On Some Aspects of the Late Neolithic and Early Bronze Age in Ireland

On Some Aspects of the Late Neolithic and Early Bronze Age in IrelandAuthor(s): John WaddellSource: Irish Archaeological Research Forum, Vol. 1, No. 1 (Apr., 1974), pp. 32-38Published by: Wordwell Ltd.Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20495189 .

Accessed: 12/06/2014 17:51

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Wordwell Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Irish ArchaeologicalResearch Forum.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.113 on Thu, 12 Jun 2014 17:51:43 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=wordwell

http://www.jstor.org/stable/20495189?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


ON SOME ASPECTS OF THE LATE NEOLITHIC AND EARLY

BRONZE AGE IN IRELAND

John Waddell

The obstensible end of the Irish Neolithic is heralded, not only by a

technological change - the appearance of a copper and tin-bronze metallurgy, but

also by the arrival of the novel Beaker culture. Both Case (1966, 141; 1969, 23) and D. L. Clarke (1970, 94) would regard these Beaker people as the main stimulus

of the new technology in this country. They appear, however, as only one tradition

among many in late Neolithic Ireland, and the story of their inter-relationship with

Passage Grave and Wedge Grave builders, to name but two cultural groups, is far

from clear. The terms 'late Neolithic1 and 'early Bronze Age' have here only the

most general chronological significance, they are best considered merely as labels

for differing archaeological traditions whose chronological limits are ill-defined

and which may be in part contemporary.

Recent research on the early Bronze Age has been ably summarised by ApSimon

(1969, 28) whose work was facilitated not only by the wealth of metalwork and

pottery which has survived but also, as he readily admitted, by the various published studies on the period. Although, of course, many questions remain unanswered, our

general knowledge of this period is not unsatisfactory when compared, in particular, to the dearth of information on many aspects of the late Neolithic, most recently

surveyed by Case (1969, 19)? The purpose of this essay is simply to comment

briefly on some aspects of both the late Neolithic and the early Bronze Age in the

hope of stimulating discussion and enquiry.

The nature and extent of the influence, on this side of the Irish sea, of the

British late Neolithic, mainly exemplified by the Peterborough and Grooved Ware

ceramic traditions, is worthy of closer examination and, even on grounds of

proximity alone may prove a more fruitful territory for the late Neolithic research

than the Nordischer Kreis (eg. Herity, 1970a, 530) or Brittany (Case, 1963, 11). The recognition that Peterborough pottery is the lineal descendant of earlier

indigenous Neolithic bowl forms (Smith, 1966, 475) must surely remove, once and

for all, the possibility of any major north European contribution to this pottery tradition and make the likelihood of similar Irish contacts even more remote. Most

of the Danish parallels for the cord-ornamented pots cited by Herity (1970a, 531) are very generalised; the comparison of pot G from Ballyalton (Case, 1961, fig. 13:2) with a vessel from Faelledskovhuset (Glob, 1952, no. 153), and the bowl from

Aghanaglack (Case, 1961, fig. 18:5) to that from Ettrup (Bronsted, 1934, 291) only serves to show that the sum of the differences in both form and ornament is greater than the similarities. However, the design on pot A from Ballymacaldrack (Evans,

1938, fig. 4a) does resemble that on the Mogenstrup bowl (Glob, 1952, no. 159) and Collins (I965, 68) has compared the applied ornament on the Ballykeel pot to the

eye-motifs on some Danish Middle Neolithic vessels; if this latter decorative

comparison is a valid one, the strikingly insular form of the pot should still be borne

in mind. Herity (1970b, note 34) has also recalled Childe's comments on the bowl

from Tamnyrankin, Co. Derry (figured in Case, 1961, fig. 18:4). Childe sought Continental parallels as far east as the Pontic steppes for the decorative scheme

of cord-impressed pendant triangles on this vessel, dismissing any Beacharra,

Peterborough or Beaker influence. The nature of these parallels drawn between

Irish and Continental pottery recalls the resemblances noted between Peterborough

pottery and North European wares (eg. Piggott, 1954, 314) which now, however, can

32



be regarded as reflecting parallel development rather than parental influence,

though occasional, if exogamous, contacts probably occurred (Hawkes, 1967, 204). The Irish parallels, such as they are, no doubt indicate nothing more than the same

process. The technique of cord-impressed ornament is quite likely to have been

derived from a more immediate British source. Some contribution may have been

made by Beacharra pottery, but the origins of this tradition, though somewhat

uncertain, may owe much to southern England (Henshall, 1972, 174). Here, whipped cord ornament appears on Ebbsfleet bowls, and twisted cord is fairly frequently found on Mortlake bowls (in which context the pendant tiiangle motif is not unknown:

eg. West Kennet: Piggott, 1962, 41, fig. 13, P26). The suggestion of a Peterborough contribution is not a new one, Piggott (1954, 317), among others, has noted such

features in some Sandhills ware. Pottery from Moneen, Co. Cork, has been

compared to Peterborough ware (O'Kelly, 1952, 142), the 'collared1 form of the

reconstructed pot being comparable to that of Fengate pottery. Case (1963, 14) has

compared Dundrum bowls to Mortlake pottery and Murlough bowls to Fengate,

attributing these resemblances to "contact through trade in flint and stone axes".

The various bowl forms of Sandhills and related pottery may represent a parallel

development in Ireland to that now recognised in Britain (G. Clark, 1966, 17 2) and

detailed assessment of the contribution of the Peterborough tradition is certainly well

overdue. Grooved Ware has been reported from Dalkey Island (Liversage, 1968,

154) and from Grange stone circle, Co. Limerick (S.P. O Riordain, 1951, 62). Some Lough Gur Class II ware is as likely to owe something to the plainer styles of

this tradition as to any other source, undecorated vessels formed "an integral part of the complete assemblage" at Durrington Walls (Wainwright and Longworth, 1971,

57). An alternative and earlier origin for some Irish coarse pottery might be sought

among early coarse wares in Neolithic Scotland. Piggott and Simpson (1971, 10) have

recently emphasised the presence there of two contemporary ceramic traditions: on

the one hand, a long-lived traditions of coarse well-gritted pottery, sometimes flat

based, and on the other, pottery of the early and middle Neolithic *WesternT

tradition. Liversage (1970, 521) has suggested that some of the flat-based coarse

ware at Lough Gur should be considered as contemporary with middle Neolithic

pottery there. He has also rightly underlined the fact that S.P. O Riordain included

a rather wide variety of coarse ware in his 'Class II! category; the term should only be used, as Case (1961, 196) has done, as a label for the calcite-gritted and related

pottery. While fully admitting the difficulties involved in tracing the origins and

affinities of any K?mmerkeramik, the direct origins of our coarse ware, including Class II and Kilhoyle pottery, should first be sought in British pottery types rather

than in SOM or Vlaardingen pottery or any other more distant tradition.

The presence of Grooved Ware, or related pottery, in Ireland should come as

no surprise in view of the presence of some henge-type monuments here (Wainwright,

I969, 112 and Burl, 1969, 1, both of whom include some doubtful examples in their

respective lists). Of particular interest is the possibility that these Irish monuments

may be in some way associated with the Passage Grave tradition. The presence of

a number of such ring-works in the Boyne Valley has been known for a number of

years and their proximity to some of the great passage graves noted (O Riordain and

Daniel, 1964, 85). The great ring-work near Dowth is a circular enclosure, some

130 metres in diameter, surrounded by a high earthen bank in which there are two

opposing entrances (O Riordain and Daniel, 1964, 87, earthwork Q, plate 54); it has

no visible ditch and the material for the banks may have been procured, at least in

part, by scooping out the enclosed area. A few miles away, a ring-work at

Monknewtown, Co. Meath, was thus constructed; it originally measured some 90

metres in internal diameter and had suffered considerable disturbance (Sweetman,

I97I, 135). Excavation of the partially destroyed monument has revealed a dozen

33



burials, all cremated or partly cremated, some consisting of apparently token

deposits; one cremation was contained in a Carrowkeel bowl. A Beaker settlement

was also found in the enclosure and a full report is eagerly awaited. The

Carrowkeel pot from this site is a striking indication of the possible relationship between passage graves and such ring-works in Ireland and perhaps ultimately with

British henge monuments. The passage grave at Bryn Celli Ddu, Anglesea, it will

be recalled, was erected within a henge (C. O'Kelly, 1969, 17), indicating that the

two traditions are at least partly contemporary. With this in mind it is possible that the Carrowkeel pot from Tara with "short transverse ribs on an inturned rim",

for which Case (1963, 14) has sought Continental parallels, may, in its unusual

plastic rim ornament, owe something to the Woodlands style of Grooved Ware where

this is a characteristic feature (Wainwright and Longworth, 1971, 239). The

corbelled structure with evident passage grave affinities at Ballynahatty, Co. Down

(MacAdam, 1855, 358; Borlase, 1897, 984) produced sherds of a Carrowkeel bowl, now preserved in the National Museum of Ireland (tentatively reconstructed in fig. 1); it bears grooved ornament and a rim indented with irregular transverse impressions, and such rim ornament occurs on other Carrowkeel pots (eg. Carrowkeel, Co.

Sligo: Macalister et al. , 1912, plate XXV). Transverse rim ornament is an occas

ional feature of pottery styles such as Ebbsfleet bowls (eg. Windmill Hill: Smith,

1965, 75) and of the Durrington Walls style of Grooved Ware (Wainwright and

Longworth, 1971, 60), a style also noted for its curvelinear ornament. Various

parallels (and the attendant chronological difficulties) between such Grooved Ware

ornament and Passage Grave decorative motifs are cautiously remarked upon by

Wainwright and Longworth (1971, 246). Intriguing as these somewhat tenuous

parallels may be, the differences between the tomb builders and the henge builders

cannot be minimised. Nonetheless, if the two traditions chronologically overlap, as

they appear to do, it would be strange if there was no contact between them, partic

ularly when their mutual concern with major public works, their respectively wide

geographical distribution and powerful social organisation are considered. Further

excavation may elucidate the problem.

Fig. 1. Carrowkeel bowl from Ballynahatty, Co. Down.

34



The evidence from Ballynagilly, Co. Tyrone, indicates the presence of

Beaker people there by approximately 2, 000 B. C. in radiocarbon years (Smith et al. , 1971, 97; Radiocarbon 13 (1971), 105) indicating no appreciable delay in their westward movement from Britain. However, in spite of the growing number

of Beaker finds recorded, the classic Beaker burial, consisting of a crouched

skeleton in a cist or pit accompanied by a pot, is still unknown here. The only Beaker pottery found in any quantity in a funerary context is that from a small

number of Wedge graves. The Irish representatives of the Single-grave tradition

are the makers of the Irish Bowl who owe much in pottery and burial rites to the

Beaker people. Why true Beaker pottery does not occur, with at least some

frequency, in the virtually ubiquitous short cist is most puzzling particularly when

this grave type was so favoured by Scottish Beaker folk. D.L. Clarke (1970, 452) has shown that an average of 63% of his Northern beakers have been found in short

cists, later Northern Beakers, in particular, almost always occuring in such

graves. The practice of short cist burial in Ireland must be derived from this

Northern Beaker province (Waddell, 1970, 104) and any other influence, such as

late Neolithic single-graves (Herity, 1970, 533), can have had little part to play. Some 78% of bowl foodvessels from funerary contexts have been found in short cists,

most of the remainder have been found in pit-graves. Approximately 50% of these

bowls have been found with unburnt burials and about 50% with cremated remains

(ApSimon, 1969, 36, citing A.B. O Riordain). Virtually all the unburnt burials

appear to have consisted of a crouched skeleton lying on its side in the classic

Beaker fashion. Information seems to be surprisingly scanty, however, about the

position of the bowl in the grave in relation to the skeleton. Out of some 26 cases,

which I have noted, where this detail is recorded, no less than 23 had the vessel

placed beside the skull, most frequently in front of the face (eg. in the short cist at

Keenoge, Co, Meath, illustrated in Macalister, 193 5, fig. 13). The position of the

bowl in these graves complies with the British Northern beaker tradition generally; in D.L. Clarke's Primary North British/Dutch group the beaker is normally placed in front of the face of the corpse, more rarely behind the skull, and this preference continues in subsequent Northern beaker groups (Developed Northern beakers: 79%;

Late Northern beakers: 81%; Final Northern beakers: 100%). This custom con

trasts with that of the Southern beaker groups where, in the earlier phases, the

vessel is normally placed behind the body, and, in the later, in front of the body

(D.L. Clarke, 1970, 159, 240). Thus both the use of the short cist and details of burial rite strongly suggest a major Northern beaker role in the genesis of the

Irish Bowl. This, of course, conflicts with ApSimon's (1958, 31) suggestion, based

mainly on a study of the ornament, of an origin in the Southern beaker tradition.

It is possible that the bowl should be regarded as a development in Ireland owing much to earlier Northern beakers, something to local late Neolithic bowl forms and

deriving some ornamental inspiration from Southern beakers. The Irish-Scottish

vase may originate in later Northern beakers as generally suggested (ApSimon,

1958, 29; D.L. Clarke, 1970, 271).

The distribution of foodvessel single-graves in Ireland is reflected in the

distribution of the short cist, the characteristic grave type. With the exception of

small concentrations in north Cork and south Limerick, in east Galway and south

Mayo, and in part of Sligo, the cist has a predominantly eastern and northern

distribution and tends to avoid, in particular, the south-west, where the main con

centrations of Wedge Graves are to be found (Waddell, 1970, 102). These tombs, "the most numberous and widely dispersed megalithic tomb type in Ireland" (De

Valera and O Nuall?in, 1961, 113) are, somewhat ironically, the type we know least

about. They are found in west Cork and Kerry, with a notable concentration in

Co. Clare; they occur northwards, we^st of the Shannon, in Co. Sligo and across

35



most of Ulster; they occur sporadically in the east of the country (De Valera and

? Nuallain, 1961, 113; an indication of their general distribution is given by Herity, 1970, 8, fig. 2). In the southern half of Ireland, roughly south of a line

drawn from Galway to Dublin, the general distributions of Wedge Grave and food

vessel cist are mutually exclusive. This may be an indication of the general

contemporaneity of the two funerary traditions in that part of the country.

De Valera and O Nuallain (1961, 114) noted thirteen excavated wedges; with the

excavation of a possible example at Kilnagarns Lower, Co. Leitrim (Corcoran,

1964, I95), the publications of surviving finds from the wedge grave at Moytirra, Co. Sligo (Madden, 1969? 1.51) and the excavation of four tombs in Co. Kerry

(Herity, 1966, 66; 1970, 11) the total of investigated tombs is now nineteen. Of these (if Kilhoyle, Co. Derry and Kilnagarns, Co. Leitrim, are included) only

eight have produced Beaker pottery. Clarke's European, All-over-cord, Southern

and Northern traditions are apparently represented, all having come to Ireland

from or via Britain; it is interesting that Clarke should particularly emphasise the

absence of any Breton contribution to insular All-over-cord or European beakers

(Clarke, 1970, 65, 79). Only two wedges in the southern half of the country have

yielded true Beaker (B ally e dm on duff, Co. Dublin and Lough Gur, Limerick), all

the rest of the Beaker bearing wedges are in the north. Bearing in mind the small

percentage of wedges investigated and the distinct possibility that future excavations

may alter the picture, it, nonetheless, must be admitted, with eleven wedges excavated in the South and eight in the northern half of the country, that Beaker is,

at present, mainly a feature of some wedges in the north* In that part of the country,

therefore, some wedge graves must pre-date the foodvessel cist. However, if we

accept that the south-western wedges are broadly contemporary with the cist grave, as their respective distributions suggest, then, some wedges in the north must, on

the evidence available, be earlier than their southern counterparts. This raises the

interesting possibility that the generally accepted theory of a south-western point of

entry for these tombs may be no longer tenable. If such proves to be the case, their

assumed Breton origin may be open to question. General morphological parallels are occasionally cited (eg. Daniel, 1958, 116; De Valera and ? Nuallain, 1961, 115;

Herity, 1970, 13), but there are notable differences between the Breton and Irish

monuments. The all?es couvertes are rectangular, parallel-sided tombs, not

wedge-shaped, and they tend to have an eastern, not a western, orientation

(L'Helgouach, 1965, 259; Giot, I960, 98). More detailed comparative studies are desirable before such fundamental differences are discounted and a Breton origin

satisfactorily established. Daniel (1972, 244) has cautiously suggested that the

Wedge Grave may be an insular development and I would suggest that this hypothesis now deserves some serious consideration.

REFERENCES

ApSimon, A. (1958). 'Food Vessels', University of London Bulletin of the Institute of Archaeology, No. 1, 24.

- (1969). 'The earlier Bronze Age in the north of Ireland, Ulster

J. Archaeol., 32, 28.

Borlase, W. C. (1897). The Dolmens of Ireland. (London, 1897).

Bronsted, J. (1934). 'Noch ein jutisches Einzelgrab mit Megalithkeramik1, Acta. Archaeol. (Copenhagen), 5, 290

Burl, H.A.W. (I969). 'Henges: internal features and regional groups', Archaeol.

Jour. 126, 1. - 36



Case, H. (1961). 'Irish Neolithic pottery: distribution and sequence', Proc Prehist. Soc, 27, 171.

- (I963). 'Foreign connections in the Irish Neolithic', Ulster J. Archaeol. ,

26, 3.

- (1966). 'Were the Beaker people the first metallurgists in Ireland'?

Palaeohistoria. 12, 141.

- (I969). 'Settlement-patterns in the north Irish neolithic', Ulster J.

Archaeol., 32, 3.

Clark, G. (1966). 'The invasion hypothesis in British archaeology', Antiquity 40, 172.

Clarke, D.L. (1970). Beaker pottery of Great Britain and Ireland, Vols. I and II

(Cambridge, 1970).

Collins, A.E.P. (1965). 'Ballykeel dolmen and cairn, Co. Armagh', Ulster J.

Archaeol., 28, 47.

Corcoran, J. X. W. P. (1964). 'Excavation of two chambered cairns at Kilnagarns

Lower, Co. Leitrim, J. Roy. Soc. Antiq. Ireland. 94, 177.

Daniel, G. (1958). The Megalith Builders of Western Europe. (London, 1958).

- (I972). 'The origin of the megalithic tombs of the British Isles', in

Die Anf?nge des Neolithikums vom Orient bis Nordeuropa, Fundamenta VII,

Reihe A Band 3 (1972), 233.

De Valera, R. and O Nuallain, S. (1961). Survey of the Megalithic Tombs of

Ireland, Vol.1, Co. Clare. (Dublin, 1961).

Evans, E.E. (1938). 'Doey's cairn, Dunloy, County Antrim'. Ulster J. Archaeol.

1, 59.

Giot, P.R. (I960). Brittany. (London I960).

Glob, P.V. (1952). Danske Oldsager, Vol.2, (Copenhagen 1952).

Hawkes, C. F. C. (1967). 'An early Bronze Age urn from Milton, Northampton

shire1, Antiq. J. , 47, 198.

L'Helgouach, J. (1965). 'Les sepultures m?galithiques en Armorique'. (Rennes,

1965).

Henshall, A. (197 2). The Chambered Tombs of Scotland. Vol.11. (Edinburgh, 1972).

Herity, M. (1966). 'Excavations near Ballinskelligs, Co. Kerry', N. Munster

Archaeol. J. 10, 66.

- (1970a). 'Cord-ornamented Beacharra ware and the single-burial

mode in Ireland1, Actes du Vile Congres International des Sciences

Pr?historiques et Protohistoriques, Prague 1966. (Prague 1970), 530.

- (1970b). 'The prehistoric peoples of Kerry: a programme of

investigation1, J. Kerry Archaeol. Hist. Soc. No. 3, 5.

Liversage, G. D. (1968). 'Excavations at Dalkey Island, Co. Dublin, 1956-19591,

Proc. Roy. Irish Acad. 66C, 53.

- (1970). 'Irish Neolithic pottery', Actes du Vile Congres

International des Sciences Pr?historiques et Protohistoriques, Prague 1966.

(Prague 1970), 520.

37



MacAdam, R. (1855). 'Discovery of an ancient sepulchral chamber1, Ulster J.

Archaeol. 3, 358.

Macalister, R.A.S. (1935). Ancient Ireland. (London, 1935).

Macalister, R.A.S., Armstrong, E.C.R. and Praeger, R.L. (1912). 'Bronze

Age earns on Carrowkeel mountain, Co. Sligo', Proc. Roy. Irish Acad.

29C, 311.

Madden, A.C. (1969). 'The Beaker wedge tomb at Moytirra, Co. Sligo', J# Roy. Soc. Antiq. Ireland. 99? 151.

O'Kelly, C. (1969). 'Bryn Celli Ddu, a reinterpretation', Archaeol. Camb.

118 (1969), 17.

O'Kelly, M. J. (1952). 'Excavation of a cairn at Moneen, Co. Cork', Proc. Roy.

Irish Acad. 54C, 121.

O Riordain, S.P. (1951). 'Lough Gur excavations: the great stone circle (B) in

Grange townland1, Proc. Roy. Irish Acad. 54C, 37.

O Riordain, S.P. and Daniel, G. (1964). Newgrange and the Bend of the Boyne

(London, 1964).

Piggott, S. (1954). The Neolithic Cultures of the British Isles. (Cambridge, 1954)

(1962). The West Kennet Long Barrow (London, 1962).

Piggott, S. and Simpson, D.D.A. (1971). 'Excavation of a stone circle at Croft

Moraig, Perthshire, Scotland' Proc. Prehist. Soc. 37, Pt. 1, 1.

Smith, A.G. , Pilcher, J. R. and Pearson, G. W. (1971). 'New radiocarbon dates

from Ireland', Antiquity 45, 97.

Smith, I.F. (1965). Windmill Hill and Avebury (Oxford, 1965). -

(1966). 'Windmill Hill and its implications', Palaeohistoria 12, 469.

Sweetman, P.D. (1971). 'An Earthen enclosure at Monknewtown, Slane: a

preliminary report'. J. Roy. Soc. Antiq. Ireland. 101, 135.

Waddell, J. (1970). 'Irish Bronze age cists: a survey'. J. Roy. Soc? Antiq. Ireland.

100, 91.

Wainwright, G. J. (1969). !A review of henge monuments in the light of recent

research', Proc. Prehist. Soc. 35, 112.

Wainwright, G. J. and Longworth, I.H. (1971). Durrington Walls: Excavations

1966-1968. (Society of Antiquaries, London, 1971).

38



Documents

On Some Aspects of the Late Neolithic and Early Bronze Age in Ireland