pastoral economy with some mixed farming. Additionally, large bodies of water were avoided, probably for reasons beyond rational explanations, but as part of their belief system. In contrast, Late Mesolithic people lived mainly by fishing, supplemented by some hunting and gathering (Woodman 2004: 41-5) which is also supported by the dietary analysis of Schulting (1998) and others (contra MacLean 1993). This might explain the distribution in the water-logged Midlands of Ireland, but it fails to tell us

An economic explanation as for the Midlands of Ireland does not work here very well. There are no Late Mesolithic sites in the Conwy Valley in SW Wales, but several in the next river valley to the north. Both valleys run through limestone rich soil and would potentially provide similar resources. Equally, the bay at Newport, Pembrokeshire, SW Wales, should have been as attractive to early societies as the Late Mesolithic find spots further west. 10.2.3

Cornwall

The Cornish portal tombs are mainly in two groups: four tombs in a small area in West Penwith, which also contains three other simple chambered tombs and a very loose group of four which fringe the uplands of Bodmin Moor (fig 1, fig. 1.4 and fig 10.5). The only one inbetween is close to Carn Brea. The area of intense Neolithic activity and monument building in West Penwith is avoided by Mesolithic sites and no tomb area directly overlaps with Mesolithic activity (fig 10.5). In Cornwall, large assemblages of Mesolithic finds come

Fig. 10.4: Map after David and Walker 2004, with additions; red dots portal tombs, black rectangles Late Mesolithic sites

176

THE CHRONOLOGY, MORPHOLOGY AND LANDSCAPE SETTING OF THE PORTAL TOMBS

Fig. 10.4: Map after David and Walker 2004, with additions; grey dots portal tombs, black rectangles Late Mesolithic sites

from the uplands, which are explained by the long tradition of fieldwalking here and the near total loss of coastal Mesolithic sites because of the rise in sea level.

finds. The Godfrey Headland beside the Red River mouth and tidal estuary, east of St. Ives, has produced sixteen Late Mesolithic sites. A large assemblage of Mesolithic flints comes from West Penwith, south and west of the portal tombs there (Hosfield and Gardiner 2005). The interpretation of the Mesolithic assemblages on Bodmin Moor is not so much as settlements but as the different semi-permanent task sites of one mobile group at any given time, whose potential base camps have not been found yet (Herring and Lewis 1992). The lower lying

The Bodmin Moor uplands have produced Early Mesolithic lithics at some sites, but a general scatter of flint from the Late Mesolithic period has been found by fieldwalking. Good evidence for extensive Late Mesolithic use comes from the Lizard Peninsula. Here the lithics were found intermingled with Early Neolithic 177

TATJANA KYTMANNOW

Fig 10.5: Mesolithic sites in Cornwall (after Hosfield 2005) and portal tombs in Cornwall; light grey dots Mesolithic sites, black dots portal tombs

sites at the Lizard are interpreted as possible base-camps, because of the different character of their lithic assemblages (Berridge and Roberts 1986).

It has been claimed that the transition from the Mesolithic to the Neolithic was not so much a revolution, but a slow, transitional process (Zvelebil and RowleyConwy 1986: 86; O’Brien 1999: 266; Whittle 1997; Thomas 1996). This model had been developed to explain the near total lack of Neolithic houses in the south of England, which also implies that the population was still highly mobile, living potentially as herders and not so much as farmers. Certain very early, but controversial cereal pollen dates seem to fit in there as for example from Cashelkeelty, Co. Kerry, where surrounding peat was dated to 4950-4470 BC (Lynch 1981), so does the exceedingly early domesticated cattle bone in clear Mesolithic context of the late 5th millennium from Ferriter’s Cove (Schulting in Woodman et al. 1999: 219). To muddy the waters further, Burenhult (2005) has recently revived his argument for Mesolithic megaliths, based on controversial 14C dates from the 6th and 5th millennium, obtained from charcoal found underneath several tombs at Carrowmore, Co. Sligo. None of the Carrowmore tombs contained any finds which have to be earlier than the Middle Neolithic, but the frequent presence of charcoal from the late Mesolithic still needs an explanation, especially in an area which has not produced even one Mesolithic artefact. O’Connell and Molloy (2001) have made a good case for a quite rapid period of woodland clearance in the early 4th millennium, succeeded by a period of forest regeneration. There is not one area in Ireland that shows a totally different picture.

Certainly the West Penwith portal tomb cluster was placed in a spatial gap of Mesolithic activity, unlikely to be a matter of coincidence. A general pattern is emerging: portal tombs are on rising ground but not in very high locations, close to the source of one of the major streams and small rivers in Cornwall, in contrast to the preferred location of Mesolithic sites either high up in the mountains or close to the sea, but avoiding the middle ground. It is the ‘middle ground’ which gives the best access to lighter soils and is most suitable for early farming. Arguably, it is exactly the same areas Mesolithic people in Britain and Ireland avoided. Christina Fredengren suggested that it was the feeling of isolation and the lack of any views which made this middle ground so unattractive for fisher-hunter-gatherers, and not so much the lack of resources. The closeness to large lakes, river valleys, sea and mountains was preferred because it gave access to open views and sunshine, according to Fredengren (2000:152). This might be the case, but the fact remains that it is also easier to hunt if one is not enclosed by impenetrable forest, and the sea view might have been very nice, but the oyster and mussels beds had certainly its attractions too.

178

THE CHRONOLOGY, MORPHOLOGY AND LANDSCAPE SETTING OF THE PORTAL TOMBS

The occurrence at the same time of finely made pottery and the, arguably first, megaliths speaks also strongly for Neolithic settlement and not mobility; large and thinwalled pottery vessels are uniquely unsuitable for a life of moving around.

10.3 Neolithic settlement pattern and portal tomb distribution Grogan (2004) listed 47 Early Neolithic houses in Ireland (fig 10.6). This is now, in summer 2006 already out of date and at least 20 more houses and 2 large enclosures have been discovered since. Currently Early Neolithic houses are discovered at a rate of at least one per month (Neil Carlin pers. comm.) and it will be years before they are published. Despite this highly accelerated rate of discovery, this is still a smallish percentage compared with the number of Early Neolithic megalithic tombs (184 portal tombs, c. 400 court tombs, a maximum of 100 early Neolithic passage tombs and c. 200 unclassified Early Neolithic ones= c. 900 Early Neolithic tombs in Ireland). If we have currently c. 60 Early Neolithic housesites and assume that each of the houses could have accommodated between 5-12 persons (Grogan 2004: 107), this gives us still only a minute fraction of the possible demography of Ireland in Early Neolithic times.

A distribution pattern of Mesolithic sites, clearly overlapping with Early Neolithic sites, could reflect a gradual, local acculturation from the Mesolithic to the Neolithic. Tilley (1994) and Cummings (2000) have postulated this for areas in SW Wales and their evidence is based on a handful of megalithic sites which might be much later in time than the earliest phase of the Neolithic. For portal tomb distribution, there is the possible explanation then that the spheres of previous or still ongoing influence by Mesolithic people were consciously avoided. This does not speak for a slow, gradual transition, but for a competitive co-existence between Mesolithic people and portal tomb builders. The division is nearly complete. If there was a transition, it was a rapid one, literally pioneering into new regions and areas, and a new belief system, signified by portal tombs. That there was indeed a substantial shift in behaviour and diet in coastal areas in Britain is indicated by Schulting’s work (1998; 2004), presenting evidence for a near complete change from a marine-based diet in the Late Mesolithic to a terrestrial one in the Early Neolithic. On the other hand, the radiocarbon dates (see chapter 5) from human bone seem to imply that megalith building was not a feature of the first few generations after the onset of the Neolithic, although the three earliest dates from Poulnabrone could be as early as 4000 cal BC.

Several different approaches have been taken to investigate the relationship between portal tombs and Early Neolithic settlement. Evidence for Early Neolithic settlement in areas where portal tombs are the dominant Early Neolithic monument type were examined more closely because it could be reasonably assumed that both stand in a relationship to each other, not only chronologically but also contextually. In Ireland these areas comprise the south-east region, eastern County Dublin, County Longford, and to a certain degree north Clare and south Galway. However, only two house sites had any spatial link to portal tombs and, for example, the discovery of Early Neolithic houses in the townland of Monanny, south Co. Monaghan, proves again that Neolithic settlement is surely not exclusive to areas that contain megalithic tombs.

Obviously, there are large amounts of Early Neolithic activity outside the distribution zones of portal tombs, or any megalithic presence, for example, in the midlands of Wales, evident by the distribution of polished stone axes. In Ireland, Bamforth and Woodman (2004) have examined the distribution of Mesolithic and Neolithic artefacts in an area of intense early prehistoric activity in north-east Antrim. There is a clear pattern of preference for different locations: riverine versus upland, but both artefact assemblages are present in the same general region. Alone the presence of the axe factory at Tievebulliagh is ample proof for Early Neolithic presence of people; but these people did not build portal tombs. Equally, while there can be little doubt of Early Neolithic stone procurement on Rathlin Island, there are no megaliths on the island, portal or otherwise. Raw stone procurement clearly pre-dated the Early Neolithic and if portal tombs stand indeed for a new belief system and a pioneering society, these ideas and way of life did not fall on very fertile ground in some areas, as exemplified by the north-east Antrim region. Again, this is a similar phenomenon to that of SW Wales, where portal tomb distribution does not overlap with Late Mesolithic activity, in contrast to other tomb types.

The overall picture of early Neolithic settlement in Ireland (Grogan 2002; 2004) suggests at first glance a concentration around the now urban centres of Dublin, Derry and Limerick and a band of settlement along the Antrim coast. This is, of course, largely due to the vast amount of road and housing estate building in recent years, but could also be interpreted as evidence for the fact that the Dublin, Derry, Antrim and Limerick areas had certain attractions which were already present in Neolithic times, as for example, access to a large river, an estuary, a good harbour, fertile land and sources of flint and porcellanite in Antrim. The preference for a more northern location of Neolithic settlements is also reflected in the general distribution of the earlier megalithic tombs in the northern half of Ireland. There has to be some caution exercised using the distribution maps. If we would include lithic and pottery finds without further settlement evidence, the map would have certainly more dots, but these would still be in the same areas, with a clear preference for especially the

179

TATJANA KYTMANNOW

Fig. 10.6: Distribution map of Neolithic houses and other settlement (Grogan 2004)

north and the east of the island (Cooney 2000: 200-1). Very much in contrast to the distribution of portal tombs, many axes have been recovered from rivers, for example, hundreds of them from the Bann, the Shannon, the Erne and the Barrow (Waddell 1998: 47; Cooney 2000: 208; Sheridan et al. 1992; Simpson 1993). It has been argued above that large bodies of water such as rivers could be associated with death in the belief system of the portal tomb builders, while small streams and springs stood most likely for birth.

the simple Penwith tombs and the long barrow with portal tomb at Baerah Common. Additionally, there are a handful of portal tombs with good settlement evidence in the immediate vicinity. As mentioned above, several macro-regions have produced settlement evidence, but often without good dating evidence. 10.4 Single portal tomb(s) with settlement evidence in the immediate vicinity

In Wales the Conwy Valley and the Ardudwy region are both dominated by portal tombs and so is the megalithic cluster around Carn Ingli in Pembrokeshire. The early Neolithic chambered tombs in Cornwall are either classic portal tombs or they are probably related to them, such as

As has been discussed in chapter 1, portal tombs are the poor, neglected cousins of the other classes of megaliths. This also means that no research excavation has looked into the surroundings of a portal tomb (Taylorsgrange 180

THE CHRONOLOGY, MORPHOLOGY AND LANDSCAPE SETTING OF THE PORTAL TOMBS

reports are on www.excavations.ie, the searchable database for Irish excavation reports. The four seasons of excavations by Keeley produced fine and coarse pottery, including two types of ‘fine’ Neolithic pottery, funerary ware and coarse ware, some cremated bone from the chamber and some lithic artefacts including blades, knifes and one flat-based arrowhead. The excavator also discovered numerous pits and features in an area up to c. 100m from the tomb which were judged to date from the Neolithic/Bronze Age up to the Iron Age. Subsequent trial trenching and geophysical survey by Coughlan (1997) showed a large amount of features which were then excavated by Rob Lynch (1998) in the following year. The whole area was heavily disturbed and truncated by ploughing. The most interesting results came from an area c. 35m east (i.e. towards the stream) from the tomb, comprising small stake holes without an obvious pattern, three hearths and a burnt hollow-scraper. About 5m distance from these stake holes charcoal from a pit produced a calibrated date of 3620-3356 BC. Another area c. 15m further south revealed Beaker sherds, part of a vase urn, a hearth and stake-holes; the latter might have been originally the posts for windbreaks. A third area was even more disturbed and had produced 52 Beaker sherds out of context. Three more dates were obtained from pits: the Early Christian date of 450-647 AD, and the two Iron Age ones of 160 BC-58 AD and 238-392 AD. Lynch also discovered some large postholes during monitoring of soil stripping, a tantalising glimpse at more substantial buildings. He interpreted the evidence as indicating that most activity during the Neolithic was just north of the tomb and some to the east, i.e. along the stream. Apparently, the area around the tomb remained a focal point of activity through the early Bronze Age, the Iron Age and up to the Early Christian period, which is also indicated by the presence of a Holy Well. How much of these were directly linked to the tomb or are just evidence for this near perfect settlement location is a matter of interpretation. The long string of Early Neolithic megaliths in the northern forelands of the Dublin Mountains suggests a possible Neolithic traffic route here. The rather flimsy but abundant evidence for settlement could be interpreted as the tomb having a second life as an important landmark used for breaks and short stays, with the possible exception of the Beaker period. In conclusion, we have no radiocarbon dates from the probable construction phase of the monument and the next best thing is inaccessible, the probable Early Neolithic ‘fine’ ware from the chamber. There is no evidence that any of the pits and stake holes date to the earlier parts of the Neolithic, the probable construction date, as cautiously indicated by the ‘fine’ Neolithic pottery from the tomb itself. Therefore, this long excavation proved that the tomb was not avoided in subsequent centuries; it was rather still a focal point in the landscape. Ritual activity has been attested for the Early Bronze Age and the large amount of Beaker sherds implies some form of settlement then.

was a commercial excavation), as had been done for court tombs: Rathlacken, Co. Mayo (Byrne 1991; 1993; 1994; 2002; Cooney 2000: 47); Parknabinnia, Co. Clare (Jones 2003; 2004), for wedge tombs on Roughan Hill, Co. Clare, Burren (Jones 1998; 2003; 2004) and for passage tombs at Knocknarea, Co. Sligo (Burenhult 1984; Bergh 2000); Carrowkeel, Co. Sligo (Bergh pers. comm.); Townleyhall 2, Co. Louth (Liversage 1960); at Newgrange, Co. Meath (O’Kelly et al.. 1978; O’Kelly et al.. 1983) and at Knowth, Co. Meath (Eogan 1990; Eogan and Roche 1997). This is a most unsatisfactory state of affairs. Because portal tombs are so conspicuous and meant to make a visual impression, they are being avoided during development driven excavations and are most unlikely to be discovered during road works as happened at Drumenny Lower, Co. Donegal, where an Early Neolithic house was discovered beside a court tomb (Dunne 2003). The only exception was a commercial excavation of a portal tomb and its environs at Taylorsgrange, Co. Dublin (Keeley 1986; 1987a; 1987b; 1988; 1989/90; Lynch 1999). Here the tomb itself and surroundings were excavated prior to the construction of a slip road for the M50 motorway south of Dublin and the subsequent bulldozing of the surroundings to make space for an exclusive, gated housing estate where the tomb stands now such as a modern sculpture on pristine lawn (plates 10.1, 10.2).

Plates 10.1 and 10.2: The Brehon’s Chair, Taylorsgrange, Co. Dublin, in its present surroundings

The results are still unpublished and the finds are with the excavators and are not accessible. The preliminary 181

TATJANA KYTMANNOW

Fig. 10.8: Ceidé Fields, the portal tombs are Ma 11 and Ma 12 (after Cauldfield 1998)

182

THE CHRONOLOGY, MORPHOLOGY AND LANDSCAPE SETTING OF THE PORTAL TOMBS

Poulnabrone, Co. Clare, has been tested for pollen but the karst conditions meant it did not survive. The animal bones are currently being investigated, prior to the hopefully soon final publication. Ann Lynch, the excavator, mentioned a rectangular structure a short distance uphill from the tomb which might have been contemporary with the portal tomb construction (A. Lynch pers. comm.).

evidence. The limestone upland region at Tawnamachugh, Co. Leitrim, contains several atypical long-cairns, one of them a possible portal tomb; it also has equally well preserved hutsites and enclosures. There is no evidence for Early Neolithic houses close to any individual portal tomb in Wales or Cornwall. 10.6

10.5 Other evidence for settlement close to single portal tombs

Settlement evidence in macro-regions

As mentioned above, virtually all macro-regions show some evidence for settlement, either contemporary or diachronic. The dense concentration of tombs on now marginal land makes it not exactly surprising to find housesites, walls and enclosures there too. The problem is that we still do not know if any of them is firmly linked to the people who constructed the portal tombs or potentially to the court tomb builders close by or they might date from the Early Bronze Age or even later. As we have seen, the individual portal tombs are usually orientated along an individual stream, overlooking one valley. In some cases, the small stream valleys come together in one larger stream. The whole area has then often one larger focal monument which is higher up and also overlooks a wider area. If these tombs are contemporary, as the excavation evidence from Pentre Ifan and Carreg Coetan, both SW Wales, suggests, the reluctance or taboo to replicate one blueprint and the result that the portal tombs in one macro-region are as different as possible (see chapter 9) speaks for individual, largely contemporaneous groups, either kinship groups or, for example, totems which identified themselves with their individual tomb. The need of individual expression seems to also have been present at some pairs of portal tombs, for example, Cleenrah and Aughnacliff, both in Co. Longford. These tombs are as different as possible: Aughnacliff is a precarious balancing act, while the neighbouring Cleenrah is a low, squatting structure which reminds one of simple dolmens of the Carrowmore variety. Possibly the different small groups all belonged to one tribe or clan and at special occasions the whole wider community in one cluster would gather at the focal monuments, asserting their commonalities.

All the other studies only included some evidence for the environment of portal tombs as a by-product of investigations that focussed on other monuments or research questions; the portal tombs just happened to be around. Most notably, there are two portal tombs in the Céide-Fields research area (fig.10.8): Ballyknock A and B (Mayo 11 and 12), 50m below and c. 250 m from the field system on Ballyknock upland (Cauldfield et al. 1998). These fields were used for pasture during the period of 5200-4500 BP (Caulfield et al. 1998: 635) and while the low-lying land around some of the tombs, including the portal tombs, has been too extensively farmed in recent centuries to preserve the field systems, they probably all belong to the same phase of the earlier Neolithic. The seminal study of pollen analysis from Lough Sheeauns (Molloy and O’Connell 1987) produced strong signals for Early Neolithic woodland clearance and earlier Neolithic pastoral farming, while the signals for cereal growing and later Neolithic farming are weak. This small lake is situated at the western edge of Connemara, 800m from two court tombs, but only 50m from a portal tomb (Ballynew, Co. Galway). The portal tomb is located between the court tombs and the lake. Carleton Jones’ study (2003) of the Roughan landscape, Burren, Co. Clare, sheds some light on Ballycasheen portal tomb which is situated below and to the southwestern edge of the main research area, which also contains possibly three court tombs and very high mound-walls, which most likely pre-date the later Neolithic. This earlier field system has not produced any evidence for Early Neolithic houses which might be located elsewhere, for example, in the low-lying areas close to the source of the river Fergus.

Development driven excavations tend to avoid megalithic tombs nowadays as far as possible, because of the legal situation which puts stronger protection on these tombs, but also because of the potential costs involved, as amply proven by the Taylorsgrange excavations. It is therefore extremely unlikely that commercial excavations would produce new settlement evidence in direct association with portal tombs. That means without research driven geophysical surveying and subsequent excavation we only possess a handful of pieces of the puzzle. We can only assume that each valley not only contained a portal tomb, but also the houses, fieldwalls, storage and refuse pits, knapping floors, and hearths of the community, but if research would prove that portal tombs are not built where the community lived, this would be highly

These four studies have produced some evidence for Early Neolithic settlement activity close to portal tombs (Taylorsgrange, Ballyknock, Ballynew and Ballycasheen) but there is still no evidence for any Neolithic house firmly linked to a portal tomb. Several portal tombs have hutsites of unknown age adjacent to them (Ballynacloghy, Co. Galway, Springfield, Co. Sligo and Gorteen/Ballintrilick, Co. Sligo) while others have prebog walls in the immediate vicinity (Burren 1 and 2, Co. Cavan; Knockanbaun, Co. Sligo), but without firm dating

183

TATJANA KYTMANNOW

interesting on its own and open up new avenues of research and interpretation.

60 occupants of all ages and in all likelihood other houses were located where Derry is now and others are still awaiting discovery. This is such a prime site for settlement that it is quite fitting that it comprises also a prime portal tomb. Again, the settlement is exactly where portal tombs are not, at the main river. However, Thornhill was a very defensible site which implies that there were different groups of Neolithic society competing, possibly in a violent way, for the same space and maybe for the ownership of the land (and the portal tomb). It is imaginable that Thornhill housed the portal tomb builders or their competition and that this huge monument played an important ritual role.

10.7 Early Neolithic settlement evidence in areas close to portal tombs 10.7.1 South-east of Ireland The following provides only indirect evidence, implying that there was no other Neolithic than a megalithic one. There is no proof that one house site has anything to do with a tomb four kilometres distant, as would be the case for Granny Townland, Co. Kilkenny, 1km outside Waterford town (Anon NRA publication leaflets 2005a). The Granny housesite is located close to a large river, the River Suir, a location portal tombs avoid. In the general vicinity of this house are two portal tombs and one pretty ruined unclassified one. The date for the house is 39773728 cal BC. The house had been repaired several times during its lifetime. Interestingly, a type of Early Neolithic pottery was discovered there for the first time in Ireland, with an interior lip close to the rim, possibly for holding a lid. Similar pottery is known from south-western England (Anon 2005a). This possible cultural link could be highly significant. For example, portal tombs in south-east Ireland and in Cornwall share certain commonalities. Many of them are large tombs with an equally large catchment area and many subtypes of portal tombs do not occur. They do not cluster; instead they are arranged in loose groups. That there was close contact between these two regions in later times is attested by the occurance of entrance tombs on both side of the Irish Sea.

10.8 Nucleated settlement? Thornhill is one of the examples of small clusters of houses which are increasingly being discovered in Ireland, despite the fact that the excavation for roads and housing estates usually concentrates only on a small trench in the landscape. Grogan (2004) lists the Early Neolithic House clusters at Tankardstown South; Corbally I and II; Newgrange; Lough Gur; Ballyharry; Knowth; Thornhill; and, more recently, the four houses at Monanny must be mentioned too. Futhermore, large enclosures such as Donegore Hill, Lyles Hill and Magheraboy, Co. Sligo (Mallory and Hartwell 1984; Evans 1953; Anon 2005c), are good indications that the dispersed settlement apparently frequent in Neolithic times, is not the only settlement form in Ireland at the time. The organised work for the erection of an average portal tomb would need the participation of c. 40 persons, if the average for a capstone is c. 11 cubic metres, 2.8 tons to the cubic metre and between 1.2 and 2 persons to lift or drag the capstone (Atkinson 1961). Possibly the morphology of one portal tomb would tell the story of the number and status of the people who built the monument and who were supposed to be remembered. Maybe a small tomb in a large cairn of small stones was erected by a group which had only few adults but many children. The smaller portal tomb could be erected by an extended family and told the initiated that a powerful and well organised group of c. 20 adults was involved. Composite tombs could tell the story of many generations, and most importantly, massive, dominant tombs told the story that a small army of people had been drawn in.

10.7.2 South Donegal/ Leitrim Other evidence for settlement close to a portal tomb comes in form of chert artefacts, debitage and a shallow pit with animal bones from the townland of Magheracar, Co. Donegal, at the River Drowes (Anon 2005). This is close to the two portal tombs at Wardhouse, Co. Leitrim, (the river is the county boundary) but also to several other megaliths. 10.7.3 North Donegal/ Derry Thornhill, Co. Derry (Logue 2003), and Enagh, Co. Derry (McSparron 2003), would be both overlooked by the impressively large portal tomb at Eskaheen, c. 6km from the two settlement sites, on the steep slope of Eskaheen Mountain. This is clearly a dominant tomb whose erection would have required a large group of people: the capstone weighs c.70 tons, the portals are 2.4m high and a group of 200 healthy individuals for the construction seems reasonable, if we count a minimum of 1.2 to 2 healthy adults per ton of stone (see Atkinson 1961). This would require at least 90 people to move the capstone on top of the portals and the other orthostats and additional persons to keep these orthostats in place. Alone the structures at Thornhill and Enagh could have housed c.

10.9 Wales Both nucleated and dispersed forms of settlement are also found in Wales: a nucleated one at Clegyr Boia (Williams 1953; Vyner 1999), SW Wales, Pembrokeshire, and more commonly single, dispersed dwellings. None of them is close to a portal tomb or even in the same general area (see maps in Petersson 2003: 39-41). There are a multitude of house and hutsites, walls, enclosures and other elements of settlement especially in upland areas

184

THE CHRONOLOGY, MORPHOLOGY AND LANDSCAPE SETTING OF THE PORTAL TOMBS

Fig 10.9: Distribution of megalithic tombs and stone axes (after Lynch 2000, Fig. 2.1)

such as at Maen-y-bardd, NW Wales, Conwy Valley, but these are regularly classified as Bronze Age or later. There have been some doubts about this and the possibility that at least some of them might be earlier has been explored in the Ardudwy Early Landscape Project (Johnston and Roberts 2004), by the SPACES project in Pembrokeshire (Darvill and Wainright 2002) and also by Vyner (1999). So far, clear dating evidence has remained

elusive for the investigated areas but they are still in the early stages of analysis and 14C dates for the Ardudwy project are still outstanding. The above map fig.10.9 by F. Lynch (2000: 47) shows clearly that portal tombs cluster in certain areas, while polished stone axes are very evenly distributed, much more so than in Ireland. Axes are present in nearly all 185

TATJANA KYTMANNOW

low-lying areas while portal tombs occur only in two narrow strips (the Conwy valley and a band from Newport, Pembrokeshire to the Gower peninsula), the Ardudwy cluster, and a bit more dispersed distribution on the Lleyn peninsula. Obviously not all Early Neolithic activity resulted in the erection of portal tombs or any megaliths for this matter. We do not know how many of these axes were intentionally ‘lost’, i.e. buried or deposited and could very well have absolutely nothing to do with day to day settlement.

of development do not seem to be able to answer our questions satisfyingly.

Currently, the relationship of portal tombs with Neolithic settlements in Wales is less than clear. There are yet just not enough house sites discovered to even attempt a link. The SPACES project seems to be at the moment the best chance to clarify the relative chronology between house sites on one side and portal tombs on the other (Darvill and Wainright 2002; Darvil et al. 2003; 2004).

Furthermore, the role of Early Neolithic enclosures such as, for example, Donegore, Co. Antrim, Clegyr Boia, SW Wales, and Carn Brea, Cornwall, might have played is less than clear.

10.10

The evidence for dispersed settlement and house sites from the Neolithic in Wales and Cornwall is famously sparse and has given rise to the development of the ‘mobility model’ (Whittle 1997; Thomas 1991). The danger of a settlement model that uses exclusively negative evidence is that it might tempt us to give up to look for the positive evidence, i.e. houses.

This investigation into the data sets for the distribution of Late Mesolithic sites, portal tombs and (Early) Neolithic settlement locations seemed to have achieved the following:

Cornwall

Cornwall has good evidence for nucleated settlement in the form of the defended hilltop enclosures of Helman Tor and Carn Brea (Mercer 1989; 1981; 1997). Individual dispersed settlement is nearly entirely lacking with the exception of Penhale where a rectilinear house and a circular structure were discovered (Novakowski 1998). There is no real reason why Helman Tor and Carn Brea and any of the many other hilltop enclosures with similar morphology (Mercer 1986: 51-54) could not be the prototype for Early Neolithic settlement in Cornwall, being rather the rule than the exception.

1.

2.

It has been already mentioned that Lesquoite Quoit is directly opposite Helman Tor and most of the other portal tombs are also close to hilltop enclosures, 0.5km to 3km distant. That would put the portal tombs not in the heart of a settlement but more in a totally different space of their own. 10.11

Late Mesolithic sites and portal tombs normally do not occur in the same areas. There is little evidence for settlements directly related to portal tombs. Portal tombs do not share the same preferred locations in the landscape with Late Mesolithic sites (preferably at large rivers, in the uplands as on Bodmin Moor or directly at the coast), dispersed settlement (at least some at large rivers) or Early Neolithic enclosures (in prominent location with good views all around). Portal tombs prefer the ‘Middle Ground’, on gentle slopes.

Quite clearly, we do not know yet how close to the portal tomb the community would have lived. The image of a portal tomb fulfilling a similar function such as a village church in a valley is very tempting, because portal tomb locations make such attractive settlement sites, with its clear stream, the sheltered location, and access to light soils, preferably on a south or east facing slope. The only ongoing research which includes settlement evidence and portal tombs in the same general area is the SPACES project, but this is a cluster and clusters of portal tombs could be more likely the exception and not the rule. The rule is the small, sheltered valley, transversed by a stream, with one side whose view is obscured, seen from the portal tomb. Any research into settlements and portal tombs should start in such a valley.

Conclusion

The evidence for the fixed abodes of the people who built and used the portal tombs is still more than sketchy. One reason is the total lack of research into the matter. Nevertheless, the chance discoveries especially in Ireland suggest that the preferred place for settlement is not necessarily identical with the preferred space for the erection of portal tombs. Several house sites have been found close to major rivers in Ireland, such as Granny, Co. Kilkenny, and Thornhill and Enagh, Co. Derry. These are locations where portal tombs normally do not occur, but similar sites were favoured by Late Mesolithic people (and, arguably, dual carriage ways and housing developments). To understand where the people lived who erected portal tombs, we would have to look for their houses intentionally, using geophysical methods and subsequent excavation. Chance discoveries in the process

186

THE CHRONOLOGY, MORPHOLOGY AND LANDSCAPE SETTING OF THE PORTAL TOMBS

Chapter 11 Summary and conclusion 11.1

Introduction

portal tombs, especially in Ireland where the vast majority of portal tombs are located. The finds were last catalogued and interpreted more than 40 years ago (Herity 1964, but see also Herity 1982). No analysis of the morphology had been undertaken and the notion that they are very simple structures had been perpetuated. At the publication of the sixth volume of the Megalithic Survey (Cody 2002) it became apparent again how little reflection or re-interpretation had occurred in the last 50 years; outdated conclusions were repeated without being questioned, for example: “Portal tombs display limited morphological variety throughout the distribution” (Cody 2002: 277) which is an exceedingly odd statement after having listed all the double chambered, long cairned, double capstoned, and composite portal tombs. The same morphological varieties of two court tombs back-to-back, linked by one cairn, have received much more recognition and discussion (e.g. ‘full’ and ‘double’ court tombs) than the same phenomenon at portal tombs. New methods of dating found only very limited use. Subsequently, the dating of portal tombs is still a contentious issue. Chapter 2 therefore identified the need of a modern synthesis and analysis of all available evidence regarding portal tombs and a subsequent discussion of classification, morphology, finds evidence and chronology.

The purpose of this chapter is to synthesise all the results of the previous ten chapters relating to the morphology, classification and chronology of portal tombs and their role in Neolithic society, to discuss these results and to decide whether the research questions and aims have been appropriately answered. Some possible interpretations of the results will be put forward and the scope for future research will be highlighted. Finally, the contribution of the study to the field of research will be assessed. 11.2

Summary of chapter contents

In Chapter 1, the different methodologies were chosen and explained: fieldwork, finds assessment, radiocarbon dating and data analysis. The fieldwork supplied the bulk of the information concerning classification, morphology and landscape settings. To establish a better chronology all accessible finds were assessed and examined, and bone samples from seven portal tombs were radiocarbon dated. All the results were entered into compatible databases and analysed using the programs Excel and SPSS. The main research aims and questions were put forward: 1. Were portal tombs more likely to be constructed during the Early Neolithic or towards the Late Middle Neolithic? 2. Could portal tombs have been ritually used over a long period of time, from the date of construction in the Neolithic up to the Early Bronze Age or even Iron Age, either continuously or episodically? 3. Are portal tombs rather simple structures, for example, similar to the small subsidiary side chambers of court tombs or do they mostly involve a more complicated architecture? Furthermore, are sub-types or regional variations apparent? 4. What can the landscape siting tell us about the beliefs of the builders? Are there any patterns apparent? 5. Is there any patterning in the siting of portal tombs on a large scale (i.e. throughout their overall Irish Sea distribution area), or does it vary from region to region? How does portal tomb distribution compare with settlement and palaeoenvironmental evidence within the time-frame of their construction and use? Within the eight macro-regions, i.e. monument clusters that include three or more portal tombs, how do the portal tombs relate to each other and to the other types of monument?

Chapter 3 assessed first the available landscape studies which had mainly portal tombs as a subject. Ó Nualláin’s unparalleled study of the landscape siting of portal tombs (1983), based on his vast personal experience as a surveyor for the Megalithic Survey of Ireland, has never been updated. Instead, obvious shortcomings were repeatedly unquestioned such as: “The distribution of portal tombs in Ireland and Wales is markedly riverine and coastal. Ó Nualláin has shown that 43.5% of Irish portal tombs are within 8km of the coast and has highlighted the association of the type of river system in different parts of Ireland, in particular in the south-east of the country. It may have been that such locales were the preferred areas of settlement during at least part of the Neolithic, just as they had been during the Mesolithic.” (Cody 2002: 273). Analysing this quote, the present author noticed that a) nearly all megaliths in Wales, and not only portal tombs, are coastal; b) 57.5% of Irish portal tombs are not within his quite generously defined ‘coastal’ location; c) while there is no definition of ‘riverine’ location the personal surveying experience of the present author could only place less than 1%, i.e. two portal tombs, within 500m of a large river; and d) Cody apparently based a potentially very important statement concerning the settlement patterns of Neolithic people on this. Ó Nualláin’s outstanding work has some other flaws

The next chapter addressed the lack of modern research and the not particularly useful models of evolutionism and diffusionism which still lay behind the perception of

187

TATJANA KYTMANNOW

such as his diffusionist explanations for the distribution of portal tombs and the lack of statistical analysis, but this can be easily explained by his academic upbringing in a different generation.

do not share any more characteristics with each other than any other possible ‘pairing’. There are no local variants that occur in only one region. The wide distribution of variant sub-types implies a frequent exchange of ideas between the different regions and does not suggest the long-lasting isolation of any region during the Neolithic. There is also no evidence for a linear development of styles in architecture from a single point of origin.

Nearly all the other studies of the last two decades which had portal tombs as a subject employed an impressionist and/or phenomenological approach. The results are strictly individual and have to be repeated in the field to be verified. They are also regional, dealing with certain areas of Britain, i.e. SW Wales, NW Wales and Bodmin and West Penwith in Cornwall, but not with Ireland.

In Chapter 6, the finds from 42 portal tombs were analysed, especially regarding their dating. Pottery analysis has moved on since Herity’s work (1964; 1982) and so has the dating of lithics (Nelis 2003; 2004) even though the latter is not as fine-tuned as one would hope for (Woodman 1994). For the establishment of a relative chronology of portal tombs, pottery proved to be the more valuable tool. The results of the analysis suggest that the most common find by quantity and frequency are Early Neolithic carinated bowls. Middle Neolithic pottery is the second most common in quantity. Surprisingly, the occurrence and quantity of Middle Bronze Age ware is the next most common one while Late Neolithic and Early Bronze Age pottery is not as frequent, and is sometimes only represented by one or two sherds. The lithics show a similar picture, giving emphasis to a main phase of deposition in the Early and Middle Neolithic, with some residual finds from the Mesolithic, but with very few datable lithics from the Late Neolithic and the Early Bronze Age.

The importance of landscape settings is not denied; just the methodology which had been used to assess them and how to communicate it did not seem to be suitable to enhance our understanding of portal tombs. The goal was to find a more rigorous approach to recording different landscape features. The next six chapters were dedicated to answering the main research questions. The different elements which define the morphology of portal tombs were investigated and analysed in Chapter 4. These are portal-, capstone-, side-, back-, door-, and under-cap stones as the main parts, and cairns, court features and decorations. Only portal stones, a capstone and a back stone are absolutely essential (a tripod dolmen) to a good practical definition of a portal tomb; all other elements are variations. The analysis of the rate of survival of the architectural parts of portal tombs produced some surprising results: the left and right hand side portal stones both had an uncanny equal survival rate of 158 out of 217, and nearly exactly the same average height of 1.70m, despite the fact that heights of portal stones can vary from 0.3m to 4.5m and are often not equally high at the same tomb. Higher than expected was the cairn survival rate of 98, c. 45% of the total, and that did not include the uncertain ones. This is nearly as high as the survival rate for court tombs. Overall, a large diversity of how the different elements of portal tombs are assembled is apparent, so is the huge variety of size, especially of capstones.

Chapter 7 explored how radiometric dating might assist in establishing the absolute chronology and the depositional history of portal tombs. AMS allows now the dating of tiny samples, even as little as 1gr of cremated bone can be sufficient. Because charcoal is so frequent and does not have to relate to a depositional episode, bone samples are preferable for dating purposes. The occurrence of bone in portal tombs is relatively rare, but cremations and inhumations do occur. Many tombs are on acidic soil and are also quite open to the elements; therefore the survival of cremated bone is more likely. It is also possible that the original cremation deposits were very small. Six suitable samples from cremated bone were located: two from Cornwall (Zennor and Sperris), two from Wales (Twlc y Filiast and Carreg Coetan, both SW Wales) and two from Ireland (Ballyrenan, Co. Tyrone, and Drumanone, Co. Roscommon). One sample of uncremated bone from Ballynacloghy, Co. Galway, was also dated for this project. Unfortunately, no bone sample from a portal tomb in the south-east of Ireland or the north-west of Wales could be located.

The classification of portal tombs (Chapter 4) has been a matter of debate for a long time and they have been treated as a development from court tombs, either as a whole, degenerated to a small, simple chamber, or as the development from a part of court tombs, the subsidiary chambers. This chapter argued for the treatment of portal tombs as an independent class of megaliths. Several subtypes can be identified and the greatest variety attested for the geographical north of Ireland which also contains the largest number of portal tombs in any one region. Overlaps of defining criteria between different tomb classes (‘hybrids’) are most common between portal and court tombs, occasionally between portal and passage tombs and virtually non-existent between portal and wedge tombs, despite the fact that portal and court tombs

Together with the already existing dates from Poulnabrone, Carreg Coetan and Ballykeel the absolute dating of deposits spans a very wide time frame, from the Early Neolithic to the Middle Bronze Age. The only dates from the Early Neolithic come from inhumations:

188

THE CHRONOLOGY, MORPHOLOGY AND LANDSCAPE SETTING OF THE PORTAL TOMBS

Poulnabrone and Ballynacloghy. The earliest date from a cremation is from the sample at Sperris, c. 3450 cal BC.

the distribution maps, i.e. where people lived should be the same locales during the Late Mesolithic and the Early Neolithic, signified by portal tombs.

Chapter 8 presented the large amount of landscape data that was collected during the fieldwork. The relationship to water courses, valleys, slope direction, the orientation of the tomb, preferred altitude and many other elements of the landscape setting were investigated and analysed. The results strongly suggest that some of these were as necessary for the construction of a portal tomb as the portal stones themselves. Especially the presence of a small stream, nearly always parallel to the tomb, and the avoidance of the highest point in the vicinity in 100% of the cases, are strong indications that the precise siting was an integral part of the belief system. Slope direction and tomb orientation are preferably east, the location is in most cases in a sheltered valley and high altitudes are avoided. Views, intervisibility between the tombs and rock outcrops are not of any apparent importance. The presence of large rivers is avoided.

The distribution maps for Late Mesolithic sites and portal tombs do not overlap, neither in Ireland, Wales nor Cornwall. There are several small exceptions such as Inch Island in Co. Donegal or Newport Bay, SW Wales, but generally portal tomb builders avoided the locales of Mesolithic people, in contrast to Cody’s statement (2002: 273) that they sought the same locations. Tilley (1994: 86-7) had argued that there was no hiatus between the Late Mesolithic and the Early Neolithic and used a wide mixture of different tomb classes of a very long timeframe as proxy for Neolithic settlement. The evidence is anecdotal, generalised statements are backed up by a couple of seemingly fitting examples to prove that Mesolithic locales retained their importance during the Neolithic. The contrary findings by the present author stem from the fact that only portal tombs have been included, in contrast to Tilley’s work (or Cummings 2001). This approach implies that the different morphology of tombs actually meant something, that portal tombs are intrinsically different from, for example, court or Cotswold-Severn tombs. One important distinction between portal tombs and other tomb types is that their builders mainly avoided the locales which had been used during the Late Mesolithic.

Chapter 9 investigated the phenomenon of portal tomb clusters. Eight clusters of portal tombs have been especially scrutinised, five in the northern part of Ireland, two in Wales and one in Cornwall. The history of research concerning megalithic clusters, complexes and cemeteries was discussed and the author’s preference for the use of the less value laden term ‘cluster’ was explained. Several research questions were posed.

The distribution map of Neolithic settlement sites is still so patchy that any overlap with portal tomb distribution does not really happen. This is especially the case in Wales and Cornwall. Some indirect evidence in the form of pollen profiles linked to portal tombs does exist, especially at Lough Sheeaun, 50m below a portal tomb (Molloy and O’Connell 1987), but there are no hutsites, settlements or field systems with a proven Neolithic date which are exclusively linked to a portal tomb. Some portal tombs have enclosures attached to them (e.g. Ballynacloghy, Co. Galway, Springfield, Co. Sligo and Ballintrillick, Co. Sligo) but none has been excavated. A dedicated research project finding the habitations of the portal tomb builders would be needed.

Not all of these questions could be satisfyingly answered. The relationship of portal tombs to settlements is still very opaque and the remains of hutsites, walls and field systems, if they do exist in the vicinity, are normally not placed in a relative chronology to the portal tombs in the area. Nevertheless, all eight areas showed forms of prehistoric settlement and both clusters in Wales are currently under investigation. The second question which has not been fully answered yet also concerns chronology: whether different portal tombs in one cluster belong to the same timeframe or not. Keeping in mind that the whole question of the dating of portal tombs and also of the dating of megaliths in Cornwall is still a matter of debate, this is not surprising. The finds evidence from two clusters where two portal tombs each were excavated does suggest that very different tombs in one cluster co-existed. For example, Pentre Ifan and Carreg Coetan in SW Wales both date back to the Early Neolithic.

11.3 The main research aims and questions: answers and interpretations Were portal tombs more likely to be constructed during the Early Neolithic or towards the Late Middle Neolithic? This has been one of the core questions. If the chronology of a monument is unknown it is virtually impossible to put it into any meaningful context. The finds analysis has shown that the majority of portal tombs were built during the Early Neolithic. This could be theoretically anytime from 4000 to 3500 BC depending when we believe carinated bowls ceased to be produced. The radiocarbon dates suggest that at least some portal tombs were built before 3600 cal BC, maybe as early as c. 4000 cal BC (see Bayesian modelling). The majority are certainly not

Chapter 10 tried to establish whether portal tombs can be used as a proxy to show the settlement patterns of Early Neolithic societies. After all, the landscape siting seems to suggest settlement. The first dataset consulted was the evidence for Late Mesolithic activities and settlements. If the transition from the Mesolithic to the Neolithic was a process of slow acculturation and a gradual shift of lifestyle and subsistence and if portal tombs can be set to the Early Neolithic, these should be an obvious overlap of

189

TATJANA KYTMANNOW

from the late Middle Neolithic to Late Neolithic, c. 3200 BC. In fact this seems to be a time frame which is relatively poorly re-presented by the finds evidence (see below). It remains to be seen if a small number of individual portal tombs might have been constructed that late in the Neolithic; such a date has been claimed as a possibility for Poulnabrone (Cooney 2000: 96).

suggested that portal tombs (which are the ones we are concerned with here) might be the translation into stone of an originally timber mortuary chamber. Unfortunately, the evidence for Ireland is lacking. It is possible that megalith building and deposition reached an apogee at around 3600 BC when several tomb types were built simultaneously and older ones enlarged (e.g. Carneddau Hengwm South), changed (e.g. Pentre Ifan) or appropriated (e.g. tomb 51 Carrowmore).

The dates for court tombs fall into the same period; the finds evidence suggests strongly contemporanity with portal tombs. There are only a handful of court tombs that have been dated either from bone samples or from a very secure context. These are certainly not earlier than the dates from portal tombs, in fact the earliest date to c. 3600 BC. A similar date comes from the only dated bone sample from tomb 51 at Carrowmore, Co. Sligo (Burenhult 1998). This tomb is supposed to be a passage tomb and the kerb circle and quite large cairn would certainly suggest this, but the chamber has portal tomb affinities. To confuse the picture further the first Linkardstown graves were probably built also at around 3600 cal BC (Brindley and Lanting 1990).

2. Could portal tombs have been ritually used over a long period of time, from the date of construction in the Neolithic up to the Early Bronze Age or even Iron Age, either continuously or episodically? The finds analysis suggests that there was a continued use of portal tombs through the Early Neolithic well into the Middle Neolithic. There are more well dated finds from the earlier parts of the Middle Neolithic, especially pottery. In contrast, the radiocarbon assays are spread quite evenly through the earlier Neolithic. There are finds from the Late Neolithic and Early Bronze Age (the latter quite often from secondary cists and chambers). Neither the finds nor the radiocarbon dates from these periods are very numerous and this might mean that there was a comparative lull in deposition episodes, a more sporadic, diachronic use after a continuous use during the Early Neolithic and the earlier part of the Middle Neolithic. Several tombs were re-used during the Middle Bronze Age; there are radiocarbon dates from this period from Ballykeel, Poulnabrone and Twlc y filiast, the latter two from bone. Pottery was also deposited, for example, in Ballykeel. There are very few Roman/Iron age finds and no burial deposits. For example, the beads from Dyffryn Ardudwy could have been just lost, according to Powell (1973). Apparently, portal tombs were not used to any great extent after the Middle Neolithic. This is in contrast to some passage tombs where Early Bronze Age burials can outnumber the Neolithic burials, e.g. Mound of the Hostages, Tara, Co. Meath (O’Sullivan 2006) and Iron Age burials are relatively frequent, e.g. tombs 26, 27, 51 at Carrowmore, Co. Sligo (Burenhult 1998) and Cairn H, Loughcrew, Co. Meath (McMann 1994: 526).

Even the most conservative estimate would place the start of the Neolithic in Ireland at c. 4000 BC (Cooney 2000: 13; O’ Connell and Malloy 2001) with similar dates for Britain (Milisauskas and Kruk 2002: 193). The earliest pottery, Carinated Bowls, seems to have arrived simultaneously in Britain and Ireland around 4000 cal BC as a fully developed artefact type with close similarities in the Low Countries and Northern France (Gibson 2002: 69-70). Sheridan (2000; 2006) makes a case for the simultaneous arrival from the continent of very simple passage tombs such as, for example, Achnacreebeag in Scotland. She suggests that the morphologically similar megaliths in the north of Ireland should be of comparable date, using a cultural-historical chain of evidence, despite the fact that no Early Neolithic finds have been found in any of the passage tombs of Ireland. The recently obtained dates from human bone samples from court tombs and portal tombs (chapter 6) came back quite a bit later as could have been expected, and this could imply that the first megaliths are not part of the first phase of the Neolithic in Ireland. This is at least partly contradicted by the three very early dates from Poulnabrone. However, there is good reason to believe that the spread of farming was not exclusively linked to megaliths in any case. There is now substantial evidence for Early Neolithic settlement in areas of Ireland which are not linked to Early Neolithic megaliths at all (Grogan 2004). Unfortunately, settlement evidence in Wales and south-west England is very sparse and not enough data exist to discuss Early Neolithic settlement evidence in context with or without the spread of megaliths in these regions. Sheridan (2006) summarized the case for a nonmegalithic funerary tradition in early Neolithic Ireland which might have pre-dated megalithic monuments in some regions while in others it could have remained the dominant form of mortuary monument. She also

The term ‘continuous use’ could be misleading and it is not meant to imply that burials were frequent and all people who died in the community were interred there. The cremated remains seem to be hardly more than token deposits (but decay in acidic soil might account for the small amounts), and there is not a single instance of the cremated remains of a whole body having been recovered. There are no articulated skeletons attested and even the tomb with the largest MNI, Poulnabrone, would have been used for only one or two individuals per generation. Herity’s (1987) analysis of finds from court tombs suggests an equally long timeframe of usage and a very similar assemblage. One remarkable difference is that court tombs contain burnt lithics which are extremely rare

190

THE CHRONOLOGY, MORPHOLOGY AND LANDSCAPE SETTING OF THE PORTAL TOMBS

Plate 11.1: Malin More A, western chamber, Co. Donegal

in portal tombs (58 from court tombs against 3 from portal tombs). Especially intriguing are the burnt and broken arrowheads which were found with cremations in court tombs. They could have been actually inside the bodies when they were cremated. One possible interpretation could be that persons who died for the community were selected for this special burial rite.

broken inside the chamber. These abrasions are mild, but probably ancient and the most likely scenario is that they have been introduced into the chamber after having spent some time in a refuse pit (Eoin Grogan pers. comm.). Clearly, these are not ‘grave goods’ in the conventional sense; they are not meant for use in the afterlife. The pottery, lithics debitage, animal parts and burnt wood are as dead and broken as the individuals who were interred, and as incomplete. It could have been part of a fertility ritual to deposit the contents of refuse middens or pits. This opens the questions how old this settlement debris potentially could have been and if the organic, lithic and ceramic fragments are in any way related to the persons who were buried. Future research might be able to answer some of these questions; more precise dating which also only needs tiny amounts of material could be able to link ceramics, cremations, animal bones and inhumations.

The deposits of pottery, charcoal and the occasional animal bone have been interpreted as the remains of funeral feasts (e.g. Waddell 1998: 103). This does not explain the large amount of lithic debitage found in portal tombs. Given the size of the average chamber it is highly unlikely that any flint knapping would have happened inside. There is also no direct chronological relation between individual deposits of human bone and pottery; they can date to very different times, as in Ballyrenan, Co. Tyrone. In any case, not one pot could be reconstructed from the broken remains. In the case of chamber contents this might be easily explained by frequent disturbances and robbing, but in contrast to bone the decay of pottery would not have been substantially speeded up by such disturbances and sherds of undecorated pottery had very little attraction for the average grave robber. Therefore, it is possible that only fragments were interred. This speaks for a conscious decision, as part of the ritual. Having had a closer look again at some of the sherds from Early Neolithic pottery from portal tombs, the grade of abrasion of the broken pieces suggests that they have spent some time in a broken state and were moved around, and had not been

The present author has some difficulties with the frequent interpretation that megalithic tombs were part of an ancestor cult (amongst many others Parker Pearson 1993: 40-43). The minimum requirement for being an ancestor should be that the dead person had descendents and that would certainly rule out children and infants. One possible interpretation for the insertion of small amounts of finely ground cremated bone could be a form of fertility cult. 3. Are portal tombs rather simple structures, for example, similar to the small subsidiary side chambers of court tombs or do they mostly involve a more complicated 191

TATJANA KYTMANNOW

The stones for portal tombs were very carefully selected, possibly to fit the capstones. This required planning, knowledge, experience and direction of a well organized group.

architecture? Furthermore, are sub-types or regional variations apparent? Portal tombs are actually usually very skilfully constructed structures. A modern community would be hard pressed to re-build a portal tomb, complete with massive capstones, full doorstones wedged firmly between the pointed high portal stones, a second capstone and a padstone or two placed between the two capstones.

While there are a couple of small portal tombs without capstones which have a fleeting resemblance to the larger side chambers of some massive court tombs, these are very much the exception. Furthermore, the present author has suggested four sub-types. The investigation of portal tomb clusters showed that these differences are likely to be intentional and not a coincidence which could have been dictated by the availability of different stones. These variations are especially pronounced where there is plenty of the same type and size of stones available, i.e. in the same cluster. Even if somebody would argue that the subtypes are mainly defined by size, the fact remains that very different tombs were built in one cluster.

Looking at the plans of portal tombs they seem often quite simple, for example, a tripod dolmen, especially if compared with the complicated plans of some court tombs. But this modern bird’s-eye view is misleading. Portal tombs were meant to be viewed from the side or even from slightly below the structure. They are vertical structures. Court tombs, for example, are very much built to a horizontal plan, even emphasizing the empty space between the stones, i.e. the court. Anybody who ever has tried to photograph court tombs and portal tombs will share this sentiment, the first look best on aerial photographs and are otherwise quite un-photogenic and often impossible to capture in one picture (plates 11.2 and 11.3).

The interpretation that portal tombs are simple structures that have evolved or degenerated from court tombs date to the very beginnings of megalithic survey. Fewer tombs were known then and the evolutionists’ theories employed to bring order into the chaos have, of course, not stood the test of time. Furthermore, one tomb class can only evolve from the other if one is markedly earlier. It has been shown in this volume that this is not the case with court and portal tombs; they are distinct classes of broadly the same timeframe. The modern depiction and study of megaliths through plans make portal tombs look simpler than they actually are. There are variations which are repeated, and some are regional, i.e. subtypes. Multichambered tombs do not occur in the south of Ireland, small tombs in large round cairns only occur in the northern part of Ireland and double-capstoned portal tombs are unknown in Britain. There are also no clusters in the south of Ireland. The largest variety can be found in the northern part of Ireland, this is also the area where portal tombs are most numerous. If we were dealing with a biological species, it could be argued that portal tombs first appeared here. 4. What can the landscape siting tell us about the beliefs of the builders? Are there any patterns apparent? Portal tomb builders followed very strict rules when it came to the placing of the tomb in the landscape. Some of them are not only patterns, they are laws. The few exceptions to these rules are the result of landscape changes since the Neolithic, such as bog formation or could occasionally be the result of miss-classification, such as at Marblehill and Menlough, both Co. Galway. The vast majority is parallel to streams, and more often than not they face upstream, towards the source. Less strong rules or patterns are also identifiable. Clusters of portal tombs were attracted to strange watery features, where water disappears, such as massive sinkholes and vanishing lakes, or appears, such as spring wells. Apart from the above mentioned clusters, one portal tomb in the

Plates 11.2 and 11.3: Different views of Creevykeel Court tomb, Co. Sligo

192

THE CHRONOLOGY, MORPHOLOGY AND LANDSCAPE SETTING OF THE PORTAL TOMBS

Burren, Co. Clare, Ballycasheen, is located 600m north of a massive spring well, the source of the River Fergus. This is also the southern edge of the dense clusters of megalithic tombs at Roughan Hill. The large mixed cluster of megalithic tombs at Moytirra, Co. Sligo, is located close to a vanishing lake, Lough Nasool (plates 11.4 and 11.5), which empties about once every 30 years, such as in 2006. Two portal tombs are located there; the massive one at Carrickglass is the closest to the lake at 1.4km and the recently re-discovered tomb at Moytirra West further up.

5. Is there any patterning in the siting of portal tombs on a large scale (i.e. throughout their overall Irish Sea distribution area), or does it vary from region to region? How does portal tomb distribution compare with settlement and palaeoenvironmental evidence within the time-frame of their construction and use? Within the eight macro-regions, i.e. monument clusters that include three or more portal tombs, how do the portal tombs relate to each other and to the other types of monument? There are similarities and certain rules how portal tombs relate to each other and to other tombs in a cluster (see above). However, these rules are not as strong as the ones which dictate the location of the portal tomb in the locales, the micro-region. Generally, there has been no research into the habitations of portal tomb builders and this would be a most urgent avenue of future research. This would also include other settlement evidence, environmental evidence and the interrelationship, chronological and otherwise, between different portal tombs and between portal tombs and other tomb types, especially court tombs and simple dolmens. The finds evidence suggests that large portal tombs are every bit as early as small ones. This is not the case if two portal tombs are not only in one cluster, but actually in one cairn. The two chambers at Dyffryn Ardudwy were built one after the other, the larger tomb which is also higher up the slope, being the later one. Portal tombs in one cluster are as different from each other as possible. More often than not the highest tomb is also the largest and has the best view. Inter-visibility between portal tombs is not necessary and the often spectacular landscape of mountains and sea is not used to great effect. The relationship to other tomb classes which date to the approximate same time frame is one of equality, but later tombs such as most passage tombs and wedge tombs appear to dominate the landscape by occupying conspicuous hilltops and local eminences. There is no necessity for a focal monument, but larger portal tombs might have served a larger community, implied by the views over more acres of land and by the fact that they needed a much larger group of people to construct them than an average or small portal tomb.

Plates 11.4 and 11.5: The ‘vanished’ Lough Nasool, Co. Sligo.

Water plays a part in many religions, for cleansing purposes or imbued with magical and healing powers as in Holy Wells. It is a reasonable interpretation that portal tomb builders had a special affinity to water, seeking small streams, but keeping a respectful distance from large lakes and rivers, while ignoring the sea as much as possible. The landscape siting is most likely an integral part of the belief system.

The landscapes portal tombs are located in are often so diverse that a whole range of landscape features could have played a role. This has been claimed for rock outcrops, islands, headlands and mountains (Tilley 1994); the relationship to sea and rivers has been already discussed above. While this is imaginable for individual tombs, no rules or patterns have emerged.

If megaliths indeed in some way do advertise territories (e.g. Mallory and McNeill 1995: 80) than it also makes sense that the landscape siting was carefully chosen as part of such territory. These landscape elements even could be used as a justification to claim an area by a certain group, along the lines that portal tomb builders have been given a sign by the deities to own this land and build a tomb here.

There are still many open questions concerning portal tombs. One which so much occupied antiquarians, the origins of portal tombs (or megaliths in general), has not even been touched upon. There are mainly two schools of

193

TATJANA KYTMANNOW

Plate 11.6: Dolmen with a short passage, Evora, Portugal

thought: either portal tombs as an independent class were introduced from outside by migration, diffusion of ideas and people, or they are the answer to similar needs by a similarly structured society, i.e. they developed more or less independently. The latter seems to make sense when we look at megaliths in Colombia, Korea and Madagascar. The present author would interpret the presence of megaliths in Britain and Ireland as the diffusion of ideas, brought by small scale immigration and exchange of goods, and falling there onto fertile ground by finding the right social conditions: early agriculturists who wanted to put a claim on the land they made arable with so much hard work. This process might have happened several times. Firstly, several generations after the introduction of agriculture, around 3850 BC, and secondly when the society changed from small tribal groups to more centralized and stratified societies, c. 3600 BC. It seems likely that portal tombs were amongst the earliest megaliths on Britain and Ireland. The suggestion that portal tombs had a developmental precursor in non-megalithic funerary traditions (Sheridan 2006) has been mentioned above.

and western France which are all early, earlier than passage tombs (Müller 1999), but there are no close parallels which possess the same defining criteria. While the idea erecting large monuments of stone was most likely introduced, portal tombs are only found in Britain and Ireland and have most likely developed there. This leaves still one question open. If court tombs and portal tombs are contemporary and appear to have a relationship of equality in areas where they both occur, why are portal tombs apparently missing in areas where court tombs (or Clyde cairns) are present and which monuments could have fulfilled the role court tombs did in areas such as Cornwall, SW Wales and southern Ireland? In several areas in Britain simple rectangular tombs with or without portal stones occur. Darvill (1982; 2004) has suggested that portal tombs had been built as far east as Oxfordshire, an idea he had taken up from Corcoran (1969). Lambrick (1988) in his discussion of the ‘Whispering Knights’ made a similar claim. All these tombs in question are simple, rectangular structures in more or less ruined state. None of them has the defining criteria of a portal tomb and Darvill seems to be a bit too eager to assign this classification. Simple chambers exist

Are portal tombs replicas of very similar tombs on the continent, where megaliths had possibly been built for several centuries (Scarre 1992; 2001)? There are very simple dolmens in Portugal (plate 11.6), Spain, Brittany,

194

THE CHRONOLOGY, MORPHOLOGY AND LANDSCAPE SETTING OF THE PORTAL TOMBS

in every megalithic region and Darvill and Corcoran could be following a circular argument here: portal tombs are simple structures; hence these simple structures are portal tombs. This would need further exploration, starting with some dating evidence. In Scotland Scott (1969) and Henshall (1963; 1972: 252) have noticed that some relatively simple chambers have large portal stones in front of them. Henshall shows a refreshingly detailed knowledge about the various forms portal tombs can take: multi-chambered, large, small, isolated or with porticos (1972: 252, 255) and concludes that it is precisely this difficulty in classifying some of these chambers that suggests an essential unity of the type. She comes to the sober conclusion that simple rectangular chambers can be traced throughout the Irish Sea area and that portal tombs are just one possible manifestation of them, but one which does not occur in Scotland (1972: 256).

hunter-foragers of Sligo Bay (Burenhult 2005). A welldesigned research program using new AMS dates from still existing cremated bones could answer many of the chronological questions. The location of settlements and subsistence evidence in relation to portal tombs has never been investigated. The advances in geo-physical surveying would make a search for houses, pits, fieldwalls and other structures a most promising prospect and even several small valleys containing portal tombs could be compared for patterns. Ideally, a mixed cluster of portal tombs and other megaliths should be investigated to clarify the chronology and interrelationship of portal tombs with each other and other tomb types, the chronology of burial and other deposits and the relationship to settlements. 11.5 The contribution of the study to the field of research

Not in a single region of the ‘Irish Sea Area’ does there exist only one class of tomb, and not a single class is restricted to only one region. A large variety of ‘pairings’ between different tomb classes are imaginable, such as between portal tombs and court tombs in Ireland: Cotswold-Severn tombs and portal tombs or other simple chambers; Clyde cairns and simple tombs with or without portals; Cornish portal tombs and long barrows; and many more. All of these probably contemporary tombs form also ‘hybrids’ and some of them have been mentioned in the present volume, e.g. Bearah Common, Cornwall. However, portal tombs only exist in the aforementioned eight regions (fig. 1.2). If this volume has shed some light on the likely chronology of portal tombs, this should also open the door to more discussions of interrelationships with other tomb classes or monuments.

This has been a very traditional, nearly old-fashioned study, giving a synthesis of the previous research and examining many aspects of the subject: theory, excavation history and finds, dating, morphology and classification over the whole area of distribution. The two factors which made this possible and worthwhile are: a) portal tombs are the least researched of all megaliths in Ireland and possibly of Britain and Ireland, while having one of the widest distributions, and b) the number of tombs and excavations made it possible to cover 100% of them. At the start of the study the dating of cremated bone just became possible and opened up another avenue of research: absolute dating. It has been stated above that the present author invites every reader to do more statistical analysis if they wish, hence the provision of the full database with this publication. Furthermore, the data could be compared with existing and future research, devided into more or different regions as the author has done, or other data could be integrated. The finds catalogue could be used as a basis for more detailed pottery analysis and as a start for more investigation into the lithics from megalithic tombs. This study should be the start of a new discussion of portal tombs, and not the end of it.

There can be little doubt that the east and west side of the Irish Sea Area were in contact during the earlier Neolithic (e.g. Sheridan 2004), even the exact relationships are still quite opaque. Cooney (2001) has alerted us to the dangers of transporting one concept into other regions of the Irish Sea Area. Portal tombs are just one link which unite the Irish Sea Area and other links, as for example simple passage tombs or certain types of artefacts, could be investigated further using the now available methods of better scientific dating to move away from culturalhistorical discussions. 11.4

Future research

To shed more light on the different influences we would need more dating. So far, we have only scratched the surface at understanding the relative chronology of megaliths of the Atlantic fringe. The dating of tiny scraps of bone and even cremated bone has only become possible over the past 5 years. There are several areas which claim to have the earliest megaliths: Portugal, western France, north-east Poland and the west of Ireland (Müller 1999), the latter allegedly built by semi-settled

195

TATJANA KYTMANNOW

Bibliography Aalen, F.H.A., Whelan, K. and Stout, M (eds). 1997. Atlas of the Irish Rural Landscape. Cork: Cork University Press.

Bakker, J.A. 1992. The Dutch Hunebedden- Megalithic tombs of the Funnel beaker culture. Ann Arbor: International Monographs in Prehistory.

Alcock, O., de hÓra, K., and Gosling, P. 1999. Archaeological Inventory of County Galway, Volume II, North Galway. Dublin. Stationery Office.

Bamforth, D. B. and Woodman, P.C., 2004. Tool hoards and Neolithic use of landscape in north-eastern Ireland. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 23 (1), 21-44.

Anon. Antiquities of the Cornish Countryside. A field guide to Cornwall’s prehistoric monuments. Truro: Tor Mark Press.

Barker, C.T. 1992. The Chambered Tombs of South-West Wales. A re-assessment of the Neolithic burial monuments of Carmarthenshire and Pembrokeshire. Oxbow Monograph 14. Oxford: Oxbow Books.

Anon. 2002. Neolithic House in Cork. Archaeology Ireland 61, 6.

Barker, H. 1970. A Symposium on Natural Sciences on Archaeology Philosophical Transactions of the London. Series A, Mathematical and Vol. 269, No. 1193,), 37-45

Anon. 2005a. Archaeological discoveries: N25 Waterford City Bypass, Counties Waterford and Kilkenny, National Roads Authority, Dublin. Anon. 2005b. Archaeological discoveries: N2 Carrickmacross Bypass, County Monaghan, National Roads Authority, Dublin.

the Impact of the (Dec. 17, 1970 Royal Society of Physical Sciences,

Barnatt, J. 1982. Prehistoric Cornwall. The Ceremonial Monuments. Wellingborough: Turnstone. Barrett, J. C. 1999. Chronologies of landscape. In P. J. Ucko and R. Layton (eds). 1999. The Archaeology and Anthropology of Landscape. Shaping your landscape. London: Routledge, 21-30.

Anon. 2005c. Neolithic wetland settlement in Magheracar townland. Archaeological discoveries. N15 Bundoran-Ballyshannon Bypass, County Donegal. National Roads Authority.

Beckett, J. 2005. Selective Burial in Irish Megalithic Tombs: Burial Practice, Age, Sex, and Representation in the Neolithic. Investigating Selective Burial Practices in the Irish Neolithic. In S.R. Zakrzesksi and M. Clegg (eds) Proceedings of the Fifth Annual Conference of the British association for Biological Anthropology and Osteoarchaeology. British Archaeological Reports International Series 1383. Oxford: BAR Publishing, 31-39.

ApSimon, A. 1986. The Chronological Contexts for Irish Megalithic Tombs. The Journal of Irish Archaeology III, 5-15. Armit,I. and Finlayson, B. 1992. The transition to agriculture in northern and western Europe. Antiquity 66, 664-76.

Beckett, J. and Robb, J. 2005. Neolithic burial taphonomy, ritual, and interpretation in Britain and Ireland: a review. In R. Gowland and C. Knüsel. (eds) The Social Anthropology of Funerary Remains. Oxford: Oxbow, 57-80.

Ashbee, P. 1974. Ancient Scilly. From the first farmers to the early Christians. Newton Abbot: David and Charles. Ashbee, P. 1976. Bant’s Carn, St. Mary’s, Isles of Scilly: an entrance grave restored and reconsidered. Cornish Archaeology 15, 11-26.

Bell, P. and Wright, D. 1988. Gesteine und ihre Mineralien finden und bestimmen. Stuttgart: Kosmos, Franckh’sche Verlagshandlung.

Ashbee, P. 1986. Ancient Scilly: retrospect, aspect and prospect. Cornish Archaeology 25, 186-219.

Bell, T., O’Sullivan, A. and Quinn, Discovering ancient landscapes under Archaeology Ireland 76, 12-17.

Ashmore, P.J. 1996. Neolithic and Bronze Age Scotland. London: Batsford Books/ Historic Scotland. Ashmore, P.J. 1999. Radiocarbon dating: avoiding errors by avoiding mixed samples. Antiquity 73, 124-30.

R. 2006. the sea.

Bender, B. 1992. Theorising landscapes, and the prehistoric landscapes of Stonehenge. MAN 27, 735-755.

Atkinson, R.J.C. 1961. Neolithic Engineering. Antiquity 35, 292-299.

Bender, B., Hamilton, S. and Tilley, C. 1997. Leskernick: Stone Worlds: Alternative Narratives; Nested

196

THE CHRONOLOGY, MORPHOLOGY AND LANDSCAPE SETTING OF THE PORTAL TOMBS

Landscapes. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 63, 147-178.

Brennan, N. E. 1982. The excavation of a megalith in Radergan townland, County Tyrone. Ulster Journal of Archaeology 44&45, 188-189.

Bergh, S. 1995. Landscape of the Monuments. A study of the passage tombs in the Cúil Irra region, Co. Sligo, Ireland. Stockholm.

Briard, J. 1997. The Megaliths of Brittany. English edition. Luçon: Éditions Gisserot.

Bergh, S. 2000. Transforming Knocknarea –the archaeology of a mountain. Archaeology Ireland. Vol. 14 no. 2 .14-18.

Brindley, A. L. 1986. The Archaeological Inventory of County Monaghan. Dublin: Stationery Office. Brindley, A. L. 1988. Aghnaskeagh A, County Louth: The Portal Dolmen and the Cemetery Cairn. Journal of the County Louth Historical and archaeological Society 11, 4, 394-397.

Berridge, P. and Roberts, A. 1986. The Mesolithic period. Cornish Archaeology 25, 7-34. Borlase, W. 1769. Antiquities, historical and monumental, of the County of Cornwall (2nd ed.). London: W.Bowyer and J. Nichols.

Brindley, A. L. and Kilfeather, A. 1993. The Archaeological Inventory of County Carlow. Dublin: Stationery Office.

Borlase, W.C. 1872. Naenia Cornubiae. The Cromlechs and Tumuli of Cornwall. London: Longmans, Green, Reader

Brindley, A. L. and Lanting, J. N. 1990. Radiocarbon dates for Neolithic single burials. Journal of Irish Archaeology 5: 1-7.

Borlase, W.C. 1897. The Dolmens of Ireland. London: Chapman and Hall.

Brindley, A. L. and Lanting, J. N. 1992. Radiocarbon dates from Wedge Tombs. Journal of Irish Archaeology 6: 16-19.

Bowden, M. (ed.) 1999. Unravelling the Landscape. An Inquisitive Approach to Archaeology, Stroud: Tempus.

Brindley, A. L. and Lanting, J. N. 1995. Irish bog bodies: the radiocarbon dates. In R. C. Turner andR. G. Scaife (eds) Bog Bodies: New Discoveries and New Perspectives. London: British Museum Press, 133-6.

Bradley, R. 1989a. Monuments and Places. In P. Garwood, D. Jennings, R. Skeates, and J. Toms, (eds). Sacred and Profane. Oxford: Oxford University College, 135-140.

Brück, J. 1998. In the Footsteps of the Ancestors: a Review of Christopher Tilley’s ‘A Phenomenology of Landscapes: Places, Paths and Monuments’. Archaeological Review from Cambridge 15, 23-36.

Bradley, R. 1989b. Darkness and light in the design of megalithic tombs. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 8(3), 251-9.

Buckley, V. M. 1986. The Archaeological Inventory of County Louth. Dublin: Stationery Office.

Bradley, R. 1993. Altering the Earth, London: Routledge. Bradley, R. 1997. Rock Art and the Prehistory of Atlantic Europe, London: Routledge.

Buckley, V. M. and Sweetman, P.D. 1991. The Archaeological Survey of County Louth. Dublin: Stationery Office.

Bradley, R. 1998a. Ruined buildings, ruined stones: enclosures, tombs and natural places in the Neolithic of south-west England. World Archaeology 30 (1), 13-22.

Buick, G.R. 1895. Irish flint arrow-heads. Journal of the Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland 25, 59.

Bradley, R. 1998b. The Significance of Monuments. On the Shaping of Human Experience in Neolithic and Bronze Age Europe, London: Routledge.

Burenhult, G. 1980a. The Archaeological Excavations at Carrowmore, Co. Sligo, Ireland: Excavation Season 1977-79. Theses and Papers in North-European Archaeology 9, University of Stockholm.

Bradley, R. 2000. The Archaeology of Natural Places. London: Routledge.

Burenhult, G. 1980b. The Carrowmore excavations: Excavation Season 1980. Stockholm Archaeological Reports 7, University of Stockholm.

Bradley, R. 2001. Orientation and origins: a symbolic dimension to the long house in Neolithic Europe. Antiquity 75, 50-6.

Burenhult, G. 1981. The Carrowmore excavations: Excavation Season 1981. Stockholm Archaeological Reports 8, University of Stockholm.

Bradley, R. 2002. The Past in Prehistoric Societies. London: Routledge.

197

TATJANA KYTMANNOW

Burenhult, G. 1984 (ed.). The Archaeology of Carrowmore. Environmental Archaeology and the Megalithic Tradition at Carrowmore, Co. Sligo, Ireland. Theses and Papers in North-European Archaeology 14, University of Stockholm.

Case, H. 1961. Irish Neolithic pottery: distribution and sequence. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 27, 174233. Caseldine, A. 1980. Environmental change in Cornwall during the last 13,000 years. Cornish Archaeology 19, 316.

Burenhult, G. 1999. The Swedish Archaeological Excavations at Carrowmore, Co. Sligo, Ireland. Excavation report 1998. Unpublished report. On file with Office of Public Works Sligo/Leitrim, Dromahaire, Co. Leitrim.

Caseldine, A. 1990. Environmental Archaeology in Wales. Lampeter: Cadw and St. David’s University College, Lampeter.

Burenhult, G. 2001. The Illustrated Guide to the Megalithic Cemetery of Carrowmore, Co. Sligo. Tjönarp: Göran Burenhult.

Cauldfield, S., O’Donnell, R. G. and Mitchell, P. I. 1998. 14C Dating of a Neolithic Field System at Céide Fields, County Mayo, Ireland. Radiocarbon, 40, 2. 629-640.

Burenhult, G. 2003. The chronology of Carrowmore. In G. Burenhult (ed) Stones and Bones. Formal disposal of the dead in Atlantic Europe during the Mesolithic/Neolithic interface 6000-3000 BC. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports, International Series 1201, 66-69.

Chart, D.A. (ed) 1940. Preliminary Survey of the Ancient Monuments of Northern Ireland. Belfast: H.M. Stationery Office. Chapman, J. 1997a. Landscape in Flux and Colonisation of Time. In J. Chapman and P. Dolukhanov (eds.). 1997. Landscapes in Flux. Central and Eastern Europe in Antiquity. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 1-21.

Burenhult, G. 2005. Carrowmore-tombs for hunters. British Archaeology 82, 22-27.

Chapman, J. 1997b. Places as Timemarks-the Social Construction of Prehistoric Landscapes in Eastern Hungary. In J. Chapman and P. Dolukhanov (eds.). 1997. Landscapes in Flux. Central and Eastern Europe in Antiquity. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 137-161.

Burl, A. 1985. Megalithic Brittany: a guide to over 350 sites and monuments. London: Thames and Hudson. Burl, A. 1991. Megalithic myth or man the mover. Antiquity 65, 297.

Chapman, H. P. and Geary, B. R. 2000. Palaeoecology and the perception of prehistoric landscapes: some comments on visual approaches to phenomenology. Antiquity, 316-19.

Burl, A. 2000. The stone circles of Britain, Ireland and Brittany. London, New Haven: Yale University Press. Burrow, S. 2001. Reuniting the Dyffryn Ardudwy Pendants. Archaeologia Cambrensis 148, 203-206.

Children, G. and Nash, G. 1997. The Anthropology of Landscape: A Guide to Neolithic Sites in Cardiganshire, Carmarthenshire & Pembrokeshire. Woonton Almley: Logaston Press.

Burrow, S. 2003. 'Catalogue of the Mesolithic and Neolithic Collections in the National Museums & Galleries of Wales'. Cardiff: National Museum Wales Books.

Clarke, S.R. 2006. Irish Court Tombs: Structure, Morphology and Landscape Setting. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, School of Geography, Archaeology and Palaeoecology, Queen’s University Belfast. Cody, E. 2002. Survey of the Megalithic Tombs of Ireland. Vol. VI. County Donegal. Dublin. Stationery Office.

Butler, C. 2005. Prehistoric Flintwork. Stroud: Tempus Burrow, S. 2006. The Tomb Builders in Wales 4000-3000 BC. Cardiff: National Museum Wales Books. Byrne, G. 1991. Rathlacken, Co. Mayo. In I. Bennett (ed.) Excavations 1990. Dublin: Wordwell, 46.

Coffey, G. 1912. New Grange and Other Incised Tumuli in Ireland. Dublin.

Byrne, G. 1993. Rathlacken, Co. Mayo. In I. Bennett (ed.) Excavations 1992. Dublin: Wordwell, 49.

Collins, A.E.P.1957. A destroyed burial chamber at ‘’Edenville’’, Ballygraffan, Co. Down. Ulster Journal of Archaeology 20, 35-36

Byrne, G. 1994. Rathlacken, Co. Mayo. In I. Bennett (ed.) Excavations 1993. Dublin: Wordwell,61-2.

Collins, A.E.P.1959. Kilfeaghan Dolmen, Co. Down. Ulster Journal of Archaeology 22, 31-2.

Byrne, G. 2002. Rathlacken Prehistoric Landscape. Unpublished paper. On file with author.

198

THE CHRONOLOGY, MORPHOLOGY AND LANDSCAPE SETTING OF THE PORTAL TOMBS

Collins, A.E.P. 1965. Ballykeel dolmen and cairn, Co. Armagh. Ulster Journal of Archaeology 28. 47-70.

Cooney, G. 2001. Bringing Contemporary Baggage to Neolithic Landscapes. In B. Bender and M. Winer, 2001. Contested Landscapes: Movement , Exile and Place. Oxford: Berg, 165-180.

Collins, A.E.P. 1973. A re-examination of the ClydeCarlingford Tombs. In G. Daniel and P. Kjaerum (eds) Megalithic Graves and Ritual. Jutland Archaeological Society Publications. Nordisk Forlag: Copenhagen, 93103.

Cooney, G. 2002. So Many Shades of Rock: Colour Symbolism and Irish Stone Axeheads. . In A. Jones and G. MacGregor. Colouring the Past: the significance of colour in archaeological research. Berg: Oxford, 93-108.

Collins, A.E.P. and Wilson, B. 1963. The Slieve Gullion cairns. Ulster Journal of Archaeology 26, 19-40.

Cooney, G. 2006. Newgrange – a view from the platform. Antiquity 80, 697-710.

Conwell, E. 1866a. On Ancient Remains, Hitherto Undescribed, in the County of Meath. Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy 9, 42-50.

Cooney, G. and Grogan, E. 1994. Irish Prehistory: A social Perspective. Dublin: Wordwell. Corcoran, J.X.W.P. 1969. The Cotswold-Severn group 1. Distribution, Morphology, and Artefacts. 2. Discussion. In T. G. E. Powell, J. X. W. P. Corcoran, F. Lynch and J. G. Scott (eds.). 1969. Megalithic Enquiries in the West of Britain. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press. 13-106.

Conwell, E. 1866b. On an Inscribed Cromleac near Rathkenny, Co. Meath. Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy 9, 541-5. Cooney, G. 1979. Some aspects of the siting of megalithic tombs in County Leitrim. Journal of the Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland 115. 156-7.

Corcoran, J.X.W.P. 1972. Multi-period construction and the origins of the chambered long cairn in western Britain and Ireland. In F.M. Lynch and C. Burgess (eds.) 1972. Prehistoric Man in Wales and the West. Bath: Adams and Dart, 31-63.

Cooney, G. 1983. Megalithic tombs in their environmental setting: a settlement perspective. In T. Reeves-Smith and F. Hamond (eds.) Landscape Archaeology in Ireland. Oxford: BAR, British Series 116, 179-194.

Corcoran, J.X.W.P. 1973. The Chambered Cairns of the Carlingford Culture, an Enquiry into Origins. In G. Daniel and P. Kjaerum (eds) Megalithic Graves and Ritual. Jutland Archaeological Society Publications. Nordisk Forlag: Copenhagen, 105-116.

Cooney, G. 1986. Melkagh. In C. Cotter (ed). Excavations 1985. 28. Dublin. Wordwell. Cooney, G. 1987. ‘Dermot and Grania’s bed’, Melkagh. In C. Cotter (ed). Excavations 1986. 30. Dublin. Wordwell.

Coughlan, T. 1996. Portal tomb environs at Taylor’s Grange, Brehon’s Chair, Co. Dublin. In I. Bennett (ed) Excavations 1995. Dublin. Wordwell.

Cooney, G. 1994. Sacred and secular neolithic landscapes in Ireland. In Carmichael, D.L., Hubert, J., Reeves, B. and Schanche, A. (eds.)1994. Sacred Sites, Sacred Places. London: Routledge.

Cummings, V. 2001. Landscapes in transition? Exploring the origins of monumentality in south-west Wales and south-west Scotland. PhD thesis, Cardiff University.

Cooney, G. 1997a. Images of settlement and the landscape in the Neolithic. In P. Topping (ed.). 1997. Neolithic Landscapes. Oxford: Oxbow, 23-32.

Cummings, V. 2002a. Between Mountains and Sea: a reconsideration of the Neolithic Monuments of Southwest Scotland. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 68, 125-46.

Cooney, G. 1997b. Excavation of the portal tomb site at Melkagh, Co. Longford. Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy 97C, 195-244.

Cummings, V. 2002b. All cultural things: actual and conceptual monuments in the Neolithic of western Britain. In C. Scarre (ed.) 2002. Monuments and Landscape in Atlantic Europe. Perception and Society during the Neolithic and Early Bronze Age. London: Routledge, 107-121.

Cooney, G. 1999. Social landscapes in Irish prehistory. . In P. J. Ucko and R. Layton (eds.). 1999. The Archaeology and Anthropology of Landscape. Shaping your landscape. London: Routledge, 46-64.

Cummings, V. 2002c. Experiencing texture and transformation in the British Neolithic. Oxford Journal of Archaeology, 21, 3, 249-61.

Cooney, G. 2000. Landscapes of Neolithic Ireland. London: Routledge.

199

TATJANA KYTMANNOW

Cummings, V. 2003. The origins of monumentality? Mesolithic world-views of the landscape in western Britain. In L. Larson (ed.) Proceedings of the Mesolithic 2000 conference. Oxford: Oxbow, 75-81.

Darvill, T., Gerrard, C and Startin, B. 1993. Identifying and protecting historic landscapes. Antiquity 67. 563-74. Darvill, T. and Wainwright. 2002. SPACES- exploring Neolithic landscapes in the Strumble-Preseli area of southwest Wales. Antiquity 76, 623-4.

Cummings, V. 2004. Connecting the mountains and the sea: the monuments of the eastern Irish Sea zone. In V. Cummings and C. Fowler (eds.) The Neolithic of the Irish Sea: Materiality and Traditions of Practice. Oxford: Oxbow, 29-36.

Darvill, T. and Wainwright, G. 2003. A Cup-marked Stone from Dan-y-garn, Mynachlog-Ddu, Pembrokeshire, and the Prehistoric Rock-art from Wales. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 69, 253-264.

Cummings, V. and Whittle, A. 2003. Tombs with a view: Landscape, monuments and trees. Antiquity, 77, 296, 255-266.

Darvill, T. and Wainwright, G. 2002. Strumble-Preseli Ancient Communities and Environment Study (SPACES): First Report. Archaeology in Wales 42, 1728.

Cummings, V. and Whittle, A. 2004. Places of special virtue: megaliths in the Neolithic Landscapes of Wales. Oxford: Oxbow.

Darvill, T., Evans, D. M. and Wainwright, G. 2003. Strumble-Preseli Ancient Communities and Environment Study (SPACES): Second Report. Archaeology in Wales 43, 3-12.

Cummings, V., Jones, A. and Watson, A. 2002. Divided Places: Phenomenology and asymmetry in the monuments of the Black Mountains, Southeast Wales. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 12, 1, 57-70.

Darvill, T., Evans, D. M. and Wainwright, G. 2004. Strumble-Preseli Ancient Communities and Environment Study (SPACES): Third Report. Archaeology in Wales 44, 104-109.

Curran Mulligan, P. 1994 Yes, but it is art. Archaeology Ireland 27, 14-15.

David, A. and Walker, E. 2004. Wales during the Mesolithic Period. In A. Saville (edt.) Mesolithic Scotland and its Neighbours. Edinburgh: Society of Antiquaries of Scotland, 299-337.

Daniel, G. E. 1937. The Four Crosses burial chamber, Caernarvonshire. Archaeologia Cambrensis 92, 165-7. Daniel, G. E. 1950. The Prehistoric Chamber Tombs of England and Wales. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Davidson, J.L. and Henshall, A.S. 1989. The Chambered Cairns of Orkney. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Daniel, G. E. 1958. The megalith builders of western Europe. London: Hutchinson.

Davidson, J.L. and Henshall, A.S. 1991. The Chambered Cairns of Caithness. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Darvill, T.C. 1982. The Megalithic Chambered Tombs of the Cotswold-Severn Region. Highworth: Vorda.

Davies, J.L. and Lynch, F.M. 2000. The Late Bronze Age and Iron Age. In Lynch, F.M., Aldhouse-Green, S. and Davies, J.L. 2000. Prehistoric Wales. Stroud: Sutton Publishing, 139-219.

Darvill, T. 1997. Neolithic Landscapes: Identity and definition. In P. Topping (ed.). 1997. Neolithic Landscapes. Oxford: Oxbow, 1-14. Darvill, T. 1999. The historic environment, historic landscapes, and space-time-action models in landscape archaeology. In P. J. Ucko and R. Layton (eds.). 1999. The Archaeology and Anthropology of Landscape. Shaping your landscape. London: Routledge, 104-118.

Davies, O. and Evans, E.E. 1934. Excavations at Clonlum Small Cairn, Co. Armagh. County Louth Archaeological Journal 1934, 165-8. Davies, O. 1937. Excavations at Ballyrenan, Co. Tyrone. Journal of the Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland 67, 89-100.

Darvill, T. 2002. White on Blonde: Quartz Pebbles and the Use of Quartz at Neolithic Monuments in the Isles of Man and Beyond. In A. Jones and G. MacGregor. Colouring the Past: the significance of colour in archaeological research. Berg: Oxford, 73-92.

Davies, O. and Evans, E.E. 1943. The Horned Cairns of Ulster. Ulster Journal of Archaeology 6, 7-23. De Valera, R. 1960. The court cairns of Ireland. Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy 60C, 9-140.

Darvill, T. 2004. Long barrows of the Cotswolds and Surrounding Areas. Stroud: Tempus.

200

THE CHRONOLOGY, MORPHOLOGY AND LANDSCAPE SETTING OF THE PORTAL TOMBS

De Valera, R. and Ó Nualláin, S. 1961. Survey of the megalithic tombs of Ireland: Vol 1, Co. Clare. Dublin. Stationery Office.

Evans, E.E. 1953. Lyles Hill: A Late Neolithic Site in County Antrim. Belfast. (Archaeological Research Publications 2).

De Valera, R. and Ó Nualláin, S. 1964. Survey of the megalithic tombs of Ireland: Vol 2, Co. Mayo. Dublin. Stationery Office.

Evans, E.E. and Gaffikin, M. 1935. Belfast Naturalists’ Field Club Survey of Antiquities. Megaliths and Raths. The Irish Naturalists’ Journal 5, 242-252.

De Valera, R. and Ó Nualláin, S. 1972. Survey of the megalithic tombs of Ireland: Vol 3, Cos Galway…Cavan. Dublin. Stationery Office.

Evans, E.E. and Watson, E. 1942. “The Stone Houses”, Ticloy, Co. Antrim. Ulster Journal of Archaeology 5, 6265.

De Valera, R. and Ó Nualláin, S. 1982. Survey of the megalithic tombs of Ireland: Vol 4, Cos. Cork, Kerry, Limerick, Tipperary. Dublin. Stationery Office.

Fairclough, G. 1999. Protecting time and space: understanding historic landscape for conservation in England. In P. J. Ucko and R. Layton (eds.). 1999. The Archaeology and Anthropology of Landscape. Shaping your landscape. London: Routledge, 119-134.

Devereux, P. 2001. Stone Age Soundtracks. The acoustic archaeology of ancient sites. London: Vega. Dimbleby, G. 1973. Report on two soil samples from Dyffryn Ardudwy. Archaeologia 104, 4-5.

Farrelly, J. and O’Brien, C. 2002. The Archaeological Inventory of County Tipperary Vol. I – North Tipperary. Dublin: Stationery Office.

Dresser, Q. 1985. University College Cardiff Radiocarbon Dates 1. Radiocarbon 27, 338-385.

Feehan, J and O’Donovan, G. 1996. The Bogs of Ireland. University College Dublin: The Environmental Institute.

Dunne, C. 2003. Neolithic Structure at Drummenny Lower, Co. Donegal: an environmental perspective. In I. Armit et al. 2003. Neolithic Settlement in Ireland and Western Britain. Oxford: Oxbow, 164-71.

Fenton, R. 1811. Historical Tour through Pembrokeshire. London. Ferguson, J. 1872. Rude Stone Monuments in All Countries. London.

Drew, D.P. 1982. Environmental archaeology and karstic terrains: the example of the Burren, Co. Clare, Ireland. In M. Bell and S. Limbrey (eds). Archaeological Aspects of Woodland Ecology. Oxford: BAR International Series 146, 115-128.

Flanagan, L.N.W. 1966. Flint implements from Straleel, County Donegal. Ulster Journal of Archaeology 29, 9194. Flanagan, L. N. W. 1977. Court Graves and Portal Graves. Irish Archaeological Research Forum 4, no. 1, 23-29.

Edmonds, M. 1999. Ancestral Geographies of the Neolithic. Landscapes, Monuments and Memory. London: Routledge.

Flanagan, L. N. W. 1998. Ancient Ireland: life before the Celts. Dublin: Gill and Macmillan.

Eogan, G. 1984. Excavations at Knowth 1. Dublin: Royal Irish Academy.

Fleming, A. 1990. Landscape archaeology, Prehistory, and Rural Studies. Rural History 1, 5-15.

Eogan, G. 1986. Knowth and the Passage Tombs of Ireland. London: Thames and Hudson.

Fleming, A. 1999. Phenomenology and the megaliths of Wales: a dreaming to far? Oxford Journal of Archaeology 18 (2), 119-126.

Eogan, G. and Roche H. 1997. Excavations at Knowth 2. Dublin: Royal Irish Academy.

Fleming, A. 2005. Megaliths and post-modernism: the case of Wales. Antiquity 79, 921-932.

Evans, E.E. 1935. Excavations at Aghnaskeagh, Co. Louth, Cairn A. County Louth Archaeological Journal 8, 235-255.

Fossitt, J.A. 1994. Late-glacial and Holocene vegetation history of western Donegal, Ireland. Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy: Biology and Environment 94B, 131.

Evans, E.E. 1938 Giant’s Graves. Ulster Journal of Archaeology 1, 7-19. Evans, E.E. 1948. A lost Mourne Megalith- and a Newly Discovered Site. Ulster Journal of Archaeology 11, 4347.

Fowler, C. and Cummings, V. 2003. Places of transformation: building monuments from water and

201

TATJANA KYTMANNOW

stone in the Neolithic of the Irish Sea. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 9, 1-20.

Greene, K. 1995 (3rd edition). Archaeology. An Introduction. London: Routledge.

Fraser, S. M. 1998. The Public Forum and the Space Between: the Materiality of Social Strategy in the Irish Neolithic. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 64, 203224.

Grimes, W.F. 1932. Prehistoric archaeology in Wales since 1925. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society of East Anglia 7, 82-106. Grimes, W.F. 1936. The megalithic monuments of Wales. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 2, 106-139.

Fredengren, C. 2001. Crannogs. A study of people’s interactions with lakes, with particular reference to Lough Gara in the northwest of Ireland. Bray: Wordwell.

Grimes, W.F. 1939. Guide to the collection illustrating the prehistory of Wales. Cardiff. National Museum and University of Wales.

Fry, M. F. and Canning, L. 2001. Where are they now? Revisions and update. Ulster Journal of Archaeology 60, 122-3.

Grimes, W.F. 1949. Pentre-Ifan Burial Chamber, Pembrokeshire. Archaeologia Cambrensis 100, 3-23.

Fry, M. F., Ó Cathmhaoil, S. and Gilmour, G. 1999. Where are they now? Locating small finds from excavations conducted in Northern Ireland between 1950 and 1990: an inventory and database. Ulster Journal of Archaeology 58, 114-133.

Grogan, E. 2002. Neolithic houses in Ireland: a broader perspective. Antiquity 76, 517-25. Grogan, E. and Kilfeather, A. 1997. Archaeological Inventory of County Wicklow. Dublin: Stationery Office.

Gibson, A.M. 1995. First impressions: a review of Peterborough Ware in Wales. In I. Kinnes & G. Varndell (eds) Unbaked Urns of Rudely Shape: Essays on British and Irish Pottery for Ian Longworth, Oxford: Oxbow Books, 23-40.

Hawkes, J. 1941. Excavation of a megalithic tomb at Harristown, Co. Waterford. Journal of the Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland 71, 130-47. Harbison, P. 1988. Pre-Christian Ireland. From the First Settlers to the Early Celts. London: Thames and Hudson.

Gibson, A.M. 2002. Prehistoric Pottery in Britain and Ireland. Stroud: Tempus.

Hedges, R.E.M., Housley, R.A., Law, I.A. and Bronk, C.R. 1990. Radiocarbon dates from the Oxford AMS system. Archaeometriy 32, 101-8.

Giot, P-R., 1997. La Bretagne des Mégalithes. Rennes: Editions Ouest-France.

Hemp, W. 1926. The Bachwen ‘cromlech’. Archaeologia Cambrensis 81, 429-31.

Gosling, P. 1993. Archaeological inventory of County Galway. Volume I: West Galway. Dublin: Government Stationery Office.

Hemp, W. 1938. Cupmarkings on a rock at Treflys, Caernarvonshire. Archaeologia Cambrensis 93, 140-1.

Government of Northern Ireland. 1966. An Archaeological Survey of County Down. Belfast: Her Majesty’s Stationary Office.

Hencken, H. O’N. 1932. The Archaeology of Cornwall and Scilly. London: Methuen.

Gowen, M. & Co. 1995. Unpublished Preliminary Excavation Report, Taylorsgrange, Co. Dublin.

Henshall A.S. 1963. The Chambered Tombs of Scotland. Volume One. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Gowen, M. & Co. 1996. Unpublished Preliminary Excavation Report, Taylorsgrange, Co. Dublin.

Henshall A.S. 1972. The Chambered Tombs of Scotland. Volume Two. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Grattan Flood, W.H. 1912. County Wexford Dolmens. Journal of the Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland 42. 13-7.

Henshall A.S. and Ritchie, J.N.G.. 1995. The Chambered Cairns of Sutherland. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Graves, J. 1850. Cromleac. Journal of the Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland 1, 129-131.

Herity, M. 1964. The finds from Irish portal dolmens. Journal of the Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland 94. 123-44.

Gray, W. 1883. Cromlechs in Down and Antrim. Journal of the Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland 16, 354-363.

Herity, M. 1982. Irish decorated Neolithic pottery. Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy 82C. 247-404.

202

THE CHRONOLOGY, MORPHOLOGY AND LANDSCAPE SETTING OF THE PORTAL TOMBS

Herity, M. 1987. The Finds from Irish Court Tombs. Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy 87C, 5-281.

Johnston, R and Roberts, J.G. 2002. Dyffryn Ardudwy, Mynydd Egryn (SH 615 203). Archaeology in Wales 42, 100-101.

Herity, M. 1991. The phases of the Irish Neolithic. The Journal of Indo-European Studies 19, 29-48.

Johnston, R and Roberts, J.G. 2003. Dyffryn Ardudwy, Mynydd Egryn (SH 615 203). Archaeology in Wales 43, 102/4.

Herity, M. and Eogan, G. 1997 [1977]. Ireland in Prehistory. London: Routledge & Keegan Paul.

Jones, A. 1999. Local colour: megalithic architecture and colour symbolism in Neolithic Arran. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 18 (4), 339-350.

Herring, P. and Lewis, B. 1992. Ploughing up gathererhunters, Mesolithic and later finds from Butterstor and elsewhere on Bodmin Moor. Cornish Archaeology 31, 514.

Jones, A. 2004. Archaeometry and materiality: materials based analysis in theory and practice. Archaeometry 46 (3), 327-338.

Hirsch, E. 1995. Landscape: Between Place and Space. In E. Hirsch and M. O’ Hanlon (eds.) 1995. The Anthropology of Landscape. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Jones, C. 1998. The discovery and dating of the prehistoric landscape of Roughan Hill, Co. Clare. The Journal of Irish Archaeology 9, 27-43.

Hobson, M. and Hobson, F. 1907. Some Rude Stone Monuments in Antrim and Down. Ulster Journal of Archaeology 13. 84-9.

Jones, C. 2003. Neolithic beginnings on Roughan Hill and the Burren. In I. Armit, E. Murphy, E. Nellis and D. Simpson (eds.) Neolithic Settlement in Ireland and Western Britain. Oxbow Books: Oxford, 188-194.

Hoika, J. 1999. Trichterbecherkultur – Megalithkultur? Ueberlegungen zum Bestattungsbrauchtum der Trichterbecherkultur in Schleswig-Holstein and Mecklenburg. In K.W. Beinhauer, G. Cooney, C.E. Guksch and S. Kus. Studien zur Megalithik. The Megalithic Phenomenon. Recent Research and Ethnoarchaeological Approaches.Weissbach: Beier & Beran, 175-198.

Jones, C. 2004. The Burren and the Arran Islands. Exploring the archaeology. Cork: Collins Press. Jones, C. forthcoming. Roughan Hill and the Later Neolithic and Early Bronze Age landscapes of north-west Munster (Bronze Age Studies series) Galway: National University of Ireland, Galway.

Hosfield, R.T. and Gardiner, P.J. 2005. SWARF Resource Assessment: Palaeolithic and Mesolithic. www.somerset.gov.uk/somerset/cultureheritage/heritage/s warf/themes/hunter. Hughes, J. 2005. Two Neolithic structures in Granny townland, County Kilkenny. In J. O'Sullivan and M. Stanley (eds) Recent Archaeological Discoveries on National Road Schemes 2004. Archaeology and the National Roads Authority Monograph Series 2, Bray: Wordwell, 25-35. Ingold, T. 1993. The temporality of the landscape. World Archaeology 25 (2), 152-174.

Jones, C. and Gilmer, A. 1999. Roughan Hill, a Final Neolithic/Early Bronze Age landscape revealed. Archaeology Ireland 47, 30-2. Jones, C. and Walsh, P. 1996. Recent discoveries on Roughan Hill, county Clare. Journal of the Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland 126, 86-107. Joussaume, R. 1988. Dolmens for the Dead. MegalithBuilding throughout the World. London: Batsford.

Irish National Committee of Geography. 1979. Atlas of Ireland. Dublin: Royal Irish Academy. Johnson, M. 1999. Archaeological Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell.

Theory.

Kalb, P. 1996. Megaliths-building, stone transport and territorial markers: evidence from Vale de Rodrigo, Evora, south Portugal. Antiquity 70, 683-5.

An

Kalb, P. 1999. Megalithik auf der Iberischen Halbinsel und in Nordafrika. In K.W. Beinhauer, G. Cooney, C.E. Guksch and S. Kus. Studien zur Megalithik. The Megalithic Phenomenon. Recent Research and Ethnoarchaeological Approaches.Weissbach: Beier & Beran, 113-122.

Johnston, R. 1998. Approaches to the perception of landscape. Archaeological Dialogues 5, 54-68. Johnston, R and Roberts, J.G. 2001. Survey and excavation at Mynydd Egryn, Dyffryn Ardudwy. Archaeology in Wales 41, 112.

Keeley, V.1986. Taylorsgrange portal tomb. In C. Cotter (ed.), Excavations 1985. Dublin. Wordwell. 23-4.

203

TATJANA KYTMANNOW

Keeley, V. 1987a. Taylorsgrange portal tomb. In C. Cotter (ed.), Excavations 1986. Dublin. Wordwell. 18.

Leisner, G. and Leisner, V. 1943. Die megalithgraeber der Iberischen Halbinsel. Lieferung 1- Der Sueden. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Leisner, G. and Leisner, V. 1952. Los Sepulcros Megaliticos de Huelva excavaciones arqueologicas del plan nacional 1946. Madrid: EspaĖa Ministerio de Educacion Nacional.

Keeley, V. 1987b. Excavations at Taylorsgrange, Co. Dublin. Unpublished excavation report. Duchas. Keeley, V. 1988 Taylorsgrange portal tomb. In I. Bennett (ed.), Excavations 1987. Dublin. Wordwell. 14-15.

Leisner, G. and Leisner, V. 1956. Die megalithgraeber der Iberischen Halbinsel. Der Westen. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

Keeley, V. 1989/90 Taylorsgrange portal tomb. In C. Manning and D. Hurl (eds.), ‘Excavation Bulletin 19804’. Journal of Irish Archaeology 5, 74.

Leisner, V. 1998. Die megalithgraeber der Iberischen Halbinsel-Der Westen. Lieferung 4. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

Keeling, D, Molloy, K. and Bradshaw, R. 1989. Megalithic tombs in south-west Donegal. Archaeology Ireland 3 (4), 152-4.

Liversage, G.D. 1960. A Neolithic Site at Townleyhall, Co. Louth. Journal of the Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland 90, 49-60.

Keller, C. 1997. The theoretical aspects of landscape study. In T. Collins (ed.). Decoding the Landscape. Galway: University College Galway, 79-98.

Logue, P. 2003. A Neolithic Settlement at Thornhill, Co. Londonderry. In I. Armit et al. 2003, Neolithic Settlement in Ireland and Western Britain. Oxford: Oxbow, 149-56.

Killen, S. 2003. ‘Cloughanankna 1’. Ballyvennaght double portal tomb, County Antrim. Unpublished field class survey project, School of Archaeology and Palaeoecology, Queen’s University Belfast.

Lowry-Corry, D. and Richardson, P. 1937. Megalithic monuments in the parish of Killinagh, Co. Cavan. With notes on some in the parish of Killesher, Co. Fermanagh. Journal of the Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland 67, 155-175.

Kinnes, I. 1992. Non-megalithic Long Barrows and Allied Structures in the British Neolithic. London: British Museum.

Lucas, A. T. 1960. National Museum of Ireland: archaeological acquisitions in the year 1958. Journal of the Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland 90, 1-40.

Kirk, T. 2004. Memory, tradition and materiality: the Isles of Scilly in context. In V. Cummings and C. Fowler. The Neolithic of the Irish Sea. Materiality and traditions of practice. Oxford: Oxbow, 233-244.

Lynch, A. 1981. Man and Environment in South-west Ireland, 4000BC-AD 800. British Archaeological Reports, British Series 85, Oxford.

Knapp, A. B. and Ashmore, W. 1999. Archaeological Landscapes: Constructed, Conceptualized, Ideational. In W. Ashmore and A. B. Knapp (eds.). 1999. Archaeologies of Landscape. Contemporary Perspectives. Oxford: Blackwell, 1-30.

Lynch, A. 1987. Poulnabrone portal tomb. In C. Cotter (ed). Excavations 1986. Dublin. Wordwell, 12.

Kuna, M.1991. The structuring of prehistoric landscape. Antiquity 65, 332-47.

Lynch, A. 1988. Poulnabrone-a stone in time. Archaeology Ireland 2 (3), 105-7.

Lacy, B. 1983. Archaeological Survey of County Donegal. Lifford: Donegal County Council.

Lynch, A. 1989. Poulnabrone portal tomb. In I. Bennett (ed.), Excavations 1988. Dublin: Wordwell, 10.

Lambrick, G. 1988. The Rollright Stones. Megaliths, monuments and settlement in the prehistoric landscape. English Heritage archaeological reports; vol. 6. London: Historic Buildings and Monument Commission for England.

Lynch, A. and Ó Donnabháin, B. 1994. Poulnabrone portal tomb. The Other Clare 18, 5-7. Lynch, F.M. 1969a. The Megalithic Tombs of North Wales. In T.G.E. Powell et al. (eds) 1969. Megalithic Enquiries in the West of Britain. Liverpool University Press. 107-148.

Le Cam, G. 1999. Le Guide des Mégalithes du Morbihan. Inventaire photographique des allées couvertes, dolmens à couloir, alignements et menhirs du Morbihan. pézet: Coop Breizh.

Lynch, F.M. 1969b. The Contents of Excavated Tombs in North Wales. In T.G.E. Powell et al. (eds) 1969. Megalithic Enquiries in the West of Britain. Liverpool University Press. 149-174.

204

THE CHRONOLOGY, MORPHOLOGY AND LANDSCAPE SETTING OF THE PORTAL TOMBS

Lynch, F. M. 1972. Portal Dolmens in the Nevern Valley, Pembrokeshire. In F.M. Lynch and C. Burgess (eds.) 1972. Prehistoric Man in Wales and the West. Bath: Adams and Dart, 67-84.

Mahr, A. 1937. New Aspects in Irish Prehistory. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 1937. 261-463. Mallory, J.P. and Hartwell, B. 1984. Donegore Hill. Current Archaeology 92, 271-4.

Lynch, F.M. 1975. Excavations at Carreg Samson, Mathry, Pembrokeshire. Archaeologia Cambrensis 124, 15-35.

Mallory, J.P. and Hartwell, B. 1997. Down in prehistory. In L. Proudfoot. Down. History and Society. Interdisciplinary Essays on the History of an Irish County. Dublin: Geography Publications, 1-31.

Lynch, F.M. 1976. Towards a chronology of Megalithic tombs in Wales. In G. C. Boon and J. M. Lewis (eds.) Welsh Antiquity. Cardiff: National Museum of Wales, 6380.

Mallory, J.P. and McNeill, T.E., 1991, The Archaeology of Ulster, Belfast: The Institute of Irish Studies, Queen’s University Belfast.

Lynch, F.M. 1992. The spiral-decorated stone at Llanbedr, Meirionydd. In N. Sharples and A. Sheridan (eds.) Vessels for the Ancestors. Essays on the Neolithic of Britain and Ireland in Honour of Audrey Henshall. Edinburgh: University Press, 159-67.

Mercer, R.J. 1981. Excavations at Carn Brea, Illogan, Cornwall, 1970-73- a Neolithic fortified complex of the third millennium bc. Cornish Archaeology 20, 1-204

Lynch, F.M. 1995. Gwynedd. London. HSMO.

Mercer, R.J. 1989. The Neolithic in Cornwall. Cornish Archaeology 25, 35-80.

Lynch, F.M. 1998. Colour in Prehistoric Architecture. In A. Gibson and D.D. A. Simpson. Prehistoric Ritual and Religion. Stroud: Sutton Publishing, 62-67.

Mercer, R.J. 1997. The excavation of a Neolithic enclosure complex at Helman Tor, Lostwithiel, Cornwall. Cornish Archaeology 36, 5-63.

Lynch, F.M. 2000. The earlier Neolithic. In Lynch, F.M., Aldhouse-Green, S. and Davies, J.L. 2000. Prehistoric Wales. Stroud: Sutton Publishing, 42-78.

Meinig, D.W. 1979. The Beholding Eye. Ten Versions of the Same Scene. In D. W. Meinig (ed.). 1979. The Interpretation of Ordinary Landscapes. Geographical Essays. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 33-48.

Lynch, R. 1999. ‘The Brehon’s Chair’, Taylorsgrange. www.excavations.ie

Midgley, M.S. 1992. TRB-culture: The first farmers of the North European Plain. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Macalister, R.A.S., Armstrong, E.C.R. and Praeger, R.L. 1912. Report on the Exploration of Bronze-Age Carns on Carrowkeel Mountain, Co. Sligo. Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy 29, 311-47.

Miles, H and Trudgean, P. 1976. An Excavation at Lesquite Quoit, Lanivet. Cornish Archaeology 15, 7-10. Milisauskas, S. and Kruk, J. 2002. Middle Neolithic, Continuity, Diversity, Innovations, and Greater complexity, 5500/5000-3500-3000 BC. In S. Milisauskas (ed.) European Prehistory. A survey. New York: Kluwer Academic/ Plenum Publishers, 193-246.

McCartan, S. 2004. The Mesolithic in the Isle of Man: an Island Perspective. In A. Saville (edt.) Mesolithic Scotland and its Neighbours. Edinburgh: Society of Antiquaries of Scotland, 271-284. McCormick, F. 1986 Faunal remains from prehistoric Irish burials, Journal of Irish Archaeology 3 (1985-6), 37-48.

Milner, N. & Woodman, P.C. 2001. Mesolithic middens – from famine to feasting. Archaeology Ireland 15, 3235.

MacLean, R. 1993. Eat your Greens: An Examination of the Potential Diet Available in Ireland during the Mesolithic. Ulster Journal of Archaeology 56, 1-18.

Mitchell, G.F. and Ryan. M. 1997. Reading the Irish Landscape. Dublin: Townhouse. Molleson, T. 1986. New radiocarbon dating for the occupation of Kilgraeny Cave Co. Waterford. Journal of Irish Archaeology 3, 1-3.

McMann, J. 1994. Forms of power: dimensions of an Irish megalithic landscape. Antiquity 68, 525-44. MacNeill, M. 1982. The Festival of Lughnasa – a study of the survival of the Celtic festival of the beginning of harvest. Dublin. University College Dublin.

Molloy, K. and O’Connell, M. 1987. The nature of the vegetational changes at about 5000 BP with particular reference to the elm decline: fresh evidence from

205

TATJANA KYTMANNOW

Connemara, western Ireland. New Phytologist 106, 20320.

O’ Donovan, P.F. 1995. Archaeological Inventory of County Cavan. Dublin: Stationery Office.

Mongey, L. 1941. The Portal Dolmens of South-Eastern Ireland. Journal of the Waterford Spelaeological Society 1941, 3-32.

Ó Eochaidhe, M. 1957. Portal Dolmen at Kiltiernan, Co. Dublin. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 23, 221.

Monk, M. 2000. Seeds and soils of discontent: an environmental archaeological contribution to the nature of the early Neolithic . A. Desmond, G. Johnson, M. McCarthy, J. Sheehan and E. Shee Twohig (eds). New Agendas I Irish prehistory. Papers in commemoration of Liz Anderson. Bray: Wordwell, 67-105.

Österholm, I. and Österholm, S. 1984. The Kitchen middens along the coast of Ballysadare Bay. In G. Burenhult (ed.). The Archaeology of Carrowmore. Environmental Archaeology and the Megalithic Tradition at Carrowmore, Co. Sligo, Ireland. Theses and Papers in North-European Archaeology 14, University of Stockholm, 326-345.

Moore, M. 1987. Archaeological Inventory of County Meath. Dublin: Stationery Office.

O’Kelly, M.J. 1982. Newgrange: Archaeology, art and legend. London and New York: Thames and Hudson.

Moore, M. 1996. The Archaeological Inventory of County Wexford. Dublin: Stationery Office.

Olsen J, Heinemeier J, Bennike P, Hornstrup KM, Thrane H. Forthcoming. Characterisation and Blind Testing of Radiocarbon Dating of Cremated Bone. Radiocarbon (to be submitted).

Moore, M. 2003. The Archaeological Inventory of County Leitrim. Dublin: Stationery Office.

Ó Nualláin, S. 1969. A Group of Portal-Dolmens near Dunfanaghy, Co. Donegal. Donegal Annual 7, 289-99.

Müller, J. 1999. Zur Entstehung der europäischen Megalithik. In K.W. Beinhauer, G. Cooney, C.E. Guksch and S. Kus. Studien zur Megalithik. The Megalithic Phenomenon. Recent Research and Ethnoarchaeological Approaches.Weissbach: Beier & Beran, 51-82.

Ó Nualláin, S. 1983. Irish Portal tombs: Topography, Siting and Distribution. Journal of the Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland 113, 75-105. Ó Nualláin, S. 1989. Survey of the Megalithic Tombs of Ireland Vol 5, Co. Sligo. Dublin. Stationery Office.

Muir, R. 1999. Approaches to Landscape. London: Macmillan Press.

Ó Nualláin, S. and Walsh, P. 1986. A reconsideration of the Tramore Passage-Tombs. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 52, 25-29.

Nash, G. 1997. Monumentality and the Landscape: the Possible Symbolical and Political Distribution of Long Chambered Tombs around the Black Mountains, Central Wales. In G. Nash (ed.) 1997. Semiotics of Landscape: Archaeology of Mind, British Archaeological International Series 661. Oxford: BAR, 17-30.

O’Sullivan, A. 2001. Foragers, Farmers and Fishers in a Coastal Landscape. An intertidal archaeological survey of the Shannon estuary. Discovery Programme Monographs 5. North Munster Project. Dublin: Discovery Programme/ Royal Irish Academy.

Nelis, E. 2004. Neolithic Flint-Work from the North of Ireland: some Thoughts on Prominent Tool Types and their Production. In A. Gibson and A. Sheridan (eds) From Sickles to Circles. Britain and Ireland at the Time of Stonehenge. Stroud: Tempus, 155-175.

O’Sullivan, M. 1993. The Megalithic Art in Ireland. Dublin: Country House. O’Sullivan, M. 1996. A platform to the past – Knockroe passage tomb. Archaeology Ireland 36, 11-13.

O’Brien, W. 1999. Sacred Ground. Megalithic Tombs in Coastal South-West Ireland. Galway: Galway University Press.

O’Sullivan, M. 2005. Duma na nGiall: The mound of the hostages, Tara. Bray: Wordwell.

O’Connell, M. and Molloy, K. 2001. Farming and woodland dynamics in Ireland during the Neolithic. Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy 101B, 99-128.

Parker Pearson, M. 1993. Bronze Age Britain. London: B.T. Batsford Ltd/ English Heritage.

O’Connell, M, 1986. Reconstruction of al local landscape development in the post-Atlantic based on palaeoecological investigations at Carrownaglogh prehistoric field system, County Mayo, Ireland. Review of Palaeobotany and Palynology 49, 117-76.

Parker Pearson, M. 2003. Food, Identity and Culture: an introduction and overview. In M. Parker Pearson (ed) Food, culture and Identity in the Neolithic and Early Bronze Age. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports, International Series 1117, 1-30.

206

THE CHRONOLOGY, MORPHOLOGY AND LANDSCAPE SETTING OF THE PORTAL TOMBS

Parker Pearson, M. and Richards, C. 1994. Architecture and Order. Approaches to social space. London: Routledge.

in Atlantic Europe, Papers presented at the IVth Atlantic Colloquium. Brugge: De Tempel, 198-220. Rees, S. 1992. Dyfed. London: HSMO.

Patton, M. 1989. Jersey in Prehistory. La Haule: La Haule Books.

Reimer, P.J., Baillie, M.G.L., Bard, E., Bayliss, A., Beck, J.W., Bertrand, C., Blackwall, P.G., Buch, C.E., Burr, G., Cutler, K.B., Damnon, P.E., Edwards, R.L., Fairbanks, R.G., Friedrich, M., Guilderson, T.P., Hughen, K.A., Kromer, B., McCormack, F.G., Manning, S., Bronk Ramsay, C., Reimer, R.W., Remmele, S., Southon, J.R., Stuiver, M., Talamo, S., Taylor, F.W., van der Plicht, J., and Weyhenmeyer, C.E. 2004. IntCal04 terrestrial radiocarbon age calibration, 0-26 cal kyr BP Radiocarbon 46, 1029-1058.

Patton, M. 1992. Megalithic transport and territorial markers: evidence from the Channel Islands. Antiquity 66, 392-5. Patton, M. 1995. Neolithic Communities of the Channel Islands. BAR British Series. 240. Oxford: BAR Publishing. Peterson, R. 2003. Neolithic Pottery from Wales. Traditions of Construction and Use. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports, British Series 244.

Richards, C. 2004. Labouring with monuments: constructing the dolmen at Carreg Samson, south-west Wales. In V. Cummings and C. Fowler (eds.) The Neolithic of the Irish Sea: Materiality and Traditions of Practice. Oxford: Oxbow, 72-80.

Piggott, S. 1954. The Neolithic Cultures of the British Isles. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Rowe, T.-M. 2005. Cornwall in Prehistory. Stroud: Tempus.

Powell, T.G.E. 1941. Megalithic tombs in south-eastern Ireland. Journal of the Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland 71, 9-23. Powell, T.G.E. 1941. A new passage grave group in south-eastern Ireland. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 7, 142-43.

Rozanski, K., Stichler, W., Gonfiantini, R., Scott, E. M., Beukens, R. P., Kromer, B., and Vanderplicht, J. (1992). The IAEA C-14 Intercomparison Exercise 1990. Radiocarbon 34, 506-519.

Powell, T.G.E. 1941. Excavation of a megalithic tomb at Carriglong, Co. Waterford. Journal of the Cork Historical and Archaeological Society 46, 55-62.

Russel, V. 1971. West Penwith Survey. Cornwall Archaeological Society Parochial Checklist Survey. Truro: Cornwall Archaeological Society.

Powell, T.G.E. 1973. Excavation of the Megalithic Chambered Cairn at Dyffryn Ardudwy, Merioneth, Wales. Archaeologia 104, 1-50.

Savory, H. 1956. The excavation of ‘Twlc-y-Filiast’ cromlech, Llanynog, (Carm.).Bulletin of the Board of Celtic Studies 16, 300-8.

Power, C. Reconstructing patterns of health and dietary change in Irish prehistoric populations. Ulster Journal of Archaeology 56, 9-17.

Scarre, C. 1992. The early Neolithic of western France and megalithic origins in Atlantic Europe. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 11, 121-54.

Rackham, O. 2000. Prospects for Landscape History and Historical Ecology. Landscapes 2, 3-15.

Scarre, C. 2002. Contexts of monumentalism: regional diversity at the Neolithic transition in north-west France. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 21 (1), 23-61.

Raftery, J. 1950. Loughcrew, Co. Meath: ein Megalithgrab der La-Tène-Zeit. In E. Vogt (ed.) Congrés International des Sciences Préhistoriques et Protohistoriques, Actes de la IIIe Session. Zuerich, 2847.

Scarre, C. 2002a. Epilogue: Colour and Materiality in Prehistoric Society. In A. Jones and G. MacGregor. Colouring the Past: the significance of colour in archaeological research. Berg: Oxford, 227-243. Schulting, R.J. 1998. Slighting the sea: the transition to farming in northwest Europe. Documenta Praehistorica 25, 203-18.

Raftery, J. 1951. Prehistoric Ireland. London: Batsford. RCAHMW 1976. An inventory of the ancient monuments in Glamorgan: vol I: pre-Norman. Part I: The stone and bronze ages. Cardiff: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office.

Schulting, R.J. 2004. An Irish sea change: some implications for the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition. In V. Cummings and C. Fowler (eds), The Neolithic of the Irish Sea. Materiality and traditions of practice. Oxford: Oxbow, 22-28.

Renfrew, C. 1976. Megaliths, territories and populations. In De Leat, S.J. (ed.) 1976. Acculturation and Continuity

207

TATJANA KYTMANNOW

Schulting, R.J. and Whittle, A. 2003. Construction and primary use of chambered tombs in England, Wales and Scotland. In G. Burenhult (ed.) Stones and Bones. Formal disposal of the dead in Atlantic Europe during the Mesolithic/Neolithic interface 6000-3000 BC. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports, International Series 1201, 73-76.

Sheridan, J.A. 2003. The Chronology of Irish Megalithic Tombs. In G. Burenhult (ed.) Stones and Bones. Formal disposal of the dead in Atlantic Europe during the Mesolithic/Neolithic interface 6000-3000 BC. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports, International Series 1201, 69-73. Sheridan, J.A. 2004. Neolithic connections along and across the Irish Sea. In V. Cummings and C. Fowler (eds). The Neolithic of the Irish Sea. Materiality and traditions of practice. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 9-21.

Schulting, R.J. and Wysocki, M. 2006. ‘In this Chambered Tumulus were Found Cleft Skulls …’: an Assessment of the Evidence for Cranial Trauma in the British Neolithic. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 71, 107-138.

Sheridan, J. A. 2006. A non-megalithic funerary tradition in early Neolithic Ireland. In M. Meek (ed.) The Modern Traveler to our Past. Festschrift in honour of Ann Hamlin. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 24-31.

Scott, E. M., Baxter, M. S., Aitchison, T. C., Harkness, D. D., and Cook, G. T. (1990). An Overview of Some Interlaboratory Studies. Radiocarbon 32, 259-265.

Sheridan, J. A. 2006a. Welsh Megaliths and a New Stone Age for south-east England. Antiquity 80, 202-204.

Scott, J.G. 1969. The Clyde Cairns of Scotland. In T.G.E. Powell et al. (eds) 1969. Megalithic Enquiries in the West of Britain. Liverpool University Press, 175-222.

Sheridan, J. A., Cooney, G. and Grogan, E. 1992. Stone Axe Studies in Ireland. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 58, 389-416.

Scott, J.G. 1973. The Clyde Cairns of Scotland. In G. Daniel and P. Kjærum (eds). Megalithic Graves and Rituals. Papers presented at the III Atlantic Colloquium, Moesgård 1969 Jutland Archaeological Society Publication. Nordisk Forlag: Copenhagen, 117-128.

Sherlock, R. 1999. Archaeological Survey. The Burren region County Cavan. Unpublished report. Archaeological Development Services Limited. Simpson, D.D.A. 1993. Stone Artefacts from the Lower Bann Valley. Ulster Journal of Archaeology 56, 31-43.

Shee, E. A. 1967. A Portal Dolmen at Sheskin, Co. Waterford. Journal of the Cork Historical and Archaeological Society 72, 70-71.

Simpson, D.D.A. 1995. The Neolithic Settlement Site at Ballygalley, Co. Antrim. In E. Grogan and C. Mount (eds). Annus Archaeologiae. Archaeological Research 1992. Dublin, 37-44.

Shee Twohig, E. A. 1981. The Megalithic Art of Western Europe. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Shee Twohig, E .A.1990. Irish Megalithic Tombs. Princes Risborough. Shire Publications.

Simpson, D.D.A. 1996. The Ballygalley houses, Co. Antrim, Ireland. In T. Darvill and J. Thomas (eds) Neolithic Houses in Northwest Europe and Beyond, Oxford: Oxbow, 123-132.

Shee Twohig, E.A. 2004. Irish Megalithic Tombs (2nd, revised edition). Princes Risborough. Shire Publications. Sheridan, J.A. 1985. The Role of Exchange Studies in ‘Social Archaeology’, with Special Reference to the Prehistory of Ireland from the Fourth to the Early Second Millenium b.c., unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Cambridge University.

Simpson, D.D.A. and Gibson, A. 1989. Lyles Hill. Current Archaeology 114, 214-5.

Sheridan, J.A. 1985/6. Megaliths and megalomania: an account, and interpretation, of the development of passage tombs in Ireland. Journal of Irish Archaeology 3, 17-30.

Sogness, K. 2002. Rock art research in Northern Europe 1995-1999. In Bahn, P.G. and Fossati, A. Rock Art Studies. News of the World 2. Oxford: Oxbow.

Smith, A.G., Pearson, G.W., and Pilcher, J.R. 1970. Ballykeel Dolmen. Radiocarbon 12, 292.

Sprockhoff, E. 1938. Die Nordische Megalithkultur. Handbuch der Urgeschichte Deutschlands 3. Berlin Leipzig: W. de Gruyter and Co.

Sheridan, J.A. 1986. Porcellanite Artifacts: A new survey. Ulster Journal of Archaeology 49, 19-32.

Sprockhoff, E. 1966. Atlas der Megalithgraeber Deutschlands 1. Schleswig-Holstein. Bonn: In Kommission bei R. Habelt.

Sheridan J.A. 1995. Irish Neolithic pottery: the story in 1995. In I. Kinnes & G. Varndell (eds) Unbaked Urns of Rudely Shape: Essays on British and Irish Pottery for Ian Longworth, Oxford: Oxbow Books, 3-21.

208

THE CHRONOLOGY, MORPHOLOGY AND LANDSCAPE SETTING OF THE PORTAL TOMBS

Sprockhoff, E. 1967. Atlas der Megalithgraeber Deutschlands 2: Mecklenburg-Vorpommern. Bonn: In Kommission bei R. Habelt.

Tilley, C. Hamilton, S. Harrison, S. and Anderson, E. 2000. Nature, culture, clitter. Journal of Material Culture 5, 197-224.

Sprockhoff, E. 1975. Atlas der Megalithgraeber Deutschlands 3: Niedersachsen-Westfalen. Bonn: G. Koerner & F. Laux.

Topp, C. 1962. The Portal Dolmen of Drumanone- Co. Roscommon. Bulletin of the Institute of Archaeology London 3, 38-46.

Soulier, P. 1998. La France des dolmens et des sépultures collectives (4500-2000 avant J.-C.): bilans documentaire régionaux. Paris: Editions Errance.

Trevarthen, D. 2000. Illuminating the Monuments: Observation and Speculation on the Structure and Function of the Cairns at Balnuaran of Clava. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 10 (2), 295-315.

Stuiver, M. and Reimer, P.1993. Extended 14C data base and revised CALIB 3.0 14 C age calibration program. Radiocarbon 35,215-230.

Trigger, B. G. 1989. A History of Archaeological Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Tuan, Y. 1979. Thought and Landscape. The Eye and the Mind’s Eye. In D. W. Meinig (ed.). 1979. The Interpretation of Ordinary Landscapes. Geographical Essays. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 89-102.

Stuiver, M., Reimer, P. J., and Reimer, R. W. (2005). CALIB 5.0.2[WWW program and documentation]. Belfast: 14CHRONO Centre, Queen's University Belfast. Swan, H.P. and Davies, O. 1938. Antiquities of Inch Island. Ulster Journal of Archaeology Third series 1, 4650.

Vyner, B. 2001. Clegyr Boia: a potential Neolithic enclosure and associated monuments on the St David’s peninsula. Southwest Wales. In T. Darvill and J. Thomas. Neolithic Enclosures in Atlantic Northwest Europe. Oxford: Oxbow, 78-90.

Thomas, J. 1990. Monuments from the Inside: the Case of the Irish Megalithic Tombs. World Archaeology 22 (2), 168-178.

Waddell, J. 1976. Some Archaeological Material in University College, Galway. Journal of the Galway Archaeological and Historical Society 36, 56-69.

Thomas, J. 1991. Re-thinking the Neolithic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Waddell, J. 1998. The Prehistoric Archaeology of Ireland. Galway. Galway University Press.

Thomas, C. 1985. Exploration of a drowned landscape. Archaeology and history of the Isles of Scilly. London: Batsford.

Waddington, C. 1999. A Landscape Archaeological Study of the Mesolithic-Neolithic in the Milfield Basin, Northumberland. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports, British Series 291.

Thomas, C. and Wailes, B. 1967. Sperris Quoit: the excavation of a new Penwith Chamber Tomb - with a reconsideration of the evidence from Zennor Quoit. Cornish Archaeology 6, 9-22.

Waddington, C. 2004. Rock of Ages. British Archaeology 78, 16-21.

Thorpe, R.S. and Williams-Thorpe, O. 1991. The myth of long-distance megalithic transport. Antiquity 65, 64-73.

Wandsnider, L. 1992. Archaeological Landscape Studies. In J. Rossignol and L. Wandsnider (eds). 1992. Space, Time and Archaeological Landscapes. New York: Plenum Press, 285-292.

Tilley, C. 1994. A Phenomenology of Landscape. Oxford: Berg. Tilley, C. 1996. The powers of rocks: topography and monument construction on Bodmin Moor. World Archaeology 28 (2), 161-176.

Wakeman, W.F. 1891 [1848]. Handbook of Irish Antiquities. Dublin: Hodges, Figgis and Co. Walsh, F. 2006 Neolithic Monanny, County Monaghan. In J. O'Sullivan and M. Stanley (eds) Settlement, Industry and Ritual. Archaeology and the National Roads Authority, Monograph Series 3, Bray: Wordwell, 24-34.

Tilley, C. 1999. The Dolmens and Passage Graves of Sweden. An Introduction and Guide. London: Institute of Archaeology/ University College London. Tilley, C. and Bennett, W. 2001. An archaeology of supernatural places: the case of West Penwith. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 7, 335-62.

Walsh, P. 1997. In praise of field-workers. Archaeology Ireland 11 (3), 8-12.

209

TATJANA KYTMANNOW

Watson, A. and Keating, D. 1999. Architecture and sound: an acoustic analysis of megalithic monuments in prehistoric Britain. Antiquity 73, 325-36.

Zubrow, E. B. W. 1990. Contemplating space: a commentary on theory. In K. M. S. Allen, S. W. Green, and E. B. W. Zubrow (eds). Interpreting Space: GIS and Archaeology. London: Taylor and Francis, 67-72.

Westropp, T.J. 1898. The Distribution of “Cromlechs” in the County of Clare. Proceedings of the royal Irish Academy 20, 542-9.

Zvelebil, M. and Beneš, J. 1997. Theorising Landscapes: the Concept of the Historical Interactive Landscape. In J. Chapman and P. Dolukhanov (eds.). 1997. Landscapes in Flux. Central and Eastern Europe in Antiquity. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 23-40.

Whittle, A. 1997. Moving on and moving around: Neolithic settlement mobility. In P. Topping (ed.). 1997. Neolithic Landscapes. Oxford: Oxbow, 15-22.

Zvelebil, M. and Rowley-Conwy, P 1986. Foragers and Farmers in Atlantic Europe. In M. Zvelebil (ed.) Hunters in Transition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 67-96.

Whittle, A. 2004. Stones that float to the sky: portal dolmens and their landscapes of memory and myth. In V. Cummings and C. Fowler (eds.) The Neolithic of the Irish Sea: Materiality and Traditions of Practice. Oxford: Oxbow, 81-90. Wilkinson, J.L. 1981. Report on Neolithic Skeletal remains Carreg Coetan. Unpublished Report, Cardiff: Anatomy Department, University College Cardiff Williams, B. 1981/2. A prehistoric complex at Ballygroll and Mullaboy, Co. Londonderry. Ulster Journal of Archaeology 44-5, 29-46. Williams, B. B. 1988. ‘The Kempe Stones’ Greengraves, Co. Down. In I. Bennett (ed.), Excavations 1987. Dublin: Wordwell. Woodman, P. C. 1994. Towards a definition of Irish Neolithic lithic assemblages. In Ashton, N. & David, A. (eds), Stories in Stone. Lithic Studies Society Occasional Paper 4, London: British Museum, Lithic Studies Society, 213-8. Woodman, P. C. 2004. The Exploitation of Ireland’s Coastal resources- a Marginal Resource through Time. In M.R. Gonzáles- Moráles & G. A. Clarke. The Mesolithic of the Atlantic Façade. Tuscon: Arizona State University, 37-55. Wood-Martin, W.G. 1886. The Rude Stone Monuments of Ireland Parts I and II. Journal of the Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland 17, 470-87. Wood-Martin, W.G. 1888a. The Rude Stone Monuments of Ireland Parts III-VII. Journal of the Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland 18, 50-94. Wood-Martin, W.G. 1888b. The Rude Stone Monuments of Ireland (Co. Sligo and the Island of Achill). Dublin: Hodges, Figgis and Co. Wulf, W. 1923. Carnfadrig, Co. Tyrone. Journal of the Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland, Series 6, Vol. 13, 190-195.

210