The ‘Carlingford Culture’, the Long Barrow and the Neolithic of Great Britain and Ireland

Ruaidhrí de Valéra

doi:10.1017/S0079497X00016054

The ‘Carlingford Culture’, the Long Barrow and the Neolithic of Great Britain and Ireland

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 27 May 2014

Ruaidhrí de Valéra

Show author details

Ruaidhrí de Valéra: Affiliation:
Professor of Archaeology, University College, Dublin

Article contents

Extract
References

Get access

Rights & Permissions

Extract

There are at the moment several indications that a re-assessment of the problems of the neolithic in Britain and Ireland is required. Since the virtual discovery of the primary neolithic some thirty years ago, so vast has the field become that it is no longer possible for an individual to be familiar with all the material and it is inevitable that each will tend to see the whole from the viewpoint of his own special interest and region. In these circumstances, during the course of any re-assessment, workers on various aspects are especially liable to find themselves at cross-purposes. Moreover, in the developments which followed the brilliant pioneer syntheses many ideas have become traditional and tend to be accepted as axiomatic. The alteration or abandonment of such ideas may prove difficult and more difficult still may be the emendation or rejection of conclusions based on them.

Ireland lies to the west of Britain. To review the whole scene in any detail from a standpoint in Ireland would involve discussing at second-hand too much of the material on which current views are based and such is not the intention. These notes are designed merely to comment on some general issues which have been and may well in the future be sources of difficulty and misunderstanding, and in particular to deal with the Irish court cairns which have been the subject of recent discussion. It is scarcely to be hoped that they will obviate controversy, but they may help a little towards the mutual understanding of differences.

Type: Research Article
Information: Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society , Volume 27 , December 1961 , pp. 234 - 252

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0079497X00016054 [Opens in a new window]
Copyright: Copyright © The Prehistoric Society 1961

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

^{page 234 note 1} Piggott, , The Neolithic Cultures of the British Isles (Cambridge, 1954), 15Google Scholar. cf. Clark, , The Mesolithic Settlement of Northern Europe (Cambridge, 1936)Google Scholar, p. xvi.

^{page 236 note 1} e.g. Case, , Ant. J., XXXVI (1956), 11–30CrossRef Google Scholar. Clark, , Higgs, and Longworth, , PPS, XXVI (1960), 202–45Google Scholar.

^{page 239 note 1} Some non-megalithic neolithic burials may represent a decline in the tradition or a fusion with other traditions. Neolithic burials occur elsewhere in Ireland. The affinities with food-vessel in some cases Rath, (JRSAI, LXXXIX (1959), 17–29)Google Scholar and perhaps Kiltale, (JRSAI, LXXXI (1951), 19–23)Google Scholar and Norrismount, (JRSAI, LXXX (1950), 155–77)Google Scholar suggests rather that these at least are later.

^{page 239 note 2} Other neolithic flint types would repay more detailed study, cf. PPS, XXVI (1960), 214–26Google Scholar.

^{page 240 note 1} PPS, XXV (1959), 15–51Google Scholar.

^{page 240 note 2} PPS, XXI (1955), 96–107Google Scholar.

^{page 240 note 3} The group as a whole have been dealt with by the present writer PRIA, 60C2 (1960), 9–140Google Scholar. While the following discussion contains new evidence from over twenty newly discovered sites, some apology is perhaps required for the necessary repetition of points more fully dealt with in the original paper to which the reader is referred.

^{page 240 note 4} ‘The Carlingford Culture’, PPS, XXVI (1960), 98–148Google Scholar.

^{page 241 note 1} Evans, Estyn in a recent review (Studia Hibernica, I (1961), 228–32)Google Scholar while rejecting the interpretation put forward by the present writer, PRIA, 60C2 (1960), 9–140Google Scholar, maintains the unity of the class.

^{page 241 note 2} I retain the terminology proposed, JRSAI, LXXXI (1951), 186Google Scholar, and applied inter alia PRIA, 60C2 (1960), 9 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 241 note 3} The numeration is that in PRIA, 60C2 (1960), 9–140Google Scholar, where references to individual sites may be found.

^{page 241 note 4} e.g. the frequent flattening of the court façade across the gallery entrance and the frequent occurrence of tall flanking stones beside the entry jambs of the gallery.

^{page 241 note 5} Op. cit., 103, cf. PRIA, 60C2 (1960), 18Google Scholar.

^{page 242 note 1} 105 court cairns can now be listed for these nine countries. 101 of them will be found PRIA, 60C2, 110–29 Corcoran's work verifies the extra four. Moyaver (Watson, , UJA, VIII (1945), 102, no. 33Google Scholar), Ballygroll (Mahr, , PPS, III (1937), 426, no. 51Google Scholar) not visited by the present writer, and Lissan (Mahr, op. cit., 426, no. 41) and Killucan (Mahr, op. cit., 427, no. 84) examined 1952 but pending detailed survey necessary for certain classification not included in PRIA, 60C2 (1960), 9–140Google Scholar.

^{page 242 note 2} e.g. list in JRSAI, LXXXI (1951), p. 196Google Scholar.

^{page 243 note 1} Op. cit., 112–13.

^{page 243 note 2} JRSAI, LXXXI (1951), 191–2Google Scholar.

^{page 243 note 3} PRIA, 60C2 (1960), 43Google Scholar, pl. xxxiii.

^{page 243 note 4} Correctly described in his Appendix p. 139 as having a façade almost three-quarters of a circle in plan. Other sites with comparable closure, e.g. Ballymarlagh (Antrim 14) are described as semi-circular, p. 103.

^{page 243 note 5} Op. cit., 104.

^{page 244 note 1} Hencken noted this in the case of Haliday, Clady, JRSAI, LXIX (1939), 94–5Google Scholar, cf. Mahr, , PPS, III (1937), 345Google Scholar.

^{page 244 note 2} PPS, VII (1941), 34Google Scholar.

^{page 244 note 3} UJA, II (1939), 165Google Scholar.

^{page 244 note 4} Op. cit., 112. Unless he took ‘reduced’ to mean consisting of stones of small size which was not intended as the context and the examples which he silently omits show.

^{page 244 note 5} JRSAI, LXXXI (1951), 192Google Scholar.

^{page 244 note 6} e.g. UJA, VI (1943), 16Google Scholar; PPS, III (1937), 338Google Scholar.

^{page 244 note 7} Cf. the magnificent rectangular chambers at Aghanaglack (Fermanagh 11).

^{page 244 note 8} The excellent examples at Grange Irish (Louth 4) are not noted.

^{page 245 note 1} More correctly to be classed with the portal dolmens.

^{page 245 note 2} Op. cit., 114.

^{page 245 note 3} PPS, III (1937), 348Google Scholar.

^{page 245 note 4} Besides this cairn a court cairn not noted by Corcoran exists in this townland Loughmacrory (Tyrone 10) and also a wedge-shaped gallery.

^{page 246 note 1} See also Piggott, , The Neolithic Cultures of the British Isles, 167 ffGoogle Scholar. and de Valera, , PRIA, 60C2 (1960), 48 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 246 note 2} Loc. cit.

^{page 246 note 3} Op. cit., 107, 108, 112.

^{page 246 note 4} e.g. Lyles Hill, Lough Gur.

^{page 246 note 5} PSAS, LXXXIII (1948–1949), 103–44Google Scholar.

^{page 246 note 6} Op. cit., 121.

^{page 246 note 7} UJA, I (1938), 59–78Google Scholar.

^{page 246 note 8} Cf. Cairnholy, report, PSAS, LXXXIII (1948–1949), 129Google Scholar.

^{page 247 note 1} UJA, I (1938), 14–16Google Scholar. PPS, III (1937), 338Google Scholar.

^{page 247 note 2} PRIA, 60C2 (1960), 64–9Google Scholar.

^{page 247 note 3} UJA, XXII (1959), 31–2Google Scholar.

^{page 247 note 4} A Preliminary Survey of the Ancient Monuments of Northern Ireland.

^{page 247 note 5} Mahr is cited as holding similar views. The passage referred to PPS, III (1937), 343Google Scholar, does not seem to carry any such implication.

^{page 247 note 6} Prehistoric Communities of the British Isles, 6.

^{page 247 note 7} PRIA, 60C2 (1960), 77Google Scholar.

^{page 247 note 8} Cf. PSAS, LXXXIII (1948–1949), 129Google Scholar.

^{page 247 note 9} PRIA, 60C2 (1960), 73–4Google Scholar.

^{page 247 note 10} Ibid., 75.

^{page 247 note 11} Cf. Neolithic Cultures of the British Isles, 181.

^{page 248 note 1} CLAJ, IX (1938), 17Google Scholar.

^{page 248 note 2} See PRIA, 60C2 (1960), 29, 42Google Scholar and pl. xxxii (Map). Five additional sites, in Mayo (2), Galway (1) and Fermanagh (1) Kilkenny (1) can now be added bringing the present total of dual-court cairns in Ireland to 31 out of a grand total of 252 court cairns.

^{page 248 note 3} One example out of 17 court cairns.

^{page 248 note 4} One example out of 30 court cairns.

^{page 248 note 5} PSAS, LXXXIII (1948–1949), 141–4Google Scholar.

^{page 248 note 6} PSAS, XLIII (1908–1909), 342–50Google Scholar.

^{page 248 note 7} Daniel, , Prehistoric Chamber Tombs of England and Wales, 179Google Scholar.

^{page 248 note 8} Hollow-scrapers however are not entirely absent from Scotland. Examples are included in the collection from Culbin Sands, Elgin, PSAS, XXV (1890–1891), 497Google Scholar. They are known also from the Isle of Man including a surface find from the Meayll Hill Circle, PPS, I (1935), 74Google Scholar.

^{page 248 note 9} e.g. between Causewayed Camps.

^{page 248 note 10} PRIA, 60C2 (1960), 52Google Scholar. Two possible beaker sherds were found at Ballynichol, UJA, XIX (1956), 115–20Google Scholar.

^{page 248 note 11} Corcoran admits that the forecourt element in Scotland suggests some connection, op. cit., 132.

^{page 248 note 12} See below.

^{page 249 note 1} Op. cit., 134.

^{page 249 note 2} Watts, W. A., ‘C-14 Dating and the Neolithic in Ireland’, Antiquity, XXXIV, no. 134, June 1960, 111–16CrossRef Google Scholar.

^{page 249 note 3} PBNHPS (1936–1937), 43 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 249 note 4} Glasgow Arch. Soc. Trans., III (1932), 120–37Google Scholar.

^{page 249 note 5} The Prehistoric Foundations of Europe, 172.

^{page 249 note 6} The Neolithic Cultures of the British Isles, 189. It is to be noted that all three authorities are concerned with the Scottish series as primary implantations.

^{page 251 note 1} A map and schedule of long barrows for all Britain and Ireland is urgently required and could be achieved to a reasonable degree of completeness by co-operative effort.

^{page 251 note 2} Daniel, , PPS, VII (1941), 46–9Google Scholar.

^{page 251 note 3} To speak of schismatics, etc., based on minor changes of tomb plan is an unjustified extension of the notion of divergence from the normal ‘orthodox’ passage grave tradition intended by Childe.

^{page 251 note 4} e.g. perhaps the round barrows with Neolithic A in Yorkshire and Linkardstown, Rath, etc., in Ireland.

^{page 252 note 1} PRIA, 60C2 (1960), 139–40Google Scholar.

^{page 252 note 2} However the loops on the Beacharra ware and the looped decoration on Irish Carrowkeel ware could both derive from the so-called channelled ware motifs and the discrepancy noted by Hawkes, Jacquetta (Arch. J., XCV (1939). 171)Google Scholar would disappear.

Article contents

The ‘Carlingford Culture’, the Long Barrow and the Neolithic of Great Britain and Ireland

Extract

Access options

References

Save article to Kindle

Save article to Dropbox

Save article to Google Drive

Reply to: Submit a response

Your details

You have entered the maximum number of contributors

Conflicting interests