sign in sign up
<<
Home , Cheval de frise, Irish Mesolithic, Kilcorney, Milesians (Irish), Poulnabrone dolmen, Prehistoric Ireland

CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, NORTHRIDGE

HISTORICAL :

THE EVOLUTION OF A DIVERSE AGRO-PASTORAL SOCIETY OR A

CONGLOMERATE OF WARRING FACTIONS?

A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements

For the degree of Master of Arts in Anthropology

By Nelson Arturo Cabello

May 2015

This thesis of Nelson Arturo Cabello is approved:

Dr. Donal O’Sullivan, PhD, Date

Dr. James Snead, PhD. Date

Dr. Michael Wayne Love, PhD., Chair Date

California State University, Northridge

ii

Dedication Page

To Roddy, Danielle, and Bevy with all my love.

iii

Acknowledgements

I want to thank Dr. Michael Love, Dr. James Snead, and Dr. Donal O’Sullivan for their guidance and understanding throughout this endeavor.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Signature Page ii Dedication Page iii Acknowledgments iv List of Figures vi List of Tables vii Abstract viii Chapter I: Introduction 1 Violence in History 4 Context and Hypothesis 5 Methodology 6 Methodology CHAPTER II: The Structures 7 Sating the Structures 7 Dating the structures 7 Geographical location of enclosures 9 Chronology of Enclosures 9 Morphology and location of structures 15 CHAPTER III Anthropology of War 26 CHAPTER IV: Social Evolution and Violence 31 Bands 33 Bands in 35 Tribes 37 Chiefdoms (or Proto States) 48 Chiefdoms in Ancient Ireland 55 Settlement and Agricultural Pattern 59 Social Evolution in Ancient Ireland 62 The State 65 Prehistoric Ireland 67 CHAPTER V: Building Protective Structures 72 The Walls of Jericho 73 Protective Structures in Ireland 75 CHAPTER VI : of Cashels/ 79 Excavation at the Caherconnell Cashel 81 Function 89 Structural Characteristics 89 CHAPTER VII The Irish Forts 92 Geographical Distribution of Cshels/Ringforts 98 CHAPTER VIII: Discussion 102 Immgration pattern in prehistoric Ireland or who were the first ? 103 Surge in Cashel Construction 105

v

Prehistory 106 Middle Ages 107 Modern Times 108 Summary 108 Data Sources 111 CHAPTER IX Conclusions and Ireland 114 - Transition 115 Middle Ages 117 Anglo-Norman 118

References 120

vi

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 ...... Geographic distribution of cashels 2 Figure 1a ...... Neolithic Settlements 2 Figure 2 ...... Map cashels and ringforts 9 Figure 2a ...... Clusters of ringforts in Midlands 9 Figure 3 ...... Prehistoric crop marks in Rathangan 60 Figure 3a ...... Prehistoric cashel and crop marks in Corrofin 60 Figure 4 ...... Aerial view of Caherconnell cashel, Co. Clare 69 Figure 4a ...... Stone houses and cashel in Ballynavenoorgh, Co. Kerry 69 Figure 5 ...... Fort: Dubh Cathair, Inshmore 69 Figure 5a ...... Fort, Lough Doon, Co. 70 Figure 6 ...... Cashel in Inishmurray, Co. Sligo 76 Figure 6a ...... McQuillian , Co. Sligo 76 Figure 7 ...... Illustration of the cashel excavated in 2010 82 Figure 8 ...... Dún Conor, Inishmaan. Fortified cashel 94 Figure 9 ...... Fort Dún Aengusa, Inishmore, Co. Galway, trivallet 95 Figure 9a ...... fort, Co. Clare at the edge of a cliff 95 Figure 10 ...... Artistic representation of an early Medieval family Enclosure 100 Figure 11 ...... Geographical location of Caherconnell Cashel in Co. Clare 111

vii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 ...... Chronology of cashels 8 Table 2 ...... Location of Structures and Dating method 11 Table 3 ...... Type of cashel 17 Table 4 ...... Related Characteristics of Structures 19 Tables 5 and 10 ...... Prehistoric Battles 26, 97 Table 6 ...... Prehistoric Cashels 38 Table 7 ...... Chronology of cashels 87 Table 8 ...... Cashel correlation of diameter with number of defensive walls 91

viii

ABSTRACT

HISTORICAL IRELAND:

THE EVOLUTION OF A DIVERSE AGRO-PASTORAL SOCIETY OR A CONGLOMERATE OF WARRING FACTIONS?

By

Nelson Arturo Cabello

Master of Arts in Anthropology

This thesis explores the apparent reason the people of ancient Ireland built tens of thousands of circular stone enclosures resembling small military fortresses. These enclosures are made of stone, as as earthwork (known as cashels, ringforts, , and raths) that seems to point to an ancient society in a constant state of hostility and warfare. Although artifacts of various ages (palimpsests spanning thousands of years) that have been found in their interior, such as flints, potsherds and shell , making it difficult to date them (Norman and St. Joseph 1969) seems to challenge this view. This situation is complicated even further, as other accounts of enclosure chronology are based on mythical invasions of Ireland from a distant past lost in the mist of time. This approach has been criticized by other historians Champion (Bradley 2007:24). One of the main sources, that heavily influenced Irish archaeologists and historians, is the well- known mythical account of the assumed initial settlements (by invasions) described in the collection of ancient poems known as Labor Gábala Éirenn or the Book of the Taking of Ireland. In order to elucidate this apparent contradictory view of ancient Irish history, this paper examines the morphology of the enclosures, construction materials used, time span of their construction, as well as a review of ancient oral history. The perceived function of the cashels/raths throughout history will be analyzed within the context of their socio- economic purpose to determine the actual importance through history. The historical blend of legends and actual events poses a challenge that this paper intends to elucidate.

ix

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Ireland is an island, west of that covers an area of approximately 84,421 km2 (32, 595 sq. miles). Within its territory, the island has between 45,000 to 50,000 ring-like enclosures (60,000 according to Mytum (O’Sullivan et al 2009:2). These enclosures are made of stone, as well as earthwork (known as cashels, ringforts, hillforts, and raths). Artifacts of various ages (palimpsests spanning thousands of years) have been found in their interior, such as flints, potsherds and shell middens, making it difficult to date them (Norman and St. Joseph 1969). The enclosures are scattered over the Irish countryside from () to the (Eire).

Why did the people of ancient Ireland build thousands of circular stone enclosures resembling small fortresses? Is there any historical correlation between the morphology and construction of cashels/ringforts, and the historical tim e-line that took place in

Ireland from antiquity in the process of becoming a more complex society? Had groups in ancient Irish society followed an evolutionary process to a level that would have encouraged their leaders to invade, or be invaded by other external polities for economic or political reasons?

The basic tasks of this paper will be first, to explore whether the morphology, size, and location of stone cashels built from the Late Mesolithic through the Late Neolithic, and

Iron Age, were socio-economic adaptations to environmental changes, resulting from the introduction of agro-pastoralism, or a reflection of a changing social interactions brought about by immigration from the continent. Secondly, the thesis will seek to determine whether the change in type, location and morphology of cashels/ringforts from

the Middle Ages through the 18th century were defensive responses to protect and maintain the establishment of agro-pastoralism, or the result of socio-political changes imposed by violent external forces.

Invading groups from the continent (Anglo-, British) triggered a wave of socio-political changes in a society slowly adapting to change from successive arrivals of immigrants, and the introduction of agro-pastoralism, that was already in the process of adapting to a new social landscape.

The violent Anglo-Norman invasion of 1069 changed the rural Irish scene by imposing a structurally centralized political system in most of the island. The British invasions that followed through the centuries transformed, by force, the once independent system of scattered family farmsteads into a single complex polity under one central government. The system that emerged was a society with new laws and a new form of government that lasted, under foreign tutelage, until the beginning of the

20th century. Thus, beginning in the late Middle-Ages the morphology and configuration of cashel/ringforts changed from family farmstead, whose function was to protect domesticates, to actual fortresses with two or three protective walls to defend families and groups from invading armies.

After the Romans left Britain in the fifth century AD social groups, or tribes, reorganized themselves in seven small kingdoms, known as the Heptarchy. Alfred, king of Wessex, began the process of unification. But it wasn’t until his daughter

Æthelflæd, Lady of the Mercians, that England was quickly unified becoming one polity under one leadership that survived, with ups and downs, the subsequent Viking invasions of 793 AD to 900 AD, and the Norman invasion of 1066.

2

In other words England, as a social conglomerate, was rapidly evolving into one political unity. Meanwhile, Ireland continued to be a dispersed group of independent family units with, no doubt, kin ties to other nearby groups but no central hierarchy until the Anglo-Normans invaded the island. Subsequent accounts of Irish kingdoms (i.e. Tara, in the northeast of the island) are a mix of oral history and mythical narrative.

Figure 1 Figure 1a

Distribution of ringforts in each Irish Ireland and some Neolithic settlements. barony. Stout (1997:55) Case (1969:14).

Was ancient Ireland a region in constant state of warfare, as early anonymous accounts

(i.e. Hennessy 1887, Macalister 1938, Mageoghagan 1627) portrayed it, or the accounts are mere legends? If so, why? In other words, were the ancient inhabitants of Ireland constantly building stone structures as protective measures against invaders, or the structures also served a more peaceful function? As Figure 1 shows ringforts are geographically distributed throughout the entire island. Figure 1a shows that settlements in Ireland had already started in the Neolithic period. Due to the availability of trees in

3 the northeast area, residences were built with wood and wattle, unlike in the midlands and south where trees were scarce and stone was abundant.

Nevertheless, violent conflicts between individuals or groups are not new and have been depicted in as old as the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition (Guilaine &

Zammit 205), and mentioned in different studies of ancient societies (Kelly 2007, Keeley

1996, Carneiro 1970). Throughout history violent events have taken place for different reasons such as revenge, stealing of food resources, acquisition of land, or appropriation of the means of production from other groups.

Violence in history

Violence in the form of warfare has also been proposed as a determinant factor in the social evolutionary process of polities resulting in more complex societies, as well as in the development of social classes in those societies (Carneiro 1970). It has even been proposed that since the Neolithic warfare has become an “integral part of the cultural repertoire around the world” (Haas 1998). How many and to extent these propositions are true for prehistoric Ireland, or correspond to some degree to actual developments in the distant past? In other words did the type of social grouping, or ecological conditions that existed in ancient Ireland, trigger or facilitate violence inter pares?

Thus, the existence in ancient Ireland of a vast of apparent network(s) of stone enclosures, resembling military-type fortifications, seems to suggest an island whose social groups are in constant state of vigilance and conflict. This display of apparent military structures seems, at first sight, to be corroborated by ancient accounts of armed conflicts from as far back as the beginning of the island itself.

4

Context and hypothesis

Ireland has never been a country endowed with vast, fertile lands, especially in the west, that would suggest its people had an imperative need to protect this natural wealth.

Breen (1992) reviewing the book “: a companion to the wildflowers of an

Irish limestone wilderness,” by Nelson and Walsh (1991:46), cites 17th century

Cromwellian general Ludlow’s description of the Burren (west Ireland) as “a country where there is not water enough to drown a man, wood enough to hang one, nor earth enough to bury him.” Yet, most of the country has flaunted what seems to be a vast defensive system of stone enclosures ready to protect its people and their property from external attack. So the question is, was ancient Ireland a warrior society with its component groups in constant conflict with each other for scarce resources?

The premise of this paper is that ancient Ireland was not the warrior society ancient accounts portrayed it to be throughout the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition and early medieval period. Prehistoric Ireland was basically a land of hunters (fishers) and gatherers, and incipient pastoralists that was transformed by successive waves of migratory influx, as well as invading foreign armies. Ancient accounts of warfare and raids were written thousands of years after their presumed occurrence, as Ireland for millennia was an illiterate society and its history was passed orally from generation to generation.

Data suggest that although some enclosures were built for defensive purposes, in terms of material used, location and time of construction, the vast majority were family homesteads built to protect their livestock. The evolution from a mobile hunting and gathering society to a sedentary agro-pastoral one saw not only the creation of new means

5 of production and subsequent economic development, but also a socio-political change with new sources of power. The question is whether the social evolutionary process of the ancient Ireland groups point to a rather constant state of conflict among groups also evolving from a context characterized by socio-economic symmetry.

Methodology

The morphology, construction material of cashels and hillforts, as well as the chronology of construction, location, and presumed function of thirty-eight stone enclosures will be examined and discussed. As rocks cannot be dated the artifacts found in the interior of the enclosures will be used. However, it must be pointed out that in many occasions the artifacts dated (vessels, bones) found inside the structures might correspond to later occupation stages, hundreds or thousands of years later, rather than to the original settlement.

Information on cashels and ringforts are from archaeological structures distributed throughout Ireland mostly from Northern Ireland. In spite of the thousands of ancient settlements identified on the surface, as of 1997 only around 80 excavation reports have been published, half of which pertain to Northern Ireland (Stout 1997). Analysis of the structures includes their location and presumed function based on their morphology, the

‘historical accounts’ the structures played in the history of prehistoric Ireland, as described in ancient sagas, as well as their construction design. These factors will give an idea of whether the structures did or could have been part of prehistoric warlike activities.

The location of the structures is also important. Those built on high ground with good visibility of outlying areas, or at the edge of a cliff, suggest a defensive purpose while

6 those built on low ground, next to cultivated fields, may have served as places of abode for an agro-pastoral population.

The sagas, or oral historical accounts of prehistoric and Medieval Ireland are an important source of information although most, if not all of them, can be considered poetic or legendary stories of an ancient past the scribes of the sagas never witnessed. In other words, the stories resemble myths and legends based, presumably, on some version of actual events (Dillon 1956). As circular structures have been built throughout history in Ireland a chronology of construction/occupancy has been coded as follows to distinguish the periods of analysis:

A) Mesolithic - 7000-5500 BC B) Neolithic - 4000-3500 BC C) - 1600-800 BC D) - 500 BC- 1000 AD E) Early Medieval - 400-1100 AD F) Medieval - 1169 AD- 1660 AD G) Early Christian - 400 AD- 800 AD H) Unknown or undetermined

Dating structures is a rather difficult task as it is usually based on artifacts found in the interior of the structures. However, whenever possible a combination of C14 and has been used. In general, there is uncertainty as to when the construction of the structures actually began, as there is evidence that since the

Mesolithic man had the technical capacity to build mega structures, as is the case of the

Poulnabrone megalithic structure in , thought to have been a portal tomb, although the base of the is too narrow to have served as a communal depository of corpses.

7

CHAPTER II

Dating the structures

The first step towards establishing the context of the study is to determine the chronology of he structures and their potential function. Dating of some of the structures shown on Table 1 was possible by dating man-made artifacts found (i.e. vessels), as well as by dating items of botanical origin also found in the interior of the structures. Data based on these techniques and used in this statigraphic sample of 114 sites, show that

55.3% of the ringforts are dated between the Late Iron Age and Early Medieval (236 AD to 1025 AD). This information seems to challenge the “archaeologically unsustainable argument that many ringforts are medieval in date” (Stout 1997:22). This because what is being dated are findings of “recent” origin, rather than part of its more ancient past.

Nevertheless, the period Late Iron Age-Early Christian Era is still accepted by many as the period of structures-building.

Also, the westernmost geographical location of Ireland indicates that around 500 AD the island was slowly coming out of the Iron Age and entering the Christian Era, upon the arrival of St. Patrick, the Romano-British Bishop. In the meantime the rest of Western

Europe was slowly entering into the Middle Ages, after the fall of the in the 5th century AD. In other words, while Ireland was in the last stages of the Iron Age,

Western (including Britain) was entering a more complex stage of social evolution with new socio-economic structures, and a centralized political system.

Table 1 below is an effort to show the wide temporal and geographical range of site in construction in ancient Ireland.

8

Chronology Table 1 Temporal and geographical distribution of structures A.D. Site (*) Location Type C14 Dendrocronology CONNAUGHT Ballybeg Sligo Cashel 693 884 Sligo Cashel 431 635 Cloverhill Lough Sligo 883 1021 Cloverhill Lough Sligo Crannog 886 992 Culeenamore Sligo Kitchen 689 980 Grange West 1 Sligo Cashel 781 981 Grange West 1 Sligo Cashel 993 1148 Grange West 2 Sligo 544 798 Grange West 2 Sligo Ringfort 654 777 Lufferton 8 Sligo Cashel 689 865 Seafield 11 Sligo Cashel 660 776

LEINSTER Dunbell Kilkenny Ringfort 584 659 Dunbell Kilkenny Ringfort 655 798 Dunbell Kilkenny Ringfort 664 768 Dunbell Kilkenny Ringfort 694 876 Dunbell Kilkenny Ringfort 779 940 Dunbell Kilkenny Ringfort 882 981 Aghadegnan Longford Ringfort 408 543 Aghadegnan Longford Ringfort 428 597 Aghadegnan Longford Ringfort 431 577 Aghadegnan Longford Ringfort 560 640 Aghadegnan Longford Ringfort 607 656 Aghadegnan Longford Ringfort 687 776 Aghadegnan Longford Ringfort 690 795 Aghadegnan Longford Ringfort 900 1019 Marshes Upper Louth Ringfort 663 797 Marshes Upper Louth Ringfort 783 983 Moynagh Lough Meath Crannog 625 625 Moynagh Lough Meath Crannog 748 748

MUNSTER Conva Ringfort 434 602 Conva Cork Ringfort 642 685 Killanully Cork Ringfort 775 880 Killanully Cork 783 980 Killanully Cork Ringfort 991 1208 Lisleagh 1 Cork Ringfort 608 688 Lisleagh 1 Cork Ringfort 659 776 Lisleagh 1 Cork Ringfort 662 770 Lisleagh 1 Cork Ringfort 662 867 Lisleagh 1 Cork Ringfort 776 989 Lisleagh 1 Cork Ringfort 902 1145 Lisnagun Cork Souterrain 894 991 Lisnagun Cork Ringfort 1031 1215 Ballingarry Down Ringfort 643 882 Raheennamadra Limerick Ringfort 606 775 Raheennamadra Limerick Ringfort 643 882 Raheennamadra Limerick Souterrain 649 938 Raheennamadra Limerick Ringfort 655 975

ULSTER

Antiville Antrim Ringfort 544 644 Antiville Antrim Ringfort 695 936 Ballyhenry Antrim Ringfort 649 690 Ballyhenry Antrim Ringfort 983 1020 Ballynoe Antrim Earthwork 641 777 Ballyutoag Antrim Ringfort 654 879 Ballyutoag Antrim Ringfort 690 939 Park Farms Antrim Ringfort 608 663 Deer Park Farms Antrim Ringfort 648 648 Deer Park Farms Antrim Ringfort 669 766 Deer Park Farms Antrim Ringfort 672 766 Deer Park Farms Antrim Ringfort 687 771 Deer Park Farms Antrim Ringfort 688-773 Deer Park Farms Antrim Ringfort 689 776 Deer Park Farms Antrim Ringfort 691 777 Deer Park Farms Antrim Ringfort 693 797 Deer Park Farms Antrim Ringfort 694 801 Deer Park Farms Antrim Ringfort 776 865 Deer Park Farms Antrim Ringfort 782 940 Deer Park Farms Antrim Ringfort 784 943 - 114 datings from 47 sites scattered throughout Ireland. Roughly 58% of the sites are located in the six counties composing the Province of Ulster, Northern Ireland. Source: The Irish Ringfort - Matthew Stout 1997.

9

Geographical Location of Enclosures

Figure 2 Figure2a

↑ Map of Ireland with the counties where ringforts Map of clusters of ringforts and cashels shown in Table 1 are located. in the Midlands. Stout (1991: 216) (Irish-Genealogy-Toolkit.com)

Chronology of enclosures

The chronology of the structures, that is when they were built, also presents some difficulties. Some authors (Comber & Hull 2007:2) posit that human activity took place in the cashels “from the Neolithic to modern periods.” This clearly suggests that the artifacts we found during the excavation were of late deposition, as they were found at a statigraphy no deeper than 0.80 meters, just above an archaic cobblestone passage. This is because Neolithic inhabitants already had the technical capacity and the materials to build stone enclosures.

Continuous occupation of the structures was common, sometimes stretching thousands of years. Thus, deeper statigraphy most likely could have yielded artifacts dating from the

Neolithic through the early Christian era, in addition to medieval objects. The excavation

10 at the Caherconnell cashel, in which I participated, follows the pattern of relatively low statigraphy. Additional sites from different areas, shown in Table 2 below, reveal a similar chronology pattern of type of construction regardless of the time when they were built.

11

Table 2 Location of Structures and dating methods Site Location Type C14 AMS Dendrochronoloy Source and comments Comber & Hull 2007-2009 - Fitzpatrick 2009 thinks walls were defensive.156 Pieces of bones & Caherconnell Co. Clare Cashel Yes raths & 9 cashels excavated 1970- for AMS/C14 2004, 40% estimated early Medieval 1 by excavators (p. 277) O’Riordain, in Stout (1997), argues that a Cush ringfort pre-dated a bronze 2 Cush Co. Limerick Ringfort/Cashel No C14 or AMS age (p.22) 3 Lisleagh I and II Co. Cork Ringfort/Cashel yes No No Monk 1995 Dating based on type of No 4 Thady’s Fort Shannon Ringfort/Cashel structure No Barrett & Graham (1975) Dating based on type of Barrett & Graham (1975) 5 Garrynomona Shannon Ringfort/Cashel structure No NO Barrett & Graham (1975) 6 Raheenamadra Co. Limerick Ringfort/Cashel Oak posts, 7 Ballingarry Down Co. Limerick Ringfort/Cashel C14 Barrett & Graham (1975) C14 Barrett & Graham (1975) 8 White Fort Co. Down Ringfort/Cashel Assigned to same period Barrett & Graham (1975) 9 Kiltera Co. Waterford Ringfort/Cashel w/o evidence 10 Beal Boru Co. Clare Ringfort/Cashel No No Barrett & Graham (1975) general statement re:600– Legg & Taylor (2006) 11 Inny River Catchment several counties (3) Ringfort/Cashel 900 A.D. Barrett & Graham (1975) 12 Killyglen Co. Antrim Ringfort/Cashel No Barrett & Graham (1975) 13 Drumee Co. Ringfort/Cashel No Barrett & Graham (1975) 14 Corliss Co. Armagh Ringfort/Cashel No Barrett & Graham (1975) 15 Dressogagh Co. Armagh Ringfort/Cashel No Barrett & Graham (1975) 16 Rathbeg Co. Antrim Ringfort/Cashel No Barrett & Graham (1975) 17 Ballyfounder Co. Down Ringfort/Cashel No 18 Rathlackan East Ireland Ringfort/House? No Scarre (2007) Scarre (2007) 19 Roughaun Hill Co. Clare Ringfort/House? No McLaughlin (2010) (NEANDA 5), p.36 20 Ryleen Co. Wexford. House/ringfort? No No Roycroft 2010 (NEANDA 5), p.40 21 Newtownbalregan 2 Co. Louth House/ringfort? No No Jones & Bartlett (2010) (NEANDA 5), 22 Rathmorrissy Co. Galway ringfort p.48 Kelleher (2010) (NEANDA 5), P. 52 23 Tullahedy Co. Tipperary Enclosure Yes (N. Site excavated by Sinclair Turrell, Ireland)/Dundalk, reported by Niall Roycroft, NEANDA Co. Louth link road 5, p.60 24 Plaster Enclosure All five sites: 1 - 2750 BP, Ballyloran & Larne (five site 2 - clay vessel, site 3 - Chapple 2009 Ulster Journal of Co. Antrim Enclosure sites) 4110 BP, site 4 - bowls, Archaeology,Vol. 68, 2009 25 site 5 - 2570 BP Tens of cashels identified with photographs and Norman & St. Joseph: Early All counties cashels/ringforts measurements. They will be Development of Irish Society 1969 26 recorded separately.

Welsh. Centre for Archaeological Fieldwork, QUB, Data Structure 27 Ballyaghagan Co. Antrim Cashel Author suggests C14 tests Report: AE/11/110. Excavationn 2001 Mackney & Loughbown 1 Dillon et al, NRA Archaeology 28 Co. Galway ringfort Yes Magazine 2007, #2, p. 27 (7) Walsh et al, NRA Archaeology 29 Tober Co. Offaly Possible rath No Magazine 2007, #2, p. 14 Kilbeggan-Athlone Author proposes Coughlan, NRA Archaeology Magazine 30 (Cappydonnell site) Co. Offaly ringfort C14 dating 2007, #2, p. 16

Coolagh Co. Galway cashel No O'Sullivan, NRA Archaeology Magazine 31 2007, #2, Part 1, p. 22

Muniz Perez, O'Sullivan, NRA Treanbaun Co. Galway cashel No Archaeology Magazine 2007, #2, 32 Part 1, p. 26 McKinstry, NRA Archaeology Magazine 33 Kilcloghans Co. Galway Ringfort 2008, #3, p. 12 Conran, NRA Archaeology Magazine Ballybrowney Lower Co. Cork Riongfort/cashel No 34 2008, #3, p. 31 Linnane & . NRA Archaeology, North of Kells, Yes. Results to be Fort Baronstown Riongfort/cashel No.2, 2007, pp.57-58 35 Co. Meath published

12

Even as authors are in some instances in agreement regarding the chronology of the structures, for the most part they still disagree as to when the majority of them were built, mainly because dating has been based on artifacts found at the sites. Usually these artifacts are of ‘recent’ deposition (), notwithstanding the fact that Scarre (2007) acknowledges that the Neolithic man did have the capacity and know-how to build functional stone structures. In Ireland, unlike Spain, France or Belgium, the extreme scarcity of coupled with the availability of a large quantity of stones especially in the west (Burren), helps to explain the generalized construction of stone structures since Mesolithic times. Both, the Mesolithic hunter and gatherer, as well as the Neolithic agro-pastoral man, had to build a place where he could reside with his family and later attend not only his fields but also his domesticates, his newly acquired source of wealth.

O’Riordain (Stout 1997:22) argues that a Cush ringfort () pre-dated a

Bronze Age burial (Stout 1997:22). Additionally, Stout (1997) states that in Galway

(west) around the a ringfort was dated far back in prehistory based on a found in an excavation that has regularly produced Early Christian finds but, is located in an area “of considerable Iron Age activity” (p. 22).

This apparently contradictory scenario reinforces the difficulty in dating poorly stratified or paradoxical prehistoric sites that can be attributed to long occupation.

Additionally, Fitzpatrick (2009) estimates that of the 45,000 ringforts/raths only nine have been systematically excavated. In many of them no chronology was possible to establish for lack of dateable finds or dates of occupation. This situation is complicated even further, as many accounts of enclosure chronology are based on mythical invasions of

Ireland from a distant past lost in the mist of time. This approach has been criticized by

13 other historians such as Champion (Bradley 2007:24). One of the main sources that heavily influenced Irish archaeologists and historians is the well-known mythical account described in the collection of ancient poems known as Labor Gábala Éirenn or The Book of the Taking of Ireland.

However, accounts by different authors do not provide definitive answers to the question of when construction of these enclosures began. It is well known that indigenous

Mesolithic inhabitants erected megalithic monuments showing they were perfectly capable of building stone structures. We also know that at the beginning they settled mainly along riverine, lacustrine, and coastal areas not inland, where the majority of the enclosures are located. In addition, the analysis of styles would not only suggest the age of a site but also the activities that may have taken place inside the enclosure.

When Neolithic settlers began farming and herding cattle they most certainly had the technical knowledge and capability to construct stone enclosures to protect their animals.

In other words, it is reasonable to assume that cashels, ringforts and raths began to appear in the Late Neolithic through the Christian and Early Medieval periods.

Excavation in the Caherconnell cashel in 2010 only uncovered animal bones (cattle, sheep, pigs) and some metal pieces dated to the Middle-Ages. As the statigraphy was limited to around one meter deep, at the entrance of the cashel, what we found could not be dated too far back in time. This does not necessarily reflect the entire lifespan of the enclosure.

Clarification concerning when these structures were built and for what purpose is an important factor of this project. It is proposed that construction of enclosures probably began during the Mid-Neolithic period some 5,000 BC, and continued through the

14

Middle Ages. By that time three important elements were already in place in Ireland, abundant stone, cattle husbandry, and farming. Cattle, as will be shown, became a source of wealth and status in addition to a source of nutrition in the form of dairying. Legends began to describe events where cattle and its possession became integral part of ancient

Irish history

In order to establish, insofar as possible, the approximate chronology of the enclosures it is necessary to review the research literature over several years of investigation and analysis. The size and morphology of the enclosures are very important, as they would suggest their intended function. An analysis of ancient battles, described in different texts will also be reviewed and analyzed to establish the time, the participants (who fought whom), and the possible motivation for the ancient skirmishes and, most importantly, whether battles described in several ancient sources actually took place.

Due to economic and financial reasons the vast majority of the Irish enclosures have not been excavated. Some general aerial inspection has been conducted (Norman & St. Joseph

1969) showing their morphology and location. Although it can be generally surmised their size, and number of walls encircling the structures, no firm data as to their height or width can be concluded from the aerial view. However, analyzing data obtained by several other authors from 41 sites located in Northern Ireland and Eire, it is reasonable to hypothesize that the majority of the enclosures were built between the Mid Neolithic and Late Christian periods. In this regard, Limbert (1996) proposes that dating structures from pottery styles also may not be reliable, as it is well known that occupation in the majority of the sites was continuous over thousands of years. As agriculture and

15 animal husbandry were already established during the Neolithic, this could be a better way of dating their construction.

The earliest recorded date of construction is placed between the Mesolithic and the

Bronze Age. Sixteen, or 10.7% of the structures were built between 5,500 and 800 BC.

Yet Stout (Fitzpatrick (2009:277) states that the enclosures were built through a three hundred years interlude, during the Early Christian period (7th century to 9th century).

Stout goes further by arguing that, for the most part, excavation of a limited number of ringforts have rendered unsatisfactory dating of the structures, as they are usually based on pottery and other artifacts found inside the enclosures (p. 23). As the length of occupation is actually unknown, what has been dated are the upper levels of the statigraphy. Stout is not alone in questioning the chronology of the structures. Eamonn

Cody notes (Fitzpatrick (2009:274) that ringforts, most likely, were built during the

Late Iron Age or “second half of the 1st millennium AD.”

Morphology and location of structures

Table 3 shows that most structures are of the type cashel/ringfort and were built of stone although some were built of earthwork. Their shape is mostly circular which, according to Stout (1979:15) “afforded broad perspectives of approaching attackers and allowed the maximum area to be enclosed relative to the length of bank constructed.”

This statement appears to suggest that the primary reason of the cashel/ringfort morphology, combined with stone walls, was defensive in nature.

However, Stout (1979) also suggests that spirituality may have had some influence in their morphology, as he asserts that “the corner of a dwelling was the likely haunt of the devil.” (p. 15). The presumed spirituality of the structures could have influenced their

16 construction, as well as the orientation of the ringfort (especially the entrance), as early as the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition. The entrance of most, if not all, the ancient structures in Ireland face a southeasterly direction which could be interpreted, as Stout suggests, as following a spiritual or religious belief even before Catholicism entered the island.

The eastern orientation of Catholic Churches actually follows the example of the

Jewish Temples that face towards the orient (oriens, in Latin) where it was believed light begins, which in Ireland only began with the arrival of St. Patrick and St. in the fifth century AD. However, in spite of the supposed spirituality of the Neolithic man in

Ireland, that might have influenced the location of the entrance to the structures

(southeast), it actually was to protect the residence from the strong northwesterly winds in an island devoid of protective high mountains.

Table 3 below summarizes the type of structure found throughout Ireland, the materials used in their construction, as well as their morphology. The great majority, if not all the structures, are circular in shape.

17

Table 3 Type of cashel and location Site Type (*) Constr. Material Morphology Location 1 Caherconnell Cashel Stone circular Co. Clare 2 Cush Ringfort/Cashel Stone circular Co. Limerick 3 Lisleagh I and II Ringfort/Cashel earthwork? circular Co. Cork 4 Thady’s Fort Ringfort/Cashel Stone ? circular Shannon 5 Garrynomona Ringfort/Cashel Stone ? circular Shannon 6 Raheenamadra Ringfort/Cashel Timber/earth circular Co. Limerick 7 Ballingarry Down Ringfort/Cashel earth/stone circular Co. Limerick 8 White Fort Ringfort/Cashel earth/stone circular Co. Down 9 Kiltera Ringfort/Cashel earth/stone circular Co. Waterford 10 Beal Boru Ringfort/Cashel earth/stone circular Co. Clare 11 Inny River Catchment Ringfort/Cashel earth/stone 1073 sites several counties 12 Killyglen Ringfort/Cashel earth/stone circular Co. Antrim 13 Drumee Ringfort/Cashel earth/stone circular Co. Fermanagh 14 Corliss Ringfort/Cashel earth/stone circular Co. Armagh 15 Dressogagh Ringfort/Cashel earthwork circular Co. Armagh 16 Rathbeg Ringfort/Cashel earthwork circular Co. Antrim 17 Ballyfounder Ringfort/Cashel earthwork circular Co. Down 18 Rathlackan Ringfort/House? dry-stone walls circular East Ireland 19 Roughaun Hill Ringfort/House? dry-stone walls circular Co. Clare 20 Ryleen House/ringfort? earthwork Rectangular Co. Wexford. 21 Newtownbalregan 2 House/ringfort? earthwork Newtownbalregan Co. Louth 22 Rathmorrissy ringfort earthwork/stone circular Co. Galway 23 Tullahedy Enclosure oak planks (?) Circular Co. Tipperary Remains had Newry (Northern no enclosure. Ireland)/Dundalk, Co. 24 Plaster Enclosure Probably did circular Louth link road 25 Ballyloran & Larne (five sites) (*)Enclosure Stone/earthwork Co. Antrim Tens of cashels identified with photographs and measurements. They will be recorded separately. cashels/ringforts stone, earthwork circular All counties 26 27 Ballyaghagan Cashel Stone circular Co. Antrim 28 Mackney & Loughbown 1 ringfort Stone circular Co. Galway wattle & daub Tober Possible rath circular Co. Offaly 29 w/thatched roof Circular Kilbeggan-Athlone (Cappydonnell ringfort earthen w/two internal Co. Offaly site) 30 round enclosures 31 Coolagh cashel Stone circular Co. Galway 32 Treanbaun cashel Stone circular Co. Galway 33 Kilcloghans Ringfort earthen circular Co. Galway 34 Ballybrowney Lower Riongfort/cashel earthen circular Co. Cork

Fort Baronstown Riongfort/cashel earthen w/ 4m circular North of Kells, Co. Meath 35 wide, 3m deep

36 Owenbristy (excavation ongoing) Cashel stone circular Co. Galway 37 Faughart Lower Cashel stone circular

18

In any event, table 4 below shows that most of the cashel/ringforts were built of stone seem to reaffirm, or suggest, the pre-conceived idea that these structures were designed to sustain an assault by hostile forces. Indeed, ancient Irish accounts strongly suggest that was the case. However, Table 4 also shows the possible relationship between the type of enclosure, its morphology, location, and size. These characteristics, in turn, could be important in determining or inferring the possible function the structures had in the distant past.

19

Table 4 Related characteristics of structures Presumed Site Type (*) Morphology Location function Source Comber & Hull 2007-2009 - Fitzpatrick 2009 thinks walls were defensive.156 1 Caherconnell Cashel circular Co. Clare fortress/farmstead raths & 9 cashels excvted 1970-2004, 40% estimated early Medieval by excavators (p. 277) O’Riordain, in Stout 1997, argues that a 2 Cush ringfort pre-dated a bronze age burial Cush Ringfort/Cashel circular Co. Limerick fortress (p.22) 3 Lisleagh I and II Ringfort/Cashel circular Co. Cork cattle protection Monk 1995

4 Thady’s Fort Ringfort/Cashel circular Shannon farmsteading Barrett & Graham 1975

5 Garrynomona Ringfort/Cashel circular Shannon farmsteading Barrett & Graham 1975 6 Raheenamadra Ringfort/Cashel circular Co. Limerick farmsteading Barrett & Graham 1975

7 Ballingarry Down Ringfort/Cashel circular Co. Limerick farmsteading Barrett & Graham 1975 8 White Fort Ringfort/Cashel circular Co. Down farmsteading Barrett & Graham 1975

9 Ringfort/Cashel circular Co. Waterford farmsteading Barrett & Graham 1975 Kiltera 10 Beal Boru Ringfort/Cashel circular Co. Clare farmsteading Barrett & Graham 1975 farmstead and cattle 11 Inny River Catchment Ringfort/Cashel 1073 sites several counties (3) protection (5) Legg & Taylor 2006

12 Killyglen Ringfort/Cashel circular Co. Antrim cattle rearing Barrett & Graham 1975

13 Drumee Ringfort/Cashel circular Co. Fermanagh cattle rearing Barrett & Graham 1975

14 Corliss Ringfort/Cashel circular Co. Armagh farmsteading Barrett & Graham 1975 15 Dressogagh Ringfort/Cashel circular Co. Armagh farmsteading Barrett & Graham 1975 16 Rathbeg Ringfort/Cashel circular Co. Antrim farmsteading Barrett & Graham 1975 17 Ballyfounder Ringfort/Cashel circular Co. Down farmsteading Barrett & Graham 1975 Scarre 2007 18 Rathlackan Ringfort/House? circular East Ireland farmsteading/ livestock 19 Scarre 2007 Roughaun Hill Ringfort/House? circular Co. Clare farmsteading/ livestock 20 Ryleen House/ringfort? Rectangular Co. Wexford. farmsteading McLaughlin 2010 (NEANDA 5), p.36

21 New tow nbalregan 2 House/ringfort? New tow nbalregan Co. Louth farmsteading Roycroft 2010 (NEANDA 5), p.40 Farmsteading/cattle/de 22 fensive Jones & Bartlett 2010 (NEANDA 5), p.48 Rathmorrissy ringfort circular Co. Galw ay Farmsteading/cattle/de 23 Tullahedy Enclosure Circular palisade Co. Tipperary fensive Kelleher 2010 (NEANDA 5), P. 52 Newry (N. Farmsteading/cattle/de Site excavated by Sinclair Turrell, Ireland)/Dundalk, fensive reported by Niall Roycroft, NEANDA 5, Plaster Enclosure circular 24 Co. Louth link road p.60

Chapple 2009 Ulster Journal of 25 Ballyloran & Larne (five sites) (*) Enclosure Co. Antrim Domestic/ritualistic Archaeology,Vol. 68, 2009

Tens of cashels identified Framsteading, cattle with photographs and raising, and defensive Norman & St. Joseph: Early Development of Irish cashels/ringforts circular All counties 26 measurements. They w ill fortresses Society 1969 be recorded separately. Farmsteading/cattle Welsh. Centre for Archaeological Fieldw 27 Ballyaghagan Cashel circular Co. Antrim ork, QUB, Data Structure Report: AE/11/110. Excavationn 2001 Mackney & Loughbow n 1 Domestic/metalw orks Dillon et al, NRA Archaeology Magazine 28 ringfort circular Co. Galw ay 2007, #2, p. 27 (7) Tober Domestic Walsh et al, NRA Archaeology Magazine 2007, 29 Possible rath circular Co. Offaly #2, p. 14 Kilbeggan-Athlone Circular w /tw o Domestic/b urial (Cappydonnell site) internal round Coughlan, NRA Archaeology Magazine 30 ringfort Co. Offaly enclosures 2007, #2, p. 16

Coolagh Domestic O'Sullivan, NRA Archaeology Magazine cashel circular 31 2007, #2, Part 1, p. 22 Co. Galw ay Treanbaun Domestic Muniz Perez, O'Sullivan, NRA 32 cashel circular Archaeology Magazine 2007, #2, Part 1, Co. Galw ay p. 26 Kilcloghans Domestic McKinstry, NRA Archaeology Magazine 2008, Ringfort circular 33 Co. Galw ay #3, p. 12 Ballybrow ney Lower Domestic Conran, NRA Archaeology Magazine 34 Riongfort/cashel circular Co. Cork 2008, #3, p. 31 Domestic/defensive Linnane & Kinsella. NRA Archaeology, North of Kells, Co. 35 Fort Baronstow n Riongfort/cashel circular No.2, 2007, pp.57-58 Meath Domesric w /burial Ow enbristy (excavation Delaney et al., NRA, issue #4, 2009, 36 Cashel circular Co. Galw ay function ongoing) pp.36-39 Settlement/cemetery (11) Bow en in NRA Archaeology Magazine 37 Faughart Low er Cashel circular County Louth No.3, 2008, p. 9

114 datings in 47 sites. See cashels, raths, ringforts Defensive, cattle 38 sheet #5 for breakdow n ciircular several counties Stout (1997) protection

(*) Per McCarthy of the NRA No.5, 2010, p.41, the majority of excavations (35%) are from the Bronze Age, while the entire medieval period is only 24%

20

But morphology, including size and construction material, in itself cannot with certainty determine the function of the structures. Based on their physical characteristics, historical and archaeological evidence do not support the assessment that the presumed function of ancient cashels was defensive. Mythical accounts of the ancient past contained, for instance, in the Annals Of Clonmacnoise From The Creation To A.D. 1408

(emphasis added), translated into English by Connell Mageoghagan in 1627, details numerous battles between legendary Irish kings for the control of the island. This would necessarily imply that these structures may have been constructed for a defensive purpose. However, if that had been the historical case, it would make perfect sense to interpret the stone structures as a vast network of defensive fortresses throughout the

Neolithic and the Iron Age. However, as the country was still composed of independent agro-pastoralists bands, and had not yet evolved into a complex society with a centralized polity, it did not have yet have the organizational capability or social structure to coordinate the construction of a vast array of fortresses throughout time.

It is doubtful that a prehistoric society could have built a network of fortresses throughout Ireland when the country was still composed of an array of independent agro- pastoralists, and had not yet evolved into a centralized polity.

Assessing the morphology and general configuration of cashel/ringforts described in

Table 4, it seems that most of the structures were constructed as family places of abode, as well as to domesticates inside for protection from sporadic raids by other agro- pastoralists. For instance, Comber & Hull (2007, 2009), Fitzpatrick (2009) think that the cashel wall of the Caherconnell structure (County Clare) was for defensive purpose, although the cashel has a total exterior diameter of approximately 42 meters. The

21 surrounding exterior wall itself is barely three (3) meters high, and has a width of approximately 0.5 meters. The wall at the rear of the cashel is approximately five (5) meters to compensate for the unevenness of the terrain where the cashel sits. Considering the small size of the cashel (including the external wall), lack of defensive access ramps in the interior of the structure and its general configuration, the most likely use of the structure was as a place of family residence. Remains of two small houses inside the cashel seem to confirm this assessment.

The cashel/ringfort of Cush, located in County Limerick (Midwest of Ireland) and dated between the late Neolithic and early Bronze Age, like the Caherconnell structure is also circular and built with stone resembling a small fortress. Yet, like the Caherconnell structure its diameter is approximately 40 meters, with only one external wall. Moreover,

Ó’Riordáin argues (Stout 1997:22) that this structure pre-dates a Bronze Age burial nearby.

The ruins of two (2) Newtownbalregan earthwork structures, according to Roycroft

(2010 in NEANDA 5:40, Table 4, No. 21), are also dated Late Neolithic-Early Bronze

Age and seem to have been circular in morphology, although the remains of the sites are too wrecked to render a definitive judgment. However, the vast majority of the structures are circular, perhaps because it is easier to draw a circle on the ground than trying to draw four right angles (*). Additionally, Norman and St. Joseph (1969) in their aerial survey of cashels and ringforts identified numerous structures throughout Ireland from the Neolithic that are roughly of the same external diameter. Many of those structures have one, two, and even three surrounding walls, all-circular in form and the purpose of which will be examined later.

22

As morphological information presented in Table 4 covers all geographical regions, as well as chronological stages of the island, it could safely be inferred that the same morphological characteristics generally found in excavated in Ireland can be expected of structures not yet found or excavated. In fact, structures such as Caherconnell (west

Ireland) and Rathlackan (east Ireland) have similar morphological characteristics, but are actually two or three millennia part. This across the time-board similarity seems to suggest a technological continuity responding perhaps to similar environmental and socio-economic circumstances. After all, agro-pastoralism as way of life, had begun in the Neolithic millennia earlier where private property of the means of production and its product changed the way social relations interact.

Now it became necessary to protect what was rightly considered private property. As a result, some cashels (i.e. Caherconnell) were built along trade routes to take advantage of the exchange of surplus goods produced by small agro-pastoralists. At the end of the

Neolithic, and beginning of the agro-pastoralists context, there were no designated places of exchange (markets or emporia) but pathways connecting separate, non-kin, family settlements to carry out goods exchange, that included domesticates. In other words trade and exchange were rather tangential activities among cashel settlers. Market places, per se, did not appear until the Middle-Ages.

This seems to be the case when cashels were built in locations appropriate for business with nearby settlements. In this regard the Caherconnell cashel, as indicated above, was built near a “old route-way” (Hull & Comber 1970:3) that runs in the south west direction, most likely a pathway to facilitate trade and exchange among cashel inhabitants. Its morphology and configuration seems to confirm this, as the circular

23 structure has only one external wall (univallet) with a calculated height of three meters at the entrance. The current height is only two meters but the stone debris surrounding the structure suggests the wall may have probably been one meter higher. Additionally, no weapons or tools that could have been used as defensive instruments were found during the excavation, only remains of cattle, sheep and pigs. The rather narrow width of the wall (0.5 meters at the top) does not suggest a function other than a protection against gale force winds, common in the island, or a fence to keep domesticates inside the structure. The primary function of the stone structures was originally to serve only as a family residence. With the advent of agro-pastoralism, cattle and other domestic animals

(sheep, goats), became very important not only as a source of food but also as a much valued source of wealth. The entrance to the structure was narrowed to prevent or reduce the removal of too many animals at a time if a robbery occurred.

In any event, agro-pastoralist inhabitants slowly saw the need to protect their goods for consumption, as well as for exchange. Around this time, according to Doherty

(1980:69), there was a “slow increase in agricultural production and in the size of the population,” which meant an increase in the production of goods, as “wealth in early

Ireland consisted almost entirely of land, people and animals” (p. 72), where cattle dominated. Especially when later during the Middle-Ages, according to Plummer

(Doherty 1980:75), the Church itself was profiteering from the spoils of cattle raids.

Thus, new sources of wealth ultimately required protection measures such as the reconfiguration of their places of abode (cashels and ringforts).

Although there is evidence that some reconfiguration or adaptive response did indeed take place, data in Table 4 shows that within a period of several millennia few cashels

24 actually went through a dramatic reconfiguration. Morphological changes in cashels took place in different locations of Ireland, from (now in Northern Ireland) to

Galway (west). Norman and St. Joseph (1969) reported that several cashels located throughout Ireland were built with one, two, and three external walls and dated from the

Neolithic between 4000 and 3500 BC. The same is true for the cashel located in

Kilbaggan-Athlone (Cappydonnel site, ). This structure, dated between the

Late Neolithic and Early Bronze Age, is geographically dated located in the midland of

Ireland. It has a diameter of approximately 60 meters, and three external walls (trivallet).

Coughlan (2007:12) states that it may have served a dual function of family burial site, as well as a domestic purpose.

However, this assertion actually invites an elucidation since it is uncertain why a trivallet structure would be used also as burial ground, unless it was primarily designed or constructed as a dwelling place. In other words, more than one external wall would more likely be used as a defensive adaptation rather than for the protection of burial grounds.

This is also the time when oral tradition describing raids and skirmishes flourished, such as The Cattle Raid of Cooley (7th - 8th century AD). The stone cashel at Ballyghagan in

County Antrim (northern Ireland), and dated from the Neolithic (400 to 3500 BC), also has three protective surrounding walls (trivallet), yet the main outer wall is only one meter high, and the site’s total diameter is only 42 meters across, roughly the same size as other cashels with only one external wall. As no interior ramparts or other defensive constructions were found it possible to infer that the cashel had a purpose other than defensive.

25

Nevertheless, ancient oral history written down by religious scribes in the early

Middle-Ages, describe a country in a rather constant state of war, or armed conflict, among settlers, be it for territorial control or economic reasons. In these early encounters local chieftains figure prominently especially during the Middle-Ages rather than in prehistoric times. The existence of chieftains strongly suggests the appearance not only of a more complex economic society, capable of providing surplus food to those involved in a conflict, but also a more evolved social group capable of recruiting participants to successfully compete for resources.

Endnotes

Appendix to Table 2 (1) Authors treat ringforts and cashels as same type of structure. These counties have very high ringfort density. Only Ballyfounder shows evidence of continuous occupation through the Middle Ages. Authors doubt current orthodoxy of dating. (2) Cited by Stout (1997). Author acknowledges Neolithic people were capable of building stone structures. (3) No firm data on function of structure. Only a polypod vase to make yogurt found. (4) Author states ringforts not established in good soils. Farmers forced to retreat to low-quality soil. (5) http://www.qub.ac.uk/schools/Centre for Archaeological Fieldwork (CAF) (*) The rectangular morphology of ringforts is usually attributed to Norman influence although this approach is disputed by Barrett et al (1975).

26

CHAPTER III

Anthropology of War

Since prehistoric times violent conflicts also have taken different forms from interpersonal violence (Roksandic 2004, Radovanovic 2006, Orchiedt 2005, Guilaine

& Zammit 2005) to party raids where groups of individuals, from societies at different levels of social evolution, band together to attack other groups (Leff 2009, Ferguson

1990). These manifestations include organized attacks by well-armed individuals that apparently have resulted in accelerating or promoting a socio-political transition to a higher level, Carneiro (1970).

ANCIENT BATTLES Table 5 Area Location Ruler Estimated Chronology Antagonists Purpose Data Source Conquest by Uí Caherconnell (1) Co. Clare Corcomruad (2) Early medieval Corcomruad/Dál Cais Thoirdelbaig (3) Comber & Hull 2010 Cooley (Cúalnge) Co. Louth Daire (Chieftain) Neolithic/Bronze Age Queen /Daire (4) Stealing Brown Bull (5) Artech Connaught prehistoric Cuscraid & Mac Cecht Conquer Connaught Annals of Tigernach (6) Argetmar & Duach Ladhghrach Odba no info Olill Fionn A.M. 4415 (**) power Cambrensis Eversus (7) 7 Mains of Ulster/rest of island Ireland 4/5 of island several prehistoric power Annals of Tigernach (6) Giraldus Cambrensis- Ireland undetermined Bartholanus 300 yrs after the 'flood' Bartholanus/the Giants power-control Historical Works Nemedus/pirates - four battles Giraldus Cambrensis- Ireland undetermined Nemedus (8) prehistoric power-control Historical Works Diarmait/Guare of Aidne Cows stolen by Carn Conaill Kilbecanty (Galway) Diarmait Early Middle Ages Guare Book of the , Power/economics 2nd battle of Moytura - (cattle) Moytura Lake Districtc-Co. Mayo Tuatha Dé Mythical time Firbolgs - Tuatha de Danann Anonymous (9) Danann Boru - Máel Mórda mac Book of Lecan by Dublin Clontarf King of Leonster 1014 AD Murchada, King of power-control (10) Ádhamh Ó Cuirnín, ca. 1391 Table 5 shows some of the prehistoric battles, first described in ancient Irish oral tradition, later transcribed by Christian scribes.

(**) Dates are given in imprecise A.M. - anno mundi or A.D. – Christian Era (1) Its role within the Corcomruad unknown. Not mentioned in documentary sources. (2) A confederation of related peoples and territories. (3) King Uí Thoirdelbaig suceeded by son Conchobar and his descendants (4) Battle fought between Cuchulain and his friend Ferdiad (5) The Táin Bó Cúalnge is actually preceded by the Táin Bó Flidhais (wife of Oilill) (6) Tigernach was the Abbot of Clonmacnoise (7) History of Ancient Ireland Vindicated (8) Nemedus, according to the legends, was the eleventh in descent from Noah and came from the shores of the Black Sea with his four sons (Cambrensis). (9) Translated by Whitley Stokes. London, British Library, Harleian MS 5280, 63a–70b (Catalogue of Irish Manuscripts in the , by Robin Flower (London, 1926) vol. 2, 18–319). (10) Viking domination of Ireland ends The Annals of the Fourmasters No. 5 begins in the year 1501

27

Moreover, in a cross-cultural study it was found that 80% of societies “kill or torture enemy warriors, and one-third kill women and children” (Otterbein 1997). In other words, the study seems to suggest that extreme violence has always been part of socio- political scenarios regardless of space or time.

If violence, under different circumstances, has been portrayed as a rather common and extremely cruel phenomenon, does that mean man is naturally prone to violence from inception? At least this is the historical impression that the vast array of stone structures in Ireland, as well as walls surrounding settlements elsewhere, have given to historians and casual witnesses. All the more so, when this warlike idea has been reinforced in Ireland by ancient accounts of battles between kings, queens, and mythical heroes for the possession of legendary bulls (L. Winifred Faraday, M.A., 1904), or in the creation of countries such as Ireland itself (R. A. Stewart Macalister, D. Litt. 1938).

Historically, there are different levels or scale of violence from interpersonal conflict to organized warfare. The difference between major scale violence and interpersonal aggression is that participants in the latter form of conflict are usually members of small bands without a vertical structure, and lack of organizational capability. The attack itself is of short duration involving, perhaps, no more than fifty people on either side. This low scale category implies that the combatants are members of a very simple social organization or band. Warfare, is a prolonged state of conflict that involves hundreds, even thousands, of combatants, and requires a steady supply of resources and manpower.

Unlike raiders, warfare combatants are well armed and well organized and are members of a complex polity with enough surplus resources to sustain a long period of conflict. Their defensive strategy necessarily involves a well-protected base of

28 operations. Table 4 shows very few cashels with defensive walls, yet the literature based on oral tradition suggests a vast array of complex fortresses. Even the Caherconnell cashel at County Clare, with univallet wall, has been suggested by Comber & Hull (2010) as having been built as a defensive structure. The authors mention the war between the legendary Corcomruad Confederation and the Dál Cais, where king Uí Thoirdelbaig (of the Dál Cais) conquered the area. Yet excavation at the cashel in 2009 did not yield any artifactual evidence of hostile activity even as recent as the Late Middle Ages, although the authors mention “annal entries” from the tenth century in relation to this event (p.

135).

A war of conquest against fortified settlements, even if the defender’s site has only one defensive stonewall, requires that the attacking group has the capacity to engage additional human resources to compensate for those who are left behind producing needed food and the ones who are lost in battle. Along these lines, Comber & Hull (2010) do not mention either the composition of the Corcomruad Confederation or its size, especially at the early stage of the Middle Ages. A better-known ancient event is the that took place in 1014 AD, Early Middle Ages, between , an ancient heroic Irish chieftain, and Máel Mórda Mac Murchada, King of Leinster, for the control of the Dublin area. This battle, in which Brian Boru died, was detailed by

Ádhamh Ó' Cuirnín (1391 AD), some 377 years after the alleged battle took place.

Translated references on this battle are also found in O’Donovan (1843).

These accounts describe a remarkably evolved society at such an early stage of its history, especially regarding its capability to form alliances with other socially evolved groups whose chieftains were willing to fight and die for their overlords. Along these

29 lines Table 5 shows that most of the ancient battles were fought for power and territorial conquests in an apparent contextual agreement with the parameters of Carneiro’s (1970) theories of circumscription, for the origin of the state. However, the indicates that the island had plenty of land of similar fertility, as well as coastal and riverine areas of similar abundance and variety of resources. Also, Ireland did not become a state, in its own right at least, until the first quarter of the 20th century when they finally gained independence from Great Britain, after approximately 800 years of occupation.

It seems that for millennia, before and during the British colonization of Ireland, the country was composed of numerous loose social groups engaged in localized wars, or skirmishes, for economic and political reasons that, in the end, never resulted in social unification or social evolution. During the Middle Ages these local conflicts became more often and widespread, with basically the same results. A clear case of war for conquest is shown in Table 5 with the battle of Artech where, according to the Annals of

Tigernach (original 12th century, Revue Celtique, Tome XVI: 410), Cusraid, son of

Conchobar mac Nessa (legendary king of Ulster) conquered the province of Connaught

(west Ireland). The chronicles of the era do not mention or suggest any economic or socio-political variation other that the acquisition of a new ruler who, sometimes, was not the victorious warrior himself but a descendant, as in the case of the battle of Artech.

However, this description may give the erroneous perception that ancient Ireland was for centuries going through a process of constant warfare for territorial conquest by local chieftains (kings, in their legends) and, to a certain extent, of subjugation of conquered populations. Stone enclosures scattered throughout the Irish countryside would also

30 suggest this kind of conclusion. Comber & Hull (2010: 135) in their description of the

Caherconnell excavation report cite Gibson (1990: 382) who states that after the death of the legendary Ui Thoirdelbaig, king of the Corcomruad Federation, the coalition was ruled by the descendants of his son and of Conchobar, another mythical figure.

The motivations in ancient Ireland to engage in armed conflict, from the Neolithic to the Middle Ages, seem to lie in the appearance of private property resulting from the development of agro-pastoralism in the island. The development of new, and more profitable, economic factors (agriculture and cattle rearing) seems to have prompted the need to expand control of certain fertile areas by local chieftains. This suggests that an increase in population, following the economic expansion, may have encouraged the construction of ringforts and cashels by families and social groups, to protect their new resources against raiders and other armed groups. As shown in Table 4 the morphology of the stone structures seems to confirm this protective assessment.

31

CHAPTER IV

Social Evolution and Violence

The subject of this paper is ancient Ireland and its, thus far, socially accepted history of violent past, as evidenced by the vast array of circular stone structures scattered over the island resembling defensive fortresses. In order to engage in warfare to conquer additional territory or to gain control over scarce natural resources of another polity, the aggressive faction would have to have the necessary socio-political organization, and economic resources, to launch and sustain an attack that might be of long duration.

That is, warfare requires a polity with some type of hierarchical organization, a form of division of labor where different strata have different social obligations to the polity as a whole, from producing food to make available a non-productive fighting force.

A polity thus constituted must also be complex enough to be able to gather followers from its own society when needed, as well as be capable of gathering support from other polities forming alliances. By contrast, a group of independent families or roaming bands, although they may be able to assemble a temporary, or ad hoc, coalition based on kinship and social relations to stage a raid against another group the coalition, would dissolve once the limited goal is achieved. The Irish countryside with its impressive display of circular stone structures at first sight suggests complex societies, or groups, in constant conflict.

However the question is, was ancient Ireland an area of socio-politically and economically evolved societies, or a conglomerate of small, independent, agro-pastoral groups in constant armed conflict for economic reasons? For the purpose of this paper warfare is defined as a usually well-organized and protracted armed struggle between two

32 social groups. As stated above, at least one of the groups would have to have sufficient resources to sustain a prolonged conflict, as well as the capacity to generate further resources not only to launch a prolonged attack but also to feed its population, where one of the parties involved attempts to obtain by force what they believe to be rightfully theirs, entitled to, or deserve.

The nature of a prolonged conflict requires social complexity and the capacity to produce food surpluses to feed a non-productive segment of society, whose only function is to battle other groups on behalf of the social polity they represent. Violence itself has been a common occurrence since prehistoric times and in many areas, as archaeological evidence shows. War-like violence has been depicted in rock art since the Mesolithic

(Guilaine & Zamitt 2005) Violent events within and among social groups, as Keeley

(1996) reminds us, have been part of mankind’s ancient past, but for what purpose?

Thus, in order to have a more cogent view of the differential scenarios that characterize warfare, and interpersonal violence, within the context of the level of social organization of the participant groups, the evolutionary stages of societies advanced first by Oberg (1955), and later refined by Service (Carneiro 2003), are proposed as framework. After all, what has to be determined is at what level of social complexity were the ancient societies in Ireland. Were they able to stage war against other groups?

Keeley (1996) argues that warfare is conducted by societies that are rather complex since war is an activity that requires planning and, most of all, organizational capability that less evolved groups (unsegmented) do not possess. However, if we look at the archaeological record (rock art) of the Mesolithic-Neolithic period described by Guilaine

& Zammit (2005:104, below) in the Spanish Levant, Sicily, France, it is clear that social

33 groups at any level do have the capability to plan, organize, and stage an attack against another group. Wrangham (1999), as well as Goodall (Wrangham 1999), have shown that even chimpanzees have the organizational capability to stage an attack against another group. If so, this would mean Keeley’s (1996) argument that only a complex social organization can stage an attack against another group is not consistent in all cases concerning social groups, as the hostile action involves planning and organization. In other words, social complexity is not actually a determinant factor in planning and staging war, so early Irish inhabitants could have very well been at war with other groups, at the band or family level of social organization, for millennia.

Bands

During the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition, ca. 12,000 BC groups of independent family units related by kinship to other comparable factions populated what is now

Europe and the Middle East. The Mesolithic-Neolithic transition in Ireland did not actually begin until around 4000 BC, as the island, located at the westernmost area of

Europe, was not easy to reach, and there were no known “waves of advance.”

(Ammerman & Cavalli-Sforza 1984).

The level of social organization of these groups was described by Oberg, who proposed the type of ‘homogenous tribe’ [generally corresponding to Service’s band

(1962)]. These tribe-bands were characteristically egalitarian, kinship relationships

(extended families), loosely related to other groups, and their subsistence pattern depended on what they hunted, collected, or fished (Service 1962, Oberg 1955, Kelly

2007). These societies not only lack a centralized political structure, and vertical configuration or social division, but also do not have segments of craft specialization.

34

This means that individual members make their own basic wares and tools that, under certain circumstances, may be used also as weapons. Not having specialized division of labor also entails that members themselves have to hunt or collect food for their nuclear families. This, in turn, strongly suggests that if the group attacks another band, it must be a very brief skirmish and the latter must be located nearby, or adjacent to the attacking group. The attack must be sudden and brief, low scale, as the attackers would lack food surplus, as well as logistics organization to conduct a large scale assault. Although even a short raid (sudden attack by small number of people) requires a minimum level of organization and planning, war unlike a raid requires a level of social complexity and advanced planning that a basic, unsegmented society based on kinship, cannot offer

(Kelly 2007).

A point in case are the scenes of Mesolithic rock art, from different parts of Europe presented by Guilaine & Zammit (2005), showing small groups in combat that seem to corroborate Kelly’s (2007) approach of simple bands battling each other, rather than organized warfare. These pictographs, showing armed individuals in violent confrontations, also seem to challenge the idea that the past has been pacified, as argued by Keeley (1996). Thus, basic ‘unsegmented’ polities (i.e. Mesolithic bands) are hardly the type of social unit capable of waging a prolonged warfare against another group, whether for economic or ‘social substitutability’ reason (Kelly 2007). As bands became tribes (a more complex sociopolitical level) kin relation ceased to be the only “requisite” for membership, as commonality of interests with other groups became the prime factor.

35

Bands in Prehistoric Ireland

Ancient Irish bands were Mesolithic hunters and gatherers who lived ca. 5,000 BC by fishing along coastal, lacustrine, and riverine shores, and hunting small prey (mostly rabbits and wild pigs). Although it is mostly agreed that in the evolutionary stage of bands groups are unsegmented, and lack the organization to plan and stage a major attack against another social group (Kelly 2007), they nevertheless were capable of organizing to build and bring the gigantic rocks from as far as 10 miles, as in the case of near Dublin (Norman & St. Joseph 1996), or the Poulnabrone in County Clare.

Mesolithic bands were, by definition, hunters and gatherers who may have lived a semi- sedentary, especially during the rainy season, possibly erecting some light dwellings or perhaps occupying caves (almost non-existent in Ireland).

However, it is doubtful that they built stone structures inland for they had very little to protect since they had not yet reached the evolutionary stage of agro-pastoralism, although they did have the capacity to build protective enclosures.

Most likely, stone structures started to be built during the Neolithic as family living quarters, but there are many discrepancies as to the approximate dates of construction

(Monk 1995; Chapple 2009; Stout 1997; Barrett et al. 1975: 33). In fact Barrett et al convincingly argue that “there is a strong case for doubting the existing orthodoxy concerning the dating of the ring-fort.” Dates in question range from the Late Mesolithic to the Middle Ages. The work art depicting violent confrontations (Kelly 2007) do not appear to reflect the Mesolithic period in Ireland, as the bands actually settled along coastal areas where food (fish and fowl) was abundant. Unfortunately, lack of sufficient

36 archaeological information regarding the economy (Woodman

1978) hampers a better assessment of the context.

Mesolithic family groups in Ireland (or elsewhere) were bands in Service’s (1962) definition that did not have the social organization to develop a consistent system of food production to satisfy the needs of a group larger than the nuclear family. Their social structure was basically that of a father, mother and children where all members of age fished and collected food. Social relations with other groups were largely based on kinship and with members of neighboring groups. As these unsegmented groups do not have a territory or food resources to protect, their socio-economic evolutionary stage is largely confined to the satisfaction of their basic needs of food and shelter. Any alliance with other groups would necessarily be of short duration, and usually in response to interpersonal attacks that apparently were not uncommon (Roksandič 2004,

Radovanovič 2006, Orchiedt 2005). What Guilaine & Zammit (2005) seem to portray in their pictographs are precisely armed conflicts between two unsegmented rivals.

In their Mesolithic rock art no war machines or advanced weaponry are depicted.

The pictographs show anthropomorphic figures using only bows, , and . In

Ireland, although no pictographic art dating from the Mesolithic has been found so far, it can be safely inferred that conflict resolution between factions were no different than those portrayed by Guilaine & Zammit (2005).

Table 6 below shows that prehistoric cashels from the Neolithic have been found to have served primarily a domestic function. The morphology and size of the walls surrounding the structures, although occasionally serving as defensive measure against raiders, could not however present a firm obstacle to a well-armed attack. The

37 chronology of most of the enclosures described in Table 5 are from the Neolithic and later when Ireland was going through the transitional stage from hunter-gatherer

Mesolithic into the agro-pastoralism economic context, and the inhabitants had a new source of wealth to protect. However, no large base camps have been identified for that evolutionary stage of Irish society (Woodman 1986:13).

Given the early evolutionary stage of Irish society during the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition, violent conflicts between agro-pastoralists for the acquisition of domesticates was extremely unlikely, as the Mesolithic population had not actually embraced agro- pastoralism. Although cattle bones found in the Mesolithic site of Ferriter’s Cove

(, southeast Ireland) suggests evidence of some contact between Mesolithic and Neolithic populations (Woodman 2002: 239), there is no evidence that domesticates were a source of hostile activity between these groups, as depicted in ancient literature

(i.e. Cattle Raid of Cooley). After all, the Mesolithic population was not at an advanced social stage to be able to launch attacks against a more complex society such as the

Neolithic enclosures. Thus, it is highly unlikely that the accounts of battles later transcribed during the Middle Ages were portraying actual armed conflicts of Mesolithic hunters and Neolithic agro-pastoralists.

Tribes

The next conventional stage or category in the typology of social evolution of polities is the tribe. These groups, unlike family groups, are much larger as they may be composed of several bands related by kinship, as well as non-kin groups, who may have joined the joined the tribe for protection against other tribes, or against large and more powerful bands.

38

unsure w unsure

defense

function

Presumed

defensive

Ritual

defense domestic factory factory axe domestic domestic cattle/farmstead cattle/farmstead defensive cattle catle/defensive

Authors hether dwellings or farmstead farmstead farmstead farmstead

18 inches defensive

no data no

-

unknown

innermost

13 ft 13 base at 10ft 16

no data no data no data no data no data no data no unknown

3 ft. 3 ft 28

wall width wall

ft.

15 ft 15

Size

no data no

14 ft 14

no data no data no data no unknown unknown 12 Bank: data no

7 ft 7 ft 3 ft 20 30ft

walls walls

widely widely

spaced

bivallet, bivallet,

widely widely

spaced

bivallet, bivallet,

No. of walls wall height

univallet univallet univallet univallet univallet univallet data no univallet univallet univallet

trivallet 14ft is all w acres 11 covering vallet, tetra

univallet idely w with spaced external wall

100 ft 100

-

150 ft 150

200 ft 200

no data no

42 ft. 42

-

over

130 ft 130

no data no data no data no data no unknown unknown

20 averageunivallet ft, 32 ft 88 ft (inner 100 cashel) is system mt 130

60 ft ft 60 carea:seven acres

no data no

Estimated

Iron Age Iron

uncertain. uncertain.

Presumed Presumed

Chronology Ext. diameter

ENCLOSURES Neolithic Neolithic Neolithic Neolithic Neolithi Early Neolithic Neolithic

uncertain uncertain uncertain uncertain uncertain uncertain uncertain uncertain

Neolithic/Ear Neolithic/Ear medieval ly

Uncertain. Uncertain. Possibly iron late Age

Location Kerry

Co. Clare Co.

Co. Wicklow Co.

Aran Islands Aran

Co. Clare Co. Down Co. Antrim Co. Antrim Co. Sligo Co. Sligo Co. Down Co. Antrim Co. Meath Co. Kerry Co. Kerry Co. Co. Clare Co. Clare Co. Donegal Co. Longford Co.

Aran Islands Aran Islands Aran

circular

Circular Circular

Morphology

circular circular circular circular circular circular circular circular circular Circular Circular Circular Circular Circular Circular Circular circular circular

stone stone stone Stone Stone

earthw ork earthw

earthw ork earthw ork earthw ork earthw

Constr. Material Constr. earthwork earthwork ork stone/earthw Stone Stone Stone Stone Stone Stone stone stone

(*)

cashel

Cashel

Type Type

Ringfort/cash Ringfort Ringfort Ninetyfour (94) Ringfort/cas hels p.24 Fifty (50) Ringfort/cas p.25 hels Ringfort Ringfort Ringfort

cashel Cashel Cashel Cashel Cashel Cashel Cashel Cashel cashel cashel cashel/raths stone/earthw ork

Table 6 Table

1 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

2 3 5 6 7 8 9 20 21 4 Aerial view of archaeological evidence of structures according to Norman and St. Joseph (1969). Authors believe Bronze Age was peaceful and technological progress.

39

They also lack formal hierarchy, hereditary or elected, as well as a division of social classes. In many ways tribes are still egalitarian societies although more complex than bands. They also lack central authority, which suggests that decisions are arrived at by agreement not imposition from above. This does not mean the social conglomerate remains acephalous when the stability of the group is in danger. Members of the tribe

(elders or council) may elect temporary, non-hereditary leaders for the purpose of accomplishing a goal of general interest, be it the construction of a monument, staging a war or for defensive objectives.

Although tribes differ in many ways, according to their specific environmental situation (social and economic), some cross-cultural characteristics show some similarity (Keeley 1996:26). As social groups, tribes are more complex (or evolved) than prehistoric bands. They have the political capability, and the economic means, to summon and feed hundreds or even thousands of their members to either attack another tribe, or to defend themselves. Although tribes may be composed of thousands of people, the scale of war they could engage in will not be necessarily a long, large-scale conflict. An even more complex social organization, with vast means at its disposal in terms of manpower and economic resources, capable of planning in advance, would be in a better position to stage a war not just a raid.

In this case, craft specialization and some sort of division of labor, not necessarily by gender or age, perhaps a type of class division is necessary as, first, weapons have to be made in large scale by specialists, to provide the combatants with the means to fight, in addition to have access to food resources in quantities that is only possible in a society more complex than a conglomerate of diverse population with occasional common

40 interests. It seems that tribes, even as temporary social polities, represent a type of “local autonomy,” for tribes, according to Carneiro are also “multicommunity political units”

(Jones & Kautz 1982: 37) although they are not yet, in Carneiro’s terms (1982), a chiefdom. In this context it is reasonable to infer that in Ireland during prehistoric times, under certain circumstances, several bands may have come together, under the direction of a temporary elected leader, to defend themselves or to attack other bands for economic reasons (hunting or fishing grounds).

Yet it is difficult to accept that these groups had the capability to successfully assault a stone enclosure to obtain what they did not know how to manage, i.e. cattle, and its husbandry. Bands and tribes are still egalitarian societies, loosely assembled, that for years have been studied separately, until Service (1975: 303, 304) decided to combine both groups into a “segmental” stage (further subdividing them into subcategories), due to adaptive circumstances, heavily influenced by European intervention.

Generalizing this prehistoric Irish framework its approach would also hold true for all the tribal groups of the Americas. Otterbein (1994:36) in analyzing the meaning of warfare proposes, following Service’s (1962) framework, that the most socio-politically integrated society will defeat the lesser complex one. If this were the case, then wars fought in Europe during the 19th and 20th centuries (not to mention farther back in time) had no clear winners, and no social evolution took place, as the winner in one war became the loser in the next, and thus none of them remained “highly integrated.” As

Carneiro posits (Otterbein 1994:254), “when societies compete, and presumably also go to war, the best adapted one will succeed while the others fall.”

41

War in itself is not necessarily followed by socio-economic absorption or creation of a more complex society. In any event if in a given territory the social evolution to tribes did follow the pattern proposed by Service (1975), then it would suggest that in ancient

Ireland the social evolutionary process that began in the late Neolithic and Early Bronze

Age would have prompted the formation of regional tribes, however temporary. It is possible then that in an area relatively concentrated as Ireland newly formed tribes may perceived their situation, in the words of Carneiro (1970), as circumscribed. This, in turn, would have probably favored competition among tribes for resources. Whether this perceived circumscription triggered competition for resources resulted in warfare between tribes and, ultimately as Carneiro (1970) proposes, culminated in more evolved societies is part of this paper.

In ancient Ireland the construction of megaliths and during the Mesolithic-

Neolithic transition, still visible in the countryside, seems to suggest the idea of kin, non- kin, and sodality bands joining forces towards a communal interest in a tribal fashion, as suggested by Service (1975). This context suggests that the combined effort throughout time was indeed a task of common interest among bands of participants whether religious, ritualistic, or social. Although the construction of megaliths and cairns in

Ireland did require community organization and collaboration it did not, as some had suggested, require years of labor and many thousands of people (Waddell 1978:123), as

Ireland was not heavily populated during the Mesolithic or early Neolithic. This was perhaps more clearly depicted during the Middle to Late Neolithic when the clearing of land for cultivation and cattle grazing were of primary interest, and more than one pair of hands were needed and, more likely, even communal effort.

42

This communal effort could have also been assembled for defensive or offensive purposes. The anonymous saga The Cattle Raid of Cooley, that possibly took place in the

Late Neolithic, seems to reflect such idea of gathering support from some groups to take action against other groups, as part 3 of the saga states: “A mighty host was now assembled by the men of Connacht, that is, by Ailill and Medb, and they sent word to the three other provinces.” This passage seems to suggest that alliances of short duration for a particular purpose were not uncommon. In this case the goal of this temporary confederation was to steal a prized bull from its legitimate owner at a time when cattle rearing was becoming extremely important in the economy of the region as a source of food and wealth. This in turn seems to buttress Service’s (1975) idea of tribal composition with different bands, as well as of “multicommunity political units”

(Carneiro 1982 in Jones & Kautz 1982: 37)

The Annals of Clonmacnoise that supposedly describes the history of Ireland “from the earliest period to A.D. 1408,” mentions the great battle of Dalriada (a mythical kingdom that extended from northeast Ireland to west Scotland), where McFewer invaded Ireland with 60,000 men. It is doubtful that at such an early stage of the history Ireland or Scotland a tribal leader could have assembled such a large number of combatants, as neither polity was so populated. The same Annals describes a fourth habitation (prehistoric invasion) of

Ireland that of the Twany Dé Danann (the people of the goddess ) where “the Contry being thus conquered by Twany de Danann one Newae was theire first kinge and lost his

Arme in that greate Battle of Maytory” (sic, p. 17).

The Annals of Clonmacnoise (named after the monastery of the same name) describe innumerable battles that fall within the category of mythical encounters that Dillon

43

(1956) below, refers to as inventions. Yet the extensive network of stone structures dating from antiquity suggests otherwise. The stage of socio-political development of ancient Ireland, the Ireland described by these annals, still had not yet reached the chiefdom phase with a rather centralized and hereditary social structure. However, the

Annals mention many kings that ruled the country, or parts of it, throughout its account of Irish history.

In passing, The Annals also mention one “Heber the white was king of the south, and

Heremon king of the north.” Yet its description (p. 28) of these and other rulers fall more appropriately in the category of local chieftains in constant conflict with other local leaders. The Annals also mention other wars between chieftains in which the leaders, in this case Dwagh and Heremonn’s progeny, “gathered all theire forces together and Drew

Argedwar to soe narrow a plung that he was driven to goe to sea 7 years, during which time Eochy mcOillealla Finn was king” (sic, p. 38). These accounts seem to suggests that the social evolutionary phase of Ireland between, at least, the Late Neolithic and Bronze

Age were at the tribal level, where local chieftains were compelled to gather manpower from additional groups in order to fight other groups who were doing exactly the same.

Table 5 shows that from mythical, or legendary, instances through early medieval time battles for power and control between local chieftains were common. When, according to

Cambrensis (1187: 114, 115), the legendary Bartholanus, descendant from Japhet, the son of Noah, fought the Giants, ca. 300 years after the flood, for control of the island, as “his descendants are said to have already increased to the number of nine thousand men.” The

Giants, states Cambrensis (1187:78), came to Ireland from “the furthest parts of Africa.”

44

The low population level of the island and its extended distribution throughout the island prevented any one chieftain to count only with his own manpower launch an attack to other groups or defend his himself. Thus, assembling a group of allies by convincing others to join his forces was the only way to ensure the formation of a combating force.

Table 5 describes several battles that took place between the Neolithic and Early Middle ages (several thousand years apart) where the recruitment of allies was a necessary factor.

The best known of these encounters was the famous Battle of Clontarf where Brian

Boru, King of Leinster (Brian Borumha or Boroihme, in other texts), with the help of several tribes defeated the ‘foreigners’ (Danes) in Clontarf, near Dublin. In addition to the Book of Lecan (Adham Ó Cuirmín 1391 AD). This battle is also mentioned in several other ancient books (O'Donovan 1832; MacManus 1922; Todd 1861; Cudmore 1895;

Chronicum Scotorum 1866, translated by Hennessy, citing Ó Cléirigh et al. 1636 from the Annals of the Four Masters; Annals of Ulster (Hennessy 1887, an.), Annals of the

Four Masters vol. 6, (O’Donovan 1856, an.). In addition to glorifying the bravery of the hero, all accounts highlight the ability of the leaders to form alliances with other tribes to fight a common enemy. This suggests that social groups in ancient Ireland lacked the manpower, as well as social complexity to initiate hostile actions against others in their own right. The same is valid in other cases described in Table 5. For instance, in the battle of Carn Conaill fought between the chieftains Diamait and Guare of Aidne in the early Middle Ages (Stokes 1900, 11th century ms.), from The Book of Dun Cow or Lebor na. hUidre), in Zeitschrift für Celtische Philologie,vol. 3) referred to an incident where both protagonists mustered allies to fight each other because Guare of Aidne had stolen cows from Diamait’s mother.

45

This story is also referred to in the Annals of the Four Masters, p. 260-1, (an.) and the

Annals of Ulster (p. 109, an.). All three accounts highlight the recurrent pattern of forming alliances with other tribes to face a common, although temporary, enemy.

Perhaps the best known of this type of manpower gathering is the account in the Cattle

Raid of Cooley where Queen Medb of Connaught gathers an army in order to gain possession of the most famous bull in Ireland, which is the property of Daire, a chieftain of Ulster. Cattle and alliances, to either defend or obtain them, is a recurrent theme in ancient Ireland.

Although biologically and historically alliances are nothing new in the animal kingdom [Goodall (Wrangham 1986); Wrangham (1999:4], what is novel in ancient

Ireland is that, as so much has been put in writing hundreds, even thousands of years after the events described in those books took place. Moreover, the scribes never witnessed most of the battles they described. None of the battles chronicled actually developed into new social units with distinct boundaries. These were usually battles of short duration and for a very limited purpose, such as to gain possession of a bull (Cattle

Raid of Cooley), or to punish someone for stealing cows, as in the battle of Carn Conaill

(Annals of Tigernach, both by abbot Tigernach hua Braein). The scribes of both events do not describe the reasons for the battle but rather mention them in passing, as if the battle itself was not as important as the genealogy of the participants.

In other occasion describing the battle of Carn Conaill, Whitley Stokes (the translator), refers to the Four Masters’ description that “the battle was gained in the year 645 AD by

Diarmait, son of , over Guare, king of Aidne, a district in Connaught, and his

Munster allies” (Zeitschrift für celtische Philologie III p.14).

46

However, in other accounts The Cattle Raid of Cooley (from the Yellow Book of

Lecan) appears as a complete description of one of the most celebrated battles of ancient

Ireland, fought to take possession of a legendary bull, where the genealogy of the participants is as important as the event itself. Yet, in all cases there is no indication of territorial conquest or absorption of one social unit by another, at least not until well into the Middle Ages. In fact the accounts give great importance to individual allies rather than to the social group they lead or represent. It is a limited tribal approach to the conflicts.

Generally, tribes do not necessarily occupy a well-defined territory. The widely dispersed family stone structures in the Irish countryside suggests a concept of a loose and temporary confederation of bands and relations. These are groups originating from different parts of the country that may or may not harmonize in every aspect, i.e. defense or economic courses of action. This perhaps is the result of the lack of “tenured” chiefs, for unless there is an emergency that needs leadership the tribal group remains an acephalous cluster of unsegmented bands, as defined by Kelly (2007). This situation is clearly revealed in the account of the anonymous epic The Cattle Raid of Cooley (ca. 7th –

8th century AD). Unsegmented bands assembled under the temporary leadership of the

‘king’ of Ulster to protect a stud bull from a raid launched by other bands (tribes) under the leadership of ‘queen’ Medbe.

There is no archaeological or historical evidence of the evolutionary phase of the first colonizers of Ireland in ancient times, although oral history refers to family clans under a leader for protection from hostile groups. For example, there are accounts of early invasions to Ireland that included battles against mythical tribes such as the Tuatha Dé

47

Danann (The People of the Goddess Danann) fighting the native Firl Bolg, in the anonymous saga of the Lebor Gábala Érenn (ca. 8th – 11th century AD). The saga also mentions the history of the Children of Míl that “parallels the history of the Children of

Israel” (Dillon 1956). These accounts of ancient ‘history’ described in the Lebor Gábala

Érenn (ca. 8th – 11th century AD), and the Annals of Clonmacnoise (1896 translation of ancient manuscripts) is what Dillon (1956:70) refers to as “plainly an invention, a compilation of inventions made by a monk, and we can only ask what existing traditions he was trying to fit into a pattern.”

Thus, it seems tribal warfare in ancient Ireland for conquest or prestige were actually non- existent, although the sagas mention battles with thousands of combatants on either side. What is becoming clear is a context of skirmishes between tribal groups to recover or take posession of cattle, the new found wealth. Almost invariably depictions of hostile activities are genealogical information of participants emphasizing the nobility of the chieftains and their progeney, if they were also involved.

Chiefdoms (or proto-states)

It seems “chiefdom,” as a much more complex evolutionary stage than bands and tribes, has been difficult to define. Ancient, and more modern examples of these polities often share similar characteristics (our modern or ‘contemporary ancestors,’ according to

Service 1975). The emergence of a stable hereditary system of social classes with a marked division of labor not defined by gender or age, is one the characteristics of this newly evolved social organization. In other words chiefdoms, according to Service

(1975:16), “have centralized direction, hereditary hierarchical status arrangements with an aristocratic ethos,” and a theocratic orientation. Theocratic in the sense of a common

48 set of beliefs of the polity and, more importantly, the idea that the power of the elite has been bestowed by a supernatural being (or beings), with whom the leader communicate to reaffirm his status. But communication with supernatural forces, by itself, cannot guarantee neither the continuance of the power structure or the stability of the system.

The only variable that seems to bind both is the capacity for production that will result in a surplus of goods, especially foodstuffs, to feed the social group. In which case, the leader will be able to maintain the peace and assure the stability of the social system by distributing the surplus among his flock. In a chiefdom the main source of production of food is the land. Thus the perception that the ruler had the power of assuring good climatic conditions was an essential component of his ability to rule. In other words, the development and maintenance of the chieftainship through production of surplus, as

Sahlins proposed it, was a mutual relationship (Kirch (1995:161).

This is especially true when population increase without a commensurate increase in production puts the entire system, including the complete hierarchy, in jeopardy.

Environmental constraints, whether ecological or cultural, places an enormous stress on the entire system and threatens it with collapse. Several natural disasters and the cultural incapability of the ruler and his people to adapt to new conditions by changing their approach to land exploitation and population control may accelerate the inevitable.

The challenge for the entire social unit now is to increase production without further deteriorating the land by over-exploitation, or to resettle excess population to other areas.

As Oliver notes (Kirch 1955: 195) infanticide in some islands of the Polynesia, as repugnant as it may sound, was a means to control population growth to maintain a balance between the carrying capacity of the land and population levels. The lack of

49 sufficient land, plus population growth, develops into competition for scarce resources that may result in violent conflicts. However, as Kirch (1995: 195) points out, warfare per se cannot be “explained or understood from purely demographic or ecological perspectives.” Thus, if warfare in a small territorial chiefdom is not the result of competition for scarce resources, then it must part of the social psyche of the group,

“thoroughly ingrained in Polynesian concepts of society,” as Kirch puts it (p. 195).

The same can be safely said of other societies acting in similar environments of limited resources, such as in ancient Ireland. Both areas have limited agricultural capacity. Polynesia suffers from recurrent periods of drought, while Ireland suffers from recurrent rains and poor soil drainage. Both areas, although climatically different, are essentially limited in their carrying capacity exacerbated, perhaps, by population increase. The social psychic suggested by Kirch (1995:195) does not necessarily entail an inherited warrior or hostile mentality but rather that elements, other than scarcity of resources or excess population, enter the context. Ancient Ireland, as well as in

Polynesia, the desire for social prestige by the unit’s leader before his peers, or the need to obtain from other groups, what he thinks him and his group deserve.

The hierarchical structure of this evolved social group is also reflected in their burial customs. As bands and tribes did not have hereditary vertical organizations their burial sites are usually devoid of valuable artifacts, as no social status was being highlighted, and more than one individual is buried in the same anonymous grave. A completely different scenario is seen in the burial customs of more complex societies. The power of birthrights and status of chieftains is shown in their graves. In general, burial sites at this level of social evolution show individual graves, not communal tombs. Burial sites

50 attributed to chieftains and their families, across time and space, showing prestige goods buried with the individual strongly suggest the high status that person occupied in that society. This structure reveals that property relations and territorial rights had replaced the kin network relationship developed in earlier stages of social evolution (bands and tribes).

This transformation took place as kinship waned and property-territory waxed (Yoffee

2005). If the chiefdom involves a hereditary hierarchy then the question of accessing and maintain the high office becomes an important factor in the structure and stability of the polity (Steward 1979), even when the ecological factors influence the process. This is an important and recurrent factor even when the social layers have been established, and sanctioned by the group. Contrary to Service (1972:152), there is no “complete stability in a society of hereditary succession in a chiefdom of relatively closed resources and a population balanced with respect to them.” If so, complete stability would mean a social group without members ever striving for status, power and privileges, a complete socio- political stasis. The search for new forms of leadership when the leader is perceived as failing, when he is mostly needed due to natural disasters, is a constant reminder that social organizations are not static and the equilibrium of their structures are always subject to adaptation, especially when the environmental circumstances influence decisions made by members of the community.

Steward (1979: 173) is more adamant when he states, matter-of-factly that “the ecological adaptations determine the main structure of the societies.” In his view the structure of the Haida society of the northwestern coast was possible due to the ample supply of marine fauna that the resulting hereditary nobility distributed periodically to

51 their rivals in competitive feasts called potlatch. (p. 175). The Sekani tribe, east of the

Carrier territory, also in the northwest but inland, could not evolve into a similar system of hereditary nobility and distribution of goods for lack of production surplus (p. 176).

The Sekani group unlike ancient Ireland was limited and, in the words of Carneiro

(1988), environmentally circumscribed. It seems agro-pastoralism in Ireland gave scattered social groups a degree of independence unknown to the Northwestern groups.

The maintenance of the system itself is then the product of environmental and ecological conditions that, as Steward (1979) posits, determined the evolution of societies, as well as their stability.

Regarding the socio-political context, Service (1972: 303) posits that in a given society the transition from chiefdom to a more complex stage (i.e. primitive state) is characteristically a violent one. That is, internal social forces competing for power are involved in a violent struggle to gain access to the structure as a legitimate station. In this regard, Sahlins (1981:113) seems to be right when he states “usurpation itself is the principle of legitimacy.” That is, competition to seize power is a natural process in social evolution not the necessary result of territorial or resource circumscription, as Carneiro

(1970) posits, that can only be elucidated or solved by invading other polities.

In other words, the evolutionary process, in itself, is an internal developmental process that challenges Carneiro’s (1970) theory of social evolution by conquest via external forces. But, throughout history not all social violence has been an internal matter nor has it resulted in a more complex society. For instance, as recent as 1928 and 1932, Polynesian tribes were still reported to be in a continuous warfare whose “causes of functions” still cannot not be understood, as Kirch (1996) posits, merely in terms of birth-

52 mortality rates or climatic variables. This demographic-ecological correlation context directly challenges Carneiro’s (1970) theoretical approach of external warfare as a determinant of social evolution. Thus it seems warfare, in itself, is not the necessary factor (non-determinant) in the evolutionary process of a society. The evolutionary process could also be the result of an internal process that although violent, is not externally provoked.

This internally-developed evolutionary process could also be applied to Ireland during its prehistoric stage, even into the Middle Ages, when competition for resources (namely cattle) was at the center of the conflict. Sahlins’s (1981) observation on the legitimacy of the usurpation of power in Polynesia, resembles the cattle acquisition by any means that was also the accepted principle in ancient Ireland. Even as prehistoric Ireland had not reached the more complex chiefdom level, violent seizure of cattle from their rightful owners was a common occurrence.

Quarreling pastoralists in today’s Africa basically sharing the same level of social complexity, have been at odds (and at war) with each other for centuries (Leff 2009). Yet, these groups have retained the same egalitarian structure as prehistoric Irish groups, and had not, per se, evolved into more complex social organizations. In fact any social and political evolution these societies experienced began with the colonial period.

Now, after the colonial powers entered the picture, conquered societies show a socio- economic dichotomy between the newly created urban areas and their rural counterparts that Carneiro (1970) does not easily explain. Under the new order the rural areas maintain their peripheral and circumscribed status. In other words the rural regions, the circumscribed areas in Carneiro’s argument, have retained a less complex structure. The

53 same was true for ancient Ireland until the British invaded the island and imposed a legal system, as well as established private property rights, succession rights and obligations.

The Irish, for millennia being mainly a pastoralist society, had developed a system of property rights protection (cattle protection) by building stone enclosures used also as defensive sites against cattle rustling. The building material used in their circular enclosures was mainly stone, the most abundant construction material. Their African counterparts, in contrast, not only lacked construction materials to protect their livestock, but they also have the climatic disadvantage of recurrent droughts that forced them to a continuous migration in search of pastures and water. In doing so, they invariably came in conflict with other social groups in search of the same scarce resources.

Carneiro’s (1970:734) position is that opposing factions fight in areas “of circumscribed, agricultural land,” where warring factions feel constraint due to the disadvantageous ecological environment they live in, as well as pressured by population increase (the opposite context to ancient Ireland). If this holds true then it poses the unsustainable argument that for several millennia land had been so scarce everywhere, and population grew so rapidly in all places, that the solution was not to search for inexistent new land to cultivate, or to develop new , to increase production but to attack areas already under cultivation, however primitive the means of production utilized.

Presumably in this case, ancient Mesolithic family bands observed the battles from afar, while already well-established farmers defended themselves from successive hostile

“waves of advance” (Ammerman & Cavalli-Sforza 1984) of potential farmers in search of land to cultivate. What kind of future awaits the defeated party in areas so

54 circumscribed? The defeated party would then be faced with a very grim future, either complete social replacement (extermination) by the attacking hordes, as posited by

Keeley (1996), or complete political subordination to the victor (Carneiro 1970) creating, at each stage of the conquest, a new more complex polity with different social classes (the conquered factions always at the bottom).

Moreover, Carneiro (1970: 736) analyzing other circumscribed areas in several parts of the world (Valley of Mexico, Mesopotamia, Nile Valley, etc.), utilizes the evolutionary approach to explain degrees of social complexity arguing, in a seemingly linear evolutionary trajectory, that “autonomous Neolithic villages were succeeded by chiefdom, chiefdoms by kingdoms, and kingdoms by empires”, all stages neatly packaged sequentially. This context does not explain the process or evolutionary mechanism followed by less complex, preceding bands already in the social evolutionary process, such as the victors were at one time.

As social groups gain in complexity, violence against other groups requires a vertical organizational structure with the capability to make decisions on behalf of the group that the rest of the members follows. This complexity includes the development of a non- productive sector of society (i.e. soldiers, priests or shamans) and the ability by its powerful elite to “mobilize and direct a "surplus" extracted from the commoner producers” (Earle 2000:71).

In other words, the chiefdom elite exercise a tight control over labor and its product. But this control cannot be free of mutual obligations from the elite, as the “surplus” is redistributed to the commoners who have produced the surplus, otherwise the relationship would be one of masters and slaves. Thus the elite-commoner interaction is reciprocal.

55

Because of the control over the redistribution of surplus exercised by the elite, property rights are now social rights, not individual rights; they would necessarily include “access to land and productive resources” (Earle 2000:72).

Equally important is the idea that in order for the elite to distribute resources in a vertically structured chiefdom, commoners must be able to produce goods in great quantities to satisfy the needs of the entire society, as well as to have enough surplus to cope not only with ecological disasters but to allow the hierarchy to respond to external threats. Basically, food surplus is the reason the chiefdom elite can keep society functioning.

Chiefdoms in ancient Ireland

Although a chiefdom may not necessarily require a delimited ecological area, it does need a certain territory where the inhabitants are able to make use of the land to produce needed food to be redistributed. Ancient Ireland, including the Middle Ages, was composed of independent, self-sufficient, family units scattered over the countryside. The anonymous Ulster epic dating from the 15th century AD) titled The Cattle Raid of Cooley

(Táin Bó Cúalnge, in Gaelic) gives a glimpse of the lack of a structured vertical hierarchy.

In Chapter Three of the saga, “queen” Medba plans to steal the stud Brown Bull from

Daire, a chieftain of Ulster, but she cannot do it with the limited number of fighting men at her disposal. The saga then reads: “A mighty host was now assembled by the men of

Connacht, that is, by Ailill and Medb, and they sent word to the three other provinces.” In other words, as the “queen” did not have a standing army at her disposal to fight another chieftain her solution was to create an alliance with neighboring groups to face the forces of Ulster and take possession of the bull. In this case two heroes, allies of

56 their respective chieftains but unrelated by blood represented each side of the feud, finally fought the battle where one of the heroes died in the encounter.

To be able to form an alliance with other unrelated groups is one socio-political characteristic of leadership in a chiefdom, an attribute of leadership by the upper echelons. Although small family bands may assemble together to protect themselves from a hostile group, the difference is that in a chiefdom alliances are formed with unrelated, non-kin groups. Ancient Ireland, up to the Middle Ages, consisted of scattered, self-sufficient, independent family units without a visible, all-encompassing hierarchy, as would be the case in a chiefdom. This in spite of ancient sagas describing numerous chieftains and their genealogical succession.

One of the characteristics of a more evolved social group, i.e. chiefdom, is a general distinction in the sites of individuals of higher status and the rest of the group, as well as the type of artifacts buried with the owner. However, in the Bronze Age in Ireland there is no evidence of social distinction in the burial sites or rites performed. Moreover, states ApSimon (1969:53), “All groups used chambered tombs for burial or other purposes on occasion” (emphasis added). It is unknown who actually built the chambered “tombs” or for what purpose. In other words these stone structures, in addition to have served as tombs, could have been used as territorial markers, as well as sites of worship by bands, not necessarily as gravesites for the elite of an evolving social polity.

Families resided in circular enclosures also built of stone that, although located not too far apart from each other, show a lack of a central elite with power over their labor to collect resources for redistribution. Although there are many some clearly defined hillforts that suggest “large scale communal developments”, the vast majority of the

57 enclosures are small ringforts (cashels) suggesting private, independent structures equivalent to medieval moated-manor farms (Limbert 1996: 248). Yet, there is no indication that this settlement pattern implies a possible vertical social complex that could control labor or production, much less how it was redistributed. Farming tracts are rather small suggesting family oriented cultivation model. Limbert (1996: 248) goes even further suggesting that ringforts “do not fall within a single functional, economic, or social settlement class.” In other words, ancient Irish settlements did not follow any known pattern. Moreover, their economy was oriented more to pastoralism than agriculture. Their “haphazard methods of tillage and diminishing returns” with strong emphasis on raising cattle with “a regime favouring the growth of oats, which left the stubble free for the manuring stock.”

Thus, the ancient Irish agricultural system “permitted a scheme of continuous cropping on the same arable patch,” presumably for generations (McCourt 1955: 371, emphasis added). Thus, this agricultural system of small family plots, encircled in stone structures, did not lend itself to the formation or development of a more complex and structured socio-political system.

This cloister-type of settlement system by independent agro-pastoral families, in itself, does not encourage a continuous interaction among settlers, much less the development of a social unit that could represent all settlers of the area. In this case, Carneiro’s (1970) approach of social evolution through conquest perhaps would have resulted in a more advanced stage of social development. However, it was not until well into the Middle

Ages that the population of Ireland markedly increased making alliances among social groups possible.

58

But perhaps one of the most important factors, as mentioned above, was that ancient were not designed as protective walls but as boundaries for ceremonial purposes associated with seasonal festivals related to harvest and subsequent games in honor of divinities and production, and also “may have had to do with burials”. After all, ancient Irish ‘kings,’ around 300 during the Iron Age, were elected local chieftains ruling over tribal areas, who could lose their positions and lives if they displeased their communities (Hicks 2011: 40, 42).

Moreover, the configuration of their places of abode, as shown in Tables 4 and 6, in addition to having been built for domestic purpose, their solid construction allowed them also to be used as small, private, defensive structures against marauders, not well-armed warriors. Additionally, adjacent cultivated land followed a distinctive family pattern of exploitation that did not lend itself to surplus that could ultimately serve as tribute, or for the purpose of redistribution by a leader. Moreover, there is no historical (oral or written), or ethnographic evidence, that families in ancient Ireland had integrated into lineages or clans, as Service (1975: 306) had suggested. Although due to the physical proximity of cashels, ringforts, hillforts and raths, this harmonization most likely would have occurred at a small scale, namely to exchange spouses. Given the limited size of the island, this scenario of family associations, in turn, would have inevitably developed into a network of social relations and interactions for centuries, not necessarily under the leadership of a small group or one leader.

Figures 1 and 2 show the general display of family cashels and their respective cultivation fields. The rather small size of ancient crop marks surrounding their respective cashels and the separation from other similar cashels geographically located at

59 the extreme east and west of the island tend to affirm the lack of proximity among the settlements. In other words, it seems these geographical gaps or separateness between family enclosures prevented the development of a sense of community that, in turn, made very difficult for these independent units to evolve into structured social polities.

Settlement and agricultural pattern

In prehistoric Ireland property rights were basically social rights or communal rights not private property rights, as the land under cultivation was neither fertile nor abundant, due to climatic (very rainy) and geological (poor drainage) conditions, to sustain a population greater than a nuclear family. However, during the Late Neolithic and Early Bronze Age the adoption of the “secondary products revolution” (exploitation of milk, bones, hides, and using cattle as tract animals) by agro-pastoralists changed the relations of production among the population. Very briefly it must be indicated that these changes triggered a major reorganization not only of the settlement pattern in

European prehistory, as proposed by Sherratt (Thomas 1987: 405), that also included

Ireland, but also realigned social interaction in a country with spread-out, self-sufficient, independent family units. Thus, the major concern of small agro-pastoral families would not have been warfare launched against them by external forces, but to defend their limited number of livestock, as suggested by the small size and configuration of the stone structures.

The cultivation system (land size and technology) also did not allow the production of surplus that could be used by an elite (if it existed) to feed a non-productive segment of society to launch an attack, but enough yield to sustain a family. As indicated above the figures below show the type and size of some pre-historic enclosures and adjacent plots.

60

th This settlement pattern persisted throughout the Middle Ages and into the late 18 century. The cultivated land was known as the infield-outfield system where the “infield” or crofting ground “had been perpetually tilled for ages and had received all the manure of the farm.” (McCourt 1955: 369).

The higher level of social complexity of chiefdoms, suggested by Service (1962:133), with centers of economic distribution, and “coordination of religious activities” could not, and did not, actually take place in Ireland. Rather, family bands themselves implemented these tasks without the direction of a central authority. If so, then how did the Neolithic-Bronze Age-Iron Age Irish society evolve, or became more complex, to the point of becoming the subject of so many warring oral traditions where kings fought other kings, and queens?

Fig. 3 Fig. 3a

Ancient crop marks in Rathangan Ancient cashel & crop marks Co. Kildare. Norman & St. John (1969:64) in Corrofin, Co. Clare. Norman and St. John (1969:61)

The size and interior display of the enclosures also suggest that they were used principally as protection for livestock that, as indicated above, had increased its utility and value with the secondary production. If there were a motive for external forces to attack a settlement it would have been to gain possession of livestock, not to conquest

61 land that may or may not have ended in the disruption of the extant social order and creating a new one more complex. At the same time, as pastoralism of small herds requires the attention of all members of the family unit, it would have been extremely taxing for the household to engage in any other unrelated activity. Unlike the fierce and violent competition schemes Kirch (1996:194) describes for the ancestral Polynesian tribes, in Ireland there was no competition for land or resources but widespread cattle thievery.

Yet in other parts of the world chiefdoms (or pre-states societies) were believed to have built protective walls enclosing the settlement similar in shape to cashels, if not in size. Not all walls built in the ancient world had a defensive purpose, as the case of biblical Jericho, to be discussed later, suggests.

Alternatively, it is argued that warfare began with the development of agriculture, as population increased considerably and farm land became scarce. Carneiro (1970: 734) argues that warring factions fought in areas “of circumscribed, agricultural land.” If this is true, then it means that for over 12,000 years land had been so scarce (?), and population grew so rapidly everywhere, that the solution was not to search for widely available land but to attack areas already under cultivation, while Mesolithic hunters and gatherers, presumably, observed the battles from afar, as established farmers defended themselves from potential future farmers in search of land. Conversely in Ireland, during the Neolithic through the Iron Age, land was anything but scarce and yet oral tradition transcribed in the early Middle Ages describe in great detail battles between chieftains for the control of territories.

62

Social Evolution in Ancient Ireland

An important factor in the ancient Irish landscape is the lack of strong features showing a steady evolution towards an agricultural landscape, the way it appeared in the

Scandinavian model. For instance, according to Bradley (2007), there are few indications of a recurrent contact with more socially advanced groups from the east (Britain and continental Europe) or south (Iberia and France) from where a variety of agro products could have arrived to Mesolithic-Neolithic Ireland. Group mobility was still an important , as no extensive agricultural activity was the norm, and no known cemeteries from that period have been found. The earliest evidence of the use of an ancient plow () occurred between 3,500 and 3250 BC in both, England and Ireland, according to Sherratt

(Bradley 2007: 32), close to the beginning of the Irish Bronze Age.

However, domesticates in Ireland, states Bradley (2007: 34), were already established during the Neolithic (cattle, sheep, pigs, and goats) that, as a new source of wealth, needed to be protected even in a less complex society. Nonetheless, the invention of tools (plows) or the development of pastoralism in Ireland or elsewhere, did not per se imply evidence of Neolithization, but a new system of social relations (Thomas 1991:13) developing Europe that in Ireland included the establishment and spreading of kin networks.

There are some material indications in the archaeological remains that substantiate the emergence of a different social organization might have begun to during the Late Bronze

Age (4000 BC), as shown by fortified hillforts, according to Needham &

(Bradley (2007), and agricultural surplus due to the utilization of cattle dung as fertilizer

(Bradley 2007). Nevertheless, it is not clear that a more complex social organization,

63 such as chiefdoms, actually developed uniting under a “king” or chieftain of the mythical status of (son of Nessa) ‘king” of Ulster, one of the 300 chieftains who, according to the Ulster Cycle, battled queen Medba. Thompson (Bradley (2007:

246), offers a possible explanation for a novel social organization in Caesar’s account regarding the early German tribes where, instead of being under the domination of a social elite (similar to the hereditary chiefdoms), all important decisions including warfare and land exploitation were made by community consensus.

Moreover, Thompson posits, access to agricultural land varied each year to reduce the difference of wealth among members of the group. At the same time Bradley (2007) acknowledges that there is no evidence of similarity between the Germanic social organization and the contexts in Britain or Ireland. Nevertheless, Bogucki (Price 2000), argues that most enclosed settlements of early farmers in North-Central Europe were defensive in character but offers no indication of an organized social body to respond to an attack, or the reason for it.

Presumably, cashels in Ireland would fall within this group of enclosures having a narrow defensive purpose. There is no evidence of a hierarchical organization, integrated by agro-pastoralists that could have responded to a violent raid at any time before medieval times. The only evidence, if it could bear that title, are the mythical accounts from the Middle Ages. If one of the characteristics of chiefdoms is the power to redistribute resources (i.e. food) by an elite, in exchange of support by the commoners then Ireland would not have corresponded to the model for, as Woodman (2000:253) has argued “immigrant groups of farmers could have settled in areas where preexisting

64 exchange systems had already established connections” since the Neolithic, making the evolution to chiefdom disputable (emphasis added).

In fact, due to the short oceanic distance between Britain and Ulster (Northern Ireland), it is accepted that immigrant groups from Britain appeared in Ireland during the Late

Bronze Age, bringing with them new ideas of metal-working, as Ireland had gold and copper. However, the status differential does not show in graves (ApSimon 1969).

Moreover, it seems that family raths and cashels, beginning in the Neolithic, became more necessary during the Bronze Age with the increase in livestock and agriculture, to protect their livelihood (Proudfoot 1970), which suggests was the basis for the anonymous oral account of the Cattle Raid of Cooley. Both types of enclosures, states Proudfoot, strongly suggest a “whole pattern of development of rural settlement in northern and western

Europe in the Late Bronze and Early Iron Ages.” ‘Multi-ramparted raths’ from the Iron

Age suggests a clear distinction, for the first time, of class differentiation “based on tribal organization,” as well as the “acquisition of wealth and prestige, a development which surely occurred first in the latter part of the Late Bronze Age and into the Early Iron Age when an intensive economy was first introduced on a large scale,” that included metal working (jewelry, decorative weapons), and agro-pastoralism). Thus, according to Binchy

(Proudfoot 1970:44), the family rath-cashel (or farmstead) fits well “into the picture of a

'tribal, rural, hierarchical, and familiar' society.”

This picture clearly indicates that “organized violence” of the type found in ancient

Irish sagas were more the result of economic pressure than of conquest of limited available territory for political reasons. Warfare for conquest and control of populations only began to occur during the Middle Ages. In other words, Analyzing Proudfoot’s

65

(1970) argument, as well as others above, it could be inferred that up to the Bronze

Age (ca. 2000 BC) and the transition to the Iron Age, there was no Irish polity but a conglomerate of diverse groups dispersed throughout the landscape without a visible vertical structure.

THE STATE

In General

Service (1975) relates the concept of state to the acquisition and employment of force, actual or implied, backed by a systemic legal code. In other words, the state represents the transition of a society from and egalitarian and distributive chiefdom to a system where force is not only a tool but also legal system sanctioned by the structures. This concept appears to imply a brutal society where decisions are imposed by force, not consensus. It would seem Service (1975) agrees with Hobbes (1651: ch.13) in that man’s life has always been “solitary, poore, nasty, brutish, and short” (sic), that needs a strong socio-political structure to make it sustainable. But Hobbes (1651: ch. XIX) also states that men who live in liberty, as the Irish people lived for millennia, “may if they please, give Authority to One Man, to represent them” (emphasis added), that in this case it would be the state. For, if that were the case it would mean, as Hobbes (1651: XIII) suggests, anarchy is the usual state of affairs in a society composed of men with absolute liberty, where peace is the brief stage between wars that needs, presumably, strong tyrants at the helm.

Yoffee (2005: 2) rejects the idea that earlier states were all ruled by despots and tyrants who controlled by force the production and distribution of goods. Yet it seems he contradict himself when he proclaims “I depict an evolutionary process in which social

66 roles were transformed into relations of power and domination.” Power by a few and subjugation by the rest (Yoffee 2005:3, emphasis added). McIntosh (1999:1), in studying the African states, introduces the notion of states as social units with vertical and horizontal array of “ritual associations, and particular notions of ritual power and leadership” (emphasis added). Johnson & Earle (2000:34) posit that states develop from

“formerly fragmented local groups,” which depending on the level of complexity developed became either chiefdoms or state (or regional polity). It seems that Johnson &

Earle adopt a social deterministic approach whereby social units, as they become more complex, necessarily end up becoming one or the other.

Interestingly enough, Johnson & Earle refer to chiefdom as an abstraction for societies that are “still evolving” from the Big Man stage and may become a state (Johnson & Earle

(2000: 245). This would mean that once society becomes a state it reaches the pinnacle of complexity, whether monarchy or republic. In the evolutionary process from a rather low- complexity unit (such as chiefdom) to state, Service (1975:270) seems to partially agree with Carneiro (1970), who suggests that armed conflict (including war-making) “has been closely associated with the evolution of government.” However, Service (1975) is not referring to external warfare against a social unit that would result in a more complex developed society but to the internal conflict within a society, a subject that bears some similarity with Hobbes’ (1651) vision of society. Johnson & Earle (2000:304, 305) not only acknowledge the internal conflict argument but also agree that “states are born out of conflict and domination.” The religious institutions are specialized, not only to be in harmony with the other world but also to “sanctify state rule.” That is, force and the threat of using it, is legitimized by the religious establishment, as well as

67 the legal convention of society itself. As Service (1962:163) puts is “the consistent threat of force by a body of persons legitimately constituted to use it.”

Prehistoric Ireland

For thousands of years Ireland was a dispersed conglomerate of tribal groups.

Nevertheless, to explain a past that was part of an extensive oral tradition “historians concocted a list of prehistoric kings if Ireland, and added a similar tract for the Christian period entitled ‘De Flaithiusaib Ėrenn’ (On the rulers of Ireland); this they appended to the Lebor Gabála vellum to produce an epic narrative comparable to that of the great empires of antiquity” (Ó'Cróinín 2005:185). Hicks (2011: 40) goes even further stating that “[S]ome stories are clearly mythological, others are pseudohistory medieval invention - and it isn't always easy to tell them apart.” What is clear from the thousands of scattered stone enclosures, hillforts, and raths is that there are no sites suggesting a pattern of unified social polities. So the question is, what separates or differs the social landscape of ancient Ireland from other regions, i.e. France, Britain, that prevented, or was not encouraging, for the formation of unified social units?

Charles-Edwards (2005: lxxviii) suggests that the colonization pattern of Ireland, according to the Auraicept na nÉces (Scholar’s Primer), was one of the main causes if not the determinant reason, for the lack of a sense of social identification, “the Irish were not one race but were of varied descent only unified by their language.” At the same time the author argues that the inhabitants of prehistoric Ireland already had “a national sense of identity” stemming from the Iron Age and strengthened by . Yet, the historical and archaeological evidence point precisely to a lack of social unity and a dispersal pattern of habitation.

68

In other words the Irish, or the inhabitants of Ireland, did not share a common ancestry, history or values. However, if this were the case, what external factors came into play that allowed them to share a common language (Gaelic)? Was, perhaps, the exchange of spouses so common and extensive that they all ended up speaking the same tongue?

Moreover, this dispersal pattern that precluded the formation of towns or villages also prevented “the tendency towards amalgamation and centralization” that took place in the rest of Europe (Andrews 2005:7).

Thus, from the beginning there was no opportunity to evolve even into a clear type of chiefdom, although there were many local tribal leaders who could have gathered followers. But none of the chiefs were powerful enough to unify and organize the nuclear social units into one structured system. Additionally Andrews (2005: 11) also argues that the population of Ireland possessed “no centrally placed and fertile river basin to provide focus for national self-consciousness and a nucleus of geopolitical consolidation.” Plates below show how this dispersal pattern was a common feature including the Caherconnell cashel, where I participated in the excavation. Remains of other structures are also visible. At first sight the distance between structures suggests self-sufficient, independent family units.

69

Fig 4 Fig 4a

Aerial view of Caherconnell cashel and remains of other Stone houses and cashel in circular structures (Googleearth) Ballynavenoorgh, , southwest - Ó Cróinín 2005: plate 10

Fig. 5 Fig. 5a

Promontory Fort: Dubh Cathair, Inshmore O’Boyles Fort, Lough Doon, Co. Donegal, N.E. Aran (west). (Norman & St. Joseph 1969: 79) (Norman & St. Joseph 1969: 83)

The wide dispersal of cashels and ringforts throughout time and , from the southeast, northeast, and the south west of Ireland strongly favors the interpretation of independent and self-sufficient inhabitants, not given to give up their way of life to constitute a large polity. Their way of life most certainly excluded the possibility of accepting a hierarchy composed of individuals who were not members of their traditional

70 set of connections, kin and kith, which had operated for millennia. There is no evidence of a shared common ancestry, nor is there any indication or evidence that these different groups assembled to discuss and exchanged ideas regarding their social organization or their economic perspective. However the configuration, size and material used in the construction of their cashels and ringforts throughout Ireland are so similar that it strongly suggests, at least, some ancestral and common cultural system.

Edwards (Ó'Cróinín 2005) agrees with the interpretation of a historical diffusion as she argues that the settlement pattern in ancient Ireland, including early medieval time was “entirely dispersed and rural.” Moreover, Charles Gibson (1871:14) in his study of the Irish chieftains, as they relate to the Anglo-Norman knights, argues if England

‘deserved’ a strong ruler such as William The Conqueror, “The necessity was even greater in Ireland in 1170, since “this nation has been falling into a state of political reprobation. Each province set up itself, the monarchy grew indifferent, and the monarch hateful to the majority of the chieftains.” In other words while western Europe was in the process of steadily becoming complex polities, Ireland was still inhabited by small, tightly knitted, tribes dispersed throughout the island, and ruled by chieftains even after the Anglo-Norman invasion of 1169. Soon after, the country became part of the complex, and incipient, British Empire where British laws and political organization were violently imposed from outside for approximately 700 years.

This situation seems to follow the theory of social evolution proposed by Carneiro

(1970) where a less evolved social group, in this case band or tribal Ireland, may be ready to take the next evolutionary step towards a more structured society. But, with such sparse and limited population it was difficult to unite the groups while, on the other the

71 new colonists built roads and bridges to connect with other colonists settlements leaving the native population basically in the same condition as before the invasion (Andrews

2005: 13). This also affected the future of Ireland for centuries as cashels and ringforts proved to be unfit for nucleation and the subsequent formation of towns. The houses of the colonists (invaders) were larger and easily adapted “with comparatively little modification to the needs of post-medieval society” (Andrews 2005: 13). In other words,

Carneiro’s (1970) theory of social evolution by force could not actually be applicable to ancient Ireland.

Although on the surface the country may have seemed state-like, stratified, with a legal system and organized power, in reality it was a colony dependent on foreign rule in the long run. Finally, after numerous rebellions extending from the Middle-Ages to the beginning of the 20th century, in 1922 Ireland became a free state as the Republic Of

Ireland. Although the violent process of becoming a complex society might seem to fit

Carneiro’s model, in reality the forces of change and political complexity came from inside the Irish society itself. Nevertheless, Ireland became a complex state ca. 800 years after it was conquered by a foreign power. However, it should be noted that violent conflicts in Ireland, throughout its history were not the exclusive result of dispersed groups vying to become one complex polity. While chieftains fought each other for the control of territories, small bands of pastoralists attacked other pastoralists to steal their cattle, as an accepted way of acquiring livestock.

72

CHAPTER V

Building Protective Structures

Rainy, oceanic climate areas with abundant natural pastures, such as Ireland, are not the only geographic regions where violence for agro-pastoral resources among settlers has taken place. The desert, or semi arid geography, that was part of the ancient environment of the Middle East also gave life to agriculture, food production, and cities.

Food production allowed population growth (or was it the reverse?) that, in turn, may have inclined other less fortunate groups to attack others to obtain stored surpluses and feed their own populations. Defensive walls surrounding the settlements, known in

Ireland as cashels and ringforts, were constructed to protect its occupants, but it is unclear, from Carneiro’s and Otterbein’s points of view, whether ancient armed conflicts and site occupations actually promoted the sociopolitical evolution or complexity of the defeated groups. Moreover, Otterbein (2000:2) wrongly attributes to Keeley (1996:11) the conclusion that ancient wars were “desultory, ineffective, unprofessional, and unserious.” In fact Keeley was referring to the conclusions arrived at by Wright (1942) and Turney-High (1949) regarding this subject.

If ancient societies were rather frequently at war with each other, or at least involved in violent conflict, for social restructuring (Carneiro 1970), social substitutability

(Keeley 1996), or just protecting themselves, and their resources, in case of external attacks, then the logical path would have been to build forts (Yoffee 2005), or at least some kind of protective walls.

73

For the invader, in order to obtain by force what they believe to be rightfully theirs, entitled to, or deserve, had to be prepared to stage a , sometimes prolonged, if the settlement was enclosed by defensive walls. To successfully conquer the polity under siege the attacker must have enough food and provisions, otherwise the attack would be a very short raid (Turney-High 1949). In ancient times that would have been extremely difficult from the logistics point of view. In Neolithic Ireland, for instance, the stone enclosures (cashels) protecting the homesteaders and their stock would have been able to successfully repel an attack by another group of agro-pastoral raiders. As the enclosures were made of solid stones, and encircled living quarters, they were independent, self- sustaining units. Thus it would have taken more than just a small band of neighboring fellow pastoralists to overrun a cashel. Enclosures were made of stone not to protect occupants from external attacks per se, but because stone was, and still is, the cheapest and most abundant construction material. Cashels were originally built as homesteads to keep livestock inside it premises. Other walls in the ancient world were also built for purposes other than protection against invaders.

The Walls of Jericho

Not all walls surrounding ancient settlements were designed to protect people from external attacks. The case of the wall of Jericho has been cited in numerous works to demonstrate that, as Kelly (1996) argues, the ancient past was anything but peaceful.

According to Biblical accounts the trumpets of Joshua’s priests made the defensive walls fall allowing the Israelites to take the city by violent means (Joshua: 6).

Successive excavations in the area of Tell es-Sultan (Jordan Valley) have not uncovered the remains of the Biblical walls. However, Bar-Yosef (1986:157) offers an

74 alternative theory to the Biblical account. According to his version “a series of Early

Bronze, and Middle Bronze-Age walls, as well as an impressive have been uncovered and studied in detail.” The city of Jericho was originally a Natufian culture settlement, later settled by an old agricultural community 14C dated between

9200-8350 B.C.

The site of Jericho, known as PPNA (Pre-Pottery Neolithic A), was prone to “severe flooding in Wadi el-Mafjar.” Thus the walls, which covered approximately 2.4 hectares, actually were built to protect the settlement from alluviation resulting from flooding, not from external attacks. If this interpretation is correct, the sounds of the trumpets were actually the sounds of thunder during the heavy rains that made the walls collapse.

As such, there is no archaeological evidence that Jericho was actually conquered by external forces that, in turn, would have resulted in annexation and subsequent development in a more complex, perhaps stratified, farming community. Many authors mention that in ancient times systems were developed to protect inhabitants from invaders, although it is unclear whether the invaders launched a warfare that turned the defeated party or parties into a more evolved or complex societies.

Moreover, Bar-Yosef states that the archaeological evidence indicates the walls of

Jericho were built in stages, and repaired several times, “as a defense system against floods and mudflows,” not warfare. In fact Kirkbridge (Bar-Yosef 1986), states that she found a staircase built outside the wall. If the purpose of the wall was to protect inhabitants from external attacks, why build an easy passage to the interior?

It is argued that warfare began with the development of agriculture, as population had grown considerably and farming land became scarce and insufficient to feed an ever

75 growing population. Carneiro (1970: 734) argues that warring factions fought in areas “of circumscribed, agricultural land.” If this is true, then it means that for over 12,000 years land had been so scarce (?), and population grew so rapidly everywhere, that the solution was not to search for widely available land but to attack areas already under cultivation, while Mesolithic hunters and gatherers, presumably, observed the battles from afar, while established farmers defended themselves from other potential farmers in search of land.

Protective Structures in Ireland

As pointed out in the Introduction, Ireland is covered with circular stone structures that resemble military defensive fortresses. Yet, as will be shown, they are for the most part family enclosures designed to keep livestock inside the walls for protection. As the enclosures are rather small in diameter (between 40-50 meters in diameter) the number of livestock that could be kept inside could not be more than six to ten animals at a time.

This not to say that no military fortresses were built in Ireland, for throughout the Middle

Ages several hundreds were built to protect settlements from foreign invasions. However, the idea that small stone enclosures were designed and constructed to protect families from military attacks does not correspond to characteristics of the structures analyzed here, as will be shown in the course of this paper.

Below, Figures 6 and 6a show a cashel and a fortress next to each other showing the difference in design, shape, and size between the two structures. It must be pointed out that while the cashel may date from the Bronze Age, or earlier, the castle-fortress dates from the Middle Ages.

76

Fig. 6 Fig. 6a

Cashel in Inishmurray, Co. Sligo, McQuillian Castle, Co. Sligo, Harbison 1999:59 Harbison 1999:39

In general, since prehistoric times violent conflicts also have taken different forms such as interpersonal violence elsewhere Roksandic 2004, Radovanovic 2006, Orchiedt

2005), party raids where groups of individuals, from societies at different levels of social evolution, band together to attack other groups (Leff 2009, Ferguson 1990), including organized attacks by well-armed individuals seemingly accelerating or promoting a socio-political transition to a higher level (Carneiro 1970). Moreover, in a cross-cultural study it was found that 80% of societies “kill or torture and kill enemy warriors, and one-third kill women and children” (Otterbein 1997). In other words, the study seems to suggest that extreme violence has always been part of socio-political scenarios. If violence, under different circumstances, has been portrayed as a rather common and extremely cruel phenomenon does it mean that people are naturally prone to violence from inception?

Books relating ancient Irish history describe constant wars between foreign invaders against local populations. The Lebor Gabála Érenn, The Book of the Taking of Ireland, a collection of several books, describe in prose and poem the ‘history’ of Ireland from the creation of the world to the invasion by the Milesians ( from Iberia), ancestors of the

Gaels. Before the Milesians came another mythical race of deities called the Tuatha Dé

77

Dannan (the People of the Goddess Danu) who ruled Ireland, and continued a long period of warfare with other invaders. These accounts resemble the oral tradition the

Jewish people laid down in the Old Testament as their .

There are several other books (The Ulster Cycle, the Book of Leinster, the Book of

Fermoy, the Ossian Cycle, etc.). Nevertheless, they all have some things in common, they are part of the Irish oral history (legends, traditions), passed on by countless generations, but put into written words by Christian Monks during the Middle Ages and, most of all, they all describe a violent world where warfare was the accepted way of settling disputes or differences.

Ferguson (1990:50) points out that, according to many authors, one of the reasons societies have for launching warfare or staging raids against other social units is to capture slaves and conquer other social units. Sometimes, Ferguson (1990) affirms, warfare violence is waged by a selected few whose position within the hierarchy “is dependent upon the ability to wage successful war more-or-less continuously.” Carneiro

(1970), arguing from the socio-ecological perspective, proposes that since ancient times societies that have felt environmentally circumscribed, or ‘enclosed,’ have staged wars against other groups as a response to their ecological constraints, as well as a means to expand their territories to accommodate their excess population.

Thus warfare, as described by Ferguson, does not appear to be a way of establishing a new, and more complex, social and territorial unit outside the original area, due to population pressure and diminishing resources but as way of life for the purpose of status permanence. This means that waging war for the benefit of the few suggests, as

Ferguson proposes, an enormous control of the elite over the military class of the once

78 circumscribed unit. The only alternative, it seems, is that those ‘weaker’ groups somehow ally themselves with other adjacent groups to defend themselves creating larger and, perhaps, creating a new polity. However, if the attacking group is perceived as being more powerful than the emerging confederacy then the result will be the destruction and, possibly, the annexation, of the losing party (territory and people).

According to the Kelly (2007:44), ‘unsegmented’ societies are those groups

“characterized by the minimum degree of elaboration of social groups.” That is, social groups also known as egalitarian groups, i.e. hunters and gatherers and, presumably, embryonic Neolithic farmers. The organizational level of these groups by his definition, do not go “beyond the level of local community.” Ancient Ireland with its independent family enclosures scattered throughout the landscape seems to conform to Kelly’s approach.

79

CHAPTER VI

Archaeology of Cashels/Ringforts

Stone-built cashels, and ringforts, have been portrayed as everything from defensive fortresses to family enclosures built to protect cattle from raiders, especially during the late prehistory, and throughout the Middle-Ages (Barrett 2002, Comber & Hull 2007-

2009, O’Riordain (Stout 1997), Monk 1995, Barrett & Graham 1975, Legg & Taylor

2006, Scarre 2007, McLaughlin 2010 in NEANDA 5, Kelleher 2010 in NEANDA 5,

Sinclair Turrell 2010 reported by Niall Roycroft in NEANDA 5, Chapple 2009, Norman

& St. Joseph 1969, Dillon et al 2007 in NRA Archaeology Magazine, Walsh et al 2007 in NRA Archaeology Magazine).

Their visual appearance and their location, sometimes on a gentle slope on an otherwise leveled area, gives some credence to the idea of fortresses. Excavations of these structures have been limited due to economic reasons. Those that have been excavated have mostly rendered Middle Age artifacts, as in the case of the Caherconnell cashel, located in County Clare, and in which I participated in the summer of 2010. The cashel, of circular morphology made of stone, measures ca. 50 meters in diameter with one surrounding stone wall of approximately 130 centimeters high, and 30 centimeters wide. Excavation of the circular Caherconnell cashel was limited to the entrance of the structure. The depth of the statigraphy was ca. 0.80 meters.

Artifacts found in the cashel were mostly cattle bones, suggesting a limited, or family size, processing area. We found a curved iron piece, no more than 0.02 meters (two centimeters), later identified by Dr. Michelle Comber, of the National University of

80

Ireland at Galway, as a tuner for an Irish harp. We also found a round piece of metal

(probably bronze, resembling a brooch, later identified as part of a horse rein.

This clearly suggests a post-Neolithic origin, most likely Medieval, when horses were already part of the social landscape. The entrance to this cashel, as well as in others, is narrow (ca. 1.5 meters), and seems to have been designed to allow the passage of a small number of people and animals. This could also help to lessen the opportunity for unauthorized outsiders to enter the premises. The circular morphology of the structures contributes to the visual impression of a defensive purpose of the stone enclosures. Other explanations have also been given concerning the intended historical function of cashels and ringforts, from animal shelters to defensive fortresses.

More often then not many authors present contradictory explanations. In fact both approaches, domestic and defensive functions present some logical rationalization that this paper intends to review.

In many cases excavations have uncovered wooden places known as resembling troughs, used to heat water by dipping hot stones. This interpretation is somewhat unusual as the people already had clay pottery that would have served the same purpose more efficiently. In fact excavations in nearby cashels located around N6

Galway–Ballinasloe road, between the townlands of Galboley and Newcastle, Early

Neolithic clay bowls, known as Carinated style, have been found dated between 3,950 and 3,700 BC. Additionally, tens of vessels known as Beaker pottery, dated between

2,400 and 2,300 BC have also been found. This suggests continuous occupation of same sites through thousands of years (O’Brien 2006: 6), but no indication of violent disturbance.

81

The same is true for the site located in the Balregan Townland (northwest of Dundalk,

County Louth) where shards of pottery have been found dated Early Neolithic between

3,400 and 2,900 BC (Roycroft 2006:9). Characteristically however, no artifacts dated

Iron Age have been found. Reuse of sites Neolithic sites throughout history is not unusual, as Linda Clarke discovered in her excavation of Ardsallagh, north of the River

Boyne, and reported by Mary Deevy (2006: 10). Preliminary analysis of pottery shards found suggests “use and re-use of the site over 2,000 years from 2,000 BC onwards.”

In some other sites, archaeology of different ages some thousands of years apart, are found together, as in Collierstown 1, near the Dunshaughlin–Navan area () where prehistoric (no precise date given) and early Medieval burials were uncovered

(Nicholls & Shiel 2006:14).

Excavation at the Caherconnell Cashel

The Caherconnell cashel is an ancient stone enclosure, of circular shape, located in a small geographical division of land known in Ireland as townland, in the Kilcorney parish of the Burren barony, County Clare, in the west of Ireland. The excavation of the

Caherconnell cashel, in which I participated, follows the pattern of relatively low statigraphy. The structure itself, as well as its name, is of Gaelic origin. The area surrounding the cashel is currently used as pasture. In the summer of 2010, I participated in an archaeological excavation directed by Dr. Michelle Comber of the National

University of Ireland, Galway (NUI). Information from the result of the excavation, in addition to historical data form different sources, forms the bulk of this paper.

82

Figure 7

Illustration of the cashel excavated in 2010, from a photograph taken by Nelson Cabello in Caherconnell, 2010.

The land where the cashel sits is privately owned by Mr. John Davoren. Activities in this cashel date from the Neolithic all the way to modern times. As this, as well as other similar structures, have been used and re-used throughout the centuries it is agreed that

“The most visible and plentiful settlements from the past date to the second half of the first millennium AD, the Early Historic or Early Medieval period.” (Hull & Comber

2007). This cashel is not the only enclosure structure in the area. There are other circular cashels, as well as ringforts and raths, all dating from prehistoric to Early Medieval times.

This reflects, as Hull & Comber (ibid. p. 2) indicate, “dense occupation of the Burren in the Early Medieval period.” However, spite of the successive occupation for centuries the team found little or no trace of occupancy, except for cattle bones and one iron piece dated, most likely, from the end of the Middle Ages.

Hull & Comber in their 2009 report state “[T]oday, one of the most striking visual aspects of the Caherconnell landscape is the lack of archaeological remains in the fertile

83 valley to the south of the site.” (p. 135). By the same token, no weapons or artifacts resembling ancient weaponry were found during the excavation confirming the assessment that this particular enclosure was a family farmstead rather than a defensive structure.

The external diameter of the structure is approximately 42 meters, surrounded by a wall approximately 3 meters high and between 0.30 - 0.50 meters wide at the top. Fallen wall debris inside and outside the structure suggests the surrounding wall was somewhat higher than it is today. The interior of the cashel does not show any stairs, rampart, or wall terraces that could have been used as defensive parapets in ancient times. However, Hull

& Comber, citing Westropp (1915 - Archaeology of the Burren: Prehistoric Forts and

Dolmens in North Clare) suggest that perhaps some of the rebuilding and repairs made in the past may have covered these features. The size, location and configuration of cashels do not, per se, suggest or lend themselves to be interpreted as fortifications, but rather enclosed family farmsteads. There is no question they also performed defensive functions against raids by cattle rustlers.

Ancient oral history, legends, suggests that was the case. Data pertaining to the number and type of structures, size, location, and date of construction presented elsewhere signal to that direction. Additionally, artifacts found in the Caherconnell cashel (cattle and sheep bones, a broken iron piece resembling a nail was actually the key of an ancient Irish harp). In other words, nothing found in the excavation in which I participated indicated, or suggested, a function other than a farmstead and cattle enclosure. Yet, these enclosures are still known as hillforts, ringforts, and other nomenclature suggesting a defensive purpose.

84

Other accounts of enclosures chronology are based on mythical invasions of Ireland from a distant past lost in the mist of time. This approach has been criticized by other historians such as Champion (Bradley 2007:24). One of the main sources, that heavily influenced Irish archaeologists and historians, is the well-known mythical account of the assumed initial settlements (by invasions) described in the collection of ancient poems known as Labor Gábala Érren or the Book of the Taking of Ireland.

However, accounts by different authors do not provide answers to the question of when construction of enclosures began. It is well known that indigenous Mesolithic inhabitants erected megalithic monuments showing they were perfectly capable of building stone structures. We also know they settled mainly along riverine, lacustrine, and coastal areas not inland where the majority of the enclosures are located. In addition the analysis of pottery styles would not only suggest age of the site but also the activities of enclosure. When Neolithic settlers began farming and animal husbandry they most certainly had the technical knowledge and capability to construct stone enclosures. In other words, it is reasonable to assume that cashels, ringforts and raths did only appear during the early Christian or Early Medieval periods. Excavation in the

Caherconnell cashel only uncovered animal bones (cattle, sheep, and pigs) and metal artifacts dated to the Middle-Ages, perhaps to the 14th century. Because the statigraphy was not deep enough these were the only objects found. This does not necessarily reflect the entire lifespan of the enclosure.

Part of this paper is the research and clarification concerning when these enclosures were built and for what purpose. It is proposed that construction of enclosures probably began during the Mid-Neolithic period some 35,000 BC, and continued to the Middle

85

Ages. By that time three important elements were already in place in Ireland, abundant stone, cattle husbandry, and farming. Cattle, as will be shown, became a source of wealth and status in addition to a source of nutrition in the form of dairying. Legends began to describe events where cattle and its possession became integral part of ancient

Irish history. In order to establish, as far back as possible, the approximate chronology of the enclosures it is necessary to review the research literature over several years of investigation and analysis. The size and morphology of the enclosures are very important, as they would suggest their intended function throughout the millennia.

An analysis of ancient battles, described in different texts will also be reviewed and analyzed to establish the time, the participants (who fought whom), and the possible motivation for the ancient skirmishes and, most importantly, whether battles described in several ancient sources actually took place.

Due to economic and financial reasons the vast majority of the Irish enclosures have not been excavated. Some general aerial inspection has been conducted (Norman & St.

Joseph 1969) showing their morphology and location. Although it can be generally surmised their size, and number of walls encircling the structures, no firm data as to their height or width can be concluded from the aerial view.

However, analyzing data obtained by several other authors from 41 sites located in

Northern Ireland and Eire, it is reasonable to hypothesize that the majority of the enclosures were built between the Middle Neolithic and Late Christian periods. In this regard, Limbert (1996) proposes that dating structures from pottery styles may not be reliable, as it is well known that occupation was continuous over thousands of years. As

86 agriculture and animal husbandry were already established during the Neolithic, this could be a better way of dating their construction.

The earliest recorded date of construction is placed between the Mesolithic and the

Bronze Age. Sixteen or 10.7% of the structures were built between 5,500 and 800 BC.

Yet Stout (Fitzpatrick 2009:277) states that the enclosures were built through a three hundred years interlude, during the Early Christian period (7th century to 9th century).

Stout goes further by arguing that, for the most part, excavation of a limited number of ringforts have rendered unsatisfactory evidence for dating the structures, as they are usually based on pottery and other artifacts found inside the enclosures (p. 23). Since it is actually unknown the time-length of actual cashel occupation, what has been dated are basically the artifacts found in the upper levels of the statigraphy. Stout is not alone in questioning the chronology of the structures. Eamonn Cody notes (Fitzpatrick 2009) that ringforts, most likely, were built during the Late Iron Age or “second half of the 1st millennium AD.”

Chronology Codes Mesolithic 7000-5500 BC A Early Medieval 400 AD-1100 AD E Neolithic 4000-3500 BC B Medieval 1169 AD - 1660 AD F Bronze Age 1600-800 BC C Early Christian 400 AD - 800 AD G Iron Age 500 BC-1000 AD D Unknown or undetermined H

87

Table 7 SITE Chronology (in codes) Number B BC C D E EF F FG G H Name Geo Location of sites A AB Antrim North Ireland 49 5 31 8 2 1 2 Armagh North Ireland 2 2 Clare West 3 1 1 1 Cork South Ireland 16 1 1 7 3 2 2 Derry North Ireland 3 1 1 1 Down North Ireland 7 ` 2 3 1 1 Fermanagh North Ireland 5 3 1 1 Galway West 6 1 1 1 3 Kilkenny South East 6 3 2 1 Limerick South West 7 1 2 2 2 Longford Midland 8 7 1 Louth Northeast - border 7 1 1 2 2 1 Meath South East 5 4 1 Offaly Midland 2 1 1 Shannon West 2 2 Sligo South West 11 5 3 2 1 Tipperary West 1 1 Tyrone North Ireland 8 1 3 1 1 2 Waterford South West 1 1 Wexford South East 1 1 2 1 13 150 0 1 11 2 2 1 70 23 19 5 13 3 Addenda at the end of text provide detailed information on cashel distribution, dates, size, and possible function, including warfare.

However, this chart shows that of the 150 sites excavated and analyzed 93 (62%) of enclosures are dated Early Christian-Early Medieval period (400-1,100 AD). At the same time 10.6% (16) enclosures are dated for the period 4,000 BC – 1,000 AD

(covering 5,000 years!). This apparent disparity would suggest that animal husbandry, and farming, were common activities during this long Early Christian-Early Medieval period. It does not indicate lack of technological capability.

Monk (1995) and Lynn (1978), both cited by O’Sullivan et al (2009: 1), strongly propose that these enclosures were built in several phases or stages. This position in turn suggests long occupation of cashels over several centuries. In fact, Lynn (1978) states that excavation at Deer Park (Co. Antrim) shows three phases of construction and refurbishing from the 6th to the 10th century (Early Christian-Early Medieval Era – 400 to 1,000 AD).

At Deer Park Farms in Co. Antrim, Lynn states excavations show the same pattern.

Moreover, argues Lynn (1981/2), at Rathmullan, Co. Down, excavations revealed

88 five phases “of early and later medieval activity” (O’Sullivan et al (2009: 2), or between 800 AD through 1,600 AD.

Barrett & Graham (1975:33) over two decades ago were already questioning the accepted belief regarding the dating of the enclosures. They based their doubts on the

“lack of documentary evidence” regarding the settlements, as they usually refer to the settlements by the invading Normans beginning in 1,169 AD who, most naturally, began constructing enclosures for their own protection, as well as demarcation of territories.

Moreover, state the authors, this lack of documentary evidence “prevents the formulation of even a schematic outline of the indigenous settlement pattern,” both before and after the Norman invasion (p. 33). To make matters worse, because there was a continuum in indigenous pottery styles throughout several centuries, basing the chronology of a site on a few artifacts would give what amounts to a false positive (p.

35).

None of these conflicting dates mention the strong possibility that construction of enclosures may have begun thousands of years earlier. Construction material, such as stone, was and still is abundant in Ireland, especially in the west. There is agreement among authors that Megaliths dating from the Mesolithic are relatively common in the Irish landscape. More importantly they show, without a doubt, that Mesolithic and

Neolithic inhabitants were quite capable of building with stone. Domesticates and farming would have been sufficient reason to build circular structures to protect them from raiders.

89

Function

The architectural principle that ‘form follows function’ indicates that the morphology of a structure is determined or based on its intended function. Thus, in the case of ancient

Ireland, circular enclosures built with only one, rather narrow, entrance such as cashels and ringforts would point to a defensive purpose. In addition to their morphology their structural characteristics, seem to confirm their defensive function over a possible domestic purpose.

Structural Characteristics

This section refers to the material used in the construction of the enclosures that, in turn could imply function of the enclosure. Stone in ancient structures is very common as construction material, as it is abundant and readily accessible. Thus, a very common construction feature and gave the erroneous impression of defensive complexes, rather than family places of abode.

Charts describing the morphology of the enclosures show that 100% of the structures mentioned are circular. It is no surprise then that in ancient times the stone enclosures would have been considered defensive in nature, as their morphology may suggest. These structures, according to several author actually may have served a domestic purpose such as the protection of valued domesticates (cattle, goats, pigs), (Monk 1995:107; Kiely

2010:44; Comber & Hull 2010: 156; McCormick 1995:33).

The structural configuration of most cashels/ringforts reveal the enclosures only have one wall usually between one and two meters high. The width of the wall is usually 0.5

90 meters (1.5 feet), and an interior diameter of the enclosure averaging 45 meters (135 feet). It is difficult to imagine a cashel/ringfort of this size and configuration to have any military usefulness. The Caherconnell cashel falls within these parameters in terms of its size and morphology.

Limbert (1996: 252) referring to the Archaeological Survey of Northern Ireland of

1966 conducted in County Down, classified enclosures as follows:

(1) Modest-single exterior wall (univallate) (2) Massive-single wall with simple interior areas (3) Massive-multiple walls with large internal areas (multivallet) (4) Contiguous double enclosures (5) Miscellaneous: including sub-rectilinear enclosures

Because the internal diameter of most cashels is basically similar (ca. 40-50 meters), categories 1 to 3 suggest that there may be no direct correlation between the number of external walls and its internal diameter, which could imply a defensive nature. Thus,

Limbert’s (1996:252, 253) assertion that cashel morphology and structural display bear no correlation with chronological or cultural development over millennia seems logical.

Additionally, stone cashels have been defined “on the basis of the absence of an external ditch” (emphasis added), which could be construed as a defensive , quite common around during the Middle Ages. Data on Table 8 below show lack of correlation between internal diameter and number of surrounding walls.

91

Table 8 Correlation between exterior diameter and number of defensive wall Estimated Size (5) Presumed Site Type (*) Constr. Material Morphology Location Chronology Ext. diameter No. of walls wall height wall width function(6)

Rathcoran, Baltinglass cashel earthwork circular Co. Wicklow no data no data bivallet, walls widely spaced no data no data defense Hill

Kiltennan South (1) cashel stone circular Co. Clare univallet defense Dundrum Sandhills Ringfort/cashel earthwork circular Co. Down Neolithic/Early medieval no data univallet no data no data domestic Ringfort earthwork circular Co. Antrim Neolithic no data univallet no data no data axe factory Ringfort earthwork circular Co. Antrim Neolithic no data univallet no data no data axe factory Ninetyfour (94) Bricklieve Mountains Ringfort/cashels stone circular Co. Sligo Neolithic 20-42 ft. univallet unknown 3 ft. domestic p.24 Authors unsure Fifty (50) whether dwellings Knocknashee Ringfort/cashels stone circular Co. Sligo Neolithic 32 ft, average univallet unknown no data or shelters p.25 60 ft - area:seven Ballynahatty Ringfort earthwork circular Co. Down Early Neolithic acres univallet Bank: 12 ft. no data Ritual Dressograth Ringfort earthwork circular Co. Antrim Neolithic no data no data no data no data domestic Slieve Breagh Ringfort stone/earthwork circular Co. Meath Neolithic Staigue Fort Cashel Stone Circular Co. Kerry uncertain 88 ft univallet 7 ft 13 ft farmstead Leacanabuaile Cashel Stone Circular Co. Kerry uncertain 10ft at base farmstead Ballynavenooragh Cashel (4) Stone Circular Co. Kerry uncertain unknown farmstead Dún Conor Cashel Stone Circular Aran Islands uncertain unknown univallet farmstead Cahercommaun (2) Cashel Stone Circular Co. Clare uncertain 100 ft (inner cashel) trivallet 14 ft 28 ft cattle/farmstead Corrofin Cashel Stone Circular Co. Clare uncertain over 100 ft bivallet, widely spaced 3 ft unknown cattle/farmstead uncertain. Presumed Iron Dubh Cathair Cashel stone Circular Aran Islands Age 200 ft univallet 20 ft 16-18 inches defensive (7) Uncertain. Possibly late univallet with widely spaced Ballykinvarga Cashel Stone Circular Co. Clare 150 ft 15 ft unknown defensive (8) iron Age external wall innermost wall Dún Aengusa(3) cashel Stone Circular Aran Islands uncertain 130 ft tetra vallet, covering 11 is 14ft defensive O'Boyles Fort cashel stone circular Co. Donegal acres cattle Black Pig's Dyke cashel/raths stone/earthwork circular Co. Longford uncertain system is 130 mi 30ft catle/defensive (9) System (*) Authors treat ringforts and cashels as same type of enclosure (1) Five cashels visible from the air (2) Backside of cashel at edge of cliff. Resembles a fort, it is surrounded by huge external wall. Authors disagree. P.58 (3) Situated at edge of 300 ft high cliff. P. 83 (4) Five smaller enclosures within encircling wide wall (5) Authors posit raths/ringforts vary in size from 30-50ft to 200-300 ft in diameter, p.41 (6) Authors state ringforts were mostly either 'cattle enclosures' or homes of poor men, p.41. Cattle raiding was common in early Irish society. Walls were protection against thieves, p. 41. (7) going into the sea. It has 3 internal terraces & chevaux de frise (8) Cashel also has chevaux de frise, 50 ft wide (9) Dyke is not good to stop armed attack but it may have prevented movement of stolen cattle. P.88

During the Middle Ages (800 AD to 1600 AD) castles were built for the main purpose of serving as military defenses and withstand assaults by trained forces. They were built on elevated terrain, at the edge of cliffs, or at the edge of a river that would serve as a natural moat. The structural characteristics, and location, of cashels/ringforts, on the other hand, do not reflect a military intention but a domestic function. Because of practical reasons both, cashel/ringforts and defensive forts are built with stones. The question of what constitute an enclosure for domestic function and a structure for military-defensive purposes becomes then a matter of design and structural differences.

92

CHAPTER VII

The Irish Forts

Table 2 shows that the vast majority of cashels and ringforts share similar characteristics regarding the morphology, construction material, size, and field location throughout Ireland. The circular shape of the structures with their stone walls, in addition to being located on top of smooth slopes overlooking the fields, seem to suggest some military-defensive function. Yet, their design and location also share a similarity with structures whose function was residential, as well as served agro-pastoral activity. If that were the case, then the surrounding stone walls would have served the very useful purpose of protecting domesticates from hostile raiders. The question now is, at what level of social evolution were these inhabitants from the Mesolithic thorough the Early Middle

Ages that may have included some type of violence in their way of life?

The oral tradition regarding the ancient history of the region, including Caherconnell, does imply a recurrent state of warfare for which the stone structures seemed well suited.

Yet, the historical facts of sparse population of ancient Ireland and its dispersal range do not agree with that premise. There is no doubt that some kind of violent skirmishes may have taken place for economic or social reasons at a time when no written records existed in localized areas, that with time, became part of the history of the Island (Dillon 1956).

This combination of new economics (agriculture and cattle rearing) seems to have prompted the need to expand control of certain fertile areas by local chieftains. This suggests that an increase in population, following the economic expansion, may have encouraged the construction of ringforts and cashels, by families and social groups, to protect their new resources against raiders and other armed groups. As shown in Table 4

93 the morphology of the stone structures seems to confirm this limited protective assessment. However, it must also be clear that construction of strong stone structures with military purpose were in fact built throughout the Middle Ages. For instance, the fort known as Dún Aengusa Inishmore, in , does provide a glimpse of the morphology, size, and location of a true fortress. Like Cahercommaun, of County Clare,

Dún Aengusa is located at the edge of an approximately 100 meters high cliff (300 feet).

It also has three, half-circle exterior walls. It seems that similarity of appearance with

Dún Aengusa Inishmore was thought to be enough to keep cattle-raiders at a distance from Cahercommaun of County Clare.

In contrast, the illustration of Figure 7, above, shows Caherconnell, a non-military stone structure but an agro-pastoral protective enclosure. As the intent of this section is not to analyze the military characteristics of a stone enclosure but clarify the differences in style and design of two seemingly equivalent structures, only three actual military forts will be reviewed and compared to cashels.

In general, enclosures with military function usually have two or three walls half- circling the front of the main structure. Between the “preventive” walls they usually have a (literally, ‘horse of the Frisians’). These are obstacles against enemy that were much in use during the Middle Ages. The height of the walls would vary considerably as will their width. The purpose was to stop an enemy attack, not to protect economic resources. Often times the fort will also be located at the edge of a cliff to protect the rear of the structure, as is the case of the fort known as Cahercommaun in

County Clare. However, it seems that this alleged fort was built more to deceive potential cattle raiders than to withstand a military attack (Norman & St. Joseph 1969:57,

94

Ó Cróinin 2005:164). The same seems to be case of the stone structure known as Dún

Conor Inishmaan, in . This enclosure also has very thick external walls but, at the same time, it contains several smaller stone circles that could have been used as cattle pens or military barracks.

The exterior defensive walls and chevaux de frise between the walls seem to imply that they were built, as suggested above, to stop the cavalry. This suggests that the

‘fortified’ enclosures were built during the Late Neolithic, when horses and cattle were available, and continued to be built and used throughout the Middle Ages.

Figure 8

Dún Conor, Inishmaan, County Galway. Norman & St. Joseph 1969, p. 57

95

Figure 9

Dún Aengusa, Inishmore, Co. Galway showing three walls. Norman & St. Joseph 1969, p. 81

Figure 9a

Cahercommaun, County Clare at the edge of cliff. Norman & St. Joseph 1969, p. 58

96

If cashels of the Neolithic-Early Christian eras were in fact built as forts of some sort, not just to protect cattle from night raiders, then it would mean that some battles may have taken place in the distant past. Presumably enclosures were built with stone to withstand some kind of attack by armed men. Ancient oral history gives a glimpse of skirmishes that took place during the late prehistory. In addition to being a source of wealth cattle were also part of their diet by the Late Mesolithic (Woodman in Price 200:

239), especially milk, rather than meat. As there are no written records from this period, oral tradition became the historical description of events that, supposedly, took place thousands of years earlier.

Accounts of events that “occurred” during the prehistoric phase were written down during the Early Christian period by literate monks. Thus, battles or skirmishes concerning power, as well as the ownership, acquisition, and protection of cattle were transcribed in several books over the centuries. Tens of battles have been mentioned and transmitted orally and later transcribed, but very little or no historical records exist from that era.

Sources mentioned are, for the most part, the result of transcribed oral tradition that has been incorporated into the history of Ireland (Waddell 1991: 5). Table 10, below, shows several battles that, supposedly, took place in the distant past between legendary local chieftains, or local leaders. Even the times listed as the years when the assumed events took place are clouded in mystery. For instance, the battle between Bartholanus and the

Giants, as described by the monk Giraldus Cambrensis in his historical works, took place

“300 years after the flood,” Forrester (1863). Also the battle of Odba between the mythical personages of Angetmar and Duach Ladhghrach who fought Ollil Fionn and

97 killed him. This battle ‘took place’ in the year 4,415 A.M. (anno mundi, or the year of the creation of the world), as described by Lynch (ca. 1600: 441).

ANCIENT BATTLES Table 10 Estimated Antagonists Area Location Ruler Chronology Purpose Data Source Corcomruad (2) Early medieval Corcomruad/Dál Conquest by Uí Comber & Hull 2010 Caherconnell (1) Co. Clare Cais Thoirdelbaig Daire (Chieftain) Neolithic/Bronze Queen Medb/Daire (3) Stealing Ulster Cycle (5) Cooley (Cúalnge) Co. Louth Age (4) Brown Bull Mac Cecht prehistoric Cuscraid & Mac Conquer Annals of Tigernach Artech Connaught Cecht Connaught (6) Olill Fionn A.M. 4415 (*) Argetmar & Duach power Cambrensis Odba no info Ladhghrach Eversus (7) several prehistoric 7 Mains of power Annals of Tigernach Ulster/rest of island (6) Ireland 4/5 of island Bartholanus 300 yrs after the Bartholanus/the power-control Giraldus 'flood' Giants Cambrensis- Ireland undetermined Historical Works Nemedus (8) prehistoric Nemedus/pirates - power-control Giraldus four battles Cambrensis- Ireland undetermined Historical Works Diarmait Early Middle Diarmait/Guare of Cows stolen by Book of the Dun, Aidne Guare Carn Conaill Kilbecanty (Galway Ages Tuatha Dé Mythical time Firbolgs - Tuatha Power/economic 2nd battle of Danann de Danann s (cattle) Moytura - Moytura Lake Districtc-Co. Anonymous (9) King of Leinster 1014 AD Brian Boru - Máel power-control Book of Lecan by Mórda mac (10) Ádhamh Ó Cuirnín, Dublin Clontarf Murchada, King of ca. 1391 Leinster

(*) Dates are given in imprecise A.M. - anno mundi or A.D. anno domini – Christian Era (1) Its role within the Corcomruad unknown. Not mentioned in documentary sources. (2) A confederation of related peoples and territories. (3) King Uí Thoirdelbaig suceeded by son Conchobar & his descendants (4) Battle fought between Cuchulain and his friend Ferdiad (5) The Táin Bó Cúalnge is actually preceded by the Táin Bó Flidhais (wife of Oilill). (6) Tigernach was the Abbot of Clonmacnoise (7) History of Ancient Ireland Vindicated (8) Nemedus, according to the legends, was the eleventh in descent from Noah, and came from the shores of the Black Sea, with his four sons (Cambrensis). (9) Translated by Whitley Stokes. London, British Library, Harleian MS 5280, 63a–70b (Catalogue of Irish Manuscripts in the British Museum, by Robin Flower (London, 1926) vol. 2, 18–319). (10) Viking domination of Ireland ends

However, these and other battles and events, are now part of ancient Irish history.

98

Geographical distribution of cashels/ringforts

Now the question is where are these circular enclosures more common in Ireland? The first chart indicates that enclosures were built throughout the island. Stout’s (1997) analysis of 114 sites from 47 archaeological sites shows that enclosures he recorded are also located in all four cardinal points of Ireland. Moreover 46% (69) of all sites analyzed are located in Northern Ireland while 24.7% (37) of the sites analyzed are located in the west.

However, it is interesting to note that the majority of the enclosures 54% of the sites

(81) are located in Eire (Republic of Ireland). These charts suggest that construction of stone enclosures, whether ringforts or cashels, was not limited to a certain area of the island but was a general approach to the economic, as well as social context. In essence, data indicate that cashels/ringforts/raths are located throughout Ireland, especially where grazing pastures and fertile land for farming are located (Stout 1997, Legg & Taylor

2006, Proudfoot 1961).

The debate for decades has been whether the tens of thousands of stone cashels/ringforts/raths are enclosures that were designed and constructed to serve a domestic function, or some sort of military purpose. Their morphology and structural characteristics do, at first sight, lend themselves to be interpreted either way. The abundance of construction material, namely stone, allowed population of Late Mesolithic through Medieval, and late 19th century to build these structures throughout the history of

Ireland.

There is no logical basis to deduce that construction of these enclosures only began in the Early Christian Era. Scarre (2007) argues that from the Neolithic, man in Ireland had

99 the capacity to build functional stone structures and did not have to wait until either foreign technology arrived or his society became more complex to began construction of monuments and places of abode.

O’Keefee (2000) puts it succinctly when he asked, somewhat rhetorically, where ancient population would have lived thousands years before the Christian era when, supposedly, construction of cashels/ringforts began? This is especially true in Ireland, a land devoid of caverns and caves, so abundant in other areas (England, France, Spain).

Massive megaliths reveal unequivocally that prehistoric man had the technical capacity to build mega monuments, as was the case of Poulnabrone in County Clare, Republic of

Ireland. In other words, with no caves and abundant stone the Neolithic man had very little choice of construction material.

As cattle and other domesticates, became part of the Late Prehistoric scenario the

Neolithic people had to find a place where they could keep and protect his new source of wealth and status. It seems that the widely dispersed and light density settlement pattern in ancient Ireland triggered or facilitated the construction of independent stone structures throughout the countryside, making the voluntary association of independent bands extremely difficult.

Thus, the Anglo-Norman invasion of 1169 AD probably was the first attempt to some sort of unification of the Irish bands. This situation ties up with the possible date of construction of the enclosures for at the time of the Anglo-Norman Invasion they were already scattered throughout the Irish landscape. Barrett and Graham (1975: 43) conclude, “the archaeological evidence to support these suggestions (of early medieval

100

construction) is limited” (my inclusion in italics), and thus they propose that “the only

possible source of definitive proof of medieval ring-fort construction is by excavation.”

Moreover, O’Sullivan and Nicholl (2010: 59) posit that these enclosures represented

people’s “social identities of ethnicity, social status, gender, kinship and community

and for social and economic interactions between people, places, animals and things.”

That would suggest an enclosed family group and that any attempt to unify these

settlements into structured social units by a foreign invaders would have been almost, if

not completely, impossible.

Figure 10

This is an artistic representation of an early Medieval family enclosure. FIG. 1 (Drawing by S. Shaw: Image © Crown Copyright. Courtesy of the Northern Ireland Environment Agency (O’Sullivan and Nicholl (2010: 64).

To this idyllic and peaceful medieval picture O’Keefe (2000: 12) argues that the

Anglo-Norman invasion resulted in the “derailing of any movement towards centralized power and theocratic kingship among the Celtic-Irish.” Thus, the pattern of scattered, private places of abode remained in its entirety. However, O’Keeffee also points out that

101 for the most part during the tenth century there was much military activity related to “the struggles for political domination between the major provincial powers.” This constant military activity, most certainly triggered the construction of real fortresses that, contrary to the general vision of cashels and ringforts, were built with two or three defensive walls.

102

CHAPTER VIII

Discussion

Immigration pattern in prehistoric Ireland or, who were the first Irish people?

The explanation of the slowness, or lack, of a dynamic social evolutionary process despite the rather continuous sequence of events, some hostile, that have been recorded in oral history, was the type of immigration pattern to the island. Although it could be safely said that there is no evidence of strong “waves of diffusion” into the island (Ammerman

& Cavalli-Sforza 1984), as Ireland is geographically located at the westernmost corner of

Europe it was, quite possibly, the last area to be populated.

In this regard Carlson (1967), reviewing Clark Aidan’ (1966) study of the Old English in Ireland for the period 1625-1642, argues that they “were the descendants of those individuals who had colonized Ireland from 1066, 1210, to about 1534. They were not

Irish, but neither were they purely English; they included Normans, Welsh, Danes, and

Flemings, who had become assimilated, who were Roman Catholic in religion, and concentrated in the Irish Pale,” (northeast, emphasis added, p. 986), from where, most likely, they migrated south.

When Carneiro (1970) argued his theory of social evolution by conquest, he was referring to societies already formed, settled, and fused into one cultural scenario. The same can be said, even more so, of the Polynesian societies studied by Kirch (1996), where competing factions shared one common ancestral group. It is, quite possible then, that individuals who for centuries did not share common cultural or ethnic characteristics were not willing, or desirous, to form an all-encompassing social identity, especially if that meant to surrender part of their own identities in favor of a centralized structure.

103

Cultural boundaries are very difficult to shed or exchange especially at the family- band level, which was the case of Ireland for thousands of years, up until the end of the

Middle Ages. As O’Sullivan & Nicholl (2010:61) argue, “Early medieval Irish society was certainly obsessed with identity, belonging, and ancestry, particularly in terms of social class and hierarchy.” Thus, any social complexity would have been relegated at the band-family level, unlike ancient Britain and the seven Anglo-Saxon kingdoms of the 7th and 8th century, that were unified as a nation by Alfred The Great.

The invasions to Ireland during the Middle Ages referred above are not part of the mythical intrusions described in the vellum Lebor Gabala Eirenn (The Book of

Invasions) where mythical groups and tribes invaded the island for centuries, such as

Cesair, Partholon, , the , the Tuatha De Danann, and the Sons of Mil, all assertions challenged by Champion (1982:39), and Wadell (1978). Each group that populated ancient Ireland brought with them their own cultural package, including language, religious beliefs, and customs. Skirmishes, interpersonal hostile activities among groups took many centuries to slowly wane to develop a different set of traits. It took violent invasions from abroad to melt into a crucible creating a new social landscape. Yoffee (2005:56) in his study of the social evolution of the Mesopotamian landscape cites, as evidence of cultural identity, the “early standardization of writing and numerical and mathematical systems.” This is something the ancient Irish inhabitants never had, except their oral traditions transcribed into vellum during the Early Christian period.

104

Surge in Cashel Construction

Table 1 shows that, in effect, there was a surge in cashel/ringforts construction during the Middle Ages when provincial chieftains were in constant state of war for the control of territories, all well “documented” in sagas and mythical representation of battles. This expansion in cashel construction did not follow a process of social and political evolution of the Irish countryside but to a defensive strategy to protect their newly developed agro-pastoral way of life. However, the cashels built during this period are not the typical family farmstead enclosures, but strong, military, defensive structures, such as those shown in Figs. 3 through Fig. 8.

Construction of these new, powerful, stone structures usually began after the Anglo-

Norman invasion of 1069, and continued to be built until the late 18th century. They were not designed to protect inhabitants and domesticates from sporadic raids but to withstand military attacks. Yet, these structures could not prevent the socio-political changes brought about by the invading forces that even proclaimed one of their own as King of Ireland

(Henry VIII). Ancient Irish laws known as Laws, regulating civil activities, were replaced by English laws, although the inhabitants continued to use them.

Changes brought about by the English invasion including the formation of an Irish

Parliament that, supposedly, represented the entire island. Although these invasions also triggered a successive wave of rebellions for centuries culminating in 1921 with the declaration of the Republic of Ireland. However, the social and political changes imposed by force shaped ancient Irish society to this day. In other words, as Carneiro (1970) proposed, war that lasted around 800 years was the determinant factor in the development

105 of social complexity in Ireland that allowed the country to become one socio-political entity.

Thus, there are basically two types of stone cashels in Ireland, those built during the

Late Mesolithic through the Early Middle Ages and those constructed after the Anglo-

Norman, and subsequent, invasions. The former were built to protect families and domesticates from sporadic raiders and marauders, while the rest were built to protect the inhabitants from military attacks during centuries of rebellious uprisings against a colonial power.

Accordingly, in order to better understand the surge of cashel construction, their purposes, and the long period of construction and distribution of these enclosures they must be framed within the context of historical sequence. Thus, three historical periods are put forward: Prehistory (Mesolithic to Late Iron Age), Middle Ages (from Anglo-

Norman invasion in 1169 to late 1600s with the English invasion), and Modern Times

(1700 through the creation of the ). It must be emphiaszied that the purpose of this paper is not the study of Irish history but the presumed, if any, correlation between violent historical events and the construction of stone cashels to protect people’s lives and property.

Prehistory

For over 7,000 BC Mesolithic people already had the technical knowledge to build megaliths, as well as places of abode. As hunters and gatherers, their residences were not designed to withstand an attack but merely to protect themselves from the elements. But, at the Late Neolithic stage on when agro-pastoralism, and private property, became part of the socio-economic landscape there was a surge in the construction of cashels and

106 ringforts. This is reflected in Table 2 that shows enclosures began appearing during the Late

Mesoltihic and Neolithic, when agro-pastoralism became part of the Irish landscape. These

were simple constructions or places of abode. They became more numerous as the influx of new population into the island increased and, with it, the number of new farmers and pastoralists. Although these enclosures could easily deter an assault from other pastoralists they were not designed or built to withstand a military-type of attack. The wide distribution of these enclosures suggests a generalized adoption of agro-pastoralism.

Middle Ages

The Anglo-Norman invasion of 1169 to Ireland triggered a new wave of cashel

construction. Table 2 shows a marked increase in the building of these stone

enclosures, this time with more than one wall. This clearly suggests that the new type

of enclosures were built not only to protect cattle but also to withstand an attack by

external forces. At this time in history, agro-pastoralism was well established in

Ireland and thievery, or cattle rustling, was well entrenched. In fact, this is the time

when legends regarding battle for the possession of cattle began to appear in Irish

literature. For the first time enclosures surrounded by more than one fortified wall

became rather common.

This is the time Anglo-Norman knights and their soldiers began attacking agro-

pastoral settlements. At the same time, Anglo-Norman knights began constructing

castles and fortified cashels throughout the Irish countryside, as a way to protect and

establish themselves in the new conquered territories.

107

Modern Times

For contextual reasons in this paper, modern times begin at the end of the Middle

Ages with the English invasions in which Henry VIII proclaimed himself king of Ireland.

This new invasion, in which Oliver Cromwell himself actively participated, also triggered a new wave of cashel construction by the Irish pastoralists as a means to protect their properties. New, better-constructed cashels, also served as bases for the dozens of rebellions launched against the invaders. These rebellions took place from the mid 1500s

AD the beginning of the 20th century when the Republic of Ireland was created. There is a correlation between the Irish rebellions and the construction of bigger cashels that served a dual purpose, as a protection for the domesticates as well as defensive structures.

Although real fortresses and castles were also constructed the majority of the stone structures were too small to have served as military defenses.

Additionally, it must be remembered that in order to build strong defensive cashels, even during the rebellions, manpower and food surplus are necessary elements that the builders may have not had at their disposal. After all they were basically farmsteaders, not lords of territories.

Summary

a) Archaeological data obtained from excavations of over 41 cashel/ringforts, as well as field survey of sites, conducted in many areas of Northern Ireland and the

Republic of Ireland, have rendered very similar results in terms of artifacts uncovered, and their date. The older types of pottery (Carinated, and later Beaker Culture) are found in almost all sites excavated. These artifacts have been dated between Neolithic and

Bronze Age periods. Thus, what emerges is a pattern of different habitation ages, as

108 shown by the type of pottery found, but deposited in the same type of structure and, more often than not, occupying the same cashel/ringfort. The depth of the statigraphy excavated in many cashels is not very deep, usually one meter. This means that the artifacts in many cases may seem roughly of the same date, although they may be thousands of years apart.

The most striking pattern is the similarity of morphology and structural characteristic of the structures, whether they are defensive enclosures or family farmsteads, although their construction dates may differ widely. Archaeological data show that their morphology and size, although visually may resemble a fortification, closer examination suggests that the structures were built as residential places for families. Inside the cashel/ringfort usually the structure has the remains of houses and small circular stone structures with a narrow entrance. These small structures resemble animal pens and, most likely, were used for that purpose. No weapons of any kind have been found in the excavated sites, including in Caherconnell where I participated. Only bones of domesticates and one metal object resembling a nail that, according to Dr. Comber

(excavation director), was the tuning key of an ancient Irish harp.

b) These enclosures, whether built with stone or earthwork, offer a pattern of utilization of abundant construction material (stone or earth) rather than a military-defensive intention. In most cases the surrounding wall(s) are no higher than 2 meters, hardly a deterrent for military forces. However, these enclosures would have served as protection for domesticated animals during nighttime against non-military raiders. Violence itself is not new in prehistory especially when there is an economic incentive. In

109 the case of Ireland, from prehistory to modern times (18th through 19the centuries), the development of a mixed economy (agro-pastoralism).

The appearance of cattle breeding provided those less fortunate the opportunity to acquire new wealth by violent means, especially when the Church itself was sanctioning these hostile activities, as Plummer notes (Doherty 1980:75). These attacks, although they implied some kind of organization and planning, as depicted in the anonymous account The Cattle Raid of Cooley, did not rise to the level of warfare. They were raids staged by local chieftains in coalition with other similar groups. Prehistoric Ireland had not yet evolved into a cohesive social unity that would have allowed a structured polity to organize, plan, and direct a massive attack to other similar or less developed group. Thus, the size and morphology of the cashel/ringfort suggests they were built primarily as residential and farmsteads structures. c) The pattern of abundance of stone/earthwork structures throughout the landscape does give a first impression of a violent ancient past. Legends and myths telling of a combative past, where foreign invaders occupied the Island, as well as a state of constant wars between kings, heroes, and queens for the possession of prized commodities (i.e. sacred bull), are an integral part of the Irish “historical” past. The stone structures fit comfortably within this warring context. d) Incorporating myths into the Prehistoric past of Ireland has been a pattern that many authors now decry but it has been “in the books” for generations. As Bradley (2007:24) aptly put it, referring to the origins of Ireland, “Although this account was never taken literally, it has had an influence on the way in which Irish prehistory was studied.” The same pattern is seen regarding the motives for the battles, such as for the possession of a

110

‘sacred bull’ that, as Ireland became more dependent on cattle for wealth and status, made circular stone structures all the more important or necessary.

Data Sources

Database for this paper were of two kinds, primary and secondary sources. Primary source was the excavation of a Caherconnell cashel in which I participated in the summer of 2009. This excavation was headed by Dr. Michelle Comber of the National University of Ireland at Galway (NUI - west Ireland). The site is owned by John Davoren a member of an old family (ca. 10th century) of what is known as minor gentry. Mr. Davoren gave permission to the NUI to conduct a series of excavations in cashels and other ancient monuments located in his lands.

The Caherconnel cashel is located in the Burren Barony, County Clare - west Ireland, in a vast pasture landscape. The structure, prior to 2009, had never been excavated or studied (Comber & Hull 2009). As the map shows the cashel is located on a natural routeway near the intersection of two other routes leading to the coast. Today these routes are paved, but in ancient times they were only natural paths that facilitated communication and trade between other structures, as the structure was “strategically located” (Comber & Hull 2009). This strategic location seemed to have been for trade and social exchange, including exchange of wives, not only for the Caherconnell cashel but for other residential structures scattered throughout the island as well.

In fact, McEvoy et al (2004: 693) state that “multiple genetic marker systems indicate a shared ancestry throughout the Atlantic zone, from northern Iberia to western

Scandinavia that dates back to the end of the last Ice Age.” This assertion seems to confirm, although in a poetic way, the immigration portrayed as invasions in the

111 anonymous Lebor Gabal Eirenn (The Book of Invasions). The Caherconnell cashel would have been in a very favorable location for trade and social interaction.

Fig. 11

Location of the Caherconnell Cashel in County Clare (west) Comber & Hull 2009:134

In other words the location of the Caherconnell cashel, cashel alongside ancient routes, suggests an avenue that facilitated the establishment of social and economic network in prehistoric and Middle-Age times rather than a passage for invading armed factions. Although at the same time, the same routes could also have served as passage for hostile groups raiding the cashel. However no weapons or tools that could have been

112 used as defensive weapons were uncovered during the excavation, only cattle and pig bones suggesting residential activity. Additionally, the fact that the ancient routes, now known as R480 and N67, end at the maritime coast seem to strongly suggest that the function of the cashel was residential and farmstead. Nonetheless, the height of the stone walls that originally may have been no higher than two meters could have also served a defensive purpose against prehistoric and Middle-Age raiders (Comber & Hull 2007-

2009, Fitzpatrick 2009).

Secondary sources are composed of academic articles and books detailing excavations, as well as proposed theories interpreting Irish history from prehistory through the Middle

Ages. Some book sources (i.e. Lebor Gábala Érenn, The Cattle Raid of Cooley,) are of great antiquity and anonymous.

These books are transcriptions of ancient oral history that were put in writing around the middle of the first millennium AD. Although the Lebor Gábala Érenn describes the supposed origins of Ireland it is not actually an historical record about the subject, as it includes entire passages of the Bible as part of the ancient origin of the island. The other book also describes, in poetic form, violent events that, again, supposedly took place in prehistory between chieftains, heroes, and queens at a time when there were no kings or record-keeping capability. However their importance reside in the fact these, and other accounts, influenced Irish historians, as well as archaeologists.

Other secondary sources cited are composed of research articles detailing excavations of cashels/ringforts and raths conducted over several decades. Most of these articles are in themselves primary sources of archeological data that I have cited because they reflect work currently being conducted.

113

CHAPTER IX Conclusions

Prehistory in Ireland: The Mesolithic and Population Influx

During prehistory Ireland was an area of continuous population influx from the north, east, and even the south (Iberia) settling in the island. Although the arrival of these groups does not conform to the idea of ‘waves of advance’ (Ammerman & Cavalli-Sforza 1984), they were, nevertheless, groups of families each with their own language and sets of cultural traits. These groups settled as independent hunters and gatherers alongside the coastal and riverine areas, where food was abundant and did not require communal action to obtain them. In the beginning their places of abode were basically made of wattle and branches, as they had no private property to protect.

Nevertheless, the abundance of stone as construction material allowed these groups over the centuries to build their places of abode as enclosures, as shown in Table 2, possibly as protection against strong winds so prevalent in the island rather than protection against raiders. As members of these incoming groups did not share a common ancestry, as was the case of Polynesian islanders (Kirch 1996), it was not easy for them to form alliances with other groups, under common interests. They lived separate and independent lives in their wattle and stone enclosures. It seems that the beginning of construction of these stone enclosures correlate with the steady arrival of new population into the island.

Also, it seems that not all new residential construction were made of stone, as some vestiges of Neolithic earth and wattle houses have been found (Roycroft 2010, Scarre

2007, McLaughin 2010). It seems that the violent skirmishes described in hyperbolic

114 fashion in different sagas, at such an early stage of social evolution, actually corresponded to interpersonal violence, as described by Roksandič (2004), Radovanovič

(2006), Orchiedt (2005), Guilaine & Zammit (2005). All these groups are unsegmented and egalitarian social units (Keeley 1996), whose places of abode began to surface in the Irish countryside during the Late Neolithic when agro-pastoralism was adopted to become the general economic system.

Mesolithic-Neolithic Transition

The transition from hunting and gathering to agro-pastoralism brought about the development of private ownership of land, and domestic animals such as cattle, goats, pigs, and sheep. They became the means of production and wealth that had to be protected, especially during the Late Neolithic with the development of what Sherrat

(1983) calls the “secondary products revolution,” where cattle, goats, sheep became animals of traction, source of milk, wool, and hides. Inevitably, these radical changes economic changes became also the source of friction between successful agro-pastoralists and their less fortunate counterparts.

This does not mean that the Neolithic was primarily an economic and technological adaptation resulting in, or defined as, the production of food (rather than collecting). If so then, as Thomas (1991) points out, any cultural development would have been the result of agricultural development, including the construction of monuments anywhere. In other words, as Thomas (1991) argues, the production of food and other goods is always

“socially defined” within the context of relations of production. It is part of the cultural context of the people involved that also necessarily includes the construction of places of abode, as well as demarcation monuments. For this reason “the social organisation of

115 labour undertaken by people within a given epoch is fundamental to the understanding of their historical circumstances” (Thomas 1991:11).

Thus the social development during the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition in Ireland was no less a “historical phenomenon,” as suggested by Thomas (1991), than that taking place elsewhere in Europe. The new social landscape brought about by the relations of production between social elements that emerged with the birth of private property of land and cattle, where labor was the necessary nexus in the transformation of materials

(cattle or land), into a context of social reproduction of inequalities. This progression involved an interconnection and maintenance of the “relations of power and knowledge,” as Thomas posits (1991:13). This new landscape of social reproduction will necessarily evolve into violent antagonism between the owners of newly acquired source of wealth, and creators of new institutions, and those who lacked them.

Thus, attacks on farmsteaders became more frequent and were even described in ancient sagas as wars between mythical kings and queens for the possession of prized bulls (Crowe 1871; Dunn 1914). These legendary accounts depict scenarios of violent and constant warfare between unstructured groups that, coupled with the extensive system of seemingly defensive stone fortresses, gives the impression of an era and area in constant warfare. It was at this socio-economic stage when the construction of cashels and ringforts increased with the influx of new population into the island, and with it the expansion of new farmers and pastoralists.

116

Middle Ages

At the onset of the Anglo-Norman invasion of 1169, agro-pastoralism was well established in Medieval Ireland. Cashels and ringforts, as Tables 1and 2 show, began to appear in numbers throughout the countryside. The appearance of stone cashels/ringforts seems to correlate with the rebellious response by the agro-pastoralist people to the

Anglo-Norman invaders. At the same time there is also an increase in violent skirmishes by local chieftains for control not only of territories, but also for domination over commerce and cattle production. At this time a new type of stone enclosure begins to appear that resemble the circular shape of the family farmstead, but this time they are encircled by more than one protective wall. Figs. 5, 6, and 7, Dún Conor, Inishmaan,

County Galway (Norman & St. Joseph 1969: 57), Dún Aengusa, Inishmore, Co. Galway

(Norman & St. Joseph 1969: 81), and Cahercommaun, County Clare (Norman & St.

Joseph 1969: 58).

These stone enclosures, although for the most part, they all look like oversized family cashels, they are actually defensive fortresses. In this regard the case of the Caherconnell cashel is somewhat different. Its location, close to natural ancient pathways leading to the coast, offered the opportunity for local trade, as well as foreign commerce to both, local inhabitants and newcomers or invaders. Excavations in the Caherconnell cashel have not rendered any type of weapon or tools that could have been used as weapons, only bones of domesticated animals, cattle and sheep.

117

Anglo-Norman fortifications

At the same time, the Anglo-Norman knights began to construct castles to protect themselves from attacks by the native population. This new type of stone cashel and castles continued to be built throughout the subsequent English invasions of the 1600s and 1700s. It must be remembered that Oliver Cromwell also invaded Ireland, and Henry

VIII proclaimed himself King of Ireland. This time, instead of legendary battles between kings and queens that never existed there are chronicles detailing not only the battles but also the massacres inflicted upon the native population (i.e. 1649). The rebellions against the English invaders did not stop at Drogheda, but continued throughout the centuries until Ireland became the Republic of Ireland in 1922, after the initial Easter uprising of 1916.

Thus the question remains, were the ancient Irish population in constant state of war against each other for centuries, as some suggest from the stone enclosures scattered throughout the Irish countryside? The answer seems to be that neither the type nor the morphology of the stone enclosures or their location justifies such a drastic conclusion.

This is not to say that ancient Ireland was a completely peaceful society throughout its history. Moreover, in the context of socio-political evolution of Ireland the Anglo-

Norman invasion, as well as the subsequent English invasions, actually promoted the unification of the country. From sparse and scattered clusters of independent family farmsteaders they became, by force, one social unit under one political structure despite the unrelated ancestry and cultural background of the new ‘natives.’

Carneiro’s (1970) theory of violence as a determinant of social evolution can safely be applied to the Irish context, although with one caveat. There is no historical evidence that

118 either the Anglo-Normans or the English invaders actually felt circumscribed to a small territory with very limited natural resources that compelled them to invade another area.

It seems that, in the final analysis, cashels/ringforts for the most part were family places of residence, as well as protective stone enclosures for domesticated animals (cattle, sheep, and goats) that had become a new source of wealth and even prestige. Violent skirmishes and mythical wars depicted in anonymous works illustrate the economic and social value of animal husbandry, especially with the development of secondary exploitation of domesticated animals, i.e. used for traction, milk and wool.

In this regard, the case of Caherconnell cashel, as a place of family abode and protective enclosure for domesticated animals, was not unique. Its location may have been particularly advantageous for trade and external commerce for its residents but, as a stone structure, it was no different than any other family cashel/ringfort. The fact that it only has one surrounding wall (univallet) with an elevation no higher than two meters and an interior diameter of 45 meters with no defensive ramps, strongly suggests that it had no military defensive purpose and, its characteristics, can safely applied to similar stone constructions.

119

REFERENCES

Ammerman, Albert and Cavalli-Sforza, L.L. The Neolithic Transition And The Genetics Of Populations In Europe. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, pp. 176, 1984.

Anderson, Robert T. Voluntary Associations in History. American Anthropologist, Vol. 73, No.1, 1971, pp. 209-221. 1971

Andews, J.H. The Geographical Element in Irish History. In A New History of Ireland: Prehistory and Early Ireland. Edited by Dáibhí Ó Cróinín, Oxford University Press, pp. 1268 (including 49 pages of plates). 2005

ApSimon, A.M. The Earlier Bronze Age In The North Of Ireland. Ulster Journal of Archaeology, Vol. 32, pp. 28-72. 1969

Barrett, G.F.;Graham B.J. Some Considerations Concerning The Dating And Distribution Of Ring-Forts In Ireland. Ulster Journal of Archaeology, Third Series, Vol. 38, pp.33-47, 1975,

Barrett, Gillian. Flights Of Discovery Archaeological, Air Survey In Ireland, 1989- 2000. The Journal of Irish Archaeology, vol. XI, 2002

Bogucki, Peter. How agriculture came to north-central Europe. In Europe's First Farmers; T. Douglas Price, ed., University Press, 2000, chapter 8, pp. 197 – 218, 2000

Bradley, Richard. The Prehistory Of Britain And Ireland. Cambridge University Press, pp. 321, 2007.

Breen, John. Not Enough Earth to Bury a Man: The Burren. Journal of Biogeography, vol. 19, No. 4 (Jul., 1992), p. 466, 1992.

Cambrensis, Geraldus. The Topography Of Ireland, And The History Of The Conquest of Ireland. The Historical Works, Giraldus Cambrensis. London: H. G. Bohn, York Street, Covent Garden, 1187. Translated from Latin by Thomas Forester, Esq., M.A., 1863

Carneiro, Robert L. A Theory of the Origin of the State. Science, New Series, Vol. 169, No. 3947, pp. 733-738, 1970 _____ The Circumscription Theory: Challenge and Response. American Behavioral. Scientist, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 497-511, March/ April 1988 _____ Ascertaining, Testing, and Interpreting Sequences of Cultural Development. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology, Vol. 24, No. 4, pp. 354-374, 1968.

120

Champion, Timothy. The myth of Iron Age invasions in Ireland. In B. Scott (ed.), Studies on Early Ireland. Essays in Honour of M.V. Duignan, pp. 39–44. : Association of Young Irish Archaeologists, 1982.

Charles-Edwards, T.M. Prehistoric and early Ireland. In A New History of Ireland: Prehistory and Early Ireland. Edited by Dáibhí Ó Cróinín, Oxford University Press, pp. 1268 (including 49 pages of plates). 2005

Clarke, Aidan. The Old English In Ireland, 1625-1642. Ithaca, N. Y., Cornell University Press, 1966, pp. 287. Reviewed by Leland Carlson, 1967. In The American Historical Review, Vol. 72, No. 3 (Apr., 1967), pp. 986- 987, 1966.

Comber, Michelle and Hull, Graham. Excavations at Caherconnell Cashel, the Burren, Co. Clare: implications for cashel chronology and Gaelic settlement. Proceedings of the Vol. 110C, 133–171, 2010.

Crowe, O’Beirne, J. The Dun Cow. Compilation of ancient poems made by three different people, only one recognized (Mael Muire). Date unknown. Edited by R.I. Best and Osborn Bergein. Translated by J.O. O’Beirne and published by Hodges, Figgins, and Co. Dublin, 1929.

Coughlan, Tim. The enigma of Cappydonnell Big. SEANDA, NRA (National Roads Authority) Archaeology Magazine, Issue 2, pp. 1- 31, 2007.

Cuningham, John. Oliver Cromwell and The ‘Cromwellian’ Settlement of Ireland. The Historical Journal, vol. 53, 4, pp. 919–937 Cambridge University Press, 2010.

Deevey, Mary. NRA Archaeology Magazine, Issue 1, SEANDA, 2006

Dillon, Myles. Lebor Gábala Érenn. The Journal of the Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland Vol. 86, No. 1, pp. 62-72, 1956.

Doherty, Charles. Exchange and Trade in Early Medieval Ireland. Journal of the Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland, Vol. 110, pp.67-89, 1980.

Dunn, Joseph. The Cattle Raid of Cooley or Táin Bó Cúalnge (7th - 8th century AD). It is part of the Leabhar na h-Uidhri and the Yellow Book of Lecan. Translated by Joseph Dunn in 1914 from . The Irish transcription is from Die Altirische Heldensage Táin Bó Cúalnge (1905) by Ernst Windisch, Leipzig: Verlag von S. Hirzel. Dunn's English translation includes many passages that are not part of Windisch's transcription.. Printed by David Nutt, London, 1914.

121

Earle, Timothy. Chiefdoms: Power, Economy and Ideology. In Sanderson Stephen K. (2000). Sociological Worlds: Comparative and historical Readings on Societies. Fitzroy Dearborn Publishers, Part V, pp. 377, 2000.

Edwards, Nancy. The Archaeology of early Medieval Ireland, C. 400-1169: settlement and economy. In A new History of Ireland: Prehistoric and Early Ireland. Oxford University Press, chapter VIII, pp. 235-300, 2005.

Flanagan, James W. Chiefs in Israel. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament. Vol. 20, pp. 47-73, 1981.

Ferguson, Brian R. Explaining war in The Anthropology Of War. Ed. By Jonathan Haas. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 242, 1990.

Fitzpatrick, Elizabeth. Native Enclosed Settlement and the Problem of the Irish ‘Ring- fort.’ Medieval Archaeology, vol. 53, pp. 271-307, 2009.

Gibson, Charles. Historical Portraits Of Irish Chieftains And Anglo – Norman Knights. Longmans, Green, and Co., London, pp. 454, 1871.

Guilaine, Jean and Zammit, Jean. The origins of war: Violence In prehistory. Blackwell Publishing, pp. 282, 2005.

Harbison, Peter. Spectacular Ireland. Leslie C. Carola, editor. Hugh Lauter Levin Associates, Inc., pp. 136, 1999.

Hennessy, William M. Annals of Ulster or Annals of Senat. A Chronicle of Irish Affairs from AD 431 to AD 1540, vol. 1, edited, with a translation and notes by William M. Hennessy, M.R.I.A., printed for Her Majesty’s Stationery Office by Alexander Thom & Co. Limited, Dublin, 1887.

Hicks, Ronald. The Sacred Landscape of Ancient Ireland. Archaeology, Vol. 64, No. 3 (May/June 2011), pp. 40-45, 2011.

Hobbes, Thomas. Leviathan. http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/%7Erbear/hobbes/leviathan.html; p. 647, 1651.

Johnson, Allen W. and Earle Timothy. The Evolution of Human Societies From Foraging Groups to Agrarian State. Stanford University Press, 2nd edition, pp. 440, 2000.

Joshua, Book of Joshua, Old Testament, Chapters 1-23.

122

Kiely, Jacinta. A souterrain at Ballynacarriga 2. NRA Archaeology Magazine, Issue 5, SEANDA, 2010. Kirch, Vinton Patrick. The Evolution of the Polynesian Chiefdoms. Cambridge University Press, pp. 314, 1996.

Kelly, Raymond C. Warless Societies and the Origin of War. The University Of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, pp. 192, 2007.

Legg, Robert J.; Taylor David. Modeling Environmental Influences on the Locations of Irish Early Medieval Ringforts. Geoarchaeology, Vol. 21, No. 3, pp. 201-220, 2006

Limbert, Darren). Irish Ringforts: A Review of their Origins. Archaeological Journal, vol. 153, pp. 243-289, 1996.

Lynch, John. Cambrensis Eversus (Cambrensis corrected). The History Of Ancient Ireland Vindicated: Religion, Laws And Civilization Of Her People Exhibited In The Lives, and Actions of her Kings, Princes, Saints, Bishops. , and other Learned Men. With extracts from Ancient Irish Manuscripts, llustrative Of The Social Condition Of Her People Before The Anglo-Norman Invasion. Originally written in Latin by the Rev. and translated by the Rev. Matthew Kelly. Saint Patrick’s College Maynooth Dublin: Printed For The Celtic Society 1848. 1848.

Macalister, Stewart R.A. Lebor Gábala Érenn or The Book Of The Taking Of Ireland. Editing and Translation with notes began in 1938. A collection of ancient poems written between the 8th and 11th century AD. Published For The Irish Texts Society By The Educational Company Of Ireland, Ltd., Dublin. The Introduction of this book reads: “This is a compilation which professes to narrate the history of the successive colonists of that country” from the Creation to the coming of the Goidels (ancient Celts). Six volumes printed in Dublin in1938, 1940, 1941, 1956, and 2008.

Mageoghagan, Conell. Annals of Clonmacnoise From The Earliest Period To A.D. 1408, an., This is a compilation of ancient anonymous accounts translated into English in A.D. 1627 by Conell Mageoghagan; edited by the Rev. Denis , S.J., LL. D., M.R.I.A . Printed at The University Press 1896, Dublin, pp. 418, 1896.

McEvoy, Brian et al. The Longue Dure´e of Genetic Ancestry: Multiple Genetic Marker Systems and Celtic Origins on the Atlantic Facade of Europe. American Journal of Human Genetics, vol. 75, pp. 693-702, 2004.

123

McCormick, Finbar. Cows, Ringforts and the Origins of Early Christian Ireland. Emania; bulletin of the Navan Research Group, pp. 33-37, 1995.

McCourt, Desmond. Infield and Outfield in Ireland. The Economic History Review, New Series, Vol. 7, No. 3 (1955), pp. 369-376, 1955.

McIntosh, Keech Susan. Beyond Chiefdoms: Pathways to Complexity in Africa. Cambridge University Press, edited by Susan Keech McIntosh; pp.10, 1999.

Monk, Michael. A Tale of Two Ringforts: Lisleagh I and II. Journal of The Cork Historical and Archaeological Society, vol. 100, pp.105-116, 1995.

Nicholls, John and Shiel Dan. NRA Archaeology Magazine, 2006, Issue 1. 2006.

Oberg, Kalervo Types of Social Structure among the Lowland Tribes of South and Central America. American Anthropologist, 1955, vol. 57, No. 3, pp. 472 – 487, 1955.

O’Brien, Richard. NRA Archaeology Magazine, 2006, Issue 1.

Ó Cróinin, Dáibhí, editor. A New History Of Ireland: Prehistoric and early Ireland. Oxford University Press, pp. 1219, 2005.

Ó'Cuirnín, Ádhamh. Copy of anonymous The Book of Lecan with minor additions in 1410.

O’Donovan, John. The Tribes And Customs of Hy-Many, Commonly Called O' kelly’s Country. First Published From The Book Of Lecan, an ancient manuscript in the Library Of The Royal Irish Academy With a translation and notes by John O'Donovan. The Irish Archaeological Society, 1843. _____ Annals of the Four Masters. Compiled by the Brothers the Order Of St. Francis, Ó Cléirigh, Micheál, Choigcríche Cú, Ó Maol Chonaire Fearfeasa, and Ó Duibhgeannain. This is a compilation of more ancient Annals, 1636. Published by Hodges, Smith, and Co., Dublin, 2nd edition. It was originally translated with errors by Dr. Charles O’Conor. It was later translated again by John O’Donovan in 1856. O’Keeffee, Tadhg. Medieval Ireland: An Archaeology. Tempus Publishing Ltd., 2000, Charleston, SC, pp. 192.

Orschiedt, Jörg. The head burials from Ofnet : an example of warlike conflict in the Mesolithic. In Warfare, Violence And Slavery In Prehistory. Proceedings of a Prehistoric Society conference at Sheffield University, 2005.

124

O’Sullivan, Aidan et al. The Early Medieval Archaeology Project (EMAP), Report 3.1, Project Progress Report 2009 O’Sullivan, Aidan; Nicholl Triona. Early medieval settlement enclosures in Ireland: dwellings, daily life and social identity. Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy Vol. 111C, pp. 59–90, 2010.

Proudfoot, V.B. The Economy of the Irish Rath. Medieval Archaeology, pp. 94-123, 1961. _____ Irish raths and Cashels: Some Notes on Chronology, Origins, and Survivals. Ulster Journal of Archaeology, vol. 33, pp.37- 46, 1970

Radovanovič, Ivana. Further Notes on Mesolithic-Neolithic Contacts in the Iron Gates Region and the central Balkans. Documenta Praehistorica XXXIII (2006), pp. 107-124, 2006.

Roksandic, Mirjana. Introduction: How Violent Was The Mesolithic, Or Is There A Common Pattern Of Violent Interactions Specific To Sedentary Hunter-Gatherers? In BAR International Series, 2004.

Roycroft, Niall. NRA Archaeology Magazine, 2006, Issue 1, 2006

Sahlins, Marshall. The Stranger-King or Drimezil among the Fijians. Journal of Pacific History, pp. 107-132, 1981

Service, Elman. Kinship Terminology and Evolution. American Anthropologist, vol. 62, No. 5, pp. 747-763, 1960. ____ Origins of the State and Civilization: The Process of Cultural Evolution. W.W. Norton & Company, Inc. New York, pp.361, 1975 ____ Primitive Social Organization: An Evolutionary Perspective. Random House, New York, pp.221, 1962.

Stokes, Whitley. The Battle of Carn Conaill, edited by Whitley Stokes, pp. 203-219, 72- 573. Zeitschrift für Celtische Philologie 3 (1901), pp. 203-219; 572573. 1901.

Stout, Matthew. The Irish Ringfort. Irish Settlement Studies, No. 5. Four Courts Press 1997, pp. 142, 1997 ____ Ringforts in the South-West Midlands of Ireland. Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy. Section C: Archaeology, Celtic Studies, Vol. 91C, pp. 201-243, 1991.

125

Thomas, Julian. Relations of Production and Social Change in the Neolithic of North- West Europe. In Man, New Series, Vol. 22, No. 3 (Sep., 1987), pp. 405-430, 1987. _____ Rethinking the Neolithic. Cambridge University Press, pp. 212, 1991

Waddell, John. The Question Of The Celticization Of Ireland. EMANIA, vol. 9, 1991, pp. 5-16, 1991 ____ The invasion hypothesis in Irish prehistory. Antiquity vol. 52, pp. 121–8, 1978.

Woodman, Peter. Getting back to basics: transitions to farming in Ireland and Britain. In Europe's First Farmers; T. Douglas Price, editor, Cambridge University Press, 2000, chapter 9, pp. 219-259, 2000. ____ The Mesolithic in Ireland: Hunter-Gatherers in an Insular Environment. Banbury Road, Oxford OX27 BP, England, B.A.R. British Series 58, pp.360, 1978 _____ Problems In The Colonisation Of Ireland. Ulster Journal of Archaeology, Vol. 49, 1986, pp. 7-17, 1986. _____ Transitions to Farming in Ireland and Britain. In Europe's First Farmers. Douglas T. Price ed. Cambridge University Press, pp. 395, 2000. Wrangham, Richard. Is military incompetence adaptive? Evolution and Human Behavior 20: 3–17 (1999), pp. 17

Yoffee, Norman. Myths of the Archaic States: Evolution Of The Earliest Cities, States, And Civilizations. Cambridge University Press, 2005

126