Signalling and Performance: Ancient Rock Art in Britain and Ireland 9781803272511, 9781803272528, 1803272511

Table of contents :
Cover
Title Page
Copyright Page
Contents Page
Introduction: recording and interpreting the ancient rock art of Britain and Ireland
Aron Mazel and George Nash
The Past, Present and Future of Rock Art Research in Scotland
Tertia Barnett, Joana Valdez-Tullett, Maya Hoole, Stuart Jeffrey, Guillaume Robin, Linda Marie Bjerketvedt and Frederick Alexander
Marking the earth: history of research and the distribution of open-air Neolithic and Early Bronze Age panels and motifs at Lordenshaw in central Northumberland, Britain
Aron Mazel
East of Eden: monumental rock art in Cumbria, North-West England
Kate E. Sharpe
The Early Bronze Age Landscape of Burley Moor, West Yorkshire
Keith Boughey
The Carver and the Rock: The Physicality of Carving
Vivien Deacon
A Wirral Enigma: Understanding the origins of the Willaston Stones
Ron Cowell, George Nash and Elizabeth Stewart
A reappraisal of the Cronk yn How Stone, Isle of Man
George Nash
Rewriting Landscapes: Exploring the Context, Regionality and Extended Chronologies of Irish Rock Art
Rebecca Aroon Enlander
Conserving Rock Art in South-West Ireland
Clare Busher O’Sullivan
A single panel case study in Kerry – deconstructing a rock art palimpsest
Aoibheann Lambe
Linear art in the European Neolithic
Anne Teather
The discovery of Late Upper Palaeolithic rock art at Cathole Cave on the Gower Peninsula, South Wales
George Nash
Prehistoric Rock Art in Glamorgan and Gwent
Edith Evans
Back cover

Citation preview

Signalling and Performance Ancient Rock Art in Britain and Ireland Edited by

Aron Mazel and George Nash

Signalling and Performance Ancient Rock Art in Britain and Ireland

edited by

Aron Mazel George Nash

Archaeopress Archaeology

Archaeopress Publishing Ltd Summertown Pavilion 18-24 Middle Way Summertown Oxford OX2 7LG www.archaeopress.com

ISBN 978-1-80327-251-1 ISBN 978-1-80327-252-8 (e-Pdf) © the individual authors and Archaeopress 2022 Cover images. Front: Weetwood Moor, Northumberland. Image: Aron Mazel. Back: Cathole Cave, Wales. Image: George H. Nash.

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the copyright owners. This book is available direct from Archaeopress or from our website www.archaeopress.com

Grateful thanks to the early recorders of rock art in Britain and Ireland who laid the foundation for the work reflected in this volume.

Contents Author Biographies������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ iii Introduction: Recording and Interpreting the Ancient Rock Art of Britain and Ireland����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 1 Aron Mazel and George Nash The Past, Present and Future of Rock Art Research in Scotland�������������������������������������� 10 Tertia Barnett, Joana Valdez-Tullett, Maya Hoole, Stuart Jeffrey, Guillaume Robin, Linda Marie Bjerketvedt and Frederick Alexander Marking the Earth: History of Research and the Distribution of Open-Air Neolithic and Early Bronze Age Panels and Motifs at Lordenshaw in Central Northumberland, United Kingdom������������������������������������������������������������������ 67 Aron Mazel East of Eden: Monumental Rock Art in Cumbria, North-West of England����������������������� 96 Kate E. Sharpe The Early Bronze Age Landscape of Burley Moor, West Yorkshire�������������������������������� 122 Keith Boughey The Carver and the Rock: The Physicality of Carving���������������������������������������������������� 145 Vivien Deacon A Wirral Enigma: Understanding the Origins of the Willaston Stones�������������������������� 169 Ron Cowell, George Nash and Elizabeth Stewart A Reappraisal of the Cronk yn How Stone, Isle of Man��������������������������������������������������� 191 George Nash Rewriting Landscapes: Exploring the Context, Regionality and Extended Chronologies of Irish Rock Art������������������������������������������������������������������������ 212 Rebecca Aroon Enlander Conserving Rock Art in South-West Ireland ������������������������������������������������������������������ 234 Clare Busher O’Sullivan

i

A Single Panel Case Study in Kerry – Deconstructing a Rock Art Palimpsest��������������� 255 Aoibheann Lambe Linear Art in the European Neolithic������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 282 Anne Teather The Discovery of Late Upper Palaeolithic Rock Art at Cathole Cave on the Gower Peninsula, South Wales����������������������������������������������������������������������������� 297 George Nash Prehistoric Rock Art in Glamorgan and Gwent��������������������������������������������������������������� 316 Edith Evans

ii

Author Biographies Frederick Alexander  Frederick Alexander  (Digital Archivist, Scotland’s Rock Art Project) is an information professional with experience of working in digital archives. He graduated from Glasgow University’s Information Management and Preservation (Digital) postgraduate degree in 2018. He then worked as a Special Collections Assistant at the National Library of Scotland, before joining Historic Environment Scotland in 2019. Frederick led the digitisation element of Historic Environment Scotland’s Archives Digital Projects, which generated over 500,000 newly digitised records. Tertia Barnett Tertia Barnett (Principal Investigator, Scotland’s Rock Art Project) is an Honorary Fellow in Archaeology at Edinburgh University. Since completing her PhD she has been researching and recording rock art in Britain and North Africa, with a specialism in post-Palaeolithic carvings. She has led on several community co-production projects in Britain, including Scotland’s Rock Art Project and The Northumberland and Durham Rock Art Project, and is a keen advocate of community engagement in rock art. Linda Marie Bjerketvedt  Linda Marie Bjerketvedt  (Data Analyst, Scotland’s Rock Art Project) is a Norwegian archaeologist with an MSc in Landscape Archaeology from the Freie Universität in Berlin. Her primary interests are in digital mapping, survey and community outreach, backed up by a keen desire to disseminate research in a way that is engaging and accessible. For her postgraduate thesis, she performed statistical and spatial analysis on large datasets through a multi-scalar approach in QGIS and R. Keith Boughey Member of Prehistoric Research Section of the Yorkshire Archaeological and Historical Society and Editor of the journal Prehistoric Yorkshire. With an interest in the prehistory of Yorkshire, in particular its prehistoric rock art, I was co-author of The Carved Rocks on Rombalds Moor (1986) and Prehistoric Rock Art of the West Riding (2003). Director of the Stanbury Hill Project (2008–13) which investigated an Early Bronze Age landscape on Bingley Moor, West Yorkshire, including its rock art. Ron Cowell A graduate of Reading University. Been at the Museum of Liverpool for the last 40 years working on the prehistory of the Merseyside region through both field research and commercial archaeology projects. Particular specialisms have been developed within that time in the Mesolithic period, survey and wetland archaeology and stone tool analysis.

iii

Vivien Deacon After a career in NHS Mental Health Services, Vivien Deacon took a BA in Archaeology at the University of York, completing her dissertation on curvilinear rock art in part of North Yorkshire. The findings raised more questions than they answered. She went on to do a PhD, working on the rock art of Rombalds Moor in West Yorkshire, and continues to study the rock art of the area. Rebecca Enlander Dr Rebecca Aroon Enlander is an independent researcher and archaeologist. Since gaining her PhD in Irish rock art in 2013, Rebecca has worked in commercial and research archaeology positions across Britain and Ireland. Rebecca is currently working with the Department for Communities, Northern Ireland, in a curatorial capacity, to assess the condition and management of prehistoric rock art sites. Edith Evans Following a first degree in Ancient History and Archaeology and a PhD on Roman houses at Birmingham University, Edith Evans joined the Glamorgan-Gwent Archaeological Trust in 1980 and has worked there in a variety of roles, currently as an Outreach Officer.  Her interest in rock art was sparked in 2011 when a member of the group she was leading on a guided walk on Gelligaer Common spotted a previously unrecorded cup-marked stone.  Maya Hoole Maya Hoole (Research Assistant maternity cover 2018-2019, Scotland’s Rock Art Project) is an archaeologist with experience in Scottish prehistory, focusing on Bronze Age burials and Atlantic rock art, data management, field survey and community engagement. Maya graduated from the University of Edinburgh with a Master’s degree in 2013 and has worked for Historic Environment Scotland since 2016. Her work on the Achavanich Beaker Burial project was nominated for Current Archaeology Research Project of the Year in 2020. Stuart Jeffrey Stuart Jeffrey (Co-Investigator, Scotland’s Rock Art Project) is Professor of Digital Heritage at the School of Simulation and Visualisation in The Glasgow School of Art. Stuart studied Computer Science and Archaeology at the University of Glasgow.  His research focuses on creative response, community co-design and co-production as well as visual and acoustic modelling of natural and cultural sites. Stuart has published widely on Digital Heritage, community co-production, aura and authenticity in the digital domain, art in heritage and informatics. Aoibheann Lambe LLB (TCD) MPhil Archaeology (UCC). Aoibheann initially qualified as a lawyer and worked for various international organizations before making Kerry her home in 2010. She identified many rock art panels through surveys in diverse landscapes including low elevation fertile pasture, and in areas where none were previously recorded. As a result, she decided to study archaeology at University College Cork (UCC) where she completed a research masters on rock art. She is currently employed by UCC, in which her research is focused on the geoheritage of Kerry’s Iveragh Peninsula, and in particular prehistoric copper mining and rock art. iv

Aron Mazel Aron Mazel is a Reader of Heritage Studies at Newcastle University (UK) and a Research Associate at the University of the Witwatersrand (South Africa). Aron has published on a range of topics, including the management and interpretation of tangible and intangible heritage; museum and archaeological histories; the construction of the San hunter-gatherer past in the Thukela basin (South Africa) based on 15 rock shelter excavations; and rock art in the uKhahlamba-Drakensberg (South Africa) and Northumberland (UK). George Nash George Nash is an Associate Professor at the Geosciences Centre, IPT (u. ID73 – FCT), Portugal. Dr Nash is a specialist in rock art, and gained his doctorate at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway, researching hunter-fisher-gatherer rock art along coastal Norway and Levantine Spain.  Between 1998 and 2016, Dr Nash lectured parttime within the University of Bristol. He has undertaken research in many parts of the world, and has published over 250 papers and edited, co-edited and written 38 books.  Clare Busher O’ Sullivan Clare Busher O’ Sullivan’s interest in rock art began while completing her BA in archaeology at University College Cork. She continued her research on prehistoric rock art, focusing on the conservation of rock art in south-west Ireland and graduating with an MPhil in 2018. Since then she presented and published her research nationally and internationally. Clare’s primary passion is for the conservation and management of Irish open-air rock art. Guillaume Robin Guillaume Robin (Co-Investigator, Scotland’s Rock Art Project) is a Senior Lecturer in the School of History, Classics and Archaeology, University of Edinburgh. His research specialises in Neolithic architectures, monuments, rock art and landscapes, with a particular interest in decorated chambered tombs in Europe. He uses 2D and 3D digital survey methods and excavation, with fieldwork in Sardinia (Italy), Ireland, Brittany (France), and Sulawesi (Indonesia).   Kate Sharpe Kate is a researcher at Durham University. Her work has three key strands which often overlap: investigating the use of stone in Prehistoric Britain - including megaliths, stone tools and, primarily, rock art; using digital heritage to improve understanding and awareness of the ancient past; and copy-editing and writing about archaeology. Liz Stewart Liz Stewart is Lead Curator of Archaeology and the Historic Environment at the Museum of Liverpool. Liz cares for the Museum of Liverpool regional archaeology collection: over 100,000 objects from Mesolithic to modern. Liz has recently worked with co-authors Ron Cowell and George Nash to publish an update to ‘The Calderstones: A prehistoric tomb in Liverpool’, which explores the remains of a Neolithic chambered tomb destroyed in the 19th century. The remaining stones display a fascinating array of rock art recorded and published previously.

v

Anne Teather Anne Teather is Visiting Research Fellow at Bournemouth University. Anne researches theory and practice in the European Neolithic, specialising in the interpretation of art and the deposition of material culture. She has supervised archaeological excavations of Neolithic sites at Stonehenge and at The Ness of Brodgar, Orkney, and currently co-directs The Prehistoric Landscape of Tenants Hill in West Dorset. She has taught at several universities and is a Trustee of The Prehistoric Society. Joana Valdez-Tullett Joana Valdez-Tullett (Research Assistant, Scotland’s Rock Art Project) has been working with rock art since 2003, studying and investigating sites from a number of European countries and periods, including the Palaeolithic. Her specialism is on Atlantic Rock Art about which she has published a volume based on her PhD thesis. Joana is also interested in computer applications to archaeology, archaeological theory and the intersection between archaeology and contemporary art.

vi

Introduction: Recording and Interpreting the Ancient Rock Art of Britain and Ireland Aron Mazel1 and George Nash2

2

1 Newcastle University and the University of the Witwatersrand Centro de Geociências da Universidade de Coimbra and Instituto Politécnico de Tomar

Just over 10 000 years ago, Upper Palaeolithic hunter-fisher-gatherers in Britain, and possibly Ireland, started making imagery on rock.1 These early images appear to have been made only in caves and contain both figurative and abstract figures. Thereafter, imagery made by Mesolithic hunter-fisher-gatherers, who succeeded the Upper Palaeolithic period, are located in caves and the open-air, and, like the previous period, represent both figurative and abstract figures. Then, around 6000 years ago, during the early Neolithic, pastoral communities who had replaced the hunter-fisher-gatherers started creating carvings in open-air locations. During the Neolithic and the following Early Bronze Age periods, people made overwhelmingly abstract images (e.g. concentric circles, cupmarks, lines, spirals, zigzags) with rare occurrences of representational figures, such as the recently reported cervid engravings on a cist slab from Dunchraigaig cairn in western Scotland, which, according to Barnett et al. (this volume) are likely to have been created ‘before or at the start of the Early Bronze Age’ (see also, Fenton 2021; Valdez-Tullett & Barnett 2021). Although only a handful of Upper Palaeolithic and Mesolithic rock art sites are known in the Britain, these periods are addressed respectively in this volume through Nash’s chapter about the Late Upper Palaeolithic site of Cathole on the Gower Peninsula, in Wales and at Cronk yn How Stone, on the Isle of Man, which Nash has suggested displays imagery that could relate to the Early Mesolithic. The bulk of chapters, however, are associated with the Neolithic and Early Bronze Age periods, for which there are over 7000 panels on record across Britain and Ireland (Sharpe 2012; Mazel & Giesen 2019). Carved panels dating back to these periods are especially prevalent in the northern half of Britain and southwest Ireland, with more being found, even in previously searched areas. This has especially been the case during various intensive recording projects that have been undertaken during the last two decades. If we take Northumberland, for example, in 2000, The Rock Art Pilot Project (2000) reported that the Northumberland Historic Environment Record (HER) contained records of 450 panels, although it is unclear how they derived this number, as the records Mazel (2007) obtained from the Northumberland HER, in August 2002, contained significantly fewer entries. By early 2003, Mazel’s (2007) interrogation of Stan Beckensall’s gazetteers and personal interviews with him, along with information provided by Ian and Irene Hewitt (Hewitt 1991), revealed that there were at least 790 known rock art panels in Northumberland. During the Beckensall Northumberland Rock Art website project, which ran between July 2002-December 2004, Mazel worked closely with Beckensall on his paper archive and in the field, and the number of known panels was increased to around 1060. This 1  In making this comment, we exclude the marked stones recovered from Les Varines (Jersey), which date to around 15,000 years ago (Bello et al. 2020). Although Jersey forms part of the UK administratively it is geographically considerably closer to France than mainland UK.

Signalling and performance (Archaeopress 2022): 1–9

Aron Mazel and George Nash was achieved partly through close examination of Beckensall’s records along with information provided by many people (e.g., colleagues, farmers, landowners and other members of the public), and field discoveries. Building on the Beckensall Northumberland rock art website project, The Northumberland and Durham Rock Art Pilot Project (2004-2008) increased the number of known panels in Northumberland to around 1250, primarily through fieldwork discoveries. A more recent example of increasing numbers of carved panels through intensive fieldwork and examination of the existing records, occurred during Scotland’s Rock Art Project (ScRAP), 2017-20121, where 250 of the 1630 (i.e., 15%) panels that were recorded and investigated in detail during the project were new discoveries, although it is appreciated that around 3330 carved panels are known in Scotland (Scotland’s Rock Art Project 2021; Barnett et al., this volume). Even in areas of limited rock art we have seen significant rise in the numbers of panels during the last few decades. In the case of Wales, for example, up until 2000, only a handful of panels were known, nearly all associated with Neolithic burial-ritual monuments (e.g., Beckensall 1999). However, by 2004, with the publication of The Meeting of the Tracks: Rock Art in Ancient Wales by John Sharkey, a further 30 panels were added to the Welsh national database. With recent desk-based research, fieldwork and public engagement organised by the Welsh Rock Art Organisation, established in 2004, the list currently stands at 173 panels, the majority of which are now present on the four Welsh Trust’s HER databases. Despite recent projects, which have significantly increased the number of known rock art panels in different areas, the passing of time has generally been unkind to Britain and Ireland’s open-air rock art. Many panels have been lost to, for example, quarrying, field clearances and other agricultural practices, while others may have just faded away over a long period time, as Hedley (1889) suggested already around 130 years ago, in respect of Lordenshaw in central Northumberland. A clear illustration of fading rock art derives from Snook Bank, near Lordenshaw, where carvings covered by turf appear freshly made, retaining their pick marks, while others on the same rock, which have been exposed to the elements, for how many years we do not know but probably for an extensive period of time, are hardly visible (Figure 1). We will never know the total number of stones people carved in Britain and Ireland during the Neolithic and Early Bronze Age periods, but it is likely to be Figure 1. Snook Bank, in Northumberland, which shows considerably greater than the roughly the difference between carvings that have been covered by 7000 panels that are currently known. It turf (e.g. pick marks are visible) and those exposed to the is probable that many more will still be elements. The turf was reinstated straight after the recording was completed. Scale in centimetres. Image: Aron Mazel. found. 2

Recording and Interpreting the Ancient Rock Art of Britain and Ireland While the chapters in this volume draw on a wide range of data, most of which have been generated during the last few decades, it is important to remember that our current endeavours build on past efforts. Indeed, this assemblage of overwhelmingly abstract imagery came to the attention of Antiquarians centuries ago, which is when they first began to engage with them. We also need to acknowledge that local communities may have known about many panels over long periods - hundreds or perhaps even thousands of years - and in all likelihood used them as focal points within the landscape. Many rock art panels, along with other later Neolithic and Bronze Age burial-ritual and landscape monuments, such as barrows, cairns, standing stones (menhirs) and stone chambered tombs were incorporated into public rights of way, which appear to have delineated the courses of ancient routeways. According to Beckensall (2007, 216; see also O’Kelly 1982), Ireland ‘had some early references to its passage grave art, one as early as 1699, when a Welsh antiquarian, Edward Lhwyd described how workmen had carried off some of the stones from the mound, marked with crude and barbarous sculpture that must have been pre-Roman.’ Moreover, Williams and Shee Twohig (2015) have noted that Lhwyd’s draftsman, Will Jones, had made a drawing of Newgrange. Reference to Figure 2 shows that Jones had identified a range of motifs in the art. Then, some 90 years after this, according to Tate (1864, 162), ‘As long ago as 1785 a drawing was made of an incised slab, which covered a cist at Coilsfield in Ayrshire [Scotland], in which was an urn filled with incinerated bones…The principal figure on it is the same as our common typical form; six concentric circles around a cup from which issues a groove, but along with this is a coiled or spiral figure of which we have no example in Northumberland; it is possible, however, that there may be some error in the drawing.’ Not only is it interesting that Tate referenced this early recording of rock art, but that around 150 years ago he was considering the similarities and differences between motifs occurring in different regions, which remains a feature of our current research efforts. Following the Coilsfield cist cover drawing, it took almost another 50 years for the first regional survey of carved rock art to be published, which focused on Cairnbaan, in Scotland (Currie 1830). Despite the early recognition and survey of rock art, it would be fair to comment that the first substantial engagement with ancient carvings in Britain occurred in the mid and late 19th century when antiquarians George Tate and James Simpson systematically recorded rock art in Northumberland and Scotland respectively. Significantly, Tate’s and Simpson’s landmark publications were within a few years of each other, with Tate’s The Ancient British Sculptured Rocks of Northumberland and the Eastern Borders, with Notices of the Remains associated with these Sculptures published in 1864, and Simpson’s On ancient sculpturings of cups and concentric rings, etc. a couple of years later, in 1866. Moreover, in a publication in the following year, Simpson (1867) described in detail the Calderstones passage grave in Liverpool and the Bachwen Portal Dolmen in northwest Wales and supported this with a fine set of engraved plates. With these publications, Tate and Simpson laid the foundation for future work, although notably, it took another century before the emergence of rock art recording on a larger scale than theirs. Tate and Simpson were not ‘lone scholars’ but had engaged with each other about rock art; for example, Simpson (1867, 52) commented that, ‘Subsequently notices of this [Northumberland] remarkable rock were given to … the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 3

Aron Mazel and George Nash

Figure 2. Drawing of Newgrange, 1699, made by Will Jones for Edward Lhwyd (after Williams & Shee Twohig 2015).

4

Recording and Interpreting the Ancient Rock Art of Britain and Ireland by Mr Tate’, and after Tate’s abovementioned address, indicated that he ‘had the pleasure of reading over the principal heads of … [Tate’s essay] … and found that in most points he and I were agreed’ (Simpson 1867, 53). Paying tribute to these early recorders, Beckensall (2007, 211) asked ‘what would we have done without these inspired amateurs?’ The amateur (or independent) rock art specialists who picked up Tate’s and Simpson’s mantle during the 1960s and 1970s, such as Stan Beckensall, Keith Boughey, Ronald Morris, Maarten van Hoek and Ed Vickerman, reflected a sustained commitment to locating and recording rock art over many years. Later, they were joined by recorders such as Paul and Barbara Brown, Graeme Chappell and George Currie. They were all driven by their passion and dedication to rock art. To their credit, not only did these rock art specialists locate and record thousands of rock art panels, but they did this unfunded and with great perseverance. Most valuably, they put their findings on record in books and articles and, in some instances, provided the information to local heritage authorities. Their efforts are, in part, reflected in the upsurge in publishing about rock art in the 1970s and 1980s, which continues to this day (Figure 3), representing the longest period of sustained rock art research and publication in Ireland and Britain. While all the aforementioned rock art colleagues deserve grateful thanks from the broader rock art community, the revival of rock art studies in the latter part of the 20th century is particularly associated with Ronald Morris and Stan Beckensall. They are appreciated by the rock art community as being preeminent. Regarding Morris, and referring specifically to Scotland, Barnett et al. (2021, 24) comment that, ‘Most renowned amongst them [i.e., rock art recorders] is Ronald Morris, a Scottish lawyer who recorded over 400 rock art sites across southern and western Scotland in the 1960s-1980s.’ Beckensall, an educationalist, who made Northumberland his home in the 1960s, recorded around 1000 panels in the county between the 1960s and 2000s. While Beckensall concentrated his recording efforts in Northumberland, he also published about the rock art of Cumbria, Durham, Kilmartin, Swaledale and Wensleydale.

Figure 3. Rate of rock art publications over time in Britain and Ireland (produced by Leigh Marymor, Rock Art Studies Bibliographic Database, https://musnaz.org/rock_art_studies_db/).

5

Aron Mazel and George Nash Richard Bradley, in dedicating his influential book Rock Art and the Prehistory of Atlantic Europe (1997, xiv) to Stan Beckensall, commented, ‘Rock Art is one of those fields in which amateurs and professionals have been able to work together successfully. It is only right that I dedicate this book to the two people2 who have done most to encourage and support me in this work: Stan Beckensall, the most devoted of amateur archaeologists … Between them they have introduced me to the pleasures of studying rock art.’ Interestingly, in a parallel development reflecting the 19th century connection between Tate, in Northumberland, and Simpson, in Scotland, one hundred years later there existed a connection between Morris and Beckensall, signified in Morris bequeathing to Beckensall his Nikon camera, who used it proudly for many years, and his Scottish rock art archive, which was later returned to Scotland (Mazel 2006). In recording thousands of rock art panels, the aforementioned amateur archaeologists laid the basis for the extensive funded surveys that have occurred during the last few decades in Northumberland, Durham Yorkshire, Scotland and Wales, which has not only led to more discoveries of rock art, but also to the creation of extensive databases of Neolithic and Early Bronze Age rock art. These projects have added considerably to our knowledge of the extent and nature of rock art made by our forbearers thousands of years ago, which is, in part, due to the incremental refinements in recording methodologies during these projects both in terms of the nature of data collected about the rock art and the improved visual recordings (e.g., Sharpe et al. 2008; Barnett et al. 2021). Complementing the growth in the number of rock art panels, has been the development of chronometric dating techniques, such as uranium-series disequilibrium dating (e.g., Pike et al. 2009, Nash et al. 2012), Raman spectroscopy (Nash et al. 2016), and the application of desk-based colour algorithms (Nash & Jelly 2016). These revolutionary techniques have been applied to cave and rock shelter contexts that have an Upper Palaeolithic or Mesolithic rock art presence, such as Church Hole Cave, Creswell Crags (Bahn & Pettitt 2009) and Cathole Cave (Nash, this volume). Unfortunately, there have been no equivalent developments regarding the direct dating of open-air rock art, although there has been an increased focus on relative chronology using superimpositioning (Barnett et al; Lambe, this volume). Another benefit of various rock art projects during the last two decades has been encouraging, both virtual and in situ, of public engagement with rock art so that it can be enjoyed and appreciated by current and future generations. This has included the development of websites that provided unfettered access to considerable amounts of data, such as the Beckensall Northumberland rock art website, which presented over 1000 panels and supported by 6000 images.3 Between January 2005 and June 2008, visitor traffic to this website represented about 17 million successful requests (i.e., hits), just over 0.5 million successful pages requests, and 115,000 distinct hosts served, which indicates the number of people visiting the website (Mazel & Ayestaran 2010). In addition, the rock art of Britain and Ireland has been placed into a wider The other person mentioned by Bradley (1997) is John Coles. Unfortunately, this website which was hosted by Newcastle University was taken down due to potential security flaws. 2  3 

6

Recording and Interpreting the Ancient Rock Art of Britain and Ireland global context through websites such as the Bradshaw Foundation4 and the 1902 Committee5, and various themed pages on social media platforms, such as Facebook, Instagram and Twitter (Mazel 2017). Another aspect of some of the abovementioned projects that requires acknowledgement is the substantial contribution to the location and recording of rock art made by the large number of volunteers who have participated in them. Besides being recorders of rock art, they can also now be considered as advocates for the safeguarding of this fragile but priceless heritage. A great debt of gratitude is owed to them. The rock art from the different periods represented in this volume provide a rich resource for study and debate, attracting increased attention from scholars, particularly during the last 30 years (Figure 3). This work has significantly enhanced our understanding of past human endeavour in Ireland and Britain, especially regarding the different types of imagery our ancestors held in their minds and rendered on rock surfaces in caves, rock shelters and in the open-air. These are a great legacy which are represented by both regional and chronological styles and techniques. Fifteen years ago, we published Art as Metaphor: The Prehistoric Rock-Art of Britain (Mazel et al. 2007), which drew together 12 chapters dealing with different periods represented in British and Irish rock art but geographically focused on Northumberland, Yorkshire, Cumbria and southern Britain. This successor volume not only revisits most of the periods and regions represented in Art as Metaphor, but encouragingly has three chapters dealing specifically with the rock art of Ireland (Enlander; Lambe; O’Sullivan, all this volume), one focusing on the rock art of Scotland (Barnett et al., this volume), along with another chapter about the primarily non-representational Neolithic linear art cut into chalk (Teather, this volume). While the Scottish chapter was co-authored by team members of ScRAP, a five-year (2017-2021) Arts and Humanities Research Council funded programme, the chapters concerning Irish rock art was based on recent thesis research: two masters (Lambe and O’Sullivan) and one doctoral (Enlander), all of which signal the growth and maturation of rock art studies in Britain and Ireland. These chapters together with the others in this volume contribute handsomely to our ever-increasing body of knowledge of British and Irish rock art and the people and communities who made it. Staying within the west of Britain, Wales and the Borderlands are also represented, covering some of the recent discoveries that extend much of the ancient past (e.g., Cowell et al.; Evans; Nash, all this volume). From much of the material covered in this volume, one common denominator appears to present, that of the intimate relationship of rock art with the landscape and ancient monuments. The relationship between rock art and the landscape is clearly shown in the chapters covering northern Britain, by Boughey, Deacon, Mazel and Sharpe, while a more-wider European context is considered by Teather. As evident in this volume, ancient rock art continues to fascinate and challenge people as a rich source of material for study and shedding light on our distant ancestors. Reviewing Art as Metaphor, Barnett (2009: 860) commented, ‘This book is a useful synthesis of recent discoveries and interpretations. While acknowledging that rock art studies are still evolving, it identifies new research directions and sets the scene for future initiatives. As Mazel concludes in the final chapter (p. 253) ‘. . .the availability of large datasets and the 4 

5 

https://www.bradshawfoundation.com/ https://www.1902committee.com/

7

Aron Mazel and George Nash increased interest in the rock art of. . . the British Isles makes this an exciting time for its study.’ The last 15 years has been an exciting time for rock art studies in Britain and Ireland and it is our hope that this volume will help contribute to many more decades of discovery and research. Acknowledgement Thanks are due to Leigh Marymor who kindly created Figure 3 for us. Bibliography Bahn, P. and Pettitt, P. (eds.), 2009. Britain’s Oldest Art: The Ice Age Cave Art of Creswell Crags. London: English Heritage. Barnett, T., 2009. British rock art: from discovery to interpretation. Antiquity 83 (2009): 858– 860. Barnett, T., Valdez-Tullett, J., Bjerketvedt, L.M., Alexander, F., Jeffrey, S., Robin, G. and Hoole, M., 2021. Prehistoric Rock Art in Scotland. Edinburgh: Historic Environment Scotland. Beckensall, S., 1999. British Prehistoric Rock Art. Tempus. Stroud. Beckensall, S., 2007. How the study of rock-art began and developed. In A. Mazel, G. Nash, and C. Waddington, C. (eds.). Art as Metaphor: The Prehistoric Rock-Art of Britain, Oxford: Archaeopress, 205-229. Bradley, R., 1997. Rock Art and the Prehistory of Atlantic Europe: signing the land. London: Routledge. Bello, S.M., Blinkhorn, E., Needham, A., Bates, M., Duffy, S., Little, A., Pope, M., Scott, B., Shaw, A., Welch, M. D., Kinnaird, T., Millar, L., Robinson, R and Conneller, C., 2020. Artists on the edge of the world: An integrated approach to the study of Magdalenian engraved stone plaquettes from Jersey (Channel Islands). PLOS ONE 15(8): e0236875. https://journals.plos. org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0236875 Currie, A., 1830. A description of the antiquities and scenery of the parish of North Knapdale, Argyleshire, by Archibald Currie. Glasgow: W.R. M’Phun. Fenton, H., 2021. Dunchraigaig Cairn. Discovery and Excavation Scotland. New Series, 21: 27. Hedley, R. C., 1889. The Pre-Historic Camps of Northumberland’. Archaeologia Aeliana 2nd series. 13: 225-233. Hewitt, I., 1991. Prehistoric Rock Motifs in Great Britain an appraisal of their place in the archaeological record with specific reference to Northumberland’. Unpublished thesis, University of Bournemouth. Mazel, A., 2006. Foreword. In S. Beckensall, Circles in Stone: A British Prehistoric Mystery, Stroud: Tempus, 7-9. Mazel, A., 2007. On the fells and beyond: exploring aspects of Northumberland rock-art. In A. Mazel, G. Nash and C. Waddington (eds.), Art as Metaphor: The Prehistoric Rock-Art of Britain, Oxford: Archaeopress, 231-256. Mazel, A.D. 2017. Valuing rock art: a view from Northumberland in North East England. International Journal of Heritage Studies. 23 (5): 421-433. https://www-tandfonline-com. libproxy.ncl.ac.uk/doi/full/10.1080/13527258.2016.1274668 Mazel, A., Nash, G. and Waddington, C., (eds.). 2007. Art as Metaphor: The Prehistoric Rock-Art of Britain. Oxford: Archaeopress. Mazel, A. and Ayestaran, H., 2010. Visiting Northumberland Rock Art Virtually: The Beckensall Archive Analysed. In Carving a Future for British Rock Art: New Approaches to Research, 8

Recording and Interpreting the Ancient Rock Art of Britain and Ireland Management and Presentation, T. F. Barnett and K. E. Sharpe (eds.), Oxford: Oxbow Books, 140–150. Mazel, A. and Giesen, M., 2019. Engagement and Management: Developing a Monitoring System for Open-air Rock Art in the UK and Ireland. Conservation and Management of Archaeological Sites. 21 (3): 160-183. https://doi.org/10.1080/13505033.2019.1662228 Nash, G.H., van Calsteren, P., Thomas, L. and Simms, M.J. 2012. A discovery of possible Upper Palaeolithic parietal art in Cathole Cave,  Gower Peninsula, South Wales. Proceedings of the University of Bristol Speleological Society 25. 3. 327-336. http://ubss.org.uk/resources/ proceedings/vol25/UBSS_Proc_25_3_327-336.pdf Nash, G.H., Garcés, S., Gomes, H., Rosina, P., Nicoli, M., Vaccaro, C., Volpe, L., 2016. Assessing the chemistry of possible inorganic applied pigments within Cathole Cave, Gower Peninsula, South Wales. Proceedings of the University of Bristol Speleological Society. Vol. 27(1), 81-93. http://www.ubss.org.uk/resources/proceedings/vol27/UBSS_Proc_27_1_81-93.pdf Nash, G.H. and Jelly, K., 2016. New over old: an image-based reassessment of Le Déhus passage grave’s ‘Le Gardien du Tombeau’, Guernsey. Time & Mind, Vol. 9 (3) 245–26. O’Kelly, M. J., 1982. Newgrange, Archaeology, Art and Legend. London: Thames and Hudson. Rock Art Pilot Project Main Report, 2000. A report on the results of a pilot project to investigate the current state of research, conservation, management and presentation of the prehistoric rock art in England, commissioned by English Heritage from the Archaeology Group, School of Conservation Sciences, Bournemouth University and the Institute of Archaeology, University College London. Pike, A., Gilmour, M. and Pettitt, P., 2009. Verification of the age of the Palaeolithic cave art at Creswell Crags using uranium-series disequilibrium dating. In: Bahn, P. and Pettitt, P. (eds.), Britain’s Oldest Art: The Ice Age Cave Art of Creswell Crags. London: English Heritage, pp. 87-95. Scotland’s Rock Art Project. Newsletter 9: Winter 2021. Sharpe, K. E., 2012. Reading between the Grooves. Regional Variations in the Style and Deployment of ‘Cup and Ring’ Marked Stones across Britain and Ireland.” In A. Cochrane, A. and A.M. Jones (eds.), Visualising the Neolithic (Neolithic Studies Group Seminar Papers), Oxford: Oxbow Books, pp. 47–63. Sharkey, J., 2004. The Meeting of the Tracks: Rock Art in Ancient Wales. Carreg Gwalch. Sharpe, K., Barnett, T. and Rushton, S., 2008. The Prehistoric Rock Art of England: Recording, managing and enjoying our carved heritage. English Heritage, Northumberland County Council and Durham County Council Simpson, J.Y., 1866. On ancient sculpturings of cups and concentric rings, etc. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 6 (1864-1866) Appendix: 1-471. Simpson, J.Y., 1867. Archaic Sculpturings of Cups, Circles etc upon Stones and Rocks in Scotland, England etc and other Countries. Edinburgh: Edmonston and Douglas. Tate, G., 1864. The Ancient British Sculptured Rocks of Northumberland and the Eastern Borders, with Notices of the Remains associated with these Sculptures. History of the Berwickshire Naturalists’ Club 5 (2), 137-179. Valdez-Tullett, J. and Barnett, T., 2021. New light on Scotland’s prehistoric rock art: the recent discovery of animal carvings at Dunchraigaig Cairn (Kilmartin, Scotland). PAST 98: 12-3. Williams, K. and Shee Twohig, E., 2015. From sketchbook to structure from motion: Recording prehistoric carvings in Ireland. Digital Applications in Archaeology and Cultural Heritage 2: 120–131.

9

The Past, Present and Future of Rock Art Research in Scotland Tertia Barnett1, Joana Valdez-Tullett1, Maya Hoole1, Stuart Jeffrey2, Guillaume Robin3, Linda Marie Bjerketvedt1 and Frederick Alexander1 Scotland’s Rock Art Project, Historic Environment Scotland School of Simulation and Visualisation, Glasgow School of Art 3 School of History, Classics and Archaeology, University of Edinburgh 1

2

Introduction Over 3000 prehistoric carved rocks are known across Scotland, from the Outer Hebrides to Galloway (Figures 1 and 2). They range from simple cupmarks to elaborate arrangements of cups, rings and grooves, typically carved on igneous, metamorphic and sedimentary boulders and outcrops in the open landscape, and Megalithic or Passage Tomb Art, mainly associated with Neolithic structures and chambered tombs (Figure 1). In this chapter, we use the term ‘Atlantic Rock Art’, popularised in the 1990s by Bradley (1997) following MacWhite (1946) to describe the cup and ring tradition.

a

Figure 1. Rock art in Scotland ranges from one or more simple cupmarks to varied complex motifs and arrangements. Images © HES

Signalling and performance (Archaeopress 2022): 10–66

The Past, Present and Future of Rock Art Research in Scotland

b a. Multiple cups and complex motifs at High Banks 4, Kirkcudbright, Galloway. b. Cups with multiple rings and radial grooves at Torrs 2, Kirkcudbright, Galloway

c. Cups with single rings and other motifs at Over Glenny 12, Menteith, Stirlingshire

d. Cup marked stone at Pontain, North Uist, Outer Hebrides

c 11

Barnett, Valdez-Tullett, Hoole, Jeffrey, Robin, Bjerketvedt and Alexander

d

Scotland’s rock art is generally considered within the broader academic discourse on prehistoric carvings of Britain, Ireland and Atlantic Europe (e.g., MacWhite 1946; Hadingham 1974; Shee Twohig 1981; Morris 1989; Bradley 1997; Beckensall 1999; Waddington 2007a; Valdez-Tullett 2019). So why focus on Scotland’s rock art alone? Although the production of prehistoric rock art across Atlantic Europe may be motivated by shared beliefs and practices, large-scale studies obscure regional and local distinctiveness. To assume that the same interpretative models apply to rock art in all areas overlooks the complexity of smaller-scale identities, traditions and connections (Barclay 2009). This does not mean that Scotland’s rock art should be treated as a single, discrete entity, however. In the last few decades, extensive fieldwork, aerial reconnaissance and radiocarbon dating in Scotland have vastly improved our understanding of regional variability during the Neolithic. In the same way that Scotland’s Neolithic (c.4100-2500 BCE1) is no longer viewed as a largely homogenous phenomenon with universal explanations, Scotland’s rock art should be understood in terms of its diversity, articulated within a dynamic network of knowledge and interaction in the wider context of Britain and Europe. Similarly, while the history of rock art discovery and research in Scotland is enmeshed with that of its neighbours, it has its own distinctive narrative. Many things have been done differently in Scotland, and these differences shape both present understanding and future directions. There is considerable value then in examining Scotland’s prehistoric carvings from the perspective of landscapes, archaeology, discovery and research specific to this country, both for appreciating diversity within Scotland, and for informing studies of British and European rock art. The following account reviews the development of knowledge and understanding of Scotland’s rock art. It draws on multiple sources, including preliminary results from work by Scotland’s Rock Art Project (ScRAP), a five-year (2017-2021) Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC) funded programme to enhance understanding, awareness and value of 1 

See The Scottish Archaeological Research Framework (ScARF): https://www.scottishheritagehub.com/

12

The Past, Present and Future of Rock Art Research in Scotland

Figure 2. Distribution of rock art in Scotland showing counties and locations mentioned in the text.

13

Barnett, Valdez-Tullett, Hoole, Jeffrey, Robin, Bjerketvedt and Alexander prehistoric rock art in Scotland through community co-production and research.2 First, we consider how knowledge has been constructed over the last 200 years. We then examine the state of rock art data today, and its implications for research. Finally, we discuss research trajectories, highlighting how work in Scotland has contributed to current understanding, before concluding with some remarks on future directions and longer-term aspirations. Although relevant to the themes discussed in this paper, management and sustainability concerns are covered only briefly. Building Knowledge Early discoveries The history of rock art discovery in Scotland has been summarised elsewhere (e.g., Bradley 1997; Foster 2010; Jones et al. 2011), but it is useful to revisit this narrative in the light of recent fieldwork, and foreground issues affecting research and understanding. Aside from sporadic references in the late 18th century, it is now almost 200 years since Archibald Currie published the first account of prehistoric rock art in Scotland in his report of carved rocks around Cairnbaan in Kilmartin, Argyll (Figure 3) (Currie 1830; Tate 1853). Additional discoveries followed Currie’s account, including Greenwell’s identification of a ‘great number of the small pits which are found so often associated with concentric circles’ on standing stones at Nether Largie and Ballymeanoch in Kilmartin, and various rocks ‘profusely covered with the enigmatic circular motifs’ (Figure 4) (Greenwell 1866, 337-8). Sir James Young Simpson, a Scottish aristocrat and obstetrician renowned for discovering the anaesthetic properties of chloroform, mentions at least 77 locations with one or more carved rocks in his syntheses of rock art known in Scotland at that time (Simpson 1866, 1867) (Figure 4). Simpson also remarks on the different contexts of the carvings; principally prehistoric burial monuments, standing stones and stone circles, in addition to hill forts and ‘weems’ (souterrains or ‘earth houses’), with fewer examples in the open landscape. Similar discoveries in England, Wales and Ireland had been published in preceding decades, and Simpson notes the resemblance of motifs in Scotland to those in Britain, Ireland, and other parts of the world (e.g., Martin Sarmiento 1745; Graves 1860; Tate 1865; Kinahan 1879; Allen 1882, 1896; Collyer and Turner 1885; Coles 1895; Lamb 1987). Simpson’s work echoes contemporaneous concerns with determining the symbolic meaning of the motifs (Simpson 1866, 1867). He outlines nine possible interpretations, ranging from landscape maps, plans of sites, and astronomical charts, to an early form of writing and gaming boards, before concluding that they were probably ‘symbolic or ornamental or both’ (Simpson 1866, 104). Approaches privileging motif typology and meaning over other forms of analysis remained paramount until the latter half of the 20th century. Simpson’s accounts, together with the growing corpus of rock art in England and Ireland, inspired further antiquarian interest in the latter part of the 19th century and first half of 20th centuries (e.g., Anderson 1927; Tempest 1931; MacWhite 1946). Between 1868 and 1908, there were over 37 published discoveries of rock art in Scotland (Foster 2010). The first complete tally of rock art in Scotland appears in an article by John Romilly Allen noting 204 sites, of 2  This chapter was written and submitted before the completion of ScRAP’s research. A fuller account of the research approaches and results of the project can be found in Bjerketvedt et al. in prep and Valdez-Tullett et al. in prep).

14

The Past, Present and Future of Rock Art Research in Scotland

Figure 3. 19th century drawing of Cairnbaan, Kilmartin, by C. Maclagan. Cairnbaan was one of the first published examples of rock art in Scotland. © Courtesy of HES (Society of Antiquaries of Scotland Collection). DP 285130.

which over a third are associated with burial monuments (Allen 1882). Although a proportion of these carvings have since been destroyed or removed, many still survive in-situ including stones like Balvraid in Glen Elg, considered at risk in the 19th century (Figure 5). 15

Barnett, Valdez-Tullett, Hoole, Jeffrey, Robin, Bjerketvedt and Alexander

Figure 4. Cup and ring carvings on standing stones at Ballymeanoch in Kilmartin, one of many rock art illustrations published in Simpson’s article (1866). The carvings are likely to pre-date the monument, which may have been in use for a lengthy period. Dates obtained from excavation of the socket of the holed-stone revealed that it was erected in the Middle Bronze Age (c.1370-1050 cal BC) (Barber 1978; Sheridan 2005). Plate XVIII from Appendix by J Y Simpson 1866 ©Society of Antiquaries of Scotland, reproduced with kind permission.

16

The Past, Present and Future of Rock Art Research in Scotland

a

Figure 5.a. The Witches Stone in Midlothian (top image) was mentioned by Simpson in 1866 but destroyed in 1931 to enhance arable land. Plate IX from Appendix by J Y Simpson 1866 ©Society of Antiquaries of Scotland, reproduced with kind permission. b. Balvraid in Glen Elg, Highland, was visited by Allen in 1881 who asked for it to be removed to the Museum of National Antiquaries in Edinburgh, but his request was refused by the factor (see Allen 1882). The stone still survives on the top of a clearance cairn in a pasture field, where it was at the time of Allen’s visit. Image © HES.

b

17

Barnett, Valdez-Tullett, Hoole, Jeffrey, Robin, Bjerketvedt and Alexander The growing database The founding of the Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Scotland (RCAHMS) in 1908, with Royal Commissions established in Wales and England later that year, heralded a new era in data collection. For the first time in British history, there were now professional institutions assigned to record archaeological remains and structures of historical value, driven by the policy to preserve monuments of national importance set out in the first Ancient Monuments Protection Act of 1882. Initially, the objective in Scotland was to create a detailed catalogue of all notable buildings and monuments constructed before 1707 (later amended to 1805). Tasked with this responsibility, Alexander Curle, the first RCAHMS Secretary (1908-1913), embarked by bicycle on a county-by-county survey, publishing his findings in a series of Inventories (such as the First Report and Inventory of Monuments and Constructions in the County of Berwick in 1909, and the Third Report and Inventory of Monuments and Constructions in the County of Caithness in 1911). RCAHMS continued Curle’s pioneering work after the First World War, incorporating records compiled by the Archaeology Division of the Ordnance Survey (OS) during the mid-20th century, and covered around half of the country before finally abandoning this scheme in 1992. Although RCAHMS published comprehensive archaeological surveys of eastern Perthshire and eastern Dumfriesshire in the 1990s, large areas of north-eastern and western Scotland were never investigated systematically (Figure 6). RCAHMS also located many new carved rocks during thematic and area-specific archaeological field investigations, including pre-afforestation work, and intensive surveys in Angus and in Perthshire, the latter increasing the number of rock art panels known on the southern slopes of Ben Lawers above Loch Tay from 14 to 121 (Sheriff 1995; Hale 2003; RCAHMS 2015). Since the 1990s, developer-funded fieldwork and archaeological projects supported by Historic Scotland have had a major impact on knowledge of Scotland’s rock art and prehistory (e.g., Phillips and Bradley 2004; Brophy 2006). Together, these programmes generated a wealth of new data, including detailed measured drawings of the motifs and rock surfaces (Figure 7). In addition to rock art sites recorded by RCAHMS, OS, and other heritage practitioners, there have been substantial contributions in the last 70 years from exceptional and dedicated ‘avocational’ archaeologists. Pre-eminent among these is Ronald Morris, a Scottish lawyer who surveyed a large portion of southern and western Scotland in the 1960s-1980s (Figure 6), and published his findings in a succession of gazetteer articles and books (e.g., Morris 1977, 1979, 1981, 1989). Whilst more renowned for compiling 104 rock art theories (1979), Morris was one of the first people to break with traditional thinking and contextualise rock art within the landscape. He explored various patterns in the placement of motifs relative to the geology, terrain, views, prehistoric artefacts and monuments, altitude, and distance from the sea, ultimately favouring the notion that the carvings were linked to prehistoric mineral prospection (Morris 1966, 1969, 1979, 1981; see also Hadingham 1974). By 1969, Morris, with assistance from Mr D. Bailey, had recorded over 420 rock art sites across southern Scotland, excluding Kilmartin and Kintyre (Morris and Bailey 1966; Morris 1967a and b, 1969). Further carved rocks recorded around Kilmartin by Marion Campbell brought the total to around 480 known sites (Campbell and Sandeman 1962). By 1981, this number had risen to an estimated minimum of 800 in southern Scotland (Morris 1981). Morris’s 1989 account of British rock art mentions at least 1,033 rock art sites in Scotland, but as he defines a ‘site’ as groups of carvings situated at least 25m apart, and only estimates the number of sites with cupmarks alone, this figure is not fully representative (Morris 1989). A more realistic total is provided by the National Record for Scotland’s Historic Environment 18

The Past, Present and Future of Rock Art Research in Scotland

Figure 6. Map of Scotland showing regions surveyed by RCAHMS and Morris in the 20th century.

19

Barnett, Valdez-Tullett, Hoole, Jeffrey, Robin, Bjerketvedt and Alexander

Figure 7. RCAHMS used the tape and offset method to create detailed measured drawings of many prehistoric carved rocks for their Inventories, including Glasvaar 4 in Kilmartin. These drawings are still the most reliable source of information for many rock art panels in Scotland. Image ©HES. SC91395.

(Canmore) which, in 1989, contained 1,246 rock art records (although caveats apply here also, as discussed below). In the 1980s and 1990s, Maarten van Hoek built on Morris’s work in large parts of southern and central Scotland, producing reliable plans and location maps, and identifying many previously unknown panels (i.e., carved rocks) (e.g., Van Hoek 1987, 1989, 1990, 1993, 1995). Van Hoek also attempted to establish relationships between rock art in Scotland and areas of Britain and Europe (Van Hoek 1987). More recently, George Currie has discovered over 700 carved rocks across Scotland since beginning his investigations in 2006, and continues to find new carvings every year (Currie, pers. comm., and data from Canmore) (Figure 8).

Figure 8. Lurgan Farm 1, one of several complex panels discovered by George Currie in 2007 at Lurgan, near Aberfeldy, Perthshire, and recorded in detail by Scotland’s Rock Art Project in 2019. Images © HES.

20

The Past, Present and Future of Rock Art Research in Scotland

Figure 8 continued. Lurgan Farm 1, one of several complex panels discovered by George Currie in 2007 at Lurgan, near Aberfeldy, Perthshire, and recorded in detail by Scotland’s Rock Art Project in 2019. Images © HES.

21

Barnett, Valdez-Tullett, Hoole, Jeffrey, Robin, Bjerketvedt and Alexander

Figure 9. The Heights of Fodderty is one of over 70 panels discovered in Inverness-shire in recent years and recorded in detail by the North of Scotland Archaeological Society (NOSAS) as part of Scotland’s Rock Art Project. In 2014 the stone, which has cup and ring markings on two sides, was removed from beside a track and erected in a dedicated parking area with an interpretation board. Images courtesy of NOSAS © HES.

Many people have made invaluable contributions at a localised scale, not least Marion Campbell, known particularly for her outstanding archaeological work in Argyll in the 1950s and 1960s (e.g., Campbell and Sandeman 1962). Additionally, Dorothy Marshall recorded many of the 100 or so panels on the Island of Bute, while Sonia Yellowlees and the Breadalbane Archaeological Society documented numerous carved rocks in Strath Tay and, in the 1990s and 2000s, John Wombell and the Ross-shire Rock Art Project identified over 70 new panels in an area of north-east Scotland where little rock art was known previously (Wombell pers. comm.) (Figure 9). Our current knowledge owes an immense debt to these inspiring individuals. Many of these discoveries were reported through the journal Discovery and Excavation in Scotland (DES), which has been invaluable in encouraging members of the public to officially register new rock art. Launched in 1947 by the British Council for Archaeology Scottish Regional Group (now Archaeology Scotland), DES publishes an annual summary of archaeological activity 22

The Past, Present and Future of Rock Art Research in Scotland and findings across Scotland. The first notification of new rock art appeared in the January 1949 edition, and there has since been a regular influx of public discoveries. Additionally, in the last three years, over 250 new panels have been identified by local community teams trained to create detailed records of prehistoric carvings as part of Scotland’s Rock Art Project (ScRAP). These discoveries were made during survey and recording of a significant proportion of known rock art in different parts of the country (Figure 10). The corpus of Scotland’s rock art contained few instances of Passage Tomb Art prior to excavations at Ness of Brodgar, Orkney, conducted by the University of the Highlands and Islands from 2004 onwards (e.g., Towers et al. 2015, 2017; Card 2018). Aside from rare occurrences of Passage Tomb Art motifs in open-air contexts at mainland sites, notably the hornedspirals at Achnabreck in Kilmartin (Figure 11) and Hawthornden in Midlothian (although research by ScRAP indicates that the Hawthorden carvings are almost certainly 18th or 19th century replicas), and the ‘solar’ motifs at Cairnbaan Figure 10. New cup and ring carvings were discovered (Kilmartin), Ballochraggan (Stirlingshire) in May 2019 in Glen Lochay, near Killin in Stirlingshire and Ballochmyle (Ayrshire), all examples by the Association of Certificated Field Archaeologists derive from Neolithic structures in Orkney. (ACFA) while recording known rock art as part of These include elaborately carved stones Scotland’s Rock Art Project. Image courtesy of ACFA. from chambered cairns, such as Eday Manse and Pierowall shown in Figure 12, as well as numerous stones with pecked, deeply incised, and finely incised decoration from domestic contexts such as Skara Brae (Childe 1931; Sharples 1984; Ashmore 1986; Davidson and Henshall 1989; Bradley et al. 2000; Downes and Richardson 2005; Thomas 2019). Since excavations began at Ness of Brodgar, over 1000 decorated, marked, and dressed stones have been recovered from architectural contexts within this extraordinary complex (Figure 13) (Thomas 2016, 2019). This density and variety of architecturally-situated carvings is unparalleled in Britain (Thomas 2016). It underlines the exceptional nature of Orcadian prehistory and makes the absence of Atlantic Rock Art from secure open-air contexts in these islands all the more striking. The growing body of evidence from Orkney challenges one of the defining criteria for Passage Tomb Art – its association with Neolithic burial monuments – and calls for reappraisal of its long-debated relationship with the Atlantic Rock Art tradition (e.g., Breuil 1934; MacWhite 1946; Simpson and Thawley 1972; Hadingham 1974; Shee-Twohig 1981; Bradley 1997; Waddington 2007b). 23

Barnett, Valdez-Tullett, Hoole, Jeffrey, Robin, Bjerketvedt and Alexander

Figure 11. Passage Tomb Art motifs in an open-air context at Achnabrek, Kilmartin. Images © HES.

24

The Past, Present and Future of Rock Art Research in Scotland

a

b

Figure 12. Elaborate examples of Passage Tomb Art from Neolithic chambered tombs in Orkney. a. Eday Manse, SC01863062. Image ©HES. b. Westray, Pierowall Quarry. SC1863064, Image © Orkney Arts, Museums and Heritage.

In addition to the carvings, the discovery of red-painted decoration on stonework from various structures at Ness of Brodgar raises interesting questions about the use of pigment to enhance carved and uncarved surfaces (Card and Thomas 2012). Possible traces of paint on an incised design at Maeshowe, and evidence of red ochre and white clay pigment at Skara Brae hint at more extensive prehistoric use of colour, at least within Orkney, although Morris also noted vestiges of painting on carvings in England (Bradley et al. 2000; Childe 1931; Morris 1989). Although pigment is unlikely to survive on carvings exposed for thousands of years, the possibility that colour was applied in open-air contexts alters our perceptions of how rock art was visualised in the past.

25

Barnett, Valdez-Tullett, Hoole, Jeffrey, Robin, Bjerketvedt and Alexander

Figure 13. Carved motifs revealed through excavation of structures at Ness of Brodgar. Images © Dr Antonia Thomas.

26

The Past, Present and Future of Rock Art Research in Scotland

Figure 13 continued. Carved motifs revealed through excavation of structures at Ness of Brodgar. Images © Dr Antonia Thomas.

27

Barnett, Valdez-Tullett, Hoole, Jeffrey, Robin, Bjerketvedt and Alexander Rock Art Data in Scotland today An overview Based on current evidence, Scotland’s prehistoric rock art represents over 40% of the estimated 7,000 or so panels documented in Britain and Ireland. Nevertheless, it is still difficult to provide an accurate total (see also Foster 2010). When ScRAP commenced in 2017, all official rock art records in Canmore and the regional Historic Environment Records (HERs) were merged into a single ScRAP database. At the time, this contained 2,775 records, of which around 300 derived from HERs. By 2021, the tally of rock art in the ScRAP database had increased to over 3,300 records. This number is misleading, however, as multiple panels are often lumped together within a single record; over 10% of the 1,600 records from Canmore and HERs investigated by ScRAP comprised between two and twelve individual carved rocks, which were then split into individual entries in the ScRAP database (Table 1). Moreover, the surviving rock art in Scotland is probably only a fraction of its original total. Millennia of stone quarrying and land clearance, together with radical changes in agricultural practices, afforestation, and urban and infrastructure developments over the past two centuries or so have had a devastating effect. Even within the last two years, at least twelve panels have been reported as damaged or destroyed. If this rate of attrition is extrapolated back over 5000 years, more than 25,000 carved rocks could have been affected. If we also consider that countless panels are now hidden by soil deposition and vegetation, or have eroded away completely, the past volume may have amounted to many tens of thousands. Rock art in Scotland is distributed unevenly. There are substantial concentrations in Galloway, Argyll, Perthshire and western Stirlingshire, and large clusters in parts of Dunbartonshire, Aberdeenshire, Angus, Morayshire and Inverness-shire (Figure 14; see also Figure 1). Carvings are sporadic in many other areas, and almost entirely absent across much of northern and northwestern Highland Scotland. Although mainly in open-air contexts, a proportion of rock art has been incorporated into prehistoric and later structures. The fraction of British rock art associated with Neolithic and Early Bronze Age monuments has been estimated previously at around 25% (Sharpe 2012), whereas in Scotland it amounts to only 7% of all panels, with a further 2% within Iron Age structures (Figure 15). Figures for Scotland are not easy to establish, however, as a small proportion of prehistoric carved rocks within monuments are not specifically Table 1: Anomalies affecting existing rock art records investigated by classified in Canmore, so these the Scotland’s Rock Art Project. were not originally added to the ScRAP database. By mining the % of total panels entire Canmore database for investigated specific words signifying rock art Anomaly Frequency (n=1600) (e.g. ‘cup’, ‘cup and ring’, ‘ring’), Grouped in Canmore 186 11.6 then rationalising the thousands of Inaccurate grid reference 322 20.1 extracted records to isolate those containing prehistoric carvings, Natural feature 161 10.1 we identified an additional 95 Other non-rock art feature 85 5.3 ‘hidden’ examples of rock art, 46 of Not located 304 19.0 which were situated in Neolithic and Early Bronze structures. Total affected 1058 66.1 28

The Past, Present and Future of Rock Art Research in Scotland

Figure 14. Density map of Scotland’s rock art.

29

Barnett, Valdez-Tullett, Hoole, Jeffrey, Robin, Bjerketvedt and Alexander 3.5

Percentage of total

3 2.5 2

1.5 1 0.5 0

Figure 15. Percentage of all Scotland’s rock art associated with certain prehistoric structures and monuments, based on evidence from ScRAP and Canmore (n=3100).

The established classification scheme allows some insight into the variability of rock art across Scotland. Canmore and the HERs categorise rock art using several discrete terms including cup marked rock, cup marked stone, cup and ring marked rock, cup and ring marked stone, and ring marked rock or stone (‘rock’ refers to bedrock or outcrop; ‘stone’ is defined as a boulder or slab). Quantification of these different panel types reveals that cup marked stones are most frequent, representing around 38% of all rock art panels in Scotland, while cup and ring marked stones, and stones or rocks with ring markings are least common ring marking cup and ring at 10% and 1% respectively marked stone of the total (Figure 16). Mapping their density cup and ring cup marked reveals distinct spatial marked rock stone discrepancies, suggesting regional preferences for motif complexity and media selected for carving (Figure 17). The current classification system is limited, however, as it does not distinguish cup marked between specific motif rock types or arrangements, nor differentiate Atlantic Rock Figure 16. Relative proportions of main panel types based on Canmore Art from Passage Tomb Art. classifications (n=3100). 30

The Past, Present and Future of Rock Art Research in Scotland

a

Figure 17. Regional variations in density of main panel types based on Canmore classifications. a. Cup marked rock. b. Cup marked stone. c. Cup and ring marked rock. d. Cup and ring marked stone.

31

Barnett, Valdez-Tullett, Hoole, Jeffrey, Robin, Bjerketvedt and Alexander

b

32

The Past, Present and Future of Rock Art Research in Scotland

c

33

Barnett, Valdez-Tullett, Hoole, Jeffrey, Robin, Bjerketvedt and Alexander

d

34

The Past, Present and Future of Rock Art Research in Scotland Engagement and social value Scotland’s rock art is notoriously undervalued, and virtually unknown beyond the heritage sector and an interested minority of the public. Few prehistoric carvings are protected at a national level; six sites are officially managed by Historic Environment Scotland as Properties in Care (four in Kilmartin, two in Galloway), and less than 5% of carved rocks are designated as Scheduled Monuments, compared to around 20% of all Pictish Symbol Stones and 36% of Early Medieval Cross Slabs, for example. Notions of value are complex, multi-layered and fluid. They are determined by how our society of intersecting and often conflicting communities perceives the past and its role in our lives today. There is an innate tension between ‘top down’ perceptions of value, informed by historical significance and heritage management practices, and the values invested in rock art by different communities. It is well established that social value is crucial in understanding, appreciating and caring for the past, but little is known about how or why people value rock art beyond an awareness that we need to consider the unique qualities of each panel or location (Jones 2004; Foster and Jones 2008). The benefits of active community engagement for enhancing social value of archaeology and heritage have long been acknowledged (Smith and Waterton 2009). This principle underpinned community participation projects in England designed to inform rock art conservation and management (Barnett 2010; Brown et al. 2013). Increasing use of cost-effective, user-friendly digital visualisation technologies in archaeology offers new ways of engaging communities with rock art, and challenges perceived boundaries between experts and non-experts (e.g., Byrant 2010; Jeffrey et al. 2015). In Scotland, ScRAP and the ACCORD (Archaeology Community Co-production of Research Data) project have engaged in community co-production of 3D archaeological datasets, although with a focus on different types of participants. Both projects also evaluated how social value is affected by interacting with rock art virtually and in the landscape (Figure 18). While social value data capture for ScRAP was still ongoing when this chapter was written, ACCORD has demonstrated the positive impact of digital technologies in revealing and mediating people’s sense of place, and in the production of significance around heritage sites (Jeffrey et al. 2015, 2020; Jones et al. 2017). Digital technologies have immense potential for improving value of Scotland’s rock art, and there is undoubtedly an exciting digital future ahead. However, visualisations are no substitute for direct, embodied experience (Jeffrey 2018). While we can do much more to engage people with rock art virtually using emerging technologies, we need to simultaneously encourage sustainable access to rock art in the landscape. Brophy’s (2018) investigations of the Cochno Stone and his FaifleyRocks! project, for example, provide an inspiring model for situating rock art ownership and accessibility within the heart of the local community, while Forestry and Land Scotland’s collaborative learning resource, A Song in Stone (Barnett et al. 2021), and other learning initiatives developed by organisations such as Kilmartin Museum and Archaeology Scotland encourage young people to use rock art as a source of creativity and imagination.

35

Barnett, Valdez-Tullett, Hoole, Jeffrey, Robin, Bjerketvedt and Alexander

D Figure 18. Rock art recording by ScRAP Community Teams. a. Descriptive recording. b. Quantitative recording. c. 3D data capture. d. Georeferencing. Images ©HES.

Implications for research Sharing knowledge Accessibility of rock art data is crucial for facilitating research, heritage management and public awareness. Procedures for curating and sharing Scotland’s rock art data have changed through time, with implications for research potential and public appreciation. In 1966, the vast body of material collected by RCAHMS formally became the National Monuments Record of Scotland (NMRS) (RCAHMS 2015). The organisation’s remit was no longer simply to collect and archive information, but to make that information accessible and comprehensible to everyone. Digitisation of the NMRS from the 1990s onwards, and the development of an online interface (the Canmore website3), enabled free public access to the database. Rock art data submitted by members of the public to regional Historic Environment Records (HERs), and discoveries published in DES, are now regularly integrated into the Canmore database, ensuring 3 

https://canmore.org.uk/

36

The Past, Present and Future of Rock Art Research in Scotland that publicly-generated material becomes part of the official national record of Scotland’s historic environment. Today, Canmore is the principal online database of archaeological information across Scotland, and the first port of call for research, desk-based assessments, management, and public enquiries. Since the merger of RCAHMS and Historic Scotland in 2015, Canmore has been managed by Historic Environment Scotland (HES), the lead public body set up to investigate, care for, promote and celebrate Scotland’s cultural heritage. In 2018, ScRAP launched a system enabling community team members involved with the project to upload detailed data for new and existing rock art records to the project website4. The data, comprising descriptive and quantitative information, photographs, sketches and 3D models, are curated within a bespoke database, freely accessible via the ScRAP website for research and awareness. Additionally, the transfer of all ScRAP data and digital image files to the Canmore database and HES digital archive in November 2021 guarantees that this information remains central, sustainable and publicly accessible in perpetuity. A copy of the ScRAP database was also deposited with Edinburgh University’s Research Services DataShare at the end of 20215 to enable bulk download of digital images and 3D model files. The growing use of digital modelling and visualisation techniques in archaeology has important implications for rock art research and wider appreciation. Visual information is essential to many rock art investigations, but is often difficult to access and of variable quality. Websites such as the Northern Antiquarian, Modern Antiquarian, Megalithic Portal, and British Rock Art Collection have long been the only available source of imagery for many carved rocks in Scotland (Brouwer and van Veen 2010). When ScRAP was launched in 2017, only around 5% (166) of all rock art records at that time had publicly accessible images on the Canmore website (compared to 85% of Pictish symbol stones, for example). By late 2021, after three years of fieldwork by ScRAP, over 35% (1200) of prehistoric carved rocks now have digital images available on the ScRAP website and on Canmore. The website also provides online access to more than 1000 3D models of rock art, co-created with trained community teams using Structure from Motion (SfM) photogrammetry techniques. Low-resolution versions of the 3D models were uploaded to the free online platform, Sketchfab,6 then linked to the relevant rock art record on the ScRAP website. ScRAP community teams managed their own Sketchfab accounts, ensuring that they had ownership of the dissemination process. Sketchfab is also a rich source of rock art models of Atlantic Rock Art published by many different authors. Motivations, myths and misdemeanours The volume of rock art recorded in Scotland has risen almost exponentially since the late 19th century (Figure 19). As we have seen, the narrative of rock art discovery in Scotland reflects shifting social values and personal interests. The current archive has been compiled by hundreds of individuals using different techniques and motivated by different agendas. It is a rich, indeed vital, source of information, but inherent inconsistencies make it problematic as a research tool. The 19th and early 20th century recorders were more intent on noting the motifs than their contexts, for example, and detail of the physical setting was not captured systematically in Scotland until Morris’s work in the 1960-1980s. Aside from Morris’s www.rockart.scot https://datashare.ed.ac.uk/ 6  3D Models can be viewed here: https://sketchfab.com/ScottishRockArt 4  5 

37

Barnett, Valdez-Tullett, Hoole, Jeffrey, Robin, Bjerketvedt and Alexander records, contextual information varies from simple grid references to well-observed location descriptions, although the latter often lack quantified data important for analysis. A key issue affecting the existing database is misidentification of natural features as rock art. Of the 1,600 panels investigated by ScRAP, more than 15% are not prehistoric rock art (Table 1). A small proportion of these include later human-made features, notably bait holes (large, cup-shaped depressions found along rocky coastlines, used for grinding shellfish as bait) (Figure 20). The majority (70%) are natural features mistakenly classified as cupmarks, cup and ring marks, and grooves (Figure 21). This is not to dismiss the significance of certain natural features to people in the past, however (Bradley 2000). The topography and texture of the rock surface are frequently woven into or referenced by prehistoric carvings or monuments in Scotland (e.g., Jones 2005, 2006) but, where carved motifs are absent, on what basis should we consider natural features as important to people in the past? There are further ambiguities in the Canmore and HER data. Over 20% of existing records visited by ScRAP have incorrect grid references, some deviating by over 300m, which poses problems for fieldwork and often results in panels not being located (Table 1). Certain panels are recorded more than once, sometimes in slightly different locations and/or with different names. In more extreme cases, carved rocks or specific motifs have been imagined, perhaps to endorse personal notions about their situation and meaning. Such issues present real challenges for management, and muddy the waters for research. Overall, of the 1,600 rock art records investigated, an astonishing 66% have complications (Table 1). Although ScRAP has removed inaccuracies from these particular records, we need to be aware of the nature and scale of potential issues affecting the remaining data.

Figure 19. Approximate rate of rock art discovery over the past 200 years. The rate of growth is averaged between known values prior to 1988 when digital records become available for Canmore.

38

The Past, Present and Future of Rock Art Research in Scotland

Figure 20. Frequently classified as cupmarks, bait holes are cup-shaped depressions made by fishermen for grinding shell-fish to use as bait, particularly in the Hebridean Islands and north-west coast of Scotland. Image © HES.

Figure 21. Natural features are often mistaken for rock art. These vesicles on bedrock in Skye had been previously classified as cup and ring markings. Image © HES.

39

Barnett, Valdez-Tullett, Hoole, Jeffrey, Robin, Bjerketvedt and Alexander Spatial patterning As location and distribution underpin contextual approaches to rock art research, it is crucial that our spatial data are reliable and that we are aware of their limitations. To appreciate the constraints of spatial data in Scotland, we need to consider how patterns of discovery and survival may bias current presences and absences. The high frequency of Atlantic Rock Art in certain parts of Scotland, specifically Kilmartin, Galloway, and Perthshire, has been acknowledged since the 19th century (e.g., Greenwell 1866; Simpson 1866; Morris 1981). Places with dense rock art have tended to attract disproportionate attention, creating circularity in patterns of discovery. It is notable, for example, that there is a broad spatial correlation between rock art distribution and regions surveyed intensively by RCAHMS, Morris, and van Hoek, although this historical bias has been mitigated in recent years by the wider geographical scope of many practitioners, independent researchers and members of the public (Figure 6). Intensive survey in areas with few known carvings can have remarkable consequences. This is demonstrated unequivocally in north-east Scotland where many new panels have been identified recently by the Ross-shire Rock Art Project, and subsequently the North of Scotland Archaeological Society (NOSAS) in collaboration with ScRAP (Figure 9). Similar investigations in places where rock art is presumed limited or absent may alter current understanding of spatial patterning. A good example of this is NOSAS’s identification in July 2021 of a cup marked stone at Allt Nead, Loch Muradoch, in a remote area of Highland Scotland that previously lacked any rock art. Present distribution is also affected by biases in survival and visibility. Evaluation of how taphonomic processes may create artificial gaps or clusters at local and regional scales will help us appraise these biases. Is there spatial correlation between intensive land-use and rock art absence, for example? To what extent does rock art scarcity correspond to areas covered by forestry plantation or peat deposits? Detailed survey at the rock art site of Glantlees in Northumberland showed that historical millstone quarrying had removed over 70% of the sandstone bedrock, much of it potentially carved (Oswald and Ainsworth 2010). What impact might localised stone quarrying have had on the presence or absence of rock art in Scotland (Figure 22)? The distribution of certain local rock art clusters, such as the Faifley area of West Dunbartonshire, hints that these may be relicts of more extensive concentrations. Predictive modelling could help us assess the veracity of these apparent groupings. The likelihood that many carvings survive only because they are in marginal or underdeveloped locations has implications for how we interpret the data. Although impossible to reconstruct in detail, our research could be better informed by considering how taphonomy may affect and structure current spatial patterns. To sum up, there are significant historical flaws in Scotland’s rock art data that have implications for research potential and the validity of research outcomes. ScRAP has identified the nature and scale of these anomalies, and enhanced a large proportion of the database, but future studies should be aware of the issues likely to affect the remaining, unvalidated data.

40

The Past, Present and Future of Rock Art Research in Scotland

Figure 22. The large, elaborately carved panel at Auchentorlie (Greenland) was threatened with destruction from sandstone quarrying. In this instance, the rock was extracted from its surroundings and moved to the National Museums of Scotland in 1994. Images © Courtesy of HES, Dr E.W. MacKie Collection. DP220372, SC1920400, SC1920430. 

41

Barnett, Valdez-Tullett, Hoole, Jeffrey, Robin, Bjerketvedt and Alexander

Figure 22 continued. The large, elaborately carved panel at Auchentorlie (Greenland) was threatened with destruction from sandstone quarrying. In this instance, the rock was extracted from its surroundings and moved to the National Museums of Scotland in 1994. Images © Courtesy of HES, Dr E.W. MacKie Collection. DP220372, SC1920400, SC1920430. 

Developing understanding British rock art has been reviewed elsewhere (e.g., Bradley 1997; Beckensall 1999; Waddington 2007a; Foster 2010; Jones et al. 2011), and so in this section we discuss how research in Scotland has contributed to our understanding of Scotland’s rock art within a wider geographical and archaeological framework. Our comprehension of rock art has advanced significantly in the last few decades through investigative fieldwork, digital technologies and new ways of thinking. Excavation, in particular, has focused attention on what was happening at rock art sites, while digital modelling and visualisation techniques reveal the nuanced interactions between people and material in the production of carvings. Additionally, improved chronological detail has refined our awareness of the complex biographies of individual carved rocks and their temporal relationship to the prehistoric landscape. Rock art in the landscape Bradley’s studies of prehistoric carvings in relation to their landscape setting marked a watershed in attitudes to rock art (e.g., Bradley 1991, 1996, 1997; Bradley et al. 1993). Rather than attempting to understand their meaning, the emphasis shifted to appreciating how the carvings were meaningful. This was predicated on the idea that preferential carving of certain rocks or rocks in certain places derived from people’s relationship with their surroundings. 42

The Past, Present and Future of Rock Art Research in Scotland

Figure 23. The prehistoric landscape below Ben Lawers on the north side of Loch Tay was characterised by open grassland and moorland, much as it is today. This allowed open views of the sky, the loch, and the encircling hills. Image courtesy of Nick Parish, Callander Rock Art Team.

Using case studies from Scotland, England, Ireland and Spain, Bradley (1997) argued that the placement of Atlantic Rock Art followed similar principles. By marking areas of fertile land, natural routeways, and strategic locations within the landscape, the carvings were significant in articulating how people perceived and experienced the world around them. Bradley identified a distinction between the placement of ‘simple’ and ‘complex’ carvings with respect to activity and movement. His studies in Kilmartin and Northumberland proposed a link between motif complexity and ritual focus, where elaboration of rock art marked thresholds between domestic and ritual landscapes (Bradley 1997). By demonstrating the value of a contextual approach, Bradley’s work was pivotal in demarginalising rock art and situating it within mainstream archaeological research. This inspired further landscape-orientated studies and fresh perspectives on how Atlantic Rock Art negotiated human activities and experiences (e.g., Van Hoek 1999; Waddington 1998; Alves 2003; O’Connor 2006; Fairén-Jiménez 2007; Sharpe 2007a, 2007b; Jones et al. 2011; Enlander 2013; Valdez-Tullett 2019). In his review of British rock art, Waddington (2007a) called for better understanding of environmental contexts and their implications for how carvings were visualised and experienced within the landscape. Research in Scotland has helped to address this concern. Winterbottom and Long’s (2006) virtual reality reconstruction of environments surrounding two rock artrich areas in Kilmartin (Cairnbaan and Glasvaar) indicates that the rocks were situated within closed to semi-open deciduous woodland at the time they were carved (assumed to be 3500-2500 BCE). Views to and from the rock art were restricted except in specific directions which, the authors argue, may have governed the placement of the carvings. Excavation around carved and uncarved rocks on the slopes of Ben Lawers above Loch Tay in Perthshire revealed a rather different environmental setting (Bradley et al. 2012). Here, analysis of pollen samples from two rocks showed that the carvings were situated within a landscape similar to today’s, characterised by open grassland and moorland, with trees fringing stream edges (Figure 23). This allows us to consider how open views of the sky, surrounding hills, and loch were experienced from the carved rocks. Correlation between the distribution of panels along the slopes of Ben Lawers and boundaries between well- and poorly-drained soils suggests that the rock art may have played a role in defining different areas of land-use and vegetation (Hale 2003; Bradley et al. 2012). 43

Barnett, Valdez-Tullett, Hoole, Jeffrey, Robin, Bjerketvedt and Alexander A more detailed picture emerged from interdisciplinary work in the valley and hills around the carved outcrops at Torbhlaren near Kilmichael Glassary, Kilmartin (Jones et al. 2011). Geomorphological and pollen analysis, combined with radiocarbon dating, enabled reconstruction of the surrounding environment during the Neolithic and Early Bronze Age (c.4500-1500 cal BCE) (Tipping et al. 2011). This revealed that the rocks occupied a managed landscape of cereal cultivation and woodland that may have been prone to flooding at the time the carvings were created. Refining the rock art chronology Developing a chronology for Atlantic Rock Art has been one of the key challenges facing research since the 19th century. Dating derives primarily from carvings associated with Neolithic and Early Bronze Age monuments and, to a lesser extent, from parallels between Atlantic Rock Art motifs and decoration on Neolithic artefacts, notably Grooved Ware pottery, and the occurrence of Passage Tomb Art motifs in landscape contexts (e.g., MacWhite 1946; Piggott 1972; Simpson and Thawley 1972; Morris 1981, 1989; Ritchie and Adamson 1981; Burgess 1991; Frodsham 1996; Bradley 1997; Edwards and Bradley 1999; Waddington et al. 2005). These various strands of evidence indicate that rock art was predominately a Late Neolithic phenomenon, with possible earlier Neolithic beginnings in the 4th millennium BCE and deliberate reuse into the Early Bronze Age (e.g., O’Connor 2006; Waddington 2007a; Sheridan 2012). Nevertheless, we lack clarity for the origins and decline of carving activity, and the nature of its alteration over time (e.g., Waddington 2007a; Foster 2010). As our appreciation of Neolithic and Bronze Age developments in Scotland becomes more sharply focused and better dated, our grasp of how rock art aligns with the wider archaeological context is still rather blurred. The problem remains that the rock art chronology stems from indirect evidence and does not necessarily mirror its production within the landscape. Excavations in Scotland have gone some way to resolving this issue. Investigations of two large carved schist outcrops (Tiger rock and Lion rock) at Torbhlaren revealed a sequence of activities that may be linked to the creation of motifs, beginning at least at the start of the 3rd millennium BCE and continuing for several hundred years (Figure 24) (Jones et al. 2011). Radiocarbon dates of c.2920-2860 cal BCE were obtained from sealed deposits containing quartz and quartzite fragments and hammerstones placed into fissures on Tiger rock (Jones et al. 2011). Patterns of use-wear and fragmentation on these lithics correspond with those on quartz cobbles used for experimental rock art production, implying that they were tools for making prehistoric carvings (LamdinWhymark 2011). The deposition of these tools at the start of the 3rd millennium BCE may provide a proxy date for the creation of rock art. Activities around the carved rocks also suggest that the carvings were produced periodically throughout the Late Neolithic (Jones et al. 2011). Evidence points to the construction of a circular post structure at the base of Tiger rock, its subsequent burning around 2500-2300 cal BCE, and replacement soon after by a clay and cobbled platform comprising quartz material, possibly derived in part from carving the rock surface (Jones et al. 2011). The chronology from Torbhlaren has challenged previous interpretations of the relationship between rock art and the prehistoric landscape (Bradley 1997; Jones et al. 2011). Dating evidence indicates that the earliest rock art was produced before the construction of many key ritual monuments in the Kilmartin area (Jones et al. 2011; Sheridan 2012). Rather than being 44

The Past, Present and Future of Rock Art Research in Scotland

ai

a ii

Figure 24.a. Rock outcrops and surrounding landscape at Torbhlaren, Kilmichael Glassary, Kilmartin, surveyed and excavated by Jones et al. (2011). b. Quartz and quartzite hammerstones recovered from fissures and hollows on the rock surfaces, and the cobbled platform adjacent to Tiger Rock (Torbhlaren 3). Image courtesy of Professor Andrew Meirion Jones. c. Complex, eroded motifs on top of Torbhlaren 2 (Lion Rock). Image © HES.

45

Barnett, Valdez-Tullett, Hoole, Jeffrey, Robin, Bjerketvedt and Alexander

b

c

46

The Past, Present and Future of Rock Art Research in Scotland integral to a ritual landscape of ‘mobility and pilgrimage’ (Jones et al. 2011: 245) where rock art structured people’s movements and experiences of their surroundings, Jones et al. (2011) argue that the repetitive and connective nature of creating carvings embodied a sense of continuity and identity that was important in the process of socialising the landscape (see also Bradley 1997). The authors further propose that elaborate panels, such as Ormaig, Cairnbaan and Achnabreck, situated at thresholds and entrances to the area, were directed to outsiders, whilst rock art at Torbhlaren and elsewhere within Kilmartin Glen was directed inwards to a permanently settled farming community. Recurrent activity in significant places such as Torbhlaren, and the use of unusual motifs to define social or genealogical territories, are thought to materialise people’s relationship with the landscape (Freedman et al. 2011; Jones et al. 2011). Within the context of the wider Kilmartin area, rock art is viewed as constituting a network of related practices in which specific carved rocks cite relevant sites in the region. Bradley’s excavations around four carved rocks at Ben Lawers revealed similar patterns of activity to those at Torbhlaren: large accumulations of worked and unworked quartz, deposition of lithic artefacts within natural fissures and hollows on carved surfaces, and construction of a cobbled area adjacent to one elaborately carved rock (Bradley et al. 2012). No organic material was found, but the recovery of two Arran pitchstone blades during the investigations indicates a probable Mid-Late Neolithic date. Interestingly, excavations at other Atlantic Rock Art sites in Scotland, including Ormaig and Achnabreck in Kilmartin, Auchalick Wood in Cowal, and the Cochno Stone in West Dunbartonshire, have produced few material remains and no dateable evidence for rock art production (Curtis and Jaffray 1991; Ellis and Webb 2007; Regan et al. 2008; Jones et al. 2011; Brophy 2018). Nevertheless, there is considerable potential for further intrusive studies to enhance our understanding of the chronology for prehistoric carving. Longevity and reuse Longevity of the Atlantic Rock Art tradition in Scotland, as elsewhere in Britain, has been the subject of extensive debate (e.g., Simpson and Thawley 1972; Burgess 1990; Bradley 1992; Beckensall and Frodsham 1998). Reuse of rock art from open-air contexts or earlier monuments within Beaker and Early Bronze Age burials is generally considered to be deliberate and structured (Bradley 1992, 1997; Brück 2004). Some view this as the metaphorical ‘death’ of the tradition, articulated within wider changes in practices and beliefs (Barrett 1988; Bradley 1992, 1997; Waddington 1998). Regional preferences in the complexity of imagery selected for funerary deposition relative to that in the surrounding landscape infer that rock art may have played a formative role in the construction of social relationships and identities in the Early Bronze Age (Evans and Dowson 2004). Evans and Dowson (2004) argue that a broad distinction in the nature of reuse between eastern and western Scotland suggests different regional strategies were employed in negotiations between the living and the dead. This chimes with Hadingham’s (1974) proposal that Atlantic Rock Art remained significant in eastern Scotland into the Bronze Age but was redundant in western Scotland by the end of the Neolithic. While the majority of carved stones in Beaker or Early Bronze Age burials in Scotland feature Atlantic Rock Art imagery, and many appear to be reused from landscape contexts, there are a few important exceptions. In several instances, principally from Kilmartin, cist slabs have been decorated with depictions of metal weapons, some of which are superimposed over cupmarks 47

Barnett, Valdez-Tullett, Hoole, Jeffrey, Robin, Bjerketvedt and Alexander and probably underwent several phases of production and modification (Watson and Bradley 2021). Depictions of flat bronze axe heads on cist slabs from Early Bronze Age burial cairns at Ri Cruin, Nether Largie North and Nether Largie Mid in Kilmartin (Figure 25) seem to have been created exclusively for funerary deposition and are virtually unique in prehistoric burial contexts in Britain (other examples include the dagger and axe carvings on the Badbury Barrow cist slab in Dorset) (Simpson and Thawley 1972; Watson and Bradley 2021). There is further evidence of a distinct shift in Scotland’s rock art in the late 3rd millennium BC. A carved slab from the Balblair Beaker burial in Inverness-shire features an unusual potentially anthropomorphic or zoomorphic motif that has been compared to the iconography on Late Neolithic to Early Bronze Age Iberian slate plaques (Dutton et al. 2007). Recently, the sensational

Figure 25. Cist slabs from Nether Largie North cairn, Kilmartin, showing pecked depictions of flat Early Bronze Age axe heads, superimposed over cupmarks on one slab. Image © HES. SC1340314.

48

The Past, Present and Future of Rock Art Research in Scotland discovery of prehistoric animal engravings on a cist slab from Dunchraigaig cairn, Kilmartin, indicates that a figurative carving tradition with parallels in Iberian imagery was present in western Scotland before or at the start of the Early Bronze Age (Fenton 2021; Valdez-Tullett and Barnett 2021; Valdez-Tullett et al. in press). Digital enhancement of a high-resolution 3D model revealed at least five animal engravings, including two stags with distinctive antlers, on the underside of the capstone covering one of three burial cists in Dunchraigaig cairn (Figure 26) (Valdez-Tullett and Barnett 2021; Valdez-Tullett et al. in press). During the 19th century excavation of the cairn (Greenwell 1866; Mapleton 1870), two Irish-style tripartite Food Vessels, dating between 2160 and 2080 BCE from typological comparison (Sheridan pers. comm.), were among the artefacts recovered from the two uncarved cists, indicating that the monument was probably constructed in the Early Bronze Age. The absence of dateable material from the carved cist makes the chronology of the animal images uncertain, although weathering on some of the deer carvings suggests they were exposed for some time before being incorporated into the funerary structure (Valdez-Tullett et al. in press).

Figure 26. Animal carvings on the underside of a capstone from the Early Bronze Age cairn at Dunchraigaig, Kilmartin. Image created by Dr Guillaume Robin for ScRAP © Guillaume Robin.

49

Barnett, Valdez-Tullett, Hoole, Jeffrey, Robin, Bjerketvedt and Alexander This raises questions about other atypical imagery from ‘single grave’ Beaker and Early Bronze Age burial contexts in Scotland. Concentric lozenges carved on stones from possible Early Bronze Age burial cairns at Badden and Carn Bàn in Kilmartin have parallels in both Late Neolithic Grooved Ware pottery designs and Passage Tomb Art, and are thought to have been re-used from earlier monuments (Figure 27) (e.g., Campbell et al. 1960; Simpson and Thawley 1972; Stevenson 1997; Sheridan 2012). Other exceptional single-grave carvings, such as the rectilinear motifs pecked on the cist slab from Wester Yardhouses in Lanarkshire, and on an Early Bronze Age cist slab recovered during recent excavations by AOC at Drumnadrochit, in Glen Urquhart, Highland Scotland, could also be considered to derive from Passage Tomb Art. The similarity of these motifs to decoration on Early Bronze Age ‘prestige’ metal and jet objects is striking, and indicates an iconography that is conceptually transferable between contexts and media, in contrast to Atlantic Rock Art whose use is restricted (as far as we know) to rock surfaces. There is no precedent for these types of rectilinear motifs appearing on their own within passage tombs or open-air contexts, and Sheridan (2012) argues that they may represent the adoption of one specific element of Passage Tomb Art and its associated meaning. There is also room for exploring alternative explanations, such as the possibility that they were inspired by symbolism from elsewhere in Atlantic or Continental Europe. Regardless of the origins of these iconographic changes, it is clear that new ideas and influences were being absorbed into Scotland’s rock art in the late 3rd millennium BCE. Recent analysis of DNA from European Beaker burials calls for a re-examination of attitudes to rock art in the late 3rd millennium BCE (Olalde et al. 2018). This research indicates that, in Scotland, over 90% of the native genome disappeared between c.2350 and 2150 BCE in what appears to be a substantial population movement from northern Continental Europe (Olalde et al. 2018). Although more work is needed to refine this model, there are important implications here for understanding not only the emergence of new forms of imagery, but also the changing significance of Atlantic Rock Art motifs, and the nature of their treatment and reuse in Beaker and Bronze Age contexts. Further research is also necessary to examine relationships between Scotland’s Atlantic Rock Art, figurative carvings and ‘single grave art’, within the context of wider British and European prehistoric art traditions. Radiocarbon dates from excavations at the carved outcrop at Torbhlaren, including one of 1370-1120 cal BCE from charred hazelnut shell associated with a deposit of hammerstones, may indicate that Scotland’s rock art remained significant beyond the Early Bronze Age and at times more recently (Jones et al. 2011). Additional evidence for continuation or renewal of rock art use in the later 2nd millennium BCE comes from monuments such as Ballymeanoch in Kilmartin, where several carved stones, probably quarried from outcrops, were incorporated into standing stone rows during the Middle Bronze Age between 1370 and 1050 cal BCE (Figure 4) (Barber 1978; Sheridan 2005), and from structures like the Middle Bronze Age roundhouses at Ury Estate, Stonehaven, Aberdeenshire, dating to 1506-1280 cal BCE, which include several carved stones, one of which is decorated on two sides (Cameron and Lenfert 2015). Although it is now generally accepted that rock art use continued well into the Bronze Age, the incorporation of carved rocks into structures and monuments after the Bronze Age is considered by many to be incidental, ornamental or, at most, apotropaic (Sherriff 1995; Waddington 2007a). Aside from proposals that reuse in Scottish Iron Age monuments may have constituted a form of revival, research on later attitudes to rock art has been minimal 50

The Past, Present and Future of Rock Art Research in Scotland

ai

a ii

bi

b ii

Figure 27. Concentric lozenge motifs from probable Early Bronze Age burial contexts in Kilmartin at a. Carn Bàn and b. Badden. Images © HES. SC375368, SC1432057 (Crown Copyright: HES), SC370242, SC375314. 

51

Barnett, Valdez-Tullett, Hoole, Jeffrey, Robin, Bjerketvedt and Alexander (Hingley 1996; Williamson 2013; Barnett 2018). Nevertheless, evidence from Scotland indicates that rock art in certain places was valued long after the Bronze Age, albeit linked to different customs and meanings (e.g., Jones et al. 2011). Temporality of making In the past two decades, excavations in Scotland and an emphasis on material agency in archaeological research have had important ramifications for rock art. Rather than viewing it as static images carved into inanimate surfaces, this allows us to think about how rock art was made, and the on-going engagements between humans and materials in the act of making. The ambiguity of abstract motifs is no longer seen as problematic, but as a rich seam of information about creative practice that offers new insights into changing social attitudes to material and place. Studies of Atlantic Rock Art around Kilmartin highlight the complex relationships between carvers, carvings and rock surfaces (Jones 2001, 2004, 2005, 2006; Jones et al. 2011). Nuanced treatment of stone in specific locations suggests ‘a blurring between the categories that we presently describe as nature and culture’ (Jones et al. 2011: 326). Jones (2007) describes the process of carving animate rock as an act of remembrance that connects people to the landscape and to past events. Digital recording and visualisation techniques such as laser scanning, SfM photogrammetry and Reflectance Transformation Imaging (RTI) enable us to focus on the significance and temporality of mark-making (Jones et al. 2016). Close scrutiny of Neolithic decorated artefacts and Passage Tomb Art motifs in Britain and Ireland have revealed sequences of working, reworking, and attentiveness to specific material qualities (Jones 2017; Jones and Cochrane 2018; Jones and Díaz-Guardamino 2019). Designs were not simply created, but deliberately adapted, erased and reworked as part of an ongoing process of engagement with objects. The process of sequential working is seen as a transformative act of ‘creative destruction’ that enhances rather than obscures what was there previously (Cochrane 2009, 178). Work at Ness of Brodgar has similarly emphasised the transformative potential of mark-making for individuals, communities and materials (Card and Thomas 2012; Thomas 2016, 2019). From this perspective, the significance of carvings lies not in the motifs, but in the constantly unfolding interactions between the people, places and materials that they embody (Thomas 2016). Although some evidence for phasing has been proposed for carvings in open-air contexts in Scotland, including more advanced erosion of horned and complex spiral motifs relative to cup and ring markings at Achnabreck (RCAHMS 1988; Stevenson 1997), there has been little systematic study of superimposition and modification. Jones and Díaz-Guardamino (2019) acknowledge that long-term exposure of Atlantic Rock Art may have eroded finer details of interaction, but argue that more evidence of reworking would be expected given the sheer volume of carvings. They draw an ontological distinction between mark-making on rock surfaces in the open landscape and on decorated artefacts or within passage tombs. In contrast to the cumulative act of performance embodied in artefact and passage tomb decoration, the visible accumulation of motifs on specific rocks or in specific locations within the landscape permanently marks relationships between people, materials and places, and signals their significance across time (Jones and Díaz-Guardamino 2019). Assertions that Atlantic Rock Art lacks phasing have been challenged recently by 3D modelling which identified several cases of superimposition and erasure in parts of Britain, Ireland and Iberia (Valdez-Tullett 52

The Past, Present and Future of Rock Art Research in Scotland 2019). Additionally, although motifs are more often conjoined or juxtaposed with existing carvings on the same rock surface or adjacent rocks, differences in motif depth in certain open-air locations suggest these sites were re-worked and re-visited over a period of time (Valdez-Tullett 2019). These observations have been reinforced recently by ScRAP through detailed visual interrogation of over 1000 3D models co-produced with community teams. This process has revealed numerous cases of rock art with sequences of re-working, erasure and superimposition (Figure 28) (Valdez-Tullett et al. in press). The importance of process over image is emphasised most strikingly at Ness of Brodgar where excavations have identified a large number of decorated stones concealed within built structures (Thomas 2016, 2019). Stones appear to have been carved as they were positioned during the process of building, then almost immediately hidden as more stones were laid on top. In this way, the decoration and the practice of mark-making became embedded within both the fabric of the building and the network of engagements surrounding its construction (Thomas 2019). How does the notion of concealment become effective for Atlantic Rock Art? Discussions around this theme have explored the tension between the visual nature of motifs, and their inconspicuousness when weathered and on rock surfaces flush with the ground, or their changing visibility with shifting light, vegetation and atmospheric conditions (Valdez-Tullett 2019; Jones 2012; Barnett et al. 2022). We could also consider that processes of concealment/revelation may have been manipulated by deliberately selecting low-lying panels in specific places or obscuring carvings with soil and turf (Barnett et al. 2022). As Thomas (2016, 2019) observes, however, it is not simply a case of whether carvings are visible or not, we need to appreciate the temporality and context of their visibility. Similarity, diversity and connectivity Although our knowledge and understanding of Scotland’s rock art have grown considerably in recent decades, we lack detailed appreciation of carvings across the whole country. Research has been primarily site- or area-specific, and mainly focused around Kilmartin, Loch Tay and southern Galloway – areas which, although exceptionally rich, are by no means the only places in Scotland with dense or elaborate Atlantic Rock Art (Bradley 1997; Jones 2001, 2004, 2005, 2006; Jones et al. 2011; Bradley et al. 2012; Valdez-Tullett 2019). In recent years, ScRAP has highlighted other significant concentrations that have been neglected in the literature, such as Menteith in Stirlingshire and the Moray and Beauly Firths in Inverness-shire, and noted considerable regional variation in the character of Atlantic Rock Art across Scotland (Valdez-Tullett et al. in prep). Aside from ScRAP, Freedman provides the most complete overview of Scotland’s Atlantic Rock Art to date (Freedman 2011). Her broad inter-regional comparison of motif forms, arrangements, and contextual relationships identifies marked variations between eastern and western Scotland, with less clear-cut distinctions between northern and eastern Scotland. A more detailed study of rock art from Kilmartin and four adjoining areas (Knapdale, Kintyre, western Cowal and Strath Tay) highlights regional similarities and subtle differences, and draws attention to the distinctive juxtaposition of motifs and natural features in Kilmartin (Freedman 2011; see also Jones 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007). As a whole, Scotland’s rock art is described as a network of visual practices, with certain places, notably Kilmartin, appearing to ‘condense or magnify the significance of practices occurring in other regions’ (Freedman 2011, 311). 53

Barnett, Valdez-Tullett, Hoole, Jeffrey, Robin, Bjerketvedt and Alexander

ai

a ii

Figure 28.a. Superimposition and modification is clearly evident on cup and ring motifs in the 3D model of Cairnbaan 4 in Kilmartin. b. 3D modelling of Castleton 3, Clackmannanshire reveals a large, complex cup and ring motif in the centre of the panel overlying and partly obscuring two smaller cup and ring motifs. Other motifs on this panel also show evidence of superimposition and erasure. Images © HES.

54

The Past, Present and Future of Rock Art Research in Scotland

b ii

b iii

bi A key issue in studying regional diversity, however, is determining where the boundaries should lie. Brophy and others argue that regional boundaries should not be fixed but viewed in terms of networks of interaction between local and wider-scale systems (Brophy 2006; Noble 2006; Barclay 2009). This notion is central to van Hoek’s appraisal of Scotland’s rock art within a narrative of Neolithic migration and movement along the Atlantic seaboard, for example (Van Hoek 1997). Sharpe proposes instead that landscape characterisation offers a relevant framework for comparative study of rock art from topographically distinct regions and demonstrates how attributes of style and context form discrete groups within specific landscapes in England and Scotland (Sharpe 2007b, 2012). Scotland is remarkably diverse for a small country. Its three main sectors – the Highlands and Islands, the Central Lowlands, and the Uplands – each comprise a complex mosaic of landscapes defined by their specific natural and cultural identities (The Countryside Agency and Scottish Natural Heritage 2002). Significant, sometimes abrupt, variations in geology, terrain, soils, vegetation, and weather regimes shape how the landscape is used, managed and experienced in different areas of the country today, and may have elicited locally distinct creative and behavioural responses in the past. Landscape characterisation, rather than regional divisions, seems an appropriate basis for analysing Scotland’s rock art at a range of geographical scales. Patterns of similarity and diversity in rock art, and the networks of social interaction and connectivity that they reveal, are affected by the criteria selected for analysis (Sharpe 2012). Viewing people, places and things as relational, fluid and ever-changing arrangements allows us to consider rock art and other artworks not as a set of shared traits or ideas, but by what they bring into existence (Jones 2017; Jones and Cochrane 2018). A recent study of Atlantic Rock Art in several European countries using a detailed relational categorical system and multi-scalar, interdisciplinary methodology has demonstrated that, despite the many similarities between carvings across the Atlantic seaboard, there are unique regional preferences reflected in the 55

Barnett, Valdez-Tullett, Hoole, Jeffrey, Robin, Bjerketvedt and Alexander choice of motifs and compositions, rock media, carving techniques and landscape locations (Valdez-Tullett 2019). Application of network analysis methods supported the hypothesis that subtle similarities between regions resulted from systems of contact, in place during the Neolithic, which enabled the exchange of specialized knowledge in making and using Atlantic Rock Art (Valdez-Tullett 2019). These networks of exchange are also accounted for in the archaeological record in the form of artefacts, architecture, rituals and ideologies (e.g., Anderson-Whymark et al. 2015). Despite the problem that chronological vagueness conflates centuries of shifting geopolitics in prehistory, Valdez-Tullett’s (2019) study emphasises the power of using detailed, consistent data and computational methods for multi-scalar analysis of rock art, and the potential for applying similar approaches to more extensive datasets within Scotland, as exemplified by ScRAP’s research (Bjerketvedt et al. in prep; Valdez-Tullett et al.in prep) A Future for Scotland’s Rock Art Our understanding of Scotland’s rock art has advanced considerably in recent years, but many questions and uncertainties remain. Recording and analysis should ideally be reflexive processes whereas, in reality, Scotland’s rock art data have been amassed primarily by people not actively engaged in academic research. Historical inconsistencies, anomalies and biases in the records affect potential for enhancing understanding and public awareness today. As very few areas had been recorded sufficiently prior to ScRAP, academic studies privileged a handful of places with elaborate, well-known rock art and accessible data, overlooking much of the country in the process. Redressing the balance requires better, publicly available data for all of Scotland, and consideration of how inconsistencies in survival and discovery affect contemporary spatial distribution. The comprehensive database compiled by ScRAP and its community teams incorporates rock art from across Scotland. This enables us to integrate rock art with relevant archaeological and environmental datasets, and conduct multi-scalar analyses from the level of the motifs and the rock medium to regional and inter-regional scales of comparison. As the dataset is publicly accessible via the ScRAP website for the time being, and via Canmore and regional HERs in perpetuity, it opens up new avenues and offers exciting prospects for future research and awareness. Detailed quantitative and visual information within the ScRAP database are compatible with data from the Northumberland and Durham Rock Art Project, Carved Stones Investigation: Rombalds Moor, and projects elsewhere in Britain, Ireland and Iberia (O’Connor 2006; Barnett 2010; Valdez-Tullett 2019). With the completion of ScRAP in December 2021, over 3,500 records of rock art in Scotland and England are now freely accessible online7 for analysis. Combining the datasets from these two countries into a single UK-wide resource capable of accommodating data from Wales, Northern Ireland, and the Isle of Man would create a powerful research tool for British rock art. Excavation, digital visualisation techniques and new theoretical perspectives have focused attention on the processes, practices and performance of mark-making, emphasising the Scotland’s Rock Art Project database can be accessed here: www.rockart.scot and on Canmore here: https:// canmore.org.uk/ England’s Rock Art database can be accessed here: https://archaeologydataservice.ac.uk/archives/view/era_ eh_2009/

7 

56

The Past, Present and Future of Rock Art Research in Scotland importance of engagement with specific materials and places, and the temporality of creative practice. Rock art is no longer viewed as a stylistic, geographically or chronologically bounded phenomenon, but as the product of on-going interactions of human and material agency. Contemporary emphasis on making encourages us to think about how shared carving traditions may have been reinterpreted through individual and collective responses to locally distinctive materials and landscapes across Scotland. Rather than seeking a common explanation for what Scotland’s rock art means, we can now use the ScRAP database to examine the implications of diversity at different scales. We need to consider also how Scotland’s rock art is situated within a wider geographical and archaeological framework. Computational analyses have highlighted the distinctiveness of rock art from one area of Scotland relative to other parts of Atlantic Europe (Valdez-Tullett 2019). Further research using computational methods to study large datasets is shedding new light on our understanding of connectivity within Scotland (Bjerketvedt et al. in prep; ValdezTullett et al. in prep), and could be extended to refine our comprehension of networks of contact between Scotland and elsewhere in Europe. Calls for rock art to be integrated into a wider vision of the past have been addressed provisionally in Scotland through inclusion of rock art in national, regional and thematic archaeological research agendas (Waddington 2007a; Bradley 2010). Scotland’s Archaeological Research Framework8 (ScARF) underlines the need for better dating evidence, and improved understanding of how rock art creation and use articulates with other expressions of ritual practice and beliefs. The Future Thinking on Carved Stones in Scotland9 framework identifies knowledge gaps and research priorities for all forms of carved stone, including better understanding of materiality, biography, context, and connectivity. While further excavations are necessary to tackle questions of chronology, we are now well-positioned for innovative research on other themes. Investigating temporality, variability, biography and connectivity, and contextualising the carvings within a broader understanding of Scotland’s prehistory are key priorities going forward, while the growing potential of digital technologies and community co-production will shape future research agendas and help raise awareness and value of Scotland’s rock art. As Brophy (2006, 38) notes ‘what is important is not looking for a mythical Scottish identity or homogeneity in the past’, but celebrating the richness and diversity of Scotland’s rock art, and its power to engage and inspire us today. Acknowledgements We are indebted to the Arts and Humanities Research Council for funding Scotland’s Rock Art Project between 2017 and 2021, and to our host institutions, colleagues, and Advisory Board for their support over these five years. The commitment and hard work of all our community team members has been pivotal in updating Scotland’s rock art database and providing a clearer understanding of the richness and diversity of rock art across the country, and we extend our thanks to everyone who has given their time so generously to the project. We also gratefully acknowledge those people that have commented on drafts of this article, and provided us with images, and to the editors of this volume for inviting us to contribute. 8  9 

https://www.scottishheritagehub.com/ https://www.scottishheritagehub.com/content/future-thinking-carved-stones-scotland

57

Barnett, Valdez-Tullett, Hoole, Jeffrey, Robin, Bjerketvedt and Alexander Bibliography Allen, J.R., 1882. Notes on some undescribed stones with cup-markings in Scotland. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 4 (1881-2): 79-143. Allen, J.R., 1896. Cup and Ring Sculptures of Olkley. The Reliquary and Illustrated Archaeologist 2: 65-83. Alves, L., 2003. The Movement of Signs. Post-glacial rock art in north-western Iberia. PhD Thesis. University of Reading. Anderson, R.S.G., 1927. Crosses and rock sculptures recently discovered in Wigtownshire. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 61: 199-221. Anderson-Whymark, H., Garrow, D. and Sturt, F., (eds.) 2015. Continental Connections. Exploring cross-Channel relationships from the Mesolithic to the Iron Age. Oxford: Oxbow Books. Ashmore, P., 1986. Neolithic carvings in Maeshowe. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 116: 57-62. Barber, J.W., 1978. The excavation of the holed-stone at Ballymeanoch, Kilmartin, Argyll. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 109: 104-11. Barclay, G., 2009. Introduction: a regional agenda? In K. Brophy and G. Barclay (eds.) Defining a Regional Neolithic: the evidence from Britain and Ireland. Neolithic Studies Group Seminar Papers 9. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 1-4. Barnett, T., 2010. Putting people in the picture: community involvement in rock art recording. In T. Barnett and K.E. Sharpe (eds.) Carving a Future for British Rock Art. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 25-36. Barnett, T., 2018. Back to life: British rock art in the Iron Age. In J. Dodd and E. Meijer (eds.) Giving the Past a Future. Essays in archaeology and rock art studies in honour of Dr. Phil. h.c. Gerhard Milstreu. Oxford: Archaeopress, 255-69. Barnett, T., Ritchie, M. and Sharpe, K., 2021. A Song in Stone. Forestry and Land Scotland. Barnett, T., Valdez-Tullett, J. and Bjerketvedt, L.M., 2022. Close encounters: visibility and accessibility of Atlantic Rock Art in Scotland. In P. Frodsham and K. Sharpe (eds.) Abstractions based on Circles. Oxford: Archaeopress, 63-76. Barrett, J.C., 1988. The living, the dead, and the ancestors: Neolithic and Early Bronze Age mortuary practices. In J.C. Barrett and I.A. Kinnes (eds) The Archaeology of Context in the Neolithic and Bronze Age. Sheffield: Department of Archaeology and Prehistory, 30-41. Beckensall, S., 1999. British Prehistoric Rock Art. Stroud: Tempus. Beckensall, S. and Frodsham, P., 1998. Questions of chronology: the case for Bronze Age rock art in Northern England. Northern Archaeology 15/16: 51-69. Bjerketvedt, L., Valdez-Tullett, J., Barnett, T., Alexander, F., Jeffrey, S., Hoole, M. and Robin, G., In prep. Application of computational analysis for investigating Scotland’s prehistoric rock art. In prep. Bradley, R., 1991. Rock art and the perception of landscape. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 1: 77-101. Bradley, R., 1992. Turning the world: rock carvings and the archaeology of death. In N. Sharples and A. Sheridan (eds) Vessels for the Ancestors. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 16876. Bradley, R., 1996. Learning from places – topographical analysis of northern British rock art. Northern Archaeology 13/14: 87-99. Bradley, R., 1997. Rock Art and the Prehistory of Atlantic Europe. Signing the Land. London and New York: Routledge. 58

The Past, Present and Future of Rock Art Research in Scotland Bradley, R. 2000. An Archaeology of Natural Places. London: Routledge. Bradley, R., 2010. Foreword. In T. Barnett and K.E. Sharpe (eds) Carving a Future for British Rock Art: new directions for research, management and presentation. Oxford: Oxbow Books, xi. Bradley, R., 2020. A Comparative Study of Rock Art in Later Prehistoric Europe. Cambridge Elements. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bradley, R., Harding, J. and Matthews, M. 1993. The siting of prehistoric rock art in Galloway, south-west Scotland. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 59: 269-83. Bradley, R., Philips, T., Richards, C. and Webb, M. 2000. Decorating the houses of the dead: incised and pecked motifs in Orkney chambered tombs. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 11: 45-67. Bradley, R., Watson, A. and Anderson-Whymark, H. 2012. Excavations at four prehistoric rock carvings on the Ben Lawers Estate, 2007-2010. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 142: 27-61. Breuil, H., 1934. Presidential address. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society of East Anglia 7: 289322. Brophy, K., 2006. Rethinking Scotland’s Neolithic: combining circumstance with context. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 136: 7-46. Brophy, K., 2018. ‘The finest set of cup and ring marks in existence’: the story of the Cochno Stone, West Dunbartonshire. Scottish Archaeological Journal 40(1): 1-23. Brouwer, J.J. and van Veen, G., 2010. Cups and rings in cyberspace: pitfalls and acceleration in Britain’s virtual rock art museum. In T. Barnett and K.E. Sharpe (eds.) Carving a Future for British Rock Art: new directions for research, management and presentation. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 159-64. Brown, L., Stroud, R., Sharpe, K.E., and Barnett, T., 2013. Keeping the ‘Rock Art’ Record Straight: An Update on the Work of the CSI: Rombalds Moor Project. Prehistoric Yorkshire 50: 21-8. Brück, J., 2004. Early Bronze Age burial practices in Scotland and beyond: differences and similarities. In I.A. Shepherd and G.J. Barclay (eds.) Scotland in Ancient Europe: the Neolithic and Early Bronze Age of Scotland in their European context. Edinburgh: Society of Antiquaries of Scotland, 179-88. Bryant, P., 2010. Three-dimensional rock art recording: a ‘lower-cost’ photogrammetric approach. In T. Barnett and K.E. Sharpe (eds.) Carving a Future for British Rock Art: new directions for research, management and presentation. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 2-10. Burgess, C., 1991. The chronology of cup-and-ring marks in Britain and Ireland. Northern Archaeology 10: 21-6. Cameron, A. and Lenfert, R., 2015. East Lodge, Ury Estate, Stonehaven, Excavation. Discovery and Excavation in Scotland 16: 18. Campbell, M. and Sandeman, M.L.S., 1962. Mid Argyll: a field survey of the historic and prehistoric monuments. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 95 (1961-2): 1-125. Campell, M., Scott, J.G. and Piggott, S., 1960. The Badden cist slab. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 94 (1960-61): 46-61. Card, N., 2018 The Ness of Brodgar: Uncovering Orkneys’ Neolithic heart. Current Archaeology 335: 20-8. Card, N. and Thomas, A., 2012. Painting a picture of Neolithic Orkney: decorated stonework from the Ness of Brodgar. In A. Cochrane and A.M. Jones (eds.) Visualising the Neolithic: Abstraction, figuration, performance, representation. Neolithic Studies Group Seminar Papers 13. Oxford and Oakville: Oxbow Books, 111-24.

59

Barnett, Valdez-Tullett, Hoole, Jeffrey, Robin, Bjerketvedt and Alexander Childe, V.G., 1931. Skara Brae. A Pictish village in Orkney. Edinburgh: Kegan Paul, Trench, Truber and Co. Cochrane, A., 2009. Additive subtraction: addressing rock dressing in Irish passage tombs. In J. Thomas and O. Jorge (eds.) Archaeology and the Politics of Vision in a Post-modern Context. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 163-85. Cochrane, A. and Jones, A.M., (eds.). 2012. Visualising the Neolithic: Abstraction, figuration, performance, representation. Neolithic Studies Group Seminar Papers 13. Oxford and Oakville: Oxbow Books. Coles, F.R., 1895. Kirkcudbright, a record of cup-and-ring markings in the Stewarty of Kirkcudbright. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 14: 67-91. Collyer, R. and Turner, J., 1885. Ilkley, Ancient and Modern. Otley: Walker. Currie, A., 1830. A Description of the Antiquities and Scenery of the Parish of North Knapdale, Argyleshire, by Archibald Currie. Glasgow: W. R. M’Phun. Curtis, N. and Jaffray, A., 1991. Auchalick Wood (Kilfinan parish): excavation around cup-andring marked rock. Discovery and Excavation in Scotland 1991: 59. Davidson, J.L. and Henshall, A.S., 1989. The Chambered Cairns of Orkney: an inventory of the structures and their contents. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Downes, J. and Richards, C., 2005. The dwellings at Barnhouse. In C. Richards (ed.) Dwelling Among the Monuments: Excavations at Barnhouse and Maeshowe, Orkney. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, 57-128. Dutton, A., Clapperton, K. and Carter, S., 2007. Rock art from a Bronze Age burial at Balblair, near Inverness. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 137: 117-36. Edwards, G. and Bradley, R., 1999. Rock carvings and Neolithic artefacts on Ilkley Moor, West Yorkshire. In R. Cleal and A. MacSween (eds.) Grooved Ware in Britain and Ireland. Neolithic Studies Group Seminar Papers 3. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 76-7. Enlander, R.A., 2013. Prehistoric Rock Art and the Cultural Landscapes of the North of Ireland: a contextual and interpretive study. PhD thesis. Queens’s University, Belfast. Ellis, C. and Webb, S.H., 2007. Excavations at Ormaig Cup and Ring Marked Rock Art Site in Argyll. Kilmartin: Kilmartin Museum Report. Evans, E. and Dowson, T.A., 2004. Rock art, identity and death in the early Bronze Age of Ireland and Britain. In V. Cummings and C. Fowler (eds.) The Neolithic of the Irish Sea: materiality and traditions of practice. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 102-12. Fairén-Jiménez, S., 2007. British Neolithic rock art in its landscape. Journal of Field Archaeology 32(3): 283-95. Fenton, H., 2021. Dunchraigaig Cairn. Discovery and Excavation Scotland. New Series, 21: 27. Foster, S.M., 2010. Shaping up rock art in Scotland: past progress, future directions. In T. Barnett and K.E. Sharpe (eds.) Carving a Future for British Rock Art: New directions for research, management and presentation. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 82-93. Foster, S.M. and Jones, S., 2008. Recovering the biography of the Hilton of Cadboll cross-slab. In H. James, I. Henderson, S.M. Foster and S. Jones (eds.) A Fragmented Masterpiece. Recovering the biography of the Hilton of Cadboll cross-slab. Edinburgh: Society of Antiquaries of Scotland, 205-84. Freedman, D., 2011. Kilmartin in context I: Kilmartin and the rock art of prehistoric Scotland. In A.M. Jones, D. Freedman, B. O’Connor, H. Lamdin-Whymark, R. Tipping and A. Watson (eds.) An Animate Landscape: Rock art and the prehistory of Kilmartin, Argyll, Scotland. Oxford: Windgather Press, 282-311.

60

The Past, Present and Future of Rock Art Research in Scotland Freedman, D. Jones, A. and Riggott, P., 2011. Rock art and the Kilmartin landscape. In A.M. Jones, D. Freedman, B. O’Connor, H. Lamdin-Whymark, R. Tipping and A. Watson (eds.) An Animate Landscape: Rock art and the prehistory of Kilmartin, Argyll, Scotland. Oxford: Windgather Press, 222-49. Frodsham, P., 1996. Spirals in time: Morwick Mill and the spiral motif in the British Neolithic. In P. Frodsham (ed.) Neolithic Studies in No-Man’s Land. Northern Archaeology 13/14: 101-38. Gaffney, V., Stancic, Z. and Watson, T., 1995. Moving from catchments to cognition: tentative steps towards a larger archaeological context for GIS. Scottish Archaeological Review 9/10: 41-64. Graves, C. 1860. On a previously described class of Monuments. Transactions of the Royal Irish Academy 24. Greenwell, W., 1866. An account of excavations in cairns near Crinan. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 6: 336-51. Hadingham, E., 1974. Ancient Carvings in Britain: a mystery. London: Garnstone Press. Hale, A., 2003. Prehistoric rock carvings in Strath Tay. Tayside and Fife Archaeological Journal 9: 6-13. Hingley, R., 1996. Ancestors and identity in the later prehistory of Atlantic Scotland: The reuse and reinvention of Neolithic monuments and material culture. World Archaeology 28(2): 231-43. Jeffrey, S.,  2018.  Digital heritage objects, authorship, ownership and engagement.  In P. Di Giuseppantonio Di Franco, F.  Galeazzi, and V. Vassallo (eds.) Authenticity and Cultural Heritage in the Age of 3D Digital Reproductions. McDonald Institute Conversations. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, 49-56. 10.17863/CAM.27037 Jeffrey, S., Hale, A., Jones, C., Jones, S. and Maxwell, M., 2015. The ACCORD project: archaeological community co-production of research resources. In F. Gilingy, F. Djindjian, L. Costa, P. Moscati and S. Roberts (eds.) CAA 2014 – 21st Century Archaeology. Proceedings of the 42nd Annual Conference on Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology: concepts, methods and tools. Oxford: Archaeopress, 289-95. Jeffrey, S., Jones, S., Maxwell, M., Hale, A. and Jones, C., (In Press) 3D visualisation, communities and the production of significance. International Journal of Heritage Studies 26. Jones, A.M., 2001. Enduring images? Image production and memory in Earlier Bronze Age Scotland. In J. Brück (ed.) Bronze Age Landscapes: Tradition and transformation. Oxford: Oxbow, 217-31. Jones, A.M., 2004. By way of illustration: art, memory and materiality in the Irish Sea and beyond. In V. Cummings and A. Pannett (eds.) Set in Stone: New approaches to Neolithic Monuments in Scotland. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 202-13. Jones, A.M., 2005. Between a rock and a hard place: rock art and mimesis in Neolithic and Bronze Age Scotland. In V. Cummings and A. Pannett (eds.) Set in Stone: New approaches to Neolithic Monuments in Scotland. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 107-17. Jones, A.M., 2006. Animated images: images, agency and landscape in Kilmartin Argyll, Scotland. Journal of Material Culture 11: 211-25. Jones, A.M., 2007. Memory and Material Culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Jones, A.M. 2012. Living rocks: animacy, performance and the rock art of the Kilmartin region, Argyll, Scotland, in A. Cochrane and A.M. Jones (eds) Visualising the Neolithic: Abstraction, Figuration, Performance, Representation (Neolithic Studies Group Seminar Papers 13): 79–88. Oxford and Oakville: Oxbow Books

61

Barnett, Valdez-Tullett, Hoole, Jeffrey, Robin, Bjerketvedt and Alexander Jones, A.M., 2017. The art of assemblage: Styling Neolithic art. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 27(1): 85-94. Jones, A.M. and Cochrane, A., 2018. The Archaeology of Art: Materials, practices, affects. London: Routledge. Jones, A.M. and Díaz-Guardamino, M., 2019. Marking a Mark: Image and process in Neolithic Britain and Ireland. Oxford: Windgather Press. Jones, A.M., Freedman, D., O’Connor, B., Lamdin-Whymark, H., Tipping, R. and Watson, A., 2011. An Animate Landscape: Rock art and the prehistory of Kilmartin, Argyll, Scotland. Oxford: Windgather Press. Jones, S., 2004. Early Medieval Sculptures and the Production of Meaning, Value and Place: The case of Hilton of Cadboll. Edinburgh: Historic Scotland Research Report. Jones, S.,  Stuart,  J., Maxwell, M.,  Hale, A.  and  Jones, C.,  2017.  3D heritage visualisation and the negotiation of authenticity: the ACCORD project. International Journal of Heritage Studies 24(4): 333-53. 10.1080/13527258.2017.1378905. Kinahan, G.H., 1879. On Inscribed Stones, Co. Mayo. PRIA XVI: 17. Lamb, G., 1987. Cup-marked Stone found near Edinburgh. Reliquary and Illustrated Archaeologist: 231-232 Lamdin-Whymark, H., 2011. Lithics, landscape and performance. In A.M. Jones, D. Freedman, B. O’Connor, H. Lamdin-Whymark, R. Tipping and A. Watson (eds.) An Animate Landscape: Rock art and the prehistory of Kilmartin, Argyll, Scotland. Oxford: Windgather Press, 176-201. MacWhite, E., 1946. A new view on Irish Bronze Age rock-scribings. Journal of the Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland 76: 59-80. Mapleton, R. J., 1870. Report on prehistoric remains in the neighbourhood of the Crinan Canal, Argyllshire. Journal of the Ethnology Society of London 2: 148-50. Mazel, A., Nash, G. and Waddington, C., (eds.) Art as Metaphor: the prehistoric rock-art of Britain. Oxford: Archaeopress. Morris, R.W.B. and Bailey, D.C., 1966. The cup-and-rings marks and similar sculptures of southwest Scotland: a survey. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 98 (1964-6): 150-72. Morris, R.W.B., 1967a. The cup-and-rings marks and similar early sculptures of south-west Scotland. Transactions of the Ancient Monument Society 14 (1966-7): 77-117. Morris, R.W.B., 1967b. The cup-and-rings marks and similar sculptures of Scotland: a survey of the southern counties part II. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 100 (19678): 47-78. Morris, R.W.B., 1969. The cup-and-rings marks and similar early sculptures of Scotland. Part 2: the rest of southern Scotland except Kintyre. Transactions of the Ancient Monument Society 16: 37-76. Morris, R.W.B., 1977. The Prehistoric Rock Art of Argyll. Poole: Blandford Press. Morris, R.W.B., 1979. The Prehistoric Rock Art of Galloway and the Isle of Man. Poole: Blandford Press. Morris, R.W.B., 1981. The Prehistoric Rock Art of Southern Scotland. BAR British Series 86. Oxford: BAR. Morris, R.W.B. 1989. The prehistoric rock art of Great Britain: a survey of all sites bearing motifs more complex than simple cup marks. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 55: 45-88. Noble, G., 2006. Neolithic Scotland: Timber, stone, earth and fire. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh. O’Connor, B., 2006. Inscribed Landscapes: Contextualising prehistoric rock art in Ireland. PhD Thesis. University College Dublin. 62

The Past, Present and Future of Rock Art Research in Scotland Olalde, I., Brace, S., Allentoft, M.E., Armit, I., Kristiansen, K., Booth, T., Rohland, N., Mallick, S., Szécsényi-Nagy, A., Mittnik, A., Altena, E., Lipson, M., Lazaridis, I., Harper, T.K., Patterson, N., Broomandkhoshbacht, N., Diekmann, Y., Faltyskova, Z., Fernandes, D., Ferry, M., Harney, E., de Knijff, P., Michel, M., Oppenheimer, J., Stewardson, K., Barclay, A., Alt, K.W., Liesau, C.,  Ríos, P.,  Blasco, C.,  Miguel, J.V.,  García, R.M.,  Fernández, A.A.,  Bánffy, E.,  BernabòBrea, M.,  Billoin, D.,  Bonsall, C.,  Bonsall, L.,  Allen, T.,  Büster, L.,  Carver, S.,  Navarro, L.C.,  Craig, O.E.,  Cook, G.T.,  Cunliffe, B.,  Denaire, A.,  Dinwiddy, K.E.,  Dodwell, N.,  Ernée, M., Evans, C., Kuchařík, M., Farré, J.F., Fowler, C., Gazenbeek, M., Pena, R.G., Haber-Uriarte, M., Haduch, E., Hey, G., Jowett, N., Knowles, T., Massy, K., Pfrengle, S., Lefranc, P., Lemercier, O., Lefebvre, A., Martínez, C.H., Olmo, V.G., Ramírez, A.B., Maurandi, J.L., Majó, T., McKinley, J.I., McSweeney, K., Mende, B.G., Modi, A., Kulcsár, G., Kiss, V., Czene, A., Patay, R., Endrődi, A., Köhler, K., Hajdu, T., Szeniczey, T., Dani, J., Bernert, Z., Hoole, M., Cheronet, O., Keating, D.,  Velemínský, P.,  Dobeš, M.,  Candilio, F.,  Brown, F.,  Fernández, R.F.,  Herrero-Corral, A.M.,  Tusa, S.,  Carnieri, E.,  Lentini, L.,  Valenti, A.,  Zanini, A.,  Waddington, C.,  Delibes, G.,  Guerra-Doce, E.,  Neil, B.,  Brittain, M.,  Luke, M.,  Mortimer, R.,  Desideri, J.,  Besse, M.,  Brücken, G.,  Furmanek, M.,  Hałuszko, A.,  Mackiewicz, M.,  Rapiński, A.,  Leach, S.,  Soriano, I.,  Lillios, K.,  Cardoso, J.L.,  Pearson, M.P.,  Włodarczak, P.,  Price, T.D.,  Prieto, P., Rey, P.J., Risch, R., Rojo Guerra, M.A., Schmitt, A., Serralongue, J., Silva, A.M., Smrčka, V., Vergnaud, L., Zilhão, J., Caramelli, D., Higham, T., Thomas, M.G., Kennett, D.J., Fokkens, H., Heyd, V., Sheridan, A., Sjögren, K.G., Stockhammer, P.W., Krause, J., Pinhasi, R., Haak, W., Barnes, I., Lalueza-Fox, C, and Reich, D., 2018. The Beaker phenomenon and the genomic transformation of northwest Europe. Nature 555: 190-6. 10.1038/nature25738. Oswald, A. and Ainsworth, S., 2010. The Northumberland and Durham Rock Art Project: some observations on the landscape context and ‘taphonomy’ of rock art, and recommendations for future projects. In T. Barnett and K.E. Sharpe (eds.) Carving a Future for British Rock Art: new directions for research, management and presentation. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 37-56. Phillips, T. and Bradley, R., 2004. Developer-funded fieldwork in Scotland, 1990–2003: an overview of the prehistoric evidence. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 134: 17-51. Piggott, S., 1972. Excavation of the Dalladies long barrow, Fettercairn, Kincardinshire. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 103: 23-47. Porr, M., 2019. Rock art as art. Time and Mind 12(2): 153-64. DOI: 10.1080/1751696X.2019.1609799 Regan, R.,  2014.  Kilmartin, Nether Largie Standing Stone, Excavation. Discovery and Excavation in Scotland 14: 52-3. Regan, R., Webb, S.H. and O’Connor, B. 2008. Achnabreck Rock Art. Kilmartin: Excavation Data Structure Report Kilmartin Museum Report. RCAHMS., 1909. First Report and Inventory of Monuments and Constructions in the County of Berwick. HMSO. RCAHMS., 1911. Third Report and Inventory of Monuments and Constructions in the County of Caithness. HMSO. RCAHMS., 1988. Argyll: an Inventory of the Monuments Volume 6: Mid-Argyll and Cowal, prehistoric and early historic monuments. Edinburgh: Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Scotland. RCAHMS., 2015. An Inventory for the Nation. Edinburgh: Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Scotland. Riris, P. and Oliver, J., 2019. Patterns of style, diversity, and similarity in Middle Orinoco rock art assemblages. Arts 8: 1-18. 63

Barnett, Valdez-Tullett, Hoole, Jeffrey, Robin, Bjerketvedt and Alexander Ritchie, J.N.G and Adamson, H.C., 1981. Knappers, Dunbartonshire: a reassessment. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 111: 172-204. Sarmiento, M. 1745. Viaje a Galicia. Universidad de Salamanca. Sharpe, K.E., 2007a. Rock-art and rough outs: exploring the sacred and social dimensions of prehistoric carvings at Copt Howe, Cumbria. In A. Mazel, G. Nash and C. Waddington (eds.) Art as Metaphor: the prehistoric rock-art of Britain. Oxford: Archaeopress, 151-74. Sharpe, K.E., 2007b. Motifs, Monuments and Mountains. Unpublished PhD thesis, Durham University. Sharpe, K.E., 2012. Regional variations in the style and deployment of ‘cup and ring’ marked stones. In A. Cochrane and A.M. Jones (eds.) Visualising the Neolithic: Abstraction, figuration, performance, representation. Neolithic Studies Group Seminar Papers 13. Oxford and Oakville: Oxbow Books, 47-63. Sharples, N.M., 1984. Excavations at Pierowall Quarry, Westray, Orkney. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 114: 75-126. Shee-Twohig, E., 1981. The Megalithic Art of Western Europe. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Shee-Twohig, E., 1997. ‘Megalithic art’ in a settlement context: Skara Brae and related sites in the Orkney islands. Brigantium 10: 377-89. Sheridan, J.A., 2005. The National Museums’ of Scotland radiocarbon dating programme: results obtained during 2004/5. Discovery and Excavation in Scotland 6: 182-3. Sheridan, J.A., 2012. Contextualising Kilmartin: building a narrative for developments in western Scotland and beyond, from the Early Neolithic to the Late Bronze Age. In A.M. Jones, J. Pollard, M. Allen and J. Gardiner (eds.) Image, Memory and Monumentality. Archaeological engagements with the material world. Prehistoric Society Research Paper 5. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 163-83. Sherriff, J.R., 1995. Prehistoric carvings in Angus. Tayside and Fife Archaeology Journal 1: 11-22. Simpson, J.Y., 1866. On ancient sculpturings of cups and concentric rings, etc. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 6 (1864-1866) Appendix: 1-471. Simpson, J.Y., 1867. Archaic Sculpturings of Cups, Circles etc upon Stones and Rocks in Scotland, England etc and other Countries. Edinburgh: Edmonston and Douglas. Simpson, D.D.A. and Thawley, J.E., 1972. Single grave art in Britain. Scottish Archaeological Forum 4: 81-104. Smith, L. and Waterton, E,. 2009. Heritage, Communities and Archaeology. London: Duckworth. Stevenson, R.B., 1997. The prehistoric rock carvings of Argyll. In J. Ritchie (ed.) The Archaeology of Argyll. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 96-107. Stuart, J., 1856. The Sculptured Stones of Scotland. Aberdeen: Spalding Club.  Tate, G., 1853. Address to the members at the anniversary meeting held at Embleton, September 7th 1853. History of the Berwickshire Naturalists’ Club 3(4) (1860-2): 58-64. Tate, G., 1865. The Ancient British Sculptured Rocks of Northumberland and Eastern Borders. Alnwick: Hunter Blair. Tempest, H.G., 1931. Bronze Age carved stone, Carrickrobin T. L. Journal of the Country Louth Archaeological Society 7(3): 386-9. Tipping, R., Verill, L. with Morrison, S., Burns, M. and Bunting, J., 2011. Landscapes and landscape dynamics at Torbhlaren. In A.M. Jones, D. Freedman, B. O’Connor, H. Lamdin-

64

The Past, Present and Future of Rock Art Research in Scotland Whymark, R. Tipping and A. Watson (eds.) An Animate Landscape: Rock art and the prehistory of Kilmartin, Argyll, Scotland. Oxford: Windgather Press, 122-75. Towers, R., Card, N. and Edmonds, M., 2015. The Ness of Brodgar. Kirkwall: Ness of Brodgar Trust. Towers, R., Card, N. and Edmonds, M., 2017. The Ness of Brodgar: Digging deeper (2nd edition). Kirkwall: Ness of Brodgar Trust. Thomas, A., 2016. Art and Architecture in Neolithic Orkney: Process, temporality and context. UHI Archaeology Institute Research Series: 1. Oxford, Archaeopress. Thomas, A., 2019. Image and process in an architectural context: decorated stonework from the Ness of Brodgar. In A. Jones and M. Diaz-Guardamino (eds.) Making a Mark: Image and process in Neolithic Britain and Ireland. Oxford: Windgather Press, 142-63. The Countryside Agency and Scottish Natural Heritage., 2002. Landscape Character Assessment: Guidance for England and Scotland. Sheffield: Carys Swanwick. Valdez-Tullett, J., 2019. Design and Connectivity: The case of Atlantic rock art. BAR International Series 2932. Archaeology of Prehistoric Art 1. Oxford: BAR Publishing. Valdez-Tullett, J. and Barnett, T., 2021. New light on Scotland’s prehistoric rock art: the recent discovery of animal carvings at Dunchraigaig Cairn (Kilmartin, Scotland). PAST 98: 12-3. Valdez-Tullett, J., Barnett, T., Alexander, F., Bjerketvedt, L., Jeffrey, S., Hoole, M., Robin, G. and Wilson, L., in press. Revealing the earliest animal engravings in Scotland. Cambridge Archaeological Journal. Valdez-Tullett, J., Bjerketvedt, L., Barnett, T., Alexander, F., Jeffrey, S., Hoole, M. and Robin, G., In prep. Characterising Scotland’s rock art. Van Hoek, M.A.M., 1987. Further notes in the prehistoric rock art of Galloway. Transactions of the Dumfriesshire and Galloway Natural History and Antiquarian Society 3rd series 62: 9-21. Van Hoek, M.A.M., 1989. Survey. Menteith (Port of Menteith parish) rock art sites. Discovery and Excavation Scotland 1989: 10. Van Hoek, M.A.M., 1990. The rosette in British and Irish rock art. Glasgow Archaeological Journal 16 (1989-1990): 36-54. Van Hoek, M.A.M., 1993. The spiral in British and Irish rock art. Glasgow Archaeological Journal 18: 11-32. Van Hoek, M.A.M., 1995. The keyhole-pattern in prehistoric rock art of Britain and Ireland. Journal of the Westport Historical Society 15: 15-25. Van Hoek, M.A.M., 1997. The distribution of cup-and-ring motifs along the Atlantic seaboard of Europe. Rock Art Research 14(1): 3-17. Van Hoek, M., 1999. Rock art, lines and landscape. In Actas Congreso Internacional de Arte Rupestre Europa. Vigo, Spain. Waddington, C., 1998. Cup and ring marks in context. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 1: 29-54. Waddington, C., 2007a. Neolithic rock art in the British Isles: Retrospect and prospect. In A. Mazel, G. Nash and C. Waddington (eds.) Art as Metaphor: the prehistoric rock-art of Britain. Oxford: Archaeopress, 49-68. Waddington, C., 2007b. Cup and rings and Passage Grave Art: Insular and imported traditions? In C. Burgess, P. Topping and F. Lynch (eds.) Beyond Stonehenge. Essays on the Bronze Age in Honour of Colin Burgess. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 11-9. Waddington, C., Johnson, B. and Mazel, A., 2005. Excavation of a rock art site at Hunterheugh Crag, Northumberland. Archaeologia Aeliana 5th ser 34: 29-54.

65

Barnett, Valdez-Tullett, Hoole, Jeffrey, Robin, Bjerketvedt and Alexander Watson, A. and Bradley, R., 2021. A new study of the decorated cist cover at Nether Largie North cairn, Argyll. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland: 1-12. doi:10.1017/ ppr.2021.10. Williamson, S., 2013. An Investigation into the Reuse of Cup-and-ring Marked Stones in Iron Age Souterrain Settlements of South-east Scotland. Unpublished MA dissertation, University of Edinburgh. Winterbottom, S.J. and Long, D., 2006. From abstract digital models to rich virtual environments: landscape contexts in Kilmartin Glen, Scotland. Journal of Archaeological Science 20: 1-12. Websites mentioned in the text British Rock Collection: https://ukra.jalbum.net/brac/ Discovery and Excavation in Scotland: https://des.rcahms.gov.uk Canmore: https://canmore.org.uk Edinburgh University DataShare: https://datashare.ed.ac.uk/ England’s Rock Art database: https://archaeologydataservice.ac.uk/archives/view/era_eh_2009/ Future Thinking on Carved Stones in Scotland. http://www. scottishheritagehub.com/ content/future-thinking-carved-stones-scotland Megalithic Portal: https://megalithic.co.uk Modern Antiquarian: https://themodernantiquarian.com Northern Antiquarian: https://megalithix.wordpress.com Scottish Archaeological Research Framework (ScARF). https://www.scottishheritagehub.com/ Scotland’s Rock Art Project: https://www.rockart.scot

66

Marking the Earth: History of Research and the Distribution of Open-Air Neolithic and Early Bronze Age Panels and Motifs at Lordenshaw in Central Northumberland, United Kingdom Aron Mazel

Newcastle University and the University of the Witwatersrand

Introduction We want, and may have to wait long for a key, which, like the famous Rosetta stone, will enable us to read and interpret these remarkable inscriptions, engraven so long ago upon the Northumbrian rocks. Whatever may be their import, now so mysterious, they cannot fail to prove, when their meaning is discovered, of very high interest. Stevenson (1864, 106) Stevenson, President of the Berwickshire Naturalists’ Club, spoke these words when he recommended Tate’s (1864) celebrated publication The Ancient British Sculptured Rocks of Northumberland and the Eastern Borders, to members of the Club1. He praised Tate’s work as ‘the very able and elaborate memoir’ (pg. 106). According to Stevenson (1864, 106), ‘Although the details, the result of so much and long-continued research, with which our records are enriched by Mr Tate, appear so far as the district of our operations is concerned, to be all but exhaustive, yet we must all perceive that the subject is anything but exhausted. It is in fact but in its infancy.’ Tate’s celebrated volume initiated research into Northumberland’s Neolithic and Early Bronze Age (EBA) rock carvings. Although the research has experienced significant periods of inactivity during the last 160 years (Mazel 2007), it is still ongoing and has, in fact, experienced a resurgence during the last four decades (e.g., Beckensall 1983, 2001; Frodsham 1996; Waddington 1996, 1998; Bradley 1997; Fairén-Jiménez 2007; Sharpe 2012). Situated in northern England, Northumberland has a rich assemblage of Neolithic and EBA open-air carvings. The number of known carved panels has grown substantially since Tate’s 1864 (pg. 142) publication when he noted that ‘yet though fifty-five different inscribed stones have been discovered in Northumberland, no two of them are alike.’ The increase in panel numbers has largely been through the work of Stan Beckensall (e.g., 1983, 2001). The number now stands at around 1200 (Sharpe 2012). The rock art areas of Lordenshaw and Whitton Burn, which are adjacent to each other, are located in the centre of Northumberland (Figure 1). Not only do these areas combined represent the richest concentration of Neolithic and EBA rock carvings in Northumberland, but they are among the most prolific rock art areas in the United Kingdom and Ireland. Already in the 1930s, Newbigin (1932a, 63; see also Newbigin 1931, 1  This piece initially published, in 1864, in the ‘History of the Berwickshire Naturalists’ Club’ was published as a book, using the same title, the following year (1865).

Signalling and performance (Archaeopress 2022): 67–95

Aron Mazel 1932b) commented on the preponderance of carvings at Lordenshaw, ‘The number of marked rocks concentrated round Lordenshaws is greater than on any other site in Northumberland and will probably rank with one or two similar areas in Yorkshire, which Dr. Raistrick has been investigating.’ One hundred and thirty-six decorated panels have been identified in an area of about 290 hectares (i.e., 2.9 square kilometres), representing 126 panels at Lordenshaw and 10 panels at Whitton Burn (hereafter, jointly referred to as Lordenshaw). The Lordenshaw assemblage comprises about 10% of the known panels in Northumberland even though the area represents less than 0.1% of the county. Lordenshaw’s geological base may have, in part, contributed to Neolithic and EBA people identifying it as a favourable area to place imagery on rock, as it stands on a sandstone promontory, which, according to Beckensall (2001, 88), …is to the north east of the Simonside-Dove Crags range of hills. Its north west and south east flanks drop respectively to Whitton Dean, a tributary of the Coquet and to a narrow glaciated valley overlooked to the east by another outlying sandstone hill that rises to the same height as Lordenshaw. Not only does Lordenshaw’s high concentration of panels distinguish it from other rock art areas of Northumberland, but its distinctiveness is also reflected in the nature of the carved assemblage made by Neolithic and EBA people, particularly when compared with carved areas in the north of the county. Already, in the 1930s, Newbigin (1932a, 62) noted that ‘The whole series’ of Lordenshaw carved panels, which ‘numbered 1 to 17’, is, …differentiated from other groups of incised rocks in Northumberland, such as Bewick, Doddington, Chatton, Routing Linn and Broom Ridge (Hunters Moor) [in north Northumberland], in being devoid of the large circles with multiple rings which appear in the other groups in question, and of which we have examples in our own museum. The series also gives no example of the knob and ridge or inverted cup and duct pattern which is found on Tod Crag and elsewhere. On the other hand the channels and basins are prominent features to which there are only few analogies in Northumberland. Fifty years later, Beckensall (1983, 26) observed that there ‘are regional differences in the patterns [in Northumberland rock carvings] and there are many variations, but all rockcarvings use the same basic symbols.’ A short while later, Beckensall (1986, 42) clarified his reflections about Lordenshaw’s position in Northumberland noting that, ‘There is a contrast here with other sites, with an emphasis on very big cups, basins and enormous channels, making it a very distinct region.’ Furthermore, in 1992, (pg. 121), he specified that: Lordenshaw has a distinctive style of rock-marking: large cups, some basins, and very long ducts that often spring from basins and cups. The cups and rings are not so elaborate or as aesthetically pleasing as those in north Northumberland. There is also a large number of cups, including clusters of ‘midget’ cups. Drawing on data generated by the Beckensall Archive Project (BAP, 2002-2004), Ross (2004, 37) compared the carvings at Lordenshaw and Weetwood Moor, concluding that,

68

Marking the Earth

Figure 1. Location of Lordenshaw, Millstone Burn, Fontburn and Cartington in Northumberland.

69

Aron Mazel A complex picture, with major differences in choice of motif and composition emerges through comparisons of the data from the two areas. The carved panels at Lordenshaw are dominated by cups and long grooves, while the Weetwood area predominantly contains motifs including penannulars and rings. Weetwood contains a higher number of connecting grooves, while at Lordenshaw lines of cups are more frequent. While the need exists to build on the aforementioned insights about the distribution of motif types located at different rock carving areas in Northumberland (e.g., Newbigin 1932a; Beckensall 1983, 1986, 1992; Bradley 1997; Ross 2004) and elsewhere in the UK (e.g., Bradley 1997; Sharpe 2012, 2020; Valdez-Tullett 2019), this chapter focuses specifically on the distribution of the different types of panels and motifs within the Lordenshaw rock art area. It is premised on the understanding that comparisons of rock art in different areas should, in the first instance, be informed by a comprehensive understanding of the characteristics of the rock art of the areas which form the base of our comparisons. It is acknowledged that a wide variety of criteria could be focused on, however, in this instance, the characterization of Lordenshaw concerns the different motifs that Neolithic and EBA people created and the types of panel they placed them on. This Lordenshaw investigation, therefore, resonates, in part, with that of Bradley and colleagues (1993 et al., 1997) at Millstone Burn, where they examined the nature of the motifs that people made and where they located them on the landscape. An advantage of undertaking this study at Lordenshaw is that it provides us with an opportunity to examine, in close detail, a large and geographically cohesive assemblage of carvings in a relatively small area (Figure 2). Obtaining a detailed understanding of the

Figure 2. Distribution of the different types of panels at Lordenshaw.

70

Marking the Earth Lordenshaw carvings will not only enhance our insights into the nature of carvings that people made in the area but also enable more meaningful comparisons between it and other the carved areas in Northumberland and further afield. The chapter will first briefly address the history of rock carving research at Lordenshaw as background context, before turning to its primary focus: the distribution of the panel types and motifs. Lordenshaw’s motifs will be investigated in relation to, (i), the different types of panels the Neolithic and EBA people carved them on, (ii), the location of these panels across Lordenshaw, as well as, (iii), their concentrations. An added advantage of undertaking the investigation at Lordenshaw is that, other than two possible cupmarked stones, at Garleigh Moor, immediately to the east of it, the geographically closest known rock art is about 10 kilometres away, such as Cartington, across the River Coquet, to the north, and Fontburn to the south (Figure 1). This emphasises the localized nature of the Lordenshaw assemblage. Brief history of Lordenshaw rock art research Northumberland’s Neolithic and EBA carvings were first acknowledged as ancient, in the 1820s, by the Reverend John Langlands based on two rocks at Old Bewick, in north Northumberland (Tate 1865). According to Tate (1865, 3), Langlands’s ‘discovery assumed greater importance and significance, when in 1852, the Rev. William Greenwell found another stone with similar figures near Roughting Linn, which is distant north-west of Old Bewick.’ No specific mention is made of Lordenshaw in Tate’s (1865) volume although he was aware of rock carvings near Rothbury, which Lordenshaw is close to (Figure 1). He noted, in 1865 (pg. 26), that carvings ‘existed in Cartington Cove near Rothbury.’ Referring to the Rothbury area, Tate (1865, 26) mentioned that, ‘Here, too, the sculptures are amid ancient British camps and sepulchres’; the possibility exists that this was a reference to Lordenshaw, but we cannot be certain. Tate’s apparent lack of acknowledgement of Lordenshaw’s carvings was highlighted, about 60 years later, by Newbigin (1932a, 56) when he commented that: ‘It is strange that while the markings on this rock [i.e., Chatton Law] are described in Tomlinson’s [1888] and Tate’s [1865] publications … the great channel [at Lordenshaw] is ignored as though it were something adventitious.’ This point is particularly pertinent because, according to Hedley (1889, 229), ‘Two large rocks [believed to be West Lordenshaw 1d and 2c (Figures 3 and 4)] in the neighbourhood of Lurganshaws [i.e., Lordenshaw] camp have cut upon them the mysterious markings, which were first brought to public notice by Canon Greenwell in a paper read before the Archaeological Institute at Newcastle, in July 1852’. Tate’s (1865) lack of specific mention of the Lordenshaw carvings is especially curious given that he and Greenwell had visited carvings together at Roughting Linn in 1852. In addition to the above-mentioned West Lordenshaw 1d (Figure 3) and 2c (Figure 4) carved rocks, Hedley (1889, 229) noted that, ‘Two other large rocks, 187 yards east from the northeast angle of the camp, contain many pits and hollows, which are probably artificial, being possibly the remains of the central cups and markings which have yielded to the action of the weather’, one of which I assume is East Lordenshaw 4b (Figure 5). Then, forty years later, in the early 1930s, Newbigin (1932a, 62) significantly expanded the number of known carved rocks at Lordenshaw when he recorded, as already indicated, 17 carved rocks. Newbigin’s recordings were not built on until the late 1960s, when Beckensall (pers. comm., 15 November 2020) began recording carvings in the area. 71

Aron Mazel

Figure 3. West Lordenshaw 1d (Horseshoe Rock). Image: Aron Mazel.

Figure 4. West Lordenshaw 2c (Main Rock). Image: Aron Mazel.

72

Marking the Earth

Figure 5. East Lordenshaw 4b with long groove. Image: Aron Mazel.

Since the 1970s, there has been extensive engagement with Lordenshaw’s rock carvings. Not only from the perspective of locating and recording carved panels, particularly by Hewitt (1991), Beckensall (e.g., 1992, 2001), the Beckensall Archive Project (BAP, 2002-2004; Mazel and Ayestaran 2010), and the Northumberland and Durham Rock Art Project (NADRAP, 20042008; ERA 20191), but also through the creation of mobile interpretation for the rock carvings (Mazel et al. 2012; Galani et al. 2013), assessing the condition and preservation of open-air rock carvings during environmental change (Giesen et al. 2014), and the development of the first bespoke rock art monitoring app (Mazel and Giesen 2019). Panel types and motifs The dataset used in the chapter brings together information from BAP, which is in the author’s possession, supplemented with data from NADRAP (ERA 20192). At the completion of BAP, in December 2004, 111 carved panels were known at Lordenshaw. This was increased to 136 panels during NADRAP. Given that 25 new panels were recorded during NADRAP, it was deemed prudent to use its grid references for GIS purposes to ensure locational consistency rather than merging data from two different projects (ERA 2019). In contrast, motif data has, where possible, been drawn from BAP; where this was unavailable from BAP, the NADRAP motif descriptions along with the published drawings and photographs were consulted (ERA 2019). England’s Rock Art website (ERA; https://archaeologydataservice.ac.uk/era/) was decommissioned as an interactive website on 22 January 2021. The data from the ERA website used in the chapter was downloaded on 15 November 2019.

2 

73

Aron Mazel Motifs and panel information is available for 129 of the 136 (i.e., 94.9%) known Lordenshaw panels. The remaining seven panels were not relocated during BAP and NADRAP. Besides these seven panels, it is appreciated, as Beckensall (2001, 89) has noted, that, ‘Modern quarrying has certainly taken its toll, especially on the north west [of Lordenshaw], where masses of freestone have been removed, leaving holes in the ground like bomb craters, and the main block of rock art (2c) bears every sign of the quarrying process [Figure 6]. Add to that a network of other walls, including those for sheilings (temporary herds’ houses and gardens), and it is likely that we have lost a large proportion of rock art.’ Moreover, Beckensall (2001, 90) commented about the ridge which houses West Lordenshaw 2c that, ‘The whole of this ridge, an outcrop of freestone, has been quarried, so that any survivals are fortunate.’ He (2001, 89) also noted that ‘A few cupped rocks in the hillfort allow the possibility that some marked surfaces may have been destroyed during its construction, and the medieval Deer Park wall may account for others being broken up and reused.’ It is also possible that some motifs might have faded over the millennia as suggested by Hedley (1889) around 130 years ago. While we are unable to estimate the number of lost carvings and those still to be discovered, it is nonetheless proposed that an in-depth study of the Lordenshaw carved assemblage remains a legitimate and worthwhile exercise given the large number of known panels available for analysis, although acknowledging that it is an incomplete assemblage, which probably characterises many if not all rock carving areas in the UK and Ireland.

Figure 6. Evidence of quarrying at West Lordenshaw 2c. Image: Aron Mazel.

74

The range and proportions of panel types represented at Lordenshaw differ from the overall composition of panel types across Northumberland (Table 1). Besides there being no carved rock shelters at Lordenshaw, a function of local geology, the largest difference is reflected in the proportions of portable carved rocks. At the completion of BAP, in 2004, portables comprised 26.7% of the total panels in Northumberland, including specimens recovered from burial cairns and ceremonial monuments (Mazel 2007), while they constitute only 1.5% of the Lordenshaw assemblage. Although portables are known from throughout Northumberland, the overwhelming majority have been recorded in the north of the county, where many derive

Marking the Earth Table 1. Panel types identified in Northumberland (as at December 2004) and at Lordenshaw (as at November 2020). Northumberland (as at December 2004)

Lordenshaw (as at November 2020)

n

%

n

%

Art in the landscape - outcrop

399

37.6

77

56.6

Art in the landscape - boulders

271

25.5

46

33.8

Art in the landscape - unknown

9

0.8

-

-

Outcrops and boulders (art in the landscape) and burial cairn

1

0.1

-

-

Ceremonial monuments

16

1.5

4*

2.9

Ceremonial monuments (portable)

1

0.1

-

-

Burial cairns

62

5.8

7

5.1

Burial cairns (portables)

101

9.5

-

-

Portables

182

17.1

2

1.5

Rock shelters

19

1.8

-

-

1061

99.8

136

99.9

Total

* For purposes of this Table, the ‘Standing Stone’ recorded during NADRAP at Lordenshaw has been included with the Ceremonial Monuments.

from excavated sites such as Weetwood Moor (Beckensall 2001), Fowberry Moor (Beckensall 1991, 2001), and Hunterheugh 1 (Waddington et al. 2005). The implications of the paucity of portables at Lordenshaw for shedding light on the chronology of the area’s rock carvings will be addressed in the Discussion. Art in the Landscape-Outcrops (AL-Os) represents the most common type of panel in both Northumberland (37.6%) and Lordenshaw (57.0%) although, as can be seen, they form a greater proportion of the Lordenshaw assemblage (Table 1). In contrast, the proportions of Art in the Landscape-Boulders (AL-Bs) are closer at Lordenshaw (33.8%) and throughout Northumberland (25.5%) than AL-Os. Likewise, there are comparable proportions of Ceremonial Monuments (CMs) in Northumberland (5.8%) and Lordenshaw (5.1%), which is also the situation with Burial Cairns (BCs) at Lordenshaw (2.9%) when compared to Northumberland (1.5% excluding portables). The numbers of BCs are low at Lordenshaw (n=4) and throughout Northumberland (n=16) and, therefore, these differences need to be regarded with caution. In summary, there are both similarities and differences when comparing the proportions of panels types recorded in Northumberland and at Lordenshaw; however, overall AL-Os and AL-Bs are most predominant in both areas, together comprising 90.4% of the Lordenshaw and 63.9% of the Northumberland panels. To facilitate analysis, the Lordenshaw rock panels have been divided into four geographical groups (Figure 7; Table 2), with Group 1 the furthest north and Group 4 the furthest south. 75

Aron Mazel Groups 1 and 4 comprise the bulk of the Lordenshaw panels (n=47 and n=50 respectively), while there are considerably fewer panels in Groups 2 and 3 (n=10 and n=22 respectively). As revealed in Table 2, the northernmost groups, i.e., 1 and 2, are overwhelmingly comprised of AL-Os (70.2% and 70.0% respectively), with lower proportions of AL-Os in the south, i.e., 54.5% and 38.0% in Groups 3 and 4 respectively. In contrast, the proportion of AL-Bs generally increased from north to south, i.e., 25.5%, 30.0%, 18.2% and 54.0%, except for Group 3, where they are least represented due to the prevalence of BCs (18.2%) and CMs (9.1%). Interestingly, BCs and CMs are absent in Groups 1 and 2, which are at the lowest altitudes at Lordenshaw, but occur in Groups 3 and 4, which are at higher altitudes (Figure 8; Table 3). This phenomenon is reflected in the average altitudes of the different panel types above sea level, where AL-Os and AL-Bs are 206.5m and 215.3m respectively, while the BCs and CMs are 245.9m and 247.0m respectively. The overall altitude of Lordenshaw rock art is consistent with that found in general across Northumberland. According to Fairén-Jiménez (2007, 288), Northumberland’s rock art panels are concentrated between 125-300 metres above sea level but ‘More specifically, they followed a bi-modal distribution with two peaks in the 125-175 m and 200-250 m elevation ranges, where 78% of the known sites were located.’ The average altitude of Lordenshaw’s panels is consistent with Fairén-Jiménez’s (2007) latter group. While the altitudinal distribution of AL-Os and AL-Bs at Lordenshaw might, in part, have been influenced by the underlying geology, this would not have been the case with BCs and CMs whose placement reflects a deliberate decision by people to place them at higher altitudes. Their decision to do this will be considered further in the Discussion.

Figure 7. Distribution of the different types of panels Lordenshaw and the groups that have been placed in.

76

Marking the Earth Table 2. The panel types represented in the four geographical groups at Lordenshaw (see Figure 7). AL-O

AL-B

BC

CM

PRS

SS

Ttl

Group

n

%

n

%

n

%

n

%

n

%

n

%

1

33

70.2

12

25.5

-

-

-

-

1

2.1

1

2.1

12

54.5

4

18.2

4

18.2

2

9.1

-

-

-

-

2 3 4

7

19

70.0

38.0

3

27

30.0

54.0

-

3

-

-

6.0

1

-

2.0

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

47

10

22

50

AL-O = Art in the Landscape - Outcrop; AL-B = Art in the Landscape - Boulder; BC = Burial Cairn; CM = Ceremonial Monument; PRS = Portable; SS = Standing Stone.

Figure 8. The altitudes of different panels at Lordenshaw. Shown within the delineated groups. Table 3. Average altitude of panel types at Lordenshaw. Type of panel

n

Average altitude (m)

AL-O

71

206.5

7

245.9

AL-B BC CM

46

215.3

3

247.0

77

Aron Mazel We now turn to the motifs that were carved on the Lordenshaw panels. During BAP, 57 different types of motifs were identified across Northumberland (Mazel 2007). It is appreciated that more motif types occur across the UK and Ireland, however, to the best of my knowledge, a full list of these motifs has not, in recent times, been consolidated and published. Thirty types of motifs were recognised at Lordenshaw, i.e., 52.7%, of the total number of types identified in Northumberland during BAP (Table 4). Twenty-eight of the 30 motifs (i.e., 93.3%) occur on AL-Os, but this representation diminishes significantly when considering the number of motifs identified on other panels types: the carvers made ten motif types, i.e., 33.3% of the Lordenshaw motif types, on AL-Bs and BCs, while they made only three types of motifs (i.e., 10.0%) on CMs. Not only did the Lordenshaw carvers, therefore, deploy fewer types of motifs as a whole than those used across Northumberland, but they discriminated about the range of motifs they placed on different types of panels, rendering a greater variety of motifs on AL-Os than on other panel types. It is not known whether the discrimination between AL-Os, on the one hand, and AL-Bs, BCs, and CMs, on the other hand, identified at Lordenshaw characterises Northumberland as a whole; this requires further investigation. Considering the different types of motifs made by the Lordenshaw carvers, cups are, by a significant proportion, the most popular carved motif, occurring on 88.7% and 89.1% of the AL-O and AL-B panels respectively, and on all of the BC and CM panels (Table 4). This was not unsuspected, as the prevalence of cups made by Neolithic and EBA people across the UK and Ireland is well recognised. As noted by Sharpe et al. (2008, 3), ‘By far the most common design element is the simple cup-mark – a roughly circular hollow, usually between 3 and 10 cm in diameter and around 2-3 cm deep’. At a broader level, Bradley (1997) has emphasised that cups are an essential feature of Atlantic Art, while Valdez-Tullett (2019, 20) notes that the ‘cup-mark is an emblematic characteristic of Atlantic Rock Art and virtually present in every panel of this tradition, either in isolation or combined with other images’, which reflects the situation at Lordenshaw. Besides cups, linear and angular grooves are the only other motif that the carvers made on all the different types of panels at Lordenshaw, occurring on between 7.0% and 15.2% of all the panel types except for CMs, where they appear on one of the three panels (i.e., 33.3%) (Table 4). Leaving aside the CMs, none of the other motif types were made on more than 15% of the panels except for cup and rings (19.7%) and cup and grooves (16.9%) on AL-Os, reflecting the fact that overall the Lordenshaw carvers deployed a limited number of motifs on the different types of panels. This observation is reflected in Figure 9, which shows that other than ten of the AL-Os panels and one BC panel, none of the other panels (n=118) have more than three types of motifs represented on them. It is, therefore, evident that the Lordenshaw carvers generally worked with a limited repertoire of motifs, with the exception of some of the AL-O panels, such as West Lordenshaw 2c (Figure 4), and the BC panel of West Lordenshaw 1d (Figure 3). Now that we have a sense of the variety of motifs represented at Lordenshaw and their occurrence on different types of panels, we turn to how the motifs are distributed across the Lordenshaw landscape in relation to the different types of panels they were made on. As already mentioned, the Lordenshaw carved panels have been divided into four geographical groups to assist with their analysis (Figure 7; Table 2), with Group 1 the furthest north and Group 4 the furthest south. Unsurprisingly, the abovementioned ubiquity of cups across 78

Marking the Earth Table 4. Motifs on different panel types. The two PRSs and one SS are not included in the Table.

Motifs (name)

AL-O panels (n= 71)

Motifs (illustrated)

n

CM Total panels (n=3)

88.7

41

89.1

%

n 7

100.0

%

n 3

75.0

Cups in a straight or curved line

-

-

3

6.5

1

14.3

-

-

Cups countersunk

-

-

-

-

1

14.3

-

-

Domino

1

1.4

-

-

-

-

-

-

Mini-cups

8

12.7

3

6.5

-

-

-

-

Basin

6

8.5

5

10.9

-

-

-

-

Curved groove

5

7.0

-

-

1

14.3

-

-

Serpentine groove

1

1.4

-

-

-

-

-

-

Long groove

7

9.9

-

-

-

-

-

-

Cup and groove

12

16.9

2

4.4

-

-

1

25.0

Linear and angular groove

5

7.0

7

15.2

1

14.3

1

25.0

79

n

BC Total panels (n=7)

63

Cups

%

AL – B Total panels (n=46)

%

Aron Mazel

Motifs (name)

AL-O panels (n= 71)

Motifs (illustrated)

n

AL – B Total panels (n=46)

BC Total panels (n=7)

CM Total panels (n=3)

4

5.6

%

n

%

n

%

n

%

Cup, rings and multiple grooves

-

-

1

2.2

-

-

-

-

Arc

4

5.6

1

2.2

-

-

-

-

Multiple arcs

1

1.4

-

-

-

-

-

Cup and Arc

7

9.9

1

2.2

1

14.3

-

-

Cup and multiple arcs

1

1.4

-

-

-

-

-

-

Cup and groove with arc

3

4.2

-

-

-

-

-

-

Penannular

2

2.8

-

-

-

-

-

-

Multiple penannulars

2

2.8

-

-

-

-

-

-

Cup and groove with multiple penannulars

1

1.4

-

-

1

14.3

-

-

Cup and penannular

3

4.2

-

-

-

-

-

-

Two cups linked by a groove

80

-

-

-

-

-

Marking the Earth

Motifs (name)

AL-O panels (n= 71)

Motifs (illustrated)

n

AL – B Total panels (n=46)

BC Total panels (n=7)

CM Total panels (n=3)

1

1.4

%

n

%

n

%

n

%

Ring

1

1.4

-

-

-

-

-

-

Concentric rings

1

1.4

-

-

-

-

-

-

Cup and ring

14

19.7

1

2.2

1

14.3

-

-

Cup and multiple rings

4

5.6

-

-

1

14.3

-

-

Cup and ring with exterior groove

3

4.2

-

-

1

14.3

-

-

Cup with groove cutting through ring

3

4.2

-

-

-

-

-

-

Cup with groove cutting through multiple rings

1

1.4

-

-

-

-

-

-

Cup and multiple penannular

-

-

-

-

-

-

Lordenshaw is reflected in Figures 10a-d, which shows that they were made on all the Group 2 panels and over 90% of the panels in Groups 1, 3 and 4. Considering the number of cups made on each panel, it appears that, overall, the panels holding the largest number of cups tend to be in Groups 3 and 4 on the central and southern sides of Lordenshaw (Figure 11). Basins and mini-cups, which are morphologically most closely associated with cups were, combined, made on 21.2% (n=14) of the AL-O panels and 17.4% (n=8) of the AL-B panels, and occur in all four geographical groups, except for the absence of basins in Group 2 (Table 4). Neither of these motifs were made on BCs and CMs. Excluding Group 2, which has only 10 panels, there are low proportions of mini-cups (4,3%, 10.0% and 8,0%) and basins (6,4%, 4,5%, and 14,0%) in Groups 1, 3 and 4 respectively (Figures 10a, c and d), with only basins in Group 81

Aron Mazel

Figure 9. Numbers of motifs represented on the different types of panels.

4 being on more than 10% of the panels. Geographically, mini-cups and basins are randomly dispersed within these groups, but notably, three of the panels with mini-cups in Group 4 are in reasonable proximity to each other, appearing to represent some form of localised pattern (Figure 10d). Overall, the carvers made a limited number of mini-cups on each panel (i.e., 1.5 m high

Number of carved stones from which Natural Monument can be seen

41/DSS 01 Doubler 1

27

237/CSE 02 The Neb Stone

25

302/PR 05 The Haystack

43

332/PST 01 The Pancake

19

355/GCS 13 H2

33

Other Large Upstanding Stones, all >1.5 m high

Number of carved stones from which Large Upstanding Stone can be seen

43/RV 01*

8

66/RV 22*

2

82/RV 31*

14

210/AC 01

1

211/HAH 01

4

213/HH 01

3

214/WC 01*

8

215/WC 02

2

222/CSE 01

3

258/WHW 01

0

to create views (Brown 2000; Berg 2001). Furthermore, as rock art was probably being made and used over perhaps 2000 years (Waddington 2007), we should not presume that all the views were possible, all the time; smaller, specific areas might have been cleared at specific times. The very high visibilities of these five rock art sites from other, mostly much smaller and lower-level rock art sites, can however be seen as circumstantial evidence that these views were indeed available (Figure 2). All five proposed natural monuments are in the north of the Moor above the Wharfe valley, three of them on Green Crag Slack, an elevated terrace area in the north east of the Moor. Almost all of the carved stones on Green Crag Slack have a view of at least one of these three natural monuments (Figure 3). The carved stones from which the natural monuments are visible are often a considerable distance away from them, often more than 0.5km and sometimes up to as much as 2km. However, these visibilities were all seen in the field, and are enhanced by the natural monuments often being seen fully or partially skylined. Thus, if the views were indeed significant, it indicates that approaching the natural monument too closely might not have been permitted, or was felt to be unsafe, as discussed below. The existence of two kinds of sites, natural monuments and ‘satellite’ stones, may allow some insights into the carvers and their world, via an examination of the very different physical engagements that the rock demanded of the carver.

152

Figure 3. Natural Monuments of Rombalds Moor, Green Crag Slack detail, showing three of the proposed Natural Monuments. Image: © Crown copyright/database right 2018.  Ordnance Survey/EDINA supplied service.

The Carver and the Rock: The Physicality of Carving

153

Vivien Deacon Within the fairly large locales around the natural monument from which it could be seen, it is entirely possible that some of the carved stones were carved for reasons unconnected to the natural monuments – as were all the stones on the rest of the Moor from which no natural monument is visible. The study database included 247 carved stones other than the natural monuments. The majority, 56%, do have a view of one or more of the natural monuments, with 44% not having such views. Furthermore, the density of carvings within these locales of visibility compared to outside them suggests that the natural monuments were indeed attracting carving, and that many or most of the carvings within these locales were carved for that reason (Figure 2). Stones obviously outside this system, that is, those situated outside the locales of visibility surrounding the natural monuments, include many of the most intricately carved stones on the Moor. They too made physical demands on the carver, but it is much more difficult to surmise why they were carved and therefore to draw any conclusions from the physicality of carving these sites. A cup takes perhaps an hour to make, and a cup-and-ring motif, if made in a single operation, might require two hours’ work or more. A one-handed technique, using a hammerstone, could have been used; for a motif requiring more precision, a hard-stone chisel with a mallet might have been used, thus requiring two hands (Lamdin-Whymark 2011; Lødøen 2015). The five natural monuments are now described and discussed; also considered are four of the smaller carved stones from which at least one of the natural monuments can be seen, chosen to illustrate some of the points outlined above. Proposed natural monuments: Site 41/DSS 01 Doubler 1 Site 41/DSS 01 Doubler 1 is a very large outcrop site on the edge of an upper terrace near the north-western end of Rombalds Moor. Very prominent at the top of a cliff, it is a rocky tower standing over 2m high above the level of the upper terrace, and about 5m above the rocks of the terrace level below (Figure 4). There are two grooves, and about 25 cups, not all the same size; there could have been multiple carvers, with motifs added at different times. This is a dangerous site to carve. All the carvings are on the topmost surface, reached by a scramble from the upper terrace level. The carving surface is essentially horizontal, but it is hazardous to stand upright as there are several large deep natural basins, and the site is very windy. Most of the motifs are above the 5m drop to the rocks of the lower terrace level, and a fall would probably be fatal. There is a companion stone, 42/DSS 02 Doubler 2, with two cups on its top (Boughey and Vickerman 2003, 53). It is a mushroom-shaped tower also standing 2m above the upper terrace level, but it is set well back from the cliff edge, and although very difficult to climb (neither the author nor the CSI recording team managed it), it is much less hazardous than Doubler 1. I suggest that Doubler 1 is the natural monument here, though whenever Doubler 1 can be seen from a carved stone, Doubler 2 can be seen as well, and it is possible that they were considered a monumental pair. They are visible from 27 carved stones, though mostly from 154

The Carver and the Rock: The Physicality of Carving

Figure 4. Site 41/DSS 01 Doubler 1. Top: Doubler 1 seen from lower terrace level. All the motifs are on its top, mostly at far right, over a drop of about 5m to the rocks below. Bottom: Doubler 1 seen from the upper terrace level. The route to the carving surface is at centre. Images: V. Deacon and P. Deacon.

155

Vivien Deacon a substantial distance away, often as much as 2km. However, an area of land, visible in the background in the Figure 4 images, is rather closer but has been cleared, and carved stones might have been lost. A carver working on Doubler 1, crouched down on top of the rock, could neither be seen nor heard from the upper terrace level, as discovered during the fieldwork. However, at the bottom of the cliff on the terrace level below, a carver would look very impressive, very visible, their work perhaps audible, and the risks they were taking very clear. Proposed natural monuments: Site 237/CSE 02 the Neb Stone This slab of stone stands high on Ilkley Moor, well down from the moortop. It is the only one of the natural monuments that was not definitely carved; Allen (1882) described it as cupmarked, though no illustration from this period could be found. Rather more than a century later, Boughey and Vickerman (2003, 75) described it as ‘possibly cup-marked’. It is thus unclear where any carvings might have been. It looks like a gigantic paving stone, and is about 3m long, 0.5m thick and 4m wide. It stands tilted at an angle of about 30°, such that its upper edge, which may have been quarried, is now about 1.5m above the ground (Figure 5). Its visual impact is reduced by a modern wall right next to it, and the probable loss of material from its free edge. It is visible from 25 carved stones.

Figure 5. Site 237/CSE 02 the Neb Stone. Top left: view from east. Top right: view from north. Bottom: View west from 250/BST 01 the Badger Stone, about 0.8km away. The Neb Stone is seen skylined and edge-on. Seven other carved stones also have edge-on views. Images: V. Deacon and P. Deacon.

156

The Carver and the Rock: The Physicality of Carving It has a smooth, nearly featureless surface, so with a tilt of about 30°, it is impossible to get onto the stone without immediately sliding off. However, the views of this stone, both closeup and from some distance away, are very impressive. Perhaps people thought that it could not have come to this position in any natural way, and must have been placed by supernatural agency. Carving this ‘impossibly’ placed large stone, itself very difficult to carve, may have been a privilege, and also an impressive thing to do, as any carving not directly accessible from the base could only have been made using some kind of scaffolding or a supportive assistant. Proposed natural monuments: Site 332/PST 01 the Pancake The second hazardous site, 332/PST 01 the Pancake, is a very large rhomboidal slab sitting atop a rock stack on the edge of Green Crag Slack, and overlooking the terrace below (Figure 6). Again, the carvings are on the uppermost surface, badly eroded even when recorded in Victorian times; Boughey and Vickerman (2003, 87) describe 40 cups, with six to eleven 1-ring cup-and-rings, and grooves. The motifs seem randomly scattered and may have been carved by different people at different times. Most of the carvings cannot be seen unless the viewer walks right out onto the stone, which is not difficult to do, but very dangerous. On Ilkley Moor Lower Terrace below, there are 11 carved stones: the Pancake can be seen from all of them, with its top skylined. Its top can also be seen from a further eight sites on Green Crag Slack.

Figure 6. Site 332/PST 01 the Pancake Stone. This site stands perched on cliff outcrop, on the edge of Green Crag Slack and above Ilkley Moor Lower Terrace. The carvings are on the topmost surface, centre and left, above the drop onto boulders below. Image: V. Deacon and P. Deacon. 

157

Vivien Deacon From different viewpoints, the Pancake resembles a bird perched on the rock, or a grotesque human head in profile. For a few days in autumn and again in spring, and for just a few minutes, the underneath of the topmost slab is backlit by the setting sun, so that when viewed from Ilkley Moor Lower Terrace, there appear to be strange shimmering lights under the rock. This is perhaps more dangerous for a carver than even Doubler 1. It is relatively easy to walk out onto the carving surface, but it slopes quite steeply downwards, with a 4-5m drop onto the rocks below. Neither the author nor the CSI recording teams ventured out onto the surface of this stone. A fall would likely be fatal. A carver, however, would have been impressively visible from below, someone embracing real danger in order to carve the rock. Proposed natural monuments: Site 302/PR 05 the Haystack This very large earthfast boulder also stands on Green Crag Slack, towards its western end, near, but set back from the terrace edge. It is about 6m long, 4.5m wide and 1.8m high. It is a rectilinear block, with four vertical sides, and what looks like two gable ends and a roof, looking like a house or an old-fashioned haystack. It is very reminiscent of some of the Scandinavian sacred sites (Mulk 1994; Bradley 2000, 3-13; Lahelma 2005; Mulk and BaylissSmith 2007); perhaps people thought it was inhabited by supernatural beings. It can be seen from 43 carved stones, all on Green Crag Slack (Figure 7). It is heavily carved, with ten 1-ring cup-and-rings, about 50-60 cups and a number of grooves. Only the ‘roof ’ is carved, with all the cup-and-rings along the topmost ridge and the northern

Figure 7. Site 302/PR 05 the Haystack. The north face is shown, with several cup-and-rings and many cups visible.  Behind is the Green Crag Slack terrace. Image: V. Deacon and P. Deacon.

158

The Carver and the Rock: The Physicality of Carving face, with cups and grooves only on the other side. The carvings do not seem to form an overall design, and the cups seem to be different sizes; motifs may have been added accretionally. Although some of the lower motifs might have been carved whilst the carver remained standing on the ground, to make most of them would have required getting up onto the rock, perhaps even lying down on it. If standing on the ground, carving the motifs would have been uncomfortable, working at arm’s length. If on the rock, the body would perhaps need to be extended, lying against the stone, especially if a mallet and chisel were used. This would surely be uncomfortable, and perhaps painful, given the time required to make the carvings. The decision to make the motifs where they are means that the rock makes very real physical demands of the carver. Carving would not have been particularly impressive of itself, but if only certain people were permitted to carve here, the act of carving would have demonstrated the person’s prestige and elite status. Proposed natural monuments: Site 355/GCS 13 H2 The third natural monument on Green Crag Slack is 355/GCS 13 H2. This is a roughly rectilinear rock standing towards the centre of Green Crag Slack, in gently rolling ground. It is not dangerous to carve, though perhaps uncomfortable and physically demanding. It is difficult to assess how it was in prehistory, as it has been quarried, largely at the northern end, leaving spoil banks around the sides and a deep, water-filled quarrying pit. It is now about 4m long, 3m wide and 1.7m high, though the ground level in prehistory might have been lower, making it taller. Its quarried northern face now looks like a gable-ended house (hence its name Haystack 2 or the Little Haystack), but the unquarried south face is pitted and marked by natural basins (not cups). The south face resembles a monster. This is such a clear resemblance that it seems likely that people in prehistory saw it in the same way, perhaps a monster heaving itself out of the underworld, prompting both the carving on the rock itself, and the carving of the 33 carved stones from which it can be seen (Figure 8). There are now four or five cups and a cup-and-ring-and-groove motif, close together and high on the east face near the quarried northern end, about as far away from the monstrous aspect as possible. Other motifs could have been lost to quarrying. The motifs are now about 1.5m above ground level, on an angled rock face, and could have been made by leaning on the rock, working uncomfortably at about head height. Alternatively, the carver might have got onto the rock, and if working with mallet and chisel, would have had to lie down on it whilst working. Smaller stones: Site 372/WB 12 This is a large flat ground-level stone on Green Crag Slack, measuring about 3m x 3m, one of the larger ground-level stones. On its western half, there is a 1.5m x 1m panel of cups and grooves, with several rounded groove boxes enclosing 10-15 cups (Figure 9). It is one of a cluster of 12 carved stones on Green Crag Slack lying in an area less than 20m wide and 90m long, with H2 visible from all of them. This is shown as ‘Woofa group’ in Figure 3 above. As it has been suggested that limited clearances might have been made to create views (Berg 2001; Brown 2000), this might represent a corridor of clearance ‘aimed’ at H2. 159

Vivien Deacon

Figure 8. Site 355/GCS 13 H2. Top left: H2, showing quarried north face. The motifs are high on the east face, seen left, and close to the north face. Top right: H2 from the west, with quarried north face at left, quarrying pit and spoil bank visible. Bottom: the monstrous south face.  Images: V. Deacon and P. Deacon.

Site 372/WB 12 was probably exposed by erosion about 50 years ago (Feather 1971, 243). Presumably covered over for much of the time before that, the narrow grooves look very fresh and, in some cases, unfinished, and tiny peck marks can be seen. A hard-stone chisel was probably used, and the carver must have gone down on all fours to carve this, perhaps kneeling on the rock at times, taking several hours, and inevitably incurring backache and sore knees. It is far from glamorous, and the carver must have looked far from impressive when carving it, but the number of hours’ work it represents demonstrates the importance of this work to the carver.

160

The Carver and the Rock: The Physicality of Carving

Figure 9. Site 372/WB 12 (detail). Individual peck marks are clearly visible at the upper left. Image: V. Deacon and P. Deacon.

Smaller stones: Site 304/CC 01 This small ground-level stone stands on Ilkley Moor. It is roughly triangular, with a rounded apex. It is less than 1m long and 0.5m wide, with a nearly featureless horizontal surface. There is a single cup near the rounded apex, facing towards the Pancake (Figure 10). It stands on a threshold, where a steep path up from the Wharfe reaches a flat terrace. There are two other very similar carved stones just nearby. This is the first opportunity to see across the terrace to 332/PST 01 the Pancake, a rock stack in the next steep slope below Green Crag Slack. Site 304/CC 01 is hardly impressive, and not easy to find, even in very short vegetation. It cannot be a route-marker, as the walker has to be on the route to have any chance at all of finding it. The cup can be interpreted as an act of recognition at first sight of the Pancake; making it requires getting right down into an uncomfortable position, crouched forward or on hands and knees perhaps, for about an hour (Lamdin-Whymark 2011; Lødøen 2015). Smaller stones: Site 252/GG 02 This is a particularly interesting stone, which stands at Green Gates on Ilkley Moor, in the north of Rombalds Moor (Figure 11). To the west, there is a view of the Neb Stone, distant but clear, 0.8km. away, and seen edge-on, very like the view from 250/BST 01 nearby, shown in Figure 5 above. 252/GG 02 is comprised of two different sandstones, the upper one coarser 161

Vivien Deacon

Figure 10. Site 304/CC 01. The rock is carved with one cup, seen at the top. Image: V. Deacon and P. Deacon.

and paler than the lower; there is a clear line of demarcation with a few natural ridges running parallel. The stone stands in a small puddle. Fieldwork showed six carved stones to be standing in a puddle, and puddles such as these were thought by Evans (1999, 90) to be formed by sheep lying down in the lee of the rock. Six stones out of a database of 252 is a very small number, but four of them have a view of the Neb Stone, of which three have an edgeon view. It is perhaps possible that some of these puddles were formed by rainwater running downslope, and carvings were made in connection with the water, although puddles seem to be too ephemeral to persist over thousands of years. There is a complex panel of a 2-ring cup-and-ring, with grooves around it that run down the rock and into the water; further grooves also run down the rock and into the water. All the motifs are below, and seem to emanate from, the line of change in rock composition. Because of the angle of the carving surface, it would have been quite difficult to reach for carving, particularly if the puddle were there. If a one-handed technique were employed, the carver might very well have steadied themself with the free hand on the apex of the rock. However, the grooves are so narrow and close together that it seems likely that a hard-stone chisel with a mallet was used, making the carving position unsupported and uncomfortable, crouched over the little rock for the hours of work necessary to make this small but intricate panel. It is tempting to make an animist interpretation of the relationship between the line of demarcation and the emerging motifs, and the manner in which the motifs thereupon run down into the water.

162

The Carver and the Rock: The Physicality of Carving

Figure 11. Site 252/GG 02 on Green Gates, Ilkley Moor. Image: V. Deacon and P. Deacon.

Smaller stones: Site 225/SW 01 This large, near-ground level rock, with a horizontal carving surface, stands on Ilkley Moor at Silver Wells (Figure 12). Although now quite eroded, about 15-20 cups can be seen, all in the south-eastern quadrant. It is now partly overgrown, but it was clear when surveyed by Boughey and Vickerman (2003, 131), who found no further cups under today’s vegetation. The cups face towards the Neb Stone, which can be seen obliquely and partially skylined uphill to the south east, about 240m away. Some of the cups are over 1m from the edge of the rock, and probably could not have been made if the carver were sitting cross-legged; they would probably have had to get down onto hands and knees, and lean across the rock, working perhaps with a hammerstone, about an hour per cup. The cups are not all the same size. It is unknown if a carver had a standard way of making a cup, or had a repertoire of cups, but there may have been multiple carvers at work here, perhaps at different times. The physicality of carving The carver may have chosen the rock for many reasons, but these must have included due consideration for the physical demands that carving it would entail. These considerations include the difficulties and dangers of carving the site, being watched whilst undertaking carving, and the accessibility of the carvings afterwards. By reflecting on this, we can discern two kinds of sites: a small group of prominent, visually remarkable, monumental sites, and a far more numerous group of much smaller, low-level, visually unremarkable and reticent sites, from which the monumental sites could be seen. 163

Vivien Deacon

Figure 12. Site 225/SW 01 on Silver Wells, Ilkley Moor. Image: V. Deacon and P. Deacon.

There are two caveats. Firstly, these observations only relate to Rombalds Moor, and I do not know if similar patterns of carving can be found elsewhere. Secondly, even on Rombalds Moor, this system of carving does not include all the carved stones on the Moor, as 44% of the carved stones do not offer views of any of the natural monuments. Even within the locales of visibility around the natural monuments, it is likely that some carvings were made for unrelated reasons. However, looking at the densely carved areas offering views of the natural monuments, particularly on Green Crag Slack, as compared to the other, more sparsely carved areas, a case can be made that most of these carvings were made in response to the natural monuments. The physicalities of carving the five natural monuments can all provide a spectacle for observers, and a demonstration of the prestige of the carver, but the natural monuments are not all the same, requiring different levels of risk-taking and submission to the demands of the rock. All the natural monuments are highly visible and remarkably shaped: a house, a monster, an ‘impossibly’ placed, huge, angled slab, and two dangerous-to-carve, cliff-edge towers. They might have been perceived as spiritually dangerous as well; this is suggested by the number of carved stones from which they are visible being set at significant distances away. The carvers working on the natural monuments themselves might have been religious specialists, with special privileges to carve these sites. They might also have acquired status or renown by taking such physical and spiritual risks. There may have been many carvers; there is no apparent design unity on the natural monuments, and motifs might have been added by different people, at different times. 164

The Carver and the Rock: The Physicality of Carving The sites from which a natural monument can be seen are mostly small, ground-level rocks, often with just a cup or two, and not readily visible afterwards. Carving them would have been unimpressive; indeed, most required the carver to get down low to the ground, kneeling or on all fours, in what today would be seen as a humble position. The people who carved these sites were perhaps ordinary people rather than religious specialists. However, these sites too impose a bodily relationship on their carvers, and a study of these is no less illuminating than a study of the rather more glamorous natural monuments. These findings are reminiscent of Keyser and colleagues’ work (2005) in the Dalles-Deschutes region of the north-western United States, where religious specialists, shamans, made larger, very visible images on sites that were challenging to reach, and ordinary people made smaller, lower-lying images on sites that were easy to reach but where the images were not readily visible. The physicalities of the two kinds of image-making were both reflecting the makers’ identities, and also serving to reinforce those identities. On Rombalds Moor, there is a similar system of carving prominent sites that may have carried a strong supernatural element, along with many smaller, low-level, low-key sites with views of them. These behaviours, similar to the rock-carving behaviours of the Dalles-Deschutes people, suggest there might even have been a similar underlying cosmology. This is a different way of approaching British rock art, and these interpretations can currently only be taken as applying to Rombalds Moor. However, it is hoped that this approach will stimulate discussion, and perhaps a further look at rock art in other areas of Britain. Bibliography Allen, J. R., 1882. Notice of sculptured rocks near Ilkley, Journal of the British Archaeological Association, 38, 158. Berg, D., 2001. The Physical Environment. In A New Link to the Past: The Archaeological Landscape of the A1-M1 Link Road, edited by I. Roberts, A. Burgess and D. Berg, 3-9. Yorkshire Archaeology 7. Leeds: WYAS. Boughey, K. J. S. and Vickerman, E. A., 2003. Prehistoric Rock Art of the West Riding: Cup and Ring Marked Rocks of the Valleys of the Aire, Wharfe, Washburn and Nidd. Leeds: West Yorkshire Archaeological Services. Boughey, K. J. S. and Vickerman, E. A., 2013. Prehistoric Rock Art of the West Riding: Cup and Ring Marked Rocks of the Valleys of the Aire, Wharfe, Washburn and Nidd: Supplementary CD. Leeds: West Yorkshire Archaeological Services. Bradley, R., 1997. Rock Art and the Prehistory of Atlantic Europe: Signing the Land. Abingdon: Routledge. Bradley, R., 2000. An Archaeology of Natural Places. London: Routledge. Bradley, R. and Edmonds, M., 1993. Interpreting the Axe Trade. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Brown, A.G., 2000. Floodplain Vegetation History: Clearings as Potential Ritual Spaces? In A.S. Fairburn (ed.) Plants in Neolithic Britain and Beyond: Neolithic Studies Group Seminar Papers 5, Oxford: Oxbow Books, pp. 49-62. Carmichael, D., Hubert, J. and Reeves, B., 1994. Introduction. In D.L. Carmichael, J. Hubert, B. Reeves and A. Schanche (eds.) Sacred Sites, Sacred Places. London: Routledge, pp. 1-8. 165

Vivien Deacon Conneller, C., 2011. The Mesolithic. In T. Insoll (ed.) in The Oxford Handbook of the Archaeology of Ritual and Religion, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 358-370. Deacon, V., 2020a. The rock art landscapes of Rombalds Moor, West Yorkshire: standing on holy ground. Oxford: Archaeopress. Deacon, V., 2020b. The rock art of Rombalds Moor, West Yorkshire, and its relationships to natural monuments. Time and Mind, 13(1), 79-103. DOI: 10.1080/1751696X.2020.1718313 Edmonds, M., 2001. Prehistory in the Peak. Stroud: Tempus. Evans, J. G., 1999. Land and archaeology: histories of human environment in the British Isles. Stroud: Tempus. Feather, S., 1971. Ilkley (WR), Green Crag Slack, Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, 42, 243. Freedman, D., Jones, A. M. and Riggott, P., 2011. Rock art and the Kilmartin landscape. In A.M. Jones, D. Freedman, B. O’Connor, H. Lamdin-Whymark, R. Tipping, and A. Watson (eds.) An Animate Landscape: Rock Art and the Prehistory of Kilmartin, Argyll, Scotland, Oxford: Oxbow, Windgather Press, pp. 222-249. Goldhahn, J., 2002. Roaring Rocks: An Audio-visual Perspective on Hunter-gatherer Engravings in Northern Sweden and Scandinavia, Norwegian Archaeological Review, 35(1), 29-61. Insoll, T., 2011. Animism and Totemism. In T. Insoll (ed.) The Oxford Handbook of the Archaeology of Ritual and Religion, Oxford: Oxford University Press, Oxford: Oxford University Press. 1004-1016. Jones, A., 2001. Enduring images: Image production and memory in Earlier Bronze Age Scotland. In J. Brück (ed.) Bronze Age Landscapes: Tradition and Transformation, Oxford: Oxbow, 217-228. Jones, A.M., 2011. Encountering Rock Art. In A.M. Jones, D. Freedman, B. O’Connor, H. LamdinWhymark, R. Tipping, and A. Watson (eds.) An Animate Landscape: Rock Art and the Prehistory of Kilmartin, Argyll, Scotland, Oxford: Oxbow, Windgather Press, pp. 4-9. Jones, A.M. 2012. Living Rocks: Animacy, Performance and the Rock Art of the Kilmartin Region, Argyll, Scotland. In A. Cochrane and A.M. Jones (eds.) Visualising the Neolithic: Abstraction, Figuration, Performance, Representation. Oxford: Oxbow Books, pp. 79-88. Jones, A.M., 2012. Living rocks: animacy, performance and the rock art of the Kilmartin region, Argyll, Scotland. In A. Cochrane and A.M. Jones (eds.) Visualising the Neolithic: Abstraction, figuration, performance, representation. Oxford: Oxbow, pp. 79-88. Jones, A.M., Freedman, D., O’Connor, B., Lamdin-Whymark, H., Tipping, R. and Watson, A., (eds.) 2011. An Animate Landscape: Rock Art and the Prehistory of Kilmartin, Argyll, Scotland. Oxford: Oxbow, Windgather Press. Jones, A.M. and Tipping, R., 2011. From Geology to Microtopography: Rock Art and the Rock Surface. In A.M. Jones, D. Freedman, B. O’Connor, H. Lamdin-Whymark, R. Tipping, and A. Watson (eds.) An Animate Landscape: Rock Art and the Prehistory of Kilmartin, Argyll, Scotland, Oxford: Oxbow, Windgather Press, pp. 12-35. Jordan, P., 2008. Northern Landscapes, Northern Mind: On the Trail of an Archaeology of Hunter-Gatherer Belief. In D.S. Whitley and K. Hays-Gilpin (eds.) Belief in the Past: Theoretical Approaches to the Archaeology of Religion, Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press, pp. 227-246. Jordan, P., 2011. Landscape and Culture in Northern Eurasia: An Introduction. In P. Jordan (ed.) Landscape and Culture in Northern Eurasia, Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press, pp. 17-45. Keyser, J.D., Taylor, M.W. and Poetschat, G.R., 2005. Echoes of the Ancients: Rock Art of the DallesDeschutes Region. Portland: Oregon Archaeological Society. Lahelma, A., 2005. Between the worlds: rock art, landscape and shamanism in Subneolithic Finland. Norwegian Archaeological Review 38(1): 29-47.

166

The Carver and the Rock: The Physicality of Carving Lamdin-Whymark, H., 2011. Lithics, Landscape and Performance. In M. Jones, D. Freedman, B. O’Connor, H. Lamdin-Whymark, R. Tipping and A. Watson (eds.) An Animate Landscape: Rock Art and the Prehistory of Kilmartin, Argyll, Scotland, Oxford: Oxbow, Windgather Press, pp. 178-201. Lewis-Williams, D. and Dowson, T., 1990. Through the Veil: San Rock Paintings and the Rock Face, South African Archaeological Bulletin, 45, 5-16. Little, A., Elliott, B., Conneller, C., Pomstra, D., Evans, A.A., Fitton, L.C., Holland, A., Davis, R., Kershaw, R., O’Connor, S., O’Connor, T., Sparrow, T., Wilson, A.S., Jordan, P., Collins, M.J., Colonese, A.C., Craig, O.E., Knight, R., Lucquin, A.J.R., Taylor, B.and Milner, N., 2016. Technological Analysis of the World’s Earliest Shamanic Costume: A Multi-Scalar, Experimental Study of a Red Deer Headdress from the Early Holocene Site of Star Carr, North Yorkshire, UK, PLoS ONE, 11(4), e0152136 Lødøen, T.K., 2015. The Method and Physical Processes Behind the Making of Hunters’ Rock Art in Western Norway: The Experimental Production of Images. In H. Stebergløkken, R. Berge, E. Lindgaard, and H.V. Stuedal (eds.) Ritual Landscapes and Borders Within Rock Art Research: Papers in Honour of Professor Kalle Sognnes, Oxford: Archaeopress, pp. 67-77. Loubser, J. H. N., 2010. Prefigured in the Human Mind and Body: Toward an Ethnographically Informed Cognitive Archaeology of Metaphor and Religion. Time and Mind 3(2): 183–214. DOI:10.2752/175169610X12632240392794. Morris, D., 2010. Snake and Veil: The Rock Engravings of Dreikopseiland, Northern Cape, South Africa. In G. Blundell, C. Chippindale and B. Smith (eds.) Seeing and Knowing: Understanding Rock art With and Without Ethnography, Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press, pp. 36-53. Mulk, I-M., 1994. Sacrificial places and their meaning in Saami society. In D.L. Carmichael, J Hubert, B. Reeves and A. Schanche (eds.), Sacred sites, sacred places, 121-131. London: Routledge. Mulk, I-M., 2014. Depictions in Sami Rock Art of the Mother Earth Figure. In E.E. DjaltchinovaMalec (ed.) Shamanhood and art, Warsaw: Polish Institute of World Art Studies, pp. 47-72. Mulk, I-M. and Bayliss-Smith, T., 2007. Liminality, Rock Art and the Sami Sacred Landscape, Journal of Northern Studies, 1(1-2), 95-122. Ouzman, S., 2001. Seeing is Deceiving: Rock art and the Non-visual, World Archaeology, 33(2), 237-256. Price, N., 2010. Beyond Rock art: Archaeological Interpretation and the Shamanic Frame, In G. Blundell, C. Chippindale and B. Smith (eds.) Seeing and Knowing: Understanding Rock art With and Without Ethnography. Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press, pp. 281-289. Price, N., 2011. Shamanism. In T. Insoll (ed.) The Oxford Handbook of the Archaeology of Ritual and Religion. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 903-1003. Scarre, C., 2008. Shrines of the Land and Places of Power: Religion and the Transition to Farming in Western Europe. In D.S. Whitley and K. Hays-Gilpin (eds.) Belief in the Past: Theoretical Approaches to the Archaeology of Religion. Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press, pp. 209226. Thomas, J., 2011. Ritual and Religion in the Neolithic. In T. Insoll (ed.) The Oxford Handbook of the Archaeology of Ritual and Religion. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 371-386. Thomas, J., 2013. The Birth of Neolithic Britain: An Interpretive Account. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Tilley, C., 1991. Material Culture and Text: The Art of Ambiguity. London: Routledge. Turpin, S., 2001. Archaic North America. In D. S. Whitley (ed.) Handbook of Rock Art Research,. Walnut Creek: AltaMira Press, pp. 361-413. 167

Vivien Deacon Vinnicombe, P., 2010. Meaning Cannot Rest or Stay the Same. In G. Blundell, C. Chippindale and B. Smith (eds.) Seeing and Knowing: Understanding Rock art With and Without Ethnography. Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press. pp. 241-249. Waddington, C., 1996. Putting rock art to use: a model of early Neolithic transhumance in north Northumberland, Northern Archaeology, 13/14, 147-178. Waddington, C., 2007. Neolithic rock art in the British Isles: retrospect and prospect. In A. Mazel, G. Nash and C. Waddington (eds.) Art as metaphor: the prehistoric rock art of Britain. Oxford: Archaeopress, pp. 49-68. Whitley, D., 1998. Finding Rain in the Desert: Landscape, Gender and Far Western North American Rock art. In C. Chippindale and P. S. C. Taçon (eds.) The archaeology of rock art, edited by Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 11-29. Whitley, D.S., 2006. Is there a shamanism and rock art debate? Before Farming, 4(7), 1-7. Whitley, D., 2010. Art and Belief: The Ever-changing and the Never-changing in the Far West. In G. Blundell, C. Chippindale and B. Smith (eds.) Seeing and Knowing: Understanding Rock art With and Without Ethnography. Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press, pp. 116-137. Whitley, D., 2011. Rock Art, Religion and Ritual. In T. Insoll (ed.) The Oxford Handbook of the Archaeology of Ritual and Religion. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 307-326. Whitley, D.S., Simon, J. M and Dorn, R.I., 1999. The vision quest in the Coso Range, American Indian Rock Art, 25, 1-31. Zvelebil, M., 2008. Innovating Hunter-gatherers: the Mesolithic in the Baltic. In G. Bailey and P. Spikins (eds.), Mesolithic Europe, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 18-59.

168

A Wirral Enigma: Understanding the Origins of the Willaston Stones

Ron Cowell1, George Nash2 and Elizabeth Stewart1 National Museums Liverpool Centro de Geociências da Universidade de Coimbra and Instituto Politécnico de Tomar 1

2

Introduction A site on farmland in south Wirral has produced archaeological evidence that presents as many questions as answers in the study of the Bronze Age in northwest England. The discovery on the site of carved stones and cremation burials initially made it seem like a rare and important discovery had been made. Subsequent research, however, has led to the site becoming something of a fascinating enigma. The prehistoric rock art of the northwest is represented by two Neolithic sites: the destroyed Calderstones Neolithic passage grave and a large nearby standing stone or menhir known as the Robin Hood Stone (Stewart et al. 2021). The discovery, between 2010 and 2014, of six slabs of sandstone bearing carved rock art by a farmer and a metal detectorist in a field near Willaston was a hint of potentially similar prehistoric activity in south Wirral. Further ploughing revealed evidence for Bronze Age burials and archaeologists from the Museum of Liverpool investigated the site. In this chapter, the authors discuss the origins and context of the six stone slabs and suggest that the enigma still lives on. Discovery of the rock art Three large sandstone slabs (MOL LI 3/2015.1-3) bearing carvings were brought to the attention of Museum of Liverpool archaeologists in 2010. They had come from farmland to the north of Willaston, south Wirral (Figure 1). Subsequent work on the site that the stones came from was only permitted by the farmer on the proviso that the exact location of the site was not publicised, and this agreement has determined the content of some aspects of this report. In 2011, further ploughing and metal detecting in the same area as the stones revealed a fragmented Bronze Age pot (MOL LI 3/2015.9 MOL LI 3/2015.12) and associated cremated bone (MOL LI 3/2015.10 and 11). In 2014, a further three stones (MOL LI 3/2015.4-6) bearing similar carvings to the first group were reported, having been found in the same area as the initial discoveries. These discoveries were again reported to the Museum of Liverpool team and loaned to the museum for research. All six stones are carved with shapes consistent with megalithic art, but their style is not altogether similar to prehistoric art in northwest England and elsewhere. The megalithic art tradition in mainland Britain is rare with just a handful of sites: two passage graves in Anglesey [Ynys Môn] (North Wales); around ten sites in Scotland (including Orkney); and Signalling and performance (Archaeopress 2022): 169–190

Ron Cowell, George Nash and Elizabeth Stewart

Figure 1. Location of study area.

two sites in Liverpool, the destroyed Calderstones (passage grave) monument and the Robin Hoods Stone, both standing within the parish of Allerton (Lynch 1970; Shee-Twohig 1981; Nash 2006, 2010; Nash and Stanford 2009; Stewart et al. 2021). The two Liverpool monuments stand approximately 12.5km northeast of the Willaston discovery across the River Mersey. Their landscape is dotted with Neolithic and Bronze Age finds and two further lost Neolithic/ Bronze Age burial-ritual monuments are known to have existed in south Liverpool. The rock art present on the Willaston stones (Figures 2 to 9) has similarities to pecked engravings on the Calderstones and other megalithic art found on passage graves in Wales and Ireland (O’Kelly 1982a, 1982b; Eogan 1986). It was a logical hypothesis that the Willaston carved stones may have come from the vicinity of a similar burial site that was still in use in the Bronze Age. In late 2011, therefore, a short excavation was carried out by the Museum of Liverpool archaeologists to try to understand the connection between the two groups of finds from the field. The rock art The six carved stones from Willaston are of local laminated sandstone although Stones MOL LI 3/2015.1 and MOL LI 3/2015.2 are slightly different from Stone MOL LI 3/2015.3 in terms of their granular matrix. Five of the six stones have only one of their faces engraved with geometric/curvilinear pecked motifs, whilst Stone MOL LI 3/2015.4 has both faces engraved. The precise findspot of each of the stones is unknown due to ploughing and the circumstances of discovery, but they lay within the vicinity of the Bronze Age burials subsequently located during the excavation.

170

A Wirral Enigma: Understanding the Origins of the Willaston Stones Stone RA MOL LI 3/2015.1 (Figure 2) This large slab-like stone appears to have been partly exposed prior to its removal from the field; one section of the stone shows differential weathering with around ca. 60% of the stone lighter and cleaner than exposed sections that originally contained traces of moss and lichen growth. It is believed that this stone was removed some time ago and dumped within a nearby hedge boundary (where it possibly remained for a number of years). The engravings on this and Stone MOL LI 3/2015.2 were created using a metal tool, probably a blade or chisel. The three engraved lines form a series of concentric rings, two of which are deeply and regularly incised, especially for the two inner rings. The outer ring, which is more irregularly pecked and cut than the other two may well be the oldest motif, and possibly of prehistoric origin. The pecking technique is similar to other engraved art of this type found elsewhere. The complete design on this stone measures ca. 0.35m in diameter. This face shows evidence of limited plough damage in the form of linear scratching, in particular across the centre of the smallest ring.

Figure 2. Stone MOL LI 3/2015.1. Image: G.H. Nash.

171

Ron Cowell, George Nash and Elizabeth Stewart The inner ring measures 170mm in diameter and the chiselled groove ca. 10mm in thickness. The motif continues on Stone MOL LI 3/2015.2 (Figure 3) so that the middle ring measures 380mm in diameter (the groove measures 10mm in thickness). The outer ring, partly broken by probable plough shear damage measures 500mm in diameter. Stone RA MOL LI 3/2015.2 (Figure 3) Stones MOL LI 3/2015.1 (above) and MOL LI 3/2015.2 possess identical geology; both pieces interconnect and originally formed one slab. Stone MOL LI 3/2015.2 can be described as a stone fragment; it contains the middle and outer sections of a concentric ring design which is also found on Stone MOL LI 3/2015.1. The pecking and chiselling techniques used on this stone are identical to that of its partner stone, comprising a pecked outer ring and a chiselled second ring. The pecked outer ring is damaged at its right-hand extent. Stone MOL LI 3/2015.3 (Figure 4) This arguably fresh-looking stone slab includes a complete two-ringed concentric ring and a lozenge motif located on the right hand of the outer ring. All three motifs are finely pecked onto one face. The stone appears to have been buried prior to discovery; the surface geology is clean and un-weathered, suggesting possible long-term burial. Furthermore, traces of soil have been found within the pecked areas. The inner ring measures 110mm with the pecked line measuring ca. 0.9.5mm. The outer ring measures ca. 220mm in diameter and has a similar pecking width. To the right of the outer concentric ring is a finely pecked infilled lozenge measuring 290mm in length (forming a point at either end) by 80mm width.

Figure 3. Stone MOL LI 3/2015.2. Image: G.H. Nash.

172

A Wirral Enigma: Understanding the Origins of the Willaston Stones

Figure 4. Stone MOL LI 3/2015.3. Image: G.H. Nash.

This stone has also suffered from possible plough damage with clear scratching across most sections of the engraved face. Stone MOL LI 3/2015.4 (Faces A and B) This stone, comprising two engraved faces is by far the most complex of the Willaston group. Face A (Figure 5) consists of four concentric rings; each ring has been engraved using two techniques - pecking, followed by chiselling. The rings are evenly spaced, each ca. 0.08m apart. The first technique is pecking which is partly exposed within sections of each of the rings. Elsewhere, the pecking has been either replaced (superimposed) or continued by sharply incised chiselling, probably made by a metal tool. As far as the authors are aware, this application of two techniques is rarely known. Face B (Figure 6) contains three distinct designs, a pecked clockwise three-turned spiral measuring ca. 0.25m in diameter, an irregular incomplete pecked sub-circular design and a conjoined double spiral which appears to be superimposed over the sub-circular motif and merges with the outer right-hand section of the spiral (Figure 7). Close inspection shows that the double spiral is pecked but has been enhanced in places with a metal tool. The edges of several lines are sharp, and the incisions are deep and appear to be fresh.

173

Ron Cowell, George Nash and Elizabeth Stewart

Figure 5. Stone MOL LI 3/2015.4 (Face A). Image: G.H. Nash.

Figure 6. Stone MOL LI 3/2015.4 (Face B). Image: G.H. Nash.

174

A Wirral Enigma: Understanding the Origins of the Willaston Stones

Figure 7. Stone MOL LI 3/2015.4 Spiral and double spiral junction detail (Face B). Images: G.H. Nash.

175

Ron Cowell, George Nash and Elizabeth Stewart Stone MOL LI 3/2015.5 (Figure 8) This stone comprises two engraving techniques: one pecked, the other using a metal implement, possibly undertaken in two phases. The pecked design, in the form of sub-circular lines, is located outside the three concentric rings and can be considered a more genuine element of the two motifs. The same pecking technique has been partially employed within each of the three concentric rings, probably as a primary technique to construct each ring. The pecked rings have been later enhanced by the metal tooling of each of the concentric rings. Stone MOL LI 3/2015.6 (Figure 9) This stone comprises a small sandstone block with one face decorated with a pecked circular incised band. This band, presumably broken and forming a half ring, measures 170mm in diameter and ca. 10mm in width and cuts deep into the surface laminations. The pecked semicircular band has been irregularly cut and in places with pecking encroaching along some of the edges of the band. Within the base of the circular band, individual peck marks can be clearly seen; however, there is one area, measuring 60mm where no pecking is visible, suggesting a different carving technique. As far as we are aware there are no other parallels of this engraving type within Atlantic Europe, although circular bands and lines do exist but not with a width of this size (Shee-Twohig 1981). Furthermore, given the acidity of the soil, the cut of the band and the peck-marks appears to be unusually fresh. Discussion Atlantic facade megalithic art is essentially a stone-tooled tradition that dates between ca. 3200 and 2500 cal. BCE, whilst the use of metal in Britain dates from ca. 2300 cal BCE. The metal tradition at this time included imported high-status items only. It is conceivable that engraved stones may have originated from several monuments, rather than one: one megalithic, the other Bronze Age. Monument clusters such as this do exist, for example, the neighbour to the Barclodiad y Gawres passage grave on the eastern coast of Anglesey was formally an Early Bronze Age cairn with central stone-lined cist of Mynydd Bach - now destroyed (Powell & Daniel 1956, 71-2). Similarly, in 2005 in Scotland, a large upright, possibly originating from a nearby destroyed passage grave was discovered in an Early Bronze Age barrow at Balblair, Inverness. This re-sited stone formed part of the cist wall and was cutengraved with curvilinear patterns and cupmarks (Dutton & Clapperton 2005). There are some stylistic parallels for the Willaston rock art. Concentric rings, which are present on each of the Willaston stones, are common to megalithic sites that contain prehistoric rock art (Shee-Twohig 1981, Figure 11 [circle classification 1b]). The nearest example of rock art, on the Calderstones, Liverpool, includes this motif (Stewart et al. 2021, 59). It is typical for these pecked examples to form irregular, sometimes ovate concentric forms, but the concentric ring pattern on Stone MOL LI 3/2015.3 is formed from two near-perfect circular rings. The multiple concentric ring motifs carved on Stones MOL LI 3/2015.1, MOL LI 3/2015.2 and MOL LI 3/2015.4 (Face B) are irregular and have more in common with megalithic examples. The infilled lozenge on Stone MOL LI 3/2015.3 is arguably unique and is only found on a limited number of passage grave sites, particularly in Ireland (e.g., lintel stones A, E & F, Fourknocks, 176

A Wirral Enigma: Understanding the Origins of the Willaston Stones

Figure 8. Stone MOL LI 3/2015.5 and detail of outer pecked line. Images: G.H. Nash.

Figure 9. Stone MOL LI 3/2015.6. Image: G.H. Nash.

177

Ron Cowell, George Nash and Elizabeth Stewart County Meath). In addition to this, a small, infilled lozenge is incorporated into the centre of a geometric pattern on Stone C1 at Barclodiad y Gawres in Anglesey. Both examples have many imperfections, including the symmetry of individual motifs and motif patterns. The excavation The discovery of the carved stones and fragments associated with Bonze Age burials prompted the Museum of Liverpool archaeology team to arrange with the farmer to investigate further in late 2011. As mentioned above, this was only agreed on the proviso that the exact location is not publicised, and the following report operates within that restriction. In order to establish the relationship between the existing finds, and explore their context further, the team opened a trench approximately 14m x 8m in area, in the vicinity of the reported location for the stones (Figure 10). The subsequent excavation proved the existence of Bronze Age burials that appear to have been located in the area of the north-western side of the site. Two cremations in pottery urns (lifted in soil blocks and transported to the Museum (MOL LI 3/2015 7 and MOL LI 3/2015 8) were located at the south-eastern corner of the trench, ca. 7m apart. Those parts of the rims that were visible were of the same kind of fabric as the shattered urn recovered from ploughing by the metal detectorist (MOL LI 3/2015.12). Spread over an area of ca. 5m to 6m around them to the north and west were 11 cremated bone concentrations of various sizes that lay on the natural red sandy substrate surface. Dispersed amongst these were a few areas of concentrated charcoal. Struck lithics were rare, totalling only three pieces of waste material associated with flint knapping. A short segment of an undated ditch was located at the western side of the trench (not illustrated) although its function and form could not be clarified properly as its short length appeared to be filled by unconsolidated natural back-fill. If the burials were either under or dug through the mound of a now-eroded earthen barrow, and do not represent part of an open cemetery, probably only about a third to a half of the whole monument surface area was exposed. The ground surface in which the Bronze Age features lay had been damaged by ploughing and other agricultural activities particularly in the northern half of the trench. This, as well as the prior removal of the carved stones, hindered interpretation when trying to identify a potential relationship between the rock art and the archaeological remains. The undamaged subsoil comprised a reddish slightly clayey sand compacted with frequent small, flat rectilinear weathered sandstone pebbles. This surface was interspersed with larger rocks. These included smaller examples of flat sandstone slabs similar to the ones bearing the carvings, but not inscribed; and large thick sub-rounded intensely smoothed rocks, known locally as ‘duckstones’. The ‘duckstones’ are usually rounded and of a homogenous crystalline fabric and are likely to have been transported – and thus rounded – by glacial activity during the Pleistocene. The cliffs at Thurstaston Beach, 8km to the northwest are constructed of till (boulder clay) and contain erratics of varying size and geology, which originate from the Lake District (Cumbria). It has been proposed that the transport of rocks by ice may have been one source of raw material for flint and chert in the early prehistoric period in Wirral (Longworth 2000). Rocks viewed by the authors which have been ploughed from a similar location in the field in recent years include local sandstone and rounded erratics (Figure 11).

178

A Wirral Enigma: Understanding the Origins of the Willaston Stones

Urns Cremations Charcoal Stone Disturbance

Figure 10. Simplified trench plan of main excavated features.

Figure 11. Larger pebbles cleared from the vicinity of the ploughed burial site to adjacent woodland. Image: R. Cowell.

179

Ron Cowell, George Nash and Elizabeth Stewart Small, rounded quartz pebbles were also a noticeable feature in the trench surface, and in greater density than at any other reported site excavation locally. One of the cremated urns also had a significant association with small quartz pebbles. In addition, a small number of ‘duckstones’ were still on the surface of the trench and were related to gouges and hollows where they had been dragged across the surface by the plough. They were particularly visible in a north-south gouge in the northern part of the trench and the middle east-west part. Some modern hollows did not appear to be associated with this process, although there was no indication that they could have been the former sockets for the larger carved stones. Thus, there is enough evidence to suggest that the Bronze Age burial site included some stone structural elements. The site has been degraded too much to understand the exact form of this, but other regional sites have evidence of kerbs, cists for the main burial, and circular stone settings Additionally, cremations and urn burials occur both within the body of some cairns but also on the ground surface outside of them (Longley 1987). Without complete excavation of the site, any analogies for the Willaston site can only be speculative. The context of the site and the presence of burials circumstantially made it seem that the large carved stones could have been integral to the architecture of a burial monument. However, the carvings themselves are of questionable date and provenance. The indications are that they mostly represent modern carvings in a style that reflects prehistoric motifs, but there are also hints that not all the carving needs be recent (see below for further discussion). However, for prehistoric-type carvings to have been made in the modern period the stones must have had some visible and accessible recent connection with a prehistoric-looking monument. This implies the stones may have been either standing or fallen largely in situ when encountered in recent times and probably associated with at least the vestiges of some form of above-ground earthen superstructure to identify them as being potentially prehistoric. The excavation site lies in a large modern field. The 1899 (published) second edition 25-inch Ordnance Survey map, however, shows that it was two fields in the late 19th century with a now removed hedge boundary dividing it equally in two (Figure 12). This hedge-line was removed sometime after 1954 to form the current single large field. The former boundary has been georeferenced and re-plotted but because of slight changes made to the modern field boundaries between the 1954 map and the modern OS base map, there is a potential divergence between the two positions of several metres. The best-fit location places the excavated trench within ca.5m to the northwest of the 19th century field boundary within a small margin of error. The excavation trench only located a part of the complete monument with archaeological features appearing to extend beyond the excavated area, mostly to the south. A correlation between the former field boundary and the burial site, therefore, is relatively strong. It could be that the burial site was demolished when the post-medieval field boundary was created. Its date of origin is uncertain, with the 1849 (published) Tithe map showing the earliest documentary evidence for it. However, it is a recurring feature nationally that Bronze Age barrows are sometimes found on modern field boundaries that existed in post-medieval or even earlier periods suggesting the barrow mound has probably been used as a visible marker on which to align the boundary (Historic England 2018). This would strengthen the potential for the Willaston site surviving beyond the creation of the post-medieval boundary. If so, it would also make it likely that this 180

A Wirral Enigma: Understanding the Origins of the Willaston Stones allowed the Willaston stones and burial to survive as part of a former earthen barrow or cairned mound either on or next to the boundary. Accordingly, the modern markings would have had to have been made while the burial mound, and by implication, the stones, were still at least partly protected by being incorporated into the boundary prior to 1954. This does raise the question as to why the excavated burial site was not recorded previously if it had survived in an essentially recognisable Figure 12. Reconstructed 19th century field boundary in relation to prehistoric form into the excavation trench. 20th century. There are other surviving round mounds in the Willaston area recorded in regional databases of local historic monuments (see below). Possibly, this means it had disappeared earlier, perhaps during the 19th century whilst the two fields were still in use. Although it also avoided being recognised by local antiquarians active in Wirral during the 19th century. Perhaps the degradation of the monument was a long-drawn-out process with the more visible earthen element the earliest to go. Whatever the time frame available for the modern carvings to have been executed when the 19th century field boundary was removed sometime after 1954 (the farmer suggests the 1970s would be the most likely date) any remaining mound would have been flattened. There is no micro-topographic surface indication that the vestiges of a mound exist in the modern field. The stones must have been buried as part of this same process as they were not ploughed up until around 2010. If they had been on the surface, or only partially covered when the boundary was removed, they would have likely been removed prior to the ploughing of the resulting larger field. The modern topsoil is ca.0.3m deep, which does not provide a great deal of clearance for them to escape being ploughed up earlier than they were. One scenario might be that they lay in a hollow within the sub-surface making it easier to be covered by either natural or deliberate soil accumulation when the field boundary was removed. Another possibility is that they lay in a ditch. There would probably have been a ring-ditch surrounding the prehistoric burial area. The field names on the Tithe map of 1849 suggest the fields were arable in the mid-19th century, which would perhaps hinder the survival of this kind of ditch unless ploughing had deliberately avoided the burial site. Perhaps more likely, however, is that they lay within the later ditch belonging to the hedged boundary so that when the boundary was removed after 1954, they were buried as part of the infilling of the associated ditch. In recent years, deeper modern ploughing has dislodged the stones from their 19th century resting place. 181

Ron Cowell, George Nash and Elizabeth Stewart The prehistory of south Wirral The investigation of this site with its Bronze Age burials, stones that were potentially formerly part of a burial monument, and the more recently added rock art, was researched in the context of an interesting landscape. The general location of the excavated site is within an area of relatively flat gently sloping terrain at an elevation of around 45m AOD, which is not particularly distinctive in the modern landscape. The area around Willaston has produced some limited pre-existing evidence of prehistoric activity in this area of south Wirral (Figure 13). There are no Bronze Age sites listed on the Merseyside Historic Environment Record (MHER) in the Willaston, Neston, or Raby areas. Furthermore, there are no Neolithic or Bronze Age finds from the Willaston area that has been reported via the Portable Antiquities Scheme. The Cheshire Historic Environment Record (CHER), however, contains six records of findspots of prehistoric objects: • • • • • •

CHER 2319 Neolithic polished stone axe found at SJ 327 771. CHER 2319/1 Neolithic axe head found at SJ 316 780. CHER 2319/2 Neolithic polished stone axe found at SJ 337 786. CHER 2874 Neolithic stone axe from Willaston found at SJ 322 783. CHER 36 Prehistoric findspot in Neston at SJ 333 781. CHER 5 Neolithic polished stone axe found at SJ 330 775.

This indicates that in the area of ca.4km2 around Willaston shown in Figure 13, within which the excavated site lies, there is some evidence for Neolithic activity. This was thought potentially relevant when planning the excavation should the carved stones be indicative of a Neolithic burial site. In the event, however, this kind of evidence was not forthcoming from the excavation. However, there are two further potentially significant sites in the same study area as shown in Figure 13. • MHER MME2173 A mound at SJ 3270 7892. • CHER Site 27 A mound at SJ 3271 7859. A listing in the MHER describes mound MHER MME2173 as having, “a diameter of 30.0m and is 0.8 m. high. It has been spread through cultivation and is grass-covered. There is a trace of a ditch”. The mound is directly adjacent to a north-south field boundary. The nature of this feature is unclear and has been proposed as a potential barrow (Chitty n.d., 3), but the assumption leans to it being a windmill mound, although earlier maps, e.g., Burdett (1777), do not show a windmill on the site. The field in which the mound is located is named ‘Heath Grounds’ on the 1846 Tithe Map, indicating a woodland clearance that could be associated with a number of potential types of human activities on the site. Other nearby fields have ‘Mill’ names on the Tithe, but these are associated with a mill 500m to the south on Mill Lane. The mound has visible evidence of a trench having been dug through it at some time in the recent past (R. Patel, pers. comm.). Excavation of a mound in the area is known to have taken place although it is unclear to which mound this refers or if it is elsewhere (MHER 1977-2011). The excavator concluded that it was natural, although if referring to a site in this area, it would be unusual for such a feature in an otherwise relatively flat landscape.

182

A Wirral Enigma: Understanding the Origins of the Willaston Stones

Figure 13. Map of current archaeology of Willaston area within which the unmarked excavation site is located. © Crown copyright 2120. National Museums Liverpool license no. 100062237.

To the south of this mound, over the county boundary in Cheshire, is a second mound CHER 27. The mound is approximately 20m in diameter. It lies in the corner of a field where field boundaries converge at an acute angle. It is within this corner that the mound is located. CHER interprets the site as being a windmill mound: “seems a more valid explanation for its existence than the suggestion of a burial mound” (CHER 27). Again, historic mapping does not allude to an earlier mill in this particular location, but there are medieval records for a mill being present within the vicinity (Bryan 1975, 10). The field in which this mound stood is directly adjacent to the mill, on Mill Lane. This site was surveyed in the 1980s and research proved inconclusive about its function, with a mill, a moot/meeting point or a prehistoric site all offered as possibilities (O’Hanlon 1983, 77-82). Research into the medieval history of the township boundaries has identified the placename Midlethrinlowe at the Willaston and Little Neston boundary, a placename alluding to three mounds (Dodgson 1972, 233; CHER). Work by Rowan Patel (pers. comm.; CHER 27) notes that the Midlethrinlowe place name pre-dates known windmills in the vicinity, suggesting that the mounds may be of an earlier date. Two of these three mounds may have been identified

183

Ron Cowell, George Nash and Elizabeth Stewart and recorded onto the two HERs as windmill mounds. There is also a circular cropmark from aerial photography carried out by Rob Philpott of Liverpool University that looks a convincing candidate for a Bronze Age burial site within the same general area (Figure 13). The Early Bronze Age northwest There is a significant lack of clearly definable settlement ‘sites’ in this period which can be distinguished from activity at monuments. Settlement evidence is, instead, dominated by diffuse lithic scatters and occasional pottery assemblages (Halsted 2011, 35). The Willaston discovery is significant as there have long been problems of site visibility in the later prehistoric period in the northwest. Few flint assemblages have been studied in the region. The most useful comparators for northwest England come from the Neolithic and Bronze Age phases at Manchester Airport (Garner 2007) and a Late Neolithic site on Anglesey (Healey 1987) where beach pebbles were used in toolmaking. Late Neolithic and Early Bronze Age activity in Merseyside is arguably most clearly represented by chance finds of axes (Cowell 1995, 25-44; Museum of Liverpool 2021). There are examples of Bronze Age burial sites, although they are less common in Merseyside and adjacent lowland areas than in the uplands. There is also evidence for the reuse of earlier monuments in Bronze Age burial activity in the region. In the southern part of Liverpool, the Calderstones - six remaining stones from a destroyed Late Neolithic chambered tomb – were associated with human remains in vessels discovered in the 19th century (Stewart et al. 2021). Nearby the two Bronze Age ‘Wavertree Urns’ (National Museums Liverpool accession numbers–20.7.67.1 and 20.7.67.2) are thought to represent a Bronze Age flat burial ground (Picton 1868; Smith 1868). Later Neolithic and Early Bronze Age settlements remain somewhat elusive and tend to be excavated by chance when associated with later sites identified through aerial photographs. At Arthill Heath Farm, Cheshire, for example, a Romano-British site produced evidence for Neolithic and Early Bronze Age settlement (Nevell 1988). Likewise, at Southworth Hall Farm investigation of a Romano-British enclosure produced evidence of Neolithic settlement with some continued early Bronze Age activity in the same area (Cowell 2010). Bronze Age barrows and associated structures are recorded commonly in lowland Cheshire and the fringing Pennine uplands and to the west of the River Dee, in the Welsh uplands (Davey 1976; Freke and Holgate 1988, 17). The only previous Bronze Age burials discovered in Merseyside are the aforementioned near-complete Bronze Age cremated burials in urns which were discovered in Wavertree in 1867 (Picton 1868; Smith 1868). From the spread of evidence within the region, excavated sites generally paint a picture of settlement mobility through the Late Neolithic and Early Bronze Age, and complexity in culture and trade (Thomas 1991; Whittle 1997). The shift to marking fixed sites in the landscape and the significance of those are evident in this region. At Southworth Hall Farm the site revealed evidence of the activity of people living in the vicinity or who were visiting the area during the late 3rd or earlier 2nd millennium BCE when nearby barrows were in use. One of the barrows had been excavated in the 19th century and a second was excavated in 1980 when an extension to Southworth Quarry was proposed (Freke & Holgate 1988, 9-30). This revealed ten 184

A Wirral Enigma: Understanding the Origins of the Willaston Stones groups of cremated remains associated with one barrow. A Late Neolithic/Early Bronze Age flint assemblage was recovered in excavations including well-worked cores in raw material different to the locally available material, demonstrating the widespread use of imported flint (Cowell 2010). However, the site provided little firm evidence of Bronze Age land-use activity or settlement features associated with the Early Bronze Age flintwork. The interpretation was hampered by a paucity of dating evidence. Further excavations at Southworth in 2013 revealed no further evidence of Bronze Age activity on the site (Moore 2014). The enigma of the Willaston rock art The discovery of a Bronze Age burial site at Willaston is a significant addition to the understanding of this period in the region. In the light of the paucity of evidence outlined above for the local area the discovery of a Bronze Age burial site in south Wirral is a rare find and adds a significant piece of evidence that will provide an opportunity to explore further the burial traditions in the region. The association of the Willaston Bronze Age burial site with distinctive rock art provides another potentially significant facet to the site’s history, but it is difficult to judge it in its entirety with confidence. Carved rock art is extremely difficult to date and usually the only methods that can be employed are an assessment using stylistic analogy and context. As the Willaston stones are not in situ, formulating a stratigraphic relationship between the stones and the Bronze Age burials located nearby is impossible as a result of modern ploughing. Therefore, only a stylistic analogical approach can be used. The six stones appear to show different engraving techniques on each of the seven faces (one stone engraved on both faces). All faces appear to show probable enhancement of pecking using a metal tool. The pecking has been achieved using a hammerstone or secondary percussion i.e., hammer stone and stone chisel. The concern arises that if all originate from a Neolithic or Bronze Age context then they should be all engraved using stone rather than metal implements. However, one could suggest that, if exposed, each stone may have been enhanced at a later date during prehistory or sometime during the historic period. The authors are unaware of any similar examples within later prehistoric Atlantic Europe where metal-tooled and stone-tooled rockart originates from the same site. Additionally, the engravings of all six stones (and seven faces) are fresh-looking. The high acidity value of the soil would have surely eroded all the engraving, albeit in a differential way. Furthermore, the sandstone geology of each of the stones shows evidence of lamination which could have also affected the designs over time. The suggestion from this evidence, therefore, is that a prehistoric burial site was purposefully embellished with concentric circles and spiral rock art produced in modern times. However, there are two stones 2015.1 (&2) and 2015.5, where pecked circles or curved line segments are more irregular (Figures 2 & 8). The comments above relating to the freshness of the surfaces must be borne in mind, but stylistically, these two outer pecked rings within the overall stone motif could be regarded as a technique potentially of later prehistoric and/or megalithic origin. If this is the case, then the status of the pecking that underlies much of the metal engraved toolmarks might also come under suspicion as not being part of the modern 185

Ron Cowell, George Nash and Elizabeth Stewart phase. As far as this can be judged, the metal tooled circular designs appear to follow the underlying pecking in at least four cases giving a regular look to the design of both techniques (Figures 4, 5, 8 & 9). In one case, 2014.4 (Face A) the metal tooling continues the line of the pecking in places (Figure 5). In examples that are pecked only, such as stones 2015.3, 2015.6 and possibly 2015.4 (Face B spiral), the motifs have a fresh look (Figures 4, 6 & 9). The pecking in these examples seems more likely to represent modern elements. On stone 2015.1, with its outer possible megalithic pecked circle, the two inner rings are deeply engraved obscuring the possibility of identifying an underlying pecked design (Figure 2). Therefore, there are conflicting indications that hinder a confident assessment of the scale of any potential original earlier work. This uncertainty behind the analysis of the stylistic tendencies on show therefore allows for two potential explanations as to when the carvings were made on the stones. One allows for the fact that occasional motifs were already on some of the stones in the 19th century and were recognised whilst the monument was in the process of being degraded. This would see a combination of modern carvings embellishing the stones alongside an occasional existing simple curved or circular motif, with a hard to discern additional possibility of an occasional existing earlier motif being obscured by later metal tool engraving. The second alternative allows for all the motifs being modern and the carver(s) making a conceptual link between a degraded prehistoric monument and a style of stone decoration with which they were familiar, which was executed using a modern technique allied to an ostensibly ancient one. In relation to the second alternative, the proximity of this site to the Calderstones with their megalithic art, including spirals and concentric circles, may be significant. Other than curvilinear carved stones on the passage grave at Barclodiad y Gawres on Anglesey, these are the main examples outside Ireland and Orkney (Nash 2006). The final process of dismantling the Calderstones began around 1833 and records of its existence and form were prominent in local antiquarian circles and publications from about the 1860s (Simpson 1866; Romilly Allen 1883; Hand 1910) through the early 20th century (Stewart-Brown 1911). The Calderstones and nearby Robin Hood stone possess a complex history (Stewart et al. 2021) but are considered by the authors as isolated and rare occurrences; however, several other sites within the region suggest that rock art was more widespread (e.g., the Rivington Stone, near Adlington). The rock art at the Calderstones was clearly influenced by tomb builders in Ireland and North Wales (Stewart et al. 2021, 27-31). Based on recent chronometric dating of archived organic material from one of the Anglesey passage graves – Bryn Celli Ddu, the date range for this type of art is between 3,200 and 2,500 cal. BCE (Nash et al. 2005; Burrow 2010). The Neolithic Calderstones monument underwent a reactivation as a burial site in the Bronze Age, with the addition of secondary burials: cremations in urns. The Calderstones also have carved boot prints on them that no doubt was intended to echo the presence of the carvings of unshod feet on two of the stones that have a prehistoric context elsewhere in Europe (Nash & Stanford 2009; Nash 2010; Stewart et al. 2021). The boot print carvings appear to be 19th century and could relate to the period of the final dismantlement of the monument. The stones were also subsequently set aside on a farm for several years,

186

A Wirral Enigma: Understanding the Origins of the Willaston Stones until a decision was made by Liverpool City Corporation, in the 1950s, to protect the stones. This might extend the potential time frame for the stones to be embellished with recent carvings into the 20th century. Interest in the Calderstones is evident from the 1820s onwards when artistic representations are first made showing them (Stewart et al. 2021, 34-36). Their art was published in the Transactions of the Historic Society of Lancashire and Cheshire. The Society was founded in 1848 with a membership that included just a couple of honorary lady members listed in early volumes of the society’s Transactions. Members were drawn from more wealthy and elite circles in the town: clerical, political, mercantile and businesspeople with an interest in the history of the city. These members were spread across Lancashire and Cheshire and beyond, thus potentially propelling the understanding of the Calderstones carvings across the region. For example, one early member, who joined 27 September 1854, was Robert Andrew Macfie (1811-1893) who had moved from Leith in 1838 to build his sugar refining business. Linked to the slavery economy in Liverpool his business thrived, and Macfie was part of the business and mercantile elite of the town (Orchard 1893, 474-475; Liverpool Record Office 920 DER 15/43/25/28; Liverpool Record Office 285.1 CAN). The membership lists of The Historic Society of Lancashire and Cheshire list Macfie’s residences as 30, Moorfields, Liverpool and Ashfield Hall, Neston – less than 3km from the Willaston area. Macfie’s interests in archaeology were evident in his work as an MP, for example, in 1873 calling for funding for the British Museum excavations at Nineveh, Iraq (Hansard 22 May 1873). It is therefore clear that at least one resident of the area was familiar with the Calderstones, knowledgeable about archaeology, and could have recognised the monument’s significance, especially if a group of three mounds was visible in the vicinity and could be read as a group of Bronze Age burial mounds. Another potentially relevant factor is that in the area of the mounds there is a road name implying a stone quarry lay in the vicinity. It is possible that the modern-looking carvings on the stones could be regarded reasonably as ‘doodles’ or practice by local quarrymen. Other, simpler instances of modern markings on stones relating to a quarry in west Lancashire have been seen by one of the authors through a museum enquiry and seemed likely to be such types of doodles. If, however, the first alternative (above, p186) is favoured then this would have more important implications for the nature of the Bronze Age burial site that they came from. It would mean that it contained stones decorated with megalithic type carving belonging to an Irish Neolithic tradition of decoration, found mostly in burial sites, that is absent from English sites other than the Calderstones, and only found rarely in north Wales. This could represent the existence in the Willaston area of either a burial site, most likely a passage grave, or an element from such a site re-used in a Bronze age burial context. This might either be in the same location, as suggested by the sequence at the Calderstones, or as is found in Wales and Scotland (see above) re-used in a Bronze Age monument from a nearby site. Unfortunately, the weight of this potentially highly significant implication cannot be confidently borne by the current limited and ambiguous evidence it is based on. It is best regarded, therefore, as being only a potentially significant possibility until and if further archaeological evidence becomes available to confirm or contradict it.

187

Ron Cowell, George Nash and Elizabeth Stewart Conclusions While it is difficult to reconstruct a true sense of the history of these stones, their proximity to the Bronze Age burial site indicates that they were likely once structural elements associated with a barrow burial. There is also relatively persuasive evidence that this may have evaded destruction by being incorporated into a post-medieval field boundary. It is notable that two other mounds in the area, MHER MME2173 and CHER Site 27, are also incorporated into field boundaries, a feature common in other regions. The survival of the monument in an ostensibly ancient form allied to an association with the large stones prompted someone in recent times to add carved motifs with a metal tool. This was done either on plain stones in a style reminiscent of carvings associated largely with Neolithic passage grave burial monuments, or on ones with the vestiges of such prehistoric markings. The ditch associated with the boundary hedge could have provided a convenient hollow in which to deposit the larger stone elements of the monument as it was being finally dismantled in the 20th century. These carved stone elements were then ploughed up around 2010. That someone should carve on the stones in the modern period in a style reminiscent of late Neolithic spirals and circles would seem not to be a random act. It implies that the stones gave the appearance of a prehistoric site as it is unlikely that the archaeology of the Bronze Age buried surface was apparent. Less certainly, it assumes that either carving was visible on the stones to be copied or if not, that individuals in the locale had knowledge of the types of art found on such monuments which could have informed their actions in adding similar motifs to the Willaston stones. The reasons for such actions though can only be speculation. Carved boots found on the Calderstones seem a personalised, slightly humorous act of display. The Willaston carvings appear to be a more serious attempt at recreating a version of the past but for what reason cannot be known. It seems unlikely to have been a genuinely malicious hoax as there is no local record of such a site, publicity about which would presumably have been the main purpose for such an intention. It may be that it has a straightforward explanation whereby someone with an interest or career in working stone was merely amusing themselves whilst practising their skills on suitably large material that was ready to hand, perhaps whilst knowingly paying private homage to craftsmen of a bygone age. This site and its rock art are a fascinating enigma that defies immediate understanding and explanation but even in its imperfectly understood and speculative current state the evidence contributes to a developing understanding of the prehistory of the region. The burial site is the first evidence of Bronze Age activity in this part of south Wirral. The site also adds the possibility of a potentially highly significant new facet to our understanding of the prehistory of the wider region should the early style technique of carving on the stones be genuine. However, the evidence is not clear enough to unconditionally assume this option. Whilst based solely on stylistic analogies there must be a degree of uncertainty about the extent to which modern carvings have manipulated pre-existing designs of a repertoire that extended across most areas of Atlantic Europe in the Neolithic or just created modern versions of them. The emergence of further relevant archaeological evidence needs to happen before the true balance between the two options can be more confidently assessed.

188

A Wirral Enigma: Understanding the Origins of the Willaston Stones Bibliography Bryan, E.C., 1975. Willaston’s Heritage. Willaston Residents and Countryside Society. Burdett, P.P. 1777. A survey of the county palatine of Chester (facsimile edition by J. B. Harley and P. Laxton, H.S.L.C., Occasional Series I, 1974), sections IV and VI. Burrow, S. P., 2010. Bryn Celli Ddu: alignment, construction, date and ritual. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society. Volume 76, 249-270. Chitty, G. nd. Wirral Rural Fringes. Archaeological Survey of Merseyside. Liverpool. https:// images.liverpoolmuseums.org2020-01/wirral-rural-fringes-survey-report.pdf Cowell, R., 1995. Journal of Merseyside Archaeological Society. Volume 9, 25-44. Cowell, R., 2010. Excavations at Southworth Hall Farm near Winwick, Cheshire. Journal of the Merseyside Archaeological Society. Volume 13, 7-50. Davey, P. J., 1976. The distribution of Bronze Age metalwork from Lancashire and Cheshire. Journal of the Chester Archaeological Society. Volume 59, 1-13 Dodgson, J., 1972. The Place-Names of Cheshire, Part 4. English Place-Name Society. Cambridge. Dutton, A. and Clapperton, K., 2005. Rock art from a Bronze Age cairn at Balblair, near Inverness. Past. 51 (November). Eogan, G., 1986. Knowth and the passage-tombs of Ireland. London: Thames and Hudson. 1991. Prehistoric and early historic culture change at Bru´gh na Bo´inne. Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy 91C, 105-32. Freke, D. J. and Holgate, R., 1988. Excavations at Winwick, Cheshire in 1980: 1. Excavation of two second millennium BC mounds. Journal of the Chester Archaeological Society Vol 70, 9-30. Garner, D. J., 2007. The Neolithic and Bronze Age Settlement at Oversley Farm, Styal, Cheshire: excavations in advance of Manchester Airport’s Second Runway, 1997-8. Gifford Archaeological Monographs 1, Oxford: BAR British Series 435. Halsted, J.C., 2011. Settlement patterns from the Neolithic to the Late Bronze Age: The central Welsh border region in context. PhD for the University of Birmingham. https://etheses.bham. ac.uk/id/eprint/3570/1/Halsted_12_PhD.pdf Hand, C.R., 1910. The Story of the Calderstones. Liverpool: Hand & Co. Hansard. HC Deb 22 May 1873 vol 216 c273. https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/ commons/1873/may/22/nineveh-excavations-question#S3V0216P0_18730522_HOC_20 Healey, E., 1987. Lithic Technology. In C.A. Smith and F.M. Lynch, Trefignath and Din Dryfol: The Excavation of Two Megalithic Tombs in Anglesey. Cambrian Archaeological Monographs No. 3, 50-59. Historic England., 2018 Prehistoric Barrows and Burial Mounds: Introductions to Heritage Assets. Swindon. Historic England. https://historicengland.org.uk/images-books/publications/iha-prehistoric-barrows-burialmounds/heag217-prehistoric-barrows-burial-mounds/ Longley D.M.T., 1987. ‘Prehistory’ 36-114, in Harris B.E. and Thacker A.T. (eds) A History of the County of Chester I. The Victoria History of the Counties of England. London: Oxford University Press. Longworth, C., 2000. Flint and Chert availability in Mesolithic Wirral. Journal of the Merseyside Archaeological Society, Vol 10, 3 – 18. https://www.merseysidearchsoc.com/ uploads/2/7/2/9/2729758/jmas_10_paper_1.pdf Lynch, F. M., 1970. Prehistoric Anglesey. Anglesey Antiquarian Society. MHER: Merseyside Sites and Monuments Record. 1977-2011. SMR F sheet. 3280-003

189

Ron Cowell, George Nash and Elizabeth Stewart Moore, B., 2014. III: Southworth Quarry, Winwick, 2013: excavation of a Roman rural settlement. Journal of the Chester Archaeological Society 84. Vol 84, 13-37. Museum of Liverpool, 2021. Prehistoric Finds online collection. https://www. liverpoolmuseums.org.uk/collections/archaeology/prehistoric-finds Nash, G. H., 2006. The architecture of death: the chambered monuments of Wales. Hereford: Logaston Press. Nash, G.H., 2010. Art for those visiting the underworld: an appraisal of the later prehistoric menhir of Robin Hood’s Stone, Allerton, Liverpool. Merseyside Archaeology Society, Vol. 13, 87-95. Nash, G. H., Brook, C., George, A., Hudson, D., McQueen, E., Parker, C., Stanford, A., Smith, A., Swann, J. and Waite, L., 2005. Notes on newly discovered rock art on and around Neolithic burial chambers in Wales. Archaeology in Wales 45, 12—16. Nash, G.H. and Stanford, A., 2009. Encryption and Display: Recording new images on the Calderstones in Liverpool. In T. Barnett and K. Sharpe (eds.) Carving a Future for Rock Art: new directions for research, management, and presentation. Oxford: Oxbow Books, pp. 11-24. Nevell, M., 1988. Arthill Heath Farm. Trial Excavations on a Prehistoric Settlement 1987-88. Interim report, Manchester Archaeological Bulletin Vol. 3, 4-13. O’Hanlon, D., 1983. An earthwork at Willaston. Cheshire Archaeological Bulletin. Vol 9, 77-82. O’Kelly, M., 1982a. Corpus of Newgrange art, in M.J. O’Kelly (ed.) Newgrange: archaeology, art and legend. London: Thames and Hudson, pp. 146-185. O’Kelly, M., 1982b. Newgrange: archaeology, art and legend. London: Thames and Hudson. Orchard, B.G., 1893. Liverpool’s Legion of Honour. Self-published. Birkenhead. Picton, J. A., 1868. Prehistoric Remains in Lancashire. Archaeologia Cambrenisis. Vol. 314, 206208. Powell, T.G.E. and Daniel, G.E., 1956. Barclodiad y Gawres: the excavation of a megalithic chambered tomb in Anglesey. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press. Romilly Allen, J., 1883. On the Circle of Stones at Calderstones, near Liverpool. Journal of the British Archaeological Association. Vol. 39, 304-316. Shee-Twohig, E., 1981. Megalithic Art of Western Europe. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Simpson, J. Y., 1866. On the cup-cuttings and ring cuttings on the Calderstones, near Liverpool, Historic Society of Lancashire and Cheshire, Vol. 17, New Series 5, pp. 257—62. Smith, H. E., 1868. An Ancient British Cemetery at Wavertree. HSLC 20 (1868) 131-146. Stewart, L, Nash, G. and Cowell, R., 2021. The Calderstones: A Prehistoric Tomb in Liverpool. Liverpool: Merseyside Archaeological Society. Stewart-Brown, R., 1911. A History of the Manor and Township of Allerton in the County of Lancaster. E. Howell: Liverpool. Thomas, J., 1991. Rethinking the Neolithic, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Whittle, A., 1997. Moving on and moving around: Neolithic settlement mobility. In P. Topping (ed.), Neolithic landscapes. Oxbow Books. Oxford. pp. 15-22.

190

A Reappraisal of the Cronk yn How Stone, Isle of Man George Nash

Centro de Geociências da Universidade de Coimbra and Instituto Politécnico de Tomar

Introduction Located within the storage facilities of Manx National Heritage at Ballasalla, near Castletown is a curious stone pillar that was discovered in 1928 during an excavation of a mound located west of the coastal town of Ramsey, and a few hundred metres north of the A13 road between Ramsey and The Cronk. The stone contains a series of finely engraved (scratched) cervids and abstract marks located at either end of the stone. Previous interpretations date this stone to the later prehistoric period, to possibly the Late Neolithic or Bronze Age. A recent study by the author though suggests that the cervid representations could be much earlier. This paper discusses the cervids present on this stone and suggests that it may date to the NW European Mesolithic, between the c. 6th to 12th millennium BCE. Based upon the most recent research by Darvill and O’Connor (2005) the Isle of Man has one of the largest concentrations of prehistoric rock art per square kilometre in the western British Isles with over 70 panels at 55 individual sites.1 The majority of the rock art spans the later prehistoric period, mainly Bronze Age, and including a large number of cupmark sites, arguably similar in style to rock art sites found in the north-west and south-west Wales (Nash et al. 2005; 2019). Darvill and O’Connor (2005) suggest that much of this assemblage is associated with 4th and 3rd millennia BCE activity and the Galician Style pecked rock art found on open-air panels.2 I would be more inclined to suggest a 4th to 2nd millennium BCE date range. This revised date range is based on the fieldwork of Woodcock (2004), and, more recently Woodcock and Crellin (2016) and their studies of cupmarked rocks on the Meayll Peninsula. I would also consider the fieldwork and results by Waddington et al. (2005) where eroded cupmarks from the Neolithic and Early Bronze Age site of Hunterheugh Crag in Northumberland were discovered underneath an Early Bronze Age cairn. The dating at this site confirmed that cupmarks probably extend to the Neolithic period. In the first section of the Darvill and O’Connor paper (2005) a re-appraisal was made of the Cronk yn How Stone. The stone was found during an early 20th century excavation on a multiphased site that contained the remains of a Bronze Age round mound. The site is located west of Ramsey and included several later prehistoric and medieval phases including the remains of a Bronze Age mound and Keeill (a form of early Christian primitive chapel dating between the 6th and 12th centuries AD) (Figure 1). Found within the context of the Keeill was a large, 1  No sites from the Isle of Man are mentioned in Beckensall (1999) or Morris (1989). There is, however, a small assemblage mentioned in Morris (1979). 2  I dispute this interpretation and instead, I would term the later prehistoric rock art of Wales, NW England and the Isle of Man as the Cambrian Tradition (a localised variation on an Neolithic Atlantic façade theme - see Shee-Twohig 1981).

Signalling and performance (Archaeopress 2022): 191–211

George Nash

Figure 1. location and view of the northern part of the Isle of Man and the Location of the Cronk yn How site. Image: G.H. Nash.

blackened stone which according to Darvill and O’Connor (2005) may have been one of a pair of stones that formed a simple 3rd millennium BCE two-stone alignment (ibid. 289, fig. 3). This monument was allegedly removed to make way for a Bronze Age round barrow that contained a single central burial feature (Darvill & O’Connor 2005, 286). It was suggested by the archaeologists who excavated the site - J.R. Bruce and William Cubbon (1930a, 1930b) that one of the stones from this original prehistoric alignment, the Cronk yn How Stone, was later incorporated into the architecture of the Keeill, forming part of the foundations of the southern elevation. The engravings, numbering around 30 individual and grouped motifs appear to originate from a single event possibly by the same artist. Many individual motifs include female, juvenile, and male cervids and have parallels in terms of style and engraving technique3 with counterparts found mainly across northern Europe (e.g., Nash 2008). Close inspection of the stone shows that two of the four faces of the stone possess engravings with the majority of the motifs located at the distal and proximal ends. The stone shows evidence of damage with distal and proximal sections missing. Further motifs may probably have been present on these missing sections. The engraved motifs are the result of scratching (or incisions) the surface of the stone with probably a flint implement, possibly an awl or bladed point. History of research Much of the history of the Cronk yn How Stone has been more than adequately summarised in Darvill and O’Connor (2005), in particular, details of the 1928 excavation and the detailed description and archaeological history of the stone. In many respects, the key points raised in their paper had been already discussed shortly after its discovery, namely its potential date and provenance (Bruce & Cubbon 1930a, 1930b). It is important though to review the various discussion points given the fact that following the excavation of the Cronk yn How site very little was understood of the palaeoenvironmental history of the Isle of Man, its association with the Irish Sea, and the presence of cold climate megafauna. I believe that these contextual In terms of engraving technique, the majority of figures and motifs have been scratched onto the surface of this stone.

3 

192

A Reappraisal of the Cronk yn How Stone, Isle of Man elements hold the key to reappraising this enigmatic stone and possibly providing a more realistic dating scenario. Archaeological and palaeoenvironmental evidence suggests that the Isle of Man has a prehistory that extends beyond the Neolithic and that the stone may have its origins in the Mesolithic period (12 to 6 kyr). The site, which originally existed as a small mound or tumuli, was excavated over two weeks in August 1928 by J.R. Bruce and William Cubbon (Bruce & Cubbon 1930a, 1930b). Based upon their excavation report, Darvill and O’Connor (2005, 288, fig. 2) produced a revised phasing of the site which considers four chronological phases (Phases 1 to 5), the earliest commencing in the Neolithic (Phase 1) to the construction, use and abandonment of the Keeill (Phase 4) and eventual abandonment during the 19th century. Interestingly, the Cronk yn How Stone appears to have moved little from its original location over the use of the site. Following the discovery of the stone, local archaeologists and invited international scholars came to conclusions in terms of its date and stylistic influence (Anon 1928, 1931, 1932; Kermode 1929; Th. Petersen 1932-34). From this initial research until the Darvill and O’Connor paper in 2005, the Cronk yn How Stone was rarely mentioned in the archaeological literature. Today, it is registered within the Manx National Heritage Historic Environment Record (Accession Number: 1954-2773). Looking in a wider context Based on the evidence so far, the Cronk yn How Stone may originate from a time before the Neolithic or Bronze Age. This assumption is based on the style of the engravings that are present on the surface of the stone. In terms of early prehistoric rock art elsewhere in the British Isles, there are only a small number of Upper Palaeolithic and Mesolithic cave sites with art that are recognised. The most significant of these is Church Hole Cave in Creswell Crags, located along the Derbyshire/Nottinghamshire border (Bahn & Pettitt 2007, 2009). Discovered within this cave in 2003 by an Anglo-Spanish team were up to 25 engraved images including birds, a bison, horse, various quadrupeds, a red deer, and an array of possible sexual organs (vulvas). Following the discovery, speleothem deposits overlying several of the images were dated using Uranium-series disequilibrium dating (Pike et al. 2005). Samples for dating were taken from Church Hole Cave and nearby Robin Hood Cave which revealed that the flowstone which covered the images had formed at least 12,000 years ago, thus providing a minimum age for the underlying rock art. This minimum date was useful in understanding the date range for artefacts that were excavated from this and other caves within the Gorge. Recovered from Robin Hood Cave and Pinhole Cave were two engraved bone pieces, both of which were incised using a sharp and pointed flint implement. The engraved Robin Hood Cave horse bone was discovered in 1876 and is by far the most famous and controversial in terms of its provenance (found by the Reverend J.M. Mello). The engraved horse and ‘Pin Hole Man’ do have, in terms of their style and technique, similarities with the Cronk yn How engravings. Occurring roughly at the same time as this Creswellian artistic tradition is an engraved horse mandible from Kendrick’s Cave, Llandudno, in North Wales (Figure 2). The decoration on this piece of bone includes multiple zigzag lines (chevrons) that are arranged into five separate panels. It was considered by Sieveking (1971, 239) that the zigzag patterning was enhanced with red ochre being worked into the incisions.

193

George Nash

Figure 2. The horse mandible from Kendrick’s Cave. Image: G.H. Nash.

The second cave to reveal Upper Palaeolithic engravings is Cathole Cave, located on the Gower Peninsula (Nash et al. 2012). The engraving is of a cervid (possibly a reindeer) and was discovered within a discrete niche within the main gallery in 2010. The engraving, similar in style and technique to the Cronk yn How incised cervids, has been constructed using a fine point or blade made from flint. The figure comprises a torso with engraved infill, four singles lines represented legs, a neck and head, and three or four sweeping lines that represent a stylised antler set (Figure 3). The cervid, along with other unidentifiable designs/patterns on this and other panels occupy the rear section of the cave. Uranium Series disequilibrium dating from flowstone samples over the head and antler of the cervid revealed a date range of between 12,572 and 14,505 cal. BP (Nash et al. 2012) and is synchronous with Cheddarian artefacts found during late 19th and late 20th century excavations at Cathole and artefacts and cave art from the caves at Creswell Crags. More recently, and within an open-air context, are the first engraved plaquettes to be found in the British Isles. These were uncovered in Jersey (Channel Islands) at the site of Les Varines (Bello et al. 2020). Ten stone plaquettes fragments were uncovered, revealing a series of complex multi-layered incisions that probably date to the Magdalenian period (21 to 14 kyr). A number of these plaquettes containing many hundreds of intersecting lines revealed clear part-outlines of ice age megafauna. In terms of Mesolithic art within the British Isles, the majority of artefacts include mainly personal adornment, made largely from perforated shells. Recorded from Aveline’s Hole in Cheddar Gorge were fossil ammonite fragments that had been deliberately placed over individual burials, along with a scatter of red ochre (Donovan 1968). From the same cave was a 194

A Reappraisal of the Cronk yn How Stone, Isle of Man

Figure 3. The engraved cervid at Cathole Cave (Image and [indirect] tracing made by G. H. Nash).

series of incised lines that were arranged in a mesh pattern and located on a wall deep within the recesses of the cave where the burials were discovered (Mullan & Wilson 2005). Finally, from an open-area excavation at the north Walian town of Rhuddlan between 1967 and 1973, five engraved pebbles were uncovered (Berridge & Roberts 1969). The decoration of each pebble ranged from simple lines and banding to a stylised plant or tree; all engraved using a fine flint point or blade. A plethora of artistic endeavour The slate laminated block (or pillar) of Cronk yn How, measures 1.52m in length and a maximum of 0.24m in width. The block has four faces which suggest that it was worked and prepared before the surfaces were engraved. Scrutiny of the four faces revealed differential wear to each face. During its relatively recent history when it was incorporated into the southern elevation of the medieval Keeill, one of the faces would have been exposed to the elements. Before this, the stone may have been buried, partially buried, or lying resemblant; again, various episodes of exposure to the elements during its early use and subsequent abandonment are difficult to ascertain. Its original use is still yet unknown, although Darvill and O’Connor (2005, 287) speculatively consider the stone to have been part of a simple stone alignment dating from the Neolithic or Bronze Age. Across two of the four faces (i.e., A and B), the artistic endeavour can be described as [hurried] cartoonesque? comprising a herd of cervids, a possible boat, human figures, and several mesh designs (Figure 4). Individual figures from each of these faces have been constructed using a sharp flint tool and have been ‘sketched’ onto the surface of two of the faces. Faces C and D possess no engravings. 195

George Nash

Figure 4. General view of the distal end showing the cluster of cervids on Face B. Image: G.H. Nash.

Manx antiquarian, historian and the first director of the newly established Manx Museum, P.M.C. Kermode (1929, 1930) was the first to fully study in detail the stone and its engravings. Kermode’s description of the stone organised the surfaces alphabetically - A to D (ibid. 373). The engraved motifs and figures are described by the author as thus: Face A. This surface is engraved in three distinct areas, all located within the central section of the face.4 Within the distal portion of the face, there are two individual motifs: an interconnecting series of irregular geometric lines that form a net-like design, interpreted by Kermode (1929, 372) as woven plaiting and to the left are a series of straight and curvilinear lines that form a small outline of a possible fish. This incised fish, probably made with a flint implement, may have an association with the net-like design. Within the vicinity of the two motifs are a series of straight parallel lines that form an ‘E’ motif. The linearity of this motif could suggest a much later addition, possibly 19th century or slightly earlier. Within the central portion of the face is an irregular cross motif that is engraved within a natural irregular depression. It is more than likely that the presence of a cross has an association with the medieval Keeill. If this is the case, then one can consider that this face was exposed and formed part of the surface of the southern elevation, thus legitimising the Christianity of the stone and the site. The other engraved face – Face B would have been concealed by mortared stonework. Beneath the cross motif are a series of thin interconnecting lines that construct two or three figures of unknown form, possibly stylised fauna, described by Darvill and O’Connor (2005, 292 and figure 6) as a ‘meandering chevron form with appended geometric forms and angular linework’; what I would term as ‘an indeterminate cluster of lines’. The lowest motif within this cluster appears to show the form of a possible animal. This motif has what seems to be two legs, each formed by two connecting diagonal lines. The legs are attached to what I consider to be a torso. With internal multiple chevron decoration. An indeterminate cluster of lines 4 

All engraved areas of the stone were previously drawn by Blaze O’Connor in Darvill and O’Connor (2005).

196

A Reappraisal of the Cronk yn How Stone, Isle of Man appears to superimpose this possible animal figure, suggesting a chronological development within this section of the face. Face B has the most concentrated assemblage of engravings on the stone that include cervids, possibly elk (Alces alces), red deer (Cervus elaphus5) or giant elk (Megaloceros  giganteus), a herbivore that roamed this part of NW Europe some 10 kya, during the early Mesolithic period. Using a variety of references including a series of drawings made by the late Blaze O’Connor (Darvill & O’Connor 2005, fig. 7), plus scrutiny of the stone the author managed to identify 22 individual engraved engravings on this face, 18 of which were concentrated around the distal end of the stone. Altogether the face has 10 clear stick-like cervids with one bull possessing a large antler set. One can assume that the remaining cervids are juveniles or part of the bull’s harem of females. Kermode (1929) identifies only nine motifs and considers the cervids to be either red deer or reindeer (Rangifer tarandus). Kermode (1929) also identifies a crudely drawn human figure which appears to have been added to the head section of a cervid that stands above the bull (Figure 6). This figure has probably been superimposed over an existing cervid. All engravings are more likely to be made using flint implements. The construction of each cervid is made from interconnecting single incisions, comprising a single line for the torso and tails, single lines representing individual legs, multiple short lines forming the head and antler sets. The cervids that occupy the distal end of the stone are all oriented to face the proximal end of the stone. The single cervid engraving at the proximal end of the stone faces the same direction as others at the distal end. Above this cluster is what appears to be a stylised boat, similar in style to painted and engraved Mesolithic boats with human figures that are found on open-air panels in NW coastal Norway and western Sweden (e.g. Gjessing 1936; Hallström 1938; Nash 2008). Associated with this design are two sets of two lines that each converges to form a point and sit above the boat design. I considered these two lines as two human figures, possibly fishermen. Boats and fishermen are found on Mesolithic rock art in both central northern coastal Norway and southwestern Sweden (e.g. the open-air panels of Forselv, Nordland and Södra Ödsmäl, Bohuslan). Accompanying the possible boat and fishermen are possibly two stylised fish. These two fish figures are each constructed from three lines (Figure 5). The most impressive figure on this face is a cervid bull that stands central within the main cluster of cervids at the distal end (Figure 6). This figure has a single torso line, with up to six lines radiating vertically from it. At the proximal end of the torso-line are the head and antler set. The head is represented by three short lines that radiate from the torso line. Immediately above the head is a complex set of single lines that represent an antler set. The antler set is further enhanced by a series of lines that extend from the torso line. At the rear end of the torso, the line continues to form a tail. Four of the six vertical lines extending below the torso line represent the fore and back legs of the animal. One must assume that one of the lines radiating from the back end is an exaggerated penis, while the foreleg section of the animal may represent two legs that are formed from three lines. At the base of the left foreleg is a box-like motif. This motif probably represents a hunting trap or hobble, a device that limits the movement of the 5 

The author thanks Dr Peter Davey for his comments on identifying cervids on this stone.

197

George Nash

Figure 5. Possible boat and fishermen located above the cervid cluster on Face B. Image: G.H. Nash.

Figure 6. The largest and most potent of all the engraved cervids. Image: G.H. Nash.

Figure 7. Motif representing a possible mesh, located to the rear of the cervid cluster. Image: G.H. Nash.

198

A Reappraisal of the Cronk yn How Stone, Isle of Man legs and was used to control the activity of the herd (Kermode 1929, 373). Scrutiny of this motif reveals that the trap or hobble is constructed with a thicker incision technique than those used to construct the underlying cervid. I would argue that this design has been added later and may represent a relatively modern metal spring trap. Probably associated with the trap/hobble is a hexagonal mesh-like design that is located at the far distal end of the stone. This complex motif, possibly representing a net is positioned to the rear of the cluster of cervids (including the bull) (Figure 7). At the proximal end of Face B, are four sets of incisions, one of these displaying a stick-like cervid with a simple antler set. A single line forms its tail, torso and head. Radiating above this line is a simple antler set, whilst below it is four shorter lines that represent legs. Immediately below this figure are a series of deep linear incisions that may form a stylised zoomorph. A smaller cluster of lines is present above and right of the cervid. The Cronk yn How Stone and its wider context The Cronk yn How Stone can be considered altogether unique, there is no other parallel within the British Isles or Ireland; moreover, the incision technique is used widely in Upper Palaeolithic and Mesolithic portable and static art (see commentary above). As hinted earlier, the cervid figures present are considered stylistic and akin to petroglyphs that are found within a northern Scandinavian coastal context, i.e., those rock art sites that are located within the inner fjords of Møre og Romsdal, Nord-Trøndelag, Norland and Troms (Hallström 1938; Nash 2008; Simonsen 1958; Sognnes 1989, 1994). Whilst I am not advocating a diffusionist approach to establish stylistic parallels, there are clear similarities in style and design with selective figures from Norwegian and Swedish sites, in particular, engraved elks that are found at the sites of Bogge (Møre og Romsdal), Viingen (Vestland) and Namförsen (NE Sweden). Naturalistic engraved images of animals in a British Isles context is considered rare with only a limited number of sites and findspots present – e.g., Creswell Crags, on the Derbyshire/ Nottinghamshire border (Ripoll et al. 2004; Bahn & Pettitt 2012) and Cathole Cave, Gower, South Wales (Nash et al. 2012). The artistic style for this period though is far more abstract (e.g., Milner 2016; Mullan & Wilson 2007), usually simple and complex designs constructed from incised lines on antler and bone (Andersen 1981; Nash 1998). A study by the author on Mesolithic decorated portable artefacts from southern Scandinavia ascertained that representative designs occurred on portable artefacts during the earlier part of the south Scandinavian Mesolithic (during the Maglemose and Kongemose periods) but the styling of these artefacts changed to abstract designs during the latter part of the Mesolithic (during the Ertebølle) (Nash 1998). Despite this change in subject matter over a 3- to 4000-year period, there was a small group of portable amber objects that were carved in a naturalistic style during the Ertebølle (Figure 8). A short commentary made by Norwegian scientist Thor Petersen shortly following the stone’s discovery assessed the date and style of the incised images on the Cronk yn How Stone (Petersen 1932-34, 92). Much of what he was postulating suggests that the motifs were made by hunterfisher-gatherers that predate the construction of the Neolithic ‘stone pair’ and the succeeding Bronze Age mound. Although the hunter-fisher-gatherer way of life continued well into the Neolithicization of western Europe between the 3rd and 4th millennium BCE, this stone could have originated from a much earlier provenance. In the precursor comments to Petersen’s 199

George Nash assessment, the I’Abbé Breuil of the Institut de Paléontologie Humaine (Paris) concluded that the stone was probably a ‘reemployed monument of First Bronze Age, comparable with certain Scandinavian rock engravings.’6 At this time, Thor Petersen, along with Gustorm Gjessing and Gustav Hallström, was a leading authority on northern Scandinavian prehistoric rock art. Thor Petersen, based at the Royal Norwegian Museum in Trondheim stated that the ‘animals Figure 8. A carved bear in amber, found in a bog environment at seem to be deer, and not domestic Rosen Møse, Jutland, Denmark. Image: G.H. Nash. ones, a feature pointing more toward the [Old]Stone Age than rather the Bronze Age. However, contrary to my thoughts on a date and potential parallels, Petersen (19321934, 92) goes on to suggest that there is: no striking similarity between the Manx animals and those on the Scandinavian rock-carvings [exist]. The character and style of the animals are in my opinion rather pointing to the Spanish (Iberic) and Mediterranean (North Africa) territory of culture; if not, the carving may be regarded only as an isolated expression of old hunting magic.’ I am inclined to disagree with this statement and suggest that these figures belong to a northern European art tradition that is associated with hunter-fisher-gatherer economies such as those found within southern and central Norway, and northern Sweden. Rare parallels exist between the cervid images on the Cronk yn How Stone, and those engravings found at sites found in central and Scandinavia (Nash 2008). If this is the case, then the imagery present on this stone indicates a Mesolithic origin rather than a Neolithic or Bronze Age date, as promoted by Darvill and O’Conner (2005) and others (e.g., Kermode 1929, 1930; Breuil 1934). Indeed, the editor of the Journal of the Manx Museum, William Cubbon (1929) concludes that the Cronk yn How Stone is unique to Britain and throws new light upon the earliest times: it is possibly the earliest record of human workmanship in the island’. Despite Thor Petersen’s misguided comments, I concur with Cubbon’s final remarks. The projected Mesolithic date of this probable hunter-fisher-gatherer stone is partly supported by the presence of Mesolithic flint scatters across the island (Davey & Tomlinson 2017) and a relatively recent discovery of an engraved stone pendant which was found in a garden in Castletown in 1969 (Cubbon 1995-1997, 435-39). Although found outside its original archaeological provenance, the subject matter indicates a hunting or warfare theme (Figure 9). This perforated pendant, made from a limestone pebble is decorated on both faces’ and measures 60 x 32 x 19mm. The accompanying perforated hole has a series of radiating lines extending from it that represents a celestial object, possibly the Sun or Moon. The principal engraved face includes a stick human figure holding a short bow with a drawn arrow. A possible vertical spear stands erect to the bowman’s rear side. The bowman appears 6 

This assessment concurred with comments made by Kermode (1929).

200

A Reappraisal of the Cronk yn How Stone, Isle of Man

Figure 9. Perforated pebble from Castletown with stick-like archer engraving. Images: G.H. Nash.

to be walking (or running) from right to left with the bow partially extended; a stance that is usually a sign of readiness to ambush. Above the perforated hole is a small circular indent that is connected to the decoration around the perforation by a single engraved line. On the reverse side of the pendant is a series of interconnecting rectilinear patterns that are infilled with short lines forming a sub-circular band. Although the stick figure is considered by Cubbon (1995-1997) to be naive in style and execution, there are parallels of bowmen and warring archers of a similar style found elsewhere that date to the Mesolithic and Neolithic periods. In the Spanish Levant and North Africa, painted archers, found on rock shelter walls are engaged in warring skirmishes and are constructed from a series of simple brush strokes, and are portrayed in a running stance (Nash 2005). The style of these figures can be considered more naturalistic than that of the Castletown stick figure, despite their stick-like appearance. Dating of these figures is problematic as there is no direct dating evidence and scholars have tended to place them into a wide chronology, from the [southern European] Neolithic to the Mesolithic, if not earlier (see Cruz Berrocal 2004; Cruz Berrocal & Vicent 2007; García Arranz et al. 2012). 201

George Nash The possible elk connection I now wish to turn my attention to evidence that persuades me to postulate that the Cronk yn How Stone originates from a much earlier provenance and date than that proposed by Darvill and O’Connor (2005), possibly the Mesolithic (if not earlier).7 My assumption cannot be based upon direct dating nor provenance as the material is stone and the original provenance unknown.8 Instead, one must tenuously rely on artistic style and the presence of elk in the Isle of Man during this early period of prehistory. Most of the animal representations engraved on this stone are cervids, probably elk (Alces alces L.). Although all the cervids are stick-like in design, several figures possess clear antler sets which indicate a probable NW European elk style (rather than a red deer, fallow deer, or reindeer style). Although the fossil record in the Isle of Man is devoid of elk, such beasts are found elsewhere in the British Isles during the Mesolithic (Barnes et al.; 1971; Lister 1984). Their absence on the Isle of Man may be simply down to acidic soil conditions and sites which are now submerged.9 It is more than likely that elk roamed the NW British and Irish landscapes following the retreat of the Devensian ice sheet during the Younger Dryas, at around 11.7 kyr. For example, a nearcomplete elk skeleton, dated to around 13.5 kyr, was discovered at High Furlong, Poultonle-Fylde (Lancashire) in 1970 within a former marshy context and was associated with two barbed antler or bone points (Barnes et al. 1971). At this time, a substantial landmass existed between the Isle of Man and west Lancashire. Accompanying elk at this time would have been a variety of megafauna including bison, horse, reindeer, and possibly giant elk (Megaloceros giganteus); however, changes to the geomorphology, sea-level change, temperature oscillations occur during the Late Glacial Period, and the advent of [Early Mesolithic] hunter-fisher-gatherers may have resulted in this and other indigenous species to suddenly become extinct (Kermode 1898; Lister & Stuart 2019; Lowe & Walker 2014). Due to the ongoing revision of the chronometric dating of fossil remains of giant elk, the previous dating of this megafauna has been pushed back, in some cases to over a thousand years or more (Innes et al. 2004; see Table 1). Based on the fossil record the giant elk roamed the Eurasian plains during much of the Pleistocene and probably the Early Holocene, although there is much debate concerning its presence in the later period, especially in the western regions of Eurasia (Gonzalez et al., 2000; Stuart et al. 2004; Lister & Stuart 2019). Although their demise is attributed to ‘overkill’ by hunter-fisher-gather communities and/or a change in habitat as a result of a rapid climate change. The extreme cold of the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM)10 reveals their absence in western regions between 32 and 13 kyr (along with other megafauna); however, the succeeding warmer periods witness a reintroduction across most of the Eurasian range (Barnosky 1986).

Equating to the early to mid-Holocene ? Darvill and O’Connor (2005, 285-87) postulate that the stone forms part of a simple two-pillar alignment that dates to Neolithic or Bronze Age. 9  Laura McCoy, Manx National Heritage pers comm. 10  Also referred to as the Dimlington Stadial. 7  8 

202

A Reappraisal of the Cronk yn How Stone, Isle of Man Table 1. List of far western Eurasian sites yielding Giant Elk remains and their post-Glacial dating (after Gonzalez et al., 2000, Stuart et al. 2004; Innes et al. 2004; Lister et al. 2005; Lister & Start 2019). Site

Loughan Ruy, Isle of Man Ballybetagh, Ireland

Close-y-Garey, Isle of Man

Glen Wyllin, Isle of Man River Cree, Scotland

Ballaugh, Isle of Man

Kirkhead Cave, Cumbria

Glen Balleira, Isle of Man

Period

AMS dates

Early Holocene[1]

9,225 + 85 BP (AA-29744)

Early Holocene

11,159 + 74 BP (AA-51349)

Early Holocene

11,495 + 65 BP (OxA-10967) 10,610 + 495 BP (UB-2699)

Early Holocene Early Holocene

Younger Dryas[2] Younger Dryas

11,495 + 95 BP (AA-30361)

12,385 + 60 BP (OxA-34331) 12,340 + 65 BP (OxA-34330) 12,400 + 60 BP (OxA-34329)

Younger Dryas

10,780 + 95 BP (AA-30362)

Early Holocene Early Holocene

9,430 + 65 BP (AA-18513)

Early Holocene

10,257 + 75 BP (AA-51350)

Early Holocene

11,495 + 95 BP (OxA-10967)

10,585 + 65 BP (OxA-11498)

Early Holocene

11,550 + 60 BP (OxA-11596)

Early Holocene

11,650 + 55 BP (OxA-11597)

Early Holocene Younger Dryas

Bølling-Allerød interstadial[3] Early Holocene

12,275 + 50 BP (OxA-11971)

12,920 + 120 BP (OxA-11678) 10,700 + 200 BP (HAR-1059) 12,130 + 60 BP (OxA-11685)

Younger Dryas

[1] Date range: 11,650 BP until present [2] Date range: 12,900 to 11,700 BP [3] Date range: 14,690 to 12,890 BP

Based upon Stuart et al. (2004), Innes et al. (2004) and Lister and Stuart (2019) a large database (including chronometric dating has been gathered for Giant Elk within the western regions of Eurasia, especially after the LGM. The earliest evidence for their reoccupation is from the Isle of Man, withn a date range of 12,455+65 BP (OxA-11687). Further dates in Innes et al. (2004) suggest later dates from Giant Elk remains on the island, which extends to a dated antler from Loughan Ruy, dated to the Early Holocene (Gonzalez et al. 2000; Table 1); the dates from this site were later revised by Stuart et al. 2004). Despite the revision in dates, Giant Elk are present on the Isle of Man and elsewhere in North-western Europe after 12.2 kyr (Stuart 2004). According to Stuart et al. (2004), the recolonization which probably lasted for well over 1,500 years conveniently correlates with a warm phase - the Late Glacial Interstadial (LGI), which extended between 13–12.6 kyr. According to Lowe and Walker (2014), this rapid warming at 203

George Nash the onset of the LGI had profound effects on the environment, replacing the [Siberian-type] steppe–tundra with grass, sedge and open woodland landscape (Huntley 1990). Despite this inviting landscape context, there is limited evidence that giant elk returned to this region of Eurasia (Lister & Stuart 2019). The obvious conclusion is ‘overkill’ by advanced hunter-fishergatherer communities during the latter part of the Late Upper Palaeolithic/early Mesolithic. However, their distribution may be simply attributed to changes in the vegetation cover. During the latter part of the LGI, betula and pinus woodland had colonized much of western Europe. However, open herbaceous vegetation with sparse woodland had ventured into Northwestern Europe, including the landmass forming the western extent of the Irish Sea (Lowe & Walker 2014). The landscape encompassing the British Isles was probably far more favourable for giant elk and other herbivores. It would appear that the presence of giant elk was heavily influenced by certain vegetation cover and climate, which would explain when and why this animal flourished during the early Holocene in the eastern regions of Eurasia. The colonisation process of giant elk along with its decline is also synchronous with emerging hunter-fishergatherer communities who start to move northwards as the climate begins to warm and the steppe-tundra environment begins to dissipate at around 15 kyr. From this initial human colonisation to the final demise of giant elk there is a period of 4000 years where hunterfisher-gatherer communities and giant elk co-existed side by side. According to Lister and Stuart (2019), the sudden collapse of giant elk numbers in north-western Europe’s population occurs around 11 kyr (based on chronometric dating collated by Innes et al. 2004 [Table 1]). Based upon the Isle of Man’s Historic Environment Record (HER) there are up to 125 sites on the island that date to the Mesolithic and Late Upper Palaeolithic periods (c. 12 to 6 kyr) (see also Davey & Tomlinson 2017).11 Included within this small assemblage of sites are lithic scatters and middens, clearly indicating the presence of advanced hunter-fishergatherer communities, the density, and legacy of which is still unclear. Also, from this period (and arguably within the transition between the Mesolithic and the Late Upper Palaeolithic) are several sites that have yielded giant elk remains, several of which were discovered in the 19th century including a near-complete skeleton from a marl pit near the village of Ballaugh (Loughan Ruy) in 1819 and a specimen from Close-y-Garey in 1897 11 

Figure 10. The Close--y-Garey giant elk on display at the Manx National Heritage museum (c. 1914) (after Kermode & Herdman 1914, fig. 2).

The site count is roughly divided equally between Late and Earlier Mesolithic.

204

A Reappraisal of the Cronk yn How Stone, Isle of Man (currently on display at the Manx National Heritage museum in Douglas) (Figure 10). In recent times, the remains of a Giant Elk were discovered in cliffs near Kirk Michael in 2005. Examination of the site indicates that this specimen was found in a kettle hole. Discussion and conclusion: in support of a Mesolithic context The Cronk yn How Stone has had a long and eventful history, the later elements of which can be accounted for. Based on the archaeological excavation by Bruce and Cubbon in 1928, the stone formed the lower section of the southern elevation of a medieval keeill. Before this, one can only speculate about its previous history and origin. According to Darvill and O’Connor (2005, 295-6), the stone contains several probable Viking or medieval elements including a cross and an ‘E-type’ motif. The remaining incised motifs and figures are considered prehistoric and are unique to the British Isles and Ireland. Although the scratching technique used to incise the animal figures is relatively common in most prehistoric periods, there is a high frequency of this technique being used in later prehistoric monuments and open-air panels (Thomas 2016; Teather 2016). This incision technique was used to construct single and multiple lines, abstract motifs, complete design sequences and geometric forms. Arguably, much of this art form extends across Atlantic Europe and is associated with Neolithic burial-ritual monument construction and use (SheeTwohig 1981). Therefore, the presence of cervids poses an interesting dichotomy in that in most of Neolithic Europe there is a symbolic movement to decorate the walls and rock surfaces with abstract and geometric motifs and not representative figures.12 This general pattern also extends to pottery decoration. However, there are in the Neolithic and Bronze Age several examples where representative figures are engraved onto open-air rock outcropping and have become a dominant engraved image, such as the red deer engravings that are found in Galicia, NW Spain (Bradley et al. 1995; Bradley 1997). The pecked red deer engravings are usually accompanied by concentric circles, cupmarks and linear forms. The style and engraving technique though is completely different in subject matter to the incisions that present on the Cronk yn How Stone. From the same region of Europe, finely carved incisions that construct horses and red deer are dated to the Iron Age. The artistic repertoire of this Iberian assemblage is arguably more sophisticated and contrived than the cervids that are present on the Cronk yn How Stone. Shortly following the excavation in 1928, the excavators sought the opinions of a number of scholars including Norwegian archaeologist Thor Petersen who hinted that the stone and its art belonged to ‘old hunting magic’ (Petersen 1932-34).13 Based on this hypothesis I have argued that the cervids present on the Cronk yn How Stone contain design attributes that are similar to engraved cervids that are found on rock art and portable art from the Mesolithic and Late Upper Palaeolithic Moreover, that the design influences are from Scandinavia where cervids are a common theme on both portable and static art surfaces. In terms of the basic incision attitudes – torso, heard, tail, legs, and antler set, there are clear parallels with simple engraved images at the rock art fjord sites of Bogge (Figure 11) (Møre og Romsdal) and Vingen (NordTrøndelag) and the river site of Namförsen in NE Sweden. From these and other sites from this region of Europe, the artist or artists have executed each engraving using a pecking technique Representative figures, including animals are found on monuments and open-air panels that dates from the Late Bronze Age and throughout the Iron Age, and extending into the Roman period. This scratched figure technique is referred to as ‘filliforms’ (see Coimbra & Sansoni 2016). 13  It should be noted that at this time the excavators Bruce and Cubbon (1930a, 1930b) and Petersen (1932-4) would have had limited knowledge on chronology and idea of chronometric dating techniques. 12 

205

George Nash (Gjessing 1936; Hallström 1938). Similarly, a rare incised early Mesolithic engraving on an antler mattock from Ystad, southern Sweden and featuring an outline of two representative red deer has been executed using a sharp flint tool (Figure 12) (Clarke 1975; Nash 1998). In terms of technique (rather than style), this cervid, along with other representative animal designs appears to be the closest parallel to the cervids that are present on the Cronk nr How Stone. I have not advocated the idea that hunter-fisher-gatherer communities on the Isle of Man had contact with counterparts in Scandinavia. However, during the Figure 11. A cluster of engraved elk from the Bogge II panel, Møre og Mesolithic, there was a vibrant Romsdal, Norway (after Hallström 1938). artistic tradition extending across most of NW Europe that involved the incision of representative animal figures onto bone, antler, amber, and open-air rock outcropping; the most common figures were cervids (Hallström 1938; Nash 2008). Assuming that the Cronk yn How Stone is from this period, it is probable that hunter-fisher-gatherer communities in the Isle of Man (and elsewhere in northern Figure 12. One of two engraved red deer present on the Ystad antler mattock, Skåne, southern Sweden. Image: G.H. Nash. Britain) experienced similar sociopolitical and economic constraints to their Scandinavian counterparts such as climate, availability of food resources, territorial claims and intertribal relations (e.g., Yesner 1980). In addition, communities would have had an intimate knowledge of their respective environments, including the geography and habitat of large megafaunas such as elk, red deer and reindeer. Based on the Bruce and Cubbon 1928 excavation of Cronk yn How, the mound in which the medieval keeill was discovered is believed to date to the Bronze Age. I suggest though that the stone and its art are more likely to be much earlier, possibly extending as far back as the early Mesolithic period. At this time the Isle of Man formed a continuous landmass with NW England and North Wales (Lillie 2015). The landscape would have comprised a rich sedge and grassland landscape with pockets of dispersed open woodland. It is within this environment

206

A Reappraisal of the Cronk yn How Stone, Isle of Man that elk (Alces alces) and possibly giant elk (Megaloceros giganteus) would have roamed. The presence of giant elk at this time and within western Eurasia is still a contentious issue; however, there are dated specimens that have been recovered from Ireland and the Isle of Man that date to the Younger Dryas and early Holocene (see Table 1). In linking the fossil evidence with the images present on the Cronk yn How Stone, one has to consider the physical attributes of the elk (and other cervid species) and the artistic traits that are applied to each figure. The majority of the cervid engravings are constructed from several carefully selected lines; usually, a single horizontal line represents the tail, torso, and head, four short lines representing the legs, and strategically-placed lines to represent the antlers and sometimes a penis. Similar to artistic endeavour elsewhere in NW Europe, the artist has applied a blueprint throughout, allowing the audience, the onlooker to instantly recognise the animal. Of particular interest is the design of the antler sets of two of the engraved cervids present on this stone. The artist has scratched onto the surface of the stone cervids that are not side-on but are portrayed at a slightly oblique angle, allowing the antler set to be viewed from an oblique perspective; the same can be said about the way the legs are drawn. Some animals appear to be drawn in a running stance and all are moving from left to right forming a cohesive herd. To the left of the cervid cluster is a representation of a possible net. Ironically, the cluster appears to be positioned to the right of this motif and facing away from it. This section of the stone, with its possible net or trap, a boat with fishermen and a party of cervids, and the way they all interact suggests that the artist has constructed a narrative that maybe ‘read’ from one particular direction. This is not an uncommon trait within the ethnographic and anthropological records where artists use art within the storytelling process (e.g., Keesing 1981; Levi-Struass 1973). Acknowledgments The author would like to thank the staff at Manx National Heritage for allowing access to the museum’s storage facility; in particular, Alison Fox for supplying additional information. Also, thanks to Professor Adrian Lister from the Natural History Museum and Peter Davey, Laura McCoy, Philippa Tomlinson, and Jennifer Woodcock who provided advice on the presence/absence of elk and giant elk fossils in the Isle of Man. Also, thanks to colleagues Kim Iannucci and Aron Mazel for making comments on the final draft. All mistakes are of course my responsibility. Bibliography Andersen, S.H., 1981 Ertebøllekunst. Nye østjyske fund af mønstrede Ertebølleoldsager, Kuml 1980, 7-59. Anon., 1928. Excavations at Cronk Conoly, Lezayre. Journal of the Manx Museum 1 (1924–1932), 131–2. Anon., 1931. A sculptured stone from Man. Antiquity 5, 359–60. Anon., 1932. The Cronk yn How Stone. Journal of the Manx Museum 2 (1932–1934), 92. Bahn, P. and Pettitt, P., 2007. Rock-art and art mobilier of the British Upper Palaeolithic. In A. Mazel, G.H. Nash and C. Waddington (eds.) Art as Metaphor: The Prehistoric Rock-Art of Britain, Oxford: Archaeopress, pp. 9-38.

207

George Nash Bahn, P. and Pettitt, P., 2009. Britain’s Oldest Art: The Ice Age cave art of Creswell. London: Historic England. Barnosky, A. D., 1986. Big game extinction caused by late Pleistocene climatic change: Irish elk (Megaloceros giganteus) in Ireland. Quaternary Research. 25, 128–135. Barnes, B., Edwards, B., Hallam, J. and Stuart, A.J., 1971. Skeleton of a Late Glacial Elk associated with Barbed Points from Poulton-le-Fylde, Lancashire. Nature 232, 488–489. Beckensall, S., 1999. British Prehistoric Rock Art. Stroud: Tempus. Bello, S.M., Blinkhorn, E., Needham, A., Bates, M., Duffy, S., Little, A., Pope, M., Scott, B., Shaw, A., Welch, M.D., Kinnaird, T., Millar, L., Rodinson, R. and Conneller, C., 2020. Artists on the edge of the world: An integrated approach to the study of Magdalenian engraved stone plaquettes from Jersey (Channel Islands). PLoS ONE 15(8). Go to: https://journals.plos.org/ plosone/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0236875&fbclid=IwAR2coXx6VXR6Wp1Y5Tes zdqG4sCrWrX6T2JzXlwkCo5vPj0G_OYbDwB6NJc Berridge, P. and Roberts, A., 1969. The Mesolithic decorated and other pebble artefacts: Synthesis. In H. Quinnell, M. Blockley and P. Berridge (eds.) Excavations at Rhuddlan, Clwyd: 1969 -1973: Mesolithic to Medieval. CBA Research Report No. 95, pp 115-131. Bradley, R., 1997. Rock Art and the Prehistory of Atlantic Europe. London: Routledge. Bradley, R., Boardo, E.C. and Valcarce, R.F., 1995. Rock art and the prehistoric landscape of Galicia: the results of fieldwork 1992–1994. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 61, 347–70. Breuil, A.H., 1934. Presidential Address for 1934. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society of East Anglia 7 (1932-4), 289-322. Bruce, J.R. and Cubbon, W., 1930a. Cronk yn How. An early Christian and Viking site, at Lezayre, Isle of Man. Archaeologia Cambrensis 85, 267–308. Bruce, J.R. and Cubbon, W., 1930b. Cronk yn How. An early Christian and Viking site at Lezayre. Proceedings of the Isle of Man Natural History and Antiquarian Society 3 (1925–1932), 282–97. Clark, J.G.D., 1975. The Earlier Stone Age Settlement of Scandinavia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Coimbra, F.  and Sansoni, U., 2016 (eds.) Post-Palaeolithic Filiform Rock Art in Western Europe: Proceedings of the XVII UISPP World Congress (1-7 September 2014, Burgos, Spain) Volume 10 / Session A18b - Proceedings of the XVII UISPP World Congress (1-7 September 2014, Burgos, Spain). Oxford: Archaeopress. Cruz Berrocal, M., 2005. Paisaje y arte rupestre Patrones de localización de la pintura levantina. BAR S1409 International Series, Oxford. Cruz Berrocal, M. and Vicent, J., 2007. Rock art as an archaeological and social indicator: The neolithisation of the Iberian Peninsula. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology. 26. 676-697. Cubbon, M., 1995-97. An incised stone pendent from Castletown. Proceedings of the Isle of Man Natural History and Antiquarian Society, Vol. 10(4), 436-39. Darvill, T. and O’Connor, B. 2005. The Cronk yn How Stone and the rock art of the Isle of Man. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 71, 283-331. Davey, P.J. and Tomlinson, P.J., 2017. Archaeology and landscape change at Port Cranstal, Bride, Isle of Man. Mesolithic Miscellany, Vol. 25(1), 11-25. Donovan, D.T., 1968. The Ammonites and other fossils from Aveline’s Hole, (Burrington Combe, Somerset). University of Bristol Speleological Society Proceedings, 11(3), pp. 237-42. García Arranz, J.J., Collado Giraldo, H. and Nash, G.H., (eds.) 2012. El problema “Levantino”: Arte rupestre postpaleolitico en le Peninsula Ibérica. Bucharest: Archaeolingua.

208

A Reappraisal of the Cronk yn How Stone, Isle of Man Gjessing, G. 1936., Nordenfjelske ristninger og malinger av den arktiske gruppe. Oslo: Aschehoug Instituttet for Sammenlignende Kulturforskning Serie B.30. Gonzalez, S., Kitchener, A. C. and Lister, A. M., 2000. Survival of the Irish Elk into the Holocene: Giant deer on the Isle of Man around 9,000 years ago may have been the last of the line. Nature, 405, 753–754. Hallström, G. 1938. Monumental Art of the Stone Age in Northern Europe 1, Stockholm. Huntley, B., 1990. European Vegetation History: Palaeovegetation maps from pollen data 13,000 yrs. B.P. to present, Journal of Quaternary Science 5(2), 183-222. Innes, J., Chiverrell, R., Blackford, J., Davey, P., Gonzalez, S., Rutherford, M., and Tomlinson, P., 2004. Earliest Holocene Vegetation History and Island Biogeography of the Isle of Man, British Isles. Journal of Biogeography, 31(5), 761-772. Keesing, R.M. 1981. Cultural Anthropology: A Contemporary Perspective. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Kermode, P.M.C., 1898. The “Irish Elk,” Cervus giganteus, in the Isle of Man.  Geological Magazine, 5(3), 116-119. Kermode, P.M.C., 1929. An engraved stone pillar from the Isle of Man. Antiquaries Journal 9, 372–5. Kermode, P.M.C., 1930. List of Manx Antiquities. Douglas: Isle of Man Natural History and Antiquarian Society. Kermode, P.M.C. and Herdman, W.A., 1914. Manks Antiquities (2nd edition). Liverpool: The University of Liverpool Press. Lévi-Strauss, C. 1973. From Honey to Ashes: Introduction to a Science of Mythology Volume 2. London: Jonathan Cape. Lillie, M., 2015. Hunters, Fishers & Forgers in Wales: Towards a social narrative of Mesolithic lifeways. Oxford: Oxbow Books. Lister, A., 1984. The fossil record of elk (Alces alces L.). Quaternary Newsletter No. 44, pp. 1-8 Lister, A., Edwards, C., Nock, D., Bunce, M., van Pijlen, I.A., Bradley, D.G., Thomas, M.G. and Barnes, I., 2005. The phylogenetic position of the ‘giant deer’ Megaloceros giganteus. Nature 438, 850– 853. Lister, A.M. and Stuart, A.J., 2019. The extinction of the giant deer Megaloceros giganteus (Blumenbach): New radiocarbon evidence. Quaternary International, 500: 185-203. Lowe, J.J. and Walker, M.J.C., 2014. Reconstructing Quaternary Environments. London: Routledge. Milner, N., Bamforth, M., Beale, G., Carty, J., Chatzipanagis, K., Croft, S., Conneller, C., Elliot, B., Fitton, L., Knight, B., Kroger, R., Little, A., Needham, A., Robson, H., Rowley, C. and Taylor, B., 2016. A unique engraved shale pendant from the site of Star Carr: the oldest Mesolithic art in Britain. Internet Archaeology, 40, 8. Morris, R.W.B., 1979, The Prehistoric Rock Art of Galloway and the Isle of Man. Poole: Blandford. Morris, R.W.B., 1989. The prehistoric rock art of Great Britain: a survey of all sites bearing motifs more complex than simple cup marks. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 55, 45–88. Mullan, G.J, and Wilson, L.J., 2005. A Possible Mesolithic Engraving in Aveline’s Hole, Burrington Combe, North Somerset. University of Bristol Speleological Society Proceedings, 23(2), pp. 7585. Mullan, G. and Wilson, L., 2007. Possible Mesolithic cave art in southern England. In A. Mazel, G.H. Nash and C. Waddington (eds.) Art as Metaphor: The Prehistoric Rock-Art of Britain, Oxford: Archaeopress, pp. 39–48.

209

George Nash Nash, G.H., 1998. Exchange, Status and Mobility: Mesolithic Portable Art of Southern Scandinavia, Oxford: Archaeopress, British Archaeological Reports. International Series 710. Nash, G.H., 2005. Assessing rank and warfare strategy in a prehistoric hunter-gatherer society: a study of representational warrior figures in rock-art from the Spanish Levant. In M. Parker Pearson and I.J.N. Thorpe (eds.) Warfare, Violence and Slavery in Prehistory. BAR International Series 1374, 75-86. Nash, G.H. 2008. Northern European hunter/fisher/gatherer and Spanish Levantine rock-art: A study in performance, cosmology and belief. Trondheim. NTNU. Nash, G.H., Brook, C., George, A., Hudson, D., Mcqueen, E., Parker, C., Stanford, A., Smith, A., Swann, J. and Waite, L., 2005. Notes on newly discovered rock art on and around Neolithic burial chambers in Wales. Archaeology in Wales. Vol. 45, 11-16. Nash, G.N., Van Calsteren, P., Thomas, L. and Simms, M.J., 2012. Discovery of possible Upper Palaeolithic parietal art in Cathole cave, Gower Peninsula, South Wales. Proceedings of the University of Bristol Speleological Society 25. 3. 327-336. Pastor, J. and Moen, R., 2004. Ecology of ice-age extinctions. Nature 431, 639–640. Petersen, T., 1932-34. The Cronk yn How Stone: A Norwegian Authority’s Opinion. Journal of Manx Museum Vol. 2, pp. 92. Pike, A.W.G., Gilmour, M., Pettitt, P., Jacobi, R., Ripoll, S., Bahn P, and Muñoz F., 2005. Verification of the age of the Palaeolithic cave art at Creswell Crags, UK, Journal of Archaeological Science 32, 1649-55. Ripoll, S., Muñoz, F., Bahn, P. and Pettitt, P., 2004. Palaeolithic cave engravings at Creswell Crags, England. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, 70, 93–105. Shepherd, A., 2000. Skara Brae: expressing identity in a Neolithic community. In Ritchie, A. (ed.), Neolithic Orkney in its European context, 139–58. Cambridge: McDonald Institute. Sieveking, G. de G., 1971. The Kendrick’s Cave mandible. The British Museum Quarterly 35 (1– 4): 230–50. Simonsen, P. 1958. Arkiske Hellaristninger i Nord-Norge 2, Institutte for sammenlignende kulturforskning serie B. XLIX. Oslo. Sognnes, K., 1989. Rock art at the Arctic circle: Arctic and agrarian rock engravings from Tjøtta and Vevelstad, Nordland, Norway, Acta Archaeologica 59: 67—90. Sognnes, K., 1994. Ritual landscapes. Towards a reinterpretation of Stone Age rock art in Trøndelag, Norway. Norwegian Archaeological Review, 27(1), 29–50. Stuart, A.J., Kosintser, P.A., Higham, T.F.G. and Lister, A.M., 2004. Pleistocene to Holocene extinction dynamics in giant deer and woolly mammoth. Nature, 431, pp. 684-689. Teather, A.M., 2016. Mining and Materiality: Neolithic Chalk Artefacts and their Depositional Contexts in Southern Britain. Oxford: Archaeopress. Thomas, A., 2016. Art and Architecture in Neolithic Orkney: Process, Temporality and Context. Oxford: Archaeopress. Trench-Jellicoe, R., 2002. Manx sculptured monuments and the early Viking Age. In Davey, P. and Finlayson, D. (eds.), Mannin Revisited. Edinburgh: Scottish Society for Northern Studies, pp. 11–34. Twohig, E., 1981. The Megalithic Art of Western Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Waddington, C., Johnson, B. and Mazel, A., 2005. Excavation of a rock art site at Hunterheugh Crag, Northumberland, Archaeologia Aeliana 5th Series, Vol. XXXIV, pp 29—54. Woodcock, J., 2004. Cup-marks on the Meayll Peninsula. In Rimington, J. (ed.) Features and History of the Meayll Peninsula and The Sound with a Walkers’ Guide, 75–80. Castletown: Rushen Parish Commissioners. 210

A Reappraisal of the Cronk yn How Stone, Isle of Man Woodcock, J. and Crellin, R.J., 2016 Cup-marked rocks on the Meayll Peninsular. Isle of Man Proceedings of the Isle of Man Natural History and Antiquarian Society Vol. XIV, 30-44.  Yesner, D.R. 1980. Marine Hunter-gatherers - Ecology and Prehistory, Current Anthropology 21:727-750.

211

Rewriting Landscapes: Exploring the Context, Regionality and Extended Chronologies of Irish Rock Art Rebecca Aroon Enlander

Historic Environment Division, Northern Ireland and Independent Researcher

Introduction This chapter explores the outcome of macro and micro landscape investigation of prehistoric rock art contexts in the north of Ireland in order to draw out regional trends, the chronology of the tradition, and the subsequent reuse and endurance of certain rock art sites into the early medieval period, and occasionally into the early modern era, is then explored. Case studies are used to highlight examples of regional rock art landscapes, as well as deliberate acts of concealment, display and deposition of rock art in Ireland, through time. Rock art, and the social circumstances surrounding its creation, provide a unique insight into how prehistoric communities inhabited the landscape and viewed the world around them. Through landscape and geologically centred approaches, this work demonstrates that the distribution of rock art was not haphazard; rather the selection of certain localities in the production of rock art was inherently influenced by the presence and manifestation of certain landforms and stone characteristics, and that prehistoric people responded to often quite subtle changes in the landscape around them. The north of Ireland is specifically considered here, with reference made to extended regions of Ireland and further afield. In Ireland, rock art spans from the Neolithic period, enduring within the landscape into later prehistory and beyond. Some examples of rock art (and passage grave art) were reused in a variety of ways in secondary contexts such as cist burials and souterrains, while later still, others are associated with ecclesiastical sites, were repurposed as grave markers, or became sites of mass rites during the 17th century Irish Penal era. Decorated stones found in these secondary contexts seem to derive from the main period of rock art and may have been selected for reuse because of their decorative appearance, or perceived cultural significance. Context and foundations The carved rock surfaces of Ireland form a branch of a wider art tradition encountered across Atlantic Europe: the tradition draws upon largely curvilinear forms typically including cupmarks and cups surrounded by concentric rings. Elements including rosettes and the addition of radial lines, tails and linear grooves are less common and tend to occur at the large concentrations of rock art including sites on Inishowen, County Donegal, and the Burren and Marlbank areas of Counties Cavan and Fermanagh. These motifs may occur in isolation, or form dense clustered or interlinked designs, and are typically found on outcropping rock or large erratics in landscape settings (Figure 1). More uncommon are grids, spirals, horned spirals and other motifs more reminiscent of the passage grave art tradition. Signalling and performance (Archaeopress 2022): 212–233

Rewriting Landscapes The capstones and orthostats of megalithic monuments, including portal tombs, court tombs and standing stones, were also the focus of rock art (commonly in the form of cup marking), while the use of quarried rock art panels in cist burials during the Bronze Age is not uncommon in Ireland, perhaps representing acts of deliberate concealment (Waddington 1998, 43-5; Enlander 2019). Irish rock art also shares a close relationship with passage grave art, which is typified by the highly decorated passage grave cemeteries of Brú na Bóinne, and Loughcrew in County Meath. Smaller clusters of passage grave art include the sites of Knockmany and the Sess Kilgreen graves, County Tryone. The potential relationship between rock art in the landscape and passage grave art is perhaps best demonstrated at Loughcrew passage grave cemetery, where a detailed survey of the landscape immediate to the passage grave complex in the townlands of Ballinvally and Corstown by Shee Twohig (2012; Shee Twohig et al. 2010), has recorded an extensive range of cup-and-ring marked boulders and demonstrates that the two traditions cannot be considered as wholly distinct.

Figure 1. Cup-and-ring motifs at a recently identified rock art site in Tully, County Fermanagh. Image: Rebecca Enlander.

A limited number of excavations at in-situ rock art sites in Ireland and Britain hint at the common use of at least some rock art localities. There are several shared traits that can be demonstrated at a limited number of sites across this extensive region (e.g., see O’Connor 2006, 178-179; Ellis & Webb 2007; Jones & O’Connor 2007; Jones et al. 2011; Nash et al. 2011, 111; Bradley & Watson 2012; Jones & Lawson-Jones 2014), specifically: the presence of quartz including large quantities of broken and worked quartz, comparable remains of clay or stone platforms and boundaries and the insertion of quartz and other stone debris into natural cracks at rock art panels. Other development-led excavations in Ireland have revealed new rock art sites and elements of their surrounding prehistoric landscapes. During archaeological investigations on the route of the South-Eastern Motorway, County Dublin, in 2001 and 2002, three small boulders with cupmarks were recorded at the Carrickmines Great, in an area associated with Neolithic and Beaker occupation (Clinton 2002). Nearby, a further cupmarked stone was found as part of the same motorway project at Laughanstown, and associated with Middle to Late Bronze Age pottery (Seaver 2004). Geophysical survey revealed potential pits around a cup-and-ring marked rock, which was later used as a mass stone, at Ballinvally, County Meath as part of a wider investigation into the prehistoric landscape of the area, and perhaps suggesting associated activities (Shell 2005). 213

Rebecca Aroon Enlander Geological landscapes While similarities between distinct rock art sites do point at a broad, shared tradition, at a more localised scale, rock art reflects and references the often subtle characteristics of landscape, and stone surface. In many ways, the individual stone surfaces have sensitively influenced the motifs carved upon them. By defining contextual elements of the landscape such as solid geology, apparent preferences for certain geological areas in the distribution and character of Irish rock art can be drawn out. Put simply, geology seems to inform rock art at a local scale. It should be stressed, however, that solid geology, drift (or superficial) geology, and the availability of stone surfaces need to be considered in tandem: geological trends in site distribution does not imply that communities were aware of geological divisions, but rather, subtle distinctions in texture, colour and even the ‘hardness’ of stone may have been reacted to in the selection of surfaces and creation of rock art. Ireland’s geology is diverse and gives rise to various distinct regions and landscapes: its topography is defined by a mountainous rim and comparatively flat interior, which is mainly underlain by Carboniferous limestones, punctuated by infrequent islands of sandstone, and blanketed in more recent peat or blanket bogs (Mitchell et al. 2010). By exploring this geological variability, in both the areas and the surfaces selected in the production of rock art, regionally specific trends may be established by considering both the geological and anthropological character of rock art sites. Several regions are discussed in relation to locally available rock surfaces (including bedrock and erratics) at a higher resolution below. These contrasting clusters of rock art include the distinct metamorphic surfaces of Doagh Island, County Donegal, the Silurian sandstone, or greywacke surfaces preferred in the broad Counties Monaghan and Louth, and the erratic sandstone of the Fermanagh and Cavan border region. These localities demonstrate considerable variability in their geological and topographic choice, preference for stone type and forms, and the character of rock art encountered. Refer to Figure 2 for the distribution of Irish rock art and passage grave art sites in relation to the solid geology of Ireland (see also Enlander 2013 and 2016 for a more detailed discussion of geographical areas mentioned).

Figure 2. (following page) Distribution map demonstrating site location of all known Irish rock art and passage grave art sites in relation to the solid geology of Ireland: note the apparent avoidance of the Central lowlands which are principally underlain by Carboniferous limestones. Sites discussed in text include: the Argyll Group in the Inishowen area (and Doagh Island); the Lower Palaeozoic Turbidite sandstones in counties Down- Meath (Drumirril, Loughcrew); sandstone erratics on Carboniferous limestone in Cavan and Fermanagh (Burren, Marlbank, Reyfad); and sandstone surfaces across the Continental redbed sandstone series in Cork and Kerry (Kealduff Upper, Derrynablaha). Solid geology © gsi.ie. Note that red circles indicate cup-and-ring stones, pink circles represent cupmarked stones and stars indicate passage tomb art.

214

Rewriting Landscapes

215

Rebecca Aroon Enlander Doagh Island and the Inishowen - Dalradian Argyll and Appin Groups The Inishowen region in County Donegal is characterised by psammites and pelites which belong to the Argyll and Appin Groups; the region also has a high concentration of rock art sites, principally concentrated to the north of the peninsula on Doagh Island. The Argyll and Appin Groups of Donegal consist of a range of metamorphic rocks including quartzite (metamorphosed quartz sandstone), psammites (metamorphosed sandstone), and pelite (metamorphosed mudstone and siltstone), which vary considerably in colour, texture, and surface form. There is strong evidence to indicate a preference for specific petrologies in this area. Recorded rock art is largely present on naturally outcropping surfaces, with a much smaller number of decorated erratics, and rock art associated with other monuments such as standing stones and megalithic tombs. While decorated erratic boulders may have been lost due to field clearance and associated activities, a clear preference for outcropping psammites and pelites is evident in this region. The strong preference for the geology of the Argyll Group is further supported when site distribution is considered across Donegal at a wider scale (Figures 2 & 3). The main geological trends run northeast to southwest across the county and a majority of the Donegal rock art falls within the limits of the Argyll succession, especially the band of pelitic and psammitic schists known as the Termon Formation. There are minimal rock art panels to the north of the Termon pelites, an area noted by the presence of quartzite, while the Southern Highland Group, located to the south and extending as far as County Tyrone, is characterised by pelites and psammites, but outcropping surfaces are rarely the focus of decoration (Figure 2). While the apparent focus of rock art to exposures of the Termon Formation in this area is no doubt influenced by differential site preservation and survey biases, Inishowen has been the focus of several intensive archaeological surveys, including those by Van Hoek (1987, 1988, 1993), and if the distribution was not a response to geology, then one would expect a more uniform coverage of sites across the Argyll succession. When explored at a higher resolution, the role of distinct geologies in site distribution becomes even more evident (Figure 3). At Doagh Island, in particular, two large clusters of carved surfaces dominate the southern shoreline at Magheranaul and Carrowreagh, and although close, each cluster is distinct in its use of outcropping stone and the motifs employed. The carvings employed at Magheranaul and Carrowreagh range greatly from isolated cupmarks and discs to much more elaborate and distinct radial, grid, and cartouche designs (coined by Van Hoek 1987), the latter of which have not been observed at any other site in Ireland. The rock art of Carrowreagh, at the western side of Doagh, occupies a low-lying landscape dominated by extensive, ice-smoothed outcrops of the Termon Pelite Formation and is characterised by cup and disc-marks with limited use of enclosing rings (frequently single) and radial tails. There is minimal evidence for the incorporation of natural features. Specifically, radial lines were carved in the direction of the stone’s slope: as smooth surfaces are dominant in the Carrowreagh rock art, this is perhaps unsurprising. Carrowreagh is characteristically distinct from Magheranaul in terms of surfaces selected and motifs employed in the production of rock art.

216

Figure 3. Distribution map demonstrating site location of major rock art and passage grave art clusters in Ireland on high resolution solid geology (1:100,000). Insert 1: Inishowen/ N. Donegal with a distinct preference for Termon Pelite Formation. Insert 2: Louth-Meath with a distinct preference for the Clontail Formation and turbidite sandstone (greywacke). Insert 3: Dingle, Iveragh and Cork where sites broadly fall on Devonian sandstones, but no preference for a distinct Formation is evident. Solid geology © gsi.ie.

Rewriting Landscapes

217

Rebecca Aroon Enlander

Figure 4. Detail of cupmarks at Carrowreagh and cartouche motif at Magheranaul. The Carrowreagh rock art (left) is typically characterised by isolated and group cup and disc marks, with the decorated surfaces characterised by ice-smoothed outcrops of the Termon Pelite Formation [note also the historic symbols discussed below]. This contrasts with nearby Magheranaul (right), where rock art frequently occurs on flat, heavily fissured outcrops of pelite and schistose pelite, with fissured surfaces often favoured for composing rock art. The rock art is also different is character, with natural features often used including the elaborate cartouch and tailed disc design which incorporates natural grooves. Left image: Aron Mazel. Right image: Rebecca Enlander.

At Magheranaul rock art frequently occurs on flat, heavily fissured outcrops of pelite and schistose pelite which gently mimic the natural topography of the local terrain. A total of 64 areas of outcrop are recorded as bearing decoration in this area by van Hoek (1987) but, unfortunately, a number of areas of outcrop have become inaccessible or destroyed over time, largely as a result of farming activity. Many of the visible surfaces incorporate natural features such as natural hollows and fissures which seemed to have been employed to truncate, elaborate or divide motifs. The elaborate cartouches and tailed discs which characterise the rock art of Magheranaul frequently link to, or incorporate natural grooves. At Carrowreagh and Magheranaul smooth and heavily folded stone surfaces are readily available; at Magheranaul these seem to have been disregarded in favour of fissured surfaces for composing rock art, while smooth surfaces were employed at Carrowreagh (Figure 4). The restricted nature of Doagh Island, essentially a small parcel of fertile land, removed from Inishowen by a narrow sound, has been interpreted as significant by Bradley (1997, 134) and O’Connor (2006, 247), precisely because of this liminal or ‘bounded’ quality. Drumirril and the Down-Longford series This area is defined by the Lower Palaeozoic Down-Longford series, which consists of Silurian sandstone and shale: the exposure runs from the Ards peninsula in County Down to County Meath, and a large number of rock art sites fall within this area. While it is unsurprising that a high proportion of the sites evaluated fall within such a large geological formation (Figure 2), their distribution is not uniform and warrants further consideration. Across the region, both outcrop and erratic sandstones were used in the production of rock art, but when approached at a smaller scale, there is evidence for strong regional preferences across the area (Figure 3). 218

Rewriting Landscapes The main area of decorated outcrop is restricted to a parcel of turbidite sandstone (Clontail Formation - Calcareous red-mica greywacke) inland from Dundalk, on an open plain southwest of the Carlingford Mountains and south of Slieve Gullion (both topographically conspicuous igneous complexes). This concentration of rock art sites on the Monaghan-Louth border makes use of outcropping surfaces; as the presence of rock art becomes more dispersed to the east, rock art is more likely to occur on erratics. Outside of this latter group (with the extensive site of Drumirril at its centre), rock art that occurs within the Down-Longford series is much less likely to employ naturally outcropping stone, and generally sandstone erratic boulders and slabs are selected. The exception may be a recently expanding group of outcropping Silurian sandstone surfaces close to the mouth of Strangford Lough, County Down, including a flat outcropping cup-and-ring marked surface at Ballystokes, and humped outcrops at Ballyculter Upper and Ardkeen. There is also a strong association with stone explicitly associated with built monuments in the Down-Longford unit including rock art and megalithic art. The latter category includes 18 passage graves where decorated surfaces range from a single kerb stone, to multiple highly decorated orthostates (i.e., Loughcrew), as well as the 40 highly distinct decorated slabs at Millin Bay, County Down. Regional preferences in Monaghan and Louth are suggested by rock art consistently falling on turbidite sandstone (greywacke). Furthermore, greywacke was widely used in the construction of passage graves, including the Boyne Valley tombs which fall just outside of this formation (Cooney 2000; O’Connor 2006), including the recently discovered passage grave at Dowth Hall, which has greywacke kerbstones, one of which highly carved with megalithic art (McDonnell 2019). The passage grave cemetery of Loughcrew and surrounding open-air rock art sites also fall within an envelope of this bedrock type, surrounded by younger Carboniferous material. The Loughcrew passage graves themselves were constructed using locally quarried stone (greywacke), and extra local limestone; rock art in the surrounding landscape was carved upon erratic Silurian sandstone boulders (often calcareous), rather than outcropping surfaces and these sandstone erratics are likely to have been transported from the hills above the townland, which is in turn capped by the passage grave cemetery (Enlander 2015). Turning the focus back to the rock art of Drumirril, when approached at a higher resolution, the site is distinctive in its localised geological exposure. The site is characterised by distinct linear ridges, and where visible in the field, the surface outcrop is dominated by Silurian sandstone, often exhibiting marked dissolution hollows (suggesting the presence of calcareous units). There are at least 38 decorated surfaces at Drumirril, and natural features bore some influence on the carvings present at a majority of the panels; this influence most commonly took the form of incorporating natural dissolution hollows, joints, and fissures into carved motifs. Distinct geology certainly seems to have had a role in the selection of Drumirril as a focal point in the local landscape (Figure 5). More generally, the sites in the Louth and Monaghan region share a preference for topography and distinct geological formations (frequently domed outcrops and rocky knolls), while the naturally occurring hollows and fissures of the rock surfaces were frequently incorporated into the rock art. The relationship between carved motifs and natural features is most commonly in the form of the incorporation of natural hollows into designs, including ringed and ‘orbiting’ 219

Rebecca Aroon Enlander

Figure 5. Rock art at Drumirril, County Monaghan, where a distinct, block-like outcropping unit of Silurian sandstone forms a focal point in the local landscape. The motifs incorporate natural hollows including ringed hollows at the centre of cup-and-ring motifs, and including small hallows along rings to create ‘orbiting’ cups. Image: Rebecca Enlander.

hollows, but also includes the use of natural cracks and fissures to divide compositions. The repeated use of distinct outcrops and knolls, and the inclusion of natural features suggest that geologically characteristic or distinct places were being selected. Cuilcagh Mountain - marine shelf facies Another smaller cluster of rock art is situated at the limits of a broad unit of Carboniferous limestone bedrock, which is dominated by limestones and calcareous shales. Located across the Burren and Marlbank townlands of Counties Cavan and Fermanagh, a majority of the known rock art sites in this area are situated where this broad limestone and shale series meet the younger sandstones of Cuilcagh Mountain, close to the Marble Arch Caves (Figure 2). Hard limestones are a notable element of this landscape, characterised by the subsequent development of karst landforms including swallow holes (water can be seen to disappear underground), springs or resurgences (water returns to the surface), dolines (enclosed depressions) and caves systems at Marble Arch and nearby Reyfad. Superficial (primarily glacial) deposits are of further interest as many non-limestone erratics, especially large sandstone boulders have been incorporated into a variety of monuments (Kytmannow et al. 2008; Burns & Nolan 2011; Cummings et al. 2015), and form the focus of rock art in the region. 220

Rewriting Landscapes At a higher resolution, the idiosyncrasy of surfaces selected in the production of rock art in this region is interesting: frequently pedestals are a feature of these sites (a ‘pedestal’ effect is produced by the differential erosion between the protected limestone under the boulder and that of the wider countryside). Erratic sandstone boulders with limestone pedestals are often the focus of decoration, as well as boulders situated near sinkholes and other features of karst origin. The motifs typical of the region range from cups, cup-and-ring marks, and dished or basin motifs, with several instances of rosette compositions. In general, these motifs occur in isolation, or seem to have been carved over time: no overall composition is apparent and the possible repeated use of these boulders is evidenced through the accumulation of motifs (Figures 6 & 7). Comparative distributions in Ireland To establish if rock art distributions respond to distinct geological formations across Ireland, the broader extent of Irish rock art is briefly discussed here. There is a strong preference for sandstone, siltstone, and mudstone formations of the Devonian redbed series. The high proportion of rock art in this area reflects the significant cluster of rock art sites across the Dingle and Iveragh peninsulas, with more recent discoveries by Aoibheann Lambe in the Caherdaniel area, for instance (National Monument Service), revealing further concentrations of decorated outcropping sandstone in Kerry. The incorporation of natural cracks on the outcropping surfaces at sites like Liss and Derrynablaha on Iveragh peninsula, also demonstrates the juxtaposition of carved motifs and natural features in this region, with pecked grooves and natural cracks forming networks or grid-like areas, potentially employed to zone cup and cup-and-ring marks (Purcell 2002).

Figure 6. Rock art at Clyhannagh, north of Cuilcagh Mountain, County Fermanagh, where a large sandstone slab has tipped forward from its limestone pedestal and shows sign of attempted slipping in the early modern era using wedges (feather and plug marks). Detail of the rock art motifs which occupy the upper surface of the slab also show wedge marks on this face (right). Images: Rebecca Enlander.

221

Rebecca Aroon Enlander

Figure 7. The main decorated slab at Reyfad which is heavily decorated with an array of cup, cup-and-ring and penannular motifs. The rock art does not appear to conform to an overall design and suggests that the motifs accumulated through successive ‘carving events’. The repeated use of penannular motifs is disinct. Image: Rebecca Enlander.

A mutual avoidance of the Central Lowland and Carboniferous Limestone more generally, is demonstrated across Ireland. This pattern is no doubt influenced by the vast presence of peat across the area, which could potentially be obscuring older human remains. The lowland raised bogs are, however, much older than upland blanket bogs in Ireland and would have limited landuse/desirability for site selection during the Neolithic (Hammond 1981, 7-9). Equally, if rock art was carved upon limestone surfaces, its relatively high weathering rate would have resulted in a loss of decoration, rather than a total absence of rock art. A handful of isolated examples of recorded rock art occur within this central area. At Clonfinlough, County Offaly, a large sandstone erratic is decorated with cups, cup-and-rings, and later cross and phi motifs, and is the subject of much folklore and historic significance (Shee Twohig 2002). The sites in Westmeath include three portable sandstone examples of rock art at Ballinlug, Emper and Togherslown. Interestingly, two of these examples are associated with early medieval settlements, with the example from Emper built into a souterrain wall (O’Reilly 2010), and the Togherslown stone re-used as a paving slab in the courtyard of an early medieval ringfort. The context of these two examples of re-used rock art is discussed in more detail below. The third example, at Ballinlug, occurs on a small portable millstone grit boulder and is decorated with a radial motif (Tuite 1913) similar to those found at Crew, County Tyrone 222

Rewriting Landscapes (known as the Ballynasaggart stone) and Haughey’s Fort, County Armagh (see Figure 8 and below). A recently discovered example of rock art in Tipperary North, Lisheentyrone, and close to Lough Derg is the only example from the county (National Monuments Service). While there are examples of rock art in areas of limestone bedrock, the selected stones are non-calcareous; for example, in the Cuilcagh area discussed above, decorated Figure 8. Rock art found in a large pit at Haughey’s Fort, which sandstone erratics sit directly on appears to have been quarried from a larger slab and deliberately the limestone bedrock, their source deposited in the interior of the large hilltop enclosure. is close by, with many suitable Image: N. Aitchison (1998). sandstone erratics abundant in the vicinity. Clusters of rock art in the south of Ireland occur around the limits of the limestone interior, hugging the lower slopes of igneous and sedimentary mountains including Croagh Patrick in County Mayo and the Carlow and Wicklow Mountains. The absence of more complete survey data is a problem, but there is still a suggestion that limestone was not the main focus of decoration. Local landscapes When the distribution of rock art is explored within the context of local, physical landscape classification, some interesting patterns are apparent: large clusters of rock art appear to be more likely to occur at, or near changes in terrain, such as small peninsulas. For example, the concentration of rock art carvings at Doagh Island occurs within a restricted parcel of lowland agricultural land, which is bounded by water and is topographically distinct from the largely mountainous Inishowen. Also, in County Donegal, the highly distinct site of Meavagh likewise occurs on a distinct linear ridge on the coast of the Rosguill Peninsula, a narrow portion of lowland terrain, topographically distinct from the mountainous Donegal mainland. Further south, the Burren and Marlbank townlands north of the Cuilcagh Mountains, include rock art motifs that mark a number of sandstone boulders and slabs that occur across midaltitude elevations between lower ground, largely defined by water bodies, and much higher, mountainous slopes. In County Louth, the focus of rock art in the Dundalk region occurs in a large area of rolling lowland, bound to the west by higher Drumlins in County Monaghan; significantly, the large, westerly site of Drumirril falls at the periphery between these two topographic distinctions. A similar association with significant changes in terrain is demonstrable further south. The explicit relationship between rock art and significant changes in topography is demonstrable in County Carlow, where predominantly cup-and-ring marked surfaces occur to the west of the Blackstair Mountains, clustering between the rolling lowlands and lower mountainous 223

Rebecca Aroon Enlander slopes. In Counties Cork and Kerry, the majority of rock art sites occur across mountainous terrain, or within the rolling lowlands immediate to these higher slopes. Across Ireland as a whole, surfaces and sites become noticeably more clustered (and to some extent motifs may become more distinct) in areas with topographically diverse landscapes. It should of course be noted that successive generations of field clearance may have contributed to our current understanding of the distribution of rock art in the lowlands; however, a marked preference for distinct local landscapes in the known rock art record does suggest that physical terrain played a key role in the rock art tradition. At a regional scale, rock art responded differently to elements of the local landscape in surprisingly subtle ways. One of the key outcomes of the analysis presented here has been a strong correlation between certain geological formations and groups of rock art carvings. Despite the varied surface geology across Ireland, there is a marked preference for outcropping turbidite sandstones belonging to the Clontail formation in Counties Monaghan and Louth, with relatively few rock art sites beyond the limits of this formation. In County Meath, the large passage grave complex at Loughcrew occurs in a restricted envelope of the Clontail Formation, surrounded by younger Carboniferous material. The Loughcrew passage graves themselves were constructed using locally quarried stone (greywacke), and extra local limestone; rock art in the surrounding landscape was carved upon boulders rather than outcropping surfaces and these sandstone erratics are likely to have originated from the hills above. A preference for outcropping surfaces in the production of rock art is also demonstrable in northern Donegal, where clustered sites occur within the boundaries of the Termon Formation, a unit characterised by banded semi-pelitic and psammitic schists (particularly in Inishowen), suggesting that rock art distribution in Donegal was particularly responsive to changes in the colour and texture of local geology. The availability of stone also played a role in the lack of known rock art in certain regions, particularly across the central lowlands. Approaching prehistoric art The previous sections of this chapter have explored the nature of the contextual setting of rock art sites, including topographic landscapes, aspects of individual surfaces (including rock type), and the incorporation of natural features into rock art compositions. Some of the key findings gained by addressing the landscape context of rock art sites have revealed the complex ways in which prehistoric communities responded to the world around them, and several of these points are worth summarising here: • there is a strong relationship between the frequency and form of rock art in certain, geologically distinct regions within the survey area, suggesting that changes in the attributes of stone (colour, texture, inclusions) were responded to in prehistory; • rock art in the landscape was consistently produced in characteristic places, including large domed outcrops, hillocks, ridges, breaks in slope, and so on, which were distinct from their wider surroundings; • and finally, at a micro-scale, the surface-scapes of individual rock art panels were often as distinctive and characteristic as their wider contexts. Carvers drew upon points of reference in the production of rock art. Macro features include the repeated selection of distinctive surfaces or places (i.e., rocky knolls, domed outcrops, hillocks, 224

Rewriting Landscapes ridges or conspicuous boulders) and their selection suggests that individual topographic features were points of significance, even veneration in the prehistoric landscape. Micro features include elements of the rock surface itself (i.e., colour, texture, hollows, cracks and inclusions), features which may have been treated as traces of past agency. Areas or ‘zones’ of high carving activity explored within the north of Ireland were frequently associated with distinct parts of the landscape. In Inishowen, for instance, carving activity is principally represented at Doagh Island, a restricted area of low-lying land quite separate from Inishowen itself. This tract of land is visibly bound by water and the mountainous interior of Inishowen. In addition, the geological character of Doagh Island influenced the form and organisation of rock art, especially at Magheranaul, where tailed and grooved motifs are reminiscent of glacially derived striations. Other centres of carving activity include the Cuilcagh region, where the area’s geological history has given rise to a karst landscape, dotted with caves, sinkholes and spring resurgences, and large sandstone erratics which cap the exposed limestone pavement. In the Dundalk region, the open nature of the local terrain is interrupted by small ridges and hillocks, is bound by drumlins to the west, and rock art is frequently associated with these topographically distinct places. More discrete zones of rock art arguably existed in areas including the Lecale peninsula in County Down, with its wider views of water and land framed by the heights of the Belfast Hills to the north and the Mournes to the south. Reworking and reuse In drawing together themes of distinct landscape features and the character of individual rock surfaces, it is important to note that many rock art panels appear to have been created over extended periods, with motifs added, reworked, superimposed, and even removed over time. Instances where motifs are crowded, border, and occasionally superimpose each other arguably demonstrate the longevity of carving events at a particular site. The creation of rock art and repeated re-engagement with certain sites suggests a long-term relationship between local communities and their local landscapes. Local communities were influenced by distinctive local geologies in the production of rock art, with rock art feeding back into the social memory of these very communities, giving rise to the gradual development of equally distinct rock art hubs. These behaviours include practices of reference, repetition, and reuse, which are summarised below, and more fully discussed elsewhere (Enlander 2016). In the following section of this chapter, attention is then drawn to acts of reuse, and the many types of reuse including concealment, display and deposition of rock art in Ireland. • Reference - the manner in which motifs refer to the qualities of stone or surface. This could include the division or zoning of motifs across different areas of the surface, the use of natural hollows, cracks, or joints as integral design elements, or perhaps more subtly, a radial groove following the surface slope or motifs cluster around visible mineral inclusions. Rock art production also makes reference to parts of the local and distinct landscape through site selection, the use of stone tools to create the rock art, and through the use of images with wider cultural currency, which may refer to distant places. • Repetition - the process by which certain surfaces and/or sites become focal points of carving activity, and, at the same time, motifs and panel compositions are more likely 225

Rebecca Aroon Enlander to become regionally distinct. The longevity of individual sites is most apparent where motifs are crowded or overlap, but generally, few rock art panels appear to have been carved with one overall composition in mind. Surface attributes and previous carvings are referenced with each successive activity, often giving rise to distinct motifs. • Reuse - the continual process of reuse results in specific sites having extended histories. On subsequent occasions of reuse, performative acts may be repeated (including carving and other more discrete rites like clearing a panel of vegetation or the application of substances to the rock surface) and surfaces are reinterpreted. Discontinuous reuse may result in the superimposition of motifs with stylistically different imagery, the quarrying of surfaces to reveal ‘fresh’ faces, and the incorporation of rock art in different contexts. Rewriting landscapes Rock art appears in a variety of secondary contexts in Ireland, ranging from funerary monuments and later graveyards to church and mass sites. These settings and the nature of reuse contrasts widely and changes focus over time, but can broadly be classed under the themes of concealment, display, and deposition. Concealed images The reuse of quarried rock art panels in Bronze Age cist construction is not uncommon, particularly in northern Britain (Bradley 1997, 136), and while there is perhaps a more limited corpus in Ireland, the resource is highly distinctive. The known examples typically include cupmarked capstones, with some showing clear quarrying evidence suggesting that sections were deliberately selected and removed from in-situ rock art panels. Examples include truncated cupmarks at the cist slab from Drumnakeel, County Antrim, and a cist slab from Carn More 5, County Louth, which shows signs of quarrying (O’Connor 2010). These secondary contexts also provide explicit post terminus dating evidence for the rock art tradition at a local scale, with dating evidence from Altaghaderry cist, County Donegal, Drumnakeel cist, County Antrim, and Moylough cist, County Sligo, providing date ranges of 2195-1768 cal. BCE, 2020-1777 cal. BCE and 2131-1881 cal. BCE respectively (2 Sigma date produced with Calib 6; Brindley 2007, 373; Cahill and Sikora 2011, 98-111). A more recent example has also been excavated in the Ballyshannon area of County Donegal, with a large cupmarked boulder found to be a capstone, covering a re-cut pit containing cairn material: the immediate area around the capstone was demarcated by four possible kerbstones, forming a rough arc to the west and south of the capstone. Further archaeological features excavated in the immediate area included cremation pits, a possible pyre, and a miniature ring ditch containing inverted urn cremations in its interior and water-rolled stones in the ditch (McHugh 2020). In Counties Louth and Meath, decorated slabs and panels are often idiosyncratic, and it seems probable that they were decorated specifically for their ‘secondary’ use. Examples include the Crumlin cist in County Louth which features dispersed pecking and shallow cups (which appear poorly defined), and a sandstone slab from a cist-like burial at Windmill Hill, County Tipperary, which features bands and dispersed areas of pick dressing.

226

Rewriting Landscapes O’Connor (2010) has argued that the insertion of cupmarked slabs and stones, as well as smaller cupmarked portable stones and cobbles, may have been a deliberate part of the funerary process, culminating in their purposeful inclusion in funerary contexts. The ‘creation’, either through the selection of existing rock art, or the physical production of ‘new’ rock art, and often strategic placement (including central and cardinal positions, and being deposited facedown) of rock art in funerary monuments may have formed a significant act. The removal of existing surfaces or creation of ‘new’ rock art in this context, in particular, could be linked to a specific sensory experience connected to processes of remembrance (O’Connor 2010). Traditions involving the reuse of carved stones explicitly in mortuary monuments from the later Neolithic/ Early Bronze Age also reflect a broader shift in emphasis from landscape and more communal contexts, to locations related to individual burials, mirroring major changes in contemporary monumental architecture at this time (Cooney 2000, 17). This period of reuse of art may be a reflection of social change at the beginning of the Chalcolithic period in Ireland (c. 2500 BCE) suggested by O’Brien (2012, 215). Deliberate deposition? Moving into the later Bronze Age and Iron Age era onwards, the context of reuse changes focus, and the deposition of earlier cup-and-ring marked stones in potential votive contexts is suggested at a number of sites in Ireland. A portable boulder decorated with a cup, double ring and radial line was found re-deposited in the interior of Haughey’s Fort, County Armagh, from a large, charcoal-filled pit (Figure 8). Excavations revealed direct dating evidence (ca. 1250-910 BCE), indicating a late Bronze Age context; the boulder was damaged in antiquity on its left side, perhaps indicating that it was intentionally quarried from a larger slab. Its deposition perhaps reflects its use as a votive offering or deliberate act of deposition (Aitchison 1998, 3139; Corlett 2000, 77-78). The cupmarked stone from Laughanstown, Dublin, excavated at the edge of a marshy flood plain running to the Shanganagh River, was found close to a large pit, described as a ‘waterhole’, which was also associated with deliberately smashed bucket-shaped Middle to Late Bronze Age pottery (Seaver 2004), potentially representing an act of deliberate deposition. The presence of cupmarked stones in potentially similar watery places is also suggested by the presence of a cupmarked stone at the shoreline site of Derryhowlaght Lough (Upper Lough Erne), County Fermanagh, where a number of burnt mounds and a small linear barrow cemetery were excavated (Conway 1993). Explicit acts of deposition at other extensive burnt mound sites has recently been demonstrated at Lisbeg, County Tyrone, where a Middle Bronze Age inhumation, dated to 1543-1411 BCE, and consisting of the left and right forearms, femurs, fibula, and tibia, was identified. Erosion of the bones by water and the presence of ‘Sextant beetle’ (Necrophorus sp.) found in samples taken from around the remains suggest that this inhumation represents a deliberate, symbolic deposit associated with burnt mounds (Dunlop & Barkley 2015). Display The incorporation and possible display of stones bearing megalithic art in souterrains and other structures from the Late Iron Age, and into the early medieval period potentially reflect the deliberate reuse and display of earlier prehistoric remains. In County Louth, a number 227

Rebecca Aroon Enlander of decorated slabs with characteristically megalithic-style art have been excavated from souterrain sites at Newtownbalregan, Lismullin and Tateetra. At Newtownbalregan, a broken slab with megalithic art motifs, and the possible Iron Age addition of a ‘paisley’ pattern was used as a stone to roof the souterrain passage not far from the entrance. The slab, which may have originally been a kerbstone, was positioned in such a way that the decoration could be seen quite clearly from inside the structure (O’Connor 2005). The stones from Lismullin and Tateetra are thought to have similar origins (Roycroft 2005; O’Connell 2009) with the Lismullin stone thought to be a decorated kerbstone that was split and re-used as a souterrain capstone. Two further examples of rock art in early medieval contexts are recorded in County Westmeath, at Emper and Togherslown, and in each case, rock art was deliberately re-used with a decorated surface visible. At Emper, a ringfort or ‘rath’ containing a souterrain incorporates a panel of rock art within one of the stone-built passages of the structure. The rock art consists of a cupmark, four cup-and-ring motifs, and a concentric circle motif, and occupies quite a large sandstone panel, which appears to have been deliberately positioned within the souterrain passage (O’Reilly 2010; Figure 6). Around 10km to the south at Togherslown, a further highly decorated stone was re-used as a paving slab in the courtyard of an early medieval ringfort. The stone is a portable fragment of local sandstone which seems to have been deliberately broken from a larger panel and includes cup-and-ring motifs with up to five enclosing rings (O’Reilly 2010; Figure 3). At such high-status sites, the deliberate inclusion of decorated stones may have acted to enhance the standing of the site itself in the local landscape, or legitimise claims to land by incorporating ‘ancestral’ remains. Extending chronologies The reuse of rock art is demonstrable from a number of prehistoric contexts, including the deliberate incorporation of rock art into cist burials, through to the deliberate deposition of panels as votive offerings (as suggested by Haughey’s Fort for instance). The reuse of earlier rock art in early medieval contexts could represent the deliberate re-appropriation of ancient remains. During the Penal era, rock art sites (often cupmarked boulders) and other monuments including standing stones, were used to practice Catholic mass when it was outlawed in Ireland under a series of Penal laws imposed in the 17th century. Penal sites were frequently, out of necessity, located away from settlements and made use of liminal landscapes and distinct natural features; areas of outcrop, boulders, existing monuments, and ancient remains were used during mass rites, giving rise to mass stones. In contrast to earlier periods, where rock art was being selected, moved, and placed into a new context, rock art is instead being engaged in its original setting. The mass stone and ancient church site of Kiltober, County Fermanagh (Figure 9) is now marked by a number of sandstone slabs and an earthen mound, potentially marking the remains of a long-forgotten church, located close to a stream marking the townland boundary. One of the exposed slabs has proven to be decorated with numerous cupmarks. During the penal era, we also see the addition of Christian crosses and other motifs to rock art sites. Notable examples include a Carrowreagh in County Donegal, where a cross and chalice motif was added to a large, cupmarked outcrop at the western side of Doagh Island (Figure 4), Clehagh on Inishown, County Donegal, where several outcropping surfaces and boulders are hosts to both cup-and-

228

Rewriting Landscapes

Figure 9. The ancient church and mass site at Kiltober. Several slabs sit around the mound, one of which has proven to be decorated with cupmarks. The site sits close to a holy well and is thought to have been used for Mass in the Penal times. Image: Rebecca Enlander.

ring marks and a range of Latin and Greek crosses (Van Hoek 1993), and a large sandstone erratic is decorated with cups, cup-and-rings and later cross and phi motifs at Clonfinlough, County Offaly. The Clonfinlough stone was re-evaluated by Shee Twohig (2002) who suggests that the phi motif could be interpreted as a version of the cross motif, or as anthropomorphic figures, and that these motifs probably date from the historic period possibly associated with the monastic site of Clonmacnoise (Shee Twohig 2002, 108-109). Further links between prehistoric rock art sites and later, Christian beliefs in the early medieval to early modern era can be glimpsed in the reuse of slabs in burial contexts, bullaun stones, and folklore sites like footprint or knee stones, often associated with St. Patrick. Like many ancient monuments, the potency of certain rock art sites also lingers and endures into the early modern period through folklore and oral histories. Through these cycles of human behaviour, the landscape was in a constant process of formation and understanding. If we reduce the rock art tradition as a whole down to its various strands of distinct practices, then it becomes clear that the writing and rewriting of the landscape, through the marking of specific rock surfaces, was the product of long-lived ideological expressions, and should not be reduced to short episodes of isolated activity. The nature of the reuse of rock art in Ireland is summarised in Table 1 and draws on chronological indicators discussed in the text.

229

Evidence

Reuse

The case studies presented within this chapter have sought to demonstrate how humans animatedly interacted with stone surfaces, through the production of rock art in the north of Ireland. The production and interaction with rock art through time could be typified under several distinct processes or sets of behaviours, including practices of reference, repetition and reuse. Local communities were influenced by distinctive local geologies in the production of rock art, with rock art feeding back into social narratives, giving rise to the gradual development of equally distinct rock art hubs. Differences in stone type, texture, colour, and form were reacted to in the distribution of rock art, and at the same time, the characteristics of individual surfaces were referenced in the placement and creation of rock art motifs.

Table 1 - The nature of the reuse of rock art, focusing on the appearance of traditions involving the reuse of carved stones in mortuary monuments (later Neolithic/ Early Bronze Age). The reuse of sites arguably extends to the present day. The shaded section represents the proposed period for the cup-and-ring tradition.

Cups referenced in art into Penal era (often with addition of crosses) - extends to Bullauns, knee stones, cursing stones. Souterrain slabs at Including Lismullin c. AD 980-1150 Iron Age and early medieval activity at Drumirril Haughey’s Fort: ‘votive’ deposition of rock art in pit c. 1250-910 BC Reuse of slabs in cist contexts: Drumnakeel c. 2020-1770 BC/ Moylough c. 21311881 BC Drumirril: Neolithic ceramics, Neolithic dating evidence Early examples of cupmarked monuments include Dalladies Long barrow: slab sealed by mortuary structure c. 3280 BC

Cist Slabs Standing Stone Outcrop & Boulder

Cup-marked megaliths Reuse

Structural Use Art is deposited (votive cup-stones) (secondary deposition)

Art is reinterpreted (used as grave markers, Bullaun stones, Penal sites) −−→ Art is repurposed Bullauns Grave Markers Mass Rocks ←−Redeployed in mortuary structures - cists, cairns−→

−−→ AD 1000 0

1000 BC ←−−Secondary use−−→ 2000 BC 3000 BC ←− ‘Rock Art’−→ 4000 BC ←−Cup-marks−→ Time Tradition

Table 1 - The nature of the reuse of rock art, focusing on the appearance of traditions involving the reuse of carved stones in mortuary monuments (later Neolithic/ Early Bronze Age). The reuse of sites arguably extends to the present day. The shaded section represents the proposed period for the cup-and-ring tradition.

Rebecca Aroon Enlander

The superimposition of motifs, and in some cases the removal and reworking of some motifs, suggests that certain rock art sites were the focus of repeated activity. Processes of reuse may occur naturally throughout the Neolithic period and later periods, where surfaces are periodically engaged with over extended periods, resulting in inconsistencies in carving form, depth and meaning. Alternatively, processes of reuse may mark the deliberate transformation of sites as a result of ideological change. This latter form of reuse is demonstrable in a variety of contexts, from the deliberate selection and reuse of surfaces in new contexts such as cists and souterrains, to the re-engagement with rock art landscapes and re-marking surfaces millennia later as places of solace and prayer. Acknowledgements This chapter draws upon themes discussed in my Ph.D. thesis, which was awarded in 2013, as well as recent survey work undertaken on behalf of the Historic Environment Division, Department for Communities, Northern Ireland. Thanks are due to Aron Mazel and George Nash for inviting me to submit this chapter and persevering with me through bouts of inactivity during the 230

Rewriting Landscapes Covid-19 pandemic and successive national lockdowns. The image of Carrowreagh was very kindly supplied by Aron Mazel, and reproduced with his permission here. Bibliography Aitchison, N., 1998. Late Bronze Age ritual at Haughey’s Fort: the evidence of the deposited cup-and-ring marked stone. Emania 17: 31-39. Bradley, R., 1997. Rock Art and the Prehistory of Atlantic Europe: signing the land. London: Routledge. Bradley, R. and Watson, A., 2012. Ben Lawers: carved rocks on a loud mountain, in A. Cochrane and A. Jones (eds.) Visualising the Neolithic: abstraction, figuration, performance, representation (Neolithic Studies Group Seminar Papers 13): 64-78. Oxford: Oxbow Books Brindley, A., 2007. The Dating of Food Vessels and Urns in Ireland (Bronze Age Studies 7). Galway: NUI Galway Department of Archaeology. Burns, G. and Nolan, J., 2016. Burren-Marlbank, a prehistoric monumental landscape Blacklion: Marble Arch Caves Global Geopark. Unpublished. Cahill, M. and Sikora, M., (eds.) 2011. Breaking ground, finding graves - reports on the excavations of burials by the National Museum of Ireland, 1927-2006. Dublin: Wordwell Ltd. in association with the National Museum of Ireland. Clinton, M., 2002. Clomoney North, in I. Bennett (ed.) Excavations 2000. Summary accounts of archaeological excavations in Ireland (No. 63): 22-4. Dublin: Wordwell. Cooney, G., 2000. Landscapes of Neolithic Ireland. New York: Routledge. Conway, M., 1993. 1993:104 - Derryharney, Fermanagh, viewed 12th August 2021. http:// excavations.ie Corlett, C., 2000. Cup-and-rings, and the mapping of Haughey’s Fort: a suggestion. Emania 18: 77-8. Cummings, V., Moore, S. and Richards, C., 2015. Excavations of the Cleaven Carraig, CV004-059 Cavan Burren, County Cavan. Unpublished. Dunlop, C. and Barkley, J., 2015. Road to the West: A Road to the Past Volume 2. The Archaeology of the A4 / A5 Road Improvements Scheme from Dungannon to Ballygawley. Belfast: Northern Archaeological Consultancy Ltd. Enlander, R., 2013. Prehistoric rock art and the cultural landscapes of the north of Ireland: a contextual and interpretive study. Unpublished PhD thesis, Queen’s University, Belfast. Enlander, R., 2015. Going round in circles? (Or revisting the relationship between megalithic art and landscape art in Ireland). Time and Mind 8(3): 237-255. Enlander, R., 2016. The rock ‘artist’: exploring processes of interaction in the rock art landscapes of the north of Ireland, in H. Chittock and J. Valdez-Tullett (eds.) Archaeology with Art: 33-52. Oxford: Archaeopress Archaeology. Enlander, R., 2019. Chronologies and Connections: exploring the reuse of rock art and geological choice in Bronze Age Ireland, in D. Brandherm (ed.) Aspects of the Bronze Age in the Atlantic Archipelago and Beyond. Proceedings from the Belfast Bronze Age Forum, 9–10 November 2013: 13–23. Ellis, C. and Webb, S., 2007. Excavations at Ormaig: cup-and-ring marked rock art site in Argyll, unpublished data structure report, Kilmartin House Museum. Hammond, R. F., 1981. The peatlands of Ireland (Soil Survey Bulletin 35). Dublin: An Foras Taluntais. Jones, A., D. Freedman, B. O’Connor, H. Lamdin-Whymark, R. Tipping A. and Watson (eds.) 2011. An Animate Landscape: rock art and the prehistory of Kilmartin, Argyll, Scotland. Oxford: Windgather Press. 231

Rebecca Aroon Enlander Jones, A. and O’Connor, B., 2007. Excavation art: recent excavations at the rock art sites at Torbhlaren, near Kilmartin, Mid-Argyll, Scotland. PAST 57: 1-3. Jones, A. and Lawson-Jones, F., 2014. Investigating rock art at Hendraburnick ‘Quoit’, Cornwall. PAST 78: 12-13. Kytmannow T., Mens, E., Kerdivel, G., and Gunn, J., 2008. Creating Sacred and Secular Spaces: A study of the Glacial Erratics and Early Human Settlement in the Cavan Burren Landscape. Unpublished report for Cavan County Council. Mitchell, I., Cooper, M., McKeever, P. and McConnell, B., 2010. The classic geology of the north of Ireland. Belfast: Geological Survey of Northern Ireland. McDonnell, C., 2019. A summer of archaeology: recent discoveries in the Boyne Valley. Ríocht na Mídhe: Journal of Meath Archaeological and History Society 30: 1-14. McHugh, T., 2020. 2020:242 - College Road, Townparks, Ballyshannon, Donegal, viewed 12th February 2021. http://excavations.ie Nash, G., Stanford, A., Therriault, I. and Wellicome, T., 2011. Transcending artistic ritual boundaries, from dolmen to menhir: the excavation of the Trefael Stone, South-west Wales. Adoranten: 108-13. O’Brien, W., 2012. The Chalcolithic in Ireland: a chronological and cultural framework, in M. J. Allen, J. Gardiner and A. Sheridan (eds.) Is there a British Chalcolithic? People, place and polity in the late 3rd millennium (Prehistoric Society Research Paper 4): 211-25. Oxford: Oxbow Books. O’Connell, A., 2009. Report of the archaeological excavation of Lismullin 1. Co. Meath. M3 Clonee-North of Kells, report on behalf of the National Roads Authority. O’Connor, B. 2005. Report on Carved Stones: Site 114, Newtownbalregan 6, County Louth. Unpublished Report, UCD School of Archaeology. O’Connor, B., 2006. Inscribed landscapes: contextualizing prehistoric rock art in Ireland. Unpublished PhD Thesis, UCD School of Archaeology. O’Connor, B., 2010. Re-collected objects: carved, worked and unworked stone in Bronze Age funerary monuments, in B. O’Connor, G. Cooney and J. Chapman (eds.) Materialitas: working stone, carving identity (Prehistoric Society Research Paper 3): 147-60. Oxford: Oxbow Books. O’Reilly, D., 2010. Some forgotten prehistoric rock art from the hill of Uisneach, County Westmeath. Journal of the Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland 140: 75-82. Purcell, A., 2002. The Rock-Art Landscape of the Iveragh Peninsula, County Kerry, South-West Ireland, in G. Nash and C. Chippindale (eds.) European Landscapes of Rock-Art: 71-92. London: Routledge. Roycroft, N., 2005. Around the bay on the Great North Road: the archaeology of the M1 Dundalk Western Bypass, in J. O’Sullivan and M. Stanley (eds.) Recent Archaeological Discoveries on National Road Schemes 2004, National Roads Authority. Seaver, M., 2004. From mountain to sea: excavations at Laughanstown/Glebe. Archaeology Ireland 17 (No. 4): 8-12. Shee Twohig, E., 2002. Context and Chronology of the Carved Stone at Clonfinlough, County Offaly. The Journal of the Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland 132: 99-113. Shee Twohig, E., 2012. Inside and outside: visual culture at Loughcrew, Co. Meath, in A. Cochrane and A. Jones (eds.) Visualising the Neolithic: abstraction, figuration, performance, representation (Neolithic Studies Group Seminar Papers 13): 125-39. Oxford: Oxbow Books Shee Twohig, E., Roughley, C., Shell, C., O’Reilly, C., Clarke, P. and Swanton, G., 2010. Open-air rock art at Loughcrew, Co. Meath. Journal of Irish Archaeology 19: 1-28.

232

Rewriting Landscapes Shell, C. 2005. The Loughcrew Landscape Project. Past: The Newsletter of The Prehistoric Society 51: 1-3 Tuite, J., 1913. Concentric Circle and Cup-Marked Stone in Westmeath. The Journal of the Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland 3 (2): 180-2. van Hoek, M., 1987. The prehistoric rock art of County Donegal (part I). Ulster Journal of Archaeology 18: 11-32. van Hoek, M., 1988. The prehistoric rock art of County Donegal (part II). Ulster Journal of Archaeology 51: 21-47. van Hoek, M., 1993. Addenda to the prehistoric rock art of County Donegal. Ulster Journal of Archaeology 56: 179-80. Waddington, C., 1998. Cup and ring marks in context. Cambridge Archaeological Journal, 8 (1): 29-54.

233

Conserving Rock Art in South-West Ireland Clare Busher O’Sullivan Independent Researcher

Introduction The classification of rock art in Ireland falls into two main categories, that of megalithic art, most notably associated with passage grave cemeteries such as Loughcrew and the UNESCO World Heritage sites of the Boyne Valley in Country Meath. The second internationally recognised tradition is that of the North Atlantic type. The associated carvings are commonly found throughout Europe, most notably on the Iberian Peninsula, Scotland, Northern England and Ireland. In Ireland, rock art is found in open-air valleys and other rural landscapes. It occurs in clusters across the Irish countryside with the Cork/Kerry region hosting the highest concentration in Ireland (Figure 1). The art is recognised by variations of cup-and-ring motifs engraved on the surface of rock outcrops and boulders. The abstract form of the art offers no definitive understanding while allowing for vast interpretation on the purpose of these carvings. While challenges in understanding the motifs remain, the increasingly harsh environmental changes in recent years have prompted many researchers to focus on the conservation and management of open-air sites. The accelerated impacts of weathering and erosion are a direct result of harsh weather and climate change. To fully understand the possible extent of weathering and erosion detailed knowledge of the underlying geology, bedrock formations, and the physical, chemical and biological effects of weathering at open-air sites is required (Darvill 2014). The greatest threat to rock art worldwide is weathering and erosion and the associated processes are responsible for the loss of rock art globally (Deacon 2006; Giesen et al. 2014). Extensive surface weathering often creates difficulty in identifying rock art and differentiating between carved motifs and the impact of geological erosion. In southwest Ireland, there has been a significant increase in the

Figure 1. Location of Counties Kerry (left) and Cork (right).

Signalling and performance (Archaeopress 2022): 234–254

Conserving Rock Art in South-West Ireland number of previously unrecorded rock art panels in recent years, largely due to receding blanket peat. This has resulted in the identification of vast rock art landscapes, in particular on the Iveragh Peninsula, Co. Kerry. The rural setting of these landscapes suggests that in addition to weathering and erosion they are also at risk from harmful agricultural processes. National Legislation is in place to safeguard Ireland’s archaeological heritage; however, this is often difficult to enforce in rural areas and some panels have been damaged or destroyed. This chapter will assess the condition and preservation of prehistoric rock art in southwest Ireland with reference to the data set of 90 panels. The counties of Cork and Kerry will be assessed in terms of rock art distribution, the current state of preservation, legal provisions and recording. The impact of various natural and human agencies on the physical survival of rock art will be examined, drawing on examples identified in fieldwork and including case studies to assess the contribution that new methods of photogrammetry can make to the recording and monitoring of these surfaces. Practical solutions to these issues will be discussed and methods to ensure future protection of Irish rock art will also be considered. History of research Ireland has a rich history of rock art recording beginning in the 19th century. The first drawing of rock art from southwest Ireland was carried out by Charles Graves (1860). The rock art at Staigue Bridge was recorded using a heal-ball rubbing of the rock surface (Graves 1860, 422). Several antiquarians followed in the footsteps of Graves, including Graves’ nephew James Graves (1877), George Coffey (1894) and Lynch (1906), all providing detailed accounts and drawings/rubbings of several Irish rock art panels. The first half of the 20th century saw a continuation of interest in this monument type with Macalister (1939) recording several panels on the Iveragh Peninsula including those at Caherlehillan and Terrmoyle and MacWhite (1946) being the first to distinguish between megalithic rock art and open-air art, referring to the latter as the ‘Galician-type’ and recognising their placement on outcrops and boulders. By the latter half of the 20th century, Irish rock art had garnered extensive national and international attention. Arguably, the first rock art landscape to receive extensive international attention was that of Derrynablaha, Iveragh Peninsula, Co. Kerry. Emanuel Anati (1963) visited the site in 1960 and recorded 15 rock art panels. He subsequently published this information accompanied by drawings and photographs. Shee and O’Kelly (1968) identified several additional panels in the townland of Derrynablaha. The rock art at Derrynablaha is also featured in the studies of Finlay (1973) and Purcell (1994). Research in the modern era is composed of site-specific studies and regional surveys, though a number of general overviews have also been presented. Geology and topography The dominant bedrock of the region is Devonian Sandstone which occurs in two forms; Ballinskelligs Sandstone and Saint Finans Sandstone. Smaller concentrations of various geological formations including siltstone, slate, and marine sandstone are evident across the region (gsi.ie). Sandstone is a sedimentary rock. Sedimentation refers to the deposition and compression of pre-existing material such as minerals, rock particles, and organic matter (Pavia & Bolton 2000). The detrital/organic material is bonded together by calcium carbonate 235

Clare Busher O’Sullivan and/or silica. It is those elements that are targeted by the weathering process causing the rocks to decay. Sedimentary rocks make up 8% of the earth’s crust and include various types of sandstone, siltstone and shale. The composition of sedimentary rocks ultimately determines the extent of the deterioration and weathering (ibid, 45). The landscape of the region is formed by several mountain ranges and low-lying valleys interspersed with rivers and lakes leading to the coastlines of the southwest. The Iveragh Peninsula is dominated by the Macuillycuddy’s Reeks Mountain range featuring Carrauntoohil, the highest peak in Ireland at 1038m AOD. The Slieve Mish Mountains are located to the east of the Dingle Peninsula with Mount Brandon to the northwest. The Beara Peninsula separates the Iveragh Peninsula and Mizen Peninsulas, as yet there is no evidence of rock art on Beara. The Mizen Peninsula features several smaller mountain ranges dominated by the Bronze Age copper mine of Mount Gabriel. The rock art in the region often occurs in the lower slopes of smaller mountain ranges in U-shaped glacial valleys. The soil on the Iveragh Peninsula is formed of peaty podzols with some brown podzolics and blanket peat all of which are undesirable for farming. Similar soil types feature on the Mizen Peninsula but with higher concentrations of lithisols and regisols. A similar formation is evident on the Dingle Peninsula with acid brown soils also occurring towards the north of the Peninsula and towards the south-eastern half of the Mizen Peninsula (epa.ie). The clusters of rock art tend to feature in areas of blanket peat which makes crop cultivation impossible, therefore, many of these landscapes are reserved for grazing sheep. Distribution The neighbouring townlands of Derrynablaha and Derreeny are situated at the head of the Kealduff River Valley to the south centre of the Iveragh Peninsula. At Derrynablaha the 31 decorated rock outcrops are positioned irregularly on the lower slopes of the Mullaghanattin and Knockaunattin mountain ranges. The main concentration of rock art is distributed on the lower mountain slopes along streams leading to Lough Brin which is situated to the East. The adjacent low-lying townland of Derreeny features 16 decorated panels that are scattered haphazardly throughout. To the northwest of the Iveragh Peninsula the three adjoining townlands of Letter West, Kealduff Upper and Coomasaharn collectively contain the highest concertation of rock art in Ireland. The latter was first recognised by Professor M.J. O’Kelly (1958) in 1958 who recorded and subsequently published some of the rock art sites. The adjoining townlands of Kealduff Upper and Letter West remain relatively understudied. In recent years receding blanket peat has resulted in the identification of several previously unrecorded examples of rock art in the townland of Letter West. Thus far 65 panels have been identified, distributed on the lower slopes of Bean Hill along streams and tributaries leading to the Coomnacronia Lake. The main concentrations occurring to the northwest and southeast. Some of the panels present difficulty in accessibility however others are very accessible and are located on the edge of pathways leading up through the valley (Figure 2). Kealduff Upper is situated to the southeast of Letter West and features over 51 examples of rock art situated along small streams leading from Coomaglaslaw Lake on the lower northern slopes of the Coomreagh Mountain. A small pathway extends from Kealduff Upper eastwards towards Coomasaharn and features decorated outcrops 236

Conserving Rock Art in South-West Ireland

Figure 2. The distribution of rock art in the neighbouring townlands of Letter West, Kealduff Upper and Coomasaharn, Iveragh Peninsula, Co. Kerry.

237

Clare Busher O’Sullivan

Figure 3. The Coomnacronia Valley, Iveragh Peninsula, County Kerry, July 2016. Image: Clare Busher O’Sullivan.

alongside a small lake Lough Naparka. Twenty four decorated outcrops have been identified at Coomasaharn, many of which are located along bog trackways or in adjoining fields on the lower slopes of the Coomreagh Mountain in the Behy River valley (Figure 3). Similar patterns are evident on the Dingle Peninsula. The highest number of panels recorded in a single townland is 16 in the townland of Kilmore in close proximity to Loch Adoon. The Mizen Peninsula has the smallest concentration of rock art in the study area with approximately 17 recorded panels, with the maximum number of panels in one townland being three at Derreennaclough. Several of the panels are situated on tributaries that extend to the sea at Schull. These lesser-known monuments form part of the greater archaeological landscape with many panels located quite close to later prehistoric monuments and Early Medieval sites. The landscape setting of the art may vary but the harmful effects of weathering and erosion remain universal. Several countries have implemented legislation and management measures to assist with the conservation of open-air rock art, however, this has not yet been considered in Ireland. Recent research has yielded positive results regarding the conservation and management of the micro-environments of caves by establishing management strategies to protect and preserve the existing Palaeolithic art, many of which have been employed with relative success, however, the management of open-air sites presents further challenges. Weathering and Erosion Sandstone is a sedimentary rock. Sedimentary rocks are known for their high porosity and permeability that facilitate water penetration (Pavia & Bolton 2000). Joints (planes of fracture) control the movement of water along the rock surface. Marked by subtle changes in texture, colour or orientation of the present minerals. Calcium is the principal binding agent in silicious rocks, and it is more soluble in water containing carbon dioxide, such as precipitation. The information available regarding the durability of archaeological monuments is largely concerned with historically built environments, none of which can be considered for open-air 238

Conserving Rock Art in South-West Ireland rock art as the materials used vary (Darvill 2014, 38). Research into the physical, chemical, and biological effects of weathering on open-air monuments has been carried out since the 1970s. In recent times more detailed approaches have been undertaken and focus on conservation and management approaches in a bid to future proof these monuments during periods of environmental and climatic change (ibid.). The principal agent for rock weathering is rainwater. The presence of water on the rock surface means that chemical weathering is unavoidable (Bednarik 2012, 60). Rainwater chemically dissolves and mechanically erodes the stone surface (Pavia & Bolton 200, 105). The rainwater in the atmosphere combines with variable amounts of naturally occurring carbon dioxides and sulphur resulting in the formation of weak acids which causes the rainwater that settles on rock surfaces to be slightly acidic. The term given to polluted rainwater that has a pH of 4.0 and under is acid rain. Many water-related processes have been associated with the chemical erosion of decorated rock surfaces. Oxidation refers to the transfer of elements from iron to oxygen through water, resulting in the formation of oxides and the weakening of the rock. The process of dissolution continuously removes soluble material from the rock’s surface (Pavia & Bolton 2000, 107). Calcium carbonate is the binding agent in most sandstones. When the calcium carbonate binders dissolve, the mineral components detach and fall. The visible effects of water erosion are most evident in the form of freeze-thaw action, also referred to as hydraulic fracturing. This process occurs when water from rain, melting snow and ice get lodged in the cracks of the rock surface. When the temperature drops below zero the water will freeze causing the rock surface to expand and in turn puts pressure on the surface and weakens it. Repeated weakening of the surface causes it to shatter into fragments, resulting in permanent damage to the rock. The evidence for freeze-thaw action appears as fractures or scales on the surface of the rock host. Granular exfoliation in the form of surface retreat also affects sedimentary rocks and often results in the rapid erosion of the rock surface (Bednarik 2012, 68). Repeated exposure to these harsh weathering processes often results in the fracturing and flaking off of parts of the rock surface, known as spalling. Eighteen of the 90 panels (i.e., 20%) surveyed display evidence of spalling, 17% of the panels in Letter West have been affected by spalling, 36% in Kealduff Upper and 44% in Derrynablaha, with 20% of the panels in Cork displaying evidence of spalling most notably two of the panels in the townland of Derreennaclough. The effects of these harsh weathering processes were evident in the study area, the most common being freeze-thaw action. Sixty one of the 90 panels (i.e., 68%) in the study area presented evidence of freeze-thaw action. The panels most likely to be affected by this process are flat or low-lying as rainwater tends to settle on these surfaces and in the carved motifs. In the townland of Letter West, 63% of the panels surveyed displayed evidence of freeze-thaw action. This reflects the flat surfaces of the panels in the townland. The neighbouring townland of Kealduff Upper also features several flat and low-lying decorated panels, where 81% of the panels surveyed were affected by freeze-thaw action. In Coomasaharn, 67% of the panels surveyed displayed evidence of freeze-thaw action. To the southeast of the peninsula in the townland of Derrynablaha 77% of the panels surveyed display evidence of freeze-thaw action. The figures from the Mizen Peninsula in Cork are comparatively high with 73% of the panels surveyed displaying evidence of freeze-thaw action. It was most evident at the site at Clearagh, Co. Cork. 239

Clare Busher O’Sullivan Case study: Clearagh, Co. Cork The panel is located on the Mizen Peninsula and was originally recorded by Shee (1968) using a rubbing technique. However, since this recording, the panel has been visibly weathered most evidently as a result of freeze-thaw action. The heavily decorated surface could be easily overlooked as a result. Shee’s (1968) account of the panel suggests an unusual combination of motifs. Shee (1968) described the table like outcrop as being divided in two by a natural break in the surface of the rock but identified five cup-and-ring motifs surrounded by a single ring and seven single cupmarks partially enclosed by a single arc. Straight lines link the cup-andrings and cup-and-arcs to each other and extend to the outermost picked lines. Shee (1968) described the surface as ‘haphazard’; she also recorded a number of singular cupmarks and grooved lines not connected to any other motifs. Shee (1968) noted an ‘equi-armed cross’ in the north-eastern corner, the arms of which terminate in cupmarks. On the panels’ southern section Shee (1968) recorded a ‘well-picked line’ running parallel to a natural crack, enclosing cup-and-arc motifs. Shee (1968) identified three cup-and-ring motifs and five cup-and-arc motifs with radial grooves extending from all but two of the motifs. She also noted a ‘curious panel of radial lines’ in the centre of the rock. The panel was assessed during this study, and little remained visible of the once elaborate surface. However, laser scanning carried out at the site has revealed a clear complex of motifs on the surface of the rock. Shee’s drawing and the recent laser scan of the site reveal largely similar motifs distribution and geological striations. The laser scan provides detailed analyses of the different vegetation and microflora growing on the surface of the panel. During the initial visual analyses of the Clearagh panel, eleven cupmarks were identified some with surrounding arcs and rings, although these are difficult to identify or decipher due to the harsh weathering. The laser scan image confirmed that two previously recorded cup-and-arc motifs towards the south-west of the natural surface break are two-cup-and-ring-motifs and directly to the east of this a previously unrecorded cup-and-ring have been identified. To the east of a natural crack in the southern section of the panel, a cup-and-arc has been revealed as a cup and partial ring with two radial grooves. On the westernmost section of the southern panel, two cup-and-partial rings have been identified by the laser scanner as two cup-and-ring motifs (Figure 4). The original accounts of these panels in the form of rubbings provide a detailed understanding and a relatively accurate description of the surface of the rock. The importance of modern non-invasive technologies is evident from this assessment as the full extent of the motifs could only be established through the use of a laser scanner. In recent years technologies such as photogrammetry and laser scanning have assisted with this problem and allowed researchers to examine the full extent of the decorated surface through a combination of photographic images/scans and software programmes. This method of rock art recording is quickly replacing traditional methods of rubbing and drawing. The growth of microflora The effects of harsh weathering processes and their impact on rock art are indisputable. Another aspect that must be considered is the impact of vegetation and the growth of 240

Conserving Rock Art in South-West Ireland

Figure 4. A laser scan image of the surface of the Clearagh Stone, highlighting areas where new motifs have been identified.

microflora on rock surfaces. There are no studies regarding the effects of moss on rock surfaces in Ireland. However, there have been detailed investigations in Scandinavia. Bakkevig (2004) suggests that the extent of the moss growth on the surface of rock panels is a direct result of the climate and humidity, and in order to successfully remove these harmful microflorae without causing further damage to decorated surfaces drought conditions must be met. This would be unlikely in Ireland as up to 2000mm of rainwater falls in mountainous regions per annum. Twenty eight of the 90 panels (i.e., 31%) in the study area were affected by moss. Fifty three percent of the panels in West Cork featured moss on the surface. Moss was present on 32% of the panels in Letter West. The greatest percentage of panels affected by the presence of moss were the isolated examples of rock art on the Iveragh Peninsula at 80%. The panels included Tullakeel, Caherdaniel, Liss, Ballynahowbeg and Ballynakilly. The receding of blanket bog has been responsible for the discovery of many previously unrecorded rock art panels in recent times. In townlands such as Letter West some panels likely lie undiscovered beneath the vast bog covering. Fifty three percent of the panels in the study area are impacted by blanket peat, this reflects the landscape setting of the panels in non-arable landscapes. The neighbouring townlands of Letter West and Kealduff Upper have yielded the highest results for blanket peat covering. Sixty six percent of the panels in Letter West, 73% of the panels in Kealduff Upper and 33% of the panels in Derrynablaha are partially concealed by blanket peat. The presence of blanket peat is much less prevalent in Co. Cork on the Mizen Peninsula as only 33% of the panels are affected. Although the blanket peat covering protects the rock surfaces from harmful processes such as freeze-thaw action and spalling, the blanket peat weakens the rock’s surface through the leaching process. 241

Clare Busher O’Sullivan The leaching process refers to the removal of minerals from the rock leaving a faded surface. The brown staining caused by this process results in the removal of iron oxide and hydroxide minerals, usually haematite and goethite. The red and green colours of many of the sandstones reflect the state of oxidation of iron that coats and binds some of the quartz grains together. These oxides become soluble in acidic solutions from rain or especially under bogs, and this removes them from the upper surface of the rock. Twenty three of the 90 panels (i.e., 26%) in the study area display evidence of leaching, primarily as a result of bog covering. In Letter West, 46% of panels have been leached and 27% in Kealduff Upper. There was no evidence for leaching in Coomasaharn, most likely as a result of extensive gorse covering or harsh weathering of the panels by other natural agencies such as freeze-thaw action. Lichens Lichens contribute to the physical and biological composition of the natural world and are found in almost every known environment from rural to urban (Seaward 1997, 9). They inhabit both porous and non-porous surfaces and initiate a process that ultimately changes the substrate of the rock host (Dandridge 2006, 3). There are thought to be over 14,000 types of lichens in the world (Bednarik 2008), 1,165 of which have been identified in Ireland (Whelan 2011). Lichens both mechanically and chemically erode a rock surface. When the lichen fungus attaches itself to a rock surface, it produces penetrating rhizines that release acids which chemically alter the rock’s crystalline structure. The highest concentration of rhizine activity exists within the centre of the lichen thallus, however, the penetrating rhizines also exist in the surrounding area. In many cases, these are not visible to the naked eye (Dandridge 2006, 3). Lichen hyphae penetrate the intergranular voids in siliceous rock surfaces. Lichen metabolic activity results in the production of salts. These secondary metabolites swell as a result of microclimatic weathering such as freeze-thaw action. Dandridge (2006) concluded that the acids may be transported from the lichen body into the underlying substrate as a result of aqueous transport or the presence of rhizines or hyphae. Lichen solubilisation processes are responsible for the chemical alteration of rock substrates, most notably acidlysis and complexlysis and the generation of respiratory CO2. The CO2 produced goes through a dissolution process which generates carbonic acid lowering the pH values of the thallus (Dandridge 2006, 5). The acids produced disassemble the rock using the organic acid to break down the least resistant minerals first like calcareous cements and clay minerals such as mica. As the structures are broken apart, microscopic holes are opened within the rocky material for hyphe and rhizines and the rock substrate is mechanically disintegrated (Dandridge 2006). The presence of lichen and associated microflora on well-known rock art sites has been well documented and attempts have been made to chemically remove them. The rock art recording process at the UNESCO world heritage site at Valcamonica, Italy involved the mechanical removal of microflora. Once the surface was washed, white pelican paint was applied to act as a biocide and deter the growth of further microflora (St. Clair & Seaward 2004). The panels at Valcamonica were assessed by St Clair and Seaward (2004) who suggested that the glyphs looked much weaker when compared to neighbouring rock surfaces which had not been altered. Similar efforts were made to eliminate the moss that covered panels at Loughcrew using a ten percent formaldehyde solution, which resulted in further deterioration of the panels (Shee 242

Conserving Rock Art in South-West Ireland Twohig & Williams 2014). Lichen removal can result in the exposure of un-weathered rock which lacks the protection of a weathering-rind, and it has been suggested that adjusting the microenvironment to discourage the growth of microflora is more favourable than the use of biocides. Seventy five of the 90 panels (i.e., 83%) surveyed in the study area have been affected by lichen activity. Various lichen species were visible on 80% of the panels in Letter West. Eighty one percent of the panels at Kealduff Upper displayed visible evidence for the presence of lichen, 77% of panels in Derrynablaha, and 67% of panels surveyed on the Mizen Peninsula were affected by lichen. Lichen is visibly the most prevalent weathering agent on panels in the study area and this reflects the ability of lichen to grow in almost every environment. A panel in the townland of Letter West was identified as being 100% covered in various lichen species (Figure 5). The extensive lichen covering concealed many of the previously recorded surface motifs. The recorded motifs include a cup and three rings with two radial grooves, 28 cupmarks, 29 cup-and-one-ring, and five cup-and-[partially carved] rings. On the panel in Letter West, the motifs are not all identifiable as a result of the dense lichen covering of the panel’s surface, the densest concentration being to the northern section. Both photogrammetry and laser scanning techniques were employed to assess the extent of the motifs. The panel features an extensive number of natural joints on the surface and was assessed by geologist Richard Unitt1 who confirmed that the panel was bedrock. Unitt2

Figure 5. Laser scan model of a heavily lichened panel, the highest concentration of lichen is visible to the northern section, Letter West Co. Kerry. 1  2 

Richard Unitt pers. comm. March 2017 Richard Unitt pers. comm. March 2017

243

Clare Busher O’Sullivan also suggested that the extensive joints visible on the panel surface have been widened in some cases as a result of freeze-thaw action and also noted evidence of spalling3. A heavy blanket of Pertusaria pseudocarollina and Pertusaria aspergilla coat the northern section of the panel. Bueilla and Fucidea cytoides and Porpida tuberculosa are evident, distributed across the panel’s surface. A concentration of Ephebe lenatea and a Cladonia species were identified at the southern end of the panel. Although lichen growth on rock surfaces can be destructive, they often slow biodeterioration by protecting and holding water and rhizine activity actively absorbs minerals. Crustose lichen in silica-rich rocks are very slow-growing and protect the rock surface against harsher forms of weathering. Many of the lichen species visible in the study area have been present for approximately 500 years and started growing when there were less pollutants in the atmosphere. If they were to be removed, they would likely be replaced with more aggressive, faster-growing lichens which would be more detrimental to the panel’s surface4. These damaging weathering agencies are largely responsible for the loss of rock art in southwest Ireland as they inflict unavoidable damage to all in-situ panels (Figure 6). However, alongside these natural impacts, the effects of human agency on rock art sites must be considered.

Figure 6. List of natural agencies that affect rock art in south-west Ireland, the numbers on the left represent the number of panels effected from the data set. 3  4 

Richard Unitt pers. comm. March 2017 Whelan pers. comm. March 2017

244

Conserving Rock Art in South-West Ireland Human agency Human agency is responsible for the loss and damage of numerous rock art sites worldwide, with many researchers suggesting public education is key to successful rock art conservation and management (Hall 1999). Several countries have introduced education programmes to promote awareness and protection of rock art, with relative success (e.g., Jolly 2006, 172; Mazel et al. 2012; Darvill et al. 2014). Rock art in Ireland is regularly impacted by farming, forestry, and other developments. Despite the legal protection of the National Monuments Act 1930-1994, rock art sites often incur damage resulting from exposure to these harmful practices. Seventy nine percent of the panels from the overall data set have been impacted by agriculture and farming processes. The impact of forestry and recent development has been imposed significantly on some of these rural rock art landscapes. Farming and agriculture Farming was introduced to the Irish landscape during the 4th millennium BCE (Cooney 1989; O’ Sullivan 2001). The Neolithic period saw large-scale deforestation and crop cultivation. Farming in both the recent past and modern era involves processes that negatively influence archaeology such as land clearance, crop cultivation and interaction with livestock. Although rock art panels have been left in-situ on agricultural land, others have been displaced to facilitate farming. Ireland has legislation and guidelines to which farmers and private landowners must adhere. The National Monuments Act 1930–1994 provides the legal framework for monument protection in Ireland. In addition to this legislation, the Department of Arts Heritage, and the Gaeltacht (DAHG) produced guidelines on good farming practice and archaeology focussing on the preservation of ancient monuments on arable land (DAHG 2003, 9). Farming impacts significantly on rural monuments in southwest Ireland. Purcell (1994) noted the continuous trampling of the carved surfaces by animals added a further degree of wear to the art. The open valleys of Derrynablaha/Derreeny and Letter West/Kealduff are used to graze sheep due to the non-arable nature of the land. The impact of hoofed animals on the surface of panels already experiencing harsh weathering processes can be detrimental (Figure 7). Many of the isolated examples, including Ballynahowbeg and Burgatia, are also located in fields with farm animals however, the results of animal interaction with these panels may not be as harsh as many of those in the open valleys as their surfaces are not flat. The Department of Agriculture Food and the Marine (DAFM) established Environmental Impact Assessment regulations for stating that two months’ notice must be given in advance of any activity within the exclusion area of 20m of a national monument. This allows time for an Environmental Impact Assessment if required, and expert advice on how to proceed while avoiding damage to the monument. Prior to the enforcement of these guidelines, it is understood that several panels have been removed in order to allow for agricultural processes (DAFM 2011). A panel at Ballyglasheen on the Dingle Peninsula has been relocated to facilitate farming. The flat sandstone boulder featuring an extensive collection of motifs (23 cupmarks, some with radial grooves) was originally recorded by O’Connell (1939). Finlay (1973) revisited the site and reported the panel’s new location in a ploughed field overlooking Owenscaul River. A second panel nearby in the townland of Dromvalley was reportedly destroyed by a 245

Clare Busher O’Sullivan

Figure 7. The low-lying surface of a panel at Derrynablaha, the panel is often trampled on by sheep grazing in the landscape Co. Kerry, June 2017. Image: Clare Busher O’Sullivan.

farmer in the early 1960s and its parts incorporated into a field wall. Although these extensive guidelines and legislation are in place, some panels in the study area could not be located. It is unclear whether this is as a result of land clearing in preparation for farming. Forestry State forestry in Ireland began in 1903 when the Department of Agriculture and Technical Institution developed a forestry training centre at Avondale, Co. Wicklow (Department of Agriculture 2008, 1). In 1908, it was estimated that land coverage of the island’s forests equated to approximately 1.5% (Department of Agriculture 2008, 1). The Forestry Act of 1946 provided a more specific legal framework for forestry in Ireland, aimed at increasing the rate of afforestation by 10,000 acres per annum. In 1948, the government adopted the first long-term afforestation plan. In 1981, the European Economic Community introduced the Western Package Scheme which aimed to improve farming and increase forestry in 13 European countries, including Ireland. The highest rate of afforestation resulting from these measures took place in 1995. In 1996, the government produced Growing for Future, a strategy to increase Ireland’s forests to 17% by 2035 (ibid.). Approximately 75% of national forests consist of imported conifer species. The semi-state company Coillte owns 7% of the country’s land, with forests amounting to 440,000 hectares. The Irish forestry sector employs 12,000 people and contributes €2.3 billion to the economy. Coillte aims to double Ireland’s forested areas over the next decade (Coillte 2017). The current forestry act of 2014 outlines guidelines for this and is concerned with the impact of forestry on archaeological monuments. 246

Conserving Rock Art in South-West Ireland The strategy outlines the future of Ireland’s forestry industry and addresses potential issues involved with widescale afforestation. The location of archaeological sites are considered throughout the document in accordance with legislation. Aside from this Archaeology and Forestry Guidelines were introduced by the DAHG in 2000. These are aimed at informing forestry workers and machine operators on various environmental issues that may arise during forestry development. The guidelines apply to all grant-aided projects and include all projects that require a tree felling licence. The document outlines the potential impact of forestry and associated practices on archaeology. Much of the forestry legislation outlined above is relatively recent therefore some panels have already been lost within dense forestry. In the townland of Derreeny two cupmarked stones were recorded to the west of a boulder featuring rock art (archaeology.ie). It was noted that trees had been planted within 0.2m of one of the stones, which made them inaccessible and subsequent inspections in 2002 and 2009 failed to locate the panel (archaeology.ie) Planning and development The current planning and development legislation is outlined under the Planning and Development Act 2000. The National Monument Service provides a series of guidelines to assist with understanding the relationship between archaeology and the planning process in 2006. The guidelines outline basic information regarding development procedures to ensure archaeological protection. The planning authority requires information on the possible impact of any development on archaeological monuments and this requires the developer

Figure 8. The water cleaning plant under construction at Letter West, Co. Kerry, September 2019. Image: Clare Busher O’Sullivan.

247

Clare Busher O’Sullivan to employ an archaeologist to carry out an Archaeological Impact Assessment of the area. The impacts of the proposed works on archaeology should be evaluated. Assessments may indicate that an archaeological test excavation is required. The assessment procedure also proposes a strategy designed to deal with the possible adverse effects of the development works on archaeology. During any development, there are two methods of preserving archaeological heritage: preservation in-situ (preferred option) and preservation by record. In recent years, the DAFM has put in place codes of practice with agencies involved in large-scale infrastructural projects that have significant archaeological implications e.g., ESB Networks, the Irish Concrete Foundation, National Roads Authority and Coillte. Since the completion of this study, the townland of Letter West has undergone significant development. A €2 million water treatment facility is now visible on site, the construction of which began in mid-2019. The vast structure is located within metres of several decorated panels at Letter West and there is daily movement of vehicles and machinery through the valley. Although there does seem to be some enclosure of the works, the impact on the once peaceful and untouched landscape is drastic. As well as being aesthetically unpleasing the plant also interferes with the viewsheds and landscape setting of several of these rock art panels (Figure 8). How can Irish open-air art be protected? The physical protection of Irish rock art is influenced by its rural situation. Much of the art is situated in agricultural landscapes and is often compromised by animals rubbing against the decorated surfaces. However, in some cases measures have been introduced to limit the impact of farm animals on archaeological monuments. A select few of the sites visited during this study show visible efforts for the physical protection of the art, for example, the sites at Bohonagh, Co. Cork, which include a stone circle, cupmarked stone and boulder burial. The three visible stone monuments are all enclosed by a low fence of metal rods and electric wire. This prevents animal access to the site and assists with their preservation. However, the area has become overgrown with brambles and vegetation, which presented challenges when locating the cupmarked stone. Elsewhere in Ireland, cattle grids are used to prevent animal access to open-air monuments including the Turoe Stone in Galway and the Greenhill Ogham Stone in Cork. There have been many international projects undertaken to physically protect rock art. In the UK, during the time of the Rock Art Pilot Project (i.e., 1999), England’s largest rock art site at Roughting Linn was enclosed by a wooden fence with a small gate for visitor access (Darvill 2014, 30). In Australia and Northern Europe, for example, boardwalks have been constructed at rock art sites that allow visitors to view the rock art without having physical interaction. Public awareness of Irish rock art would also undoubtedly increase the physical protection of rock art, as it remains relatively unknown, and its significance is not generally understood by the general public. Several sites global sites combine education with tourism management. The rural setting and relatively unmanaged status of Irish rock art present challenges in this instance. Promoting public awareness Rock art in Ireland is similar to that in England in that it is protected but not actively managed (Mazel & Giesen 2019). Some panels have been removed from their in-situ positions and placed in county museums. The National Museum of Ireland has a number of panels in storage and 248

Conserving Rock Art in South-West Ireland on display. The Mullamast and Kilwarden stones from Kildare are among those housed in the National Museum of Ireland, with the latter on display, and the Gorthbrack and Mothel Stones are located in the stone corridor at University College Cork (Figure 9). By displaying rock art as part of an exhibition or individually it allows public access and by doing so creates awareness. As many panels lay potentially undiscovered it is essential that information regarding the landscape setting and form of the art is made Figure 9. The Gortbrack stone in University College Cork, the available to landowners and developers. Mothel stone can be seen on the left of the image, Landowners and local communities August 2017. Image: Clare Busher O’Sullivan. in rich rock art landscapes should be educated on the importance and significance of prehistoric rock art. As part of Busher O’ Sullivan’s MPhil research (2018), a presentation was given to 5th and 6th Class in Glenbeigh National School. The town of Glenbeigh is situated on the Iveragh Peninsula in close proximity to the townlands of Letter West, Kealduff Upper and Commasaharn, where the densest concentrations of rock art in Ireland occur. The objective of the presentation was to equip younger generations with the information to understand the importance of their local rock art. The rock art of the Iveragh Peninsula was contextualised within the broader European and international context, to provide students with a more in-depth understanding of global rock art. The presentation introduced neighbouring landscapes which the school was unaware of and as a result, hope to visit in the coming year. The presentation featured imagery created using 3D laser scanning and photogrammetry, which was met with positive responses from the students, who were also encouraged to express their interpretations of local rock art. Elsewhere in Ireland progressive approaches have been employed to further raise awareness of rock art by projects such as the Wicklow Rock Art Project, initiated by Clíodhna Ní Lionaín as part of a Ph.D. study at University College Dublin in 2012 (Ní Lionaín, 2012). Similar projects have been undertaken in the UK including The Northumberland and Durham Rock Art Project (Sharpe et al. 2008; Barnett 2010) and the Rock Art Mobile Project (Mazel et al. 2012); these ventures were concerned with rock art recording, the use of 3D and mobile technology and included members of the local community which not only created further awareness but instilled a sense of local pride in this local communities. The role of social media and the internet In recent years, social media has become increasingly popular as a method of information sharing (Mazel 2017). Many rock art organisations and groups have established networks on social media which attract global interest. Social media allows the organisations to feature images and information relating to rock art and rock art sites on an international platform. Social media is an effective means of promoting public awareness and disseminating information. Online platforms used by rock art groups include Facebook, Twitter and Instagram. These sites are a cheap and effective method of disseminating information globally. 249

Clare Busher O’Sullivan Preservation by record The importance of the physical conservation of rock art is undisputed. However, there is no definitive means to deter weathering and erosion, and damage to rock surfaces is inevitable. Therefore, there should now be a focus on preservation by record. Recent technological advances have resulted in the establishment of various non-invasive recording methods, the majority of which are now considered cost-effective and easily accessible. These new technologies are quickly replacing traditional recording methods such as rubbings and drawings. Photogrammetry and laser scanning could be considered among the most accurate and efficient methods of rock art recording. These methods are employed globally, and the data is often digitised and easily accessible to researchers. Various international groups including the Scotland’s Rock Art Project (https://www.rockart. scot/) employ these technologies successfully. Within Ireland, various heritage groups and organisations have also implemented methods of recording in various archaeological projects. The 3D Icons Ireland project of the Discovery Programme forms part of a larger European initiative to promote the use of 3D imagery in education and tourism. The project involves documenting over 130 of Ireland’s most well-known buildings and monuments. The recording process includes data collection, digital photography and the creation of 3D models (The Discovery Programme 2017). The new recording methods have resulted in the discovery of previously unknown and unrecorded rock art, such as that at Carrowkeel in County Sligo (Williams & Shee Twohig 2015). Both laser scanning and photogrammetry techniques were employed during this study. The process of photogrammetry requires a collection of digital images of the panels’ surface to be taken using a digital camera. The images must be taken from a variety of angles in order to accurately capture the rock surface and facilitate the overlay of point clouds during the formation of the image. The collected data is then uploaded to a software program. The program identifies millions of points from the images to accurately map the surface. Specific lighting is required for this process, which suggests it may not be the most suitable method to record megalithic art (Williams & Shee Twohig 2015). The process of photogrammetry, although relatively new to rock art recording, was first applied by Aimé Laussedat in the 1850s to produce maps of Paris (Bryan 2010, 4). There are two distinct types of laser scanners, the terrestrial laser scanner and structured light laser scanner. The latter tends to be the most cost-effective however it is sensitive to lighting conditions and often requires the use of a light excluding tent (Williams & Shee Twohig 2015). The scanning equipment employed during this study was a terrestrial laser scanner. It was placed on a tripod and took a number of 360° scans of the surrounding area before it was placed at several angles around the panels where it scanned the surfaces. The data was then processed using appropriate software. A powerful computer is required for this process, as the scanner pinpoints billions of points on the panels’ surface. Once the image has been formed, various filters and overlay may be added or removed in order to highlight the desired section. However, there are limitations to this method. The presence of algae and moss on some panels presented challenges to accurately recording them.

250

Conserving Rock Art in South-West Ireland Williams and Shee Twohig (2015) compared these methods using a decorated kerbstone at Knowth. Results suggested that the photogrammetry process was more efficient in this case and that laser scanning provided limited value on analysing the detail of the carving. Photogrammetry can capture exceptional levels of detail when high-resolution sensors are paired with high-quality lenses. The application of these new technologies and the software used promotes the discovery of previously undocumented carvings and images, including those at Arsand in Norway where 15 new figures were identified on a panel as a result of image processing software (Dodd 2013, 117). Conclusion North Atlantic rock art research in Ireland formally began in the 19th century, many aspects of rock art research have been considered during this time. Methods of conservation and preservation of Irish open-air rock art have not, however, been explored in depth until now. In recent years accelerated weathering conditions resulting from climate change have forced several rock art-rich countries to implement management strategies to deter the harmful effects on rock art; although there is legislation in place to safeguard rock art, as yet Ireland has no rock art specific guidelines or management strategies. The geological formation and landscape setting of the art influences the extent of surface weathering that the rock surface will incur. Harmful weathering processes target compounds and binding agents within the rock weakening the surface often resulting in fracturing, spalling and ultimately the loss of the art. The situation of several decorated panels in openair valleys on non-arable land consisting of blanket bog means that the rock art is often fully or partially concealed by peat, which protects the rocks from some weathering processes but also causes leeching and damage to the surface. The effects of lichens at rock art sites is something that has been researched globally and evidence suggests that the process of lichen removal causes greater harm than the presence of lichen. Lichen identified on rock surfaces in the study area was confirmed to be slow-growing and if removed would be replaced with more aggressive forms. Although attempts can be made to slow and deter the extent of weathering and erosion it cannot be completely prevented. Human threats to rock art include farming, forestry and development. Despite the present legislation and guidelines these practices continue to negatively impact on rock art and rock art landscapes. Preservation in-situ would be preferred although this is not always possible and therefore preservation by record should be considered. The new non-invasive methods of recording allow researchers to understand the full extent of the often-weathered carvings. The results can then be disseminated through various online platforms including social media which is a successful means of promoting public awareness. Public awareness is key to rock art conservation and preservation in Ireland as it remains relatively unknown and understudied compared to other prehistoric monuments. Through a greater emphasis on the significance of Irish open-air art, increased public awareness, and enforced legislation there would undoubtedly be an increase of interest in prehistoric rock art which would result in further efforts to preserve rock art in-situ or by record. There is no longer a tradition of making rock art in Ireland and the lack of context and ethnographic evidence leaves it open to interpretation. In order to fully understand 251

Clare Busher O’Sullivan the meaning of rock art further context must be established. This could place rock art in its rightful place in the mainstream of archaeological studies and can only be achieved by excavation (Busher O’Sullivan 2019, 18). Regardless of the abstract nature of the carvings, their significance in prehistoric society is indisputable, and therefore they must be protected and conserved as the visual legacies of the prehistoric societies who memorialised these landscapes. Bibliography Anati, E., 1963. New petroglyphs at Derrynablaha, Co. Kerry Ireland. Journal of the Cork Historical and Archaeological Society 68, 1–16. Bakkevig, S., 2004. Comments on rock art preservation: improved and ecology -based methods can give weathered sites prolonged life, Norwegian Archaeology Review 38, 1.20. Barnett, T., 2010. “Putting People in the Picture: Community Involvement in Rock Art Recording.” In T. Barnett and K. Sharpe (eds.) Carving a Future for British Rock Art: New Approaches to Research, Management and Presentation. Oxford: Oxbow, pp. 25-36. Bednarik, R.G., 2008. More on rock art removal. South African Bulletin 63, 82–84. Bednarik, R. G., 2012. The use of weathering indices in rock art science and archaeology. Rock Art Research 29, 59–84. Bryan, P., 2010. Three-dimensional rock art recording: a ‘lower cost photogrammetric approach’. In T. Barnett and K. Sharpe (eds.) Carving a Future for British Rock Art; New Directions for Research Management and Presentation. Oxford: Oxbow, 2-10. Busher O’ Sullivan, C., 2018. A Conservation Study of Rock Art in South West Ireland. Unpublished MPhil thesis. University College Cork. Busher O’Sullivan, C., 2019. Conserving Carvings. Archaeology Ireland. Vol. 33, 18-21. Coffey, G., 1894 .Origins of prehistoric ornament in Ireland. Journal of the Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland 4, 349–379. Cooney, G., 1989. Life in the Neolithic. Archaeology Ireland, 3(2), 51–55.  Dandridge, D., 2006. Lichens: The Challange for Rock Art Conservation. Unpublished Doctoral Thesis, Texas A&M University. Darvill, T., 2014. Approaches to the conservation and management of open-air rock at panels in England, United Kingdom. In T. Darvill and A. Batarda Fernandes (eds.), Open-Air RockArt Conservation and Management. New York: Routledge, pp. 17–38. Deacon. J., 2006. Rock art conservation and tourism, Journal of the Archaeological Method and Theory 12, 379–399. Dodd, J., 2013. Petroglyphs as paintings; The Årsand painting site Hordaland, Western Norway, Adoranten, pp. 122–24. Finlay, F., 1973. The Rock Art of Cork and Kerry. Unpublished MA thesis, University College Cork. Giesen, M.J., Ung, A., Warke, P.A., Christgen, B., Mazel, A.D. and Graham, D.W. 2014. Condition assessment and preservation of open-air rock art panels during climate change. Journal of Cultural Heritage 15 (1): 49-56. Graves, C., 1860. On inscribed monuments in the County of Kerry. Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy 9, 179–181. Graves, J., 1877. On cup and circle sculptures as occuring in Ireland . Journal of the Royal Historical and Archaeological Society of Ireland 4, 283–296. Hall, N., 1999. Building Blocks and Stepping Stones: Some Key Foundations in the development of Rock Art Conservation in Australia. Archaeology Oceania, 34, 161–170. 252

Conserving Rock Art in South-West Ireland Jolly, P., 2006. Related Rock Art Conservation/Education Projects in Lesotho. Department of Archaeology, University of Cape Town, South Africa. Lynch, P.J., 1906. On the antiquities of the district of Caherlehillan, Journal of the Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland 36, 281–4. Macalister, R.A.S., 1939. A monument with Bronze Age scribings in Co. Kerry. Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy 45, 21–23. MacWhite, E., 1946. A new view of Irish Bronze Age rock scribing’s. Journal of the Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland 76, 59–80. Mazel, A. D., Galani, A., Maxwell, D. and Sharpe, K., 2012. ‘I want to be provoked’: public involvement in the development of the Northumberland ‘Rock Art on Mobile Phones’ project. World Archaeology 44 (4): 592-611. Mazel, A.D., 2017. Valuing rock art: a view from Northumberland in North East England. International Journal of Heritage Studies. 23 (5): 421-433. Mazel, A. and Giesen, M., 2019. Engagement and Management: Developing a Monitoring System for Open-air Rock Art in the UK and Ireland. Conservation and Management of Archaeological Sites. 21 (3): 160-183. Ni Lioanian, C., 2014. The legacy of Míl; Perceptions of Prehistoric Irish Iberian Connections. Unpublished PhD. University College Dublin. O’Connell, D. B., 1939. Notes on three inscribed stones in Co. Kerry. Journal of the Cork Historical and Archaeological Society 64, 128–131. O’Kelly, M., 1958. A new group of rock scribing’s in Co. Kerry. Journal of the Cork Historical and Archaeological Society 63, 1–4. O’Sullivan, A., 2001. Being Neolithic: Settling down and moving about? Archaeology Ireland, 15(2), 8–9.  Pavia, S. and Bolton, J., 2000. Stone, Brick and Mortar: Historical use, Decay and Conservation of Building Materials in Ireland. Wicklow: Wordwell, Purcell, A., 1994. Carved Landscape: The Rock Art of the Iveragh Peninsula, Country Kerry, Unpublished MA thesis, University College Cork. Seaward, M. D., 1997. Major impacts made by lichen in biodeteoration processes. International Biodeterioration and Biodegeneration 40, 260–273. Shee, E., 1968. Some examples of rock art from County Cork. Journal of the Cork Historical and Archaeological Society 73, 144–151. Shee Twohig, E. and O’Kelly, M., 1968. The Derrynablaha Shield again. Journal of the Cork Historical and Archaeological Society 76, 1–4. Shee Twohig, E. and Williams, K., 2014. Irish Open-Air Rock-Art: Issues of Erosion and Management. In T. Darvill and A.P. Batarda Fernandes (eds.) Open-Air Rock-Art Conservation and Management: State of The Art and Future Perspectives. New York: Routledge, pp. 70–81. Sharpe, K., Barnett, T. and Rushton, S., 2008. The Prehistoric Rock Art of England: Recording, managing and enjoying our carved heritage. English Heritage, Northumberland County Council and Durham County Council. Stout, G. and Keane, M., (eds.) 2003. Good Farming Practice and Archaeology. Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Government of Ireland. Whelan, P., 2011. The Lichens of Ireland. Cork: Collins Press. Seaward, M. D., 1997. Major impacts made by lichen in biodeteoration processes. International Biodeterioration and Biodegeneration 40, 260–273. Williams, K. and Shee Twohig, E., 2015. From Sketchbook to Structure from Motion: recording Prehistoric Carvings in Ireland. Digital Applications in Archaeology and Cultural Heritage 1-12. 253

Clare Busher O’Sullivan Websites Archaeology.ie https://www.archaeology.ie/ [accessed 2/5/2017] Archaeology and the planning process guidelines www.archaology.ie/arcgaeology [accessed 2/6/17] Archaeology and Forestry/ Government of Ireland (DAFM) https://www.agriculture.gov.ie/media/migration/forestry/publications/archaeology.pdf [accessed 6/4/2017] Coillte Forestry Guidelines https://www.chg.gov.ie/app/uploads/2015/10/code-of-practicecoillte1.pdf [accessed 6/4/2017] Discovery Programme http://www.3dicons.ie/ [accessed 2/6/2017] Environmental Protection Agency www.epa.ie/ [accessed 6/517] Geological Survey of Ireland www.gsi.ie/ [accessed 2/6/16] Scotland’s Rock Art Project https://www.rockart.scot/ [accessed 19/2/2019] The Wicklow Rock Art Project www.Wicklowrockart.ie [accessed 2/10/2015]

254

A Single Panel Case Study in Kerry – Deconstructing a Rock Art Palimpsest Aoibheann Lambe

School of Biological, Earth and Environmental Sciences (BEES), University College Cork

Introduction As awareness of rock art grows, new discoveries are increasingly being made throughout Ireland (Lambe 2022), particularly in counties Cavan/Fermanagh (Burns & Nolan 2007, 2017), Donegal (Bettina Linke pers. comm.) and Kerry (Lambe 2021a). Ireland’s ‘rock art capital’ is Co. Kerry (hereafter Kerry) having over 370 rock art-inscribed panels1 amounting to more than onethird of the total on record for the country, ca . 1000 (Figure 1). The number of panels identified islandwide has increased by close to 300 since 2013. Kerry, being a large sprawling county with many remote mountainous areas and a topography characterized by dips and rises, means not only rock art but many other monument types continue to be discovered there. A rock shelter with incised carvings (Lambe 2021a), a copper mine and two stone circles are among the many monument classes recently identified in Kerry and reported by the author to the National Monuments Service (NMS). Monuments from which dramatic and sweeping views are afforded may themselves be concealed from view other than from within a few meters. The county of Kerry incorporates three mountainous peninsulas. Iveragh (EVE-er-ah), the largest of the peninsulas, is double the area in plan of each of its neighbours, Dingle lying to the north, and the Beara to the south. The distribution of rock art in Kerry is widespread but not universal; rock art is seemingly absent on the northwest of Iveragh as well as in the north of Kerry county (Figure 2). Over 300 panels are found on Iveragh, over four times more than on the Dingle Peninsula while less than ten panels are recorded from the whole Beara, a peninsula whose western portion is in Kerry, the remainder in Co Cork. The greatest rock art complexes in Kerry are found in two main macro-groups on Iveragh, 20km apart, in two main macro-groups (Figure 3). Within the larger complex, referred to here as the greater Coomasharn concentration, the majority of rock art panels are found in Letter West, Kealduff Upper and Coomasaharn, with 65, 56, and 24 panels respectively currently on record in each of these townlands. The latter two townlands were included in an earlier study by Purcell (1994, 2002). The rock art of the second of these concentrations, the Derrynablaha complex, has been documented on several occasions (Anati 1963; Finlay 1973; Purcell 1994, 2002), and encompasses Derreeny (20+ panels) and Derrynablaha (40+ panels), townlands close to the Ballaghbeama Gap, a pass which affords the only access northwest-southeast through this part of the peninsula. Found at a broad range of elevations, from 23m OD (KE106-143) at Derrynane Beg in the Caherdaniel area, to 376m OD at Gortnagulla (KE070-011), the rock art on Iveragh displays a diversity of styles unparalleled elsewhere in Ireland. Whereas many rock art panels 1 

As open-air rock art is found both on outcrops and boulders, panel is used as a generic term to encompass both.

Signalling and performance (Archaeopress 2022): 255–281

Aoibheann Lambe

Figure 1. The rock art of Ireland - the case study panel’s location is indicated. Panels whose original location is known only to the townland are plotted to that townland. These panels are frequently in regions (e.g. Waterford and Laois) where little or no other rock art is otherwise recorded. With 60,000 townlands in the country and on a map of this scale, the inclusion of these panels more accurately reflects the distribution of rock art than would their omission. Not always categorized as rock art on the Irish sites and monuments records, rock art panels incorporated into architectural monuments and cupmarked-only stones are also plotted. Also included are panels described and illustrated in antiquarian journals as well as panels recorded in the grey literature. Sites plotted on maps which are © ESRI.

256

A Single Panel Case Study in Kerry – Deconstructing a Rock Art Palimpsest

Figure 2. The rock art of the peninsulas of SW Ireland - the case study panel’s location is indicated. Sites plotted on maps which are © ESRI.

Figure 3. Iveragh - the rock art of the greater Coomasaharn concentration (encompassing the Letter West complex) at the northwest and the Derrynablaha complex to the southeast. The Ballaghisheen Pass and the Ballaghbeama Gap are circled. Sites plotted on maps which are © ESRI.

257

Aoibheann Lambe country-wide have been displaced to the field boundaries of land which has been subjected to agricultural development and clearances, the majority of panels on Iveragh are insitu, remaining in the same boulder-strewn landscape settings in which they were carved. Occasionally, the rock art is created at extremes of scale, with cup-and-ring marks having diameters as small as 4cm found at 219m OD on the only known rock art panel on the rocky hillsides of Bunbinnia and as large as 1.5m on an extensive outcrop in Maulagallane at 49m OD. Neither the scale nor degree of elaboration of rock art appears to be predicated solely by a panel’s size, elevation or degree of isolation. Surveys by the author throughout Kerry’s Iveragh peninsula since 2013 have targeted gaps in the rock art distribution. Rock art in 15 townlands where none was previously recorded has been added to the official archaeological record as a result. Many rock art panels were identified by the author in 2014 in Letter West in the northeast of the Iveragh peninsula. Evidently an area of significant cultural importance, this townland was singled out by the author for further fieldwork and research. To date, the number of panels on record in the townland has increased 13-fold to 65 from the five panels already on record in 2014. Letter West is now the townland with the greatest known number of rock art panels of any other island-wide. Sixteen panels in Letter West were reported to the NMS by the author from 2014– 2016, a number supplemented by a state-commissioned survey of the rock art of counties Cork and Kerry (2016–2017) with many visits to the townland made by the surveyors during this period. A further 20 panels in Letter West have been reported to the National Monuments Service by the author since that survey concluded in 2017. In a glacial upland valley enclosed (clockwise from southeast to the north) by an amphitheatre of hills, the rock art of Letter West together with over 50 panels currently recorded within the same landscape in the adjacent townland of Kealduff Upper, constitutes an extensive concentration of this monument class. For ease of reference, this concentration is referred to here as the Letter West complex. Over 10% of the known number of panels island-wide are recorded within this single complex, within which a macro cluster of 80 panels in an area measuring less than 0.5km² amounts to the greatest known number of rock art panels within the smallest area in either Britain or Ireland. Having already surveyed extensively in the Letter West complex, a decision was made to narrow but deepen the focus of the research in the area by concentrating on the processes involved in the creation of the rock art. To this end, a heavily inscribed outcrop which is referred to here as the case study panel (SMR: KE071-0030012) was selected for sustained and intense study at a level unprecedented in Irish or British rock art research. Initially identified by Crista Vanhof (1999), this panel is located within a micro-cluster of five intervisible panels towards the northern extent of Letter West. Working outwards from the micro- to the macrolevel, the rock art on the panel was deconstructed to the level of the individual pickmark, yet also considered in the context of the local and greater rock art distribution. With an emphasis on ‘qualities of performance’ (Jones 2012, 79), ‘motif behaviour’ (Bradley 1997) as well as the internal chronology of the rock art, this chapter presents a summary account of the findings from the micro-level component of the study.

2  A SMR (sites and monuments record) number is assigned by the NMS to every monument and consists of the letters denoting the county (KE for Kerry) followed by the number for the monument in question.

258

A Single Panel Case Study in Kerry – Deconstructing a Rock Art Palimpsest The landscape and monumental setting of the Letter West complex  The Letter West complex is overlooked by Drung Hill to the north, a mountain of some significance historically, archaeologically and mythologically. Drung comes from  the Irish word drong which means ‘a multitude’ (Dineen 1904), a name which suggests the area was used for gatherings in prehistory, possibly when the rock art was current. The various traditions associated with the archaeology on Drung Hill are detailed by O’Sullivan and Sheehan (1996, 113–114). Sgeolmhaidhe, a dog owned by the mythical hunter-warrior Fionn Mac Cumhail, is reputedly buried on this hill under a cairn surmounted by an ogham stone (Barrington 1976, 168). The cairn which is known locally as Lagthfinnan Pentitential Station is also said to be the burial place of Finán, a 6th century saint, and his dog (MacNeill 1962, 134–7). Delap (1913, 162) has proposed that the second (and larger) cairn located some 230m to east-south-east is where McCarthy More was inaugurated in AD 1600. Neither of these cairns is intervisible from Letter West. However, a third cairn located to the west on the summit of Beenmore, a loose jumble of slabs and a small amount of quartz constitute a third cairn which overlooks the rock art complex. Rock art amounts to over 78% of the 181 monuments currently recorded in Letter West and its neighbouring townlands of Kealduff Upper and Coomasaharn. Hut sites and pre-bog field systems of uncertain date account for over 70% of all the other monument classes. The remaining 30% of monuments largely medieval in date, except for the Beenmore Hill cairn which could date to any period from prehistory onwards. The Letter West complex is defined by rocky boggy pasture. The dramatic arête of Mullaghnarakill is a visually arresting feature protruding from the partial ring of enclosing mountains to the south, giving rise to a wet micro-climate through the frequent breaking of cloud on their peaks. The border between the townlands of Letter West and Kealduff Upper is created by one of the many watercourses draining from two high elevation corrie lakes in these hills. Only Coomaglashla, the lower of these two lakes, is intervisible with rock art, discernible as a sliver of water only from the highest elevation panels located at ca. 277m OD and above. The views northwards from the concentration are expansive, the Dingle peninsula visible between the mountains flanking the Curra Hills which are 7km to the northeast. Numerous rock art clusters are found within the complex, portions of the landscape practically carpeted with carvings. As is characteristic of this monument class elsewhere in Kerry and throughout the island, the qualities of the rock art (motif range, arrangement, scale, interaction with the surface topography etc.) on each of the panels within a tight cluster is distinct from any other within the same group, the individual panel shapes and the direction in which their inscribed surfaces are facing also different in each instance. Downslope towards the southeast from the Letter West complex are the lower elevation rock art clusters in Kealduff Upper with additional clusters further to the southeast in the townland of Coomasaharn. The diversity of rock art, as well as panel type, is remarkable across these three townlands. A particularly elaborate form of the cruciform motif has been recorded to date only in Kealduff Upper. Among the more rarely occurring motifs in the cup-and-ring rock art of Ireland and Britain are cupmarks enclosed by three or more rings; the rosette (a ring or partial ring of cupmarks) and the ‘keyhole’, a variation on the cup-and-ring mark defined by the extension, usually downslope, of a groove from each terminus of a penannular ring. All of the above are found in the greater Coomasharn concentration. 259

Aoibheann Lambe Beyond these larger concentrations, a series of isolated and clustered rock art panels are found at distances of 1–4km from one another, forming a 30km-long ring spanning either side of the southwest portion of the Glenbeigh horseshoe range of hills. Gaps in this ring which were surveyed in the course of this research were narrowed at northwest and southeast as a result of new discoveries. The case study panel: landscape setting, form and scale Immediately east of a trackway and on a ridge (163m OD), the case study panel (Figures 4–10) is one of many rock outcrops and boulders in a boggy upland pasture in a glacial river valley with no through-road. The panel forms the exposed east portion of a fine-grained sandstone outcrop (ca. 5m x 5m) of St. Finan’s Sandstone formation, a green sandstone and siltstone dating from the Late Devonian 385 to 359 Ma. The panel’s side at the west, overlain by turf and vegetation, is ca. 0.4m higher than surrounding ground level and forms a natural platform. Located at the northern extent of a tight cluster of five panels, it is the largest and most highly decorated panel in this group. The exposed surface of the outcrop measures ca. 5m north–south. The panel’s southeast facing trapezoid-shaped upper surface (2.1m northwest/southeast x 3.4m northeast/southwest) is the most highly decorated. Consisting of six stepped fairly even-surfaced sections, the surface slopes upwards at ca. 30 degrees towards north to where the uppermost level reaches a height of 1.5m. The main sections run parallel to one another, separated by low north–south running steps (2–6cm) which descend in height from west to east. A step running midway up the panel divides the roughly triangular-shaped section at the west from the lower steps to the east.

Figure 4. The case study panel with the motifs highlighted by the evening sun. Image: Aoibheann Lambe.

260

A Single Panel Case Study in Kerry – Deconstructing a Rock Art Palimpsest

Figure 5. The case study panel slopes upwards from near ground level towards Drung Hill to the north. Image: Aoibheann Lambe.

Figure 6. View of the case study panel from south - in flat light the rock art is not discernible. Image: Aoibheann Lambe.

261

Aoibheann Lambe

Figure 7. A step-like feature can be seen near the top of the panel on its west side. Image: Aoibheann Lambe.

Figure 8. Dispersed picking has been recorded on the platform-like portion of the outcrop more rock art may be overlain by vegetation. Image: Aoibheann Lambe.

262

A Single Panel Case Study in Kerry – Deconstructing a Rock Art Palimpsest

Figure 9. The case study panel (indicated) is one of many in a boulder-strewn landscape - the recently erected water treatment plant can be seen on the near horizon. Image: Aoibheann Lambe.

Readily visible rock art is notably absent from any of the four corners of the panel’s upper surface. Lamination layers, some as thin as 1mm, are visible as internal features in the interior of many of the cupmarks on this face. Extensive portions of the upper surface are smooth where the original uppermost lamination layers are gone, the continuity of many of the picked grooves traversing the panel interrupted as a consequence. Picking along the edges of these smooth surfaces suggest that the removal of at least some of the uppermost layers was either deliberate or accelerated by human activity.  The north-facing side of the panel is rugged and slopes steeply down at ca. 60 degrees to ground level. The sides of the panel at the west and east are near-vertical except for a narrow step-like ledge at the north-west which is inscribed with a cupmark-like cluster of picking. When viewed from downslope at the north or from the track at the west, the panel makes little impact. Viewed from the east, it is wedge-shaped. The panel’s scale appears greatest when viewed from the south from which vantage point the whole of its upper surface is fully visible, the motifs however foreshortened due to the angle of view. The methodology of recording and referencing the rock art  In flat light, the rock art on this panel is inscrutable, the carvings unable to compete with the visual noise created by the lichen whose impact, however, is greatly diminished by 263

Aoibheann Lambe controlled lighting. The raking light at sunset shows the carvings to best advantage, the whole of the panel’s rock art is highlighted by the setting sun only in the days around the Winter solstice. At sunset at other times of year, the oblique rays of the setting sun cast shadows across the stepped sections of the surface. Photography and other contactless visualization techniques were employed to enable the panel to be studied off-site: reflectance transformation, photogrammetry and laser scanning.3 The latter two methods provide an image of the panel in over-head view, a vantage point not feasible in the field which enables the decorated upper surfaces to be seen simultaneously without any foreshortening of the rock art. Drawings made at intervals of a few months record this writer’s changing perception of the rock art in the course of this project, many features either being overlooked in the early stages or re-interpreted later. Flame torches were also used, Figure 10. The case study panel with the Curra Hills on the horizon. Image: Aoibheann Lambe. in part to animate the rock art and also to confirm that the visual effects created by LED torches could be replicated by fire-light. Photography with controlled lighting was used to capture fine detail, the light at angles that were either too oblique for RTI or too biased for photogrammetry. Many of the qualities of motif performance illustrated in the photographs have not alone been overlooked in previous state-commissioned surveys of this panel but have not previously been documented in rock art research. While over 1000 photographs were used in the catalogue for this project, only a small selection has been used in this chapter in the hope that they serve as a reasonably impartial and credible means of illustrating features which are generally barely perceptible and frequently ambiguous. An image of the laser scan in overhead view was used to map the panel. A numbered grid was overlain on this image enabling the individual features discussed below to be named by reference to their position on this gridded image (Figure 11). Each square on the grid represents 0.2m², the horizontal X-axis numbered A–S, the vertical Y-axis numbered 1– 25. The reference number consists of the relevant coordinates of the X and Y axes, a space separating Reflectance Transformation Imagery (RTI) involves multiple images of a surface under different lighting to disclose surface features normally not obvious; photogrammetry involves a series of overlapping photographs which can be processed in dedicated software to create a virtual 3D model; laser scanning uses laser to build up a 3D image.

3 

264

A Single Panel Case Study in Kerry – Deconstructing a Rock Art Palimpsest

Figure 11. Laser scan image of the case study panel overlain with a numbered grid. The laser scan image serves as a map of the case study panel. The reference number assigned to each motif or motif element is based on the position of the feature in relation to the grid overlaying the panel. Each square on the image represents 0.2m² on the case study panel.

265

Aoibheann Lambe

Figure 12. Sixteen images showing details from the case study panel. Images: Aoibheann Lambe.

the letter from the number. A short form is used for cup-and-ring variations having a central cupmark, these motifs are generally referenced only by the location of their central cupmark. Accordingly, the complex cup-and-ring motif whose main components encompass KL 14–15 is 266

A Single Panel Case Study in Kerry – Deconstructing a Rock Art Palimpsest referred to simply as K 14. An interactive catalogue of the panel composed of over 500 entries was created. Detailed information including images, measurements and descriptive data on each of the panel’s features was made accessible by clicking on the appropriate grid square on the laser scan image. The case study panel is remarkably complex (Figure 12). While the technology was of immense value in enabling the panel to be studied off-site. However, experiencing and perceiving the panel in its landscape and monumental context throughout the year and in all lights and weather conditions were also essential components of the study. Perhaps the most important ‘technique’ was the approach to the study. To a large degree, preconceptions about what constitutes cup-and-ring rock art were shed. It was a working assumption that every pickmark (also known as peck- or pockmark) on the panel had been created with conscious intent. Concepts of unfinished, random or amorphous are anathema to this approach. Accordingly, each mark was studied at length to try to identify a logic or protocol governing its creation. In this way, performative qualities which have not previously been recorded in cup-and-ring rock art were identified. Among these is a phenomenon referred to as ‘radial extension’, identifiable by the change in the character of the radials approximately mid-way along their length – see Figure 12 (e, f, h, i) and Figure 13. A pattern whereby a particular motif is repeatedly conjoined with the same portion of another motif element is a phenomenon which has been named ‘motif-pairing’. The most striking instances of motif-pairing on the case study panel consist of a cupmark conjoined with the base of a radial feature (Figure 12 (f, i, l and n)), a phenomenon which occurs in seven instances. In the process of recording the case study panel, shortcomings in rock art terminology became apparent. Some near-ubiquitous features, e.g. the rock surface between a cup and a ring groove, are unnamed. There is also a broad spectrum of variations on a motif type, which in this work are noted as such with the term ‘variation’. Cupmark variations include natural hollows, smooth hemispherical depressions, saucer-like depressions, disc-cups which are shallow with flat bases and solidly picked circles. ‘Cup-and-ring variation’ denotes any variation in the form of the cup-and-ring motif (essentially a cupmark enclosed by a ringshaped groove). The term encompasses one or more cupmarks enclosed by one or more rings, the enclosing rings having a broad range of shapes and not necessarily complete but sometimes penannular, spiral, partial or extended or any combination of the above. The techniques used to make rock art are collectively referred to here as carving, the term used in the sense of fashioning into some shape by cutting, chiselling, or sculpturing. Created by a range of subtractive techniques: picking by either direct or indirect percussion with, on occasion, incision and abrasion, rock art terminology refers only to those portions of the rock surface which have been removed, i.e. the cup, the ring etc. The unnamed areas in a motif between these negative relief spaces often make a stronger visual impact than the negative relief motifs which create its outline. This impact is not solely a matter of individual perception, but contingent also on the width and depth of the negative relief elements in proportion to the width of the area between these elements, as well as the degree to which the motif has been contoured. Accordingly, the rock surface between the carved (i.e. negative relief) portions of a motif, e.g. between a cupmark and the enclosing ring-groove, are here named after their shape together with the added qualification ‘positive’ to differentiate these surface-level features from their negative relief counterparts. The positive-relief features 267

Aoibheann Lambe

268

A Single Panel Case Study in Kerry – Deconstructing a Rock Art Palimpsest Figure 13. (previous page) Radial extensions - a1–4: radial grooves of KL 9–10 appear short or long depending on the light. 2 fine grooves continue through the cupmark to the far side of the ring at west; b: radial grooves of L 10 continue through the ring up the panel; c: radials of O 13 appear extended in positive relief to the panel edge; d: radial positive of L18 extended as a groove to the panel edge; e: grooves flanking the radial positive of K 16 continue down the panel, the groove to the left forming part of the ring enclosing the cupmark in K 18; f: radials of I 16 superimpose the upper part of the ring of I 17 and run in line with the radial grooves beneath the ring; g: radials of P 12 are narrower where they have been extended. Examples of ’motif pairing’ where cupmarks are found at the base of radials positive can be seen in images c, e, f and g. Images: Aoibheann Lambe.

may either be ‘planar’ with the rest of the rock surface, the area between the negative relief features being largely unshaped or ‘contoured’, where they have been rounded perhaps only the crest of a feature remaining level with the unworked surface. Both planar and contoured motifs are found on the case study panel.  A simple cup-and-ring mark could be described as consisting of three elements: the cupmark, (enclosed by) the ring positive and (further enclosed by) the ring negative. Rings-positive may be contoured to such a degree that they resemble a doughnut. Likewise, the slightly contoured positive-relief areas between the parallel grooves of many of the keyhole variations on this panel are visually prominent and named in the study as the ‘radials positive’. The term ‘plastic’ is used here in the sense of being inter alia pliable and fluid and refers in particular to the continuation of a single motif across two or more planes of the rock surface (Figure 14). This is a quality of motif performance which can be observed objectively. Whether a motif is contoured or planar is a characteristic that is quite distinct from its plasticity. Numerous shallowly picked grooves on the panel are planar in character and plastic in performance. The attribution of direction is primarily intended to ease language flow but inevitably introduces an element of interpretive bias as lines, for example, are described as running to or from a motif and up or down the panel. The perception of direction by those creating and using the rock art may have been quite different. That the rock art may have been perceived as entering or continuing beneath the rock art surface is suggested by the occurrence across the panel of intermittent lines i.e. grooves whose paths have been deliberately interrupted, the gap possibly denoting the continuation of their paths beneath the surface. A phenomenon which has not been documented up to now, intermittent lines are discussed and illustrated below. The rock art on the case study panel The importance of the case study panel, as indeed with any analysis of rock art occurrences, lies not so much in the diversity and quantity of the motif forms but rather in the character of the rock art. Very little nuanced information is imparted by the quantification of motif typologies on a panel, yet this is how rock art is generally described. Qualities of character which are under-reported in rock art documentation concern the scale of the motifs, the degree to which they are planar or contoured, and their geometric regularity or irregularity. Contextual attributes concern the more dynamic aspects of the rock art on the panel, how 269

Aoibheann Lambe

270

A Single Panel Case Study in Kerry – Deconstructing a Rock Art Palimpsest Figure 14. (previous page) Plasticity - a and b: grooves extend down the steps of L 7; c: grooves in LM 12–14 continue across the steps; d: the grooves forming the ring in O 11 run in line with features on the step below; e: picking down the side of panel at west; f: the groove in OPQ 14 continues down the side of panel at east; g: cupmark and lines of picking through GH 17; h: radials of motifs in L 20 continue down the step at southeast. Images: Aoibheann Lambe.

the motifs interact both with each other and with the topography of the rock. Motifs can conjoin, abut, intersect, truncate and merge. Embracing the three-dimensionality of the panel lends rock art a ‘plastic’ quality, manifesting most frequently on the case study in grooves which continue across the stepped sections of the panel and down its near-vertical sides. More elusive qualities of the rock art include ambiguous features, these appearing to be associated with later carving phases on the case study panel. Phases of carving are indicated by superimpositions, motif modification, erasure and surface preparation (Figure 15). At its most elemental level, the rock art on this panel can be categorized under four core motif categories, within each of which an array of variations is found: cupmarks, cup-and-rings, lines, and pickmarks. Individual pickmarks are prominently visible in many of the grooves and rings formed by contiguous rows of picking and are also evident in strands of picking and solidly picked areas (LM 17–18). A north/south step along the mid-section divides the more densely decorated half at west from the other six main sections at east. Motifs can also be closely-set, sometimes conjoined to such a degree that they are merged (Q 11–12); truncated (L 20); or abutting one another (K 9–10, L 12, O 13). Among the many rare or unique forms is a serpentine groove over 1.5m long (FGH 13–17); a spiral embedded in a cup-and-ring mark (K 14); a saucer-like motif (K 11); a penannular ring of nine well-defined individual pickmarks abutting a ring-shaped area of picking (L 12); and a sub-circular area of solid picking (M 17– 18). Over 50 of the 100 motif attributes identified by O’Connor (2006) throughout all the rock art in her three study areas (the Isle of Doagh in Co. Donegal, Drumirril in Co. Monaghan and Loch Adoon on the Dingle Peninsula in Kerry) are found on this single panel. Principal motifs - types and frequency An estimated 130 rock art motifs (not including innumerable fine lines) are inscribed on the panel’s upper surface. Cupmarks, nearly half of which are enclosed by rings, are recorded in over 80 instances. The largest cupmark on the panel (K 17) has a diameter of 8cm, the next largest having diameters of 6cm (H 13, L 15, Q 11). Cupmarks with diameters of 4cm are the most numerous. Many of the cupmarks have relatively smooth interiors (G 17, O 13), the lamination layers visible in some cases (L 7, K 9–10), while others are rudimentary in form having been created by a small number of boldly executed parallel strokes (O 16). Thirty six cup-and-ring variations occur across the panel’s upper surface. The few rings which are round (rather than oval, square-ish or triangular) are gapped and otherwise complex (G 17–18, J 19, L 7, O 13a). In some instances, the ring negative has a different shape to the ring positive (J 17, L 18). Nine of the cup-and-ring variations are forms of the rare keyhole motif, the keyhole grooves either running parallel to one another (I 16, L 18), splaying (K 9–10, K 14) or converging (M 10), two parallel grooves extending beyond the ring in one variation (I 17). 271

Aoibheann Lambe

272

A Single Panel Case Study in Kerry – Deconstructing a Rock Art Palimpsest Figure 15. (previous page) Phases of carving. a: a rare saucer-like motif (K 11) may be an erased cup-and-ring mark; b: a line of picking superimposes a radial positive (M 10); c: a penannular ring of pickmarks (K 12) on an area of probable spall are fresh and large as are other large well-defined strands of picking on the panel; d: overpicking on rings and possible radial positive at E (K 14); e: a groove superimposes the rings at southwest of K 14 and continues as a radial groove; f: feature to the right of the cup-and-ring in I 18 is possibly an erased cup-and-ring; g: superimpositions on the ring of IJ 18–19 and radials running northwards counter to the prevailing southerly direction of other radials on the panel; h: large pickmarks characteristic of the later phase of carving superimpose a ring positive (J 14). Images: Aoibheann Lambe.

Radial features are incorporated into 27 of the 36 cup-and-ring variations on this panel, 13 of these motifs having one or more radials positive. Some of these features run slightly offcentre rather than radially in relation to the central cupmark (K 9–10, KL 9–11, O 13 west). Interaction of motifs with one another, the panel topography and the landscape Conjoined motifs are characteristic of this panel. In one instance (L 20), there is an example of ‘motif-by-motif’ truncation. This is a phenomenon, frequently seen in passage tomb art but rarely occurring in open-air rock art, whereby one motif (typically a cupmark enclosed by two or more rings) is truncated by another but similar motif. Truncation can suggest a depth of field, as if one motif were behind the other. ‘Motif pairing’ has been identified in the occurrence of cupmarks at the base of radials positive (K 9–11a, K 16, O 13 at west). Similar examples of motif pairing include a ringed cupmark at the base of a radial (I 16) and a cupmark located at the base of each of the radials in the centrally located spiraling motif (K 14). Another example of motif pairing is the occurrence of small cupmark-like features on or near the ring enclosing a cupmark. This is seen on the panel in eight cup-and-ring variations, the cupmark-like feature to the east in four instances (FG 17–18, IJ 13–14, M 12, Q 11) and to the south-west in another four (K 10, IJ 17, IJ 18–19, L 20). Cup-and-ring marks are also conjoined in many instances. Motif interaction can be subtle, a dual role played by some elements. Some grooves perform ‘simultaneously’ as grooves and as partial rings. Partial inner rings (J 14) and partial second rings (J 11–12, J 13, Q 11–12) have been created by grooves along the course of their paths across the panel. A groove forming part of a ring which encloses three conjoined motifs (Q 11–12) continues up the panel to the north-west where it forms a partial second ring for a cup-and-ring motif (P 11). The groove then curves around to superimpose the ring positive of this motif at north, to possibly ‘re-emerge’ on the far side of the ring as discussed above. Downslope of these motifs, a line of picking meanders around a cupmark (P 12) to form a partial ring before continuing up onto the next section up, as an east/west running groove (NO 12). Symmetry, in a variety of forms including repetitional, reflective and translational, is evident both within and between the various compositions on the case study panel. A composition on the west portion of the panel (HI 15–17) is remarkably symmetrical, the cup-and-ring marks at east mirrored in their counterparts at west. Symmetry is also created by using grooves and natural cracks to frame compositions (KL 9–11). A prominent cupmarked protuberance (G 17) is truncated by an enclosing ring which makes its overall form appear more symmetrical. Likewise, the radial at southeast in the spiraling motif (K 14) is reflected in the radial at southwest. 273

Aoibheann Lambe The southeast running groove in the uppermost motif (L 7) is also reflected symmetrically in the motif ’s other radial groove at the southwest (L 8). Further examples of symmetry in this motif consist of parallel grooves extending from the outer ring towards the east (LM 7). The most prominent examples of symmetry on the panel are repetitional and consist of the repeated pattern of northwest/southeast running radials extending from the southeast portion of a cup-and-ring motif. These radials form a linear arrangement extending from the top of the panel (L 7) to the base (L 20), a consistency which indicates that their orientation is significant. Any association between the direction of the radials on the panel with astronomy or the local topography was not established in this study. The portions of the horizon at southeast towards which many of the radials appear to run are south of the most southerly point on the horizon on which the sun rises in winter. It may be that some of the radials were referencing Drung Hill to the northwest or indicating the location of Coomasaharn to the southeast on the far side of Coomreagh. Throughout the rock art complex, a consistency in either the directions of the radials or the locations towards which they run is not evident from preliminary analysis. However, patterns may become apparent through further study. A complex network of grooves meanders across the panel, manifesting in a broad range of forms: as strands of pickmarks, abraded grooves, narrow as well as broad lines of picking. Few lines simply terminate, those which appear to terminate frequently found to be ‘intermittent’ (Figure 16), the continuity of their paths sometimes interrupted by areas of spall with the interruption possibly intentional in some cases. A straight side (most often at north) of many of the enclosing rings on the panel can run in line with the straight side of a neighbouring ring, the two sides effectively forming a groove whose path is intermittent. The straight portion of the ring is likely to have been created in an act of superimposition as in many instances these sides are wider than the curving portions of the ring. Another possible example of intermittent lines occurs in a cluster of conjoined motifs towards the west of the panel. A radial positive is flanked by a pair of grooves (I 16–17), whose path changes about two thirds down their length from south to south-west (in a possible example of radial extension). These grooves superimpose the north side of the ring of the motif below, the parallel grooves which occur beneath this motif possibly representing their re-emergence on the far side of the motif. The most complete groove on the panel is also one of the most prominent, running across the surface (G–O 13) near the panel’s mid-point. Due to the natural topography of the upper surface, horizontal lines are more readily visible than the lines running along the panel’s long axis. A serpentine groove with both squared and rounded bends (FGH 13–16) runs from a large cupmark (H 13) for ca. 1m along the upper surface before continuing down the sides where it is traceable for a further ca. 0.5m.

Figure 16. (following page) Intermittent lines. Many of the rings on the case study panel have one or more straight sides, particularly on their northern side. The arrows indicate the straight sides of motifs across the panel which may run in line with the straight side of a groove (a) or of the ring of another neighbouring motif (b, c, e and f) thus creating an intermittent line. The continuity of lines which are interrupted (d) can be unclear or ambiguous. Images: Aoibheann Lambe.

274

A Single Panel Case Study in Kerry – Deconstructing a Rock Art Palimpsest

275

Aoibheann Lambe Plasticity (Figure 14), a performative quality of the rock art, is evident in the many grooves traversing the various steps of the panel and continuing down its sides in a form of all-overdecoration. The term plasticity has been used in the context of passage tomb art (O’Sullivan 1989) and rock art (Valdez-Tullett 2019) but is used here in the specific sense of carvings embracing the three-dimensionality of the panel rather than just its upper surfaces. Jones (2012) has observed that the complexity of motifs can be in direct proportion to the complexity of the surface. A correlation (and a level of predictability) between the nature of the rock art and the surface inscribed has been observed in the Letter West complex and elsewhere. Gently contoured motifs are inscribed on softly rounded surfaces and shallow planar motifs on smooth level surfaces. On the case study panel, natural protuberances are incorporated into the rock art (G 17, JK 12–13) as are cracks (K 9). Many of the case study panel’s edges are picked in a phenomenon referred to here as panel-edge picking, its occurrence quite widespread in the rock art of Iveragh but largely overlooked in rock art documentation. At the base of the panel (L 20), a ring encloses not a cupmark but an unworked oval-shaped area or natural cupmark. The enclosing ring, visible only in oblique light and easily overlooked, is slightly truncated by the cup-and-ring mark at the west. A crack also runs radially to the southeast from the truncated motif, this natural feature more prominently visible than the motif ’s picked radial groove. The radials of both these motifs display plasticity in their continuing beyond the edge at south-east down the step. While mapping the watercourses in Letter West, it was observed that the path of the Behy river which runs eastwards from its sources (several springs and the Coomnacronia corrie lake) for approximately 1.5km, then veering north-east for 7km before entering the sea near Glenbeigh, is echoed in the radial at east from the uppermost motif at the northern extent of the panel (L 7). This groove runs east from the ring before veering towards the north-east. However, the change in direction is also in line with the natural topography of the rock. No other motif appears to be echoed in the landscape. The other watercourses in the Letter West complex flow downslope towards the sea in a direction which runs counter (perpendicularly) to the direction of the more prominent grooves on the panel. That rock art represents a map, whether territorial or astronomical, is difficult either to prove or to disprove and has received little academic attention since Graves (1873), until the recent proposal by Nicolas et al. (2021) that the rock art on the rediscovered Saint-Bélec slab, originally discovered in Leuhan, Finistère, represents a map of the locality. Distinct carving phases Distinct phases of carving and superimpositions have been identified in many instances on this single case study panel (Figure 15). The internal chronology of a panel has been addressed in Irish rock art research in very few instances (Shee 1968, 1972; Brindley 1991). Superimpositions are thought to be largely absent in Irish rock art (O’Connor 2006). ValdezTullett (2019) notes that the diameters of solidly picked circles on three panels on Iveragh (Kealduff Upper, Dromtine, and Derrynablaha) are commensurate with the diameters of cupand-ring motifs, proposing that at least one such motif at Dromtine, which is a large concave hollow with many visible pickmarks, may be the result of motif erasure. While this may be the case with the Dromtine example, solidly picked circles are part of the motif repertoire on Iveragh, those with shallow flat bases unlikely to have formerly been cup-and-ring motifs. However, a solidly picked area near the southwestern extent of the case study panel (IJ 18) 276

A Single Panel Case Study in Kerry – Deconstructing a Rock Art Palimpsest may be an erased cup-and-ring motif, faint traces of a possible ring groove and an enclosed hollow visible in strong oblique light (Figure 15 (f)). The carving events on the panel are grouped here into two broad phases, the earlier phase characterized by carefully created cup-and-ring variations with contoured positive relief features, and the later phase by superimpositions, motif-modifications, motif erasure, surface preparation and the creation of additional grooves. The tool marks of the later phase are varied and include bold, closely-set, parallel, deep strikes which can display a high degree of skill and virtuosity (K 13–14), strands of individual pickmarks, and narrow lines of picking such as those running down the steps at north-east. Carving from the later phase on the case study panel have involved motif modification. The ‘radial extension’ has been identified in several instances and manifests in quite disparate ways (Figure 13). The purported extensions are identifiable by the change in the character of the radials approximately mid-way down their length, the lower portions either narrower or wider than the upper portions, the techniques of picking in the extensions also distinct from the upper portions. Parallel radial grooves at the north-eastern extent of the panel (Q 12) are well-defined for the first 10cm, their extensions to the panel edge however only half as wide and visible only in certain lights. A phenomenon whereby two radial grooves cross each other in the central cupmark and continue their paths on the far side of the motif (Figure 13 [a4], [c]) is also characteristic of the panel (K 14, M 9–10, P 11–12). Such features are very faint and were only detected in the later stages of the study. The radial extensions, while executed in a range of different styles, share certain qualities which indicate they were created in a single phase of carving. Most of the extensions appear to have been created to allow the radial to continue to the panel edge and possibly down the sides as well. If both broad and narrow radial extensions can be attributed to a single (later) phase, the many broad grooves interconnecting many of the motifs on the panel, as well as the faintly visible narrow grooves continuing down the panel sides, may also have been created in the same carving phase. Towards the southwest of the panel, the ring of a complex motif (IJ 18–10) has been breached at northwest to create numerous radials which run northwards up the panel, a direction contrary to the prevailing ‘design grammar’ on the panel, whereby the radials largely run downwards in a broadly southerly direction. That radials in rock art generally run downslope is well documented (Finlay 1975, 10; O’Connor 2006, 60). A saucer-like depression towards the top of the panel (K 11) may have originally been a cup-and-ring motif. In a possible instance of ‘additive subtraction’ as described by Cochrane (2008), this depression is one of the more prominent motifs on the panel. A centrally located motif (K 14), recorded in the three previous surveys as a cupmark enclosed by three rings, has been over-picked to create a double-coiled spiral, the ambiguity being created by gaps in the path of the rings at the north and south. A radial feature at southeast of this spiraling motif which consists of a broad band of picking flanked by two welldefined grooves may have once been a radial positive, its surface since over-picked to erase the positive relief element. Terminating in a cupmark in line with the pattern of motif pairing seen elsewhere on the panel, it shares its orientation and dimension with many of the other radials positive on the panel. If it was indeed a radial positive originally, that would suggest that the motif pairing phase predated the superimposition of the radial positive and therefore 277

Aoibheann Lambe possibly other instances of superimposition on the panel. However, the flanking grooves are more prominent than those on any of the radials positive elsewhere on the panel. They may have been deliberately emphasized in an action intended to draw attention to the feature rather than to eliminate it outright, in possibly a second instance of ‘additive subtraction’. The south-west portion of the rings of the spiralling motif has also been over-picked to create a second radial groove at south-west. Ill-defined and terminating in a rudimentary cupmark, it is probable that the creation of this second radial is contemporaneous with the ‘erasure’ of the positive relief element of the south-east radial. The addition of the second radial shifts the motif ’s centre of gravity to south from its previous orientation to the south-east. The spiral on the case study panel (K 14) is a variation on the double-coiled spiral - a rare and complex motif. The double-coiled spiral is defined by Shee Twohig (1981, 114) as two parallel lines which coil outwards from the centre of the motif. Associated with passage tomb art at Newgrange, double-coiled spirals are found on K 1 and in the triple spiral on C 10. Such spirals are rare outside of the Boyne Valley (Shee Twohig 1981, 114); a clockwise example occurring on C5 in Loughcrew Cairn I, an anti-clockwise example on the Cape Clear stone. A rare example of an open-air double-coiled spiral partially enclosed by a ring of cupmarks was recently discovered in a former deerpark in Louth by Pádraig O’Cumasaigh, and a detailed monument report submitted to the NMS by this writer. A summary overview of the panel in the greater rock art context The contoured radial positive, a motif rarely found in the rock art of either Ireland or Britain, could be described as the case study panel’s ‘signature’ motif. While the case study panel is located towards the northern extent of the Letter West complex, other elaborately inscribed panels in the complex, each of which is roughly equidistant (ca. 0.5km) from the next nearest example, also have signature motifs. Adjacent to the watercourse dividing the townlands of Letter West and Kealduff Upper, the ‘rosette stone’, identified by the writer in 2017, is inscribed with the greatest number (at eight) of rosettes of any panel in Ireland. ‘The motorbike’ as it is locally known (Tom Diggin pers. comm.), located towards the southern extent of the complex, is exceptional due to its meticulously executed disc cups enclosed by up to three broad planar rings. Near the eastern extent of the complex, the ‘mother ship’ (so-named by this writer to reflect its iconic status) is inscribed with multiple-ringed motifs which include two cup-andfive ring motifs as well as two cup-and-four rings. The above two signature panels as­well as the case study panel have stepped surfaces running east–west. Each of the signature panels is located on level ground suitable for the assembly of small groups. However, in each case, perhaps reflecting a similar relationship between the geology of the rock art surface and motif forms observed in Kilmartin by Jones (2012, 81–82) the surface topography is distinctive.    With few exceptions, every motif variation recorded in the Irish and British rock art repertoire is found in the Letter West complex. Closely set parallel lines such as those found in Magheranaul in Co. Donegal have yet to be recorded in this concentration. The cross-circle (two perpendicularly intersecting grooves enclosed by a ring groove) is very rare islandwide but found in two neighbouring townlands, Ballynakilly Upper and Canearagh. The Letter West complex must have been a significant rock art destination, the signature panels perhaps the foci of specialized engagement within the landscape. The distinctive nature of each panel within a cluster and distances between the various signature panels indicates 278

A Single Panel Case Study in Kerry – Deconstructing a Rock Art Palimpsest that the spatial organization of the rock art was either managed or followed some logic or protocol. Idiosyncratic carving styles of carving found throughout the concentration suggest the handiwork of individual carvers, of which four have been tentatively identified so far. The work of one of these putative individuals is found at the base of the case study panel (L 20) as well as on five other panels in the area. In each instance, a clearly defined motif with a distinctive morphology is positioned adjacent to a very faintly visible motif of similar form. Phases of carving have been proposed by Waddington et al. (2005) at Hunterheugh Crag. It may be that the politics and changing ideologies governing any distinct carving events at Hunterheugh are echoed in Letter West. If successive phases of carving took place in disparate locations but in similar ways, the implications for our understanding of the role of rock art in society would be significant. Clues to the chronologies of rock art may be revealed in the character of the various phases. Waddington (1998, 45) has noted the direct and intentional association between carved outcrops and the Early Bronze Age tombs which were constructed directly over them e.g., Fowberry cairn and Lordenshaw East cairn. It has been argued that certain practices in the Early Bronze Age involving deposition, destruction and concealment are associated with the management of power through secrecy (Jones 2010). The deconstruction of a cup-and-ring mark to create yet simultaneously effectively conceal a spiral may reflect a manifestation of this practice in a phase of rock art dating to the same period. While such fieldwork and the observations made in this study contribute to our knowledge of rock art, a supplemental range of other approaches would be beneficial and would include geophysical survey, excavation, lichenometry and palynology. Having a background in stone carving, the techniques used in the creation of rock art are of particular interest to this writer. The experimental archaeology carried out to date has already been a useful aid to understanding techniques of mark-making in rock art. The identification of the ‘individual’ in rock art could become a line of enquiry with important implications for our understanding of the timescales in which rock art was created and the role of the individual in its creation. Further research in the Letter West complex is difficult at present as access to the townland has not been granted to the public since October 2019. Would the findings from this study have been any different had another panel been chosen? Yes, and no. A case study panel of similar complexity and also located in a rock art landscape such as Anati’s ‘No. 10’ in Derrynablaha may well have yielded similar results. The similarities between the two panels are striking on many levels, indications for phases of carving and superimpositions on the Derrynablaha panel now more readily recognizable following the single panel case study in Letter West. It is noteworthy that the rock art on the Derrynablaha panel contrasts strongly with the rock art on the next nearest elaborate panel yet the signature motifs of each of these panels, multiple-ringed motifs on the former and rosettes on the latter, echo those on two of the signature panels in the Letter West complex. The later phases of carving on this panel and other panels since identified by this writer appear to conform to an ideology which was possibly quite distinct from that of the earlier phases. The performative aspects of the rock art are dynamic. Lines of picking connect the disparate motifs on the panel, extending some features to the panel edge, the lines also embracing the whole of the panel’s three-dimensional form. While the styles of carving throughout the 279

Aoibheann Lambe panel are varied, a sense of unity is achieved by the use of symmetry, motif pairing and the prominence of the panel’s signature motif, the radial positive. Further study will continue to emphasise the importance of visualizing every mark on a panel’s surface and will use the approaches developed in this study to help elucidate the protocols and ideologies governing the creation of rock art. Discoveries from recent surveys by the author above the Beara Peninsula near Priest’s Leap as well as in the Derrynablaha complex include many panels across which only a fine line of picking is inscribed. This­­­­­­­­reinforces findings from the Letter West complex that the rock art on a panel does not occur in isolation but is connected to the rock art of the neighbouring panels in a network which encompasses the entire landscape. Bibliography Anati, E., 1963. New petroglyphs at Derrynablaha. Co. Kerry. Journal of the Cork Historical and Archaeological Society Vol. 68, 1-15.  Barrington, T., 1976. Discovering Kerry: Its History, Heritage and Topography. Dublin: Blackwater. Bradley, R., 1997. Rock art and the prehistory of Atlantic Europe: signing the land. Routledge: London.  Brindley, A.L., 1991. Rock art at Kilwarden. Journal of the Kildare Archaeological Society. Vol. 17, 202–5 Burns, G. and Nolan, J., 2007. Prehistoric rock art in the Burren/Marlbank area. Archaeology Ireland. 21(2), 26–30.  Burns, G. and Nolan, J., 2017. Burren-Marlbank, A Prehistoric Monumental Landscape, Marble Arch Caves UNESCO Global Geopark. Cochrane, A., 2008. Additive subtraction: addressing pick dressing in Irish passage tombs. In: J. Thomas and J. Vitor Oliveira (eds.). Archaeology and the Politics of Vision in a Post-Modern Context. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, pp. 163­–185. Delap, M.J., 1913. Ogham Stone, Drung Hill. Kerry Archaeological Magazine 2, 159–162. Dineen, P., 1904. Foclóir Gaeilge agus Béarla: an Irish-English dictionary. Dublin. Finlay, F., 1973. The rock art of Cork and Kerry. Unpublished MA thesis, University College Cork. Graves, C., 1873. On a previously undescribed Class of Monuments. The Transactions of the Royal Irish Academy. Vol. 24, 421–431.  Lambe, A., 2021a. Apotropaic marks. Caherdaniel Parish Magazine. Vol. 11: 38–39. Lambe, A., 2021b. Recent rock art discoveries in Kerry: an exponential rise in the known numbers of rock art panels. Kerry Archaeological and Historical Journal. Series 2. 21: 85–102 Lambe A., 2022. Recognising rock art: the people behind recent discoveries in Ireland. In Frodsham, P. and K. Sharpe (eds). Abstractions Based on Circles. Papers on prehistoric rock art presented to Stan Beckensall on his 90th birthday. Oxford: Archaeopress. MacNeill, M., 1962. The Festival of Lughnasa. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Nash, G.H., 2019. The cupmark conundrum: A Welsh Neolithic perspective. Adoranten, pp. 96112. Nicolas C., Pailler Y., Stéphan P., Pierson J., Aubry L., Le Gall B., Lacombe V., and Rolet J., 2021. La carte et le territoire: la dalle gravée du Bronze ancien de Saint-Bélec (Leuhan, Finistère). Bulletin de la Société préhistorique française. Vol. 118, 1, 99–146. O’Connor, B., 2006. Inscribed landscapes: contextualising prehistoric rock art in Ireland. Unpublished PhD thesis, University College Dublin.  O’Sullivan, M., 1986. Approaches to Passage Tomb Art. The Journal of the Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland. Vol. 116, 68–83. 

280

A Single Panel Case Study in Kerry – Deconstructing a Rock Art Palimpsest O’Sullivan, A. and Sheehan, J., 1996. The Iveragh Peninsula: An Archaeological Survey of South Kerry; Suirbhé Seandálaíochta Uíbh Ráthaigh. Cork University Press.  Purcell, A., 1994. Carved Landscapes: The Rock Art of the Iveragh Peninsula, County Kerry. Unpublished MA thesis, University College Cork. Purcell, A., 2002. The rock-art landscape of the Iveragh Peninsula, County Kerry, south-west Ireland. In. G. Nash and C. Chippindale (eds.) European landscapes of rock-art, London: Routledge, pp. 71–92. Shee, E., 1968. Some examples of rock art from County Cork. Journal of the Cork Historical and Archaeological Society. Vol. 73, 144–51.  Shee, E., 1972. Three decorated stones from Loughcrew, Co. Meath. The Journal of the Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland. Vol. 102 (2), 224–233.  Shee Twohig, E., 1981. The Megalithic Art of Western Europe. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Valdez-Tullett, J., 2019. Design and Connectivity: The Case of Atlantic Rock Art. (BAR International Series, 2932). Oxford: BAR. Vanhof, C., 1999. More Rock Art Discoveries in County Kerry. Archaeology Ireland. Vol. 13, No. 2, 31–32.  Waddington, C., 1998. Cup and Ring Marks in context. Cambridge Archaeological Journal. Vol. 8:1., 29-54. Waddington, C., Johnson, B. and Mazel, A., 2005. Excavation of a rock art site at Hunterheugh Crag, Northumberland. Archaeologica Aeliana 5th Series 34, 29–54.

281

Linear Art in the European Neolithic Anne Teather

Independent Researcher

Introduction This chapter addresses the recently recognised form of largely non-representational Neolithic linear art, incised into rock and in particular one type of rock: chalk. These incised or pecked marks on chalk display a consistent intention to create representational or abstract forms with a similar methodology, yet chalk is rarely considered a rock at all due to its soft nature. Therefore, while marks in chalk found in archaeological contexts had been noted by archaeologists for over a century, they were referred to as graffiti, graffito or idle scratchings. Little attempt was made to interpret them as anything other than causal markings, such as a sundial or tally marks at Grime’s Graves (Clarke 1915), or casual markings without purpose (Teather 2016). Initially discovered in Neolithic flint mining contexts across northern Europe, chalk art has also been noted in late twentieth excavations within the walls of ditches at one causewayed enclosure, Flagstones, Dorset (Woodward 1988) and on portable chalk blocks within other causewayed enclosures and long barrows (Teather 2016). In summary, chalk art as rock art is expressed in both portable and non-portable forms, but in terms of design and style can differ from traditional Neolithic and Early Bronze Age prehistoric rock art. This chapter reviews existing correlations between those marks present at northern European flint mines with new evidence of similar chalk art at a Neolithic flint mine in Italy; and also expands the corpus to include markings in two caves in Derbyshire, Britain. In conclusion, it is argued that abstract and linear markings form a substantial body of Neolithic art with European parallels, that can occur at other archaeological sites but are distinctive at flint mining sites and other underground spaces. Chalk art, flint mines and Neolithization Historically flint mines have been mainly considered in morphological terms, in common with other categories of prehistoric monuments. Chalk art was first encountered in flint mine excavations and therefore a summary of their character and dating is instructive. Extraction of flint by shallow, surface quarrying is evidenced across much of early prehistoric Europe but this changed at the start of the Neolithic when extraction methods diversified, and the size and scale of extraction sites increased. New extraction methods included narrow deep shafts (e.g., Casa Montero in Spain in the 6th millennium BCE, Capote et al. 2008); shallow pits (e.g., Grand Pressigny, Saville 2005) and shaft and gallery mines (e.g., Cissbury & Spiennes; Barber et al. 1999). The processes involved in mining appear to have varied depending on the local geological conditions - shallower or bell-shaped pits were favoured in less stable secondary deposits, whereas more complex systems of shaft and gallery mining were practiced at locations where flint occurred as discrete seams within primary chalk that was strong enough to support excavated tunnels.

Signalling and performance (Archaeopress 2022): 282–296

Linear Art in the European Neolithic Flint mining, using a system of vertical shafts and underground galleries as a method of raw material extraction, was an innovation first seen archaeologically during the Neolithic period in Europe. Extraction methods have been noted to be similar between sites dispersed across northwestern Europe (Baczkowski 2014) and recently Teather and Sørensen (2021) have highlighted additional similarities in the presence of incised motifs in chalk, and human burials, within flint mines located in Britain, Denmark, Belgium and Poland. Mining, therefore, appears to be a particular manifestation of a Neolithic practice that was widely performed in a similar, standardised manner in north-western Europe at the start of and continuing into, the fourth millennium BCE. Chronologies for Neolithic flint mining in Europe were addressed in a recent project by Stephen Shennan (Edinborough et al. 2019; Schauer et al. 2019a; Schauer et al. 2019b) that ascertained there are two main phases of mining at c.4200-3800 cal BCE and 35002900 cal BCE (Schauer et al. 2019a, 158), with the first phase taking place around the same time as the expansion of farming into northern Europe. The Italian mines have an earlier phase of horizontal mining in the 6th millennium BCE (Tarantini et al. 2011, 257) that also corresponds with the beginning of farming and pastoralism in the Mediterranean region. Baczkowski (2014) argued that independent indigenous development of shaft and gallery flint mining in each area (Belgium, the Netherlands, Britain and Scandinavia) was unlikely given the complexities involved. This premise is further supported through there being no clear archaeological evidence for a sequence of development of mining techniques. Research was addressed at determining if an evolution in mining methods could be evidenced at the Grime’s Graves mine shafts, with the suggestion that the deeper mines were later than the shallower extraction pits that showed no evidence of gallery development (Armstrong 1932). Recent radiocarbon dating has shown that the situation at Grime’s Graves is the reverse, with shallower pits dating to the late second millennium BCE and the deeper shaft and gallery to the late third millennium (Healy et al. 2014, 43-51, 67-8). To recognise a development of mining, we might expect to see shallow shafts, or also possibly adits, in suitable geology and limited exploitation of the flint deposit, increasing in volume and extent as methods become consolidated. A number of deep vertical shafts from Britain could represent flint mining prospection but not, seemingly, evidence of indigenous development. In fact, we find deep shafts that appear on the unsuitable geology. For example, the Fir Tree Field shaft on Cranborne Chase, Dorset, dated to the late fifth millennium BCE could represent a trial flint mine in unsuitable chalk geology where flint seams are poor, as initially argued (Green & Allen 1997), but later interpretations favoured a natural shaft (Allen & Green 1998; Green 2000). Other shafts, such as those at Eaton Heath, Norfolk (Wainwright 1973) and Cannon Hill, Berkshire (Bradley et al. 1976), are not located on the correct geology for flint extraction but have produced Neolithic material culture (Thomas 2013, 239-40). Therefore, there is evidence that shafts were dug on unsuitable geology to the same general morphology of mining shafts, but an evolution of mining methods within a mining area is not attested to by the archaeological record. This is perhaps unsurprising as, amongst the various types of prehistoric raw material extraction, shaft and gallery mining is dependent upon a very welldefined geological location in which seams of the desired raw flint material occur predictably at particular stratigraphic levels. The geology of Europe is regionally varied. While flint occurs in a number of deposits and can be gained through many ways such as surface collection from beach and river deposits or shallow quarrying in gravels and boulder clays, primary Cretaceous geology is geographically 283

Anne Teather restricted to north-western Europe (southern Belgium, southern Scandinavia, south and eastern parts of Britain), to the east in Poland and the Czech Republic, and the south in southeastern Italy. This type of geological deposit was formed through having once comprised of sedimentation on the base of seas between 144 and 65 million years ago (Shepherd 1980, 34; Barber et al. 1999, 23). While we commonly refer to chalk and flint in archaeology, in geological terms it is preferable to use calcareous rock as this includes the harder varieties of chalk commonly known as limestone, which can also contain flint and chert deposits in horizontal (or at times vertical) seams. Prehistoric flint mining occurs in all gradients of chalk hardness and the mining methods vary slightly due to this, for example, flint picks rather than antler were used to mine in harder calcareous rocks. Further, in horizontal galleries where the flint occurs in a large tabular or nodular form in seams (up to 2-3m in length; Collet et al. 2008, 68), the chalk/limestone material was removed from underneath the seam and the flint allowed to fall (and fracture) during removal (Spiennes, Belgium and Italian mines on the Gargano). In softer chalk and where nodules are smaller, chalk was excavated above the flint and the nodules levered up from the floor (Grime’s Graves, Sussex mines). Therefore, while the geology impacts on the finer techniques of extraction, the methodology is consistent. Overall, prehistoric flint mining is still rather poorly dated despite the recent work mentioned. It remains the case that many sites are dated with only a few determinations; dating is often indirect being either on extraction tools such as antler or bone from closing deposits, and more work is needed. Therefore, where the Neolithic begins is where we find extensive flint extraction for axes, and consequently chalk art. Chalk Art in mining contexts In the last 30 years, research has expanded to investigate social practices that were expressed in conjunction with flint mining. As part of the author’s doctoral research (Teather 2016, 4253), an assessment of chalk artefacts and incised markings on chalk within British flint mines and other British Neolithic contexts was undertaken. Through arguing that chalk artefacts are a non-functional but representative artefact class, and that incised markings should be interpreted as a form of rock art rather than unintentional or diversionary marks, tallies or graffiti, the acknowledged repertoire of cultural behaviours present in mining contexts was broadened. These markings in mines are consistently found on vertical surfaces in the bases of shafts and at the ends of galleries, although markings were not present in all mines (or sites). It was noted that the markings were mainly abstractive and irregular, and contrasted with the geometric swirls and spirals of passage-tomb art, found widely across the Atlantic seaboard of Europe in monuments and other material culture (Shee Twohig 1981), although linear motifs were recorded in the Orkney passage tombs of Maeshowe; Cuween Hill; Holm of Papa Westray South and Quoyness (Bradley et al. 2000), although tombs may be slightly later in date than the mines. Further work (Teather & Sørensen 2021) has highlighted similar expressions in art throughout northwestern Europe, and has connected some motifs across the sites of Cissbury, British Isles; Spiennes, Belgium and Hov, Denmark in the mid-fourth millennium BCE, c.4000-3500 cal BCE, although some motifs such as those at Church Hill have been re-dated to the Early Bronze Age (ca. 2000 cal BCE) and therefore are more contemporary with Grime’s Graves (Healy et al. 2014). In summary, motifs are similar if not in some cases identical, across two or three sites separated by many miles (Figure 1).

284

Linear Art in the European Neolithic 1. Hov (Denmark) and Cissbury (British Isles) – Excavations at Hov (Becker 1957; 1959; 1980; 1993) uncovered further examples of chalk art. The chalk piece (nr. 486, Gallery B) found at 6 m depth in shaft 7 that displays long grooved lines is very similar to those interpreted as art depicting a deer head from shaft 27 at Cissbury (Pull cited in Russell 2001, 86-8; Figure 2). Radiocarbon determinations now place this Cissbury shaft at c. 3600-3300 cal BCE, broadly consistent with dates from Hov, and are suggestive of contemporary expression of this deer head motif in chalk art.  2. Spiennes (Belgium), Cissbury and Church Hill (British Isles) Three decorated blocks of chalk Figure 1: Map of flint mine locations mentioned in the text. from late 19th and early 20th 1. Cissbury/Church Hill; 2. Spiennes; 3. Hov; 4. Krzemionki; 5. Defensola A. century excavations at Spiennes have decoration that shows close similarities to chalk art from the British mines of Church Hill and Cissbury. One block (AN-B000812-026) from Spiennes originated from the 1887 excavations by Loë and Munck (Loë & Munck 1891; Collet et al. 2008, 46). The chalk has been deeply scored in a cross-hatch manner with at least seven small

Cissbury, UK

Hov, Denmark

Figure 2. Left- Deer or oxen head from shaft 27 galleries, Cissbury (redrawn from Russell 2001; © Worthing Museum and Art Gallery; no scale provided). Right: Motif of a head and neck of a deer on a piece of chalk from shaft 7 at Hov, northern Jutland, Denmark (redrawn from photograph L. Sørensen, ©National Museum of Denmark).

285

Anne Teather

Cissbury, UK

Spiennes, Belgium

Figure 3. Left - Chalk block with incised lines, similar to a larger example from Spiennes, possibly from fill of Cave Pit shaft (Shaft II) Cissbury; Right - Chalk cross-hatch from Spiennes (redrawn from photograph of AN- B000812-026 from Spiennes © KMKG-MRAH).

depressions and may have had ochre applied. There is encrustation on the piece that indicates that it probably originated from a shaft or gallery wall in a deeper context, and as only one shaft was excavated to its base it is likely to be from this shaft. While the overall scale of the image is different, it closely resembles a similar design on a small chalk piece from Harrison’s collection of chalk from Cissbury (Figure 3). The example from Cissbury was unrecorded in publication although information in the Ashmolean Museum archive suggests it originated

Cissbury, UK

Spiennes, Belgium

Krzemionki, Poland

Figure 4. Top - ‘Miner’s symbol’ from shaft 27 galleries, Cissbury (redrawn from Russell 2001; © Worthing Museum and Art Gallery; no scale provided), Middle - Symbol in charcoal from Krzemionki (redrawn from photograph http://mapio.net/o/217042/), Below - Chalk block with possible ‘Miner’s symbol’ from Spiennes (redrawn from photograph of AN- B000812-027 from Spiennes © KMKG-MRAH).

286

Linear Art in the European Neolithic from the fill of the Cave Pit shaft (shaft II) at Cissbury (Harrison 1877, 434). Regretfully there are no radiocarbon dates for either shaft II at Cissbury or for Loë and Munck’s shaft at Spiennes.  The other two chalk art examples (both AN-B000812-027) found at Spiennes may have also originated from the Loë and Munck excavation in 1887, or the 1912-14 campaign conducted by Loë. During this work, two shafts and associated galleries were excavated and although pick-marked chalk blocks are noted, the other depictions are not mentioned (Loë 1925; Loë & Rahir 1929). Figure. 4 shows a triangular piece with an incised motif consisting of a linear vertical line which is cross-cut by two horizontal lines and a depression and drag mark at the top of the piece. There is some encrustation overlying the marks and also a coating of pigment that may be ochre and a different pigment that may be charcoal. This motif is similar to the ‘Miner’s symbol’ noted by Pull at Cissbury (Russell 2001, 88; Figure 4) and could be argued to be similar to some of the charcoal drawings within the Polish flint mine of Krzemionki (Bąbel 2014, 83; Balcer 2014, 111). The ‘rude nondescript figure’ mentioned above, found by Lane Fox (1876, 374) carved on a block of chalk found in the rubble of the No2 Escarpment shaft at Cissbury, may have been a further example, although this piece has not been located in museum archives. The last example to be described is on a chalk block that exhibits a small depression between two oblique linear incised lines. This motif is almost identical to a marking noted by Pull from above the entrance to a gallery in shaft 4, Church Hill, Sussex (Russell 2001, 98; Figure 5). Three new dates on the shaft fill are Early Bronze Age, with the voles providing a date of 2132-1921 cal BCE; the wooden bowl 1937-1751 cal BCE; and a pig mandible 2526-2307 cal BCE (Teather 2019). While it had been thought that this later mining activity may have simply been a re-cut for the specific deposition of these later artefacts, it seems that this shaft, and the accompanying art, are likely to be much later than previously thought and the continuation of mining here, at a similar date to later activity at Grime’s Graves, is broadly contemporary with the Norfolk site.

Cissbury, UK

Spiennes, Belgium

Figure 5. Top - Pull’s sketch of motif comprising of two vertical lines with central depression from Church Hill (redrawn from Russell 2001; © Worthing Museum and Art Gallery; no scale provided), below - Incised chalk exhibiting a symbol with two vertical lines with depression in centre (redrawn from photograph of AN- B000812-027 from Spiennes © KMKG-MRAH).

287

Anne Teather Art newly recognised at Defensola A, Italy The earliest shaft and gallery mining in Europe is from the Gargano area of Italy in the early Neolithic which has been dated to the 6th millennium BCE. While the earliest date is from Defensola A at 6990 ± 80 BP, (6010-5720 cal BCE, Tarantini et al. 2011, 255), further radiometric dates on eleven mine complexes suggests early extraction took place throughout the 6th millennium BCE through to the 4th, with the main phase of mining ending at around 5200 cal BCE. Mining was mainly completed through sub-horizontal access to flint until the mid-fifth millennium, with Valle Guariglia II exhibiting the earliest vertical shaft extraction date of 4790-4550 cal BCE (5822 ± 45 BP, LTL2715A, Tarantini et al. 2011, 258, 260). Similar to arguments proposed for northern Europe, these dates indicate mining may have commenced at the start of the Neolithization of this area.

Figure 6. Incised marks from Defensola A (redrawn from Tarantini 2005, 108).

288

Linear Art in the European Neolithic During excavations at Defensola A, geometric engravings were discovered on the ceilings and also on a chalk block in the entrance to the mine (Lernia et al. 1995, 130; Tarantini 2005; Figures 6 and 7). These markings exhibit striking similarities to the abstract linear scratchtype markings found at Cissbury, Harrow Hill and Grime’s Graves in England (Teather 2016).

Figure 7. Incised marks from Defensola A (redrawn from Tarantini 2005, 108).

289

Anne Teather In addition, limestone cups were excavated (Lernia et al. 1995, 126-8), similar to chalk cups excavated at Neolithic flint mines and other contemporary monuments in Britain (Teather 2016, 72-7). Therefore, not only does Italian flint mining immediately precede the northern European shaft and gallery flint mining, with Valle Guariglia II the first mine in the Gargano to exhibit vertical shaft extraction immediately prior to the northern European dates, it also appears to demonstrate close similarities in terms of the presence of calcareous artefacts and chalk art. These similarities in art extend from the Neolithic flint mines of the Gargano in south-eastern Italy, to over 2100km north at Cissbury, England. Summary The evidence collated above suggests that the manifestation of linear art on the walls of flint mines in the early Neolithic period is a European-wide practice, particularly associated with this type of monument. What is perhaps more fascinating is that these sites have been dated to be contemporaneous with some of the earliest Neolithic activity in each area, as new practices such as farming and pastoralism were introduced. It is expressed in each area in northern Europe where there is new Neolithic activity. However, new research has identified another underground prehistoric site type with similar art - caves. Incised linear art in caves Potential examples of art in Fox Hole Cave and Darfur Ridge Cave were first identified during prospection for Palaeolithic cave art but were excluded from the authenticated list of Palaeolithic examples as they were attributed to animal scratches (cf. Bednarik 1991, 1994; Bahn & Pettitt 2009, 106). A field visit was conducted in September 2016 by the author together with National Trust representatives and Andrew Chamberlain, to assess the reported rock art in Fox Hole Cave, High Wheeldon, Derbyshire (NGR SK 09976618) and Darfur Ridge Cave, Wetton, Staffordshire (NGR SK 09805588). Both Fox Hole Cave and the Darfur Caves were used as sites for the deposition of human remains in the early Neolithic period (approximately 4000 to 3500 BCE: Chamberlain 2001; Blockley 2006), raising the possibility that the incisions on the walls could have been made by Neolithic visitors to the caves. Two radiocarbon dates have been obtained for human remains from Fox Hole Cave: 5485 BP ± 75 (OxA- 9929), and 5185 BP ± 60 (OxA-9805). The earlier date OxA-9929 calibrates to 4490-4070 cal BCE and thus represents one of the very few examples of human remains from the 5th millennium BCE in Britain. Darfur Ridge Cave contained an early Neolithic leaf-shaped arrowhead, and an assemblage of human remains to comprise of a minimum of three adults and four juveniles, although no dates have been obtained on these materials (Blockley 2006). Dates for human remains from the nearby Darfur Crag Cave of 4669BP (OxA- V2137-50) and 4914BP (OxA V2137-51) confirm that this site dates to the early part of the Neolithic period. In summary, the radiocarbon dates on human skeletal remains from Fox Hole Cave confirm that the cave was used for burial at the start of the Neolithic period, and while the human remains from Darfur Ridge Cave have not been subject to radiocarbon dating, a Neolithic flint tool was found in this cave and an adjacent cave (Darfur Crag Cave) does have human remains dated to the Neolithic. The art at Fox Hole Cave (Figure 8) depicts two incised lines that commence as parallel but appear to converge to a point at around 15cm. At Darfur Ridge Cave (Figure 9), the art again 290

Linear Art in the European Neolithic comprises sets of incised lines that seem to intersect in a cross. One edge of this art again has lines converging to a point and a possible further incised line crossing this about 2cm from the point (to the left in Figure 8). In both cases, the art is compatible with known Neolithic examples. In flint mines, the examples of parietal art (i.e., art located on immobile structures such as mine walls or on large blocks of stone) have been found at the bases of vertical shafts and at the ends of galleries (Teather 2011, 2016). However, within flint mine galleries some examples can be difficult to see, being hidden behind pillars or positioned at a high or low level. At Fox Hole Cave, the linear art appears at a junction of passages and at Darfur Ridge Cave, although on the underside of a vertical recess, it is at an area where two passages meet. The character of the art also shows similarities between the two cave sites, as well as resembling other recorded Neolithic art from flint mines and elsewhere. The Fox Hole Cave art is of a very simple design and therefore parallels are wider and more challenging to assess, however akin to chalk art it has some resemblance to Neolithic scratched art on building stones at the Neolithic settlements of Skara Brae and the Ness of Brodgar in Orkney (Thomas 2016, 107, 148). The cross-hatch design of the Darfur Ridge Cave art could also be termed a double-cross, or cross-hatch. Double crosses have been noted at the No 2 Escarpment Shaft, Cissbury flint mine (Teather 2016) and also at Long Hole cave in Somerset (Mullan & Wilson 2004, 2007). It should be appreciated that the carboniferous limestone walls of these caves are much harder surfaces to incise than chalk, so the execution of more complex designs would have been difficult.

Figure 8: Fox Hole Cave Rock Art. Image © Anne Teather.

291

Anne Teather

Figure 9: Darfur Ridge Rock Art (redrawn from photograph © Anne Teather).

Mullan and Wilson (2007, 43, 47) assigned the abstract cave art at Long Hole and the nearby site of Aveline’s Hole to the Mesolithic period, largely based on an inferred association with Mesolithic burials found at the latter site. However, during the last decade, a large number of examples of abstract Neolithic art have been published, whereas no further securely dated Mesolithic art has been identified. Furthermore, recent radiocarbon dating of the human remains from Aveline’s Hole has demonstrated that in addition to Mesolithic activity there was also burial activity at that cave in the Neolithic period implying that the Aveline’s Hole cave art may also date to the Neolithic, rather than the Mesolithic (Schulting et al. 2019). Given the frequency with which Neolithic artefacts and human remains have been found within caves in the Peak District and other regions of Britain it is likely that further examples of Neolithic art may be discovered in the future. It is likely that this category of abstract Neolithic art, which is known to have been prevalent within monuments and in flint mines, may have been frequently present in caves as well. Conclusion Due to the new research and radiometric dating, we can begin to draw together some general conclusions about linear art on chalk and stone in the Neolithic. There appear to be two main phases that we can date so far. At the earliest European Neolithic, in flint mines and in causewayed enclosures and caves in Britain at least, there is a growing corpus of incised linear lines in the art that occur on rock and chalk. They are for the most part nonrepresentational in form, apart from examples at Cissbury, Britain (Teather 2015). At this early time, they are occurring primarily within contexts that suggest horizontal movement along with either humanly-made galleries in chalk at mines, or stone in chambered tombs, or cut ditches at causewayed enclosures, or within cave systems with horizontal passages. They tend to be at the junctions between passages or galleries or at the end, suggesting that they are revealed as a process and are associated with movement within the structure. In these examples, their physical placement appears deliberate and consistent. The engravings found on the walls of both Fox Hole Cave and Darfur Ridge Cave appear to be deliberate in their execution and placement and are consistent with other examples of engraved art found at Neolithic 292

Linear Art in the European Neolithic monuments in Britain; on stone in Scotland at Ness of Brodgar, Skara Brae and the chambered tombs, and in chalk at the Flagstones causewayed enclosure in Dorset (Woodward 1998). The early phase of this primarily non-representational art is not replicated on pottery or other artefacts, but rather appears confined to underground spaces, or those that are also temporarily open such as causewayed enclosure ditches. For the later Neolithic and early Bronze Age, the placement and perhaps style of the art changes. We encounter circles or depressions (as at Church Hill, Britain), but at the gallery heads only; a similar placement to those markings at the tops of the shafts at Maumbury Rings, Dorset (Teather 2011). The example of the parietal art at Church Hill is a close match for a similar motif at Spiennes, which is unfortunately undated but is perhaps suggestive of later extraction also. Yet, in addition to a new style of chalk art, in different monuments, the linear art of the early Neolithic is reimagined and placed within the later Neolithic mines at Grime’s Graves (Clarke 1915), suggesting perhaps a deliberate referencing to earlier Neolithic flint mining extraction. This type of art is unlike the familiar swirls, spirals and chevrons of western European Neolithic art (Thomas 2016) and as it is less salient to the untrained eye, many examples may have been missed or ignored. The incorporation of chalk art into Flagstones causewayed enclosure is rather a quandary in that it is a sole example that has been reported. However, as more excavation takes place with better awareness that art may be encountered, further examples might be reported. Perhaps critically, two main interpretive points emerge. The art could be associated with extraction or prehistoric cave clearance, and/or be associated with underground spaces. Towards the late Neolithic, however, the chalk art becomes less hidden. This could be in reflection of societal changes and activities at henges and visible singular burial practices. At this time, material culture design becomes more complex demonstrated in pottery designs on Grooved Ware and Beakers, and community ritual expression appears to have been more pronounced. Chalk art may simply be part of this increase in ritual and reflection, and incorporation of past practices. Investigating the temporality of the British and north-western European Neolithic has perhaps never been more exciting. Recent research and high-resolution dating are beginning to tease out different parts of the narrative. It is possible that while flint mining is demonstrably part of European Neolithization, it is nevertheless a distinctive and innovative process that required first-hand knowledge to be culturally transmitted. We can conclude that this expression of art has similarities across a wide geographical range at the start of the Neolithic that may indicate shared symbolic beliefs (Teather & Sørensen 2021). The lack of any obvious evolution in the sophistication of mining methodology in northern Europe, and the concurrency of the early art, appears to be embedded within widespread cultural similarities. Long-distance mining specialists may have formed part of a particular migration community that is more archaeologically visible at this time of change. However, where do the caves fit into this? The early date of Fox Hole Cave perhaps may challenge the first expression being in mining context and Neolithic cave art may predate it. Nevertheless, evidence is continuing to grow that this deliberate symbolic activity is present very early in the Neolithic, and is far more widespread than previously thought. Currently, approaches to the transmission of the Neolithic do not adequately account for the rapid and synchronous spread of flint mining in north-western Europe. Yet, the presence of prehistoric art in the caves and the recent re-dating of mines, reinforces the recognised need to revisit sites that may yet reveal further Neolithic symbolism and occupation. 293

Anne Teather Acknowledgements My thanks to the editors for their comments on an earlier draft of this paper that have improved this chapter; any errors are my responsibility. Thanks are extended to the Ashmolean Museum, (Oxford, UK), Worthing Museum and Art Gallery, (Worthing, UK), the Cinquantenaire Museum (Brussels, Belgium) and the National Museum of Denmark (Copenhagen, Denmark) for their continuing support in this research. Thanks also to Lasse Sørensen and Jo Wright who completed the illustrations of the Defensola A art. Bibliography Allen, M. and Green, M., 1998. The Fir Tree Field Shaft; the date and archaeological and palaeoenvironmental potential of a chalk swallowhole feature. Proceedings of the Dorset Natural History and Archaeological Society 120: 25-38. Armstrong, A. L., 1932. The Percy Sladen Trust excavations, Grimes Graves, Norfolk. Interim report. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society of East Anglia 7: 57-61. Baczkowski, J. 2014. Learning by experience: The flint mines of southern England and their continental origins. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 33 (2): 135-153. Bahn, P. and Pettitt, P., 2009. Britain’s Oldest Art. The Ice Age Cave Art of Creswell Crags. Swindon: English Heritage Bąbel, J. T., 2014. Krzemionki Opatowskie, najważniejszy zabytek górnictwa pradziejowego wpradziejowegow Polsce. In Piotrowska, D., Piotrowski, W., Kaptur, K. and Jedynak, A. (eds.), Stone Age Mining:Krzemionki - Poland- Europe on the Ninetieth Anniversary of the Discovery of the Krzemionki Mine (Warsaw), 53–104. Balcer, B., 2014. The Krzemionki excavations in the years 1954–1972. My reminiscences. In Piotrowska, D. Piotrowski, W., Kaptur, K. and Jedynak, A. (eds.) Stone Age Mining: Krzemionki - Poland- Europe on the Ninetieth Anniversary of the Discovery of the Krzemionki Mine. Matrix: Warsaw, 105-12. Barber, M., Field, D and Topping, P., 1999. The Neolithic flint mines of England. Swindon: English Heritage. Becker, C.J., 1957. Flintminer (stenalder) Hov. Sb. 94, Sennels sogn. Hillerslev herred. Thisted amt. Unpublished excavation report. The National Museum of Denmark, Copenhagen. Becker, C.J., 1959. Flintmining in Neolithic Denmark. Antiquity 23, 87-92. Becker, C.J., 1980. Dänemark. In Weisgerber, G. (ed.) 5000 Jahre Feuersteinbergbau. Die Such nach dem Stahl der Steinzeit. Ausstellung im Deutschen Bergbau-Museum Bochum vom 24 Oktober 1980 bis 31. Januar 1981. Deutschen Bergbau-Museum, Bochum, 456-471. Becker, C.J., 1993. Flintminer og flintdistribution ved Limfjorden. In Lund, J. and Ringtved, J. (eds.). Kort- og råstofstudier omkring Limfjorden. Rapport fra seminarer afholdt 7.-8. november 1991 i Bovbjerg samt 23.-24 april 1992 i Aalborg (Limfjordsprojektet, rapport 6), 111-134. Bednarik, R.G., 1991. On natural cave markings. Helictite 29(2): 27-41. Bednarik, R.G., 1994. Wall markings of the cave bear. Studies in Speleology 9: 51-70. Blockley, S., 2006. Living and Dying in Transition. Subsistence, Funerary Behaviour and Landscape Use in Britain, 16,000 – 6,000 cal. BP. PhD Thesis, University of Bradford. Bradley, R., Over, L., Startin, A and Weng, R., 1976. The excavation of a Neolithic site at Cannon Hill, Maidenhead, Berkshire, 1974-5. Berkshire Archaeological Journal 68, 5-19.

294

Linear Art in the European Neolithic Bradley, R., Phillips, T., Richards, C., and Webb, M., 2000. Decorating the Houses of the Dead: Incised and Pecked Motifs in Orkney Chambered Tombs. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 11, 1, 45–67. Capote, M., Castañeda, N., Consuegra, S., Criado, C., Díaz-del-río, P., 2008. Flint mining in early Neolithic Iberia: a Preliminary report on ‘Casa Montero’, Madrid, Spain. In Allard, P., Bostyn, F. Giliny, F. and Lech, J. (eds.) Flint Mining in Prehistoric Europe: Interpreting the archaeological records. BAR International Series 1891, 123-137. Chamberlain, A.T., 2001. Fox Hole Cave, Derbyshire, and the earliest Neolithic in Britain. PAST 38: 7-9. Clarke, W.G., 1915. Report of the excavations at Grimes Graves, Weeting, Norfolk, March–May 1914. London: Prehistoric Society of East Anglia. Collet, H., Hazeur, A. and Lech. J., 2008. The prehistoric flint mining complex at Spiennes (Belgium) on the occasion of its discovery 140 years ago. In Allard, P., Bostyn, F. Giliny, F. and Lech, J. (eds.) Flint Mining in Prehistoric Europe: Interpreting the archaeological records. BAR International Series 1891, 41-77. Edinborough, K., Shennan, S., Teather, A., Baczkowski, J., Bevan, A., Bradley, R., Cook, G. Kerig, T., Parker Pearson, M., Pope, A. and Schauer, P., 2019. New radiocarbon dates show Early Neolithic date of flint-mining and stone quarrying in Britain. Radiocarbon 61, 1-31. Green, M., 2000. A Landscape Revealed. 10,000 Years on a Chalkland Farm. Stroud, Tempus. Green, M. and Allen, M.J., 1997. An early prehistoric shaft on Cranborne Chase. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 16: 121-132. Harrison, J.P., 1877. Report on some further discoveries at Cissbury. Journal of the Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland 6, 430–42. Healy, F., Marshall, P., Bayliss, A., Cook, G., Bronk Ramsey, C., van der Plicht, J. and Dunbar, E., 2014. Grime’s Graves, Weeting-with-Broomhill, Norfolk. Radiocarbon Dating and Chronological Modelling Scientific Dating Report. English Heritage Research Report Series no 27-2014. Lane Fox, A.H., 1876. Excavations in Cissbury Camp, Sussex; being a report of the Exploration Committee of the Anthropological Institute for the year 1875. Journal of the Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland 5, 357–90. Lernia di, S., Fiorentino, A., Galiberti, A. and Basili, R., 1995. The Early Neolithic mine of Defensola “A” (I 18): flint exploitation in the Gargano area. Archaeologia Polona 33, 426-428. Loë, A. de., 1925. Notice sur les fouilles exécutées à Spiennes en 1912, 1913 et 1914. Bulletin de la Société d’Anthropologie de Bruxelles 40, 151-171. Loë, A. de. and Munck, E., 1891. Notice sur des fouilles pratiquées récemment sur l’emplacement du vaste atelier néolithique de Spiennes (Hainaut). Section: Ateliers et puits d’extraction de silex en Belgique, en France, en Portugal, en Amérique. In Congrès international d’Anthropologie et d’Archéologie préhistoriques. Compte-rendu de la dixième session (Paris: 1889), (Paris), 569-602. Loë, A. de. and Rahir, E., 1929. Notice sur les fouilles exécutées à Spiennes en 1925 et en 1928. Bulletin de la Société d’Anthropologie de Bruxelles 44, 52-69. Mullan, G.J. and Wilson, L.J., 2004. A possible Mesolithic engraving in Aveline’s Hole, Burrington Combe, North Somerset. Proceedings of the University of Bristol Spelaeological Society 23, 75-85. Mullan, G and Wilson, L., 2007. Possible Mesolithic cave art in Southern Britain. In Mazel, A.D., Nash, G. and Waddington, C. (eds.) Art as Metaphor: The Prehistoric Rock-art of Britain. Oxford: Archaeopress, 15-21. Russell, M. (ed.), 2001. Rough quarries, rock and hills: John Pull and the Neolithic flint mines of Sussex. Oxford: Oxbow. 295

Anne Teather Saville, A., 2005. Prehistoric quarrying of a secondary flint source. In Topping, P. and Lynott, M. (eds.) The Cultural Landscape of Prehistoric Mines: 1-13. Oxford: Oxbow. Schauer, P., Shennan, S., Bevan, A., Cook, G., Edinborough, K., Fyfe, R. and Kerig, T., 2019a. Supply and demand in prehistory? Economics of Neolithic mining in northwest Europe. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology: 54, 149-160. Schauer, P., Bevan, A., Shennan, S., Edinborough, K., Kerig, T. and Parker Pearson, M. 2019b. British Neolithic Axehead Distributions and Their Implications. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10816-019-09438-6 Schulting, R., Booth, T., Brace, S., Barnes, I., Diekmann, Y., Thomas, M., Mieklejohn, C., Babb, J., Budd, C., Charlton, S., Mullan, G. and Wilson, L., 2019. Avelines’s Hole: An Unexpected Twist in the Tale Proceedings of the University of Bristol Spelaeological Society 28, 1, 9-63. Shee Twoig, E., 1981. The Megalithic Art of Western Europe. Oxford: Clarendon Press Shepherd, R., 1980. Prehistoric Mining and Allied Industries. London: Academic Press. Sørensen, L., 2014. From hunter to farmer in Northern Europe – migration and adaptation. Acta Archaeologica Volume 85. Tarantini, M., 2005. Manifestazioni grafiche: le incisioni, in Galiberti Attilio (ed.). Defensola: una miniera di selce di 7000 anni fa. Siena: Protagon Editori Toscani: 103-110. Tarantini, M., Galiberti. A and Mazzaocchi, F. 2011. Prehistoric flint mines of the Gargano: an overview, in M. Capote, S. Consuegra, P. Díaz-del-Río, and X. Terradas. (eds.) Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference of the UISPP Commission on Flint Mining in Pre- and Protohistoric Times (Madrid, 14-17 October 2009) BAR International Series 2260. Oxford: Archaeopress: 253-63. Teather, A., 2011. Interpreting hidden chalk art in southern British Neolithic flint mines. World Archaeology 43:2:230-251. Teather, A., 2015. The first British Neolithic representational art? The chalk engravings at Cissbury flint mine. Antiquity Project Gallery. www.antiquity/projgall/teather347 Teather, A., 2016. Mining and materiality: Neolithic chalk artefacts and their depositional contexts in southern Britain. Oxford: Archaeopress. Teather, A., 2019. Radiocarbon dating on flint mining shaft deposits at Blackpatch, Cissbury and Church Hill, Sussex. In Teather, A., Topping, P. and Baczkowski, J. (eds.). Mining and Quarrying in Neolithic Europe. Neolithic Studies Group Seminar Series. (Oxford: Oxbow), 37-48. Teather, A.M. and Sørensen, L., 2021. New research and dating on flint mines indicates shared cultural traits in the northern European Neolithic. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 40:3:232-249 Thomas, A., 2016. Art and Architecture in Neolithic Orkney: Process, Temporality and Context. Oxford: Archaeopress. Thomas, J., 2013. The Birth of the Neolithic. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Wainwright, G., 1973. The excavation of prehistoric and Romano-British settlements at Eaton Heath, Norwich. Archaeological Journal 53, 1-43. Woodward, P.J., 1988. Pictures from the Neolithic: discoveries from the Flagstones House excavations, Dorchester, Dorset. Antiquity 62, 266-74.

296

The Discovery of Late Upper Palaeolithic Rock Art at Cathole Cave on the Gower Peninsula, South Wales George Nash

Centro de Geociências da Universidade de Coimbra and Instituto Politécnico de Tomar

Introduction In September 2010 the author discovered a Late Upper Palaeolithic engraving of a cervid in Cathole Cave on the Gower Peninsula in South Wales. Members of the NERC-Open University Uranium Series Facility extracted samples from the surface on which the engraving was made in April 2011, together with a sample from a section of flowstone covering part of the reindeer’s muzzle.  A single date of 12,572 + 600 years BP was obtained from the overlying flowstone, suggesting a minimum age for the engraving (Nash et al. 2010, 2012). A further flowstone sample was taken from left of the muzzle of the cervid in July 2011 and results gave a minimum age of 14,505 + 879 years. This discovery prompted the author to explore the cave with greater scrutiny. In 2011 the author, along with Andy Beardsley, from Terra Measurement Ltd, completed the first 2D /3D laser scan of the cave system (Nash & Beardsley 2012). This exercise allowed the author to accurately locate all the engraving discoveries. Following this phase, the author was engaged in a geo-prospection exercise to identify further engravings (Nash 2013). This phase of work coincided with an excavation within the main galley, undertaken by the National Museum of Wales (Walker 2013). For the final investigation by the author, in 2015 a multidisciplinary team from the Centre of Geosciences, University of Coimbra (Portugal) and the Department of Physics and Earth Science, University of Ferrara (Italy) extracted and analysed samples from a haematite spread and for an overlying speleothem to be dated using uranium-series disequilibrium dating.  A possible haematite (Fe203) spread was identified within a small section of the western wall of the main gallery of the cave (discovered in 2010).  For this discovery, a research question arose: was this haematite spread the result of natural secretion from the substrate or it was applied via human agency?  It was noted at the time that no other visible haematite spreads were present within this particular cave. This programme involved sampling and laboratory research, including Raman Spectrometry, Scanning Electron Microscope analysis (SEM) and thin-section analysis on samples of loose substrate.    The results of this phase of work confirmed that the samples taken from Cathole Cave may be the result of pigment application through human agency, but the results were not conclusive.     Contextual considerations It was considered not so long ago that little or no human activity was present within the British Isles during the Early Upper Palaeolithic (EUP – 40 to 30,000 BP) and the succeeding early part of the Late Upper Palaeolithic (LUP – 20 to 10,000 BP) (Darvill 2010). However, Signalling and performance (Archaeopress 2022): 297–315

George Nash with the assistance of advanced chronometric dating techniques, a more complex picture has begun to emerge. This dating assumption is further supported by those sites that have yielded small quantities of diagnostic flint, mainly within the southern British Isles (Wymer 1977). Following the discovery in 2003 (and subsequent successful dating) of engraved rock art from Church Hole Cave within Creswell Crags Gorge, along the Derbyshire/Nottinghamshire border, it is becoming evident that hunting communities were venturing into the heart of the Midlands at around 12,500 to 13,000 years BP (Pike et al. 2005). The rock art from Church Hole, comprising naturalistic zoomorphic and geometric imagery included an engraved red deer1 and a bison, uses many of the techniques employed in other core areas of Upper Palaeolithic Europe (Bahn & Pettitt 2009). The question remains following this significant discovery could there be other potential rock art sites in Britain from this period? Discovered in September 2010, within the rear section of Cathole Cave on the Gower Peninsula was an engraving of a [schematic] cervid, probably a reindeer. More remarkable was the fact that a datable flowstone (stal) deposit covered part of the engraving. This chapter outlines the context in which the rock art was found, the chronolmetric techniques used to date it and the results of the pigment analysis used within other areas of the cave. Cathole Cave in its prehistoric context The southernmost limit of the Welsh ice cap margin extended to just a few kilometres north of Cefn Hill on the Gower Peninsula in South Wales. The landmass in front of this ice margin, which included the present landform of the peninsula and an extensive area of floodplain that is now the Bristol Channel, can be described as permafrost tundra-steppe formed as a result of periglacial activity. This sometimes-rich moss, sedge landscape offered a rich feeding ground to migratory megafauna, such as bison, elk, horse, mammoth and reindeer. Along the coastal fringes of the Gower Peninsular are around 95 caves that are naturally cut into the extensive limestone exposures. Discovered within many of these caves is a large assemblage of diagnostic flint that extends the entire Upper Palaeolithic, including Paviland Cave (Aldhouse Green 2000). In addition to the flint discoveries found in Cathole Cave, late 19th century excavations yielded a varied assemblage of animal bone from this period (Garrod 1926). Cathole Cave stands at around 30m Above Ordnance Datum on the northeast side of a dry limestone valley, approximately 2km north of the present coastline (Figure 1). The site comprises two principal components: a wide passage with an undulating roof and tall, narrow, joint-influenced rifts that rise several metres above the general roof level. In plan, the cave has two entrances: the southern entrance leads to a large low-roofed main gallery extending about 12.5m from the entrance to the east. Either side of the main gallery are side-chambers; the northern side-chamber diverts westwards to an antechamber and, beyond this, a second blocked entrance (Oldham 1978; Nash & Beardsley 2013). To the east of the main gallery is an additional gallery that extends a further 8.3m. This narrow section of the cave is difficult to access and, as far as the author is aware, has never been fully investigated, although the visible extent was surveyed and mapped in 2011. 1 

Originally considered to be an ibex.

298

The Discovery of Late Upper Palaeolithic Rock Art at Cathole Cave The undulating surface of the roof suggests that the gallery was formed originally in a phreatic environment, i.e., the cave was below the water table and entirely water-filled (Simms 2011). The rock floor of the cave is concealed by an unknown depth and type of sediment, although a recent excavation in July 2011 within the rear section of the cave suggests the bedrock lies only a few centimetres below the current cave floor at this location. Discolouration of the lower part of the walls within the main gallery suggests that 19th century excavations undertaken by Colonel Wood removed between 0.7m and 1m of this sediment fill (Green & Walker 1991). Based on the amount of frost-shattered stone both above and below the surface, the cave entrance may have extended a further 3-5m westwards towards a pronounced tongue formed by thermoclastic (?) scree and spoil from a 19th century excavation.

Figure 1. The entrance of Cathole Cave, Gower Peninsula. Image: G.H. Nash.

The excavation history of the cave The cave has been the focus of a number of investigations over the past 150 years (summarised in Green & Walker 1991). The first of these was undertaken around the (upper) cave floor in 1864 by a Colonel E. R. Wood, who recovered a small assemblage of lithic material, several metal implements and pottery dating to the Bronze Age, as well as a significant Pleistocene faunal assemblage, including extinct elephant (Elephasprimigenius), lemming (Lemmuslemmus), rhinoceros (Rhinoceros tichorhinus), brown bear (Ursuscfarctos), and reindeer (Rangifertarandus).2 It would appear that the cave floor deposits, which extended to over a metre in depth were not stratigraphically-excavated (Figure 2). Despite the absence of chronometric dating of these remains, the presence of such animals indicates a cooler climate than the present, probably coinciding with the interstadial and stadial regimes between 13,000- and 11,000-years BP.

2 

Summarised by Garrod (1926).

299

George Nash

Figure 2. 19th century plan of the cave, showing the extent of the excavation (after Roberts 1887).

In 1958, and within the entrance area of the cave, archaeologist Charles McBurney excavated four small rectangular trenches. Recovered from this excavation was a significant lithic assemblage, a good proportion of it diagnostically similar to the tool industry found at a number of Creswellian sites (McBurney 1959).3 In addition to the Late Upper Palaeolithic assemblage, two tanged points were identified as dating to between 22,000 and 28,000 years BP, suggesting a much earlier occupation of the cave than previously thought; this early daterange though coincides with the glacial maximum when average summer temperatures were around -10 degrees centigrade (Walker et al. 2014). In 1968 John Campbell (1977, 58) excavated a small trench within the entrance area of the cave, the results of which largely substantiated McBurney’s stratigraphic interpretation. 3 

i.e., those lithics found in Church Hole Cave where LUP rock art was discovered in 2003.

300

The Discovery of Late Upper Palaeolithic Rock Art at Cathole Cave Discovery of the engraved cervid During a site visit on 18th September 2010, exploration of the rear section of the cave resulted in the discovery of an engraved cervid, probably an engraved reindeer, on a vertical panel inside a discrete niche northeast of the main gallery, approximately 11.4m from the present cave entrance. This almost hidden engraving is the first clear evidence of Pleistocene rock art in Wales and only the second discovery of this type and date made in the British Isles. The reindeer engraving, measuring approximately 15 x 11cm, was carved using a pointed flint awl-like tool (Figures 3 & 4). The figure has a number of characteristics that resemble carved reindeers found elsewhere in northwest Europe. The elongated torso is infilled with vertical, and diagonal left to right lines incised into the stabilised speleothem, which covers a limestone surface. Several internal diagonal lines extend below the lower section of the torso, merging to form three of the four legs, the longest measuring 4.5cm. Incorporated into the left side of the torso and continuing beyond the head (or muzzle) of the reindeer is a thin rectangular block (the pedicle) on which three lines extend forming the beam and peal of a stylised antler set. The figure is inscribed into the surface of an area of botryoidal calcite flowstone of a similar general character to that found widely through the cave. Individual flowstone bosses, or botryoids, are ~10-20mm across and of low relief (1.00m, height 0.42m, probably an outcrop. The main group of cupmarks on its upper surface was an arc of five, 15 – 35mm diameter and ca. 5mm deep, with below it a depth crescent-shaped furrow ca. 0.21m long and 0.03m wide. There was also a scattering of less well-defined marks. Also, on the S-facing vertical side of the stone was a probable single much larger cupmark, diameter ca. 90mm, depth ca. 3mm. History: First noted by C. Whittaker, and recorded as part of a community archaeology survey led by GGAT in 2012. Reference: Evans, 2012, 18-21. 9. Ffos-yr-Haidal 1 PRN: 05908s NGR: ST10899224 Location: On Mynydd Eglwysilan, an upland plateau in the South Wales coalfield, between the River Rhymney and Nant yr Aber. The stone lies west of the summit of Mynydd Eglwysilan, at the head of the small valley of a seasonal stream running northeast-southwest, on the side of which is Ffos-yr-Haidal 2 (PRN 05909s). Description: A cupmarked stone, possibly an exposure of the natural bedrock, whose full size, shape and nature is obscured by overlying turf; the exposed section is roughly oval and measures ca. 1.5x1.0m. It consists of the local Pennant Sandstone and bears at least 35 cupmarks of varying size and depth in no particular pattern. There are also a number of shallow grooves many, but not all, cutting into or connecting with cupmarks. Some radiate from the centre in a dendritic fashion. 325

Edith Evans History: Reported to the regional HER by the finder: M. Hutchinson in 2019. Reference: Hutchinson & Nash (forthcoming). 10. Ffos-yr-Haidal 2 PRN 05909s NGR: ST 10802 92444 Location: On Mynydd Eglwysilan, an upland plateau in the South Wales coalfield, between the River Rhymney and Nant yr Aber. The stone lies west of the summit of Mynydd Eglwysilan, on the southeast-facing slope which forms the southern side of the ridge on which Ffos yr Haidal 1 stands (PRN 05908s). Description: A Pennant Sandstone boulder with the edges partly covered in turf, the exposed area of which measures approximately 1.20m x 1.10m. The surface, which slopes gently Figure 3. Ffos yr Haidal 1. Image: Edith Evans downwards from NNW to SSE and has a slight step down at the NE, is marked by 10+ cupmarks of varying size and depth (the majority located on one half of the panel). The cupmarks are arranged in no particular pattern. History: Reported to the regional HER by the finder M. Hutchinson in 2019. Reference: Hutchinson & Nash (forthcoming). 11. Maen Cattwg PRN: 00655m NGR: ST 12699 97432 Location: In a gently sloping south-western facing field with a stream on its western boundary. It lies on the southern slope of the upland ridge of Cefn Gelligaer in the South Wales coalfield, between the Bargoed Taff and the Darren Valley. Description: A roughly rectangular recumbent block of sandstone, weathered and partially delaminated. The block is 2.6m long NE-SW, 1.7m wide and 0.6m thick. On its upper surface there are at least 40 cupmarks, varying from 40 – 115mm in diameter, and 5 – 60mm deep. Two of the cupmarks are connected by a channel. Parts of the surfaces of two stones are visible below its southern side. A second stone, rectangular in shape, with an arc of six small peck marks towards one corner, associated with a line of three peckmarks extending from the arc, was noted close to Maen Cattwg in 1990, but was subsequently moved to a new location, probably close to ST 119 986.

326

Prehistoric Rock Art in Glamorgan and Gwent

Figure 4. Ffos yr Haidal 2. Image: George Nash.

History: The traditional name indicates that it may have been known locally since at least the Middle Ages. The mention by Wheeler appears to be the first occasion in which it appears in the archaeological literature. References: RCAHMW, 1975a, 43 No.49; Wheeler 1925, 82 and fig. 83. For the peck-marked stone, see coflein.gov.uk, under NPRN 93097. 12. The Marrying Stone PRN: 01020m NGR: SO 1468 0023 Location: In an allotment at Bargoed on the eastern flank of Cefn Gelligaer in the South Wales coalfield, between the Bargoed Taff and the Darren Valley. Description: No description available. The only information on its appearance, apart from the fact that it was ‘cupmarked’, is that it had cement around the top. History: Mentioned in a letter by Lady Aileen Fox, written 1949, but could not be found by OS archaeologist when sought in 1957. A search of the Fox archive held in the National Museum of Wales failed to reveal any supporting information. The existence of a traditional name suggests a connection with local folklore or custom. Reference: OS card SO 10 SW 4.

327

Edith Evans 13. Stone with cupmarks near Rhiwderin PRN: 00044g NGR: ST 2495 8785 13 PRN: 00044g NGR: Possibly ST 251 879 or ST 2495 8785 Location: Described as being ‘within an old enclosure [associated with] which seemed to have been those of a cottage, or small farm near Rhiwderin’ (Thomas 1895). Rhiwderin is at the foot of the upland ridge in the South Wales coalfield, between the River Ebbw and the River Rhymney. Description: Described by Thomas in 1895 as ‘a mass of mill stone grit, earth fast, the slanting surface of which appearing above the turf being about a yard wide and 4ft long…Upon the upper half of the surface is a group of twelve cups from 1½ in to 2 in (38 – 50mm) in diameter and about 1in (25mm) deep.’ In a copy of annotated sketch dated 1936 and attached to OS card ST 28 NE 6, Sir Cyril Fox recorded the dimensions as 5ft 9inx3ft 8in and that it was exposed to a maximum of 1ft 9in. (These dimensions can be approximated as 1.75m x 1.12m x 0.53m, but it should be remembered that Fox (1959) will have measured to the nearest inch and the metric equivalents are therefore not as accurate as they seem: they will have a potential error factor of 125mm). Thomas recorded 12 cups from 1½ in - 2in 38 - 50mm) in diameter and about 1in (25mm) deep, but Fox (1959) considered that three of these were dubious. Fox noted the cupmarks as covering an area of approximately 2ft 9in by 1ft 10in (0.84x0.56m). History: Discovered and published in 1895. Re-examined in 1936 by Sir Cyril Fox. Now lost, as is the exact location. It is uncertain whether the location in which it was found was its original position. The OS card reproduces the notes made by Fox, which include a small sketch map noting the site as being uphill east-north-east from a gate opposite the Maypole Inn (ST 2460 8765), but did not indicate how far. References: Thomas, 1895; OS card ST 28 NE 6. 14. Cupmarked stone at Trostrey PRN: 09789g NGR: SO 3595 0435 Location: Found on the multi-period site of Trostrey Castle, which lies at the top of the steep escarpment to the east of the River Usk. This site has evidence for Neolithic activity, and a possible stone circle (Mein & Mein 1997, 59). Description: A fragment of dense, coarse-grained sandstone. There are 13 complete cupmarks arranged in a chequer-board fashion and the remains of others which were largely lost when the stone was broken. The cups were pecked into the stone after the whole surface to be decorated had been marked out and recessed overall. No dimensions were given in the report, but the accompanying drawing indicates that the stone measured approximately 115mm x 75mm, with the cupmarks some 10 – 20mm in diameter. History: Recovered from a post-medieval or modern field drain during excavations Reference: Mein & Mein, 1998 (Undated and Miscellaneous section). 15. Cupmarked stone in Crick round barrow PRN: 09714g NGR: ST 4843 9026 Location: Part of the E side of the internal stone ring of the Crick round barrow (PRN 01057g), on level ground to the south of the hills of central Monmouthshire. 328

Prehistoric Rock Art in Glamorgan and Gwent Description: Two cupmarked stones used in the construction of the internal stone ring, both on the east side. The larger of the two (Savory 1940, Plate 3.2 and Figure 3) which was the largest stone in the ring) was of sandstone, 5ft 8in in length and 1ft7in – 2ft 2in in width (1.73m x 0.48 – 66m). On the upper part of the exterior face, it bore 23 pecked cupmarks, all circular or oval, diameter 1½ 3in (38 - 76mm), depth ⅓-¾in (16.9mm – 19.1mm), with the majority c2 inches (50mm) across and ½in (12.7mm) deep. From his estimate of the original profile of the mound, Savory believed these marking may have been intended to be seen after it had been completed. The other (Savory 1940 Plate 4.1 and Figure 4) was a low flat-topped block of sandstone conglomerate (2ft 4in x 1ft 9in; i.e., 0.71m x 0.53m). All the cupmarks, 17 altogether, were on the flat top. Many had a diameter of ca. 1in (25mm) and none more than 2in (50mm); depth ¼-½in (6.4mm x 2.7mm). The cupmarks on this stone cannot have been visible after the mound was completed. History: Found in 1937 during the excavation of the Crick round barrow (PRN 01057g). Reference: Savory 1940, 177-8, Plates 3.2 and 4.1. 16. Cupmarks on Harold’s Stones PRN: 00854g NGR: SO 4993 0514 Location: On the southern face of the central stone of Harold’s Stones (PRN00854g), in a row of three standing stones situated on the south-eastern side of the River Olwy headwaters of on the Trellech plateau to the west of the River Wye below Monmouth. Description: Two possible large cupmarks near the left-hand edge of the south-western face of the middle stone, both ca. 70mm across. The lower is some 0.6m above the present ground level and the upper 1.2m above the present ground level. Although the upper and right-hand edges of both are reasonably well marked, the marks peter out in an indeterminate way at the bottom and left. History: Harold’s Stones were known to antiquaries from at least the 17th century when it was reported to Edward Lhwyd in response to his questionnaire for Parochalia, and also depicted on a sundial dated 1689. The first notice of the cupmarks are reported in Children & Nash (1996, 44). References: Lhwyd, E, 1911, Parochalia (transcription) Cambrian Archaeological Association Monograph part 3 pg. 19; Children and Nash (1996, 42-4); Peterson and Pollard, (2004 56-83). 17. Cupmarked stone in Heston Brake chambered tomb PRN: 09715g NGR: ST 5053 8867 Location: On an orthostat forming part of the Heston Brake chambered tomb (PRN 01147g), which stands on a small knoll overlooking the Bristol Channel and is oriented ESE – WNW. Description: The more southerly of the two extant sandstone orthostats on the east side of the Heston Brake chambered tomb was reported in 2003 to have several cupmarks on its level top (Pearson & Lewis 2003, 124). Further examination showed that this surface was pitted with a series of holes of varying shapes and sizes, only one of which looked as though it might be a cupmark. This was at its ESE side and was approximately 70mm across. However, this must be treated with considerable caution, in view of the existence of the other holes on the top and the fact that the stone is a soft and highly weathered conglomerate. The small ‘cups’ visible towards the bottom of the WNW face of the stone are definitely natural, caused by the weathering out of pebbles from a bedding plane. History: Noted in 2002 during the pan-Wales Prehistoric Funerary and Ritual Sites Survey. Reference: Pearson & Lewis (2003). 329

Edith Evans 18. Cupmarked stone in Piercefield Park PRN 12204g NGR: ST 52595 95944 Location: A short distance inland from the limestone cliffs that form the eastern side of the Wye Valley in its lower reaches Description: An irregular block of sandstone of which the exposed part measures 1.66m x 1.38m x 0.74m high. It is much overgrown with moss, but a bare area on the north-facing vertical face has some eight probable cupmarks measuring 20-30mm in diameter, all weathered. Although parts of the top and the east and west faces are also exposed and bare, none have any sign of cupmarks or any other deliberate markings. It is set into the hillside a short distance above the Wye Valley Walk, this section of which was first created in the 18th century as a scenic walk in the pleasure park attached to the now-demolished Piercefield House. The natural geology of the area is Carboniferous Limestone, so this will have been brought in from elsewhere, probably as a feature for the park. History: First noted in 2018. Reference: No previous publication. Bibliography Children, G. and Nash, G.H., 1996. Prehistoric Sites of Monmouthshire. Hereford: Logaston Press. Evans, E. M., 2012. Gelligaer Common Community Prehistoric Rock Art Survey (GGAT unpublished report 2013/018). Fox, C., 1959. Life and death in the Bronze Age. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul Higgins, J., 2007. Cultural Heritage Assessment, Mynydd Marchywel Wind Farm Environmental Impact Assessment (Renewable Energy Systems UK Ltd (unpublished report). Hutchinson, M. and Nash, G. H. Rock art recorded on Mynydd Eglwysilan , Pontyppridd Common. CBA Archaeology in Wales (forthcoming). Mein, A. G. and Mein, P., 1997. Trostrey: Trostrey Castle (SO 3595 0435), Archaeology in Wales 37, 59-60. Mein, A. G. and Mein, P., 1998. Trostrey: Trostrey Castle (SO 3595 0435), Archaeology in Wales 38, 100-1. Mein A. G. and Mein, P., 1998. Trostrey: Trostrey Castle (SO 3595 0435), Archaeology in Wales 38, 164-5. Murphy, K., 2005. The Piercefield Walks and associated Picturesque Landscape features: an archaeological Survey (DAT unpublished report 2004/23). Pearson, A. F. and Lewis, R., 2003. Prehistoric funerary and ritual sites. Blaenau Gwent, Caerphilly, Cardiff, Monmouthshire, Newport, Torfaen and the Vale of Glamorgan (GGAT unpublished report 2003/068). Peterson, R. and Pollard, J., 2004. The Neolithic: The first farming societies. In M. AldhouseGreen and R. Howell (eds.) The Gwent County History vol 1: Gwent in Prehistory and Early History, pp. 56-83. Owen-John, H. S., 1986. A Group of Small Cairns Near Penrhiw Cradoc, Mountain Ash, Mid Glamorgan (ST02839938), Bulletin Board Celtic Studies 33, 266-282. RCAHMW, 1976a, An inventory of the Ancient Monuments in Glamorgan Vol 1: Pre-Norman; Part 1. The Stone and Bronze Ages. RCAHMW, 1976b, An inventory of the Ancient Monuments in Glamorgan Vol 1: Pre-Norman; Part 3. The Early Christian Period. 330

Prehistoric Rock Art in Glamorgan and Gwent RCAHMW, 1997, An inventory of the Ancient Monuments in Brecknock (Brycheiniog) – The prehistoric and Roman monuments. Part i: Later prehistoric monuments and unenclosed settlements to AD 1000. Savory, H. N., 1940. A Middle Bronze Age barrow at Crick, Monmouthshire. Archaeologia Cambrensis, 95, 169-191. Thomas, T. H., 1895. Cup-marked stone near Rhiwderin, Monmouth, Archaeologia Cambrensis 5, Series 12, 233-235. Wheeler, R. E. M., 1925. Prehistoric and Roman Wales. Oxford: Oxford University Press

331

Signalling and Performance: Ancient Rock Art in Britain and Ireland presents a state of the art survey of the ancient rock art of Britain and Ireland, bringing together new discoveries and new interpretations. Ancient rock art offers unique insights into the mindsets of its makers and the landscapes in which they lived. The making of rock art was not just an aesthetic practice, but an activity informed by deep social and cultural meanings held by its makers - meanings that they were compelled to express on rocks in Britain and Ireland, through mostly abstract images, for thousands of years. For a long time, ancient rock art remained a topic on the fringes of Archaeology. Since the 1960s, however, there has been sustained recording and research into ancient rock art. Increased publicity has evoked growing interest in British and Irish rock art, with professional and amateur archaeologists and the public, with the latter being responsible for many discoveries. andMazel, Performance: Rock Art Waddington in Britain andpublished Ireland presents state ofvolume the art InSignalling 2007, Aron George Ancient Nash and Clive the firsta edited survey of the ancient rock art of Britain and Ireland, bringing together new discoveries and new focusing on ancient British rock art, entitled Art as Metaphor. Since then, there have been a interpretations. Ancient rock art off ers unique insights into the mindsets of its makers and the number of publications covering this topic. Building on the increased interest in rock art, landscapes which theyvolume lived. The making of rock art was not just an aesthetic practice, an this lavishly inillustrated constructed of thirteen thought-provoking chaptersbut and activity informed by do deep social cultural meanings held by its makers - meanings that and they an Introduction will much toand further enhance of understanding of this fascinating were compelled to express on rocks in Britain and Ireland, through mostly abstract images, meaningful resource. It will further establish ancient British and Irish rock art as a significant for thousandsassemblage of years. For a longoftime, ancient art remained archaeological worthy attention androck additional study. a topic on the fringes of Archaeology. Since the 1960s, however, there has been sustained recording and research into ancient rock art. Increased publicity has evoked growing interest in British and Irish rock art, with professional and amateur archaeologists and the public, with the latter being responsible Aron Mazeldiscoveries. is a Reader in Heritage Studies at Newcastle University (United Kingdom) and a for many Research Associate at the School of Geography, Archaeology and Environmental Studies, In 2007, Aron George Nash and Clive Waddington published the first edited volume University of theMazel, Witwatersrand (South Africa). focusing on ancient British rock art, entitled Art as Metaphor. Since then, there have been a George Nash is an Associatecovering Professor at the Centro de Geociências da Universidade number of publications this topic. Building on the increased interest de in Coimbra rock art, and Tomar in Portugal. of thirteen thought-provoking chapters and thisInstituto lavishlyPolitécnico illustrateddevolume constructed an Introduction will do much to further enhance of understanding of this fascinating and meaningful resource. It will further establish ancient British and Irish rock art as a significant archaeological assemblage worthy of attention and additional study.

Aron Mazel is a Reader in Heritage Studies at Newcastle University (United Kingdom) and a Research Associate at the School of Geography, Archaeology and Environmental Studies, University of the Witwatersrand (South Africa). George Nash is an Associate Professor at the Centro de Geociências da Universidade de Coimbra and Instituto Politécnico de Tomar in Portugal.

Archaeopress Archaeology www.archaeopress.com