A four-week excavation was carried out at Dún Ailinne, Co. Kildare, as a field school for univers... more A four-week excavation was carried out at Dún Ailinne, Co. Kildare, as a field school for university students. This work continued the investigation of two overlapping ditched enclosures identified through a magnetometer survey. In this season, our primary goals were to continue tracing the ditches of these enclosures and to obtain dating material for the northern enclosure in order to resolve some stratigraphic inconsistencies. Material was collected for dating and the ditches were further defined. Artifacts were generally low in numbers but included lithics, prehistoric ceramics and two stone axe fragments.
A four-week excavation was carried out at Dún Ailinne, Co. Kildare, as a field school for univers... more A four-week excavation was carried out at Dún Ailinne, Co. Kildare, as a field school for university students. This work extended the area excavated in 2019, which focused on two overlapping ditched enclosures identified through a magnetometer survey. In this season, the western edges of the two enclosures were excavated in order to trace the relationship between the two enclosures and obtain material for radiocarbon dating. It was established stratigraphically that the large, double-ditched enclosure (the one to the north) underlay the smaller, single-ditched enclosure (the one to the south). Artifacts were generally low in numbers but included lithics, a stone bead, and a small blue glass bead.
Two surfaces with rock art, at 'Gallan' in Louth and Mothel in Waterford, are dis cussed ... more Two surfaces with rock art, at 'Gallan' in Louth and Mothel in Waterford, are dis cussed with a view to their identification in the field; 'KnockmanoelT in Fermanagh is identified as a stone with rock art now at the National Museum of Ireland and probably from Knockmanoul townland. While the writer was conducting research on Irish rock art during 1986, though a number of new surfaces with rock art were discovered, a number of surfaces described in the past could not be located. Of these three have been recorded in the National Museum of Ireland. Two are described as having existed, but could not be located, while a third was discovered in the Museum's possession, but had not been officially identified. All three are discussed in this note, as it seems appropriate to put them on record in the interests of future research. The three sur faces are purportedly from Gallan in Louth, Mothel in Waterford, and 'Knockmanoell' in Fermanagh. 'Gallan' This stone was first noted by Mahr (1937), who included it in a list of "figural stones" along with others from both the petroglyph and Passage Tomb traditions. It is described as coming from Louth, along with those from Carrickrobin and Miskish More (mistakenly in the case of the latter, which is actually from Monaghan). Mahr said that he was informed of the existence of the stones from Miskish More and Gallan by the Revd Fr Corcoran, the parish priest, but had not seen them himself (1937, 356). It is probably this stone also which is referred to in a letter in the Topographical Files of the National Museum of Ireland, written by Mahr in January of 1938 (and included in the file on the Carrickrobin stone). The letter notes two stones, one from Miskish More and the other from "Callan", both ornamented, and which could be acquired if the Museum so desired. The associ ation with Miskish More suggests that "Callan" here and "Gallan" of Mahr's previous publication are the same stone. The Miskish More stone was subsequently obtained and is now on display at the National Museum, but there is no further mention of a stone from Gallan (or
Page 1. SUSAN A. JOHNSTON THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PREHISTORIC IRISH ROCK ART AND IRISH PASSAGE T... more Page 1. SUSAN A. JOHNSTON THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PREHISTORIC IRISH ROCK ART AND IRISH PASSAGE TOMB ART Summary. Two major traditions of decoration from the later Neolithic and/ or earlier Bronze Age, rock art and passage tomb art, are compared. ...
The following is the dissertation I wrote on Irish petroglyphs some 25 years ago. That was a diff... more The following is the dissertation I wrote on Irish petroglyphs some 25 years ago. That was a different time in many ways, both technologically and archaeologically. Word processing programs didn’t have spell checkers, and there was no ability to scan and insert photographs into the text, not to mention adding captions in any kind of elegant way. The photographs seen here are (poor) reproductions of actual photos that, in the submitted original, had to be glued onto paper above captions typed in advance. The body of the text was typed on a computer and printed on a laser printer, but there was only one font choice. At the time it all seemed high-tech, but now it makes me feel old in its primitiveness.
Archaeologically, things are also different. The ideas considered here reflect what was going on in the 1980s. If I was doing this research now I would do it very differently, theoretically and methodologically. Most importantly, I would categorically NOT have used chalk on the rock surfaces in order to make sure the motifs showed up in the photos. There are many reasons why I did this at the time, some probably less legitimate than others. I had seen it done at archaeological sites before, which is where I got the idea in the first place. It also never occurred to me that this might in some way damage the surfaces. None of them were buried when I recorded them, and so they had been unprotected for a long time. Many of them had been walked on (and worse) by sheep and cattle, and exposed to wind and rain for centuries, if not millennia. I was not aware when I did this research of what was then just beginning to be talked about in rock art studies, that the surfaces themselves might have data other than the formal properties of the motifs and their placement on the rock surface. I have to admit that I remain skeptical that, in Ireland at least, there is any archaeologically meaningful information that could be recovered from these surfaces, but on the off chance that this might be possible some day, I regret that I used chalk in this way. Nevertheless, the photos that are included here,
as poorly reproduced as they are (and I have the originals if anyone is interested), may still prove to be a useful record, so I have left them in despite the fact that the chalk makes them ethically problematic.
When I left Ireland, it was my intention that the information in this dissertation be generally available, particularly in Ireland where I had experienced such a positive research environment and, frankly, where there were probably the most people who would care about it. I did send a copy of the bound document that was supposed to be put somewhere where archaeology students would have access to it, but somehow, as I discovered relatively recently, it never made its way to where it was supposed to go. So, with all its flaws and shortcomings, I am posting it here in the hope that it might be useful to a new generation of scholars. Use it for good, not for evil.
A four-week excavation was carried out at Dún Ailinne, Co. Kildare, as a field school for univers... more A four-week excavation was carried out at Dún Ailinne, Co. Kildare, as a field school for university students. This work extended the area excavated in 2018, which focused on two overlapping ditched enclosures identified through a magnetometer survey. In this season, another section of the southern enclosure was excavated as well as an area within the two enclosures, revealing a large number of pits, postholes, and stakeholes. While most of these formed no obvious pattern, 8-9 postholes appear to form a circle, 3-4 form an arc, and a number were associated with the southern of the two enclosures. Together, these raise the possibility that these structures are far more complex than indicated in 2018. Artifacts were generally low in numbers but included burned bone, a handful of lithics, a stone axe head, and an Early Medieval glass bead.
A four-week excavation was carried out at Dún Ailinne, Co. Kildare, focusing on two circular feat... more A four-week excavation was carried out at Dún Ailinne, Co. Kildare, focusing on two circular features in the northwest quadrant of the area enclosed by the bank and ditch. These features appear to overlap in an earlier magnetometer image, with one to the north and the other to the south. The area excavated comprised twelve contiguous 2x2 m2 units. These were arranged across the northwest arc of the northern feature and extended about halfway across the top of the southern feature, exposing just under one quarter of the circumference in each case. Both proved to be ditched enclosures, the northern feature having two concentric ditches and the southern feature a single ditch. These are currently best interpreted as ring ditches. The only artifacts encountered were lithics, and a number of samples of calcined bone of an unknown mammal species were also recovered.
A four-week excavation was carried out at Dún Ailinne, Co. Kildare, as a field school for univers... more A four-week excavation was carried out at Dún Ailinne, Co. Kildare, as a field school for university students. This work continued the investigation of two overlapping ditched enclosures identified through a magnetometer survey. In this season, our primary goals were to continue tracing the ditches of these enclosures and to obtain dating material for the northern enclosure in order to resolve some stratigraphic inconsistencies. Material was collected for dating and the ditches were further defined. Artifacts were generally low in numbers but included lithics, prehistoric ceramics and two stone axe fragments.
A four-week excavation was carried out at Dún Ailinne, Co. Kildare, as a field school for univers... more A four-week excavation was carried out at Dún Ailinne, Co. Kildare, as a field school for university students. This work extended the area excavated in 2019, which focused on two overlapping ditched enclosures identified through a magnetometer survey. In this season, the western edges of the two enclosures were excavated in order to trace the relationship between the two enclosures and obtain material for radiocarbon dating. It was established stratigraphically that the large, double-ditched enclosure (the one to the north) underlay the smaller, single-ditched enclosure (the one to the south). Artifacts were generally low in numbers but included lithics, a stone bead, and a small blue glass bead.
Two surfaces with rock art, at 'Gallan' in Louth and Mothel in Waterford, are dis cussed ... more Two surfaces with rock art, at 'Gallan' in Louth and Mothel in Waterford, are dis cussed with a view to their identification in the field; 'KnockmanoelT in Fermanagh is identified as a stone with rock art now at the National Museum of Ireland and probably from Knockmanoul townland. While the writer was conducting research on Irish rock art during 1986, though a number of new surfaces with rock art were discovered, a number of surfaces described in the past could not be located. Of these three have been recorded in the National Museum of Ireland. Two are described as having existed, but could not be located, while a third was discovered in the Museum's possession, but had not been officially identified. All three are discussed in this note, as it seems appropriate to put them on record in the interests of future research. The three sur faces are purportedly from Gallan in Louth, Mothel in Waterford, and 'Knockmanoell' in Fermanagh. 'Gallan' This stone was first noted by Mahr (1937), who included it in a list of "figural stones" along with others from both the petroglyph and Passage Tomb traditions. It is described as coming from Louth, along with those from Carrickrobin and Miskish More (mistakenly in the case of the latter, which is actually from Monaghan). Mahr said that he was informed of the existence of the stones from Miskish More and Gallan by the Revd Fr Corcoran, the parish priest, but had not seen them himself (1937, 356). It is probably this stone also which is referred to in a letter in the Topographical Files of the National Museum of Ireland, written by Mahr in January of 1938 (and included in the file on the Carrickrobin stone). The letter notes two stones, one from Miskish More and the other from "Callan", both ornamented, and which could be acquired if the Museum so desired. The associ ation with Miskish More suggests that "Callan" here and "Gallan" of Mahr's previous publication are the same stone. The Miskish More stone was subsequently obtained and is now on display at the National Museum, but there is no further mention of a stone from Gallan (or
Page 1. SUSAN A. JOHNSTON THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PREHISTORIC IRISH ROCK ART AND IRISH PASSAGE T... more Page 1. SUSAN A. JOHNSTON THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PREHISTORIC IRISH ROCK ART AND IRISH PASSAGE TOMB ART Summary. Two major traditions of decoration from the later Neolithic and/ or earlier Bronze Age, rock art and passage tomb art, are compared. ...
The following is the dissertation I wrote on Irish petroglyphs some 25 years ago. That was a diff... more The following is the dissertation I wrote on Irish petroglyphs some 25 years ago. That was a different time in many ways, both technologically and archaeologically. Word processing programs didn’t have spell checkers, and there was no ability to scan and insert photographs into the text, not to mention adding captions in any kind of elegant way. The photographs seen here are (poor) reproductions of actual photos that, in the submitted original, had to be glued onto paper above captions typed in advance. The body of the text was typed on a computer and printed on a laser printer, but there was only one font choice. At the time it all seemed high-tech, but now it makes me feel old in its primitiveness.
Archaeologically, things are also different. The ideas considered here reflect what was going on in the 1980s. If I was doing this research now I would do it very differently, theoretically and methodologically. Most importantly, I would categorically NOT have used chalk on the rock surfaces in order to make sure the motifs showed up in the photos. There are many reasons why I did this at the time, some probably less legitimate than others. I had seen it done at archaeological sites before, which is where I got the idea in the first place. It also never occurred to me that this might in some way damage the surfaces. None of them were buried when I recorded them, and so they had been unprotected for a long time. Many of them had been walked on (and worse) by sheep and cattle, and exposed to wind and rain for centuries, if not millennia. I was not aware when I did this research of what was then just beginning to be talked about in rock art studies, that the surfaces themselves might have data other than the formal properties of the motifs and their placement on the rock surface. I have to admit that I remain skeptical that, in Ireland at least, there is any archaeologically meaningful information that could be recovered from these surfaces, but on the off chance that this might be possible some day, I regret that I used chalk in this way. Nevertheless, the photos that are included here,
as poorly reproduced as they are (and I have the originals if anyone is interested), may still prove to be a useful record, so I have left them in despite the fact that the chalk makes them ethically problematic.
When I left Ireland, it was my intention that the information in this dissertation be generally available, particularly in Ireland where I had experienced such a positive research environment and, frankly, where there were probably the most people who would care about it. I did send a copy of the bound document that was supposed to be put somewhere where archaeology students would have access to it, but somehow, as I discovered relatively recently, it never made its way to where it was supposed to go. So, with all its flaws and shortcomings, I am posting it here in the hope that it might be useful to a new generation of scholars. Use it for good, not for evil.
A four-week excavation was carried out at Dún Ailinne, Co. Kildare, as a field school for univers... more A four-week excavation was carried out at Dún Ailinne, Co. Kildare, as a field school for university students. This work extended the area excavated in 2018, which focused on two overlapping ditched enclosures identified through a magnetometer survey. In this season, another section of the southern enclosure was excavated as well as an area within the two enclosures, revealing a large number of pits, postholes, and stakeholes. While most of these formed no obvious pattern, 8-9 postholes appear to form a circle, 3-4 form an arc, and a number were associated with the southern of the two enclosures. Together, these raise the possibility that these structures are far more complex than indicated in 2018. Artifacts were generally low in numbers but included burned bone, a handful of lithics, a stone axe head, and an Early Medieval glass bead.
A four-week excavation was carried out at Dún Ailinne, Co. Kildare, focusing on two circular feat... more A four-week excavation was carried out at Dún Ailinne, Co. Kildare, focusing on two circular features in the northwest quadrant of the area enclosed by the bank and ditch. These features appear to overlap in an earlier magnetometer image, with one to the north and the other to the south. The area excavated comprised twelve contiguous 2x2 m2 units. These were arranged across the northwest arc of the northern feature and extended about halfway across the top of the southern feature, exposing just under one quarter of the circumference in each case. Both proved to be ditched enclosures, the northern feature having two concentric ditches and the southern feature a single ditch. These are currently best interpreted as ring ditches. The only artifacts encountered were lithics, and a number of samples of calcined bone of an unknown mammal species were also recovered.
Uploads
Papers
Archaeologically, things are also different. The ideas considered here reflect what was going on in the 1980s. If I was doing this research now I would do it very differently, theoretically and methodologically. Most importantly, I would categorically NOT have used chalk on the rock surfaces in order to make sure the motifs showed up in the photos. There are many reasons why I did this at the time, some probably less legitimate than others. I had seen it done at archaeological sites before, which is where I got the idea in the first place. It also never occurred to me that this might in some way damage the surfaces. None of them were buried when I recorded them, and so they had been unprotected for a long time. Many of them had been walked on (and worse) by sheep and cattle, and exposed to wind and rain for centuries, if not millennia. I was not aware when I did this research of what was then just beginning to be talked about in rock art studies, that the surfaces themselves might have data other than the formal properties of the motifs and their placement on the rock surface. I have to admit that I remain skeptical that, in Ireland at least, there is any archaeologically meaningful information that could be recovered from these surfaces, but on the off chance that this might be possible some day, I regret that I used chalk in this way. Nevertheless, the photos that are included here,
as poorly reproduced as they are (and I have the originals if anyone is interested), may still prove to be a useful record, so I have left them in despite the fact that the chalk makes them ethically problematic.
When I left Ireland, it was my intention that the information in this dissertation be generally available, particularly in Ireland where I had experienced such a positive research environment and, frankly, where there were probably the most people who would care about it. I did send a copy of the bound document that was supposed to be put somewhere where archaeology students would have access to it, but somehow, as I discovered relatively recently, it never made its way to where it was supposed to go. So, with all its flaws and shortcomings, I am posting it here in the hope that it might be useful to a new generation of scholars. Use it for good, not for evil.
Susan A. Johnston
October 12, 2014
Archaeologically, things are also different. The ideas considered here reflect what was going on in the 1980s. If I was doing this research now I would do it very differently, theoretically and methodologically. Most importantly, I would categorically NOT have used chalk on the rock surfaces in order to make sure the motifs showed up in the photos. There are many reasons why I did this at the time, some probably less legitimate than others. I had seen it done at archaeological sites before, which is where I got the idea in the first place. It also never occurred to me that this might in some way damage the surfaces. None of them were buried when I recorded them, and so they had been unprotected for a long time. Many of them had been walked on (and worse) by sheep and cattle, and exposed to wind and rain for centuries, if not millennia. I was not aware when I did this research of what was then just beginning to be talked about in rock art studies, that the surfaces themselves might have data other than the formal properties of the motifs and their placement on the rock surface. I have to admit that I remain skeptical that, in Ireland at least, there is any archaeologically meaningful information that could be recovered from these surfaces, but on the off chance that this might be possible some day, I regret that I used chalk in this way. Nevertheless, the photos that are included here,
as poorly reproduced as they are (and I have the originals if anyone is interested), may still prove to be a useful record, so I have left them in despite the fact that the chalk makes them ethically problematic.
When I left Ireland, it was my intention that the information in this dissertation be generally available, particularly in Ireland where I had experienced such a positive research environment and, frankly, where there were probably the most people who would care about it. I did send a copy of the bound document that was supposed to be put somewhere where archaeology students would have access to it, but somehow, as I discovered relatively recently, it never made its way to where it was supposed to go. So, with all its flaws and shortcomings, I am posting it here in the hope that it might be useful to a new generation of scholars. Use it for good, not for evil.
Susan A. Johnston
October 12, 2014