CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, NORTHRIDGE

rHE STONE CIRCLES OF IRELAND \)

A thesis submitted in partial satisfaction of the · requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in

Anthropology

by

Ellen Gail Boatwright

June, 1979 The Thesis of Ellen Gail Boabvright is approved:

Mrchael~west

Antonio Gilman

California State University, Northridge

ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I wish to express my sincere gratitude and appreci­ ation to Antonio Gilman for his guidance and assistance throughout the writing of this thesis and to Louis

Tartaglia and Michael West for their helpful sugg-estions.

My thanks to Robert Kuboshima, who expertly drew and professionally assembled the maps of the Boggeragh and

Sperrin mountains, Figures 59 and 60, from my rough drafts.

Special thanks to my husband, Bob, and children,

Pam and Craig, whose patience and understanding made possible the completion of this· project.

iii TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . iii

LIST OF TABLES vii

LIST OF FIGURES viii

ABSTRACT xi

INTRODUCTION ...... 1

Chapter

I. SPECULATIVE PERIOD AND SUCCEEDING THEORETICAL PARADIGMS . . . . • • • 6

Speculative Period . • • . . . . • • . 6 Early Prehistoric Studies in Britain 6 Early Prehistoric Studies in Ireland 9 Diffusionist Paradigm ( 189 5-19 25) . . . • 12 Modified Diffusionist Paradigm (1925-1965)...... • . • • • • . 14 Independent Invention/Functionalist Paradigm ( 19 65-Present) . • . . . 19

II. CULTURAL CONTEXT OF THE IRISH STONE CIRCLES .•...•.• 26

The Ecology . • • 27 The Mesolithic . . . • . • • • • • • 30 The Neolithic ...... • • . • • • 32 Habitation Sites . . • • • • 32 Megalithic Tombs . . . . 38 The Early Bronze Age . • • . . • • 46 The Beaker Folk . . . • • • • • • . 46 Metallurgy . . . . • . . • • 47 Round Cairns . . . • • . . • • • 51 Standing Stones • • . . • • 53 Stone Circles . • • • • • . • • 54 Conclusion . . . . • • • • 55

iv Chapter

III. DESCRIPTION OF SITES BY GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION . • • • • • • • • • • • 57

Southwest Ireland 58 Western Ireland ...... 65 Eastern Ireland 67 Northern Ireland 70 Discuss ion • • . 74

IV. -PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE CIRCLES 78

Thorn's Metrology and Geometry . . • • • • 79 Geometry and. Construction • • • • • 81 Discussion . • . • • • • • • • • 84 Analysis by Diameter, Nlmber of Stones and Associated Features . . • • • • • 93 Conclusions • • • • • • • • • . • • • 109

. v. ARCHAEOASTRONOMICAL THEORY • 112

Introduction • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 112 Astronomical Observations • • • • • • 117 Solar Observations . • • • • 117 Lunar Observations . • • • • • • • • 120 Stellar Observations . • . • . • • • 127 Methodology of Archaeoastronomical Studies . . • • . • • • • • • • • ·129 Alexander Thorn • . • . • • • • • 129 John Edwin Wood . • . • • • • . • • 133 Gerald Hawkins . • • • • 135 Jonathan Reyman . • • • • • 138 Cork and Kerry Recumbent Stone Circle Alignments . • • • • • • • • • 140 Conclusion . . • • • • • • . • • • • • 145

VI. THE CIRCLES AS CEREMONIAL SITES: IMPLICATIONS FOR SOCIAL ORGANIZATION 147

Small-Scale Societies • • • • • • 149 Social Organization • • • • • • 149 Ceremonies . . . • • . • • • • • • • • • 151 Ceremonial Structures . . • • • • . 152 Cooperation, Competition or Autonomy: Models of Social Interaction . • • 155 Distribution and Social Organization • • . 157 Cork and Kerry Circles • . • • • • • • • 157 Western Circles • • • • • • • • • • • • 161

v Eastern Circles . . • . • • 162 Northern Circles . . . 162 Summary and Conclusion • • • 165

CONCLUSION 167

REFERENCES ...... 171 APPENDIX • 180

vi LIST OF TABLES

Table

1. Approximate Beginning Dates for Irish Epochs 4

2. Climate and Vegetation History from Pollen Analysis ...... 29

3. Radiocarbon Dates for the Neolithic 34

4. Radiocarbon Dates for the Bronze Age 49

5. Diameters of Irish Stone Circles in Meters and Megalithic Yards 86

6. Irish Stone Circles, Physical Characteristics and Associated Features . • • • • • • • • • 94

7. Diameters of Irish Stone Circles • . 103

8. Numbers of Stones in Irish Stone Circles ,, . 103

9. Circles of 30 m or More 104

10. Associated Features of the Stone Circles • . 105

11. The Sixteen-Month Bronze Age Calendar .• 119

12. Declination in Terms of Azimuth, Altitude, and Latitude . • • • • • • . • ••• ~ • 132

13. Refraction as a Function of Observed Altitude •••.•••• • 137

14. Semi diameter and Parallax of the Sun and !'·1oon. • 137

15. Extreme Declination of the Sun and Moon • 138

16. Azimuth and Declination of Cork Circles from Barber's Study ••••••••.••••• 142

vii LIST OF FIGURES

Figure

1. Map of the Counties and Provinces of Ireland ...... • . 181

2. Distribution of Stone Circles in the British Isles ...... 182

3. Bristlecone-pine Calibration Done by Hans E. Suess . . . . . • . • • 183

4. The New Chronology 184

5. Distribution Maps: a. Extent and Effects of Most Recent Glaciation b. Mineral Resources c. Plants of Lusitanian and North American Origin d. Peat Deposits .••••••••....• 185

6. Flint Implements and Neolithic Pottery Sherd ...... ~ 186

7. Axeheads, Stages of Manufacture • 187

8. Distribution of Tievebulliagh Axeheads 188

9. Neolithic Houses, Plans ..• 189

10. Lough Gur Pottery, Classes I, Ia, II 190

11. Distribution of Plain Round-base Neolithic Pottery ...... 191

12. Radiocarbon Dates for Neolithic Pottery Styles in Southern England and Northern Ireland ...... 192

13. Radiocarbon Dates for Earthen Long Barrows and Chambered Tombs . • • 193

14. Knowth Basin Stone 194

viii Figure

15. New Grange Entrance Stone and Roof-box 195

16. Fine Beaker Ware 196

17. Early Bronze Age Gold Ornaments 197

18. Axehead Hold 198

19. Bronze Age Pottery 199

20. Typical Grave-goods of Megalithic Tombs 200

21. Bowl Food Vessel Burial from Cist at Carrickinah, Co. Down • • . • • • • 201

22. Grave Group in Cist, Kilskeery, Corkragh, Co. Tyrone • • . . • • • • • • • • • • • • • 202

2 3. Distribution of Stone Circles in Southwest Ireland 203 24. Drombeg, Co. Cork ...... 204 25. Reanascreena, Co. Cork • . . . .. 205 26. Plans of Four Stone Circles in Cork 206

27. Lisivigeen, Co. Kerry 207

28. The Lios, Co. Limerick 208

29. Plan of the Lios, Co. Limerick . 209

30. Athgreany, Co. Wicklow •••• 210

31. Plans of Three Stone Circles in Wicklow 211

32. Ballynoe, Co. Down • 212

33. Millin Bay, Co. Down • 213

34. New Grange Stone Circle, Co. Meath • 214

35. Beaghmore, Co. Tyrone 215

36. Plan of Circles at Beaghmore, Co. Tyrone •• 216

37. Graph of Diameters and Circumferences in Megalithic Yards • • •••••••• 217

ix Figure

38. Flattened Circles, Types A and B •. 218

39. Ellipse, Postbridge 219

40. A Type I Egg-shaped Circle, Woodhenge 220

41. A Type II Egg-shaped Circle, Borrowston Rig ...... 221

42. Avebury, Geometry of the Circle 222

43. The Celestial Sphere 223

44. The Sun's Daily Movement Through the Sky . 223

45. Celestial Equator and the Ecliptic . 224

46. The Sun at Summer Solstice 225

47. The Sun at Winter Solstice 226

48. The Sun at the Equinoxes . . 227

49. Diagram of Internal Structure of New Grange 228

50. Histogram of Observed Declinations 229

51. Phases of the Moon . . • 230

52. Movements of the Moon 231

53. The Moon at Major Standstill 232

54. The Moon at Minor Standstill • . 233

55. Northern and "southern Extremes of the Moon at Major Standstill . . . . . • • . . . . 234 56. Northern and Southern Extremes of the Moon at Minor Standstill . . . • . • . 235

57. Major and Minor Standstills at Winter Solstice 236

58. Solar and Lunar Extremes in Azimuth 237

59. Boggeragh Mountains, Co. Cork 159

60. Sperrin Mountains, Cos. Londonderry and Tyrone . • . . • . • • . . • . • • • . • . • • 163

X ABSTRACT

THE STONE CIRCLES OF IRELAND

by

Ellen Gail Boatwright

Master of Arts in Anthropology

This thesis is primarily an overview of the Irish

stone circles. Successive paradigms by which they have been interpreted have been examined. Their Late Neolithic

and Early Bronze Age cultural contexts have been discussed.

The circles have been described and their physical charac­

teristics, diameter and number of stones, and their

associated features analyzed. Two hypothesized primary

functions have been examined, that of astronomical observa­ tory and that of religious-ceremonial site. It was con­ cluded that the circles were not constructed to serve primarily as astronomical observatories, but rather that an astronomical orientation, present at many of the sites, indicates that observance of midwinter solstice was prob­ ably an integral part of the religion of their builders.

xi A religious-ceremonial function was found to be the more likely primary function for the majority of the circles.

Analysis was made of the distribution of the circles in relation to three models of social interaction (coopera­ tion, competition, or autonomy) among basic population units (extended families) and inferences drawn concerning the social organization of the builders. It was concluded that no one model alone could explain the distribution of the circles, but that different processes were operating in different areas in a transitional social evolutionary stage between the more egalitarian Neolithic and more hierarchi­ cal Middle Bronze Age.

xii INTRODUC'riON

The stone circles of Ireland (map, Figure 1) are a type of megalithic structure or monument. The term mega- lithic refers to the massive stones used in these construe- tions, built without the use of mortar, rather than to any particular group of people who constructed such monuments.

Many peoples have built megalithic structures. Megalithic monuments in Europe consist of tombs (dolmens), single standing stones (menhirs), and stone circles.

When one speaks of stone circles, Stoneheng.e, because it is so well known, immediately comes to mind.

There is, however, a distinction between henges and stone circles. A stone circle is usually defined as a ring of stanq~ng.stones enclosing an open area, while Estyn Evans defines a henge as:

A circular enclosure or sanctuary taking its name from the earliest monument on the site of Stonehenge, consisting of an earthen bank with internal fosse. (Evans 1966:glossary)

The definition of stone circles excludes cairn or barrow kerbs even when their height is considerably greater than the adjacent part of the enclosed mound, but it includes settings of detached stones around some chambered tombs, such as New Grange, Co. Meath. Integrated with the structure may be banks, ditches, single outlying stones,

1 2 avenues or other auxiliary settings which vary from local­ ity to locality.

Since stone circles are found in only thirteen henge monuments, Evans does not consider them to be an integral part of the henge tradition ... Euan MacKie, on the other hand, feels that enough henges contain stone circles to indicate that the two are closely related and should be grouped together as circular ritual centers. Some lack stone circles, he reasons, because of the lack of suitable boulders nearby and others lack a surrounding ditch and bank because of the hardness of the underlying rock in the highland areas (MacKie 1977a:95). This could explain some of the differences in the type of structure built in a particular area, but does not explain why some groups transported boulders from great distances in order to build their structures of stones. In Ireland there is no geographical distinction between the distribution of henges and stone circles, as seems to be the case in

England (O'Riordain 1976:93).

According to Aubrey Burl, author of a comprehen­ sive study of these megalithic monuments, there are over

900 known stone circles in the British Isles (Figure 2).

This includes those either still preserved, or ruined, or those sites where the former existence of a circle is well attested (Burl 1976:8). A little over one-fourth, or 261, of these are to be found in Ireland, 128 in Ulster and 3

133 in Eire {Burl 1976:372).

The greatest concentrations are in the southwest of Ireland in counties Cork and Kerry and in the Sperrin mountains in mid-Ulster. The stone circles that have survived are often in unpopulated areas. It is not known how many have been destroyed or may lie undiscovered under the peat. Many stones may have been broken up for use in later constructions. There are many stories about the supernatural dangers of moving old stones. "It is probable that many megalithic monuments survived only because of country superstition" (Burl 1976:8). Some may ow~ their preservation to the dangers involved in toppling the heavy pillars.

Some sites have in the past been wrongly identified as stone circles: remains of cairns or kerb stones of smaller passage graves where the cairn or mound no longer exists, badly ruined stone huts, or stone forts with par-

~ ~ , ~· tially demolished ramparts (O'R1orda1n 1976:86). Some single standing stones may be the last remnant of a cham- bered grave or stone circle. There was a superstition that no harm would come to the destroyers if one stone were left (Evans 1966:21).

Excavation has revealed very few datable finds at these sites. The earliest date recorded for a stone circle is the average of three determinations from New Grange: c14 2508 be, giving a recalibrated date of 3300 BC (Figure 3}. 4

The latest date is from Sandy Road, Scone, Perthshire,

1200 be ± 150. In calendar years, then, the probable time span for construction of the stone circles is from about

3300 BC to about 1500 BC, a period of about 1800 years

(Burl 1976: 11) (Table 1) .

TABLE 1. Approximate beginning dates for Irish epochs

EARLY CHRISTIAN PERIOD c. 450 AD

IRON AGE c. 600 BC

LATE BRONZE AGE c. 1000 BC

MIDDLE BRONZE AGE c. 1400 BC

EARLY BRONZE AGE c. 1750 BC

BEAKER FOLK AT NEW GRANGE c. 2100 BC

NEOLITHIC c. 4000 BC

MESOLITHIC c. 6800 BC

This thesis is primarily an overview of the Irish stone circles. Successive schools of thought and their interpretation of this sort of monument will be discussed.

An attempt will be made to establish the cultural context within which the circles functioned. The circles will be described. Physical characteristics, diameter and number of stones, and their associated features will be analyzed.

Two functions will be examined, that of astronomical obser­ vatory and that of religious-ceremonial site. Other 5

functions have been hypothesized for the stone circles.

It has also been suggested that they were burial sites or

gathering places where widely scattered groups might have

engaged in trade. Burial as a function will be discussed

briefly in Chapter IV and will be dismissed as a primary

function of the majority of the circles. There is not, at

this time, enough archaeological evidence to consider in

any systematic way the hypothesis that the circles served

as trading centers. Too few artifacts have been found at

the sites to establish this function. Excavation of many more sites along with an analysis of regional production

and distribution of goods represented by the artifacts

recovered would be required. Finally, the relationship of

the distribution of the circles to the social organization of their builders will be discussed. CHAPTER I

SPECULATIVE PERIOD AND SUCCEEDING

THEORETICAL PARADIGMS

·speculative Period

Early Prehistoric Studies in Britain

British interest in antiquities dates back at least to the twelfth century when Geoffrey of Monmouth wrote

Histories of the Kings of Britain AD 1135, in which he related the legend of the removal of a stone structure called Dance of the Giants from Mount Killaraus in Ireland to Salisbury Plain to form Stonehenge (Hawkins 1965:4).

Uther Pendragon, father of King Arthur, and King Constan­ tine were said to have been buried there. Early interest in stone circles was centered on this most impressive of the circular monuments.

James I, in the early seventeent.h century visited

Stonehenge and ordered the architect Inigo Jones to draw a plan of the stones and find out how the structure had come into being. Jones's book, published in 1655, The Most

Remarkable Antiquity of Great Britain, vulgarly called

Stone-Heng, Restored, rejected as the builders the Druids, who were noted more for contemplation rather than for any

6 7 practice in architecture, mathematics, or any of the arts or sciences; the Early Britains, who were considered to be savage and barbarous people; and Merlin the magician, whose story was considered a ridiculous fable, an idle conceit.

Instead Jones asserted that the Romans were the builders of this monument, citing in support of his theory their knowledge in all arts and sciences and their order in building. He thought it a temple dedicated to the sky god, Coelus (Hawkins 1965:10).

When John Aubrey, the first English archaeologist, reviewed Stonehenge for Charles II in 1663, he called this and other monuments Pagan Temples, Temples of the Druids.

He thought Stonehenge more ancient than of Roman or Saxon construction.

Druids are often associated with the monuments, but they were Celtic priests or medicine-men, who came to

Britain in about the fifth century BC. Powerful for cen­ turies, they survived as priests, judges, doctors and educators, especially of the royal young, after the Chris­ tians came to Britain in about the third century. Caesar, in Gallic Wars, told of Druid schools where they learned by heart a great number of verses, some persons remaining twenty years in training. The principal doctrine of the druids was that souls do not die, but after death pass from one to another. It was said they had many discussions about the stars and their movement, the size of the uni- 8 verse and of the earth (Hawkins 1965:15).

Throughout the speculative period whatever was rude and barbarous was considered indigenous or Druidical, while whatever showed any skill, invention or progress in the arts was Phoenician, Roman, or Danish.

In 1740, William Stukely published Stonehenge, a temple restored to the British Druids. Supporting Aubrey's

Druid theory, he declared Stonehenge and similar stone circles had been serpent temples. He carefully measured distances between positions and tried to show the builders had used a unit of length called a "druid cubit," a length of 20.8 inches (Hawkins 1965:19). He pointed out that the principal line of the monument points to the northeast

"where abouts the sun rises, when the days are longest"

(Hawkins 1965:20).

In 1812, the antiquary Sir Richard Colt Hoare produced a fairly accurate chart of the Stonehenge posi­ tions as they actually were, rather than as he thought they might have been originally. Digging in the surrounding areas he found pieces of the monument's stones in certain burial pits. He thus proved these burials to have been placed after Stonehenge was built. Concerning the origins of Stonehenge Hoare wrote: "We may admire, we may conjec­ ture; but we are doomed to remain in ignorance and obscu­ rity" (Hawkins 1965:22).

In 1836, C. J. Thomsen developed a relative 9 chronology, the three age system, which met the need to order material in a systematic way. It divided the past into periods or epochs: the Stone Age, Bronze Age and Iron

Age. These formed workable units for discussion, which could then be further subdivided by the typological method.

The first edition of Lord Avebury's Prehistoric Times, published in 1865, proposed the division of Thomsen's Stone

Age into Paleolithic and Neolithic periods (Daniel 1968b:

58) • Lord Avebury estimated Stonehenge and similar stone structures were products of the Bronze Age, 1500-1000 BC.

In the 1870s W. M. Flinders Petrie produced a chart of Stonehenge accurate to about an inch. He thought most of Stonehenge had been built before the Roman inva­ sion, but that a few stones had been erected later, to the memory of Aurelius Ambrosius, Uther and Constantine, "and probably other chiefs, buried at intervals at Stonehenge"

(Hawkins 1965:25).

Early Prehistoric Studies in Ireland

In Ireland, the earliest academic reference to archaeological material is contained in the Annals of Loch

Ce, 1191, where the finding of an axe and spearhead in the bed of the River Galway is recorded. In the Annals of the

Four Masters; 1545, is found a description of the contents of a bishop's or archbishop's tomb in Christchurch Cathe­ dral in Dublin. Dilletanti speculated about these and 10 other antiquities for several centuries (Harbison 1976:7).

In the nineteenth century a more factual approach was taken. With the founding of the Irish Ordnance Survey

in 1823, an ordered and sustained study of field antiq­ uities throughout the country began. Drawings and descrip­

tions and notes of local traditions were made. George

Petrie, who is called.the father of Irish archaeology, was a Scottish draftsman working for the Historical Commission of Ireland's first Ordnance Survey. In 1835, he became head of the Placenames and Antiquities section of the

survey. He combed the countryside for prehistoric and

Early Christian antiquities (Harbison 1976:7).

In the_ nineteenth century the Royal Irish Academy gathered together a comprehensive collection of portable antiquities which were displayed in the National Museum of

Ireland in Dublin. The three volume catalog, published between 1857 and 1863, was the major. nineteenth-century reference work on Irish archaeology (Harbison 1976:8}.

When George Coffey, the Curator of Antiquities in the National Museum, began excavating in the 1890s a higher stundard of excavation and publication was instituted. R. A. s. Macalister, who in 1909 was created first Profes­ sor of Archaeology in the recently established National

University of Ireland, followed this trend, although his excavations were not always considered to be as meticulous as they might have been (Harbison 1976:8). 11

Fieldwork on a sustained scale began with the

excavation in 1932, of a Neolithic court cairn at Goward,

in County Down, conducted by two staff members of Queen's

University, Belfast. Estyn Evans, of Geography, and

Oliver Davies, of Classics, collaborated on this and

several other excavations in the next decade (Herity and

Eogan 1977:13). These were the first scientific excava­

tions in Ireland (Harbison 1976:8).

Further impetus was given to archaeological excava­

tion by the provision in 1934 of government funds for

excavation in areas where there was unemployment. Expen­

diture has grown from about £5000 in 1934 to about £50,000 in recent years (Herity and Eagan 1977:14).

In 1932, the Harvard University Archaeological

Mission went to Ireland under the direction of Hallam J~

Movius and Hugh Hencken. They conducted excavations on

the Poulawack and Ballinderry sites and were instrumental

in training a new school of Irish excavators: G. F.

Mitchell, who excavated Stone Age settlements; Sean P.

O'Riordain, who excavated sites around Lough Gur in the

1940s and on Tara Hill in the 1950s; and M. J. O'Kelly, whose excavations extend from Stone Age tombs to late medieval fortifications {Harbison 1976:9).

Throughout the speculative period, stone circles were imbued with mystery: " • . in these stones is a mystery, and a healing virtue against many ailments. 12

Giants of old did carry them from the furthest ends of

Africa and did set them up in Ireland what time they did inhabit there .•• not a stone is there that lacketh in virtue of witchcraft . . • " wrote Geoffrey of Monmouth

(Hawkins 1965:4). As a more scientific approach began to be applied to the study of these structures, archaeologists began collecting data:through scientific excavations and then sought to discover the origins and functions of the structures by applying one or another theoretical paradigm to the date.

Diffusionist Paradigm (1895-1925)

Diffusion has been defined as

••• ·that aspect of cultural change which includes transmission of techniques, attitudes, con­ cepts and points of view from one people to another, whether it be through the medium of a single indi­ vidual of a group, or whether the contact is brief or sustained. The diffusionist model may incorporate such concepts as the spread of a cult or an invention (with or without an accompanying movement of people), a migration of people (the 'invasion hypothesis'), and acculturation. (Waddell 1978:121)

In 1895-96, Oscar Montelius made a systematic study of megalithic chambered tombs. He arranged various types of tombs in an evolutionary sequence, giving a relative chronology. He compared these developments with those already dated in the Mediterranean on the basis of the historical chronology of Ancient Egypt. It was assumed that those in northern Europe followed and were influenced by those built further south. On the assumption that their 13 distribution was the product of cultural influences from the east Mediterranean he dated their arrival in northern

Europe between 4000 and 3000 BC (Renfrew 1974:7). In 1908, at the Society of Antiquaries, Montelius proposed a

'Chronology of the Bronze Age in Great Britain and Ire­ land,' which formed the basis for all subsequent classifi­ cations for many years (Renfrew 1974:10).

Sir Arthur Evans,. in 1909, suggested that the faience beads found in the south of England and parts of

Scotland and Ireland were imitated from the Egyptian and manufactured in Minoan Crete. He suggested that their distribution may have been due to colonial expansion of the Minoan Empire (Renfrew 1974:10).

The diffusionist theory assumes each cultural trait spread from where it began to another place and so on, by trade~ migrating populations, or cultural contact. Grafton

Elliot Smith was the foremost proponent of the diffusionist school. As a professor of anatomy at the Government Med­ ical School in Cairo in 1900, he became interested in

Egyptology. He was obsessed with Egyptian burial tech­ niques and the achievements of the Nile civilization. In

The Ancient Egyptians, 1911, he asserted that world civili­ zation and much of western culture diffused from the Nile Valley. w. J. Perry was one of his most noted followers (Fagan 1975:38).

While the more radical ideas· of these individuals 14 were rejected, two basic ideas were retained in a modified form: the migrations of peoples and the diffusion of cul- ture.

Modified Diffusionist Paradigm (1925-1965)

As archaeological knowledge grew and prehistoric cultural diversity was recognized the static three-age system was no longer satisfactory. Questions about the origins of human culture were asked: When and where did farming begin? When and where did metallurgy begin? How did culture change and diversity come about (Renfrew 1974:

11)? Population movements, migrations and invasions were used to explain changes noted in the archaeological record.

Diffusion of ideas from one people to another was the explanation for cultural change advocated by late nineteenth-century archaeologists. Reacting against the ideas that cultures changed uniformly, they saw that culture change could be explained by outside influences. Prehis- torians of the 1920s formulated a new paradigm.

Using the new paradigm, the data were ordered in new ways, revealing new patterns within it, from which new interpretations could be made. The modified diffusionist or the invasionist paradigm studied spatial variation using a geographical approach (Renfrew 1974:12).

0. G. S. Crawford and Cyril Fox pioneered the geographical approach to prehistory. Crawford's aim, 15

formulated in 1912, was to isolate a single culture period, and to examine it from a geographical point of view. In

Man and His Past, 1921, Crawford developed these ideas.

Fox's Archaeology of the Cambridge Region, 1923, was the

first detailed regional study in British archaeology and a model for much later work (Renfrew 1974:12). In The

Personality of Britain, 1932, Fox stated:

Position, outline, relief and structure are involved in this study ofthe island of Britain; the climate resulting from position and relief, and the soil related to the structure, determine the vegetable life which she nourishes and the animal life which she harbours. The whole repre­ sents Man's environment, and Britain's person­ ality. (Fox 1932:86)

Detailed research on local distributions and on distinctive assemblages of material was done with the aim of relating an assemblage to a similar one elsewhere

(Renfrew 1974:14). In the early 1920s spatial analysis and a geographical approach became well established in

Britain and Ireland (Renfrew 1974:12).

Among the more influential and representative of the theorists of the next few decades were v. Gordon Childe, Grahame Clarke and Stuart Piggott. They emphasized a more human analysis than had been done under the old system which had centered more on objects, or collections, rather than the makers of the objects. These workers analyzed immigrant cultures and groups whose movements and influ- ences could be followed in the geographical and temporal 16 distribution of the archaeological data (Renfrew 1974:16).

Types and assemblages of artifacts, found in a specified area and over a definite time range, were regarded as the material equipment of a specific group of people, such as the 'Beaker Folk.' V. Gordon Childe was the prin­ cipal proponent of this idea (Renfrew 1974:12). The changing spatial limits of these cultures were seen as the result of the movement of·the peoples with which thPy were identified. Childe presented a dynamic view of prehistory where ideas and innovations were transmitted by a process of diffusion, by movements of peoples, or at least by contacts and interaction between them {Renfrew 1974:13).

Childe's first synthesis of European prehistory,

The Dawn of European Civilization, was published in 1925.

In this, and subsequent works, he explained prehistory based on modified diffusionist principles, explaining cultures by their surviving culture traits like pots, implements, house forms or ornaments which were constantly found together. These might have widespread or limited distribution in time and space {Fagan 1975:41).

Grahame Clarke, in 1933, said that the science of archaeology could be defined as the study of the past distribution of culture traits in space and time, and of the factors governing their distribution. Excavation acquired a new purpose--reconstructing the prehistory of

Britain in a sequence of past events~ The aim of Old 17

World archaeology was to write the history of man (Renfrew

1974:14; Daniel 1968b:89).

Childe saw food production and urban, literate society beginning in the Near East in two great stages, the Neolithic and Urban Revolutions. In Social Evolution,

1951, Childe systematically compared prehistoric cultures at roughly equivalent levels of development in an attempt to discover the regularities in cultural evolution. He attempted to describe how cultures change as opposed to why they change, the question that is examined by the prac­ titioners of the succeeding theoretical paradigm. Childe used two models: a technological-evolutionary one and an economic model, using the way of getting one's living as a criterion for comparison (Fagan 1975:41). In The Bronze

Age, 1930, Childe considered the Bronze Age not as an epoch in the three age system, but as a major technological stage where metallurgy was at the forefront of both technological and social advance (Renfrew 1974:17).

Stuart Piggott's Neolithic Cultures of the British

Isles,l954, was considered the most important contribution of that decade. It was a complete regional and chronolog­ ical survey of the Neolithic period in Great Britain. This detailed analysis was, nevertheless, written within the framework established by Childe in the 1940s (Renfrew

1974:16). In general, "the principal preoccupation through­ out this period was the study of the past distribution of 18

culture traits in space and time" and "their interpreta-

tion in human terms, as the result of movements of people

and the diffusion of culture." Chronology was crucial in

this interpretation (Renfrew 1974:17) ..

Childe modified and shortened Montelius's chron-

ology, using the megalithic tombs of western Europe. He

assumed, like Montelius, that the practice of collective

burial derived ultimately from the east Mediterranean, so

that its earliest occurrence in Europe would therefore be

. in Spain. He derived the Spanish tombs from the round

tombs of the Mesara plain in Crete, datable to around

2700 BC. This then was the earliest possible date for the

megalithic tombs of Europe and he set the beginnings of

the British Neolithic at about that time (Renfrew 1974:18}.

Two diffusionist assumptions were:

1. Similarities are observed between finds from Britain and those in the Mediterranean, and these may be taken to indicate some form of contact between the two regions. 2. The direction of influence may be taken as being from south to north and from east to west. In this way if the Mediterranean finds are dated, which they can reliably be by reference to the calendar of ancient Egypt, then the British finds can safely be assigned a date a little later. {Renfrew 1974:19)

The radiocarbon method of dating, invented by

Willard Libby in 1949, offered a way of obtaining absolute

dates which did not require a series of basic assumptions

about prehistory. Beginning in the 1950s the dates

obtained by this method did not fit well with the 19 established chronology. There was at the same time, a developing dissatisfaction with the idea that the signifi- cant changes in the early past were the result of invasion from abroad. There was a growing awareness that the modi- fied diffusionist paradigm did not answer all the questions archaeologists wished to ask. The final blow was the tree- ring calibration of radiocarbon which showed the existing chronology to be invalid (R~nfrew 1974:20).

Grahame Clarke, adjusting to the new perspective brought about by the method, in 1966, wrote: c14 For much of the first half of the twentieth century British archaeologists felt themselves under strong compulsion to ascribe every change, every development to overseas influences of one kind or another. The more accessible parts of the continent between Portugal and Norway, or more often literature bearing on these, was searched for analogies. So sure were prehistorians that every new thing must have come from the Continent that even quite vague similarities sufficed to define and denote not merely culture contact but actual invasion. In the final stage of the neuro­ sis, hypothetical invasions became so real that they, instead of the archaeological material itself were actually made the basis of classifi­ cation. (Clarke 19 6 6: 172)

IndeEendent Invention/Functionalist Paradigm ( 1965-Present)

Acceptance of the validity of the radiocarbon dat- ing method meant a much longer time span for the British

Neolithic than had previously been proposed (Figure 4).

In 1965, Child's basic idea that the megalithic tombs of

Iberia were derived from the east Mediterranean was seri- 20 ously questioned. Very early radiocarbon dates for Breton tombs n:ade an independent northwest European origin for them more probable {Renfrew 1974:32).

In 19671 Glyn Daniel wrote:

Research on the European megaliths has been proceeding for a hundred years; and I think we do know that they did not have a single origin, and that 'megalithics' came into existence indepen­ dently in Malta, Portugal, Denmark and probably western Britain and Ireland. (Renfrew 1974:32)

The new dating was profoundly changing the accepted explanations. The idea of the east Mediterranean origin of the megalithic tombs of northwestern Europe had to be abandoned. The round tombs of Crete had been dated by

Aegean scholars to around 2700 BC; there were megalithic tombs in Britain a millenium before.

The new approach emphasized local development.

Old World archaeologists were influenced by the findings of New World archaeologists that showed the independent development of agriculture in several areas and the inde- pendent development of civilizations in Mexico and Peru

(Daniel 1968b:84). This led to a rethinking of their ideas about Old World archaeology. A reinterpretation of the evidence suggested that faience beads, previously thought to have come from the Aegean area, were of local manufac- ture (Renfrew 1974:33). There was a move from unilinear evolution and diffusion to multilinear and parallel evo- lution (Daniel 1968b:87). 21

Clarke, in "The Invasion Hypothesis in British

Prehistory" wrote:

To sum up, whereas for the first half of the twentieth century it was common form to explain every change in the culture of the first 3,000 years or so of peasant culture in the south of England in terms of invasion, the younger school of prehistorians has been more inclined to seek the explanation for change in terms of indigenous evolution .... Invasions and minor intrusions have undoubtedly occurred, even if far less often than other forms of culture contact, but their existence has to be demonstrated, not assumed. (Clarke 1966:187)

It was seen that rich, exotic goods in the archaeological

record could be interpreted as signs of increasing wealth

on the part of the native leaders rather than as signs of

an invading aristocracy.

Functionalism was derived from the work of the

French sociologist Emile Durkheim, who tried to make soci-

ology an empirical study and focused his work on specific

societies or institutions, assuming that social institu-

tions exercise constraint over individuals. His work,

based on the premise that social life is the functioning

of social structure, has profoundly affected anthropolog-

ical methodology in the twentieth century {Fagan 1975:39;

Langness 1974:110).

Functionalism seeks to explain not how, but rather

·why, change comes about. The methodology employed involved

examining the relationships of the various subsystems of

the culture, one to another. An explanation for changes 22 noted in the archaeological record is sought by examining the social and econo~ic processes leading to innovation and to the acceptance of innovation. It is a study of culture process, where process refers to an analysis of the factors that cause change.

The work of Lewis Binford influenced Old World archaeologists to turn to a study of culture processes.

Binford stated, "Culture is neither simple nor addi+-.ive 11

(Renfrew 1974:36). Archaeologists need to measure along several dimensions simultaneously Binford asserted. In considering this point, Renfrew wrote:

It is meaningless holistically to compare two cultures and suggest they are alike or not, or to try to measure their similarity. Instead we have to analyze different fields of activity, different subsystems of the culture system. We have to think in terms of five or six different subsystems which if properly understood should give us the informa­ tion which we need in order to understand the work­ ing of the culture as a whole. (Renfrew 1974:36)

In this study of culture process, the following subsystems of the culture are analyzed:

1. subsistence 2. technology 3. social organization 4. religion 5. trade and communications 6. population and population density

This theory holds that culture change is produced by the interactions between these subsystems, as in the impact of bronze metallurgy on the social organization, or of increas- ing population on subsistence (Renfrew 1974:36). 23

This paradigm does not compare artifact with arti­

fact in elaborate typologies, but instead, focuses on one

aspect of the evidence, including the artifacts themselves,

and examines it in terms of patterns among artifacts in

time and space. The different kinds of human activity

indicated in the subsystems can all operate simultaneously

to determine the form, composition and function of a par­

ticular artifact (Renfrew 1974:37).

The interactions are not yet well understood. But

answers are now sought in quantitative terms. Renfrew

suggests that the major advance in field archaeology must be to develop the ability to use sampling techniques effectively to answer.quantitative questions: how much? how many? how bit? and how long? He stresses the need for

population estimates in specified areas over specified

time periods, so that economic prehistory can work on a demographic basis, as economic history is now trying to do

(Renfrew 1974:37).

The emphasis on functionalism in ethnology has influenced archaeological thinking about the use of analogy and behavioral interpretations. Functionalist ethnog­ raphies integrate various aspects of culture with each other and with the adaptation of the culture as a whole to its environment. Functionalism stresses the notion that cultures are not made up of a random selection of traits, but that cultural traits are integrated in various 24 ways and influence each other in fairly predictable ways.

Using a functional approach many archaeologists select analogies from the ethnographic data to help them interpret archaeological finds. Only those cultures that most closely resemble the archaeological culture in subsistence, technology and environment and that are least removed in time and space should be used (Fagan 1975:331). Analogy can be used as a first step toward interpretation. Once several analogies are chosen, the implications of each one can be stated and then tested against the archaeological data (Fagan 1975:333). Various statistical tests and/or experimentation among groups of living people might be con­ ducted. The goal of this sort of research is to develop scientific methods of testing and evaluating archaeological hypotheses (Fagan 1975:334).

In the past the concept of a movement of people in the Neolithic in Ireland had been used to explain the appearance of most of the major types of megalithic tombs.

DeValera asserted that the court tomb originated in western

France and represented a major Neolithic colonization of

Ireland; Case asserted that the earliest Irish Neolithic pottery came from Brittany (Waddell 1978:122). The Inde­ pendent Invention or Functionalist paradigm rejects the old invasion hypothesis. The surviving Irish tombs and pottery are considered to be the products of well over a thousand years of insular development which was stimulated, 25 probably a number of times, by the movement of small farm­ ing communities across the Irish Sea (Waddell 1978:124).

Archaeologists are now looking for continuity in the archaeological record. Superficial changes in the material remains indicate that the behavior of the late

Neolithic population was strongly influenced by older, persisting traditions. The henge monuments, found nowhere else outside Great Britaini are a striking evidence of continuity which stem from middle Neolithic prototypes.

At Avebury there was a continuity of ritualism and cere­ monialism extending over a long period and through succes­ sive changes of material culture {Clarke 1966:182). These earliest circular structures indicate a long-standing tradition.

With the advent of absolute methods of dating and an emphasis on tracing local development and analyzing cultural process, ideas about megalithic structures changed.

It became less important to ask where they came from than to ask how they fit into the culture of the people who constructed them. CHAPTER II

CULTURAL CONTEXT OF THE IRISH STONE CIRCLES

The time period in which the Irish stone circles were built and used is not known with certainty. The earliest estimated date, '3300 BC, is that obtained for the passage grave at New Grange; however, it is not known if the circle surrounding the mound was contemporary, earlier or later. If, as Burl believes, the outer circle is no later than the passage grave, then it is the earliest stone circle thus far recognized (Burl 1976:242). From Stone- henge, a date of 2180 ± 105 be (2940-2590 BC) was c14 obtained for a deer antler pick found at the bottom of the ditch (I. F. Smith 1974:136).

Evans stated:

In Ireland neither the free-standing stone circle nor the ring bank can be proved to be pre-Beaker, though the earthen Giant's Ring near Belfast is pre­ sumably late Neolithic and also the great stone circle of Ballynoe not far away; both have burial monuments inside. The finest of the circles at Lough Gur, the Grange circle, composed of contiguous stones backed by a large earthen bank, can be dated by finds of pottery and artefacts, apparently ritually broken, to the Early Bronze Age. (Evans 1960:16)

Though precise dates are impossible, it is generally agreed on the basis of a few dates obtained, associated artifacts, and the megalithic typology in gene+al, that the stone

26 27 circles were of Late Neolithic and Early Bronze Age con­ struction.

The Ecology

During the last glacial period, some 20,000 years ago, Ireland, except for the southern rim, was covered with ice. It was one of the last European countries to be colo­ nized by man. The earliest man-made implement in Ireland was found by the Irish Paleolithic authority, G. F.

Mitchell, at a quarry at Mell, less than a mile northeast of Drogheda. The gravel among which this flint flake was found had probably originated from dry land which has since sunk below the Irish Sea. The occurrence of this implement demonstrates that man, during the Paleolithic, had pene­ trated as far westwards as the basin of the Irish Sea; though it does not prove that man had reached Ireland in the Paleolithic p~riod (Herity and Eogan 1977:16).

Although at the tip of northern Europe, only occasionally does Ireland today feel the intense cold of the North European Plain; even, then, the western seaboard tends to remain under the influence of mild, moist south­ westerlies that blow in over the warm Gulf Stream. These winds and currents have brought to Ireland flora of Spain,

Portugal and even America; several Lusitanian and American plants exceptional in these latitudes are found in the southwest and west of Ireland (Figure 5) (Herity and Eogan: 28

1977:1).

From pollen analysis it has been determined that

after the retreat of the ice-sheet, the land was covered with an open tundra vegetation, including dwarf willow

(Table 2). From around 10,000-8800 BC there was a warmer period when grasses and herbs appeared and birch and juni­ per were found. In a colder period, 8800-8300 BC, there was a regression to open tundra. In the next period, the

Pre-Boreal phase, 8300-7500 BC, birch reappeared and aspen and heather were found. In the Boreal phase, 7500-6900

BC, hazel became more widespread; birch began to decline and a few oak and elm were found. There '\vas probably a short~lived landbridge between Antrim and Kintyre which would have provided an entryway for plants and animals from

Britain (Herity and Eagan 1977:3).

In the next period, the Atlantic phase, 5200-3000

BC, there was a warm oceanic climate when the sea rose to a maximum postglacial inundation leaving behind on its retreat the Larnian raised beaches. In the drier and warmer ·(as much as 2.5° C.) Sub-Boreal phase, 3000-·1.000 BC, man made his first impact on the environment, clearing elm forests for areas to grow wheat and barley. Around 1000 BC there was a return to the wetter temperate climate of today; the peat bogs which covered many megalithic monu­ ments began to grow (Herity and Eagan 1977:3,4).

In addition to fertile lands for crops, excellent TABLE 2. Climate and vegetation history from pollen analysis

ZONES VIII-X (SUB-ATLANTIC PHASE) Return to wetter, temperate climate of today; 1000 Be-present blanket bogs began to grow.

ZONE VIIb (SUB-BOREAL PHASE) Drier, warmer~-as much as 2.5° C. Oak common, 3000-1000 BC birch and pine. Neolithic farmers; decline of elm.

ZONE VIIa (ATLANTIC PHASE) Climax in warm oceanic climate; seas rose to 5200-3000 BC maximum. Alder flourished. Periwinkle common.

ZONE VI (BOREAL PHASE) Summer temperature higher than today. Oceanic 6900-5200 BC wind system. Holly, ivy. First signs of man.

ZONE V (BOREAL PHASE) Warmer, much like t~mperature today. Expansion 7500-6900 BC of hazel; birch declines. Oak and elm in small n~~ers. Short-lived landbridge between Antrim and Kintyre--entryway for plants and animals from Britain.

ZONE IV (PRE-BOREAL PHASE) Colder than modern times. Birch reappeared; 8300-7500 BC aspen and heather appeared.

NEOTHERMAL TIMES END OF PALEOLITHIC

ZONE III Colder. Open tundra. 8800-8300 BC

ZONE II Warmer. Grasses and herbs; birch and juniper 10,000-8800 BC Giant Irish deer.

ZONE I (RETREAT OF ICE) Open tundra. Dwarf willow. Reindeer, brown c. 10,000 BC deer, mammoth, leming, arctic fox.

(From Herity and Eogan 1977:3,4,16)

N ~ 30 grazing lands for livestock, lakes and rivers abundant with fish and fowl, Ireland had mineral wealth: copper deposits in the Wicklow Mountains, west Cork and Kerry, gold in

Leinster, and silver deposits in Tipperary (Herity and

Eogan 1977:1). The basalt coasts of Antrim, at one point only 13 miles from Scotland, have a band of chalk loaded with flint, first exploited around 6000 BC. Vast numbers of man-worked flints have. been found along the Antrim coast (Evans 1966:6).

The Mesolithic

As the ice retreated and the forests spread in northern Europe new ways of life, adapted to fishing on the coasts and hunting at the forest edges, spread with them.

Mesolithic fishermen and fowlers moved by water in skin·and dug-out boats. The sea was then possibly as much as 25 meters lower than today with a considerably narrower dis­ tance between northern Ireland and Scotland. Harbison asserts this was almost certainly the route being used by small families arriving in Ireland from southwestern Scot­ land around this time. The earliest reliable traces of human activity in Ireland date from around 6800 BC. The few sites known from this period are largely clustered around the head of the Irish Sea where these groups prob­ ably landed. Their campsites, where excavated, reveal an abundant use of timber (Harbison 1976:18). 31

One of the most common Mesolithic implements was a leaf-shaped blade, the Bann flake, named after the river valley in which it most frequently occurs. These may have been used as knives but could also have been heads or prongs of fishing spears (Figure 6).

The Curran, thus called for its sickle shape, is part of an old beach, near the modern port of Larne,

Antrim, raised 25 feet above sea level in a late phase of post-glacial land and sea level adjustments. It is covered with abraded flint tools of the Larnian culture, Mesolithic fisher folk (Evans 1966:7).

After the first signs of human occupation there are no traces of permanent habitations for·about the next 3000 years. Mesolithic fishers and hunters apparently moved from place to place, catching and smoking fish and hunting wild animals. Their traces become more common after 3500

BC, when they are found occupying not only their original territories in counties Antrim, Down and Derry, but as far south along the coast as Dalkey Island at the mouth of

Dublin Bay and as far inland as the Inny Lakes near !'lullin­ gar and as far west as Lough Gara on the Sligo, Roscommon border (Harbison 1976:19). In the period after 3500 BC, they adopted new types of tools: large core-axes, boring tools and scrapers made in the form of a fish tail. Neo­ lithic agricultural sites begin to appear in Ulster around

4000 BC (Harbison 1976:19). 32

The Neolithic

The use of polished stone implements marks the

change from the Mesolithic to the Neolithic. Whereas Meso­

lithic peoples had used flint core-axes, the Neolithic

settlers were characterized by their use of polished axes

of porcellanite mined at Tievebulliagh, Co. Antrim (Figure

7). Many of these Tievebulliagh axes were also exported to

Britain. The greatest numbers outside of Ireland occur in northeastern Scotland, but as shown on the map in Figure 8

they have been found as far away as southern England

(Harbison 1976:20). The Neolithic population continued to mine flint and made new forms from it, such as the flint

arrowhead. Neolithic communities had domesticated animals

--cattle and sheep. They made clearings in the forests,

apparently searching out the wych-elm as an indicator of

lime-rich soils, in order to plant barley and later also wheat (Evans 1966:9). Their crops and herds necessitated that they settle in one place for a considerable time.

They were not continually on the move as the Mesolithic people had been. This was the beginning of settled commu­ nity life in Ireland.

Habitation Sites

The earliest dates for a Neolithic habitation c14 site have been obtained from Arthur apSirnon's 1967-68 exca­ vations at Ballynagilly, Co. Tyrone ·(Figure 9). At first 33 it seems the people housed themselves in some sort of covered pits. Charcoal from one of ·these pits gave a radiocarbon date of 3675 ± 50 be, a recalibrated date of

4470 BC, the earliest date of any Neolithic occupation c14 site anywhere in Ireland or Britain (Harbison 1976:21)

(Table 3). After several centuries the inhabitants built a house on the site, 6.5 x 6 meters, with each of the two longer walls of oak planks placed vertically in a trench with stones packed around the planks to hold them in place.

Charcoal from the planks gave a date of 3215 ± 50 be, c14 recalibrated as 4200-3970 BC. Post holes found inside the house may once have held roof-supports. There were two hearths. Sherds of Neolithic pottery were found in the trenches and in a pit inside the house; three leaf-shaped arrowheads were also found (Harbison 1976:21). There were no other signs of buildings around this area; Smith suggests the settlement pattern of the Earlier Neolithic may have been one of isolated farmsteads (I. F. Smith 1974:

104) •

Timbered houses, also of Neolithic date but prob­ ably later than that at Ballynagilly, were found in the excavations at Lough Gur, Co. Limerick, by Sean P.

O'Rfordain in the 1940s. This lake had from a very early period been the center of a considerable population, undoubtedly attracted to its shores and waters by the great numbers of animals, birds and fish found there (Windle TABLE 3. Radiocarbon dates for the Neolithic

Date be Calibrated Date Site Feature c14 BC {Approx.)

SETTLEMENTS AND OCCUPATION MATERIAL

Ballynagilly, I Hearth 3795 ± 90 4580 Tyrone Pit/gully complex 3690 ± 90 4480

Pit 3675 ± 50 4470

Layer 5b, pit complex 3420 ± 85 4340

Post-hole outside hour 3280 ± 125 4220-4000

Plank wall of house 3215 ± 50 4200-3970

Pit 2960 ± 90 3690

Goodland, Pit 2625 ± 135 3400 Antrim

Island MacHugh Occupation Level 1430 ± 120 1670 Tyrone

Madman's Window Hearth 3145 ± 120 4200-3950 Glenaram, Antrim

Townleyhall (II) Occupation beneath 2730 ± 150 3500-3410 Louth passage grave (Continued) w ""' TABLE 3 {continued)

Date be Calibrated Date Site Feature c14 BC ( Approx. )

COURT CAIRNS

Annaghmare, Charcoal sealed behind 2445 ± 55 3380-3210 Armagh primary blocking of fore­ court

Ballymacdermot, Charcoal beneath blocking 1710 ± 60 2130 Armagh of inner forecourt

Ballyutoag, Charcoal.from forecourt 2710 ± 300 2940-2580 Antrim

PASSAGE GRAVES

Fourknocks II, Crematorium 1530 ± 140 2010-1710 Meath

Knowth, Meath Basal layer of mound 2795 ± 165 3650-3530 large tomb

Knowth, Meath Ground surface beneath 2845 ± 185 3670 smaller tomb mound

{Continued)

w VI TABLE 3 (continued)

Date be Calibrated Date Site Feature c14 BC (Approx.)

PASSAGE GRAVES (continued)

Mound of the Hostages, Ground surface beneath 2310 ± 160 2960 Tara, Meath mound

Ditch antedating mound 2310 ± 160· 2920-2530

Charcoal contemporary 1930"± 150 2480-2250 with construction

New Grange, Basal sod layer 2585 ± 105 3390 Meath Caulking of roof slab 3 2475 ± 45 3380-3220

Caulking under cross-lintel 2465 ± 40 3380-3220

Townleyhall (II) Occupation antedating tomb 2730 ± 150 3500-3410 Louth

(From I. F. Smith 1974:128,129,133,134)

w 0'1 37

1912: 2 84) •

On the east of ~ough Gur and surrounded on three sides by it, is Knockadoon, now a hill rising over 400 feet, but once an island. Both round and rectangular house sites were found there. Nine habitation huts were exca­ vated. Large quantities of Neolithic sherds were recovered from the houses, which were built of timber on foundations of stones and sods (Figure 10) • Beaker and Food Vessel sherds shows that occupation continued into the Bronze Age

(Evans 1966:147). c dates obtained from charcoal from 14 the old ground level and from charcoal from post holes in the old ground level were: 2450 ± 240 be and 2730 ± 240 be

-c. 2600 be (Watts 1960:113).

Another house similar to that at Ballynagilly was found during the 1970-71 excavations at Ballyglass, Co.

Mayo, conducted by Sean O'Nuallain. He found the remains of a timber house which, except at its northern end, was demarcated by a trench much like that at Ballynagilly. The

Ballyglass house was rectangular, 13 x 6 meters, made of poles placed at varying distances apart in the trenches.

It is not known what material was used to fill the spaces between the poles. Most of the pottery sherds found had the typical Neolithic out-turned rims (Figures 11 and 12).

The house was just beside a large megalithic tomb.

6'Nuallain concluded the house had been intentionally demolished to make way for the tomb (Harbison 1976:25). 38

Each of the 32 counties of Ireland has relics of the Neolithic period. The margins of all the main hill­ masses were settled and extensively farmed. Due to the practice of shifting cultivation, the soils and woodlands were modified over a wide area. Summer temperatures, in the late Atlantic and early Sub-Boreal phases are thought to have averaged 2° c. higher than today. Heavy lowland soils with their damp forests and bog patches were gener­ ally avoided, but many low hills rising above the Central

Lowlands were occupied. In general, the distribution of megalithic tombs and other monuments, which have outlasted habitations, give the best indication as to the occupied areas in the Neolithic (Figure 13).

Megalithic Tombs

There are two main types of megalithic tombs: gallery graves, usually set in long cairns, and passage graves, set in round cairns. About 1200 examples of these tombs are known in Ireland (Harbison 1976:26). Gallery graves consist of a long rectangular chamber, or gallery, which is often segmented. They generally take one of two forms, that of court cairns or of wedge-shaped gallery graves. In the most elaborate form, the court cairn type, the gallery grave is corbel-roofed and approached through a forecourt (Evans 1966:9). Portal dolmens, a third type of megalithic tomb related to the gallery graves, are less 39

frequently found. This type usually has a large pair of matched orthostats which form a portal and also support an enormous capstone, which may weigh up to 100 tons (O'Rior­ dain 1976:72). In contrast to this general grouping of gallery graves, passage graves consist of a chamber, \vhich

in some cases is cruciform in shape, in others more or

less circular, which is corbel-roofed and entered by way of

a narrow passage (Evans 1966:9).

Court cairns. Court.cairns are among the earliest of the structures built to contain the cremated remains of

communal burials. Court cairns consist of mounds of stone heaped over long rectangular stone-built burial chambers fronted by a semi-circular open space or court, flanked by standing stones. In some cases, as at Ballyglass, two

court cairns stand face to face with one large open oval court in the center with burial chambers at either end

(Harbison 1976:26). Nearly 300 of these tombs have been identified. In Ireland, this type of tomb is peculiar to the northern half of the island. Creevykeel, Co. Sligo, was excavated by the Harvard Archaeological Mission in

1935. The court was .originally floored with slabs and cobbles. Four cremation burials were found in shallow pits in the chambers. Sherds of Neolithic fine-burnished, shouldered bowls were found in the chamber. Also on the site were found polished axes, a stone bead, leaf-shaped arrowheads, two clay balls and fragments of Bronze Age 40 urns (Evans 1966:188).

Wedge-shaped gallery graves. The wedge-shaped gallery grave is commonest in the southwest, but is very widespread. At least 400 have been identified. Construc­ tion and design vary considerably, probably depending on the local rock structure, but the wider entrance end of the gallery almost always faces between west and south and the gallery has a line of orthostats parallel to it. The classic area of wedge-shaped gallery graves is the Burren of Co. Clare, where DeValera has listed 100 examples.

Usually the wedge grave has a narrowing gallery segmented by cross slabs into an antechamber, or portico, and a main chamber. There may also be a small closed chamber at the narrow end. Grave goods in these tombs are mainly of

Beaker ware and coarse flat-bottomed pottery of Late Neo­ lithic derivation. Barbed-and-tanged arrowheads also are indicative of the Beaker period, and the presence of Food

Vessels and occasionally of bronze artifacts shows that they continued to be used and probably built in the Bronze

Age (Evans 1966:11). The geographical distribution of wedge graves in areas of upland pasture, typically lime­ stone outcrops, suggests they were used by pastoral people

(Evans 1966:11).

Portal dolmens. The usual form with an imposing entrance and huge capstone occurs most frequently in the same northern part of the country where court cairns are 41 found, but it is also found down the east coast into county

Waterford. Portal dolmens are often found in secluded hollows near streams. The accompanying cairns may be long or round. At Knockeen, Co. Waterford, the portals are 9 feet high with a capstone 12 1/2 x 7 1/2 feet, over a chamber 6 1/2 x 4 1/2 feet (Evans 1966:208). The general time period for these tombs seems to be Late Neolithic

(Evans 1966: 13) •

Passage graves and the Boyne Culture. Passage graves, which were also communal burial places, are more restricted in their distribution, being found most fre- quently in the northern half of the Central Lmvlands.

O'Nuallain"" "" has listed 79 passage grave sites with between

200 and 250 passage graves (O'Kelly 1973:358). They tend to occur on hilltops and often form clusters or cemeteries.

The most imposing group is sited on three neighboring hills, Dowth, Knowth and New Grange, in the Bend of the

Boyne River between Drogheda and Slane, Co. Meath. Others are found at Fourknocks, Loughcrew and Tara, all in Co.

Meath, and at Carrowkeel and Knocknarea in Co. Sligo. New

Grange has been excavated and restored; excavations have been in progress at Knowth since 1962.

Herity and Eogan, still following the modified diffusionist paradigm, refers to the Knowth, Dowth and New

Grange passage grave builders as members of the Boyne Cul- ture, a people who had "arrived in the Irish Sea from 42

Brittany" (Herity and Eogan 1977:57). ~he Irish passage graves are, in their v~ew, seen as monuments built by invaders or colonists; they do not examine the possibility of a development from indigenous types built by indigenous peoples. They cite the particular art idiom, the prefer­ ance for cruciform tombs, and a unique assemblage of grave-goods as distinctive Boyne features. The materials typically found within the passage graves with the crema­ tions are: a heavily decorated pottery called Carrowkeel

Ware, personal ornaments and stone and chalk balls. There is an absence of all other stone implements, weapons or tools (Herity and Eogan 1977:57). Claire 0' Kelly, \vho conducted a study of the Boyne Valley passage grave art, found decorated stones at only 9 of the 79 sites (O'Kelly 1973:358). Though some motifs are repeated at various sites, each tomb, in his opinion, had a repertoire and style of its own. Many of the designs appear randomly placed on the stones and occur in some instances on the backs of kerb stones or other hidden places. "The bulk of the so-called art consists of dis­ jointed, isolated and not very well-executed motifs," he wrote (O'Kelly 1973:363). O'Kelly concluded that the actual carving of most of the motifs was the important thing, fulfilling a ceremonial or symbolic purpose, but that at the more imposing tombs "certain prominent stones were entrusted to experienced and artistic workers who 43 united the motifs into designs that were pleasing as well as meaningful" (O'Kelly 1973:363).

Of the Boyne group, the Dowth tumulus, 84 meters in diameter, is the largest. It covers two passage graves, set side by side (Herity and Eogan 1977:61). Some of the stones here are decorated, but far fewer than at Knowth and

New Grange.

Knowth, whose exc~vation is being directed by

George Eogan, is 6 1/2 acres in extent. The central mound covers 1 1/2 acres and is about 90 meters at its maximum diameter and about 10 meters high. Seventeen satellite tombs have been found around the main mound. Each of these originally consisted of a mound surrounded by a circular setting of kerb stones having \·Ji thin it a passage leading into a burial chamber which was either about the same width as the passage, or else cruciform in shape (Harbison 1976:

27) •

The huge central mound \·Jas constructed of succes­ sive layers of sods, boulder clay and shale laid down one on top of the other, with each layer thinned out and sloped downwards as it reached the edge of the mound. The kerb stones surrounding the mound are decorated with a variety of motifs, most of them geometrical. Circles, u-shapes, chevrons, spirals, zigzags, triangles and lozenges predomi­ nate.

Within the Knowth mound ther.e are two passage 44 graves, almost back to back on the east-west axis. The western tomb, with a bend in its passage, has a chamber that is little more than a broadening of the passage. The eastern chamber is roughly round with three burial niches opening off it, in cruciform shape. The large stone basin

(Figure 14) found in the burial niche on the right has a pecked design of straight and curved lines. Many of the stones of the walls and roof of both passage and chamber also have pecked designs. The two shapes of tombs, circu­ lar and cruciform, found in the main mound are both repre­ sented among the satellites (Ha=bison 1976:30).

New Grange, about a mile east of Knowth, is a flat topped mound about the same size as Knowth, bet\.veen 11 and

13 meters high, with a diameter that varies from 79 to 85 meters. The mound, on the highest point of the hill, is sited slightly off-center within a cricle of massive stand­ ing stones, 12 out of an estimated total of 35 still remaining. Harbison feels this circle was an earlier con­ struction than the mound (Harbison 1976:36).

Many of the kerb stones at New Grange are deco­ rated, though not as profusely as those at Knowth. The entrance stone has a well-balanced asymmetrical design of spirals and lozenges (Harbison 1976:32 (Figure 15). The passage and chamber are very similar in construction to the eastern tomb at Knowth. The passage is roofed with lintels and rises as it approaches the chamber, which has a soaring 45 corbelled roof. The walls and some of the roof stones are decorated. The right hand burial niche has a double stone basin. When the mound was excavated, M. J. O'Kelly found that the upper face of the stones forming the corbelling of the chamber and roof of the passage had narrow channels pecked into the surface. These channels apparently served to drain off raim·1ater so it could not seep· down into the mound (Harbison 1976: 33) ..

A few feet above the entrance to the passage is a roof-box (Figure 15). On the morning of the Midwinter sol­ stice the sun's rays enter this roof-box and travel down the 19 meter long passage into the burial ch~~er. When

O'Kelly kept watch on the morning of December 21, 1969, the sun entered the chamber at 9:58 and shone there until

10:15, 17 minutes. These few minutes on the days immedi­ ately before and after December 21 are the only time of the year when the sun's rays reach the chamber at New Grange.

It is postulated that the roof-box had to be constructed to allow the sun's rays to enter at a sufficiently high level to reach the back of the tomb. That they went to this much trouble to devise a method of marking the shortest day in the year indicates that it was of some importance to them.

Winter solstice, often associated with death and rebirth, must have had some significance in the religious ceremonies associated with the burial mound. The careful orientation of the New Grange tomb and passage implies a knowledge of 46 astonomy and the movements of the sun. If the stone circle were older, the mound builders may have based the orienta­ tion of the tomb on solar observations which had been made from the circle. Once the mound had been constructed, it would no longer have been useful for observations.

The builders of the passage graves must have had a large enough population and a social organization that would permit the mobilization of a work force for a sufficient period of time to construct these monuments, though they may have been worked on intermittently over a longer period of time. All the passage graves at Knowth were probably not constructed at the same time. This society need not have been made up of invaders from the continent. This is an area of rich agricultural and graz­ ing land. A group of people could have established them­ selves in the area and over a long period of time, have become fairly prosperous. The organization required for constructing the monuments implies a somewhat less egali­ tarian society than those who constructed the smaller, more scattered monuments.

The Early Bronze Age

The Beaker Folk

Again, as with the Neolithic Boyne Culture, Herity and Eagan and Harbison consider the users of a particular type of pottery vessel, Beakers, to ·be a new, distinctive 47

group of people coming into Ireland from the outside world.

Harbison sees a migration of Beaker Folk diffusing rapidly

westwards from eastern and central Europe in the centuries

just before and after 2000 BC (Harbison 1976:43).

By 2100 BC at New Grange the material of the mound

had slipped down the slope and covered the kerb stones. It

was on top of this slip that M. J. O'Kelly found remains of

a Beaker occupation. They had domesticated animals. Though

they also had herds of pigs, sheep and goats, evidence from

animal bones indicates that beef was the meat consumed in

greatest quantity (Harbison 1976:43).

They appear to have been technologically more

advanced than the mound builders; a flat bronze axe·was

found in the Beaker settlement. Though they were metal

users, flint implements occurred in greater numbers:

scrapers, arrowheads and polished disc knives. In addition

to fragments of decorated Beaker pottery, and a four-footed

bowl, O'Kelly discovered an ovoid hammerstone with hour­

glass perforation. Their dwellings were apparently of

perishable materials. Almost nothing remains of the habi­

tations, except hearths and a few post holes (Harbison

1976: 43).

·Metallurgy

At around the time of the appearance of Beaker

pottery the transition from the Neolithic to the Bronze Age 48 occurred (Table 4}; but there is no conclusive proof that these were related events. In fact, Burgess states that the earliest Irish metallurgy is likely to have developed in Munster, the poorest of the Irish provinces in Beaker finds (Burgess 1974:191}.

The metals first used were copper and gold, and then at a later stage, bronze. Gold was panned in rivers in Wicklow and was used for the making of skillfully wrought ornaments. The earliest of these were made of thin sheets of gold, and included small decorated discs and crescent-shaped chest ornaments called lunulae (Figure 19}.

Later in the Bronze Age, when larger supplies of gold became available, massive ornaments of solid gold were manufactured. The Later Bronze Age neck ornaments called gorgets exhibit a technical mastery of the goldsmithing· craft (Harbison 1976:46}.

Copper was used for the manufacture of implements and weapons. About 25 of the Irish Early Bronze Age copper mines are still intact. These mines, saved from destruc­ tion by being covered by the blanket bog, are found high on the slopes of Mount Gabriel in west Cork. They consist of a passage of about 1.0 to 1.3 meters wide and as little as

80 ems. high at the entrance which expands inward and down­ ward into the mine proper. The total length of the passage and mine combined is only about 10 meters (Harbison 1976:

46} • TABLE 4. Radiocarbon dates for the Bronze Age

Calibrated Date Site Feature Date be c14 BC (Approx.)

BEAKERS

Ballynagilly, Occupation site Tyrone (a) long pit 2100 ± .so 2760-2540 (b) depression 2060 ± 80 2520 (c) hearth 2010 ± 75 2510 (d) hearth pit 1955 ± 120 2500-2410 (e) burnt area 1955 ± 75 2500-2410 (f) hearth pit 1910 ± 50 2480-2220 (g) pit 1900 ± 55 2480-2220 (h) pit 1830 ± 70 2180

URNS AND PYGMY CUPS

Downpatrick, Settlement of two main phases, both Down associated with cordoned urn, with a small beaker element also represented 1. Lower occupation level 1625 ± 70 2070 2. Upper occupation level 1375 ± 75 1650 1315 ± 80 1610

FOOD VESSELS

Bullynagilly, Neolithic-EBA occupation site 1640 ± 60 2080 Tyrone Charcoal mass with Irish bowl sherd

Coney Island, Occupation site with Irish bowl 1400 ± 80 1660 Lough Neagh, Armagh material

(From Burgess 1974:223,227,231)

~ \0 50

The area where the mining took place was rarely more than 1.6 meters high and 5 meters wide. In these cramped quarters the miners lit fires and after the rock had heated, poured cold water on it, causing it to crack and split. The ore was .removed with the aid of mining mauls or hammers. In excavations at these mines in 1966,

John Jackson and Joseph Raftery found hammerstones made from cobbles from the nearby seashore. Some were designed to be hand-held, while others had a groove at the waist where a rope handle was probably attached, enabling the miner to strike a more forceful blow. A charcoal sample from t...,_e excavation gave a date of 1500 ± 120 be, c14 placing the mining activity in the Earlier Bronze Age in

Ireland (Harbison 1976:48).

The copper from these mines was used to make axes

(Figure 18} and daggers which developed as the Bronze Age proceeded. The simple flat axe, representing the earliest stage of development, had flanges so that it would not slip around in its wooden haft \vhen a blow was struck.

Weapons \vere at first made of copper, but later they were made of bronze, a mixture of 90% copper and 10% tin. By

1750 BC a bronze industry had been established. The need to import tin to add to native copper must have stimulated trade and contacts. Much of the tin may have come from

Cornwall, the nearest source.

The earliest Bronze Age weapons were short daggers 51 hafted with a wooden handle, and the changes, which the blade wen·t through in the course of the Bronze Age, is the main criterion for the dating of these weapons. Shortly after 1400 BC, it became possible to cast longer weapons, and the dirk or rapier carne into use. The halberd, an implement much used in Ireland, \'las formed by hafting a copper or bronze blade at right angles to a long wooden handle. Many of the bronze weapons in Ireland were recovered from bogs and rivers; they were rarely buried with the dead (Harbison 1976:48).

The craft specialization of the Bronze Age probably gave rise to a more hierarchical society than that of the preceding period. Those who controlled the production and distribution of these valued items, gold ornaments and bronze weapons, would have had an elevated status in the community.

Round Cairns

Under the modified diffusionist paradigm, the

Beaker Folk were generally regarded as burying their dead in single inhumations under a round mound, but it was just as common to place two or more bodies in the same grave or to cremate the dead. At times cremations may be found with inhumations (Burgess 1974:174).

In Ireland, Beaker Folk, or burials identified as such by Beaker associations, used the megalithic tombs 52 that had previously been built. So far no Beaker pottery has been found in a single-grave burial in Ireland. Early

Bronze Age burials are often accompanied by Food Vessels and Urns (Figure 19). These burials were most often in round cairns, hundreds of which were built on hilltops in all parts of the country (Evans 1966:15).

Most of the round cairns have been looted and con­ tain few or no grave goods (Figure 20) . Many of the Bronze

Age cairns have been shown to cover several burials each in its separate cist or container. Poulawack, in county

Clare, .excavated in 1934 by the Harvard Archaeological

Mission under the direction of Hugh Hencken, is a mound of about 20 meters in diameter, just over 3 meters high, \'Jhich contained the remains of at least 18 individuals. Of the very few finds, one was a small sherd of Beaker pottery·

(Harbison 19 76: 45) .

Some Bronze Age burials have no covering cairns but are multiple cist cemeteries. The associated pottery may be Food Vessels or Urns in which the cremated remains are places (Figures 21 and 22). Through the Bronze Age burials were made in cists dug into the ground without a covering cairn. Some of these unmarked graves were surrounded by a simple fosse which has been revealed by excavation. Others were marked by standing stones, the most numerous of all megalithic remains in Ireland (Evans 1966:20). 53

Standing Stones

There is much folklore surrounding these stones which are sometimes as much as 20 feet high. But not all

standing stones are of prehistoric placement. Some are

rubbing-stones for cattle erected a century or two ago.

Others are remains of stone walls which served as anchors

at intervals in dry-stone walling; when the walls tumbled

or were covered by peat, the uprights remained, often mis­

taken for megalithic alignments. Though some such lines of monoliths seem to have been used for marking routes, in

this case they were fairly widely separated (Evans 1966:

20). Alignments of standing stones are associated with

some stone circles, as at Beaghmore, Co. Tyrone. Some of these may have astronomical orientations.

Among the most spectacular standing stones are the enormous granite pillars of Kildare marking cist graves of the Early Bronze Age. In the early Iron Age, pillars such

as the Lia Fail of Tara were used in royal ceremonies of inauguration. The Turoe stone, decorated in the curvi­

linear La Tene style, continues in this tradition. Stand­ ing stones may have been erected in early Celtic times to mark graves; the custom persisted into Christian times, with ogham-inscribed stones being found scattered through

the southern counties. The tenth century High Crosses are

the culmination of the prehistoric megalithic tradition in

Ireland. 54

Stone Circles

Ceremonial circles of earth or standing stones or a

corohination of the two are characteristic of this period of

introduction of new customs, cultural transition and the

mingling of traditions in the Early Bronze Age. They are

considered to be primarily places of ritual and not burial

or habitation. The circle of standing stones probably goes

back to the Neolithic, e.g., New Grange, and there may even

have been pre-megalithic timber circles. The earliest

British circles are the henge monuments of the Late Neo­

lithic, consisting of a large earthen ring-bank with a

fosse inside and one or two entrance gaps. Inside there

may be one or more stone circles (Evans 1966:16). The Neo­

lithic shrines in Antrim, Goodland and Langford Lodge, are

circular areas defined by a shallow fosse. In these have

been found numerous small pits (26 at.Goodland) containing

earth, stones, charcoal, flints and pottery sherds; they

are thought to be offering pits (Evans 1966:47).

Despite the extravagant claims made by extreme

diffusionists for the use of stone circles as observatories

and centers of sun worship, there are examples in Ireland which seem to have been designed to determine or mark the

time of the solstices or the equinox. Many of the recum­

bent stone circles of Cork and Kerry seem to be oriented

toward critical points on the horizon. Some of the recum­ bent stone circles have one or more outlying stones. This 55 is characteristic also of several large circles in eastern

Ireland, particularly in the Wicklow Mountains where the grouping called the Piper's Stones is found (Evans 1966:

16) •

Conclusion

The Late Neolithic and Early Bronze Age in Ireland were periods of colonization of almost the entire island, marked by numerous incursions of mostly small groups of people. In addition to settlers there seems to have been considerable movement across the Irish Sea of peoples engaged in trade and prospecting for metals.

Archaeological evidence indicates Neolithic and

Early Bronze Age economic activities included: hunting, gathering, fishing, agriculture and pastoralism. The very few habitation remains indicate houses were small, round or rectangular constructions usually found occurring indi­ vidually. Stone circles were only one of several types of megalithic monuments constructed by these peoples. Most are rather small and probably built by a few people. The

Boyne Valley passage graves, which would have required a large labor force, perhaps indicate a somewhat more hier­ archical society. Early Bronze Age gold ornaments, such as the small discs and lunulae, and bronze implements indicate the beginnings of craft specialization; these luxury goods might perhaps have been status symbols within a more hier- 56

archical society. But in general society was probably more

or less egalitarian with any special status achieved by

personal qualities of leadership or skill in some particu­

lar useful activity, rather than by heredity. For the most

part, it seems the population was composed of small groups operating autonomously, though sharing basic economic­

technologic skills and possibly religious beliefs as well. CHAPTER III

DESCRIPTION OF SITES BY GEOGRAPHICAL

DISTRIBUTION

Surveys and excavations of Irish stone circles have revealed very little information that is of help in deter­ mining their function. This may be due in part to so few having actually been excavated or very carefully surveyed.

But such factors as diameters of the circles and numbers of stones used can serve as general indicators as to how many people may have been heeded to build them or how many people might have been accommodated within their confines.

Larger circles could naturally have held more people for religious or secular activities, and it might be inferred that they were constructed and used by groups with more members than were the smaller circles. From an estimate of the number of people in the group, inferences about the probable sort of social structure of the group can be drawn.

Wherever associated features are found, these serve as indicators of activities which took place at the sites.

Unfortunately, in many cases it has been difficult to determine if a feature is primary or represents a later intrusion of the site. As previously noted, there have been few artifactual finds at the sites. At a few circles,

57 58

pottery sherds have provided the only c~ue to a relative

time period for constru.ction or use of the site.

In describing the stone circles of Ireland it is co~venient to group them by geographical area. Though not all stone circles in an area are alike, there are some similarities. In the southwest in counties Cork and Kerry where there are over 80 stone circles, a number of these are recumbent stone circles. These circles are fairly small, often clustered within a few miles of each other.

In the west there are few circles; they are well-scattered and often have burial structures within them. In the east, in the Wicklow Mountains, there are also a few stone circles but a .number of henges are found in the same area.

Over 110 stone circles have been identified in northern

Ireland, mainly in Ulster, in the central Sperrin Mountains.

These circles are usually composed of many rather low stones. More than half occur in pairs or clusters of 3 or

4. Many have associated stone rows.

Southwest Ireland

Burl lists 72 circles in Cork and 16 in Kerry

(Figure 23) (Burl 1976:336). A great many of these are recumbent stone circles: 50 in Cork and 7 in Kerry.

Among these there is considerable variation in size, number of stones used, and associated features. Boyle Somerville described the general characteristics of this type ofcircle: 59

In the SW segment of each there is a single large slab set in the ground not upright, as in the case of all the other stones of the ring, but laid On its side, and this stone is faced, Oh the opposite side of the circle, by two specially important upright stones, always the tallest in the circle and usually noticeable for some other reasons. These are referred to as pillars. The line passing midway between them, and on over the centre of the circle leads, in each case to the centre of the recumbent stone. {Somerville 1930:70)

Parallels have been drawn between the Irish recum-

bent stone circles and those of Aberdeenshire in north-

eastern Scotland; however, in the Aberdeenshire circles the

pillars flank the recumbent stone, while in Cork and Kerry

circles the pillars are set opposite and form an entryway,

as well as marking a more sharply defined axis; these are

rather significant differences.

Somerville, in 1930, studied 5 of the recurrbent

stone circles in the Ross Carbery area of West Cork: Drom- beg, Reanascreena, Bohonagh, Maulatanvalley and Carrigag­ renane. These are all located on either the su~mit of a hill or on a south-facing slope. The large (around 30' in diameter) coastal circles around Ross Carbery are about 4 to 6 miles apart and close to bays {Burl 1976:223). Drom- beg, Templebryan and Bohonagh are all within 1 1/2 miles of the coast. There are about 12 stone circles within an

8 mile radius of Ross Carbery Bay. In the Boggeragh Moun- tains, just north of this area there is a clustering of about 35 stone circles. Then there are a number of scat- tered circles, on the peninsulas of West Cork and Kerry. 60

Drornbeg (Figure 24), having a diameter of 9.1 m

(approximately 30') originally had 17 stones averaging 5'

in height. The pillar stones are 6 1/2' high; the recum­ bent is about 7' long. The azimuth, defined as the direc­ tion in which a line falls expressed in degrees measured clockwise from true north (Somerville 1930:71), is 225°50' according to Somerville (1930:73) and 226.313° according to Barber {1973:32).

While there is some disagreement as to its exact value {see Chap. V, p. 14], it is agreed that the azimuth at Drombeg points to Midwinter sunset. Drombeg, one of the best-preserved circles, is on a terrace at an eleva­ tion of 250' looking out over fields to the sea about a mile away. Two of the orthostats, from their shapes, were thought to be male and female symbols (Evans 1966:77).

Fifty yards to the west are remains of circular huts and a fulacht fiadh, or cooking pit.

When the circle was excavated by Fahy in 1957-58, it was found that the turf had been removed and a gravelled floor up to 10 em thick had been laid down (Fahy 1959:6).

Beneath this floor near the center of the circle were two pits, one of which contained a cremation in an undecorated, broken urn. Fahy said there could be little doubt that the pavement was a primary feature since it lay in direct con­ tact with the subsoil, without any intermediate layer of humus and it sealed down both the pits and the inner por- 61 tions of the orthostat sockets (Fahy 1959:7). Fahy con- sidered the burial to be a primary feature of the site and to have been perhaps dedicatory in nature. Charcoal from the burial was dated to 130 ± 140 BC "with a possible c14 maximum extension, depending on the degree of contamination of the specimen, to a date of 500 BC" (Fahy 1959:21). The urn was related to Class II Lough Gur ware which has been found in association with Neolithic A ware in pre-Beaker contexts and in association with Beaker ware (Fahy 1959:21).

In a footnote in Barber's study he states:

The radiocarbon date returned for the burial within the circle of Drombeg was given in the orig­ inal report as 130 ± 140 BC. However, in a subse­ quent edition of the Radiocarbon supplement the date is recorded as 640 AD. This date is in such close agreement with the dates returned for the nearby fulacht fiadh that one is forced to conclude, despite the arguments of the excavator to the con­ trary, that the burial is not primary and that it is almost certainly a secondary burial placed within the circle by users of the fulacht fiadh. {Barber 1973:28)

The date is in radical disagreement with the c14 megalithic monument typology in general and-the Lough Gur

Class II ware Neolithic-Early Bronze Age use in particular, thus, considering the stated possibility of contamination of the specimen, that the date cannot be regarded as being reliable. (A similar fulacht fiadh excavated at Killeens,

30 miles NE of Drombeg, had a date of 1556 ± 230 be c14 [Burl 1976:220] .) Unfortunately, there are no other c14 dates for recumbent stone circles. 62

The only other finds at Drombeg .were two small flint scrapers and a small split flint pebble, found in various sockets (Fahy 1959:6).

Bohonagh, also 9.1 m in diameter, is 3 miles east of Drombeg and 1 mile from the coast. It, too, is at an elevation of 250'. The azimuth is given by Somerville as

268° 00' pointing to the line of sunset at the equinoxes

(Somerville 1930:75). It originally had 13 stones. The portal stones here are 8' high. In the center of this circle, there was also a pit containing a cremation burial.

A small low dolmen lies 20 yards east of the circle. A hut-site is located 9 yards south of the circle. Only a few flint flakes were.found at the hut~site (Evans 1966:75).

Templebryan, with a diameter of 10.8 m, has only

4 of its probably 13 original stones still standing (Burl

1976:215). These stones are up to 6' high; all have bev­ elled tops. In the center is a 2 1/2' white quartzite pillar (Evans 1966:84). Barber lists its azimuth as

199.098 with no significant orientation {Barber 1973:32).

Reanascreena South {Figure 25) is 3 miles NNW of the coast at an elevation of about 570'; its diameter is

9.1 m. It has a low, surrounding earthen bank with an internal ditch, both 12' wide. There are 13 stones here; the azimuth is given by Somerville as 280° 00' with no significant orientation (Somerville 1930:78). In the cen­ ter of the circle was found a pit containing only earth; 63

10 feet to the north was another pit lined with a paste of charcoal and cremated bone (Evans 1966:83).

Kealkil, 3.1 m in diameter, is a 5-stone circle with 4 orthostats and one recumbent stone. It stands on a hillside at an elevation of 450' overlooking Bantry Bay.

It has two outliers, 5' apart, 7 yards NE of the circle, one 12' high, the other 8' (Evans 1966:80). There is a cairn 7' south of the outliers. No dating evidence was found here.

The intermixing of features (Figure 26)--recumbent stones, center stone, embanked circle, central burial pits, cairn--was said by Burl to be indicative of the melange of beliefs during the second millenium BC (Burl 1976:218).

He attributed this to copper-prospecting in southwest

Ireland in the mid-second millenium (Burl 1976:220). It was mentioned in Chapter II that 25 of these copper mines still exist in West Cork. A date of 1550 ± 120 be c14 was obtained from material at one of the mines. But it has not been proven that the mines and circles were con­ temporaneous. No copper objects have been found at the circles.

Farther inland there is a group of smaller 5-stone circles. The recumbent here is hardly distinguishable by its height from the other stones. Many of these have an outlier or pair of stones like a double entrance or at right angles to the circle like a short row (Burl 1976:221). 64

One of these, Carrigaphooca, Macroom, is about 3.5 m in diameter. The majority of the circles of this type are in the Boggeragh Mountains located along rivers. There have been only two excavations of 5-stone circles: Mushera Beg and Kealkil. In one half-day of digging at Mushera Beg,

9' in diameter, there were no finds. Stones of the circle are about 4' high. It has an outlier, 12'7" in height located 12' south of the circle {Gogan 1931:9).

It has been suggested that Irish rings were used by groups of no more than about 30 people. The heaviest recumbent at Derreenataggart, weighing probably no more than 4 tons, could probably have been moved by about 16 people {Burl 1976:223).

The density of these circles, as well as those in

Ulster, is very different from the uncrowded distribution of most lowland British circles. Burl suggests this implies a different system of land owning, perhaps of independent families rather than tribal areas communally worked (Burl 1976:224). The builders of these circles may have been just extended family groups, very small-scale, egalitarian societies. Although if they were engaged in copper-prospecting, the beginnings of craft specialization are implied, even if they were, at this point just extract­ ing the raw metal and trading it to others who were more experienced in working the copper into implements. Renfrew stated that the sequence of stages ih metal technology 65

(from utilizing native copper, to cold-ha~~ering, anneal­

ing, smelting, casting, use of one- and then two-piece molds, to alloying to form bronze) could be regarded as

one of increasing competence in pyrotechnology (Renfrew

1973:173).

Western Ireland

Very few stone circles have been found along the western coasts of Ireland. The distribution pattern is quite different from that in the south; here they are well­

scattered, with the exception of several found at Lough

Gur. They are often a mixture of circle and burial struc­

ture. They are generally found in low-lying areas ..

One of the very few egg-shaped circles in Ireland

is found at Kenmare, Co. Kerry, near Drumroe. It is

17.4 x 15.8 m, surrounding an internal dolmen with a 7 ton capstone (Burl 1976:224).

At Masonbrook, Co. Galway, 7 stones, 4' to 5' in height, are set in a 21.3 m earthen bank (Burl 1976:224).

Lissyviggeen, Co. Kerry (Figure 27), is another 7-stone circle, 4.0 min diameter, set in an earthen bank, measur­ ing about 15 m from crest to crest (Burl 1976:220).

At Lough Gur, Co. Limerick, is a group of prehis­ toric sites, several of which were excavated by s. P.

6'Riordain. On the western side of the lake is the largest existing Irish stone circle, the Lios (Figures 28 and 29), 66 having a diameter of 47.6 m (about 150'), with contiguous standing stones up to 9' high, backed by an earthen bank,

9 m wide, 1.2 m high and 64 m in diameter. There is an entrance on the east which is paved and flanked with up­ rights. The interior had been levelled off with 18 inches of gravelly clay (Evans 1966:145). Pottery finds from inside the ring included both fine and coarse Neolithic ware, Beaker and Food Vessel sherds. A few fragments of bronze were found, and barbed-and-tanged, leaf-shaped and hollow-based arrowheads. Based on the typology of the finds the Lios is given a probable Early Bronze Age date.

The pottery types were parallel to those from the habita­ tion sites on Knockadoon (6'Riord&in 1~51:68).

The Lios was found to have an azimuth of 258° 34'

(Windle 1912:287). Somerville said this was aligned for

Samhuin Sunset (Nov. 8th) (Windle 1912:287), while Burl says it was oriented on the moon's minimum midsummer setting about 2500 BC (c. 2000 be). Stonehenge I, which may also have been a lunar site, is dated to about 2180 ± 105 be

(Bur 1 19 7 6 : 2 2 9 ) .

There are remains of megalithic tombs and other stone circles nearby; an even larger circle, diameter c. 170' (Windle 1912:293), once stood 30 yards to the north of the Lios (Evans 1966:145). In 1826 this now vanished circle had 72 standing stones; in 1912 there were 12 stones left. 67

Considering the size of the Lies, as well as the circle that has been destroyed, these were probably con-

structed for use by a greater number of people than those of the southwest. Burl stated:

As with the open stone circles of west Britain, the Lies could well have been a meeting-place for scattered groups [Burl 1976:230] .... Its inner space, with a circumference of 149.5 m could accom­ modate a hundred or more dancers so that a popula­ tion figure of 200-300 is feasible. (Burl 1976:229)

People may have gathered from outlying areas, even from rather distant places. It has not been determined if the circles around the lake were contemporaneous. Even if they were, all the circles may not have had the same function.

Eastern Ireland

The site most closely resembling the Lies is

Castleruddery in the western Wicklow Mountains, in an area of gold-bearing gravels. It also has a stone-lined bank, and entrance on the east, huge portal stones, and an open space of about 29 m (Burl 1976:231). Two large blocks of white quartz 9' and 10' in length and 6' and 4' in width stand at the entrance. The bank is about 15' in width and was apparently surrounded by a kerbing of stones smaller than those of the circle (Leask 1946:267).

On the Curragh plain are henge monuments, a few stone circles, passage graves, portal dolmens and some very 68

tall standing stones (Burl 1976:234). The henges on the

Curragh, Co. Kildare, O'Riordain said, were almost cer­

tainly Iron Age in date and the Curragh is known from historical references to have been an ancient assembly

place (O'Riordain 1976:93).

In general, in the eastern part of Ireland stone circles are found in the western foothills: Athgreany in

Co. Wicklow, and Castle Mahon, Ballynoe, and Millin Bay in

Co. Down.

Athgreany (Figures 30 and 31}, also known as the

'Piper's Stones,' is about 30 yards in diameter, and com­ posed of 14 large stones up to 6' high. A few yards to the north is an outlier, the piper of folklore. Boleycarrigeen,

14 m in diameter consisti of 12 slabs inside a low bank

(Burl 1976:234).

The Giant's Ring, an egg-shaped henge in Co. Down,

1/2 mile east of the River Laggan, consists of a ring-bank,

60'-70' wide at the base, 12' high, enclosing an area 600' in diameter and about 7 acres in extent. Just east of the center is a dolmen which contained cremated bones (Evans

1966:99).

Ballynoe (Figure 32), 33.5 m in diameter, has over

50 close-set stones of various heights some of them up to

6' high. There are two outliers 7' apart just outside the circle on the west; two outliers on the NE (9 and 40 yards from the circle) ; and two on the SW ·( 9 and 50 yards from 69 the circle) . An oval kerbed mound inside the ring to the east of center covered a cairn. A sherd of Carrowkeel

Late Neolithic pottery was found in a cremation pocket

(Burl 1976:238)~

Castle Mahon, 21.3 x 19.8 m, consisted originally of 6 orthostats, 3' high, enclosing an area 70' across.

When the site was excavated in 1953 by A. E. P. Collins, a small pit containing charcoal, worked flints and sherds of carinated Neolithic bowls was found. Near the center of the circle was a large pit with evidence of intens~ burning {Collins 1956:8). Alongside it a very small cist containing the burnt bones of a child and a plano-convex flint knife were found {Evans 1966:95) .· Collins considered these to be primary features (Collins 1956:8).

Millin Bay {Figure 33), so named because it lies

100 yards from the bay, is an oval 22.9 x 15.2 m, outlined by standing stones of which 11 remain. The monument seems to have been built over a Neolithic field wall. A number of architectural features were found in the 1953 excava­ tions, among which were a D-shaped cairn enclosing a long cist. In the cist were the neatly stacked disarticulated bones of 15 or 16 individuals up to 12 of whom were chil­ dren (Burl 1976:240). A pulpit-like structure faced the cairn. In addition there were 8 small cists,. 4 with crema­ tions and two cremations not in cists (Evans 1966:103).

Sixty-four of the stones had pecked and incised designs; 70 circles predominate; there are no spirals. The site has several similarities to Ballynoe: a random scatter of cremation pockets, an oval mound, standing stones, baetyls

(smooth ovoid stones set upright in association with some megalithic burials) and Carrowkeel ware (Evans 1966:94).

The New Grange circle (Figure 34) in the Bend of the Boyne, Co. Meath, 103.6 m, with originally about 35 stones, has been discussed in the last chapter. Like

Millin Bay it is associated with cremation burial and decorated stones. These seem to have been ritual sites having at least some of their ceremonies associated with death and burial; though other activities may have taken place at these sites, too. The larger diameters would imply use by a greater number of people; there is no evi­ dence of differential burial, so the society was probably more or less egalitarian but a pulpit area may imply some sort of religious specialist.

Northern Ireland

Of the 110 circles known in northern Ireland, most are found in Ulster, clustered in the Sperrin Mountains, on hillsides, usually 500 1 or more above sea level. They are often on protected southern slopes, on a small plateau.

They tend to be about 5 miles apart but more than half occur in pairs or clusters of 3 or 4 circles, some of them contiguous, particularly in county Tyrone, where there are 71

19 of these groups. These Ulster rings are generally small,

of low stones, and average about 10.7 min diameter (Burl

1976:243).

Forty-one percent of the inland circles have 45 or

more close-set stones. In other parts of Ireland, there

are very few circles with more than 20 stones. Burl sees

this form of construction as a development from the kerb

stones surrounding passage graves, and some of thes~

circles are associated with burials. Twenty are very

. close to megalithic tombs or cairns; 16 have burials in

them (Burl 1976:243).

A number of these circles have tangential stone

rows, a few of which consist of 3 tall stones. These are

found more commonly in the central regions. Towards the

east coast 3-stone settings occur with no circle. It has

been postulated that these might have been ·astronomical

alignments (Burl 1976:244).

Pilcher lists 7 circles, 8 alignments and 15 cairns

at Beaghmore, Co. Tyrone (Figures 35 and 36) {Pilcher

1969:73). These lay buried beneath the peat until 1945,

when some peat-cutters discovered some of the stones. The

structures so far uncovered extend over an area 160 x 60

yards, but the full extent of the site is not yet known.

Up to 6' of peat covers the surrounding area (Evans 1966:

198) .

Circles A (31 1/4' x 39') and B (32' x 33') of low 72 uprights, have a small cairn, 10' in diameter, between them and 4 alignments, "splaying out" to the NE (Evans

1966:198). The outer alignments 40' and 78' long, are tangential to the circle, and of small stones. The inner pair forming an avenue are of larger stones and are 24' and 72' long. A polished porcellanite axe was found in the cairn {May 1953:176).

Circles C {56' x 52') and D (55' x 53') are con­ tiguous and have associated with them a cairn and 2 align­ ments. Inside Circle C was found a hearth with sherds of shouldered Neolithic bowls. The cairn, 15' in diameter containea no trace of burial. A short alignment of fairly tall stones and a long one of small stones lead away from the cairn to the NE (May 1953:180).

Circle E is 59' at its greatest diameter. The interior of this circle is filled with 884 small upright stones, so close together that it is difficult to walk between them (May 1953:184). An associated cairn, 10' in diameter, contained 2 cremation burials (Evans 1966:198).

Two alignments, again, a short one of tall stones and a long one of low stones, run NE.

Circles F (28') and G (32') are smaller than the others. A single alignment runs NE for 68' from the gap between the circles (Evans 1966:199). A 6' diameter cairn lies not quite between the circles but a little to the west of them (May 1963:189). 73

In addition to these structures, there are 6 small cairns not closely linked with any of the circles.

Archaeological evidence indicates a Neolithic occupation and cultivation followed by the building of the cairns, circles and alignments in the Early Bronze Age

(Evans 1966:199). Neolithic A ware was found in hearth pits 10" below the floor level of Circle C. Evidence of local cultivation was found by pollen analysis. Around

3300-2950 Be; there was clearance of pine and elm with cereal cultivation (Pilcher 1969:89). Around 2950-2700 BC, there was an apparent change from cereal cultivation to grazing; cereal pollen was infrequent, while plantain pollen was common (Pilcher 1969: 90) . s·omewhere around

2700 BC there came an end to the clearance stage; no cereal or plantain pollen was found. dates. of 1535 ± 55 BC c14 for preconstruction charcoal and 775 ± 55 BC for post con­ struction ditch fill have been obtained (Pilcher 1969:90).

Castledamph, Co. Tyrone, in the Sperrin Mountains, is about 3/4 mile from the Glenelly River at an altitude of

750'. The hillside was covered with 6' of peat until about

1870, when it was cut and the circles were discovered

(Davies 1938:106). There are 2 concentric circles of low stones with diameters of 30' and 60', surrounding a small cairn about 12' in diameter. A small cist in· the cairn contained a cremation burial of a young person, of about

18 years. The area between the two circles was paved and 74

from the south of the outer circle an a~ignment of 15 stones stretches for 75'. There is another double circle

50 yards to the east; 2 contiguous circles with especially tall stones at the point of contact lie 100 yards to the north (Evans 1966:199).

Clogherny, Meenerrigal, Co. Tyrone, is an 18.3 m circle of 17 stones about 3' high, set around a wedge-grave in a round cairn (Burl 1976:241). Clogherny, Butterlope, is 12.2 m in diameter and composed of about 15 stones.

Beltany, Co. Donegal, is located on the summit of an isolated hill 10 miles from any other circle. Evans said it should properly be classed as a round cairn, though its most impressive feature is a ring df over 60 contiguous stones, 50 yards in diameter. These stones average 4' in height. It has a 6' outlier 23 yards to the SE (Evans

1966:85). It is thought that the circle forms an orienta­ tion on sunrise in early May, the time of Beltane. Unsci­ entific digging, Burl declared, has left the site in confusion; it could be a round cairn. Two stone axes, one from Tievebulliagh, were found nearby (Burl 1976:252).

Discussion

There seems to have been no standardized or "right" way to construct a stone circle. The descriptions above indicate a great variety of practice, and probably, custom in Ireland in the Neolithic and Early Bronze Age. From the 75 evidence of trade goods, there was apparently a good deal of travel between Britain and Ireland resulting in a con­ siderable amount of contact bet"vmen groups of people trad­ ing goods and raw materials and influencing one another's customs.

But in general in two widely separated areas of the country, both mountainous areas in the southwest and in the north, there were smaller, clustered closer together, more numerous circles. Many of those in Cork and Kerry in the southwest have recumbent stones and many in mid-Ulster in the north have stone rows, both of which are features which could have been used for astronomical orientations and/or observations. over the larger part of the island, in both western and eastern areas in more-or-less lower lying areas there are fewer, widely scattered, larger circles where greater numbers of people could have been accommodated for ceremonial activities. Does this indicate greater cooperation of small groups living dispersed over a wide area, or a greater concentration of inhabitants in the immediate area of the circle? Looking at available resources in the area might indicate how many people could have been supported there.

Colin Renfrew, in British Prehist.ory, gives as reasons for the falling into disuse of these sites an abandonment of old gods and the rise of new ones with the coming of the Iron Age Celts, and the effects of a worsen- 76 ing climate with increased rainfall and rising water tables perhaps waterlogging some of the sites. Many, if not most of the county Tyrone sites, composed of rather low stones, were buried under the peat which began growing around

1000 BC. And the effect of a worsening climate on the careful observations necessary if these were used as astro­ nomical observatories would discourage continued use of stone circles and alignments (Renfrew 1974:196).

The stone circles may have been centers of ritual, or religious rites, of scientific observations of celestial bodies, or gathering places for widely scattered groups to engage in trade. They could have had several or even all of these functions. They probably did not all serve the same purpose or purposes. Local customs apparently varied a great deal.

There is a difference in the focus of one's atten­ tion when standing in one of the recumbent stone circles, such as Drombeg, as opposed to one's focus of attention when standing in a larger circle, such as the Lios. Stand­ ing on top of a wind-swept hill in a small recumbent stone circle of well-spaced stones, with an almost 360° sweep of the horizon, looking out over'fields to the sea, one's focus is drawn outward. Standing in a larger circle of contiguous stones, on low-lying land, backed by an earthen bank,·one's focus is drawn inward and would quite naturally be directed to activities taking place within the circle. 77

This factor might suggest different functions for these circles. It should be remembered, too, that in the eastern area there are also a number of henges which are generally considered to be early gathering-ceremonial sites.

Regardless of their function, the stone circles, must have served as an important focal point in the lives of their builders, for they took considerable care and expended considerable effort in their construction. Even though the stone circles were not all constructed to a single plan they are, nevertheless, variations on a theme.

There must have been some basic beliefs shared by all those who constructed them. CMP~RIV

PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE CIRCLES

A general description of the stone circles having been given, it is now appropriate to examine more closely their physical characteristics and associated features to see what these might infer about their function. But first

Alexander Thorn's work on the metrology and geometry of megalithic monuments will be considered. Thorn has surveyed over 300 megalithic sites in Brittany, England and Scotland.

In addition to true circles, he has found flattened circles, ellipses, egg-shapes and some compound rings. It is his thesis that the builders used a standard unit of measure­ ment and had a knowledge of arithmetic, geometry and astron­ omy (Thorn 1964:18). From the statistical analysis of his measurements, Thorn has drawn these conclusions concerning the standard unit, the geometry of the constructions and their astronomical alignments and function.

Alexander Thorn, 84 year old professor emeritus of engineering science at Oxford, author of Megalithic Sites in Britain, 1967, and Megalithic Lunar Observatories, 1971, as well as numerous articles,is the major contributor to archaeoastronomy studies. His meticulous field surveys have set the standard for future work of this nature.

78 79

R. J. C. Atkinson called Thorn's work at Carnac in Brittany

"one of the most notable and difficult combined operations in prehistoric research to have been mounted anywhere in

Europe in the present century" (Krupp 1977:39). Dr. A. S.

Thorn, Professor Thorn's son, a senior lecturer in engineer­ ing at Glasgow University, has participated in many of the surveys and co-authored a number of the articles.

Though his work has been in other parts of the

British Isles, it must be examined to see if it applies to the Irish circles. In this chapter we will consider the metrology and geometry, leaving a discussion of archaeo­ astronomy for the next chapter.

Thorn's Metrology and Geometry

S. R. Broadbent, in two papers, "Quantum Hypothesis" and "Examination of a Quantum Hypothesis Bas~d on a Single

Set of Data#" set out the statistical methods required to find, from a set of measurements the most probable value of a quantum, and the probability level at which it could be accepted. In "Megaliths and Mathematics" Thorn claims that the quantum, 2.72 ± 0.003 feet, which he calls the Mega­ lithic Yard (MY), stands up to Broadbent's analysis. This holds true for the Scottish and the English circles, he says (Thorn 1966 :121). .Two additional bits of information resulted from his analysis: (1) the precision of the measurements does not decrease with length, and (2) the an builders of the circles measured to the centers of the stones in a ring (Thorn 1966:121).

If Thorn's analysis is correct the stone circles and other megalithic monuments were laid out with precision and often with complexity of design. Many circles could have been set out with a length of rope as a measuring devise, but the more precise designs must have been set out on the ground, Thorn says, using the standard length of measurement, the Megalithic Yard. The word 'yard,' he points out, means (in addition to a unit of length) a piece of wood, a rod, a pole, or a stick. The French word

'verge,' also used as a unit of length, means the same thing, as does the Spanish 'vers' (Thorn 1977:42). A rod or piece of wood of length 2.72 feet (or 0.829 m) then,

Thorn says, was used to lay out the megalithic monuments.

The diameters and circumferences were chosen to be integral multiples of this standazd unit Thorn asserts.

Since v, the ratio of the circumference of a circle to the diameter, is not an integer but has a value of 3.14159. this was a problem. But certain diameters were set out

(4, 8, 12, 16, 32 MY) which did produce corresponding cir- cumferences that were approximately integral (Thorn 1977:45).

A circle whose diameter is 8 units has a circum­ ference of almost exactly 25 units. Indeed, if the ratio between circumference and diameter is thought to be 3 1/8 (instead of 3 1/7, a closer approximation of v), a diameter of 8 units gives a circumference of exactly 25 units. (Thorn 177:43) 81

The discovery of the existence of certain circles

whose integral diameters yield integral circumferences may

have led to the development of what Thorn calls a "rule of

Megalithic mathematics and design." The circumference must

be in whole units of Megalithic Rods (MR), where a MR is

defined as 2 1/2 MY. This means that a circle of diameter

8 MY has a circumference of 10 MR. Thorn's graph (Figure

37) of the measurements of stone circles he had made up to

1967 show peaks at certain diameters that were integers of

the Megalithic Yard; especially 8, 10, and 16, that were

used most frequently. These give circumferences of 25,

32.5, and 50 Megalithic Yards which correspond to 10, 13,

and 20 Megalithic Rods.

Geometry and Construction

The simplest way to lay out a stone circle on the

ground, according to Wood, is to begin by making a loop of

rope or hide, twice as long as the radius of the circle to

be drawn. The loop is put over a post firmly hammered into

the ground and in the other end of the loop is a sharpened

stake for inscribing the shape. The circle is drawn by

walking round the central post keeping the rope tight. It

is easier to use a loop rather than a single rope tied

-between the central post and the stake, he says, especially

if the post has a rough surface, because the loop does not

need to slip round as the circle is drawn (Wood 1978:38). 82

At the Lias, Co. Limerick, excavators found at the exact center of the circle a 13 em posthole which they believed to have held a focal post from which the 23.8 m radius of the inner bank was marked out. They speculated this was done by extending a rope to five roughly equi­ distant spots on the eastern circumference and then to five opposite. These 10 spots were then marked with posts.

One socket still remains by stone #17. Thus 5 diameters were fixed, the most important being that of the major axis, through the portals and the center of the circle. There is also a crude east-west axis between stones 17 and 74, and at right angles to it, a north-south line between stones

41 and 106 (Burl 1976:228).

Thorn estimated that approximately 66.7% of the stone rings are true circles, about 16.7% flattened circles, about 11% ellipses, and about 5.5% egg-shapes. He has described two types of flattened circles, Type A and Type

B (Figure 38) . Both types are constructed from four cir­ cular arcs, with only the location of some of the centers of curvature differing from Type A to Type B. These were laid out in non-integral lengths. Dinnever Hill, Cornwall is a Type A and Long Meg and Her Daughters a Type B flat­ tened circle (Thorn 1967:28).

An ellipse (Figure 39) may be set out on the ground with a rope by tying the ends to two fixed stakes--the foci.

The long axis of the ellipse may be represented by 2a, the 83 short axis 2b, and the distance between the foci, 2c. The length of the rope then will be 2(a+c). A third stake may be used to inscribe the elliptical shape on the ground.

The staked loop is pulled tight as the third stake is slid along the ground. The flatter an ellipse, the greater its eccentricity, or c/a. Eccentricity varies from 0 to 1.

When the two foci coincide the distance between them is 0, and the figure is a true circle. In an ellipse the math- 2 2 2 ema t 1ca. . 1 re 1 a. t 1ons . h 1p,. a = b + c , ex1sts.. The megalith builders, Thorn says, tried to make a, b and c (or 2a, 2b and 2c) all integers and the perimeters of the large elliptical rings integers also. Postbridge, Devonshire, is an example of this shape of stone circle (Thorn 1977:50).

Egg-shapes of Type I and Type II (Figures 40 and

41) according to Thorn's analysis are based on right tri- angles. This implies the megalith builders knew and used the pythagorean triangle. The sides of the triangles,

Thorn says, all had to be integers of MY and these triangles determined where the centers of curvature were to be placed.

The simplest pythagorean triangle is that with sides of

3, 4 and 5 units. But others (5,12,13; 8,15,17; 7,24,25; and 20,21,29) may have been discovered empirically, mem- orized and used as part of their body of engineering knowl- edge and skills (Wood 1978:19). In setting out an egg- shaped ring, if the first radius was integral in MY, the rest would necessarily also be integral (Thorn 1977:47). 84

Woodhenge, Wiltshire, which is not a stone circle, is a

Type I egg; Borrowston Rig, Midlothian is a Type II.

Thorn concludes from his analysis that the megalith builders preferred to use integral lengths, possibly being motivated by a desire to avoid graduated measuring sticks

(Figure 42). Straight lines, such as diameters and radii, were in integers of MY, but perimeters and most very long distances were also measured almost universally in Mega­ lithic Rods.· The ellipse had an additional variable, the distance between foci, which made it easier to obtain a circumference of desired value by adjusting a, b and c.

The ideal megalithic ellipse, Thorn states, would have a, b and c in integers of MY and the perimeter in integers of MR. Though this is mathematically impossible they achieved some good approximations, he says (Thorn 1977:53).

Discussion

We need not conclude that because certain mathe­ matical relationships are found incorporated in the con­ struction of a site, that these were known and used by the builders. The relationships are inherent in the geometrical shapes, but the knowledge of this was not necessary to lay out the shapes on the ground. The builders undoubtedly discovered certain relationships empirically, memorized, and re-used them without necessarily having worked out the mathematical bases for those relationships. 85

It is often remarked that the achievements of the megalith builders were .accomplished without the benefit of a written language. But because they had no written lan­ guage we cannot assume they had no way of keeping records.

Alexander Marshack's analysis of the markings on Cro-Magnon era bones which he believes to be lunar counts, indicates that some sort of notational system may have been used in very early times. A system using perishable materials, such as the Inca string quipu system, might have been used.

In Ireland, most of the stone circles have not been measured with the same degree of accuracy used by Thorn and their measurements have not been subjected to the same sort of analysis. It would be necessary to ·conduct accurate surveys of these sites, remembering that Thorn found the builders had measured to the center of the stones in the ring, to determine if the knowledge of a standard unit of measurement had disseminated to Ireland at the time of construction of the stone circles or if they were set out in rougher units, such as the length of a pace. But even with meticulous work, accurate surveys are difficult to do at these sites. At some circles stones have been reerected, not always in their original positions, and some circles in very ruined condition are almost impossible to measure accurately.

Table 5 lists diameters of 162 stone circles in meters and calculated values of MY (in integers) with the 86

TA.dLE 5. Diameter of Irish stone circles in meters and megalithic yards

SITE DIAMETER MY ERROR ~ ERROR PN METERS) PNTEGERS) PN MY) EIRE Co, Cavan Kill:z:cluggin A 30.5 37 -.21 0.57 Kill::t:cluggin B 1 8. 3 X 12.2 22 X 1 5 +0.07 X -0.22 0.32 X 1. 9:?_ Kilnavert A 12.5 15 +0.08 0.53 Kilnavert B 12.5 1 5 TD.08 0.53 Co. Cork Annagannih::t: A 7.5 X 5.5 9 X 7 +0.05 X -0.37 0.56 X 5,29 Ardgroom 7.6 X 7.2 9 X 2 +0.17 X -0.31 1. 89 X 3,44 Bellmcunt Lower 4.0 5 -0.17 3.40 l:lellmount Ueeer 4.0 5 -0.17 3.~0 Bolionagh 9. 1 1 1 -0.02 lJ.18 ~x:,inn::t: More 10,5 X 9.6 1 3 X 12 -0.33 X -0,42 2.54 X 3,50 Carrigagrenane 2-6 12 -0.42 3.50 Carrigagrenane A 2.45? 1 i +J.40 3.64 Carrigagulla A 3.0 4 -0.38 9;so Carrigagulla .B 8.2 10 -0.11 1 • 1 0 Carrigaehooca 3.5 4 +0 • .::2 5.50 Clogbolla 3. 1 4 -0.26 6.5iJ Coolaclevane 8.7 X 7.7 10 X 9 +0.49 X +0.22 4.2J X 3.20 Cousane 3.6 4 +0.34 8.50 Cugeoge c.21.3 26 -0.31 1 • 1 2 Curraghroe 4.6 6 -0.45 7.50 Currebeha 9. 1 11 -0.02 0.18 Dereenataggart 8.4 10 +0.13 1. 30 Derr:~r:nafinchin 9.5 11 +0.46 4.16 Doone ens 2.8 3 +0.3l:l 12.67 Dough 7.0 8 +0.44 5.50 D£ombeg 2.1 11 -0.02 0.18 Dunbeacon 8.5 10 +0.25 2.50 Glenleioh 3.6 4 +0.34 8.50 Gortanimill I.6 2 +0.17 1. 82 Gowlane N 2·5 11 +0.46 4.18 Kealkil 3. 1 4 -0.26 6.50 Keel Cross 2.I 3 +0.26 8.67 Knockane 12.2 1 5 -0.28 1. 87 Knockaneirk A 10.4 1 3 -0.45 3.46 Knockaneirk B 4.0 5 -0.17 3.40 Knockavullig E 2.3 3 -0.23 7.67 Knockavullig w 3.0 4 -0.38 9.50 Knockawadra 3. 1 4 -0.26 6.50 Knocks B 9.8 X 9.2 12 X 11 -0.18 X +0.1 0 1. 50 X 0.21 Lackaduv 4.3 X 3.4 5 X 4 T0.18 X +0.10 3,60 X 2.50 Lettergorman 5.4 X 2.3 7 X 3 -0.42 X -0.23 7.00 X 7!67 Lissard c.B.2 10 -0.11 1 • 1 0 Loughatooma N 8.5 X 5.8 10 X 7 +0.25 X 0.00 2.50 X o.oo Maughanclea A 11.2 14 +0.35 2.50 Maughanclea B 6.I7 8 +0.08 1 • DO Maulatanvall~ 1 0. 1 12 +0.18 1. 50 Maulmore 2.I 3 +0.26 8.67 87

SITE DIAt"lETER MY ERROR ':4 ERROR PN METERS) (INTEGERS) (IN MY) Mus hera Beg 3,5 4 +0.22 5.50 Oughtiher!l B 2.6 3 +0.14 4.67 Reanascreena 9.1 11 -0.02 0.18 Rosnascale 2.7 3 +0.26 8.67 R~lane 3.5 4 +0.22 5.50 Scrongare 2.4 3 -0.10 3,33 Shandagan 7.6 9 +0.17 1.82 Teerga~ 8.3 10 +0.01 1 .lJO Temelebr~an 10.8 13 +0.03 0.23 Co. Donegal Beltan!l 44.6 54 +0.04 0.07 Culdaff c.21.3 26 -0.31 1 • 1 9 Co. Dublin Knockanvinidee 9.6 X 9. 1 12 X 11 -0,16 X -0.02 1. 50 X 0.18 Pieerstown K 4.3 X 3.4 5 X 4 +0.18 X +0.10 3.60 X 2.50 Co. Galway Masanbrook 21.3 26 -0.31 1 • 1 9 Co. Kerry Drombohill~ 9.0 11 -0.14 1. 27 Dromod 4.0 5 -0.17 3.40 Drum roe 10.5 1 3 -0.33 2. 54 Drummir.bo~ 7.5 9 +0.05 0.56 Gurteen 10.5 13 -0.33 2.54 Kenmare 1 7. 4 X 15.8 21 X 19 -0.01 X +U.06 0.05 X 0.32 Leabaleaha 11.0 13 +0.27 2.08 LiSS)lViggeen 4.0 5 -0.17 3.40 Tuosist 10.8 13 +0.03 U.23 Co. Kildare Broadleas 31.5 X 30.0 38 X 36 o.oo X +0.19 0.00 X 0.53 Whiteleas 23.8 22 -0.29 1. DO Co. Limerick Lios 47.6 57 +0.42 o. 74 Lough Gur c 22.2 X 16.2 28 X 20 -0.38 X -0.46 1. 36 X 2.30 Lough Gur D c.51.8 62 +0.48 o. 77 Lough Gur 0 55.5 67 -0.05 0.07 Laugh Gur T 13.4 X 2. 1 16 )( 11 +0.16 X -0.02 1. DO X 0.18 Co. Mayo· Roseort c.16.5 20 -0.09 0.45 Co. Meath New Grange 103.6 125 -0.03 0.02 ca. Tipperary Reardnog)l More 4.5 5 +0.43 8.60 Timoney c.61.0 74 -0.42 0.57 Co. Wexford Carrickb)Lrne 6.1 X 4.2 7 X 6 +0.36 X -0.09 5.14 X 1. 50 Co. Wicklov.• Athgreanll 23.0 28 -0.26 0.93 Bole)lcarrigeen c .14. 0 17 -0.11 0.65 Castlerudder)l 29.3 35 +0.34 0.97 Tournant 13.4+ 1 6 +0.16 1. DO 88 89

SITE DIAMETER MY ERROR % EHRUR PN METERS) pNTEGERS) PN HY Castledam(2h N 12.2 15 -0.28 1. 87 Castledam(2h 5W 12.2 1 5 -0.28 1. tJ7 Castlemerv~n 12.2 1 5 -0.28 1 • 8 7 Clogherny Meenerrigal 18.3 22 +0.07 0.32 Corns:~ma>;lr;l)l-A 9. 1 11 -0.02 0.18 CornamaddJ:: B 9. 1 11 -0.02 O.Hl Cregganconroe 1 2. 2? 1 5 -0.2B Lll7 Creggandevesk~ 10.7 1J -0.09 0.69 Culvacullion N 9.8 12 -0.18 1. 50 Culvacullion A 9.5 11 +0.46 4.18 Culvacullion B 10.4 13 -0.45 3.46 Culvacullion 5 1 8. 3 22 +0.07 0.32 Davagh Lower A 1 6. 2 20 -0.46 2.30 Davagh Lower B 13.1 X 11.3 16 X 14 -0.20 X -0.37 1. 25 X 2.64 Dooish 4.6 6 -0.45 7.50 Doorat w 1 2. 2 1 5 -0.28 1. 87 Doorat E 12. 8 15 +0.44 2.23 Dun Ruadh 10.4 X 9.1 13 X 11 -0.45 X -0.02 3.46 X 0.18 Glasmullagh A 7.6 9 +0.17 1. 89 Glasmullagh i:! 7.6 9 +0,17 1. 89 Glasmullagh c 7.6 9 +0.17 1. 89 Glasmullagh D 7.6 9 +0.17 1. 89 Glasmullagh E 7.9 1 0 -0.47 4.70 Glengeen 12.5 1 5 +0.08 0.53 Knocknahorna 15.2 1 B +0.34 1. 89 Loughmacror~ 12.2 15 -0.28 1. 87 MeendamBh A 17. 1 21 -0.37 1. 76 Ought bole: A 4.9 6 -0.09 1. 50 Oughtbol£ B 4.9 6 -0,09 1. so Scraghl£ A 18.3 22 +0.07 O.J2 Tremoge A 9. 1 11 -0.02 0.18 Tremoge B 9. 1 11 -0.02 0.18 Tremoge s 1 2. 2 1 5 -0128 1. 87 90 amount lacking or too great in MY and the percent error in measurement this difference represents, assuming the builders were using the MY as a standard unit of measure­ ment. It can be seen that the larger circles, the Lias and other Lough Gur circles D, 0, and T (but probably not the smaller circle C) and particularly New Grange, at

103.6 m, or 125 MY -0.03 and 50 MR, are in closer agree­ ment than the smaller circles of 3 or 4 m diameter.

A group of circles of 9.1 m, Bohonagh, Currebeha,

Drombeg, Reanascreena, Ballygroll ENE, Cornamaddy A and B, and Tremoge A and B, are very close to being an integral number of MY in diameter. These are 11 MY -0.02. Temple­ bryan and Tuosist at 10.8 m are 13 MY +0.03. Neither of these values of MY, 11 or 13, correspond to an integral number of MR. But another group of circles of 12.2 m,

Knockane, Altaghoney, Castledamph N and SW, Castlemervyn,

Cregganconroe, Doorat W, Loughmacrory and Tremoge S, are

15 MY -0.28 which corresponds to 6 MR.

Kenmare, the only Irish circle known to be egg­ shaped, is 17.4 x 15.8 m or 21 x 19 MY (-0.01 x +0.06), again in close agreement.

Timoney, 61 m is 74 MY -0.42. Beltany, which may be a ruined cairn, is 44.8 m or 54 MY +0.04. Broadless,

31.5 x 30.0 m, is 38 x 36 MY (0.00 x +0.19}, also very close agreement.

Clogherny Meenerrigal, Scraghy A, Tromogagh, 91

Culvacullion S are all 18.3 m, 22 MY +0.07.

Only Ballybriest and Butterlope A, at 5.8 m and

7 MY are in exact agreement, which could be entirely co­ incidental. Of course we do not expect exact agreement using any system of measurement, but the variation in error is so great that it would seem a uniform unit was not used for all the sites.

In general the greatest percent error is found for those diameters of 3 to 4.5 m, such as Doonens, Co. Cork,

2.8 m or 3 MY +0.38 representing a 12.67% error. Groups who built the smaller circles may have used their own non­ standardized unit of length, a pace, an arm's length, or some other convenient length.

In Irish circles we find a few circles where the

MY might have been used. New Grange; 125 MY and 50 MR, is especially interesting since it might have been a large, open ring if it were built before the passage grave. It would then date to before 3300 BC, and probably much ear­ lier than the Scottish and English circles where Thorn found evidence for the Megalithic Yard.

Wood says that the earliest rings are true circles and that these tend to be larger in size. These he attrib­ utes to the Late Neolithic. The more complicated shapes are later developments of the Early Bronze Age, probably after 2000 BC and tend to be smaller in size. There are fewer large Early Bronze Age circles, he says (Wood 197&53). 92

Thorn finds the same size Megalithic Yard, to within

half a centimeter, at Carnac, Brittany, Avebury, England,

and at the Ring of Brodgar, Orkney (Wood 1978:54). At

Stonehenge the same length for the Megalithic Yard in the

circle of Aubrey Holes was found as in the sarsen circle

constructed 2000 years later. If Thorn's analysis is cor­

rect, a precise unit of measure was used by different

cultural groups over a wide area for a long period of time

(Wood 1978:55).

Similarities of pottery and distribution of axes

show contact between different peoples of northern Europe

during these times but adoption of the same exact standard

of measurement would imply strong cultural links not con­

firmed by archaeological evidence. It would have neces­

sitated dispensing physical replicas of the standard,

renewed at intervals as they broke or wore out with use.

This indicates a continuity of purpose and tradition for which we find no supporting evidence.

P. R. Freeman, who has analyzed Thorn's measure­ ments, concluded there was evidence for a Megalithic Yard

being used in Scotland, but not in England or Wales (Wood

1978:55).

Measuremepts of some sort had to be made to lay out

the sites, especially the more complicated geometrical

shapes, but the unit of length at one site need not have

been the same as that at another used by another cultural 93 group. Scottish sites, where a common unit seems to have been used, may represent the constructions of a single cultural group over a limited period of time {Wood 1978:56).

Analysis by Diameter, Number of Stones and Associated Features

Table 6 lists the diameters, numbers of stones, associated finds, dates where these have been determined c14 and azimuths and declinations for those sites where these have been calculated. Tables 7 and 8 from Burl follow

Table 6 and will be considered first. Table 7 shows a break in the diameters listed between 70+ and 80+ feet, as indicated by the arrow. In Eire, of the circles of known diameter there are 63, or about 85%, that are less than 80 feet in diameter, and only 11, or about 15%, that are over 80 feet. In Ulster, 72 circles of known diameter, or about 95%, are less than 80 feet, and only 4, or about

5%, are over 80 feet. Of a total of 150 circles, 135, or

90%, are less than 80 feet. There are only 12 circles of

100 feet or more. Table 8 shows a break in number of stones used in a circle between 17 and 18, as indicated by the arrow. In

Eire, 44 circles of a total of 51, or about 86%, have 17 or fewer stones; 7 circles, or about 14%, have 18 or more stones. In Ulster, 8, or about 44%, of a total of 18 circles have 17 or fewer stones; 10, or about 56%, have TABLE 6. Irish stone circle_s: phvsical characteristics and associated features NUMBER Of ASSOCIATED C SITE DIAMETER STONES FEATURES;'f"I_f\J.I:l.S_____ .l)At_E__ AZIMUTH/DECLINATIOI\1 EIRE ·Co. Cavan Cram Cruaich (C1) center stone Killvcluqqin A (C2) 30.5 m outlier Killycluqgin B ((3) 18.3 x 12.2 m Kilnavert A (C4) 12.5 m 2 adjacent sites Kilnavert d (C4b) 12.5 m Lissanover (C5) 3 standing stones in line; possibly part uf alignment of larger monument or a circle with 3 stones Co. Cork Ardiqole ( 1) Annaqanni!Jh.,.A Ui!_L 7.5 x 5.5 m outlier; 2 adjacent sites Annaqanniqy- l:l _( __2_QJ Ardqroom (3_}_ 7. 6 x 7, 2 m RSC; po.rtals 195.464 -28.592 Ballvackey-(4) Uaurqaum (~) RSC uellmount Lower ( 6) ____4_,[J __ m ______fiSC: L_JJC)J:i;als Bellmount Upp~J:"_i_IL___ 4.0 m 5 ______R:i_CifJOrtals 265.506 -1.910 J:iohonagh ( tJ) 9.1 m 13 HSC; cre1nated pit burial; 268°00 1 nearby hut site; small low dolmen 20 vds E ~f circle i ortals l:lrinny More (9) 10.5 x 9.6 m RSC; internal boulder dol­ men; external Brook Park E (10) outlier Cappaboy Beq (11) outlier Carriqaqrenan~J12) 9.6 m 17 RSC; center stone;portals 205.130 -32.736 Carrigagrenane A (13) 31 ft. 15; probably center stone 207°00 1 oriqinallv 21 or 22 Carr i 9 a 9 u 11 a A ( 1 4 ) 3 • 0 m 5 AS C ; port a 1 s 2 3 7 • 8 1 2 - ~. 2 4 4 Carri9agulli.l l:l (15) 8.2 m 17 RSC; center stone; portals 241.683 -9,401 Carriqaphooca ( 16) 3, 5 m 5 RSC Clogbolla (17) 3,1 m 5 RSC; outlier 187.556 -36.350 Cloqhboola _d_e_g_i 18) Clonleioh (19) RSC Coolaclevane (20 8.7 x 7.7 m · RSC · ortals 245.835 -14.834 Coolmountain (21) Cousane (22) 3.6 m 5 RSC; porta,l.s ______274.226 3.547 Cunpoqe (23) c. 21.3 m \C) .r::.. i~Ui•iuER Uf ASSUCIATED C1 4 SliE DIAMETER STL.JNES FEATURESLL:U,JIJ~__ DATE: ____1\HMUTH/DECLINATION Curraqhroe_( 24) 4.6 m Currebeha C25l 9.1 m 13 RSC; quartz center stone ; portals 210,458 -32.180 Dereenataqqart ( 26 )___ _8._4__111______R_SI::;_jJortals 272.962 5.105 Derrynafinchin (27) 9.5 m RSC?; internal boulder dolMen with quartz block beside it Doorneens ( 28} 2.8 m internal ring cairn; stone row Douqh (29) 7.0 m 5 RSC Drombeg (30) 9.1 m 1 7 RSC; cremation burial in 130+140 be urn; gravel ~avement; huts or AD600 +120 and fulacht fiadh - 226.313 -23.219 Dunbeacon ( 3_1) 8. 5 m RSI::_; center stone Durraqhalickv llZl Faranfada (33) RSC?; internal boulder dolmen? Gortroe portals Glancarnev ( 35) 5? RSC'? Glenleiqh (36) :3.._6_111__ RSC; stone row 201.167 -31.567 G lentane E ( 37) ______external bank; outlier Gortanimill ( 3tl) ______]._Q__rr]______RSC; _r::_enter stql}~i_Qortals 1 71.233 -35.55 Gowlane N ( 39) ______9. 5 m _R_!:)_c:__i __ portals Grenaqh s_ __ L1_Q} Kealkil (41) 3,1 m 5 RSC; 2 outliers; ,c~nq cairn 356.354 39.915 Keel Cross {42) _2,_I _fl1______R5_[_ Kilboultraqh (43) RS[ K ippaqb __l4_tl Knock~me (45) 12.2 rn RSC? Knoci,aneirk A (46) 10.4 m RSC:_ ilOrtals 235.042 -20.134 Knock<:meirk lJ (47) 4_._0_111______5___ _ R_;iC: uor:l;Q.ls 207.217 -33.763 Knockavulliq E ( 48) 2. 3 m 5 RSC Knockavulliq W ( 49) 3. 0 m 5 RSC Krwckawadra (50) 3.1 m 5 RSC: portals 222.242 -26.111 Knockeenddara (51) 9.1 m RSC?: uortals? Knocks A (52) 9 - 11 RSC · center stone; portals 210.68 -29.635 Knocks B (53) 9.8 x 9.2 m 13? RSC; portals 264.433 -3.428 Lnckaduv (54) 4.3 x 3.4 m 5 RSC; stone row 233.933 -21.167 Lahurankeel (55) 5 RSC; portals 222.251 -27.717 56) 5.4 x 2.3 m 4-ooster? outlier 24 5'? c.tJ • .o m

\.0 U'1 NUMuER OF AS50EIATED C14 SITE Ll!AMETER STONES FEATURES/FJNQ!i __ ~J)ATE AZIMUTH/DECLINATION Louahato-oma _N (58) ______6._2_~_2._8 m__ _ Mauqhanclea__ A (59)___ 11.9 m RSC_i_ boulder dolmen? 223.813 -19.527 Mauqhanclea B (60) 6. 7 m? embanked? i~aulatanvallv (61) 10.1 m 13? HSC; center stone; portals 258.473 -4.706 Maulmore (62) 2. 7 m 5 RSC Mucoher3 ueq (63) 3._5 m___ _5____ ~------_R~E:i __ E)f11Q~nkedl_; outlier 230 Juqhtiherv !3 ( G4) 2. 6 m 5 RSC 230.33 -16.801 Reanascreena (65) 9.1 m 13 RSC; external bank;portals 258000' 10 ft N or circle pit lined with ~aste uf charcoal and cremated bone Re im P~a Gao i the ( 6 6) ---~ ______RS_C_; c enter stone Rosnascalp (67) l.7 m Rvl.ane (68)_ 3.5 m 5 RSC· ortals 214.550 -30.467 ScronqAltar (LA1 )__ Co. Limerick Ballynamon~_ (LiVt1j ___ ~ ______lias (LM2) 47.6 m 113 contiguous embanked; por~als; 256°34' Knockadoon I ~ II ware, Beaker and Food Vessel sherds; bronze fragments; barbed-and­ tanged, leaf-shaped and hollow­ based arrowheads Lnugb G_u~L:TLM3l 22.9 x 16.2 m 15 external bank Lough Gur D (LM4) c.51.8 m(c. 170ft) only 6 stones left; had been 72+ avenue? Lougb GuJ:_ __Q___ (Lf'-1~1 55.5 m concentric rinq; external bank Lougb Gu_r_l__ (J_i'1_fiL 13.4 x 9.1 m 7 286° Slievereaqh (LM7) Co. Louth Killin (LT1) cairn? surrounded by circle of spaced stones Ravensdale Park (LT2} conc~ntric rinq Co. Mayo Carrliwreagh (MY1) boulder dolmen? Mullaqhmore Uiill assage grave? Rossport ______\l'1Y3l c. 16.5 m concent-=r'-"i"-'c'---'r"'-"'-i'-'n-"q'------~~- Summerhill House (MY4)

\0 -..J r~UMilER 0 F ASSDCI~TED .C 14 SITE DIAMETER STONES FEATURES/FlND~_ DATE AZIMUTH/DECLINATION Co. t~eath Dona~e (MTU Greenanstown (MT2) New Grange (MT 3) 103.~ m 35 passage grave 3300 dC midwinter sunrise Co. Tipperary Ballvannv (TP_j_)______conc~::_ntric __ rinq F irbreaqa ____ j TP_f_) Reardnoqv l"'ore ( TP3) ______4_, 5 m OI.J_t.:Lier-> stone row Timoney (TP4) c. 61.0 m Co. \~exford Carrickbvrne (WU 6.1 x 4.9 m 8 Whitechurch W2 Co. ~Jicklow

Athqreanv u-- (WlU 23.0 m c. 2 4 oriq in ally outlier BolevcarriQFien (W_L_2) c.14.0 m 12 or 13 external baAk? Castleruddery (WL3) 29.3 m external bank; avenue; white qlji3_rtz _JJOrtals ~ath all (WL4 Tournant (WL5) 13.4+ outlier; center stone?; embanked ULSTER Co. Antrim Lisnamannv (A1) Movad_il_m ___TA2l 5lievenaqh (A3) Tureaqh (A4T -~~ passaqe qrave? Co. krmLJgh

Bullvbrollv (Ar1 )_ ___ u __ _1_L,_3 rn passage grave Vicar's Cairn ( Ar2) 40.2 m 50 cairn Co. Down dallynoe ( D1) 33.5 m c.70 portals; outliers; cairn, carrowkeel ware Castle Mahon (D2) 21,3 x 19.8 m 6 internal cist with burnt bones of child and carinated neolithic bowl sherds; plano convex knife l"lillin bay (03) 22.9 x 15.2 m 11 remaining D-shaped cairn, cist with disarticulated bones of about 16 individuals; Food Vessels; 64 decorated stones Newcastle (D4) 45.1 x 42.7 m

\0 (X) NUMBER OF ASSUC!ATED t 14 SITE DIAI"IETER STONES ----FEATURES/FINDS DI\TE_~_ AZ-IMUTH/DECLINATION Co. Fermanagh Aqhastirouke (F1) Brougher (F2) 11.3 x 8.5 m outlier; stone row (More likely a cairn than a circle- Da11j.e_s) Cavancarragh_ (F3) 6. 1 m 2 stone rows Cloqhasj;u_ck<:~ne ( F4) 3.8 m 6 2 outliers Cloqhbrack __ (F5) Corraderrybrock ( F6) B center stone Druid's Tern2_le lF_l)_~-~~._A_ __ _ilL__ ------~-----~-~~--~-- cairn; cist;_ burials Drumskinny (FB) 14.0 x 13.0 m 39 stone row; cairn 3 1 from cir le; a few worked flints inclu. rough hollow-scraper E__:;;hbrollv (F9) 3 standing stones thouqht to be [Jart _of_ a_destroyed circle Formil (F10) stone row Greenan ( F1 U Kilcoo (F12) Killee A (F11} 24.4 m outlier Killee B (F14) K il tierne'L__ ( F15) 11.1 x 10.2 m 7 H5C7 Kiltoher (F16) 6 - B outlier Montiaqhroe_ A (F17) 15.2 m stone row Montiaqhroe B (F18) 13.1 x 11.6 m stone row Montiaqhroe C (F19) Ratnran (F2Q) 4? may have been an aliqnment Sheemuldoon (F21) Tromoqaqh (F22) 18.3 m Co. Londonderry Altaqhonev _( LD1) 12.2 m tar~qential

1.0 1.0 NUMBER lJF ASSOCIATED C1 SITE DIAMETER STONE 5 FEATURES/fiNP~ DA~~ AZIMUTH/DECLINATIOI\ Carbalintober (LD7) Coolnasillaqh (LDB) 18.3 x 13.] m c<~irn; stune row Corick A (LD9a) stone row; 5 adjacent sites (_5 _c_irc l~!l__ and_ __ :l_a_ssq. _c;l_iqnme nt s) Corick 3 (LD9b} stone row Corick C (LD9c} stone row Corick D (LD9d} center stone Corick E (LD9e} Cuilbane ( LD1 0) 12. ELm_ __jJassaqe qrave? Ervey (LD11) Gortcorbies (LD12} 13.4 m concentric ring; cairn: cist; mound with urn burial,over Food Vessels; plano convex knife Lackaqh (LD13} 11.4 m Letteran (LD14) Cairn t~aoherarnore (LD15} 9 Owen re aq h ( LD 16) ______]__._£_111_ concentric rin 9i outlier "co. Tyrone Aqhalane _A_~____llj_£2_ cis t · 3 adi a cent sites AqhaianE]jJ_::_~~-Ll11e_l center stone Aqhalan_~_C ( T1 c} Aqhascrebaqh (T2} 7.6 m concentric rinq Beaghrnore A (T3a} 11 • 9 X 9.6 m 7 circles; 8 alignments; 15 cairns; 243° 2 adjacen_t_s~"l_it'L_~i__av~ue; stone row lJeaqhmore B (T3b) ____ t0._[)_>< __ _2.8 m stone row; avenue 2060 Beaqhmore C (T4a) -~ _ _j_L_L~ 15.9 m 2 adjacent sites; avenue 227° Beaqhrnore D (T4b) 16.8 x 16.2 m avenue; cairn 244° l:Jeaghmore E (T5} 19.5 x 16.8 m stone row; cist; 884 small upright stones in circle Be_aghmore F (T6a) 8.5 m 2 adjacent sites; stone row; flint hoard 293° 1535z55 be assos. cairn 1605±45 be pre circle 775+55 be post circle Beaghmore G ( T6b) 9. 8 m portals; avenue 227°mwss Beleevnabeq (T7) Beleevna Evishbrack (T8) concentric ring; stone r~1 ,_. 0 0 SITE DIAMETER NUMBER Of ASSUCIAT[D c14 STONES Fli-\TURESLfiNDS DATE AZIMUTH/DECLINATim ri utter lope A--CHC! }_____ 2_.jl_!!!______-----~-- 4 _i'lCLii3 c; en t sites lJutterlope B (T_9b) 7. 6 m i.Jutterlope_L _[[9c) __]_,6 m uutterlope D- (T9d) 15.6 m Castledamph 5 (T10) 19.8 m cairn; cist with cremation buria__,l,_i_ stone row; co_n_c:_.:!_nt ric :x:.i. n q Castled.lmph SE (T11) 5.5+ Ill concentric rinq Castledumph N (T12a) 12.2 m 2 adjacent sites Castledamph SW (T12b) 12.2 m Castlemervvn (T13} 12.2 m center stone C l o q h e r n v i:i u t t er 1 o 0:e-Tff4)1 2 • 2 m c • 1 5 o u tl i e r Cloqhernv i'i_e_enerriqaJilJ5 )1B._3__rn______1_7 ______in:te:r-o_i:ll wedqe grave Cornamaddy r~ ( TL6a_L__ 9_. 1__ Tll______ston_~_:r-ow; _ ."2 _adjacent sites Cornamdddv H (T16b) 9.1 m stone row Cregganconroe ( T17) 12.2 m? stone row? Creggandevesky (T1B) 10.7 m 2 outliers 20 1 'N of circle Culvacullion N (T1~2 9.8 m 2 outliers Culvacullion A { T2Da)______9__._2_ m ~acent sites Culvacullion t.i (T20b) 10.4 m Culvacullion 5 (T21) 18.3 m cairn? Davaoh Lower A {T22) 16.2 ll)______c;ontiguous stones; concentric ring; -1venue Davagh Lower B (T23) 13.1 x 11.3 m stone row Dooish ( T24) 4. 6 m stone row Doorat W (T25a) 12.2 m cairn Doorat E (T2'jgj _____1_£.__El_____ll)_ cairn Dunbunrawer A (T26a) 3 adjacent sites; stone row Dunbunrawer B (T26b) Dunbunrawer C (T26c) Dun Rui!i9h ( T27) 10+4 x 9.1 m 17 orthostats__ , circJ,e-hen_g?._; c.i.sj;; ring cairn separated by dry-1~allin Glasmullaqh A ( T2Ba) 7. 6 m 4 adja_cent si t_e!3_; strme row Glasrnullagh B ( T2Bb) 7. 6 m stone row Glasmullaqh C (T2tlc;) 7.6 m Glasmullaqh D (T28d) 7.6 m Glasrnullaqh E (T29J 7.9 m stone row ,_. ,_.0 SITE DIAMETER NUMdER Of ASSOCIATED C STONES FEATURES/FINDS. uafE AZIMUTH/DECLINATION GlrmQeen _ --~( TJD_l 12.5 m stone row Gol.Jn A (T31a)~------_2~aJij<1cent sites Gol.1n JJ (T31b) _ B.G m Knockn;,horniJ ( TJ~) _____ 15.2___ m~- ___ portals ur avenue?; cairn? LouqhmacrDry __ ( TJJ) ---~~--12.__2__rn______co_n_centri~_rj._r1_g? tv1ermtJ.JrnfJh A __ ( fJ4a) 17.1 m ~ ud_idcent sites; cairn'? l"lr~end;;•nph )j ( T J-1b) c;oi rn r•lnyrnnre A ---~-( TYjwJ _ -~------~--~~- ______]adj;'~~rrt si_:te_!:i_;____EU_one, row T1oymon~li (TJSb) stonerovl f·~•.JI/"rllre C ( Ll'.ic) stune row f·1r..l'£rnore D (TJ5d) stune row ~loyrnnrc E (LF,e) stone row f·1ovrnrJre F ( TJ'.if) stone row i·hyrnor" r; ___ _( r:J:i_q) l:ullirrlOHJI:e (TJ6) 15.2 m llur;htiloy A ( T:r7il) 4.9 m. 2 adjDcent sites Uunh tiJny lJ (TJ7b) 4. 9 rn :-"-; r ,-, q ., v i\ ( T J II \) 10. 3 m 2 n d j ICJhv JJ ( TJtlb) concentric rinq Trc:rwQe A___ ~_(TJ'!<~) 9.1 m 2 ad_j

Tremoqe stone row Turnabarson ( T41) ston_e __ :rqw; small cairn

(Compiled primarily fr,Jrn J.Jurl, and to a lesser estent from other authurs listed in the bibliography)

Ca~ital letters and num~rals in parentheses indicate the site on the t inch Ordnance Survey maps used for the distributional analysis in this thesis.

RSC: recumbent stone circle ...... 0 t\.) TABLE .r. Diameters of Irish Stone Circlee I Diameters I Diameters in feet ! # Circ lesl Known Not Know11 -9 10+ 20_±__3_0+ .:\Dt 5_Q{ __6D-+30 ...._,j,_80±_ 90+ _100t_1_10+ 120+ 130+ 140+ 150+ 200· Eire I 133 74 59 ~-9 14Jt:i_LL4 I 4. 4 1 I 4 : 0-: 2 I . 3 i -0 i 0 ! 0 0 4 2

Ulster! 128 76 52 ; ~~7~~, ~3-i1;:~~- 8 7 3 I 1 0 I 0 1 ! 1 1 0 0 0 I I Totals I 261 150 11, .:.___9_ 2L:26 _:3_2 20 _1 ~ 8 7 i 1 2 I 3 1 I 1 1 0 4 2

(from Burl: 372)

TAbLE 8, Numbers uf Stones in Irish Stone Circles

.. o I ._ •- - - . - . - . - .. . - . - -- -. -u : ------! I I Eire 1 I 12 i 3 2 1 4 I 3 3 i 1 I 1 2 ! 2 , I 0:. 0 I 0 1 ! o I 0 I 0 o I o I I I I I 1 ! I I I' Ulster 0 0 1 0 1 I 2 ! 0 0 i 1 0 ! o I 0 of 3 01 1 I ol 0 ol 0 i 0 0 0 I 0 I I i i I 3 . Totals 1 12 4 9 2 3' 1 I 4 4 , 1 2 5 1 1 oi o' 1 o' 0 a _Q~-0

28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 36+ Totals

Eire 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 I 51

Ulster 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a ' 9 I 18

Totals! 0 a 1 0 a I D. a 1 1 ' 11 62 (from Burl: 375)

~ 0 w 104 more than 17 with 9 of these, or 50%, having more than 36 stones. Of the 69 Irish stone circles whose number of stones are known, 12 have 36 or more stones, 52 have 17 or fewer, and 32 have 10 or fewer stones.

From this we can generalize that the great majority of Irish stone circles are small circles composed of rel- atively few stones. There are only about a dozen circles of very large size {100+ feet). From Table 6 we find the following circles of 30 m or .more:

TABLE 9. Circles of 30 m or more

Burials Circles Meters or Cairn

1. Killycluggin A, Co. Cavan {C2) 30.5 No 2. Beltany, Co. Donegal {DGl) 44.8 Cairn 3. Broadleas, Co. Kildare {KDl) 31.5x30.0 No 4. Lios, Co. Limerick {LM2) 47.6 No 5. Lough Gur D, Co. Limerick (LM4) 51.8 No 6. Lough Gur O, Co. Limerick (LM5) 55.5 No 7. New Grange, Co. Meath (MT3) 103.6 Passage grave 8. Timoney, Co. Tipperary (TP4) 61.0 No 9. Vicar's Cairn, Co. Armagh {AR2) 40.2 Cairn 10. Ballynoe, Co. Down (Dl) 33.5 Cairn 11. Newcastle, Co. Down {D4) 45.lx42.7 No 12. Druid's Temple, Co. Fermanagh (F7) 38.4 Cairn

Only 7 of the circles listed above are large, open rings without associated burials or burial structures.

These large circles are found in 9 different counties scattered over a wide area of the country; however, none are found in the areas of heaviest concentration of stone 105 circles, Cork and Kerry in the south and mid-Ulster in the north. This implies a difference in social organization in these areas.

TABLE 10. Associated features of the stone circles

Cairns or Align- Center Multiple RSCs Burials ments Outliers Stones Rings

Eire 57 21 5 15 12 3

Ulster 1 29 45 8 4 19

Totals 58 50 50 23 16 22

Table 10 was compiled from counts taken from Table

6. Fifty of the circles have burials associated with them.

Of course, we do not have complete information on all the circles. Very few have been excavated and we do not know if all these burials are primary or if some might be secondary. features or intrusions added at some later time by other cultural groups after the circles were no longer in use by their builders or serving their originally intended function. Nevertheless, we know that at least 50 out of a total of 261 stone circles, or about 19%, have associated burials or burial structures. Later peoples may have buried their dead in or near the circles if these sites had a tradition of being sacred places. However, with the exception of the passage grave site New Grange,

Co. Meath, the cist burial of at least 16 individuals at 105

Millin Bay, Co. Down, and the 15 cairns associated with the 7 Beaghmore circles, Co. Tyrone, most of the burials seem to involve only one or a very few individuals; they do not seem to be anything in the nature of cemeteries.

The occasional burials found might indicate interment of the honored dead, dedicatory burials to sanctify a site, or sacrificial burials to propitiate or supplicate the gods.

We may conclude that death and burial seem to have a strong associ~tion with the circles, but does not seem to be a primary purpose for the construction of the majority of them.

From Table 10 we see that in Eire, 57 of 133 circles, or about 43%, are recumbent stone circles. With one possible exception, Kiltierney, Co. Fermanagh, all the recumbent stone circles in Ireland are found in Cork and

Kerry, the south-western part of the country. These may have had significant astronomical alignments. Other circles which might have had astronomical alignments are those with stone rows, avenues or tangential alignments and those with outliers. Only 5 circles in Eire, about

4%, have alignments; in Ulster, 45 circles, about 34%, have alignments. The multiple circle sites, as can be seen in

Table 6, almost all have stone rows, avenues or alignments.

In Eire, 15, or about 11%, have outliers; in Ulster, 8, or about 6%, have outliers. There are then 131, or approx­ imately 50% of the circles which have man-made constructions 107 which might have served as markers for astronomical align­ ments. However, Barber's study of a group of Cork recum­ bent stone circles has revealed that for some there are no known significant astronomical orientations. We are left then with a religious-ceremonial function for the majority of the circles.

Burl estimates that Cork recumbent stone circles were used by groups of probably no more than 30 people

(Burl 1976:223). This could .be an extended family of 4 to

6 nuclear families living somewhat communally, cooperating in economic and religious activities. However, one would not imagine that a group of this small size would have 16 men of prime megalith-moving capability. Of a group of 30 persons, the majority of the members would probably be women and children with perhaps one to three older persons. tn order to provide the necessary manpower, neighboring groups might have assisted one another, even though each group seemed to feel it necessary to have their own circle.

At the Lios, to the west of the circle are the remains of what may have been a workers' camp, evidence of fires and an accumulation of refuse occasionally covered over with earth. The heaviest stone of the circle weighs over 60 tons and would have required 120 or more people to move it from its hillside origin over a mile away. The clay for the circle's level floor and the bank came from a deposit by the lake, and with an average basket-load of 108

30 lbs., Burl estimates 300,000 loads would have been

required, taking 100 wo.rkers 60 to 70 workdays (Burl

1976:229).

The inner space of the Lios with a circumference

of 149.5 m, could accommodate 100 or more dancers, Burl

says, so that a population of 200 to 300 persons is pos­

sible (Burl 1976:229).

The camp, which is not like the more permanent

habitations at Lough Gur, such as Knockadoon, would seem

to be for temporary use during construction of the circle

or perhaps even later, people who had gathered for activ­

ities within the circle may have camped there for brief

periods during times of festivals.

There are not enough habitation remains at Lough

Gur to support a postulated population of 200 to 300 people,

so the implication is that there was cooperation between

scattered groups, possibly of extended families living

over a wider area.

If larger circles were built earlier, as is gen­

erally held to be the case for the rest of Great Britain,

this might imply that there was greater cooperation among

groups at an earlier time, in the Late Neolithic, with a

. change sometime in the Early Bronze Age to a greater number

of small groups acting independently and thus building a

greater number of small circles. Or it could just be that

because customs were not the same over all the country the 109 circles served somewhat different functions and were thus constructed differently~ The difference may be primarily geographic and thus related to the cultures of the peoples living in different areas of the country rather than pri­ marily a change over time, representing changes taking place over time within a particular culture.

Conclusions

Alexander Thorn's work, raising the possibility of a-knowledge of science and mathematics in northwestern

Europe, helped dispel any lingering notions that all light carne from the east. Atkinson, who had first rejected the implications of Thorn's work, carne to the conclusion·that to reject Thorn's thesis of megalithic mathematics and astronomy was to accept improbabilities of an even higher order. Since he could not believe Thorn's results were due to chance alone, he instead rejected his model of European prehistory (Atkinson 1975:51). Thorn's work strengthens the case of those who work within the independent inven­ tion/functionalist paradigm. However, Thorn's metrology and geometry would seem not to apply to Irish stone circles, with_a few possible exceptions, notably New Grange and

Kenmare, which could be merely coincidental.

To determine if any standard unit had been used, accurate surveys of the sites would have to be made. From the evidence in Table 3, it seems that larger circles were 110 set out using some measurement close to the Megalithic

Yard (which could well have been a pace) and they probably of necessity required greater care in planning and exe­ cution than smaller circles of very few, widely spaced stones.

In Ireland there are circles, ellipses, and one egg-shaped figure. The designs do not seem to be as com­ plex as those Thorn described, though they have not been subjected to the same sort of analysis. Although it was possible that a knowledge of a standard unit of measure might have spread through traders and trade goods or have been taken along with prospectors and miners of flint, copper or gold, it seems that this was not the case~

Analysis of the diameters, numbers of stones and associated features of the circles reveal at least 4 dif­ ferent types of circles in Ireland:

1-. Large, open rings of 110 or more feet in diam­ eter. These may have served as gathering places for religious or ceremonial activities, seasonal festivals, or even secular meetings for 6 to 10 approximately 30 person groups of extended families living scattered over a wider area.

2. Circles containing a number of burials.

Included in this group are New Grange (whose circle, if earlier.than the passage grave might fall into group 1, and Millin Bay. These sites might be classified primarily 111 as burial sites.

3. Recumbent stone circles. Most of these, found in Cork and Kerry, have postulated astronomical alignments and may have been used to make observations of various celestial bodies. This would not have precluded other functions.

4. Multiple rings. The mid-Ulster group of multiple rings almost all have associated alignments and cairns. They probably served as sites for a number of different activities (burial, initiation rites, fertility rites, seasonal festivals or observances). Again, this might indicate cooperation of scattered extended family groups, corning together at certain times to some sacred area for special activities, or different rings could have been built for the use of different families living within the immediate area. There may even have been groupings that cut across family lines, e.g., all male, all female.

Burial as a primary function seems to have been the purpose of only a very few circles. The majority would seem more likely to have been either astronomical observatories or ceremonial sites. These functions will be examined in Chapters 5 and 6. CHAPTER V

ARCHAEOASTRONOMICAL THEORY

Introduction

Astronomy has been of interest to man since long before the earliest of recorded times. Celestial bodies and events figure largely in the mythology of almost all peoples. We orient ourselves in space and on earth by the cardinal directions--north, south, east and west--based on two fundamental places of reference--the horizon, where the earth meets the sky, and the zenith, directly overhead

(Krupp 1977:2).

The celestial sphere (Figure 43), a concept used to explain the appearance of heavenly bodies as seen from the earth, is an imaginary sphere encircling the earth on which seem to be attached the distant stars. As the earth rotates on its axis different portions of this celestial sphere are brought into view, some in daytime and thus not visible, and others at night which are visible. The sun, moon and planets, much nearer to earth exhibit other pat­ terns of movement across the celestial sphere against the background stars. Because of the earth:s direction of rotation, all these objects rise in the east and set in

112 113 the west. The regularities of movement of these celestial bodies would have been apparent to anyone who took the trouble to observe them over a period of time.

For people living in northern latitudes (Ireland is at latitudes of about 51° to about 55° N) the sky appears to be turning about the north celestial pole, a point on the celestial sphere directly over the earth's north pole.

Prehistoric peoples, living in close contact with natural phenomena, undoubtedly made observations and built up a body of knowledge and folklore about these, as well as other regularly recurring events in their environment.

Marshack's theory about the lunar counts on Cro-Magnon era bones has been mentioned. If he is correct, observation and use of celestial bodies as time factoring agents has been used by man even in the Paleolithic period.

Sir Norman Lockyer, an English astronomer who was noted for his study of solar flares and prominences and the discovery of a new element, helium, in the solar atmos­ phere, became interested in using astronomy as a tool to determine the chronology of history. In The Dawn of Astron­ omy, 1894, he presented his ideas on the orientation of

Egyptian temples on certain stars. General dates were derived from the orientation by correlating the alignments with star tables. In later work he postulated solar align­ ments for Stonehenge. But his work was dismissed by 114 egyptologists and prehistorians. Hawkins criticized him for working from Ordnance Survey maps and inadequate site surveys but this was the best data available to him at the time and Lockyer himself, aware of this problem, called for more accurate surveys to be made with modern instru­ men~s and methods (Lockyer 1894:xii).

Another astronomer, Boyle Somerville, in 1923, presented a paper citing instances of orientation in megalithic monuments of the British Isles. At that time the concept had not been widely studied or generally accepted. He had surveyed about 90 sites, a number of which were stone circles in Ireland.

Somerville defined celestial orientation as the lay-out of a structure with ·reference to the point on the horizon at which the sun, moon, or some star may be seen rising or setting on some particular day of the year.

Orientation, he said, may be conveyed by three different methods: (1) By being introduced into the actual lay-out of the monument. This form of orientation should always be present but may be supplemented by one or both of the two following methods: (2) By sight-lines taken from some point within the monument to an artificial object, such as a standing stone, cairn, or boulder placed at some distance outside it, on the required azimuth. This might be on the sky-line or elsewhere. (3) By sight-lines to some con­ spicuous natural objects, such as a sharp hilltop or notch 115

in the hill horizon. With the third method the mo~ument has to be built so that the natural object is in the proper azimuthi with the second method the standing stone or cairn can be placed in any desired position after the monument has been built (Somerville 1923:104).

Somerville, too, called for scientifically exact surveys of the sites with true north being marked on the plan and being placed "up" on the paper, a practice not at that time always adhered to in drawing site plans. With true.north and south lying in the same attitude on all plans it would be much easier to compare orientations, he said (Somerville 1923:222).

He agreed, with other critics, ·that Lockyer· had made too free use of the stars to explain various orienta­ tions and that such use was only justified in the case of heliacal risings, that is when the star rose just before the sun on one of the critical days and gave warnings to observers, as the Pleiades heralding sunrise on May morning.

It was noted that he did not accept terrestrial bearings, such as hilltops, in his own observations (Somerville

1923:224).

Alexander Thorn, from his analysis of his surveys of megalithic monuments hypothesizes that many of these were constructed for the purpose of making astronomical observations. He postulates the megalith builders were able to observe movements of the sun, moon, and certain 116 first magnitude stars and predict lunar eclipses, and that they had developed a calendar dividing the year into

16 parts with some evidence for a division into 32 parts of 11 or 12 days (Thorn 1967:165).

In order to assess the possibility that the Irish stone circles have astronomical alignments or were used for astronomical observations it is first necessary to consider some basic information concerning astronomical observations and the methodology of archaeoastronorny studies. Very little information has been published on how to carry out an archaeoastronorny project. But Thorn has offered some comments on his fieldwork techniques and the equation he used for his calculations. Wood offers more detailed information on calculating declinations;

Hawkins gives equations, which are slightly different from those used by Thorn, and points out weaknesses of procedure in some archaeoastronorny studies. Reyman offers suggestions for a theoretical approach to archaeoastronorny studies. A specific example pertaining to Irish circles, John Barber's computer study of 30 Cork and Kerry recumbent stone circles, will then be presented and discussed.

There are two important definitions to be kept in mind when considering alignments in archaeoastronorny studies:

. 1. Azimuth is the angle of direction along the horizon of an object. It is measured from true north to 117 east from 0° to 360°.

2. Declination, which indicates an objects1 posi­ tion of the celestial sphere, is measured from 0° at the celestial equator to a maximum on + or - goo at the north and south celestial poles. These two angles, one indicat­ ing a direction, the other a position in the sky, are used to define the orientation of a site.

Astronomical Observations

Solar Observations

The earth orbits cnce around the sun in a solar, or tropical, year, 365.25 days. To an observer on earth, however, it appears that the sun is moving (Figure 44).

The apparent path of the sun is called the ecliptic. The seasons result because the plane of the ecliptic is inciined to the plane of the earth's equator at an angle

(£) of about 23.5°, called the obliquity of the ecliptic

(Abell lg76:57} {Figure 45). Observers, in the latitudes of the British Isles could not fail to notice that in winter when the sun was low in the sky there was a shorter period of daylight, or shorter days, and in summer when the sun climbed high in the sky there were longer days.

(The sun always climbs at the same angle to the horizon, goo- the latitude of that spot on earth. If it rises farther north it reaches a higher point at midday.) In spring and fall they would have noticed the days and nights 118

to be about equal in length. On June 2~st, or midsummer in Britain, the sun rises at a point on the eastern horizon farthest north and sets at a point on the western horizon farthest north (Figure 46). On December 21st, midwinter in Britain, the sun rises and sets at points farthest south

(Figure 47). These extremes are called the solstices. The word solstice means sun still and at the solstices the sun appears to hardly change its rising or setting points for several days. For a few days the sun appears to linger at the same extreme (Krupp 1978:6).

On the first days of spring and fall, at the vernal and autumnal equinoxes, March 21 and September 22, the sun rises.and sets due east and west (Figure 48) (Krupp 1978:6).

Considering rising and setting points, these three solar events give 6 significant points on the horizon towards which alignments may have been directed. Marking these points would enable a people to divide the year into four approximately equal parts. It would enable them to develop a calendar to mark the recurring seasons. Watching the sun approach a particular point they could predict how many days before the turning of the seasons.

In addition to these alignments, Thorn has found evidence for solar alignments for these dates: February 4

(Candlemas), May 6 (May Day or Beltane), August 8 (Lamrnas) and November 8 (Martinrnas or Sarnhuin) (Thorn 1966:128).

This would divide the year into 16 more or less equal parts. 119

TABLE 11. Sixteen month Bronze Age calendar

Number .of days !Declination from the spring of the sun equinox at the 1at the Corresponding 'Month' Number ,beginning of !beginning of date in our number of daysithe 'month' the 'month' calendar 1 23 0 + 0.44° 120 March 1 2 23 23 + 9.16° 12 April 3 24 46 +16.67° 5 May 4 23 70 +22.06° 29 May 5 23 93 +23.91° 1 21 June 6 23 116 +22.06° 114 July 7 23 139 +16.67° I 6 August 8 22 161 + 9.16° 128 August 9 22 183 + 0.44° 19 September 10 22 205 - 8.46° 11 October . 11 22 227 -16.26° November 12 23 250 -21.86° 12; November 13 23 273 -23.91° l18 December 14 23 296 -21.86° 1 10 January 15 23 319 -16.26° 2 February 16 23 342 - 8.46° 25 February

(From Wood 1978:94)

A histogram with Gaussian areas (Figure 50) shows a clus-

tering of declinations for these times in the solar cycle which he believes enabled the megalith builders of Scotland,

southern England and Wales to maintain a calendar that was

in synchronization, that is, with the new year started

everywhere on the same date (Wood 1978:95). This might

have required many years of experimenting before finding

the desired placement of a foresight and backsight. It would seem to be not just coincidental that we still have

seasonal holidays celebrated at many of these same times.

The classic ~xample of a major solar alignment is j 120 that at Stonehenge from the center to the tip of the Heel

Stone directed toward the summer solstice sunrise. As noted, New Grange had a midwinter sunrise orientation

(Figure 49). Thorn has also found solar alignments at

Ballacroy on the Kintyre peninsula and Kintraw, in Argyll- shire, sites about 40 miles apart, both dating to around

1750 BC. One has an alignment for midwinter, the other for midsummer (Krupp 1978:15). rn general Wood sees .the earlier sites as being combined ritual and observational constructions. They are usually more elaborate while later sites are simpler con­ structions and more precise instruments for observation.

The later sites generally consist of the bare essentials-­ a marker indicating where to stand and a pointer to the foresight, located as far away as possible for greater accuracy (Wood 1978:90). The ceremonial astronomy of the

Neolithic was superseded by precision astronomy of the

Early Bronze Age, he says (Wood 1978:90).

Lunar Observations

Some peoples have devised calendars based on the phases of the moon. A lunar calendar is still in use in

Islamic areas. The disadvantage of a lunar calendar, though, is that it gets out of synchronization with the seasons since the solar year does not contain an exact number of lunations (Krupp 1978:16). 121

As the moon orbits about the earth its position

relative to the sun and earth changes and as this occurs its appearance also changes. Phases of the moon. The periods of the moon's

rotation on its axis and its revolution in its orbit about

the earth are the same, so that an observer on the earth

always sees the same side of the moon (Figure 51). When

the moon is in the same direction from the earth as the

sun, or in conjunction with the sun, its lighted side is

turned away from the earth and its dark side toward earth.

This is the new moon. As the moon continues in its orbit

a waxing crescent increases in size until after about a

week, when the moon is at a 90° angle to the sun, the first

quarter moon is visible. After about another week, halfway

around its orbit, 180° from the sun with the sun and moon

opposite each other in the sky, the full moon, or the

lighted half of the moon, becomes visible. As the moon continues in its orbit, about three weeks after new moon an observer sees the third quarter moon, and then the waning crescent until after about four weeks or 29 1/2 days it has cQmpleted its orbit and is

again the new moon. The new moon rises and sets with the

sun and is not visible. Moonrise and set are about 50 minutes later each day. The first quarter moon rises at

noon and sets at midnight; the full moon rises around sun­

set and sets around sunrise; and the third quarter moon rises around midnight and sets at noon (Krupp 1978:17). 122

Thus by observing the phase of the moon and its angle in

the sky one can tell the approximate time. Movements of the moon. In addition to daily

changes in the phase of the moon and time of rising and

setting, there is also a change in the position on the horizon of moonrise and moonset. The plane of the moon's orbit about the earth is inclined to the ecliptic at an

angle (E) of 5.14° (Figure 52). Moonrise oscillates

between an extreme northeast point to an extreme southeast

point and back again in about a month. The period of the

moon's revolution about the earth with respect to the

stars is 27 1/3 days. In this 27 1/3 days, the moon goes through a complete oscillation in declination from high in

the sky to low. Its movements follow the same pattern as

those of the sun but are 13 times as fast (Wood 1978:68). The plane of the moon's orbit intersects the

ecliptic at two points, called the nodes, N and N (Figure 1 2 52). The moon crosses the ecliptic at the ascending node,

N , when it is heading northward, and again crosses the 1 ecliptic at the descending node, N , when it is heading 2 southward (Wood 1978:68). The time when the moon is farthest north is called

the major standstill because the moon reaches about the

-same maximum height in the sky every month for about three

years (Figure 53). At this time the moon's movements are

most pronounced. Not only does the moon reach its maximum

height in the sky each month but two weeks after this it 123 is so low in the sky that at high latitudes, such as in the Shetland Islands, ~t barely rises. Its declination varies from about 28.5° to about 18.5°, or from (E + 1) to ( E - 1 ) (Wood 19 7 8 : 6 8 ) .

The movements of the moon are further complicated by various gravitational forces acting upon it. Two effects caused by these forces are regression of the nodes and the inclination perturbation. Due to gravitational forces the moon's orbit precesses, or turns, with respect to the earth's orbit. The moon's orbit moves from east to west but the moon revolves from west to east. The pre­ cession of the moon's orbit is for that reason called the regression of the nodes. As viewed frdm the north celes­ tial sphere a line going through the nodes turns counter­ clockwise~ A complete regression takes place in 18.61 years. Over this 18.61 year period the northern moonrise extreme moves from a maximum to a minimum and back again.

The same is true for the southern moonrise (Krupp 1978:21).

When the moon's orbit has completed a half turn,

9.3 years after the major standstill, the minor standstill occurs (Figure 54). At this time the moon reaches its minimum northern limit and its minimum southern limit.

The monthly oscillation in declination is much smaller, from +18.5° north of the celestial equator to -18.5° south, or from. +(E-l) to -(E-l}. Again the moon reaches approx­ imately the same height in the sky for several months. 124

Its maximum height is about 10° lower and its minimum height about 10° higher, than at major standstill (Figures

55, 56 and 57) (Wood 1978:69).

There are then 4 lunar events, major standstill northern and southern limits and minor standstill northern and southern limits, that, with rising and setting points, give 8 significant orientations. Added to the 6 signif- icant solar orientations, there are now 14 significant orientations to be considered (Figure 58) (Barber 1973:30).

Eclipses. Eclipses take place when the centers of the sun, moon and earth fall along the same line.

This is equivalent to the requirement that the new and full moons occupy either of the nodes when the sun does, or that the sun, earth, and moon are all along the line of the nodes. (Krupp 1978:21)

Solar eclipses occur at new moon, lunar eclipses at full moon. Solar eclipses occur when the moon passes directly in front of the sun obscuring the sun's light and casting its shadow on the earth. Because its shadow is quite narrow it can only be seen over an area about 180 km wide. Observers in nearby areas can see a partial eclipse, but these are not very noticeable (Wood 1978:70). At any one spot on earth a solar eclipse would be visible so infrequently that regularities could not be derived and for this reason is not considered applicable to investiga- tions of megalithic astronomy {Wood 1978:70).

Lunar eclipses occur when the moon passes into the earth's shadow; they are visible over more than half the 125 earth, and are thus frequently enough seen for careful observers to derive certain regularities if they keep a record of their observations. For a lunar eclipse to occur the sun and moon must occupy opposite nodes of the moon's orbit (Krupp 1978:21). The eclipse year is 346.62 days, the time it takes for the sun to travel from ascending node back around to ascending node. The effect of the rotation of the lunar nodes is to make lunar eclipses occur about

20 days earlier each year. On the average one sees fewer than one eclipse a year, and one total eclipse every two years (Wood 1978:71).

In the years of major and minor standstills eclipses, if they occur, are at full m6on nearest to spring and autumn equinoxes, March 21 and September 22.

Half-way between the standstills eclipses take place near the winter and summer solstice, December 21 and June 21

(Figure 57). Knowing this, observers, if they made suf­ ficient observations of the moon's rising and setting points, could make eclipse predictions.

Ancient peoples derived several eclipse cycles from lunar observations. One, the Metonic cycle which has eclipses recurring after 19 years, breaks down after two repetitions. But the Saros, discovered by Babylonian and

Chaldean astronomers has eclipses recurring after 18 trop­ ical years, 11 1/3 days, and holds up well (Wood 1978:74).

From his investigations at Stonehenge, Hawkins 126 derived the rule: if the midwinter full moon rises over the Heel Stone there will be an eclipse. The Heel Stone indicates approximately the direction of midsummer sunrise, and if the midwinter full moon rises over it, the moon must be halfway between the major and minor standstills. And if eclipses occur that year, they will be at midwinter and midsummer (Wood 1978:75). It would thus have been possible to make eclipse predictions from observations at Stone­ henge. The four Station Stones at Stonehenge, which were erected quite early, have an alignment for the major stand­ still. This would infer the peoples who set up the stones had made a systematic study of the movements of the moon, supporting the opinion that Stonehenge ·was a lunar obser­ vatory from its earliest times.

Alexander Thorn has found a number of what he con­ siders to be lunar observations. Temple Wood, Argyll,

Scotland, has two lines of menhirs in a narrow x-shape pointing to two notches on the horizon, one for the northern major standstill declination and the other for the southern major standstill declination (Krupp 1978:70).

The Ring of Brogar in the Orkneys is also consid­ ered to be a lunar observatory. It has various associated small earth cairns and an outlier, the Comet Stone, as backsights and four natural foresights on the horizon, giving about a dozen declinations of the moon (Krupp

1978:70). 127

Wood considers the majority of the lunar sites to be later than solar sites; many consist of standing stones, sometimes, but not always associated with stone circles

(Wood 1978:100). He says,

There are very strong reasons for believing that the minor perturbation was discovered by men in the Neolithic or Early Bronze Age, and certainly they had the technique to make this discovery when they learned how to use the horizon as a giant protractor. (Wood 1978:103)

The minor perturbation can act as a warning for eclipse periods which only occur when the minor perturba- tion is at a maximum and adding to the lunar declination

(Wood 1978:103).

As the technique improved the observatories became simpler and more effective, utilizing just a few stones and a notch on a distant horizon. These techniques, Wood says, led finally to the construction of intricate devices for calculating eclipse phenomena, like the stone rows at

Carnac and Kermario (Wood 1978:105).

Stellar Observations

The movements of the stars are less complicated than those of the moon. Their declinations change so slowly they appear to rise and set in the same direction every night for many years. A sidereal day, measured with respect to the stars, is about 4 minutes shorter than a solar day. Because of this, the stars rise and set 4 minutes earlier each night (Wood 1978:76). 128

Differential gravitational forces exerted by the sun and moon on the earth's equatorial bulges cause a motion called precession, which is usually compared to the spinning of a top. The tilt of the earth's axis rotates or precesses making one complete revolution in 26,000 years.

Annual precession then is 1/26,000 of 360° or about 50"

(Abell 1976:50). This changes the positions of the stars with respect to the celestial poles. "In the last 4000 years the declinations of all stars have changed from 5° to 20°" (Wood 1978:77). Precession can cause stellar orientations to go out of alignment within the period of one person's lifetime. In 50 years the rising directions of the faster-changing stars will move·by 0.5°. This might have discouraged megalith builders from expending the effort to indicate these points with permanent stone structures (Wood 1978:77).

In addition to this factor, the extinction angle of a star is considered to be a serious observational problem. As stars set they gradually become fainter and finally invisible even when still a few degrees above the horizon, because their light is absorbed by the atmosphere.

The lowest angle at which a star can be seen is its extinc­ tion angle. Values of the extinction angle in degrees are roughly equivalent to the magnitude of the stars. A third magnitude star cannot be seen below 3° altitude (Thorn

1967:15). Even the brightest star, Sirius, can just be 129

seen when rising over a clear horizon.

Thorn has listed about 50 sites where he finds

alignments corresponding to stellar risings and settings

for the dates between 2100 and 1500 BC. Wood considers

these completely speculative, since the sites have not been

dated by other means and the declination changes over the

time period in consideration could amount to several

degrees. It is also significant that he has found no

alignments for Sirius (Wood 1978:78).

This does not mean that these prehistoric people

could not have used the stars to tell time. Ancient Egyp-

tians set their calendar by the heliacal rising of Sirius,

the first appearance of the star each year before dawn,

after its period of invisibility when it had been in con-

junction with the sun (Wood 1978:78). But this sort of

observation does not require points to be marked on the

horizon and would leave no archaeological evidence.

Methodology of Archaeoastronomical Studies

Alexander Thorn

In discussing the methodology of his fieldwork and

calculations, Alexander Thorn says his surv~ys were made

·with theodolite and tape, the orientation being determined

by at least two time/azimuth observations of the sun.

The azimuth of a point is best found by observ­ ing by theodolite the difference in azimuth between 130

the point and the sun at a noted time. Then the azimuth of the sun at the noted time can be cal­ culated . • • and so the azimuth of the point can be found. (Thorn 19'67:16)

In overcast weather angles were measured to one or more distant points, for example mountain peaks, which could be identified on the Ordnance Survey map. (He used the 6-inch Ordnance Surveys.) The azimuth of these marks were later determined by a geodetic type of calculation from their geographical coordinates. If the weather or terrain made it necessary to use marks nearer than this then the azimuths might be determined by a large protractor.

He considers an accuracy of 0.1° usually sufficient, but for some sites single minutes of arc are wanted (Thorn

1967:3).

At one or two sites inaccessibility and a long distance to be walked precluded the use of the theodolite and the surveys were made by prismatic compass. Orienta- tions of the survey by compass alone is not considered reliable but if there is no alternative the variation appropriate to the place and date can be applied and checks made to detect local anomalies (Thom 1967:4).

The azimuth of anything which looked like it might be a sightline was noted together with the horizon altitude.

It is best, he says, at every site to measure altitudes around the whole horizon because many times a possible alignment only becomes apparent when the survey is plotted. 131

If the horizon altitude has not been me~sured, the calcula­ tion for declination cannot be made. Photography can be of help: if the coordinates, azimuth and altitude, of two points included in a picture have been measured then the whole horizon shown can be measured with sufficient accu­ racy from an enlargement.

Calculation of declination is based on the trig­ onometric relationship between the four angles--azimuth, declination, latitude, and altitude. Knowing any three the other can be found. When the declination of a star is known its setting point can be found. If the setting point is known the declination can be found. The setting point is defined by azimuth and altitude. He uses the equation:

sin 8 = sin A sin h + cos A cos h cos A, Equation 1. where 8 = declination, h = horizon altitude (true),

A = latitude~ and A = azimuth. (True altitude = apparent altitude - refraction.) (Thorn 1967:17).

Since in most cases an accuracy of 0.1° is suffi­ cient, values of the declination can be taken from his

Table 3.1 by interpolation in the section for the latitude nearest to that of the site. (This table is reproduced on the following page.) The value must then be corrected for the latitude difference and for the true altitude according TABLE 12. Declinat:.ion in terms of azimuth, altitude and latitude

Latitude = so• Latitude = ss• Latitude = 60" Add for Add for Add for Add for Add for Add for Amp. Decl. +J• Lat. +t• Alt. Amp. Dec!. +J• Lat. +J• Alt. Amp. Dec!. +I" Lat. +1° Alt. o· o-oo· o-oo· +0-77° o· o-oo· o·oo· +0·82° o· o-oo• o-oo· +0·87° s 3·21 -0·07 0·77 s 2-87 ,..-0·07 0·82 5 2·50 -0·08 0·87 10 6·41 -0·14 0·77 10 5·72 -0·14 0 82 10 4·98 -0·15 0·87 15 9·58 -0·20 0·78 IS 8·54 -0·22 0·83 15 7·44 -0·23 0·87 20 12·70 -0·27 0·78 20 11·31 -029 0·84 20 9·85 -0·30 0·88 25 15·76 -0·34 0·79 25 14·03 -0·36 0·84 25 12·20 -0·38 0·89 30 18·75 -0-41 0·81 30 16·67 -0-43 0·85 30 14·48 -0·45 089 35 21·63 -0-48 0·82 -35 19·21 -0·50 0·87 35 16·67 -0·52 090 40 2440 -0·55 0·84 40 21·63 -0·57 0·88 40 18·75 -0·59 0·91 45 27·03 -0·61 0 86 45 23·93 -0·64 089 45' 20·70 -066 0·92 50 29·50 -0·68 0·88 50 26·06 -0·70 0·91 50 22·52 -0·72 0·94 55 31·77 -0·74 0·90 55 28 02 -0·76 0·93 55 24·18 -0·78 0·95 60 33 83 -080 0·92 60 29·78 -0·82 0·94 60 25·66 ... () 83 0·96 65 35·63 -0·86 0·94 65 31·32 -0·87 0·96 65 26·95 -0·88 097 70 37-16 -091 0·96 70 32·61 -0·92 0·97 70 28·02 -O·'l2 0·98 75 38·38 -0·95 0·98 75 33-64 -0·95 0·98 75 28·88 -0·96 0·99 80 3'1·27 -0·98 0·99 80 34·39 -0·98 099 80 29·50 -098 0·99 85 3'.1 82 -099 1·00 85 34·85 -0·99 1·00 85 29·87 -I 00 1·00 90 40·00 -1·00 1·00- 90 35·00 -1·00 1·00 90 30 00 -1·00 1·00 To use the tables For positive amp. interpolate the dec!. from the table for the nearest of Correct the apparent altitude for refraction and call this true altitude. the three latitudes given and then apply the correction for latitude shown, Find the amplitude from the rule: i.e. when the lat. is greater, the uecl. is less and when the lat. is less, the dec!. is greater. 0"

(From Thorn 1967:18)

1-' w I'V 133 to instruction given on the table.

Thorn's fieldwork and calculations are generally considered to be meticulous. The only objections to his work are to some of the conclusions he draws from his data.

John Edwin Wood

John Edwin Wood, in Sun, Moon and Standing Stones,

1978, sets forth the methods for checking an alignment.

First one calculates the apparent rising and setting posi- tions of the sun for different assumed values of declina- tion. The latitude of the site and the elevation of the sun when it appears on the horizon are needed. The lati- tude should be within 0.01°.

The calculation is made with the following equation:

cos A = sino - sin¢ sin h Equation 2. cos¢ cos h I where A = azimuth, h = angular elevation of the sun at sunrise and sunset, ¢ = latitude and o = declination (Wood 1978:61).

The declination of the sun or moon on any day of the year can be found in nautical almanacs. If the horizon is horizontal, then h = 0°. sin 0° = 0 and cos 0° = 1.00 The equation then becomes:

sino cos A = Equation 3. cos¢ 134

When testing a particular sightline the approxima­ tion h = 0° is not good enough and Equation 3 should only be used as a quick initial check to see if a possible alignment is in the right general direction, Wood says

(Wood 1978:63).

The elevation of the horizon can be measured directly with a theodolite or deduced by drawing profiles of hilltops from a large-scale map. A rise of 1 m in 1 km is an upward angle of 0.057°.

The elevation of the horizon is not the value for h to put in the equation. Two other factors, refraction and parallax, must be taken into account. Refraction is the bending of light rays by the atmosphere. When the sun is on the horizon its rays are bent downward as they enter the denser atmosphere near the ground, lifting the sun a small amount in the sky. This makes the sunrise earlier and sunset later. The eff~ct of refraction can be taken into account by a small correction subtracted from h; if the horizon altitude is 0°, the correction is 0.55°; with higher horizons the correction is less.

Parallax, an apparent shift in the direction of an object as a result of motion of the observer (Abell 1976:14), caused by the earth's motion in its orbit, must also be corrected for. The correction for the sun is 0.002°, so small it can be ignored, and 0.95° for the moon, large enough that it must be included in the calculations. 135 $ .

Parallax makes the moon rise later and set earlier than predicted. The correction is added to h. The value for h to be inserted in Equation 2 is found by:

h (true altitude) =(horizon altitude)

- (earth's curvature correction)

+ (parallax) ~ (refraction) Equation 4.

This is the value.for h to use in the equat~on to find the azimuth for the position when the middle of the sun's disc is on the horizon. However, prehistoric observ­ ers could have used: (1) first touch of the disc on the horizon, (2) the disc half obscured, or (3) last flash.

The last flash is easiest to observe. For last flash,

0.25° must be subtracted from h (half the diameter of the sun's disc). For first touch on the horizon, 0.25° must be added to h (Wood 1978:65).

For any angle the cosine of the angle is the same as the cosine of 360° minus the angle. Midwinter sunset is found by taking the azimuth of sunrise from 360°. The same applies to midsummer sunrise and sunset (Wood 1978:66).

Gerald Hawkins

Gerald Hawkins, in "Astroarchaeology: The Unwrit­ ten Evidence," warns against postulating an alignment and then deducing a date for which the alignment will work when there is rio other confirmatory dating evidence. The anal­ ysis of a sit~, he says, should be comprehensive with all 136 similar markers and all related positions for the sun and moon being examined; "otherwise a selectional bias may occur and other alignments be overlooked" (Hawkins 1975:

132) •

If A is the geographical latitude of a site and A the azimuth east of north of a line in the structure, then that line points to declination o, given by the same equa- tion used by Thorn:

sin o = sin A sin h + cos A cos h cos A, Equation 1. where h is the geocentric altitude of the astronomical object.

h = hs - r + p ± q , Equation 5. where q is the semidiameter of the sun (c. 0.25°), +q is the correction for the situation with the disc on the horizon, -q is the correction for last flash, p = parallax, r = refraction, and h~ = skyline altitude. OJ Hawkins gives tables of refraction for observed altitudes from 0.00° to 3.00° and for the extreme declina- tions of the sun and moon from 4000 to 500 BC. If one knows the date of construction of a site, it can be deter- mined if an alignment was directed toward the extreme declinations of the sun or moon. For possible stellar alignments one can refer to the 5000 year star catalog and for planetary extrema to the tables of Tuckerman, 137

1962 (Hawkins 1975:133).

TABLE 13. Refraction as a function of observed altitude

Observed Altitude Refraction hs r

0.00 0.58 0.10 0.56 0.20 0.54 0.30 0.53 0.40 0.51 0.50 0.49 0.60 0.47 0.70 0.45 0.80 0.44 0.90 0.43 1.00 0.41 1.50 0.35 . 2. 00 0.30 2.50 0.26 3.00 0.24

(From Hawkins 1975:134)

TABLE 14. Semidiameter and parallax of the Sun and Moon

Object and Condition q p

Sun, tangent 0.267 0.002 Moon, tangent 0.259 0.951

Star 0 0 Sun or moon bisected 0 138

TABLE 15. Extreme declination of the sun and moon

Year B.C. Sun Moon

4000 24.11 29.26 and 18.96 3500 24.07 29.22 and 18.92 3000 24.03 29.18 and 18.89 2500 23.98 29.13 and 18.83 2000 23.93 29.08 and 18.78 1500 23.87 29.02 and 18.72 1000 23.82 28.97 and 18.67 500 23.76 28.91 and 18.61

(From Hawkins 1975:135)

Hawkins feels that if an archaeological date is not available, the determination of alignments should not be attempted. Tumuli should not be lined up with megaliths or other inhomogeneous markers, and an isolated notch or hilltop should not be postulated as part of an alignment unless there is a clear and accurate man-made marker as well (Hawkins 1975:158). He criticizes Lockyer and Thorn for computing star alignments using assumed construction dates. In any one century the probability of a random hit with one of the 43 brightest stars is 0.11; since Lockyer used a 1000 year time period, it was inevitable that he would find alignments (Hawkins 1975:158).

Jonathan Reyman

Jonathan Reyman, in "The Nature and Nurture of

Archaeoastronomy Studies," discusses four problems which he feels to be all too common in archaeoastronomical 139 research. These are {1) an inadequate conceptual scheme or theoretical approach, (2) insufficient control of the relevant ethnohistoric, ethnographic, and/or archaeological data, (3) failure to formulate specific field problems, and (4) lack of a consistent, systematic procedure for con­ ducting fieldwork along with a frequent use of unsuitable field equipment (Reyman 1974:205).

He feels Thorn's field techniques and Ha\vkins gen­ eral procedures should be followed. One should use a theodolite for surveying; other instruments are not sufficiently accurate.

In developing a conceptual scheme the investigator should ask three basic questions: (1) Given the environ­ mental context and latitude of the site, what bio-culturally adaptive strategies may be derived from making and recording celestial observations? (2) Which celestial bodies are best suited for the purpose determined in response to the first question? (3) What are the best means of permanently recording these observations? (Reyman 1974:206).

These should all be considered befo~e planning any archaeoastronorny project and before the fieldwork is begun, he says. Search for alignments at times has appeared to be a random groping with explanations offered after the fact. The scientific method has rarely been used in these studies, he says (Reyman 1974:208).

One should become thoroughly acquainted with the 140 ethnographic and ethnohistoric data for the area being studied. In addition a visit to the site is necessary since site maps are notoriously inaccurate, and they do not include the horizon height which is necessary to cal- culate declinations. Determination of alignments should not be the endpoint of archaeoastronomy studies. Studies should be addressed to an understanding of how these align- ments fit into the adaptive strategy of the peoples involved (Reyman 1974:212).

Cork and Kerry Recumbent Stone Circle Alignments

Noting that Somerville had suggested that astro- nomical orientation would account for the almost exclusive orientation of the recumbent stone circle alignments to the southwest and considering Thorn's thesis that the stone circles of Britain were observatories used by their build-. ers for precise and accurate studies of the motions of celestial bodies, John Barber undertook a computer study of the alignments of a group of 30 Cork and Kerry recum- bent stone circles. Somerville, noting the recumbents in the SW quadrant, felt these had been placed to mark Mid- winter sunset. He was attempting to demonstrate a strong possibility for at least one function (astronomical obser- vation) of the circles. Barber worked in the opposite direction, from the azimuths and declinations, to the body 141 oriented upon.

For each of the circles that both Somerville and

Barber give azimuths, they differ slightly. Somerville conducted his study in 1930, based on measurements which may have been somewhat more casually made. The surveys of the early part of the century seem to be less precise; diameters are given in apparently rounded-off numbers of feet, rather than so many. feet, so many inches. Ba~ber hypothesized: "The main axes of the recumbent stone circles of Cork and Kerry are orientated upon the rising or setting points of significant heavenly bodies" (Barber

1973:26). He does not say how his fieldwork was done.

But once values for azimuth and horizon altitude were obtained, he used the equation:

sin o = sin A sin h + cos A cos h cos A Equation 1. to calculate declinations of the alignments.

Checking for the 14 significant solar and lunar alignments, he found 12 sites within the defined limits

(based on Hawkins' table). These are shown on the follow- ing page.

The probability of 12 hits out of 30 alignments occurring by chance alone was calculated by Bernoulli's theorem:

n! x!

30! 12 30 12 (1/9) (1-1/9) - 0.000009 12! (30-12)! =

or less than once chance in 100,000 (Barber 1973:31).

He considers this to be striking confirmation of

his hypothesis. The main axes of a significant number of

Cork and Kerry circles are aligned toward the delimiting

solar and lunar cycles, he concludes.

TABLE 16. Azimuth and declination of Cork circles from Barber's study

Site Azimuth Declination Event Oriented Upon

·Drombeg 226.313 -23.219 midwinter sunset Dromroe 264.061 - 0.746 midyear Belmount B 265.506 - 1. 910 II Maunaclea A 223.813 -19.527 lunar southern Oughtihery A 230.33 -18.801 minimum limit Knockaneirk A 235.042 -20.134 " Laharankeal 222.251 -27.717 lunar southern Rylane 214.550 -30.467 maximui1l limit Drombohilly 203.081 -29.078 II Gorteen 19 8. 278 -28.376 " Knocks A 210.681 -29.635 II Ardgroom 195.464 -28.592 II

(From Barber 1973:32)

Remaining declinations fell into two main cate-

gories. One group a cluster of values lower than -30°

and a second scatter of mainly negative values. The first

group consists of 5 values with an average of -32.6° and

a standard deviation of 0.5°. None of the brightest stars 143 are found at this declination, but he suggests, it could be the maximum southern limit of Venus, one of the bright­ est objects in the sky. Venus, which has cyclical move­ ments similar to those of the moon, had a declination of

31.6° in the period 2000 to 3000 BC. Barber suggests the circle builders were perhaps marking the southern limits of the zodiac as determined by extrapolation from the southern maximum limit of the planet Venus (Barber 1973:

34). There is no evidence to either support or refute this hypothesis.

The second group of declinations were tested as stellar alignments by plotting the declinations of the 23 brightest stars visible at the latitudes of the sites over the past 4000 years (stars of magnitude 1.99 or greater), against declinations calculated for the sites.

The assumption underlying this procedure is that where the lines intersect there is a possibility that this was the star oriented upon and the corresponding date was that of the construction of the site. For the period

1450 to 1000 BC all but one of the nine relevant declina­ tions are accounted for, some twice. He concludes that orientations were made toward these stars at these dates, with an average date of c. 1200 BC. Taking into account the variability of the main axes and the rate of change of the stars due to precession, he argues for a construc­ tion date ranging from about 1800 to 600 BC, the average ± 144 two standard deviations (Barber 1973:35).

His methodology for this part of the study is just what Hawkins has found so objectionable, computing star alignments using assumed construction dates. Neither the object oriented upon is known (if indeed there is any intentional orientation) nor the construction date. But an intersection point is found that is acceptable for both and it is then assumed that there is a strong possibility that this was the object oriented upon at that date.

Barber criticizes Thorn for defining significant orientations very superficially, accepting as deliberate orientations various elements of a circle, lines from circle-center to an outlying stone, another circle-center or to some natural feature on the horizon (Barber 1973:35).

This was not a problem with the recumbent stone circles.

Because of their arrangement the major axis and line of orientation can be assumed to be the line passing midway between the portals, through the center of the circle and over the midpoint of the recumbent. But the circles are not perfectly circular, and for 10' circles, the orienta­ tion of the main axis can only be defined to within ± 3°, while for a 30' circle, it can only be defined within ± 1°.

The inability to establish a precise line of orientation renders the stellar alignments even more suspect. If

Wood's ideas about shorter, less precise alignments being earlier in time than those with a longer distance between 145 backsight and foresight and thus greater precision are correct, they have interesting implications·for this group of circles. They would seem to be earlier, with only a general interest in midwinter sunset, probably as an integral part of seasonal ceremonies; they would thus not seem to have been built to serve as observatories.

Regardless of whether one accepts these solar, lunar and stellar alignments as deliberate, Barber makes the point that the circles are not explained by the presence of orientations (Barber 1973:39). They were not constructed in the most efficient way to serve as obser­ vatories. But all the circles have in common a southwest orientation. They would serve as gathering places for religious ceremonies, which probably included special observances of midwinter.

Conclusion

In addition to New Grange's orientation toward midwinter sunrise and the recumbent stone circles• general southwestern orientation, azimuths for midwinter sunset have also been found at Beaghmore, Co. Tyrone, circles

C and G. The Lids has an azimuth of 258° 34", possibly

Samhuin sunset. dates for these sites range from c14 3300 BC at New Grange to c. 1500-700 BC at Beaghmore. No other information of this nature is available. All these southwestern orientations might indicate selectional bias 146 on the part of investigators or that many circles have no features that might indicate a particular alignment.

Accurate site surveys would be necessary to determine the presence of astronomical alignments for the other circles.

But as Barber points out, alignments, even if present, do not explain the circles. Observations could have been made using less elaborate structures. This was not the primary function of the circles, though it may well have been an integral part of religious ceremonies taking place within the circles, particularly at winter solstice. At this turning point of the year when the sun rises and sets at its most southerly points and reaches its lowest maximum point in the sky at·midday, the old year dies, but is recurring born anew as the sun swings back in its cycle northward. This symbolic death and rebirth of the sun could have been associated with reli­ gious beliefs in life after death. A number of sites with this orientation have associated burials or burial struc­ tures.

In the Cork and Kerry recumbent stone circles, at

New Grange, and at Beaghmore we see in association with the stone circles an interest in midwinter sunrise or set, an interest held over a wide area and over a long time period, 1800 to 2300 years. We may infer this to have been a fundamental element of Neolithic and Early Bronze

Age religious belief. CHAPTER VI

THE CIRCLES AS CEREMONIAL SITES:

IMPLICATIONS FOR SOCIAL ORGANIZATION

It has been concluded that astronomical observation was not the primary function of the Irish stone cilcles, though it may have been an integral part of ceremonies held within them. In this chapter a religious-ceremonial func­ tion will be examined. Then, assuming this function, the relationship of the distribution of the circles to the social organization of their builders will be discussed.

The main criteria to be considered are the features of the circles themselves and the distribution of the circles.

The position of each of the circles was plotted on the

1/2 inch Ordnance Survey maps. Circles are found on 20 of the 25 maps which cover the country. Data for this chapter were obtained by measuring distances between circles, where

1/2 inch = 1 mile. The stone circles have many features which would have facilitated their use as ceremonial sites. Their round shape would have provided a suitable area for ring dances and maximum intervisibility of participants. Por­ tals or special entrances, avenues or stone rows leading to an entrance would have given participants a feeling of

147 148 entering a special, possibly a sacred, area. Center stones or recumbent stones, alcoves, the pulpit area at

Millin Bay would have provided special focal points for positioning of principals. Burials or burial structures within or near the circles indicate ceremonies connected with death. A number of circles have orientations on mid­ winter sunrise or sunset, as well as other celestial events for which there are postulated orientations or alignments.

All these features support a religious-ceremonial function for the circles. However, several problems confront an investigation of the function and distribution of the circles.

1. The most important of these is site survival and discovery. Many circles may have been destroyed in order to use their stones in later constructions. Others may lie undiscovered beneath 6 ·' or so of peat. Those which still exist and lie above ground have probably been dis­ covered since fieldwork seems to have been quite intensive throughout Ireland. But the distribution pattern of the surviving circles may not reflect their distribution during the time they were in use.

2. Another problem is dating. As far as absolute dates are concerned, there are reliable dates only for c14 New Grange, 3300 BC (and that date is for the passage grave, not the circle), and the date for Beaghmore, 1535 ±

55 be. The dates for Drombeg, 130 ± 14 be or AD 600 ± c14 149

120 seem highly suspect since the specimen may have been contaminated~

Relative dating, too, is difficult since few arti­ facts have been found. It is impossible to place specific circles within any relative time framework by comparing artifacts found at one site with those found at another.

Thus, it is not known which sites were contemporaneous.

3. Associated features may not be contemporaneous with primary use of the circles. It is often difficult to tell if a feature, such as a cairn or burial pit, is a pri­ mary feature or a later intrusion. This obscures any investigation into the function of the circles. With these difficulties in mind, a ceremonial function for the circles will be examined along with the relationship between their distribution and the inferences which may be drawn from this regarding social organization of those who built and used the circles. But first the social organization of small-scale societies and the func­ tion of religion and ceremonies in such groups should be reviewed.

Small-Scale Societies

Social Organization

The least complex social organization (after the nuclear family) is the extended family or group of related families. These are small autonomous groups of about 20 to 150

50 people having no formal leadership (Sahlins 1961:324).

At times these groups of lineages have combined together to

form an association of kin groups composed of families, the

segments of which are residential and proprietary units

that settle or wander together in a given sector of the domain of the group at large, with each family exploiting a

sector of strategic resources. This kind of social organi-

zation is often associated with Neolithic populations

(Sahlins 1961:324). "Such common Neolithic techniques as shifting agriculture and simple pastorialism typically dis- perse a population and confine concentration ('nucleation') at a low level" (Sahlins 1961:325).

Service says these small-scale societies are char- acterized by a lack of authoritarian chiefs.

So egalitarian is this kind of society and so restricted are the powers of any particular per­ sons that it would seem better to speak of persons of influence rather than persons of authority. (Service 1966:81)

They have no specialists, no intermediaries of any kind. The only division of labor is by age and sex, as commonly found in most families (Service 1966:80). An influential person in this type of society is "someone who had admirable qualities, such as wisdom and character, rather than physical power" (Service 1966:82). This leadership is based on personal qualities and ties and is not inherited (Sahlins 1961:327). Due to the unspecial- ized characteristic of this sort of ·society an individual 151 adult participates much more fully in every aspect of the culture as compared to people of more complicated societies

(Service 1966:83).

Ceremonies

A. R. Radcliffe-Brown suggested that:

Religion is everywhere an expression in one form or another of a sense of dependence on a power out­ side ourselves, a power which we may speak of as a spiritual or moral power. (Radcliffe-Brown 1952:157)

Ideology in a small-scale society is expressed in artistic, mostly ritual forms--in myth, ritual, song and dance, and less frequently in the graphic arts (Service

1966:83). Graphic arts when present are usually very formalized and largely confined to a supernaturalistic context (Service 1966:83). Many myths are closely asso- ciated with ritual and often with singing and dancing

(Service 1966:74).

Rituals have social consequences. They submerge individuals in the group, they 11 improve on esprit de corps, are instruments of good order 11 (Service 1966:74). Rad- cliffe-Brown wrote that religious rites or ceremonies give regulated expression to certain human feelings and senti- ments and so keep these sentiments alive and active.

These sentiments, in turn, control or influence the con- duct of individuals, making possible the existence and continuance of an orderly social life (Radcliffe-Brown

1952:160). 152

Since the nature of small-scale societies is per­

sonal and familistic, the rituals and ceremonies common to

most such groups have to do with the exigencies of family

life. All families have rituals of some sort connected

with birth, marriage and death. Many also have rituals

connected with the transition from childhood to adulthood

{Service 1966:75). The rites held on these occasions are

those generally called Rites of Passage.

If ritual and ceremony have important social func­

tions, then the nature of the society will have some

general influence on the nature of the rituals (Service

1966:74) and by extending this argument, they will have

some general influence on the nature of the structure

within which the rituals take place.

Ceremonial Structures

II . . Even ceremonial monuments have to perform

clearly defined functions" (Fleming 1972:58). Almost all

rituals involve a group of participants (sometimes these

are merely spectators) and one or several principals. The

minimum requirements for a ritual structure are (1) an

area large enough to hold the participants, and preferably

designed to circumscribe them in some way, and (2) a focal

·point or points for the activities of the principals.

A circular shape ensures the maximum intervisibility

of those present, from the participants' standpoint (Flem­ ing 1972:59). It is also appropriate for ring dances. If 153 ritual serves the purpose of consolidating the group by creating situations in which the members may mutually

identify, a circular shape facilitates this purpose by enclosing and thus defining the group, and making sure that each member at any one time can see most of the others (Fleming 1972:59). We may equate a circular shape with a more-or-less egalitarian type of society because no position other than the center is more significant t.han any other.

The center of a circle is its only focal point and a principal standing there is somewhat at a disadvantage since one cannot see all parts of the circle at any one time and must be constantly turning in order to be able to face all the participants. If the principals desire a focal point for their activities one solution is to place them­

selves at an arbitrary point off center which might then be marked in some way. This could explain the presence of several features found in Irish circles. Some of the

Beaghmore circles have aberrations of shape which form alcove-like areas; center stones found in many circles may have provided a focal point; the pulpit area at Millin Bay may have served the same purpose. Possibly the recumbent stones could have done the same thing; one of the prin­ cipals might have stood there or placed something upon the stone, e.g., an offering at midwinter solstice. Another solution is to redesign the site plan. Egg-shaped rings 154

provide several focal points along an axial line. An

ellipse also provides a 'back wall' along which principals might perform (Fleming 1972:59).

The noncircular rings described by Thorn, widely distributed throughout different parts of the British

Isles, are seen by Fleming as a solution by local groups

to the problems of reconciling focus and circumference

(Fleming 1972:60). In discussing megalithic tomb types

in relation to segmentary lineages, Fleming concludes that

British types of megalithic tombs (such as segmented gal­

lery graves) represent local design solutions to problems

imposed by social structure (Fleming 1972:66).

Fleming asserts that there is gcod evidence that prehistoric designers thought in a modular way, and that some prehistoric structures were built up in the way that

Levi-Strauss has claimed for primitive myth, that is by combining and recombining standard elements (Fleming 1972:

69) • This is a useful concept when trying to understand the varying combinations of recumbent stones, center stones, outliers, portals, banks, stone rows, and other features that are incorporated in the Irish stone circles. They were possibly all part of a repertoir of elements considered appropriate or desirable for ceremonial structures, but it was not essential that all be incorporated in any one circle. 155

Cooperation, Competition, or Autonomy: Models of Social Interaction

If we assume a ceremonial function for the circles and examine their distribution in relation to the social organization of their builders we might look for one of three social processes involving interaction of basic population units (the extended families) which might have affected their distribution. These processes are: coopera- tion, competition and autonomy.

If families within a given area were cooperating in religious and other social activities, even though economic activities might have been handled exclusively within the family, a parish church sort of distribution might be found. That is, one circle or religious center would be established in each area. We would expect to find circles of fairly uniform size and fairly uniform or random distribution (assuming random distribution of the population) .

Alternatively, if a competitive process were influ- encing their distribution, we might expect to find circles arising in territorial areas as symbols of competition of one person of influence, or 'Big Man' with his neighboring counterpart, and so on, each attempting to impress his own group as well as neighboring groups. These structures might be somewhat grander than need be if their purpose were strictly ceremonial. Territorial markers would be 156

fairly regularly spaced, rather than cl~stered. This would be found in small-scale segmentary societies in circumstances of demographic stress (Renfrew 1976:200).

Segmentary societies are small communities, not usually more than a few hundred persons composed of several equiv­ alent kinship groups which are economically and politically autonomous.

It is not necessary, however, that an either/or situation have existed. The social process need not have been either cooperation or competition. Extended families may have been acting autonomously in religious as well as economic activities. A lack or absence of cooperation would not mean that there was necessarily active competi­ tion. With this sort of process many small circles would be found grouped closely together, each more or less dupli­ cates of the others.

Hodder and Orton, in Spatial Analysis in Archae- ology; discuss several factors influencing site distribu­ tion. They point out that a settlement pattern might indicate that a certain type of soil might have been pre­ ferred. Neolithic and Bronze Age farmers, having at best light ploughs would have found it difficult to till heavier soil, and may have looked for places to settle where they found lighter, more easily-worked soils. Sites are often found distributed along a linear resource such as a river.

This is the case in Co. Cork where circles were often built 157

alongside tributaries of the River Lee (Burl 1976:216).

And often sites are found clustered around a point resource

s.uch as a well or geological outcrop (Hodder and Orton

1976:85). Lough Gur and its immediate environs is this

kind of resource (cf. Chapter II, p. 37). These as well

as other factors (e.g., nearness to kin groups or other

neighbors) probably influenced the Neolithic farmers in determining where they would settle.

It is then necessary to have a minimum number of

people or demand for a good or service in a given area in order for a center where that good or service is provided

to be established (Hodder and Orton 1976:185). Larger centers in general attract interaction ·from larger areas than smaller centers (Hodder and Orton 1976:188). And

smaller centers are not likely to develop as close to large centers as they are to one another (Hodder and Orton

1976:63). In general, in Ireland, the larger circles are

farther apart. Clusters of many, small circles are found in the south and in the north, while fewer, more widely­ scattered circles are found in the west and east. Distri­ bution of the circles in each of these four areas will be considered separately.

Distribution and Social Organization

Cork and Kerry Circles

In the Boggeragh Mountains there are 27 circles 158

1n an area 18 miles E to W by 15 miles N to S (Figure 59) .

Some of these (9) are as close together as 1/2 mile, others

are as much as 4 to 5 miles apart. Eighteen are recumbent

stone circles. Fifteen circles are quite small, 3.1 to

3.5 m; there are only six somewhat larger ones, 7.5 to

9.5 m.

Drombeg, 9.1 m, Bohonagh, 9.1 m, and Templebryan,

10.8 m, are 4 to 6 miles from each other, close to bays.

In an area 5 x 5 miles, 1/2 mile N of the coast and 3 1/2 miLes N of Drombeg, there are 10 circles. Six of these are

requmbent stone circles. Templebryan is only 3 1/2 miles

ea~t of this group.

If these circles were used contemporaneously,

Burl says, each would have had an area of about 1 square mile or 259 hectares, of which perhaps 26 hectares was cultivable (Burl 1976:223). On this Burl bases his esti­ mate of about 30 people for each of these territories.

The density of these circles~ as compared to the uncrowded distribution found, for instance, in southern England, he

says, "implies different systems of land-owning, perhaps of independent families rather than fiefdoms or tribal area communally worked" {Burl 1976:224).

Burl suggests their distribution indicates the builders were settlers searching for the light brown earths

that were easy to clear and work (Burl 1976:215). The builders apparently penetrated inland up the river valleys ------

159 I

STONE CIRCLE SITE. AREA OUTLINE IS 18 MILES E. TOW. 15 MILES N. TO S.

y, 0 2 3 4

MILES

ATLANTIC OCEAN N 0 0• MAPPED FIG. 59 STONE CIRClE SITES IN THE BOGGERAGH MOUNTAINS, CORK CO. • • 160 with the upper limit being set by thin and infertile soils

of the higher slopes (Burl 1976:223).

Which social process model fits the Cork-Kerry

distribution? There are too many circles too close

together to indicate that extended family groups were

cooperating together in holding religious ceremonies at

some central locations. It is not known, of course, if

those circles only 1/2 mile apart were used contemporan­

eously. If they were, it would seem unnecessary that they

be so close together. And they are too close together to

have been territorial markers of competing 'Big Men.'

In order for each 'Big Man' to muster a large enough

labor force to construct the circles, the population would

need to have been denser than Neolithic and even Early

Bronze Age populations are thought to have been. Archae­

ological remains indicate a rather sparse population.

It seems more likely from this distribution that

small extended family groups or lineages each built their

own circle on or near their own land holdings. Why it would have been necessary for each family to do this when

the circles are so similar, combining and recombining

various elements as suggested by Fleming, is difficult to

understand unless there was a strong identification of each

circle with a particular family or lineage possibly,

involving, if not ancestor worship, some sort of ceremony

that included commemoration of the deceased antecedents 161 of the participants. If this were the case, each extended

family or lineage might want a circle that was particularly

identified with that family and its ancestors. The distri­ bution indicates autonomous extended family groups acting

independently in economic and religious activities.

Western Circles

With the exception of the circles around Lough

Gur, the 14 circles found in western Ireland are about

20 to 25 miles apart. Timoney, Co. Tipperary, 61.0 m,

is a large, open circle. There are 5 circles around Lough

Gur; a little farther away Ballynamona, is 3 l/2 miles SE of Lough Gur. Three of the circles clustered around the

lake are quite large, 47.6 m to 55.5 m. Againt it is not known if they were used contemporaneously. If they were,

they may have had different functions (one for marriage rites, one for midwinter festivals, one for some other rite of passage or seasonal festival). Their size and the distance between circles in this area indicates they were used by a greater number of people, estimated by Burl as being 200-300 (Burl 1976:229). The site adjacent to the

Lios which may have been a workers' camp indicates coopera­

tion of groups over a wider area. There is no evidence of a hierarchical society, so each group probably acted inde­ pendently and autonomously most of the time, gathering

together to celebrate special events, or to observe certain 162 religious-ceremonial occasions, based on beliefs held in common by all the people. At various times, they probably all exploited the resources around the lake. This would fit the cooperation model of social interaction of basic population units.

Eastern Circles

There are 16 circles, 2 1/2 to 17 1/2 miles apart in a strip about 100 miles N to S by 30 miles E to W.

The greatest concentration of these is on the Curragh plain where 8 circles are found in Counties Wicklow and

Kildare, 2 1/2 to 5 miles apart. Their diameters range from 13.4 to 31.5 m. In general these are smaller than the western circles indicating small groups of people participating in ceremonies held within them. These are fairly regularly spaced and far enough apart to fit the cooperation model or the parish church sort of distribu­ tion with each population unit within a given area gather­ ing in a religious center for religious-ceremonial activ­ ities.

Northern Circles

As noted there is a cluster of circles in the

Sperrin Mountains, in Counties Londonderry and Tyrone

(Figure 60). Rivers run all through these mountains.

Here within an area of about 28 miles E to W by 28 miles

N to S are found 52 sites, 18 of which have 2 or more 163

STONE CIRClE SITE • TWO OR MORE SITES • MUl TIRING SITE · A

AREA OUTliNE IS 28 MilES E TO W 28 MilES N TO S

1 0 2 4 bd bd bd I MILES

N 0

FIG. 60 STONE CIRCLE SITES IN SPERRIN MOUNTAINS, LONDONDERRY AND TYRONE COs. 164 rings. These range from 1/2 mile to about 7 miles apart.

They vary from 5.5 m to 19.8 m; about half (27) are between

9.1 and 12.8 m. Though there are other circles in the north where other processes may have been occurring, dis­ cussion will be confined to this cluster.

The distribution in the mountains is similar to that in the Boggeragh Mountains of Cork. The major dif­ ference is in the occurrence. of multiple rings at a site.

We can again speculate that these were built by small, independent extended family groups. The cooperation model does not fit for circles so close together. The competi­ tion model might fit the multiring groups if we imagine a growing extended family group occupying one site over a long period of time and eventually splitting off into several lineages. The original lineage may have built and more or less directed activities within a circle. As the population increased lineages may have split off from the original one. The circle, or religious site, being more closely identified with the original lineage may have endowed that lineage with a special influence. At a later time another lineage may have desired to become the more influential group, and thus in competition with other lineages, may have constructed a circle for seasonal festi­ vals and rites of passage which would be more closely identified with its own group. In the same spirit of competition, in time another group might have built yet 165 another circle on the same site, and so on. This indicates an active competition. At Beaghmore most of the 7 circles have a similar orientation {midwinter solstice sunset) indicating a continuity of religious observance, but each circle has associated cairns where possibly members of competing lineages may have been buried.

This distribution represents competition within a territory rather than competition of neighboring terri­ tories. This would represent a social-evolutionary transi­ tional stage between the more egalitarian society of the

Late Neolithic and the more hierarchical society of the

Middle Bronze Age. Persons of influence would be attempt­ ing to establish themselves as real leaders with real authority.

Summary and Conclusion

In this chapter the Irish stone circles have been considered as primarily religious-ceremonial structures, serving a particular social function, that of group soli­ darity giving an order and continuity to society. They have many features that would have facilitated such a function. Three models of social interaction of basic population units have been proposed and inferences drawn about social organization of the circle builders in rela­ tion to the distribution patterns found in four geograph­ ical areas. 166

The distributions cannot be explained by any one

of the models alone. Different social processes, different

types of interaction among, and possibly within, population

units, were probably occurring in different areas. In the

south we find autonomous extended family groups. In the west and in the east we find evidence of cooperation among

population units. In the north at the multiring sites, we

find a competitive model fits the building of several circles at one site. On the Curragh plain and at Lough

Gur, both more or less low-lying areas, we find cooperation.

In the more mountainous areas of the north and south we

find either autonomy or competition within groups.

I would associate autonomous groups with an·earlier time period, the Late Neolithic egalitarian society, and both cooperative and competitive groups with a later period, the Early Bronze Age. Cooperation and competition are responses to demographic pressures within a given area.

Hierarchical societies, such as found in the Middle Bronze

Age, might arise from either of these processes.

In conclusion, it has been found that the stone circles were well suited to serve a primary function as religious-ceremonial sites and as such are representative of the social organization of their builders. CONCLUSION

The stone circles of Ireland have been examined from the standpoint of succeeding theoretical paradigms by which they have been interpreted, their cultural context and their possible function as astronomical observatories or ceremonial sites.

Stone circles in the speculative period were regarded as mysterious structures built by Druids, the

Romans, or even Merlin the magician. In the early part of this century diffusionists saw them arising as a result of invasion from the eastern Mediterranean sweeping north and west over Europe. Modified diffusionists, retaining twQ basic ideas of the diffusionists, the migration of peoples and the diffusion of culture, attempted to trace the origins of various types of monuments by geographical analyses. The radiocarbon method of dating invalidated the chronology upon which diffusionism was based and megalithic monuments came to be regarded as being independently invented in several places in northwestern Europe, as interpreted by the independent invention/functionalist paradigm. It became more important to ask not where the megalithic structures came from, but how they fit into the lives of their builders.

167 16 8

The estimated time period in which the Irish stone circles were built is based on a few dates, 3300 BC for c14 New Grange, 1535 ± 55 be for Beaghmore, and a few arti­ facts, i.e., the pottery sherds found at the Lios, and on the megalithic typology in general. This means they were constructions of the Late Neolithic and Early Bronze Age people.

Neolithic peoples·were agriculturalists and pas­ toralists who apparently in addition to stone circles built a number of types of megalithic monQ~ents: court cairns, wedge-shaped gallery graves, portal dolmens and passage graves. These were undoubtedly egalitarian societies com­ posed primarily of extended family groups operating inde­ pendently economically and holding religious observances independently of one another.

The Early Bronze Age metallurgy and attendant craft specialization was probably somewhat more hierarchical with perhaps persons of influence operating within groups, but society was evidently still not stratified. These peoples, in addition to stone circles, built round cairns and erected standing stones.

The circles have been described and analyzed by diameter, number of stones and associated features. From an analysis of the diameters it was concluded that the builders were not using Alexander Thorn's Megalithic Yard, but probably some other unit of leng-th, such as the length 169 of a pace, which probably varied from site to site.

Two functions were examined, that of astronomical observatory and that of religious-ceremonial site. Some of the circles have features and orientations which indicate they might have been used as astronomical observatories, particularly the recumbent stone circles of Cork and Kerry and those with stone rows in mid-Ulster. When this possi­ bility was examined, it was found that many have orienta­ tions on midwinter solstice sunrise or sunset. This orientation is not generally precise enough to conclude that the primary function of the circles was to observe one of these or some other celestial event. The orientation can rather be seen as an integral part·of these structures which contain many features not required if astronomical observation were their primary function. A repertoire of features occurring in various combinations which might be associated with ceremonial activities suggests that the primary function of the circles was more likely as religious-ceremonial sites. The circles' very shape, their recumbent stones, center stones, associated burial struc­ tures, portals, avenues, stone rows, all suggest ceremonial activities. Burial as a primary function of the circles, or most of them, has been rejected.

It was found that many small circles were clustered in Cork and Kerry in the south and in mid-Ulster in the north. Larger, more widely scattered circles occur in the 170 west and the east. Relating their distribution to social organization by attempting to apply a cooperation, competi­

tion or autonomy model of social interaction among popula­

tion units resulted in the conclusion that their distribu­ tion could not be explained by any one model alone, but

that different processes were probably occurring in different areas during a time period when society was at

first egalitarian and then in certain areas, possibly as a response to demographic pressure, there was cooperation or competition between neighboring population units in a social evolutionary stage that was transitional between the egalitarian Neolithic and more hierarchical Middle Bronze

Age. The circles as religious-ceremonial sites are mani­ festations of the social organization of their builders.

The Irish stone circles served an important social func­ tion, as sites where religious ceremonies gave their users a sense of group solidarity, and a sense of order and continuity to their lives. REFERENCES

171 REFERENCES

Abell, George 0. 1976 Realm of the Universe. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Atkinson, R. J. C. 1967 Further Radiocarbon Dates for Stonehenge. Antiquity 41:63-64. 1975 Megalithic Astronomy--A Prehistorian's Comments. Journal for the History of Astronomy 6:42-52. 19 76 Stonehenge and Avebury and Neighboring _r.,1onuments. London: Department of the Environment.

Baity, E. C. 1973 Archaeoastronomy and Ethnoastronomy So Far. Current Anthropology 14:389-449.

Barber, J. 1973 The Orientation of the Recumbent Stone Circles of the SW of Ireland. Journal of the Kerry Archaeological and Historical Society 6:26-39. Burgess, Colin 1974 The Bronze Age. In British Prehistory. Colin Renfrew, ed. Pp. 165-232. Park Ridge, N.J.: Noyes Press. Burl, Aubrey 1976 The Stone Circles of the British Isles. New Haven: Yale University Press. Clarke, Grahame 1966 The Invasion Hypothesis in British Archaeology. Antiquity 40:172-189. Collins, A. E. P. 1956 A Stone Circle on Castle Mahon Mountain, Co. Down. Ulster Journal of Archaeology 19:1-10.

Daniel, Glyn 1968a Man Discovers His Past. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell Co.

172 173

1968b One Hundred Years of Old World Prehistory. In One Hundred Years of Anthropology. J. 0. Brew, ed. Pp. 57-93. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

1976 Megaliths Galore. Antiquity 50:187-189.

Davies, 0. 1938 Castledamph Stone Circle. Journal of the Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland 68:106-112. 1939 Stone Circles in Northern Ireland. Ulster Journal of Archaeology 2:2-14. Eogan, George 1967 The Knowth (Co. Meath) Excavations. Antiquity 41: 302-304. 1969 Excavations at Knowth, Co. Meath, 1968. Antiquity 43:8-14.

1974 Report on the Excavations of Some Passage Graves, Unprotected Inhumation Burials and A Settlement Site at Knowth, Co. Meath. Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy 74, Sec. C, #2:10-112. Evans, Estyn 1966 Prehistoric and Early Christian Ireland. New York: Barnes and Noble. Fagan, Brian M. 1975 In the Beginning. Boston: Little, Brown.

Fahy, E. M. 1959 A Recumbent Stone Circle at Drombeg, Co. Cork. Journal of the Cork Historical and Archaeological Society 6 4: 1-2 7. 1960 A Stone Circle, Hut and Dolmen at Bohonaugh, County Cork. Journal of the Cork Historical and Archaeological Society 65:92-104. 1962 A Recumbent Stone Circle at Reanascreena South, Co. Cork. Journal of the Cork Historical and Archaeo­ logical Society 67:59-69. Fleming, A..'1drew 1972 Vision and Design: Approaches to Ceremonial Monument Typology. Man 7, No. 1:57-73. 174

Forde-Johnstone, J. 1976 Prehistoric Britain and Ireland. New York: W. w. Norton. Fox, Cyril 1957 The Personality of Britain. Cardiff: National Museum of Wales.

Fraz~er, Kendrick 1978 Solstice Watchers of Chaco. Science News 114(9): 148-151. Fried, Morton 1967 The Evolution of Political Society. New York: Random House. Gogan, L. S. 1931 A Small Stone Circle at Muisire Beg. Journal of the Cork Historical and Archaeological Society 36:9-19. Harbison, Peter 1970 Guide to the National Monuments of Ireland. Dublin: Gill and Macmillan. 1976 The Archaeology of Ireland. London: Bodley Head. Hawkes, Jacquetta 1967 God in the Machine. Antiquity 41:174-180. Hawkins, GeraldS. 1964 Stonehenge: A Neolithic Computer. Nature 202: 1258-1261. 1965 Stonehenge Decoded. New York: Dell. 1967 Hoyle on Stonehenge: Some Comments. Antiquity 41:91-97. 1975 Astroarchaeology: The Unwritten Evidence. In Archaeoastronomy in Pre-Columbian America. Anthony Aveni, ed. Pp. 131-162. Austin: University of Texas Press. Heggie, D. c. 1972 Megalithic Lunar Observations: An Astronomer's View. Antiquity 46:43-48. Herity, Michael, and George Eogan 1977 Ireland in Prehistory. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. 175

Hodder, Ian, and Clive Orton 1976 Spatial Analysis in Archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hoyle, Fred 1966a Stonehenge--An Eclipse Predictor. Nature 211: 454-456. 1966b Speculations on Stonehenge. Antiquity 40:262-276. 1977 On Stonehenge. San Francisco: w. H. Freeman. Kendall, David 1971 A. Thorn: Megalithic Lunar Observatories, A Review. Antiquity 45:310-311. Knight, Pamela R. 1974 Archaeological Astronomy and Astronomical Archae­ ology. Griffith Observer, March, pp. 7-10. Krupp, E. c. 1974 In Search of Ancient Astronomers: A Review of Beyond Stonehenge. Griffith Observer, January, pp. 18-19.

1975a The Ring at Castle Rigg. Griffith Observer, April, pp. 6-8.

1975b Long Meg and Her Daughters. Griffith Observer~ October, pp. 14-16. 1977 In Search of Ancient Astronomies. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday. Langness, L. L. 1974 The Study of Culture. San Francisco: Chandler and Sharp. Leask, H. G. 19 45 Stone Circle I Castleruddery, Co. vvicklmv. Journal of the Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland 75: 266-267. Lewis, A. L. 1909 Some Stone Circles in Ireland. Journal of the Royal Proceedings of Great Britain and Ireland 39: 517-529.

Lockyer, Norman 1964 The Dawn of Astronomy. Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T. Press. (First published in 1894'.) 176

Macalister, R. A. S. 1917 A Report on Some Excavations Recently Conducted in Co. Galway. Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy 33:505-510. .

MacKie, Euan 1968 Stone Circles: for Savage or Savants? Current Anthropology 11:279-283. 1977a The Megalith Builders. New York: E. P. Dutton.

1977b Science and Society in Prehistoric Britain. New York: St. Martin's Press.

Marshack, Alexander ·19 72 The Roots of Civilization. New York: .t-1cGraw­ Hiil.

May, A. MeL. 1947 Burial Mound, Circles, and Cairn, Gortcorbies, Co. Londonderry. Journal of the Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland 77:5-22.

1953 Neolithic Habitation Site, Stone Circles and Alignments at Beaghmore, Co. Tyrone. Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland 83:174-197.

Mesenger, John C. 1969 Inis Beag: Isle of Ireland. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Michell, John 1969 The View Over Atlantis. New York: Ballantine. 1977 Secrets of the Stones: New York: Penguin. Newham, c. A. 1966 Stonehenge--A Neolithic "Observatory." Nature 211:456-458. 1977 The Astronomical Interpretation of Stonehenge. Leeds, England: John Blackburn. O'Brien, Maire,and Conor Cruise O'Brien 1972 A Concise History of Ireland. New York: Beekman House.

O'Kelly, C. 1973 Passage Grave Art of the Boyne Valley. Proceed­ ings of the Prehistoric Society 39:354-382. 177

; O'R1ordain, Sean P. 1938 Excavation of a Stone Circle and Cairn at Kealkil, Co. Cork. Journal of the Cork Historical and Archaeo­ logical Society 44:46-49.

1951 Lough Gur Excavations: The Great Stone Circle (B) in Grange Townland. Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy 5c:37-74. ·

1976 Antiquities of the Irish Countryside. London: Methuen.

Patrick, J. 1974 Hidwinter Sunrise at Newgrange. Nature 249:517- 519. Piggott, Stuart 1949 British Prehistory. London: Oxford University Press.

Pilcher, J. R. 14 1969 Archaeology, Palaeoecology, and c Dating of the Beaghmore Stone Circle Site. Ulster Journal of Archaeology 32:73-90.

Radcliffe-Brown, A. R. 1952 Religion and Society. In Structure and Function in Primitive Society. Pp. 153-177. New York: Free Press.

Renfrew, Colin 1967 Colonialism and Megalithismus. Antiquity 41: 276-287.

1973 Before Civilization. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

1974 British Prehistory. London: Duckworth.

1976 Megaliths, Territories and Populations. Disser­ tationes Archaeologicae Gandensis 16:198-220.

Reyman, Jonathan E. 1974 The Nature and Nurture of Archaeoastronomy Studies. In Archaeoastronomy in Pre-Columbian America. Anthony Aveni, ed. Pp. 205-215. Austin: University of Texas Press.

Sahlins, M. D. 1961 The Segmentary Lineage: An Organization of Predatory Expansion. American Anthropologist 63: 322-343. 173

Service, Elman 1962 Primitive Social Organization, An Evolutionary Perspective. New York: Random House.

1966 The Hunters. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice­ Hall.

1971 Cultural Evolutionism, Theory in Practice. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Shipman, Harry L. 1974 Megaliths and the Moon: Eclipse Prediction in the Stonehenge Era. Griffith Observer, February, pp. 7-14. Smith, I. F. 1974 The Neolithic. In British Prehistory. Colin Renfrew, ed. Pp. 100-136. Park Ridge, N.J.: Noyes Press. Smith, A. G., J. R. Pilcher, and G. w. Pearson 1971 New Radiocarbon Dates From Ireland. Antiquity 45:97-102. Somerville, H. B. 1909 Notes on a Stone Circle in County Cork. Journal of the Cork Historical and Archaeological Society 15: 105-108.

1913 Astronomical Indications in the Megalithic Monu­ ment at Callanish. British Astronomical Association 23:83-9 7.

1922-23 Instances of Orientation in Prehistoric Monu­ ments of the British Isles. Archaeologia 73:193-224.

1930 Five Stone Circles of West Cork. Journal of the Cork Historical and Archaeological Society 35:70-85. Thorn, Alexander 1964 Observatories in Ancient Britain. New Scientist 39 8:17-19. 1966 Megaliths and Mathematics. Antiquity 40:121-128. 1967 Megalithic Sites in Britain. London: Oxford University Press. 1971 Megalithic Lunar Observatories. London: Oxford University Press. 179

1969 The Lunar Observatories of Megalithic Man. Vistas in Astronomy 11:1-29.

Thorn, Alexander, and A. S. Thorn 1972a The Carnac Alignments. Journal for the History of Astronomy 3:11-26.

1972b The Uses of the Alignments at LeMenec, Carnac. Journal for the History of Astronomy 3:151-164.

1975a Further Work on the Brogar Lunar Observatory. Journal for the History of Astronomy 6:100-114.

1975b Stonehenge as a Possible Lunar Observatory. Journal for the History of Astronomy 6:19-30.

1976 The Two Megalithic Lunar Observatories at Carnac. Journal for the History of Astronomy 7:11-26.

Waddell, John 1978 The Invasion Hypothesis in Irish Prehistory. Antiquity 52:121-127. Watts, W. A. 1960 C-14 Dating and the Neolithic in Ireland. Antiquity 34:111-116.

Whittle, A. W. R. 1978 Resources and Population in the British Neolithic. Antiquity 52:34-40.

Windle, Bertram C. A. 1912 On Certain Megalithic Remains Immediately Surrounding Lough Gur, County Limerick. Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy 30:283-306. Wood, John Edwin 1978 Sun, Moon and Standing Stones. Oxford: Oxford University Press. APPENDIX

180 181

IRELAND

•

M!! ..,...... , ...... ,. Ui'l 1 1 00 km

•••r=a::=::.DIIllmll:=:::&l!i.¥iWiiii!DIIII 5 C m i le s Figure 1. Map of the counties and provinces of Ireland. (From Herity and Eogan 1977:Frontispiece) 182

~--.

a.- .. 0

lll'b 0 .. ~~,'# 9c o·.__.

7!1 0 0· 0 'b· 0 8 0

Q) ..~ .. #"Be 0 0 0

00"-0 0

e ROLLRIGHT STONES (Sd)

0

0 ~VEBURY (10d) 10c

•STONEHENGE !lObi

Figure 2. Distribution of stone circles in the British Isles. (From Burl 1976:9) Bristlecone-pine dates in calendar years

Bristlecone-pine calibration worked out by Hans E. Suess of the U niversiry of Californ.ia at San Diego makes it possible to correct carbon-14 dates. The dares running across the top and the line oh which they rest refer to carbon-14 dares in carbon-14 years; the dares running across the bottom and the lines on ' which they rest refer to bristlecone-pine dates in calendar years. The wavy line, which follows many individual measurements ( rhe short slashes), shows how the carbon-14 dares go off with rime. To calibrat'e a carbon-14 dare, say, 2000 B.C., one follows the line for that dare until it meers the wavy line. At that point a diagonal is drawn parallel to the bristlecone-pine lines, and the ,!ate is read off on the bristlecone-pine scale. The correcwd dare would be about 2500 B.C. (From Colin Rc::nfn.:w, "Carbon 14 and the Prehistory of Europe." Copyright © 1971 by Scientific American, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Figure 3. Bristlecone-pine calibration done by Hans E. Suess. (From Hoyle 1977:33) ,_. (X) w .. ,,. DATEB.c EGYPT SUMER .AEGEAN I BALKANS IBEIUA MALTA N.FRANCE BRITAIN DATE11.c. (Calendar' (calendar years) \ I years) ISOO rsoo Mycenae Shaft MIDDLE EARLY EARLY EARLY MIDDLE HAMMURABI Graves BRONZE BRONZE BRONZE BRONZE WESSEX KINGDOM OF BABYLON MIDDLE AGE AGE AGE AGE Bronze BRONZE AGE Bronze Copper Bronze :2.000 Stonehenge--:2.000 trl SARGONOF > Phylakopi I trl AGADE ::0 Lerna LATE TEMPLES BEAKER BEAKER "Cl :< (House of the ~ NEOLITHIC Copper Copper EARLY EARLY t::1 Tiies) t:;:l Silbury Hill ::0 ::0 :2.500 ~ -o 0 :2.500 DYNASTIC§ DYNASTIC z z N Bronze N EARLY LATE HENGES t Bronze trl trl Bronze Bronze > Troy I > TEMPLES NEOLITHIC ~ ~ Cl Cl Hieroglyphs trl Copper trl Los Millares 3000 3000 PROTO- PASSAGE Newgrange LITERATE FINAL FINAL GRAVES PROTO- MEGALITHS Copper TEMPLES CAUSEWAYED Copper LATE LATER CAMPS and 3500 3500 URUK NEOLITHIC NEOLITHIC EARLY MEGALITHS LONG Occasional MEGALITHS BARROWS EARLY Early Copper -DOLMENS URUK writing 4000 tl- -o ,_ 4000 Copper PASSAGE LATE Dhimini GUMELNITSA EARLY GRAVES UBAID MIDDLE NEOLITHIC FIRST FIRST FARMERS FARMERS 4500 I 4500 -I EARLY NEOLITHIC I UBAID LATE VINCA I Occasional Copper and copper Proto-writing sooo I I 5000 ..... co Figure 4. The new chronology. .r;:.. (From Renfrew 1973:82) 185

a miles *L? 0 50 100

f?'E:l Moraines [.':;;':: D ,. e-;::;0,1 Drumlins 13£J and (·:(;~:~ rum ms ~-:::::·~ and • Copper • Iron o Gold eskers ~ eskers

d

r:::::::1 Lusitanian ~ North American r:'"'l.. Peat bog Marked developme!'1t ~ plants · plants L:J ~ of Upper Sphagnum

Figure 5. Distribution maps: a. Extent and effects of most recent glaciation, b. Mineral resources, c. Plants of Lusitanian and North American origin, d. Peat deposits. (From Herity and Eagan 1977:2) 186

a~ Paleolithic flint from Mell near Drogheda.

b. Mesolithic implements, Bann flakes.

d. Neolithic pottery sherd from the Ballyglass excavation.

c. Neolithic flint implements, core-axe and fish-tail scraper.

Figure 6. Flint implements and Neolithic pottery sherd. (From Harbison 1976:a, 17; b, 18; c, 19; d, 25) 187

~ ~' '\' >-\-~ . ·-1 ( •.. ~ l I \\ 1 I , " ~-r \ ,-• I -. I ' };.. I • \ • \ I , \ ·'- •: ' ( .• - \ , "' r ·! r· 1 • r I ••.\ ;-- ,,"'_ -_ 1~· ·"'J---=--~ -r.v: A:\, _,!1 ~~-. ' . ' \ ' t :! . [ \ c ' ~ : . :, 1 . - ~--·_. . I .t0.. \; _._.. ~ . I-.-- 'fl~\ - \-~--I\::._..;:,. ~~ . ~ . '~ 0 .

J,. ·'I )_.!

Figure 7. Axeheads, stages of manufacture. (From Herity and Eogan 1977:38) 188 ' '

Figure 8. Distribution of Tievebulliagh axes. Area of densest distribution in northeast Ireland is hatched. (From Herity and Eagan 1977:39) 1S9

4m () a

0 --==6ft

0 ~········ 0 -t 0 t 0 00 0 0 0

=-3m

Figure 9. Plans of Neolithic houses: 1. Ballyglass, Co. Mayo; 2. Lough Gur, Site A, Co. Limerick; 3. Ballynagilly, Co. Tyrone. (From Herity and Eogan 1977:48) 190 ,, {1. . 1 ~ I I .. r:;;;;;;:::;v ,, I~~ , ) ,~,...... I , ,' .... ~, I , ' - ~~...... _ ....----1 __ __, __ __ ...... ~~

lOcm

If 15cm

Figure 10. Lough Gur pottery, Classes I, Ia, II. (From Herity and Eogan 1977:106) 191

Distribution of plain round-base neolithic pottery. 1. Grimstcn/Lyles Hill series (Irish distribution mainly after Case); 2. Hembury style, gabbroi::: ware not present; 3. Hembury style, including gabbroic ware; 4. Other pots with lugs. (Some unclassified assemblages omitted.)

Figure 11. Distribution of plain round-base Neo­ lithic pottery. (From I. F. Smith 1974:109) 192

cH cat date SOUTHERN ENGLAND NORTHERN IRELAND d4te be 8C iSOO 1 1720 f' t 2liOO ttHtf ttt +f-2490 t

2.500- r-nso3380. t HII tf -: I\ Jl \ !II tt t 3ro : jl\ f+ 3500 t t -4360 tt+ -4860 JLJ U I I U L_____.l L_l U site I 2 3 4 S 6 7 8 9 10 pott~·y Hembury Abingdon G/LH Grooved beaker G/LH Styte: sene~ w~ senes

Radiocarbon dates for some neolithic pottery styles in southern England and in northern Ireland; beaker dates included for comparison. Key to sites: 1. Hembury, Devon; 2. Hazard Hill, Devon; 3. High Peak, Devon; 4. Hambledon Hill; Dorset; 5. Windmill Hill, Wiltshire; 6. Abingdon, Berkshire; 7. Broome Heath, Ditching­ ham, Norfolk; 8. Shippea Hill, Cambridgeshire; 9. Durrington Walls, Wiltshire; 10. Ballynagilly, Tyrone.

Figure 12. Radiocarbon dates for Neolithic pottery styles in southern England and northern Ireland. (From I. F. Smith 1974:107) 193

d4 chambered long cat c!

Figure 13. Radiocarbon dates for earthen long barrows and chambered tombs. (From I. F. Smith 1974:125) 194

Figure 14. Knowth basin stone. (From Harbison 1976:32) 195

Figure 15. New Grange entrance stone and roof-box. (From Harbison 1976:34) 196 ,--- j \.\

2

4

5 M1!:~~~~~=~ .,... um ll!ll!iil ,.. 8cm3 in

Figure 16. Fine beaker ware: 1, 3, 5 bell beaker, Dalkey Island, Co. Dublin; 2, 4 necked beaker, Dalkey and Grange, Co. Limerick. (From Herity and Eogan 1977:130) 197

4

3

5 6

Figure 17. Early Bronze Age gold ornaments: 1 lunula found near Athlone, Co. Roscommon; 2 disc from Tedavanet, Co. Monaghan; 3 disc from Ballyvourney, Co. Cork; 4 ear­ ring from Deehommed, Co. Down; 5 basket­ shaped earring, Ireland; 6 'plaque,' Co. Cavan. (From Herity and Eogan 1977:141) 198

..... ;' .. '~~ .··-~d ~--·-~-- ~

--01 :.3:.5 6~ 7 8 " 10cm

Figure 18. Axe h ea d mold.. and (From Herlty Eogan 1977:143) 199

Food Vessels

Urn

Pigmy. Cup

0 5 10 lSINCHES ~--~----~--~~ 0 10 20 30 CMS.

Figure 19. Bronze Age pottery. (From Evans 1966:18) 200

POTTERY STONE COURT- GRAVE Hill l-:r~~-f)f~t Lyles - -- n

PASSAGE- GRAVE

PORTAL-GRAVE ~~1(!11 :..:.~ Late Ballyalton Coarse Ware

Beaker WEDGE- GRAVE ~-~=u -~?"4~ Kilhoyle 0 6 12 INCHES 0 21NCHE5 ~------r------~ 1-----.'------t 0 15 30 CMS • 0 SCMS.

Figure 20. Typical grave-goods of megalithic tombs. (From Evans 1966:8) 201

.,.,/// ~~ ·-<::;%:;%= ·,..;;( " .. / II~ 3 ;:/, ~~ 3 in 8 em -a- . -~- 4 • -- 6 5

___,lz in • llliUij I 6cm

Figure 21. Bowl food vessel burial from cist at Carrickinab, Co. Down: 1 bowl food vessel; 2 copper or bronze round-butted riveted knife-dagger; 3, 4 flint round scrapers; 5 rivet; 6 copper or bronze awl. {From Herity and Eogan 1977:134) 202

8

o 2 4 e 1 ems

E

\ \ I \ I \ I I ' \ I A \ I D \ I \ '------_____ ; I

Figure 22. Grave group in cist, Ki1skeery, Corkragh, Co. Tyrone: A. 'Encrusted urn'; B.Pygmy cup; C.Irish-Scottish vase; D.cordoned urn; E.base of another urn. (From Burgess 1974:177} :.:-:.:·::- 1:.;::· ·-;:, ':.~·'f>i:::·~\,1."iL '.;: ,...... :::

____ aT.·~·

~---'S'-'I""ON~ & S-,.-.-01-~~ ST~Nt! -l :::~~E.lEfiS .~- .:·,:·.::_ ,-_, ~~~0 U"~.~~0.;::~~"::,:. . DElAHS ~Cthlll Sl~tllt Qn11n ------.------·---- 0 1 2 5 10 20 5 TO PHS I 1 s.n,lt lJ Snllll IO~tlll•ll -- ~o·u:-·- · · ·- ,oo·o~- -··----:>;,-,l~--· MILE$ l~~·:~~-0~J£fCJ ___ ffEL. ~ I o 1 a 9 ou 1 2 3 4 s s 1 s 9 --~--- __.l. _____.J... ___ -·-·--'- 1 __.___ , J._ .____ _.. ____ ..~.- ____...~- _____.______.______.__. N Figure 23. 0 Distribution of stone circles in southwest Ireland. w (From Burl 1976:214) 204

0'1 .r-1 ~N l-1 0\.0 Ur-- 0'1 •r-1 0 Ur-1 l-1 .. ~ t:J'l!Xl (J) ,.Q s s 0 0 H o-l-11"-1-l 205

Figure 25. Reanascreena, Co. Cork. (From Evans 1966:82) i STONE HEIGHTS ~ -~ ~II A OV~R 1£§ 1'-3' IP.'J UNO~RIO fALLEN i VV 3 5" b'.'7 1 STONE I I I e> ~ ~ r ~ ///~ ~ ~ Allflllll Rodial ()/ Ill"'" Portals , " w ~/ " Ouortr 0 " Outliers 148'!45ml SW ~ c /~~ \ 4 ~ a ~ \) v - -1 ...:-:-:-:::::::::<1 a-:-::- -:-:-~~~i"fJ:-!1.~5 u::::-:- aw 0 b I d _.;:;::::>·:··-·. ~::::· ~ ·.·.-.- I _j­ {jJ \ ' 0 :t p;, Ouortz ~ '

Figure 26. Plans of four stone circles in Cork. N (a) Carrigagulla B; (b) Currebeha; 0 (c) Knockraheen; (d) Carrigagrenane. 0) (From Burl 1976:217) 207

Figure 27. Lisivigeen, Co. Kerry. (From Evans 1966:88) 208 &o no JUT A a s. 10 n MHIU f

G Stone Circle central !:::. Cairn I& post kole 0-- l Standing Stone 1·5' 8 J~Wi:f::t~~ \/ Carrig U~1 Aille 8,{;);' 23'\ jf 1·9 ~~ c?(J <::>c:."<>.,. oo'JI!I'2·4 - 1·4 °17 0 ~- t:Ji~f~~(i}.f;;}i;~~t1i~ MILE ...... tf' Axial ~ ABOVE 300' lli8 ------~-t!'_!l_l____ _ 2·3 Height in Metrfts

Figure 29. Plan of the Lios, Co. Limerick. (From Burl 1976:227) 1\.) 0 1.0 210

0 ("')

I I j •. - . ·- -·-·· - ·------·-("""'/~....__...... ;!~-=---- .. ..: --A:~a~·:-7 1 B R ur r E;..... \ . _=~:: _ c " ' Outlier Traces· of .... • I ~ 0 lugg ~:::.::::--=... --~~~_f.;_.., " .1' Slight '':-.,.· .. . - ' I' Rath 10 ::::..:=.-:: "' Bank .·, \ .1' 1 1 I . .. '-,,· /_/ ~Ji~_ I 1 ~1 -... {~' ..-:=.-- .1' \ r,( .· .•.·)<, .1' 0 • ~1 ) .·0· ( ' ' /)/ -~ ·!'·. ; ' ., ~ ,,, ~.. .,. /· .. ~ .. ,. ~ • •a WICKL.OWS ~ b > '-".,,.,_ ···~....._-~ c• ·- .~-. ; ."\_ 4 Bank Q I t ~ r-----'------·-·----r p e STONE CIRCLE Q CIRClE- HE NGE 0 HENGE 1 STANDING STONE .., 0, ? -· -"'~""D ~ .. -... -. , • I Quartz ' \) T N , oO 0 Stones (J ~· D •• 0 (;/ 0 0 t • c; ooo • O 30 Fj o• L M.

r- t 0 {I 5 !E. . ,. .... • 0 a • () D a ·0~\) d • "' b ..."i· .• FENCE ._i·· • --:;,..· -· N Figure 31. Plans of three stone circles in Wicklow. I-' (a) Athgreany; (b) Castleruddery; (c) Boleycarrigeen. I-' (From Burl 1976:233) 212

• -co S::M :,S:N 0 •• QI.D 1'"-- • 0\ Or-1 C,) r-1 .. 1-1 (1) ::l OCQ ~ ~s r-1 0 r-11-1 mil--l CQ-

N f"1 213

Figure 33. Millin Bay, Co. Down. (From Burl 1976:239) . . •1'~., .... ~1~\t 'l>l ··~~'"!" .· .,,...,.-?.'""'::'< .""..(,¥ '( /' ,• ".;\ ~~~ k,~» ,.-.-:-; •t-' "\; '~';J I •~t•' ~~. F~~ •' ~:\-' ·~ .._-;.,;ij'f'~ • "':, ~ l ~ ..~, • ..,.-e•,..lf ·' ~~\.; ~ /f' :~·, ··~ -i'3~ •/r '"\-·~ '··F... ~t r"' r r'{~-P\ 1l" •• ' ~ '\',,, ;.)~·~· ··~~ .... ~~~":~.;.,_ 1 1 '.-.""'• • ., ·,•, " ' ·~,~~', ··~., ~ ·~ ' 1 1 1 .'.-~.(fT. ";-., ''r ~...... , ~'f:;.~ · · ':, :t,. •.V. .. ;> f...,\'>"'t"-! • .....,\,1 f *1L\\\:~:;~~~.~ ... ·A~~ ·~~ '~>: l,.,;.·,.._·.r.::~,J:,-i::~:,~~[J;; ~.·it•r"',l~j_• . 1(~l\ ;., ~~~~~}/l;~ 1 ~.,· ..... ,\•,'•,xr~·""::" '· Vf..,~~} .... ~~·"'Jt{\ ..·~~J/-'}~:~~\ .·... ~v~· .:·(~~,):·~,)·~;··~"11 ,. ~:·f .. ·._. ... "'~;tft\~~":,.,/;.,, .. ?-r1 -. .._~ .~· ·~ .. .•,!5:--,.:rf.}\ _.;, .. .:1 ,>ljc_r: ·:\.s:;'::-:.·.~·.\:F'<:(,,.d~-":~.,., \.'~; ~.~z:·~j;·rlv.~•o :'~-."1w~~;u~ 't)',',;,}~:-,;-.'1: :, ' ~-.,~·,~··,~~ ~~~:·, ~"""' ... ~~r~~"f'~".''~··.:w~ 1 1 1 r' • .:::J.,... .. ·, .. ..\~\fl~~-r- ' \<-~"~~.·~ ~~'\. ,/f:~>r~:~'r ·y· ~':).,~.-.:~\~ \~~~··'t'l ;.;.>IJ-~"1.··~ ~ 1 1 .. ~;---~*:~~~.··(l,k~r-~:): ~'\, ~ ~ ~('SJ~ l~i)(' · ~~~·. -rt;_~~..J\ ~;\~' ~ .~ . '• ..~1~!~ ,, ~ (~~ 0 ,, ~ 0 < ', ~ I ...4•- .. ,·.::.\"' ...... \ ~ .._.~ - \ 0 1 1 ... , !'t-ffl • -~·~~-\)'''· ·j -~~··"; j • •-,-,,Y. ·""'""' ·-~· t' •{, • '"'r.. ,f· .,,.,,.. •;;) ·~·~~~;.~.'f}\,.~ )1\;..:,,.•k.,.,.: ' ',,• X ! ,•~j), •l " -..,.,_ ... ,_}, :.c' '-, '' "' r '·~~ t~""·''~.,,,:.fl'J.\"'~1.4.,,'";··, J~~-j~"'.·.'.~'') •'l.. .o!<;-""""' r'· ' •<"~ .. -..._...... ~ . , .. ' '\t.' .it. "rl.. )': - ' ..... ,. ~ 4t'l!fF' ii ,''..:.'!ir'·~~··~.'--·'<,)>;,•. '~·'·";_;,,y.,:!,'\'1, ,;(\ ,..., ' ,.;,,. ''-·~"'-'...,.."i::'-..i''"'Wn'' ~· .. ,,,,,.,•.. &r.''""t:'ir·,.•~\-~,,..,. " :·~ • "' • -,,.lo'\>'(h~J.'2<2 I·~~ J f ~. ' • j \~" •,:\.>'.'/~. .:' ., ' . ' ' ' • "' ·, ...."fJM•, ·!J:.· "'tf(:j-.-..::::t: ;·,, '/' ·' • '-t~ " ,,, ~" ·-t-r "·-?J~ .;.:;o.;.('···!:,""·"i!~;.• · ... :~.!:- ,4\ ~. ~ .r:.t -· ~ , , .. ~ .:-.ttl .. . 'J ... • ·-=-:·-- . ·.~ "\ ... ,...... - ;'~ "'~· .~ ~?) .,. \' ! '' \ l' ·-~~. ;,::;, • •• r- ·, ~to .... t.., t! • • ... r · ·,r ~ •, , - ..... -~ ~:><:t.,,.~ ', ,~,/'.'t' < .·.-.:-.-"'~W' 1NJ I; l ..... ~~' ·"'!. '" . . 1 •• '-·l·• ~~:-':;'"-1.~ :... \..: f. ~·4*'~,-:. .'~;·~·':. ...,~{.,';!~'' ·:: ... ·..-. ~-· . ,,:,j; ,,;·:[l.··:. •,:. :~ .>f-::;l~ ~~·"' •' •• ,"' '¥; ~ ..... \f.~' '{ 1, 'I'_,.,~.,,_ , !.' ;~ ¥1(!1q ,f,,,l ~ 1"""'.,-;"'""~P1 ~- ! ~...... ", ,~"., /.: t' ...,.,..,/~' ", r. j~.:A,:~~ 1, ;.o~f: ,.• ~: o~.~~,...... ~J ..-: ~::'l'~~f ';t;J..~t··,~'"'lJ';){; 1 ~·. j 't:·,'-'~ .·;~,c~ )i'\r·J 1 -.. • • t ·7'' , "i'",h~· i :l!.J \ v ..Z:·. ~-- ~ ... ,. · '';,,.· .. "::.- . ~··'~~) f·,.·:.· 'iJ,- (~ . /' ..... ~~1..~ 1 '.. ~ ...-,, ~-· ...... -... ;· ~~~<·~~~~:~~A~\~·· ,/. :·.:.~~:.: .. -,_ •. ·:::.:·.:. :·- '·:.:":~~-f~·::;.:=-~:.·f:,:,-~~ .::/J;/·v:. ·::\·:··:,~-/.-"·' \"/:::~~ i . . ·.. '···-··- ..·. . . ' .. , '1 .. <).1 .. --- ..... ,.,..' 0 ·~ -~

fl®,j;·JiJ;~~t~iiiL\i,i~~~~~·~~ii~~:Z:t.;~~~~~~;tf~.t2:~&~$~l~t~~fi~~~~~~?;::,~\~~~~s·~;~~~~~ ~*~~~~~~~~~~1~~~~;~i

Figure 34. New Grange stone circle, Co. Meath. (From Evans 1966:56)

"-> 1-' ol:>o 215

Q) r:: 01.{') ~'tN E-t 1.0 • r- 00'1 Ur-I

1.{') C"1 e Stano Circt• • - '•- + Stano Raw - " - -r C>,.mber Tomb _,_Group - "- _,- +Row

TN R Bonn

Gartcorbies· () t ·--=~>~-):; ••

1000" Fut £, , , , !Sf' 1£0 2QO ~

0 10 25 50 Metru

o __2° Feet Some Cairns at Beaghmore t__ _ _.___, '_ .. ,.....---.., Metres 3 Clay Caun. Ditch, e_L Cappm~~~rfi7i'itffi'f,"'" 0 5 0 20 Miles 10~··"""

Stone Axo Soil Clay Bonn

·~~ ...~r,;r.;-~- -~ ""' I ~~;~1~~~ 1 ~~---5"'' ·~,.,..__,.,..,\'illllllr 6 Figure 36. Plan of circles at Beaghmore, Co. Tyrone. (From Burl 1976:244)

.....1\J 0'\ A graphical tabulation of 'the dimensions of tme Megalithic circles shows a preference for diameters integral in 1\Iegalithic yards. Each peak represents a diameter favored at several sites. (Griffith Observatory, after /\kxander ·n10m)

Figure 37. Graph of diameters and circumferences in megalithic yards. (From Krupp 1977:44)

I'J 1-' -..J 218

N t

a. Dinnever Hill, Cornwall

N

Spica • r

b. Bar Brook, Derbyshire

Figure 38. Flattened circles, types A and B. (a) Type A, Dinnever Hill; (b) Type B, Bar Brook. (From Krupp 1977:46) 219

t

Figure 39. Ellipse, Postbridge, Dartmoor, Devonshire. {From Krupp 1977:52) 220

0 0 0

0

Figure 40. A type I egg-shaped circle, Woodhenge, Wiltshire. (From Krupp 1977:48) 221

N

Capella

Figure 41. A type II egg-shaped circle, Borrowston Rig, Midlothian, Scotland. (From Krupp 1977:49) 222

AVEBURY t +

A8 =75My A<.= lOONy Sule or feet C8 = 12S !S = 260 CS =I "40 CD: 60 Of = DS =DK' DL = 200 100 0 100 200 JOO ~00 Sc.ale o~ meg_1hth•c y:ards E.D as pir~llel to BA ind H •s on 8C produc~d Arc MEF h.a! centre on ED o~nd rid1us 7 SO 0 50 100 150 200 Arc Fe; ot A 260 Arc c;SH "· 8 260 In matn nnl concr~te markers are shown by a croH + Arc LM C 260 Burn in& p1h .ne shown by .a dotted r rng ~" Arc HJ on (8 " 750 Arc JK .at P PK Di1meter o( tnner c•rcles. = 125 My= 3'40 0 ft LCQD os 90• •nd . PQ ' DQ Duunce between centres= 1-45 My

Geometrical construction superimposed in red on an accurate survey of the site

Figure 42. Avebury, geometry of the circle. (From Thorn 1967:Frontispiece) 223

N

Apparent path of the sun during the year

Plane of the celestial equator s

Figure 43. The celestial sphere. (From Wood 1978:61)

Figure 44. The sun's daily movement through the sky. (From Wood 1978:59) 224

Two other circles centered on the earth and traced out on the celestial sphere are important. One of these is the celestial equator and the other is the ecliptic. In this case, the celestial equator is drawn horizontally, and the north celestial pole is straight overhead, above the north terrestrial pole. Summer solstice occurs when the sun is at its highest point above the celes­ tial equator. The winter solstice takes place when the sun is at its lowr>st point below. The equinoxes occur at the two intersections of the celestial equator and the ecliptic. (Griffith Observatory, John Lubs)

Figure 45. Celestial equator and the ecliptic. (From Krupp 1977:10) 225

At the summer solstice, in the northern hemisphere, the sun rises as far to the northeast as it ever will. During the day, at noon, it transits as high above the horizon as it is ever seen. Finally, the sun sets as far to the north­ west as it ever does, on this, the longest, day of the year. (Griffith Observa­ tory, John Lubs)

Figure 46. The sun at summer solstice. {From Krupp 1977:11) 226

About six months after the summer solstice, the winter solstice takes place. Now the sun rises, as seen from the northern latitudes, in the southeast. It transits at its lowest altitude of the entire year, and it sets at its extreme po­ sition to the southwest. (Griffith Observatory, John Lubs)

Figure 47. The sun at winter solstice. (From Krupp 1977:13) 227

"~~' -, ?~"\ ,...... _, ':~ ~-:.~, *~~~~,)~~\,

y•b ~ 1\ ~ ~~%1.

',;;_~~:;_:_: ....

\Vhen either equinox arrives, the sun rises due east, arcs across the sky at a height midway between those at the solstices, and sets due west. (Griffith Observatory, John Lubs) ·

Figure 48. The sun at the equinoxes. (From Krupp 1977:12) 228

Kerbstone

-OL..----l-..J1-..ll-~ 6 8 10 metres A

~ ~()

0 2 4 6 8 10 metres

B

Figure 49. Diagram of the internal structure of New Grange. A. sectional elevation; B. plan view. (From Wood 1978:80) 1 "'"'

Setting j Declination • -2o• -ts• +S• -30. -25 E···c_. ~..::..:!:\:-.--~( * 2000S.C.=:t: I -~-.-~~.~~ -;l IBOOS.C. ·_ -- --...... """'..-I \\ 0 I y I .

1600 S.C.--- -· Winter ··' CandlemasMartinmas Equ1noxes SolStice

Cla;s A _A_ Alignment ...-d1lllb...__ Site to site _.A_ Outlier ~ Indicated foresight ___£::,._ CI m 8

Class A less precise ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

1 ...7 1o• 2000 s.c. +Is• •20•

I * I @ I . 'vl-il :::: ~ :;~·-· ~-L..--...... r.._~..._j___L _ _L[:___j May Day Summer lammas Solstice.~------~

0 0 Sun's declination at 16 calendar dates * Sun at intermediate dates ® Moon at 4 limiting declinations

Figure 50. Histogram of observed declinations. (From Thorn 1967:102)

1\.) N 1.0 230

1 1 1SUN.rGHT 1 1 1 0 New )~e~<

tat 3rd

Ouarter

Figure 51. Phases of the moon. (From Krupp 1977:18) 231

N

s

Figure 52. Movements of the moon. (a) The moon's orbit in space; (b) the moon's orbit on the celestial sphere. (From Wood 1978:67) 232

At the time of the major standstill, the moon's orbit carries the moon well above and well below the ecliptic in a single month. In this picture the disc of the moon is shown at both its extremes, above and below the ecliptic. (Griffith Observatory, John Lubs)

Figure 53. The moon at major standstill. {From Krupp 1977:24) 233

The minor standstill occurs 9·3 years after the major standstill. Now for sev­ eral months the moon's orbit allows the moon to swing each month be­ tween limits that are well inside the extremes of the ecliptic, that is, be­ tween the solstices. Again, the moon is shown on opposite sides of its path. (Griffith Observatory, John Lubs)

Figure 54. The moon at minor standstill. (From Krupp 1977:25) 234

,,

•" ' ~<: ". <· - '?;~~< Lb. \.

- ,. ~ >.

The path of the full moon during the nights near the winter solstice carries the moon from its northeastern rising point high overhead and allows it to set in the northwest. The full moon rises at sunset and sets at sunrise, and, conveniently, the moon shines throughout the long winter night. In sum­ mer the full moon rises in the southeast, transits low across the southern sky, and sets in the southwest. The night is short, as is the path of the moon across the sky. In this illustration, at the major standstill, the moon's monthly northern extremes are as far north as they are ever observed. Similarly, the southern extremes are at their greatest limit. (Griffith Observ­ atory, John Lubs)

Figure 55. Northern and southern extremes of the moon at major standstill. (From Krupp 1977:28) 235

At minor standstill the moon's behavior is basically the same. Now, how. ever, the winter full moon does not rise and set so far to the north, nor does the summer full moon reach so far south. The moon is never seen inside these inside limits of its risings and settings during the course of the entire 18.61-year cycle. (Griffith Observatory, John Lubs)

Figure 56. Northern and southern extremes of the moon at minor standstill. (From Krupp 1977:29) 236

North Pole

28'. equator 2

South Pole

Major standstill at winter solstice

North Poie

0 equator 18~

South Pole

Minor standstill at winter solstice

-Figure 57. Major and minor standstills at winter solstice. (From Krupp 1977:26) 237

N t

MAX. MOON SWING

-- MOON, RISING OR SETTING - SUN, RISING OR SETTING

Figure 58. Solar and lunar extremes in azimuth. (From Hawkins 1975:137)