DOMESTIC DWELLINGS AS RITUALLY SIGNIFICANT PERFORMANCES ON THE IRISH

NEOLITHIC VIEW OF DEATH, SEDENTISM, AND CONTINUITY

ERIKA VARGA

MAY 1, 2009
 Erika Varga

Introduction

By looking closely at burial practices (of both people and houses), we can better

understand how the Irish Neolithic dealt with a more sedentary way of life intertwined with

ritualistic behavior. Burial practices consist of several symbolic behaviors: “deliberate burning”

entails burning of a house after it has reached the end of its life and subsequent construction of a

new structure on the “dead” house (Smyth, 2006:244; Stevanovic, 1997, cited in Smyth, 2006;

Shaffer 1993:62, cited in Smyth, 2006; Tringham, 1991, cited in Hodder, 1994; and O’Donovan,

2003), people were often buried on or near previous house sites (Grogan & Eogan, 1987;

O’Kelley, 1989; Hodder, 1994), using them as cemeteries, and monumental tombs were

sometimes built on or near previous house sites (O’Kelley, 1989; Hodder, 1994; and Eogan,

1986; Nualláin, 1972).

Over 90 rectangular and circular domestic structures of Neolithic origin have been found

in Ireland (Grogan, 2002), and since 2006, over 76 rectangular houses have been identified

(Smyth, 2006). Many older discoveries have been unearthed across Ireland (Grogan, 2002;

Smyth, 2006, See Appendix A). These domestic structures range from 3 meters to 15 meters in

length and may have supported from 5 to 12 inhabitants. Associated artifacts include pottery,

flint, charred grains, cooking/roasting pits, hearths, and possible fence lines (Grogan, 2002;

Smyth, 2006). It is generally assumed that these structures were a physical representation of

familial social units (Grogan, 2002:520), and marked a turning point toward permanent,

continuous settlement during the early Neolithic. From these shared social practices we can

discern some of the beliefs enmeshed in the life and death of domestic structures and the people

that lived in them.

2
 Erika Varga

Analyzing burial practices evident at Kishoge, County Dublin, Lough Gur, County

Limerick, and Ballyglass, County Mayo will broaden the claim that Neolithic peoples’ ideas

about continuity and death influenced by newly sedentary life ways were shifted toward a want

for more permanence in both life and death. Domestic dwellings became ritually significant sites

in helping Neolithic peoples change their environment to untangle and make sense of the world.

Discussion

As each of the three burial practices are discussed, various sites in relation to each

practice will be briefly mentioned as I focus on the three specific sites. While these three sites are

not meant to represent all Irish Neolithic behavior, they are meant to serve as examples of these

burial practices and shed light on a possible “island wide ‘template’” of the “correct way” to

construct buildings (Grogan, 2004, cited in Smyth, 2006; Smyth 2006:242).

Deliberate burning

Deliberate burning is the planned destruction (or death) of a house by setting it on fire

(Smyth, 2006:244). The deliberate burning of a house may have symbolic meaning as a house

nears the end of its life, similarly echoing the death of a family, movement to a new settlement,

or construction of a new house or tomb. Like the house in Kishoge, County Dublin, which I

argue is evidence of deliberate and not accidental burning, numerous other houses also show

evidence for deliberate burning during the Irish Neolithic (Smyth, 2006).

A Neolithic house dated between 3,759 and 3,659 BC was discovered in Kishoge, County

Dublin during the preliminary construction of an international business park, 3.2 miles northwest

3
 Erika Varga

of the Cammoc River and 1.6 miles east of the Griffin River (O’Donovan, 2003). It is dated the

earliest domestic settlement in the Dublin region and shows evidence of burning and subsequent

abandonment. Activity associated with the house is linked to a single main phase with a short

phase of modification. While a few flint scrapers were found, the site is almost completely

devoid of Neolithic pottery and ecofacts. There are also several pits outside to the north and west

of the house. One pit in particular is dated to the Middle Bronze Age (1595-1131 BC) and shows

evidence for continual habitation in the area after the house was abandoned.

The end of the house is marked by a large amount of burnt clay in the foundation trenches

and “charred planks” (O’Donovan 2003:15) which strongly suggests deliberate burning.

O’Donovan (2003:15) believes that the burning of the house could have been accidental and that

“[a]ccidental house fire may also have been a significant risk to Neolithic people and cannot be

discounted.” Accidental house fire is highly unlikely at Kishoge and most Irish Neolithic houses.

Experimental fire setting conducted by Bankoff and Winter (1979, cited in Smyth, 2006) and

Shaffer (1993, cited in Smyth, 2006) show that a fire started smoldering after about 20 minutes,

at which point the house could be re-entered and re-inhabited. The researchers found that it took

almost 6 hours of continuous burning for the fire to create “archaeologically-distinct

featuresash filled postholes” (Smyth, 2006:247). Therefore, it is most likely that deliberate

intentions are required for a house to burn for a sustained period of time to reach the

temperatures needed to create the burnt post-holes found in-situ in the archaeological record at a

site like Kishoge.

Other sites in Neolithic Europe also show similar evidence for deliberate burning. Houses

at the Opovo site studied by Tringham (1991; cited in Hodder, 1994; Stevanovic, 1997, cited in

4
 Erika Varga

Smyth, 2006) during the 4th millennium BC in what is today Serbia, were ritually abandoned

and subsequently burnt so inhabitants could live next to them. House burning was part of a

“widespread practice of social reproduction and […] creation/reassertion of place” (Stevanovic,

1997, cited in Smyth, 2006).

Similar to deliberate burning in South East Europe, burial practices during the Irish

Neolithic have implications for the “domus” (Hodder, 1994:80-83). A “domus” is a group of

people who collectively work and live together to build a domestic structure. Deliberately

burning houses down may act as a way to solidify social relationships that make up the domus by

strengthening shared meanings of life and death over time.

Burying people on or near previous house sites

Burying people underneath or near houses is a type of cemetery creation that utilizes the

proximity to domestic structures as a way to reify narratives about death and the family unit. By

solidifying ideas about death and continuity into concrete structures, the Irish Neolithic use the

environment around them to continually renew social relations that last many generations.

Several house sites at Lough Gur on the Knockadoon Peninsula in County Limerick show

evidence for burying people beneath or near houses (Grogan & Eogan, 1987). Knockadoon is

naturally protected on three sides by a lake and shows evidence for a large and stable population

in the centuries before 2,000 BC (Grogan & Eogan, 1987:488). At least 15 houses were found on

the peninsula and many are circular. Circles J and K are of particular importance, because they

show clear evidence that people were buried on top of and near previous houses contained within

the circles.

5
 Erika Varga

After Circle J was enclosed with a double curbed wall and long after inhabitation, the site

was used for fifty-eight burials (Grogan & Eogan, 1987). Nine of these were in slab-lined graves

and all burials except one were lying straight on their back. There is also a general absence of

grave goods. Because most of the burials were contained within the limits of the circular feature

(5-8 were found outside the feature), it seems likely that Circle J served as a “delimiting feature

of the cemetery” (Grogan & Eogan, 1987:335). Encircled house sites are thought to be evidence

of social stratification since un-enclosed house sites were also present at the same time (Grogan

& Eogan, 1987:471). The lack of grave goods may also point to further complexity of social

stratification.

Nine burials were recovered from House 1 and 2 at Circle K. Burials No. 8 and No. 9

overlay the floor of House 1, Burial No. 7 is located north-east outside the house approximately

2 meters from one edge, and Burial No. 6 is also located about 4 meters away from the house. At

House 2, Burial No. 1 overlays one of the post holes, and Burials No. 3 and 4 predate the

enclosure wall. It should be noted that adults were not normally buried on habitation sites

(Grogan & Eogan, 1987:471). The burying of people on and near previous house structures at

Lough Gur at Circles J and K gives importance to the houses as sites of ritual relating to the

preservation of family members and ideas over time. Since most of the burials found were

children, it would be logical to find adult graves elsewhere, possibly beyond the limits of the

circles. The placement of adults elsewhere might be evidence of the Irish Neolithic’s higher

reverence for infants and children into death.

6
 Erika Varga

Building tombs on or near previous houses

Tombs have been built on top of or near house structures in several locations across

Ireland (O’Kelley, 1989; Hodder, 1994; Nualláin, 1972). A symbolic link is created between the

construction of tombs on previous house sites which creates a “continuity through periods [of

time] longer than the life of an individual house” (Hodder, 1994:80).

A house in Ballyglass, County Mayo is especially significant, because the structure may

have been intentionally demolished to make way for the tomb that was built on top (Nualláin,

1972). Site Ma. 13 was excavated from 1969 to 1971 and is radiocarbon dated to 3,215±50 BC.

The tomb at Site Ma. 13 is one of 27 court-tombs near Bunatrahir Bay in County Mayo. The

large, elliptical tomb with two opposite facing galleries at Site Ma. 13 was discovered at a higher

strata than trenches and post holes of a house that lay underneath. Several scrapers were found in

a pit at the entrance of the tomb and it is believed they should be associated with the house rather

than the tomb (Nualláin, 1972:55). Because all the post-holes seem to have been deliberately

filled with stones, soil, and a layer of daub, Nualláin (1972) believes “it is difficult to avoid the

conclusion that the house was intentionally demolished to make way for the construction of the

tomb” (54-55).

Intentionally demolishing a house structure to subsequently place a tomb on site acts to

carry social practices and relationships through each successive generation by their reification

into concrete environmental structures. Building the tomb also continues the ritual significance

of the particular site where the house was built. These tombs may be seen as representing houses

and vice versa, by “reflecting native house types or concepts of space” (Hodder, 1995:75-76).

Just like houses, tombs created “continuity and stability in the face of death and dispersal of

7
 Erika Varga

community members” (Hodder, 1994:77). Therefore tombs may be seen as strengthening the

house’s ability to prevent dispersal of the domus by physically and mentally attaching people to a

particular location. A group of people must physically construct and maintain tombs if they are

meant to last—the builders’ mental psyche is bound up in the physical representation of their

beliefs.

Conclusion

Studying houses and tombs at Kishoge, County Dublin, Lough Gur, County Limerick,

and Ballyglass, County Mayo gives us a glimpse of burial practices during the Irish Neolithic

and how people created “approaches to death” (Cooney, 2000:86). Death was a constant reality

dealt with by attributing particular importance to the use of architectural structures connected

physically and ritually to the environment in which they lived. The building of houses and tombs

creates an “imperishable social order, denying change and transmitting ‘the fear of the passage of

time, and anxiety about death, into splendour’” (Lefebvre, 1991:221, cited in Michael Pearson

and Colin Richards, 1994:3). Architectural activities such as ending a house’s life and burying

the dead underneath a house constitute both the actions and meanings of a domestic space,

through which “culturally constructed elements of a landscape are thus transformed into

material and permanent makers and authentications of history, experiences and values” (Pearson

& Richards, 1994:4, emphasis mine).

The Irish Neolithic act of attributing ritual meaning with (semi-)permanent environmental

markers is similar to a recent study conducted in the late 1980’s of Apache Indians in the North

American town of Cibecu, Arizona (Basso, 1996). Western Apache create “place names” such as

8
 Erika Varga

“They Piled On Top of Each Other” and “Navajos are Coming!,” which evoke a connection with

the past, a history of the land and its people that have undergone change over time (Basso,

1996:28). Basso (1996:7) states, “what people make of their places is closely connected to what

they make of themselves as members of society and inhabitants of the earth.” This practice is a

way of constructing history and social traditions intimately connected with the environment in

which they live.

Like Apache place names, Irish Neolithic structures withstood the passage of time to

create a sense of order among humans by conjuring up memories and histories connected to the

physical world. Seemingly permanent houses and tombs connect the physical with the

supernatural and act as a type of library receptive to social practice, as a catalog of these values

to remind future generations of how elders believed they should live. Neolithic house and tomb

structures were built using particular cultural styles, which reflect and constitute various domus

systems. In effect, the architecture created a particular Irish identity. Not only were the Irish

Neolithic dealing with death by keeping their loved ones close to their homes, the living were

simultaneously transgressing the link between life and death and fortifying social values and

practices through time.

Further Study

The introduction of the Christian belief system to native Irish religion(s) had an effect on

burial practices and beliefs as the dead were gathered at church graveyards. This transition of the

dead from burial at house and tomb sites to early Christian church sites may have influenced the

beliefs concerning death, sedentism, and continuity. If given $250,000 to conduct additional

archaeological research, I would study the transition between tomb and church use by analyzing

9
 Erika Varga

burial practices at early Christian churches in Ireland, and compare them to a period when the

last tombs were actively used. I would focus my study on the Gallarus Oratory on the Dingle

Peninsula, believed to be one of the first Christian churches in Ireland (See Appendix B).

Studying burial practices during early periods of Christianity in Ireland would reveal how social

relationships and practices evolved over time in reaction to a more sedentary way of life and

changing religious structure.

References

Basso, K. (1996). Wisdom Sits in Places: Landscape and Language Among the Western Apache.
University of New Mexico Press: New Mexico.

Cooney, G. (2000). Landscapes of Neolithic Ireland. Routledge: New York.

Grogan, E. (2002). Neolithic houses in Ireland: A broader perspective. Antiquity, 76:517-525.

Grogan, E. & Eogan, G., (1987). Lough Gur excavations by Seán P. Ó Ríordáin: Further
Neolithic and Beaker habitations on Knockadoon. Proceedings of the Royal Irish
Academy, 87c:299-506.

Hodder, I. (1994). Architecture and meaning: The example of Neolithic houses and tombs. In M.
Pearson & C. Richards (Ed.), Architecture and order: Approaches to social space,
Routledge: New York.

O’Donovan, E. (2003). A Neolithic house at Kishoge, County Dublin. Journal of Irish

Archaeology, 12/13: 1-28.

O’Kelley, M. (1989). Early Ireland. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Pearson, M. & Richards, C. (1994). Ordering the World: Perceptions of Architecture, Space and
Time. In M. Pearson & C. Richards (Ed.), Architecture and order: Approaches to social
space, Routledge: New York.

Smyth, J. (2006). The role of the house in early Neolithic Ireland. European Journal of
Archaeology, 9:229-257.

10
 Erika Varga

Appendix A. Irish Neolithic houses (rectangular, circular, and misc.)

11
 Erika Varga

Reprinted from: Grogan, E. (2002). Neolithic houses in Ireland: A broader perspective. Antiquity, 76:517-525.

12
 Erika Varga

Appendix B. Gallarus Oratory, Dingle Penninsula.

Reprinted from: http://www.sacred-destinations.com/ireland/gallarus-oratory.htm

13