R B Warner

Clogher in prehistory.

in Cooney, G., Becker, K., Coles, J., Ryan, M. & Sievers, S. (eds), Relics f Old Decency: Archaeological Studies in Later Prehistory (Dublin: Wordwell, 2009),

507-518.

Introduction

In about 1968 Barry Raftery and the present writer,influenced by the prevailing opinion that hillforts werepredominantly of Iron Age date (Ó Ríordáin 1952, 15–17;Evans 1966, 21–4) and wishing to uncover at last thedwellings of the people so richly represented by theirartefacts, decided to excavate two hillforts. He chose themultivallate hillfort at Rathgall, Co. Wicklow, and the writerchose what appeared to be a multivallate hillfort at Clogher,Co. Tyrone. Both parties dedicated the next few years toexcavating their respective sites. Raftery (1969), who waspursuing a Master’s thesis on the subject of Irish hillforts,published Bersu’s excavation of Freestone Hill. He acceptedthat the presence of certain objects of Iron Age date (albeitof Romano-British origin) supported the idea that thisunivallate hillfort was of Iron Age date. His seminal paper onIrish hillforts (1972), in which he dealt fully with the historyof opinions on the subject, firmly placed them in the IronAge. Raftery’s work at Rathgall was crucial to the change ofopinion that he not only accepted but led (and one that wasparalleled in hillfort studies in other parts of the British Isles)regarding the date of Irish hillforts. It is clear, as Raftery hashimself documented, that those hillforts that have beenexcavated, such as his own Rathgall and the huge Mooghaunearthwork, are of a late Bronze Age date, roughly betweenthe twelfth and ninth centuries BC (Raftery 1994, 58;Grogan 2005, 240–2; Mallory 1995, 75). This would placethem into Eogan’s (1964) Roscommon and Dowris Acultural phases (for the latest statement on the chronology ofthe period see Gerloff 2007, table 13.2). It might well bejustifiable to infer, on the basis of the few excavated anddated examples, that all wide-spaced multivallate hillforts(within Raftery’s class 2) belong to the late Bronze Age. Thesame date might be appropriate for many of the univallatehillforts, such as Freestone Hill (whose date Rafterycorrected in 1995, 151). But there are atypical hillforts,especially the class 2 hillforts with a pair of close-setramparts, that are still contenders for an Iron Age date(Raftery 1994, 42, 59–63).

The majority of the excavated late Bronze Age hillforts

have produced some evidence for subsequent, low-level, IronAge activity (Raftery 1994, 58; Grogan 2005, 244; Mallory1996, 191–2), though hardly enough to qualify them as IronAge settlements. Despite the enormous increase inexcavation consequent upon the recent Irish developmentprogramme, Iron Age settlement has, with a few veryimpoverished (culture-free) or uncertain exceptions (e.g.Walshe 1995), continued to evade discovery. It should, atthis point, be stressed that the quite common inclusion indiscussions on Irish hillforts of certain large, demonstrablyIron Age, internally ditched earthwork enclosures of a ritualnature is unacceptable. Despite the fact that the distinctionbetween the ditch being on the outside of the bank(defensive—hillfort) or on the inside (ritual) is afundamental one (Warner 2000a), it is surprising how manywriters have treated, and continue to treat, the hillforts andlarge ritual enclosures as substantially the same thing.

Clogher

In 1966 Estyn Evans described the collection of earthworksat Clogher, located on a drumlin (low glacial hill), as ahillfort, adding that the ‘monument may well belong to thegroup of early Iron Age palaces and sacred places . . .’ (Evans1966, 200). Raftery and the writer, in 1969, accepted thatthe collection of concentric, closely spaced banks and ditchesat Clogher represented a multivallate hillfort, and Raftery(1972, 40) even went so far as to compare its features toMaiden Castle. Preliminary historical research soonsuggested that the site might be a capital of the earlymedieval federation of the mid-Ulster kingdoms known asthe Airgialla. Closer inspection at the site itself showed it tobe a palimpsest of defensive earthworks probably coveringmany centuries. It was, for instance, clear that the centralearthworks belonged to a ringfort of early medieval date. Butit seemed entirely possible that the surrounding earthwork,in whose south-east corner nestled an Iron Age ring-barrow,was a univallate hillfort. Excavation, therefore, seemedentirely justifiable in that one might thereby trace the historyof a single site spanning the Iron Age and the early medieval

507

Clogher in late prehistory

Richard Warner

6-06-Warner.qxd 23/02/2010 23:32 Page 507

period, and this, with some provisos, has proved to be theoutcome (Warner 2000b; a complete plan of the site can befound in O’Kelly 1989, 324, fig. 165).

The Clogher timber-laced stone enclosure

The first substantial occupation at Clogher was associatedwith a relatively small stone-walled enclosure thatsurrounded a number of sterile pits. Only a short stretch ofthe inner face of the wall survived, the wall body—of smallrubble—having been mostly removed by a later palisadetrench. There was no external ditch. This stone-walledenclosure, judging by the position and line of the excavatedportion near the backbone of the drumlin, and by its slightcurve, was not very large—perhaps an oval of some 30m by20m. Radiocarbon dates bracketing the occupation show (atthe usual 95% confidence level) that the enclosure was builtbetween the ninth and fourth centuries BC—conventionallywithin the late Bronze Age. Of particular interest is that thewall appeared to have contained transverse timbers, threeholes for which remained in the wall face (Fig. 1A). Timber-laced fort ramparts with stone facing are found throughoutBritain during the (British) late Bronze Age and Iron Age,and in Scotland they not uncommonly gave rise tovitrification. In Scotland, in particular, small timber-lacedfortlets (‘duns’) of comparable size and description to the oneunder discussion are also found (often vitrified) and are ofIron Age date (MacKie 1976; Nisbet 1995). But Harding(2004, 88) has warned against inferring any chronological orcultural connections on the basis of vitrification and, byextension, timber-lacing. Timber-lacing has not beenreported in Ireland, although it would be difficult to identifyin the excavation of ‘dump’ ramparts. Vitrification is, on theother hand, much easier to spot and, although it depends onthe rampart being made of precisely the right sort of stone,the fact that only one certain vitrified fort has been found inIreland suggests that both timber-lacing and vitrification areunusual here.

The 1830s Ordnance Survey Memoirs refer to a largeearthen fort with a bank core of highly vitrified material—atRallagh, Co. Derry (Warner 1983). Although most of thebank had been levelled since that report, the writer foundlumps of vitrified stone around a substantial part of itsoriginal line. The fort was, in about 1985, almost completelyquarried away before it could be studied properly, but somecharcoal was recovered from the bottom of a ditch that could

be faintly seen in section in the quarry. This charcoal gave adate of between 1100 and 200 cal. BC—not entirelysatisfactory but at least not incompatible with the Clogherenclosure.

Although small, stone-walled enclosures—in popularparlance ‘cashels’—are extremely common in Ireland, themajority are quite correctly ascribed to the early medievalperiod or later. Two, however, are especially pertinent to thisdiscussion: Carrigillihy (Co. Cork) and Aughinish (Co.Limerick). Carrigillihy (O’Kelly 1951) produced culturalmaterial and radiocarbon dates (O’Kelly 1989, 222) thatplace it somewhere within the late Bronze Age. The stonewall of this small oval enclosure was particularly notable inhaving radial stones set at intervals in the outer wall face, asif copying the appearance of transverse timbers. The smalloval stone fort on Aughinish Island in the Shannon estuaryproduced a knob-headed pin and what might have been aniron horse-bit, both possibly of European origin andHallstatt C date, indicating that the enclosure belonged tothe Dowris B phase (Raftery 1976, 192).

The Clogher stone ‘fort’ was associated with coarsepottery of an unusual club-rim form (Fig. 1B) not yetexactly paralleled with any certainty at any other Irish site.There were no other culturally diagnostic artefacts, andpottery with fabric, rim shapes and features more typical ofthe Irish late Bronze Age was absent (Boreland 1996, 24;McCorry 1997, 79). Amongst the fairly large collection of(mostly rim) sherds there were no flat (base) or cornersherds. It is tentatively concluded that the Clogher sherdswere from pottery copies of Atlantic (class B) bronzecauldrons, an interpretation also suggested for some potsfrom the Upper Thames basin (Harding 1972, 76–7). Sucha comparison would place the pottery into, or slightly laterthan, Eogan’s (1964) Dowris B (= Hallstatt C) phase(Gerloff 1986, 100), which would now be dated to theeighth and earlier seventh centuries. The Clogher type ofrim is also extremely reminiscent of the rim of anunprovenanced Irish wooden cauldron (Hodges 1957, 57,fig. 6), which, it has been suggested (Eogan 1964, 301), isalso a copy of an Atlantic B cauldron. This wooden vesselhas a radiocarbon date range of 1030–720 cal. BC (Earwood1993, 46), which is not incompatible with this suggestion.Conventionally, of course, the Clogher timber-lacedenclosure would be described as late Bronze Age. There isnow overwhelming evidence that the Irish Iron Age beganwell before the traditional date of about 300 BC, andperhaps as early as in Britain—around the seventh century

RELICS OF OLD DECENCY

508

6-06-Warner.qxd 23/02/2010 23:32 Page 508

CLOGHER IN LATE PREHISTORY

509

Fig. 1—A: plan and longitudinal section of the timber-laced wall at Clogher. B: associated coarseware pot.

6-06-Warner.qxd 23/02/2010 23:53 Page 509

BC. This is not the appropriate place to discuss this topic atlength—the discussions of Raftery (1976) and Scott (1990,45–60) are still relevant. In addition to the evidence fromAughinish alluded to above, one should bear in mind, in thelight of what we have said above, the bronze class B cauldronfrom Lisdrumturk, Co. Monaghan, with its several ironrivets, many of which seem to be original (Briggs 1987,174). But of most importance in this regard are theoccurrences of iron slag, or iron-smelting evidence, nowbeing recovered from rescue excavations, which are givingradiocarbon dates earlier than the fifth century BC—forinstance Kinnegad site 2, Co. Westmeath, and Rossan site 6,Co. Meath (Murphy 2008; Carlin 2008, 101–4). It istherefore at least possible that the Clogher stone enclosurewas culturally Iron Age.

The Clogher hillfort

Surrounding the upper part of the drumlin on which theClogher complex stands, and very roughly following theshape of the hill, is a bank with an external ditch (Fig. 2).The bank is only traceable on the south and west, but theditch has been exposed by excavation on the other two sidesand the shape of the whole can be discerned. The enclosureis subrectangular and measures some 150m by 110m(1.5ha). The bank and ditch are, at first sight, ratherslight—indeed, there is no surface indication of the ditch atall. The only fairly complete, and undamaged, section (Fig.2) seemed to show that a rather slight bank core, of dumpedsubsoil with some stones roughly placed against its innerface, had been obtained from an insubstantial ‘U’-sectionditch scarcely 2m wide and 1m deep from the presentground surface. In fact, profiling of the hill showed thatwhat was ostensibly the ditch was actually only an inner partof a much wider and shallower ditch, some 20m wide and2m deep below the original ground surface. Although thematerial from this had been dumped on top of and behindthe core bank, there was no sign that either ditch profile wascut into the other—the whole seemed to be a single feature.One would normally hesitate to call this a ‘hillfort’, with itsdefensive connotations, were it not for the extreme labourindicated by the cutting of the wide part of the ditch. Theremoved spoil has a section of 20m2, which is the spoilequivalent (if not the defensive equivalent) of a ‘V’-sectionditch 9m wide by 4m deep. Furthermore, the depth of thebank face, from the bottom of the ditch to the surviving top

of the bank, is almost 4m.It will be seen from the plan that the hillfort earthwork

intentionally bulges out to curve around a well-preservedring-barrow in its south-east corner—the fort clearly respectsthe barrow. It can be concluded that the hillfort was eitherconstructed as one with the ring-barrow or is later. Ring-barrows are small circular enclosures in which a bank with aninternal ditch encircles a flat area or a mound. The bank withinternal ditch is the characteristic definition of such a site—it is, in effect, a tiny version of the large ritual Iron Ageenclosures mentioned above. At Navan, Co. Armagh, wefind both of these monument types, and there the Iron Agedate of each has been established (Lynn 1997). In hiscomprehensive discussion of Irish Iron Age burials, Raftery(1981) reserves the term ‘ringbarrow’ for the examples witha central mound, calling the mound-less sites like those atClogher or Navan ‘embanked enclosures without coveringmound’. Accepted usage seems now, rightly or wrongly, touse the term ‘ring(-)barrow’ for either the mounded ormound-less examples, and that is how the term will be usedhere. Raftery makes it clear that these burial sites—for suchthey are—are characteristic of the Irish Iron Age. TheClogher ring-barrow, in common with a number of others,has a roughly east-facing gap and causeway through the bankand ditch which excavation showed to be original. Thecentral area was devoid of features, but tiny fragments ofburnt bone and a small blue glass bead low in the ditchsuggested that at least one Iron Age cremation had beenpresent.

There can be little doubt, then, that the ring-barrowdates from the Iron Age, and that the hillfort is not earlier.Dating evidence from the hillfort earthwork itself is poor,consisting of an ambiguous artefact and an unhelpfulradiocarbon date. Both came from the upper part of theprimary slippage of bank material into the ditch. Theradiocarbon date tells us only that the level dates from withinthe period cal. AD 400–1200. The artefact is a plain bronzespiral ring. Such rings can be found in the Iron Age (Raftery1984, 197) and in the following early medieval period asattachments to ornaments such as zoomorphic penannularbrooches (Kilbride-Jones 1980, nos 86 and 89). Suchbrooches were being made at Clogher in the sixth centuryAD (ibid., 63–7) and other spiral rings were found on thesite in levels of that phase. The most reasonable inferencefrom this evidence is that the ditch was silted to about 25cmby the sixth century AD. To revert to the evidence of thering-barrow, it might be thought likely that the obvious care

RELICS OF OLD DECENCY

510

6-06-Warner.qxd 23/02/2010 23:53 Page 510

CLOGHER IN LATE PREHISTORY

511

Fig. 2—Plan of the Clogher hillfort and ring-barrow (all other earthworks have been deleted), and schematic profile and section of the ditch.

6-06-Warner.qxd 23/02/2010 23:54 Page 511

taken in avoiding it in the construction of the hillfort wasbecause of a pagan reverence unlikely from the post-Iron AgeChristians of the later occupation. The interior of the hillfortwas heavily modified during that period, however, and thehillfort bank substantially removed or modified, yet the ring-barrow remained undamaged.

Our conclusion, unproven and pending furtherevidence, is that the hillfort at Clogher is very likely to be ofIron Age date. The wide-cut ditch has no known Irishparallel and may be just a whim of its makers, but it mightbe relevant to draw attention to the very similar Continentaland south-east English, just pre-Roman, Fécamp type ofhillfort ditch (Cunliffe 1978, 282–3). The subrectangularshape of the enclosure is difficult to parallel in Ireland beforethe late medieval period but is widely found amongstEnglish hillforts (Hogg 1975, passim). The shape was notforced upon the earthwork by the shape of the hill on whichit sits, which is oval. It falls into Avery’s class (g) ‘polygonalplan forts (whose) plan is not imposed by the shape of thehill’ (1976, 9). One should also not forget that thesubrectangular shape is rather normal for Roman forts inBritain, which leads us to the following observation. It isthat the excavations inside the Clogher hillfort (other thanin the ring-barrow) failed to produce any native Iron Agematerial whatsoever, but did produce a not-insignificantnumber of imported Romano-British objects. It is this latterfact that makes the dearth of native material significant: theplace was occupied in the Iron Age, but apparently not bynatives.

Over most of the centre of the hillfort, where lateractivity had been intense, almost all earlier contexts hadbeen disturbed. Consequently all the recovered artefactspotentially dating from the hillfort period were in disturbeddeposits of a later date. The most striking Iron Age object isa fragment of a brooch of the Langton Down (=Collingwood K) type (Hawkes 1981, 65) (Fig. 3B). Thisfirst-century AD type is common in south-east England andon the Continent (Jope 1962, fig. 8) and occurs again inIreland at Lambay (Rynne 1976, 241; Raftery 1983, no.867). The number of first-century Roman-style broochesthat have been found in Ireland is remarkable, equalling thenumber found in Britain outside the south-east (the‘lowland’ zone), whereas later Roman brooches are rarelyfound in Ireland. It is especially notable that the Clogherbrooch appears to have been gilded—apparently very rare,but one comes from Malden in Essex (Hawkes and Hull1947, 318). Several pottery sherds were found at Clogher

which are clearly foreign to Ireland but do not appear to beearly medieval imports, which were plentiful on the site.These exotic sherds include two bowls of buff ware withprominent foot-rings (Fig. 3A, 1 and 2), a number of sherdsthat have been tentatively identified as Romano-Britishslipware (including a dish, Fig. 3A, 3), and a number ofsmall sherds that are brown- or green-glazed (Fig. 3A, 4) andseem likely to be ‘lead-glazed ware’ of the kind that waswidely made in southern Britain in the later first century AD(Arthur 1978). All these sherds can be paralleled amongstthe finewares of Roman Britain, and none would have to bemuch later than the end of the first century AD. A thick,disc-shaped quernstone, which has a radially groovedgrinding face and has therefore no place within the corpusof Iron Age ‘beehive querns’ in Ireland (for which seeCaulfield 1977; Warner 2002a), seems certain to be animport from a Romano-British milieu.

The ring-ditch at Clogher

As it is a convention to end the Iron Age at about AD 400,discussion of a fourth-century AD ring-ditch enclosure thatpreceded the early medieval ringfort might be expected here.Late Roman objects were recovered, including one from thebottom of this ditch. The material culture of the early partof the succeeding early medieval period is, however, almostcompletely late Roman in its character (Laing 1985). It canbe argued that the early medieval period, which should bedefined on archaeological grounds (the Romanisation ofIrish culture) rather than philosophical (the introduction ofChristianity, which is only a part of the process), began at thelatest in the fourth century. For this reason the writer isinclined to end the Iron Age at about AD 300.

The Iron Age at Clogher

In this particular part of the discussion the term ‘Iron Age’is used in the conventional sense of the third century BC tothe fourth century AD. The map of the area close toClogher (Fig. 4) shows that the place appears to be at thecentre of a relatively dense concentration of stray Iron Ageobjects. Within about 4km of the site have been found awooden copy of a Loughnashade-type horn, a Y-shapedbridle-pendant, a safety-pin brooch (Raftery 1983, nos 785,150, 376) and a beehive quern—all strictly native Iron Age.

RELICS OF OLD DECENCY

512

6-06-Warner.qxd 23/02/2010 23:54 Page 512

The two bronze objects date from the first century BC orthe first AD and belong to a small number of types that areconcentrated in the Blackwater Valley—the east–west zoneroughly between Navan in County Armagh and Lough Erne(Fig. 5; Raftery 1984, 316). Interestingly, the same zoneremains something of a vacuum when it comes to many ofthe other Iron Age types, particularly those concentrated inCounty Antrim and in the Irish midlands. The moststriking feature of this local concentration is that two nucleimay be seen: one at and around Navan (the great Iron Ageritual enclosure) and the other at and around Clogher.Furthermore, near these two sites the horn, the Y-shapedpendant and the safety-pin brooch are repeated. One objecttype at least (the Y-shaped bridle-pendant of type 1a) can beshown to have been manufactured in this zone (Warner2002b). Another for which a similar argument can be madeis the safety-pin brooch. That found near Clogher—a fine,decorated specimen which excited the admiration of

Hawkes, who dated it rather too early (1981, 56–7)—hasthe identical lipped ‘boss-style’ decoration of the Kiltierneybrooch (Raftery 1983, no. 380) from some 30km to thewest, in the same zone. Both share traits with the ‘Navan’-style brooches which have been discussed by Raftery (1984,153–7) and which might have been made near Navan.Raftery (1984, 316) suggested that the Clogher hillfortmight be crucial in the distribution of these objects, anopinion with which the present writer would be inclined toagree, were it not for two observations. The first, which hasbeen mentioned above, is that no native Iron Age materialwas found in the Clogher excavations. There is absolutelyno reason, therefore, to believe that the occupants ofClogher in the first century AD were not settlers fromBritain.

The second observation is that there is a large univallatehillfort on Mallabeny Hill, 4km north-west of the Clogherhillfort (Fig. 6). Although its high placing, regular

CLOGHER IN LATE PREHISTORY

513

Fig. 3—Romano-British finds from Clogher. A: finewares. B: fragment of Langton Down brooch, with reconstruction based on British examples.

6-06-Warner.qxd 23/02/2010 23:54 Page 513

subcircular shape and faithfulness to the (180m) contour arerather comparable with those hillforts that have been classedas late Bronze Age, there is no visible multivallation. Oneshould bear in mind, however, that the late Bronze AgeHaughey’s Fort was also first described as univallate, its outerditches being quite invisible on the ground. Therefore, whilethe proximity of Mallabeny to Clogher is a matter of interest,it may be of no more moment than the recognition, by thebuilders of each hillfort, of the strategic importance of thispoint in the Blackwater valley, where east–west andnorth–south routes apparently cross. There is nooverwhelming reason, however, to call Mallabeny late BronzeAge, and an Iron Age date cannot be dismissed.

The mid-second-century AD Romano-Greekgeographer Ptolemy’s ‘map’ of Ireland (Byrne 1984, map 14)records one ‘town’ whose position seems to be within the‘south-central Ulster’ area in which we are interested—Regia.The probable meaning of this place-name—a ‘royal place’(O’Rahilly 1946, 14)—would seem to point to Navan as itslocation. Because of a reference by the Roman authorMarcian, however, that there were in Ireland fifteen townsand five promontories, conflicting with (his source)Ptolemy’s statement that there were fourteen towns and sixpromontories, the primary editor of the Ptolemymanuscripts suggested that one of Ptolemy’s promontoriesshould be a town (Müller 1883, 79n.). He thought that the

RELICS OF OLD DECENCY

514

Fig. 4—Map of the area around Clogher, showing locations of Iron Age finds (land above 150m is shaded).

6-06-Warner.qxd 23/02/2010 23:54 Page 514

erroneous promontory was Isamnion and henceforth thatplace has been adjudged a town by scholars. The observationby O’Rahilly (1946, 13) that the name Isamnion appeared tobe close to the original form of Emain (= Navan) ‘confirmed’the decision and it was moved far inland from the coast,where it ‘properly’ belonged. With Navan identified asIsamnion, another site was required to be equated with Regia,and Byrne (1984, map 15) has suggested Clogher as that site.Much as this writer, with his interest in Clogher, would likethis to be the case, it is his opinion that the whole hypothesisis without objective justification.

As to Romano-British material, which appears to formthe Iron Age component in the Clogher hillfort, it has to besaid that the only other items from this milieu that have beenreliably reported as coming from the area in Fig. 5 are the

associated horse-bit and mount from Killeevan, 25km southof Clogher (Raftery 1983, nos 132, 803; 1984, 42). Themount is paralleled by one from Lambay Island (Lloyd-Morgan 1976) in the same collection of Romano-Britishgrave-goods that also contained the Langton Down broochreferred to above. The meaning of the Romano-Britishmaterial at Clogher and Lambay (and other places inIreland) at the end of the first century AD has been discussedelsewhere (Warner 1995, replacing Warner 1976). Thenative Iron Age material in the Clogher area, being of thefirst centuries BC and AD, is not greatly different in date tothe Romano-British objects from Clogher, which raisesinteresting questions, at present unanswerable, about thenature of the settlement in this zone in the earlier and laterparts of the Iron Age and the relationship between the

CLOGHER IN LATE PREHISTORY

515

Fig. 5—Map of mid-south Ulster, including Clogher and Navan (land above 200m is shaded). The ‘horn’ symbol at Navan stands for four associated bronze horns. Querns arenot shown.

6-06-Warner.qxd 23/02/2010 23:54 Page 515

natives and the incomers. Perhaps, if Clogher was the hillfortof the intruders, Mallabeny was the fort of the natives. Onlyfurther excavation will tell.

References

Arthur, P. 1978 The lead glazed wares of Roman Britain. InP. Arthur and G. Marsh (eds), Early fine wares in RomanBritain, 293–355. British Archaeological Reports,British Series 57. Oxford.

Avery, M. 1976 Hillforts of the British Isles: a student’s

introduction. In D. W. Harding (ed.), Hillforts, 1–58.London. Academic Press.

Boreland, D. 1996 Late Bronze Age pottery fromHaughey’s Fort. Emania 14, 21–8.

Briggs, C.S. 1987 Buckets and cauldrons in the LateBronze Age of north-west Europe: a review. In J. C.Blanchet (ed.), Les Relations entre le Continent et les IlesBritanniques à l’Age du Bronze, 161–87. Amiens. Actesdu Colloque de Bronze de Lille.

Byrne, F.J. 1984 Ptolemy’s map of Ireland. In T. W. Moody,F. X. Martin and F. J. Byrne (eds), A new history ofIreland, Vol. 9 (2), 16 and 98. Oxford University Press.

RELICS OF OLD DECENCY

516

Fig. 6—Plan of Mallabeny hillfort, Co. Tyrone.

6-06-Warner.qxd 23/02/2010 23:54 Page 516

Carlin, N. 2008 Ironworking and production. In N.Carlin, L. Clarke and F. Walsh (eds), The archaeology oflife and death in the Boyne floodplain, 87–112. Dublin.National Roads Authority.

Caulfield, S. 1977 The beehive quern in Ireland. Journal ofthe Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland 107, 104–39.

Cunliffe, B. 1978 Iron Age communities in Britain (2ndedn). London. Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Earwood, C. 1993 Domestic wooden artefacts. University ofExeter Press.

Eogan, G. 1964 The Later Bronze Age in Ireland in thelight of recent research. Proceedings of the PrehistoricSociety 30, 268–351.

Evans, E.E. 1966 Prehistoric and Early Christian Ireland: aguide. London. Batsford.

Gerloff, S. 1986 Bronze Age class A cauldrons: typology,origins and chronology. Journal of the Royal Society ofAntiquaries of Ireland 119, 84–115.

Gerloff, S. 2007 Reinecke’s ABC and the chronology of theBritish Bronze Age. In C. Burgess, P. Topping and F.Lynch (eds), Beyond Stonehenge, 117–61. Oxford.Oxbow Books.

Grogan, E. 2005 The North Munster Project, Vol. 1.Discovery Programme Monograph 6. Dublin.Wordwell.

Harding, D.W. 1972 The Iron Age in the Upper ThamesBasin. Oxford. Clarendon Press.

Harding, D.W. 2004 The Iron Age in North Britain.Abingdon. Routledge.

Hawkes, C.F.C. 1981 The wearing of the brooch: EarlyIron Age dress among the Irish. In B. Scott (ed.), Studieson early Ireland, 51–73. Belfast. Association of YoungIrish Archaeologists.

Hawkes, C.F.C. and Hull, M.R. 1947 Camulodunum.Society of Antiquaries Research Report 14. Oxford.

Hodges, H.W.M. 1957 Studies in the Late Bronze Age ofIreland. Ulster Journal of Archaeology 20, 51–63.

Hogg, A.H.A. 1975 Hillforts of Britain. London. Hart-Davis, MacGibbon.

Jope, E.M. 1962 Iron Age brooches in Ireland. UlsterJournal of Archaeology 24–5, 25–38.

Kilbride-Jones, H. 1980 Zoomorphic penannular brooches.Society of Antiquaries Research Report 39. London.

Laing, L. 1985 The Romanization of Ireland in the fifthcentury. Peritia 4, 261–78.

Lloyd-Morgan, G. 1976 A note on some Celtic discs fromIreland and the province of Lower Germany. Proceedings

of the Royal Irish Academy 76C, 217–22.Lynn, C.J. (ed.) 1997 Excavations at Navan Fort 1961–71.

Belfast. The Stationery Office.McCorry, M. 1997 Coarse pottery from phase 3. In C. J.

Lynn (ed.), Excavations at Navan Fort 1961–71, 72–9.Belfast. The Stationery Office.

MacKie, E.W. 1976 The vitrified forts of Scotland. In D.W. Harding (ed.), Hill-forts: later prehistoric earthworksin Britain and Ireland, 205–35. London. AcademicPress.

Mallory, J.P. 1995 Haughey’s Fort and the Navan Complexin the Late Bronze Age. In J. Waddell and E. SheeTwohig (eds), Ireland in the Bronze Age, 73–86. Dublin.Stationery Office.

Mallory, J. 1996 The other twin: Haughey’s Fort. In J.Mallory and G. Stockman (eds), Ulidia, 187–92.Belfast. December Publications.

Müller, K. 1883 Claudii Ptolemaei Geographia, 1.1. Paris.Institut de France.

Murphy, D. 2008 Reports on Kinnegad 2 and Rossan 6. InN. Carlin, L. Clarke and F. Walsh (eds), The archaeologyof life and death in the Boyne floodplain, CD-ROM.Dublin. National Roads Authority.

Nisbet, H.C. 1995 Excavation of a vitrified dun atLangwell, Strath Oykel, Sutherland. GlasgowArchaeological Journal 19, 51–73.

O’Kelly, M.J. 1951 An Early Bronze Age ringfort atCarrigillihy, Co. Cork. Journal of the Cork Historical andArchaeological Society 56, 69–86.

O’Kelly, M.J. 1989 Early Ireland. Cambridge UniversityPress.

O’Rahilly, T.F. 1946 Early Irish history and mythology.Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies.

Ó Ríordáin, S.P. 1952 Antiquities of the Irish countryside(2nd edn). London. Methuen.

Raftery, B. 1969 Freestone Hill, Co. Kilkenny: an Iron Agehillfort and Bronze Age cairn. Proceedings of the RoyalIrish Academy 68C, 1–108.

Raftery, B. 1972 Irish hill-forts. In C. Thomas (ed.), TheIron Age in the Irish Sea province, 37–58. CBA ResearchReport 9. London. Council for British Archaeology.

Raftery, B. 1976 Dowris, Hallstatt and La Tène in Ireland:problems of the transition from bronze to iron. In S. J.de Laet (ed.), Acculturation and continuity in AtlanticEurope mainly during the Neolithic period and the BronzeAge, 189–97. Bruges. Dissertationes ArchaeologicaeGandesis.

CLOGHER IN LATE PREHISTORY

517

6-06-Warner.qxd 23/02/2010 23:54 Page 517

Raftery, B. 1981 Iron Age burials in Ireland. In D. ÓCorráin (ed.), Irish antiquity, 173–204. Cork. TowerBooks.

Raftery, B. 1983 A catalogue of Irish Iron Age antiquities.Veröffentlichung des Vorgeschichtlichen SeminarsMarburg, Sonderband 1. Phillips-Universität, Marburg.

Raftery, B. 1984 La Tène in Ireland: problems of origin andchronology. Veröffentlichung des VorgeschichtlichenSeminars Marburg, Sonderband 2. Phillips-Universität,Marburg.

Raftery, B. 1994 Pagan Celtic Ireland. London. Thames andHudson.

Raftery, B. 1995 The conundrum of Irish Iron Age pottery.In B. Raftery, V. C. S. Megaw and V. Rigby (eds), Sitesand sights of the Iron Age, 149–56. Oxbow Monograph56. Oxford.

Rynne, E. 1976 The La Tène and Roman finds fromLambay, County Dublin. Proceedings of the Royal IrishAcademy 76C, 231–44.

Scott, B.G. 1990 Early Irish ironworking. Belfast. UlsterMuseum.

Walshe, G. 1995 Iron Age settlement in County Mayo.Archaeology Ireland 9 (2), 7–8.

Warner, R. 1976 Some observations on the context andimportation of exotic material in Ireland, from the firstcentury BC to the second century AD. Proceedings of theRoyal Irish Academy 76C, 267–92.

Warner, R. 1983 Ulster, Ireland and Scotland in the IronAge. In A. O’Connor and D. Clarke (eds), From theStone Age to the ’Forty-five, 160–87. Edinburgh. JohnDonald.

Warner, R. 1995 Tuathal Techtmhar: a myth or ancientliterary evidence for a Roman invasion? Emania 13,23–32.

Warner, R. 2000a Keeping out the Otherworld: the internalditch at Navan and other Iron Age ‘hengiform’enclosures. Emania 18, 39–44.

Warner, R. 2000b Clogher: an archaeological window onearly medieval Tyrone and mid-Ulster. In C. Dillon andH. Jefferies (eds), Tyrone: history and society, 39–54.Dublin. Geography Publications.

Warner, R. 2002a Beehive querns and Irish ‘La Tène’artefacts: a statistical test of their cultural relatedness.Journal of Irish Archaeology 11, 125–30.

Warner, R. 2002b A newly discovered Iron-Age ‘pendant’from Navan. Emania 19, 37–42.

RELICS OF OLD DECENCY

518

6-06-Warner.qxd 23/02/2010 23:54 Page 518