CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, NORTHRIDGE
HISTORICAL IRELAND:
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
Dedication Page
Acknowledgments
List of Figures
List of Tables
Abstract
Chapter I: Introduction
Violence in History
Context and Hypothesis
Methodology
Methodology
CHAPTER II: The Structures
Sating the Structures
Dating the structures
Geographical location of enclosures
Chronology of Enclosures
Morphology and location of structures
CHAPTER III
Anthropology of War
CHAPTER IV: Social Evolution and Violence
Bands
Bands in Prehistoric Ireland
Tribes
Chiefdoms (or Proto States)
Chiefdoms in Ancient Ireland
Settlement and Agricultural Pattern
Social Evolution in Ancient Ireland
The State
Prehistoric Ireland
CHAPTER V: Building Protective Structures
The Walls of Jericho
Protective Structures in Ireland
CHAPTER VI : Archaeology of Cashels/Ringforts
Excavation at the Caherconnell Cashel
Function
Structural Characteristics
CHAPTER VII
The Irish Forts
Geographical Distribution of Cshels/Ringforts
CHAPTER VIII: Discussion
Immgration pattern in prehistoric Ireland or
who were the first Irish people?
Surge in Cashel Construction
v
ii
iii
iv
vi
vii
viii
1
4
5
6
7
7
7
9
9
15
26
31
33
35
37
48
55
59
62
65
67
72
73
75
79
81
89
89
92
98
102
103
105
Prehistory
Middle Ages
Modern Times
Summary
Data Sources
CHAPTER IX
Conclusions
Prehistory and Ireland
Mesolithic-Neolithic Transition
Middle Ages
Anglo-Norman fortifications
106
107
108
108
111
References
120
114
115
117
118
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. Donegal
70
Figure 6 ...................................... Cashel in Inishmurray, Co. Sligo
76
Figure 6a .................................... McQuillian Castle, 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 ....................................... Cahercommaun 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
Table 2 ................................................... .Location of Structures and
Dating method
Table 3 ................................................... .Type of cashel
Table 4 ................................................... .Related Characteristics of Structures
Tables 5 and 10 ...................................... Prehistoric Battles
Table 6 ................................................... .Prehistoric Cashels
Table 7 ................................................... Chronology of cashels
Table 8 ................................................... Cashel correlation of diameter
with number of defensive walls
viii
8
11
17
19
26, 97
38
87
91
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 well as earthwork (known as cashels, ringforts, hillforts,
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 middens, 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 wellknown 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 socioeconomic 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 Great Britain 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 Northern Ireland (Ulster) to the Republic of Ireland (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
1
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-Normans, 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
barony. Stout (1997:55)
Ireland and some Neolithic settlements.
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 rock art 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 “The Burren: 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) Bronze Age - 1600-800 BC
D) Iron Age - 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
dendrochronology 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 County Clare, thought to have been a portal tomb,
although the base of the megalith 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 Roman Empire in
the 5th century AD. In other words, while Ireland was in the last stages of the Iron Age,
Western Europe (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
Table 1
Site (*)
Temporal and geographical distribution of structures
Location
Type
CONNAUGHT
Ballybeg
Carrowmore
Cloverhill Lough
Cloverhill Lough
Culeenamore
Grange West 1
Grange West 1
Grange West 2
Grange West 2
Lufferton 8
Seafield 11
Sligo
Sligo
Sligo
Sligo
Sligo
Sligo
Sligo
Sligo
Sligo
Sligo
Sligo
Dunbell
Dunbell
Dunbell
Dunbell
Dunbell
Dunbell
Aghadegnan
Aghadegnan
Aghadegnan
Aghadegnan
Aghadegnan
Aghadegnan
Aghadegnan
Aghadegnan
Marshes Upper
Marshes Upper
Moynagh Lough
Moynagh Lough
LEINSTER
Kilkenny
Kilkenny
Kilkenny
Kilkenny
Kilkenny
Kilkenny
Longford
Longford
Longford
Longford
Longford
Longford
Longford
Longford
Louth
Louth
Meath
Meath
Conva
Conva
Killanully
Killanully
Killanully
Lisleagh 1
Lisleagh 1
Lisleagh 1
Lisleagh 1
Lisleagh 1
Lisleagh 1
Lisnagun
Lisnagun
Ballingarry Down
Raheennamadra
Raheennamadra
Raheennamadra
Raheennamadra
MUNSTER
Cork
Cork
Cork
Cork
Cork
Cork
Cork
Cork
Cork
Cork
Cork
Cork
Cork
Limerick
Limerick
Limerick
Limerick
Limerick
Cashel
Cashel
Crannog
Crannog
Kitchen Midden
Cashel
Cashel
Ringfort
Ringfort
Cashel
Cashel
Chronology
A.D.
C14
Dendrocronology
693 884
431 635
883 1021
886 992
689 980
781 981
993 1148
544 798
654 777
689 865
660 776
Ringfort
Ringfort
Ringfort
Ringfort
Ringfort
Ringfort
Ringfort
Ringfort
Ringfort
Ringfort
Ringfort
Ringfort
Ringfort
Ringfort
Ringfort
Ringfort
Crannog
Crannog
584 659
655 798
664 768
694 876
779 940
882 981
408 543
428 597
431 577
560 640
607 656
687 776
690 795
900 1019
663 797
783 983
625 625
748 748
Ringfort
Ringfort
Ringfort
Souterrain
Ringfort
Ringfort
Ringfort
Ringfort
Ringfort
Ringfort
Ringfort
Souterrain
Ringfort
Ringfort
Ringfort
Ringfort
Souterrain
Ringfort
434 602
642 685
775 880
783 980
991 1208
608 688
659 776
662 770
662 867
776 989
902 1145
894 991
1031 1215
643 882
606 775
643 882
649 938
655 975
Ringfort
Ringfort
Ringfort
Ringfort
Earthwork
Ringfort
Ringfort
Ringfort
Ringfort
Ringfort
Ringfort
Ringfort
Ringfort
Ringfort
Ringfort
Ringfort
Ringfort
Ringfort
Ringfort
Ringfort
544 644
695 936
649 690
983 1020
641 777
654 879
690 939
608 663
ULSTER
Antiville
Antiville
Ballyhenry
Ballyhenry
Ballynoe
Ballyutoag
Ballyutoag
Deer Park Farms
Deer Park Farms
Deer Park Farms
Deer Park Farms
Deer Park Farms
Deer Park Farms
Deer Park Farms
Deer Park Farms
Deer Park Farms
Deer Park Farms
Deer Park Farms
Deer Park Farms
Deer Park Farms
Antrim
Antrim
Antrim
Antrim
Antrim
Antrim
Antrim
Antrim
Antrim
Antrim
Antrim
Antrim
Antrim
Antrim
Antrim
Antrim
Antrim
Antrim
Antrim
Antrim
648 648
669 766
672 766
687 771
688-773
689 776
691 777
693 797
694 801
776 865
782 940
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
and cashels shown in Table 1 are located.
(Irish-Genealogy-Toolkit.com)
Map of clusters of ringforts
in the Midlands. Stout (1991: 216)
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
Site
Location of Structures and dating methods
Location
Type
Caherconnell
Co. Clare
C14
Pieces of bones &
hazelnuts for AMS/C14
Cashel
AMS
Yes
1
2
3
Cush
Lisleagh I and II
Co. Limerick
Co. Cork
Thady’s Fort
Shannon
Ringfort/Cashel
5
Garrynomona
Shannon
Ringfort/Cashel
6
7
Raheenamadra
Co. Limerick
Ringfort/Cashel
Ballingarry Down
Co. Limerick
Ringfort/Cashel
8
White Fort
Co. Down
Ringfort/Cashel
O’Riordain, in Stout (1997), argues
that a Cush ringfort pre-dated a bronze
age burial (p.22)
No C14 or AMS
Ringfort/Cashel
Ringfort/Cashel
4
Dendrochronoloy Source and comments
Comber & Hull 2007-2009 - Fitzpatrick
2009 thinks walls were defensive.156
raths & 9 cashels excavated 19702004, 40% estimated early Medieval
by excavators (p. 277)
yes
Dating based on type of
structure
Dating based on type of
structure
No
No
Monk 1995
No
No
No
Barrett & Graham (1975)
NO
Barrett & Graham (1975)
Barrett & Graham (1975)
9 Kiltera
10 Beal Boru
11
Co. Waterford
Co. Clare
Inny River Catchment
12 Killyglen
Oak posts,
C14
Barrett & Graham (1975)
C14
Barrett & Graham (1975)
Assigned to same period
w/o evidence
Ringfort/Cashel
Ringfort/Cashel
No
several counties (3)
Ringfort/Cashel
general statement re:600–
900 A.D.
Co. Antrim
Ringfort/Cashel
No
Barrett & Graham (1975)
No
Barrett & Graham (1975)
Legg & Taylor (2006)
Barrett & Graham (1975)
Barrett & Graham (1975)
13 Drumee
Co. Fermanagh
Ringfort/Cashel
No
14 Corliss
Co. Armagh
Ringfort/Cashel
No
15 Dressogagh
Co. Armagh
Ringfort/Cashel
No
16 Rathbeg
Co. Antrim
Ringfort/Cashel
No
17 Ballyfounder
18 Rathlackan
Co. Down
Ringfort/Cashel
No
East Ireland
Ringfort/House?
No
Scarre (2007)
19 Roughaun Hill
Co. Clare
Ringfort/House?
No
Scarre (2007)
20 Ryleen
Co. Wexford.
House/ringfort?
No
21 Newtownbalregan 2
Co. Louth
House/ringfort?
Barrett & Graham (1975)
Barrett & Graham (1975)
Barrett & Graham (1975)
Barrett & Graham (1975)
McLaughlin (2010) (NEANDA 5), p.36
22 Rathmorrissy
Co. Galway
23 Tullahedy
Co. Tipperary
No
No
No
Roycroft 2010 (NEANDA 5), p.40
Jones & Bartlett (2010) (NEANDA 5),
p.48
ringfort
Kelleher (2010) (NEANDA 5), P. 52
Newry (N.
Ireland)/Dundalk,
Co. Louth link road
24 Plaster
Ballyloran & Larne (five
sites)
Co. Antrim
Yes
Enclosure
Site excavated by Sinclair Turrell,
reported by Niall Roycroft, NEANDA
5, p.60
Enclosure
All five sites: 1 - 2750 BP,
site 2 - clay vessel, site 3 4110 BP, site 4 - bowls,
site 5 - 2570 BP
Enclosure
25
Tens of cashels identified
with photographs and
measurements. They will be
26 recorded separately.
27
Ballyaghagan
All counties
Norman & St. Joseph: Early
Development of Irish Society 1969
cashels/ringforts
29
Tober
Cashel
Author suggests C14 tests
Co. Galway
ringfort
Yes
Dillon et al, NRA Archaeology
Magazine 2007, #2, p. 27 (7)
No
Walsh et al, NRA Archaeology
Magazine 2007, #2, p. 14
Co. Offaly
Possible rath
Kilbeggan-Athlone
30 (Cappydonnell site)
Author proposes
C14 dating
ringfort
Coolagh
Co. Galway
cashel
No
O'Sullivan, NRA Archaeology Magazine
2007, #2, Part 1, p. 22
Treanbaun
Co. Galway
cashel
No
Muniz Perez, O'Sullivan, NRA
Archaeology Magazine 2007, #2,
Part 1, p. 26
Kilcloghans
Co. Galway
Ringfort
32
34
35
Coughlan, NRA Archaeology Magazine
2007, #2, p. 16
Co. Offaly
31
33
Welsh. Centre for Archaeological
Fieldwork, QUB, Data Structure
Report: AE/11/110. Excavationn 2001
Co. Antrim
Mackney & Loughbown 1
28
Chapple 2009 Ulster Journal of
Archaeology,Vol. 68, 2009
McKinstry, NRA Archaeology Magazine
2008, #3, p. 12
Ballybrowney Lower
Co. Cork
Riongfort/cashel
No
Fort Baronstown
North of Kells,
Co. Meath
Riongfort/cashel
Yes. Results to be
published
12
Conran, NRA Archaeology Magazine
2008, #3, p. 31
Linnane & Kinsella. NRA Archaeology,
No.2, 2007, pp.57-58
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 (early Middle Ages), 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 caves
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 (County Limerick) pre-dated a
Bronze Age burial (Stout 1997:22). Additionally, Stout (1997) states that in Galway
(west) around the Turoe Stone a ringfort was dated far back in prehistory based on a cist
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 pottery 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. Columba 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
1 Caherconnell
2 Cush
3 Lisleagh I and II
4 Thady’s Fort
5 Garrynomona
6 Raheenamadra
7 Ballingarry Down
8 White Fort
9 Kiltera
10 Beal Boru
11 Inny River Catchment
12 Killyglen
13 Drumee
14 Corliss
15 Dressogagh
16 Rathbeg
17 Ballyfounder
18 Rathlackan
19 Roughaun Hill
20 Ryleen
21 Newtownbalregan 2
22 Rathmorrissy
23 Tullahedy
24
25
Co. Clare
Ringfort/Cashel
Stone
circular
Co. Limerick
Ringfort/Cashel
earthwork?
circular
Co. Cork
Ringfort/Cashel
Stone ?
circular
Shannon
Ringfort/Cashel
Stone ?
circular
Shannon
Ringfort/Cashel
Timber/earth
circular
Co. Limerick
Ringfort/Cashel
earth/stone
circular
Co. Limerick
Ringfort/Cashel
earth/stone
circular
Co. Down
Ringfort/Cashel
earth/stone
circular
Co. Waterford
Ringfort/Cashel
earth/stone
circular
Co. Clare
Ringfort/Cashel
earth/stone
1073 sites
Ringfort/Cashel
earth/stone
circular
Co. Antrim
Ringfort/Cashel
earth/stone
circular
Co. Fermanagh
Ringfort/Cashel
earth/stone
circular
Co. Armagh
Ringfort/Cashel
earthwork
circular
Co. Armagh
Ringfort/Cashel
earthwork
circular
Co. Antrim
Ringfort/Cashel
earthwork
circular
Co. Down
Ringfort/House?
dry-stone walls
circular
East Ireland
Ringfort/House?
dry-stone walls
circular
Co. Clare
House/ringfort?
earthwork
Rectangular
House/ringfort?
earthwork
Newtownbalregan
ringfort
earthwork/stone
Enclosure
oak planks (?)
Remains had
no enclosure.
Probably did
circular
Circular palisade
circular
Stone/earthwork
cashels/ringforts
stone, earthwork
Stone
ringfort
Stone
Tober
Possible rath
wattle & daub
w/thatched roof
Kilbeggan-Athlone (Cappydonnell
site)
ringfort
earthen
Coolagh
cashel
Treanbaun
cashel
Kilcloghans
Ringfort
several counties
Co. Wexford.
Co. Louth
Co. Galway
Co. Tipperary
Newry (Northern
Ireland)/Dundalk, Co.
Louth link road
Co. Antrim
circular
circular
circular
circular
All counties
Co. Antrim
Co. Galway
Co. Offaly
Stone
Circular
w/two internal
round
enclosures
circular
Co. Galway
Stone
circular
Co. Galway
earthen
circular
Co. Galway
Riongfort/cashel
earthen
circular
Co. Cork
Fort Baronstown
Riongfort/cashel
earthen w/ditch 4m
wide, 3m deep
circular
North of Kells, Co. Meath
Owenbristy (excavation ongoing)
Cashel
stone
circular
Co. Galway
Faughart Lower
Cashel
stone
circular
County Louth
Ballybrowney Lower
35
36
37
Location
circular
Cashel
Mackney & Loughbown 1
Morphology
Stone
Ballyaghagan
29
30
31
32
33
34
Constr. Material
Plaster
Enclosure
Ballyloran & Larne (five sites) (*)Enclosure
Tens of cashels identified with
photographs and measurements.
They will be recorded separately.
26
27
28
Type (*)
Cashel
18
Co. Offaly
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
Type (*)
Site
1
Presumed
Morphology
Location
function
Source
Com ber & Hull 2007-2009 - Fitzpatrick
2009 thinks walls were defensive.156
raths & 9 cashels excvted 1970-2004,
40% estimated early Medieval by
excavators (p. 277)
Caherconnell
Cashel
circular
Co. Clare
fortress/farmstead
Cush
Ringfort/Cashel
circular
Co. Limerick
fortress
Lisleagh I and II
Ringfort/Cashel
circular
Co. Cork
cattle protection
Thady’s Fort
Ringfort/Cashel
circular
Shannon
farmsteading
Barrett & Graham 1975
Garrynomona
Ringfort/Cashel
circular
Shannon
farmsteading
Barrett & Graham 1975
Raheenamadra
Ringfort/Cashel
circular
Co. Limerick
farmsteading
Barrett & Graham 1975
Ballingarry Down
Ringfort/Cashel
circular
Co. Limerick
farmsteading
Barrett & Graham 1975
White Fort
Ringfort/Cashel
circular
Co. Down
farmsteading
Barrett & Graham 1975
Ringfort/Cashel
circular
Co. Waterford
farmsteading
Barrett & Graham 1975
O’Riordain, in Stout 1997, argues that a
2
3
4
Cush ringfort pre-dated a bronze age burial
(p.22)
Monk 1995
5
6
7
8
9
Kiltera
10
Beal Boru
Ringfort/Cashel
circular
Co. Clare
11
Inny River Catchment
Ringfort/Cashel
1073 sites
several counties (3)
12
Killyglen
Ringfort/Cashel
circular
Co. Antrim
cattle rearing
Barrett & Graham 1975
13
Drumee
Ringfort/Cashel
circular
Co. Fermanagh
cattle rearing
Barrett & Graham 1975
Corliss
Ringfort/Cashel
circular
Co. Armagh
farmsteading
Barrett & Graham 1975
Dressogagh
Ringfort/Cashel
circular
Co. Armagh
farmsteading
Barrett & Graham 1975
Rathbeg
Ringfort/Cashel
circular
Co. Antrim
farmsteading
Barrett & Graham 1975
Ballyfounder
Ringfort/Cashel
circular
Co. Down
farmsteading
Barrett & Graham 1975
Rathlackan
Ringfort/House?
circular
East Ireland
farmsteading/ livestock
Roughaun Hill
Ringfort/House?
circular
Co. Clare
farmsteading/ livestock
Ryleen
House/ringfort?
Rectangular
Co. Wexford.
farmsteading
New tow nbalregan 2
House/ringfort?
New tow nbalregan
Co. Louth
Rathmorrissy
ringfort
circular
Co. Galw ay
Co. Tipperary
farmsteading
farmstead and cattle
protection (5)
Barrett & Graham 1975
Legg & Taylor 2006
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Tullahedy
Enclosure
Circular palisade
24
Plaster
Enclosure
circular
25
Ballyloran & Larne (five sites)
(*) Enclosure
26
27
28
29
30
Tens of cashels identified
with photographs and
measurem ents. They w ill
be recorded separately.
Co. Antrim
cashels/ringforts
circular
All counties
Cashel
circular
Co. Antrim
Ballyaghagan
Mackney & Loughbow n 1
Tober
Newry (N.
Ireland)/Dundalk,
Co. Louth link road
ringfort
circular
Possible rath
Kilbeggan-Athlone
(Cappydonnell site)
ringfort
Co. Galw ay
circular
Cir cul ar w /t w o
i nt ern al r o un d
en c lo s ur es
Co. Offaly
farmsteading
Farmsteading/cattle/de
fensive
Farmsteading/cattle/de
fensive
Farmsteading/cattle/de
fensive
Domestic/ritualistic
Dillon et al, NRA Archaeology Magazine
2007, #2, p. 27 (7)
Domestic
Walsh et al, NRA Archaeology Magazine 2007,
#2, p. 14
Coughlan, NRA Archaeology Magazine
2007, #2, p. 16
Domestic
circular
Co. Galw ay
34
35
36
Kilcloghans
Ballybrow ney Lower
Fort Baronstow n
Ow enbristy (excavation
ongoing)
37
Faughart Low er
38
114 datings in 47 sites. See
sheet #5 for breakdow n
Ringfort
circular
Riongfort/cashel
circular
Riongfort/cashel
Cashel
Cashel
Domestic
Co. Galw ay
Co. Cork
North of Kells, Co.
Meath
circular
circular
circular
Co. Galw ay
County Louth
cashels, raths, ringforts
ciircular
Chapple 2009 Ulster Journal of
Archaeology,Vol. 68, 2009
Domestic/metalw orks
Co. Offaly
Treanbaun
33
Kelleher 2010 (NEANDA 5), P. 52
Site excavated by Sinclair Turrell,
reported by Niall Roycroft, NEANDA 5,
p.60
W elsh. Centre for Archaeological Fieldw
ork, QUB, Data Structure Report:
AE/11/110. Excavationn 2001
circular
cashel
Jones & Bartlett 2010 (NEANDA 5), p.48
Farmsteading/cattle
Co. Galw ay
32
Roycroft 2010 (NEANDA 5), p.40
Fr am s t ea d i n g , c a t tl e
r a i s i n g, a n d d ef en s i v e Norman & St. Joseph: Early Development of Irish
f o r t r es s es
Society 1969
Domestic
cashel
Scarre 2007
McLaughlin 2010 (NEANDA 5), p.36
Domestic/b urial
Coolagh
31
Scarre 2007
several counties
Domestic
Domestic/defensive
Dom esric w /burial
function
Settlem ent/c em etery
(11)
Defensive, cattle
protection
O'Sullivan, NRA Archaeology Magazine
2007, #2, Part 1, p. 22
Muniz Perez, O'Sullivan, NRA
Archaeology Magazine 2007, #2, Part 1,
p. 26
McKinstry, NRA Archaeology Magazine 2008,
#3, p. 12
Co nr a n, NRA Ar c ha eol o gy Ma ga zin e
2 0 08 , # 3, p. 31
Linnane & Kinsella. NRA Archaeology,
No.2, 2007, pp.57-58
Delaney et al., NRA, issue #4, 2009,
pp.36-39
Bow en in NRA Archaeology Magazine
No.3, 2008, p. 9
Stout (1997)
(*) 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 agropastoralists, 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 keep domesticates inside for protection from sporadic raids by other agropastoralists. 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 County Antrim (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, County Offaly). 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
Caherconnell (1)
Cooley (Cúalnge)
Ruler
Estimated Chronology
Co. Clare
Corcomruad (2)
Co. Louth
Daire (Chieftain)
Neolithic/Bronze Age
Early medieval
Artech
Connaught
Mac Cecht
prehistoric
Odba
no info
Olill Fionn
A.M. 4415 (**)
Ireland
4/5 of island
several
prehistoric
Ireland
undetermined
Bartholanus
300 yrs after the 'flood'
Ireland
undetermined
Nemedus (8)
prehistoric
Kilbecanty (Galway)
Diarmait
Early Middle Ages
Moytura
Lake Districtc-Co. Mayo
Dublin
Clontarf
Tuatha Dé
Mythical time
Danann
King of Leonster 1014 AD
Antagonists
Purpose
Data Source
Corcomruad/Dál Cais
Conquest by Uí
Thoirdelbaig (3)
Comber & Hull 2010
Queen Medb/Daire (4)
Stealing Brown Bull
Ulster Cycle (5)
Cuscraid & Mac Cecht
Argetmar & Duach Ladhghrach
Conquer Connaught Annals of Tigernach (6)
power
Cambrensis Eversus (7)
7 Mains of Ulster/rest of island
power
Bartholanus/the Giants
Nemedus/pirates - four battles
Diarmait/Guare of Aidne
Carn Conaill
Firbolgs - Tuatha de Danann
Brian Boru - Máel Mórda mac
Murchada, King of Leinster
power-control
power-control
Cows stolen by
Guare
Power/economics
(cattle)
power-control (10)
Annals of Tigernach (6)
Giraldus CambrensisHistorical Works
Giraldus CambrensisHistorical Works
Book of the Dun,
2nd battle of Moytura Anonymous (9)
Book of Lecan by
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. 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 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 British Museum, 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 sociopolitical 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
battle of Clontarf that took place in 1014 AD, Early Middle Ages, between Brian Boru,
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 history of Ireland
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
megaliths and bring the gigantic rocks from as far as 10 miles, as in the case of Newgrange
near Dublin (Norman & St. Joseph 1996), or the Poulnabrone dolmen in County Clare.
Mesolithic bands were, by definition, hunters and gatherers who may have lived a semisedentary, 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 Irish Mesolithic 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, arrows, and spears. 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 agropastoralism. Although cattle bones found in the Mesolithic site of Ferriter’s Cove
(County Cork, 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
Aerial view of archaeological evidence of structures according to Norman and St. Joseph (1969). Authors
believe Bronze Age was peaceful and technological progress.
39
20
21
19
18
17
16
9
10
1
12
13
14
15
8
7
4
5
6
3
2
1
stone
stone
Stone
Stone
cashel/raths stone/earthw ork
cashel
cashel
Cashel
Cashel
Stone
Stone
Cashel
Cashel
earthwork
stone/earthw ork
Stone
Stone
Stone
Stone
earthwork
stone
stone
earthw ork
earthw ork
earthw ork
stone
earthw ork
Constr. Material
Ringfort
Ringfort
Cashel
Cashel
Cashel
Cashel
Ringfort
Ringfort/cash
Ringfort
Ringfort
Ninetyfour
(94)
Ringfort/cas
hels p.24
Fifty (50)
Ringfort/cas
hels p.25
cashel
cashel
Type (*)
Table 6
circular
circular
Circular
Circular
Circular
Circular
Circular
circular
circular
Circular
Circular
Circular
Circular
circular
circular
circular
circular
circular
circular
circular
circular
Morphology
Co. Longford
Co. Donegal
Aran Islands
Co. Clare
Aran Islands
Co. Clare
Co. Clare
Co. Antrim
Co. Meath
Co. Kerry
Co. Kerry
Co. Kerry
Aran Islands
Co. Down
Co. Sligo
Co. Sligo
Co. Down
Co. Antrim
Co. Antrim
Co. Clare
Co. Wicklow
Location
uncertain
uncertain
uncertain.
Presumed
Iron Age
Uncertain.
Possibly
late iron
Age
uncertain
uncertain
Neolithic
Neolithic
uncertain
uncertain
uncertain
uncertain
Early Neolithi
Neolithic
Neolithic
Neolithic/Ear
ly medieval
Neolithic
Neolithic
no data
univallet
univallet
univallet
univallet
univallet
bivallet,
walls
widely
spaced
univallet
88ft
system is
130 mt
130ft
150ft
200 ft
over 100 ft
20ft
3ft
14ft
7ft
15ft
no data
Bank: 12 ft.
unknown
unknown
no data
no data
no data
no data
30ft
cattle/farmstead
cattle/farmstead
farmstead
farmstead
farmstead
farmstead
domestic
Ritual
Authors unsure w
hether
dwellings or
domestic
domestic
axe factory
axe factory
defense
defense
function
Presumed
unknown
defensive
cattle
catle/defensive
defensive
16-18 inches defensive
unknown
28ft
13ft
10ft at base
no data
no data
no data
3ft.
no data
no data
no data
no data
wall width
innermost
tetra vallet, covering 11 acres w all is 14ft
univallet
with w idely
spaced
external
wall
univallet
trivallet
bivallet,
widely
spaced
univallet
no data
univallet
60 ft carea:seven
acres
no data
unknown
unknown
100 ft (inner
cashel)
Size
No. of walls wall height
32 ft, averageunivallet
20-42 ft.
no data
no data
no data
no data
Chronology Ext. diameter
Estimated
ENCLOSURES
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 cairns during the MesolithicNeolithic transition, still visible in the countryside, seems to suggest the idea of kin, nonkin, 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 Danu) 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 Aed Slane, 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 sociopolitical 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 socioeconomic 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 technology, 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 nonproductive 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 burials 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
earthworks 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
This settlement pattern persisted throughout the Middle Ages and into the late 18th
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
Co. Kildare. Norman & St. John (1969:64)
Ancient cashel & crop marks
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
feature, 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 (ard)
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 & Ambers
(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 Conchobar mac Nessa (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 lowcomplexity 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 Christianity. 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
circular structures (Googleearth)
Fig. 5
Stone houses and cashel in
Ballynavenoorgh, County Kerry,
southwest - Ó Cróinín 2005: plate 10
Fig. 5a
O’Boyles Fort, Lough Doon, Co. Donegal, N.E.
(Norman & St. Joseph 1969: 83)
Promontory Fort: Dubh Cathair, Inshmore
Aran (west). (Norman & St. Joseph 1969: 79)
The wide dispersal of cashels and ringforts throughout time and geography, 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 siege, 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, selfsustaining 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 rampart 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 defensive wall 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
Cashel in Inishmurray, Co. Sligo,
Harbison 1999:39
Fig. 6a
McQuillian Castle, Co. Sligo, Harbison 1999:59
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 (Celts 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 ancient history.
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 20072009, 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 cooking places known as fulacht
fiadh 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 (County Meath)
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
Neolithic 4000-3500 BC B
Bronze Age 1600-800 BC C
Iron Age 500 BC-1000 AD D
Early Medieval 400 AD-1100 AD
Medieval 1169 AD - 1660 AD F
Early Christian 400 AD - 800 AD
Unknown or undetermined H
87
E
G
Table 7
SITE
Name
Antrim
Armagh
Clare
Cork
Derry
Down
Fermanagh
Galway
Kilkenny
Limerick
Longford
Louth
Meath
Offaly
Shannon
Sligo
Tipperary
Tyrone
Waterford
Wexford
150
Geo Location
North Ireland
North Ireland
West
South Ireland
North Ireland
North Ireland
North Ireland
West
South East
South West
Midland
Northeast - border
South East
Midland
West
South West
West
North Ireland
South West
South East
Number
of sites
49
2
3
16
3
7
5
6
6
7
8
7
5
2
2
11
1
8
1
1
B
A
Chronology (in codes)
BC
C
D
E
EF
F
FG
G
31
8
2
1
2
2
1
7
1
2
3
3
H
AB
5
1
1
1
`
1
1
3
2
7
2
4
1
1
1
1
2
1
3
1
1
2
2
3
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
5
3
2
1
3
1
1
1
1
70
23
19
1
1
0
1
1
11
2
2
2
5
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
2
1
13
13
3
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)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
Modest-single exterior wall (univallate)
Massive-single wall with simple interior areas
Massive-multiple walls with large internal areas (multivallet)
Contiguous double enclosures
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 moat, quite
common around castles during the Middle Ages. Data on Table 8 below show lack of
correlation between internal diameter and number of surrounding walls.
91
Correlation between exterior diameter and number of defensive wall
Table 8
Site
Rathcoran, Baltinglass
Hill
Kiltennan South (1)
Dundrum Sandhills
Tievebulliagh
Rathlin Island
Bricklieve Mountains
Knocknashee
Type (*)
Constr. Material
Chronology
Co. Wicklow
no data
cashel
earthwork
cashel
Ringfort/cashel
Ringfort
Ringfort
Ninetyfour (94)
Ringfort/cashels
p.24
stone
earthwork
earthwork
earthwork
circular
circular
circular
circular
Co. Clare
Co. Down
Co. Antrim
Co. Antrim
Neolithic/Early medieval
Neolithic
Neolithic
stone
circular
Co. Sligo
Neolithic
Fifty (50)
Ringfort/cashels
p.25
stone
circular
Estimated
Location
Morphology
circular
Co. Sligo
Co. Donegal
Co. Longford
domestic
no data
Authors unsure
whether dwellings
or shelters
domestic
7 ft
13 ft
10ft at base
unknown
unknown
100 ft (inner cashel)
over 100 ft
univallet
trivallet
bivallet, widely spaced
14 ft
3 ft
28 ft
unknown
farmstead
farmstead
farmstead
farmstead
cattle/farmstead
cattle/farmstead
200 ft
univallet
20 ft
16-18 inches
defensive (7)
150 ft
univallet with widely spaced
external wall
Aran Islands
circular
circular
3 ft.
univallet
Circular
stone
stone/earthwork
unknown
88 ft
stone
cashel
cashel/raths
univallet
Ritual
Cashel
O'Boyles Fort
Black Pig's Dyke
System
20-42 ft.
no data
Dubh Cathair
Aran Islands
no data
no data
no data
no data
Neolithic
Neolithic
uncertain
uncertain
uncertain
uncertain
uncertain
uncertain
uncertain. Presumed Iron
Age
Uncertain. Possibly late
iron Age
Circular
no data
no data
no data
Bank: 12 ft. no data
Early Neolithic
Co. Antrim
Co. Meath
Co. Kerry
Co. Kerry
Co. Kerry
Aran Islands
Co. Clare
Co. Clare
Stone
no data
no data
no data
no data
Co. Down
circular
circular
Circular
Circular
Circular
Circular
Circular
Circular
cashel
defense
defense
domestic
axe factory
axe factory
univallet
circular
earthwork
stone/earthwork
Stone
Stone
Stone
Stone
Stone
Stone
Dún Aengusa(3)
no data
unknown
earthwork
Co. Clare
no data
univallet
univallet
univallet
univallet
univallet
Ringfort
Ringfort
Cashel
Cashel
Cashel (4)
Cashel
Cashel
Cashel
Circular
function(6)
wall width
32 ft, average
Ringfort
Stone
bivallet, walls widely spaced
wall height
60 ft - area:seven
acres
no data
Dressograth
Slieve Breagh
Staigue Fort
Leacanabuaile
Ballynavenooragh
Dún Conor
Cahercommaun (2)
Corrofin
Cashel
no data
No. of walls
Neolithic
Ballynahatty
Ballykinvarga
Presumed
Size (5)
Ext. diameter
uncertain
130 ft
uncertain
system is 130 mi
15 ft
unknown
innermost wall
is 14ft
tetra vallet, covering 11
acres
30ft
defensive (8)
defensive
cattle
catle/defensive (9)
(*) 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) Promontory fort 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 County Galway, 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 halfcircling the front of the main structure. Between the “preventive” walls they usually have
a cheval de frise (literally, ‘horse of the Frisians’). These are obstacles against enemy
cavalry 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 County Donegal. 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
Area
Location
Ruler
Cooley (Cúalnge)
Artech
Odba
Ireland
Ireland
Antagonists
Purpose
Daire (Chieftain)
Mac Cecht
Age
prehistoric
Olill Fionn
A.M. 4415 (*)
several
prehistoric
Bartholanus
300 yrs after the Bartholanus/the
'flood'
Giants
Nemedus (8)
prehistoric
Co. Clare
Co. Louth
Connaught
no info
(4)
Cuscraid & Mac
Cecht
Brown Bull
Conquer
Connaught
Argetmar & Duach power
Ladhghrach
power
7 Mains of
Ulster/rest of island
power-control
undetermined
undetermined
Carn Conaill
Kilbecanty (Galway
Nemedus/pirates - power-control
four battles
Diarmait
Dublin
Annals of Tigernach
(6)
Cambrensis
Eversus (7)
Annals of Tigernach
(6)
4/5 of island
Ireland
Moytura
Data Source
Corcomruad/Dál Conquest by Uí Comber & Hull 2010
Cais
Thoirdelbaig
Ulster Cycle (5)
Neolithic/Bronze Queen Medb/Daire (3) Stealing
Corcomruad (2)
Caherconnell (1)
Estimated
Chronology
Early medieval
Giraldus
CambrensisHistorical Works
Giraldus
CambrensisHistorical Works
Book of the Dun,
Early Middle Diarmait/Guare of Cows stolen by
Aidne
Guare
Ages
Mythical time Firbolgs - Tuatha Power/economic
2nd battle of
Tuatha Dé
s (cattle)
Moytura Danann
de Danann
Anonymous (9)
Lake Districtc-Co.
Book of Lecan by
Brian Boru - Máel power-control
King of Leinster 1014 AD
(10)
Mórda mac
Murchada, King of
Leinster
Clontarf
Ádhamh Ó Cuirnín,
ca. 1391
(*) 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 familyband 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, Nemed, the Fir Bolg, 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 AngloNorman 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 Brehon 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 AngloNorman, 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 AngloNorman invasion in 1169 to late 1600s with the English invasion), and Modern Times
(1700 through the creation of the Irish Republic). 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 agropastoral 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 20072009, 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. Drogheda 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 AngloNorman 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, 19892000. 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., Cambridge 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. Belfast: 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. 986987, 1966.
Comber, Michelle and Hull, Graham. Excavations at Caherconnell Cashel, the Burren,
Co. Clare: implications for cashel chronology and Gaelic settlement.
Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy 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 old Irish. 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 ‘Ringfort.’ 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. Bards, 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. John
Lynch 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 Murphy, 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 cave: 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.3746, 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, 72573. 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 NorthWest 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